How smart are fish ?
Pszemol
of the fishtank with a mirror-foil. Just to cover the unpleasant view
behind of the tank... and to get some more light reflected back.
Today I let the fish in this new tank...
A pair of maroon clowns and hepatus tang get crazy seeing their
own reflection in the tank wall.
Now my title question: will they realize this is just a mirror
soon or they will continue to fight the other fish in the mirror?
How smart are they ?
It is difficult to take the foil off since it is in a tight space
between the tank and room wall... First day I turned off the lights
sooner and wonder what will the group advice be...
Should I go trought the trouble of removing the foil or the fish
will get used to this reflection soon ? If so, how soon will it be ?
Wayne Sallee
reflection, but will always have a suspicion that it might
be another fish on the other side.
Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets
Wa...@WaynesPets.com
Inabón Yunes
instead of handling difficult decisions.
I used to raise fighting chicken. They are territorial and will defend its
domain to the death, literally.
You see, they have no choice, they will respond to a stimuli in the same way
over and over and over again.
So, if they get a response "starter" the reaction will be the same.
In the case of fish, well, they are a couple of steps down from birds in the
evolutionary scale.
They will be triggered by the reflection and will respond in the same way
for ever regardless of self-injury. Remember, animals don't know death or
that their wounds are not going to heal.
I visited a friend with a similar issue with a fish but he liked the
aggressive reaction of the fish. Well, I visited him two years later and
the same fish was doing the same funny reaction after an illumination
trigger.
But don't worry, as soon as they acknowledge its new "neighbors" as
harmless, they will go around and invest their energy in other things. Yes
they will comeback again but will not stay there for long. In the other
hand, if they associate the other fish with the pain they felt after the
hit, lol, you better change backgrounds.
iy
"Pszemol" <Psz...@PolBox.com> wrote in message
news:e9u4bu...@poczta.onet.pl...
Wayne Sallee
Inabón Yunes wrote on 7/23/2006 12:50 AM:
> Fish are not intelligent at all, they don't need to be, they have instincts
> instead of handling difficult decisions.
Not true.
Fish are able to learn who feeds them, and who doesn't.
Able to learn what the fish food container looks like.
Able to recognize the fridge when someone opens the door,
and they will beg for food every time you open the fridge
if they are used to getting frozen food.
Able to learn to come to you when you call them.
And able to learn many other things.
> I used to raise fighting chicken. They are territorial and will defend its
> domain to the death, literally.
> You see, they have no choice, they will respond to a stimuli in the same way
> over and over and over again.
> So, if they get a response "starter" the reaction will be the same.
> In the case of fish, well, they are a couple of steps down from birds in the
> evolutionary scale.
> They will be triggered by the reflection and will respond in the same way
> for ever regardless of self-injury. Remember, animals don't know death or
> that their wounds are not going to heal.
Not true.
Fish know when they are dying.
> I visited a friend with a similar issue with a fish but he liked the
> aggressive reaction of the fish. Well, I visited him two years later and
> the same fish was doing the same funny reaction after an illumination
> trigger.
> But don't worry, as soon as they acknowledge its new "neighbors" as
> harmless, they will go around and invest their energy in other things. Yes
> they will comeback again but will not stay there for long. In the other
> hand, if they associate the other fish with the pain they felt after the
> hit, lol, you better change backgrounds.
> iy
>
Fish are a lot smarter than people give them credit for.
Wayne Sallee
> In the case of fish, well, they are a couple of steps down from birds in the
> evolutionary scale.
Evolution is a great for people that don't want to
acknowledge the reality of the Creator.
My computer evolved from a toaster oven.
I tried to make some toast the other day, but even though
the slots are of different sizes, I could not get a slice
of bread in there. Obviously, an inferior evolutionary
process. I'm sure it will become extinct soon.
Get a chain, and cut every other link. Throw out all of
the cut links. Take all of the intact links and arrange
them so that they look pretty. You will then have a good
working model of the theory of evolution.
Actually, evolution is easy to prove. Simply gather some
old bones from a variety of animals (your choice), and
some human bones, and put them together so that they look
half human, and then give it a name like Suzie.
Scientist have recently discovered a new class of
creatures down deep in the sea. They have classified them
in the zoowacko group. They have 2 heads and 3 eyes on
each head :-)
Zigg and Zagg, Martians from Venus (they were born on
Mars, but now live on Venus), did a study of the
evolutionary order on earth. They decided to first
doccument the order of evolvement of machines, since it
was what most interested them. It was quite interesting
reading, and learning how the different machines evolved
from each other, like cars, trucks, microwaves, television
sets, laptops, PDA's, watches, cranes, excetera. If you do
a search on the internet you might be able to find their
report :-)
They still have a few missing links to figure out. After
they get that study completely finished, they are going to
do their next study on animals and it's evolvement on the
great planet Earth. After both of those studies are
completed and proven, they are to decide "which came
first, the animals, or the machines?" Zigg and Zagg have
pritty-much decided that the machines came first since
they are more basic in construction than the animals, but
that has yet to be proven.
Pszemol
> Inabón Yunes wrote on 7/23/2006 12:50 AM:
>
>> In the case of fish, well, they are a couple of steps down from birds in the evolutionary scale.
>
> Evolution is a great for people that don't want to
> acknowledge the reality of the Creator.
Creationism is great or people that don't want to
acknowledge the fact they are alone in the Universe
and there is no God listening to their prayers :-)
> My computer evolved from a toaster oven.
>
> I tried to make some toast the other day, but even though the slots are of different sizes, I could not get a slice of bread in
> there. Obviously, an inferior evolutionary process. I'm sure it will become extinct soon.
No, it is not evolved from the toaster oven, Wayne...
That was quite a foolish example :-)
> Get a chain, and cut every other link. Throw out all of the cut links. Take all of the intact links and arrange them so that they
> look pretty. You will then have a good working model of the theory of evolution.
Only people who do not know evolution enough could
make such a comment.
> Actually, evolution is easy to prove. Simply gather some old bones from a variety of animals (your choice), and some human bones,
> and put them together so that they look half human, and then give it a name like Suzie.
Evolution theory gets new proofs every day with all the work
scientists are doing all over The World. The problem is
that you will not learn about these discoveries in church!
You need to read some real books to find out about them!
For some people, it is way too difficult to read science books,
so they settle for "easy answers" derived from "Holy Bible".
They do not explain anything this way - they just replace
missing knowledge with unable to be prooven fairy tales... LOL :-)
Every interesting question has only one answer in Creationism:
"God did it". This way you can explain everything, but you
will remain KNOWING NOTHING AT ALL.
> Scientist have recently discovered a new class of creatures down deep in the sea. They have classified them in the zoowacko group.
> They have 2 heads and 3 eyes on each head :-)
Oh, really ? I would like to read about them...
Throw some details, please.
Wayne Sallee
Pszemol wrote on 7/24/2006 11:25 AM:
>> Scientist have recently discovered a new class of creatures down deep
>> in the sea. They have classified them in the zoowacko group. They have
>> 2 heads and 3 eyes on each head :-)
>
> Oh, really ? I would like to read about them...
> Throw some details, please.
Notice the "zowacko" name :-) Obviously there are no
creatures with 2 heads and 3 eyes on each head. :-) There
are deformities some times, but they are not normal.
One thing that I find interesting, is that people that
believe in evolution think that there is less similarities
between people and animals than people that believe in
creation.
Pszemol
> One thing that I find interesting, is that people that
> believe in evolution think that there is less similarities
> between people and animals than people that believe in
> creation.
What are you talking about ? Where have you noticed this?
I find exactly opposite in my observations...
Christians believe only humans have souls - animals
are things you can kill and eat, people are "better"
than animals. Only people go to heaven, right ? :-)
The single thing Darvin said about similarities about
people to other primates created the most of his
enemies. People believing in God believe they are
special and significantly different from "beasts".
Scientists see much more similarities between humans
and other living beings than creationists.
rtk
> Not true.
> Fish know when they are dying.
>
>> I visited a friend with a similar issue with a fish but he liked the
>> aggressive reaction of the fish. Well, I visited him two years later
>> and the same fish was doing the same funny reaction after an
>> illumination trigger.
>> But don't worry, as soon as they acknowledge its new "neighbors" as
>> harmless, they will go around and invest their energy in other
>> things. Yes they will comeback again but will not stay there for
>> long. In the other hand, if they associate the other fish with the
>> pain they felt after the hit, lol, you better change backgrounds.
>> iy
>>
>
> Fish are a lot smarter than people give them credit for.
>
I agree with everything WS says. Unfortunately there seems
to be no profit to be made from subsidizing research on fish
intelligence, so there is minimum evidence of their learning
ability, aside from anecdotes. But there are plenty of
those. My fish know me, of course, especially the Cichlids
who hide from everyone else. Pond fish, saltwater, turtles,
everyone knows I'm food. They also know, I swear, who the
net is after and only that fish becomes truly evasive.
Anyone who says the fish don't know when they're dying has
never looked in their eyes and felt painfully called upon
and helpless. Granted I do some reading into what I see,
but my empathy is based on clear observation.
rtk
Wayne Sallee
instinct" is one example of what I am talking about.
Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets
Wa...@WaynesPets.com
atomweaver
Follow-up pointed to talk.origins
> Inabón Yunes wrote on 7/23/2006 12:50 AM:
>
>> In the case of fish, well, they are a couple of steps down from birds
>> in the evolutionary scale.
>
> Evolution is a great for people that don't want to
> acknowledge the reality of the Creator.
>
The small-minded are incapable of seeing that the two aren't mutually
exclusive. Congrats, Wayne, you're working hard to reduce the status of
the Almighty to that of a petty god of the gaps... I'm sure He's pleased
with your enthusiasm, if not your end result.
> My computer evolved from a toaster oven.
>
A statement of your fundamental misunderstanding of 'evolved'...
> I tried to make some toast the other day, but even though
> the slots are of different sizes, I could not get a slice
> of bread in there. Obviously, an inferior evolutionary
> process. I'm sure it will become extinct soon.
>
A statement of your fundamental misunderstanding of both 'toaster oven' and
'computer'...
> Get a chain, and cut every other link. Throw out all of
> the cut links. Take all of the intact links and arrange
> them so that they look pretty. You will then have a good
> working model of the theory of evolution.
>
No, you'd just have an inaccurate anecdote of your misunderstanding of
evolution, and perhaps the vague feeling that you're being clever.
Balance snipped, since it can be read here;
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aquaria.marine.reefs/msg/86afab43d63180d
0?dmode=source
How disappointingly unoriginal, Wayne...
Regards,
R. David Zopf
Atom Weaver
atomweaver
@WayneSallee.com:
> The idea that "fish don't think, but only react with
> instinct" is one example of what I am talking about.
>
Its telling that your example is at least as un-scientific as your own
Creationist view... Why would anyone associate this idea with
evolution?
Regards
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
Wilbur Slice
wrote:
>"Wayne Sallee" <Wa...@WayneSallee.com> wrote in message news:44C4D7F7...@WayneSallee.com...
>
>> Get a chain, and cut every other link. Throw out all of the cut links. Take all of the intact links and arrange them so that they
>> look pretty. You will then have a good working model of the theory of evolution.
>
>Only people who do not know evolution enough could
>make such a comment.
Actually, I think there is something to be said for his description.
Wayne clearly doesn't understand evolution, but I think he's stumbled
onto something.
The basic thing to understand is the part about "get a chain..." This
describes the fact of evolution - there IS a chain, and it does exist
in a specific sequence. (Actually, a "chain" is way too simplistic,
it's more of a gnarly viny bush or something, but the chain will
suffice for the simple conceptual model)
But the fossil record is incomplete. Fossils are extremely rare, and
for many organisms, they are never ever formed. For those organisms
that had bones and solid parts that would lend themselves to
fossilization, conditions must be JUST right for a fossil to be
formed. That's a very rare occurrence.
This is where the "cut every other link" comes in. We don't have
fossils of all the animals that ever existed (every link) - we only
have a few.
So we humans are left with what was obviously a chain of some sort,
and we have a certain number of links in that chain. This is where
the "arrange them" part comes in. We try to draw a view of that chain
as it actually existed, and place the links where they really go. It's
not Wayne's "so that they look pretty", but it's "so they make sense
and reflect the reality of evolutionary development."
Wayne Sallee
> Balance snipped, since it can be read here;
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aquaria.marine.reefs/msg/86afab43d63180d
> 0?dmode=source
>
> How disappointingly unoriginal, Wayne...
>
LOL what's that supposed to mean???
I'm one of a kind :-) hehehe
Pszemol
> The idea that "fish don't think, but only react with
> instinct" is one example of what I am talking about.
There are two kinds of an instinct, Wayne...
One - they are borned with, and the second one they can learn.
The second one is also called Pavlov instinct in the appreciation
of the work this scientists has done for the understanding animal behaviour.
Fish reaction to food is the first kind: they do not have to learn to eat.
Fish reacting to the fridge opening or seeing a person next to the tank
is the second kind - the same as the one Pavlov dogs developed an
salivation reflex for the sound of the bell. Do more reading here
http://www.es.flinders.edu.au/~mattom/science+society/lectures/lecture30.html
If you do a search on google with a keyword Pavlov and dog you
will find more interesting facts you could match with your fish...
Pszemol
> LOL what's that supposed to mean???
>
> I'm one of a kind :-) hehehe
I do not think your argument with toaster oven was an originally yours...
But anyway - is there any proof for evolution you would be willing
to accet as "convincing" you the theory works ? Or you just totaly reject
the theory on the basis of religion and your faith/believe in God ??
In the second case no proof, even the "in your face" one would change
your mind and the further discussion is simply mute.
Please let me know - we could then move on to more interesting stuff ;-)
Wayne Sallee
>
> I do not think your argument with toaster oven was an originally yours...
You are correct on that :-)
Wayne Sallee
of an organism to make a complex and specific response to
environmental stimuli without involving reason.
So someone decided to redefine the word? hehehe
I find it interesting that you are arguing in this
direction after your earlier argument about the anemone
fish and it's anemone.
Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets
Wa...@WaynesPets.com
tankdoc
"Wayne Sallee" <Wa...@WayneSallee.com> wrote in message
A 400 pound Marlin has a brain about 1/2 teaspoon in size, not a whole lot
of room for things like philosophy ( knowledge of death ) or creative
thinking. A fish has no knowledge of death, that should be obvious to
anyone.
Evolution is not a theory, or at least not a theory under much controversy
among the scientific community, the real theory that is kicked around is
natural selection as the primary method of evolution. The fact that drug
resistant bacteria evolve from a common source should be all anyone needs to
see to move evolution from theory to simple fact.
The fact that Chimps and Humans share about 98% of their DNA is a commonly
tossed about fact that can confuse people, the fact of the matter is that
almost all mammals share 98% of their DNA.
The topic is much more complicated than simple reading of headlines or blind
faith.
There is no real reason for evolution and "god theory" to be mutually
exclusive.
Jerry I.
- The Bible is my favorite work of fiction, hands down.
Inabón Yunes
When I was teaching biology in a CC, I knew better than to argue with lost
causes.
Just to give you an example of your lost cause here is a simple question;
When and where the fish told you all those things?
Now, here is a more complicated question;
Who told fish that they are going to die, God?
Fish are animals not humans like many people would like to think, you for
example.
They act as a response, they are able to learn a response to a stimuli, that
is not intelligence. As I type here and hit the X key, for example, the
computer writes that letter in a way that I can interpret it. Better yet,
if I combine the X with the CTRL key, it will perfom a different task.
Actually, if you use Word for example, it even completes the words for you
or correct your spelling if instructed...
Do you think my laptop is smart or just responding to a stimuli?
lets see!
iy
"Wayne Sallee" <Wa...@WayneSallee.com> wrote in message
Inabón Yunes
left in your gray matter.
iy
"Wayne Sallee" <Wa...@WayneSallee.com> wrote in message
Inabón Yunes
Who said that God existed?
Can you proof it? I can but I didn't need a bible for it...
BTW, this is an aquarists forum, take your ignorant and foolish theories to
another group full of people that believe in that.
iy
"Wayne Sallee" <Wa...@WayneSallee.com> wrote in message
Inabón Yunes
bathroom.
He has seen many time evolution in progress as you watch a larvae turning
into a crab. Better yet, a one cell organism becoming a human everytime a
woman gets pregnant.
iy
"Pszemol" <Psz...@PolBox.com> wrote in message
Pszemol
> Instinct: a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency
> of an organism to make a complex and specific response to
> environmental stimuli without involving reason.
>
> So someone decided to redefine the word? hehehe
No, no redefine... I should say there are two kinds of reflexes:
instincts (inheritable) and conditioned reflexes - these are
the ones you "learn" during the life...
Both kinds of reflexes have nothing to do with intelligence.
> I find it interesting that you are arguing in this
> direction after your earlier argument about the anemone
> fish and it's anemone.
My argument before had nothing to do with evolution...
Here I am reacting to your statements about creationism.
atomweaver
> atomweaver wrote on 7/24/2006 3:25 PM:
>> Balance snipped, since it can be read here;
>>
>>
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aquaria.marine.reefs/msg/86afab43d6
>> 3180d 0?dmode=source
>>
>> How disappointingly unoriginal, Wayne...
>>
>
> LOL what's that supposed to mean???
>
> I'm one of a kind :-) hehehe
>
> Wayne Sallee
> Wayne's Pets
> Wa...@WaynesPets.com
Errmm. It means I'm really disappointed in how unoriginal your post
was.
I'll be the first to recognize and value your opinion on matters
related to fishkeeping. One would think that you might learn from
seeing the results of misguided information wrt reefkeeping, that
posting from ignorance is never a Good Thing(tm). I guess not... you
know almost nothing about ToE, but still post about it, without regard
to the impact of your ignorance.
I'm also disappointed in a lot of aspects of what you're posting
about. Creationism is an aspect of overzealous conservatism. Its a
petty hi-jacking of Christianity by small-minded folk, who undermine
Christian faith by trivializing the Bible and its teachings with an
overly-literal interpretation, in most instances for political, rather
than spiritual, ends. What a lame duck to align yourself with, Wayne...
I can't think of another single idea which so stupidly undermine both
valid scientific education _and_ the very religion which it claims to be
a proponent of.
> I'm one of a kind :-) hehehe
>
Sadly, on this matter, you're all too common.
Pszemol
> Pszemol wrote on 7/24/2006 6:08 PM:
>>
>> I do not think your argument with toaster oven was an originally yours...
>
> You are correct on that :-)
Any response to my question ?
Or you prefer to leave it unanswered ?
Wayne Sallee
> Fish reacting to the fridge opening or seeing a person next to the tank
> is the second kind - the same as the one Pavlov dogs developed an
> salivation reflex for the sound of the bell. Do more reading here
> http://www.es.flinders.edu.au/~mattom/science+society/lectures/lecture30.html
People do that, hence the phrase "mouth watering".
Wayne Sallee
> and there is no God listening to their prayers :-)
>
You don't even believe that.
Wayne Sallee
> domain to the death, literally.
> You see, they have no choice, they will respond to a stimuli in the same way
> over and over and over again.
> So, if they get a response "starter" the reaction will be the same.
People will do that :-)
And dogs have been raised for that, but dogs can't think
for themselves can they :-) hehehe
Wayne Sallee
>
> I'm also disappointed in a lot of aspects of what you're posting
> about. Creationism is an aspect of overzealous conservatism. Its a
> petty hi-jacking of Christianity by small-minded folk, who undermine
> Christian faith by trivializing the Bible and its teachings with an
> overly-literal interpretation, in most instances for political, rather
> than spiritual, ends. What a lame duck to align yourself with, Wayne...
> I can't think of another single idea which so stupidly undermine both
> valid scientific education _and_ the very religion which it claims to be
> a proponent of.
LOL you crack me up.
Wayne Sallee
Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets
Wa...@WaynesPets.com
RicSeyler
atomweaver wrote:
>
> Creationism is an aspect of overzealous conservatism. Its a
>petty hi-jacking of Christianity by small-minded folk, who undermine
>Christian faith by trivializing the Bible and its teachings with an
>overly-literal interpretation, in most instances for political, rather
>than spiritual, ends.
>I can't think of another single idea which so stupidly undermine both
>valid scientific education _and_ the very religion which it claims to be
>a proponent of.
>
>
>
Stands Clapping <well said, well put>
--
Ric Seyler
Online Racing: RicSeyler
GPL Handicap 6.35
rics...@SPAMgulf.net
http://www.pcola.gulf.net/~ricseyler
remove –SPAM- from email address
--------------------------------------
"Homer no function beer well without."
- H.J. Simpson
rtk
>
>
> atomweaver wrote:
>
>>
>> Creationism is an aspect of overzealous conservatism. Its a petty
>> hi-jacking of Christianity by small-minded folk, who undermine
>> Christian faith by trivializing the Bible and its teachings with an
>> overly-literal interpretation, in most instances for political, rather
>> than spiritual, ends. I can't think of another single idea which so
>> stupidly undermine both valid scientific education _and_ the very
>> religion which it claims to be a proponent of.
>>
>>
> Stands Clapping <well said, well put>
>
The marvel of biblical writing is that it presents highly
abstract ideas in folkloric form which can be understood by
the simplest minds. The more perceptive reader who is
capable of reading more deeply can easily see through the
myths to the more profound thoughts. It's not at all
surprising if those who require literal definition deny
there is an idea beneath it. It's to be expected. If the
authors wrote in the philosophical style their subject
called for, it would not be read by what is likely their
target audience.
rtk
Wayne Sallee
goldfish bowl telling a person with a successful reef tank
that they are killing their corals.
Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets
Wa...@WaynesPets.com
Pszemol
> What question?
The one you cut off the bottom of my previous message.
Pszemol
The point was that the dog reflex was the result of the BELL ringing.
Not the result of seeing, smelling or eating the food...
Pszemol
> Pszemol wrote on 7/24/2006 11:25 AM:
>> the fact they are alone in the Universe
>> and there is no God listening to their prayers :-)
>
> You don't even believe that.
I really do. Do you want to talk about it ?
Inabón Yunes
You see, go to church to talk about this, is the only place they'll belief
you blindfolded.
Here, hehehe, well, you can't take anymore beating.
When I first entered this NG I was under the impression that you knew a
little about something, at this point I am not sure how you made it thru
high school.
You see, there is a whole world outthere that sees the bible for what it is
worst. A bunch of papers translated from language to language that are most
likely so transformed that it says the opposite of what they were intended.
For example, the bible says that the Israelites were the chosen people,
apparently they were the chosen ones alright but to be punish by God for
eternity.
For 5,000 years their people had done nothing but suffer. Even today a few
descendants of David died at the hands of the descendants of Goliath. See,
they were the chosen people to get screwed over millennia...
Do you still belief LITERALLY in the bible?
Evolution rules dude! Just watch a zygote, unicellular, transform in 9
months into a human being.
iy
"Wayne Sallee" <Wa...@WayneSallee.com> wrote in message
news:44C69E4D...@WayneSallee.com...
atomweaver
@WayneSallee.com:
> No, not really well put at all. It's like a person with a
> goldfish bowl telling a person with a successful reef tank
> that they are killing their corals.
>
Can you express your ideas on these subjects in any form other than
analogy, anecdote, and allegory?
Regardless, your opinion is in the minority (wrt both the science, and
the religion).
sectarian links
http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/clergy_project.htm
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM
And who among the religious embrace literal Creationism most fully? Two
groups; a minority fraction of the evangelical right in the US, and some
varieties of Islamic extremists...
Comfortable with your bedfellows, Wayne?
The scientific community's support for evolution is universal (we
wouldn't have the fields of modern medicine and genetics without it...
Are you getting a flu vaccine this year, Wayne? If so, thanks for your
support of ToE... your dollars and actions speak far more than your
anecdotes do). I'll only leave a pair of links for that angle. I think
the hundreds of thousands of peer-reviewed evolution-related articles in
various scientific journals could also be considered support for ToE;
http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/
and from my own field;
http://www.chemistry.org/portal/a/c/s/1/feature_pol.html?
id=c373e904891eddda8f6a17245d830100
Regards,
DaveZ
Wilbur Slice
<InabónYu...@Naboria.com> wrote:
>For God's sake Wayne, you are taking fire from everywhere dude!
>You see, go to church to talk about this, is the only place they'll belief
>you blindfolded.
>Here, hehehe, well, you can't take anymore beating.
>When I first entered this NG I was under the impression that you knew a
>little about something, at this point I am not sure how you made it thru
>high school.
>You see, there is a whole world outthere that sees the bible for what it is
>worst. A bunch of papers translated from language to language that are most
>likely so transformed that it says the opposite of what they were intended.
>For example, the bible says that the Israelites were the chosen people,
>apparently they were the chosen ones alright but to be punish by God for
>eternity.
>For 5,000 years their people had done nothing but suffer. Even today a few
>descendants of David died at the hands of the descendants of Goliath. See,
>they were the chosen people to get screwed over millennia...
>Do you still belief LITERALLY in the bible?
>Evolution rules dude! Just watch a zygote, unicellular, transform in 9
>months into a human being.
Ummm... I am an evolutionist, to be sure. Creationism is simple
mided ignorant foolishness. But the development of a zygote into a
human being is *not* evolution. Has nothing to do with it.
Wayne Sallee
Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets
Wa...@WaynesPets.com
Wayne Sallee
many years on the farm.
Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets
Wa...@WaynesPets.com
Wayne Sallee
> You see, there is a whole world outthere that sees the bible for what it is
> worst. A bunch of papers translated from language to language that are most
> likely so transformed that it says the opposite of what they were intended.
Don't believe everything your professors told you. Most
translations go back to the original documents.
Wayne Sallee
> The scientific community's support for evolution is universal (we
> wouldn't have the fields of modern medicine and genetics without it...
> Are you getting a flu vaccine this year, Wayne? If so, thanks for your
> support of ToE... your dollars and actions speak far more than your
> anecdotes do). I'll only leave a pair of links for that angle. I think
> the hundreds of thousands of peer-reviewed evolution-related articles in
> various scientific journals could also be considered support for ToE;
>
The fact that we are similar to animals has helped modern
medicine, not the theory of evolution.
atomweaver
How so?
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
Wayne Sallee
> Regardless, your opinion is in the minority (wrt both the science, and
> the religion).
hehe the old excuse "Everybody's doing it" (so it must be
right).
Wayne Sallee
similarities helped modern medicine?
Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets
Wa...@WaynesPets.com
atomweaver
@WayneSallee.com:
> atomweaver wrote on 7/27/2006 11:18 AM:
>>> Wayne Sallee wrote:
>>> The fact that we are similar to animals has helped modern
>>> medicine, not the theory of evolution.
>>>
>>
>> How so?
>>
>> DaveZ
>> Atom Weaver
>
> How so what? how so are we similar, or how so has our
> similarities helped modern medicine?
>
> Wayne Sallee
> Wayne's Pets
> Wa...@WaynesPets.com
>
>
How does the fact that we are similar to animals _not_ help the theory of
evolution?
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
atomweaver
@WayneSallee.com:
> atomweaver wrote on 7/26/2006 9:19 AM:
>
>> Regardless, your opinion is in the minority (wrt both the science, and
>> the religion).
>
> hehe the old excuse "Everybody's doing it" (so it must be
> right).
>
Nah, just pointing out how your only peers in the matter are fringe kooks,
wierdos, and extremists of various shades. Its the character of who is
_not_ accepting ToE which should concern you.
For science, It (ToE) is "right", only because it works so incredibly
well...
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
Wayne Sallee
starting point, but they don't prove anything, no more
than the similarities in machines and computers prove that
they evolved from each other. Look at things in the reef,
many things at a casual observance from a novice would
think that they were the same, when a closer look shows
them to be very different, and some things that look very
different are actually more similar than those that look
similar.
If you were a Martian doing a study on how machines
evolved from one another, some of the order of how you
would say they evolved would be in the same order that
they were created, but some of the things would be in no
way the order that they were created.
Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets
Wa...@WaynesPets.com
Wayne Sallee
Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets
Wa...@WaynesPets.com
RicSeyler
after person it never comes out the same
at the end of game.
Wayne Sallee wrote:
Wilbur Slice
wrote:
And why are we similar to animals?
(hint: learn something about evolution)
LOL!
Wayne Sallee
translations would vary greatly, and they would vary
greatly over the years. But that is not the case.
Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets
Wa...@WaynesPets.com
Wayne Sallee
> after person it never comes out the same
> at the end of game.
Yea, by the time it got to me, it would be senseless, so I
always created a new statement, and passed it on then
everybody would be cracking up wondering how it go to that
:-) hehehe
And fish are a lot smarter than people give them credit for.
atomweaver
> The similarities are something to look at, and are a good
> starting point, but they don't prove anything, no more
> than the similarities in machines and computers prove that
> they evolved from each other.
But unlike machines, the fact that living things have heritable traits
is common knowledge (you like like your parent's right? So does most
everyone, and every thing, else), and here is why your machine analogy
fails so miserably and obviously. DNA is the vehicle by which heritable
traits are pssed from one living organism to its offspring (a feature
which machines obviusly lack).
Taxonomy by physical similarities was a common practice of early
scientists (they had little else to go on), and still has value today,
inasmuch as living things with similar physical characteristics are
likely (not guaranteed, see convergent evolution) to be somehow related.
But you are right, proof does not come from a single example of physical
similarity. Fortunately, commonality of genetic material serves to
_heavily_ reinforce with additional evidence that which was previously
posited upon appearance alone.
> Look at things in the reef,
> many things at a casual observance from a novice would
> think that they were the same, when a closer look shows
> them to be very different, and some things that look very
> different are actually more similar than those that look
> similar.
>
This shows that a novice simply doesn't know what he's looking for.
Hell, even experienced professionals will adjust taxonomies frequently,
on the basis of additional gathered evidence. That's a large part of
the value of scientific theory over dogmatic scripture. This month's
TFH has an article on exactly how such evidence was used to assign the
chanchito (sp?) a different species name, IIRC. One small improvement
to the theory... All of this merely means that the task of properly
tracking heritable traits is a complex one, not that the task is
impossible (in fact, genetics makes the taks much easier and more
accurate)
More ToE at work;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2005/08/06/AR2005080600849.html
Can you link me to any recent research that Creationists have done, to
find support for their various assertions in the physical world
(evidence in _support_ of their claims, not just attempts to discredit
evolution)?
> If you were a Martian doing a study on how machines
> evolved from one another, some of the order of how you
> would say they evolved would be in the same order that
> they were created, but some of the things would be in no
> way the order that they were created.
>
If I were a Martian doing such a study, I would be doing it with the
pre-supposition that machines had the ability to pass on heritable
traits to one another, and thus would be a very stupid Martian.
If I were an Earthling doing the same study on _living_ things, which I
had _observed_ to pass on heritable traits, I would be going about
things in a much more intelligent way. I'd probably also be searching
for the mechanism by which those traits are passed along. Saaay...
those Earthlings are pretty smart critters (well, some of them,
anyways).
Regards,
DaveZ
Wayne Sallee
> But unlike machines, the fact that living things have heritable traits
> is common knowledge (you like like your parent's right? So does most
> everyone, and every thing, else), and here is why your machine analogy
> fails so miserably and obviously. DNA is the vehicle by which heritable
> traits are pssed from one living organism to its offspring (a feature
> which machines obviusly lack).
Good point, DNA tells everything about the creature, it is
the instructions for the cells, on how to grow, and
everything else. It's like with computer programing, I
prefer assembly language/machine language, because machine
language is the only language that the computer chip
understands. To me, programing in machine language, is
like changing the DNA of a fish, while programing in other
languages is like breeding the fish to get the
characteristics you want. DNA has done wonders in the
criminal justis system, and in science, it still does not
prove that one creature evolved from another any more than
if I write a computer program, and then write another
computer program using much of the same code.
atomweaver
> DNA has done wonders in the
> criminal justis system, and in science, it still does not
> prove that one creature evolved from another any more than
> if I write a computer program, and then write another
> computer program using much of the same code.
Patently false. Myriad examples of contemporary speciation exist;
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
speciation examples in section 5.0
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
Most all can be verified by documented alterations in genetic material...
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
Wayne Sallee
them the way you want them in color and fin pattern, but
you can only go so far, and you start running into
problems with defects such as sterility.
There is some cross breeding that people can do, but again
there are limits, and often sterility.
It's like there's a wall that keeps you from going too far.
Everything has it's limits.
Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets
Wa...@WaynesPets.com
atomweaver
> You can take guppies or other fish, and breed them to get
> them the way you want them in color and fin pattern, but
> you can only go so far, and you start running into
> problems with defects such as sterility.
>
We talked about aquarium breeders before, Wayne. They don't compare
at all to strains in nature.
1. How wide is a breeder's selection of genetic stock, as compared to
that of nature? If the richest breeder in the world put all of his
resources into one common fish variety (sya, guppies, per your example),
he couldn't get get one millionth of the variety of genetic stock
available in nature...
2. What impact does the artificial selection process of the breeder
have on the longevity of that genetic stock, as compared to the
selection process outlined by natural selection? As you yourself
pointed out above, breeders don't select for the species most fit to
survive to a reproductive age (and then let them breed), they cull based
on colorforms, size, finnage, etc, call them "sellable" traits, and work
to "fix" those sellable traits, by cross and inter-breeding lines.
Thats not the same process as Dear ol' Mother Nature, at all.
Comparisons of the whole of nature to the experience of aquarium
breeders fails... This was a _much_ better attempt than some
allegorical story about Martian scientists, though!!! Improvement,
thanks Wayne... :-)
> There is some cross breeding that people can do, but again
> there are limits, and often sterility.
>
> It's like there's a wall that keeps you from going too far.
>
> Everything has it's limits.
>
ToE operates within the limits that Earth provides, easily. Time and
space are on its side. Tthe Earth is not 10,000 years old, nor is it
all that small... Life on Earth has had about 3.5 billion years to do
the work set out for it, and an incredible span of geography in which to
do it.
Regards,
DaveZ
Wayne Sallee
atomweaver wrote on 7/27/2006 3:39 PM:
> Wayne Sallee <Wa...@WayneSallee.com> wrote in
> news:44C9041D...@WayneSallee.com:
>
>> You can take guppies or other fish, and breed them to get
>> them the way you want them in color and fin pattern, but
>> you can only go so far, and you start running into
>> problems with defects such as sterility.
>>
> We talked about aquarium breeders before, Wayne. They don't compare
> at all to strains in nature.
>
> 1. How wide is a breeder's selection of genetic stock, as compared to
> that of nature? If the richest breeder in the world put all of his
> resources into one common fish variety (sya, guppies, per your example),
> he couldn't get get one millionth of the variety of genetic stock
> available in nature...
Not true, many creatures can be raised in such numbers
that they would never come in contact with in the wild.
>
> 2. What impact does the artificial selection process of the breeder
> have on the longevity of that genetic stock, as compared to the
> selection process outlined by natural selection? As you yourself
> pointed out above, breeders don't select for the species most fit to
> survive to a reproductive age (and then let them breed), they cull based
> on colorforms, size, finnage, etc, call them "sellable" traits, and work
> to "fix" those sellable traits, by cross and inter-breeding lines.
> Thats not the same process as Dear ol' Mother Nature, at all.
Sure it is, it's survival of the fittest. Those that are
not as fit get sold to pet stores.
Wayne Sallee
Who is "Mother Nature"?
RicSeyler
generations....
Wayne Sallee wrote:
> Most translations go back to the original documents.
> If what you say was true, then the many different translations would
> vary greatly, and they would vary greatly over the years. But that is
> not the case.
>
> Wayne Sallee
> Wayne's Pets
> Wa...@WaynesPets.com
>
>
>
>>
--
Inabón Yunes
possible, that we can see it everyday...
Then again, what is evolution?
Because humans and all animals for that matter come from a unicellular
organism is why our development include that fact.
While embryon development is not evolution, it exists because evolution
happened.
iy
"Wilbur Slice" <wil...@wilburslice.com> wrote in message
news:ritec2pup3msbg1g8...@4ax.com...
Inabón Yunes
Where is the original document?
iy
"Wayne Sallee" <Wa...@WayneSallee.com> wrote in message
news:44C8D4E9...@WayneSallee.com...
Inabón Yunes
it.
Where are the original documents?
iy
"Wayne Sallee" <Wa...@WayneSallee.com> wrote in message
Inabón Yunes
enough to try to bring reason to an ignorant christian republican.
You guys make up the lowest class of the American society. In the future,
our descendants are going to make jokes of people that use to say things
like the ones you say.
Yeap! in the same way we laugh when read about Europeans threatening to
kill Gallileo for saying that the sun, not the Earth, was the center of our
solar system. In the same way in a few hundred years, people are going to
laugh at those that belief in creationism.
I give up!
iy
"Wayne Sallee" <Wa...@WayneSallee.com> wrote in message
news:44C8E3...@WayneSallee.com...
RubenD
FISH ARE SMARTER THAN THE PEOPLE WRITING IN THESE POSTINGS, WHO BELIEVE
THEY KNOW EVERYTHING BUT HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO.
THIS THREAD IS NOTHING BUT A P'SING CONTEST WHICH EVERYBODY LOST AT START.
FOR CRYING ALOUD STOP THE NONSENSE AND FOCUS ON THE ACTUAL NEWSGROUP:
FISH.
PLEASE, DON'T BOTHER REPLYING UNLESS YOU ARE A FISH.
"Pszemol" <Psz...@PolBox.com> wrote in message
news:e9u4bu...@poczta.onet.pl...
> I have a problem... in my huge wisom I have covered a side wall
> of the fishtank with a mirror-foil. Just to cover the unpleasant view
> behind of the tank... and to get some more light reflected back.
> Today I let the fish in this new tank...
>
> A pair of maroon clowns and hepatus tang get crazy seeing their
> own reflection in the tank wall.
>
> Now my title question: will they realize this is just a mirror
> soon or they will continue to fight the other fish in the mirror?
> How smart are they ?
>
> It is difficult to take the foil off since it is in a tight space
> between the tank and room wall... First day I turned off the lights
> sooner and wonder what will the group advice be...
> Should I go trought the trouble of removing the foil or the fish
> will get used to this reflection soon ? If so, how soon will it be ?
Pszemol
> I HAVE YOUR ANSWER.
>
> FISH ARE SMARTER THAN THE PEOPLE WRITING IN THESE POSTINGS, WHO BELIEVE
> THEY KNOW EVERYTHING BUT HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO.
>
> THIS THREAD IS NOTHING BUT A P'SING CONTEST WHICH EVERYBODY LOST AT START.
>
> FOR CRYING ALOUD STOP THE NONSENSE AND FOCUS ON THE ACTUAL NEWSGROUP:
>
> FISH.
>
>
> PLEASE, DON'T BOTHER REPLYING UNLESS YOU ARE A FISH.
Your Outlook Express has a magical function called "Ignore thread".
You can use it for threads you are not interested in...
Do it, instead trying to influence what we want to do here, ok? :-)
Pszemol
> Most translations go back to the original documents.
It is not true. I bet many european languages like
German, English, French were translated from the
Latin version, not from the original Hebrew/Aramaic...
And even so - each translating person/team will
have different "flavor" added to the translation...
It is impossible to translate word-to-word from
one language to another, especially so different
languages as English and Hebrew...
Do an experiment:
Try to do modern text translation from English to German,
hire two different translators, then get two Germant versions
of the same English text and compare them word-by-word.
I bet they will be different. Then hire another two translators
and ask them to translate these two German copies back
to English - you will be amazed what will you do in return.
> If what you say was true, then the many different
> translations would vary greatly, and they would vary
> greatly over the years. But that is not the case.
They DO vary greatly.
Pszemol
"Wayne Sallee" <Wa...@WayneSallee.com> wrote in message news:44C8D416...@WayneSallee.com...
> What question?
>
> Wayne Sallee
> Wayne's Pets
> Wa...@WaynesPets.com
>
>
> Pszemol wrote on 7/25/2006 9:37 PM:
>> "Wayne Sallee" <Wa...@WayneSallee.com> wrote in message
>> news:44C63BE7...@WayneSallee.com...
>>> What question?
>>
>> The one you cut off the bottom of my previous message.
Pszemol
> Nothing new about that. People have been doing that for
> many years on the farm.
So now compare this to your fish recognising the fridge opening.
Wayne Sallee
> This one: news:ea2urc...@poczta.onet.pl...
I'm going to assume that you don't know what you are typing.
Pszemol
> Pszemol wrote on 7/27/2006 2:42 PM:
>> This one: news:ea2urc...@poczta.onet.pl...
>
> I'm going to assume that you don't know what you are typing.
Why? Link did not work for you ?
Wayne Sallee
and even if I did, it still might not do anything
productive. It did add a stupid additional nonoperational
account that I had to delete to get it out of my way,
thank you :-)
Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets
Wa...@WaynesPets.com
Pszemol
> hehe nope, I don't subscribe to that news group server,
> and even if I did, it still might not do anything
> productive. It did add a stupid additional nonoperational
> account that I had to delete to get it out of my way,
> thank you :-)
Looks like you Thunderbird does not understand proper
links to the newsgroups articles (the link was to the article
on you DEFAULT server not to the server itself).
Try this then: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aquaria.marine.reefs/msg/d8d2454f6138af6d
Wayne Sallee
newsgroup server that you are using.
Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets
Wa...@WaynesPets.com
Pszemol
You are incorrect again, but this is not the point of
this conversation.
Are you going to answer my question or you pass ?
Wayne Sallee
old for the newsgroup.
Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets
Wa...@WaynesPets.com
Inabón Yunes
The "originals" were actually written in Greek which, at the time, was the
official written language. Or they use they Greek alphabets.
Remember, Paul to mention one, was a Roman...
iy
"Pszemol" <Psz...@PolBox.com> wrote in message
Inabón Yunes
iy
"RubenD" <samo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:TPbyg.12772$2v....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
Boomer
Here is my take on it. . I don't "believe" either but if God or Jesus landed on the
shores of Lake Superior, where I live, I would be down there waving my hands :LOL
--
Boomer
If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up
Former US Army Bomb Technician (EOD)
Member; IABTI, NATEODA, WEODF, ISEE & IPS
Want to talk chemistry ? The Reef Chemistry Forum
http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/index.php
Want to See More ! The Coral Realm
http://www.coralrealm.com
billyguy68
emails are worthless. I don't want to read a bunch of name calling and
pointless argueing. Is there someway I can filter these posting's to
only see the one's that are on the topic of the group -Aquariums???
Wayne Sallee
newsgroups?
Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets
Wa...@WaynesPets.com
Wayne Sallee
Pszemol
> I beginning to think that fish are smarter than all you guys arguing :-) God , no God.
>
> Here is my take on it. . I don't "believe" either but if God or Jesus landed on the
> shores of Lake Superior, where I live, I would be down there waving my hands :LOL
Really? How would you recognise him/her ? ;-)
Boomer
--
Boomer
If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up
Former US Army Bomb Technician (EOD)
Member; IABTI, NATEODA, WEODF, ISEE & IPS
Want to talk chemistry ? The Reef Chemistry Forum
http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/index.php
Want to See More ! The Coral Realm
http://www.coralrealm.com
"Pszemol" <Psz...@PolBox.com> wrote in message news:eafq7d...@poczta.onet.pl...
: "Boomer" <wcw...@nospamchartermi.net> wrote in message
Pszemol
> All of this has NOTHING to do with my reef aquarium. My daily digest
> emails are worthless. I don't want to read a bunch of name calling and
> pointless argueing. Is there someway I can filter these posting's to
> only see the one's that are on the topic of the group -Aquariums???
Do you expect a filter to be able to determine if the posting is
on the subject of the aquariums or not ? Good luck with that idea...
Deb Hadford
Man, I thought this thread was going to be about smart fish, because I
know mine are smarter than yours !
And you nuts might have apes in your family tree, but not this
gal.....;-)
Pszemol
>
> Man, I thought this thread was going to be about smart fish, because I
> know mine are smarter than yours !
How can you know this ? :-) Tell me about your fish...
> And you nuts might have apes in your family tree, but not this
> gal.....;-)
ToE does not say we, humans, have apes in family tree
but that we, humans and apes "have a common ancestor".
This is quite a big of a difference but many people do
a mistake like you have done :-)
RicSeyler
before they were written down. Hence the "telephone game" syndrome
that could occur.
Inabón Yunes wrote:
>It gets even worst!
>The "originals" were actually written in Greek which, at the time, was the
>official written language. Or they use they Greek alphabets.
>Remember, Paul to mention one, was a Roman...
>iy
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Ric Seyler
Online Racing: RicSeyler
GPL Handicap 6.35
rics...@SPAMgulf.net
http://www.pcola.gulf.net/~ricseyler
remove –SPAM- from email address
--------------------------------------
"Homer no function beer well without."
- H.J. Simpson
RicSeyler
He teed that one up right up for ya, huh! :-)
Boomer wrote:
>Well, that should be obvious, he/she would be walking on water :-)
>
>
>
--
Inabón Yunes
There is always someone, like you for example, that try to keep it alive.
You and any human for that matter, is only 2% of DNA away from any ape.
That means that in your family tree THERE ARE APES, like it or not. Take
all the DNA that you share with apes and there is nothing left from you. I
take that back, you'll have ankles and feet left. Maybe a little less furr
or maybe a little less gray matter.
iy
"Deb Hadford" <d.ha...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:1154284908....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
Inabón Yunes
the time changed those writings to their liking and eliminated crucial
information to fit the beliefs of that church. They even changed the 10
Commandments. Those are the bibles that protestants used later.
iy
"RicSeyler" <rics...@SPAMgulf.net> wrote in message
news:l%pzg.28409$ZH1....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
Wayne Sallee
Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets
Wa...@WaynesPets.com
atomw...@sbcglobal.net
Wayne Sallee wrote:
> atomweaver wrote on 7/27/2006 3:39 PM:
> > Wayne Sallee <Wa...@WayneSallee.com> wrote in
> >
> >> You can take guppies or other fish, and breed them to get
> >> them the way you want them in color and fin pattern, but
> >> you can only go so far, and you start running into
> >> problems with defects such as sterility.
> >>
> > We talked about aquarium breeders before, Wayne. They don't compare
> > at all to strains in nature.
> >
> > 1. How wide is a breeder's selection of genetic stock, as compared to
> > that of nature? If the richest breeder in the world put all of his
> > resources into one common fish variety (sya, guppies, per your example),
> > he couldn't get get one millionth of the variety of genetic stock
> > available in nature...
>
> Not true, many creatures can be raised in such numbers
> that they would never come in contact with in the wild.
>
Fish breeders can be prolific, but again, it all starts with a limited
number of gene strains.
When it doesn't (say, with the betta breeders in Southeast Asia)
problems of sterility or whatnot are lessened (but still present, again
because a fish breeder isn't selecitng fish naturally, but rather
artificially.)
> >
> > 2. What impact does the artificial selection process of the breeder
> > have on the longevity of that genetic stock, as compared to the
> > selection process outlined by natural selection? As you yourself
> > pointed out above, breeders don't select for the species most fit to
> > survive to a reproductive age (and then let them breed), they cull based
> > on colorforms, size, finnage, etc, call them "sellable" traits, and work
> > to "fix" those sellable traits, by cross and inter-breeding lines.
> > Thats not the same process as Dear ol' Mother Nature, at all.
>
> Sure it is, it's survival of the fittest.
It is not. Again, you show a fundamental misunderstanding of ToE by
natural selection (...actually by this point, I'm becoming convinced
that you're being deliberately obtuse. But if you want to keep serving
up softballs like this, I'll keep playing the role of Big Papi.)
"Survival of the fittest" is the scientific equivalent of a TV
soundbite, and your understanding of it fails to go any deeper than
this. Its "those most fit to reproduce" which are selected for in
nature. Man (in the form of a fish breeder, in our example) bypasses
that mechanism, and substitutes it with his own set of criteria.
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
(back from a four-day weekend sea-side. Missed me, didn't you Wayne?
;-)
Inabón Yunes
Did the catholic popes change the bible? yes
Did the catholic popes create the current calendar? yes
Did the catholic popes discart books written by those who knew Jesus? yes
Did the catholic popes change the first commandment? yes
Whatever they did to the bible is hidden in the Vatican tunnels.
Those versions of the New Testament are forever changed. They couldn't
change the Old Testament because it was controlled by the Jews. But the New
Testament is another story. Every single christian during that time was
catholic and took their word for it.
Lucky for guys that belief in the bible as the word of God the Dead Sea
Scrools were found and tell of a different story.
iy
"Wayne Sallee" <Wa...@WayneSallee.com> wrote in message
Wayne Sallee
Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets
Wa...@WaynesPets.com
Inabón Yunes
was right.
Coming from you is an acceptance!
It is troublesome for your narrow mind but, guess what?
The whole word knows it. I guess you are in the same boat with the Taliban.
iy
"Wayne Sallee" <Wa...@WayneSallee.com> wrote in message
Pszemol
> I understand, that is the same answer that the clergy gave Galileo and he was right.
> Coming from you is an acceptance!
> It is troublesome for your narrow mind but, guess what?
> The whole word knows it. I guess you are in the same boat with the Taliban.
> iy
You are rambling :-)
This is what Wayne told me, he will tell you the same thing soon :-))