It seems know nothing about biology.

First of all, there were all the elements on the periodic table (exept those we made later) on the earth, and the way they react with one another is well know.  With a little energy (heat, which there was a TON of in earth's early forms,) reactions will occure and form molecules.  Some of these molecules are 'organic,' and contain carbon, which all life is based off of.  One of these said molecules is a lipid.

A lipid has one end which is attracted to water (hydophilic), and another end that is repelled by water(hydrophobic). 

What happens is if you place lipids in water, they tend to form a sack.  The hydrophobic ends group together while the hydrophilic ends stay toward the water, this forms the "Bi-lipid layer" or the "lipid bi-layer":

Water
OOOOOO - Hydrophilic
|||||||||||| - Hydrophobic
|||||||||||| - hydrophobic
OOOOOO - Hydrophilic
Water

Since the "sides" of the hydrophobic ends are still repelled by the water, they will move until they are in a position where they no longer are touching water, hence a sack is formed.

Not too complcated I think.  Now, you get one sack withing another sack and you have the basic cell and nucleus with a cytoplasm.  You get some very basic compounds trapped in the nucleus' sack, and some other basic compounds and maybe a few other sacks with some other basic compounds trapped within and you have a cell. 

Now not all of these sacks will function as a cell, but all you need is one to start life.

What are the chances of this happening? you may ask.  The odds are astronomical! you will say.

But with 4 BILLION years and millions if not billions of these sacks forming each day, it was bound to happen.  Even if 1 million of these lipid sacks were formed each day, and the odds were 1/10000000000000 (one in 10 quadrillion) that a cell would form, it would take only 27.4 million years before the law of averages would dictate a high probability of at least ONE being a cell.

Thats how life started.  Its not complicated.

EDIT: well the lipid layer picture gets screwy when I post, but paste it in notepad if you want to see.

Alright, to continue, senseinobaka. I spent a quite a bit of time studying with witnesses and going to their kingdom halls as part of my religious studies. I know the whole song and dance about being extremely polite to "worldly" people (non-witnesses), witnesses always try to put their best foot forward, but they do believe that they are the only righteous people on an otherwise wicked earth. Any righteous person is drawn to Jehovah, and eventually becomes a Jehovah's witnesses. That's why the ministry is often called "a life saving work". You're going out to seek the righteous. So you can spare me the polite song and dance, I know Witnesses view it as either you are for god or you are for satan, and from your perspective I am very much for satan.


A few leading questions. Who survives armageddon? Worshipers of the true god. Who worships the true god? Do Bhuddists? Islamists? Southern Baptist? Church Of Christ? Shinto? Your answer to those would be a resounding NO. They worship false gods, and are all part of babylon the great, wicked false religion created by Satan. Who worships the true god? Jehovah's Witnesses, and JWs alone. So Who survives armageddon?

Let's see, god doesn't put it into their heart, but rather the governments decide to destroy religion on their own, as we see happening already today. You might want to hit the books and study up. I have the watchtower library (A compilation of almost all witness publications save for a few esoteric ones reserved for elders and pioneers, hard to get unless you know some witnesses and are on good terms with them), so let's take some references (note all references are from Jehovah's witness's own publications, published by the Watchtower and tract society). First off

Revelation 17:16
16 And the ten horns that you saw, and the wild beast (government), these will hate the harlot (false religion) and will make her devastated and naked, and will eat up her fleshy parts and will completely burn her with fire. 17 For God put [it] into their hearts to carry out his thought, even to carry out [their] one thought by giving their kingdom to the wild beast, until the words of God will have been accomplished.

and from Kingdom News number 37 "the end of false religion is near!" (I believe you had a large campaign to distribute that door to door all over the world last year)

Soon, though, an amazing event will take place. “The ten horns that you saw, and the wild beast, these will hate the harlot and will make her devastated and naked, and will eat up her fleshy parts and will completely burn her with fire.” (Revelation 17:16) In a sudden, shocking move, the world’s political powers will turn on false religion and completely destroy her! What will prompt this action? The Bible book of Revelation answers: “God put it into their hearts to carry out his thought.” (Revelation 17:17) Yes, God will call false religion to account for all the despicable acts she has committed in his name. In a stroke of perfect justice, he will use her political paramours as his instrument of execution.

What must you do if you do not want to share the fate of false religion? “Get out of her, my people,” urges God’s messenger. (Revelation 18:4) Indeed, now is the time to flee from false religion! But to where can you flee? Not into atheism, since its future is also bleak. (2 Thessalonians 1:6-9) The only haven is within true religion. How can you identify true religion?

The part that follows shows how Jehovah's witnesses are the true religion. So yeah, you're being polite because I'm "worldy", but your literature tells a very different story. Not just that one kingdom news, let's see there is also references from the kp(? Not sure what that book is, that's just how it's listed in the watchtower library program) 1-15 from 2004 that states

Will the world’s governments really do such a thing? The Bible states that ‘God will put it into their hearts.’ (Revelation 17:17) It will be sudden, surprising, shocking, not foreseeable or gradual.

Which really shoots your argument of "The government is already doing it, you can see it happening now!" in the foot. It will be shocking, sudden, not forseeable or gradual.

Armaggedon also is not a war where man self destructs, but god saves the day. Last paragraph in the "Insight on the scriptures" book under Har-meggodon states

Har–Magedon is thus seen to be a fight, not merely among men, but one in which God’s invisible armies take part. Its coming is certain and it will take place at the time set by Jehovah God, who “is doing according to his own will among the army of the heavens and the inhabitants of the earth

From the book "revelation it's grand climax at hand" chapter 1 paragraph 5

True, Armageddon is described in the last book of the Bible as “the war of the great day of God the Almighty.” (Revelation 16:14, 16) But it will be far different from a nuclear holocaust! Such a holocaust would likely mean the annihilation of all life on earth. On the contrary, God’s Word gives the happy assurance that only wicked opposers of God will be destroyed—by forces under God’s control. (Psalm 37:9, 10; 145:20) A great crowd of humans, out of all nations, will survive the climax of divine judgment at Armageddon. Christ Jesus will then shepherd and guide these to life everlasting in a paradise earth. Do you not want to be one of them? Happily, Revelation shows that you may be!


God is definately going to be doing some killing. Specifically killing all who do not worship him. Your publications show that the bible refers to armageddon as "god's day of anger", and refer to it as such colloquially.

And while I know that your beliefs have changed over the years, all these references are very recent. So either you're just being very polite, or you don't seem to read your own literature very much. Which as somebody that went to the Kingdom Hall for a while, I know that's a big no-no. You need to stay studied up.

Next post will deal with the animal issue, which is vital to the subject of god's love, wisdom, power and justice.

Guys, there's no arguing with the religious types. They have faith, and you can't argue with faith, no matter how hard you try.

The issue about the cruelty of nature is not that nature is evil, it by no means is. It is natural, it does what it needs to survive, and is free from good or evil. It's an issue of quality of life, and use of power.

Say you have a choice. Say you can make something suffer (and not as punishment of anykind, just making something suffer for the sake of suffering), or you can make something not suffer, which would be the morally demanded choice? To make something suffer without cause would be cruel, especially if it was completely unnecessary and within your power to prevent.

God Created the earth (I don't believe that, but for arguments sake we'll say he did). He created it from scratch, he could create it anyway he wanted it, it's within his power. What loving choice did god make? He chose suffering. He could make it so all natural life feeds off of sunlight, and water, and never dies or has need to reproduce. It could live in complete harmony, be beautiful, wonderous, and free from suffering, disease, pain, it wouldn't be a never ending struggle for survival where one must kill to survive. Not at all unthinkable, certainly within the abilities of a god that is infintely wise and powerful, and seems to be demanded of a god that is infinitely loving. But did he choose to make a world free from suffering, perfectly harmonious? No. He chose to make every living thing suffer every day of it's life.

The reason that the nature is a cruel fight for survival is that, that is the nature of life dictated by evolution. Evolution is not morally responsible for the suffering of all life, and thusly is a far less reproachable answer. I've read the witness literature on Evolution, and it's damn frightening. Not because it creates such a solid case against evolution, but because it's so incredibly ignorant, and borderline propaganda.

The book "Life-how did it get here? By evolution or creation?" is filled with such gems as "If you leave a car in the desert, does it turn into a better car?" or on the topic of the development of single celled organisms "if a tornado goes through a junkyard, what are the odds it will make a fully functioning 747?" or on the topic of mutation "If a driver made thousands of bad decisions for every good one, would you ride with him?". It's full of illustrations that have little if anything to do with evolution, and filled with drawings of scientists arguing with each other angrily as if they can't agree on anything, and that's what it's like to be an evolutionary biologist. It's designed to create an illusion without providing any kind of actual argument. It quotes lots of scientists that have disagreed with one aspect or another of evolution, and acts like that's the norm. It throws in some "scientific" data and numbers that either are completely meaningless, or totally inaccurate. And then it of course sticks to the standard completely illogical arguments used by fundamentalists that don't understand anything about biology, such as "2nd law of thermodynamics disproves evolution!".

Sometime last year I was given a "special edition" of the Awake magazine dealing with evolution, and it was even more contrived than the 23 year old book I was talking about above. I mean they actually interview Michael behe "author of Darwin's Black Box", as he states that obviously there has to be a god, evolution couldn't happen the way scientists say it did! Failing to mention that Michael Behe believes in evolution, or that there have been a ton of books and papers written that refute many of his claims. It's all written, not as a cogent argument against evolution, but rather to bolster the beliefs of those that already think evolution is wrong by cherry picked arguments, bad data, compelling metaphors that have nothing to do with evolution, and quotes from smart sounding people that seemingly agree with your beliefs.

But that's neither here nor there. the point is, If God created Nature as a whole as the bible literally said he did, he's not all loving, wise and powerful. Nature is flawed, and needlessly cruel.

And don't even get me started on the mosaic law he created for man. Jesus may have abolished the law, but Yahweh still supposedly gave the "perfect law" to man.

 I agree. Belief in a specific god is not based on logic, but emotion. And as such cannot be argued away, nor should it. To try and take somebody's god away would be cruel. But if somebody wants to walk in and claim that there IS logic behind believing in a specific diety, then they are fair game to argue with. I don't expect them to admit they are wrong, because like I said, it's not a logic based belief. Even if you completely stump them, they will just assume they are still right for reasons they don't know. Such being true I rarely participate in this sort of thing, other than as a logic building excercise as Final Fan, crashman and others seem to be doing. Actually trying to destroy faith is a ridiculous task to take on, because it is beyond reason.

 I need to apoligize because I wasnt clear in my post. I didnt cite historic evidence because I tought God had already put it in governments heart to destroy religion, I cited the historic evidence to refute your claim that it will be a bloodthirsty act when he does. In recent history, governments that decided to get rid of religion didnt do it in a terrible and bloodthirsty way. There is no evidence when God incites governments to destroy religion on a worldwide scale that it would be an event that would lead to billions dead. It would be sudden and shocking, but that doesnt equate billions dying.

And also I'll quote what a passage you quoted and what you said about:

Revelation: It Grand CLimax at Hand: "God’s Word gives the happy assurance that only wicked opposers of God will be destroyed—by forces under God’s control."

Your comment: God is definately going to be doing some killing. Specifically killing all who do not worship him.

You make a logical leap that the bible doesnt support. You feel that A person that doesnt worship god = a wicked opposer of god. And it's just not true. As I said, people selectively killed by Jehovah is extremely rare. This judgment belongs to God. Now Revelation's pronuoncements are really against the trifecta: The Harlot (false religion), the beast (political) and the dragon (satan). You could argue that supporters of either can be wicked opposers, such as the clergy in the case of the harlot. But that's not something I can say; that judgment is for god to make, not me. So unless god tells me that an individual will be destroyed I can safely view the individual as a survivor of Armeggedon.

Revelation describes the events leading up to Armaggedon as follows:

God having government destroy the harlot.

The beast or nations and governments, will bring about a great tribulation. One that no man can survive. (Assumed by many who study revelation as a war or nuclear holocaust, but as witnesses we dont speculate, we just know they will do something that will be able to cause our extinction)

Armageddon: God steps in and, in what can be considered a war (albiet quick and onesided), destroys the beast or governments that are causing the great tribulation, and saves billions of people. This is also linked to Daniel 2:44, where it prophecised that God's Kingdom will crush all the govenments of man.

Well, the vast majority of those who believe in a religeoun do so because of upbringing and tradition, not a concious decision on their own part (as can be seen by their inability to defend their beliefs against the simplext of scrutiny.)

Those who claim to have faith in the bible do so not because of any real reason that they should, but because they are TOLD its the word of god.  So they really don't have faith in god, but faith in the people who told them the bible was divinely inspired.

The only people who have TRUE faith in god are those who believe what they believe due entirely to internal conviction and self reflection.  Following a book is blindness not faith, and afront to the supposed free will and intelligence that was the blessing god was supposed to have given us.  Blind following of work by man makes you no better than an animal as you are sacrificing all reason, logic, and sense that seperates us from beasts.

 Indeed.

 This thread is getting so long now that most posts have skipped over older posts, or people are choosing to ignore certain statements previously made.

I'd just like to re-state what I learned in church, that science requires hard units of measurement to compare to other experiments and facts.  A lot of the Bible is not scientifically checked at the time of its writing, including "Creationism", which a lot of my religion mates view a day in the life of God as millions of years, if not close to billions.

So day 1 = big bang and formations, etc etc all the way to day 6-7, which includes the dinosaurs, deaths there of, apes and the evolution of MAN.  Yet, God is still in place.

I can't think of how someone can ignore this idea - Creationism does not always discount Evolution.

 Guitars even remotely as we know it did not exist back then