All Eight Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses members are now individually named on two New York Child Victims Act case documents

[Arauna]

10 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Quote

 

Bingo!

You latch onto one idea and ignore the point of learnt behaviour.......  you suddenly become clairvoyant about the future ...... 

 

14 minutes ago, AlanF said:

people and act as if the humans were their mothers. The tiger viewed the dog as its mommy.

You error here is in focusing on the exceptions rather than the rules.

You are making it a rule - what if there is a possibility that exeptions can become the rule.  What if humans provided animals with what they needed and they did not learn from their mothers to hunt?  Could behaviour change?  And since you are such a proponent of micro evolution, could the animals not adapt (macro evolution) to survive?    

It seems that every word on this forum is labelled  "rediculous"  when your ideas (which have no thought behind them) are not adopted as absolute truth.

[AlanF]

Arauna said:

Quote

 

    42 minutes ago, AlanF said:

    The simple fact is that you do not have enough knowledge of evolution or any creation scenario to judge anything at all. This is the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.

Now this is really a true case of OCD. Always  a repetition of insults.

 

These are statements of facts based on your observed behavior and arguments. You keep repeating bad arguments, so I repeat the same answers.

Quote

You do not know what I have read and studied. ....

It's easy enough to figure out: No real science literature, only religious and creationist.

Quote

I did answer your previous question.  As usual you chose to ignore it. I indicated a flaw in your reasoning -   that you only considered 2 hypothesis ...... when there actually could be three....... but you ignored it then....

Wrong. I already pointed out why your "3rd hypothesis" was nothing more than a skirting of my two basic statements, and had nothing to do with either of them.

You continue to avoid answering. Hence, I will not reply to you further.

[Arauna]

8 minutes ago, AlanF said:

I'll bet you think that creationist rags are science magazines.

I get a summary from all the newest papers in research in my inbox every day...... regarding evolution, cosmology, medical, textile,  material discoveries, paleontology etc.  I do not read all off them but pick what I want to read.

10 minutes ago, AlanF said:

LOL! Dunning-Kruger yet again.

Same old OCD when you do not have an answer.

 

13 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Completely clueless. That's straight out of creationist literature, except a little buggered.

Unfortunately for you - it comes from a book called "devils delusion"  written by a prominent philosopher and mathematician.  He is agnostic. When asked why he wrote against evolution he said: Because I can...... 

He also got sick and tired of evolutionists pretending to have all the answers....... when evolution is more of a religion than science - hiding true evidence and extrapolating on issues which can possibly  improve their stance.  The  real truth is: the math does not add up in evolution "theory".

And I already know your OCD answer us going to kick in..... about  now.....

 

 

[Arauna]

57 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

For faith based individuals,

Good point. I also read an article written after Hawkins' death wherein he also "debunked"  string theory by indicating mathematically that 23 universes are not possible.

Let me make it clear to all visitors here: my "faith"  that God exists is not a blind faith but a faith based on evidence.  Evidence in the magnificence of creation in the infinite number of small wonders and the cosmos out there.  

As I said before: I have studied the intrinsic logic of the main theme of the bible for its cohesion and continuity.  I believe the bible is the only reality which is still ongoing.

I studied it in the light of project management principles and even did a risk assessment of the entire globe.  This is when I started to look at certain political developments in the world in certain sectors to determine where we are in the stream of time........and where we are heading.  

As truetom Harley indicated earlier -  even non-Christians admit to irreconcileable problems/hate in the secular political system.... it is not just in USA. It is everywhere!    The less than one persent of people in the West who own the money of the world (they own all the major corporations, press and surveillance capabilities)  see one world system as the only solution to create "peace and security" for its inhabitants.   We are already in the transformation stage of the process.......  these people see China as the model to follow.....

Stick to Jehovah through the difficult times.  Atheists, who are humanist, will  believe the UN when they bring in one set of laws /values for everyone and persecute those who do not conform.  Atheists will conform to save their necks but will not have the favour of jehovah when it all falls apart. And fall apart it will because humans were not made to rule themselves. 

The propaganda is doing its job - leading to Armageddon...... it is discrediting all witnesses in every possible way and promoting atheism.

[Srecko Sostar]

8 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I don't think any current elder would be on a site like this and admit their specific issues with any doctrines.

After i had been prepare my Letter of disassociation (2015), one elder from another congregation (long time acquaintance, and he is doctor if that have to mean something to people who will read this) wanted to read it and to see me. After he had been read my Letter, he had nothing special to say, add, in a sense of, to "call me back to organization or to JHVH) But he told me how he also visiting few web sites where ex-JW members discussing, as we doing here. But, contrary to your experience and need JW Insider, he said how he just reading, and not participating in any other way. Of course, that was something i was not expected to hear (his going to "apostate web).  :))  

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

35 minutes ago, Arauna said:

Good point. I also read an article written after Hawkins' death wherein he also "debunked"  string theory by indicating mathematically that 23 universes are not possible.

WOW!

If Stephen Hawkings had not been a media superstar about what he did with his disabilities, he would have been known as a third class physicist.

Reading an article about his theory, and all string theory will forever be theory, because there is no way to ever prove it by observation ... nor will there EVER be.

I personally believe in Multiverses, because it solves the problem of having 12 times more gravity than the observable Universe has.mass.

Gravity bleeds from one Universe to another, and nothing else does., and depending on who you ask, there are 11 of them

Quantum mathematics is the only "microscope" we have, but there are good detectives, and there are bad detectives.

Stephen Hawking's book "A Brief History of Time" is infantile in its perception, as an example.

Beware of conclusions reached from reading articles in magazines.

Anybody's !

 

[Srecko Sostar]

9 hours ago, César Chávez said:

The simple reason you're trying hard to evade is that David was a man of war with blood in his hands that was not worthy to build God's temple.

I have nothing to "evade" about it. Bible clearly named, count this specific matter, that David was soldier and killed many people, and how this is reason why God didn't want him to build Temple. 

I just want to put in focus, how that factor (killing many people) must not be obstacle for your good relation to God and His blessings on such person. By the way, from who came commands and encouraging to be in so many combats and killing people? From his God. Many battles had been for God and in the name of God. Of course, some personal interest sometimes came in David head and he done what he wish to do (Uriah for example)

On other hand some angels or even God's Son were and will participate in massive bloodshed (Noah Flood,  Assyrian soldiers,  Armageddon, post 1000 year Kingdom Day of last Test), but that will not disqualified Him to be Priest and King and many more, to build Spiritual Temple in greater scale than it is now.

I really don't see why we have to be tied with some verse with few words, while entire Bible giving few other perspectives on same issue. 

[Srecko Sostar]

5 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

problem of having 12 times more gravity

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/whats-the-maximum-gravity-we-could-survive

[AlanF]

Anna said:

Quote

 

    53 minutes ago, AlanF said:

    The Bible says that its creator "God is love" and that he knows what is going on with every creature. 'Creation' proves that whatever creator there might be, he is far from loving. Both things cannot be true. Therefore the Bible God does not exist.

The Bible says that everything that God initially created was "good". Everything that Satan created was bad.

 

Satan created nothing. Where do you get that from?

The Bible indicates that Satan became Satan only 6,000 years ago according to Watchtower chronology. How could he, as Satan, affect what God created half a billion years ago?

Quote

The world then became a paradox of good and bad. The question arose whether the arbiter of what was good, was justified to decide what was bad.

When? You're forgetting that the predator/prey problem is at least half a billion years old.

Quote

Obviously, since he was the supreme judge and arbiter of all things. On top of that, was he justified in destroying or removing what was bad. The answer has always been yes, because his love, together with justice dictates that this must be done.

Are you proposing that the God/Satan controversy is not 6,000 years old, as the Watchtower Society claims, but half a billion?

Quote

Creation; predators, eating other creatures is not bad, since the predator depends on the primary consumer for survival.

But various biblical statements are pretty clear that God considered eating meat, by humans or animals, bad from the beginning. This has long been Watchtower teaching. The Bible indicates this, as the Society argues, by God's giving vegetation but no meat to Adam and Eve. And after the Flood God explicitly allowed meat eating. And several scriptures indicate that at some future time the animals will all be at peace (cf. Isaiah 11:6).

Most people today have a strong feeling of aversion when they see a leopard devouring an animal alive. Right? I call this the Eeeww! factor. Take a look at the videos below of leopards eating live warthogs and tell me you don't react with Eeeww!:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhXUrFdWeoU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4Id4OSe2to

Quote

My great grandmother kept rabbits for food. She loved them all and took good care of them, they all had names too. When it came time for Sunday dinner, she lovingly took one out of the pen and bopped it over the head. Benjamin had no idea what had hit him as he blacked out within a split second, was dead within a minute, and cooking in the pot within an hour. His buddies never even noticed he had gone missing. Was that an unloving thing my great grandma did? I suppose it depends on who you ask. But the one to decide whether this is unloving or not would be the creator. Humans have differing views, but the rightful arbiter is God.

If a man had two sons and set them in a life and death contest, with one guaranteed to die, would you consider that loving? Especially if the dead son had no chance of a resurrection? Of course not.

How is that different from God's setting predators against prey? Will all those dead animals be resurrected? What about all the pain and suffering? If your mother bit into a rabbit and ate it piece by bloody piece, would that have been loving? The Bible says that God gave the Israelites laws to protect animals from excessive cruelty. Isn't God's creating leopards to eat warthogs alive excessive cruelty?

You're not thinking this through.

[Arauna]

11 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

he would have been known as a third class physicist.

True..... 

11 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

all

Your comment aboout string theory as just a theory - yes, mathematics is only a tool - a language to describe something which cannot be described in a written language.  Most people make a mistake to accept it as reality. 

[AlanF]

I said I would not reply to Arauna further, but I'm a sinner, and Arauna's response is so ludicrous that I'm going to sin.

Quote

 

Arauna said:

10 hours ago, AlanF said:

I'll bet you think that creationist rags are science magazines.

I get a summary from all the newest papers in research in my inbox every day...... regarding evolution, cosmology, medical, textile,  material discoveries, paleontology etc.  I do not read all off them but pick what I want to read.

 

Summaries are not science articles. Apparently you're not astute enough to know that.

And of course, you can't or won't name any of the "science magazines" you claim to read.

Quote

 

10 hours ago, AlanF said:
 
LOL! Dunning-Kruger yet again.

Same old OCD when you do not have an answer.

 

You obviously have no idea what "OCD" is. You know that it has negative connotations, so like a clumsy child trying to wield a 20-kilo mace, you swing it at your intellectural superiors.

Apparently you're jealous of anyone who can bore down into the details of written material. I've run across many like that over the years. Much like TrueTomHarley, who never manages a coherent set of comments, but always resorts to ad hominems and sidesteps, and generally misses the mark.

Your comment to which I replied as above was so abysmally ignorant that it would be pearls before swine trying to educate you.

Quote

 

10 hours ago, AlanF said:
 
Completely clueless. That's straight out of creationist literature, except a little buggered.

Unfortunately for you - it comes from a book called "devils delusion"  written by a prominent philosopher and mathematician.  He is agnostic. When asked why he wrote against evolution he said: Because I can......

 

Ah, yes, David Berlinsky. A creationist charlatan if ever there was one. See below.

Quote

He also got sick and tired of evolutionists pretending to have all the answers....... when evolution is more of a religion than science - hiding true evidence and extrapolating on issues which can possibly  improve their stance.  The  real truth is: the math does not add up in evolution "theory".

Pure Intelligent Design claptrap. You're so gullible due to confirmation bias that you don't realize that Berlinsky is a senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute, and that as such he had to sign a committment to their philosophy and goals. As a conservative Christian organization, the DI's main goal is to force conservative Christianity on America, turning it into a theocracy ruled by Evangelical Christians. You don't believe me? Do some research.

Berlinsky says he's a secular Jew. Most secular Jews are agnostics or atheists, and certainly not religious. Yet he's thrown in his lot with the ultra-conservative Christian Discovery Institute, showing that he's a hypocrite of the first order. As for his motives, who knows?

Quote

And I already know your OCD answer us going to kick in..... about  now.....

There's that ignorant mace swinging again.

Here are some comments about Berlinsky and book reviews of The Devil's Delusion:

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2018/04/30/david-berlinski-makes-a-pompous-fool-of-himself-again-about-science-and-evolution/

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/David_Berlinski

This one contains a particularly good comment:

<<
Eugenie Scott described Berlinski's arguments thus:

“”The content of David Berlinski's article does not differ from more traditional creation-science material, though his tone is more genteel and his writing a lot more literate […] But true to the creation-science genre, his approach consists of constructing strawmen, then knocking them down with misinterpreted, faulty, or nonexistent data as well as carefully selected quotations from evolutionary scientists.
>>

On Eugenie Scott:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Eugenie_Scott

Another book review:

https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/david-berlinski/the-devils-delusion/

As for your claim that you answered my challenge proving that the Bible God does not exist, let me remind you of my response on page 19 of this thread. Of course, you never responded.

<<
AlanF: ... proves unarguably that any postulated Creator is far from loving. A loving Creator, by definition, could not create a world in which the daily lot of so many life forms is to suffer a nature “red in tooth and claw”. Thus, either the God of the Bible is not loving, or he does not exist.

Arauna: Only two? What about a third postulation..... that God is not the source of the problem but allows it to exist for a reason...... Your reasoning is occam's razor -    very limited........ all that reading of Dawkins' junk is showing.

AlanF:
<<<
As I predicted, no reasonable answer here.

You have no actual reason that "nature red in tooth and claw" has existed for half a billion years. You believe that God created all life, so he must be the author of such a thing.

How could God not be the source of a "nature red in tooth and claw"?

My argument comes not from Dawkins but from a careful consideration of the Bible and scientific facts.

Do you have any actual arguments?
>>>
>>

Expanding on this a bit, your "third postulation" ignorantly conflates the "Adam and Eve sinning" scenario of supposedly 6,000 years ago with God's creating predatory life forms half a billion years ago. So are you claiming that God is not the source of predation? It certainly can't be old Satan since he didn't become bad old Satan until after Adam and Eve were created. Then who, aside from God, would be "the source of the problem" half a billion years ago?

Of course, you'll still have no rational answer. Excuses, perhaps, but no answer.

[Arauna]

30 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Summaries are not science articles. Apparently you're not astute enough to know that.

I get a summary with a link to the original paper.    

32 minutes ago, AlanF said:

comment to which I replied as above was so abysmally ignorant

I am still waiting for the answer you refused to give earlier because you are a fake....  I asked a question about the math behind hitting the "jackpot" millions of times per second for  billion of years.  And you get stuck on the matter of  love .......  and refuse to accept the third postulation.

Another math problem with your theory is that humans develop several mutations per day in their DNA which can affect them adversely.  Most die of cancer these days.  If humans have lived a long as you say - they would already have gone extinct with the number of accumulated mutations. .... 

 

 

35 minutes ago, AlanF said:

As for his motives, who knows?

I told you..... he answers people like you because he can - he is qualified to do so.