How about that? An intelligent article by a Lefty! So rare.

The Left is a very broad church, Calwest. It alway has been, encompassing Marxists, Anarchists, and the multitude of pseudo-left positions, such as the Greens. It involves idealists, careerists, and psychotics (since, after all, every revolution needs executioners and jailers). Many of us would be content to walk behind the plough, as long as there was a guarantee that the psychotics did put away the sword - what am I saying ?! They never will.

Joe

denying ones Creator always leads to very irrational and stupid outcomes. The worshippers of the creation over the Creator. I mean some are still blind or stupid enough to think we evolved from gorilla's.

A bloke who admits to being influenced by Marxism has absolutely nothing sensible to say about anything. It is one thing to be a harmless but naive Australian lefty; quite another to adhere to the vilest, most destructive creed to ever foul society.

Barry, I bow to your superior knowledge of the brain of an ape, given the brain of a naked ape composed the article I just read.

Man stupid?

Too damn right he is and shown in countless examples we see every day. For instance, the love affair half the world is having with fossil fuel and the fact that runaway climate could unless mitigated could kill all life on planet earth!?

And we could if so disposed stop the unfolding catastrophe, even now, by the simple expediency of changing course and using the nuclear option and the electrifying of virtually all our transport options, if we could but eliminate the self-absorbed irrational greed that has us chained like condemned prisoners to coal and oil.

We could change the government, but what would change, given other naked apes have been conditioned by their handlers (the CMFEU?) to continue to dig up use, export and burn coal.

Even as we throw away, the most energy dense material on earth as if it were just mere tailings from mining operations. And here I am, once again giving a plug for both sanity and MSR thorium.

Maybe we could teach another great ape, with sign language he can't misunderstand, to change course even if only to leave a habitable planet and a better standard of life for his grandkids than he enjoyed.

And here I refer to the orange haired orangutan in Washington, and I know you know exatly who I mean, even if the suggestion put has other naked apes going bananas a shaking the sh!t out of their cages.

And they will no doubt make known who they, to all and sundry by the usual derogatory abuse and denial that demonstrates a cohort, with the average IQ of the ambient temperature?
Alan B.

No runner, we did not evolve from Gorillas, well perhaps with the exception of some lost souls, but both Gorillas and Humans evolved from a common ancestor many millions of years ago.
Do you really believe the Earth is about 6k years old, as that book of fairy tales implies, and was created by someone or something other than Evolution?
Gorillas may well be smarter than Humans because they do not wantonly and deliberately destroy their only life support system for their own selfish greed as do Humans.

>>Gorillas may well be smarter than Humans because they do not wantonly and deliberately destroy their only life support system for their own selfish greed as do Humans.

Yep. And I'll be there's a gorilla somewhere working on the design of a low emissions electricity generator.

'Humans evolved from a common ancestor many millions of years ago.'

speak for yourself ateday. Anyone who believes that non scientific garbage is either naive or deceitful.

Speaking of destroying our own nest and what, if anything can be done about it why not check out the item Tending the Wild by Charles Eisenstein on the Kosmos Journal website.

If I remember rightly Charles was once featured on Online Opinion - a breath of fresh air he was too.

"Pepperberg wrote that Alex's ( African grey parrot) intelligence was on a level similar to dolphins and great apes. She also reported that Alex seemed to show the intelligence of a five-year-old human, in some respects, and he had not even reached his full potential by the time he died." Coal miners had canaries which gave real-time analysis of CO, Co2, N20 , CH4 , asbestosis and explosion .

The Member for Blaxland has the brains of a sheep.
The Speaker: “Order! The Honourable Member will withdraw that remark.”
MP: “Very well, Mr Speaker, I withdraw. The Member for Blaxland does not have the brains of a sheep.”
The age of the sheep and canaries are unknown.

//'Humans evolved from a common ancestor many millions of years ago.'

speak for yourself ateday. Anyone who believes that non scientific garbage is either naive or deceitful.//

Yes, don't be so ridiculous, ateday. People who properly understand science like runner know that humans were built of clay and then brought to life by magic about 6,000 years ago.

There is no truth to the rumour that Tony Abbott is part Neanderthal.
He denies global warming.

“There is no truth to the rumour that Tony Abbott is part Neanderthal.
He denies global warming”.

And so have the climate hysterics denied global warming. Since they have been proved wrong, they have called it 'climate change’.

As for whether or not we descended from gorillas, the Marxist Left certainly act like gorillas, but without the the intelligence of that animal.

"Man stupid"…

"Fix Earth. Help Earth!"

"Koko love Earth", "Hurry!" "Nature sees you".

bY koKO agge 5 yAers

Toni

" People who properly understand science like runner know that humans were built of clay"

Clearly you have no idea how this works or are just plain misogynist. Man was made from clay. That's true. But woman (Eve) was made from one of the ribs from the first man. Which is why men usually get a boner around women.

(oops...was that unparliamentary language? )

//Clearly you have no idea how this works or are just plain misogynist. Man was made from clay. That's true. But woman (Eve) was made from one of the ribs from the first man.//

If man was made from clay, it follows that he had clay ribs. So woman was made from clay too. QED.

This of course raises a fairly obvious question, where did all the extra clay come from? In all the pictures I've seen, Eve is about the same size as Adam.... unless he started off with some giant mutant rib, the story makes no sense.

I reckon that the account given in Genesis might not actually be literal. I know, runner.... I'm a very wicked person. If you could just form a nice orderly queue over there with everybody else that is without sin, we should be able to get my stoning underway fairly quickly.

Toni, Seriously good humour likely to fly straight over the top of runner's receding hairline without leaving a part? And he would likely say that what you've been smoking has stoned you already? LOL.

Anyhow, Some years from now when runner runs out of time, he will stand before the pearly gates waiting for final judgement and where he enters the afterlife, on his own personal cloud replete with harp, or down below, shovelling coal on the fires of hell for all eternity?

My guess, given the willful ignorance and the harm and hurt that the runner has caused for others, the latter option will be the runner's end of race?

Anyhow, as a returned eyewitness, I think he will likely see those pearly gates and above them, two signs, one on the left that says all non-brain washed and informed with derived from evidence-based critical thinking knowledge, queue here. To his right, he will see another sign that reads all the brainwashed and indoctrinated from birth with false belief, queue here.

As he joins the queue on the left, he will notice to his immense pride he stands alone. And as Saint Peter strolls out looking at the queue on the right that stretches as far as the eye can see and beyond, he heaves a customary sign.

Then turns to the left and sees runner. " Why are you standing here," he will inquire? To which runner will likely reply, "Because it's where his worship the Bishop instructed me to stand."

Yes, it's a joke, but who's laughing? A few howler monkeys perhaps and with a decibel level that needs to be heard to be believed.
Cheers, Alan B.

Dan(NNN) :-)))

There's this story, where Koko was asked in American sign to give her definition of a Jungle Gentleman?

Anyhow the answer, in sign was. A Jungle Gentleman is a monkey who won't monkey with another's monkey.

Not implying any similarity!
Cheers, Alan B.

Yes, it's a joke, but who's laughing? .
Cheers, Alan B.

Oh dear Toni someone who believes in the absolute nonsense of the big bang theory criticising creation. Me thinks you believe in magic a lot more than me. You obviously have never really thought for more than 2 seconds about how idiotic the big bang theory is.

//Oh dear Toni someone who believes in the absolute nonsense of the big bang theory criticising creation.//

Runner, we were discussing evolutionary theory. Why are you attempting to drag the big bang into this?

//You obviously have never really thought for more than 2 seconds about how idiotic the big bang theory is.//

I'm pretty sure I've thought a lot more about the big bang than you have, runner, given that I've studied astronomy at university level. For example, I've actually done calculations using Hubble's law - which is remarkably easy maths, Hubble's law is about as simple as equations get - but I daresay it's more than you've ever done.

And considering that your understanding of evolutionary theory is so poor that you actually believe biologists claim humans evolved from gorillas... I remain steadfastly unconvinced that you have the faintest clue what you're talking about. I don't think you really know what the big bang theory says. So I very much doubt your criticisms of the big bang theory - whatever they may be - hold any validity, because I doubt that they actually criticise the substance of the big bang theory.

Stephen Hawking’s final thoughts about the big bang
UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE PRESS RELEASE
2 May 2018
Journal of High Energy Physics.

.. In their new paper, Hawking and Hertog say this account of eternal inflation as a theory of the big bang is wrong. .. The expansion of our universe since the beginning means such gravitational waves would have very long wavelengths, outside the range of the current LIGO detectors. But they might be heard by the planned European space-based gravitational wave observatory, LISA, or seen in future experiments measuring the cosmic microwave background.

yep something from nothing Toni. Pathetic and you call creation magic. Seems like your study never got you past first post before brainwashing you with a very unlikely narrative. Don't need to be to bright to see through the nonsense.

I bow down and offer my salutations to Shri Hanuman, the divine, wise and invincible ape who came down to show us the perfect example of service and humility.

Yes, people are generally more intelligent than apes, but they often use their intelligence foolishly. Koko was a better person than most of us.

People and humanity are here for a brief moment and will be gone in a blink of time - "A man's origin is from dust and his destiny is back to dust, at risk of his life he earns his bread; he is likened to a broken shard, withering grass, a fading flower, a passing shade, a dissipating cloud, a blowing wind, flying dust, and a fleeting dream" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unetanneh_Tokef#We_are_helpless)

//I don't think you really know what the big bang theory says.//

Yep, called it. I'd pat myself on the back, but there's no just sport when runner's involved.

//yep something from nothing Toni.//

That isn't what the big bang theory says, runner.

So let me see... that's two theories now that you've discounted, not on the basis of what they say, but instead on the basis of what they definitely don't say.

//Don't need to be to bright to see through the nonsense.//

No, but you do need to be bright enough to know what the 'nonsense' is that you claim to see through and then address that 'nonsense' in your arguments, otherwise you're just tilting at windmills.

Oh Toni

just keep walking around with your eyes shut. The 'theory' of evolution has changed and has as many variations as you have changed your undies. The big bang is a pathetic faith based 'theory' which is plain dumb. Get over it. By all means deny your Creator but don't throw out the unscientific irrational nonsense you do. Even the deplorables can see through such rot.

runner
Do you mean
1) there was no singularity at the start of the universe
2) there was a singularity
3) don't know and don't want to know
4) leftie scum fake criminal rats

nicknamenick

none of the above. In the beginning God

Yep faith but then design, laws, Creation, order all make sense.

The rest is made up mythology which requires much much more faith or 'magic'. Certainly many scientist agree with me including many of the brightest. Try doing a little tresearch on the ever changing evolution theory which has been plagued with dishonesty and frauds. Kinda like the man made gw nonsense.

Ok.....
there was no singularity , there wasn't no singularity.
So you don't not want to know. There are no scum leftie fake.

'nicknamenick

So you don't not want to know

Oh dear oh dear god deniers accusing others of not wanting to know. You really need to be pig headed blind.

//The 'theory' of evolution has changed//

Yes, scientific theories do have a tendency to develop over time. You've never actually explained why we should consider that a problem.

//Get over it.//

Sorry, over what?

//In the beginning God//

Right... and then after that, what? We just stop taking any interest in how stuff works, because God?

I mean, it's fine as a beginning. I like God too; obviously not your God, but God nonetheless. I don't see why assuming 'in the beginning God' invalidates scientific theories that don't concern themselves with the question of God's existence.

Which evolutionary theory does not, any more than the big bang theory does.

It's painfully obvious that you lack even a rudimentary knowledge of theories that you claim are flawed. I suggest that a better use for your time than sitting around trying to think up clever names to call people might be to spend a bit of time looking into those theories - sufficient to know what to actually criticise. Because criticising theories that aren't really theories but you've decided they are to give you an excuse to fly off the handle when anybody corrects you.... well, it seems a bit pointless, doesn't it?

//So you don't not want to know

Oh dear oh dear god deniers accusing others of not wanting to know.//

Words fail me.

runner,

"The Kingdom of Heaven is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field; which indeed is smaller than all seeds. But when it is grown, it is greater than the herbs, and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in its branches."

You know seeds grow , you do know. Men in white coats do arithmetic and it is written that gravity waves space time relativity quantum acceleration stuff.. little seed became big stars- but it wasn't a mustard seed.

Christians like me believe in gravity. Atheists believe in gravity. Supernovas explode and you can't tell whether a believer or atheist is saying that

'Christians like me believe in gravity. Atheists believe in gravity.'

' nicknamenick

obviously the laws of nature require a Lawmaker. Even Newton himself was a man of faith.

runner
So then , Newton measured the forces within laws. The big bang doesn't have to exclude the lawmaker. It seems to be a very large example of such laws.

Proverbs 30:24-30 mentions animals from which to learn.

//obviously the laws of nature require a Lawmaker.//

Who must necessarily be more complex than his design, which then leaves us with the question of 'how did something so complex just pop into existence'?

By your logic, the only possible answer is that something even more complex created him... and so on.

To infinity and beyond!

//Even Newton himself was a man of faith.//

As were Darwin and Lemaitre. And Newton, whilst a man of faith, was an antitrinitarian heretic who believed that worshipping Christ as God was idolatry.

None of which has any relevance to their scientific achievements.

Newton was into renewables . Conceptually, the bigbang may be theist,
greenie, trinitarian , Islamic or illusion . Communal violence and Marx also ran.

If the universe is governed by explicit laws then the act of instantaneous creation breaks all those laws.

There are holes in all knowledge but some are too arrogant to admit they don't know so pretend they know by stuffing that hole with myth and nonsense.

Last week I heard a self-professed christian insist that the rainbow was the sign and proof of a covenant made by God never to flood the world again (apparently a mistake God made).
Therefore the universal laws of physics regarding the refraction of light through water vapor must not have existed before the flood - or he was deluding himself and trying to create "proof" out of nonsense.