sleepy

Joined

• started 402 topics
• posted 1,282 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by sleepy

• 
  8

  ANYBODY FROM FRANCE

  by bj in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  bonjour,.

  i would like to know how many french post on this board.

  (we all know charles chasson) recently i saw the name georges.. can you please write me:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  sleepy

  I'm from Wales.
  For all the Americans thats a small town just outside LONDON

  Bj I'll get to you soon I'm having trouble with my E-mail
• 
  68

  How we Know that Evolution is a Fact

  by JanH in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  there has been a number of threads related to evolution in the last month or so.

  some posters, like penn, subscribes to a form of creationism, which i for this purpose will define as denial of large scale evolution (sometimes called macro-evolution).. even saner people sometimes alleges that scientists are unnecessarily 'dogmatic' about evolution, and that this is 'just a theory.

  ' these people may be recent exjws or jws, still believing the watchtower propaganda against evolutionary science, or accepting similar claims from various fundamentalist preachers and groups.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  sleepy

  H again REM
  Lets put it a different way.
  What was trying to say was that the DNA errors etc did not in itself prove that there was not a external source of input into human life.
  I wasn't trying presenting another theory as to how I thought the errors got there . just trying to show that it was not the only option conseptualy possible.And that the evidence was not water tight.
  I think there is a diffeence between what is conceptualy possible and what seems reasonable to conclude on available evidence.
  Before we conclude that a matter is definate we must consider conceptual possibilities.
• 
  68

  How we Know that Evolution is a Fact

  by JanH in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  there has been a number of threads related to evolution in the last month or so.

  some posters, like penn, subscribes to a form of creationism, which i for this purpose will define as denial of large scale evolution (sometimes called macro-evolution).. even saner people sometimes alleges that scientists are unnecessarily 'dogmatic' about evolution, and that this is 'just a theory.

  ' these people may be recent exjws or jws, still believing the watchtower propaganda against evolutionary science, or accepting similar claims from various fundamentalist preachers and groups.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  sleepy

  When I answer to a post about evolution please dont assume I believe anything unless I directly mention it.
  Anyway
  Hello Mindchild
  Remmember that although there are many defects that humans can suffer from which are the result of mutations this is not enough to cause changes to populatons.
  Not only do you need the defect ,which could be big but you need to be able to pass it on. Also inorder to create the situation were all those with out that defect die out and leave only the altered ones there has to be a type of enviroment that will cause the others to die out without the option of moving.
  All these need to happen for mutations to cause complexity we have today.
  How can we say that Brain functions can be caused by this process if we don't even know how the Brain works?
  Or that material mutaions to the Brain ie getting bigger can cause it to become more intelligent or complex when size (at a certain level) has almost nothing to do with Brain power?
  Just because the modern layer is thin has no bearing on how easy it would be to arrive at.
  The complexity and funtionability is more important.

  Please appeciate my beliefs and opinions on these matters are a work in progress and I thank all for your insights.
• 
  68

  How we Know that Evolution is a Fact

  by JanH in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  there has been a number of threads related to evolution in the last month or so.

  some posters, like penn, subscribes to a form of creationism, which i for this purpose will define as denial of large scale evolution (sometimes called macro-evolution).. even saner people sometimes alleges that scientists are unnecessarily 'dogmatic' about evolution, and that this is 'just a theory.

  ' these people may be recent exjws or jws, still believing the watchtower propaganda against evolutionary science, or accepting similar claims from various fundamentalist preachers and groups.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  sleepy

  REM

  No ,no ,no ,no no,
  I don't presuppose a creator.
  I have no idea whether there is one or not.
  I dont believe Error in DNA is evidence of a creator.
  What I was saying was that just because there are errors and souch things does not initself prove there was no outside interference regarding life on earth.
• 
  68

  How we Know that Evolution is a Fact

  by JanH in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  there has been a number of threads related to evolution in the last month or so.

  some posters, like penn, subscribes to a form of creationism, which i for this purpose will define as denial of large scale evolution (sometimes called macro-evolution).. even saner people sometimes alleges that scientists are unnecessarily 'dogmatic' about evolution, and that this is 'just a theory.

  ' these people may be recent exjws or jws, still believing the watchtower propaganda against evolutionary science, or accepting similar claims from various fundamentalist preachers and groups.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  sleepy

  Abbandon

  I was saying that I believe the DNA is the left overs but that drawing the conclusion that this fact only fits evolution is wrong.
  It is based on presupposing what a God or creator would be like and stating what he would or wouldn't do or be capable of.

  I now that the Brain would have existed in simpler form long before humans , but the human Brain is vastly different to that of other animals.
  Evidence for such things as writing for example don't streach back more than thousands of years yet the ability to write is very complex.

  I carnt see how natural selection accomplished this and other things in such a short time unless a big jump was made or there is some unknown catalyst, which if true puts doubts on many evolutionary ideas.
• 
  3

  Watchtower logic / Going in circles .

  by sleepy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  here is some devestating logic to show who the "faithful and discrete slave"(matt24:45) are.. since all truth about the bible comes from the f.d.s(watchtower aug 4 2001 pg14)and we can not understand it without them, only the f.d.s can know who the f.d.s of matt 24 are.. yes i'll say that again, only the f.d.s are allowed to by god know who the f.d.s are because god only reveals the truth of the bible to the f.d.s.. arn't we glad about that?.

  i'll challenge anyone to find a flaw in this logic.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  sleepy

  Here is some devestating logic to show who the "Faithful and discrete slave"(Matt24:45) are.
  Since all truth about the bible comes from the F.D.S(Watchtower aug 4 2001 pg14)and we can not understand it without them, only the F.D.S can know who the F.D.S of Matt 24 are.

  Yes I'll say that again, only the F.D.S are allowed to by God know who the F.D.S are because God only reveals the truth of the Bible to the F.D.S.
  Arn't we glad about that?
  I'll challenge anyone to find a flaw in this logic.
• 
  5

  Apostate Overseer's visit

  by r51785 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  brother ao, i am no longer a youth and therefore am struggling with the problem of self-abuse.

  this is a habit i have tried to start but have had great difficulties with.

  sometimes i am too tired at night and fall asleep.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  sleepy

  Youre all in trouble here.
  Did you think you could break off from the chosen thread and start a new one?
  Dont you know that independece from the apostate congregation can lead to the path of light?
  Only one source of untruth and lies has been chosen and you can not get rotten food anywhere else.
  Repent my brothers and join the only true post.(Or is that false?)
• 
  68

  How we Know that Evolution is a Fact

  by JanH in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  there has been a number of threads related to evolution in the last month or so.

  some posters, like penn, subscribes to a form of creationism, which i for this purpose will define as denial of large scale evolution (sometimes called macro-evolution).. even saner people sometimes alleges that scientists are unnecessarily 'dogmatic' about evolution, and that this is 'just a theory.

  ' these people may be recent exjws or jws, still believing the watchtower propaganda against evolutionary science, or accepting similar claims from various fundamentalist preachers and groups.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  sleepy

  I must add that my beef is not with the idea that animals' DNA can mutate and change its offspring , but that natural selection alone can cause this to result in the life forms we have on earth today.
• 
  14

  What would happen if Bethal closed tomorrow?

  by sleepy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  what would happen if bethal closed tomorrow?.

  what do you think.how would witnesses react?.

  do you think they would just carry on as normal or take it as a sign that they were wrong?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  sleepy

  What would happen if Bethal closed tomorrow?
  What do you think.How would witnesses react?
  Do you think they would just carry on as normal or take it as a sign that they were wrong?
  Maybe they would split up into little groups and eventualy form seperate religons.
  I would predict lots of suicides and dpression for people.
  How safe would the GB be from harm, from former members?
• 
  68

  How we Know that Evolution is a Fact

  by JanH in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  there has been a number of threads related to evolution in the last month or so.

  some posters, like penn, subscribes to a form of creationism, which i for this purpose will define as denial of large scale evolution (sometimes called macro-evolution).. even saner people sometimes alleges that scientists are unnecessarily 'dogmatic' about evolution, and that this is 'just a theory.

  ' these people may be recent exjws or jws, still believing the watchtower propaganda against evolutionary science, or accepting similar claims from various fundamentalist preachers and groups.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  sleepy

  Hello Janh.
  Here we go.
  I belive that the scientific method of investigating the world around us is the best we have.
  I also believe that there is evdence that life has progress from simple to more complex life over long periods of time.
  I dont promote the idea that there is or isnt a God.
  But I do believe there is not enought known about the universe to draw definite conclusions just yet.
  I do not feel that the matter of how life on earth got to its present state is a closed book.
  The evdience that you point to does not seem in itself to lead directly to the conclusion that you make.
  The fact that there are parts of DNA code within us that are similar or the same as other animals or are defected and not used does not automaticly lead to the conclusion that all life forms are linked in an soley evolutionary fashion with no outside factors involved.
  There is no reason why this could not be the case ( the DNA evidence)if special creation was involved as we do not know what it would take in order to create life and what information may be contained by many animals but not used as a leftover of a creative act.
  For example when we make somethimg as humans there is often a waste product.Could it be that inorder to create life there is waste DNA involved?Often it is assumed that if there was a creator or a being that has interfeared with life on earth , that they somehow are perfect or would not make errors or that all life would be neat and tidy.This is just assumption.
  For all we konw if there was a creator he could be a bumbling bafoon.
  I'm not saying this evidence does not give weight to the idea that life forms are linked purely by evolution just that is not the only conclusion.
  There is a lot about how humans and animals work that we dont know
  and i look forawrd to finding out more.
  One thing that has always puzzled me is the fact that the Human Brain is supposedly the most comlpex thing in the known universe yet took less time to evolve than the back bone or lung.
  Wouldn't this suggest that there is some catalyst involved.
  That could be another being or a purely natural event.