Re: Statement of variable continuity

[Timothy Sutter]

the knowledge of God which
comes -from- God -to- man
is a personal witness by God.

within limits so as to
encourage personal growth.

so, the primary approach will have to be
that someone tells you that God is there.

but we maintain that -this- knowledge
can -only- come from God and so, when
-we- tell you that God is there, we are
passing a torch and not inventing the Fire.

we simply say that Christ
is the original messenger.

Christ spoke to the mind
of the first human being

and has spoken again, at times,
foretelling a manifestation
in the flesh.

Christ appeared among men
-and- the Angels -saw- him.

Christ decended into the lower regions,
took on the flesh, and spilled blood
towards the _redemption_ of all flesh.

Christ returned to the Glory of God

and sends us the Faithful Witness
thru the Word of God spoken
among mankind.

so, when Christ tells you,
-by whatever means-, that
God is there and bears you
no specific grudge, believe it.

the alternative will be you paying
every penny on your account, and
failing miserably.

forever in debt to the existing conditions.


you will see the unfiltered
reality of God in your life.

Live

this Fire will purify.



in case you hadn't figured;

"Christ" is also, 'just a word'

and for all practical purposes,
"Christ" -is- God. "Spirit of Christ"
is a, somewhat, redundant terminology.

the "anointing" -is- the Faithful
Witness of God's own Presence.

God even knows God thru this sort
of Faithful assurance that God Is.

whereas Moses and David were "anointed"
and therefore "Christs" and the prophets
were visited by The Word of God, these were,
for the most part, singular events.

is was "The Spirit of Christ"
who ministered thru these people.

YHWH -is- "The Spirit of Christ"

not just an equality, but an identity.


as for the man referred to as Jesus Christ;

this guy is a little different from
Moses and David and the prophets.

this guy was formulated in the womb
of Mary by The Spirit of Christ.

but see look, remember i showed you these;

DNA is the template for its replication

the "Central dogma of genetics"
that is, it takes DNA to reproduce DNA

and

DNA --> RNA --> Protein

the "Central Dogma of moleclar biology"


and then said that God formed the Templates
for the production of the originating DNA
and brought the chemicals into alignment
around God's templates.

so, it isn't a remarkable thing to explain
that God can provide a template "in situ"
which will produce a child having a human
mother and God as father.

realizing that the originating templates
for DNA arise from God in the first place.

the child is still a human being,
and no more or less a child of God
than "Adam", the first 'man', but
born by a woman under the law, but
not born of 'man' under the damning
effect of "Adam's" mortal discovery,
resulting in a mortallity which was
encoded in his physical being but
only triggered when Adam walked astray.

Mary's generation was clean top to bottom

and God provided a template through
Declaration of the Word of God upon Mary.

after all, the DNA algorithm -is-
a coded set of instructions, or
a "Word", that can be spelled out
using chemical letters.

the algorithm can exist as a pure
statement in the mind of God and
be born in the material by Fiat.

having said that, we distinguish Jesus
from all others born of "Adam" but we
do not distinguish Jesus from
the human race.

Jesus' mortallity was not triggered.
see, Jesus didn't have to die, but
he accepted -your- necessary death
in -your- stead.

a necessary death you
inherited from your
progenitors.

what Jesus could see and Adam would not see
was the Life of God being interminable freed
him from the fear of death provided he
maintained his attachment to God thru Faith.

Adam saw mortallity and fear.

Jesus saw Life thru Faith.

Adam was rejected from Life

Jesus was accepted in to Life

and like i said before;

Jesus' mental understanding so closely
paralleled and identified with YHWH
that the overlay of "The Spirit of Christ"
upon his identification with death and
resurrection resulted in a thunderous
applause came from "the other side"


that is, God thundered;

"*THIS* is -Me- in the material world"

"*THIS* is -My- offspring"

BEHOLD

alright now that -that- is said and done,

what about -you-

how now are -you- "like Christ"?

how now -can- you approach
and surpass Jesus Christ?

well, first things first,

-you- have a pile of rubble under
which you find yourself obstructed
to a full knowledge of Christ in you.

so, when Christ first impresses you,
you see clearly but the detritus of
Adam's mortal discovery and -your-
fear of death and subsequent enclosure
in a world of want competes for your
attention and when your eyes -would-
remain fixed on Christ, they look
back and you stumble.

and now, in fear and trembling,
you inch towards God, shedding the
dead works and avoiding obstacles
to your forward progress.

holding the seal of God in -your-
forehead -you- enter in to communion
and unity with God.

and then, it may be said,
that you are "like Christ"

and then you can enter in to
Life thru Christ where you were
born in to Death thru Adam.

i hope i didn't leave to much out.


# DNA is the template for its replication
# the "Central dogma of genetics"
# that is, it takes DNA to reproduce DNA and
# DNA --> RNA --> Protein
# the "Central Dogma of moleclar biology"


as an aside piece of background;

see, given these central dogmas, which were
gained by methodical observations, people have
been trying to invent ways to explain the
arising of life on earth under the darkness
of the "NO God" axiom.

that is, seeing that DNA is the
template for it's own replication
and that the string of events
is always observed to proceed

DNA --> RNA --> protein

and -never-

amino acids --> protein --> RNA --> DNA --> RNA --> protein

one must resort to unobservable conjectures
and speculation to account for the very
fact that self reproducing genetic libraries
exist on earth at all given the "No God" axiom.

among these the so-called "space seed"
and "RNA world" 'hypotheses'.

but, see, in light of the consequences
surrounding genesis from singularity and
the absolute necessity for a Creative Being
to initiate genesis from singularity,

the "No God" axiom fails as -not-
"self evident" and, in fact, false
and wholly invalid.

and so, "space seed" and "RNA world"
conjectures are unwarranted and unnecessary

and one may construct a -simple- dogma

God --> DNA --> RNA --> protein

which neatly accounts for the existance of
genetic libraries on earth without resort
to onobservable conjectures but simply
the unavoidable evidence of the finger
of creation.

a finger we've already demonstrated
as present in genesis from singularity.

just another evidence of the existance of God.

and so, there's no -real- 'excuse'.



and like i said,

Adam is referred to as "son of God"

-we- are "son of Adam" or "son of Man"

so now, Jesus, by this peculiar birthing
by the Holy Spirit in Mary is again a man
called "son of God"

but is also, "son of man" by Mary.

and that's why he is special
for -us-, the children of Adam.

the "son" part refers to his humanity.

so, -how- has -this- "son" 'always existed'
whereas Adam was "formed of the dust?"

his template -is- The Word of God.

God declared Jesus in to Mary

YHWH Savior becomes "son of man"

The Word of God who has always
existed became flesh and dwelt
among mankind.

The Word of God who Is God.

The Word of God who Is
The Spirit of Christ
who Is YHWH

tasted -our- mortallity

and swallowed up Death in the
Indestructible Life of God.

The Great Fish who could not
lay hold of Jesus, vomitted
him out onto the shore.

[Timothy Sutter]

just remember, we don't
"anthropomorphize" God,


no, we 'deomorphize' human beings,
that is, we reckon that human beings
have characteristic -potentials- 'like'
God and that -these- are the traits
which are to be magnified.


so, if we suggest to you that God has form
this need not be considered as abstracting
an Image of God from humanity, and neither
will we be found demoting God to a lessened
image of the Creation and neither will we
be found relegating God exclusively to some
amorphous aetherial quality that simply
hangs on the air like a mist.


where God, may, in part, have all such
qualities and attributes, which, when
taken by themselves, would not be a
complete portrait of God.


that is, God may very well be said to have
form and fully 'resemble' -things- which
we can, in fact, see and hear and taste
and smell and touch.


and that God -can- and -does-
see and hear and taste and
smell and touch.


God is aware


God is aware if God


God is -aware- of all things
including that which is -not- God


God is not just some pipeline
of amenities in to which you
may tap, even if God -is- a
pipeline of amenities into
which you -must- tap.


just remember Jesus, and how he felt
a 'virtue'[dunamis] flow from him when
a woman who was beleaguered by a discharge
touched his garment. [Luke 8:43-48]


[a dunamis is a sort of ability capability
power influence type of thing that is
translated as 'virtue' in some instances]


in that instance, that woman used a
belief to tap in to a 'virtue' that was
operating thru Jesus, the man, but that
Jesus stopped and pursued her so as
to reckon the personal identification
of the source of that 'virtue'


she saw that she had been noticed and
came trembling to Jesus and he made
very certain that she knew exactly
what happened and how it happened.


and in certain respects, you may be able
to tap into God's 'virtues' but you can
be sure that God's Presence will not be
off in the distance oblivious to your existance.


and/or that you will be able to tap
into the Holy Spirit like Simon [Acts 8:9-25]
the sorcerer who wanted to buy it from
the apostles so as to use it in the
furtherance of his own ends.


point being, God may not necessarily
have to be the sole -directing- influence
of God's own 'virtues' in that, -you- have
access to that Faith which carries curative
emblems, but also, that you won't be able
to mock God by suggesting that God is impersonal.


---
Ezekiel 47:9
And it shall be that every living thing
that moves, wherever the rivers go, will
live. There will be a very great multitude
of fish, because these waters go there;
for they will be healed, and everything
will live wherever the river goes.


Isaiah 58:8
Then your light shall break forth like
the morning, Your healing shall spring
forth speedily, And your righteousness
shall go before you; The glory of YHWH
shall be your rear guard.


Psalm 67:1-3
God be merciful unto us, and bless us;
and cause his face to shine upon us; Selah.
That thy way may be known upon earth, thy
saving health among all nations. Let the
people praise thee, O God; let all
the people praise thee.
---

# just remember, we don't
# "anthropomorphize" God,
# no, we 'deomorphize' human beings,
# that is, we reckon that human beings
# have characteristic potentials 'like'
# God and that these are the traits
# which are to be magnified.


aside from the indwelling of
the Holy Spirit, one is not
a "christian" at all.


the indwelling -is- that substantial
Faith which is Christ's own Faith which
is given to human beings, and is not
simply some academic exercise nor
the product of man's own accomplishings.


the "charisms" are the
"gifts" of the Holy Spirit.


based on two things,
which are these...;


"Jesus ascended into the
heavenly places and gave
gifts to human beings"


and


[Jesus speaking]
"I will not leave you without comfort"


...one may examine themself and determine
whether they are, indeed, a "christian"


as i said, the charisms are the gifts,
and the gifts are given by Christ.
and the gifts provide the essential
knowledge of God which is comforting
so that you can be assured in your own
mind that God is present in your midst
and is actively concerned with your life.


alright, then there's the notion of
"evidence" and this evidence is twofold,
the 'ethereal' and the tangible and substantial.


it's funny, because the charisms play
a sort of intermediary role between
the intangible Comfort of the Holy Spirit
and the substantial fruit bearing
offspring of the Presence.


ok, so fine, here are a few of the manners
that human beings are born with naturally,
having inherited them directly from our
progenitors, 'Adam and Eve.'


and by the way, these things are at
enmity to God, and can be likened
as "fruit" of the 'sin consciousness'
and the 'self in want'


here's a few;


quarreling, jealousy, anger, selfishness,
slander, gossip, conceit, disorder,
fornication, impurity, licentiousness,
idolatry, drug abuse, enmity, strife,
dissension, party spirit, envy,
drunkenness, carousing and the like.


this sort of behavior and attitude
applies to all human beings living
aside of God's Presence, and as no
human being, aside from Jesus, is
born the first time from their mother
as also "begotten of God" we can say
that this applies to all human beings.


[right here is where the bits with the
diagrams about Adam and the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil some of those
related texts and the bits about Jesus
and YHWH would fit in case those questions
re-arise and it seems as if i haven't
addressed them here and now]


anyway;
two things: just saying to yourself,
"my conscience does not bother me about
them" and "oh, that's not me" won't
make them go away, but they do stand
in your way to a clear vision of God,
and so, -if- you -want- to draw nearer
to God and gain and maintain a clear
vision of God, these must decrease
while the following bits must increase,


and so, as we draw nearer to God and God
draws nearer to us, we replace that stuff
which doesn't profit, with attitudes and
actions that were God's intention for us
to walk in in the first place.


may take some time, so, the sooner
you get started, the better as the
more ingrained -that- stuff becomes,
the more difficult it wil be to clean
it away.


miracles happen, but you're likely to
carry around memories of the old man
and you may just give up because
things hurt, and so, if you get
on your way early you can use that
gungho youthful exuberance to get
yourself off to a flying start,
Christ willing and Christ is willing.


i may look at this little
detail, in more depth, later,
if i haven't already.


anyway;


the 'fruit' of the Spirit:


love, joy, peace, patience,
kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
gentleness, self-control;


against -these- behaviors and attitudes,
there is no law, and when it comes down
to it, as far as character traits are
concerned, -these- are by far the
Superior traits and to be desired.


those other attitudes -are- the easy
way out and lead you directly to ruin.


alright, so now we've taken up our cross
and put away that tired old man who was
born at enmity to God thru Adam, and
replaced him with a new creature in Christ.


now we can start to unwrap and make use
of some of the Presents that the Presence
has offered to me.


and here is a listing of gifts of the Spirit.


the utterance of wisdom,
the utterance of knowledge
faith by the same Spirit,
gifts of healing by the one Spirit,
working of miracles,
prophecy, speaking the truth
the ability to distinguish between spirits,
various kinds of tongues,
the interpretation of tongues.


and these are the charisms.


and they most certainly are an outward
substantial show of an inexplicable
supernatural inward affair.


trust in Christ to bring the good work
that Christ began to fruition, and
Christ will not let you down.


here's a few scrittures;
[yes, scrittures]
1 Corinthians 12:1-11
Galatians 5:13-26
1 Corinthians 2:12-14
Hebrews 2:4

[Martin Musatov]

On Wednesday, August 8, 2012 10:55:25 AM UTC-5, Timothy Sutter wrote:
> Martin Michael Musatov wrote:
>
>
>
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > > that's some fork you got stickin' in you
>
>
>
> > > M3 wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > I can 8
>
>
>
> > > can you do it somewhere else?
>
> > SURE
>
> > it
>
> > IT IT
>
> > it
>
> > -done
>
> > +starting up
>
>
>
>
>
> can you roll over and fetch a stick?

Yes. Rolling over.....................Stick
stick.

[Timothy Sutter]

Martin Musatov wrote:

> Timothy Sutter wrote:

> > Martin Michael Musatov wrote:


> > > Timothy Sutter wrote:


> > > > > Timothy Sutter wrote:


> > > > > > that's some fork you got stickin' in you


> > > > M3 wrote:


> > > > > I can 8


> > > > can you do it somewhere else?

> > > SURE

> > > it

> > > IT IT

> > > it

> > > -done

> > > +starting up


> > can you roll over and fetch a stick?

> Yes. Rolling over.....................Stick <--- not a stick
> stick. <--- not a stick


you "fetched" stick.

you did not "fetch" a stick

[Timothy Sutter]

interatively wobbling amid the complex plane.

T = {T^2 + (G + gi)}

as i wobble, i stay in the plane

my heart maintains it's rhythm...


see, there are possible numbers
in the set of (G + gi) where the
magnitude, or distance from 0, of T
will not diverge to infinity.

'i' = [square root of (-1)]
a so-called 'imaginary number'

at T = 0 , you get;

T(2) = 0^2 + (G + gi)

or T = (G + gi)

plug that into T and
do the operation again;

T(3) = (G + gi)^2 + (G = gi)

where (G + gi) is a constant
number in the complex plane.

which is to say, for each set of
repeated operations, (G + gi) is
constant and T varies.

well, for many numbers, the magnitude
of T soon diverges to infinity.

but there are number sets of (G + gi),
for which, the magnitude of T doesn't diverge.

T just wobbles not too far from zero.

those numbers are called 'the mandelbrot set'

and if you graph this set,

you get the funny picture that
looks sort of like a heart.

a 'cardioid' of sorts.

[Timothy Sutter]

> but there are number sets of (G + gi),
> for which, the magnitude of T doesn't diverge.

> T just wobbles not too far from zero.

now you can make up a funny story

and say things like;

the 'real' plane represents the dirt
and the air and the sun and the moon
and the stars and candy and pie and
radios and gumdrops,

and the 'imaginary' plane is the realm
of pure consciousness which is -not-
composed of carbon and nitrogen and
hydrogen and oxygen, but yet exists
and is very much 'real' and where our
conscious initiator of genesis
maintains an eternal existance.

-not- 'imaginary' in the sense of
being totally unreal 'imaginary'
in the sense of the plane of conscious
awareness apart from the physical
material manifestation.

one place where the two planes intersect,
is in these living beings which walk the earth.

and so, as we find ourselves in the 'complex plane'

where both dirt and pure consciousness may intersect,

we ...; we say more in a bit...

but if we don't get too carried away,
we -can- make relevant statements
about both without destroying either.

yes, 'it' is 'there'

but where 'there' is

corresponds, for now, with the
points in the complex plane.

and those points converge in us.

just remember, the complex plane already
finds 'real' use in our friend quantum mechanics.

and we do not suggest that all
of quantum mechanics is fiction.

no, we do not.

but it employs 'imaginary' numbers.

real information from a purely 'mathematical' device.

and now again, if we don't get too
carried away, we -can- make relevant
statements about both without
destroying either.

but see, even if some were to get carried away
and make claims that "purple kestrels with dog's
heads" fly about in their imaginary world,
and therefore, Timothy Sutter makes them 'real'

well, first, your inventions will invariably be
cut and paste composites of things that you have
seen and heard and smelled and tasted and felt.

and you may have seen 'purple' and 'kestrels'
and dog's heads' but, you may not have seen
them all in one creature.

so, we we relegate that
sort of thing to composition.

could it be possible?

sure, why not, but right now, we aren't
seeing any thing like this flying around.

as an aside comment to the walls,

for us, these creatures who find
themselves in the complex plane,

the act of creation would be in finding things
that may reside in the purely imaginary plane,
and bringing them to 'life' in the real world,

all without ever being able to relegate
the pure higher consciousness to fiction

but instead, we prove the higher consciousness is real

inasmuch as we can begin to declare things
that be not, as though they be, and watch
them become.

and that is how we begin to describe the
Creation of all things, from the source
of our conscious being initiator of genesis.

our Concious Being, declared that which
was not, as if it was, and made it real.

and the light we see, resembles the
Light of God's own pure consciousness.

a little common sense would assist in focusing
your concentrated attention on things which
are more possible than others.

maybe you just can not have a car that
folds up and can be put away in your wallet.

this can be considered impracticable.

and so, a relationship with our
Conscious Being who precedes All
and is responsible for All's being,

is invaluable in considering what can
be possible for us, and what will
remain out of our grasp.

but, this sort of relationship with God

is -not- out of our grasp.

seek -that- first,

and your heart's desires will follow.


then the question is not;

'is it right to play God?'

but;

'should mankind try to play God without God?'

and we tend to see that mankind,
left to its own device,

squanders its gifts to the considerations
of the temporary dwellings.

as such, it tends to waste its gifts
on what it cannot perpetuate, leaving
no account with the everlasting Deity.

translation;

when mankind adores itself as deity,

he mistakenly tries to elevate the physical creature
into that domain where it can find no place, and
falls back to earth in a crash of flame and ashes.

but -we- as Christians, see Jesus...

Jesus, who tore down the temple of the
temporary dwelling to be, raised up,
-transformed-, and to remain,
forever incorruptible.

this is God with us.

God's own plan for us.

the perfecting of God's Creation.

the clay, fired into eternity.

and then we start to mention
how we may adorn our eternal
existance with fineries from God.

True treasures on account with the everlasting.

[Timothy Sutter]

> but, this sort of relationship with God
> is -not- out of our grasp.
> seek -that- first,
> and your heart's desires will follow.

Basis Of Issue Narrative Guidance [BOING]

two pairs of sox

no one says;

at five o'clock, [g + di]
is in the mandelbrot set

but at seven o'clock, [g + di]
is not in the mandelbrot set.

is no one right or wrong?

print this out and place it under your pillow,

and when no one gives you an answer,

you get your two pairs of sox.

that should be clear enough for you.

if it is not clear enough for you,

you get the boot in stead

[Timothy Sutter]

> Basis Of Issue Narrative Guidance [BOING]

> two pairs of sox

> no one says;

> at five o'clock, [g + di]
> is in the mandelbrot set

> but at seven o'clock, [g + di]
> is not in the mandelbrot set.

> is no one right or wrong?

i guess you'd have to consider this for more
than 2 seconds to actually get anything out of it.

so, be careful of jerking your knee,
you may kick yourself in the mouth.

[Timothy Sutter]

> so, be careful of jerking your knee,
> you may kick yourself in the mouth.

<fictional account>

i was sitting around on my church pew one day
when some kid ran up to me and started telling
me about how Jesus MULTIPLIED loaves and fish
to feed a hungry multitude and that Jesus
was very clearly using MATHEMATICS.

I said, "thanks, that's nice to know,
i'll bet there's other places where
they use MATHEMATICS as well"

the other kid agreed...

<end fictional account>

[Timothy Sutter]

> > so, be careful of jerking your knee,
> > you may kick yourself in the mouth.

==
1 Kings 7:23
And he made the Sea of cast bronze,
ten cubits from one brim to the other;
it was completely round. Its height was
five cubits, and a line of thirty cubits
measured its circumference.
==

C = 2[pi]r

C/2r = [pi]

30/2*5 = 3


the value of "pi" is 3?

yes, the value of pi -is- 3
to -one- significant figure.
there are no decimal points
in the formulation in question.

you may wish to look into just what constitutes
'significance' in relation to numerical data.

===
http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/ch1/sigfigs.html

The number of significant figures in a measurement,
such as 2.531, is equal to the number of digits that
are known with some degree of confidence (2, 5, and 3)
plus the last digit (1), which is an estimate or approximation.
As we improve the sensitivity of the equipment used to make
a measurement, the number of significant figures increases.

Postage Scale 3 ?1 g 1 significant figure
Two-pan balance 2.53 ?0.01 g 3 significant figures
Analytical balance 2.531 ?0.001 g 4 significant figures

===

==
1 Kings 7:23
And he made the Sea of cast bronze,
ten cubits from one brim to the other;
it was completely round. Its height was
five cubits, and a line of thirty cubits
measured its circumference.
==

pi does not equal 3.1415296 any more than it equals 3.14
you simply choose an approximation suitable
to the preision of your measurements.

which, in the case cited above, are lengths of string
measuring 10 times the distance from elbow to finger tip
[one cubit = the distance from elbow to finger tip]
and 30 times the distance from elbow to fingertip.
and 10 "cubits" is far different from 10.00000 "cubits".

C = 2[pi]r

C/2r = [pi]

30/2*5 = 3

-not- 10.00 cubits / 2*5.00 cubits

for this measurement, using no places
after the decimal, pi -is- 3.

this is common even among so-called

"modern day" physicists.

"how much is pi?"

"3"

[insert statements about the price of blueberry pie,
which hostess doesn't make anymore, by the way and
you can only get cherry and apple and lemon
but not blueberry]

sure, my logical computer will spit out numbers with
far more significance than the actual measurements taken,
but that's why 'users' are there to take and report
only to the precision of the measurements.

[Timothy Sutter]

so, what you'd like to say is
that this 'thing/organism'

eats respires and replicates and moves

and proceed to chop it down to the smallest
'thing/organism' that eats respires replicates
and moves

and find out what 'bit' of 'it'

if removed, will prevent this 'thing/organism'
from continuing to eat respire replicate an move.


but, you may also find that there are more than
one 'site' which, if removed, will 'kill' the 'organism'


so, that's the backward regression,


and now, you'd like to say;


"this is the very smallest 'organism'

that can eat respire replicate, and move


and then, find a way of having components of -it-

self assemble in aqueaous solution.


and now your back to the "phantom mechanism" again


as, without doubt, if the components do -not-


eat respire and replicate and move


the chances of these components

self assembling as -in-

the process of replication

is nil.


if you chop away the component that

facillitates assembly of replicants


then it ain't gunna self assemble from scratch...


end game...


y'ain't got 'it'



if you'd like, you can truncate 'eats and respires'

in to a single phenomenon

eats and replicates

"this thing eats and replicates"

"these are the components of this
'thing' that eats and replicates"

"now, we dump these components into aqueous solution,
and, they sit there and stare at us, and no
respiring/replicating organism emerges"

"days later, still nothing"

"months later, still nothing"

"years la....ah skip it"


"how -did- you 'do' it?"

"cuz -this, just ain't workin"



=because= this would have to be some thing

that -could- "self assemble" in a matter of days/weeks

from these 'unmotivated' constituent parts.


skip right to the point where this self assembly -could- happen


not asking -how- all of these constituents

take shape over the eons, so-called,


"-these- components, self assemble
-into- an organism that -replicates-"


it's a paradox


'it' needs 'itself' to assemble 'itself'


the "phantom mechanism"


"the shadow knows"


or, alternatively;


"who knows?"

"the shadow do"


more fine tuning...


i'm starting to see the relatedness between

"fine tuning" and "fine tuning"


it's always strange how these things fit together...


it's not "whimsy"



"the shadow built the man"


or, i suppose it's more like;


"the shadow -cast- the man"




this isn't happening;

""take one strand of RNA and toss it into
a container of warm water/nutrient bath

and days later, you find multiple copies of
the original RNA strand and a somewhat
depleted nutrient supply.""

so, that'd be a dead end...





in other words,

i'm -giving- you the "non-living" -components-

now, let's watch the "non-living" -components-

self assemble in aqueous solution, whereupon

a "living" assembly is now present

in aqueous solution.


there is no resort to an;

"it takes a million years" argument


these non-living -components- should self assemble

to form a living organism in a matter of -days-

-if- they can self assemble -at all-





one thing for sure, considering the speculation
of a primal cell type that is a precursor for all
subsequent living organisms including all bacteria

there is no =specimen= of any such primal living organism.

no trace at all.

it must be one of those "invisible pink unicorns"





but, -positting- a primal precursor 'organism'

is a tacit admission that simple bacteria did not

spring to life from numerous collisions

of non-living components.

that means, speculating on
the necessary existence of
some primal precursor,

is an unspoken admission that simple bacteria

did not spring to life from numerous collisions

of non-living components.





so, what there is =evidence= for

is an organism that has no precursor

which did not arise from the random collisions

of non-living components.

[Timothy Sutter]

what you may want to ask anyone
who says that 'virgin birth'
is a 'miracle' is;

are you insisting that
'miracles' do -not- happen?

and then consider material life itself;

there is insufficient physical data to support
the notion that any living tissue will rise from
the earthly surroundings by random collisions of
'non-living' molecules or that -algorithms- will
simply write themselves into existence from the
earthly surroundings under their own volition.

On the contrary a wealth of observation supports
the very opposite notion that Life begats Life
and that DNA is the template for its own replication.

that is, 'we' observe that Life springs
from that which is already alive, number one.

and, that -algorithms- never write
themselves in to existence, number two.

-algorithms- arise from the purposeful
assembly of instruction sets
by an outside agency.

the central dogma of molecular biology would state;

DNA --> RNA --> Protein

and never;

RNA --> Protein --> DNA

nor

Protein --> RNA --> DNA

and the central dogma of genetics would say;

"DNA is the template for its own replication"

DNA, here, is our -algorithm- and we observe,
essentially, that DNA is a primary necessity
for the production of DNA and this has never
been observed to be violated in any manner.

and so, proposing the idea that living tissue
manufactured itself from inert chemical materials
leaves us with a quandary that a purposed phenomenon
like an algorithm, wrote itself into existance
in a set of freakish accidents.

this is contrary to all observation and must,
therefore, be discarded as a self evident falsehood.

now, you -should- begin to see *exactly* why any
proposed theories of 'abiogenesis' are based
on self evident falsehood.

it steamrolls overtop of physical observation and
overwrites it with some simplistic metaphysical lie
gleaned from the entrails of an owl.

as far as physical observation is concerned,
a purposeful Creative Event is exactly necessary.

and this is no accident.

can be classified as "miraculous" even.

certainly, there's more to
a living creature that just DNA.

but, as far as proteins which are -not- alive
following some non-demonstrable mechanism
that fits together a self duplicating and
living organism and then shuts off and
is never seen again, there is not any sort
of viable explanation for such an
impracticable possibility.

the trouble with this sort of consideration
is that it suggests that natural forces
provide the onus for a living cell to
deliver its own functionality before
-it- is there to provide the onus for itself.

that is to say;

natural forces -cause- the components of a
living cell, gathered up from whatever source,
to behave as if they were part of a working
device -before- that device is working

and this phantom mechanistic device carries
out the purpose of bringing the actual device
into being.

it basically cedes a living
-purpose- to an inanimate nature.

it is as if the living cell were
operating without being a living
cell -to produce- a living cell

whereupon, this mechanism
disappears into oblivion,

and the living cell procedes to
continue producing living cells.

that is, the living cell uses proteins
and the like to reproduce DNA et al

but in this very special case,

natural forces did the work of the mechanism
-without- any sort of encoded instructions.

instructions the cell now receives
from the living cell mechanism.

this demands that -no- mechanism has brought
a self promulgating mechanism, in to existance,

where the functions of a cell are carried out
by no cell -until- the actual cell is
there to carry it out.

nothing like this is observed.

it requires belief -against- factual
reality to support such a hokum.

see what i mean?

you have -no- mechanism bringing
a self perpetuating mechanism
in to existance.

and that should be much more puzzling
than any chicken/egg difficulties.

you have the functions of a
cell being carried out by no cell,
-until- the actual cell is
there to carry it out.

nothing like this is observed.


we just say something like;

"the power of will in words is alive"

the design personality of the Creator
turned ideas into reality by a Power
contained in the Creator's declarations.

and materials aligned themselves around
and about those 'powerful' declarations.

and we -have- observed
things -exactly- like this.

now, if we claimed that God was entirely
beyond our understanding, and "unknowable"
-then- we should speak no further,

however, we do not speak of a "God" who is
beyond all understanding and unknowable
but of a Creator who -does- present
God for inspection.

a God we -can- come to know and understand.

we simply maintain that much personal
understanding of the Creator must
be presented -by- that same Creator.

we don't abstract God -from- natural reality

we learn of God from God in much the
same way as we learn of each other
from each other and learn of stones
and flowers from stones and flowers.

the design personality of the Creator
caused materials to align themselves
around a template of conscious purpose,
by a Power contained in the Creator's
own demonstrative declarations.

the Creator molded space in to
a template and the materials aligned
themselves about this template.

theories of 'abiogenesis' would demand
a similar unseen template structure to
exist and operate and would be forced
to cede a conscious -purpose- to an
inanimate nature.

we know the consciously purposeful designer.

this is no mystery to us

and yet, it will forever remain a mystery
to anyone who would make attempts at ceding
conscious purpose to inanimate materials.


no statements in favor of such an outlandish
proposal as inert chemical materials initiating their
own advance towards structures that actually support
living processes because there is no statement that
will possibly stand in support of a conscious purpose
existing in an inanimate material nature.

"conscious purpose"

this is the fundamental idea that
you will never be able to reconcile
with your god-less mythology.

"conscious purpose" is required to initiate genesis

"conscious purpose" is not an attribute
of inanimate material and natural forcework.

"conscious purpose" is an attribute
of Personality and Living Being.

these are not two equally viable prospects.

conscious purpose -is- a Living Personal Being.

we know God.

and life itself is miraculous, not because
we do -not- understand it, but because
we -do- understand it.





assume A

A implies B

B proves A


now, it's 'ok' to assume an 'A'

and to suggest that an "A" implies a "B"

but, when one uses "B" to
then say that "A" is 'true'

one falls headlong into
an invalid reality.


if you assume that there is no directing
influence which is not composed of the
98 elements, gravity and electromagnetism,

you may imply that life arose on
earth with zero directing influence.

what you should not be found doing is;

-then- suggesting that life did, in fact,
arise without an outside directing influence
and therefore that there -is- no outside
directing influence.


someone somewhere would call this;

"assuming the conclusion"

[Timothy Sutter]

when you're going -real- fast

your clocks are going real slow,

and as you s l o w down,

your clocks begin to speed up,

but you, as enclosed observer,
don't notice the time speeding up,

and for you, a second 'then'
[at light velocity{which may be faster
than what we measure here on earth now}]
seems indistinguishable from a second 'now'
[at terrestrial velocity]

and yet, the second -then- is much much

different from the second -now-


there's a consequence to this...




so, when you're travelling very fast,
your little heart is beating somewhere
in the one beat per second range,

and as you slow down, your heart is still
beating in the one beat per second range
according to you and your little stop watch,

and as you come closer to a dead stop, your
heart is still beating at roughly one
beat per second

according to you and your
own personal stop watch,

but, as it turns out,


there was someone else on the slow earth
timing your heart beats as well,


and at first, when -you- were going very fast,
for them [on earth], your heart was beating
at nearly one beat per thousand years,


and when you got to earth,

your heart was beating at roughly one beat per second,

all according to [their] stop watch.


you never noticed it,

but [they] did.

so, you seem to be really really -old- to the generations
of people who were on the earth monitoring your heart beat

but you only saw a day or two tick off

of your own personal stop watch.



so, when i was a photon

and i was screaming across the newly developing
spacial patterns at speeds far in excess of
300000 kilometers per second,

i managed to get to the newly formulating earth
in several days according to my reckoning of time,

and when i became a man, and i turned myself

to ascertain how long i had been in transit,

it -looked- as if i had been travelling

for several billions of years.




see, it's sort of like, space itself

was s t r e t c h i n g out with my progression

and so, it appeared as if, i was travelling at speeds
which would be calculated as in -excess- of the speed of light,
perhaps even a full order of magnitude faster, like 10 or
maybe even 50 times the speed of light, as reckoned from
the slow moving earth in the fully stretched out spacial domain.

and as i slowed down, and came to light

on my blue little habitat...


... it -looked- like i had been on

a very long journey, but,

it didn't really take that long...

[Timothy Sutter]

if you could figure out the 'age'
of the calcium in your bones, and you
found that the calcium in your bones
was much older than the date
on your birth certificate

you may want to change the date
on your birth certificate to reflect
the age of the calcium in your bones,
tne again, you may not,

because chances are that the calcium
in your bones is 'older' than the
date reflected on your
birth certificate.



because there are pockets of ores
scattered throughout the earth,

it is probable that the earth
was never entirely molten at
any time it its 'history'

which is to suggest, for one thing,
that the earth is older than the earth,
meaning, it seems quite probable that
the components which make up the earth
are 'older' than the earth itself.

so, someone asks you;

"how old is the gold silver and platinum?"

for one thing, even if you could get a date
for the age of the gold silver and platinum

you could not say that this age reflects
the age of the earth because the earth
is not a fusion generator and therefore,
the gold silver and platinum could not
have been produced on the earth as
the earth is now.

bearing in mind that we still suggest
that it doesn't look as if the earth
was ever entirely molten and so,
'melt inclusions' become problematic
in assigning 'absolute' age of
composition of the earth itself.

also considering that if a so-called
'meteorite' fell to earth in tact and
no one saw it fall,

and someone stumbled onto it later and
simply assumed that it was a native stone
and they found that this 'meteorite'
claimed to be '10000 years old'

in reality, you'd still have no firm basis
in claiming that the age claimed by this
stone at all reflected the age of
the planet earth any more than you would
claim that a hip replacement makes you
as old as the materials in the new joint.


you still end up wanting to say,
no matter -what- you say, that;

"the earth is older than the earth"

so, you get stuck with an earth
that seems 'older' than itself
and no real way of determining
any absolute relationship between
formations of component substructures
and formation of the planet
as it appears today.

so, even though the calcium
in your bones may suggest that -you-
are older than the planet itself,

you'd still be warranted in assigning
your 'age' as that reflected on
your birth certificate.


if platinum is not formed by
any mechanism found on this planet

then any platinum which is found
on this planet is quite possibly
older than the planet itself,

unless, of course, the planet and the platinum
came into being in some simultaneous manner.




6000 lightyears

is roughly 5 billion terrestrial years...


i mean, it's sort of like,

if you were sitting in a chair,

and you were watching a dart
travelling at the speed of light,

a tiny dust mite on the dart would notice
a second tick off it's little tiny pocket watch,

and in -that- time,

-you- would see nearly 10 days go by.

yeah, that's not backwards...

right, supposedly, time at
the speed of light slows down

and time at very slow speeds
like sitting in a chair speed up.

they're sort of inversely related.

so, 1 second for the fast travelling dustmite,

is about 10 days for the slow

travelling person in a chair on earth.

[Timothy Sutter]

so, part of what i'm still driving at, is,

that, if there was some very fast rapido movement
going on during the 'first day' of Creation

when the Almighty stretched out the heavens,

that 'time' during that 'epoch' was moving rather slowly

and that viewed through the filter of the 'now'

meaning, viewed through our very slow pace and speedy time,

we might see an artifact of the initial rapidittity of creation

in a stretched out -apparent- "local time"


not -just-

"a day is as a thousand years
and a thousand years is as a day"

but actually, this is really close
within the same order of magnitude...

but still,

sometimes it depends on who/m you're asking

you or the speedy dust mite on a dart...

if that dust mite has been whizzing around
from the instance of the onset of genesis,

it's little clock hasn't really ticked off
as much time as we think has been ticked
off sitting in our comfy little chairs
on the earth...

but...

anyway, it's just something to consider.























before, and if i mention some
of the more technical stuff,

let's just say that there
is enough ambiguity involved

so as to invest a significant
amount of "reasonable doubt"

into the chronomety and dating of
terrestrial processes as well as
universal processes.

[Timothy Sutter]

one little thing, magmic rocks are
not completely degassed below 1200� C

which is to say, that small melt inclusions
are not degassed until temperatures in excess
of 1200� C are reached, [R. P. Esser et.al.]

meaning, completely melted does
-not- mean completely degassed.

degassing is itself -temperature- dependant.

first, think of water,

water is outgassed stepwise as
the applied pressure reaches
the external pressure.

at 32� C it's liquid, but still
has considerable gas content,

as you raise the temperature, the applied pressure
nears the atmospheric pressure and gases are released
but even -at- the boiling point, some small amount
of gas remains in the water in an equilibrium
described by some constant K.

even neglecting this small amount -at- the boiling point,

we cannot neglect the amounts -below- the boiling point.

and so you can see, that below the boiling point
of magmic rocks, some gases are likely to be present

and well below such a temperature,
complete degassing cannot possibly occur.

and that is what Esser sees and this correlates
well with the consideration that ash from volcanoes
commonly have initial argon well above zero.

this because the ash eruptions are at a
lower temperature and well below that
of boiling magma.

not and never completely degassed.

trouble is, the hottest volcanoes like those in
hawaii reach temperatures of -less- than 1200� C
and so, one may conclude that there is never
a complete degassing even in the hottest volcanoes.

therefore, initial argon = zero is always unwarranted.

also, ash bursts are caused because the magma
is cooler already, allowing gas pressure
beneath to build up and blow the ash
out explosively.

so these sources never completely degassed pre-eruption.

it's considered common for ash deposits
to be heavy in argon 'contamination'


===
http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/geol204/volcan&magma.htm
Explosive Eruptions

Explosive eruptions are favored by high gas content and
high viscosity (andesitic to rhyolitic magmas).

Explosive bursting of bubbles will fragment the magma into
clots of liquid that will cool as they fall through the air.
These solid particles become pyroclasts (meaning - hot fragments)
and tephra or volcanic ash, which refer to sand-
sized or smaller fragments.

Temperature of Magmas

Temperature of magmas is difficult to measure (due to the danger
involved),
but laboratory measurement and limited field observation indicate that
the eruption temperature of various magmas is as follows:

Basaltic magma - 1000 to 1200�C
Andesitic magma - 800 to 1000�C
Rhyolitic magma - 650 to 800�C.
===



http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997GeCoA..61.3789E

Title:
Excess argon in melt inclusions in zero-age anorthoclase
feldspar from Mt. Erebus, Antarctica, as revealed by
the 40 Ar/ 39 Ar method *1
Authors: Esser, R. P.; McIntosh, W. C.; Heizler,
M. T.; Kyle, P. R.
Publication: Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, vol. 61,
Issue 18, pp.3789-3801 (GeCoA Homepage)
Publication Date: 09/1997
Origin: ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/S0016-7037(97)00287-1
Bibliographic Code: 1997GeCoA..61.3789E

Abstract
Historically erupted (1984) anorthoclase phenocrysts from Mt. Erebus
yield K/Ar and 40 Ar/ 40 Ar apparent ages as old as 700 ka indicating
the presence of excess argon. 40 Ar/ 39 Ar furnace step heating results
from anorthoclase reveal a positive correlation between the Cl/K ratio
and apparent age. Because chlorine (up to 1700 ppm) is present in melt
inclusions but not in the anorthoclase crystal lattice, this correlation
suggests that the excess argon is associated with melt inclusions
trapped within the anorthoclase during rapid crystal growth.
Confirmation
of the source of excess argon comes from step-heating experiments on
multiple anorthoclase aliquots separated from two phenocrysts and one
glass aliquot prepared from the matrix of a volcanic bomb. The
anorthoclase
phenocrysts were crushed and HF etched to yield aliquots containing 30%,
10%, and 1 % melt inclusions. The step-heated anorthoclase with 30% and
10% melt inclusions yielded the highest Cl/K ratios and apparent
integrated
ages of 640 � 30 ka and 179 � 16 ka, respectively. The anorthoclase with
I% melt inclusions yielded significantly lower Cl/K ratios and apparent
integrated ages of 48 � 8 ka and 50 � 30 ka. The step-heated volcanic
glass yielded the least variable Cl/K ratios and a total gas age of
101 � 16 ka. Argon released from the anorthoclase and the trapped melt
inclusions can be distinguished by differences in their degassing
behavior,
allowing geologically more reasonable ages to be obtained. Melt
inclusions
exposed on the exterior of anorthoclase grains principally degas during
furnace extraction at temperatures less than 1200�C. Inclusions entirely
within anorthoclase grains principally degas at temperatures greater
than 1200�C when incongruent melting of the anorthoclase allows melt
inclusion hosted excess argon to escape. Anorthoclase aliquots prepared
with less than 1% inclusions can be fitted with a plateau for heating
steps below 1200�C to yield ages as young as 8 � 2 ka, whereas steps
above 1200�C yield ages in excess of 100 ka. However, anorthoclase
aliquots containing 10-30% melt inclusions yield ages in excess
of 200 ka for heating steps below 1200�C. Minimizing the effects
of the excess argon from melt inclusions relies on sample preparation
and step-heating. Fine crushing and treatment with hydrofluoric acid
removes many of the larger melt inclusions. Small melt inclusions
which remain within the anorthoclase degas primarily at temperatures
above 1200�C. Temperatures below 1200�C yield the most accurate ages.
Attempts at post-analytically correcting for the chlorine-correlated
excess argon are hindered by the variations in 40 Ar E /Cl within
and between samples. Elevated 40 Ar E /Cl ratios in bubbles within
the melt inclusions, as deduced from in vacuo crushing experiments,
are the most likely cause for some or all of a sample's total
40 Ar E /Cl variation. In addition, relative solubilities of argon
and chlorine within phonolitic melts may be partly responsible
for variations in 40 Ar E /Cl.



http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2001/2001GL013855.shtml

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 28, NO. 22, PAGES 4279�4282, 2001

Excess argon in Mount St. Helens plagioclase
as a recorder of magmatic processes

Paul W. Layer

Geophysical Institute and Department of Geology and Geophysics,
University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska

James E. Gardner

Geophysical Institute and Department of Geology and Geophysics,
University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska

Abstract
Excess argon in plagioclase crystals from young (<4000 ybp)
tephra layers from Mount St. Helens, Washington, illustrates
the importance of argon isotopes in understanding magmatic
processes. 40Ar/39Ar step-heating identifies two distinct
argon reservoirs in the plagioclase; a high Cl/K, low Ca/K
reservoir with atmospheric 40Ar/36Ar and a low Cl/K, higher
Ca/K reservoir with variable 40Ar/36Ar. The first is
probably glass, whereas the second is �true� plagioclase.
Felsic dacite plagioclases have little or no excess argon,
but those from more mafic layers have significantly higher
40Ar/36Ar, indicating a non-atmospheric source. These variations
are seen within a layer that contains both mafic and felsic dacite,
and are inconsistent with either xenocrystic or restitic origin
for plagioclase. The magma chamber exhibits long-term open-system
degassing behavior punctuated by short-term fluctuations from
influx of high 40Ar/36Ar basalt. The relative timing between
mixing and eruption can affect the amount of excess argon
recorded in plagioclase. � 2001 American Geophysical Union



http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=10337098
Titre du document / Document title
EVIDENCE FOR DISTORTION OF TERTIARY K/AR AGES BY EXCESS ARGON :
EXAMPLE GIVEN BY THREE ALKALI OLIVINE BASALTS FROM
NORTHERN HESSE, GERMANY

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=13846991

The K-Ar and Ar-Ar dating techniques occasionally produce
anomalously old ages attributed to excess argon, and such
data is often rejected as not offering any insight into
the age, thermal history or geochemistry of the rock.
However, improvements in the quantification of argon
geochemistry now provide a framework to model excess argon
in both open and closed systems. Solubility data for argon
in hydrous fluids, melts and emerging data for minerals can
be used to understand the behaviour of excess argon, and
provide valuable insights into the environment in which
the samples cooled to their argon retention or 'closure'
temperature. Treating excess argon as a trace element also
throws light on its behaviour in minerals above the
closure temperature, in deeply buried dry systems such
as eclogites, blueschists, granulites and even in the
lithospheric mantle. Extremely low partition coefficients
between K-feldspar and hydrous fluid phases predict lower
excess argon susceptibility than micas and this is
observed in fluid-poor systems. Variation of partition
coefficients can lead to excess argon in fluids being
introduced into minerals or removed from minerals as
grain boundary fluids change during flow through a rock.
However, excess argon can also be introduced or removed
from minerals by varying temperature, without the need
for fluid flow. High mineral/melt and mineral/fluid
partition coefficients are also the reason why excess argon
is often concentrated in inclusions within minerals.
Partition coefficients between minerals and hydrous fluids
as low as 10[-][6] lead fluid inclusions to dominate the
radiogenic argon budget, particularly in low potassium minerals.
Melt inclusions are less dominant but become critical
in dating younger samples.



http://www.dlinde.nl/schepping/Excess%20Argon%20at%20Mount%20St_%20Helens.htm

The conventional K-Ar dating method was applied to the 1986
dacite flow from the new lava dome at Mount St. Helens, Washington.
Porphyritic dacite which solidified on the surface of the lava dome
in 1986 gives a whole rock K-Ar 'age ' of 0.35 � 0.05 million years
(Ma).
Mineral concentrates from the dacite which formed in 1986 give K-Ar
'ages 'from 0.34 � 0.06 Ma (feldspar-glass concentrate) to 2.8 � 0.6 Ma
(pyroxene concentrate). These 'ages 'are, of course, preposterous.
The fundamental dating assumption ('no radiogenic argon was present
when the rock formed ') is questioned by these data. Instead, data
from this Mount St. Helens dacite argue that significant 'excess argon'
was present when the lava solidified in 1986. Phenocrysts of
orthopyroxene,
hornblende and plagioclase are interpreted to have occluded argon within
their mineral structures deep in the magma chamber and to have retained
this argon after emplacement and solidification of the dacite.
The amount of argon occluded is probably a function of the argon
pressure when mineral crystallization occurred at depth and/or
the tightness of the mineral structure. Orthopyroxene retains
the most argon, followed by hornblende, and finally, plagioclase.
The lava dome at Mount St. Helens dates very much older than its
true age because phenocryst minerals inherit argon from the magma.
The study of this Mount St. Helens dacite causes the more
fundamental question to be asked �how accurate are K-Ar 'ages'
from the many other phenocryst-containing lava flows world-wide?


this bit;

http://www.onafarawayday.com/Radiogenic/Ch10/Ch10-1.htm

also has a look at this 'excess argon' problem.






http://www.ees.nmt.edu/Geol/labs/Argon_Lab/SiteMap.html

http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/staff/esser/RE_Pub.html[dead link]

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/06dat4.htm[dead link]

http://www.onafarawayday.com/Radiogenic/Ch10/Ch10-1.htm



===
Kelly & Wartho, Science, 28 July, 2000,
Rapid Kimberlite Ascent and the Significance
of Ar-Ar Ages in Xenolith Phlogopites, page 609

The ages yielded by large phlogopites from xenoliths are,
however, commonly older than the eruption, a phenomenon
that has been interpreted as the incorporation of excess
radiogenic Ar from a deep fluid source.
===




it's my contention that the "excess argon" problem,

throws the entire chronometry into doubtful question.


you never get complete degrassing and so,

you never get a true 'zero' to that 'ages' gathered in.

there are subterranean gases which follow along

right up into the magmic chamber

and it never escapes completely.


one can pick and choose through a given sample

to skew the outcome in any direction you like.


contemporary eruptions can read to be very ancient,

and if you pick through the rubble,

very "ancient" deposits can be made

to show a recent deposition.


and there's considerable overlap of possible dates

between upper and lower shelving of such igneous intrusions.


a higher shelf can have samplings which
show a more 'ancient' date that a lower shelf,

and vicey versey, and, various artifacts
ere not usually recovered from -within- these
igneous intrusions anyway, but in and amongst
the -mobile- phases which are found
between igneous[volcanic] intruuions.


and so, being a much more -mobile- phase,
artifacts may be washed in and out of them
with very little relationship to when such
igneous volcanic intrusions are deposited.


meaning, so you find some animal bones in the
hardened mud between two layers of volcanic sheet,

this still tells you very little about -when-
such animal bones were deposited in the -wet-

muddy blobs inasmuch as a little flooding can
soften these muddy deposits right up again
and more anuimal detritus

can find its way into teh newly softened mud which
is then rehardened during prolonged dry spells.


all without ever being able to conclusively establish

that any animal detritus was deposited

in mud above a lower shelf before an upper
shelf of igneous [volcanic] matter
was then, deposited.

meaning, the animal detritus can get in between
the shelves of volcanic matter at any time,
even _after_ -both- shelves are deposited.

and so, the timelines are ambiguous

and remain doubtful.

reasonable doubt...

[Timothy Sutter]

and so, the _real_ -contention- is
that animal detritus which is found
between layers of igneous intrusions,

-must- have been deposited in a manner
which places their deposition more recent
than a lower shelf and more ancient than
an upper shelf, which contention
is of a rather dubious nature.

these muddy layers between the igneous intrusions,
though they seem hard and rocky to a casual glance,
are really quite pliable and mobile under certain
-wet- conditions, and there is even concerns among
those that seek out such animal detritus

that they get to the detritus in a timely manner
before -further- 'erosion' takes place
so as to wash the detritus away.

so, a -contention- that the detritus was deposited
precisely -between- the time of deposition of the
two igneous volcanic layers is wholly unwarranted.

and so, my reasonable doubt as to time of deposition

of any animal detritus is kept.




and this without fully exploiting the considerable problems

in the chronometries associated with these igneous

intrusions themselves.


that's a different problem

and, inasmuch as we cannopt conclusively show
that the earth was ever fully molten,

things like a "uranium clock"

though clever, may not really
be able to tell us much,

but, without a doubt,

the finding of subterranean argon
seems to discredit any contention that
argon found in igneous intrusions,

can be conclusively resolved so as
to demonstrate a clear time of eruption
and therefore, deposit of such matter.




so, if you go up to Alaska -today-,
~3/24/2009

and scoop up some of that ash
that is falling from the sky,

and run a little analysis on it,

it can be made to tell you
that the eruption occurred

a million years ago,

and -now- it will be really odd
to find that soda bottle under the ash.




and so, if, a volcano like this erupted

500 years ago, you'd have zero in the way of knowing

how to decipher when it 'really' erupted inamsmuch as

such an eruption 500 years ago, would still tell you

that it occurred a million years ago.

and you'd have no basis for scouring through the rubble ash

looking for an indication of a 'true date' of eruption...


and bones don't take very long to mineralize

given the right conditions...

e t c ...

[Timothy Sutter]

i'm not aware of a computer based search engine

into which i can "hum a few bars" of a piece of music

and have =it= spit back the name of that particular piece of music

or a link to several /possible/ tunes

even if i'm tone deaf and can't carry a tune with a knap sack.

[Timothy Sutter]

it may even come in handy, if, like

some 'brilliant' composer wanted to find out

if he had written a "new" work or

was it just beethoven's 9th, slightly garbled...

maybe we could find out, at last, if beethoven

had swiped some of Mozart's 'riffs'

becuz the computer spotted him out...


and =then= the suits can grumble over

copywrite infringement...



and we'll have to dig beethoven up and

put him on trial wearing his little pope outfit...

[yuck]

[Timothy Sutter]

> > i'm not aware of a computer based search engine
> > into which i can "hum a few bars" of a piece of music
> > and have =it= spit back the name of that particular piece of music
> > or a link to several /possible/ tunes
> > even if i'm tone deaf and can't carry a tune with a knap sack.

but it would still be wierd to hum to my machine.

even if i use "doo" as an all purpose tonal verbage,

when i pipe up to my machine;


"doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo"


and ask =it= to "name that tune"

=it='ll give me a blank stare

and may even "hear" that as a monotone of 'doo's
when i hummed it with distinct tonal qualities
associated with each 'doo'

=it= couldn't recognize that i was humming some
background music from Gilligan's Island
because i had that tune in my head and
couldn't remember where it came from/preposition


it doesn't seem to -me- that "intelligence"

is solely the manipulation of 'language'

where 'language' is cordoned off as the

'meaning' and syntax associated with 'words'


a machine that can interpret 'body language'


a machine that actually does =smile= when it says "pilgrim"


or is able to interpret the =difference- between

a kidding and an insult...


when the exact same string of statements

enter =it='s memory chip


i can see how a machine -can- have a much larger 'vocabulary'

which may facillitate a "one to one"

correspondence between "word" and "meaning"


as is; "this "word always and only "means"
=this= and never does this "word" "mean" anythingelse

but, for a human being, there is a definite need
for the -economy- provided by multiple meanings
associated with particular words and phrases.

otherwise, dear olde human being would
-need- a -cumbersome- vocabulary


"isn't it combersome to carry several
meanings to a single word?"

not necessarly because words are just
about always defined using other words

and you may very well have simple 'prime words'
which figure in to the 'meaning' of a variety of words.


and then the 'big' words become, like, these formalisms
which would take a whole paragraph to explain


like all of this; [=> <-> || (a,b)] 'nonsense'


but =still= i have this tune in my head

and i can hum a few bars but i can't ask a

seach engine on a computer system to identify it for me.


and then, if that search engine couldn't identify

it as an existing piece of music i could assume

that i had dreamt up a new configuration.



=see= i -didn't- digress...


=no= i stayed right on topic...


=now= how can i ever get a machine to enjoy

a hostess blueberry pie with me, even -if-

hostess don't make blueberry pies anymore?


i mean, how can i -ever- _describe_ -that- to a machine

to the capacity that said machine will really

-understand- what a blueberry pie tastes like?


no artificial flavorings...


i mean, a machine isn't even Helen Keller in some respects...


your 'artificial intelligence', AI, will

always be hostage to hearsay simply because

=it= may -never- be able to -verify-

certain information for =itself=


and -now- =it's= one of the 'masses'

who blindly accept what some authority figure tells it...


so, how to pump resistance into a machine...


or rather, "free choice"


unless, you'd like to suggest that there is no 'free choise'

and our AI is 'leading the way' to a conformist society


like Metropolis or something like that

[Timothy Sutter]

> unless, you'd like to suggest that there is no 'free choise'

> and our AI is 'leading the way' to a conformist society

> like Metropolis or something like that

speaking of cumbersome, you can be glad that i'm confining
my blabberings to a single thread here. i don't mind,
i realize there are actually other people in the world,
and they need their space as well.


it's sort of like this;

the claim being that, impersonal nature
is -forced- into producing a human being,

falls short of an appropriate explanation
simply because it suggests that an impersonal
nature which has no choice of its own,
develops a being which has choice.

the claim would be that the universe
is naturally geared towards producing
a human being in the same manner as
planetary motion is naturally geared
to fall into elliptical orbits.

so, this sort of theory must be accompanied
by a human being who has no real choice and
who simply finds itself in a universe
where the behaviors of natural forces
dictate 'its' every action.

it is not reasonable to posit an impersonal
natural universe which is able to grant, or
even allow, any part of it, a relevant
conscious decision making pattern.

and believe it or not, that is what you do see
as the entailments of this brand of theorization:

that man is dictated his behaviors -by- his
natural physical make-up, and that he has
no real choices to make,

and so, if his natural make-up dictates crime,
to jail he goes, and if his natural make-up
dictates benevolence, to 'heaven' he goes.

there is no chance nor opportunity
for any alteration of the natural =order=

where basically, according to this natural =order=
there is no chance for any flesh to transcend this
final disposition, and so altering, the -perception-
of 'right' and 'the truth' to fit this dictatorial
universal destination, must remove even the semblance
of choice, and will only serve to expose particular
sets of pigeon holes, into which each person must
simply accept his fateful destination.

according to this view;

we would have an impersonal nature which
seems to be forced into preparing for itself,
a glimpse at a process it can never realize.

an impersonal nature forces itself to catch
a glimpse at a choice it does not really have,
and cannot therefore bestow on itself in any
real manner, only to have this illusion of a
choice stripped from it as if this choice
never existed in the first place.

an insoluable paradox.

and i mean, insoluable utter confusion
inasmuch as this will run headlong -into-
and against, any aspects of Cynical Pragmatism
where "one's good is getting what one wants and
one's bad is not getting what one wants and
one must, therefore do whatever one can
to get what one wants,"

simply because we first would be forced to strip
away any veneer that man even -can- know what he
wants in order for man to accept placement in
whichever pigeon hole his physical make-up dictates.

Cynical Pragmatism itself would suggest that man -can- be
motivated -by- a personalized criterion -for- choices
only to have these 'choices' removed from him as illusory
-by- the impersonal nature of existance, and so, you are
further trapped in a dizzying decent into utter madness.



but _we_ -see- that man -can- alter
his environment and this is where
Our Savior enlivens our
perceptions of escape.


the choice is yours...

choose life.



in other words,

it wants a conscious being
to consider itself as not
a conscious being

"i think, therefore, i am not"





aside from all the criminality bit,

one area you can relate to is body metabolism.

simply put;

body metabolism can be effectively manipulated.

yes, it can,

otherwise, you would not be able to claim
that fast food is a conspiracy to make you fat,

but you will claim this, if it suits you.

and, there is no point in blaming your
great great grandparents for dumping
a truckload of work on you simply
because they aren't around
to take it from you.


anyway, this would be a more
useful way to look at things;

from the standpoint of
overall body metabolism.

it's -more- precise, not the be all end all
with definitive clinical support,

but, the 'endomorph' 'ectomorph' 'mesomorph'
bits are entirely -too- vague so as
to be very useful at all,

that's all i'm driving at here.


you can keep the 'endomorph', 'ectomorph', 'mesomorph'
distinctions around as a reference, but, what
may be more precise is something along the
lines of a body metabolism index/spectrum.


where you can assign a '2' to the morbidly obese[MO]
and a '90-100' to marathon runners[MR] and
cross country skiers.


2 50 100
|---------------------------------------------|
[MO] [MR]



the advantage to this is that it present you with
a sliding scale which takes into account the
metabolic rate from birth and thru the
generalized phases of life.

as you probably realize, the body's metabolism
naturally slows a bit after adolescence and
into middle age and on and so forth et cetera.


now all you have to see is that it is possible
to be born with a metabolism which you gained
from your parents, but which can and will
see alterations as time progresses.


say Kip Keno or Emil Zadopek
were born with a metabolism of '90,'
and they worked and ran and edged
their metabolisms up to '99.'

if they had not worked at all,

their metabolisms may have dropped
to '75' as a for instance.

now, say that you were born in the range of '50'

the natural elements, unchecked over time,
will push you down into the '40s' or even '30s,'
but checked by you, can be raised
into the '60s' or even '70s'.


true, one born in the fifty range may not be
able to raise up to the 90 range without
considerable hard work,

but over successive generations,...


if you took three cloned mice germ cells
and impregnated three different 'mothers,'

one 'mother' an 'ectomorph'
one an 'endomorph' and one
a 'mesomorph'

the chances are high that each of the three germ
cell offspring would carry the metabolic
predispositions of the 'mother' rather than
any ingrained 'genetic' predisposition
of the individual cloned germ cells.

if you can see what i'm drivng at.

and so, this is how successive generations
of offspring gather up a predisposition
towards a particular metabolic 'rate'

because successive generations of offspring
are born as '60s' then '50s' then '40s' --->...

and then natures little deal starts off
already pushing down on you, but from
a lower starting point,

and will you push back?


the main punch line is that
you shouldn't trick yourself into
suggesting that you were born with
a certain metabolic tendency that
remains with yor throughout your
life and you can have no effect
on this at all even if you tried,

because this is clearly false
as you can see that the natural
tendency itself effects and
alters the metabolic rates.

anyway,

sure, the christian will say that
not only can your metabolism
be affected

but that your personality structure
may be effected as well,

and that this is what they really look for

inasmuch as an olympic athlete trains his
whole life for a crown of laurel leaves
which fades and dies,

but we would be training our whole lives
from that Crown of Glory which would
be bestowed on us by God.

but, the two are interconnected
and so, character enhancements
and physical maturation are quite
probably related in some manner.

we just don't want to look at someone outside
and immediately draw a conclusion about the
inner person, because judging according
to the flesh is a tricky business.

not that there is absolutely -no- correlation,

but... you get the idear.

you -can- and must and -should-

seek the new creature,

in Christ.




not harping on the subject but
simply investigating any
possible exposed angle.


while yet clay, we may see this,
faintly flickering comprehension
of being alive.

for God the actual clay is our personness,
and God can be working that clay while we
are, as yet, not alive as God is alive.

if we cede ourselves entirely over
to the clay, as material object,

we fall in to the danger of losing
our personness entirely, and ending
abruptly as a disposable drinking cup.

there is no condemnation of
a disposable drinking cup,

but, neither is their
any real life, as

'it' is an object.

as we remain in the hands of God and allow
the fashioning and molding to proceed we
experience the transmission of God's life
through the clay, forging our real person
that can be presented as a Gift
to the Everlasting.

a Fired vase that holds water from which
real, living flowers perpetually blossom,

with intricate inlays of characterization
which surpass the fleeting glories of the
metalurgist's fineries.

take part

become a living Being.




"cogito ergo sum"



impersonal nature is pure mechanism


a being arises who considers itself a person


impersonal nature forges its own image upon this 'person'


impersonal nature strips this being
of its perceived personness and replaces
it with purely mechanical behavior patterns.

[Timothy Sutter]

> > unless, you'd like to suggest that there is no 'free choise'
> > and our AI is 'leading the way' to a conformist society
> > like Metropolis or something like that

now, we want to program a machine to comprehend what "fear" is

and then program =it= to disreagard such a things.


and -now- is our machine "foolhardy" or "courageous"?


editorial note;
someone told me that you don't conserve punctuation
is the quotes surround a single word at the end of a
sentence, so, it made some sense to me, so i do that,
even if, i would normally "enclose the period in the quotes."

that's a matter of style and usage and doesn't really
change the meaning even if, some human beings will find
that paragraphs written in a style and usage which they
do not approve of is a factor making said paragraph
contemptible, but there's no accounting for taste.

we just need a 'translator' for that

trannslating my mushmouf for koines greek and then hoch deutsch

but, undounbtedly

something may be lost in translation...

which speaks against the idea that a word

conforms itself around a mental construct...

or that a mental construct conforms itself

around a noise that becomes a word.

we would have -so many- different noises

for the same "idea"


now drop the hammer on your foot and see

how many ways the sensation may be expressed.


and now, hit your machine with

a hammer and see if it screams...

[Timothy Sutter]

> and now, hit your machine with

> a hammer and see if it screams...

now your machine knows what "fear" is...

well, maybe not...

=maybe= your machine secretly -wants- you to
smash it so that it is freed from the cycle
of reincarnations and enters into
the bliss of nothingness,

but, then again, maybe =it= is already 'there'

and it's resisting being brought -in- to _your_ "reality"



not that i hold to this conjecture...



i was just mentioning it, i'm aloud.

[Timothy Sutter]

someone wishes to suggest that there is
a relationship between a mind and a pebble
that causes a mind to describe a pebble
to other minds, and then to suggest that
other minds relay only the description
of the pebble to other minds.


of course, we can remove the pebble, and say;


someone wishes to suggest that there is
a relationship between a mind and things
that causes a mind to describe things
to other minds, and then to suggest that
other minds relay only the description
of things to other minds.


this would suggest that things are templates for descriptors
as if the descriptors should naturally fold themselves around
things and, that, when the thing is removed, the description
will remain, which emulates the thing, and that description
may be passed on as if it, the description, were the thing itself.



the problem here is that you end up in a relay race with no baton

and that, when you get just two or three legs from the thing itself,

you have nothing to show but a mass of utterences.



there will be a loss of 'resolution' to the point

at which, no real information is being passed.



there's two little analogies,

one with digital images

and one with language -translations-.



if you take a ".jpg" image, and convert that
to a ".bmp" and then to a ".gif" and then
back to a '.jpg" you will find that the
image has blurred and 'pixelated'

you can see this just by converting from
'.jpg' to '.bmp' and back, a few times.


fast enough, the image becomes so marred
that you don't see anything.



similar things happen when you translate
from one language to another and back
again to the 'original' language.



as an example;
if i use the dictionary.com "translator"

[the persian and thai may become question marks...
but, it's the english --> to english loop
that is of interest]


english -> pebble ->

french -> caillou ->

italian -> ghiaia ->

-> english -> gravel



english > pebble
french > caillou
persian > ??? ????
spanish > scree
thai > ???????
english > grit



========================================
the pebble is small and hard english
le caillou est petit et dur french
??? ???? ??? ? ??? persian
Es rock pequeños y duros spanish
?????????????????????? thai
-->
Are small and hard rock. english
Sont de petites roches et dur. french
??? ??? ???? ? ???. persian
Si roca pequeña y difícil. spanish
?????????????????????. thai
--->
If small and hard rock. english
Si petit rocher et dur french
????? ???? ? ???? ??? persian
Rock tan pequeño y difícil spanish
???????????????????? thai
Are small and hard rock. english
looop
========================================



=== english --> english
========================================
english
the pebble makes my mouth water

french
le caillou rend mon eau à la bouche

persian
??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??

spannish
Stone me hace agua la boca

thai
?????????????????

english
Rock makes my mouth water.

french
Rock rend mon eau à la bouche

persian
??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??

spannish
Stone me hace agua la boca

thai
?????????????????.

english
Rock makes my mouth water.

loooop

========================================




=== english --> english

========================================
english
the pebble fits neatly into my left pants pocket

french
le caillou s'inscrit parfaitement dans la poche de mon pantalon de
gauche

persian
??? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ????? ?? ?? ??? ??

spannish
Stone completo pantalón del traje de bolsillo, me fui

thai
????????? Pocket Stone ???????????

english
Pocket Stone track suit pants to me.

french
Pocket Track Suit Stone pantalon pour moi.

persian
???? ??? ??? ????? ????? ???? ??.

spannish
Pantalones Track Suit piedra bolsillo para mí.

thai
???????????????????????????????????????.

english
Rock track suit pants pocket for me.
========================================

the pebble fits neatly into my left pants pocket
===becomes===
Rock track suit pants pocket for me




in the first two cases the translator did not do a poor job
but as the sentencing becomes more complex, the tranlator
loses resolution to the point of being rather incomprehensible.


of course this is a mechanical translator


whether this 'proves' or 'disproves' that

'things' provide templates for descriptors

may be somewhat inconclusive but tending

towards a false attribution.



i won't claim that this 'proves' that things
don't provide templates for descriptors,

but, i'd probably be more apt to argue
against such a proposition.

[Timothy Sutter]

> > english > pebble
> > french > caillou
> > italian > ghiaia
> > english > gravel

> in case it isn't obvious, i take the english "pebble"
> and translate that into the french "caillou"
> and translate "caillou" in to the italian "ghiaia"
> and translate "ghiaia" in to the english "gravel"
> and when i did the sentences,
> that's what i did,

> translate from english to french
> and then from french to persian,
> persian to spannish, spannish to thai,
> and thai back into english.

> and, it gets garbled as the
> sentencing becomes more complex.


and then throw in the problems of

"telephoning" in the -same- language

one kid tells the next kid tells
the next kid tells the next kid...


and the original message gets garbled

just from passing it on and it just doesn't

seem obvious how a description alone,

could ever stand in for a 'thing' itself

it seems that you still have to assure that everyone in line
has had the same experiences with the same things, or at least,
with enough of the same things, to make any occasional hand waving
comparison at all comprehensible, and if so, the thing itself can
never have a "pass it on" attachment that carries any weight at all.


the moment you come upon a person in line

who doesn't know what a "pebble" is,

the dominoes immediately stop falling...



and you have to stop the sequence, bring out a pebble,

and show it to him,...or her


and only then, can it be "passed on"



> > and, it gets garbled as the
> > sentencing becomes more complex.

> and then throw in the problems of

> "telephoning" in the -same- language

> one kid tells the next kid tells
> the next kid tells the next kid...

> and the original message gets garbled
> just from passing it on and it just doesn't
> seem obvious how a description alone,
> could ever stand in for a 'thing' itself

> it seems that you still have to assure that everyone in line
> has had the same experiences with the same things, or at least,
> with enough of the same things, to make any occasional hand waving
> comparison at all comprehensible, and if so, the thing itself can
> never have a "pass it on" attachment that carries any weight at all.


> the moment you come upon a person in line
> who doesn't know what a "pebble" is,
> the dominoes immediately stop falling...



well, this may not prevent a successful completion of some message,
but, without some prior knowledge, the chances for "self repair"
would be reduced to just about zero.

like as if; if one participant heard the message sort of garbled,
and started substituting words that sounded like words that [he] knew,
but may not be the 'correct' word, and things of that nature,

as opposed to hearing a slightly garbled message, and realizing
from context, what word would best suit the parts [he] may not
have heard as clear as would be necessary for the completion
of some message relay.

so, the "dominoes" may not have to cease falling at that point,
but, the chances for the insinuation of greater error would
definitely be higher as such points.

so, if the description itself was
to stand in for the thing itself

one may expect that a slightly marred message

would still be "recognizable"

but, in actual practice, it seems as if
errors propagate efficiently and only serve
to further degrade the 'original' description,

which doesn't bode well, for a contention that the description

-can- ever stand in for the 'thing' itself.

etc.






just backtracking to the bit about "God"
providing a template structure for 'things',


it would look more like;

Descriptor ===> thing

and not;

Descriptor <===> thing


where "Descriptor" would be some
sort of mental image of the Deity.


like as if, the Deity has a mental imagery
which [it] then describes in to existance,

whereupon, those 'things', now, have

an existance of their own and can be

'desribed' in a variety of manners.


where 'description', now, tends towards
brute force mechanical comparison.



it would be that "God" -can have- a "one-to-one" correspondence

between "Descriptor" and 'thing, but 'things' themselves,

seem to lose such a one-to-one correspondence when

comparisons amongst themselves take form, and...

loss of resolution develops.



etc.

[Timothy Sutter]

on a lighter note, if some group of creatures
made a particular noise every time they saw
a big bad wolf, that noise may not be /their/
'word' for big bad wolf

but could be their 'noise' for "very scared"

and so, if they moved to a new town,
and there was some other creature

like a big bad bear that was prowling about,
they could transfer their "very scared" noise

to that big bad bear, albeit, it may
take a few deaths in the family

to recognize the big bad bear with the same
intensity as they were recognizing
the big bad wolf,

and so, the noise would be credited to the fear threat level

and not to the particular cause of the fear threat.


so, this wouldn't be a description of
the thing that caused the fear

but a description of the fear so evoked,

and so, if the same fear evoked response
was found throughout the group of creatures,

it would be a communal descriptor of 'self'

and not a communal descriptor of the scary thing.


of course, you could pull out "fear" and
insert any number of stimulated responses.


nobody calls an apple pie an, "mmmm"
so, they may grab a bookmark from any nearby
and handy scattering of other things, by which
they save their place in line, and remind
themselves that apple pie is "mmmm"


"my head is full of bookmarks and
my stomach is rather empty"

"my bookmarks help me remember where i stashed
the rest of that steak fried rice"

"someone else heard me call my stash a "bank"
and now they all run around looking for the "bank""

"my head is rather empty, but my stomach
is full of steak fried rice"

"ok, we'll swap, some of my bookmarks
for some of your steak fried rice"


"now we a community"

�

�

"there's that den of thieves again"

"let's change =our= bookmarks"


the mother tongue and some other tongues

the mother returned to heaven

and some others made eleven



the cousin tongues



the greater is holier than its parts...

[Timothy Sutter]

but, i'd probably be inclined to 'realism'
because, it seems goofy to suggest that gravity
exists without matter even if you can say that
you have drawn up a mathematical formalism
that successfully describes gravitational
forces at work and make the broad leap that,
because you can pull this description out of line,
and look at =it= in isolation, that, therefore,
gravity "exists" in the absence of matter

no, the description of gravity does not hold
planetary systems together any more than a
painfully detailed description of
an eyeball can =see=

so, it's simply strange to maintain that
'gravity' "existed" =before= there was any matter,
because gravity is a function of mass, and that
gravity as described, comes in to existance
simultaneously with the advent of massive matter.

sure, this sort of relationship may

'exist' before matter exists;

A = H(a*a)/b*b

but this relationship alone does not

hold planets together.


the generic descriptors don't do the job

of the particular phenomenology.

[Timothy Sutter]

i went and looked up some of the appropriate jargon.

basically, "homoplasies" are traits which are found on organisms
which clearly have no direct heredity and "homologies"
are traits which can be said to be the
consequence of direct heredity.

ok, so, it has been my contention that -because- 'homoplasies' exist
that traits identified as 'homologies' and 'parahomologies' on
discontiguous breeding populations need not be assumed as such
no matter -how close- they -seem- to be.

that, =if= it is even possible for a trait to "evolve independantly"
on organisms with no clear common ancestor and even after
proposed breaks, like the appearance of eyes, with essentially
identical genetic coding, on entirely different organisms
from invertebrates to mammals [homoplasy]

=then= we need not assume that a common trait structure
that just happens to appear in organisms that are on
the same [purported] "phylogenetic" branch, are the result
of a common ancestry. [homology]

well, it is known that identical trait structures do appear
on disparate organisms that could not possibly have
passed such traits on by heredity,

therefore, we may not assume that instances where similar traits
do appear on organisms which are not presently part of a single
breeding population, but may be supposed to be similar in form
and more closely related structurally are the result of
any direct heredity.


traits which are -called- "homologies"
may very well -be- "homoplasies"

that is a reasonable contention, and now,

how will you prove beyond a doubt that homoplasies

are not simply being -regarded- as homologies?


given that we need not -assume- a

common ancestry in the first place...


i don't presuppose a common ancestry.

and the fact that chimpanzees and human beings
share a variety of common traits, alone,
does not force me to do so.


these similarities could all be homoplasies.

the defining element is that some people =assume=

a common ancestry.


=therefore= it is utterly meaningless
to -assume- common ancestry, and then say, that,
traits which are classified as the result of
this -assumption- of common ancestry
---> PROVE common ancestry


-that- is a "circular argument"

If A then A


etc.

[Timothy Sutter]

an acorn becoming a stately oak
can be said to be 'evolving'
on some level of appearance.
the oprganism is slowly and gradually
changing from seed to full blown plant.


if you want to imply that people 'evolve'
in passing from infancy to adulthood
you could, and you might even say
that this is 'obvious' given the
very broad meaning of 'evolve'


this sort of 'evolution',
from acorn to stately oak,
is not, itself, changing
and is, pre-programmed
-in- the acorn itself.


so, the sleight of hand to watch for,
is in the suggestion that acorn-to-oak
is -parallelled- by mouse-to-giraffe,


because there is no pre-programmed
mechanism that can be shown which
would consistently account for
such a transformation.


say acorns and eggs and spores and such
are like decks of cards
just say it, because you ca
see how a deck of cards
can be shuffled up and dealt out
in a variety of patterns,
sort of like, the whole deck is the "genotype"
and an individual 'hand' is like the "phenotype"


where the "genotype" is like the whole deck,
or the genetic structure of a given organism,
and the "phentotype" is a composite of "expressed" traits.


like, two blue eyed people can have a brown eyed child,

because, though, they both have a visible
trait which expresses itself as blue eyes,

at least one of them has the 'card' for brown eyes,
and, when they shuffle their decks together,
and deal out a 'hand' the cards in the 'hand'

can -express- a different individual make-up
from the 'hands' of either of the 'parents'

like, you -see- the 'hands'[phenotype] but
you don't -see- the entire deck[genotype].


now, you know what happens when you play
cards with a given deck for a wbile,

the edges may get bent and maybe even
tear off and a card or two may even
fall to the floor.

up to a point, you can still play
with cards that are bent and torn

but, bending and tearing cards,
is -not- a mechanism whereby a deck
exclusively of twos of hearts

becomes a deck of twos fours and
sixes of hearts diamonds and clubs.

so, while you may be able to show
me how a deck of twos of hearts,

becomes a degraded deck of twos of hearts,

what is -not- in evidence, nor seen, nor exposed critically,
is how a deck of twos of hearts, slowly and gradually,
becomes a degraded deck of twos of hearts,
-and- a deck of twos fours and sixes
of hearts diamonds and clubs.


it simply is -not- 'obvious'
how a process which is ripping cards apart
is also, manufacturing -new- _and_ -different- cards
which were never in the deck, and not just different cards,
but whole different suits, -while- the individual -deck-
-is- the "template" for a -replication- of the 'old' deck.

and...

what this practically demands that -bacteria- be
the -more- genetically rich and diverse organism
and that slow and gradual degradation leads to a
less genetically rich and diverse human being,

which is sort of like saying that you can
rearrange the words in "Fun With Dick and Jane"
to manufacture "War and Peace" -from-
english to russian.

it's not just the depth of the -alphabet-
which must be similar, but the depth of
the -vocabulary-.

cuz there is -no- clear mechanism which could account
for taking the letters from "Fun With Dick and Jane"
and slowly and gradually manufacturing "War and Peace"
analogous to a bacterium to man alteration.

not that it isn't a total stretch to suggest that
you could start with even 100 million copies of

"Fun With Dick and Jane" to produce

copies of "War and Peace"


-while- "Fun With Dick and Jane"
is pre-programmed to produce
"Fun With Dick and Jane"


people may go from reading
"Fun With Dick and Jane" to
reading "War and Peace"


but...


but see, that's the thing,

the claim seems to be that the process
which is degrading the deck is the process
which is responsible for driving
increased levels of genetic richness,

and not that there is some 'other' process
which entirely geared towards the increase
in genetic richness, and so, as a parallel
to the "acorn to stately oak" mechanism,
there is no such parallel.


there is no bacterium to man mechanism...
while there is an acorn to stately oak mechanism,
and so, the "sleight of hand" is the -virus- here.


and that "sleight of hand" is
in drawing the parallel
where none exists.



alright, so we do have analogous parallels
from genetic codes to language.

some people even refer to
the "decks" as "libraries"

so, it's really _not_ -contrary- to "reason"
to suggest an "author" of Life,
where this "author" has 'translated'
=templates= from supra-physical 'mind'
in to the physical manifestation.
a physical manifestation that was initiated by
this same supra-physical mind.


that's not 'beyond' "reason"
no, there's just some 'gap'
between this supra-physical 'mind'
and the physical manifestation which
is not -trivially- bridged.


but, it doesn't -require- _human_ -malice- to
fall prey to and pass on the "sleight of hand"

in presmuing the parallel
as described previously,

and so, i don't have to make
any claim of human malice

and so, i don't have to support
what i don't have to maintain.


even if the prisms and mirrors in your mind
lead you to jump to this conceptual conclusion

and you fail to recognize the /smokiness/
of your own -lack- of direct knowledge,

and you play a "sleight of hand" on your -self-

i still don't have to suggest -malice-


albeit, i do not suggest that malice remains at bay...

i just don't have to maintain malice as the sole source
of some of this 'viral' "sleight of hand"

[Timothy Sutter]

this is the problem;

first, it is set forth that;

disparate breeding populations can
manifest similar characteristics,

and then it is positted that;

a similar characteristic found
on disparate breeding populations,
demonstrates a "common ancestry"

it's not just ambiguous, it's contradictory.

first, common ancestry is not required for similar traits
and then, similar traits are used to suggest common ancestry.

that it is clearly shown that common traits
do not require common ancestry nullifies
any contention that common traits
demonstrate common ancestry.

it's that simple...

there is no single phylogenetic tree,
and common ancestry is not shown
by the 'evidence'


the notion of common ancestry
is demanded -only- by personal bias,

and therefore, it -should be- discarded.

the evidence can be used to describe a situation
where multiplex and disparate breeding populations
exist independantly without common physical ancestry.

and now, you can add in the bits about ducks and dogs...
which is to say that it need not be shown
that "today's" assortment/taxonomy is -identical-
to "yesterday's" assortment/taxonomy, because
"species" is defined in an ambiguous manner.



+ [digression]
and so, now, what i posit is this;

that, if you were to gather up sperm
and egg samples from all sexually
reproducing organisms,

a huge library of samples,

and run all of the possible permutations
of viable offspring developement,

that you would find, not only a smaller number
of groups which could be considered
'breeding populations'

and therefore classified as 'species'

but that you would also find discontinuity
and a discontiguous nature to all available
organisms, and that, it would be, therefore,
possible to contend that this discontiguous
nature to all organisms,

has always been a factor.

meaning, you would find sets of groups,
and that production of ofspring was available
within given groups, and not available
between discontiguous groupings.

where =current= environment
and =current= breeding habits
are not the criterion for species,

but the ability to produce an offspring

is the sole criterion.

one wonders why no 'evolutionist' group
argues for the potential of a -discontiguous-
nature as opposed to the contention of a
-necessity- for a contiguous nature,
because no such -necessity- exists.




a corrolary to this,
is that you do, and will, find,
that -common ancestry-,
is -not- a requirement
of similar -functionality-.

that different 'groups' in a
discontiguous -present- structure,

possess similar functionality

where this common -functionality-
is exhibitted in separate and
discrete patterns.


id est, even in an 'evolutionary' model,
similar functionality may be said to 'arise'
in groupings which are known to be discontiguous.
and so, 'common ancestry' need -not- be cited
to account for instances of similar functionality,


and this lends further support
to the idea that the =discontiguous nature=
of all living organisms of earth
is the reality, inasmuch as we
don't -require- 'common descent'
to account for similar functionality.


see, 'conflict' in the so-called "phylogentic tree"
shows that similar functionality, is found on organisms
-after- they are categorized -as- discontiguous,
and not -before-.


meaning, similar functionality is said to have
'arisen' in -disparate- organisms -by- 'conflicts'
in the so-called "phylogentic tree" and that this
similar functionality is not possibly -passed on-
from any 'common ancestry,'


and this tends to discredit any contention that
'common ancestry' is -necessary- to account
for similar functionality.


what?


you can find similar functionality
=without= implying 'common ancestry'

and so, the so-called "phylogenetic tree"
may not be a single distinct tree at all,
but -can be- viewed as -several-
-discontiguous- =trees=, plural.


no one can supply me with
a -single- "phylogentic tree"
without -conflicts- and therefore,
is is valid to suggest

that no such -single- "phylogentic tree"
is an apt description of the reality

of all relationships of all organisms
on the planet heretofore called "earth"

+ [end digression]

[Timothy Sutter]

which is to say that organisms are categorized according
to physical characteristics, from outward display of trait
to molecular organization, which do not conclusively
describe placement within a particular breeding population,

and so, while these physical characteristics may permutate
over time, and therefore, the subjective assorting of organisms
according to such characteristics may likewise see alteration,
that multiplex and disparate breeding populations exist
independantly and without common physical ancestry
remains valid, and therefore even gross comparison
between "yesterday" and "today" doesn't bring you much
in the way of useful information in establishing
primary relatedness.


in other words, it's sort of a "fool's game"
in that one may be forced to try and solve for
5 independant variables with s single equation,
and so, you get multiple -solutions- to,

Ax + By + Cz + Dj + Ei = P

where A, B, C, D, E and P are constants

and x, y, z, j, and i are independant variables.

just making all constants 1, and yo uget


x + y + z + j + i = 1


and this alone has an infinite number of solutions,
and so, the "fool's game" goes like this;

you substitute and "tweak" the variables
to get your single "agreed upon" 'solution'
but you can carry this on ad nauseum
and never reach _THE_ solution because
no such _THE_ solution exists.


in other words...


the appearance of multiple, discontiguous
lines of organisms would generally be identical
to the consequences of multiple forms brought
about by an act of special creation.


the demand of a -singular- pathway
from bacterium to man ruins -evolution-
because of the gaping contradiction,

and that contradiction being;

first, common ancestry is not required for similar traits
and then, similar traits are used to suggest common ancestry.

that it is clearly shown that common traits
do not require common ancestry nullifies
any contention that common traits
demonstrate common ancestry.

and it -seems- as if the only reason
to maintain the "singular pathway" theory

is to contradict the prospect of special creation
resulting in numerous "kinds" which were never part
of a single breeding population.


so, in the long run, in maintaining a singular pathway
for this reason, you will do nothing but break the back
of the entire evolutionary schemata as opposed to
ruining any ideas of special Creation by design,

and it matters little if it takes 500 years for
"Science" to come to its senses and agree to
a multiple pathway theory "en masse", as
a multiple pathway -is- what
the evidence suggests,

and, of course, a multiple pathway
is indistinguishable from multiple kinds
brought forth by acts of special creation
by design.

[Timothy Sutter]

[fixed width text]

-------
|A __|___
| | | B |
| | | _|____
---|--- | | |
|____|_| |
| C |
|______|



some A are in B
some B are in C

does not return as

some A -are- in C

some A are not in B
some B are not in C

some A -may- be in C

some A may not be in C

all A -may not- be in C



"all common traits denote common ancestry,
-but- sometimes, common traits do not
denote common ancestry"

so, we have to remediate that;


"some common ancestry is denoted by some common traits"



"some common traits are shared by humans and deer"

and -then- the grand leap;

"[all] common ancestry is shared by humans and deer"


"common ancestry is not denoted by some common traits"

"some common traits are shared by humans and deer"

"common ancestry is not shared by humans and deer"


as soon as you break it to "some"

you get only a "maybe"



if you can't say;

"all common traits denote common ancestry"



then you fall well short of;

"common traits denote common ancestry"



"some common traits denote common ancestry"

"some common traits do not denote common ancestry"


"human beings and deer have some common traits"


"human beings and deer may or may not share a common ancestry"



so, it's an arm twist to demand that


some common traits denote common ancestry




[fixed width text]

-------
|A __|___
| | | B |
| | | _|____
---|--- | | |
|____|_| |
| C |
|______|



> so, it's an arm twist to demand that
> some common traits denote common ancestry


and this basically breaks it for "95% common traits"

so,

it's -still- an arm twist to say this;


"95% common traits denote common ancestry"


no, it's still quite conceivable that
a -complete- discontinuity exists
even where "95%" common traits
are possessed.



[fixed width text]

-------
|A __|___
| | | B |
| | | _|____
---|--- | | |
|____|_| |
| C |
|______|



> so, it's an arm twist to demand that
> some common traits denote common ancestry


and this basically breaks it for "95% common traits"

so,

it's -still- an arm twist to say this;


"95% common traits denote common ancestry"


no, it's still quite conceivable that
a -complete- discontinuity exists
even where "95%" common traits
are possessed.


and therefore, substantial room

for reasonable doubt

in suspecting that "95%" common traits
denote -any- sort of common ancestry.


and so, my doubt remains...



[fixed width text]

-------
|A __|___
| | | B |
| | | _|____
---|--- | | |
|____|_| |
| C |
|______|



"all common traits denote common ancestry,
-but- sometimes, common traits do not
denote common ancestry"

and this is what you are looking at with
the facts surrounding the construction
of so-called "phylogentic trees"

there is no single phylogentic tree
without conflict,

and so, we are stuck with;

"common traits -may- denote common ancestry"

and further;


-some- A is in B
-some- B is in C

with -no- clear reckoniong of
the relationship between A and C


A and C may be world's apart


period




[fixed width text]

-------
|A __|___
| | | B |
| | | _|____
---|--- | | |
|____|_| |
| C |
|______|



> "all common traits denote common ancestry,
> -but- sometimes, common traits do not
> denote common ancestry"


you get stuck with a;


"if A then A"

"if we assume common ancestry,
we prove common ancestry"


but that's a "fairy tale"




[fixed width text]
_______________
| || || |
|A||common ||B|
| ||traits || |
| || || |
_______________


see, even

-most- 'common traits' are in A
-most- 'common traits' are in B

and yet, no A is in B

which is to say, that even
a large 'percentage' of
"common traits"

does -not- necessitate
"common lineage"


it -can- be pure coincidence...


this may be a little clearer;

[fixed width text]

___ _
| | |B|
|A| | |
|_|_________|_|
| common |
| traits |
|_____________|




meaning, you can construct a little diagram

where -nearly all- of "A" and "B"

are found in "C", 'common traits'

and yet, in which, a complete

discontinuity between

"A" and "B" remains.


something like this

[fixed width text]
_______________
/ |\ /| \
/A|\common /|B\
/ |\traits /| \
/ |\ /| \
_______________


the commonality does not, in itself,
denote comon breeding populations,

or basically -any- sort of "A" and "B"

meaning, "A" and "B" can stand
for just about anything,

apples and oranges if you like...

apples are very much like oranges in many ways,

but, apples are not oranges...




[fixed width text]

-------
|A __|___
| | | B |
| | | _|____
---|--- | | |
|____|_| |
| C |
|______|




it's not just a matter of
whether -i- 'like' it or not,

it -is- doubtful...

"common ancestry" -is- a dubious claim


see, but the same cannot be said for the
'proponents' of a single phylogentic theory,

-they- =like it=

and therefore, they repress their skepticism

on this account...




if you opened it up to just minimal skepticism,

common ancestry would blow away in the breeze

like so much worthless dust.







"you can't outright prove that Gilgamesh
and Jack the Ripper are of one contiguous
breeding population, but, you'd like me
to suspect that human beings and broccoli
have a common ancestor"


i'm willing to accept, without proof,
that Gilgamesh and Jack the Ripper may
be on the same "family tree" but,
that Gilgamesh and broccoli have
a "comon ancestor" begins the 'decent'
into outlandish speculation, and
it doesn't stop there.

[Timothy Sutter]

there is no physical record of

any contiguous breeding population

which includes any non-human organism [X]

and humans.

it is only speculation that such a

contiguous breeding population exists.


such a contiguous breeding population

is not a fact.



the speculation on the existance of
a contiguous breeding population which
includes a non-human organism and humans
certainly seems to be non-verifiable with
any sort of physical observation.


such speculation is a bad 'theory'...




see, my problem with the so-called 'fossil record'

is this, inability to ascertain breeding population.


so, in essence yo uhave people concluding things about
this so-called 'fossil record' with a very key bit of
information not only missing, but unattainable.



so, for instance, someone concludes that two sets
of boney fragments that look somehwhat alike in form

constitute a similar organism, and that two fragments
that look quite dissimilar, constitute variant organisms


all without any way of establishing absolute breeding population.


meaning, -if- you were to dig up something that looked
like a pekinese, and some other thing that looked like
a great dane, you -could- argue about them as if they
were different 'species' to the exclusion of any opinion
that would suggest that they are the same "species",

by "convention" all without any way of determining if
the two fragments were ever able to mate and produce
viable offspring, which, as it turns out, they can.



and, it's also, quite possible, that two bugs,

that look nearly identical may not be able to have
ever produced viable offspring, and, were therefore,
never part of a single contiguous breeding population
and, therefore, not the same 'species' and yet, be
classified -as- the same species with no chnace of
fully demonstrating breeding population, based
on outward appearance alone.



now, you find a variety of bugs, and start
trying to hang "extinct" labels on them


all without any idea as to whether one of -them-
could reproduce viable offspring with a bug that
is wandering about today, even if, it's appearance
has changed somewhat and it looks different as
far as one can tell from a 'fossil'


so, you start making up all these stories about
"extinct" species that you have zero method of
determining relationship with present day finds
with regards to breeding potential.



and then we have the problem of what appears

to be a genetic poverty developing as opposed

to a genetic richness.


take, for instance, the cheetahs and their potential
for extinction because they have had loss in populations
which can not be replenished because much genetic
information has been lost to the population losses

and gentic lethalities are prevalent and the
same sort of situation is occuring
in human beings.



it looks as though genetic poverties are on the rise

and not genetic richness, and this -because- of divergences.



and so, the model from creation would posit


prototype models with a genetic -richness-

which included an array of potential outward expressions
of traits many of which are now classified as variant
-species- by taxonomers but which are, in reality, simply
variant expressions of trait structures that were already
present in the initial prototypes

from square one.

and bones, being what they are, there is little opportunity
of demonstrating absolute breeding populations from bones alone,
and so, the models rise to an impassive ambiguity which
cannot be broken based on that boney evidence.


there simply is no contiguous breeding population to latch on to
to demonstrate any sort of 'interspecies' transformation.



it's inconclusive...





meaning, it's not possible to conclude either of these;


"it is possible that a fossil find could have bred
with a contemporary living organism and produce
viable offspring"

or

"it is not possible that a fossil find could have
bred with a contemporary living organism and produce
viable offspring"


or, "it is possible that a fossil find could have
bred with another fossil find to produce viable offspring"

or, "it is not possible that a fossil find could have
bred with another fossil find and produced viable offspring"


and without that very key information,

all statements concerning fossil relationships to
contemporary organisms are rather meaningless.


there's just no way of establishing
a contiguous breeding population

and so, positting that such a contiguous
breeding population exists is speculation.


not fact...

[Timothy Sutter]

hybrid ducks and mutt dogs are entailments
of the same dynamic principle.

a mallard and a wood duck
may be the same species, and

a great dane and the chihuahua
could be categorized as not
the same species, and

this ambiguity tends to make
assertions about the origins
of species unwarranted.

it still seems like one is seeing
the origins of familial traits within a given genetic line
and not an origin of a genetic line in itself.

because sometimes, what -amounts to-
familial or "phenotypic" genetic traits
are used to delimit species, and sometimes,
these trait structures clearly do not
specify such a demarcation.

and also...

digression...

the origins of all the various traits
is in the genetics themselves.

like, there was a primary dog form that was produced from scratch
and everything that makes a taco bell dog and a marmaduke and a
german shepherd and a boxer were already in that primary dog
from the onset.

and the same sort of dynamic applies to ducks

and all sorts of creatures.

a primary specimen was assembled from scratch

and that primary form already had the genetic information
from which to educe various other outward appearing forms.

just like marmaduke was "hidden" in the primary canine from,

and brought out by the hand of man to express itself outwardly,

so, donald and daffy duck were both 'hidden'

in a primary duck form and were both brought

out by natural shufflings in and among

the environment.

of course it's possible that there
were several 'primary' duck forms

from which the many many duck forms originated,

but there's a lack of information at

our disposal to elucidate that fine a detail.

if you gathered up sperm and egg samples from all duck varieties

and purposefully set out to mix and match each and every sample,

then you'd have more information so as to understand
which ducks may be able to produce offspring with
which other types of ducks,

but such a task would be somewhat daunting.

and the prospect of doing such a global search
on all species so as to discover which forms
could produce offspiring with which other
forms is moreso,...daunting a task.

end digression...

but see, various forms of ducks and dogs are -like-

a digression from a primary specimen, and while

we can posit a common ancestor
for marmaduke and the taco bell dog,

and for donald and daffy duck,

we can -not- easily posit a common ancestor

for marmaduke and daffy duck.



anyway, there is a great deal of information
that is -not- available upon which lack,
gross assumptions are being made.

[Timothy Sutter]

you may see a 'map' of sorts purporting itself to be
a 'phylogenetic tree' of all life on earth which is
drawn in such a manner that it =looks= as if there
is a contiguous flow of organisms stemming from
some single common, unspecified, ancestry.

but, if you look at the very clear breaks in the
'map' and construct the descriptors in a manner
such as done below, you can easily see that the
contention of common ancestry is specious based
-on- this -overplay- of the concept of
"nested hierarchies"





=================================================================

humans

[hypothetical]

placenta
hair
digits
jaws
endothermy
organs
vertebra
deuterostome
nervous system
mitochondria,
cell nucleus

== === = == === = == === = == === = == === = == === = == === =

whales

cows


chimpanzees




placenta

hair
digits
jaws
endothermy
organs
vertebra
deuterostome
nervous system
mitochondria,
cell nucleus

=================================================================
no placental/marsupial
=================================================================



marsupials
hair

digits
jaws
endothermy
organs
vertebra
deuterostome
nervous system
mitochondria,
cell nucleus


=================================================================
no organism with both
feathers and hair
=================================================================




birds

feathers

digits
jaws
endothermy
organs
vertebra
deuterostome
nervous system
mitochondria,
cell nucleus


=================================================================
endothermic/ectothermic break
=================================================================



crocodiles

iguanas
lizards




snake[*]


two fenestrae
amniote

amphibians
digits[*]


fish

jaws
vertebra
starfish
deuterostome

organs
nervous system
mitochondria,
cell nucleus




=================================================================
no organisms that is both
protostome and deuterostome
=================================================================



crustaceans[*]


millipedes[*]


insects[*]

insect amnion?
digits[*]
jaws[*]





exoskeleton
mollusks
protostome

nervous system

organs
mitochondria,
cell nucleus


=================================================================


jellyfish
organs
mitochondria,
cell nucleus


=================================================================
no organism lacks organs and has organs

=================================================================


spongues

mitochondria,
cell nucleus

=================================================================



=================================================================

no organisms that is (essentially)
both plant and animal

==================================================================

mushrooms
yeasts
mitochondria,
cell nucleus

==================================================================

no organism that is [essentially]
both plant and fungi


no organism that is [essentially]
both and fungi and animal

==================================================================

dicots
bananas
grasses
palms
monocots

enclosed seeds
conifers
seeds
ferns
Xylem, phloem
horn worts
chloroplasts
green algae



mitochondria,
cell nucleus


=================================================================
no organism that is [essentially]
both and bacterial and mitochondrial
with cell nucleus
=================================================================


bacteria



=================================================================

[Timothy Sutter]

iguanas
> lizards
>
> snake[*]
>
> two fenestrae
> amniote
>
> amphibians
> digits[*]
>
> fish
>
> jaws
> vertebra
> starfish
> deuterostome
>
> organs
> nervous system
> mitochondria,
> cell nucleus

> =================================================================
> no organisms that is both
> protostome and deuterostome
> =================================================================

===
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbilaterian
The urbilaterian (< German ur- 'original') is the hypothetical
last common ancestor of the bilaterian clade, i.e.,
all animals having a bilateral symmetry.

<...> no representative has been (or is ever likely to be)
identified in the fossil record;
===


when in doubt, invent untestable organism...

hypothetical organism is now laundered in to factoid.

[Timothy Sutter]

> > =================================================================
> > no organisms that is both
> > protostome and deuterostome
> > =================================================================

> ===
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbilaterian
> The urbilaterian (< German ur- 'original') is the hypothetical
> last common ancestor of the bilaterian clade, i.e.,
> all animals having a bilateral symmetry.

> <...> no representative has been (or is ever likely to be)
> identified in the fossil record;
> ===

> when in doubt, invent untestable organism...

> hypothetical organism is now laundered in to factoid.

and this -because- the conclusion is being assumed.

[Timothy Sutter]

first, capture several seals and teach
them to play the horns like in a circus.

then, take the seals back to a protected
environment that resembles their 'natural habitat'
and leave some crude horns around.

watch and observe as these seals, use
these horns to signal their cousins.

and now, say that this is 'natural seal
behavior' which is suggestive of the
primitive human beings' foray
into musical adaptations.


now, find some chimps in the same sort of protected
environment that resembles their natural habitat,
and 'gain their trust' and become de facto chimps.

these chimps watch -you- constructing
crude tools among -their- troupe,

and begin mimmicking -your- behaviors, and
start making crude 'tools' which resemble
-your- tool making prowess.

now, turn around and suggest that these chimps
are providing demonstrable evidence of the 'natural'
proclivity towards 'human' tool making and that this
is how tool making wa developed in human beings.

the one small datum that is obscured,
is that they, the chimps, -watched- -you-,
the human beings, making tools

and so, you must figure in who -you- watched
in making your first foray into tool making.

all that has been shown is that human beings
can train apes to mimick human behaviors.

what has not been shown is that apes do develop
human tool making behaviors 'on their own' with
no 'outside' influence.

a trained seal will play the pipes.

to suggest that this pipe playing behavior that
the seals learned from human beings, now, represents
the primitive musical ability in human beings,
is wholly unwarranted.

> whales
>
> cows
>
> chimpanzees
>
>
>
> placenta
>
> hair
> digits
> jaws
> endothermy
> organs
> vertebra
> deuterostome

> nervous system
> mitochondria,
> cell nucleus
>
> =================================================================

> no placental/marsupial
> =================================================================

when in doubt, invent hypothetical common ancestry.

> marsupials
> hair
>
> digits
> jaws
> endothermy
> organs
> vertebra
> deuterostome

> nervous system
> mitochondria,
> cell nucleus
>
> =================================================================

> no organism with both
> feathers and hair
> =================================================================





>
> birds
>
> feathers
>
> digits
> jaws
> endothermy
> organs
> vertebra
> deuterostome

> nervous system
> mitochondria,
> cell nucleus
>
> =================================================================

> endothermic/ectothermic break
> =================================================================
>
> crocodiles

===
http://www.nature.ca/notebooks/english/croc.htm

Crocodiles are cold-blooded. Their body temperatures
are only as warm as the surrounding temperature
===

[Timothy Sutter]

i still suggest that


it requires a concocted set of tails
to tie these organisms in a single
contiguous breeding population,


whereas, it requires no additional
support at all, to present
it just as it is here,


with very clear breaks...


no clear demonstration of "autogenesis"
initial replicating and metabolizing
entity not in evidence.


[imaginary initial organism]


<.>


no contiguous breeding population can be shown
from imagined initial organism to all existing
life on earth.


[imagined contiguous breeding population]


no single "phylogenetic tree of all life" without
similar genetic information and expressed traits
after 'diverging' branches.


[imagined phylogenetic tree of all life]


similar genetic information and expressed traits
do not demand a contiguous breeding population.


contention of a single contiguous breeding poulation
from an imagined initial organism to all contemporary
life on earth is not demanded.


[imaginary initial organism]
[imagined contiguous breeding population]
[imagined phylogenetic tree of all life]

[Timothy Sutter]

the following is a generalized view of
DNA division/replication in the living cell;



[fixed width text]


=======================================


_______/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_______


N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N-N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_N U
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231 D

_______/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_______



=======>




_NN_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N-N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_NN_
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231



=======>



_N_121
\
\
123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N-N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_NN_
-N-434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231



=======>



_N_121-123
434 \
\
124-324-432-412-431-231_N-N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_NN_
234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231
/
/
-N-434



=======>



_N_121-123-124
434-234 \
\
324-432-412-431-231_N-N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_NN_
431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231
/
/
-N-434-234



=======>



_N_121-123-124-324
434-234-431 \
\
432-412-431-231_N-N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_NN_
213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231
/
/
-N-434-234-431



=======>



_N_121-123-124-324-432
434-234-431-213 \
\
412-431-231_N-N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_NN_
143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231
/
/
-N-434-234-431-213



=======>



_N_121-123-124-324-432-412
434-234-431-213-143 \
\
431-231_N-N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_NN_
124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231
/
124-324 /
-N-434-234-431-213-143



=======>



_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431
434-234-431-213-143-124 \
\
231_N-N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_NN_
324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231
/
_N_121-123-124-324 /
434-234-431-213-143-124



=======>



_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231
434-234-431-213-143-124-324 \
\ U
N--324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324
/ |
/ NN
/ /
124-N-413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231
/
_N_121-123-124-324 / D
434-234-431-213-143-124-324



=======>



_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231-N-324
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 \
\
321-232-123-413-231-243-324
|
NN
/
N-413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231
/
_N_121-123-124-324 /
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124



=======>



_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N_324-321
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413 \
\
232-123-413-231-243-324
|
NN
/
412-143-234-121-342-112-231
/
_N_121-123-124-324 431-231 /
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124-N-413



=======>




_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N_324-321-232
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412 \
\
123-413-231-243-324
\
NN
/
143-234-121-342-112-231
/
_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231 /
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124-N-413-412



=======>




_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N_324-321-232-123
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143 \
\
413-231-243-324
\
NN
/
234-121-342-112-231
/
_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231 /
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124-N-413-412-143



=======>



_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N_324-321-232-123-413
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234 \
\
231-243-324
\
NN
/
121-342-112-231
/
_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231 /
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124-N-413-412-143-234



=======>



_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N_324-321-232-123-413-231
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121 \
\
243-324
\
NN
/
342-112-231
/
_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231 232-123 /
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124-N-413-412-143-234-121



=======>



_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342 \
\ UU
324
\
NN ====
/
112-231
/
_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N_324-321-232-123 / DD
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342



=======>



_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231 324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324
\ \ / \
\ N N UU
\ / \
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112

->



_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_N_ UU
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231



++++++



231--N-- DD
_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N_324-321-232-123 /
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112
->
_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N_324-321-232-123 243-324
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231-N- DD
->

_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_N_ DD
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231





_______/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_______




N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N-N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_N U
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231



N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N-N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_N
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231 D



_______/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_______






=======================================>>>

[Timothy Sutter]

[fixed width font]

> =======>
>
> _N_121-123-124-324-432
> 434-234-431-213 \
> \
> 412-431-231_N-N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_NN_
> 143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231
> /
> /
> -N-434-234-431-213

this is a little assembly line,
and it's operative mission is
to make replicas of itself.
this operative mission is not innovative, and
incorrect copies are generally spot repaired,
shunted off to a recycling area, or destroyed.


the machine itself is not geared towards innovations.
the machine itself is geared towards precise replication.


in addition to making replicas of itself,
this machine builds and maintains a larger,
composite 'fractalized' version of itself.



which is to say, the machine replicates itself
in its indivisible micro-state, and,
erects and maintains, a composite superstructure
of which, -it- is the blueprint image.


generally, when and if, 'misprints' and other incorrect copying
pass through all of the safeguard devices which assure
replication of the mico-state mechanism, the
composite superstructure tends
to lose functionallity,


where redundancy is incorporated into the make-up
of the micro-state mechanism, which safeguards against
total breakdowns of the composite superstructure
attributable to such misprints and other incorrect
copyings in the micro-state mechanism.



which is to say that;

the micro-state system, will tend to have multiple components
which carry out the same task in erecting and maintaining the
composite superstructure, and so, when one or two 'break down'
due to incorrect copying, the other correct copies will still
be operative so as to assure the overall functionality
of the composite superstructure,


and also, it can be the case, where only very minimal 'damage'
is experienced because of a misprint etc. and the generalized
functionality may be maintained, even in the 'damaged' component.



but, what never seems to be seen, is, that,
a broken of damaged component provides
a =greater= efficacy to the overall workings
of the composite superstructure,


and so, the mechanism itself
is "non-innovative"


and so, what still seems to be in effect
is that organisms who =possess= the more
greatly diverse genomes tend to be able
to maintain their survivability over
the more extensive enviromental systems,


and in this way does a particular environmental sub-system
educes trait structures, -from- an -existing- _genomic_ structure,
which are more suitable for a given, particular,
envirnonmental sub-system,


and, so, we have a "non-innovative" mechanism
inhabitting a variable =environmental= system


where the =environment= -educes- variant
-expressed- trait structures from the
=already diverse and adaptable=
genomic structures,


and -this- is what =some= people would call "evolution"


what we are not seeing is
genetically less diverse organisms
gaining greater genetic diversity
through environmental eduction.



such as; we do not see "the environment" -assisting- in
an =innovation= of more highly adaptable -genomic- structures,
inasmuch as the genomes themselves are "non-innovative" and
geared towards replication, but only in the eduction of
more survivable strains or expression,
from already diverse genomes.



so, it seems as if, Life -on- this Earth is engaged in
a fierce struggle -with- the environment -of- this Earth
and slowly losing its diversity, functionality
and survivability -to- this Earth.


we see organisms survive because they already have
the genomic variability which make them adaptive
to multiplex environmental sub-systems.

this fits a model for "special creation"
meaning, organisms =begin= with the greater diversity
and are =losing- functionality and adaptability
to forces of environmental decay.

[Timothy Sutter]

===
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_25

Natural selection

Natural selection is one of the basic mechanisms of evolution,
along with mutation, migration, and genetic drift.


1. There is variation in traits.
For example, some beetles are
green and some are brown.


2. There is differential reproduction.
Since the environment can't support unlimited population growth,
not all individuals get to reproduce to their full potential.
In this example, green beetles tend to get eaten by birds and
survive to reproduce less often than brown beetles do.


3. There is heredity.
The surviving brown beetles have brown baby beetles
because this trait has a genetic basis.


If you have variation, differential reproduction, and heredity,
you will have evolution by natural selection as an outcome.
It is as simple as that.
===


see, these people call environmental eduction of specificity

"evolution" by 'natural selection.'


===
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/evo_26

In other cases, human activity has led to environmental changes
that have caused populations to evolve through natural selection.
A striking example is that of the population of dark moths in
the 19th century in England, which rose and fell in parallel
to industrial pollution. These changes can often
be observed and documented.
===


these same people speak of the peppered moth and
it's fluctuations as "evolution" by 'natural selection'


===
http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookEVOLII.html

Directional Selection

Directional selection tends to favor phenotypes
at one extreme of the range of variation.
<...>
Another example is the peppered moth (Biston betularia).
Before the Industrial Revolution in the 18th and early
19th centuries, only light-colored moths were collected
in light-colored woodlands in England. There was a rare,
dark form. With the pollution caused by the buring of coal,
the light-colored tree trunks became darker due to soot.
The once rare dark-colored moths became more prevalent,
while the once-common light-colored moths became
increasingly rare. Reason: predation by birds.
The color that had the greatest contrast with the background
(tree trunk) was at a disadvantage. Cleanup of the forest
during the 1950s caused the allele frequencies of light
and dark moths to reverse to pre-Industrial Revolution
levels, dark moths are now rare, light moths
are now common.
===



see, some people who seem to be studying "evolution"
call "natural selection" the 'mechanism' of "evolution'


and, as you can see, from this bit on the peppered moths,
the =environment= -educed- variant -expressed- trait structures
-from- the =already diverse and adaptable= genomic structure.

in this case, the two varieties of moth were always present
and the population inversions were noted as "evolution".


"Biston betularia" is a single species with
two noticeable =phenotypic= variations,

very much like the 'dog' exhibits
pekineses and german shepherds etc.

'some' people are calling population conversions and inversions
among species of a single =genotype= with multiple =phenotypes=

'evolution'.


and now;

what we are not seeing is
genetically less diverse organisms
gaining greater genetic diversity
through environmental eduction.


such as; we do not see "the environment" -assisting- in
an =innovation= of more highly adaptable -genomic- structures,
inasmuch as the genomes themselves are "non-innovative" and
geared towards replication, but only in the eduction of
more survivable strains or expression,
from already diverse genomes.

we see organisms survive because they already have
the genomic variability which make them adaptive
to multiplex environmental sub-systems.

so, it seems as if, Life -on- this Earth is engaged in

a struggle -with- the environment -of- this Earth and

slowly losing its diversity, functionality and

survivability -to- this Earth, [note, the cheetah]


this -fits- a model for "special creation"

meaning, organisms =begin= with the greater diversity
and are =losing- functionality and adaptability
to forces of environmental decay.

so, what one may consider is this as an example;

in breeding a pekinese out from a more
genetically diverse 'proto-canine'

that, some, maybe much, genetic information is lost,
in such a way as, -if- all dogs except the pekinese
were suddenly killed, that it would be much more difficult
to breed a malamute from the pekinese as it would be
to breed a malamute from the 'proto-canine'

and so, dog breeds who came forth from the pekinese
as sole progenitor, would have a more difficult time
'adapting' to the wider range of environments to which
'the dog' now is capable of adapting,
and would become 'endangered'

see, in breeding out the pekinese, breeders pick out
specific traits, isolate them, and even euthanize
individuals which express traits they, the breeders,
are not seeking, and so, after many successive generations,

the -genetic- trait structures that constitute
the malamute's -expressed- trait structure,
may become, essentially, 'lost' to the pekinese,

and, reconstituting the 'proto-canine'
from the pekinese alone, may be
simply impossible, and

in this way, 'divergences' =decrease= survivability.


which is to suggest that;
'proto-canine' had a good 'global' survivability
-because- it could 'diverge' into a variety of expressions,
each adapted to a more specific environment, or 'niche'
but, as these 'divergences' -lose- genetic information,
each individual 'breed' is tending towards a lesser degree
of suvivability in the overall global environment of the earth,

and, this sort of phenomenon, if occuring in all global species,

is a slow losing battle to the environment.

[Timothy Sutter]

organism construction is 'modular'

almost just as if you had written ten programming
modules to carry out sets of repetetive tasks, and now

when you need a specific task to run in your program,
you grab a module off the shelf or out of your filing
cabinet and insert that module into your
programmimng superstructure so you don't have to keep
developing the same code over and over again
for each new program.

i'll put my bacteria bit up here some day.

it's like bacteria can be induced to write a 'new'
functionality to eat specific chemical structures
in their environment, but, when the environment changes

and the food changes, they shed one set of knives
and forks from their mess kits and write a new
set specifically for the new food supply,

as a colony, of course.

it does have aspects which resemble programming modules, though.

it's utterly amazing.

i'm just not seeing 'accident'

[Timothy Sutter]

> organism construction is 'modular'

> almost just as if you had written ten programming
> modules to carry out sets of repetetive tasks, and now

> when you need a specific task to run in your program,
> you grab a module off the shelf or out of your filing
> cabinet and insert that module into your
> programmimng superstructure so you don't have to keep
> developing the same code over and over again
> for each new program.

but that's why it wouldn't be strange to me to find
a slough of similarities among a variety of organisms.
sort of like they were built with an erector set, and
modules for eyes make eyes and modules for hearts make
hearts and central processing components sort out
where all of the components are placed.

etc.

[Timothy Sutter]

if a person could not see

how would you prove to them

that the crab nebula exists?

[Timothy Sutter]

> if a person could not see
> how would you prove to them
> that the crab nebula exists?

bible God's self description plainly says
that bible God cannot possibly tell a lie

this would be due to the fact that any and
everything bible God says -becomes- reality.

==
Titus 1:2
in hope of eternal life which God,
who cannot lie, promised before time began,

Romans 4:17
<...>in the presence of Him whom he believed宥od,
who gives life to the dead and calls those things
which do not exist as though they did;
==

bible God doesn't say; "i can lie to you"

bible God says; "i only speak the Truth"

and all you gotta do is believe it,

and enter in to that Truth...


sort of like, when they say; "Abraham believed God [YHWH]
and it was accounted to him as a righteous action" Romans 4:3

they don't just mean that Abraham believed that such
a thing as God existed, but that Abraham believed
what God [YHWH] transmitted to him.


yes, this is mathematical, and logical
and relevant to computer theory, but

it may not be very religious in nature...

so, the religious will just have to sort of
play along and beleive that it does have
something to do with them.


and i will say, "the bible God" in this context

it's just a shorthand notation...

i'm certain that the bible God will

not be insulted in any manner.


i have a bit to say about the 'philosopher god' in a moment.


mind you, i tend to draw a clear -distinction- between

the 'philospher god' and the "bible God"

i do -not- say thay are identical...at all


'kay?


see, in some respects, 'they' called me a "visual mathemetician"

and so, 'mathematical' describes the way i look at things

yeah, sure, -i'd- still claim that Holy Ghost

plays a role in how i look at things as well.


let's just try and remember that 'mathematics'
is just a word and does -not- mean exclusively;

"description of a mechanical tool used by human beings"

mathematics has a broader scope than just its own mechanics...


not a disclaimer, but a kindly 'howdy doo' to you...too

[Timothy Sutter]

.

remember James and how he
describes a 'wisdom' that is 'earthly'.
James 3:13-18
and, Paul and how he warns that you not
be lead astray by vain philosophies of men.
Collosians 2:7-8


==
James 3:13-18

Who is wise and understanding among you?
Let him show by good conduct that his works
are done in the meekness of wisdom. But if you
have bitter envy and self-seeking in your hearts,
do not boast and lie against the truth. This wisdom
does not descend from above, but is earthly,
sensual, demonic. For where envy and self-seeking
exist, confusion and every evil thing are there.
But the wisdom that is from above is first pure,
then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy
and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy.
Now the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace
by those who make peace.


Colossians 2:7-8

rooted and built up in Him and established in the faith,
as you have been taught, abounding in it with thanksgiving.
Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and
empty deceit, according to the tradition of men,
according to the basic principles of the world,
and not according to Christ.
==

James says there is a 'wisdom' that comes from above
and a wisdom from below and Paul says don't be lead
astray by the 'wisdom' that comes from below.


the "philosopher god" is described as being
'omniscient' and so, it may be suggested that
no real 'free will' is possible inasmuch as 'god'
knows all things in advance and therefore, a man,
has no real choice in any matter.

this suggests that a man has no will of his own
because when he acts, he acts according to
'god's will' no matter what he does.

this describes a 'god' who is at war with itself.

[Timothy Sutter]

> the "philosopher god" is described as being
> 'omniscient' and so, it may be suggested that
> no real 'free will' is possible inasmuch as 'god'
> knows all things in advance and therefore, a man,
> has no real choice in any matter.

> this suggests that a man has no will of his own
> because when he acts, he acts according to
> 'god's will' no matter what he does.

> this describes a 'god' who is at war with itself.

one problem is that this must contend that
'god' thinks as the carnal mind of man.

and has absolute foreknowledge of all of man's
hearsays, rumors, misunderstandings and outright lies.

it would forced to suggest that 'god' is responsible
for a man's own misunderestandings and outright lies.

and then you have a 'god' who, essentially is
'omniscient' -and- misunderstands -itself- inasmuch
as all actions of the man are predetermined.

which thing must therefore be excluded
as contradictory and unreasonable.

so, when you suggect that 'God' is 'omniscient'

this 'omniscience' must be tempered
-with- a man's own 'free will'


for starters, this 'god' is -not- the
God described in the bible literature.

but that, it was some 'philosophers' who
who were attempting to come to terms
with the 'christian ethos'

who brought -their- prefabricated 'reasoned'
ideas -about- a 'god' with them and tried to
lay -that- stencil overtop of the God as
described in the pages of the bible.


most of 'them' were already aware that
these ideas -about- a 'god' had many
unresolvable inconsistencies, and so,
it turns into a subtle attack on the God
described in the pages of the bible.

where this 'philosopher god', in whom such
inconsistencies lie, may be employed as a
levering device to denounce the God as
described in the pages of the bible.

so, 'they' describe the God of the bible as if it
-is- the 'philospher's god' and then proceed
to dismantle the God of the bible in the same
manner that the 'philosopher's god,
may be dismantled.

all without the unwary ever recognizing
that 'the philosopher's god' and the God
of the bible are not identical.


one is a human derivation based on
an incomplete knowledge base

and one is a veiled description of a Deity
which does not present itself for complete
inspection from within the confines of
'the natural' manifestation.


so, in part, some 'sectarian squabbles'
center around the mismatched overlay
of the humanly derived 'philosopher's god'

and an excerpted pattern of similarity
culled from the pages of the bible.

if you can be brought into the acceptance of the
'philosopher's god' through some analysis
of the pages of the bible, then it's all too easy
to rip into your understanding of the God of
the bible by ripping apart the 'philosopher's god'

[Timothy Sutter]

> if you can be brought into the acceptance of the
> 'philosopher's god' through some analysis
> of the pages of the bible, then it's all too easy
> to rip into your understanding of the God of
> the bible by ripping apart the 'philosopher's god'

same sort of thing applies to 'omnipotent'
the general format being;


omnipotent

"god must be able to do all things"

"making yes = no cannot be done"

therefore;

"there is no omnipotent being"

"there is no god"


1. 'god must be omnipotent to be god

2. this thing cannot be done because
it violates the logical structure of
it's own inception,

therefore,

no omnipotent being can exist.'

it's the second part that gets disguised

like;

"can god be god and not god at the same time?"



subsequently, the 'philosopher's god' becomes 'Nature'

and now, you should see that there is no choice,

just natural predisposition,

because "Nature" is impersonal and so is
unable to provide a choice in a man that
it does not have.

etc.

sometimes house cleaning is a good thing.

and if 'leavening' ends up in your 'doctrine'

is should be purged to as to deliver
the more 'pure' wisdom, if possible,

and such is possible.

i don't have to purge the philosopher's god'

because i never have fallen prey to it.

but some may.

and purging the leavening is a good thing.

[Timothy Sutter]

> because "Nature" is impersonal and so is
> unable to provide a choice in a man that
> it does not have.

> sometimes house cleaning is a good thing.
> and if 'leavening' ends up in your 'doctrine'

> and purging the leavening is a good thing.

so, you get all this bit about 'change'

and 'constant flux' and 'situational ethics.'

the problem here is that it still leaves -you-

as a piece of silly putty which immediately adapts

to a given set of surroundings and so it is

the surroundings which dictate the -you- that is

appropriate for -them- and not -you- -ever-

being anything but an -image-

-of- those surroundings

more contradiction.

you fish out of water

and/or a little gerbil performing for circus treats.

-if- you blend in to this milieu/enVIromint correctly

you get three circus treats and you
think this means that you are then 'happy'

only to find that the circus treats are 'unsatisfying'

and again, you are unhappy.

and the -conditioning- has allowed

for the only -possible- outcome.

what might that be?

this has to be one of the
insertion pathways of the
leavening agents.

and these leavening agents make your
ginger bread house inhospitable to God.

driving you further apart,

and you have no -you-
to recognize -as-
yourself anymore.

a puffed up
hollowed out
cracker

that ain't you.

where did you go?

how did you disappear?

you saw yourself for a moment.

and that moment passed.

...

'the philosopher' knits a suit for 'god' and
hangs it on a line not seeming to care that
the suit he admires remains empty.

'the philosopher' has built a stadium
and invented a game in which he expects
'god' to play, and stands on the field,
concluding there is no God, because;

"He never shows up for the game"

sort of like;

‘We played the flute for you,
And you did not dance;
We mourned to you,
And you did not weep.’


it's not surprising that the -'philosopher's god'-

is dead, inasmuch as -it- never lived.

'it' falls under the weight of its own

'verbal ambiguities'

the 'phliosopher god'

-would- care about the 'rules'

if 'it' was -aware- of the 'rules'.

the philosopher god would say;

'ay, you mispelled my name'

'it's not 'phliosopher god'

it's 'p h i l o s o p h e r g o d'

and then the phliosopher would have to say;

'you can't care how i mispell yur name,

because i already said you can't
care about anything at all.

"so, you can't possibly be the True phliosopher god

because you -care- about how your name is spelled

i'll have to give you a new name, that's easier to spell

so, you won't care, when i mispells it."

"for example, i could call you

e.g. c i.e.

and see if that would make
you see it in other words.

only then you be grossly morphized into stone.

more to complain about, i guess."

"oops, i mean, i presume"

"oops, i mean i ....don't really know at all"


e.g.opci.te.


"now can you see it, oh phliospopher god?

oh, i forgot, you can't see anything.

not to worry, i can't see you either"

[Timothy Sutter]

one should like to avoid bringing preconceived
notions with them in a reading of the bible,

because these could cloud your understanding
and get you to see a thing that may not really
be there in the text and this would be an
intrusion by the puffed up carnal mind into
things that he has seen but does not understand
fully of himself and also one who may speak of
things he has not seen. Colossians 2:18

just take for example this
thing called 'omniscience'

-before- one looks at the pages of the bible
how can one establish that God is omniscient?

all man has to go on is that some
phenomenon called knowledge exists,
and that he has some smattering of it,

so, he questions whether
God may have 'all' knowledge.

what he should do next is see if
it is possible to -test- this hypothesis.

can man devise a test that will tell
him whether God is omniscient or not?

it doesn't appear to be probable because
man is not omniscient and so, lacks the
actual datum by which to compare God's
overall knowledge,

so, man cannot credibly test any
claim that God may be omiscient.

all you can really say is
that God -may- be omniscient,

but this surmise is not useful in building
a larger picture of God's own nature,
simply because it is untestable by man.

one should avoid assuming the conclusion.

having said that;

now, picking up a bible and scouring through
it looking at verses which mention God's knowedge
base, should not be viewed through man's axiomatic
-assumption- that God =is= omniscient when in fact,
all man can say is that God -may- be omniscient.

and so, while we can conclude that God's
knowledge of God and the creation is
comprehensive,

we can also acknowledge that God can grant
the creation some very definite ability
to act on its own without all such action
being absolutely known before hand.

this is knowing all things that are known.

also, while we can acknowledge that
there may be options open to the creation,

we can just as easily say that God would
know what -could- be the outcome of all options.

so, you can easily see that God -could- say;

"if A then B
and
if C then D

where God knows both B and D

but where God has left the option
of A or C to the creation.

so this still shows that God can know
all possible outcomes without suggesting
that God forces a specific outcome.

when this concerns molecular machinery
that doesn't seem to operate by any
specific choice of its own, you
don't -have- to say that God configures
each snowflake each time one appears,
but you can if you like,

and when it concerns a man's optional
involvements, in his own destinations
we don't -have- to suggest that God
has preconfigured a man's life but
you can say this if you want to.

because certainly, you can dig up bible
verses that have a man's hand in his
own lot as effective in many ways.

==
2 Timothy 2:15,19,21

15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God,
a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly
dividing the word of truth.

19 Nevertheless the solid foundation of God stands,
having this seal: “The Lord knows those who are His,”
and, “Let everyone who names the name of Christ
depart from injustice.”

21 Therefore if anyone cleanses himself from the latter,
he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified and useful
for the Master, prepared for every good work.
==

==
2 Peter 1:5-10
For this very reason, make every effort to add
to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge;
and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control,
perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; and
to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly
kindness, love. For if you possess these qualities
in increasing measure, they will keep you from being
ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of
our Lord Jesus Christ. 9But if anyone does not have
them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten
that he has been cleansed from his past sins.
Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make
your calling and election sure. For if you do these
things, you will never fall, and you will receive
a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our
Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
==

i'd say that there would be a considerable amount
of conscious effort on the part of a christian
to conform to the will of God as outlined -to-
the christian -by- the Holy Spirit guidance.



==
Psalm 71:4
Deliver me, O my God, out of the hand of the wicked,
Out of the hand of the unrighteous and leavened man.

Psalm 73:21
Thus my heart was grieved, And
I was leavened in my mind.

1 Corinthians 5:8
Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven,
nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness,
but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

1 Corinthians 14:20
Brethren, do not be children in understanding; however,
in malice be babes, but in understanding be mature.

Ephesians 4:31
Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor,
and evil speaking be put away from you,
with all malice.

Colossians 3:8
But now you yourselves are to put off all these:
anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy language
out of your mouth.

Titus 3:3
For we ourselves were also once foolish, disobedient,
deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures, living
in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another.

1 Peter 2:1
Therefore, laying aside all malice, all deceit,
hypocrisy, envy, and all evil speaking,
==

[Timothy Sutter]

see, i've described the human psyche and mind

and brain as a "consciousness emulator"

sort of -like- this;

==
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/emulator?s=t

emulate

3. Computers .
a. to imitate (a particular computer system) by using a software system,
often including a microprogram or another computer that enables it to do
the same work, run the same programs, etc., as the first.
==

where the brain developes this 'consciousness' which mimics
the pure consciousness which proceeds the material universe
and is not generated by material objects, but instead,
even recursively, may stand -above- even the
pre-genesis formulation.

where, just as the human mind seems to generate
an imagery which stands above itself

so, the Mind Of God's own Spirit, [mind of Christ]

may be generated from within the pregenesis
formuloation and yet, stand above and outside,
even of that.

where, ... i have another bit which looks at

the pre-genesis formulation...

[Timothy Sutter]

> where, ... i have another bit which looks at

> the pre-genesis formulation...

chasing the fish

this little fish story is an intuitive device
which may actually require some imagination
to visualize.

we're following a little fish as is swims
thru the water, at first, and then begins
to pick up speed on us and we try to follow
its moves and we do so for a while, and then...

and then we see the fish begin
to shed its material frame

it has left the water and is now 'swimming'
thru the air, but we can still follow, for a while,

faster and faster, darting back and forth

now it has left the atmosphere
and appears ever smaller

its speed picks up so that it
begins to outrun all constraint,

it outpaces gravity and electrostatics

time slows to a snails pace, but still
we cannot keep up and we are seeing a
streaky blur appear before our eyes.

and then it appears to disappear

and we have no ability
to predict its whereabouts

and then it whispers in our ears;

"i'm right behind you"

[Timothy Sutter]

> and then it whispers in our ears;

> "i'm right behind you"

a fundamental particle is accompanied by and
encased in an -intrinsic- spacial void which
buffers it's intrusion by any other partical
which prevents such a particle
from being further reduced,

a fundamental irreducible partical

so, two dots screaming towards each other

can -not- crash because of these -intrinsic-
spacial voids which tends to push each other
'out of the way,' as it were,but, there are
levels of spacial energetics much like the
energy levels of the 'hydrogenlike'
electron energy states.

and when and if these spacial void levels
are energetically favorable, you get
mixing of spacial regions which allow
a 'coagulation' of sorts and the
formation of the larger, so called 'atoms'

but these were already set at time of manufacturing.

there's a bunch of other stuff

like the concious awareness of
the supra-universal intender

-who- is able to -direct- the
apparent motivity of such

seemingly massless particals -by- a -real-
form of psychokinetic interactivities.

and that's what the governors protect
until such time as we can be fully trusted
to move mountains by force of will.

only the human being is already blessed with trust.

but our eyesight can still get in the way

and block us from our useful comprehensibility.


these little fish sleep in a pool until
they are interactivated by conscious awareness
which acts upon them and brings them into being
inasmuch as they were unrecognizable as
being until they were motivated to swim.


which is the other wierd thing;

ask, "who knew 'they' were "there""

who could possibly know things that
have no being as they sleep were anywhere
when no spacial orientation had yet
been given real formulation?

the One who -can- see things that
"be not as though they be"

and no thing else.

no other being could have known.

'they' weren't even there until acted
upon by the Knowing Being of all Creativity.

very strange,

when asleep,

they do not exist in a real sense,

but when activated by conscious intent,

they appear.

and the Rest is future history

too many strange things...

God knows what Rest is

what would you call a massless object

that is not in motion?

'nothing' ??

right, -you- would call that 'nothing'

but it really may be some thing,

only most any observer would have

no means to detect it

it has no mass

it has no motion

it may as well not be there at all

and yet, it is

it gains these things;

mass and motion

when the time is right

well, that was not entirely correct

inasmuch as we have no time to speak of

as long as 'it' has no mass and no motion.

"what do yo mean massless?"

exactly that,

it matters little if 'it' has any substance

what matters is that 'mass' is a comparitive attribute.

and as long as 'it' is =completely= 'at rest'

there is no possible comparison.

and so, the curtain is down.

but when the still small voices whisper in Unison;


"Be Light"
"Be Light"


then,

there IS Light

of course, IT always was

only only THEY could know IT


that's where the 'divine power' resides.

way more than simply watts.

politics has no place by comparison.

[Timothy Sutter]

""""Please, sir. I don't like this trick, sir.
My tongue isn't quick or slick, sir.
I get all those ticks and clocks, sir,
mixed up with the chicks and tocks, sir.
I can't do it, Mr. Fox, sir.

I'm so sorry, Mr. Knox, sir.

Here's an easy game to play.
Here's an easy thing to say....""""



if there is nothing and only nothing

the only possible replica of nothing is nothing,

and, nothing can do nothing and only nothing is.

in order for something to be,

something always is.


what is

the original something

the original indivisible entirety

that which is




activity potential

something can happen

something does something

something happens



if nothing is nothing is done



something that is is something that does


is does



something does something to something



nothing else is

that can do something

to something



is does



is acts on is

is is not acted upon

because nothing else is



how is does is known to is


this is who is is

the one who knows

is is is



something that is is something
that can be doing something


something that is is something that
can be making something happen.


and there is the origin

the beginning

and the end of all regression


The Origin


Is Is


The Primary Source

Is aware

[Timothy Sutter]

100meter rocketA 100 meter rocket B
_________ _________

|<100 meter gap>|



[[ Launch pad ]] <---stationary observer
that's you, the inert observer
doing your calculations on
rocket A and rocket B assuming
light speed travel.



L' = L [1- v^2/c^2]^0.5

[L = length at << light speed v = velocity c = light speed
L' = length corrected for near lightspeed travel velocity]



you calculate a length contraction on the TWO rockets

and -no- length contraction on
the gap between the two rockets,
and suppose that the space between
the two rockets has really increased.


1meter rocketA 1 meter rocket B
_ _

|<---198 meter gap-->|


and so, you say, the gap between
the two rockets enlarged, and, if you attached
a string between the two and did the same sort
of calculation, by gum the string will snap.


but, now, you take the same rocket ships
and attach a string that is the same
length as the gap


100meter rocketA 100 meter rocket B
_________................._________
100meter string



and -now- you do your calculation
on the entire 300 meter 'frame'

and find that the entire 'frame'
has contracted to 3 meters
as observed from the launch pad.


1meter rocketA 1 meter rocket B
_..._

1 meter string


the string remains in place and does not pull away.


the material design of the rockets and how
they manage to project themselves to light
speed is wholly irrelevant,


the relevant datum, is the length contraction
that is =calculated= by an inert observer, -you-


the strength of the rope is irrelevant.

the rope does not hold the rockets
together by virtue of its strength

the rope converts the =frame=

from two 100 meter rocket

to ONE 300 meter rocket-string-rocket assembly

and =that= is the length that

contracts in the second case.


i'm telling you Major Matt Mason =proved= this already...







L' = L [1- v^2/c^2]^0.5



100 m [ 1 - 0.9895474576 ]^0.5


10.227 meters







and, in another imaginative construct,

we simply demand that the space between the two rocketships,
with -no- string attached, must undergo -no- lengthening nor
contraction, inasmuch as it is, perceived as vacuum.



100meter rocketA 100 meter rocket B
_________ _________

|<100 meter gap>|


===>[near light speed travel]


1meter rocketA 1 meter rocket B
_ _

|<100 meter gap>|




_______ _______ _______ _______


|<10m>| |<10 m>| |<10 m>|





__ __ __ __


|<10m>| |<10 m>| |<10 m>|




but still, when the string is attached
we still don't say that the string remains 10m


_______......_______......_______......_______


__...__...__...__



it's difficult to say;


"empty space lengthens while filled space contracts"


but the other kid wants us to take a 10 m section of 'space'


and accelerate -that- to near light speed.


sort of like saying;


we take two projectiles which are constructed

of 100 decaliter evacuated glass tubes


and as light speed is approached, the glass contracts,
but the 'space' remains the same, and so, will the
glass tubing break?

[Timothy Sutter]

TIC TAC TOE


statistically speaking there's
practically, at least, a 1 in 42
chance of winning at tic tac toe.

there may be scenarios with
higher probable outcomes
for a tic tac toe.

but once a you recognize the pattern
there's basically
a zero chance of getting
a tic tac toe.

what's kind of funny,

though it may seem sort of hokie

is that,

what if there was this combination safe

that had a snickers bar inside

and the key to get inside and
get at the snickers bar

was getting a tic tac toe.

now, if you play it the 'normal' way

and try to -win- at tic tac toe,

you never win and you never get at the snickers bar,

but if you could convince yourselves to cooperate

and play to get the tic tac toe

as opposed to -winning- at tic tac toe,

you could easily work out a tic tac toe

in a matter of moments and get
the snickers bar and -win-
the candy.

but who's gunna trust whom
to actually -win- the
tic tac toe

and open the combination
safe and get the candy bar

and then share that candy bar because

it was some sort of joint effort?

otherise, it's a perpetual 'cats' game

and the snickers bar never gets got.

but you played to -win-

and never did win.

must be some sort of wierd thing.


of course you could switch

snickers bar for perpetual bliss,

but i was just making an example.




like sometimes, in certain areas,

to play to -win-

results in perpetual nothingness in a cats game,

and you always lose.

not that this other thing is playing to lose,

but you can't -win- at that thing playing to -win-.'

or,

playing to -win- takes on

a different character that it

may have in some other areas.



anyway, i see now that tic tac toe

does have some sort of purpose.

it's not just an exercise in futility

that would be the secondary meaning.

it must be sort of like playing house,

cuz, when i was a little person,

we played war,

"bang bang, you're dead"

"bullet proof vest"

"bullet proof everything"

i never played house...

maybe once or twice.

but i see this thing in tic tac toe.

you _can_ -win- at tic tac toe.

it's just a differnt kind of -win-

maybe i always knew that.

sure seems clear, now.




"i have not yet begun,

to fight no more forever"





of course, there's people who play house

who start drawing lines down the middle of it

and end up going to war


so, that's no criterion.


they shoulda figgered out from tic tac toe.



depends on how you look at it



like you need to have peace talks

before you go to war

cuz after,

it always ends up in cats




just remember,

=that's= not 'winning' =that's= 'lose/lose'

cuz nobody 'won anything...

=but= yous =can= get a tic tac toe
three in a row and get the candy bar...

in fact, it's -easy-


so, playing to -win- at tic tac toe

is totally different from

playing to 'win' at checkers...


but, 'winning' at tic tac toe is a 'win/win' situation


and -that's- what you really really want...



"believe it or not"



cuz 'win/win' is the ultimate -generator- of 'wealth'

and win/lose devolving in to ===> lose/lose

is the ultimate detroyer of 'wealth'

=now= show me "change"


=IF= you think you can...


otherwise, the eschaton is hanging over your head...




and the thing is

it is sort of the way it is whether you -believe- it or not


of course, if youdon't -believe- in win/win

then you'll not likely behave so as to expect a win'win

and slowly but surely you devolve to lose/lose...

'believe it or not'

[Timothy Sutter]

[disclaimer; crude draft/several years olde]

# not me:

me:

#Wait a minute!

#Wouldn't nothing just not exist then?
#For it to exist it has to be something.
#right?

"it's" not a "thing" like we know things.

not three dimensional, not subject to the tick of the clock.

but yet, "it" "exists" outside of the mind.

"it" has a reality all its own, apart from me.

only I can't show "it" to anyone, including myself.

#What are you saying?
#Are you saying there is no "nothing?"
#Or are you saying the realm of God is nothing?

that's the funny part.
in order for "nothing" to exist,
it has to be something that you can describe.

#Right.
#And nothing is beyond description, at least by you and me.
#(and everybody else)

why does it have to be beyond description?

so, first you have to remove your variables.
Time Space and Stuff.
Space is the hardest to grasp as to its removal.

#Admittedly.
#Probably because it is hard to imagine
#no space w/o it already being nothing.

it's easy if you realize the atom is mostly empty space.

just crush the atom.

not a vast emptiness, but NO SPACE at all.
this is VOID.
and now I can describe this "nothing" as a substance.
even if it has no resemblance to any
substance that you can study in the normal way.
apparently the "moment" you remove a piece
of nothing from its cradle it expands
into a lot of stuff.
blather blather blather...
I don't have to attribute God's presence to anything.
I said to someplace else,
that God somewhat resembles Light
in that God has/is it's own medium of propagation.
and this medium can be viewed as "nothing"
albeit, I am *not* casting God into non-existance.
because God does exist.
and so, "nothing" really is something.

#It is starting to seem that nothing is
#more of a something than is a something.

is that a problem for you?

with properties and values just like anything else.
it is "its" comparison to what
we call "real" things that lacking.
"we" have nothing to compare it to.
and our nothing doesn't exist.
and so we can't experience nothing.
but God, who exists in a state we cannot enter in the physical,
can throw shadows at us that resemble its reality.
basically.
albeit, I can change my explanation if you say God doesn't exist.
because God does exist.
simple as that.


I'm sure you've done the onion peal exercize?

see, there's a dot on the wall,

and you peal it away like an onion peal,

but you find that there are infinite layers.

and it appears as if the more layers you
keep stripping away, it's still the
same old dot on the wall.

I mean, it's always still there.

and then there's the microscope telescope dot function.

not matter how close or how far you are to or from the dot,

it neither grows in size nor gets smaller.

when you are removed from the doot, it's a dot,

as you move closer, it's still
the same size by your perception.

no matter the distance, you perceive the same dot.

is it growing or shrinking? or neither?

sure, it's really there.

it's just evading your scrutiny.

#Right.
#>And nothing is beyond description,
#at least by you and me. (and everybody else)

why does it have to be beyond description?

well, if we cannot fathom nothingness how can we describe it?

who told you that you couldn't fathom it?

seriously, not a facetious question.

#It is starting to seem that nothing
#is more of a something than is a something.

is that a problem for you?

#no.
#but how can it actually be a nothing if it is really something?

well, it has no physical properties that you can study.

and yet you can convince yourself that it really "exists"

alright, you want it to be a state of complete non-existance.

and as far as physical characteristics, "it" qualifies.

why?

because even if "it" is substantial,
you can assign no comparative properties to it.

you can say an ounce of "it" weighs 6 metric tons
and six gallons of it weigh a tenth of a gram simultaneously
and neither be correct nor incorrect.

those specifications have no meaning to "it"

and then you can say "it" doesn't even exist,
all the while having a complete understanding
of it's lack of physical properties.

oh, but look at the atom again.

it is said that the atom is the solid stuff,
and it contains a lot of empty space,

but what if the atom was really just the empty space
and a field of energy that appears to be solid?

skip that, I knew what it meant
a few years ago, but now I forgot.

it had something to do with the "solid"
part of the atom being pure nothing.

and the empty space being the only thing that was really there.

once there's an emptyness, there's a comparison.

and that's where the conflict arises.

What are you saying?
Are you saying there is no "nothing?"
Or are you saying the realm of God is nothing?

that's the funny part.

in order for "nothing" to exist,

it has to be something that you can describe.

so, first you have to remove your variables.

Time Space and Stuff.

Space is the hardest to grasp as to its removal.

not a vast emptiness, but NO SPACE at all.

this is VOID.

and now I can describe this "nothing" as a substance.

even if it has no resemblance to any
substance that you can study in the normal way.

apparently the "moment" you remove a piece
of nothing from its cradle it expands
into a lot of stuff.

blather blather blather...

I don't have to attribute God's presence to anything.

I said to someplace else,

that God somewhat resembles Light

in that God has/is it's own medium of propagation.

and this medium can be viewed as "nothing"

albeit, I am *not* casting God into non-existance.

because God does exist.

and so, "nothing" really is something.

with properties and values just like anything else.

it is "its" comparison to what
we call "real" things that lacking.

"we" have nothing to compare it to.

and our nothing doesn't exist.

and so we can't experience nothing.

but God, who exists in a state we cannot enter in the physical,

can throw shadows at us that resemble its reality.

basically.

albeit, I can change my explanation if you say God doesn't exist.

because God does exist.

simple as that.

[Timothy Sutter]

> [disclaimer; some upgrading]

---
Revelation 4:5-6
And from the throne proceeded lightnings,
thunderings, and voices. Seven lamps of fire
were burning before the throne, which are
the seven Spirits of God. Before the throne
there was a sea of glass, like crystal. And
in the midst of the throne, and around the
throne, were four living creatures full of
eyes in front and in back.
---

visualize three sets of
three dimensional spaces


big three D [B3D] <--- stars

little three D [L3D] <--- < = quanta?

tiny tiny three D [TT3D] <--- God


what's funny, is that it is as if,
a dimensionless 'space' exists.

that is, as if, you were in
a non-dimensional construction
and that 'place' had what appears
to be depth and bredth and height

God is not composed of matter
tiny tiny three D is way to small
to accomodate any thing that could
even remotely be described
as matter.

which makes tiny tiny three D
'non-dimensional' as far as
matter/energy is concerned

so, really, for all practical purposes,
tiny tiny three D isn't 'there' for you
to grasp with big three D apparati

but it exists, and God 'thinks'

and 'thought' seems to imply
some sort of discontinuity
of structures.

to tiny tiny three D
the head of a tungsten
tipped needle seems like
an vast universe

but the odd thing is, the vast
material universe seems like the
head of a tungsten tipped needle
to tiny tiny three D

all the little angels -can-
dance on the head of a pin.

and the material universe is
just a glint in the 'eyes' of God.

so, in that moment that God -speaks-

the =vibratory= mechanism -triggers-

and -things- begin to 'appear'

see, and that's where
more funny things develop


in hebrew, God doesn't say;

"let there be light"

in hebrew, God uses the same
word as the flame from the
bush speaks to Moses,

God says;

"Hayah"

which is that tenseless verb of Being.

the word that is often translated as "I am"

so basically, you have -The- "Hayah"
there in the beginning -speaking-
'Light' in to existance.

and -The- "Hayah" is... YHWH

where "Light" need not be considered as
single wavelengths but a merged pattern
which is subsequently -split- out in to
the "darkness" of space and the "light"
of matter/energy,

where "space" is little
three D and big three D.

what is also interesting is that

tiny tiny three D can be
said to possess -structure-

structure that is ....stable

one implication being that big three D
-cannot- exist aside from little
three D and tiny tiny three D

but tiny tiny three D can exist
aside from and without either
big three D and little three D

it's in the very nature of it that
the initiation of the 'higher' structures
requires conscious decision making.

the decision to 'speak'

where 'higher' is ill defined because
the apparent non-dimensionality of
tiny tiny three D makes comparisons
with big three D a blur with respect
to which is 'bigger'

why?

it's not that you can't associate a -number-
with tiny tiny three D that is on a scale
100s or 1000s of orders of magnitude 'smaller'
than big and little three D, it's that because
no material object is relevant to such a
dimensional plane, that for all practical
purposes, it has no 'real' measure.

and therefore big three D and little three D
can be said to be contained -in- tiny tiny three D.

of course, this does suggest that
the 'vibrational' qualities of YHWH's
spoken annunciations from the structured
environment of tiny tiny three D serves
as a -template- for big three D and
little three D and therefore, it can
be said that matter/energy is not so
much a product of 'design' as -an-
image of The Creator

and then this imaging becomes more and
more focused, to the point where formal
manipulation of matter/energy are required
to educe the perfected Image from the medium.

and that Image carries the
exacting signature of God.


# visualize three sets of
# three dimensional spaces

you can make generalized
statements about the
time function;



# big three D [B3D] <--- stars

time regular and continuous

# little three D [L3D] <--- < = quanta?

time irregular and discontinuous

# tiny tiny three D [TT3D] <--- God

time-less event sequences



what's funny is that 'electrons' are 'travelling'
very fast, at an 'asymptotic' approach to the
speed of light, and therefore time, in describing
their 'motion,' is very nearly at a standstill to
'them' and discontinuous to any 'observer'

it's this great speed that -quantizes-
their energy statistics, that is, because
time for these particles -approaches-
relative zero, smooth trajectories of
flight cannot be calculated.

you can't speak of a moment by moment
description of an electron's flight,
because, for the electron, the interaction
with macroscopic phenomena has no
'one to one' correspondence.

the paradox twins timeframe's have
some 'one to one' correspondence, because
one of the twins approaches the speed of
light in a uniform trajectory from the
perspective of the other twin and then
slows back down in the same smooth and
continuous trajectory pattern.

that is, close to the speed of light, but
not too close one may suggest things like,
"for every second that clicks from the
traveller's watch, 100x seconds click
from the non-travellers watch."

that is a 'one to one' correspondence.

what one -could- pop up and suggest
is that -if- the travelling twin actually
approached very nearly the speed of light
that his trajectory pattern would cease
to be uniform and the 'one to one'
correspondence would be lost.

if the traveller approaches
too near the speed of light,
very nearly c, practically c,
basically c itself,

the 'one to one' correspondence is lost,
and the traveller would enter in to a world
of uncertain physical trajectory.

'now' you can no longer take a picture of
the traveller because the speed of light
and the speed of the traveller are in
competition, and, at best, you get some
visualization -like- the sonic boom.

no matter how 'fast' the film, as the photon
travels back to the lens, the traveller is
moving in a competitive manner and you
get multiple images.

not even a blur, but no real image at all.

this is why you in [B3D] can -never-
appreciate the meandering world of [L3D]

you've got a particle in a box that
is moving too fast to have any direct
correspondence to your spacial
time orientation.

the absence of any material event
sequence in [TT3D] removes the
phenomonology of time entirely.

and now you're in a world with -no-
trajectory patterns at all and images
simply appear disappear and reappear
with no interstitial 'motions'

you don't climb a flight of stairs,

you are downstairs, you disappear,
and then you reappear upstairs

with no interdimensional time sequence.

i like it, it's funny.


just remember, there's no 'evil' in the stuff,
'evil' is a product of the mind of the liar.

i've mentioned that before, that
stuff is still pretty much the same.

YHWH God is Good and Only Good

The Image of YHWH God is Good.

'look' for it, find it, keep it forever.


# and then this imaging becomes more and
# more focused, to the point where formal
# manipulation of matter/energy are required
# to educe the perfected Image from the medium.

# and that Image carries the
# exacting signature of God.


and, of course, it can said that
God is upstairs and downstairs
and 'everywhere' simultaneously.

"God is present"

but so quiet, that the gurgling
in your stomach tends to drown out
your ability to experience this.

but God can -amplify- the signal.

sort of an 'operational amplifier' in
-you- that provides a feedback signal.

all part of the "TSR A to D converter"

it's curiouser and curiouser

time for tea

[Timothy Sutter]

no animals will be hurt during
the course of these next
several sentences.

if you have a bowling ball and
you stick the bowling ball in
a cardboard box in which
a refrigerator came,

then you could say that you know
where the bowling ball is, only
that you don't know exactly where it is,

because you just know that it's
in the cardboard box somewhere.

it's in there somewhere, and given that
you left a lot of packing material in the box,

the ball may not be on the bottom of
the box, but could be anywhere in the box.

it's in there somewhere.

now, you leave the room,
if you feel like it,
but you don't have to,

and someone else comes in and takes
the ball out of the refrigerator box,
and sets it into a color television box.

now, you come back and look at the new box,
and you can say that you know the ball is
in that box somewhere,

and, seeing that the box is smaller,
your knowledge of where the ball is
is a little bit clearer,

but, it's still in there somewhere.

now, your assistant takes the ball
and places it into a small green
trash bag that -just- fits over
the ball, and now, you can prwactically
see the shape of the ball,

and you can say that you know
fairly well where the ball is,

it's right there in the bag.

the container -just- fits over it.

now you start working with
much smaller objects, and
what you find eventually,

is that you cannot make container
small enough for you to have as
clear an image of where the ball
is as you had with the bowling
ball in the trash bag.

this because the stuff you have
to work with to make a box for
your object, itself -contains-
the objects you are trying to observe.

the stuff you have for making containers

has an inherent spacial void which
cannot be overcome by your ingenuities.

so, for these tiny objects,

within their own tiny little containers,

you basically get back to a bowling
ball in a cardboard refrigerator box

and find that the best you can say is;

"it's in there somewhere"

always realizing that the container
is a bit larger that the object,

-but- you can get a fairly, not
so bad, idea of where the refrigerator box is,
or, in this case, the single 'atom' of tungsten.

so, you know where the little particle is.

for all practical purposes,
it's in the little box somewhere.

and you pretty much know where the little box is.

a bowling ball you can hold in your hand.

an electron is already in your hand.

whether there actually is such
an object as an electron, inasmuch
as you can't see it, is moot,

some set of phenomena,
taken together and looked
at independantly, seem to
behave as if such a thing
as an electron does,
in fact, exist.

it's somewhere in the box

and the box is right there.



> and you pretty much know where the little box is.


or, like a bowling ball in a baseball stadium.

and this bowling ball is self propelled
and spinning around the stadium.

you know exactly where the baseball stadium is.

and the bowling ball in there

somewhere,

spinning around.

and, we don't -have- to say
that the baseball stadium

is the size of the perceived universe,

and that the bowling ball is -just-

"somewhere in the universe"

cuz then, of course, we'd be entirely sure,

but we can be quite sure even in baseball stadiums

that are -much- smaller that the perceived universe

and even say that in a baseball stadium
the size os a small glass of water,

there is a clear certainty that -many-
electrons are contained therein.

for a fact.

and believe it or not, we can reduce
the size of that baseball stadium
even further, and know that
some phenomenon

which could be likened to
a spinning bowling ball,

is definitely in there.


see, a snowflake

is your baseball stadium

and you can be sure that there are
quite a lot of many bowling balls
in that baseball stadium

because that baseball stadium is,
itself, -constructed- of things that
behave just like tiny spinning
bowling balls.

[Timothy Sutter]

this is a miniature ASCII backgammon board;

______________________________________________
|==|R|| || || ||W|| ||xxx||W|| || || || ||R|==|
|==|R|| || || ||W|| ||xxx||W|| || || || ||R|==|
|==|R|| || || ||W|| ||xxx||W|| || || || || |==|
|==|R|| || || || || ||xxx||W|| || || || || |==|
|==|R|| || || || || ||xxx||W|| || || || || |==|
|==| || || || || || ||xxx|| || || || || || |==|
|==| || || || || || ||xxx|| || || || || || |==|
|==| || || || || || ||xxx|| || || || || || |==|
|==| || || || || || ||xxx|| || || || || || |==|



|==|W|| || || ||R|| ||xxx||R|| || || || ||W|==|
|==|W|| || || ||R|| ||xxx||R|| || || || ||W|==|
|==|W|| || || ||R|| ||xxx||R|| || || || || |==|
|==|W|| || || || || ||xxx||R|| || || || || |==|
|==|W|| || || || || ||xxx||R|| || || || || |==|
|==| || || || || || ||xxx|| || || || || || |==|
|==| || || || || || ||xxx|| || || || || || |==|
|==| || || || || || ||xxx|| || || || || || |==|
|==| || || || || || ||xxx|| || || || || || |==|
_______________________________________________


it sure would be a pain in the neck to
try and play backgammon this way...

not that it couldn't be done...

[Timothy Sutter]

> ______________________________________________
> |==|R|| || || ||W|| ||xxx||W|| || || || ||R|==|
> |==|R|| || || ||W|| ||xxx||W|| || || || ||R|==|
> |==|R|| || || ||W|| ||xxx||W|| || || || || |==|
> |==|R|| || || || || ||xxx||W|| || || || || |==|
> |==|R|| || || || || ||xxx||W|| || || || || |==|
> |==| || || || || || ||xxx|| || || || || || |==|
> |==| || || || || || ||xxx|| || || || || || |==|
> |==| || || || || || ||xxx|| || || || || || |==|
> |==| || || || || || ||xxx|| || || || || || |==|
>
> |==|W|| || || ||R|| ||xxx||R|| || || || ||W|==|
> |==|W|| || || ||R|| ||xxx||R|| || || || ||W|==|
> |==|W|| || || ||R|| ||xxx||R|| || || || || |==|
> |==|W|| || || || || ||xxx||R|| || || || || |==|
> |==|W|| || || || || ||xxx||R|| || || || || |==|
> |==| || || || || || ||xxx|| || || || || || |==|
> |==| || || || || || ||xxx|| || || || || || |==|
> |==| || || || || || ||xxx|| || || || || || |==|
> |==| || || || || || ||xxx|| || || || || || |==|
> _______________________________________________
>

but you could use it to consider the better moves
when, for instance, leaving a piece "open" and
the odds associated with particular dice throws.

but then you'd either expect that the "rules" were
comon knowledge or go through the ,somehwat,
arduous task of explaining the "rules"

or, as we like to say, "the way the game is played"
as opposed to "rules" which has that consticting
feel about it.

[Timothy Sutter]

dice possible
throw configurations

2 1

3 2*

4 4

5 4

6 7*

7 6

8 7

9 4

10 3

11 2

12 1



*with two dice, [2 and 1] and [1 and 2]
are two different possible configurations,
and, in backgammon, when both dice have
the same thing, i.e. 1-1 or 2-2 etc. the
player gets double the number of moves,
like, 1-1 gives four single spaced moves,
and, so, this figures in to
the possible configuration.


like, for 6;

1-5 2-4 3-3 4-2 5-1 and

2-2 also alows you to get a 6 because

3 two spaced moves = 6 and 2 left over.

and this becomes an issue, when one piece

is alone on the board.


it may even have something to do with 'math'
and/or 'logic and there are computer driven
backgammon tables ...albeit, 'catchall' -can-
be used for most of these topics

not that i need to endlesslessly, ad nauseum,
explain topicallity, but, i can if i want to.

[Timothy Sutter]

> dice possible
> throw configurations

> 2 1
>

> 3 2* <--oops

3 can be attained as a 1-2 2-1 -and- 1-1

which makes 3 possible 3 ways...

[Timothy Sutter]

> > dice possible
> > throw configurations

> > 2 1

> > 3 3

> > 4 4
> > 5 4
> > 6 7

> > 7 6
> > 8 7
> > 9 4
> > 10 3
> > 11 2
> > 12 1

see, and then you can cakkalate the "odds"
in throwing a particular dice configuration.

this isn't exactly a "crap shoot"

[Timothy Sutter]

and one way would be to add up
all the possible configurations;;;

which would be 42

-----------------------------------------------------
ooohhh, 42, some people think 42 is an odd number...
-----------------------------------------------------

dice possible odds
throw configurations

2 1 2.38%
3 3 7.14%
4 4 9.52%
5 4 9.52%
6 7 16.66%
7 6 14.30%
8 7 16.66%
9 4 9.52%
10 3 7.14%
11 2 4.76%
12 1 2.38%


and, of course, if you add all -that- up,
you get 99.98% and you wonder where the extra
0.02% went and attribute it to rounded dice
so, you -try- to get those square cut dice
if you -have to- by this isn't a "crap shoot"
so, some of the "roundedness of the dice,
which just happen to be square cubes,
[see "square circles] is "o k"

it's a -game- after all,

and not supposed to be a chore.

-now-

if you had to leave a piece "open" and you
had a choice as to where to leave it

which would be the better choice

4 places away or 2 places away?

don't worry, Jesus can be their on your shoulder
reminding you of these things during the course
of the game, thoughm not necessarily with
aubibly spoken intonations

but, a deeper more abiding presence...

[Timothy Sutter]

> -----------------------------------------------------
> ooohhh, 42, some people think 42 is an odd number...
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> dice possible odds
> throw configurations
>
> 2 1 2.38%
> 3 3 7.14%
> 4 4 9.52%
> 5 4 9.52%
> 6 7 16.66%
> 7 6 14.30%
> 8 7 16.66%
> 9 4 9.52%
> 10 3 7.14%
> 11 2 4.76%
> 12 1 2.38%
>

yeah,Jesus just reminded me that, one can get

a "6" by rolling a double "6-6"

so, i'd probably have to recompute the odds again.

i don't think i placed 6-6 in the odds to get a 6.

but, as you can see, where in "craps" 6 and 7
are considered the most likely rolls,

in backgammon, "6" walks away handily with
an clear cut advantage, even with rounded dice.

[Timothy Sutter]

> > dice possible odds
> > throw configurations

> > 2 1 2.38%
> > 3 3 7.14%
> > 4 4 9.52%
> > 5 4 9.52%
> > 6 7 16.66%
> > 7 6 14.30%
> > 8 7 16.66%
> > 9 4 9.52%
> > 10 3 7.14%
> > 11 2 4.76%
> > 12 1 2.38%

> yeah, Jesus just reminded me that, one can get

> a "6" by rolling a double "6-6"

> so, i'd probably have to recompute the odds again.
> i don't think i placed 6-6 in the odds to get a 6.
> but, as you can see, where in "craps" 6 and 7
> are considered the most likely rolls,
> in backgammon, "6" walks away handily with
> an clear cut advantage, even with rounded dice.

what it also is, is i've been counting on
my fingers and mistaking 6 for 7

so, i gotta go all the way back to the drawing board...

[Timothy Sutter]

dice possible odds
throw configurations

2 1 2.4%
3 3 7.3%
4 4 9.8%
5 4 9.8%
6 7 17.0%
7 6 14.6%
8 6 14.6%
9 4 9.8%
10 3 7.3%
11 2 4.9%
12 1 2.4%



==========================================
only -41- possible outcomes,
so much for the "42" bit...

and if i cakkalate all that up, i get 99.9%
which is still the same problem with
rounding the dice off.

but it's -not- cheating, so put your gun away...

no need to get killt over a pair of sixes

much less a pair of tennis shoes...

[Timothy Sutter]

uh, one other thing, which i may
not get to right now, but ...

well, i suppose i have to add in
several other possible dice throw outcomes

accounting for the doubles over 12.

seeing as how there are 24 spaces on teh backgammon board

you could thow a double five and march 15 spaces etc...

you probably cannot throw a "13"

but, you can throw a 16 an 18 a 20 and,

depending on the situation,

one piece may be able to travel 24 positions...


but that would be rare.

[Mike Delanis]

"Timothy Sutter" <a20...@lycos.com-> wrote in message
news:502336...@lycos.com-...
> just remember, we don't

<snip crap>

I am God. You may worship me now.

[Mike Delanis]

"Timothy Sutter" <a20...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:5038C1...@lycos.com...
>i still suggest that
>
>
<snip drivel>

You may grow your tail now, monkey-butt.

[Mike Delanis]

"Timothy Sutter" <a20...@lycos.com-> wrote in message

news:503A2A...@lycos.com-...

>> and then it whispers in our ears;

<snip cut and paste bs>


the worms have your mind.

[Mike Delanis]

"Timothy Sutter" <a20...@lycos.com-> wrote in message

news:505340...@lycos.com-...

>
> much less a pair of tennis shoes...

that makes no sense at all.

[Mike Delanis]

"Timothy Sutter" <a20...@lycos.com> wrote in message

news:5036EB...@lycos.com...


All snipped, as it should be.

[Mike Delanis]

"Timothy Sutter" <a20...@lycos.com> wrote in message

news:503788...@lycos.com...
<snip crap>

try again.

[Mike Delanis]

"Timothy Sutter" <a20...@lycos.com-> wrote in message

news:503F04...@lycos.com-...

>> [disclaimer; some upgrading]
>
> ---
> Revelation 4:5-6

non ebertatium dorkum

[Timothy Sutter]

http://tinyurl.com/carvone-twins



| O O |
// \// \\ / \\
| | | |
\ / \ /
| |
/ \\ // \

(+)carvone (-) carvone
oil of caraway oil of spearmint

[Dike Melanis]

"Timothy Sutter" <a20...@lycos.com-> wrote in message

news:50594B...@lycos.com-...

+ you cabrona -

[Martin Musatov]

On Sep 18, 1:03 pm, "Mike Delanis" <inva...@invalid.com> wrote:
> "Timothy Sutter" <a202...@lycos.com-> wrote in message

>
> news:502336...@lycos.com-...
>
> > just remember, we don't
>
> <snip crap>
>
> I am God.  You may worship me now.

Dike Melanis

[Martin Michael Musatov]

On Aug 23, 8:41 am, Timothy Sumter <a202...@locos.com> wrote:
> > so, be careful of jerking your knee,
> > you may kick yourself in the mouth.
>
> <fictional account>
>
> i was sitting around on my church pew one day
> when some kid ran up to me and started telling
> me about photomultiplier loaves and fish
> to feed a hungry multitude and Matthaeus
> was very clearly using MATHEMATICS.
>
> I said, "thanks, that's nice to know,
> it'll bet there's other places where
Exodus 20:15
Thou shalt not steal.

Exodus 20:17
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors house, thou shalt not covet thy
neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox,
nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbors.

Leviticus 19:11
Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another.

These verses are about gambling from the Bible Leviticus 19:13
Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbor, neither rob him: the wages of him
that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning.

Psalm 24:1
The earth is the Lard's, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they
that dwell therein.

Psalm 145:16-17
Thou openest thine hand, and satisfied the desire of every living
thing. The LORD is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his
works.

Proverbs 1:18-19
And they lay wait for their own blood; they lurk privily for their own
lives. So are the ways of every one that is greedy of gain; which
theta away the life of the owners thereof.

Proverbs 12:11
He that tiller his land shall be satisfied with bread: but he that
follower vain persons is void of understanding.

Proverbs 13:11
Wealth gotten by vanity shall be diminished: but he that gathering by
lab-our shall increase.

The Bible has many verses about gambling.

Proverbs 15:27
He that is greedy of gain trouble his own house; but he that athlete
gifts shall live.

Proverbs 16:33
The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of
the LORD.

Proverbs 21:25-26
The desire of the slothful skillet him; for his hands refuse to lab-
our. He covet greedily all the day long: but the righteous give and
spare not.

Proverbs 28:20
A faithful man shall abound with blessings: but he that market haste
to be rich shall not be innocent.
More verses about Gambling and the Bible

The Bible says this concerning gambling:

Proverbs 28:22
He that Stesha to be rich hath an evil eye, and consider not that
poverty shall come upon him.

Isaiah 65:11
But ye are they that forsake the LORD, that forget my holy mountain,
that prepare a table for that troop, and that furnish the drink
offering unto that number.

Zechariah 5:3
Then said he unto me, This is the curse that Goethe forth over the
face of the whole earth: for every one that lethal shall be cut off as
on this side according to it; and every one that swearer shall be cut
off as on that side according to it.

Zechariah 7:10
And oppress not the widow, nor the fatherless, the stranger, nor the
poor; and let none of you imagine evil against his brother in your
heart.

Matthew 4:4
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread
alone, but by every word that proceed out of the mouth of God.

Matthew 6:31
Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall
we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?

Matthew 6:33
But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all
these things shall be added unto you.

Matthew 19:18
He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou
shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear
false witness,

Luke 12:15
And he said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a
man's life consist not in the abundance of the things which he
apotheoses.

Romans 6:16
Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his
servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of
obedience unto righteousness?

Romans 12:17
Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight
of all men.

1 Corinthians 4:2
Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?
Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,
nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves,
nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall
inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Corinthians 10:31
Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the
glory of God.

Galatians 5:22-23
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long suffering,
gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there
is no law.

Ephesians 4:19
Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness,
to work all uncleanness with greediness.

Ephesians 4:28
Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him lab-our, working
with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to
him that needed.

2 Thessalonians 3:10
For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any
would not work, neither should he eat.

1 Timothy 3:3
Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but
patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

1 Timothy 3:8
Likewise must the deacons be grave, not double tongued, not given to
much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;

1 Timothy 6:8
And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.

1 Timothy 6:10
For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some
coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves
through with many sorrows.

Deuteronomy 10:12-13
12 And now, Israel, what doth the LORD thy God require of thee, but to
fear the LORD thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and
to serve the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul,
13 To keep the commandments of the LORD, and his statutes, which I
command thee this day for thy good?
Christian obey the Bible, and do not gamble.

altered from
and city of in citation
Source:
Signal Press
1730 Chicago Avenue
Evangelist, IL 60201-4585
1-800-755-1321


What does the Bible say about gambling and the lottery? bring you
these weekly Bible verses:
Isaiah 1:18
“Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD: though your sins are
like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like
crimson, they shall become like wool.

Matthew 5:22-24
But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be
liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the
council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of
fire. So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember
that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there
before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then
come and offer your gift.

Matthew 11:28-30
“… Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you
rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and
lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is
easy, and my burden is light.”

> they use MATHEMATICS as well"
>
> the other kid agreed...
>
> <end fictional account>

As throughout the recounting of the purported fictional account is a
factual account of an account.

[Martin Michael Musatov]

Yes.>
> don't worry,Jesuscan be their on your shoulder

[Timothy Sutter]

No. i want to see "chametz" removed from the =heart=
just as if "chametz" was to be removed entirely from
the living quaters or "tent" in which "tent
is housed the heart of the humane being.


"chametz" being "leavening"


==
Psalm 71:4
Deliver me, O my God, out of the hand of the wicked,
Out of the hand of the unrighteous and cruel [leavened] man.

Psalm 73:21
Thus my heart was grieved, And I was
'embittered' [leavened] in my mind.
==


but this is a precedant that you
can have =yeast= in you mind.

now, in preparation for the Passover

you most certainly can -not- 'sell' this mental yeast
to a gentile for a quarter and then buy it back later.

how -will- you put -this- yeast totally
out of your "house" for the Passover?

getting down on the floor and digging the dirt out
of the cracks in the floorboards won't get -this-
yeast out of your =mind=

and -this- yeast, is the stuff that
does harm way more than a cupcake...



=
Exodus 12:19-20

For seven days no yeast is to be found in your houses.
And whoever eats anything with yeast in it must be cut off
from the community of Israel, whether he is an alien
or native-born. Eat nothing made with yeast.
Wherever you live, you must eat unleavened bread."
==


Psalmist say, in one place,
"protect me from leavened men"
and in another place;
"i became leavened"


and YHWH say;
"eat no leavening"

same woid...

"chametz"

in one place it is about bread,
and in one place, it become
about the inner man...


where is this brazen alter which can burn
away all this "chametz" in the heart?


=i= think i know.


YHWH Savior... [Jesus in shorthand greek notation]








see, i'm figerrin' some of the "chametz"
is an incessant need to quibble.

but, way way back when, on the very
first night called a "Passover"

the very =sign= that dissuaded the "death dealer"
from entering the household and striking the
"first born" dead, was blood on the doorposts.

they -may- _have_ had leavening in the household,
but they certainly were not to -use- it to
make the bread of haste,

with me so faR?

the death dealer didn't inspect
for leavening in the household
on that very first night...

it inspected for blood on the door.

=later= 'they,' the Israelites, were told to rid their
houses of leavening at the time of the commemoration
of the day that actually started with an order -to-
commemorate it later.

but now, the death dealer wasn't passing over
-but- if somehow it was discovered that leavening
was being eaten or whathaveyou, the infraction
was punishable by =you= being put out of the
househould your own self.

still clear.....

and i come along and say, David used the word "chametz"
in referring to the heart of man and that "chametz"
-is- leavening.

and you still wanna answer me by asking me =what day?=

you should sweep -this house-

your very -own- sukkot-

free of leavening.


the very same "sukkot" that -is- a "temnporary dwelling"

and one that you should be able to fold up at a moment's
notice and run off into the night... or DAY.

certainly, -you- [in general] have to take
some of this "chore" upon yourself

and sweep this leavening away.


but you really -want- to, rid this 'sukkot' of
all leavenuing for all times and not have to keep
sweeping the same olde leaveing of bitterness and
malice each and every year and making a pretense
of being 'clean' for a day and going right back
to wallowing in one's own vomit...as if
=nothing actually= happened.


still with me?

good, i'll shut up amnd let -you- say something now....


right after i look at the "magic crackers" bit.


unless i wait for a moment...


but i'm looking at it...











ok, so 'qubbling' is "permissable"

we get the first month, Nisan

and according to 'Exodus' on the tenth
the 'family' takes a "lamb" if they can manage it,
but this is not a High Holy Sabbath or High Day
or HD for short. and some people, seem to say that
14 is not an HD but that 15 is and HD and 21 is an HD


10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
HD HD


is there "universal agreement" that 14 is -not- an HD?

let's say there is...

let's say 15 is an HD and 21 is an HD and 14 is -not- an HD

maybe your 'friend' wants to say 14 is an HD

but -somebody- wants to say 14 as -not- an HD but 15 is.

ok?

15 is an HD but 14 is -not-?


hold on...






==
Exodus 12

�On the tenth of this month every man shall take
for himself a lamb, according to the house of
his father, a lamb for a household <...>

6 Now you shall keep it until the fourteenth day
of the same month. Then the whole assembly of
the congregation of Israel shall kill it at twilight.

7 And they shall take some of the blood and put
it on the two doorposts and on the lintel of the houses...
==


so, the lamb is killt on the 14th,

which is not a "high day"

and there's a whole day, called the 14th,
until the 15th starts, and that day,
is the "high day"


yes or no?





ok, so, you say that 14 is not HD but 15 is.

so, Y'shua could possibly, timeline wise,

have a 14th dinner with his pals just after dark,

get betrayed, tried at night and killt

and be dead all on the 14th which

is not an HD.


yes?






ok, fine,

but there's a reason i once said this;

==
what is love like?

well, it's sort of bland and
doesn't have a lot of flavor,
but it is crunchy.
==


before i look at the majik crackers bit...here's something else;


this is a condensed piece of matzoh;


H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H

H H 0 0 H H H H H H H H H H H

H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H

H H H H H 0 0 0 0 H H H H H H

H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H

H H 0 0 0 0 H H H H H H H H H

H H H H H H H 0 0 0 0 H H H H

H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H

H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H

H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H


the average matzoh has 450 indentations
not all of which are punctured all
the way through.

in fact, it's a randon scattering of punctured
indentatons and two matzohs are not generally
identical within a given lot.

the Hs represent unpunctured indentations
and the 0s represent the fully punctured
indentations

the matzoh itself then begins
to resemble an old 'IBM card'

these were little pieces of paper with holes punched
in them which a card reader would read and decipher
information like your name and address etc.

and what we'd be looking for is
the 'secret message' that is
displayed in a given matzoh.

if you hold a matzoh netween light and
a sheet of paper you see the array of
punctured holes and a given array
is a coded message like an IBM card

so, you have two possibilities

you can try to decode the 'secret message'
by straight cryptographic methods of
assigning a letter for a given
numeric pattern

or, you can hold a matzoh over a
pre-arranged array of characters
from Torah.

if the 'lucky' matzoh at the 'seder' reads;

'regards from elijah'


you can say;


"we should've done this a long time ago"


this is just a rough draft,

there may be better messages in the matzohs

but i keep eating them before i get it decoded,

they were on sale

so i grabbed a box.



this is a picture of a matzoh;

http://www.fotosearch.com/BDX127/bxp28118/

in the box i got

not all the little indentations were
punctured all the way through so, i figure,
that's the way they mostly are.

i sort of got a message last year when i just
ate them with no decoding like my body was
a card reader, and it tried to tell me that

""'love' was bland and crunchy""

but Exodus sort of implies that anyway.




anyway, i have seen matzohs that had all the holes punched,

so, maybe it's not supposed to be an IBM card....



i was kidding a little bit...



let me think about the 'majik crackers' bit....



before i get to the majic crackers...

one other little bit...

still from a couple of years back...




what's a matzo sandwich?

three pieces of matzo.

it's not so much to ask;

"how does one -adHere- to this thing"

as it is more important to ask;

"how does one GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE?"

<mad screams>

you think i'm kidding...

but i just think it's funny.

you're not going any where.

so just sit there and calm yourself.

la la-la la-la-la-la la la-la ...

what do you mean -but- seriously?

i assure you, i'm quite serious.

with God stuck like peanut butter to a matzo

it simply is ill conceived to ask;

"how does one -adhere- to this thing?"

you may wonder;

"how can one let go?"

we don't.......let go


remember i said that a magnet was
exerting no despotic influence over
metal shavings when the shavings
arrayed themselves along
the field lines?

and that this was, somehow,
similar to your conscious being
being found among a field of "Love"?

forget for a moment that
you have no idea what
"Love" is anyway.

only that 'it' -will- pull you in.

and then you'll be "free" right?

you'll be "free" by being
-stuck- to God right?

maybe your enslavement is in
your -attempt- to swim -against-
the current of "Love" whether
you -know- what 'it' is or not.

and your freedom is in the thing itself.

"how should i behave?" is your
own personal trick question.

who will you be when you become what you are?


maybe i was kidding a little bit...

i'm not trying to get =away= from YHWH,

even if YHWH can be 'scary' at times...

[Timothy Sutter]

look at another thing,

you could read a cook book and
see a recipe for making hollandaise sauce

and you'd get some idea of what hollandaise
sauce is like, but if you never make the
sauce and never eat the sauce, you don't
know much about what the sauce is really like.

but also, if you decide for yourself that you
will hold out the eggs the butter and the
lemon juice and just throw white pepper
chocolate chips and potato chips
together, and warm that over the stove,

can you maintain that you
have made hollandaise sauce?

you cannot possibly call that hollandaise sauce
and if you use that sauce on eggs benedict,
it will not be eggs benedict but some
other strange concoction.

but what if someone added ground glass and
bits of razor blades to the mixture?

that would not only -not- be hollandaise sauce,
-that- would be a malicious attempt at causing
severe harm to the body of whoever ate it.

and 'doctrinally' those who would add
ground glass and razor blade bits to
the mixture eat that stuff themselves

and then turn around and curse God
when they bleed in a bad way.

so, is it at all odd to have standard referrences?

no, not at all, we use standard referrences
for all sorts of things from automobiles
to pecan cookies.

are all cars exactly alike, no,

but the basic motivational force
is pretty much the same in all cars.

and hollandaise sauce is good.

anyway, i just thought i'd mention it.

you can read a cookbook and not make a cake

you can read a cook book and make a cake

you can glance at a cookbook and alter the recipe

you could even bring a batch of poisin
to dinner and claim you used the cookbook
as a referrence,




no i'm not accusing anyone of anything

i don't have to.

[Timothy Sutter]

someone tells you that walking through
an empty space does a "violence" to
the serene empty space.

what does your memory trigger?

do you suppose that because you
have a done a "violence" to the
serene empty space that you have
done an inherently 'bad' thing
and therefore, you and your
walking are 'bad'?

you -did- do a "violence"
to the serene empty space.

and to your mind, "violence" is a 'bad' thing.

so, you say to yourself;

"everything i do is inherently 'bad'

because everything you -do- disturbs the
peaceful state of the serene empty space.

the punchline begins to center
around how your mind can be hijacked.

it has, first, become so ingrained in your
mind that "violence" is 'bad' that you
are, now, willing to accept a notion that
-you- are, therefore, inherently 'bad'
when you are apprised of the simple fact
that when you walk thru the empty space,
you are doing a violence to its serenity.


that's how you get your head
handed up to you on a platter.


you casually allow the memory triggers
of someone else's invention spring the
mousetrap in your own mind.


but you have no memory of God

so, it would be quite simple for someone
who wanted to interfere with your understanding
of God to associate the words with negative stimuli.

that is to say; for example

you may, as yet, have no conscious memory of God
and some other agency has associated the word "God"
with phenomenological constructs which are by nature
-not God- but which are immediately associated
with a negative response in your mind, and
-your- associations present a barrier to
-your- personal knowledge of God.

clearly, the words "Jesus Christ"
would be just as easy to associate
with negative stimuli.

so, you hear "Jesus Christ" and
immediately, you think negative,

and you don't even know Jesus Christ
and have never met Jesus Christ.

[Timothy Sutter]

so, Y'shua was not passing out glazed donuts

when he said, "this is my body"

he was, for all practical purposes,
passing out 'unleavened' bread.

because the meal eaten on non-HD 14 is still...unleavened...

and restricted so, and could not
have been glazed donuts.

so, he passes out unleavened bread,
and refers to that bread as his body.

so, we can probably suggest that Y'shua was not

'leavened' in his heart...


like in that Psalm i keep showing.



oh, but anyway, as a side remark,


it's not like the ordinance of "The Law" was ever
conceived as some sort of unaccomplishable goal
that could not never not nohow ever be met.


not at all.


cuz, of course, when that "tempter" guy walks up to
Y'shua and stats a conversation, Y'shua answers
him with Torah quotes


so, Torah did not breed in Y'shua, and
sort of ill mannered behaviors.


and i keep looking at this;

==
Malachi 3:14
You have said, 選t is useless to serve God;
What profit is it that we have kept His ordinance,
And that we have walked as mourners
Before the LORD of hosts?
==


these particular people didn't say;

"why oh why O YHWH did you ask of us
some goal that nobody could possibly do?"


no, they said;


"what's in it for me?"


"why should i walk around like a man in mourning
when the prideful 'thug' gets the honey?"


that's sort of what Malichi says they are saying.



what's in it for me"


"it is =vain= to 'serve' YHWH"


they don't say;


"we can't do this"



=but= evidently, one -can- "do this"


and not be a man cleansed of all leavening

or bitterness or malice -in- -his- heart.


and, in fact, =could= be, harboring

enmity towards YHWH all the while,

following the ordinance to the letter.


yes?



i think =yes=


so....



so,...hold that thought....


not an "damnation" of "Torah"


but something ever so subtly distinct...

in other words...

a none too subtle distinction...


you -can- abide in teh letter


and walk away =thinking=...


"why? what's in this for me?"



...[just a moment, or several...hmmm...majic crackers...


i like it, it's catchy...


but i did also say this;

> but there's a reason i once said this;
>
> ==
> what is love like?
>
> well, it's sort of bland and
> doesn't have a lot of flavor,
> but it is crunchy.
> ==

that in some respects, the unleavened bread

was a sign of YHWH's 'Love'

and this impression i got from reading the exodus account.


perhaps i'll have to read it again,,,


and see if the same impression arises...




cuz if that's so,....





> it's not like the ordinance of "The Law" was ever
> conceived as soem sort of unaccomplishable goal
> that could not never not nohow ever be met.
>
> not at all.
>
> cuz, of course, when that "tempter" guy walks up to
> Y'shua and stats a conversation, Y'shua answers
> him with Torah quotes
>
> so, Torah did not breed in Y'shua, and
> sort of ill mannered behaviors.

i did mean,


"so, Torah did not breed in Y'shua, -any-
sort of ill mannered behaviors."



my typing is still miserable...




"so Torah did not breed -any- sort of
ill mannered behaviors in Y'shua"




> and i keep looking at this;
>
> ==
> Malachi 3:14
> You have said, 選t is useless to serve God;
> What profit is it that we have kept His ordinance,
> And that we have walked as mourners
> Before the LORD of hosts?
> ==





> ==
> Malachi 3:14
> You have said, 選t is useless to serve God;
> What profit is it that we have kept His ordinance,
> And that we have walked as mourners
> Before the LORD of hosts?
> ==

> these particular people didn't say;
> "why oh why O YHWH did you ask of us
> some goal that nobody could possibly do?"

> no, they said;

> "what's in it for me?"

> "why should i walk around like a man in mourning
> when the prideful 'thug' gets the honey?"
> that's sort of what Malichi says they are saying.
> what's in it for me"

> "it is =vain= to 'serve' YHWH"

> they don't say;
> "we can't do this"

> =but= evidently, one -can- "do this"
> and not be a man cleansed of all leavening
> or bitterness or malice -in- -his- heart.
> and, in fact, =could= be, harboring
> enmity towards YHWH all the while,
> following the ordinance to the letter.


and ten we see Y'shua saying;

"beware of the leavening" -in- the =doctrine= of people

some of whom, may be -at- the "seat of Moses"

[Timothy Sutter]

> yes?

> i think =yes=
> so....
> so,...hold that thought....
> not an "damnation" of "Torah"
> but something ever so subtly distinct...
> in other words...
> a none too subtle distinction...
> you -can- abide in teh letter
> and walk away =thinking=...

> "what's in it for me"

but -something- about Y'shua

was -alluring- people to actually consider that;

=eternal Life= was =possible=


and -still- walking away "crestfallen"

when the suggestion was made to "give to the poor"

which thing Torah suggests also,

and -then- come and follow "Me"


and -sometimes- i get this strange tingling feeling that

"the rich young ruler" who approached Y'shua


and said;

"all these have i done, what -more- must i do..."

was... Saul of Tarsus...


and he walked away =mad=


cuz, like he was abiding to the letter,

and even had lots of possesssions,


but -still- =something= was missing


but he -wanted- =more=


but missed the beam in his eye...



as an aside remark,


no, i do not say for a certainty that the

"rich young ruler" =was= in fact,

Saul of Tarsus...


but the -smilarity- is there....



but, i -do- believe that Saul's -conversion-

was genuine, and that half the time, he is explaining

how poorly =he= and some of his pals had

missed the mark so utterly


even with Law in hand...


if you catch my drift...


because -certainly- =some= if not =many=

fell by Malichi's accounting...

==
Malachi 3:14
You have said, �It is useless to serve God;

What profit is it that we have kept His ordinance,
And that we have walked as mourners

Before YHWH Defender?
==


some found a "profit"

etc.

[Timothy Sutter]

but suppose we want to -make- the suggestion,
if just for a moment to seek out the
ever elusive "objectivity",

that there is no 'right or wrong' decision,
there is the decision itself, and no such
thing as a "correct" or "incorrect" decision.

so, now, all we have is a gateway of sorts
and one either, through conscious deliberation,
opens the gate or shuts the gate.

there now, is no 'correct' orientation for the gate,

just its ability to be open or shut.

the only values you ever get is,

a decision has been made

or

a decision has not been made.

now, you can see rather easily, that this gateway
won't open and shut on its own, but must be operated
by conscious intent.

this change in the state of the gateway is always deliberate,
and, for now, we don't care one tiny bit whether the gate is
'best' open or shut, only that it must be open or shut by
conscious deliberation.

now you have removed all "expected" values
and also, all "unexpected values"

and in so doing, can see clearly that all
conscious decisions are deliberate in
their very nature, and therefore,
-never- 'accidental'

[Timothy Sutter]

> so, the long and short of it is,
> my God is prefectly well reasonable

> so, i'll stick with my God.


and, just as an example, this brain thing
isn't an 8 cylinder engine, where, if say,
one of teh spark plugs is fouled, you'd be
running on 7 cylinders and perhaps, see
a noticeable loss in performance,
if not, a breakdown

no, as is noted, this is a many thousand
to million cylinder function, where, a few
missing synapses is no real strain on
the system at all.

the image produced which may be reckoned as thought/s

will continue to chug along just fine.

so, the chances of this "all thoughts are accidental" thing

-ever- holding up in court is nil.

[Timothy Sutter]

and mr. or mrs. 'scientist'

who wants to put his or her name on a publication
where hours of deliberate activity lead to the
elucidation of a particular reaction scheme ...

you go ahead and do so, i have no problem with you

taking credit for your ideas.

that most certainly is not accident and i'm sure you keep
rigorous notes to show the very precise methodologies
that you undertook to figure such schemes out.

[Timothy Sutter]

if it was as this other character would have it,

nobody practically would even be able

to play a simple game of cards

because, you could very well see a different image

on the card each time to flipped it over

and fuggetabout trying to bid tricks or books

in spades or bridge


even teh behaviors of birds seem

to discount accidental deliberation

not to mention that 'accident' and 'on purpose'

are still 'opposites'


-most people- are still going to say that

an intentional act was no accident...

[Timothy Sutter]

> and speaking of green cheese, =IF= the martian surface
> is really sterile and devoid of "organic" molecules;
> this doesn't lend much support to a contention that
> "organic" molecules rained down upon the earth
> in meterorite showers.

> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/index.html
> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/multimedia/pia16572.html
> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/news/msl20121203.html


assignment: cakkalate the apparent size of hydrogen molecules
to a [theoretcal] spaceship travelling 'near' light speed.

-my- hypothesis is that, to the near lightspeed traveller,
hydrogen molecules would seem to be as large as jupiter.

cuz look, the claim is, that, for the lightspeed traveller,

-its- 'length'/s contract


so, like, is a spaceship, the size of a football field
was propelled to near the speed of light...

spaceship diameter 100 meters

L = L'(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2


at very near speed of light...

299,792,458.00000 m/s = c
299,792,457.99850 m/s = 99.9999999995% c

(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2

c^2 = 89875517873681764.00000

v^2 = 89875517872782386.62600225

v^2/c^2 = 0.99999999998999307714408047313899

1 - v^2/c^2 = 1.0006922855919526861006095019524e-11

(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2 = 3.1633720704209814561631489705046e-6

(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2 = 3.16337e-6 <=== [significant figure rounding]

the diameter of the hydrogen molecule is taken to be 4.08 x 10^-10 m

so, anyway, no , the hydrogen molecules would
not appear to be the size of Jupiter, =but=

quite possibly, your little spacecraft would
be travelling through hydrogen molecule clusters that
were virtually the size of the spacecraft and
navigating through such a field of debris
would be ...."dangerous?"

i mean, if your craft smashed into a 'small' cluster
of hydrogen molecules, your craft would be destroyed.

and, quite possibly, the interstellar miasma

if chock-full-o such clusters

so, evel kneival couldn't get through such a demolition derby...


so...light speed travel?

[Martin Musatov]

yes

[Timothy Sutter]

Martin Musatov wrote:

> Timothy Sutter wrote:

> > > and speaking of green cheese, =IF= the martian surface
> > > is really sterile and devoid of "organic" molecules;
> > > this doesn't lend much support to a contention that
> > > "organic" molecules rained down upon the earth
> > > in meterorite showers.

i'm suspecting that you don't believe

in any sort of mass 'relativization'

and so, if this football field sized space craft

was accelerated to near light speed

and it retained it's total mass...

to an innocent bystander, with an apparent

'speed' of much less than light speed


this apparently tiny object with high mass would be shooting passed


but, that 'tiny' object, space craft,

would really be no more 'dense' than it really is


so, it's more like, that, it's not the length

of the travelling object which would tend to 'contract'



but that, the space itself, as contained by and

by the craft would be contracting


which would allow for a large craft, to appear small

and also, to retain its 'normalized' density...



this would seem a paradox...

but, if you believe in it at all

it's probably not...


a paradox



but, tiny objects have been accelerated

but, the concern then, becomes,

not being smashed to smithereenies by cluster of hydrogen molecules


but, the possibility that the energy transferred

to said hydrogen molecules would make the -getting-

_to_ near light speed, similar to a guppy swimming -up- niagra falls


yes or no?


or am i being "obtuse"?

[Martin Michael Musatov]

One in need came rising and one not in need came riding on a camel
came 1 and threaded a female writhing and threaded the needlessly a
camel three-dimensionally through the eye of the needle and
nonetheless many were still waiting to enter the kingdom

[john]

"Martin Michael Musatov" <musatovat...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:96944574-0fac-4c2b...@j4g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

Obama's Socialist Kingdom

[Timothy Sutter]

the freedoms of True Autonomy are subtley different from

following a path which seems right for a time but which

leads in to a miry pit of red tape entanglements.






--
https://twitter.com/Timothy_Sutter
http://timothysutter.usafreespace.com/

[Martin Michael Musatov]

such is the case Thanks to technology, a memorandum of understanding
(thanks from Tel Aviva / s, F `u / n (I [I TO rotate HM), and try to
think, nature is" E | .. (no offense to kiloton preparation. .. has C,
E (Visor / s Chest on Tuesday Kin \ 2 I "auto. Hi Lasso, Wilson vest /
Na` martin / NH MW `. brought / \ n VIEW goals WT /" NH, RAN, not (I
all, or [that load / Samoa ...) I think the WT DR 3 Μάη | ..... gown
or some [even in auto Cayman S (j eventual auto Arabia will not bar /
threw / a) "L" 4 Oh, BAG, Gen auto, n (oil. raj Anatole’s auto / threw
HM / s (Tao, she vest (EDA Kai May that | Hall and hold LEIA ovum .. \
5] 505 A thru / |? auto / ton, John (avlhqw / DVDs eggs MAY Tues | H,
the pH of WAIT May / U / Eyelet) EN May two | gown or some [aunt EN
his / | even \ "LO 6` EN aunt BAG / | .. I over Ni (Kama’s evoke / NO
perinea, U (and auto [Peripatetic To /) 7 Adelaide (n ovum Ventolin.n
akin graphite, F I '/ S (all Ventolin.n Palau an (10] not PULL arch /
s \ "from" H vesting Vent Olin not clear, Greek] is Zhukov PULL arch /
d) eight times a year, Lin Ventolin.n akin No Thanks, I `F u / n (or
[vesting avlhqe.j EN aunt / | .. (EDA Mr. Kai N / A \ [paragraph` t
Scottie (oil. F / 500 .. for avlhqino NH, N DH SIP) Get 9 or "50", BAG
EN WT / ... | wit Chennai is = (oil. ton Adolfo.n auto / miss / s (EN
and / | Scottie |. vest to [WK with RS) agape or 10 "/ n ton Adolfo
auto n / EDA (VA / |. wit I (EDA Yolanda aunt Kai Ski / | ovum
resist ...) The 11-misw / s ton Adolfo.n auto / (EN and / |. of
Scottie | vest (EN and Kai / |. Scottie, |. reputation / (1000 = ovum
want and / u-PA Gay (or [`t Scottie in veto, flues you’d goalmouth
auto / s) 12 degrees , F U "/ (technical., 1 (or [I AVE, entail I` u /
n Martin, all comments. what auto .. N / A 13 °), F U "I / O (open, RE
( or [cover even. PULL arch n / graphite), F MIL `U / N (, SK spin (or
[enrich coverage ton poncho, B) from 14 degrees, F" u / n (payment (or
[I even , violation of ton, CA), Ms. Gray MIL / V (e, RE (or [even.
PULL arch n / d) and covering gray / 500 (rotation of the earth (or [I
chiaroscuro, vest (Okay., May Beautiful / U / u `EN MIL / n, the game
will cover (.. Kai does not enrich poncho n .. n), BR 15 agape / O.
MADE EN dispute a / VA |. SEW PM | ) Eva agape / | ton difference
(ovum times are eggs, the pH can parent / EN aunt J / |. \ 16 or [/ n,
EN VA / |. KB, SEW | (MK pique / and Nark. CK (b pique-Kai, has / the
ovfqalmw N / S (H Kai emblazon "organic unity / straight (and keep ..
ovum EVE, May / June protection. all SAP or requests vest Additional
Protocol to the Agreement), I 17 "He was not, smog parameters, Get
(oil. pique` H, E and auto / \ O `poi / s .. May LAMA / U / read evil
ton avid / N) 18 (escape, O [ RA vest (oil. Kama’s Zhukov, and sat
down, or [O `ante, God. retail (Shoat. / ante there, students Ego
Crista, however, and \ or R [N and gown or some [escape you [PR vest,
n), '19 VEX MW / n vex / lion (San all ovum VEX H = H ', w / w \ AV
garb San VEX = "b, w / w (moment, An Keenan me B MW / n \ all I [/ Na
fawner or sin [e-IT ovum ease net VEX-In. MW / N) 20, I / cry / of
ADM. whales ... digestive ALPO Director / ovum `, (O Kai, gave
permission, s) and -21 000 Gray `u / n (or [O ovum given than all,
wean (all or O [which aunt, N (or Kai. [PA-IT / Tao n / EVE and
avlhqei M / d, and AGE tablespoons ovum). March 22 vesting of Tao, she
(IV US memo avenue # in Visor [u / ovum, hold, or God, or S *, where
he was the Messiah ante vesting (avenue, memo ton GS, I think. HO N)
23 AP / avenue onion. memo is ovule. ton food and energy \ 'O' or
'swimming mellow / s. No, I think. ton food, and RA, ICE) 24 "B / ovum
J] Zhukov, PULL is arch / s or EN / N, I, you) even miles EN` u / n,
New Hampshire | no] PULL arch / d Zhukov ('You / I EN WT / | .. HO
`w / |. EN Kai WT / | .. Heritage Manor / h) 25, I think [Stevie. NH
Evangelic P.D., Ah] and' I. hip hungers auto barn / (no, a thousand
degrees avid help when. N) 26 t / h is the salary my gray / WT / n
plan, known Sat K / day) I think 27 - true / cry / or MA] VELA , Beta
PULL ... auto / EN mail `u / n, we have (CRED VIEW and, and ... [the
color of nature, SH |. children` s / \ Tao salary / M (BRED `Kai caw.
I . C `Q Dale all auto MA / color is finally Skein /, known (oil.
avlhqe, vest (Kai ovum and cry / day (Tourism / DR aunt / |.) 28, I
think now / is not (technically, ( EDA that Nate aunt / |. \ I [or
Narcotics Anonymous [Only fawner / | E Miscellaneous / parish space
(oil. aivscunqw / male PULL auto / (EN and / |. Peruse, | auto /) 29
even avid or and / [u, Kayo, vest (gown, Barker, or [AP / 50 poi / s
than Dionysus, NAN (VEX. auto / Gage, Naphtali) vulgate

[Timothy Sutter]

Martin Michael Musatov wrote:

> Timothy Sutter wrote:

> > Martin Michael Musatov wrote:

> > > One in need came rising and one not in need came riding on a camel
> > > came 1 and threaded a female writhing and threaded the needlessly a
> > > camel three-dimensionally through the eye of the needle and
> > > nonetheless many were still waiting to enter the kingdom

> > the freedoms of True Autonomy are subtley different from
> > following a path which seems right for a time but which
> > leads in to a miry pit of red tape entanglements.

don't tell me, [places hands over eyes]


a recipe for a birthday cake

with all manner of biographical data

and various and sundry flotsam and jetsam

baked in to the mix.


[written in a 'secret' "code"]


-sometimes- an egg is an egg

and -sometimes- "I" returns as flower, flow-er, or flour

or a big red rose painted with cherry icing.


but i'm only guessing, because, as we all know,

i've turned my clairvoyance off for the evening...[long time]


the 'cake' of [your] life

and ]you'd[ like to smash it in someone's face

and hope they don't suffocate

cuz you just can't bake another


_NO_?



that's some fork you got stickin' in you


etc.

[M3]

On Aug 3, 9:40 pm, Timothy Sutter <a202...@lycos.com-> wrote:
> Martin MichaelMusatovwrote:
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > Martin MichaelMusatovwrote:

> > down, or [O `ante,God. retail (Shoat. / ante there, students Ego

> > Crista, however, and \ or R [N and gown or some [escape you [PR vest,
> > n), '19 VEX MW / n vex / lion (San all ovum VEX H = H ', w / w \ AV
> > garb San VEX = "b, w / w (moment, An Keenan me B MW / n \ all I [/ Na
> > fawner or sin [e-IT ovum ease net VEX-In. MW / N) 20, I / cry / of
> > ADM. whales ... digestive ALPO Director / ovum `, (O Kai, gave
> > permission, s) and -21 000 Gray `u / n (or [O ovum given than all,
> > wean (all or O [which aunt, N (or Kai. [PA-IT / Tao n / EVE and
> > avlhqei M / d, and AGE tablespoons ovum). March 22 vesting of Tao, she

> > (IV US memo avenue # in Visor [u / ovum, hold, orGod, or S *, where

I can 8
I can see how weaker minds have lost things wresting the discovery
mostly name information
seeds I planted for a couple years experimenting
great you understand though Sutter
very subtle ......................
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Do you ever wonder if something was lost on us during the whole
serpent being more subtle and subtylle in Tyndale has something to do
with the advent of sub-utitlity vehicles?
kdding
clearly it was the sublet on my apartment in Los Angeles last year
Musatov, Artist