Born-in baptisms were very common in the assemblies (or is that conventions? My memory is hazy over which is which) I attended in the nineties, though there were plenty of adult converts as well. Most born-ins seem to get baptized in their early to mid teens - just at the time when you would expect them to begin thinking for themselves about theological and philosophical subjects.
Rainbow_Troll
JoinedPosts by Rainbow_Troll
-
11
Born in baptisms to avoid embarrassment
by Spoletta ini noticed a recent commenter mention an assembly that had only one baptism, a born in.
the last assembly i went to had three baptisms, of which two were born ins.
could part of the motivation for youth baptism be to avoid the embarrassment of an assembly with no baptisms at all?
-
-
-
205
Mathematically Measuring Evolution.
by towerwatchman inmathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.
morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.
using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.
-
-
Rainbow_Troll
cytochrome c is a means of measuring the differences across the evolutionary tree. Any other means of measuring the difference is more subjective than anything.
Why? By your own admission, cytochrome c does not support the theory of evolution any more than the Bible. Why are other genes and fossils of no importance in testing the theory of evolution while cytochrome c is the deal breaker? Is it because it's the only criteria that slightly favors the creationists?
if cytochrome c did not mutate then there should be no difference. If mutate slowly over time we should see the pattern, but we don’t.
Cytochrome c is a protein with a finite number of nucleotide sequences available to it if it is to remain functioning. The evidence you cited in your original OP only proves that it was able to recombine in similar sequences even in creatures which are evolutionary very distant from each other. Wow, what are the odds huh? Eyes are much more complicated structures than single proteins and yet they appear independently in creatures as distinct as vertebrates and invertebrates.
As to arguing and troll I notice something rather funny. You and several others here call me a troll who likes to argue.
It wasn't meant as an insult. I'm actually giving you the benefit of a doubt; that you aren't actually serious and are just messing with people because you are bored or wish to sharpen your rhetorical skills.
-
205
Mathematically Measuring Evolution.
by towerwatchman inmathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.
morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.
using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.
-
-
Rainbow_Troll
How about addressing the main topic, the OP.
I thought I did, but okay. In your OP you claim that there is no correlation between differences in cytochrome c amino configurations and the evolutionary tree and then, ignoring all the other genetic and fossil evidence, you conclude that this disproves evolution. You really don't see the fallacy here?
That's kind of like the Holocaust revisionist who cites a few examples of jews who lied about their experiences during the Nazi regime while ignoring the massive amount of physical evidence and the testimony thousands of nonjews concerning the historicity of the death camps.
Just because there is no correlation between speciation and cytochrome c mutation, it does not follow that evolution is false. Some genes mutate while others stay the same over eons of time. Genes are distinct. It's not an all or nothing deal. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? Maybe because you're just a troll who likes to argue? If so, I can respect that; but at least put some work into it.
-
15
Non-Witness in Love with Lesbian Witness
by Siraphina ini'm hoping someone here can help, advise or councel me regarding my dilemma because i'm desperate and dying inside.
here is my story: i'm an out, non-witness lesbian in love with an active jw lesbian.
she's very much in love with me as well but her guilt as a result of her religion is emotionally devistating her.
-
-
Rainbow_Troll
If she chooses me, she is disowned. If she chooses her religion, she says she can't be an active JW and remain with me because the guilt is unbearable for her
You might wish to remind her that love thrives on obstacles like fire on kindling and that only forbidden fruit is sweet. If she would only renounce this false dichotomy of either being true to herself or her religion, the guilt that is crucifying her today would soon transform into an ecstasy that thrills at donning a mask in public that she despises and dishonors in private.
If I were you, I'd feign an interest in becoming a JW yourself and request a Bible study from her. This would give her tormented conscience an excuse to be around you and it would give you the time you need to complete your seduction.
-
205
Mathematically Measuring Evolution.
by towerwatchman inmathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.
morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.
using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.
-
-
Rainbow_Troll
If evolution is true then the existence of cytochrome C in ‘higher forms’ is the result from evolving from a common ancestor. We would expect to see a logical progression in distance, measurable in percentage of difference as we move up the hierarchy of evolution. As we progress along the presumed evolutionary path from single cell organisms, to multi cell, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals to humans we should see the changes in cytochrome C accumulate.
So you think you have demolished the entire theory of evolution over a single protein? Your flaccid argument is typical of creationists: obsess over a single anomaly while totally ignoring the weight of fossil and genetic evidence.
If you really wanted to keep God in the picture then, instead of attacking a theory as well supported as evolution, you should target Materialism's weakest conjecture: that nonliving molecules can somehow spontaneously organize themselves into self-replicating nucleotides
-
42
#1 ANSWER THIS: Why would an omnibenevolent and omniscient god put us through tests of faith?
by EdenOne ini'll be starting a series "answer this:" with thought-provoking questions for debate.
your arguments for and against are most welcome.. i'll start with this: .
why would an omnibenevolent and omniscient god put us through tests of faith?.
-
-
Rainbow_Troll
if god is able to foretell the outcome, and can do no evil (notice that not stopping evil when you have the power to do so is in itself evil) then why god put humans through tests of faith - many of them consisting of unimaginable suffering?
I asked this very question as a young boy. The answer was both simple and frustrating: Jehovah has the choice to NOT consult his omniscience. He is not consciously aware of everything that has happened, is happening and ever will happen (that would be a total cognitive overload even for him); instead, Jehovah has the equivalent of a magic 8-ball in his brain which he can choose to consult at his leisure. Why doesn't he consult it all the time? For the same reason you don't begin a novel by reading the last paragraph.
-
32
Have you ever believed something that turned out to be wrong?
by slimboyfat inapart, of course, from the obvious example of believing the evidence-free assertion of the governing body to be god's representatives on earth.
not to side-step that issue, but i wonder if it might be interesting to relate that huge mistake to other things i've been wrong about and how they compare and contrast with the big one.
a couple of examples of things i was wrong about:.
-
-
Rainbow_Troll
Bohm: ...there are also other telescopes that have taken pictures of the lander.
I am confused now. You claim that NASA flew the lunar lander onto the moon, left a rover on the moon, left mirrors that can be measured to exist by laser on the moon, but they just didn't include a human in the lander?
In other words, Is the lander on the moon or not? (pictures would suggest it is), and if so, when did it get there?The lander could be on the moon as well as other man made objects. It is clearly possible to launch things into space and direct them to very specific coordinates (how else could satellites be explained?). Even the Mars rover could be for real (though given NASA's duplicity, who knows?) When did they get there? I am not sure. I would have to research the subject.
The only thing that I am disputing is manned missions to the moon - not because such a thing would be impossible - but for the reasons I outlined in my former post.
-
315
Atheism = self defeating.
by towerwatchman inatheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
-
-
Rainbow_Troll
Empirically speaking, theism could never be totally refuted since, as you pointed out, no one is omniscient.
However, putting that aside for a moment, there are certain logical reasons that the theist God could not exist. Some of the attributes of this alleged being are impossible. Take omnipotence as an example. Is God able to create something indestructible, that not even he could destroy or uncreate? Whether you answer yes or no, his omnipotence is refuted.
Or what about his omniscience? Can the theist God ask a question that even he can't answer? If he can, he is not omniscient. If he cannot, he is not omnipotent.
Is God omnibenevolent; a being of pure love? But who could he have loved before he created the Son and with him everyone else? More importantly, if this God was all alone in the beginning, how could he have developed a language that would have allowed him to conceptualize, reason and so be capable of creating a universe? Language is a social phenomena. A single, eternal God could not develop a language and without language, conceptual thought, reasoning, mathematics - everything this God would need to create anything - would be impossible for him.
Did God create the Universe - the universe being defined mathematically as the set of all things existing in space-time? But space-time itself defines existence. A being that that created space-time would have to exist outside of it and therefore, would ipso facto not exist.
You see, even though I may never be able to disprove theism using the scientific/empirical method, I can easily refute it using logic alone. The theistic version of God is no more possible than two and three adding up to six. That said, there could be a deist version of God or an entire pantheon of polytheist gods. I guess it all depends on how strongly someone defines their atheism.
-
32
Have you ever believed something that turned out to be wrong?
by slimboyfat inapart, of course, from the obvious example of believing the evidence-free assertion of the governing body to be god's representatives on earth.
not to side-step that issue, but i wonder if it might be interesting to relate that huge mistake to other things i've been wrong about and how they compare and contrast with the big one.
a couple of examples of things i was wrong about:.
-
-
Rainbow_Troll
cofty: All those astronauts, engineers, specialists, astronomers scientists, mathematicians, navy personnel etc and in all those decades not one of them broke ranks
One word: compartmentalization. Most of the people involved in Apollo were sitting at consoles or helped design and build the equipment. They weren't actually on the moon. Only the astronauts themselves and a few others would have to know the truth and they could easily be silenced with threats directed at them and their families, as well as the shame of having knowingly participated in the biggest hoax in human history.
Bohm: If man did not land on the moon, when was the lunar module placed on the moon?
That photo was taken by NASA. Also, I'm not disputing the unmanned missions. Objects could have been sent to the moon. My issue is with the moon landings.
Simon: Even more amazing, the Russians would also be complicit in it - yes, the people desperate to show up the US as failures would, for some reason, just not use the fact that the landings were fake to embarrass the US
Not complicit, just gullible.
-
32
Have you ever believed something that turned out to be wrong?
by slimboyfat inapart, of course, from the obvious example of believing the evidence-free assertion of the governing body to be god's representatives on earth.
not to side-step that issue, but i wonder if it might be interesting to relate that huge mistake to other things i've been wrong about and how they compare and contrast with the big one.
a couple of examples of things i was wrong about:.
-
-
Rainbow_Troll
slimboyfat7 hours ago: Rainbow Troll that's an interesting list of beliefs. Why do you think the moon landing never happened?
It did not come to me easily. For most of my life I believed that the Apollo mission was one of the few American achievements that I could feel legitimately and unambivalently proud of (the other being the Internet). I was aware of moon-landing skeptics for quite some time before I began my investigations, but I did not bother reading their arguments; I had worthier topics to invest my time in.
What initially sparked my interest was an Apollo photo in which the earth is shown as a bright blue ball against the airless black lunar sky. I was immediately taken aback by its apparent size. We all know that the earth is over three times larger than the moon, but in this photo it took up no more of the sky than a full moon does here on earth even at its perigee! Early into my research I discovered that this anomaly could actually be accounted for if the photo were shot with a wide angled lense. Even so, this little puzzle provoked a lot of good questions.
I first had to ask myself why we went to the moon. Clearly it wasn't out of curiosity or because prez Kennedy thought Luna was made of gold. We did it for one reason: to one-up the Soviets. Not only was Sputnik embarrassing, it set a dangerous precedent. If Communist Russia were able to dominate earth's orbit, they would have a serious tactical advantage that would endanger the U.S.A. and other free-market countries around the world. We didn't really have a choice. Whether or not reaching the moon was possible, it had to be done. And even if it were possible, wouldn't a fake moon landing be just as effective (for the purpose of propaganda) as a real one? Why spend millions of dollars and endanger the lives of American astronauts when faking it would be safe, cheap and just as effective? I'm aware that the above argument proves nothing; but I'm not finished yet.
The next question is much more troubling: why haven't we returned? Yes, there were other trips to the moon after Apollo 11, but they were really just reruns of the original mission. Why haven't we been to the moon since 1972? Why haven't we established permanent colonies there and large scale industry? Don't tell me it wouldn't be profitable. If the moon rocks that were bought back are representative, the moon is loaded with valuable mineral resources including large deposits of silicon, iron, aluminum, magnesium, titanium, chromium and manganese. Energy could be harvested from the sun using solar collectors at the moon's poles. Raw materials, even water (in the form of ice; and also hydrogen trapped in carbonaceous chondrites) and oxygen (in the form of oxides) are surprisingly plentiful on the moon. Very little would actually have to be brought from the earth in order to establish the lunar infrastructure; and once it got going, it would be entirely self-supporting.
And resources aside, there are numerous industrial processes which would we incredibly cheap and safe on the airless, low gravity environment of the moon. Nuclear power plants could be built and their energy beamed to earth via microwaves without anyone down here ever having to worry about a meltdown or hazardous radioactive byproducts.
The scientific research that could be conducted is also immense: there is plenty of room up there for particle accelerators much larger, and thus much more productive, than CERN. A planetoid with no intervening atmosphere is perfect for astronomers; telescopes could be constructed that would dwarf anything we have on earth. Finally, due to its low gravity, the moon would be a perfect jumping off point for both manned and unmanned missions further into the Sol system. Overcoming earth's gravity is not only a danger to astronauts, it is extremely expensive. Every ounce counts. Not so on the moon.
Taking the above into consideration I ask again: why hasn't any major government or corporation set up permanent colonies on the moon or even gone there recently? They can certainly afford it and it would be immensely profitable beyond anyone's imagination; so what's stopping them? I can think of only two explanations:
1. Some secret organization is deliberately trying to retard human progress. Anyone who wants to go to the moon is discretely visited by a representative of this shadowy conspiracy and threatened with dire consequences should they go anywhere near the moon. Not very likely in my opinion, but it could be true.
2. There is a natural barrier. Perhaps the van allen belt of radiation is just too intense for any proposed spacecraft to protect its occupants from. Lead is a very dense material, but also very heavy. It could be that sending a craft with a lead hull thick enough to protect astronauts from van allen radiation is just too expensive at the moment. I must admit that this too, while more plausible than the latter hypothesis, also seems unlikely. Still, I put it out there.
Another issue is the incredible number of errors and inconsistencies that can be found if one combs through the photographic records of the Apollo missions. They are far too numerous to list here, but I encourage anyone who is interested to study this website. The author has spent a great deal of time not only cataloging NASA's mistakes, but debunking the bad arguments of more amateur moon landing skeptics (like my own 'the moon is too small' argument).
In any case, no matter the reason why, it seems apparent to me that no human being has ever set foot on the moon. I hasten to add, however, that nothing I have said could possibly undermine our basic view of the universe. Just because NASA has been dishonest about its achievements concerning extraterrestrial exploration does not mean that the earth is flat or that our sphere is the center of the universe. It does not refute the existence of other stars, planets and galaxies. It does not even refute the big bang. All of these things can be independently verified using telescopes, spectroscopy, and simple mathematics. But it DOES bring into question some more recent 'discoveries'. If the moon rocks are just regular stones, we really can't know for sure what types of mineral resources might exist on the moon. We can't know for certain whether or not there is life on Mars. For me, it has been an interesting journey, but it has not overturned my fundamental worldview. NASA lied about the moon and, most likely, Mars too; but those worlds are still out there waiting to be explored by our intrepid race.