"I get frustrated at the attitude still held by some that the Bible must be literally true or otherwise everything is called in doubt."

Then all you have to do is provide a simple, clear, objective way by which we can tell which is literally true and which is not. Is it literally true that Jesus was born of a virgin? Is it literally true that Jesus was born at all? Given that the evidence for the existence of Adam and Eve is no better or worse than the evidence for the existence of Moses, should we believe in both, or neither? Unfortunately, once you let the harsh light of human reason shine on the claims made in the Bible, they all tend to evaporate equally rapidly.

I've heard and read many assurances that some of the Bible is literally true and some is only metaphorical, but nobody has yet indicated how they know which is which, and why they disagree with the Christian down the road who believes in a totally different set of 'literal' Bible truths. Explain clearly and plausibly how ordinary people can attain this knowledge, and you have a Templeton Prize in your future. Till then I will continue to regard it as self-serving weaselry.

Why is it that all evolutionists run from the Genesis Expert, and spend their time debating those that don't understand the Genesis text? The correct opposing view to evolution, is the "Observations of Moses". Avoiding a true confrontation with the Bible proves humanists have an evil agenda, and want to mislead the public into their false belief system.

Herman Cummings
ephriam7@aol.com

Chris Middleton’s assertion that ‘Catholic theology certainly sees no fundamental conflict between faith and reason’ overlooks that much of Christianity’s reasoning is based on the writings about its founder.
There is huge doubt about both the existence of an actual Jesus Christ, and the factuality of the writings about him found in that religion’s textbook, the Bible.
No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus. No artifacts, evidence of his dwellings or carpentry, nor self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of that doubted person.
Research shows that, despite a preponderance of historical writers in the time and place of complex Roman record keeping during which Jesus is reputed to have lived, writings about Christ came from unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings.
This raises difficulties with Chris’ assertion that the relationship between faith and reason - particularly between faith and science - goes to the credibility of being a Christian in the modern world.
To me the question is: do you place your faith in fact or fiction?

Jesus wept! I am close to tears myself after reading the title of this article.

Between Sells, Singer and now Chris (the Thinking Christian?) I am going mad at a rapid rate of knots.

In a world that is filled with all manner of dilemmas, approaching confrontations, the strong chance of nuclear wars, Global Warming, Financial Crisis, we really don't have time to consider frivolous issues.

Yet we do. Issue after issue on OLO contains more and more frivolous issues. At the rate we are going, soon we'll be considering whether the Pope wears nappies, whether FIJI is developing a nuclear bomb, whether the U.S. will disappear up its own orifice in a puff of smoke, whether Tony Abott heralds the Second Coming, whether Bill Shorten can conquer his lisp, and whether Julia Gillard will again become our Prime Minister only to be stabbed by Julie Bishop and, wait for it, Malcolm Turnbull.

Friends, we on this August Forum need to deal with serious issues, with life-threatening issues, the survival of our country issues, the survival of our world!

We are not adolescent schoolboys. We are serious citizens.

If I read another proclamation from Singer demanding someone answer his inane questions or mindless religious-justifications from Hasbeen threatening fire and brimstone, I'll just go quietly mad.

Please be gentle with me!

`oh and the clever..swallow the spin?
TAKING JUST WHAT..ON FAITH.[NO GOD DESIGN?]

please mr expert explain your science
name first LIVING GENUS..
NAME THE EVOLUTION [NEW GENUS]..IT MUTATED INTO.
macro evolution [into new genus is the lie]
micro evolution is falsifiability fact..[within genus]

SCIENCE CLAIMS METHOD..REPEAT THE FIRST LIFE

present proof of thesus..what chance event[thus not intelligent..GOD..NOR../science design]..

what first random events made this firsT SINGLE CELL..OR MULTI-CELL IE A CELULAR LIVING GENUS..[WHAT FIRST LIVINF GENUS?]

LIVING GENUS..AS ONLY LIFE CAN MAKE LIFE
IE MAKE life..SHOW THE FACT..NOT YOUR FAITH..[IN THE THEORY/OF EVOLUTION..OF GENUS.]

cause i know you got nuthin but SILENCE
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15995&page=0
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2305&page=0

I have no problem accepting the bible as both word of god, exposition of a religion and as a story. There is no need to pick which parts are in which category as I see the whole work fitting (potentially) completely into all three categories.

I read it as a story, especially the old testament, of a people and how they came to an understanding of 'their' god and their distinctness from others. I see it entirely as a story with parts based on real people and facts. It could easily be a story inspired by god if he/she/it exists. I read the story as a struggle to answer the questions that the new testament very clearly asks and answers names who is my neighbour and how should I treat them (and by implication have them treat me).

For me there is no conflict or non reconcilable bits. To me it is very human. Describing how to be good yet recognising the humanness of people not living up to the ideal.

DKit

i note the ham vidio..link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JxX11c1cSWU

[BUT A FULL TRANSCRIPT/of BOTH SIDES..would serve us all far better]
regardless..ham..makes the key point..some abuse kids..by telling them..what to think[rather than how..to think]

so lets hear..the truth..let us decide based on facts
one side claims facts..[those supporting the theory..OF EVOLUTION]
us creationists say god dun it..its up to science to find out how]..and if how refutes god..so be it]

but if you cant explain/the facts
you just got faith..compare my faith with your faith[same with same]

now..we live in an expanding universe[true/faulse?]
the matter..contained..in the universe..looks roughly/like a cell]
with seemingly..infinite nuclious[suns]..thing is the first living cell is huge/the size of our universe..in fact

lets call that first life alpha/or god or whatever
science cant explain..the process of bang[no likely cause]
bIBLE SAYS GOD SPAKE..TILL SCIENCE SAYS DIFFERENT..I WILL TAKE THE WORDS IN WRITING[OVER THEORY WITH PICTURES ON YOUTUBE]

REGARDLESS..you claIM..THINKING XTIANS RATE HIGHER IN INTELIGENCE[YOUR WITH THE CLEVer guys[well jesus did say..this is satans realm..and the serphant..even decieved our gullibale eve/sp why not you.

anyhow..put some thinking into it..AND NAME THE SCIENCE..OF FIRST LIFE
I JUST EXPLAINED IT ON THE GOD MACRO/ALPHA LEVEL..now give me the scaled down version

how did life begin..on earth?
what was this first living being..by species/genus]
name the proof..[dna?]..by which it evolved into the next genus

i know you aint got that level of thinking
cause you been taught..what to think
not how to think

2b ctd

but you think wrong..prove you can think..by saying right here now
how it realy went down..or be revealed the faithful..to others thought[ie a god-free delusion]

its funny..your leader is an engeneer/not a biol;ogist nor evolutionist/not GENETICIST..NOR EVEN FOSSIL EXPERT/HE DONT DO RADIOACTIVE CARBON DATING..NOR EVEN EVER BREED TWO LIVING THINGS TOGETHER TO TEST HIS KNOWLEDGE..CAUSE HE LACKS..TRUE..GNOSIS[KNOWING]

RULE ONE[THIS IS SATANS REALM]
RULE TWO DECEIVERS ABOUND
rule 3 think/relax enjoy..trust god to do the rest

GODS WILI IS ..is for us to find our own will[to know for sure/because we lived it/this you know for sure/the rest is 'other'..helpers as much as deceivers
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6207&page=0

god is one to one
live time..all the time

IF You cant explain iT..YOU DONT HAVE CLAIM TO CLEVER
THINKING OR Unthinking..you take it on faith[its the blind leading the blind]

name names
REPLICATE..OR GET YE BEHIND ME SATAn

god dun it all
indeed still does all
[all them so called automatic response..SUSTAINING YOU YOUR EVERY BREATH..That's god..[or rather the holy spirit]..cause decievers even tricked you re what god is
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6040&page=0
god=light sustaining life via logic..
that life..LIVE AND LIVE BY LOVE..THAT WE WRONGLY CALL GOD=THE HOLY SPIRIT[OMNIPRESENT/ETERNAL/INFINITE..THE WAy the means..that what why and there-fore..every living being..that together reveal his being..[nature]

that we do..to the least..we do to him.

Yes this was a somewhat pathetic essay in Christian apologetics. And Chris as a Jesuit was supposedl schooled one of the elite philosophers of the "Catholic" church!

Ponder summed up the case re the complete lack of concrete evidence for the "historical Jesus" and other fables associated with the fabricated origins of the "New" Testament and Christianity.
Such is of course also the case with the tribalistic cultic fables associated with the "Old" Testament too.

Rather flimsy entirely irrational stuff upon which to base one's world-view! Stuff which has no basis in Truth & Reality, either the Truth of what we intrinsically are as human beings, and the nature of Reality altogether.
There may be some justification for "teaching" children nursery-time childhood fables about "Jesus" just as we "teach" them about the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Rabbit and Santa Claus. They are a four-fold package.
Most people quickly outgrow the last three, so why not the first one about "Jesus".
But what about Genesis and the fabled Garden of Eden, and who were, or rather, ARE, Adam & Eve?
Many (even most) Christians still pretend that the Garden of Eden was a specific historical place and that Adam & Eve were "real historical" persons.
This essay provides a unique esoteric Understanding of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Indestructible Light - which is where we ARE right NOW, and each and every human being always has been too. http://www.beezone.com/adidajesus/adamnervoussystemeveflesh.html

Which also raises the very important question as to where does the Revelation of Truth come from?
This essay points out where and from whom such Revelation's have always (and only) come from. http://www.dabase.org/up-4-1.htm

Finally: http://global.adidam.org/books/gift-of-truth-itself

@DKit: 'I see [the Bible] entirely as a story with parts based on real people and facts.'

I don't think anybody disputes that. The problem is deciding which parts. If you believe it's a 'real fact' that God ordered practicing homosexuals to be stoned to death, for instance, that's going to produce rather different behaviour than if you believe this is nonsense, and that the 'real fact' is that we should love our neighbours as ourselves. The trouble is that people who believe the second on purely religious principles have no arguments with which to respond to people who believe the first.

If your morality comes purely from the parts of the Bible that you pick and choose to follow, you have no grounds on which to criticise people who pick and choose their own bits of the Bible, or of other allegedly holy books, to follow instead. Between you and the people in Pakistan who recently stoned an adulterous couple to death, there's not a hair's breadth of moral difference. They just chose to cherry-pick bits of a different holy book.

under one dog can you leave the caps lock alone and settle down. of what I can read the answer is from a science point of view at least "we don't know but we are investigating".

The moment you start a sentence with "I do believe" you bring out the incompatibility of faith and science.

cobber..sorry/about the..caps/they occasionally/start..blinking on off..at random..that means i need/stop..every few lines..and/loose track..of the..in-flow.

thus..often i just ignore..it..[or watch-Out..for the green-light saying its shifted]..but it divides..that/WHICH..im trying to say..[i feeL..IM MORE just a channel..that gets ignored..thus freeing me to channel/NOT spell check..[i been banned..over it a few times]...

anyhow it is/as it is..[im notpaid to post..to anyone's agenda/but..gods.

like..author/chris..SAID/quote..

<<..all point..to the wonder..of a God..who is..the author/of life,>>

but he is..clearly incorrect/scientificly-speaking
ie..[VISIT..an evolutionist forum..IN THEIR .rules*..it states
words to/the affect..saying..god did it..isnt science...say/it and you will/be deleted.

for the science evolving/illusionists..its..definitivly..*not god
even..aliens..is preferred/to god/..you cant serve two masters

evolution=satan/=death
THEY..study stones/bones..NOT DNA

*ALL DO NOt..point..
to god..yet all life points..to his work

ie/him..<<..whose..infinite-creativity..defies any..mortal/material understanding,..and..who bestows..the great gift of..*freedom[OF MIND/WILL]..UPon the universe.>>

HE/DOTH-not seek..to enslave/bind/BLINDER..it/
like my science..linKs affirm
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6248&page=0

CHRIS..<<..Evolution,..however,..becomes a threat..to some Christians because..*it..threatens their basic/understanding..of their relationship..with God,>>

thats wrong..you cant serve..two masters..

[jesus talked of it.on the lamb island thREAD..[ONce you see]..a chair..the second you see something..as being chair like..your thinking stops..

once we take away..god..then what?

i love evoLUTIONbiology/SCIEnce..etc..it..points
to how god..did it..regardless..OF WHAT THE TRUTH IS.

thaTS HOW..GOD DUN IT

WE SEE ERROR/..EVERY WHERE/..AS only god/is perfect

..<<..a relationship shaped by a fundamentalist..understanding
of the Bible..as literally God's word.>>..CAN BE TRUE..ONLY..IN
ONE way..[if god iN-pired many men]..[INDEED/ALL..MEN.]*AND..As he inspires all living]..THUS..sure then..*yep god/dun it..[or rather facilitated..the living hand/mind..that did..gift/it]..its living..

but not/any..but-BY..their will/choic/word/work/or deed..]..

yes/god..but*..by many hands/many minds
thus/many errors..Got compounded...by many messengeRS..NOW WE SIMPLY SORT/gods-TRUE..FROM..inhumane-ERROR.

<<..Christians share*..a more complex..understanding of the Bible,..as a library..of books..with varying literary forms..that need to be interpreted..according to those forms...>>

AS MEN UNDERStood..in their time/..place/race/context..etc
a..progressive Revelation..if you will.

thus doth chris..<<..get frustrated..at the attitude..still held by some/that the Bible must be..literally true..or otherwise everything is called..in doubt.>>

ANY..THINKING MAN/person..knows..
we stand..upon the shoulders..of many..great minds..
all inspired BY..BOTH ANGELS AS MUCH AS JINN..each receiving/as they gave/or asked..recieve...[OR WILLTO PERCEIVE]..

THUS GREW..the wisdom..of men..
much/later..it became science/but..by then
demons invaded..the holy/of holy..[god as creator]..which..is sAcrosanct..NOT/ONLY..TO THOSE OF CHRIST.

Before we wander too far from the thread, it is worthwhile realising that the canon [contents] of the Bible has been a controversial topic over the centuries. Many of the early Councils of the Church argued quite heatedly over which Old Testament books were ‘in’ and which books were ‘out’. This is shown by the existence of the Apocrypha, books which are neither in nor out but which are kept for enlightenment but not the development of dogma.
The New Testament also reveals this discussion. There are a number of Gospels known other than Matthew, Mark, Luke and John which the early Church decided not to include primarily because it was possible to derive from them unacceptable doctrine. Among the other books of the NT is my favourite, James, which Martin Luther argued should be excluded because, he believed, it gave too much weight to the idea of salvation through good works and not enough to salvation by grace alone.
If we narrow our focus a little, we have to ask which translation of the various books we should use. Biblical scholarship is constantly redefining the contents of many of the books of the Bible in the light of new discoveries [Dead Sea scrolls] and new translations, or shifting meanings, of crucial words. Parthenos, the Greek word for what we would call an ‘intact virgin’, has been used to replace both ‘alma’ and ‘bethulah’ from the Hebrew: the problem is that one means ‘a single girl, no offspring’ and the other means ‘intact virgin’ [I can’t remember which]. If you translate from the Hebrew you have a choice of two meanings while translating from the Greek original gives only one option.
Many branches of Christianity have rejected Popes or Bishops and have adopted the Bible as their reference, their ‘authority’. In doing so, they have given away flexibility of derivation of dogma in favour of biblical derivation. Many of the branches have compounded what others see as errors by using the King James Version: a book of stirring, evocative and striking language redolent of translation or transcription errors.

To even suggest that the evolution fantasy is not based on faith is totally irrational. Chris obviously walks around with his eyes shut or has been totally deluded. How the evolutionist must hate that true science includes observation instead of their delusions. Thankfully more and more people are able to think as shown by the masses who now know that gw was a scam.

Chris,

a great article. I appreciate you mentioning Michael Heller, the Polish priest and mathematical physicist, who made me understand how noncommutative geometry can be made relevant in speculations about the very nature of physical reality.

The article is about faith - which is about (spiritual) reality as seen through the Bible - and science - which is about physical reality that in its very nature is investigated through mathematical physics. Judging from the reactions you got, how is it that people boast about their naive understanding of exegesis, but would probably be ashamed to display their naive understanding of mathematical physics?

The other day I watched online the Brisbane debate “Life, the Universe and Nothing: Has science buried God?” between Lawrence Krauss and William Lane Craig on 7/8/2013. It was rather entertaining, even funny, watching how the physicist’s ignorance of what religion, exegesis and contemporary theology were all about was matched only by the philosopher’s ignorance of how mathematical physics works and what contemporary cosmological theories are all about.

Galileo (or was it Bacon?) spoke of the two books written by God, the Book of Scripture and the Book of Nature. I do not think He would have written two books had He intended to have one of them used to explain or dismiss parts of what was written in the other (:-)).

There is one thing probably worse than religion masquerading as science: science masquerading as religion (scientism).

Hi George,

As a self-appointed authority on Divine intentions, can you enlighten us as to which of God's two 'books' he intends to be taken seriously when the two of them flatly contradict each other? Because that is, after all, the problem.

A unique Understanding of the nature of physical and Quantum reality
http://www.dabase.org/Reality_Itself_Is_Not_In_The_Middle.htm

And how/why conventional religionists have no understanding of esoteric Spiritual religion - which applies to everyone who subscribes to the childish mommy-daddy idea of a "creator"-god - which is precisely the world-view that William Lane Craig promotes.
http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/nirvanasara/chapter1.html

Hi Jon J,

>>when the two of them flatly contradict each other? Because that is, after all, the problem.<<

Sorry, I cannot help you with your problem which arises only when one has a naive - or flat, if you like - understanding of biblical exegesis or philosophy of science (or both). Like, for instance, if you see a “flat contradiction” between what is true about a topological space and a free space you are looking for in a car park, it is because you are confusing the two meanings of the word “space” and for what purposes they are used.

,,..Jon/quote..<<..can you enlighten us as to which of God's two 'books' he intends to be taken seriously when the two of them flatly contradict each other? Because that is, after all, the problem.>>

JON
[i hate to waste even a post..just to post..this

BUT..could you please be specific

the one book
is numbered/by auther..just so you can point*..to the SPECIFIC error

IE..any CHANCE..of specifically..saying who/whaT/..where?

and
if your referring to the unwritten/law/book..[life/poli-tricks/whatever..or evcen say evolutION]

could you please supply chapter
and verse..ie a real life application.

THINK OF IT
LIKE YOUR Playing a hand OF POKER

im calling..all in

show ya hand.
there has been too much bluffing..already
http://216.240.133.177/archives32/Rivero/2014/02/Rivero_2_021914_140000.mp3

The first chapter of Genesis along with the first 3 verses of the second, were intended as a hymn in praise of the Sabbath.

Whoever the author, they never even imagined that one day people would understand it as a description of the physical world, or what we now call "science", because at the time no notion of science existed or was considered necessary (in the West it were probably the Greeks who first desired to understand the origin and workings of the physical world). It's only modern people who assume that the ancients, like themselves, had nothing on their mind but to attempt to describe the origins of the physical world.

Science and religion do indeed clash - but over values, not over the facts.

The facts belong the realm of science and should not be disputed by religion. What religion does (or should) challenge, is why people bother themselves with the facts and what value is there in curiosity about their details.

From a religious perspective, looking out to the world, is a distraction of one's attention and allowing this rare attainment of a human body to be wasted on exploring its fleeting existence, is such a pity. Religion tells us that while we are currently IN this world, we are not OF this world. Religion tells us that one should instead use this rare opportunity to seek God, for who knows when another such opportunity will be available and how much we will need to suffer before it presents itself again.

COULDNT FIND..the hyme of the sabbath
but it maes sense..that it includes/the path..days..of creation
that lead to his ongoing sabbath..thus he needs begin..with the deep

THE FIRST TABLET

When in the height..of the last eon..the new heaven was not named,
And the earth beneath..did not yet bear a name,

And the primeval Apsu,..[sun]..who begat them,
And chaos, Tiamut, [the holy living omnipresent..spirit]..the mother of them both

thus Their waters were mingled together,
And no field was formed, no marsh was to be seen;

When of the gods..[suns].none had yet been called into being,
And none bore a name, and no destinies were ordained;
Then were created the gods in the midst of heaven,
Lahmu and Lahamu were called into being...with the simple words

*LET THERE BE LIGHT*

NOW DE;LIGHT/REJOICE

Ages increased,...ctd
http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/stc/index.htm

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=+TRANSLATION+OF+ENUMA+ELISH&

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=ZfstnHO_AmgC&pg=PA50&lpg=PA50&dq=sabbath+hymn+of+praise&source=bl&ots=dt7eKa9sgL&sig=j25TUIp6Zt4L-2c27Le_xSeDHYs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XmQFU97wLIGYrAftuoCIDA&ved=0CEkQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=sabbath%20hymn%20of%20praise&f=false

http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/enuma.htm

I am as always in deep awe, George, at the way you manage to portray religion, as if it were something impenetrably complex and subtly layered.

>>It was rather entertaining, even funny, watching how the physicist’s ignorance of what religion, exegesis and contemporary theology were all about was matched only by the philosopher’s ignorance of how mathematical physics works and what contemporary cosmological theories are all about.<<

By placing these in juxtaposition, you are presenting "religion, exegesis and contemporary theology" as somehow equally accessible spheres of learning as "mathematical physics [and] contemporary cosmological theories". When in fact, they start from an entirely different premise.

The principle feature of theology is that it requires an a priori belief in the existence of a deity. Exegesis - I assume you mean here biblical exegesis - can only be reached through religion, whereas neither mathematics nor cosmology requires such a commitment.

The other throwaway line you employ is that William Lane Craig is a philosopher. Which of course, he is not. He is a theologian.

None of which qualifies you to sneer, by the way.

>>Sorry, I cannot help you with your problem which arises only when one has a naive - or flat, if you like - understanding of biblical exegesis or philosophy of science (or both).<<

That's not very nice, you know.

OH DEAR..i know how the pope felt
http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2014/02/20/1226832/784579-7de8dc7e-99ce-11e3-9a97-2ed07c1403ff.jpg

I DONT WAnt to look either
anyhow shame..on him..for taking pericules side

i just know what benidict is saying to him..[much the same i been saying to you]..if god..god is creator..not THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION/THAT AT BEST CAN ONLY POINT..OUT THE CLUES.*AS TO HOW *HE DID IT..WE HAVE NO RUGHT TO JUDGE THOSE WITH OUT FACTS..just take their works..not naming names/mean/ways..this evolution achieves it SANS GOD.

I KNOW ITS BUT A SMALL POINT
but i wish Benedict..would say the word.
for demons who teach..what to think..rather than how to think
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/19/the-pope-francis-little-book-of-insults/comment-page-2/

LOTSA OTHER PHOTOS..they reveal a tale
re the latest test...AS GODS NATURE SPIRITS..INDicate a failing..of a test.

http://www.news.com.au/world/pope-francis-struggles-with-his-windblown-garments-in-st-peters-square/story-fndir2ev-1226832784635

To One Under God -
I suspect that you may have reasoned comments to make, but what a pity that you are totally inept at visual presentation of your layout and syntax.
Your distracting mix of caps and lower case, plus your inability to express your thoughts fully and clearly, with logical development of argument, makes for a post that is better scrolled through unread.
Think before you write, then try to do it with clarity and consistency.

Oh the opium of the deniers that one day no one faces judgement.And to think the best they can come up with is fantasy in the name of science. The prophet Jeremiah was spot on when describing the wickedness of man's heart and self deception.

Pericles,

I though we have just agreed to disagree but here we go again.

>> you manage to portray religion, as if it were something impenetrably complex and subtly layered<<

Not only religion. For instance, most of us know that unsupported objects fall to the ground and that it is simply due to gravitation, nevertheless Einstein and others after him “portray gravitation (and the physical world it is an essential feature of), as if it were something impenetrably complex and subtly layered”.

Of course, I, agree that biblical exegesis and mathematical physics are about different things and start from different premises. And in both cases it matters whether you have enough “inside knowledge” (Polanyi’s indwelling) to understand the language in which they are written. I also agree that neither mathematics nor cosmology require a belief in God.

>> By placing these in juxtaposition, you are presenting "religion, exegesis and contemporary theology" as somehow equally accessible spheres of learning as "mathematical physics [and] contemporary cosmological theories”.<<

Well, I did not organise the Krauss-Craig TV show where these two spheres of learning were “juxtaposed” through the choice of the protagonists who were willing to take part in this debate, and apparently took it seriously.

>> is that William Lane Craig is a philosopher. Which of course, he is not.

Wikipedia: “William Lane Craig … is an American Christian apologist and analytic philosopher.

>> None of which qualifies you to sneer, <<

This “sneer” was a reaction to a sarcastic reaction (“as a self-appointed authority on Divine intentions”) to my comment (provided with a smiley to indicate that it was not to be taken verbatim). So sneer or sarcasm whichever you prefer.

By the way, there are many things I have only a naive understanding of. Howver, I do not object if somebody points it out to me. Especially if it is a concept that thousands of scholarly books and articles have been written about, because it cannot be explained in a few words why it is so “impenetrably complex and subtly layered”.

pre-ponderances by pondy..<<..comments to make, but what a pity that you are totally inept at visual presentation of your layout and syntax.>>

yes i have heard..this form of proof many times
its largely..because..its inevitable..that people follow leaders
[and i have no wish..to lead][IM FINE..with god/gods fine with me/my guides come from both the realm extremities..and im only..passing on what they would PASS-ON..to any of you/were not your more clever minds so sure certain/made-up.

ANYTHING..i write..has been written/said..many times before
i often quote..or re edit..their words..to clarify a condensed point.[if the REJECTED/Despised..comforter/for which mankind awaits..NEEDS LANGUAGE SKILLS..thats clearly..not me.

[BUT..AS Some/of THE messengers of 'god'..HAVE said...
THE FOOL OFTEN CONFOUNDS THOSE WISE..[IN THEIR OWN EYES]

colour me the comforting fool..ever willing to point out..the words/wisdoms..of the true messengers of men-kind..rather than being fool enough..to try to change..their minds...[I SIMPLY..hope to GIVE courage..to the true wise/to expand..upon..THE BLEEDING OBVIOUS]

science..isnt doing it
you cant explain..how your doing..IT*[NOW WHAT...LET THE DEMONS LOrd it over the ignorant/atheist..having faith..in a delusion hidING AS A FACT..IM..merely trying to wake them up/within the bounds of freewill being sacred.

let them who will be deceived..be deceived
but by their own will..[even if by willful..but chosen ignorance.]

but here i am/yet again..talking of the least important/ME
WHILE..the more clever than I..TAKE A COMPLICATED TOPIC..[THE evolution-THEORY]..ON TRUST..as they too busy..to bother learning a TOPIC..only to have to refute it'S..inbuilt anti-god bias.

2b../ctd\

<<..Your distracting mix of caps and lower case,>.
IS NOT SOME DEVICE..its mechanical error/by the machine/im communicating by/im incapable..of taking control..over the thing's PROBLEM..so I..Correct it/or not..thinking..its just another level/for freewill/TO..respect..others FREE-CHOICE.

<<..plus/your inability..to express/your_thoughts..fully..and clearly,..with logical development..>>

THIS Reflects..my un-surety..to..even get involved
HALF MY MIND..SAYS/LET THEM..Who would be deceived..be decieved.

the other/SIDE says..your/not trying..to deceive/
then another/guide..jumps in with..but there are..[meaning in the precise CHANGES/..AS THEY OCCUR/..EVEN IN YOUR MISSPELLINGS..LIE FURTHER REVEAL/under..the con-seal.

SO..IN THE END..I SAY..it like/it comes out[rough]
if my guides..don't like that..[tough]..let them go..find some other thick thumbed..typist.

and as for..the readers/if any..[its just/one crazy/HERMIT..sitting in a cave]..THE world has had too many..of us../and we have had enough..of the world/..and yet..here i am..sitting at 4 am..in the morning/making efforts..to CLARIFY..inner/voicings..[NOTHING MUCH REALLY]..to other hermits/..who's guides..TOO..prompted them..to reply..materially..to the urgings/spiritually..to things like your words.[simple stimuli/..like pavloves dogs]

<<..makes for a post..that is better scrolled.through unread.
Think before you write,..then try to do it..with clarity and consistency.>>

yet..its STUFF..LIKE THAT..
you want clarity/..i just want..the guides..to go bug/some other medium/average/avuncular.

sadly..neither of us..gets all..we wish for
SCROLL OR NOT..IM NOT PAID..TO do this...its..JUST..my way..to give back..to those..UNSEEN/who gave..MANY..including/ME..SO MUCH..

and..THUS..DO/I..give back..to god who..I NOW..gave me all/EVERYTHING
INCLUDING ..MY GUIDED/guarded MIND[..whether others clarify/or ignore..so what?

I CAN..only..give..what g0d..[within-us/all..SAW..fit..to see begot.

clarity..hasnt worked..
so..you got me..its THE charity.

SEE..HOW JESUS..ISNT COMMING BACK..[he was offered..these realms/by satan..and rejected them]..HE TALKS/OF A COMFORTER..THAT 'Comforter'..includes *us all..[ie..ALL/LIVING/love of other..LIVING..2.]

we are not..our brothers keeper
nor his judge..nor his jury..[realize..what he said..
ye shall do greater than i]..ie we..with MANY MINDS..and many hands..can chose to live EMBODIED-LOVE..as he lives/loves as he loves..US/ALL..so much

thus/so..we each..can say..AS HE..SAID
to see..good=to see god..TO..[see me/see my good works..iS as if seeing our father]..and his works..=..IS all of you...HE WISHES SIMPLY WE..TRY..to..LOVE HIS creation

all..of it/..even his creations/creations..[like he loves it/us]..[by not judging..even the worst..of it]...

[that judging thing..that's done
by them..that donT GET..god=all]..

GOD=ALL good../all grace../all mercy-full*.
SEE wE..see thy father...WOT/CALLS..HIMSELF/..ME*..IN THEE.`

Fair enough, George.

>>...Einstein and others after him “portray gravitation (and the physical world it is an essential feature of), as if it were something impenetrably complex and subtly layered”<<

But my point was that in the case of the various religions, unlike gravity, their complexity is entirely manufactured by their acolytes and adherents.

As it always has been.

The Incas, for example, wove a detailed and multilayered mythology around their pantheistic religion, predominantly to provide top cover for the subjugation of their people - and those they conquered - under a single political force. This is, I'm sure you will accept, a fairly common feature of any religion or religious sub-division. The Catholics and Protestants of Northern Ireland being just one contemporary example.

>>Wikipedia: “William Lane Craig … is an American Christian apologist and analytic philosopher.<<

I'm not sure you should be trumpeting his philosophy, though. This is his observation on the murder of Canaanite children.

"Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God’s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives."

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/slaughter-of-the-canaanites

Back to gravity:

>>...a concept that thousands of scholarly books and articles have been written about, because it cannot be explained in a few words why it is so “impenetrably complex and subtly layered”<<

The mere existence of "thousands of scholarly books and articles" on the topic of religion, cannot hide the fact that they are all, when you get down to it, arguing about angels dancing on a pinhead.

Whereas both you and I can experience gravity without understanding it, only you can indulge in religious speculation, as it is based upon your faith alone.

Oh my god!

Hi George,

What I have in mind by a 'flat contradiction' is, for instance, the contrast between the method of curing leprosy set out in Leviticus 14:2-7 and that set out here: http://www.wikihow.com/Cure-Leprosy. My 'naive understanding' is that if a book allegedly inspired by divine revelation sets out a way of curing leprosy that doesn't work, that calls the rest of its contents into question, and unless you or someone else can demonstrate how to tell the parts that are simply wrong (like the bit about curing leprosy) from the parts you believe are correct, there is simply no reason for any rational person to believe a single word of it.

jon.j..interesting link

<<>..Leprosy, also known as Hansen's disease, is a chronic bacterial skin infection caused by Mycobacterium leprae or the more recently discovered Mycobacterium lepromatosis>>>...

so as far as i can see/from your info..its a bacteria
and hemp anointing oil is a killer of..bacteria
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=hemp+oil+kills+bacteria&

you may carefully note the timming..of the footwashing rite
to a time where bacteria runs rife

we must not forget too..that jesus cured it..RESEARCH WOULD reveal how
one that i seem to rECALL WAS A GUY SAID HE HAS LEPROCY..[any skin blemish was at the time called lePROCY..]..AND HAVING 'LEPROCY'..WAS REASON FOR EXCLUSION..

jesus was AUTHORITY..SAYING THATS NOT LEPROSY..HE AND JOHN WERE TRAINED BY THE ESSENE's..knew his stuff.

FURTHER..most of the law/leviexodus etc..WAS WROTE..ON THE RUN
ie while wandering in the desert..because..6 out of the 8 made UP FABLES..anyhow in the desert..is the time..[now how does the bible say..tO CURE IT..[isolation/cast out?]

bacteria can be passed on by being 'dirty'/unclean..[cause its a bacteria..[hempen oil..was known to issiah/smoking flax he refused to quench[hemp wax made the candles..plus the wick/plus the VESTMENTS AND THE HOLY OIL

its the design of the burning bush..mosus 'saw'..on the mount
[exoDUS..25;40..[ITS ALSO THe tree of life[..revelation..22;2]
the leaves of the tree are for the healings of nations[google wikiseed/wikigeld]

its fruits are/not..12[one in each season]..but 38,000..last time it was checked..
http://eprints.qut.edu.au/15949/1/John_Jiggens_Thesis.pdf

also READ
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Jack_Herer_-_The_Emperor_Wears_No_Clothes.pdf

THE BURNING BUSH..DESIGN IS THE JEWISH menorah
this bush was re found growing on the hunter river by hippies in the 60.'[as john explains well]

he dont know that the hunter was joined to the namoe river[namoi[speled properway/means river of life
this was all explained in swedenborgs acania celestia[but the last three chapers were stolen/by those wanting to acces THE RIVER OF LIFE
[google

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Jack_Herer_-_The_Emperor_Wears_No_Clothes.pdf

Chapter 1
OVERVIEW OF THE HISTORY OF CANNABIS
HEMP
Chapter 2
BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE USES OF HEMP
Chapter 3
NEW BILLION DOLLAR CROP
Chapter 4
THE LAST DAYS OF LEGAL CANNABIS
Chapter 5
MARIJUANA PROHIBITION
Chapter 6
MEDICAL LITERATURE ON CANNABIS
MEDICINE
Chapter 7
THERAPEUTIC USE OF CANNABIS
Chapter 8
HEMPSEED AS THE BASIC WORLD FOOD
Chapter 9
ECONOMICS ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT
Chapter
10
MYTH, MAGIC & MEDICINE

Chapter
11
THE (HEMP) WAR OF 1812, NAPOLEON &
RUSSIA
Chapter
12
CANNABIS DRUG USE IN 19TH CENTURY
AMERICA
Chapter
13
PREJUDICE: MARIJUANA AND JIM CROW LAWS
Chapter
14
MORE THAN SIXTY YEARS OF SUPPRESSION
Chapter
15
THE OFFICIAL STORY: DEBUNKING "GUTTER
SCIENCE"
Chapter
16 THE EMPEROR'S NEW CLOTHES
Safe
HOW DANGEROUS IS MARIJUANA
$$$
PROVE US WRONG AND WIN $100,000

i been watCHING HOPING FOR MORE DETAIL
Herman Cummings/wroTE/quote..<<..Why is it that all evolutionists run from the Genesis Expert, and spend their time debating those that don't understand the Genesis text?

The correct opposing view to evolution, is the "Observations of Moses' Avoiding a true confrontation with the Bible proves humanists have an evil agenda, and want to mislead the public into their false belief system.>>

HI HERMAN..COULD..you please give more DETAIL?
I TRIED sending you email/but the aol bounced immediatly

OR DO YOU PLAN..to post again?
What you said sounds of interest

anyhow cheers from..JOHANNINE.

Pericles,

>>in the case of the various religions, unlike gravity, their complexity is entirely manufactured by their acolytes and adherents<<

This is a misunderstanding: whatever I said was referring to the cultural phenomenon of religion - studied by anthropologists, psychologists, sociologists, philosophers (theist or atheist) - not to “various religions”. Even so, I am not an anthropologist, but I think what e.g. Clifford Geertz had to say about, say, “primitive” religions was nothing their “adherents” would have understood, not to say "manufacture".

However I agree that those scholars I mentioned above don’t have much to say about gravity unless they understand also physics, the same as a physicist doesn’t have much to say about the phenomenon of religion, unless he understands religion as studied by the disciplines I listed above.

>> I'm not sure you should be trumpeting his philosophy, though.<<

I don’t think quoting from Wikipedia means trumpeting anything. I indicated my opinion of his kind of “apology” by referring to his showdown with Krauss as entertainment and fun.

For the rest of your remarks, I just have a more respectful opinion of scholars in the fields I listed above, even if I am an expert in none of them.

>> Whereas both you and I can experience gravity without understanding it, only you can indulge in religious speculation<<

I am sure you have experienced - positively or negatively - not only the effect of gravity on falling objects but also of religion on human beings. All scholarly activity - whether the object is gravity or religion - starts with “speculation” before it can be presented as a well organised and justified contribution to our understanding of the world outside or inside of us.

I agree that certain kinds of speculations require certain inside knowledge. For instance, those who want to indulge in contemporary speculations about the nature of the physical world need some mathematical literacy. Similarly with speculations on more general philosophical topics, although here the necessary insider knowledge or literacy is of a different nature.

Jon J,

>> unless you or someone else can demonstrate how to tell the parts that are simply wrong (like the bit about curing leprosy) from the parts you believe are correct, there is simply no reason for any rational person to believe a single word of it.<<

That is understandable; if you don’t believe in God - whether or not you call yourself rational or something else - why should you see the Bible as anything but a fiction?

The question of biblical exegesis arises only for those who believe in God. And even for those it is not an easy question, the answer to which is best left to specialists, like the question about things theoretical physicists best understand. The difference, of course, is that biblical exegetes have different perspectives, depending on which “denominational orientation”, they start from, whereas theoretical physicists tend to eventually agree on a common perspective. So it is easier to decide which physicist to believe than to decide which exegete to prefer; it usually depends not only on scholarship considerations but also on your denominational background.

Faulty analogy, George. That is observation, not experience.

>>"Whereas both you and I can experience gravity without understanding it, only you can indulge in religious speculation" I am sure you have experienced - positively or negatively - not only the effect of gravity on falling objects but also of religion on human beings.<<

I have certainly observed the effect of religion on other people. But that is not an experience, in the same way that I experience gravity. If gravity were something that affected some people, but not others, the experience of those affected would differ - substantially, I suspect - from those who remained untouched by it.

I am influenced by gravity, as is everyone on the planet, therefore I can say that I experience it. I am not influenced by religion, which affects only some people, therefore I can say that I do not experience it.

So, back to the "impenetrably complex and subtly layered" issue.

>>in the case of the various religions, unlike gravity, their complexity is entirely manufactured by their acolytes and adherents<<

This faux-complexity has indeed kept scholars intrigued for centuries. But it is, nevertheless, entirely manufactured.

Anthropologically speaking, I do accept that there remains the mystery why humans seem to need to believe at all in a deity. But this did not feature in either side of the debate to which you referred us, only a lack of knowledge of "religion, exegesis and contemporary theology".

Which is a totally different ballgame.

..im not KEEN ON GRAVITY/prefering to keep it light
but as its bEEN RAISED/lets bring folks [of science bent/BENT BY THE EVOLUTION/THEORY*]

LEST WE FORGET..SCIENCE..CAN EXPLAIn..how gravity works
cant switch it on/off..isnt causing it..in short/though we can glinly/babble onwards and ever forwards..the truth of gravity is SCIENCE ISNT DOING 'it'...DIDNT CAUSE IT/CANT CONTROL IT/JUST LIKE IT NEVER 'EVOLVED ANY GENUS..INTO OTHER GENUS

JUST LIKE..IT allways was/both shall contINUE AS THEY WERE BEFORE SCIENCE DISCOVERY.

TO SAY ONLY THE RELIGIOUS ARE AFFECTED BY RELIGION
equaly..isNT SUSTAINABLE..as godless children ..presented into its clutches can affirm/religious wars can affect us all.

if you live..on faith..not knowing
YOU GOT FAITH..IN OTHERS KNOWING..thus be deceived..BY SIMPLE HUMANE ERROR..till your cold dead body hits the grave..if someone claims they know..[and cant name names/this reveals they dONT..reveals..ALL THEY got is faith.

why thats so hard to admit..IS SIMPLY BY PRIDE.
pride goeth before a fall/thats all.

Pericles,

There are no faulty analogies, metaphors etc. You either get what they are trying to convey or not. Nobody experiences religion the same way they experience gravity, that is rather obvious. And only some people have what is called religious (or mystical) experience, and you are obviously not one of them (neither am I), this is also obvious. Much less obvious is what is actually “religion” studied by scholars in different disciplines as I noted elsewhere.

Many people think that not only theories of religion, within or without philosophy, but also abstract physical theories or speculations (superstring theory, multiverse etc) are “entirely manufactured”, nevertheless this does not hinder thinkers from trying to understand the nature of human or physical reality respectively.

>> Anthropologically speaking, I do accept that there remains the mystery why humans seem to need to believe at all in a deity. <<

This “why” has a different meaning for an anthropologist, a psychologist, a sociologists a philosopher, and they also attempt to resolve the mystery in different ways. They all see the finger pointing to Something, that cannot be seen directly, whether they believe that this Something is the moon or just a balloon. (Sorry, again a metaphor, however this time not mine.)

You are right that this ping-pong started with my observation that Krauss displayed a naive understanding of "religion, exegesis and contemporary theology”, and instead of asking who derailed the discussion, I think it is better we again just agree to disagree on whether it is worth to pursue these themes seriously or which analogy or metaphor is “faulty” and which insightful.

The Bible is not the articulation of a set of beliefs it is a list of rationalisations for certain religious practices. The Bible did not magically appear and then people began indulging in religious practices because it seemed reasonable to do so. The behaviour came first and when its practioners were asked why they did these things they began to explain them and then write them down. None of them made sense to a reasonable person only to those who wanted to indulge in the same behaviours for the neurotic benefit they perceived in those behaviours.

It is like an alcoholic who rationalises the five hours a night he spends in the pub by saying he is just a very sociable person. It is a denial of the reality of his alcoholism. Everyone but himself can see what he is doing. Religious people deny their problems by rationalising their behaviour and writing it down in ‘bibles’.

It is futile to engage with people who spout these rationalisations. Bringing the rules of logic and reason into a conversation as if the opponent was also using the same rules is a complete waste of time. It shows a lack of self-respect and integrity to even enter into such ‘arguments’. Celebrity atheists who do this are not trying to win an argument but rather they are trying to display what they think is their intellectual power for the sake of stroking their own ego. If they really had such power they would see what is truly going on and refuse to be a participant. Such engagement only serves to validate the rationalisations of religious people into rational arguments in their own mind. If they had no one to engage with on religious questions their doubts would become stronger and their ‘faith’ would dissipate. If religion is everything they claim it to be they would not feel the need to justify it by arguing with anyone. If they were truly secure they would only need to indulge their practices and thereby they would have everything that religion has to offer.

Dear Phanto,

<<If religion is everything they claim it to be they would not feel the need to justify it by arguing with anyone>>

The need to justify and argue only arises from fear that the secular/humanist movement will otherwise use their political powers to outlaw religion in general as well as particular religious practices. This is not imaginary: it has happened (and still happens) in communist countries and several commentators have expressed such desires on this very forum.

It would be so much more convenient if religious people could be left alone as you suggest, but learning that:
1. The state already limits the ability of alcoholics to spend their night drinking in pubs.
2. A significant number of others consider of your own lifestyle to be in the same category as alcoholics.

Wouldn't you become agitated and be pushed, even against your nature, into justifications and arguments to prove that your lifestyle is NOT similar to that of alcoholics?

Yuyutsu, I don’t have a lifestyle that I have to justify to anyone nor do you. You don’t live in a communist country and other members desires are not realities. If you spend your life worrying about what might happen to you then you will have wasted your life. If the communists overrun the country I would think not being able to indulge in public religious practices would be the least of your problems. North Koreans are more concerned about where their next meal is coming from. If some regime were to take over then they would have already made their decision about religion and are unlikely to want to sit down and argue with you in case they may be wrong.

If communists take over it will not be because religious people were not persuasive enough about their ‘beliefs’ since those beliefs are already discounted as irrelevant by communists. If a regime resorts to violence to overrun another country then they are hardly the type of people who will sit down and debate the ‘truths’ of religion.

one would of thought that centuries of god denying would result in something a little more intelligent than the big bang. The writer of Proverbs was spot on when he wrote that a fool says in his heart their is no god. Many of the above posters demonstrate it clearly.

Runner – it sounds rather irrational behaviour to follow the author of the book of Proverbs who is so insecure that he has to ridicule someone by calling them a fool just because they have a different opinion to the one he holds.

It is futile to engage with PHANTOES who spoutS these IRrationalisations. Bringing the rules of logic and reason into a conversation..as if the phantos was also using the same rules is a complete waste of time.

'Runner – it sounds rather irrational behaviour to follow the author of the book of Proverbs who is so insecure that he has to ridicule someone by calling them a fool just because they have a different opinion to the one he holds.

Phanto

denying the obvious ( your Creator) is a little more than an opinion especially when you replace it with something so irrational.

please refute/IF YOU THINK YOU KNOW EVOLUTION..

Evaluating the Human-Chimp DNA Myth-
-New Research Data..by Jeffrey Tomkins,Ph.D. *

A recent presentation..at the 2011 Creation Biology Society..(CBS) meetings has stirred the pot..once again on the human-chimp DNA similarity issue among creationists,.intelligent design proponents, and some evolutionists.1

It was reported that a query..of 40,000 chimp genomic DNA sequences against..the most recent assembly..LOL..of the human genome provided an average similarity estimate..of 97 to 98 percent.2

Evolutionists frequently cite..such percentages..as an indication of common ancestry,..*..but the ICR life sciences team has been examining the question of human-chimp genetic similarity—and what we’ve discovered..raises significant challenges..to the standard claims.3

For example,..a report in 2007 showed that 23 percent
of the human genome..shares no immediate genetic ancestry*..with chimpanzees,..mankind’s supposed closest living relative.4

A more recent study..showed extreme dissimilarity...(> 30 percent) between human and chimp Y chromosome DNA sequence.5..*Furthermore, when data..are provided in research papers..that allow the determination of DNA sequence gaps..in alignments,..please note*..actual overall identities are 70 to 87 percent.

To help clarify actual data..associated with the ongoing controversy, the Institute..for Creation Research has become actively involved in human-chimp DNA similarity research...Based on the CBS report, the ICR life sciences team obtained..the same 40,000 chimp DNA sequences—individual random fragments (about 735 bases each) from the chimpanzee genome sequencing project.

For an initial test..of the chimp data,..we generated 1,600 DNA alignments with the human genome..using the software BLASTN with default parameters.

In contrast to the results presented at the CBS meeting, we only obtained a genome-wide sequence identity of 89 percent. The CBS report did not indicate which BLASTN parameters were used...Perhaps those parameters were more stringent and only produced alignments of extremely high similarity.

edited/..

not that you..faithful..in science/spin care..

but..2..b..ctd

<<..The GSS sequences were derived..from a project that involved mapping the chimp genome...In addition,..we are testing a variety of different alignment parameters.

Our preliminary results..show that the human..and chimp genomes are more dissimilar ..than commonly reported...Our research also shows that highly selective..and stringent alignment methods..can exclude important data,..*providing inflated genome similarity estimates.

continues../@\..link

how/you\..say..in latin..;..*hung../on\..own..petard?

http://www.icr.org/article/evaluating-human-chimp-dna-myth-new/

yet again silence/i know those who back evolution
think they 'hang'..with the clever huys

yet i present a science paper..that says as little as 70 percent
[NOT 98 percent]..similarity..between chimps..and us..[but not them.

anyhow..ignoRING THE SCIENCE
WHEN YOU CLAIM SCIENCE..that 'silence'..speaks volumes
their so sure of their theory..yet cant defend it/CAUSE THEY HAVE FAITH IN EVOLVING..not gnosis.

lest we recall we share 50 percent..of our dna with banana
so be careful eating our ancestors..it reveals why THEY TAKE GODLESSNESS ON FAITH.

its sad but its obvious..tOO
taken on faith anything is better THAN Trying to defend/what you dont grasp/..EVOLUTION-Theory'..yet these faithful/Scientology..ACCO-LITES OF THE DARKNESS..[IGNORANCE]..swear true../FACT..[lol]..A FALSE THEORY/..

EVEN NOW..A REFUTED THESIS..to the point of
denying god his rightful glory..of creation

one cannot serve..two masters

OUG presents us with a stunning example of creationist gobbledigook with "..shares no immediate genetic ancestry*..with chimpanzees,." Exactly what are we to understand by the words "immediate genetic ancestry" in terms of our genetic relationship with chimpanzees? There is a certain whiff of the oxymoronic here as if the onomatopoea and juxtapositioning of the three scientific words, regardless of their relevance, were sufficient to carry the day.
One cannot disregard the creationist penchant for linguistic slyness and the misuse of scientific processes [like A.A.Snelling's radiocarbon dating of billion-year old geological samples in order to prove a young Earth or the unreliability of the dating method.]
Creation Biology?.......a self-contradiction, a grandiose and grotesque presumption to legitimacy that appeals to the intellectually disfunctional.

extropian/wun..YOU SOUND LIKE YOU MAY BE ABLE TO CLARIFY
a few points..like the first life../living..how what genus..into what genus it evolved into..[you know a few SCIENCE FACTS]

I NOTE YOU POST AND RUN/Generally..

26/02/2014 3:54:23 PM OUG presents us with a stunning example of creationist gobbledigook with "..shares no.....
»..10/02/2014 5:38:43 AM/..Science, as we recognise it today, is the new boy on the block./..It has demonstrated a phen.....
»..25/02/2012 10:06:30 AM Paul/..Komanicki writes; "We’ve met only two other Aussies here but everybody who stro.....

»..25/02/2012 7:48:04 AM/..My son is the first in our family, as far as I can discover, to study for a university deg.....
»..19/11/2010 12:41:13 PM/..Joe [Loudmouth] writes; <"rightful control" ? China has the right, like any.....
»..18/11/2010 10:51:06 AM/..The time is approaching fast when Australia [and NZ] must decide where our best interests .....
»..16/06/2010 7:04:13/..PM Well said Amicus. One need only familiarise one's self with the cultural history of Tibet .....

but..please/this tIME../hang around..and talk
DONT/RUN..AWAY..LIKE,..ALL THE/OTHERS.

TO QUOTE..YOU..<<..Exactly what are..we to understand..by the words "immediate genetic ancestry"..in terms of..our genetic relationship with chimpanzees?>>

GOOD QUESTION
IN THE IMMEDIATE..Family LEVEL genome..[genus]
the people/..AT THE LINK FEEL/confirm..they have the proof..OF..nix nadda...nuthin

ie..that mankiND..<<..shares no immediate genetic ancestry*..with chimpanzees,." >.

ITS NOT/ROCKET SCIENCE..OR GOOBER GOOK
we cant*have come,..*by apes..[and the LINK PROVES IT]

[IT WAS PIGS/SEE..OTHER-LINK]..BUT..expectiNG YOU SCIENCE GUYS..TO BE CLEVER*..ENOUGH..iN GNOSIS..OF YOUR SCIENCE..TO UNDERSTAND**WHATS BEEN REVEALED..BY STUDYING THE FACTS..seems/tOO..HARD[IGNORANCE/BEING..BLOSS?

science fact./now refutes..the chiMP CHUMP evolution THESUS
but..you lot took so much..on faith..you gOT..NO Comprehension of SCIENCE METHOD...THAT/FINALY..REFUTED..THE LIE.

[AND]..that was ONLY..ONE OF The revelation'S..the other
is on..the christian..weak END THREAD..
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15995&page=0

but please feel/free to refute..that/too.if you can
even..if you..cant name one science/quality evolution..into new genus[ever]..not one..

..yet ya fooled..em all/FOR/A WHILE..ONLY..but in the end[weak end]..true science..finds only god creation standing..]..ie science dont know..IT/WAS..BY PIG.

now..we think/KNOW..its that we came from pigs
i posted that..the last evolutionist THREAD
BUT GOOGLE IT..And weep ..

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=MAN+COMES+FROM+PIGS+NOT+CHIMPS

but swine..we are come from..not ape
[MISSED IT/BY..THAT MUCH..LOL]

ANYHOW..[GOD loveS ya
anyhow][now ya know..why pig is unclean*..its ya graNDMA.]

SUCH..A CLEVER/APE..LOL

the theory of darwinian evolution..of chimps into man..IS a self-contradiction, a grandiose and grotesque presumption to legitimacy that appeals to the intellectually dis functional...of those faithful..TO A godless god free creation/story.

in scIENCE..being half wrong is being all wrong
the math never did ad up..till you got the pig 'evE'..OF MEN-KIND
what got RAPED BY SOME APE LIKE CHIMP ADAM..that wanted what 'the beasts got'..a maTE.

ANYHOW..THE OLD Sow [eve]..gave birth to 11 wee tiny piglets
THere was a shortage of feeding stations/thus these critters..fought for their suck at the nipple[they been fightING EVER SINCE.

now i havnt been studying 'mules'..HYBREDS..BUT WHERE THEY ARE NORMALLY INFERTILE..BUT CLEARLY TWO OR MORE ..OF THESE PIG APES..bred succesfuy..because here WE ARE

Where are we now..../OUR RACE WAS CREATED BY WHAT LOOKS LIKE RAPE[or a very lusty sow..lets TRUST IT WAs the later]..and of the resultant hybreds..at least 7 of the f1..was fertile/EVES..[IF YOU FOLLOW THE 7 EVE THEORY]..ITS LIKELY ONE [OR TWO]..was a fertile male..

by our races we could determine their piggy colors
BUT ITS WORTH NOTING..THAT roman wolf..feeding romulous et'al
is closer to the root OF MAn..only the wolf is a sow/feeding little ape men

thing is you heard this science
via a CREATIONIST..WHO YET SEES GOD HAND IN ALL OF THIS

[I KNOW BY THE STUNNED SILENCE..both sides feel they lost
but get over it..both of us were a little RIGHT..A LITLE WRONG
but how darwin missed the pig thing/and all of you 'evolutionists'..as well/thats because you haVE FAITH..NOT KNOWING

BUT WORSE..now ignore the knowing TOO
its so sad but apathetic..so much more my guides could have lED US TOO
but that we lacked the question..[so thanks Extropian1,..WELL DONE]

WELL DONE JOHAN..YOU KNOW Both sides of the faithful hate yoU NOW?

yes i DO LORD
BUT YOU ASKED ME TO COMFORT THEM..FIRST I MUST BREAK THEIR DELUSIONS..

THEN HOPE YOU SEND THYNE Guidance..HELPERS
WER'E HERE CAUSE OF RAPE/INCEST/INBREEDING And faithlessness..SEEMINGLY REJECTED..EVEN by our own creationists...AS MUCH AS THOSE WHO REJECTED GOD..[ALL ON FAith]

its taken a few pages..BUT
BEgin with this

http://www.macroevolution.net/human-origins.html

it hasnt yet gotten to the hammy bit
BUT REFUTES HYBRID AS ALL Being STERILE..
and noting this is his aREA OF Specialty..[he knows his stuff]
yet explains IT SIMPLY..IN MANY PAGES..BUT ONE Step at a time[in previous pages he explains darwin never went that far[ape /man]..that was huxly..THE BULL-DOG..[THE GODLESS ONE]

anyhow the heading here..seems prophetic
LOOK At how far we came.

HAMMY CREATION..INDEED..WE COME FROM A PIG..
no one wants to know that..so refute it if you can..oh sons of man.

OUG makes the plea to me "but..please/this tIME../hang around..and talk
DONT/RUN..AWAY..LIKE,..ALL THE/OTHERS."

Let me point out a few facts to you old chap. You build so many straw men of science that it is obvious you will never understand what science claims and what it doesn't claim. The majority of your posts [where they are decipherable from mumbo-jumbo, superstitious twaddle, dyslexic discontinuities and illogical drivel] comprise construction of numerous strawmen for you to joust at like a modern Don Quixote astride a sway-back Rocinante, but you are a pathetic caricature of the reality.

It is not my burden to educate you in any of the sciences. While you offend against common sense and reason and if the inclination leads me I will comment on the more outrageous examples of your fractured reasoning. When I do it will be for me a pleasant diversion from the serious arguments about society, the sciences, sex, politics and history. You are entirely responsible for this for you cannot be taken seriously. As an advocate for your brand of lunacy you are an abject failure.

I usually appreciate confronting creationism but have not engaged thus for some years. But first you must learn what is and what is not science and learn what science does and does not do. So far you are hopelessly out of touch and not worth much more of my attention.

OUG, you quote your "experts" thus: "<<..The GSS sequences were derived..from a project that involved mapping the chimp genome...In addition,..we are testing a variety of different alignment parameters."

DIFFERENT ALIGNMENT PARAMETERS? What are they doing here? Changing the rules so a different result emerges?

But let us examine your request for the taxonomic name of the very first single-celled animal. But why not revert to the very first self-replicating molecule? Living cells are a huge evolutionary advance on them. Those molecules gave rise to those cells but where does real "LIFE" begin? Taxonomy deals only in living things. Are self-replicating molecules alive or is their activity caused by simple chemical reactions? The sciences are very active in investigating these questions and in good time will provide a theory which best explains the evidence. Speculation beforehand is hardly ever productive and usually emanates from impatient infantile minds looking to establish a pre-existing prejudice.

I'll deal with what is a scientific theory later if you don't understand how it differs from the common interpretation applying at a mundane level.

Lift your game and post intelligibly or suffer my wrath and subsequent ignore.

OK..IT MIGHT HAVE TAKEN TWO POSTS..TO GET SOMETHING..FROM YOU
sure..its a question..but..only too happy to explain

<<..DIFFERENT ALIGNMENT PARAMETERS?..

YES YOU WIL.. RECALL THE THESIS..OF YOUR SIDE =..
IE/THAT..WE CAme from apes..BUT..once you look at the list of paraMETERS..[SEE GREEN LIST TO THE RIGHT..OF THE LINK/HALF DUPLICATED/HERE-UNDER]
http://www.macroevolution.net/human-origins-2.html

basically..it regroups..BY THE LISTED FEATURES
OF WHAT HERE-to/fore....was thought imposable..[fertile hybrid]
but..look at the list..and WEEP

<<..What are they doing here?>>..

THATS THE FOOL..CONFOUNDING THE WISE
sure you..got clever word education/
but lack.. the basic science/gnosis..underpinning..the science..[BIOLOGICAL /smarts]

BUT LETS REPEAT..YET AGAIN
GO TO
http://www.macroevolution.net/human-origins-2.html
LOOK AT THE..LIGHT GREEN BOX..PLEASE NOTE CAREFULLY..
THE WHY..of..THE NEW/INTRODUCED BY PIG HYBRID..REQUIRED DIFFERENT ALIGNMENT PARAMETERS?..[see under]

<..Changing the rules..so a different result emerges?>>

SCIENCE CLAIMS..ITS STRENGTH..IS IT ADAPTS..as the facts adapt
but clearly...those not wanting to know..hate how facts reveal they only had faith..

http://phys.org/news/2013-07-chimp-pig-hybrid-humans.html

ANYHOW..FOR..THYNE SAKE..I WILL LIST EM/..now..FOR YOU
A list of traits ..distinguishing*..humans from other primates

DERMAL FEATURES
Naked skin..(sparse pelage)
Panniculus adiposus...(layer of subcutaneous fat)
Panniculus carnosus..only in face..and neck

In "hairy skin" region:
-..Thick epidermis
-...Crisscrossing congenital lines on epidermis
- Patterned epidermal-dermal junction
Large content..of elastic fiber in skin
Thermoregulatory sweating

-Richly vascularized dermis
-Normal host for the human flea (Pulex irritans)
-Dermal melanocytes absent
-Melanocytes present in matrix..of hair follicle
-Epidermal lipids contain triglycerides..and free fatty acids

*FACIAL FEATURES

-Lightly pigmented..eyes common
-Protruding, cartilaginous..mucous nose
-Narrow eye opening
Short, thick upper lip
Philtrum/cleft lip
Glabrous mucous membrane bordering lips
--Eyebrows
-Heavy eyelashes
..Earlobes

FEATURES..RELATING TO BIPEDALITY
Short,..dorsal spines on first six cervical vertebrae
Seventh cervical vertebrae:
-..long dorsal spine
-..transverse foramens

Fewer floating and more non-floating ribs
More lumbar vertebrae
Fewer sacral vertebrae
More coccygeal vertebrae (long "tail bone")

Centralized spine
Short pelvis relative to body length
Sides of pelvis turn forward
Sharp..lumbo-sacral promontory

Massive gluteal muscles
Curved sacrum..with short dorsal spines
Hind limbs..longer than forelimbs

Femur:
- Condyles..equal in size
- Knock-kneed
-..Elliptical condyles
-..Deep intercondylar notch at lower end of femur
-..Deep patellar groove with high lateral lip
-..Crescent-shaped lateral meniscus with two tibial insertions
Short malleolus medialis

2B CTD

Dear Extropian,

<<Are self-replicating molecules alive or is their activity caused by simple chemical reactions? The sciences are very active in investigating these questions>>

That's very news to me:

I thought that the sciences only research the objective side of reality - while life is a subjective experience.

LIST OF non/sapian..COMMONALITY features..CONTINUES

edited

ORGANS

Diverticulum...at cardiac end of stomach
Valves of Kerkring..present in small intestines
Mesenteric arterial arcades
Multipyramidal..kidneys
Heart auricles level*

Tricuspid valve of heart
Laryngeal sacs absent
Vocal ligaments
Prostate encircles..urethra

*edited/for word limitations

CRANIAL FEATURES
Brain lobes:..frontal and temporal prominent
Thermoregulatory venous plexuses
Well-developed..system of emissary veins
Enlarged..protruding..nasal bones
Divergent eyes (interior of orbit visible from side)

Styloid process
Large occipital condyles
Primitive premolar
Large,..blunt-cusped./(bunodont) molars
Thick tooth enamel
Helical chewing

BEHAVIORAL*/PHYSIOLOGICAL

EDITED*/AGAIN

YEt..the pig has all of eM*..[HOW DID WE 'EVOLVE'..THEM..IN A MERE 100,000 YEARS..yet..[APES..UNCHANGED FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS.]

[BUT/WAIT..YOU got..more miss-directing]

note*..THYNe//non-reply/..quote..<<..But let us examine..your request..for the..taxonomic-name..of..the very first .single-celled animal...But[first/redirection]..why not..revert..to the very first..self-replicating..molecule?>>

nice..redirection..but/PLEASE,
ITS..DISTRACTION..,but/sURE..name..THIS..'better..than GOD'.
'self replicating/MOLECULE'..even god..couldn't do that...[OFF/TOPIC TROLL?..how sad]

I WANT..TO KNOW..why/...you avoid ..simply..naming THE FIRST LIFE
THAT..YOU IGNORE..BY TALKING..[ABOUT..SOME SELF*REPLICATING Molecule..][that's insanity..dear boy]

[SELF REPLICATING CELL/Sure]..but hey..name it.s..fIRST DEFINITIVE/LIVING..family/group/GENUS..PLEASE..be/a clever man.

BUT HECK..I WILL BITE..there is/no SUCH THING..IN NATURE..[self replicating..molecule]..AS EVERYTHING..HAS AN EXTERNAL CAUSE..[OR CATALYZING AGENT]..

BUT ITS CLEAR..YOUR A CLEVER/
WORD SMITH...name..it..name..names james.

NAME..THE FIRST Life
the first..GENUS..[Single cell/FLORA/FAUNA;life]

the first..Living/life..multi-cell..by genus
[in fact science..cant/even make..its own cell/mem-brain..but lets hear what the WORDS/Smith..comes up wit....MEANWHILE FROM LINK

pre-de/scribe.

Looking at a subset..of the listed traits,..it's clear that the other parent..in this hypothetical cross..that produced the first human would be an intelligent animal..with a protrusive,..cartilaginous nose,..a thick layer..of subcutaneous fat,.short digits,..and a naked skin.

It would be terrestrial,..not arboreal,..and adaptable to a wide range of foods..and environments...These traits may bring a particular creature to mind...

In fact,..a particular non-primate does have,..not only each of the few traits..just mentioned,..but every one of the many traits..listed in the sidebar..

[IE..OUR GRANDMA...GRANPA].
ready..to name names?..

FORGET TAXONOMY/..ITS REFUTED/turns out
the same..'TAXONOMIC'..features evolved..via many MUTATIONS/many GENE-RECOMBINATION.S

god..did not place pigs..and humans..in different taxonomic/orders. Taxonomists did...A great deal of evidence..(read a discussion of this topic)..exists to suggest..that taxonomists are,..in no way, infallible.

http://www.macroevolution.net/dubious-assumptions.html
Our ideas..concerning the proper categorization..of animals are shaped..by bias and tradition..to such an extent..that it would be rash to reject,..[solely on taxonomic grounds,]..the feasibility of such a cross.
http://www.macroevolution.net/hybrid-hypothesis-section-6.html

looks like we got another runaway
the truth hurts..those who support the science man APE THESIS..TAKE IT ON faith..when FACED WITH SCIENCE THEY RUN AWAY..
http://www.macroevolution.net/dubious-assumptions.html
THEY CANT REFUTE IT..THUS THEY RUN..ITS SAD AND PATHETIC..they claim science/yet cant grasp THEIR OWN SCIENCE..ie they got faith..now finding..[OR RATHER AVOIDING THE FUNDING..their hero is a pig.

[by taxonomic lies..I HAVE REVEALED FOR YEARS..YOU CANT TRUST PHENOTYP
[or what the beast looks like/and thats what fossils..and taxonomy does/they lie..
http://www.macroevolution.net/phylogenies.html
its little better than judging humanity based ON EYE COLOR/or shape OF THEIR NOSE...[oR BUMPS ON THE NOGGIN]..or penis size..or penmanship...sentence construction..or literary ability
http://www.macroevolution.net/golden-rule.html#at_pco=tcb-1.0&at_tot=20&at_ab=per-101&at_pos=9
if you dont grasp the science
http://www.macroevolution.net/bats.html
you got faith

ITS FUNNY HOW Concepts frighten..some/people
yet makes others laugh..[in reading the lINKS]..I RECALL IN A PREVIOUS TOPIC....//PERCICULES/or ludwig]..introduced the concept of loki..that proved/revealingly VITAL..KNOWING..aT THAT time..

[anyhow..names and me dONT GELL/so i searched out this trickster]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickster

who decieved the gods many times
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki
[how much more easy..to fool a chimp..or a pig?
http://www.macroevolution.net/reproductive-isolation.html

anyhow/first..link

Modern African American literary criticism has turned the trickster figure into one example of how it is possible to overcome a system of oppression from within. For years, African American literature was discounted by the greater community of American literary criticism while its authors were still obligated to use the language and the rhetoric of the very system that relegated African Americans and other minorities to the ostracized position of the cultural "other."

The central question became one of how to overcome this system when the only words available were created and defined by the oppressors. As Audre Lorde explained, the problem was that "the master’s tools [would] never dismantle the master’s house."[6]

In his writings of the late 1980s, Henry Louis Gates, Jr. presents the concept of Signifyin(g). Wound up in this theory is the idea that the "master’s house" can be "dismantled" using his "tools" if the tools are used in a new or unconventional way.

To demonstrate this process, Gates cites the interactions found in African American narrative poetry between the trickster, the Signifying Monkey, and his oppressor, the Lion.[7]

According to Gates, the "Signifying Monkey" is the "New World figuration" and "functional equivalent" of the Eshu trickster figure of African Yoruba mythology.[8] The Lion functions as the authoritative figure in his classical role of "King of the Jungle."[9] He is the one who commands the Signifying Monkey’s movements. Yet the Monkey is able to outwit the Lion continually in these narratives through his usage of figurative language.

According to Gates, "[T]he Signifying Monkey is able to signify upon the Lion because the Lion does not understand the Monkey’s discourse…The monkey speaks figuratively, in a symbolic code; the lion interprets or reads literally and suffers the consequences of his folly…"[9] In this way, the Monkey uses the same language as the Lion, but he uses it on a level that the Lion cannot comprehend. This usually leads to the Lion’s "trounc[ing]" at the hands of a third-party, the Elephant.[7]

The net effect of all of this is "the reversal of [the Lion’s] status as the King of the Jungle."[9] In this way, the "master’s house" is dismantled when his own tools are turned against him.

Abiogenesis is a very active field of research. It is based on the presumption that life arose from a serendipitous conjunction of chemical reactions [non-living matter]. If one rejects blind faith in fantasy, myth, ghosts and demons then abiogenesis is for you.

As to naming the very first life form on Earth.....if science could identify such a phenomenon then a name would have been devised. We may never know exactly when and where this event occurred but I have confidence that only science will be the tool that reveals the mystery, if at all. Your inane insistence that it respond to pointless questions certainly will not move science one whit. It may be a traumatic experience for you but your priorities are of immense indifference to science. Do you honestly think you are the first and only person to raise such a question? Are we all to be enthralled and genuflect before your stunning insight? If science has no answer for your puerile question yet is that "proof" for you that a god exists?

Having then advised you that science has no answer to your question yet, let me lay one or two simple ones upon you.

[1] Did the chimpanzee f#*k the pig or did the pig f*^k the chimpanzee?

[2] Given that the pig has been on the scene for several million years prior to the appearance of humans what other genera of mammals might have been the cynosure of porcine promiscuity?

[3] Several hundred thousand years ago, when all this miscegenation was at a peak of orgiastic license with pigs and chimps locked in carnal embrace everywhere it is an inescapable fact that all pigs boasted thick furry coats. There were no "naked" cherubic pink pigs. A simple Google will confirm this. Therefore the loss of all that hair is a real and present mystery. One is prompted to speculate why there are no naked chimps as well.

Cut out the idiotic resort to capitalisation , it impresses no one. You've shown yourself capable of putting sentences together with reasonable ease. Please continue to do s

Just to correct you on a very basic error..........

YES YOU WIL.. RECALL THE THESIS..OF YOUR SIDE =..
IE/THAT..WE CAme from apes...

NO! The "thesis" of my side is no such thing. You should know better.
Any further stupidity/deliberate misrepresentation like this will be dealt with severely.

<<Are self-replicating molecules alive or is their activity caused by simple chemical reactions? The sciences are very active in investigating these questions>>

That's very news to me:

I thought that the sciences only research the objective side of reality - while life is a subjective experience.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 27 February 2014 3:51:42 PM

Are you suggesting that the phenomenon of LIFE is not a legitimate field of scientific research......especially its origins? I'm on safe ground here when I assure you that a large number of scientists disagree with you. But I'm certain a minor detail like this won't divert you.

WHEN..i type..the caps shift
when i quote.,.its spelled proper
THEN AS I EDIT GREAT CHUNKS DISAPPEAR..[FOR WHAT?]

this ancestor is named the COMMON PIG..[Sus scrofa,]
http://www.macroevolution.net/human-origins-2.html

WHEN WE RESEARCH THE hairless detail..WE FIND A SIMPLY PROTEIN EVOLVED
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=Sus+scrofa%2C+HAIRLESS&ie

im not that much INTO ..looking further into it...because of the attitude ..of those like yourself..WHO CONSIDER THe concept so absurd..yet dont read the links.

but ass i have waited..i will reply

the geneticist theorizes ..THAT it..was a female ape
[my theory is it was a female sow]..

I GO with the sow as it has the numbers to have a f1 mating..produce a concentration OF Recessives..that by them self simply refine..into humanity..[from nests in the ground to nest in caves etc]

i have long been suss on taxonomic..arbitrary CLASSIFICATION
as he mentions in that section
http://www.macroevolution.net/dubious-assumptions.html

damm editing/..do the DAMM RESEARCH

the geneticist..[specializing in aviaN hybreds]
HAS A THEORY..JUST AS YOU HAVE A THEORY..HIS THEORY EXPLAINS THE INCONSISTENCIES[SEE THE DAMM GREEN LIST TO THE RIGHT OF THE LINK

BUT..you admit..science dont know first life..ETC ETC
this GIVES..THE GODLESS..an easy out..
its a shame you teach kids its a signed sealed surety

WHen the science proof..SIMPLY DONT EXIST..[full stop]
you got a theory..i see your theory and name names

[THE CASE..for believing loki [or god]..dun it
takes as much faith...as the faith IN SCIENCE/in a fraud/theory.

IF YOU CANT REPLICATE..its not science
cheating kids with fraud/out of god..is fair/till science actual can REPEAT ITS DOING..ie

till you\can prove HOW IT REALLY HAPPENED
SAYING IT WAS One/way..and not the other..isnt science..ITS THEORY/faith.

LOOK THE RELIGIOUS..AS MUCH AS THE GODLESS
DONT LIKE THE PIG THEORY..that at least all can agree on lol

[incorrectly]

i love..the silence
thus i give you the same gift
i found the links...been reading them..i see its science..

I SEE ITS TRUTH..[the Truth HURTS/..but the truth will set you free...[always give more than you get]

http://www.macroevolution.net/pig-primate-hybrids.html
http://www.macroevolution.net/bird-mammal-hybrids.html

Dear Extropian,

<<Are you suggesting that the phenomenon of LIFE is not a legitimate field of scientific research>>

Your very question is misleading because you assert that life is a phenomenon and later even go a step further in asserting that it has origins.
While phenomena are indeed objective and verifiable by science and physical objects (such as our bodies) indeed have origins, those assertions have no scientific basis, hence are good as any other superstition, no matter how fashionable they happen to be.

The research on how inorganic molecules developed into organic ones, then into DNA, cells, pigs, monkeys, humans, etc. is a legitimate field of science - it explains how our bodies came into being and I have no problem with it, yet it tells us nothing about life.

The hypothesis as if life - a subjective experience, is a result of something objective (biological bodies), or indeed as if there is a causal relation whereby anything objective can result in anything subjective, is an unscientific fantasy and indeed makes no sense.

OUG writes: "BUT..you admit..science dont know first life..ETC ETC
this GIVES..THE GODLESS..an easy out..
its a shame you teach kids its a signed sealed surety"

Until the majority of experts adopt the ape/pig hypothesis I will take my lead from the consensus. I have no agendum to scratch around for fringe science to legitimate an hypothesis.

"WHen the science proof..SIMPLY DONT EXIST..[full stop]
you got a theory..i see your theory and name names"

You got it in one! There is no such thing as "scientific proof", only a preponderance of evidence and probability. That is the beauty of the scientific method. Scientific knowledge is subject to improvement, refinement or even subject to rejection for a more probable explanation of the evidence. When the ape/pig hypothesis becomes the better explanation is when I will accord it deserved respectability

"[THE CASE..for believing loki [or god]..dun it
takes as much faith...as the faith IN SCIENCE/in a fraud/theory."

My "faith" in science is an intellectual one based in rationality, logic and adhering strictly to Ockham's Razor. Your faith is an imperative for the obsequious traceable in psychology to the dread of being defenceless in an indifferent Universe. Denial from you is undoubted, but nonetheless the conclusion is inescapably true.

"IF YOU CANT REPLICATE..its not science
cheating kids with fraud/out of god..is fair/till science actual can REPEAT ITS DOING..till you\can prove HOW IT REALLY HAPPENED
SAYING IT WAS One/way..and not the other..isnt science..ITS THEORY/faith."

Bunkum! We can observe a supernova but no lab could cater to replicating one. We experience gravity but no apparatus yet devised can replicate it. Many phenomena in the macro spectrum cannot be replicated yet we understand them very, very well.

"till you\can prove HOW IT REALLY HAPPENED
SAYING IT WAS One/way..and not the other..isnt science..ITS THEORY/faith."

Which tells me that you have no understanding of what is a "scientific theory" as opposed to the commonly accepted meaning of "theory" outside of science.

There's not much value to be gleaned from a battle of wits if one's opponent is unarmed. I'm beginning to lose interest in you old chap.

EXTROPIAn1/quote..<,..We can observe a supernova but no lab could cater to replicating one...>>

SO..you admit the..'science'..is impotent..to replicate/this fist life..as much as a supernova..[they are hardly the same thing]..life according tO YOU..should be easy[once you find a self replicating /molecule]..i put it to you thats an insanity..a cell [micro]-replication..is a complete world away..from 'self replicating molecules[NANO]

WHAT IS CERN SUPPOSED TO BE DOING/JUST SOME 'GOD Particle/higgs boson/dark/anti-matter matterrs....or things related to supgraer NOVA/FUSION ETC

<<.GRAvity/quote seLF DELETED.>>STWe experience gravity but no apparatus yet devised can rep>>

stUFF AND nonsense[you have a centrifuge at home..thats liKe gravity..BY CENTRIFUGAL/FORCE..[INLUE OF MASS/CENTRIFIcal energy[YOU SEEN THEM MOTORCYCLE RIDERS..IN A CAGE/THATS CENTRIFIC GRAVITY..GRAVITY ISNT AS COMPLICATED AS YOU THINK..ITS JUST MASS..DOING WHAT MASS DOES[ACCRETE]

WE EVEN HAVE MACHINES THAT MEASURE GRAVITY
we replicate GRAVITY JUST THROWING A SPEAR..gravity ..is simply mass..[energy]..attracting more mass..[you know of course mass does escape a black hole[RIGHT?]

<<..Many phenomena in the macro spectrum cannot be replicated yet we understand >>..kudos from me for knowing macro/from micrO..BUT FORGET MACRO..IM INTERESTED IN MICRO..[IE THE FIRST LIVING CELL]..NOT MOLECULE..THATS BEYOND MICRO..WELL INTO nano

we need get to where ideas..create theories
accepting any theory gives illusion more weight that the creative/imagining that thunk the theory[WE RESPECT THE INSANE GENIUS/YET RIDICULE NUTTERS]

YOUR THE ONE HANGING UP ON ME..saying things..like..<<..you have no understanding..of what is a "scientific theory" as opposed to the commonly accepted meaning of "theory" outside of science.>>

OH WISE ONE..i recall one clever 'scientist..who was so 'advanced'..no one could grasp him/nor his theory..HE WAS WELL KNOWN..TO GIVE HIS RAMBLING NONSENSE..TO EMPTY JALLS[GOD BLESS TENURE/eh..cause peer review..ensures that the same non thinking rOTE REPEATING ACTIONS..NEVER MAKE NEW DISCOVERY..just.like..religion.

anyhow/NOW I NEED CLEAN UP/EDIT
CLARIFY/SIMPLIFY..but why..if your going anyhow

I HAVE READ..MUCH FROM MANY GREAT-MINDS..Done little..but feel them minds with me even now..ask questions/Put up counter thesis....I WILL INTUIT THEIR INPUTS/

Just get over the fact..the words change FORM/NOT FUNCTION
energy CANT BE CREATED..NOR DESTROYEd..it can change both.

my guides have been indicating to ME..the importance..of chimera..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics)
IN THE TELLING OF THE STORY..BUt i got too many 'articles'..WHEN I GET INSPIRED TO TRY HARDER/.../its sorry post limits..THEN THE EDITING AND THE WONDERFUL Support..i will let the F1 hybred
chimera pig chimp zygote THEORY..FLOAT OFF INTO DREAMTIME.

THERE WERE A FEW KEY SENTENCES..i planned to edit

* chimera with two sets of DNA.[15]

In biological research, chimeras are artificially produced by selectively transplanting embryonic cells from one organism onto the embryo of another, and allowing the resultant blastocyst to develop.

Chimeras are not hybrids, which form from the fusion of gametes from two species that form a single zygote with a combined genetic makeup, or Hybridomas which, as with hybrids, result from fusion of two species' cells into a single cell and artificial propagation of this cell in the laboratory.

Essentially, in a chimera,..each cell is from either of the parent species,..whereas in a hybrid and hybridoma, each cell is derived from both parent species..."Chimera" is a broad term and is often applied to many different mechanisms...of the mixing of cells from two different species.

As with cloning,..the process of creating and implanting a chimera is imprecise, with the majority of embryos..spontaneously terminating. Successes,..however,..have led to major advancements...in the field of embryology,...as creating chimeras of one species with different physical traits, such as colour,...has allowed researchers to trace the differentiation of embryonic cells through..the formation of organ systems..in the adult individual.

The first known primate chimeras..are the twins Roku and Hex; each having 6 genomes...They were created by mixing cells from toripotent 4 cell blastocysts;..although the cells never fused..they worked together to form organism.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15995&page=0
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16065&page=0

its so much easier..taking 'it'..on faith
trust ye..in god or science..both...'cant be validated/thus must remain equal/neither..can be treated..as fact..ie we got bias

/stasis..so stop teaching.evolution/theo-ry..as if fact.[ocams razer..the simplest=god/dun it

OUR KIDS WILL SORT FACT FROM FICTION/ONCE WE TELL THEM TRUTHFULLY..WE DONT KNOW[sure we have theories]..but the science cant validate one or the other..the one sure thing is SHHH*IT HAPPENS...that even science cant relicate..THUS WE CAN CONTEMPLATE AS WE CHOSE

OUG writes; "
SO..you admit the..'science'..is impotent..to replicate/this fist life..

Please refrain from reinterpreting what I write. Science is not impotent. Abiogenesis is a very active field of research and science will succeed in unraveling the mystery. And religious faith will have made no contribution. Adding a "god did it" is adding fantasy to pure science, millions of words in concordances and commentaries desperately trying to gain science's attention. Beating your head against a brick wall might aid your juvenile presumption to martyrdom, meanwhile I'll patiently await science's inevitable and inexorable advances. You and your ilk have a petulant impatience with science which seems to be a defining feature of religious faith.

"as much as a supernova..[they are hardly the same thing]..life according tO YOU..should be easy[once you find a self replicating /molecule].."

Once again you reinterpret what I write. I wrote nothing about how easy nor how difficult it would be.

"i put it to you thats an insanity..a cell [micro]-replication..is a complete world away..from 'self replicating molecules[NANO]"

I have already written words to this effect. You are repeating what I have already said and throwing it back as if yours was the original idea. Your credibility is thus reduced.

stUFF AND nonsense[you have a centrifuge at home..thats liKe gravity..
"WE EVEN HAVE MACHINES THAT MEASURE GRAVITY...we replicate GRAVITY JUST THROWING A SPEAR.."

Consult a dictionary for REPLICATE

"<<..Many phenomena in the macro spectrum cannot be replicated yet we understand >>..kudos from me for knowing macro/from micrO..BUT FORGET MACRO..IM INTERESTED IN MICRO..[IE THE FIRST LIVING CELL].."

Is a self-replicating molecule "living"? The natural world is immensely indifferent to your interest. Nature will do what nature does despite your petulant prejudices.

"YOUR THE ONE HANGING UP ON ME..saying things..like..<<..you have no understanding..of what is a "scientific theory" as opposed to the commonly accepted meaning of "theory" outside of science.>>"

And you have demonstrated that you don't understand the difference

"energy CANT BE CREATED..NOR DESTROYEd..it can change both."

Well......DUH!

"its so much easier..taking 'it'..on faith
trust ye..in god or science..both...'cant be validated/thus must remain equal/neither..can be treated..as fact..ie we got bias"

It would be in your best interest if you informed yourself on what is understood as FACT, LAW, HYPOTHESIS and THEORY in the realm of science. You would then understand that much of what you write [as in the above] is drivelous nonsense. I recommend a modest but beautifully written book titled SCIENCE AND CREATIONISM A View from the National Academy of Sciences. It is printed by the National Academy Press 2101 Constitution Ave. NW Washington DC 20418
ISBN 0-309-06406-6 [paperbound]. Therein you will find a wealth of wisdom that will appeal to your intelligence and not challenge your faith.

"/stasis..so stop teaching.evolution/theo-ry..as if fact.[ocams razer..the simplest=god/dun it"

Upon reading this, I came to the realisation that the above appeal is to one of your lesser talents. The Theory of Evolution is one of the most tested and confirmed theories in science. The evidence in support of it is overwhelming. Not one piece of evidence has been discovered that confounds it over more than 150 years of research.

"OUR KIDS WILL SORT FACT FROM FICTION/ONCE WE TELL THEM TRUTHFULLY..WE DONT KNOW[sure we have theories]..but the science cant validate one or the other..the one sure thing is SHHH*IT HAPPENS...that even science cant relicate..THUS WE CAN CONTEMPLATE AS WE CHOSE"

If, as you say, we don't know, why do you insist god dun it? What evidence have you that your faith trumps science? You don't need to attack or belittle science to do this. Just lay down the reasons why a god is necessary and the evidence as to his presence. Just remember, you don't need to attack science to do this. That there are many things science is yet to discover is NOT EVIDENCE OF YOUR GOD'S EXISTENCE for the same reason that it is not evidence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster's existence.

What evidence have you that science will never discover the secrets of LIFE? Do you claim a prescience denied to the rest of humankind?

NUMBER ONE/quote..<<..If,..as you say,...we don't know,..why do you insist god dun it?>>..

DESPITE..150 YEARS..of science 'PROOFING'..SCIENCE
AS/YET cant name names..NOR REPLICATE....IT

ANY WHO CLAIM TO KNOW../IT\..BUT CANT REPLICATE/clearly don't know nuthin..[bUT FAITH..in other KNOWING]..so till we know..for sure..even the best knowing is by faith./EVEnn..ot in what others know*now.,.but what others..*expect to know..somewhere far..into the never never..=INSANITY/NOT SCIENCE.

look extropian..if YOU SAY..YOU GOT SCIENCE PROOF
but you dont got even a single science proof/..you can replicate
THEN MATE..what do you have?..Faith some unknowable day..that some 'other'..will know/THAT'S NOT PROPER SCIENCE

but lets pretend it is..who will maybe somehow sometime..replicate evolution/by what field of science..when you science..do you include all sciences..endless unknowable unknowns..isnt science.

<<..What evidence have you.that your faith trumps science?>>

you throw occams razor.as a proof/i say simplest...oc rule..is to allow that some unknown insane SCIENTIST..did it all..[via some time flux thing..so lets name him...god]..[till he declares his real name/names HIS PURE SCIENCE..[EVOLUTION]..evolution at best..is what sciences..can be..AP-LIED...imp-lied to imply.

<<>>You don't need to attack..or belittle science to do this.>>

if you have THE RIGHT TO RAISE SCIENCE OVER GOD
I HAVE THE Right..to stick god..over your..MIS-conceptions..[of scienceS..OMNIPOTENCE]

<<...Just lay down..the reasons..why a god is necessary..and the evidence..as to his presence.>>

ambiogensus..is refuted..simply BEcause it..hasnt made life..FROM NON LIFE..*

THE LIVING/good..sustains life..[*LIFE ALONE..CAN MAKE LIFE*[..this science fact..iS PROVED EVERYDAY..[THE DEAD..MAKING LIFE..IS NOT A..FALSIFIABLE-FACT..ITS AN OPINION]..[AS YOU have/needed to change EVEN..the definition..OF THE WORD/THEORY..AND..'I am's-BIO-GENUS]

the Signs....of god are light love logic
life/SUSTAINING..life/LIVING..[GRACE MERCY..etc]

<<..>>Just remember,..you don't need to..attack science to do thi

of you claim..by science/THAT\..no god...was NEEDED..FOR FIRST LIFE
ITS NOT..mY job to invalidate..your/LACK..OF PROOF..OF IT/BUT WITHOUT PROOF..ITS JUST..A DECEIT/deception..clearly/simply..

if you dont know..you have..no method OF Discerning..what is true SCIENCE..FROM WHAT..ISNT SCIENCE AT ALL..[FAITH..ISN'T SCIENCE]

<<>.What evidence..have you that science..will never discover..the secrets of LIFE?>>

clearly..if you decided..that 'life'..can only..exclude god
you will never..find the truth..[its like saying..somewhere in all these grains of sand..i will find..sand..thats not sand..[sure you may..but you..wont find..living sand]

think..why you cant..simply..name names
OR EVEN..present...ONE..Scientifically VALIDATED 'EVOLUTION'..Into new genus.,[rest/deleted][word/limits]

i am-bio-gensus..thus is ambiogensus...refuted..
BUT LETS DO LOOK AT THE PROOF /RESEARCH
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=abiogenesis+evidence&

LETS IGNORE THAT..simply BEcause it..hasnt made life..
FROM NON LIFE..*refutes the concept..and examine[yet again]
the proof..
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=abiogenesis+evidence&

i see no reason to yet again peruse the illusion..not solution
thus would much prefer you simply name names..rather than me guessing
which lie YOU ACCEPT AS TRUE..but ;lets BE FAIR..

HERE IS A LINK..that refutes the concept
https://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html

please feel free to refute it here/or bits of it
pr whatever you feel is wrong/go ahead..make my day

im going to read it
can you refute it?

[i will bet you a big bottle of rum..IF..you can find more points i you can refute..or even..SIMPLY /disagree WITH/..THAN YOU CAN]

SO THERE..we saved a lot of reading
shaved it down to a creationist site chosen at random
we are both motivated to point out its errors.[im betting i find more errors thAN YOU]..so mu companion..go earn us a drink..looser pays/i cant be MORE FAIR THAN THAT.

I DO IT..NOT EVEN HAVING READ THE LINKS CONTENTS
thats how sure..I AM..IN my guides Whisperings..that alone are more discerning..AT WHAT a SCIENCE PROOF of concept really IS../I WILL AWAIT YOUR REPLIES/REBUTTALS..BECAUSE I LOVE SCIENCE..LITTLE knowing that love TOO..would lead me to god.

ANYHOW IM LISTENING TO ALEX JONES/TALKING OF THE REAL WORLD
knowing we goT THIS REALITY to cope with too..[i really cant see how you get through it all..without the sure knowing god will sort it out/in fact sorted it out way back in 1917..[see fatima reveaL]..BUT EVEN BEFORE THIS in the bible..[ye shall hear of wars]..

BUT LETS HEAR YOUR REBUTTAL OF
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html
blooming sneaky buggers put in a S..[how slimy..to know that godless/atheists STOOP TO do that to creation sites][THATS ANOTHER SIGN SCIENCE DONT GOT NUTHIN

ANYHOW REFUTE..IF YOU CAN
[THAT S IN THE LINK..is a sign..please advise if it appears..in yOUR HEADER/THINK HOW GAINS FROM A DEAD LINK TO REBUTTAL..of

i ''am..:..bio genus''
cheers..[IT WILL BE MY FIRST..DRINK FOR YEARS]
but will yoU BE DRINKING OR ME?

"look extropian..if YOU SAY..YOU GOT SCIENCE PROOF
but you dont got even a single science proof/..you can replicate
THEN MATE..what do you have?..Faith some unknowable day..that some 'other'..will know/THAT'S NOT PROPER SCIENCE"

Witness OUG, and try, TRY to understand: Science is not about proof. Science is about a preponderance of evidence and probability that favours one interpretation of that evidence. You continue to create strawmen of science in order to knock them down. Your knowledge of the scientific method and the history of science is a dismal travesty of the actuality. YOU HAVE NO IDEA OF WHAT IS PROPER SCIENCE!

<<..What evidence have you.that your faith trumps science?>>

"you throw occams razor.as a proof/i say simplest...oc rule..is to allow that some unknown insane SCIENTIST..did it all.."

Once again, SCIENCE IS NOT ABOUT PROOF. Ockham's Razor is a useful guide only

<<>>You don't need to attack..or belittle science to do this.>>

"if you have THE RIGHT TO RAISE SCIENCE OVER GOD
I HAVE THE Right..to stick god..over your..MIS-conceptions..[of scienceS..OMNIPOTENCE]"

We are not concerned with our "rights" to do anything. I asked you to refrain from attacking science in providing convincing evidence for your god's existence and involvement. Obviously you are incapable of doing this. I have stated certain cases in favour of science without denigrating your faith. Your approach is limited to attacking science and expecting that your strawman arguments are sufficient as compelling evidence for your god. That will never, never succeed.

<<...Just lay down..the reasons..why a god is necessary..and the evidence..as to his presence.>>

"ambiogensus..is refuted..simply BEcause it..hasnt made life..FROM NON LIFE..*

Patience is a virtue is it not? A little knowledge of the history of science will demonstrate that time after time your god has been disposessed from the gaps that,like now, you are claiming exist in scientific knowledge. Pay attention: GAPS IN SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE ARE NOT EXCLUSIVE EVIDENCE THAT YOUR GOD EXISTS. And you are attacking science against my request. If your only response is to do this then you demonstrate an inability to learn and expand your own knowledge

You're no longer interesting OUG. Yelling unsupported dogma, creating strawmen, disjointed neologisms and a pervasive dyslexia have extended my patience to breaking point.

It is not surprising that you have exhausted the patience of every interlocutor who has, from a desire to illuminate, tried to engage in intelligent communication with you.

I must record here that in my 20 years of experience of discussion groups going back to the early days of ICQ and MSN, I have never encountered such a monumental ignoramus as you. One came close in the late 1990s who variously described himself as Patrick, Werewolf and Folder Paper among others. He was a colleague of a cretin named Free Wheel. But you have soared to new heights of inanity and I have observed how conceit and smug self-approval have inured you to any logical, common sense rational approaches.

One would search a lifetime and never find a more suitable recommendation than you for selecting atheism as a philosophical basis for a world view. I find it highly satisfying that you count yourself in the ranks of theism. I never thought I would feel sympathy for theists.

You epitomise the object of Einstein's observation......"Only two things are infinite, the Cosmos and human stupidity and I'm not certain about the former."

Jonathan Swift, a man of keen insight, put it succinctly and eloquently......."You can't reason someone out of something they weren't reasoned into."

I have found more intellectual stimulation in "Duck Dynasty" and re-runs of "I Love Lucy".

,,<<..Science is about a preponderance of evidence and probability that favours one interpretation of that evidence.>>

RIGHT THERE/SEEMS TO BE WHERE your SELF deceived
SCIENCE FAVOURS FACT OVER FICTION..not one interpretation..over the other..[that sir is called creed]..and creed seeks only mindless obedience..to dead end creeds..[teaching what to think/rather than how TO THINK.]

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=what+is+science&
Science is the concerted human effort to understand,..or to understand better,..the history of the natural world..and how the natural world works,..with observable...repeatability

What is Science? - University of Georgia

Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and ...

www.sciencecouncil.org/definition&#8206;
Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge /and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

<<..You continue to create strawmen.of science in order to knock them down.>>

so stop quoting i love lucy etc at me
and put up some of 'your science'..strawmen..i will knock down for you[its only too clever..SAYING IM MAKING THEM..WHEN YOUR REFUSING TO SIMPLY OR NAME ANY..IT MIGHT BE AFFECTIVE DEBATING TECHNIQUE..BUT ITS DEFINITIVELY NOT SCIENCE.

IT SEEMS..your a better writer/massdebaiter..than scientist

<<..YOU HAVE NO IDEA OF WHAT IS PROPER SCIENCE!..>>
iT SEEMS NEITHER DO yOU....
BUT YOU GAVE UP EVEN TRYING..AFTER chukking at me the word..'A-BIO-GENUS'..you sir aint no bio genius..indeed have presented little 'science thinking at all..ie a writer/taking the 'science..ON FAITH

HERE IS TODAYS PROJECT..[FOR MY SCIENTIST WITHIN ME]
[its way over your limited comprehension..SO GO WATCH YOUR SITCOMS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoHhD8VnVek

the rest of your replies..seem to be in the main re-quotes of MINE

JOHannine
THANK YOU FOR YOUR Amusing..english lit and americana sit-come referances..but im more into true science..haVE A NICE LIFE.

The first thing to realize when attempting to understand the nature of Joe's Energy Cell is that many of the precepts and rules of conventional science do not apply.

http://educate-yourself.org/fe/fejoewatercell.shtml

This cell does not operate according to the conventional rules of physics. It's necessary to approach this material with an open mind and to be prepared to entertain novel ideas that often run contrary to conventional scientific thought. Essentially, Joe had discovered a unique and simple way to capture Orgone energy (explained later in this article). The Joe Energy Cell is NOT a hydrogen fuel cell. It's an Orgone Energy Accumulator in which water is acting as the medium which captures the orgone and allows it to be transduced into the engine.

Skepticism
Some people react with immediate disbelief when first confronted with information about the Joe Cell. Such individuals find skepticism a comfortable refuge. It's easy to be a skeptic. There are always those with flaccid minds who delude themselves onto thinking that scoffing at new ideas or theories that run counter to conventional wisdom is an affirmation of intellectual maturity and sophistication, but these individuals are too often intellectually lazy, hopelessly self satisfied and arrogant.

Almost without exception, a skeptic jumps to the simplistic conclusion that if he hasn't heard about it or if the new information opposes ideas which he has been taught in school, then the concept being offered must be invalid! Of course, a skeptic will never actually build the cell and determine through observation whether the cell functions as described. Skeptical sermons are usually delivered from the ease of an arm chair.

Rigidly obedient to established dogma,..skeptics routinely dismiss new or revolutionary concepts out of hand...The refusal to examine empirical evidence offered by hands-on experimentation is seen most often in skeptical professionals of the academic persuasion...Most physics professors are solidly married to their ego..and 'woe be' to anyone who attempts to question their consecrated,..anointed opinions of the universe.

My advice is not to waste your time..trying to convince skeptics or knuckle heads..married to conventional science

a step closer..to a bio..'evolution'..[MAYBE]
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15995&page=0

BUT HERE IS THE PROBLEM
im not making your case.

Wilhelm Reich not only discovered the unique aspect of the aether called orgone energy he also discovered the tiny living particles that were the very building blocks of life itself.

Reich’s most suppressed discovery was Bions.
AS THEY FRIGHTENED..BUG PHARMA
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=BIONS&i

Searches related to BIONS

bions medical systems pvt ltd


bions ft

bions biogenesis


orgone bions

bions in topological string theory


bion experiments
http://www.orgonelab.org/seminar1.htm
anyhow..He called them Bions.

Bions are smaller than cells and simply appear as if by magic from nothing. They are fully animated and combine to form clusters. Almost no medical researchers will go near this, actually no one will. Except for the few true seekers.
The possibilities for BION research are so immense as to render all of our medical technology obsolete. If the very building blocks of life can be isolated and controlled via vibration, electricity, magnetism etc.. then everything from regrowing limbs to healing wounds over night will be possible.

Reich was suppressed in one of the most violent and outward manners in all history. His books were burned, he was jailed and beaten to death in prison. Why? Was it just because of his investigations into aetheric beings in the skies? or was it his work into Bions that threatened the Rockefeller controlled AMA? Some believe that the AMA was created specifically to suppress Reich’s work. His work into orgone was bad enough but his rediscovery of Bions was simply unforgivable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj7k88vCMYk&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8dLMvzpdsYo

Thank you, one under god, for the biggest chuckle I have had in a long while.

>>The first thing to realize when attempting to understand the nature of Joe's Energy Cell is that many of the precepts and rules of conventional science do not apply.
http://educate-yourself.org/fe/fejoewatercell.shtml<<

The key rationale for the Energy Cell, as I understand it, is encapsulated in the following sentence:

"This third type of gas is the gas that Joe uses to power the car's engine. Here we have a 'gas' that has somehow captured a significant amount of Orgone Energy which is expendable within the confines of the engine."

This Orgone Energy thing sounds interesting, I thought.

Then I met this sentence:

"Wilhelm Reich, a titan among 20th century scientists, discovered orgone energy in the late 1930's as an outgrowth of his study of the psychic and physiological functions of the sexual orgasm of which he first published studies in 1923."

I suddenly had this image of what exactly Mr Reich was doing, when the notion of Orgone Energy came to him.

It's a good thing I am having a caffeine-free day, or my keyboard would have needed replacement.

IM GLAD WERE BOTH SMILING..i had hoped for some..sharper thought/though
tosummise todays thought flow..reif found that LIVING PLANT MATTER..WAS ABLE TO BECOME..amoeba like BION.

I WAS HOPING THAT SOME WOULD DECLARE THAT AS REFUTING MY god thesus
[as my SPIRITS HAD ALREADY PUT TO ME..THAT vegetative PLANT LIFE..[flora/fixture]INTO ..living cellular life[amoeba LIKE BIONS]..YET WAS LIFE INTO LIFE.

MY EXPECTATION..THEN NOTED THAT IRON FILINGS AND SAND [FOR EXAMPLE]..ALSO CREATE.,.BIONS..[BUT BIONS CONCEPT HAs..frighted many..AND ITS MORE TO THE WHY WHEREFORE OF THAT..I THOUGHT TO POST IT.

ANYHOW..your correct re rEICHE.. it seems he was right INTO ALL THAT sex stuff..and the similitude with loki also stands clear...but heck the guides guide us INTO whatever entry TO HIGHER GNOSIS they can.

re the orgone gas..[aether]..Another observable fact also lends support to the above theory. The outlet from the Car Cell is connected to a blind fitting or blank plug on the carburetor housing. This means that there is no opening through this fitting into the interior of the carburetor or the interior of the intake manifold.

Yes, you are reading that statement correctly. There is NO physical opening between the output of the Energy Cell and the interior of the engine. Yet the cell works! Logic dictates that the gas must be passing THROUGH the metal of the carb housing to reach the interior of the engine.

Since hydrogen is the lightest element of all (with only one proton), it doesn't seem too far fetched to assume that this might be occurring. Wilhelm Reich also noted that orgone is not hindered by metal barriers, but is first attracted to and then repelled by metal surfaces...NO WONDER SCIENCE dont want..TO GO THERE.

ANYHOW..[MORE STRANGE]..USING YOUR LINK..I COULD NOT ACCES THE SITE..[thus repost]
http://educate-yourself.org/fe/fejoewatercell.shtml

Here you go OUG... I remember you introduced this a few years ago (and thought it then an unlikely power source coming any time soon), but don't let my faith it is a con dissuade you:

http://www.moe-joe-working.com/Moe-Joe-Cell/Moe-Joe-Cell-Store/cartlist.php

Let us know the results of your experiments. Just be forewarned that there is no product performance or money-back guarantee on the devices.

If results are less than expected you can, conveniently, use the cell to feel better about it all...

http://www.moe-joe-working.com/Moe-Joe-Cell/moe_joe_cell_healing.html

Of course to be really impressive the modified cars wouldn't require batteries or petrol/diesel would they? Besides which orgone energy would be unsafe as drivers should keep both hands on the steering wheel.

[PS: Pericles, re ""Wilhelm Reich, a titan among 20th century scientists..." don't you agree that the 'scientist' bit is unfounded and the 'an' in titan is redundant?]

``ANYHOW..HAVING SHOWN HOW TO MAKE AMOEBA..FROM,,PLANT matter and even sand..i thought how life came from ZERO..INTO PLANT

watching pbs they said it was photoplancton
I REKON BEFORE MULTICELL..YOU NEED A CELL[under the same principle as life from life first have a living cell]..but seems im the only one caring

but as usual the science confounds
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=PBS+PHOTOPLANCTON+LIFE+ORIGEN

The First Animal
For the first time ever, scientists believe they have gathered substantial evidence that points to a single animal group of creatures that gave rise to all animals, including humans. Researchers such as Cristina Diaz and Mitch Sogin think that the most likely candidate for this "Animal Eve" is a group of creatures that still exist: the sponges.

Sponges, members of the phylum Porifera, are considered the oldest living animal phylum. The name Porifera means "pore bearer" in Latin. Sponges are the only animals that if broken down to the level of their cells can miraculously reassemble and resurrect themselves. These seemingly inanimate creatures are also fantastic pumps, filtering tons of water to harvest just a few ounces of microscopic food.

How do we know sponges were our ancestors? It turns out that all organisms in their genes carry clues to their evolutionary history -- a unique set of acquired genetic changes passed on through countless generations.

This fact allowed Mitch Sogin to compare and contrast specific sets of genetic differences between sponges, flies, fish, frogs, humans and other organisms. He discovered that sponges, indeed, were the start of the animal kingdom and laid the foundation for all animals to follow

but plants need C02 AND ANIMALS NEED OXYGEN
BUT I STill want to know..which cell membrane came first

the membrane..is a key component..for cellar life..
ITS NOWHERE NEAR BEING ANYTHING LIKE A MUD BUBBLE..[YEa..another 'theory]
http://www.biologymad.com/cells/cellmembrane.htm

The cell membrane (also called the plasma membrane, plasmalemma, or "phospholipid bilayer") is a selectively permeable lipid bilayer found in all cells.[1] It contains a wide variety of biological molecules, primarily proteins and lipids, which are involved in a vast array of cellular processes such as cell adhesion, ion channel conductance and cell signaling. The plasma membrane also serves as the attachment point for both the intracellular cytoskeleton and, if present, the extracellular cell wall.

he cell membrane consists primarily of a thin layer of amphipathic phospholipids which spontaneously arrange so that the hydrophobic "tail" regions are shielded from the surrounding polar fluid, causing the more hydrophilic "head" regions to associate with the cytosolic and extracellular faces of the resulting bilayer. This forms a continuous, spherical lipid bilayer.

The arrangement of hydrophilic heads and hydrophobic tails of the lipid bilayer prevent polar solutes (e.g. amino acids, nucleic acids, carbohydrates, proteins, and ions) from diffusing across the membrane, but generally allows for the passive diffusion of hydrophobic molecules. This affords the cell the ability to control the movement of these substances via transmembrane protein complexes such as pores and gates.

Flippases and Scramblases concentrate phosphatidyl serine, which carries a negative charge, on the inner membrane. Along with NANA, this creates an extra barrier to charged moities moving through the membrane.

Membranes serve diverse functions in eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells. One important role is to regulate the movement of materials into and out of cells. The phospholipid bilayer structure (fluid mosaic model) with specific membrane proteins accounts for the selective permeability of the membrane and passive and active transport mechanisms. In addition, membranes in prokaryotes and in the mitochondria and chloroplasts of eukaryotes facilitate the synthesis of ATP through chemiosmosis.

in support of the pig thesus
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1896531.stm
scaffold" made from pig's intestine could improve the healing of damaged knee ligaments, say experts.

Once all surrounding tissue is removed, connective tissue from the gut of the animal forms a strong mesh.

It is unlikely to be rejected by the human immune system, claim scientists.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16904586
anatomically similar to human knee joints

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/16303685_The_mechanical_function_of_the_meniscus_experiments_on_cadaveric_pig_knee-joints

Humans,..Chimpanzees and Monkeys Share DNA
but Not..Gene Regulatory Mechanisms..enter the pig

Dr/Gilad reported..that up to 40%..of the differences in the expression or activity patterns..of genes between humans, chimpanzees and rhesus monkeys...can be explained by regulatory mechanisms that determine..whether and how a gene's recipe for a protein is transcribed.*to the RNA molecule ..hat carries the recipe instructions to the sites in cells where proteins are manufactured.

In addition to improving scientific understanding of the uniqueness of humans,...studies such as the investigation conducted by Dr. Gilad and colleagues could have relevance to human health and disease.

"Through inter-species' comparisons at the DNA sequence and expression levels,..we hope to identify the genetic basis of human specific traits..and in particular the genetic variations underlying the higher susceptibility to certain diseases such as malaria and cancer in humans than in non-human primates," said Dr. Gilad.

Dr. Gilad and his colleagues studied gene expression in lymphoblastoid cell lines, laboratory cultures of immortalized white blood cells, from eight humans,.eight chimpanzees and eight rhesus monkeys.
They found*..that the distinct gene expression patterns of the three species can be explained by corresponding changes in genetic and epigenetic regulatory mechanisms..that determine when and how a gene's DNA code..*is transcribed to a messenger RNA (mRNA) molecule.

Dr. Gilad also determined that the epigenetics process known as histone modification..also differs in the three species. The presence of histone marks during gene transcription..indicates that the process is being prevented or modified.

"These data allowed us to identify..both conserved and species-specific..enhancer and repressor regulatory elements,.as well as characterize similarities and differences across species in transcription factor binding.to these regulatory elements," Dr. Gilad said.

Among the similarities among the three species were the promoter regions of DNA that initiated transcription of a particular gene.
In all three species, Dr. Gilad's lab found that transcription factor binding and histone modifications were identical in over 67% of regulatory elements in DNA segments that are regarded as promoter regions.

A simple moment of reflection.shows that if about 67-70% of regulatory elements (DNA)..are identical,
then about 30-33% of them are different.

2B CTD

If Regulatory elements comprise about 20% of human DNA,
then about 13.4% of that is identical,
leaving about 6.6 % of the Genome in this area DIFFERENT.

Adding that 6.6% to the 4% of protein encoding genes admitted to be different, we have actually about

10.6% of Human DNA now known to differ from that of chimps.

This leaves possibly identical DNA at less than 89%, not the 96% claimed,..which was based on a 1% sample of protein encoding gene.

The actual differences between Man and Chimps in respect of
gross, raw or bulk DNA is of little significance to speciation,
and therefore of little significance for Common Descent.

What matters is the OTHER, regulatory codes controlling morphology,
and these are significantly NOT LIMITED to raw DNA sequences,
but are also encoded in the ARRANGEMENTS of code segments.

This is an astounding and exciting finding,
which goes entirely against the parading of
fudged percentages of similarity for raw DNA content.

Look again at the following chart (in particular, section B):

http://www.easynotecards.com/uploads/1164/84/69c3b13a_13a8788d737__8000_00000274.jpg

Over 20% of Human DNA is now known to be made up of Regulatory Sequences,
which are now acknowledged to control physical layout, features, proportions, and general speciation.
These were formerly thought to be 'junk DNA' or 'uncoded DNA'.

If a significant portion of this 20% is now known to be the main source of
the differentiation between Man and Chimps,
then the claim that Man and Chimp share 98% of DNA is total nonsense.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7713309/

as new visioning appears..it must be noted
recall that story of cain/able..maNY times i have told THE REVEAL

but today..it got its update
CAIN BECAME Neandathol..[too much ape/genes]..hE WAS A HOW YA SAY IT
OUTLYER..AND THE OTHER F1...WAS DEAD..

how many kids adam eve have AFTER CAIN left?

I COULD EASY..look it up..but allow others tO FILL THEIR OWN GAPS

SCAPE GOATS WERE BORNM THERE
THE LAW OF FIXTURE AND FUNGABLES..THE TREE OF LIFES KNOWINGS OF GOOD FROM EVIL HAD BEGUN..but was loki/for so may cain prove tO BE..WHAT WOULD BE HIS NEXT MATING [ITS CLEAR 'HIS' agro line genes/didnt go extinct...its all linked.

pleasE..SEE/THAT..THIS..IS..A CLUE/NOT RACISM
but my guides/reveal..a PIG SNout/reCALL..'THE PIG MEN..OF NOSTRILDAMMUS..[NOSTRADAMUS]

PLUS/THE FACT..OF THE RACE..OF Pinocchio'S/nose..[it all...fits with the pig..thesis][..add/in..aboriginal belief/..*not_to_eat_totum..the peaces..can come..-together...via..viral pieces.

<<..Any..further thoughts..on/those Neanderthals?
Specifically,..that is,..as to where they fit..into the..
"begats".>>

OK..IN..THE BEGINNING..LIFE BEGAT LIFE..
If....nothing-else,..LIFE/..LIVING indicates..
THE LINKAGE..[LINKING..*LIVING/*\LOVING=life]..

its revealed...in..our/very/loki-like..[behavior]..be-have-ya

THUS..[be/it....about]..the beliefs..people have held..OR LEARNING'S..Input by..GUIDES/INCLUDING\spirits]..and..other wise/or OTHER/CLUE..TO explanatory process..AND/or..historic GUIDANCE/record..

lets examine...the/cain aberration..BY..LIGHT/OF..*the first law
'LIFE/..LIVES to pro-create..LIFE.'*...[its about..ex'ta-genus rapine;...the proto-creating hybrids..[MIS?]-NAMED..AS GENUS*]
http://www.macroevolution.net/mammalian-hybrids.html

For..example,..it’s interesting..that many people...(including..such as acknowledged/geniuses..as John Locke and Voltaire)..have expressed the belief..[BY..LIFE WITNESS..OF THE SPITIT-REALM?]..OR

that.. POSSIBILITY..[THAT humans..can hybridize with animals],.. whether or not reliable..physical-evidence..[PROOF]..Remains to support\..such a notion materially.

The parallel's..between hybrid crosses..[see/links]..and..THE VISIONS OF DANTE'....and..Plutarch’s historical personages..can perhaps be made clearer..

with an example...Take Jesus Christ...There are many people who do not believe..that Jesus ever existed,...let alone that he was divine. And yet,..even an a*gnostic/a*theist..would admit*.that there are historical references..to a person..of that name.

Thus,.*..while not believing..in the real existence of Jesus,..a fair-minded atheist/agro*nostic..might admit..that such references do exist...He or she might even read,..ablE/TO..RECALL/ASSOCIATE/list or quote them.

Both the honest believer..and the honest un*believer would be justified...in collecting/importing..every shred of evidence relating to..the existence..[or nonexistence]..of Jesus...The former might gather it..with the intention of bolstering Christianity’s case...The latter..*might wish to show ..hat available historical data is entirely insufficient..to justify..THEIR EXPRESSED/belief.

A third type of person,..however,..SAY....a neutral historian, might simply wish to assemble all the information bearing upon the topic. It..is this third motive..that has guided the creation..of this book.
http://global.oup.com/academic/product/handbook-of-avian-hybrids-of-the-world-9780195183238;jsessionid=83A88C1BF4E44CCEF6FA2C42A482F410?cc=us&lang=en&

In the case of every cross,..I have endeavored not to express my own beliefs..as to whether it might occur...My intention,..instead, has been to collect reports/bearing on the phenomenon of mammalian hybridization..
http://www.macroevolution.net/mammalian-hybrids.html
and to record each such piece..of information under the headings of the various crosses..to which it relates...Viewed in this light, each separate type of cross..is a distinct historical entity to be investigated.

The crosses...“dog × cat” and “gorilla × chimpanzee” are topics that can be researched,..just as Jesus and Mohammed can,..whether you believe in them..or not...

*With this..pure/science/methodical..approach,..which brings.a strong historical*element..to the study...of natural/history,..belief can be largely..set aside...thanks/to..salty
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16065&page=0

reply to aj/from post/here
who HOPES TO BAFFLE By endless rephrasing
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16065&page=0

You're..not fairing too well..AJ
BATTING ZIP

aj..replied..<<..Here’s a few hypotheses>>..RE ABIOGENSUS

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis.

FAIR Enough/i..only need..one..To refute all you said
see item9/link1
<<..plausible scenarios>>...ie not any proof/just theories.

LINE1
<<..Even the simplest..currently living cells..contain hundreds of proteins..most of which are essential..to their functioning.>>

THEN YOU GRASPED AT STraws..<<..nuclear fusion>>..
MY REPLY..IS..THAT STUDIES KNOWN PHENOMINA
UNLIKE/THE SPECULATIONS....fRE/FIRST..*LIE..[liFe..from non life..]

<<..What are these 20 steps you speak of?>>
final/lines..point 1
<<...The likely most accurate hypothetical study (Gil et al. 2004) , puts the minimal number of genes at 206...[wink]..All the proteins produced from these genes..are involved in a maze of pathways of metabolism,...replication, as well as building and maintenance of structure,/..which is of bewildering complexity.

[then/there..of course..is thE SMALL-MATTER..of a cell-membrain.



In fact..how else/than through..such a minimum amount..of complexity, could even..a primitive cell...have met the just mentioned basic demands?..How could..such a vastly complex network..of more than 200 proteins have arisen by itself?..>.//

your/link..denies YOU.
APES breeding human..prove it/..its/YOUR..PROOF?

in your opinion..[biased/opinion]....
<<..Scientists already..have with DNA,..mitochondrial DNA,..>>

YEAH THE..DNA/we share too..with a bannana
[if i cant use..that crap/..you cant EITHER

APPART FROM THAT..WHAT YA GOT?

<<..chromosome fusion,>>..lol
see previous posts..re short STANDS..

fusion..lol
prove it

rubbish...re the..<<fossil-record..>>..prove it

By the way,..yoU’re..still ALL PURE-ape..to me
,,so/go..get an ape/HEART-VALVE..LOL..[THINK]
..WHY YOUR GET..THEM FROM A PiG?]

AJ.<<..Probably..for the same reason..we share 50% of..our genes with bananas.>>..

THAt..didnt work..for me/nor you

do TRY Again

<<>.As for you claims..regarding hybrids and sterility>>

ok..i will yet again../DO YOUR THINKING
FOR YOU..its pathetic//but i will be..the bigger guy.

man is king..of the beasts/WE ARE HERE
because ape raped a pig

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16038&page=0

AND BECAUSE I RESPECT/..YOUR TIME..and unlike..thy good selF DONT LIKE OTHERS WASTING THEIR TIME/EITHER..IT SORT OF BEGAN ..Tuesday, 25 February..with me scrEWING..YA APE THEORY/..before finding the p[ig hybrid...THEO-WRY]

if you could KEEP COMMENT..ON THAT TOPIC THERE

THAT Gives me 4..more posts to/properly reply YOUR ASPERSIONS..THAT GRANMA EVE was a sow...or lucies hubby [YOUR N/MINe..great great grand-PAPPY..was a boar...LIVE WITH IT/YA CANT escape what we are/SUCK IT UP LIKE A MAN/LIKE LUCY HAF TO.

TOPIC MOVED A LITTLE FURTHER..ALONG..HERE
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15995&page=0

ANOTHER DOOR OPENED HERE
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16166&page=11

related
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5899&page=3
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15257&page=38
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16112&page=0
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6152&page=0#178808
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6040&page=0

According to Dr. Paabo, Ust-Ishim has longer Neandertal chunks than modern humans and this can be used to estimate that the admixture with Neandertals happened 331+/-99 generations before its time of 45,000y BP, or around 50-60,000y BP.

The coalescence of mtDNA haplogroups M and N has been estimated as ~50 and ~59ky BP respectively using modern human variation, so this seems quite compatible with that. This pretty much proves that there were modern humans in Eurasia before the Upper Paleolithic revolution and disproves Richard Klein's theory that modern humans together with UP technologies spread Out-of-Africa only after 50,000 years ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=M7VdRKQuAa8
see the pig convergance
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/--Q-txSoFSHQ/U0Stuv4PFQI/AAAAAAAAJjs/nmlQ5I6N4lY/s1600/ustishim.png