bohemian

Wammer
  • Content count

    3,241
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Community Reputation

509 Excellent

About bohemian

  • Rank
    Wammer

Personal Info

  • Location
    Middlesex
  • Real Name
    Chris

Wigwam Info

  • Turn Table
    No
  • Tone Arm & Cartridge
    N/A
  • SUT / Phono Stage
    N/A
  • Digital Source 1
    Audio Research CD5
  • Digital Source 2
    Raspberry pi + hdd
  • DAC
    Wyred4Sound dac2v2
  • Pre-Amp
    P/Luna Dialogue Prem
  • Power Amp/s
    P/Luna Prologue 7 x2
  • My Speakers
    Tannoy Stirling SE
  • Headphones
    Beyerdynamic DT150
  • Trade Status
    I am not in the Hi-Fi trade

Recent Profile Visitors

1,493 profile views
  1. bohemian

    Iran war

    @marlew Mark, I see you are located in Sussex, not too far from the capital. Have you visited the Imperial War Museum in London? They have a permanent Holocaust exhibition there which shows the horrors of the 'final solution'. Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, Slavs, Jehovah's Witnesses were sent there and many killed. The Jews by mass means, (extermination chambers) and others by being shot, hanged and beheaded. This was most definitely not a 'de-lousing' operation! The exhibition is not suitable for under 14s, so if you have children they could explore other parts of the museum - all of which is fascinating.
  2. bohemian

    What are you listening to right now?

    Just discovered this - always long after everyone else! Very nice.
  3. bohemian

    Rolling Stones

    @parcelmonkey pics.
  4. bohemian

    Rolling Stones

    Absolutely! Even for me it came to £115 but fortunately my wife (carer) got a free ticket so on balance it was OK. I hate to think how much it cost to be close up.
  5. bohemian

    Rolling Stones

    Went last night with Mrs Bo to the Olympic Park to see the stones. They are such great performers! The show was opened by Florence and the Machine (I bought a cd to find out about them) and was disappointed with the sound balance. Her voice just was not reproduced well, very 'shouty' and distorted - I think you really had to know the songs well to hear what they were. She duetted with Mick on a Stones song and that really was the low point of the show for me. For the rest, the show was magificent from the opening Jumping Jack Flash to the final encore of Satisfaction. A brilliant Paint It Black with video on the four huge screens behind the stage in b/w. I don't think I have ever seen such a high concentration of drunkards in such a small space in my life! Beer was not cheap (£6.50 a pint and even a bottle of water was £3.50!). My water bottle was confiscated on entry, too. I had to get a cup from the vendors and get water from a drinking-fountain as no way was I paying their exorbitant price for water! The venue was very good, as I am partially disabled, and reserved ticketed seats were available (albeit at the back) which had a surprisingly good view. A free accessibility shuttle bus ran from Stratford Station to the stadium and took us back afterwards. Took some time as wheelchairs and ambulant disabled were both transported. I would have preferred a different support act, Elbow are opening at one or two of them, but on the whole a very good night out. Got home about 2am! That's it now - until Monday! Joan Baez at the Albert Hall.
  6. Thank you for that update on that research, George. I was not aware of the more recent Majerus study. I am still unconvinced that it is evidence for evolution, though I can see the effect of environmental factors on the camouflage of the moth. What is the moth evolving into? If geneticists have been able to identify to within a short period in the 19thcentury when the mutation took place (I assume in populations of the moth in the industrial north of England), what accounts for the similar distributions of the two forms in Detroit? Was that an identical mutation? Or was this melanistic version of the moth always a latent form? Or have the two forms always existed side-by-side, with increased predation of a particular form accounting for the relative densities of population? The moth is common throughout Europe and Asia it seems, so have similar effects been found elsewhere? It seems to me a case of variation within the species being selected (by natural selection) for survival, but that the situation reverses and the other form becomes common again in response to environmental change. No net evolution has taken place, as I see it. Obviously you are much more informed on the scientific aspects than I am, and my questioning is sincere, I assure you. I must apologise for taking so long to reply, but real life goes on, as you know.
  7. No, we did not predict the "end of the world" in 1975. We said it would be a fitting time for the system to end as it would coincide with what we understood to be 6000 years since the creation of Adam. Others, particularly apostates, latched onto the "end of the world" scenario and still do so.
  8. Well, I just had a look at a paper that purports to detail eye evolution and the evolution of opsins etc. in the National Review of Neuroscience: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3143066/ It makes very interesting reading. Constantly it says, 'we suggest' or 'we assume' or even 'this evolved' (very much akin to God did it!). Interestingly it referred to a base paper on this subject identical to the one Richard Dawkins referred to: Nilsson DE, Pelger S. A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve. Proc Biol. Sci. 1994; 256:53-58. [PubMed].i The abstract of that study starts: (Emphasis mine) You mention othe examples, but the one you specify of the moths is another interesting one. The peppered moth is, I presume, the case you refer to. The moth has not changed its colour at all, it has always existed in two melanistic forms, a light one and a dark one. What the study into them tried to show was that the ratio of light ones to dark ones changed as pollution affected the colouration of trees in different areas, thus making the lighter ones stand out on a dark background and vice versa, and thus become fewer because of predation by birds. They then tried to attribute this to evolutionary pressure of survival of the fittest. You evidently have not kept up to date with these matters, George, or you would know that the researchers falsified their results in order to prove their point, even to the point of literally sticking the moths on the trunks of trees to show how vulnerable they were. Of course, it is known that these moths never rest on the trunks of trees, but on the underside of leaves high up in the trees, where they are less vulnerable. When scientists vie for funding there is always a tendency to want to prove ones research is valuable and therefore worth more investment. Unfortunately this leaves it open to exaggeration, and even, on occasion, fraud.
  9. The video from youtube showing a scientists response to William Craig. I can see why people talk about being 'blinded by science' as he talks so rapidly and indeed makes a virtue of the fact that the detail is unimportant - more important is a "cumulative effect" of his points rattled off so quickly you can hardly hear what he is saying. His first point "we don't know if life would not exist if the fine-tuning parameters were changed". Well, many scientists are of that opinion. To cloud the issue with 'what is the definition of life' really is just obfuscation. Eminent scientists have noted that the elemental forces of the universe are finely balanced and make this universe ideal for human life. I am reminded of Fred Hoyle's comment that "a common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics". 2. This is an unusual one. It boils down to God can do what he wants, therefore theism is in error because God did it this way! He seems to think that he knows what God can and cannot do and what he would or would not do. This is quite an arrogant position to take. If the laws of the universe did not apply, then science would not be possible.and materialism would fall at the first hurdle because science could have no rational basis. 3. The fine-tuning "might go away". First he says there is no fine-tuning and then says it might go away when we know more. Maybe the moon will be found to have a core of cheese when "we know more"! So he says he doesn't know therefore theism is wrong! This just doesn't make sense. 4. The "multiverse"! It isn't a theory - it is a prediction based on two other very nice theories! Quantum theory does not deal in certainties, only in probabilities. String theory, well: The multiverse takes a greater leap of faith than he accuses theists of. 5. Here he just implies dishonesty. He thinks life is insignificant as the universe is so big. Not a very good argument, but he says that on that basis theism fails! Later in the video he gives rapid-fire statements which I shall address soon.
  10. There was a feeling that 1975 was an important year, but not 1935. The expectation of something in 1975 was incorrect, but was not an official position. The Watchtowers of the time played down any significance, stating that while it would be a fitting time for the end of this sytem to come, there were many unknown factors in the chronology, and advising that we not focus on dates. We are advised by Jesus to 'keep on the watch' and at times I confess we have been too eager. We remain 'on the watch', although as Jesus said, no-one knows the day or the hour - not even he. We certainly do not wish to be lulled into a lack of preparedness. I dedicated my life to Jehovah without a date in mind. I will do my best to serve him regardless of dates. Of course, apostate ex-Witnesses make the most of such things as is their wont. They want to beat those who they once considered brothers. "Blackcab" is one such (the author of the wikipedia article you quote). It is telling that out of the comments I made about religion above, you chose only to focus on the year 1934 I mentioned regarding the information marches which began in London that year, and link to some apostate material critical of Witnesses.
  11. I think you would find it very enlightening to research the background to the 'evolution of the eye' case in Dawkins' book. The 'research' it was supposedly based on never took place! It was based an hypothetical drawings that the original rsearches made and then theorised how one drawing could change to the next. Dawg ns saw these drawings and thought it was genuine research. To my knowledge he has never admitted as much, although the information is easily found. Appendix, as Tony says, not a good example any more.
  12. Atheists, particularly the so-called New Atheists, are very strongly anti-religion and condemn their practices, and rightly so. We as Jehovah's Witnesses have been doing this for many years. In 1934 we marched through London holding placards with the message "Religion Is A Snare And A Racket". The book "Enemies" published the same year contained strong denunciations of religion - particularly for their bloodguilt in getting their followers to join in the First World War. This has been an ongoing feature of our preaching ever since. We condemned religion at a time when it was not the easy target that it is today. We went to the doorstep and played phonograph records highlighting the message of "Enemies". We put ourselves into the firing line of their anger in order to expose their evil. We suffered in many countries because of this, in UK jail time, in the USA being attacked by mobs, being tar-and-feathered, jailed at the instigation of priests. In 1933 in Germany sent to concentration camps, for not supporting Nazism even to the point that we refused to even say 'Heil Hitler'. New Atheists have it so easy today to attack religion. The churches and other religions do threaten people with eternal torture if they do not follow that Church or this one; they are more interested in money than people, they do exploit the poor. Admittedly there may be individuals who try to swim against the tide, but the religious organizations are responsible for so much hatred and death they deserve to be got rid of.
  13. Have you not looked at the history of religions? The Egyptains had gods in animal form, cats, crocodiles etc. Even the River Nile was regarded as a god. The Hindu gods have animal forms in many cases. Look at Ganesh etc. The native-Americans also worshiped animals, they created their gods in the image of animals. The God of the Bible specifically instructed the nation of Israel not to make any image of Him, nor to bow down to any such image. He condemned the worship of idols or false gods. Dagon the god of the Philistines has a fish's head. No, God hates idols and images - imagine how he views modern Catholicism! Psalm 115:4-8 says: The Bible uses anthropomorphisms, figures of speech to help us understand things about God. It speaks of his 'finger', 'outstretched arm' etc - not that he possesses such, but to help us in our understanding. It also speaks of his 'wings', that he is a 'consuming fire' etc. These are merely figures of speech, not literal descriptions!
  14. Why do you think that those two options are the only possible ones? You present the question in such a form that no theist would answer it.