Arauna

I've interacted with Harry Peloyan, and thought him to be honest. But I do believe the Evolution book (1967) was almost entirely his own work. He never told me, but he dropped enough hints. Do you think he was behind the 1985 book?
I can believe that Peloyan enjoyed making secularists look bad. I find it hard to believe, however, that Peloyan admitted that he used "dishonesty" to make secularists look bad. But he did make it through Harvard, and I therefore can't believe he didn't realize what he was doing was wrong. Today, one could be kicked out of Harvard for some of the same quoting tactics.

I think that this is true. So many things depend upon which scientists you listen to. Often, the scientists carrying the day at any given moment try to declare their opponents NOT reputable scientists. That way they can say: “All reputable scientists have concluded that.....”
I have stopped following the day to day development on this front, but I recall it was not uncommon for mathematicians to rule aspects of evolution out on the basis of probability alone, no matter how long the requisite time span be said to be.
I interacted with both atheists and evolutionists (often, though no always, the same) on my own blog. The most weighty of the posts were several years ago. I did read a couple of evolutionist books, “The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution” by Sean Carroll and one by Carl Zimmer. They’re not nothing. I benefited by reading them. But the do not change the big picture.
In some ways they reveal the fallacy of human thinking. People have figured out some of the appropriate questions to ask and that accomplishment is enough for them to carry on as though they had discovered the answers.

You are right that there has been a movement to "normalize" all this supposed sexual fluidity and new definitions. These supposedly progressive "culture warriors" are out there trying to get anything and everything made acceptable. It's a real mess. And it is also working as a trap for stupid Americans (apologies to stupid Americans) who think that this is some wonderful bandwagon to jump on.
Even in many colleges and universities, so-called places for progress and freedom, many of these "culture warriors" have tried to suppress speech, etc.

I am looking for lyrics for this waltz. I would like to sing. If you see it , let me know.

Pity the gypsies are hated all over Europe. Their music is exquisite. Many classical composers used their folk themes in their music. Brahms, liszt etc.
I have also sang a few gypsy arias which are almost Wagnerian in scope.  The operetta Guidita is beautiful and Grafin Maritza is quite difficult. Very high and low as well as in speed. 
I had a more dramatic and higher soprano voice. I can still sing it except the very high powerful notes.  I sang the dance passages faster than this singer who has more lyrical qualities.  I do not like her punctuated phrasing but there are not many examples of this aria on internet.  The dancing bits are very gypsy -like. 
 
 

Thanks Tom, we are obviously dealing with secularized JWs who are sitting on the fence and maybe do not even really believe the bible when it says jehovah created everything with his dynamic energy..  For them, those descriptions of creation in psalms and job can be thrown into the dustbin. 
They have not really taken the time to see how irreduceably " connected " all creation is.  I have mentioned some interesting examples before.  The simplest is the eye and the brain..... without the eye the brain cannot interpret .... so which one came first? Both body parts, as they  were supposedly developing over millions of years ....... the one body part, the eye, understood that in "future" it will need a brain and without design developed a brain by pure chances of correct natural selection (hitting the jackpot of benevolent mutation billions of times) to have a brain to perfectly fulfill the purpose of the eye?  So natural selection "knows " what will be needed in future...... wow ! Without a brain it can think! 
These people are so in awe of  evolution scholars that they cannot think for themselves..... but use derogatory names on us. ..... a perfect example how university education can erode the ability to think for oneself.  Its indoctrination  of evolution - is like a religion....... and permeates everything and crowds out the really good solid logic thinking. 
I did not just trust my family members but went out to discover the truth about it for myself.  Family members did help me to develop a curiosity to understand.  When thinking is faulty one must be adjusted. This is why I do like to listen to debates to hear both sides.  I still have to be disappointed in the bible.
 
 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RijB8wnJCN0

Do they? It is in the eye of the beholder. Must one really point out when quoting a scientist that he believes his own theory.
I gave an example with Darwin’s quote about the eye:
Darwin wrote:
“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”....
Q: If you quote this line, do you really have to add:  “of course, this is not to suggest that Darwin does not believe in his own theory of evolution by natural selection”?
I would never have thought so. I mean, what do you expect his next words to be? “Thus we can see that my entire theory is a load of horse manure. But I'm in this to win the praise of my peers, who for some reason, eat this stuff up. That, and maybe there's a buck to be made. So I'm putting lipstick on this pig. I'm sticking to my guns, even though you know, and I know, that it's all nonsense.”??
No! He's not going to say that! He's going to say something like: “Still, many now-established truths seemed equally absurd when first proposed. Evidence is scanty with relationship to the eye's development....no one's saying otherwise..... but we can expect future researchers to uncover corroborating material.”
That's my prediction (without peeking). In fact, he says almost exactly that:
“When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.”
Alright, then. Pretty much what I predicted he would say. Any donkey ought to realize Darwin's not throwing in the towel on his own theory by admitting evolution of the eye sounds ridiculous. If you use his quote to suggest he considers himself a charlatan, that's dishonest. But if you use his quote to show he acknowledges some pretty high hurdles exist in proving his theory.....well, what's wrong with that?
.........The above is from the post: 
Darwin wrote:
“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”....
Q: If you quote this line, do you really have to add:  “of course, this is not to suggest that Darwin does not believe in his own theory of evolution by natural selection”?
I would never have thought so. I mean, what do you expect his next words to be? “Thus we can see that my entire theory is a load of horse manure. But I'm in this to win the praise of my peers, who for some reason, eat this stuff up. That, and maybe there's a buck to be made. So I'm putting lipstick on this pig. I'm sticking to my guns, even though you know, and I know, that it's all nonsense.”??
No! He's not going to say that! He's going to say something like: “Still, many now-established truths seemed equally absurd when first proposed. Evidence is scanty with relationship to the eye's development....no one's saying otherwise..... but we can expect future researchers to uncover corroborating material.”
That's my prediction (without peeking). In fact, he says almost exactly that:
“When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.”
Alright, then. Pretty much what I predicted he would say. Any donkey ought to realize Darwin's not throwing in the towel on his own theory by admitting evolution of the eye sounds ridiculous. If you use his quote to suggest he considers himself a charlatan, that's dishonest. But if you use his quote to show he acknowledges some pretty high hurdles exist in proving his theory.....well, what's wrong with that?
......The above is from the 2011 post: https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2011/01/darwins-eye.html
which goes on to consider numerous examples from the 2 most recent brochures on creation v evolution. Numerous footnotes appear to point out that this or that scientist obviously believes in his own theory.
I think that’s sufficiently honest.

I love mince pies, turkey and fruit cakes - the real rich ones.  Wait a few days after the world has celebrated their pagan festivities and then go down to the shop....... get them at a much reduced price and put them in the freezer........ then have a feast afterward..... whenever you like.  No need to feel deprived ..... heh? 

Since most people are shunned for unrepentant  immorality - I think you are missing the point.   Those few who leave for other reasons often end up in "relationships "  or some other habits like drug abuse,  smoking etc.  Many, who are totally unrepentant end up opposing JWs in very deceitful ways, spreading false info about us.

On topic. I have honestly known JW's that will not have a proper cooked dinned on Christmas day, as it looks like a Christmas dinner.
'For fear of stumbling others'.  They just have a salad or soup or some other small meal. 
I remember when working with some brothers years ago (they were builders) and i took a box of mince pies for lunch. Not one of those brothers would eat a mince pie  It was soooooooooo funny.
When i think of what wicked things go on in the JW org, and then some JW's worry about christmas day dinner and mince pies. Where is the common sense ?  Where is the sense of balance ? 
 

YES!  That's it!   It's so clear to me now!

I am not a creationist...... I do not believe the creation of animals and people took only 24 hours. This is what creationists believe.
I do believe that jehovah created the earth and the physical universe and the age of the rocks on earth gives one an idea of the age of the earth. Genesis 1: 1 and 2   However, the earth is not as old as the estimates given by some evolutionists. There are many problems with carbon 14 dating as well as the other methods.  Uranium breaks down into  lead  reasonably fast.... and there is still uranium left on the earth..... so if the earth is as old as they say, there would be no uranium left.
I do believe that the earth after its creation was left to cool down and there was water on the earth from this process - as the bible indicates. 
After this God started to prepare the earth for human and animal habitation and only now calls each period a day. He used 6 periods, called a day, to work on this.  But he also calls all the creation of heaven and earth (including its preparation) a day - one total period  in genesis 2:4.  
When you promote the idea that the layers of the earth is not in line with bible chronology you are mistaken.  You see the geological record together with the biblical record confirms the biblical history. 
Many geologists try to hide the evidence of a earthwide flood but the violent evidences of a flood is everywhere on earth - especially the animal grave yards which were mostly in gullys.   The earth tore open and released waters deep under the earth and gave way to volcanic activity and tsunamis. It was an  extremely violent event which left the earth completely changed afterwards. The earth moved considerably as water is not only heavy but extremely powerful in its movement when tectonic plates move.  The weight of one bucket of water should give one an idea of the weight and pressing down of sediment involved.  This pushed out all oxygen.... perfect for the formation of coal, diamonds etc.  Water also drew back and this can be seen in some formations.
The layers of animals packed down in the different layers of sediment is proof of a violent flood. And the same sediment layers appear all over the earth with the lighter materials higher up such as sea shells etc.
Me thinks you dismiss too much evidence which honest scientists do not ignore!  
Yea- you will most probably call me a moron.... again....but because evolutionists do not take the flood into account and the change of the earth during the flood their carbon calculations and ice age calculations could be totally wrong..... 
No I do not punt..... I have a life.  My life does not consist of sitting on internet talking to trolls who really do not care to even consider an aspect different to their own opinion. 
 

I never read a direct prediction that the end would come in 2000.  Any case, we are supposed to be ready ALL the time because it will come as thief in the night.  The other comparison is to  a pregnant woman..... she knows the event is eminent but does not know the hour.
Did the bible not warn that people will scoff and say:  where is it ?   ....and when they do not expect it the events will suddenly follow each other .....rapidly one will see prophecies being fulfilled.  I have no doubt in my mind that it is getting closer every day that passes.
We are seeing the storm clouds rolling in on several sides.  My brother told me that they had temperatures if 53.2 Celsius in south Africa..... and the hight of the summer will only be in February - in 3 months.  Farmers have not planted. 
Governments are keeping quiet about crop failures, unprecedented ocean destruction due to warm sea currents and many other problems.  The dollar and stable stockmarket is the main concern. Keep everyone in the dark until the biosphere collapses. 
Growing hate between the " iron and clay" elements in most western governments - irreconcileable to where it is almost  cold civil war. Maneuvering behind the scenes of the UN..... 176 nations have signed up on the 3 agreements - a good indication of where we are in the stream of time.
Surveillance and control of powerful private global companies,  super artificial intelligence, CRISPR software  on sale for anyone who wants to use it, CHina and Russia have more  and more ports and other mineral resources under their control and the growth of atheism, immorality (LGBTQ etc) and other devastating philosophies...... as well as a rise in spiritistic religions...... the main one in the UN - theosophy- are escalating.
One thing for sure - the world is not growing better as some are saying - but worse as each day passes. A Christian genocide is ongoing  in middle east and north Africa. No one cares about this because the UN human rights organization has  been taken over by Muslim countries who vote each other in. Countries with the  worst human rights sitting in top positions.
Well.... I can go on..... and on....
Laugh on and on..... suddenly the mockery will turn into gnashing of teeth in anger....
 

Yes, in the end we all will do an accounting before jehovah - whether you believe in him or not.  Personal choices do bring the fruits of those choices.
When mistakes are made one also reaps what was sowed.... 
Good for your wife - smart to question their dates. 

No. You are preoccupied with this, and @4Jah2me lives and breathes it. But anyone else takes into account that there is no sizable organization on earth where CSA is not an issue, and no one that is not being sued—and in most cases, it is the leaders who are the abusers, something very rare with JWs, whose leaders are just accused of not reporting.
Don’t misunderstand. I would rather that even that were not so, but it is considerably less serious than the leaders being the abusers. Most people can get their heads around that, out of 8 million people, not every single one will be blameless—especially since CSA is the scourge of the planet. Most people can also get their heads around clergy/penitent confidentiality, even if it is being legally reinterpreted, same as they have understood doctor/patient and lawyer/client privilege. I say the following only because I am addressing you, JTR, and I know your political leaning: Most ordinary Americans cannot quite get their heads around quid-pro-quo and if you explain it to them they are not quite sure why it is the huge deal Trump’s opponents make it out to be.
We’ll see how it turns out. It may be something to the Witness organization’s lasting shame. Or perhaps a sense of proportion will, in time, assert itself.
I do sometimes wish that there was a little more PR pushback from them. At present there is only a “we abhor child sexual abuse.” True enough, but in the face of court actions and vehement accusers, reporters go to where they can get a story. They can get one from accusers, but nothing specific from the defense, so they naturally gorge themselves on what the accusers have to say. That’s what reporters do.
There is a limit to how much you can malign people. The decency of Jehovah’s Witnesses is well-attested. They are not flower-selling robe dressers but they are neighbors and coworkers. True, they eat Bible sandwiches, but they are honest, industrious, law-abiding, and harmless. Usually when there are laudable people, it is understood to be because of their leaders, not despite them.
You hang out here too much, JTR, with people who are obsessed over this, in some cases people who are fervently hoping for an outcome detrimental to JWs. “Can’t see the forest for the trees” is the pit some fall into. Again, because of your political leanings—it is like media whipping people into a frenzy over Trump day after day, praying that every tiny development proves to be the torpedo that sinks him. From the moment of his election this has been the case—even from before his election. Close one Mueller investigation with not much to show for it, and immediately open another. 
At least half the country concludes that it is his enemies grasping at straws. 

I'm already mocking you for your gullibility.
Yes, the world has a lot of potentially fatal problems. But they have nothing to do with anything predicted by the Watchtower Society with regard to its ridiculous interpretations of Matthew, Mark, Luke, Revelation, Daniel, etc. for "the generation of 1914". Indeed, all those interpretations have already proved false.
The 'world' may well end because of man-induced climate warming, but it will have nothing to do with "Bible based" JW predictions of "the end".

Of course he said it. He is now trying to walk it back because, despite all his blustering, he couldn’t quite make it stick.
It is as you say. The nearness of the end has been impressed upon Witnesses from their inception, but the only specific date in anyone’s lifetime today is 1975. They burned their fingers on that one so badly that they resolved never to do that again. So far they have kept to that resolve. Every subsequent pronouncement has been generic, and is in harmony with Jesus’ counsel to “keep on the watch.” 
Alan’s just upset that they have not said not to keep on the watch. In fact, he’s probably upset that they have not denounced God, for he writes that he has “disproved” him.
If you can distract the Librarian for a moment, I wrote long ago of another such revision that Alan has no doubt chronicled. If by some miracle he missed it, it is another that he can throw on the stack:
Paragraph 18 [of the Revelation book] on page 94 states "some scientists forecast mathematically that an accidental nuclear war is virtually certain to take place within the next 25 years - let alone a planned nuclear conflagration!" The updated version, however, yanks this phrase for the blander: "some scientists speak of the possibility of an accidental nuclear war - let alone a planned nuclear conflagration!"   [!]
The reason the publishers have done this is because Tom Barfendogs has marked on his calendar (to the day, hour, and minute) exactly when 25 years from the first book's publication expires. He is praying, hoping, pleading that there is no nuclear war within that time frame (after that is okay) so he can launch into yet another false prophetscreamfest.
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2007/07/will-the-real-a.html
I wrote the post 12 years ago and it stands up reasonably well. The line that I like most is “after that is okay.” It is the same with Alan. The prospect of nuclear war isn’t as disturbing to him as the horror that JWs might get credit for warning of. It is the same with countless other factors that have this world teetering on the brink. He doesn’t think it is in any great trouble, or if he does, he certainly doesn’t want anyone looking anywhere else outside of human answers for the remedy.
In this sense  he is the biggest hypocrite of all. He rails against Jehovah’s Witnesses, but it is really God, the Bible, and specifically the notion of his kingdom coming that rankles him.
 
 

I heard several JWs in the 1980s talking about zebras. Coming from the Master of Rationality, I’d say that this bit of “evidence” is rather weak.
Another bit of proof!
It IS true that, as they were dropping the 1999 New Year’s Eve ball in Times Square, the brothers were dropping an identical one at Bethel: “Four...three....two....one....IT’S THE NEW SYSTEM!!!! ......Oh.....Still the same?.....nuts!”
What is wrong with you? There is 1975 and only 1975 in anyone’s lifetime. And, as stated, even that one is arguable.
You’re just steamed that there has not been counsel: “Remember, brothers, how Jesus said ‘Keep on the watch?’ He’s nuts. Fogedaboutit!”
This speech is shocking! Who can listen to it?
It is on a topic having nothing to do with the theme of this thread! How could you?!
Put it up on another thread. Start one if there is not one already! Same with Alan with his dates. A completely different topic. Start a new thread!
How can you people be so insensitive to the wishes of @The Librarian (that old hen)? She has made it clear that she wants order. We must be considerate of her and not just think of our own selfish desires. Otherwise she will throw everything in one master thread where the focused energy will cause it to explode like a supernova, blowing us all to Kingdom Come!
(maybe that’s how The End comes about)

The signs read: "love does not shun".   True, the liove of this world with its "practices" of fornication, LGBT does not shun. 
But we do not tolerate unrepentant "pracitisers"  of this kind of love they refer to.  This is my answer and I am a typical rank and file JW who cannot think for myself  according to all the slurs given me on this forum.
I predict this will become a huge issue as all children now at school are taught to accept these practices whereas the bible says we should not " condone" them Romans 1. So the future is bleak regarding morality. When good is bad and bad is good.
We will all in future be persecuted as hateful because of this. The same people who say jehovah was harsh when he killed wayward Jews who participated in false worship and burnt their own children.  There are none as blind as those who do not want to see.

As I said before: eight old men who never personally touched a child (actually too innocent  to comprehend how wicked people can be - too good for this world), mentioned in court documents while people like Epstein who had 37 cases against him in 2007 got off because the FBI covered up for him and went after the victims. A plea bargain made without the victim's lawyers informed.
All Epstein's workers who knew what was going on since 2007, all his high-up friends and his girlfriend who coached the girls - NOTHING!   New cases in England as well where rape gangs raped young girls - covered up.
What does that tell you about the condition of the world when the real unscrupulous predators go off free and the innocent who do NOT condone this, are accused.   
People like you - who just go after JWs- get so much joy out of this......... but this tells me personally that when good is bad and bad is good, we are ever closer to Armageddon.
Just a little while longer and the wicked will be no more....... thanks to Jehovah, Jesus is the judge.

The signs read: "love does not shun".   True, the liove of this world with its "practices" of fornication, LGBT does not shun. 
But we do not tolerate unrepentant "pracitisers"  of this kind of love they refer to.  This is my answer and I am a typical rank and file JW who cannot think for myself  according to all the slurs given me on this forum.
I predict this will become a huge issue as all children now at school are taught to accept these practices whereas the bible says we should not " condone" them Romans 1. So the future is bleak regarding morality. When good is bad and bad is good.
We will all in future be persecuted as hateful because of this. The same people who say jehovah was harsh when he killed wayward Jews who participated in false worship and burnt their own children.  There are none as blind as those who do not want to see.

It is their job to meet together to coordinate activities where they are serving. 
 A meeting of only anointed at congregation level makes it exclusive - excluding the other sheep.  My experience tells me it is practical as well as scriptural decision. Anointed are just as prone to sin as any of us..... and may soon develop a superiority and start drawing sheep after themselves......... as happened jn the first century congregation.  We see many instances where people were drawing a following after themselves. They became wolves.
This is why I constantly say:  there us some hidden motive behind these persons which want this,  which they are not prepared to acknowledge.  They accuse the GB of hidden motives but this is an example of projecting their own sin on others. Pride has crept in somewhere -  to the extent that they are prepared to go against Jehovahs people as a nation at every opportunity.  They have no wish to feed the sheep but somehow to "influence" the sheep to your own benefit....No sacrificing love in any of it.
Yea, I typed it wrong late at night.  The guy is dead for more than two years .... not relevant as a person any more..... BUT the questions about "future " expectations,  morality, consciousness, language (which only humans have)  remain.

The question is not:  how stable is the structure AFTER  it has formed because we know from obserbation in nature that species can adapt to its environment.  Changes,  such as Darwin's finches, whose beaks changed when the food source changed and then changed back again when the food source changed again.... but never changed Io a different species of bird.....STABILITY OF SPECIES is confirmed.
But the Cambrian explosion was too short  and sudden  to produce / originate such a variety of complex animals..... which  brings us back to the " origin" of all species"   

When my children were young, preschool, at the Kingdom Hall I required them to be quiet and respectful, but did not require them to pay attention.  I let them scribble, and do coloring books, and play silently with very small toys in their seats.
Today my oldest is an elder, and all three are strong and active in the truth of the Truth (to the best of my knowledge), have very good jobs and married well ... VERY well. 
It was more important to me for them to have HAPPY childhoods.
Meantime, I know many elders whose children all left.
.... but then again ... I am a Barbarian and a loose cannon.
...  silly me.