Posts by Shining One

37

Shining One's Link To A Dishonest ICR Article

by AlanF in

in the thread "the skeptic's worst nightmare" ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/96102/2.ashx ) shining one gave a link ( http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&id=2464 ) to an icr (institute for creation research) artcle titled "evolution--impossible to embarass its believers" by the icr's founder henry morris.

why was the soft tissue preserved?

all it means is, "we don't accept what real scientists say.

Shining One

Hi Alan,
Do you remember this cop-out answer to Elderwho when he pressed you about the basis for logic? You said something like, "it comes from our brains"!!!!
Due to the human brain being subjective in nature, so how could this be? If you keep telling yourself something long enough you are going to believe it, because all of the evidence at hand fits your presuppositions! That's why all of your argumentation about the 'evidence' is not at all relevant. EVERY human being filters information taken in. The evidence has holes in it either way. We can and do find out things by experimentation but all things are not subject to measurable experimentation. You discount what your see and hear every day: the design inherent in the world and the obvious fact that it had an intelligence behind it. You are adrift with an anchor that doesn't reach the bottom!

Rex

57

Suitable careers for JW children to aim for!

by Gill in

the october the 1st watchtower has interesting views on the education of jw children.. page 30, in which one jw explains how he ended up in ft service says:.

'we did not associate with our school mates but only with those in the congregation who had good spiritual habits.'.

interesting as this shows judgmentalism and criticism 'even' in the jw congregation.. then on page 31 it explains how parents must offer their children, as early as possible, proper guidance in their choice of school subjects and vocation goals.. 'rather than choose academic subjects that are geared toward a university education, parents and children need to consider courses that are useful in pursuing a theocratic career.'.

Shining One

You're doing the right thing, Dune.

>What annoyed me, was this sister asked me "Why not go to bethel?" Right after my first semester. What REALLY bothered me was that she didnt even have the decency to look at me in the face. like what was i supposed to say? I dont want to go to bethel !?!?!

I graduated back in '73 with a brother who was Valedictorian. He was the one who studied with me before I got baptized. He was offered full ride scholarships but it was a given that 'Bethel was calling'. He went and later his youngest brother went too. They are still there as far as I know. Yes, he was very intelligent and is probably a big wheel. His brother was a dufus. They used him at assemblies to walk around with the signs that said, "Go to your Seat".
Rex

57

Suitable careers for JW children to aim for!

by Gill in

the october the 1st watchtower has interesting views on the education of jw children.. page 30, in which one jw explains how he ended up in ft service says:.

'we did not associate with our school mates but only with those in the congregation who had good spiritual habits.'.

interesting as this shows judgmentalism and criticism 'even' in the jw congregation.. then on page 31 it explains how parents must offer their children, as early as possible, proper guidance in their choice of school subjects and vocation goals.. 'rather than choose academic subjects that are geared toward a university education, parents and children need to consider courses that are useful in pursuing a theocratic career.'.

Shining One

Hi Terry,

This is a rather condescending general observation below:

>Educated people, on the other hand, become LESS dependant. Educated people earn more and learn more and build their own lives without reliance on secondary aid from airy promises hawked on streetcorners by wild-eyed magazine salemen.
Educated people think for themselves. Thinking people question outrageous claims made by magazine publishers which do not meet minimum standards of evidence.
Educated people have the mental health to avoid obligating themselves to a life determined by the whims of old men sitting around a boardroom in Brooklyn concocting new ways of skinning the same stinky old dead cat of 1914 and Armageddon Soon prophecies.
Education is public enemey #1 for religious fanatics bent on world control through coercion and empty promises

This comment is straight out of liberal group-think. "We who know must decide what is best for those poor, uneducated fools who aren't intelligent enough to make their own decisions." You must be a liberal democrat!
Rex

50

C.S. Lewis statement....

by Shining One in

lewis says jesus' claim to be equal with deity leaves us only one other choice: .

a man who was merely a man and said the sort of things jesus said would not be a great moral teacher.

he would either be a lunatic on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg or else he would be the devil of hell.

Shining One

Well Hamsterbait,
If really you can't accept hearing from God then you have made the decision not to. No amount of any evidence will ever be convincing to you. This is your choice...for now. Our Lord Himself answers the question of belief/unbelief in John 3.17-21. The Apostle Paul shows you both sides in Romans 1.16-25.
Too bad.
R.

15

Just Accept it!!!

by Shining One in

here's a quote from the scientific community about the consciousness: just accept it!

"those things in a way didn't need to evolve," said chalmers.

"they were part of the fundamental furniture of the world all along.

Shining One

From Tetradud,

>why don't you post your sources? you keep bombarding the board with reams of misquoted pseudo-science, the least you can do is post your sources.

Why??? Just because I like to see you guys go ballistic. Your nice little complacent belief in 'science' and 'logic' is not as secure as you once believed. Welcome to reality.

Rex

37

Shining One's Link To A Dishonest ICR Article

by AlanF in

in the thread "the skeptic's worst nightmare" ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/96102/2.ashx ) shining one gave a link ( http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&id=2464 ) to an icr (institute for creation research) artcle titled "evolution--impossible to embarass its believers" by the icr's founder henry morris.

why was the soft tissue preserved?

all it means is, "we don't accept what real scientists say.

Shining One

>yet it has diverged to the point of true reproductive isolation

Is that the only requirement for speciation????? I think not! Come on, look at the claims of evolutionists. Primordial soup, magically (miraculously) becoming life, become single cell (we can't do that in a lab even now), becoming fish, becoming amphibians, becoming lizards, becoming mammals and speciation into man? LOL
OOhhhhh, I forgot it took billions of years and we all know that if we have enough monkeys tapping typewriter keys they will eventually tyoe out the Bible! LOL again! From where did we gain consciousness? Oh, and how did the eye develop and how is it that the brain could transform light into pictures?
What 'banged' the Big Bang and why is it slowing down? What happens when it stops?
I guess the idea of 'pink, invisible unicorns' is becoming more reasonable now, is it not?
Rex

37

Shining One's Link To A Dishonest ICR Article

by AlanF in

in the thread "the skeptic's worst nightmare" ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/96102/2.ashx ) shining one gave a link ( http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&id=2464 ) to an icr (institute for creation research) artcle titled "evolution--impossible to embarass its believers" by the icr's founder henry morris.

why was the soft tissue preserved?

all it means is, "we don't accept what real scientists say.

Shining One

Reality is exactly that, Oldrade. Reality is what each one of us perceive since all of us have various presuppositions or axioms that we use to 'filter' what we observe. That's why Ken Ham said that his students were swayed by arguments both for and against evolution. You are probably taking in more naturalist influences, that changes your axioms. Many of us were ensnared by the WBTS in the same way. We had our previous belief system removed, and a new one put in its place.
This is the mistake people make when they leave the Borg. This is the reason why so many JWs become agnostics and naturalists. They have already been pre-conditioned to discount any other faith. It is so easy to turn to the present fad of 'science', since our culture is inundated by their general assertions with few dissenting voices. Have you observed how people here try to drown out any contrary opnion to the popular one?
Rex

37

Shining One's Link To A Dishonest ICR Article

by AlanF in

in the thread "the skeptic's worst nightmare" ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/96102/2.ashx ) shining one gave a link ( http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&id=2464 ) to an icr (institute for creation research) artcle titled "evolution--impossible to embarass its believers" by the icr's founder henry morris.

why was the soft tissue preserved?

all it means is, "we don't accept what real scientists say.

Shining One

Thanks, Elderwho!

Rex:Where does logic come from, eh Alan? Where does your reasoning come from in the first place? How can you, with a naturalistic presupposition, account for the existence of logical absolutes when logical absolutes are concepts of the mind and not physical, energy, or motion?"

AL: You're getting into questions that no one can answer at present in a completely satisfactory way. I hope you understand that such "laws", being constructs of the mind, are like the "laws" and axioms of mathematics, and in fact are a subset of them.

The keyword here is 'like' and that may not fit either.
Yes, Alan. You did answer! If anyone out there is honest they can admit that your vaunted logic and scientific reasoning is totally useless in figuring out the Origins question. This is just like having a scripture debate with a JW who refuses to admit he's been had!
Are any of you (agnostics, we know already that you can't be defined as atheists) going to follow the lead of ANTHONY FLUE and become a Deist? That's a real bummer, isn't it? Then you would (logically! LOL) have to decide which RELIGION has the best answer to the problem of evil. LOL
Ouch, that brings us back to C.S. Lewis!!!!!!

Rex

15

Just Accept it!!!

by Shining One in

here's a quote from the scientific community about the consciousness: just accept it!

"those things in a way didn't need to evolve," said chalmers.

"they were part of the fundamental furniture of the world all along.

Shining One

Here's a quote from the scientific community about the consciousness: Just accept it!

"Those things in a way didn't need to evolve," said Chalmers. "They were part of the fundamental furniture of the world all along."
Instead of trying to reduce consciousness to something else, Chalmers believes consciousness should simply be taken for granted, the way that space and time and mass are in physics. According to this view, a theory of consciousness would not explain what consciousness is or how it arose; instead, it would try to explain the relationship between consciousness and everything else in the world.

Beyond the mystics

Roger Penrose, a mathematical physicist at Oxford University, believes that if a "theory of everything" is ever developed in physics to explain all the known phenomena in the universe, it should at least partially account for consciousness.
Penrose also believes that quantum mechanics, the rules governing the physical world at the subatomic level, might play an important role in consciousness.
It wasn't that long ago that the study of consciousness was considered to be too abstract, too subjective or too difficult to study scientifically. But in recent years, it has emerged as one of the hottest new fields in biology, similar to string theory in physics or the search for extraterrestrial life in astronomy.
No longer the sole purview of philosophers and mystics, consciousness is now attracting the attention of scientists from across a variety of different fields, each, it seems, with their own theories about what consciousness is and how it arises from the brain.

In many religions, consciousness is closely tied to the ancient notion of the soul, the idea that in each of us, there exists an immaterial essence that survives death and perhaps even predates birth. It was believed that the soul was what allowed us to think and feel, remember and reason.
Our personality, our individuality and our humanity were all believed to originate from the soul.
Nowadays, these things are generally attributed to physical processes in the brain, but exactly how chemical and electrical signals between trillions of brain cells called neurons are transformed into thoughts, emotions and a sense of self is still unknown.
"Almost everyone agrees that there will be very strong correlations between what's in the brain and consciousness," says David Chalmers, a philosophy professor and Director of the Center for Consciousness at the Australian National University. "The question is what kind of explanation that will give you. We want more than correlation, we want explanation -- how and why do brain process give rise to consciousness? That's the big mystery."

******Just accept it!!!!!!!!!!

Chalmers is best known for distinguishing between the 'easy' problems of consciousness and the 'hard' problem.
The easy problems are those that deal with functions and behaviors associated with consciousness and include questions such as these: How does perception occur? How does the brain bind different kinds of sensory information together to produce the illusion of a seamless experience?
"Those are what I call the easy problems, not because they're trivial, but because they fall within the standard methods of the cognitive sciences," Chalmers says.
The hard problem for Chalmers is that of subjective experience.
"You have a different kind of experience -- a different quality of experience -- when you see red, when you see green, when you hear middle C, when you taste chocolate," Chalmers told LiveScience. "Whenever you're conscious, whenever you have a subjective experience, it feels like something."
According to Chalmers, the subjective nature of consciousness prevents it from being explained in terms of simpler components, a method used to great success in other areas of science. He believes that unlike most of the physical world, which can be broken down into individual atoms, or organisms, which can be understood in terms of cells, consciousness is an irreducible aspect of the universe, like space and time and mass.

*******irreducible complexity!!!!!!!!!!
"Those things in a way didn't need to evolve," said Chalmers. "They were part of the fundamental furniture of the world all along." LOL
Instead of trying to reduce consciousness to something else, Chalmers believes consciousness should simply be taken for granted, the way that space and time and mass are in physics. According to this view, a theory of consciousness would not explain what consciousness is or how it arose; instead, it would try to explain the relationship between consciousness and everything else in the world.

*******JUST ACCEPT IT!!!!!!!!!!!

Not everyone is enthusiastic about this idea, however.
'Not very helpful'
"It's not very helpful," said Susan Greenfield, a professor of pharmacology at Oxford University.
"You can't do very much with it," Greenfield points out. "It's the last resort, because what can you possibly do with that idea? You can't prove it or disprove it, and you can't test it. It doesn't offer an explanation, or any enlightenment, or any answers about why people feel the way they feel."

********So much for logic and human reasoning trying to figure out the Big Question!!!!!!!!!!!

Rex

94

The Skeptic's Worst Nightmare (S)

by Shining One in

check some of this out and you may see why there are two sides to the issues that are portrayed as so one sided here.

you will immediately smell the b.s.

emanating from the skeptic's book of bible stories!

Shining One

Hi Itsallgoodnow, I appreciate what you are saying and so much of it is true. However, you are living in a fantasy if you think that science is above the inherent weaknesses in human nature. You seem to have replaced one belief system with another but do not realize it. It is not any more honest than the one you replaced it with. God is above creation, He is 'first cause' in physics, He is of the metaphysical realm and indeed all thought emanates from His continuous existence. Classic Christianity has provided the best answer for the problem of evil. Christianity is not the religious institutions, it is the life led by Christ and we do well to try and become like Him. I do well buy trying to let Him live through me! Rex