Jahova's Witnesses ard dumbasses that mirsinterpete the bible! and should any one still be in that SECT if it made so much False profesies , im a true Christian of the true God not a fake religion who are being brain washed by the house of Satan... (THE WATCH TOWER)
it begs the question -------think about it If God is almighty all knowing all omniscient as we believe----
then why is there so much apparent confusion over interpreting the Bible -------Why does the all knowing God allow his Imperfect creatures that are not all knowing try to interprete IT .and Jesus said ask and you will recive has any one had any messeages from GOD yet apart from the MORON of the book of MORONS JOSEPH SMITH could they in fact be the true religion after ALL
God, through Jesus, appealed to discerning people. Pick up any Bible and if you have a discerning heart, a heart eager to at least understand then such a person (with his heart acceptable to God) will 'see' the Truth. Unfortunately, even in the times when God and Jesus engaged with humans, performing miracles, people still could not 'see'. Not all people have faith; not all want to 'see'. We however need to be careful that the hidden agendas of some fellow humans doesnt spoil our own heart.
Actually, the heart of man is not discerning, but deceitful and wicked. God's grace is all that makes the difference. We could not follow God even if we wanted to, apart from the presence of the Holy Spirit. The elitism of assuming we can chose God for ourselves is wrong. True, we can choose to accept or reject his calling to us, but its not because we're discerning - its all His grace.
Taking in knowledge is false spirituality, and exclusivism is pride.
Your questions can all be answered by one simple question - why interpret it at all? Why not just read it and do it?
The reason as I see it is that man cannot accept salvation by grace - man has this innate rebellion that requires him to do good works to prove his value to God.
The best man can do is as filthy rags.
The WTS excels in making people work for their hope of salvation - they never can have peace with God Knowing that their eternity is secure. Its grace, not works that pleases God.
it begs the question -------think about it If God is almighty all knowing all omniscient as we believe----
then why is there so much apparent confusion over interpreting the Bible -------Why does the all knowing God allow his Imperfect creatures that are not all knowing try to interprete IT .and Jesus said ask and you will recive has any one had any messeages from GOD yet apart from the MORON of the book of MORONS JOSEPH SMITH could they in fact be the true religion after ALL
Even when people saw the miracles both God and Jesus performed, first hand, they still chose not to believe. A discerning person will 'receive' and see.
To leave a high-control mind-control cult also takes a lot of courage. If it were not so difficult to leave, more people would leave JWs.
Your logic works both ways. Believe what you wish, but don't discount the 6 billion people who don't agree with you. Perhaps more people don't join JWs not because it's so hard, but maybe its because there is something wrong with JW teachings. Ever thought of that possibility?
NEVER!! Jehovah chooses the people, he wants to them to worship with spirit and truth~~The road is narrow and cramped, with those who WANT to serve Jehovah....on the other hand the road is spacious and wide, leading off to destruction.....
Not all people will understand the truth, as regards the sacred secret!!
"With" spirit is a deliberate mistranslation. The Kingdom Interlinear plainly says "in" spirit. I have no idea why this error, except to support their error that the Holy Spirit is a force rather than God. Romans 14:17 is also deliberatly mistranslated, again to support their false teaching.
The personality of the Holy Spirit demonstrated thru the NT defies attempts made to reduce Him to a mere spiritual force. You cannot "grieve" a force. Chuck your NWT and use the KIT or a good translation
It took a thousand times more courage to leave the faith, and lose most of my friends and all of my family, than it did to sit in boring meetings and pretend to agree with that crap.
Fortunately, the internet is a great equalizer of information, and I discovered a lot of wonderful things about myself that allowed me to swallow that bitter pill.
Make no mistake. It was a LOT easier to be segregated from the kids at school than it is to be segregated from your family.
It takes a lot more courage to see what is right, make your stand, announce you are leaving the WT Society and its false teachings and choose to leave it behind, knowing you are losing all future contact with your family and friends - unless YOU kellylittleon have experienced that, you cannot really comment.
Faith is the assured expectation of things beheld, although not seen~~You can teach a blind person about color using illustrations...just like JESUS did~~
Faith is belief without evidence. Belief in something as absurd as creation, against all the evidence of evolution is insane! Evolution is a fact; it has been observed many times, both in nature and in the lab.
If the Watchtower was correct regarding everything else, theyve repeated lies and propaganda (whether intentional or not) on the subject of evolution. Its sad to see good people being mislead. If you really are interested in the Truth; please do your own research on this one subject.
OK I did and you're WRONG!!! Evolution is not a fact and has never been observed; you cannot cite me one instance where it has. We DO have variation within kinds, but even Darwin recognized that there were no missing links tying the classes together. This lack of links was touted as evidence for Punctuated Equillibrium by Gould.
Nor has it ever been observed in any lab. A million generations and deliberate attempts to force evolution have made no difference at all to Drosophila melanogaster.
Evolution is change over time; in biology that means descent with modification by change in allelic frequency. This accounts for the variation within kinds you mentioned. This is a fact; evolution is a fact. There is no limit to variation; we have observed speciation many times.
Darwin wrote 150 years ago. Are we to assume there have been no scientific advancements since then? Lack of, or missing something, by definition cannot be evidence of anything. Gould wrote on PE based on evidence.
Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History say that there is not one transitional fossil for which one could make a watertight case. Gould realized this and used the absence of intermediaries to prove PE. Funny how an evolutionist can prove his case by lack of evidence!!
Evolution has never been observed, cannot be demonstrated, and therefore is not fact, but conjecture. That is commonly believed shows a gullible faith. And they think creationists are gullible . . .
Im aware of the Colin Pattersons quote. Creationists are famous for quote mining credible scientists. Of course you cannot say 100% whether or not a fossil gave birth to an extant lineage. If you want to read his quote in context: talkorigins . org/faqs/patterson . html
Here are dozens more instances of observed evolution, with references:
talkorigins . org/faqs/faq-speciation . html
I think all this is a misunderstanding; maybe you should look up the definition of the evolution.
Patterson also stated that after a lifetime of teaching evolution, there was not a single fact about it he knew to be true, that evolution was anti-knowledge.Given the detailed train of thought he states, the length of time he was asking the questions of his staff and co-workers, and the number of times he repeated his doubts re evolution publicly, I can't take seriously any thought that we're taking any part of it out of context.
I never denied he said it. I said he was quote mined, i.e. taken out of context. He wasnt even talking about evolution anyway, but systematics; this is obvious when read it in context. Patterson himself even claimed he was taken out of context by creationists. This link has replies from Patterson, and a link to the original quote: talkorigins . org/faqs/wells/iconob . html
He definitely accepted evolution, and has written many papers and books on it. Even if he didn't, what does that prove?
Its really interesting how you avoid the issue. He DID say it, and IN context - he was recounting that he had asked his staff and colleagues if they knew any one thing about evolution that was true - he asked the same thing at the Morphology conference. While it may have been a study in systematics ( I thought it was cladistics), the example cited WAS and specifically STATED to be evolution (broadly)
It was repeated on BBC.
I trust not many of the denials that have been reported.
After all the other furor dies down, Johnson from Berkley did a personal interview with him.
No one denied he believed, taught and published evolution. Why would he say he'd been mislead all his life? Like many who allow their questioning of evolution to escape their musings and into print, theres a huge professional price to pay. One isn't allowed to point out the emperor has no clothes!!!
An amazing paranioa of the evolutionists is how terrified they are of creationists - The last Wistar conference kept no records peradventure the Creationists might get a hold of them Patterson took an awful lot of flak for his comments getting into the creationist circuit.
Peter Dodson wrote in the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology wrote re the limited consensus from the Archeopteryx Conference (Bavaria) ". . .to forestall possible misuse by creationists of apparent discord among scientists"
Even if he said all of that, what does this prove? If he presented an argument that falsified evolution, then thats something. But he didnt.
I read his first quote in context; even he said he was taken out of context. I read the entire transcript from the second quote and he was talking about systematics. So I concede. He also said it doesnt concern the fact of evolution or the general theory. As for his question about knowing anything true: I dont know what he was getting at.
This all happened while I was in grade school so forgive me. A lot has happened in the last 30 years in evolution and systematics though. We now have a twin-nested-hierarchy. We no longer differentiate between micro and macro-evolution since the mechanism is the same and gradations are so fine. We have also mapped the entire human genome along with many other organisms. I will definitely ask my peers for an explanation to his thoughts though and see if there was any more to it.
Would missing links be: snakes with legs, whales with legs, half-mammalian/half-reptilians, birds with scales and teeth? We have all of these!
We dont study drosophila to force evolution, or whatever youre trying to imply. We study drosophila because of their mutagenic nature and short generation time. 75% of known human diseases have a corresponding genetic match in drosophila and 50% of their protein sequences are shared with mammals. We study their evolution to cure to disease.
I'm implying that if evolution were to take place, a million generations should do it - the oldest amber has insects in it identical to today's. No evolution observed!!
Name a snake with legs? Pakicetus, the whale with legs? They found bits of a skull and jaw.
Studying evolution has never cured a disease - another myth. Common sequences points to a common designer, period. The bird with scales was a fraud in Nat G Nov 96, Archeoraptor.
Of course we have all of them; science is based on evidence. We have literally millions of transitional fossils.
Some snakes with legs: Haasiophis terrasanctus, Pachyrhachis, descouensi, Najash. Extant species: python, boa. Whales and snakes currently have the genes for making legs, and modern birds have the genes for making teeth. Why would they have these if their ancestors didnt have them too?
Name one of these oldest insect found in amber which is identical to modern insects.
Birds dont have scales? What about the ostrich? Dinosaur is a superorder; birds are contained in that group. So, yes, birds do have scales, and DS do have feathers. Besides, Nat Geo is not a peer reviewed scientific paper.
Studying evolution has never cured a disease? Why do you think youre supposed to finish all of your antibiotics? Why do you think vaccines loose their effectiveness? Why do you think insecticides loose their effectiveness?
The bacteria/insect mutations you refer to are NOT evolution - the resistance can occur in one of three ways:
Preexisting resistance
Plasmid transfer
Mutations.
All three are information neutral or degenerative. In order to consider it evolution - it an increasing positive to meet the immediate needs of the organism is false - Mutations do not have a game plan - they happen at random. The implication of evolution is they developed the mutations in response to a need
I point you to Futumya ...the adaptive needs of the species do not increase the likelihood that an adaptive mutation will occur; mutations are not directed toward the adaptive needs of the moment.... Mutations have causes, but the species need to adapt isnt one of them
Futuyma, Douglas J. (1983), Science on Trial ( pp. 137,138) (Pantheon).
I used to teach that there was an easy way to get a microbe to eat oil - dump them into the oil, harvest the survivors. Repeat. > a new species
The vast majority of mutations are deleterious; the remainder are either negative, neutral or beneficial. Its tough to get a number of how many, because whether they are beneficial or not is not decided by you or me, but primarily by the environment.
You still seem to have a bit of a twisted understanding of evolution. As you said: mutations are random—they dont act in response to anything—thats true. Creationists typically confuse this as evolution being random. Actually, there are about a dozen types of mutation. By preexisting I think you meant inherited. Plasmid transfer is a horizontal mutation. By mutation I will assume youre talking about point mutation.
Beneficial mutations are how insects build resistance to pesticides. This is the same way vaccines become ineffective. The same is true with antibiotics; in some cases the organism has evolved to actually feed on the antibiotic. Weve even found bacteria that metabolize nylon. How would they have survived before nylon was invented if they hadnt evolved beneficial mutations? This is why we study drosophila: because of their mutagenic nature and protein sequences.
Sheesh! its been years since I've heard the nylon example. Fair deal. But organisms don't BECOME resistant to pesticides, etc - some of the population WERE already resistant . The Franklin expedition who died of lead poisoning in the Arctic 100 years ago had three strains of bacteria that are resistant to modern antibiotics. To BECOME resistant to a pesticide/etc would require directional mutations; mutations are random and more than one mutation would have to go in the same direction to work
True, at times these can be pre-existing; they may be inherited traits. However, analysis showed that this was due to a frame-shift mutation, which generated an entirely new gene from scratch. We know how this happened, and where, and we know that it didnt previously exist. How is this not a beneficial mutation creating new information? Not only that, but it has been experimentally duplicated using non-nylon-metabolizing strains!
First, if a new gene was created it doesn't follow that its beneficial. Secondly, assuming that it was beneficial by itself, it would be drowned out by natural selection unless it was the one infinitesimally rare mutation that occurred at the exact time the environment required it. Otherwise, the mutation would be deleterious and would be a liability, possibly ending the strain.
The site you reference has a lot of suppositions attached to its reasoning. Cont . . .
The proposal that this SAME mutation must have occurred before is speculation. The hope that it will overcome its abysmal efficiency is perhaps best taken in light of Sickle Cel Anemia - it is a deleterious mutation that confers a resistance to Malaria while adding all sorts of inefficiencies to the organism.
I've asked around my brain trust about this. One Phd biologist has been published, another just graduated with our Governor General's Award for Excellence - a valuable resource
In addition, this was duplicated in the lab, using a single bacterium (this is a standard experiment). Since bacteria reproduce asexually all of its descendants are clones, and subject to mutation. So there was no diversity in the original population (i.e. not preexisting); yet the same result: a beneficial mutation occurred!
This is a new gene, an increase in information, and an increase in complexity. We know the exact genetic sequence where this happened: after the 33rd amino acid.
A new gene I may concede, but increased complexity? I'm not sure. This shift of data creates a lot of genetic gibberish - like moving all the wires on your TV down one pin.
Are you telling me that it spontaneously duplicated the previous mutation, or was it forced?
I'm still looking into it.
And this whole thing may yet turn out to be untrue, or at least questionable. You said once not to trust creationists, but its evolutionists, not creationists that do the most damage to evolution.
This is exactly what creationists say cant occur. Evolution is a fact and has been observed-even by your criteria. As Ive already shown, this has happened and been observed many times in the past, both in the lab and nature. If you are honestly searching for the truth, then you can see this. Im not trying to convert you or anything. I just want creationists to stop spreading disinformation.
I think creationists allow a great deal of variation to occur in single cell animals - but I think they';d agree that we don't believe any substantial improvement or addition to information would occur. In sexual repoduction of course, such changes are generally weeded out by genetics, but as you say, single cel specimins are usually clones of their parent.
Beneficial adaptions do not always mean an increase in information - an insect losing the ability to fly is a benefit on a windy island.
No creationist I know holds to fixity of species - but I think the common thinking is that new (additional) information has never been demonstrated. But if you're honest, you still have bacteria that is recognizable as the former form. I'm reading a study on a bacteria that has adapted to metabolize citrate. That may appear as evolutionary, but in fact it appears that in fact its a breakdown of an inhibitor
Here are some beneficial mutations: gate . net/~rwms/EvoMutations . html
We have also recorded several instances of beneficial mutations in humans. Gate . net/~rwms/EvoEvidence . html
Ive already given you an example of evolution creating a new body part (secal valves). So, yes, even by your standards—beneficial mutations, and increase in information—evolution is a fact, and has been observed.
Instance of evolution: entirely new body parts in an isolated population:
News . nationalgeographic . com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution_2 . html
So, evidently cladogenesis can follow long periods of stasis: PE happens.
Your turn: Provide one piece of evidence for creation. How do you explain the thousand plus, missing links we do have? How do you explain human fossils around the planet dating tens to hundreds of thousands of years old? Let alone the DNA and ERV evidence.
"All of this might be evolution," Hendry said. "The logical next step would be to confirm the genetic basis for these changes." This is hardly evolution - it is at best micro-evolution, ie variation within the normal range of its genetic limitations.
This from the sensational magazine that brought you Archaeoraptor liaoningensis, (Nov 99) proving conclusively that Ds now had feathers. their Nov 2004 33 page article on evolution was almost a joke - this was an embarrassment for evolutionists.
Evidence for creation - we're here. The Wistar conferences, (evolutionists) : there is 0 chance of life coming about by chance. Even the smallest bacteria cell has 100 proteins, DNA, RNA, and contains one-hundred billion atoms. It all has to work the first time.
Assuming all the pieces were in place to form life functions "For each of these macro-molecules to perform a particular function a specific sequence is required. The odds of this occurring by accident are estimated to be 10e130 to 1.5
Evidence for evolution: were here. So what is your evidence for creation? How do you dismiss all of the evidence for evolution: atavisms, DNA, ERVs, vestiges, ontogeny, or the existence of hominids dating back hundreds of thousands of years, etc?
Your odds-of-life-by-chance is abiogenesis; not evolution. Biochemistry is not by chance; making calculated odds is meaningless. Calculating something to be in its current form is dishonest, since evolution shows that mutations are selected for.
No, this is macro-evolution (speciation). Even if it was micro it is still evolution. My statement stands: evolution is a fact and has been observed. This is even an example of PE, which you are still claiming is based on absence of evidence.
What genetic limitation are you talking about? The only limit to teh process is time.
Dinosaur is a superorder of which birds are contained. Give me one peer reviewed scientific article claiming that archaeopteryx is not a transitional form.
In what sense does peer review guarantee accuracy? We both know many peer reviews that have been frauds, been withdrawn, etc.
Nor does lack of per review imply much.
An example I'm familiar with from years of conducting tours is the northwest scablands - in 1923, J. Harlan Bretz came up with a theory for the coulees that was so preposterous that for twenty or more years he was ostracized by the scientific community. His theory is now considered fact.
Thats how science works! The peer review process is how these frauds are discovered. Would you rather accept hypotheses that havent been reviewed for accuracy? You need to come up with a hypothesis, do tests, try to duplicate and falsify your results, make predictions, try to falsify them, perform blind tests, etc. Then you submit them for peer review, where other scientists attempt to duplicate and falsify your results. Scientific review is brutal, but necessary if we are to find the truth.
This doesn't seem to apply to evolution - Piltdown WAS a fact for 50 years, inspite many challenges to the fraud, it was protected as a sacred icon.
As far as testing, etc - evolution is an untestable hypothesis - a predictions: that there should be millions of intermediate specimens both before and after the Cambrian - failed!
The predictions of the Creationists: a worldwide flood produces millions of dead fauna and flora buried quickly under huge amounts of sediment. Confirmed!
The peer-review process isnt perfect, but its the best method we have. Would you rather we accept any paper written by anyone, without checking it for accuracy?
Id sure like to see a peer-reviewed article that validates your statements regarding a worldwide flood.
So youre implying that all humans alive today are descendants of 8 people on a boat, 4000 years ago?...
not 4000 - maybe 8000. And I thought the whole concept of Mitochondrial Eve was that there was a traceable connection to a single gene pool. In fact, its reasonable, because evolution doesn't have intelligence and the chance of evolution happening in parallel streams is impossible.
8k is still impossible. I dont know what your point is but: ME is the most-recent common ancestor of all humans alive on Earth today with respect to matrilineal descent. ME isnt the mother of every human who ever lived and wasnt the first female human either. The ME represents that woman whose mitochondrial DNA (with mutations) exists in all the humans now living on Earth. Y nuclear Adam is traced back to 60kya, while M-Eve is traced to 170kya, and obviously doesnt refer to a gene pool.
So, Mitochondrial Eve has nothing to do with a past gene pool. Youre right in saying that humans wouldnt have evolved in two separate places independently; e.g. just as English wouldnt evolve more than once—from Latin—within isolated populations. This was a major reason Piltdown was initially questioned, but they didnt know much about evolution a century ago, and there was no motive for fraud.
Pre high-school genetics shows that 8 people have a maximum of 16 different alleles for each locus; actually we would have less since some of them are descendants of others. So, if all mutations are negative or deleterious, then we couldnt possibly have any more than 16 alleles today, since that would be an increase in information, which you say cant happen. How do we today have loci with well over 400 different alleles? If they didnt appear thru mutation, then how did they get here?
Piltdown was very unfortunate; nobody knows why someone would do this. Yes it did fool the scientific community; however, French and American scientists immediately rejected it. The American Museum of Natural History always only listed it as a mixture of ape and man fossils. The thing is that all the other fossils we were finding created a pattern, filling in the missing links and Piltdown didnt fit. Also, the theory of evolution claimed that our ancestors would come from Africa; not England.
"American scientists immediately rejected it" - maybe, but so did creationists. It WAS taught in the US as fact, maybe over the objections of a small cadre of realists, but taught it was. I was in school in the 50's and the unassailable evidence for evolution was Piltdown and recapitulation
And how many other fossils supporting man's evolution are there? Even today, there aren't many. Don't forget that Nebraska man was an American hoax, so our scientific community wasn't immune.
Piltdown was then taken off display and eliminated from conversation. Years later, it was taken out of storage and tested for the first time, where it was immediately found to be a hoax. Because of this unfortunate hoax, we are determined to never let it happen again. This is why we have the scientific method, and so much (blind) testing is done. So, the scientific method, and the theory itself were what exposed Piltdown as a hoax—not creationists—this is actually a triumph to both.
Piltdown was taken off display, but not out of conversation. And yes, like archeopteryx, it was made unavailable to all but the faithful. My question is really, since the filed teeth, staining using modern chemistry, etc were so obvious, how did it become the icon of evidence for evolution? are evolutionary scientists today so gullible?
Wasn't there a lemming recently claimed to be man's ancestor?
And with tongue firmly in cheek, isn't this a bit like expecting an arsonist to fight his own fire?
We have about 10,000 hominid fossils, which we have tested and confirmed. We also have over a million other transitional fossils. Weve even done DNA testing on many. Are you implying that all of these are hoaxes too? The testing methods we used to discover Piltdown surely would have exposed any others. Let alone the advanced testing we have today. Remember: Piltdown was exposed by evolutionary scientists, not creationists. If you have evidence to disprove any of these, then present it.
After many years of critical analysis, if your hypothesis holds up thru the peer review process, and if a scientific consensus is reached, it might qualify as a Theory. This is true with gravity, evolution, and every other theory we have. The theory of evolution has withstood 150 years of critique by the smartest minds in multiple fields, and is continually vindicated.
You also seem to think that a theory graduates to a fact. They are different things entirely: Fact=what, law=how, theory=why.
I'll challenge this shortly - Evolution is not vindicated by examination but by exclusion. Piltdown and Archeopteryx are very similar stories - used as proof of evolution but then being protected from examination. Its hard to know how to attack such a fortress when its the private funding of creationist research up against the unlimited funding provided to the evolutionist.
Just for education purposes, look up Gary Parker - used to write biology textbooks, became a creationist by the evidence.
While evolution is given lip service as theory, it is stated to be fact by many, and treated as such by the rest.
Evidence that contradicts it is ignored for just that reason - it doesn't fit the theory.
I refer you to the Acambaro figures - dated twice ~ 5000+ years, yet dismissed as fakes simply because they don't fit the theory. I could list a lot of similar situations.
Now if the Acambaro figurines are fakes - peasants have learned how to fool the best labs - so all dating is suspect.
Re peer review: pardon me if I repeat myself, but lots of poor theories have passed. Granted some have had the support withdrawn. Like Piltdown man, newer specimens have been sequestered with no access to anyone, so critical analysis is impossible.
This is a theory that has been carried by fraud, and maintained by exclusion - of evidence, criticism and alternative theories.
Yes, there's a lot of material that can be interpreted to support the evolutionary theory, but there are alternatives.
It is circular reasoning that keeps creationists out of the publications:
"The scientists in authoritative positions have established their own preconceived definition for science. 'To be scientific in our era is to search for solely natural explanations' (Hewlett and Peters, 2006, Theology, Religion, and Intelligent Design, p. 75)"
Since creation is not naturalistic, therefore by that definition it is NOT science, regardless of how accurate its application of theory and observation.
In 2004, in my capacity as editor of The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, I authorized The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories by Dr. Stephen Meyer to be published in the journal after passing peer-review. Because Dr. Meyers article presented scientific evidence for intelligent design in biology, I faced retaliation, defamation, harassment, and a hostile work environment at the Smithsonians
National Museum of Natural History that was designed to force me out as a Research Associate there
Sternberg, Richard (2008), Smithsonian Controversy, [On-line]
The official statement in response:
The paper by Stephen C. Meyer...was published at the discretion of the former editor Richard v. [sic] Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; associate editors would have deemed the paper . . .
inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history.... The Council endorses a resolution on ID published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science...which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence upporting ID as a testable hypothesis to explain the origin of organic diversity. . .
Accordingly, the Meyer paper does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings ("Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington, [On-line]
"The article did not cause a stir because it did not pass the review process. It caused a stir because it did not meet the scientific standard . . . because it advocated the possibility of an intelligent Designer."
Do you really think that any research, regardless as how valid it may be, will ever get peer reviewed?
AAAS stated: Therefore Be It Further Resolved, that AAAS calls upon its members to assist those engaged in overseeing science education policy to understand the nature of science, the content of contemporary evolutionary theory and the inappropriateness of intelligent design theory as subject matter (AAAS Board..., 2002,). This simply means that if any book, article, or paper has anything about intelligent design in it, do not publish, promote, or condone it in anyway.
"Thus, it is clear that the oft-repeated accusation against creation sciences lack of peer-reviewed papers is seen for what it is: an intentional exclusion based, not on the merits of the paper, but on the agreed-upon, but false, definition that true science entails only natural explanations. Kyle Butt, M.A. (Biology)
Creationist papers are rejected "not because they fail to provide evidence and proof of their conclusions, but because they are not atheistic and evolutionary."
Of course! AAAS is for the advancement of science; supernatural (i.e. god, a creator and/or intelligent designer) is the opposite of natural science. It is undetectable by any means and is anti science in every way. So for someone to write a scientific paper, claiming supernatural causes is not science at all. The same couldve been (and was) said for rainbows, fairy rings, earthquakes, etc. All science says nothing about god, and cant by definition. Dont confuse science with theology.
Exactly! Creation is supernatural; science deals with the natural. So by definition, creation is not scientific and cannot ever be proved naturally. It is dependant entirely on faith. You might say that evolution requires faith too, but thats not entirely true, because we have an abundance of evidence as even you admitted. The same could be said for heliocentricism, or any other theory. At some point, the evidence is so overwhelming you accept it as true.
No credible scientists or historians accept those figures as being valid. The results for both radiocarbon and TL were inconclusive—further testing showed TL dating to be of no use—instead chimiluminescence was used, which cannot be used for dating and false dates were produced. If you use the wrong tools and lie about the results, then anything can be shown to say anything. What kind of results do you expect when you use carbon dating on something that contains no carbon?
A peer-reviewed paper was written by De Peso (1953), pointing out many problems with the Acamaro figures; too many to list here.
The tribe that inhabited that site emerged during the Postclassic (AD 900-AD 1522); yet creationists claim the figures date to 5000 years old? No other tribes record anything similar and no other evidence exists.
First of all, the paper was not peer reviewed. Secondly, Di Piso was accused by another anthropologist who worked with him of bending facts to suit his beliefs, and in a scientific report no less. The TL lab only repudiated their dating after they were aware of the implications, the C14 stands.
You need to do some research about the many cultures that have artifacts AND cultural evidences about coexistance. Ica Burial Stones?
The 30,000 plus figures were all in nearly perfect condition, containing recent tooling marks, sharp edges and no dirt packed in them, nor soluble salts, as every other authentic object of the site was found. The soil at the site was mixed with top soil and fresh manure. They even found recent fingerprints in the soil. The researcher paid farmers per figure they recovered, giving them motive to forge them.
The sheer quantity of figures compared to the tribes population is bazaar.
You're quoting Di Pisa. many other people who spend considerable time at the site, including Earle Stanley Gardner, the District Attorney for Los Angeles and of whom it was said never uttered an untrue word. may newspaper reports were filed all supporting the digs.
Another dig in undisturbed soil by the Mexican govt produced more, that are currently on display in Acambero, also dated to 6000 years.
Evolution is both a fact and a theory. As I already stated, they are different things. A fact is a verifiable observation. In evolutionary biology, that is descent with modification, and is accurate as Ive already shown. A Theory is a unifying framework explaining facts, laws and hypotheses.
The same is true with gravity. The law of gravity is that matter attracts matter. Why does matter attract matter? Thats the theory of gravity.
The fact of evolution as Ive shown, is descent with modification. We can observe this with livestock cultivation weve observed animals diverge into entirely new species coming from older family trees and common ancestors. This is a readily evident fact in every lineage and is implied in taxonomy and verified via DNA. Now, you may use the word adaptation, but by definition, this is evolution.
Finding gaps in evolution doesnt disprove it anymore than finding gaps in gravity doesnt disprove it either. As I stated, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. For example: gravity is wrong, and we know it. Einsteins theory of relativity replaced Newtonian physics but it is still wrong and we know it. But we cant replace something that works with nothing.
So for creationism: no, finding things we dont yet understand, or cant explain doesnt falsify evolution or prove creation.
If you want to disprove evolution, or prove creationism, then why not follow the established scientific process? Write a paper and submit your findings for peer review. Why has this never happened? Why has no creationist been able to falsify evolution? Why cant they provide one single piece of evidence creation?
How does creation explain the evidence for evolution we have, like DNA, ERVs, atavisms, ontogeny, etc? Its amazing how you ignore all the evidence for evolution.
You're living in a dreamworld if you don't think that creationists are de facto shut out of serious review. I have a friend who is a biology teacher (prof?) who has to write under a pseudonym to protect his job. At least one medical school will nor recommend any student who is a creationist. There is a "glass ceiling" in sciences that prevents any serious consideration of a creationist argument.
By the way, I've been tied up with various issues re the opening of school etc - I'll respond soon.
I am very busy as well; for the same reason ironically. Many of our interns have returned to school, so our workload has increased. It takes so much time to get them up to a level that they can be of assistance, then it seems they return to school just when theyre helpful.
Its not my goal to write a book on this comments section. There already are books dedicated to debunking all of the bogus creationist claims.
So far I've addressed the publication issue (and shown that one of Snells articles, peer reviewed, slipped into a scientific journal, and the furor that ensued), and the issue of evidence.
DNA is far to complicated to have evolved - information only comes from intelligence. I can't conceive a watertight explanation from evolutionists on this issue. But I'm open.
Atavism is a rehashing of Haeckels Recapitulation theory, a deliberate fraud known to be so for almost 100 years, yet still in texts
A common atavism is the "tail" on human embryo, which is never a tail or equivalent, and not formed in anyway resembling same.
The spine and brain grow ahead of the rest of the body, til at the 29th day the spine has grown ahead of the legs that are attached to it, which some have called a "tail", and the "tail" "seems" to disappear as the muscles etc from the legs develop to fill out the "extension" This is similar to babies being born with adult sized ear bones, etc. etc. No tail! Ever! No Way
If Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, then the path to the homology would involve similar DNA sequences and development. Frogs feet for example develop in a very different way to human feet, but the end result is similar - again I believe a evidence of a Common Designer.
If we are wise enough to recognize a Rembrandt by its style and details, why can we not recognize the traits of a Common Designer, given homologies with entirely different development paths?
Haeckels embellishments were disgraceful. Im not aware of any textbooks currently in use which use Haeckels drawings. Whats important to note though, is that these drawings are now replaced with photomicrographs, which display the same results! Creationists continue to cling on to these half-dozen falsified images (out of a few hundred) of over a century ago as somehow disproof of evolution.
Piltdown, Haeckel and archaeoraptor were all exposed by evolutionary scientists; not creationists.
The photographically couldn't possibly show the same results, because he used the woodcut for one of the embryos (Human I think) in all the columns. I'd hope in this day that they wouldn't repeat this .
More importantly, although there is an appearance of similarity, ie frogs and man have digits, the development and genes responsible for them are radically different. So appearances can be deceiving.
It was Jay Gould who took NY schools to task for still having it in their texts.
I've never suggested that these fakes disprove evolution - what I've said is that evolution has been so loose a science that fakes are welcome because they support the cause. The recent fiasco at Frankfurt U re C14 dating was, according to the chancellor, in large part because "many of the professors looked the other way" Why?
And claiming that evolutionists found the frauds is disingenuous - they caused the fraud, accepted the fraud, taught the fraud and finally admitted it? Sheesh!!
As an addendum, even letters to the editors pointing out erroneous conclusions in scientific papers are not published if written by creationists. So much for going where ever the science takes you.
Its hard to prove a creationist point when all the rules are made by evolutionists - and the premise of evolution disallows any introduction of any evidence of supernaturalism.
But its not hard at all to put the pieces together of you ALLOW supernatural intervention or creation.
Youre obviously very knowledgeable with the bible; someday I hope I could be so (as I do read the bible regularly). However, your information on evolution is corrupt.
Quoting someone credible or distorting a term doesn't falsify evolution. Even if every single scientist in the world believed in creation, that still doesnt disprove what evolution. Besides, your problem isn't falsifying evolution, i.e. creation doesnt win by default. You still havent provided any evidence for creation.
I'd like to point out that this applies to the creationist perspective - if all scientists agreed on evolution, it wouldn't make it so.
I've long since come to the conclusion that evolution cannot be falsified - every milestone that COULD be a target for falsification gets moved when the evidence is against it.
An example is the missing transitional fossils (which I'm working on) - which Darwin said would falsify evolution. But no, since we haven't the proof of Darwins idea, we have PE
Let me suggest a problem that creationists have with the non-evolution argument. We can argue biology till we're blue - but then we have to deal not with the survival of the fittest but the ARRIVAL of the fittest.
In creationist terms that IS evolution, as is the big bang etc.
Arguing the evidence for creation is the same as arguing for the big bang - by any definition a miracle, and as such are not explainable. What we do have is facts
The problem with providing evidence for creation is the
fact that it CAN be proved negatively - ie there are only two possibilities - God it or He didn't. The current non-God theory is evolution - we successfully defeated spontaneous generation etc..
So if the makebelieve of evolution can be successfully discounted, creation DOES win by default.
Eg. you mentioned that with enough time anything is possible - WRONG - only entropy would be enhanced. If entropy is a provable result of time, how does more time create less entropy?
Now you've mentioned the lizard that was transplanted and "grew" a new organ. Even the reporter wasn't convinced, and I quoted his doubt.
Last summer I was in Alaska. One of the lakes there (Loberg) was treated chemically and all the Three Spined Stickleback were killed. They introduced the salt water variety and within a number of generations they fish had " mutated" back to a freshwater version - using the information available in its DNA to respond to new environments. Adaption not evolution
The new denizens of Loberg were remarkably like other fresh water varieties.
One of the marks of a "species" is they stop breeding with their former mates. However these fish in Lake Enos has interbred between two species til there's do distinct specie.
Again, every lake adaptation may be called a different specie, but from a creationist perspective, they're still all the same "kind" and vary only within their available genetic limits.
Now you mentioned snakes with legs. You may have unintentionally been dishonest about that - they never display forelimbs. I have no problem with that. You may have read that one of the curses after Adam's rebellion was that the serpent was to slither in the dust of the earth. The three fossils from Isreal are simply (one of thousands of) extinct species.
Plus, I have no problem with snakes having pelvic girdles etc as this is LOSS of information, not addition of NEW information.
It wasnt my intent to be misleading; I apologize if I was. Yes, these hind legs are now vestiges. Why would whales and snakes have remnants of legs if they didint once have them? Loss of information can be beneficial; as I said before, mutations are beneficial depending on the environment. We have examples of new information too, as Ive shown. We have many fossil records of this happening, but we have also observed it in nature and the lab, as Ive shown.
I agree with you re the snakes, because there are several fossils as evidence. And the Bible infers the same fact. But we have no such evidence for whales - so far we've got teeth and ear pieces, as far as I'm aware - that's not evidence.
Again, I know of no fossil evidence of evolution even through there should be no limit to them, but you can cite an example. And again, mutations are purposeless and random - evolutionists seem to believe as though there's a direction to them
Yes, mutations happen at random, but as Ive stated repeatedly-and you admitted-mutations are beneficial or negative depending on the environment; therefore, natural selection is what selects for mutations. Natural selection is not random.
You mentioned an organism losing its wings could be beneficial but noted that this is a loss of information. So on the other hand you must admit that an organism gaining a new body part as Ive shown, would be an increase in information, by your standards.
I don't think that the one follows the other. As I've said before, a horse carries the gene for three toes, so "mutating" to three toes isn't an increase in information, but it would be a new body part.
I shouldn't jump into an answer like this, cause I don't know what else you posted - this is the order in my emails that I'm way behind on.
And without having researched it, I wonder if the Lizard's new organ falls into the same mategory
So youre admitting that snakes once had legs; anatomical atavisms are the reappearance of a lost character. So chickens with teeth dolphins with legs, etc. are evidence that these organisms once had them. We also have fossil evidence to show this. Why else would god give organisms DNA sequences to make such things?
Here are a couple whale fossils, and yes, we have more than a few pieces of a jaw:
Of course any good scientist wont commit to something without proper evidence. He said the next step was to verify this genetically, and youll be happy to know that this was confirmed:
This is an example of a population evolving an entirely new body part in less than 40 years. This is a beneficial mutation (evolution) and the addition of new information that is previously unknown to this specie, and only occurs in 1% of all reptiles!
THX for the update - I'll look into it. But it still disn't sprout wings ;-) But do I understand you to say that isn't new to this kind of reptile? maybe the article will make this clearer.
I'm not passing you off - this has been a very busy week, and the rest of this week looks worse - who said retirement was all fun and beaches?
The question isnt IF god created the universe, but HOW did he do it? By waving a magic wand, or did he use natural means? All evidence points to natural means. Why are you so adamant that god didnt/couldnt use natural means? All evidence shows that god created everything using the very laws he created.
The big bang doesnt supplant god and isnt a miracle either; you obviously dont understand the big bang theory. Most scientists who accept evolution believe in god, and I am one of them!
Believing in God is a good thing, but it largely depends on what kind of god you believe in, and what you can concieve of him doing. Of course if we could understand God, we'd be his equal.
If you believe the scriptural God, then you'll understand that the Bible is quite clear that there was no death before there was sin.
You'd also know that God created the laws of nature along with creation, not by them. The Bible is adamant that it took six days. The question us why did He take so long ;-)
Re entropy: It seems you are referring to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. As the law states, it applies to a closed system; were not in a closed system. We are continually receiving energy from the sun. Besides, this is regarding thermodynamics; not evolution. The law states that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one, or that the total entropy in a closed system will not decrease. This doesnt prevent increase in order regarding evolution, even if it did apply.
You're just moving the goalpost if you plead open system - then we can apply the same entropy to the universe. But claiming the input of sunlight to our biosphere is sufficient to overcome entropy is, I think, creating a strawman. Increasing energy doesn't imply increasing organization.
And I must research your statement of heat transfer - I have always assumed that entropy included the dissipation of heat tending towards uniformity
Youve got to be kidding me. A misunderstanding of the law on your part is two logical fallacies by me? The earth is not a closed system; sunlight (low entropy) shines on it and heat (higher entropy) radiates off. This is obvious as the sun warms us, allows plants to grow, etc.
As I said, entropy doesnt mean disorder; its in reference to thermodynamics. Besides, Chaos Theory shows that order can and does arise from disorder.
As for the universe being a closed system: yes, it applies universally, but, as everyone can see, that does not mean that everything everywhere is always breaking down. The second law allows local decreases in entropy offset by increases elsewhere. The second law does not say that order from disorder is impossible; in fact, as anyone can see, as Ive noted, order from disorder happens all the time.
Herein lays the problem. Creationists usually dont understand science or how it works. They dont understand the scientific process or even basic terms like fact, law, theory, hypothesis, etc. Their arguments rely on disinformation and misinterpretation of terms. Your confusion of cosmology with chemistry, physics and biology; then lumping them together is typical. Evolution has nothing to do with the big bang and no aspect of science says anything about god; this includes the big bang theory.
Yes it is falsifiable; a fundamental of any theory is that it is falsifiable. Of course, you cant falsify evolution by pointing to a missing link. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You need to find something that doesnt fit, e.g. a mammal before mammals evolved. How about you find a rabbit fossil in the pre-Cambrian? There are many predictions of evolution that you are free to test and falsify.
Im not sure of this missing transitional Darwin spoke of, so I can't help out.
55 seconds - 1 minute 01s: Lance Goller claims to be an atheist on another anti-JW forum. So your statement above is very inaccurate (He hasnt left maintaining a belief in God, Jesus and the Bible! I stopped asociating 10 years ago; I still believe, but I havent been disfellowshipped! Ive also read through WY Comments website and the way you use various quotations are extremely ambiguous with great slight of hand! You may fool many, but not all!
There is no lie: When I decided to leave JWs, I still believed in Jehovah, Jesus, and the Bible. It was only months after leaving that I gradually came to the conclusion that I no longer see any proof of divine inspiration of the Bible, nor proof of the existence of the Bible God. Seeing Jesus as a quasi-historical figure came later.
Hebrews is a very dynamic book that examines the importance of faith; especially in times when the majority of people would belittle and/or try to strip the faith of another.
I hope your faith is being renewed, daily, Kelly. Good to hear from you :)
Kellylittleton, I have a question for you.. Let's say the Jehovah's Witnesses have it Utterly and Completely INCORRECT..When the end comes do you think God will destroy all of those JW's who thought they were serving God accurately but were misled by an organization? Now do you really think God is going to destroy all those who are whole souled in their devotion to him who are not JW's..because if you think you are the only One's who God will save then Your God is not a Just God..
GGod said he would ressurect the righeous(those following and worshipping God correctly) and the unrighteous(those who are not following God correctly), because of God's mercy most of humanity will be given a second chance to know the One True God. If they decline or go against Jehovah, then they will be destroyed AGAIN for all eternity.
so you believe that if you are incorrect in your understanding of God despite your whole souled service to him, you will be destroyed? That's a very sad situation..I would not want to worship a God I believed capable of murdering people who loved him and served him according to his word, yet because of a mistranslation or miscommunication of sorts were murdered due to that fact
What about the statement in Hebrews 9:27 NWT? There's no second chance in the Bible - that's just another JW makebelieve. "Once to die, and then judgement"
Give me a verse in the Bible that teached that, not a Watchtower month and page. Please!
God has conflicting atttributes - Justice and Holiness are opposites that only He can reconcile. Following a false religion fits nicely into the statement that Jesus made about people thinking they were doing his work, but He never knew them JW's fit into this category. They teach another Jesus (2 Cor 11:4) God's holiness cannot tolerate false prophets, nor the denigration of his son to a mere creature. Holiness says there is one way to God - Jesus - not the WTS
I was told by the presiding overseer i was not aloud to question the Society after your baptized. After he said that i threw him out of my house! If an organization says you cannot question it it is a cult.Thx for spreading real truths.Thx
Watchtower 1995 May 15 p.16 gives a very convoluted, bizarre, absurd, confusing explanation with regard to the identity of the slave of Matthew 24:45-47:the slave and the domestics are both the same group of people. The 144,000 anointed ones are the slave as a whole, yet individually the same 144,000 are the domestics that as a group they rule over. The faithful and discreet slave is the 144,000 collectively. The domestics are the 144,000 individually. The 144,000 feed the 144,000.
Another major disconnect -Watchtower 1995 May 15 p.16 gives a very convoluted, bizarre, absurd, confusing explanation with regard to the identity of the slave of Matthew 24:45-47. In all of this, however, there is no scripture that explicitly states that the single slave of Matthew 24:45-47 is actually the 144,000 of Revelation 7:4.
the effects of Adamic sin and death to become immortal and incorruptible and live forever on a paradise earth according to the Watchtower Society? ONE THOUSAND YEARS!!!The obvious question therefore is: how is it that the effects of Adamic sin are reversed IN AN INSTANT for those who go to heaven yet it takes ONE THOUSAND YEARS for these same effects to be reversed in the case of the Great Crowd?
upon their transference to heaven, i.e. they will overcome/conquer the effects of Adamic sin and death IN AN INSTANT. Additionally, those who died before Jesus' second coming and who will be resurrected to heaven will also overcome the effects of Adamic sin and death in the twinkling of an eye -- that is IN AN INSTANT - to become immortal and incorruptible. On the other hand, how long will it take the Great Crowd to do the same thing -- that is, how long will it take the Great Crowd to overcome
Thanks for the video. Years ago I was warned that JWs' understanding of the Bible was based on scriptures taken out of context to justify doctrines. I never listened. I got carried away with their fanciful story of paradise. I have come to realize that this doctrine is not correct. In reading 1Cor.15:51-56 it is interesting to note that Christians who are alive at the time of Jesus' second coming, will be changed in the twinkling of an eye to become immortal and incorruptible
Against those that do go to college and leave the truth.But those number don't exist.I talk to friend about there kids going to college and always it's negative oh it's bad influence.Well last time i checked when i go to work i'm around bad influence so what's the difference and if i go to colleg i can get a better career and not have to work twice as hard and twice as much to make ends meet. So the more you do research into the organization the more question you have.
I said what a minute i don't agree with that i said no human organization owns me.I said that was the first time i had ever heard such a comment.Has any of you heard that explanation before? that once again disturbed me. He also said that over 90 percent of witnesses who go to college leave the truth and i said where are these numbers at then he said well don't quote me on that. I want statistics on how many brother who don't go to college leave the truth.
The brother made some good points about eating pork how it was against Jehovah's commandments at one time and later Jehovah changed that without explanation and said it was ok to eat pork. I said ok that's a good point. Also the brother had said that jehovah owns us i said ok i agree and Jesus bought us with a price i said ok i agree and then he said that th slave class will be appointed over all hi belong's which is us and that we are owned by the slave class.
So i pretty much got nowhere with my questions and they left within 30 minutes.So the next time i told the brother i had questions that i would like to discuss he brought with him without my prior knowledge the circuit overseer and one of the annointed,lol i laughed and said this guy is so nervous he brings in the heavy artillery,lol. Which i don't mind so i said ok i will ask him these questions being this brother is no help for me.So i was happy to discuss with him and he was nice.
Has anyone checked out a recent Dvd that came out called Pursue Goals that honor God? The video disturbed me so much i completly destroyed because it was so obviously full of propoganda and horrible acting.I talked to a friend of mine who was an elder and i think it disturbed him that i destroyed the dvd. So when i asked to discuss what he thought about the dvd he brought the presiding overseer with him. He said the was nothing wrong with going to college but why the propoganda against it.
I have found it interesting that once we start to do the heavy research we find even less answers to our questions and lose faith in the organization real fast. Lance's experiences are not alone, many of us have had to deal with Elders and other "higher" members telling us not to even try to figure out JW beliefs and when we question them we are shunned! keep up the videos V, they are great!
So True! I am still active for the sake of my family who is still in, but I don't lose hope that they will eventually see the truth about the "Truth" - these videos have been such an immense help to me and many in the same situation - All I can say is Thank You!
Fantastic videos. I have a lot of respect for the way the interview was handled by both parties. The answers were clear and succinct, there was no obvious agenda or personal vendetta. I really appreciate that Lance is speaking from his experiences and letting that alone do the 'talking' instead of infusing it with conjecture.
Thank you both for taking the time to make this video..I've been recently reading Crisis of Conscience by Ray Franz..wonderful book and a lot of the goings on of the society, the inner workings the average JW has no clue about, who writes the publications, who decides what to write, who finals it..everything is so different from what members are taught..Anyway Thanks to you WTC well put together, and Lance 4 the interview
Great video. Thanks. The Watchtower claims only one fulfillment of Daniel 11 and that this fulfillment spans thousands of years with a progression of kings fulfilling the progressive verses. There is nothing in Daniel 11 however, to indicate that its fulfillment would span thousands of years with a progression of kings fulfilling the progressive verses. It therefore appears to me that this is just a clever way for the Society to sidestep prophecy failure. Your feedback is greatly appreciated.
Good point on the other sheep being gentiles rather than the WT's belief that they are the great crowd. I challenge all withnesses everywhere to check this out. John is CLEARLY talking about Gentiles who will come into the flock.
The way I understand the passage about the other sheep, is simply that there are sheeplike people out there in the world, that have not heard of Christ, but when they do hear His voice, they stand up and follow Him. In addition, who the great crowd is I believe is the 144000, the JW just mixed up a bit to be more different than the rest of Christianity.
i like that at the end. a V production. Thats bad ass right there
StokesDaddy 11 months ago
You can read whatever you want in the Bible.
RadarKat73080 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Jahova's Witnesses ard dumbasses that mirsinterpete the bible! and should any one still be in that SECT if it made so much False profesies , im a true Christian of the true God not a fake religion who are being brain washed by the house of Satan... (THE WATCH TOWER)
Mexican9377 1 year ago
it begs the question -------think about it If God is almighty all knowing all omniscient as we believe----
then why is there so much apparent confusion over interpreting the Bible -------Why does the all knowing God allow his Imperfect creatures that are not all knowing try to interprete IT .and Jesus said ask and you will recive has any one had any messeages from GOD yet apart from the MORON of the book of MORONS JOSEPH SMITH could they in fact be the true religion after ALL
archeng123 2 years ago
God, through Jesus, appealed to discerning people. Pick up any Bible and if you have a discerning heart, a heart eager to at least understand then such a person (with his heart acceptable to God) will 'see' the Truth. Unfortunately, even in the times when God and Jesus engaged with humans, performing miracles, people still could not 'see'. Not all people have faith; not all want to 'see'. We however need to be careful that the hidden agendas of some fellow humans doesnt spoil our own heart.
Giotto1967 2 years ago
Actually, the heart of man is not discerning, but deceitful and wicked. God's grace is all that makes the difference. We could not follow God even if we wanted to, apart from the presence of the Holy Spirit. The elitism of assuming we can chose God for ourselves is wrong. True, we can choose to accept or reject his calling to us, but its not because we're discerning - its all His grace.
Taking in knowledge is false spirituality, and exclusivism is pride.
happylada 2 years ago
Your questions can all be answered by one simple question - why interpret it at all? Why not just read it and do it?
The reason as I see it is that man cannot accept salvation by grace - man has this innate rebellion that requires him to do good works to prove his value to God.
The best man can do is as filthy rags.
The WTS excels in making people work for their hope of salvation - they never can have peace with God Knowing that their eternity is secure. Its grace, not works that pleases God.
happylada 2 years ago
it begs the question -------think about it If God is almighty all knowing all omniscient as we believe----
then why is there so much apparent confusion over interpreting the Bible -------Why does the all knowing God allow his Imperfect creatures that are not all knowing try to interprete IT .and Jesus said ask and you will recive has any one had any messeages from GOD yet apart from the MORON of the book of MORONS JOSEPH SMITH could they in fact be the true religion after ALL
archeng123 2 years ago
Even when people saw the miracles both God and Jesus performed, first hand, they still chose not to believe. A discerning person will 'receive' and see.
Giotto1967 2 years ago
what happened to faith??
To be separate from the world, takes courage and effort or everyone would serve Jehovah!!
kellylittleton 2 years ago
To leave a high-control mind-control cult also takes a lot of courage. If it were not so difficult to leave, more people would leave JWs.
Your logic works both ways. Believe what you wish, but don't discount the 6 billion people who don't agree with you. Perhaps more people don't join JWs not because it's so hard, but maybe its because there is something wrong with JW teachings. Ever thought of that possibility?
ExGileadMissionary 2 years ago 3
NEVER!! Jehovah chooses the people, he wants to them to worship with spirit and truth~~The road is narrow and cramped, with those who WANT to serve Jehovah....on the other hand the road is spacious and wide, leading off to destruction.....
Not all people will understand the truth, as regards the sacred secret!!
kellylittleton 2 years ago
"With" spirit is a deliberate mistranslation. The Kingdom Interlinear plainly says "in" spirit. I have no idea why this error, except to support their error that the Holy Spirit is a force rather than God. Romans 14:17 is also deliberatly mistranslated, again to support their false teaching.
The personality of the Holy Spirit demonstrated thru the NT defies attempts made to reduce Him to a mere spiritual force. You cannot "grieve" a force. Chuck your NWT and use the KIT or a good translation
happylada 2 years ago
It took a thousand times more courage to leave the faith, and lose most of my friends and all of my family, than it did to sit in boring meetings and pretend to agree with that crap.
Fortunately, the internet is a great equalizer of information, and I discovered a lot of wonderful things about myself that allowed me to swallow that bitter pill.
Make no mistake. It was a LOT easier to be segregated from the kids at school than it is to be segregated from your family.
HintOfLime2 2 years ago 4
Hi kellylittleton
It takes a lot more courage to see what is right, make your stand, announce you are leaving the WT Society and its false teachings and choose to leave it behind, knowing you are losing all future contact with your family and friends - unless YOU kellylittleon have experienced that, you cannot really comment.
maxydog 2 years ago 4
Excellent point! Ever tried describing the colour yellow to someone born blind? Unfortunately, faith isnt the possession of all people.
Giotto1967 2 years ago
Faith is the assured expectation of things beheld, although not seen~~You can teach a blind person about color using illustrations...just like JESUS did~~
kellylittleton 2 years ago
Faith is belief without evidence. Belief in something as absurd as creation, against all the evidence of evolution is insane! Evolution is a fact; it has been observed many times, both in nature and in the lab.
If the Watchtower was correct regarding everything else, theyve repeated lies and propaganda (whether intentional or not) on the subject of evolution. Its sad to see good people being mislead. If you really are interested in the Truth; please do your own research on this one subject.
mhoytus 2 years ago
OK I did and you're WRONG!!! Evolution is not a fact and has never been observed; you cannot cite me one instance where it has. We DO have variation within kinds, but even Darwin recognized that there were no missing links tying the classes together. This lack of links was touted as evidence for Punctuated Equillibrium by Gould.
Nor has it ever been observed in any lab. A million generations and deliberate attempts to force evolution have made no difference at all to Drosophila melanogaster.
happylada 2 years ago
Evolution is change over time; in biology that means descent with modification by change in allelic frequency. This accounts for the variation within kinds you mentioned. This is a fact; evolution is a fact. There is no limit to variation; we have observed speciation many times.
Darwin wrote 150 years ago. Are we to assume there have been no scientific advancements since then? Lack of, or missing something, by definition cannot be evidence of anything. Gould wrote on PE based on evidence.
mhoytus 2 years ago
Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History say that there is not one transitional fossil for which one could make a watertight case. Gould realized this and used the absence of intermediaries to prove PE. Funny how an evolutionist can prove his case by lack of evidence!!
Evolution has never been observed, cannot be demonstrated, and therefore is not fact, but conjecture. That is commonly believed shows a gullible faith. And they think creationists are gullible . . .
happylada 2 years ago
Im aware of the Colin Pattersons quote. Creationists are famous for quote mining credible scientists. Of course you cannot say 100% whether or not a fossil gave birth to an extant lineage. If you want to read his quote in context: talkorigins . org/faqs/patterson . html
Here are dozens more instances of observed evolution, with references:
talkorigins . org/faqs/faq-speciation . html
I think all this is a misunderstanding; maybe you should look up the definition of the evolution.
mhoytus 2 years ago
The question you didn't answer is did he say it?
Patterson also stated that after a lifetime of teaching evolution, there was not a single fact about it he knew to be true, that evolution was anti-knowledge.Given the detailed train of thought he states, the length of time he was asking the questions of his staff and co-workers, and the number of times he repeated his doubts re evolution publicly, I can't take seriously any thought that we're taking any part of it out of context.
happylada 2 years ago
I never denied he said it. I said he was quote mined, i.e. taken out of context. He wasnt even talking about evolution anyway, but systematics; this is obvious when read it in context. Patterson himself even claimed he was taken out of context by creationists. This link has replies from Patterson, and a link to the original quote: talkorigins . org/faqs/wells/iconob . html
He definitely accepted evolution, and has written many papers and books on it. Even if he didn't, what does that prove?
mhoytus 2 years ago
Its really interesting how you avoid the issue. He DID say it, and IN context - he was recounting that he had asked his staff and colleagues if they knew any one thing about evolution that was true - he asked the same thing at the Morphology conference. While it may have been a study in systematics ( I thought it was cladistics), the example cited WAS and specifically STATED to be evolution (broadly)
It was repeated on BBC.
I trust not many of the denials that have been reported.
happylada 2 years ago
After all the other furor dies down, Johnson from Berkley did a personal interview with him.
No one denied he believed, taught and published evolution. Why would he say he'd been mislead all his life? Like many who allow their questioning of evolution to escape their musings and into print, theres a huge professional price to pay. One isn't allowed to point out the emperor has no clothes!!!
happylada 2 years ago
An amazing paranioa of the evolutionists is how terrified they are of creationists - The last Wistar conference kept no records peradventure the Creationists might get a hold of them Patterson took an awful lot of flak for his comments getting into the creationist circuit.
Peter Dodson wrote in the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology wrote re the limited consensus from the Archeopteryx Conference (Bavaria) ". . .to forestall possible misuse by creationists of apparent discord among scientists"
happylada 2 years ago
Even if he said all of that, what does this prove? If he presented an argument that falsified evolution, then thats something. But he didnt.
I read his first quote in context; even he said he was taken out of context. I read the entire transcript from the second quote and he was talking about systematics. So I concede. He also said it doesnt concern the fact of evolution or the general theory. As for his question about knowing anything true: I dont know what he was getting at.
mhoytus 2 years ago
This all happened while I was in grade school so forgive me. A lot has happened in the last 30 years in evolution and systematics though. We now have a twin-nested-hierarchy. We no longer differentiate between micro and macro-evolution since the mechanism is the same and gradations are so fine. We have also mapped the entire human genome along with many other organisms. I will definitely ask my peers for an explanation to his thoughts though and see if there was any more to it.
mhoytus 2 years ago
Would missing links be: snakes with legs, whales with legs, half-mammalian/half-reptilians, birds with scales and teeth? We have all of these!
We dont study drosophila to force evolution, or whatever youre trying to imply. We study drosophila because of their mutagenic nature and short generation time. 75% of known human diseases have a corresponding genetic match in drosophila and 50% of their protein sequences are shared with mammals. We study their evolution to cure to disease.
mhoytus 2 years ago
Surely you jest!! You have none of these
I'm implying that if evolution were to take place, a million generations should do it - the oldest amber has insects in it identical to today's. No evolution observed!!
Name a snake with legs? Pakicetus, the whale with legs? They found bits of a skull and jaw.
Studying evolution has never cured a disease - another myth. Common sequences points to a common designer, period. The bird with scales was a fraud in Nat G Nov 96, Archeoraptor.
happylada 2 years ago
Of course we have all of them; science is based on evidence. We have literally millions of transitional fossils.
Some snakes with legs: Haasiophis terrasanctus, Pachyrhachis, descouensi, Najash. Extant species: python, boa. Whales and snakes currently have the genes for making legs, and modern birds have the genes for making teeth. Why would they have these if their ancestors didnt have them too?
Name one of these oldest insect found in amber which is identical to modern insects.
mhoytus 2 years ago
Same genes same designer doesnt work either.
Birds dont have scales? What about the ostrich? Dinosaur is a superorder; birds are contained in that group. So, yes, birds do have scales, and DS do have feathers. Besides, Nat Geo is not a peer reviewed scientific paper.
Studying evolution has never cured a disease? Why do you think youre supposed to finish all of your antibiotics? Why do you think vaccines loose their effectiveness? Why do you think insecticides loose their effectiveness?
mhoytus 2 years ago
re evolution curing disease:
The bacteria/insect mutations you refer to are NOT evolution - the resistance can occur in one of three ways:
Preexisting resistance
Plasmid transfer
Mutations.
All three are information neutral or degenerative. In order to consider it evolution - it an increasing positive to meet the immediate needs of the organism is false - Mutations do not have a game plan - they happen at random. The implication of evolution is they developed the mutations in response to a need
happylada 2 years ago
I point you to Futumya ...the adaptive needs of the species do not increase the likelihood that an adaptive mutation will occur; mutations are not directed toward the adaptive needs of the moment.... Mutations have causes, but the species need to adapt isnt one of them
Futuyma, Douglas J. (1983), Science on Trial ( pp. 137,138) (Pantheon).
I used to teach that there was an easy way to get a microbe to eat oil - dump them into the oil, harvest the survivors. Repeat. > a new species
happylada 2 years ago
The vast majority of mutations are deleterious; the remainder are either negative, neutral or beneficial. Its tough to get a number of how many, because whether they are beneficial or not is not decided by you or me, but primarily by the environment.
mhoytus 2 years ago
You still seem to have a bit of a twisted understanding of evolution. As you said: mutations are random—they dont act in response to anything—thats true. Creationists typically confuse this as evolution being random. Actually, there are about a dozen types of mutation. By preexisting I think you meant inherited. Plasmid transfer is a horizontal mutation. By mutation I will assume youre talking about point mutation.
mhoytus 2 years ago
Beneficial mutations are how insects build resistance to pesticides. This is the same way vaccines become ineffective. The same is true with antibiotics; in some cases the organism has evolved to actually feed on the antibiotic. Weve even found bacteria that metabolize nylon. How would they have survived before nylon was invented if they hadnt evolved beneficial mutations? This is why we study drosophila: because of their mutagenic nature and protein sequences.
mhoytus 2 years ago
Sheesh! its been years since I've heard the nylon example. Fair deal. But organisms don't BECOME resistant to pesticides, etc - some of the population WERE already resistant . The Franklin expedition who died of lead poisoning in the Arctic 100 years ago had three strains of bacteria that are resistant to modern antibiotics. To BECOME resistant to a pesticide/etc would require directional mutations; mutations are random and more than one mutation would have to go in the same direction to work
happylada 2 years ago
True, at times these can be pre-existing; they may be inherited traits. However, analysis showed that this was due to a frame-shift mutation, which generated an entirely new gene from scratch. We know how this happened, and where, and we know that it didnt previously exist. How is this not a beneficial mutation creating new information? Not only that, but it has been experimentally duplicated using non-nylon-metabolizing strains!
See: nmsr . org/nylon . htm
mhoytus 2 years ago
First, if a new gene was created it doesn't follow that its beneficial. Secondly, assuming that it was beneficial by itself, it would be drowned out by natural selection unless it was the one infinitesimally rare mutation that occurred at the exact time the environment required it. Otherwise, the mutation would be deleterious and would be a liability, possibly ending the strain.
The site you reference has a lot of suppositions attached to its reasoning. Cont . . .
happylada 2 years ago
The proposal that this SAME mutation must have occurred before is speculation. The hope that it will overcome its abysmal efficiency is perhaps best taken in light of Sickle Cel Anemia - it is a deleterious mutation that confers a resistance to Malaria while adding all sorts of inefficiencies to the organism.
I've asked around my brain trust about this. One Phd biologist has been published, another just graduated with our Governor General's Award for Excellence - a valuable resource
happylada 2 years ago
In addition, this was duplicated in the lab, using a single bacterium (this is a standard experiment). Since bacteria reproduce asexually all of its descendants are clones, and subject to mutation. So there was no diversity in the original population (i.e. not preexisting); yet the same result: a beneficial mutation occurred!
This is a new gene, an increase in information, and an increase in complexity. We know the exact genetic sequence where this happened: after the 33rd amino acid.
mhoytus 2 years ago
A new gene I may concede, but increased complexity? I'm not sure. This shift of data creates a lot of genetic gibberish - like moving all the wires on your TV down one pin.
Are you telling me that it spontaneously duplicated the previous mutation, or was it forced?
I'm still looking into it.
And this whole thing may yet turn out to be untrue, or at least questionable. You said once not to trust creationists, but its evolutionists, not creationists that do the most damage to evolution.
happylada 2 years ago
This is exactly what creationists say cant occur. Evolution is a fact and has been observed-even by your criteria. As Ive already shown, this has happened and been observed many times in the past, both in the lab and nature. If you are honestly searching for the truth, then you can see this. Im not trying to convert you or anything. I just want creationists to stop spreading disinformation.
mhoytus 2 years ago
I think creationists allow a great deal of variation to occur in single cell animals - but I think they';d agree that we don't believe any substantial improvement or addition to information would occur. In sexual repoduction of course, such changes are generally weeded out by genetics, but as you say, single cel specimins are usually clones of their parent.
Beneficial adaptions do not always mean an increase in information - an insect losing the ability to fly is a benefit on a windy island.
happylada 2 years ago
Sickle cel anemia is a deleterious human condition that incurs a benefit in resistance to diseases, but the overall organism is weakened.
happylada 2 years ago
No creationist I know holds to fixity of species - but I think the common thinking is that new (additional) information has never been demonstrated. But if you're honest, you still have bacteria that is recognizable as the former form. I'm reading a study on a bacteria that has adapted to metabolize citrate. That may appear as evolutionary, but in fact it appears that in fact its a breakdown of an inhibitor
I'm workin on it . . .
happylada 2 years ago
Here are some beneficial mutations: gate . net/~rwms/EvoMutations . html
We have also recorded several instances of beneficial mutations in humans. Gate . net/~rwms/EvoEvidence . html
Ive already given you an example of evolution creating a new body part (secal valves). So, yes, even by your standards—beneficial mutations, and increase in information—evolution is a fact, and has been observed.
mhoytus 2 years ago
Instance of evolution: entirely new body parts in an isolated population:
News . nationalgeographic . com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution_2 . html
So, evidently cladogenesis can follow long periods of stasis: PE happens.
Your turn: Provide one piece of evidence for creation. How do you explain the thousand plus, missing links we do have? How do you explain human fossils around the planet dating tens to hundreds of thousands of years old? Let alone the DNA and ERV evidence.
mhoytus 2 years ago
"All of this might be evolution," Hendry said. "The logical next step would be to confirm the genetic basis for these changes." This is hardly evolution - it is at best micro-evolution, ie variation within the normal range of its genetic limitations.
This from the sensational magazine that brought you Archaeoraptor liaoningensis, (Nov 99) proving conclusively that Ds now had feathers. their Nov 2004 33 page article on evolution was almost a joke - this was an embarrassment for evolutionists.
happylada 2 years ago
Evidence for creation - we're here. The Wistar conferences, (evolutionists) : there is 0 chance of life coming about by chance. Even the smallest bacteria cell has 100 proteins, DNA, RNA, and contains one-hundred billion atoms. It all has to work the first time.
Assuming all the pieces were in place to form life functions "For each of these macro-molecules to perform a particular function a specific sequence is required. The odds of this occurring by accident are estimated to be 10e130 to 1.5
happylada 2 years ago
Evidence for evolution: were here. So what is your evidence for creation? How do you dismiss all of the evidence for evolution: atavisms, DNA, ERVs, vestiges, ontogeny, or the existence of hominids dating back hundreds of thousands of years, etc?
Your odds-of-life-by-chance is abiogenesis; not evolution. Biochemistry is not by chance; making calculated odds is meaningless. Calculating something to be in its current form is dishonest, since evolution shows that mutations are selected for.
mhoytus 2 years ago
No, this is macro-evolution (speciation). Even if it was micro it is still evolution. My statement stands: evolution is a fact and has been observed. This is even an example of PE, which you are still claiming is based on absence of evidence.
What genetic limitation are you talking about? The only limit to teh process is time.
Dinosaur is a superorder of which birds are contained. Give me one peer reviewed scientific article claiming that archaeopteryx is not a transitional form.
mhoytus 2 years ago
In what sense does peer review guarantee accuracy? We both know many peer reviews that have been frauds, been withdrawn, etc.
Nor does lack of per review imply much.
An example I'm familiar with from years of conducting tours is the northwest scablands - in 1923, J. Harlan Bretz came up with a theory for the coulees that was so preposterous that for twenty or more years he was ostracized by the scientific community. His theory is now considered fact.
happylada 2 years ago
Thats how science works! The peer review process is how these frauds are discovered. Would you rather accept hypotheses that havent been reviewed for accuracy? You need to come up with a hypothesis, do tests, try to duplicate and falsify your results, make predictions, try to falsify them, perform blind tests, etc. Then you submit them for peer review, where other scientists attempt to duplicate and falsify your results. Scientific review is brutal, but necessary if we are to find the truth.
mhoytus 2 years ago
This doesn't seem to apply to evolution - Piltdown WAS a fact for 50 years, inspite many challenges to the fraud, it was protected as a sacred icon.
As far as testing, etc - evolution is an untestable hypothesis - a predictions: that there should be millions of intermediate specimens both before and after the Cambrian - failed!
The predictions of the Creationists: a worldwide flood produces millions of dead fauna and flora buried quickly under huge amounts of sediment. Confirmed!
happylada 2 years ago
The peer-review process isnt perfect, but its the best method we have. Would you rather we accept any paper written by anyone, without checking it for accuracy?
Id sure like to see a peer-reviewed article that validates your statements regarding a worldwide flood.
So youre implying that all humans alive today are descendants of 8 people on a boat, 4000 years ago?...
mhoytus 2 years ago
not 4000 - maybe 8000. And I thought the whole concept of Mitochondrial Eve was that there was a traceable connection to a single gene pool. In fact, its reasonable, because evolution doesn't have intelligence and the chance of evolution happening in parallel streams is impossible.
happylada 2 years ago
8k is still impossible. I dont know what your point is but: ME is the most-recent common ancestor of all humans alive on Earth today with respect to matrilineal descent. ME isnt the mother of every human who ever lived and wasnt the first female human either. The ME represents that woman whose mitochondrial DNA (with mutations) exists in all the humans now living on Earth. Y nuclear Adam is traced back to 60kya, while M-Eve is traced to 170kya, and obviously doesnt refer to a gene pool.
mhoytus 2 years ago
So, Mitochondrial Eve has nothing to do with a past gene pool. Youre right in saying that humans wouldnt have evolved in two separate places independently; e.g. just as English wouldnt evolve more than once—from Latin—within isolated populations. This was a major reason Piltdown was initially questioned, but they didnt know much about evolution a century ago, and there was no motive for fraud.
mhoytus 2 years ago
Pre high-school genetics shows that 8 people have a maximum of 16 different alleles for each locus; actually we would have less since some of them are descendants of others. So, if all mutations are negative or deleterious, then we couldnt possibly have any more than 16 alleles today, since that would be an increase in information, which you say cant happen. How do we today have loci with well over 400 different alleles? If they didnt appear thru mutation, then how did they get here?
mhoytus 2 years ago
Piltdown was very unfortunate; nobody knows why someone would do this. Yes it did fool the scientific community; however, French and American scientists immediately rejected it. The American Museum of Natural History always only listed it as a mixture of ape and man fossils. The thing is that all the other fossils we were finding created a pattern, filling in the missing links and Piltdown didnt fit. Also, the theory of evolution claimed that our ancestors would come from Africa; not England.
mhoytus 2 years ago
"American scientists immediately rejected it" - maybe, but so did creationists. It WAS taught in the US as fact, maybe over the objections of a small cadre of realists, but taught it was. I was in school in the 50's and the unassailable evidence for evolution was Piltdown and recapitulation
And how many other fossils supporting man's evolution are there? Even today, there aren't many. Don't forget that Nebraska man was an American hoax, so our scientific community wasn't immune.
happylada 2 years ago
So Nebraska man was never accepted by Evolutionists?
happylada 2 years ago
Piltdown was then taken off display and eliminated from conversation. Years later, it was taken out of storage and tested for the first time, where it was immediately found to be a hoax. Because of this unfortunate hoax, we are determined to never let it happen again. This is why we have the scientific method, and so much (blind) testing is done. So, the scientific method, and the theory itself were what exposed Piltdown as a hoax—not creationists—this is actually a triumph to both.
mhoytus 2 years ago
Piltdown was taken off display, but not out of conversation. And yes, like archeopteryx, it was made unavailable to all but the faithful. My question is really, since the filed teeth, staining using modern chemistry, etc were so obvious, how did it become the icon of evidence for evolution? are evolutionary scientists today so gullible?
Wasn't there a lemming recently claimed to be man's ancestor?
And with tongue firmly in cheek, isn't this a bit like expecting an arsonist to fight his own fire?
happylada 2 years ago
We have about 10,000 hominid fossils, which we have tested and confirmed. We also have over a million other transitional fossils. Weve even done DNA testing on many. Are you implying that all of these are hoaxes too? The testing methods we used to discover Piltdown surely would have exposed any others. Let alone the advanced testing we have today. Remember: Piltdown was exposed by evolutionary scientists, not creationists. If you have evidence to disprove any of these, then present it.
mhoytus 2 years ago
After many years of critical analysis, if your hypothesis holds up thru the peer review process, and if a scientific consensus is reached, it might qualify as a Theory. This is true with gravity, evolution, and every other theory we have. The theory of evolution has withstood 150 years of critique by the smartest minds in multiple fields, and is continually vindicated.
You also seem to think that a theory graduates to a fact. They are different things entirely: Fact=what, law=how, theory=why.
mhoytus 2 years ago
I'll challenge this shortly - Evolution is not vindicated by examination but by exclusion. Piltdown and Archeopteryx are very similar stories - used as proof of evolution but then being protected from examination. Its hard to know how to attack such a fortress when its the private funding of creationist research up against the unlimited funding provided to the evolutionist.
Just for education purposes, look up Gary Parker - used to write biology textbooks, became a creationist by the evidence.
happylada 2 years ago
While evolution is given lip service as theory, it is stated to be fact by many, and treated as such by the rest.
Evidence that contradicts it is ignored for just that reason - it doesn't fit the theory.
I refer you to the Acambaro figures - dated twice ~ 5000+ years, yet dismissed as fakes simply because they don't fit the theory. I could list a lot of similar situations.
Now if the Acambaro figurines are fakes - peasants have learned how to fool the best labs - so all dating is suspect.
happylada 2 years ago
Re peer review: pardon me if I repeat myself, but lots of poor theories have passed. Granted some have had the support withdrawn. Like Piltdown man, newer specimens have been sequestered with no access to anyone, so critical analysis is impossible.
This is a theory that has been carried by fraud, and maintained by exclusion - of evidence, criticism and alternative theories.
Yes, there's a lot of material that can be interpreted to support the evolutionary theory, but there are alternatives.
happylada 2 years ago
It is circular reasoning that keeps creationists out of the publications:
"The scientists in authoritative positions have established their own preconceived definition for science. 'To be scientific in our era is to search for solely natural explanations' (Hewlett and Peters, 2006, Theology, Religion, and Intelligent Design, p. 75)"
Since creation is not naturalistic, therefore by that definition it is NOT science, regardless of how accurate its application of theory and observation.
happylada 2 years ago
Allow me another quote:
In 2004, in my capacity as editor of The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, I authorized The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories by Dr. Stephen Meyer to be published in the journal after passing peer-review. Because Dr. Meyers article presented scientific evidence for intelligent design in biology, I faced retaliation, defamation, harassment, and a hostile work environment at the Smithsonians
happylada 2 years ago
. . . cont
National Museum of Natural History that was designed to force me out as a Research Associate there
Sternberg, Richard (2008), Smithsonian Controversy, [On-line]
The official statement in response:
The paper by Stephen C. Meyer...was published at the discretion of the former editor Richard v. [sic] Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; associate editors would have deemed the paper . . .
happylada 2 years ago
cont . .
inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history.... The Council endorses a resolution on ID published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science...which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence upporting ID as a testable hypothesis to explain the origin of organic diversity. . .
happylada 2 years ago
cont . . .
Accordingly, the Meyer paper does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings ("Statement from the Council of the Biological Society of Washington, [On-line]
"The article did not cause a stir because it did not pass the review process. It caused a stir because it did not meet the scientific standard . . . because it advocated the possibility of an intelligent Designer."
Do you really think that any research, regardless as how valid it may be, will ever get peer reviewed?
happylada 2 years ago
AAAS stated: Therefore Be It Further Resolved, that AAAS calls upon its members to assist those engaged in overseeing science education policy to understand the nature of science, the content of contemporary evolutionary theory and the inappropriateness of intelligent design theory as subject matter (AAAS Board..., 2002,). This simply means that if any book, article, or paper has anything about intelligent design in it, do not publish, promote, or condone it in anyway.
happylada 2 years ago
"Thus, it is clear that the oft-repeated accusation against creation sciences lack of peer-reviewed papers is seen for what it is: an intentional exclusion based, not on the merits of the paper, but on the agreed-upon, but false, definition that true science entails only natural explanations. Kyle Butt, M.A. (Biology)
Creationist papers are rejected "not because they fail to provide evidence and proof of their conclusions, but because they are not atheistic and evolutionary."
happylada 2 years ago
Of course! AAAS is for the advancement of science; supernatural (i.e. god, a creator and/or intelligent designer) is the opposite of natural science. It is undetectable by any means and is anti science in every way. So for someone to write a scientific paper, claiming supernatural causes is not science at all. The same couldve been (and was) said for rainbows, fairy rings, earthquakes, etc. All science says nothing about god, and cant by definition. Dont confuse science with theology.
mhoytus 2 years ago
Exactly! Creation is supernatural; science deals with the natural. So by definition, creation is not scientific and cannot ever be proved naturally. It is dependant entirely on faith. You might say that evolution requires faith too, but thats not entirely true, because we have an abundance of evidence as even you admitted. The same could be said for heliocentricism, or any other theory. At some point, the evidence is so overwhelming you accept it as true.
mhoytus 2 years ago
No credible scientists or historians accept those figures as being valid. The results for both radiocarbon and TL were inconclusive—further testing showed TL dating to be of no use—instead chimiluminescence was used, which cannot be used for dating and false dates were produced. If you use the wrong tools and lie about the results, then anything can be shown to say anything. What kind of results do you expect when you use carbon dating on something that contains no carbon?
mhoytus 2 years ago
A peer-reviewed paper was written by De Peso (1953), pointing out many problems with the Acamaro figures; too many to list here.
The tribe that inhabited that site emerged during the Postclassic (AD 900-AD 1522); yet creationists claim the figures date to 5000 years old? No other tribes record anything similar and no other evidence exists.
mhoytus 2 years ago
First of all, the paper was not peer reviewed. Secondly, Di Piso was accused by another anthropologist who worked with him of bending facts to suit his beliefs, and in a scientific report no less. The TL lab only repudiated their dating after they were aware of the implications, the C14 stands.
You need to do some research about the many cultures that have artifacts AND cultural evidences about coexistance. Ica Burial Stones?
happylada 2 years ago
The 30,000 plus figures were all in nearly perfect condition, containing recent tooling marks, sharp edges and no dirt packed in them, nor soluble salts, as every other authentic object of the site was found. The soil at the site was mixed with top soil and fresh manure. They even found recent fingerprints in the soil. The researcher paid farmers per figure they recovered, giving them motive to forge them.
The sheer quantity of figures compared to the tribes population is bazaar.
mhoytus 2 years ago
You're quoting Di Pisa. many other people who spend considerable time at the site, including Earle Stanley Gardner, the District Attorney for Los Angeles and of whom it was said never uttered an untrue word. may newspaper reports were filed all supporting the digs.
Another dig in undisturbed soil by the Mexican govt produced more, that are currently on display in Acambero, also dated to 6000 years.
happylada 2 years ago
Evolution is both a fact and a theory. As I already stated, they are different things. A fact is a verifiable observation. In evolutionary biology, that is descent with modification, and is accurate as Ive already shown. A Theory is a unifying framework explaining facts, laws and hypotheses.
The same is true with gravity. The law of gravity is that matter attracts matter. Why does matter attract matter? Thats the theory of gravity.
mhoytus 2 years ago
The fact of evolution as Ive shown, is descent with modification. We can observe this with livestock cultivation weve observed animals diverge into entirely new species coming from older family trees and common ancestors. This is a readily evident fact in every lineage and is implied in taxonomy and verified via DNA. Now, you may use the word adaptation, but by definition, this is evolution.
mhoytus 2 years ago
Finding gaps in evolution doesnt disprove it anymore than finding gaps in gravity doesnt disprove it either. As I stated, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. For example: gravity is wrong, and we know it. Einsteins theory of relativity replaced Newtonian physics but it is still wrong and we know it. But we cant replace something that works with nothing.
So for creationism: no, finding things we dont yet understand, or cant explain doesnt falsify evolution or prove creation.
mhoytus 2 years ago
If you want to disprove evolution, or prove creationism, then why not follow the established scientific process? Write a paper and submit your findings for peer review. Why has this never happened? Why has no creationist been able to falsify evolution? Why cant they provide one single piece of evidence creation?
How does creation explain the evidence for evolution we have, like DNA, ERVs, atavisms, ontogeny, etc? Its amazing how you ignore all the evidence for evolution.
mhoytus 2 years ago
You're living in a dreamworld if you don't think that creationists are de facto shut out of serious review. I have a friend who is a biology teacher (prof?) who has to write under a pseudonym to protect his job. At least one medical school will nor recommend any student who is a creationist. There is a "glass ceiling" in sciences that prevents any serious consideration of a creationist argument.
By the way, I've been tied up with various issues re the opening of school etc - I'll respond soon.
happylada 2 years ago
I am very busy as well; for the same reason ironically. Many of our interns have returned to school, so our workload has increased. It takes so much time to get them up to a level that they can be of assistance, then it seems they return to school just when theyre helpful.
Its not my goal to write a book on this comments section. There already are books dedicated to debunking all of the bogus creationist claims.
mhoytus 2 years ago
And more than a few debunking the bad science of evolution as well. ;-)
happylada 2 years ago
So far I've addressed the publication issue (and shown that one of Snells articles, peer reviewed, slipped into a scientific journal, and the furor that ensued), and the issue of evidence.
DNA is far to complicated to have evolved - information only comes from intelligence. I can't conceive a watertight explanation from evolutionists on this issue. But I'm open.
Atavism is a rehashing of Haeckels Recapitulation theory, a deliberate fraud known to be so for almost 100 years, yet still in texts
happylada 2 years ago
A common atavism is the "tail" on human embryo, which is never a tail or equivalent, and not formed in anyway resembling same.
The spine and brain grow ahead of the rest of the body, til at the 29th day the spine has grown ahead of the legs that are attached to it, which some have called a "tail", and the "tail" "seems" to disappear as the muscles etc from the legs develop to fill out the "extension" This is similar to babies being born with adult sized ear bones, etc. etc. No tail! Ever! No Way
happylada 2 years ago
Cont . . .
If Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, then the path to the homology would involve similar DNA sequences and development. Frogs feet for example develop in a very different way to human feet, but the end result is similar - again I believe a evidence of a Common Designer.
If we are wise enough to recognize a Rembrandt by its style and details, why can we not recognize the traits of a Common Designer, given homologies with entirely different development paths?
happylada 2 years ago
Haeckels embellishments were disgraceful. Im not aware of any textbooks currently in use which use Haeckels drawings. Whats important to note though, is that these drawings are now replaced with photomicrographs, which display the same results! Creationists continue to cling on to these half-dozen falsified images (out of a few hundred) of over a century ago as somehow disproof of evolution.
Piltdown, Haeckel and archaeoraptor were all exposed by evolutionary scientists; not creationists.
mhoytus 2 years ago
The photographically couldn't possibly show the same results, because he used the woodcut for one of the embryos (Human I think) in all the columns. I'd hope in this day that they wouldn't repeat this .
More importantly, although there is an appearance of similarity, ie frogs and man have digits, the development and genes responsible for them are radically different. So appearances can be deceiving.
It was Jay Gould who took NY schools to task for still having it in their texts.
happylada 2 years ago
I've never suggested that these fakes disprove evolution - what I've said is that evolution has been so loose a science that fakes are welcome because they support the cause. The recent fiasco at Frankfurt U re C14 dating was, according to the chancellor, in large part because "many of the professors looked the other way" Why?
And claiming that evolutionists found the frauds is disingenuous - they caused the fraud, accepted the fraud, taught the fraud and finally admitted it? Sheesh!!
happylada 2 years ago
As an addendum, even letters to the editors pointing out erroneous conclusions in scientific papers are not published if written by creationists. So much for going where ever the science takes you.
Its hard to prove a creationist point when all the rules are made by evolutionists - and the premise of evolution disallows any introduction of any evidence of supernaturalism.
But its not hard at all to put the pieces together of you ALLOW supernatural intervention or creation.
happylada 2 years ago
Youre obviously very knowledgeable with the bible; someday I hope I could be so (as I do read the bible regularly). However, your information on evolution is corrupt.
Quoting someone credible or distorting a term doesn't falsify evolution. Even if every single scientist in the world believed in creation, that still doesnt disprove what evolution. Besides, your problem isn't falsifying evolution, i.e. creation doesnt win by default. You still havent provided any evidence for creation.
mhoytus 2 years ago
I'd like to point out that this applies to the creationist perspective - if all scientists agreed on evolution, it wouldn't make it so.
I've long since come to the conclusion that evolution cannot be falsified - every milestone that COULD be a target for falsification gets moved when the evidence is against it.
An example is the missing transitional fossils (which I'm working on) - which Darwin said would falsify evolution. But no, since we haven't the proof of Darwins idea, we have PE
happylada 2 years ago
Let me suggest a problem that creationists have with the non-evolution argument. We can argue biology till we're blue - but then we have to deal not with the survival of the fittest but the ARRIVAL of the fittest.
In creationist terms that IS evolution, as is the big bang etc.
Arguing the evidence for creation is the same as arguing for the big bang - by any definition a miracle, and as such are not explainable. What we do have is facts
The problem with providing evidence for creation is the
happylada 2 years ago
fact that it CAN be proved negatively - ie there are only two possibilities - God it or He didn't. The current non-God theory is evolution - we successfully defeated spontaneous generation etc..
So if the makebelieve of evolution can be successfully discounted, creation DOES win by default.
Eg. you mentioned that with enough time anything is possible - WRONG - only entropy would be enhanced. If entropy is a provable result of time, how does more time create less entropy?
happylada 2 years ago
Now you've mentioned the lizard that was transplanted and "grew" a new organ. Even the reporter wasn't convinced, and I quoted his doubt.
Last summer I was in Alaska. One of the lakes there (Loberg) was treated chemically and all the Three Spined Stickleback were killed. They introduced the salt water variety and within a number of generations they fish had " mutated" back to a freshwater version - using the information available in its DNA to respond to new environments. Adaption not evolution
happylada 2 years ago
The new denizens of Loberg were remarkably like other fresh water varieties.
One of the marks of a "species" is they stop breeding with their former mates. However these fish in Lake Enos has interbred between two species til there's do distinct specie.
Again, every lake adaptation may be called a different specie, but from a creationist perspective, they're still all the same "kind" and vary only within their available genetic limits.
happylada 2 years ago
Now you mentioned snakes with legs. You may have unintentionally been dishonest about that - they never display forelimbs. I have no problem with that. You may have read that one of the curses after Adam's rebellion was that the serpent was to slither in the dust of the earth. The three fossils from Isreal are simply (one of thousands of) extinct species.
Plus, I have no problem with snakes having pelvic girdles etc as this is LOSS of information, not addition of NEW information.
happylada 2 years ago
It wasnt my intent to be misleading; I apologize if I was. Yes, these hind legs are now vestiges. Why would whales and snakes have remnants of legs if they didint once have them? Loss of information can be beneficial; as I said before, mutations are beneficial depending on the environment. We have examples of new information too, as Ive shown. We have many fossil records of this happening, but we have also observed it in nature and the lab, as Ive shown.
mhoytus 2 years ago
I agree with you re the snakes, because there are several fossils as evidence. And the Bible infers the same fact. But we have no such evidence for whales - so far we've got teeth and ear pieces, as far as I'm aware - that's not evidence.
Again, I know of no fossil evidence of evolution even through there should be no limit to them, but you can cite an example. And again, mutations are purposeless and random - evolutionists seem to believe as though there's a direction to them
happylada 2 years ago
Yes, mutations happen at random, but as Ive stated repeatedly-and you admitted-mutations are beneficial or negative depending on the environment; therefore, natural selection is what selects for mutations. Natural selection is not random.
You mentioned an organism losing its wings could be beneficial but noted that this is a loss of information. So on the other hand you must admit that an organism gaining a new body part as Ive shown, would be an increase in information, by your standards.
mhoytus 2 years ago
I don't think that the one follows the other. As I've said before, a horse carries the gene for three toes, so "mutating" to three toes isn't an increase in information, but it would be a new body part.
I shouldn't jump into an answer like this, cause I don't know what else you posted - this is the order in my emails that I'm way behind on.
And without having researched it, I wonder if the Lizard's new organ falls into the same mategory
happylada 2 years ago
So youre admitting that snakes once had legs; anatomical atavisms are the reappearance of a lost character. So chickens with teeth dolphins with legs, etc. are evidence that these organisms once had them. We also have fossil evidence to show this. Why else would god give organisms DNA sequences to make such things?
Here are a couple whale fossils, and yes, we have more than a few pieces of a jaw:
Pakicetus inachus, Ambulocetus natans, Indocetus ramani, Dorudon, Basilosaurus, etc...
mhoytus 2 years ago
Of course any good scientist wont commit to something without proper evidence. He said the next step was to verify this genetically, and youll be happy to know that this was confirmed:
sciencedaily . com/releases/2008/04/080417112433 . htm
This is an example of a population evolving an entirely new body part in less than 40 years. This is a beneficial mutation (evolution) and the addition of new information that is previously unknown to this specie, and only occurs in 1% of all reptiles!
mhoytus 2 years ago
THX for the update - I'll look into it. But it still disn't sprout wings ;-) But do I understand you to say that isn't new to this kind of reptile? maybe the article will make this clearer.
I'm not passing you off - this has been a very busy week, and the rest of this week looks worse - who said retirement was all fun and beaches?
happylada 2 years ago
The question isnt IF god created the universe, but HOW did he do it? By waving a magic wand, or did he use natural means? All evidence points to natural means. Why are you so adamant that god didnt/couldnt use natural means? All evidence shows that god created everything using the very laws he created.
The big bang doesnt supplant god and isnt a miracle either; you obviously dont understand the big bang theory. Most scientists who accept evolution believe in god, and I am one of them!
mhoytus 2 years ago
Believing in God is a good thing, but it largely depends on what kind of god you believe in, and what you can concieve of him doing. Of course if we could understand God, we'd be his equal.
If you believe the scriptural God, then you'll understand that the Bible is quite clear that there was no death before there was sin.
You'd also know that God created the laws of nature along with creation, not by them. The Bible is adamant that it took six days. The question us why did He take so long ;-)
happylada 2 years ago
Re entropy: It seems you are referring to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. As the law states, it applies to a closed system; were not in a closed system. We are continually receiving energy from the sun. Besides, this is regarding thermodynamics; not evolution. The law states that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one, or that the total entropy in a closed system will not decrease. This doesnt prevent increase in order regarding evolution, even if it did apply.
mhoytus 2 years ago
You're just moving the goalpost if you plead open system - then we can apply the same entropy to the universe. But claiming the input of sunlight to our biosphere is sufficient to overcome entropy is, I think, creating a strawman. Increasing energy doesn't imply increasing organization.
And I must research your statement of heat transfer - I have always assumed that entropy included the dissipation of heat tending towards uniformity
happylada 2 years ago
Youve got to be kidding me. A misunderstanding of the law on your part is two logical fallacies by me? The earth is not a closed system; sunlight (low entropy) shines on it and heat (higher entropy) radiates off. This is obvious as the sun warms us, allows plants to grow, etc.
As I said, entropy doesnt mean disorder; its in reference to thermodynamics. Besides, Chaos Theory shows that order can and does arise from disorder.
mhoytus 2 years ago
As for the universe being a closed system: yes, it applies universally, but, as everyone can see, that does not mean that everything everywhere is always breaking down. The second law allows local decreases in entropy offset by increases elsewhere. The second law does not say that order from disorder is impossible; in fact, as anyone can see, as Ive noted, order from disorder happens all the time.
mhoytus 2 years ago
Herein lays the problem. Creationists usually dont understand science or how it works. They dont understand the scientific process or even basic terms like fact, law, theory, hypothesis, etc. Their arguments rely on disinformation and misinterpretation of terms. Your confusion of cosmology with chemistry, physics and biology; then lumping them together is typical. Evolution has nothing to do with the big bang and no aspect of science says anything about god; this includes the big bang theory.
mhoytus 2 years ago
Yes it is falsifiable; a fundamental of any theory is that it is falsifiable. Of course, you cant falsify evolution by pointing to a missing link. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You need to find something that doesnt fit, e.g. a mammal before mammals evolved. How about you find a rabbit fossil in the pre-Cambrian? There are many predictions of evolution that you are free to test and falsify.
Im not sure of this missing transitional Darwin spoke of, so I can't help out.
mhoytus 2 years ago
The Bible says that God gave every man a measure of faith. What we do with it is up to us.
happylada 2 years ago
Good video. however at the beginning of the video. You highlighted Brother Losch. That is not the right individual. He was on the far left center
Broccoli4151 2 years ago
55 seconds - 1 minute 01s: Lance Goller claims to be an atheist on another anti-JW forum. So your statement above is very inaccurate (He hasnt left maintaining a belief in God, Jesus and the Bible! I stopped asociating 10 years ago; I still believe, but I havent been disfellowshipped! Ive also read through WY Comments website and the way you use various quotations are extremely ambiguous with great slight of hand! You may fool many, but not all!
Giotto1967 3 years ago
Giotto:
There is no lie: When I decided to leave JWs, I still believed in Jehovah, Jesus, and the Bible. It was only months after leaving that I gradually came to the conclusion that I no longer see any proof of divine inspiration of the Bible, nor proof of the existence of the Bible God. Seeing Jesus as a quasi-historical figure came later.
ExGileadMissionary 2 years ago 3
you and me both Lance. im still unplugging myself from the matrix if you know what i mean.
i dont even have the energy to argue with these dead heads, but need to make up for lost time. so many things to enjoy and learn in life.
jamesoneill112 2 years ago 2
You left Jehovah, so you will not have holy spirit to help you with your faith...THAT is why your FAITH
is now GONE.....Jehovah has removed his spirit from upon you~~
kellylittleton 2 years ago
I like the sentiments found in Hebrews 6: 4-8.
Hebrews is a very dynamic book that examines the importance of faith; especially in times when the majority of people would belittle and/or try to strip the faith of another.
I hope your faith is being renewed, daily, Kelly. Good to hear from you :)
Giotto1967 2 years ago
I left the Watchtower organization, not Jehovah. You equate the 2.
ExGileadMissionary 2 years ago
Kellylittleton, I have a question for you.. Let's say the Jehovah's Witnesses have it Utterly and Completely INCORRECT..When the end comes do you think God will destroy all of those JW's who thought they were serving God accurately but were misled by an organization? Now do you really think God is going to destroy all those who are whole souled in their devotion to him who are not JW's..because if you think you are the only One's who God will save then Your God is not a Just God..
happie2befree 2 years ago
GGod said he would ressurect the righeous(those following and worshipping God correctly) and the unrighteous(those who are not following God correctly), because of God's mercy most of humanity will be given a second chance to know the One True God. If they decline or go against Jehovah, then they will be destroyed AGAIN for all eternity.
andy5421 2 years ago
so you believe that if you are incorrect in your understanding of God despite your whole souled service to him, you will be destroyed? That's a very sad situation..I would not want to worship a God I believed capable of murdering people who loved him and served him according to his word, yet because of a mistranslation or miscommunication of sorts were murdered due to that fact
happie2befree 2 years ago
What about the statement in Hebrews 9:27 NWT? There's no second chance in the Bible - that's just another JW makebelieve. "Once to die, and then judgement"
Give me a verse in the Bible that teached that, not a Watchtower month and page. Please!
happylada 2 years ago
God has conflicting atttributes - Justice and Holiness are opposites that only He can reconcile. Following a false religion fits nicely into the statement that Jesus made about people thinking they were doing his work, but He never knew them JW's fit into this category. They teach another Jesus (2 Cor 11:4) God's holiness cannot tolerate false prophets, nor the denigration of his son to a mere creature. Holiness says there is one way to God - Jesus - not the WTS
happylada 2 years ago
I was told by the presiding overseer i was not aloud to question the Society after your baptized. After he said that i threw him out of my house! If an organization says you cannot question it it is a cult.Thx for spreading real truths.Thx
LOJANOS 3 years ago 3
Watchtower 1995 May 15 p.16 gives a very convoluted, bizarre, absurd, confusing explanation with regard to the identity of the slave of Matthew 24:45-47:the slave and the domestics are both the same group of people. The 144,000 anointed ones are the slave as a whole, yet individually the same 144,000 are the domestics that as a group they rule over. The faithful and discreet slave is the 144,000 collectively. The domestics are the 144,000 individually. The 144,000 feed the 144,000.
zepawepa 3 years ago
Another major disconnect -Watchtower 1995 May 15 p.16 gives a very convoluted, bizarre, absurd, confusing explanation with regard to the identity of the slave of Matthew 24:45-47. In all of this, however, there is no scripture that explicitly states that the single slave of Matthew 24:45-47 is actually the 144,000 of Revelation 7:4.
zepawepa 3 years ago
the effects of Adamic sin and death to become immortal and incorruptible and live forever on a paradise earth according to the Watchtower Society? ONE THOUSAND YEARS!!!The obvious question therefore is: how is it that the effects of Adamic sin are reversed IN AN INSTANT for those who go to heaven yet it takes ONE THOUSAND YEARS for these same effects to be reversed in the case of the Great Crowd?
zepawepa 3 years ago
upon their transference to heaven, i.e. they will overcome/conquer the effects of Adamic sin and death IN AN INSTANT. Additionally, those who died before Jesus' second coming and who will be resurrected to heaven will also overcome the effects of Adamic sin and death in the twinkling of an eye -- that is IN AN INSTANT - to become immortal and incorruptible. On the other hand, how long will it take the Great Crowd to do the same thing -- that is, how long will it take the Great Crowd to overcome
zepawepa 3 years ago
Thanks for the video. Years ago I was warned that JWs' understanding of the Bible was based on scriptures taken out of context to justify doctrines. I never listened. I got carried away with their fanciful story of paradise. I have come to realize that this doctrine is not correct. In reading 1Cor.15:51-56 it is interesting to note that Christians who are alive at the time of Jesus' second coming, will be changed in the twinkling of an eye to become immortal and incorruptible
zepawepa 3 years ago
If anyone has some insight feel free to respond but i'm having a goodtime doing research that i should have done years ago.
LOJANOS 3 years ago
Against those that do go to college and leave the truth.But those number don't exist.I talk to friend about there kids going to college and always it's negative oh it's bad influence.Well last time i checked when i go to work i'm around bad influence so what's the difference and if i go to colleg i can get a better career and not have to work twice as hard and twice as much to make ends meet. So the more you do research into the organization the more question you have.
LOJANOS 3 years ago
I said what a minute i don't agree with that i said no human organization owns me.I said that was the first time i had ever heard such a comment.Has any of you heard that explanation before? that once again disturbed me. He also said that over 90 percent of witnesses who go to college leave the truth and i said where are these numbers at then he said well don't quote me on that. I want statistics on how many brother who don't go to college leave the truth.
LOJANOS 3 years ago
In other words, witnesses that educate themselves usually leave.
Let's all think about this for a moment. ;-)
(I think the guy just told you why you should leave, though he may not realise it.)
tyleratl 3 years ago 9
Exactly!
Even tho i was inactive i still thought they were teaching what was correct.
Once you start investigating outside the literature and asking questions you are labeled an apostate.
You can be disfellowshipped for apostasy!
Im done and will never return!
LOJANOS 3 years ago 9
The brother made some good points about eating pork how it was against Jehovah's commandments at one time and later Jehovah changed that without explanation and said it was ok to eat pork. I said ok that's a good point. Also the brother had said that jehovah owns us i said ok i agree and Jesus bought us with a price i said ok i agree and then he said that th slave class will be appointed over all hi belong's which is us and that we are owned by the slave class.
LOJANOS 3 years ago
So i pretty much got nowhere with my questions and they left within 30 minutes.So the next time i told the brother i had questions that i would like to discuss he brought with him without my prior knowledge the circuit overseer and one of the annointed,lol i laughed and said this guy is so nervous he brings in the heavy artillery,lol. Which i don't mind so i said ok i will ask him these questions being this brother is no help for me.So i was happy to discuss with him and he was nice.
LOJANOS 3 years ago
Has anyone checked out a recent Dvd that came out called Pursue Goals that honor God? The video disturbed me so much i completly destroyed because it was so obviously full of propoganda and horrible acting.I talked to a friend of mine who was an elder and i think it disturbed him that i destroyed the dvd. So when i asked to discuss what he thought about the dvd he brought the presiding overseer with him. He said the was nothing wrong with going to college but why the propoganda against it.
LOJANOS 3 years ago
I have found it interesting that once we start to do the heavy research we find even less answers to our questions and lose faith in the organization real fast. Lance's experiences are not alone, many of us have had to deal with Elders and other "higher" members telling us not to even try to figure out JW beliefs and when we question them we are shunned! keep up the videos V, they are great!
Fritzw911 3 years ago 3
So True! I am still active for the sake of my family who is still in, but I don't lose hope that they will eventually see the truth about the "Truth" - these videos have been such an immense help to me and many in the same situation - All I can say is Thank You!
mividasecreta 3 years ago 2
You are not serving Jehovah anymore...
Go to your elders now!!
kellylittleton 2 years ago
Good one, V.
patrickfontaine 3 years ago 2
Fantastic videos. I have a lot of respect for the way the interview was handled by both parties. The answers were clear and succinct, there was no obvious agenda or personal vendetta. I really appreciate that Lance is speaking from his experiences and letting that alone do the 'talking' instead of infusing it with conjecture.
Thanks again, well done.
VanCoffeeChick 3 years ago
Thank you both for taking the time to make this video..I've been recently reading Crisis of Conscience by Ray Franz..wonderful book and a lot of the goings on of the society, the inner workings the average JW has no clue about, who writes the publications, who decides what to write, who finals it..everything is so different from what members are taught..Anyway Thanks to you WTC well put together, and Lance 4 the interview
mostsexysmile 3 years ago 2
and we thank YOU! Excellent quality of vids!!
Rwssel 3 years ago 3
Any JW can compare John 10:16 to Eph 2:11-19 and see that they are parallel accounts... This is what happened to me in Gilead...
Lance
ExGileadMissionary 3 years ago 2
Thank you for that interview. It was very interesting.
21crosscheck21 3 years ago
Great video. Thanks. The Watchtower claims only one fulfillment of Daniel 11 and that this fulfillment spans thousands of years with a progression of kings fulfilling the progressive verses. There is nothing in Daniel 11 however, to indicate that its fulfillment would span thousands of years with a progression of kings fulfilling the progressive verses. It therefore appears to me that this is just a clever way for the Society to sidestep prophecy failure. Your feedback is greatly appreciated.
zepawepa 3 years ago
GREAT INTERVIEW!!!!
wd4awo 3 years ago
Good point on the other sheep being gentiles rather than the WT's belief that they are the great crowd. I challenge all withnesses everywhere to check this out. John is CLEARLY talking about Gentiles who will come into the flock.
Shazoolo 3 years ago
The way I understand the passage about the other sheep, is simply that there are sheeplike people out there in the world, that have not heard of Christ, but when they do hear His voice, they stand up and follow Him. In addition, who the great crowd is I believe is the 144000, the JW just mixed up a bit to be more different than the rest of Christianity.
Mekelsior 3 years ago