Putting the JW Stand on Evolution in Perspective

[tas8831]

It sounds as though you are saying there must be natural, blind, undirected processes. Why?
How did you arrive at the assumption that there must be?

Mutations are random

You do have to examine the object, in order to determine if it is design or not, or do you just assume that it owes its existence to natural, blind, undirected processes?

Like when I asked you about looking at some cells under a microscope and you claimed they were designed and had purpose and were following instructions, etc., just because?

Do you mean like this?

More videos...
EXPLAIN in your own science words why echolocation is not just your human interpretation for Jehovah design.
I'm thinking you've got nothing that I cannot dismiss as your interpretation.

Remember how you justify your dismissal of evolution evidence as human interpretation?

Yeah, I can do that do that, too.

 

[tas8831]

i don't know where you got both those ideas, but perhaps you know, and can tell me.

You wrote:

The assumptions regarding ERVs, are just an added serious of assumptions to support the assumption of evolution from common descent. Consider PTERVs1. What assumptions do they arrive at, and why?
Chimp genome reveals a retroviral invasion in primate evolution​

Why write that if you thought otherwise? Why did you think a lineage-specific ERV nullified the hundreds of shared ones? Was it your mere human interpretation?

 

[tas8831]

How though can a Pathologists determine that a person died from a lack of blood transfusion? Imo, they can only determine that the person died from excess bleeding, but that does not mean the person died from a lack of blood transfusion.

Hypovolemic shock can only be treated with an increase in blood volume. Non-blood fluids cannot be used to replace large amounts of lost blood for what I hope are obvious reasons (saline, for example, does not carry oxygen so well). People do die from refusing blood transfusions.

 

[tas8831]

Is there a methodology you can recommend which doesn't have any kind of limits?
No. That's why many are used together.

Then why do you dismiss tested methods?

Then you need to work on HOW you ask questions.
Your question was...
What methods or methodology could you apply to determine which object was designed and which was not?
WHAT does not mean HOW.

Besides, I explained HOW.

By examining the product, based on my understanding of design, I determine if the product meets the standard of design.

Based on your understanding (human interpretation) of HUMAN DESIGN, you make a faulty human interpretation.

Dismissed.

 

[nPeace]

I told you. I know what it means and it isn't the same as the Jehovah's Witnesses teach. I have told this group things and I have been ridiculed for it. So, ask Jehovah what it means! Psalms 146:3

You have been ridiculed? Join the club. That's the world we live in. You are still living and breathing so don't sweat it.
I believe that we can understand what Jesus meant, by an understanding of what the Bible says.
Of course, your understanding is apparently different to mine.
If you want to discuss it I can create a thread for that purpose. Would you like to discuss it?

What you say below, seems completely wrong.

The JWs are taught that to be no part of the World means that you are to obey the men about what not to do. So, they make it about intelligence which means the world. But, I think you know that Christians are to obey The Spirit. Am I right? To be no part of the World means that you will not ________, not only that you don't.

Can you see the difference between do not and will not? What does it mean? "There was no lie found in their mouths". Revelation 14:5 IN! their mouths. Do you see it say, "from their mouths"?

Adam pictures the world. Correct? What did Adam do? What he did is the World.

Adam promoted a lie. The promotion of lies means being in the World. So, a person can be perfect respecting what the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses says he shouldn't do so that he isn't a part of the world but still be a part of the World.

I know YOU don't understand. It is OK.

The governing body to my knowledge has never taught that it is alright to say, "I don't know". But they make up stuff to fill in the 'we don't know'. That is being part of the World.

Where did you get this stuff from. This is like a foreign language to JWs, and one that has not even been invented.
Like I said, if you want to discuss it, I'd be happy to open that thread. just let me know.

 

[tas8831]

-omitting unwarranted condescension -

Police can miss a set fingerprints - the real culprit's, miss blood stains - the real culprit's, witnesses can give false testimony, but the one who did it will know for certain that he did it.
That's the situation.

But you have argued that testimony is the only 'direct evidence'. Here you finally (unwittingly) admit that testimony can be false.

Given this admission, are you sure you want to use the 'testimony' card when propping up bible lore?

 

[tas8831]

A man created by God is not an unfounded assumption, in the same way that a robot made by a man, is not an unfounded assumption.

LOL!!

My gosh, this has to be a Poe!

 

[tas8831]

I looked through the other post, but there appeared to be only a feeble attempt at mockery, so I saw nothing else to comment on.

I learned long ago that among the many other ways, one way to tell that a creationist is beaten is what they choose NOT to reply to. You omitted the following from your response, and I think it is obvious why:

Please define "true science."

I saw nothing about success rates, just a handful of self-serving assertions and a few links to some laughably silly religious propaganda.

So please provide the success rates of religious thought from unbiased sources.

You ended that post with:

"Perhaps the pursuit of the ToE, is not really the Theory of Everything, but rather the Theory of Evil, being driven on by a force that escapes their perception."

Wow... Misrepresentation followed by a poisoning fallacy and perhaps an ad hominem, to boot.


I can see why they would, since there is nothing there.


There was also nothing there concerning success rates.

Do you understand what I am asking for? it seems not - success rates are something like this:


Breast cancer survival statistics & results

What your posts presented were anecdotes and assertions.

Like here:

Examples
I have seen results every time from...
Effects of spirit - Matthew 10:20; Mark 13:11; Luke 12:11, 12; 21:14, 15; John 14:26; Hebrews 4:12
Effects of prayer - Matthew 6:7, 8; Mark 14:38
Effects of God's word, the Bible - Psalms 1:1-3; 119
These give clear evidence of the existence of God. These are all spiritual "instruments" that we use to test that conclusion. There is no physical instrument that can be used to do this.​

Anecdotes - and pretty bad ones, at that. No evidence, no science, no evidence.

 

[tas8831]

You didn't watch the video either...did you? Its the doctors warning about the dangers of blood transfusions.....not us. Up to you if you want blood.....go for it, but please don't day you weren't warned. OK?

I just love how some take so many things out of context and present their subsequent indignation as 'evidence' that their zany religious proscriptions have merit.

So, one link was to the use of transfusions during knee transplants. The other was to a cautionary video about the over-use of transfusions.

Like your inability to understand evolution and science above a 5th grade level, I suspect you have the same level of understanding of medical issues.

A blood transfusion is, after all, a tissue transplant (What is the JW position on tissue/organ transplants?) - you understand that blood is a tissue, yes?

And as such, it is the introduction of foreign tissue. Of course there are potential complications, and like any medical procedure or medicine or treatment, there is a tendency to overuse.

But precautionary statements about not transfusing blood willy-nilly is not the same thing as saying that they are evil and wicked and should never be done - there are morbidity and mortality rates associated with getting a tooth pulled. Let's proscribe that!

 

[ecco]

Yes, they are the makers of what appears to be a superior type of knee replacement. What does that have to do with anything?

That's one of the differences between believers and skeptics. You read an article that has a few words conforming to your ingrained beliefs and you parrot it. A skeptic looks at when was written and who did the writing. A skeptic sees a conflict of interest when one so clearly exists.

You seem to think that JW's can't think for themselves.....we do our own research

See above RE: skepticism.
If you (JW) have done your own research, then just post it. However, I think your "research" does not extend beyond what you read in the Bible.

You don't seem to understand that your own party line is just as unbelievable to us. Your own 'leaders' dictate what you believe.

My 'leaders'? What "leaders"? Technically, the leader of my Country is Donald Trump. I certainly don't believe most of what he says.

What party line? If you are implying that I think modern medicine is better than the medicine practiced 2000 years ago or 3500 years ago, then, yes, I do. Although I don't see why you would use the term "party line".

Just as you don't care about what we believe....

Oh, I do care. I think it's important to see the end results of extensive religious indoctrination. I think your views are dangerous on many levels.

we don't really care what you believe,

I believe in science and rational thought. I am well aware JW do not believe in science and rational thought.

but airing our views publicly here can help to give others some food for thought....so it's not entirely wasted.

It clearly isn't wasted. See above.

Skeptics are a dime a dozen...

Well, no, they aren't. There are a lot more people who believe in a magical man in the sky than there are skeptics.

The only people who are impressed by skeptics are other skeptics.

Wrong again. All scientific advances were made by people who were skeptical of the status quo. You may be against advances in the medical field. I, and tens of millions of others, are alive and enjoying life because of advances in the medical field.

You apparently have no problems with the scientific advances that led to electricity and computers and cars. Why is that? Oh - they don't conflict with what you read in you thousands year old book.

...people who need proof are on one side and people who have faith are on the other....

Now, now Deeje. There is no reason to resort to the word 'proof' is there. As you've been told many, many times, skeptics don't look for proof, skeptics look at evidence.

Did you ever wonder where your faith without evidence came from? Your beliefs came from people who also had faith without evidence who believed the preachings and writings of a few people 150 years ago. Writings that foretold of the end of times. Wrongly and repeatedly. Yet blind faith demands you ignore, ignore, ignore.

 

[nPeace]

Then do you accept that Vesuvius erupted in 79 A.D.? Yes or no. Simple question.

I have no reason to doubt a historical record if there is nothing that refutes it without question.
If a secondary source supports the primary source, that is even more convincing.
It's just how I view the Bible accounts. I have no reason to doubt them, and every reason to believe them, since they are backed up by secondary sources.

Mutations are random

Yes, and they happen in living cells, not stones.
My question was, How did you arrive at the assumption that there must be natural, blind, undirected processes... period? That is, why assume that that natural, blind, undirected processes is the answer to the way things are?

Like when I asked you about looking at some cells under a microscope and you claimed they were designed and had purpose and were following instructions, etc., just because?

I didn't think you were seriously looking to answer my question. I am sure everyone else was aware that I was not examining the cell externally.
I explained that clearly here.

More videos...
EXPLAIN in your own science words why echolocation is not just your human interpretation for Jehovah design.
I'm thinking you've got nothing that I cannot dismiss as your interpretation.

Remember how you justify your dismissal of evolution evidence as human interpretation?

Yeah, I can do that do that, too.

I gave a clear explanation on the thread here, and I repeated and clarified throughout the thread. You can look through there if you have not already done so. Pages 1, 9, and 13, may be sufficient, but if not, just check my other posts there.

You wrote:

The assumptions regarding ERVs, are just an added serious of assumptions to support the assumption of evolution from common descent. Consider PTERVs1. What assumptions do they arrive at, and why?
Chimp genome reveals a retroviral invasion in primate evolution​

Why write that if you thought otherwise? Why did you think a lineage-specific ERV nullified the hundreds of shared ones? Was it your mere human interpretation?

Evidently you did not understand what I was saying. To be clear, the phylogenetic tree is a hypothesis, built up on assumptions, and so are the interpretations of the evidence for evolution, including ERVs.
I hope that's clearer.

The truth is, that for over 150 years the theory of evolution has been gathering evidence to fit the facts,
instead of arriving at the facts, based on the evidence. That is why it seems to appear well supported.. but it's just propped up. Do you understand?

Hypovolemic shock can only be treated with an increase in blood volume. Non-blood fluids cannot be used to replace large amounts of lost blood for what I hope are obvious reasons (saline, for example, does not carry oxygen so well). People do die from refusing blood transfusions.

This simply is not true.
There is no reason we should limit skilled surgeons to those who want to continue to apply orthodox methods.
I am surprised that there are persons here who proclaim so much faith in science, and claim so proudly that evolution is responsible for so much medical advances, yet when it comes to this topic, they deny scientific advancements.
Although the theory of evolution has nothing to do with advanced medical breakthroughs, but rather Hematology and other studies, it's still a strange thing to reconcile.
Perhaps it has to do with wanting to oppose a view of a group they hate. I can't think of any rational reason to explain it.

This is sad, because millions of people all over the world, who are not JWs refuse to have a blood transfusion, and still millions more would prefer not to have a blood transfusion, and knowing about alternatives has been good news to millions.
A few more years from now, blood transfusion will only be used by those who as Deeje rightly pointed out, are greedy for the bucks, regardless of the consequences.

Management of massive bleeding in a Jehovah’s Witness obstetric patient: the overwhelming importance of a pre-established multidisciplinary protocol

Then why do you dismiss tested methods?


Based on your understanding (human interpretation) of HUMAN DESIGN, you make a faulty human interpretation.

Dismissed.

Tested methods. Do you mean algorithms? Please give me an example of a tested method I reject, and please also provide the results.

I learned long ago that among the many other ways, one way to tell that a creationist is beaten is what they choose NOT to reply to. You omitted the following from your response, and I think it is obvious why:

Since I am behaving myself as I ought to, you can have the last word on that. If it makes you happy.

 

[tas8831]

Blood transfusions kill more people than they save. It's a fact.

Then let us see this fact in context - citation please.

And no, your video does not indicate this. The only thing cited indicated that transfusions were "inappropriate" in more than half of cases. That is not the same as 'killing more than saving.' Nor did your link about knee transplants.

Oddly, in the cytoscan, the comparison was with volume expanders v. packed red cells (i.e., red cells with most of the plasma removed) post hemorrhage. Golly, what a surprise that replacing lost volume with packed red cells did not allow for dilation of peripheral blood vessels!
Something seems very odd about that video...

 

[nPeace]

I just love how some take so many things out of context and present their subsequent indignation as 'evidence' that their zany religious proscriptions have merit.

So, one link was to the use of transfusions during knee transplants. The other was to a cautionary video about the over-use of transfusions.

Like your inability to understand evolution and science above a 5th grade level, I suspect you have the same level of understanding of medical issues.

A blood transfusion is, after all, a tissue transplant (What is the JW position on tissue/organ transplants?) - you understand that blood is a tissue, yes?

And as such, it is the introduction of foreign tissue. Of course there are potential complications, and like any medical procedure or medicine or treatment, there is a tendency to overuse.

But precautionary statements about not transfusing blood willy-nilly is not the same thing as saying that they are evil and wicked and should never be done - there are morbidity and mortality rates associated with getting a tooth pulled. Let's proscribe that!

Perhaps if you watched the video I linked, which you referred to as propaganda,, it would provide an answer to your question. I don't understand why you ask questions, and then refuse to look at the answers. That's doesn't make sense to me. Does it make sense to you?

 

[savagewind]

You have been ridiculed? Join the club. That's the world we live in. You are still living and breathing so don't sweat it.
I believe that we can understand what Jesus meant, by an understanding of what the Bible says.
Of course, your understanding is apparently different to mine.
If you want to discuss it I can create a thread for that purpose. Would you like to discuss it?

What you say below, seems completely wrong.


Where did you get this stuff from. This is like a foreign language to JWs, and one that has not even been invented.
Like I said, if you want to discuss it, I'd be happy to open that thread. just let me know.

I think you mean if I want to be persuaded by you. I don 't.

 

[tas8831]

So tedious...

Then do you accept that Vesuvius erupted in 79 A.D.? Yes or no. Simple question.

I have no reason to doubt a historical record if there is nothing that refutes it without question.
If a secondary source supports the primary source, that is even more convincing.

Wait - are you trying to claim that historical records alone are sufficient?

It's just how I view the Bible accounts. I have no reason to doubt them, and every reason to believe them, since they are backed up by secondary sources.

Of dubious relevance and authenticity.
And of course - contrary evidence for many of the more fantastic claims, such as the flood, the events occurring when Jesus died on the cross, etc.

What then?

Mutations are random

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mutations_07

Yes, and they happen in living cells, not stones.

What?
Do you always have this hard of a time following topics or only when it suits you?

Where do you think what we find in the 'stones' came from?

My question was, How did you arrive at the assumption that there must be natural, blind, undirected processes... period? That is, why assume that that natural, blind, undirected processes is the answer to the way things are?

It is more of a tentative conclusion than an assumption. And that is because there is no evidence of other forces acting. You presume a deity willed all things thus with no evidence at all. When trying to understand the world, not force it into a box, we look for evidence. There is evidence for 'natural, blind, undirected processes' taking place to produce what we see. There is no evidence for deities willing things thus or making a man from dust.

Like when I asked you about looking at some cells under a microscope and you claimed they were designed and had purpose and were following instructions, etc., just because?

I didn't think you were seriously looking to answer my question.

Well, there is a new one..

I am sure everyone else was aware that I was not examining the cell externally.
I explained that clearly here.

And yet I asked my question in THIS thread a day or 2 ago. Not some other thread on a different topic a month ago.

Remember your failed 'GOTCHA!' routine, where you asked me about seeing an airplane for the first time? Then I turned it around on you re: looking at cells under a microscope for the first time and you carried on about 'purpose' and all the usual anti-science buzzwords?

On your linked post, I see the usual creationist post hoc routine.

I gave a clear explanation on the thread here, and I repeated and clarified throughout the thread. You can look through there if you have not already done so. Pages 1, 9, and 13, may be sufficient, but if not, just check my other posts there.

I'm sure I will see the usual arguments from awe, and little else.

You wrote:

The assumptions regarding ERVs, are just an added serious of assumptions to support the assumption of evolution from common descent. Consider PTERVs1. What assumptions do they arrive at, and why?
Chimp genome reveals a retroviral invasion in primate evolution

Why write that if you thought otherwise? Why did you think a lineage-specific ERV nullified the hundreds of shared ones? Was it your mere human interpretation?

Evidently you did not understand what I was saying. To be clear, the phylogenetic tree is a hypothesis,

yes...

built up on assumptions,

No...

and so are the interpretations of the evidence for evolution, including ERVs.
I hope that's clearer.

And you 'Evidence God is..' thread is all just human interpretations of evidence based on your assumptions.

The truth is, that for over 150 years the theory of evolution has been gathering evidence to fit the facts,instead of arriving at the facts, based on the evidence.

That is not the truth.

That is why it seems to appear well supported.. but it's just propped up. Do you understand?

I understand that your ignorance of science and your unyielding devotion to your particular interpretation of ancient middle eastern tales has wrecked you ability to draw reasonable conclusions from the evidence.

Hypovolemic shock can only be treated with an increase in blood volume. Non-blood fluids cannot be used to replace large amounts of lost blood for what I hope are obvious reasons (saline, for example, does not carry oxygen so well). People do die from refusing blood transfusions.

This simply is not true.
There is no reason we should limit skilled surgeons to those who want to continue to apply orthodox methods.
I am surprised that there are persons here who proclaim so much faith in science, and claim so proudly that evolution is responsible for so much medical advances, yet when it comes to this topic, they deny scientific advancements.

I am denying nothing. Sure, there are non- blood products that can be used in emergencies and in the short term, but these only keep blood volume and pressure up, and they have their own side-effects and limitations.

Anti-blood tranfusion-types seem to ignore all that.

Although the theory of evolution has nothing to do with advanced medical breakthroughs, but rather Hematology and other studies, it's still a strange thing to reconcile.

Especially when you concoct tales to prop up your position.

Perhaps it has to do with wanting to oppose a view of a group they hate. I can't think of any rational reason to explain it.

I don't hate scientifically illiterate people that nevertheless feel compelled to pontificate on science and insult those that do not agree with their naive proclamations, I just don't understand their hypocrisy and arrogance.

This is sad, because millions of people all over the world, who are not JWs refuse to have a blood transfusion, and still millions more would prefer not to have a blood transfusion, and knowing about alternatives has been good news to millions.
A few more years from now, blood transfusion will only be used by those who as Deeje rightly pointed out, are greedy for the bucks, regardless of the consequences.

Right, greed.

Deeje's claims are dismissed by me given her history.

Management of massive bleeding in a Jehovah’s Witness obstetric patient: the overwhelming importance of a pre-established multidisciplinary protocol

Awww - special treatment...

Tested methods. Do you mean algorithms? Please give me an example of a tested method I reject, and please also provide the results.

Please keep in mind that unlike you, I can actually support my positions - like how you linked to an old post of yours with a list of bible verses, claiming it was an example of the 'success rates' of alternative treatments... Anyway:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

 

[nPeace]

Then let us see this fact in context - citation please.

And no, your video does not indicate this. The only thing cited indicated that transfusions were "inappropriate" in more than half of cases. That is not the same as 'killing more than saving.' Nor did your link about knee transplants.

Oddly, in the cytoscan, the comparison was with volume expanders v. packed red cells (i.e., red cells with most of the plasma removed) post hemorrhage. Golly, what a surprise that replacing lost volume with packed red cells did not allow for dilation of peripheral blood vessels!
Something seems very odd about that video...

I should have linked you these, but forgot.

Failure of red blood cell transfusion to increase oxygen transport or mixed venous PO2 in injured patients.
....
Following transfusion of one unit of packed RBC which increased mean hemoglobin from 9.2 +/- 0.3 gm/dl to 10.1 +/- 0.3 gm/dl (p less than 0.01), there were no changes in oxygen delivery (490 +/- 80 ml/min/m2), oxygen consumption (210 +/- 30 ml/min/m2), or mixed venous PO/ (37 +/- 2 Torr). Cardiac index (4.1 +/- 0.71 L/min) decreased by 0.4 L/min/m2 (p less than 0.05). Standard P50 decreased by 4.2 +/- 2.4 Torr following transfusion of two units of RBC (p less than 0.05). Red blood cell transfusion thus failed to increase oxygen consumption in these patients, despite an increase in oxygen content. Thus, RBC transfusion may not improve tissue oxygenation.

Banked Blood Loses Ability To Deliver Oxygen To Tissues Almost Immediately
Summary:
Almost immediately after it is donated, human blood begins to lose a key gas that opens up blood vessels to facilitate the transfer of oxygen from red blood cells to oxygen-starved tissues. Thus, millions of patients are apparently receiving transfusions with blood that is impaired in its ability to deliver oxygen.

 

[nPeace]

I think you mean if I want to be persuaded by you. I don 't.

No, I didn't mean that at all.
Why are you having discussions here in the first place?
You are discussing already, and I am sure you are not saying that you only choose threads that are not started by JWs. Or are you saying that?
It's okay though, I just thought you were interested in discussing it since you asked, and made some wrong statements about what JWs believe, and I did not want to go off topic any further on this thread.
It's cool.

 

[nPeace]

So tedious...

Wait - are you trying to claim that historical records alone are sufficient?

Of dubious relevance and authenticity.
And of course - contrary evidence for many of the more fantastic claims, such as the flood, the events occurring when Jesus died on the cross, etc.

What then?

What?
Do you always have this hard of a time following topics or only when it suits you?

Where do you think what we find in the 'stones' came from?
It is more of a tentative conclusion than an assumption. And that is because there is no evidence of other forces acting. You presume a deity willed all things thus with no evidence at all. When trying to understand the world, not force it into a box, we look for evidence. There is evidence for 'natural, blind, undirected processes' taking place to produce what we see. There is no evidence for deities willing things thus or making a man from dust.

i think you might have missed the point of the discussion I was having with 'It Aint Necessarily So'.

Please keep in mind that unlike you, I can actually support my positions - like how you linked to an old post of yours with a list of bible verses, claiming it was an example of the 'success rates' of alternative treatments... Anyway:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

Remember, you have to explain things to ignorant people.
What is this all about? What are you testing? What are the results? What have I rejected?
Those were the things I asked.
Copy pasting information, does not address those questions.
So please...

 

[savagewind]

No, I didn't mean that at all.
Why are you having discussions here in the first place?
You are discussing already, and I am sure you are not saying that you only choose threads that are not started by JWs. Or are you saying that?
It's okay though, I just thought you were interested in discussing it since you asked, and made some wrong statements about what JWs believe, and I did not want to go off topic any further on this thread.
It's cool.

What wrong statement about what they believe did I make? I say they are wrong about what no part of the world means. But, are you saying that everything you believe is right? I say no discussion between us because you call my words unintelligible. Or more truly, "Where did you get this stuff from. This is like a foreign language to JWs, and one that has not even been invented." You know it isn't the pure language that Jehovah promised those believing in Him (I do!). Do you care to tell us how you know that?

 

[savagewind]

@nPeace how many people have you communicated with who do not understand what you are saying? You believe you possess the pure language, but how can you explain that everyone knows what you are saying? Nobody that I have ever heard of knows what I am saying. Who is more likely to be speaking a new language?