| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Art Bulla" |
| Date: |
05 Jun 2007 08:57:04 PM |
| Object: |
Exposing the Fairy Tale for Grownups |
(Reclaiming Science from Darwinism; Kenneth Poppe):
These blind alleys dismissed, the book (textbook) usually gives the correct
view for the origin of cellular life, using Pasteur's famous "soup in a
flask" experiment. Pictures show how boiled broth left in an open container
developed the contamination of bacterial life, while boiled broth in a flask
sealed from microbes in the air did not--thereby proving that only life
gives rise to life. And to be sure that the impressionable young reader
understands that superstitious theories cannot account for life, the author
is likely to close with the cell theory. This theory has three tenets:
1. The cell is the basic unit of life.
2. All organisms are made of cells.
3. All cells come from other cells.
The heart of the cell theory is the third statement, which says a new cell
can only come from a preexisting cell.
Life from Nonlife?
This poses a dilemma for the theory of natural evolution: to first say
spontaneously generated cells are a medieval myth, but then to say inorganic
(nonliving material) went to organic (living material) at least once in
Earth's history. To escape the dilemma, Darwinists need a powerful
explanation for unintended life, and a really good one, or they are back on
"maggots just appear on dead meat" footing. Of course they have one to
offer. It bears careful examination because if it is believable, Design must
take a giant step backward, so to speak. If it is unbelievable, then Design
wins, even if only by default. The following will give you a taste of the
complex processes said to be necessary if life is to evolve from nonlife.
(To fully comprehend the various theories would take a lifetime of study.)
In brief you are about to read of a string of random events that begin with
our Earth as a raging and inhospitable planet full of intense heat, toxic
gases, and violent storms.
Following the big bang, the first cell evolved on Earth when-after about 1.1
billion years-conditions on our violent lent and inhospitable planet finally
settled sufficiently for chemical complexity to move forward. By about 3.5
billion years ago, a powerful reconfiguring force, probably the sun's
ultraviolet rays, had eventually fractured enough simple inorganic molecules
like carbon dioxide and methane to release their atomic carbon contents.
These then reassembled into the carbon-chain configurations that are the
backbones of organic molecules in our carbon-based life-forms. As water,
hydrogen gas, ammonia, and nitrogen gas were also fractured by UV rays, all
four atoms that make up 99 percent of organic tissue-hydrogen, oxygen,
nitrogen, and additional carbon-were able to begin attachment to the
existing carbon chains. Though this may have taken many millions of years,
the simplest organic carbohydrates finally appeared in the primordial soup.
Now the oceans-or perhaps freshwater ponds which were not subject to harsh
salinity-contained organic molecules like simple alcohols (ethanol), weak
organic acids (acetic acid), and monosaccharides (glucose, and later
deoxyribose and ribose). At this point, perhaps it was
Lightning, another powerful reconfiguring force, that fractured sulfuric and
phosphoric acids to free necessary sulfate and phosphate radicals. These
ionized groups, perhaps further catalyzed by superheated iron and nickel
sulfides, then interacted with the present carbohydrates to produce at least
some of the "alphabet" of 20 amino acids. And now that these amino-acid
building blocks were appearing, they polymerized into the all-essential
proteins necessary for any type of future cell structure. Besides UV rays
and lightning, there were other reconfiguring forces present on ancient
Earth to aid in molecular advancement. X-rays, volcanoes, earthquakes,
tornadoes, and meteor strikes may have also played a role in the assembly of
larger organic molecules such as additional amino acids, vitamins, ATPs, and
simple enzymes. The appearance of enzymes would be particularly important in
that they would accelerate molecular development. At this juncture, critical
components made their appearance. Certain amino acids were somewhat altered
to produce the nitrogenous bases of cytosine, adenine, guanine, and uracil,
which combined with sugars and phosphates to produce nucleotides that served
as the building blocks for the first nucleic acid, RNA. (The template for
assembling such a macromolecule could have been the intricate lattice
arrangement of inorganic crystals.) With RNA now present, acting as both a
coder of additional nitrogenous base sequences and a ligase-type catalyst,
it began to self-replicate. Portions of the RNA molecule were now able to
construct longer proteins, such as those needed for protective cell
membranes, and were also able to code for a unique molecule called
chlorophyll. The chlorophyll in developing chloroplasts would then take over
carbon-chain construction through the extremely reliable process of
photosynthesis. With RNA and photosynthesis both producing further organic
molecular complexity and abundance, these large particles began adhering to
each other, eventually forming
well-known prebiotic coctcervates-subcellular particles bringing us to the
verge of a living cell. Other portions of mutating RNA molecules could now
begin to code for proteins necessary for the eventual appearance of
organelles such as mitochondria, ribosomes, and plastids. Meanwhile, another
nitrogenous base, thymine, had already been added to the soup. It was now
only a short step to transform RNA into the double-helix marvel of DNA, the
ultimate holder of all future genetic codes. This freed RNA to adopt its
present role of messenger in the production of subsequent proteins and
allowed DNA to assume full "blueprint duties" for all other cell structures.
Then in short order, the first asexual prokaryotic cell appeared in the form
of a single bacterium, and life was born. As proliferating prokaryotic cells
continued nucleic acid. production, individual strands of DNA eventually
traveled in twos, leading to the homologous chromosome pairs that are basic
to all of today's organisms. Then, as these evolving cells engulfed other
less complex bacteria through endosyrnhiosis, they were transformed. into
organelles for added capabilities rather than being digested. This produced
the first true eukaryotic cell, and the world now had an organism capable of
going beyond simple asexual reproduction to utilize a sexual mating process
allowing for great variations among offspring. It did not take long for
these advanced cells to clump together in multicellularity for protection
and division of labor, producing perhaps worms and primitive fish. Though
this entire process may have taken 3.5 billion years to complete, the forces
of natural selection were now coming into play through survival of the
fittest, which would drive organisms to improve or die. For this reason, one
might say that in the next billion years or so, the appearance of the
complex plant and animal species of the twenty-first century was a foregone
conclusion. Obviously, research for more specifics on the actual mechanisms
above continues. On other fronts, the search on Earth for structurally
related but unusable molecules has
been inconclusive, as have attempts to generate molecular complexity in
substantive quantities under laboratory conditions. But nature continues to
divulge her secrets, albeit reluctantly, and the work goes on, This highly
detailed explanation stops at the appearance of the ancient
chordares-s-fish-c-which Darwinists believe went on to eventually become
species like the North American wood duck (which I use as an example in the
next chapter). And if that could happen, then I guess mammals could appear
and become monkeys, and so on.
Get Out the Magic Wand On the surface, the entire package appears to
constitute a powerful argument. Darwinists I know fully believe in this and
think nothing more needs to be said. At first glance, how could anyone argue
with this explanation? How could you challenge the details unless you were
as highly trained as the researchers? The rapid bombardment of high-powered
vocabulary, and the dizzying mosaic the terms paint, surely cannot be the
product of a vivid imagination, can it? And what about the explanation's
obvious lack of need for an Unseen Hand? How can "In the beginning, God..."
compete with this? Is natural evolution the truth and Design the fraud? Does
Darwinism still have every right to monopolize science, rendering the title
of this book meaningless? We can see why, to Darwinists, theological
explanations for the origin of life must seem like magic-wand waving and
smoke and mirrors. I'm sure this is the reason evolutionists have told me to
my face that I've forsaken cognitive facts and the left-brained reasoning of
science, and instead am now drawing on the emotionalism of the right-brained
superstitions of religion-not too far from voodoo and witchcraft.
(Flattering, isn't it?)
Another Accidental Marvel However, before we pursue the issue further, I
would like to present an explanation that parallels the one above: an
explanation of the unintended processes that produced another first-the
first television.
The television came into use when conditions in the civilized world finally
made electronic communications a possibility. It began long ago on a
deserted tropical island. Violent volcanic activity due to tectonic plate
movement crystallized sand into glass in the shape of a cathode-ray tube.
This tube fell into a phosphorescent "soup" composed of the remains of
millions of ancient fireflies, and the oozing liquid coated the glass.
Though natural erosion eventually wore away the outside phosphor coating,
the inside coating dried and remained. later, a random lightning strike
placed two lumps of iron at each end of the tube. These lumps became
magnetized, one positively and one negatively, by the heat dissipation of
the ancient cooling Earth, and simultaneously began to function as an anode
and a cathode, collecting and repelling electrons. Random
oxidation-reduction reactions driven by intense heat from a thermal vent
separated and refined sufficient copper from available ore to shape several
strands of wire, which were belched ashore by an underwater earthquake and
subsequent tidal wave. Hurricane-force winds attached these wires to the
magnets in the glass tube in the exact required position. Suction from these
same winds produced a vacuum in the tube, which was sealed in by cork
insulators blown into place from destroyed trees. Finally, a burst of
ultraviolet radiation from an uncommonly intense solar flare energized the
two electrodes, and they began to fire electrons at the phosphor coating at
the precise angle that would cause it to glow. The very first operational
cathode-ray tube was now a reality. As all this was taking place, over the
same lengthy time period the same reconfiguring forces had shaped the less
complex components of tubes; circuit boards, dials, and wood cabinetry.
These lay scattered all over the island where the cathode ray tube lay
glowing. The light and the other strange-looking objects attracted the
curious monkeys on the island, and they began to randomly manipulate the
pieces.
34 PART I- A SURVEY OF THE LANDSCAPE
As luck would have it, the primates somehow managed to assemble the
components, and before they could disassemble them, a man walking the
deserted island found the device and named it the "tele-vision." This man
was an entrepreneurial sort who realized its potential to display specified
electronic signals, perhaps for profit. He brought the "TV" back to
civilization, where he applied for and was granted a patent. Now it has been
many years since that first simple glowing cathode-ray tube was discovered.
and through serendipitous results of the random actions of bungling
repairmen, it has evolved into such sophisticated devices as plasma screens
and HDTV. However, much of the original accidental technology is still being
duplicated, and even the name "television" is still used today. Electronic
engineers around the world still marvel at the luck of the original patent
owner. This is because no similar "pre-television" components have ever been
found anywhere else on Earth, either nonfunctional or near-functional, which
could corroborate the bizarre tale told by the man who once walked that
tropical island. Also, attempts to piece together the natural processes
thought to have taken place, and then recreate them under tightly controlled
simulated conditions, have met with unsatisfactory results. And yet faith in
the truth of the process causes the work to go on.
Well-there you have it. The product has changed from cell to television, but
the reliance on potentially lucky processes is basically the same. Perhaps
the only other difference is that the vocabulary in the TV scenario isn't as
intimidating and doesn't produce the hoodwinking element of mystery due to
the unfamiliar.
Choose Your Smoke and Mirrors Is it perhaps possible that evolutionary
science also employs its fair share of magic-wand waving and smoke and
mirrors? When you under stand what natural evolution is really trying to
sell, do you get the feeling someone should tell the king sporting his new
clothes that he is really naked? The story is told of a consortium of
scientists who bet God they too could make a living cell from scratch. The
challenge was accepted, and the group proceeded to gather the most renowned
molecular biologists, cytologists, and geneticists from around the world. As
word spread, funds began pouring in from all over. The team built an
impressive research facility and equipped it with powerful supercomputers,
high-tech Constructing a vital microscopes, state-of-the-art electronic
machinery, and all the best tools and
glassware. When all was in place, the team prepared to go out and collect
the necessary chemical compounds to begin their experiments. At this point,
unimaginable magnitude. God stepped in and said, 'Hey. not so fast-get your
own raw materials.
Even if organic components-in this case, prelife molecules already assembled
by living cells-were available, I wonder if lab experiments have shown that
we are anywhere near making a living cell. Consider the following: "
Cutting-edge laboratory work can barely identify and safely alter organic
molecules from those already present in nature. Even constructing a vital
organelle within a cell, such as a mitochondrion, is unthinkable due to
complexity of an unimaginable magnitude. Therefore, the correct answer as to
whether we can make a living cell in a test tube is not "inevitable,"
"likely," "probably," or "maybe"-or even "remote"-but most definitely
"impossible." However, the incongruity is, many of those same reputable
scientists believe that without our Story's state-of-the-art research
facility with supercomputers, microscopes, random chance can produce such a
result! (Reclaiming Science from Darwinism; Kenneth Poppe)
--
Website: http://www.artbulla.com
5 And it speaketh harshly against sin, according to the plainness of the
truth; wherefore, no man will be angry at the words which I have written
save he shall be of the spirit of the devil.
6 I glory in plainness; I glory in truth; I glory in my Jesus, for he hath
redeemed my soul from hell.
(2 Nephi 33:5 - 6)
26 And ye have murmured because he hath been plain unto you. Ye say that
he hath used sharpness; ye say that he hath been angry with you; but behold,
his sharpness was the sharpness of the power of the word of God, which was
in him; and that which ye call anger was the truth, according to that which
is in God, which he could not restrain, manifesting boldly concerning your
iniquities.
27 And it must needs be that the power of God must be with him, even unto
his commanding you that ye must obey. But behold, it was not he, but it was
the Spirit of the Lord which was in him, which opened his mouth to utterance
that he could not shut it.
(Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 1:26 - 27)
"What Joseph meant by being damned was that people will go into the spirit
world without the Priesthood, and consequently they are under the power of
Satan, and will have to be redeemed, or else they will be forever under his
power. That is all there is about that."
(Journal of Discourses, 26 vols., 17:, p.159)
"I am like a huge rough stone rolling down from a high mountain; and the
only polishing I get is when some corner gets rubbed off by coming in
contact with something else, striking with accelerated force against
religious bigotry, priestcraft, lawyer-craft, doctor-craft, lying editors,
suborned judges and jurors, and the authority of perjured executives, backed
by mobs, blasphemers, licentious and corrupt men and women, all hell
knocking off a corner here and a corner there. Thus will I become a smooth
and polished shaft in the quiver of the Almighty." (Teachings of the
Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 304.)
"I just tell em the truth, and they think it's hell." Harry Truman
THE GOLDEN RULE OF DISINFORMERS:
Always accuse your adversary of whatever is true about yourself.
"Nothing has more retarded the advancement of learning than the disposition
of vulgar minds to ridicule and vilify what they do not understand."
Dr.Samuel Johnson.
The Revelations of Jesus Christ:
<http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?isbn=0-595-28287-3>
Discourses of Brigham Young, Pg.68
As it has always been, and will be yet for some time, when the sons
of God assemble together Satan will be on hand as an accuser of the
brethren, to find fault with those who are trying to do good.
"But we ask, does it remain for a people who never had faith enough to call
down one scrap of revelation from heaven, and for all they have now are
indebted
to the faith of another people...does it remain for them to say how much God
has
spoken and how much He has not spoken?" Joseph Smith
"Every generation has flattered itself that it is a little better than the
one that preceded it. Every generation has prided itself in its knowledge
and great advancement in the arts and sciences and its superiority over
preceding generations; yet the power of the adversary and his hatred of
righteousness and truth are as great to-day as they ever were since the
creation of the earth." Journal of Discourses, Vol.11, Pg.228 - Pg.229,
George Q. Cannon, May 6, 1866
"Some men are natural born saints; whenever a principle is advanced they
understand it, and drink it in; * * * while there are others who do not
understand and oppose every principle that is not clear to their mind. This
can be accounted for, that we are not all pure blooded, for Ephraim became
foolish and mixed up with the gentiles. When we find the pure blood of
Ephraim, we find a natural born child of God and there is nothing in the
gospel that is objectionable to them, but the others have to exercise faith
in God and humble themselves before Him and live for it." (Deseret Weekly,
50:250-251)
.
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Exposing the Fairy Tale for Grownups |
08 Aug 2007 10:57:40 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 20:05:28 -0700, "Aaron Kim" <aaron@artbulla.com>
wrote:
(Reclaiming Science from Darwinism; Kenneth Poppe):
Translation:
I'm a moron who can't come up with anything on my own, so I copy and
paste nonsense I have no hope of understanding, in the hope that if I
can't baffle them with brilliance, I can bury them in *****.
<snip everything not to do with evolution>
Oops. Maybe if you actually understood that:
"Darwinism" deals with common descent through natural selection. Your
post has nothing to do with Darwinism after the title.
Evolution is the word we use to describe something that we observe
every day - that offspring aren't clones of their parents. You can no
more disprove evolution than you can disprove "wet".
IFSED has as much credibility as DI - less than none.
.... you wouldn't post things you don't even begin to understand, and
that make you look as if the doctor dropped your brain when you were
born and still hasn't found it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Exposing the Fairy Tale for Grownups |
30 Jun 2007 05:41:07 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 13:54:59 -0700, Aaron Kim wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
news:lOCdnaLT0LdLJBvbnZ2dnUVZ_sfinZ2d@giganews.com...
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 22:17:06 -0700, Aaron Kim wrote:
Darwin and evolutionists all believe in abiogenesis.
Even if true, that doesn't mean anything. Evolutionary theory is not
dependent on abiogenesis and never has been.
Life had to start at some point at the most basic level from which
Darwinism takes place where life starts to evolve. So how could life
just pop out where there is no life. You evolutionists have only
abiogenesis as an explanation.
Irrelevant to the theory.
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys
on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING
like Shakespeare!" - Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: Exposing the Fairy Tale for Grownups |
02 Jul 2007 02:28:54 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 13:54:59 -0700, Aaron Kim wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
news:lOCdnaLT0LdLJBvbnZ2dnUVZ_sfinZ2d@giganews.com...
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 22:17:06 -0700, Aaron Kim wrote:
Darwin and evolutionists all believe in abiogenesis.
Even if true, that doesn't mean anything. Evolutionary theory is not
dependent on abiogenesis and never has been.
Life had to start at some point at the most basic level from which Darwinism
takes place where life starts to evolve. So how could life just pop out
where there is no life. You evolutionists have only abiogenesis as an
explanation.
Of course, the creationists *also* support abiogenesis, as the only
alternative is to conclude that life has always existed; they simply
disagree on the mechanism of the process.
That said, evolution doesn't say anything about origins; it is about the
development of life once it already exists.
--
Doing my part to ***** off the Religious Reich.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Exposing the Fairy Tale for Grownups |
03 Jul 2007 10:02:11 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 12:28:54 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 13:54:59 -0700, Aaron Kim wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
news:lOCdnaLT0LdLJBvbnZ2dnUVZ_sfinZ2d@giganews.com...
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 22:17:06 -0700, Aaron Kim wrote:
Darwin and evolutionists all believe in abiogenesis.
Even if true, that doesn't mean anything. Evolutionary theory is not
dependent on abiogenesis and never has been.
Life had to start at some point at the most basic level from which
Darwinism takes place where life starts to evolve. So how could life
just pop out where there is no life. You evolutionists have only
abiogenesis as an explanation.
Of course, the creationists *also* support abiogenesis, as the only
alternative is to conclude that life has always existed; they simply
disagree on the mechanism of the process.
That one always amuses me. The Genesis story *is abiogenesis.
That said, evolution doesn't say anything about origins; it is about the
development of life once it already exists.
Yah but, you have to know something about the subject to understand
that...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace
alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing
it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
- H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Exposing the Fairy Tale for Grownups |
30 Jun 2007 04:46:56 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 13:54:59 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Aaron Kim" <aaron@artbulla.com> wrote in
<5enu96F39imadU1@mid.individual.net>:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
news:lOCdnaLT0LdLJBvbnZ2dnUVZ_sfinZ2d@giganews.com...
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 22:17:06 -0700, Aaron Kim wrote:
Darwin and evolutionists all believe in abiogenesis.
Even if true, that doesn't mean anything. Evolutionary theory is not
dependent on abiogenesis and never has been.
Life had to start at some point at the most basic level from which Darwinism
takes place where life starts to evolve. So how could life just pop out
where there is no life. You evolutionists have only abiogenesis as an
explanation.
So what? The theory of evolution by variation and natural selection
doesn't explain how life began and no scientist would ever claim it did.
Clearly you need to learn a little science before you make more claims
about science.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "mel turner" |
|
| Title: Re: Exposing the Fairy Tale for Grownups |
08 Jun 2007 02:29:32 PM |
|
|
top-posting fixed.
"Art Bulla" <art@artbulla.com> wrote in message
news:5cra6bF324tkqU1@mid.individual.net...
Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a73kj4-ofp.ln1@spanky.localhost.net...
On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:40:04 +0000, Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <o2phj4-8j3.ln1@spanky.localhost.net> Kelsey Bjarnason
<kbjarnason@gmail.com> writes:
[snips]
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 18:57:04 -0700, Art Bulla wrote:
Life from Nonlife?
This poses a dilemma for the theory of natural evolution
Actually it doesn't, as evolution doesn't even address the origins of
life, but never let a fact stand in the way of a good lie, right?
And of course it is intellectually possible to believe that
god created life, and then let evolution take over
from there. In fact, one of our more prominent
contemporary paleontologitsts, Simon Conway Morris
(of Burgess Shale fame) believes precisely that.
Since evolution doesn't address origins, as far as anything *evolution*
has to say on the matter, life could have been sneezed into existence by
the Great Green Arkleseizure. Evolution simply does not deal with
origins.
Well, it does deal with the origins of species of organisms and
their characteristics. It isn't concerned with the origin of
the first life. That's a separate topic, "abiogenesis".
Why these funnymentalist types cannot grasp this...
Liar, that is exactly what evolution addresses. The title of Darwin's book
is "Origin of the Species".
No, it's not. It seems you didn't get past the title, and got even
that wrong.
What in the hell are you thinking and talking about you nitwit!!!??
A Pratchettian warning number of punctuation marks there, if a mixed
combination counts.
Orgin of the species--i.e. man, you fool.
Nope. The actual title [look it up] is a bit misleading, since it
had relatively little to say about speciation. But we've learned
a lot about since then. Why are you stuck on this 1859 book?
It was and is an attempt to explain the origin of man and all life without
God, and that is exactly what it is.
Nope. It's no such thing. Can you find even one paragraph in the book
dealing specifically with the origin of humans? How about finding one
that even tries to explain the origin of the first life?
Here's a helpful lead, in case you can't find your copy:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin.html
Note the title, while you're at it.
cheers
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aaron Kim" |
|
| Title: Re: Exposing the Fairy Tale for Grownups |
30 Jun 2007 12:54:04 AM |
|
|
"mel turner" <mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote in message
news:f4camt$jnt$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu...
top-posting fixed.
"Art Bulla" <art@artbulla.com> wrote in message
news:5cra6bF324tkqU1@mid.individual.net...
Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a73kj4-ofp.ln1@spanky.localhost.net...
On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:40:04 +0000, Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <o2phj4-8j3.ln1@spanky.localhost.net> Kelsey Bjarnason
<kbjarnason@gmail.com> writes:
[snips]
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 18:57:04 -0700, Art Bulla wrote:
Life from Nonlife?
This poses a dilemma for the theory of natural evolution
Actually it doesn't, as evolution doesn't even address the origins of
life, but never let a fact stand in the way of a good lie, right?
And of course it is intellectually possible to believe that
god created life, and then let evolution take over
from there. In fact, one of our more prominent
contemporary paleontologitsts, Simon Conway Morris
(of Burgess Shale fame) believes precisely that.
Since evolution doesn't address origins, as far as anything *evolution*
has to say on the matter, life could have been sneezed into existence by
the Great Green Arkleseizure. Evolution simply does not deal with
origins.
Well, it does deal with the origins of species of organisms and
their characteristics. It isn't concerned with the origin of
the first life. That's a separate topic, "abiogenesis".
Why these funnymentalist types cannot grasp this...
Liar, that is exactly what evolution addresses. The title of Darwin's
book
is "Origin of the Species".
No, it's not. It seems you didn't get past the title, and got even
that wrong.
What in the hell are you thinking and talking about you nitwit!!!??
A Pratchettian warning number of punctuation marks there, if a mixed
combination counts.
Orgin of the species--i.e. man, you fool.
Nope. The actual title [look it up] is a bit misleading, since it
had relatively little to say about speciation. But we've learned
a lot about since then. Why are you stuck on this 1859 book?
Not much has changed since he wrote his book. Still no way to prove how life
just suddenly springed out of non living matter in primordial soup. Still no
fossils as Darwin hoped would be found in the future. Once it was figured
out how genes worked, natural selection was proven to not be able to
increase in new information. So then a bunch of old Darwinists got together
in a meeting during 1940s and decided it was mutation that had to be
responsible for new genetic information. But mutations are just random
changes in the DNA structure. Mutations have been clearly proven to only
cause damage to the genes. They've done experiments on organisms like fruit
flies and frogs and only disease and deformities have been the result.
It was and is an attempt to explain the origin of man and all life without
God, and that is exactly what it is.
Nope. It's no such thing. Can you find even one paragraph in the book
dealing specifically with the origin of humans? How about finding one
that even tries to explain the origin of the first life?
Here's a helpful lead, in case you can't find your copy:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin.html
Note the title, while you're at it.
cheers
.
|
|
|
| User: "mel turner" |
|
| Title: Re: Exposing the Fairy Tale for Grownups |
02 Jul 2007 04:34:49 PM |
|
|
"Aaron Kim" <aaron@artbulla.com> wrote in message
news:5enphvF38itg1U9@mid.individual.net...
"mel turner" <mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote in message
news:f4camt$jnt$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu...
[snip]
Orgin of the species--i.e. man, you fool.
Nope. The actual title [look it up] is a bit misleading, since it
had relatively little to say about speciation. But we've learned
a lot about since then. Why are you stuck on this 1859 book?
Not much has changed since he wrote his book.
What? Not much has changed since 1859?
Depends on where you're looking, perhaps.
You're clearly not looking at changes in scientific knowledge,
evolutionary biology in particular.
Still no way to prove how life just suddenly springed out of non living
matter in primordial soup.
That topic still has nothing to do with Darwin or
The Origin of Species.
Still, the separate scientific subject of abiogenesis research has
indeed changed a lot since the mid-19th century [when it hardly
existed at all].
Still no fossils
You seem to be sadly deluded. We have found plenty of fossils,
including lots of just the sort of transitional intermediates
that creationists have to pretend don't exist.
as Darwin hoped would be found in the future.
Got an actual quote on this, or did you conduct a seance?
Once it was figured out how genes worked,
About which creationists have contributed exactly nothing.
natural selection was proven to not be able to increase in new information.
That's another blatant falsehood. Creationist "information" claims are
simply lies, or at best excercises in ridiculously wishful thinking
and self-delusion. They can't even define this "information" so that
anyone else can tell if a given evolutionary change increases or
decreases it. How exactly is this "information" to be measured?
So then a bunch of old Darwinists got together in a meeting during 1940s
and decided it was mutation that had to be responsible for new genetic
information.
More lies. What meeting? What "Darwinists"? You really have no idea
at all what you're talking about, do you? You're correct that
mutations are indeed the ultimate source of "new genetic information"
But mutations are just random changes in the DNA structure. Mutations have
been clearly proven to only cause damage to the genes.
Another error. Mutations are changes to genes. Any changes, whether
they increase, decrease, or maintain the same level of "information",
whatever "information" means. You can argue that they only cause
"damage" only if you first define one particular version of a gene to
be the only "right" one, and thus define all possible changes to it to
be "damage". Even that doesn't work, since mutated versions of genes
will often undergo later mutations back to the original, "undamaged"
version. If the first mutation is "damage", then the reverse mutation
must be an "improvement", and not "damage".
They've done experiments on organisms like fruit flies and frogs and only
disease and deformities have been the result.
Wrong. Another mistake or lie. You're not doing too well, there.
Seven strikes, and even the most generous umpire really ought to
call you "out".
It was and is an attempt to explain the origin of man and all life
without God, and that is exactly what it is.
Nope. It's no such thing. Can you find even one paragraph in the book
dealing specifically with the origin of humans? How about finding one
that even tries to explain the origin of the first life?
Here's a helpful lead, in case you can't find your copy:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin.html
Note the title, while you're at it.
Did you notice that your hero was foolishly mistaken about the
book's title, and about the rest of it?
cheers
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Exposing the Fairy Tale for Grownups |
02 Jul 2007 04:46:25 PM |
|
|
In article <f6br1q$cvk$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu> "mel turner" <mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> writes:
"Aaron Kim" <aaron@artbulla.com> wrote in message
news:5enphvF38itg1U9@mid.individual.net...
"mel turner" <mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote in message
news:f4camt$jnt$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu...
[snip]
Orgin of the species--i.e. man, you fool.
Nope. The actual title [look it up] is a bit misleading, since it
had relatively little to say about speciation. But we've learned
a lot about since then. Why are you stuck on this 1859 book?
Not much has changed since he wrote his book.
What? Not much has changed since 1859?
Depends on where you're looking, perhaps.
You're clearly not looking at changes in scientific knowledge,
evolutionary biology in particular.
Still no way to prove how life just suddenly springed out of non living
matter in primordial soup.
That topic still has nothing to do with Darwin or
The Origin of Species.
Still, the separate scientific subject of abiogenesis research has
indeed changed a lot since the mid-19th century [when it hardly
existed at all].
Still no fossils
You seem to be sadly deluded. We have found plenty of fossils,
including lots of just the sort of transitional intermediates
that creationists have to pretend don't exist.
as Darwin hoped would be found in the future.
Got an actual quote on this, or did you conduct a seance?
Once it was figured out how genes worked,
About which creationists have contributed exactly nothing.
natural selection was proven to not be able to increase in new information.
That's another blatant falsehood. Creationist "information" claims are
simply lies, or at best excercises in ridiculously wishful thinking
and self-delusion. They can't even define this "information" so that
anyone else can tell if a given evolutionary change increases or
decreases it. How exactly is this "information" to be measured?
So then a bunch of old Darwinists got together in a meeting during 1940s
and decided it was mutation that had to be responsible for new genetic
information.
More lies. What meeting? What "Darwinists"? You really have no idea
at all what you're talking about, do you? You're correct that
mutations are indeed the ultimate source of "new genetic information"
Aaron is apparently talking about the neo-darwinian synthesis -- and
Aaron apparently knows as little about this history of this school
of thought as Aaron knows about evolutionary theory.
The lines of research which culminated in the neo-darwinian
synthesis appeared over about four decades. It was hardly
the work of a few caballists getting together in a smoke-filled
room over a weekend somehwere.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pt. Lurk Pt." |
|
| Title: Re: Exposing the Fairy Tale for Grownups |
30 Jun 2007 02:54:25 PM |
|
|
"Aaron Kim" <aaron@artbulla.com> wrote in message news:5enphvF38itg1U9@
Nope. The actual title [look it up] is a bit misleading, since it
had relatively little to say about speciation. But we've learned
a lot about since then. Why are you stuck on this 1859 book?
Not much has changed since he wrote his book.
[snippage]
This guy has to be a Loki, right...?
L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Exposing the Fairy Tale for Grownups |
30 Jun 2007 03:13:24 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 19:54:25 +0000, Pt. Lurk wrote:
"Aaron Kim" <aaron@artbulla.com> wrote in message news:5enphvF38itg1U9@
Nope. The actual title [look it up] is a bit misleading, since it had
relatively little to say about speciation. But we've learned a lot
about since then. Why are you stuck on this 1859 book?
Not much has changed since he wrote his book.
[snippage]
This guy has to be a Loki, right...?
Apparently he's a total fruit cup taken in by a whack-a-doo profit. I
mean, *prophet...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"You know, I'd get it if people were just looking for a
way to fill the holes. But they want the holes. They wanna
live in the holes. And they go nuts when someone else
pours dirt in their holes.
"Climb out of your holes people!"
- Dr. House, on faith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pt. Lurk Pt." |
|
| Title: Re: Exposing the Fairy Tale for Grownups |
30 Jun 2007 03:25:12 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
news:lOCdnaDT0Lf5JBvbnZ2dnUVZ_sfinZ2d@giganews.com...
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 19:54:25 +0000, Pt. Lurk wrote:
"Aaron Kim" <aaron@artbulla.com> wrote in message news:5enphvF38itg1U9@
Nope. The actual title [look it up] is a bit misleading, since it had
relatively little to say about speciation. But we've learned a lot
about since then. Why are you stuck on this 1859 book?
Not much has changed since he wrote his book.
[snippage]
This guy has to be a Loki, right...?
Apparently he's a total fruit cup taken in by a whack-a-doo profit. I
mean, *prophet...
What?!?
You mean we actually have our own specimen *disciple*...?!?
Like, to study and experiment on, and stuff...?!?
*KEWL*!!
L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Exposing the Fairy Tale for Grownups |
30 Jun 2007 05:41:51 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 20:25:12 +0000, Pt. Lurk wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
news:lOCdnaDT0Lf5JBvbnZ2dnUVZ_sfinZ2d@giganews.com...
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 19:54:25 +0000, Pt. Lurk wrote:
"Aaron Kim" <aaron@artbulla.com> wrote in message
news:5enphvF38itg1U9@
Nope. The actual title [look it up] is a bit misleading, since it
had relatively little to say about speciation. But we've learned a
lot about since then. Why are you stuck on this 1859 book?
Not much has changed since he wrote his book.
[snippage]
This guy has to be a Loki, right...?
Apparently he's a total fruit cup taken in by a whack-a-doo profit. I
mean, *prophet...
What?!?
You mean we actually have our own specimen *disciple*...?!?
Ayup.
Like, to study and experiment on, and stuff...?!?
Enjoy!
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys
on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING
like Shakespeare!" - Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Exposing the Fairy Tale for Grownups |
30 Jun 2007 06:40:27 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 20:25:12 GMT, "Pt. Lurk" <Pt. Lurk@renvcom.net>
wrote:
- Refer: <I_yhi.9821$KE1.9065@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
news:lOCdnaDT0Lf5JBvbnZ2dnUVZ_sfinZ2d@giganews.com...
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 19:54:25 +0000, Pt. Lurk wrote:
"Aaron Kim" <aaron@artbulla.com> wrote in message news:5enphvF38itg1U9@
Nope. The actual title [look it up] is a bit misleading, since it had
relatively little to say about speciation. But we've learned a lot
about since then. Why are you stuck on this 1859 book?
Not much has changed since he wrote his book.
[snippage]
This guy has to be a Loki, right...?
Apparently he's a total fruit cup taken in by a whack-a-doo profit. I
mean, *prophet...
What?!?
You mean we actually have our own specimen *disciple*...?!?
Like, to study and experiment on, and stuff...?!?
*KEWL*!!
Only if you promise to clean up the lab afterwards.
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Exposing the Fairy Tale for Grownups |
30 Jun 2007 06:39:45 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 19:54:25 GMT, "Pt. Lurk" <Pt. Lurk@renvcom.net>
wrote:
- Refer: <Rxyhi.2789$XR.2164@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>
"Aaron Kim" <aaron@artbulla.com> wrote in message news:5enphvF38itg1U9@
Nope. The actual title [look it up] is a bit misleading, since it
had relatively little to say about speciation. But we've learned
a lot about since then. Why are you stuck on this 1859 book?
Not much has changed since he wrote his book.
[snippage]
This guy has to be a Loki, right...?
I do believe that he is genuinely totally fucking insane.
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Mayhar" |
|
| Title: Re: Exposing the Fairy Tale for Grownups |
30 Jun 2007 06:12:01 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 22:54:04 -0700, Aaron Kim wrote:
"mel turner" <mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote in message
Nope. The actual title [look it up] is a bit misleading, since it had
relatively little to say about speciation. But we've learned a lot
about since then. Why are you stuck on this 1859 book?
Not much has changed since he wrote his book.
Yes, we _know_ you're a complete idiot, there's no reason to keep on
proving it to us.
--
Frank Mayhar frank@exit.com http://www.exit.com/
Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/
http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/
http://www.zazzle.com/fmayhar*
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Exposing the Fairy Tale for Grownups |
30 Jun 2007 03:12:33 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 22:54:04 -0700, Aaron Kim wrote:
Not much has changed since he wrote his book.
What a pathological liar you are.
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"What the hell is an aluminum Falcon?"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: Exposing the Fairy Tale for Grownups |
02 Jul 2007 02:27:13 PM |
|
|
[snips]
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 22:54:04 -0700, Aaron Kim wrote:
Nope. The actual title [look it up] is a bit misleading, since it
had relatively little to say about speciation. But we've learned
a lot about since then. Why are you stuck on this 1859 book?
Not much has changed since he wrote his book.
Tell me something: why, exactly, do so many of you theist types seem to be
compelled to lie through your teeth?
--
My father will be spinning in his little box of ashes. -- Dave H.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Exposing the Fairy Tale for Grownups |
02 Jul 2007 08:09:58 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 12:27:13 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason
<kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:
- Refer: <h50ol4-r5v.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>
[snips]
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 22:54:04 -0700, Aaron Kim wrote:
Nope. The actual title [look it up] is a bit misleading, since it
had relatively little to say about speciation. But we've learned
a lot about since then. Why are you stuck on this 1859 book?
Not much has changed since he wrote his book.
Tell me something: why, exactly, do so many of you theist types seem to be
compelled to lie through your teeth?
Because if they told the truth, they would be atheists.
Lies and fraud are all they have to support their feeble delusions.
--
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Exposing the Fairy Tale for Grownups |
02 Jul 2007 03:12:32 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 12:27:13 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason
<kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:
[snips]
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 22:54:04 -0700, Aaron Kim wrote:
Nope. The actual title [look it up] is a bit misleading, since it
had relatively little to say about speciation. But we've learned
a lot about since then. Why are you stuck on this 1859 book?
Not much has changed since he wrote his book.
Tell me something: why, exactly, do so many of you theist types seem to be
compelled to lie through your teeth?
You answered your own question, with the word after "you".
Because they can't admit to themselves that what they insist on
telling us is so much *****.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Exposing the Fairy Tale for Grownups |
08 Jun 2007 02:48:41 PM |
|
|
In article <f4camt$jnt$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu> "mel turner" <mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> writes:
top-posting fixed.
And we appreciate that.
"Art Bulla" <art@artbulla.com> wrote in message
{...}
Orgin of the species--i.e. man, you fool.
Nope. The actual title [look it up] is a bit misleading, since it
had relatively little to say about speciation. But we've learned
a lot about since then. Why are you stuck on this 1859 book?
It was and is an attempt to explain the origin of man and all life without
God, and that is exactly what it is.
Ol' Art doesn't even seem to know that it's "The Descent of Man and
Selection in Relation to Sex" that he should be getting his robes
in an uproar about.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "skyeyes" |
|
| Title: Re: Exposing the Fairy Tale for Grownups |
07 Jun 2007 03:31:29 PM |
|
|
On Jun 6, 6:22 pm, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:40:04 +0000, Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <o2phj4-8j3....@spanky.localhost.net> Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarna...@gmail.com> writes:
[snips]
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 18:57:04 -0700, Art Bulla wrote:
Life from Nonlife?
This poses a dilemma for the theory of natural evolution
Actually it doesn't, as evolution doesn't even address the origins of
life, but never let a fact stand in the way of a good lie, right?
And of course it is intellectually possible to believe that
god created life, and then let evolution take over
from there. In fact, one of our more prominent
contemporary paleontologitsts, Simon Conway Morris
(of Burgess Shale fame) believes precisely that.
Since evolution doesn't address origins, as far as anything *evolution*
has to say on the matter, life could have been sneezed into existence by
the Great Green Arkleseizure. Evolution simply does not deal with origins.
Why these funnymentalist types cannot grasp this...
It's because they're programmed to spit out propaganda, not taught how
to think or reason. (I used to be one of them.) They are taught
canned arguments, most of which were thunk up 60+ years ago, and have
no way of working in new information. They are taught to structure a
conversation in such a way as to elicit certain questions, to which
they provide these pre-programmed answers. If you ask questions they
are not programmed to answer, they simply repeat the same material
again and again.
Brenda "Ex Fundy Born-Again" Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: Exposing the Fairy Tale for Grownups |
07 Jun 2007 08:36:09 PM |
|
|
[snips]
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 13:31:29 -0700, skyeyes wrote:
Why these funnymentalist types cannot grasp this...
It's because they're programmed to spit out propaganda, not taught how
to think or reason. (I used to be one of them.)
So how were you cured? Maybe we could duplicate it elsewhere...
They are taught
canned arguments, most of which were thunk up 60+ years ago, and have
no way of working in new information.
Considering that their primary reference is 2,000 years out of date, this
is not terribly surprising. :)
Brenda "Ex Fundy Born-Again" Nelson, A.A.#34 EAC Professor of Feline
Thermometrics and Cat-Herding skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
"Dedicated to the study of cat bathing as a martial art." :)
--
Don’t leave in a huff. Let me call you a garbage truck.
.
|
|
|
| User: "skyeyes" |
|
| Title: Re: Exposing the Fairy Tale for Grownups |
08 Jun 2007 12:56:14 PM |
|
|
On Jun 7, 6:36 pm, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snips]
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 13:31:29 -0700, skyeyes wrote:
Why these funnymentalist types cannot grasp this...
It's because they're programmed to spit out propaganda, not taught how
to think or reason. (I used to be one of them.)
So how were you cured? Maybe we could duplicate it elsewhere...
I was in an odd position: I was heavily involved in Christian
fundamentalism, but at the same time was expected to get a proper
education and make good grades. This was back in the day when gifted
students actually got to take accelerated courses; in high school, I
ended up in a college biology class. My bio teacher's attitude was
"Believe whatever you like. Just learn the material I teach. Then,
if you want to believe in creation, hey, that's fine with me." (Like
I said, this was a *long* time ago.)
So I learned the material and got straight A's in biology. A year or
so later I was a freshman at the University of Arizona, taking
zoology. About the time I completed my first semester of work there,
I woke up one day and realized that evolution was a fact, and that the
creationist propaganda I had been spoon-fed was a crock.
Then I took a philosophy class. It was the beginning of the end for
the Christian fundamentalism, pretty much. <wink>
So the short answer would be: I got a good secular education and it
opened my eyes.
They are taught
canned arguments, most of which were thunk up 60+ years ago, and have
no way of working in new information.
Considering that their primary reference is 2,000 years out of date, this
is not terribly surprising. :)
Well, these people actually don't *like* to think, and they don't know
how to do it. Their tradition inclines them toward accepting
authoritative statements. They have a body of work - some of it
pseudo-scientific statements that are terribly out of date, some of it
little made-up "just-so" stories - and they don't know how to modify
it. Of course, it's impossible to modify their pat arguments to
refute scientific data, because it can't. So they just talk louder.
It amazes me that they're still coming up with the same goofy
arguments they filled my head with back int he 1960s.
"Dedicated to the study of cat bathing as a martial art." :)
Oh how true. I recently had to bathe my big formerly-feral male puddy
tat. I'm still recovering from the experience, with the help of a
prescription for Augmentin. ;->
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: Exposing the Fairy Tale for Grownups |
08 Jun 2007 08:30:02 PM |
|
|
[snips]
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 10:56:14 -0700, skyeyes wrote:
So the short answer would be: I got a good secular education and it
opened my eyes.
Not something we can really apply, then, as most of these folks seem proof
against any form of education.
Well, these people actually don't *like* to think, and they don't know
how to do it. Their tradition inclines them toward accepting
authoritative statements.
Sigh... tell me about it. Gish the respectable. Morris the reference.
Mcdowell the thinker. It makes one want to cry.
"Dedicated to the study of cat bathing as a martial art." :)
Oh how true. I recently had to bathe my big formerly-feral male puddy
tat. I'm still recovering from the experience, with the help of a
prescription for Augmentin. ;->
Cats... the universe's way of reminding us we are, in fact, mere humans. :)
--
It's rather like having Freedie Kruger babysit children. Or asking
Pee Wee Herman to teach human sexuality. Or asking Jim Bakker to be
treasurer of the United States. Or asking Jim Jones to look over the
refreshments. - Fredric Rice
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher Morris" |
|
| Title: Re: Exposing the Fairy Tale for Grownups |
09 Jun 2007 04:42:40 AM |
|
|
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:r1cpj4-ugf.ln1@spanky.localhost.net...
[snips]
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 10:56:14 -0700, skyeyes wrote:
So the short answer would be: I got a good secular education and it
opened my eyes.
Not something we can really apply, then, as most of these folks seem proof
against any form of education.
Well, these people actually don't *like* to think, and they don't know
how to do it. Their tradition inclines them toward accepting
authoritative statements.
Sigh... tell me about it. Gish the respectable. Morris the reference.
Mcdowell the thinker. It makes one want to cry.
It is times like this that make we wish the Christians took more after their
Spiritual Ancestors the Jews who both value education and debate as well as
thought.
"Dedicated to the study of cat bathing as a martial art." :)
Oh how true. I recently had to bathe my big formerly-feral male puddy
tat. I'm still recovering from the experience, with the help of a
prescription for Augmentin. ;->
Cats... the universe's way of reminding us we are, in fact, mere humans.
:)
Let us not forget four thousand years ago cats were worshipped as gods in
Eygpt and they have not let us forget it since. In fact my two insist they
still should be worshipped as gods.
--
It's rather like having Freedie Kruger babysit children. Or asking
Pee Wee Herman to teach human sexuality. Or asking Jim Bakker to be
treasurer of the United States. Or asking Jim Jones to look over the
refreshments. - Fredric Rice
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Art Bulla" |
|
| Title: Re: Exposing the Fairy Tale for Grownups |
07 Jun 2007 03:27:44 PM |
|
|
That point was already made, if not in the article I posted, in the book the
author (Kenneth Poppe) wrote. That is fine philosophy, however, but there
is just one problem with it. It is just not true. I have been revealed
from an infallible source exactly how and when it took place.
"I have had many revelations; I have seen and heard for myself, and know
these things are true, and nobody on earth can disprove them. The eye, the
ear, the hand, all the senses may be deceived, but the Spirit of God cannot
be deceived; and when inspired with that Spirit, the whole man is filled
with knowledge, he can see with a spiritual eye, and he knows that which is
beyond the power of man to controvert. What I know concerning God,
concerning the earth, concerning government, I have received from the
heavens, not alone through my natural ability, and I give God the glory and
the praise." (Brigham Young; JD 16:46)
FIRST VISION
While journeying on foot about 10:00 P.M. in the east, being inducted into
the armed forces the next day, being on the way to the bus station to travel
to the armed forces induction station in Raleigh, N.C, I, Art Bulla,
received the following vision, while on the road on foot:
December 29, 1969, while enwrapted in a heavenly vision, It seemed that I,
Art Bulla, was removed out of my body, or whether in the body or out of it I
could not tell, and I beheld his face, and He spake unto me face to face as
one man speaks unto another for forty-five minutes or an hour, and whether
in the body or out of it, I could not tell, for I beheld his glory, which
surpasses all understanding, and spake while in the vision, in a much better
tongue than any spoken by man at this time, which I supposed to be the
Adamic Tongue, my understanding being quickened by such might and
intelligence and power that it is beyond the mind of man unaided by the
Spirit of Revelation which dwells yet within me, to comprehend, and indeed
no words can convey, for it seemed that I was transfigured before Him of
whom I speak, my God in whom I bear record as others have before me, that He
lives, for I too have seen Him. And tongue cannot express his matchless
might, glory, power and intelligence, and I shall forever adore his glory,
for having once beheld his face and felt of his love and might and power and
beheld things which I cannot convey, for there is no language, I must, I
MUST obtain his presence, and I shall not be content with anything else,
this world or its allurements. And having been ordained unto the Holy Order
of God which is after the Order of Melchizedec, even the Holy Apostleship,
the keys of which I hold, I bear record of my Father, for I have seen Him
and conversed with him, and I testify that He shall return in this the
Latter Day as soon as my people are straightened from this crooked and
perverse generation which shall be destroyed by the might of his power, and
that they be gathered out according to the Revelations which are being given
unto me, almost daily at this time, which is one of the darkest periods and
most wicked because of unbelief in the history of the earth, that Zion may
descend and that the heavens and the earth mingle and become One, as prayed
by the Only Begotten, even my brother Jesus of Nazereth. Yea, my Father, I
pray that thy will be done and thy Kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven.
Even so. Amen.
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:f46rhk$t5m$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <o2phj4-8j3.ln1@spanky.localhost.net> Kelsey Bjarnason
<kbjarnason@gmail.com> writes:
[snips]
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 18:57:04 -0700, Art Bulla wrote:
Life from Nonlife?
This poses a dilemma for the theory of natural evolution
Actually it doesn't, as evolution doesn't even address the origins of
life, but never let a fact stand in the way of a good lie, right?
And of course it is intellectually possible to believe that
god created life, and then let evolution take over
from there. In fact, one of our more prominent
contemporary paleontologitsts, Simon Conway Morris
(of Burgess Shale fame) believes precisely that.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Exposing the Fairy Tale for Grownups |
07 Jun 2007 05:20:30 PM |
|
|
In article <5cr82fF329uj3U1@mid.individual.net> "Art Bulla" <art@artbulla.com> writes:
That point was already made, if not in the article I posted, in the book the
author (Kenneth Poppe) wrote. That is fine philosophy, however, but there
is just one problem with it. It is just not true. I have been revealed
from an infallible source exactly how and when it took place.
Infallible source, was it.
Well, I must hasten to burn all of my biology books immediately.
-- cary
"I have had many revelations; I have seen and heard for myself, and know
these things are true, and nobody on earth can disprove them. The eye, the
ear, the hand, all the senses may be deceived, but the Spirit of God cannot
be deceived; and when inspired with that Spirit, the whole man is filled
with knowledge, he can see with a spiritual eye, and he knows that which is
beyond the power of man to controvert. What I know concerning God,
concerning the earth, concerning government, I have received from the
heavens, not alone through my natural ability, and I give God the glory and
the praise." (Brigham Young; JD 16:46)
FIRST VISION
While journeying on foot about 10:00 P.M. in the east, being inducted into
the armed forces the next day, being on the way to the bus station to travel
to the armed forces induction station in Raleigh, N.C, I, Art Bulla,
received the following vision, while on the road on foot:
December 29, 1969, while enwrapted in a heavenly vision, It seemed that I,
Art Bulla, was removed out of my body, or whether in the body or out of it I
could not tell, and I beheld his face, and He spake unto me face to face as
one man speaks unto another for forty-five minutes or an hour, and whether
in the body or out of it, I could not tell, for I beheld his glory, which
surpasses all understanding, and spake while in the vision, in a much better
tongue than any spoken by man at this time, which I supposed to be the
Adamic Tongue, my understanding being quickened by such might and
intelligence and power that it is beyond the mind of man unaided by the
Spirit of Revelation which dwells yet within me, to comprehend, and indeed
no words can convey, for it seemed that I was transfigured before Him of
whom I speak, my God in whom I bear record as others have before me, that He
lives, for I too have seen Him. And tongue cannot express his matchless
might, glory, power and intelligence, and I shall forever adore his glory,
for having once beheld his face and felt of his love and might and power and
beheld things which I cannot convey, for there is no language, I must, I
MUST obtain his presence, and I shall not be content with anything else,
this world or its allurements. And having been ordained unto the Holy Order
of God which is after the Order of Melchizedec, even the Holy Apostleship,
the keys of which I hold, I bear record of my Father, for I have seen Him
and conversed with him, and I testify that He shall return in this the
Latter Day as soon as my people are straightened from this crooked and
perverse generation which shall be destroyed by the might of his power, and
that they be gathered out according to the Revelations which are being given
unto me, almost daily at this time, which is one of the darkest periods and
most wicked because of unbelief in the history of the earth, that Zion may
descend and that the heavens and the earth mingle and become One, as prayed
by the Only Begotten, even my brother Jesus of Nazereth. Yea, my Father, I
pray that thy will be done and thy Kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven.
Even so. Amen.
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:f46rhk$t5m$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <o2phj4-8j3.ln1@spanky.localhost.net> Kelsey Bjarnason
<kbjarnason@gmail.com> writes:
[snips]
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 18:57:04 -0700, Art Bulla wrote:
Life from Nonlife?
This poses a dilemma for the theory of natural evolution
Actually it doesn't, as evolution doesn't even address the origins of
life, but never let a fact stand in the way of a good lie, right?
And of course it is intellectually possible to believe that
god created life, and then let evolution take over
from there. In fact, one of our more prominent
contemporary paleontologitsts, Simon Conway Morris
(of Burgess Shale fame) believes precisely that.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Exposing the Fairy Tale for Grownups |
07 Jun 2007 04:22:34 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 13:27:44 -0700, "Art Bulla" <art@artbulla.com>
wrote:
Oh, and here I thought you were just an ordinary crank; I had no idea
you were a full-fledged delusional crackpot. Sorry for my
misapprehension!
FIRST VISION
While journeying on foot about 10:00 P.M. in the east, being inducted into
the armed forces the next day, being on the way to the bus station to travel
to the armed forces induction station in Raleigh, N.C, I, Art Bulla,
received the following vision, while on the road on foot:
December 29, 1969, while enwrapted in a heavenly vision, It seemed that I,
Art Bulla, was removed out of my body, or whether in the body or out of it I
could not tell, and I beheld his face, and He spake unto me face to face as
one man speaks unto another for forty-five minutes or an hour, and whether
in the body or out of it, I could not tell, for I beheld his glory, which
surpasses all understanding, and spake while in the vision, in a much better
tongue than any spoken by man at this time, which I supposed to be the
Adamic Tongue, my understanding being quickened by such might and
intelligence and power that it is beyond the mind of man unaided by the
Spirit of Revelation which dwells yet within me, to comprehend, and indeed
no words can convey, for it seemed that I was transfigured before Him of
whom I speak, my God in whom I bear record as others have before me, that He
lives, for I too have seen Him. And tongue cannot express his matchless
might, glory, power and intelligence, and I shall forever adore his glory,
for having once beheld his face and felt of his love and might and power and
beheld things which I cannot convey, for there is no language, I must, I
MUST obtain his presence, and I shall not be content with anything else,
this world or its allurements. And having been ordained unto the Holy Order
of God which is after the Order of Melchizedec, even the Holy Apostleship,
the keys of which I hold, I bear record of my Father, for I have seen Him
and conversed with him, and I testify that He shall return in this the
Latter Day as soon as my people are straightened from this crooked and
perverse generation which shall be destroyed by the might of his power, and
that they be gathered out according to the Revelations which are being given
unto me, almost daily at this time, which is one of the darkest periods and
most wicked because of unbelief in the history of the earth, that Zion may
descend and that the heavens and the earth mingle and become One, as prayed
by the Only Begotten, even my brother Jesus of Nazereth. Yea, my Father, I
pray that thy will be done and thy Kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven.
Even so. Amen.
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
.
|
|
|
|
|
