Moses speaks to cloud of smoke, doesn't see YHWH's face.
Timothy Sutter
if anyone takes 3 mintutes to read this part with a small
amount of comprehension, they'll see that Moses did not
see YHWH's face, and by the same account from YHWH,
No One has seen YHWH's face and lived.
i'll put a comment here and there,
to make sure you're awake.
Exodus 33
7 Now Moses used to take a tent and pitch it outside
the camp some distance away, calling it the "tent of meeting."
Anyone inquiring of YHWH would go to thetent of meeting
outside the camp. 8 And whenever Moses went out to the tent,
all the people rose and stood at the entrances to their
tents, watching Moses until he entered the tent.
9 As Moses went into the tent, the pillar of cloud would
come down and stay at the entrance, while YHWH spoke
with Moses. 10 Whenever the people saw the pillar of cloud
standing at the entrance to the tent, they all stood
and worshiped, each at the entrance to his tent.
11 YHWH would speak to Moses face to face,
as a man speaks with his friend. Then Moses
would return to the camp, but his young aide
Joshua son of Nun did not leave the tent.
### Moses speaks to a pillar of smoke.
### Moses speaks to the pillar like a friend of his.
### just read it to the next few bars.
12 Moses said to YHWH, "You have been telling me,
`Lead these people,' but you have not let me know whom
you will send with me. You have said, `I know you by
name and you have found favor with me.'
13 If you are pleased with me, teach me your ways
so I may know you and continue to find favor
with you. Remember that this nation is your people."
18 Then Moses said, "Now show me your glory."
19 And YHWH said, "I will cause all my goodness
to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name,
YHWH, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will
have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will
have compassion. 20 But," he said, "you cannot see my face,
for no one may see me and live."
### Moses asks to see YHWH's "glory"
### YHWH says; "you cannot see my face"
### obviously, when Moses spoke to pillar of smoke,
### he was not seeing YHWH's face. WHY?
### Cuz YHWH is hear saying "you can't see my face and live"
### C'mon c'mon, reading comprehension, that's the key here
21 Then YHWH said, "There is a place near
me where you may stand on a rock. 22 When my glory
passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock
and cover you with my hand until I have passed by.
23 Then I will remove my hand and you will
see my back; but my face must not be seen."
### here's good old YHWH telling Moses,
well, i figure anyone who can read
can get that part.
there's a difference between seeing a
manifestation of YHWH and seeing YHWH's face.
and look up there, it says, verse 20,
"no one may see my face and live"
and that ties in nicely with John.
"no one has seen God at any time."
end of story.
Timothy Sutter
In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting that God,
for whom and through whom everything exists, should make
the author of their salvation perfect through suffering.
why?
because it's all a cakewalk for God?
certainly not.
if it were a cakewalk for God, then God would not see
fit to make the author and perfector of our Salvation
perfect thru sufferings.
Moggin Goldberg
Timothy Sutter <tsu...@geocities.com>:
> No One has seen YHWH's face and lived.
Oh? In Genesis 32:30, Jacob states, "I have seen God face
to face, and my life is preserved." Exodus 33:11 says that
"the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto
his friend." So there's two cases where the scriptures
explictly state that somebody saw Yahweh face to face and lived.
But John 1:18 says "No man hath seen God at any time." So
the deity referred to in that verse couldn't be Yahweh.
Yahweh reveals himself more than once, even in the most literal
sense of the term, while the deity described here in John
hasn't been seen by anyone at any time. The difference is hard
to miss.
-- Moggin
Libertarius
> if anyone takes 3 mintutes to read this part with a small
> amount of comprehension, they'll see that Moses did not
> see YHWH's face, and by the same account from YHWH,
> No One has seen YHWH's face and lived.
===>But YHWH honored him by showing him his holy
posterior! -- L,
===========================================
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > if anyone takes 3 mintutes to read this part with a small
> > amount of comprehension, they'll see that Moses did not
> > see YHWH's face, and by the same account from YHWH,
> > No One has seen YHWH's face and lived.
> But YHWH honored him by showing him his holy
> posterior! -- L,
but *not* his face.
Timothy Sutter
the Tetragrammaton[YHWH in Hebrew characters]
was too sacred to place on parchment
of paper of whathaveyou.
so, they invented "Adonai"
which means "Lord" in English.
which is why you'll read your Old Testament and see
"LORD" in big capital letters where the Hebrew
was YHWH[in Hebrew characters]
the greeks translated the Hebrew OT and found "Adonai"
in there and transliterated it as Kurios, or Kyrie,
which means "Lord" in English.
so, in the Greek Old Testament, Kurios [LORD]
is the Greek version of YHWH [LORD].
it's that simple.
and the same word "Hayah" which generally translated
as "I am" from Hebrew to English,
is a common word found throughout OT and translated
many ways, depending upon the context.
"he was, "she will become" "let there be"
where YHWH is just "Ha Hayah" or "The I am"
so, the fact that the greek word "Kurios",
sometimes means "Master" is no strange thing.
when OT script is being quoted, there is
no question but that YHWH is LORD is Kurios.
to say otherwise is mindlessly idiotic.
Moggin Goldberg
Timothy Sutter <tsu...@geocities.com>:
>Libertarius wrote:
>> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> but *not* his face
"The LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh
unto his friend." Exodus 33:11.
-- Moggin
Timothy Sutter
and actually takes part in clothing grass and
counting hairs on people's heads and willing
sparrows to live or die.
Jesus' "Father/God" is not at all
disentangled from this material universe.
Jesus', the man's, "Father/God" takes as
much part of this material existance as YHWH.
Matthew 6:26
Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor
reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly
Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?
Matthew 6
28 And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the
lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin;
29 yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was
not arrayed like one of these. 30 But if God so clothes
the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow
is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe
you, O men of little faith?
Matthew 10:29
Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And
not one of them will fall to the ground
without your Father's will. 30 But even the
hairs of your head are all numbered.
Matthew 5:45
so that you may be sons of your Father who is in
heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and
on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
when Jesus speaks as a man about "Father/God"
he let's you know how much a part of
this material plane he is.
he places "Father/God" in heaven, but he
also gives him an active role on the earth.
Timothy Sutter
Jesus referring to "God" and speaking of YHWH.
can't mistake it.
he is directly speaking of YHWH and saying "God"
therefore, when Jesus says "God" he means YHWH.
Matthew 22
31 And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not
read what was said to you by God, 32 'I am the God of Abraham,
and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not God of
the dead, but of the living." 33 And when the crowd heard it,
they were astonished at his teaching.
Mark 12
26 And as for the dead being raised, have you not
read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush,
how God said to him, 'I am the God of Abraham, and the
God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? 27 He is not God
of the dead, but of the living; you are quite wrong."
Luke 20
37 But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed,
in the passage about the bush, where he calls the
Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and
the God of Jacob. 38 Now he is not God of the dead,
but of the living; for all live to him."
gee, that last one is, how you say? "spot on"
i mean, he directly speaks of the bush,
*and* we see the use of the word "Lord"
where it can be none other but YHWH.
here's an interesting one;
from Jesus to you;
Matthew 4:7
Jesus said to him, "Again it is written,
'You shall not tempt the Lord your God.'"
Deuteronomy 6:16
Ye shall not tempt YHWH your God,
as ye tempted him in Massah.
just thought i'd toss that one in.
for good measure.
here he is calling the Temple the house of God again.
The temple being YHWH's House, by the way.
Matthew 12:4
how he entered the house of God and ate the bread
of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him
to eat nor for those who were with him,
but only for the priests?
here's a key one;
Matthew 15
3 He answered them, "And why do you transgress
the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?
4 For God commanded, 'Honor your father and your mother,'
and, 'He who speaks evil of father or mother,
let him surely die.'
see, here's Jesus quoting YHWH's Law
and calling it "God's Law"
notice the "let him surely die" bit.
just so you know, this is YHWH's Law.
and there's tons of this stuff.
Timothy Sutter
sage came about his ideas on God.
this grand Gnostic sage was sitting on a park
bench feeding the pigeons and contemplating
the nature of his own butt,
when he came across the rather brilliant idea,
or so *he* thought, that this was fundamental
to the nature of God.
that God had 10 fingers and each finger had
it's own individual personality, and the
thumb on his right hand was a Demiurge,
and this thumb was alternatively
placed in God's mouth and up God's butt.
and thus, he felt he understood
the very nature of the demiurge.
at times, Demiuge was a pacifying force to ease God's
nerves and at times, Demiurge was ...well whatever
sort of thrill Gnostic Sage was getting by
placing his thumb up his butt.
and thus, we see, that Gnostic Sage came upon his idea of
the very nature of the universe by inspecting his own butt.
"and failing miserably"
Guy
I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved. - Genesis
32:30 CONTRADICTION: No man hath seen God at any time. - John 1:18
John P. Boatwright
Ya, if you take it out of context.
Let's put the context back, shall we?
-------------------------------------
Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt
among us, (and we beheld his glory, the
glory as of the only begotten of the Father,)
full of grace and truth.
15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying,
This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh
after me is preferred before me: for he was
before me.
16 And of his fulness have all we received, and
grace for grace.
17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and
truth came by Jesus Christ.
18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only
begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the
Father, he hath declared him.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
He just said that no one there had seen God as any
proof of who Jesus was, but that Jesus had DECLARED him.
Not only that, but additional verses in that group
also say that Jesus had been there amoung them but
that no one knew who he was, no one seeing him as
anything to do with God... since they were looking
for MIGHT and POWER for a "the real messiah" that
they wanted to show up.
Note that Jesus is the Word of God, not some massive
MIGHT and POWER that they were expecting from God
for "the real messiah".
God said NOT by MIGHT, NOR by POWER, but by his SPIRIT.
They didn't want that, they wanted lots of MIGHT and
POWER to take out their enemies, to get rid of the Romans.
So there's the Word of God, Jesus proclaiming the Word
of God, nothing to see showing God being there. In fact
they were OFFENDED when they saw him and heard what
he was saying. They didn't think he was anything of any
significance.
They wanted PROOF that Jesus was there from God, that
if he was of God, they wanted to SEE something of God
to know who he was. John was telling them, that they'd
hear the Word of God, not that they'd see God as a SPIRIT
or any MIGHT or POWER to prove who he was.
It's really simple when you leave the context intact.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
Mirror site at: http://For-God.net
DW Suiter
God. The Sons of God behold the face of God continually.
"Libertarius" <The_Truth_The_Whole_Truth@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in
message news:3BE720DB.9F7D89E4@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
merlin
> God. The Sons of God behold the face of God continually.
>
when one has its amazing the difference such an event makes. to go beyond
believing into experience. when we have seen the face of god we can then
read the scriptures like we are there. the experience is transforming,
our memory of such may be no better than the parables in the bible when it
comes to discribing a meeting with god.
Timothy Sutter
Ezekiel 18:4
Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the
father as well as the soul of the son is mine:
the soul that sins shall die.
Psalms 63:1
A Psalm of David, when he was in the Wilderness of Judah.
O God, thou art my God, I seek thee, my soul thirsts
for thee; my flesh faints for thee, as in a dry
and weary land where no water is.
Genesis 6:3
Then YHWH said, "My spirit shall not abide in man
for ever, for he is flesh, but his days shall be
a hundred and twenty years."
Job 32:8
But it is the spirit in a man, the breath of
the Almighty, that makes him understand.
Ecclesiastes 12:7
and the dust returns to the earth as it was,
and the spirit returns to God who gave it.
<<<man is a living lump of flesh to which God
<<<imparts life and gives a glimpse of understanding.
<<<this lump of flesh is mortal. it dies.
<<<and that bit of God returns to God.
<<<hold on, that's not all...
John 5:26
For as the Father has life in himself,
so he has granted the Son also to have
life in himself,
<<<God has life inherent, man does not.
<<<man's life, like that of all creatures comes from God, on loan.
<<<man is a temporary mortal creature.
Matthew 6:27
And which of you by being anxious can
add one cubit to his span of life?
<<<nothing you do can make your life any longer.
Matthew 16:26
For what will it profit a man, if he gains the whole
world and forfeits his life? Or what shall a man give
in return for his life?
<<<your life can be forfeit.
<<<man cannot ransom his own life.
<<<man has no eternal life inherent in him.
<<<man's life is temporary.
Matthew 18:9
And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it
out and throw it away; it is better for you
to enter life with one eye than with two eyes
to be thrown into the hell of fire.
<<<here you have "life" contrasted with "hell fire"
<<<and "gehenna" is a garbage dump.
<<<life vs. incineration.
Hebrews 12:29
for our God is a consuming fire.
<<<God is Fire.
Revelation 20:14
Then Death and Hades were thrown into the
lake of fire. This is the second death,
the lake of fire;
<<<this "lake of fire" is the "second death"
<<<not "eternal life" in hell fire.
<<<death is life's opposite.
Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the
free gift of God is eternal life in
Christ Jesus our Lord.
<<<death is the opposite of life.
<<<the wages of sin is death,
*not* eternal life in torment.
the GIFT of God is eternal life thru Christ.
why?
because Christ was granted the right
to have life inherent in himself
as the Father has life in himself.
man does *not* have life in himself.
Man is MORTAL.
God will grant "life" to those that God chooses.
1 Corinthians 3
14 If the work which any man has built on the foundation
survives, he will receive a reward. 15 If any man's work
is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself
will be saved, but only as through fire.
see, this is why they go on about laying up
treasure for yourself "in heaven" becuz, anything
that won't pass thru the "veil of fire"
will not be "yours".
and those that "die" die.
and the spirit in man, small s,
just reverts to the owner, God.
God is a consuming Fire.
clear enough?
Timothy Sutter
> this is sort of a primer on life and death.
this is sort of what the
entire offer thru Christ is;
a Gift of Spiritual Integrity.
and, that is *not* something that
human beings are born with.
human beings are born with a
small glimpse of understanding.
and human beings cannot will themselves
to live or raise themselves up after
that life on loan fizzles out.
and yeah, sure, this flesh existance
does, somewhat, resemble a crucible.
Libertarius
===>WHICH "GOD"????
Timothy Sutter
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
You are sick, and need help
Timothy Sutter
-----
the theory of speciation thru geographical divergence
does not rightly address this concern;
how does a sexually reproducing species of 34 chromosomes
extend it's DNA chain to bring about the production of
another sexually reproducing species of 46 chromosomes?
and don't tell me about wheat.
wheat, with it's form of cell division,
doesn't apply for rats "evolving" into human beings.
mitosis and meiosis are entirely different. no der.
besides, wheat is a cultivated crop,
and reverting to "wild type" wheat doesn't present
a logical explanation for the mechanism whereby mammals
add chromosomes and are fertile.
when, extra chromosomal material is _observed_
to produce infertile offspring.
as far as theories go, "dog breeding" followed
by a divergent speciation doesn't bother me;
*but*
an upward addition of chromosomal material
is driven by "freaks," the likes of which
have never been *observed*.
------------
concerns using some "hubble equation" to set a date
on light reaching the earth from some distant galaxy;
seems using such an equation assumes
that intergalactic space is a vacuum,
when it is positted that intergalactic space is filled
with cosmic dust and hydrogen gas: substances
that would behave as dielectric materials
and so, would act as filters to light passing thru them
in much the same way that light passing
thru water is "bent" and distorted.
how can you be sure that lightdistances calculated
using a hubble equation are at all accurate?
taking in to consideration that
intergalactic space is not a vacuum.
demonstrate that you are not seeing
an artifact of the haze of the cosmic atmosphere.
----------------
if the earth was formed from an exploding star
followed by gravitational forces pulling much space
debris into some globule, and this "happened"
some 4.5 billion years ago,
why don't geologists find rocks that are
older than the "age" of the earth?
is this because their dating techniques are bogus
and they consider that it would be contradictory
to say that some rocks are older than the earth?
when the actual contradiction is why there
are no rocks that are older than the planet?
------------
basically, these "theories" are untestable
untested and therefore non-scientific.
the bit about ascending speciation is a real hoax.
going from 2 to 4 chromosomes, when it
is observed that polysomies are lethal etc.
and abiogenesis is basically
abandoned as a research project.
you can believe whatever you want,
but that "theory" is not even scientific.
and it all ends up with "scientists" having
to invoke a substanmce that has no known physical
properties as the original material
of the "pre" universe.
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > <speaking of inflating a non-existant substance to form "plasma">
> > it already "exists" before _it_ get's "inflated"
> > with space in some conflagration.
> Yes, things exist before the inflationary period. They don't form planets though.
here is a fundamental error that
subsequently affects all atheist argumentation.
here we see a "scientist" invoking the existance
of a thing that he cannot in any way ascribe
with physical properties, nor describe such properties.
exit stage right.
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
<tsu...@geocities.com> wrote:
>here's some selected passages of
>Jesus referring to "God" and speaking of YHWH.
>can't mistake it.
>he is directly speaking of YHWH and saying "God"
>therefore, when Jesus says "God" he means YHWH.
Evidence ??
>Matthew 22
>31 And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not
>read what was said to you by God, 32 'I am the God of Abraham,
>and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not God of
>the dead, but of the living." 33 And when the crowd heard it,
>they were astonished at his teaching.
As He spoke of The Elohim, and failed to call Him YHWH, quite
"shocking" to the listening crowd.
>Mark 12
>26 And as for the dead being raised, have you not
>read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush,
>how God said to him, 'I am the God of Abraham, and the
>God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? 27 He is not God
>of the dead, but of the living; you are quite wrong."
Again the word "God" wasn't YHWH, but The Elohim.
>Luke 20
>37 But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed,
>in the passage about the bush, where he calls the
>Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and
>the God of Jacob. 38 Now he is not God of the dead,
>but of the living; for all live to him."
Again YHWH is not mentioned as being this God, rather He is called the
Greek word for The Elohim.
>gee, that last one is, how you say? "spot on"
>i mean, he directly speaks of the bush,
>*and* we see the use of the word "Lord"
>where it can be none other but YHWH.
There is no Greek word for YHWH in the New Testament. What we have
instead of evidence on Timothy's part, is a LOT of hand waving.
>here's an interesting one;
>from Jesus to you;
>
>Matthew 4:7
>Jesus said to him, "Again it is written,
>'You shall not tempt the Lord your God.'"
In which YHWH is NOT mentioned, and THUS is NOT a quote of....
>Deuteronomy 6:16
>Ye shall not tempt YHWH your God,
>as ye tempted him in Massah.
... the above, obviously because UNLIKE Jesus' statement, YHWH is
mentioned.
>just thought i'd toss that one in.
Yep, more hand waving.
>for good measure.
Indeed !
>here he is calling the Temple the house of God again.
Of course !
>The temple being YHWH's House, by the way.
Stolen from its rightful owner.
>Matthew 12:4
>how he entered the house of God and ate the bread
>of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him
>to eat nor for those who were with him,
>but only for the priests?
The Elohim, YHWH isn't mentioned.
>here's a key one;
>Matthew 15
>3 He answered them, "And why do you transgress
>the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?
>4 For God commanded, 'Honor your father and your mother,'
>and, 'He who speaks evil of father or mother,
>let him surely die.'
>see, here's Jesus quoting YHWH's Law
NOPE, He is quoting The Elohim's law, stolen by YHWH
>and calling it "God's Law"
Of course, the evidence that Jesus does NOT support YHWH's law, is
that Jesus OMITS most of YHWH's laws, REJECTS others, CORRECTS still
others, AND REPLACES most of it with NEW LAWS.
>notice the "let him surely die" bit.
>just so you know, this is YHWH's Law.
NOPE rather they are The Elohim's Laws.
>and there's tons of this stuff.
And NONE of it supports your claims.
ONE PROOF IS NEEDED YHWH's GREEK NAME IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
No the duck "But YHWH is a Hebrew name" DOES NOT CUT IT, as ALL OTHER
HEBREW NAMES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT HAVE BEEN HELLENIZED { that is
presented in THE GREEK}
But YHWH FAILS to be so presented.
Watch the coward DUCK THIS AGAIN !!!!
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
exit stage right.
-------------------------
Timothy Sutter wrote:
> unknown atheist wrote:
> exit stage right.
i forgot to say QED, but here's your dilemma;
either you're stuck with a true "something from nothing"
or
you must rely on the invocation of a
substance that has no physical properties.
i.e. this isn't just a funadamental
flaw in Winter's argument,
it's a fundamental flaw in scientific cosmology.
I'll forever thank you now to keep your
dirty little mouths shut concerning God.
QED
----------------------
unknown atheist wrote:
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > unknown atheist wrote:
> > > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> I don't know the physical properties of the original material, but I know the physical
> properties of the material that exists in planets, and I know that a planet could not
> exist in those conditions.
no longer relevant, you must cite a material that has no physical
properties.
the only "hole" in this is that it's a "lie" to call it "science"
> > > exit stage right.
> >
> > i forgot to say QED, but here's your dilemma;
> >
> > either you're stuck with a true "something from nothing"
> >
> > or
> >
> > you must rely on the invocation of a
> > substance that has no physical properties.
> >
> > i.e. this isn't just a funadamental
> > flaw in Winter's argument,
> >
> > it's a fundamental flaw in scientific cosmology.
> >
> > I'll forever thank you now to keep your
> > dirty little mouths shut concerning God.
> >
> > QED
>
> Ultimately we must accept a 'first cause',
> and we come to the old cosmological proof of
> the existence of God: that each effect has a cause,
> and that we may trace the chain back
> to this 'first cause' which is itself uncaused, and thus must be God.
> The big hole is, why can it only be a god that
> is uncaused, and not a universe?
cuz the people in missouri wanna see your evidence.
not some hand waving about a substance that has no physical properties.
-----------
unknown atheist wrote:
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > I don't know the physical properties of the
> > > original material, but I know the physical
> > > properties of the material that exists in planets,
> > > and I know that a planet could not
> > > exist in those conditions.
> > no longer relevant, you must cite a material that has no physical
> > properties.
> > the only "hole" in this is that it's a "lie" to call it "science"
> A material with no physical properties? How can such
> a thing be meaningfully said to exist?
exactamundo shortcake.
this "material" is a "substance" that occupies no space
and is not subject to time, therefore under any
known physical laws you may wish to invoke,
does not exist.
you can never _know_ anything about it.
therefore, you invoke a non-entity to
explaim your cosmological origins.
> The physical properties of the early universe
> are unknown, but not nonexistent. And the
unknowable. NOT knowable, never no how.
> > cuz the people in missouri wanna see your evidence.
> > not some hand waving about a substance that has no physical properties.
> Unknown physical properties, not no physical properties.
Unknowable physical properties.
_Unknowable_
> n.b. argument about to get philosophical rather than scientific
no good faith on the part of the atheist.
just convenience of acceptance.
> And as I say: if ultimately we must accept
> that something comes from nothing, why bother
> going back that extra stage?
cuz yer not a magician, or more
to the point, now, you *are* a magician.
Hocus Pocus and our old friend Abracadabra
drop the smoke and mirrors and maybe you can
remove "percnicious liar" from the
attribute "cosmological scientist"
watch me pull a rabbit out of a hat.
now you *must* accept a something from nothing.
your house of cards has just gone up in flames.
--------------
Timothy Sutter wrote:
> unknown atheistwrote:
> > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > unknown atheist wrote:
> > > > > The DIFFERENCE is, the existence of the "Universe"
> > > > > needs no proof, apologetics, or argumentation.
> > > > no way Hosea,
> > > > "something from nothing" needs a
> > > > great deal of contrived argumentation.
> > You may want to read the post again. It's not about the origin of the
> > universe, it's about the fact that it's here. It's self evident (the
> > universe's existance that is). The existance of God is (to say the
> > least) not evident.
> I understood the reply, it wasn't totally relevant.
> nobody was talking about the
> universe's existance, but it's origins.
> look at this;
> A: the universe originated like this.
> B: no, the universe originated like this.
> A: no, it originated like this.
> unknown atheist: the universe exists.
> A: so what?
> happy now?
> but anyway, as far as "before the beginning" is concerned;
> Time T = 0 that's Zero.
> in some argument that purports to
> describe the "beginnings" of _anything_
> a full description of things at Time T = 0
> is just as important as any description
> at Time T = 1 x 10^-1000000 seconds.
> and at Time T = 0 in _this case_
> either you invoke a "something from
> nothing" or a "something from something" argument
> about a stuff or non-stuff that can never
> be ascribed any sort of physical qualities.
> the other guy I was talking to said;
> "yes, things existed at Time T = 0"
> and then, backtracked and reversed
>
> "well who cares if it's something from nothing?"
>
> and basically "science" is stuck with just this.
>
> either a something from nothing, Hocus Pocus,
>
> or a something from something invoking a
> "substance" that has no knowable physical properties.
>
> and invoking "first cause"
> philosophical God arguments
> is just a dodge.
which is what *they* did.
if you go read what *they* said,
they started talking about "first cause this
and first cause that, blah blah blah,
no God don't need God, yammer yammer yammer"
when the facts are, that invoking any
sort of "substance" that existed at Time T = 0
is describing a thing which has
no known nor knowable physical properties.
and atheist's crying about God's "evidence"
now has a hollow empty ring to it.
stepping to T = 0 means burning your own house down.
and that's what happened,
albeit don't expect the infidel to admit this.
> fully describe the "universe" at Time T = 0
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
<tsu...@geocities.com> wrote:
>yeah, Jesus' "Father/God" is active on the planet
>and actually takes part in clothing grass and
>counting hairs on people's heads and willing
>sparrows to live or die.
>Jesus' "Father/God" is not at all
>disentangled from this material universe.
>Jesus', the man's, "Father/God" takes as
>much part of this material existance as YHWH.
Even moreso seeing as through Jesus He TOOK IT BACK FROM YHWH !!!
>Matthew 6:26
>Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor
>reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly
>Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?
>Matthew 6
>28 And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the
>lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin;
>29 yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was
>not arrayed like one of these. 30 But if God so clothes
>the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow
>is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe
>you, O men of little faith?
>Matthew 10:29
>Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And
>not one of them will fall to the ground
>without your Father's will. 30 But even the
>hairs of your head are all numbered.
>Matthew 5:45
>so that you may be sons of your Father who is in
>heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and
>on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
NOTE: nowhere in the above is YHWH even mentioned.
>when Jesus speaks as a man about "Father/God"
>he let's you know how much a part of
>this material plane he is.
>he places "Father/God" in heaven, but he
>also gives him an active role on the earth.
AMEN !! For the Kingdom of God is WITHIN YOU !!! That is INSIDE your
material body.
Timothy Sutter
> here's some selected passages of
> Jesus referring to "God" and speaking of YHWH.
none of which require any sort
of "interpretation" on my part.
but, they speak for themselves.
anyone who tells you that God here is not YHWH
is either a complete and utter moron or a plain liar.
or both.
Timothy Sutter
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > here's some selected passages of
> > Jesus referring to "God" and speaking of YHWH.
> none of which require any sort
> of "interpretation" on my part.
> but, they speak for themselves.
> anyone who tells you that God here is not YHWH
> is either a complete and utter moron or a plain liar.
there's no way around it.
in these passages YHWH has been identified
specifically *as* "God" by Jesus.
he is both citing and quoting Moses.
and that's why i say "pernicious liars"
nobody can be that stupid.
Timothy Sutter
> the theory of speciation thru geographical divergence
> does not rightly address this concern;
> how does a sexually reproducing species of 34 chromosomes
> extend it's DNA chain to bring about the production of
> another sexually reproducing species of 46 chromosomes?
> when, extra chromosomal material is _observed_
> to produce infertile offspring.
> as far as theories go, "dog breeding" followed
> by a divergent speciation doesn't bother me;
see, this is really a big problem.
when sexually reproducing species spit out extra
chromosomes, they have been *observed* _invariably_
to be infertile.
so, to suggest that such a thing happens, going
against what has been *observed*, is non-scientific
"wishful thinking"
the details all point to this being a fantasy.
but "credible" science sits there and expects
you to believe that a squirrel monkey "evolved"
upwards into a human being.
a squirrel monkey with fewer than 46 chromosomes.
there simply is no credibly testable
mechanism to support this assertion.
it's sleight of hand. at best.
more pernicious lies, at worst.
Timothy Sutter
the universe goes cancels out the possibility
that the universe has always existed.
this because, as it is stated; given infinite time,
radiation travelling from the outer beyond would
bathe the earth in light so that there would
be no darkness at night.
so, no one can say, "well, If God has always existed,
why can't we just say that the universe
has always existed?"
well, because that would go against the observation
of the dark nights and the assertion that the
universe did, indeed, have a beginning.
alright, fine, you won't find a credible scientist
arguing that the universe had no beginning but
has always existed, anyway.
so, that's not an issue, in this case.
and, so, if the universe had a beginning, then,
there was a moment of silence, in which
no thing at all existed.
and therefore, one has two options,
either all this stuff sprang from some
other thing, which has no known nor
knowable physical properties,
or, all this stuff sprang from
nothing, which is a magic and not
scientifically credible.
cancelling the second option as unscientific,
you are left with the option of citing an unknown
entity as the source for all of the stuff
that is populating the known universe.
point being, I know this source, and those who
merely grope in the dark with "what ifs"
and "maybes" do not. and never will.
just remember, "something from nothing"
is called "magic" in scientific circles.
and "something from something" *requires*
that both "somethings" be open to physical analyisis.
*but* in the case of the pre-universe,
this "something" is a complete unknown.
therefore, any "scientific" claims
made about "it" would be unfounded.
dismissed.
Timothy Sutter
and the perniciousness of the lie is this;
some cite a from of wheat that spits out
duplicate chromosomes tin support of
this problem.
where wheat, first of all, is a cultivated crop
and cultivated crops often revert to "wild types,"
and second, the form of cell division found
in plants is entirely different from
that found in mammals.
so, it's simply an incredible lie to cite wheat
in support polysomies[duplicate chromosome sets]
as the mechanism of genome lengthening in mammals.
and the bit would have you nbelieve someting like this;
that a squirrel monkey, spit out extra chromosomes,
and those duplicate chromosomes sat dormant for some
unknown length of time and rewrote itself to produce
a new apparatuse in response to an environmental
stressor that as yet, does not exist,
all the while producing -viable-
offspring with the same polysomy.
and then, when the critter needs this apparatus,
it simply spits it out, and starts using it.
like i said, it's pure delusional
fantasy passing itself off as science.
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
and the punchline to all this is that nothing of
this sort has ever been *observed* but in the
case of genetic elongation driven speciation,
it is greeted with a "it must have ahppened this
way because there is no other way that it
could have happened"
this because they are operating under the "no God"
axiomatic hypothesis, where they believe it to be
"self evident" that no God exists and therefore no
God could have taken part in the creation of anything.
well, as I think i've shown in other places,
this "no God" axiom" is unfounded.
some will reduce this to a
"can't prove God doesn't exist" idea,
albeit, i have produced as of late,
more detailed variations on this argument.
and therefore the possibility that God does,
indeed, exist and cause things to occur must
be addressed as a credible option.
and in light of the baffling state of
chromosomal elongation as throughly
non-scientific and untestable,
and my direct experience of God,
i find to credibility in the "other" argument at all.
Timothy Sutter
> on light reaching the earth from some distant galaxy;
> seems using such an equation assumes
> that intergalactic space is a vacuum,
> when it is positted that intergalactic space is filled
> with cosmic dust and hydrogen gas: substances
> that would behave as dielectric materials
> and so, would act as filters to light passing thru them
> in much the same way that light passing
> thru water is "bent" and distorted.
> how can you be sure that lightdistances calculated
> using a hubble equation are at all accurate?
> taking in to consideration that
> intergalactic space is not a vacuum.
> demonstrate that you are not seeing
> an artifact of the haze of the cosmic atmosphere.
see, this draws doubt into all of the "scientifically"
described dates for the "age of the universe"
why?
because the assumption is that
intergalactic space is a vacuum.
*but* it has been shown, as of late, at any rate,
that the interstellar space has
an "atmosphere" all its own.
that interstellar space if not a vacuous void but
is filled with frozen hydrogen gas and
just plain icy debris
point being, this draws problems to all "red shift"
data as supportive of a knowable age of the universe.
why?
because the "speed" od light in a vacuum
is constant, or suspected to be constant,
*but* the "velocity" of light, thru substances
other that vacuum is not constant.
and they'll point you at the old stick in
the water routine to demonstrate this.
a stick in the water appears bent, because
light travels slower thru water
that it does thru air.
why is this at all important?
well, no one really knows how old is the universe.
but i like it more because it's another place where
"science" thinks it knows something and
it really don't know squat.
it's just someone else's mythology posing as science.
Timothy Sutter
"no" credibility.
just status quo ossified dog manure.
Timothy Sutter
> followed by gravitational forces pulling much space
> debris into some globule, and this "happened"
> some 4.5 billion years ago,
> why don't geologists find rocks that are
> older than the "age" of the earth?
> is this because their dating techniques are bogus
> and they consider that it would be contradictory
> to say that some rocks are older than the earth?
> when the actual contradiction is why there
> are no rocks that are older than the planet?
the funny part about this one
is that, take gold for instance,
gold could not have been formed here
on earth and must be older than the earth itself.
and then some claim that the
earth was once an entirely molten mass,
but, why then, do we find pockets of ores
such as gold, when diffusion woul premeate
such ores all around the globe?
i mean, fine, it is possitted that the earth
was formed from debris after a sun exploded.
but still we -should- therefore find rocks
older than the earth on th eplanet.
why is this important?
because the methods used to "date";
the earth are impracticable, and very doubtful
see, for the very oldest of dates,
they use a thig called a Uranium Clock.
and this uranium clock looks at a silicate crystal
of uranium and counts the lead presnt as belonging
all to radioactively devayed uranium.
trouble is, Lead is in the same periodic group
as silicon and is a known impurity in all silicate ores.
and they simply take a blob of uranium silicates,
crush them up and run them tohru a mass spectrometer,
with no account possible for the inherent lead impurity,
and *all* lead is "assumed" to
have emanated from the uranium.
back to the molten earth bit.
it is claimed that these U clocks begin
ticking when the earth cools from a molten state,
well, besides haveing *not* established that the
earth was ever entirely molten, this because gold, and other
ores are found in pockets and not thoroughly dispersed,
tehre's still the problem of inherent lead
impurity in the silicate crystal structure.
and i';ll siply point out the fact that emeralds and
rubies are aluminum ores with inherent chromium
impurities in the crystal lattice.
meaning, it happens all the time, and is not
something i made up for convenience to an argument.
and why is all this important?
because no one really has a good
date for the age of the planet either.
*but* i gotta tell you about another "theory"
this one says that planets can blow out
fully formed from within a "quantum singularity"
that being the "stuff" that one could
cite as a "something from something"
and therefore, all time
considerations fall as problematic.
so when they tell you, "this rock is 3.5 billion years old,"
tell them they are filled with beans.
sloppy science.
Timothy Sutter
why impracticable?
you simply cannot say with any assurance that
uranium is/was the *only* source oif the lead.
and there's no way of looking at lead and saying,
"this came from uranium and this came from someplace else."
you know nothing, sargeant shultz.
Timothy Sutter
cuz they go with the rest of it.
basically, this starts with the punchline.
your computer is driven entirely by ritual.
an "algorithm" is exaclty that, a repetetive
ritual that your computer engages in at
all times to the exclusion of all else.
well, with the advent of multi-tasking,
your computer can walk and chew gum at
the same time, but your computer's gum
chewing process is entirely ritualistic.
it needs a rather explicit set of instructions too.
you can't just tell a machine, "chew gum"
you have to neatly define each and every phase
of the gum chewing process before you can
ever tell it to "chew gum"
something you can do without too much forethought.
but yet, this describes an inherent set of
gum chewing instructions that come
as original equipment.
so, you can't *really* look your nose down
on "ritual" because one of your "grandest achievements,"
the great and wonderful iterative electronics box,
is doing nothing more than carrying
out a programmed ritual.
and it basically only gets a passing grade. C++
you're still a *lot* better than that.
always will be.
which is another thing, along the same lines;
cell replication is an algorithm.
i mean, that's what it is,
in essence and in practice.
and a rather complex algorithm at that.
and the algorithm is encoded upon itself.
and little helper machines run to and
fro, bringing materials to the
site of necessity.
i mean, it's a brilliant little machine.
and it's churning all the time.
and human beings cannot fully design as complex
a set of algorithms and mechanical devices
to accomplish all of these tasks.
not yet, perhaps not ever, from scratch.
and it's still a perfectly reasonable argument
to suggest that such ritual driven mechanisms
don't simply raise themselves from
the kitchen floor.
at least, no such thing has
ever been *observed* to occur.
no one has ever seen an algorithm
write itself into existance.
no one has seen a mechanical device erect itself.
and *that* thing, "observation", is
the hallmark of scientific discovery.
not, and never;
"it's this way because i say so and
because i say there is absolutely no
other way for it to have happened"
that's just ....what *you'd* call a
"blind faith dogma"
and without a reasonable *observation* of
algorithms writing themselves and mechanical
devices erecting themselves, *you'd* simply
be spouting a reckless opinion.
and by *you* i mean anyone setting forth or
agreeing with the consideration that the
living cell wrote itself into existance.
this event has never been observed.
and i think you should really consider this thoughtfully.
your computer algorithms are enscribed on your hard disk.
yes, it is not the substance it is
imprinted upon that *is*
the algorithm itself.
as many differing algorithms may be
imprinted on an identical sheet
of magnetic strip.
*but* the case where the chemical composition
of the molecule is itself the algorithm
does not make the algorithm not an algorithm.
*now* you understand what I'm saying, right?
you can still argue that such a thing does
not *prove* that God exists or that
God designed the algorithms,
_but_ you have plainly stated that algorithms
do not write themselves into existance.
so, *you* have a problem here, and I do not.
I still have God thru the auspices of the Holy Spirit.
*that* is the direct experience of God i spoke to you about.
it's not seeing and hearing and tasting and touching
and feeling but like the *_memory_* of hearing and
seeing and tasting and touching and feeling.
and that is why the bit about comparative
linguistics is important and not
"nonsense" as you suggested.
when i say "blue" to you, and you are
not near anything that is blue, you still
have an immediate cognitive response that
keys in a memory of "blue"
well, this response, somewhat, resembles
the experience of God thru the auspices
of the Holy Spirit.
God speaks directly to your memory.
that's not all the Spirit does, but it does do that.
but snide remarks to the contrary only amount to;
"I haven't seen it therefore it doesn't exist"
and this attitude removes your ability to cite
anything as evidentiary proof except that
which you have directly experienced,
and some will suggest, that this removes the
ability for you to cite anything that you
are not actively engaged in as you cite it.
meaning, you cannot even discuss the flavor
and consistency of blueberry pie with anyone
unless you all are eating it at the same time.
because you cannot cite your own memory as a credible witness.
etc.
but when they have the same experience,
we can compare notes in much the same
way as you seem to know that the sky is
blue and i don't have to lead you outside
by the hand and point up at the sky
and ask you what you see.
comprendo?
it is the like experience that can be compared.
and that is true for empirical senasation
stimuli as well.
if you have never eaten sweet potato pie,
I can tell you all day long that sweet potato pie
is good and you'll be forced to sit there with a blank
stare on your face in utter ignorance of the facts.
now, you say that you can enter into the
joy of sweet poatto pie by
eating some for yourself.
well, I outlined an experienmt for you
that you can make an attempt at seeking
out and finding God's stimulation in your life.
if you will not look you may never find.
but then, there is still serendipity and
you *could* simply stumble across
God as a passing stranger.
> Just like noone in the world can know if what you see
> as blue is what I see as blue even though we
> both call sky blue and agree that we're seeing blue.
you're getting close to the criterion.
I can't see the sky thru your eyes, this is true.
and you can't see God thru my eyes.
*but* God can find *you* thru the words of Faith.
look for them listen to them hear them accept them.
> I don't know what your brain interprets.
> So basically you have shown nothing to us.
but i did show you something.
I outlined a procedure whereby you should
be able to experience God if you
carry it out correctly.
it works and it has worked and it will continue to work.
someone once said that you can't sit
there with your eyes closed and
expect to see the parade.
> Just that you sense something. Good for you.
> But that's not proof of anything.
but i outlibned a procedure whereby
you can prove it to yourself.
and that is a common thing in science.
one submits a paper for consideration
and people consider it based on knowledge
that they already possess or they go into
the lab and check your work directly
and if they get the same results they
agree with you and allow you to present
your findings publicly.
in a best case world, that is.
as charlatans and false buloney makes it into places ...
> Many people sense many things. Doesn't mean that what their sense
> has any basis in fact (maybe it does, but how are we to know).
by comparison ot known standards.
> > God speaks directly to your memory.
> Does she? Yet the bible says God spoke to Moses. No memory transfer there.
> Didn't say "Moses had a memory of god speaking to him".
Romans 8:15-17
For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to
fall back into fear, but you have received the
spirit of sonship. When we cry, "Abba! Father!"
it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with
our spirit that we are children of God, and if children,
then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ,
provided we suffer with him in order that we
may also be glorified with him.
see? God's Spirit witnesses to "our spirits"
that we are children of God.
and I have had the same experience
described here, in part, by Paul.
cannot be rigorously tested and verified,
and is therefore *not* a scientific discovery.
it's just an opinion based on no evidence.
you're welcome to hold your opinions,
but refrain from holding your
opinions up as the truth.
and in the case of "scientific discovery"
you tell lies when you make
such statements aside from
actual *observation*.
Timothy Sutter
here's a work-up of the notion that
God's Presence to the Spiritted christian
is an experiential phenomena and as such,
is not an argument, *is* a self evident propostion,
as are all physical phenomena.
but that unless and until all people
have the same experience of God, ...well, read this,
it should be somewhat clear.
the experience fo God is not a discussion
of historical events that may or may not
impugn christianity, this is a hear and now thing.
so, there is absolutely no tie between a baseless
opinion offered as self evident fact, and one
describing an experience that he is having presently.
so, here's your bit on machine
acknowledgements of physical datums.
alright, will you suggest that the flavor chemist
and the aroma chemist is not involved
in scientific discovery?
of course not as these are two very important
branches of chemistry, a "hard science."
so anyway, generally, in flavor chemistry,
they run chemical samples from known
natural products thru the mass spectrometer
and the infra red and nmr spectrometers
to determine the chemical make-up of
a given flavor, say bananas.
they determoine that the main component
of the flavor of bananas is ethyl acetate.
CH3-C[O]O-CH2CH3
now, they synthesize this chemical from
available sources and then yep,
***they ask people to taste the stuff
to see if it tastes like bananas***
did you get that?
of course you did, they ask people if
the stuff they made tastes like bananas.
why?
because there's no machine apparatus
that can tell you if that stuff
tastes like anything.
now this is important, because it speaks
to the nature of knowledge and language.
just go back to the blue sky examples.
why is the sky "blue"
the sky is "blue" because a set of people
got together and tossed the verbal utterance
"bloo" together with the physical appearance
of the sky.
there's nothing intrinsically meaningful
in calling the sky "blue" but oonly when
a set of people use the same descriptors
for such phenomena is that description meaningful.
as then, you can go inside the house,
and ask each other questions like,
"what color os the sky?"
and when one of you says "blue"
the other and/or others, immediately
have the same reckoning and knowledge
of the color blue because each has
been outside and seen the sky and
agreed beforehand that that "measurement"
that "color" would be called "blue".
now, you ask the person who speaks some
other language, what color is the sky,
and he looks at you with a peculiar
grin and says, "no speeka de english"
if that much, as he may simply grunt
some sort of lack of acknowledgement
of your inquiry.
so anyway, the punchline seems to be;
"with what languge will i meaningfully
describe a thing to you that you have
never experienced for yourself?
digression;
but, a given experiement designed to allow
you to ascertain the same experience is
possible and plausible.
and if you dont "see or hear"
the first time, you'll haver to do
the experiment over and over
till you get it right.
and central to this, is greeting the
words of faith with faith.
no faith, no experience.
no experience, no knowledge.
no knowledge, shaddap.
just what *does* an apple taste like?
tell me in english what an apple tastes like.
and you can't say, "an apple tastes like an apple"
but i've had an apple, and many other people have had apples,
and so, when we say to each other, "that was a good apple"
we invariably know what the other is speaking of on about.
beginning to sink in at all?
go eat an apple, then you'll know.
and if i cannot describe such a thing to
you does that remove it from existance?
certainly not, as some people cannot taste
certain mercurial sulfur compounds and some can.
among other things.
but that is a hard example.
i suppose there could be more detailing
to this, but i'll assume that maybe you
could possibly get something of value
from what i have presented here.
don't talk to me about "science"
and "measurement" when you mean,
mechanical detection.
when you develop the mechanical device
that can detect God, and it doesn't
detect God, then you can speak.
etc.
you'll simply have to rely, in part, on the descriptions
of human beings for your "measuremenrts" in much the same
way as the flavor chemist must rely on human beings to tell
[him] if [his] compounds taste "good" or not.
comprendo?
what physical measurement?
what machine apparatus have you
designed that will measure
this phenomenon?
what, exactly, is the nature of the
phenomenon of which you seek
physical measurement?
in lieu of appropriate answers to these, your
problem is simply one of disbelief in a thing
that you have not directly exprerienced.
** God will not allow a physical measurement ,
says who?
if God's Holy Spirit is detectable in and by
human beings, then this represents a
physical measurement.
to say otherwise is blind assumption that the
human entity is incapable of divulging
proper scientific data.
which is utter m\nonsense, as most real discovery
is taken and delineated and accepted by
none other than the human entity.
go drop a stone from the tower of Pisa,
who is taking a measurement?
get a sophisticated listening device to
do the same thing, now who is taking the data?
still the human being, as the machine apparatus
is merely a device to extend our capabilities.
but if you cannot design an appropriate device
to extend your capabilitues in the area of God detection,
then you are simply at a primitive stage in your
machine designing abilities and need fiurther study
before you can ever make some blanket statement
to the effect that God is *not* physically detectable
because God is most certainly detectable
by the human entity.
** thus there can be no vector for such a physical representation
** in our real measurable world , which we must live in.
says who?
i ask again, how will you prove to
a blind man that venus exists?
tell me that, and then properly address
your "immeasurable God" hypothesis.
> It is points such as these that drves religion and science into
> separate corners ,
nonsense, as "science, is *NOT* a set of beliefs.
science is a methodology and nothing more.
now, if you'd like to get some of these jokerz to
admit that there belief system is nothing more than
a set of myths disguised in the rigors of
scientific discovery, i'd be happy to join
you in smoking them out.
as, the belief in and of a creation apart from
God is neither testable scientifically, nor proven in any way,
but merely accepted as fact by those who would have
it no other way, i.e. "There Is No God" is a
"tautological axiomatic identity" or
somesuch termionology,
which it never will be, "There Is No God" is certainly
no self evident proposition and never will be.
and existance from scratch has no way of being tested.
evolutionary rise of animals from inert chemical
systems has no way of ever being tested
scientifically or otherwise.
so, my friend, show me where the physical measurement
of these little ditties comes in to play, as there
is none and never will be, so, maybe you should
cast these "myths" on the garbage heap
where they belong.
God manifests thru faith.
that *is* in the nature of Deity.
get to that and you will begin to "discover"
God and your "measurements" will be had.
Moggin Goldberg
Moggin Goldberg <mog...@mediaone.net>:
>> ... In Genesis 32:30, Jacob states, "I have seen God face
>> to face, and my life is preserved." Exodus 33:11 says that
>> "the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto
>> his friend." So there's two cases where the scriptures
>> explictly state that somebody saw Yahweh face to face and lived.
>> But John 1:18 says "No man hath seen God at any time." So
>> the deity referred to in that verse couldn't be Yahweh.
>> Yahweh reveals himself more than once, even in the most literal
>> sense of the term, while the deity described here in John
>> hasn't been seen by anyone at any time. The difference is hard
>> to miss.
"John P. Boatwright" <na...@For-God.net>:
> Ya, if you take it out of context.
[...]
On the contrary. The difference becomes even more obvious.
John 1:18 continues, "...the only begotten Son, which is in
the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him" (KJV). Note the
shift in language from "No man hath _seen_ God" to "the only
begotten Son...hath _declared_ him" (my emphasis), making plain
the point here is not merely that God the Father has always
been unseen, but more: before Jesus he was unknown to man. By
contrast, Yahweh has been seen in the literal sense --
examples above -- and going by the OT, he's revealed himself on
countless occasions.
-- Moggin
Timothy Sutter
in context, Kurios/LORD is YHWH.
and it's silly to suggest that "Jesus"
is a -greek version- of "Joshua" or "Yehushu'a"
because the hebrew "Joshua" or "Yehushu'a"
would be drawn in an entirely different character set.
"Yehushu'a" and "Joshua" and "Jesus" are all three
what are known as "phonetic transliterations".
and they, all three, are using
this latinized/english lettering.
meaning, "Yehushu'a" is not the -hebrew- form of "Jesus"
because both are anglicized forms
of two disparate character sets.
"yehushu'a" is the anglicized form of some hebrew character set,
and "jesus" is the anglicized form of some greek character set.
the only way they are known to be referring
to the same person/thing is through the context
in which they are found.
and, look at "wisdom"
[hebrew] "chokmah" = "wisdom" proverbs
[greek] "sophia" = "wisdom" gospels
"sophia" is -not- a greek transliteration of "chokmah"
these are two totally different words.
"wisdom" is not
a phonetic transliteration
of "chokmah" and "sophia"
and LORD, while not being a phonetic transliteration
of YHWH and Kurios, is the english word
used to represent them both.
there's just no case that a greek citation
of a hebrew text is referring to some "other" God.
Luke 20
37 But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed,
in the passage about the bush, where he calls the
Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and
the God of Jacob. 38 Now he is not God of the dead,
but of the living; for all live to him."
and here's Jesus clearly referring to YHWH by any account.
"he calls the Lord the God of Abraham..."
that thing right there, "the Lord"
can be no other thing besides YHWH.
so, you see, not only is YHWH spoken
of by Jesus, but he is spoken of as God.
Libertarius
> -- Moggin
===>Both front and rear view! -- L.
386sx
> Moggin Goldberg wrote:
>> [...] By contrast, Yahweh has been seen in the literal sense --
>> examples above -- and going by the OT, he's revealed himself on
>> countless occasions.
>
>===>Both front and rear view! -- L.
And, by the way, has been known to speak through donkeys. (Little known
piece of trivia).
--
386
"Now for the evidence," said the King, "and then the sentence."
"No!" said the Queen, "first the sentence, and then the evidence!"
-- Lewis Carroll
Loki
@geocities.com:
> this is a story of how a grand Gnostic
> sage came about his ideas on God.
This is a story of how Timmy Sutter came about his ideas on God.
Timmy was sitting around all day posting idiocy to usenet newsgroups.
Everyone was calling him an idiot.
Timmy thought, "How can I quell them from thinking that I am an idiot? What
can I do?" Then he realized, "I can say I speak for God!"
So, after smokin' a bowl, Timmy made up a bunch of half-assed theories about
God, many of which are not even supported by any Scriptures, Judeo-Christian
or otherwise. Then in his drug haze, he thought God was telling him to
harass Gnostics. Somehow Timmy didn't realize this his theories on God were
as unsupported by the canonical Bible (if not more so) than theirs were.
So Timmy started claiming he spoke for God and posted long diatrabes,
changed what people said in their replies to him because he wasn't mentally
capable of answering them, posted scatalogical stories about God sticking
His fingers up His butt, etc.
And everyone still called him an idiot.
--
Et in arcadia ego..
Loki
-[E-Mail]- pou...@disinfo.net
-[WWW]- http://www.robinzing.com/loki/
-[ICQ]- 13134728
Anything I do is purely coincidental.
Timothy Sutter
or, retrieve a mental picture
from your library.
the subjest relates to "harmonics"
just like musical harmonics and
or quantum state harmonics.
but instead pertaining to the day to day routine.
ok, so, in lieu of diagrams, here's the little picture I drew;
it's like a circle where the
arc line is itself a sine wave pattern.
and running concurrent with that are
more circular sine wave patterns.
on top of the first.
and then, I guess, when you blend all
of those circular sine wave patters,
you get the normal constructive and
destructive interference patterns
and so, you see the appearance
of spikes and dips.
or fullnesses and emptinesses.
and though tomorrow may in deed be trash day eve on a monday,
which is back to the normal schedule, and last two weeks were
trash day eve on a tuesday, which is a day later than monday,
and now things are back to normal, well,
in the overall interference patter, those two last
weeks have become part of normal for my own
personal interference pattern.
so, I can't really say, things are back
to normal, cuz it was already normal.
but the
day to day
week to week
month to month
year to year
decade to decade
century to century ...
patterns all wind themselves into a
neat little interference pattern.
(or patterns, almost forgot my manners)
and then there's probably universal patterns
that mesh out, blah blah blah...i'm sure this
is all remedial but I'd like to have it
clear in my head, so i'm posting in a
purely self serving manner.
anyway, then thre's this;
feelings of contentment and natural confinement periods.
like eating and whatever else may give a person
a feeling of contentment, and then they try and try
to recapture and bottle up this feeling of
contentment as described thru the "getting"
of these feelings of contentment.
so, it's not a matter of well, I ate three blueberry pies
and *that* gave me feelings of contentment, but,
I ate blueberry pies and that gave me feelings
of contentment.
and so, I'm somewhat trapped in the notion
that eating blueberry pies will continue to
provide this feeling of contentment, but
then what do I do when it doesn't?
not that they ever have, failed, but that's not the point,
seems to me, that one must "seek first" the feelings of
contentment, and *then* all these other things that you
may have been doing to capture feelings of contemntment
will follow and actually *give* you some form of enjoyment,
and not merely a substitutionary, somewhat counterfeit
security in lieu of contentment.
that's pretty much it.
hope you stumble across that which defines your
contentment in and of itself, without any
sort of looking for it.
among other things.
i know, I know, it all seems like the five nearest planets
and the moon actually *do* have an effect on the climate
and therefore states of mind.
and these follow regular patterns, as well.
so, you actually can have "cold years" and "hot years"
based on proximity of earth to venus and mars and jupiter etc.
(that "etc." is a little planet that hides behind the moon)
difficult to see sometimes.
-----------------
that's part of the thing, if your contentment is
in the doing of a thing, then it isn't
really contentment at all.
still seems to me that one would needs be content
in absentia before any thing that they did would
translate into any sort of useful joy in the first place.
otherwise, it's always looking for that missing piece.
not, "drawing pictures _makes_ me content"
but you'd rather, "the pictures I draw reflect my contentment"
or else, "the pictures I draw reflect my lack of contentment"
and I don't think it's entirely trite to find happiness in contentment.
in fact, without _it_ not much is capable
of increasing one's happiness correlation index.
--------------
well, certain "lines" are already in place long after we die.
and then there's the idea of getting caught
in the implacable teeth of the universal
gearworks apparatus.
and while it's nice to think that maybe each one is
something new and different and never has been before,
they're also born into the universal gearworks apparatus,
and conflicting "synchronization" to coin a phrase,
will either inhibit or exhibit in a contribution
to one's happiness correlation index.
*not* that being "happy" comes with the
conformation to the pre-aligned mesh entirely,
but any severe mis-alignment will naturally
have the unenviable result of detracting
from the overall index.
and you can even call that "breaking laws" if you like.
not that just knowing the laws and forms
result in your even being able to conform to them,
but that, perhaps, as contentment is gifted to you,
you may find that your alignment with the gearwork
structure increases as well as your happiness index.
and the "liar" may begin to tell the truth.
just because his outlook more resembles
the pre-existing structure of the universe.
---------------
i don't know many people who brush
their teeth with anchovy paste.
i wonder why that is.
---------------
if one can have anything they want,
it's a good thing to want the right things.
or not to want anything, and simply
appreciate what you have.
the "opposition" of a man of knowledge
is better than the "support" of a fool.
the opposition of a professional opponent
is oft times quite void of meaning.
--------------
i've been given my contentment.
it's smaller than a mustard seed.
--------------
oh, yeah, the music of the spheres.
supposedly, in shakespeare's day,
he would write about people that heard the music of the spheres.
supposedly, the universe has a music associated
with the cyclic orbitting nature of the planets
and galaxies and all that space dust.
but not everyone is able to hear this music.
and backtracking to the not entirely true yet
not entirely false notion that the universe is
constructed in a 'gression of nested sphere's
or universal harmonic forms, (the dodecahedron)
that is from whence the music emanates.
like a tuning fork that passes on or encourages
other objects to adopt the same frequency when
placed in nearness.
it's a very common thing.
you place one tuning fork next to another,
and the one that you whack on the table will
excite a vibration in the other fork that
hasn't been whacked on the table.
and well, the music of the spheres
is said to be similar in nature.
and some people can hear these vibrations
because they subtract out all the noise.
for lack of a better explanation.
well, the "noise" may be drowning out a sound
that anyone *could* hear, but not
everyone _does_ hear.
and the exact nature of that "noise" is any number of things.
electrical conflict in the mind.
but being able to hear the harmonies of the planets
as they pass by in orbit must be sort of an experience.
whether I, personally, have ever
heard such a thing, is an unimportant issue.
just that it exists.
and it does.
(that "etc." is a little planet that hides behind the moon)
difficult to see sometimes.
-----------------
that's part of the thing, if your contentment is
in the doing of a thing, then it isn't
really contentment at all.
still seems to me that one would needs be content
in absentia before any thing that they did would
translate into any sort of useful joy in the first place.
otherwise, it's always looking for that missing piece.
not, "drawing pictures _makes_ me content"
but you'd rather, "the pictures I draw reflect my contentment"
or else, "the pictures I draw reflect my lack of contentment"
and I don't think it's entirely trite to find happiness in contentment.
in fact, without _it_ not much is capable
of increasing one's happiness correlation index.
--------------
well, certain "lines" are already in place long after we die.
and then there's the idea of getting caught
in the implacable teeth of the universal
gearworks apparatus.
and while it's nice to think that maybe each one is
something new and different and never has been before,
they're also born into the universal gearworks apparatus,
and conflicting "synchronization" to coin a phrase,
will either inhibit or exhibit in a contribution
to one's happiness correlation index.
*not* that being "happy" comes with the
conformation to the pre-aligned mesh entirely,
but any severe mis-alignment will naturally
have the unenviable result of detracting
from the overall index.
and you can even call that "breaking laws" if you like.
not that just knowing the laws and forms
result in your even being able to conform to them,
but that, perhaps, as contentment is gifted to you,
you may find that your alignment with the gearwork
structure increases as well as your happiness index.
and the "liar" may begin to tell the truth.
just because his outlook more resembles
the pre-existing structure of the universe.
---------------
i don't know many people who brush
their teeth with anchovy paste.
i wonder why that is.
---------------
if one can have anything they want,
it's a good thing to want the right things.
or not to want anything, and simply
appreciate what you have.
> the "opposition" of a man of knowledge
> is better than the "support" of a fool.
the opposition of a professional opponent
is oft times quite void of meaning.
--------------
i've been given my contentment.
it's smaller than a mustard seed.
--------------
oh, yeah, the music of the spheres.
supposedly, in shakespeare's day,
he would write about people that heard the music of the spheres.
supposedly, the universe has a music associated
with the cyclic orbitting nature of the planets
and galaxies and all that space dust.
but not everyone is able to hear this music.
and backtracking to the not entirely true yet
not entirely false notion that the universe is
constructed in a 'gression of nested sphere's
or universal harmonic forms, (the dodecahedron)
that is from whence the music emanates.
like a tuning fork that passes on or encourages
other objects to adopt the same frequency when
placed in nearness.
it's a very common thing.
you place one tuning fork next to another,
and the one that you whack on the table will
excite a vibration in the other fork that
hasn't been whacked on the table.
and well, the music of the spheres
is said to be similar in nature.
and some people can hear these vibrations
because they subtract out all the noise.
for lack of a better explanation.
well, the "noise" may be drowning out a sound
that anyone *could* hear, but not
everyone _does_ hear.
and the exact nature of that "noise" is any number of things.
electrical conflict in the mind.
but being able to hear the harmonies of the planets
as they pass by in orbit must be sort of an experience.
whether I, personally, have ever
heard such a thing, is an unimportant issue.
just that it exists.
and it does.
Adolf bin Laden von Kali Hitler (Death to Israel, Separate the Races, Exterminate Christ, Kill the Stupid)
Or a bunch of Jews hoping to destroy the nobler civilizations around them.
Humanity has run out of direction:
- Fighting between ourselves over superstitions.
- Lack of respect for nature or each other.
- Desire for revenge against the society we've created.
The solution is better design. We have created forums for
those who wish to discuss the removal of Judeo-Christianity
and the possibility of finding better social systems.
- No superstition.
- No rejection of nature/evolution.
- No embrace of comforting but illogical social convention.
If you have the ability to move beyond the intellectual
training pants of humanity, please join us at the following
forums:
* http://www.amerika.org/ is home to the Osama bin Laden home-
page and the "Death to Israel" mailing list
* http://www.hessian.org/ has forums and activism resources for
headbangers or anyone else who dislikes Judeo-Christianity.
* http://www.fuckchrist.com/ explains why Judeo-Christianity is
insane, what it is and how you can change it.
If you have any questions about these forums or this posting, please
email tempe...@lycos.com.
Copyright (c) 2001 hessian.org and al-Qaeda Vinland
Timothy Sutter <tsu...@geocities.com> wrote in message
news:3BE898F3...@geocities.com...
> this is a story of how a grand Gnostic
> sage came about his ideas on God.
>
Pastor Dave
<tsu...@geocities.com> wrote:
>don't forget these bits,
>cuz they go with the rest of it.
>
>
>basically, this starts with the punchline.
>
>your computer is driven entirely by ritual.
>
>an "algorithm" is exaclty that, a repetetive
>ritual that your computer engages in at
>all times to the exclusion of all else.
>
>well, with the advent of multi-tasking,
>your computer can walk and chew gum at
>the same time, but your computer's gum
>chewing process is entirely ritualistic.
Actually, they don't "multitask". They do one thing at
a time and switch between the tasks very quickly and
APPEAR to be multitasking. Unless of course, you have
multiple processors and an OS that will take advantage
of them. :)
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
yeah, maybe, but the clock is always running.
and, you can play solitaire
whilst downloading a program.
s'good enough for me.
DOS was strictly one thing at a time.
but they did have these "Terminate and Stay Resident" programs.
which is where they used to hide the virii.
and the little virus would be destroying
the machine while the clock was running.
Steven J.
> here's some riddles;
>
> -----
> the theory of speciation thru geographical divergence
> does not rightly address this concern;
>
> how does a sexually reproducing species of 34 chromosomes
> extend it's DNA chain to bring about the production of
> another sexually reproducing species of 46 chromosomes?
>
during reproduction, but changes in chromosome number over evolution
are most likely the result of either fusions of chromosomes (human
chromosome 2 appears to be a fusion of two separate chromosomes which
remain separate in chimpanzees), or splitting of chromosomes. There
are known cases (e.g. domestic horses and Przewalski's horse) where
populations with different chromosome numbers can interbreed and
produce fertile offspring, so a single population could survive and
perpetuate itself if a chromosome fission or fusion produced
individuals with different chromosome numbers.
>
> and don't tell me about wheat.
>
> wheat, with it's form of cell division,
> doesn't apply for rats "evolving" into human beings.
>
> mitosis and meiosis are entirely different. no der.
>
> besides, wheat is a cultivated crop,
> and reverting to "wild type" wheat doesn't present
> a logical explanation for the mechanism whereby mammals
> add chromosomes and are fertile.
>
>
> when, extra chromosomal material is _observed_
> to produce infertile offspring.
> as far as theories go, "dog breeding" followed
> by a divergent speciation doesn't bother me;
>
duplication and subsequent mutations, or insertion of retroviruses,
and so forth).
>
> *but*
>
> an upward addition of chromosomal material
> is driven by "freaks," the likes of which
> have never been *observed*.
> ------------
>
>
> concerns using some "hubble equation" to set a date
> on light reaching the earth from some distant galaxy;
> seems using such an equation assumes
> that intergalactic space is a vacuum,
> when it is positted that intergalactic space is filled
> with cosmic dust and hydrogen gas: substances
> that would behave as dielectric materials
> and so, would act as filters to light passing thru them
> in much the same way that light passing
> thru water is "bent" and distorted.
> how can you be sure that lightdistances calculated
> using a hubble equation are at all accurate?
> taking in to consideration that
> intergalactic space is not a vacuum.
> demonstrate that you are not seeing
> an artifact of the haze of the cosmic atmosphere.
>
the early days of calculating interstellar distances, and the distance
to the Andromeda galaxy was overestimated due to failure to take this
into account. It is perfectly possible to make corrections.
> ----------------
>
>
> if the earth was formed from an exploding star
> followed by gravitational forces pulling much space
> debris into some globule, and this "happened"
> some 4.5 billion years ago,
> why don't geologists find rocks that are
> older than the "age" of the earth?
> is this because their dating techniques are bogus
> and they consider that it would be contradictory
> to say that some rocks are older than the earth?
> when the actual contradiction is why there
> are no rocks that are older than the planet?
>
dates the last time the rocks congealed from a gaseous or molten
state. For the matter that makes up the solar system, that appears to
be about 5 billion years ago. On Earth, they tend to be younger --
the dating of the geological column depends on finding rocks resulting
from volcanic eruptions deposited between sediment layers. Each
igneous layer yields a date from the time it was last molten -- those
from the end of the Cretaceous, were molten 65 million years ago.
Rocks from other star systems ought to be older, but we rarely if ever
see them.
> ------------
>
> basically, these "theories" are untestable
> untested and therefore non-scientific.
>
False. It is perfectly possible to make predictions, based on these
theories, of what we ought to observe, and see if we observe it.
>
> the bit about ascending speciation is a real hoax.
>
> going from 2 to 4 chromosomes, when it
> is observed that polysomies are lethal etc.
>
Actually, there is a species of frog in the Eastern United States that
resulted from a chromosome duplication (multiple instances of a
chromosome duplication -- the species shows signs of four separate
lineages merging) in the ancestral species. And, of course, for
plants such polysomies are a typical form of speciation. And, of
course, splitting of chromosomes, or fusions of them, do not produce
the same effects as polysomy, but do alter chromosome counts.
>
> and abiogenesis is basically
> abandoned as a research project.
>
> you can believe whatever you want,
> but that "theory" is not even scientific.
>
> and it all ends up with "scientists" having
> to invoke a substanmce that has no known physical
> properties as the original material
> of the "pre" universe.
>
Is there any point to even responding to these empty assertions?
>
-- Steven J.
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > here's some riddles;
> > -----
> > the theory of speciation thru geographical divergence
> > does not rightly address this concern;
> > how does a sexually reproducing species of 34 chromosomes
> > extend it's DNA chain to bring about the production of
> > another sexually reproducing species of 46 chromosomes?
> Do you have particular species in mind?
how many species do you know with 46 chromosomes
that are said to arise from lower species?
> Chromosomes can be duplicated during reproduction,
and when a species spits out duplicate a chromosome
set or sets, it is invariably observed to
be a lethal trait[sterile offspring]
or spontaneously aborts.
> but changes in chromosome number over evolution
> are most likely
you mean you don't have a firm definite
answer and likely never will have such an answer?
yes, that's what you mean, of course.
> the result of either fusions of chromosomes (human
> chromosome 2 appears to be a fusion of two separate chromosomes which
> remain separate in chimpanzees), or splitting of chromosomes.
oh, so, chimpanzees have 47 chromosomes and
humans have 46 because two chromosomes that
remained separate in chimps are said
to be fused in human beings?
this is pure bullshatting. admit it.
yeah, right, "vanna, can I buy a "U" and
solve the puzzle, it says "dumbass""
no, certainly this can't be what you mean,
but it is what you say, nonetheless.
and given all the "what ifs" and "maybes" you present,
i'd say you were simply making it all up.
> There are known cases (e.g. domestic horses and Przewalski's horse)
> where populations with different chromosome numbers can interbreed
> and produce fertile offspring,
the offspring, if indeed fertile, will not
carry the higher chromosome number but the lower.
i.e. *if* as you suggest, this happens,
a species with 34 chromosomes mating with
a species carrying 32 will *not* produce
an offspring of 34 chromosomes, but only 32.
and so, if a species spits out a duplicate
chromosome set in its offspring, to make
this 34 chromosome creature, and that 34
chromosome creature mates back in with
the 32 chromosome creature, *if* any offspring
are produced, that will not carry the 34 chromosomes
but that "mistake" will be lost.
so, you still have a problem here, and one
that won't likely go away by your wishing that it would.
> so a single population could survive and
> perpetuate itself if a chromosome fission or fusion produced
> individuals with different chromosome numbers.
*not* to a higher chromosome number.
> > and don't tell me about wheat.
> > wheat, with it's form of cell division,
> > doesn't apply for rats "evolving" into human beings.
> > mitosis and meiosis are entirely different. no der.
> > besides, wheat is a cultivated crop,
> > and reverting to "wild type" wheat doesn't present
> > a logical explanation for the mechanism whereby mammals
> > add chromosomes and are fertile.
> > when, extra chromosomal material is _observed_
> > to produce infertile offspring.
> > as far as theories go, "dog breeding" followed
> > by a divergent speciation doesn't bother me;
> Though this does not apply to mere addition of genes (through gene
> duplication and subsequent mutations, or insertion of retroviruses,
> and so forth).
no, much of what you say simply
does not apply to the problem.
> > *but*
> > an upward addition of chromosomal material
> > is driven by "freaks," the likes of which
> > have never been *observed*.
> > ------------
> > concerns using some "hubble equation" to set a date
> > on light reaching the earth from some distant galaxy;
> > seems using such an equation assumes
> > that intergalactic space is a vacuum,
> > when it is positted that intergalactic space is filled
> > with cosmic dust and hydrogen gas: substances
> > that would behave as dielectric materials
> > and so, would act as filters to light passing thru them
> > in much the same way that light passing
> > thru water is "bent" and distorted.
> > how can you be sure that lightdistances calculated
> > using a hubble equation are at all accurate?
> > taking in to consideration that
> > intergalactic space is not a vacuum.
> > demonstrate that you are not seeing
> > an artifact of the haze of the cosmic atmosphere.
> Astronomers are smarter than you are.
but you aren't.
> This problem
what problem? you aren't even
addressing the "problem" here.
evidently, you don't even
understand the problem as stated.
> actually arose in
> the early days of calculating interstellar distances, and the distance
> to the Andromeda galaxy was overestimated due to failure to take this
> into account. It is perfectly possible to make corrections.
you have many corrections to make.
but, the point is, interstellar space is not a vacuum.
therefore "speed of light" is non-operative,
and velocity of light, which is not constant, is.
and being "not constant" brings with it,
its very own "red shift" anomalies.
now do you understand the problem as stated?
> > ----------------
> > if the earth was formed from an exploding star
> > followed by gravitational forces pulling much space
> > debris into some globule, and this "happened"
> > some 4.5 billion years ago,
> > why don't geologists find rocks that are
> > older than the "age" of the earth?
> > is this because their dating techniques are bogus
> > and they consider that it would be contradictory
> > to say that some rocks are older than the earth?
> > when the actual contradiction is why there
> > are no rocks that are older than the planet?
> Interstellar meteorites are vanishingly rare.
not at all what is stated above.
the above says that the components of
the earth are older than the earth itself.
which must be true even in light of the
theory that the earth composed itelf
from the gunk of an exploding star.
> Radioisotope dating dates the last time the
> rocks congealed from a gaseous or molten state.
this is false. Uranium clocks are said to do this,
in theory, only they take the ore in a raw state
and take no accounting can be taken for
where the lead comes from.
> For the matter that makes up the solar system, that appears to
> be about 5 billion years ago.
"that appears to be" 5 minutes ago.
means the same thing.
> On Earth, they tend to be younger --
> the dating of the geological column depends on finding rocks resulting
> from volcanic eruptions deposited between sediment layers. Each
> igneous layer yields a date from the time it was last molten -- those
> from the end of the Cretaceous, were molten 65 million years ago.
> Rocks from other star systems ought to be older, but we rarely if ever
> see them.
how old is the gold?
will you tell me that gold ore is 65 million
years old if it is discovered in a sediment
layer that you propose to be of this age?
no, you can't do this, because it is only some
types of ores that can be "dated" in this manner.
and as i've said here and before, lead is
an impurity in silicate rocks and so the
uranium clock is a faulty instrument.
> > ------------
> > basically, these "theories" are untestable
> > untested and therefore non-scientific.
> False. It is perfectly possible to make predictions, based on these
> theories, of what we ought to observe, and see if we observe it.
false, you can't even make a prediction as
to whether the universe will implode or
run away from itself forever.
you can't make any prediction as to what
type of creature would be "more evolved"
than the so-called human being.
> > the bit about ascending speciation is a real hoax.
> > going from 2 to 4 chromosomes, when it
> > is observed that polysomies are lethal etc.
> Actually, there is a species of frog in the Eastern United States that
> resulted from a chromosome duplication (multiple instances of a
> chromosome duplication -- the species shows signs of four separate
> lineages merging) in the ancestral species.
the observation being similarity in chromosomal
makeup, and not definitive evidence that any some
chromosomal duplicity resulted in viable
offspring in a single generation.
meaning, you may find two chromosomes that
have very similar gene mappings but no way
of showing that such a creature ever spit
out duplicate sets of chromosomes and
produced viable offspring.
a thing which you have seen to cause genetic lethality.
> And, of course, for
> plants such polysomies are a typical form of speciation.
actually not typical, but somewhat rare.
albeit in the age of gene splicing, plants
lend themselves more readily to manipulation
by an outside source.
namely human beings.
but such things are not known to be
randomly ocurring in wild types.
> And, of course, splitting of chromosomes, or fusions
> of them, do not produce the same effects as polysomy,
> but do alter chromosome counts.
through the hand of an outside agency,
namely human scientists manipulating
and splicing these genes.
can't cite human manipulation as
an evidence for random happenstance.
> > and abiogenesis is basically
> > abandoned as a research project.
> > you can believe whatever you want,
> > but that "theory" is not even scientific.
> > and it all ends up with "scientists" having
> > to invoke a substanmce that has no known physical
> > properties as the original material
> > of the "pre" universe.
> Is there any point to even responding to these empty assertions?
no, but i did anyway.
stand and deliver or run along and play with yourself.
Timothy Sutter
> Steven J. wrote:
> > There are known cases (e.g. domestic horses and Przewalski's horse)
> > where populations with different chromosome numbers can interbreed
> > and produce fertile offspring,
> the offspring, if indeed fertile, will not
> carry the higher chromosome number but the lower.
> i.e. *if* as you suggest, this happens,
> a species with 34 chromosomes mating with
> a species carrying 32 will *not* produce
> an offspring of 34 chromosomes, but only 32.
and just to hammer at this one more time;
see, the gametes from 34C would have 17 chromosome bits,
and the gametes from 32C would have 16 chromosome bits,
so, the extra chromosome bit from 34C would flush.
the "offspring" would never carry this extra
bit with it for successivce generations whilst
rewriting and remanufacturing a new trait.
that's a load of bloohaha.
not to mention that mules and Tigons are infertile.
those are -real- creatures.
Pastor Dave
<tsu...@geocities.com> wrote:
>Pastor Dave wrote:
>
>> Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
>> >don't forget these bits,
>> >cuz they go with the rest of it.
>
>> >basically, this starts with the punchline.
>
>> >your computer is driven entirely by ritual.
>
>> >an "algorithm" is exaclty that, a repetetive
>> >ritual that your computer engages in at
>> >all times to the exclusion of all else.
>
>> >well, with the advent of multi-tasking,
>> >your computer can walk and chew gum at
>> >the same time, but your computer's gum
>> >chewing process is entirely ritualistic.
>
>> Actually, they don't "multitask". They do one thing at
>> a time and switch between the tasks very quickly and
>> APPEAR to be multitasking. Unless of course, you have
>> multiple processors and an OS that will take advantage
>> of them. :)
>
>yeah, maybe, but the clock is always running.
>
>and, you can play solitaire
>whilst downloading a program.
And it's still switching between solitaire and your
download, at a rate much faster than you can detect.
>s'good enough for me.
>DOS was strictly one thing at a time.
>
>but they did have these "Terminate and Stay Resident" programs.
>
>which is where they used to hide the virii.
>and the little virus would be destroying
>the machine while the clock was running.
They still exist. :)
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >Pastor Dave wrote:
> >> Timothy Sutter wrote:
can't i still call it "multitasking"?
or do you suggest that maybe i'm not actually walking
and chewing gum simultaneously, but really, just do
the two separately so fast that I can't
tell the difference?
no, you'd be suggesting that me wlking and
chewing gum at the same time would
be "true" multitasking.
and that me watching teevee and doing a
crossword puzzle at the same time would
be "true" multittasking, but, that me
making a glass of tea and frying an egg at the same
time would be only the "appearance" of multitasking
and therefore not "true" multitasking?
but can't i still call it "multitasking"?
> >s'good enough for me.
> >DOS was strictly one thing at a time.
> >but they did have these "Terminate and Stay Resident" programs.
> >which is where they used to hide the virii.
> >and the little virus would be destroying
> >the machine while the clock was running.
> They still exist. :)
i bet.
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > Steven J. wrote:
> > > There are known cases (e.g. domestic horses and Przewalski's horse)
> > > where populations with different chromosome numbers can interbreed
> > > and produce fertile offspring,
see, cuz this guy's been yammering on about
Unicorns so long that he's starting to
actually see them now.
come on chief, tell us all why this thing is a fantasy.
and if you can't, then fully discredit yourself
by promulgating such "illogic"
bogus.
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote...
> > going from 2 to 4 chromosomes, when it
> > is observed that polysomies are lethal etc.
> Actually, there is a species of frog in the Eastern United States that
> resulted from a chromosome duplication (multiple instances of a
> chromosome duplication -- the species shows signs of four separate
> lineages merging) in the ancestral species.
and some more hammering,
this person finds it odd that a frog should
have genetic markings similar to it's ancestry.
but here's some more clues.
it is said that much of the human genome is redundant.
and the immediate conclusion is that this redundancy
serves no useful purpose, but is merely excess baggage
carried by the genome with no useful purpose and
therefore can be rewritten at whim to bring
about new apparati.
and then, this line of armument is carried over to
imply that all genomes from lower mammals on "up"
have the same "redundancy" and therefore are
ripe for random manipulation.
but, what is not correctly considered is that all
of this redundancy is, in fact, necessary during
embryonic developement, and then, after that
is complete, the bits simply shut off.
for instance, you have as an example, 13 fully functioning
genetic bits that code for liver cell production, and
all 13 of these are churning out liver cells during
embryonic developement, and perhaps slows to as few
as 7 during full juvenile developement, until the
liver is fully formed and they may, for all
practical purposes, simply shut off.
or, simply turn on and off as necessary.
same can be said for heart lung skin etc.
i.e. all 13 locations on the DNA molecule *must*
be present and accounted for and functioning
during developement and *none* are dunsel.
so, you can then say, "well, all of this
gene manipulation occurs after birth
and developement."
but not so, as the eggs of the
female are all accounted for at birth.
no new eggs are produced
over the span of the lifetime.
the actual nature of this thing is that the
entire enterprise is set about at *preventing*
these genetic anomalies from passing on,
and never encouraging "random"
mutations to pass along un-bridled.
so, we should be seeing that there is not any
actual redundancy in the genome, but
only an apparent redundancy.
meaning, when you need cookies, the factories
are all spitting out cookies, until the shelves
are filled and then they shut down.
these factories are now, not, simply redundant,
but waiting until they are needed again.
at which time, they will simply re-open.
you people jump to such headlong
conclusions when you want
to "prove a point"
where's that good olde fashioned
"skepticism" when you need it?
you sweep it under the rug, or alse,
your skepticism genes are truly redundant.
Timothy Sutter
> Steven J. wrote:
> > Timothy Sutter wrote...
> > > going from 2 to 4 chromosomes, when it
> > > is observed that polysomies are lethal etc.
> > Actually, there is a species of frog in the Eastern United States that
> > resulted from a chromosome duplication (multiple instances of a
> > chromosome duplication -- the species shows signs of four separate
> > lineages merging) in the ancestral species.
> and some more hammering,
> this person finds it odd that a frog should
> have genetic markings similar to it's ancestry.
> but here's some more clues.
> it is said that much of the human genome is redundant.
point of all this being, it is not at all odd
that similarities in genetic mapping should
be found in all genomes.
that, as an example, much of chromosome 8
is identical to pieces of chromosome 9, 10 and 11.
this is the *required* redundancy for
proper embryonic and juvenile developement.
and *not* some -unnecessary redundancy-
that would allow for random genetic maniplulation
over time by the elements.
and pointing to these as "evidence" of anything
required by this fantasic postulate called
"evolution" is simply way out beyond the pale.
bordering on widespread delusional fantasy.
but, if you look hard and intently enough for
what you want to see, chances are, you'll
find exactly what you want to find.
but this too, is meaningless, and the pursuit of the wind.
the "redundancy" argument must be shelved as stupid.
the "redundancy" is necessary.
takes 8 pistons to crank the motor.
all are identical, thing don't run
right on seven, it needs a tune-up,
or it will break down.
try harder.
redundancy does not speak correctly
to gene fusion or fission.
and now you know why.
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote news:...
> > and abiogenesis is basically
> > abandoned as a research project.
> Is there any point to even responding to these empty assertions?
so, are you claiming by this that you can easily
resurrect "abiogenesis" from the scrap heap?
isn't Watson or Cricke even in total denial of
the plausibility of the so-called "RNA world"?
without which, "abiogenesis" falls
like the heap of dirt that it is.
recall,
besides the Primary Dogma of genetics;
"DNA is the Template for its own reproduction"
the secondary dogma is this;
DNA --> RNA --> Protein
never;
RNA --> DNA --> RNA --> Protein--etc.
much less;
amino acids --> protein --> RNA --> DNA --> RNA --> Protein--etc.
this is a fantasy world.
there is no "abiogenesis" and without that,
you can't even begin your logical abduction
to transspeciation.
just holding up a bunch of chain links with
no clear or even unclear ties and expecting
no one to be able and kick your house in.
go ahead, just fall back on;
"but we all believe it to be true, therefore it is true"
cuz that's the best evidence yer ever gunna get.
Dethstryk
>> >yeah, maybe, but the clock is always running.
>
>> >and, you can play solitaire whilst downloading a program.
>
>> And it's still switching between solitaire and your download, at a
>> rate much faster than you can detect.
>
> can't i still call it "multitasking"?
Multitasking is more of a single-user sense. "Multiprogramming" is about the
most accurate term.
--
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil ignorance."
- Socrates
x-----------------------------x
| Dethstryk aa #1884 |
| jema...@tcainternet.com |
| BAAWA Knit |
| ICQ: 9929528 |
x-----------------------------x
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote...
> > and it all ends up with "scientists" having
> > to invoke a substanmce that has no known physical
> > properties as the original material
> > of the "pre" universe.
> Is there any point to even responding to these empty assertions?
so then, admit that you cannot specify a "substance"
from which all things emanated in the first
second of big bang theory.
so, you either invoke a something
from nothing, which we shall call magic,
or you invoke a something from something and that
something is a substance that you can not study
so as to elucidate physical properties.
therefore, you are left proposing a magic, or citing
a substance, that, as far as physical properties
is concerned, _does not exist_
take your pick.
and then we'll see who is making
empty unsupportable assertions.
Pastor Dave
You can call it anything you want. :)
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
<tsu...@geocities.com> wrote:
>Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
>> Jesus referring to "God" and speaking of YHWH.
Again, evidence ?
>none of which require any sort
>of "interpretation" on my part.
>but, they speak for themselves.
Yep, thhey fail to mention YHWH at all.
>anyone who tells you that God here is not YHWH
>is either a complete and utter moron or a plain liar.
Forgot one. Or CORRECT
>or both.
>
>> can't mistake it.
>> he is directly speaking of YHWH and saying "God"
Your mistake.
>> therefore, when Jesus says "God" he means YHWH.
An UNBACKED ASSERTION of yours.
<snipped, covered in another post>
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
<tsu...@geocities.com> wrote:
>YHWH = Adonai = Lord = Kurios
Hope you know that the above is DEAD WRONG
Correction.
YHWH = YHWH
and
Adonai = Lord = Kurios
But YHWH DOES NOT = Adonai, or Lord, or Kurios.
If you KNOW Hebrew and Greek you would KNOW this !
>in context, Kurios/LORD is YHWH.
Totally FALSE except in Timmy IMAGINATION.
<snipped gibberish>
>"yehushu'a" is the anglicized form of some hebrew character set,
>and "jesus" is the anglicized form of some greek character set.
>the only way they are known to be referring
>to the same person/thing is through the context
>in which they are found.
Jah is GENERIC for ANY "God"
>and, look at "wisdom"
>[hebrew] "chokmah" = "wisdom" proverbs
>[greek] "sophia" = "wisdom" gospels
>"sophia" is -not- a greek transliteration of "chokmah"
Sophia & Chokmah BOTH = Wisdom, they ARE THE SAME WORD !
The above contradicts you BADLY.
<snipped MORE gibberish>
>Luke 20
>37 But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed,
>in the passage about the bush, where he calls the
>Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and
>the God of Jacob. 38 Now he is not God of the dead,
>but of the living; for all live to him."
>and here's Jesus clearly referring to YHWH by any account.
By not mentioning YHWH the text is clearly talking about The Elohim.
>"he calls the Lord the God of Abraham..."
Sure DOES !
>that thing right there, "the Lord"
>can be no other thing besides YHWH.
There CAN, and THERE IS The Elohim
>so, you see, not only is YHWH spoken
>of by Jesus, but he is spoken of as God.
Wrong !
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >Pastor Dave wrote:
> >> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >> >Pastor Dave wrote:
> >> >> Timothy Sutter wrote:
i think i'll call it "multitasking"
why?
cuz it's doing several things at once.
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >> here's some selected passages of
> >> Jesus referring to "God" and speaking of YHWH.
> Again, evidence ?
yes, the evidence is clear that
your "special knowledge' is spurious.
you claim here that you have special knowledge
that tells you that Jesus was "correcting" the
texts when he clearly quotes them verbatim,
and yet you hqve earlier made claims that you did
not come up with the idea that YHWH was Demiurge
and Sophia was snake woman thru this
"special knowledge" of yours,
but, that you were specially instructed.
chum, you *cannot* make arguments by
"special knowledge" after you've explicittly
shown that you have no "special knowledge."
and, you are forever tainted in this regard.
you have "special instruction" *posing* as "special knowledge."
QED
Steven J.
> Steven J. wrote:
>
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
> > > here's some riddles;
>
> > > -----
> > > the theory of speciation thru geographical divergence
> > > does not rightly address this concern;
>
> > > how does a sexually reproducing species of 34 chromosomes
> > > extend it's DNA chain to bring about the production of
> > > another sexually reproducing species of 46 chromosomes?
>
> > Do you have particular species in mind?
>
> how many species do you know with 46 chromosomes
> that are said to arise from lower species?
>
primitive ones. Evolutionary theory hasn't dealt with "higher" and
"lower" creatures, or progress "up the evolutionary ladder" since the
days of Lamarck.
Humans have, typically, 46 chromosomes (23 pairs). They share a
common ancestor with chimpanzees, who have 48 chromosomes (24 pairs).
The last common ancestor of humans and chimps also, it is believed,
had 24 pairs; at some point in human evolution, two pairs (variously
called 12 and 14, or 2a and 2b -- there isn't a settled nomenclature
for chimp chromosomes) fused to form a single pair.
<http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html> has the details and
evidence.
>
-- [snip of redundancy and rudeness]
>
> > There are known cases (e.g. domestic horses and Przewalski's horse)
> > where populations with different chromosome numbers can interbreed
> > and produce fertile offspring,
>
> the offspring, if indeed fertile, will not
> carry the higher chromosome number but the lower.
>
> i.e. *if* as you suggest, this happens,
>
I do not suggest, I state.
>
> a species with 34 chromosomes mating with
> a species carrying 32 will *not* produce
> an offspring of 34 chromosomes, but only 32.
>
False; the offspring of will have 33 chromosomes. If one race or
subspecies (if they're interbreeding and producing fertile offspring,
they're not separate species) has 16 chromosome pairs, and the other
has 17, and they can produce fertile offspring, then one arose from
the other via the splitting of one chromosome pair to yield two, or
the joining of two to form one. They have the same genes, in the same
order, just packaged a bit differently. Two chromosomes from one
parent match up with one chromosome from the other.
>
-- [snip]
>
> > so a single population could survive and
> > perpetuate itself if a chromosome fission or fusion produced
> > individuals with different chromosome numbers.
>
> *not* to a higher chromosome number.
>
Please note that a higher chromosome number does not necessarily mean
a greater number of genes, or different genes.
>
> > > and don't tell me about wheat.
>
> > > wheat, with it's form of cell division,
> > > doesn't apply for rats "evolving" into human beings.
> > > mitosis and meiosis are entirely different. no der.
> > > besides, wheat is a cultivated crop,
> > > and reverting to "wild type" wheat doesn't present
> > > a logical explanation for the mechanism whereby mammals
> > > add chromosomes and are fertile.
>
> > > when, extra chromosomal material is _observed_
> > > to produce infertile offspring.
> > > as far as theories go, "dog breeding" followed
> > > by a divergent speciation doesn't bother me;
>
> > Though this does not apply to mere addition of genes (through gene
> > duplication and subsequent mutations, or insertion of retroviruses,
> > and so forth).
>
> no, much of what you say simply
> does not apply to the problem.
>
It applies, insofar as you falsely state that extra genes ("extra
chromosomal material") automatically produces infertility.
You're very rude; has anyone ever pointed that out to you?
>
> evidently, you don't even
> understand the problem as stated.
>
> > actually arose in
> > the early days of calculating interstellar distances, and the distance
> > to the Andromeda galaxy was overestimated due to failure to take this
> > into account. It is perfectly possible to make corrections.
>
> you have many corrections to make.
>
> but, the point is, interstellar space is not a vacuum.
>
It's a better vacuum than any we've produced here on Earth.
>
> therefore "speed of light" is non-operative,
> and velocity of light, which is not constant, is.
>
> and being "not constant" brings with it,
> its very own "red shift" anomalies.
>
> now do you understand the problem as stated?
>
Not at all; I merely doubt that *you* understand it. Changes in the
speed of light, caused by the fact that space is not a perfect vacuum,
should produce *refraction* of light, not redshifting (light might be
reddened by selective absorbtion of higher-frequency light, but that
is not redshifting -- the shift to lower frequencies of Franhoeffer
lines), as well as dimming of light. To the extent that estimates of
distance are based on brightness of distant galaxies, this requires
correction for the absorbtion of light by interstellar dust and gas.
The calculated Hubble constant might be wrong, of course; it's
certainly imprecise. But that is not the same thing as being mere
baseless speculation.
>
> > > ----------------
> > > if the earth was formed from an exploding star
> > > followed by gravitational forces pulling much space
> > > debris into some globule, and this "happened"
> > > some 4.5 billion years ago,
> > > why don't geologists find rocks that are
> > > older than the "age" of the earth?
> > > is this because their dating techniques are bogus
> > > and they consider that it would be contradictory
> > > to say that some rocks are older than the earth?
> > > when the actual contradiction is why there
> > > are no rocks that are older than the planet?
>
> > Interstellar meteorites are vanishingly rare.
>
> not at all what is stated above.
>
> the above says that the components of
> the earth are older than the earth itself.
>
The atoms must be, certainly.
>
> which must be true even in light of the
> theory that the earth composed itelf
> from the gunk of an exploding star.
>
> > Radioisotope dating dates the last time the
> > rocks congealed from a gaseous or molten state.
>
> this is false. Uranium clocks are said to do this,
> in theory, only they take the ore in a raw state
> and take no accounting can be taken for
> where the lead comes from.
>
Actually, ratios of different isotopes of lead (those which occur as
daughter products of various radioisotopes, and those which do not)
can be compared. This serves as a check for assumptions about how
much lead was originally in the rock.
>
> > For the matter that makes up the solar system, that appears to
> > be about 5 billion years ago.
>
> "that appears to be" 5 minutes ago.
> means the same thing.
>
I am aware of no isochron dates that yield a date of 5 minutes old for
meteorites. Or are you one of those Young Earth Creationists who
assumes that God allows the laws of physics to vary randomly (or even
that He *causes* them to vary randomly) so that we cannot draw any
valid conclusions from geological and astronomical evidence?
>
> > On Earth, they tend to be younger --
> > the dating of the geological column depends on finding rocks resulting
> > from volcanic eruptions deposited between sediment layers. Each
> > igneous layer yields a date from the time it was last molten -- those
> > from the end of the Cretaceous, were molten 65 million years ago.
> > Rocks from other star systems ought to be older, but we rarely if ever
> > see them.
>
> how old is the gold?
>
More than five billion years old. All the atoms on Earth, except
those formed by radioisotope decay, are more than five billion years
old. We are dealing with the age of various minerals, not the
elements of which they're made.
>
> will you tell me that gold ore is 65 million
> years old if it is discovered in a sediment
> layer that you propose to be of this age?
>
The ore? Yes, that seems a safe conclusion.
>
> no, you can't do this, because it is only some
> types of ores that can be "dated" in this manner.
>
You do not, of course, mean that the uranium ore might be one age, but
that the gold ore in the same layer might be older or younger. On the
other hand, if you don't mean this, why bring the gold up? The
sediments, with the fossils, are themselves usually impossible to date
directly -- surely an equally if not more important point. Unless you
have some reason to believe that the laws of chemistry and physics
have altered over time, or God has deliberately fashioned the Earth to
deceive us, radioisotope dating is trustworthy.
>
> and as i've said here and before, lead is
> an impurity in silicate rocks and so the
> uranium clock is a faulty instrument.
>
This can be corrected for by comparing the isotope ratios of
nonradigenic lead to radiogenic lead (and yes, enough radiosisotope
decays have been observed in the lab to know which is which).
>
> > > ------------
> > > basically, these "theories" are untestable
> > > untested and therefore non-scientific.
>
> > False. It is perfectly possible to make predictions, based on these
> > theories, of what we ought to observe, and see if we observe it.
>
> false, you can't even make a prediction as
> to whether the universe will implode or
> run away from itself forever.
>
Current predictions are that it will expand forever. *Testing* these
predictions is, understandably, a bit problematic. But the assumption
of common descent can be tested (e.g. do variations in proteins and
genes fall into a nested hierarchy consistent with each other, and
with morphology?), as can the hypothesis of the Big Bang (e.g.
hydrogen/helium ratios and the cosmic microwave background).
>
> you can't make any prediction as to what
> type of creature would be "more evolved"
> than the so-called human being.
>
True, but irrelevant. We can make predictions about what sort of
results we will find when we compare human genes and proteins with
those of other primates, and human physiology with those of fossil
primates.
>
> > > the bit about ascending speciation is a real hoax.
>
A hint for your future tirades: "ascending speciation" is a
meaningless term in evolutionary theory.
>
> > > going from 2 to 4 chromosomes, when it
> > > is observed that polysomies are lethal etc.
>
> > Actually, there is a species of frog in the Eastern United States that
> > resulted from a chromosome duplication (multiple instances of a
> > chromosome duplication -- the species shows signs of four separate
> > lineages merging) in the ancestral species.
>
> the observation being similarity in chromosomal
> makeup, and not definitive evidence that any some
> chromosomal duplicity resulted in viable
> offspring in a single generation.
>
In other words, evidence doesn't prove anything. You defend your
faith be assuming that God has made the universe incomprehensible.
>
> meaning, you may find two chromosomes that
> have very similar gene mappings but no way
> of showing that such a creature ever spit
> out duplicate sets of chromosomes and
> produced viable offspring.
>
> a thing which you have seen to cause genetic lethality.
>
-- [snip]
>
-- Steven J.
John Jensen
> Pastor Dave wrote:
>
>> Timothy Sutter wrote:
<snip>
>> Actually, they don't "multitask". They do one thing at
>> a time and switch between the tasks very quickly and
>> APPEAR to be multitasking. Unless of course, you have
>> multiple processors and an OS that will take advantage
>> of them. :)
>
> yeah, maybe, but the clock is always running.
>
> and, you can play solitaire
> whilst downloading a program.
>
> s'good enough for me.
> DOS was strictly one thing at a time.
DOS was outdated from the beginning. Unix could already multitask and
handle multi users. Linux does it now, far better than DOS ever dreamed of.
http://www.college-without-classes.com is running on a dual Xeon Compaq
running Redhat 7. At only 500MHz, it screams. I got a 450 PII for my
desktop, for objective comparison with my Win98 box. File load is a bit
slower due to the autodefrag file system, but once loaded, its a bit faster
and far more stable. That makes it practical to load it and leave it.
> but they did have these "Terminate and Stay Resident" programs.
>
> which is where they used to hide the virii.
> and the little virus would be destroying
> the machine while the clock was running.
Linux ix also more resistant to viruses.
--
John Jensen
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:...
> > Steven J. wrote:
> > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > here's some riddles;
> > > > -----
> > > > the theory of speciation thru geographical divergence
> > > > does not rightly address this concern;
> > > > how does a sexually reproducing species of 34 chromosomes
> > > > extend it's DNA chain to bring about the production of
> > > > another sexually reproducing species of 46 chromosomes?
> > > Do you have particular species in mind?
> > how many species do you know with 46 chromosomes
> > that are said to arise from lower species?
> Strictly speaking, none. More derived species evolve from more
> primitive ones. Evolutionary theory hasn't dealt with "higher" and
> "lower" creatures, or progress "up the evolutionary ladder" since the
> days of Lamarck.
then, for one thing, you'll be picking things
up in the middle of things and pretending that
some original cell line isn't a necessary
part of your picture.
if the contention is that living creatures
arose from a planet that at one time
was devoid of life,
you will have trouble making claims that
the first cell line to appear was
one of 80 chromosomes.
by the way, i think a duck is
said to have 80 chromosomes.
anyway, the claim is that bacteria seemed
to appear almost immediately, and that all
life arose from this bacteria through a
slow and gradual process of genetic enrichment.
this, by its very nature speaks
of an ascent. not some sideways hunch.
but you are correct that the actual
biological study of species tends to
focus on sideways branching and not
the artwork of paleoarcheology.
meaning, yeah, people that study birds in
the galapagos don't bother themselves with
the wonderment of how birds in the galapagos
arose on eartyh from primordial bacterial strains.
they tend to *just* study those birds
and how expressed traits vary over time.
generally, this sort of speciation is more
in order of the extinction of one phenotype
in preferrence to another.
say, the bit about the big beak birds overtaking
the small beak birds after the scientists
tampered with the food supply.
trouble is, both the big beak birds and
the small big birds were present ion the
genome from the onset, and the small beak
bird was artificially made extinct and this
was called an example of evolution.
that's all well and good, but it doesn't
speak to the aspect of a brand new trait
arising in a species that previously
did not possess this trait.
and *somewhere8 along the linbe, this
very sort of happening must be addressed.
so, *you* can say that no biologists approach
genetic diversity in the manner of an ascent,
but this ascent is a practical must be for
the process to arise from scratch.
do you see that?
so, what you say here really
doesn't address the problem.
but i see that you try to later,
and i'll see if i can make sense of it there.
> Humans have, typically, 46 chromosomes (23 pairs). They share a
> common ancestor with chimpanzees, who have 48 chromosomes (24 pairs).
> The last common ancestor of humans and chimps also, it is believed,
> had 24 pairs; at some point in human evolution, two pairs (variously
> called 12 and 14, or 2a and 2b -- there isn't a settled nomenclature
> for chimp chromosomes) fused to form a single pair.
so what? this doesn't support that chimps
and humans have a common ancestry.
you're stuck with telling me that similar
genetic maps are evidence of common ancestry.
it's a presumption.
it seems as if you would like to claim that
redundancy supports common ancestry.
it is said that much of the human genome is redundant.
and the immediate conclusion is that this redundancy
the "redundancy" is necessary.
try harder.
> > > There are known cases (e.g. domestic horses and Przewalski's horse)
> > > where populations with different chromosome numbers can interbreed
> > > and produce fertile offspring,
> > the offspring, if indeed fertile, will not
> > carry the higher chromosome number but the lower.
> > i.e. *if* as you suggest, this happens,
> I do not suggest, I state.
yeah, well you're making incorrect
statements. this next one troubles
me and should you as well.
> > a species with 34 chromosomes mating with
> > a species carrying 32 will *not* produce
> > an offspring of 34 chromosomes, but only 32.
> False; the offspring of will have 33 chromosomes.
this is just silly, and not
really worthy of addressing.
this creature with 33 chromosomes
can not be "fertile"
what sort of gamete does this
33 chromosome creature produce?
16.5 chromosomes?
are you telling me that creatures with
an odd chromosome number which are
fertile is at all plausible?
i don't see an mammal or vertebrate for
that matter that has an odd
chromosome number.
be that as it may,
we'll say, 32C and 36C and and get a 16/18 split,
and you'd still be claiming that some 34C
creature will result from this union?
> If one race or
> subspecies (if they're interbreeding and producing fertile offspring,
> they're not separate species) has 16 chromosome pairs, and the other
> has 17, and they can produce fertile offspring, then one arose from
> the other via the splitting of one chromosome pair to yield two, or
> the joining of two to form one. They have the same genes, in the same
> order, just packaged a bit differently. Two chromosomes from one
> parent match up with one chromosome from the other.
this borders on plain old nonsense.
and i'll just ask you, when have
you observed such a mechanism?
you're making some claim that because
two species have genetic similarities,
that you can construct this preposturous
sort of mechanism.
how would you ever propose testing this thing?
mind you, we're doing science
here, and not mumbly peg.
and this thing you propose needs to be testable.
you are saying because you see genetic similarities
in common species over a range of chomosomal loci,
that this is evidence that some chromosomal
elongation bifurcation took place at
some time in the past.
it's not just me being skeptical,
but you have no way of testing your hypothesis,
and therefore this theory of yours is unscientific.
i won't hammer on about the 33 chromosome bit.
> > > so a single population could survive and
> > > perpetuate itself if a chromosome fission or fusion produced
> > > individuals with different chromosome numbers.
> > *not* to a higher chromosome number.
> Please note that a higher chromosome number does not necessarily mean
> a greater number of genes, or different genes.
but it does speak to the meiotic mechanism.
you'll have to provide some very hard evidence
to support that some viable gamete has
16.5 chromosomes bits.
and we are addressing real creatures and
not just some theoretical plausibility.
I want to know how amoebas and bacteria
grew arms and legs and walked the road.
and you are asking me to believe a lot
of unsubstantaited and untestable claims.
> > > > and don't tell me about wheat.
> > > > wheat, with it's form of cell division,
> > > > doesn't apply for rats "evolving" into human beings.
> > > > mitosis and meiosis are entirely different. no der.
> > > > besides, wheat is a cultivated crop,
> > > > and reverting to "wild type" wheat doesn't present
> > > > a logical explanation for the mechanism whereby mammals
> > > > add chromosomes and are fertile.
> > > > when, extra chromosomal material is _observed_
> > > > to produce infertile offspring.
> > > > as far as theories go, "dog breeding" followed
> > > > by a divergent speciation doesn't bother me;
> > > Though this does not apply to mere addition of genes (through gene
> > > duplication and subsequent mutations, or insertion of retroviruses,
> > > and so forth).
> > no, much of what you say simply
> > does not apply to the problem.
> It applies, insofar as you falsely state that extra genes ("extra
> chromosomal material") automatically produces infertility.
it doesn't apply at all.
look, part of your problem happens to be a time constraint.
I'm trying to make allowances for a thing
that will speed up the process so that it
isn't simply completely and annoyingly erroneous
based on plain old time constraints.
and little point mutations will never get you
from bacteria to man in ten trillion trillion years.
so, the alternative is one where entire chromomsees
are duplicated and rewritten in a matter of generations.
and this mechanism simply goes against observatiuon
for one thing, and is impracticable from a
logical viewpoint for another.
cite you unicorn, i mean horse, tell me how
many chromosomes each parent has and how
many the offspring has.
remember, you're trying to tell me that an
individual spits out an extra chromosome or
two or 8 and is still able to produce viable
offspring in its own species.
and that, where the offspring carries all
of the newly spit out chromosomal duplications.
and i'm telling you that i don't believe it.
because this isn't observed to be even a rare occurrence.
> > > > *but*
> > but you aren't.
> > > This problem
I'm rude because you aren't addressing the problem?
I'm answering your post aren't I?
I think you were and are being rude.
I don't see anyting "rude" here at all.
just that you hadn't addressed the problem.
> > evidently, you don't even
> > understand the problem as stated.
> > > actually arose in
> > > the early days of calculating interstellar distances, and the distance
> > > to the Andromeda galaxy was overestimated due to failure to take this
> > > into account. It is perfectly possible to make corrections.
> > you have many corrections to make.
> > but, the point is, interstellar space is not a vacuum.
> It's a better vacuum than any we've produced here on Earth.
no it isn't, it's filled with junk.
why do you suppose that it's warm out there?
yes, 3K is warm.
a bunch of junk must be absorbing all
that precious microwave background radiation.
stuff gets warm.
light passing thru an emptiness isn't warm.
light passing thru stuff loses energy
to that stuff and leaves warmth behind.
yes or no?
and light that passes energy to stuff either
changes its frequency or wavelenth because
energy is proportional to wavelength.
c = [frequency]x[wavelength]
E = [planck's constant]x[frequency]
but, what can be said is that we are
dealing with a velocity, and the light
appears to slow when it transfers
its energy to space junk.
anyway, if the frequency shifts,
you have a shifted frequency.
you claim it should be a refraction,
i think it's just slowing down.
cuz you're looking at light that bounces out
of stuff and stuff in it like hydrogen subtracts
itself out of the spectra.
buit all that light is passing thru junk
and leaving considerable warmth,
i.e. energy behind.
> > therefore "speed of light" is non-operative,
> > and velocity of light, which is not constant, is.
> > and being "not constant" brings with it,
> > its very own "red shift" anomalies.
> > now do you understand the problem as stated?
> Not at all; I merely doubt that *you* understand it. Changes in the
> speed of light, caused by the fact that space is not a perfect vacuum,
the "speed" of light isn't in question seeing
that interstellar space is not a vacuum.
and the postulate is that the
"speed" of light is constant,
in a vacuum.
but we aren't dealing with a vacuum,
therefore the "speed" of light
is a meaningless datum.
> should produce *refraction* of light, not redshifting (light might be
> reddened by selective absorbtion of higher-frequency light, but that
> is not redshifting -- the shift to lower frequencies of Franhoeffer
> lines), as well as dimming of light. To the extent that estimates of
> distance are based on brightness of distant galaxies, this requires
> correction for the absorbtion of light by interstellar dust and gas.
> The calculated Hubble constant might be wrong, of course; it's
> certainly imprecise. But that is not the same thing as being mere
> baseless speculation.
yeah, that too, you may see some refractory
anomalies and shifting frequencies because
the light is passing thru stuff and
losing energy to the stuff.
> > > > ----------------
> > > > if the earth was formed from an exploding star
> > > > followed by gravitational forces pulling much space
> > > > debris into some globule, and this "happened"
> > > > some 4.5 billion years ago,
> > > > why don't geologists find rocks that are
> > > > older than the "age" of the earth?
> > > > is this because their dating techniques are bogus
> > > > and they consider that it would be contradictory
> > > > to say that some rocks are older than the earth?
> > > > when the actual contradiction is why there
> > > > are no rocks that are older than the planet?
> > > Interstellar meteorites are vanishingly rare.
> > not at all what is stated above.
> > the above says that the components of
> > the earth are older than the earth itself.
> The atoms must be, certainly.
strictky speaking, all of the
stuff is older than the planet.
and you haven't convinced me that
the planet was ever entirely molten.
you can say it seems obvious, but i can
say that because gold ores are not found
permeating in a smooth diffusivce pattern,
that the planet was never entirely
molten as is suggested.
and platinum and silver copper etc.
it's all found in pockets, and a molten
liquid would exhibit diffuse global permeations
and not small pockets here and there.
unless you say that it was not *entirely*
molten, but only somewhat molten, and
therefore, all of the uranium data that
says 5 billion seems suspect as well.
but you'd like to insist that all the
uranium was molten but still even it
isn't diffuse over the entire planet.
it's in little pockets here and there.
> > which must be true even in light of the
> > theory that the earth composed itelf
> > from the gunk of an exploding star.
> > > Radioisotope dating dates the last time the
> > > rocks congealed from a gaseous or molten state.
> > this is false. Uranium clocks are said to do this,
> > in theory, only they take the ore in a raw state
> > and take no accounting can be taken for
> > where the lead comes from.
> Actually, ratios of different isotopes of lead (those which occur as
> daughter products of various radioisotopes, and those which do not)
> can be compared. This serves as a check for assumptions about how
> much lead was originally in the rock.
sassuming that all the lead impurity in
the silicate crystal structure didn't
come from some primordial uranium.
like, the star that birthed it made a bunch
or uranium, and exploded and a bunch of
radiogenic lead popped up before the
planet was even formed.
and found it's way into the
silicate crystal structure.
or even that these crystals were not
formed in the star itself and paraded
about the stellar dust cloud for eons
before it all formed the earth.
what do you really know?
enough to prove my theory wrong?
how will you test either?
> > > For the matter that makes up the solar system, that appears to
> > > be about 5 billion years ago.
> > "that appears to be" 5 minutes ago.
> > means the same thing.
> I am aware of no isochron dates that yield a date of 5 minutes old for
> meteorites. Or are you one of those Young Earth Creationists who
> assumes that God allows the laws of physics to vary randomly (or even
> that He *causes* them to vary randomly) so that we cannot draw any
> valid conclusions from geological and astronomical evidence?
it's the inexactitude of "it appears to be"
that is in question here. not 5 minutes.
that's why it's in quotes.
> > > On Earth, they tend to be younger --
> > > the dating of the geological column depends on finding rocks resulting
> > > from volcanic eruptions deposited between sediment layers. Each
> > > igneous layer yields a date from the time it was last molten -- those
> > > from the end of the Cretaceous, were molten 65 million years ago.
> > > Rocks from other star systems ought to be older, but we rarely if ever
> > > see them.
> > how old is the gold?
> More than five billion years old. All the atoms on Earth, except
> those formed by radioisotope decay, are more than five billion years
> old. We are dealing with the age of various minerals, not the
> elements of which they're made.
just say, "i don't know how old is the gold"
uranium can be decaying into molten
silicate ore the sun even as we speak.
all the same stuff is up there.
but, yes, we are dealing with some
uranium decay products into a crystal
lattice that contains the decay
product as an impurity.
it doesn't care where it came from or when.
and are you claiming that lead couldn't
pick up a neutron or two over thousand years?
have you tested this?
meaning, you claim that radiogenic lead is
noticably different from regular olde lead,
fine, mass spectral data will agree with you,
but it it just a matter of mass numbers?
like a matter of a neutron or two?
and lead isn't the only decay product is it?
you mean to tell me that there isn't a
bunch of neutrons around to even things out?
i'm skeptical of your assertions in this manner.
> > will you tell me that gold ore is 65 million
> > years old if it is discovered in a sediment
> > layer that you propose to be of this age?
> The ore? Yes, that seems a safe conclusion.
no, it's not a safe conclusion.
the ore could have formed in
the primordial dust cloud.
there's probably even some good old
fashioned chemical reactions taking place
in the asteroid belt this very moment.
> > no, you can't do this, because it is only some
> > types of ores that can be "dated" in this manner.
> You do not, of course, mean that the uranium ore might be one age, but
> that the gold ore in the same layer might be older or younger. On the
> other hand, if you don't mean this, why bring the gold up? The
> sediments, with the fossils, are themselves usually impossible to date
> directly --
yeah, i know, and you invoke stuff like
biostratigraphy which clumsily neglects
catastrophism when it's convenient.
> surely an equally if not more important point. Unless you
> have some reason to believe that the laws of chemistry and physics
> have altered over time, or God has deliberately fashioned the Earth to
> deceive us, radioisotope dating is trustworthy.
not if you can't demonstrate without
a doubt where the lead came from.
> > and as i've said here and before, lead is
> > an impurity in silicate rocks and so the
> > uranium clock is a faulty instrument.
> This can be corrected for by comparing the isotope ratios of
> nonradigenic lead to radiogenic lead (and yes, enough radiosisotope
> decays have been observed in the lab to know which is which).
assumning all this radigenic lead
came from the uranium in the ore.
> > > > ------------
> > > > basically, these "theories" are untestable
> > > > untested and therefore non-scientific.
> > > False. It is perfectly possible to make predictions, based on these
> > > theories, of what we ought to observe, and see if we observe it.
> > false, you can't even make a prediction as
> > to whether the universe will implode or
> > run away from itself forever.
> Current predictions are that it will expand forever. *Testing* these
> predictions is, understandably, a bit problematic.
i.e. cannot be tested and are forever
trapped in a hypothetical state.
> But the assumption
> of common descent can be tested (e.g. do variations in proteins and
> genes fall into a nested hierarchy consistent with each other, and
> with morphology?),
you say "tested" and then don't describe
a test, but a comparison of objects.
mind you, a comparison of
objects is *not* a "test"
do you understand why?
> as can the hypothesis of the Big Bang (e.g.
> hydrogen/helium ratios and the cosmic microwave background).
this doesn't address the confusion surrounding
the "pre-"big-bang"" environment. does it?
no. it doesn't.
describe the universal environment at time T = 0
> > you can't make any prediction as to what
> > type of creature would be "more evolved"
> > than the so-called human being.
> True, but irrelevant.
not irrelevant, but exactly to the point.
you cannot successfully predict the rise of
man by studying *only* fish and foul.
can you?
no, you cannot.
and i'm quite serious about that.
if you were some amorphous objective blob
that happened to be studying fish and foul,
and no human beings were anywhere to be seen,
could you actually tell me that human beings
would be the natural result of however
many years of "evolution?"
I demand that you could not.
there's no logical entailment
that leads from fish to man.
no absolute necessity for man,
or fish for that matter.
why is that important?
you'd like to insist that there is a logical
progression from squirrels to monkeys and yet,
no such logical progression is verifiably necessary.
see what i mean?
you say that because the two have similar
genetic traits, that this is evidence of
common ancestry, but you'll also be inclined
to agree that there is no absolute necessity
for squirrels to exist in order
for monkeys to appear.
so, you're trapped in a paradoxical
enigma of your own construction.
common ancestry is not necessary.
> We can make predictions about what sort of
> results we will find when we compare human genes and proteins with
> those of other primates, and human physiology with those of fossil
> primates.
you mean when you invent it.
> > > > the bit about ascending speciation is a real hoax.
> A hint for your future tirades: "ascending speciation" is a
> meaningless term in evolutionary theory.
no it isn't in that all this stuff is said
to have arisen from bacteria and species
with small chromosome numbers.
somewhere along the line, you have to address
a creature of 2 chromosomes adding chromosomes
and remaining fertile.
and "tirade' doesn't exactly fit,
all i did was pose some questions.
and questions that you have
failed to address properly, still.
> > > > going from 2 to 4 chromosomes, when it
> > > > is observed that polysomies are lethal etc.
> > > Actually, there is a species of frog in the Eastern United States that
> > > resulted from a chromosome duplication (multiple instances of a
> > > chromosome duplication -- the species shows signs of four separate
> > > lineages merging) in the ancestral species.
> > the observation being similarity in chromosomal
> > makeup, and not definitive evidence that any some
> > chromosomal duplicity resulted in viable
> > offspring in a single generation.
> In other words, evidence doesn't prove anything. You defend your
> faith be assuming that God has made the universe incomprehensible.
you don't present an evidence here.
you present some data that you construe
to support a case that it does not support.
i think i addressed this well enough above.
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >YHWH = Adonai = Lord = Kurios
> YHWH = YHWH
> and
> Adonai = Lord = Kurios
no, because "Jehovah" is a special word that takes
the nouns of YHWH and the vowels of Adonai to
specify that YHWH, The Name" is in the original text.
i.e., they didn't just superimpose Adonai over YHWH,
they made this special blend, or nouns from YHWH
and vowels from Adonai.
*you* are mistaken. utterly.
Timothy Sutter
> Steven J. wrote:
> > Humans have, typically, 46 chromosomes (23 pairs). They share a
> > common ancestor with chimpanzees, who have 48 chromosomes (24 pairs).
> so what? this doesn't support that chimps
> and humans have a common ancestry.
> you're stuck with telling me that similar
> genetic maps are evidence of common ancestry.
just to see if any of this is clear;
common ancestry is presumed based
on genetic similarity, but genetic
similarity doesn't prove common ancestry.
everything that a squirrel is may be found
in a monkey, but not everything a monkey is
may be found in a squirrel, therefore
a monkey arose from a squirrel.
but a squirrel is unnecessary for a
monkey to appear from a nest of possums.
and all three have sufficient genetic similarity
to presume a common ancestry, but such common
ancestry is unnecesary for each to arise
separately from kangaroo mice.
sort of a mix and match game.
where it's not at all odd for similar
creatures to possess similar genetic make-up,
but similar genetic make-up proves no
such logical necessity that any
of the others exist.
but you want to prove that such
is possible, and that such is the case.
but still you would claim that a squirrel
is not a necessary precursor to a monkey,
but that genetic similarities prove
that one evolved in to the other.
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:...
> > how many species do you know with 46 chromosomes
> > that are said to arise from lower species?
> Strictly speaking, none.
i got one more thing for you to consider.
it's a good one. because I see engineering and design.
not just cuz i want to, but because it's there.
I already mentioned this before.
and that is the notion that algorithms don't write themselves.
and that the DNA molecule represents just this,
an algorithm for the production of living creatures.
but unlike algorithms that run machines like
computers where the algorithm is imprinted upon
some magnetic material, i.e. the algorithm is purely
imaginary and the magnetic strip is doing all the work,
this DNA molecule is an algorithm where the chemical
make-up itself *is* the encoding materials.
follow?
it's not that an algorithm is written -on- a
sheet of paper here, but that the algorithm
-is- itself the chemicals.
and never has anyone seen an algorithm
simply write itself into existance.
an algorithm, as you may know, is a complete set
of instructions for carrying out a set of explicit tasks
al·go·rithm n.
A step-by-step problem-solving procedure, especially
an established, recursive computational procedure
for solving a problem in a finite number of steps.
and the DNA molecule being The Template for its
own reproduction is exactly this, an algorithm
written on the chemicals themselves.
that is, the chemical make-up of the
molecule is its own algorithm for its coding.
and never yet has such a thing risen from the kitchen floor.
just think about it.
Pastor Dave
(Steven J.) wrote:
>> how many species do you know with 46 chromosomes
>> that are said to arise from lower species?
>>
>Strictly speaking, none. More derived species evolve from more
>primitive ones. Evolutionary theory hasn't dealt with "higher" and
>"lower" creatures, or progress "up the evolutionary ladder" since the
>days of Lamarck.
>
>Humans have, typically, 46 chromosomes (23 pairs). They share a
>common ancestor with chimpanzees, who have 48 chromosomes (24 pairs).
This is the typical response of the evolutionist. They
start by making a statement as if it's absolute truth,
but don't back it up.
>The last common ancestor of humans and chimps also, it is believed,
>had 24 pairs; at some point in human evolution,
Then they tell you that, "it is BELIEVED" and yet,
never see the glaring contradiction. If it is simply,
"BELIEVED", then it should not be stated as truth, but
rather, as a statement of belief.
Elmer Bataitis
> On 8 Nov 2001 20:29:19 -0800, stev...@altavista.com
> >> how many species do you know with 46 chromosomes
> >> that are said to arise from lower species?
> >Strictly speaking, none. More derived species evolve from more
> >primitive ones. Evolutionary theory hasn't dealt with "higher" and
> >"lower" creatures, or progress "up the evolutionary ladder" since the
> >days of Lamarck.
> >Humans have, typically, 46 chromosomes (23 pairs). They share a
> >common ancestor with chimpanzees, who have 48 chromosomes (24 pairs).
> This is the typical response of the evolutionist. They
> start by making a statement as if it's absolute truth,
> but don't back it up.
Note the "as if..." clause here.
> >The last common ancestor of humans and chimps also, it is believed,
> >had 24 pairs; at some point in human evolution,
> Then they tell you that, "it is BELIEVED" and yet,
> never see the glaring contradiction. If it is simply,
> "BELIEVED", then it should not be stated as truth, but
> rather, as a statement of belief.
And note the morphing to "...stated as truth...". Dave, in case you
missed it, the contradiction here is yours. No one mentioned "truth"
up there except for you.
**********************************************************
Elmer Bataitis "Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!"
Planetech Services -Hobbes
716-442-2884
Proudly wearing and displaying, as a badge of honor,
the straight jacket of conventional thought.
**********************************************************
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
ROFWL I BELIEVE YOU** !!!! LOL ! :-)
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
matthew25-jesusjudgment.cityslide.com
** sounds possible
On Wed, 07 Nov 2001 19:13:27 GMT, Loki <pou...@disinfo.net> wrote:
>Timothy Sutter <tsu...@geocities.com> wrote in news:3BE898F3.89E2251
>@geocities.com:
>
>> this is a story of how a grand Gnostic
>> sage came about his ideas on God.
>
>This is a story of how Timmy Sutter came about his ideas on God.
>
>Timmy was sitting around all day posting idiocy to usenet newsgroups.
>Everyone was calling him an idiot.
>
>Timmy thought, "How can I quell them from thinking that I am an idiot? What
>can I do?" Then he realized, "I can say I speak for God!"
>
>So, after smokin' a bowl, Timmy made up a bunch of half-assed theories about
>God, many of which are not even supported by any Scriptures, Judeo-Christian
>or otherwise. Then in his drug haze, he thought God was telling him to
>harass Gnostics. Somehow Timmy didn't realize this his theories on God were
>as unsupported by the canonical Bible (if not more so) than theirs were.
>
>So Timmy started claiming he spoke for God and posted long diatrabes,
>changed what people said in their replies to him because he wasn't mentally
>capable of answering them, posted scatalogical stories about God sticking
>His fingers up His butt, etc.
>
>And everyone still called him an idiot.
>
>
>--
>Et in arcadia ego..
>
>Loki
>
>-[E-Mail]- pou...@disinfo.net
>-[WWW]- http://www.robinzing.com/loki/
>-[ICQ]- 13134728
>
>Anything I do is purely coincidental.
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
<tsu...@geocities.com> wrote:
>Glenn (Christian Mystic) wrote:
>> Timothy Sutter wrote:
>> >Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
>> >> here's some selected passages of
>> >> Jesus referring to "God" and speaking of YHWH.
>
>> Again, evidence ?
>
>yes, the evidence is clear that
>your "special knowledge' is spurious.
What does this have to do with YOU backing up YOUR assertions ? I see,
you can't answer the challenge so you are trying to change the topic.
>you claim here that you have special knowledge
>that tells you that Jesus was "correcting" the
>texts when he clearly quotes them verbatim,
Wrong, and no "special knowledge" is needed to see EXACTLY what the
texts are saying
Jesus, by leaving YHWH completely out of the picture CLEARLY FAILS TO
"quotes them verbatim,"
>and yet you hqve earlier made claims that you did
>not come up with the idea that YHWH was Demiurge
>and Sophia was snake woman thru this
>"special knowledge" of yours,
I think you mean from "special" New Testament texts not found in the
Canon
(My "special knowledge" consists of prophecies received through
meditation, which the Holy Spirit has ordered me to keep to myself;
and has NOTHING to do with most of my posts, including the ones in
this thread)
>but, that you were specially instructed.
>chum, you *cannot* make arguments by
>"special knowledge" after you've explicittly
>shown that you have no "special knowledge."
When ?? Where ??
(That which I have been "specially instructed" in you know nothing of,
such also goes for my "special knowledge")
Me thinks you is speaking out of your ass.
>and, you are forever tainted in this regard.
>you have "special instruction" *posing* as "special knowledge."
>QED
Quite
Errorant &
Delussional
You sure are !
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
<tsu...@geocities.com> wrote:
>Glenn (Christian Mystic) wrote:
>> Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
>> >YHWH = Adonai = Lord = Kurios
>
>> YHWH = YHWH
>> and
>> Adonai = Lord = Kurios
<snipped clearly Sutter imaginational gibberish>
>*you* are mistaken. utterly.
No texts agree with you, nor any self help books on the topic
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
<tsu...@geocities.com> wrote:
>Timothy Sutter wrote:
>> Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
>> > here's some selected passages of
>> > Jesus referring to "God" and speaking of YHWH.
Should be interesting...
>> none of which require any sort
>> of "interpretation" on my part.
>> but, they speak for themselves.
>> anyone who tells you that God here is not YHWH
>> is either a complete and utter moron or a plain liar.
What ~? No passages ? Couldn't find any I guess :-)
>there's no way around it.
>in these passages YHWH has been identified
>specifically *as* "God" by Jesus.
What passages ? I don't see any here....
>he is both citing and quoting Moses.
So you claim, but where are these passages ?? Oh, I get it, in Timmy's
IMAGINATION !!!
>and that's why i say "pernicious liars"
>nobody can be that stupid.
Do you even know what ever it is that you are ranting about ?? Because
I sure don't.
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
<tsu...@geocities.com> wrote:
>some of the ancient Hebrews felt that
>the Tetragrammaton[YHWH in Hebrew characters]
>was too sacred to place on parchment
>of paper of whathaveyou.
>so, they invented "Adonai"
>which means "Lord" in English.
Very GOOD, now Timmy responses !!! But by doing so he admits to what
WE HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG !!
>which is why you'll read your Old Testament and see
>"LORD" in big capital letters where the Hebrew
>was YHWH[in Hebrew characters]
Very good, The Elohim though caused a superstition to ERASE YHWH from
the texts which Christ, and Christianity, would use as THE text !
>the greeks translated the Hebrew OT and found "Adonai"
>in there and transliterated it as Kurios, or Kyrie,
>which means "Lord" in English.
Exactly,,, LORD and NOT YHWH
>so, in the Greek Old Testament, Kurios [LORD]
>is the Greek version of YHWH [LORD].
FALSE ! YHWH does NOT mean LORD, nor does LORD mean YHWH. Nowhere was
Kurios used as YHWH in SECULAR texts, NOWHERE !!
>it's that simple.
Yep, it is that simple
>and the same word "Hayah" which generally translated
>as "I am" from Hebrew to English,
Hayah is thereverse of Yahah(YHWH), like an up-side-down cross.
>is a common word found throughout OT and translated
>many ways, depending upon the context.
>"he was, "she will become" "let there be"
>where YHWH is just "Ha Hayah" or "The I am"
>so, the fact that the greek word "Kurios",
>sometimes means "Master" is no strange thing.
Of coures.
>when OT script is being quoted, there is
>no question but that YHWH is LORD is Kurios.
The OT is a questionable text
>to say otherwise is mindlessly idiotic.
Pastor Dave
They then try to deny that it was stated as fact that
humans and chimpanzees, "share a common ancestor", even
though they admit all they have is a "belief". A
contradiction, to be sure.
Sanjay
Timothy Sutter wrote:
> Steven J. wrote:
>
> > Timothy Sutter wrote news:...
>
> > > and abiogenesis is basically
> > > abandoned as a research project.
No it is still going on
>
>
> > Is there any point to even responding to these empty assertions?
>
> so, are you claiming by this that you can easily
> resurrect "abiogenesis" from the scrap heap?
If we knew then they would not be a research project
>
>
> isn't Watson or Cricke even in total denial of
> the plausibility of the so-called "RNA world"?
Learn Biology!
>
>
> without which, "abiogenesis" falls
> like the heap of dirt that it is.
Dead air
>
>
> recall,
>
> besides the Primary Dogma of genetics;
>
> "DNA is the Template for its own reproduction"
>
> the secondary dogma is this;
>
> DNA --> RNA --> Protein
>
> never;
>
> RNA --> DNA --> RNA --> Protein--etc.
>
> much less;
>
> amino acids --> protein --> RNA --> DNA --> RNA --> Protein--etc.
>
> this is a fantasy world.
The problem is not in the science theory but in the religious fuddies.
It’s just very amazing that a discussion of such naivety is occurring
here. There must be a worldwide conspiracy of scientists that are out
to destroy the religious nuts in this world. I love this “Primary
Dogma of genetics” is so idiotic that it just stupefying.
Lets have a little science lessen should we! :
All organisms are composed of CELLS.
Within each cell is a NUCLEUS.
Within the nucleus are the CHROMOSOMES.
Chromosomes are threadlike strands of deoxyribonucleic acid (ie DNA) and
protein.
New cell are formed by cell division MITOSIS.
New Cell with the complete Chromosomes complement are DIPLOID.
Exception sperm and eggs with only half MEIOSIS
These sex cell, called GAMETE are call HALOID because they process only
have of the genetic material.
The unit of heredity is called a GENE, and it is a segment of the DNA
along a chromosome.
Now if you imagine chromosomes as strings of genes, then there are two
copies of a given gene – one each at the same place or locus on each of
the two homologous chromosomes, and only one is expressed in the
organism. Alternate forms of the gene, such as blue and brown eye
color, are termed ALLELES. Among all the individuals of a population,
there may be many different alleles for a given trait, but a single
individual will have only two of them at most. ARE YOU STILL with me
here.
Now Genes do their job by making protein called ENZYMES. They are
biological catalyst; that is they take part in chemical reaction, but
are not used up in those reactions.
Now this knowledge of what cell are in our heads, we can begin to
explain where genetic variation comes from (Evolution). Genes do not
change. The sources of heritably variation in nature include MUTATION,
Chromosomal rearrangement, and independent assortment of genes from
different chromosomes. The sources combined with the randomness of
sexual reproduction, ensure the presence of genetic variation.
Are you still awake!
Now then, the same forces that produce mutation bring on chromosomal
rearrangement. Rearrangements may result in a reversal of the order of
gene in the segment of chromosomes. It’s called inversion. Now
deletion, translocation (crossing over) can now occur. If a piece of
chromosomes joins another one it is call fusion. All of these highly
complicated changes – Inversion, deletion, translocation, and fusion
–alter the order of genes.
DNA molecule are held to together by the nitrogenous base pairs, just as
the steps of a ladder hold the rails. The are four A, T, C, and G. The
rails of DNA ladder are composed of a deoxyribose sugar and a phosphate
group. A unit of sugar, phosphate, and a base is called a nucleotide.
Now if you make it this far! During cell division the two DNA strands
separate. Each strand attracts complementary nucleotides to
reconstruct the double helix Transcription, the formation of messener
ribonucleic acid (RNA or mRNA) from the coded DNA. The DNA molecule
unzips and serves as a templatete from the mRNA synthesis. The MRNA
bases are the complements of the DNA bases even though the lets are
replaced ( U to T for example.) In short the mRNA directs the specific
amino acide sequence during protein synthesis. There is also a tRNS
Now Evolution is defended as the change of allele of a population over
time. Meaning the first population has change it allele from the
previous generation. This is the Fact of evolution. The theory of
evolution is the mecanisum of how these allele change (Natural select
and so on).
Now where the dogma? It is with a group of uneducated fuddies that have
to have their Bible to be Literal because they lack faith in God. I am
a Christian and the majority of use has no problem with evolution. We
just see it as the TOOL that God used to change the live on earth. If
you take the bible literal, you would have problems with. Psalm
93:1,99:1, 104:5, 96:10, 18:15, 19:4, 104:2, and so on where it is
talking about a flat earth that is fixed cannot be moved! That why you
still have a group of Fuddies that are Flat earthier!!!.
>
>
> there is no "abiogenesis" and without that,
> you can't even begin your logical abduction
> to transspeciation.
That makes no sense what-so-ever. It is just babble word.
AIDS Has Tran speciated in our live time! Observed !!!
>
>
> just holding up a bunch of chain links with
> no clear or even unclear ties and expecting
> no one to be able and kick your house in.
>
> go ahead, just fall back on;
>
> "but we all believe it to be true, therefore it is true"
>
> cuz that's the best evidence yer ever gunna get.
No it True because we Observe it as true.
All I repeat all of Biology is based on evolution. Biology does not
make sense except in the light of evolution. Other then naming animals
without having evolution that is all you can do. Did you ever notice
that biologist have not problem with it, but religious zealots are the
only ones that cannot deal with reality. Other the majority of
Christians have no problem this it.
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > besides the Primary Dogma of genetics;
> > "DNA is the Template for its own reproduction"
> > the secondary dogma is this;
> > DNA --> RNA --> Protein
> I love this “Primary Dogma of genetics”
> is so idiotic that it just stupefying.
well then, you can simply chop your own
pointy little head off then, chum;
observe
http://www-biology.ucsd.edu/classes/bimm100.FA00/01.MolBiol.html#IA2
Central Dogma of Molecular Biology (Brown, Fig 1.2):
DNA makes RNA makes Protein
i used "primary" nad they use "central"
I state Template and they go
straight into my secondary Dogma.
they are, however, identical.
you moron.
> Lets have a little science lessen should we! :
considering your ignorance of the matter,
maybe you'd better take your own advice,
then *maybe* i'll address your concerns.
Elmer Bataitis
> They then try to deny that it was stated as fact that
> humans and chimpanzees, "share a common ancestor", even
> though they admit all they have is a "belief". A
> contradiction, to be sure.
No Dave. It *is* a scientific fact that we share a common ancestor. It
is a belief that has been so abundantly confirmed by *ALL* the
evidence, that to deny it would be just perverse.
Timothy Sutter
>
> Sanjay wrote:
>
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
> > > besides the Primary Dogma of genetics;
> > > "DNA is the Template for its own reproduction"
>
> > > the secondary dogma is this;
> > > DNA --> RNA --> Protein
>
> > I love this “Primary Dogma of genetics”
> > is so idiotic that it just stupefying.
>
> well then, you can simply chop your own
> pointy little head off then, chum;
>
> observe
>
> http://www-biology.ucsd.edu/classes/bimm100.FA00/01.MolBiol.html#IA2
>
> Central Dogma of Molecular Biology (Brown, Fig 1.2):
>
> DNA makes RNA makes Protein
>
> i used "primary" nad they use "central"
>
> I state Template and they go
> straight into my secondary Dogma.
> they are, however, identical.
not identical
genetics has a :central dogma
"DNA is the Template for its own reproduction"
and molecular biology has a central dogma as well,
DNA makes RNA makes Protein
Sanjay
Timothy Sutter wrote:
> Sanjay wrote:
>
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
> > > besides the Primary Dogma of genetics;
> > > "DNA is the Template for its own reproduction"
>
> > > the secondary dogma is this;
> > > DNA --> RNA --> Protein
>
> > I love this “Primary Dogma of genetics”
> > is so idiotic that it just stupefying.
>
> well then, you can simply chop your own
> pointy little head off then, chum;
>
> observe
>
> http://www-biology.ucsd.edu/classes/bimm100.FA00/01.MolBiol.html#IA2
>
> Central Dogma of Molecular Biology (Brown, Fig 1.2):
>
> DNA makes RNA makes Protein
The use of dogma is not the same as religious dogma that was indicated.
Word have Meanings other then one.
>
>
> i used "primary" nad they use "central"
>
> I state Template and they go
> straight into my secondary Dogma.
> they are, however, identical.
Without detail it looks like crap and it is crap unless you put the
detail down.
>
>
> you moron.
so how is my statement wrong other then the misuse of the word Dogma.
>
>
> > Lets have a little science lessen should we! :
>
> considering your ignorance of the matter,
> maybe you'd better take your own advice,
> then *maybe* i'll address your concerns.
Please do I have not seen any Knowledge on your part about biology.
I am off till Tuesday so I will be waitting!
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > Sanjay wrote:
> > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > besides the Primary Dogma of genetics;
> > > > "DNA is the Template for its own reproduction"
> > > > the secondary dogma is this;
> > > > DNA --> RNA --> Protein
> > > I love this “Primary Dogma of genetics”
> > > is so idiotic that it just stupefying.
> > well then, you can simply chop your own
> > pointy little head off then, chum;
> > observe
> > http://www-biology.ucsd.edu/classes/bimm100.FA00/01.MolBiol.html#IA2
> > Central Dogma of Molecular Biology (Brown, Fig 1.2):
> > DNA makes RNA makes Protein
> The use of dogma is not the same as religious dogma that was indicated.
go away fool.
apologize and retract.
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > cuz that's the best evidence yer ever gunna get.
> All I repeat all of Biology is based on evolution. Biology does not
> make sense except in the light of evolution.
and this is simply and plainly false.
one may study animal diversity, plant diversity,
chemistry and physics and the like without ever
invoking a notion that life sprang up on earth
apart from Creative Design.
In fact, it *all* makes a lot more sense in
light of Creative Design as a first principle.
Steven J.
> Steven J. wrote:
>
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:...
>
> > > Steven J. wrote:
>
> > > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
> > > > > here's some riddles;
>
> > > > > -----
> > > > > the theory of speciation thru geographical divergence
> > > > > does not rightly address this concern;
>
> > > > > how does a sexually reproducing species of 34 chromosomes
> > > > > extend it's DNA chain to bring about the production of
> > > > > another sexually reproducing species of 46 chromosomes?
>
> > > > Do you have particular species in mind?
>
> > > how many species do you know with 46 chromosomes
> > > that are said to arise from lower species?
>
> > Strictly speaking, none. More derived species evolve from more
> > primitive ones. Evolutionary theory hasn't dealt with "higher" and
> > "lower" creatures, or progress "up the evolutionary ladder" since the
> > days of Lamarck.
>
> then, for one thing, you'll be picking things
> up in the middle of things and pretending that
> some original cell line isn't a necessary
> part of your picture.
>
think that this most primitive life form was "lower" (as opposed to
"less evolved") in any sense that interests biologists, you don't
understand the theory you're criticizing. But in point of fact the
theory of evolution is about what happens (or has happened) to life
once it's already here. How life originated is a separate problem, as
yet poorly addressed. Whether all life shares a common ancestor, or
whether there are many independent trees of life, is also a separate
question, although it appears that indeed there is only one.
>
> if the contention is that living creatures
> arose from a planet that at one time
> was devoid of life,
>
life.
I assume that both of us concede that life now exists on this planet.
Therefore, both of us should conclude that somehow, life arose on this
planet.
*How* it did so is a fascinating question, but irrelevant to
evolution.
>
> you will have trouble making claims that
> the first cell line to appear was
> one of 80 chromosomes.
>
without difficulty. But no, I assume that (a) the first cell line
probably coalesced from a horde of self-replicating systems too simple
to be unambiguously living, and (b) probably had one or two
chromosomes and relatively few genes. Duplications of genes, and
duplications, fusions, and fissions of chromosomes, get you in time to
80 chromosomes.
>
> by the way, i think a duck is
> said to have 80 chromosomes.
>
species of ducks have different chromosome counts.
>
> anyway, the claim is that bacteria seemed
> to appear almost immediately, and that all
> life arose from this bacteria through a
> slow and gradual process of genetic enrichment.
>
chromosomes, and splitting and joining of chromosomes, and natural
selection among the variants produced by reproduction with mutation.
Note that natural selection can favor simpler genomes, with the loss
of genes.
>
> this, by its very nature speaks
> of an ascent. not some sideways hunch.
>
genes, and the complexity (by various measures -- "complexity" is a
less simple and straightforward concept than one might imagine) as an
"ascent," if one wishes. Biologists in general do not, however.
>
> but you are correct that the actual
> biological study of species tends to
> focus on sideways branching and not
> the artwork of paleoarcheology.
>
> meaning, yeah, people that study birds in
> the galapagos don't bother themselves with
> the wonderment of how birds in the galapagos
> arose on eartyh from primordial bacterial strains.
>
Galapagos arose from birds in South America -- birds are older than
the Galapagos. Birds in general arose, most likely, from theropod
dinosaurs, which arose from basal archosaurs, which arose ... well,
it's a long way back to basal prokaryotes (the last common ancestor of
animals and bacteria may not, strictly speaking, have been a bacterium
-- bacteria have their own specializations). I think you know this.
>
> they tend to *just* study those birds
> and how expressed traits vary over time.
>
> generally, this sort of speciation is more
> in order of the extinction of one phenotype
> in preferrence to another.
>
>
> say, the bit about the big beak birds overtaking
> the small beak birds after the scientists
> tampered with the food supply.
>
scientists just watched.
>
> trouble is, both the big beak birds and
> the small big birds were present ion the
> genome from the onset, and the small beak
> bird was artificially made extinct and this
> was called an example of evolution.
>
rains returned. No species went extinct; no speciation took place.
The point was that natural selection actually works, producing effects
similar to conscious selection.
>
> that's all well and good, but it doesn't
> speak to the aspect of a brand new trait
> arising in a species that previously
> did not possess this trait.
>
mutations.
>
> and *somewhere8 along the linbe, this
> very sort of happening must be addressed.
>
features, which are modified crossopterygian fish features. The
nature of the transitions is a matter of intense study, and has been
extensively addressed. Or do you wish to know how vertebrates arose
in the first place, or how animals arose, or ...?
There is varying amount of evidence available to deal with each of
these questions.
>
> so, *you* can say that no biologists approach
> genetic diversity in the manner of an ascent,
> but this ascent is a practical must be for
> the process to arise from scratch.
>
> do you see that?
>
I don't see that to argue that humans and other primates share a
common ancestor, I need to show *anything* about how mammals arose
originally, much less how life arose originally. The evidence stands
on its own, it does not need abiogenesis, or a complete explation of
the phylogeny of all life, for a foundation. We could postulate that
the ur-primate was specially created, not derived from any other
species, and that would not affect the evidence for human-chimp common
ancestry.
>
> so, what you say here really
> doesn't address the problem.
>
Perhaps I was addressing a point I mistakenly thought you were trying
to make, or an common error I thought you had made.
>
> but i see that you try to later,
> and i'll see if i can make sense of it there.
>
>
> > Humans have, typically, 46 chromosomes (23 pairs). They share a
> > common ancestor with chimpanzees, who have 48 chromosomes (24 pairs).
> > The last common ancestor of humans and chimps also, it is believed,
> > had 24 pairs; at some point in human evolution, two pairs (variously
> > called 12 and 14, or 2a and 2b -- there isn't a settled nomenclature
> > for chimp chromosomes) fused to form a single pair.
>
> so what? this doesn't support that chimps
> and humans have a common ancestry.
>
The presences of vestigial telomeres and centromeres in chromosome 2
begs for *some* explantion, as do vestigial forms of the vitamin-C
gene (which doesn't work in humans and other primates), and other
pseudogenes. Common descent provides an explanation. You could
postulate independent creation of these useless features in both
species, as you *could* postulate that a copy of the gospel of Mark in
Alexandria and a similar copy in Antioch arose as independent
compositions, not as variant copies of a common original. But a
sensible person would not conclude this.
>
> you're stuck with telling me that similar
> genetic maps are evidence of common ancestry.
>
For certain types of similarity, yes, as similar texts are evidence of
common "ancestry."
>
> it's a presumption.
>
Why? As with texts, we see the results, and we see the mechanism
(copying with errors). The one looks like the expected results of the
other.
>
> it seems as if you would like to claim that
> redundancy supports common ancestry.
>
If by "redundancy" you mean homologous genes, it supports common
ancestry of the genes, yes.
>
> it is said that much of the human genome is redundant.
>
By whom? I have heard that much of it is noncoding "junk," but am
unfamiliar with the claim of "redundancy." I have heard that many
human genes appear to have originated as copies of other human genes,
which subsequently mutated and evolved independently. For example, we
have four separate copies of the HOX sequence.
>
> and the immediate conclusion is that this redundancy
> serves no useful purpose, but is merely excess baggage
> carried by the genome with no useful purpose and
> therefore can be rewritten at whim to bring
> about new apparati.
>
The claim is that, *when the duplicate genes first appeared* they were
redundant; they presumably did something, but it was not essential.
Over time, it may have become essential, if only because everyone else
had the duplicate genes and the standard of fitness had increased.
And, of course, if the genes, in the population in which they arose,
were redundant, they could have mutated and given rise to new
functions. In time, these new functions would have ceased to be
redundant. But note that many species, today, function with fewer
copies of certain families of genes (e.g. the Hox genes above) than
humans, showing that genes which are essential today may not have been
essential in more primitive ancestors.
>
> and then, this line of armument is carried over to
> imply that all genomes from lower mammals on "up"
> have the same "redundancy" and therefore are
> ripe for random manipulation.
>
> but, what is not correctly considered is that all
> of this redundancy is, in fact, necessary during
> embryonic developement, and then, after that
> is complete, the bits simply shut off.
>
I'm not sure, but I thing you misunderstand the evolutionist claim.
The duplicate genes *used* to be redundant. Today, only recent
duplications would be redundant in this fashion.
>
> for instance, you have as an example, 13 fully functioning
> genetic bits that code for liver cell production, and
> all 13 of these are churning out liver cells during
> embryonic developement, and perhaps slows to as few
> as 7 during full juvenile developement, until the
> liver is fully formed and they may, for all
> practical purposes, simply shut off.
>
> or, simply turn on and off as necessary.
>
> same can be said for heart lung skin etc.
>
> i.e. all 13 locations on the DNA molecule *must*
> be present and accounted for and functioning
> during developement and *none* are dunsel.
>
> so, you can then say, "well, all of this
> gene manipulation occurs after birth
> and developement."
>
Or, I could say, suppose a *new* gene arose, in one mutant within a
species, by a duplication of some gene existing in all members of that
species. That new gene would be redundant. Older duplicate genes
would have found essential functions long ago.
>
> but not so, as the eggs of the
> female are all accounted for at birth.
> no new eggs are produced
> over the span of the lifetime.
>
*shrug* Mutations can and do occur when the eggs are originally
formed; they wait for fertilization their chance at becoming part of a
new genome.
>
> the actual nature of this thing is that the
> entire enterprise is set about at *preventing*
> these genetic anomalies from passing on,
>
It fails, occasionally.
>
> and never encouraging "random"
> mutations to pass along un-bridled.
>
Quite a few human mutations have been documented, as have mutations in
many other species. Most are neutral, of course, and most of those
that are not are clearly harmful, but beneficial mutations are not
impossible.
>
> so, we should be seeing that there is not any
> actual redundancy in the genome, but
> only an apparent redundancy.
>
> meaning, when you need cookies, the factories
> are all spitting out cookies, until the shelves
> are filled and then they shut down.
>
> these factories are now, not, simply redundant,
> but waiting until they are needed again.
>
> at which time, they will simply re-open.
>
> you people jump to such headlong
> conclusions when you want
> to "prove a point"
>
This is quite a long spiel to argue against an argument I never
advanced. I'm not sure I've even made my point clear to you, either,
but we'll see.
>
> where's that good olde fashioned
> "skepticism" when you need it?
>
> point of all this being, it is not at all odd
> that similarities in genetic mapping should
> be found in all genomes.
>
Why is there a pseudogene (a NONFUNCTIONING gene) for vitamin-C
production, at the same location, in humans and apes? Why do many,
many noncoding DNA sequences have homologues in chimpanzees (and
slightly fewer or less similar homologues in other apes, and fewer and
less similar still in other primates)? Your argument does not address
this point at all.
>
> that, as an example, much of chromosome 8
> is identical to pieces of chromosome 9, 10 and 11.
>
> this is the *required* redundancy for
> proper embryonic and juvenile developement.
>
Oh, now I get it. You didn't read the URL I posted. Virtually *all*
of chromosome 2a in chimps is identical to part of human chromosome 2,
and virtually *all* of 2b is identical to the rest of 2, and there
are, embedded in the human chromosome, bits of the telomere (endpiece)
of a chromosome, as well as a degenerate spare centromere (the center
portion of a chromosome). None of the genes are "redundant;" and if
the spare centromere and telomere are any use in embryonic
development, someone should tell the embryologists, and explain why
chimps develop fine without these features.
>
> and *not* some -unnecessary redundancy-
> that would allow for random genetic maniplulation
> over time by the elements.
>
The redundancy arises via duplications of genes (an observed type of
mutation) repeatedly over time.
>
> and pointing to these as "evidence" of anything
> required by this fantasic postulate called
> "evolution" is simply way out beyond the pale.
>
> bordering on widespread delusional fantasy.
>
Now *that* is not nice. It is also not true.
>
> but, if you look hard and intently enough for
> what you want to see, chances are, you'll
> find exactly what you want to find.
>
> but this too, is meaningless, and the pursuit of the wind.
>
> the "redundancy" argument must be shelved as stupid.
>
> the "redundancy" is necessary.
>
> takes 8 pistons to crank the motor.
>
No, six will do; the motor will simply run slower. "Irreducible
complexity" isn't all it's cracked up to be.
Sixteen or seventeen; the 17-chromosome version packages on two
chromosomes the same genes contained on one in the 16-chromosome
version.
>
> are you telling me that creatures with
> an odd chromosome number which are
> fertile is at all plausible?
>
Yes. All that matters is that the genes can be matched up during
reproduction.
>
> i don't see an mammal or vertebrate for
> that matter that has an odd
> chromosome number.
>
I would not imagine that the situation is stable, but it could occur
as a temporary condition.
>
> be that as it may,
>
> we'll say, 32C and 36C and and get a 16/18 split,
> and you'd still be claiming that some 34C
> creature will result from this union?
>
I think that successful matings (in the sense of producing offspring)
have resulted from mating creatures that karyotpically divergent, but
chromosome fusions and fissions are not that common. My guess is that
two populations with a difference of *two* chromosome pairs won't
produce fertile offspring. Again, please remember -- same genes,
different packaging. One chromosome from one parent corresponds to,
and matches with, two chromosomes from the other.
>
> > If one race or
> > subspecies (if they're interbreeding and producing fertile offspring,
> > they're not separate species) has 16 chromosome pairs, and the other
> > has 17, and they can produce fertile offspring, then one arose from
> > the other via the splitting of one chromosome pair to yield two, or
> > the joining of two to form one. They have the same genes, in the same
> > order, just packaged a bit differently. Two chromosomes from one
> > parent match up with one chromosome from the other.
>
> this borders on plain old nonsense.
>
As long as it stays on the right side of the border, I'll be content.
>
> and i'll just ask you, when have
> you observed such a mechanism?
>
> you're making some claim that because
> two species have genetic similarities,
> that you can construct this preposturous
> sort of mechanism.
> how would you ever propose testing this thing?
>
Did you read the paragraph about _Equus przewalskii_ and _Equus
caballus_? Such matings have been observed, and the genetic results
studied. Again, you could look it up, if you're interested.
>
> mind you, we're doing science
> here, and not mumbly peg.
>
> and this thing you propose needs to be testable.
>
> you are saying because you see genetic similarities
> in common species over a range of chomosomal loci,
> that this is evidence that some chromosomal
> elongation bifurcation took place at
> some time in the past.
>
"Elongation?" The only "elongation" would be from the attachment of
new telemeres after bifurcation. And, of course, if we're talking
about humans, the most recent change in chromosome count involved
joining two chromosomes, not bifurcating one. And yes, that's
basically what I'm saying.
>
> it's not just me being skeptical,
> but you have no way of testing your hypothesis,
> and therefore this theory of yours is unscientific.
>
It seems to me, that the presence, in chromosome two, of degenerate
forms of parts (telomere and centromere) of the ancestral two
chromosomes, is a test, and evidence that confirms the hypothesis.
Furthermore, we can predict, based on morphology of bones and organs,
that chimps and humans are more closely related to each other than
either is to monkeys. We can then compare proteins and enzymes (e.g.
the respiratory enzyme cytochrome-c, which does the same job in
species from humans to oak trees to bacteria), and see if, in fact,
they are more similar in chimps and humans than in chimps and baboons,
and closer in humans or chimps, and baboons, than in primates and,
say, dogs. And this is a test, and common descent passes it.
>
> i won't hammer on about the 33 chromosome bit.
>
Gratefully noted.
>
> > > > so a single population could survive and
> > > > perpetuate itself if a chromosome fission or fusion produced
> > > > individuals with different chromosome numbers.
>
> > > *not* to a higher chromosome number.
>
> > Please note that a higher chromosome number does not necessarily mean
> > a greater number of genes, or different genes.
>
> but it does speak to the meiotic mechanism.
>
> you'll have to provide some very hard evidence
> to support that some viable gamete has
> 16.5 chromosomes bits.
>
Sixteen or seventeen, but an integer count. Again, the 17-chromosome
version has the genes, which occupy *one* chromosome in the
16-chromsome version, on *two* chromsomes; these two line up with the
one from the 16-chromosome version.
>
> and we are addressing real creatures and
> not just some theoretical plausibility.
>
> I want to know how amoebas and bacteria
> grew arms and legs and walked the road.
>
With vast difficulty over a great stretch of time. I am no expert;
you would be better off actually *looking* for the answers. There
exist, today, many multicellular organisms at varying levels of
complexity, from simple small clusters of undifferentiated cells, to
still-simple assemblages of differentiated cells (e.g. sponges), to
creatures with two layers of cells, to those with three in the
embryonic stage (like us). By the time legs appear, you already have
fairly complex creatures, with eyes, and a circulatory system, and a
rudimentary nervous system, and internal organs.
>
> and you are asking me to believe a lot
> of unsubstantaited and untestable claims.
>
That you do not understand testability does not make a claim
untestable; that you are ignorant of evidence, or refuse to consider
that evidence counts for anything if you don't like the theory it
counts for, does not render the claims unsubstantiated.
Entire *genes* are duplicated, and subsequently rewritten. Chromosome
duplication occurs, but is less important. Again, chromosomes
splitting and joining is the principle cause of variation in
chromosome numbers.
>
> and this mechanism simply goes against observatiuon
> for one thing, and is impracticable from a
> logical viewpoint for another.
>
> cite you unicorn, i mean horse, tell me how
> many chromosomes each parent has and how
> many the offspring has.
>
> remember, you're trying to tell me that an
> individual spits out an extra chromosome or
> two or 8 and is still able to produce viable
> offspring in its own species.
>
No, there is no "extra" chromosome; one has simply split along its
length to yield two (no added genes), or two have joined to become one
(no lost genes); they can join up quite comfortably with their
unaltered counterparts.
>
> and that, where the offspring carries all
> of the newly spit out chromosomal duplications.
>
I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT DUPLICATIONS!
>
> and i'm telling you that i don't believe it.
>
Believe it? I see little evidence you even understand it.
>
> because this isn't observed to be even a rare occurrence.
>
Could you post your list of peer-reviewed publications in genetics
and/or embryology, because actual biologists seem to disagree with
you, and I don't know who to believe.
The problem is that you misunderstand what you read, and make up your
science as you go along.
>
> > > evidently, you don't even
> > > understand the problem as stated.
>
> > > > actually arose in
> > > > the early days of calculating interstellar distances, and the distance
> > > > to the Andromeda galaxy was overestimated due to failure to take this
> > > > into account. It is perfectly possible to make corrections.
>
> > > you have many corrections to make.
>
> > > but, the point is, interstellar space is not a vacuum.
>
> > It's a better vacuum than any we've produced here on Earth.
>
> no it isn't, it's filled with junk.
> why do you suppose that it's warm out there?
>
You are mistaken about the quality of the interstellar vacuum. Yes,
the junk is there, but space is hardly "full;" there's just such a lot
of space for thinly scattered junk to be in, that the junk adds up.
>
> yes, 3K is warm.
>
> a bunch of junk must be absorbing all
> that precious microwave background radiation.
>
> stuff gets warm.
>
> light passing thru an emptiness isn't warm.
>
> light passing thru stuff loses energy
> to that stuff and leaves warmth behind.
>
More correctly, it is absorbed, and re-radiated at a lower frequency,
as thermal radiation.
>
> yes or no?
>
> and light that passes energy to stuff either
> changes its frequency or wavelenth because
> energy is proportional to wavelength.
>
> c = [frequency]x[wavelength]
>
> E = [planck's constant]x[frequency]
>
> but, what can be said is that we are
> dealing with a velocity, and the light
> appears to slow when it transfers
> its energy to space junk.
>
> anyway, if the frequency shifts,
> you have a shifted frequency.
>
> you claim it should be a refraction,
> i think it's just slowing down.
>
Light always slows down when it's refracted, and vice-versa. What I
denied was that the "redshift" had anything to do with this.
>
> cuz you're looking at light that bounces out
> of stuff and stuff in it like hydrogen subtracts
> itself out of the spectra.
>
> buit all that light is passing thru junk
> and leaving considerable warmth,
> i.e. energy behind.
>
This is, of course, well known to astronomers; I think they have ruled
it out as the explanation of the CMB.
>
> > > therefore "speed of light" is non-operative,
> > > and velocity of light, which is not constant, is.
>
> > > and being "not constant" brings with it,
> > > its very own "red shift" anomalies.
>
> > > now do you understand the problem as stated?
>
> > Not at all; I merely doubt that *you* understand it. Changes in the
> > speed of light, caused by the fact that space is not a perfect vacuum,
>
> the "speed" of light isn't in question seeing
> that interstellar space is not a vacuum.
>
> and the postulate is that the
> "speed" of light is constant,
> in a vacuum.
>
> but we aren't dealing with a vacuum,
> therefore the "speed" of light
> is a meaningless datum.
>
We are dealing with something close to a vacuum. And the redshift,
from which the cosmic expansion is inferred, depends only on different
frequencies of light travelling at the same velocity as each other,
not at the speed of light in an ideal vacuum.
I haven't tried to convince you of this. Current theories of the
origin of the solar system involve solid planetismals, which collide
and combine; the heat of impact and gravitation compression would melt
them. But the entire mass of the planet may never have been liquid at
any time.
>
> you can say it seems obvious, but i can
> say that because gold ores are not found
> permeating in a smooth diffusivce pattern,
> that the planet was never entirely
> molten as is suggested.
>
I do not think that is actually suggested. In any case, you are
talking about the distribution of elements in the crust, different
parts of which have been molten at different times.
>
> and platinum and silver copper etc.
>
> it's all found in pockets, and a molten
> liquid would exhibit diffuse global permeations
> and not small pockets here and there.
>
If the entire crust was ever molten, it was over four billion years
ago; most of the current crust is much younger, having been recycled
and redeposited many times.
>
> unless you say that it was not *entirely*
> molten, but only somewhat molten, and
> therefore, all of the uranium data that
> says 5 billion seems suspect as well.
>
The uranium data that says that is from meteorites, not terrestrial
rocks. Terrestrial crustal rocks were molten at various times, and
yield various ages.
>
> but you'd like to insist that all the
> uranium was molten but still even it
> isn't diffuse over the entire planet.
>
> it's in little pockets here and there.
>
Actually, uranium is chemically active, and joins with other elements
in common compounds found in minerals.
>
> > > which must be true even in light of the
> > > theory that the earth composed itelf
> > > from the gunk of an exploding star.
>
> > > > Radioisotope dating dates the last time the
> > > > rocks congealed from a gaseous or molten state.
>
> > > this is false. Uranium clocks are said to do this,
> > > in theory, only they take the ore in a raw state
> > > and take no accounting can be taken for
> > > where the lead comes from.
>
> > Actually, ratios of different isotopes of lead (those which occur as
> > daughter products of various radioisotopes, and those which do not)
> > can be compared. This serves as a check for assumptions about how
> > much lead was originally in the rock.
>
> sassuming that all the lead impurity in
> the silicate crystal structure didn't
> come from some primordial uranium.
>
That is precisely what can be tested by comparing the ratios of
radiogenic and nonradiogenic isotopes of lead and other daughter
elements.
>
> like, the star that birthed it made a bunch
> or uranium, and exploded and a bunch of
> radiogenic lead popped up before the
> planet was even formed.
>
And for some reason, this nonradiogenic radiogenic lead magically
turns up only in minerals containing the radioactive isotopes from
which it is normally derived. Right.
>
> and found it's way into the
> silicate crystal structure.
>
> or even that these crystals were not
> formed in the star itself and paraded
> about the stellar dust cloud for eons
> before it all formed the earth.
>
> what do you really know?
>
> enough to prove my theory wrong?
>
You don't have a theory; you have a list of reasons that evidence
might not mean anything. The evidence utterly fails to support a
young earth or creationims, so you seek desperately for justifications
to disbelieve it. How odd that science should work so well in so many
areas, and then prove utterly useless when we wish to investigate some
area on which you have preconceived and immovable convictions. It
does not support your conclusions, so it must not support *any*
conclusions, appearances be damned.
>
> how will you test either?
>
>
> > > > For the matter that makes up the solar system, that appears to
> > > > be about 5 billion years ago.
>
> > > "that appears to be" 5 minutes ago.
> > > means the same thing.
>
> > I am aware of no isochron dates that yield a date of 5 minutes old for
> > meteorites. Or are you one of those Young Earth Creationists who
> > assumes that God allows the laws of physics to vary randomly (or even
> > that He *causes* them to vary randomly) so that we cannot draw any
> > valid conclusions from geological and astronomical evidence?
>
> it's the inexactitude of "it appears to be"
> that is in question here. not 5 minutes.
> that's why it's in quotes.
>
A distinction worth making, if you assume that God has so fashioned
the universe so that we cannot discern truth from appearances.
>
> > > > On Earth, they tend to be younger --
> > > > the dating of the geological column depends on finding rocks resulting
> > > > from volcanic eruptions deposited between sediment layers. Each
> > > > igneous layer yields a date from the time it was last molten -- those
> > > > from the end of the Cretaceous, were molten 65 million years ago.
> > > > Rocks from other star systems ought to be older, but we rarely if ever
> > > > see them.
>
> > > how old is the gold?
>
> > More than five billion years old. All the atoms on Earth, except
> > those formed by radioisotope decay, are more than five billion years
> > old. We are dealing with the age of various minerals, not the
> > elements of which they're made.
>
> just say, "i don't know how old is the gold"
>
> uranium can be decaying into molten
> silicate ore the sun even as we speak.
>
Not unless someone has radically rewritten the laws of physics lately.
>
> all the same stuff is up there.
>
> but, yes, we are dealing with some
> uranium decay products into a crystal
> lattice that contains the decay
> product as an impurity.
>
> it doesn't care where it came from or when.
>
> and are you claiming that lead couldn't
> pick up a neutron or two over thousand years?
>
> have you tested this?
>
> meaning, you claim that radiogenic lead is
> noticably different from regular olde lead,
> fine, mass spectral data will agree with you,
> but it it just a matter of mass numbers?
>
Again, your case depends on arguing, not that the evidence supports
you, but that it's irrelevant what the evidence supports. It's
sheerest epistomological nihilism, and to the extent that it's held,
it is indeed a problem for science.
>
> like a matter of a neutron or two?
> and lead isn't the only decay product is it?
> you mean to tell me that there isn't a
> bunch of neutrons around to even things out?
>
> i'm skeptical of your assertions in this manner.
>
I'm skeptical that you're doing anything but spouting
half-comprehended gibberish.
>
> > > will you tell me that gold ore is 65 million
> > > years old if it is discovered in a sediment
> > > layer that you propose to be of this age?
>
> > The ore? Yes, that seems a safe conclusion.
>
> no, it's not a safe conclusion.
>
> the ore could have formed in
> the primordial dust cloud.
>
And survived impacting the primordial Earth, and subsequent impacts by
other planetismals, and 4 billion years of plate tectonics...?
>
> there's probably even some good old
> fashioned chemical reactions taking place
> in the asteroid belt this very moment.
>
And your evidence for this is?
>
> > > no, you can't do this, because it is only some
> > > types of ores that can be "dated" in this manner.
>
> > You do not, of course, mean that the uranium ore might be one age, but
> > that the gold ore in the same layer might be older or younger. On the
> > other hand, if you don't mean this, why bring the gold up? The
> > sediments, with the fossils, are themselves usually impossible to date
> > directly --
>
> yeah, i know, and you invoke stuff like
> biostratigraphy which clumsily neglects
> catastrophism when it's convenient.
>
"Catastrophism" in this context means simply, "I know the evidence
doesn't support me, if you assume the laws of nature were operating
when the evidence was layed down, but maybe God changed the laws of
nature to confuse us." Under that assumption, evidence means nothing,
science is worthless, and we can't be sure the results obtained in the
lab give useful information about anything.
>
> > surely an equally if not more important point. Unless you
> > have some reason to believe that the laws of chemistry and physics
> > have altered over time, or God has deliberately fashioned the Earth to
> > deceive us, radioisotope dating is trustworthy.
>
> not if you can't demonstrate without
> a doubt where the lead came from.
>
Nothing can be demonstrated beyond all doubt. I cannot demonstrate
beyond all doubt that Afghanistan exists, but I still tend to believe
we're fighting a war there.
>
> > > and as i've said here and before, lead is
> > > an impurity in silicate rocks and so the
> > > uranium clock is a faulty instrument.
>
I'm aware that you've said this before. You really should strive for
brevity.
>
> > This can be corrected for by comparing the isotope ratios of
> > nonradigenic lead to radiogenic lead (and yes, enough radiosisotope
> > decays have been observed in the lab to know which is which).
>
> assumning all this radigenic lead
> came from the uranium in the ore.
>
If it did not, we would expect to find "radiogenic" isotopes in
minerals containing no parent isotopes.
>
> > > > > ------------
> > > > > basically, these "theories" are untestable
> > > > > untested and therefore non-scientific.
>
> > > > False. It is perfectly possible to make predictions, based on these
> > > > theories, of what we ought to observe, and see if we observe it.
>
> > > false, you can't even make a prediction as
> > > to whether the universe will implode or
> > > run away from itself forever.
>
> > Current predictions are that it will expand forever. *Testing* these
> > predictions is, understandably, a bit problematic.
>
> i.e. cannot be tested and are forever
> trapped in a hypothetical state.
>
> > But the assumption
> > of common descent can be tested (e.g. do variations in proteins and
> > genes fall into a nested hierarchy consistent with each other, and
> > with morphology?),
>
> you say "tested" and then don't describe
> a test, but a comparison of objects.
>
Duane Gish once argued that common descent was false, because human
lysozome (an enzyme found in tears) is more like chicken lysozome than
chimp lysozome. This would be evidence against common descent, if
true, because the theory *predicts* that if you compare enzymes,
humans should be systematically more like chimps than like monkeys,
more like monkeys than like dogs, and more like dogs than like any
bird. Since human lysozome is *identical* to chimp lysozome, and
notably different from chicken lysozome, this test confirms the
hypothesis of common descent (there are many similar tests, and
similar confirmations), and Gish is wrong. The comparison of objects
*is* the test.
>
> mind you, a comparison of
> objects is *not* a "test"
>
> do you understand why?
>
No. Do you understand why it can, in fact, be a test?
>
> > as can the hypothesis of the Big Bang (e.g.
> > hydrogen/helium ratios and the cosmic microwave background).
>
> this doesn't address the confusion surrounding
> the "pre-"big-bang"" environment. does it?
>
In talk.origins we call this "goal-post moving." It's considered a
mark of a sore loser.
>
> no. it doesn't.
>
> describe the universal environment at time T = 0
>
I'm Steven J., not Stephen Hawking. Your demand is irrelevant; it
amounts to a claim that if total knowledge is lacking, knowledge is
totally lacking.
>
> > > you can't make any prediction as to what
> > > type of creature would be "more evolved"
> > > than the so-called human being.
>
> > True, but irrelevant.
>
> not irrelevant, but exactly to the point.
>
I can't predict who'll turn up dead this weekend, but that doesn't
mean that forensic pathologists can't figure out why they died. I
can't predict the weather a year in advance, but that doesn't mean
that no natural explanations exist for it. Indeed, astronomers find
that planetary orbits, over enough time, are chaotic -- the
gravitational influences are so complex that even tiny imprecisions
make it impossible to predict where in its orbit any planet will be a
few million years hence. That does not mean that gravitational
theories are wrong, merely that there are limits to the precision they
can yield. The same problems arise, a thousandfold more complex, with
evolution.
>
> you cannot successfully predict the rise of
> man by studying *only* fish and foul.
>
> can you?
>
No, I cannot.
>
> no, you cannot.
>
Ah, you guessed. But that does not mean that the rise of humans
cannot be retroactively studied and, partially, explained.
>
> and i'm quite serious about that.
>
> if you were some amorphous objective blob
> that happened to be studying fish and foul,
> and no human beings were anywhere to be seen,
>
> could you actually tell me that human beings
> would be the natural result of however
> many years of "evolution?"
>
No evolutionary biologist believes any such thing; the contingency and
unpredictability of long-term evolution is a by-word.
>
> I demand that you could not.
>
> there's no logical entailment
> that leads from fish to man.
>
> no absolute necessity for man,
> or fish for that matter.
>
> why is that important?
>
> you'd like to insist that there is a logical
> progression from squirrels to monkeys and yet,
> no such logical progression is verifiably necessary.
>
You are mistaken; I would like to insist on no such thing. That is
exactly what is meant by refusing to classify organisms as "higher" or
"lower;" evolution has no goal or logically necessary progressions.
>
> see what i mean?
>
> you say that because the two have similar
> genetic traits, that this is evidence of
> common ancestry, but you'll also be inclined
> to agree that there is no absolute necessity
> for squirrels to exist in order
> for monkeys to appear.
>
Close enough.
>
> so, you're trapped in a paradoxical
> enigma of your own construction.
>
I don't see that. The results are contingent, as all history is
contingent, but that does not mean that history cannot be studied, or
reconstructed, or even explained in terms of cause and effect. French
and Spanish are not neccessary languages, or logically predictable
from Latin, but their derivation from Latin is not in much doubt.
>
> common ancestry is not necessary.
>
Merely factual.
>
> > We can make predictions about what sort of
> > results we will find when we compare human genes and proteins with
> > those of other primates, and human physiology with those of fossil
> > primates.
>
> you mean when you invent it.
>
Do you understand anything I wrote?
-- Steven J.
Steven J.
> On 8 Nov 2001 20:29:19 -0800, stev...@altavista.com
> (Steven J.) wrote:
>
> >> how many species do you know with 46 chromosomes
> >> that are said to arise from lower species?
> >>
> >Strictly speaking, none. More derived species evolve from more
> >primitive ones. Evolutionary theory hasn't dealt with "higher" and
> >"lower" creatures, or progress "up the evolutionary ladder" since the
> >days of Lamarck.
> >
> >Humans have, typically, 46 chromosomes (23 pairs). They share a
> >common ancestor with chimpanzees, who have 48 chromosomes (24 pairs).
>
> This is the typical response of the evolutionist. They
> start by making a statement as if it's absolute truth,
> but don't back it up.
>
<http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html> is evidence, I think.
I was clarifying some points here that, it seemed to me, Timothy
Sutter misunderstood (he may not have, I suppose; that's a separate
question). For the sake of brevity, I didn't say the more accurate
"evolutionists conclude, on the basis of evidence summarized below and
stated in more detail at URLs ... that humans and chimpanzees, etc."
Rather, I simply stated the conclusion as fact, as I believe it to be.
People (not just "evolutionists") routinely state as fact beliefs
they consider overwhelmingly supported by evidence and logic.
>
> >The last common ancestor of humans and chimps also, it is believed,
> >had 24 pairs; at some point in human evolution,
>
> Then they tell you that, "it is BELIEVED" and yet,
> never see the glaring contradiction. If it is simply,
> "BELIEVED", then it should not be stated as truth, but
> rather, as a statement of belief.
>
Do you have problems with reading skills? I am talking about two
separate beliefs of "evolutionists" here.
(a) Humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor.
(b) That common ancestor had 24 chromosome pairs.
If (a) is false, (b) is false (or meaningless), but (b) could be
false, and (a) could still be true. The URL I posted above is
evidence for both (a) and (b), but they are logically separate
propositions, and supported be different amounts of evidence. It
would be logically possible to be certain of (a), and doubt (b).
-- Steven J.
John Jensen
> Sanjay wrote:
>
>> Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
>> > Sanjay wrote:
>
>> > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
>> > > > besides the Primary Dogma of genetics;
>> > > > "DNA is the Template for its own reproduction"
Tim, Your own inability to distinguise between science and belief does not
constitute meaningful evidence of anything but your own inadequacy.
>> > > > the secondary dogma is this;
>> > > > DNA --> RNA --> Protein
>
>> > > I love this “Primary Dogma of genetics”
>> > > is so idiotic that it just stupefying.
>
>> > well then, you can simply chop your own
>> > pointy little head off then, chum;
>
>> > observe
>
<snip>
> go away fool.
>
> apologize and retract.
<snip
> you moron.
"However, I say to you that everyone who continues wrathful with his
brother will be accountable to the court of justice; but whoever addresses
his brother with an unspeakable of contempt will be acountable to the
Supreme Court; whereas whoever says, 'You despicable fool!' will be liable
to the fiery Gehenna." Matt. 5:22
"Let no-one be seducing himself: If anyone among you thinks he is wise in
this system of things, Let him be a fool, that he may become wise. For the
wisdom of this world is foolishness with God; for it is written: "He
catches the wise in their own cunning." 1 Cor. 3:18-19
Tim, you are a Blind guide, who strains out the gnat, but gulp down the
camel! You pretend piety, but are blind to God in anyone.
Creationism is a deliberate sophism, invented in defense of flat-earth
fundies, and has been shot down as fraudulent non-science, because it does
not seek to discover anything.
"As above, so below." is an ancient spiritual principle with a modern
correlary in scientific materialism, which states: "For every psychic
disturbance, there must be a somatic (physical) concomitant." The spiritual
doctrine of reincarnation has a material correlary, not only in the theory
of evolution, but our evolutionary history leaves traces in our psyches,
our behavior, our developmental process, and in our brain anatomy.
http://www.the-gnosis-site.com/neuroana.htm
Reincarnation is very much scriptural, mentioned in Old & New Testements,
the Koran and the Bhagavad-gita.
http://www.the-gnosis-site.com/sri/reincarn.htm
There has also been a tremendous amount of scientific research done on the
subject, though not widely acknowledged because there is still a lot of
dangerous religious bigots around, ready to attack science in defense of
dogma.
Seek and you shall find.
Ask and it shall be given.
Knock and it shall be opened unto you.
But when you BELIEVE and stand on dogma, then you no longer seek, ask or
knock.
"..and with every unrighteous deception for those who are perishing, as a
retribution because they did not accept the love of the truth that they
might be saved. So that is why God lets an operation of error go to them,
that they might get to believing the lie, in order that they all may be
judged because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in
unrighteousness." 2 Thes. 2:10-12
Thank you Sanjay, but I usually ignore this guy anymore.
--
John Jensen
http://www.the-gnosis-site.com/
John Jensen
> Steven J. wrote:
>
>> Timothy Sutter wrote:...
<snip>
> i got one more thing for you to consider.
>
> it's a good one. because I see engineering and design.
> not just cuz i want to, but because it's there.
> I already mentioned this before.
>
> and that is the notion that algorithms don't write themselves.
You have apparently never heard of Turring machines.
> and that the DNA molecule represents just this,
> an algorithm for the production of living creatures.
>
> but unlike algorithms that run machines like
> computers where the algorithm is imprinted upon
> some magnetic material, i.e. the algorithm is purely
> imaginary and the magnetic strip is doing all the work,
>
> this DNA molecule is an algorithm where the chemical
> make-up itself *is* the encoding materials.
>
> follow?
I follow that you are attempting to use your own lack of perception and
imagination as an arguement. You are only succeeding demonstrating your own
lack of perception and imagination.
> it's not that an algorithm is written -on- a
> sheet of paper here, but that the algorithm
> -is- itself the chemicals.
>
> and never has anyone seen an algorithm
> simply write itself into existance.
Again, You have apparently never heard of Turring machines.
> an algorithm, as you may know, is a complete set
> of instructions for carrying out a set of explicit tasks
>
> al·go·rithm n.
> A step-by-step problem-solving procedure, especially
> an established, recursive computational procedure
> for solving a problem in a finite number of steps.
>
>
> and the DNA molecule being The Template for its
> own reproduction is exactly this, an algorithm
> written on the chemicals themselves.
>
> that is, the chemical make-up of the
> molecule is its own algorithm for its coding.
>
> and never yet has such a thing risen from the kitchen floor.
>
> just think about it.
Science has already demonstrated how protein molecules can be formed in
nature. It is a long process of development from there, to simple
bacterium, and from bacterium to insect. Kitchen floors don't last long
enough to make your non-observation meaningful.
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > Pinhead the foolish mongrel boy wrote:
> >> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >> > Pinhead the foolish mongrel boy wrote:
> >> > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >> > > > besides the Primary Dogma of genetics;
> >> > > > "DNA is the Template for its own reproduction"
> Tim, Your own inability to distinguise between science and belief does not
> constitute meaningful evidence of anything but your own inadequacy.
this is an utterly meaningless statement.
it's just bluster cuz *you* are
brainwashed into believing a lie.
> >> > > > the secondary dogma is this;
> >> > > > DNA --> RNA --> Protein
> >> > > I love this “Primary Dogma of genetics”
> >> > > is so idiotic that it just stupefying.
> >> > well then, you can simply chop your own
> >> > pointy little head off then, chum;
> >> > observe
> > go away fool.
> > apologize and retract.
> > you moron.
> "However, I say to you that everyone who continues wrathful with his
> brother will be accountable to the court of justice; but whoever addresses
> his brother with an unspeakable of contempt will be acountable to the
> Supreme Court; whereas whoever says, 'You despicable fool!' will be liable
> to the fiery Gehenna." Matt. 5:22
Luke 24:25
He said to them, "How foolish you are, and
how slow of heart to believe all that the
prophets have spoken!
Luke 11:40
You foolish people! Did not the one who made
the outside make the inside also?
Luke 12:20
"But God said to him, `You fool! This very
night your life will be demanded from you.
Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?'
Matthew 23:17
You blind fools! Which is greater: the
gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred?
if i spare the rod, i show my abject hatred.
> "Let no-one be seducing himself: If anyone among you thinks he is wise in
> this system of things, Let him be a fool, that he may become wise. For the
> wisdom of this world is foolishness with God; for it is written: "He
> catches the wise in their own cunning." 1 Cor. 3:18-19
yeah, and you all have been caught by
one whom you show disrespect for.
> Tim, you are a Blind guide, who strains out the gnat,
> but gulp down the camel!
exactly false as *I* am the person *not* gulping
down the lies of the ungodly atheists. *you* are.
> You pretend piety, but are blind to God in anyone.
when have i pretended anything?
post proof or retract.
> Creationism is a deliberate sophism, invented in defense of flat-earth
> fundies, and has been shot down as fraudulent non-science, because it does
> not seek to discover anything.
straw man argumnentationas I am not promulgating
any sort of sophistry but am merely stating facts.
> There has also been a tremendous amount of scientific research done on the
> subject, though not widely acknowledged because there is still a lot of
> dangerous religious bigots around, ready to attack science in defense of
> dogma.
there are still alot of atheistic bigots around,
ready to attack the faithful in defense of their dogma.
> Seek and you shall find.
> Ask and it shall be given.
> Knock and it shall be opened unto you.
> But when you BELIEVE and stand on dogma, then you no longer seek, ask or
> knock.
exactly, and *that* what *YOU* are
doing when you support an unsubstantiated lie.
> "..and with every unrighteous deception for those who are perishing, as a
> retribution because they did not accept the love of the truth that they
> might be saved. So that is why God lets an operation of error go to them,
> that they might get to believing the lie, in order that they all may be
> judged because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in
> unrighteousness." 2 Thes. 2:10-12
right, this describes you perfectly.
> Thank you Sanjay, but I usually ignore this guy anymore.
yer an idiot and you *know* it.
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > Steven J. wrote:
> >> Timothy Sutter wrote:...
> > i got one more thing for you to consider.
> > it's a good one. because I see engineering and design.
> > not just cuz i want to, but because it's there.
> > I already mentioned this before.
> > and that is the notion that algorithms don't write themselves.
> You have apparently never heard of Turring machines.
explain exactly how this is evidence of an algorithm writing itself.
I cautioned you before about stating things as if
the unsupported statement itself was to be taken
as a proof or evidence of something.
> > and that the DNA molecule represents just this,
> > an algorithm for the production of living creatures.
> > but unlike algorithms that run machines like
> > computers where the algorithm is imprinted upon
> > some magnetic material, i.e. the algorithm is purely
> > imaginary and the magnetic strip is doing all the work,
> > this DNA molecule is an algorithm where the chemical
> > make-up itself *is* the encoding materials.
> > follow?
> I follow that you are attempting to use your own lack of perception and
> imagination as an arguement. You are only succeeding demonstrating your own
> lack of perception and imagination.
more bald unsupported statements offered
up as if they substantiate some claim.
> > it's not that an algorithm is written -on- a
> > sheet of paper here, but that the algorithm
> > -is- itself the chemicals.
> > and never has anyone seen an algorithm
> > simply write itself into existance.
> Again, You have apparently never heard of Turring machines.
who designed the these machines?
> > an algorithm, as you may know, is a complete set
> > of instructions for carrying out a set of explicit tasks
> > al·go·rithm n.
> > A step-by-step problem-solving procedure, especially
> > an established, recursive computational procedure
> > for solving a problem in a finite number of steps.
> > and the DNA molecule being The Template for its
> > own reproduction is exactly this, an algorithm
> > written on the chemicals themselves.
> > that is, the chemical make-up of the
> > molecule is its own algorithm for its coding.
> > and never yet has such a thing risen from the kitchen floor.
> > just think about it.
> Science has already demonstrated how protein molecules can be formed in nature.
don't forget the
Central Dogma of Molecular Biology
DNA --> RNA --> Protein
what *you* cite is the production of aracemic mixtures
of 13-15 amino acids in a jar by introducing an electric
impulse into a gaseous mixture.
now, if you'd like to claim that two amino acids
joined together constitutes a protein, you may
be making a truthful statement.
if, on the other hand, you expect anyone to believe
that a tar of random and incongruous bathc of polypmerized
amino acids constitute a pre-life form, you are an
idiot and should be exposed as such.
> It is a long process of development from there, to simple bacterium,
DNA --> RNA --> Protein
you won't get passed thuis hurdle anytime soon.
nor will you get past this;
DNA is the Template for its own reproduction.
I>E> it takes DNA to make DNA.
not to mention all the lipid bylayers
necessary to form the cell walls.
and this in a proposed lethally poisonous
atmosphere that can not be both reducing and
oxidizing and yet sugars are oxidative by-products
and will not rightly last in some such "reducing atmosphere."
> and from bacterium to insect. Kitchen floors don't last long
> enough to make your non-observation meaningful.
yer an idiot.
please don't talk to me anymore.
Timothy Sutter
> John Jensen wrote:
> > > and that is the notion that algorithms don't write themselves.
> > You have apparently never heard of Turring machines.
> explain exactly how this is evidence of an algorithm writing itself.
> I cautioned you before about stating things as if
> the unsupported statement itself was to be taken
> as a proof or evidence of something.
"The Turing machine concept involves specifying a very restricted
set of logical operations, but Turing showed how other more complex
mathematical procedures could be built out of these atomic components."
look dood, this doesn't support you it supports me.
but notice the word in the first sentence,
"specifying"
the machine doesn't build itself nor does
it specify its own initial instruction set.
you are an arse.
get bent.
John Jensen
Haven't you heard of snipping?
Timothy Sutter wrote:
> Steven J. wrote
>
>> Timothy Sutter wrote
>
>> > Steven J. wrote:
>
>> > > Timothy Sutter wrote:...
>
>> > > > Steven J. wrote:
>
>> > > > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
>> > > > > > here's some riddles;
>> > if the contention is that living creatures
>> > arose from a planet that at one time
>> > was devoid of life,
That is your assumption, based in part on the need of scientists to make
clear operational distinctions. Now if you look to Quantum physics, there
is a growing understanding that what we call "Life" is everywhere, and what
we experience as reality is largly subject to our perception of it.
<snip>
> becaue it isn't preposturous if you'd like to claim that this primordial
> cell line was of super abundant genetic richness and all life
> "descended" from that original cell line.
> which would be the more logical assertion, though equally outlandish,
HOW would that be more logical?
> if you'd like to claim that the study of evolutionary biology which
> more deals with side to side hunches will ever be able to rightly explain
> how dogs and cats both appeared from a common progenitor.
Are you now going to tell me that dogs did not evolve from wolves?
We have dog breeds of extraordinary diversity and absurd extremes, many
bearing little resemblance to wolves. We did this, over thousands of years
of breeding. Is it really such a stretch to see the common ancestry of dogs
and cats when you go back over millions of years of natural evolution?
> because the idea that there was a proto dog/cat that was far less
> genetically rich and diverse than both cats and dogs will foil your
> efforts to prove, eternally. you'll forever be stuck with these
> implausible freak mechanisms. when what you observe in your studies is ,
> if anything, a side to side lessening of enrichment where the proto feline
> shoots off into several less genetically rich cell lines.
Why would it be less rich? You are limiting your own understanding with
bogus assumptions.
>> > they tend to *just* study those birds
>> > and how expressed traits vary over time.
>> > generally, this sort of speciation is more
>> > in order of the extinction of one phenotype
>> > in preferrence to another.
>> How else would speciation work?
>
> exactly, and this speaks to a descent and not to genetic enrichment.
> glad you can see that.
> this speaks of the loss of a genotype
> *not* the popping up of some wholly new trait from a magical
> unsuppotable mechanism of the dna simply rewriting itself in situ.
Tim, you need some concept theory. You are clearly confusing symbols with
meaning. I suppose this comes from believing the Bible is the divine Word
of God. It creates a false concept of meaning as something external and an
intrinsic part of the symbol. Ink on paper is just ink on paper until you
see the symbols and interpret the meanings. "Descent" is likewise a symbol,
and its meaning in the context of evolution is quite specific. You are
taking it in a very generalized sense.
>> > say, the bit about the big beak birds overtaking
>> > the small beak birds after the scientists
>> > tampered with the food supply.
>> Actually, I think a drought tampered with the food supply; the
>> scientists just watched.
If you start that crap about "suvival of the fittest", I'll have to remind
you that that is not from Darwin or modern biology. It's a confusion on
the part of philosopher Herbert Spencer, promoted by fundies as a straw man
fallacy. Darwin's theory was: "the greater fecundity of the better adapted."
<snip>
> you can't predict squat about evolution is what you mean to say.
What have we here, a non-prophet belittling a non-prophet for being a
non-prophet? Wonders never cease!
<snip>
> ug, so, now we've totally backed away from ascent again
> and are speaking of ...man this statement is a
> contradiction of several statements you've
> made in *this* post.
>
> gack.
Tim, you have got to get your concepts defined if you are going to
understand this, but somehow, I don't feel that understanding is what you
want.
> you use ambiguous language.
The language is not the meaning. The map is not the territory.
Until you can start with clear operational definitions, you are not going
to be able to understand, So stop belittling everyone else's understanding!
<snip>
> yes, i see that you use ambiguous language cuz
> you don't even know if yer coming or going.
Lack of comprehension on your part is not evidence of a lack of
understanding on someone else's part. You allow dogma to be a log in your
own eye. Take it out before you presume to treat sticks in someone else's.
<snip>
Timothy Sutter
> Cripes man! 1743 lines????
> Haven't you heard of snipping?
get a haircut, hippie.
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > Steven J. wrote
> >> Timothy Sutter wrote
> >> > Steven J. wrote:
> >> > > Timothy Sutter wrote:...
> >> > > > Steven J. wrote:
> >> > > > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >> > > > > > here's some riddles;
> >> > if the contention is that living creatures
> >> > arose from a planet that at one time
> >> > was devoid of life,
> That is your assumption,
no, that is the working hypothesis of
the pop-scienmtific theorizations
surrounding origins.
> based in part on the need of scientists to make
> clear operational distinctions.
if you believce that there was a time when
the planet did not exist, then you have some
sort of progressive activity going on
somewhere along the line.
unless you'd like to suggest that a full blown
earth with trees and cattle and toothpaste tubes
simply spurted out of a quantum singularity.
even if sometiung of this nature was possible,
i doubt that the toothpaste tubes would
be filled with soylent green.
> Now if you look to Quantum physics, there is a growing
> understanding that what we call "Life" is everywhere, and what
> we experience as reality is largly subject to our perception of it.
this has nothing to do with "quantum physics" which
is largely a mathematical enterprise that seeks to
reconcile the mechanically detected discrepencies
to newtonian mechanics in regards to the very small.
i.e. they were getting wierd numbers when they made
measurements of certain phenomena and discovered
that you couldn't apply a newtonian framework to atomic states.
i.e. the electron, if you believe such a thing exists,
is not in "orbit" about the nucleus, but is electrostatic
interactions overpower the gravitational effects, etc.
what *you* seem to be describing is some sort of
magic monkey postulizations cloaked in scientific jargon.
it seeks to suggest that Heisenberg meant to say that
nothing at all is knowable and therefore, seeing that
is a world that is beyond our sensible perception
which is detectable by machines, that there may
also be a further reduction to a world that
evades even our best mechanical
investigatorial apparati.
*just* so you call it what it is.
cuz it ain't really based on "quantum physics"
> <snip>
> > becaue it isn't preposturous if you'd like to claim that this primordial
> > cell line was of super abundant genetic richness and all life
> > "descended" from that original cell line.
> > which would be the more logical assertion, though equally outlandish,
> HOW would that be more logical?
because, as I've suggested, the observations seem
to indicate a descent from rich cell lines
to thinned out lines.
it looks more like dog breeding is happening.
> > if you'd like to claim that the study of evolutionary biology which
> > more deals with side to side hunches will ever be able to rightly explain
> > how dogs and cats both appeared from a common progenitor.
> Are you now going to tell me that dogs did not evolve from wolves?
dingoes and african hunting dogs.
> We have dog breeds of extraordinary diversity and absurd extremes, many
> bearing little resemblance to wolves. We did this, over thousands of years
> of breeding.
exactly, human design and interference
did a thing that nature wouldn't do on its own.
and look at the Tower of babel.
what happened?
the languages were confused.
and what could be a natural result of this?
divergent population genetics.
and what do we observe?
divergent population genetics as if God or
some outside agency is engaged in a
sort of dog breeding.
> Is it really such a stretch to see the common ancestry of dogs
> and cats when you go back over millions of years of natural evolution?
yes it's a stretch to, for one, suggest
lions and tigers and dingoes evolved
from a tabby housecat.
that is, a house cat with a small amount
if genetic richness evolved over how many
years lyou'd like to suggest to appear as
*both* a more genetically rich feline *and* a dog.
now, you go back to the proto duck of immense
richness that devolves into subspecies of less rich ducks.
*this* -could- happen over millions of years,
but yer still stuck with explaining
where the super rich duck came from.
and so, you say, "an egg fell from out space
that had been incubating for ten billion years."
and all you've done is push your problem off the
planet to a more convenient world of pure speculation.
> > because the idea that there was a proto dog/cat that was far less
> > genetically rich and diverse than both cats and dogs will foil your
> > efforts to prove, eternally. you'll forever be stuck with these
> > implausible freak mechanisms. when what you observe in your studies is ,
> > if anything, a side to side lessening of enrichment where the proto feline
> > shoots off into several less genetically rich cell lines.
> Why would it be less rich? You are limiting your own understanding with
> bogus assumptions.
*you* cite dogs.
do you would like to tell me that a pekinese
has a german shepherd in it somewhere?
be serious now.
can you breed a doberman from a chihuahua?
and then ask that question of tyourself again.
> >> > they tend to *just* study those birds
> >> > and how expressed traits vary over time.
> >> > generally, this sort of speciation is more
> >> > in order of the extinction of one phenotype
> >> > in preferrence to another.
> >> How else would speciation work?
> > exactly, and this speaks to a descent and not to genetic enrichment.
> > glad you can see that.
> > this speaks of the loss of a genotype
> > *not* the popping up of some wholly new trait from a magical
> > unsuppotable mechanism of the dna simply rewriting itself in situ.
> Tim, you need some concept theory. You are clearly confusing symbols with
> meaning. I suppose this comes from believing the Bible is the divine Word
> of God. It creates a false concept of meaning as something external and an
> intrinsic part of the symbol. Ink on paper is just ink on paper until you
> see the symbols and interpret the meanings. "Descent" is likewise a symbol,
> and its meaning in the context of evolution is quite specific. You are
> taking it in a very generalized sense.
no, i take it as it means, descending from higher to lesser.
it isn't correct to say ascending from less
rich to more rich, when you don't mean that.
> >> > say, the bit about the big beak birds overtaking
> >> > the small beak birds after the scientists
> >> > tampered with the food supply.
> >> Actually, I think a drought tampered with the food supply; the
> >> scientists just watched.
> If you start that crap about "suvival of the fittest", I'll have to remind
> you that that is not from Darwin or modern biology. It's a confusion on
> the part of philosopher Herbert Spencer, promoted by fundies as a straw man
> fallacy. Darwin's theory was: "the greater fecundity of the better adapted."
i didn't say anything of the sort.
not interested in straw men.
> > you can't predict squat about evolution is what you mean to say.
> What have we here, a non-prophet belittling a non-prophet for being a
> non-prophet? Wonders never cease!
I never said predictions could be
made based on those theories.
the other feller did.
> <snip>
> > ug, so, now we've totally backed away from ascent again
> > and are speaking of ...man this statement is a
> > contradiction of several statements you've
> > made in *this* post.
> > gack.
> Tim, you have got to get your concepts defined if you are going to
> understand this, but somehow, I don't feel that understanding
> is what you want.
no, yer just all to ready to run
interference and wave your hand in my face.
seesawing between ascent and descent with
no clear delineations of intent makes the
source out to be an equivocator or a an outright liar.
> > you use ambiguous language.
> The language is not the meaning. The map is not the territory.
no, ambiguous lanhguage is ambiguous language.
when someone says, "biologists don't
concern themselves with ascent"
and then speaks of creatures "arising"
from here and there, he contradicts himself.
and that is what we have seen here.
> Until you can start with clear operational definitions, you are not going
> to be able to understand, So stop belittling everyone else's understanding!
no bub, the feller *did* make statements
as to his own personal aperating definitions
and *then* spoke in direct contradiction to those.
and i'm not belittling anyone else's understanding,
i'm pointing out inconsistencies that need corrective attention.
*you* however are doing just that, belittling
*my* knowledge and understanding.
so, you are in error, correct or be damned.
> <snip>
> > yes, i see that you use ambiguous language cuz
> > you don't even know if yer coming or going.
> Lack of comprehension on your part is not evidence of a lack of
> understanding on someone else's part. You allow dogma to be a log in your
> own eye. Take it out before you presume to treat sticks in someone else's.
this is bluster.
ambiguous language is either the sign of
personal misunderstanding or outright prevarication.
and I'm not the one using ambiguous language here.
I'm the one pointing it out.
Timothy Sutter
> John Jensen wrote:
> > Is it really such a stretch to see the common ancestry of dogs
> > and cats when you go back over millions of years of natural evolution?
> yes it's a stretch to, for one, suggest
> lions and tigers and dingoes evolved
> from a tabby housecat.
> that is, a house cat with a small amount
> if genetic richness evolved over how many
> years lyou'd like to suggest to appear as
> *both* a more genetically rich feline *and* a dog.
see, and this speaks directly to the problem,
I put it to you that human beings *could not* take
a tabby housecat and breed a lion a tiger a cheetah
a dingo and a wolf from that stock of genetic
material if given even ten trillion trillion years.
given whatever climate and geographic controls
necessary at their complete disposal.
clear.
go look at a tabby housecat,
and then convince yourself that you could selectively
breed a family of those to all canine and feline species.
but yet, *that* is "ascent" would propose.
and all by random happenstance as well.
*not* and *never*, that a Lion
devolved into a dingo and a house cat.
which, while somewhat outlandish,
is somewhat more plausible.
ok?
good.
John Jensen
Some of it I knew, some i didn't.
For the most part, however, I tend to ignore Tim, because he is dogmatic in
his ignorance, but still has an overblown impression of his own knowledge,
evidenced by numerous posts and reposts.
I guess you could call it diarrhea of the keyboard.
I still haven't figured out why he wants to cross-post to
alt.actor.dustin-hoffman. Maybe I'll get around to looking in one it to
find out.
Glenn (Christian Mystic wrote:
--
John Jensen
http://www.the-gnosis-site.com/
Steven J.
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
> > John Jensen wrote:
>
> > > Is it really such a stretch to see the common ancestry of dogs
> > > and cats when you go back over millions of years of natural evolution?
>
> > yes it's a stretch to, for one, suggest
> > lions and tigers and dingoes evolved
> > from a tabby housecat.
>
dingoes (_Canis lupus dingo_, a subspecies of dog, and a canid) is
believed to have been a miacid, a sort of weasel-like proto-carnivore.
>
> > that is, a house cat with a small amount
> > if genetic richness evolved over how many
> > years lyou'd like to suggest to appear as
> > *both* a more genetically rich feline *and* a dog.
>
housecat? More genetically diverse, perhaps, since cats may be
derived from a much smaller initial population (a subpopulation of
wildcats), but what do you mean by "richer?"
What happens is that populations grow, and expand, and split up into
new, isolated populations. These new populations experience
mutations, some of which succeed in spreading through the population
(the mutants survive and breed more successfully than those without
the mutant gene). Old alleles are lost through selection and genetic
drift. You end up with a group of populations far more diverse than
the individuals in the ancestral population, and with different genes
and different combinations of genes.
Please note: it is observed, and known, that mutations occur. Most
are neutral, many are harmful, and a few are beneficial. They can
produce traits that did not exist in the ancestral population.
>
> see, and this speaks directly to the problem,
>
> I put it to you that human beings *could not* take
> a tabby housecat and breed a lion a tiger a cheetah
> a dingo and a wolf from that stock of genetic
> material if given even ten trillion trillion years.
>
Dingoes *were* bred from wolves, which perhaps you knew, but they are
so similar that they are considered different races within the same
species.
Again, the common ancestor of dingos and cheetahs was a miacid, not a
tabby housecat. It is not expected that either pantherines or felines
were derived directly from the other.
I put it to you that over even a few million years, quite a large
number of mutations would accumulate in a population of tabby cats.
The stock of genetic material would become larger and more diverse.
Some mutations would be for larger size, or for modifications to the
vocal tract to permit roaring, or for other changes that could be bred
(naturally or deliberately) to yield a various populations much
different each other, and from a tabby cat.
>
> given whatever climate and geographic controls
> necessary at their complete disposal.
>
> clear.
>
> go look at a tabby housecat,
>
> and then convince yourself that you could selectively
> breed a family of those to all canine and feline species.
>
Yet once again, that is not what is proposed. Still, the more
important point is that you are advancing, here, an argument from
personal incredulity, not from actual evidence.
>
> but yet, *that* is "ascent" would propose.
> and all by random happenstance as well.
>
Random (in the sense of unconnected with the organism's needs)
mutations, and a lot of them, and natural selection to weed out the
deleterious ones and keep and accumulate the useful ones. And again,
even if you insist that "ascent" be used to describe the change from,
say, _Pikaia gracilens_ to mammals, it doesn't have much to do with
the change from one carnivore species to another, which is simply a
shift from adaptions to one ecological niche to adaptions to another,
will little change in genome size or "complexity."
>
> *not* and *never*, that a Lion
> devolved into a dingo and a house cat.
>
That is also not what is proposed, and it would not, by the way, be
"devolution," but merely evolution to a different size and niche.
>
> which, while somewhat outlandish,
> is somewhat more plausible.
>
Why? Do you imagine that "bigger" and "tougher" = "more complex" or
"more genetically rich?" That is not so. If you think so, there is
no reason to take seriously anything you say on this subject.
>
> ok?
>
Not okay.
>
> good.
>
I haven't seen your 1700+ line reply to my last reply to you, so I
can't reply to it. Perhaps it will show up later. If it's as silly
as your blather here, though, I doubt that it will warrent the effort
of a reply.
-- Steven J.
Timothy Sutter
> I put it to you that over even a few million years, quite a large
> number of mutations would accumulate in a population of tabby cats.
you are utterly mad.
> I haven't seen your 1700+ line reply to my last reply to you, so I
> can't reply to it. Perhaps it will show up later.
when you see it, be sure to prove yourself.
John Jensen
> John Jensen AKA Pinhead the foolish mongrel boy's best pal wrote:
Insults do not constitute rational arguements.
>> Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
>> > Pinhead the foolish mongrel boy wrote:
Insults do not constitute rational arguements.
>> >> Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
>> >> > Pinhead the foolish mongrel boy wrote:
Insults do not constitute rational arguements.
>> >> > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
<snip>
>> > go away fool.
>
>> > apologize and retract.
>
>> > you moron.
<snip>
> if i spare the rod, i show my abject hatred.
You have already done that.
<snip>
>> "Let no-one be seducing himself: If anyone among you thinks he is wise in
>> this system of things, Let him be a fool, that he may become wise. For
>> the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God; for it is written: "He
>> catches the wise in their own cunning." 1 Cor. 3:18-19
>
> yeah, and you all have been caught by
> one whom you show disrespect for.
>
>> Tim, you are a Blind guide, who strains out the gnat,
>> but gulp down the camel!
>
> exactly false as *I* am the person *not* gulping
> down the lies of the ungodly atheists. *you* are.
>
>> You pretend piety, but are blind to God in anyone.
>
> when have i pretended anything?
>
> post proof or retract.
You have shown yourself incapable of understanding that concept, and
unworthy of the effort.
<snip>>
> there are still alot of atheistic bigots around,
> ready to attack the faithful in defense of their dogma.
>
> exactly, and *that* what *YOU* are
> doing when you support an unsubstantiated lie.
<snip>
> yer an idiot and you *know* it.
By your own insults, you condemn yourself.
Timothy Sutter
> Insults do not constitute rational arguements.
i'm not arguing with you,
i'm telling you what you are.
if you feel insulted by that,
maybe you should modify your behavior.
Elmer Bataitis
;-)
Elmer Bataitis
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > John Jensen wrote:
> > > Is it really such a stretch to see the common ancestry of dogs
> > > and cats when you go back over millions of years of natural evolution?
> > yes it's a stretch to, for one, suggest
> > lions and tigers and dingoes evolved
> > from a tabby housecat.
> > that is, a house cat with a small amount
> > if genetic richness evolved over how many
> > years lyou'd like to suggest to appear as
> > *both* a more genetically rich feline *and* a dog.
> see, and this speaks directly to the problem,
> I put it to you that human beings *could not* take
> a tabby housecat and breed a lion a tiger a cheetah
> a dingo and a wolf from that stock of genetic
> material if given even ten trillion trillion years.
> given whatever climate and geographic controls
> necessary at their complete disposal.
> clear.
> go look at a tabby housecat,
> and then convince yourself that you could selectively
> breed a family of those to all canine and feline species.
Your inability to understand both biology and why personal incredulity
is fallacious is noted ;-)