Posts by JanH

on reading the september issues of watchtower and awake, i had a good laugh at the hypocrisy that leaped out at me.awake sept 8th 2002 :"to believe that numerological interpretations are accurate, when they are based upon such widely variable factors as calendar and language, is to stretch the limits of credibility to an absurd degree.".

considering the amount of ridiculous number crunching done by the society, how amazing that they print that statement!

if i remember rightly 607 date is based on an interpretation of calendar dates and the 'language' of the bible (which they always manage to skew to their doctrine).

JanH

RR,

In fact, up until the 1950's the term "Jehovah's witnesses, was still applied to just the anointed, then they changed it to apply to all members, and gave it the capital "W".

Correct, except that the capital W came much later.

From Lynn D. Newton's Theocratese Dictionary:

Until 1976 `witnesses' appeared in "The Watchtower" in lower case. Then in the April 1st issue, for what was apparently the first time, it appeared as `Witnesses', in upper case, in the third item under "Insight on the News". However, the change to upper case did not find its way into the blurb explaining the purpose of the magazine on the inside cover until the August 15, 1976 issue.

I don't think the change was ever explained. Probably for legal reasons.

- Jan

114

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

by JanH in

jw
friends

scientific american runs an article rebutting some of the most common creationist arguments.

short and to the point.. this is the first page.

click for the following ones.. see http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleid=000d4fec-7d5b-1d07-8e49809ec588eedf&catid=2.

JanH

sleepy,

Belief in a creator is one thing. No doubt understandable, as most people tend to believe whatever their parents or their culture has taught them.

Repeating constantly the most stupid, ignorant "arguments" about something they do not at all understand, in face of overwhelming evidence they for emotional reasons fail to absorb, is something else entirely.

The arguments rebutted here are pure nonsense, and should be called so. Many half-believers have the impression that there is at least some scientific merit to the creationists' claims. Others believe there is a scientific opposition to evolutionary biology..Both are false.

Sometimes, you just have to get that point across.

- Jan

7

FAMOUS QUOTES...........

by Mary in

jw
friends

just to lighten the mood, let's all try to think of a famous quote and apply it to something in the organization, see how it turns out....just in case someone's not familiar with the quote, i've put where they're really from at the bottom.........

"i did not - have - sexual - relations - with that woman!

" --------charles t. russell at his divorce hearing when asked about an adulterous relationship; .

JanH

1. Get that finger out of your ear! You don't know where that finger's been! (Fred Franz to Chitty)

2. He has a drinking problem. (understatement of the millennium, about Da Judge)

3. I can't lie to you about your chances, but......you have my sympathies. (HLC member to patient)

4. She's like 13 and if you even look at her funny I'm gonna stick an umbrella up your ass and open it (parent to Ted Jaracz)

5. GB member #1: God hates me, he hates me . .. GB member #2: Hate him back, it works for me.

6. You're not trying to draw a psycho pension! You really are crazy! (Da Judge to Woodworth, or vice versa)

1. Airplane!

2. (same)

3. Alien

4. the Last Boy Scout

5. Lethal Weapon

6. (same)

- Jan

114

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

by JanH in

jw
friends

scientific american runs an article rebutting some of the most common creationist arguments.

short and to the point.. this is the first page.

click for the following ones.. see http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleid=000d4fec-7d5b-1d07-8e49809ec588eedf&catid=2.

JanH

Scientific American runs an article rebutting some of the most common creationist arguments. Short and to the point.

This is the first page. Click for the following ones.

See http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&catID=2

- Jan

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up By John Rennie

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 next

lAYNE KENNEDY Corbis
NAUTILUS SHELL: Designed or evolved?

When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely, but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere--except in the public imagination.

Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy. They lobby for creationist ideas such as "intelligent design" to be taught as alternatives to evolution in science classrooms. As this article goes to press, the Ohio Board of Education is debating whether to mandate such a change. Some antievolutionists, such as Philip E. Johnson, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley and author of Darwin on Trial, admit that they intend for intelligent-design theory to serve as a "wedge" for reopening science classrooms to discussions of God.

Besieged teachers and others may increasingly find themselves on the spot to defend evolution and refute creationism. The arguments that creationists use are typically specious and based on misunderstandings of (or outright lies about) evolution, but the number and diversity of the objections can put even well-informed people at a disadvantage.

To help with answering them, the following list rebuts some of the most common "scientific" arguments raised against evolution. It also directs readers to further sources for information and explains why creation science has no place in the classroom.

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natu

PATRICIA J. WYNNE
GALPAGOS FINCHES show adaptive beak shapes.

ral world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.

2. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.

"Survival of the fittest" is a conversational way to describe natural selection, but a more technical description speaks of differential rates of survival and reproduction. That is, rather than labeling species as more or less fit, one can describe how many offspring they are likely to leave under given circumstances. Drop a fast-breeding pair of small-beaked finches and a slower-breeding pair of large-beaked finches onto an island full of food seeds. Within a few generations the fast breeders may control more of the food resources. Yet if large beaks more easily crush seeds, the advantage may tip to the slow breeders. In a pioneering study of finches on the Galpagos Islands, Peter R. Grant of Princeton University observed these kinds of population shifts in the wild [see his article "Natural Selection and Darwin's Finches"; Scientific American, October 1991].
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 next

15

were you allowed to listen to music?

by knighthawk1981 in

jw
friends

.

when you all were dubs, were you restricted from listening to music some or all?

JanH

I pretty much listened to what I wanted.

My only form of self-censorship was avoiding heavy metal bands that were assumed to be "demonic", so I missed lots of great music I have rediscovered since.

- Jan

101

Where are the Masculine Men?

by teenyuck in

jw
friends

fourskin started a battle of the sexes with his "where are the feminine women" thread.

i am wondering about men.

he has a muscle car, however, he has no muscle definition.

JanH

Im laughing so you must not have, unless there was another button you were going for.

Uh, heaven, I better not comment on what button I was going for. I do, after all, have a lot in common with your son.

LOL at picture. Very cute! Now, imagine that guy at 15!

- Jan

PS: Ros: Uh??

101

Where are the Masculine Men?

by teenyuck in

jw
friends

fourskin started a battle of the sexes with his "where are the feminine women" thread.

i am wondering about men.

he has a muscle car, however, he has no muscle definition.

JanH

Heaven,

I almost wonder if "4skin" wasnt in fact a woman since (he or she) knew exactly which of our buttons to push.

Nah. All men knows that, if nothing else from bumping into said buttons by accident. Many times.

Oops, I hope I didn't hit one now....

- Jan

19

Does God Exist? He Sure Does

by comforter in

jw
friends

does god exist?

god is evidenced by his creation, his word, and the relationship that believers have with him.

sadly, i notice that a lot of former jws either do not believe in god or believe in some false god of the nations.

JanH

SYN,

Personally, I like THOR! He gets ALL the action with the ladies of Olympus, the bastard

Uh oh. You are confusing our pantheon with that of the pesky greeks.

Jan

51

Explain this then

by Legendary U.2.K. in

(quote, messiah christ jesus) - "but of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but "my father only" <--that's proof that christ is not god, cause if christ was infact god,'dont you think he would know about the coming of his kingdom, also christ said" my father only" , um he said my father, therefore christ is the son of god, infact !!

!christ prayed to god!!

!<---you cant ignore that.. all this cometh str from the bible, and the bible tongues has/been change, but no the words, everything is true.. so prove me wrong, um you cant, so pay attention....

JanH

U2K,

It's a good idea to understand a doctrine before criticizing it. The trinity does not teach that the Father and Jesus is the same person. It teaches they are two different persons. LT told you that already, but you seemed to miss it.

- Jan