Famous scientists about insufficient evolution mechanisms
Kirt
Michael Warner
>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2
"Today that battle has been won everywhere--except in the public imagination."
They mean /American/ public imagination, of course. Creationism is hardly on
the radar in the rest of the developed world.
--
bpo gallery at http://www4.tpgi.com.au/users/mvw1/bpo/index.html
Thomas J. Theobald
us a while to catch up. Don't hold your breath, though.
Ah well. Hopefully people will sooner or later come to the understanding
that people 3k or 5k or 10k years ago had even less of a clue about a
possible god (in whatever form) than people today. It never ceases to amaze
me that someone can look at a book written umpteen hundred years ago by half
a dozen or more Osama Bin Ladens of the time, and try to take it literally,
like this great big universe was created so some twisted morality play can
be held on this one little planet. Even when you demonstrate that the earth
is not flat, it would seem the counterargument is "but it says it is in
here!" Grr.
That's it! I'm declaring myself the new incarnation of god. Any other
book, writer, or speaker is false. Everything I write is true. Except, of
course, for the parts where I lie. You'll all burn for eternity if you
don't believe me. You'll be rewarded beyond your wildest dreams when you
die if you follow me.
Tom's Commandments:
1. Believe in only that which can be experimentally proven.
2. Test any new theory rigorously.
3. Don't believe everything you read (or hear, or are told).
4. Authority exists only to continue itself - always question it.
5. I gave you a brain, use it. (This can be reprinted as "Try not to be
stupid.")
6. Respect all persons - regardless of sexual, political, gender, or other
variances. (You don't have to like them.)
7. I am accessible by all people. You don't need a go-between. Just don't
spam me.
8. Take care of yourselves and the place you live in. I will not clean up
after you.
9. Create your own laws as needed by your society and technology. Don't
expect what I tell you today to be literal "word" for you two millenia from
now. How am I supposed to know what goofball inventions you'll be relying
on then? That's why I made you - so I don't have to think of that crap.
10. I will not be pleased with you if you kill people in my name. Period.
End of story. No exceptions. Don't make me repeat this.
11. Don't multiply beyond the capacity of your environment to carry you.
See #8.
There. Go forth, and try to live happily.
T
Michael Warner
>That's it! I'm declaring myself the new incarnation of god.
Spoken like a man with a middle initial :-)
Thomas J. Theobald
T
Jeffeth
>
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2
A year-old article isn't really news here, is it?
Why do you think the scientists, plural, were famous? Was it because
they were chosen by the media controlled as part of The Matrix or
because they were really good and honest scientists acting independent
of The Matrix?
Did the year old article really ask the questions that creationist
scientists deem most important today, or did it ask year old questions
asked by the creationist non-scientists? If you don't know this, you
don't even know whether the article is just making you feel good or is
bravely answering the real issues with evolution.
According to Ken Ham, the evolutionists are refusing debates these days.
Could it be that their answers to strawman questions strategy only works
in non-interactive forums where the real issues can be ignored?
--
Jeff
"Bringing you the Story behind the Story, the News behind the News.
Hoping to convince you that reality is usually scoffed at and illusion
is usually king, but in the battle for the survival of Western
civilization it will be reality and not illusion or delusion that will
determine what the future will bring." --Monteith (www.radioliberty.com)
Jeffeth
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2
>
> "Today that battle has been won everywhere--except in the public
> imagination."
>
> They mean /American/ public imagination, of course. Creationism is
> hardly on
> the radar in the rest of the developed world.
...in the rest of the developed Matrix where reality is usually scoffed
at and illusion is usually king?
Rolf Lampa, RIL
Kirt wrote:
> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2
Kirt wrote:
> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2
Luckily, being published in SCIAM is not (yet) a scientific merit.
Found many incredible claims in the article ignoring that this part of science is in real trouble. So
far the defenders of the evolution-thingy can temporarily overcome the problems by having very strong
faith in what will be found in the future. below an example of the delusive faith.
I don't blame anyone for their strong desires because we all tend to "believe in success until we
succeed". Otherwise we think we are not likely to ever succeed in our efforts. What is a problem though
is that we sometimes fail. Especially when the faith is so strong that reality is ignored in favour of
the desire to succeed.
Here's one example of strong desire deluding our perception. There are numerous of other examples in
the article too, but starting with one is a start:
"But in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that
generated *phrases* randomly
*while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed*
(in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created
*the phrase* in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could
reconstruct *Shakespeare's entire play* in just four and a half days. "
(emphasis mine) .
Something very *typical* about the entire article can be summarized by this representative example.
From the (exact) quotation above we see an example of how a certain experiment is considered able to
demonstrate how chance and selection can produce information. But it appearantly never struck the
author of the article that the concept of information was defined and recognized OUTSIDE of the system
acting AND the system(s) being produced. In advance it was "injected" and thus it was both present
before it occured and it played an active role in that it became "prophetical" in its selection process
based on the intruding intelligence, and eventually, of course it would sooner or later *RE-construct*
anything.
But the article had the intention to give the reader an impression of that it CONSTRUCTed something
(which would have supported the purpose of the article).
Performing simulations is ok. But the scientific world knows more about information theory and
molecular biology today than they did in the 80s and the "test of concepts" don't survive even a lesser
scrupulous examination.
It is of course very important for everybody that it would be shown empirically that there's at least a
theoretical chance that higher and higher biological complexity can, or cannot, be produced
spontaneously (by implication that takes attempts to construct information). But the readers of this
particular NG also knows something more. They know how critical it is to specify and design a test so
that the test actually produces such results which are relevant to the problem at hand. Thus I suggest
the following :
1. Remove the *predefined (intelligent) knowledge* from the program which SPECIFIES which chance
results are "meaningful" giving predefined specifications no favour before crap.
2. Slow down the clock cycle speed of the computed process to that of REAL biological processes (for
instance to the frequencey of biological mutations). (imagining this lower speed is enough though b/c I
don't wanna be picky spoiling the possibility to perform a hypothetical test).
3. Let a second parallell chance simulation produce an "information format" ("format". *We, humans*,
already knows letters (FORM) and how they are represented, i.e. their various forms are like inc on
paper, computers holding ascii values- transforming it into different subformats - and finally
"publishing" or "interfaceing" the info to mechanisms having/making use of it. Only this little
"detail" is a tremendously complex system, simply not regarded in the test). But we need not only FORM,
we need also CONTENT:
4. Let yet another parallell simulation test run CONCURRENTLY with (1&2&3) to evolve an "interpreter"
of the produced information (which is by definition not "information" until there's an common format
and interpreter present), just to see if the "info" generated will come into contact with a Context
1) recognizing it (the Form)
2) as info (meaningful Content)
3). directing the correct Content to the proper Application (thus identify the "usefulness"
of it).
4). at a useful Moment (something present or something in the future?).
5. Finally, let the play begin.
Now, this was not abstract nor philosophical problems but real problems.
This was just a few crucial test conditions which has to be addressed before any virtual "test world"
could possibly present any meaningful simulations regarding the real world problem at hand (producing
information, even disregarding the application in real world biology).
The inventors of cuneiFORM and Shakespare is definitely not guilty of sinking the simulation to the
bottom by providing in advance with a *specification* of the Form (patterns) to be produced by the
chance and selection process. The simulation still didn't produce any content (information) as the
content never showed up, although WE, intelligent humans, could get the impression of it (or more
precise; The impression would convince us if we didn't know that the resulting patterns had no meaning
or purpose whatsoever within the system being produced (which we know wery well) except for being
randomly generated patterns selected by predefined specifications intentionally injected into the
process by intelligent programmers).
Of course there are more to this, but one of my points here is; Not very many out there understands how
crucial the test preconditions are for the test results and the interpretations drawn thereof.
But You do.
Q: Would the (predefined) sequence "LKHBWSUTFARDA GVDEWUFWEQMZ" be more or less "meaningful" to your
randomized system than "Oh, come on, try harder" ? Who gets impressed if the latter occures, YOU or the
randimized system providing with the char sequence?
Would you think that the average person out there could see the difficulties involved? Would you still
go to the public with this simulation from the 80s conscious about that the test doesn't show what it
is giving the _impression_ to show ?
Intellectual honesty doesn't allow for ignoring known (and understood) difficulties involved with real
world information and real world molecular biology.
If a simulation test in producing information regards realities - for instance such as what
"information" actually is - and at the same time producing a context which would (theoretically and/or
practically) recognize it, and even make any use of it (in whatever way), we really should take the
simulation results under serious consideration.
But the test referred to in the article does not specify or implement test conditions which really
makes the test simulation meaningful and possible to interpret as capable of producing information (it
would have been well enough if it had regarded _known_ implications about information).
You and I *know* that the simulation didn't produce information. By implication we understand
that. It produced random crap which was *indentified* in *advance* by the *intelligent*
*programmer* as *specified* information by Shakespare, and injected into/affecting the
simulation process. And that's a difference with scientific significance regarding the claims
with the simulation.
Please don't tell me you are ignoring this?
As an alternative I suggest making a meaningful test, which regards the basic problem even producing
relevant results. In succeeding constructing the very test itself you would probably be nominated for a
nobel price in molecular biology and/or information theory. Regardless of what theory or interpretation
the results would eventually support. And you would also have my deepest respect for showing a proper
way of arguing and trustworthyness in examining and interpreting tests and simulation results, with or
without the nobel price.
A big common problem is that the human apparatus for understanding things don't work the way we often
assume it does. Our minds are fully capable of not understanding things which we don't want to
understand (The phenomenon is also called "cognitive dissonance"). People being aware of the pitfalls
involved with cognitive dissonance are often called "open minded", "searching for truth", "being
humble" (especially about "knowledge" which is full of tricky traps and even ever changeing).
SCIAM has strong opinions, very strong opinions, and their opinions has been supported by a heavy
global media campaign pushing for evolution. Such opinions will not change reality a bit. Only the
public opinion will be affected. Science, or any truth-claims whatsoever, really doesn't need their
hypothesises reinforced by public opinion. With such "friends" (public opinion) science needs no
enemies b/c over time such partnerships tends to backfire.
But as I already said, luckily, being published in SCIAM is not (yet) a scientific merit.
// Rolf Lampa
"We expect being amused by the amazing. But we seldom get amazed by the expected."
- Rolf Lampa
Ken de Camargo Jr. [*TTFKAD]
> Liz [D] wrote:
>
> > But do the polls also ask "do you believe that living things
> > evolve"?
>
> and the percentage that do are? Rhetorical question, don't tell me,
> I'm afraid to know the answer.
:)
--
Ken [*The Team Formerly Known As D]
MoNBH/MDNPEI
http://planeta.terra.com.br/educacao/kencamargo/
"Knowledge is just opinion you trust enough to act upon"
Orson Scott Card
Ken de Camargo Jr. [*TTFKAD]
> Thomas J. Theobald wrote:
>
> > There. Go forth, and try to live happily.
>
> Excellent post, Tom!
I fifth that.
Jeffeth
>
But sloppy philosophy.
Jeffeth
> take us a while to catch up. Don't hold your breath, though.
Settled by Puritans and Free Mason infiltrators, each with a nearly
opposite purpose for the land. The Free Masons have the numbers now and
hold sway within the land today.
Nevertheless, it's been a well of missionary work to the world in Jesus
name, so I'd say more good than harm came out of America.
Good came from this land not only for that reason, but in another way
also. While America's Constitution made men free in the land, other
lands had to keep freedom to a higher levels than they would have done
had America a worse constitution and correspondingly less freedom.
The world has perhaps been a freer place longer because of America. I
think that when freedom in America fails, freedom will fall everywhere,
because the example to the people of what is possible and competition
among the elite world rulers to attract the best and the brightest human
resources with the highest freedom will be gone.
> Ah well. Hopefully people will sooner or later come to the
> understanding that people 3k or 5k or 10k years ago had even less of
> a clue about a possible god (in whatever form) than people today. It
The people of the past were far smarter and healthier than we are today,
according to the Bible, and as evidenced by the complexity of ancient
languages and other knowledges such as astronomy.
The numerous dark ages of the past were engineered by the witches who
wanted to rule the world. They made the common people stunted, stupid,
and fewer whenever they feared their numbers. The witches really did
poison the wells and worse, and that's the reason.
Today's elite made a matrix of lies in which we live, and the schools
play a major role beefing up this matrix. In the schools, they teach you
evolution to hide from you the fact that we are actually degenerating
into entropy (loss of information, order) and not improving (gaining
information, order). They show as "proof" how bad things were in the
past. They conveniently point to the last dark age, which they created.
Unfortunately, you were young and undiscerning, when they told you this.
Today we don't have the information we had available to us before the
last dark age that they created. The Renaissance didn't give it all
back. This gives them a huge advantage in brainwashing us with this
stuff.
> never ceases to amaze me that someone can look at a book written
> umpteen hundred years ago by half a dozen or more Osama Bin Ladens of
> the time, and try to take it literally, like this great big universe
Are you equating Adam, Job, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, Jesus,
John, Matthew, James, and Luke with an evil megalomaniacs who torture
undeserving victims literally for the Hell of it?
> was created so some twisted morality play can be held on this one
> little planet. Even when you demonstrate that the earth is not flat,
> it would seem the counterargument is "but it says it is in here!"
> Grr.
The flaw in your logic is your premise that there is no battle between
spiritual good and spiritual evil. Did you really mean to attack the
side of spiritual good?
> That's it! I'm declaring myself the new incarnation of god. Any
> other book, writer, or speaker is false. Everything I write is true.
> Except, of course, for the parts where I lie. You'll all burn for
> eternity if you don't believe me. You'll be rewarded beyond your
> wildest dreams when you die if you follow me.
No, thanks. I'd rather follow a loving god who offers me salvation that
does not depend on how much self-control, ability, or intelligence I
have. My god gives me a *new* heart just by my asking, and my new heart
keeps His commandments out of love for Him. My god is God.
> Tom's Commandments:
>
> 1. Believe in only that which can be experimentally proven.
Faith is experimentally proven to be powerful.
> 2. Test any new theory rigorously.
If you have time to do so before you die. More likely, you'll have to
rely on liars who claim they tested and found out stuff or you.
> 3. Don't believe everything you read (or hear, or are told).
Right, so how can you believe someone else's testing. Enjoy reinventing
the wheel constantly. It's fun, but dangerous. Since 9/11, the 20
foremost micro-biologists/ chemists that have worked on bio-weapons have
been assassinated. This is not the first time foremost scientists have
been assassinated in mass. The same sort of thing happened to those
working on space travel some years ago. Scientists are assassinated all
the time, but not always their lives, sometimes just their research or
their characters.
> 4. Authority exists only to continue itself - always question it.
Could be, but authority is not in and of itself bad. There is benevolent
authority. I'd say beware of corrupt authority. The curb on corruption
is always holding authority accountable.
> 5. I gave you a brain, use it. (This can be reprinted as "Try not to
> be stupid.")
> 6. Respect all persons - regardless of sexual, political, gender, or
> other variances. (You don't have to like them.)
But don't respect their actions. You are your neighbor's keeper. Try to
correct them. If they sincerely, persistantly choose evil though, then
you have to segregate them for the protection of others from their harm
and influence.
> 7. I am accessible by all people. You don't need a go-between.
> Just don't spam me.
Who wants to access someone who is just as clueless as they are?
Shouldn't they rather access wisdom? They need someone higher. God
qualifies.
> 8. Take care of yourselves and the place you live in. I will not
> clean up after you.
God designed the oceans so that they are capable of clean up after us
when we consume normally, able to sustain populations many times the
Earth's current populations.
There are threats though. The evil elite are doing things through the
industrial military complex that are dangerous to our environment,
including nuclear arms races, weather control, bio-weapons research, and
DNA tampering and microbe contamination in the food chain in order to
control access to healthy food.
Even these, the Earth may be capable of repairing with time, but the
populations will suffer and collapse in the mean time. That's what they
have in mind. The evil elite want to reduce the population from the
current 6 billion to a mear 500 million.
> 9. Create your own laws as needed by your society and technology.
You mean, let your anchor be light so you can find the coastal breakers
on the rocks.
You'll find there really are borders on your sea--the hard way. It's
going to hurt. Bad.
> Don't expect what I tell you today to be literal "word" for you two
> millenia from now. How am I supposed to know what goofball
> inventions you'll be relying on then? That's why I made you - so I
> don't have to think of that crap.
You don't want us to take any warnings about the borders of the sea
seriously, because you secretly wish us harm?
> 10. I will not be pleased with you if you kill people in my name.
> Period. End of story. No exceptions. Don't make me repeat this.
You don't want us to kill evil people who are killing good people? Don't
mention this to Bush. He'll put you on his doggy-doo list. ;-)
> 11. Don't multiply beyond the capacity of your environment to carry
> you. See #8.
God will reap the harvest before that ever happens. If we trust Him and
be fruitful and multiply according to his commandment, he'll make a new
Earth and a new Heaven sooner for us to inhabit.
> There. Go forth, and try to live happily.
Only happily? Just the emotional state? Not faithfully, peacefully,
joyfully, with self-control, kindness, gentleness? No spiritual states?
How can people with no spiritual caveat or clue live happily without
bumping roughly into each other?
Eric H. Johnson
> According to Ken Ham, the evolutionists are refusing debates these
> days.
> Could it be that their answers to strawman questions strategy only
> works
> in non-interactive forums where the real issues can be ignored?
The tactics of the organizers of such debates are now fairly well known.
They pull in a largely fundamentalist audience, have the creationist make
wild claims that an honest scientiest would have to look up to refute, and
basically force the scientist into proving a negative.
Gee, wonder why they are so averse to showing up? :)
Regards,
Eric
Eric H. Johnson
>> They mean /American/ public imagination, of course. Creationism is
>> hardly on the radar in the rest of the developed world.
>
> Or even with most of us.
Alas, that does not seem to be the case in the US. This is a bit dated
(1999), but I don't expect the numbers to have changed much since.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/evolutionviews990816.html
Summary from poll:
God created humans in the last 10000 years...44%
Evolution occurred, but God guided it..............39%
Evolution occurred without God's help.............10%
No opinion..................................................... 7%
What a surprise, I am in the extreme minority again. :)
Regards,
Eric
Rolf Lampa, RIL
"Eric H. Johnson" wrote:
> They pull in a largely fundamentalist audience, have the creationist make
> wild claims
Having no arguments leaves you to only playing with words. Like "A
convention about fundamental research would have an audience
mainly of fundame ..." ah, never mind.
> that an honest scientiest would have to look up to refute, and
> basically force the scientist into proving a negative.
Give an representative example (also called argument). Just like in
this NG, mocking and personal attacks and false/irrelevant leads
takes over when lacking arguments.
> Gee, wonder why they are so averse to showing up?
I have noticed that the battle really is between fundamentalists.
Not admitting that I'm a fundamentalist would be insulting me.
// Rolf Lampa
Rolf Lampa, RIL
"Eric H. Johnson" wrote:
Wow. 44% must be the truth!?.
Whithin other paradigms polls are considered being a deep and rebellish Sin.
(Don't ask me why. It's the riddle of the day)
// Rolf Lampa
Eric H. Johnson
> Having no arguments leaves you to only playing with words. Like "A
> convention about fundamental research would have an audience
> mainly of fundame ..." ah, never mind.
Ok, here is the essence of my argument in more detail:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debating/globetrotters.html
>> that an honest scientiest would have to look up to refute, and
>> basically force the scientist into proving a negative.
>
> Give an representative example (also called argument). Just like in
> this NG, mocking and personal attacks and false/irrelevant leads
> takes over when lacking arguments.
Duane Gish is famous for this type of debating style, bringing up details of
the chemical reaction of the bombardier beetle for example, facts which
virtually no scientist would know off the top of their head.
See:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debating/gish.html
Worse, at least one defender of evolution was ready for him, and made him
concede certain statements he made as erroneous. The very next debate he was
caught making the same claims he admitted were wrong the week before.
>> Gee, wonder why they are so averse to showing up?
>
> I have noticed that the battle really is between fundamentalists.
> Not admitting that I'm a fundamentalist would be insulting me.
True, it seems to be between the science based (ok that's a stretch)
creations, the likes of the ICR (Institute for Creation Research), and the
likes of the more formidable Phillip Johnson (defenders of intelligent
design) who tries to remove it from scientific debate, and more into
lawyerly debate.
Regards,
Eric
Martin Waldenburg
> 1. Believe in only that which can be experimentally proven.
not everything can be experimentally proven,
at a given time, lack of technology....
With the rest I can agree.
Martin
Martin Waldenburg
> name, so I'd say more good than harm came out of.....
megalomaniac.
Martin
Rolf Lampa, RIL
"Eric H. Johnson" wrote:
> Rolf Lampa, RIL wrote:
>
> > Having no arguments leaves you to only playing with words. Like "A
> > convention about fundamental research would have an audience
> > mainly of fundame ..." ah, never mind.
>
> Ok, here is the essence of my argument in more detail:
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debating/globetrotters.html
Better. But there's always a risk parttaking in a public debate. It has
audience.
Never heard of ICR before though. Regret if they consciously regard the audience
while debating publicly. It takes great responsibility to act in public. Not a
one sided problem though.
// Rolf Lampa
Martin Waldenburg
> The mentioned scientists see the problem of biological complexity and
> understand that it exeeds the capacity of mutation and selection. They
> regard mutation and selection as insufficient to explain the origin and
> development of life.
Morons.
Mutation and selection aren't the only vehicles of evolutions.
Take viruses into acount and you will not longer have any problem
explaining biological complexity.
Martin
Rolf Lampa, RIL
"Eric H. Johnson" wrote:
> The tactics of the organizers of such debates are now fairly well known.
You mean like this (from the refered article:
"http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debating/globetrotters.html") :
"...let me give you some suggestions. First, don't bother defending evolution.
Evolution is state of the art science
[<snipped>]
...And then **show the audience** how creation science is a bust. Don't bother
trying to explain something as complicated as evolution,
[<snipped>]
although during your rebuttal you can straighten **the audience** out on the
creationist's stupider claims. But hit hard at flood geology, the
impossibility of all organisms being descended from the Ark survivors (some
real problems in genetics here, folks), hit them on the young age of the
earth, quote Morris on Satan causing the craters on the moon, and all the
other dumb stuff the creationists ...
[<snipped>]
Call NCSE if you are going to debate or if you hear of someone going to
debate.
[<snipped>]
if it is impossible to avoid, call NCSE. 1-800-290-6006."
The message could also be reprinted as "Don't bother trying to understand and
defend your scientific arguments, it's true anyway. Leave the scientific stuff
out of the debate, attac the other party, personally, and then your science
will rest in peace as is. Forever".
// Rolf Lampa
Jeffeth
How do you equate an optimistic evaluation with megalomania?
Rolf Lampa, RIL
Martin Waldenburg wrote:
> Thomas J. Theobald wrote:
> > 1. Believe in only that which can be experimentally proven.
>
> not everything can be experimentally proven,
> at a given time, lack of technology....
...and lack of the infinite knowledge making it possible to prove
anything with 100% certainity. Falsification takes you a bit further
but not even that is fully covering.
This is why science is improving knowledge all the time. Better today
than yesterday. Not surprising at all. Misstakes will occur on the way
and that's only what should be expected. Denying it is plain folly.
// Rolf Lampa
Jeffeth
>> days.
>> Could it be that their answers to strawman questions strategy only
>> works
>> in non-interactive forums where the real issues can be ignored?
>
> The tactics of the organizers of such debates are now fairly well
> known. They pull in a largely fundamentalist audience, have the
> creationist make wild claims that an honest scientiest would have to
> look up to refute, and basically force the scientist into proving a
> negative.
I've never seen that.
Hugh Ross doesn't do what you said. wants to debate with a lay audience.
He only wants an audience of scientific peers, or he won't debate. He
says the Darwinist that he would debate is unable to keep the language
simple enough for a lay audience to understand anyway.
Ken Ham sounds like he wouldn't do what you said either.
> Gee, wonder why they are so averse to showing up? :)
That would be because Darwinists have to admit that they don't know how
evolution works. It's hard to defend a claim (evolution) that one
doesn't understand. :-)
Kirt
> Is it still, "most"? The latest polls that I've seen have more than 40%
> of Americans believing in a literal interpretation of the bible.
i think this is one of those occasions where there is a difference
between what people say and what they believe. i'm not sure why.
Jeffeth
> understand and defend your scientific arguments, it's true anyway.
> Leave the scientific stuff out of the debate, attac the other party,
> personally, and then your science will rest in peace as is. Forever".
That's what I thought. <g>
Michael Warner
>Or even with most of us.
You pagan northeners!
Martin Waldenburg
> because Darwinists.....
BTW Darwin's theory is only a simplified plagiat,
which became more popular as the original as it
was fitting better to imperialistic ideas.
Especialy the "surviving of the fittest"
gave an excuse for colonialists, slave traders
and other scum of that kind.
Martin
Kirt
> Luckily, being published in SCIAM is not (yet) a scientific merit.
yes it is, and has been for over 150 years.
Jeffeth
> details of the chemical reaction of the bombardier beetle for
> example, facts which virtually no scientist would know off the top of
> their head.
I don't know Gish. Do you honestly think evolutionists don't do in
debate what you complained about?
You complain that Gish tries to catch his opponent off balance using
specialization. Wouldn't you like to see a debate between two panels so
the specialization problem is mitigated.
After all, the idea should be to gain the truth, not to win the argument
be default when one side falls mute on a topic.
You complain that Gish has better presentation skills to a lay audience.
Wouldn't you like to wait to see a debate that was performed in front of
a scientific audience, until it can be captured and the material from
both sides smoothed out and made easier for a lay audience to understand
by professional presenters of comparable skill and presented to you in a
lay audience?
After all, a debate is not so helpful when one side out dazzles the
other with emotion, vocabulary, or impressive credentials/ resume, or
showing off scientific cleverness before a lay audience.
Jeffeth
> which became more popular as the original as it
> was fitting better to imperialistic ideas.
> Especialy the "surviving of the fittest"
> gave an excuse for colonialists, slave traders
> and other scum of that kind.
That's what I thought. <g>
Rolf Lampa, RIL
Kirt wrote:
What about the arguments? Still disregarding the arguments?
// Rolf Lampa
Rolf Lampa, RIL
"Liz [D]" wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 16:49:41 +0200, Martin Waldenburg wrote:
>
> > Especialy the "surviving of the fittest"
> > gave an excuse for colonialists, slave traders
> > and other scum of that kind.
>
> A good argument can be made (and has been, by Lewontin), that the way
> Darwin expressed the idea of natural selection was heavily influenced by
> mid-19th century imperialism
Probably a more reliable explanation to the evolution thingy than the
reality he tried to explain. Darwin was not the first though with the basic
ideas. It just found its time and conditions to blossom.
// Rolf Lampa
Eric H. Johnson
> Wow. 44% must be the truth!?.
>
> Whithin other paradigms polls are considered being a deep and
> rebellish Sin. (Don't ask me why. It's the riddle of the day)
I think I was making that point elsewhere recently, or maybe the opposite, I
can't quite tell. Anyway, the point being that opinion polls are no evidence
of factual correctness.
Regards,
Eric
Eric H. Johnson
> You mean like this (from the refered article:
> "http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debating/globetrotters.html") :
<snip>
> The message could also be reprinted as "Don't bother trying to
> understand and defend your scientific arguments, it's true anyway.
> Leave the scientific stuff out of the debate, attac the other party,
> personally, and then your science will rest in peace as is. Forever".
Exactly, it is a matter of presenting the best case for the opposition. An
opposition which discards the rules of science, and use it to their
advantage against those that presume it. Thus, basically playing by the same
rules as the opposition (well except the lying part).
Regards,
Eric
Eric H. Johnson
> I don't know Gish. Do you honestly think evolutionists don't do in
> debate what you complained about?
You mean make an error, admit one has made an error, then resume repeating
that error. Legitimate scientists most certainly do not engage in this type
of activity because it would destroy their reputation and destroy their
career.
> You complain that Gish tries to catch his opponent off balance using
> specialization. Wouldn't you like to see a debate between two panels
> so the specialization problem is mitigated.
>
> After all, the idea should be to gain the truth, not to win the
> argument be default when one side falls mute on a topic.
As I said in another post, the appropriate place to find this "truth" is
through scientific discourse, not in the court of public opinion.
> You complain that Gish has better presentation skills to a lay
> audience. Wouldn't you like to wait to see a debate that was
> performed in front of a scientific audience, until it can be captured
> and the material from both sides smoothed out and made easier for a
> lay audience to understand by professional presenters of comparable
> skill and presented to you in a lay audience?
>
> After all, a debate is not so helpful when one side out dazzles the
> other with emotion, vocabulary, or impressive credentials/ resume, or
> showing off scientific cleverness before a lay audience.
There is only so much information that can be conveyed through debate, while
there are copious books on the subject doing an outstanding job of
explaining it. Gould for example has written many such books. OTOH, very
little has come scientifically on the creationist side since Henry Morris.
Regards,
Eric
Eric H. Johnson
> Better. But there's always a risk parttaking in a public debate. It
> has audience.
Except it is a matter of science, not public debate. The case for
creationism should be made under the rules of science, not public discourse.
Which is why the creationist argument is disingenuous, since it summarily
fails under scientific scrutiny.
> Never heard of ICR before though. Regret if they consciously regard
> the audience while debating publicly. It takes great responsibility
> to act in public. Not a one sided problem though.
The ICR was founded by Henry Morris, regarded as the father of modern
creationism and author of "The Genesis Flood". The ICR is actually among the
more credible and honest of creationist defenders, but has lost out to the
defenders of "intelligent design" which for the most part avoids scientific
scrutiny entirely.
Regards,
Eric
Eric H. Johnson
> I've never seen that.
>
> Hugh Ross doesn't do what you said. wants to debate with a lay
> audience. He only wants an audience of scientific peers, or he won't
> debate. He says the Darwinist that he would debate is unable to keep
> the language simple enough for a lay audience to understand anyway.
>
> Ken Ham sounds like he wouldn't do what you said either.
Well if that is where he wants to keep the debate, why doesn't he publish
his arguments for peer review, making his argument the same way the
scientific community does.
As an aside, am I the only one that recognizes that the arguments for
creationism and GW possess this same flaw? That the argument has been taken
out of scientific debate and is being argued in the court of public opinion.
> That would be because Darwinists have to admit that they don't know
> how evolution works. It's hard to defend a claim (evolution) that one
> doesn't understand. :-)
There are lots of things which we do not know how certain details work, but
that does not mean that we cannot quantify the process or that not knowing
these details can lead to supporting radically opposed or previously
falsified theories.
Regards,
Eric
Eric H. Johnson
>> Luckily, being published in SCIAM is not (yet) a scientific merit.
>
> yes it is, and has been for over 150 years.
I think he is implying that it is not a peer reviewed journal, which is
true. However lack of peer review does not make it unreliable, where in fact
it has a 150 year reputation of reliability.
Regards,
Eric
Ken Honeyman
< snip >
>
> As an aside, am I the only one that recognizes that the arguments for
> creationism and GW possess this same flaw? That the argument has been taken
> out of scientific debate and is being argued in the court of public opinion.
>
The issue of Global Warming is now being argued in the court of public opinion
because the science implies that public, or political, policy needs to be
decided. The argument is about policy, the science is already pretty clear.
Global warming is real, already starting to have effects, and represents a
significant challenge. Some people seek to avoid this policy issue by claiming
that global warming doesn't exist or is somehow not scientifically established.
Their arguments are indeed much like the arguments of the creationists, that is,
totally unscientific and motivated by idealogical or faith based concerns and
not by the actual real world.
< snip >
>
> There are lots of things which we do not know how certain details work, but
> that does not mean that we cannot quantify the process or that not knowing
> these details can lead to supporting radically opposed or previously
> falsified theories.
... so how come you keep arguing that the global warming process is somehow not
real or whatever?
Ken
Rolf Lampa, RIL
"Eric H. Johnson" wrote:
Then we agree.
// rolf
Rolf Lampa, RIL
"Eric H. Johnson" wrote:
> Rolf Lampa, RIL wrote:
>
> > Better. But there's always a risk parttaking in a public debate. It
> > has audience.
>
> Except it is a matter of science, not public debate. The case for
> creationism should be made under the rules of science,
Part of the problem is that young pupils in schools are indoctrinated by old
dispoved fairy-tales and no one is defending their right to judge for themself.
They are tought what to know, what to think but not HOW to think.
This is a dangerous direction of "development".
> Which is why the creationist argument is disingenuous, since it summarily
> fails under scientific scrutiny.
I don't know which argument youre taking about. The "panspermia" argument or
what do you mean?
> The ICR was founded by Henry Morris,
Never heard of him before nor about ICR. Their history is not part of the
logical or empirical problems at hand.
> The ICR is actually among the more credible and honest of creationist
> defenders, but has lost out to the
> defenders of "intelligent design"
You are not very well informed. ID arguments really is a serious threat to the
false declarations of "indisputable facts". The only way disputable facts can
remain "indisputable" is by suppressing serious criticism.
> which for the most part avoids scientific scrutiny entirely.
ID provides criticism about claims by scientific society which cannot not defend
itself as the very foundation is flawed.
The evolution thingy is already stone dead. But some dedicted scientific
worshippers making use of science to support their narualistic philosophy became
more rojalists than the rojal majesty himself.
Serious critics of modern science is the most driving force in modern science
today. Serious criticism has always had that function.
// Rolf Lampa
Kirt
> I think he is implying that it is not a peer reviewed journal, which is
> true. However lack of peer review does not make it unreliable,
anything in there is almost certainly already peer reviewed.
Rolf Lampa, RIL
"Eric H. Johnson" wrote:
> Jeffeth wrote:
>
> > I don't know Gish. Do you honestly think evolutionists don't do in
> > debate what you complained about?
>
> [...]Legitimate scientists most certainly do not engage in this type
> of activity because it would destroy their reputation and destroy their
> career.
This is reason enough to disregard valid arguments only for dishonest persons.
> As I said in another post, the appropriate place to find this "truth" is
> through scientific discourse, not in the court of public opinion.
THIS is the "devilish" strategy. Don't let them in and thus their criticism can
be disregarded in front of the public.
I have always claimed that this is cowardice based on the fact that the
criticism of modern science is way to serious. It must not be true. Just
because. And when the bottom fell out of the dawininan box ( it really is stone
dead today) the only thing left to defend is the scientific society itself.
Reminds me way too much about the process of the other ideologies already
fallen.
// Rolf Lampa
Rolf Lampa, RIL
"Eric H. Johnson" wrote:
> Rolf Lampa, RIL wrote:
>
> > You mean like this (from the refered article:
> > "http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debating/globetrotters.html") :
>
> <snip>
>
> > The message could also be reprinted as "Don't bother trying to
> > understand and defend your scientific arguments, it's true anyway.
> > Leave the scientific stuff out of the debate, attac the other party,
> > personally, and then your science will rest in peace as is. Forever".
>
> Exactly, it is a matter of presenting the best case for the opposition. An
> opposition which discards the rules of science,
The best case in defending a fact is to stick to the facts and ellaborate on
what supports it, leaving the waek stuff out. This is how the causeless
evolution has become even speechless in latter days.
But it isn't that simple, there are other interests than scientific rules
involved in the battle. The evolution-thingy is no longer capable of defending
itself in debates nor in books as it lacks of essential logical and empirical
support. Reality is its biggest enemy.
The desperate and cowardice methods trying to preserve the corpse of the non
existant macro-evolution-thingy really is disgusting. It will not be enough with
only ignoring the truth, the defence of false religion usually takes more
drastic endings than ignorance only.
More to come by the "tolerant" is not a bad guess based on the history of the
fallen humanity. Calling me tolerant would be one of the worst insults I know
of. I hate nonsense and false religion.
// Rolf Lampa
Rolf Lampa, RIL
"Eric H. Johnson" wrote:
> Jeffeth wrote:
>
> > Ken Ham sounds like he wouldn't do what you said either.
>
> Well if that is where he wants to keep the debate, why doesn't he publish
> his arguments for peer review, making his argument the same way the
> scientific community does.
He's not invited so to speak. You know that very well and that's why what you
are suggesting is very disgusting.
> As an aside, am I the only one that recognizes that the arguments for
> creationism and GW possess this same flaw? That the argument has been taken
> out of scientific debate and is being argued in the court of public opinion.
Oh, you willingly ignore that the SCIAM article made announcements about the
global media campaign of mainly biased evolution-crap, . Or was it intended and
directed only to the "scientific auditory"? Is that what you try to say?
Last summer my brother was attacked at his daily work (he never was engaged in
scientific debates whatsoever) and suddenly he was personally attacked by the
use of so much lies (they called it arguments) suggesting him being a
rediculuous fool being a Christian. They had watched the TV-campagin refered to
by SCIAM.
What you say stinks and you are dishonest and willingly ignoring that we are no
longer talking "science" when talking about the evolution-thingy. It is false
religion, and it is used as false religion, and I could easily refute the very
foundation for the "arguments" held fourth by the "TV-scientists" suddenly
having fun mocking my brother almost to despair.
No, I'm not tolerant about this religious crap. It is a deadly play with words
but no content or even foundation in reality.
> > That would be because Darwinists have to admit that they don't know
> > how evolution works. It's hard to defend a claim (evolution) that one
> > doesn't understand. :-)
>
> There are lots of things which we do not know how certain details work,
No, we are better suited for knowing how things DON't work. But false religious
faith tends to make people blind even for that.
> but that does not mean that we cannot quantify the process
The process is falsified a thousand times. You are just not capable of
understanding the difficulties involved. Those secular and Chirstian scientists
capable of it simply drops the subject stone dead. It's a pain giving up
delusions. They *know* that that the evolution thingy lacks of the very roots
and foundation once that has become clear to them they don't even bother deal
with the leaves on its branches.
They look for new foundations, let be in different places. But macro-evolution
already is a stinking corpse. Only the raven still have any use for it. Sorry.
> or that not knowing these details can lead to supporting radically
> opposed or previously falsified theories.
Wow...! You really are a beliver ! Not even Christians have such a enormous hope
or faith ! Your creed is remarkable indeed.
I at least admit that my saviour died about 2000 years ago. It's a histircal
fact. But you don't even see that the object for your faith is stone dead thuis
very day !
What a Christian hopes is that he would eventually not have to pay for the
factual guilt which we human beings all feel deep inside. We feel it especially
when alone, at late nights, when nothing amusing disturbs our inner thoughs...
And the Christian hope is essentially based on that another Person took the
guilt away.
Our part is to stick to the Truth as far as can be reached by man and supporting
all our judgements with "two or three wittnesses" etc.(citing Jesus).
The Christian faith (trust) is focused on that very Person which claims he took
the blame, namely Jesus Christ. Theories and stuff is not even involved. The
rest is what we all struggle with. We observe, we test, we judge, we try to be
honest, try not to lie, although some of us don't even try, and we better be
humble because we might be lying unconsciously because of our limited knowledge
asf.
We need each other in order to bring some kind of order into the mess we cause.
We really are fallen creatures. Nothing is more available for "empirical"
investigation than that. And nothing is more ignored than the results of such
observations.
// Rolf Lamp
Thomas J. Theobald
I said *believe* in only that which can be experimentally proven.
You can trust something to happen a good percentage of the time, and still
live happily. You don't have to believe in something to have it work for
you. For instance, you trust your mug to hold your coffee or tea whenever
you bring it to your lips, but it cannot be known whether or not it will
shatter before it reaches them.
T
Thomas J. Theobald
Infiltrators? Ah, you seem to need a conspiracy-theory detox. They have
psychologists that can help you there.
> Settled by Puritans and Free Mason infiltrators, each with a nearly
> opposite purpose for the land. The Free Masons have the numbers now and
> hold sway within the land today.
>
> Nevertheless, it's been a well of missionary work to the world in Jesus
> name, so I'd say more good than harm came out of America.
Depends on who you talk to - the Christians who showed up on the shore
didn't seem to take it too kindly that there was a native population already
here.
> Good came from this land not only for that reason, but in another way
> also. While America's Constitution made men free in the land, other
> lands had to keep freedom to a higher levels than they would have done
> had America a worse constitution and correspondingly less freedom.
Your cause and effect aren't really closely synched up here - the US simply
demonstrated that a people could govern using a collaborative process rather
than be governed by a heirarchical and titled nobility. That the US had a
certain level of freedom in no way forced other lands to follow suit.
> The world has perhaps been a freer place longer because of America. I
> think that when freedom in America fails, freedom will fall everywhere,
> because the example to the people of what is possible and competition
> among the elite world rulers to attract the best and the brightest human
> resources with the highest freedom will be gone.
I don't necessarily hold that the US is the keystone to liberty any longer,
since there are other bastions out there now. I'm quite impressed with what
has been accomplished, though.
> > Ah well. Hopefully people will sooner or later come to the
> > understanding that people 3k or 5k or 10k years ago had even less of
> > a clue about a possible god (in whatever form) than people today. It
>
> The people of the past were far smarter and healthier than we are today,
> according to the Bible, and as evidenced by the complexity of ancient
> languages and other knowledges such as astronomy.
Smarter? I don't think I designed IQs to change all that much in just a few
thousand years - though your education levels certainly have. Healthier?
You mean dying at an average age of 36 instead of 74? Complexity of ancient
languages? They were not terribly complex, I'm afraid to tell you. Not far
removed from grunting at each other, I'm afraid. People were getting burned
at the stake and vivisected for becoming too knowledgeable, remember. Using
astronomy as an example, Galileo and Copernicus were both persecuted for
their discoveries (though Copernican theory eventually became accepted was
used against Galileo). They were primitive and brutal people back then. I
just wish I'd gotten to them and shown them the error of their books, and
leaders.
> The numerous dark ages of the past were engineered by the witches who
> wanted to rule the world. They made the common people stunted, stupid,
> and fewer whenever they feared their numbers. The witches really did
> poison the wells and worse, and that's the reason.
I think you're confusing witches with the Holy Roman Catholic Church (and
later, the Lutherans, and later still, the Anglican, Puritan, and pretty
much every other die-hard offshoot of protestant Christiandom) there.
Recall that the Church proclaimed the printing press anathema, and was
responsible for the witch hunts that burned many thousands of innocents for
no better reason than the inquisitor being paid per burning, and being
granted full investigative and judicial authority.
I'll tell you a secret - which really isn't, but when God says so, it sounds
better - there aren't any magic spells. Ergo, no witches. There are people
who claim themselves to be witches, but they're deluding themselves. There
are just people. Good people, and bad people. If you take your paragraph
there and put in "bad people" wherever you said "witches," you'd be square
on.
> Today's elite made a matrix of lies in which we live, and the schools
> play a major role beefing up this matrix. In the schools, they teach you
> evolution to hide from you the fact that we are actually degenerating
> into entropy (loss of information, order) and not improving (gaining
> information, order). They show as "proof" how bad things were in the
> past. They conveniently point to the last dark age, which they created.
> Unfortunately, you were young and undiscerning, when they told you this.
> Today we don't have the information we had available to us before the
> last dark age that they created. The Renaissance didn't give it all
> back. This gives them a huge advantage in brainwashing us with this
> stuff.
Your pseudoscience sounds good, but your understanding of entropy is flawed.
As the latest and only incarnation of god, I declare that you are violating
my 5th commandment. Go back to school, and try to listen with your brain,
not just your ears.
> > never ceases to amaze me that someone can look at a book written
> > umpteen hundred years ago by half a dozen or more Osama Bin Ladens of
> > the time, and try to take it literally, like this great big universe
>
> Are you equating Adam, Job, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, Jesus,
> John, Matthew, James, and Luke with an evil megalomaniacs who torture
> undeserving victims literally for the Hell of it?
Yep. You bet. Go check out all three sets of ten commandments that Moses
brought in (the one set in Deuteronomy and both sets in Exodus) just as an
example.
They condone slavery, punishment of children for crimes of their ancestors
(to the fourth generation, no less), subjugation of women, genocide, and
other fun activities humans normally associate with criminal insanity.
Worst of all, they condone killing in my name. Tsk.
Do you wear cotton-polyester clothing? If you do, you'd better start
deciding how you'd like to be executed. Have rebellious children? Take
them to the village elders and get them stoned to death. Ever hear a
neighbor or relative blaspheme? Death.
Or perhaps you'd just like to ask someone from the town of Jericho?
I only wish I'd caught up with them before they wrote all that garbage.
Look at all the damage they did. Grr.
> > was created so some twisted morality play can be held on this one
> > little planet. Even when you demonstrate that the earth is not flat,
> > it would seem the counterargument is "but it says it is in here!"
> > Grr.
>
> The flaw in your logic is your premise that there is no battle between
> spiritual good and spiritual evil. Did you really mean to attack the
> side of spiritual good?
No, I do believe that good and evil have a place in human minds, but the
bible, q'uran, etc., are simply attempts at explaining what they knew of the
universe and to lay down social laws in accord with their societies. Of
course, they were horribly ignorant of the universe at the time, so they had
to resort to fantasies they could make up, and it seems they were influenced
heavily by the priest classes trying to keep the citizens in line (and to
keep the donations flowing, I'm sure). Had they stopped imagining fairy
tales, and simply tried to follow my commandments (of course, I hadn't given
them yet, so I can't fault them there), this wouldn't be an issue.
> > That's it! I'm declaring myself the new incarnation of god. Any
> > other book, writer, or speaker is false. Everything I write is true.
> > Except, of course, for the parts where I lie. You'll all burn for
> > eternity if you don't believe me. You'll be rewarded beyond your
> > wildest dreams when you die if you follow me.
>
> No, thanks. I'd rather follow a loving god who offers me salvation that
> does not depend on how much self-control, ability, or intelligence I
> have. My god gives me a *new* heart just by my asking, and my new heart
> keeps His commandments out of love for Him. My god is God.
Oh yeah, the guy who lives in the sky, sees everything we do, and says "love
me or I'll burn you for all eternity." Yeah, that's love. I prefer to
treat my creations a little bit differently.
Would those be those thirty commandments spread around Deuteronomy and
Exodus? Enjoy.
The thing I find funniest in statements like this is that they sound
incredibly similar to the denial experienced by abused children - "Daddy
hits me because he loves me, and I did something wrong."
> > Tom's Commandments:
> >
> > 1. Believe in only that which can be experimentally proven.
>
> Faith is experimentally proven to be powerful.
Psychosomatic illnesses are certainly curable by a positive attitude, and
faith in a divine being certainly can engender such an attitude, no doubt.
If having faith in me is doing good, then that's great. Rock on.
> > 2. Test any new theory rigorously.
>
> If you have time to do so before you die. More likely, you'll have to
> rely on liars who claim they tested and found out stuff or you.
I commanded it, you don't get to choose. Since I recognize the limitations
of my creations, I will put forward that someone else may test for you, so
long as they publish a repeatable process by which the test can be
replicated, and similar results be obtained to validate them. Good catch.
Punishment for liars can be determined by their own society (see #9).
> > 3. Don't believe everything you read (or hear, or are told).
>
> Right, so how can you believe someone else's testing. Enjoy reinventing
> the wheel constantly. It's fun, but dangerous. Since 9/11, the 20
> foremost micro-biologists/ chemists that have worked on bio-weapons have
> been assassinated. This is not the first time foremost scientists have
> been assassinated in mass. The same sort of thing happened to those
> working on space travel some years ago. Scientists are assassinated all
> the time, but not always their lives, sometimes just their research or
> their characters.
I said don't believe *everything* you read. Please see #5.
> > 4. Authority exists only to continue itself - always question it.
>
> Could be, but authority is not in and of itself bad. There is benevolent
> authority. I'd say beware of corrupt authority. The curb on corruption
> is always holding authority accountable.
I said *question* it. If the answer seems appropriate in accord for your
activity, rock on. If you discover it's BS, say so. Please see #5.
> > 5. I gave you a brain, use it. (This can be reprinted as "Try not to
> > be stupid.")
> > 6. Respect all persons - regardless of sexual, political, gender, or
> > other variances. (You don't have to like them.)
>
> But don't respect their actions. You are your neighbor's keeper. Try to
> correct them. If they sincerely, persistantly choose evil though, then
> you have to segregate them for the protection of others from their harm
> and influence.
This pretty much follows with #9. You're catching on.
> > 7. I am accessible by all people. You don't need a go-between.
> > Just don't spam me.
>
> Who wants to access someone who is just as clueless as they are?
> Shouldn't they rather access wisdom? They need someone higher. God
> qualifies.
That's my point. I, God, am accessible to everyone. You don't need
priests.
> > 8. Take care of yourselves and the place you live in. I will not
> > clean up after you.
>
> God designed the oceans so that they are capable of clean up after us
> when we consume normally, able to sustain populations many times the
> Earth's current populations.
You are violating my 5th commandment. Here, read this:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?colID=1&articleID=00017139-DB05-1EDC-8E1C809EC588EF21
That was written by some of your own kind, so you don't have to prove to
someone else that God told you.
> There are threats though. The evil elite are doing things through the
> industrial military complex that are dangerous to our environment,
> including nuclear arms races, weather control, bio-weapons research, and
> DNA tampering and microbe contamination in the food chain in order to
> control access to healthy food.
Ah, you've made some mistaken assumptions based on the violation of my 5th
that I mentioned above. Please discard these, go back, and start over.
> Even these, the Earth may be capable of repairing with time, but the
> populations will suffer and collapse in the mean time. That's what they
> have in mind. The evil elite want to reduce the population from the
> current 6 billion to a mear 500 million.
Who says? And why would that matter if I created the oceans to "sustain
populations many times the Earth's current populations"? You aren't
listening. Go back and start following #5, please.
> > 9. Create your own laws as needed by your society and technology.
>
> You mean, let your anchor be light so you can find the coastal breakers
> on the rocks.
>
> You'll find there really are borders on your sea--the hard way. It's
> going to hurt. Bad.
>
No, I mean I have a whole universe to watch, and there are lots of gardens I
want to go look at. I made you so you wouldn't need a babysitter. When I
come through the neighborhood again in a few thousand years, it'd be nice to
know you can take care of yourselves.
> > Don't expect what I tell you today to be literal "word" for you two
> > millenia from now. How am I supposed to know what goofball
> > inventions you'll be relying on then? That's why I made you - so I
> > don't have to think of that crap.
>
> You don't want us to take any warnings about the borders of the sea
> seriously, because you secretly wish us harm?
No, I figure that if you follow my 5th commandment, you will see the
borders, because you'll have your eyes open while you're driving.
> > 10. I will not be pleased with you if you kill people in my name.
> > Period. End of story. No exceptions. Don't make me repeat this.
>
> You don't want us to kill evil people who are killing good people? Don't
> mention this to Bush. He'll put you on his doggy-doo list. ;-)
No, I said stop killing them in my name. I'm hoping that in following #5
and #9, you'll be able to deal with pricks like Hitler, and avoid moron
moments like the Inquisition and the Witch hunts.
> > 11. Don't multiply beyond the capacity of your environment to carry
> > you. See #8.
>
> God will reap the harvest before that ever happens. If we trust Him and
> be fruitful and multiply according to his commandment, he'll make a new
> Earth and a new Heaven sooner for us to inhabit.
No, I won't reap any harvest. Who said that? More of those old Osamas, I
know. It was a rhetorical question. Deific sarcasm is often lost on the
world. What could I possibly want from a material world, other than to see
it and observe its beauty? I have everything I need. I made you people
because I felt like it, and figured you'd appreciate having the chance to
observe it yourselves. I'll tell you another secret: I didn't make any
heaven or hell. Some priest back in the fifth century invented the idea so
he could use fear to keep his parish in line and keep the tithes coming in.
I don't need 'em. It's ideas like that that make you invent excuses to kill
each other in my name. I hate it when you do that. You have the makings
for your own heaven and hell already, in case you weren't looking around.
Make the best of it. Currently, looks like you're cruising for a hell, by
the way. Better figure out how to stop all that overbreeding you people are
doing.
> > There. Go forth, and try to live happily.
>
> Only happily? Just the emotional state? Not faithfully, peacefully,
> joyfully, with self-control, kindness, gentleness? No spiritual states?
>
> How can people with no spiritual caveat or clue live happily without
> bumping roughly into each other?
No, just happily. All those others have implications behind them that are
subject to interpretation, which will lead you back to all that killing each
other in my name stuff. Did I mention I hate that? #5 and #9 are there to
deal with the moments when you do bump roughly into each other. Actually, I
designed it so you would bump roughly into each other - gives you a little
variety, because without some downturns, you'd never appreciate the ups.
There. I have spoken. Good questions, and I'm always happy to supply
answers.
T
Ken de Camargo Jr. [*TTFKAD]
> There. I have spoken. Good questions, and I'm always happy to supply
> answers.
>
Not to disencourage you in your new career, but you might have better
luck talking to a microwave oven.
<g>
--
Ken [*The Team Formerly Known As D]
MoNBH/MDNPEI
http://planeta.terra.com.br/educacao/kencamargo/
"Knowledge is just opinion you trust enough to act upon"
Orson Scott Card
Eric H. Johnson
> Part of the problem is that young pupils in schools are indoctrinated
> by old dispoved fairy-tales and no one is defending their right to
> judge for themself. They are tought what to know, what to think but
> not HOW to think.
>
> This is a dangerous direction of "development".
You must be referring to Sunday School. :) If anything is a fairy tale it is
the concept that the universe was created in 6 days, a world wide flood in
the last 10000 years can escape detection, an ass can talk, and all the
other things one must accept in believing in a literal interpretation of the
Bible.
Science is a regimented thought process of applying evidence to a theory
which has the properties of testability, predictability and falsifiability.
So it is about how to think critically, not how to think (typically it is
liberals that get this part wrong <g>).
Also realize, I am typically on the other side of this fence, in that you
would not have to go back in the archives very far to find me saying
something to the effect of "freedom of religion is not freedom from
religion".
> I don't know which argument youre taking about. The "panspermia"
> argument or what do you mean?
I am talking about all of them, because every time one is shot down they
just move to another. Further, they seem to think that shooting down
evolution will in some way gives credence to creationism, when in fact the
two things are completely separate.
Creationism does not make hypotheses and theories then provide
substantiation of them, it makes its arguments by trying to poke holes in
alternative theories and making arguments that effectively require that they
be disproved. Science is not based on that which cannot be disproved, but on
that which can be proved.
> Never heard of him before nor about ICR. Their history is not part of
> the logical or empirical problems at hand.
http://www.counterbalance.net/history/morris-body.html
http://www.icr.org/
> You are not very well informed. ID arguments really is a serious
> threat to the false declarations of "indisputable facts". The only
> way disputable facts can remain "indisputable" is by suppressing
> serious criticism.
ID is rather easily refuted, among others by the amount of junk and
vestigial organs found in virtually all life forms. If it were designed for
its purpose why would things be left over, particularly those consistent
with the scientific evolutionary history of the life form.
For instance, why do humans have a flexible backbone, which while
appropriate for a simian quadruped, is the cause of all sorts of problems in
upright standing humans?
> ID provides criticism about claims by scientific society which cannot
> not defend itself as the very foundation is flawed.
Criticism of evolution is independent of evidence for ID. Where is the
evidence for ID?
> The evolution thingy is already stone dead. But some dedicted
> scientific worshippers making use of science to support their
> narualistic philosophy became more rojalists than the rojal majesty
> himself.
Gee, I guess I missed the memo, because it looks to me to be the most sound
of all scientific theories. It has lasted fundamentally intact for closing
in on 150 years.
> Serious critics of modern science is the most driving force in modern
> science today. Serious criticism has always had that function.
Again, criticism does nothing in the way of support for alternate theories.
Regards,
Eric
Thomas J. Theobald
lurker might observe and be changed positively by practicing my
commandments ).
T
Thomas J. Theobald
mutation and selection. Viral transfer of DNA, as Martin pointed out, is
one. They also, however, disregard the immense scales of time and
population involved in speciation, which give mutation plenty of "elbow
room" to mix things up.
T
Rolf Lampa, RIL
"Eric H. Johnson" wrote:
Eric, I owe you to say that you are out on weak ice here.
I appreciate your honesty though (I really think that you are trying to be
honest) but think of how your argument can be used against your own
standingpoint. Which is the very case with for instance ID. Just because modern
science refuses to incorporate its serious criticism, AND its resonable
alternative explanations of the phenomenons criticized, it doesnt make ID
unreliable by implication.
Let ID and the evolution-thingy stand on its own merits and let us watch which
stands the longer.
But... ID is not harmless stuff. It finally killed the very foundation for the
evolution-thingy. It was a good thing for the truth, and for science which now
have a second chance to go ahead, but it was certainly not good for those having
use of science as a false religion.
The full consequences of the sudden death of the evolution-thingy is yet to be
shown. The basic ideas in the evolution-thingy are not just simple natural
forces, it is intimely coherent with naturalistic philosophy and when the
implications of the fall of the evolution-thingy has reached the conscious mind
of our culture our culture might be in danger. The global media campaign
announced in the SCIAM article shows that we are dealing with burning stuff.
The collapse of the evolution-thingy or perhaps yet even more intricate
exposures of the delusions of "modern man" may well be reason enough to start
processes alike those described in the book of Revelation.
Amongst other things the book of Rev. foretells that being a Christian, with a
solid fundation, in the end times will not be for chicken.
// Rolf Lampa
Rolf Lampa, RIL
Kirt wrote:
"almost" is good enough only for false religion.
// Rolf Lampa
Thomas J. Theobald
>>
For instance, why do humans have a flexible backbone, which while
appropriate for a simian quadruped, is the cause of all sorts of problems in
upright standing humans?
<<
I'll add to that another interesting question: Why are retinal eyes inside
out? The way the eye is constructed, photosensitive materials are pressed
against the back wall of the eye, with nerve connections extruding from the
cells facing the incoming light, where they not only block photons, but also
must bind into the optic nerve and pass through the wall to reach our
brains - creating the "blind spot" we can observe using the thumb test we
learned in grade school. Why not simply flip the sesors around, where they
not only will have improved receptivity, but will also have no blind spot,
as the optic nerve can then connect directly without impeding vision?
T
Jim McKay
Microwave minions unite!
--
Regards:
Jim McKay
"Doing my part to piss off the right wing scoundrels!"
"Who are you going to believe... us or your own two eyes?"
--Groucho Marx
Posted with: XanaNews 1.15.2.7
Eric H. Johnson
> I'll add to that another interesting question: Why are retinal eyes
> inside out? The way the eye is constructed, photosensitive materials
> are pressed against the back wall of the eye, with nerve connections
> extruding from the cells facing the incoming light, where they not
> only block photons, but also must bind into the optic nerve and pass
> through the wall to reach our brains - creating the "blind spot" we
> can observe using the thumb test we learned in grade school. Why not
> simply flip the sesors around, where they not only will have improved
> receptivity, but will also have no blind spot, as the optic nerve can
> then connect directly without impeding vision?
Or as an old joke goes, in regards to what type of engineer God must have
been. He must have been a civil engineer because only a civil engineer would
run a sewer line down the middle of a recreational area. :)
Regards,
Eric
Thomas J. Theobald
> > through scientific discourse, not in the court of public opinion.
>
> THIS is the "devilish" strategy. Don't let them in and thus their
criticism can
> be disregarded in front of the public.
I'm not 100% sure what you're getting at here, but I suspect you have
confused the body of knowledge provided by the scientific method, and the
scientific method itself.
Science welcomes criticism - it is only the information which can withstand
the most rigorous criticism that survives. That's why it has worked so
well. If I claim that my coffee cup will hover if I release it in the air,
someone will say "bull!" and I have to prove that my assertion is correct.
You yourself practice science on a daily basis.
You're obviously using a computer to view these posts - where do you think
the information came from that enabled the construction of that computer?
You think someone discovered a footnote on the Dead Sea Scrolls that said
"If you put silicon gates on a chip and program them this way, you'll be
able to play Tomb Raider on your television."?
Counter to the scientific method, most ideology demands utter subjugation
and acceptance. That is one of the reasons why creationists have such a
hard time with the body of knowledge presented - it has been poked and
prodded, and currently it looks like evolution is the method by which things
work in biology. Creationism cannot handle the kind of scrutiny that has
been applied to evolution, or other items of knowledge that have been gained
through the scientific method.
Which reminds me - if you want to go with the creationist story, you'd
better be ready to argue that the earth is both flat and at the center of
the solar system, galaxy, and universe (of course, the galaxy and the
universe as we know them did not exist in the bible, so you'll have to argue
they are figments of our imagination too) - both postulates that go hand in
hand with a creationistic view of biology. Creationism applied to physics,
astronomy, and in fact the entirety of cosmology. You can't take
creationism only in biology, man. It's a one-size-fits-all suit, which is
why the little Osama who wrote Genesis was screwed from the get-go. It
might have worked in his lifetime, but it was doomed to fail as soon as
people started noticing that the universe worked differently than what he
fantasied up.
> I have always claimed that this is cowardice based on the fact that the
> criticism of modern science is way to serious. It must not be true. Just
> because. And when the bottom fell out of the dawininan box ( it really is
stone
> dead today) the only thing left to defend is the scientific society
itself.
That's the second time I've seen you claim "darwinism is dead." I assume
you mean evolution/natural selection/change over time/whatever you want to
call it. I'll call you on that. You are lying. Prove your claim. I will
put forward, if you can prove this, then I will go along with it. However,
you are going to have to prove it quite soundly. Until then, I'll repeat:
you are lying.
Guess what? That's science ). You put something forward, I say "bull!",
and it's up to you to prove what you said. Science works that way, and
you're practicing it right now.
T
Thomas J. Theobald
the
> fallen humanity. Calling me tolerant would be one of the worst insults I
know
> of. I hate nonsense and false religion.
Sorry to hear that, since you seem to be propogating a pretty big dose of
both nonsense and false religion.
Which reminds me - isn't that kind of redundant? False religion, that is?
They're all false. Just ask any of them about any of the others.
T
Abdullah Kauchali
"Thomas J. Theobald" <ttheob...@nospamplease.msn.com> wrote in
> I'm not 100% sure what you're getting at here, but I suspect you have
> confused the body of knowledge provided by the scientific method, and the
> scientific method itself.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
~ Arthur C Clarke
> Counter to the scientific method, most ideology demands utter subjugation
> and acceptance. That is one of the reasons why creationists have such a
> hard time with the body of knowledge presented - it has been poked and
> prodded, and currently it looks like evolution is the method by which
things
> work in biology. Creationism cannot handle the kind of scrutiny that has
> been applied to evolution, or other items of knowledge that have been
gained
> through the scientific method.
Wasn't it this guy called Thomas Acquinas who put a rest to this polarised
origins of argument - of faith versus science? (Could be wrong.)
Thomas J. Theobald
> Wasn't it this guy called Thomas Acquinas who put a rest to this polarised
> origins of argument - of faith versus science? (Could be wrong.)
It was either him or Thomas Paine, I can't recall either.
T
Steve Caupp
<ro...@rilnet.com> wrote:
> Some well-known scientists and proponents of
> naturalistic evolution who seriously argue against the sufficiency of
> the mutation-selection mechanism :
>
> Stephen Jay Gold,
Even in death you guys won't leave him alone. Mr. Gould (note the
spelling, BTW) had been abused by creationists forever. This is a
blatant misrepresentation of his views (but you already knew that,
didn't you?).
Jim McKay
> Wasn't it this guy called Thomas Acquinas who put a rest to this
> polarised origins of argument - of faith versus science?
I think it was Father Sarduci. :)
Steve Caupp
<ttheob...@nospamplease.msn.com> wrote:
> That's it! I'm declaring myself the new incarnation of god.
Blasphemer! Only the Invisible Pink Unicorn of a.a. (not Alcoholics
Anonymous) is the one true ruler of the universe. Bow before her Pink
Hooviness!
Eric H. Johnson
> The issue of Global Warming is now being argued in the court of
> public opinion because the science implies that public, or political,
> policy needs to be decided. The argument is about policy, the science
> is already pretty clear. Global warming is real, already starting to
> have effects, and represents a significant challenge.
That is false, I just quoted Patrick Michaels (Research scientist in
Climatology at UVA), saying it has been disproved in scientific circles.
Richard Lindzen of MIT says much the same thing, while I just cited the
research of Henrik Svensmark attributing at least half of the warming of the
last 100 years to increased cosmic radiation from the sun. So it is
demonstratively false to say the science is clear.
> Some people
> seek to avoid this policy issue by claiming that global warming
> doesn't exist or is somehow not scientifically established. Their
> arguments are indeed much like the arguments of the creationists,
> that is, totally unscientific and motivated by idealogical or faith
> based concerns and not by the actual real world.
Also false. GW fails because of the falsifiability of scientific theories.
When the theory says Antarctica should be warming when in fact it is cooling
or that lower tropospheric temperatures should be rising faster than surface
temperatures, when in fact they are virtually unchanged, then that is
falsification of the theory.
It is the GW defenders that are like the creationists, by then moving the
argument to something else. Specifically something else from that used to
form the basis of that public policy.
> ... so how come you keep arguing that the global warming process is
> somehow not real or whatever?
I think I just covered that. :)
Regards,
Eric
Thomas J. Theobald
> >
> > Well if that is where he wants to keep the debate, why doesn't he
publish
> > his arguments for peer review, making his argument the same way the
> > scientific community does.
>
> He's not invited so to speak. You know that very well and that's why what
you
> are suggesting is very disgusting.
That is a falsehood. There is no invitation required to submit papers for
peer review. Your fabrication is actually what gets very disgusting, Rolf.
You're right - it isn't wise to spout things that aren't true or that have
no bearing content. Could you please point out how this all bears on the
current discussion?
> > > That would be because Darwinists have to admit that they don't know
> > > how evolution works. It's hard to defend a claim (evolution) that one
> > > doesn't understand. :-)
> >
> > There are lots of things which we do not know how certain details work,
>
> No, we are better suited for knowing how things DON't work. But false
religious
> faith tends to make people blind even for that.
>
>
> > but that does not mean that we cannot quantify the process
>
> The process is falsified a thousand times. You are just not capable of
> understanding the difficulties involved. Those secular and Chirstian
scientists
> capable of it simply drops the subject stone dead. It's a pain giving up
> delusions. They *know* that that the evolution thingy lacks of the very
roots
> and foundation once that has become clear to them they don't even bother
deal
> with the leaves on its branches.
>
> They look for new foundations, let be in different places. But
macro-evolution
> already is a stinking corpse. Only the raven still have any use for it.
Sorry.
In case you missed it in my other post, Rolf, I'm calling your hand on this
"evolution-thingy is dead" comment. I am stating, until you prove
otherwise, that you are lying. Please prove your case that evolution is
dead.
> > or that not knowing these details can lead to supporting radically
> > opposed or previously falsified theories.
>
> Wow...! You really are a beliver ! Not even Christians have such a
enormous hope
> or faith ! Your creed is remarkable indeed.
>
> I at least admit that my saviour died about 2000 years ago. It's a
histircal
> fact. But you don't even see that the object for your faith is stone dead
thuis
> very day !
There are still significant doubts as to whether Jesus even existed, Rolf.
In point of fact, the following authors:
Josephus
Philo-Judćus
Seneca
Pliny Elder
Arrian
Petronius
Dion Pruseus
Paterculus
Suetonius
Juvenal
Martial
Persius
Plutarch
Pliny Younger
Tacitus
Justus of Tiberius
Apollonius
Quintilian
Lucanus
Epictetus
Hermogones Silius Italicus
Statius
Ptolemy
Appian
Phlegon
Phćdrus
Valerius Maximus
Lucian
Pausanias
Florus Lucius
Quintius Curtius
Aulus Gellius
Dio Chrysostom
Columella
Valerius Flaccus
Damis
Favorinus
Lysias
Pomponius Mela
Appion of Alexandria
Theon of Smyrna
Who all lived concurrently with (i.e., they existed at the same time, which
was considered to be within a 100-year period) the idea of Jesus the Christ,
have between them all written an enormous quantity. Yet still, among all of
this literature that has survived (with the exception of two passages by
Roman writers that remain disputed), no mention of Jesus Christ can be
found. Neither do they mention the Disciples or the Apostles.
[Reference: The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of
His Existence - John Remsburg, published by The Truth Seeker Company]
It would seem that history (apart from the New Testament) is silent on the
subject of Jesus, Rolf. I suspect he did exist in some form, but it was not
until Paul dreamed up the idea that he should be the messiah of a new church
that he acquired his divine reputation.
> What a Christian hopes is that he would eventually not have to pay for the
> factual guilt which we human beings all feel deep inside. We feel it
especially
> when alone, at late nights, when nothing amusing disturbs our inner
thoughs...
> And the Christian hope is essentially based on that another Person took
the
> guilt away.
>
> Our part is to stick to the Truth as far as can be reached by man and
supporting
> all our judgements with "two or three wittnesses" etc.(citing Jesus).
The reason you're in an argument at all here, then, would seem to be that
you are standing by the bible, and not seeking the truth.
> The Christian faith (trust) is focused on that very Person which claims he
took
> the blame, namely Jesus Christ. Theories and stuff is not even involved.
The
> rest is what we all struggle with. We observe, we test, we judge, we try
to be
> honest, try not to lie, although some of us don't even try, and we better
be
> humble because we might be lying unconsciously because of our limited
knowledge
> asf.
>
> We need each other in order to bring some kind of order into the mess we
cause.
> We really are fallen creatures. Nothing is more available for "empirical"
> investigation than that. And nothing is more ignored than the results of
such
> observations.
I really can't comment on the veracity of the statements you made, other
than to ask you to prove them. I don't believe them.
T
Thomas J. Theobald
modern
> science refuses to incorporate its serious criticism, AND its resonable
> alternative explanations of the phenomenons criticized, it doesnt make ID
> unreliable by implication.
What reasonable alternative explanations? What reasonable criticism?
> Let ID and the evolution-thingy stand on its own merits and let us watch
which
> stands the longer.
>
> But... ID is not harmless stuff. It finally killed the very foundation for
the
> evolution-thingy. It was a good thing for the truth, and for science which
now
> have a second chance to go ahead, but it was certainly not good for those
having
> use of science as a false religion.
Once again, Rolf, this is a lie. Provide evidence to your statement that
"it has finally killed the very foundation" of evolution. Prove it.
> The full consequences of the sudden death of the evolution-thingy is yet
to be
> shown. The basic ideas in the evolution-thingy are not just simple natural
> forces, it is intimely coherent with naturalistic philosophy and when the
> implications of the fall of the evolution-thingy has reached the conscious
mind
> of our culture our culture might be in danger. The global media campaign
> announced in the SCIAM article shows that we are dealing with burning
stuff.
This is pseudo-messianic crap, dude. Fecal material. Where's the
foundation for what you're talking about? Once again, here it comes: prove
it.
> The collapse of the evolution-thingy or perhaps yet even more intricate
> exposures of the delusions of "modern man" may well be reason enough to
start
> processes alike those described in the book of Revelation.
>
> Amongst other things the book of Rev. foretells that being a Christian,
with a
> solid fundation, in the end times will not be for chicken.
Yadda yadda, Revelations rears its head. Prove it.
T
Thomas J. Theobald
nature of the current warming trend, but about its causes, to say that it
can neither be 100% confirmed or denied whether there actually is cause for
concern, or the nature of the effect, if there is one. Given that this was
a non-issue twenty years ago, and has become a fairly significant one, it
simply behooves us all to pay attention to it - because if it turns out to
be a real issue and one we can curb, the consequences of failing to do so
would be rather unpleasant.
T
Eric H. Johnson
> This is reason enough to disregard valid arguments only for dishonest
> persons.
I think I agree (either that or I did not understand what you said).
> THIS is the "devilish" strategy. Don't let them in and thus their
> criticism can be disregarded in front of the public.
>
> I have always claimed that this is cowardice based on the fact that
> the criticism of modern science is way to serious. It must not be
> true. Just because. And when the bottom fell out of the dawininan box
> ( it really is stone dead today) the only thing left to defend is the
> scientific society itself.
>
> Reminds me way too much about the process of the other ideologies
> already fallen.
It is not hidden, and in fact unlike Creationism or ID, there are books and
other information in the public domain coming out all the time. Creationism
and ID is still based on very few publicly available resources.
All I am saying is there are better means of getting this information out
other than public debate. And considering the complexity of the issue,
public debate is probably one of the worst mediums.
Regards,
Eric
Rolf Lampa, RIL
"Eric H. Johnson" wrote:
> Rolf Lampa, RIL wrote:
>
> > Part of the problem is that young pupils in schools are indoctrinated
> > by old dispoved fairy-tales and no one is defending their right to
> > judge for themself. They are tought what to know, what to think but
> > not HOW to think.
> >
> > This is a dangerous direction of "development".
>
> You must be referring to Sunday School. :) If anything is a fairy tale it is
> the concept that the universe was created in 6 days,
Did the "big bang" take much longer that that (6 days?).
> a world wide flood in
> the last 10000 years can escape detection,
Evolutionist's dig's the corpses after that disaster everyday. Ever heard of the
"catastrophic theory"?
This is what I call "copy 'n paste science".
> an ass can talk,
Apes are the better. Chimpanzee use VB and are impriving using Java (according
to recent articles from who know where. Claimed to be scientific tests however,
and why not?)
> and all the other things one must accept in believing in a
> literal interpretation of the Bible.
You are encouraged to have trust in the historic person Jesus Christ in order to
get rid of your guilt in the mess we all are part of. You are free to test any
other claims by the bible. But you better not take your own course examining
anothers course.
Jesus was the one revealing to me the difference between Form and Content before
i heard that it was a "rule of thumb" for modern software designers. Appearantly
it has been a rule of thumb for all Designers in all times. Aso, aso.
You don't know (yet) what youre talking about, but your still have the option to
really pick it into pieces. Just to see if you manage with it. But I warn you,
those who trie the hardest tends to come out as devoted followers of Christ.
> Science is a regimented thought process of applying evidence to a theory
> which has the properties of testability, predictability and falsifiability.
So let us stick to that in the context of science. And outside of these
LIMITATIONS other possibilities may, or may not apply.
> So it is about how to think critically,
...within a limited frame of reference. Which was basically defined by the
founders of modern science which vast majority was made up of Christians.
> not how to think (typically it is
> liberals that get this part wrong <g>).
The educational system is to tech HOW to think, not WHAT to think. Otherwise
science will drop down dead withing this generation.
> [<snip>]
> >I don't know which argument youre taking about. The "panspermia"
> > argument or what do you mean?
>
> I am talking about all of them, because every time one is shot down they
> just move to another.
I have not seen any serious debate about "pan spermia" theory. You know why just
as i know why. It's not a Christian idea although definately carrying some
conceptual likeness if you stretch it a little. You don't have to strecth it
much to see the conceptual likeness with a virgin birth, or a extraterestial
power (although impersonal like all the pantheistic hedonism and why not the 666
"person" etc) introducing biological life on earth.
> Further, they seem to think that shooting down evolution will in some way
> gives credence to creationism, when in fact the two things are completely
> separate.
Show me in which manner. The problem with the evolution-thingy is that it lacks
of "known" driving forces capable of *Creating* biological complexity. It has
been shown that it takes incredible intelligence to put it all together in the
first place.
It all points in a certain direction if not that direction is excluded in
advance. But that's the usual religious battle between false religion and the
truth. Somehow it engages everyone with a sinfull rebellish nature.
The Christian God, the Creator of all things, is the only option which is not an
option. God is out of scope of science, but then don't replace him either
without THE reliable support !!!!!
And here we stand like fools while both towers and ideas are shot down all
around.
> Creationism does not make hypotheses and theories then provide
> substantiation of them,
If real world observations conform to the basic message in genesis it would be
foolish to make a new hypothesis replacing the reality observed. Only a depraved
mind would consciously make a "new world" while observing the real one.
By prejudice excluding even the very possibility of that what you observe can be
true then you cannot "see" it.
Only that which is NOT real is what I call fairy-tales. They are made up
(scientific) stories which are shot down one by one over time. Reality still
stands there. For all to observe.
And Christians observing reality are mocked for their silly stupidness.
> it makes its arguments by trying to poke holes in
> alternative theories
No, it wants to "rediscover reality" by, not only trying, but actually poking
big big holes in the made up imaginated worlds of the distorted minds of
humanity.
All observations still supports reality. Reality simply don't change because of
our attempts to redefine it.
> and making arguments that effectively require that they
> be disproved.
That's what scientific falsification is all about.
Coincidently Darwin himself formulated one of the most important falsifications
(=not made up by ID movement) which finally pushed the evolution-thingy over the
edge. He said that if it could be shown that biological organs cannot be reduced
step wise his theory would fall unsupported.
It has been shown, and the hombres of the ID movement put a big hole in it,
leaving nothing but the hole left to discern.
This is also why science is desperately searching for alternatives. But they
forgot to inform You about their current focus and concentration of efforts.
> Science is not based on that which cannot be disproved, but on
> that which can be proved.
Well, I'm afraid that it is too late for me to warn you about the weak ice.
There's no ice at all out there where you currently reside.
The rest below is too redundant to pick up again. Ask you doctor about the
"vestigial organs" and he'll be glad to tell you what they are good for.
Dead is dead and won't come alive because of your imagenary powers.
I'll tell you the truth; The evolution-thingy actually has no holes at all. It
is a dark hole in itself. One can't see enything being down in it.
It doesn't give you one single hint about that reality is much older that 150
years. Sorry, I can help only those who wants to be helped out of the dark.
Not even Jesus himself managed to help those who didn't want to be cured. He was
way to conscious about how we where made. But he made us thattaway for a
specific purpose: That none, whatsoever, no God no Devil would be able to FORCE
anyone to anything. This makes us responsible. And there's only two trick's
available to change someones mind (except for inviting with regard and charity)
:
1. Fear (scaring, shame, public mockery)
2. Dupe (impose, fool, etc)
So when I feel the smell I do like him: Go straight into the crowd. That may
eventually cost be my scalp, or worse, but so what?
Being a Christian is not for chicken.
>> Serious critics of modern science is the most driving force in modern
>> science today. Serious criticism has always had that function.
> Again, criticism does nothing in the way of support for alternate theories.
Criticism uncovers lies and true love have no fears whatsoever. Whish you had my
pease of mind. All of you actually.
But it's not my peace, it is the peace supplied by Jesus Christ to those who
confess Him, the Son of God, the Redemer, the Creator of the heavens and the
earth, a peace which this world no nothing about. Because they don't know him
personally.
Whish you knew him. I really do.
// Rolf Lampa
Ken de Camargo Jr. [*TTFKAD]
> I really can't comment on the veracity of the statements you made,
> other than to ask you to prove them. I don't believe them.
Ready for the microwave oven? <g>
Eric H. Johnson
>> I think he is implying that it is not a peer reviewed journal, which
>> is true. However lack of peer review does not make it unreliable,
>
> anything in there is almost certainly already peer reviewed.
Right, in fact most of it is summaries or other articles on material under
peer review, but presented in a form easier read by more general readers.
Regards,
Eric
Eric H. Johnson
> The best case in defending a fact is to stick to the facts and
> ellaborate on what supports it, leaving the waek stuff out. This is
> how the causeless evolution has become even speechless in latter days.
How do you arrive at such a claim, since that is clearly not the position of
the scientific community.
> But it isn't that simple, there are other interests than scientific
> rules involved in the battle. The evolution-thingy is no longer
> capable of defending itself in debates nor in books as it lacks of
> essential logical and empirical support. Reality is its biggest enemy.
Er, that would be creationism and ID. How does creationism account for the
ability to see stars / galaxies farther than 10000 light years for example?
Dilation of the speed of light? Created "in the middle"? What experiments
have been constructed to distinguish between those two or any other
hypotheses consistent with creationism?
> The desperate and cowardice methods trying to preserve the corpse of
> the non existant macro-evolution-thingy really is disgusting. It will
> not be enough with only ignoring the truth, the defence of false
> religion usually takes more drastic endings than ignorance only.
Evolution could be entirely wrong, yet if so even that still does absolutely
nothing to substantiate the theories of creationism and ID.
> More to come by the "tolerant" is not a bad guess based on the
> history of the fallen humanity. Calling me tolerant would be one of
> the worst insults I know of. I hate nonsense and false religion.
Well science is rather intolerant too. It is intolerant of that which has
been falsified, which includes any legitimate testable aspects of
creationism and ID.
Regards,
Eric
Ken de Camargo Jr. [*TTFKAD]
> Wasn't it this guy called Thomas Acquinas who put a rest to this
> polarised origins of argument - of faith versus science? (Could be
> wrong.)
Tough call. Most science historians would put the beginning of science
as we know it today beginning with Galileo, who lived a couple
centuries apart from (and ahead of) Aquinas. :)
Eric H. Johnson
> He's not invited so to speak. You know that very well and that's why
> what you are suggesting is very disgusting.
Sure he is. The problem is that he must then make a case based on the
scientific tenets of testability, predictability and repeatability, not one
of absence of evidence to the contrary.
> Oh, you willingly ignore that the SCIAM article made announcements
> about the global media campaign of mainly biased evolution-crap, . Or
> was it intended and directed only to the "scientific auditory"? Is
> that what you try to say?
It is not biased when such contrary articles do not meet the scientific
tests listed above. In which case they are not excluded because of bias, but
because they do not meet the requirements of presenting a case under the
rules of science.
> Last summer my brother was attacked at his daily work (he never was
> engaged in scientific debates whatsoever) and suddenly he was
> personally attacked by the use of so much lies (they called it
> arguments) suggesting him being a rediculuous fool being a Christian.
> They had watched the TV-campagin refered to by SCIAM.
You are talking to the wrong guy if you think I would condone such activity.
In fact I generally defend the side of people of faith including defending
the ability to post the 10 commandments in public buildings or nativity
scenes in public areas, and have been particularly harsh with those
criticizing Christians while at the same time defending tolerance with other
religions (Muslims in particular).
I only take exception with certain types of Christians which insist on a
literal interpretation of the Bible, because that reflects negatively on all
Christians.
> What you say stinks and you are dishonest and willingly ignoring that
> we are no longer talking "science" when talking about the
> evolution-thingy. It is false religion, and it is used as false
> religion, and I could easily refute the very foundation for the
> "arguments" held fourth by the "TV-scientists" suddenly having fun
> mocking my brother almost to despair.
It meets the tests of science outlined above, therefore unlike creationism
and ID it is science, not religion.
> The process is falsified a thousand times. You are just not capable of
> understanding the difficulties involved. Those secular and Chirstian
> scientists capable of it simply drops the subject stone dead. It's a
> pain giving up delusions. They *know* that that the evolution thingy
> lacks of the very roots and foundation once that has become clear to
> them they don't even bother deal with the leaves on its branches.
You wouldn't care to cite one case in which it has been falsified, would
you?
> Wow...! You really are a beliver ! Not even Christians have such a
> enormous hope or faith ! Your creed is remarkable indeed.
>
> I at least admit that my saviour died about 2000 years ago. It's a
> histircal fact. But you don't even see that the object for your faith
> is stone dead thuis very day !
>
> What a Christian hopes is that he would eventually not have to pay
> for the factual guilt which we human beings all feel deep inside. We
> feel it especially when alone, at late nights, when nothing amusing
> disturbs our inner thoughs... And the Christian hope is essentially
> based on that another Person took the guilt away.
The question is, where do you think you get the authority to speak for all
Christians? Recognizing the "fact" of evolution does not exclude one from
being a Christian.
<religious argument snipped>
Regards,
Eric
Rolf Lampa, RIL
"Thomas J. Theobald" wrote:
> A good point! However...
>
> I said *believe* in only that which can be experimentally proven.
Try it all and you be dead.
> You can trust something to happen a good percentage of the time, and still
> live happily.
Biological life doesn't have unlimited attempts. One bad shot and your dead.
No more attempts.
Numbers will give you a slightly different impression, but the smart ones
survives by noticing the difference.
> You don't have to believe in something to have it work for you.
> For instance, you trust your mug to hold your coffee or tea whenever
> you bring it to your lips, but it cannot be known whether or not it will
> shatter before it reaches them.
>
> T
Plato had a deeper understanding of faith and beliefs than you do. He kinda
meant that some people simply are not capable of noticing the difference
between
1. Induction (the bus came at 7:00 every morning, then it will today too. If
no accident happens)
2. Imagination (fantasy, based on anything but realities).
3. Trust (in a person).
§1 & §3 takes reasons to believe.
§1 produces somewhat arbitrary realiability, very much depending on your
capability of understanding and considering different possibilities.
§3 produces nothing from the one part having trust. You have trust or you have
not. The person GIVING you the reasons to trust in him is the one totally
determining your REASONS to have trust. In order to reduce the reasons for
trust one can have good use of §2 in demoinizing the intentions of the one
giving Faith (personal trust).
Christian faith is all about §3, nothing about §2 and in regular life we all
have good use of §1. Mixing 'm up could cause you harm but you would have to
blame yourself.
Well, you can read the whole history about the declination of §3 phenomenon
amongst humans, and the dirty tricky use of §2 by an intruder to distort it
too, in the real book describing conceptual realities only. Of course I'm
talking about the Bible.
Platon was searching for truth and he knew much more about it than any modern
semi-good only capable of analyzing numbers. In the end the anti-god will
respond to a number and not to a name. Because in ancient times names depicted
persons, personalities to be more precise. Even more precise than numbers, in
fact.
// Rolf Lampa
Abdullah Kauchali
"Ken de Camargo Jr. [*TTFKAD]" <rb.moc.arret@jcrk> wrote in message
> Tough call. Most science historians would put the beginning of science
> as we know it today beginning with Galileo, who lived a couple
> centuries apart from (and ahead of) Aquinas. :)
Probably right. I am mixing "science" with "reason" where Aquinas does some
sort of a Christian "apologetic" of Aristotle's work by separating
"philosophy" and "theology". And then further breaking down Theology into
"Revealed Theology" and "Natural Theology" where the former is accepted
purely on faith and the latter grounded in proof with sound reasoning
(infinite regress stuff ... or am I confused even more than yesterday!!! :))
Abdullah Kauchali
"Jim McKay" <jmc...@california.com> wrote in message news:3f1d9622$\
> I think it was Father Sarduci. :)
>
> --
> Regards:
> Jim McKay
>
> "Doing my part to piss off the right wing scoundrels!"
Is he an Italian designer too?
Jim McKay
In a manner of speaking... :)
--
Regards:
Jim McKay
"Doing my part to piss off the right wing scoundrels!"
"Who are you going to believe... us or your own two eyes?"
Abdullah Kauchali
Yep! Must have been one of those *Thomas's* <g>!
Thomas J. Theobald
>
> Try it all and you be dead.
>
>
> > You can trust something to happen a good percentage of the time, and
still
> > live happily.
>
> Biological life doesn't have unlimited attempts. One bad shot and your
dead.
> No more attempts.
>
> Numbers will give you a slightly different impression, but the smart ones
> survives by noticing the difference.
That's why I put command #5 out there. Use your brain. Don't be stupid.
Trying to catch bullets in your teeth, while an experiment, will result in
breaking #5, and likely cause fatal injury.
> > You don't have to believe in something to have it work for you.
> > For instance, you trust your mug to hold your coffee or tea whenever
> > you bring it to your lips, but it cannot be known whether or not it will
> > shatter before it reaches them.
> >
> > T
>
> Plato had a deeper understanding of faith and beliefs than you do. He
kinda
> meant that some people simply are not capable of noticing the difference
> between
>
> 1. Induction (the bus came at 7:00 every morning, then it will today too.
If
> no accident happens)
> 2. Imagination (fantasy, based on anything but realities).
> 3. Trust (in a person).
>
> §1 & §3 takes reasons to believe.
> §1 produces somewhat arbitrary realiability, very much depending on your
> capability of understanding and considering different possibilities.
> §3 produces nothing from the one part having trust. You have trust or you
have
> not. The person GIVING you the reasons to trust in him is the one totally
> determining your REASONS to have trust. In order to reduce the reasons for
> trust one can have good use of §2 in demoinizing the intentions of the one
> giving Faith (personal trust).
Cool so far, though I'll add that a person may be jaded in having trust
violated, and therefore have reasons based on a #1 cause to avoid trusting.
> Christian faith is all about §3, nothing about §2 and in regular life we
all
> have good use of §1. Mixing 'm up could cause you harm but you would have
to
> blame yourself.
I don't necessarily agree with the penalties of mixing them up, but I
understand so far.
> Well, you can read the whole history about the declination of §3
phenomenon
> amongst humans, and the dirty tricky use of §2 by an intruder to distort
it
> too, in the real book describing conceptual realities only. Of course I'm
> talking about the Bible.
Let me point something out here. The bible has been written and rewritten
countless times over the past two or five thousand years, depending on
whether you're talking about the new or old testament, respectively. Each
rewrite has been performed by human beings. Each time, it was subject to
error, both intentional (i.e., King James looking over the shoulder of the
translator and saying "Make sure you emphasize that bit about render unto
Caesar,") and accidental. In fact, I would consider it an excellent example
of the use of #2 to distort its original meaning. Funny how that came out
to be #2.
> Platon was searching for truth and he knew much more about it than any
modern
> semi-good only capable of analyzing numbers. In the end the anti-god will
> respond to a number and not to a name. Because in ancient times names
depicted
> persons, personalities to be more precise. Even more precise than numbers,
in
> fact.
You're kinda losing coherency here towards the end, and I'm not really sure
where you're going with this.
Plato was not a christian, in case you'd missed that. Philosophers have
almost always been in a similar bind to Plato, attempting to find the true
nature of the world, but without the tools to examine it. That's what
science is, and what it does - it is a set of tools used to examine the
nature of the world around us. A good description I once read was that it
is something of a "baloney detection kit" - training the mind to reject
fantasies and accept only that which can be shown to have a basis in fact.
Your supposition about an anti-god rests upon an assumption that still has
not been proven - that this anti-god, or even the not-anti-god, actually
exist. The bible (both old and new testament) would have you think so, as
would other texts such as the q'uran, but they provide no proof. Rather,
the authors simply claim themselves to be divinely inspired. I say "bull!"
to them. They have failed to provide proof.
T
Jeffeth
> fairy
> tales, and simply tried to follow my commandments (of course, I
> hadn't given
> them yet, so I can't fault them there), this wouldn't be an issue.
No fairytales, when you see actual miracles like parting of the red sea,
spliting of a rock to form a spring, mana falling daily from the sky to
eat, enemy giants defeated by inferior numbers, trumpets knocking down
walls, Moses' beard turning white, and what have you.
--
Jeff
Rolf Lampa, RIL
"Thomas J. Theobald" wrote:
> Excellent.
>
> >>
> For instance, why do humans have a flexible backbone, which while
> appropriate for a simian quadruped, is the cause of all sorts of problems in
> upright standing humans?
> <<
>
> I'll add to that another interesting question: Why are retinal eyes inside
> out? The way the eye is constructed, photosensitive materials are pressed
> against the back wall of the eye, with nerve connections extruding from the
> cells facing the incoming light, where they not only block photons, but also
> must bind into the optic nerve and pass through the wall to reach our
> brains - creating the "blind spot" we can observe using the thumb test we
> learned in grade school. Why not simply flip the sesors around, where they
> not only will have improved receptivity, but will also have no blind spot,
> as the optic nerve can then connect directly without impeding vision?
>
> T
Well, only stupid designers of the human sort could come up with such a stupid
idea as of making sun glasses.
Why reducing the wonderful light for homo *erectus* when lesser complicated
creatures benefit from the solution you suggest living in the *dark deep* waters
?!!.
Human designers really must have a very distorted brain, even serious
malfunctions not seeing the benefits of letting the light right in.
Let me spell it out for you ;
- Your design is not even as useful as bullsh-t !
Or to be more civilized (not like the free-speaking Christian God encouraging
Hezechiah to publicly make his "food" (teachings for the mind) cooked on the
fuel of human sh-t. (See Hez 4 something, or very close to). Instead I have the
freedom to decide to behave much better than this odd personality sometimes
showing bad temper, by gently saying :
- You need to try much much harder if you want to compete the Designer
practicing optimal design regarding in advance known requirements for
a biological construct being frequented by sun-beams which will have
not only pleasant effects, and especially not when knowing in advance
that the penetration of sun-light will increase drastically towards
the end-times (read the book of Rev about people being badly burnt by
the sun and still continuing to curse the Lord).
Real intelligence is able to predict things. And as you already figured out the
prediction (also called "prophesy") was often interpreted as an instance of
curse and bad temper from this non existant God. And now you know more about it
from two sides of the realities concerned.
// Rolf Lampa,
a brother and a servant of the ultimate Designer.
Jeffeth
>>>
>>> 1. Believe in only that which can be experimentally proven.
>>
>> Faith is experimentally proven to be powerful.
>
> Psychosomatic illnesses are certainly curable by a positive attitude,
> and
> faith in a divine being certainly can engender such an attitude, no
> doubt.
> If having faith in me is doing good, then that's great. Rock on.
Faith does even more powerful things than healing. It does both good and
evil, but powerful things. We are like God in that we create and
discover through faith. We speak great things into existence by faith.
That's how we made civilization: By speaking in faith. Paper money has
no intrinsic value, but words of faith say it does, so it does. The
whole financial world seems to hang on Alan Greenspans every word. Laws
are made. Agreements are made. Truths are shared. Lies are believed.
It's all by faith. Without it there would be no civilization.
And most importantly, we are saved to the Father in Heaven through the
Son by faith.
--
Jeff
Jeffeth
The Captain of the Lord's Hosts (AKA Jesus Christ) was there with Joshua
outside the walls of Jericho. Jesus said to Joshua: Take of your shoes
for you are on holy ground. No angel would do that.
Things are different when God is in your midst. You get away with less.
> I only wish I'd caught up with them before they wrote all that
> garbage.
How do you really know it's garbage?
> Look at all the damage they did. Grr.
Raizing demons can get messy, but fear not, for God was physically with
them in the burning bush, the Ark of the Covenant, the pillar of smoke,
the pillar of fire, and the Captain of the Lord's Hosts.
> They condone slavery, punishment of children for crimes of their
> ancestors (to the fourth generation, no less), subjugation of women,
> genocide, and
> other fun activities humans normally associate with criminal insanity.
> Worst of all, they condone killing in my name. Tsk.
Israel only did such if they were disobeying God.
Killing Nephilim and demon worshippers possessed by evil powers isn't
the same as today's genocides against innocents in order to steal their
nation's resources and reduce the Earth's population from six billion to
five hundred million, now is it?
> Do you wear cotton-polyester clothing? If you do, you'd better start
> deciding how you'd like to be executed. Have rebellious children?
> Take
> them to the village elders and get them stoned to death. Ever hear a
> neighbor or relative blaspheme? Death.
God walked with them, physically. They had no excuse for rebellion in
that circumstance.
--
Jeff
Jeffeth
> incredibly similar to the denial experienced by abused children -
> "Daddy
> hits me because he loves me, and I did something wrong."
It's child abuse not to discipline your children.
--
Jeff
Jeffeth
>> Jesus,
>> John, Matthew, James, and Luke with an evil megalomaniacs who torture
>> undeserving victims literally for the Hell of it?
>
> Yep. You bet. Go check out all three sets of ten commandments that
> Moses
> brought in (the one set in Deuteronomy and both sets in Exodus) just
> as an
> example.
Israel was rescued from slavery in Egypt to be sent into a rich land
occupied by evil powers. The evil was so great that many of the men
there were Nephilim hybrids, part demon and part man. They were giants,
demigods, and men of renown, just as before the Great Flood. The
covenant of the rainbow wouldn't let God bring another flood, so He
brought Israel instead.
If God would take the land away from evil powers to give it to Israel,
then He must insist that Israel stay good, so that the evil powers will
not be confused about why the land was taken away from them. God was
hoping that the men controlled by the evil powers would repent, thereby.
That's a very important part thing, saving souls. Don't you think?
So, if any in Israel would do any evil, it had to be dealth with in a
definite and intolerant way. Remember, God walked with them as a pillar
of smoke by day and a pillar of fire by night. They carried the Ark of
the Covenant with them, the Holy Seat of God. None in Israel had any
excuse for sinning in the proscribed ways right in front of God,
Himself.
--
Jeff
Jeffeth
> have psychologists that can help you there.
I'll take a mild dose. Got one on ya? A beer I mean? None of that
American crap though. How about a Czech Pilsner Urquell or even a Czech
Budweiser from Ceske Budejovice (Budweis)? You can drink 10 of those--no
headache. It's a cure. It's medicine! :-)
> Depends on who you talk to - the Christians who showed up on the shore
> didn't seem to take it too kindly that there was a native population
> already
> here.
Au contraire.
The population that was at Plymouth Rock all died before they arrived.
As I recall, there was one Indian from that tribe who had returned from
England after an education. He and a few of his friends saved the
Pilgrim's lives that winter. That's why Americans celebrate
Thanksgiving.
>> Good came from this land not only for that reason, but in another way
>> also. While America's Constitution made men free in the land, other
>> lands had to keep freedom to a higher levels than they would have
>> done
>> had America a worse constitution and correspondingly less freedom.
> Your cause and effect aren't really closely synched up here - the US
There were a lot of good churches in the USA over the last 250 years and
they sent out a lot of good missionaries. I know because I've met quite
a few impressive ones over the last 10 years of my slavery to Master
Jesus.
> simply demonstrated that a people could govern using a collaborative
> process rather
> than be governed by a heirarchical and titled nobility. That the US
> had a
> certain level of freedom in no way forced other lands to follow suit.
Oh yea that too, but that's not as important. I'll explain why if you
want. Basically, it's because democracies everywhere are fake, because
the media everywhere is owned by the evil elite, the voting is predicted
using polls to make the lies stick, tracked on TV on election night, and
counted in /complicated/ ways so that no one will be suprised or
suspicious.
> Smarter? I don't think I designed IQs to change all that much in
> just a few
> thousand years - though your education levels certainly have.
English has the simplest grammar of any language and it's taking over
the world by storm. Why is that? It's cause we are getting dumber. How
dumb? What is the meaning of the word "is?" Are you sure you know? Even
our lawyers and Presidents don't seem to know. There was a reason for
all the grammar in the old languages. It made lying and mistakes more
obvious.
> Healthier?
> You mean dying at an average age of 36 instead of 74? Complexity of
> ancient languages? They were not terribly complex, I'm afraid to
> tell you. Not far
> removed from grunting at each other, I'm afraid. People were getting
> burned
> at the stake and vivisected for becoming too knowledgeable, remember.
The witchly elite have always done stuff like that. It was them again.
It's always them. I keep telling you, it's the evil religions that are
doing all that stuff. No one else would do it.
> Using astronomy as an example, Galileo and Copernicus were both
> persecuted for
> their discoveries (though Copernican theory eventually became
> accepted was
> used against Galileo). They were primitive and brutal people back
> then. I
> just wish I'd gotten to them and shown them the error of their books,
> and
> leaders.
What gods did they worship? It's their evil Gnostic leaders that lead
them to these evil religions. That's why the were so barbaric. We aren't
smarter today. It's just that while we were occupied with the real God
these last 2000 years we hadn't the time for the evil ones.
We may be going back to the evil ones soon though. I can hear the pale
horse of relevation galloping in with its pestilence. The military
industrial complex is the pale horse and the world class bankers its
rider.
>> The numerous dark ages of the past were engineered by the witches who
>> wanted to rule the world. They made the common people stunted,
>> stupid,
>> and fewer whenever they feared their numbers. The witches really did
>> poison the wells and worse, and that's the reason.
>
> I think you're confusing witches with the Holy Roman Catholic Church
> (and
> later, the Lutherans, and later still, the Anglican, Puritan, and
> pretty
Well, the Roman Catholic Church was probably taken over by the witches
(the Gnostics), but wasn't really itself the witches.
> much every other die-hard offshoot of protestant Christiandom) there.
> Recall that the Church proclaimed the printing press anathema, and was
> responsible for the witch hunts that burned many thousands of
> innocents for
> no better reason than the inquisitor being paid per burning, and being
> granted full investigative and judicial authority.
They helped create the dark ages in that way, but the witches made it
bloom darkly by poisoning the wells, spreading disease, and corrupting
the barons.
> I'll tell you a secret - which really isn't, but when God says so, it
> sounds
> better - there aren't any magic spells. Ergo, no witches. There are
> people
Tell that to all of today's militaries! They all believe in witches,
unfortunately.
> who claim themselves to be witches, but they're deluding themselves.
> There
> are just people. Good people, and bad people. If you take your
> paragraph
> there and put in "bad people" wherever you said "witches," you'd be
> square
> on.
Bad people with spiritual connections to demons and fallen angels are
witches. They harness their power with contracts, numerology, astrology,
channeling through crystals, alchemy, and chanting.
> Your pseudoscience sounds good, but your understanding of entropy is
> flawed.
Information theory and physics are not so disconnected as you might want
to think.
--
Jeff
Rolf Lampa, RIL
"Eric H. Johnson" wrote:
> Rolf Lampa, RIL wrote:
>
> > This is reason enough to disregard valid arguments only for dishonest
> > persons.
>
> I think I agree (either that or I did not understand what you said).
You got it perfectly right (It was a little bit ironic yes).
> > THIS is the "devilish" strategy. Don't let them in and thus their
> > criticism can be disregarded in front of the public.
> >
> > I have always claimed that this is cowardice based on the fact that
> > the criticism of modern science is way to serious. It must not be
> > true. Just because. And when the bottom fell out of the dawininan box
> > ( it really is stone dead today) the only thing left to defend is the
> > scientific society itself.
> >
> > Reminds me way too much about the process of the other ideologies
> > already fallen.
>
> <snip>
> All I am saying is there are better means of getting this information out
> other than public debate.
I could agree, but as always I'm confident in that the truth will survive us
all. Thus I accept even public debates because that's not where the core
problem is to be found anyway.
> And considering the complexity of the issue, public debate is probably one of
> the worst mediums.
This is also part of the danger. It forms peoples minds without people knowing,
or even understanding, what happend and when.
Being used to the honest openess of the Christian message, nothing hidden, all
the sorces available to all, I still believe that we should not form the world
in which the many shall live, by the few shaping the thoughts of minds not
being able to explaing what they're at. If they can't explain it, well then
there's no independent mechanisms controling what comes out of it. The many
will have to pay for any misstakes, as always.
History tought us that secret man is not to trust. All cards on the table !
// Rolf Lampa
Rolf Lampa, RIL
Abdullah Kauchali wrote:
> Wasn't it this guy called Thomas Acquinas who put a rest to this polarised
> origins of argument - of faith versus science? (Could be wrong.)
never read thomas Acquinas but I'm quite sure of that he had not payed enough
attention to ol' Plato. Then he wouldn't have got that badly mixed up on basic
concepts, one concept based on the other.
// Rolf
Rolf Lampa, RIL
"Thomas J. Theobald" wrote:
> > > As I said in another post, the appropriate place to find this "truth" is
> > > through scientific discourse, not in the court of public opinion.
> >
> > THIS is the "devilish" strategy. Don't let them in and thus their
> criticism can
> > be disregarded in front of the public.
>
> I'm not 100% sure what you're getting at here, but I suspect you have
> confused the body of knowledge provided by the scientific method, and the
> scientific method itself..
Neither.
What I'm getting at is that it's not scientific to mock and exclude scientific
criticism just because it doesn't maintain status quo, and it's cowardice to
claim that science regards arguments only provided by the initiated... that's
what i call "devilish" strategy.
> Science welcomes criticism -
"Bull!". But that goes only for the religious side of it.
> You're obviously using a computer to view these posts - where do you think
> the information came from that enabled the construction of that computer?
> You think someone discovered a footnote on the Dead Sea Scrolls that said
> "If you put silicon gates on a chip and program them this way, you'll be
> able to play Tomb Raider on your television."?
No, I take closer look in the scrolls, make a simple conceptual analyzis, which
leads me to look for some typical offspring of an intelligent Designer.
Something which applies the "in his image" although disregarding the Form.
I don't do like the small childish ones never getting enough of playing silly
plays with the box. Instead I go for the Content. Just like the last incarnation
of the Great Designer did all the time in the records which are accessible even
to you. He said He *was* the word so He's much more accessible to His creation
that you are.
> Counter to the scientific method, most ideology demands utter subjugation
> and acceptance.
Guess why Christianity is much, much more hated than any other religion?
Its because it doesn't fool around with "ideologies". It claims it is all about
reality. It even claims it is the Truth, the Way and the Life itself !
Now, please let that sink in so your bullets hits better. I have already learned
that your specialty is not about eyes, but that would at least make you capable
of shoting in the right direction.
> That is one of the reasons why creationists have such a
> hard time with the body of knowledge presented -
They realized the lack of a foundation for it.
> it has been poked and prodded, and currently it looks like evolution
> is the method by which things work in biology.
The lack of foundation was what your weak eyes never saw, blinded as you where
of the imaginary enlightment. People not capable of understanding the concept
of eyes are at high risk of getting caught in the mind-trap of the
evolution-thingy.
> Creationism cannot handle the kind of scrutiny that has
> been applied to evolution,
I guess its because it has its sight lowered to the foundational things. Others
scouting the support for prejudices are not likely to be able to understand
whats going on.
> or other items of knowledge that have been gained
> through the scientific method.
We all benefit from real knowledge. It is the bull-stuff which is a problem.
> Which reminds me - if you want to go with the creationist story, you'd
> better be ready to argue that the earth is both flat and at the center of
> the solar system, galaxy, and universe (of course, the galaxy and the
> universe as we know them did not exist in the bible,
If you read the Bible as a school book about biology, physics etc then you will
be dissappointed. It was not the intention the book as far as can be derived
from the book itself. On the other hand it says WHAT was created, and by WHO,
not HOW.
He left it to us to discover and to never cease to amaze us.
But when we reduced it to having no meaning (just a delusion of the distorted
mind) it could no longer amaze us. Natural laws becomes quite boring after a
while.
So then we started to invent our own amazing phenomenons. But they turn out be
be what they are, delusions. And they are shot down one by one over time. Be
glad for that.
I'm speaking about humanity in general. No exceptions.
> so you'll have to argue
> they are figments of our imagination too)
Well, Christian (and some few secular) scientists actually showed that part of
modern science really was a delusion.
> - both postulates that go hand in
> hand with a creationistic view of biology. Creationism applied to physics,
> astronomy, and in fact the entirety of cosmology. You can't take
> creationism only in biology, man.
No I don't. I feel quite annoyed by the ill masked "cut 'n paste science"
revealing to the enlightened world that Everything came about from Nothing in a
"big bang",
that kilometre thick layers of sediment locking EXACTLY as predicted by studying
river sediments in the smaller scale is called "catastrophic theory" while
mocking the historical records from ALL cultures about a big huge FLOOD
*whithin* historic time (! - got the point?) talking about _never seen abstract
concepts_ like "beginning" and "end" of time and...
You name it. Oh, add to it the theory of "pan spermia".
The Bible really is the handbook of concepts and a welve of practical ideas for
Designers (but only for those being made "in his image" I guess).
You know very well that random generators provide with components for encryption
etc. But they cannot provide with the encryption concept. For that takes
specified complexity (i.e. "intelligent Design") in order to be useful in both
ends of the desired area of application. And so fourth.
I wonder who is capable and who is not capable of understanding... what? It's
not a clear case I can tell.
We need to be humble if we want to proceed in increasing our knowledge. Part of
being humble, as demonstrated to me, incorporates the courage to through out
the cheating hawker out of the temples. You may interpret the word "temple" in
elective context.
> It's a one-size-fits-all suit,
...revealing a complexity beyond human understanding not even noticed by the
tremendous science you dream about.
> which is why the little Osama
Osama is at least capable of identifying his Enemy. His robots was trained in
attacking buildings containing CHRIST hanging on the cross.
Interpreting what this actually means is something that you are not capable of.
Nor the CIA. They didn't even manage to understand what the letter implied
saying "prepare yourself Isreal to meet with our god!" (not exact quotation),
and that he strongly prohibited any *pregnant* woman to encopunter his grave.
But (some of) those reading the Bible with a concept analyzing mind knows
perfectly well what this means. But I'm not going to tell you because you
wouldn't be able to carry it.
> who wrote Genesis was screwed from the get-go.
Yes, Osama really was screwed, and the bad news is that many more Osama's are
upcoming. But you didn't learn to identify your Enemy so you probably won't even
notice what happend.
But Moses offered his life in exchance for his depraved people when God tested
his heart for real "leadership". Doesn't remind about Osama a bit.
But you are not amongst the informed in your void nirvana enlightment.
You semi-god, are not even a candidate. (take another look at your commandments
and consider).
> It might have worked in his lifetime, but it was doomed to fail as soon as
> people started noticing that the universe worked differently than what he
> fantasied up.
Oh, it did? Examples please.
> > I have always claimed that this is cowardice based on the fact that the
> > criticism of modern science is way to serious. It must not be true. Just
> > because. And when the bottom fell out of the dawininan box ( it really is
> stone dead today) the only thing left to defend is the scientific society
> itself.
>
> That's the second time I've seen you claim "darwinism is dead." I assume
> you mean evolution/natural selection/change over time/whatever you want to
> call it. I'll call you on that. You are lying. Prove your claim.
Well I did, more than two times in this NG. But you are not capable of
understanding the problems involved. If you woould be you would've noticed that
I did in this very thread.
> Guess what? That's science ).
Agreed. Although not being baptized with science.
> You put something forward, I say "bull!",
You suffer from a serious misconception here. You need to prove that the
falsified chance/selection thingy actually produces what it is assumed to be
able to produce, and furthermore, show that the falsifications of that
fundamental principle are invalid before I need to present any new
falsifications.
Exactly one false claim has not unlimited falsifications. Showing that a tree is
present only in the imagination and not present in reality is enough to kill any
size of complex hypothesis about a tree with very specific properties located in
the backyard, to the historic garbage heap of man-made delusions.
Present a non delusive experiment & simulation said to present the concept of
creative evolutionary powers, and after that, sin no more.
My hint is that you will waste an awful lots of valuable time of mercy in
digging a big black hole even bigger and eventually it will swallow you
entirely.
Your problem is that there is no theory supported by scientific criterias for
the concept chance/selection which is capable of producing any clues about
complex molecular biology. It is far beyond our ability to understand how
biology can be present in our world. That is a scientific fact, supported by
more and more secular scientists.
Stay tuned.
I'm not part of the scientific society, and I probably never will. I simply
don't have the imaginary powers enough to "qualify" for a modern magician in the
Babel of the end times. And I thank God for that. I already smell the smoke, and
hear the cries, but not yet very near...
// Rolf Lampa
Jeffeth
>> also. While America's Constitution made men free in the land, other
>> lands had to keep freedom to a higher levels than they would have
>> done
>> had America a worse constitution and correspondingly less freedom.
>
> Your cause and effect aren't really closely synched up here - the US
> process rather
> than be governed by a heirarchical and titled nobility. That the US
> had a
> certain level of freedom in no way forced other lands to follow suit.
Didn't you know there was a brain drain from lands with less freedom to
those with more? Competition for the brains manifests as either an iron
curtain or the land becoming better for its people.
--
Jeff
Rolf Lampa, RIL
"Thomas J. Theobald" wrote:
> They're all false. Just ask any of them about any of the others.
The ultimate test is to examine their view of reality.
Logically you can conclude that
1). 99 of 100 MUST be wrong if 100 claims they have the ultimate truth.
2). you cannot conclude that they are all wrong.
So I suggest that you seriously examine their world views. I said seriously.
Keeping a critical mind, but if you want to be scientific you would have to get
rid of your preconceptions before examining stuff. Otherwise you will end up in
that ol' circlew thingy (it's boring I can tell).
// Rolf Lampa
Rolf Lampa, RIL
"Eric H. Johnson" wrote:
> Rolf Lampa, RIL wrote:
>
> > The best case in defending a fact is to stick to the facts and
> > ellaborate on what supports it, leaving the waek stuff out. This is
> > how the causeless evolution has become even speechless in latter days.
>
> How do you arrive at such a claim, since that is clearly not the position of
> the scientific community.
I don't various states of the scientific community, I talk about how to honestly
encounter problems and observations. Knowing and understanding that "facts" are
not facts until a certain *interpretation* has reasonable support and not being
falsified by common logic or contradicting observations.
One thing for intance which amazes me is how the river like structures of the
sedimental layers are not subject for the "easiest" or "most natural"
explanation: We KNOW that flooding waters produces exactly such layers, we know,
and can test it by seriously trying to reconstruct a scenario producing the
layers (we have all the tools for such at our hands today).
But the porblem is that "it must not be true" and thus it cannot be true. But
you can see an natural explanation withy our own eyes all over the world. You
can go to the Grand Canyon and SEE how sedimental layers are in the "wrong
order", you can see all over the world foot prints and fossils in the "wrong
layers", you can look with your very OWN eyes at tree truncs crossing layers
representing so many thousand years that it strucks your common senses that this
would have erroded down looong, long before it was burried by fractions of
millimeters of athmospheric sedimental process.
It simply doesn't make sense, and the modern geology is just another product of
rich imagination. The fossil layers can be much better predicted by using the
observed data from sedimental processes of rivers, just scale it up and compare.
And you will eventually loose your faith in that part of science too. As so many
secular geologist's already did.
In short:
1. There ARE simplier explanations (with it's implications in scientific "rules
of the thumb")
2. There are ALTERNATIVE explanations.
3. Which are supported FULLY by direct observation and comparing with KNOWN
alike process (although of lesser magnitude...)
4. ALL ancient cultures mention a great flood.
5. The logic of modern man can only come to one conclusion about §4 - "None of
them can be right"
if you encountered that kind of logical constructs (§5) in your computer
software you would swear and look for the stupid... sinner.
> > But it isn't that simple, there are other interests than scientific
> > rules involved in the battle. The evolution-thingy is no longer
> > capable of defending itself in debates nor in books as it lacks of
> > essential logical and empirical support. Reality is its biggest enemy.
>
> Er, that would be creationism and ID. How does creationism account for the
> ability to see stars / galaxies farther than 10000 light years for example?
> Dilation of the speed of light?
No, it has been observed, and recorded that the speed of light declined
according to the damp-curve (which for instance would also be a way out to
explain how the "big bang" could have brought forth Something from Nothing fast
enough until it reached some stable phase, and then slowly expanding, as also
has been observed).
Now, this was in the 40s considered causing "too much" homework to be
"refactored" by science b/c it would affect the natural constants and... one guy
(I don't remenber his name) simply stated that light IS constant and that's it.
Later the implications are understood to be more intricate than only the home
work so the interest for picking it up again for scrupulous examination with
modern knwoledge and methods doesn't have too many supporters.
One reason is that it is realized that the declination of the speed of light
would exactly produce the red shift in light observed...
Furthermore, it would support a young earth. Something in the neighbourhood of
that of the age mentioned in the bible...
Now, this is yet another reason to why I really C A N understand why Christian
scientist are mocked. If insisting on really getting to the undisputable truth
(by real, honset scientific research) about things it would cause all the
present foundations to shake more heavily than when the WTC towers fell.
Ignoring these observations, knowing their implications, will be reason enough
for TRUE truthseekers to never accept being pushed out by coward pseudo
scientist watching their present positions. The truth is more interest than the
endless imaginary fairy-tales made up by brains totally controlled by paradigms
excluding the EASIEST explanation, the PRESENT historic records reporting
certain events (let be distorted over time as all information tend to be
distorted).
And more.
> Created "in the middle"?
Base your arguing on more substantial stuff derived from the reality around you.
> What experiments have been constructed to distinguish between those two
> or any other hypotheses consistent with creationism?
Reality is one "experient" worth of observing in more detail. Matter "never
forgets" it is said, it is "divine" to (forgive and) forget.
Matter is still there. Observe, compare against KNOWN indiputable processes, and
see what results your interpretations end up in then.
You sound just like the ol' pharises and "knowledged in the scriptures"
(Saduceers) ignoring the reality the had around prefering their own thought
constructs. On a conceptual level the phenomenon os not at all typical for
religious jews, it is typical for all humans with a bad sense for realities.
> Evolution could be entirely wrong, yet if so even that still does absolutely
> nothing to substantiate the theories of creationism and ID.
It depends on if you are capable of understanding the complexity of the problems
involved.
In the 19th century it was all so easy. And then it became trickier and
trickier, and to day it is a shock to modern science to face that the complexity
of biology goes far beyond any known principles assumed to be capable of
producing it. Dead end.
ID is a bruning lfame in the [...] of science today, although not part of it.
But who cares, the lines are straightened out and it will for sure cause new
discoveries which will make the next generation laugh at the present... (as
usual).
> Well science is rather intolerant too. It is intolerant of that which has
> been falsified, which includes any legitimate testable aspects of
> creationism and ID.
You are not very well informed.
My guess is that you won't fully realize what's going on until you take in more
info about the historical connections between philosophy, religion and
paradigms. You are fully capable of making your own research, and to plot the
typical phenomenons repeating itself as concurrent phenomenons in critical
historic passages, and then look at your "mind map". As you don't know in
advance what you are going to find it at least have chance of being to too
flawed by prejudices.
I'm not here going to provide with any "prejudicies" about your potential
findings but you are welcome to take personal contact with me after doing the
historic research on science, philosophy and religion. I don't know why I offer
you this, but perhaps you one day would like to test your perceptions by asking
"do you see what I see"? and/or alike.
I'm fully confident that the truth about many things will survive us both. It
doesn't burn, it doesn't loose its charge, no entrophy nor exergy can ever
affect it. It will survive us because truth has essentially nothing to do with
matter or human thought. But it doesn't exclude neither.
Regards,
// Rolf Lampa
Rolf Lampa, RIL
"Thomas J. Theobald" wrote:
> > > > Ken Ham sounds like he wouldn't do what you said either.
> > >
> > > Well if that is where he wants to keep the debate, why doesn't he
> publish
> > > his arguments for peer review, making his argument the same way the
> > > scientific community does.
> >
> > He's not invited so to speak. You know that very well and that's why what
> you
> > are suggesting is very disgusting.
>
> That is a falsehood. There is no invitation required to submit papers for
> peer review. Your fabrication is actually what gets very disgusting, Rolf.
Well, I have to admit one thing. I don't know very much about Ken Ham and at the
speed of trying to reply to numerous posts I was careless.
What I actually KNOW is that Ken Ham, with his group "Answer in Genesis" has the
Bible as the besic starting point for their arguments and thus i of course would
have concluded that he didn't even try to enter the scientific community.
Careless of me. Getting tired is no excuse, generlizing about the heavy mockery
involved with the topic isn't either. The very name Ken Ham should have been
enough reason not to even mention anything like "invitation". Of course
scientific community are not looking around for people to invite, so to speak.
I apologize. The very same generalization lays behind the mockery being
"disgusting", but as K.H. is not actively trying to be part of science there's
nothing disgusting involved in his particular case.
I apologize for that too.
> There are still significant doubts as to whether Jesus even existed, Rolf.
> In point of fact, the following authors:
[<snipped>]
I really am interested in the reliability of the historical records about Jesus
Christ. Guess why? I could not even "activate" any faith in Him if he didn't
exist. It may surprise you that it is a fact based on documented historical
records that Christ is a more a documented historical fact than even the Caesar
of Rome ! (You think I'm kidding? I'm not. One of the reasosn is of course that
your kind forced Christians during a period of about 2000 yrs to do that digging
for you).
You are in your right to question, but you really are on thin ice regarding your
claims here. Of course Christ is questioned, but not by serious historians. It
is not fair to provide with a list claiming "what's not in there" while the rest
of the known world debate whether what's in there is authentic or not. It is to
intricate of a story not to be questioned.
I could as well give you the burden of proving that Muhammad actually existed,
or Buddha, or Confusius, but I wouldn't be that unfear. We both know that they
existed. And historians knows that Jesus existed with more certainity than...
almost anyone else from the same historic period.
Sorry for not having the time to dig through all the sources you listed but I
know from my own research that many of those listed contains references to
Christ, directly or indirectly. What you say is simply not true.
You didn't read them for yourself, that's for sure, and I don't blame you for
that. But the redundant questioning with the typical "infinite looping" and
heavy burden you would cause me if I did it for you would just tire me out for
no essential reason at all.
But of course I'm capable of refuting your claims bottom up. But not now and
here as my written references are hard covered and using web references is risky
(actually never used the web on the subject, ever).
But you are not very well informed, and while not seriously interested in my
(biased) answers I'm not sure I will take the effort to refute your claims at
all. I simply have no reason to take you serious.
As I said in an earlier post, there's no reason to respond to all of the
prejudicies flourishing out there. Only to a few. It would be an act based on
logos (derived from an indo european word root depicting "coise", "to select").
// Rolf Lampa
Rolf Lampa, RIL
"Liz [D]" wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 20:53:43 +0200, Rolf Lampa, RIL wrote:
>
> > The full consequences of the sudden death of the evolution-thingy is yet to be
> > shown.
>
> The theory of evolution has been disproven only in the minds of the
> misguided.
- For all of you -
Your claim takes the prerequisite of a theory. If we are talking about a scientific
theory I'd like to see the arguments and even indicies which meets the criterias for
an hypothesis advancing to a theory.
I have several times in this NG demonstrated the problem with currently no known
solution involved in the principle of chance/selection. It stands for itself
although not very easy to grasp at first glance. I'm not citing others making
different unmasking notions about the loose assumptions making a hen of a feather
called the evolution-(thingy) and that may confuse you all.
Evolutions was not invented by me, I can any time prove it being an impossible
concept, with no known solution, others have found the same thing, both secular
scientists with the courage to admit it, and my message has been: Show me the
solution to the problem (if you are capbable of graspinjg it).
Of course my intention has been to give designers the chance of judgeing for
themself. But none in this group picked up the challange. I have been mocked but my
argument has been completely ignored.
The reson is of course that theres no known solution to it, except for something
outside the limits of modern science. And you showed me that you are lesser
interested in real problems than imaginary theories supporting your prejudicies
which in turn supports you way of resoning.
I have in this NG seen the lowest level of honest interest for truth. The reason is
that all of you in the group are out of few people capable of discerning my
argument. It makes you responsible to refute bully so that it don't "infect" those
who have no chance to refute it.
But you are coward, avoid the actual problem, fear the consequences of a closer
insighty in the bully making up your world view givin you all the impression that
you are free.
But you are not free. Something very very strong binds you. FEAR. And delusion.
Being coward you are not free. Fear descides for you. it holds you back from what
you fear will change the way you now think you are "free" to think and act. But fear
is directing all your ways.
But as Jesus said, "only the truth can set you free".
(Some of) you are so so afraid of the truth that you didn't even dare to read the
post revealing the bottomless weakness of your world view. And by repeting that I
should repeat my argument again and again you would tireing me out.
What you right now don't understand is that you are not respåonsible before me. You
are to struggle with your own coward conscience, with your fear, and the fear slowly
turning out to not being only "bad mode" but part of a really cruel reality. You
feel doomed inside.
And you fear the Lord which cannot be tired out. But he's patient not to cause you
evil, He's patient waiting for you to return back to where you all belong. He wants
to restore what "T" cannot, and intend not to restore. Peace and rest with the God
who created the heavens and the earth. Christ Jesus embodied the CONTENT of the
mocked form called the Bible.
But he won't be patient for ever. B/c of practical reasons.
And as for med I have nothing to accuse you of. I'm not the "accusator", nor the
bitter "prosecutor". Your own conscience and fear and the sworn enemy of God and man
is. And I don't support him consciously.
But I owe you all to tell you the truth. Well I did, and it means and implies that
you all are still invited to restore the relation to the living God. The God who has
the power to forgive sins. And the ability to forget them all afterwards. And all of
you knows that matter is not capable of forgetting. And that law has no mercy. And
that the prerequisite for grace is law.
And for a person with all the transgressions forgiven and forgotten by God, the law
is no longer a threat. Instead the law has the beauty reflecting the Person defining
all universal laws.
And He wants you all back. "Back", turning 180 degrees is what lays behind the
concept of "REpent". "The other way around" is another close synonym. But it will
eventually kill your rebellish Pride which admits no God and nothing at your own
level whatsoever. The only thing your present nature is capable of is to "compete,
compete, compete, compete, and never drop below"...(anyone).
You are in a very very bad shape. And in deepest possible bondage. You are not free.
But I am free. I wish you all where as free as I am. Or freer (if possible).
// Rolf Lampa
Rolf Lampa, RIL
Steve Caupp wrote:
> On Fri, 02 May 2003 05:22:52 +0200, "Rolf Lampa, RIL"
> <ro...@rilnet.com> wrote:
>
> > Some well-known scientists and proponents of
> > naturalistic evolution who seriously argue against the sufficiency of
> > the mutation-selection mechanism :
> >
> > Stephen Jay Gold,
>
> Even in death you guys won't leave him alone. Mr. Gould (note the
> spelling, BTW) had been abused by creationists forever. This is a
> blatant misrepresentation of his views (but you already knew that,
> didn't you?).
Oh you really whish you where right. Of course he don't like being refered
to in this way, but there's nothing said, nothing insinuated about his
standingpoint which misrepresent him or his theory.
It is an inconvenience for him having invented such an idea, but he could
easily withdraw it. But he doesn't because he don't accept the
alternatives.
Which is the point. I started by presenting him as an "proponent of
naturalistic evolution" which consists of two very contrary standing points
compared to my own dittos. The philosophy bahind, and the evolution-thingy
which really is a delusion.
No, Gould is not even by misstake compromised by my world view.
// Rolf Lampa
Rolf Lampa, RIL
You still pretend that you are brave? You ignore the problem which this debacle
is all about and go for the "easy stuff".
Either you are not understanding the problem or you just are lacking of a
backbone, as I already said. Or both.
Of course I already know that you have no solution to the problem, none has, but
that's why the "easy stuff" isn't that easy at all. Instead it is the only thing
that really matters to your very inner person.
But you still have a friend waiting for you knowing what you currently don't
know or understand. That you are in deep bondage and cannot set your self free
on your own.
// Rolf Lampa
Roger Arnesen
> I have in this NG seen the lowest level of honest interest for truth.
No, what you have seen is an NG bored beyond stiff by the topic. It's all
been done before, and many many many times at that.
> You are in a very very bad shape. And in deepest possible bondage.
> You are not free. But I am free. I wish you all where as free as I
> am. Or freer (if possible).
And this is why we are bored stiff. Because at the end of the day, these
debates deterioate very very rapidly into the kind of, excuse the
expression, garbage quoted above.
You keep chanting about scientific evidence or lack of scientific evidence,
then continue to make a claim which you most certainly can not prove even in
the slightest. If you can prove that I am in the deepest possible bondage,
and not free, I'll entertain you with a creationist-evolutionist debate.
But only when you can show that you are above the typical mindless drivel
assosciated with this topic.
Roger