| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Timothy Sutter" |
| Date: |
07 Aug 2003 04:32:36 PM |
| Object: |
Re: creating offices and titles |
i can use any indigenous utterence without
suggesting that a local people's private
understanding of -that- particular utterence
is the ideation which i am seeking to elicit,
much the same way as when the Apostle Paul
approached the pedestal; "to the unknown God"
which was in Athens in a place called
"the areopagous" [see the whole bit 'acts 17']
----------
Acts 17:23
for as I was passing through and considering
the objects of your worship, I even found an
altar with this inscription: TO THE UNKNOWN GOD.
Therefore, the One whom you worship without
knowing, Him I proclaim to you:
-----------
he's basically agreeing with them that they
knew they didn't know something and proceeds
to tell them what he knows about what
they don't know.
and so, i can use "Wahiguru' in a figure
which speaks of YHWH and -not- be suggesting
to anyone that some indigenous population's
private understanding of "Wahiguru" -is-
identically YHWH.
Acts 19:15-16
And the evil spirit answered and said,
"Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who
are you?" Then the man, in whom the evil
spirit was, leaped on them, overpowered
them, and prevailed against them, so that
they fled out of that house naked and wounded.
but see, there is some difference between
knowing of God, being known by God and
mouthing words.
we don't do hocus pocus
we don't walk up to a mountain
and tell it to move and -our-
_words_ lift the mountain away.
no, we come to an agreement with God.
and God works wonders in our midst.
when we speak to God thru
Jesus Christ, we know to
whom we speak.
for instance, if we make a request
thru Jesus Christ, we know who we
are asking, and from whom to
expect an answer.
this specificity of knowledgeable
understanding is -your- safeguard
against being come upon by forces
which may -not- have your best
interest as 'their' interest.
we come to that point where we are
led by God and our doings are in
line with our wants and wishes,
chiefly, the want and wish to be
in agreement with God.
funny thing is, a small "amount"
of Faith is a great and wonderful
thing and no Faith is nothing at all.
so you need not ask;
"how -much- Faith will move this mountain?"
but you may begin to ask;
"where is my assurance that my
wants are in line with my desire
to be in agreement with God?"
so, you come to Christ and reckon
together why this mountain is there
in the first place.
is it to your advantage to be there
even if it seems to block your way?
who would care? who would know?
blind force cannot care and can not know.
but what is Faith and how does one 'get' Faith?
if we suggest that Faith is the confident
assurance that God will act on behalf of
human beings using the name and title
of Jesus Christ as intermediary,
and that Faith is the titled possession
of Christ by virtue of Jesus' unique
identification with God,
we 'get' Faith as we take possession of
God's Gift to humanity thru Jesus Christ.
that is, we 'see' Faith when we
'see' Jesus, but we make Faith
our own as we walk in agreement
with God, thru Jesus Christ,
and that confident assurance that
Jesus had, becomes our possession.
that confident assurance was given to
humanity in the person of Jesus Christ,
and Jesus Christ gives the same to you
as his reconciling gift to God.
and now, when you speak to God
you will have that same confident
assurance that God hears you
as Christ has.
and you will see the evidence
of God's actions on your behalf.
don't be alarmed if some of God's
actions on your behalf is in
tidying up your agreement with,
and understanding of, God, and,
-your- speech begins to change,
and -your- words no longer bring
condemnation on your own head,
but, instead, reflect your
agreement with God.
feeding -your- Faith,
from God to you to God.
.
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: creating offices and titles |
07 Aug 2003 05:06:51 PM |
|
|
some bits about "the Sinai compact"
Sinai was a formal written contract
between God and a peculiar people.
this in itself is unique among
the world's "religious" practices.
never before was there such an actual
"bond" or "ligation" between God and man.
and this bonding came from the other side.
that is, _God_ initiated the Sinai Covenant
and the subsequent full redemption
of mankind thru Christ.
there is no other thing like it anywhere.
God asked for -and- provided the Lamb.
God initiated a covenant of circumcision with Abraham.
unique in all the world.
God explained the circumcision of the heart to Moses.
unique in all the world.
God gave the Holy Spirit to man thru Christ
sealing the covenant of Promise made to Abraham
which -is- a circumcision of the heart and the
vital inscription of God's own manner upon
man thru divine declaration and indwellimg.
taking the contract away from an 'outside looking in'
view of God from afar on tablets of stone and speaking
from behind a veil to an 'inside working out' view of God
inscribed in and on man's own psyche.
unique in all the world.
there is no other.
give one example of a humanly devised "religion"
where "God" is born into a human form for the
sole purpose of shedding blood in a sacrificial
atonement for human beings.
we must disqualify any religion that you,
or a friend of yours, simply make up
today or in the last ~2000 years as
the result of "christian" influence.
so, simply show me a religion where
the "messianic" figure is crucified.
if you cannot, then you make a de facto
admission that "christianity" is unique
in all the world and therefore -not-
a human invention, by your own criterion.
a criterion that claims,
"sameness" means human invention.
unless you can demonstrate that the converse,
'uniqueness means not humanly devised' doesn't hold.
simply put, you will -not- find any
other "religion" where the "messianic"
figure is crucified.
so, the only thing you can do now is
to claim that uniqueness does not
necessarily mean God inspired.
but, your claim that sameness means
human invention is disposed of by
the Crucified Christ.
there is no other.
mind you, if the converse is removed,
the criterion basically loses
its effect entirely.
that is, if one goes and says;
"sameness means human invention"
and then also claims;
"uniqueness means human invention"
the criterion of, let's call it,
"democratized popularity"
takes on the glow of just another
meaningless sleight with zero support.
that is, if the converse is removed, then
sameness and uniqueness has little or no
bearing on whether a "religion" can be
said to be humanly devised or a
direct revelation from God.
trouble is, we know the God of whom we speak.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: creating offices and titles |
07 Aug 2003 05:08:49 PM |
|
|
that Sinai contract seems so alien.
with this special reverence
for pure monogamous marriage.
what group of warlord figures would
suggest that a man take one wife
and never take another?
when historically amongst human beings,
women were considered the booty
of military conquest.
a slavedriver would never give anyone any days off.
so, how can anyone suggest that YHWH
is an ancient warlord archetype when
he institutes some hairbrained idea
like pure monogamous marriage,
and days off from toil?
what slavedriver, or plain old human being,
for that matter, would mandate interest free
loans for and between members of the society?
why only ask 10 measely percent
of any increase as a tax?
[not that the tithe was a tax]
only 99.94% of the population that found
itself affiliated with this contract
rejected it outright and never lived it.
what human being -would- invent such a standard?
only to watch that thing which is the sole
identifying signature of the population
be dashed bashed and discreditted
over and over again?
mandatory rest days, from a warlord figure?
monogamous marriage, from a warlord?
interest free loans from a warlord?
not likely.
and there's other stuff like that.
Leviticus 25:35-38
"If one of your brethren becomes poor, and falls
into poverty among you, then you shall help him,
like a stranger or a sojourner, that he may live
with you. Take no usury or interest from him;
but fear your God, that your brother may live with you.
You shall not lend him your money for usury, nor
lend him your food at a profit. I am YHWH your God,
who brought you out of the land of Egypt,
to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God.
Exodus 22:25-26
"If you lend money to one of my people among you
who is needy, do not be like a moneylender; charge
him no interest. If you take your neighbor's cloak
as a pledge, return it to him by sunset,
at any rate, no offense, but have you looked
at the interest rates associated with
credit card debt?
it's usurious.
not that anyone's asking -you- people
to offer up loans free of interest,
but usury still ain't too kosher.
yeah, and human beings invented this sort of standard.
power mad control freak human beings
invented -this- sort of standard?
and all this talk about "love" what
warlord figure would institute
crazy things like that?
yeah right, Alexander conquers the plain
and then looks around and starts rambling
on about "love"
that dude drank himself into an early grave
after he had no more battles to fight and
his generals divided up the conquest.
-that's- the more likely human application.
which is funny, i would never say this,
but some might look at the "Law" and suggest
that .....well, that a bunch of women made it up.
but this is highly unlikely.
not in those days.
not even now.
but even 'greece' is tainted by
the existance of Israel as a people.
and who knows who the Dorians
who invaded greece from the North were?
scattered national Israel more than likely.
i mean, it's off that people should
villify YHWH as hyper-masculine and
super-patriarchal when there are these
very gentle statements about being
all nice and stuff.
Alexander turns into Mr. Rogers after he's finished.
not that fatherhood is such an ugly thing.
but Moses is never really looked
upon as some sort of warlord
figure anyway.
so, where they get that i don't know.
evidently becuz Saul replaced YHWH
as King of Israel and he was
a right bloody *****.
but he was the best Israel had to offer at the time.
seems to me, you can't get
away with calling YHWH a monster.
you -can- get away with calling
a lot of human beings monsters.
but human beings still can't even come
close to living _UP_ to that standard
set down at Sinai.
so they alter that Law to fit themselves better.
why would human beings have to alter a law
they made themselves to fit themselves better?
why would they have to -erode- the impact to make
this Law -less- forceful if they were progressing
from a primitive infancy to a more mature adulthood?
no compute.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: personality profiles? |
07 Aug 2003 05:12:56 PM |
|
|
the belief that an orange mash will taste
good is commonly referred to as one's "intuition"
sometimes, this belief may be based
on a prior similar experience
for instance, you've tasted orange mash before.
but still, in this particular case, you
haven't yet tasted that plate of orange mash.
and so, you have what is commonly called a
"preconcieved notion" of the taste
of the orange mash.
here's a little problem;
some have maintained that the conflicting
reports as to the characteristic attributes
of God draws all descriptions of
said God in to question.
that is, because there are variant descriptions
of God, -all- descriptions of God are of
a dubious nature.
much this problem stems from intuitive human ideas
-about- God based mainly on personal circumstances
and vantage point on their surroundings, coupled
with some notion that a "God" is responsible for these.
but consider this for instance;
consider this as you would a picture being
a two dimensional representation of three
dimensions, only it's a three dimensional
representation of zero dimensions.
you prepare a plate of broccoli, and in
three different rooms, you serve this
broccoli to three different people.
albeit, they never see you, the preparer.
one person says they didn't like
it at all. one person says it was
wonderful and, another person says
it needed a little salt.
the broccoli was identically prepared
and served. the only difference was
in the people eating the broccoli.
and now, they are asked to assess the
character of you, the preparer of the
brocolli, based on their opinions
of the brocolli.
none have ever met you, the preparer,
and only have had a plate of your brocolli.
conflicting reports of your character
are received from people who have
never met -you- at all.
if we say that the preparer of the brocolli is
-like- God and the brocolli represents empirical
sense perceptions and impressions derived from
their own personality structure,
none of -those- people had an actual experience
with and of God, but based an intuitive portrait
of God from their impressions of the physical
reality surrounding them and their own self
assessments, and personality structure, coupled
with some assurance that a "God" was
responsible for these.
fine, and then you have people who feel
the need to tamper with -these- people's
understanding of the preparer by suggesting
that the brocolli simply prepared itself.
but then people come along and say
that they have actually spoken
with the preparer.
Romans 8:16
The Spirit Himself bears witness with
our spirit that we are children of God,
and tell that the preparer has
left a form of forwarding address.
Matthew 11:27
All things have been delivered to Me by My Father,
and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does
anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one
to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.
Romans 10:9
that if you confess with your mouth the
Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that
God has raised Him from the dead,
you will be saved.
Romans 10:12-14
For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek,
for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call
upon Him. For "whoever calls on the name of YHWH "[Joel 2:32]"
shall be saved."
How then shall they call on Him in whom they have
not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of
whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear
without a preacher?
so, you basically have to hear that you
should call upon YHWH thru Jesus, who is
your Savior, and Jesus, your Savior, will
send witness to your spirit that you
are a child of God.
["Jesus" means "YHWH Saves"]
and -then- it's possible that your
particular take on Christ can be infused
into an overall portrait of The Almighty.
and that's sort of like this;
there's a concept called "resonance structures"
which concerns the structure of molecules.
Ephesians 2:20-22
having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets,
Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the
whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple
in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for
a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: basic stuff |
07 Aug 2003 08:28:23 PM |
|
|
so, you have your little atom,
and you see it like a spring.
just like a little slinky.
the slinky is wah-wah-ing back and forth.
the wah-wah-ing is what's
giving you time space
and temperature.
that is, the vibrational qualities
of the spring carry the attributes
of time space and temperature.
now, you claim you'd like to visit
a 'place' where the spring is compressed
into a void of zero space.
fine, you crush the atomic spring
into an entirely different substance.
well, now that "stuff" has no spring qualities.
you can no longer cite springlike qualities
in regards to this -other- stuff with
any degree of certainty whatsever.
so, you can't speak of concepts like
"infinite heat content" and "infinite density"
with any reasonable understanding.
no, you have vanished those 'springlike'
qualities in favor of some -other-
set of qualities.
qualities that you can never fully realize
from within the constraints of
your "physical" reality.
that is, you have, first, provided the ultimate
necessity for a "substance" that has no 'physical'
reality and now you must divorce yourself from
making a 'physical' attribution upon this "stuff"
that has no springlike qualities.
you -can- convince yourself, quite readily,
that this "stuff" has no "beginning" but you
can not make this broad leap that the qualities
understood in the atomic reality apply, in any
fashion, to this "stuff" that has
no springlike qualities.
you can't even go so far as to suggest that
this "stuff" is "consumed" into becoming
the atomic material.
but you remain stuck citing
a "stuff" that isn't 'real'.
failing to do so it tantamount to lieing.
in crushing the spring out of the atom,
you have an entirely different
'pseudo-substance' to classify.
what you can not broadly assume is that
this 'pseudo-substance' has the springlike
attributes of time space and temperature
locked in a void "waiting" to burst forth.
you are not considering a loaded spring.
you are ceding 'substance' to the immaterial.
the heat content of the atomic stuff
is a function of vibrational factors
in the stuff. that is, vibrations induced
between the nucleus and the volume
of electronic density.
for all prtactical purposes,
the "heat" -is- the vibration.
and what you see is a vibration transfer
which is -called- a heat transfer because
the thing called "heat" is the observable
phenomenon and the inducing of vibrations
are not visible with the naked eye.
sort of like, if you heat a bowling ball
beyond its capacity to accept heat, it will explode.
in metals, the electronic density is more
fluid and this provides a cooling effect
and metals can accept more "heat" before
changing state and/or decomposing.
wood and other carbon materials have a
more fixed electronic structure and they
tend to burn or decompose at a much
lower content of heat.
now, this other stuff, that we would be
considering as non-atomic, due to the
collapse or, simply, non-existance of
the harmonic oscillations associated
with the nuclear/electronic volume vibrations,
cannot be said to have a capacity
to hold or maintain any "heat" at all.
that is, the whole concept of heat content
and temperature is entirely inapplicable to
this collapsed non-atomic "material" for the
simple fact that there is no oscillation
possible in which to generate
a capacity for heat.
so, it probably isn't correct to suggest
that this non-atomic stuff has a heat content
at all which it could pass on to the atomic
stuff upon the atomic stuff's first arrival.
that is, you can't say, the non-atomic stuff
held 10 trillion joules of heat which it
passed off to the atomic stuff which then
preceded to cool due to spacial dispersion.
it's as if the heat appeared in a simultaneous
manner as the atomic stuff seemed to appear,
in an instance, from nowhere.
before the beginning,
no vibrations, no heat
and no atomic matter.
after the beginning,
vibrations heat and space.
the beginning being the beginning of
the time associated with the mechanical
vibrations of the atomic stuff.
one could even suggest that events occurred
before the beginning, only there was no mechanical
vibrations associated with these events,
and so, no time ticked off any clock.
and one other thing;
essentially, there's only a single
variety of this non-atomic stuff.
there aren't 98 distinct elements
with nuclear isotopes and all that,
there's just a non-atomic element,
that has no nucleus and no volumes
of electronic probability
can't even rightly point at that
'stuff' and say, "there it is"
you could call it the substance that is Faith.
and God uses this same substance
to fashion human beings in God's image.
and a whole lot of other stuff as well.
by Faith, God sees you as holy and
without blame before God in love,
Jesus' Life can help you agree with this assessment.
for all practical purposes,
the "heat" -is- the vibration.
same sort of concept applies in the nuclear blob.
vibrations are vibrations.
just that this other "stuff," which
is non-atomic, has no mechanical vibrations.
no heat
no time
but see look,
you could convince yourself that superconductors
of electricity surround the nuclei with some
sort of buffer zone whereby the proton/electron
oscillation is muffled to such an extent that
no heat exchange is experienced and the
electrons wander about as if the nuclei
isn't even there.
that is, the electronic configuration
passes and loses no "heat" to the nuclei.
where the nuclei's capacity to absorb
heat is a function of its own little
vibrational world.
and it still seems that all of this
vibrational oscillating would be null
within the collapsed 'pseudo substance'
and therefore, no heat capacity.
so, you still can't cite a 'metastability'
that 'caused' a tear in the fabric and
_accidentally_ 'triggered' the initiating
event of the so-called "big bang"
we still have an absolute need to cite
a finger pressing the button of initiation.
you can't remove the firing pin, lay the gun
down on the table and then suggest that it
has a capacity to fire itself.
and the concept that matter emanated
from a collapsed non-atomic state of
'quantum singularity' removes the firing pin.
accidental firing is beyond remote possibility
and invokes a something from nothing type of magic again.
a solution which must be disregarded.
thank God the next time you kiss your sister.
sudden death for materialism.
bye bye now.
the heat content of the atomic stuff
is a function of vibrational factors
in the stuff. that is, vibrations induced
between the nucleus and the volume
of electronic density.
and what you see is a vibration transfer
which is -called- a heat transfer because
the thing called "heat" is the observable
phenomenon and the inducing of vibrations
are not visible with the naked eye.
see, and the wierd thing is, that,
basically, for all practical purposes,
light, electromagnetic radiation [EMR]
has no temperature.
like, [EMR] doesn't occupy a space all its own.
there is a continuous spectrum
of possible energy states for [EMR],
whereas, the atomic material
'resides' in dicreet energy levels.
there's no spacial exclusion principle for [EMR].
so, apparent vibrational attributes of [EMR]
hasn't the associated friction-like qualities
that show as heat capacity in the atomic materials.
what [EMR] possesses is wave form vibration
which it can pass off to the atomic materials.
so, the [EMR] induces a vibration in the stuff, and
that vibration increases the heat content of the stuff.
the [EMR] drops to a lower energy state
and you may see some funny color change.
like, 'white' light may pass thru a glass of lemonade,
and the lemonade absorbs some vibrational energy from
that light in a specific range of energy that coincides
with the electronic configuration of a component of
the lemonade, and the 'rest' of the light passes
thru and you see what appears to be a
yellowish colored liquid.
so, like, when you stick a jar of water
in the sunlight, and it warms up, you can't
exactly say that the light was warm.
what you can say is that the water absorbed
some vibrational energy from the [EMR] and
the increased vibrations in the water
showed itself to you as warmth.
and, the [EMR] dropped to a lower
energy state and the stick looks
bent in the water.
needless to say, the interstitial space between galaxies
and other star systems is -not- a vacuum and is, in fact,
filled with materials that may absorb enegy from
passing [EMR] and bend the stick.
more on this as it develops.
needless to say, the interstitial space between galaxies
and other star systems is -not- a vacuum and is, in fact,
filled with materials that may absorb enegy from
passing [EMR] and bend the stick.
more on this as it develops.
but here's another wierd thing;
the stuff one claims to see from further
and further away is also being seen
from longer and longer ago.
everyone seems to be able to appreciate that.
but what seems odd, is that everyone seems to think
that the universe was spacially smaller nearer
to the beginning, that is, that space is expanding.
but, the intuitive suggestion that your mind
receives is that the universe "14 billion" years ago
is much larger than the universe is "4 billion" years ago.
because it seems as if you look deeper and deeper
out in to space the further back in time that you go.
so, what seems odd is that you are apparently
looking -into- a vaster expanse that
is smaller in size.
like if the universe were running
away -in to- itself and not
away from itself.
so, when you look at light from
[apparently] "14 billion" light years away
you can't rightly say that you are
seeing a 14 billion light year expanse.
cuz that stuff way way "out there" is
actually closer to the "central"
region of space of time T = 0
and you, the observer here on earth,
would be farther from "the center"
it's all backwards.
and red light green light is a game
children play when they don't know
if they're coming or going.
and red shift blue shift is a backwards mirror game.
damn thing's all backwards.
and YHWH pops up and says;
"where *were* you when i stretched
out the plumb line on the universe?"
like nature shows you stuff and then
taps you on the shoulder later and says;
"what do you really know about anything?"
"-huh- smart guy?"
i know, it's very strange, as if we, the observer
here on earth, is looking in towards the center
as we are being propelled outwards from that.
we are experiencing being jettisonned away.
we ain't solidly in place in
the middle of things looking out.
we're way way out looking in.
but it still seems like alpha centauri is "way out there"
it's a set of optical illusions.
which makes you wonder, cuz you can't smell, hear,
taste or touch alpha centauri, but you believe
it's really there based on only
a single sense perception.
and then a claim of knowledge seems unwarranted.
you wanna convince yourself that "14 billion" years ago
or "20 billion" years ago, the material universe was
the size of a pea, but then you forget to remember
that you're in that pea somewhere, and you get
burned in the oldest shell game in existance.
the illusions are elusive.
God is a Rock
metaphorically speaking, of course.
but you can't just dismiss the fact
that the night sky is dark.
and then you say, "time is finite" "time began"
anyway, if the sea of glass is your
"pseudo-substance" you can be in it
and around it and never even
realize it's there.
until God slaps you upside the head.
yuh know, it's one of the dangers
of being the walking stomach,
like those Muses didn't like so much,
though man's machine apparati has approached Babel
his interpretive insights are not
much better now than they
were 6000 years ago.
don't worry, other people have said that.
well, not in those exact words.
most of that relativity stuff has
no application outside of a
freshman physics lecture.
but nobody runs around calling
anyone a "Debroglie" suggesting
that they are smart.
just remember, when you look out into space,
you're looking back into a pea, not forward
into an infinity.
and light speed may very well be diminishing with age.
and that's what you're seeing.
fast light way back in time
and slower light just
around the corner.
which doesn't mean the universe
is running away from itself.
the pea is under the mattress not on top of it.
get it?
pee on the mattress?
ha ha ha hahahahahahahahahahahahahHAHAHAHAH
uh oh uh, not that funny.
in closing; [remember, "science" was a term
coined in the 1800s for "Natural Philosophy"]
"There are more things in heaven and earth,
Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy"
but look, you have a source, and light
emits from this source in a continuous
spectrum, and on a strand of beads, as it were.
no, you can't show me one single photon
in seclusion, but you can show me a
pulse of light here on earth.
so, you can comvince yourself that
light string wave partical duality
is relevant.
because you can claim to show me a strand of light.
pulsed on and off, and the source
detects this through a vacuum.
because source sends out a continuous
strand of "photons" until it reaches
a detector, then you shut the emitter
off and the detection ceases.
ok, so, why is the light nearer to the
detector, earth, in the present, apparently
slower and therefore older than light
nearer to time T = 0, as evidenced
by red shift data?
that is, why has light on a continuous strand
from time t = 45 seconds somehow slowed in
reaching us at time t = 4 trillion seconds?
has the emitter died long ago?
that is, has the emitter been shut off,
only we don't yet see that because all
of the emitted photons have not reached
us along the strand, and therefore,
we don't, as yet, see a blank spot?
that might be one explanation.
maybe i'll offer up another.
of course, when you can be sure that the
emitter still exists, you need a more
comprehensive explanation than "it died"
but, when it only takes say 4 to 5
light years to get here from there,
you can convince yourself that a localized "c"
and 'maybe' a gentle spacial fluctuation or
orbitting effect is responsible for the *****.
mind you, in some spiral galaxies,
a blue shift is noted in arms that
are "approaching" the detector, earth.
and you may be able to convince yourself
that entire galaxies are in orbit about
some central locus.
with periods in the ...eons.
so, then you can consider a "shaped" universe.
some say potato chip like
a saddle shap some say
torus like a donut
and then there's the cork screw rotini shape
and you could find that you're
in a gigantic harmonic oscillator universe.
where you find, theoretically,
that the universe is wobbling back
and forth in a gentle osciallation.
and -not- a universal expansion/contraction.
and inside the twists it all looks
like a tunnel to you, the observer.
but you still get stuck with a distance
and a time period associated with light
speed, whether constant or slowly slowing
down at a constant rate.
and you, the observer, may only be
seeing enough of the universe to
one bend in the cork screw.
which may be numerous.
and this could be either a left handed
universe or a right handed universe.
like, it twists in the
direction of your right hand.
one great big helix.
and then you still have this apparent
"null region" "outside" the material universe.
so, some of it -appears- cylindrical because
the null region plays like it ain't even there.
but you can still convince yourself
that nothing is running away from itself.
and that it has a definite beginning.
and Daphne gets all tired and turns in to a tree.
or a seven eleven for some coffee, i forget.
there was another punchy line, but i forgot it too.
if i remember it, i'll put it up here.
and then you can come back in
twenty years and pretend like
i never heard it before.
and maybe i'll have forgotten that i ever said it.
but i doubt it.
more strange tales
with some reckoning
of the torus shape
the central pea in the beginning
"outward" "expansion" in to
the void of nothingness
all the stuff in the central
pea moves, apparently, outward
and the central pea shape is
refilled with the void of nothingness.
an apparent hole in the
middle of the universe.
only the hole is filled with nothing,
with the space removed as well, and the
pea has only apparently moved outward.
and the components that make you up
and the earth up and an unknown portion
of your nearest neighbors adheres to the edge.
those components were in the pea in the beginning.
the light from the early pea is travelling
still and what we see is a phantom that
no longer has any reality.
but that stuff that originally emitted
that light, is now the stuff that you
and the earth and neighbors are made of.
you see the phantom of an earlier existance.
and if you listen softly, you can
hear the echoes of your distant past.
there may, indeed, be a hole in this theory,
but for your life, you may never find it.
i guess you don't want to invoke the "rest mass" of a photon.
don't worry, not many wish to consider a mass of a photon.
you can calculate stuff like momenta and such,
but as far as dropping light on a balance
and weighing it, no good.
but some people still wanna believe
that light has a pseudo-mass that
is affected by gravity.
but, when people suggest that light gets
trapped inside of a "black hole" they try
and convince themselves that space curves
around it when it would be just as easy to
ascribe some sort of accelleration to the
light and intense gravitational fields
show a negative accelleration slowing
light down and pulling it back in.
so, if you can convince yourself that light
can be slowed down by intense gravity, you
open the door for light having accelleration phenomena.
that'd be like integrating the velocity vector i suppose.
and so, you get things like a slingshot effect
accellerating light around stars and actually
bending the light path as opposed to bending the space.
and you convince yourself that light is actually
slowing down because more and more matter is
condensing out of the fog increasing the
gravity of the universe.
assuming, of course, that the rest mass of
an electron or proton et al is larger
than the rest mass of a photon.
like F = ma
and you have a crossover energy
where matter and light interchange.
not just converting matter into
energy but tuther way around as well.
cuz light is subject to an accelleration phenomena.
cuz it's quantized and has a pseudo particle nature.
cuz matter and light are somewhat interchangeable.
most of these things are observed,
just interpretted in a different way.
based on the assumption that light has
no mass and therefore experiences
no accelleration.
based on the assumption that light only
experiences the scalar function of speed
and that speed is constant.
but you convince yourself that some
thing called a "black hole" exists.
that traps light due to intense gravity.
and just toss aside all that bit about
space bending and ascribe an accelleration
phenomena to light.
simple as that.
of the two,
space bending seems more contrived than light accellerating.
that'd make light accellerating a much simpler explanation.
or maybe it's just a cooling effect brought
on by increased spacial separation that puts
the brakes on light and it falls out
of solution as matter.
like F = ma
and you have a crossover energy
where matter and light interchange.
not just converting matter into
energy but tuther way around as well.
of course it's not all light.
but that "plasma" junk is
sort of like [energy-matter].
and once matter falls out at all,
you've got the drag in place,
and light starts slowing down.
and another wierd thing,
the clock doesn't fall out of
solution at midnight or 00:00:00
but it sort of falls out
of solution at 19:35:56
and you think you're tracing back
to 00:00:00 but there never
was a 00:00:00
zero hour for you is 19:35:56
theoretically speaking, of course.
point being, you haven't the ability
to set a time T = 0 based on your
present observational capabilities.
or ever for that matter.
because there never was a time T = 1
but an "instantaneous" time T = [?]
stuff just appeared.
it's really rather elegant.
.
|
|
|
| User: "polar bear" |
|
| Title: Re: basic fluff |
08 Aug 2003 05:11:34 AM |
|
|
In article <3F32FCB7.4132@lycos.com>, Timothy Sutter
<a202010@lycos.com> wrote:
you could call it the substance that is Faith.
Or you could simply call it X, for unknown variable, a problem
for further research. Assigning the value "Faith" is itself an act of
faith, since all we can truthfully say about the problem is that it's
unresolved. To characterize it further is to pass from science into
mysticism.
and God uses this same substance
to fashion human beings in God's image.
If you can't state it as a hypothesis that can be tested on an
independent, repeating basis, then it's just your say-so.
and a whole lot of other stuff as well.
Yeah, mostly.
by Faith, God sees you as holy and
without blame before God in love,
Now your preachin' !!!
Jesus' Life can help you agree with this assessment.
yea brother!
for all practical purposes,
the "heat" -is- the vibration.
back to science for a moment
same sort of concept applies in the nuclear blob.
Nuclear Bob? Say, now we're cookin'!
vibrations are vibrations.
Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna
just that this other "stuff," which
is non-atomic, has no mechanical vibrations.
no heat
no time
actually, --> WE DON'T REALLY KNOW <---
but see look,
I did. It's just more conjecture.
The Big Bang is only a theory. It stands as a working model until new
observations challenge the base assumptions. At that point new
hypotheses will be proposed and tested until one of them provides a
better explanation and replaces the old theory.
That process is happening as we speak. New observations increasingly
conflict with present theory. Alternatives are being proposed that
offer testable predictions. We are nearing a paragdim shift of the
sort described by Kuhn: a shift as profound as the Heliocentric
Revolution with all that implies for philosophy and science.
So, I wouldn't become too attached to that particular theory as an
explanation of how God operates because you'll probably live to see it
overturned.
pb
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. 11D Meow!" |
|
| Title: Re: basic fluff |
09 Aug 2003 01:31:05 AM |
|
|
back off.
this usenet joik is about to 'blow' . . .
"polar bear" <bear@pole.com> wrote in message
news:080820030311343135%bear@pole.com...
In article <3F32FCB7.4132@lycos.com>, Timothy Sutter
<a202010@lycos.com> wrote:
you could call it the substance that is Faith.
Or you could simply call it X, for unknown variable, a problem
for further research. Assigning the value "Faith" is itself an act of
faith, since all we can truthfully say about the problem is that it's
unresolved. To characterize it further is to pass from science into
mysticism.
and God uses this same substance
to fashion human beings in God's image.
If you can't state it as a hypothesis that can be tested on an
independent, repeating basis, then it's just your say-so.
and a whole lot of other stuff as well.
Yeah, mostly.
by Faith, God sees you as holy and
without blame before God in love,
Now your preachin' !!!
Jesus' Life can help you agree with this assessment.
yea brother!
for all practical purposes,
the "heat" -is- the vibration.
back to science for a moment
same sort of concept applies in the nuclear blob.
Nuclear Bob? Say, now we're cookin'!
vibrations are vibrations.
Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna
just that this other "stuff," which
is non-atomic, has no mechanical vibrations.
no heat
no time
actually, --> WE DON'T REALLY KNOW <---
but see look,
I did. It's just more conjecture.
The Big Bang is only a theory. It stands as a working model until new
observations challenge the base assumptions. At that point new
hypotheses will be proposed and tested until one of them provides a
better explanation and replaces the old theory.
That process is happening as we speak. New observations increasingly
conflict with present theory. Alternatives are being proposed that
offer testable predictions. We are nearing a paragdim shift of the
sort described by Kuhn: a shift as profound as the Heliocentric
Revolution with all that implies for philosophy and science.
So, I wouldn't become too attached to that particular theory as an
explanation of how God operates because you'll probably live to see it
overturned.
pb
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: basic bible |
09 Aug 2003 04:09:29 AM |
|
|
1 Make a joyful shout to YHWH, all you lands!
2Serve YHWH, with gladness;
Come before His presence with singing.
3Know that YHWH, He is God;
It is He who has made us, and not we ourselves;
We are His people and the sheep of His pasture.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: basic reality |
08 Aug 2003 05:58:53 AM |
|
|
polar bear wrote:
Timothy Sutter wrote:
you could call it the substance that is Faith.
Or you could simply call it X,
i can call it what i know it to be.
for unknown variable, a problem
for further research.
unknown to you.
unknowable to you for the very reasons
which i have clearly outlined in my post.
reasons which you have been unable to refute.
Assigning the value "Faith" is
itself an act of faith,
present a clear definition of what you
think "faith" is and i'll show you mine
and mine will be the one i work with
and you can work with your own.
since all we can truthfully say about the
problem is that it's unresolved.
no, the "problem" -is- resolved as
far as -you- will ever know by use
of -your- various detection devices.
that is, you have gotten as much from
your interferometers as you will ever grasp.
for -you- the problem will remain unresolved.
you can claim to see closer to Time T = 0
but you can never see the
situation -at- Time T = 0.
-but- you can make a very clear description
of the state at Time T = 0 based upon what
you can decipher.
and complete loss of atomic structure will
not likely ever be "overturned" by you nor
any new sighthngs.
basically, you get stuck with a
situation which has no spacial
material volume.
you -have- no gravitational force.
you -have- no electromagnetism.
you -have- no weak atomic force.
you -have- no strong atomic force.
you -have- no vibrational heat effects.
you -have- no density at all.
you -have- no material with
which to generate heat nor
do work.
you have no material energy.
To characterize it further is to pass
from science into mysticism.
it's no mystery to me, but it is to you.
and God uses this same substance
to fashion human beings in God's image.
If you can't state it as a hypothesis that can be tested on an
independent, repeating basis, then it's just your say-so.
do you understand the conceptualization
of genesis from singularity?
if that statement is a hypothesis,
it has been tested and is tested
on an ongoing basis.
and the outcome is always the same.
a child of God begotten of God.
and a whole lot of other stuff as well.
Yeah, mostly.
which you cannot refute.
by Faith, God sees you as holy and
without blame before God in love,
Now your preachin' !!!
not exactly, it's more a statement of fact.
Jesus' Life can help you agree with this assessment.
yea brother!
yes, indeed, Jesus walked through
the material world and saw no corruption
so, the material world is not to
be blamed for ma's corruption.
you cannot point out a corruption
in hydrogen nitrogen oxygen phosphorus
or sulphur so the corruption in man
must stem from some other cause.
for all practical purposes,
the "heat" -is- the vibration.
back to science for a moment
do you understand that?
do you understand what "heat" is?
just when have -you- been in
a "science" that -you- can
go "back to?"
same sort of concept applies in the nuclear blob.
Nuclear Bob? Say, now we're cookin'!
this must be -you- going "back to science"?
vibrations are vibrations.
Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna
manual gesticulations for lack
of any substantive arguments.
just that this other "stuff," which
is non-atomic, has no mechanical vibrations.
no heat
no time
actually, --> WE DON'T REALLY KNOW <---
no, we do know, and there's no heat
nor time possible in such a situation.
-you- may never know the exact constituent
make-up of the 'non-material' universe but
you can be certain that 'it' has none of
the physical properties that -you- can call "matter"
-you- don't really know.
but see look,
I did. It's just more conjecture.
no chum, that is the state of affairs
in this material realm from start now.
if you could overturn one
sentence of it you would.
you don't because you can't.
The Big Bang is only a theory.
you are trapped in a universe that -has- a beginning.
you don't live in a "steady state" universe.
no observation will return you to such a "theory"
you see a spacial material expansion which
must be concluded to emanate from a spaceless
timeless state where the atomic structure
is anihilate.
fact.
It stands as a working model until new
observations challenge the base assumptions.
you can call it whatever you want,
you have a beginning that stems
from no apparent physical matter.
-no- atomic clocks and no atomic vibrations.
fact.
At that point new hypotheses will be proposed
and tested until one of them provides a
better explanation and replaces the old theory.
none of which will turn the universe
at Time T = 0 to one which is composed
of physical matter.
fact.
That process is happening as we speak. New observations
increasingly conflict with present theory. Alternatives
are being proposed that offer testable predictions.
this is a hand waving gesture with no real substance.
this is "wait till my daddy gets home he'll fix you"
well, either bring your daddy out
here or sit back down in your
little chair.
We are nearing a paragdim shift of the
sort described by Kuhn: a shift as profound as the Heliocentric
Revolution with all that implies for philosophy and science.
paradigm shift for -you-
-you- have been operating under
the delusion of materialism.
-you- will soon be swept aside.
So, I wouldn't become too attached to that particular
theory as an explanation of how God operates because
you'll probably live to see it overturned.
as a matter of fact, what you are beginning
to 'observe' is exactly the sort of situation
as i describe. so, in avery real sense,
-you- are seeing -your- paradigm overturned.
materialism is utterly dead.
you -must- point to a "substance" that
has no knowable physical characteristics.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: basic stuff |
07 Aug 2003 08:29:56 PM |
|
|
here's the skeletal breakdown;
God is you[human]
you[human] is Nature
and here's the conclusion;
God is Nature
this is generally referred to as Pantheism.
generally used to strip the universe of a
Creative Personality and place the human
consciousness as a manifestation of the
accidental disintegration of the Godhead.
that the Universe was not a purposed action but an accident.
there is insufficient physical data to support the notion
that any living tissue will rise from the kitchen floor by
random collisions of 'non-living' molecules or that algorithms
will simply write themselves into existence from the kitchen
floor by accident.
On the contrary a wealth of observation supports
the very opposite notion that Life begats Life
and that DNA is the template for its own replication.
that is, 'we' observe that Life springs
from that which is already alive, number one.
and, that algorithms never write
themselves in to existence, number two.
algorithms arise from the purposeful
assembly of instruction sets
by an outside agency.
the central dogma of molecular biology would state;
DNA --> RNA --> Protein
and never;
RNA --> Protein --> DNA
nor
Protein --> RNA --> DNA
and the central dogma of genetics would say;
"DNA is the template for its own replication"
DNA, here, is our algorithm and we observe,
essentially, that DNA is a primary necessity
for the production of DNA and this has never
been observed to be violated in any manner.
and so, what -you- "say" leaves us with a quandary
that a purposed phenomenon like an algorithm, wrote
itself into existance by accident.
this is contrary to all observation and must,
therefore, be discarded as a self evident falsehood.
now, you -should- be able to see *exactly*
why the "science" of 'evolution' is a big fat lie.
it steamrolls overtop of physical observation and
overwrites it with some simplistic metaphysical lie
gleaned from the entrails of an owl.
as far as physical observation is concerned,
a purposeful Creative Event is exactly necessary.
and this is no accident.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: basic reality |
08 Aug 2003 06:38:40 AM |
|
|
polar bear wrote:
Timothy Sutter wrote:
here's the skeletal breakdown;
OW! OW!
<snip a bunch of seriously misinformed opinion>
meaning, you cannot refute nor deny a sinle bit of it.
www.sciencedaily.com:80/printer_friendly.asp?filename=3D980610082
Source: Yale University
Posted=BF6/10/98
Yale Scientists Recreate Molecular "Fossils," Now Extinct, That May
Have Existed At The Beginning Of Life
Discovery Narrows Search For Precursor Of All Life Forms
New Haven, Conn. -- Yale scientists report they have synthesized
molecules like those that probably gave rise to the earliest life forms
on Earth nearly 4 billion years ago, thus creating a biochemist's
version of "Jurassic Park" populated by exotic molecular "fossils" that
have long since become extinct.
put together with a necessary design quality.
In the May 26 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, the Yale biologists report the creation of one of these
"fossils," an unusual hybrid molecule made up of a scaffold from
deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) with chemical "scissors" attached to it.
"fossils" in quotes because it
does not 'date' back 4 billion years.
it's a manipulation of preexistance
molecules in a laboratory.
these things are not even
synthesized from coal tar,
but from dna and rna that
already exist in nature.
Ronald R. Breaker, who created the first DNA enzymes in 1994 with
colleagues at The Scripps Research Institute, said he "looted the tool
box of proteins" to get the amino acid "scissors," which destroy
messenger ribonucleic acid (RNA) in humans and many other organisms.
The feat was accomplished using a technique known as test-tube
evolution.
this may give you a greater understanding
of how self replication works,
but it does not support the assertion that
such living cells wrote themselves into
existance from coal tar or any other
inert inorganic material.
"looting a toolbox" is not
demonstrating how the tool
box was first created.
Breaker's tailor-made enzyme is the first known nucleic acid enzyme
that uses an amino acid to trigger chemical activity, and it brings
scientists a step closer to finding the precursor of all life -- a
single molecule containing both genetic code and an enzyme capable of
triggering self-replication.
all from the poisonous "reducing atmosphere"
that would spawn amino acids from noxious fumes?
and produce the oxidative froms called sugars?
you have yet to tie in how the amino acids
popped up with a viable theory of
original atmospheres.
"If we can raid a protein's tool box to take one of its favored
chemical groups -- in this case, a key amino acid called histidine
found in a protein called RNase A -- then we should be able to raid the
entire tool box and make use of anything we find there to make highly
sophisticated DNA or RNA enzymes," said Breaker, who collaborated with
Yale postdoctoral associate Adam Roth.
that's nice.
scientists can synthesize biomimetics.
Which Came First -- DNA, RNA Or Proteins?
God came first.
The discovery provides important clues to the chicken-or-egg dilemma of
which came first -- DNA, RNA or proteins. Most scientists agree life as
we know it cannot exist without DNA as the storehouse of genetic code,
RNA as the genetic messenger, and proteins to carry out the chemistry
of reproduction. Can any one of these three key molecules have existed
as the precursor of the other two, serving as both chicken and egg?
no, it hasn't been shown.
only speculated on.
Evidence is mounting that "it was an RNA World at the dawn of life as
the Earth began to cool," said Breaker, who added that he and his
colleagues can create dual-purpose genetic enzymes in the laboratory
out of either RNA or DNA. "These genetic enzymes have the chemical
sophistication, the full catalytic ability, to do many of the
fundamental reactions we see in biology today. I am confident one will
be created soon that can replicate itself."
so, some scientist in a
laboratory is playing the creator.
there are already molecules that can
replicate themselves, so, "creating"
one in the lab is no new feat.
demonstrating how these things can
arise from the kitchen floor -without-
a designer's hand is not being
accomplished here.
and isolated replicating molecules
is a far cry from a living cell.
He added that the new DNA enzyme he crafted destroys RNA with
impressive efficiency at a rate 10 million times faster than it would
decay naturally, although the protein the enzyme mimics acts much
faster still.
"created" from the parts of pre-existing
structures and not from inert inorganic
coal tar. "modified" is a better word.
No naturally occurring DNA enzymes have been found to date, but such a
discovery would not surprise Breaker.
keep looking if you haven't found the master of this house yet.
The discovery nearly two decades
ago of naturally occurring RNA enzymes, or ribozymes, earned Yale
biochemist Sidney Altman and University of Colorado researcher Thomas
Cech the 1989 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. In separate experiments, Altman
and Cech exploded the myth that RNA is merely a passive carrier of
genetic code incapable of triggering cell activity.
still have to explain the time problem
in random collisions of inert inorganic
molecules synthesizing such a complex state
you'll find some statistical
studies that place the time
in trillions of years.
basically, not gunna happen.
Referring to the dozen or more DNA and RNA enzymes created in his
laboratory in recent months, Breaker said, "We believe these are like
ancient molecular 'fossils' that might have been found stomping around
the planet -- or more likely floating in the seas -- during the Archean
Era between 3.8 and 4 billion years ago."
you can "believe" whatever you like,
it doesn't correspond to all
the weight of all the datums.
RNA Identified As Strongest Candidate For Precursor To All Life
uh, RNA world has basically
been shelved as impracticable.
your artical is from 1998,
fast moving as it is, maybe
-you're- not up to date on that.
While the Yale biologists created the versatile protein mimic from DNA,
Breaker theorizes that a similar enzyme could be created with RNA,
which many scientists believe is the strongest candidate for being the
precursor of all other life forms. In addition to RNA's dual function
as genetic molecule and as enzyme, RNA serves important roles in all
living systems as the carrier of genetic instructions from DNA and as
the orchestrator of all protein synthesis.
rna is single stranded
how do you explain the leap to double stranded dna?
random happenstance isn't enough.
"This is exactly what you would expect if RNA invented these processes
during the 'RNA World,'" Breaker said. "Because DNA is about a million
times more stable than RNA, DNA most likely evolved later as a safe
storehouse for the genetic code first found in RNA. Similarly, proteins
probably evolved that were more efficient chemical catalysts,
eventually driving most RNA enzymes extinct and relegating RNA to a
more limited role."
you haven't shown how rna was self synthesized
from inert inorganic chemicals in a "reducing"
atmosphere or one that changes over from reducing
to oxidizing and doesn't destroy the integrity
of the "storehouse" of precursors that just
happen to wait around for the other necessary
elements to plop out of the sky in a space egg.
in isolation, it may be
a pleasant work.
in total it fails to supprt the
preposturous claims of abiogenesis.
The discovery that nucleic acids can raid the tool box of proteins
excuse me, the lab technician "raided the box".
means "the RNA World could have been a very sophisticated place,"
Breaker said. "The earliest RNA could have had access to all of these
chemical helpers now used by proteins. Instead of working from a very
primitive palette, varieties of RNA could have evolved that had a very
rich chemical capability early on."
now we're wandering off into coulda been speculations.
Tailoring Nucleic Enzymes To Fight Disease
Besides elucidating how life might have evolved, DNA and RNA enzymes
show great promise as powerful medications.
that's nice, i'm glad for you.
"Test-Tube Evolution" Mimics Nature
Breaker sets up a system of natural selection through test-tube
evolution to produce DNA sequences with the characteristics he desires.
Typically, Breaker and his colleagues begin crafting an enzyme by
synthesizing more than 10 trillion random DNA sequences using a
computerized DNA synthesizer. Then they wash a grid containing the
sequences with various compounds, in this case histidine. Rare DNA
molecules that by chance fold into enzymes will break themselves free
from the grid.
seems pre-meditated and designed.
By cloning the DNA sequences that are washed away by the amino acid and
then repeating the process several times, the Yale biochemists isolate
desired enzymes. "Our latest findings not only improve our
understanding about the origins of life, they also expand our skills in
molecular evolution," he said. "While we may not be able to resurrect
fossilized creatures like they did in 'Jurassic Park,' we very well may
be able to recreate many of the ancient enzymes that were needed at the
very beginning of life nearly 4 billion years ago."
"recreate" being the operative term.
what they improve is your understanding
of how self replication works.
-not- of how self replication
originated in randome happenstance.
you really should try and stay up to date,
especially in such a fast moving field.
maybe you'd better go find
a "space seed" or something.
abiogenesis is not a happening plan.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: basic reality |
08 Aug 2003 07:08:39 AM |
|
|
maybe you'd better go find
a "space seed" or something.
abiogenesis is not a happening plan.
this is interesting from the other article;
-----------
http://www.nature.com/nsu/021216/021216-9.html
The researchers then eliminated all of the G's that they could
from the R3 molecule while still retaining some of its catalytic
behaviour (it can manage without C's). All but three could go;
if the researchers took any of those out, the molecule was no
longer catalytic.
To get further, the researchers abandoned rational design
and turned to in vitro evolution. They replaced the remaining
G's at random with U or D, while shuffling a few of the other
U's and D's in the molecule.
--------------
this says that the stuff they made in the
lab lost it's catalytic ability and they
physically altered their molecules to
make them work.
something along those lines.
"in vitro evolution"
means physical alteration of molecular
structure by a lab technicion using
some sophisticated machine apparatus.
not random rearrangement, by slow
and gradual processes, in glassware.
they have to use these
molecules because of this;
-----------same article
http://www.nature.com/nsu/021216/021216-9.html
Today, the recipes for life - RNA and DNA - are normally
written in a four-letter molecular alphabet: the bases adenine
(A), guanine (G) and cytosine (C), together with thymine (T)
in DNA or uracil (U) in RNA. Each gene in DNA is a sequence of
A's, G's, C's and T's.
But these bases aren't easy to make from the chemical
constituents of the early Earth, point out Reader and Joyce.
--------------
basically, they say that the normal base pair
situation found in dna and rna aren't synthesized
from random happenstance based on any model
of the earth's earliest speculated upon atmospherics.
so, they try and conjer up this other device
that may have certain ribosomal catalytic properties.
but even that device has severe drawbacks
in that they need a particularly sever form
of remanufacturaing in order to maintain
the catalytic effect.
it doesn't strike one as even approaching
the necesary and sufficient. but, i'm sure
it keeps them off the streets at night.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: basic reality |
08 Aug 2003 07:33:40 AM |
|
|
http://www.nature.com/nsu/021216/021216-9.html
so, what you have here is the lab techs
calling their -work- "rational design"
and then when their work falls short
of what they -want- to see, they "evolve"
the molecules in a sort of hunt and
peck and "let's see what will make
it work again" "random"
'not quite reasoned'
approach.
in general, basically what you have
is people who read more into the
actual data than is present and
are more than willing to accept
the speculative conjectures with
a sort of an unquestioned wishful
thinking in hopes of holding on
to the "no God axiom"
evidently, at best,
some things seem to be
ever elusive to your grasp.
but abiogenesis is whack.
or whatever the terminology for stoopid is,
or maybe i mean, i simply isn't workable.
all that stuff about algorithms not
writing themselves into existance
is untouched.
this is no accident.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: basic reality |
08 Aug 2003 07:44:53 AM |
|
|
all that stuff about algorithms not
writing themselves into existance
is untouched.
this is no accident.
and none of this refutes the dogmas
of molecular biology and genetics.
it's looking for some ways
around those and not finding them.
there is no molecule synthesized in the
lab which synthesizes dna that is not dna.
for one, these people are pointing at a set
of molecules that, in fact, degrade rna.
## He added that the new DNA enzyme he crafted destroys RNA with
## impressive efficiency at a rate 10 million times faster than it would
## decay naturally, although the protein the enzyme mimics acts much
## faster still.
this isn't a crafted molecule that synthesizes dna.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: basic reality |
08 Aug 2003 07:56:54 AM |
|
|
there is no molecule synthesized in the
lab which synthesizes dna that is not dna.
there's a greater possibility that rain drops
could tap out the "Star Spangled Banner" on a
ready made xylophone than living tissue writing
itself into existance from inert inorganic
molecules in no matter what a time frame
you allot yourself.
admit it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Shoemaker" |
|
| Title: Re: basic reality |
15 Aug 2003 08:58:05 PM |
|
|
"ts" == Timothy Sutter <a202010@lycos.com> writes:
there is no molecule synthesized in the lab which synthesizes
dna that is not dna.
ts> there's a greater possibility that rain drops could tap out
ts> the "Star Spangled Banner" on a ready made xylophone than
ts> living tissue writing itself into existance from inert
ts> inorganic molecules in no matter what a time frame you allot
ts> yourself.
ts> admit it.
Wouldn't it be even a bit worse yet? You need DNA to build
protein, yet you need protein to synthesize DNA... Which came
first?
// J Shoemaker
--
Rule of Feline Frustration:
When your cat has fallen asleep on your lap and looks utterly
content and adorable, you will suddenly have to go to the bathroom.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "St. Alicia Erisdaughter" |
|
| Title: Re: basic reality |
24 Aug 2003 04:22:43 PM |
|
|
--
If you don't involve yourself in the politics of your nation, you will
assuredly be governed by those who do !!
"J Shoemaker" <shoemaker@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:87he4igy8i.fsf@osmium.lan...
"ts" == Timothy Sutter <a202010@lycos.com> writes:
there is no molecule synthesized in the lab which synthesizes
dna that is not dna.
ts> there's a greater possibility that rain drops could tap out
ts> the "Star Spangled Banner" on a ready made xylophone than
ts> living tissue writing itself into existance from inert
ts> inorganic molecules in no matter what a time frame you allot
ts> yourself.
ts> admit it.
Wouldn't it be even a bit worse yet? You need DNA to build
protein, yet you need protein to synthesize DNA... Which came
first?
That ***** in the blue dress with a table cloth on her head... Mary..
St. Alicia Erisdaughter
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Shoemaker" |
|
| Title: Re: basic reality |
24 Aug 2003 09:59:12 PM |
|
|
"alicia" == St Alicia Erisdaughter <verbius@nemii.com> writes:
[...]
Wouldn't it be even a bit worse yet? You need DNA to build
protein, yet you need protein to synthesize DNA... Which came
first?
alicia> That ***** in the blue dress with a table cloth on her
alicia> head... Mary..
[...]
What exactly does this have to do with the original question?
--
J Shoemaker shoemaker@softhome.net
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: basic reality |
17 Aug 2003 09:40:56 AM |
|
|
that is, say you have some proto-feline
assembled around and about a pre-existing
template which -then- may branch outward
into tigers, lions ocelots house-cats and
lynxes each having a lesser genetic richness
that that of the proto-feline.
mind you, i didn't suggest that some
"proto-feline" -was- altered and changed
into the many varieties of felines we see now,
only that that sort of thing
could be positted as 'possible'
whereas, a mouse-like creature altering and
changing into a bear, a monkey, a platypus,
a giraffe, a hyena, a lion, a tiger and a
human being falls under the category;
"outlandish speculation"
but it wouldn't be me and the Creator who
would be forced to make such outlandish
speculations to support purposeful Design,
but those who maintain a support for
random happenstance and unconscious
natural evolution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: basic reality |
17 Aug 2003 10:10:50 AM |
|
|
but see;
if we claimed that "God" was entirely
beyond our understanding, and "unknowable"
-then- we should speak no further,
however, we do not speak of a "God" who is
beyond all understanding and unknowable
but of a Creator who -does- present
God for inspection.
a God we -can- come to know and understand.
we just claim that much personal
understanding of the Creator must
be presented -by- that same Creator.
we don't abstract God -from- natural reality
we learn of God from God in much the
same way as we learn of each other
from each other and learn of stones
and flowers from stones and flowers.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ernest T Bass" |
|
| Title: Jesus |
24 Aug 2003 03:52:41 PM |
|
|
Jesus loves me yest I know.
For the bible tells me so.
--
"you might think this is all fun and games to you but if you
only knew what it's like to put up with drunk assholes all day."
-- Ethen The Bartender
.
|
|
|
| User: "St. Alicia Erisdaughter" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus |
24 Aug 2003 04:23:33 PM |
|
|
--
If you don't involve yourself in the politics of your nation, you will
assuredly be governed by those who do !!
"Ernest T Bass" <dkdk@dkd.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.19b2d3be75e5910c989b4c@news.easynews.com...
Jesus loves me yest I know.
For the bible tells me so.
post proof or retract!!! ;)
St. Alicia Erisdaughter
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ernest T Bass" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus |
24 Aug 2003 04:31:24 PM |
|
|
In article <p1a2b.14157$_V.9325@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
verbius@nemii.com says...
Jesus loves me yest I know.
For the bible tells me so.
post proof or retract!!! ;)
Because the bible tells me so!
--
"you might think this is all fun and games to you but if you
only knew what it's like to put up with drunk assholes all day."
-- Ethen The Bartender
.
|
|
|
| User: "St. Alicia Erisdaughter" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus |
24 Aug 2003 04:35:01 PM |
|
|
--
If you don't involve yourself in the politics of your nation, you will
assuredly be governed by those who do !!
"Ernest T Bass" <dkdk@dkd.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.19b2dccf201bd0989b4d@news.easynews.com...
In article <p1a2b.14157$_V.9325@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
verbius@nemii.com says...
Jesus loves me yest I know.
For the bible tells me so.
post proof or retract!!! ;)
Because the bible tells me so!
-- post proof or retract!!! ;)
Come on now... if he loves ya so much how come you dont have your own verse
and chapter huh?
He loved Paul and John and Luke.. they got a chapter.. where's yours?
like I said... -- post proof or retract!!! ;)
Erisdaughter
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ernest T Bass" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus |
24 Aug 2003 04:38:37 PM |
|
|
In article <9ca2b.14258$_V.4492@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
verbius@nemii.com says...
Jesus loves me yest I know.
For the bible tells me so.
post proof or retract!!! ;)
Because the bible tells me so!
-- post proof or retract!!! ;)
Come on now... if he loves ya so much how come you dont have your own verse
and chapter huh?
He loved Paul and John and Luke.. they got a chapter.. where's yours?
like I said... -- post proof or retract!!! ;)
Erisdaughter
He just does cuz I said so! I don't write new
additions to the bible cuz the bible says
that I can't do that. Luke Cp 1 Vs 5. Okaaaay?
--
"you might think this is all fun and games to you but if you
only knew what it's like to put up with drunk assholes all day."
-- Ethen The Bartender
.
|
|
|
| User: "St. Alicia Erisdaughter" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus |
24 Aug 2003 04:50:07 PM |
|
|
--
If you don't involve yourself in the politics of your nation, you will
assuredly be governed by those who do !!
"Ernest T Bass" <dkdk@dkd.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.19b2de4816b9ace9989b4e@news.easynews.com...
In article <9ca2b.14258$_V.4492@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
verbius@nemii.com says...
Jesus loves me yest I know.
For the bible tells me so.
post proof or retract!!! ;)
Because the bible tells me so!
-- post proof or retract!!! ;)
Come on now... if he loves ya so much how come you dont have your own
verse
and chapter huh?
He loved Paul and John and Luke.. they got a chapter.. where's yours?
like I said... -- post proof or retract!!! ;)
Erisdaughter
He just does cuz I said so! I don't write new
additions to the bible cuz the bible says
that I can't do that. Luke Cp 1 Vs 5. Okaaaay?
Lemme know when it gets to ya....
cuz I think you deserve a chapter and verse too..
St. Alicia Erisdaughter
Erisdaughter
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ernest T Bass" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus |
24 Aug 2003 05:05:23 PM |
|
|
In article <jqa2b.14443$_V.11975@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
verbius@nemii.com says...
In article <9ca2b.14258$_V.4492@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
verbius@nemii.com says...
Jesus loves me yest I know.
For the bible tells me so.
post proof or retract!!! ;)
Because the bible tells me so!
-- post proof or retract!!! ;)
Come on now... if he loves ya so much how come you dont have your own
verse
and chapter huh?
He loved Paul and John and Luke.. they got a chapter.. where's yours?
like I said... -- post proof or retract!!! ;)
Erisdaughter
He just does cuz I said so! I don't write new
additions to the bible cuz the bible says
that I can't do that. Luke Cp 1 Vs 5. Okaaaay?
Lemme know when it gets to ya....
cuz I think you deserve a chapter and verse too..
I don't care if it rains or freezes, long
as I got my plastic Jesus..
Anyway, I DARE you to neal down and pray
every night and demand Jesus to appear
before you. I dare you! If you're afraid,
then you fear the Lord. And if you Fear
the Lord, then you must believe in the
Word of the Lord. And if you Believe in
the Word of the Lord, then you know that
he loves you and is looking out for you,
somehow.
St. Alicia Erisdaughter
Erisdaughter
--
"you might think this is all fun and games to you but if you
only knew what it's like to put up with drunk assholes all day."
-- Ethen The Bartender
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. 11D Meow!" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus |
24 Aug 2003 04:53:34 PM |
|
|
so close and yet so far . . .
"St. Alicia Erisdaughter" <verbius@nemii.com> wrote in message
news:jqa2b.14443$_V.11975@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
--
If you don't involve yourself in the politics of your nation, you will
assuredly be governed by those who do !!
"Ernest T Bass" <dkdk@dkd.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.19b2de4816b9ace9989b4e@news.easynews.com...
In article <9ca2b.14258$_V.4492@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
verbius@nemii.com says...
Jesus loves me yest I know.
For the bible tells me so.
post proof or retract!!! ;)
Because the bible tells me so!
-- post proof or retract!!! ;)
Come on now... if he loves ya so much how come you dont have your own
verse
and chapter huh?
He loved Paul and John and Luke.. they got a chapter.. where's yours?
like I said... -- post proof or retract!!! ;)
Erisdaughter
He just does cuz I said so! I don't write new
additions to the bible cuz the bible says
that I can't do that. Luke Cp 1 Vs 5. Okaaaay?
Lemme know when it gets to ya....
cuz I think you deserve a chapter and verse too..
St. Alicia Erisdaughter
Erisdaughter
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
