This is the guy who posts blogs but doesn't respond to e-mail or allow comments on his blog. Yeah, a fighter for truth this guy is.
Tuesday
JoinedPosts by Tuesday
-
48
Jehovah's Witnesses and the Media
by Spade inhttp://www.watchtower21.org/2011/01/jehovahs-witnesses-and-media.html.
at times, jehovah's witnesses are mentioned in the media in connection with a violent crime.
people shouldn't always believe everything they read--especially, it seems, on the internet.
-
-
-
65
Be honest...What movie star do you look like?
by Botzwana ini am curious as to what the members here look like.
be totally honest now.
not everyone looks like a knockout or mr. buff.... .
-
-
Tuesday
I don't really look like any actors though I get Trent Reznor and John Lennon all the time.
-
282
Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.
by hooberus inevolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence".
they frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to genesis creation and flood history !).
their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing god).
-
-
Tuesday
Apparently you can't read even your own paste carefully, since the author states that in his opinion "there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth".
And apparently you are as inept as I am, earlier in my own paste:
It was there that night that I accepted the Word of God and rejected all that would ever counter it, including evolution.
1. Another poster recommended this book for scientific information supportinig biblical creationism, and it does contain much in that way, along with biblical and other reasons as well (perhaps he should have stated this as well to you)
Cool since you provided a link do you want me to go through the entire thing and dismantle it?
2. You then (obviously without reading it), tried to dismiss it as faulty because of an alleged faulty "main [scientific] argument" I simply pointed out that you obviously hadn't read it since it contains no speciifc "main [scientific] argument." I also then posted the online book for anyone to see.
I didn't try to dismiss it as faulty, bearing mind that I have a 3 year old daughter and an 8 month old son I'd rather not have to read through a bunch of drivel that has already been disproved numerous times if I don't have to. I read through a summary off a creationist website that said the main argument involved which many of the testimonies pointed to was irreducible complexity. Hence I posted a link to the refutation of the irreducible complexity argument.
3. Your resonse was then to highlight some scriptural reasons from one of the 50 authors and then pretend that he (and I) refer to "those" reasons as "scientific reasons" for creationism.
Actually it was the very first one I looked at which I mention in my post. You seem to love the whole argument from selected evidence don't you?
-
31
What's with the tattoing your arms craze?
by yadda yadda 2 inwhy are so many guys getting their arms tattoed?
looks awful, like they have been in a fire and have ash all over their arms, or like they have gangrene.
just looks kinda dirty.
-
-
Tuesday
Depends what it is for me I suppose. I don't have any tattoos but plan on getting a couple. I've met some guys that get crazy full sleeves, skulls, etc. I get it you're tough. Another guy I know literally tattooed his life story in his sleeves, it's really touching.
-
18
Books by David A. Reed...
by Tuesday injust getting a general consensus, are they helpful at all?
do you know alot of people who have read them?.
-
-
Tuesday
A book written from a skeptical viewpoint doesn't necessarily need to be atheistic in viewpoint. It could simply refute WT/JW doctrine and avoid the path of substituting WT/JW doctrine with an alternative Christian doctrine. Or maybe it could refute the Borg doctrines logically and hold up a secular humanist alternative.
Very true, I was thinking of doing that. My biggest pet peeve with Jehovah's Witnesses is the arguments they use to refute things. That's actually what my book was going to focus on, I was going to use the trinity in there because the arguments against the trinity are all straw men arguments that aren't actually about the trinity belief itself. So I wanted to outline the ACTUAL trinity belief and why their arguments aren't honest arguments.
Since biology was my minor in college I wanted to delve into evolution as well and destroy their Evolution book along with all their stupid arguments against evolution.
-
282
Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.
by hooberus inevolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence".
they frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to genesis creation and flood history !).
their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing god).
-
-
Tuesday
Hooberus - I love the fact that the sources you provide are so ridiculously biased and devoid of any scientific information. Check this out your previous post provided a link:
Its obvious that you haven't read the "in 6 days book". Thanks for the "review" though. (see previous comments)
B.T.W. I've actually read a good part of it. It doesn't have a specific "main argument" at all. Here it is:
http://creation.com/in-six-days/
As I said before:
One thing that I have found interesting is the facts that evolutionists always, always engage in source attacks whenever any non-evolutionist resource is recommended (or even referenced) be it website or book.
The evolutionist who haven't read the publications will always do a "search" and immediately paste any neagtive info that they can find.
Evolutionists simply can't tolerate anyone actually reading any publications against their belief system.OK so what is the full title of the book? "In Six Days: Why 50 SCIENTISTS Choose bo believe in Creation", how many here are not scientists, there are mathemeticians on here, there are engineers, hell they include the index as a number.
1 Werner Gitt, information science (In Six Days)
2 J.H. John Peet, chemistry (In Six Days)
3 Kurt P Wise, geology (In Six Days)
4 George S Hawke, meteorology (In Six Days)
5 Don B DeYoung, physics (In Six Days)
6 Wayne Frair, biology (In Six Days)
7 Geoff Downes, forestry research (In Six Days)
8 Elaine Kennedy, geology (In Six Days)
9 John Morris, geological engineering (In Six Days)
10 Andrew Snelling, geology (In Six Days)
11 Edmond W. Holroyd, meteorology (In Six Days)
12 Danny R Faulkner, astronomy (In Six Days)
13 Andrew McIntosh, mathematics (In Six Days)
14 Keith H Wanser, physics (In Six Days)
15 Jack Cuozzo, orthodontics (In Six Days)
16 Sid Cole, physical chemistry (In Six Days)
17 John R Baumgardner, geophysics (In Six Days)
18 Don Batten, agricultural science (In Six Days)
19 James S Allan, genetics (In Six Days)
20 E Theo Agard, medical physics (In Six Days)
21 In Six Days - Index
22 Henry Zuill, biology (In Six Days)
23 A J Monty White, physical chemistry (In Six Days)
24 Walter J Veith, zoology (In Six Days)
25 Larry Vardiman, meteorology (In Six Days)
26 Ker C Thomson, geophysics (In Six Days)
27 Stephen Taylor, electrical engineering (In Six Days)
28 Timothy G Standish, biology (In Six Days)
29 Jonathan D Sarfati, physical chemistry (In Six Days)
30 Ariel A Roth, biology (In Six Days)
31 John R Rankin, mathematical physics (In Six Days)
32 Stanley A Mumma, architectural engineering (In Six Days)
33 Colin W Mitchell, geography (In Six Days)
34 Angela Meyer, plant science (In Six Days)
35 John P Marcus, biochemistry (In Six Days)
36 John K G Kramer, biochemistry (In Six Days)
37 Arthur Jones, biology (In Six Days)
38 George T Javor, biochemistry (In Six Days)
39 Evan Jamieson, hydrometallurgy (In Six Days)
40 Dwain L Ford, organic chemistry (In Six Days)
41 Robert H Eckel, medical research (In Six Days)
42 George F Howe, botany (In Six Days)
43 Bob Hosken, biochemistry (In Six Days)
44 Nancy M Darrall, botany (In Six Days)
45 Stephen Grocott, inorganic chemistry (In Six Days)
46 D B Gower, biochemistry (In Six Days)
47 Paul Giem, medical research (In Six Days)
48 John M Cimbala, mechanical engineering (In Six Days)
49 Edward A Boudreaux, theoretical chemistry (In Six Days)
50 Jeremy L Walter, mechanical engineering (In Six Days)
I chose the one for Geology because I find geology interesting. No particular reason why I chose him, high on the list and in a field that interests me. Now let's read his "Scientific" reason why he's choosing Creation, let's look at all of his "proof" he provides in his statements.Kurt P. Wise, geology
Dr Wise is director of origins research at Bryan College, Dayton, Tennessee. He holds a B.A. with honors in geophysical sciences from the University of Chicago and an M.A. and Ph.D. in geology from Harvard University. He studied under Professor Stephen Jay Gould. Dr Wise has written a wide range of articles on origins issues. He is a member of the Geological Society of America.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eighth grade found me extremely interested in all fields of science. For over a year, while others considered being firemen and astronauts, I was dreaming of getting a Ph.D. from Harvard University and teaching at a big university. I knew this to be an unattainable dream, for I knew it was a dream, but … well, it was still a dream. That year, the last in the series of nine years in our small country school, was terminated by the big science fair. The words struck fear in all, for not only was it important for our marks and necessary for our escape from the elementary sentence for crimes unknown, but it was also a sort of initiation to allow admittance into the big city high school the next year. The 1,200 students of the high school dwarfed the combined populations of three towns I lived closer to than that high school. Just the thought of such hoards of people scared us silly. In any case, the science fair was anticipated years in advance and I started work on mine nearly a year ahead of the fair itself.
I decided to do my science fair project on evolution. I poured myself into its study. I memorized the geologic column. My father and I constructed a set of wooden steps representing geologic time where the run of each step represented the relative length of each period. I bought models and collected fossils. I constructed clay representations of fossils I did not have and sketched out continental/ocean configurations for each period. I completed the colossal project before the day of the fair. Since that day was set aside for last minute corrections and setup, I had nothing to do. So, while the bustle of other students whirred about us, I admitted to my friend Carl (who had joined me in the project in lieu of his own) that I had a problem. When he asked what the problem was I told him that I could not reconcile what I had learned in the project with the claims of the Bible. When Carl asked for clarification, I took out a Bible and read Genesis 1 aloud to him.
At the end, and after I had explained that the millions of years of evolution did not seem to comport well with the six days of creation, Carl agreed that it did seem like a real problem. As I struggled with this, I hit upon what I thought was an ingenious (and original!) solution to the problem. I said to Carl, “What if the days were millions of years long?” After discussing this for some time, Carl seemed to be satisfied. I was not—at least not completely.
What nagged me was that even if the days were long periods of time, the order was still out of whack. After all, science said the sun came before the earth—or at least at the same time—and the Bible said that the earth came three days before the sun. Whereas science said that the sea creatures came before plants and the land creatures came before flying creatures, the Bible indicated that plants preceded sea creatures and flying creatures preceded land creatures. On the other hand, making the days millions of years long seemed to take away most of the conflict. I thus determined to shelve these problems in the back recesses of my mind.
It didn’t work. Over the next couple of years, the conflict of order nagged me. No matter how I tried, I could not keep the matter out of mind. Finally, one day in my sophomore year of high school, when I thought I could stand it no longer, I determined to resolve the issue. After lights were out, under my covers with flashlight in hand I took a newly purchased Bible and a pair of scissors and set to work. Beginning at Genesis 1:1, I determined to cut out every verse in the Bible which would have to be taken out to believe in evolution. Wanting this to be as fair as possible, and giving the benefit of the doubt to evolution, I determined to read all the verses on both sides of a page and cut out every other verse, being careful not to cut the margin of the page, but to poke the page in the midst of the verse and cut the verse out around that.
In this fashion, night after night, for weeks and months, I set about the task of systematically going through the entire Bible from cover to cover. Although the end of the matter seemed obvious pretty early on, I persevered. I continued for two reasons. First, I am obsessive compulsive. Second, I dreaded the impending end. As much as my life was wrapped up in nature at age eight and in science in eighth grade, it was even more wrapped up in science and nature at this point in my life. All that I loved to do was involved with some aspect of science. At the same time, evolution was part of that science and many times was taught as an indispensable part of science. That is exactly what I thought—that science couldn’t be without evolution. For me to reject evolution would be for me to reject all of science and to reject everything I loved and dreamed of doing.
The day came when I took the scissors to the very last verse—nearly the very last verse of the Bible. It was Revelation 22:19: “If any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” It was with trembling hands that I cut out this verse, I can assure you! With the task complete, I was now forced to make the decision I had dreaded for so long.
With the cover of the Bible taken off, I attempted to physically lift the Bible from the bed between two fingers. Yet, try as I might, and even with the benefit of intact margins throughout the pages of Scripture, I found it impossible to pick up the Bible without it being rent in two. I had to make a decision between evolution and Scripture. Either the Scripture was true and evolution was wrong or evolution was true and I must toss out the Bible. However, at that moment I thought back to seven or so years before when a Bible was pushed to a position in front of me and I had come to know Jesus Christ. I had in those years come to know Him. I had become familiar with His love and His concern for me. He had become a real friend to me. He was the reason I was even alive both physically and spiritually. I could not reject Him. Yet, I had come to know Him through His Word. I could not reject that either. It was there that night that I accepted the Word of God and rejected all that would ever counter it, including evolution. With that, in great sorrow, I tossed into the fire all my dreams and hopes in science.
Beginning only a couple of weeks later, however, God began to show me that the rejection of evolution does not necessarily involve the rejection of all of science. In fact, I have come to learn that science owes its very existence and rationale to the claims of Scripture. On the other hand, I have also learned that evolution is not the only claim of modern science which must be rejected if Scripture is assumed to be true. It is my understanding, for example, that the claim of an old earth denies the veracity of the first 11 chapters of Genesis (e.g., the order of creation, the distinctness of created kinds, the absence of pre-Fall carnivory, the lack of higher animal death before the Fall, the creation of Adam and Eve, the “very good” status of the creation at the end of the Creation Week, the great longevities of the patriarchs, the global nature of the Noahic Flood, the dispersion of people away from the Tower of Babel). This in turn challenges the integrity of any concept built upon these chapters. Yet, it is my understanding that every doctrine of Christianity stands upon the foundation laid in the first few chapters of Genesis (e.g., God is truth, God is a God of mercy and love, Scripture is true, all natural and moral evil on the earth can be traced back to man’s Fall, Christ’s return is global, Heaven is a perfect place with no sin or death or corruption of any sort). Thus, an earth that is millions of years old seems to challenge all the doctrines I hold dear.
Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. [Ed. note: Although Scripture should be our final authority, Christianity is not a blind faith. See ‘I have the Bible—what more do I need?’] Here I must stand.
Look at those highlighted "reasons", now why on Earth would anyone refer to something like that as "scientific reasons for creationism"?
Hooberus, I'm dead serious I want you to tell me exactly why you would refer to this above passage as evidence at all? Please point out the scientific data, and could you tell me why if a scientist has to put away all of his evidence so he can believe in young earth creationims, why you will take his unfounded claims as proof instead of all the evidence he had to put aside?
I didn't even get to a second person in the link you provided
-
18
Books by David A. Reed...
by Tuesday injust getting a general consensus, are they helpful at all?
do you know alot of people who have read them?.
-
-
Tuesday
It would be interesting to read a discussion of Witness use of the Bible from a skeptical rather than an Evangelical viewpoint. I can't think of any books along those lines.
There-in lies the question of whether writing a skeptic's annotations to the Jehovah's Witnesses religion even has an audience that will read it. It seems the only people who want to talk to Jehovah's Witnesses about faith are Evangelicals. I'm looking at it from the viewpoint of having that Aunt you love that's a Jehovah's Witness that everyone is afraid to discuss religion with because they don't know anything about her religion and are afraid to offend her. That's what I'm hoping to shed light on for people, ways to open a dialogue and ways to make sure they don't derail the conversation.
It does seem like this has been a subject that has been addressed MANY times before though, I don't know if it's something I should be going down the path of doing. I'd hate to just re-hash the same old information, I'm sort of an outside-the-box thinker guy. I'm pretty sure with my writing style and the things that I focus on it would be a VERY different type of book than the others. On the other hand I love Randy so much, he was the only former JW that send mail correspondance to my father during the divorce case for custody of me. I wouldn't want to step on any toes.
-
282
Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.
by hooberus inevolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence".
they frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to genesis creation and flood history !).
their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing god).
-
-
Tuesday
You said no there isnt. They claim to be PHD's to me that makes them a scientist they have written books.
Just because you dont agree with their interpretations doesnt make them cease to exist.
Just because you call there literature theological doesnt mean they are not scientist and there writings are not scientific.
I think you may mean something else and your side stepping what you dont know how to put into words.
But I have been very clear and concise in my statements.My brother has a PHD in English, if he wrote a book on Young Earth Creationism because he had a PHD after his name that would make him a scientist to you and also make his book a credible source for young earth creationism? Some of these authors have a PHD in engineering, or Mathematics and they're giving their arguments against the BIOLOGICAL field or Theoretical Physics, or Archeological fields. These are things the authors are not qualified to do and that is why these sources while they exist are most certainly not credible. I guess the question would be, would you accept the advice of someone who has a doctorate in Theatre to treat and cure you if you had lung cancer? Who would you rather treat you for this cancer a doctor who has studies with mounds of evidence and other doctors supporting him that happened to study at Harvard medical school or would you rather trust a doctor that studied at an uncredited university who's "cure" has no supporting evidence and is roundly ridiculed by his peers? If you said you'd trust a theatre doctor to treat you and you'd accept the treatment of the second doctor, well that's great I have an online degree and a miracle peppermint oil I can sell you for $1000 an ounce.
Their writings are what are called apologist, which they are most certainly not scientific. Scientific writings are essentially "here are the facts, what conclusions can we draw from them", while these books are "here is the conclusion, what evidence can we find that supports it".
You seem to be smart enough to know that a scientist can not write in a scientific journal about a young earthand creationsim and keep his job and respectability.
What, you believe that Creation Science BS from Expelled. Two words, Michael Behe. He wrote Darwin's Black Box which is considered perfectly legitimate. The arguments therein for the time were well respected by the scientific community and as a scientist Michael Behe is not roundly ridiculed. It is only since his dogmatic refusal to accept new evidence that has refuted his original position has he received criticism from the scientific community.
-
282
Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.
by hooberus inevolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence".
they frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to genesis creation and flood history !).
their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing god).
-
-
Tuesday
To Scotsman -
I never said you did - just perhaps were ignoring some of it or perhaps unaware of the scientists who have a different view on the fossil record. There is indeed 2 sides to this story.
I don't ignore evidence, biology was my minor in college. There are two sides to the story, I have a feeling (and from talking to many people about this subject) that when you see a scientist disagreeing with evolution they are actually disagreeing with current teachings about HOW evolution took place not that it NEVER took place. For example many that talk about "Darwin's theory in trouble" quote scientists who are actually critisizing Darwin's theory that evolution was a gradual process in every case taking millions of years. From the evidence evolution can take place in both long periods and short bursts. This doesn't mean that Darwin's theory is in trouble, the basis of common ancestry is most certainly not in trouble, here's a video to illustrate what I'm talking about...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM
For listing evolutionary dead ends you said...
No point - you will merely read from a book / quote a scientific paper that suggests an evolutionery process of sorts which is yet to be proven.
Or I will show you the ones that you feel are evolutionary dead ends are in fact not evolutionary dead ends at all. Can you show a trait in the animal kingdom that just spontaneously came about, or was there a very similar species that then mutated a specific trait that aided in their survival.
I usually start with your kind asking if you can explain the extra telomeres in chromosome 2 of the human genome which shows the merger of two primate chromosomes with creation in mind? Why would God use the markers for the end of chromosomes telomeres to have extra in this one chromosome in humanity to make it SEEM that they were two merged primate chromosomes if indeed he had created them from scratch. Especially since these telomeres are benign?
For JaguarBass-
The first book has been covered by cofty so I guess I'll take the second
"THe Genesis Flood" by John Whitcomb and Henry Morris
Refutation Joel Cracraft, "Systematics, Comparative Biology and the Case Against Creationism," in Laurie R. Godfrey, Scientists Confront Creationism
Your second book's ("In 6 Days Why 50 Scientist choose to believe in Creation" By John Ashton) main argument is irreducable complexity which was thoroughly dismantled in Kitzmiller v Dover (this is the bacterial flagellum theory). Here take a look:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_HVrjKcvrU
I guess I pass this off to Cofty for the next couple of books
Thats fine if you want to criticize my sources, at least that's keeping you honest. I have no problem with your criticizing them.
You said they didnt exist. They have to exist if your going to criticize them.
Everybody has the same facts we are all free to interpret them according to our agendas.
There are sources that talk about all sorts of crazy theories, hell people believe the tabloids with Bat Boy ect. Does that mean because they exist they are valid? To borrow a common thread between us, the Watchtower SAYS they teach truth, does that mean they do? Where is there evidence? Are the people who are refuting their arguments valid or simply because the Watchtower says they're right and the refutations are wrong we should ignore the refutation's evidence?
-
44
Mission 1 For the Vast Apostate Army: Attend The Memorial...
by Tuesday inhey folks!.
i made another propaganda-esque video for the vast apostate army's first mission which is to attend the memorial.
since alot of people liked my last video for the vast apostate army i figured i'd post this one too.
-
-
Tuesday
This is hilarious that after 9 months this thread gets resurrected. The VAA has been pegged as a terrorist group the same way Anonymous was pegged as a terrorist group, except for law enforcement that feels they are not terrorist groups. Please do call the police, my brother in law is in the FBI, I'm sure the investigation won't amount to much.