Posts by Rainbow

13

Inactive Witness Preaches To Me Today

by pale.emperor in

a rather bizzare situation, this morning.

i was taking my daughter to the park, as i walk past a row of shops a car horn beeps and shouts me.

i turn round and see a car in a disabled parking space with a guy who used to go to my hall smiling and waving to me.

Rainbow_Troll

I once met a man on the bus who was DFed, but had nothing but good to say about the Watchtower. If I brought up anything negative, he would tell my friend (who was with me), that I was a liar and the JWs were the best people on earth and the only true religion. It was a unique and baffling experience. He never mentioned why he was DFed, but I'll assume it wasn't for apostasy.

11

Born in baptisms to avoid embarrassment

by Spoletta in

i 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?

Rainbow_Troll

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.

205

Mathematically Measuring Evolution.

by towerwatchman in

mathematically 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 in

mathematically 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 in

i'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 in

mathematically 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 in

i'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 in

apart, 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 in

atheism = 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 in

apart, 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.

Rainbow_Troll

Posts by Rainbow_Troll

Bohm: If man did not land on the moon, when was the lunar module placed on the moon?