Dawn of the Brain-Dead: Dumbing Down Complete

Religions > Atheism > Dawn of the Brain-Dead: Dumbing Down Complete

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 2

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Seldom Seen Smith"
Date:	18 Nov 2004 09:45:12 PM
Object:	Dawn of the Brain-Dead: Dumbing Down Complete

Dawn of the Brain-Dead
By DOUG THOMPSON
Nov 12, 2004
The re-election of mentally- and morally-challenged George W. Bush means
the dumbing down of America is complete.
Bush returned to office because an army of brain-dead cretins, their minds
turned to mush by years of right-wing propaganda, marched to the polls and
exercised what little grey matter remained to pull the lever, touch the
screen
or mark the ballot to elect anything Republican.
True, no small measure of blame goes to the Democrats for fielding their
own
Keystone Cops slate of candidates, but Republicans stay in power because
they
have turned their followers into a mob of zombies, staring blankly into
space
while their party destroys a once-great country called America.
Republicans undermine America the way the Nazis pillaged and plundered
Germany -
using fear as a motivator, playing on public paranoia over an enemy that
could
be weakened if the President were not focused more on his personal agenda
than
the security of the people he is sworn to protect.
Bush is a madman, a pill-popping dry drunk whose recklessness grows and can
now
run amuck for four more years, thanks to mindless morons who buy into his
party's line of partisan paranoia.
For weeks leading up the election, dire warnings flowed out of Washington
about
terrorist plans to attack and disrupt the Presidential contest. The attacks
never came and the threat level quietly went down just days after voters
went to
the polls.
But Bush's propaganda machine accomplished its goal, building public
paranoia
and casting doubts on his opponent's ability to fight a threat that may be
more
political hype than real.
Yes, there are those out there who want to harm us, to cripple our economy
and
destroy our way of life. Thanks to Bush's pre-meditated, unprovoked and
lies-based invasion of Iraq, more of them now want America destroyed. His
cowboy
antics add new members to our enemies list daily.
Yet Bush would not be able to accomplish his mission of American
destruction
were it not for the mindless masses who buy into the right-wing hysteria
fueled
by the Republican party. Mesmerized by conservative hypesters like Rush
Limbaugh
(another dope head) and Sean Hannity, the intellectually-challenged buy
into the
party line that only the right-wing can be right, only the fear-mongering
lies
of conservatives can be trusted and only those who buy this crap can be
"real
Americans."
These are old, proven and often-used tactics by Fascists, Nazis, bigots and
others who depend on tyranny to lead. The Klan employed the same tactics
against
blacks, Jews and anyone else who didn't fit their lily-white mold of life.
White
Supremacists use it today. Hitler used it to turn his countrymen and women
into
haters of anything they perceived as "non-German."
The right-wing thrives on fear -- fear of homosexuals, liberals and anyone
who
doesn't fit into their white, elitist view of America. They preach moral
values
while bedding the spouses of others, talk about ethics while milking the
system
they are supposed to protect and spout patriotic pabulum while undermining
the
country.
These zealots are a greater threat to our freedoms than any olive-skinned
terrorist. They support the constant attacks on the Constitution by their
leaders and excuse the excesses of their administration while condemning
similar
actions by their opponents.
Thanks to them, America is no longer the land of the free or home of the
brave.
Thanks to them, we have become the land of the moronic and home of the
oppressed. They are a greater enemy to freedom than any Farsi-spouting
Muslim
cleric ever can be.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_5692.shtml
---
Stop Elmer Fudd web site: http://www.ElmerFudd.US/
.

User: "The Last Liberal"
Title: Re: Dawn of the Brain-Dead: Dumbing Down Complete	22 Nov 2004 08:40:31 PM

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 03:45:12 GMT,

(Seldom Seen Smith)
wrote:

Dawn of the Brain-Dead
By DOUG THOMPSON
Nov 12, 2004
The re-election [sic]of mentally- and morally-challenged George W. Bush means
the dumbing down of America is complete.

[....]

Thanks to them, America is no longer the land of the free or home of the
brave. Thanks to them, we have become the land of the moronic and home of the
oppressed. They are a greater enemy to freedom than any Farsi-spouting
Muslim cleric ever can be.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_5692.shtml

Yes, of course. However, no one knows if Bush2 was elected or not:
millions of ballots were never counted, and balloting fraud was so
systemic and blatent that the ballots were often radically different
than the exit polls---- and nearly universally in favor of Bush2. What
I'm saying is: the majority of voters did not support, no vote for,
Bush2 (according to exit polls), so the author of the article here
need not feel quite so dismayed.
Bush2 is clearly the greatest threat the USA has faced in the past 100
years. This is obvious.
--
"Terrorism" isn't the enemy: George W Bush is!
http://lastliberal.org
Voting Republican makes baby Jesus cry!
.

User: "duke"
Title: Re: Dawn of the Brain-Dead: Dumbing Down Complete	20 Nov 2004 07:31:55 AM

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 03:45:12 GMT,

(Seldom Seen Smith) wrote:

Dawn of the Brain-Dead
By DOUG THOMPSON
Nov 12, 2004

The re-election of mentally- and morally-challenged George W. Bush means
the dumbing down of America is complete.

Oh, noooooooo. The dumbing down of America started in the 1960's with the 'rats. Instead
of all being required to attain higher learning, schools were told to dumb down so that
all would pass.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.

User: "Hypatia Kosh"
Title: Re: Dawn of the Brain-Dead: Dumbing Down Complete	20 Nov 2004 08:55:26 PM

duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message news:<lnhup0d5uga2gpjmodak61dmpl6lr7s3mh@4ax.com>...

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 03:45:12 GMT,

(Seldom Seen Smith) wrote:

Dawn of the Brain-Dead
By DOUG THOMPSON
Nov 12, 2004

The re-election of mentally- and morally-challenged George W. Bush means
the dumbing down of America is complete.

Oh, noooooooo. The dumbing down of America started in the 1960's with the 'rats. Instead
of all being required to attain higher learning, schools were told to dumb down so that
all would pass.

Are you on drugs? The complete opposite happened. Instead of having
different tracks, at some point in the 60's and 70's everyone was
switched to college preparatory track. This switch is now complete.
Its reflected in the slow slide of SAT scores from then to now, the
mediocrity of the college track education in most schools, the
popularity of AP (something to save the motivated and intelligent kids
from their peers), and the degrading quality of the university
education itself.
Grade inflation at the universities due to the Vietnam War, and the
***** studies programs instituted by academic apparatchiks a decade
later have also contributed. (I leave African-American and Judaic
Studies programs out of this, as I'm not aware that these are BS
majors anywhere.)
The traditional college track is not for everyone. I loved it, but I
was a nerd. American society as a whole is not well served by the
time-wasting nature of our primary and secondary education (basically
babysitting), nor the lack of practical classes (like a course in
practical math for high school students that would teach about credit
card rates, balancing a checkbook, unit pricing, etc). One learning
style does not work for everyone--but it is easier for public school
administrators, and college administrators are raking in the dough.
-Hy
.

User: "Doc Smartass"
Title: Re: Dawn of the Brain-Dead: Dumbing Down Complete	20 Nov 2004 09:19:50 PM

(Hypatia Kosh) wrote in
news:1048bc8e.0411201855.66d055d5@posting.google.com:

The traditional college track is not for everyone. I loved it, but I
was a nerd. American society as a whole is not well served by the
time-wasting nature of our primary and secondary education (basically
babysitting), nor the lack of practical classes (like a course in
practical math for high school students that would teach about credit
card rates, balancing a checkbook, unit pricing, etc). One learning
style does not work for everyone--but it is easier for public school
administrators, and college administrators are raking in the dough.

I'm a bit ashamed to admit that I only really learned to balance a
checkbook in 2000, in a vocational school class on web design. Mandatory
part of the curriculum was basic office and functional math stuff. I didn't
apply the checkbook stuff at all in real life until April of this year--and
then only because I got my first checking account _ever_ (new job required
direct deposit, so I had to open an account). It's easy stuff, now, but I'd
worried about it off and on. It wasn't in any of my grade-school or
college-level classes.
--
Dr. Smartass -- BAAWA Knight of Heckling -- a.a. #1939
*sig broken; watch for finger*
.

User: "Hypatia Kosh"
Title: Re: Dawn of the Brain-Dead: Dumbing Down Complete	21 Nov 2004 07:15:07 PM

Doc Smartass <gekiskivviesdo@astroboyskivviesmail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns95A7D950750E4askifyouwantit@216.77.188.18>...

Phillips.66.berliv2@spamgourmet.com (Hypatia Kosh) wrote in
news:1048bc8e.0411201855.66d055d5@posting.google.com:

That's rough. My parents taught me--in part because my mother had
particularly fascination for APR and those sorts of calculations in
high school and was an economics major in college. (Didn't finish
though--had an accident (me) and that was that.)
At my second high school, a popular math teacher told me about a
practical math class they had held there in the past and which she
wanted to bring back. She said that parents would come up to her and
tell her that the class was the most useful their child had ever
received in school. She died unexpectedly of a brain aneurysm a few
years ago and the curriculum there is being determined by some county
administrators far removed from the schools themselves, so I doubt
it's been brought back. A true shame.
-Hy
.

User: "duke"
Title: Re: Dawn of the Brain-Dead: Dumbing Down Complete	21 Nov 2004 08:15:23 AM

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 03:19:50 GMT, Doc Smartass <gekiskivviesdo@astroboyskivviesmail.com>
wrote:

Phillips.66.berliv2@spamgourmet.com (Hypatia Kosh) wrote in
news:1048bc8e.0411201855.66d055d5@posting.google.com:

I'm sorry to hear that.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.

User: "shrikeback"
Title: Re: Dawn of the Brain-Dead: Dumbing Down Complete	21 Nov 2004 11:30:51 AM

"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:7n81q0l2csnhuafbirgr3rq46v336kben8@4ax.com...

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 03:19:50 GMT, Doc Smartass

<gekiskivviesdo@astroboyskivviesmail.com>

wrote:

Phillips.66.berliv2@spamgourmet.com (Hypatia Kosh) wrote in
news:1048bc8e.0411201855.66d055d5@posting.google.com:

didn't

apply the checkbook stuff at all in real life until April of this

year--and

then only because I got my first checking account _ever_ (new job

required

direct deposit, so I had to open an account). It's easy stuff, now, but

I'd

worried about it off and on. It wasn't in any of my grade-school or
college-level classes.

I'm sorry to hear that.

Balancing a checkbook, and any other tedious paperwork is
what computers are for. And who uses checks anymore?
.

User: "duke"
Title: Re: Dawn of the Brain-Dead: Dumbing Down Complete	21 Nov 2004 08:13:18 AM

On 20 Nov 2004 18:55:26 -0800,

(Hypatia Kosh) wrote:

Are you on drugs?

Those were the rules.

The complete opposite happened. Instead of having
different tracks, at some point in the 60's and 70's everyone was
switched to college preparatory track.

Is that why 12th graders write on a 6th grade level?
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.

User: "Budikka"
Title: Re: Dawn of the Brain-Dead: Dumbing Down Complete	22 Nov 2004 10:37:46 AM

duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message news:<ih81q095ttgu7dvltof079lkia74kku55t@4ax.com>...

On 20 Nov 2004 18:55:26 -0800,

(Hypatia Kosh) wrote:

Are you on drugs?

Those were the rules.

The complete opposite happened. Instead of having
different tracks, at some point in the 60's and 70's everyone was
switched to college preparatory track.

Is that why 12th graders write on a 6th grade level?

No, that would be because George Bush is in office, a man who can't
even pronounce "nuclear". Either that or because of idiot
fundamentalists like you taking over school boards - people who insist
on things being taken as fact which have no evidential support
whatsoever and no place in our school system.
Budikka
.

User: "Hypatia Kosh"
Title: Re: Dawn of the Brain-Dead: Dumbing Down Complete	21 Nov 2004 07:18:16 PM

duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message news:<ih81q095ttgu7dvltof079lkia74kku55t@4ax.com>...

On 20 Nov 2004 18:55:26 -0800,

(Hypatia Kosh) wrote:

The complete opposite happened. Instead of having
different tracks, at some point in the 60's and 70's everyone was
switched to college preparatory track.

Is that why 12th graders write on a 6th grade level?

You remind me of those old segregationists who were against education
for Blacks because they didn't know of any Black who could read Greek.
Many Americans are advancing through the top grade and into college
than ever before--many of them had parents who dropped out of school
or who attended segregated schools. The urban school situation is
atrocious, but due in part to white flight and disinvestment in the
public schools.
At any rate, you prove yourself again and again to be a dumbass, so
you're hardly proof that schools were any "better" then.
-Hy
.

User: "Doc Smartass"
Title: Re: Dawn of the Brain-Dead: Dumbing Down Complete	21 Nov 2004 07:31:11 PM

(Hypatia Kosh) wrote in
news:1048bc8e.0411211718.1906c2d5@posting.google.com:

duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<ih81q095ttgu7dvltof079lkia74kku55t@4ax.com>...

On 20 Nov 2004 18:55:26 -0800,

(Hypatia Kosh) wrote:

The complete opposite happened. Instead of having
different tracks, at some point in the 60's and 70's everyone was
switched to college preparatory track.

Is that why 12th graders write on a 6th grade level?

You remind me of those old segregationists who were against education
for Blacks because they didn't know of any Black who could read Greek.

Many Americans are advancing through the top grade and into college
than ever before--many of them had parents who dropped out of school
or who attended segregated schools. The urban school situation is
atrocious, but due in part to white flight and disinvestment in the
public schools.

At any rate, you prove yourself again and again to be a dumbass, so
you're hardly proof that schools were any "better" then.

Earl is proof that some people can be educated past their capacity.
--
Dr. Smartass -- BAAWA Knight of Heckling -- a.a. #1939
*sig broken; watch for finger*
.

User: "Budikka"
Title: Re: Dawn of the Brain-Dead: Dumbing Down Complete	21 Nov 2004 12:46:30 PM

duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message news:<lnhup0d5uga2gpjmodak61dmpl6lr7s3mh@4ax.com>...

The re-election of mentally- and morally-challenged George W. Bush means
the dumbing down of America is complete.

Oh, noooooooo. The dumbing down of America started in the
1960's with the 'rats. Instead of all being required to
attain higher learning, schools were told to dumb down so that
all would pass.

Well you're the expert on dumb. You're the dumbest ***** on the
Internet. But once again we see *yet another* Puke blind assertion
without a shred of support! How pathetic is this fucked up imbecile?
Budikka
.

User: "John P. Boatwright"
Title: Re: Dawn of the Brain-Dead: Dumbing Down Complete	20 Nov 2004 04:16:18 AM

Seldom Seen Smith wrote:

The re-election of mentally- and morally-challenged George W. Bush means
the dumbing down of America is complete.

My recollection is that George W. Bush is a graduate of both
Yale and Harvard.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.

Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)

Mirror site at: http://For-God.net
.

User: "Dore"
Title: Re: Dawn of the Brain-Dead: Dumbing Down Complete	20 Nov 2004 10:08:20 PM

"John P. Boatwright" <name@For-God.net> wrote in message
news:419F1922.719E@For-God.net...

My recollection is that George W. Bush is a graduate of both
Yale and Harvard.

No, Bush is a C grade graduate of Yale, where he is an eternal member of
the Skull and Bones secret society, a private club that has a covenant with
death. However, having a degree doesn't mean that he is intelligent. The
fact is the power elite in America, has made the educational system one of
dumbing down the people, so that they are ignorant of the evil intents and
actions of the wealthy elite. They also use the media, to brainwash,
manipulate, control and dumb down the adults, and I see it sufficiently
worked on you.
--
Dore
www.dorewilliamson.com
"John P. Boatwright" <name@For-God.net> wrote in message
news:419F1922.719E@For-God.net...

Seldom Seen Smith wrote:

The re-election of mentally- and morally-challenged George W. Bush means
the dumbing down of America is complete.

My recollection is that George W. Bush is a graduate of both
Yale and Harvard.

God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.

Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)

Mirror site at: http://For-God.net

User: "John P. Boatwright"
Title: Re: Dawn of the Brain-Dead: Dumbing Down Complete	25 Nov 2004 08:43:12 PM

Dore wrote:

"John P. Boatwright" <name@For-God.net> wrote in message
news:419F1922.719E@For-God.net...

My recollection is that George W. Bush is a graduate of both
Yale and Harvard.

Dore... Dore... weren't you the one saying you're:
* a woman in a man's body
* Jesus
???
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what I recall concerning
the name "Dore".
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.

Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)

Mirror site at: http://For-God.net
.

User: "Fear gan dia"
Title: Re: Dawn of the Brain-Dead: Dumbing Down Complete	26 Nov 2004 02:18:59 PM

There are rumors on the internets that "John P. Boatwright"
said in <41A697E8.22D3@For-God.net>:

Dore wrote:

"John P. Boatwright" <name@For-God.net> wrote in message
news:419F1922.719E@For-God.net...

My recollection is that George W. Bush is a graduate of both
Yale and Harvard.

Dore... Dore... weren't you the one saying you're:

* a woman in a man's body
* Jesus

???

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what I recall concerning
the name "Dore".

God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.

Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)

Mirror site at: http://For-God.net

LOL! The two voices of revelation battle it out!
(I almost said d*ke it out, but we don't want this
to get even wierder)
--
The Very Irrev. Fear gan dia # http://goddamliberal.port5.com
I wouldn't join any church that would have me as a member.
.

User: "John P. Boatwright"
Title: Re: Dawn of the Brain-Dead: Dumbing Down Complete	26 Nov 2004 10:45:48 PM

Fear gan dia wrote:

There are rumors on the internets that "John P. Boatwright"
said in <41A697E8.22D3@For-God.net>:

Dore wrote:

"John P. Boatwright" <name@For-God.net> wrote in message
news:419F1922.719E@For-God.net...

My recollection is that George W. Bush is a graduate of both
Yale and Harvard.

Dore... Dore... weren't you the one saying you're:

* a woman in a man's body
* Jesus

???

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what I recall concerning
the name "Dore".

LOL! The two voices of revelation battle it out!
(I almost said d*ke it out, but we don't want this
to get even wierder)

Well, if you know for sure... I honestly don't recall exactly
what Dore was saying about his/her self. I do recall something
about him/her saying he/she was Jesus, and something about being
a man that was a woman, or visa-versa.
If you know for sure, feel free to fill us all in.
I haven't kept track of the "Dore issues"... sorry if I've
munged it up... feel free to correct it to be however it
really is.
In any case, I don't see any issue about someone getting average
grades from both Yale and Harvard... both schools seem to be
adequate for some level of average background to be a President.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.

Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)

Mirror site at: http://For-God.net
.

User: "Budikka"
Title: Re: Dawn of the Brain-Dead: Dumbing Down Complete	21 Nov 2004 12:56:10 PM

"John P. Boatwright" <name@For-God.net> wrote in message news:<419F1922.719E@For-God.net>...

Seldom Seen Smith wrote:

The re-election of mentally- and morally-challenged George W. Bush means
the dumbing down of America is complete.

My recollection is that George W. Bush is a graduate of both
Yale and Harvard.

And he still can't pronounced "nuclear". QED

God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.

Not a shred of proof for that.

Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm

Is that the idiot article about planet density profiles about which
you once claimed ("Boaty is a Loser"): "No one else said the correct
method for planet
formation..."
Neither does the Bible! Your garbage about cosmology and particle
physics is as indefensible as it is laughable.
From your referenced web page:
"1. The most dense matter (the firmament) exploded and by doing so, it
expanded
outwards and spread out the overall density profile."
This is the first example of "Boaty *****"(TM) on your page. I
hereby
challenge you to quote a Bible reference which states that the
firmament,
created as a solid object to hold the sun, moon, & stars in Gen
1:6-18,
exploded. You can't. There is no such reference.
The firmament, as the Bible makers perfectly clear, is the heavens,
containing
the sun, moon, and the stars. It did not explode to form the solar
system and
the Bible makes no such claim. What the Bible specifically states is
that god
placed the sun, moon, and stars (no mention of planets since the idiot
Bible
writers were completely unaware of their existence) in the firmament.
"2. Some of the regathering matter will eventually begin to orbit,
while much
will tend to fall back"
Orbit what? You seem to be confusing the big bang with the formation
of the
solar system. Are you aware that these events were separated by some
10 billion years?
Unfortunately for your blathering trash, the Bible offers no
indication
whatsoever that there was this time difference. The Genesis
chronology makes it quite clear that both the universe and the Earth
were manually created on the same day, only 6,000 years ago. There is
no mention whatsoever of any kind of an explosion. This flies in the
face of every scientific evidence known.
"3. Matter "falling back" at the furthest distances from the explosion
will be
the LIGHTEST densities and will be coating the HEAVIER density
planets."
Do you ever re-read what you write? This is patent nonsense in the
extreme.
Falling back to what? Are you aware that an explosion in space is
subject to
Newton's laws of motion? If the solar system began as some sort of
nuclear explosion, then material moving outwards from the center of
the explosion would continue moving outwards in the absence of any
further force coming to bear on it.
Where was this further force? The Sun? How could a nuclear fission
explosion
create a sun to act as such a force on the matter flying out from that
same
explosion and pull it back? It couldn't. No nuclear fission
explosion can
create a sun. Scientists understand solar physics to revolve around
*fusion*
not fission. The sun is created by gravity, the pressure from which
causes the
solar mass to emit radiation. When gravity contracts the solar mass
to
sufficient density, then fusion occurs. There is no explosion.
This is what the sun is doing now - nuclear *fusion* not fission. It
is not
splitting, but combining hydrogen atoms to create helium and emitting
a tiny
portion of this reaction as energy.
Let's look at Boaty's claimed, "lightest >>> heaviest >>> lightest" in
relation
to our own solar system (which is only one sample of many). Here are
the
relative densities of the planets starting with the innermost and
working
outwards (Earth = 1):
Mercury 0.99
Venus 0.95
Earth 1.00
Mars 0.71
Jupiter 0.24
Saturn 0.12
Uranus 0.2
Neptune 0.3
Pluto 0.2
So in terms of density the innermost planets are not the "lightest" or
even
close to it. Between the Sun and Jupiter, they are all very much the
same
(even Mars only drops by some 30%). Beyond that, density plummets and
stays
low, but does not fall away consistently even so. In other words, the
profile
certainly does not follow Boaty's wild claim of "lightest >>> heaviest

lightest" which is apprently born of Boaty's childlike view of the
solar system
whereby, if a planet is bigger, it must be denser and vice versa!
"The graph above MATCHES what you'd expect for a FISSION explosion of
higher
density matter surrounded by lower density matter, the matter
regathering to
form planets."
What examples, Boaty, do you know of, of a *low density fission
explosion* such
that you have to specifically state that this was a "fission explosion
of
higher density matter"?!!! Neither fission nor fusion happen at low
density,
you moron.
What Boaty is claiming here is that there was a nuclear explosion
which created
the solar system. This is precisely the opposite of what science
understands
and what the evidence points to, which means both you and the Bible
are coming
out of cloud cuckoo land with this inane claim, Boaty.
The solar system did not start as an explosion, but as just the
opposite - as a
coalition of material. It formed as a result of a contraction in a
cloud of
dust and gas, whose center eventually became so dense that *fusion* -
not
fission - took place, resulting in the sun starting up. There was no
explosion.
While this was happening, the planets began to form. The outer ones
are larger
because they had the benefit of abundant ice particles to coalesce
from,
whereas the inner planets had only silicon particles (ice could not
form so
readily closer to the sun's heat), which were fewer in quatity and not
conducive to forming massive bodies. This accounts for the difference
in
planet size.
The closest thing to an explosion was the solar wind which started up
as the
sun formed. The pressure of this would have "blown away" many lighter
elements
which were not held in check by the gravity of the embryonic planets.
But this
was not an explosion in any meaningful way, and not even remotely akin
to a
fission explosion.
I have never read so much ill-informed, meaningless and depraved
twaddle in all
my life. The only density profile you should be considering is the
density of
the codswallop on your web page which is dense enough to be utterly
impenetrable and thoroughly devoid of meaning, use and value.
Budikka
Boatwright, n: someone who builds empty vessels
John, n: something that's frequently full of *****
.

User: "John P. Boatwright"
Title: Re: Dawn of the Brain-Dead: Dumbing Down Complete	25 Nov 2004 09:34:20 PM

Budikka wrote:

"John P. Boatwright" <name@For-God.net> wrote in message news:<419F1922.719E@For-God.net>...

Seldom Seen Smith wrote:

The re-election of mentally- and morally-challenged George W. Bush means
the dumbing down of America is complete.

My recollection is that George W. Bush is a graduate of both
Yale and Harvard.

And he still can't pronounced "nuclear". QED

Guys from Britian say all kinds of things "wrong".
I have no issue with GWB pronouncing a word differently than others.

God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.

Not a shred of proof for that.

Your doubt limits you out of knowing God.

Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm

Is that the idiot article about planet density profiles about which
you once claimed ("Boaty is a Loser"): "No one else said the correct
method for planet
formation..."

Amazingly, they did originally think the planets matter sourced
from the sun.
They then got confused and lost their train of thought.
Gosh... I wonder why?

Neither does the Bible! Your garbage about cosmology and particle
physics is as indefensible as it is laughable.

God plainly said it.
The LINE formed at the foundations of the earth, the firmament
exploded out, separating the waters, the matter regathered
and planets formed from that regathering matter.
All that matches just fine.

From your referenced web page:
"1. The most dense matter (the firmament) exploded and by doing so, it
expanded
outwards and spread out the overall density profile."

This is the first example of "Boaty *****"(TM) on your page. I
hereby
challenge you to quote a Bible reference which states that the
firmament,
created as a solid object to hold the sun, moon, & stars in Gen
1:6-18,
exploded. You can't. There is no such reference.

It says in Genesis that the firmament separated the waters:
Ge 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the
waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
It says the earth and/or land formed from the regathering matter:
Ge 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered
together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and
it was so.

God also said there was the dust cloud during that time, the
time of planet formation:
Job 38:9 When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick
darkness a swaddlingband for it,
10 And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,
(bars and doors also translate to bands and openings... the dust
disk has bands and openings in it where the planets formed)

11 And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here
shall thy proud waves be stayed?
And just before that, God was talking about the "line" on the
foundations of the earth, the "firmament RING" that explodes
out of the "presun" star... separating the waters:
Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?
declare, if thou hast understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or
who hath stretched the line upon it?
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid
the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of
God shouted for joy?
The morning stars, are the initial stars in that Genesis first morning,
they eventually exploded, shooting out the "line", the foundations
of the earth... when the morning stars sang.
Look up "sang"...
Those morning stars in Genesis... exploded... creation of the heavier
elememts was in full force before that, then the stars exploded and
all the elements, the range of elements above and below iron, exploded
outwards.
The firmament RING... the LINE on the foundations of the earth, at
the 0.7 solar radii... it builds up over time in NEW stars from the
super hot activity of NEW stars above their surface. Chandra X-ray
telescope shows that NEW stars burn VERY hot, and the heavier than
iron elements form from fusion ABOVE the surface of the NEW stars.
That fusion is a cooling and energy storage process... and the heavier
than iron elements fall down below the surface of the star, and build
up at the 0.7 solar radii... to later explode out after building up
and becoming unstable.

The firmament, as the Bible makers perfectly clear, is the heavens,
containing
the sun, moon, and the stars. It did not explode to form the solar
system and
the Bible makes no such claim. What the Bible specifically states is
that god
placed the sun, moon, and stars (no mention of planets since the idiot
Bible
writers were completely unaware of their existence) in the firmament.

It says the firmament separated the "waters" and the land rose up
from the regathering matter as the earth formed.
The moon's formation is listed correctly in the timing as well.
The stars being mentioned, that was after discussing the sun and moon
being used to light up earth, but it also says the stars light up the
night as well.

"2. Some of the regathering matter will eventually begin to orbit,
while much
will tend to fall back"

Orbit what? You seem to be confusing the big bang with the formation
of the
solar system. Are you aware that these events were separated by some
10 billion years?

I said on the one page that some people read Genesis as "let
there be light" being the big bang. I personally think it's
concerning the "presun" star lighting up, our local solar
system's formation being discussed.
Our galaxy is only about 11-12 billion years old. The universe
isn't much older than that.
You do know about Hiparcos right?
The timing given in Genesis is correctly given.

Unfortunately for your blathering trash, the Bible offers no
indication
whatsoever that there was this time difference. The Genesis
chronology makes it quite clear that both the universe and the Earth
were manually created on the same day, only 6,000 years ago. There is
no mention whatsoever of any kind of an explosion. This flies in the
face of every scientific evidence known.

Where did God say the universe is 6000 years old?

"3. Matter "falling back" at the furthest distances from the explosion
will be
the LIGHTEST densities and will be coating the HEAVIER density
planets."

Do you ever re-read what you write? This is patent nonsense in the
extreme.
Falling back to what?

The "presun" star exploded. Some of the matter eventually falls
back inwards, some orbits the original "presun" star's position,
and some continues on outwards.

Are you aware that an explosion in space is
subject to
Newton's laws of motion? If the solar system began as some sort of
nuclear explosion, then material moving outwards from the center of
the explosion would continue moving outwards in the absence of any
further force coming to bear on it.

And you expect that the laws of gravity vanished at that
explosion event?
ha ha ha...
How did you come to that conclusion Buddika?
You do know about "center of gravity"... right?
At least you did before I typed it... right?
If not, look it up.

Where was this further force? The Sun? How could a nuclear fission
explosion
create a sun to act as such a force on the matter flying out from that
same
explosion and pull it back? It couldn't.

ha ha ha...
You didn't know did you?
Look up "center of gravity".
You take some pile of misc matter spewed all over
out in space, it collectively has both a center of
mass, and gravity forces between those individual
peices of matter.
Some of the matter regathers and falls back inwards,
some orbits, and some continues out forever... depending
on the velocity, mass, and position vs. other mass that
exploded outwards.
This is common everyday physics Buddika.

No nuclear fission
explosion can
create a sun. Scientists understand solar physics to revolve around
*fusion*
not fission. The sun is created by gravity, the pressure from which
causes the
solar mass to emit radiation. When gravity contracts the solar mass
to
sufficient density, then fusion occurs. There is no explosion.

Chandra showed that NEW stars burn hot enough for fusion ABOVE
the surface of NEW stars.
That NEW star, I call the "presun" star... it burned VERY hot
and heavier than iron elements fell down below the surface of
that NEW star.
Why isn't this obvious?
That's FUSION above a new star... and when the heavier than
iron elements build up in a RING at the 0.7 solar radii, they
then go unstable after time and explode outwards... and some
of the matter then regathers after... in a dust disk with
bars and doors... bands and openings... and planets form
from that dust disk.

This is what the sun is doing now - nuclear *fusion* not fission. It
is not
splitting, but combining hydrogen atoms to create helium and emitting
a tiny
portion of this reaction as energy.

Read about what Chandra showed for NEW stars.
You're behind Buddika... a grocery store clerk is
running circles around you.

Let's look at Boaty's claimed, "lightest >>> heaviest >>> lightest" in
relation
to our own solar system (which is only one sample of many). Here are
the
relative densities of the planets starting with the innermost and
working
outwards (Earth = 1):

Mercury 0.99
Venus 0.95
Earth 1.00
Mars 0.71
Jupiter 0.24
Saturn 0.12
Uranus 0.2
Neptune 0.3
Pluto 0.2

So in terms of density the innermost planets are not the "lightest" or
even
close to it.

You forgot the sun at the center...

Between the Sun and Jupiter, they are all very much the
same
(even Mars only drops by some 30%). Beyond that, density plummets and
stays
low, but does not fall away consistently even so. In other words, the
profile
certainly does not follow Boaty's wild claim of "lightest >>> heaviest

lightest" which is apprently born of Boaty's childlike view of the
solar system
whereby, if a planet is bigger, it must be denser and vice versa!

ha ha ha...
Are you saying that data from a physics book is childlike?
ha ha ha...
What an atheist.

"The graph above MATCHES what you'd expect for a FISSION explosion of
higher
density matter surrounded by lower density matter, the matter
regathering to
form planets."

What examples, Boaty, do you know of, of a *low density fission
explosion* such
that you have to specifically state that this was a "fission explosion
of
higher density matter"?!!! Neither fission nor fusion happen at low
density,
you moron.

The "presun" NEW star, with built up heavier than iron elements
built up over time as those elements fell down below the surface
of the star from the FUSION occuring in the solar atmosphere above
the surface of the "presun" star.
Those heavier than iron elements are dense, they want to eventually
explode in a FISSION reaction, the entire RING starts exploding at
one unstable position along the RING, and the time to go around
the RING matches the time measured as in the case of SN1987's
neutrino pulse time... it matched the measured inner circumference
of the ring divided by 2... and gave near the 0.7 solar radii for
the final answer.
In other words, science is WAY behind... God already knew how it
was done since he was forming it all billions of years ago.

What Boaty is claiming here is that there was a nuclear explosion
which created
the solar system. This is precisely the opposite of what science
understands
and what the evidence points to, which means both you and the Bible
are coming
out of cloud cuckoo land with this inane claim, Boaty.

Nah.
They're slowly catching up.
See Chandra...

The solar system did not start as an explosion, but as just the
opposite - as a
coalition of material. It formed as a result of a contraction in a
cloud of
dust and gas, whose center eventually became so dense that *fusion* -
not
fission - took place, resulting in the sun starting up. There was no
explosion.

The initial "presun" star formed from very light elements gathering
and the star lighting up "let there be light".
But to know what happened after, you have to check Chandra to
find out that the new stars burned VERY HOT, hot enough for fusion
ABOVE the surface of the star.

I have never read so much ill-informed, meaningless and depraved
twaddle in all
my life. The only density profile you should be considering is the
density of
the codswallop on your web page which is dense enough to be utterly
impenetrable and thoroughly devoid of meaning, use and value.

Why don't explain why Chandra sees NEW stars with temperatures
hot enough for fusion ABOVE the surface of said stars.
Now tell me... where do all that heavier than iron elements end
up at as they fall inwards?
The answer is... at the 0.7 solar radii... and they end up later
on, exploding out in a fission RING explosion. And as in the case
of SN1987A, the neutrino pulse time matched for that 0.7 solar
radii.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.

Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)

Mirror site at: http://For-God.net
.

User: "Iain"
Title: Re: Dawn of the Brain-Dead: Dumbing Down Complete	26 Nov 2004 09:39:09 AM

"John P. Boatwright" <name@For-God.net> wrote in message news:<41A6A41E.56E1@For-God.net>...

Budikka wrote:

"John P. Boatwright" <name@For-God.net> wrote in message news:<419F1922.719E@For-God.net>...

Seldom Seen Smith wrote:

The re-election of mentally- and morally-challenged George W. Bush means
the dumbing down of America is complete.

My recollection is that George W. Bush is a graduate of both
Yale and Harvard.

And he still can't pronounced "nuclear". QED

Guys from Britian say all kinds of things "wrong".

"Nucle'r" tends to be the pronunciation in Britain. In the U.S.A. it
is often mispronounced as "Noocle'r.". The American language is
butchered anyway. They say "theater\theatrical", etc.

Not a shred of proof for that.

Your doubt limits you out of knowing God.

To someone who doesn't believe the thing you speak of even exists,
that's a fairly meaningless statement.

Is that the idiot article about planet density profiles about which
you once claimed ("Boaty is a Loser"): "No one else said the correct
method for planet
formation..."

Amazingly, they did originally think the planets matter sourced
from the sun.

Who did? Lots of people did because it seemed like it could be true.

They then got confused and lost their train of thought.

Says you.
No train of thought was lost; planetary systems midformation were then
found that gave us clues to the formation of our own planets.
Not that that will stop you stating otherwise, of course. At least you
admit outer space exists.

Neither does the Bible! Your garbage about cosmology and particle
physics is as indefensible as it is laughable.

God plainly said it.

I thought you said he said it in riddles. How did he say it? Plainly
or riddley?

The LINE formed at the foundations of the earth, the firmament
exploded out, separating the waters, the matter regathered
and planets formed from that regathering matter.

Hmm, don't you find it a bit odd that all the other young stars are
developing planets right now as we speak from cooling disks of gas,
but the exact same outcome instantiated as our solar system was made
by God exploding firmaments and throwing water around?
Yes? No?

All that matches just fine.

Does it ***** -- Since Genesis was written we have discovered that the
sky isn't made of water and that the sky is not heaven as it is
described by the Bible. You attempts to construe ancient imaginings
about how the sky got there as divine prophecy is the most pathetic
conversational farce I've ever seen.
~Iain
.

User: "Budikka"
Title: Re: Dawn of the Brain-Dead: Dumbing Down Complete	29 Nov 2004 04:36:45 AM

(Iain) wrote in message news:<6feb9a89.0411260739.64353bfc@posting.google.com>...

My recollection is that George W. Bush is a graduate of both
Yale and Harvard.

And he still can't pronounced "nuclear". QED

Guys from Britian say all kinds of things "wrong".

"Nucle'r" tends to be the pronunciation in Britain. In the U.S.A. it
is often mispronounced as "Noocle'r.". The American language is
butchered anyway. They say "theater\theatrical", etc.

Boatwright is too stupid to understand what I'm talking about. I'm
not talking about new-klear vs. noo-klear, but about the fact that
Bush can't even say either of them. He pronounces it "noo-Q-ler".
Boatwright is as ill-informed on this as he is on everything else.
Budikka
.

User: "John P. Boatwright"
Title: Re: Dawn of the Brain-Dead: Dumbing Down Complete	26 Nov 2004 10:33:15 PM

Iain wrote:

"John P. Boatwright" <name@For-God.net> wrote in message news:<41A6A41E.56E1@For-God.net>...

Budikka wrote:

"John P. Boatwright" <name@For-God.net> wrote in message news:<419F1922.719E@For-God.net>...

Seldom Seen Smith wrote:

The re-election of mentally- and morally-challenged George W. Bush means
the dumbing down of America is complete.

My recollection is that George W. Bush is a graduate of both
Yale and Harvard.

And he still can't pronounced "nuclear". QED

Guys from Britian say all kinds of things "wrong".

"Nucle'r" tends to be the pronunciation in Britain. In the U.S.A. it
is often mispronounced as "Noocle'r.". The American language is
butchered anyway. They say "theater\theatrical", etc.

Exactly... except that Britian is the one that talks funny.
We here in America, especially Oregon, we talk normally and
tend to ignore the rest of the world's problems with speach.

Not a shred of proof for that.

Your doubt limits you out of knowing God.

To someone who doesn't believe the thing you speak of even exists,
that's a fairly meaningless statement.

It's still true though.
For example, I've pointed out a number times in the past few
years that NEW stars burn VERY hot, that Chandra confirmed
that it's possible for FUSION to occur in a star's atmosphere,
ABOVE the surface of a NEW star. And as such, that heavier
than iron elements could drop down below the surface of that
NEW star.
No one yet has countered those statements, because it would
be silly to do so when Chrandra discusses the temperatures
seen at NEW stars... it's an obvious conclusion... yet even
while telling people... they don't understand what's being said
or what the implications are from it occurring... that the
answer from where our solar system came from... is where they
least expected it.
Them not understanding it... did not make it false.
The data is there... understand what it means... or don't.
But understanding or not... does not change whether or not it's true.
It's the same thing with God. What he said plainly shows that God
exists... his own words prove he is God... but a lot of people do
not understand what he was saying... and as such, they assume he's
not there... because they assume God's words are nonsense, or that
someone else had said nonsense and attributed it to God saying it.
God's words prove that he is the source of his creation. God
being the creator, does not depend on people understanding what
he said. It is God's option, to allow anyone he wants, to understand
what he's said.
Many people believe God, many don't. Understanding what God said, is
a big help towards people believing him. But understanding or not,
does not make God exist.
Understanding is independent of God existing.
It's not problem if someone doesn't yet understand what God said,
or why it's relavent... I simply have to point out that he's right,
and they decide whatever they want to decide about it.
If God wants to draw them to him... he will.

Is that the idiot article about planet density profiles about which
you once claimed ("Boaty is a Loser"): "No one else said the correct
method for planet
formation..."

Amazingly, they did originally think the planets matter sourced
from the sun.

Who did? Lots of people did because it seemed like it could be true.

That was back decades ago. Science originally thought it, then
tossed the idea.
Turns out... they blew it.
What they tossed, was the answer.
It's not the sun as you see it now, it's a NEW star as it was
then, PRIOR to the solar system forming. The temperatures ABOVE
a NEW star's surface, provide the means for the heavier than
iron elements to drop down... build up... and explode out in
a FISSION explosion... a RING at the 0.7 solar radii of heavier
than iron elements... it goes unstable at one point along the ring,
explodes out in two directions traveling around the ring, and
the time around the path, gives the neutrino pulse time. This
matched for SN1987A's neutrino pulse time given the 0.7 solar
radii. It also gives the multiple aligned rings seen and dual
lobes in the hourglass formation with expanding out equatorial
disk.
The 0.7 solar radii is what you get when heavier than iron
elements drop down. They were spinning above the surface of
the star, but as they drop down, they spin faster, but then
don't continue to the center of the star... 'cuz they're spinning,
they level out within the star at that radius due to their
increased mass. It builds up, eventually goes unstable, and
explodes out in a FISSION explosion.
This was detailed over 7 years ago... it's amazing how long
it takes people to figure stuff out when they have the data,
and while it's being openly discussed over the years... and
ridiculed to death.

They then got confused and lost their train of thought.

Says you.

No train of thought was lost; planetary systems midformation were then
found that gave us clues to the formation of our own planets.

Tell me about the ramifications of temperatures ABOVE a new
star's surface, where FUSION can occur. What do you expect
will happen while that's going on?
As I've said in the past, FUSION of elements beyond iron is
an energy storage and cooling process... the elements would
then be cooler, they'd drop down... and build up at the 0.7
solar radii... later go unstable, and explode out in a FISSION
ring explosion in the equatorial direction.... giving a DUST
DISK around the position of the exploded star... a planetary
nebula around a planet forming star.
What do you expect would happen?
The data is there... what do you expect would happen given
said data?

Not that that will stop you stating otherwise, of course. At least you
admit outer space exists.

Why should I deny it?

Neither does the Bible! Your garbage about cosmology and particle
physics is as indefensible as it is laughable.

God plainly said it.

I thought you said he said it in riddles. How did he say it? Plainly
or riddley?

It was a riddle to those back then because they had no idea what
stuff looked like out in deep space, nor did they have any data
to figure out what God was describing. For them it was a riddle.
For us now... it's still a riddle to anyone God hasn't allowed to
understand what he's said... otherwise it's quite plain what he's
describing.

The LINE formed at the foundations of the earth, the firmament
exploded out, separating the waters, the matter regathered
and planets formed from that regathering matter.

An exploding out firmament ring is very hot and does cool.
What's the issue with that?

Yes? No?

Yes, God was right.

All that matches just fine.

You wish.
God even said that he was renaming the firmament, after the firmament
ring exploded out, God called it heaven... or the area outside
where the earth was... all around the earth... which it was, the
dust disk was both from the firmament, and so was the earth, and
as the earth formed into it's own... the dust disk was then renamed
as the heavens... in that it's outside the volume of the earth.
It's obvious why God renamed the firmament then... to me it's obvious,
to you it's confusion.
Here's where God renamed the firmament, at the right timing:
Ge 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and
the morning were the second day.
And in the verse prior... God had the firmament ring exploding out:
Ge 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which
were under the firmament from the waters which were above
the firmament: and it was so.
It's obvious why God had the firmament renamed to the heavens,
'cuz to the Hebrews, anything outside the earth's influence,
was the heavens... and the firmament that wasn't making up the
earth's volume... that remainder of the dust disk... it was then
in the realm of "heavens".
QED.
God knew, God described it accurately, in MANY different ways.
You have to believe God, then try to understand it.
If you don't... you probably won't.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.

Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)

Mirror site at: http://For-God.net
.

User: "Iain"
Title: Re: Dawn of the Brain-Dead: Dumbing Down Complete	27 Nov 2004 10:28:30 AM

"John P. Boatwright" <name@For-God.net> wrote in message news:<41A8036E.426C@For-God.net>...

Iain wrote:

"John P. Boatwright" <name@For-God.net> wrote in message news:<41A6A41E.56E1@For-God.net>...

Budikka wrote:

"John P. Boatwright" <name@For-God.net> wrote in message news:<419F1922.719E@For-God.net>...

Seldom Seen Smith wrote:

The re-election of mentally- and morally-challenged George W. Bush means
the dumbing down of America is complete.

My recollection is that George W. Bush is a graduate of both
Yale and Harvard.

And he still can't pronounced "nuclear". QED

Guys from Britian say all kinds of things "wrong".

"Nucle'r" tends to be the pronunciation in Britain. In the U.S.A. it
is often mispronounced as "Noocle'r.". The American language is
butchered anyway. They say "theater\theatrical", etc.

Exactly... except that Britian is the one that talks funny.

Shouldn't that be "funnily"?

Not a shred of proof for that.

Your doubt limits you out of knowing God.

To someone who doesn't believe the thing you speak of even exists,
that's a fairly meaningless statement.

How can you prove this; Why is it relevant?

It's the same thing with God. What he said plainly shows that God
exists... his own words prove he is God... but a lot of people do
not understand what he was saying... and as such, they assume he's
not there... because they assume God's words are nonsense, or that
someone else had said nonsense and attributed it to God saying it.

Do you mean "God's words prove he is a god because they reveal
hitherto unknown astronomical facts"?

God's words prove that he is the source of his creation. God
being the creator, does not depend on people understanding what
he said. It is God's option, to allow anyone he wants, to understand
what he's said.

Says who based on what?

Many people believe God, many don't. Understanding what God said, is
a big help towards people believing him. But understanding or not,
does not make God exist.

The Bible is crystal-clear in all its translations. Understanding it
is childsplay. Although I scarcely believe a word it says, it's a very
good example of good, plain English -- describing palpable *****
and ancient creation myths.
You have taken what is crystal-clear plain English text that describes
things wildly different from what we now know (and can hardly be
construed as a useful description of how you said the solar system
formed) and turned it into a riddle to that is supposed to describe
your own distortion of popular science. Ever get the feeling you're
wasting your time?
You're no better than the Muslim "scientists" who say they have found
the human genome encoded in the Koran.

Is that the idiot article about planet density profiles about which
you once claimed ("Boaty is a Loser"): "No one else said the correct
method for planet
formation..."

Amazingly, they did originally think the planets matter sourced
from the sun.

Who did? Lots of people did because it seemed like it could be true.

That was back decades ago. Science originally thought it, then
tossed the idea.

Turns out... they blew it.

What they tossed, was the answer.

It's not the sun as you see it now, it's a NEW star as it was
then, PRIOR to the solar system forming. The temperatures ABOVE
a NEW star's surface, provide the means for the heavier than
iron elements to drop down... build up... and explode out in
a FISSION explosion... a RING at the 0.7 solar radii of heavier
than iron elements... it goes unstable at one point along the ring,
explodes out in two directions traveling around the ring, and
the time around the path, gives the neutrino pulse time. This
matched for SN1987A's neutrino pulse time given the 0.7 solar
radii. It also gives the multiple aligned rings seen and dual
lobes in the hourglass formation with expanding out equatorial
disk.

The 0.7 solar radii is what you get when heavier than iron
elements drop down. They were spinning above the surface of
the star, but as they drop down, they spin faster, but then
don't continue to the center of the star... 'cuz they're spinning,
they level out within the star at that radius due to their
increased mass. It builds up, eventually goes unstable, and
explodes out in a FISSION explosion.

This was detailed over 7 years ago... it's amazing how long
it takes people to figure stuff out when they have the data,
and while it's being openly discussed over the years... and
ridiculed to death.

No mention of God yet. I thought you said he did it. Is God the one
making all the other planet systems right now? Even though you said
yourself using physics how it can happen naturally?
Leaving aside the question of how accurate your description of the
creation of the solar system is or isn't, you have just described in
detail the solar system forming naturally without a god.
I thought your whole point was that Genesis actually describes the
creation of the solar system with the "firmament" business. But here
you describe something different from what Genesis says, not least
because no god is involved.
Are you saying all planetary systems formed this way?
Or did God make all planetary systems? Did he make any? Why did he
make some planetary systems without life or any apparent purpose?

Not that that will stop you stating otherwise, of course. At least you
admit outer space exists.

Why should I deny it?

Because you are faithful to the Bible.
Genesis does not describe what we should now typically expect a god to
know. Instead, it describes a characteristically human perspective on
why _the sea and the sky seem to converge in the distance_.
As a direct answer to your question, Genesis describes clearly that
the sea and the sky were once one, and that the upper partition became
heaven. This idea is long shattered.

Neither does the Bible! Your garbage about cosmology and particle
physics is as indefensible as it is laughable.

God plainly said it.

I thought you said he said it in riddles. How did he say it? Plainly
or riddley?

It was a riddle to those back then because they had no idea what
stuff looked like out in deep space, nor did they have any data
to figure out what God was describing. For them it was a riddle.

For us now... it's still a riddle to anyone God hasn't allowed to
understand what he's said... otherwise it's quite plain what he's
describing.

What makes you think Genesis contains any riddles?
You have given me what you think the riddles mean and your own opinion
on what the truth about the solar system is, but what is your evidence
for them even being riddles at all?
Genesis sets up the premise for the rest of the Old Testement, like
the prologue to a story.
For example, it introduces "heaven" as being the sky, which is then
referred to later.
It does it very plainly, briefly, and effectively -- nothing to
suggest any riddles.

The LINE formed at the foundations of the earth, the firmament
exploded out, separating the waters, the matter regathered
and planets formed from that regathering matter.

Slow down!
The planets formed from the Earth? Where did the waters go?
How does this fit the biblical description of the sky as being a sheet
of water?
Whatever you mean, can you see this happening anywhere else in the
galaxy?

An exploding out firmament ring is very hot and does cool.

No planets presently in formation are the result of exploding rings --
typically, the central star is the hottest part of a gaseous disc held
together by gravity; the planets smaller congealed spheres orbiting
it. Alternatives are rare(if not unheard of). There is nothing about
our solar system to suggest it is any different.
But okay, let's assume you mean that our solar system formed the same
way that most planet systems do...How does this fit "The sea and sky
are formed from the partition of waters"?
You've just about managed to introduce the word "firmament" to
describe a solar system in development, but that's hardly a convincing
allegory of Genesis.
Even then, your description of solar system development is rather
dubious. So, even when genesis is successfully "interpreted" by you as
a riddle, it still describes what seems to be utter shash.

You wish.

God even said that he was renaming the firmament, after the firmament
ring exploded out, God called it heaven...

So where is heaven\the ex-firmament now? The Bible says it's the sky,
but I'm interested to know what you think.
By the way, God did not call it "heaven". The word was invented by
North Europeans.

It's obvious why God renamed the firmament then... to me it's obvious,
to you it's confusion.

Since there was no language then, what did he rename it to? This is
nonsense on so many levels.

Here's where God renamed the firmament, at the right timing:

Ge 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and
the morning were the second day.

And in the verse prior... God had the firmament ring exploding out:

Ge 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which
were under the firmament from the waters which were above
the firmament: and it was so.

It's obvious why God had the firmament renamed to the heavens,
'cuz to the Hebrews, anything outside the earth's influence,
was the heavens... and the firmament that wasn't making up the
earth's volume... that remainder of the dust disk... it was then
in the realm of "heavens".

QED.

QED Nothing. If he named the sky(or spacey dust disc) "heaven", why
did he and his representatives then proceed to say "when you die you
might go to heaven"?
~Iain
.

User: "The Last Liberal"
Title: Re: Dawn of the Brain-Dead: Dumbing Down Complete	27 Nov 2004 10:29:15 AM

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 04:33:15 GMT, "John P. Boatwright"
<name@For-God.net> wrote:

It's the same thing with God. What he said plainly shows that God
exists... his own words prove he is God... but a lot of people do

Please share with the rest of the world what this god of yours is
saying, and how the rest of us can hear it.
Thank you.
---
http://lastliberal.org
"The dumb things young [human] males do often result in death.
The dumb ones young [human] females do, in birth." -- Don Martin
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/
.

User: "Budikka"
Title: Re: Dawn of the Brain-Dead: Dumbing Down Complete	29 Nov 2004 04:32:03 AM

"John P. Boatwright" <name@For-God.net> wrote in message news:<41A6A41E.56E1@For-God.net>...

My recollection is that George W. Bush is a graduate of both
Yale and Harvard.

And he still can't pronounced "nuclear". QED

Guys from Britian say all kinds of things "wrong".

Another lie from Boatwright, so ill-informed that he thinks Americans
just elected a Brit to the presidency.

I have no issue with GWB pronouncing a word differently than others.

Of course you don't. You'd actually have to grasp implications of
things and have at least one foot in reality to get there. You don't
qualify on either condition.

God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.

Not a shred of proof for that.

Your doubt limits you out of knowing God.

Your blindness limits you knowing reality

Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm

Is that the idiot article about planet density profiles about which
you once claimed ("Boaty is a Loser"): "No one else said the correct
method for planet
formation..."

Amazingly, they did originally think the planets matter sourced
from the sun.

Your straw man loser is a loser as usual. Try to get some new
arguments.

Neither does the Bible! Your garbage about cosmology and particle
physics is as indefensible as it is laughable.

God plainly said it.

When you can demonstrate that there is a god, you might have a start
at getting somewhere, but all you can do is chant your mantra that the
Bible proves god because god write the Bible. Loser.

The LINE formed at the foundations of the earth, the firmament
exploded out, separating the waters, the matter regathered
and planets formed from that regathering matter.

All that matches just fine.

Not even close as I and others have demonstrated repeatedly to you.

It says in Genesis that the firmament separated the waters:

There's no evidence whatsoever for your argument and your argument is
based on a myth written by anonymous scientifically ignorant scribes
as has been repeatedly demonstrated.

God also said there was the dust cloud during that time, the
time of planet formation:

Job 38:9 When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick
darkness a swaddlingband for it,
10 And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,

Different book written by different authors that has nothing
whatsoever to do with the rest of the Bible (actually, very little of
the Bible has to do with the rest of the Bible). Job was stolen from
elsewhere (as indeed was most of the Bible) and serves no other
purpose than to prove that god is an invention.

The morning stars, are the initial stars in that Genesis first morning,
they eventually exploded, shooting out the "line", the foundations
of the earth... when the morning stars sang.

More unsupported *****. The Bible identifies Jesus with Lucifer,
"proving" that god is really Satan!

Those morning stars in Genesis... exploded... creation of the heavier
elememts was in full force before that, then the stars exploded and
all the elements, the range of elements above and below iron, exploded
outwards.

More lies.

The firmament RING... the LINE on the foundations of the earth, at
the 0.7 solar radii... it builds up over time in NEW stars from the
super hot activity of NEW stars above their surface. Chandra X-ray
telescope shows that NEW stars burn VERY hot, and the heavier than
iron elements form from fusion ABOVE the surface of the NEW stars.

More unsupported lies and *****. You don't know when to stop, do
you?! What a joke you are. Do you have any idea how embarrassed you
are and how trashed is your *****?

That fusion is a cooling and energy storage process... and the heavier
than iron elements fall down below the surface of the star, and build
up at the 0.7 solar radii... to later explode out after building up
and becoming unstable.

Get help. If you don't get help at Charter House, get help somewhere.

The firmament, as the Bible makers perfectly clear, is the heavens,
containing
the sun, moon, and the stars.

The firmament, as Hebrew makes clear, is a solid (metal?) dome to
which the stars were nailed. That's how "advanced" the Bible scribes
were! They thought there was a roof to the Earth above which was
stored water, you mindless moron.

The moon's formation is listed correctly in the timing as well.

The moon formed when another planet hit Earth, according to the
evidence. There's nothing in the Bible about that because the scribes
who wrote it didn't have a clue how the universe works. They were
making it up as they went along and there was no god to guide them.

More unsupported clueless babble. Presun star! What a joke you are.
You can prove nothing you claim and your claims don't make any sense
at all, let alone scientific sense.

The timing given in Genesis is correctly given.

Lie, as I and others have demonstrated to you. The fact that you're
too stupid to grasp that is your problem. Get competent medical help
and get it soon.

Where did God say the universe is 6000 years old?

God doesn't exist. God didn't say anything. The Bible writers make
it quite clear from Bible "chronology" in Genesis that the universe is
some 6K yrs old.

The "presun" star exploded.

There was no presun star, liar. Of course, you can prove me wrong by
submitting the evidence you don't have.

Some of the matter eventually falls
back inwards,

From an explosion! Yeah! It *all* falls back in sufficient quantity
to