Evilution's Unanswerable Problems
Charles Darwin
Evilution is faced with a great number of unanswerable problems. Problems
so gigantic that it boggles the human mind. Just to list a few of these
origin problems:
Human speech & communication
Hearing at different frequencies
Human brain & nervous system
Human circulation & respiratory systems
Reproduction(male & female or even simple)
Immune systems
Diseases
Mutations that are almost always harmful
Human eyes(in fact all eyes that must be complete to work)
Bird flight & structure(lungs, bones, feathers)
Insect flight
Cold & warm blooded creatures
Instinct(mating, nesting, migration)
Cambrian life explosion of complete creatures
Worldwide flood geology evidence
Arctic/Anarctic ice miles deep of fresh water(no salt)
Ocean salt/river salt depostion
Earth mangnetic flux rundown
Comets & meteors
Earth atmosphere that supports life
Mega molecules that support life
Life itself-in all forms
Complete absence of evidence of life transitions
Death of life*
All of these, and many more, should cause even the most rabid evilutionary
religionists to stop and consider what kind of a false religion they
worship.
On the other hand, God's Word answers all these questions, sometimes even
down to the smallest detail.
So, who does one believe: Fallible men or an infallible Creator?
*You too are going to die for we have no choice:
If you are born once you will die twice.
If you are born twice you will die only once. John 3:3
--
SPIRITUAL WARFARE HAS NEVER BEEN THIS MUCH FUN!
Denis Loubet
"Charles Darwin" <Cha...@inhell.com> wrote in message
news:v_uNc.23$%O5....@news.uswest.net...
> Evilution's Unanswerable Problems
>
> Evilution is faced with a great number of unanswerable problems. Problems
> so gigantic that it boggles the human mind. Just to list a few of these
> origin problems:
> Earth mangnetic flux rundown
This is a joke, right? Just where DOES the bible address the earth's
magnetic field?
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
Dana Tweedy
>
> Evilution is faced with a great number of unanswerable problems. Problems
> so gigantic that it boggles the human mind. Just to list a few of these
> origin problems:
>
> Human speech & communication
Useful for group survival.
> Hearing at different frequencies
Useful for individual survival.
> Human brain & nervous system
Necessary for individual survival.
> Human circulation & respiratory systems
Necessary for survival. Do you really think that the species that modern
humans evolved from didn't already have a functioning ciculation and
respiratory system?
> Reproduction(male & female or even simple)
Necessary for survival of the species. Don't you think that reproduction
had been worked out long before there were humans?
> Immune systems
Helpful for survival of the individual.
> Diseases
Diseases existed before humans.
> Mutations that are almost always harmful
Fortunatley there are mutations that are neutral, and those that are
beneficial. Harmful mutations are not the norm.
> Human eyes(in fact all eyes that must be complete to work)
Helpful for survival. Also, the ancestors of humans had eyes already. No
need to make them from scratch.
> Bird flight & structure(lungs, bones, feathers)
Not really a problem for human evolution, now is it? In any case birds
borrowed their structure from their ancestors, and flight developed
independently.
> Insect flight
How is this a problem?
> Cold & warm blooded creatures
How is this a problem?
> Instinct(mating, nesting, migration)
useful for survival. Why is it a problem?
> Cambrian life explosion of complete creatures
I'd hate to see explosion of incomplete creatures. The Cambrian
"explosion" took several million years.
> Worldwide flood geology evidence
No such evidence. If you think there is, please present it.
> Arctic/Anarctic ice miles deep of fresh water(no salt)
Hmmmm. Ever heard of snow?
> Ocean salt/river salt depostion
What's the problem with that? Rivers deposit salt quite well.
> Earth mangnetic flux rundown
You mean fluxuation? Not a problem.
> Comets & meteors
What's wrong with them?
> Earth atmosphere that supports life
If the atmosphere didn't , we wouldn't be here, would we?
> Mega molecules that support life
Ditto.
> Life itself-in all forms
Not really a problem for evolution. Abiogenesis is down the hall, room 12A
> Complete absence of evidence of life transitions
What about the transitionals that do exist?
> Death of life*
Not really a problem for evolution.
>
> All of these, and many more, should cause even the most rabid evilutionary
> religionists to stop and consider what kind of a false religion they
> worship.
I don't worship "evolution". And as for false religion, I don't worship the
Bible either.
>
> On the other hand, God's Word answers all these questions, sometimes even
> down to the smallest detail.
But not with the correct answers.
>
> So, who does one believe: Fallible men or an infallible Creator?
I take "infallible Creator", with the evidence he left in the rocks, and our
own bodies, please. Fallible men came up with "Creationism".
>
> *You too are going to die for we have no choice:
True, but what's your point?
>
> If you are born once you will die twice.
What if you are born 3 times?
> If you are born twice you will die only once. John 3:3
Can you show your math on this one?
>
>
> --
> SPIRITUAL WARFARE HAS NEVER BEEN THIS MUCH FUN!
Plagarism has never been this blatant.
DJT
>
Robibnikoff
Creationism's Unanswerable Problem:
Complete and utter lack of evidence.
--------------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
Matt Silberstein
<Cha...@inhell.com> wrote:
>Evilution's Unanswerable Problems
>
>Evilution is faced with a great number of unanswerable problems. Problems
>so gigantic that it boggles the human mind. Just to list a few of these
>origin problems:
>
>Human speech & communication
God did it.
>Hearing at different frequencies
God did it.
>Human brain & nervous system
God did it.
>Human circulation & respiratory systems
God did it.
>Reproduction(male & female or even simple)
God did it.
>Immune systems
God did it.
>Diseases
God did it.
>Mutations that are almost always harmful
God did it.
>Human eyes(in fact all eyes that must be complete to work)
God did it.
>Bird flight & structure(lungs, bones, feathers)
God did it.
>Insect flight
God did it.
>Cold & warm blooded creatures
God did it.
>Instinct(mating, nesting, migration)
God did it.
>Cambrian life explosion of complete creatures
God did it.
>Worldwide flood geology evidence
God did it.
>Arctic/Anarctic ice miles deep of fresh water(no salt)
God did it.
>Ocean salt/river salt depostion
God did it.
>Earth mangnetic flux rundown
God did it.
>Comets & meteors
God did it.
>Earth atmosphere that supports life
God did it.
>Mega molecules that support life
God did it.
>Life itself-in all forms
God did it.
>Complete absence of evidence of life transitions
God did it.
>Death of life*
God did it.
>
>All of these, and many more, should cause even the most rabid evilutionary
>religionists to stop and consider what kind of a false religion they
>worship.
>
>On the other hand, God's Word answers all these questions, sometimes even
>down to the smallest detail.
>
>So, who does one believe: Fallible men or an infallible Creator?
>
>*You too are going to die for we have no choice:
>
>If you are born once you will die twice.
>If you are born twice you will die only once. John 3:3
--
Matt Silberstein
Do in order to understand.
David Iain Greig
Insofar as skywise/CoPT/Charles Darwin has persisted in using sockpuppets
and aliases to evade killfiles, and insofar as he/she has refused all
attempts to discuss the matter in private email, he was banned for abusive
posting behaviour (to talk.origins) some time ago.
I apologize for the porousness of my filter, it has been adjusted.
Back into the pit he goes.
Again: if he emails me and agrees to stop using aliases, he will be
welcome to post anything he wants to talk.origins. I suspect he is
somehow deranged and is unable to climb down off his rocking horse
charger and apologize and agree to behave, but I remain optimistic.
--D.
p.s. a big 'howdy' to the other, unmoderated groups this is going to.
p.p.s. I do watch the filter logs, you know, and he posts now and then,
even when he's filtered. I don't get it. Pick one alias, I don't care
what, and stick with it so everyone can killfile you, and you're welcome
to post. It's the morphing that gets you banned, idiot!
--
david iain greig gr...@ediacara.org
moderator, talk.origins sp4 kox
http://www.ediacara.org/~greig arbor plena alouattarum
Robert Schneider
"Robibnikoff" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:YwvNc.40$S4....@www.newsranger.com...
> In article <v_uNc.23$%O5....@news.uswest.net>, Charles Darwin says...
>
> Creationism's Unanswerable Problem:
>
> Complete and utter lack of evidence.
Not to mention its contradictions with the evidence that we do have.
Dr Dave W
news:slrncgd18o...@darwin.ediacara.org:
>> In article <v_uNc.23$%O5....@news.uswest.net>, Charles Darwin
>> says...
>
> Insofar as skywise/CoPT/Charles Darwin has persisted in using
> sockpuppets and aliases to evade killfiles, and insofar as he/she has
> refused all attempts to discuss the matter in private email, he was
> banned for abusive posting behaviour (to talk.origins) some time ago.
>
> I apologize for the porousness of my filter, it has been adjusted.
> Back into the pit he goes.
>
> Again: if he emails me and agrees to stop using aliases, he will be
> welcome to post anything he wants to talk.origins. I suspect he is
> somehow deranged and is unable to climb down off his rocking horse
> charger and apologize and agree to behave, but I remain optimistic.
>
> --D.
>
> p.s. a big 'howdy' to the other, unmoderated groups this is going to.
>
> p.p.s. I do watch the filter logs, you know, and he posts now and
> then, even when he's filtered. I don't get it. Pick one alias, I
> don't care what, and stick with it so everyone can killfile you, and
> you're welcome to post. It's the morphing that gets you banned,
> idiot!
>
You said it yourself slappy. He eventually kets killfiled to the point
that no one is playing with him so he has to change his name. Get it?
--
Dave W a.a.#1967
Robert Schneider
>
> Evilution is faced with a great number of unanswerable problems. Problems
> so gigantic that it boggles the human mind. Just to list a few of these
> origin problems:
>
> Human speech & communication
> Hearing at different frequencies
> Human brain & nervous system
> Human circulation & respiratory systems
> Reproduction(male & female or even simple)
> Immune systems
Please elaborate.
> Diseases
Germs evolve at prodigious rates.
> Mutations that are almost always harmful
That is an argument against ID.
> Human eyes(in fact all eyes that must be complete to work)
> Bird flight & structure(lungs, bones, feathers)
> Insect flight
> Cold & warm blooded creatures
> Instinct(mating, nesting, migration)
Please elaborate.
> Cambrian life explosion of complete creatures
What is an "incomplete" creature? Fossils from the late Precambrian are
harder to come by since many of the critters were soft-bodied
> Worldwide flood geology evidence
LOL!
> Arctic/Anarctic ice miles deep of fresh water(no salt)
Did you skip 4th grade science class?
> Ocean salt/river salt depostion
There is no such problem.
> Earth mangnetic flux rundown
The magnetic field periodically reverses.
> Comets & meteors
What's wrong with these?
> Earth atmosphere that supports life
Life created the atmosphere we have today.
> Mega molecules that support life
Please elaborate why DNA can't form naturally.
> Life itself-in all forms
That is evidence for evolution.
> Complete absence of evidence of life transitions
There are transitional fossils.
> Death of life*
Death is part of life. Always had been so and always will be so. We accept
that, you don't.
Holden
And the Bible's answer to all these mind-boggling problems -
"Dey's was all done by my Gawd.....he's a right puwerful sun uva' bitch"
torch
>
> Evilution is faced with a great number of unanswerable problems. Problems
> so gigantic that it boggles the human mind.
shouldn't bother you then - you haven't got one
raven1
<Cha...@inhell.com> wrote:
>Evilution's Unanswerable Problems
>
>Evilution is faced with a great number of unanswerable problems. Problems
>so gigantic that it boggles the human mind. Just to list a few of these
>origin problems:
<snip>
Exactly how is anything on your list problematical for evolution?
Thore "Tocis" Schmechtig
> Evilution's Unanswerable Problems
Oh boy, now we have a babblical cretinist who does his cut-n-paste from
fellow cretinist posters instead of websites...
--
Regards
Thore "Tocis" Schmechtig
Bobby D. Bryant
> "Charles Darwin" <Cha...@inhell.com> wrote in message
> news:v_uNc.23$%O5....@news.uswest.net...
>> Evilution's Unanswerable Problems
>>
>> Evilution is faced with a great number of unanswerable problems.
>> Problems so gigantic that it boggles the human mind. Just to list a
>> few of these origin problems:
>
>> Earth mangnetic flux rundown
>
> This is a joke, right? Just where DOES the bible address the earth's
> magnetic field?
Geologicus III, 1-27.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
MurphyInOhio
These are all easily answered by the random collision of atoms self-organizing
(why just like those "complex" ice crystals, you know) soon producing exquisite
Order. I believe that Evolution has prolly produced hyper-complex eyes...at
least a hunerd times or more. Evolution has all a answers I need.
MurphyInOhio
>and aliases to evade killfiles, and insofar as he/she has refused all
>attempts to discuss the matter in private email, he was banned for abusive
>posting behaviour (to talk.origins) some time ago.
Greg, you're banning this gentleman for WHAT reason now? I observe numerous of
evolutionists here: cursing and using abusive racial and sexist slurs, all the
while using fake Hotmail accounts. I have consistently requested you to attend
to your administrative offices and to remove these posters. Why do you not
address substantive complaints...and yet, on some extremely tenuous context,
ban a Creationist poster, as I see taking place here?
MurphyInOhio
>From: Matt Silberstein matts2...@ix.netcom.com
>Date: 7/27/04 9:31 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <781dg09p28ss4j1f6...@4ax.com>
Almost correct, Matt. Rather: Intelligent Design at work.
Traveler
<dlo...@io.com> wrote:
>
>"Charles Darwin" <Cha...@inhell.com> wrote in message
>news:v_uNc.23$%O5....@news.uswest.net...
>> Evilution's Unanswerable Problems
>>
>> Evilution is faced with a great number of unanswerable problems. Problems
>> so gigantic that it boggles the human mind. Just to list a few of these
>> origin problems:
>
>> Earth mangnetic flux rundown
>
>This is a joke, right? Just where DOES the bible address the earth's
>magnetic field?
The Bible may not talk about the earth's magnetic field but it talks
about more fundamental things than that, such as DNA, for example,
including the four nucleotides. Next time you take a look at the book
of Ezekiel, check out the four creatures with the four wings and the
four faces. Even the DNA double helix (the wheel within a wheel) is
mentioned. Certainly, the text is written in symbolic form, a method
used by the ancients to hide their sacred knowledge, but the metaphor
is unmistakable.
Louis Savain
PS. DNA is just the tip of the iceberg of the scientific treasure
chest that is the Bible. One just needs to know where and how to look.
There is a lot more where that came from.
Artificial Intelligence From the Bible:
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Seven/bible.html
Falsifiable Predictions:
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Seven/predictions.html
Thomas H. Faller
David: It's old and stinky bait. He's taking you for a catfish.
Tom Faller
Brian O'Blivion
news:j1ddg0961co85f7t8...@4ax.com:
> The Bible may not talk about the earth's magnetic field but
> it talks about more fundamental things than that, such as
> DNA, for example, including the four nucleotides. Next time
> you take a look at the book of Ezekiel, check out the four
> creatures with the four wings and the four faces. Even the
> DNA double helix (the wheel within a wheel) is mentioned.
> Certainly, the text is written in symbolic form, a method
> used by the ancients to hide their sacred knowledge, but
> the metaphor is unmistakable.
Bullshit! The only resemblence between the 4 critters and
nucleotides is their number and the double helix is a spiral
not a wheel. The text might be written in symbolic form... or
it might be the ravings of a lunatic who's been in the sun too
long. Even if it is symbolic, it would refer to the current
events of the time it was written.
--
=====================================
"The television screen is the retina of the mind's eye.
Therefore, the television screen is part of the physical
structure of the brain. Therefore, whatever appears in the
television screen emerges as raw experience for those who
watch it. Therefore, television is reality, and reality is
less than television."
- Professor Brian O'Blivion
=====================================
Dana Tweedy
"MurphyInOhio" <murphy...@wmconnect.com> wrote in message
news:murphy-20040727155...@mb-m04.wmconnect.com...
> >Insofar as skywise/CoPT/Charles Darwin has persisted in using sockpuppets
> >and aliases to evade killfiles, and insofar as he/she has refused all
> >attempts to discuss the matter in private email, he was banned for
abusive
> >posting behaviour (to talk.origins) some time ago.
> >Greg
>
> Greg, you're banning this gentleman for WHAT reason now?
Didn't you read David's post?
> I observe numerous of
> evolutionists here: cursing and using abusive racial and sexist slurs,
Even if that were true, so what?
> all the
> while using fake Hotmail accounts.
What's wrong with that? Did you think you were the only one who could use a
fake name?
I have consistently requested you to attend
> to your administrative offices and to remove these posters.
And he gave your whining all the attention it deserved.
> Why do you not
> address substantive complaints.
When are you going to come up with substantive complaints?
>..and yet, on some extremely tenuous context,
> ban a Creationist poster, as I see taking place here?
He's banned for violating the rules of the newsgroup. Being a creationist,
and of limitied mental capacity is not a banning offense, otherwise you
wouldn't be here.
DJT
Traveler
<NOS...@NOSPAM.net> wrote:
>Traveler <trav...@nospam.com> wrote in
>news:j1ddg0961co85f7t8...@4ax.com:
>
>> The Bible may not talk about the earth's magnetic field but
>> it talks about more fundamental things than that, such as
>> DNA, for example, including the four nucleotides. Next time
>> you take a look at the book of Ezekiel, check out the four
>> creatures with the four wings and the four faces. Even the
>> DNA double helix (the wheel within a wheel) is mentioned.
>> Certainly, the text is written in symbolic form, a method
>> used by the ancients to hide their sacred knowledge, but
>> the metaphor is unmistakable.
>
>Bullshit! The only resemblence between the 4 critters and
>nucleotides is their number and the double helix is a spiral
>not a wheel. The text might be written in symbolic form... or
>it might be the ravings of a lunatic who's been in the sun too
>long. Even if it is symbolic, it would refer to the current
>events of the time it was written.
Your opinion matters to me because...
Louis Savain
Denis Loubet
"Traveler" <trav...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:j1ddg0961co85f7t8...@4ax.com...
> In article <_NKdnXKk_-4...@io.com>, "Denis Loubet"
> <dlo...@io.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Charles Darwin" <Cha...@inhell.com> wrote in message
> >news:v_uNc.23$%O5....@news.uswest.net...
> >> Evilution's Unanswerable Problems
> >>
> >> Evilution is faced with a great number of unanswerable problems.
Problems
> >> so gigantic that it boggles the human mind. Just to list a few of
these
> >> origin problems:
> >
> >> Earth mangnetic flux rundown
> >
> >This is a joke, right? Just where DOES the bible address the earth's
> >magnetic field?
>
> The Bible may not talk about the earth's magnetic field but it talks
> about more fundamental things than that, such as DNA, for example,
> including the four nucleotides. Next time you take a look at the book
> of Ezekiel, check out the four creatures with the four wings and the
> four faces. Even the DNA double helix (the wheel within a wheel) is
> mentioned. Certainly, the text is written in symbolic form, a method
> used by the ancients to hide their sacred knowledge, but the metaphor
> is unmistakable.
Ok, this IS a joke. Whew, you had me going there for a second.
Richard Crawford
> In article <c0zNc.51946$2i3.41686@clgrps12>, "Brian O'Blivion"
> <NOS...@NOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Traveler <trav...@nospam.com> wrote in
>>news:j1ddg0961co85f7t8...@4ax.com:
>>
>>
>>>The Bible may not talk about the earth's magnetic field but
>>>it talks about more fundamental things than that, such as
>>>DNA, for example, including the four nucleotides. Next time
>>>you take a look at the book of Ezekiel, check out the four
>>>creatures with the four wings and the four faces. Even the
>>>DNA double helix (the wheel within a wheel) is mentioned.
>>>Certainly, the text is written in symbolic form, a method
>>>used by the ancients to hide their sacred knowledge, but
>>>the metaphor is unmistakable.
>>
>>Bullshit! The only resemblence between the 4 critters and
>>nucleotides is their number and the double helix is a spiral
>>not a wheel. The text might be written in symbolic form... or
>>it might be the ravings of a lunatic who's been in the sun too
>>long. Even if it is symbolic, it would refer to the current
>>events of the time it was written.
>
>
> Your opinion matters to me because...
Uh oh, Brian! You offended Louis, and he brought out his big rhetorical
guns! You're in trouble now!
Traveler
<rscraw...@mossREMOVEHERBIVOREroot.com> wrote:
Yep. One rhetorical gun against another.
Traveler
<dlo...@io.com> wrote:
Your point is...
Louis Savain
Tom McDonald
>>Insofar as skywise/CoPT/Charles Darwin has persisted in using sockpuppets
>>and aliases to evade killfiles, and insofar as he/she has refused all
>>attempts to discuss the matter in private email, he was banned for abusive
>>posting behaviour (to talk.origins) some time ago.
>>Greg
>
>
> Greg
You persist in trying to talk to some 'Greg' person, when no
such person has posted in the thread. Perhaps your views would
receive more respect if you offered respect to others.
Especially a person you appear to be asking things from.
Tom McDonald
torch
If someone, before the discovery of DNA, had said that one could interperate
the book of Ezekial as meaning that the building blocks of life are made up
of groups of 4 necleotides carried by a structure that resembled a wheel
within a wheel I might be impressed. But to come up with this painful,
contrived interpretation after the event just looks dishonest.
Heres a challenge - you say the Bible is a treasure chest of scientific
knowledge and that the metaphor is unmistakeable - so dig into that treasure
chest and tell us some scientific fact that we dont already know - come on
just one - shouldnt be too hard.
Traveler
<to...@torch.com> wrote:
Fair enough.
> But to come up with this painful,
>contrived interpretation after the event just looks dishonest.
"Contrived", in your opinion, of course.
>Heres a challenge - you say the Bible is a treasure chest of scientific
>knowledge and that the metaphor is unmistakeable - so dig into that treasure
>chest and tell us some scientific fact that we dont already know - come on
>just one - shouldnt be too hard.
I already have. They are on my site. I provide several falsifiable and
very specific predictions about the brain. Here's the link.
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Seven/predictions.html
There will be many more to come as I continue my interpretation of the
text. Soon, I will make a prediction about the existence of the aether
(yes, virginia, there is an aether) and its four constituents.
Louis Savain
John Harshman
Traveler wrote:
> In article <c0zNc.51946$2i3.41686@clgrps12>, "Brian O'Blivion"
> <NOS...@NOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Traveler <trav...@nospam.com> wrote in
>>news:j1ddg0961co85f7t8...@4ax.com:
>>
>>
>>>The Bible may not talk about the earth's magnetic field but
>>>it talks about more fundamental things than that, such as
>>>DNA, for example, including the four nucleotides. Next time
>>>you take a look at the book of Ezekiel, check out the four
>>>creatures with the four wings and the four faces. Even the
>>>DNA double helix (the wheel within a wheel) is mentioned.
>>>Certainly, the text is written in symbolic form, a method
>>>used by the ancients to hide their sacred knowledge, but
>>>the metaphor is unmistakable.
>>>
>>Bullshit! The only resemblence between the 4 critters and
>>nucleotides is their number and the double helix is a spiral
>>not a wheel. The text might be written in symbolic form... or
>>it might be the ravings of a lunatic who's been in the sun too
>>long. Even if it is symbolic, it would refer to the current
>>events of the time it was written.
>>
>
> Your opinion matters to me because...
...you keep posting in apparent hope of convincing him.
If all modern knowledge was is encoded in the bible, and this was known
to those ancient folks, why didn't they ever make any use of it?
And of course it's interesting that you only find stuff we already know.
The real test of your theory would be finding something we don't already
know, and then performing experiments to determine that this something
is true.
Matt Silberstein
Can you tell us something scientific from the Bible that scientists do
not yet know? Finding things after the scientists is rather easy, as
is ignoring the stuff that is flat out wrong (solid sky, for
instance).
--
Matt Silberstein
Do in order to understand.
Traveler
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>Traveler wrote:
>
>> In article <c0zNc.51946$2i3.41686@clgrps12>, "Brian O'Blivion"
>> <NOS...@NOSPAM.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Traveler <trav...@nospam.com> wrote in
>>>news:j1ddg0961co85f7t8...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The Bible may not talk about the earth's magnetic field but
>>>>it talks about more fundamental things than that, such as
>>>>DNA, for example, including the four nucleotides. Next time
>>>>you take a look at the book of Ezekiel, check out the four
>>>>creatures with the four wings and the four faces. Even the
>>>>DNA double helix (the wheel within a wheel) is mentioned.
>>>>Certainly, the text is written in symbolic form, a method
>>>>used by the ancients to hide their sacred knowledge, but
>>>>the metaphor is unmistakable.
>>>>
>>>Bullshit! The only resemblence between the 4 critters and
>>>nucleotides is their number and the double helix is a spiral
>>>not a wheel. The text might be written in symbolic form... or
>>>it might be the ravings of a lunatic who's been in the sun too
>>>long. Even if it is symbolic, it would refer to the current
>>>events of the time it was written.
>>>
>>
>> Your opinion matters to me because...
>
>
>...you keep posting in apparent hope of convincing him.
You're joking. Why him? I have no desire to convince that asshole of
anything.
>If all modern knowledge was is encoded in the bible, and this was known
>to those ancient folks, why didn't they ever make any use of it?
First off, stop being disingenuous. I never said that all modern
knowledge is encoded in the Bible. If you are sure of your
convictions, stand on your own two feet. There is no need to lie.
Second, I doubt very much that the people who wrote these things down
knew what they meant. Ezekiel clearly explained that he was having a
vision. He just wrote down what he saw without understanding the
vision.
>And of course it's interesting that you only find stuff we already know.
>The real test of your theory would be finding something we don't already
>know, and then performing experiments to determine that this something
>is true.
As I wrote in another reply to someone else, I have already made
several falsifiable predictions about the brain on my site. And soon,
I will be making a prediction about the four constituents of the
aether. For now, I will say that they are photons (Seraphim, the
burning ones) of which there are four basic types.
Traveler
Silberstein <matts2...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Aren't you the asshole who recently accused me of being a troll? Why
are you reading my posts?
Louis Savain
Phil Roberts
reluctantly from the curtain and staggered drunkenly up to the
mic. In a cracked and slurred voice he muttered:
> And of course it's interesting that you only find stuff we
> already know. The real test of your theory would be finding
> something we don't already know, and then performing experiments
> to determine that this something is true.
He doesn't perform experiments. He's too busy programming the worlds
first artificial intelligence based upon his biblical theories. He
lets other people undertake the tedious labour of science. Or the
"chicken-shit religious cult" as he so charmingly puts it.
--
Phil Roberts | Deedle Doot Doo Dee Dee | http://www.flatnet.net/
This global evolutionist conspiracy of evil athiests can kiss
my ass! Wheres my goddamn cheque??
John Harshman
Traveler wrote:
But you apparently have a desire to convince the readers of TO, in
general, of something. Do you think there are lots more readers who
haven't commented but are impressed by your offhand dismissal of his
opposing claims?
>>If all modern knowledge was is encoded in the bible, and this was known
>>to those ancient folks, why didn't they ever make any use of it?
>>
>
> First off, stop being disingenuous. I never said that all modern
> knowledge is encoded in the Bible. If you are sure of your
> convictions, stand on your own two feet. There is no need to lie.
Thanks. I'll stop lying right now.
> Second, I doubt very much that the people who wrote these things down
> knew what they meant. Ezekiel clearly explained that he was having a
> vision. He just wrote down what he saw without understanding the
> vision.
So when you said "Certainly, the text is written in symbolic form, a
method used by the ancients to hide their sacred knowledge...", that
wasn't actually relevant to the bible, right? In that case, it was
merely God hiding *his* sacred knowledge because...why again?
>>And of course it's interesting that you only find stuff we already know.
>>The real test of your theory would be finding something we don't already
>>know, and then performing experiments to determine that this something
>>is true.
>
> As I wrote in another reply to someone else, I have already made
> several falsifiable predictions about the brain on my site.
I have to give you credit for trying. As far as I can tell, your first
prediction isn't a prediction: it's something you claim to have
discovered before finding it in the bible. Since I know little about
neuroscience, I can't evaluate the others, whether they are gibberish,
known truths, already falsified, or unknown predictions.
At any rate, you may have fulfilled the first requirement, that of
making a prediction about something we don't already know. Now have you
tested any of these predictions yet?
> And soon,
> I will be making a prediction about the four constituents of the
> aether. For now, I will say that they are photons (Seraphim, the
> burning ones) of which there are four basic types.
OK. Tell more.
Traveler
<phil.r...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> emerged
>reluctantly from the curtain and staggered drunkenly up to the
>mic. In a cracked and slurred voice he muttered:
>
>> And of course it's interesting that you only find stuff we
>> already know. The real test of your theory would be finding
>> something we don't already know, and then performing experiments
>> to determine that this something is true.
>
>He doesn't perform experiments. He's too busy programming the worlds
>first artificial intelligence based upon his biblical theories. He
>lets other people undertake the tedious labour of science. Or the
>"chicken-shit religious cult" as he so charmingly puts it.
What do you know? I have a fan. Still suffering from your feelings of
worthlessness, Roberts?
Bobby D. Bryant
> What do you know? I have a fan.
Almost everyone has _one_ fan.
Matt Silberstein
<trav...@nospam.com> wrote:
I thought I would give you a chance to make a substantive post. I
gather you did not want to. Sorry my post got you so emotional.
Bobby D. Bryant
> Artificial Intelligence From the Bible:
> http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Seven/bible.html
Don't bogart that... LSD?
Traveler
Silberstein <matts2...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Eat shit Silberstein. I need no favors from you.
TQ
"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.07.27....@mail.utexas.edu...
Where's mine? :-(
Traveler
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
No I don't. I am a researcher. I am conducting research into biblical
symbolism. Unlike many who post here, I don't know it all. There is a
lot of metaphors in the Bible that I am ignorant about. I post here on
the outside chance that someone like-minded may see something I do not
see. Or see it in a different light. I have no desire to convince
anyone.
> Do you think there are lots more readers who
>haven't commented but are impressed by your offhand dismissal of his
>opposing claims?
He can take his opposing claims and wipe his ass with it, for all I
care. And a great jurist you would make. You have no trouble noticing
my offhand dismissal of his so-called "claims" while ignoring that the
first word in his reply was "bullshit!" What is this? A mutual
ass-kissing society?
>>>If all modern knowledge was is encoded in the bible, and this was known
>>>to those ancient folks, why didn't they ever make any use of it?
>>>
>>
>> First off, stop being disingenuous. I never said that all modern
>> knowledge is encoded in the Bible. If you are sure of your
>> convictions, stand on your own two feet. There is no need to lie.
>
>Thanks. I'll stop lying right now.
Yeah. You do that.
>> Second, I doubt very much that the people who wrote these things down
>> knew what they meant. Ezekiel clearly explained that he was having a
>> vision. He just wrote down what he saw without understanding the
>> vision.
>
>
>So when you said "Certainly, the text is written in symbolic form, a
>method used by the ancients to hide their sacred knowledge...", that
>wasn't actually relevant to the bible, right?
Actually, the story goes that when Ezekiel wrote his book, the scribes
of his day were sorely pissed at him for bringing sacred knowledge out
in the open. So others apparently knew about the particular subject
beforehand.
> In that case, it was
>merely God hiding *his* sacred knowledge because...why again?
In this case, yes. In the case of a prophet such as Daniel, we see a
lot of symbolism (the statue with the golden head is an example) that
are explained right in the book itself. But the Bible is not the only
example of the widespread practice of using metaphors to hide
knowledge. All the ancient civilizations used it, from the Sumerians
and the Egyptians to the ancient Greeks. Even the Mayans and the
Olmecs used sophisticated metaphors to encode their cosmology. My
point is that they must have somehow inherited their practice from a
common source.
>>>And of course it's interesting that you only find stuff we already know.
>>>The real test of your theory would be finding something we don't already
>>>know, and then performing experiments to determine that this something
>>>is true.
>>
>> As I wrote in another reply to someone else, I have already made
>> several falsifiable predictions about the brain on my site.
>
>
>I have to give you credit for trying. As far as I can tell, your first
>prediction isn't a prediction: it's something you claim to have
>discovered before finding it in the bible.
Well, one cannot possibly interpret a metaphor without first having an
idea of what the metaphor might mean. This is true of any deciphering
project. One needs a Rosetta stone of sorts. But, I'll grant you that.
Still it is a prediction that science does not yet know about.
> Since I know little about
>neuroscience, I can't evaluate the others, whether they are gibberish,
>known truths, already falsified, or unknown predictions.
Well, I do know about neuroscience and I challenge any neuroscientist
among you to falsify my predictions or at least tell me that they have
already been falsified. If you know of any such falsification, please
provide sources.
>At any rate, you may have fulfilled the first requirement, that of
>making a prediction about something we don't already know. Now have you
>tested any of these predictions yet?
I would if I had the lab resources. These are predictions that must be
tested on lab animals. But I am in the process of writing code to test
my model in a computer program. The program is being designed to learn
chess from scratch. At least, that is my goal. We'll see.
>> And soon,
>> I will be making a prediction about the four constituents of the
>> aether. For now, I will say that they are photons (Seraphim, the
>> burning ones) of which there are four basic types.
>
>
>OK. Tell more.
I can tell you that there are four dimensions and that time is not one
of them. A temporal dimension is pure crackpottery from weak-minded
physicists since it would forbid motion. I can tell you that Aristotle
was right about motion, that nothing can move unless it is caused to
move: if it weren't for our interactions with the particles of the
aether, nothing would move at all. I can tell you that the aether is a
highly ordered and immense four-dimensional expanse arranged like a
lattice. I can tell your that everything that happens, i.e., the
entire history of the visible universe is recorded in the aether. I
could tell you a lot more, but this is neither the time nor the place
for it. I can tell you that the entire visible universe is moving at c
in one dimension of the aether: the fourth.
Boikat
"TQ" <adamrit...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:10gdo1n...@corp.supernews.com...
Wal-Mart was having a sale a few days ago. They had a 20 inch fan for sale
for 19.95, marked down from 24.95.
Boikat
>
>
Richard Crawford
He's been hiding under my desk at work. I keep trying to tease him out
with crackers but it isn't working.
Matt Silberstein
<trav...@nospam.com> wrote:
I seem to have distressed you. I did not mean to do that. Please
accept my apologies. Perhaps you can let me know in the future if I
have tread on a sensitive area.
Steve Knight
<Cha...@inhell.com> wrote:
>Evilution's Unanswerable Problems
Having genetically retarded lifeforms swimming in the yellow side
of the pool complain?
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly
*nemo*
"Charles Darwin" <Cha...@inhell.com> wrote:
> All of these, and many more, should cause even the most rabid evilutionary
> religionists to stop and consider what kind of a false religion they
> worship.
>
What an odd set of wishful assertions. You're an idiot, you know.
> On the other hand, God's Word answers all these questions, sometimes even
> down to the smallest detail.
>
You mean like rabits that chew cud, and the "fact" that bats are really
birds? Man, what a terrific science sourcebook you got there, chief!
> So, who does one believe: Fallible men or an infallible Creator?
More wishful thinking. Do be a good boy and find some real science books
to read for a change. Here's a hint... if a book is used as a biology
text by Bob Jones University, you know you're in trouble.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
Bill
news:ljjdg057klmlbutsb...@4ax.com...
An obvious "FLAT WRONG" is that the Bible refers to the earth a as FLAT and
that the sun and the universe revolves around the earth.
Tom McDonald
> In article <muldg0d5bou21b50p...@4ax.com>, Matt
> Silberstein <matts2...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 21:58:55 +0000 (UTC), Traveler
>><trav...@nospam.com> wrote:
<snip>
>>>Aren't you the asshole who recently accused me of being a troll? Why
>>>are you reading my posts?
>>
>>I thought I would give you a chance to make a substantive post. I
>>gather you did not want to. Sorry my post got you so emotional.
>
>
> Eat shit Silberstein. I need no favors from you.
Such passion! Such emotion! Such substance!
Well, not that last.
What is your point?
Tom McDonald
Denis Loubet
That the idea the bible has something to say about DNA is a laugh riot. It's
insane.
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
Traveler
<dlo...@io.com> wrote:
Point taken. Your opinion, of course.
Kermit
> Evilution's Unanswerable Problems
>
> Evilution is faced with a great number of unanswerable problems. Problems
> so gigantic that it boggles the human mind. Just to list a few of these
> origin problems:
> Complete absence of evidence of life transitions
All fossil species either still exist, went extinct, or were
transitional.
> Death of life*
?
Sorry to break itto you, but all things die.
Some not soon enough.
>
> All of these, and many more, should cause even the most rabid evilutionary
> religionists to stop and consider what kind of a false religion they
> worship.
I haven't worshipped any religion in 40 years.
>
> On the other hand, God's Word answers all these questions, sometimes even
> down to the smallest detail.
>
Bullshit. Please tell me where the bible addresses the magnetic
fields, DNA, or beneficial mutations.
> So, who does one believe: Fallible men or an infallible Creator?
You mean:
one, fallible men (and women!) with evidence,
or two, fallible men who claim to speak for a god.
>
> *You too are going to die for we have no choice:
>
> If you are born once you will die twice.
> If you are born twice you will die only once. John 3:3
According to the Upanishads we are all born over and over until we get
it right.
Kermit
Douglas Berry
was pushed over the cliffs of alt.atheism on Tue, 27 Jul 2004 15:52:43
+0000 (UTC) by Zoog, minion of Zathar. As he fell, he screamed:
>Evilution's Unanswerable Problems
>
>Evilution is faced with a great number of unanswerable problems. Problems
>so gigantic that it boggles the human mind. Just to list a few of these
>origin problems:
>
Most animals communicate. The more social, the more complex the
communication in the species. Wolves in particular have extremely
complex languages that need to be taught to cubs.
>Hearing at different frequencies
Why shouldn't we? The ear receives vibrations. Whats amazing is how
limited our hearing actually is.
>Human brain & nervous system
Not really. We have a very good idea how the brain works, and it's
just the same as the brain of moose or a salamander or a shark. The
difference is size in total amd relative sizes of different area.
Owls have huge portions of their brain for processing information from
their senses, and are dumb as posts.
>Human circulation & respiratory systems
Just the same as every other creature large than an insect. We all
evolved the same system of heart and lungs, with some variations.
>Reproduction(male & female or even simple)
Very haphazard and prone to failure.
>Immune systems
Lack of immunity kills us. As we evolved, and disease mutate, we gain
resistances.
>Diseases
In general? Proof of evolution. The common cold is constantly
evolving, changing to get past our defenses. The cold you had last
week is not the same virus you got today.
>Mutations that are almost always harmful
But not always. Some are beneficial. For example, my brother and I
can see a bit into the UV.
When a mutation pops up that improves a creatures ability to survive
and procreate, it begins to spread until the mutation is the norm.
>Human eyes(in fact all eyes that must be complete to work)
Nope. Look up photosensitive organs. There are a lot of critters
that can't see, but can sense light (worms are a good example. At
some point a mutation gave one critter slightly better eyespots. It
could find food and avoid predators a little better than his
fellows...
>Bird flight & structure(lungs, bones, feathers)
>Insect flight
Learn physics.
>Cambrian life explosion of complete creatures
Yes? The fossil record from that time is very spotty. But it is
clear that during the precambiran (a period of hundreds of millions of
years) multicellular life exploded onto the scene.)
To give an example, it would be like of you visited the island of
Manhatten in 3,600 BC. You'd see an empty, wooded isle. Your next
visit was in 2004. Wow, all of a sudden there's a city here!
A logical person would say "During the last 5500 years, a civilization
developed here and built a city."
You'd say "God did it."
>Worldwide flood geology evidence
>Arctic/Anarctic ice miles deep of fresh water(no salt)
>Ocean salt/river salt depostion
>Earth mangnetic flux rundown
All have nothing to do with evolution.
But.. the Arctic ice cap is not miles deep. Rarely more than 20 or 30
meters. The caps are salt ice because the oceans aren't cold enough
to freeze. The arctic cap is feed by northern glaciers and snow fall.
Antarctica is in fact a continent. Why would you expect to find salt
water on a landmass?
>Comets & meteors
Are left-overs from the formation of our solar system. Christianity
once refused to believe in stones that fell from the skies, and
treated cosmic ice cubes as omens of doom.
Silly, eh?
>Earth atmosphere that supports life
We evolved to breathe the current atomosphere.
>Mega molecules that support life
>Life itself-in all forms
>Complete absence of evidence of life transitions
Except for the thousands we have.
>Death of life*
Entropy sucks.
>All of these, and many more, should cause even the most rabid evilutionary
>religionists to stop and consider what kind of a false religion they
>worship.
I don't worship anything. I apply science.
>On the other hand, God's Word answers all these questions, sometimes even
>down to the smallest detail.
Really? Where does the Bible explain the levels of iridium found in
nickel-iron meteroites? Exact verse please.
>So, who does one believe: Fallible men or an infallible Creator?
Your God made mistakes. He admits it in the Flood story.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
Denis Loubet
Hahahahaha!
I bet I could find something in Moby Dick that would describe all the
wonders of quantum mechanics, if I'm allowed to freely interpret words any
way I feel.
If you think the bible says anything about DNA, you're crazy.
Eros
> Evilution's Unanswerable Problems
>
> Evilution is faced with a great number of unanswerable problems. Problems
> so gigantic that it boggles the human mind. Just to list a few of these
> origin problems:
>
Nothing in the Theory of Evolution precludes this.
> Hearing at different frequencies
Ditto.
> Human brain & nervous system
Creationists are lacking in this area, however hothing in the Theory
of Evolution precludes this.
> Human circulation & respiratory systems
Nothing in the Theory of Evolution precludes this.
> Reproduction(male & female or even simple)
Ditto.
> Immune systems
Ditto.
> Diseases
Ditto.
> Mutations that are almost always harmful
... or beneficial, or neutral. The Theory of Evolution encompasses all
three.
> Human eyes(in fact all eyes that must be complete to work)
The Theory of Evolution predicts the development of eyes of varying
complexity, exactly as we see in nature. The ridiculous notion of the
evolution of suddenly complete complex eyes or, worse still, of of
"incomplete" eyes, is a Creationists strawman argument based on
ignorant misconception.
> Bird flight & structure(lungs, bones, feathers)
Nothing in the Theory of Evolution precludes this.
> Insect flight
Ditto.
> Cold & warm blooded creatures
Ditto.
> Instinct(mating, nesting, migration)
Ditto.
> Cambrian life explosion of complete creatures
Another creationist strawman argument based on ignorance of what
evolution actually predicts.
> Worldwide flood geology evidence
None exists. Besides that's geology not biology. The theory of
evolution is a biological theory.
> Arctic/Anarctic ice miles deep of fresh water(no salt)
WTF!?? Isn't this more a problem for the global flood myth? Don't you
realise where how artic and antarctic ice forms? How could it contain
any appreciable salt?
> Ocean salt/river salt depostion
This is geology, not biology. Nothing to do with evolution, whatever
silly concept you have about "salt depostion". If I were you I'd be
more worried about explaining the mile thick deposits of salt between
layers of sedimentary rock, which totally rule out a global flood.
> Earth mangnetic flux rundown
Old, many-times-debunked Creationist argument, based (again) on
ignorance... this time ignorance of geophysics. I suppose you go to
the seaside and panic when you see the steadily incoming tide...
extrapolating the rising water level to it's illogical conclusion.
Hmmmm, maybe you could use that as some sort of "proof" for a global
flood.
> Comets & meteors
This is astronomy, not biology. Nothing to do with evolution
> Earth atmosphere that supports life
Yes we have one.... otherwise life would not have evolved the way it
did. Your point?
> Mega molecules that support life
Ditto.
> Life itself-in all forms
Ditto.
> Complete absence of evidence of life transitions
Ignorance is no excuse. Read the T.O. FAQs.
> Death of life*
An *absolute* requirement for evolution to occur. Your point??!!
> All of these, and many more, should cause even the most rabid evilutionary
> religionists to stop and consider what kind of a false religion they
> worship.
That statements is silly on so many levels!
> On the other hand, God's Word answers all these questions, sometimes even
> down to the smallest detail.
God's "word" can be used to explain away absolutely anything,
because;-
"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any
field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it
contradicts the Scriptural record. -- Answers in Genesis', "Statement
of Faith":- <http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp>
"There is no observational fact imaginable which cannot, one way or
another, be made to fit the creation model." -- Dr. Henry Morris
(Institute for Creation Research)
> So, who does one believe: Fallible men or an infallible Creator?
Reality or religious superstition... reality or religious
superstition... let me think.... religious superstition?? Nope, I go
for reality every time, I'm afraid!
> *You too are going to die for we have no choice:
This belongs in the "stating the bleeding obvious" category.
> If you are born once you will die twice.
This belongs in the "are you on medication?" category.
> If you are born twice you will die only once. John 3:3
This belongs in the "I believe in fairy tales" category.
EROS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Bible is evidence that it isn't evidence. "
Traveler
<dlo...@io.com> wrote:
I bet you can do all sorts of things. You can even pound sand up your
ass.
>If you think the bible says anything about DNA, you're crazy.
And your opinion matters to me because...
Susan S
<matts2...@ix.netcom.com>:
He may be insulting the wrong Silberstein. *I* called him a troll
on July 18.
"If you continue to feed the troll, it will get very fat and
explode. Don't expect me to clean up your mess."
Susan Silberstein
John Wilkins
So, logically inferring, trolls feed on information, and if they have
too much information they explode...
OK, works for me.
--
John Wilkins
john...@wilkins.id.au http://wilkins.id.au
"Men mark it when they hit, but do not mark it when they miss"
- Francis Bacon
Levy Oates
>The Bible may not talk about the earth's magnetic field but it talks
>about more fundamental things than that, such as DNA, for example,
>including the four nucleotides. Next time you take a look at the book
>of Ezekiel, check out the four creatures with the four wings and the
>four faces. Even the DNA double helix (the wheel within a wheel) is
>mentioned. Certainly, the text is written in symbolic form, a method
>used by the ancients to hide their sacred knowledge, but the metaphor
>is unmistakable.
You're a complete loony.
---------
Archdeacom Levy Oates
On behalf of the Prophet Eric Peabody (pbuh)
Basingstoke, England
http://www.angelfire.com/alt/bumblism/
Levy Oates
<matts2...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>Human speech & communication
>
>God did it.
You mean "goddidit" surely?
Levy Oates
>>If you think the bible says anything about DNA, you're crazy.
>
>And your opinion matters to me because...
....because, because, because, because, becauuuu...uuuse,
Because of the wonderful things he does!
We're off to see the wizard, the wonderful wizard of Oz...
Levy Oates
wrote:
>Evilution's Unanswerable Problems
I'd say you were evolution's biggest unanswerable problem. 4.7 billion years and
the best it could come up with is you.
Matt Silberstein
Was that an insult? I thought he was just upset because I had touch
some emotionally sore spot.
>"If you continue to feed the troll, it will get very fat and
>explode. Don't expect me to clean up your mess."
I had and do call him a troll. A emotionally fragile troll with a
strong touch of kook, but a troll none the less. Oh, and Traveler, you
should not care what I think even if you do.
Alexander
"John Wilkins" <john...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:1ghn4fl.tp99huzdiqywN%john...@wilkins.id.au...
Only if you manage to feed them one last wafer thin comment
ltêr@hsotmail.com Phÿltêr
news:v_uNc.23$%O5....@news.uswest.net:
> Evilution's Unanswerable Problems
>
> Evilution is faced with a great number of unanswerable problems.
Like how the retard known as "Church Of The Painful Truth" is constantly
attacking it, but his explanation of the way of things is "Gawd".
Good answer, you antagonising cunt.
--
Phÿltêr
AA#1938
Denizen of Darkness #44 & AFJC Antipodean Attaché
http://forums.clickhalah.com/index.php
Remove "s" to respond
ltêr@hsotmail.com Phÿltêr
news:c2kdg01opl9jtosm4...@4ax.com:
> In article <ljjdg057klmlbutsb...@4ax.com>, Matt
> Silberstein <matts2...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 20:02:57 +0000 (UTC), Traveler
>><trav...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <_NKdnXKk_-4...@io.com>, "Denis Loubet"
>>><dlo...@io.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Charles Darwin" <Cha...@inhell.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:v_uNc.23$%O5....@news.uswest.net...
>>>>> Evilution's Unanswerable Problems
>>>>>
>>>>> Evilution is faced with a great number of unanswerable problems.
>>>>> Problems so gigantic that it boggles the human mind. Just to list a
>>>>> few of these origin problems:
>>>>
>>>>> Earth mangnetic flux rundown
>>>>
>>>>This is a joke, right? Just where DOES the bible address the earth's
>>>>magnetic field?
>>>
>>>The Bible may not talk about the earth's magnetic field but it talks
>>>about more fundamental things than that, such as DNA, for example,
>>>including the four nucleotides. Next time you take a look at the book
>>>of Ezekiel, check out the four creatures with the four wings and the
>>>four faces. Even the DNA double helix (the wheel within a wheel) is
>>>mentioned. Certainly, the text is written in symbolic form, a method
>>>used by the ancients to hide their sacred knowledge, but the metaphor
>>>is unmistakable.
>>>
>>>Louis Savain
>>>
>>>PS. DNA is just the tip of the iceberg of the scientific treasure
>>>chest that is the Bible. One just needs to know where and how to look.
>>>There is a lot more where that came from.
>>
>>Can you tell us something scientific from the Bible that scientists do
>>not yet know? Finding things after the scientists is rather easy, as
>>is ignoring the stuff that is flat out wrong (solid sky, for
>>instance).
>
> Aren't you the asshole who recently accused me of being a troll? Why
> are you reading my posts?
Oh dear, someone reading usenet posts and responding to them....what's
his next evil move...
Bob Pease
"Denis Loubet" <dlo...@io.com> wrote in message
news:Cdmdnbzhot7...@io.com...
O Ye of little Faith!!!
Exodus 21:16
"Anyone who ki*dna*ps another and either sells him or still has him when he
is caught must be put to death.
Clear reference to life-giving qualities of DNA
Deuteronomy 24:7
If a man is caught ki*dna*pping one of his brother Israelites and treats him
as a slave or sells him, the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil
from among you.
Here DNA and Brother are closely related
1 Chronicles 12:20
When David went to Ziklag, these were the men of Manasseh who defected to
him: A*dna*h, Jozabad, Jediael, Michael, Jozabad, Elihu and Zillethai,
leaders of units of a thousand in Manasseh.
The Govenor of Texas in the Interregnum of Sam Houston was Elihu Pease,
Here we have DNA and a Prediction of U.S. History!
2 Chronicles 17:14
Their enrollment by families was as follows: From Judah, commanders of units
of 1,000: A*dna*h the commander, with 300,000 fighting men;
Are not A and H members of RNA ??
Ezra 10:30
From the descendants of Pahath-Moab: A*dna*, Kelal, Benaiah, Maaseiah,
Mattaniah, Bezalel, Binnui and Manasseh.
Nehemiah 12:15
of Harim's, A*dna*; of Meremoth's,
RNA gives over 300 hits
The best one is
Exodus 25:9
Make this tabe*rna*cle and all its furnishings exactly like the pattern I
will show you.
Describing exactly the function of RNA
Pope Bobby II
Reformed Church of the Subgenius
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.661 / Virus Database: 424 - Release Date: 4/19/04
Traveler
<otoerem...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The gutless mutual ass-kissing society has convened. Excellent.
Traveler
<levy_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 20:02:57 +0000 (UTC), Traveler <trav...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>The Bible may not talk about the earth's magnetic field but it talks
>>about more fundamental things than that, such as DNA, for example,
>>including the four nucleotides. Next time you take a look at the book
>>of Ezekiel, check out the four creatures with the four wings and the
>>four faces. Even the DNA double helix (the wheel within a wheel) is
>>mentioned. Certainly, the text is written in symbolic form, a method
>>used by the ancients to hide their sacred knowledge, but the metaphor
>>is unmistakable.
>
>You're a complete loony.
Your point is...
Steve the Sauropodman
> In article <_NKdnXKk_-4...@io.com>, "Denis Loubet"
> <dlo...@io.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Charles Darwin" <Cha...@inhell.com> wrote in message
> >news:v_uNc.23$%O5....@news.uswest.net...
> >> Evilution's Unanswerable Problems
> >>
> >> Evilution is faced with a great number of unanswerable problems. Problems
> >> so gigantic that it boggles the human mind. Just to list a few of these
> >> origin problems:
>
> >> Earth mangnetic flux rundown
> >
> >This is a joke, right? Just where DOES the bible address the earth's
> >magnetic field?
>
> about more fundamental things than that, such as DNA, for example,
> including the four nucleotides. Next time you take a look at the book
> of Ezekiel, check out the four creatures with the four wings and the
> four faces. Even the DNA double helix (the wheel within a wheel) is
> mentioned. Certainly, the text is written in symbolic form, a method
> used by the ancients to hide their sacred knowledge, but the metaphor
> is unmistakable.
>
>
> PS. DNA is just the tip of the iceberg of the scientific treasure
> chest that is the Bible. One just needs to know where and how to look.
> There is a lot more where that came from.
>
> http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Seven/bible.html
>
> Falsifiable Predictions:
> http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Seven/predictions.html
I thought the the wheels mentioned in Ezekial were UFO's...flying
saucers...proof of life on other worlds. You mean I been standing
outside at nights, blinking my flashlight on and off at the sky,
waiting for the aliens to return and NOW they're not comming????
(...if there ain't a Freudian metaphor in that phrase...) Oh,
oh...oh yeah, and I suppose crop circles aren't alien landing
coordinates I betcha ? ....bunch 'a party poopers.
;)
"A curse on those geologists. When I read Scripture I can hear the
damned clinking of their infernal hammers in every verse"
- Bishop James Ruskin, 1874
Traveler
<R0CNc.142547$OB3....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Bill"
<wm...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Funny, I read the entire Bible and I don't remember ever seeing any
passage that says that the earth is flat. I do remember a couple of
passages referring to the circle of the earth, though (Job and
Isaiah). And I don't remember anything in the Bible teaching that the
universe revolves around the earth. I do remember a story about an
uneducated and illiterate former slave (Joshua) telling the sun to
stop moving in the sky. But so what?
Louis Savain
Denis Loubet
And even THAT would be more sensible than thinking the bible contains
scientific insights.
> >If you think the bible says anything about DNA, you're crazy.
>
> And your opinion matters to me because...
Oh, I don't expect it to matter at all! Kooks are amazingly resistant to
reality.
Traveler
<dlo...@io.com> wrote:
Your opinion matters to me because...
Traveler
<robe...@dropthospartrobertjp.cnc.net> wrote:
Another ass kisser heard from.
jwk
> Evilution's Unanswerable Problems
>
> Evilution is faced with a great number of unanswerable problems. Problems
> so gigantic that it boggles the human mind. Just to list a few of these
> origin problems:
>
> Hearing at different frequencies
> Human brain & nervous system
> Diseases
> Mutations that are almost always harmful
> Cold & warm blooded creatures
> Cambrian life explosion of complete creatures
> Arctic/Anarctic ice miles deep of fresh water(no salt)
> Earth mangnetic flux rundown
> Earth atmosphere that supports life
> Complete absence of evidence of life transitions
Nope. That list doesn't present me with any problems. Perhaps if you
gave us more details on each issue. Did the creationist website you
copied this from go into any details?
By the way, the "issue" of the "irreducibly complex" eye is bullshit.
There are myriad examples of eyes of different levels of complexity.
The flatworm, for example, has simple eye spots, that can detect light
but not much more. Animal eyes without color vision are another
example.
Got anything new?
jwk
Puck Greenman
wrote:
>The Bible may not talk about the earth's magnetic field but it talks
>about more fundamental things than that, such as DNA, for example,
>including the four nucleotides. Next time you take a look at the book
>of Ezekiel, check out the four creatures with the four wings and the
>four faces.
Please explain how the are representative of nucleotides, and not four
space men, as others have suggested.
> Even the DNA double helix (the wheel within a wheel) is
>mentioned.
Even that fits into the "space man" suggestion.
An aircraft propeller, would appear as a wheel, to someone who had
never seen anything like it.
A helicopter like, machine, with contra rotating rotors, would have
the appearance of a wheel within a wheel, especially if one rotor was
smaller than the other.
Then there is the well documented, hallucinogenic, effects of certain
mushrooms, and sundry other plants and creatures, all of which have
been known to man for thousands of years.
Why is your idea any more probable than either of these, or more
plausible?
> Certainly, the text is written in symbolic form, a method
>used by the ancients to hide their sacred knowledge, but the metaphor
>is unmistakable.
Then please translate the metaphor for us, explaining where each
detail of the story fits with your assertion.
Any one who has ever seen an American astronaut, will easily see the
similarities between the story and "space man" explanation.
Anyone who is familiar with such things as the helicopter, or the
gyroscope, will have no difficulty dealing with the description given,
as being a flying machine of some kind.
Von Danikin(sp), does an excellent explanation of the space man idea,
in one of his books; "Was God an Astronaut?", I believe, but if I am
wrong, I am sure that there are enough people out there who do know
which book, for someone to correct me for you.
BTW, The only one of the three suggestions, that I personally believe
to be anywhere near the truth, is the mushroom one.
Puck Greenman
#162
BAAWA Knight.
Blesed is the self righteous xtian,
for his is the sure and certain knowledge
that no matter what load of tripe he
comes out with:
God told him to say it.
Bob Pease
I haven't even plonked Murphy.
But the reason I plonked this guy is that almost every reply to some issue
he raises amounts to .
"What's your point?"
or
"why should I care about what you say"
Plonk 'em.
Bob Pease
Traveler
<robe...@dropthospartrobertjp.cnc.net> wrote:
I guess Bob Pease has taken offense.
"Many shall take offense and then the end shall come." :-D
Dan Luke
"Traveler" wrote:
> I can tell you that there are four dimensions and that time
> is not one of them. A temporal dimension is pure
> crackpottery from weak-minded physicists since it
> would forbid motion. I can tell you that Aristotle
> was right about motion, that nothing can move unless
> it is caused to move: if it weren't for our interactions
> with the particles of the aether, nothing would move
> at all. I can tell you that the aether is a highly ordered
> and immense four-dimensional expanse arranged like a
> lattice. I can tell your that everything that happens, i.e.,
> the entire history of the visible universe is recorded in
> the aether. I could tell you a lot more, but this is
> neither the time nor the place for it. I can tell you that
> the entire visible universe is moving at c
> in one dimension of the aether: the fourth.
Tee-hee! Absolutely the finest in pure kookery - as good as anything Ted
Holden's ever done! I'm adding this one to my collection.
--
Dan
"Not optimum, but guaranteed not to suck." - Roy Smith
Matt Silberstein
<trav...@nospam.com> wrote:
[snip]
>The gutless mutual ass-kissing society has convened. Excellent.
You seem to have an anal obsession. Have you discussed this with your
therapist? It might help give some insight. I have to say, though,
that your notion of ass-kissing while gutless is less offensive than
it might appear.
Traveler
<pu...@pooks.hill.fey> wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 20:02:57 +0000 (UTC), Traveler
><trav...@nospam.com> with calm deliberation, and malace aforethought,
>wrote:
>
>>The Bible may not talk about the earth's magnetic field but it talks
>>about more fundamental things than that, such as DNA, for example,
>>including the four nucleotides. Next time you take a look at the book
>>of Ezekiel, check out the four creatures with the four wings and the
>>four faces.
>
>Please explain how the are representative of nucleotides, and not four
>space men, as others have suggested.
I am tempted to say "why would I want to do that? Do your own
homework." But I guess I'll be gracious.
>> Even the DNA double helix (the wheel within a wheel) is
>>mentioned.
>
>Even that fits into the "space man" suggestion.
Believe what you want to believe.
>An aircraft propeller, would appear as a wheel, to someone who had
>never seen anything like it.
>
>A helicopter like, machine, with contra rotating rotors, would have
>the appearance of a wheel within a wheel, especially if one rotor was
>smaller than the other.
Sure. And why would a propeller be full of eyes inside and out, pray
tell? Do you people know the difference between metaphorical and
literal?
>Then there is the well documented, hallucinogenic, effects of certain
>mushrooms, and sundry other plants and creatures, all of which have
>been known to man for thousands of years.
Ezekiel was experimenting with hallucinogens. Yeah, right.
>Why is your idea any more probable than either of these, or more
>plausible?
Because spacemen don't have four faces (lion, eagle, bull, human).
These things are metaphorical, i.e., they are symbols that represent
something else.
>> Certainly, the text is written in symbolic form, a method
>>used by the ancients to hide their sacred knowledge, but the metaphor
>>is unmistakable.
>
>Then please translate the metaphor for us, explaining where each
>detail of the story fits with your assertion.
I will do that in a future page on my site. I have other more pressing
things on my plate right now. Maybe you can give it a try. It's not
that hard.
It's like a puzzle. Symbol deciphering is not rocket science. All you
need is a key (an assumption) to start with. A Rosetta stone, if you
will. Then you try the key and see if it fits.
This is how the meaning of Mayan symbols was deciphered by Adele
Schele. She discovered that the Mayans used mythical stories to encode
their knowledge of the cosmos.
[As an aside, I strongly suspect that the four creatures of Ezekiel
have double symbolic meaning. They may have to do with more than just
DNA. The metaphor seems to also fit some fundamental subatomic
particle. But I need to do some more work on this.]
>Any one who has ever seen an American astronaut, will easily see the
>similarities between the story and "space man" explanation.
What are you, a comedian? I see no similarity whatsoever. I don't know
of any astronaut who has four faces and four wings, let alone calf
feet.
>Anyone who is familiar with such things as the helicopter, or the
>gyroscope, will have no difficulty dealing with the description given,
>as being a flying machine of some kind.
Nonsense.
>Von Danikin(sp), does an excellent explanation of the space man idea,
>in one of his books; "Was God an Astronaut?", I believe, but if I am
>wrong, I am sure that there are enough people out there who do know
>which book, for someone to correct me for you.
Von Daniken can go fly a kite, as far as I'm concerned.
>BTW, The only one of the three suggestions, that I personally believe
>to be anywhere near the truth, is the mushroom one.
More power to you.
Traveler
<c17...@xyz.net> wrote:
Your opinion matters to me because...
Puck Greenman
>No I don't. I am a researcher. I am conducting research into biblical
>symbolism. Unlike many who post here, I don't know it all. There is a
>lot of metaphors in the Bible that I am ignorant about. I post here on
>the outside chance that someone like-minded may see something I do not
>see. Or see it in a different light. I have no desire to convince
>anyone.
Are you researching this from the POV of a xtian, or an other
religion, or an atheist, because whichever it is, it will colour your
perceptions. As will your starting, knowledge base.
Traveler
<pu...@pooks.hill.fey> wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 23:10:41 +0000 (UTC), Traveler
><trav...@nospam.com> with calm deliberation, and malace aforethought,
>wrote:
>
>>No I don't. I am a researcher. I am conducting research into biblical
>>symbolism. Unlike many who post here, I don't know it all. There is a
>>lot of metaphors in the Bible that I am ignorant about. I post here on
>>the outside chance that someone like-minded may see something I do not
>>see. Or see it in a different light. I have no desire to convince
>>anyone.
>
>
>Are you researching this from the POV of a xtian, or an other
>religion, or an atheist, because whichever it is, it will colour your
>perceptions. As will your starting, knowledge base.
Makes no difference, IMO. The messenger is not important. What is
important is the message. In this case, the message is this: I was
able to derive several highly specific and falsifiable predictions
about the internal operation of the brain. These are things that are
unknown to modern neurobiology:
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Seven/predictions.html
If the predictions are falsified, my work then amounts to nothing and
I get to walk in shame, tarred and feathered and all that. But if the
predictions are corroborated in the lab, then a lot of people get to
eat a mountain of crow. And I get to watch and say with a smirk on
face: "I told you so, goddamnit!"
Vic Sagerquist
I repeat myself when under stress
I repeat myself when under stress
I repeat myself when under stress
I repeat myself when under stress
I repeat....
[King Crimson]
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
______________
The whole foundation of Christianity is based on the idea that
intellectualism is the work of the Devil. Remember the apple on the tree?
Okay, it was the Tree of Knowledge. "You eat this apple, you're going to be
as smart as God. We can't have that."
[Frank Zappa]
Vic Sagerquist
>"Many shall take offense and then the end shall come." :-D
"I shall go to the grocery store and the end shall come."
Traveler
Sagerquist) wrote:
Your opinion matters to me because... :-D
Traveler
Sagerquist) wrote:
>One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Traveler:
>
>>"Many shall take offense and then the end shall come." :-D
>
>"I shall go to the grocery store and the end shall come."
Yep. You might get hit by delivery truck and have your brain
splattered all over the wall. One never knows, does one?
JessHC
...you're afraid of being wrong.
Ian Braidwood
> And soon,
> I will be making a prediction about the four constituents of the
> aether.
Thank you Louis, I now know to ignore you.
There is no ether.
(-: Ian :-)
TQ
"Richard Crawford" <rscraw...@mossREMOVEHERBIVOREroot.com> wrote in
message news:ce6p6f$9u6$2...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu...
> TQ wrote:
>
> > "Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> > news:pan.2004.07.27....@mail.utexas.edu...
> >
> >>On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 22:17:18 +0000, Traveler wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>What do you know? I have a fan.
> >>
> >>Almost everyone has _one_ fan.
> >>
> >>--
> >>Bobby Bryant
> >>Austin, Texas
> >
> >
> >
> > Where's mine? :-(
> >
> >
>
> He's been hiding under my desk at work. I keep trying to tease him out
> with crackers but it isn't working.
Try putting some peanut butter on them. Sometimes that works (It got me out
from under the desk anyways)
Dan Luke
"Traveler" wrote:
> Your opinion matters to me because...
Hell, Louis, no reason it should at all! I collect the more amusing posts
of loons, you provided me with a gem: I'm simply giving credit where it's
due.
Traveler
<c17...@xyz.net> wrote:
>
>"Traveler" wrote:
>> Your opinion matters to me because...
>
>Hell, Louis, no reason it should at all! I collect the more amusing posts
>of loons, you provided me with a gem: I'm simply giving credit where it's
>due.
And your point is...
Matt Silberstein
[snip]
>I can tell you that there are four dimensions and that time is not one
>of them. A temporal dimension is pure crackpottery from weak-minded
>physicists since it would forbid motion. I can tell you that Aristotle
>was right about motion, that nothing can move unless it is caused to
>move: if it weren't for our interactions with the particles of the
>aether, nothing would move at all. I can tell you that the aether is a
>highly ordered and immense four-dimensional expanse arranged like a
>lattice. I can tell your that everything that happens, i.e., the
>entire history of the visible universe is recorded in the aether. I
>could tell you a lot more, but this is neither the time nor the place
>for it. I can tell you that the entire visible universe is moving at c
>in one dimension of the aether: the fourth.
>
GLENDOWER: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
HOTSPUR: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them?
--- William Shakespeare, Henry IV Part 1, Act 3, Scene 1.
And to answer your question, I don't know why my opinion matters to
you, but it does. I hope I did not hurt you too much with this. If
your sphincter clinches too much perhaps you can learn some relaxation
exercises or, if need be, take some more valium.
Traveler
jes...@phantomemail.com (JessHC) wrote:
Wrong. YOU are afraid that I may be right. Get your story straight.
Traveler
diri...@virgin.net (Ian Braidwood) wrote:
Your opinion matters to me because...
Louis Savain
Andrew Arensburger
> We're off to see the wizard, the wonderful wizard of Oz...
John Wilkins?
(Pay no attention to that philosopher behind the curtain.)
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
"I am Windows of Borg. Prepare... oops, out of memory!"
Richard Crawford
> In article <10gfqpm...@news.supernews.com>, "Dan Luke"
> <c17...@xyz.net> wrote:
>
>
>>"Traveler" wrote:
>>
>>>Your opinion matters to me because...
>>
>>Hell, Louis, no reason it should at all! I collect the more amusing posts
>>of loons, you provided me with a gem: I'm simply giving credit where it's
>>due.
>
>
> And your point is...
This guy is great!
THE SCENE: A scientist comes along and starts poking Louis with a sharp
stick.
SCIENTIST: (poke)
LOUIS: And your opinion matters because...
SCIENTIST: (poke)
LOUIS: And your point is...
SCIENTIST: (poke)
LOUIS: And I care because...
SCIENTIST: (poke)
LOUIS: And your opinion is important because...
SCIENTIST: (poke)
LOUIS: And you think I care because...
SCIENTIST: (poke)
LOUIS: And your point is...?
SCIENTIST: On the end of my sharp stick! (poke)
LOUIS: What is this, some sort of homosexual come on?
I figure Louis has a systematic approach to these things. He posts his
netkook theories, then switches on the 'bot that pastes these
uninteresting and uninformative one-liners in reply to any replies that
come his way.
Which of the two or three responses will he use in response to this post?
Traveler
<rscraw...@mossREMOVEHERBIVOREroot.com> wrote:
I think you, Matt Silberstein and Tom McDonald have a homosexual
fixation directed at my person. Y'all need major therapy.
PS. I wonder if Matt Silberstein and Susan Silberstein are the same
person. That would be a blast. Or maybe you are Susan's alter ego? One
never really knows about these things.
Richard Crawford
Ah HA! It was Response #3! I was going to guess #2 ("And your point
is...") but I guess I was close. When logic fails, shoot for the
homosexual accusations. Pretty funny.
(Now I am betting on Response #1: "And your opinion matters because...")
> PS. I wonder if Matt Silberstein and Susan Silberstein are the same
> person. That would be a blast. Or maybe you are Susan's alter ego? One
> never really knows about these things.
Daniel Harper has speculated that I might be a sock puppet of his, and I
have speculated that Daniel might by MY sock puppet, and it has been
repeatedly pointed out to me that I am, in fact, a sock puppet of Howard
Hershey's (there is a story there that I am not privy to). As far as I
know, though, there is know such relationship between me and Susan
Silberstein. I suspect that both my wife and Matt would have things to
say if it were the case. If, that is, my wife or Matt exist.