do wives just tag along?.
i'm sure this applies to husbands and children too, but i feel mostly women.. in the congregation there were often brothers viewed as strong , in postions of responsability such as min's and elders.usually in my experience the wives were no where near as "spiritual".. in fact it often seamed as though there "service" was based on their husbands.. i've seen this in men to but not as much.. now the proof of this is in whether a large number of spouces leave the truth without much persuading needed by their more forthright wives or husbands.. heres an example.. mine.. my wife has never read an apostate book and doesn't look on the internet, but as soon as i stoped going to the hall so did she.. another contrary experience is of a prominant elder in france who was well known and gave talks on the district assemblies.as soon as his wife died he left the truth as he was only going to please her.. whats your experience been.. (please don't get mad at me ladies i'm only talking about what i've seen)
writerpen.
What you just wrote sort of adds proof actually.
Think about it.When women want to do something and the husband doesnt , usually he won't.Hence mother draging their kids to the meeting alone.
While when men descide to become a witness more often than not thier wives come along too.
do wives just tag along?.
i'm sure this applies to husbands and children too, but i feel mostly women.. in the congregation there were often brothers viewed as strong , in postions of responsability such as min's and elders.usually in my experience the wives were no where near as "spiritual".. in fact it often seamed as though there "service" was based on their husbands.. i've seen this in men to but not as much.. now the proof of this is in whether a large number of spouces leave the truth without much persuading needed by their more forthright wives or husbands.. heres an example.. mine.. my wife has never read an apostate book and doesn't look on the internet, but as soon as i stoped going to the hall so did she.. another contrary experience is of a prominant elder in france who was well known and gave talks on the district assemblies.as soon as his wife died he left the truth as he was only going to please her.. whats your experience been.. (please don't get mad at me ladies i'm only talking about what i've seen)
Do wives just tag along?
I'm sure this applies to husbands and children too, but i feel mostly women.
In the congregation there were often brothers viewed as strong , in postions of responsability such as Min's and elders.Usually in my experience the wives were no where near as "spiritual".
In fact it often seamed as though there "service" was based on their husbands.
I've seen this in men to but not as much.
Now the proof of this is in whether a large number of spouces leave the truth without much persuading needed by their more forthright wives or husbands.
Heres an example.
Mine.
My wife has never read an apostate book and doesn't look on the internet, but as soon as I stoped going to the hall so did she.
Another contrary experience is of a prominant elder in France who was well known and gave talks on the District assemblies.As soon as his wife died he left the truth as he was only going to please her.
Whats your experience been.
(Please don't get mad at me ladies I'm only talking about what I've seen)
http://www.gctelegram.com/news/2002/march/2/story5.html.
man acquitted of molestation charges .
by jaclyn o'malley.
Abaddon.
Enjoyed your good reasoning.
Thats just like how I see these matters.
(the title is hyperbole bt the way as is the use of ape, i just didn't know the name of the creature that is supposed to have developed speech)).
something is puzzling me about the history of humankind and the stories that have been passed down through generations as fact.
the various histories of how man came to be.. which leads me to the question,.
"The point is that the presence of language is not evidence of divine intervention."
That wasn't what I was suggesting.
I'm looking at here noe the point that has beenraised that speech must have developed slowly over a long period of time.Maybe it did, but is there evidence of this?
Lets consider a few things.
Can anyone show what the many thousands of stages of speech would be if it has developed very slowly over thousands and thousands of years?
Can they show that many small alterations and defects to the speech centres in the brain only result in little changes in speaking ability and comprehention?
Do current well known defects and damage to the brian result in only small differences in speech patterns?
What numerous small changes to speech centres would be continually advantageous to humen like creatures but not soo small that they will not make a difference and how many of these are divisable into thousands and thousands of years?
If changes are small what prevents degression back to previous states?
What types of enviroment could only direct these changes in the human line not others?
What types of enviroments are needed to select small changes continually and casues extiction of other related specises without these changes in their family line?
In fact many of these question apply to all the brain functions we have.
I'm not saying that any of this proves it didn't happen that way .But at the moment a lot of our statments about how evolution works and what has happened biologically in the past are conjecture based on neat models that are not fully proved to have worked uniformly through out the entire history of earth.
Through out the last few hundred year scientist have gone through many models as regard the way atoms and the universe works.They have tested models and as evidence has become easier to find due to better technology they have had to revise their models to continually fit in.
Often very small measurements were needed in order to show a current model to be flawed.
Physicists have had the luxury of being able to test out many of there ideas and to view the universe with ever greater clarity.
The same has not been so true with looking back into earths past.It is not so easy to measure the past as much of it no longer remains.
How do we know that current models really work unless they can be fully tested?
Should we be so confident that are current ideas are so correct?
This does not mean that we should invoke some God or other as a cause but that we should continually question what we think we know and ask why and how do we know it?
The way our understanding of history stands at the moment is basically that the entire realm of written human history is completely wrong.Everything that ancinet people believed or taught about our origins is false .Whether this is true or not I dont know and am just encouraging debate on the issue.
How can we know there is no grain of truth in anything they say?
make your prediction here.. so what do you think will happen to the society in the next ten years.. theres a big prize waiting here for anyone who gets it right.
a gaint chocolate cake!
which can only be eaten in ten years time.. so i make my prediction first.. 1.the society will have had a major doctrine change as to 1914 and 144,000.. 2.most will leave the org due to disillusionment.. 3.there will be a breakaway group of more fanatical witness they will be the orthodox witnesses.. there will also be a group of the liberal witnesses but will not last as long while the other group will grow.. do i win the cake?
Kingdom ministry 2012.
Orthodox version.
New meeting arragements:We now have been blessed with the spiritual provision of 14 meetings a week, 2 meetings each day.
Also pioneers will be pleased to note that they have the privilage of now doing 200 hours a month.
Publishers please remmeber to report anyone doing under 50 hours is now considered inactive.
Kingdom Ministry 2012.
Liberal version.
New meeting arrangements: whatever.
Pioneers,What?
publishers, they print make books don't they?Burp
make your prediction here.. so what do you think will happen to the society in the next ten years.. theres a big prize waiting here for anyone who gets it right.
a gaint chocolate cake!
which can only be eaten in ten years time.. so i make my prediction first.. 1.the society will have had a major doctrine change as to 1914 and 144,000.. 2.most will leave the org due to disillusionment.. 3.there will be a breakaway group of more fanatical witness they will be the orthodox witnesses.. there will also be a group of the liberal witnesses but will not last as long while the other group will grow.. do i win the cake?
Make your prediction here.
So what do you think will happen to the society in the next ten years.
Theres a big prize waiting here for anyone who gets it right. A gaint chocolate cake! Which can only be eaten in ten years time.
So I make my prediction first.
1.The society will have had a major doctrine change as to 1914 and 144,000.
2.Most will leave the org due to disillusionment.
3.There will be a breakaway group of more fanatical witness they will be the orthodox witnesses.
There will also be a group of the liberal witnesses but will not last as long while the other group will grow.
Do I win the cake?
(the title is hyperbole bt the way as is the use of ape, i just didn't know the name of the creature that is supposed to have developed speech)).
something is puzzling me about the history of humankind and the stories that have been passed down through generations as fact.
the various histories of how man came to be.. which leads me to the question,.
Hi Xander.
Lets look at a few points.
"Also if speech did develope so slowly why is it so wide spread?Wouldn't different groups of humans through out the world have different speaking capabillities?
Do you realize how silly this sound? Imagine, say, a world were people in North America mostly speak English. But, then, there is another continent - let's call it Africa - were people DON'T speak English, but a number of tribal dialects.
Are entire words and concepts missing from their language? YES! Is it obvious their language 'evolved' along different lines than the Romantic languages. Well, yeah."
I think here we are confusing language and speech.
As far as I know you can take a human baby born to any race around the world and they will learn the language of their country.
Doesn't matter if its english french or Boga woga.
We all have the same structures in or brain to understand language.
To interperate gramma and sounds.
All humans have this same ability.
So language ability as we know had to be in place within human before they spread around the globe.
"I]Take Autisum. Although people do have it to different degrees it is quite a major difference.[/I]
Don't know why you keep bringing this up. Autism is a mental defect. Speech isn't - many (?most?) animals can do it. It is just the degree of information that can be communicated that changes."
What we call defects are what other call genetic change.
It is only a defect when it is of no use , if the defect is useful and can be passed on it is now an hereditary advantage.
The point is top show that these changes that can occour in the human brain are often large and have other side effects.
Although there are smaller differences that can occour we musn't ignore the fact that often small changes in brain stucture can have larger effects and also effect seamingly unrelated parts of the brain.
Can we really asume that laguage and other abilities has developed only slowly through time around the world when even today people are born with major defects or differences to their brain stucture?
how much of what we know is built on trust in others?.
when you examine what you believe and why you believe it , how much is built on trust that information you read or hear is correct?.
of course none of us have time to check every thing out and it seams perfectly reasonable to me for us to have to trust others.. but we have all been burnt in the past.. sometimes what initally seams reasonable turns out to be false.. prehaps we can look at the methods used by people to see whether research is trust worthy.. but unless we personnaly can test these methods how can we vouch for them?.
How much of what we know is built on trust in others?
When you examine what you believe and why you believe it , how much is built on trust that information you read or hear is correct?
Of course none of us have time to check every thing out and it seams perfectly reasonable to me for us to have to trust others.
But we have all been burnt in the past.
Sometimes what initally seams reasonable turns out to be false.
prehaps we can look at the methods used by people to see whether research is trust worthy.
But unless we personnaly can test these methods how can we vouch for them?
I think most of us take ma lot of things on trust.
Most of the time this works out, but maybe the people we are putting trust in have themselves built their ideas on others they have had to put trust in.
It wouldn't take many errors down the line to invalidate alot of conclusions which have been built on trusting others.
This is not ment to be taken negativly like well we carnt know anything, so why bother.But we sometimes need to question why we belive things.Thw witness idealology at one time seemed a reasonable model to me.Noe it doesnt.But does this automatically make other views right?
Well there are plenty of them out there.
But sometimes the absolutness of some peoples beliefs makes me wonder.No one on earth has enough knowledge or time to test everthing out , yet many insist that certain ideas are definate when the evidence is incomplete.
How much of mans general picture of the history of man is built on trust other peoples conclusions and building on them.
Could there have been errors made along the way that could radically alter our perspective?
(the title is hyperbole bt the way as is the use of ape, i just didn't know the name of the creature that is supposed to have developed speech)).
something is puzzling me about the history of humankind and the stories that have been passed down through generations as fact.
the various histories of how man came to be.. which leads me to the question,.
"Human speech developed the same way. It probably took hundreds, if not thousands of generations. One person looking back would not see such a disparity of capabilities to make stories about it."
For a sart we carnt know this as we werent there and there is no record of this.
Of course it could develope over time but when we see people today who through inherited mutation and such have a speech problem or any other mental problems ( which speech would be to a non speeker)it usually involves a big chuck of difference rather than small differences.
Take Autisum. Although people do have it to different degrees it is quite a major difference.This doesn't develope over thousands of years but you have it or you dont.
Can we really say these things took thousands of years without the proof?
Isn't only by employing a circuliar argument that we reach this conclustion?Saying that evolution as we understand it today is true therefore these things took thousands of years?
Also if speech did develope so slowly why is it so wide spread?Wouldn't different groups of humans through out the world have different speaking capabillities?
Not different languages as the same type of brain structure is used by all humans to understand speech.
How would speech be passed on to man through out the world unless they were all interbreading, which they couldn't do unless they all lived close together.
As to the stories of Gods and such, my point is not that they told these stories because they were clever enought to work out where they came from themselves but because were they told this by the said creatures?
Of course I am not saying any of this is true.I just like to look at different sides of the story.Only last night I was debating with a creationist as to the merits of evolution.
(the title is hyperbole bt the way as is the use of ape, i just didn't know the name of the creature that is supposed to have developed speech)).
something is puzzling me about the history of humankind and the stories that have been passed down through generations as fact.
the various histories of how man came to be.. which leads me to the question,.
By the way the title ( Monkey stories)is just an exaggeration.
It doen't matter how long it takes for full speech to develope
If they could speak whether they wre hominids or not they would notice others around who were not as advanced.Why wouldn't they have told stories?
If you can speek you can tell stories.
Today we have mentally retarded people these are in the minority , but then wouldn't it be the other way round?
You would hve to have groups of human like creatures going around similar but retarded in some ways.
why no stories about these?
"But more importantly, do you have any idea what sort of man your great great great grandfather was? How about any of your ancestors before grandparents or great-grandparents? I'm guessing no.
So why would you expect early man to have reliable information about theirs?"
The point is they did have stories about their ancestors.
Were they based on any reality?
All anyone can do is guess , because they weren't there at the time.
