Posts by Sanchy

147

Challenge to Creationists

by cofty in

in response to the 37 threads in my evolution is a fact series - see bottom of op for links - perry posted a link to an article "44 reasons why evolution isn't true".. i offered him a challenge on the thread and by pm.

predictably he is totally ignoring it, so i am offering the challenge to any evolution-denier who thinks they have evidence to support their position.. please present one specific piece of evidence for creationism.. my task will be to refute it with evidence within 24 hours.. then i will present one piece of evidence for evolution and your challenge will be the same.. all posts must be as succinct as reasonably possible.

entirely in your own words, without copy-paste, videos or links.. please post your interest to take part and we will set it up before the first actual post in the exchange.

Sanchy

Yes that is correct and in no way conflicts with the laws of thermodynamics.

Well, I don't completely agree with this... and one day I'll be able to explain why I dont :)

147

Challenge to Creationists

by cofty in

in response to the 37 threads in my evolution is a fact series - see bottom of op for links - perry posted a link to an article "44 reasons why evolution isn't true".. i offered him a challenge on the thread and by pm.

predictably he is totally ignoring it, so i am offering the challenge to any evolution-denier who thinks they have evidence to support their position.. please present one specific piece of evidence for creationism.. my task will be to refute it with evidence within 24 hours.. then i will present one piece of evidence for evolution and your challenge will be the same.. all posts must be as succinct as reasonably possible.

entirely in your own words, without copy-paste, videos or links.. please post your interest to take part and we will set it up before the first actual post in the exchange.

Sanchy

The evidence is overwhelming

Its true Cofty that the evidence to certain evolutionary processes leading to variety in species as exist today is "overwhelming". However, the evidence as to what sparked or started this process is lacking and indeed open to many theories and interpretations .

Remember too that the burden of proof is on creationists

Although I agree that the burden to prove a creator falls upon creationists (an admitted seemingly impossible feat as I mentioned previously) it can also be said the burden to prove life can come from inanity also falls upon non-believers. Many ideas and theories and experiments have thus far been concocted, however the concept remains not fully proven.

Entropy will decrease in a closed system.

Exactly... it will slow down per se in closed systems; however, it seems to my humble mind that it has not slowed, but rather done a 180 and gone backwards within our supposed closed system to the point of reversing itself and creating order beyond any order existent in our known universe. The good ol' "a watch will not create itself" analogy comes to play.

Having said this, I will read the link you sent me, it looks interesting. Thanks for that.

147

Challenge to Creationists

by cofty in

in response to the 37 threads in my evolution is a fact series - see bottom of op for links - perry posted a link to an article "44 reasons why evolution isn't true".. i offered him a challenge on the thread and by pm.

predictably he is totally ignoring it, so i am offering the challenge to any evolution-denier who thinks they have evidence to support their position.. please present one specific piece of evidence for creationism.. my task will be to refute it with evidence within 24 hours.. then i will present one piece of evidence for evolution and your challenge will be the same.. all posts must be as succinct as reasonably possible.

entirely in your own words, without copy-paste, videos or links.. please post your interest to take part and we will set it up before the first actual post in the exchange.

Sanchy

I'm agnostic and do not pretend to have the ability nor the knowledge to prove for the existence of a creator. Having said that, here are my two cents:

-Can one currently actually present certain proof as to whether a creator exists (or existed) or not? If not, it would be wise for all here to avoid a dogmatic attitude (like the humble and discreet GB cough, cough)

-One of the fundamental reasons (knowingly or unknowingly) for many having faith (and it must be faith due to reasons outlined in my first point) in a creator sparking and guiding the biological processes is based IMO on the second law of thermodynamics, aka "entropy". In a universe with ever increasing entropy, what caused a reverse to occur in allowing for an ever increasing order in the biological chain, leading to the existence of ever more ordered and complex organisms? A fundamental law that we all have engraved in our human conscience of "disorder not leading to order" is inherently broken if one accepts that no "order" existed before current "order" as exists now. (of course there's the whole close and open system explanation, but that one does not completely convince me for various reasons)

-Does this disprove evolution? Not really. In fact, its quite clear that evolution has led to the seemingly infinite variety of species we see today. Even JWs believe in a form of evolution as stated in an earlier post. However, how do we reconcile the theory with the possibility of a creator? and..does the account of Genesis contradict the evolutionary theory in its entirety?

147

Challenge to Creationists

by cofty in

in response to the 37 threads in my evolution is a fact series - see bottom of op for links - perry posted a link to an article "44 reasons why evolution isn't true".. i offered him a challenge on the thread and by pm.

predictably he is totally ignoring it, so i am offering the challenge to any evolution-denier who thinks they have evidence to support their position.. please present one specific piece of evidence for creationism.. my task will be to refute it with evidence within 24 hours.. then i will present one piece of evidence for evolution and your challenge will be the same.. all posts must be as succinct as reasonably possible.

entirely in your own words, without copy-paste, videos or links.. please post your interest to take part and we will set it up before the first actual post in the exchange.

Sanchy

JWs unknowingly believe in a form of Evolution:

From the Reasoning Book:

Did God create all the millions of varieties of organisms that exist on earth today?
Genesis chapter 1 says simply that God created each “according to its kind.” (Gen. 1:12, 21, 24, 25) In preparation for the global Flood in Noah’s day, God directed that representative members of each “kind” of land animal and flying creature be taken into the ark. (Gen. 7:2, 3, 14) Each “kind” has the genetic potential for great variety. Thus there are reportedly more than 400 different breeds of dogs and upwards of 250 breeds and types of horses. All interfertile varieties of any animal are just one Genesis “kind.” Similarly, all varieties of humans—Oriental, African, Caucasian, those as tall as the seven-foot Dinka in the Sudan and as short as the four-foot-four-inch Pygmies—stem from the one original pair, Adam and Eve.—Gen. 1:27, 28; 3:20.

147

Challenge to Creationists

by cofty in

in response to the 37 threads in my evolution is a fact series - see bottom of op for links - perry posted a link to an article "44 reasons why evolution isn't true".. i offered him a challenge on the thread and by pm.

predictably he is totally ignoring it, so i am offering the challenge to any evolution-denier who thinks they have evidence to support their position.. please present one specific piece of evidence for creationism.. my task will be to refute it with evidence within 24 hours.. then i will present one piece of evidence for evolution and your challenge will be the same.. all posts must be as succinct as reasonably possible.

entirely in your own words, without copy-paste, videos or links.. please post your interest to take part and we will set it up before the first actual post in the exchange.

Sanchy

Are evolution and creation mutually exclusive?

10

A question for NEWBIES , especially if you would have died for your beliefs , and / or if you have been a long time in the religion .

by smiddy in

i`m just curious as to how you came across this site or any other "apostate" site for that matter especially now when the internet on the one hand is so demonized when it comes to the subject of jehovah`s witnesses , except of course for jw.org ,.

was it by accident ?

somebody has mentioned it to you ?

Sanchy

One day I was doing personal study on our 1914 doctrine which started a chain of events that successively led me here, as follows:

Personal Study on 1914 -> Decided to seek secular info on 607 -> Found historians disagree with that date -> Found "Gentile Times Reconsidered" -> Heard about an ex-governing body member called Ray Franz -> Looked up more about him -> Found Crisis of Concience -> My concience at this point allowed me to read it -> Realized this was prob not "the truth" -> Visited apostate websites.

10

A violation of the separation of Church and State?

by Londo111 in

so i went to dmv this morning.... can someone explain how this does not violate the separation of church and state?.

.

Sanchy

The infamous "seperation of church and state" ghost-law has surfaced again. Anyways, chances are that if those friends did not get some sort of permission to park there they will prob be asked to leave sooner or later.

33

78 to go and hopefully something good comes of it. Please do your part and sign up. Thanks

by Tenacious in

only 78 signatures are needed in order to send the request to the irs that they revoke or at the very least investigate the borg.

come'on guys, support it.. click here to support and sign up!.

Sanchy

Sometimes we behave exactly the way WT scares its members into believing Apostates behave.

17

Type / Antitype article discredits many JW teachings

by Sanchy in

i was going over the type / antitype articles that were released in last year's watchtower articles and i've just realized how ironic it is those very articles can serve to demolish some of the most fundamental jw teachings.. take for instance the "questions from readers" section of the march 15, 2015 magazine.

after mentioning some "far-fetched" interpretations that others have applied to bible events, they go on to say:.

if such interpretations seem far-fetched, you can understand the dilemma.

Sanchy

I was going over the type / anti-type articles that were released in last year's Watchtower articles and I've just realized how ironic it is that those very articles can serve to demolish some of the most fundamental JW teachings.

Take for instance the "Questions From Readers" section of the March 15, 2015 Watchtower. After mentioning some "far-fetched" interpretations that others have applied to bible events, they go on to say:

If such interpretations seem far-fetched, you can understand the dilemma. Humans cannot know which Bible accounts are shadows of things to come and which are not. The clearest course is this: Where the Scriptures teach that an individual, an event, or an object is typical of something else, we accept it as such. Otherwise, we ought to be reluctant to assign an antitypical application to a certain person or account if there is no specific Scriptural basis for doing so.

(bold is mine)

Now, that got me thinking. How many accounts does the WT give a second bigger significance to, even where there is no "specific scriptural basis for doing so". For instance: Daniel 4. WT uses the vision the Babylonian king received to claim it was actually a phophecy that points to when the "end times" would arrive, specifically 1914. However, nowhere in that chapter -or for that matter elsewhere in the bible- is there a basis for giving this vision any secondary application or significance beyond that which is written, which is that the vision was purely a teaching lesson for the king himself.

Given the lack of scriptural support for this "secondary application" (and so many others), it seems to me they have incriminated themselves with these articles.

How could I have not seen this as I was originally reading it???? (I was still in back then)

23

Thankful for my babies

by BeautifulMind in

i hope everyone is having a good day/night.

so i was just reflecting on how happy i am to have my babies, despite the orgs.

not so subtle requests that married couples not have babies in order to further serve the org.

Sanchy

Indeed Beautifullife. In our case wife and I are relatively young, our second boy was just born 3 months ago, our first is a year and half now. Best thing that ever happened to us. I remember though, when my wife got pregnant, we were still "in", I serving as an elder. I could tell everyone was shocked, since they imagined us to be like the video couples and go serve where "the need is greater". However, that was never our desire.