adamah

Joined

• started 33 topics
• posted 2,372 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by adamah

• 
  7

  What is wrong with this headline?

  by adamah in

  1. social
  2. entertainment

  can anyone spot the basic problem with the question asked on the cover of la weekly, for an article on alien encounters?.

  .

  adam.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  adamah

  FFF said-

  ? If the aliens didn't come to earth (or there is no proof of it), how were they 'encountered'? Or~ How can you encounter an alien if it didn't come to earth (and wouldn't the encounter itself constitute proof for the believer)? The ALIEN ENCOUNTERS line is misleading? Is that what you're getting at?

  All good observations, yes, and close, but no ceegar!

  Laika said- Is it because you're being asked to prove a negative?

  Even closer, Laika, so you win the ceegar!

  It's all about who bears the burden of proof to support a claim; in this case, the "emphatic true believers in UFOs" are unable to prove their case that aliens have visited Earth, so the story should end there. Where the headline goes off the tracks is when they ask, "but can you prove they haven't?"

  The unbeliever (i.e. the one listening to the believer's claim) has NO OBLIGATION to disprove anything, since as you point out the work of proving a negative falls on the one making the claim to others, and they always bear that responsibility. The job is on them to convince others to accept their claim.

  Of course, the old saying is, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", and that holds for evidence of aliens visiting Earth, too, just as it does for any other extraordinary claim.

  Adam

  EDIT: yup, Gentledawn, we cross-posted, but you nailed it. Sorry Laika, but you've got to hand over and share the ceegar with Gentledawn, so don't bogart it!
• 
  108

  "Jehovah ALWAYS had/used an organization". How would you reply?

  by EdenOne in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  in a recent meeting with elders, an argument was used to the effect that jehovah has always [= throughout history] used, or operated through, an organization; therefore, the wts must be that organization today, since god must be using one.

  naturally, i know what arguments i've used to counter that argument.

  but i'm interested in hearing yours.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  adamah

  Aurelius said-

  Paragragh 17 of the same study article:

  "17 As we learned in the preceding article, the harvest season began in 1914. In that year, a number of important developments began to unfold. Jesus was enthroned as King, and the last days began. ( Rev. 11:15 ) From 1914 to the early part of 1919, Jesus accompanied his Father to the spiritual temple to do a much-needed inspection and cleansing work. * ( Mal. 3:1-4 ) Then, starting in 1919, it was time to begin gathering the wheat. Was it finally the time for Christ to appoint one organized channel to dispense spiritual food? Yes, indeed!"

  -------

  'to appoint' implies to me that an organized channel was not previously appointed.

  Sorry, but 'to appoint' only means to formally assign the task or responsibility to someone; it doesn't mean someone else wasn't unofficially serving in the role before someone was officially appointed to the job.

  It happens ALL the time, when gov'ts are overthrown, and the ruling party is ousted. Usually the rebels set up an ad-hoc (informal) gov't to serve as the de-facto leadership in the interim, but usually the group tries to solidify and justify their power grab by passing a constitution, appointing cabinet members, even possibly holding free elections, etc.

  Adam
• 
  2596

  The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday

  by cofty in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.

  we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.

  they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  adamah

  Caliber said-

  There are so called "natural disasters" like S&G that God does take responsibly for... Cofty ethic'srequired that he be responsible for all of them.

  Well, being that natural disasters were Jehovah's primary means of interacting with humans in the OT in order to express his disapproval (from the Flood, to S&G's fire and brimstone of volcanic activity), if the shoe fits.....

  Of course, ALL such events in ancient times were ascribed to the anger of the deities in the region, as shown by Pompeii's destruction by volcanic Mt Vesuvius in 79 AD: it was blamed on the anger of Venus and Hercules. That's just the way ancient people thought of such events occurring in their World, since they didn't have the benefit of later human scientific knowledge, and didn't know anything about volcanos like we (well, at least, some people) do today.

  That's why I said discriminating between 'natural evil' and 'moral evil' is anachronistic here, since the differentiation occurred much later, AFTER science started to discover the actual causes; humans didn't have to believe that some deities caused all such natural disasters.

  Cofty said- This is thoroughly dishonest, special pleading and no reasonable person is buying it.

  Caliber said- You mean like "all true Scotsman " or all people of the world ? Some of us beleive God is special, not all though....

  No, not at all like the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, since this is about basic defininitions of words.

  Caliber, if you think its rational to believe in a being BEFORE you've seen ANY compelling evidence, and even AFTER you've been presented with evidence of the contradictory nature of claims made about such a being, then NO, you cannot call yourself a rational person, and you certainly cannot self-identify as a skeptic, one who requires completing an examination of sufficient compelling evidence BEFORE accepting a belief as truth.

  We could be talking of aliens, UFO, pixies, fairies, or Jehovah; you cannot "special plead" for one proposed imaginary being out of that list, and still honestly call yourself a rational/skeptic (well, you CAN, thanks to the seemingly-magical powers of self-delusion, i.e. telling yourself flattering ego-bolstering lies in order to justify one's hypocrisy).

  Adam
• 
  43

  Is there anything you could do forever that wouln't get boring?

  by mynameislame in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  not sure when i came to this conclusion but i can't imagine living forever.

  after a while i think i would be completly bored with everything.. not saying i wouln't like to live for a few hundred years or maybe even a few thousand if i could travel through space and discover other universes star trek style.

  but the thought of living forever sounds like it would eventually become a complete drag.. maybe i'm wrong, maybe after a thousand years or so you would foregt all the stuff that happend at the beginning and just start over in an infinite loop..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  adamah

  Like the comedianne says in her act:

  "A girlfriend of mine was in labor for 24 hours! 24 HOURS!?!? I can't even imagine doing something that feels good (like sex) for 24 hours, let alone something painful!"
• 
  7

  What is wrong with this headline?

  by adamah in

  1. social
  2. entertainment

  can anyone spot the basic problem with the question asked on the cover of la weekly, for an article on alien encounters?.

  .

  adam.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  adamah

  Can anyone spot the basic problem with the question asked on the cover of LA Weekly, for an article on alien encounters?

  

  Adam
• 
  108

  "Jehovah ALWAYS had/used an organization". How would you reply?

  by EdenOne in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  in a recent meeting with elders, an argument was used to the effect that jehovah has always [= throughout history] used, or operated through, an organization; therefore, the wts must be that organization today, since god must be using one.

  naturally, i know what arguments i've used to counter that argument.

  but i'm interested in hearing yours.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  adamah

  TEC, can you provide some scriptural references to back up those many assertions of "we are not meant to...."?

  EdenOne said-

  So, the "channel" has always existed, but it wasn't always organized in an .... organization...?

  Uh, yeah? Have you not dealt with an organization that was disorganized? Have you never dealt with the WTBTS, the US military, USPS, or even <wait for it...> Congress?

  An organization doesn't cease to exist, simply because it's disorganized; it would need to officially be disbanded. Until it's scuttled, it serves as an ad-hoc arrangement, which often is disorganized.

  Adam
• 
  31

  next week's bible reading (Gen. 1-5) stumpers.for your "in" family conversations & sly comments.

  by prologos in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  you may add many, but here are two:.

  1) vegetation made on day 3, animals formed day 5,6, but- then.

  in gen 2, man seems to be the primary creation, and vegetation and then animals were formed from the dust and brought to him to name them.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  adamah

  Theredeemer said-

  It would make more sense if WT stated that God gave Adam and Eve a choice "You can either live forever or have knowledge like me". Satan tricks Adam and Eve into eating the tree of knowledge by saying that God lied and the knowledge fruit grants both.

  Actually, the WTBTS goes out of it's way to bury the Hebrew word which all other translations render correctly which describes WHY the fruit was desirious for Eve to eat: it granted eaters not just generic 'knowledge', but WISDOM. ALL other translations render it properly, but only the NWT mistranslates the Hebrew word.

  I discuss that deliberate mistranslation of Genesis 3, where the WTBTS apparently decided to bury the evidence which only leads to other problems with the account (eg the so-called "Paradox of Adam and Eve"), apparently trying to prevent the 'domino effect' they had the balls to cite in their own literature.

  http://awgue.weebly.com/the-paradox-of-adam-and-eve-and-how-the-new-world-translation-fruitlessly-attempts-to-keep-it-hidden.html

  Adam
• 
  108

  "Jehovah ALWAYS had/used an organization". How would you reply?

  by EdenOne in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  in a recent meeting with elders, an argument was used to the effect that jehovah has always [= throughout history] used, or operated through, an organization; therefore, the wts must be that organization today, since god must be using one.

  naturally, i know what arguments i've used to counter that argument.

  but i'm interested in hearing yours.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  adamah

  Aurelius said-

  The WT recently admitted that the 'channel' was not always in existence.

  WT didn't say that such channels didn't exist at times. It's over-reaching to claim they did, since it's putting words into their mouth without justification.

  Review what they wrote:

  WT Study Edition - July 2013

  There was no consistent, organized channel for dispensing spiritual food. That would eventually change.

  Saying there was "no consistent, organized channel" does NOT imply there was NO channel for dispensing spiritual food, only the channel was inconsistent and disorganized at some times.

  That actually sounds more like a fitting description of current environment the GB finds itself in, LOL!

  Adam
• 
  26

  So many new species being discovered......

  by cantleave in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i think some of you may enjoy this article, it makes a change from hearing about yet another species on the extinct list and shows why we need to conserve our natural heritage.

  http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleno/38639/title/new-species-abound/.

  in october, the world wildlife fund (wwf) published a list of 441 new species that have been discovered in the amazon in the last four years: 258 plants, 84 fish, 58 amphibians, 22 reptiles, 18 birds, and one mammal.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  adamah

  Cofty, the topic of 'fixation' came up indirectly in a past thread, where you used the ratchet analogy (where 'fixation' is a possible mechanism for anything resembling a ratchet function is found in biology).

  I ran across an interesting discussion of 'Muller's ratchet' which you might enjoy, since it's a topic that creationists have latched onto by adopting the SOTF meme and incorrectly assuming that the presence of VSDM (very-slightly deleterious mutations) represents the death-knell for the theory of evolution, which WOULD be true IF evolution depended on SOTF, since their presence undermines and violates the SOTF concept (which, as I said above, is a strawman claim).

  Of course, the burden of deleterious mutations IS a known-property of some genes, but their burden is acceptable in the short-term just as long as the organism doesn't accumulate too many such energy-wasting mutations, or they aren't fatal/lethal deleterious mutations (i.e. the carrier is aborted before birth, or dies before reaching reproductive age).

  In fact, the presence of VSDM is actually the answer to the creationists' protests of "irreducible complexity" for certain physiological processes, since VSDM are thought of as going into debt short-term in order to make a long-term investment. In other words, it's a gamble which MAY or more likely MAY NOT pay off for the organism; but if it DOES proves beneficial under changing conditions, the species as a whole eventually benefits when the trait become 'fixed' in subsequent generations:

  http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?s=ad37c2290051c46fbf1d3ba0df134811&t=2044&page=1

  Adam
• 
  26

  So many new species being discovered......

  by cantleave in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i think some of you may enjoy this article, it makes a change from hearing about yet another species on the extinct list and shows why we need to conserve our natural heritage.

  http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleno/38639/title/new-species-abound/.

  in october, the world wildlife fund (wwf) published a list of 441 new species that have been discovered in the amazon in the last four years: 258 plants, 84 fish, 58 amphibians, 22 reptiles, 18 birds, and one mammal.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  adamah

  Kate said-

  Why are you discussing metabolizing citrates, and what the heck are they. Yeah okay it's got something to do with E-coli. Come down to my level or I won't read your posts Adam. I said I will only read your posts if you make them interesting, they are not interesting if you teach me something at the wrong level Adam...

  You're trolling again, right? I mean, you ask what metabolizing citrates are, when you claim to be a chemist?

  Kate, I know the topic of Lenski's experiment in the lab showing evolution of E. Coli has come up repeatedly in many threads in which you've participated (and even some you've started), but if you can't be bothered to actually read the links provided (or, you lack the ability to remember what you read), then there's nothing more to say....

  Whether you intended to or not, you're coming off as a spoiled petulant child as if you're entitled to have ideas presented in pre-digested chunks, and if not, you're going to believe what you want to believe, so nah!

  

  No one owes you or anyone else to teach you ANYTHING, so maybe you need to take a night course and lay down some cold-hard $$$ to be spoon-fed basics of biology in a manner that you're not going to spit out...

  Adam