Intelligent Falling
h...@nospam.com
Theory
August 17, 2005 | Issue 41·33
KANSAS CITY, KS-As the debate over the teaching of evolution in
public schools continues, a new controversy over the science
curriculum
arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the
Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that
the
long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it
with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.
Rev. Gabriel Burdett (left) explains Intelligent Falling.
"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational
force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is
pushing
them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education,
applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.
Burdett added: "Gravity-which is taught to our children as a law-is
founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual
force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force.
Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend
upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in
vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."
Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of
evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal
interpretation of the Bible.
According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the
International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's
Word
For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by
secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how
Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of
Paradise.
The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other
Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school
curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They
insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from
schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so
they can make an informed decision."
"We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids," Burdett
said.
Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories
used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally
consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's
ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum
mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that
gravity is a theory in crisis.
"Let's take a look at the evidence," said ECFR senior fellow Gregory
Lunsden."In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, 'And if the blind lead the
blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' He says nothing about some
gravity making them fall-just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7,
we read, 'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly
upwards.' If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly
upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious
intelligence governs all falling."
Critics of Intelligent Falling point out that gravity is a provable
law
based on empirical observations of natural phenomena. Evangelical
physicists, however, insist that there is no conflict between Newton's
mathematics and Holy Scripture.
"Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein's general
relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world," said Dr. Ellen
Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with
the Kansan Youth Ministry. "They've been trying to do it for the
better
part of a century now, and despite all their empirical observation and
carefully compiled data, they still don't know how."
"Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation
is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists
need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just
secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.'"
Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides
an elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics.
"Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the
'electromagnetic force,' the 'weak nuclear force,' the 'strong nuclear
force,' and so-called 'force of gravity,'" Burdett said. "And they
tilt
their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But readers
of the Bible have already known for millennia what this one, unified
force is: His name is Jesus."
----------------------
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512
Don Wagner
>Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling'
>Theory
>August 17, 2005 | Issue 41·33
Now that was some funny assed shit! Good deal, man.
--Don--
I made allies in Heaven
I made comrades in Hell
~ Jim Carroll
Strider
mike...@yahoo.com
It would be even funnier if it wasn't so sad...;>P
<shakes head>
Mike
Rabid Weasel
You saw the attribution, right?
Peace favor your sword (IH),
Kirk
Grey Mouser West
How can a parody be sad?
h...@nospam.com
<lawson@NO20035SPAM+dayton.net> wrote:
It's far more serious than you would like to think. As the
fundamentalists take over, they will ban anything that does not adhere
to their religious principles. If they can deny evolution, they can
deny gravity for all the same reaons. Just think, though, what this
will mean to atheists. If gravity is god pushing us down, then all
you need do is NOT believe, AND YOU WILL NEVER FALL DOWN ! Just think
of it, atheist Judoka will triumph, because they can never be thrown!
Atheists kids will never get hurt falling from their bicycles or from
a tree. I mean, think of the possibilities ! All you need do is not
believe and you can FLY ! I mean, after all, it worked for the
fundies. They denied evolution so they quit evolving, and look what
we have now. So let's all hear it for Intelligent Design AND
Intelligent falling. It gives us dumb fundies and flying atheists!
Hal
A badger in the hand is worth two in the bush..
the washroom either....
P.
Rich
> How can a parody be sad?
The object of the satire is usually a sad state of affairs, in the mind
of the author. Therefore, it is sad that there is a situation in Kansas
that sparks this sort of parody to be written.
A sentiment with which I wholeheartedly agree.
Rich
Rabid Weasel
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:09:02 GMT, Rabid Weasel
> <lawson@NO20035SPAM+dayton.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 10:03:01 -0800, mikejc563 wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Don Wagner wrote:
>>>> h...@nospam.com wrote:
>>>> >Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling'
>>>> >Theory
>>>> >August 17, 2005 | Issue 41·33
>>>>
>>>> Now that was some funny assed shit! Good deal, man.
>>>> --Don--
>>>> I made allies in Heaven
>>>> I made comrades in Hell
>>>> ~ Jim Carroll
>>>
>>> It would be even funnier if it wasn't so sad...;>P
>>> <shakes head>
>>>
>>> Mike
>>
>>You saw the attribution, right?
>>
>
> It's far more serious than you would like to think.
Suuure it is, hal. The Onion is just *chock full* of serious pieces.
(IH)
mike...@yahoo.com
If it's not that far from reality.
Shuurai
> >You saw the attribution, right?
> >
>
> It's far more serious than you would like to think.
No... it's really not. The Onion is a satirical paper intended to
amuse.
> As the fundamentalists take over, they will ban anything that does not adhere
> to their religious principles.
Oh, please... first off, there isn't any sign of the fundamentalists
"taking over" any aspect of American life whatsoever. If anything,
religious expression is being diminished in this country - it's being
pulled off of public buildings, it's being repressed in schools. Cite
some examples of fundamentalist groups banning anything.
Grey Mouser West
mike...@yahoo.com wrote:
<snip>
> > > It would be even funnier if it wasn't so sad...;>P
> > > <shakes head>
> > >
> > > Mike
> >
> > How can a parody be sad?
>
> If it's not that far from reality.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight cuz "as the
fundamentalists take over, they will ban anything that does not adhere
Mark Goldberg
And you forgot to add... who is doing the repressing??
Why that great liberal movemnent to remove the politically incorrect
from American life.
Mark
Mark Goldberg
Gee, todo, I don't think we're in kansas anymore.....
Mark
h...@nospam.com
Um what?
How about secularists removing religion from public life?
Hal
>
>Mark
Mark Goldberg
Mark Goldberg
>
> How about secularists removing religion from public life?
>
> Hal
"....As the fundamentalists take over, they will ban anything that does
not adhere
to their religious principles....
You've arrived
Mark
mike...@yahoo.com
And don't forget the world is actually flat, oh and Dog created us 2000
years ago!
Ya know?
Grey Mouser West
mike...@yahoo.com wrote:
<snip>
> And don't forget the world is actually flat, oh and Dog created us 2000
> years ago!
> Ya know?
And the CIA created a special missile that would have as much mass as a
737 so that they could fly it into the Pentagon on 9-11 but not leave
any wings. CIA agents posing as pilots flew the four 'hijacked' planes
to Area 51 where to passengers were placed in a mass grave. Meanwhile
other CIA agents flew remotely controlled cargo planes into the WTC so
that Bush would have an excuse to boost the value of his friend's
stock.
Yeah it is sad how gullible some people are these days. Oh wait,
nobody believes the world is flat.
Don Wagner
>It's far more serious than you would like to think. As the
>fundamentalists take over, they will ban anything that does not adhere
>to their religious principles.
This shit is cyclical, don't worry. There is plenty of "wild at
hearters" out there to balance the equation.
Grey Mouser West
Actually I was just trying to point out that it was a parody. I'm not
sure everyone realized it. As a B.A.C. I oppose what the Intelligent
Design movement is trying to do. However I think it is an outgrowth of
the culture war that is taking place in the US right now so there are
greater forces at work here. The way I see it science and religion are
different fields so the findings of one have no effect on the findings
of the other. Yet public schools in my area can't teach basic algebra
so there is no hope that they will impart an understanding of the
difference between religion and science.
Regards,
-Eric
h...@nospam.com
Science is not a religion.
Hal
>
>Mark
Grey Mouser West
He didn't say it was. As the fundamentalists like you take over they
will ban anything that does not adhere to their religious principles
and as you pointed out that is what they are doing.
Chas
> Science is not a religion.
Insofar as it speaks to religious principles, it is.
'Causality' is the essence of religious belief-
as far as 'science' speaks to causality, it is a 'religion'.
Chas
Sam the Bam
> If gravity is god pushing us down, then all you need do is NOT believe,
> AND YOU WILL NEVER FALL DOWN ! Just think
> of it, atheist Judoka will triumph, because they can never be thrown!
I would like to see a UFC match in the space shuttle.
> It gives us dumb fundies and flying atheists!"
What spiritual beliefs did the Wright Brothers hold?
Sam
Sam the Bam
> As a B.A.C. I oppose what the Intelligent Design movement is trying to do.
??
nemo_outis
g...@comcast.com:
So, religion has now appropriated causality as its exclusive domain, has
it? You do say the most amusing things, Chas - you're a hoot!
Regards,
h...@nospam.com
>"Chas" <chascl...@comcast.net> wrote in news:J_KdnSUE5c6RfhDeRVn-
>g...@comcast.com:
>
>> <h...@nospam.com> wrote
>>> Science is not a religion.
>>
>> Insofar as it speaks to religious principles, it is.
>> 'Causality' is the essence of religious belief-
>> as far as 'science' speaks to causality, it is a 'religion'.
>>
>> Chas
>
>
>So, religion has now appropriated causality as its exclusive domain,
haven't they always?
Hal
Grey Mouser West
Born again Christian.
Regards,
-Eric
Chas
>> Insofar as it speaks to religious principles, it is.
>> 'Causality' is the essence of religious belief-
>> as far as 'science' speaks to causality, it is a 'religion'.
> it?
The question itself is theological- thus 'religious'.
Chas
h...@nospam.com
wrote:
How is causality theological?
Hal
>
>Chas
>
nemo_outis
news:naqdndqhzN2pnhPe...@comcast.com:
No, causality is by no means solely a theological or religious concept.
Ever heard of Aristotle? Shit, never mind Aristotle, ever baked a cake?
Geez, to be so ignorant is a gift!
Regards,
PS Causation and theology? Shit, gimme a break! Traditionally, you can
only get God in the back door by ABANDONING causality - that is, by
predicating an *exception* to the chain of cause and effect and introducing
the ludicrous notion of "first" or "uncaused" cause.
you badger watch out, you badger not cry....
>>The question itself is theological- thus 'religious'.
>>
>>Chas
>
>
>
> No, causality is by no means solely a theological or religious concept.
> Ever heard of Aristotle? Shit, never mind Aristotle, ever baked a cake?
>
> Geez, to be so ignorant is a gift!
>
> Regards,
>
> PS Causation and theology? Shit, gimme a break! Traditionally, you can
> only get God in the back door by ABANDONING causality - that is, by
> predicating an *exception* to the chain of cause and effect and introducing
> the ludicrous notion of "first" or "uncaused" cause.
>
Not that I want to step into this particular mud puddle, but if you look
closely, you'll notice that your answer has very little to do with Chas'
statement...
If something is theological, such as this discussion, it is therefore
religious...
Now as to whether or not causality is or is not religious, I leave that
to you guys.. you're having *way* too much fun misunderstanding each
other for me to jump in..
:D
P.
nemo_outis
<pboud_0...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:l2pjf.141669$yS6.3378@clgrps12:
> Now as to whether or not causality is or is not religious, I leave
> that to you guys.. you're having *way* too much fun misunderstanding
> each other for me to jump in..
>:D
> P.
>
Causality is where I stepped aboard this train, and it's all I'm concerned
with at this point.
Regards,
you badger watch out, you badger not cry....
> "you badger watch out, you badger not cry...."
> <pboud_0...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:l2pjf.141669$yS6.3378@clgrps12:
>
>>
>
>
> Causality is where I stepped aboard this train, and it's all I'm concerned
> with at this point.
>
> Regards,
>
>
so the causal relationship between you and this conversation is causality?
wow... nice irony there...
:D
P.
nemo_outis
There are those who believe I was predestined to reply to this thread :-)
Regards,
Robert Low
> There are those who believe I was predestined to reply to this thread :-)
I'm sorry about that. I just can't help myself.
Mark Goldberg
>>>
>>>
>>>You've arrived
>>
>>Science is not a religion.
>
>
>
> He didn't say it was. As the fundamentalists like you take over they
> will ban anything that does not adhere to their religious principles
> and as you pointed out that is what they are doing.
>
There's no point in me telling him that he's not science, he just uses
it as an excuse to kill what he hates. So he says he does it to promote
the truth of science. Or he advises people to be Muslims because it's a
successful warrior relgion- he- sans morality, ethics, zippo.
So he uses his pretend rationalist view here, but he's just a phony.
He does not speak for any science, except at his convenience- not science's.
Actually I heard a fine lecture on the issues of the creation of life,
by an MIT scientist, who gave a fine overview of the status. Most
interesting.
I've always found evolutionary theory fascinating. I've also found
religious thought and actual accomplishment fascinating.
Dr Gerald Schroeder, I think was his name, wonderful lecture.
Mark
Mark Goldberg
> h...@nospam.com wrote:
>
>>>
>>>"....As the fundamentalists take over, they will ban anything that does
>>>not adhere
>>>to their religious principles....
>>
>>Science is not a religion.
>
>
>
> He didn't say it was. As the fundamentalists like you take over they
> will ban anything that does not adhere to their religious principles
> and as you pointed out that is what they are doing.
>
And here is an article by the writer Jack Cashill, on the guy who heads
the dept of religion at KU. He's not religious and guess who's the
propagandist and the one who wants to end that which doesn't adhere to
their principles.
Mark
-----------
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47664
Thursday, December 1, 2005
Religious studies professor
slurs Christians, Jews
Posted: December 1, 2005
By Jack Cashill
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
The Harvard-educated Paul Mirecki serves as the head of the Religious
Studies Department at Kansas University – at least for the time being.
By the time a KU administrator finishes reading this article – much of
the information revealed here for the first time – Mirecki's job may be
in jeopardy. If he continues in his post, it will be further proof of
the double standard that universities maintain when it comes to the
question of "hate speech."
"The KU faculty has had enough," Mirecki announced when he went public
10 days ago with a new course offering. He designed the course as a
direct response to the Kansas School Board's recent decision to allow
for critiques of Darwinism in public-school classrooms. Mirecki titled
it, "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and
other Religious Mythologies."
"Creationism is mythology," Mirecki added. "Intelligent design is
mythology. It's not science. They try to make it sound like science. It
clearly is not." Needless to say, this very offering rankled local
intelligent-design advocates, and local newspaper stories reflected
this: "Intelligent design backers criticize university course title,"
read a headline in the Kansas City Star.
When questioned about Mirecki's intent, University Chancellor Robert
Hemenway admitted to not knowing all the details. "If it's a course
that's being offered in a serious and intellectually honest way, those
are the kind of courses a university frequently offers," he said.
As soon became clear, however, Mirecki's motives were less than
intellectually honest. Mirecki had sent out an explanatory e-mail to one
of his acolytes, who then distributed it approvingly to his colleagues
in SOMA – KU's Society of Open-Minded Atheists and Agnostics.
The e-mail read as follows:
The fundies want [intelligent design] all taught in a science class, but
this will be a nice slap in their big fat face by teaching it as a
religious studies class under the category "mythology."
It was signed the "Evil Dr. P." – Mirecki's nom de guerre in the KU SOMA
underground.
Mirecki owned up to this e-mail, and the local media noted it. The fact
that the head of the Religious Studies Department had slurred a large
body of Christians and announced his intentions to teach a course for no
better reason than spite struck the media, liberal even in Kansas, as
little more than an irritant to those offended. "KU prof's e-mail irks
fundamentalists," read a fairly typical headline, this one from the
Wichita Eagle.
A few days later, in the way of concession, Mirecki offered a
half-hearted apology and removed "mythologies" from the course title.
Despite the fact that the apology was reported as far afield as the
Guardian in London, the story made no great stir, even locally, and all
seemed forgiven.
In a successful effort to authenticate the original e-mail, however,
Kansas conservative activist John Altevogt worked his way to the KU SOMA
discussion group and there unearthed a treasure trove of Mirecki's other
ruminations on the subject of Christianity and Zionism. These are
reported here for the first time and may very well change the nature of
the debate.
Among the arguments waged in Mirecki's defense at KU is that his privacy
was violated in the reporting of the e-mail. "My understanding was that
was a private e-mail communication that somehow was moved out of those
channels and has become a public document," Provost David Shulenburger
told the Lawrence Journal-World, coming to Mirecki's aid.
As Altevogt discovered, however, Mirecki had made it clear as early as
April 25, 2005, that this discussion group was not a closed circle. On
that day, the "Evil Dr. P." shared with his "fellow freakoids" the
following bit of wisdom: "And whoever is the 'FUNDY MOLE' listening in
to these e-mails, I have one comment for you and it rhymes with 'suck
you.'" Such was the good doctor's style.
Mirecki seemed a good fit for KU's Religious Studies Department. What
had started as a School of Religion created as a place for KU students
to deepen their faith and even prepare for seminary morphed in the 1990s
into quite the opposite.
"The majority of my colleagues here in the dept [sic] are agnostics or
atheists, or they just don't care," wrote Mirecki to a discussion group
on April 18, 2004. "If any of them are theists, it hasn't been obvious
to me in the 15 years I've been here." He added, "As I often tell my
students in the first day of class, 'If anyone gets converted in this
class, its not my fault!'" Indeed, if Mirecki's e-mails are a clue, his
classes were more likely to strip a student of his faith.
In response to a SOMA communicant outraged that students were
distributing free Bibles on campus, Mirecki told of how he had conceived
an "anti-Bible tract" to counter the Christian presence. "I've made one
already and can distribute copies to the damned if you'd all like to
check it out."
Just last month, another student told Mirecki how "FREAKING ANNOYING" it
was to be approached by a Bible distributor. "Yeah, I was offered one
and asked the guy why he wanted the 'dark ages' to return," answered
Mirecki. "He just smiled at me with that inane look of the "convinced."
Nor is it just "Fundies" who come in for the "Evil Dr. P's" abuse. Wrote
Mirecki to a SOMA student on May 18, 2005, "I don't think most Catholics
really know what they are supposed to believe, they just go home and use
condoms and some of them beat their wives and husbands."
Mirecki confirmed another student's suspicions about Catholics, "Yup,
its [sic] world domination they are after." And when a student described
the ailing Pope John Paul II as a "a corpse in a funny hat wearing a
dress," Mirecki responded, "I love it! I refer to him as J2P2 (John Paul
II), like the Star Wars robot R2D2."
And as to Jews, on Jan. 15, 2003, when a student mocks "the Zionists who
want to rebuild the temple and sacrifice red heifers; the joy of
fundamentalism," Mirecki affirms him with a "Yeah."
Altevogt argues that having Mirecki chair Kansas University's Religious
Studies Department would be like having David Duke chair one on
African-American studies. It remains to be seen whether the KU
administration agrees.
Jack Cashill is an Emmy-award winning independent writer and producer
with a Ph.D. in American Studies from Purdue.
Kris
"Mark Goldberg" <msgol...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:WZwjf.30677$Un7....@fe12.lga...
>
> And here is an article by the writer Jack Cashill, on the guy who heads
> the dept of religion at KU. He's not religious and guess who's the
> propagandist and the one who wants to end that which doesn't adhere to
> their principles.
>
> Mark
> -----------
>
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47664
Yeah, I heard about that e-mail a couple days ago on another NG I frequent.
It was certainly in poor taste. There are jackasses everywhere.
But honestly, I'm not sure how any semi-rational person could actually
reject evolution based on the "evidence" that "supports" intelligent design.
ID is an easy cop out that allows people to be intellectually lazy by
filling in everything that they don't know in nature with "Goddidit" instead
of looking for the actual answers.
I was raised Roman Catholic, and I frankly can not see any conflict between
the theory of evolution and faith.
Most of the ID proponents I've come across, unfortunatly, are raving
fanatics who, when faced with a question or asked for evidence to support
their wild claims, can do no better than to sling ad homs and accuse anyone
who believes in the ToE (they like to call us "Darwinists" for some reason)
of being a homosexual atheist from France.
If you want to believe in a literal, Answers in Genisis, type of a Bible,
that's great. However, don't even bother claiming to have any evidence, but
instead, admit that your convictions are a matter of faith. There's nothing
wrong with faith, but faith isn't science.
Kris
Mark Goldberg
>
>
> "Mark Goldberg" <msgol...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:WZwjf.30677$Un7....@fe12.lga...
>
>>And here is an article by the writer Jack Cashill, on the guy who heads
>>the dept of religion at KU. He's not religious and guess who's the
>>propagandist and the one who wants to end that which doesn't adhere to
>>their principles.
>>
>>Mark
>>-----------
>>
>>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47664
>
>
> Yeah, I heard about that e-mail a couple days ago on another NG I frequent.
> It was certainly in poor taste. There are jackasses everywhere.
> But honestly, I'm not sure how any semi-rational person could actually
> reject evolution based on the "evidence" that "supports" intelligent design.
I don't reject evolution. I don't think.... that it answers the question
as to the creation of life, but it does answer enormous questions about
how life evolves once created.
The issue of bias, purposeful directed and harmful limiting bias was the
purport of the original posting. The stupidity and the obvious duplicity
of the phony head of the religion dept. displays an disguised, and
rather lying bigotry, hidden under the covers and shows just how to be
sleezy and a propagandist and how to lie about both.
And it wasn't the religious bias doing it, was it....
>
> If you want to believe in a literal, Answers in Genisis, type of a Bible,
> that's great. However, don't even bother claiming to have any evidence, but
> instead, admit that your convictions are a matter of faith. There's nothing
> wrong with faith, but faith isn't science.
Sure... and science is just that science- not faith- so if you want it
to be faith, say so- but don't condemn religion for what Science cannot
do, or achieve.
Remember- the point of the original post, was the bigotry- and voila,
who brought it on, with malice aforethought.
Any comments about that, as opposed to your sanguine views of religion-
which isn't the issue?
Mark
Kris
"Mark Goldberg" <msgol...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:cPFjf.36162$7n6....@fe08.lga...
>
> The issue of bias, purposeful directed and harmful limiting bias was the
> purport of the original posting. The stupidity and the obvious duplicity
> of the phony head of the religion dept. displays an disguised, and rather
> lying bigotry, hidden under the covers and shows just how to be sleezy and
> a propagandist and how to lie about both.
> And it wasn't the religious bias doing it, was it....
>
You're right. After I hit "Send" I went back to reread, and realized that
I'd missed the target.
>>
>> If you want to believe in a literal, Answers in Genisis, type of a Bible,
>> that's great. However, don't even bother claiming to have any evidence,
>> but instead, admit that your convictions are a matter of faith. There's
>> nothing wrong with faith, but faith isn't science.
>
> Sure... and science is just that science- not faith- so if you want it to
> be faith, say so- but don't condemn religion for what Science cannot do,
> or achieve.
Of course not. I agree. Science cannot prove or disprove (and I don't
believe that it ever will) the existance of God.
Both science and religion stand on their own grounds, my point was only that
they don't stand on the same grounds. Don't teach science in church, and
don't teach religion in science class.
>
> Remember- the point of the original post, was the bigotry- and voila, who
> brought it on, with malice aforethought.
> Any comments about that, as opposed to your sanguine views of religion-
> which isn't the issue?
>
Sure: Idiot's abound. There are religious fanatics that see all science as a
wedge to drive religion from the people, which is foolish.
There are also those that attempt to do just that, which is equally foolish.
Personally, I think that Mirecki's true intentions and biases have been
shown, and that they have been shown to have infiltrated into his classroom,
and he should, consequently, be dismissed.
Again, I apologize for going off topic, and hope this post is better suited
to the discussion.
Take care,
Kris
> Mark
>
Badger North
<msgol...@optonline.net> wrote:
>I don't reject evolution. I don't think.... that it answers the question
>as to the creation of life, but it does answer enormous questions about
>how life evolves once created.
Evolution doesn't have anything to do with the origin of life.
"Abiogenesis" is the term you're looking for.
Badger Jones
www.youngforest.ca
"Never, under ANY circumstances, take a sleeping pill and a laxative on the same night."
you badger watch out, you badger not cry....
and made Adam... and it took 7 calendar days to get everything done..
***7***
so there...
;)
I've always loved that stand... I mean, we're *just now* starting to get
a handle on biology and the sciences and the like.. Imagine you're God,
trying to explain cellular mitosis or protein synthesis to the first few
guys who are writing this stuff down... "well you see, the.. um,
Essentially what I did was bring two..um, skip that... aw, hell... I
just used dirt and spat on it...)
:D
P.
Mark Goldberg
>
> Again, I apologize for going off topic, and hope this post is better suited
> to the discussion.
>
> Take care,
> Kris
>
no apologies necessary
And, complements of the Season :^)
Mark
Mark Goldberg
That's spontaneous generation, right?
I don't that's that's the issue, at least it isn't mine...
I don't undertand your drift.
Mark
Mark Goldberg
>> Evolution doesn't have anything to do with the origin of life.
>> "Abiogenesis" is the term you're looking for.
>>
>> Badger Jones
>> www.youngforest.ca
>> "Never, under ANY circumstances, take a sleeping pill and a laxative
>> on the same night."
>
> Look, man.. the book *says* GOD got some dirt, rolled it up, spat on it,
> and made Adam... and it took 7 calendar days to get everything done..
> ***7***
>
> so there...
> ;)
>
> I've always loved that stand... I mean, we're *just now* starting to get
> a handle on biology and the sciences and the like.. Imagine you're God,
> trying to explain cellular mitosis or protein synthesis to the first few
> guys who are writing this stuff down... "well you see, the.. um,
> Essentially what I did was bring two..um, skip that... aw, hell... I
> just used dirt and spat on it...)
>
no it doesn't, but if you want to goof on it, I guess that's how you see
those primitive desert dwellers who must be so backward, I mean compared
to scientists and modern humans.
Mark
Kris
"Mark Goldberg" <msgol...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:DPGjf.36186$7n6....@fe08.lga...
The theory of evolution says nothing about how the first living organisms
came about, it only deals with what happened once they begane reproducing.
To clarify: You were right in that evolution doesn't answer the questions to
life's creation, Badger was simply stating that it doesn't claim to. The
most scientifically valid theory on the creation of life is abiogenesis, and
it's a completely different animal than evolution.
Kris
you badger watch out, you badger not cry....
>>
>> I've always loved that stand... I mean, we're *just now* starting to
>> get a handle on biology and the sciences and the like.. Imagine you're
>> God, trying to explain cellular mitosis or protein synthesis to the
>> first few guys who are writing this stuff down... "well you see, the..
>> um, Essentially what I did was bring two..um, skip that... aw, hell...
>> I just used dirt and spat on it...)
>>
>
> no it doesn't, but if you want to goof on it, I guess that's how you see
> those primitive desert dwellers who must be so backward, I mean compared
> to scientists and modern humans.
>
>
>
> Mark
If you want to be condescending on this one, feel free.. the bible is
full of laws and rules based on sound principles of science (like the
initial food restrictions, for example) that we're just now starting to
understand.. Whether or not they were understood then is anyone's
guess.. We've 'discovered' things that have been conveniently around for
centuries, but since we didn't know about them, they're new to us so we
*obviously* discovered them..
Calendars and clocks are not new, but they are fairly new in current
standard.. to read the bible today, and assume that when it says 'seven
days' it means from Monday to next Monday is asinine..
I try not to assume ignorance on someone else's part when the simple
explanation of ignorance on my part answers a situation just as well..
as for the above example, take 'modern' science and kick it back about
100 or 150 years.. You'll see what I'm addressing.. Not the knowledge or
lack of knowledge of this or that population; the automatic assumption
by most researchers that the current state of knowledge is 'cutting edge'...
:)
P.
Badger North
<msgol...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>I don't reject evolution. I don't think.... that it answers the question
>>>as to the creation of life, but it does answer enormous questions about
>>>how life evolves once created.
>>
>> Evolution doesn't have anything to do with the origin of life.
>> "Abiogenesis" is the term you're looking for.
>
>That's spontaneous generation, right?
Kinda. Here's a good link: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/
>I don't that's that's the issue, at least it isn't mine...
>
>I don't undertand your drift.
Evolution deals with how organisms change over time, in response to
various pressures or opportunities. Abiogenesis is the origin of
life, how did life/organisms get here in the first place, and isn't
about what happened to them afterwards.
Two very different beasts.
Mark Goldberg
>
>>>
>>> I've always loved that stand... I mean, we're *just now* starting to
>>> get a handle on biology and the sciences and the like.. Imagine
>>> you're God, trying to explain cellular mitosis or protein synthesis
>>> to the first few guys who are writing this stuff down... "well you
>>> see, the.. um, Essentially what I did was bring two..um, skip that...
>>> aw, hell... I just used dirt and spat on it...)
>>>
>>
>> no it doesn't, but if you want to goof on it, I guess that's how you
>> see those primitive desert dwellers who must be so backward, I mean
>> compared to scientists and modern humans.
>>
>>
>>
>> Mark
>
> If you want to be condescending on this one, feel free
How was I being condescending?!?
Did I mistate what you said.
Were you not goofing on the idea of ancients understanding science so
they got told a child's story. Which I thought you meant that they were
too primitive to hear what we hear and so they, desert primitives... No?
.. the bible is
> full of laws and rules based on sound principles of science (like the
> initial food restrictions, for example) that we're just now starting to
> understand..
How about you state what you think the 'scientific' reason for koshering
is...:^)
> standard.. to read the bible today, and assume that when it says 'seven
> days' it means from Monday to next Monday is asinine..
I would agree :^)
... take 'modern' science and kick it back about
> 100 or 150 years.. You'll see what I'm addressing.. Not the knowledge or
> lack of knowledge of this or that population; the automatic assumption
> by most researchers that the current state of knowledge is 'cutting
> edge'...
I think there are things you might reconsider in your equation.
Email me, and I'm send a URL for that MIT guys lecture, and then you can
mull over his reasonings of both from a different perspective than I
think you've considered, if your in the mood.
Mark
Mark Goldberg
> To clarify: You were right in that evolution doesn't answer the questions to
> life's creation, Badger was simply stating that it doesn't claim to. The
> most scientifically valid theory on the creation of life is abiogenesis, and
> it's a completely different animal than evolution.
>
> Kris
>
>
>
But my question was... if someone posits abiogenesis- spontaneous
generation- and it goes against all the laws of evolution, is there not
problematic themes running before during and after evolution?
Again, the threads importance kris, was postied in the inital post.
Aberrant bias, and the tyranny of knowledge- it was being applied to
'fundamentalists' but ironically, the best example came from a
fraudulent atheist posing as a religion teacher.
Which is rather ironic, wouldn't you say?
Mark
Mark Goldberg
>
> Evolution deals with how organisms change over time, in response to
> various pressures or opportunities. Abiogenesis is the origin of
> life, how did life/organisms get here in the first place, and isn't
> about what happened to them afterwards.
>
> Two very different beasts.
>
> Badger Jones
> www.youngforest.ca
> "Never, under ANY circumstances, take a sleeping pill and a laxative on the same night."
Yes... I think religion is way more interested in the beginning, and
let's science teach us how evolution occurs.
Do you recall that experiment, the one that Dr. Stanley Miller, I think
it was presented in 1954 or so, where he created an amino acid, and it
was hailed, hailed because it was a nail in the coffin of a creator
idea- but 25 yrs later, Scientific American rescinded it's huzzah's for
the experiment, calling 25 yrs of research into the issue as a
monumental failure, and admitted they were no closer to the answer.
Anyway, the original post was about > As the
> fundamentalists take over, they will ban anything that does not adhere
> to their religious principles.
Yet the irony was the example of the phony religion professor- an
atheist lying and scheming to ban thinking, with his phony posturing as
a religion professor.
I mean- that was closer to the issue and it since banning was the issue,
it seems to me to be the fly in the ointment of the original assertion
about 'fundamentalists' bias.
Mark
Mark Goldberg
> mike...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>And don't forget the world is actually flat, oh and Dog created us 2000
>>years ago!
>>Ya know?
>
>
>
> And the CIA created a special missile that would have as much mass as a
> 737 so that they could fly it into the Pentagon on 9-11 but not leave
> any wings.
> Yeah it is sad how gullible some people are these days. Oh wait,
> nobody believes the world is flat.
>
The post of the week :^))
Mark
Kris
"Mark Goldberg" <msgol...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:VMJjf.31264$Un7....@fe12.lga...
> Kris wrote:
>
>> To clarify: You were right in that evolution doesn't answer the questions
>> to life's creation, Badger was simply stating that it doesn't claim to.
>> The most scientifically valid theory on the creation of life is
>> abiogenesis, and it's a completely different animal than evolution.
>>
>> Kris
> But my question was...if someone posits abiogenesis- spontaneous
> generation- and it goes against all the laws of evolution,
Does it? Admittedly, I'm not an expert on abiogenesis, but from what I know
about it, it wouldn't defy the laws of evolution. Evolution didn't exist
before abiogenesis, so how could it's laws have been broken?
> is there not problematic themes running before during and after evolution?
>
Not a valid argument if your previous assessment is baseless.
> Again, the threads importance kris, was postied in the inital post.
The topic that I was dealing with was that stated by you when you made the
comment that you didn't understand what abiogenesis had to do with this
comment:
[Mark]
>>I don't reject evolution. I don't think.... that it answers the question
>>as to the creation of life, but it does answer enormous questions about
>>how life evolves once created.
[/Mark]
by stating that you didn't get the drift. It was simply a clarification that
evolution isn't meant to answer the question of creation.
> Aberrant bias, and the tyranny of knowledge- it was being applied to
> 'fundamentalists' but ironically, the best example came from a fraudulent
> atheist posing as a religion teacher.
>
That was the example given in this thread, and I addressed it. Fanatacism
and ignorance are not exclusive to religion, nor are they exclusive to
atheism. Ignorant fanatics should be disregarded equally, regardless of the
ignorant fanatic's agenda.
You certainly seem like an informed and inteligent man, so I'm sure that
you're not implying that this type of behaviour is predominant in
atheists/agnostics/etc. I think we're actually on the same side of this
argument.
> Which is rather ironic, wouldn't you say?
Not to me. As I've previously stated: Idiot's are everywhere.
>
> Mark
>
Kris
> You certainly seem like an informed and inteligent man,
*gasp* Much more intelligent than myself. Apparently, even spelling the word
presents me a formidable challenge.
;-)
Kris
Mark Goldberg
>
>>
>>But my question was...if someone posits abiogenesis- spontaneous
>>generation- and it goes against all the laws of evolution,
>
>
> Does it? Admittedly, I'm not an expert on abiogenesis, but from what I know
> about it, it wouldn't defy the laws of evolution. Evolution didn't exist
> before abiogenesis, so how could it's laws have been broken?
>
I see your point. But then, what is the thesis of the abiogenisists...?
Do they wear headbands and chant over bowls of incense water and such...
>
>>is there not problematic themes running before during and after evolution?
>>
>
>
> Not a valid argument if your previous assessment is baseless.
Your not going to let me have any fun with this, are you.
> by stating that you didn't get the drift. It was simply a clarification that
> evolution isn't meant to answer the question of creation.
The problem with that, is that is a legitimate question... and as such,
remains an interesting problem
>
>
> You certainly seem like an informed and inteligent man, so I'm sure that
> you're not implying that this type of behaviour is predominant in
> atheists/agnostics/etc. I think we're actually on the same side of this
> argument.
No... for all our human potential, the biggest growth is downward :^))
We're born genius's and die idiots, as the poet said...
>
>
>>Which is rather ironic, wouldn't you say?
Not at all. It's just nature's storehouse of vigor, working out the
wrinkles.
Mark
mike...@yahoo.com
Or in creationism either...
Mike
Grey Mouser West
Millions believe in creationism. I picked a popular example - the 9-11
conspiracy kooks. They number at least in the thousands. You picked
an example that died out centurys ago. Nobody believes the world is
flat.
mike...@yahoo.com
Then you didn't get my joke - God created us 2000 years ago, oh yeah,
and the world is flat too.
Both are fables.
It went over your head again Grey...
Mike
Mark Goldberg
> Then you didn't get my joke - God created us 2000 years ago, oh yeah,
> and the world is flat too.
> Both are fables.
>
> It went over your head again Grey...
>
> Mike
>
Oh he got it, but it's 5766, hahahaha....
and you don't get it.
Mark
Badger North
<msgol...@optonline.net> wrote:
>Yes... I think religion is way more interested in the beginning,
In the beginning was the great cow Audhumla...
>and let's science teach us how evolution occurs.
... except when it doesn't:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/the_heresy_of_n.html
>Do you recall that experiment, the one that Dr. Stanley Miller, I think
>it was presented in 1954 or so, where he created an amino acid, and it
>was hailed, hailed because it was a nail in the coffin of a creator
>idea- but 25 yrs later, Scientific American rescinded it's huzzah's for
>the experiment, calling 25 yrs of research into the issue as a
>monumental failure, and admitted they were no closer to the answer.
The Miller-Urey Experiment.
What comments Scientific American makes about it all is sort of beside
the point. The experiment was an incredibly important starting point
- the development of an amino acid. Making a claim that that one
experiment might explain the whole shebang of how life started would
be the equivalent of claiming the discovery of King Tut's tomb
explained everything worth knowing about Egyptology.
>Anyway, the original post was about > As the
>> fundamentalists take over, they will ban anything that does not adhere
>> to their religious principles.
I only jumped in for a clarification of the scientific issues. I
haven't really been following the thread.
you badger watch out, you badger not cry....
>
>>>fundamentalists take over, they will ban anything that does not adhere
>>>to their religious principles.
>
>
> I only jumped in for a clarification of the scientific issues. I
> haven't really been following the thread.
>
Sorry man.. you're in now.. welcome to the conspiracy...
:)
P.
Badger North
not cry...." <pboud_0...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I only jumped in for a clarification of the scientific issues. I
>> haven't really been following the thread.
>
>Sorry man.. you're in now.. welcome to the conspiracy...
I've kinda been in it for a while - my inlaws became Born Again
Christians a year ago. Now, I don't have a problem with that, and in
fact I think it's done my father-in-law plenty good. They're being
fed a line of crap when it comes to evolution, though.
mike...@yahoo.com
dimwit
you badger watch out, you badger not cry....
>
> I've kinda been in it for a while - my inlaws became Born Again
> Christians a year ago. Now, I don't have a problem with that, and in
> fact I think it's done my father-in-law plenty good. They're being
> fed a line of crap when it comes to evolution, though.
>
Don't know much about bac stands and the like.. doesn't sound nice though..
:(
P.
Rabid Weasel
It's perfectly nice. They generally eschew drinking, smoking, lewd
behavior, illicit drugs, sexual promiscuity, lying, swearing, stealing,
and general "misdeeds." They encourage honesty, integrity, work ethic,
"positive" dialog, and concern for fellow man. And these are generally
*cultural norms* within the "Born Again Christian" community.
Not everyone is "perfect" though and it can make some hard times when
people don't "measure up" both *in* the "community" and outside
(non-believers like to call them 'hypocrites' when they fail to measure up
to expectations - hal certainly would if a Christian was telling a lie or
cheating on the wife/husband even if there's genuine remorse, for instance).
Nope, "BAC's" are perfectly nice. Some people just have a problem with
some of their opinions on things like ToE and whether or not Homosexuality
is a sin and if unrepentant Homosexuals will go to Hell. That kinda stuff.
Peace favor your sword (IH),
Kirk
Badger North
The idea of evolution is very frightening to some - it implies there
is no 'purpose' to our existance, and it contradicts directly or
indirectly what the Bible states.
Frankly, there's a lot of other areas in science that should be just
as frightening, but I think evolution is just vague enough to be
menacing, and has an identifiable icon (Darwin) to villify.
As The Onion has lampooned, gravity could just as easily have been the
whipping boy.
you badger watch out, you badger not cry....
>
> It's perfectly nice.
I was referring strictly to the creation/evolution bit on the 'nice'
thing...
They generally eschew drinking, smoking, lewd
> behavior, illicit drugs, sexual promiscuity, lying, swearing, stealing,
> and general "misdeeds." They encourage honesty, integrity, work ethic,
> "positive" dialog, and concern for fellow man. And these are generally
> *cultural norms* within the "Born Again Christian" community.
Wouldn't *that* be nice all around..
>
> Not everyone is "perfect" though and it can make some hard times when
> people don't "measure up" both *in* the "community" and outside
> (non-believers like to call them 'hypocrites' when they fail to measure up
> to expectations - hal certainly would if a Christian was telling a lie or
> cheating on the wife/husband even if there's genuine remorse, for instance).
ew.. walking the path is fairly hard, no doubt..
>
> Nope, "BAC's" are perfectly nice. Some people just have a problem with
> some of their opinions on things like ToE and whether or not Homosexuality
> is a sin and if unrepentant Homosexuals will go to Hell. That kinda stuff.
>
> Peace favor your sword (IH),
> Kirk
Here's a nice topic.. what exactly *is* hell? I mean, is it the whole
furnace thing? or is it a place where you re-live your mistakes and
failures? or what?
P.
you badger watch out, you badger not cry....
>
> The idea of evolution is very frightening to some - it implies there
> is no 'purpose' to our existance, and it contradicts directly or
> indirectly what the Bible states.
I've always had issues with taking the bible literally in those areas...:(
>
> Frankly, there's a lot of other areas in science that should be just
> as frightening, but I think evolution is just vague enough to be
> menacing, and has an identifiable icon (Darwin) to villify.
True enough.. Thks
P.
Robert Low
> Frankly, there's a lot of other areas in science that should be just
> as frightening, but I think evolution is just vague enough to be
> menacing, and has an identifiable icon (Darwin) to villify.
Not as well known, and no immediate thread to 'morality
via revelation', I suspect. Also, for some reason, the
treatment of Genesis 1,2 is something of a shibboleth.
you badger watch out, you badger not cry....
> I suspect. Also, for some reason, the
> treatment of Genesis 1,2 is something of a shibboleth.
much anywhere... :D
P.
Robert Low
It used to be exiguous, but now you have a full complement
of sesquipedalion recondity.
Robert Low
> It used to be exiguous, but now you have a full complement
> of sesquipedalion recondity.
Damn, I'd have been so much happier if I hadn't mis-spelled
'sesquipedalian' just then.
Rabid Weasel
cry.... wrote:
> Here's a nice topic.. what exactly *is* hell? I mean, is it the whole
> furnace thing? or is it a place where you re-live your mistakes and
> failures? or what?
You asking my personal opinion or what the "consensus" is?
you badger watch out, you badger not cry....
Anne Rice has a series of novels on vampires; in one of them (Memnoch
the devil) she gets into a version of hell I hadn't considered before,
and I thought it was a nice spin on it..
But Like I said.. either or works for me.. Just wondering what other
views out there are on the subject
P.
Rabid Weasel
cry.... wrote:
>> Not everyone is "perfect" though and it can make some hard times when
>> people don't "measure up" both *in* the "community" and outside
>> (non-believers like to call them 'hypocrites' when they fail to measure up
>> to expectations - hal certainly would if a Christian was telling a lie or
>> cheating on the wife/husband even if there's genuine remorse, for instance).
> ew.. walking the path is fairly hard, no doubt..
Yeah, very hard. The problem is that too few willing to *admit* that it's
hard. Everyone just kinda pretends that it's easy for them and should be
for everyone else too. So when a person has a failing it gets blown out
of proportion. I mean, not swearing is *easy*, right? No one else is
doing it, it must be that you're either just a weak person, unrepentant,
or are just a "bad person."
Rabid Weasel
cry.... wrote:
My personal belief is that it is a place of graduated punishment based on
the general quality of the person's life and deeds/misdeeds. For the
unsaved-but-good Hell is no more than separation from the ecstasy of being
in God's presence. For others the punishments are increasingly more
severe as moderated by repentance of former misdeeds, remorse, etc.
This is a fairly common belief but others hold a more consistent
punishment belief. Others still hold that because life was temporary,
punishment is also temporary - eventually those in Hell will be
sufficiently punished and go on to Heaven or to a place that's almost
Heaven just without God.
you badger watch out, you badger not cry....
>>ew.. walking the path is fairly hard, no doubt..
>
>
> Yeah, very hard. The problem is that too few willing to *admit* that it's
> hard. Everyone just kinda pretends that it's easy for them and should be
> for everyone else too. So when a person has a failing it gets blown out
> of proportion. I mean, not swearing is *easy*, right? No one else is
> doing it, it must be that you're either just a weak person, unrepentant,
> or are just a "bad person."
I was in the navy for 8 + years... swearing was as natural as
breathing.. imagine how much fun *that* was for my wife when I got home...
Got out in 95 or so and am *still* working on it..
P.
you badger watch out, you badger not cry....
>
> My personal belief is that it is a place of graduated punishment based on
> the general quality of the person's life and deeds/misdeeds. For the
> unsaved-but-good Hell is no more than separation from the ecstasy of being
> in God's presence. For others the punishments are increasingly more
> severe as moderated by repentance of former misdeeds, remorse, etc.
>
> This is a fairly common belief but others hold a more consistent
> punishment belief. Others still hold that because life was temporary,
> punishment is also temporary - eventually those in Hell will be
> sufficiently punished and go on to Heaven or to a place that's almost
> Heaven just without God.
I kinda lean towards the last bit; Had a discussion about the
'unforgivable sin' with a priest a while back.. the feeling I got was
that if you choose to refuse forgiveness, then there's nothing GOD can
do about it and therefore, until you choose to accept, is unforgivable..
I think that would extend to the afterlife.. no?
P.
Robert Low
> My personal belief is that it is a place of graduated punishment based on
> the general quality of the person's life and deeds/misdeeds. For the
> unsaved-but-good Hell is no more than separation from the ecstasy of being
> in God's presence. For others the punishments are increasingly more
> severe as moderated by repentance of former misdeeds, remorse, etc.
If justification is only through faith, not deeds, why
should punishment be any different?
> This is a fairly common belief but others hold a more consistent
> punishment belief. Others still hold that because life was temporary,
> punishment is also temporary - eventually those in Hell will be
> sufficiently punished and go on to Heaven or to a place that's almost
> Heaven just without God.
Or that after the 10,000 years of punishment, they'll just
be extinguished. (I think it's 10,000---maybe just 1,000?
It's hard to make sense out of Revelation, and probably
a mistake to try :-))
you badger watch out, you badger not cry....
For others the punishments are increasingly more
>> severe as moderated by repentance of former misdeeds, remorse, etc.
>
>
> If justification is only through faith, not deeds, why
> should punishment be any different?
..sorry.. couldn't resist..
:D
P.
>
Robert Low
> For others the punishments are increasingly more
>>> severe as moderated by repentance of former misdeeds, remorse, etc.
>> If justification is only through faith, not deeds, why
>> should punishment be any different?
> Faith without work is dead....
Understood. But we're talking about the other
case, where you have the works without the faith.
If lack of good deeds is evidence of the absence
of faith, so it's really only the faith that
makes one justified, then how is person who has
no faith but does good deeds anyway less
damned than one with no faith whose a scoundrel
or worse?
Of course, if this is right then I'm in for
a rough time of it whatever I do, so I rather
hope that if there is a God, (s)he's got a better
sense of humour than John Knox.
Don Wagner
If HS kids just followed Chas's threads their verbal SAT scores would
improve by 200 pts.
--Don--
I made allies in Heaven
I made comrades in Hell
~ Jim Carroll
Don Wagner
>Here's a nice topic.. what exactly *is* hell? I mean, is it the whole
>furnace thing? or is it a place where you re-live your mistakes and
>failures? or what?
I don't think that we can conceive of it without experiencing it.
..and once that hits then you're already fooked, ja?
Trying to conceptualize utter personal devastation with full
conciousness, no possible escape into death or insanity and new
tailor-made torment coming down the pike at any time is pretty near
impossible to verbalize or imagine.
Then again, it could just be a winking out of existance after the
realization that there are no limits to what you could have
accomplished given the eternity that exists before you.
...but it's probably just the furnace thingie.
;-)
Rabid Weasel
'zactly.
Rabid Weasel
That would make sense.
Rabid Weasel
> Rabid Weasel wrote:
>> My personal belief is that it is a place of graduated punishment based on
>> the general quality of the person's life and deeds/misdeeds. For the
>> unsaved-but-good Hell is no more than separation from the ecstasy of being
>> in God's presence. For others the punishments are increasingly more
>> severe as moderated by repentance of former misdeeds, remorse, etc.
>
> If justification is only through faith, not deeds, why
> should punishment be any different?
The subject isn't spoken to very clearly in the Scriptures.
>> This is a fairly common belief but others hold a more consistent
>> punishment belief. Others still hold that because life was temporary,
>> punishment is also temporary - eventually those in Hell will be
>> sufficiently punished and go on to Heaven or to a place that's almost
>> Heaven just without God.
>
> Or that after the 10,000 years of punishment, they'll just
> be extinguished. (I think it's 10,000---maybe just 1,000?
> It's hard to make sense out of Revelation, and probably
> a mistake to try :-))
hehe
I'm of the opinion that the Revelation of John was in the same style of
Symbolic Writing as the book of Daniel and very little of it should be
taken literally.
Robert Low
> If HS kids just followed Chas's threads their verbal SAT scores would
> improve by 200 pts.
And the psychological trauma might even be a fair price
to pay.
Grey Mouser West
mike...@yahoo.com wrote:
<snip>
> Then you didn't get my joke - God created us 2000 years ago, oh yeah,
> and the world is flat too.
> Both are fables.
>
> It went over your head again Grey...
Don't flatter yourself.
Robert Low
> On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:38:07 +0000, Robert Low wrote:
>>Rabid Weasel wrote:
>>If justification is only through faith, not deeds, why
>>should punishment be any different?
> The subject isn't spoken to very clearly in the Scriptures.
Yeah, I know. That's one of the reasons the
arguments are so entertaining :-)
Chestnuts roasting on an open badger....
T had about "the way to a man's heart" and they were using it for
weeks... :D:D
P.
Robert Low
Yeah, but Don was talking about those poor, culturally deprived,
standard High School kids.
Mark Goldberg
> On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 16:25:18 -0500, Mark Goldberg
> <msgol...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Yes... I think religion is way more interested in the beginning,
>
>
> In the beginning was the great cow Audhumla...
Hey... astro physicists are also interested. Moo.
>>Do you recall that experiment, the one that Dr. Stanley Miller, I think
>>it was presented in 1954 or so, where he created an amino acid, and it
>>was hailed, hailed because it was a nail in the coffin of a creator
>>idea- but 25 yrs later, Scientific American rescinded it's huzzah's for
>>the experiment, calling 25 yrs of research into the issue as a
>>monumental failure, and admitted they were no closer to the answer.
>
>
> The Miller-Urey Experiment.
>
> What comments Scientific American makes about it all is sort of beside
> the point. The experiment was an incredibly important starting point
> - the development of an amino acid. Making a claim that that one
> experiment might explain the whole shebang of how life started would
> be the equivalent of claiming the discovery of King Tut's tomb
> explained everything worth knowing about Egyptology.
So then, the sort of beside the point comment is... beside the point :^)
>
> I only jumped in for a clarification of the scientific issues. I
> haven't really been following the thread.
Then the next round of beers is one you, protocols to be followed at all
times, if you please....
Mark
Mark Goldberg
Now, I don't have a problem with that, and in
> fact I think it's done my father-in-law plenty good. They're being
> fed a line of crap when it comes to evolution, though.
>
There are ways to subtley help him get past that, without driving him
crazy, nor offending him.
Mark
Mark Goldberg
I wasn't.
I was thinking how pretentious you are.
Mark
Mark Goldberg
> Grey Mouser West wrote:
>> Don't flatter yourself.
>>
> I wasn't.
>
> I was thinking how pretentious you are.
>
> Mark
Oops... sorry Grey, I hit the wrong post; I was responding to mike the
pretentious and it went to you.
Sorry
Mark
Mark Goldberg
> Mark Goldberg wrote:
>
>>mike...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Then you didn't get my joke - God created us 2000 years ago, oh yeah,
>>>and the world is flat too.
>>>Both are fables.
>>>
>>>It went over your head again Grey...
>>>
>>>Mike
>>>
>>
>>Oh he got it, but it's 5766, hahahaha....
>>and you don't get it.
>>
>>Mark
>
>
> dimwit
>
ah, I screwed up and sent my reply to this, about how you strike that
perfectly pretentious pose so well.... I by the way, like and admire
thinkers like Dawkins. I also admire even more, Moshe Rabeinu.
He's way more interesting, but what the hell...
Mark
Mark Goldberg
>
>
> In the beginning was the great cow Audhumla...
>
>
>>and let's science teach us how evolution occurs.
>
>
> ... except when it doesn't:
> http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/the_heresy_of_n.html
>
I don't know if you enjoy any of this sort of discussion but Schroeder,
an MIT scientist has some nice discussions that I find interesting.
Here's one.
---------------
Aish.com
http://www.aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature/Evolution_Rationality_vs._Randomness.asp
Evolution: Rationality vs. Randomness
by Dr. Gerald Schroeder
An M.I.T. trained scientist takes a look at Darwin, the fossil record,
and the likelihood of random evolution.
At the basis of the theory of neo-Darwinian evolution lie two basic
assumptions: that changes in morphologies are induced by random
mutations on the genome, and that these changes in the morphology of
plant or animal make the life form either more or less successful in the
competition to survive. With nature doing the selection, evolutionists
claim to remove the theory of evolution from that of a random process.
We are told that the selection is in no way random. It is a function of
the environment. The randomness, however, remains as the basic driving
force that produces the varied mutations from among which the selection
by survival takes place.
The question is: Can random mutations produce the evolution of life?
Because evolution is primarily a study of the history of life,
statistical analyses of evolution are plagued by having to assume the
many conditions that were extant during those long gone eras. Rates of
mutations, the contents of the "original DNA," and environmental
conditions -- all these affect the rate and direction of the changes in
morphology. And these are all unknowns.
From a secular view, one must never ask what the likelihood is that a
specific set of mutations will occur to produce a specific animal. This
would imply a direction to evolution, and basic to all Darwinian
theories of evolution is the assumption that evolution has no direction.
The induced changes, and hence the new morphologies, are totally random.
The challenges presented by the environment determine which will survive
to produce the new generations and which will perish.
PROTEIN COMBINATIONS
With this background, let's look at the process of evolution. Life is in
essence a symbiotic combination of proteins (and other structures, but
here I'll discuss only the proteins). The history of life teaches us
that not all combinations of proteins are viable. At an event recorded
in the fossil record and known as the Cambrian explosion of animal life,
some 50 phyla (basic body plans) suddenly and simultaneously appeared in
the fossil record. This is the first appearance of complex animal life.
Only 30 to 34 of the phyla survived. The rest perished. Since then the
fossil record and modern existing biota reveal that no new phyla have
evolved. At a later stage in the flow of life, a catastrophic event
(possibly the collision of the earth with a massive comet or meteor)
eliminated 90% of all life forms. The ecology was wide open for new
phyla to develop. Again, no new phyla appear. The implication is that
only a limited number of life forms (phyla) are viable.
It is no wonder that the most widely read science journal, Scientific
American, asked "has the mechanism of evolution altered in ways that
prevent fundamental changes in body plans of animals" (November 1992).
It is not that the mechanism of evolution has changed; it is our
understanding of how evolution functions that must change to fit the
data presented by the fossil record and by the discoveries of molecular
biology.
It is difficult and painful to discard entrenched notions of what is
actually true, even when scientific data demand such an abandonment.
Pure randomness as the source of the mutations that neo-Darwinian
concepts demand to drive the evolution of life no longer stands against
the mounting evidence of scientific data. Unfortunately, the emotional
commitment to a totally materialist view of life makes discarding this
notion problematic.
Let's look at the likelihood that random mutations could have produced
viable forms of life. Life as we know it is built largely of
combinations of proteins working in symbiotic harmony. But as we've
seen, only certain combinations produce viable life. Other combinations
fail.
Humans and all mammals have some 50,000 genes. That implies, as an order
of magnitude estimate, some 50,000 to 100,000 proteins active in
mammalian bodies. It is estimated that there are some 30 animal phyla on
Earth. If the genomes of each animal phylum produced 100,000 proteins,
and no proteins were common among any of the phyla (a fact we know to be
false, but an assumption that makes our calculations favor the random
evolutionary assumption), there would be (30 x 100,000) 3 million
proteins in all life. (The actual number is vastly lower.)
Now let's consider the likelihood of these 3 million viable combinations
of proteins forming by chance, recalling that the events following the
Cambrian explosion of animal life and the later decimation of 90% of
life taught us that only certain combinations of proteins are viable.
Proteins are complex coils of several hundred amino acids. Take a
typical protein to be a chain of 200 amino acids. The observed range is
from less than 100 amino acids per protein to greater than 1000. There
are 20 commonly occurring amino acids that join in varying combinations
to produce the proteins of life. This means that the number of possible
combinations of the amino acids in our model protein of 200 amino acids
is 20 to the power of 200 (i.e. 20 multiplied by itself 200 times), or
in the more usual 10-based system of numbers, approximately 10 to the
power of 260 (i.e. the number one, followed by 260 zeros!). Nature has
the option of choosing among the 10 to power of 260 possible proteins,
the 3 million proteins of which all viable life is composed. In other
words, for each one correct choice, there are 10 to power of 254 wrong
choices!
Simon Conway Morris, professor of evolutionary paleontology at the
University of Cambridge and fellow of the Royal Society of England, is
the scientist who revealed the significance of the Cambrian explosion of
animal life. He refers to this vast biological waste land of failed life
forms as the "multidimensional hyperspace of biological reality."
Can this have happened by random mutations of the genome? Not if our
understanding of statistics is correct. It would be as if nature reached
into a grab bag containing a billion billion billion billion billion
billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion
billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion
billion billion billion billion billion non-viable proteins -- and
pulled out the one that worked.
And then repeated this trick a million times.
With odds like that, it is amazing that nature and our bodies ever got
it or get it right.
But perhaps not every amino acid can join with every other amino acid.
If this is the case, then the number of possible combinations will be
reduced. To get even hint for what this would do to the hyperspace of
failed choices, I looked at combinations of amino acids that actually
exist in just six proteins. Among the proteins I used were bovine
insulin and bovine ribonuclease. The number of potential amino acid
combinations just from this modest sampling of proteins was 10 to the
power of 20. Again, nature would have had to select the one viable
combination from among 100 billion billion wrong choices. Either our
knowledge of statistical probability is skewed or something other than
randomness is operating.
The late Harvard professor, Stephen Jay Gould, suggested that the flow
of life is "channeled" along these basic animal phyla.
Nobel laureate, organic chemist and a leader in origin of life studies,
Professor deDuve writes in his excellent book, Tour of a Living Cell,
"If you equate the probability of the birth of a bacteria cell to chance
assembly of its atoms, eternity will not suffice to produce one... Faced
with the enormous sum of lucky draws behind the success of the
evolutionary game, one may legitimately wonder to what extent this
success is actually written into the fabric of the universe." Life
written into the fabric of the universe sounds a bit metaphysical.
Morris, in his book Life's Solutions (Cambridge University Press, 2003),
writes: "Life is simply too complex to be assembled on any believable
time scale... evolution's uncanny ability to find the short cuts across
the multidimensional hyperspace of biological reality. It is my
suspicion that research might reveal a deeper fabric to biology..."
Elsewhere Morris identifies this "deeper fabric" as having "metaphysical
implications."
This impossibility of randomness producing order is not different from
the attempt to produce Shakespeare or any meaningful string of letters
more than a few words in length by a random letter generator. Gibberish
is always the result. This is simply because the number of meaningless
letter combinations vastly exceeds the number of meaningful combinations.
With life, such gibberish was and is lethal.
In brief, randomness cannot have been the driving force behind the
success of life. Our understanding of statistics and molecular biology
clearly supports the notion that there must have been a direction and a
Director behind the success of life.
Author Biography:
Gerald Schroeder earned his BSc, MSc and PhD at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
----------------------