Xander

Joined

• started 94 topics
• posted 2,045 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Xander

• 
  114

  15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

  by JanH in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  scientific american runs an article rebutting some of the most common creationist arguments.

  short and to the point.. this is the first page.

  click for the following ones.. see http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleid=000d4fec-7d5b-1d07-8e49809ec588eedf&catid=2.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Xander

  Is it not possible that people are not convinced of evolution simply because they are not convinced.

  Those aren't the people I (and, I suspect, Jan) have a problem with. If they have an open mind and are considering the evidence, great.

  We have several posters here that do not. THAT is what I have a problem with. They read through pages of the material we site...essentially looking for a line where the author says 'elephants are grey'. Then they cry 'HA! There are WHITE ELEPHANTS!! EVERYTHING THEY SAY IS FALSE!!!' and that's the extent of their argument against evolution.

  It's ridiculous and irritating. There ARE some possibly valid arguments against evolution, which are the source of some interesting debate in the academic community, and could be here. Those are interesting, and I welcome them.

  Uneducated 'everything must have a maker because everything in my limited experience does' arguments are nothing more than irritating.

  I do not accept such a definition as applying to these small changes

  Then you're wrong. That's *exactly* what evolution is. At least one commonly accepted theory holds that all macroevolution (speciation) is, is a combination of smaller - microevolutionary - changes. At some point, all those minor changes end up causing the two variants of a species to stop breeding together, which accelerates the process of speciation.
• 
  38

  IF BETHEL MONITORS this board what are they saying

  by minimus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  it's been said many times that bethel monitors this board.

  if they do, what do you think they're thinking?

  do you think this board could cause a staunch bethelite to question things?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Xander

  A lawyer and a JW

  LOL!

  I don't believe in hell, but if there WERE such a place...

  that, there is the express ticket!
• 
  4

  Pagan daybook

  by gsx1138 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  with all the recent wts witchcraft threads i thought i would share a page from my pagan daybook program which i check every day.

  ok it looks like it won't let me copy the page so i'll summerize.. .

  august 5, 2002. monday - the day of the moon goddess, selene, luna and mani.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Xander

  I dunno, gsx, I didn't see "sacrificing babies" or "drinking christian blood" anywhere on that list...

  you SURE you're a pagan??
• 
  114

  15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

  by JanH in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  scientific american runs an article rebutting some of the most common creationist arguments.

  short and to the point.. this is the first page.

  click for the following ones.. see http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleid=000d4fec-7d5b-1d07-8e49809ec588eedf&catid=2.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Xander

  Try building something with them sometime and you will find stone and wood don't just "stay put where they are" a proper foundation and supports or braces have to be put in at the right depth, width and angles.

  No, AGAIN, you missed the point of his comment. He meant - if you leave a pile of stone and wood in one spot...it doesn't change.

  Atoms, on the other hand, when grouped together....DO change. They form complex molecules.
• 
  27

  Paganism is ok when we say it is

  by zenpunk in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  we all probably know already that jws don't celebrate christmas, labeling it a pagan holiday and telling its whole sordid history to anyone who'll listen.

  however, i found out that wedding rings are pagan in origin.

  the jws know it but they include the exchange of rings during the wedding ceremony, explaining that rings are exchanged as an outward symbol to everyone that this couple is married, thus justifying the pagan origin of the whole thing.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Xander

  LOL @ Crazy

  The 'new light' JW calender:

  Sunday -> 'Russelday'
  Monday -> 'Rutherfordday'
  Tuesday -> 'Knorrday'
  Wednesday -> 'Franzday' (hmmm....maybe make that 'Friday'? Sounds the same. Plus, 'TGIF' still works!! 'Thank God it's Franzday' does have a nice ring to it....)
  Thursday -> 'Henschelday'

  hmmmm....other suggestions? We've still got 12 months to go, too!

  Edited by - Xander on 5 August 2002 17:19:3
• 
  114

  15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

  by JanH in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  scientific american runs an article rebutting some of the most common creationist arguments.

  short and to the point.. this is the first page.

  click for the following ones.. see http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleid=000d4fec-7d5b-1d07-8e49809ec588eedf&catid=2.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Xander

  Gods above, it's like banging your head against a wall sometimes...

  change in ... ALLELES.

  And how, kind sir, DO YOU THINK THAT HAPPENS?!?!?

  An organism cannot change its alleles once it is already alive (well, and hope to survive the process, anyway).
• 
  27

  Paganism is ok when we say it is

  by zenpunk in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  we all probably know already that jws don't celebrate christmas, labeling it a pagan holiday and telling its whole sordid history to anyone who'll listen.

  however, i found out that wedding rings are pagan in origin.

  the jws know it but they include the exchange of rings during the wedding ceremony, explaining that rings are exchanged as an outward symbol to everyone that this couple is married, thus justifying the pagan origin of the whole thing.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Xander

  Uhhh...sure, Duck....and mind telling me who 'Mars', 'Mercury', 'Jupiter', 'Venus', and 'Saturn' were, such that they got planets (then days of the week) named after them to BEGIN with?

  Oh, that's right...pagan again.
• 
  27

  Paganism is ok when we say it is

  by zenpunk in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  we all probably know already that jws don't celebrate christmas, labeling it a pagan holiday and telling its whole sordid history to anyone who'll listen.

  however, i found out that wedding rings are pagan in origin.

  the jws know it but they include the exchange of rings during the wedding ceremony, explaining that rings are exchanged as an outward symbol to everyone that this couple is married, thus justifying the pagan origin of the whole thing.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Xander

  Eating, drinking, breathing and sex has a pagan origin with that mentality

  What?

  I Don't understand?

  Days of the week ARE pagan names. Most holidays DO have pagan origins. Wedding rings, honeymoons, wind chimes!, etc. - all pagan origin.

  Some okay for JWs, some not.

  Who makes the rules?

  (Well, we all know NOW who makes the rules - but it was difficult to figure out how 'god' picked and chose which were good and bad pagan customs when we were IN the bOrg)

  Edited by - Xander on 5 August 2002 17:1:20
• 
  114

  15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

  by JanH in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  scientific american runs an article rebutting some of the most common creationist arguments.

  short and to the point.. this is the first page.

  click for the following ones.. see http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleid=000d4fec-7d5b-1d07-8e49809ec588eedf&catid=2.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Xander

  dub:

  You missed the point of the analogy. It was asking 'why are there still adults alive after they give birth to children'.

  The point being that nothing in the process of creating a new generation causes the previous to suddenly disappear. Or, as the analogy goes, there is nothing in the change of a small group of a species that causes the rest of the species to disappear.

  If you were actually trying to understand it, it isn't very hard to see.
• 
  114

  15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

  by JanH in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  scientific american runs an article rebutting some of the most common creationist arguments.

  short and to the point.. this is the first page.

  click for the following ones.. see http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleid=000d4fec-7d5b-1d07-8e49809ec588eedf&catid=2.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Xander

  there is always a bunch of posts from die hard creationists who'd rather drink poison than getting an education

  Yeah, they always come out of the woodwork.

  I just don't get why they can't accept evolution. I mean, if the Catholic church can still have their faith and their god and accept evolution....

  It's not like it HAS to conflict with religious beliefs.