Judge Rutherford got it right then and it is still right now when he said, "Religion is a snare and a racket."
Hence why he stole a religion to line his own pockets!
cantleave
JoinedPosts by cantleave
-
12
A WT "prophecy" that finally came true?
by eyeuse2badub inat long last, after 140 years of failed prophecies, it appears that the borg finally got one right!
recall the odd little article published back in the november 15th, 2013 wt about the 7 shepherds 8 dukes (anti-type) and the evil assyrian (anti-type) and some silly nonsense about the assyrians attack on the vulnerable wtbts.
page 20 paragraph 17 of that strange article contained this foreboding prophecy from the faithful and discreet slave, (anti-type);.
-
-
-
51
Just found out my older brother has passed away
by stuckinarut2 ini have just found out that my brother (who was one of a bunch that shared this login) has died.. he and his wife were living in another country where they once pioneered.
i didn't see him that often.. such an empty feeling.....
-
-
cantleave
Please accept my sincere condolences -
7
What was so new about The Theory of Evolution?
by iconoclastic inthe east had already been teaching the 10 stages of human evolution (that should happen in the life-span of a human being) using an allegorical story of 10 incarnations of god:.
1) fish (water borne life, a fish-like start in the womb of mother) amoebae or primeval evolution..
2) turtle (life moves into land, crawling child once outside the womb) amphibians..
-
-
-
91
Proof - of what?
by Doltologist ina few weeks ago, these two jovies turned up on my doorstep.
being in a good mood that particular day, i told them that if they could prove that god existed, i'd become a jovie - and i meant every word.. they gave me two documents which they asked me read and told me that they'd be back in a week.
the first was called "was life created?
-
-
cantleave
I don't know much about chemistry but from what I do know (very little) wouldn't a chemical intervention/event cause a sudden change in the evolution of an organism and wouldn't this argue against the gradual adaptionism of natural selection? just curious
Ruby I am not sure what you are asking but hopefully this will answer your question.......
For abiogenesis to occur simple molecules needed to bind in a specific order to create more complex molecules (nucleotides) that eventually resulted in a very complex molecule that had the ability to replicate itself (RNA and subsequently DNA). At this point natural selection started to influence the process favouring variations that made replication more efficient.
In the lab complex biochemical synthesis, such as the manufacture of peptides, uses a technique called solid phase synthesis whereby the amino acids making up the peptides are built up on tiny porous beads in a controlled way. There are different hypothesises as to how nucleotides were built in nature but it would seem that a vehicle, acting as the equivalent of solid phase bead, was utilised to allow the step by step combination. For example, the vehicle may have been Iron disulphide found in hydrothermal vents or it may have been a clay such as montmorillonite, the actual conditions are of course one of the big unknowns of abiogenesis. The bottom line is, once these initial reactions occurred, in the order required, nucleotides were created which then combined to form self-replicating molecules. These molecules used their own molecular structure to provide the vehicle which ensured successful replication.
To answer your question directly as I understand it................
Evolution at the chemical level occurs due to changes in the arrangement of the base pairs in the self-replicating molecules. Some chemicals are mutagenic and these can result in such changes, most of which are neutral to the viability of the phenotype. Some of these mutations may be detrimental to the phenotype and will result in cell death or uncontrolled division of mutated cells (cancer). It is also possible that such a mutation could potentially be beneficial and theoretically if a beneficial mutation occurs in gamete (sex cell) it could be inherited and subsequently be important in evolutionary terms. Mutations that do not occur in the gametes have no influence on evolution.
-
91
Proof - of what?
by Doltologist ina few weeks ago, these two jovies turned up on my doorstep.
being in a good mood that particular day, i told them that if they could prove that god existed, i'd become a jovie - and i meant every word.. they gave me two documents which they asked me read and told me that they'd be back in a week.
the first was called "was life created?
-
-
cantleave
1975 - your ignorance of the subject is astounding too. -
91
Proof - of what?
by Doltologist ina few weeks ago, these two jovies turned up on my doorstep.
being in a good mood that particular day, i told them that if they could prove that god existed, i'd become a jovie - and i meant every word.. they gave me two documents which they asked me read and told me that they'd be back in a week.
the first was called "was life created?
-
-
cantleave
Tele - when are you going to use your knowledge of chemistry to rebut the video I posted?
I am now especially intrigue since like me you work in in the field of Chemistry.
-
91
Proof - of what?
by Doltologist ina few weeks ago, these two jovies turned up on my doorstep.
being in a good mood that particular day, i told them that if they could prove that god existed, i'd become a jovie - and i meant every word.. they gave me two documents which they asked me read and told me that they'd be back in a week.
the first was called "was life created?
-
-
cantleave
Telemetry, I thought you might enjoy this discussion with someone who actually understand highly advanced chemistry
Really? As a Chemist myself I see no evidence that Tele has anything over O-level knowledge.
-
91
Proof - of what?
by Doltologist ina few weeks ago, these two jovies turned up on my doorstep.
being in a good mood that particular day, i told them that if they could prove that god existed, i'd become a jovie - and i meant every word.. they gave me two documents which they asked me read and told me that they'd be back in a week.
the first was called "was life created?
-
-
cantleave
Dawkins describes himslef as an Atheist not an agnostic.
The Daily Mail is talking total crap here. As I stated in my last post it is not for Dawkins to disprove a god but the for believers to prove their delusions. Shifting the burden of proof onto Dawkins, cofty or any other atheist does not make them agnostic.
-
91
Proof - of what?
by Doltologist ina few weeks ago, these two jovies turned up on my doorstep.
being in a good mood that particular day, i told them that if they could prove that god existed, i'd become a jovie - and i meant every word.. they gave me two documents which they asked me read and told me that they'd be back in a week.
the first was called "was life created?
-
-
cantleave
!975Blues - God has been disproved in as much that there is no evidence for such a being and the more we learn about the universe the more we understand that the requirement for such a being is unnecessary.
I can not disprove god in the same way I can't disprove invisible flying unicorns, and more importantly the burden of proof is not on me, but the believer.
Edit - BTW Dawkins is NOT agnostic.
-
91
Proof - of what?
by Doltologist ina few weeks ago, these two jovies turned up on my doorstep.
being in a good mood that particular day, i told them that if they could prove that god existed, i'd become a jovie - and i meant every word.. they gave me two documents which they asked me read and told me that they'd be back in a week.
the first was called "was life created?
-
-
cantleave
Show us the evidence that in Earth’s primordial oceans, after millions of years, there were no more than 20 different amino acids.
Tele - you are missing the point. It doesn't matter have how many amino acids were potentially available, what mattered was which ones were able to create stable peptides and proteins in the conditions that existed at the time. Remember the conditions at that period were completely different to conditions today. Particularly relevant to peptide chemistry are the levels of radiation and pH both of which are able affect the tertiary structure of longer amino acid chain peptides and proteins.
Anyway what about responding to the video I posted?
