Cold Steel,
Were you ever a witness? Just curious.
cognisonance
JoinedPosts by cognisonance
-
73
Bitter apostates
by Laika inwitnesses often go on about apostates being spiteful and bitter.
when you get cut off, shunned, or threatened with shunning just for the audacity of thinking differently, it's not surprising that getting angry at the witnesses is the reaction - it's like a self fulfilling prophecy.. but also, i recently posted an email from a 'friend' on this board who told me that everyone he'd spoken to about me said i had changed, become like another person.
it didn't occur to him that the day before i told my parents i'd quit the religion just 3 weeks ago, i met him for lunch, we had a good time and he didn't know anything was up.
-
-
-
22
The Mermaid Goes to the District Convention and this is what She Hears
by Cadellin in[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng /> </o:officedocumentsettings> </xml><![endif].
[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-us</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>x-none</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:enableopentypekerning /> <w:dontflipmirrorindents /> <w:overridetablestylehps /> </w:compatibility> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="--" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!
[endif][if gte mso 10]> <mce:style><!
-
-
cognisonance
Evil, poisonous, unruly, poisonous lies, deceive minds, prefer the table of the demons, slanderous, infected, diseased workers, pushed away from Jah's table, decided on the table of the demons, oppose Jah's will, part of the seed of the serpent, prideful, reject counsel, have earthly wisdom, animalistic, pride that escalates into bitterness, jealousy, reject God's service, draw men after themselves, only claim to worship God, too prideful to preach, like kidnappers, prey upon others, speak twisted things, create divisions, resort to distortions, half-truths, lies, malicious, intend to deceive, speak counterfeit words, twist scriptures, employ clandestine methods, use smooth talk in blogs, don't care about others, hypocrites, false faced, claim to be your brother, don't have an original thought, only want to criticize, claim to serve God but reject his representatives. Reject GB, reject overseers, reject elders, lie to authorities, seek to discredit organization, use media to lie, picket in front of Bethel, have wicked works, like someone with an infectious disease, mentally diseased, want to infect others, like rotten fish, not sincere in their expressions, double-hearted, want to undermine your faith, opposers, walk against the truth, part of the antichrist, work with Satan in his evil kitchen.
Wow! This is what my family and others I care about are being told about me? And then the religion trys to block me from creating the oppurtunity to clear up this misunderstanding (misunderstanding on my family and friends part since this is what they've been told, but of course lies on the religion's part). Oddly, me being an atheist, I'm suprised they consider apostates those that still belive in God. What about me? I know god doesn't exist and neither does satan. It's one big false premise. I just wish I had the chance to clear this up with my family! I'm not what they are being told that I am. I also do not have the intent to "prey on others," or "deceive." They also slander my character and say I don't care about my family and friends, that I am not sincere? Really? The nerve!
3. Evolution is now lumped in with the trinity and hellfire as false doctrine.
I remember them doing that in a Watchtower a couple years back. Really, Really odd! What does science have to do with religious doctrines? It couldn't be more far aware. What a huge categorial error!
-
427
If man evolved?
by tornapart ini know anyone who believes in evolution is going to say that there is no 'if' about it.
however.... if man evolved over hundreds of thousands of years ago, why were there only about 200-300 million people alive 2,000 years ago?
surely there'd have been many billions by then?.
-
-
cognisonance
Hey Cog our Phizzy was being Ironic, he is already well and truly on the right side of the debate!
Sorry Phizzy... just saw your question without reading the context...
-
427
If man evolved?
by tornapart ini know anyone who believes in evolution is going to say that there is no 'if' about it.
however.... if man evolved over hundreds of thousands of years ago, why were there only about 200-300 million people alive 2,000 years ago?
surely there'd have been many billions by then?.
-
-
cognisonance
So, is it alright to eat babies then ?
That's a strawman Phizzy, no one is arguing that cannibalism, or killing/eating babies is moral or okay, just because it was "natural" in nature at one point (or othe "red in tooth and claw" dark-sides to nature). To do so would be the Naturalistic Fallacy.
-
371
Design or Non-Design, finally we know, Darwin's Doubt
by QC inif you want to read the definitive explanation on fossils and how life arrived its covered in darwins doubt, by s.c. meyer.
this is a game changer.
the bomb!.
-
-
cognisonance
Evolution is not science; it’s an ideology (an alternate secular world view, a philosophy).
False Dichotomy (it's not accurate to say evolution is either science or it's an ideology). It's not that black and white. It can be both. When people talk about evolution they can mean, usually, one of two things:
- The science of evolution. This we have both the what (facts showing life today is different than in the past, and that life today has shared a common ancestor) and the how(such as the theory of natural selection and the scientific method involved to see if this theory holds water - that is to say, making predicitons, testing hypothesis, writing papers, peer review, sequencing DNA, examining fossils, biogeography, and other evidence, etc.)
- Popular Evolutionism. To quote the philosopher of science, Michael Ruse:
"First, if the claim is that all contemporary evolutionism is merely an excuse to promote moral and societal norms, this is simply false. Today's professional evolutionism is no more a secular religion than is industrial chemistry. Second, there is indeed a thriving area of more popular evolutionism, where evolution is used to underpin claims about the nature of the universe, the meaning of it all for us humans, and the way we should behave. I am not saying that this area is all bad or that it should be stamped out. I am all in favor of saving the rainforests. I am saying that this popular evolutionism—often an alternative to religion—exists. Third, we who cherish science should be careful to distinguish when we are doing science and when we are extrapolating from it, particularly when we are teaching our students. If it is science that is to be taught, then teach science and nothing more. Leave the other discussions for a more appropriate time." Science 7 March 2003: Vol. 299 no. 5612 pp. 1523-1524
-
371
Design or Non-Design, finally we know, Darwin's Doubt
by QC inif you want to read the definitive explanation on fossils and how life arrived its covered in darwins doubt, by s.c. meyer.
this is a game changer.
the bomb!.
-
-
cognisonance
You want to tap dance your way through this Evolution debacle with bluster bluffing that ‘there’s all this evidence.’ Nice try, but unconvincing.
I haven't convinced you becuase you have to research the facts for yourself. I've just given you some starting topics to look into. If you are interested in looking at the available evidence please read a book that focuses on the emperical facts, such as Why Evolution is True. If you go to the amazon link, you can use the "look inside" feature (click on the picture of the book) to read a bit before deciding to by the book.
Nonetheless, I bring up human chromosome 2, which I don't remember if that book talks about it or not. Apes, such as the chimp, have 24 non-redundant chromosome pairs. Humans have 23. If evolution is true and both apes and humans share a comon ancestor, then why do human only have 23 pairs of chromosomes? It's not like we could have just dropped one pair and not expect great damage being done.
So what did the evolutionary theory predict? That either the original ancestor had 23 pair and the other apes had one pair that broke into two, or that the original had 24 pairs and humans had two pair fuse into one. What did they find out when the examined the chromosomes of chimps and humans? This:
Take a look at the banding pattern (think of this as a finger print of sorts that identifies chromosomes, which is achieved with a staining procedure). The picture shows human chromosome 2 and chimp chromosomes 2a and 2b. Notice how similar the patterns are? Look at the two chimp chromosomes. They both have a centromere (found somewhere in the middle) and two telomeres (think of these as end caps if you will). The human chromosome has an extra centromere and the remains of two telomres also somehwere in the middle (in addition to the two at the ends). This is also supported by actually sequencing the dna and comparing the A, C, T, or G bases.
The simpliest explanation is that the common ancestor had 24 chromomes and humans had two of them fuse together. The evidence confirms what evolutionary theory would predict. If you are interested in reading the science about this, here is one paper: Origin of human chromosome 2: An ancestral telomere-telomere fusion.
If evolution never happened, then how would you explain how humans have two chromosomes that appear to have been fused together to create one big one, and this fused chromosome matches up with two smaller ones found in chimps?
-
371
Design or Non-Design, finally we know, Darwin's Doubt
by QC inif you want to read the definitive explanation on fossils and how life arrived its covered in darwins doubt, by s.c. meyer.
this is a game changer.
the bomb!.
-
-
cognisonance
SCIENCE and me expects you to prove full blown Darwinian Evolution, early life is your best (clear easy to see) shot at proving it
I don't have time to fully respond to your latest response, but I will say this. Why is this the best shot at proving that evolution happened and common ancestry? There is already an abundance of "clear easy to see" evidence that shows that evolution happened that come from different fields of scientific study that indepenedenly verify that evolutuion happened:
- Dna [pylogenetic analysis, psuedogenes, retroviruses, human chromosome 2, nearly universal genetic code, etc.]
- Embryology (human embryo's with tail bugs, dolphins with hindlimb buds)
- Biogeography (look into Marsipuls)
- Transitional forms in periods later than the pre-Cambrian (evolutionary prediction of where to find fish/amphibian transitional form resulting in the discovery of Tiakaaak)
- Vestiges and atavisms (Ostrich wings, human's with tails, whales with vestigial pelvis/hind-leg bones)
Evolution indeed has happened. It seems more like you are wanting to use the pre-cambrian/cambrian era not becuase it should be easy to see evolution, but precisely becuase it would be hard to see the common ancestry.
If what you are wanting to do is find evidence that would completly blow common ancestry out of the water in the pre-cambrian strata (since this is what you are focusing on) would be to find avian or mammilian fossils in that strata (i.e. something that common ancestry says is impossible to exisit at that time period).
-
371
Design or Non-Design, finally we know, Darwin's Doubt
by QC inif you want to read the definitive explanation on fossils and how life arrived its covered in darwins doubt, by s.c. meyer.
this is a game changer.
the bomb!.
-
-
cognisonance
We know definitively there is NO “common ancestry” fossil tree coming out of the Precambrian strata. Fossils supporting this fictitious idea do not exist.
Do you expect all evolution to happen at a constant slow and gradual rate? Have you considered that the speed of evolutionary change can be different depending on the environment? (i.e. punctuated equilibrium is one such hypothesis regarding the rate of evolution by natural selection). Also consider that fossilization is a rare event (and finding them even rarer), so if evolution happened quickly during that time period, we shouldn't expect to find fossils capturing the intermidate forms.
That said, I did a quick look at some recent research in this field. Here is a "common ancestry tree" that includes the periods before and after the Cambrian. It uses molecular clock dating and data from 62 genes from 122 taxa to infer the phylogenetic relationships and approximate time of divergence. Below is the tree from this paper. I'll admit I haven't read all of that paper, but wanted to bring it up as it seems somewhat related to this subject. -
544
FINALLY! Can you prove God exists? If you can I won't ask again!
by punkofnice ini have seen debates and shizzle about god or not god etc etc.. i was even confronted by an aggressive and trheatening muslim in the street, who was angry that i wanted proof that god existed.
he ranted on a load of old b0110cks about 'hell' and stuff.
finally he yelled at me: 'do you want god to write your name in the sky?
-
-
cognisonance
Darwin proposed a hypothesis. In the last 150 years the mountain of evidence for evolution has become overwhelming. It is no longer a hypothesis its a fact.
“ Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. - Dawkins in The Greatest Show on Earth
It is only possible to deny the fact that every living thing descended from a common ancestor by avoiding the evidence.
Cofty, I also accept evolution as a fact, but to be pedantic, technically Natural Selection (which readers of your comment might assume you are refering too) has become a scientific theory, not a "fact." I know you probably realize this and I'm responding late to this thread, but I wanted to make sure this is crystal clear to others that may not be as familiar to this topic. To use Dawkin's words in that same book:
“Our present beliefs about many things may be disproved, but we can with complete confidence make a list of certain facts that will never be disproved. Evolution and the heliocentric theory weren’t always among them, but they are now.
Biologists often make a distinction between the fact of evolution (all living things are cousins), and the theory of what drives it (they usually mean natural selection, and they may contrast it with rival theories such as Lamarck’s theory of ‘use and disuse’ and the ‘inheritance of acquired characteristics’). But Darwin himself thought of both as theories in the tentative, hypothetical, conjectural sense. This was because, in those days, the available evidence was less compelling and it was still possible for reputable scientists to dispute both evolution and natural selection. Nowadays it is no longer possible to dispute the fact of evolution itself – it has graduated to become a theorum or obviously supported fact – but it could still (just) be doubted that natural selection is its major driving force.” (Greatest Show on Earth p. 17)
He also mentions:
“Darwin came to publish On the Origin of Species in 1859, he had amassed enough evidence to propel evolution itself, though still not natural selection, a long way towards the status of fact. Indeed, it was this elevation from hypothesis towards fact that occupied Darwin for most of his great book. The elevation has continued until, today, there is no longer a doubt in any serious mind, and scientists speak, at least informally, of the fact of evolution. All reputable biologists go on to agree that natural selection is one of its most important driving forces, although – as some biologists insist more than others – not the only one.” (Greatest Show on Earth p.18)
And Jerry Coyne agrees:
“Because a theory is accepted as “true” only when its assertions and predictions are tested over and over again, and confirmed repeatedly, there is no one moment when a scientific theory suddenly becomes a scientific fact. A theory becomes a fact (or a “truth”) when so much evidence has accumulated in its favor – and there is no decisive evidence against it – that virtually all reasonable people will accept it. All scientific truth is provisional, subject to modification in light of new evidence. There is no alarm bell that goes off to tell scientist that they’ve finally hit on the ultimate, unchangeable truths about nature. As we’ll see, it is possible that despite thousands of observations that support Darwinism, new data might show it to be wrong. I think this is unlikely, but scientists, unlike zealots, can’t afford to become arrogant about what they accept as true.” (Why Evolution is True p. 16)
"Obvious conclusion: we can provisionally assume that natural selection is the cause of all adaptive evolution – though not of every feature of evolution." (Why Evolution is True p. 143)
-
90
Can this logic be refuted?
by notsurewheretogo ini was an elder until march 2012 until i resigned.
i then stopped going to meetings in october 2012 and have enjoyed 9 months of freedom that i have found to be jouful!
i loved learning ttatt and sites like this and jwfacts.com have been excellent.. i told the elders that i needed a break and that they should not contact me unless it was a social visit and true to their word they have done that.
-
-
cognisonance
I see my logic that has no answer, either Holy Spirit teaches us wrong things or the men teach us wrong things...it's one or the other...is that right? Is there any answer that would negate my logic?
False Dichotomy. While they won't tell you this, it isn't an either or situation. You leave out the possibility that out of the thousands of Gods man has worshiped, none of them exist (including the Judeo-Christian god of the bible), so both the Holy Spirt and Men could also be wrong.
