Science?

Feb 1, 2011 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Water Dissolves Water

As far as the lack of "missing links" goes, new discoveries are constantly filling in the gaps in the fossil record, but every time a so-called "missing link" is discovered, a curious thing happens - creationists suddenly identify two more missing links, one from just before the newly discovered fossil and another from afterwards.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 14 of14

“Make sure of all things”

Since: Jul 10

Milwaukee, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Feb 2, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Now blogs are considered news by Topix?

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Feb 2, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Hi my brother Standfirm. Hope all is well.

“Make sure of all things”

Since: Jul 10

Milwaukee, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Feb 2, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Appaloosa wrote:
Hi my brother Standfirm. Hope all is well.
Hi Appaloosa. I'm doing good. Things seem to be doing a little better as far as Topix goes as some of the more rude anti-JW posters seem to have stopped posting.

I see the rest are back out handing out dim bulbs and peanuts to all JWs.
Obamunism Communism Unite

Oaklyn, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Feb 2, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Obamacare is a fossil now.

“Prove all things 1 Th.5:21 ”

Since: May 10

North Merrick, Long Island, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Feb 2, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Hi you all! Well, Jehovah's Witnesses are not really creationists - since we reject a number of creationist doctrines. E.g. we do not believe the creative days were a mere 24 hours in length, and we believe Genesis 1:1,2 were before the 1st creative day - perhaps billions of years earlier!

We do believe in the Biblical account of creation.

We also believe in micro-evolution but reject macro-evolution.

On this, see our Bible dictionary on the number of kinds (perhaps less than 500?) on Noah's ark compared with the much larger number of present day species. Thus Darwin was correct on the origin of many species, such as the different finches on the Galapagos Islands. Where Darwin went wrong is concerning the origin of "kinds" - to us most importantly: humankind! E.g. the various Homo species did not evolve from Australopithecines.

Compare the Hebrew word for kind, translated genus in latin - but clearly pre-dating current scientific classification.
Mike

Greensboro, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Feb 2, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

Newtonian wrote:
Hi you all! Well, Jehovah's Witnesses are not really creationists - since we reject a number of creationist doctrines. E.g. we do not believe the creative days were a mere 24 hours in length, and we believe Genesis 1:1,2 were before the 1st creative day - perhaps billions of years earlier!
We do believe in the Biblical account of creation.
We also believe in micro-evolution but reject macro-evolution.
On this, see our Bible dictionary on the number of kinds (perhaps less than 500?) on Noah's ark compared with the much larger number of present day species. Thus Darwin was correct on the origin of many species, such as the different finches on the Galapagos Islands. Where Darwin went wrong is concerning the origin of "kinds" - to us most importantly: humankind! E.g. the various Homo species did not evolve from Australopithecines.
Compare the Hebrew word for kind, translated genus in latin - but clearly pre-dating current scientific classification.
So first the bible does not know what a day is but it does know what a genus is?
If each day is a billion years, the stars and moon were created only two billion years ago? Science can show the moon is as old as the earth and the stars are even older. We can see light from stars that have already stopped emitting light. Stars that are 13 billion years old.
Science knows that our solar system did not form before all other solar systems.
Any way you guys try and make your fable match the facts, you miss the boat by billions of somethings wrong.
Nice story but its just not true. Stop hurting our scientific advancement of American society.
Next you will be telling us that disease is caused by demons instead of germs.
Mike

Greensboro, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Feb 2, 2011
 
Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.
If you need proof of this, god told me this fact in my dreams last night.
Isn't this how the bible gets its 'facts'?
Kemmer

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Feb 2, 2011
 
Mike wrote:
Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.
If you need proof of this, god told me this fact in my dreams last night.
Isn't this how the bible gets its 'facts'?
In 10K years, humans will be out in the galaxy--perhaps on wondrous new worlds--and Earth will be sorta like Williamsburg VA is now.
Midge

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Feb 2, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Newtonian wrote:
Hi you all! Well, Jehovah's Witnesses are not really creationists - since we reject a number of creationist doctrines. E.g. we do not believe the creative days were a mere 24 hours in length, and we believe Genesis 1:1,2 were before the 1st creative day - perhaps billions of years earlier!
We do believe in the Biblical account of creation.
We also believe in micro-evolution but reject macro-evolution.
On this, see our Bible dictionary on the number of kinds (perhaps less than 500?) on Noah's ark compared with the much larger number of present day species. Thus Darwin was correct on the origin of many species, such as the different finches on the Galapagos Islands. Where Darwin went wrong is concerning the origin of "kinds" - to us most importantly: humankind! E.g. the various Homo species did not evolve from Australopithecines.
Compare the Hebrew word for kind, translated genus in latin - but clearly pre-dating current scientific classification.
Me>
Enjoyed your post, Newtonian. You seem like a person who has thought about this topic in depth.
When I was first interested in Jehovah's Witnesses as a particular religious group, one of the things that piqued my interest was the topic of evolution and their take on it.

Have you seen the new book by Stephen Hawking (in our local library recently). I just read the back cover, the synopsis of what's in the book. The synopsis says that Hawking things there are many parallel planes of existence (don't know what else to call it). This makes way in science for the existence of angels.

:)

“To God be the glory!”

Since: Feb 09

Lake Hiawatha, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Feb 2, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Midge wrote:
<quoted text>
Me>
Enjoyed your post, Newtonian. You seem like a person who has thought about this topic in depth.
When I was first interested in Jehovah's Witnesses as a particular religious group, one of the things that piqued my interest was the topic of evolution and their take on it.
Have you seen the new book by Stephen Hawking (in our local library recently). I just read the back cover, the synopsis of what's in the book. The synopsis says that Hawking things there are many parallel planes of existence (don't know what else to call it). This makes way in science for the existence of angels.
:)
You mean... it's okay to believe in angels now, because Stephen Hawking says they're possible? How exciting!
deanoff

Brighton, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Feb 2, 2011
 
Religion and science are two separate issues. Science relies on reason and evidence,religion relies on faith, or believing something without evidence.
In many cases,religion hinders scientific progress,stem cell research is a case in point.

“Mystical Atheism for everyone!”

Since: Nov 08

El Cerrito California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Feb 3, 2011
 
Here are some examples of science according to the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses that have been promoted over the years:

" The Grape Cure

The Grape Cure was a book and medical plan endorsed by the Watchtower Society. Dr. Roland Jones was one of Rutherford's doctors who endorsed the Grape Cure. Several others of the board of directors (now called the governing body) endorsed the book and cure including Fed Franz who endorsed it in writing.

According to Roy Goodrich in his Demonism and the Watchtower booklet, "the book has the earmarks of demonism all over it and through it."[17] In a tract on the subject he said the book endorsed astrology and other occult practices and ideas. The author, Joanna Brandt, claimed to have become "super-conscious" and had "unerring 'hunches'" and came in touch with her "subliminal self". The book was therefore a result of "divine illumination" she said.

The Society's endorsement of this book can be explained by their belief in medical radiesthesia. The book promoted the idea that the grape was "magnetic" and "pep[ed] up your mind" as is was "charged with the magnetism of the Sun." The "vibrations of the Sun" are contained in the grape and eating grapes allows you to obtain these "vibrations" in concentrated form, while meat-eaters only get "animal vibrations" from the animals they eat![18]



3. Radio Solar-Pad

Another Rutherford endorsement that could be included under the name of medical radiesthesia is the "Radio Solar-Pad." This was a belt that was to be worn around the waist. It contained a small amount of radium. This was supposed to revitalize its wearer.

Radium is a radioactive element and is therefore destructive and dangerous to living organisms. It is used occasionally to treat cancer today. It is used to destroy cancer cells in a similar manner to radiation therapy.[19] During the early part of the century some speculated and believed radium could be used for medical purposes, but the medical and science communities quickly discovered the ill effects of radioactive material such as radium. Many died using quack medical cures that used radium.[20]

Rutherford's physician, Dr. J.W. Coolidge, promoted the use of radium and the radio solar-pad in the June 23, 1920 Golden Age. Rutherford followed it up with his own comments on how he was helped by the pad with his pneumonia. Coolidge's comments on the use of radium are typical of the naivete of it's supporters and is also akin to later theories of medical radiesthesia. He spoke of the body's "vital forces" and "force of life" that could be revitalized by radium emanating the same energy or force of life back into the body, etc.[21]

Reading both short articles on this by Coolidge and Rutherford is fascinating for numerous reasons and somewhat amusing today as is much of what was published in The Golden Age. I am sure the average JW would be embarrassed by such quackery and the occult/mystic ideas promoted in them."

from:

http://www.seanet.com/~raines/ruthoccult.html

Channeled information is not from GOD and any organization that makes the false claim of being an exclusive channel from GOD may be channeling but it's not from GOD!

If we consider the teachings of the historical Jesus and the early Christians we find what Jesus taught to be in harmony with science which is just beginning to grasp the unity of the Cosmos as we explore the holographic nature of the consciousness that is the foundation of all that exists!

GOD is LOVE. WE are ALL ONE WITH GOD, even the unloving!

Since: Aug 09

Bedfordshire, England

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Feb 3, 2011
 
Sorry I really could not resist these two scientific gems written by the society

Thinking people would rather have smallpox than vaccination, because the latter sows the seed of syphilis, cancers, escema, erysipelas, scrofula, consumption, even leprosy and many other loathsome affections. Hence the practice of vaccination is a crime, an outrage and a delusion.
The Golden Age, May 1, 1929, p. 502.

Vaccination has never saved a human life. It does not prevent smallpox.
The Golden Age, Feb. 4, 1931, p. 294.

Since: Nov 08

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Feb 3, 2011
 
I am not with the JWs, but the "beginning" in Genesis 1:1 does not refer to the beginning of the stars, planets, earth, moon, sun, but rather to the six days of creation related to the earth (land masses and all in it) and its heavens (that as seen in the sky above the earth). Exodus 20:11 and Exodus 31:17 show that the "beginning" spoken of in Genesis 1:1 refers to the six days or creation.

When the physical universe was created is not revealed in the Bible; it could have been a billion years ago, or more than one billion quadrillion years ago (using the time measurements of the earth as God has given to man on the earth). I give these figures simply as examples, not to present a choice between the two. We do not know when God brought the material universe into existence.

At least four different kinds of "days" are referred to in Genesis 1 and 2. The creative days, for which no actual length is given; the "day" as opposed to the "light", which averages 12 hours (Genesis 1:14; John 11:9); the 24-hour days (Genesis 1:14), the creative (day) which includes all of the six "days" of creation.-- Genesis 2:4.

All of these are literal "days" in that they all refer to literal time periods, but not all are days of 24 hours.

See:
http://creation.reslight.net/...

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 14 of14
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••