| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"IKnowHimDoYou" |
| Date: |
10 Jan 2004 11:41:04 AM |
| Object: |
Facts & Interpretations |
Facts & Interpretations
Anyone can look at the fossils, the oceans, the mountains, DNA, even life
itself and say these exist and therefore are facts. No reasoning person
would dispute that these are facts(some dimbulbs might but we are not
addressing them here). So what is the dispute all about over these
facts? The difference is in preception of these facts and their
interpretations for meaning. As an example of how some can view a simple
experiment :
A university laboratory was given a grant to study fleas. They were to
determine what caused a flea to jump. The experiment was to remove the
fleas legs and see if it could still jump. The PhD in charge pulled off
two legs and said "flea jump" and the flea jumped. The PhD pulled off two
more legs and said "flea jump" and the flea jumped. The last two legs
were pulled off and the command repeated. Nothing happened, the flea just
layed there.
The conclusion of the PhD was "when the legs of a flea are pulled off the
flea becomes deaf!"
The facts were stated but the interpretation of those facts were in error
most people would say.
Now the evolutionary religionists would find the PhD 's interpretation
just fine and would even rise to defend it wouldn't they?
.
|
|
| User: "R Brown" |
|
| Title: Re: Facts & Interpretations |
10 Jan 2004 11:43:34 AM |
|
|
"IKnowHimDoYou" <IKnowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IKnowHim-1001040941040001@pm3-17.kalama.com...
Facts & Interpretations
Anyone can look at the fossils, the oceans, the mountains, DNA, even life
itself and say these exist and therefore are facts. No reasoning person
would dispute that these are facts(some dimbulbs might but we are not
addressing them here). So what is the dispute all about over these
facts? The difference is in preception of these facts and their
interpretations for meaning. As an example of how some can view a simple
experiment :
A university laboratory was given a grant to study fleas. They were to
determine what caused a flea to jump. The experiment was to remove the
fleas legs and see if it could still jump. The PhD in charge pulled off
two legs and said "flea jump" and the flea jumped. The PhD pulled off two
more legs and said "flea jump" and the flea jumped. The last two legs
were pulled off and the command repeated. Nothing happened, the flea just
layed there.
The conclusion of the PhD was "when the legs of a flea are pulled off the
flea becomes deaf!"
The facts were stated but the interpretation of those facts were in error
most people would say.
Now the evolutionary religionists would find the PhD 's interpretation
just fine and would even rise to defend it wouldn't they?
Getting desperate?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Masked Avenger" |
|
| Title: Re: Facts & Interpretations |
12 Jan 2004 03:05:53 AM |
|
|
"IKnowHimDoYou" <IKnowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IKnowHim-1001040941040001@pm3-17.kalama.com...
Facts & Interpretations
Anyone can look at the fossils, the oceans, the mountains, DNA, even life
itself and say these exist and therefore are facts. No reasoning person
would dispute that these are facts(some dimbulbs might but we are not
addressing them here). So what is the dispute all about over these
facts? The difference is in preception of these facts and their
interpretations for meaning. As an example of how some can view a simple
experiment :
A university laboratory was given a grant to study fleas. They were to
determine what caused a flea to jump. The experiment was to remove the
fleas legs and see if it could still jump. The PhD in charge pulled off
two legs and said "flea jump" and the flea jumped. The PhD pulled off two
more legs and said "flea jump" and the flea jumped. The last two legs
were pulled off and the command repeated. Nothing happened, the flea just
layed there.
The conclusion of the PhD was "when the legs of a flea are pulled off the
flea becomes deaf!"
The facts were stated but the interpretation of those facts were in error
most people would say.
Now the evolutionary religionists would find the PhD 's interpretation
just fine and would even rise to defend it wouldn't they?
Now that IS a joke.............. a very old one at that.
Here's how you tell............fleas ( or any other insects ! ) can't be
taught to follow instructions from people you moron. When was the last time
you could command the mosquitoes to stop biting ?
The fact that you could misconstrue or twist this into a critique of
evolution is mind bogglingly cretinous !
I think even Jason would disown this guy......
--
MA yoiks....and away !
Does Schrödinger's cat have 18 half lives ?
Anti-Spam : remove underscore to contact me
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Facts & Interpretations |
10 Jan 2004 05:53:00 PM |
|
|
"IKnowHimDoYou" <IKnowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IKnowHim-1001040941040001@pm3-17.kalama.com...
Facts & Interpretations
Anyone can look at the fossils, the oceans, the mountains, DNA, even life
itself and say these exist and therefore are facts. No reasoning person
would dispute that these are facts(some dimbulbs might but we are not
addressing them here). So what is the dispute all about over these
facts? The difference is in preception of these facts and their
interpretations for meaning. As an example of how some can view a simple
experiment :
A university laboratory was given a grant to study fleas. They were to
determine what caused a flea to jump. The experiment was to remove the
fleas legs and see if it could still jump. The PhD in charge pulled off
two legs and said "flea jump" and the flea jumped. The PhD pulled off two
more legs and said "flea jump" and the flea jumped. The last two legs
were pulled off and the command repeated. Nothing happened, the flea just
layed there.
The conclusion of the PhD was "when the legs of a flea are pulled off the
flea becomes deaf!"
That's not a conclusion. That's a hypothesis. At this point in the
scientific method, we use the hypothesis to make predictions and plan
observations. If the creature is deaf without its legs, then we could
predict that it would not show a reaction with its remaining body parts,
such as mandibles or nervous system, to auditory stimuli. By this process we
could isolate the organ(s) required for hearing.
With spiders, for instance, they do indeed react to auditory stimuli.
Observation shows that spiders "hear" vibrations, and that their legs are
involved in sensing these vibrations.
BRITANNICA (requires subscription for full article)
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=117501&tocid=64797&query=lamellae&ct=eb
"The tarsus (the last segment, or foot) evidently plays an important part in
responses to sounds. Removal of portions of the tarsus reduces the responses
about in proportion to the amount removed; immobilization of the tarsus
greatly impairs the sensitivity. It appears, therefore, that the tarsus
serves as a sensing element that transmits vibrations to the lyriform organ,
which thus is a velocity type of ear."
You have confused a conclusion with an hypothesis.
The facts were stated but the interpretation of those facts were in error
most people would say.
Now the evolutionary religionists would find the PhD 's interpretation
just fine and would even rise to defend it wouldn't they?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Blow" |
|
| Title: Re: Facts & Interpretations |
10 Jan 2004 06:32:04 PM |
|
|
(IKnowHimDoYou) wrote in message news:<IKnowHim-1001040941040001@pm3-17.kalama.com>...
Facts & Interpretations
Anyone can look at the fossils, the oceans, the mountains, DNA, even life
itself and say these exist and therefore are facts. No reasoning person
would dispute that these are facts(some dimbulbs might but we are not
addressing them here). So what is the dispute all about over these
facts? The difference is in preception of these facts and their
interpretations for meaning. As an example of how some can view a simple
experiment :
A university laboratory was given a grant to study fleas. They were to
determine what caused a flea to jump. The experiment was to remove the
fleas legs and see if it could still jump. The PhD in charge pulled off
two legs and said "flea jump" and the flea jumped. The PhD pulled off two
more legs and said "flea jump" and the flea jumped. The last two legs
were pulled off and the command repeated. Nothing happened, the flea just
layed there.
The conclusion of the PhD was "when the legs of a flea are pulled off the
flea becomes deaf!"
Was this Jason's thesis?
Joe
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thore Schmechtig" |
|
| Title: Re: Facts & Interpretations |
11 Jan 2004 05:35:00 AM |
|
|
Now the evolutionary religionists would find the PhD 's interpretation
just fine and would even rise to defend it wouldn't they?
Of course they won't - how could they, given that they don't exist at
all?
And again I-know-***** shows that his skull contains just as perfect a
vacuum as that of inter-galactic space. The absolutely idiotic
comparison he drew fits the mental (in-)capacity of one who isn't even
able to calculate 12 - 9.
UNWRITTEN RULES OF FUNDAMENTALISM
1. "I'm right and you are wrong".
2. Never admit that you are wrong, even if you really are.
3. When you have nothing to say, hurl insults.
4. Regard and portray your own violence, whether physical,
psychological,
or verbal, at all times as defensive
5. Be prepared at all times to lie and bluster, particularly when backed
into a corner in an argument
6. Never accept responsibility for any mess you have personally caused.
7. When you are forced to admit to an error, regard the whole process of
error and correction as part of God's personal plan for you and not as a
something for which you should apologise retract or make amends except
verbally and secretly to God himself
8. Always see yourself and you personal actions as part of God's plans
for
the world. Recognise that even your errors are just part of Gods will
for
the betterment of mankind.
9.Profess humility but avoid the actual experience of it.
10.Refuse to take in information that differs from your own view and
oppose all such information through classification of such information
in
a derogatory and simplistic manner(eg by categorising it as left wing
propaganda)
11.Refuse to accept that truth is not black and white; that reality is
complex and there are shades of grey
12.Refuse to forgive anyone else for anything unless you purport to
forgive on behalf of other people unconnected with you for whom you
don't
have that right anyhow.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The_Sage" |
|
| Title: Re: Facts & Interpretations |
10 Jan 2004 11:13:26 PM |
|
|
Reply to article by: (IKnowHimDoYou)
Date written: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 09:41:04 -0800
MsgID:<IKnowHim-1001040941040001@pm3-17.kalama.com>
Facts & Interpretations
Anyone can look at the fossils, the oceans, the mountains, DNA, even life
itself and say these exist and therefore are facts. No reasoning person
would dispute that these are facts(some dimbulbs might but we are not
addressing them here).
On the other hand, anyone can look anywhere in the world or out in space and see
no God, no angels, no Jesus, and no Satan. No reasoning person would dispute
these are not facts but wishful thinking (some dimbulbs might but we are not
addressing them here...or are we?).
So what is the dispute all about over these
facts? The difference is in preception of these facts and their
interpretations for meaning. As an example of how some can view a simple
experiment :
A university laboratory was given a grant to study fleas. They were to
determine what caused a flea to jump. The experiment was to remove the
fleas legs and see if it could still jump. The PhD in charge pulled off
two legs and said "flea jump" and the flea jumped. The PhD pulled off two
more legs and said "flea jump" and the flea jumped. The last two legs
were pulled off and the command repeated. Nothing happened, the flea just
layed there.
The conclusion of the PhD was "when the legs of a flea are pulled off the
flea becomes deaf!"
The facts were stated but the interpretation of those facts were in error
most people would say.
Now the evolutionary religionists would find the PhD 's interpretation
just fine and would even rise to defend it wouldn't they?
No, they would laugh at you for confusing an obvious joke for a real life
experiment! Your credibility is at an all time low! Haha!
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage
"Little minds are interested in the extraordinary; great
minds in the commonplace"
-- Elbert Hubbard, ROYCROFT DICTIONARY AND BOOK OF EPIGRAMS
=============================================================
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elmer Bataitis" |
|
| Title: Re: Facts & Interpretations |
10 Jan 2004 12:42:23 PM |
|
|
IKnowNothingDoYou wrote:
Facts & Interpretations
Anyone can look at the fossils, the oceans, the mountains, DNA, even life
itself and say these exist and therefore are facts. No reasoning person
would dispute that these are facts (some dimbulbs might but we are not
addressing them here). So what is the dispute all about over these
facts? The difference is in preception of these facts and their
interpretations for meaning. As an example of how some can view a simple
experiment :
A university laboratory was given a grant to study fleas. They were to
determine what caused a flea to jump. The experiment was to remove the
fleas legs and see if it could still jump. The PhD in charge pulled off
two legs and said "flea jump" and the flea jumped. The PhD pulled off two
more legs and said "flea jump" and the flea jumped. The last two legs
were pulled off and the command repeated. Nothing happened, the flea just
layed there.
The conclusion of the PhD was "when the legs of a flea are pulled off the
flea becomes deaf!"
Great. If this were true, you'd give us the citation to the research.
But you don't. I searched PubMed and found these:
Cadiergues MC, Joubert C, Franc M. A comparison of jump performances of
the dog flea, Ctenocephalides canis (Curtis, 1826) and the cat flea,
Ctenocephalides felis felis (Bouche, 1835). Vet Parasitol. 2000 Oct
1;92(3):239-41.
Brackenbury J, Wang R.Ballistics and visual targeting in flea-beetles
(Alticinae) J Exp Biol. 1995;198(Pt 9):1931-42.
Rothschild M, Schlein J, Parker K, Neville C, Sternberg S. The jumping
mechanism of Xenopsylla cheopis. III. Execution of the jump and
activity. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1975 Oct
30;271(914):499-515.
Cullen MJ.The jumping mechanism of Xenopsylla cheopis. II. The fine
structure of the jumping muscle. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci.
1975 Oct 30;271(914):491-7.
Bennet-Clark HC, Lucey EC.The jump of the flea: a study of the
energetics and a model of the mechanism. J Exp Biol. 1967
Aug;47(1):59-67.
Hmmm, nothing like what you claim. Why am I not surprised?
The facts were stated but the interpretation of those facts were in error
most people would say.
Now the evolutionary religionists would find the PhD 's interpretation
just fine and would even rise to defend it wouldn't they?
The stupidity and untruthfulness of your claims is getting worse and worse.
***************************************************************
Elmer Bataitis “Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!”
Planetech Services -Hobbes
585-442-2884
"...proudly wearing and displaying, as a badge of honor, the
straight jacket of conventional thought."
***************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "oz" |
|
| Title: Re: Facts & Interpretations |
13 Jan 2004 03:49:35 PM |
|
|
In article <IKnowHim-1001040941040001@pm3-17.kalama.com>,
IKnowHim@leavingsoon.com (IKnowHimDoYou) wrote:
Facts & Interpretations
Anyone can look at the fossils, the oceans, the mountains, DNA, even life
itself and say these exist and therefore are facts. No reasoning person
would dispute that these are facts(some dimbulbs might but we are not
addressing them here). So what is the dispute all about over these
facts? The difference is in preception of these facts and their
interpretations for meaning. As an example of how some can view a simple
experiment :
The real scientific dispute is whether there is any point in arguing with
a pathetically ignorant person such as yourself who has less knowledge
than a hillbilly.
My personal view is that time is long since come when the Churches should
distance themselves en masse from these silly bastards and kick the bums
out of their churches as the Antichrist in their midst
Churches need to do a house cleansing of the idiots in their midst. and
then to drastically reform their theology to protect their religion from
the re-entry of idiocy through the same doors that they previously opened
to kick the bums out!
You have turned our Fathers house into a den of liars! Fetch the whip someone!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Raymond E. Griffith" |
|
| Title: Re: Facts & Interpretations |
10 Jan 2004 06:08:41 PM |
|
|
in article IKnowHim-1001040941040001@pm3-17.kalama.com, IKnowHimDoYou at
IKnowHim@leavingsoon.com wrote on 1/10/04 12:41 PM:
Facts & Interpretations
Anyone can look at the fossils, the oceans, the mountains, DNA, even life
itself and say these exist and therefore are facts. No reasoning person
would dispute that these are facts(some dimbulbs might but we are not
addressing them here). So what is the dispute all about over these
facts? The difference is in preception of these facts and their
interpretations for meaning. As an example of how some can view a simple
experiment :
A university laboratory was given a grant to study fleas. They were to
determine what caused a flea to jump. The experiment was to remove the
fleas legs and see if it could still jump. The PhD in charge pulled off
two legs and said "flea jump" and the flea jumped. The PhD pulled off two
more legs and said "flea jump" and the flea jumped. The last two legs
were pulled off and the command repeated. Nothing happened, the flea just
layed there.
The conclusion of the PhD was "when the legs of a flea are pulled off the
flea becomes deaf!"
The facts were stated but the interpretation of those facts were in error
most people would say.
Now the evolutionary religionists would find the PhD 's interpretation
just fine and would even rise to defend it wouldn't they?
Great joke. But a villainous libel at the end. Scientists know the
difference, and no person of any intelligence, scientist or no, would rise
to defend such a thing.
IKHDY, you are no Christian. You are a liar -- a nasty piece of work
dedicated to making Christianity odious to every thinking person. If it is
your intent to make sure that no scientist receives the gospel, then you are
doing what you intend to do. But God will judge you and your cadre. You,
like those of Matthew 7, will be surprised when Christ says, "Depart from me
you worker of iniquity, for I never knew you."
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
