QUOTE (Messenger+Feb 18 2006, 04:35 PM)
QUOTE (swimmer+Feb 17 2006, 04:32 PM)
Here's a lovely example of the power of "evolution".
Talk Origins an excellent article.
This article is actually an excellent example of Intelligent Design.
The human mind was incapable of understanding the mechanisms that made the objects function - they only know that they do function.
...an excellent example of ID? Ha ha! How was it designed? By whom?
What twisted thinking! How can you hope to sensibly interpret the bible (the only book you've ever read??
) when you can't even read or understand a little article on evolution.
The article didn't say the human mind was incapable of understand the mechanisms - it simply said they didn't know. You may lack any curiosity but thankfully there are people who don't.
Even funnier is the fact you failed to spot that the device was irreducibly complex - ie. removing any part caused it to break down - and yet the device was a product of stepwise evolution.
Frankly the way your mind works it's amazing you manage to function in a modern society.
Talk Origins an excellent article.
This article is actually an excellent example of Intelligent Design.
The human mind was incapable of understanding the mechanisms that made the objects function - they only know that they do function.
...an excellent example of ID? Ha ha! How was it designed? By whom?
What twisted thinking! How can you hope to sensibly interpret the bible (the only book you've ever read??
) when you can't even read or understand a little article on evolution.The article didn't say the human mind was incapable of understand the mechanisms - it simply said they didn't know. You may lack any curiosity but thankfully there are people who don't.
Even funnier is the fact you failed to spot that the device was irreducibly complex - ie. removing any part caused it to break down - and yet the device was a product of stepwise evolution.
Frankly the way your mind works it's amazing you manage to function in a modern society.
QUOTE (Messenger+)
------Kind of a side thought here - but this particular section from the quote above made me wonder - when Jesus says He is the Alpha and the Omega (the beginning and the end)in Rev 22:13 - is this God speaking? Is this Jesus who has created the Heavens and the Earth? This is probably a question I would like to see NewGuy offer an opinion on. Or maybe Birdan - now's your chance - who has claimed to be a Christian (albeit an evolutionist one) It's just a thought, don't make any assumptions, or read anything into it. This is not a time to be critical - this is a time to affirm the divinity of Jesus. We say that in the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God...... He says that He is the Alpha and the Omega. So, do you think this ties God and Jesus together as one? Many people nowadays like to shoot at the divinity issue, by saying that Jesus was the Son of God, but not God. I'm a bit confused on how to explain this - but I'm hoping you'll know what I mean, NewGuy.
Messenger: I haven't the time, presently, to answer your question. Hopefully, I'll get to it some time late Sunday/early Monday. I just wanted to acknowledge that I read it, for now. Until then...
Messenger: I haven't the time, presently, to answer your question. Hopefully, I'll get to it some time late Sunday/early Monday. I just wanted to acknowledge that I read it, for now. Until then...
QUOTE (swimmer+Feb 18 2006, 06:26 PM)
QUOTE (Messenger+Feb 18 2006, 04:35 PM)
QUOTE (swimmer+Feb 17 2006, 04:32 PM)
Here's a lovely example of the power of "evolution".
Talk Origins an excellent article.
This article is actually an excellent example of Intelligent Design.
The human mind was incapable of understanding the mechanisms that made the objects function - they only know that they do function.
...an excellent example of ID? Ha ha! How was it designed? By whom?
What twisted thinking! How can you hope to sensibly interpret the bible (the only book you've ever read?? ) when you can't even read or understand a little article on evolution.
The article didn't say the human mind was incapable of understand the mechanisms - it simply said they didn't know. You may lack any curiosity but thankfully there are people who don't.
Even funnier is the fact you failed to spot that the device was irreducibly complex - ie. removing any part caused it to break down - and yet the device was a product of stepwise evolution.
Frankly the way your mind works it's amazing you manage to function in a modern society.
Swimmer,
I do not find your response very amusing. Maybe you should go jump in the lake. (sorry, but I've always wanted to say that)
Notice I said the human mind WAS incapable - speaking of those who performed the task. This leaves room for improvement.
As far as my book reading goes, I will have you know that I always have at least 6-10 fresh library books at my side. I am a voracious reader, I even read while stopped at a stop light. Insatiable, am I.
I purposely did not mention irreducibly complex because every time I do - you ding-dongs say that's already been shot down, which is false of course, but I'd rather not go through the same arguments over and over again.
So tell me, big fella:
How did the structure or generation of DNA occur?
Note to the god of Atlantis (Mr Riven):
Maybe, but I doubt it, all these science types have a clue of what you're talking about, but I do not.
Please speak English, not Atlantian.
Please try to simplify things. Start from the beginning - you know, like In the beginning God......
Why would we care? What's the purpose of all this? What if I say there was a big flood a while back and that's why Atlantis no longer exists? People worshipped a lot of different gods back then, and that was the problem. It's no secret that God is a jealous God - 'Ye shall have no other gods...' Are you looking for a lost society because you think they're better? They all died, they're extinct - they didn't survive. Why would you want to dig up a dead society? (legitimate question - answer depends on your motive). If you're trying to tell us that doomsday is coming - then that's not news - they already seem to believe that. (science types - global warming, religious people - second coming of Christ)
You keep talking about a 6000 year old war, you must be talking about the Jews and their latest enemies. Did you know that it ended in 70s AD at the destruction of Jerusalem? It's just that don't want to believe it. Look up preterist or preterism.
If you want people to be interested in this - you have to give us a reason why we should. No offense is intended by my questions, just understanding, that's all.
Take care,
Talk Origins an excellent article.
This article is actually an excellent example of Intelligent Design.
The human mind was incapable of understanding the mechanisms that made the objects function - they only know that they do function.
...an excellent example of ID? Ha ha! How was it designed? By whom?
What twisted thinking! How can you hope to sensibly interpret the bible (the only book you've ever read??
) when you can't even read or understand a little article on evolution.The article didn't say the human mind was incapable of understand the mechanisms - it simply said they didn't know. You may lack any curiosity but thankfully there are people who don't.
Even funnier is the fact you failed to spot that the device was irreducibly complex - ie. removing any part caused it to break down - and yet the device was a product of stepwise evolution.
Frankly the way your mind works it's amazing you manage to function in a modern society.
Swimmer,
I do not find your response very amusing. Maybe you should go jump in the lake. (sorry, but I've always wanted to say that)
Notice I said the human mind WAS incapable - speaking of those who performed the task. This leaves room for improvement.
As far as my book reading goes, I will have you know that I always have at least 6-10 fresh library books at my side. I am a voracious reader, I even read while stopped at a stop light. Insatiable, am I.
I purposely did not mention irreducibly complex because every time I do - you ding-dongs say that's already been shot down, which is false of course, but I'd rather not go through the same arguments over and over again.
So tell me, big fella:
How did the structure or generation of DNA occur?
Note to the god of Atlantis (Mr Riven):
Maybe, but I doubt it, all these science types have a clue of what you're talking about, but I do not.
Please speak English, not Atlantian.
Please try to simplify things. Start from the beginning - you know, like In the beginning God......
Why would we care? What's the purpose of all this? What if I say there was a big flood a while back and that's why Atlantis no longer exists? People worshipped a lot of different gods back then, and that was the problem. It's no secret that God is a jealous God - 'Ye shall have no other gods...' Are you looking for a lost society because you think they're better? They all died, they're extinct - they didn't survive. Why would you want to dig up a dead society? (legitimate question - answer depends on your motive). If you're trying to tell us that doomsday is coming - then that's not news - they already seem to believe that. (science types - global warming, religious people - second coming of Christ)
You keep talking about a 6000 year old war, you must be talking about the Jews and their latest enemies. Did you know that it ended in 70s AD at the destruction of Jerusalem? It's just that don't want to believe it. Look up preterist or preterism.
If you want people to be interested in this - you have to give us a reason why we should. No offense is intended by my questions, just understanding, that's all.
Take care,
The purpose is for us to know our Truth.
There is no motive, if there was I would be asking you for money....which is the only motive people today know and need to survive in "societies" of "governments"...at your expense...
and the motive behind many innocent lives lost and many people starving in 3 world countries, and the motive behind drug dealers and many innocent teenagers becoming addicted to meth,cocaine and heroine and also death or suicide...
all part of the fuel of EVIL induced into your minds for they prey on your weaknesses.
This 6000 year old war is far from over and still continues to this day......although in a more persuasive and hidden form.
Why do you think the Americans are over in Iraq?
Oil,Gas?
Guess again.
Our technology of today has no need for these old fossil fuels rather than to induce the vaults of certain banks who also induce the vaults of psychology into your homes and youth through their controlled media to benefit their gain and evil purpose of money for their measly 30 years of empowerment or job status such as a CEO or Chairman of The Board of "Certain" organizations.
These we can create on our own or find new fuels like nuclear or hydrogen or Ion engines now being tested.
You think your computers are safe?
Guess again.
There are reasons why they call it the "web" or Mircro "SOFT", for example, or ".bat", .exe , "ram", .ocx, "MESSENGER" etc,etc.
It all goes back to a very dark and unknown secret...
the secret of the RAM and ARIES in a very sick and demented form of communication between their own private lines of knowledge.
A knowledge they have of you all for their evil purposes of controll.
At any given time they can take it all away from you....
From myself is a different story for they will fall tenfold and should I lie slain and stain their hands, your entire Earth will topple within 3 months......
once again.
So, dear friends you can see the utmost importance of this research and great work before you all and why I have no fear of them or their kind as I had no fear of their Greatest abomination....Zatiman (Zatan) or Zenopheru.
Because I have Faith and a Soul of Ages Eternal.
Oh, they tried some of their little tricks of evil already and even threw me into their dungeouns handcuffed and forced to take drugs against my will...
may have taken 5 of their men to do so.....but I let them for their own stupidity of vanity with "little struggle".
It would not be the first time I beat up 2 or 3 men, nor will it be the last.
You see, most of their kind are also brainwashed not to believe in God but the almighty dollar and their evil bosses and their lustful desires.
Why do you think they want the 10 commandments thrown out of all your buildings?
Part of their great plan of stupidity.
I'll tell you why......
because their Evil Master would never let them in on knowing that in exchange for "ill gotten gain" and pleasures of perversions and monetaries......
That their Souls would be fed to their Evil Masters Wife..
Sekhmet or Heket or whichever name you choose...
to perish forever through that.......
BLACK DOOR OF BRINE.
No visiting your loved ones in Heaven there...forget that.
The White Door is your answer, and trust me when I say that I have seen that Oval Door and those "grey figures" of "lost Souls" through a near death experience when I was about 16 years old.
My apologies for all the concern but this is a concerned world we live in at this moment!!
As for your " in the beginning", I cannot give you that answer at present but....
You have many answers laid out before you all for those who wish to know this great truth.
I am not Steven Speilberg or Dan Brown or Mark Twain for the matter, looking to write some best selling novel to fill my bank account!!
I am a man who began this quest looking for my family roots in the Azores Islands of Portugal.
Naturally, for one to "Google" Azores, they will be led to ATLANTIS.
That is how my research into Atlantis began because after reading Timaeus and Critias, there was a great sense of truth behind those "TWISTED" words of misguidance, though they didn't even realize that their misdirection was the direction to the original Atlantis.
They only knew the second Atlantis of Africa still visible to this day as I have shown you all.
What does all this mean?
It means that we are for the most part in our present history of understanding.........
ATLANTEANS.
Why you ask?
Because before the Continents broke apart from the Earth Shifts, this was the original middle earth just past the Pillars of Hercules in The Atlantic Ocean.
In 6482.bC that all changed and this is the best I have to offer for you all at present.
I have already stated as your scientists also do that the OLDEST BONES are found in the Old Duvai Gorge of Aethiopia some 4 to 5 million years ago.
The oldest DNA is traced here also from Mitochondrial Eve.
Was it traced to America? S.America? India? China? Japan?
NO.
It was traced to Avila Atlantis II.
Why should we all care about all this past history?
Because it is a History of Great Lies and many innocent lives were lost and countries "SUBJUGATED" through time by
"indecent proposal" shall we say...DO OR DIE?
THAT CONTINUES TO THIS DAY AND THAT GLORY IS FALSELY CLAIMED BY OTHERS OF FALSE PRIESTHOODS AND GOVERNORS OF BROKEN ORACLES.
They have stolen what is rightly yours and implemented their own poisoned bloods of brine with yours.....
mine is pure 100%, and not stained with these evil "CELLS".
Tis truth the curses passed on through time in blood.
At best for now from my research, though there were others, the apex commenced from Pharaoh Snoferu ca 3474.bC on December 10th, eight o eight in the morning when he killed the Son of Man and corrupted this world with his poisoned blood and murderous doctrines even testified by the Pharaoh Khufu.
Khufu, tried to cover this up by reverting to the Solar Calendar and hiding the missing years of records, which the Egyptians were very good record keepers....
Truth is The Atlanteans were and are the builders of the false glory attributed to the "ZAWII DARK BROTHERS OF ZENOPHERU".
The Same Dark Brothers Thoth the Atlantean warned you about.
The LIONS, The two Great Astrolabe Pyramids, the mysterious lines upon Egypt such as Abu Roash, etc, etc.....
ALL ATLANTEANS.
You see this is the reason for Aries and The RAM, because this was the time of Zenoferu.
This is the reason that they say OSIRIS was torn into 14 pieces and conspired upon by .........
72 BLACK PRIESTS.
Truth is that is what they did to the Son of Man for OSIRIS,ISIS and BLACK HORUS are all embodiements of this "SIRIUS" CRAP and those of Khufu.
Back then it was VENUS AND MERCURY that formed this GREAT LIGHT while Jupiter was above and Capricorn was on the Horizon Dec 10th, 3474.bC.
There you will see as others have also already mentioned without the correct answer in the constellations, the tomb of man, with Draco above and the cross inverted....
for our Father has placed these signs in the heavens as he also "rearranged" the pyramids to provide us with clues and why the Lions face....EAST to the Heavens.
NOT A SINGLE HUMAN IN TIME HAS FIGURED ALL THIS OUT NOR HAVE THEY FIGURED OUT ATLANTIS....until I turned my vision.
Even after I proved to all of them this Great Truth with signs, pictures, psychic capabilities, scientific facts and solid research.
What you see in my website is only a brief summation of all that I have done, and yes as you all say requires more persuasive and documented research for all you to understand better......
but like the Atlantis Legend, need I explain it all in detail?
I have spoken and you have the evidence..
what you all do with that is the answer to your futures.
That answer you will find as I have is Atlantis...
A KINGDOM SUBJUGATED AND CONCEALED...TO THIS DAY...
so they thought.
I have come for that Kingdom and Your Salvation of Preservation for tomorrow....
For Wicked are the men and women of this Earth without contemplation of their futures that will be destroyed by money and weapons of destruction from corrupted minds of locusts.
Atlantis will be a Kingdom of no suffering by all and all will be taken very good care of with The Trinity Credit System...
No monthly bills, no money, no stubborn taxes or ridiculous arms buildup by corrupted minds.....
Just Small,Medium and Large Credit Cards for ALL FAMILIES based on merit earned and household requirements.
All will be fed, clothed and Children will laugh forevermore.
It will be humans working for humans as it really is and not money.
A Very Great Task lies ahead.......
But He will come to my assistance for here I am mortal like yourselves and lacking in his Great Knowledge.....
He who Created you all.......JA...for our time.
How many men can confidently tell you that they know where the Son of Man lies buried?
NAY, nary ONE.
Who will go with me for the sake of us all?
NAY, nary one for they all fear and as my Brother Jesa who was PURE, would also betray me.
I on the other hand am not pure......
I am The Trinity Come.......
Evil I possess in my left hand......Purity in my right.
Guided by The Light.
My left hand has not stopped tingling since I discovered God's name on Top of The Great Pyramid and The Stain of Snoferu and The Temple of Man.
Prepare Ye The Path for now you know his real name..JA.
Beware the mockeries for they shall be your own doing.
I leave now knowing that soon they will also kick me out of these forums also as others have.....
For they Fear The Truth, but not The Money.
Peace be with you all and a Great Hope I have for you All.
Lest "They" nuke you.
TA = EARTH. SA = SON JA = GOD RA = King.
I can also read linear A.
Have a nice day....TA-TA.
http://www.mts.net/~goldlion
There is no motive, if there was I would be asking you for money....which is the only motive people today know and need to survive in "societies" of "governments"...at your expense...
and the motive behind many innocent lives lost and many people starving in 3 world countries, and the motive behind drug dealers and many innocent teenagers becoming addicted to meth,cocaine and heroine and also death or suicide...
all part of the fuel of EVIL induced into your minds for they prey on your weaknesses.
This 6000 year old war is far from over and still continues to this day......although in a more persuasive and hidden form.
Why do you think the Americans are over in Iraq?
Oil,Gas?
Guess again.
Our technology of today has no need for these old fossil fuels rather than to induce the vaults of certain banks who also induce the vaults of psychology into your homes and youth through their controlled media to benefit their gain and evil purpose of money for their measly 30 years of empowerment or job status such as a CEO or Chairman of The Board of "Certain" organizations.
These we can create on our own or find new fuels like nuclear or hydrogen or Ion engines now being tested.
You think your computers are safe?
Guess again.
There are reasons why they call it the "web" or Mircro "SOFT", for example, or ".bat", .exe , "ram", .ocx, "MESSENGER" etc,etc.
It all goes back to a very dark and unknown secret...
the secret of the RAM and ARIES in a very sick and demented form of communication between their own private lines of knowledge.
A knowledge they have of you all for their evil purposes of controll.
At any given time they can take it all away from you....
From myself is a different story for they will fall tenfold and should I lie slain and stain their hands, your entire Earth will topple within 3 months......
once again.
So, dear friends you can see the utmost importance of this research and great work before you all and why I have no fear of them or their kind as I had no fear of their Greatest abomination....Zatiman (Zatan) or Zenopheru.
Because I have Faith and a Soul of Ages Eternal.
Oh, they tried some of their little tricks of evil already and even threw me into their dungeouns handcuffed and forced to take drugs against my will...
may have taken 5 of their men to do so.....but I let them for their own stupidity of vanity with "little struggle".
It would not be the first time I beat up 2 or 3 men, nor will it be the last.
You see, most of their kind are also brainwashed not to believe in God but the almighty dollar and their evil bosses and their lustful desires.
Why do you think they want the 10 commandments thrown out of all your buildings?
Part of their great plan of stupidity.
I'll tell you why......
because their Evil Master would never let them in on knowing that in exchange for "ill gotten gain" and pleasures of perversions and monetaries......
That their Souls would be fed to their Evil Masters Wife..
Sekhmet or Heket or whichever name you choose...
to perish forever through that.......
BLACK DOOR OF BRINE.
No visiting your loved ones in Heaven there...forget that.
The White Door is your answer, and trust me when I say that I have seen that Oval Door and those "grey figures" of "lost Souls" through a near death experience when I was about 16 years old.
My apologies for all the concern but this is a concerned world we live in at this moment!!
As for your " in the beginning", I cannot give you that answer at present but....
You have many answers laid out before you all for those who wish to know this great truth.
I am not Steven Speilberg or Dan Brown or Mark Twain for the matter, looking to write some best selling novel to fill my bank account!!
I am a man who began this quest looking for my family roots in the Azores Islands of Portugal.
Naturally, for one to "Google" Azores, they will be led to ATLANTIS.
That is how my research into Atlantis began because after reading Timaeus and Critias, there was a great sense of truth behind those "TWISTED" words of misguidance, though they didn't even realize that their misdirection was the direction to the original Atlantis.
They only knew the second Atlantis of Africa still visible to this day as I have shown you all.
What does all this mean?
It means that we are for the most part in our present history of understanding.........
ATLANTEANS.
Why you ask?
Because before the Continents broke apart from the Earth Shifts, this was the original middle earth just past the Pillars of Hercules in The Atlantic Ocean.
In 6482.bC that all changed and this is the best I have to offer for you all at present.
I have already stated as your scientists also do that the OLDEST BONES are found in the Old Duvai Gorge of Aethiopia some 4 to 5 million years ago.
The oldest DNA is traced here also from Mitochondrial Eve.
Was it traced to America? S.America? India? China? Japan?
NO.
It was traced to Avila Atlantis II.
Why should we all care about all this past history?
Because it is a History of Great Lies and many innocent lives were lost and countries "SUBJUGATED" through time by
"indecent proposal" shall we say...DO OR DIE?
THAT CONTINUES TO THIS DAY AND THAT GLORY IS FALSELY CLAIMED BY OTHERS OF FALSE PRIESTHOODS AND GOVERNORS OF BROKEN ORACLES.
They have stolen what is rightly yours and implemented their own poisoned bloods of brine with yours.....
mine is pure 100%, and not stained with these evil "CELLS".
Tis truth the curses passed on through time in blood.
At best for now from my research, though there were others, the apex commenced from Pharaoh Snoferu ca 3474.bC on December 10th, eight o eight in the morning when he killed the Son of Man and corrupted this world with his poisoned blood and murderous doctrines even testified by the Pharaoh Khufu.
Khufu, tried to cover this up by reverting to the Solar Calendar and hiding the missing years of records, which the Egyptians were very good record keepers....
Truth is The Atlanteans were and are the builders of the false glory attributed to the "ZAWII DARK BROTHERS OF ZENOPHERU".
The Same Dark Brothers Thoth the Atlantean warned you about.
The LIONS, The two Great Astrolabe Pyramids, the mysterious lines upon Egypt such as Abu Roash, etc, etc.....
ALL ATLANTEANS.
You see this is the reason for Aries and The RAM, because this was the time of Zenoferu.
This is the reason that they say OSIRIS was torn into 14 pieces and conspired upon by .........
72 BLACK PRIESTS.
Truth is that is what they did to the Son of Man for OSIRIS,ISIS and BLACK HORUS are all embodiements of this "SIRIUS" CRAP and those of Khufu.
Back then it was VENUS AND MERCURY that formed this GREAT LIGHT while Jupiter was above and Capricorn was on the Horizon Dec 10th, 3474.bC.
There you will see as others have also already mentioned without the correct answer in the constellations, the tomb of man, with Draco above and the cross inverted....
for our Father has placed these signs in the heavens as he also "rearranged" the pyramids to provide us with clues and why the Lions face....EAST to the Heavens.
NOT A SINGLE HUMAN IN TIME HAS FIGURED ALL THIS OUT NOR HAVE THEY FIGURED OUT ATLANTIS....until I turned my vision.
Even after I proved to all of them this Great Truth with signs, pictures, psychic capabilities, scientific facts and solid research.
What you see in my website is only a brief summation of all that I have done, and yes as you all say requires more persuasive and documented research for all you to understand better......
but like the Atlantis Legend, need I explain it all in detail?
I have spoken and you have the evidence..
what you all do with that is the answer to your futures.
That answer you will find as I have is Atlantis...
A KINGDOM SUBJUGATED AND CONCEALED...TO THIS DAY...
so they thought.
I have come for that Kingdom and Your Salvation of Preservation for tomorrow....
For Wicked are the men and women of this Earth without contemplation of their futures that will be destroyed by money and weapons of destruction from corrupted minds of locusts.
Atlantis will be a Kingdom of no suffering by all and all will be taken very good care of with The Trinity Credit System...
No monthly bills, no money, no stubborn taxes or ridiculous arms buildup by corrupted minds.....
Just Small,Medium and Large Credit Cards for ALL FAMILIES based on merit earned and household requirements.
All will be fed, clothed and Children will laugh forevermore.
It will be humans working for humans as it really is and not money.
A Very Great Task lies ahead.......
But He will come to my assistance for here I am mortal like yourselves and lacking in his Great Knowledge.....
He who Created you all.......JA...for our time.
How many men can confidently tell you that they know where the Son of Man lies buried?
NAY, nary ONE.
Who will go with me for the sake of us all?
NAY, nary one for they all fear and as my Brother Jesa who was PURE, would also betray me.
I on the other hand am not pure......
I am The Trinity Come.......
Evil I possess in my left hand......Purity in my right.
Guided by The Light.
My left hand has not stopped tingling since I discovered God's name on Top of The Great Pyramid and The Stain of Snoferu and The Temple of Man.
Prepare Ye The Path for now you know his real name..JA.
Beware the mockeries for they shall be your own doing.
I leave now knowing that soon they will also kick me out of these forums also as others have.....
For they Fear The Truth, but not The Money.
Peace be with you all and a Great Hope I have for you All.
Lest "They" nuke you.
TA = EARTH. SA = SON JA = GOD RA = King.
I can also read linear A.
Have a nice day....TA-TA.
http://www.mts.net/~goldlion
QUOTE (Paulo Riven+)
I am The Trinity Come.......
Ummm, NO! Actually, you're a nut.
...an excellent example of ID? Ha ha! How was it designed? By whom?
What twisted thinking! How can you hope to sensibly interpret the bible (the only book you've ever read?? ) when you can't even read or understand a little article on evolution.
The article didn't say the human mind was incapable of understand the mechanisms - it simply said they didn't know. You may lack any curiosity but thankfully there are people who don't.
Even funnier is the fact you failed to spot that the device was irreducibly complex - ie. removing any part caused it to break down - and yet the device was a product of stepwise evolution.
Frankly the way your mind works it's amazing you manage to function in a modern society.
Swimmer,
I do not find your response very amusing. Maybe you should go jump in the lake. (sorry, but I've always wanted to say that)
Oh, I'm sorry. Believe me, if I have to read much more of your illogical musings, I'll gladly jump - which would make both of us happy.
Notice I said the human mind WAS incapable - speaking of those who performed the task. This leaves room for improvement.
Don't be so disingenuous - you know very well what you meant - some things are too complicated for mere mortals, don't try.
As far as my book reading goes, I will have you know that I always have at least 6-10 fresh library books at my side. I am a voracious reader, I even read while stopped at a stop light. Insatiable, am I.
Must be great being anywhere near you in the traffic.
Try taking "due care and attention" and avoid "dangerous" driving.
When you're voraciously reading (without putting pedestrians and other road users at risk), try to leave some time for THINKING. Try reading Matt Ridley's Red Queen or Genome for example (I know I've suggested these before, as well as Steve Jones) - wonderful descriptions of evidence based scientific study and analytical thinking. (I hesitate to recommend Richard Dawkins as you probably consider him the antichrist)
You are obviously articulate, you can regurgitate reams of quotations from the bible, but you don't seem to THINK or even want to try for that matter. You remind me of a stubborn child, hands blocking its ears and going "La La La La La...".
I purposely did not mention irreducibly complex because every time I do - you ding-dongs say that's already been shot down, which is false of course, but I'd rather not go through the same arguments over and over again.
Pleeeeeze - give me a break. The definition of an irreducibly complex structure is that it can only perform it's task when all its components are present - hence Behe et al assert that it should be impossible for such a structure to be arrived at by evolutionary processes. The experiment demonstrated that their assertion is wrong.
You don't have to be a "ding dong" to see that, you just have to be willing to think. You are obviously capable of thought - sadly you choose not to.
So tell me, big fella:
How did the structure or generation of DNA occur?
I don't know.
I could look for evidence and gather data. I could make educated hypotheses, do experiments to test the consequences of these hypotheses, rule some in, rule some out, gather more data, refine the hypotheses etc etc. That would get me at least closer to knowing how "the structure or generation of DNA" occurred.
OR
I suppose I could take your approach and say, " the flying spaghetti monster" did it. That's it , end of story. Next question?
Nah! Who would want to be that stupid? Closing their mind to rational, evidence based analytical thought! Hmmmmmmmmm... who does that remind me of?
So you tell me, big lady:
Do you ever THINK
Ummm, NO! Actually, you're a nut.
QUOTE (Paulo Riven+)
I leave now knowing that soon they will also kick me out of these forums also as others have.....
Don't let the doorknob give you a "wedgie" on the way out.
Don't let the doorknob give you a "wedgie" on the way out.
QUOTE (Swimmer+)
...an excellent example of ID? Ha ha! How was it designed? By whom?
What twisted thinking! How can you hope to sensibly interpret the bible (the only book you've ever read??
) when you can't even read or understand a little article on evolution.The article didn't say the human mind was incapable of understand the mechanisms - it simply said they didn't know. You may lack any curiosity but thankfully there are people who don't.
Even funnier is the fact you failed to spot that the device was irreducibly complex - ie. removing any part caused it to break down - and yet the device was a product of stepwise evolution.
Frankly the way your mind works it's amazing you manage to function in a modern society.
QUOTE (Messenger+Feb 19 2006, 05:41 AM)
Swimmer,
I do not find your response very amusing. Maybe you should go jump in the lake. (sorry, but I've always wanted to say that)
Oh, I'm sorry. Believe me, if I have to read much more of your illogical musings, I'll gladly jump - which would make both of us happy.
QUOTE (Messenger+Feb 19 2006, 05:41 AM)
Notice I said the human mind WAS incapable - speaking of those who performed the task. This leaves room for improvement.
Don't be so disingenuous - you know very well what you meant - some things are too complicated for mere mortals, don't try.
QUOTE (Messenger+Feb 19 2006, 05:41 AM)
As far as my book reading goes, I will have you know that I always have at least 6-10 fresh library books at my side. I am a voracious reader, I even read while stopped at a stop light. Insatiable, am I.
Must be great being anywhere near you in the traffic.
Try taking "due care and attention" and avoid "dangerous" driving.When you're voraciously reading (without putting pedestrians and other road users at risk), try to leave some time for THINKING. Try reading Matt Ridley's Red Queen or Genome for example (I know I've suggested these before, as well as Steve Jones) - wonderful descriptions of evidence based scientific study and analytical thinking. (I hesitate to recommend Richard Dawkins as you probably consider him the antichrist)
You are obviously articulate, you can regurgitate reams of quotations from the bible, but you don't seem to THINK or even want to try for that matter. You remind me of a stubborn child, hands blocking its ears and going "La La La La La...".
QUOTE (Messenger+Feb 19 2006, 05:41 AM)
I purposely did not mention irreducibly complex because every time I do - you ding-dongs say that's already been shot down, which is false of course, but I'd rather not go through the same arguments over and over again.
Pleeeeeze - give me a break. The definition of an irreducibly complex structure is that it can only perform it's task when all its components are present - hence Behe et al assert that it should be impossible for such a structure to be arrived at by evolutionary processes. The experiment demonstrated that their assertion is wrong.
You don't have to be a "ding dong" to see that, you just have to be willing to think. You are obviously capable of thought - sadly you choose not to.
QUOTE (Messenger+Feb 19 2006, 05:41 AM)
So tell me, big fella:
How did the structure or generation of DNA occur?
I don't know.
I could look for evidence and gather data. I could make educated hypotheses, do experiments to test the consequences of these hypotheses, rule some in, rule some out, gather more data, refine the hypotheses etc etc. That would get me at least closer to knowing how "the structure or generation of DNA" occurred.
OR
I suppose I could take your approach and say, " the flying spaghetti monster" did it. That's it , end of story. Next question?
Nah! Who would want to be that stupid? Closing their mind to rational, evidence based analytical thought! Hmmmmmmmmm... who does that remind me of?
So you tell me, big lady:
Do you ever THINK
QUOTE (newguy+Feb 19 2006, 12:14 PM)
QUOTE (Paulo Riven+)
I am The Trinity Come.......
Ummm, NO! Actually, you're a nut.
What makes you think Mr P Riven is any more nutty than your average Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jew or Homeopath? (apologies to anyone I've omitted)
Paulo Riven could be the next messiah. His contributions could be the words of God. Who knows?
There's no need for evidence is there. It's all just faith, blind faith.
That someone's faith started amongst a group of Bronze Age goat herders doesn't make it true.
Ummm, NO! Actually, you're a nut.
What makes you think Mr P Riven is any more nutty than your average Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jew or Homeopath? (apologies to anyone I've omitted)
Paulo Riven could be the next messiah. His contributions could be the words of God. Who knows?
There's no need for evidence is there. It's all just faith, blind faith.
That someone's faith started amongst a group of Bronze Age goat herders doesn't make it true.
QUOTE (swimmer+)
What makes you think Mr P Riven is any more nutty than your average Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jew or Homeopath? (apologies to anyone I've omitted)
You omitted "scientists". That's okay. I trust they'll forgive you.
You omitted "scientists". That's okay. I trust they'll forgive you.
QUOTE (newguy+Feb 19 2006, 02:44 PM)
QUOTE (swimmer+)
What makes you think Mr P Riven is any more nutty than your average Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jew or Homeopath? (apologies to anyone I've omitted)
You omitted "scientists". That's okay. I trust they'll forgive you.
Ha ha! I like it. Very good.
But seriously...
...surely you see there's a difference between stating something is true because you have testable evidence...
...and stating something is true because the truth was revealed to a Bronze Age goat herder?
You omitted "scientists". That's okay. I trust they'll forgive you.
Ha ha! I like it. Very good.
But seriously...
...surely you see there's a difference between stating something is true because you have testable evidence...
...and stating something is true because the truth was revealed to a Bronze Age goat herder?
Gentlemen and Gentlewomen;
Here is part of that Great Truth from your Father of History which he even testifies in coded titles for his books which are in order;
The Secret of Mylo and The Books of Herodotus by Riven. 2006.aD. (8488aJA.)
9:05 PM 1/12/2006
Herodotus of Halicarnassus.
440.bC.
Book 1) Clio
Book 2) Euterpe
Book 3) Thalia
Book 4) Melpomene
Book 5) Terpsichore
Book 6) Erato
Book 7) Polymnia
Book 8) Urania
Book 9) Calliope
Book 10) Where is it? Someone has it.
Herodotus was writing in the era of memory of the 10 Kings (after 1500.bC,Deukalion), and he definitely was not writing about the Ennead....
Please return the book to us.
It belongs to Man and Woman.
You can no longer hide the lies.
The Secret of the Books of Herodotus by Riven.
Clioeuterpethaliamelpomeneterpsichoreeratopolymniauraniacalliope.
Epoillacainaruainmylopotareerohcispretenemoplemailahtepretueoilc.
Epo- illa- caina- rua- in- mylo- potare- ero- h(ae)cis- pretene- moplema(Mopsus)- ila- hete- pretueo.
Epic by that way fallen (Vulcan?)to waste/sorrow into this MYLO > Mysian/ drunken wanderer with his faults,to lie before the Oracle broken Secret Society greatly prized .
Translated with Cassell's New Latin Dictionary, 1959 edition....from Ja.
If I had seen our God amongst the Jews, I would have stated that
If I had seen our God amongst the Muslims, I would have stated that.
If I had seen our God amongst the Hindus, I would have stated that.
If I had seen our God amongst the Catholics, I would have stated that.
If I had seen our God amongst the Protestants or Anglicans, or Buddhists or any such race, culture or religion.......I would have stated that.
I have seen our God amongst Africa.....and our True Garden of Nevi.
This is why I have stated that, nor did I claim our Father for my own Country.
I hold no bias opinion towards or against anyone, for all are innocent except those who have oiled their minds otherwise....
Then you have to ask yourselves.........
Where does this WORD.... GOD..... come from?
For Truly he is our .................. FATHER.
Who created us with Alkaline (electricity) Salts and elements of the Earth....
none of which would work without inducing the "SPIRIT SOUL" or the real code you seek for your DNA structures which is just the end result of the program.
You see, a motherboard needs a CPU to work and "ELECTRICITY".
The reason most of you don't understand all this is of only two........
Your minds are either TOO COMPLEX or TOO SIMPLE.
One of Einstein's greatest phrases was....
"Sometimes the answers lie in the simplicity of the complexity".
The answer you all seek for the most part is this.........
P-H-O-E-N-I-C-I-A
There is a reason it was named PHOENI.
BEWARE OF YOUR PHOENI NEIGHBOURS FOR GREAT WAS THEIR SUBJUGATIONS UPON HUMANITY AND YOUR WISDOM.
OUR FATHER JA, THE CREATOR, WANTS YOU TO KNOW THIS.
Ask not what you can do for your country or what your country can do for you.....
but what you can do today to preserve tomorrow.....
I apologize for interrupting your great works here and your great knowledge of wanting to know the Truth.....
Seek and Ye Shall Find as I have shown you.
Here is part of that Great Truth from your Father of History which he even testifies in coded titles for his books which are in order;
The Secret of Mylo and The Books of Herodotus by Riven. 2006.aD. (8488aJA.)
9:05 PM 1/12/2006
Herodotus of Halicarnassus.
440.bC.
Book 1) Clio
Book 2) Euterpe
Book 3) Thalia
Book 4) Melpomene
Book 5) Terpsichore
Book 6) Erato
Book 7) Polymnia
Book 8) Urania
Book 9) Calliope
Book 10) Where is it? Someone has it.
Herodotus was writing in the era of memory of the 10 Kings (after 1500.bC,Deukalion), and he definitely was not writing about the Ennead....
Please return the book to us.
It belongs to Man and Woman.
You can no longer hide the lies.
The Secret of the Books of Herodotus by Riven.
Clioeuterpethaliamelpomeneterpsichoreeratopolymniauraniacalliope.
Epoillacainaruainmylopotareerohcispretenemoplemailahtepretueoilc.
Epo- illa- caina- rua- in- mylo- potare- ero- h(ae)cis- pretene- moplema(Mopsus)- ila- hete- pretueo.
Epic by that way fallen (Vulcan?)to waste/sorrow into this MYLO > Mysian/ drunken wanderer with his faults,to lie before the Oracle broken Secret Society greatly prized .
Translated with Cassell's New Latin Dictionary, 1959 edition....from Ja.
If I had seen our God amongst the Jews, I would have stated that
If I had seen our God amongst the Muslims, I would have stated that.
If I had seen our God amongst the Hindus, I would have stated that.
If I had seen our God amongst the Catholics, I would have stated that.
If I had seen our God amongst the Protestants or Anglicans, or Buddhists or any such race, culture or religion.......I would have stated that.
I have seen our God amongst Africa.....and our True Garden of Nevi.
This is why I have stated that, nor did I claim our Father for my own Country.
I hold no bias opinion towards or against anyone, for all are innocent except those who have oiled their minds otherwise....
Then you have to ask yourselves.........
Where does this WORD.... GOD..... come from?
For Truly he is our .................. FATHER.
Who created us with Alkaline (electricity) Salts and elements of the Earth....
none of which would work without inducing the "SPIRIT SOUL" or the real code you seek for your DNA structures which is just the end result of the program.
You see, a motherboard needs a CPU to work and "ELECTRICITY".
The reason most of you don't understand all this is of only two........
Your minds are either TOO COMPLEX or TOO SIMPLE.
One of Einstein's greatest phrases was....
"Sometimes the answers lie in the simplicity of the complexity".
The answer you all seek for the most part is this.........
P-H-O-E-N-I-C-I-A
There is a reason it was named PHOENI.
BEWARE OF YOUR PHOENI NEIGHBOURS FOR GREAT WAS THEIR SUBJUGATIONS UPON HUMANITY AND YOUR WISDOM.
OUR FATHER JA, THE CREATOR, WANTS YOU TO KNOW THIS.
Ask not what you can do for your country or what your country can do for you.....
but what you can do today to preserve tomorrow.....
I apologize for interrupting your great works here and your great knowledge of wanting to know the Truth.....
Seek and Ye Shall Find as I have shown you.
OH STEVEO ----- OH CANADA ------
Intelligent Design gets a boost in Canada.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Canadian scientists want out of Darwin's rut
Tom Blackwell
National Post
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
A handful of Canadian scientists are speaking out against evolution as an explanation for all of life as we know it, saying the complexity of living things simply cannot be attributed to biological chance.
Nine university professors and others with science or engineering PhDs have added their names to an American petition that voices skepticism about the theory of evolution. The list was posted on the Internet this week.
At least two of the scientists teach at Christian universities, while another runs an organization dedicated to the links between Islam and science.
Some of those contacted yesterday acknowledged their doubts about Darwinism coincide with their religious beliefs, and espoused the controversial idea of "intelligent design" -- that some guiding hand was behind life on Earth. But one molecular biologist said he is convinced that science is stuck in an evolutionary "rut" and must seek better explanations for the existence of elaborate biological structures.
"I look at biology as being a very complicated computer code," said Stephen Cheesman, a geophysics PhD and software developer who compares genetic systems to languages created by humans.
"There is no way I could create a code like this..... In the DNA, you have a novel, a long novel, spelled out, which produces us."
The scientists' public positions against evolution mark perhaps the first time the issue has arisen recently in Canada, despite a raging debate in the United States over the teaching of evolution in public schools.
The petition was established by the Discovery Institute in Seattle, an organization dedicated to promoting intelligent design. The document has previously been cited by anti-evolutionists as evidence that the scientific community is not united in its belief in evolution.
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life," the preamble says. "Careful examination of the evidence of Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
Dr. Cheesman said he believed in creationism as a young man but developed doubts after he started studying geology, which he admits conclusively shows the world is billions of years old.
But his perusal of biological evidence has convinced him that evolution and the idea of natural selection and mutation of living organisms is not the key to all of life.
Tony Jelsma, a Burlington, Ont., native with a biochemistry PhD from McMaster University, said he teaches evolution to his students at Dordt College, a Christian university in Sioux Center, Ind., but points out what he believes are its flaws.
For starters, it cannot explain how the whole process of life on Earth began, he said.
"If you look at the research into the origin of life, there isn't a single, plausible hypothesis or even proposed mechanism [within evolution] that would have worked," he said.
"That is the biggest shortcoming in the whole evolutionary scenario."
Marvin Fritzler, a professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at the University of Calgary medical school, said he does not believe intelligent design is the answer to such questions. But he is convinced science must look beyond evolutionary theory.
"I would rather we think a little bit outside the Darwinian rut," he said.
"Significant paradigm shifts and new ways of looking at things take place in pretty controversial circumstances, where someone is willing to look beyond the theory of the day. And that goes for Darwin back in the mid-1800s. I am concerned we get ourselves a little tunnel-visioned and can't make those paradigm shifts."
The other Canadian names include Rene Boere, chairman of the University of Lethbridge chemistry department; Braxton Alfred, professor emeritus of anthropology at the University of British Columbia; and A.D. Harrison, emeritus professor of biology at the University of Waterloo.
Also named are Curtis Hrischuk, an electrical engineering PhD who works for IBM, and Paul Brown, an assistant professor of environmental studies at Trinity Western University, a Christian college in Langley, B.C. Muzaffar Iqbal, who has a doctorate in chemistry from the University of Saskatchewan, is the Alberta-based head of the Centre for Islam and Science.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As the world turns.......evolution theories crumble....
to be continued......
Intelligent Design gets a boost in Canada.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Canadian scientists want out of Darwin's rut
Tom Blackwell
National Post
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
A handful of Canadian scientists are speaking out against evolution as an explanation for all of life as we know it, saying the complexity of living things simply cannot be attributed to biological chance.
Nine university professors and others with science or engineering PhDs have added their names to an American petition that voices skepticism about the theory of evolution. The list was posted on the Internet this week.
At least two of the scientists teach at Christian universities, while another runs an organization dedicated to the links between Islam and science.
Some of those contacted yesterday acknowledged their doubts about Darwinism coincide with their religious beliefs, and espoused the controversial idea of "intelligent design" -- that some guiding hand was behind life on Earth. But one molecular biologist said he is convinced that science is stuck in an evolutionary "rut" and must seek better explanations for the existence of elaborate biological structures.
"I look at biology as being a very complicated computer code," said Stephen Cheesman, a geophysics PhD and software developer who compares genetic systems to languages created by humans.
"There is no way I could create a code like this..... In the DNA, you have a novel, a long novel, spelled out, which produces us."
The scientists' public positions against evolution mark perhaps the first time the issue has arisen recently in Canada, despite a raging debate in the United States over the teaching of evolution in public schools.
The petition was established by the Discovery Institute in Seattle, an organization dedicated to promoting intelligent design. The document has previously been cited by anti-evolutionists as evidence that the scientific community is not united in its belief in evolution.
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life," the preamble says. "Careful examination of the evidence of Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
Dr. Cheesman said he believed in creationism as a young man but developed doubts after he started studying geology, which he admits conclusively shows the world is billions of years old.
But his perusal of biological evidence has convinced him that evolution and the idea of natural selection and mutation of living organisms is not the key to all of life.
Tony Jelsma, a Burlington, Ont., native with a biochemistry PhD from McMaster University, said he teaches evolution to his students at Dordt College, a Christian university in Sioux Center, Ind., but points out what he believes are its flaws.
For starters, it cannot explain how the whole process of life on Earth began, he said.
"If you look at the research into the origin of life, there isn't a single, plausible hypothesis or even proposed mechanism [within evolution] that would have worked," he said.
"That is the biggest shortcoming in the whole evolutionary scenario."
Marvin Fritzler, a professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at the University of Calgary medical school, said he does not believe intelligent design is the answer to such questions. But he is convinced science must look beyond evolutionary theory.
"I would rather we think a little bit outside the Darwinian rut," he said.
"Significant paradigm shifts and new ways of looking at things take place in pretty controversial circumstances, where someone is willing to look beyond the theory of the day. And that goes for Darwin back in the mid-1800s. I am concerned we get ourselves a little tunnel-visioned and can't make those paradigm shifts."
The other Canadian names include Rene Boere, chairman of the University of Lethbridge chemistry department; Braxton Alfred, professor emeritus of anthropology at the University of British Columbia; and A.D. Harrison, emeritus professor of biology at the University of Waterloo.
Also named are Curtis Hrischuk, an electrical engineering PhD who works for IBM, and Paul Brown, an assistant professor of environmental studies at Trinity Western University, a Christian college in Langley, B.C. Muzaffar Iqbal, who has a doctorate in chemistry from the University of Saskatchewan, is the Alberta-based head of the Centre for Islam and Science.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As the world turns.......evolution theories crumble....
to be continued......
Messenger Posted: Feb 23 2006, 08:10 AM a classic example of the success that the Intelligent Design (ID) folks can have with their "Wedge" strategy for advancing their cause which seems to be to overturn a bit of modern science.
To say that evolution is "in trouble" is bullcrap (I am forcing myself to be polite).
The "wedge" strategy was documented fairly thoroughly in the Dover PA court case about introducing ID into biology classes. The Dover School Board decreed this and some parents sued the School Board. There was a five or six week court trial with lots of testimony, including some folks associated with pushing ID. William Behe testified; some folks seemed to feel that his testimony discredited him.
Behe is a principle author of the book "Pandas and Man" which is pushed as a textbook for ID. At the court trial, it was bought out that an original draft of the book used "creationism" rather than "Intelligent Design" throughout. After one or more authors came up with the concept of ID, "Intelligent Design" was globally substituted for "creationism" throughout the book's file.
The judge's decision in the somewhat famous court case was that ID is religously based and that a Supreme Court decision exists that religion cannot be taught in publicly funded schools.
The Dover PA court trial is well-documented in http://talkorigins.org which also contains scientific refutations of many ideas or pseudo-facts pushed by creationist and ID believers.
It's kind of sad to see so many scientifically trained folks in Canada falling victim to the ID virus. Substituting belief in the supernatural because of the known complexity in the biological and botanical worlds hardly helps advance science.
I read recently of a new book being (or maybe has been) published by Harvard University Press named "The Plausibility of Life". I will be buying and reading it after I finish Lisa Randall's (to me fascinating) book entitled "Warped Passages". It is a most lucidly written description of particle physics and how string theory was created to connect quantum mechanics and general relativity, the physics of the submicroscopic and the huge.
To say that evolution is "in trouble" is bullcrap (I am forcing myself to be polite).
The "wedge" strategy was documented fairly thoroughly in the Dover PA court case about introducing ID into biology classes. The Dover School Board decreed this and some parents sued the School Board. There was a five or six week court trial with lots of testimony, including some folks associated with pushing ID. William Behe testified; some folks seemed to feel that his testimony discredited him.
Behe is a principle author of the book "Pandas and Man" which is pushed as a textbook for ID. At the court trial, it was bought out that an original draft of the book used "creationism" rather than "Intelligent Design" throughout. After one or more authors came up with the concept of ID, "Intelligent Design" was globally substituted for "creationism" throughout the book's file.
The judge's decision in the somewhat famous court case was that ID is religously based and that a Supreme Court decision exists that religion cannot be taught in publicly funded schools.
The Dover PA court trial is well-documented in http://talkorigins.org which also contains scientific refutations of many ideas or pseudo-facts pushed by creationist and ID believers.
It's kind of sad to see so many scientifically trained folks in Canada falling victim to the ID virus. Substituting belief in the supernatural because of the known complexity in the biological and botanical worlds hardly helps advance science.
I read recently of a new book being (or maybe has been) published by Harvard University Press named "The Plausibility of Life". I will be buying and reading it after I finish Lisa Randall's (to me fascinating) book entitled "Warped Passages". It is a most lucidly written description of particle physics and how string theory was created to connect quantum mechanics and general relativity, the physics of the submicroscopic and the huge.
QUOTE (Messenger+Feb 23 2006, 08:10 AM)
OH STEVEO ----- OH CANADA ------
Intelligent Design gets a boost in Canada.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Canadian scientists want out of Darwin's rut
Tom Blackwell
National Post
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
A handful of Canadian scientists are speaking out against evolution as an explanation for all of life as we know it, saying the complexity of living things simply cannot be attributed to biological chance.
Nine university professors and others with science or engineering PhDs have added their names to an American petition that voices skepticism about the theory of evolution. The list was posted on the Internet this week.
At least two of the scientists teach at Christian universities, while another runs an organization dedicated to the links between Islam and science.
Some of those contacted yesterday acknowledged their doubts about Darwinism coincide with their religious beliefs, and espoused the controversial idea of "intelligent design" -- that some guiding hand was behind life on Earth. But one molecular biologist said he is convinced that science is stuck in an evolutionary "rut" and must seek better explanations for the existence of elaborate biological structures.
"I look at biology as being a very complicated computer code," said Stephen Cheesman, a geophysics PhD and software developer who compares genetic systems to languages created by humans.
"There is no way I could create a code like this..... In the DNA, you have a novel, a long novel, spelled out, which produces us."
The scientists' public positions against evolution mark perhaps the first time the issue has arisen recently in Canada, despite a raging debate in the United States over the teaching of evolution in public schools.
The petition was established by the Discovery Institute in Seattle, an organization dedicated to promoting intelligent design. The document has previously been cited by anti-evolutionists as evidence that the scientific community is not united in its belief in evolution.
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life," the preamble says. "Careful examination of the evidence of Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
Dr. Cheesman said he believed in creationism as a young man but developed doubts after he started studying geology, which he admits conclusively shows the world is billions of years old.
But his perusal of biological evidence has convinced him that evolution and the idea of natural selection and mutation of living organisms is not the key to all of life.
Tony Jelsma, a Burlington, Ont., native with a biochemistry PhD from McMaster University, said he teaches evolution to his students at Dordt College, a Christian university in Sioux Center, Ind., but points out what he believes are its flaws.
For starters, it cannot explain how the whole process of life on Earth began, he said.
"If you look at the research into the origin of life, there isn't a single, plausible hypothesis or even proposed mechanism [within evolution] that would have worked," he said.
"That is the biggest shortcoming in the whole evolutionary scenario."
Marvin Fritzler, a professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at the University of Calgary medical school, said he does not believe intelligent design is the answer to such questions. But he is convinced science must look beyond evolutionary theory.
"I would rather we think a little bit outside the Darwinian rut," he said.
"Significant paradigm shifts and new ways of looking at things take place in pretty controversial circumstances, where someone is willing to look beyond the theory of the day. And that goes for Darwin back in the mid-1800s. I am concerned we get ourselves a little tunnel-visioned and can't make those paradigm shifts."
The other Canadian names include Rene Boere, chairman of the University of Lethbridge chemistry department; Braxton Alfred, professor emeritus of anthropology at the University of British Columbia; and A.D. Harrison, emeritus professor of biology at the University of Waterloo.
Also named are Curtis Hrischuk, an electrical engineering PhD who works for IBM, and Paul Brown, an assistant professor of environmental studies at Trinity Western University, a Christian college in Langley, B.C. Muzaffar Iqbal, who has a doctorate in chemistry from the University of Saskatchewan, is the Alberta-based head of the Centre for Islam and Science.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As the world turns.......evolution theories crumble....
to be continued......
I've never claimed to be a prophet, but I foresee something like this coming from Steveo and some of our other friends in Canada:
We'll see...
Intelligent Design gets a boost in Canada.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Canadian scientists want out of Darwin's rut
Tom Blackwell
National Post
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
A handful of Canadian scientists are speaking out against evolution as an explanation for all of life as we know it, saying the complexity of living things simply cannot be attributed to biological chance.
Nine university professors and others with science or engineering PhDs have added their names to an American petition that voices skepticism about the theory of evolution. The list was posted on the Internet this week.
At least two of the scientists teach at Christian universities, while another runs an organization dedicated to the links between Islam and science.
Some of those contacted yesterday acknowledged their doubts about Darwinism coincide with their religious beliefs, and espoused the controversial idea of "intelligent design" -- that some guiding hand was behind life on Earth. But one molecular biologist said he is convinced that science is stuck in an evolutionary "rut" and must seek better explanations for the existence of elaborate biological structures.
"I look at biology as being a very complicated computer code," said Stephen Cheesman, a geophysics PhD and software developer who compares genetic systems to languages created by humans.
"There is no way I could create a code like this..... In the DNA, you have a novel, a long novel, spelled out, which produces us."
The scientists' public positions against evolution mark perhaps the first time the issue has arisen recently in Canada, despite a raging debate in the United States over the teaching of evolution in public schools.
The petition was established by the Discovery Institute in Seattle, an organization dedicated to promoting intelligent design. The document has previously been cited by anti-evolutionists as evidence that the scientific community is not united in its belief in evolution.
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life," the preamble says. "Careful examination of the evidence of Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
Dr. Cheesman said he believed in creationism as a young man but developed doubts after he started studying geology, which he admits conclusively shows the world is billions of years old.
But his perusal of biological evidence has convinced him that evolution and the idea of natural selection and mutation of living organisms is not the key to all of life.
Tony Jelsma, a Burlington, Ont., native with a biochemistry PhD from McMaster University, said he teaches evolution to his students at Dordt College, a Christian university in Sioux Center, Ind., but points out what he believes are its flaws.
For starters, it cannot explain how the whole process of life on Earth began, he said.
"If you look at the research into the origin of life, there isn't a single, plausible hypothesis or even proposed mechanism [within evolution] that would have worked," he said.
"That is the biggest shortcoming in the whole evolutionary scenario."
Marvin Fritzler, a professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at the University of Calgary medical school, said he does not believe intelligent design is the answer to such questions. But he is convinced science must look beyond evolutionary theory.
"I would rather we think a little bit outside the Darwinian rut," he said.
"Significant paradigm shifts and new ways of looking at things take place in pretty controversial circumstances, where someone is willing to look beyond the theory of the day. And that goes for Darwin back in the mid-1800s. I am concerned we get ourselves a little tunnel-visioned and can't make those paradigm shifts."
The other Canadian names include Rene Boere, chairman of the University of Lethbridge chemistry department; Braxton Alfred, professor emeritus of anthropology at the University of British Columbia; and A.D. Harrison, emeritus professor of biology at the University of Waterloo.
Also named are Curtis Hrischuk, an electrical engineering PhD who works for IBM, and Paul Brown, an assistant professor of environmental studies at Trinity Western University, a Christian college in Langley, B.C. Muzaffar Iqbal, who has a doctorate in chemistry from the University of Saskatchewan, is the Alberta-based head of the Centre for Islam and Science.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As the world turns.......evolution theories crumble....
to be continued......
I've never claimed to be a prophet, but I foresee something like this coming from Steveo and some of our other friends in Canada:
We'll see...
Hahaha, newguy, that slingshot is about the best weapon Canada could muster I think....thanks to our poorly funded military (not that I think that is neccessarily a bad thing). Besides, that would have to be one hell of a slingshot to hit anywhere in the states from the Northern city of Edmonton......I think we are about 600km or so from the Montana border (maybe more, the geography is not that important).
However, I am glad Messenger pointed this article out. If you notice, not all of the people supported intelligent design. It should also be noted that the people who are supporting intelligent design in that article are mostly non biologists....some being engineers or geophysicists. Scientists maybe (although if they think ID is science, it casts doubts on that title in my mind), but not in the field of biology, so they, like myself are not experts on evolution.
As a biochemist this man should know that biogenisis is different from evolution. Sad to say, a lot of people lump them in together....and once you wrongly lump them in together, I agree, evolution does not make as much sense. But if you know/learn the difference it shows you where the knowledge is, and where it is not.
As a biochemist this man should know that biogenisis is different from evolution. Sad to say, a lot of people lump them in together....and once you wrongly lump them in together, I agree, evolution does not make as much sense. But if you know/learn the difference it shows you where the knowledge is, and where it is not.
"I would rather we think a little bit outside the Darwinian rut," he said.
"Significant paradigm shifts and new ways of looking at things take place in pretty controversial circumstances, where someone is willing to look beyond the theory of the day. And that goes for Darwin back in the mid-1800s. I am concerned we get ourselves a little tunnel-visioned and can't make those paradigm shifts."
You should have bolded that entire statement. First of all, Darwinian ideas have been tweaked since the 1800's, but no major changes have taken place. Also, although you don't like it, the tunnel vision is still a part of science. If there is data that doesn't fit with theory (not sure if there is) then before looking for a new answer, all possibilities using the existing framework need to be looked at, before you can safely discard the theory. Paradigm shifts are well documented in science. Once again Messenger, I suggest you read the book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn. He extensively discusses the nature of scientific investigation, paradigms, paradigm shifts, and that sort. Please read this.
Also, to be honest and fair, you should also know I have said many times that if/when a better theory than evolution comes along I would stop 'believing' in evolution and switch to that new theory. I also added, which is entirely my opinion, and speculation, that no such theory will come along for a long time, if ever to overthrow evolution. Please separate my opinion from my adherance to science. If my two favorite hockey teams are playing in the semifinals of the Olympics and I said I thought a certain team was going to win. That would be my opinion. Then after the game was over, if I was right or wrong, I would still cheer for the team that one that game in the finals. You could make this situation similar, except Evolution doesn't even have an opponent yet. ID is not an opponent, and ID is not science. You know where my absolutes are, and where my "for right nows" are. Science is an absolute, and ID does not fit there, and Evolution is my "for right now" because it is the best we have right now.
Some of those contacted yesterday acknowledged their doubts about Darwinism coincide with their religious beliefs, and espoused the controversial idea of "intelligent design" -- that some guiding hand was behind life on Earth. But one molecular biologist said he is convinced that science is stuck in an evolutionary "rut" and must seek better explanations for the existence of elaborate biological structures.
And if your doubts about science are because of religious beliefs, your problem is not with the science at all. And this molecular biologist probably knows better than me. It does not say he supports ID, but he thinks better explanations are out there. That is fine. Look at modern physics. Quantum Mechanics as far as I know has never been shown to be wrong in experiments, yet there are hundreds, probably 1000's of scientists looking for a better explanation (most of them with String Theory). Its when you let science be controlled by a book that is 1000's of years old instead of experiments and the scientific method that I have issues with it.
Messenger, I hope you understand my comments on this article....also, think of how many biologists are working in Canada At my university there is over 65 faculty members in the biological sciences department, not to mention all of the graduate students, post docs, and visiting scientists, plus people in biochemistry which is a different department. Now, thats at one university, and there are several here. So 9 people (many of which weren't even biologists) is a very small number of the total number of scientists in the country. It doesn't actually mean very much. Recently a Historian got sentenced to 3 years in an Austrian jail for denying the holocast. Does that mean that amoung historians there is debate and controversy over whether or not the holocast took place? Just learn about evolution with an open mind.
Apparently ID doesn't actually look for, or care anything about the designer. Besides, the followers of ID would say "nope, it stops at god, because he is god" or something to that effect.
Apparently ID doesn't actually look for, or care anything about the designer. Besides, the followers of ID would say "nope, it stops at god, because he is god" or something to that effect.
When I pointed out this paradox, I was informed that God has ALWAYS existed. Oh, and this existence is outside of space and time. In other words, God is the exception to the rule.
Of course, let's not forget that ID is NOT a religious concept. It's totally scientific.
However, I am glad Messenger pointed this article out. If you notice, not all of the people supported intelligent design. It should also be noted that the people who are supporting intelligent design in that article are mostly non biologists....some being engineers or geophysicists. Scientists maybe (although if they think ID is science, it casts doubts on that title in my mind), but not in the field of biology, so they, like myself are not experts on evolution.
QUOTE
Tony Jelsma, a Burlington, Ont., native with a biochemistry PhD from McMaster University, said he teaches evolution to his students at Dordt College, a Christian university in Sioux Center, Ind., but points out what he believes are its flaws.
For starters, it cannot explain how the whole process of life on Earth began, he said.
"If you look at the research into the origin of life, there isn't a single, plausible hypothesis or even proposed mechanism [within evolution] that would have worked," he said.
For starters, it cannot explain how the whole process of life on Earth began, he said.
"If you look at the research into the origin of life, there isn't a single, plausible hypothesis or even proposed mechanism [within evolution] that would have worked," he said.
As a biochemist this man should know that biogenisis is different from evolution. Sad to say, a lot of people lump them in together....and once you wrongly lump them in together, I agree, evolution does not make as much sense. But if you know/learn the difference it shows you where the knowledge is, and where it is not.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Tony Jelsma, a Burlington, Ont., native with a biochemistry PhD from McMaster University, said he teaches evolution to his students at Dordt College, a Christian university in Sioux Center, Ind., but points out what he believes are its flaws. For starters, it cannot explain how the whole process of life on Earth began, he said. "If you look at the research into the origin of life, there isn't a single, plausible hypothesis or even proposed mechanism [within evolution] that would have worked," he said. |
As a biochemist this man should know that biogenisis is different from evolution. Sad to say, a lot of people lump them in together....and once you wrongly lump them in together, I agree, evolution does not make as much sense. But if you know/learn the difference it shows you where the knowledge is, and where it is not.
"I would rather we think a little bit outside the Darwinian rut," he said.
"Significant paradigm shifts and new ways of looking at things take place in pretty controversial circumstances, where someone is willing to look beyond the theory of the day. And that goes for Darwin back in the mid-1800s. I am concerned we get ourselves a little tunnel-visioned and can't make those paradigm shifts."
You should have bolded that entire statement. First of all, Darwinian ideas have been tweaked since the 1800's, but no major changes have taken place. Also, although you don't like it, the tunnel vision is still a part of science. If there is data that doesn't fit with theory (not sure if there is) then before looking for a new answer, all possibilities using the existing framework need to be looked at, before you can safely discard the theory. Paradigm shifts are well documented in science. Once again Messenger, I suggest you read the book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn. He extensively discusses the nature of scientific investigation, paradigms, paradigm shifts, and that sort. Please read this.
Also, to be honest and fair, you should also know I have said many times that if/when a better theory than evolution comes along I would stop 'believing' in evolution and switch to that new theory. I also added, which is entirely my opinion, and speculation, that no such theory will come along for a long time, if ever to overthrow evolution. Please separate my opinion from my adherance to science. If my two favorite hockey teams are playing in the semifinals of the Olympics and I said I thought a certain team was going to win. That would be my opinion. Then after the game was over, if I was right or wrong, I would still cheer for the team that one that game in the finals. You could make this situation similar, except Evolution doesn't even have an opponent yet. ID is not an opponent, and ID is not science. You know where my absolutes are, and where my "for right nows" are. Science is an absolute, and ID does not fit there, and Evolution is my "for right now" because it is the best we have right now.
QUOTE
Some of those contacted yesterday acknowledged their doubts about Darwinism coincide with their religious beliefs, and espoused the controversial idea of "intelligent design" -- that some guiding hand was behind life on Earth. But one molecular biologist said he is convinced that science is stuck in an evolutionary "rut" and must seek better explanations for the existence of elaborate biological structures.
And if your doubts about science are because of religious beliefs, your problem is not with the science at all. And this molecular biologist probably knows better than me. It does not say he supports ID, but he thinks better explanations are out there. That is fine. Look at modern physics. Quantum Mechanics as far as I know has never been shown to be wrong in experiments, yet there are hundreds, probably 1000's of scientists looking for a better explanation (most of them with String Theory). Its when you let science be controlled by a book that is 1000's of years old instead of experiments and the scientific method that I have issues with it.
Messenger, I hope you understand my comments on this article....also, think of how many biologists are working in Canada At my university there is over 65 faculty members in the biological sciences department, not to mention all of the graduate students, post docs, and visiting scientists, plus people in biochemistry which is a different department. Now, thats at one university, and there are several here. So 9 people (many of which weren't even biologists) is a very small number of the total number of scientists in the country. It doesn't actually mean very much. Recently a Historian got sentenced to 3 years in an Austrian jail for denying the holocast. Does that mean that amoung historians there is debate and controversy over whether or not the holocast took place? Just learn about evolution with an open mind.
Isn't an entity which has the intelligence to create [ALL] in itself complex? If so, doesn't Intelligent design prove God must itself have been created or doesn't exist?
QUOTE
Isn't an entity which has the intelligence to create [ALL] in itself complex? If so, doesn't Intelligent design prove God must itself have been created or doesn't exist?
Apparently ID doesn't actually look for, or care anything about the designer. Besides, the followers of ID would say "nope, it stops at god, because he is god" or something to that effect.
QUOTE (Messenger+Feb 23 2006, 08:10 AM)
OH STEVEO ----- OH CANADA ------
Intelligent Design gets a boost in Canada.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[SIZE=7][font=Times]Canadian scientists want out of Darwin's rut
Tom Blackwell
National Post
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
A handful of Canadian scientists are speaking out against evolution as an explanation for all of life as we know it, saying the complexity of living things simply cannot be attributed to biological chance.
Nine university professors and others with science or engineering PhDs have added their names to an American petition that voices skepticism about the theory of evolution. The list was posted on the Internet this week.
At least two of the scientists teach at Christian universities, while another runs an organization dedicated to the links between Islam and science.
Some of those contacted yesterday acknowledged their doubts about Darwinism coincide with their religious beliefs, and espoused the controversial idea of "intelligent design" -- that some guiding hand was behind life on Earth. But one molecular biologist said he is convinced that science is stuck in an evolutionary "rut" and must seek better explanations for the existence of elaborate biological structures.
"I look at biology as being a very complicated computer code," said Stephen Cheesman, a geophysics PhD and software developer who compares genetic systems to languages created by humans.
"There is no way I could create a code like this..... In the DNA, you have a novel, a long novel, spelled out, which produces us."
Any scientist who disputes evolution, should not be labeled a Scientists unless they intend to provide evidence against every bit of evidence that points to evolution..
We live in an era where we have the advantage of being aware of us humans making a huge evolutionary jump!.. Granted it isn't a biological one, but never the less in half a century, the average shmo's intellect has increased over even the most intelligent individual from 500 years ago..
Each tiny bit of extra information we know may seem insignificant, but just like if we remove any biological bits should we remove tiny bits of information for example like how we use oil to create Plastics, the loss of this information will have massive consequences and could bring our current society to its knees..
The end products that use plastic are depended on many tiny important steps that created Plastic.
Likewise our bodies have evolved with over millions and millions of small changes..
Having stated this, I must say the nine childre !? ? Errrr~ I mean nine scientists must have intellect's comparable to intellects of over 500 years ago, and the only way this could occur is if those scientists were taught or professed to - by individuals that are relying more on archaic Data such as the bible rather than up to date Data...
Private Religious schools are the main offenders of omitting critical Data on the premise that it will lead sect members to the REAL Truth and away from religion meaning a loss of income and or sect members...
All we can do is insist these quacks produce evidence supporting their wild claims and wait for the expected apology once they discover that they have been deceived by those that educated them...
Besides - When it comes down to our Genetic Code, What is so hard to understand about how only certain bonds can be made?
I think it is high time that all individuals that are to work and or research with Genes should learn a Little more physics! In particular about the Atoms and their respective valence's, Molecules how and why bonds do or do not occur etc...
I think once how these basics are professed or availed to all biology students, Life and evolution wont seem that much of a mystery anymore..
What say you?
Intelligent Design gets a boost in Canada.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[SIZE=7][font=Times]Canadian scientists want out of Darwin's rut
Tom Blackwell
National Post
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
A handful of Canadian scientists are speaking out against evolution as an explanation for all of life as we know it, saying the complexity of living things simply cannot be attributed to biological chance.
Nine university professors and others with science or engineering PhDs have added their names to an American petition that voices skepticism about the theory of evolution. The list was posted on the Internet this week.
At least two of the scientists teach at Christian universities, while another runs an organization dedicated to the links between Islam and science.
Some of those contacted yesterday acknowledged their doubts about Darwinism coincide with their religious beliefs, and espoused the controversial idea of "intelligent design" -- that some guiding hand was behind life on Earth. But one molecular biologist said he is convinced that science is stuck in an evolutionary "rut" and must seek better explanations for the existence of elaborate biological structures.
"I look at biology as being a very complicated computer code," said Stephen Cheesman, a geophysics PhD and software developer who compares genetic systems to languages created by humans.
"There is no way I could create a code like this..... In the DNA, you have a novel, a long novel, spelled out, which produces us."
Any scientist who disputes evolution, should not be labeled a Scientists unless they intend to provide evidence against every bit of evidence that points to evolution..
We live in an era where we have the advantage of being aware of us humans making a huge evolutionary jump!.. Granted it isn't a biological one, but never the less in half a century, the average shmo's intellect has increased over even the most intelligent individual from 500 years ago..
Each tiny bit of extra information we know may seem insignificant, but just like if we remove any biological bits should we remove tiny bits of information for example like how we use oil to create Plastics, the loss of this information will have massive consequences and could bring our current society to its knees..
The end products that use plastic are depended on many tiny important steps that created Plastic.
Likewise our bodies have evolved with over millions and millions of small changes..
Having stated this, I must say the nine childre !? ? Errrr~ I mean nine scientists must have intellect's comparable to intellects of over 500 years ago, and the only way this could occur is if those scientists were taught or professed to - by individuals that are relying more on archaic Data such as the bible rather than up to date Data...
Private Religious schools are the main offenders of omitting critical Data on the premise that it will lead sect members to the REAL Truth and away from religion meaning a loss of income and or sect members...
All we can do is insist these quacks produce evidence supporting their wild claims and wait for the expected apology once they discover that they have been deceived by those that educated them...
Besides - When it comes down to our Genetic Code, What is so hard to understand about how only certain bonds can be made?
I think it is high time that all individuals that are to work and or research with Genes should learn a Little more physics! In particular about the Atoms and their respective valence's, Molecules how and why bonds do or do not occur etc...
I think once how these basics are professed or availed to all biology students, Life and evolution wont seem that much of a mystery anymore..
What say you?
QUOTE (Steveo+Feb 23 2006, 04:41 PM)
QUOTE
Isn't an entity which has the intelligence to create [ALL] in itself complex? If so, doesn't Intelligent design prove God must itself have been created or doesn't exist?
Apparently ID doesn't actually look for, or care anything about the designer. Besides, the followers of ID would say "nope, it stops at god, because he is god" or something to that effect.
When I pointed out this paradox, I was informed that God has ALWAYS existed. Oh, and this existence is outside of space and time. In other words, God is the exception to the rule.
Of course, let's not forget that ID is NOT a religious concept. It's totally scientific.
QUOTE (Laidback+Feb 23 2006, 10:43 PM)
QUOTE (Messenger+Feb 23 2006, 08:10 AM)
OH STEVEO ----- OH CANADA ------
Intelligent Design gets a boost in Canada.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[SIZE=7][font=Times]Canadian scientists want out of Darwin's rut
Tom Blackwell
National Post
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
A handful of Canadian scientists are speaking out against evolution as an explanation for all of life as we know it, saying the complexity of living things simply cannot be attributed to biological chance.
Nine university professors and others with science or engineering PhDs have added their names to an American petition that voices skepticism about the theory of evolution. The list was posted on the Internet this week.
At least two of the scientists teach at Christian universities, while another runs an organization dedicated to the links between Islam and science.
Some of those contacted yesterday acknowledged their doubts about Darwinism coincide with their religious beliefs, and espoused the controversial idea of "intelligent design" -- that some guiding hand was behind life on Earth. But one molecular biologist said he is convinced that science is stuck in an evolutionary "rut" and must seek better explanations for the existence of elaborate biological structures.
"I look at biology as being a very complicated computer code," said Stephen Cheesman, a geophysics PhD and software developer who compares genetic systems to languages created by humans.
"There is no way I could create a code like this..... In the DNA, you have a novel, a long novel, spelled out, which produces us."
Any scientist who disputes evolution, should not be labeled a Scientists unless they intend to provide evidence against every bit of evidence that points to evolution..
We live in an era where we have the advantage of being aware of us humans making a huge evolutionary jump!.. Granted it isn't a biological one, but never the less in half a century, the average shmo's intellect has increased over even the most intelligent individual from 500 years ago..
Each tiny bit of extra information we know may seem insignificant, but just like if we remove any biological bits should we remove tiny bits of information for example like how we use oil to create Plastics, the loss of this information will have massive consequences and could bring our current society to its knees..
The end products that use plastic are depended on many tiny important steps that created Plastic.
Likewise our bodies have evolved with over millions and millions of small changes..
Having stated this, I must say the nine childre !? ? Errrr~ I mean nine scientists must have intellect's comparable to intellects of over 500 years ago, and the only way this could occur is if those scientists were taught or professed to - by individuals that are relying more on archaic Data such as the bible rather than up to date Data...
Private Religious schools are the main offenders of omitting critical Data on the premise that it will lead sect members to the REAL Truth and away from religion meaning a loss of income and or sect members...
All we can do is insist these quacks produce evidence supporting their wild claims and wait for the expected apology once they discover that they have been deceived by those that educated them...
Besides - When it comes down to our Genetic Code, What is so hard to understand about how only certain bonds can be made?
I think it is high time that all individuals that are to work and or research with Genes should learn a Little more physics! In particular about the Atoms and their respective valence's, Molecules how and why bonds do or do not occur etc...
I think once how these basics are professed or availed to all biology students, Life and evolution wont seem that much of a mystery anymore..
What say you?
Hi Laidback!
I support your proposal 100%. You know why? Well....do you remember some time back in these forums one "S. Bilderback"? Well, HE professed that he was a "TEACHER" (contrary to the evidence in his abysmally ignorant posts) and I had to explain to him that ALL material interactions boil down to 'charge' interactions, and 'partial/stable' charge 'states' and charge 'transport' among atoms/molecules and NATURALLY simple/complex molecular 'structures'mechanisms'. Do you believe it?...that person (I STILL CAN'T bring myself to believe him to be either scientist OR teacher in charge of others' education...ugh!) didn't know ANYTHING about how simple matter 'organises' according to the 'valence' states/configurations involved and brought about NATURALLY either by random chance and/or 'catalysed' reactions/processes to create 'charge transport mechanism/structure' assemblages in CRYSTALS/FILAMENTS in IN-ORGANIC CHEMISTRY as WELL as DNA/RNA and PROTEINS in ORGANIC chemistry?
Some 'scientist' and 'scholar' and 'teacher', heh? WHERE WAS HE HIMSELF TAUGHT I WONDER? What a woeful preparation, for someone supposedly to be responsible for the TRUE and COMPLETE education of children! Makes one cringe at the wilfully dishonest and wicked disservice some of our youngsters are trapped into suffering at the hands of these so-called 'educated' ignoramuses 'graduating' from 'religious' centres of ignorance (not learning, that's for sure!).
ALL such 'religious' institutions should be required to satisfy the ORDINARY STANDARDS of common curricula IN ADDITION to any 'religious' censoring' course/curricula offered by the cult leaders of that institution. Maybe then we wouldn't get these 'bilderbacks' running around as if they actually knew anything.
And that ORDINARY STANDARDS curricula should, as you say, include the basics of chemistry 'charge' principles/structures/mechanisms. Cheers and Hear! Hear!
RC.
.
To all the evolution proponents (except RC) - who think they can support their belief in evolution with actual factual evidence.......................
1. You mean like Galileo? Do you have any factual evidence to back up your claims that we're smarter today than we were 500 or 5000 years ago? Stating that we can make an airplane is not evidence. You would have to prove that human beings alive 500-5000 years ago, given the same instructions and materials, would not have been able to build the airplane - because their brains had not yet developed or evolved to the degree that we have evolved. I say, society has only built upon the knowledge of previous generations. Not even you (or anyone alive today) could build an airplane, if we put you back into the 16th century.
2. How did the structure or generation of DNA occur?
3. Please provide evidence for your claims of the so called 'huge evolutionary jump'. There must be fossils of ape to man like the popular (false) evolution of man drawings suggest (falsely). If there are missing fossils, please exlain why man could not have been created by God as it states in the Bible. Please explain why you put your faith in a system that has no evidence to back it up.
4. What was the purpose of losing the tail and the hair? (Didn't all those apes who moved north need that hair to keep 'em warm? Isn't that why animals have fur, to keep them warm, or to keep them cool? What's the point of losing something beneficial? Or do you feel the gorilla is a luckier animal than we are? Perhaps you would have preferred it if evolution had never come this far.)
5. What was the purpose of the mouth becoming smaller?
6. What was the purpose of the teeth taking on a different shape?
7. Why hasn't there been the slightest bit of evolutionary development/change in humans over the last 50,000 years? (like teeth for example) (evolution numbers, not mine)
8. Why don't any ape type animals display a need to draw their history onto rock?
9. Why doesn't any other living creature display human qualities or habits, most particularily of their own accord?
10. How do you explain the non-existence of time? If you cannot explain it - does that make it false?
11. What is outside our universe? If you cannot provide an answer, does that mean there's nothing?
12. Who created you? Your parents? How is that possible? Didn't you evolve? Didn't you come about naturally, and not as the result of someone's choice? If you agree that you came about as a result of someone's choice, please explain how there could not have been a God who chose to create mankind?
13. For those of you who are abortion activists, don't you agree that pregnancy is a choice? And also that men/women have power to choose who lives in dies in their own pee wee world?
14. And when you look at it that way, you abortion proponents/activists, doesn't it strike you odd to then also ask the question - how can God allow bad things to happen to good people? Aren't you, who are pro-abortion, willingly destroying a totally helpless life? What kind of a person could do that? Don't you see now, that God is not responsible for the evil in the world? You are. We are. I am. Don't you see that you/we/me have the power to be the sole cause of good in the world?
15. Please answer the above questions honestly, with your own opinions, and with factual evidence to back up your opinions or claims. If you do this, without criticizing the question (after all, what's the point in doing that?), I will seriously take a look at your honest opinions and factuallly supporting evidence. If I can refute it with evidence of my own - I will submit to your opinion for the time being. Deal?
Thank you,
Hi Laidback!
I support your proposal 100%. You know why? Well....do you remember some time back in these forums one "S. Bilderback"? Well, HE professed that he was a "TEACHER" (contrary to the evidence in his abysmally ignorant posts) and I had to explain to him that ALL material interactions boil down to 'charge' interactions, and 'partial/stable' charge 'states' and charge 'transport' among atoms/molecules and NATURALLY simple/complex molecular 'structures'mechanisms'. Do you believe it?...that person (I STILL CAN'T bring myself to believe him to be either scientist OR teacher in charge of others' education...ugh!) didn't know ANYTHING about how simple matter 'organises' according to the 'valence' states/configurations involved and brought about NATURALLY either by random chance and/or 'catalysed' reactions/processes to create 'charge transport mechanism/structure' assemblages in CRYSTALS/FILAMENTS in IN-ORGANIC CHEMISTRY as WELL as DNA/RNA and PROTEINS in ORGANIC chemistry?
Some scientists and scholar and teacher, heh? WHERE WAS HE HIMSELF TAUGHT I WONDER? What a woeful preparation, for someone supposedly to be responsible for the TRUE and COMPLETE education of children! Makes one cringe at the wilfully dishonest and wicked disservice some of our youngsters are trapped into suffering at the hands of these so-called 'educated' ignoramuses 'graduating' from 'religious' centres of ignorance (not learning, that's for sure!).
ALL such 'religious' institutions should be required to satisfy the ORDINARY STANDARDS of common curricula IN ADDITION to any 'religious' censoring' course/curricula offered by the cult leaders of that institution. Maybe then we wouldn't get these 'bilderbacks' running around as if they actually knew anything.
And that ORDINARY STANDARDS curricula should, as you say, include the basics of chemistry 'charge' principles/structures/mechanisms. Cheers and Hear! Hear!
RC.
.
Yes and in America there are some religious Institutes that are introducing their puppets into the political Arena so that laws can be passed for their benefit...
Numerous times these ridicules laws have been attempted, and as time goes by more and more religious puppets are going to allow these laws!...
I say religious Institutes should be all closed down or at the very least forced to educate their pupils with REAL facts!
If this is not done soon America will suffer!
To all the evolution proponents (except RC) - who think they can support their belief in evolution with actual factual evidence.......................
1. You mean like Galileo? Do you have any factual evidence to back up your claims that we're smarter today than we were 500 or 5000 years ago? Stating that we can make an airplane is not evidence. You would have to prove that human beings alive 500-5000 years ago, given the same instructions and materials, would not have been able to build the airplane - because their brains had not yet developed or evolved to the degree that we have evolved. I say, society has only built upon the knowledge of previous generations. Not even you (or anyone alive today) could build an airplane, if we put you back into the 16th century.
2. How did the structure or generation of DNA occur?
3. Please provide evidence for your claims of the so called 'huge evolutionary jump'. There must be fossils of ape to man like the popular (false) evolution of man drawings suggest (falsely). If there are missing fossils, please exlain why man could not have been created by God as it states in the Bible. Please explain why you put your faith in a system that has no evidence to back it up.
4. What was the purpose of losing the tail and the hair? (Didn't all those apes who moved north need that hair to keep 'em warm? Isn't that why animals have fur, to keep them warm, or to keep them cool? What's the point of losing something beneficial? Or do you feel the gorilla is a luckier animal than we are? Perhaps you would have preferred it if evolution had never come this far.)
5. What was the purpose of the mouth becoming smaller?
6. What was the purpose of the teeth taking on a different shape?
7. Why hasn't there been the slightest bit of evolutionary development/change in humans over the last 50,000 years? (like teeth for example) (evolution numbers, not mine)
8. Why don't any ape type animals display a need to draw their history onto rock?
9. Why doesn't any other living creature display human qualities or habits, most particularily of their own accord?
10. How do you explain the non-existence of time? If you cannot explain it - does that make it false?
11. What is outside our universe? If you cannot provide an answer, does that mean there's nothing?
12. Who created you? Your parents? How is that possible? Didn't you evolve? Didn't you come about naturally, and not as the result of someone's choice? If you agree that you came about as a result of someone's choice, please explain how there could not have been a God who chose to create mankind?
13. For those of you who are abortion activists, don't you agree that pregnancy is a choice? And also that men/women have power to choose who lives in dies in their own pee wee world?
14. And when you look at it that way, you abortion proponents/activists, doesn't it strike you odd to then also ask the question - how can God allow bad things to happen to good people? Aren't you, who are pro-abortion, willingly destroying a totally helpless life? What kind of a person could do that? Don't you see now, that God is not responsible for the evil in the world? You are. We are. I am. Don't you see that you/we/me have the power to be the sole cause of good in the world?
15. Please answer the above questions honestly, with your own opinions, and with factual evidence to back up your opinions or claims. If you do this, without criticizing the question (after all, what's the point in doing that?), I will seriously take a look at your honest opinions and factuallly supporting evidence. If I can refute it with evidence of my own - I will submit to your opinion for the time being. Deal?
Thank you,
1/.
Our Data base of information has increased and with a larger data base ones intellect increases... this itself is proof of evolving where one piece of data leads to more pieces of data..
The average shmo's data base of today is based on an evolved database.
If we were to educate an individual from 500 years ago, we may or may not have difficulties as we are not sure if the biological circuits available are of sufficient quantity... see evolutionary Psychology for more details..
2/.
How did RNA and its resulting DNA come about, is beyond this post and I recommend you research it your self, but when I say this I mean for you to access the tools and materials and REALLY see it for your self!...
3/.
Don't ya just love how Fred Flinstone owned a car way way back
Our intelligence is what has made a huge leap in a short time...
4/. 5/. 6/. 7/. 8/. 9/. 10/.
Changes occur most of the time slowly and for the most in tiny insignificant steps, Once in a while a small change can have a profound and huge difference.
11/.
The universe is just that! It is all that exists! If anything is discovered beyond - Then the only thing that changes is that our Database evolves a little more information to it...
12/.
Yes after the battle of the two cells the female egg and sperm die and amalgamate and as a result one single cell with a compromised gene sequence is now eking out its limited existence by scavenging the remains to where the dividing cells will eventually evolve organs to deal with an ever increasing need for more resources and the means for a more suitable environment, it will end up stretching the hosts available resources to the limits to where it will be forced to seek out other available resources by eventually leaving its host, commonly known as Birth!
13/. I say leave it up to each individual.
14/. Kill or be killed - To exist you must Kill and gorge on other living resources, be it animal or vegetable every thing is still made up of cells...
All cells are living entities regardless of the species, and Abortion is still about survival albeit inclined more to comfort of ones existence, Pro_abortionists and Antiabortionists are merely bullies!
15/.
May I suggest you find out for your self the real truth?
The tools are there for you, what is stopping you to see for your self?
Heres a thought... what facilitated gods intelligence? we know that intelligence is only gained by Data, and the more Data the greater the intellect and or intelligence, the evolution of our intellect over the past 500 years is proof of this...
as we know what the average shmo knows today is far more than the average shmo from a couple of centuries ago..
Lets go back when nothing existed and god was suppose to create the universe, hmmmm what a conundrum as we haven't given thought on what Data and more importantly where did the Data come from to facilitate said gods Intelligence, NO-THING EXISTED to avail Data to it before its claimed creation sequence!
Unless you are willing to concede that its intelligence evolved along withs its creations somehow!
To all the evolution proponents (except RC) - who think they can support their belief in evolution with actual factual evidence.......................
1. You mean like Galileo? Do you have any factual evidence to back up your claims that we're smarter today than we were 500 or 5000 years ago? Stating that we can make an airplane is not evidence. You would have to prove that human beings alive 500-5000 years ago, given the same instructions and materials, would not have been able to build the airplane - because their brains had not yet developed or evolved to the degree that we have evolved. I say, society has only built upon the knowledge of previous generations. Not even you (or anyone alive today) could build an airplane, if we put you back into the 16th century.
2. How did the structure or generation of DNA occur?
3. Please provide evidence for your claims of the so called 'huge evolutionary jump'. There must be fossils of ape to man like the popular (false) evolution of man drawings suggest (falsely). If there are missing fossils, please explain why man could not have been created by God as it states in the Bible. Please explain why you put your faith in a system that has no evidence to back it up.
4. What was the purpose of losing the tail and the hair? (Didn't all those apes who moved north need that hair to keep 'em warm? Isn't that why animals have fur, to keep them warm, or to keep them cool? What's the point of losing something beneficial? Or do you feel the gorilla is a luckier animal than we are? Perhaps you would have preferred it if evolution had never come this far.)
5. What was the purpose of the mouth becoming smaller?
6. What was the purpose of the teeth taking on a different shape?
7. Why hasn't there been the slightest bit of evolutionary development/change in humans over the last 50,000 years? (like teeth for example) (evolution numbers, not mine)
8. Why don't any ape type animals display a need to draw their history onto rock?
9. Why doesn't any other living creature display human qualities or habits, most particularily of their own accord?
10. How do you explain the non-existence of time? If you cannot explain it - does that make it false?
11. What is outside our universe? If you cannot provide an answer, does that mean there's nothing?
12. Who created you? Your parents? How is that possible? Didn't you evolve? Didn't you come about naturally, and not as the result of someone's choice? If you agree that you came about as a result of someone's choice, please explain how there could not have been a God who chose to create mankind?
13. For those of you who are abortion activists, don't you agree that pregnancy is a choice? And also that men/women have power to choose who lives in dies in their own pee wee world?
14. And when you look at it that way, you abortion proponents/activists, doesn't it strike you odd to then also ask the question - how can God allow bad things to happen to good people? Aren't you, who are pro-abortion, willingly destroying a totally helpless life? What kind of a person could do that? Don't you see now, that God is not responsible for the evil in the world? You are. We are. I am. Don't you see that you/we/me have the power to be the sole cause of good in the world?
15. Please answer the above questions honestly, with your own opinions, and with factual evidence to back up your opinions or claims. If you do this, without criticizing the question (after all, what's the point in doing that?), I will seriously take a look at your honest opinions and factuallly supporting evidence. If I can refute it with evidence of my own - I will submit to your opinion for the time being. Deal?
Thank you,
See what happens when you get sloppy with your nomenclature, Laidback? keep it tight in future
M...
1) You are right, there is no evidence.
2) If you mean nucleotides etc, that's organic chemistry - inherent in the elements C, H, O, N, P, etc. If I'm not mistaken such organic molecules are surprisingly common in space. If you mean genetic code, replication, transcription, translation etc etc we have no idea - only that it is very ancient because the genetic code is slightly different between say organelles like mitochondria and their eukaryote hosts. Mitochondria appear to be residual "parasite/symbiosis" (one bacterium living inside another bacterium) dating from when eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes. RNA is thought to predate DNA because of it's enzymatic activity. Also when you look at ribosomes - which are central to translation - that is reading the genetic code - the RNA components are absolutely critical whereas the protein components are less so.
3) Again, there is no evidence.
4) There is more genetic variation amongst Africans than amongst the whole of the rest of the world's population put together (part of the evidence that humans evolved in Africa). As all Africans are are as "hairless" and "tail-less" as say Finns or Native Americans, argues that the selection for those properties occurred earlier than the "diaspora" of humans round the globe.
5) I have no idea - what was God's purpose for "designing" smaller mouths?
6) Again difficult to say - such arguments are "post hoc" anyway. They have no bearing on the validity of evolution.
7) There has been much more than "the slightest bit of evolutionary development/change in humans over the last 50,000 years". From genetic studies, I believe there have been at least two "diasporas" from Africa. Aborigines reached Australia 50000 years ago when there was a land bridge (they subsequently became "protected" from further "invasions" by the sea when levels increased after the last ice age). Aborigines are noticeably different genetically from the humans involved in the more recent "diaspora" to America and Asia etc. Also within the members of that latter "diaspora", look at the physical differences, food tolerance differences, sun tolerance differences, disease tolerance differences etc between the human groups. That's just looking at their phenotypes - there's much more to see at the genotype level.
8) We're back to "post hoc" arguments. We are "ape type" by the way!
9) Like 5, 6 and 8 - why don't we fly or have gills to breath under water - your point is?
10) Oooo too deep. I thought entropy gave a direction to time? Also the planet we live on gives a pretty detailed record of the passage of time - plate tectonics, igneous rocks, sedimentation, metamorphic rocks, erosion, layering and deformation of strata, fossil distribution, living creature distribution etc.
11) No idea and Not necessarily.
12) From a coming together of egg and sperm from mother and father respectively - naturally. The first choice involved was whether they had sex on the occasion of my conception. The actual sperm that happened to enter the particular egg was a matter of luck. The second choice was an ongoing one to nurture me - or not - inside and outside the womb. All of this is an ongoing cycle of events. The whole process evolved - naturally. The individuals' involved are also part of the evolutionary process, partly by luck but mostly by natural selection - that is those genetically encoded qualities available that happen to increase the likelihood of their successfully mating and rearing offspring tend to be passed on to their offspring. Remember genes are not diluted. There could very well have been a God involved. Unfortunately for you, there is no evidence of a process or mechanism for a God's involvement.
13) I am not an abortion activist. The choices I described are above. Yes we appear to have that power and our "own pee wee world" is the only place we have evidence for so far.
14) I agree we are responsible for good and bad because there is no evidence for any God to whom to give the responsibility. We also define what is good and bad.
15) Well I've kept my end of the bargain or at least I have tried to - I only hope you do too. Anything I have written above has been from memory so please accept my apology if I've got a date wrong or made an error of detail. I'm only human!
Apparently ID doesn't actually look for, or care anything about the designer. Besides, the followers of ID would say "nope, it stops at god, because he is god" or something to that effect.
Nope, of course they can say "It stops with God" but we could say the same thing. It opens the door for me to say "There were always humans" or "It stops with vacuum fluctuations." The point is a God is infinitely more complex than simple matter/anti-matter. Hence ID proves a God is impossible. Unless they adhere to a double standard of ID.
1. I agree with swimmer. There is no evidence we are 'smarter' today than 500 years ago. We have alot more recorded knowledge today than 500 years ago though. I like to think of the learning process this way. Think of when you start using a new computer program (I taught myself how to use a new one today, a nonlinear regression program if anyone is interested haha). Without looking at the instructions or help section it takes a long time to figure out how to get one thing to work, and same with a second thing...but once you have figured out a few things, figuring out other things is easier, and goes a lot faster. The same trend has been seen in the evolution of human knowledge (NOT intelligence, evolution here does not mean biological evolution, just a change over time). It took a long time for humans to harness fire, and other things, then you get to the bronze age where knowledge advances faster.....and the trend is continuing. Everyone talks about the advances of the scientific revolution, but they depended so much on the knowledge from previous generations. I think it was Newton who said something about all of his accomplishments in mathematics were because he was standing on the shoulders of giants. I highly doubt that if you took a baby born in 1500 and gave it a standard IQ test that the results would be any different from a baby born today (barring the normal small scale discrepancies. But since we can't, lets just assume all intelligence was the same. I mean, I am not a dumb guy. I am good at math, and good at physics, but there is NO WAY I could have invented calculus and written the laws that still govern most of engineering today. So by that 'rigorous proof' People from the 17th century are smarter than us now (or really, Newton is smarter than me!)
2. No clue
3. No clue of a huge evolutionary jump, but as far as being created in the way of the bible, we have fossils, and dating that predates the beginning of time according to the bible with humans around then. This does disprove the genisis creation account.
4. No idea, although I have heard of a shoreline type of environment where early humans would have been in the water a lot. As anyone with long hair knows....body hair + water = cold! So if that idea had any evidence there is a possible answer.
6/7. I have no idea, although I wonder if the changes in teeth were around the same time humans started using fire to cook meat? I think those might be related....however that is only unknowledgable speculation
8. I think that was supposed to be because of their lacking ability for abstract thought. Again, I don't know much about it, but I think other hominids (Neandrathals) did draw things in caves and such. Not sure though.
9. Doesn't your pet dog ziggy display some human attributes? Can you not tell when he is happy, or sad, or wants something, or sleepy, or energetic? Some animals are very affectionate to their young, like humans are. I have seen my cat get very mad before, get distressed. So I disagree, because I think many animals display behavioural characteristics that humans also display.
10. What do you mean the non existance of time? Time exists, and is defined very precisely. A second is the time of a few billion (to lazy to look it up, if you are curious, look up 'SI definition of a second') ocsilations of an excited state of a cesuim atom. Time is defined by simple counting. And like swimmer said, Entropy regulates the direction that time passes. Entropy for the universe always increases with time.
11. Outside of our universe. Well there may be an 11 dimensional universe with us (a 4D brane) floating around inside of it. It might be a zoo filled with spagetti monsters and purple invisible elephants. Hehehe. The fact is we have no way of actually knowing. Anything is pure speculation. My first example is more scientifically plausible, but neither is experimentally testable.
12. My parents created me because they wanted a baby. And what a baby I turned out to be if I do say so myself hahaha. But the decision to procreate by two members of a species does no way prove god created that species. Thats a huge jump in logic....and one that I just don't follow.
13. I have been pretty calm now, and I will try not to angry from these ones. You are labelling people unjustly. I am not pro abortion, as I have said many times, i am pro choice. I haven't said I would want to decide to get an abortion. But I don't think you, or I, should have the right to decide if someone else can and can not get an abortion. So please do not label me, or others here (unless they say "I am pro abortion") as pro abortion. The term is pro choice. I bet you a lot of the 'abortion supporters' would not even get an abortion, just think it should be an available option.
14. I agree, we are the ones who are in control of the good and bad things....that and random chance. I actually think that many of the bad things that happen are just random chance. All of the victims from the huricane........they didn't neccessarily do anything bad, they just were unlucky to live where they did at that time.
15. Well, I answered everything honestly, with my opinions. Some of my answers are speculation not fact, but they have been labelled as such, so there should be no problem with those.
Intelligent Design gets a boost in Canada.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[SIZE=7][font=Times]Canadian scientists want out of Darwin's rut
Tom Blackwell
National Post
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
A handful of Canadian scientists are speaking out against evolution as an explanation for all of life as we know it, saying the complexity of living things simply cannot be attributed to biological chance.
Nine university professors and others with science or engineering PhDs have added their names to an American petition that voices skepticism about the theory of evolution. The list was posted on the Internet this week.
At least two of the scientists teach at Christian universities, while another runs an organization dedicated to the links between Islam and science.
Some of those contacted yesterday acknowledged their doubts about Darwinism coincide with their religious beliefs, and espoused the controversial idea of "intelligent design" -- that some guiding hand was behind life on Earth. But one molecular biologist said he is convinced that science is stuck in an evolutionary "rut" and must seek better explanations for the existence of elaborate biological structures.
"I look at biology as being a very complicated computer code," said Stephen Cheesman, a geophysics PhD and software developer who compares genetic systems to languages created by humans.
"There is no way I could create a code like this..... In the DNA, you have a novel, a long novel, spelled out, which produces us."
Any scientist who disputes evolution, should not be labeled a Scientists unless they intend to provide evidence against every bit of evidence that points to evolution..
We live in an era where we have the advantage of being aware of us humans making a huge evolutionary jump!.. Granted it isn't a biological one, but never the less in half a century, the average shmo's intellect has increased over even the most intelligent individual from 500 years ago..
Each tiny bit of extra information we know may seem insignificant, but just like if we remove any biological bits should we remove tiny bits of information for example like how we use oil to create Plastics, the loss of this information will have massive consequences and could bring our current society to its knees..
The end products that use plastic are depended on many tiny important steps that created Plastic.
Likewise our bodies have evolved with over millions and millions of small changes..
Having stated this, I must say the nine childre !? ? Errrr~ I mean nine scientists must have intellect's comparable to intellects of over 500 years ago, and the only way this could occur is if those scientists were taught or professed to - by individuals that are relying more on archaic Data such as the bible rather than up to date Data...
Private Religious schools are the main offenders of omitting critical Data on the premise that it will lead sect members to the REAL Truth and away from religion meaning a loss of income and or sect members...
All we can do is insist these quacks produce evidence supporting their wild claims and wait for the expected apology once they discover that they have been deceived by those that educated them...
Besides - When it comes down to our Genetic Code, What is so hard to understand about how only certain bonds can be made?
I think it is high time that all individuals that are to work and or research with Genes should learn a Little more physics! In particular about the Atoms and their respective valence's, Molecules how and why bonds do or do not occur etc...
I think once how these basics are professed or availed to all biology students, Life and evolution wont seem that much of a mystery anymore..
What say you?
Hi Laidback!
I support your proposal 100%. You know why? Well....do you remember some time back in these forums one "S. Bilderback"? Well, HE professed that he was a "TEACHER" (contrary to the evidence in his abysmally ignorant posts) and I had to explain to him that ALL material interactions boil down to 'charge' interactions, and 'partial/stable' charge 'states' and charge 'transport' among atoms/molecules and NATURALLY simple/complex molecular 'structures'mechanisms'. Do you believe it?...that person (I STILL CAN'T bring myself to believe him to be either scientist OR teacher in charge of others' education...ugh!) didn't know ANYTHING about how simple matter 'organises' according to the 'valence' states/configurations involved and brought about NATURALLY either by random chance and/or 'catalysed' reactions/processes to create 'charge transport mechanism/structure' assemblages in CRYSTALS/FILAMENTS in IN-ORGANIC CHEMISTRY as WELL as DNA/RNA and PROTEINS in ORGANIC chemistry?
Some 'scientist' and 'scholar' and 'teacher', heh? WHERE WAS HE HIMSELF TAUGHT I WONDER? What a woeful preparation, for someone supposedly to be responsible for the TRUE and COMPLETE education of children! Makes one cringe at the wilfully dishonest and wicked disservice some of our youngsters are trapped into suffering at the hands of these so-called 'educated' ignoramuses 'graduating' from 'religious' centres of ignorance (not learning, that's for sure!).
ALL such 'religious' institutions should be required to satisfy the ORDINARY STANDARDS of common curricula IN ADDITION to any 'religious' censoring' course/curricula offered by the cult leaders of that institution. Maybe then we wouldn't get these 'bilderbacks' running around as if they actually knew anything.
And that ORDINARY STANDARDS curricula should, as you say, include the basics of chemistry 'charge' principles/structures/mechanisms. Cheers and Hear! Hear!
RC.
.
QUOTE
quote by Laidback,
We live in an era where we have the advantage of being aware of us humans making a huge evolutionary jump!.. Granted it isn't a biological one, but never the less in half a century, the average shmo's intellect has increased over even the most intelligent individual from 500 years ago..
Having stated this, I must say the nine childre !? ? Errrr~ I mean nine scientists must have intellect's comparable to intellects of over 500 years ago, and the only way this could occur is if those scientists were taught or professed to - by individuals that are relying more on archaic Data such as the bible rather than up to date Data...
We live in an era where we have the advantage of being aware of us humans making a huge evolutionary jump!.. Granted it isn't a biological one, but never the less in half a century, the average shmo's intellect has increased over even the most intelligent individual from 500 years ago..
Having stated this, I must say the nine childre !? ? Errrr~ I mean nine scientists must have intellect's comparable to intellects of over 500 years ago, and the only way this could occur is if those scientists were taught or professed to - by individuals that are relying more on archaic Data such as the bible rather than up to date Data...
To all the evolution proponents (except RC) - who think they can support their belief in evolution with actual factual evidence.......................
1. You mean like Galileo? Do you have any factual evidence to back up your claims that we're smarter today than we were 500 or 5000 years ago? Stating that we can make an airplane is not evidence. You would have to prove that human beings alive 500-5000 years ago, given the same instructions and materials, would not have been able to build the airplane - because their brains had not yet developed or evolved to the degree that we have evolved. I say, society has only built upon the knowledge of previous generations. Not even you (or anyone alive today) could build an airplane, if we put you back into the 16th century.
2. How did the structure or generation of DNA occur?
3. Please provide evidence for your claims of the so called 'huge evolutionary jump'. There must be fossils of ape to man like the popular (false) evolution of man drawings suggest (falsely). If there are missing fossils, please exlain why man could not have been created by God as it states in the Bible. Please explain why you put your faith in a system that has no evidence to back it up.
4. What was the purpose of losing the tail and the hair? (Didn't all those apes who moved north need that hair to keep 'em warm? Isn't that why animals have fur, to keep them warm, or to keep them cool? What's the point of losing something beneficial? Or do you feel the gorilla is a luckier animal than we are? Perhaps you would have preferred it if evolution had never come this far.)
5. What was the purpose of the mouth becoming smaller?
6. What was the purpose of the teeth taking on a different shape?
7. Why hasn't there been the slightest bit of evolutionary development/change in humans over the last 50,000 years? (like teeth for example) (evolution numbers, not mine)
8. Why don't any ape type animals display a need to draw their history onto rock?
9. Why doesn't any other living creature display human qualities or habits, most particularily of their own accord?
10. How do you explain the non-existence of time? If you cannot explain it - does that make it false?
11. What is outside our universe? If you cannot provide an answer, does that mean there's nothing?
12. Who created you? Your parents? How is that possible? Didn't you evolve? Didn't you come about naturally, and not as the result of someone's choice? If you agree that you came about as a result of someone's choice, please explain how there could not have been a God who chose to create mankind?
13. For those of you who are abortion activists, don't you agree that pregnancy is a choice? And also that men/women have power to choose who lives in dies in their own pee wee world?
14. And when you look at it that way, you abortion proponents/activists, doesn't it strike you odd to then also ask the question - how can God allow bad things to happen to good people? Aren't you, who are pro-abortion, willingly destroying a totally helpless life? What kind of a person could do that? Don't you see now, that God is not responsible for the evil in the world? You are. We are. I am. Don't you see that you/we/me have the power to be the sole cause of good in the world?
15. Please answer the above questions honestly, with your own opinions, and with factual evidence to back up your opinions or claims. If you do this, without criticizing the question (after all, what's the point in doing that?), I will seriously take a look at your honest opinions and factuallly supporting evidence. If I can refute it with evidence of my own - I will submit to your opinion for the time being. Deal?
Thank you,
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Feb 23 2006, 11:28 PM)
QUOTE
Any scientist who disputes evolution, should not be labeled a Scientists unless they intend to provide evidence against every bit of evidence that points to evolution..
We live in an era where we have the advantage of being aware of us humans making a huge evolutionary jump!.. Granted it isn't a biological one, but never the less in half a century, the average shmo's intellect has increased over even the most intelligent individual from 500 years ago..
Each tiny bit of extra information we know may seem insignificant, but just like if we remove any biological bits should we remove tiny bits of information for example like how we use oil to create Plastics, the loss of this information will have massive consequences and could bring our current society to its knees..
The end products that use plastic are depended on many tiny important steps that created Plastic.
Likewise our bodies have evolved with over millions and millions of small changes..
Having stated this, I must say the nine childre !? ? Errrr~ I mean nine scientists must have intellect's comparable to intellects of over 500 years ago, and the only way this could occur is if those scientists were taught or professed to - by individuals that are relying more on archaic Data such as the bible rather than up to date Data...
Private Religious schools are the main offenders of omitting critical Data on the premise that it will lead sect members to the REAL Truth and away from religion meaning a loss of income and or sect members...
All we can do is insist these quacks produce evidence supporting their wild claims and wait for the expected apology once they discover that they have been deceived by those that educated them...
Besides - When it comes down to our Genetic Code, What is so hard to understand about how only certain bonds can be made?
I think it is high time that all individuals that are to work and or research with Genes should learn a Little more physics! In particular about the Atoms and their respective valence's, Molecules how and why bonds do or do not occur etc...
I think once how these basics are professed or availed to all biology students, Life and evolution wont seem that much of a mystery anymore..
What say you?
We live in an era where we have the advantage of being aware of us humans making a huge evolutionary jump!.. Granted it isn't a biological one, but never the less in half a century, the average shmo's intellect has increased over even the most intelligent individual from 500 years ago..
Each tiny bit of extra information we know may seem insignificant, but just like if we remove any biological bits should we remove tiny bits of information for example like how we use oil to create Plastics, the loss of this information will have massive consequences and could bring our current society to its knees..
The end products that use plastic are depended on many tiny important steps that created Plastic.
Likewise our bodies have evolved with over millions and millions of small changes..
Having stated this, I must say the nine childre !? ? Errrr~ I mean nine scientists must have intellect's comparable to intellects of over 500 years ago, and the only way this could occur is if those scientists were taught or professed to - by individuals that are relying more on archaic Data such as the bible rather than up to date Data...
Private Religious schools are the main offenders of omitting critical Data on the premise that it will lead sect members to the REAL Truth and away from religion meaning a loss of income and or sect members...
All we can do is insist these quacks produce evidence supporting their wild claims and wait for the expected apology once they discover that they have been deceived by those that educated them...
Besides - When it comes down to our Genetic Code, What is so hard to understand about how only certain bonds can be made?
I think it is high time that all individuals that are to work and or research with Genes should learn a Little more physics! In particular about the Atoms and their respective valence's, Molecules how and why bonds do or do not occur etc...
I think once how these basics are professed or availed to all biology students, Life and evolution wont seem that much of a mystery anymore..
What say you?
Hi Laidback!
I support your proposal 100%. You know why? Well....do you remember some time back in these forums one "S. Bilderback"? Well, HE professed that he was a "TEACHER" (contrary to the evidence in his abysmally ignorant posts) and I had to explain to him that ALL material interactions boil down to 'charge' interactions, and 'partial/stable' charge 'states' and charge 'transport' among atoms/molecules and NATURALLY simple/complex molecular 'structures'mechanisms'. Do you believe it?...that person (I STILL CAN'T bring myself to believe him to be either scientist OR teacher in charge of others' education...ugh!) didn't know ANYTHING about how simple matter 'organises' according to the 'valence' states/configurations involved and brought about NATURALLY either by random chance and/or 'catalysed' reactions/processes to create 'charge transport mechanism/structure' assemblages in CRYSTALS/FILAMENTS in IN-ORGANIC CHEMISTRY as WELL as DNA/RNA and PROTEINS in ORGANIC chemistry?
Some scientists and scholar and teacher, heh? WHERE WAS HE HIMSELF TAUGHT I WONDER? What a woeful preparation, for someone supposedly to be responsible for the TRUE and COMPLETE education of children! Makes one cringe at the wilfully dishonest and wicked disservice some of our youngsters are trapped into suffering at the hands of these so-called 'educated' ignoramuses 'graduating' from 'religious' centres of ignorance (not learning, that's for sure!).
ALL such 'religious' institutions should be required to satisfy the ORDINARY STANDARDS of common curricula IN ADDITION to any 'religious' censoring' course/curricula offered by the cult leaders of that institution. Maybe then we wouldn't get these 'bilderbacks' running around as if they actually knew anything.
And that ORDINARY STANDARDS curricula should, as you say, include the basics of chemistry 'charge' principles/structures/mechanisms. Cheers and Hear! Hear!
RC.
.
Yes and in America there are some religious Institutes that are introducing their puppets into the political Arena so that laws can be passed for their benefit...
Numerous times these ridicules laws have been attempted, and as time goes by more and more religious puppets are going to allow these laws!...
I say religious Institutes should be all closed down or at the very least forced to educate their pupils with REAL facts!
If this is not done soon America will suffer!
QUOTE (Messenger+Feb 23 2006, 08:10 AM)
...Tony Jelsma, a Burlington, Ont., native with a biochemistry PhD from McMaster University, said he teaches evolution to his students at Dordt College, a Christian university in Sioux Center, Ind., but points out what he believes are its flaws.
For starters, it cannot explain how the whole process of life on Earth began, he said.
"If you look at the research into the origin of life, there isn't a single, plausible hypothesis or even proposed mechanism [within evolution] that would have worked," he said.
"That is the biggest shortcoming in the whole evolutionary scenario."...
Thanks for the post - really enjoyed it. I wonder if any of them were athiests?
You know, Dr Jelsma is right. How life began is the biggest shortcoming. If only Darwin had proposed "God started life". That would have completely satisfied Dr Jelsma's questions concerning "plausible hypothesis" the "process" and "proposed mechanism". It's "plausible" because that's what goat herders believed 5000 odd years ago and what's good enough for them most certainly should be for us. It's a "hypothesis" because we can easily devise tests of its validity - you know like the ones you suggested, M. It's a "process" which can be teased apart to reveal the components of the "mechanism" - as you can with other processes like "shazzam" or "abracadabra".
Yes, how can Darwin have been so blind???
Just think if Newton sitting under his tree had only hypothesised "apples fall 'cos they do, under instruction from God". And had gone on to rigorously propose, "Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless acted upon by God". And of course "Force is equal to the change in the speed of Godliness (Godmentum) per change in time, or the relationship between an object's Godliness G, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = Ga". And finally "For every action there is an equal and opposite God.
Ah well Newton - so close, but not close enough - we can't all get it right can we?
For starters, it cannot explain how the whole process of life on Earth began, he said.
"If you look at the research into the origin of life, there isn't a single, plausible hypothesis or even proposed mechanism [within evolution] that would have worked," he said.
"That is the biggest shortcoming in the whole evolutionary scenario."...
Thanks for the post - really enjoyed it. I wonder if any of them were athiests?
You know, Dr Jelsma is right. How life began is the biggest shortcoming. If only Darwin had proposed "God started life". That would have completely satisfied Dr Jelsma's questions concerning "plausible hypothesis" the "process" and "proposed mechanism". It's "plausible" because that's what goat herders believed 5000 odd years ago and what's good enough for them most certainly should be for us. It's a "hypothesis" because we can easily devise tests of its validity - you know like the ones you suggested, M. It's a "process" which can be teased apart to reveal the components of the "mechanism" - as you can with other processes like "shazzam" or "abracadabra".
Yes, how can Darwin have been so blind???
Just think if Newton sitting under his tree had only hypothesised "apples fall 'cos they do, under instruction from God". And had gone on to rigorously propose, "Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless acted upon by God". And of course "Force is equal to the change in the speed of Godliness (Godmentum) per change in time, or the relationship between an object's Godliness G, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = Ga". And finally "For every action there is an equal and opposite God.
Ah well Newton - so close, but not close enough - we can't all get it right can we?
QUOTE (Steveo+Feb 23 2006, 06:34 PM)
...Recently a Historian got sentenced to 3 years in an Austrian jail for denying the holocast. Does that mean that amoung historians there is debate and controversy over whether or not the holocast took place? Just learn about evolution with an open mind.
Excellent, excellent point.
Excellent, excellent point.
QUOTE (Laidback+Feb 23 2006, 10:43 PM)
...We live in an era where we have the advantage of being aware of us humans making a huge evolutionary jump!.. Granted it isn't a biological one, but never the less in half a century, the average shmo's intellect has increased over even the most intelligent individual from 500 years ago...
Errr??
I don't think you're correct on these two issues.
1) A huge "non biological" evolutionary jump???? There haven't been any "evolutionary" jumps apart our knowledge.
2) Intellect increased over 500years??? Again intellect has not "jumped" either, we're no brighter these days, only more knowledgeable.
What "surprises" me is that despite this massive increase in knowledge, so many people prefer to be stuck in the "Bronze Age".
Errr??
I don't think you're correct on these two issues.
1) A huge "non biological" evolutionary jump???? There haven't been any "evolutionary" jumps apart our knowledge.
2) Intellect increased over 500years??? Again intellect has not "jumped" either, we're no brighter these days, only more knowledgeable.
What "surprises" me is that despite this massive increase in knowledge, so many people prefer to be stuck in the "Bronze Age".
QUOTE (Messenger+Feb 24 2006, 12:02 AM)
QUOTE
quote by Laidback,
We live in an era where we have the advantage of being aware of us humans making a huge evolutionary jump!.. Granted it isn't a biological one, but never the less in half a century, the average shmo's intellect has increased over even the most intelligent individual from 500 years ago..
Having stated this, I must say the nine childre !? ? Errrr~ I mean nine scientists must have intellect's comparable to intellects of over 500 years ago, and the only way this could occur is if those scientists were taught or professed to - by individuals that are relying more on archaic Data such as the bible rather than up to date Data...
We live in an era where we have the advantage of being aware of us humans making a huge evolutionary jump!.. Granted it isn't a biological one, but never the less in half a century, the average shmo's intellect has increased over even the most intelligent individual from 500 years ago..
Having stated this, I must say the nine childre !? ? Errrr~ I mean nine scientists must have intellect's comparable to intellects of over 500 years ago, and the only way this could occur is if those scientists were taught or professed to - by individuals that are relying more on archaic Data such as the bible rather than up to date Data...
To all the evolution proponents (except RC) - who think they can support their belief in evolution with actual factual evidence.......................
1. You mean like Galileo? Do you have any factual evidence to back up your claims that we're smarter today than we were 500 or 5000 years ago? Stating that we can make an airplane is not evidence. You would have to prove that human beings alive 500-5000 years ago, given the same instructions and materials, would not have been able to build the airplane - because their brains had not yet developed or evolved to the degree that we have evolved. I say, society has only built upon the knowledge of previous generations. Not even you (or anyone alive today) could build an airplane, if we put you back into the 16th century.
2. How did the structure or generation of DNA occur?
3. Please provide evidence for your claims of the so called 'huge evolutionary jump'. There must be fossils of ape to man like the popular (false) evolution of man drawings suggest (falsely). If there are missing fossils, please exlain why man could not have been created by God as it states in the Bible. Please explain why you put your faith in a system that has no evidence to back it up.
4. What was the purpose of losing the tail and the hair? (Didn't all those apes who moved north need that hair to keep 'em warm? Isn't that why animals have fur, to keep them warm, or to keep them cool? What's the point of losing something beneficial? Or do you feel the gorilla is a luckier animal than we are? Perhaps you would have preferred it if evolution had never come this far.)
5. What was the purpose of the mouth becoming smaller?
6. What was the purpose of the teeth taking on a different shape?
7. Why hasn't there been the slightest bit of evolutionary development/change in humans over the last 50,000 years? (like teeth for example) (evolution numbers, not mine)
8. Why don't any ape type animals display a need to draw their history onto rock?
9. Why doesn't any other living creature display human qualities or habits, most particularily of their own accord?
10. How do you explain the non-existence of time? If you cannot explain it - does that make it false?
11. What is outside our universe? If you cannot provide an answer, does that mean there's nothing?
12. Who created you? Your parents? How is that possible? Didn't you evolve? Didn't you come about naturally, and not as the result of someone's choice? If you agree that you came about as a result of someone's choice, please explain how there could not have been a God who chose to create mankind?
13. For those of you who are abortion activists, don't you agree that pregnancy is a choice? And also that men/women have power to choose who lives in dies in their own pee wee world?
14. And when you look at it that way, you abortion proponents/activists, doesn't it strike you odd to then also ask the question - how can God allow bad things to happen to good people? Aren't you, who are pro-abortion, willingly destroying a totally helpless life? What kind of a person could do that? Don't you see now, that God is not responsible for the evil in the world? You are. We are. I am. Don't you see that you/we/me have the power to be the sole cause of good in the world?
15. Please answer the above questions honestly, with your own opinions, and with factual evidence to back up your opinions or claims. If you do this, without criticizing the question (after all, what's the point in doing that?), I will seriously take a look at your honest opinions and factuallly supporting evidence. If I can refute it with evidence of my own - I will submit to your opinion for the time being. Deal?
Thank you,
1/.
Our Data base of information has increased and with a larger data base ones intellect increases... this itself is proof of evolving where one piece of data leads to more pieces of data..
The average shmo's data base of today is based on an evolved database.
If we were to educate an individual from 500 years ago, we may or may not have difficulties as we are not sure if the biological circuits available are of sufficient quantity... see evolutionary Psychology for more details..
2/.
How did RNA and its resulting DNA come about, is beyond this post and I recommend you research it your self, but when I say this I mean for you to access the tools and materials and REALLY see it for your self!...
3/.
Don't ya just love how Fred Flinstone owned a car way way back
Our intelligence is what has made a huge leap in a short time...
4/. 5/. 6/. 7/. 8/. 9/. 10/.
Changes occur most of the time slowly and for the most in tiny insignificant steps, Once in a while a small change can have a profound and huge difference.
11/.
The universe is just that! It is all that exists! If anything is discovered beyond - Then the only thing that changes is that our Database evolves a little more information to it...
12/.
Yes after the battle of the two cells the female egg and sperm die and amalgamate and as a result one single cell with a compromised gene sequence is now eking out its limited existence by scavenging the remains to where the dividing cells will eventually evolve organs to deal with an ever increasing need for more resources and the means for a more suitable environment, it will end up stretching the hosts available resources to the limits to where it will be forced to seek out other available resources by eventually leaving its host, commonly known as Birth!
13/. I say leave it up to each individual.
14/. Kill or be killed - To exist you must Kill and gorge on other living resources, be it animal or vegetable every thing is still made up of cells...
All cells are living entities regardless of the species, and Abortion is still about survival albeit inclined more to comfort of ones existence, Pro_abortionists and Antiabortionists are merely bullies!
15/.
May I suggest you find out for your self the real truth?
The tools are there for you, what is stopping you to see for your self?
Heres a thought... what facilitated gods intelligence? we know that intelligence is only gained by Data, and the more Data the greater the intellect and or intelligence, the evolution of our intellect over the past 500 years is proof of this...
as we know what the average shmo knows today is far more than the average shmo from a couple of centuries ago..
Lets go back when nothing existed and god was suppose to create the universe, hmmmm what a conundrum as we haven't given thought on what Data and more importantly where did the Data come from to facilitate said gods Intelligence, NO-THING EXISTED to avail Data to it before its claimed creation sequence!
Unless you are willing to concede that its intelligence evolved along withs its creations somehow!
QUOTE (Messenger+Feb 24 2006, 12:02 AM)
QUOTE
quote by Laidback,
We live in an era where we have the advantage of being aware of us humans making a huge evolutionary jump!.. Granted it isn't a biological one, but never the less in half a century, the average shmo's intellect has increased over even the most intelligent individual from 500 years ago..
Having stated this, I must say the nine childre !? ? Errrr~ I mean nine scientists must have intellect's comparable to intellects of over 500 years ago, and the only way this could occur is if those scientists were taught or professed to - by individuals that are relying more on archaic Data such as the bible rather than up to date Data...
We live in an era where we have the advantage of being aware of us humans making a huge evolutionary jump!.. Granted it isn't a biological one, but never the less in half a century, the average shmo's intellect has increased over even the most intelligent individual from 500 years ago..
Having stated this, I must say the nine childre !? ? Errrr~ I mean nine scientists must have intellect's comparable to intellects of over 500 years ago, and the only way this could occur is if those scientists were taught or professed to - by individuals that are relying more on archaic Data such as the bible rather than up to date Data...
To all the evolution proponents (except RC) - who think they can support their belief in evolution with actual factual evidence.......................
1. You mean like Galileo? Do you have any factual evidence to back up your claims that we're smarter today than we were 500 or 5000 years ago? Stating that we can make an airplane is not evidence. You would have to prove that human beings alive 500-5000 years ago, given the same instructions and materials, would not have been able to build the airplane - because their brains had not yet developed or evolved to the degree that we have evolved. I say, society has only built upon the knowledge of previous generations. Not even you (or anyone alive today) could build an airplane, if we put you back into the 16th century.
2. How did the structure or generation of DNA occur?
3. Please provide evidence for your claims of the so called 'huge evolutionary jump'. There must be fossils of ape to man like the popular (false) evolution of man drawings suggest (falsely). If there are missing fossils, please explain why man could not have been created by God as it states in the Bible. Please explain why you put your faith in a system that has no evidence to back it up.
4. What was the purpose of losing the tail and the hair? (Didn't all those apes who moved north need that hair to keep 'em warm? Isn't that why animals have fur, to keep them warm, or to keep them cool? What's the point of losing something beneficial? Or do you feel the gorilla is a luckier animal than we are? Perhaps you would have preferred it if evolution had never come this far.)
5. What was the purpose of the mouth becoming smaller?
6. What was the purpose of the teeth taking on a different shape?
7. Why hasn't there been the slightest bit of evolutionary development/change in humans over the last 50,000 years? (like teeth for example) (evolution numbers, not mine)
8. Why don't any ape type animals display a need to draw their history onto rock?
9. Why doesn't any other living creature display human qualities or habits, most particularily of their own accord?
10. How do you explain the non-existence of time? If you cannot explain it - does that make it false?
11. What is outside our universe? If you cannot provide an answer, does that mean there's nothing?
12. Who created you? Your parents? How is that possible? Didn't you evolve? Didn't you come about naturally, and not as the result of someone's choice? If you agree that you came about as a result of someone's choice, please explain how there could not have been a God who chose to create mankind?
13. For those of you who are abortion activists, don't you agree that pregnancy is a choice? And also that men/women have power to choose who lives in dies in their own pee wee world?
14. And when you look at it that way, you abortion proponents/activists, doesn't it strike you odd to then also ask the question - how can God allow bad things to happen to good people? Aren't you, who are pro-abortion, willingly destroying a totally helpless life? What kind of a person could do that? Don't you see now, that God is not responsible for the evil in the world? You are. We are. I am. Don't you see that you/we/me have the power to be the sole cause of good in the world?
15. Please answer the above questions honestly, with your own opinions, and with factual evidence to back up your opinions or claims. If you do this, without criticizing the question (after all, what's the point in doing that?), I will seriously take a look at your honest opinions and factuallly supporting evidence. If I can refute it with evidence of my own - I will submit to your opinion for the time being. Deal?
Thank you,
See what happens when you get sloppy with your nomenclature, Laidback? keep it tight in future
M...
1) You are right, there is no evidence.
2) If you mean nucleotides etc, that's organic chemistry - inherent in the elements C, H, O, N, P, etc. If I'm not mistaken such organic molecules are surprisingly common in space. If you mean genetic code, replication, transcription, translation etc etc we have no idea - only that it is very ancient because the genetic code is slightly different between say organelles like mitochondria and their eukaryote hosts. Mitochondria appear to be residual "parasite/symbiosis" (one bacterium living inside another bacterium) dating from when eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes. RNA is thought to predate DNA because of it's enzymatic activity. Also when you look at ribosomes - which are central to translation - that is reading the genetic code - the RNA components are absolutely critical whereas the protein components are less so.
3) Again, there is no evidence.
4) There is more genetic variation amongst Africans than amongst the whole of the rest of the world's population put together (part of the evidence that humans evolved in Africa). As all Africans are are as "hairless" and "tail-less" as say Finns or Native Americans, argues that the selection for those properties occurred earlier than the "diaspora" of humans round the globe.
5) I have no idea - what was God's purpose for "designing" smaller mouths?
6) Again difficult to say - such arguments are "post hoc" anyway. They have no bearing on the validity of evolution.
7) There has been much more than "the slightest bit of evolutionary development/change in humans over the last 50,000 years". From genetic studies, I believe there have been at least two "diasporas" from Africa. Aborigines reached Australia 50000 years ago when there was a land bridge (they subsequently became "protected" from further "invasions" by the sea when levels increased after the last ice age). Aborigines are noticeably different genetically from the humans involved in the more recent "diaspora" to America and Asia etc. Also within the members of that latter "diaspora", look at the physical differences, food tolerance differences, sun tolerance differences, disease tolerance differences etc between the human groups. That's just looking at their phenotypes - there's much more to see at the genotype level.
8) We're back to "post hoc" arguments. We are "ape type" by the way!
9) Like 5, 6 and 8 - why don't we fly or have gills to breath under water - your point is?
10) Oooo too deep. I thought entropy gave a direction to time? Also the planet we live on gives a pretty detailed record of the passage of time - plate tectonics, igneous rocks, sedimentation, metamorphic rocks, erosion, layering and deformation of strata, fossil distribution, living creature distribution etc.
11) No idea and Not necessarily.
12) From a coming together of egg and sperm from mother and father respectively - naturally. The first choice involved was whether they had sex on the occasion of my conception. The actual sperm that happened to enter the particular egg was a matter of luck. The second choice was an ongoing one to nurture me - or not - inside and outside the womb. All of this is an ongoing cycle of events. The whole process evolved - naturally. The individuals' involved are also part of the evolutionary process, partly by luck but mostly by natural selection - that is those genetically encoded qualities available that happen to increase the likelihood of their successfully mating and rearing offspring tend to be passed on to their offspring. Remember genes are not diluted. There could very well have been a God involved. Unfortunately for you, there is no evidence of a process or mechanism for a God's involvement.
13) I am not an abortion activist. The choices I described are above. Yes we appear to have that power and our "own pee wee world" is the only place we have evidence for so far.
14) I agree we are responsible for good and bad because there is no evidence for any God to whom to give the responsibility. We also define what is good and bad.
15) Well I've kept my end of the bargain or at least I have tried to - I only hope you do too. Anything I have written above has been from memory so please accept my apology if I've got a date wrong or made an error of detail. I'm only human!
QUOTE (Steveo+Feb 23 2006, 10:41 PM)
QUOTE
Isn't an entity which has the intelligence to create [ALL] in itself complex? If so, doesn't Intelligent design prove God must itself have been created or doesn't exist?
Apparently ID doesn't actually look for, or care anything about the designer. Besides, the followers of ID would say "nope, it stops at god, because he is god" or something to that effect.
Nope, of course they can say "It stops with God" but we could say the same thing. It opens the door for me to say "There were always humans" or "It stops with vacuum fluctuations." The point is a God is infinitely more complex than simple matter/anti-matter. Hence ID proves a God is impossible. Unless they adhere to a double standard of ID.
QUOTE
To all the evolution proponents (except RC) - who think they can support their belief in evolution with actual factual evidence.......................
1. You mean like Galileo? Do you have any factual evidence to back up your claims that we're smarter today than we were 500 or 5000 years ago? Stating that we can make an airplane is not evidence. You would have to prove that human beings alive 500-5000 years ago, given the same instructions and materials, would not have been able to build the airplane - because their brains had not yet developed or evolved to the degree that we have evolved. I say, society has only built upon the knowledge of previous generations. Not even you (or anyone alive today) could build an airplane, if we put you back into the 16th century.
2. How did the structure or generation of DNA occur?
3. Please provide evidence for your claims of the so called 'huge evolutionary jump'. There must be fossils of ape to man like the popular (false) evolution of man drawings suggest (falsely). If there are missing fossils, please exlain why man could not have been created by God as it states in the Bible. Please explain why you put your faith in a system that has no evidence to back it up.
4. What was the purpose of losing the tail and the hair? (Didn't all those apes who moved north need that hair to keep 'em warm? Isn't that why animals have fur, to keep them warm, or to keep them cool? What's the point of losing something beneficial? Or do you feel the gorilla is a luckier animal than we are? Perhaps you would have preferred it if evolution had never come this far.)
5. What was the purpose of the mouth becoming smaller?
6. What was the purpose of the teeth taking on a different shape?
7. Why hasn't there been the slightest bit of evolutionary development/change in humans over the last 50,000 years? (like teeth for example) (evolution numbers, not mine)
8. Why don't any ape type animals display a need to draw their history onto rock?
9. Why doesn't any other living creature display human qualities or habits, most particularily of their own accord?
10. How do you explain the non-existence of time? If you cannot explain it - does that make it false?
11. What is outside our universe? If you cannot provide an answer, does that mean there's nothing?
12. Who created you? Your parents? How is that possible? Didn't you evolve? Didn't you come about naturally, and not as the result of someone's choice? If you agree that you came about as a result of someone's choice, please explain how there could not have been a God who chose to create mankind?
13. For those of you who are abortion activists, don't you agree that pregnancy is a choice? And also that men/women have power to choose who lives in dies in their own pee wee world?
14. And when you look at it that way, you abortion proponents/activists, doesn't it strike you odd to then also ask the question - how can God allow bad things to happen to good people? Aren't you, who are pro-abortion, willingly destroying a totally helpless life? What kind of a person could do that? Don't you see now, that God is not responsible for the evil in the world? You are. We are. I am. Don't you see that you/we/me have the power to be the sole cause of good in the world?
15. Please answer the above questions honestly, with your own opinions, and with factual evidence to back up your opinions or claims. If you do this, without criticizing the question (after all, what's the point in doing that?), I will seriously take a look at your honest opinions and factuallly supporting evidence. If I can refute it with evidence of my own - I will submit to your opinion for the time being. Deal?
Thank you,
1. You mean like Galileo? Do you have any factual evidence to back up your claims that we're smarter today than we were 500 or 5000 years ago? Stating that we can make an airplane is not evidence. You would have to prove that human beings alive 500-5000 years ago, given the same instructions and materials, would not have been able to build the airplane - because their brains had not yet developed or evolved to the degree that we have evolved. I say, society has only built upon the knowledge of previous generations. Not even you (or anyone alive today) could build an airplane, if we put you back into the 16th century.
2. How did the structure or generation of DNA occur?
3. Please provide evidence for your claims of the so called 'huge evolutionary jump'. There must be fossils of ape to man like the popular (false) evolution of man drawings suggest (falsely). If there are missing fossils, please exlain why man could not have been created by God as it states in the Bible. Please explain why you put your faith in a system that has no evidence to back it up.
4. What was the purpose of losing the tail and the hair? (Didn't all those apes who moved north need that hair to keep 'em warm? Isn't that why animals have fur, to keep them warm, or to keep them cool? What's the point of losing something beneficial? Or do you feel the gorilla is a luckier animal than we are? Perhaps you would have preferred it if evolution had never come this far.)
5. What was the purpose of the mouth becoming smaller?
6. What was the purpose of the teeth taking on a different shape?
7. Why hasn't there been the slightest bit of evolutionary development/change in humans over the last 50,000 years? (like teeth for example) (evolution numbers, not mine)
8. Why don't any ape type animals display a need to draw their history onto rock?
9. Why doesn't any other living creature display human qualities or habits, most particularily of their own accord?
10. How do you explain the non-existence of time? If you cannot explain it - does that make it false?
11. What is outside our universe? If you cannot provide an answer, does that mean there's nothing?
12. Who created you? Your parents? How is that possible? Didn't you evolve? Didn't you come about naturally, and not as the result of someone's choice? If you agree that you came about as a result of someone's choice, please explain how there could not have been a God who chose to create mankind?
13. For those of you who are abortion activists, don't you agree that pregnancy is a choice? And also that men/women have power to choose who lives in dies in their own pee wee world?
14. And when you look at it that way, you abortion proponents/activists, doesn't it strike you odd to then also ask the question - how can God allow bad things to happen to good people? Aren't you, who are pro-abortion, willingly destroying a totally helpless life? What kind of a person could do that? Don't you see now, that God is not responsible for the evil in the world? You are. We are. I am. Don't you see that you/we/me have the power to be the sole cause of good in the world?
15. Please answer the above questions honestly, with your own opinions, and with factual evidence to back up your opinions or claims. If you do this, without criticizing the question (after all, what's the point in doing that?), I will seriously take a look at your honest opinions and factuallly supporting evidence. If I can refute it with evidence of my own - I will submit to your opinion for the time being. Deal?
Thank you,
1. I agree with swimmer. There is no evidence we are 'smarter' today than 500 years ago. We have alot more recorded knowledge today than 500 years ago though. I like to think of the learning process this way. Think of when you start using a new computer program (I taught myself how to use a new one today, a nonlinear regression program if anyone is interested haha). Without looking at the instructions or help section it takes a long time to figure out how to get one thing to work, and same with a second thing...but once you have figured out a few things, figuring out other things is easier, and goes a lot faster. The same trend has been seen in the evolution of human knowledge (NOT intelligence, evolution here does not mean biological evolution, just a change over time). It took a long time for humans to harness fire, and other things, then you get to the bronze age where knowledge advances faster.....and the trend is continuing. Everyone talks about the advances of the scientific revolution, but they depended so much on the knowledge from previous generations. I think it was Newton who said something about all of his accomplishments in mathematics were because he was standing on the shoulders of giants. I highly doubt that if you took a baby born in 1500 and gave it a standard IQ test that the results would be any different from a baby born today (barring the normal small scale discrepancies. But since we can't, lets just assume all intelligence was the same. I mean, I am not a dumb guy. I am good at math, and good at physics, but there is NO WAY I could have invented calculus and written the laws that still govern most of engineering today. So by that 'rigorous proof' People from the 17th century are smarter than us now (or really, Newton is smarter than me!)
2. No clue
3. No clue of a huge evolutionary jump, but as far as being created in the way of the bible, we have fossils, and dating that predates the beginning of time according to the bible with humans around then. This does disprove the genisis creation account.
4. No idea, although I have heard of a shoreline type of environment where early humans would have been in the water a lot. As anyone with long hair knows....body hair + water = cold! So if that idea had any evidence there is a possible answer.
6/7. I have no idea, although I wonder if the changes in teeth were around the same time humans started using fire to cook meat? I think those might be related....however that is only unknowledgable speculation
8. I think that was supposed to be because of their lacking ability for abstract thought. Again, I don't know much about it, but I think other hominids (Neandrathals) did draw things in caves and such. Not sure though.
9. Doesn't your pet dog ziggy display some human attributes? Can you not tell when he is happy, or sad, or wants something, or sleepy, or energetic? Some animals are very affectionate to their young, like humans are. I have seen my cat get very mad before, get distressed. So I disagree, because I think many animals display behavioural characteristics that humans also display.
10. What do you mean the non existance of time? Time exists, and is defined very precisely. A second is the time of a few billion (to lazy to look it up, if you are curious, look up 'SI definition of a second') ocsilations of an excited state of a cesuim atom. Time is defined by simple counting. And like swimmer said, Entropy regulates the direction that time passes. Entropy for the universe always increases with time.
11. Outside of our universe. Well there may be an 11 dimensional universe with us (a 4D brane) floating around inside of it. It might be a zoo filled with spagetti monsters and purple invisible elephants. Hehehe. The fact is we have no way of actually knowing. Anything is pure speculation. My first example is more scientifically plausible, but neither is experimentally testable.
12. My parents created me because they wanted a baby. And what a baby I turned out to be if I do say so myself hahaha. But the decision to procreate by two members of a species does no way prove god created that species. Thats a huge jump in logic....and one that I just don't follow.
13. I have been pretty calm now, and I will try not to angry from these ones. You are labelling people unjustly. I am not pro abortion, as I have said many times, i am pro choice. I haven't said I would want to decide to get an abortion. But I don't think you, or I, should have the right to decide if someone else can and can not get an abortion. So please do not label me, or others here (unless they say "I am pro abortion") as pro abortion. The term is pro choice. I bet you a lot of the 'abortion supporters' would not even get an abortion, just think it should be an available option.
14. I agree, we are the ones who are in control of the good and bad things....that and random chance. I actually think that many of the bad things that happen are just random chance. All of the victims from the huricane........they didn't neccessarily do anything bad, they just were unlucky to live where they did at that time.
15. Well, I answered everything honestly, with my opinions. Some of my answers are speculation not fact, but they have been labelled as such, so there should be no problem with those.
1. Some people are born with bigger brains and some people are born with smaller brains. Our intelligence wouldn't get stronger if it didn't have something removing the smaller brains from the gene pool. In the past we had tribes which fought one another. The strongest tribe isn't just the strongest in mussel. The tribe that used it's head to create better tools to kill would win. You are left with smarter variations of the specie. The gene that mutated a larger brain would flourish while the gene which didn't mutate a larger brain would be killed off. Now we are at a standstill. The genes that get a larger brain eventually end up diluting the gene with the smaller brain gene.
2. See the Stanley Miller experiment
http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/...ogy/miller.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/do53am.html
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1996/0...ingLifeina.html
3. I CONCLUDE evolution happened, I don't believe it happened. The evidence is eminence. The best evidence is in our genes. It's like looking at the historty of man. The proof is our genes have errors which match other speices. It's like specie copyright code.
http://www.geocities.com/evolvedthinking/Genome.htm
4. Tails are easy to grab and may have been taken out of the gene pool by predators or other primates. Hair is no longer needed to survive. We have clothing. It's all about what the specie needs to survive.
5 If a specie can survive with a small mouth, the mutated gene which is responcible for the mouth survives and multiplies. It's all about what the specie needs to survive. in a given environment.
6 Meat eating predators that rip and swollow without chewing need one kind of teeth to survive. We can survive on chewing meat or eating veggies so our teeth look the way they do because they CAN look the way they do.
7 Evolution is always a very slow process. Every generation evolves but at such a slow pace you can't see it. Think of it as looking at a blade of grass all day. You can't tell it's growing but it is. The same is true for us. We are evolving at such a slow pace it would take 3000 generations to see the evolution. It's not evolutions fault you can't see the change. We are talking about a process which has been going on for billions of years. Why would you, someone who only lives to about 80 years, see change?
8 If they evolve a large enough brain to paint they wouldn't be apes anymore. But something like that only happenes as a result of evolutionary presures. It doesn't just happen on it's own.
9 What human qualities or habits are you talking about?
10 e=mc2
11 Vacuum fluctuations exist out side of time and space. Vacuum fluctuations have been tested and exist. There can never be [nothing].
12 Why don't you ask the same questions of God? How does God exist? Did God evolve? And if it did why can't you say the same for our lower life form? If not, who put God here? If it was always there why was it always there? How is an entity more complex than anything in the universe always there?
13 I conclude you can't be human unless you have a working cerebral cortex. That's about 22-24 weeks after conception. Before that you are just cells aranging through biochemical forces. Stopping a zygote from continuing to grow is no different than cutting your hair.
14 About 2/3 of all conception ends in spontanious abortion. That means if you believe God created life and a human is born the moment of conseption then God is the biggest abortion docter in the universe.
I don't know if you're male or female but the next time you or your spouse has a period two weeks late don't forget to put the tampon in a casket. It will be likely a spontanious abortion. If you really think it's a child that died then why treat it any different?
15 You will never change your mind. One of the things we have evolved is the need to follow the alpha-male. God is your Aplpha-Male and your instincts will cloud your judgement.
2. See the Stanley Miller experiment
http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/...ogy/miller.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/do53am.html
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1996/0...ingLifeina.html
3. I CONCLUDE evolution happened, I don't believe it happened. The evidence is eminence. The best evidence is in our genes. It's like looking at the historty of man. The proof is our genes have errors which match other speices. It's like specie copyright code.
http://www.geocities.com/evolvedthinking/Genome.htm
4. Tails are easy to grab and may have been taken out of the gene pool by predators or other primates. Hair is no longer needed to survive. We have clothing. It's all about what the specie needs to survive.
5 If a specie can survive with a small mouth, the mutated gene which is responcible for the mouth survives and multiplies. It's all about what the specie needs to survive. in a given environment.
6 Meat eating predators that rip and swollow without chewing need one kind of teeth to survive. We can survive on chewing meat or eating veggies so our teeth look the way they do because they CAN look the way they do.
7 Evolution is always a very slow process. Every generation evolves but at such a slow pace you can't see it. Think of it as looking at a blade of grass all day. You can't tell it's growing but it is. The same is true for us. We are evolving at such a slow pace it would take 3000 generations to see the evolution. It's not evolutions fault you can't see the change. We are talking about a process which has been going on for billions of years. Why would you, someone who only lives to about 80 years, see change?
8 If they evolve a large enough brain to paint they wouldn't be apes anymore. But something like that only happenes as a result of evolutionary presures. It doesn't just happen on it's own.
9 What human qualities or habits are you talking about?
10 e=mc2
11 Vacuum fluctuations exist out side of time and space. Vacuum fluctuations have been tested and exist. There can never be [nothing].
12 Why don't you ask the same questions of God? How does God exist? Did God evolve? And if it did why can't you say the same for our lower life form? If not, who put God here? If it was always there why was it always there? How is an entity more complex than anything in the universe always there?
13 I conclude you can't be human unless you have a working cerebral cortex. That's about 22-24 weeks after conception. Before that you are just cells aranging through biochemical forces. Stopping a zygote from continuing to grow is no different than cutting your hair.
14 About 2/3 of all conception ends in spontanious abortion. That means if you believe God created life and a human is born the moment of conseption then God is the biggest abortion docter in the universe.
I don't know if you're male or female but the next time you or your spouse has a period two weeks late don't forget to put the tampon in a casket. It will be likely a spontanious abortion. If you really think it's a child that died then why treat it any different?
15 You will never change your mind. One of the things we have evolved is the need to follow the alpha-male. God is your Aplpha-Male and your instincts will cloud your judgement.
Messenger Posted: Feb 24 2006, 12:02 AM something that I agree with, despite my respect for Laidback:
"Do you have any factual evidence to back up your claims that we're smarter today than we were 500 or 5000 years ago?"
I believe, Laidback, that you were really writing about the amount of information that modern schmos have available, rather than intellience.
I can recall reading a statement to the effect that our intelligence level is the same as that of Cro-Magnon humans, which I believe are regarded as our ancestral stock and originated about ten thousand years ago. I got the date from John C. Eccles' "The Evolution of the Brain". Table 2-1, page 13, but I couldn't find the quotation I was looking for. Perhaps the fact that the Cro-Magnons are evidently Homo sapiens sapiens substantiates my claim.
I'll look further if anyone insists that I need to substantiate my claim that intelligence levels have been at a stasis for tens of thousands of years while the knowldge base has increased enormously.
"Do you have any factual evidence to back up your claims that we're smarter today than we were 500 or 5000 years ago?"
I believe, Laidback, that you were really writing about the amount of information that modern schmos have available, rather than intellience.
I can recall reading a statement to the effect that our intelligence level is the same as that of Cro-Magnon humans, which I believe are regarded as our ancestral stock and originated about ten thousand years ago. I got the date from John C. Eccles' "The Evolution of the Brain". Table 2-1, page 13, but I couldn't find the quotation I was looking for. Perhaps the fact that the Cro-Magnons are evidently Homo sapiens sapiens substantiates my claim.
I'll look further if anyone insists that I need to substantiate my claim that intelligence levels have been at a stasis for tens of thousands of years while the knowldge base has increased enormously.
QUOTE (Travis Schnell+Aug 10 2005, 03:20 AM)
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
In other words:
Congress cannot force United States Citizens to go to government buildings where religion is recognized.
I don't see the problem. It doesn't get much clearer than that.
Can Congress just invite United States Citizens to voluntaritly go to government buildings where religion is recognized?
Fred
In other words:
Congress cannot force United States Citizens to go to government buildings where religion is recognized.
I don't see the problem. It doesn't get much clearer than that.
Can Congress just invite United States Citizens to voluntaritly go to government buildings where religion is recognized?
Fred
QUOTE (FredFlash+Feb 25 2006, 05:04 PM)
QUOTE (Travis Schnell+Aug 10 2005, 03:20 AM)
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
In other words:
Congress cannot force United States Citizens to go to government buildings where religion is recognized.
I don't see the problem. It doesn't get much clearer than that.
Can Congress just invite United States Citizens to voluntaritly go to government buildings where religion is recognized?
Fred
Which religion should be recognized?
In other words:
Congress cannot force United States Citizens to go to government buildings where religion is recognized.
I don't see the problem. It doesn't get much clearer than that.
Can Congress just invite United States Citizens to voluntaritly go to government buildings where religion is recognized?
Fred
Which religion should be recognized?
Hi all,
I see a few of you have taken up the challenge and answered my questions. I'll try to respond to each reply. Strange that they are different, obviously there is diversity even among evolutionists.
1. You mean like Galileo? Do you have any factual evidence to back up your claims that we're smarter today than we were 500 or 5000 years ago?.
Laidback: 1/. Our Data base of information has increased and with a larger data base ones intellect increases... this itself is proof of evolving where one piece of data leads to more pieces of data..
Swimmer: 1) You are right, there is no evidence.
Steveo: 1. I agree with swimmer. There is no evidence we are 'smarter' today than 500 years ago.
My reply: Swimmer, Steveo, and I (Messenger) are in agreement, and it appears Laidback is trying to say the same thing.
2. How did the structure or generation of DNA occur?
Laidback: 2/. How did RNA and its resulting DNA come about, is beyond this post and I recommend you research it your self, but when I say this I mean for you to access the tools and materials and REALLY see it for your self!...
Swimmer: 2. .....we have no idea
Steveo: 2. No clue.
My reply: Just checking on this one. I knew that scientists are not able to answer this question, yet. There of course is an intelligent cause behind the structure and generation of DNA, more complex than any computer software program that has yet been written (at least according to Bill Gates).
QUOTE
To all the evolution proponents (except RC) - who think they can support their belief in evolution with actual factual evidence.......................
1. You mean like Galileo? Do you have any factual evidence to back up your claims that we're smarter today than we were 500 or 5000 years ago? Stating that we can make an airplane is not evidence. You would have to prove that human beings alive 500-5000 years ago, given the same instructions and materials, would not have been able to build the airplane - because their brains had not yet developed or evolved to the degree that we have evolved. I say, society has only built upon the knowledge of previous generations. Not even you (or anyone alive today) could build an airplane, if we put you back into the 16th century.
2. How did the structure or generation of DNA occur?
3. Please provide evidence for your claims of the so called 'huge evolutionary jump'. There must be fossils of ape to man like the popular (false) evolution of man drawings suggest (falsely). If there are missing fossils, please exlain why man could not have been created by God as it states in the Bible. Please explain why you put your faith in a system that has no evidence to back it up.
Laidback: 3/. Our intelligence is what has made a huge leap in a short time...
Swimmer: 3) Again, there is no evidence.
Steveo: 3. No clue of a huge evolutionary jump, but as far as being created in the way of the bible, we have fossils, and dating that predates the beginning of time according to the bible with humans around then. This does disprove the genisis creation account.
My reply: The Genesis account does not give a date for Creation. Only people who study the Bible attempt to do that based on their interpretation of the Bible. They are not necessarily correct. The age of humanity could be much earily than 6000 years ago.
4. What was the purpose of losing the tail and the hair? (Didn't all those apes who moved north need that hair to keep 'em warm? Isn't that why animals have fur, to keep them warm, or to keep them cool? What's the point of losing something beneficial? Or do you feel the gorilla is a luckier animal than we are? Perhaps you would have preferred it if evolution had never come this far.)
Laidback: 4/. 5/. 6/. 7/. 8/. 9/. 10/.
Changes occur most of the time slowly and for the most in tiny insignificant steps, Once in a while a small change can have a profound and huge difference.
Swimmer: 4) There is more genetic variation amongst Africans than amongst the whole of the rest of the world's population put together (part of the evidence that humans evolved in Africa). As all Africans are are as "hairless" and "tail-less" as say Finns or Native Americans, argues that the selection for those properties occurred earlier than the "diaspora" of humans round the globe.
Steveo: 4. No idea, although I have heard of a shoreline type of environment where early humans would have been in the water a lot. As anyone with long hair knows....body hair + water = cold! So if that idea had any evidence there is a possible answer.
My reply: Laidback & Steveo didn't address the issue, at least not with an answer that would lead to better understanding of evolution and/or an aha moment. Swimmer thinks we lost our tail very early on, but doesn't address the evolutionary cause/mechanism that eliminated this body part.
5. What was the purpose of the mouth becoming smaller?
Laidback: 4/. 5/. 6/. 7/. 8/. 9/. 10/.
Changes occur most of the time slowly and for the most in tiny insignificant steps, Once in a while a small change can have a profound and huge difference
Swimmer: 5) I have no idea - what was God's purpose for "designing" smaller mouths?
Steveo: No answer.
My reply: Laidback says that changes occur slowly, etc... So say you......however, you do not say how or why. This is the problem with evolution - and it goes back to the structure and generation of DNA. You assume evolution - you can't prove it or even demonstrate it.
6. What was the purpose of the teeth taking on a different shape?
Laidback: 4/. 5/. 6/. 7/. 8/. 9/. 10/.
Changes occur most of the time slowly and for the most in tiny insignificant steps, Once in a while a small change can have a profound and huge difference
Swimmer: 6) Again difficult to say - such arguments are "post hoc" anyway. They have no bearing on the validity of evolution.
Steveo: 6/7. I have no idea, although I wonder if the changes in teeth were around the same time humans started using fire to cook meat? I think those might be related....however that is only unknowledgable speculation.
My reply: Why would people use fire to cook meat? Why doesn't it occur to any other creature on the planet to use fire to cook meat? Cooking meat doesn't really make it much softer. Actually, depending on who's doing' the cookin', the meat could be 10 times as tough as raw meat. Animals crave raw meat, why would humans want to cook their food. This is a poor argument.
Basically, no one is able to answer these questions, so far.
7. Why hasn't there been the slightest bit of evolutionary development/change in humans over the last 50,000 years? (like teeth for example) (evolution numbers, not mine)
Laidback: 4/. 5/. 6/. 7/. 8/. 9/. 10/.
Changes occur most of the time slowly and for the most in tiny insignificant steps, Once in a while a small change can have a profound and huge difference
Swimmer: 7) There has been much more than "the slightest bit of evolutionary development/change in humans over the last 50,000 years". From genetic studies, I believe there have been at least two "diasporas" from Africa. Aborigines reached Australia 50000 years ago when there was a land bridge (they subsequently became "protected" from further "invasions" by the sea when levels increased after the last ice age). Aborigines are noticeably different genetically from the humans involved in the more recent "diaspora" to America and Asia etc. Also within the members of that latter "diaspora", look at the physical differences, food tolerance differences, sun tolerance differences, disease tolerance differences etc between the human groups. That's just looking at their phenotypes - there's much more to see at the genotype level.
Steveo: 6/7. I have no idea, although I wonder if the changes in teeth were around the same time humans started using fire to cook meat? I think those might be related....however that is only unknowledgable speculation
My reply: Swimmers answer relates only to a specific gene pool. Keep them seperate from each other and these genes perpetuate, mix them together and the differences become less and less. This is the same reason how those who insist that we all came from Adam and Eve (a big % of Christians, Jews, and Muslims) explain the various races. Various individuals ventured into the world, preserving their gene pool and thereby causing new races. I'm leaning towards the idea that God created mankind first, and then created or chose Adam & Eve to bring forth the word of God, and eventually Jesus Christ, to the world.
Here are some other obvervations about differences between races, or gene pools. I'm not endorsing the following source - because I haven't checked it out, nor do I believe in evolution, but I wanted to give you one of your 'own' sources. However, that said, these views are consistent throughout the scientific community.
I thought that last paragraph was rather interesting. He's saying that children are racist. I suppose children are fearful of seeing something different, and this carries over into adulthood. But I have seen children who are exposed to diverse race situations and adjust better than the adults. So this, I believe, is a very good argument for integration, not only in our communities, but throughout the world.
-------------------------
I'll continue my replies in my next post........
I see a few of you have taken up the challenge and answered my questions. I'll try to respond to each reply. Strange that they are different, obviously there is diversity even among evolutionists.
1. You mean like Galileo? Do you have any factual evidence to back up your claims that we're smarter today than we were 500 or 5000 years ago?.
Laidback: 1/. Our Data base of information has increased and with a larger data base ones intellect increases... this itself is proof of evolving where one piece of data leads to more pieces of data..
Swimmer: 1) You are right, there is no evidence.
Steveo: 1. I agree with swimmer. There is no evidence we are 'smarter' today than 500 years ago.
My reply: Swimmer, Steveo, and I (Messenger) are in agreement, and it appears Laidback is trying to say the same thing.
2. How did the structure or generation of DNA occur?
Laidback: 2/. How did RNA and its resulting DNA come about, is beyond this post and I recommend you research it your self, but when I say this I mean for you to access the tools and materials and REALLY see it for your self!...
Swimmer: 2. .....we have no idea
Steveo: 2. No clue.
My reply: Just checking on this one. I knew that scientists are not able to answer this question, yet. There of course is an intelligent cause behind the structure and generation of DNA, more complex than any computer software program that has yet been written (at least according to Bill Gates).
QUOTE
To all the evolution proponents (except RC) - who think they can support their belief in evolution with actual factual evidence.......................
1. You mean like Galileo? Do you have any factual evidence to back up your claims that we're smarter today than we were 500 or 5000 years ago? Stating that we can make an airplane is not evidence. You would have to prove that human beings alive 500-5000 years ago, given the same instructions and materials, would not have been able to build the airplane - because their brains had not yet developed or evolved to the degree that we have evolved. I say, society has only built upon the knowledge of previous generations. Not even you (or anyone alive today) could build an airplane, if we put you back into the 16th century.
2. How did the structure or generation of DNA occur?
3. Please provide evidence for your claims of the so called 'huge evolutionary jump'. There must be fossils of ape to man like the popular (false) evolution of man drawings suggest (falsely). If there are missing fossils, please exlain why man could not have been created by God as it states in the Bible. Please explain why you put your faith in a system that has no evidence to back it up.
Laidback: 3/. Our intelligence is what has made a huge leap in a short time...
Swimmer: 3) Again, there is no evidence.
Steveo: 3. No clue of a huge evolutionary jump, but as far as being created in the way of the bible, we have fossils, and dating that predates the beginning of time according to the bible with humans around then. This does disprove the genisis creation account.
My reply: The Genesis account does not give a date for Creation. Only people who study the Bible attempt to do that based on their interpretation of the Bible. They are not necessarily correct. The age of humanity could be much earily than 6000 years ago.
4. What was the purpose of losing the tail and the hair? (Didn't all those apes who moved north need that hair to keep 'em warm? Isn't that why animals have fur, to keep them warm, or to keep them cool? What's the point of losing something beneficial? Or do you feel the gorilla is a luckier animal than we are? Perhaps you would have preferred it if evolution had never come this far.)
Laidback: 4/. 5/. 6/. 7/. 8/. 9/. 10/.
Changes occur most of the time slowly and for the most in tiny insignificant steps, Once in a while a small change can have a profound and huge difference.
Swimmer: 4) There is more genetic variation amongst Africans than amongst the whole of the rest of the world's population put together (part of the evidence that humans evolved in Africa). As all Africans are are as "hairless" and "tail-less" as say Finns or Native Americans, argues that the selection for those properties occurred earlier than the "diaspora" of humans round the globe.
Steveo: 4. No idea, although I have heard of a shoreline type of environment where early humans would have been in the water a lot. As anyone with long hair knows....body hair + water = cold! So if that idea had any evidence there is a possible answer.
My reply: Laidback & Steveo didn't address the issue, at least not with an answer that would lead to better understanding of evolution and/or an aha moment. Swimmer thinks we lost our tail very early on, but doesn't address the evolutionary cause/mechanism that eliminated this body part.
5. What was the purpose of the mouth becoming smaller?
Laidback: 4/. 5/. 6/. 7/. 8/. 9/. 10/.
Changes occur most of the time slowly and for the most in tiny insignificant steps, Once in a while a small change can have a profound and huge difference
Swimmer: 5) I have no idea - what was God's purpose for "designing" smaller mouths?
Steveo: No answer.
My reply: Laidback says that changes occur slowly, etc... So say you......however, you do not say how or why. This is the problem with evolution - and it goes back to the structure and generation of DNA. You assume evolution - you can't prove it or even demonstrate it.
6. What was the purpose of the teeth taking on a different shape?
Laidback: 4/. 5/. 6/. 7/. 8/. 9/. 10/.
Changes occur most of the time slowly and for the most in tiny insignificant steps, Once in a while a small change can have a profound and huge difference
Swimmer: 6) Again difficult to say - such arguments are "post hoc" anyway. They have no bearing on the validity of evolution.
Steveo: 6/7. I have no idea, although I wonder if the changes in teeth were around the same time humans started using fire to cook meat? I think those might be related....however that is only unknowledgable speculation.
My reply: Why would people use fire to cook meat? Why doesn't it occur to any other creature on the planet to use fire to cook meat? Cooking meat doesn't really make it much softer. Actually, depending on who's doing' the cookin', the meat could be 10 times as tough as raw meat. Animals crave raw meat, why would humans want to cook their food. This is a poor argument.
Basically, no one is able to answer these questions, so far.
7. Why hasn't there been the slightest bit of evolutionary development/change in humans over the last 50,000 years? (like teeth for example) (evolution numbers, not mine)
Laidback: 4/. 5/. 6/. 7/. 8/. 9/. 10/.
Changes occur most of the time slowly and for the most in tiny insignificant steps, Once in a while a small change can have a profound and huge difference
Swimmer: 7) There has been much more than "the slightest bit of evolutionary development/change in humans over the last 50,000 years". From genetic studies, I believe there have been at least two "diasporas" from Africa. Aborigines reached Australia 50000 years ago when there was a land bridge (they subsequently became "protected" from further "invasions" by the sea when levels increased after the last ice age). Aborigines are noticeably different genetically from the humans involved in the more recent "diaspora" to America and Asia etc. Also within the members of that latter "diaspora", look at the physical differences, food tolerance differences, sun tolerance differences, disease tolerance differences etc between the human groups. That's just looking at their phenotypes - there's much more to see at the genotype level.
Steveo: 6/7. I have no idea, although I wonder if the changes in teeth were around the same time humans started using fire to cook meat? I think those might be related....however that is only unknowledgable speculation
My reply: Swimmers answer relates only to a specific gene pool. Keep them seperate from each other and these genes perpetuate, mix them together and the differences become less and less. This is the same reason how those who insist that we all came from Adam and Eve (a big % of Christians, Jews, and Muslims) explain the various races. Various individuals ventured into the world, preserving their gene pool and thereby causing new races. I'm leaning towards the idea that God created mankind first, and then created or chose Adam & Eve to bring forth the word of God, and eventually Jesus Christ, to the world.
Here are some other obvervations about differences between races, or gene pools. I'm not endorsing the following source - because I haven't checked it out, nor do I believe in evolution, but I wanted to give you one of your 'own' sources. However, that said, these views are consistent throughout the scientific community.
QUOTE
Blacks reach sexual maturity sooner than whites, who reach it sooner than Asians. By age twelve, 19 percent of American black girls have fully developed breasts and pubic hair whereas only five percent of white girls do. Blacks, on average, have an earlier first menstruation than whites, and Asians menstruate later than whites. In the United States, the average white woman is two full years older than the average black woman when she first has sexual intercourse, and Asians start having intercourse even later than whites.
Professor Rushton has bravely taken on the delicate subject of genital size, which has received reluctant but official attention because of AIDS. International organizations that try to provide condoms to people all over the world have discovered that one size does not fit all. Blacks have larger penises than whites, who have larger penises than Asians. The length of the vagina also differs proportionately in each race. Black men produce more sperm than do whites, and Asian men produce the least.
-----------------------------------
This clearly demonstrated human preference for associating with others who are similar has important implications for race relations. Even very young children are conscious of race and show racial preferences. Prof. Rushton writes that ethnocentrism and "racism" are probably natural mechanisms built into the human genotype.
Source: http://www.amren.com/9412issue/9412issue.html
Professor Rushton has bravely taken on the delicate subject of genital size, which has received reluctant but official attention because of AIDS. International organizations that try to provide condoms to people all over the world have discovered that one size does not fit all. Blacks have larger penises than whites, who have larger penises than Asians. The length of the vagina also differs proportionately in each race. Black men produce more sperm than do whites, and Asian men produce the least.
-----------------------------------
This clearly demonstrated human preference for associating with others who are similar has important implications for race relations. Even very young children are conscious of race and show racial preferences. Prof. Rushton writes that ethnocentrism and "racism" are probably natural mechanisms built into the human genotype.
Source: http://www.amren.com/9412issue/9412issue.html
I thought that last paragraph was rather interesting. He's saying that children are racist. I suppose children are fearful of seeing something different, and this carries over into adulthood. But I have seen children who are exposed to diverse race situations and adjust better than the adults. So this, I believe, is a very good argument for integration, not only in our communities, but throughout the world.
-------------------------
I'll continue my replies in my next post........
continuing on......start question 8.
8. Why don't any ape type animals display a need to draw their history onto rock?
Laidback: 4/. 5/. 6/. 7/. 8/. 9/. 10/.
Changes occur most of the time slowly and for the most in tiny insignificant steps, Once in a while a small change can have a profound and huge difference.
Swimmer: 8) We're back to "post hoc" arguments. We are "ape type" by the way!
Steveo: 8. I think that was supposed to be because of their lacking ability for abstract thought. Again, I don't know much about it, but I think other hominids (Neandrathals) did draw things in caves and such. Not sure though.
My reply: Well, it's obvious that none of you have a clue. The correct answer is that animals have certain instinct and humans have human instincts. There is a wall between humans and other creatures - one that cannot be breached. We were created or designed. Humans were created with a purpose to manage the earth and everything in/upon it.
9. Why doesn't any other living creature display human qualities or habits, most particularily of their own accord?
Laidback: 4/. 5/. 6/. 7/. 8/. 9/. 10/.
Changes occur most of the time slowly and for the most in tiny insignificant steps, Once in a while a small change can have a profound and huge difference.
Swimmer: 9) Like 5, 6 and 8 - why don't we fly or have gills to breath under water - your point is?
Steveo: 9. Doesn't your pet dog ziggy display some human attributes? Can you not tell when he is happy, or sad, or wants something, or sleepy, or energetic? Some animals are very affectionate to their young, like humans are. I have seen my cat get very mad before, get distressed. So I disagree, because I think many animals display behavioural characteristics that humans also display.
My reply: No, animals do not display any human attributes. There are animal instincts and attributes and there are human ones. There is a wall between the two. Ziggy does not have any desire to speak to you, or learn how to type or operate a computer, or find a job, or go to school, etc. etc. etc. Someone takes care of him, or God and he takes care of himself if he's not domesticated. God provides everything the wild creature needs to survive. Humans prevent other humans, and many creatures for that matter, from accessing the things they need to survive, like food and shelter. Your cat gets mad and distressed because you're so 'misconfused' about things. Even your cat knows that God created the universe, and I'm sure he thinks He's the cat's meow.
The point here is that if evolution were true, there would be more advanced intelligence among all creatures, not just humans.
10. How do you explain the non-existence of time? If you cannot explain it - does that make it false?
Laidback: 4/. 5/. 6/. 7/. 8/. 9/. 10/.
Changes occur most of the time slowly and for the most in tiny insignificant steps, Once in a while a small change can have a profound and huge difference.
Swimmer: 10) Oooo too deep. I thought entropy gave a direction to time? Also the planet we live on gives a pretty detailed record of the passage of time - plate tectonics, igneous rocks, sedimentation, metamorphic rocks, erosion, layering and deformation of strata, fossil distribution, living creature distribution etc.
Steveo: 10. What do you mean the non existance of time? Time exists, and is defined very precisely. A second is the time of a few billion (to lazy to look it up, if you are curious, look up 'SI definition of a second') ocsilations of an excited state of a cesuim atom. Time is defined by simple counting. And like swimmer said, Entropy regulates the direction that time passes. Entropy for the universe always increases with time.
My reply: Time exists in this universe, but not where God is. Time can be explained like a full term pregnancy is explained. A seed is fertilized in the mother's womb and in a period of time the womb gives birth to a living human being, who begins another journey through time, and then dies. Eternal life and resurrection is given to those whom the Lord has chosen, and these people enter God's timelessness outside this universe. Our universe may be thought of this way. God provided the seed/s to begin this universe, you might consider us to be within the womb of the Universe. Some seeds die (and go to hell, which I believe is translated as 'dirt'), some seeds bloom, and go to Heaven. Time only exists in this universe. Everything in this universe is measured by time. Nothing outside this universe is measured this way. God always was, is, and will be. Thank God.
11. What is outside our universe? If you cannot provide an answer, does that mean there's nothing?
Laidback: 11/.
The universe is just that! It is all that exists! If anything is discovered beyond - Then the only thing that changes is that our Database evolves a little more information to it...
Swimmer: 11) No idea and Not necessarily.
Steveo: 11. Outside of our universe. Well there may be an 11 dimensional universe with us (a 4D brane) floating around inside of it. It might be a zoo filled with spagetti monsters and purple invisible elephants. Hehehe. The fact is we have no way of actually knowing. Anything is pure speculation. My first example is more scientifically plausible, but neither is experimentally testable.
My reply: God is outside our universe, along with God knows what else. Do you doubt that science may one day be able to see what's outside our universe? Even I have more faith in science than you do, apparently.
Kind of a tough question, I know.
12. Who created you? Your parents? How is that possible? Didn't you evolve? Didn't you come about naturally, and not as the result of someone's choice? If you agree that you came about as a result of someone's choice, please explain how there could not have been a God who chose to create mankind?
Laidback: 12/.
Yes after the battle of the two cells the female egg and sperm die and amalgamate and as a result one single cell with a compromised gene sequence is now eking out its limited existence by scavenging the remains to where the dividing cells will eventually evolve organs to deal with an ever increasing need for more resources and the means for a more suitable environment, it will end up stretching the hosts available resources to the limits to where it will be forced to seek out other available resources by eventually leaving its host, commonly known as Birth!
Swimmer: 12) From a coming together of egg and sperm from mother and father respectively - naturally. The first choice involved was whether they had sex on the occasion of my conception. The actual sperm that happened to enter the particular egg was a matter of luck. The second choice was an ongoing one to nurture me - or not - inside and outside the womb. All of this is an ongoing cycle of events. The whole process evolved - naturally. The individuals' involved are also part of the evolutionary process, partly by luck but mostly by natural selection - that is those genetically encoded qualities available that happen to increase the likelihood of their successfully mating and rearing offspring tend to be passed on to their offspring. Remember genes are not diluted. There could very well have been a God involved. Unfortunately for you, there is no evidence of a process or mechanism for a God's involvement.
Steveo: 12. My parents created me because they wanted a baby. And what a baby I turned out to be if I do say so myself hahaha. But the decision to procreate by two members of a species does no way prove god created that species. Thats a huge jump in logic....and one that I just don't follow.
My reply: Your answers are scientific only, you neglected the human choice factor. The fact is that two people chose to create the conditions in which said birth could occur. God put the inspiration/desire there as part of our physical characteristic (which we have abused). If you choose not to create human beings, humanity would become extinct.
13. For those of you who are abortion activists, don't you agree that pregnancy is a choice? And also that men/women have power to choose who lives in dies in their own pee wee world?
Laidback: 13/. I say leave it up to each individual.
Swimmer: 13) I am not an abortion activist. The choices I described are above. Yes we appear to have that power and our "own pee wee world" is the only place we have evidence for so far.
Steveo: 13. I have been pretty calm now, and I will try not to angry from these ones. You are labelling people unjustly. I am not pro abortion, as I have said many times, i am pro choice. I haven't said I would want to decide to get an abortion. But I don't think you, or I, should have the right to decide if someone else can and can not get an abortion. So please do not label me, or others here (unless they say "I am pro abortion") as pro abortion. The term is pro choice. I bet you a lot of the 'abortion supporters' would not even get an abortion, just think it should be an available option.
My reply: Pro choice, hmmmm? What exactly and specifically in scientific terms are the choices? In Christian terms pro-choice means the choice to let your baby live or cause your baby to die. What other choices are involved? When does it become murder? If you kill a 10 year old, is that murder? What about a 1 year old, is that murder? What about a 1 day old baby, is that murder? What if one foot is still in the womb, is that murder? What if only the head is sticking out of the womb, is that murder? What if the baby is still inside the womb, is that murder? What if the baby growing inside the womb is 7 months along, is that murder? When does it stop becoming murder? How young and premature does the baby have to be before you stop calling it murder? If it's OK to murder under any of these conditions - then you're saying it's OK to murder.
14. And when you look at it that way, you abortion proponents/activists, doesn't it strike you odd to then also ask the question - how can God allow bad things to happen to good people? Aren't you, who are pro-abortion, willingly destroying a totally helpless life? What kind of a person could do that? Don't you see now, that God is not responsible for the evil in the world? You are. We are. I am. Don't you see that you/we/me have the power to be the sole cause of good in the world?
Laidback: 14/. Kill or be killed - To exist you must Kill and gorge on other living resources, be it animal or vegetable every thing is still made up of cells...
All cells are living entities regardless of the species, and Abortion is still about survival albeit inclined more to comfort of ones existence, Pro_abortionists and Antiabortionists are merely bullies!
Swimmer: 14) I agree we are responsible for good and bad because there is no evidence for any God to whom to give the responsibility. We also define what is good and bad.
Steveo: 14. I agree, we are the ones who are in control of the good and bad things....that and random chance. I actually think that many of the bad things that happen are just random chance. All of the victims from the huricane........they didn't neccessarily do anything bad, they just were unlucky to live where they did at that time.
My reply: Laidback - kill or be killed? You must kill your unborn baby or it will kill you? Shame on you!! Swimmer.....we define what's good and bad? Which we? pro-choicers or pro-lifers? How about the absolute truths offered in the Bible?
15. Please answer the above questions honestly, with your own opinions, and with factual evidence to back up your opinions or claims. If you do this, without criticizing the question (after all, what's the point in doing that?), I will seriously take a look at your honest opinions and factuallly supporting evidence. If I can refute it with evidence of my own - I will submit to your opinion for the time being. Deal?
Laidback: 15/. May I suggest you find out for your self the real truth?
The tools are there for you, what is stopping you to see for your self?
Swimmer: 15) Well I've kept my end of the bargain or at least I have tried to - I only hope you do too. Anything I have written above has been from memory so please accept my apology if I've got a date wrong or made an error of detail. I'm only human!
Steveo: 15. Well, I answered everything honestly, with my opinions. Some of my answers are speculation not fact, but they have been labelled as such, so there should be no problem with those.
My reply: Laidback, I have found the truth - His name is Jesus Christ. Swimmer, hopefully I've shown you that your answers are generally just your own opinions, or those you've digested from others. Steveo, speculation and opinion - I have no problem with that. You see, just like the homosexual issue, evolution/science cannot provide the answers to life's toughest questions.
This is a really good question, Laidback. We don't really know, someday I expect to know (after I die and go to heaven). There are some religious people who believe that WE add to God's base of knowledge. If we follow God's will for mankind, this allows us to excel and suceed beyond our wildest dreams - this is what brings God happiness and joy. Human potential stretched to its limits - may just have the potential to expand God's knowledge. Not a one of us will ever be like God, having this expansive knowledge base, but we are like Him in the sense that we can expand our knowledge, we can achieve great things, .......we can. Obviously there are people you admire - great people, great scientists, great leaders, great Moms and Dads, great athletes, etc. Even though you or I (maybe we will/do) may not achieve greatness - the great ones take us with them, our generation benefits from their greatness - and we take part in being responsible for producing such greatness. God gives abilitiy, we cultivate it.
This is a really good question, Laidback. We don't really know, someday I expect to know (after I die and go to heaven). There are some religious people who believe that WE add to God's base of knowledge. If we follow God's will for mankind, this allows us to excel and suceed beyond our wildest dreams - this is what brings God happiness and joy. Human potential stretched to its limits - may just have the potential to expand God's knowledge. Not a one of us will ever be like God, having this expansive knowledge base, but we are like Him in the sense that we can expand our knowledge, we can achieve great things, .......we can. Obviously there are people you admire - great people, great scientists, great leaders, great Moms and Dads, great athletes, etc. Even though you or I (maybe we will/do) may not achieve greatness - the great ones take us with them, our generation benefits from their greatness - and we take part in being responsible for producing such greatness. God gives abilitiy, we cultivate it.
quote by Laidback,
Lets go back when nothing existed and god was suppose to create the universe, hmmmm what a conundrum as we haven't given thought on what Data and more importantly where did the Data come from to facilitate said gods Intelligence, NO-THING EXISTED to avail Data to it before its claimed creation sequence!
Unless you are willing to concede that its intelligence evolved along withs its creations somehow!
Nothing existed in our universe - but God existed before our universe was created.
----Thanks for taking the time to reply, I appreciate the honest answers. I'm satisfied with your answers - they were pretty much what I expected (good or bad). No reply is necessary or expected, but feel free.
Regards,
Here are some other obvervations about differences between races, or gene pools. I'm not endorsing the following source - because I haven't checked it out, nor do I believe in evolution, but I wanted to give you one of your 'own' sources. However, that said, these views are consistent throughout the scientific community.
I thought that last paragraph was rather interesting. He's saying that children are racist. I suppose children are fearful of seeing something different, and this carries over into adulthood. But I have seen children who are exposed to diverse race situations and adjust better than the adults. So this, I believe, is a very good argument for integration, not only in our communities, but throughout the world.
Messenger,
The above quote was taken from a website promoting "racialism" (i.e., racial segregation), and the author of the book produces disputed, refuted, and disreputable "science" supporting "racialism". The website is dripping with racial bigotry. You exhibit zero critical thinking skills. No, it is not "one of 'our' own sources", and no, these views are not "consistent throughout the scientific community". I'm surprised the website didn't have a big swastika for a banner. Since it didn't, the message of the website apparently went right by you. Rather than saying "I haven't checked it out", you should actually "check it out" before posting. You are responsible for what you post. If you want your posting ID associated with white supremacy, that's your problem.
This is one of the main reasons I wanted you to STOP using the term evolutionists. This implies, and you imply that all of us who 'believe' in evolution also are experts in this. I am not an expert on evolution. I very well could not understand some parts (and there are parts of the theory of evolution that I do not even know) correctly. Just because some of us did not have answers for some of the questions does not mean that answers don't exist, or even that the answers haven't been found already.
This is one of the main reasons I wanted you to STOP using the term evolutionists. This implies, and you imply that all of us who 'believe' in evolution also are experts in this. I am not an expert on evolution. I very well could not understand some parts (and there are parts of the theory of evolution that I do not even know) correctly. Just because some of us did not have answers for some of the questions does not mean that answers don't exist, or even that the answers haven't been found already.
My reply: Just checking on this one. I knew that scientists are not able to answer this question, yet. There of course is an intelligent cause behind the structure and generation of DNA, more complex than any computer software program that has yet been written (at least according to Bill Gates).
Your opinion on the subject is just opinion. There is no evidence for any of it. And FYI, most people who know anything about computers think Microsoft is useless. Bill Gates is not the god of programming, he is just the richest programmer.
I am convinced that you are the most dishonest person in the entire world! Either that or your reading comprehension is that of an 8 year old. You said that hair was beneficial, and I said that I had heard of an environment with lots of water. And then I explained how wet hair is a bad thing in such an environment. I am pretty sure environmental factors are the biggest factor in evolution, and such an environment would drive evolution of something like hair in a wet environment where body hair equals freezing cold, equals death. Are you so stupid you do not understand that? Or so dishonest that you just ignore it and LIE about it.
I am convinced that you are the most dishonest person in the entire world! Either that or your reading comprehension is that of an 8 year old. You said that hair was beneficial, and I said that I had heard of an environment with lots of water. And then I explained how wet hair is a bad thing in such an environment. I am pretty sure environmental factors are the biggest factor in evolution, and such an environment would drive evolution of something like hair in a wet environment where body hair equals freezing cold, equals death. Are you so stupid you do not understand that? Or so dishonest that you just ignore it and LIE about it.
Steveo: 6/7. I have no idea, although I wonder if the changes in teeth were around the same time humans started using fire to cook meat? I think those might be related....however that is only unknowledgable speculation.
My reply: Why would people use fire to cook meat? Why doesn't it occur to any other creature on the planet to use fire to cook meat? Cooking meat doesn't really make it much softer. Actually, depending on who's doing' the cookin', the meat could be 10 times as tough as raw meat. Animals crave raw meat, why would humans want to cook their food. This is a poor argument.
Basically, no one is able to answer these questions, so far.
Go eat raw meat for a few months and tell me what happens to you. Make sure to eat lots of raw chicken, and eggs and pork. And then come back to me and ask us why we cook meat? I didn't look up what the changes in our teeth were, nor did anyone post it. I speculated on it because cooking food clearly changes the way it would be eaten. To me it makes sense that when the consitency of the food changes, our teeth might change...hmmmm......and why don't other animals use fire? Aren't we all in agreement that humans are smarter than animals? I might say the difference is degree, and you a wall, but we don't say there is no difference.
Go read a first year university anthropology textbook. It will document recorded history of other hominids. Your answer is not correct. it si your speculation. The truth in the matter is we will not know what the exact differences are in human instincts and animal instincts until the brain of all animals and humans is understood much better. You talk about us claiming things with no evidence. You are BY FAR the worst offender of this. You have no idea what evidence really is, or your a liar. Now I assume your a liar because you come across as someone with reasonable intelligence. And anyone with semi reasonable intelligence can not honestly be as stupid as you. So that makes you a dishonest excuse for a human being. If there is a god I can guarantee he is not proud of you. I know this for a fact.
Go read a first year university anthropology textbook. It will document recorded history of other hominids. Your answer is not correct. it si your speculation. The truth in the matter is we will not know what the exact differences are in human instincts and animal instincts until the brain of all animals and humans is understood much better. You talk about us claiming things with no evidence. You are BY FAR the worst offender of this. You have no idea what evidence really is, or your a liar. Now I assume your a liar because you come across as someone with reasonable intelligence. And anyone with semi reasonable intelligence can not honestly be as stupid as you. So that makes you a dishonest excuse for a human being. If there is a god I can guarantee he is not proud of you. I know this for a fact.
Steveo: 9. Doesn't your pet dog ziggy display some human attributes? Can you not tell when he is happy, or sad, or wants something, or sleepy, or energetic? Some animals are very affectionate to their young, like humans are. I have seen my cat get very mad before, get distressed. So I disagree, because I think many animals display behavioural characteristics that humans also display.
My reply: No, animals do not display any human attributes. There are animal instincts and attributes and there are human ones. There is a wall between the two. Ziggy does not have any desire to speak to you, or learn how to type or operate a computer, or find a job, or go to school, etc. etc. etc. Someone takes care of him, or God and he takes care of himself if he's not domesticated. God provides everything the wild creature needs to survive. Humans prevent other humans, and many creatures for that matter, from accessing the things they need to survive, like food and shelter. Your cat gets mad and distressed because you're so 'misconfused' about things. Even your cat knows that God created the universe, and I'm sure he thinks He's the cat's meow.
The point here is that if evolution were true, there would be more advanced intelligence among all creatures, not just humans.
Now your bad mouthing my cat? Your probably the kind of person that animals don't like. Animals are often really good at picking out bad people. Some humans can do that too......they say its instinct....weird how both species show the same instincts sometimes? And dogs show loyalty. I know many a loyal human being......you cast aside these arguements and claim there is a wall. You generalize a statement, and then just throw out any examples. I didn't say ziggy was the same as a human. But I guarantee he shows some human attributes. Some human behavior. No, my cat is generally in a happy mood. He usually gets distressed when one of the younger neighborhood cats picks on him. He is now an old guy. Sometimes he also gets a little bit distressed when we close his window for the night and he is not ready to come inside. 95% of the time he is a very affectionate, friendly cat.
You have no idea what time is like where god is. Time is a unit of measure. So is a meter (or foot you imperial using americans....what a dumb system!) A spacial measurement is used to define the distance between 2 points, and time is used to measure the temporal separation between 2 events. Going any deeper than that is all philosophical, and not fact. The fact is, time exists here. We have a precise definition for time here. And if there is a god, no one has gone to where he is, and then come back to report on it, so quit telling me what time is like there. Does it say in the bible how time is described where god is?
You have no idea what time is like where god is. Time is a unit of measure. So is a meter (or foot you imperial using americans....what a dumb system!) A spacial measurement is used to define the distance between 2 points, and time is used to measure the temporal separation between 2 events. Going any deeper than that is all philosophical, and not fact. The fact is, time exists here. We have a precise definition for time here. And if there is a god, no one has gone to where he is, and then come back to report on it, so quit telling me what time is like there. Does it say in the bible how time is described where god is?
Steveo: 11. Outside of our universe. Well there may be an 11 dimensional universe with us (a 4D brane) floating around inside of it. It might be a zoo filled with spagetti monsters and purple invisible elephants. Hehehe. The fact is we have no way of actually knowing. Anything is pure speculation. My first example is more scientifically plausible, but neither is experimentally testable.
My reply: God is outside our universe, along with God knows what else. Do you doubt that science may one day be able to see what's outside our universe? Even I have more faith in science than you do, apparently.
Kind of a tough question, I know.
See and thats where all your information about science is wrong. We can't look at what we can't see. We can't study what we can't get information about. All of the light that exists in the universe is younger than the age of the universe. The universe was opaque for for first (I think 200 000 years or so, but I would have to look it up). We can not see anything early than that. I don't have faith in science, I have faith in the method. I also understand where the method can, and can not make progress.
I thought the phrase "my parents wanted a baby" denoted the choice they made. They deliberately choose to get pregnant, and i was the result. You a complete idiot. My answer was not scientific at all. I used a bit of logic, but logic is defined by the philosopher and the mathematician, not the scientist.
I thought the phrase "my parents wanted a baby" denoted the choice they made. They deliberately choose to get pregnant, and i was the result. You a complete idiot. My answer was not scientific at all. I used a bit of logic, but logic is defined by the philosopher and the mathematician, not the scientist.
My reply: Pro choice, hmmmm? What exactly and specifically in scientific terms are the choices? In Christian terms pro-choice means the choice to let your baby live or cause your baby to die. What other choices are involved? When does it become murder? If you kill a 10 year old, is that murder? What about a 1 year old, is that murder? What about a 1 day old baby, is that murder? What if one foot is still in the womb, is that murder? What if only the head is sticking out of the womb, is that murder? What if the baby is still inside the womb, is that murder? What if the baby growing inside the womb is 7 months along, is that murder? When does it stop becoming murder? How young and premature does the baby have to be before you stop calling it murder? If it's OK to murder under any of these conditions - then you're saying it's OK to murder.
Your just an @SSHOLE! You know damn well what pro choice means. The choices are give birth or don't. Pro choice means you don't want to tell others what to do. Maybe your a facist and want to control others through brute force rather than let them make your decisions, but I am no facist! We shouldn't let people hunt either, because people could use the guns to murder people. And since most murders in Canada are the result of stabbings, we should ban the selling of all kitchen knives, because killing is a sin, and since the knives can be used to commit that sin, they are bad! The movie Demolition Man was on TBS this afternoon....pretty bad movie, but it illustrates the point pretty well. In that movie everything that was deemed bad for society was made illegal. They even made kissing illegal, and swearing, and smoking, and drinking, etc.... Is that the kind of world you want Messenger? Where anything is deemed bad by you, its illegal? That makes you a facist. You also fail to understand that if abortions are made illegal it just means more people are going to die from doing them themselves. Just by making something illegal, it doesn't get rid of the problem. Look at drugs. They are all illegal, and the problem doesn't disappear.
Look back through History. Almost all societies have had similar rules to those laid out in the bible. Those types of rules were/are neccessary for humans to function in a society. And by we I think Swimmer meant society. What our society deems bad others do not. Homosexuality is deemed good by some societies, and hetersexuality is only used for procreation. In their society everything we do would be disgusting. Good and bad is relative for the most part, especially when it comes to sex. Things like murdering and stealing are pretty universal, because all societies function better with less murdering and less stealing. It always helps society if you can devote energy to survial instead of trying to protect your property. Look at the united states. Don't you think Americans would be better off trying to spend more money on your own country instead of on your military? Fortunately the politicians have you so brain washed you think its better the way it is....when half of all American causualities are from friendly fire, and all of the poor are afraid to get sick because medical care will cause bankrupcy. Man I am glad I don't live in America! Did you know out of the industrial countries, America's medical system is deemed the worst because you seem not to care about the poor?
Look back through History. Almost all societies have had similar rules to those laid out in the bible. Those types of rules were/are neccessary for humans to function in a society. And by we I think Swimmer meant society. What our society deems bad others do not. Homosexuality is deemed good by some societies, and hetersexuality is only used for procreation. In their society everything we do would be disgusting. Good and bad is relative for the most part, especially when it comes to sex. Things like murdering and stealing are pretty universal, because all societies function better with less murdering and less stealing. It always helps society if you can devote energy to survial instead of trying to protect your property. Look at the united states. Don't you think Americans would be better off trying to spend more money on your own country instead of on your military? Fortunately the politicians have you so brain washed you think its better the way it is....when half of all American causualities are from friendly fire, and all of the poor are afraid to get sick because medical care will cause bankrupcy. Man I am glad I don't live in America! Did you know out of the industrial countries, America's medical system is deemed the worst because you seem not to care about the poor?
My reply: Laidback, I have found the truth - His name is Jesus Christ. Swimmer, hopefully I've shown you that your answers are generally just your own opinions, or those you've digested from others. Steveo, speculation and opinion - I have no problem with that. You see, just like the homosexual issue, evolution/science cannot provide the answers to life's toughest questions.
Its funny you say evolution and science can't answer some of lifes toughest questions. They don't even try too! They try to figure out about nature. I guess when you read the comics and they don't tell you whats on tv at night your probably disappointed. Also, most of life's toughest questions do not have easy answers....hence why they are called "life's toughest questions". If I had no ethics, I think it would be good to set up an experimental society with only christian values.....and then you would see that it would not be the best place. As far as laws and freedoms go, the bible is outdated.
How is this not speculation, where as things the rest of us said is? Explain this to me? I am amazed you can not see your dishonesty, or you just ignore it because you think your right. If you were actualy right you would not have to resort to such dishonest tactics. And besides, you shouldn't, because you are a christian, and a messenger of god (apparently). Its people like you who made me hate christianity. I have since become much more tolerant, and accepting, but I have never forgotten. Just thought you would like to know that your message comes across very poorly!
8. Why don't any ape type animals display a need to draw their history onto rock?
Laidback: 4/. 5/. 6/. 7/. 8/. 9/. 10/.
Changes occur most of the time slowly and for the most in tiny insignificant steps, Once in a while a small change can have a profound and huge difference.
Swimmer: 8) We're back to "post hoc" arguments. We are "ape type" by the way!
Steveo: 8. I think that was supposed to be because of their lacking ability for abstract thought. Again, I don't know much about it, but I think other hominids (Neandrathals) did draw things in caves and such. Not sure though.
My reply: Well, it's obvious that none of you have a clue. The correct answer is that animals have certain instinct and humans have human instincts. There is a wall between humans and other creatures - one that cannot be breached. We were created or designed. Humans were created with a purpose to manage the earth and everything in/upon it.
9. Why doesn't any other living creature display human qualities or habits, most particularily of their own accord?
Laidback: 4/. 5/. 6/. 7/. 8/. 9/. 10/.
Changes occur most of the time slowly and for the most in tiny insignificant steps, Once in a while a small change can have a profound and huge difference.
Swimmer: 9) Like 5, 6 and 8 - why don't we fly or have gills to breath under water - your point is?
Steveo: 9. Doesn't your pet dog ziggy display some human attributes? Can you not tell when he is happy, or sad, or wants something, or sleepy, or energetic? Some animals are very affectionate to their young, like humans are. I have seen my cat get very mad before, get distressed. So I disagree, because I think many animals display behavioural characteristics that humans also display.
My reply: No, animals do not display any human attributes. There are animal instincts and attributes and there are human ones. There is a wall between the two. Ziggy does not have any desire to speak to you, or learn how to type or operate a computer, or find a job, or go to school, etc. etc. etc. Someone takes care of him, or God and he takes care of himself if he's not domesticated. God provides everything the wild creature needs to survive. Humans prevent other humans, and many creatures for that matter, from accessing the things they need to survive, like food and shelter. Your cat gets mad and distressed because you're so 'misconfused' about things. Even your cat knows that God created the universe, and I'm sure he thinks He's the cat's meow.
The point here is that if evolution were true, there would be more advanced intelligence among all creatures, not just humans.
10. How do you explain the non-existence of time? If you cannot explain it - does that make it false?
Laidback: 4/. 5/. 6/. 7/. 8/. 9/. 10/.
Changes occur most of the time slowly and for the most in tiny insignificant steps, Once in a while a small change can have a profound and huge difference.
Swimmer: 10) Oooo too deep. I thought entropy gave a direction to time? Also the planet we live on gives a pretty detailed record of the passage of time - plate tectonics, igneous rocks, sedimentation, metamorphic rocks, erosion, layering and deformation of strata, fossil distribution, living creature distribution etc.
Steveo: 10. What do you mean the non existance of time? Time exists, and is defined very precisely. A second is the time of a few billion (to lazy to look it up, if you are curious, look up 'SI definition of a second') ocsilations of an excited state of a cesuim atom. Time is defined by simple counting. And like swimmer said, Entropy regulates the direction that time passes. Entropy for the universe always increases with time.
My reply: Time exists in this universe, but not where God is. Time can be explained like a full term pregnancy is explained. A seed is fertilized in the mother's womb and in a period of time the womb gives birth to a living human being, who begins another journey through time, and then dies. Eternal life and resurrection is given to those whom the Lord has chosen, and these people enter God's timelessness outside this universe. Our universe may be thought of this way. God provided the seed/s to begin this universe, you might consider us to be within the womb of the Universe. Some seeds die (and go to hell, which I believe is translated as 'dirt'), some seeds bloom, and go to Heaven. Time only exists in this universe. Everything in this universe is measured by time. Nothing outside this universe is measured this way. God always was, is, and will be. Thank God.
11. What is outside our universe? If you cannot provide an answer, does that mean there's nothing?
Laidback: 11/.
The universe is just that! It is all that exists! If anything is discovered beyond - Then the only thing that changes is that our Database evolves a little more information to it...
Swimmer: 11) No idea and Not necessarily.
Steveo: 11. Outside of our universe. Well there may be an 11 dimensional universe with us (a 4D brane) floating around inside of it. It might be a zoo filled with spagetti monsters and purple invisible elephants. Hehehe. The fact is we have no way of actually knowing. Anything is pure speculation. My first example is more scientifically plausible, but neither is experimentally testable.
My reply: God is outside our universe, along with God knows what else. Do you doubt that science may one day be able to see what's outside our universe? Even I have more faith in science than you do, apparently.
Kind of a tough question, I know.
12. Who created you? Your parents? How is that possible? Didn't you evolve? Didn't you come about naturally, and not as the result of someone's choice? If you agree that you came about as a result of someone's choice, please explain how there could not have been a God who chose to create mankind?
Laidback: 12/.
Yes after the battle of the two cells the female egg and sperm die and amalgamate and as a result one single cell with a compromised gene sequence is now eking out its limited existence by scavenging the remains to where the dividing cells will eventually evolve organs to deal with an ever increasing need for more resources and the means for a more suitable environment, it will end up stretching the hosts available resources to the limits to where it will be forced to seek out other available resources by eventually leaving its host, commonly known as Birth!
Swimmer: 12) From a coming together of egg and sperm from mother and father respectively - naturally. The first choice involved was whether they had sex on the occasion of my conception. The actual sperm that happened to enter the particular egg was a matter of luck. The second choice was an ongoing one to nurture me - or not - inside and outside the womb. All of this is an ongoing cycle of events. The whole process evolved - naturally. The individuals' involved are also part of the evolutionary process, partly by luck but mostly by natural selection - that is those genetically encoded qualities available that happen to increase the likelihood of their successfully mating and rearing offspring tend to be passed on to their offspring. Remember genes are not diluted. There could very well have been a God involved. Unfortunately for you, there is no evidence of a process or mechanism for a God's involvement.
Steveo: 12. My parents created me because they wanted a baby. And what a baby I turned out to be if I do say so myself hahaha. But the decision to procreate by two members of a species does no way prove god created that species. Thats a huge jump in logic....and one that I just don't follow.
My reply: Your answers are scientific only, you neglected the human choice factor. The fact is that two people chose to create the conditions in which said birth could occur. God put the inspiration/desire there as part of our physical characteristic (which we have abused). If you choose not to create human beings, humanity would become extinct.
13. For those of you who are abortion activists, don't you agree that pregnancy is a choice? And also that men/women have power to choose who lives in dies in their own pee wee world?
Laidback: 13/. I say leave it up to each individual.
Swimmer: 13) I am not an abortion activist. The choices I described are above. Yes we appear to have that power and our "own pee wee world" is the only place we have evidence for so far.
Steveo: 13. I have been pretty calm now, and I will try not to angry from these ones. You are labelling people unjustly. I am not pro abortion, as I have said many times, i am pro choice. I haven't said I would want to decide to get an abortion. But I don't think you, or I, should have the right to decide if someone else can and can not get an abortion. So please do not label me, or others here (unless they say "I am pro abortion") as pro abortion. The term is pro choice. I bet you a lot of the 'abortion supporters' would not even get an abortion, just think it should be an available option.
My reply: Pro choice, hmmmm? What exactly and specifically in scientific terms are the choices? In Christian terms pro-choice means the choice to let your baby live or cause your baby to die. What other choices are involved? When does it become murder? If you kill a 10 year old, is that murder? What about a 1 year old, is that murder? What about a 1 day old baby, is that murder? What if one foot is still in the womb, is that murder? What if only the head is sticking out of the womb, is that murder? What if the baby is still inside the womb, is that murder? What if the baby growing inside the womb is 7 months along, is that murder? When does it stop becoming murder? How young and premature does the baby have to be before you stop calling it murder? If it's OK to murder under any of these conditions - then you're saying it's OK to murder.
14. And when you look at it that way, you abortion proponents/activists, doesn't it strike you odd to then also ask the question - how can God allow bad things to happen to good people? Aren't you, who are pro-abortion, willingly destroying a totally helpless life? What kind of a person could do that? Don't you see now, that God is not responsible for the evil in the world? You are. We are. I am. Don't you see that you/we/me have the power to be the sole cause of good in the world?
Laidback: 14/. Kill or be killed - To exist you must Kill and gorge on other living resources, be it animal or vegetable every thing is still made up of cells...
All cells are living entities regardless of the species, and Abortion is still about survival albeit inclined more to comfort of ones existence, Pro_abortionists and Antiabortionists are merely bullies!
Swimmer: 14) I agree we are responsible for good and bad because there is no evidence for any God to whom to give the responsibility. We also define what is good and bad.
Steveo: 14. I agree, we are the ones who are in control of the good and bad things....that and random chance. I actually think that many of the bad things that happen are just random chance. All of the victims from the huricane........they didn't neccessarily do anything bad, they just were unlucky to live where they did at that time.
My reply: Laidback - kill or be killed? You must kill your unborn baby or it will kill you? Shame on you!! Swimmer.....we define what's good and bad? Which we? pro-choicers or pro-lifers? How about the absolute truths offered in the Bible?
15. Please answer the above questions honestly, with your own opinions, and with factual evidence to back up your opinions or claims. If you do this, without criticizing the question (after all, what's the point in doing that?), I will seriously take a look at your honest opinions and factuallly supporting evidence. If I can refute it with evidence of my own - I will submit to your opinion for the time being. Deal?
Laidback: 15/. May I suggest you find out for your self the real truth?
The tools are there for you, what is stopping you to see for your self?
Swimmer: 15) Well I've kept my end of the bargain or at least I have tried to - I only hope you do too. Anything I have written above has been from memory so please accept my apology if I've got a date wrong or made an error of detail. I'm only human!
Steveo: 15. Well, I answered everything honestly, with my opinions. Some of my answers are speculation not fact, but they have been labelled as such, so there should be no problem with those.
My reply: Laidback, I have found the truth - His name is Jesus Christ. Swimmer, hopefully I've shown you that your answers are generally just your own opinions, or those you've digested from others. Steveo, speculation and opinion - I have no problem with that. You see, just like the homosexual issue, evolution/science cannot provide the answers to life's toughest questions.
QUOTE
quote by Laidback,
Heres a thought... what facilitated gods intelligence? we know that intelligence is only gained by Data, and the more Data the greater the intellect and or intelligence, the evolution of our intellect over the past 500 years is proof of this...
as we know what the average shmo knows today is far more than the average shmo from a couple of centuries ago..
Heres a thought... what facilitated gods intelligence? we know that intelligence is only gained by Data, and the more Data the greater the intellect and or intelligence, the evolution of our intellect over the past 500 years is proof of this...
as we know what the average shmo knows today is far more than the average shmo from a couple of centuries ago..
This is a really good question, Laidback. We don't really know, someday I expect to know (after I die and go to heaven). There are some religious people who believe that WE add to God's base of knowledge. If we follow God's will for mankind, this allows us to excel and suceed beyond our wildest dreams - this is what brings God happiness and joy. Human potential stretched to its limits - may just have the potential to expand God's knowledge. Not a one of us will ever be like God, having this expansive knowledge base, but we are like Him in the sense that we can expand our knowledge, we can achieve great things, .......we can. Obviously there are people you admire - great people, great scientists, great leaders, great Moms and Dads, great athletes, etc. Even though you or I (maybe we will/do) may not achieve greatness - the great ones take us with them, our generation benefits from their greatness - and we take part in being responsible for producing such greatness. God gives abilitiy, we cultivate it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| quote by Laidback, Heres a thought... what facilitated gods intelligence? we know that intelligence is only gained by Data, and the more Data the greater the intellect and or intelligence, the evolution of our intellect over the past 500 years is proof of this... as we know what the average shmo knows today is far more than the average shmo from a couple of centuries ago.. |
This is a really good question, Laidback. We don't really know, someday I expect to know (after I die and go to heaven). There are some religious people who believe that WE add to God's base of knowledge. If we follow God's will for mankind, this allows us to excel and suceed beyond our wildest dreams - this is what brings God happiness and joy. Human potential stretched to its limits - may just have the potential to expand God's knowledge. Not a one of us will ever be like God, having this expansive knowledge base, but we are like Him in the sense that we can expand our knowledge, we can achieve great things, .......we can. Obviously there are people you admire - great people, great scientists, great leaders, great Moms and Dads, great athletes, etc. Even though you or I (maybe we will/do) may not achieve greatness - the great ones take us with them, our generation benefits from their greatness - and we take part in being responsible for producing such greatness. God gives abilitiy, we cultivate it.
quote by Laidback,
Lets go back when nothing existed and god was suppose to create the universe, hmmmm what a conundrum as we haven't given thought on what Data and more importantly where did the Data come from to facilitate said gods Intelligence, NO-THING EXISTED to avail Data to it before its claimed creation sequence!
Unless you are willing to concede that its intelligence evolved along withs its creations somehow!
Nothing existed in our universe - but God existed before our universe was created.
----Thanks for taking the time to reply, I appreciate the honest answers. I'm satisfied with your answers - they were pretty much what I expected (good or bad). No reply is necessary or expected, but feel free.
Regards,
QUOTE (Messenger+Feb 26 2006, 06:16 PM)
Here are some other obvervations about differences between races, or gene pools. I'm not endorsing the following source - because I haven't checked it out, nor do I believe in evolution, but I wanted to give you one of your 'own' sources. However, that said, these views are consistent throughout the scientific community.
QUOTE
Blacks reach sexual maturity sooner than whites, who reach it sooner than Asians. By age twelve, 19 percent of American black girls have fully developed breasts and pubic hair whereas only five percent of white girls do. Blacks, on average, have an earlier first menstruation than whites, and Asians menstruate later than whites. In the United States, the average white woman is two full years older than the average black woman when she first has sexual intercourse, and Asians start having intercourse even later than whites.
Professor Rushton has bravely taken on the delicate subject of genital size, which has received reluctant but official attention because of AIDS. International organizations that try to provide condoms to people all over the world have discovered that one size does not fit all. Blacks have larger penises than whites, who have larger penises than Asians. The length of the vagina also differs proportionately in each race. Black men produce more sperm than do whites, and Asian men produce the least.
-----------------------------------
This clearly demonstrated human preference for associating with others who are similar has important implications for race relations. Even very young children are conscious of race and show racial preferences. Prof. Rushton writes that ethnocentrism and "racism" are probably natural mechanisms built into the human genotype.
Source: http://www.amren.com/9412issue/9412issue.html
Professor Rushton has bravely taken on the delicate subject of genital size, which has received reluctant but official attention because of AIDS. International organizations that try to provide condoms to people all over the world have discovered that one size does not fit all. Blacks have larger penises than whites, who have larger penises than Asians. The length of the vagina also differs proportionately in each race. Black men produce more sperm than do whites, and Asian men produce the least.
-----------------------------------
This clearly demonstrated human preference for associating with others who are similar has important implications for race relations. Even very young children are conscious of race and show racial preferences. Prof. Rushton writes that ethnocentrism and "racism" are probably natural mechanisms built into the human genotype.
Source: http://www.amren.com/9412issue/9412issue.html
I thought that last paragraph was rather interesting. He's saying that children are racist. I suppose children are fearful of seeing something different, and this carries over into adulthood. But I have seen children who are exposed to diverse race situations and adjust better than the adults. So this, I believe, is a very good argument for integration, not only in our communities, but throughout the world.
Messenger,
The above quote was taken from a website promoting "racialism" (i.e., racial segregation), and the author of the book produces disputed, refuted, and disreputable "science" supporting "racialism". The website is dripping with racial bigotry. You exhibit zero critical thinking skills. No, it is not "one of 'our' own sources", and no, these views are not "consistent throughout the scientific community". I'm surprised the website didn't have a big swastika for a banner. Since it didn't, the message of the website apparently went right by you. Rather than saying "I haven't checked it out", you should actually "check it out" before posting. You are responsible for what you post. If you want your posting ID associated with white supremacy, that's your problem.
QUOTE
I see a few of you have taken up the challenge and answered my questions. I'll try to respond to each reply. Strange that they are different, obviously there is diversity even among evolutionists.
This is one of the main reasons I wanted you to STOP using the term evolutionists. This implies, and you imply that all of us who 'believe' in evolution also are experts in this. I am not an expert on evolution. I very well could not understand some parts (and there are parts of the theory of evolution that I do not even know) correctly. Just because some of us did not have answers for some of the questions does not mean that answers don't exist, or even that the answers haven't been found already.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I see a few of you have taken up the challenge and answered my questions. I'll try to respond to each reply. Strange that they are different, obviously there is diversity even among evolutionists. |
This is one of the main reasons I wanted you to STOP using the term evolutionists. This implies, and you imply that all of us who 'believe' in evolution also are experts in this. I am not an expert on evolution. I very well could not understand some parts (and there are parts of the theory of evolution that I do not even know) correctly. Just because some of us did not have answers for some of the questions does not mean that answers don't exist, or even that the answers haven't been found already.
My reply: Just checking on this one. I knew that scientists are not able to answer this question, yet. There of course is an intelligent cause behind the structure and generation of DNA, more complex than any computer software program that has yet been written (at least according to Bill Gates).
Your opinion on the subject is just opinion. There is no evidence for any of it. And FYI, most people who know anything about computers think Microsoft is useless. Bill Gates is not the god of programming, he is just the richest programmer.
QUOTE
Steveo: 4. No idea, although I have heard of a shoreline type of environment where early humans would have been in the water a lot. As anyone with long hair knows....body hair + water = cold! So if that idea had any evidence there is a possible answer.
My reply: Laidback & Steveo didn't address the issue, at least not with an answer that would lead to better understanding of evolution and/or an aha moment. Swimmer thinks we lost our tail very early on, but doesn't address the evolutionary cause/mechanism that eliminated this body part.
My reply: Laidback & Steveo didn't address the issue, at least not with an answer that would lead to better understanding of evolution and/or an aha moment. Swimmer thinks we lost our tail very early on, but doesn't address the evolutionary cause/mechanism that eliminated this body part.
I am convinced that you are the most dishonest person in the entire world! Either that or your reading comprehension is that of an 8 year old. You said that hair was beneficial, and I said that I had heard of an environment with lots of water. And then I explained how wet hair is a bad thing in such an environment. I am pretty sure environmental factors are the biggest factor in evolution, and such an environment would drive evolution of something like hair in a wet environment where body hair equals freezing cold, equals death. Are you so stupid you do not understand that? Or so dishonest that you just ignore it and LIE about it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Steveo: 4. No idea, although I have heard of a shoreline type of environment where early humans would have been in the water a lot. As anyone with long hair knows....body hair + water = cold! So if that idea had any evidence there is a possible answer. My reply: Laidback & Steveo didn't address the issue, at least not with an answer that would lead to better understanding of evolution and/or an aha moment. Swimmer thinks we lost our tail very early on, but doesn't address the evolutionary cause/mechanism that eliminated this body part. |
I am convinced that you are the most dishonest person in the entire world! Either that or your reading comprehension is that of an 8 year old. You said that hair was beneficial, and I said that I had heard of an environment with lots of water. And then I explained how wet hair is a bad thing in such an environment. I am pretty sure environmental factors are the biggest factor in evolution, and such an environment would drive evolution of something like hair in a wet environment where body hair equals freezing cold, equals death. Are you so stupid you do not understand that? Or so dishonest that you just ignore it and LIE about it.
Steveo: 6/7. I have no idea, although I wonder if the changes in teeth were around the same time humans started using fire to cook meat? I think those might be related....however that is only unknowledgable speculation.
My reply: Why would people use fire to cook meat? Why doesn't it occur to any other creature on the planet to use fire to cook meat? Cooking meat doesn't really make it much softer. Actually, depending on who's doing' the cookin', the meat could be 10 times as tough as raw meat. Animals crave raw meat, why would humans want to cook their food. This is a poor argument.
Basically, no one is able to answer these questions, so far.
Go eat raw meat for a few months and tell me what happens to you. Make sure to eat lots of raw chicken, and eggs and pork. And then come back to me and ask us why we cook meat? I didn't look up what the changes in our teeth were, nor did anyone post it. I speculated on it because cooking food clearly changes the way it would be eaten. To me it makes sense that when the consitency of the food changes, our teeth might change...hmmmm......and why don't other animals use fire? Aren't we all in agreement that humans are smarter than animals? I might say the difference is degree, and you a wall, but we don't say there is no difference.
QUOTE
Steveo: 8. I think that was supposed to be because of their lacking ability for abstract thought. Again, I don't know much about it, but I think other hominids (Neandrathals) did draw things in caves and such. Not sure though.
My reply: Well, it's obvious that none of you have a clue. The correct answer is that animals have certain instinct and humans have human instincts. There is a wall between humans and other creatures - one that cannot be breached. We were created or designed. Humans were created with a purpose to manage the earth and everything in/upon it.
My reply: Well, it's obvious that none of you have a clue. The correct answer is that animals have certain instinct and humans have human instincts. There is a wall between humans and other creatures - one that cannot be breached. We were created or designed. Humans were created with a purpose to manage the earth and everything in/upon it.
Go read a first year university anthropology textbook. It will document recorded history of other hominids. Your answer is not correct. it si your speculation. The truth in the matter is we will not know what the exact differences are in human instincts and animal instincts until the brain of all animals and humans is understood much better. You talk about us claiming things with no evidence. You are BY FAR the worst offender of this. You have no idea what evidence really is, or your a liar. Now I assume your a liar because you come across as someone with reasonable intelligence. And anyone with semi reasonable intelligence can not honestly be as stupid as you. So that makes you a dishonest excuse for a human being. If there is a god I can guarantee he is not proud of you. I know this for a fact.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Steveo: 8. I think that was supposed to be because of their lacking ability for abstract thought. Again, I don't know much about it, but I think other hominids (Neandrathals) did draw things in caves and such. Not sure though. My reply: Well, it's obvious that none of you have a clue. The correct answer is that animals have certain instinct and humans have human instincts. There is a wall between humans and other creatures - one that cannot be breached. We were created or designed. Humans were created with a purpose to manage the earth and everything in/upon it. |
Go read a first year university anthropology textbook. It will document recorded history of other hominids. Your answer is not correct. it si your speculation. The truth in the matter is we will not know what the exact differences are in human instincts and animal instincts until the brain of all animals and humans is understood much better. You talk about us claiming things with no evidence. You are BY FAR the worst offender of this. You have no idea what evidence really is, or your a liar. Now I assume your a liar because you come across as someone with reasonable intelligence. And anyone with semi reasonable intelligence can not honestly be as stupid as you. So that makes you a dishonest excuse for a human being. If there is a god I can guarantee he is not proud of you. I know this for a fact.
Steveo: 9. Doesn't your pet dog ziggy display some human attributes? Can you not tell when he is happy, or sad, or wants something, or sleepy, or energetic? Some animals are very affectionate to their young, like humans are. I have seen my cat get very mad before, get distressed. So I disagree, because I think many animals display behavioural characteristics that humans also display.
My reply: No, animals do not display any human attributes. There are animal instincts and attributes and there are human ones. There is a wall between the two. Ziggy does not have any desire to speak to you, or learn how to type or operate a computer, or find a job, or go to school, etc. etc. etc. Someone takes care of him, or God and he takes care of himself if he's not domesticated. God provides everything the wild creature needs to survive. Humans prevent other humans, and many creatures for that matter, from accessing the things they need to survive, like food and shelter. Your cat gets mad and distressed because you're so 'misconfused' about things. Even your cat knows that God created the universe, and I'm sure he thinks He's the cat's meow.
The point here is that if evolution were true, there would be more advanced intelligence among all creatures, not just humans.
Now your bad mouthing my cat? Your probably the kind of person that animals don't like. Animals are often really good at picking out bad people. Some humans can do that too......they say its instinct....weird how both species show the same instincts sometimes? And dogs show loyalty. I know many a loyal human being......you cast aside these arguements and claim there is a wall. You generalize a statement, and then just throw out any examples. I didn't say ziggy was the same as a human. But I guarantee he shows some human attributes. Some human behavior. No, my cat is generally in a happy mood. He usually gets distressed when one of the younger neighborhood cats picks on him. He is now an old guy. Sometimes he also gets a little bit distressed when we close his window for the night and he is not ready to come inside. 95% of the time he is a very affectionate, friendly cat.
QUOTE
Steveo: 10. What do you mean the non existance of time? Time exists, and is defined very precisely. A second is the time of a few billion (to lazy to look it up, if you are curious, look up 'SI definition of a second') ocsilations of an excited state of a cesuim atom. Time is defined by simple counting. And like swimmer said, Entropy regulates the direction that time passes. Entropy for the universe always increases with time.
My reply: Time exists in this universe, but not where God is. Time can be explained like a full term pregnancy is explained. A seed is fertilized in the mother's womb and in a period of time the womb gives birth to a living human being, who begins another journey through time, and then dies. Eternal life and resurrection is given to those whom the Lord has chosen, and these people enter God's timelessness outside this universe. Our universe may be thought of this way. God provided the seed/s to begin this universe, you might consider us to be within the womb of the Universe. Some seeds die (and go to hell, which I believe is translated as 'dirt'), some seeds bloom, and go to Heaven. Time only exists in this universe. Everything in this universe is measured by time. Nothing outside this universe is measured this way. God always was, is, and will be. Thank God.
My reply: Time exists in this universe, but not where God is. Time can be explained like a full term pregnancy is explained. A seed is fertilized in the mother's womb and in a period of time the womb gives birth to a living human being, who begins another journey through time, and then dies. Eternal life and resurrection is given to those whom the Lord has chosen, and these people enter God's timelessness outside this universe. Our universe may be thought of this way. God provided the seed/s to begin this universe, you might consider us to be within the womb of the Universe. Some seeds die (and go to hell, which I believe is translated as 'dirt'), some seeds bloom, and go to Heaven. Time only exists in this universe. Everything in this universe is measured by time. Nothing outside this universe is measured this way. God always was, is, and will be. Thank God.
You have no idea what time is like where god is. Time is a unit of measure. So is a meter (or foot you imperial using americans....what a dumb system!) A spacial measurement is used to define the distance between 2 points, and time is used to measure the temporal separation between 2 events. Going any deeper than that is all philosophical, and not fact. The fact is, time exists here. We have a precise definition for time here. And if there is a god, no one has gone to where he is, and then come back to report on it, so quit telling me what time is like there. Does it say in the bible how time is described where god is?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Steveo: 10. What do you mean the non existance of time? Time exists, and is defined very precisely. A second is the time of a few billion (to lazy to look it up, if you are curious, look up 'SI definition of a second') ocsilations of an excited state of a cesuim atom. Time is defined by simple counting. And like swimmer said, Entropy regulates the direction that time passes. Entropy for the universe always increases with time. My reply: Time exists in this universe, but not where God is. Time can be explained like a full term pregnancy is explained. A seed is fertilized in the mother's womb and in a period of time the womb gives birth to a living human being, who begins another journey through time, and then dies. Eternal life and resurrection is given to those whom the Lord has chosen, and these people enter God's timelessness outside this universe. Our universe may be thought of this way. God provided the seed/s to begin this universe, you might consider us to be within the womb of the Universe. Some seeds die (and go to hell, which I believe is translated as 'dirt'), some seeds bloom, and go to Heaven. Time only exists in this universe. Everything in this universe is measured by time. Nothing outside this universe is measured this way. God always was, is, and will be. Thank God. |
You have no idea what time is like where god is. Time is a unit of measure. So is a meter (or foot you imperial using americans....what a dumb system!) A spacial measurement is used to define the distance between 2 points, and time is used to measure the temporal separation between 2 events. Going any deeper than that is all philosophical, and not fact. The fact is, time exists here. We have a precise definition for time here. And if there is a god, no one has gone to where he is, and then come back to report on it, so quit telling me what time is like there. Does it say in the bible how time is described where god is?
Steveo: 11. Outside of our universe. Well there may be an 11 dimensional universe with us (a 4D brane) floating around inside of it. It might be a zoo filled with spagetti monsters and purple invisible elephants. Hehehe. The fact is we have no way of actually knowing. Anything is pure speculation. My first example is more scientifically plausible, but neither is experimentally testable.
My reply: God is outside our universe, along with God knows what else. Do you doubt that science may one day be able to see what's outside our universe? Even I have more faith in science than you do, apparently.
Kind of a tough question, I know.
See and thats where all your information about science is wrong. We can't look at what we can't see. We can't study what we can't get information about. All of the light that exists in the universe is younger than the age of the universe. The universe was opaque for for first (I think 200 000 years or so, but I would have to look it up). We can not see anything early than that. I don't have faith in science, I have faith in the method. I also understand where the method can, and can not make progress.
QUOTE
Steveo: 12. My parents created me because they wanted a baby. And what a baby I turned out to be if I do say so myself hahaha. But the decision to procreate by two members of a species does no way prove god created that species. Thats a huge jump in logic....and one that I just don't follow.
My reply: Your answers are scientific only, you neglected the human choice factor. The fact is that two people chose to create the conditions in which said birth could occur. God put the inspiration/desire there as part of our physical characteristic (which we have abused). If you choose not to create human beings, humanity would become extinct.
My reply: Your answers are scientific only, you neglected the human choice factor. The fact is that two people chose to create the conditions in which said birth could occur. God put the inspiration/desire there as part of our physical characteristic (which we have abused). If you choose not to create human beings, humanity would become extinct.
I thought the phrase "my parents wanted a baby" denoted the choice they made. They deliberately choose to get pregnant, and i was the result. You a complete idiot. My answer was not scientific at all. I used a bit of logic, but logic is defined by the philosopher and the mathematician, not the scientist.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Steveo: 12. My parents created me because they wanted a baby. And what a baby I turned out to be if I do say so myself hahaha. But the decision to procreate by two members of a species does no way prove god created that species. Thats a huge jump in logic....and one that I just don't follow. My reply: Your answers are scientific only, you neglected the human choice factor. The fact is that two people chose to create the conditions in which said birth could occur. God put the inspiration/desire there as part of our physical characteristic (which we have abused). If you choose not to create human beings, humanity would become extinct. |
I thought the phrase "my parents wanted a baby" denoted the choice they made. They deliberately choose to get pregnant, and i was the result. You a complete idiot. My answer was not scientific at all. I used a bit of logic, but logic is defined by the philosopher and the mathematician, not the scientist.
My reply: Pro choice, hmmmm? What exactly and specifically in scientific terms are the choices? In Christian terms pro-choice means the choice to let your baby live or cause your baby to die. What other choices are involved? When does it become murder? If you kill a 10 year old, is that murder? What about a 1 year old, is that murder? What about a 1 day old baby, is that murder? What if one foot is still in the womb, is that murder? What if only the head is sticking out of the womb, is that murder? What if the baby is still inside the womb, is that murder? What if the baby growing inside the womb is 7 months along, is that murder? When does it stop becoming murder? How young and premature does the baby have to be before you stop calling it murder? If it's OK to murder under any of these conditions - then you're saying it's OK to murder.
Your just an @SSHOLE! You know damn well what pro choice means. The choices are give birth or don't. Pro choice means you don't want to tell others what to do. Maybe your a facist and want to control others through brute force rather than let them make your decisions, but I am no facist! We shouldn't let people hunt either, because people could use the guns to murder people. And since most murders in Canada are the result of stabbings, we should ban the selling of all kitchen knives, because killing is a sin, and since the knives can be used to commit that sin, they are bad! The movie Demolition Man was on TBS this afternoon....pretty bad movie, but it illustrates the point pretty well. In that movie everything that was deemed bad for society was made illegal. They even made kissing illegal, and swearing, and smoking, and drinking, etc.... Is that the kind of world you want Messenger? Where anything is deemed bad by you, its illegal? That makes you a facist. You also fail to understand that if abortions are made illegal it just means more people are going to die from doing them themselves. Just by making something illegal, it doesn't get rid of the problem. Look at drugs. They are all illegal, and the problem doesn't disappear.
QUOTE
Steveo: 14. I agree, we are the ones who are in control of the good and bad things....that and random chance. I actually think that many of the bad things that happen are just random chance. All of the victims from the huricane........they didn't neccessarily do anything bad, they just were unlucky to live where they did at that time.
My reply: Laidback - kill or be killed? You must kill your unborn baby or it will kill you? Shame on you!! Swimmer.....we define what's good and bad? Which we? pro-choicers or pro-lifers? How about the absolute truths offered in the Bible?
My reply: Laidback - kill or be killed? You must kill your unborn baby or it will kill you? Shame on you!! Swimmer.....we define what's good and bad? Which we? pro-choicers or pro-lifers? How about the absolute truths offered in the Bible?
Look back through History. Almost all societies have had similar rules to those laid out in the bible. Those types of rules were/are neccessary for humans to function in a society. And by we I think Swimmer meant society. What our society deems bad others do not. Homosexuality is deemed good by some societies, and hetersexuality is only used for procreation. In their society everything we do would be disgusting. Good and bad is relative for the most part, especially when it comes to sex. Things like murdering and stealing are pretty universal, because all societies function better with less murdering and less stealing. It always helps society if you can devote energy to survial instead of trying to protect your property. Look at the united states. Don't you think Americans would be better off trying to spend more money on your own country instead of on your military? Fortunately the politicians have you so brain washed you think its better the way it is....when half of all American causualities are from friendly fire, and all of the poor are afraid to get sick because medical care will cause bankrupcy. Man I am glad I don't live in America! Did you know out of the industrial countries, America's medical system is deemed the worst because you seem not to care about the poor?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Steveo: 14. I agree, we are the ones who are in control of the good and bad things....that and random chance. I actually think that many of the bad things that happen are just random chance. All of the victims from the huricane........they didn't neccessarily do anything bad, they just were unlucky to live where they did at that time. My reply: Laidback - kill or be killed? You must kill your unborn baby or it will kill you? Shame on you!! Swimmer.....we define what's good and bad? Which we? pro-choicers or pro-lifers? How about the absolute truths offered in the Bible? |
Look back through History. Almost all societies have had similar rules to those laid out in the bible. Those types of rules were/are neccessary for humans to function in a society. And by we I think Swimmer meant society. What our society deems bad others do not. Homosexuality is deemed good by some societies, and hetersexuality is only used for procreation. In their society everything we do would be disgusting. Good and bad is relative for the most part, especially when it comes to sex. Things like murdering and stealing are pretty universal, because all societies function better with less murdering and less stealing. It always helps society if you can devote energy to survial instead of trying to protect your property. Look at the united states. Don't you think Americans would be better off trying to spend more money on your own country instead of on your military? Fortunately the politicians have you so brain washed you think its better the way it is....when half of all American causualities are from friendly fire, and all of the poor are afraid to get sick because medical care will cause bankrupcy. Man I am glad I don't live in America! Did you know out of the industrial countries, America's medical system is deemed the worst because you seem not to care about the poor?
My reply: Laidback, I have found the truth - His name is Jesus Christ. Swimmer, hopefully I've shown you that your answers are generally just your own opinions, or those you've digested from others. Steveo, speculation and opinion - I have no problem with that. You see, just like the homosexual issue, evolution/science cannot provide the answers to life's toughest questions.
Its funny you say evolution and science can't answer some of lifes toughest questions. They don't even try too! They try to figure out about nature. I guess when you read the comics and they don't tell you whats on tv at night your probably disappointed. Also, most of life's toughest questions do not have easy answers....hence why they are called "life's toughest questions". If I had no ethics, I think it would be good to set up an experimental society with only christian values.....and then you would see that it would not be the best place. As far as laws and freedoms go, the bible is outdated.
QUOTE
Nothing existed in our universe - but God existed before our universe was created.
How is this not speculation, where as things the rest of us said is? Explain this to me? I am amazed you can not see your dishonesty, or you just ignore it because you think your right. If you were actualy right you would not have to resort to such dishonest tactics. And besides, you shouldn't, because you are a christian, and a messenger of god (apparently). Its people like you who made me hate christianity. I have since become much more tolerant, and accepting, but I have never forgotten. Just thought you would like to know that your message comes across very poorly!
Steveo,
So what happens to animals when they eat raw meat?
Are you referring to all the chemicals, hormones, and lack of freshness as the reason to cook meat? Well then, I'm sure this didn't apply way back then. It didn't even apply to us until they started putting hormones and chemicals into animal feed. I used to eat raw hamburger all the time when I was a kid. Nothing happened. I wouldn't dare do that today. Science has developed a boatload of hormones and chemicals that I'm sure are the cause of many diseases, and possibly even obesity. But it's obvious that you're not an evolution expert - even I know why 'they say' the teeth changed. According to evolutionary biologists - several trends of primate evolution are evident in the teeth and jaw. First, change in the geometry of the jaw reduced the snout into a flat face. Second, changes in tooth arrangement and numbers increased the efficiency of those teeth for grinding food. Third, about 1.5 million years ago our diet changed from fruits and vegetables to include meat. Seems rather like a contradiction to me. Tigers have sharp teeth so they can into the flesh of their kill - but humans need flat teeth and a flat mouth to do the same thing. It's not like they had a McD's on every corner where they could buy soft hamburgers. Think Steveo. Cooking meat doesn't make it any softer either.
I'm glad you agree that humans are smarter than animals. So many of you have tried to point out all the similarities between animals and humans.
So what happens to animals when they eat raw meat?
Are you referring to all the chemicals, hormones, and lack of freshness as the reason to cook meat? Well then, I'm sure this didn't apply way back then. It didn't even apply to us until they started putting hormones and chemicals into animal feed. I used to eat raw hamburger all the time when I was a kid. Nothing happened. I wouldn't dare do that today. Science has developed a boatload of hormones and chemicals that I'm sure are the cause of many diseases, and possibly even obesity. But it's obvious that you're not an evolution expert - even I know why 'they say' the teeth changed. According to evolutionary biologists - several trends of primate evolution are evident in the teeth and jaw. First, change in the geometry of the jaw reduced the snout into a flat face. Second, changes in tooth arrangement and numbers increased the efficiency of those teeth for grinding food. Third, about 1.5 million years ago our diet changed from fruits and vegetables to include meat. Seems rather like a contradiction to me. Tigers have sharp teeth so they can into the flesh of their kill - but humans need flat teeth and a flat mouth to do the same thing. It's not like they had a McD's on every corner where they could buy soft hamburgers. Think Steveo. Cooking meat doesn't make it any softer either.
I'm glad you agree that humans are smarter than animals. So many of you have tried to point out all the similarities between animals and humans.
QUOTE
Steveo: 8. I think that was supposed to be because of their lacking ability for abstract thought. Again, I don't know much about it, but I think other hominids (Neandrathals) did draw things in caves and such. Not sure though.
My reply: Well, it's obvious that none of you have a clue. The correct answer is that animals have certain instinct and humans have human instincts. There is a wall between humans and other creatures - one that cannot be breached. We were created or designed. Humans were created with a purpose to manage the earth and everything in/upon it.
Go read a first year university anthropology textbook. It will document recorded history of other hominids. Your answer is not correct. it si your speculation. The truth in the matter is we will not know what the exact differences are in human instincts and animal instincts until the brain of all animals and humans is understood much better. You talk about us claiming things with no evidence. You are BY FAR the worst offender of this. You have no idea what evidence really is, or your a liar. Now I assume your a liar because you come across as someone with reasonable intelligence. And anyone with semi reasonable intelligence can not honestly be as stupid as you. So that makes you a dishonest excuse for a human being. If there is a god I can guarantee he is not proud of you. I know this for a fact.
First you say you don't know - and then you call me a liar and offender because I acknowledge your statement that you don't know. Please explain to me how I'm supposed to deal with this type of response?
It doesn't matter if 'we will not know' until the brain is understood better. It is obvious to anyone with a brain that animals are not capable of enacting human behavior. It's amazing how talented you think I am. I have 'reasonable intelligence' you say, but I am a liar and stupid. Well that's real helpful.
Please provide evidence of what you claim to know as fact.
No I wasn't bad mouthing your cat, I was bad mouthing you. You're the cause of your poor cat's distress. How nice of you to insult me at every opportunity - people must just flock to you to hear the insults flow.
Animals and humans share various instincts, to be sure. But there are many they do not share. And no animal can produce even the most primitive of basic human comforts. Do you sit at your computer and type out insults - and wonder why your cat doesn't do the same? Sometimes I get distressed when the window isn't left open also. Does that mean I'm a cat? The difference between humans and animals...........................drum roll please............we designed and manufactured the window..............and I can get up and close or open it at will. Got it yet? Think Steveo.
No I wasn't bad mouthing your cat, I was bad mouthing you. You're the cause of your poor cat's distress. How nice of you to insult me at every opportunity - people must just flock to you to hear the insults flow.
Animals and humans share various instincts, to be sure. But there are many they do not share. And no animal can produce even the most primitive of basic human comforts. Do you sit at your computer and type out insults - and wonder why your cat doesn't do the same? Sometimes I get distressed when the window isn't left open also. Does that mean I'm a cat? The difference between humans and animals...........................drum roll please............we designed and manufactured the window..............and I can get up and close or open it at will. Got it yet? Think Steveo.
You have no idea what time is like where god is. Time is a unit of measure. So is a meter (or foot you imperial using americans....what a dumb system!) A spacial measurement is used to define the distance between 2 points, and time is used to measure the temporal separation between 2 events. Going any deeper than that is all philosophical, and not fact. The fact is, time exists here. We have a precise definition for time here. And if there is a god, no one has gone to where he is, and then come back to report on it, so quit telling me what time is like there. Does it say in the bible how time is described where god is?
Another paragraph, another insult. Is this a Canadian gift - or is it an evolutionist gift?
Timelessness: When one reads the Bible and begins to understand all that it reveals - one becomes aware that timelessness exists outside of this world. Several themes deal with the idea that God always was - and never had a beginning, or that with God 1000 years is as one day (not that it is literally as one day - but that time is meaningless to God - it doesn't matter if a day passes or a 1000 years pass - it's all the same to God - it's timeless).
Another paragraph, another insult. But you're right - my reply was directed more towards Swimmer's and Laidback's response. But I wouldn't call it idiotic - I'd call it an oversight. It was a bit trying to try to respond to 15 questions answered by 3 different people, that's all.
But essentially, you agree with me on this one - that's one point for you!
Another paragraph, another insult. But you're right - my reply was directed more towards Swimmer's and Laidback's response. But I wouldn't call it idiotic - I'd call it an oversight. It was a bit trying to try to respond to 15 questions answered by 3 different people, that's all.
But essentially, you agree with me on this one - that's one point for you!
Your just an @SSHOLE! You know damn well what pro choice means. The choices are give birth or don't. Pro choice means you don't want to tell others what to do. Maybe your a facist and want to control others through brute force rather than let them make your decisions, but I am no facist! We shouldn't let people hunt either, because people could use the guns to murder people. And since most murders in Canada are the result of stabbings, we should ban the selling of all kitchen knives, because killing is a sin, and since the knives can be used to commit that sin, they are bad! The movie Demolition Man was on TBS this afternoon....pretty bad movie, but it illustrates the point pretty well. In that movie everything that was deemed bad for society was made illegal. They even made kissing illegal, and swearing, and smoking, and drinking, etc.... Is that the kind of world you want Messenger? Where anything is deemed bad by you, its illegal? That makes you a facist. You also fail to understand that if abortions are made illegal it just means more people are going to die from doing them themselves. Just by making something illegal, it doesn't get rid of the problem. Look at drugs. They are all illegal, and the problem doesn't disappear.
Another paragraph, another insult. The choices are give birth or don't. Live or die. Being Pro-choice means you act as an accessory to the choice. If they choose not to abort - you are an accessory to life. If they choose to abort - you are an accessory to.......
I'm not a facist or control freak. I want people to make an educated choice when they choose to have sex that could result in pregnancy. Many people are not even aware, or don't think, that pregnancy could happen to them. This is a fact - based on personal dealings with numerous unwed mothers. Murders at the hands of one wielding a knife can be equated with the abortionist. The baby is helpless and depends on humanity to help it to survive. The first person it depends on is its mother. Abortion cannot even be compared to drug abuse, alcoholism, or smoking. Because the people doing these harmful activities are choosing them. Abortionists don't ask the baby if he/she wants to be aborted. My guess is that he/she would like the same opportunity others humans have had, and that is to live.
Let's examine your thought on illegal abortions. Do you know how many abortions are committed worldwide, in areas where abortion is legal, in a years time? Millions.
Do you know how many women lose their lives, in areas where abortion is illegal, from having illegal back alley abortions? Hundreds. Even most of the back alley abortions are successful - so more babies are dying from abortions than are mothers who are dying from botched abortions.
Do you want to save the lives of millions of babies, or hundreds of mothers who would abort their babies?
The solution is not abortions or preventing abortions. The solution begins before conception takes place. I believe in education. Abortions are going down in the US due to education, and of course the pro-life movement. Even pro-abortion groups are helpful in reducing abortions - IF they can get their hands on them before they are considering having sex (they provide them information about birth control). I absolutely abhor policies that are pro-abortion, especially in countries where abortion rates are very high. The problem will never be solved this way.
The only thing that will solve this terrible practice is education. I have counseled young women/men/couples who have chosen life, and who have chosen abortion. They receive my compassion and assistance, and education for future reference. The ones who choose life - may have a tough time, because they are usually young, unemployed, living at home, or on welfare------but they are unlikely to regret their decision. Those who choose abortion, and then come in for counseling, will live with their decision forever. Statistics show that no matter what is said to these women, no matter how they are treated, they will always regret their decision. Allowing women to suffer for the rest of their lives because you (people like you) are too weak to force a change in your society; is absolutely incomprehensible to someone like me. You (people like you) are a coward. You are what they call 'politically correct'. While the women who had the abortion is called depressed and suicidal. They were told it was their body to do as they wished with. But now they know how very wrong they were. They now know that their body was the home of a human being that they were supposed to nurture and feed - at least until it was born. Think Steveo, for now you know the truth.
Ruff, ruff ruff. By faith I came to believe in God. When I believed, I received the Holy Spirit. This gift confirmed, proved, to me that God was real. That's how I know. The Bible states that God created everything. Therefore, God existed before our universe was created. I am not dishonest when I say that God existed before our universe was created. You call me a liar because I say God exists? Then you call 95% of all people living on the planet a liar as well. You are tolerant only of things you believe in. You are not tolerant of people who don't believe in abortion, and other such moral issues. If I said I was pro-choice, even though I wouldn't have an abortion - you would say 'that's great - 'even though you're a Christian - I admire the fact that you've become so tolerant'. This is self-righteous tolerance, nothing more. Righteous tolerance would be to hold a pro-life view, but offer what compassion and assistance you could to anyone you know who has had an abortion. They need forgiveness, and then they need education - so they don't put themselves in this position again. Statistics show this happens more often than it should.
Final thoughts.....
While I understand why people are pro-choice, I disagree with this position. Pro-choice to a pregnant woman/girl means she has to choose whether to keep her baby alive for 9 months, or whether she can just 'get rid of it' so she doesn't have to deal with the responsibility, the shame, the pain, etc. In this vulnerable position, she seeks out professional help. If she ends up in a pro-choice clinic, they will convince her that an abortion is OK. She trusts these people because she believes they are professionals who have her best interests at heart. And so she aborts her baby. Within days, and for the rest of her life, she will regret this decision (statistics and personal dealings show). If she ends up carrying her baby to full term, she will have to deal with the responsibility, she'll have to explain her pregnancy to everyone, their will be child birth pain. But statistics, and personal dealings show, that she is unlikely to regret her decision. If you have an abortion, you are a slave to your decision for the rest of your life. If you choose life, you are free, you have no guilt, and you can sleep well. You see, disobeying the law makes you a slave to its consequences. Obeying the law (love your neighbor - I can't think of a closer neighbor than a baby growing inside someone) sets you free from the consequences. Don't you see that? Think Steveo, think! IQ!
You can complain and call me names all you want because you don't like my 'intolerant' views on certain issues. But just remember, my goal is to prevent harm and injury, and to heal the individual who has been harmed or injured as a result of these actions. That, my friend, is true freedom.
Regards,
The Garden of NEVI(Eden) in Avila (Africa) by Riven.
http://www.mts.net/~goldlion/The%20Garden%...0in%20Avila.htm
Defender Dragons of The Spirit by Riven
OH Great art thou Dragon!,
Defender of Eternal Life!
With reign from our Master!,
doest Spirit Fire Shield Souls
and end all thine Strife.
Hold fast thee reign of light,
To Shield my cherished Son this night.
Repel thee away defiled Satiman
and take poor Judas' Heart of Brine,
to feed upon insatiable Sekhmet
thine Evilress dark as Coal,
alas the Giant Satiman curses afoul
ne'er was for thine to devour
this Sacred Child's Chalice of Souls.
Twas pure the ascension,
revealed in eternal time.
This heart of heaviness
to carry this Son of Mine.
Oh what hath thou done
on this glorious Earth below?
Alas it is a Shadow of The Sun.
Creator Dragons of Spirit by Riven.
Great is the Creator Dragon!,
So full of eternal bliss!,
to follow the hands of time,
nary an Atom to dismiss.
Round and Round ye go
kindling the Cosmic Fire,
like a Swan upon her Egg,
nursing,in love and desire.
Gleefully rides the Wizard of Eternity,
replenishing stars with wands of red,
guiding the Great Dragon's Flight,
a mere touch upon her head.
Beautiful is her sullen eyes,
for the Children she seeds.
For Sun's and Clouds to lay upon,
in the dark of coolest breeze.
What wisdom so rare upon this place,
a dance of love, passion and embrace.
Energy so pure, divine and empathy,
The cry of her newborn infant Galaxy.
Let me now try to explain for Scholars and Stephen Hawkings, the purpose of the "Crux" or "Cross of Humankind".
Very much so, Riven's version of Timaeus.
Tis true this ethereal of mystery so vast
never ending spirals upon her masts.
Linear Crosses of wormhole accelerators,
propulsion shifted neutrino Helioators.
Speeding with excitement faster than time,
to collide mid center and spread her wings divine.
Twinkle, upon Twinkle of Angels content,
too crowded for laughter, they spew out their vent.
Spiral upon Spiral, they dance in the night sky,
around their Corona, so pleasing to the eye.
Glare of Orichalcum their jewel shines brilliantly,
Reborn from the Father, to this Majestic new Galaxy.
Crowned Kings of Gold, a Beauty to Behold,
their Chess pieces of Wisdom upon the curved Spire,
till Angel hairs spin, their thrones to retire.
Tis Truth, this wonder of The Spiral.
And you were claiming that they shared none of the traits before. That there was a wall between human and animal instincts. Now you agree that they share some traits. Seems like you who changing their minds. And now you are trying to use that as something from your position. I find that very dishonest.
And you were claiming that they shared none of the traits before. That there was a wall between human and animal instincts. Now you agree that they share some traits. Seems like you who changing their minds. And now you are trying to use that as something from your position. I find that very dishonest.
First you say you don't know - and then you call me a liar and offender because I acknowledge your statement that you don't know. Please explain to me how I'm supposed to deal with this type of response?
It doesn't matter if 'we will not know' until the brain is understood better. It is obvious to anyone with a brain that animals are not capable of enacting human behavior. It's amazing how talented you think I am. I have 'reasonable intelligence' you say, but I am a liar and stupid. Well that's real helpful.
Please provide evidence of what you claim to know as fact.
You ask questions, and then tell everyone who does agree with you that they are wrong. We all answered honestly, and you go and tell us that we are wrong and that you are right. What we answer you call stuff with no evidence, and then you answer the same way and claim it is fact with zero evidence.
Insults are a human instinct when you can not believe the stupidity you are reading. You are assuming that the bible is truth for everything, or anything. Just because the bible talks about god being timeless does not make it true. You say god has spoken to you.....whatever, I won't argue, but you can not claim to have been outside of the universe with god, and thus experienced timelessness. You can speculate on it, and use the bible as evidence, thats fine. Realize that I could pull out a String theory textbook and talk about lower dimensional branes floating around in higher dimensional space and be just as right as you are. Both have supporting books. Neither can be shown to be right or wrong. Deal with it!!!!
Insults are a human instinct when you can not believe the stupidity you are reading. You are assuming that the bible is truth for everything, or anything. Just because the bible talks about god being timeless does not make it true. You say god has spoken to you.....whatever, I won't argue, but you can not claim to have been outside of the universe with god, and thus experienced timelessness. You can speculate on it, and use the bible as evidence, thats fine. Realize that I could pull out a String theory textbook and talk about lower dimensional branes floating around in higher dimensional space and be just as right as you are. Both have supporting books. Neither can be shown to be right or wrong. Deal with it!!!!
Another paragraph, another insult. But you're right - my reply was directed more towards Swimmer's and Laidback's response. But I wouldn't call it idiotic - I'd call it an oversight. It was a bit trying to try to respond to 15 questions answered by 3 different people, that's all.
But essentially, you agree with me on this one - that's one point for you!
Fair enough, that particular insult was unwarranted, and I apolize for that particular one, however the others I stand behind.
The issue is when does a fetus become a baby, or when does the idea become a baby? You say the moment of conception. What about a couple who wants a baby, but then one of them doesn't feel like having sex? Should they not be able to say no because they want a baby? That could be preventing a conception. You always make this arguement so black and white. First of all the question of when a fertilized egg is a baby is very grey. There is the first problem. Most abortion clinics, and what I know about that is that most abortions are only done in the first trimester, occasionally in the second, and never in the third. I may be wrong, but thats my understanding of it. The difference here could easily be attributed to when they consider it a baby. And there are valid arguements for most of these positions, so do not claim that the only possible answer is at the point of conception. And again, your trying to take away someone's rights to decide over their own body. I agree that the effects of this choice are usually negative, but thats besides the point. And if you have any memory I have also said that the best defense against this is education. Education about the TRUTH about sex, both positive and negative. The truth about contraceptives, and about abstance. The truth about masterbation. How can you hope for kids to make the 'correct' choices without knowing all of the facts? Most people who want to 'educate' want to selectively educate, not give them all of the information. Do you plan on teaching all of the honest facts about sex? Like that it feels good? Do you plan to teach that masterbation is natural and healthy also, and that you won't go blind from doing it? If you do, I agree with you totally, except for making abortion illegal. With a better education problem the rate of abortions would go down. We would both be happy about that.
You said they are not asking the baby. In our society we take that children are not capable of making their own decisions. If you have kids you decide what vacinations to get and not to get. You don't give them a choice do you? I also never said I support abortion, just I don't think my opinion should govern other people's actions.
The issue is when does a fetus become a baby, or when does the idea become a baby? You say the moment of conception. What about a couple who wants a baby, but then one of them doesn't feel like having sex? Should they not be able to say no because they want a baby? That could be preventing a conception. You always make this arguement so black and white. First of all the question of when a fertilized egg is a baby is very grey. There is the first problem. Most abortion clinics, and what I know about that is that most abortions are only done in the first trimester, occasionally in the second, and never in the third. I may be wrong, but thats my understanding of it. The difference here could easily be attributed to when they consider it a baby. And there are valid arguements for most of these positions, so do not claim that the only possible answer is at the point of conception. And again, your trying to take away someone's rights to decide over their own body. I agree that the effects of this choice are usually negative, but thats besides the point. And if you have any memory I have also said that the best defense against this is education. Education about the TRUTH about sex, both positive and negative. The truth about contraceptives, and about abstance. The truth about masterbation. How can you hope for kids to make the 'correct' choices without knowing all of the facts? Most people who want to 'educate' want to selectively educate, not give them all of the information. Do you plan on teaching all of the honest facts about sex? Like that it feels good? Do you plan to teach that masterbation is natural and healthy also, and that you won't go blind from doing it? If you do, I agree with you totally, except for making abortion illegal. With a better education problem the rate of abortions would go down. We would both be happy about that.
You said they are not asking the baby. In our society we take that children are not capable of making their own decisions. If you have kids you decide what vacinations to get and not to get. You don't give them a choice do you? I also never said I support abortion, just I don't think my opinion should govern other people's actions.
Ruff, ruff ruff. By faith I came to believe in God. When I believed, I received the Holy Spirit. This gift confirmed, proved, to me that God was real. That's how I know. The Bible states that God created everything. Therefore, God existed before our universe was created. I am not dishonest when I say that God existed before our universe was created. You call me a liar because I say God exists? Then you call 95% of all people living on the planet a liar as well. You are tolerant only of things you believe in. You are not tolerant of people who don't believe in abortion, and other such moral issues. If I said I was pro-choice, even though I wouldn't have an abortion - you would say 'that's great - 'even though you're a Christian - I admire the fact that you've become so tolerant'. This is self-righteous tolerance, nothing more. Righteous tolerance would be to hold a pro-life view, but offer what compassion and assistance you could to anyone you know who has had an abortion. They need forgiveness, and then they need education - so they don't put themselves in this position again. Statistics show this happens more often than it should.
I never said you were a liar for believing in god. I said that you saying god did whatever you claimed he did is no more speculation than what I said. You know very well you can not prove it. Because the bible doesn't count as proof. I said that you were speculating, just like I was. Please reread that part of my post. In that particular part I did not call you a liar, I asked how what you said wasn't speculation.
What's that crappy giant slingshot? Apparently you've never heard of the Royal Canadian Air Farce and their incredible Chicken Cannon!
(sorry it's a bad pic - I couldn't find a better one)
What's that crappy giant slingshot? Apparently you've never heard of the Royal Canadian Air Farce and their incredible Chicken Cannon!
(sorry it's a bad pic - I couldn't find a better one)
Nine university professors and others with science or engineering PhDs have added their names to an American petition that voices skepticism about the theory of evolution. The list was posted on the Internet this week.
Wow. Nine WHOLE scientists (as it was pointed out, none are actually biologists) say they are skeptical about evolution, eh? And three of them teach at Christian colleges/universities? I almost went to Trinity Western University (for Computer Science, which is probably the only course they offer that deserves the "science" moniker) and it is quite the stronghold for evangelical activism in British Columbia. I cannot imagine why THOSE teachers might wish to announce that they support ID.
At any rate, perhaps we should start up a Canadian-only version of Project Steve? Steveo, would you like to be the first Steve on the list? I can't imagine it would take too long to find 9 biologists (oh wait; it doesn't have to be limited to biologists, apparently ANY scientist - or engineer - will do) named Steve in Canada that support evolution.
Geez, I bet I could get 3 Steve's on the list by sending out 2 emails. Yeah, it would not be very hard to get more than 9 supporters of evolution in Canada's scientific community named Steve. In the open access lab I work in there are like 5 more Steve's....and they are all engineers. I bet a couple of them would support evolution too.
Canadian Content is trying to give things made in Canada a chance against American influence. I don't neccessarily know if its to protect us from American culture (which is for the most part the same as American culture) but thats how I consider it. If there was not a restricted number of Canadian Content there would be a lot less shows made in Canada (by Canadians) on tv here. Some great shows, like Degressi Junior High (and Degrassi High, And Degrassi - the next generation) might not be around.
I have never thought to much about this, but its a weird thing. On the one hand, I think its a good thing to provide a guarantee of some Canadian Content, but on the other hand people should be able to choose. Hey, I am just going to stop thinking about it and enjoy canadian tv.
Canadian Content is trying to give things made in Canada a chance against American influence. I don't neccessarily know if its to protect us from American culture (which is for the most part the same as American culture) but thats how I consider it. If there was not a restricted number of Canadian Content there would be a lot less shows made in Canada (by Canadians) on tv here. Some great shows, like Degressi Junior High (and Degrassi High, And Degrassi - the next generation) might not be around.
I have never thought to much about this, but its a weird thing. On the one hand, I think its a good thing to provide a guarantee of some Canadian Content, but on the other hand people should be able to choose. Hey, I am just going to stop thinking about it and enjoy canadian tv.
Back to Project Steve/Steveo.................
I looked up
"men named Steve who believe in Jesus"
and I got back
One Million, Eight Hundred and Sixty Thousand
results. biggrin.gif
change it to
"men named Steve who believe in God"
and there's
Five Million, One Hundred and Ten Thousand.
Wow!
That's a lot of Steves.
Thats google results, not different Steve's. If I type in "Michael Faraday" into google, like I did earlier and get 973 000 results doesn't mean its fair to conclude there are 973 000 people named Michael Faraday. At any rate, its all a moot point. Project Steve was started to show that taking an opinion poll on what people believe is not how science is done. Science is decided by the best ideas, the best models, the best experimental results. Not by popular, or public opinion. So your project Steveo, and Project Steve, and 'scientists who support ID' are all equally ridiculous.
QUOTE
Go eat raw meat for a few months and tell me what happens to you. Make sure to eat lots of raw chicken, and eggs and pork. And then come back to me and ask us why we cook meat? I didn't look up what the changes in our teeth were, nor did anyone post it. I speculated on it because cooking food clearly changes the way it would be eaten. To me it makes sense that when the consitency of the food changes, our teeth might change...hmmmm......and why don't other animals use fire? Aren't we all in agreement that humans are smarter than animals? I might say the difference is degree, and you a wall, but we don't say there is no difference.
So what happens to animals when they eat raw meat?
Are you referring to all the chemicals, hormones, and lack of freshness as the reason to cook meat? Well then, I'm sure this didn't apply way back then. It didn't even apply to us until they started putting hormones and chemicals into animal feed. I used to eat raw hamburger all the time when I was a kid. Nothing happened. I wouldn't dare do that today. Science has developed a boatload of hormones and chemicals that I'm sure are the cause of many diseases, and possibly even obesity. But it's obvious that you're not an evolution expert - even I know why 'they say' the teeth changed. According to evolutionary biologists - several trends of primate evolution are evident in the teeth and jaw. First, change in the geometry of the jaw reduced the snout into a flat face. Second, changes in tooth arrangement and numbers increased the efficiency of those teeth for grinding food. Third, about 1.5 million years ago our diet changed from fruits and vegetables to include meat. Seems rather like a contradiction to me. Tigers have sharp teeth so they can into the flesh of their kill - but humans need flat teeth and a flat mouth to do the same thing. It's not like they had a McD's on every corner where they could buy soft hamburgers. Think Steveo. Cooking meat doesn't make it any softer either.
I'm glad you agree that humans are smarter than animals. So many of you have tried to point out all the similarities between animals and humans.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Go eat raw meat for a few months and tell me what happens to you. Make sure to eat lots of raw chicken, and eggs and pork. And then come back to me and ask us why we cook meat? I didn't look up what the changes in our teeth were, nor did anyone post it. I speculated on it because cooking food clearly changes the way it would be eaten. To me it makes sense that when the consitency of the food changes, our teeth might change...hmmmm......and why don't other animals use fire? Aren't we all in agreement that humans are smarter than animals? I might say the difference is degree, and you a wall, but we don't say there is no difference. |
So what happens to animals when they eat raw meat?
Are you referring to all the chemicals, hormones, and lack of freshness as the reason to cook meat? Well then, I'm sure this didn't apply way back then. It didn't even apply to us until they started putting hormones and chemicals into animal feed. I used to eat raw hamburger all the time when I was a kid. Nothing happened. I wouldn't dare do that today. Science has developed a boatload of hormones and chemicals that I'm sure are the cause of many diseases, and possibly even obesity. But it's obvious that you're not an evolution expert - even I know why 'they say' the teeth changed. According to evolutionary biologists - several trends of primate evolution are evident in the teeth and jaw. First, change in the geometry of the jaw reduced the snout into a flat face. Second, changes in tooth arrangement and numbers increased the efficiency of those teeth for grinding food. Third, about 1.5 million years ago our diet changed from fruits and vegetables to include meat. Seems rather like a contradiction to me. Tigers have sharp teeth so they can into the flesh of their kill - but humans need flat teeth and a flat mouth to do the same thing. It's not like they had a McD's on every corner where they could buy soft hamburgers. Think Steveo. Cooking meat doesn't make it any softer either.
I'm glad you agree that humans are smarter than animals. So many of you have tried to point out all the similarities between animals and humans.
QUOTE
Steveo: 8. I think that was supposed to be because of their lacking ability for abstract thought. Again, I don't know much about it, but I think other hominids (Neandrathals) did draw things in caves and such. Not sure though.
My reply: Well, it's obvious that none of you have a clue. The correct answer is that animals have certain instinct and humans have human instincts. There is a wall between humans and other creatures - one that cannot be breached. We were created or designed. Humans were created with a purpose to manage the earth and everything in/upon it.
Go read a first year university anthropology textbook. It will document recorded history of other hominids. Your answer is not correct. it si your speculation. The truth in the matter is we will not know what the exact differences are in human instincts and animal instincts until the brain of all animals and humans is understood much better. You talk about us claiming things with no evidence. You are BY FAR the worst offender of this. You have no idea what evidence really is, or your a liar. Now I assume your a liar because you come across as someone with reasonable intelligence. And anyone with semi reasonable intelligence can not honestly be as stupid as you. So that makes you a dishonest excuse for a human being. If there is a god I can guarantee he is not proud of you. I know this for a fact.
First you say you don't know - and then you call me a liar and offender because I acknowledge your statement that you don't know. Please explain to me how I'm supposed to deal with this type of response?
It doesn't matter if 'we will not know' until the brain is understood better. It is obvious to anyone with a brain that animals are not capable of enacting human behavior. It's amazing how talented you think I am. I have 'reasonable intelligence' you say, but I am a liar and stupid. Well that's real helpful.
Please provide evidence of what you claim to know as fact.
QUOTE
Now your bad mouthing my cat? Your probably the kind of person that animals don't like. Animals are often really good at picking out bad people. Some humans can do that too......they say its instinct....weird how both species show the same instincts sometimes? And dogs show loyalty. I know many a loyal human being......you cast aside these arguements and claim there is a wall. You generalize a statement, and then just throw out any examples. I didn't say ziggy was the same as a human. But I guarantee he shows some human attributes. Some human behavior. No, my cat is generally in a happy mood. He usually gets distressed when one of the younger neighborhood cats picks on him. He is now an old guy. Sometimes he also gets a little bit distressed when we close his window for the night and he is not ready to come inside. 95% of the time he is a very affectionate, friendly cat.
No I wasn't bad mouthing your cat, I was bad mouthing you. You're the cause of your poor cat's distress. How nice of you to insult me at every opportunity - people must just flock to you to hear the insults flow.
Animals and humans share various instincts, to be sure. But there are many they do not share. And no animal can produce even the most primitive of basic human comforts. Do you sit at your computer and type out insults - and wonder why your cat doesn't do the same? Sometimes I get distressed when the window isn't left open also. Does that mean I'm a cat? The difference between humans and animals...........................drum roll please............we designed and manufactured the window..............and I can get up and close or open it at will. Got it yet? Think Steveo.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Now your bad mouthing my cat? Your probably the kind of person that animals don't like. Animals are often really good at picking out bad people. Some humans can do that too......they say its instinct....weird how both species show the same instincts sometimes? And dogs show loyalty. I know many a loyal human being......you cast aside these arguements and claim there is a wall. You generalize a statement, and then just throw out any examples. I didn't say ziggy was the same as a human. But I guarantee he shows some human attributes. Some human behavior. No, my cat is generally in a happy mood. He usually gets distressed when one of the younger neighborhood cats picks on him. He is now an old guy. Sometimes he also gets a little bit distressed when we close his window for the night and he is not ready to come inside. 95% of the time he is a very affectionate, friendly cat. |
No I wasn't bad mouthing your cat, I was bad mouthing you. You're the cause of your poor cat's distress. How nice of you to insult me at every opportunity - people must just flock to you to hear the insults flow.
Animals and humans share various instincts, to be sure. But there are many they do not share. And no animal can produce even the most primitive of basic human comforts. Do you sit at your computer and type out insults - and wonder why your cat doesn't do the same? Sometimes I get distressed when the window isn't left open also. Does that mean I'm a cat? The difference between humans and animals...........................drum roll please............we designed and manufactured the window..............and I can get up and close or open it at will. Got it yet? Think Steveo.
You have no idea what time is like where god is. Time is a unit of measure. So is a meter (or foot you imperial using americans....what a dumb system!) A spacial measurement is used to define the distance between 2 points, and time is used to measure the temporal separation between 2 events. Going any deeper than that is all philosophical, and not fact. The fact is, time exists here. We have a precise definition for time here. And if there is a god, no one has gone to where he is, and then come back to report on it, so quit telling me what time is like there. Does it say in the bible how time is described where god is?
Another paragraph, another insult. Is this a Canadian gift - or is it an evolutionist gift?
Timelessness: When one reads the Bible and begins to understand all that it reveals - one becomes aware that timelessness exists outside of this world. Several themes deal with the idea that God always was - and never had a beginning, or that with God 1000 years is as one day (not that it is literally as one day - but that time is meaningless to God - it doesn't matter if a day passes or a 1000 years pass - it's all the same to God - it's timeless).
QUOTE
QUOTE
Steveo: 12. My parents created me because they wanted a baby. And what a baby I turned out to be if I do say so myself hahaha. But the decision to procreate by two members of a species does no way prove god created that species. Thats a huge jump in logic....and one that I just don't follow.
My reply: Your answers are scientific only, you neglected the human choice factor. The fact is that two people chose to create the conditions in which said birth could occur. God put the inspiration/desire there as part of our physical characteristic (which we have abused). If you choose not to create human beings, humanity would become extinct.
I thought the phrase "my parents wanted a baby" denoted the choice they made. They deliberately choose to get pregnant, and i was the result. You a complete idiot. My answer was not scientific at all. I used a bit of logic, but logic is defined by the philosopher and the mathematician, not the scientist.
Steveo: 12. My parents created me because they wanted a baby. And what a baby I turned out to be if I do say so myself hahaha. But the decision to procreate by two members of a species does no way prove god created that species. Thats a huge jump in logic....and one that I just don't follow.
My reply: Your answers are scientific only, you neglected the human choice factor. The fact is that two people chose to create the conditions in which said birth could occur. God put the inspiration/desire there as part of our physical characteristic (which we have abused). If you choose not to create human beings, humanity would become extinct.
I thought the phrase "my parents wanted a baby" denoted the choice they made. They deliberately choose to get pregnant, and i was the result. You a complete idiot. My answer was not scientific at all. I used a bit of logic, but logic is defined by the philosopher and the mathematician, not the scientist.
Another paragraph, another insult. But you're right - my reply was directed more towards Swimmer's and Laidback's response. But I wouldn't call it idiotic - I'd call it an oversight. It was a bit trying to try to respond to 15 questions answered by 3 different people, that's all.
But essentially, you agree with me on this one - that's one point for you!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| QUOTE Steveo: 12. My parents created me because they wanted a baby. And what a baby I turned out to be if I do say so myself hahaha. But the decision to procreate by two members of a species does no way prove god created that species. Thats a huge jump in logic....and one that I just don't follow. My reply: Your answers are scientific only, you neglected the human choice factor. The fact is that two people chose to create the conditions in which said birth could occur. God put the inspiration/desire there as part of our physical characteristic (which we have abused). If you choose not to create human beings, humanity would become extinct. I thought the phrase "my parents wanted a baby" denoted the choice they made. They deliberately choose to get pregnant, and i was the result. You a complete idiot. My answer was not scientific at all. I used a bit of logic, but logic is defined by the philosopher and the mathematician, not the scientist. |
Another paragraph, another insult. But you're right - my reply was directed more towards Swimmer's and Laidback's response. But I wouldn't call it idiotic - I'd call it an oversight. It was a bit trying to try to respond to 15 questions answered by 3 different people, that's all.
But essentially, you agree with me on this one - that's one point for you!
Your just an @SSHOLE! You know damn well what pro choice means. The choices are give birth or don't. Pro choice means you don't want to tell others what to do. Maybe your a facist and want to control others through brute force rather than let them make your decisions, but I am no facist! We shouldn't let people hunt either, because people could use the guns to murder people. And since most murders in Canada are the result of stabbings, we should ban the selling of all kitchen knives, because killing is a sin, and since the knives can be used to commit that sin, they are bad! The movie Demolition Man was on TBS this afternoon....pretty bad movie, but it illustrates the point pretty well. In that movie everything that was deemed bad for society was made illegal. They even made kissing illegal, and swearing, and smoking, and drinking, etc.... Is that the kind of world you want Messenger? Where anything is deemed bad by you, its illegal? That makes you a facist. You also fail to understand that if abortions are made illegal it just means more people are going to die from doing them themselves. Just by making something illegal, it doesn't get rid of the problem. Look at drugs. They are all illegal, and the problem doesn't disappear.
Another paragraph, another insult. The choices are give birth or don't. Live or die. Being Pro-choice means you act as an accessory to the choice. If they choose not to abort - you are an accessory to life. If they choose to abort - you are an accessory to.......
I'm not a facist or control freak. I want people to make an educated choice when they choose to have sex that could result in pregnancy. Many people are not even aware, or don't think, that pregnancy could happen to them. This is a fact - based on personal dealings with numerous unwed mothers. Murders at the hands of one wielding a knife can be equated with the abortionist. The baby is helpless and depends on humanity to help it to survive. The first person it depends on is its mother. Abortion cannot even be compared to drug abuse, alcoholism, or smoking. Because the people doing these harmful activities are choosing them. Abortionists don't ask the baby if he/she wants to be aborted. My guess is that he/she would like the same opportunity others humans have had, and that is to live.
Let's examine your thought on illegal abortions. Do you know how many abortions are committed worldwide, in areas where abortion is legal, in a years time? Millions.
Do you know how many women lose their lives, in areas where abortion is illegal, from having illegal back alley abortions? Hundreds. Even most of the back alley abortions are successful - so more babies are dying from abortions than are mothers who are dying from botched abortions.
Do you want to save the lives of millions of babies, or hundreds of mothers who would abort their babies?
The solution is not abortions or preventing abortions. The solution begins before conception takes place. I believe in education. Abortions are going down in the US due to education, and of course the pro-life movement. Even pro-abortion groups are helpful in reducing abortions - IF they can get their hands on them before they are considering having sex (they provide them information about birth control). I absolutely abhor policies that are pro-abortion, especially in countries where abortion rates are very high. The problem will never be solved this way.
The only thing that will solve this terrible practice is education. I have counseled young women/men/couples who have chosen life, and who have chosen abortion. They receive my compassion and assistance, and education for future reference. The ones who choose life - may have a tough time, because they are usually young, unemployed, living at home, or on welfare------but they are unlikely to regret their decision. Those who choose abortion, and then come in for counseling, will live with their decision forever. Statistics show that no matter what is said to these women, no matter how they are treated, they will always regret their decision. Allowing women to suffer for the rest of their lives because you (people like you) are too weak to force a change in your society; is absolutely incomprehensible to someone like me. You (people like you) are a coward. You are what they call 'politically correct'. While the women who had the abortion is called depressed and suicidal. They were told it was their body to do as they wished with. But now they know how very wrong they were. They now know that their body was the home of a human being that they were supposed to nurture and feed - at least until it was born. Think Steveo, for now you know the truth.
QUOTE
QUOTE
Nothing existed in our universe - but God existed before our universe was created.
How is this not speculation, where as things the rest of us said is? Explain this to me? I am amazed you can not see your dishonesty, or you just ignore it because you think your right. If you were actualy right you would not have to resort to such dishonest tactics. And besides, you shouldn't, because you are a christian, and a messenger of god (apparently). Its people like you who made me hate christianity. I have since become much more tolerant, and accepting, but I have never forgotten. Just thought you would like to know that your message comes across very poorly!
Nothing existed in our universe - but God existed before our universe was created.
How is this not speculation, where as things the rest of us said is? Explain this to me? I am amazed you can not see your dishonesty, or you just ignore it because you think your right. If you were actualy right you would not have to resort to such dishonest tactics. And besides, you shouldn't, because you are a christian, and a messenger of god (apparently). Its people like you who made me hate christianity. I have since become much more tolerant, and accepting, but I have never forgotten. Just thought you would like to know that your message comes across very poorly!
Ruff, ruff ruff. By faith I came to believe in God. When I believed, I received the Holy Spirit. This gift confirmed, proved, to me that God was real. That's how I know. The Bible states that God created everything. Therefore, God existed before our universe was created. I am not dishonest when I say that God existed before our universe was created. You call me a liar because I say God exists? Then you call 95% of all people living on the planet a liar as well. You are tolerant only of things you believe in. You are not tolerant of people who don't believe in abortion, and other such moral issues. If I said I was pro-choice, even though I wouldn't have an abortion - you would say 'that's great - 'even though you're a Christian - I admire the fact that you've become so tolerant'. This is self-righteous tolerance, nothing more. Righteous tolerance would be to hold a pro-life view, but offer what compassion and assistance you could to anyone you know who has had an abortion. They need forgiveness, and then they need education - so they don't put themselves in this position again. Statistics show this happens more often than it should.
Final thoughts.....
While I understand why people are pro-choice, I disagree with this position. Pro-choice to a pregnant woman/girl means she has to choose whether to keep her baby alive for 9 months, or whether she can just 'get rid of it' so she doesn't have to deal with the responsibility, the shame, the pain, etc. In this vulnerable position, she seeks out professional help. If she ends up in a pro-choice clinic, they will convince her that an abortion is OK. She trusts these people because she believes they are professionals who have her best interests at heart. And so she aborts her baby. Within days, and for the rest of her life, she will regret this decision (statistics and personal dealings show). If she ends up carrying her baby to full term, she will have to deal with the responsibility, she'll have to explain her pregnancy to everyone, their will be child birth pain. But statistics, and personal dealings show, that she is unlikely to regret her decision. If you have an abortion, you are a slave to your decision for the rest of your life. If you choose life, you are free, you have no guilt, and you can sleep well. You see, disobeying the law makes you a slave to its consequences. Obeying the law (love your neighbor - I can't think of a closer neighbor than a baby growing inside someone) sets you free from the consequences. Don't you see that? Think Steveo, think! IQ!
You can complain and call me names all you want because you don't like my 'intolerant' views on certain issues. But just remember, my goal is to prevent harm and injury, and to heal the individual who has been harmed or injured as a result of these actions. That, my friend, is true freedom.
Regards,
QUOTE (Messenger+)
I used to eat raw hamburger all the time when I was a kid. Nothing happened.
That's debatable...
That's debatable...
The Garden of NEVI(Eden) in Avila (Africa) by Riven.
http://www.mts.net/~goldlion/The%20Garden%...0in%20Avila.htm
Defender Dragons of The Spirit by Riven
OH Great art thou Dragon!,
Defender of Eternal Life!
With reign from our Master!,
doest Spirit Fire Shield Souls
and end all thine Strife.
Hold fast thee reign of light,
To Shield my cherished Son this night.
Repel thee away defiled Satiman
and take poor Judas' Heart of Brine,
to feed upon insatiable Sekhmet
thine Evilress dark as Coal,
alas the Giant Satiman curses afoul
ne'er was for thine to devour
this Sacred Child's Chalice of Souls.
Twas pure the ascension,
revealed in eternal time.
This heart of heaviness
to carry this Son of Mine.
Oh what hath thou done
on this glorious Earth below?
Alas it is a Shadow of The Sun.
Creator Dragons of Spirit by Riven.
Great is the Creator Dragon!,
So full of eternal bliss!,
to follow the hands of time,
nary an Atom to dismiss.
Round and Round ye go
kindling the Cosmic Fire,
like a Swan upon her Egg,
nursing,in love and desire.
Gleefully rides the Wizard of Eternity,
replenishing stars with wands of red,
guiding the Great Dragon's Flight,
a mere touch upon her head.
Beautiful is her sullen eyes,
for the Children she seeds.
For Sun's and Clouds to lay upon,
in the dark of coolest breeze.
What wisdom so rare upon this place,
a dance of love, passion and embrace.
Energy so pure, divine and empathy,
The cry of her newborn infant Galaxy.
Let me now try to explain for Scholars and Stephen Hawkings, the purpose of the "Crux" or "Cross of Humankind".
Very much so, Riven's version of Timaeus.
Tis true this ethereal of mystery so vast
never ending spirals upon her masts.
Linear Crosses of wormhole accelerators,
propulsion shifted neutrino Helioators.
Speeding with excitement faster than time,
to collide mid center and spread her wings divine.
Twinkle, upon Twinkle of Angels content,
too crowded for laughter, they spew out their vent.
Spiral upon Spiral, they dance in the night sky,
around their Corona, so pleasing to the eye.
Glare of Orichalcum their jewel shines brilliantly,
Reborn from the Father, to this Majestic new Galaxy.
Crowned Kings of Gold, a Beauty to Behold,
their Chess pieces of Wisdom upon the curved Spire,
till Angel hairs spin, their thrones to retire.
Tis Truth, this wonder of The Spiral.
QUOTE
I'm glad you agree that humans are smarter than animals. So many of you have tried to point out all the similarities between animals and humans.
And you were claiming that they shared none of the traits before. That there was a wall between human and animal instincts. Now you agree that they share some traits. Seems like you who changing their minds. And now you are trying to use that as something from your position. I find that very dishonest.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I'm glad you agree that humans are smarter than animals. So many of you have tried to point out all the similarities between animals and humans. |
And you were claiming that they shared none of the traits before. That there was a wall between human and animal instincts. Now you agree that they share some traits. Seems like you who changing their minds. And now you are trying to use that as something from your position. I find that very dishonest.
First you say you don't know - and then you call me a liar and offender because I acknowledge your statement that you don't know. Please explain to me how I'm supposed to deal with this type of response?
It doesn't matter if 'we will not know' until the brain is understood better. It is obvious to anyone with a brain that animals are not capable of enacting human behavior. It's amazing how talented you think I am. I have 'reasonable intelligence' you say, but I am a liar and stupid. Well that's real helpful.
Please provide evidence of what you claim to know as fact.
You ask questions, and then tell everyone who does agree with you that they are wrong. We all answered honestly, and you go and tell us that we are wrong and that you are right. What we answer you call stuff with no evidence, and then you answer the same way and claim it is fact with zero evidence.
QUOTE
Another paragraph, another insult. Is this a Canadian gift - or is it an evolutionist gift?
Timelessness: When one reads the Bible and begins to understand all that it reveals - one becomes aware that timelessness exists outside of this world. Several themes deal with the idea that God always was - and never had a beginning, or that with God 1000 years is as one day (not that it is literally as one day - but that time is meaningless to God - it doesn't matter if a day passes or a 1000 years pass - it's all the same to God - it's timeless).
Timelessness: When one reads the Bible and begins to understand all that it reveals - one becomes aware that timelessness exists outside of this world. Several themes deal with the idea that God always was - and never had a beginning, or that with God 1000 years is as one day (not that it is literally as one day - but that time is meaningless to God - it doesn't matter if a day passes or a 1000 years pass - it's all the same to God - it's timeless).
Insults are a human instinct when you can not believe the stupidity you are reading. You are assuming that the bible is truth for everything, or anything. Just because the bible talks about god being timeless does not make it true. You say god has spoken to you.....whatever, I won't argue, but you can not claim to have been outside of the universe with god, and thus experienced timelessness. You can speculate on it, and use the bible as evidence, thats fine. Realize that I could pull out a String theory textbook and talk about lower dimensional branes floating around in higher dimensional space and be just as right as you are. Both have supporting books. Neither can be shown to be right or wrong. Deal with it!!!!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Another paragraph, another insult. Is this a Canadian gift - or is it an evolutionist gift? Timelessness: When one reads the Bible and begins to understand all that it reveals - one becomes aware that timelessness exists outside of this world. Several themes deal with the idea that God always was - and never had a beginning, or that with God 1000 years is as one day (not that it is literally as one day - but that time is meaningless to God - it doesn't matter if a day passes or a 1000 years pass - it's all the same to God - it's timeless). |
Insults are a human instinct when you can not believe the stupidity you are reading. You are assuming that the bible is truth for everything, or anything. Just because the bible talks about god being timeless does not make it true. You say god has spoken to you.....whatever, I won't argue, but you can not claim to have been outside of the universe with god, and thus experienced timelessness. You can speculate on it, and use the bible as evidence, thats fine. Realize that I could pull out a String theory textbook and talk about lower dimensional branes floating around in higher dimensional space and be just as right as you are. Both have supporting books. Neither can be shown to be right or wrong. Deal with it!!!!
Another paragraph, another insult. But you're right - my reply was directed more towards Swimmer's and Laidback's response. But I wouldn't call it idiotic - I'd call it an oversight. It was a bit trying to try to respond to 15 questions answered by 3 different people, that's all.
But essentially, you agree with me on this one - that's one point for you!
Fair enough, that particular insult was unwarranted, and I apolize for that particular one, however the others I stand behind.
QUOTE
Another paragraph, another insult. The choices are give birth or don't. Live or die. Being Pro-choice means you act as an accessory to the choice. If they choose not to abort - you are an accessory to life. If they choose to abort - you are an accessory to.......
I'm not a facist or control freak. I want people to make an educated choice when they choose to have sex that could result in pregnancy. Many people are not even aware, or don't think, that pregnancy could happen to them. This is a fact - based on personal dealings with numerous unwed mothers. Murders at the hands of one wielding a knife can be equated with the abortionist. The baby is helpless and depends on humanity to help it to survive. The first person it depends on is its mother. Abortion cannot even be compared to drug abuse, alcoholism, or smoking. Because the people doing these harmful activities are choosing them. Abortionists don't ask the baby if he/she wants to be aborted. My guess is that he/she would like the same opportunity others humans have had, and that is to live.
Let's examine your thought on illegal abortions. Do you know how many abortions are committed worldwide, in areas where abortion is legal, in a years time? Millions.
Do you know how many women lose their lives, in areas where abortion is illegal, from having illegal back alley abortions? Hundreds. Even most of the back alley abortions are successful - so more babies are dying from abortions than are mothers who are dying from botched abortions.
Do you want to save the lives of millions of babies, or hundreds of mothers who would abort their babies?
The solution is not abortions or preventing abortions. The solution begins before conception takes place. I believe in education. Abortions are going down in the US due to education, and of course the pro-life movement. Even pro-abortion groups are helpful in reducing abortions - IF they can get their hands on them before they are considering having sex (they provide them information about birth control). I absolutely abhor policies that are pro-abortion, especially in countries where abortion rates are very high. The problem will never be solved this way.
The only thing that will solve this terrible practice is education. I have counseled young women/men/couples who have chosen life, and who have chosen abortion. They receive my compassion and assistance, and education for future reference. The ones who choose life - may have a tough time, because they are usually young, unemployed, living at home, or on welfare------but they are unlikely to regret their decision. Those who choose abortion, and then come in for counseling, will live with their decision forever. Statistics show that no matter what is said to these women, no matter how they are treated, they will always regret their decision. Allowing women to suffer for the rest of their lives because you (people like you) are too weak to force a change in your society; is absolutely incomprehensible to someone like me. You (people like you) are a coward. You are what they call 'politically correct'. While the women who had the abortion is called depressed and suicidal. They were told it was their body to do as they wished with. But now they know how very wrong they were. They now know that their body was the home of a human being that they were supposed to nurture and feed - at least until it was born. Think Steveo, for now you know the truth.
I'm not a facist or control freak. I want people to make an educated choice when they choose to have sex that could result in pregnancy. Many people are not even aware, or don't think, that pregnancy could happen to them. This is a fact - based on personal dealings with numerous unwed mothers. Murders at the hands of one wielding a knife can be equated with the abortionist. The baby is helpless and depends on humanity to help it to survive. The first person it depends on is its mother. Abortion cannot even be compared to drug abuse, alcoholism, or smoking. Because the people doing these harmful activities are choosing them. Abortionists don't ask the baby if he/she wants to be aborted. My guess is that he/she would like the same opportunity others humans have had, and that is to live.
Let's examine your thought on illegal abortions. Do you know how many abortions are committed worldwide, in areas where abortion is legal, in a years time? Millions.
Do you know how many women lose their lives, in areas where abortion is illegal, from having illegal back alley abortions? Hundreds. Even most of the back alley abortions are successful - so more babies are dying from abortions than are mothers who are dying from botched abortions.
Do you want to save the lives of millions of babies, or hundreds of mothers who would abort their babies?
The solution is not abortions or preventing abortions. The solution begins before conception takes place. I believe in education. Abortions are going down in the US due to education, and of course the pro-life movement. Even pro-abortion groups are helpful in reducing abortions - IF they can get their hands on them before they are considering having sex (they provide them information about birth control). I absolutely abhor policies that are pro-abortion, especially in countries where abortion rates are very high. The problem will never be solved this way.
The only thing that will solve this terrible practice is education. I have counseled young women/men/couples who have chosen life, and who have chosen abortion. They receive my compassion and assistance, and education for future reference. The ones who choose life - may have a tough time, because they are usually young, unemployed, living at home, or on welfare------but they are unlikely to regret their decision. Those who choose abortion, and then come in for counseling, will live with their decision forever. Statistics show that no matter what is said to these women, no matter how they are treated, they will always regret their decision. Allowing women to suffer for the rest of their lives because you (people like you) are too weak to force a change in your society; is absolutely incomprehensible to someone like me. You (people like you) are a coward. You are what they call 'politically correct'. While the women who had the abortion is called depressed and suicidal. They were told it was their body to do as they wished with. But now they know how very wrong they were. They now know that their body was the home of a human being that they were supposed to nurture and feed - at least until it was born. Think Steveo, for now you know the truth.
The issue is when does a fetus become a baby, or when does the idea become a baby? You say the moment of conception. What about a couple who wants a baby, but then one of them doesn't feel like having sex? Should they not be able to say no because they want a baby? That could be preventing a conception. You always make this arguement so black and white. First of all the question of when a fertilized egg is a baby is very grey. There is the first problem. Most abortion clinics, and what I know about that is that most abortions are only done in the first trimester, occasionally in the second, and never in the third. I may be wrong, but thats my understanding of it. The difference here could easily be attributed to when they consider it a baby. And there are valid arguements for most of these positions, so do not claim that the only possible answer is at the point of conception. And again, your trying to take away someone's rights to decide over their own body. I agree that the effects of this choice are usually negative, but thats besides the point. And if you have any memory I have also said that the best defense against this is education. Education about the TRUTH about sex, both positive and negative. The truth about contraceptives, and about abstance. The truth about masterbation. How can you hope for kids to make the 'correct' choices without knowing all of the facts? Most people who want to 'educate' want to selectively educate, not give them all of the information. Do you plan on teaching all of the honest facts about sex? Like that it feels good? Do you plan to teach that masterbation is natural and healthy also, and that you won't go blind from doing it? If you do, I agree with you totally, except for making abortion illegal. With a better education problem the rate of abortions would go down. We would both be happy about that.
You said they are not asking the baby. In our society we take that children are not capable of making their own decisions. If you have kids you decide what vacinations to get and not to get. You don't give them a choice do you? I also never said I support abortion, just I don't think my opinion should govern other people's actions.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Another paragraph, another insult. The choices are give birth or don't. Live or die. Being Pro-choice means you act as an accessory to the choice. If they choose not to abort - you are an accessory to life. If they choose to abort - you are an accessory to....... I'm not a facist or control freak. I want people to make an educated choice when they choose to have sex that could result in pregnancy. Many people are not even aware, or don't think, that pregnancy could happen to them. This is a fact - based on personal dealings with numerous unwed mothers. Murders at the hands of one wielding a knife can be equated with the abortionist. The baby is helpless and depends on humanity to help it to survive. The first person it depends on is its mother. Abortion cannot even be compared to drug abuse, alcoholism, or smoking. Because the people doing these harmful activities are choosing them. Abortionists don't ask the baby if he/she wants to be aborted. My guess is that he/she would like the same opportunity others humans have had, and that is to live. Let's examine your thought on illegal abortions. Do you know how many abortions are committed worldwide, in areas where abortion is legal, in a years time? Millions. Do you know how many women lose their lives, in areas where abortion is illegal, from having illegal back alley abortions? Hundreds. Even most of the back alley abortions are successful - so more babies are dying from abortions than are mothers who are dying from botched abortions. Do you want to save the lives of millions of babies, or hundreds of mothers who would abort their babies? The solution is not abortions or preventing abortions. The solution begins before conception takes place. I believe in education. Abortions are going down in the US due to education, and of course the pro-life movement. Even pro-abortion groups are helpful in reducing abortions - IF they can get their hands on them before they are considering having sex (they provide them information about birth control). I absolutely abhor policies that are pro-abortion, especially in countries where abortion rates are very high. The problem will never be solved this way. The only thing that will solve this terrible practice is education. I have counseled young women/men/couples who have chosen life, and who have chosen abortion. They receive my compassion and assistance, and education for future reference. The ones who choose life - may have a tough time, because they are usually young, unemployed, living at home, or on welfare------but they are unlikely to regret their decision. Those who choose abortion, and then come in for counseling, will live with their decision forever. Statistics show that no matter what is said to these women, no matter how they are treated, they will always regret their decision. Allowing women to suffer for the rest of their lives because you (people like you) are too weak to force a change in your society; is absolutely incomprehensible to someone like me. You (people like you) are a coward. You are what they call 'politically correct'. While the women who had the abortion is called depressed and suicidal. They were told it was their body to do as they wished with. But now they know how very wrong they were. They now know that their body was the home of a human being that they were supposed to nurture and feed - at least until it was born. Think Steveo, for now you know the truth. |
The issue is when does a fetus become a baby, or when does the idea become a baby? You say the moment of conception. What about a couple who wants a baby, but then one of them doesn't feel like having sex? Should they not be able to say no because they want a baby? That could be preventing a conception. You always make this arguement so black and white. First of all the question of when a fertilized egg is a baby is very grey. There is the first problem. Most abortion clinics, and what I know about that is that most abortions are only done in the first trimester, occasionally in the second, and never in the third. I may be wrong, but thats my understanding of it. The difference here could easily be attributed to when they consider it a baby. And there are valid arguements for most of these positions, so do not claim that the only possible answer is at the point of conception. And again, your trying to take away someone's rights to decide over their own body. I agree that the effects of this choice are usually negative, but thats besides the point. And if you have any memory I have also said that the best defense against this is education. Education about the TRUTH about sex, both positive and negative. The truth about contraceptives, and about abstance. The truth about masterbation. How can you hope for kids to make the 'correct' choices without knowing all of the facts? Most people who want to 'educate' want to selectively educate, not give them all of the information. Do you plan on teaching all of the honest facts about sex? Like that it feels good? Do you plan to teach that masterbation is natural and healthy also, and that you won't go blind from doing it? If you do, I agree with you totally, except for making abortion illegal. With a better education problem the rate of abortions would go down. We would both be happy about that.
You said they are not asking the baby. In our society we take that children are not capable of making their own decisions. If you have kids you decide what vacinations to get and not to get. You don't give them a choice do you? I also never said I support abortion, just I don't think my opinion should govern other people's actions.
Ruff, ruff ruff. By faith I came to believe in God. When I believed, I received the Holy Spirit. This gift confirmed, proved, to me that God was real. That's how I know. The Bible states that God created everything. Therefore, God existed before our universe was created. I am not dishonest when I say that God existed before our universe was created. You call me a liar because I say God exists? Then you call 95% of all people living on the planet a liar as well. You are tolerant only of things you believe in. You are not tolerant of people who don't believe in abortion, and other such moral issues. If I said I was pro-choice, even though I wouldn't have an abortion - you would say 'that's great - 'even though you're a Christian - I admire the fact that you've become so tolerant'. This is self-righteous tolerance, nothing more. Righteous tolerance would be to hold a pro-life view, but offer what compassion and assistance you could to anyone you know who has had an abortion. They need forgiveness, and then they need education - so they don't put themselves in this position again. Statistics show this happens more often than it should.
I never said you were a liar for believing in god. I said that you saying god did whatever you claimed he did is no more speculation than what I said. You know very well you can not prove it. Because the bible doesn't count as proof. I said that you were speculating, just like I was. Please reread that part of my post. In that particular part I did not call you a liar, I asked how what you said wasn't speculation.
Scientists confirm historic massive flood in climate change
Scientists from NASA and Columbia University, New York, have used computer modeling to successfully reproduce an abrupt climate change that took place 8,200 years ago. At that time, the beginning of the current warm period, climate changes were caused by a massive flood of freshwater into the North Atlantic Ocean.
This work is the first to consistently recreate the event by computer modeling, and the first time that the model results have been confirmed by comparison to the climate record, which includes such things as ice core and tree ring data.
"We only have one example of how the climate reacts to changes, the past," said Gavin A. Schmidt, a NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), New York, researcher and co-author on the study. "If we're going to accurately simulate the Earth's future, we need to be able to replicate past events. This was a real test of the model's skill."
The study was led by Allegra LeGrande, a graduate student in the department of Earth and environmental sciences at Columbia University. The results appeared in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) in Jan. 2006.
http://www.physorg.com/news11277.html
The group used an atmosphere-ocean coupled climate computer model known as "GISS Model E-R" to simulate the climate impact of a massive freshwater flood into the North Atlantic that happened about 8,200 years ago after the end of the last Ice Age. As retreating glaciers opened a route for two ancient meltwater lakes, known as Agassiz and Ojibway, to suddenly and catastrophically drain from the middle of the North American continent.
At approximately the same time, climate records show that the Earth experienced its last abrupt climate shift. Scientists believe that the massive freshwater pulse interfered with the ocean's overturning circulation, which distributes heat around the globe. According to the record of what are known as climate proxies, average air temperatures apparently dropped fell as much as several degrees in some areas of the Northern Hemisphere.
Climate researchers use these proxies, chemical signals locked in minerals and ice bubbles as well as pollen and other biological indicators, as indirect measures of temperature and precipitation patterns in the distant past. Because GISS Model E-R incorporates the response of these proxies in its output, the authors of the PNAS study were able to compare their results directly to the historical record.
The researchers prodded their model with a freshwater pulse equal to between 25 and 50 times the flow of the Amazon River in 12 model runs that took more than a year to complete. Although the simulations largely agreed with proxy records from North Atlantic sediment cores and Greenland ice cores, the team's results showed that the flood had much milder effects around the globe than many people surmise.
According to the model, temperatures in the North Atlantic and Greenland showed the largest decrease, with slightly less cooling over parts of North America and Europe. The rest of the northern hemisphere, however, showed very little effect, and temperatures in the southern hemisphere remained largely unchanged. Moreover, ocean circulation, which initially dropped by half after simulated flood, appeared to rebound within 50 to 150 years.
"The flood we looked at was even larger than anything that could happen today," said LeGrande. Still, it's important for us to study because the real thing occurred during a period when conditions were not that much different from the present day."
The GISS climate model is also being used for the latest simulations by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to simulate the Earth's present and future climate. "Hopefully, successful simulations of the past such as this will increase confidence in the validity of model projections," said Schmidt.
Source: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Well seems like our Scientists finally caught up to my 6482.bC date for the Great Disaster, my rebound was 47 years.
Now that I have knocked over the Pillars of Time, our Scientists will rebuild my Pillars of Truth in Time.
Maybe now people will start listening to what I have revealed.- Riven
hee hee
Scientists from NASA and Columbia University, New York, have used computer modeling to successfully reproduce an abrupt climate change that took place 8,200 years ago. At that time, the beginning of the current warm period, climate changes were caused by a massive flood of freshwater into the North Atlantic Ocean.
This work is the first to consistently recreate the event by computer modeling, and the first time that the model results have been confirmed by comparison to the climate record, which includes such things as ice core and tree ring data.
"We only have one example of how the climate reacts to changes, the past," said Gavin A. Schmidt, a NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), New York, researcher and co-author on the study. "If we're going to accurately simulate the Earth's future, we need to be able to replicate past events. This was a real test of the model's skill."
The study was led by Allegra LeGrande, a graduate student in the department of Earth and environmental sciences at Columbia University. The results appeared in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) in Jan. 2006.
http://www.physorg.com/news11277.html
The group used an atmosphere-ocean coupled climate computer model known as "GISS Model E-R" to simulate the climate impact of a massive freshwater flood into the North Atlantic that happened about 8,200 years ago after the end of the last Ice Age. As retreating glaciers opened a route for two ancient meltwater lakes, known as Agassiz and Ojibway, to suddenly and catastrophically drain from the middle of the North American continent.
At approximately the same time, climate records show that the Earth experienced its last abrupt climate shift. Scientists believe that the massive freshwater pulse interfered with the ocean's overturning circulation, which distributes heat around the globe. According to the record of what are known as climate proxies, average air temperatures apparently dropped fell as much as several degrees in some areas of the Northern Hemisphere.
Climate researchers use these proxies, chemical signals locked in minerals and ice bubbles as well as pollen and other biological indicators, as indirect measures of temperature and precipitation patterns in the distant past. Because GISS Model E-R incorporates the response of these proxies in its output, the authors of the PNAS study were able to compare their results directly to the historical record.
The researchers prodded their model with a freshwater pulse equal to between 25 and 50 times the flow of the Amazon River in 12 model runs that took more than a year to complete. Although the simulations largely agreed with proxy records from North Atlantic sediment cores and Greenland ice cores, the team's results showed that the flood had much milder effects around the globe than many people surmise.
According to the model, temperatures in the North Atlantic and Greenland showed the largest decrease, with slightly less cooling over parts of North America and Europe. The rest of the northern hemisphere, however, showed very little effect, and temperatures in the southern hemisphere remained largely unchanged. Moreover, ocean circulation, which initially dropped by half after simulated flood, appeared to rebound within 50 to 150 years.
"The flood we looked at was even larger than anything that could happen today," said LeGrande. Still, it's important for us to study because the real thing occurred during a period when conditions were not that much different from the present day."
The GISS climate model is also being used for the latest simulations by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to simulate the Earth's present and future climate. "Hopefully, successful simulations of the past such as this will increase confidence in the validity of model projections," said Schmidt.
Source: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Well seems like our Scientists finally caught up to my 6482.bC date for the Great Disaster, my rebound was 47 years.
Now that I have knocked over the Pillars of Time, our Scientists will rebuild my Pillars of Truth in Time.
Maybe now people will start listening to what I have revealed.- Riven
hee hee
QUOTE
I've never claimed to be a prophet, but I foresee something like this coming from Steveo and some of our other friends in Canada:
We'll see...
We'll see...
What's that crappy giant slingshot? Apparently you've never heard of the Royal Canadian Air Farce and their incredible Chicken Cannon!
(sorry it's a bad pic - I couldn't find a better one)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I've never claimed to be a prophet, but I foresee something like this coming from Steveo and some of our other friends in Canada: We'll see... |
What's that crappy giant slingshot? Apparently you've never heard of the Royal Canadian Air Farce and their incredible Chicken Cannon!
(sorry it's a bad pic - I couldn't find a better one)
Nine university professors and others with science or engineering PhDs have added their names to an American petition that voices skepticism about the theory of evolution. The list was posted on the Internet this week.
Wow. Nine WHOLE scientists (as it was pointed out, none are actually biologists) say they are skeptical about evolution, eh? And three of them teach at Christian colleges/universities? I almost went to Trinity Western University (for Computer Science, which is probably the only course they offer that deserves the "science" moniker) and it is quite the stronghold for evangelical activism in British Columbia. I cannot imagine why THOSE teachers might wish to announce that they support ID.
At any rate, perhaps we should start up a Canadian-only version of Project Steve? Steveo, would you like to be the first Steve on the list? I can't imagine it would take too long to find 9 biologists (oh wait; it doesn't have to be limited to biologists, apparently ANY scientist - or engineer - will do) named Steve in Canada that support evolution.
QUOTE
At any rate, perhaps we should start up a Canadian-only version of Project Steve? Steveo, would you like to be the first Steve on the list? I can't imagine it would take too long to find 9 biologists (oh wait; it doesn't have to be limited to biologists, apparently ANY scientist - or engineer - will do) named Steve in Canada that support evolution.
Geez, I bet I could get 3 Steve's on the list by sending out 2 emails. Yeah, it would not be very hard to get more than 9 supporters of evolution in Canada's scientific community named Steve. In the open access lab I work in there are like 5 more Steve's....and they are all engineers. I bet a couple of them would support evolution too.
Hi.
I have 34 biologists who think that aging can be cured. That's more impressive, right?
As soon as we crack 120 years, we've disproven part of the Bible.
http://cureaging.org/
(The beauty of curing aging is that anyone can help the process)
Anybody know PhDs or MDs who would be willing to add their names?
I have 34 biologists who think that aging can be cured. That's more impressive, right?
As soon as we crack 120 years, we've disproven part of the Bible.
http://cureaging.org/
(The beauty of curing aging is that anyone can help the process)
Anybody know PhDs or MDs who would be willing to add their names?
QUOTE (El_Machinae+)
As soon as we crack 120 years, we've disproven part of the Bible.
El_Machinae: You've just proven your ignorance of the Bible without the help of any biologists.
"And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years."(Genesis 6:3)
The 120 years was referring to the timeframe from when God spoke to Noah until the flood. Men lived well beyond 120 years after the flood.
"These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood: And Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters. And Aphaxad live five and thirty years, and begat Salah: And Arphaxad lived after he begat Salah four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughter..."(Genesis 11:10-13)
And so on, and so on, and so on...
You guys really ought to read the Bible BEFORE attempting to "disprove" it.
El_Machinae: You've just proven your ignorance of the Bible without the help of any biologists.
"And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years."(Genesis 6:3)
The 120 years was referring to the timeframe from when God spoke to Noah until the flood. Men lived well beyond 120 years after the flood.
"These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood: And Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters. And Aphaxad live five and thirty years, and begat Salah: And Arphaxad lived after he begat Salah four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughter..."(Genesis 11:10-13)
And so on, and so on, and so on...
You guys really ought to read the Bible BEFORE attempting to "disprove" it.
I humbly apologize if I misunderstood the passage.
The timeline is a little hard to follow, that '120' seems to come out of nowhere. You're saying that the 120 refers to when Noah was warned (when he was 480)?
Anyway, thanks for helping put it in perspective.
edit: yeah, it certainly looks like it's referring to the flood. I agree.
The "120" has been spouted at me by believers when I talk about curing aging (and how it's immoral).
Thanks.
The timeline is a little hard to follow, that '120' seems to come out of nowhere. You're saying that the 120 refers to when Noah was warned (when he was 480)?
Anyway, thanks for helping put it in perspective.
edit: yeah, it certainly looks like it's referring to the flood. I agree.
The "120" has been spouted at me by believers when I talk about curing aging (and how it's immoral).
Thanks.
El_Machinae: Your "humble apology"(don't see too many of them from either side of the debate) is more than accepted.
Yes, according to the Biblical narrative, Noah was 600 when the flood came, so the 120 years would necessarily cover the timeframe from when Noah was 480 up until he was 600. By following the genealogies in Genesis, chapter 11, it is plainly recorded that men lived well beyond 120 years AFTER THE FLOOD.
My pleasure. You're more than welcome.
Yes, according to the Biblical narrative, Noah was 600 when the flood came, so the 120 years would necessarily cover the timeframe from when Noah was 480 up until he was 600. By following the genealogies in Genesis, chapter 11, it is plainly recorded that men lived well beyond 120 years AFTER THE FLOOD.
My pleasure. You're more than welcome.
El_Machinae: I just read your "edit". It doesn't surprise me in the least to hear you say that "believers" have "spouted" erroneous claims from the Bible. Its not the first time that I heard this particular "error" on this forum...the first time was from a, *ahem*, believer. Anyone remember SoLoved?
re: "other side of the debate"
Not much of a debate here! I misquoted the Bible!
Not much of a debate here! I misquoted the Bible!
QUOTE (El_Machinae+Mar 1 2006, 11:04 PM)
re: "other side of the debate"
Not much of a debate here! I misquoted the Bible!
El_Machinae: Your honesty is commendable. Have a good one.
Not much of a debate here! I misquoted the Bible!
El_Machinae: Your honesty is commendable. Have a good one.
Well that ain't nothin' ..........................
Project Christian Steve/SteveO
(what I got when I searched for a Canadian Steve)
By the way, Steveo, while I was searching for Canadian expressions - I found this one: CanCon - short for Canadian Content. Refers to the requisite number of Canadian songs, films, programs, etc. that Canadian broadcasters must air.
What's up with that?
Back to Project Steve/Steveo.................
I looked up
"men named Steve who believe in Jesus"
and I got back
One Million, Eight Hundred and Sixty Thousand
results.
change it to
"men named Steve who believe in God"
and there's
Five Million, One Hundred and Ten Thousand.
Wow!
That's a lot of Steves.
change it to
"men named SteveO who believe in God"
and you get an impressive
Sixty-Two Thousand and Eight Hundred.
now just eliminate Steve/Steveo and you get
"God"
which produced
One-Hundred and Seventy-Seven Billion
results
By the way, changing it to
"Messenger"
produced a whopping
Eighty-Three Million
results
Now I bet we could get a googol if we changed it to
"those who belong to God"
but the search method will need to be modified.
With Oat a Doat, eh?
All in good fun.
Uh-oh, two can play at this game.
Project Christian Steve/SteveO
(what I got when I searched for a Canadian Steve)
By the way, Steveo, while I was searching for Canadian expressions - I found this one: CanCon - short for Canadian Content. Refers to the requisite number of Canadian songs, films, programs, etc. that Canadian broadcasters must air.
What's up with that?
Back to Project Steve/Steveo.................
I looked up
"men named Steve who believe in Jesus"
and I got back
One Million, Eight Hundred and Sixty Thousand
results.
change it to
"men named Steve who believe in God"
and there's
Five Million, One Hundred and Ten Thousand.
Wow!
That's a lot of Steves.
change it to
"men named SteveO who believe in God"
and you get an impressive
Sixty-Two Thousand and Eight Hundred.
now just eliminate Steve/Steveo and you get
"God"
which produced
One-Hundred and Seventy-Seven Billion
results
By the way, changing it to
"Messenger"
produced a whopping
Eighty-Three Million
results
Now I bet we could get a googol if we changed it to
"those who belong to God"
but the search method will need to be modified.
With Oat a Doat, eh?
All in good fun. Uh-oh, two can play at this game.
Geez Newguy, why so fast? I was going to correct him and say that the bible says people used to live several hundreds of years. Oh well.....I was hoping for one time to show I had a slight knowledge of the bible. Hehe, think another opportunity like that will come around?
I guess that ranks up there as a scientific controversy just like ID now right? I mean, some scientists say so, even though its a fraction of a percent of all of the scientists in the world.
awwww, this friendly discourse is so new in here. It almost brings a tear to my eyes....but instead it makes me want to throw up....civility? Whats that all about? hahaha just kidding
QUOTE
Hi.
I have 34 biologists who think that aging can be cured. That's more impressive, right?
As soon as we crack 120 years, we've disproven part of the Bible.
http://cureaging.org/
(The beauty of curing aging is that anyone can help the process)
Anybody know PhDs or MDs who would be willing to add their names?
I have 34 biologists who think that aging can be cured. That's more impressive, right?
As soon as we crack 120 years, we've disproven part of the Bible.
http://cureaging.org/
(The beauty of curing aging is that anyone can help the process)
Anybody know PhDs or MDs who would be willing to add their names?
I guess that ranks up there as a scientific controversy just like ID now right? I mean, some scientists say so, even though its a fraction of a percent of all of the scientists in the world.
awwww, this friendly discourse is so new in here. It almost brings a tear to my eyes....but instead it makes me want to throw up....civility? Whats that all about? hahaha just kidding
QUOTE
By the way, Steveo, while I was searching for Canadian expressions - I found this one: CanCon - short for Canadian Content. Refers to the requisite number of Canadian songs, films, programs, etc. that Canadian broadcasters must air.
What's up with that?
What's up with that?
Canadian Content is trying to give things made in Canada a chance against American influence. I don't neccessarily know if its to protect us from American culture (which is for the most part the same as American culture) but thats how I consider it. If there was not a restricted number of Canadian Content there would be a lot less shows made in Canada (by Canadians) on tv here. Some great shows, like Degressi Junior High (and Degrassi High, And Degrassi - the next generation) might not be around.
I have never thought to much about this, but its a weird thing. On the one hand, I think its a good thing to provide a guarantee of some Canadian Content, but on the other hand people should be able to choose. Hey, I am just going to stop thinking about it and enjoy canadian tv.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| By the way, Steveo, while I was searching for Canadian expressions - I found this one: CanCon - short for Canadian Content. Refers to the requisite number of Canadian songs, films, programs, etc. that Canadian broadcasters must air. What's up with that? |
Canadian Content is trying to give things made in Canada a chance against American influence. I don't neccessarily know if its to protect us from American culture (which is for the most part the same as American culture) but thats how I consider it. If there was not a restricted number of Canadian Content there would be a lot less shows made in Canada (by Canadians) on tv here. Some great shows, like Degressi Junior High (and Degrassi High, And Degrassi - the next generation) might not be around.
I have never thought to much about this, but its a weird thing. On the one hand, I think its a good thing to provide a guarantee of some Canadian Content, but on the other hand people should be able to choose. Hey, I am just going to stop thinking about it and enjoy canadian tv.
Back to Project Steve/Steveo.................
I looked up
"men named Steve who believe in Jesus"
and I got back
One Million, Eight Hundred and Sixty Thousand
results. biggrin.gif
change it to
"men named Steve who believe in God"
and there's
Five Million, One Hundred and Ten Thousand.
Wow!
That's a lot of Steves.
Thats google results, not different Steve's. If I type in "Michael Faraday" into google, like I did earlier and get 973 000 results doesn't mean its fair to conclude there are 973 000 people named Michael Faraday. At any rate, its all a moot point. Project Steve was started to show that taking an opinion poll on what people believe is not how science is done. Science is decided by the best ideas, the best models, the best experimental results. Not by popular, or public opinion. So your project Steveo, and Project Steve, and 'scientists who support ID' are all equally ridiculous.
QUOTE (newguy+Mar 1 2006, 10:49 PM)
QUOTE (El_Machinae+)
As soon as we crack 120 years, we've disproven part of the Bible.
El_Machinae: You've just proven your ignorance of the Bible without the help of any biologists.
"And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years."(Genesis 6:3)
The 120 years was referring to the timeframe from when God spoke to Noah until the flood. Men lived well beyond 120 years after the flood.
"These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood: And Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters. And Aphaxad live five and thirty years, and begat Salah: And Arphaxad lived after he begat Salah four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughter..."(Genesis 11:10-13)
And so on, and so on, and so on...
You guys really ought to read the Bible BEFORE attempting to "disprove" it.
Re: Noah et al's ages. Is a "year" a year or a "period of time"?
I understand some creationists accept the evidence of geology so reinterpret a "day" in the Genesis myth to be a period of time.
El_Machinae: You've just proven your ignorance of the Bible without the help of any biologists.
"And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years."(Genesis 6:3)
The 120 years was referring to the timeframe from when God spoke to Noah until the flood. Men lived well beyond 120 years after the flood.
"These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood: And Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters. And Aphaxad live five and thirty years, and begat Salah: And Arphaxad lived after he begat Salah four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughter..."(Genesis 11:10-13)
And so on, and so on, and so on...
You guys really ought to read the Bible BEFORE attempting to "disprove" it.
Re: Noah et al's ages. Is a "year" a year or a "period of time"?
I understand some creationists accept the evidence of geology so reinterpret a "day" in the Genesis myth to be a period of time.
-------------I'm turning over a new fig leaf. I'm not taking anything personal, anymore. I'll assume you're referring to 'them' and that you really mean nothing personal. I'm aware that there are oodles and oodles of angry Christians out there, none of which I usually come in contact with, that want to shove things down your throat. I'm not 'them'. I am only here to let you know 'why' I think the way I do. Please do not take anything I say as personal or as a commandment. Take it as my opinion, and then kindly reply with yours. That's all I care about.
------------------------------------------
Note on the accuracy of the Bible:
Many books written today are out of date and have incorrect information in them almost as soon as they are published. This even happens with yesterday's news.
Science and medicine books may be quickly out-of-date because new discoveries have been made. Modern Science is no exception. Some modern Science books written only 30 years ago are ridiculously inaccurate today.
But the Bible has never been proved to be out-of-date or inaccurate. No matter how closely the Bible is examined, no mistakes will be found! There are minor (less than 2%) discrepancies that have been noted, however, these are very minor and do not generally affect the context. Sometimes it has simply been a matter of mistranslations or grammatical errors (comma in the wrong place, etc.). Scientists and historians are able to prove that what the Bible said was true. Like the 120 years error above, it was our understanding that was mistaken.
The Bible is as true, as accurate and effective as the days in which it was written.
Something else....He still speaks to us through the Holy Spirit:
"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit,
whom the Father will send in My name,
He will teach you all things,
and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you."
(NASB) John 14:26
All in the spirit of good will.
-----------------------------------
Oh, by the way Steveo,
Another paragraph, another insult, this time against Americans. Oh well, what else is new? What I don't like around my corner of America is when I go to the Library - there are so dang many foreign films and Sundance films, and films from the 1930's and 1940's. I do enjoy their documentary section though. I no longer subscribe to cable television because of all the junk. I no longer watch PBS (public television) because it's all British (no offense, just not my style, ...well...some of it's pretty funny...). So now, I read more, lots more. Or I visit the Internet. Or, I purchase movies. The most recent movie (or documentary?) I purchased was actually a science film called 'What the Bleep do We Know?' Have you seen that one? Has anyone? If so, whaddya think of it?
Now Steveo, did you check every single google listing? I don't think so, you're Canadian, no way you could do it that fast. Americans are always the ones accused of being fast, and wanting it all right now!
------------------------------------------
Note on the accuracy of the Bible:
Many books written today are out of date and have incorrect information in them almost as soon as they are published. This even happens with yesterday's news.
Science and medicine books may be quickly out-of-date because new discoveries have been made. Modern Science is no exception. Some modern Science books written only 30 years ago are ridiculously inaccurate today.
But the Bible has never been proved to be out-of-date or inaccurate. No matter how closely the Bible is examined, no mistakes will be found! There are minor (less than 2%) discrepancies that have been noted, however, these are very minor and do not generally affect the context. Sometimes it has simply been a matter of mistranslations or grammatical errors (comma in the wrong place, etc.). Scientists and historians are able to prove that what the Bible said was true. Like the 120 years error above, it was our understanding that was mistaken.
The Bible is as true, as accurate and effective as the days in which it was written.
Something else....He still speaks to us through the Holy Spirit:
"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit,
whom the Father will send in My name,
He will teach you all things,
and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you."
(NASB) John 14:26
All in the spirit of good will.-----------------------------------
Oh, by the way Steveo,
Another paragraph, another insult, this time against Americans. Oh well, what else is new? What I don't like around my corner of America is when I go to the Library - there are so dang many foreign films and Sundance films, and films from the 1930's and 1940's. I do enjoy their documentary section though. I no longer subscribe to cable television because of all the junk. I no longer watch PBS (public television) because it's all British (no offense, just not my style, ...well...some of it's pretty funny...). So now, I read more, lots more. Or I visit the Internet. Or, I purchase movies. The most recent movie (or documentary?) I purchased was actually a science film called 'What the Bleep do We Know?' Have you seen that one? Has anyone? If so, whaddya think of it?
Now Steveo, did you check every single google listing? I don't think so, you're Canadian, no way you could do it that fast. Americans are always the ones accused of being fast, and wanting it all right now!
QUOTE (swimmer+Mar 1 2006, 11:45 PM)
QUOTE (newguy+Mar 1 2006, 10:49 PM)
QUOTE (El_Machinae+)
As soon as we crack 120 years, we've disproven part of the Bible.
El_Machinae: You've just proven your ignorance of the Bible without the help of any biologists.
"And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years."(Genesis 6:3)
The 120 years was referring to the timeframe from when God spoke to Noah until the flood. Men lived well beyond 120 years after the flood.
"These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood: And Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters. And Aphaxad live five and thirty years, and begat Salah: And Arphaxad lived after he begat Salah four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughter..."(Genesis 11:10-13)
And so on, and so on, and so on...
You guys really ought to read the Bible BEFORE attempting to "disprove" it.
Re: Noah et al's ages. Is a "year" a year or a "period of time"?
I understand some creationists accept the evidence of geology so reinterpret a "day" in the Genesis myth to be a period of time.
Hi all! Say newguy, swimmer, El_Machinae et al, I want to run something by you which I recall having 'hypothesised' in my early 'catholic' youth as I was 'shedding' all this 'bible' stuff....I think I was about 12-13 or so.
My 'hypothesis' was brought back to mind just now by newguy's clarification of the usual "120" yrs being misinterpreted as representing noah's 'age' rather than the 'lead time" of how many years from "the warning" until "the flood".
That hypothesis was further 'entrenched' when I saw newguy's excerpt regarding ACTUAL references to 'age' of Shem etc. The hypothesis is this.......
If we recall how in ancient times and up until the last couple of centuries (and even STILL in the field of Hraldry and Lineology) there are terms like "THE HOUSE OF......." and "THE LINE OF ...." and "NAME OF ....." etc referring to the DYNASTY as if it WAS the PERSON of the original "MATRIARCH/PATRIARCH" in question..........
....THEN those passages quoted by newguy above could have ORIGINALLY/REALLY been meant to read something like:
"These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood: And after he begat Arphaxad, the DYNASTY of the "HOUSE" of Shem and its long LINE of sons and daughters LASTED/ENDURED FOR five hundred years, WHEN, after Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, he in turn begat (Shem's FIRST GRANDSON) Salah: And Arphaxad, through Salah, CONTINUED the (Shem) LINE for four hundred and three years more, by IN HIS TURN, through his descendents, helping to continue the unbroken LINE of SHEM for 500 yrs since Shem's birth..."(Genesis 11:10-13).
Basically, if you add up the 100yrs of Shem and the 400yrs of his unbroken "LINE" through Arpaxad etc and Salah etc and etc etc....THEN you have a DYNASTY/HOUSE?LINE from initial PATRIARCH, through the MALE descendents for a total of 500yrs.
It seems to me NOW, that the SAME 'misinterpretations' which led to the "120yrs-old" Noah problem, could also have occurred when the original MODERN/LANGUAGE/USAGE 'translators' of ANCIENT/LANGUAGE/USAGE texts which ACTUALLY spoke of LINEAGE/HOUSES/DYNASTIES etc rather than THE ONE PERSON'S "500yrs AGE".
Just a 'youthful' hypothesis that I never 'followed up' until now. Comments?
RC.
.
I think you're off the mark, there. I read Steveo's post a couple times about CanCon, and I cannot see an insult. It was an honest attempt to answer your question.
I think you're off the mark, there. I read Steveo's post a couple times about CanCon, and I cannot see an insult. It was an honest attempt to answer your question.
I guess that ranks up there as a scientific controversy just like ID now right?
I don't think that curing aging is really a debate among scientists - it's the timeline that's in debate. I think any biologist can admit that it's possible to change humans so that they don't suffer the effects of aging - given time.
The hopefuls among us believe that (with funding/support/etc.) we can get a cure for aging in our lifetime (and thus, a whole group of people today need not die of old age).
El_Machinae: You've just proven your ignorance of the Bible without the help of any biologists.
"And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years."(Genesis 6:3)
The 120 years was referring to the timeframe from when God spoke to Noah until the flood. Men lived well beyond 120 years after the flood.
"These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood: And Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters. And Aphaxad live five and thirty years, and begat Salah: And Arphaxad lived after he begat Salah four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughter..."(Genesis 11:10-13)
And so on, and so on, and so on...
You guys really ought to read the Bible BEFORE attempting to "disprove" it.
Re: Noah et al's ages. Is a "year" a year or a "period of time"?
I understand some creationists accept the evidence of geology so reinterpret a "day" in the Genesis myth to be a period of time.
Hi all! Say newguy, swimmer, El_Machinae et al, I want to run something by you which I recall having 'hypothesised' in my early 'catholic' youth as I was 'shedding' all this 'bible' stuff....I think I was about 12-13 or so.
My 'hypothesis' was brought back to mind just now by newguy's clarification of the usual "120" yrs being misinterpreted as representing noah's 'age' rather than the 'lead time" of how many years from "the warning" until "the flood".
That hypothesis was further 'entrenched' when I saw newguy's excerpt regarding ACTUAL references to 'age' of Shem etc. The hypothesis is this.......
If we recall how in ancient times and up until the last couple of centuries (and even STILL in the field of Hraldry and Lineology) there are terms like "THE HOUSE OF......." and "THE LINE OF ...." and "NAME OF ....." etc referring to the DYNASTY as if it WAS the PERSON of the original "MATRIARCH/PATRIARCH" in question..........
....THEN those passages quoted by newguy above could have ORIGINALLY/REALLY been meant to read something like:
"These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood: And after he begat Arphaxad, the DYNASTY of the "HOUSE" of Shem and its long LINE of sons and daughters LASTED/ENDURED FOR five hundred years, WHEN, after Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, he in turn begat (Shem's FIRST GRANDSON) Salah: And Arphaxad, through Salah, CONTINUED the (Shem) LINE for four hundred and three years more, by IN HIS TURN, through his descendents, helping to continue the unbroken LINE of SHEM for 500 yrs since Shem's birth..."(Genesis 11:10-13).
Basically, if you add up the 100yrs of Shem and the 400yrs of his unbroken "LINE" through Arpaxad etc and Salah etc and etc etc....THEN you have a DYNASTY/HOUSE?LINE from initial PATRIARCH, through the MALE descendents for a total of 500yrs.
It seems to me NOW, that the SAME 'misinterpretations' which led to the "120yrs-old" Noah problem, could also have occurred when the original MODERN/LANGUAGE/USAGE 'translators' of ANCIENT/LANGUAGE/USAGE texts which ACTUALLY spoke of LINEAGE/HOUSES/DYNASTIES etc rather than THE ONE PERSON'S "500yrs AGE".
Just a 'youthful' hypothesis that I never 'followed up' until now. Comments?
RC.
.
QUOTE
Another paragraph, another insult, this time against Americans.
I think you're off the mark, there. I read Steveo's post a couple times about CanCon, and I cannot see an insult. It was an honest attempt to answer your question.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Another paragraph, another insult, this time against Americans. |
I think you're off the mark, there. I read Steveo's post a couple times about CanCon, and I cannot see an insult. It was an honest attempt to answer your question.
I guess that ranks up there as a scientific controversy just like ID now right?
I don't think that curing aging is really a debate among scientists - it's the timeline that's in debate. I think any biologist can admit that it's possible to change humans so that they don't suffer the effects of aging - given time.
The hopefuls among us believe that (with funding/support/etc.) we can get a cure for aging in our lifetime (and thus, a whole group of people today need not die of old age).
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 2 2006, 12:31 AM)
QUOTE (swimmer+Mar 1 2006, 11:45 PM)
QUOTE (newguy+Mar 1 2006, 10:49 PM)
QUOTE (El_Machinae+)
As soon as we crack 120 years, we've disproven part of the Bible.
El_Machinae: You've just proven your ignorance of the Bible without the help of any biologists.
"And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years."(Genesis 6:3)
The 120 years was referring to the timeframe from when God spoke to Noah until the flood. Men lived well beyond 120 years after the flood.
"These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood: And Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters. And Aphaxad live five and thirty years, and begat Salah: And Arphaxad lived after he begat Salah four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughter..."(Genesis 11:10-13)
And so on, and so on, and so on...
You guys really ought to read the Bible BEFORE attempting to "disprove" it.
Re: Noah et al's ages. Is a "year" a year or a "period of time"?
I understand some creationists accept the evidence of geology so reinterpret a "day" in the Genesis myth to be a period of time.
Hi all! Say newguy, swimmer, El_Machinae et al, I want to run something by you which I recall having 'hypothesised' in my early 'catholic' youth as I was 'shedding' all this 'bible' stuff....I think I was about 12-13 or so.
My 'hypothesis' was brought back to mind just now by newguy's clarification of the usual "120" yrs being misinterpreted as representing noah's 'age' rather than the 'lead time" of how many years from "the warning" until "the flood".
That hypothesis was further 'entrenched' when I saw newguy's excerpt regarding ACTUAL references to 'age' of Shem etc. The hypothesis is this.......
If we recall how in ancient times and up until the last couple of centuries (and even STILL in the field of Hraldry and Lineology) there are terms like "THE HOUSE OF......." and "THE LINE OF ...." and "NAME OF ....." etc referring to the DYNASTY as if it WAS the PERSON of the original "MATRIARCH/PATRIARCH" in question..........
....THEN those passages quoted by newguy above could have ORIGINALLY/REALLY been meant to read something like:
"These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood: And after he begat Arphaxad, the DYNASTY of the "HOUSE" of Shem and its long LINE of sons and daughters LASTED/ENDURED FOR five hundred years, WHEN, after Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, he in turn begat (Shem's FIRST GRANDSON) Salah: And Arphaxad, through Salah, CONTINUED the (Shem) LINE for four hundred and three years more, by IN HIS TURN, through his descendents, helping to continue the unbroken LINE of SHEM for 500 yrs since Shem's birth..."(Genesis 11:10-13).
Basically, if you add up the 100yrs of Shem and the 400yrs of his unbroken "LINE" through Arpaxad etc and Salah etc and etc etc....THEN you have a DYNASTY/HOUSE?LINE from initial PATRIARCH, through the MALE descendents for a total of 500yrs.
It seems to me NOW, that the SAME 'misinterpretations' which led to the "120yrs-old" Noah problem, could also have occurred when the original MODERN/LANGUAGE/USAGE 'translators' of ANCIENT/LANGUAGE/USAGE texts which ACTUALLY spoke of LINEAGE/HOUSES/DYNASTIES etc rather than THE ONE PERSON'S "500yrs AGE".
Just a 'youthful' hypothesis that I never 'followed up' until now. Comments?
RC.
.
RealityCheck: If you read the genealogy of Jesus that is recorded in Luke 3:23-38, then you will see that "the house of Shem" extended well beyond 500 years. It extended, at least, up until the time of Jesus. There are many within Christendom that view the following passage of scripture as a prophesy pertaining to Christ:
"God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant."(Genesis 9:27)
There are many that interpret "he(God) shall dwell in the tents of Shem" to mean that the Messiah or Christ would come from the "natural line" of Shem. If this is indeed the case(could be), then it would just be another prophecy fulfilled in Christ. Additionally, the present day "Semites"(Shemites) trace their lineage back to Shem.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/semite
Main Entry: Sem·ite
Pronunciation: 'se-"mIt, esp British 'sE-"mIt
Function: noun
Etymology: French sémite, from Semitic Shem, from Late Latin, from Greek SEm, from Hebrew ShEm
1 a : a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs b : a descendant of these peoples
2 : a member of a modern people speaking a Semitic language
Bearing these things in mind, I would have to disagree with your "hypothesis". Hope this info helps.
El_Machinae: You've just proven your ignorance of the Bible without the help of any biologists.
"And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years."(Genesis 6:3)
The 120 years was referring to the timeframe from when God spoke to Noah until the flood. Men lived well beyond 120 years after the flood.
"These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood: And Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters. And Aphaxad live five and thirty years, and begat Salah: And Arphaxad lived after he begat Salah four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughter..."(Genesis 11:10-13)
And so on, and so on, and so on...
You guys really ought to read the Bible BEFORE attempting to "disprove" it.
Re: Noah et al's ages. Is a "year" a year or a "period of time"?
I understand some creationists accept the evidence of geology so reinterpret a "day" in the Genesis myth to be a period of time.
Hi all! Say newguy, swimmer, El_Machinae et al, I want to run something by you which I recall having 'hypothesised' in my early 'catholic' youth as I was 'shedding' all this 'bible' stuff....I think I was about 12-13 or so.
My 'hypothesis' was brought back to mind just now by newguy's clarification of the usual "120" yrs being misinterpreted as representing noah's 'age' rather than the 'lead time" of how many years from "the warning" until "the flood".
That hypothesis was further 'entrenched' when I saw newguy's excerpt regarding ACTUAL references to 'age' of Shem etc. The hypothesis is this.......
If we recall how in ancient times and up until the last couple of centuries (and even STILL in the field of Hraldry and Lineology) there are terms like "THE HOUSE OF......." and "THE LINE OF ...." and "NAME OF ....." etc referring to the DYNASTY as if it WAS the PERSON of the original "MATRIARCH/PATRIARCH" in question..........
....THEN those passages quoted by newguy above could have ORIGINALLY/REALLY been meant to read something like:
"These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood: And after he begat Arphaxad, the DYNASTY of the "HOUSE" of Shem and its long LINE of sons and daughters LASTED/ENDURED FOR five hundred years, WHEN, after Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, he in turn begat (Shem's FIRST GRANDSON) Salah: And Arphaxad, through Salah, CONTINUED the (Shem) LINE for four hundred and three years more, by IN HIS TURN, through his descendents, helping to continue the unbroken LINE of SHEM for 500 yrs since Shem's birth..."(Genesis 11:10-13).
Basically, if you add up the 100yrs of Shem and the 400yrs of his unbroken "LINE" through Arpaxad etc and Salah etc and etc etc....THEN you have a DYNASTY/HOUSE?LINE from initial PATRIARCH, through the MALE descendents for a total of 500yrs.
It seems to me NOW, that the SAME 'misinterpretations' which led to the "120yrs-old" Noah problem, could also have occurred when the original MODERN/LANGUAGE/USAGE 'translators' of ANCIENT/LANGUAGE/USAGE texts which ACTUALLY spoke of LINEAGE/HOUSES/DYNASTIES etc rather than THE ONE PERSON'S "500yrs AGE".
Just a 'youthful' hypothesis that I never 'followed up' until now. Comments?
RC.
.
RealityCheck: If you read the genealogy of Jesus that is recorded in Luke 3:23-38, then you will see that "the house of Shem" extended well beyond 500 years. It extended, at least, up until the time of Jesus. There are many within Christendom that view the following passage of scripture as a prophesy pertaining to Christ:
"God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant."(Genesis 9:27)
There are many that interpret "he(God) shall dwell in the tents of Shem" to mean that the Messiah or Christ would come from the "natural line" of Shem. If this is indeed the case(could be), then it would just be another prophecy fulfilled in Christ. Additionally, the present day "Semites"(Shemites) trace their lineage back to Shem.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/semite
Main Entry: Sem·ite
Pronunciation: 'se-"mIt, esp British 'sE-"mIt
Function: noun
Etymology: French sémite, from Semitic Shem, from Late Latin, from Greek SEm, from Hebrew ShEm
1 a : a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs b : a descendant of these peoples
2 : a member of a modern people speaking a Semitic language
Bearing these things in mind, I would have to disagree with your "hypothesis". Hope this info helps.
QUOTE (newguy+Mar 2 2006, 01:06 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 2 2006, 12:31 AM)
QUOTE (swimmer+Mar 1 2006, 11:45 PM)
QUOTE (newguy+Mar 1 2006, 10:49 PM)
QUOTE (El_Machinae+)
As soon as we crack 120 years, we've disproven part of the Bible.
El_Machinae: You've just proven your ignorance of the Bible without the help of any biologists.
"And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years."(Genesis 6:3)
The 120 years was referring to the timeframe from when God spoke to Noah until the flood. Men lived well beyond 120 years after the flood.
"These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood: And Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters. And Aphaxad live five and thirty years, and begat Salah: And Arphaxad lived after he begat Salah four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughter..."(Genesis 11:10-13)
And so on, and so on, and so on...
You guys really ought to read the Bible BEFORE attempting to "disprove" it.
Re: Noah et al's ages. Is a "year" a year or a "period of time"?
I understand some creationists accept the evidence of geology so reinterpret a "day" in the Genesis myth to be a period of time.
Hi all! Say newguy, swimmer, El_Machinae et al, I want to run something by you which I recall having 'hypothesised' in my early 'catholic' youth as I was 'shedding' all this 'bible' stuff....I think I was about 12-13 or so.
My 'hypothesis' was brought back to mind just now by newguy's clarification of the usual "120" yrs being misinterpreted as representing noah's 'age' rather than the 'lead time" of how many years from "the warning" until "the flood".
That hypothesis was further 'entrenched' when I saw newguy's excerpt regarding ACTUAL references to 'age' of Shem etc. The hypothesis is this.......
If we recall how in ancient times and up until the last couple of centuries (and even STILL in the field of Hraldry and Lineology) there are terms like "THE HOUSE OF......." and "THE LINE OF ...." and "NAME OF ....." etc referring to the DYNASTY as if it WAS the PERSON of the original "MATRIARCH/PATRIARCH" in question..........
....THEN those passages quoted by newguy above could have ORIGINALLY/REALLY been meant to read something like:
"These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood: And after he begat Arphaxad, the DYNASTY of the "HOUSE" of Shem and its long LINE of sons and daughters LASTED/ENDURED FOR five hundred years, WHEN, after Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, he in turn begat (Shem's FIRST GRANDSON) Salah: And Arphaxad, through Salah, CONTINUED the (Shem) LINE for four hundred and three years more, by IN HIS TURN, through his descendents, helping to continue the unbroken LINE of SHEM for 500 yrs since Shem's birth..."(Genesis 11:10-13).
Basically, if you add up the 100yrs of Shem and the 400yrs of his unbroken "LINE" through Arpaxad etc and Salah etc and etc etc....THEN you have a DYNASTY/HOUSE?LINE from initial PATRIARCH, through the MALE descendents for a total of 500yrs.
It seems to me NOW, that the SAME 'misinterpretations' which led to the "120yrs-old" Noah problem, could also have occurred when the original MODERN/LANGUAGE/USAGE 'translators' of ANCIENT/LANGUAGE/USAGE texts which ACTUALLY spoke of LINEAGE/HOUSES/DYNASTIES etc rather than THE ONE PERSON'S "500yrs AGE".
Just a 'youthful' hypothesis that I never 'followed up' until now. Comments?
RC.
.
RealityCheck: If you read the genealogy of Jesus that is recorded in Luke 3:23-38, then you will see that "the house of Shem" extended well beyond 500 years. It extended, at least, up until the time of Jesus. There are many within Christendom that view the following passage of scripture as a prophesy pertaining to Christ:
"God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant."(Genesis 9:27)
There are many that interpret "he(God) shall dwell in the tents of Shem" to mean that the Messiah or Christ would come from the "natural line" of Shem. If this is indeed the case(could be), then it would just be another prophecy fulfilled in Christ. Additionally, the present day "Semites"(Shemites) trace their lineage back to Shem.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/semite
Main Entry: Sem£ite
Pronunciation: 'se-"mIt, esp British 'sE-"mIt
Function: noun
Etymology: French s?mite, from Semitic Shem, from Late Latin, from Greek SEm, from Hebrew ShEm
1 a : a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs b : a descendant of these peoples
2 : a member of a modern people speaking a Semitic language
Bearing these things in mind, I would have to disagree with your "hypothesis". Hope this info helps.
Hi newguy! Thanks for your reply/info re above.
One question: When would the texts in question have been written?
If they were written 500yrs into the Shemitic dynasty/tribe history, then my hypothesis would be supported irrespective of how long threafter the Shemitic dynasty/tribe continued for; and irrespective of how many times the ORIGINAL was re-transcibed even unto today......as the original misinterpretation/substitution of "personal age" of Shem Patriarch for "dynastic/tribal age" of Shem's LINE would have been RETAINED as WAS, no matter how many millennia of history 'under the bridge' since that initial writing 500yrs after Shem's birth and his dynastic duration ONLY UP TO THAT POINT IN TIME.
What do you think? Consistent with my 'youthful' hypothesis? Pure speculation, of course! hehehe.
However, do you have any more 'scripture' which may elucidate the point; or further support your own and others' interpretations (the ones used in your info to me above)?
RC.
.
El_Machinae: You've just proven your ignorance of the Bible without the help of any biologists.
"And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years."(Genesis 6:3)
The 120 years was referring to the timeframe from when God spoke to Noah until the flood. Men lived well beyond 120 years after the flood.
"These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood: And Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters. And Aphaxad live five and thirty years, and begat Salah: And Arphaxad lived after he begat Salah four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughter..."(Genesis 11:10-13)
And so on, and so on, and so on...
You guys really ought to read the Bible BEFORE attempting to "disprove" it.
Re: Noah et al's ages. Is a "year" a year or a "period of time"?
I understand some creationists accept the evidence of geology so reinterpret a "day" in the Genesis myth to be a period of time.
Hi all! Say newguy, swimmer, El_Machinae et al, I want to run something by you which I recall having 'hypothesised' in my early 'catholic' youth as I was 'shedding' all this 'bible' stuff....I think I was about 12-13 or so.
My 'hypothesis' was brought back to mind just now by newguy's clarification of the usual "120" yrs being misinterpreted as representing noah's 'age' rather than the 'lead time" of how many years from "the warning" until "the flood".
That hypothesis was further 'entrenched' when I saw newguy's excerpt regarding ACTUAL references to 'age' of Shem etc. The hypothesis is this.......
If we recall how in ancient times and up until the last couple of centuries (and even STILL in the field of Hraldry and Lineology) there are terms like "THE HOUSE OF......." and "THE LINE OF ...." and "NAME OF ....." etc referring to the DYNASTY as if it WAS the PERSON of the original "MATRIARCH/PATRIARCH" in question..........
....THEN those passages quoted by newguy above could have ORIGINALLY/REALLY been meant to read something like:
"These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood: And after he begat Arphaxad, the DYNASTY of the "HOUSE" of Shem and its long LINE of sons and daughters LASTED/ENDURED FOR five hundred years, WHEN, after Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, he in turn begat (Shem's FIRST GRANDSON) Salah: And Arphaxad, through Salah, CONTINUED the (Shem) LINE for four hundred and three years more, by IN HIS TURN, through his descendents, helping to continue the unbroken LINE of SHEM for 500 yrs since Shem's birth..."(Genesis 11:10-13).
Basically, if you add up the 100yrs of Shem and the 400yrs of his unbroken "LINE" through Arpaxad etc and Salah etc and etc etc....THEN you have a DYNASTY/HOUSE?LINE from initial PATRIARCH, through the MALE descendents for a total of 500yrs.
It seems to me NOW, that the SAME 'misinterpretations' which led to the "120yrs-old" Noah problem, could also have occurred when the original MODERN/LANGUAGE/USAGE 'translators' of ANCIENT/LANGUAGE/USAGE texts which ACTUALLY spoke of LINEAGE/HOUSES/DYNASTIES etc rather than THE ONE PERSON'S "500yrs AGE".
Just a 'youthful' hypothesis that I never 'followed up' until now. Comments?
RC.
.
RealityCheck: If you read the genealogy of Jesus that is recorded in Luke 3:23-38, then you will see that "the house of Shem" extended well beyond 500 years. It extended, at least, up until the time of Jesus. There are many within Christendom that view the following passage of scripture as a prophesy pertaining to Christ:
"God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant."(Genesis 9:27)
There are many that interpret "he(God) shall dwell in the tents of Shem" to mean that the Messiah or Christ would come from the "natural line" of Shem. If this is indeed the case(could be), then it would just be another prophecy fulfilled in Christ. Additionally, the present day "Semites"(Shemites) trace their lineage back to Shem.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/semite
Main Entry: Sem£ite
Pronunciation: 'se-"mIt, esp British 'sE-"mIt
Function: noun
Etymology: French s?mite, from Semitic Shem, from Late Latin, from Greek SEm, from Hebrew ShEm
1 a : a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs b : a descendant of these peoples
2 : a member of a modern people speaking a Semitic language
Bearing these things in mind, I would have to disagree with your "hypothesis". Hope this info helps.
Hi newguy! Thanks for your reply/info re above.
One question: When would the texts in question have been written?
If they were written 500yrs into the Shemitic dynasty/tribe history, then my hypothesis would be supported irrespective of how long threafter the Shemitic dynasty/tribe continued for; and irrespective of how many times the ORIGINAL was re-transcibed even unto today......as the original misinterpretation/substitution of "personal age" of Shem Patriarch for "dynastic/tribal age" of Shem's LINE would have been RETAINED as WAS, no matter how many millennia of history 'under the bridge' since that initial writing 500yrs after Shem's birth and his dynastic duration ONLY UP TO THAT POINT IN TIME.
What do you think? Consistent with my 'youthful' hypothesis? Pure speculation, of course! hehehe.
However, do you have any more 'scripture' which may elucidate the point; or further support your own and others' interpretations (the ones used in your info to me above)?
RC.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+)
Hi newguy! Thanks for your reply/info re above.
One question: When would the texts in question have been written?
If they were written 500yrs into the Shemitic dynasty/tribe history, then my hypothesis would be supported irrespective of how long threafter the Shemitic dynasty/tribe continued for; and irrespective of how many times the ORIGINAL was re-transcibed even unto today......as the original misinterpretation/substitution of "personal age" of Shem Patriarch for "dynastic/tribal age" of Shem's LINE would have been RETAINED as WAS, no matter how many millennia of history 'under the bridge' since that initial writing 500yrs after Shem's birth and his dynastic duration ONLY UP TO THAT POINT IN TIME.
What do you think? Consistent with my 'youthful' hypothesis? Pure speculation, of course! hehehe.
However, do you have any more 'scripture' which may elucidate the point; or further support your own and others' interpretations (the ones used in your info to me above)?
RealityCheck: For starters, the book of Genesis was penned by Moses. If you do a "run through" of the genealogies in Genesis and a further study in Exodus, I trust you will find that there was more than a 700 year time difference between Moses(who penned Genesis) and Shem. You can also do a search as to their(Shem's and Moses') respective years of birth on any search engine. If you do, once again, I think that you will find that there was more than a 700 year time difference between the two of them. If this is indeed the case, and apparently it is(you're free to do your own research), then NO, the texts were NOT written within the 500 year timeframe that you are suggesting. I do have other scriptures that would relate to the topic of Shem and Christ...I think, however, that you should FIRST be convinced of the accuracy/inaccuracy of your "hypothesis". If you're going to pull the retranscribed/misinterpreted/substituted card, then I see no point in addressing any other scriptures pertaining to this topic at this point in time. If I may wax a little "RealityCheck-ish" for a moment...
Good luck in your "hypothesis checking", mate. Cheers.
One question: When would the texts in question have been written?
If they were written 500yrs into the Shemitic dynasty/tribe history, then my hypothesis would be supported irrespective of how long threafter the Shemitic dynasty/tribe continued for; and irrespective of how many times the ORIGINAL was re-transcibed even unto today......as the original misinterpretation/substitution of "personal age" of Shem Patriarch for "dynastic/tribal age" of Shem's LINE would have been RETAINED as WAS, no matter how many millennia of history 'under the bridge' since that initial writing 500yrs after Shem's birth and his dynastic duration ONLY UP TO THAT POINT IN TIME.
What do you think? Consistent with my 'youthful' hypothesis? Pure speculation, of course! hehehe.
However, do you have any more 'scripture' which may elucidate the point; or further support your own and others' interpretations (the ones used in your info to me above)?
RealityCheck: For starters, the book of Genesis was penned by Moses. If you do a "run through" of the genealogies in Genesis and a further study in Exodus, I trust you will find that there was more than a 700 year time difference between Moses(who penned Genesis) and Shem. You can also do a search as to their(Shem's and Moses') respective years of birth on any search engine. If you do, once again, I think that you will find that there was more than a 700 year time difference between the two of them. If this is indeed the case, and apparently it is(you're free to do your own research), then NO, the texts were NOT written within the 500 year timeframe that you are suggesting. I do have other scriptures that would relate to the topic of Shem and Christ...I think, however, that you should FIRST be convinced of the accuracy/inaccuracy of your "hypothesis". If you're going to pull the retranscribed/misinterpreted/substituted card, then I see no point in addressing any other scriptures pertaining to this topic at this point in time. If I may wax a little "RealityCheck-ish" for a moment...
Good luck in your "hypothesis checking", mate. Cheers.
QUOTE (newguy+Mar 2 2006, 03:13 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+)
Hi newguy! Thanks for your reply/info re above.
One question: When would the texts in question have been written?
If they were written 500yrs into the Shemitic dynasty/tribe history, then my hypothesis would be supported irrespective of how long threafter the Shemitic dynasty/tribe continued for; and irrespective of how many times the ORIGINAL was re-transcibed even unto today......as the original misinterpretation/substitution of "personal age" of Shem Patriarch for "dynastic/tribal age" of Shem's LINE would have been RETAINED as WAS, no matter how many millennia of history 'under the bridge' since that initial writing 500yrs after Shem's birth and his dynastic duration ONLY UP TO THAT POINT IN TIME.
What do you think? Consistent with my 'youthful' hypothesis? Pure speculation, of course! hehehe.
However, do you have any more 'scripture' which may elucidate the point; or further support your own and others' interpretations (the ones used in your info to me above)?
RealityCheck: For starters, the book of Genesis was penned by Moses. If you do a "run through" of the genealogies in Genesis and a further study in Exodus, I trust you will find that there was more than a 700 year time difference between Moses(who penned Genesis) and Shem. You can also do a search as to their(Shem's and Moses') respective years of birth on any search engine. If you do, once again, I think that you will find that there was more than a 700 year time difference between the two of them. If this is indeed the case, and apparently it is(you're free to do your own research), then NO, the texts were NOT written within the 500 year timeframe that you are suggesting. I do have other scriptures that would relate to the topic of Shem and Christ...I think, however, that you should FIRST be convinced of the accuracy/inaccuracy of your "hypothesis". If you're going to pull the retranscribed/misinterpreted/substituted card, then I see no point in addressing any other scriptures pertaining to this topic at this point in time. If I may wax a little "RealityCheck-ish" for a moment...
Good luck in your "hypothesis checking", mate. Cheers.
Hi newguy!
Thanks, I will do as you suggest when time permits (probably in a few days).
Hehehe....as they say, "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery", heh? If I were the type to be swayed/affected much by flattery per se, I would probably also be vain enough to feel flattered in this case! As it is, I shall take it at face value as an unsought for compliment, hehehe.
Thanks again for your info/suggestion. Cheers!
RC.
.
Well then Jesus, and those other places in the bible are wrong at worst, or incomplete at best. I can't imagine Moses wrote the following:
Numbers 12:3
Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.
Exodus 11:3
Moreover, the man Moses was very great in the land of Egypt.
Deuteronomy 34:10
And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses…
Unless he was attempting to make fodder for Weird Al on Amish Paradise: "I know I'm a million times more humble than thou art!"
Moses apparently also wrote about his own death and burial. Perhaps Moses was Elvis' inspiration for faking his own death?
Deuteronomy 34:5-8
So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD, and he buried him in the valley in the land of Moab opposite Beth-pe'or; but no man knows the place of his burial to this day. Moses was a hundred and twenty years old when he died; his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated. And the people of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days; then the days of weeping and mourning for Moses were ended.
Most likely, Moses may have been the author of parts or at least the first person to tell some of the tales in the pentateuch, but he definitely didn't write all of it.
Well then Jesus, and those other places in the bible are wrong at worst, or incomplete at best. I can't imagine Moses wrote the following:
Numbers 12:3
Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.
Exodus 11:3
Moreover, the man Moses was very great in the land of Egypt.
Deuteronomy 34:10
And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses…
Unless he was attempting to make fodder for Weird Al on Amish Paradise: "I know I'm a million times more humble than thou art!"
Moses apparently also wrote about his own death and burial. Perhaps Moses was Elvis' inspiration for faking his own death?
Deuteronomy 34:5-8
So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD, and he buried him in the valley in the land of Moab opposite Beth-pe'or; but no man knows the place of his burial to this day. Moses was a hundred and twenty years old when he died; his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated. And the people of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days; then the days of weeping and mourning for Moses were ended.
Most likely, Moses may have been the author of parts or at least the first person to tell some of the tales in the pentateuch, but he definitely didn't write all of it.
sinned34: Two of the four portions of scripture that you cited are from the last eight verses of the Pentateuch. Some would say(I don't know) that Joshua was the author of those last eight verses. Others would say(I don't know) that Moses wrote them. Remember, Biblically speaking, scripture was given by inspiration of God. Moses wrote of things that preceeded his birth by more than a thousand years. How did he do it? By Divine inspiration. He also wrote of things that came to pass more than a thousand years after his death. How did he do that? By Divine inspiration. Bearing this in mind, it is possible that he foretold of his own death by Divine inspiration. I have no problem, either way. As far as your other two quotes are concerned, authors of books of the Bible often spoke of themselves as if someone else were doing the writing about them. Adding Divine inspiration to the equation, there is no need for pride(Moses was very meek) in what Moses wrote. He was merely penning God's assessment regarding him. Moses later recorded how he was denied access into the promised land for disobeying God.
One question: When would the texts in question have been written?
If they were written 500yrs into the Shemitic dynasty/tribe history, then my hypothesis would be supported irrespective of how long threafter the Shemitic dynasty/tribe continued for; and irrespective of how many times the ORIGINAL was re-transcibed even unto today......as the original misinterpretation/substitution of "personal age" of Shem Patriarch for "dynastic/tribal age" of Shem's LINE would have been RETAINED as WAS, no matter how many millennia of history 'under the bridge' since that initial writing 500yrs after Shem's birth and his dynastic duration ONLY UP TO THAT POINT IN TIME.
What do you think? Consistent with my 'youthful' hypothesis? Pure speculation, of course! hehehe.
However, do you have any more 'scripture' which may elucidate the point; or further support your own and others' interpretations (the ones used in your info to me above)?
RealityCheck: For starters, the book of Genesis was penned by Moses. If you do a "run through" of the genealogies in Genesis and a further study in Exodus, I trust you will find that there was more than a 700 year time difference between Moses(who penned Genesis) and Shem. You can also do a search as to their(Shem's and Moses') respective years of birth on any search engine. If you do, once again, I think that you will find that there was more than a 700 year time difference between the two of them. If this is indeed the case, and apparently it is(you're free to do your own research), then NO, the texts were NOT written within the 500 year timeframe that you are suggesting. I do have other scriptures that would relate to the topic of Shem and Christ...I think, however, that you should FIRST be convinced of the accuracy/inaccuracy of your "hypothesis". If you're going to pull the retranscribed/misinterpreted/substituted card, then I see no point in addressing any other scriptures pertaining to this topic at this point in time. If I may wax a little "RealityCheck-ish" for a moment...
Good luck in your "hypothesis checking", mate. Cheers.
Hi newguy!
Thanks, I will do as you suggest when time permits (probably in a few days).
Hehehe....as they say, "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery", heh? If I were the type to be swayed/affected much by flattery per se, I would probably also be vain enough to feel flattered in this case! As it is, I shall take it at face value as an unsought for compliment, hehehe.
Thanks again for your info/suggestion. Cheers!
RC.
.
Paulo Riven Posted: Mar 1 2006, 04:08 PM repeated a PhysOrg article about a great release of fresh water into the Atlantic Ocean from an article reported by PhysOrg.
"heeWell seems like our Scientists finally caught up to my 6482.bC date for the Great Disaster, my rebound was 47 years.
"Now that I have knocked over the Pillars of Time, our Scientists will rebuild my Pillars of Truth in Time.
"Maybe now people will start listening to what I have revealed.- Riven
" hee :)"
If I remember Paulo correctly, he's one of the religous folks who hangs around PhysOrg Furms.
Thus, it seems that he is tryng to tie the freshwater influx into the Atlantic Ocean into the Bible's great flood. If so, he not understanding what the article he posted actually stated.
There were not 40 days and nights of rain that resulted in all normally dry land being covered. The lakes that discharged the large volume of water were undoubtedly lakes impounded by glaciers. The drainage channels for those lakes were certainly full and really should have left some geological traces which I didn't see posted. The posting seemed to deal only with weather impact such as would result from the "North Atlantic conveyor" breaking down.
With regard to geological traces which should be found, the scablands of the Columbia River in Washinton are attributed to to the draining of a large glacially impounded lake when the glaciers began retreating northward.
"Now that I have knocked over the Pillars of Time, our Scientists will rebuild my Pillars of Truth in Time.
Maybe now people will start listening to what I have revealed.- Riven"
No body has to rebuild any Pillars of Truth in Time as a consequence of the draining of glacially impounded lakes.
"heeWell seems like our Scientists finally caught up to my 6482.bC date for the Great Disaster, my rebound was 47 years.
"Now that I have knocked over the Pillars of Time, our Scientists will rebuild my Pillars of Truth in Time.
"Maybe now people will start listening to what I have revealed.- Riven
" hee :)"
If I remember Paulo correctly, he's one of the religous folks who hangs around PhysOrg Furms.
Thus, it seems that he is tryng to tie the freshwater influx into the Atlantic Ocean into the Bible's great flood. If so, he not understanding what the article he posted actually stated.
There were not 40 days and nights of rain that resulted in all normally dry land being covered. The lakes that discharged the large volume of water were undoubtedly lakes impounded by glaciers. The drainage channels for those lakes were certainly full and really should have left some geological traces which I didn't see posted. The posting seemed to deal only with weather impact such as would result from the "North Atlantic conveyor" breaking down.
With regard to geological traces which should be found, the scablands of the Columbia River in Washinton are attributed to to the draining of a large glacially impounded lake when the glaciers began retreating northward.
"Now that I have knocked over the Pillars of Time, our Scientists will rebuild my Pillars of Truth in Time.
Maybe now people will start listening to what I have revealed.- Riven"
No body has to rebuild any Pillars of Truth in Time as a consequence of the draining of glacially impounded lakes.
Newguy:
THIS, I know, is not believed by biblical scholars (it's what I was told as a youth, as well though). The book of Genesis was actually a written document of the oral tradition of the jews, kept by the priesthood. Moses didn't write it down, priests did, hundreds of years later.
In a similar vein, some of the gospels were recorded by followers of the disciples (sometimes after their deaths), and not the writings of the people who knew Jesus.
I might be able to find a legitimate source.
QUOTE
RealityCheck: For starters, the book of Genesis was penned by Moses.
THIS, I know, is not believed by biblical scholars (it's what I was told as a youth, as well though). The book of Genesis was actually a written document of the oral tradition of the jews, kept by the priesthood. Moses didn't write it down, priests did, hundreds of years later.
In a similar vein, some of the gospels were recorded by followers of the disciples (sometimes after their deaths), and not the writings of the people who knew Jesus.
I might be able to find a legitimate source.
Erg, google is not the source for this type of research, because anybody can make a webpage.
I honestly recommend that (if you're actually interested) you do some research into this. I DO know that both Catholic and Judaeic scholarship both believe that the first five books were not actually written by Moses (and, if nothing else, those two groups have pretty good scholars).
There should be good books on this subject - web pages aren't a reliable source.
I honestly recommend that (if you're actually interested) you do some research into this. I DO know that both Catholic and Judaeic scholarship both believe that the first five books were not actually written by Moses (and, if nothing else, those two groups have pretty good scholars).
There should be good books on this subject - web pages aren't a reliable source.
Messenger, I was not trying to insult Americans, and I am glad others also realized that.
On Cancon (Canadian Content):
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/INFO_SHT/b306.htm
There you go, straight from the horses mouth, instead of from my mouth.
Newguy, I have a question for you about the whole age thing. As has been documented the bible speaks of people living for hundreds of years in the past. Messenger has said that the bible says the human life span is something like 70-80 years. So first, is that claim in the bible? And if it is, how can one explain the long lifespans of some of the earlier bible characters. Unless there is more info this seems like a terrible inconsistancy. And inlight of not knowing/seeing info to reconsile the long lifespans of the early characters in the bible with what the bible (supposedly) says about the average human lifespan being around 70 years, RC's hypothesis seems to make more sense to me.
On Cancon (Canadian Content):
QUOTE
What is Canadian Content?
Simply put, it's about Canadian artists and Canadian stories having access to Canadian airwaves.
Why is it important?
* Culturally, Canadian programs and music give voice to Canadians, to their talent and their shared experiences.
* Economically, it means jobs for thousands of Canadians – from creation to production and distribution on the airwaves
Simply put, it's about Canadian artists and Canadian stories having access to Canadian airwaves.
Why is it important?
* Culturally, Canadian programs and music give voice to Canadians, to their talent and their shared experiences.
* Economically, it means jobs for thousands of Canadians – from creation to production and distribution on the airwaves
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/INFO_SHT/b306.htm
There you go, straight from the horses mouth, instead of from my mouth.
Newguy, I have a question for you about the whole age thing. As has been documented the bible speaks of people living for hundreds of years in the past. Messenger has said that the bible says the human life span is something like 70-80 years. So first, is that claim in the bible? And if it is, how can one explain the long lifespans of some of the earlier bible characters. Unless there is more info this seems like a terrible inconsistancy. And inlight of not knowing/seeing info to reconsile the long lifespans of the early characters in the bible with what the bible (supposedly) says about the average human lifespan being around 70 years, RC's hypothesis seems to make more sense to me.
El_Machinae: Regardless of what the so-called, *AHEM*, "scholars" say, Jesus Christ, and others, attributed the writing of these books to Moses.
"Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man's brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed. And the second took her, and died, neither left he any seed: and the third likewise. And the seven had her, and left no seed: last of all the woman died also. In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife. And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven. And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err."(Mark 12:18-27)
When the Sadducees mentioned what "Moses wrote unto us", they were quoting from Deuteronomy 25:5. Additionally, when Jesus mentioned what was written "in the book of Moses", He quoted from Exodus 3:6.
"And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."(Mark 10:2-9)
A couple of points, here. First of all, Jesus attributed the writing of this precept to Moses. This precept is found in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Additionally, the Pharisees gave Jesus the wrong answer to His question. When Jesus asked "What did Moses command you?", they answered from the book of Deuteronomy which means "the second giving of the law"(as in "duet"). This is NOT the command of Moses that Jesus was referring to. Jesus was NOT looking for what Moses wrote in the SECOND giving of the law. Jesus was looking for what Moses wrote in Genesis, the "book of beginnings". In fact, Jesus quoted Genesis Himself:
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."(Genesis 2:24)
By properly answering His own question, Jesus attributed the writing of the book of Genesis to Moses. On a quick side note...For all those who "claim" that homosexual marriage is just fine(and even try to use the Bible to support it), please do your best to misinterpret what we just read in Mark 10:2-9.
Male and female.
Man and wife.
Father and mother.
Maybe that great Bible expositor "Grumpy" can help you out on this one. Anyhow, back to the topic at hand. Here's a few other verses to consider. In each of the following passages, it is Jesus speaking:
"And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself."(Luke 24:27)
"And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures."(Luke 24:44-45)
"Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?"(John 5:45-47)
Jesus not only attributed Old Testament writings to Moses, but He also said that Moses wrote of Him. Notice, too, the phrase "beginning at Moses". Anyhow, there are plenty of other places in the Bible where the first five books of the Old Testament are attributed to Moses. Hope this info helps.
"Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man's brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed. And the second took her, and died, neither left he any seed: and the third likewise. And the seven had her, and left no seed: last of all the woman died also. In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife. And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven. And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err."(Mark 12:18-27)
When the Sadducees mentioned what "Moses wrote unto us", they were quoting from Deuteronomy 25:5. Additionally, when Jesus mentioned what was written "in the book of Moses", He quoted from Exodus 3:6.
"And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."(Mark 10:2-9)
A couple of points, here. First of all, Jesus attributed the writing of this precept to Moses. This precept is found in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Additionally, the Pharisees gave Jesus the wrong answer to His question. When Jesus asked "What did Moses command you?", they answered from the book of Deuteronomy which means "the second giving of the law"(as in "duet"). This is NOT the command of Moses that Jesus was referring to. Jesus was NOT looking for what Moses wrote in the SECOND giving of the law. Jesus was looking for what Moses wrote in Genesis, the "book of beginnings". In fact, Jesus quoted Genesis Himself:
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."(Genesis 2:24)
By properly answering His own question, Jesus attributed the writing of the book of Genesis to Moses. On a quick side note...For all those who "claim" that homosexual marriage is just fine(and even try to use the Bible to support it), please do your best to misinterpret what we just read in Mark 10:2-9.
Male and female.
Man and wife.
Father and mother.
Maybe that great Bible expositor "Grumpy" can help you out on this one. Anyhow, back to the topic at hand. Here's a few other verses to consider. In each of the following passages, it is Jesus speaking:
"And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself."(Luke 24:27)
"And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures."(Luke 24:44-45)
"Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?"(John 5:45-47)
Jesus not only attributed Old Testament writings to Moses, but He also said that Moses wrote of Him. Notice, too, the phrase "beginning at Moses". Anyhow, there are plenty of other places in the Bible where the first five books of the Old Testament are attributed to Moses. Hope this info helps.
QUOTE
Jesus not only attributed Old Testament writings to Moses, but He also said that Moses wrote of Him. Notice, too, the phrase "beginning at Moses". Anyhow, there are plenty of other places in the Bible where the first five books of the Old Testament are attributed to Moses. Hope this info helps.
Well then Jesus, and those other places in the bible are wrong at worst, or incomplete at best. I can't imagine Moses wrote the following:
Numbers 12:3
Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.
Exodus 11:3
Moreover, the man Moses was very great in the land of Egypt.
Deuteronomy 34:10
And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses…
Unless he was attempting to make fodder for Weird Al on Amish Paradise: "I know I'm a million times more humble than thou art!"
Moses apparently also wrote about his own death and burial. Perhaps Moses was Elvis' inspiration for faking his own death?
Deuteronomy 34:5-8
So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD, and he buried him in the valley in the land of Moab opposite Beth-pe'or; but no man knows the place of his burial to this day. Moses was a hundred and twenty years old when he died; his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated. And the people of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days; then the days of weeping and mourning for Moses were ended.
Most likely, Moses may have been the author of parts or at least the first person to tell some of the tales in the pentateuch, but he definitely didn't write all of it.
First off: I think it is unwise to dismiss the scholarship of the Judaeic and Catholic traditions. If you're unaware, the current Bible was chosen by Catholics, and the reasoning for what they included/excluded is actually documented. You might not agree with the Catholics (or Jews), but they have a strong tradition of scholarship. In other words, they helped compile your textbook, and documented why certain books were included and why others were excluded. They should know more about it, because they've studied more.
That's where my original information came from as well (which is why I thought Moses wrote the first five books when I was a kid).
However, you'll note that Jesus's teachings are not actually written by him, they are contained in the Gospels. And the Gospels, while attributed to the disciples, are not actually written by the disciples, but were recorded by people who heard the disciples teach.
For example, with the book of Mark, there is no self-referencing data to show that it was written by Mark. Theory is that it was written by people who heard Mark speak.
John, OTOH, refers to John as the author, but I am not too sure when it was written.
In other words, your only data showing that the first five books were written by Moses are words allegedly spoken by Jesus. However, that does not change the fact that the first five books are not internally consistent within themselves.
I believe that they're more of a written account of Jewish oral history than anything else. And, because they're written oral history, they're not internally consistent, but kept together for historical scholarship.
QUOTE
Jesus not only attributed Old Testament writings to Moses, but He also said that Moses wrote of Him. Notice, too, the phrase "beginning at Moses". Anyhow, there are plenty of other places in the Bible where the first five books of the Old Testament are attributed to Moses. Hope this info helps.
That's where my original information came from as well (which is why I thought Moses wrote the first five books when I was a kid).
However, you'll note that Jesus's teachings are not actually written by him, they are contained in the Gospels. And the Gospels, while attributed to the disciples, are not actually written by the disciples, but were recorded by people who heard the disciples teach.
For example, with the book of Mark, there is no self-referencing data to show that it was written by Mark. Theory is that it was written by people who heard Mark speak.
John, OTOH, refers to John as the author, but I am not too sure when it was written.
In other words, your only data showing that the first five books were written by Moses are words allegedly spoken by Jesus. However, that does not change the fact that the first five books are not internally consistent within themselves.
I believe that they're more of a written account of Jewish oral history than anything else. And, because they're written oral history, they're not internally consistent, but kept together for historical scholarship.
El_Machinae: I've seen MULTITUDES of Jewish sources that attribute the authorship of the first five books of the Bible(the Pentateuch) to Moses. MULTITUDES. Why don't you just walk into any synagogue and tell them that Moses didn't write the first five books of the Bible. "Nice knowing you", if you do. That's all, for now.
I'd rather ask a Rabbi or a Priest, than a common believer. I hope that makes sense.
PS: please don't bold when directing comments at me, I fear that I misinterpret it as yelling. It's hard for me to overcome this exception just for you (because it's commonly associated with yelling). I see the bolding, and then have to remember who it is doing the typing.
PS: please don't bold when directing comments at me, I fear that I misinterpret it as yelling. It's hard for me to overcome this exception just for you (because it's commonly associated with yelling). I see the bolding, and then have to remember who it is doing the typing.
QUOTE (sinned34+Mar 2 2006, 06:23 PM)
QUOTE
Jesus not only attributed Old Testament writings to Moses, but He also said that Moses wrote of Him. Notice, too, the phrase "beginning at Moses". Anyhow, there are plenty of other places in the Bible where the first five books of the Old Testament are attributed to Moses. Hope this info helps.
Well then Jesus, and those other places in the bible are wrong at worst, or incomplete at best. I can't imagine Moses wrote the following:
Numbers 12:3
Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.
Exodus 11:3
Moreover, the man Moses was very great in the land of Egypt.
Deuteronomy 34:10
And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses…
Unless he was attempting to make fodder for Weird Al on Amish Paradise: "I know I'm a million times more humble than thou art!"
Moses apparently also wrote about his own death and burial. Perhaps Moses was Elvis' inspiration for faking his own death?
Deuteronomy 34:5-8
So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD, and he buried him in the valley in the land of Moab opposite Beth-pe'or; but no man knows the place of his burial to this day. Moses was a hundred and twenty years old when he died; his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated. And the people of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days; then the days of weeping and mourning for Moses were ended.
Most likely, Moses may have been the author of parts or at least the first person to tell some of the tales in the pentateuch, but he definitely didn't write all of it.
sinned34: Two of the four portions of scripture that you cited are from the last eight verses of the Pentateuch. Some would say(I don't know) that Joshua was the author of those last eight verses. Others would say(I don't know) that Moses wrote them. Remember, Biblically speaking, scripture was given by inspiration of God. Moses wrote of things that preceeded his birth by more than a thousand years. How did he do it? By Divine inspiration. He also wrote of things that came to pass more than a thousand years after his death. How did he do that? By Divine inspiration. Bearing this in mind, it is possible that he foretold of his own death by Divine inspiration. I have no problem, either way. As far as your other two quotes are concerned, authors of books of the Bible often spoke of themselves as if someone else were doing the writing about them. Adding Divine inspiration to the equation, there is no need for pride(Moses was very meek) in what Moses wrote. He was merely penning God's assessment regarding him. Moses later recorded how he was denied access into the promised land for disobeying God.
QUOTE (El_Machinae+Mar 2 2006, 06:42 PM)
I'd rather ask a Rabbi or a Priest, than a common believer. I hope that makes sense.
PS: please don't bold when directing comments at me, I fear that I misinterpret it as yelling. It's hard for me to overcome this exception just for you (because it's commonly associated with yelling). I see the bolding, and then have to remember who it is doing the typing.
El_Machinae: Actually, your asking a Rabbi or a Priest rather than a common believer does NOT necessarily make sense to me.
"Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying? But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."
(Matthew 15:12-14)
Jesus said, in regard to the religious leaders of His day, that His heavenly Father had not planted them. They were blind leaders of the blind. If you think that it is any different today, then you're in for a rude awakening, I'm afraid(there are some good ones). When choosing His disciples, Jesus bypassed the religious leaders and chose fishermen, tax-collectors, etc. These "unlearned and ignorant men" often put to silence the religious elite.
"Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus."(Acts 4:13)
I'm NOT saying that you shouldn't consult with Rabbis or Priests...I am saying that their word is NOT necessarily "gospel truth".
My use of "bold-facing" has nothing to do with yelling. Nevertheless, I will do my best to refrain from it when posting to you so as not to cause any confusion. I will still "bold-face" scripture in the future. This is due to my respect for God's Word...NOT a lack of respect towards you. I trust you'll understand. Have a good one.
PS: please don't bold when directing comments at me, I fear that I misinterpret it as yelling. It's hard for me to overcome this exception just for you (because it's commonly associated with yelling). I see the bolding, and then have to remember who it is doing the typing.
El_Machinae: Actually, your asking a Rabbi or a Priest rather than a common believer does NOT necessarily make sense to me.
"Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying? But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."
(Matthew 15:12-14)
Jesus said, in regard to the religious leaders of His day, that His heavenly Father had not planted them. They were blind leaders of the blind. If you think that it is any different today, then you're in for a rude awakening, I'm afraid(there are some good ones). When choosing His disciples, Jesus bypassed the religious leaders and chose fishermen, tax-collectors, etc. These "unlearned and ignorant men" often put to silence the religious elite.
"Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus."(Acts 4:13)
I'm NOT saying that you shouldn't consult with Rabbis or Priests...I am saying that their word is NOT necessarily "gospel truth".
My use of "bold-facing" has nothing to do with yelling. Nevertheless, I will do my best to refrain from it when posting to you so as not to cause any confusion. I will still "bold-face" scripture in the future. This is due to my respect for God's Word...NOT a lack of respect towards you. I trust you'll understand. Have a good one.
Newsie,
Fair enough, your belief that divination (divine inspiration, same thing to a nonbeliever) allowed Moses to write things that he was not present for allows you to think that Moses penned those books himself. However, that is something that you have to believe before you read those books, otherwise you come to the conclusion that Moses may have indeed penned some of the content but it is impossible for him to have written all of it.
When I read a Stephen King novel, the work is essentially his, but there have been many editors, proofreaders, etc, that have added to the work. This is another possibility for the pentateuch as well. Moses may have written none of it, and it was put together by a major "compiler" of previous oral history later on, or Moses may have personally written some of it. But since I don't believe in divine inspiration, it is impossible for me to believe he wrote all of it. I removed those rose-coloured glasses years ago.
Following your logic of divine inspiration for the bible, I would have no reason but to accept other religions' claims that their texts are divinely inspired as well.
Fair enough, your belief that divination (divine inspiration, same thing to a nonbeliever) allowed Moses to write things that he was not present for allows you to think that Moses penned those books himself. However, that is something that you have to believe before you read those books, otherwise you come to the conclusion that Moses may have indeed penned some of the content but it is impossible for him to have written all of it.
When I read a Stephen King novel, the work is essentially his, but there have been many editors, proofreaders, etc, that have added to the work. This is another possibility for the pentateuch as well. Moses may have written none of it, and it was put together by a major "compiler" of previous oral history later on, or Moses may have personally written some of it. But since I don't believe in divine inspiration, it is impossible for me to believe he wrote all of it. I removed those rose-coloured glasses years ago.
Following your logic of divine inspiration for the bible, I would have no reason but to accept other religions' claims that their texts are divinely inspired as well.
QUOTE (sinned34+)
Following your logic of divine inspiration for the bible, I would have no reason but to accept other religions' claims that their texts are divinely inspired as well.
sinned34: My belief in Divine inspiration has to do with a lot more than just my "logic". It has been said that the purpose of "the book of the Lord" is to get one to know "the Lord of the book". This, indeed, has happened in my life. This being the case, my knowing the One Who is Divine, I personally have no problem with believing in Divine inspiration since "the book of the Lord" brought me into contact with "the Lord of the book". Does that make sense to you, at least, "in theory"? I hope so.
As far as other religions' claims that there texts are divinely inspired is concerned, I personally believe that many of them are "inspired"(notice that I dropped the "Divinely") indeed. The question is:
"Who is doing the inspiring?"
I trust you already know my answer to that one. Have a good one.
sinned34: My belief in Divine inspiration has to do with a lot more than just my "logic". It has been said that the purpose of "the book of the Lord" is to get one to know "the Lord of the book". This, indeed, has happened in my life. This being the case, my knowing the One Who is Divine, I personally have no problem with believing in Divine inspiration since "the book of the Lord" brought me into contact with "the Lord of the book". Does that make sense to you, at least, "in theory"? I hope so.
As far as other religions' claims that there texts are divinely inspired is concerned, I personally believe that many of them are "inspired"(notice that I dropped the "Divinely") indeed. The question is:
"Who is doing the inspiring?"
I trust you already know my answer to that one. Have a good one.
Newsie,
Wow, this is great. We're both online at the same time, obviously, and it's almost like having a live conversation! Good to see we're obviously busy while at work!
Absolutely, I understand where you are coming from, and yes, I know what your answer is to whom "divinely inspired" other texts. Unfortunately, this is where we have to agree to disagree: my secular view where there is no such thing as an "divinely inspired" text, and your religious view where you have a single Inspired Text by which you judge all others. So we are at an impasse: believers have the ability to disregard what would be considered evidence to non-believers that Moses did not write all the Pentateuch. That's it. Done. Been an interesting conversation, though.
Wow, this is great. We're both online at the same time, obviously, and it's almost like having a live conversation! Good to see we're obviously busy while at work!
Absolutely, I understand where you are coming from, and yes, I know what your answer is to whom "divinely inspired" other texts. Unfortunately, this is where we have to agree to disagree: my secular view where there is no such thing as an "divinely inspired" text, and your religious view where you have a single Inspired Text by which you judge all others. So we are at an impasse: believers have the ability to disregard what would be considered evidence to non-believers that Moses did not write all the Pentateuch. That's it. Done. Been an interesting conversation, though.
Thanks for your sympathy regarding the bolding (bolding scripture makes perfect sense, to me).
My one question is - if you don't accept that scholars are capable of knowing the history of the Bible, why would you accept that the Bible is true, considering it was compiled by the same tradition of scholarship?
An analogy would be me saying that I don't trust a doctor to treat me, but I will only reference the book that he wrote when looking for treatments.
I hope you can understand my confusion.
My one question is - if you don't accept that scholars are capable of knowing the history of the Bible, why would you accept that the Bible is true, considering it was compiled by the same tradition of scholarship?
An analogy would be me saying that I don't trust a doctor to treat me, but I will only reference the book that he wrote when looking for treatments.
I hope you can understand my confusion.
QUOTE (El_Machinae+Mar 2 2006, 10:25 AM)
Erg, google is not the source for this type of research, because anybody can make a webpage.
I honestly recommend that (if you're actually interested) you do some research into this. I DO know that both Catholic and Judaeic scholarship both believe that the first five books were not actually written by Moses (and, if nothing else, those two groups have pretty good scholars).
There should be good books on this subject - web pages aren't a reliable source.
-------------------------------
First off: I think it is unwise to dismiss the scholarship of the Judaeic and Catholic traditions. If you're unaware, the current Bible was chosen by Catholics, and the reasoning for what they included/excluded is actually documented. You might not agree with the Catholics (or Jews), but they have a strong tradition of scholarship. In other words, they helped compile your textbook, and documented why certain books were included and why others were excluded. They should know more about it, because they've studied more.
Anyone who is seriously interested in understanding how the Bible was put together, how errors have occurred in translation, who wrote what and when......will read some books written by Bart Ehrman. Lost Scriptures, Lost Christianities, Truth & Fiction in the Davinci Code; are the three I've read, and I'm working on his latest book Misquoting Jesus. While most of his writings concern the New Testament - the Old Testament is covered quite well.
Books by Bart Ehrman
Other writings by and Bio on Bart Ehrman.
I like this person's review on the Lost Scriptures book:
"This is a good book if you have any interest in the ancients Christian non-canonical writings, and have an open mind on the subject. If your mind is closed and you are perfectly content with Constantine's version of orthodoxy (the Bible as it is), you should probably give this book a pass, as it will no doubt incur your hostility and accuse the author, a true scholar, of having an agenda, or being of suspect parentage--which would be unfair, of course."
Reading some of these books gives one a new perspective on the Books of the Bible. Reading some of the 'lost scriptures' helps one understand the Bible better. While the Bible proves to be accurate, there are still many other books that are equally as valuable, and/or offer fresh insight into a wonderful owner's manual for life (the Bible).
Now here's the real question: Why are there so many skeptics? Do you have any scientific basis for your skepticism? Not really. Doubting criticism started on a large scale with G.W.F. Hegel (1770-1831), a German philosopher who taught that religion, like the rest of civilization, developed gradually. It was his opinion that primitive cavemen started religion by worshiping the things around them, and eventually their gods became bigger and bigger, until concepts such as a supreme God evolved in people’s minds. I'd say that people not exposed to established religion are following their God given common sense. It seems that it should be obvious to anyone who looks upon creation - that there is something bigger, much bigger, going on here. Jesus said that even the stones would praise him:
37When he came near the place where the road goes down the Mount of Olives, the whole crowd of disciples began joyfully to praise God in loud voices for all the miracles they had seen:
38"Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord!"
"Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!"
39Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Jesus, "Teacher, rebuke your disciples!"
40"I tell you," he replied, "if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out."
A somewhat scientific method of retreat from Biblical authority took place in 1830, when Charles Lyell wrote Principles of Geology, which opined on the so-called 'Geologic Column.' Here the age of a rock stratum was supposedly given by the types of fossils which it contains. This idea set the stage in 1859 for Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species book. His organic evolution theory captured the imagination of most scientists back then, and still does today. Although, I feel, they are no closer to proving evolution today than they were then.
From a technical viewpoint, there is no reason or basis for not believing the Bible as it was written. Technically, the Biblical text implies an instantaneous and miraculous creation, however, the text does not specifically preclude or deny evolution. It should also be noted, in the Biblical accuracy department, that there are no Biblical incidents that have been proven definitely wrong.
Modern theologians, of which I find myself in agreement with, believe that the only current reasons to doubt the clear text of the Bible is because it conflicts with the values of human/natural secularism (generally an atheistic/agnostic worldview), and its rejection of God. But most evolutionists/scientists object just as much to theistic evolution as they do to miraculous creation. While many theologians don’t really understand the mechanisms (which have yet to be explained) of evolution—they also don’t realize that you can’t just shove God into the secular theory - because it will be (and has been, of course) furiously rejected. This is a major issue being debated in the various denominations today - not only in Christianity - but in the Jewish and Muslim religions also. If one realizes the damage that can be caused to society if a human secularist worldview is adopted, then the Bible wins. If one views people as simply individuals with no common goal - then secularism wins. Morality is lost and confused with the latter view, in my opinion.
My view on who wrote the book of Genesis - is that Moses was inspired by God to write it, and he used many scribes to record not only current events, but all of history going back to the Creation account - much of which was recited from memorized stories. But being that Moses actually spoke to God - all of these stories were reaffirmed and verified to him anew. It's as if Moses had access to the all knowing - all truthful - world wide web (using this as a parable, a simple statement to illustrate my point). Nowhere in the Bible does it actually say that Moses composed and wrote Genesis, but it is certainly a reasonable assumption that he was the compiler of that book.
Technical authors research topics and interview relevant individuals so that they can write accurate depictions of actual events. How they conduct their research, and whom they interview; is crucial to creating a legitimate and trusted resource for curent and future readers. Probably no one understood this better than the Old Testament writers - for they knew that they were writing about the creation of the universe, and God's plan for mankind. No other race or nation, that I'm aware of, has kept such excellent records that reveal God's plan for salvation, having a common thread running through the Old Testament that reveals and leads to Jesus Christ, the Lord and Savior of the world.
--------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------$0.02
I honestly recommend that (if you're actually interested) you do some research into this. I DO know that both Catholic and Judaeic scholarship both believe that the first five books were not actually written by Moses (and, if nothing else, those two groups have pretty good scholars).
There should be good books on this subject - web pages aren't a reliable source.
-------------------------------
First off: I think it is unwise to dismiss the scholarship of the Judaeic and Catholic traditions. If you're unaware, the current Bible was chosen by Catholics, and the reasoning for what they included/excluded is actually documented. You might not agree with the Catholics (or Jews), but they have a strong tradition of scholarship. In other words, they helped compile your textbook, and documented why certain books were included and why others were excluded. They should know more about it, because they've studied more.
Anyone who is seriously interested in understanding how the Bible was put together, how errors have occurred in translation, who wrote what and when......will read some books written by Bart Ehrman. Lost Scriptures, Lost Christianities, Truth & Fiction in the Davinci Code; are the three I've read, and I'm working on his latest book Misquoting Jesus. While most of his writings concern the New Testament - the Old Testament is covered quite well.
Books by Bart Ehrman
Other writings by and Bio on Bart Ehrman.
I like this person's review on the Lost Scriptures book:
"This is a good book if you have any interest in the ancients Christian non-canonical writings, and have an open mind on the subject. If your mind is closed and you are perfectly content with Constantine's version of orthodoxy (the Bible as it is), you should probably give this book a pass, as it will no doubt incur your hostility and accuse the author, a true scholar, of having an agenda, or being of suspect parentage--which would be unfair, of course."
Reading some of these books gives one a new perspective on the Books of the Bible. Reading some of the 'lost scriptures' helps one understand the Bible better. While the Bible proves to be accurate, there are still many other books that are equally as valuable, and/or offer fresh insight into a wonderful owner's manual for life (the Bible).
Now here's the real question: Why are there so many skeptics? Do you have any scientific basis for your skepticism? Not really. Doubting criticism started on a large scale with G.W.F. Hegel (1770-1831), a German philosopher who taught that religion, like the rest of civilization, developed gradually. It was his opinion that primitive cavemen started religion by worshiping the things around them, and eventually their gods became bigger and bigger, until concepts such as a supreme God evolved in people’s minds. I'd say that people not exposed to established religion are following their God given common sense. It seems that it should be obvious to anyone who looks upon creation - that there is something bigger, much bigger, going on here. Jesus said that even the stones would praise him:
37When he came near the place where the road goes down the Mount of Olives, the whole crowd of disciples began joyfully to praise God in loud voices for all the miracles they had seen:
38"Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord!"
"Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!"
39Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Jesus, "Teacher, rebuke your disciples!"
40"I tell you," he replied, "if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out."
A somewhat scientific method of retreat from Biblical authority took place in 1830, when Charles Lyell wrote Principles of Geology, which opined on the so-called 'Geologic Column.' Here the age of a rock stratum was supposedly given by the types of fossils which it contains. This idea set the stage in 1859 for Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species book. His organic evolution theory captured the imagination of most scientists back then, and still does today. Although, I feel, they are no closer to proving evolution today than they were then.
From a technical viewpoint, there is no reason or basis for not believing the Bible as it was written. Technically, the Biblical text implies an instantaneous and miraculous creation, however, the text does not specifically preclude or deny evolution. It should also be noted, in the Biblical accuracy department, that there are no Biblical incidents that have been proven definitely wrong.
Modern theologians, of which I find myself in agreement with, believe that the only current reasons to doubt the clear text of the Bible is because it conflicts with the values of human/natural secularism (generally an atheistic/agnostic worldview), and its rejection of God. But most evolutionists/scientists object just as much to theistic evolution as they do to miraculous creation. While many theologians don’t really understand the mechanisms (which have yet to be explained) of evolution—they also don’t realize that you can’t just shove God into the secular theory - because it will be (and has been, of course) furiously rejected. This is a major issue being debated in the various denominations today - not only in Christianity - but in the Jewish and Muslim religions also. If one realizes the damage that can be caused to society if a human secularist worldview is adopted, then the Bible wins. If one views people as simply individuals with no common goal - then secularism wins. Morality is lost and confused with the latter view, in my opinion.
My view on who wrote the book of Genesis - is that Moses was inspired by God to write it, and he used many scribes to record not only current events, but all of history going back to the Creation account - much of which was recited from memorized stories. But being that Moses actually spoke to God - all of these stories were reaffirmed and verified to him anew. It's as if Moses had access to the all knowing - all truthful - world wide web (using this as a parable, a simple statement to illustrate my point). Nowhere in the Bible does it actually say that Moses composed and wrote Genesis, but it is certainly a reasonable assumption that he was the compiler of that book.
Technical authors research topics and interview relevant individuals so that they can write accurate depictions of actual events. How they conduct their research, and whom they interview; is crucial to creating a legitimate and trusted resource for curent and future readers. Probably no one understood this better than the Old Testament writers - for they knew that they were writing about the creation of the universe, and God's plan for mankind. No other race or nation, that I'm aware of, has kept such excellent records that reveal God's plan for salvation, having a common thread running through the Old Testament that reveals and leads to Jesus Christ, the Lord and Savior of the world.
--------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------$0.02
QUOTE (sinned34+)
Absolutely, I understand where you are coming from, and yes, I know what your answer is to whom "divinely inspired" other texts. Unfortunately, this is where we have to agree to disagree: my secular view where there is no such thing as an "divinely inspired" text, and your religious view where you have a single Inspired Text by which you judge all others.
sinned34: Whoa, Nellie! Don't go just yet(of course, you're free to, if you'd like). I have a whole lot more than just a "single inspired text by which I judge all others"...I'm assuming this "others" refers to "other texts" and not people. As I have plainly testified in the past, I have much experience in the "spirit realm" dealing with "demons" or "spirits". I'm NOT just basing every thing in my life on some "written words". You suggested once that maybe we(not you and me) could have some sort of spiritual "clash of the Titans". Count me in. Elijah confronted the prophets of Baal. I've been in enough "spiritual slugfests" to trust that my God will come out victorious. Anybody's "god" who wants to "have it out with" my God can "Bring it on!", as far as I'm concerned. I don't say that in a facetious or light-hearted manner. I'm serious. I know my God exists and He is superior to "other gods" since He created them. But, we've discussed all this already...
sinned34: Whoa, Nellie! Don't go just yet(of course, you're free to, if you'd like). I have a whole lot more than just a "single inspired text by which I judge all others"...I'm assuming this "others" refers to "other texts" and not people. As I have plainly testified in the past, I have much experience in the "spirit realm" dealing with "demons" or "spirits". I'm NOT just basing every thing in my life on some "written words". You suggested once that maybe we(not you and me) could have some sort of spiritual "clash of the Titans". Count me in. Elijah confronted the prophets of Baal. I've been in enough "spiritual slugfests" to trust that my God will come out victorious. Anybody's "god" who wants to "have it out with" my God can "Bring it on!", as far as I'm concerned. I don't say that in a facetious or light-hearted manner. I'm serious. I know my God exists and He is superior to "other gods" since He created them. But, we've discussed all this already...
QUOTE (sinned34+)
So we are at an impasse: believers have the ability to disregard what would be considered evidence to non-believers that Moses did not write all the Pentateuch. That's it. Done. Been an interesting conversation, though.
What "evidence"? So far, all I've seen is your personal objection and El_Machinae's preference to Rabbis and Priests. Where's the "evidence"? Let's see it. I haven't "disregarded" anything but people's opinions, thus far. Have a good one.
P.S. You still love me?
What "evidence"? So far, all I've seen is your personal objection and El_Machinae's preference to Rabbis and Priests. Where's the "evidence"? Let's see it. I haven't "disregarded" anything but people's opinions, thus far. Have a good one.
P.S. You still love me?
QUOTE (El_Machinae+Mar 2 2006, 07:58 PM)
Thanks for your sympathy regarding the bolding (bolding scripture makes perfect sense, to me).
My one question is - if you don't accept that scholars are capable of knowing the history of the Bible, why would you accept that the Bible is true, considering it was compiled by the same tradition of scholarship?
An analogy would be me saying that I don't trust a doctor to treat me, but I will only reference the book that he wrote when looking for treatments.
I hope you can understand my confusion.
El_Machinae: I'm not saying that I don't accept that scholars are capable of knowing the history of the Bible. What I am saying is that just because one is a so-called "scholar" does NOT necessarily mean that they are correct. Biblical history, for example, would certainly attest to this. Who was it that "stoned the prophets"? Quite often, the "scholars". Who was it that helped to crucify Christ? The "scholars". Who was it that persecuted the Apostles from city to city? Quite often, the "scholars". That is what I'm saying. Being a "scholar" doesn't necessarily make one "incapable". At the same time, being a "scholar" doesn't necessarily make one "capable" either. Some of the most incompetent people that I've ever met have a PHD at the end of their name. PHD often stands for nothing more than "Permanent Head Damage". Sorry, but that's the way that I see it. Have a good one.
My one question is - if you don't accept that scholars are capable of knowing the history of the Bible, why would you accept that the Bible is true, considering it was compiled by the same tradition of scholarship?
An analogy would be me saying that I don't trust a doctor to treat me, but I will only reference the book that he wrote when looking for treatments.
I hope you can understand my confusion.
El_Machinae: I'm not saying that I don't accept that scholars are capable of knowing the history of the Bible. What I am saying is that just because one is a so-called "scholar" does NOT necessarily mean that they are correct. Biblical history, for example, would certainly attest to this. Who was it that "stoned the prophets"? Quite often, the "scholars". Who was it that helped to crucify Christ? The "scholars". Who was it that persecuted the Apostles from city to city? Quite often, the "scholars". That is what I'm saying. Being a "scholar" doesn't necessarily make one "incapable". At the same time, being a "scholar" doesn't necessarily make one "capable" either. Some of the most incompetent people that I've ever met have a PHD at the end of their name. PHD often stands for nothing more than "Permanent Head Damage". Sorry, but that's the way that I see it. Have a good one.
Newsie, how could I not love having you around? Unlike others around here, you don't usually resort to name-calling (unless it has been done to you first), and you regularly have something interesting to say, instead of the usual gobbeldygook cribbed from a creationist website. Talking to you is like visiting a (somewhat different, but similar) reflection of who I was a number of years ago. Some of the conversations we've had are fascinating, and I don't have any inclination to stop at this present time!
Absolutely, you've mentioned this multiple times, and I certainly don't think that you are lying. But I've attempted to recreate this exact same experiment in the past, and I have come to completely different conclusions. Perhaps I'm just one of those that was called, but wasn't chosen; I was predestined before the foundations of the Earth were laid to be condemned. Darn, I wish I could remember that scripture that talks about how God hardens the heart of those he hasn't chosen. At any rate, a Clash Of The Titans competition would be fascinating. I'd be interested to see if anyone were able to create a verifiable (and re-creatable) miracle in front of a screaming crowd of thousands. Unfortunately, the possibility for "religious hooligans" to begin brawls at a gathering like that would probably make insurance impossible to purchase for the event.
Absolutely, you've mentioned this multiple times, and I certainly don't think that you are lying. But I've attempted to recreate this exact same experiment in the past, and I have come to completely different conclusions. Perhaps I'm just one of those that was called, but wasn't chosen; I was predestined before the foundations of the Earth were laid to be condemned. Darn, I wish I could remember that scripture that talks about how God hardens the heart of those he hasn't chosen. At any rate, a Clash Of The Titans competition would be fascinating. I'd be interested to see if anyone were able to create a verifiable (and re-creatable) miracle in front of a screaming crowd of thousands. Unfortunately, the possibility for "religious hooligans" to begin brawls at a gathering like that would probably make insurance impossible to purchase for the event.
What "evidence"?
Well, Moses wrote about things that happened during the time of Solomon, well after his own death. You take that to mean that God told Moses about the future. I think it's more likely that Solomon (or somebody else around that time) added text to what was previously written.
Moses also supposedly wrote about his death, in detail enough that he knew how many people attended his funeral. If any other document stated this, you would (just as I would) assume that at the very least, somebody else added this text. If a book that was supposedly written by Abraham Lincoln talked about the city of Istanbul, Turkey, the logical conclusion would that this was written long after Lincoln was dead, or that somebody had edited the document to include current information (because if I remember correctly, during Lincoln's time Istanbul was known as Constantinople).
This sort of evidence leads you to a much different conclusion than it leads me to, because you believe it may have been divine intervention, when I am forced to look for more mundane explanations.
Feel free, Newsie. It doesn't bother me at all. I'm a big boy, plus I'm sure you're not posting my address, phone number, or physical measurements (38-40-34 in case anyone's wondering).
Yeah, it sure does...."stop it, be silent and dignified if you want respect and want tolerance. If your up in my face for what you believe is right, why should I respect you? Suffer in silience will get you respect".
Yeah, it sure does...."stop it, be silent and dignified if you want respect and want tolerance. If your up in my face for what you believe is right, why should I respect you? Suffer in silience will get you respect".
But Jesus had no intention of quieting this praise and worship team. As a matter of fact, he was expecting the stones to sing back-up. Did you know that the rolling stones actually did sing back-up a few days later? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's true - here's the verse to prove it:
So I guess when Jesus is fighting for a just cause he can be loud and 'up in people's face' so to speak, but when someone else is fighting for a just cause that you don't agree with they must suffer siliently?
Now......maybe I am missing something, but it sounds hypocritical to me. Although I am anticipating the comeback "Its not the same thing. It was Jesus, its different". But its not. If Jesus could act that way, so could others.
QUOTE
As I have plainly testified in the past, I have much experience in the "spirit realm" dealing with "demons" or "spirits". I'm NOT just basing every thing in my life on some "written words".
Absolutely, you've mentioned this multiple times, and I certainly don't think that you are lying. But I've attempted to recreate this exact same experiment in the past, and I have come to completely different conclusions. Perhaps I'm just one of those that was called, but wasn't chosen; I was predestined before the foundations of the Earth were laid to be condemned. Darn, I wish I could remember that scripture that talks about how God hardens the heart of those he hasn't chosen. At any rate, a Clash Of The Titans competition would be fascinating. I'd be interested to see if anyone were able to create a verifiable (and re-creatable) miracle in front of a screaming crowd of thousands. Unfortunately, the possibility for "religious hooligans" to begin brawls at a gathering like that would probably make insurance impossible to purchase for the event.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As I have plainly testified in the past, I have much experience in the "spirit realm" dealing with "demons" or "spirits". I'm NOT just basing every thing in my life on some "written words". |
Absolutely, you've mentioned this multiple times, and I certainly don't think that you are lying. But I've attempted to recreate this exact same experiment in the past, and I have come to completely different conclusions. Perhaps I'm just one of those that was called, but wasn't chosen; I was predestined before the foundations of the Earth were laid to be condemned. Darn, I wish I could remember that scripture that talks about how God hardens the heart of those he hasn't chosen. At any rate, a Clash Of The Titans competition would be fascinating. I'd be interested to see if anyone were able to create a verifiable (and re-creatable) miracle in front of a screaming crowd of thousands. Unfortunately, the possibility for "religious hooligans" to begin brawls at a gathering like that would probably make insurance impossible to purchase for the event.
What "evidence"?
Well, Moses wrote about things that happened during the time of Solomon, well after his own death. You take that to mean that God told Moses about the future. I think it's more likely that Solomon (or somebody else around that time) added text to what was previously written.
Moses also supposedly wrote about his death, in detail enough that he knew how many people attended his funeral. If any other document stated this, you would (just as I would) assume that at the very least, somebody else added this text. If a book that was supposedly written by Abraham Lincoln talked about the city of Istanbul, Turkey, the logical conclusion would that this was written long after Lincoln was dead, or that somebody had edited the document to include current information (because if I remember correctly, during Lincoln's time Istanbul was known as Constantinople).
This sort of evidence leads you to a much different conclusion than it leads me to, because you believe it may have been divine intervention, when I am forced to look for more mundane explanations.
QUOTE (sinned34+)
Absolutely, you've mentioned this multiple times, and I certainly don't think that you are lying. But I've attempted to recreate this exact same experiment in the past, and I have come to completely different conclusions. Perhaps I'm just one of those that was called, but wasn't chosen; I was predestined before the foundations of the Earth were laid to be condemned. Darn, I wish I could remember that scripture that talks about how God hardens the heart of those he hasn't chosen.
sinned34: I almost shared my "thoughts" regarding your experience, or lack thereof, on another thread a couple of days ago. Would you be opposed to my "thoughts" in a public forum? I was going to respond to something you posted on another thread earlier this week...
sinned34: I almost shared my "thoughts" regarding your experience, or lack thereof, on another thread a couple of days ago. Would you be opposed to my "thoughts" in a public forum? I was going to respond to something you posted on another thread earlier this week...
QUOTE
I almost shared my "thoughts" regarding your experience, or lack thereof, on another thread a couple of days ago. Would you be opposed to my "thoughts" in a public forum? I was going to respond to something you posted on another thread earlier this week...
Feel free, Newsie. It doesn't bother me at all. I'm a big boy, plus I'm sure you're not posting my address, phone number, or physical measurements (38-40-34 in case anyone's wondering
).
QUOTE (Messenger+Mar 2 2006, 08:08 PM)
...................
...................
I'd say that people not exposed to established religion are following their God given common sense. It seems that it should be obvious to anyone who looks upon creation - that there is something bigger, much bigger, going on here. Jesus said that even the stones would praise him:
37When he came near the place where the road goes down the Mount of Olives, the whole crowd of disciples began joyfully to praise God in loud voices for all the miracles they had seen:
38"Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord!"
"Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!"
39Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Jesus, "Teacher, rebuke your disciples!"
40"I tell you," he replied, "if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out." ...............
..................
.................
Are we all to take this as a lesson in 'humility' and as an example of 'god-given common sense'?
RC.
.
...................
I'd say that people not exposed to established religion are following their God given common sense. It seems that it should be obvious to anyone who looks upon creation - that there is something bigger, much bigger, going on here. Jesus said that even the stones would praise him:
37When he came near the place where the road goes down the Mount of Olives, the whole crowd of disciples began joyfully to praise God in loud voices for all the miracles they had seen:
38"Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord!"
"Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!"
39Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Jesus, "Teacher, rebuke your disciples!"
40"I tell you," he replied, "if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out." ...............
..................
.................
Are we all to take this as a lesson in 'humility' and as an example of 'god-given common sense'?
RC.
.
I have no idea why I'm responding to this......
But whatever do you mean?
But whatever do you mean?
QUOTE (Messenger+Mar 3 2006, 12:29 AM)
I have no idea why I'm responding to this......
But whatever do you mean?
Hi Mess!
If it is not clear, then perhaps I might have misunderstood the import of those sections I bolded. To remove any doubt, perhaps you would be so kind as to 'clarify' what your own words/quoted text meant to say. Then I shall reconsider my initial 'understanding' of them and, if still the same, will gladly comply with your own request for clarification. I'll catch up with you tomorrow! Thanks.
RC.
.
But whatever do you mean?
Hi Mess!
If it is not clear, then perhaps I might have misunderstood the import of those sections I bolded. To remove any doubt, perhaps you would be so kind as to 'clarify' what your own words/quoted text meant to say. Then I shall reconsider my initial 'understanding' of them and, if still the same, will gladly comply with your own request for clarification. I'll catch up with you tomorrow! Thanks.
RC.
.
If you are trying to imply that people who don't believe in Jesus/God are the only ones that have 'God given common sense'...............then you did indeed misunderstand. It means that even if one has never picked up a Torah, or Bible - your God given common sense should tell you - just by looking at the creation - that there is a God. This should cause you to seek Him. As I've said before, I'm an all inclusive person. I believe God communicates to everyone in His own way. Jesus is the way, the truth and the light, however; God has also provided a way for those who have had no opportunity or privilege to learn God's ways through established religion. He did not come to save the righteous (seemingly the religious), he came to save the lost (that be you).
If you are trying to imply that I should be quiet and let the stones speak out............then you did indeed misunderstand.
The people were praising Jesus when he came near them, the whole crowd of disciples began joyfully to praise God in loud voices - saying:
"Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord!"
"Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!"
Apparently, the Pharisees didn't like all this Hallelujah - so they wanted Jesus to have a little decorum and tell the praise and worship team to stop it! Sounds like some people I know around here. Are you a Pharisee?
But Jesus had no intention of quieting this praise and worship team. As a matter of fact, he was expecting the stones to sing back-up. Did you know that the rolling stones actually did sing back-up a few days later? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's true - here's the verse to prove it:
1When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body. 2Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3and they asked each other, "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?"
4But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.
6"Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.' " Mark 16:1-7
(Actually, that was just an excuse so I could mention the fact that Jesus is risen! He is risen, indeed! The rolling stones are old, but they're not that old. )
And now for another story from old guy:
All in good fun, and timely too.
If you are trying to imply that I should be quiet and let the stones speak out............then you did indeed misunderstand.
The people were praising Jesus when he came near them, the whole crowd of disciples began joyfully to praise God in loud voices - saying:
"Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord!"
"Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!"
Apparently, the Pharisees didn't like all this Hallelujah - so they wanted Jesus to have a little decorum and tell the praise and worship team to stop it! Sounds like some people I know around here. Are you a Pharisee?
But Jesus had no intention of quieting this praise and worship team. As a matter of fact, he was expecting the stones to sing back-up. Did you know that the rolling stones actually did sing back-up a few days later? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's true - here's the verse to prove it:
1When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body. 2Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3and they asked each other, "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?"
4But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.
6"Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.' " Mark 16:1-7
(Actually, that was just an excuse so I could mention the fact that Jesus is risen! He is risen, indeed!
The rolling stones are old, but they're not that old. )And now for another story from old guy:
All in good fun, and timely too.
QUOTE
Apparently, the Pharisees didn't like all this Hallelujah - so they wanted Jesus to have a little decorum and tell the praise and worship team to stop it! Sounds like some people I know around here. Are you a Pharisee?
Yeah, it sure does...."stop it, be silent and dignified if you want respect and want tolerance. If your up in my face for what you believe is right, why should I respect you? Suffer in silience will get you respect".
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Apparently, the Pharisees didn't like all this Hallelujah - so they wanted Jesus to have a little decorum and tell the praise and worship team to stop it! Sounds like some people I know around here. Are you a Pharisee? |
Yeah, it sure does...."stop it, be silent and dignified if you want respect and want tolerance. If your up in my face for what you believe is right, why should I respect you? Suffer in silience will get you respect".
But Jesus had no intention of quieting this praise and worship team. As a matter of fact, he was expecting the stones to sing back-up. Did you know that the rolling stones actually did sing back-up a few days later? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's true - here's the verse to prove it:
So I guess when Jesus is fighting for a just cause he can be loud and 'up in people's face' so to speak, but when someone else is fighting for a just cause that you don't agree with they must suffer siliently?
Now......maybe I am missing something, but it sounds hypocritical to me. Although I am anticipating the comeback "Its not the same thing. It was Jesus, its different". But its not. If Jesus could act that way, so could others.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 2 2006, 11:22 PM)
QUOTE (Messenger+Mar 2 2006, 08:08 PM)
...................
...................
I'd say that people not exposed to established religion are following their God given common sense. It seems that it should be obvious to anyone who looks upon creation - that there is something bigger, much bigger, going on here. Jesus said that even the stones would praise him:
37When he came near the place where the road goes down the Mount of Olives, the whole crowd of disciples began joyfully to praise God in loud voices for all the miracles they had seen:
38"Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord!"
"Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!"
39Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Jesus, "Teacher, rebuke your disciples!"
40"I tell you," he replied, "if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out." ...............
..................
.................
Are we all to take this as a lesson in 'humility' and as an example of 'god-given common sense'?
RC.
.
...................
I'd say that people not exposed to established religion are following their God given common sense. It seems that it should be obvious to anyone who looks upon creation - that there is something bigger, much bigger, going on here. Jesus said that even the stones would praise him:
37When he came near the place where the road goes down the Mount of Olives, the whole crowd of disciples began joyfully to praise God in loud voices for all the miracles they had seen:
38"Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord!"
"Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!"
39Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Jesus, "Teacher, rebuke your disciples!"
40"I tell you," he replied, "if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out." ...............
..................
.................
Are we all to take this as a lesson in 'humility' and as an example of 'god-given common sense'?
RC.
.
QUOTE (Messenger+Mar 3 2006, 12:29 AM)
I have no idea why I'm responding to this......
But whatever do you mean?
But whatever do you mean?
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 3 2006, 01:27 AM)
QUOTE (Messenger+Mar 3 2006, 12:29 AM)
I have no idea why I'm responding to this......
But whatever do you mean?
Hi Mess!
If it is not clear, then perhaps I might have misunderstood the import of those sections I bolded. To remove any doubt, perhaps you would be so kind as to 'clarify' what your own words/quoted text meant to say. Then I shall reconsider my initial 'understanding' of them and, if still the same, will gladly comply with your own request for clarification. I'll catch up with you tomorrow! Thanks.
RC.
.
But whatever do you mean?
Hi Mess!
If it is not clear, then perhaps I might have misunderstood the import of those sections I bolded. To remove any doubt, perhaps you would be so kind as to 'clarify' what your own words/quoted text meant to say. Then I shall reconsider my initial 'understanding' of them and, if still the same, will gladly comply with your own request for clarification. I'll catch up with you tomorrow! Thanks.
RC.
.
QUOTE (Messenger+Mar 3 2006, 03:11 AM)
If you are trying to imply that people who don't believe in Jesus/God are the only ones that have 'God given common sense'...............then you did indeed misunderstand. It means that even if one has never picked up a Torah, or Bible - your God given common sense should tell you - just by looking at the creation - that there is a God. This should cause you to seek Him. As I've said before, I'm an all inclusive person. I believe God communicates to everyone in His own way. Jesus is the way, the truth and the light, however; God has also provided a way for those who have had no opportunity or privilege to learn God's ways through established religion. He did not come to save the righteous (seemingly the religious), he came to save the lost (that be you).
If you are trying to imply that I should be quiet and let the stones speak out............then you did indeed misunderstand.
The people were praising Jesus when he came near them, the whole crowd of disciples began joyfully to praise God in loud voices - saying:
"Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord!"
"Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!"
Apparently, the Pharisees didn't like all this Hallelujah - so they wanted Jesus to have a little decorum and tell the praise and worship team to stop it! Sounds like some people I know around here. Are you a Pharisee?
But Jesus had no intention of quieting this praise and worship team. As a matter of fact, he was expecting the stones to sing back-up. Did you know that the rolling stones actually did sing back-up a few days later? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's true - here's the verse to prove it:
1When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body. 2Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3and they asked each other, "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?"
4But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.
6"Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.' " Mark 16:1-7
(Actually, that was just an excuse so I could mention the fact that Jesus is risen! He is risen, indeed! The rolling stones are old, but they're not that old. )
And now for another story from old guy:
All in good fun, and timely too.
Hello Mess (I'm back earlier than I had expected).
You couldn't resist slipping in more ASSUMPTIONS regarding what I was supposedly 'implying' in my original response in this item, could you?
Recall that I asked for YOUR clarification of the relevant parts of your post, and NOT for your assumptions as to my 'intent' in my first response to same.
Anyway, now that you HAVE done BOTH (clarified and assumed, hehehe), I can state that in that last post YOU definitely misunderstood my first response; to wit:
Yeah, it sure does...."stop it, be silent and dignified if you want respect and want tolerance. If your up in my face for what you believe is right, why should I respect you? Suffer in silience will get you respect".
Yeah, it sure does...."stop it, be silent and dignified if you want respect and want tolerance. If your up in my face for what you believe is right, why should I respect you? Suffer in silience will get you respect".
But Jesus had no intention of quieting this praise and worship team. As a matter of fact, he was expecting the stones to sing back-up. Did you know that the rolling stones actually did sing back-up a few days later? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's true - here's the verse to prove it:
So I guess when Jesus is fighting for a just cause he can be loud and 'up in people's face' so to speak, but when someone else is fighting for a just cause that you don't agree with they must suffer siliently?
Now......maybe I am missing something, but it sounds hypocritical to me. Although I am anticipating the comeback "Its not the same thing. It was Jesus, its different". But its not. If Jesus could act that way, so could others.
Hi Steveo!
Like with the 'Suffragette' and also the 'homosexual marriage' campaigns that we pointed out to Mess as naturally requiring 'in your face' measures to achieve, and which Mess seems incapable of seeing where she is WRONG and HYPOCRITICAL, I wonder whether she will do the right thing for a change, and admit that she is only compounding that hypocrisy by maintaining that only 'christian' poster boys are allowed to be 'in your face' when campaigning for what they believe in?
What odds for/against an epiphany by Messenger, complete with a great "ahaa" issuing from her big mouth, and a 'bright lightglobe' above her (thus far Hypocritical) head? Cheers, Steveo!
RC.
.
So I guess when Jesus is fighting for a just cause he can be loud and 'up in people's face' so to speak, but when someone else is fighting for a just cause that you don't agree with they must suffer siliently?
Now......maybe I am missing something, but it sounds hypocritical to me. Although I am anticipating the comeback "Its not the same thing. It was Jesus, its different". But its not. If Jesus could act that way, so could others.
1. Jesus is the Son of God.
2. I see nothing in my post that tells you, them, or anyone, to be silent.
Blabber on...
Not in that particular post, but I remember in the not so distant past when you said that homosexuals should sit down and shut up if they want respect. But Jesus himself never told me, you, them, or anyone else to be silient. So either the homosexuals have every right, as per Jesus to be 'loud', or the son of god gets special privilages. But I didn't think he did? As newguy said, with continued dialog there are things assumed from previous posts and you just seem to like to forget about all of that stuff
If you are trying to imply that I should be quiet and let the stones speak out............then you did indeed misunderstand.
The people were praising Jesus when he came near them, the whole crowd of disciples began joyfully to praise God in loud voices - saying:
"Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord!"
"Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!"
Apparently, the Pharisees didn't like all this Hallelujah - so they wanted Jesus to have a little decorum and tell the praise and worship team to stop it! Sounds like some people I know around here. Are you a Pharisee?
But Jesus had no intention of quieting this praise and worship team. As a matter of fact, he was expecting the stones to sing back-up. Did you know that the rolling stones actually did sing back-up a few days later? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's true - here's the verse to prove it:
1When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body. 2Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3and they asked each other, "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?"
4But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.
6"Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.' " Mark 16:1-7
(Actually, that was just an excuse so I could mention the fact that Jesus is risen! He is risen, indeed!
The rolling stones are old, but they're not that old. )And now for another story from old guy:
All in good fun, and timely too.Hello Mess (I'm back earlier than I had expected).
You couldn't resist slipping in more ASSUMPTIONS regarding what I was supposedly 'implying' in my original response in this item, could you?
Recall that I asked for YOUR clarification of the relevant parts of your post, and NOT for your assumptions as to my 'intent' in my first response to same.
Anyway, now that you HAVE done BOTH (clarified and assumed, hehehe), I can state that in that last post YOU definitely misunderstood my first response; to wit:
QUOTE (RealityCheck+)
Are we all to take this as a lesson in 'humility' and as an example of 'god-given common sense'?RC.
This response meant to stress that:
- so-called 'god given sense', which you seem to take for granted that EVERYBODY has been 'given', doesn't seem very apparent in 'bible' stories of people's actions/reactions to events and claims made without verifiable evidence during a time when, if something was 'dramatic' and 'superstitious' and 'frightening' and 'confounding' enough, people HAD NO CHOICE but to be 'hoodwinked' or 'persuaded' to 'believe' (else what was the alternative?....rebuke, ostracism, demonising, etc etc etc);
and,
- When the Pharasee WERE all for dignity and decorum, YOUR POSTER BOY couldn't get enough of the OPPOSITE. So again, whoever is writing these 'religious texts' should be FIRED, because YET AGAIN, they make Jesus sound like a true hypocrite (just as the writers made Jesus sound in the case where someone admonishing Jesus' followers for not observing proper hygiene, ie, washing their hands before eating, were themselves rebuked by Jesus about something else, while at the same time ignoring to confirm that they were RIGHT to admonish his followers).
All of which goes to show (and you are a perfect embodiment of this observation), that:
(1) 'God given common sense' seems to play VERY LITTLE part in 'religious' thought and practice; and that
(2) HYPOCRISY seems to go hand in hand with ALL RELIGIOUS thought and practice (just as it seems to go hand in hand with ALL POLITICAL thought and practice...uncanny, heh?).
There, Mess; are you satisfied with the 'clarification' you required of me? You might want to compare this with the ASSUMPTIONS you made regarding my 'intent' even before you made your own clarification available. But as I said, and as your history shows....you couldn't help yourself, heh? hehehe. Cheers!
RC.
.
This response meant to stress that:
- so-called 'god given sense', which you seem to take for granted that EVERYBODY has been 'given', doesn't seem very apparent in 'bible' stories of people's actions/reactions to events and claims made without verifiable evidence during a time when, if something was 'dramatic' and 'superstitious' and 'frightening' and 'confounding' enough, people HAD NO CHOICE but to be 'hoodwinked' or 'persuaded' to 'believe' (else what was the alternative?....rebuke, ostracism, demonising, etc etc etc);
and,
- When the Pharasee WERE all for dignity and decorum, YOUR POSTER BOY couldn't get enough of the OPPOSITE. So again, whoever is writing these 'religious texts' should be FIRED, because YET AGAIN, they make Jesus sound like a true hypocrite (just as the writers made Jesus sound in the case where someone admonishing Jesus' followers for not observing proper hygiene, ie, washing their hands before eating, were themselves rebuked by Jesus about something else, while at the same time ignoring to confirm that they were RIGHT to admonish his followers).
All of which goes to show (and you are a perfect embodiment of this observation), that:
(1) 'God given common sense' seems to play VERY LITTLE part in 'religious' thought and practice; and that
(2) HYPOCRISY seems to go hand in hand with ALL RELIGIOUS thought and practice (just as it seems to go hand in hand with ALL POLITICAL thought and practice...uncanny, heh?).
There, Mess; are you satisfied with the 'clarification' you required of me? You might want to compare this with the ASSUMPTIONS you made regarding my 'intent' even before you made your own clarification available. But as I said, and as your history shows....you couldn't help yourself, heh? hehehe. Cheers!
RC.
.
QUOTE (Steveo+Mar 3 2006, 05:15 AM)
QUOTE
Apparently, the Pharisees didn't like all this Hallelujah - so they wanted Jesus to have a little decorum and tell the praise and worship team to stop it! Sounds like some people I know around here. Are you a Pharisee?
Yeah, it sure does...."stop it, be silent and dignified if you want respect and want tolerance. If your up in my face for what you believe is right, why should I respect you? Suffer in silience will get you respect".
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Apparently, the Pharisees didn't like all this Hallelujah - so they wanted Jesus to have a little decorum and tell the praise and worship team to stop it! Sounds like some people I know around here. Are you a Pharisee? |
Yeah, it sure does...."stop it, be silent and dignified if you want respect and want tolerance. If your up in my face for what you believe is right, why should I respect you? Suffer in silience will get you respect".
But Jesus had no intention of quieting this praise and worship team. As a matter of fact, he was expecting the stones to sing back-up. Did you know that the rolling stones actually did sing back-up a few days later? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's true - here's the verse to prove it:
So I guess when Jesus is fighting for a just cause he can be loud and 'up in people's face' so to speak, but when someone else is fighting for a just cause that you don't agree with they must suffer siliently?
Now......maybe I am missing something, but it sounds hypocritical to me. Although I am anticipating the comeback "Its not the same thing. It was Jesus, its different". But its not. If Jesus could act that way, so could others.
Hi Steveo!
Like with the 'Suffragette' and also the 'homosexual marriage' campaigns that we pointed out to Mess as naturally requiring 'in your face' measures to achieve, and which Mess seems incapable of seeing where she is WRONG and HYPOCRITICAL, I wonder whether she will do the right thing for a change, and admit that she is only compounding that hypocrisy by maintaining that only 'christian' poster boys are allowed to be 'in your face' when campaigning for what they believe in?
What odds for/against an epiphany by Messenger, complete with a great "ahaa" issuing from her big mouth, and a 'bright lightglobe' above her (thus far Hypocritical) head? Cheers, Steveo!
RC.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+)
When the Pharasee WERE all for dignity and decorum, YOUR POSTER BOY couldn't get enough of the OPPOSITE. So again, whoever is writing these 'religious texts' should be FIRED, because YET AGAIN, they make Jesus sound like true hypocrite (just as the writers made Jesus sound in the case where someone admonishing Jesus' followers for not observing proper hygiene, ie, washing their hands before eating, were themselves rebuked by Jesus about something else, while at the same time ignoring to confirm that they were RIGHT to admonish his followers).
RealityCheck: Let's try this one more time. The Pharisees admonishing the disciples to "wash their hands" apparently had nothing to do with "hygiene". The Pharisees appparently viewed this procedure as a form of "righteousness" or "holiness". Please consider the following.
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity."(Matthew 23:23-28)
First of all, what is at issue here is the "weightier matters of the law". Which "carries more weight" in God's eyes, "outward holiness" or "inward holiness"? This is the true issue. The Pharisees were great at "straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel". Is there anything wrong with "straining a gnat"? No. Of course not. I wouldn't want a "bug" in my food, would you? The "wrongness" enters when the "gnat" is "strained" while simultaneously "swallowing a camel". This is the norm for HYPOCRITES. There is quite a difference in both size and "weight"("weightier matters of the law") between a "gnat" and a "camel", you know. In reference to "size", the Pharisees were infamous for "spotting" the "minutest detail", usually in others("take the beam out of your own eye", ring a bell?), while "missing" their own "great offenses" towards God. The Pharisees reminded everyone to pay their tithes(not out of any true desire for God's house, mind you...THEY WERE COVETOUS. Sound like any, *AHEM*, "ministers" today?) while they themselves omitted judgment, mercy and faith. Jesus told them "these ought ye to have done"(in relation to receiving tithes), "and not to leave the other undone". There was nothing wrong with the Pharisees washing their hands before eating, per se. This "washing" didn't need to be "left undone". The "wrongness" was due to the fact that they attributed this "washing" to an OUTWARD appearance of "holiness"(they weren't really discussing "hygiene") while they were INWARDLY wicked. This is precisely what Jesus addressed when He said "Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also." Ever heard the expression "First things first"? I trust you have. Ever met anyone who thought they were "holy" because they wore no make-up and wore a dress down to their ankles? I have. Ever met someone who thought they were "holy" because they wore a suit and tie to church on Sunday? I have. Ever observe these same people "in action", so to speak? I have. "Holiness" must work from "the inside out". The Pharisees rejected their very own "Christ" and thereby forfeited any means by which to be "born again" of the HOLY SPIRIT. It is the INWARD WORKINGS of the INDWELLING HOLY SPIRIT that will ultimately produce true holiness. The Pharisees were HYPOCRITES. Plain and simple. OUTWARDLY, they "appeared righteous unto men". INWARDLY, they were "full of hypocrisy and iniquity". One other quick point. Ever seen someone "burst onto" this forum and start making all sorts of "wild assumptions" about another poster without even knowing any of their background? Steve1957 "ring a bell", for example. Even you had to question some of his erroneous allegations pertaining to me, for example. As was suggested to him, and as has been suggested to others, a little "background check" on an individual will help to see that individual in a "fuller light". The Pharisees washing of their hands was a "straining at a gnat". Was it wrong, in and of itself? No. It was wrong because TO THEM IT WAS A SIGN OF HOLINESS. They appeared "beautiful outwardly", yet, "inwardly" they were "full of dead men's bones". Let me put it to you this way, if I may. You and I have somewhat of a posting "history". I don't need to "rehash" everything that we've previously discussed in every post of mine, do I? Certainly not. I trust that you have the ability to retain what we've already discussed(I don't have this same trust for some, sad to say). Ever seen anyone who was IGNORANT of our "history" jump in and say something ridiculous? I have(I won't mention any names...plural). Jesus had MANY conversations with both His disciples and the Pharisees. Please, don't make the mistake of "singling out" one conversation and basing opinions on only that one encounter between Christ and others. I've read the entire Bible, from cover to cover, many times. I have NEVER misunderstood what Jesus was saying to the Pharisees because I've viewed His entire "history" with them. I've said enough. I trust you get my point(s). Have a good one.
RealityCheck: Let's try this one more time. The Pharisees admonishing the disciples to "wash their hands" apparently had nothing to do with "hygiene". The Pharisees appparently viewed this procedure as a form of "righteousness" or "holiness". Please consider the following.
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity."(Matthew 23:23-28)
First of all, what is at issue here is the "weightier matters of the law". Which "carries more weight" in God's eyes, "outward holiness" or "inward holiness"? This is the true issue. The Pharisees were great at "straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel". Is there anything wrong with "straining a gnat"? No. Of course not. I wouldn't want a "bug" in my food, would you? The "wrongness" enters when the "gnat" is "strained" while simultaneously "swallowing a camel". This is the norm for HYPOCRITES. There is quite a difference in both size and "weight"("weightier matters of the law") between a "gnat" and a "camel", you know. In reference to "size", the Pharisees were infamous for "spotting" the "minutest detail", usually in others("take the beam out of your own eye", ring a bell?), while "missing" their own "great offenses" towards God. The Pharisees reminded everyone to pay their tithes(not out of any true desire for God's house, mind you...THEY WERE COVETOUS. Sound like any, *AHEM*, "ministers" today?) while they themselves omitted judgment, mercy and faith. Jesus told them "these ought ye to have done"(in relation to receiving tithes), "and not to leave the other undone". There was nothing wrong with the Pharisees washing their hands before eating, per se. This "washing" didn't need to be "left undone". The "wrongness" was due to the fact that they attributed this "washing" to an OUTWARD appearance of "holiness"(they weren't really discussing "hygiene") while they were INWARDLY wicked. This is precisely what Jesus addressed when He said "Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also." Ever heard the expression "First things first"? I trust you have. Ever met anyone who thought they were "holy" because they wore no make-up and wore a dress down to their ankles? I have. Ever met someone who thought they were "holy" because they wore a suit and tie to church on Sunday? I have. Ever observe these same people "in action", so to speak? I have. "Holiness" must work from "the inside out". The Pharisees rejected their very own "Christ" and thereby forfeited any means by which to be "born again" of the HOLY SPIRIT. It is the INWARD WORKINGS of the INDWELLING HOLY SPIRIT that will ultimately produce true holiness. The Pharisees were HYPOCRITES. Plain and simple. OUTWARDLY, they "appeared righteous unto men". INWARDLY, they were "full of hypocrisy and iniquity". One other quick point. Ever seen someone "burst onto" this forum and start making all sorts of "wild assumptions" about another poster without even knowing any of their background? Steve1957 "ring a bell", for example. Even you had to question some of his erroneous allegations pertaining to me, for example. As was suggested to him, and as has been suggested to others, a little "background check" on an individual will help to see that individual in a "fuller light". The Pharisees washing of their hands was a "straining at a gnat". Was it wrong, in and of itself? No. It was wrong because TO THEM IT WAS A SIGN OF HOLINESS. They appeared "beautiful outwardly", yet, "inwardly" they were "full of dead men's bones". Let me put it to you this way, if I may. You and I have somewhat of a posting "history". I don't need to "rehash" everything that we've previously discussed in every post of mine, do I? Certainly not. I trust that you have the ability to retain what we've already discussed(I don't have this same trust for some, sad to say). Ever seen anyone who was IGNORANT of our "history" jump in and say something ridiculous? I have(I won't mention any names...plural). Jesus had MANY conversations with both His disciples and the Pharisees. Please, don't make the mistake of "singling out" one conversation and basing opinions on only that one encounter between Christ and others. I've read the entire Bible, from cover to cover, many times. I have NEVER misunderstood what Jesus was saying to the Pharisees because I've viewed His entire "history" with them. I've said enough. I trust you get my point(s). Have a good one.
QUOTE (Steveo+Mar 2 2006, 11:15 PM)
QUOTE
But Jesus had no intention of quieting this praise and worship team. As a matter of fact, he was expecting the stones to sing back-up. Did you know that the rolling stones actually did sing back-up a few days later? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's true - here's the verse to prove it:
So I guess when Jesus is fighting for a just cause he can be loud and 'up in people's face' so to speak, but when someone else is fighting for a just cause that you don't agree with they must suffer siliently?
Now......maybe I am missing something, but it sounds hypocritical to me. Although I am anticipating the comeback "Its not the same thing. It was Jesus, its different". But its not. If Jesus could act that way, so could others.
1. Jesus is the Son of God.
2. I see nothing in my post that tells you, them, or anyone, to be silent.
Blabber on...
I'm just kind of happy this is something I know about ^^.
So I'll post on a few things mentioned
1.) As to teaching science in schools and thusly not intelligent design (which differs fundamentally from creationism) because it is a theoretical science, being that nothing has been conclusively proved against it or for it (though there is some proof and argument for neither side), the same would hold true for evolution. If you don't want theoretical sciences taught in schools, it must include all of them. If you will accept teaching some theories, then you should teach all theories at least of a related theme.
1.2) Personally I don't agree with Intelligent design, and I believe evolution has proved linear at best where as I am more tempted to believe in creationism not just due to faith and certain religious experiences (for this scientific matter I am disregarding them ;- but because several of the pro creationism arguments fill in the gaps in evolutionist arguments. I suggest reading Footprints by Baugh and Wilson (not for a specific religious cause but rather for a better understanding of the scientific creationist standpoint)
2.) To the people with biblical quotes... it's better to read and understand a book before you reference it.
3.) I forgot the other things I wanted to reply to.. maybe I'll edit them in later
So I'll post on a few things mentioned
1.) As to teaching science in schools and thusly not intelligent design (which differs fundamentally from creationism) because it is a theoretical science, being that nothing has been conclusively proved against it or for it (though there is some proof and argument for neither side), the same would hold true for evolution. If you don't want theoretical sciences taught in schools, it must include all of them. If you will accept teaching some theories, then you should teach all theories at least of a related theme.
1.2) Personally I don't agree with Intelligent design, and I believe evolution has proved linear at best where as I am more tempted to believe in creationism not just due to faith and certain religious experiences (for this scientific matter I am disregarding them ;-
but because several of the pro creationism arguments fill in the gaps in evolutionist arguments. I suggest reading Footprints by Baugh and Wilson (not for a specific religious cause but rather for a better understanding of the scientific creationist standpoint)2.) To the people with biblical quotes... it's better to read and understand a book before you reference it.
3.) I forgot the other things I wanted to reply to.. maybe I'll edit them in later
QUOTE (hopeless+)
2.) To the people with biblical quotes... it's better to read and understand a book before you reference it.
Hopeless(oooh...let me bite my tongue): As one who has used "Biblical quotes", please do feel free to help my "understanding", won't you? I just finished reading some of your, *AHEM*, "understanding" on another thread. I'll get to that when I have more time. Until then...
Hopeless(oooh...let me bite my tongue): As one who has used "Biblical quotes", please do feel free to help my "understanding", won't you? I just finished reading some of your, *AHEM*, "understanding" on another thread. I'll get to that when I have more time. Until then...
Don't be offended, I simply meant the general theme of quotes was ... occasionaly (often) unrelated to the thread and sometimes taken out of context.. I think your posts weren't as bad as others, but I'm not certain as I didn't take the time just now to check ^^.
QUOTE
QUOTE (Steveo @ Mar 2 2006, 11:15 PM)
QUOTE
But Jesus had no intention of quieting this praise and worship team. As a matter of fact, he was expecting the stones to sing back-up. Did you know that the rolling stones actually did sing back-up a few days later? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's true - here's the verse to prove it:
So I guess when Jesus is fighting for a just cause he can be loud and 'up in people's face' so to speak, but when someone else is fighting for a just cause that you don't agree with they must suffer siliently?
Now......maybe I am missing something, but it sounds hypocritical to me. Although I am anticipating the comeback "Its not the same thing. It was Jesus, its different". But its not. If Jesus could act that way, so could others.
1. Jesus is the Son of God.
2. I see nothing in my post that tells you, them, or anyone, to be silent.
Blabber on...
QUOTE
But Jesus had no intention of quieting this praise and worship team. As a matter of fact, he was expecting the stones to sing back-up. Did you know that the rolling stones actually did sing back-up a few days later? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's true - here's the verse to prove it:
So I guess when Jesus is fighting for a just cause he can be loud and 'up in people's face' so to speak, but when someone else is fighting for a just cause that you don't agree with they must suffer siliently?
Now......maybe I am missing something, but it sounds hypocritical to me. Although I am anticipating the comeback "Its not the same thing. It was Jesus, its different". But its not. If Jesus could act that way, so could others.
1. Jesus is the Son of God.
2. I see nothing in my post that tells you, them, or anyone, to be silent.
Blabber on...
Not in that particular post, but I remember in the not so distant past when you said that homosexuals should sit down and shut up if they want respect. But Jesus himself never told me, you, them, or anyone else to be silient. So either the homosexuals have every right, as per Jesus to be 'loud', or the son of god gets special privilages. But I didn't think he did? As newguy said, with continued dialog there are things assumed from previous posts and you just seem to like to forget about all of that stuff
Hi Steveo,
Do you really want to compare the announcement of the Messiah to the plight of homosexuals? Do you really think Jesus came to save us from male/female relationships? Do you really think he was all about letting people follow their sexual preferences without restraint and control? Do you have anything to base these views on? I doat it.
There's a difference between announcing the Messiah and announcing one's sexual preference in a gay pride parade. Until you have seen the images, Steveo, you really bring your character into question when you condone such activity.
I have consistently said that I cannot stop people from being gay, but that I want them to act in a dignified and respectful manner. They can stand up and say they're gay all they want - but you don't hear hetrosexuals walking around announcing their sexual preference, now do you?
Then there is the issue of whether a gay lifestyle should be encouraged and promoted. Is this beneficial for the individual and for society. No. I have shown how it is not, and you have all failed to show how it is beneficial.
So, let the people live in their gayness, interact with others the same way hetros interact with other hetros. Peace, harmony. Is there anything wrong with that? If you're going to condone gays to have x-rated, disgusting (by many peoples standards) parades...........are you also going to condone hetros in the same way? Or will you call them intolerant when they parade down the street announcing their sexual preferences? It really is about equality, you know. Right now - they are 'demanding' preferential treatment. 3-10% of the population is gay - but you'd think the entire country was gay or secretly gay by the way it's infiltrated movies, television, and the media. They may think they're fighting for a civil rights issue (which blacks vehemently oppose) - but they're really fighting for acceptance of oral and anal sex with a same sex partner, that's the bottom line. People who are not gay have rights too. The right not to be intimidated or indoctrinated, first and foremost. But I'm done discussing this - if you want my opinions, all you have to do is click on my user name and go back to last week's posts. I'm not going to repeat them.
Hi, how is Intelligent Design an excellent scientific theory?
Could you please find one scientific paper that has an experiment done to show/disprove Intelligent Design.
Can you please cite one part of Intelligent Design that leads to some type of scientific discovery? Can it make a single prediction?
Do you really want to compare the announcement of the Messiah to the plight of homosexuals? Do you really think Jesus came to save us from male/female relationships? Do you really think he was all about letting people follow their sexual preferences without restraint and control? Do you have anything to base these views on? I doat it.
There's a difference between announcing the Messiah and announcing one's sexual preference in a gay pride parade. Until you have seen the images, Steveo, you really bring your character into question when you condone such activity.
I have consistently said that I cannot stop people from being gay, but that I want them to act in a dignified and respectful manner. They can stand up and say they're gay all they want - but you don't hear hetrosexuals walking around announcing their sexual preference, now do you?
Then there is the issue of whether a gay lifestyle should be encouraged and promoted. Is this beneficial for the individual and for society. No. I have shown how it is not, and you have all failed to show how it is beneficial.
So, let the people live in their gayness, interact with others the same way hetros interact with other hetros. Peace, harmony. Is there anything wrong with that? If you're going to condone gays to have x-rated, disgusting (by many peoples standards) parades...........are you also going to condone hetros in the same way? Or will you call them intolerant when they parade down the street announcing their sexual preferences? It really is about equality, you know. Right now - they are 'demanding' preferential treatment. 3-10% of the population is gay - but you'd think the entire country was gay or secretly gay by the way it's infiltrated movies, television, and the media. They may think they're fighting for a civil rights issue (which blacks vehemently oppose) - but they're really fighting for acceptance of oral and anal sex with a same sex partner, that's the bottom line. People who are not gay have rights too. The right not to be intimidated or indoctrinated, first and foremost. But I'm done discussing this - if you want my opinions, all you have to do is click on my user name and go back to last week's posts. I'm not going to repeat them.
QUOTE
2.) To the people with biblical quotes... it's better to read and understand a book before you reference it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 2.) To the people with biblical quotes... it's better to read and understand a book before you reference it. |
Don't be offended, I simply meant the general theme of quotes was ... occasionaly (often) unrelated to the thread and sometimes taken out of context.. I think your posts weren't as bad as others, but I'm not certain as I didn't take the time just now to check ^^.
Hopeless,
Hi, welcome to Armagaddeon. Just kidding...well...some of the time it sure seems like it around here. Maybe you can help?
.......and if you were referring to me - I would ask for the same references and enlightenment of which Biblical quotes are taken out of context.
I'll give you that they're not always related to the thread topic, but I have been carrying on a conversation with basically the same bunch of people for several months now. We do go off on tangents now and then, which makes for a more varied and interesting discussion.
I think we all agree that e v o l u t i o n is false, and we have come to the conclusion that Intelligent Design is a fairly decent way to introduce an excellent scientific theory that will lead one to believe that God created heaven and earth. Just like He said in Genesis Chapter 1. So, nothing more to talk about in regards to the topic thread - cuz we figured it out already....so we talk about other stuff...equally as important. Why, before you know it, we'll have all the problems in the universe solved. Right here. How 'bout that!?
Hopeless,
Hi, welcome to Armagaddeon. Just kidding...well...some of the time it sure seems like it around here. Maybe you can help?
.......and if you were referring to me - I would ask for the same references and enlightenment of which Biblical quotes are taken out of context.
I'll give you that they're not always related to the thread topic, but I have been carrying on a conversation with basically the same bunch of people for several months now. We do go off on tangents now and then, which makes for a more varied and interesting discussion.
I think we all agree that e v o l u t i o n is false, and we have come to the conclusion that Intelligent Design is a fairly decent way to introduce an excellent scientific theory that will lead one to believe that God created heaven and earth. Just like He said in Genesis Chapter 1. So, nothing more to talk about in regards to the topic thread - cuz we figured it out already....so we talk about other stuff...equally as important. Why, before you know it, we'll have all the problems in the universe solved. Right here. How 'bout that!?
Good luck sounds too sarcastic, so I'll say do your best to avoid sounding insincere
Hopeless,
What sounds too sarcastic? What sounds insincere?
What sounds too sarcastic? What sounds insincere?
Saying Good luck sounded sarcastic so I changed it to Do your best so I wouldn't sound insincere... maybe that didn't need explaining but I feared it would be misheard
QUOTE
I think we all agree that e v o l u t i o n is false, and we have come to the conclusion that Intelligent Design is a fairly decent way to introduce an excellent scientific theory that will lead one to believe that God created heaven and earth.
Hi, how is Intelligent Design an excellent scientific theory?
Could you please find one scientific paper that has an experiment done to show/disprove Intelligent Design.
Can you please cite one part of Intelligent Design that leads to some type of scientific discovery? Can it make a single prediction?
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.