Abaddon

Joined

• started 167 topics
• posted 5,219 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Abaddon

• 
  64

  if God proved he was there would you serve him

  by force in

  1. social
  2. current

  .

  hiya all.

  i just wondered this becus i know lots of people have lost faith in god and the bible.. but if today something happened that proved 100 percent that god existed, would you go back to serving him?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  tetra

  vagina seems more appealing to some people than jehovah does.

  That would be because, unlike worshipping Jehovah, worshipping vagina shouldn't leave a bad taste in your mouth...
• 
  54

  "Witlesses", "JDumbs", other labels.. How do you feel about them?

  by AlmostAtheist in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i've commented before that the watchtower goes out of its way to label groups of people it doesn't want you to like -- "worldly people", "apostates", "christendom".

  there are scores of these labels.. people in general use them too: "spick", "n*gger", "trailer trash".

  once we allow ourselves to refer to people by a label, we automatically change them from an individual to a member of a group.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  Intersting point.

  Typically speaking one does not coose one's skin colour, sexual oriontation, social origin or country of origin. This means a referential or form of address based on that is 'unfair'.

  Obviously a JW can be born into the cult. But they can also leave. You can't stop being black, gay, or Irish.

  Thus Organisational slams like;

  • bOrg
  • Jehovah's Witlesses
  • Fetid Deoderant Salve
  • KingDum Whore/Hall

  ... are fine, just as 'neo-nazis' is a perfectly proper form of reference where applicable. Damaging, wrong and corrupt institutions deserve to be referred to as such. Just because more people think JW's are 'mostly harmless' than think neo-nazis are 'mostly harmless' doesn't mean JW's don't waste lives, lie and do harm.

  'Hey, Witless!', 'Oi! JeHovis' (Hovis is a brand of bread in the UK) et. al. are direct forms of address for individuals.

  I tend not to use them for individuals unless they piss me off, in which case *shrugs* it's not a major moral quandry for me. I have a potty mouth maybe, but who care's what comes out of the mouth of someone like me?

  As JW's use JayDub themsleves, we can too.

  'Dubbie' is a diminutive of this. If someone doesn't like it they should argue with the English language and how it forms diminutives.

  God, in Dutch EVERYTHING can be a diminutive; de oliphant -> het oliphantje, de man-> het manchje (not to sure about the spelling of the last - the diminutive tage is '+je' or '+chje' phonetically speaking, and varies according to the word).
• 
  64

  if God proved he was there would you serve him

  by force in

  1. social
  2. current

  .

  hiya all.

  i just wondered this becus i know lots of people have lost faith in god and the bible.. but if today something happened that proved 100 percent that god existed, would you go back to serving him?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  force

  i dont know if the bible is God's word or not.

  i dont know enough abt it to decide.

  Well, I think a real, determinable question is going to be of more use to you than a hypothetical quandry.

  Take the two simple examples I gave. Research the range of date given by Biblical scholars for the Noachian Flood. Investigate the Egyptian civilisation and the date Cheop's pyramid was built - not that there aren't earlier monuments than that. Research bristlecone pines. Weigh the evidence. As questions here if there are areas you need help on.

  It really is that simple. It just requires effort and the balls to undertake research that might end up with you making a major reassesment of whether the Bible is god's accurate and inspired word. If it isn't, an AWFUL lot of conclusions fall from that simple determination, one of which you are already nibbling at the edges of;

  but i wonder if there is a God why he doesnt prove he is there, so there is no doubt in anyones mind that he exists. at least then people could make a choice from fact.

  If god is just, then he should do this. An ineffable argument as to why knowledge is partial or uncertain runs in contradiction to what (for example) the Bible says. I god is indeed desirous that none be destroyed, ensuring that people know;

  a/ it is real, and
  b/ what it wants

  ... is vital, otherwise people of goodwill and blameless conduct might be obliterated just because they used the wonderful brains god supposedly gave them to demand evidence that it is reasonable to demand in the face of so many 'gods' and so many conflicting claims (none of which can be absolutely determined to be true) as to what these gods want. It faith without works is dead, faith without proof is stupid.

  I have faith when I get on a plane it will take off, fly, and land. This is based on physics and statistics. I might be wrong, but it is unlikely. I find it hard to conceive a just god would leave us in such doubt.

  If book of the month club can delivered a personalised message to you telling you what they want from you and what you can get from them, I think god needs to change it's attitude, or find a better advertising and PR agency.

  Of course, this is all forms of god with a personality and with a list of demands for their creation.

  'God' doesn't have to have a personality or any demands for us. God might be an idea verging on reality, an 'emergent characteristic' of human civilisation that is not predictable by observing the units making up that civilisation.

  For example;

  • There are bees which when they swarm in big clumps will, if provoked, make big 'ripples' in the surface of the clump by swaing together in a synchronised fashion, frightening potential predators and reducing the chance the swarm will have to attack (which would kill many of the attackers bee stings being how they are). No way you could guess that form a single bee.
  • There are bacteria - little wriggly hairlike one. They live in little groves on the surface of a plasmoid and for years were thought to be part of the plasmoid, not seperate organisms. By themselves in the open they wriggle to move. When in massed ranks in their little grooves they synchronise their movements into little ripples. No way you could predict that from watching one by itself.

  'God' started off as an explaination for the unexplicable. Lightning, for example; angry weather god. Now god in its traditonal concept makes unananswerable questions instead of answering them as most of nature is explicable. However, there is (arguably, possibly) a 'thread' joining us all. It is no more miraculous than wriggly bees or bacteria, but is still awesome and wonderful.

  Remember, regarding acquiring knowledge and determing facts - as the Beatles sand (well, Paul), the movement you need is on YOUR shoulder. Good luck.

  James.

  Hiya.

  There is wisdom in your words. Your lucid reasoning that if there is a God, it must be so vast as to be in some way all-embracing, gives reason and motivation to investigate into our intimate sense of being and existence to see what treasure may be found there.

  More or less what I think (although I know we differ on detail - I feel 'my' 'god' is far more prosaic and consequential from the material world than 'yours', although I might be wrong). I feel that we cannot be disconnected from 'it', although we might not be aware of 'it', and that ultimately if we never are aware of 'it' it doesn't matter, but being aware of it is like... ooo... spice...

  Of course I am equally aware I might be talking out my a-hole on this, and might be constructing a nice intellectual sounding framework for wishful thinking.

  But isn't that what 'god' has always been?

  Damn, I'm a fundamentialist...

  acacdian

  I thought you were cynical just about everything,

  You say that like it's a bad thing.

  As you can see, I am at least consistent in my cynicism and questioning as I include myself... and I see it more as having high standards of evidence. Think of the song 'We won't be fooled again" by the Who and you might 'get' my 'angle'.

  So when I say I worship God every day when I'm watering my flowers, I think you would understand what I mean.

  Yes, absolutley. I see god in the eyes of my children. I see god in a corner I drive past everyday in the way to work, where the road crosses a little bridge and you get a view over (very flat, I live in Holland) fields; a pretty ordinary place that just happens to offer an enchantingly pretty view, especially in cold frosty misty weather where the vista, with little stands of trees placed just so, it makes me want to take a picture every day from exactly the same position and create a montage. I see god in people helping each other for no reason what-so-ever other than that they want to. I see god in my cat climbing on my lap when I am sad to comfort me (she's not really that sort of cat but she makes exceptions...), and in her face when I flash a torch light on the floor for her to chase and she looks between the torch and the light beam, fractions away from figuring it out before her instincts drive her to chase the light round the room until she's panting.

  But I disagree about your use of the words "divine" and "mundane" I do believe we all have a divine nature, and I believe Jesus talk about reaching that Divine state by going down that road, that's narrow and difficult to travel.

  That's fine. My 'god' is diffuse and all embracing, undemanding and giving, distant but in the heart of everything. Not really a 'god' at all.. although sometime I do feel the Universe is, as we say in England, taking the piss. SO maybe it does have a personality (and a sense of humour);

  When I moved from England to Holland, for 45 minutes or so whilst we drove East, the sun and rain were just so there was a rainbow leading the way. The day I got engaged, the weather held all day - until we drove home from Paris. As we left Paris, the rain started. Came round a corner and there was a rainbow that looked so gaudy it was like a child's drawing, full arc, not half arc, with a reflection. THAT made me laugh.

  Of course, I can rationalise that to &uck and back again... yet... but... and...
• 
  41

  Is there any way I can just “cream skim” the “Truth”????

  by HiddenQuestioner in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i have been lurking for some time and only recently started to post if you have seen my posts, i have always represented myself as a loyal jw and one who is planning to stay in however, lately my faith and commitment as a jw has been tested and, without going into details, i am having problems of faith and life that i could really use some help on.

  if so, you might ask, why dont i just leave?

  well, i have a wife that is a very devout jw and she would be crushed and very upset if i quit she believes it all 100% and lives to worship the borg in fact, she would be very upset if she even knew i was visiting this site.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  You don't mention if you love your current wife.

  I think this is kind of pivotal.

  If so, fight for it and her. If she doesn't come with you, you were honest and decent to her even if she doesn't think so.

  If not, well;

  My happy 1 st marriage was lost because she quit both me and the “Truth”)

  She still single? Did she leave you because she didn't think you'd leave the JW's or for some other reason? "Hi, I've left the JW's and my marriage. I thought you'd like to know you were right" might be a good opener either way.

  Whatever you do, don't stay. The rest of your life and your self respect are worth more than that,
• 
  26

  What if God was actually just an alien encounter in history?

  by free2beme in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i always liked star trek, kind of a sci-fi nut by nature.

  anyway, an older episode involved leaving a gangster book on an evolving planet and then the people turned this into a way of life.

  well it makes me wonder at times, what if our early cultures were once visited by an alien culture and instead of realizing this, they took their advance technology to be god?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  Ouch what?

  Skyman's response was "ouch?" How so? Apart from the argument, the grammar, the spelling and the syntax perhaps, which were "ouch", but I assume this was due to haste of typing not any indication of lack of wit.

  Abaddon are we an antagonist or what.

  Oh deary me, here we go... yes, obviously, by definition both semantically and otherwise I am an antagonist. You said you could prove something. I called you on this and asked you to. You came up with bluster as a response. Where are your facts man? You said you had some. I like facts. I despise woolly-thinking and credulity. I also think if someone says they will do something they should - or not say they will. What a funny unreasonable man I am.

  I have been reading the story's of the babylonians the oldest know religion.

  Wrong

  You should do the same they know about theh heavens the sun the planets

  Wow, they looked up at night. How mysterious! And, having brains JUST as good as ours, they figured some stuff out. Woot!

  and the list goes on, and on, and on.

  The LIST goes on and on? How about a fact that supports in any little way some of the speculation? Don't get me wrong; I'd fricking LOVE it if someone proved something 'paranormal' or 'alien' to me. It's just people always disappoint me, and every other scientist that has really investigated these fields. There's no proof. Doesn't mean it isn't real, but you may have noticed a historic pattern; stuff people claim is real but have no proof for is normally laughed at a few centuries later as credulous nonsense; witches, for example, flying around and cursing people. This leads me to a reasonable supposition that most stuff you can't prove isn't real.

  They are the ones that talk first about the Great flood.

  Which flood? Something local (big deal) or something global (never happened)?

  You get the point, ifI a person truely wants to be opened minded you have to study them.

  Yes. Have you? (See your above comment about Babylonians who do not have the world's oldest religion. If you have a book that says that, the book is CRAP. Use it accordingly.

  Archaeology does not support an advanced human civilisation going back 100000 the Sumerian mesopotamian one flourished from around 4000 BC.

  You have not looked a deap enough.

  So, if you're not supporting the idea of super ancient civilizations, why that comment? You say "No-one said it was true the 120 million years map." ignoring conveniently you say "it is a 100 million year old MAP that they can prove iis that old" Total contradiction on your part; even if you did not say "I believe this is true" your belief is implicit in your presentation. Or do you make a habit of presenting information you do not believe in a postive light?

  But if you say the old historical writings do not say we are from the GOD's (WHICH MEANS SPACE OR HEAVENLY BEING) of Heaven which means Aliens.

  Can we try again please? That wasn't a sentence, at least not one using conventional rules of grammar or syntax. What do you mean?!!

  Man, you are smoking dope, because the records do say this,

  I WISH I was smoking dope. Say WHAT? Which records? You said;

  If you want I can go on and show many other scientifically Provened articles that show smart advanced people have lived for 100,000 of thousands of years.

  Go on then. I mean you have;

  ... college news about the tours of the university's this is big very big. I could give more research article about this map if you want I have collecting articles for years...

  ... let's start there... or are you back peddling from your claims?

  Who am I to say there might not be truth in the records because these are the oldest known.

  Which records are the oldest known? And why do you feel you must assume something is true because someone put ink to paper, imprinter to clay, or chisel to stone? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If Shekhack sent a tablet to Mirphat saying "I want 3 lofty of cheese", we can be pretty sure that's true. If we read "And the mountain Bugrat roared and spewed fire" we can be pretty sure it's true. If it says "And Tiamat was the foundation of the sky and earth, and was cleaved in to to make the world, and from her blood all the plants and animals sprang" we can be pretty sure it is made up. It's not rocket science. It's common sense.

  I guess you are supper man so smart you do not need to think becasue

  Supper man? What, Like Jamie Oliver? And I do not need to think because, because...what? Finish your sentence. Can't you see I am at least trying to think, and you are spreading fertilizer. Being open minded is all very well, but go too far and the top of your head falls off. As I have said, I would be as happy as a pig in shit if some DID prove something like this, but when you look at the claims, they don't meet any reasonable standards of proof. Being open minded and undiscriminating is foolish, there is simply no other way to put it. ~ ~ Funny that Star Trek should get a mention here, as all of this I believe is proof that humans STILL think the Universe revolves around them. "The Sapiens Fallacy", and Star Trek is a great example. Humans love to be special. "God made us specially" they cry (or more traditionally made a certain people specially). Did you know the most common translation of tribal names is 'people' or 'real people', worldwide? LOL Just as in the past people saw their cultural group as special, with special favors accorded it by whatever tooth-fairy was worshiped locally, so to do modern nonreligious people wonder if maybe it was aliens who came to Earth and made us special. Why? Because of proof? No, because as a species we are conceited little monkeys. "It was 'god' made us 'special'"(no proof yet), or "it was the 'aliens' making us 'special'" (no proof yet). Gene Roddenbury's work contains the same conceit in reverse. Humans are so 'special' they are pluckier and smarter and more resourceful than civilizations thousands of years older. They go boldly, and create a Empire where the aliens basically are subject races or evil bad guys. It's like a Sci-Fi 'Master Race'! The subject races are treated as equals if they behave. The evil bad guys get killed until there are none left or until they are a subject race. Look at the Klingons. This 'ancient civilizations' crap is part of the same delusion. Ya know the song 'Creep' by Radiohead? "I wish I was special". EXACTLY. Humans do wish they were special. "Nothing is as simple as it seems" we as a species cry. "We cannot possibly be the descendants of primates, evolved without interference by god or aliens, who basically only got language sorted out in the last 100,000 years or so (maybe 50,000), and took most of the remainder of the period between now and then to come up with the wheel. We cannot have minds bound by the rules of physics we know and can demonstrate. We cannot cease to exist when we stop breathing." Can't you see the extent of humankind's self-obsession? We live in an amazing Universe, can comprehend that, and yet as a species think we're something because we have opposable thumbs, Bach and space flight. The only area we might have a point with is Bach. It's quite possible the only exports of interest we could ever have is our art. And the only reason alines would visit here is the charming coincidence of the moon's diameter and orbital distance, and the sun's diameter and orbital distance being of such a ratio we can have total solar eclipses - something which might actually be rare, at least on a local spiral-arm basis. In the words of the song (well, almost);
  
  What the hell are we doing here?
  We belong here Just like little Johnny Lennon said "no hell below us, above us only sky". We as a species spend so much time believing rubbish we miss out on half the wonder of existence.
• 
  26

  What if God was actually just an alien encounter in history?

  by free2beme in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i always liked star trek, kind of a sci-fi nut by nature.

  anyway, an older episode involved leaving a gangster book on an evolving planet and then the people turned this into a way of life.

  well it makes me wonder at times, what if our early cultures were once visited by an alien culture and instead of realizing this, they took their advance technology to be god?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  What if? Yeah and so what. No proof, give me a spliff and it might be interesting to talk about. Otherwise it's up there with fairy's at the bottom of the garden. Yes, thery might exist, but on the evidence they've never been there/here. Yawn. Next? First of all, let us realise there is an amazing amount of fraudlent made up BOLLOCKS out there, as well as delluso-boys and girls with passports for LaLa Land, just like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Hancock who might believe what they say, but basically talk bollocks. As regards the 120 million-year old map. Unless they have "just happened" not to find Hominid fossils that old, if this were true it could indiacte Earth was once a site for an alien inhabitation... or prehaps like the series Dinosaurs? Or prehaps it is bollocks. Not finding proof that bollocks is bollocks does not mean that something is not bollocks. One can use common sense; First, I can find no Alexandr Chuvyrov on the website of Bashkir State University. Second, I can find no reputable newsgathering service that coverd the item, but I do find it here; http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21010 (Neo-nazi scum) http://www.rense.com/general24/civ.htm (Poster child for world wide whack jobs; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rense) http://www.davidicke.net/mysteries/terra/map-creator.html Magnificently delusional twerp; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Icke) Now, ya wanna believe stuff that is believed in by people like that, with not ONE meida mention in the interim (no doubt due to Jews, or reptiloid aliens, or the New World Order), go right ahead, LOL.

  If you want I can go on and show many other scientifically Provened articles that show smart advanced people have lived for 100,000 of thousands of years.

  Go right ahead. Go on, please give me "scientifically Provened" articles that show smart advanced people have lived for 100,000's of thousand of years. Make my, day, my week, my month, my year.
• 
  64

  if God proved he was there would you serve him

  by force in

  1. social
  2. current

  .

  hiya all.

  i just wondered this becus i know lots of people have lost faith in god and the bible.. but if today something happened that proved 100 percent that god existed, would you go back to serving him?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  Your statement makes it obvious that you have decided the Bible is god's word. Why?

  At the time the Bible says the world was underneath water during the Flood, we know that Egyptians were SO busy being Egyptian they didn't notice the water and the Great Pyramid had already stood for hundreds of years. If you live in America you can drive and see trees that were three hundred years old during the Flood.

  Let's ignore the false assumption inherent in your question (i.e. that of Biblical inspiration).

  Which god? And which way of serving?

  A Thugee devotee of Kali? Or a priest of Quetzlecotl? Or a Conquistador? Or a Crusader? Or a member of the Holy Inquisiton? Or a Muslim terrorist? Or a Christian terrorist? A member of the US Armed FOrces in th 19th C helping to assert Manifest Destiny? A slave-owning Southerner before the American civil war? A boardmember of Union Carbide/Wallmart? Or a Jain? Bachus? Apollo? The list is endless as I haven't even got onto the Hindu gods yet (but there's only really one of those if you actually know your Vedics)

  If Jesus existed and did rail against the ritualistic and formulaic practises of the Pharasees, he would spit in the face of many religionists today. The petty, devisive ignorance of many forms of religions would be anethema to someone who basically told us to be nice to each other.

  If god exists, he is not some pissy tribal demon who gives us freewill, punishes all of mankind for using it and takes away perfection and leaves us to show how we do on our own, and then confuses languages the minute humans are peacefully co-operating. Any concept of god needing human worship or creating us as some crutch for divine ego is childish and primative.

  If god exists, it's bigger than we can imagine, so big we are probably part of it, not divine, but mundane yet still awesome, a new meaning for an old word and far more wonderful than primative supersticion.
• 
  23

  JWs - Prudes or not Prudes?

  by Spectrum in

  1. social
  2. relationships

  i was looking at jwconnections out of curiosity thinking i'd find a selection of prudish jw women but was shocked to find that some of these women don't look prudish at all.

  they'ed probably give worldly women a run for their money.

  maybe things are changing.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  Spectrum

  First off, I use the word worldy as is perceived by JWs, and not that I perceive non-JWs as untouchables. I could use the word normal instead but then I'd be implying that JWs are abnormal! I imagine it would suit some people here!

  And what on Earth makes you think being in a cult is 'normal'?

  Or do you disagree with the assessment that JW's are a cult?

  If so, why? (I use Lipton's definitons to define a cult, if that helps).

  I know you don't 'have' to answer these questions, but I am under the impression you have a good mind and need to do yourself justice by confronting such questions. Between '93 when I walked away (note; not 'fell' away, it wasn't an accident or mistake) and somewhere in '95 or '96 I would typically respond to questions about me having been a Witness with something like;

  "They're just like any other religion, but their way of life is not for me."

  Please imagine me now making a sound like a cat chucking a hairball at the thought of saying anything so patently absurd. I discovered the online community of xJW's and discovered their true nature in an eighteen+ hour long surfing session (followed up be Combatting Cult Mind Control the next day at the library and every book on comparative religions et. al. I could lay my hands on in following weeks). I had no thought about them being 'the truth' any longer as by that point had learnt enough of biology to understand the beautiful simplicity of evolution, and that 'god' was uneccesary to the process (although one can argue he 'started it', he didn't need to 'wind it up'), and had realised the Flood was just a silly story and the Bible just another book. But I still had this fluffy little childhood conceit I had a 'normal' background, LOL.

  I was so suprised I went straight from the computer rooms at Uni' and called the girl (who is now my fiance) at 3am in the morning to announce "They're a fucking CULT!" (Doh!)

  They are not like 'any other' religion, they are like a 'high control group', which is the phrase you use to describe cults to people who will insist they aren't/weren't in a cult if you use the word cult ('cause the cult leaders have told them they are not in a cult ).

  One does this so that they don't 'switch off' and willl actually listen to you describing what a high control group is like in the vauge yet fluffy hope they will have a 'Damascus moment' and realise they are/were in a high control group.

  "Have you actually dated and lived with 'wordly' women?"

  Oh yes, but I always went for the less forward ones which meant no nooky.

  We live, and hopefully learn...

  Couldn't bring myself to do it anyway until I excorcised enough JW-demons which took a decade after leaving. The girl I did end up with was keen with no hang-ups from her side.

  See? And those demons lurk in the darkest places. I still find a new one occasionally - thus me quizzing you on using loaded language (see Lipton as mentioned above). Someone on 'Support 4xJW's', (the first xJW website I found) called me exactly the same way for saying 'fallen away' a decade or so ago; I hope I can pay the favour forward.

  I was trying to see how far I could take it with the muslim girl I mentioned earlier. She totally reminded me of me and I wanted to snap her out of it. She was totally jealous of girls that she thought would be willing to do it with me and warded them off but she still wouldn't give it up. Damn!!

  Havey havey no wanty, wanty wanty no havey. I had a very nice Catholic girl frottage herself silly several times on my thigh in bed one night a long, long time ago; fully clothed she was and did she return any favours? Nope. Like I say, we live and hopefully learn. Wanty wanty, givey givey...

  I think if a JW guy wants decent action then he has got to go for choice b/ (bad little JW).

  Yup.

  I know my JW sister is a real prude who married a JW with a strong sex drive, for which as a 20 something guy almost got disfellowshipped for. He wanted choice a/ good little JW and both have paid the price for this incompatibility now stretching 20 years - nightmare.

  Been there, got the divorce.

  "PS; answer to evolution thread?"

  Certainly, but I've lost track. Which is it?

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/103029/1798273/post.ashx#1798273

  Specifically;

  Blind evolution is about pot luck randomness. How many times the word random comes up with evolutionists to create something better when it should be the word instruction?

  I think we better define evolution and see what would prove evolution to you and continue from there; those last two sentences show a possible lack of appreciation over what evolution even is. RANDOM? Who told you the progress of evolution is directed by RANDOM processes? Some change might be random, but that is provable in real time. The SELECTION of what features survive is so non random as to defy belief.

  ... and;

  I think this might be an interesting conversation and look forward to you defining what you think evolution is (not a trick question I promise you) and what would prove it to you ( a question of obvious usefulness).

  All the best

  Gyles
• 
  21

  Noah's Arc and the flood....

  by Tuesday in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  does anyone have any links to sites that have all the evidence that the arc and the flood couldn't have happened?

  i'm debating someone who feels that neandertal man was actually the nephalim, which really i feel is quite laughable but i'll say (in typical jw fashion) whenever i'll bring up older specimens of early humans (i.e.

  homo-erectus) they'll undoubtedly say "that's not a full skull in this picture" when right next to it in the picture is a nearly full skull or next to that is a full skeleton...really annoying.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  hooberus

  Will you knock it off?

  You plainly do not care in the least bit about the quality of the information you provide, the competence of those you quote, or the fact you have shown yourself incapable of responding to a critical analysis of your own beliefs.

  You continue to quote websites that you've been shown are unreliable, often quote 'authorities' who have no real qualifications for subjects they claim expertise in (as they demonstrate), and say you will respond to things and then don't.

  Every regular poster here knows this, and new posters realise it the first time they read a thread on evolution you take part in.

  Have you no regard for your fellow human or respect for yourself?

  I mean, http://naturalselection.0catch.com is STILL using the example of flagellum as being proof of ireducable complexity when this claim has been shown to be FALSE for YEARS, as the component parts of the flagellum DO have a independent use.

  http://www.detectingdesign.com/earlyman.html is more trash; saying evolution is false because of fraud and mistake would, by the same standards, make Christianity false. Christianity has ALSO committed fraud and been in error.

  If evolutionary theory didn't get better through time, it would be an atypical field of knowledge. Saying it is false because it improves and refines itself is like saying today's cars are false because they are improved and refined compared to those made even ten years ago.

  And isn't it funny how all these sites you reference pretend that the molecular revolution of the past decade never happened? Isn't it funny how they don't mention how 9 times out of 10 the cladistic relationships (based on bones) are shown to be correct by molecular evidence? How all the various dating methods fit together far too well to be coincidental?

  Could it be they are relying upon the (arguably) willful ignorance of those who just want their previously held opinion confirmed, who won't be up-to-date with the latest of sceince, and who will be ignorant as to the information deliberately or incompetently concealed from them by people they think they can trust?

  If you spent as much time reading real science articles as you did looking for people who are as misinformed as you and happen to agree with you, you'd not deceive people with bad information as you do here every single week.
• 
  21

  Noah's Arc and the flood....

  by Tuesday in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  does anyone have any links to sites that have all the evidence that the arc and the flood couldn't have happened?

  i'm debating someone who feels that neandertal man was actually the nephalim, which really i feel is quite laughable but i'll say (in typical jw fashion) whenever i'll bring up older specimens of early humans (i.e.

  homo-erectus) they'll undoubtedly say "that's not a full skull in this picture" when right next to it in the picture is a nearly full skull or next to that is a full skeleton...really annoying.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  This is a simple one, two.

  1/ Dendrochronology http://www.sonic.net/bristlecone/intro.html

  Earth's oldest living inhabitant "Methuselah" at 4,767 years, has lived more than a millennium longer than any other tree.

  There are trees alive that were already several hundred years old when the Flood is meant to have happened.

  2/ Ancient civilisations, for example, the Egyptians http://ce.eng.usf.edu/pharos/wonders/pyramid.html

  The monument was built by the Egyptian pharaoh Khufu of the Fourth Dynasty around the year 2560 BC to serve as a tomb when he dies.

  The Great Pyramid ay Giza is just one of many ancient monuments that pre-date Biblical dates for a Flood yet which cannot have been standing during the Flood.

  Therefore the 'global' Flood wasn' global, if it is based on any real event at all, therefore the Bible isn't an accurate hsitorical record.

  Just for the record, we share LOADS of DNA with H. neanderthalis, it's just not of a nature which suggests direct decent of modern man from H. neanderthalis. Best guess at this point is modern man decended from a migration of H. sapiens out of Africa which displaced evolutionary cousins who migrated out of Africa earlier and evolved specific morphology for Ice Age environments in (mostly) Europe. This displacement may have been so extensive there was no interbreeding, although there are some claims for hybridisation or (more demonstrably) at least living side-by-side for thousands of years.

  In terms of appearance H.neaderthalis would have looked freaky, but MIGHT pass for human with a bobble hat on. We don't know if H. neanderthalis was 'as' human as us (i.e. speaking and thinking as us) or whether the archaic H. sap population had a major advantage because of something like 'modern' thought and syntaxitical language which the older populations of neaderthalis lacked.

  Anyone who says they neanderthalis were Nephilim is probably too ignorant to bear talking too for extend periods without your own spleen strangling you...