One of the oldest canards in the creationists' book is the claim that evolution must be false because it violates the second law of thermodynamics, or the principle that, as they put it, everything must go from order to disorder. One of the more persistent perpetrators of this kind of sloppy thinking is Henry Morris, and few creationists today seem able to get beyond this error.
Remember this tendency from order to disorder applies to all real processes. Real processes include, of course, biological and geological processes, as well as chemical and physical processes. The interesting question is: "How does a real biological process, which goes from order to disorder, result in evolution. which goes from disorder to order?" Perhaps the evolutionist can ultimately find an answer to this question, but he at least should not ignore it, as most evolutionists do.
Especially is such a question vital, when we are thinking of evolution as a growth process on the grand scale from atom to Adam and from particle to people. This represents in absolutely gigantic increase in order and complexity, and is clearly out of place altogether in the context of the Second Law.
As most biologists get a fair amount of training in chemistry, I'm afraid he's wrong on one bit of slander there: we do not ignore entropy, and are in fact better informed on it than most creationists, as is clearly shown by their continued use of this bad argument. I usually rebut this claim about the second law in a qualitative way, and by example — it's obvious that the second law does not state that nothing can ever increase in order, but only that an decrease in one part must be accompanied by a greater increase in entropy in another. Two gametes, for instance, can fuse and begin a complicated process in development that represents a long-term local decrease in entropy, but at the same time that embryo is pumping heat out into its environment and increasing the entropy of the surrounding bit of the world.
It's a very bad argument they are making, but let's consider just the last sentence of the quote above.
This represents in absolutely gigantic increase in order and complexity, and is clearly out of place altogether in the context of the Second Law.
A "gigantic increase in order and complexity" … how interesting. How much of an increase? Can we get some numbers for that?
Daniel Styer has published an eminently useful article on "Entropy and Evolution" that does exactly that — he makes some quantitative estimates of how much entropy might be decreased by the process of evolution. I knew we kept physicists around for something; they are so useful for filling in the tricky details.
The article nicely summarizes the general problems with the creationist claim. They confuse the metaphor of 'disorder' for the actual phenomenon of entropy; they seem to have an absolutist notion that the second law prohibits all decreases in entropy; and they generally lack any quantitative notion of how entropy actually works. The cool part of this particular article, though, is that he makes an estimate of exactly how much entropy is decreased by the process of evolution.
First he estimates, very generously, how much entropy is decreased per individual. If we assume each individual is 1000 times "more improbable" than its ancestor one century ago, that is, that we are specified a thousand times more precisely than our great-grandparents (obviously a ludicrously high over-estimate, but he's trying to give every advantage to the creationists here), then we can describe the reduction in the number of microstates in the modern organism as:
Now I'm strolling into dangerous ground for us poor biologists, since this is a mathematical argument, but really, this is simple enough for me to understand. We know the statistical definition of entropy:
In the formula above, kB is the Boltzmann constant. We can just plug in our estimated (grossly overestimated!) value for Ω, have fun with a little algebra, and presto, a measure of the change in entropy per individual per century emerges.
Centuries are awkward units, so Styer converts that to something more conventional: the entropy change per second is -3.02 x 10-30 J/K. There are, of course, a lot of individual organisms on the planet, so that number needs to be multiplied by the total number of evolving organism, which, again, we charitably overestimate at 1032, most of which are prokaryotes, of course. The final result is a number that tells us the total change in entropy of the planet caused by evolution each second:
-302 J/K
What does that number mean? We need a context. Styer also estimates the Earth's total entropy throughput per second, that is, the total flux involved from absorption of the sun's energy and re-radiation of heat out into space. It's a slightly bigger number:
420 x 1012 J/K
To spell it out, there's about a trillion times more entropy flux available than is required for evolution. The degree by which earth's entropy is reduced by the action of evolutionary processes is miniscule relative to the amount that the entropy of the cosmic microwave background is increased.
This is very cool and very clear. I'm folding up my copy of Styer's paper and tucking it into my copy of The Counter-Creationism Handbook, where it will come in handy.
Styer DF (2008) Entropy and evolution. Am J Phys 76(11):1031-1033.
Ok. I have fired the first shot at Kel blog entry "There's a monkey sitting at the type writter".
What does that have anything to do with evolution? I made that quite clear.
"This method does not work in the way evolution does, that was the point of the entire post. Language and DNA are simply not comparable. The whole point was to show how we can recognise specified information because it can't be generated any other way."
*Standing O, applause*
Well done David. aren't you sure your name shouldn't have an MO next to it lol? I know EXACTLY where to take your link. thanks much!!
However, "I am becoming as I am" doesn't really help as i see it. And what do you mean by "later merger"? Please do explain.
Um, Rickr0ll, David does have an OM.
Also, it's considered rude to ask for stuff before doing a bit of research.
Randy, the monkeys wouldn't be sitting at typewriters, they would be typing on computers, 'writing' code for programs. Taking the proper metaphor, the claim is much easier to understand. I am not entirely sure who first made this significant logical leap in correcting this deeply flawed analogy (it was i think either in Godel, Escher, Bach, or one of the two programmers that i mentioned already; there is an off chance that i'm still wrong, and it is in another book i have), however, this is what would be proper to discuss. More importantly, it's right up your alley!
Aha, here it is: "Computation and Complexity", pg 55-61 in Programming the Universe by Seth Lloyd
sorry, i failed to notice that at first David :P. Anyway, i thought it would be simple enough to ask. For one thing, i wouldn't know exactly where to start and also run the risk of getting MISinformation. Sorry if it rude to ask, i am relitively new here; forgive my insolence *bows*
I was told you love CREATIONISTS here!
1. SPONTANEOUS GENERATION
Evolution falls flat on it's face before it even starts. It requires NON-living things to naturally turn into living organisms all by themselves! This is SCIENTIFICALLY and NATURALLY IMPOSSIBLE. It has never been observed and there is no evidence whatsoever that it could ever happen, under any natural circumstances. Evolution is a Fairy Tale that Mother Goose wouldn't believe!
In plain language, to believe in evolution, that all life had a common ancestor, and that life formed from non-life, you MUST believe that YOU came from a ROCK! You gotta have ROCKS in your head to believe that! Must be STONED!
Not only that, but you must believe that ALL LIFE made itself from a ROCK. That takes more faith than the Bible account could ever require. Only a gullible religious FANATIC could possibly swallow that!
If it could ever happen, it would be SUPER-natural. That would verify Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth! Evolution says that life arose from non-life, naturally, which is an oxymoron! It CAN'T happen naturally.
There are really only two possibilities. Life arose naturally and created itself, or life was created Super-naturally. The only other possibilities are believed by people in rubber rooms who wear their sleeves tied behind their back. One is that we are not here, we only think we are. The other is that there was no origin, we have always been here. Both of those ideas are more bird-brained than a Cuckoo clock!
If "life" could ever be created in a laboratory (no one has come close), all it would prove is that intelligent beings, working in a controlled environment, manipulated and experimented until they CREATED life! It would vindicate Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth! Evolution says that the life arose by ITSELF, not with the help of a Creator.
Do not let someone fool you with the misnamed "Micro-evolution" vs. "Macro-evolution" farce. What they call micro-evolution is not evolution at all. It is genetic variation and adaptation. It does happen naturally, has been observed, and can be replicated. The ability is already contained in the genes of the organism, and is limited by those genes. Anybody who tries to confuse the two got into the gene pool while the lifeguard wasn't watching .
Evolution (macro) says that one kind of animal TURNS INTO ANOTHER kind. It is the Fairy Tale of "The Frog Prince", except instead of a kiss turning the frog into a Prince, it takes "millions of years", instead. The "kiss" version is more scientific and believable! This has NEVER been observed, cannot be repeated, has absolutely NO empirical evidence, and is no more scientific than the Sunday Funnies. It is more comical than a Three Stooges film festival.
Evolution says that a mouse becomes a moose, or a goose becomes a moose, a birch becomes a perch, a horsefly becomes a horse, and a frog becomes a Prince. Yes, it is a fairy tale too unbelievable for the brothers Grimm to include.
2. MISSING LINKS
The term "missing link" is an incredible underestimation, the whole CHAIN is missing! There are NO links they are ALL missing. There should be numerous transitional life forms between every species (thousands if not millions of different ones), but there is NOT even ONE indisputable link! Some evolutionists will try to claim one or two are, but they are highly suspect. All that have been proposed so far (Archaeopteryx, the horse series, Lucy, et al) have been thoroughly discredited.
The straw that evolutionists will grasp is to claim that the links must be out there somewhere, we just haven't found them yet. This shows the utter lack of intellectual honesty they exhibit. Evolutionists have been searching diligently for nearly 140 years since Darwin's Fables was published. If they can't uncover even ONE missing link in a century and a half, why should we believe anything they spew out? No evidence in 140 years, and that's supposed to masquerade for 'science'?
Darwin was at least honest enough to say that the fossil record should bear the missing links IF his theory was true. The fossil record has failed miserably to show evolution. when it comes to empirical evidence, evolution is "without form and void". Not only are there no new links discovered in the past 140 years, but there are even LESS "disputable" ones, as those formerly offered have been proven false.
Supposedly, a theory that cannot be visibly substantiated can be verifiable or falsifiable by predictions it should be able to make. The predictions of evolution would be that the fossil record would show all kinds of transitional forms, since creatures allegedly change from one into another. The predictions of the Genesis Creation model would be that the fossil record would show all creatures fully formed, with no fractional transitions. The Creation scenario is exactly what 140 years of the best efforts of evolutionists purposefully trying to document their own foolishness have uncovered in the fossil record. Evolution is unable to make predictions worthy of a fortune cookie!
The biggest gaps in the theory come at the beginning. We have one celled creatures. The next most "simple" creatures contain thousands of cells. Where are the two-celled transitions? How about the four-celled links? Anybody for eight? Sixteen? 32, 64, ...hut! ? They have been missing longer than Amelia Earhart.
Then comes the gap between soft creatures and invertebrates. Invertebrates have no backbone, so they instead have a shell like a lobster. How could soft tissue evolve into a lobster shell with no transitional phases on the way? Houdini could not pull that one off.
How about invertebrate to vertebrates (creatures with a backbone)? The shell suddenly folded up, stuffed itself inside the creature, and began working as a complicated spine with no in-between stages? No, actually the theory is what suddenly "folded up"!
There are no transitions between ANY of the species. But if there could be, they would be a PROBLEM, not the solution. How could legs evolve into wings (or scales into feathers, etc.) without first being incomplete as EITHER? That would make the evolving creature highly susceptible to being caught by predators, and being unable to catch food itself, thereby becoming extinct. If someone espousing evolution had any less sense, he'd have to be watered twice a week.
Think about this, how did sea life supposedly evolve up into mammals, and then the whales decided to go back into the water? Are whales backsliders?
Mammals (which whales are) give birth HEAD-first (except, of course, partial-birth aborted humans, which are turned backwards on purpose, so their brains can be sucked out before their head is out of the womb). If whales gave birth like mammals should, we wouldn't worry about having to "save the baby whales", they'd all drown! It takes too long for a whale to give birth. Wouldn't you know, whales naturally give birth upside-down! Now how did evolution 'know' how to do that? Did it wait until all the babies drowned and then realize that they needed to give breach birth? Too late, they'd be as extinct as the theory of evolution!
Add to this the irregularity of the fossils than do exist. Many of them are found in the wrong stratas, some are found upright through more than one strata. that would mean they took millions of years to be fossilized (if the supposed ages are accurate, which they're not, which is another dagger into evolution). They would have decayed in that time. The Grand Canyon, for example, is missing nearly 200 million years of fossil layers.
If you give an evolutionist a penny for his thoughts, you'd get back change.
3. THERMODYNAMICS
The first two laws of Thermodynamics render evolution as impossible as a Cadillac evolving from an old Datsun, after an accident. They are LAWS, provable, demonstrable, testable, repeatable, empirical, scientific LAWS, not some wild dream like evolution.
The 1st Law is the law of conservation. It states that neither matter, nor energy, can be created or destroyed. One can be changed into the other, but it cannot be annihilated.
This proves that no matter or energy can be created by natural means. It is impossible. Again, it requires something SUPER-natural, and we are back to Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
Evolutionists just cannot get past the very first verse in the Bible. No matter how hard they try to avoid it, we keep coming back to Gen 1:1. If one can accept that "In the beginning GOD...", the rest of the Bible comes easy.
They cannot explain how the first thing came into existence out of nothing. Some call that first item, the "Cosmic Egg". Well, how did it get there? Was it laid by a cosmic chicken? Evolutionists really cannot tell which came first between the chicken and the egg!
The second law is the law of entropy. When changing form, some of the energy becomes unusable, and thus everything runs down, decays, ages, breaks-down, becomes random, etc. when left to itself.
This proves that evolution is absurdly impossible because it claims that we have evolved progressively. According to true science, all things break down. We should be de-volving, if natural processes take their course, they opposite of what evolution says. Of course we do not become another kind of creature, but we do age and decay as required by the 2nd law.
Evolution is in the unenviable position of having to assert that random mutations somehow reverse the tendency of destruction inherent in the 2nd law as well as the mutations themselves.
This law also proves impossible that something has always existed. Nothing can exist infinitely, it would wear-out sooner or later. Evolutionists must have a time buying a used car and expecting it not to break-down in spite of the maintenance and fuel added to it.
The argument that evolutionist will use is to claim that the laws of Thermodynamics only apply to a closed system, not to an open one. There are more holes in that claim than in Swiss cheese after a machine gun attack!
1) Thermodynamic laws have operated on every system ever observed, open or closed. It's an open and shut case. They simply hope and pray that somewhere there is an open system that violates the law. It takes more faith than a religious zealot to believe that in the face of the fact that it's never been observed.
2) The universe is a closed system. An open system has an outside source feeding it energy. Of course, that means the outside source would undergo entropy. If there is something outside the universe feeding it, it is something beyond what is natural. It would be something SUPER-natural. Here we go again, right back to Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." The main idea of evolution is that the universe got here with NO outside help. They cannot explain how the FIRST thing got here, without God.
3) We are an example of an open system. We get our energy (fuel) from food and the sun. Nonetheless, we still age and DIE. Obviously the 2nd law still works in an open system. If aging and death are the evolutionist's idea of victory over entropy, then they can expect a huge rebate from this taxing of their brains.
4) Growth is not an example of improvement or defeating entropy. Everything needed for the entire life of an organism is present in the genes. Growth is not necessarily an improvement. It requires outside fuel, thus the provider undergoes entropy. As something grows it needs more and bigger organs to accomplish less than the original single-celled organism! Imagine how complex that original zygote must have been. Growth still doesn't explain how one kind of creature can change into another, which is what evolution requires.
5) Even if a living creature could defeat entropy temporarily, that doesn't explain how the entire universe could support any kind of evolutionary scenario. The universe would've been destroyed before it could ever create increasing complexity all by itself (we are back to Gen 1:1 and the SUPER-natural again!)
6) Evolutionists believe that the very same processes that have been observed only to cause decay, death, and destruction caused NOTHING to create something, and the something to make itself come alive and then to evolve into more complex creatures culminating with man. What great faith!
7) An open system alone would not be enough to form life, even if it could defeat entropy. Also needed would be an adequate supply of energy, a conversion system to make the supply of raw energy constructive, and a control system to direct and regulate the conversion. All must exist simultaneously. None of these conditions are inherent in the origin of the universe.
It looks like the theory of evolution is suffering from a severe case of entropy.
5. BIG BANG BALONEY
The first question that must be asked is, "What banged?" How did the "Cosmic Egg", or "Hot Dot", (or whatever the going theory proposes) come into existence? Where did the energy come from to make it bang? The Big Popgun theorizes that the egg/dot spun rapidly to form the energy to be put into motion. But, what made it spin? How did it get hot? Do they really expect sane people to believe that all of the matter in the universe was compacted into something the size of an egg or a dot! Once again, evolutionists can't get beyond the first verse in the Bible.
There is one fatal flaw in the Big Bang bunk. The Law of the Conservation of Angular Momentum specifies that if a rotating object breaks up, the pieces will continue spinning in the same direction until acted upon by an outside force. Of course, we are talking about the origin of matter and energy, there WAS no outside force to interfere with the motion, except "In the beginning God..."!
The problem is that two planets (Venus and Uranus), and several moons spin backwards! Some of the moons even rotate north/south instead of east/west. Some are even revolving backwards around their planet! The Angular Momentum is yet another empirical scientific LAW that must be broken for evolution to be true. If evolution keeps on being such a lawbreaker, pretty soon it will have to deal with the Lawgiver!
The Big Bang is backwards! As a matter of fact, in the Bible account, that's not how the world began, that's how it will end!
6. OXYGEN DILEMMA
One more simple fact that evolutionists ignore is the oxygen dilemma.
Evolutionists know that if oxygen was present when their theory of origins was taking place, that organic molecules would be destroyed before they could be made. Thus, they pretend like there was no oxygen in the early earth model.
The problem is, with no oxygen (which would also mean no Ozone which is oxygen with an extra atom per molecule), there'd be nothing to filter the earth from harmful radiation from the sun. This includes dangerous ultra-violet rays, gamma rays, infra-red light, and others. They, especially the UV, are fatal to a forming life. UV light destroys amino acids for one.
Thus, with, or without, oxygen, life couldn't have naturally arisen. One more time, that puts the beginning of life in the SUPER-natural realm, back to Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Ho, hum, the evolutionists still can't get past the very first verse in the Bible.
What a dunderhead. Starts out confusing evolution with abiogenesis, and goes even further into stupidity as he describes what he thinks evolution says or doesn't say.
Show me the scientific papers, from refereed scientific journals, to back up your wild, irrational arguments. If you can't do that, you have no evidence, and no argument.
Seems to think rhetoric equals science, which is utterly false. That post is so wrong, it isn't even wrong.
Teno: Why are you afraid of evolution?
Teno Groppi at #506, You've spammed Freerepublic with this, verbatim, in 2003, promising we'd have fits and run away, and you only now get around to field-testing your claims? You left off the funniest part of your so-called E-Z Evolution Refuter, the preamble!
(Is Gumby available in blockquotes for commenters? I'll just put a hanky on my head then, shall I?)
Ken, thanks for the history with with this troll. Five years to polish and find scientific evidence to back up his ideas, and still nothing. Says something about the laziness and moral bankruptcy of creobots.
Well, that's your first lie.
And the rest is 40 paragraphs, some 300-odd sentences, of additional, already-refuted lies.
That's a lot of lying.
I think that crosses the line into genuine false testimony. If there's a Hell, you're going to Hell.
That's quite a steaming pile of wrong you dumped there Teno.
(pokes at it with stick) I don't suppose you intend to clean it up?
I'll just respond to one of your points: the "oxygen dilemma". Abiogenesis is thought to have occurred in water, which, if it is deep enough, does a fine job of blocking harmful radiation. That was easy!
"Abiogenesis is THOUGHT to have occurred in water"
What a laugh -- "THOUGHT"! You are delusional, where is any of this proof?! I suppose only in theory.
Try again, this lacks believability.
Everything you wrote lacks believability, you bearer of false witness.
Teno, still no cited scientific literature for your ideas? Are you just an idiot? If you have an argument, you need some facts (evidence) to back it up. Attempting to tear down the other side does not prove your ideas. Now, time to cite the scientific literature backing your ideas, or go back home and stay there. Without proof you have nothing. At the moment, you just look like an illiterate fool.
Teno Groppi,
What will you do when your ludicrous ravings have no effect? There isn't a fresh thought in the whole stinking heap of feculent vomit you just produced. Idiots like you have been spewing rubbish like this for 150 years, while evolutionary theory goes from strength to strength, and research on the distinct problem of abiogenesis makes rapid progress. On the latter, have a look at the work of Shostak for example, and come back with a detailed, rational critique - or not at all.
Yes Teno, it is thought to have occurred in water. Just about all of biochemistry happens in water. All of our oldest fossils come from aquatic environments. Its not exactly a wild shot in the dark to suppose that abiogenesis occurred there.
And the evidence is as follows:
1) Every living cell is composed of mostly water;
2) Water is absolutely vital to life; all of the chemical reactions that involve life require water
3) The ocean is teeming with life, more so than the land, and far more so than the air. A bucket of ocean water will have billions of microscopic organisms living in it.
4) The Szostak Laboratory and other researchers into the origins of life have found several promising chemical reactions, all of which take place in liquid water.
5)
a) Water is very common, covering 75% of the planet, with the oceans reaching from the equator to the poles, and to depths of some 10 kilometers.
b) Light penetration in all frequencies falls off in recognizable gradients as depth increases.
c) Convection brings warmer water up into lighter zones and back down again into darker zones.
6) Water temperatures on the Earth can range from completely frozen to ice-water slurries to ordinary liquid, to boiling, to superheated states under extreme pressures. This allows for an equally large range of chemical reactions that can take place in each of these conditions.
And so on. So that's 6 thoughts with a large range of potential implications for the origins of life.
Meanwhile, theists can't get God to talk about what he allegedly did. Theism fails.
where is any of this proof?! I suppose only in theory.
See, this sort of mocking response (with the capslock and exclamation marks and the ignorance of the way words like proof and theory are used by people with even a high school level of understanding of science) shows that TG's style of discourse is suitable only for those who reject and deny science, out of stubborn, willful ignorance, and sheer intellectual sloth.
Which brings up another point. Between complete ignorance of abiogenesis and having it nailed down is a wide spectrum of levels of knowledge. While science doesn't know (yet) how it occurred, it has moved far enough along that spectrum to disturb the sleep of any creationist scientifically literate enough to understand it (which obviously excludes Teno Groppi.)
Hogwash about the water. Science 101 on hydrolysis tells us that water is "necessary" for life, but it is also detrimental "to the origins" of life since it decomposes the molecules of amino acid bonds. Look it up, its in your basic chemistry book.
Your imagination here that water creates life resembles the wings of a pig.
Hogwash on you. Look up the origins of life research.
Your imagination that God creates life is less believable than the wings of a pig.
Teno, that is not what I taught in introductory organic. Just another creation liar. Your lies are just too easy to refute. Time to shut up.
Your imagination here that water creates life resembles the wings of a pig.
Nobody here has made a claim even remotely similar to the claim that water creates life. Adding reading comprehension to the checklist.
Reminds me of one creationist nut who said water breaks down all chemical bonds, and apparently believes the world turns into soup whenever it rains.
This is slightly less stupid. I have a hard time believing this because aren't all our amino acids in water right now?
As for Creationism, as so many others have pointed out, it hasn't gotten beyond screaming "Magic! Voodoo! Pixies! Chi!" as their explanation for anything.
I wish I could link to an article I read some time back, which listed the umpteen times that creationists predicted the imminent "death of Darwinism", beginning shortly after the On the Origin of Species was published, but I can't find it with a quick search (there's too much "noise"). It was a looooooong list, well-populated in the 19th and 20th centuries, and it apparently continues.
..."it decomposes the molecules of amino acid bonds" Whaaa? That's gibberish.
Nobody said, or believes, that water "creates" life; water is the environment in which live arose. If you are going to persist in this, you really should educate yourself about the science you're criticizing. You wouldn't go to a physics site to argue quantum theory armed only with what you remember from high school physics, would you? Then why would you come here with only the misinformation and the cartoon version of evolution you picked up from creationists?
I had noticed that some of you are very careful in choosing your words and responding that science doesn't know (yet) how it occurred. This is obviously the truth along with acknowledging that IT HAS NEVER BEEN WITNESSED not even in the most sophisticated laboratories in the world.
You people are sitting in a sewer of crapulous lout and adding to it. And, you are so full of it that even the toilets are jealous.
Your claims (and theories) are essentially rootless.
Teno Groppi,
You are a pathetic moron. Of course we say that we don't yet know how life first emerged, because we don't. Science is not complete, peabrain, but advances continue apace, with absolutely no reason to think abiogenesis cannot be reproduced in the laboratory. Until you've done as I suggested, and studied current work, such as that of Shostak, your stupid remarks are worthless. Now fuck off, there's a good troll.
Says the guy speaking for a God that never says anything at all.
They are based on reason and evidence.
Your claims and arguments are obviously all false, you liar.
Teno crappino, why don't you take a gander at wikipedia's article on abiogenisis before you sling anymore of your ignorant shit around eh?
Teno groppi said:
Science hasn't been able to reproduce an event that took place more than 3.5 billion years ago,over a period of thousands, if not millions of years, under conditions only partially understood.
Wow. What a comeback. You sure got us there Teno. /sarcasm
Assume, for the sake of argument, that the hypothesis of natural abiogenesis is correct. What makes you think that science should be able to replicate it?
Exactly what Jesus would have said!
Teno, you do realise the TOE doesn't address abiogenesis, but change of existing life?
No, it hasn't been observed (hard to do, it occurred billions of years ago). However, science is close to duplicating that feat - i.e. creating life de novo.
You're in denial.
Let me amend my last comment to read: Why should science be able to replicate it today right now?
By the way, Groppi, just what is a "sewer of crapulous lout"? I don't think the words in that phrase mean what you think they do. But then, there clearly aren't many things that mean what you think they do.
tresmal, even if (I think when) science creates life from scratch, it will only prove that it can be done, not that it was the way it actually happened. I can't see how that can ever be definitively known, but doing that much is enough to remove any need for the supernatural.
You finally concede!
I never though the day would come.
I will certainly be going now to let you hoodwinked fools bicker endlessly (unresolved) among yourselves.
Maybe you'd be better off doing some soul searching.
listen Teno, if your god is SO DAMN SMART, have him submit his own fucking researcth paper! OR at the very least, dictate it to someone! That would solve all your problems, but sadly, illusions are not a suitable substitute for Scientific trial and mathmatical/experimental rigor, and they never will.
#537.
TG declares victory and scarpers. Nobody could have seen that one coming.
Teno, you don't have theory until you prove god exist. Where is your proof for god? A nice piece of physical evidence is required. Or is that beyond your feeble skills?
No god, no creation. Simple.
Who conceded what?
I concede that Teno Groppi is a liar.
Teno Groppi bullshat:
The ol' Vietnam strategy; declare victory and leave. You really mean you got your ass handed to you and are now tucking your tail between your legs and are scurrying away.
Maybe you should do some science searching.
@537: apotheosis of denial.
well, if he's gone, that's one less ulcer in my stomach. and that's all that matters at the end of the day right?
John Morales @536 I agree completely.
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!
Is Teno from an alternate reality?
More comedic gold.
Two thoughts: It may be possible to show that whichever way was found was indeed the most uniquely probable chemical reaction path due to the various contingent conditions.
And if it doesn't look like that particular chemical reaction path was particularly unique, why stop at just one process of creating life? I can see abiogenesis research branching into both continued applied biotechnology and more and more advanced organic chemistry, and of course, both branches building upon and feeding into each other.
The point being, the science would not just stop even if one particular definite abiogenesis process was discovered, and if there are more to be discovered, they will be.
Ah, what a despicable tactic. Just declare victory (don't even say how it's a victory) and leave. Fortunately, it's fooling no one.
Dear Redhead,
Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist that there is no God.
Two lies (or three? or four?) in one comment...
Teno, you are irrelavent and an ignoramus, don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out ok?
Teno, the burden of proof is upon those making the claims. If you claim god caused creation, then you must prove god. You non-answer is really an answer saying you are a lying sack of shit because you know you can't prove god. Time to put up or shut up. Shut up means going away and never returning.
Owlmirror,
Well, we're sure bickering, aren't we? ;)
I love science - so many things what were unimagined by our ancestors have come to pass in my lifetime - things which were considered impossible by science past (actual imaging of atoms and of extra-solar planets, for instance).
You remind me of Clarke's "laws".
Science is anything but dogmatic, though practicioners of it may well be.
my vote's "shut up." How do we know he isn't a sockpuppet anyway? there's alot of stupid floating around here these days... On the other hand, his stupid has a distinct revolting smell, dirrerent from the other's...
Teno Groppi #506,
Did you even what this thread is about? At the very top of the page this argument is completely destroyed.
Clarke's 3rd is my favorite one to ponder. I actually did a short story once from the perspective of a sentient being made of nanobots that lived around one of the brine seas on the ocean floor once. Superintelligent algea basically, "magic weed" lol. I was wondering, has ANY scientific theory ever been discarded without a replacement being made first? If there hasn't, it makes it completely idiotic for any ID/creationist nuts to be raving about how wrong we are because they have no theories or hypothoses to speak of, only notions and ideas, with no math/ evidence to back it up.
Teno Groppi [...]
Sigh.
1) Spontaneous generation
1.1) ...more properly should be referred to as "Abiogenesis" or "the Biogenic Transition", to separate it from the discredited conjecture involving timescales eight to twelve orders of magnitude smaller.
1.2) ...is separate from the question of evolutionary development after the development of a universal common cellular ancestor.
1.3) ...has a fair bit of research supporting it. See doi:10.1039/a803602k for a overview of the chemistry, and doi:10.1073/pnas.0806714105 for a recent overview of the math.
Incidentally, you misuse the terms microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution refers to genetic mutations within a population with the potential to diffuse (EG: sexually) within the rest of the population. Speciation results when a population is divided into two (or more) groups where there is a substantive probabilistic barrier against such diffusion Thereafter, new microevolutionary mutations in one subgroup are macroevolutionary to the other.
2) Missing links
2.1) ...are example of how the data set is incomplete. However, a complete data set is an impossibility; data are always incomplete. Science is a philosophical tool designed to determine the most probable character of data yet to be found.
Also, you misunderstand "falsifiability". In a more formal mathematical sense, this equates to "is distinguishable from the null hypothesis". Let me know if you want details.
3) Thermodynamics
3.1) First law, see below under "big bang".
3.2) AGAIN, see paper: "Natural selection for least action", by Ville R. I. Kaila and Arto Annila (doi:10.1098/rspa.2008.0178). When the second law of thermodynamics is expressed for connected subsystems with mass-energy flow between, natural selection is a mathematical consequence.
4) There was no 4.
5) The Big Bang
5.1) The big bang is also independent of the question of evolution, as with the Biogenic transition.
5.2) Weirdly, the total mass-energy of the universe to within measurement limits is... zero. If correct, the big bang does not violate the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. There is a related analysis showing that the entropy increase involved means that having something is higher entropy than having nothing.
5.3) The "problems" with angular momentum result from assuming a perfectly uniform distribution of the universe. The development of local backward "eddies" is easy enough in several models of solar system development (EG: coalescence from a cloud of atoms with initial velocities random but bounded by net mass escape velocity), especially with Jupiter providing "slingshot" effects.
6) Oxygen
6.1) ...existed, but was admittedly tied up in compounds instead of O2 and O3
6.2) ...of those compounds, H2O and CO2 provide perfectly tolerable UV barriers
Dear Keno,
It is incredible how little I talk of god when there is no religious person around to bring up the topic.
But, hey, you "won". Go celebrate! Break open the champagne and stray it about. You deserve it.
RickrOll, Ken Cope #509 mentioned Teno is an old creobot who hasn't changed his arguments in five years. Typical. The creationists haven't had an original thought since Darwin's day. So at the end of the day, they sound very similar. Meanwhile, science has progressed 150 years which they never seem to grasp. Teno will be back to try to get the last word. But we will.
Very true. Science will change as the evidence changes. But for creationism/ID to be considered, they have to prove their case with evidence (not rhetoric) that isn't explained by evolution. So far, the creationist/ID movement has been very poor about getting their physical evidence into the scientific literature.
So Teno, you need to publish your evidence in scientific journals instead of posting rhetoric here.
abb3w, that was great. I'll be doing some reading, just so you don't waste your effort on the creobot.
"Pearls before swine" and all that...
abb3w,
Abb3w; wow, you slogged your way through that entire mess. If I could buy you a drink I would.
The thing that strikes me is that I get the impression that he(?) genuinely thinks that that pitiful pile of errors, non sequiturs, assertions and gibberish is really truly a devastating and fatal critique of evolution. Sad. Hilarious, but sad.
All you people are good for is leading the league in nostril hair! Your defeat over me is like being savaged by dead sheep.
Look, you conceded that there IS NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF that living things evolved from water. Yet you continue to imagine like teddy bears eating cookies that it somehow found a way, which let me remind you has not been discovered yet, nor will it ever be. Szostak Laboratory is nowhere near creating life consisting of 100% left handed amino acids (which are completely evident in all forms of living things). It isn't creating anything new. It uses existing materials that were all ready present. This is just manipulating things that we already have here on earth.
You continue to envision something that is not there. Now I suspect that you will come back with some sort of trolling retort spinning what I just said to your own means.
This forum is very bias, I think I should invite some of my creationist friends to even things up.
New creotard makes Randy seem intelligent
abb3w, your second link seems at first sight to be somewhat ad-hoc, if not facile. It seems more of a tutorial on using (simple) math than an examination of physical cosmology. It doesn't, for example, address dark matter/dark energy.
Which is not to say I dispute the point you make in the comment.
Abb3wL @557: Excellent.
*sigh* How much blame can i put on the creobots when our own education system in this country is Atrocious! it makes me so sad that we are still producing morons like these by default in the Bible Belt, and it doesn't help that in genral there is a completely anti-intellectual movement in this country (evidenced by S*r*h P*l*n- i dares not speaks it's name hissssss!! The attacks on Obama as an 'elitist' spring from this very same primitive sector of the brain). Looking at the education systems of Russia (my chemistry Proffesor is from Russia, so i know from her) and Japan, where Calculus is taken in 8th grade, to mention only 1 example, it makes me wonder if there is any chance that this epiphenomenon of blustering idio-centric, anti-evolution bollocks will dissapear. But i digress...
I think it's probable Teno, currious and randy are the same person as all three continually use differently spelled variations of their names. My kill-file is damn near useless because I keep having to add them again when they post as the spelling has changed just that much.
I know currious has posted here before because of that annoying thing where instead of quotation marks or block quoting they do that "blank said:" thing which annoyed me when someone else (can't for the life of me remember who) did it a while back.
Of course I could just be a paranoid fuck.
Teno @563, you want to bring in other masochists who wish to be ridiculed as much as you have been? That's weird, and perverse.
On the original web-page, there is a heading that includes
"4. MICRO-BIOLOGY". There is no corresponding subsection.
It's said that since at least Feb 2001 (Internet Archive), and possibly earlier (date of the web page).
It's like he spewed out his lies 7 or 8 years ago, and then ran out of steam. Not only did he not correct them with the rebuttals that must have been made many times before now, he didn't even edit the page so that it looked slightly less moronic in terms of the formatting and numbering.
Sloth is a sin, son, as is false witness. You're going to Hell with all the rest of us.
Oh, the joys of raving ignoramuses. Most of your statement have already been debunked before you even made them. You haven't read the scientific literature, and it shows.
Be a good little boy and go back to cellar and tinfoil hats. Somebody is out to get you.
No, but there is plenty of proof that livings things do and have evolved. The moment of abiogenesis took place around 3.8 billion years ago, and all we have to recreate it is a few rocks and minerals from that time. We don't know the series of events that led to life, but that is abiogenesis and not evolution. Evolution happened, it's scientific fact. We see mutation, adaptation and speciation both in nature and in the lab.
Abiogenesis is a necessary consequence of evolution, it's the origin of life as opposed to adaptation. We know it had to have happened, we just don't know how. It doesn't make evolution any less valid, it's just another question that needs to be answered. Not knowing how the solar system formed doesn't make heliocentric orbit wrong.
re-reading the thread it looks like Teno is a distinct personality (ken cope 509)
I maintain my stance that currious has been here before though, no way more than one person uses that type of quoting
Reality and empirical evidence also have a well known liberal bias.
Teno Groppi/currious(?)/Randy(?): why don't you go play hide-and-go-fuck-yourself? seriously, are you dropping acid? You fucking imbecile. You know what, no. I'll let the big boys handle you. You aren't worth 1 second more of my time.
No-one conceded any such thing, you moron liar, since no one claimed that "living things evolved from water".
Why would anyone care what additional liars say? Until you invite God to demonstrate miraculous creation from nothing, you are all just spewing ignorant lies.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 15, 2008
All you people are good for is leading the league in nostril hair!
What sport is that, Sport?
Look out, Teno has a magnifying glass, glancing up our noses, counting, counting.
More noise from Teno Groppi:
You suck at insults.
Nobody ever thought that life "evolved from water". Water is the medium in which abiogenesis occurred. If you can't understand that basic a distinction, you have no business being here.
Whaaa?
Argument by assertion. Unless you can back that up
You mean scientists aren't done yet? Shocking!
Just like abiogenesis.
Please do. Maybe 4 or 5 of you could combine to come up with a 3 digit IQ.
WE are envisioning something that isn't there!? Talk about clueless.
Its you people who are paranoid. I was invited to take a look at this forum by the poster Curious.
I would suffice to say that there is no neutral ground. It seems that every square inch and every split second someone is posting some counterclaimed drivel by satan. It just seems to go on and on. I have never seen a forum having people glued to their computers and posting nonstop all day long. If this isnt a measure of control or addiction I dont know what is. I think its actually a sickness!
You people need to get a life and escape out of the realm of satans control. You know, I veagly remember one of Hitlers tactics of control. He wanted all the school books to be indoctrinated the way that he thought they should be as a measure of controling the nations rational thinking -- so that he could control them to see the Jew as something reduced as a plague on society. When in reality is was the Jews that were the real achievers (something that satan drastically hates). I guess hes still trying to destroy the promised seed. The same idea of evolutionist thinking seem to be very prevelent here and working in the fields of science.
Pretty soon they are going to be telling us that since we evolved from our closest ancestor the ape and as a means of this evolutionary step from animal to man many RAPES (uncontested sex) occurred. Therefore in the naturalistic world the rape of a woman is seem as something acceptable. Can you imagine the far reaching power of this indoctrination of evolutionistic ideas.
You people are ignorant and DANGEROUS!
John Morales abb3w, your second link seems at first sight to be somewhat ad-hoc, if not facile.
The "zero energy" one? True; however, that link's pretty easy to find via Google, so I usually use it when the topic comes up. I haven't bothered to track down a good technical paper on that one yet, nor the followup about how having something is higher entropy than having nothing. My interest is in other areas of math.
Others should feel free to find better references on the topic (EG, via Google Scholar) and post 'em.
I, however, enjoy my sloth.
So anybody who accepts evolution is a Satan-worshipping nazi rapist? Ooookay. That tinfoil hat you're wearing is defective.
That explains a lot, he was mentally defective too.
lol, provide evidence for Satan's existence and irrefutable evidence that we are under his control.
Yet in the US prison system there are almost no atheists and there's a disproportionate number of baptists.
And teaching science is not indoctrination. Teaching ideas that are contrary to reality and putting hell as a consequence for not believing is indoctrination. Science just works on empirical data, and anyone is free to ignore it as they want with no consequences. Evolution happened, all evidence points to it. If you can't handle that then fine. But the reason it's the only concept of life taught in science is that it's the only idea that fits the evidence. Universe is at least 13.7 billion years old, solar system is 4.6 billion years old, life began around 3.7 billion years ago and there's been gradual change over time. Humans only appear in the last couple of hundred thousand years ago. If you can think of a theory that fits all the evidence, then present it to the academic arena. If you can't, then you are just another indoctrinated fool who thinks their ignorance trumps hundreds of years of accumulated knowledge.
I also observe that many of you use foul words, and are evidently ANGRY! (where is the forum moderator here?)
Once you lose your temper, you've lost the argument.
Teno Groppi:
Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936
Is that who you really are? Well, it sure makes sense, you being the Father of Lies.
Well, that's why we argue with you, Satan.
Yes, you are. Liar.
No, once you lose your mind, you've lost the argument. Which for you looks to have been at least 8 years ago, if not earlier.
Lets see. PZ is a mild mannered professor who got thrown out trying to see a movie he was in, but the ID people behind the movie felt he would disrupt it. And the same people let in Richard Dawkins, best selling atheist/evolutionist into that movie. Doesn't speak well for the intelligence or morals of the creobots. You, Teno, fall into the same group of non-thinkers.
Still no physical proof for your god. Still no scientific proof for your assertions. Just intellectually bankrupt verbiage. What a loser.
Tenno Groppi: I have never seen a forum having people glued to their computers and posting nonstop all day long.
Try Fark.com (which has a thread triggered by the same paper as here dying out as well).
Tenno Groppi: Therefore in the naturalistic world the rape of a woman is seem as something acceptable.
This definition of "acceptable" neglects that morality is itself subject to evolutionary improvement. (See, for example, Darwin's Cathedral, ISBN 0226901343.) Again, the slippery slope to Social Spencerism is raised; it's a strawman these days.
And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exploited. - Adolf Hitler
My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in his might and seized the scourge to drive out of the temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profpoundly than ever before that it was for this that he had to shed his blood on the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice...". - Adolf Hitler
Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith . . . we need believing people. - Adolf Hitler
I think it clear "Teno" is just trolling at this point.
Like any troll, it craves attention, even if it's only insults, and lacks the nous to realise it's not actually disrupting the forum (we're what, into the sixth century of comments?).
Pathetic, I know.
Owlmirror,
Everyone can see that you are the spin-master of the conversation. What a bunch of billage!
As for all you evolutionists. There is a condition worse than blindness, and that's seeing something that isn't there.
i see currious has very E-steamed [horse shit] company; what a coward, he won't even come over here himself. You know what, it is very very curious to me that this guy shows up immediatelly after PZ's Mac crashes. do you guys leave the window open all the time and idiots can buzz in like mosquitos (well, no, not mosquitos, because mosquitos take something of SUstanance from their host, as opposed to being copmpletely hare-brained pissants), or is this caliber of shit-for-brains somewhat of a "blue moon" occurance?
Apropos nothing at hand, anyone still lurking about care to throw out a one-to-three sentence description of how/why Evolutionary variation is radiative, especially when selective pressures are absent?
abb3w @592, as someone with no more than a high-school education (completed in 1977), I offer this: Niche expansion and adaptation.
Because I know a liar when he won't shut up?
Teno:"As for all you evolutionists. There is a condition worse than blindness, and that's seeing something that isn't there."
And that's not a problem for creationists right? You have absolutely no clue of the complete lack of self awareness you show, do you?
Completely oblivious to irony.
I notice you've stopped even pretending to debate science.
This forum is officially a fossilized wash rag. It lacks narrative, friendliness, good character, believability, and frankly, to any further extent, watchability.
By the way; you forgot to mention that in addition to being Satan-worshipping nazi rapists, we also eat babies. Live babies. Live unbaptized babies.
You describe yourself rather well.
i think this whole "the human body is proof" aspect of Creationism is crap. let's see: wisdom teeth, very dangerous development of the brain in adolescents (due to the reason/judgement part of the brainbeing the very last to develop), i see almost no instinct that would help us survive as it were, and the most amazing thing of all: we're improving on God's porported design! it's histerical. I don't know of anyone who has looked deeply into this, but they have made artifiscial red blood cells that are smaller and more effiecient that Real blood cells. And we're not talking only marginally more efficient, they can carry 270x the amount of oxygen as a normal red blood cell. amazing huh? they are working on artificial white blood cells and other things as well. We have made nano-scale material that outstrips a gecko in stickiness by 2-3x, and i could go on... the research is very far from over, and not until we have expanded and improved on every facet that we see in nature, will our work be near completion. Amazing what science can do.
Groppi, we can't miss you if you don'e LEAVE!
Hm, I was too terse in responding to #592. How about "Unavoidable mutation increases variation, which leads to niche expansion, which leads to adaptation; repeat". I suppose that involves selective pressures, but I don't see how such can be avoided, since by definition any environment implies selection for organisms that can survive in that environment, and organisms must (given limited resources) compete with one another.
Still one sentence, though.
Please point out to me where any of you thoroughly discussed in full length anything remotely scientific except for pure 100% royal rhetoric in all of these nearly 600 posts?
All you have done is cited others work - like parrots, along with bowing down to the holy scientific textbook (that you hold so dear to you). Who among you has worked in a laboratory to see and witness these things for yourself firsthand?
@602, Teno trolls again. Teno just loves being put down and derided. Go Teno, go.
Teno,
"Pretty soon they are going to be telling us that since we evolved from our closest ancestor the ape and as a means of this evolutionary step from animal to man many RAPES (uncontested sex) occurred."
What does this even mean? Break it down for us....
You make "set from animal to man" sound like some sort of phase shift. man = animal.
"All you have done is cited others work - like parrots, along with bowing down to the holy scientific textbook (that you hold so dear to you). Who among you has worked in a laboratory to see and witness these things for yourself firsthand?"
Teno, its Textbook(s). Plural. We have more than one book to site, unlike creationist.
Teno, do you even know how scientific research is accomplished?
Hold on, I think I have more troll food in the basement.... brb.
More Groppi: "All you have done is cited others work "
1) Citing others' work is scientific.
2) Its a hell of a lot more than you've done.
Speaking of which; where is your evidence for creation. Your case against evolution- pathetic as it is- doesn't count. It helps the Hindu creation story and other religions' stories as much as it helps yours. Scripture doesn't count either. You can't use the bible to prove the bible. What I'm talking about here is actual positive evidence for creation. I'm guessing (actually I know) that you've got nothing.
RickrOLL,
Your extremism of technology needs to be though of in a different light. Firstly we need to ask the question if it is truly our invention or Gods creation?
Here are some examples:
Camera (lens, focus, iris, film) / Eye (cornea curves to focus, iris, retina)
Microphone / Ear drum / Amphitheatre shape / Outer ear shape
Pump / Heart / Valves Heart valves
Plumbing and hydraulic systems / Circulatory system
Communication / telephone cables / Spinal cord / nervous system
Ball joint / Shoulder joint
Windshield wiper / Eye lid
Wiper fluid / Tears
Knife / Incisor teeth
Mortar and pestle / Molar teeth
Woodwinds / Voice box
Computer / Electronic circuitry / Brain
Computer program / DNA
Bubble level / Inner ear tubes for balance
Construction crane (jointed arm, scoop) / Arm and hand
Honeycomb reinforcements / Bee's honeycomb
Solar panel (energy from light) / Leaf
Fish hook (reverse barb design) / Bee stinger
Light stick (light from chemical reactions) / Firefly
Airplanes (airfoil wings, hollow struts, tail) / Birds (airfoil wings, hollow bones, tail)
Submarine ballast / Fish (ballast bladder)
Sonar / Bats, dolphins
Paper from wood pulp / Wasp hives
Velcro / Thistle burrs (actually inspired Velcro)
Blu-blocker sunglasses / Orange oil in eagle eyes to improve acuity
Suction cups / Octopus
Inboard propulsion (boats) / Squid
Batteries (electricity from chemicals) / Eel
Navigation by stars / magnetic fields / Bird and butterfly migration
Music / Song birds
Anesthetics / Venoms and poisons
Swim fins, paddles / Webbed feet (frogs, ducks)
Water cooled systems / Sweat glands and perspiration
Core aeration for health of lawns / Worms, insects and moles
Hypodermic syringe / Snake fangs, also mechanism used by viruses to inject into cells
Antibiotic medicines / Immune system
Hydraulic shock absorbers / Knee joints
Dust filter / Nostril hairs
VCR, magnetic storage media / Memory, recording/viewing images
Gyroscope, top / Planetary rotation
Magnets / Lodestone
Internet / Brain, also Society
Mirror / Reflection on water
Wheel / Animals that curl and roll (armadillo)
Plastics (of many varieties and qualities) / Carbon-based life forms
(of bone, cartilage, tissues, transparent lenses, wood, feathers, etc., and all bio-degradable!)
Gasoline (expensive, dirty) / Methane (free, clean)
Barb wire fences / Briar bushes, thorns
Bridge supports and weight distribution / Elephant / Dinosaur skeletal framework
Robots / Humans
Nuclear energy or bomb (fusion) / Lamp / Sun
Electric and propulsion motors / Mechanical components of flagellum of bacteria & protozoan
Theme Parks / Nature / State Parks
Helicopter / Bumblebee / Hummingbird / Maple seed pods
Camouflage clothing / Camouflage skin and fur, chameleons
Armor / Exoskeletons
Movies, cast, film crew, director / Life, people, angels, subconscious
Night lights / street lights / The stars and the moon
Baby formula / Breast milk
Water filtration techniques / Same filtering techniques as found in nature and swamps and rivers - charcoal, silt
Fishing / Angler fish
Sponge (synthetic) / Sponge
Satellite / Moon
Cloning experiments / Reproductive systems, asexual reproduction
Pulleys, fulcrums, and levers / Foot joints and ligaments
Smoke detectors / Noses
Cup / Cupped hands
Greenhouse / Earth
Clock / Solar system
Fishing net / Spider's web
Magnifying glass / Droplet of water
Water filter / Kidneys
Irrigation canals / Roots in plants
Fires set to aid heath in agriculture / Naturally occurring forest fires
Protective environmental suit / Egg shell
Key and lock / Enzyme and related substrate
Suspension bridge / Spider web
Shock absorbing helmet / Woodpecker skull
Fix-a-flat for punctures in tires / Coagulants found in the blood
Smoke screen as a defense / Octopus ink
Fuel & air for mechanical engines / Food & air for biological engines
Chemical warfare / The Bombardier Beetle
Snowshoes / Penguin's feet
Frames of Buildings / Skeleton of living organisms
Weaving in a basket / Weaving in a bird's nest
Medicine / Herbs
Religions with rules about God / A relationship of love with God
Evolution of civilization and technology / Evolution of the universe and life
Beaver dams / Water dams
Dreams / Movies
Circular appearance of sun and moon / Wheel
Pliers, tongs / Lobster/crab claws
Fur coats / Fur coats
Hang gliders / Butterflies
Vitamin pills / Fruits and vegetables
Interlocking teeth of a zipper / Linkages between barbs in feathers
Radiator, heat exchange system / Elephant's ears, blood vessels in a whale's tail
We invent nothing / We simply rediscover!
science is a community, you jackass!! how about you offer us some science since YOU are the only one Making Supid claims Teno! Science isn't reinvented for each person to submit their paper you idiot, especially since the whole notion of PEER-REVIEW (something you have never tried your luck at, and never will!) is based on said community!
Why do we all have to witness something for it to be real; we aren't all lying son's of bitches that are trying to cram our troll crap down everyone else's throat, like you?! do you not understand that reality is more expansive than that very, very narrow tunnel of your vision (which, i might add, is clouded with all sorts of delusions of angels and demons, & of course tainted with your horrible bias against any form of intellectual discussion)?
Please point out anything you have written that is remotely scientific in the 100% false rhetoric of your E-Z list of lies?
And you have done nothing but lie repeatedly.
tresmal,
I've pointed out quite a lengthy segment many posts above. I wont repeat all of them, but the later one being amino acids.
Teno,
Thank you for this opportunity to waste your time and energy. We all appreciate it. Laughter is the best medicine and you sir, have provided much.
-- Withoutsol
P.S. "Satellite/Moon" correction: Moon=satellite
First we need to ask the question, when will you stop lying?
Creobot troll cut'n'paste - the acme of the art.
Lies don't count as science.
Teno @610:"I wont repeat all of them, but the later one being amino acids."
1) You mean the bit about water "decompos(ing) the molecules of amino acid bonds?" That's gibberish.
2) Once again: arguments against evolution are not arguments for creation.
No, it just lacks respect for anyone who thinks their ignorance trumps centuries of accumulated knowledge.
Sheesh, I thought Randy Stimpson was fatuous, but at least he had enough intellect to post his own claims, mostly. This creobot can't even manage that much...
Can it get lower than to cut'n'paste from someone who's also cut'n'pasted from ? Watch it try mightily, exercising it's l33t.
Teno Groppi:
Obviously the overwhelming majority of human inventions were inspired by natural phenomena. However - all efforts to explain natural phenomena by resorting to a super powerful intelligent creator - 'god' - have failed egregiously. Efforts to explain natural phenomena by processes neither intelligent nor all-powerful have succeeded remarkably well. There is no good reason to believe any of the natural phenomena you have named were 'created by god'.
wow, your list is sooo full of errors, i'll just have to settle for a few:
The sun is FISSION, not fusion. music as birds sing comes nowhere near the music that was created by humans. Robots/humans is very laughable, because they are not even close to the same at this point in time. Theme Parks- wow, have YOU seen a living rollercoaster? where?! Fishing predates the Angler fish because the Angler wasn't discovered until far later you nimrod! Butterflies don't glide either, eagles glide.
You are against evolution, and yet here you stated that evolution of society is analgous to the evolution of the universe and life! most, if not all of these inventions work far better than thier natural counterparts, and it is the improvements that man has made upon nature that constitutes invention. non- sequiter's all over the place!
Teno Groppi: Please point out to me where any of you thoroughly discussed in full length anything remotely scientific
Full length? Intro statistical mechanics and thermodynamics usually takes a textbook or three, and you want it in a blog post? You must be joking. You're getting pointed to relatively lay-readable technical literature with answers to the semi-coherent points you're trying to bring up. If you don't understand the material, feel free to say so and ask for elaboration on specific points.
Teno Groppi: All you have done is cited others work
"If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of Giants."
Answers don't have to be original, they merely need to be correct. Most of my foundational approach is ganked off of Godel, Turing, and Chomsky.
Would you agree with the Commutativity of Logical Inclusive Disjunction, which states that (P OR Q) is logically equivalent to (Q OR P)?
Teno Groppi: Who among you has worked in a laboratory to see and witness these things for yourself firsthand?
Most of what I've been pointing to is stuff dabbled with in my physics, chemistry, and bio labs in late high school and early college... although the cutting edge stuff is a bit more complicated and uses heavier-duty math.
There's also some implicit assumptions about the nature of first-hand knowledge in that remark, but there's not much of a point to addressing them. You seem to fail to recognize that it is not sufficient to attack an hypothesis; you must provide a "better" alternative. (You also don't seem to understand the formal definition of "better", either.)
Pretty soon they are going to be telling us that since we evolved from our closest ancestor the ape and as a means of this evolutionary step from animal to man many RAPES (uncontested sex) occurred. Therefore in the naturalistic world the rape of a woman is seem as something acceptable. Can you imagine the far reaching power of this indoctrination of evolutionistic ideas.
You people are ignorant and DANGEROUS!
Teno, you best hang on to your believe in god and satan. It seems that only the threat of eternal pain is supplying your "morals". I would hate for you to see yourself as merely an ape and decide that you must start raping and murdering.
You are no longer amusing. You are just a scared and stupid husk of a human. Please continue on with your insults. It takes up your time, keeping you from doing much worse things.
Engage Killfile.
Teno Groppi: Firstly we need to ask the question if it is truly our invention or Gods creation?
Requires assumption of the conclusion (divine creation).
Also, as to argument from design:
Technological design is itself an evolutionary process of competitive selection of variations; see historian George Basalla's book "The Evolution of Technology" for elucidation. The fundamental difference between blind evolution and deliberate design is the latter has a specific element of purpose (or "agency" in philosophy jargon). ID does not have any explicit evidence to support a claim of purpose, or even at present explicit purpose to claim. No evidence, no purpose, no point, no theory, NO COOKIE!
Pardon the cut-and-paste, but it isn't worth more effort.
When the Dungeon Master is away, the trolls will play.
Um, RickrOll, the Sun mainly fuses hydrogen into helium, and a bit more besides.
But yeah, the list is spurious (television = ?) in nature.
And you're still expending more intellectual effort than Teno the Liar is.
Teno Groppi, as a minor point, many of your 'human invention'/'natural phenomena' examples are wildly ahistorical. For example - computer programs were devised in Britain in about 1843, by Ada Byron King, countess of Lovelace, and based on rigorous instructions on how to carry out mathematical operations - 'algorithms', of which the earliest recorded examples go back to the work of Eratosthenes in about 200 BC. There was no suspicion that life needed an 'encoding' of any kind until the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species in 1859. Even then, neither Darwin nor any of his contemporaries had any notion life needed any equivalent of encoding for algorithms - instead, the mention in Origin focused on a key weakness of Darwin's theory, the fact that it required heredity to be discrete, and it was not known at that time whether heredity was indeed discrete. The rediscovery of Gregor Mendel's work (in the 1910s, I think) showed heredity to be discrete, thus validating Darwin's theory, but still no explicit recognition of a need to encode instructions for development of organisms was forthcoming for many years. The recognition that the encoding of inherited traits in DNA was in many ways similar to computer programs (the principal difference being that computer programs also serve as communication between programmers) did not occur until sometime in the late 1950s - after the discovery of DNA's structure in 1957.
Computer programs, instead, were inspired by the ability of the humans - and many other animals - to follow instructions, and to communicate instructions to other thinking beings (something DNA does not do).
I've heard that one before.
And I've heard that one before from a troll my group liked to refer to as "Cocksnack," especially when he started changing names more and more often, desperately trying to run from his old identity.
Dipping pretty far into absolute relativism/subjectivism/solipsism there aren't, you Teno? Or should I call you Deepak Chopra? Sorry, but objective, repeatable experiments are good no matter who does them. If it were any other way, they wouldn't be repeatable... Unless you're proposing a conspiracy of millions who never slip up in the coverup.
Sorry, Teno, but truth isn't relative to who says it, either. If someone conducted an experiment, the data is true, even if the guy who talks about it didn't perform it himself.
Oh, and I've run a few evolutionary programs myself that Creationists say should fail. They suggest the programs cheat, but are unwilling to point out where they fail. Either that, or they concede defeat on evolution, effectively changing their argument to saying the environment, not the life is designed. And then they conveniently forget by the next thread that rolls around.
Teno Groppi:
RickrOll :
Although Teno's list is indeed full of errors, the Sun is powered by fusion, not fission. It's primarily fusion of four Hyrdrogen atoms into one Helium, rather than the tritium-deuterium fusion used in nuclear fusion weapons, but it's fusion. Why 'Lamp' is in the middle, when nearly all lamps are either chemical or electromagnetic, I don't know ...
"It lacks narrative, friendliness, good character, believability, and frankly, to any further extent, watchability. "
Hey, you were the one who insulted our nasal hair.
Human inventions paralleling nature? I would have never guessed. Who'd have thought that what we do would be limited by the confines of our reality?
they use fusion for bombs too huh? yeah i know guys. i was opperating under the knowledge that nukes were fission, and that the sun was the opposite. i can't believe i made such a rookie error like that. flustered by the troll.
John, not just the tv, the fridge, the screw, the simulation (and therefore "false simulations" like stories and video games), the laser, mathmatics, and the internet surely didn't exist in nature, as animals do not have "external memory devices." Which brings me to my final point: written language, which he hasn't seem to have mastered vey well. with out this, none of this BS he found would even exist!
Rey: thanks for the much needed humor!
they use fusion for bombs too huh? yeah i know guys. i was opperating under the knowledge that nukes were fission, and that the sun was the opposite. i can't believe i made such a rookie error like that. flustered by the troll.
John, not just the tv, the fridge, the screw, the simulation (and therefore "false simulations" like stories and video games), the laser, mathmatics, and the internet surely didn't exist in nature, as animals do not have "external memory devices." Which brings me to my final point: written language, which he hasn't seem to have mastered vey well. with out this, none of this BS he found would even exist!
Rey: thanks for the much needed humor!
sorry about the double post, it was telling me i had too many comments, but i guess it let it through anyway.
llewelly @629, I linked to the stellar nucleosynthesis page rather than the Sun page as an obscure bow to Carl Sagan's "[humanity is] star stuff contemplating star stuff", with his silly smile as he beatifically contemplated the numinous and extolled the wonders of science.
... which I note is on YouTube.
Teno Groppi, #607
Your claim that the analogues for human inventions which exist in nature were your alleged god's design might have a chance of being worthy of discussion if said alleged god had ever explained such mystifying concepts to the people of the time.
But he didn't. The bible contains nothing more advanced than what was known by the people at the time it was written. If there was even one prediction of suitably advanced technology which would one day come to pass then we'd know it really did come from god.
Why do you think that is? He was dead-keen on making sure we knew exactly how to sacrifice things; what not to eat, or wear, or do on the sabbath; who to stone, to kill, to ethnically cleanse. How come he didn't mention better building methods? Or medicine? Or simple health practices like washing one's hands?
Inquiring minds wish to know.
I get a nights sleep, and poor Teno has not once presented either any evidence for his alleged god, or scientific citations to back up his inane theory. Just a huge amount of cut/paste like one would expect from a monkey. Teno, at some time you will have to present evidence to back up your statements. If you can't do that, stay home.
It seems Teno's real message is "My ignorance is worth more than the centuries of accumulated scientific knowledge"
it seems that as soon as Bronze Dog threw out the name Deepak Chopra, our troll was frightend off. very interesting...
Well it looks like the forum has fallen silent without me, GASP!
Deepak Chopra! No he's too much of a cultist spiritualist for me.
Alright, lets play tiddlywinks again,
Hydrolysis -- Splitting a Protein: Proteins are broken down by an enzyme called protease that is secreted by fermentative bacteria. This enzyme separates proteins (polypeptides) into amino acids (peptides). It accomplishes this depolymerization through a process known as HYDROLYSIS. In hydrolysis, a WATER MOLECULE is inserted between the two amino acids that are bonded together. THIS BREAKS THE BOND between them by capping the free reactive ends with the H and the OH. The protein,therefore, is BROKEN DOWN from long chains into its individual molecules, amino acids.
All kinds of digestive/catabolic enzymes break bonds by hydrolysis. Your POINT?
Teno, still no cited scientific literature, which means you are still spewing nonsense. Time to get with the program and either supply the necessary evidence by citing the scietific literature, or just going away in defeat.
You cannot convince us with rhetoric. Show us the evidence from legitamate sources in the scientific literature. If you can't show the evidence, then go away.
Your friend here "tresmal" said: You mean the bit about water "decompos(ing) the molecules of amino acid bonds?" That's gibberish. 2) Once again: arguments against evolution are not arguments for creation.
Water hydrolysis and amino acids have everything to do with creation. How did the left-handed signature in all live come about?
Now be careful when you cite "theories" since science still has no tangible evidence for how "life came about".
.......................sorry I was waiting to see the point of that.
Do you have a point?
Redhead, before you start flaring off again, I'm sure you are welly informed about the Miller experiment.
Rev, Teno has no point since he has present no evidence, like a citation from the scientific literature, to back up his less than insipid logic.
Teno, either cite the scientific literature to prove ID, or acknowledge you have no evidence for your unscientific ideas. Put up or shut up.
Let me rephrase this again for the belligerent,
Your friend here "tresmal" said: You mean the bit about water "decompos(ing) the molecules of amino acid bonds?" That's gibberish. 2) Once again: arguments against evolution are not arguments for creation.
My POINT is: Water hydrolysis and amino acids have everything to do with creation. HOW DID THE LEFT-HANDED SIGNATURE IN ALL LIVE COME ABOUT?
And again, be careful when you cite "theories" since science still has no tangible evidence for how "life came about".
Teno, you still don't have a point. State your thesis clearly, and then cite the scientific literature to show proof positive for your ideas.
You make the same mistake every creationist does. Alleging proof negative against evolution does not prove your ideas at all. And, since you have no scientific proof, there is no dings at the end of the day to evolution.
Teno, you need to clarify, are you arguing against abiogenesis, or evolution? They are two different things.
So pick one or the other, but quit trying to confuse the issue by switching back and forth between the two subjects.
The Miller-Urey Experiment is still yielding new results, fifty years later.
Clearly English isn't your primary language and all caps doesn't make your point any clearer but let me try.
WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
Redhead,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment
Yes Miller had achieved AMINO ACIDS, but what he did not achieve (as well as any ongoing experimentation today) was/is the complete "left-handed" amino acids which is the essential signature found in all living things.
I'm not looking for theories or hypotheses here, I'm looking for EVIDENCE in any scientific testing.
Can you goons find any?
Well then, put up or shut up as Redhead always says!
Teno, please posit your reason that most amino acids are L and most sugars are D, by starting with your premise and citing the appropriate scientific liteature to back up your claims. For example, if claim goddidit, you no show physical proof for god. If you are trying the old comet theory, show the evidence that the amino acids in comets are not racemic. Your evidence please.
Teno are you a Jehovah's Witness by chance?
Why are we bothering with this cut and paste, capslock creobot? English is not his first language, he's consigned us all to hell and gone and godwinned himself before he got half a dozen posts out. He's repetitive; incapable of comprehension. He introduced himself as here at the invitation of somebody calling himself "Clueless."
Oh, right, comedy. Carry on.
@263
haha... er... HAHA.
I wondered if it was just me... or if that really didn't make any sense.
...It's obvious. Everything has a left handed signature because God is left handed. Because... God has hands. Really, isn't it enough to ask for him to be omnipotent, without requiring him to be ambidextrous too? No wonder you atheists don't believe. You just ask too much.
Our correspondent is referring to the chirality of amino acids--they can be synthesized in either "left-handed" or "right-handed" enantiomers. Proteins in living thing contain almost all left-handed enantiomers. Nobody knows why (a few ideas can be found starting here).
So what?
*253
Well Timothy I actually understand the left handed Amino acid thing, it was more that he hasn't made a fucking coherent point coupled with the typical creationist lack of understanding what a theory is..
You are the experts here, you should know this stuff. If you think I'm going to sit at my computer all day and look scientific data up, you are dismally wrong. I have enough backed up knowledge to defend the amino acid premise. Its your jobs here to prove me wrong.
And in this I will tell you that both a combination of (L) and (D) amino acids are symbolic of things that were once alive and are now in the process of dying (decomposing).
What Miller had discovered (in his combination broth of many amino acids) was not any sort of life, but the signature of death.
Interesting, the troll Currrious invites the troll Teno to PZ's blog to observe people being deluded by satan. Thats cute.
What Miller had discovered (in his combination broth of many amino acids) was not any sort of life, but the signature of death.
Does Death sign his paychecks left-handed or right-handed, and what's the going rate on sin these days?
Teno, you not much of what you speak of. The prefered degradation of D-leucine from a racemic mixture by radioactivity has been demonstrated. (Noyes, H. Pierre; Bonner, William A.; and Tomlin, J. A. (1977), "On the origin of biological chirality via natural beta-decay" (Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres, Volume 8, Number 1 / April, 1977)) It only takes a small preference to create chiral induction, where you end up with only on prefered enantiomer.
S, DiMilo,
Quoted from you: Our correspondent is referring to the chirality of amino acids--they can be synthesized in either "left-handed" or "right-handed" enantiomers. Proteins in living thing contain almost all left-handed enantiomers. Nobody knows why (a few ideas can be found starting here).
So what?
Look, firstly you said it yourself these are only IDEAS. And then you say, SO WHAT!
SO WHAT, don't you have any sort of logically thinking hearsay to the opposition of evolution? You say it is the creationist who is illogical and refused to open their minds to the possibility of evolutionary precepts.
Still, I would like to know WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE MY GOOD FRIEND? I suppose the evidence for the left-handed amino acid signature in all life fits into the same category as transitional (intermediate) forms. (where are they?)
The point here Teno is that whether Miller Urey fails to be ultimately successful or not is not any form of support for ID or creationism.
If you can't grasp such a simple concept then how are you going to handle the more complex stuff?
If you think I'm going to sit at my computer all day and look scientific data up, you are dismally wrong. - Teno Groppi
Relax, Groppi, no-one here is under the illusion that you have either the faintest interest in scientific data, or even the most rudimentary capacity to understand them. You've made that abundantly clear.
A question for you: don't you get tired of repeating the same ignorant distortions again and again and again? Can't you at least think of some new ones?
Teno, you argument has been disproved. What next?
Can't you at least think of some new ones?
I haven't found any evidence of originality in the list of distortions Groppi has used for years, except perhaps, in the specific phrasing.
His routine of arrogantly ignorant head-spinning and bile-spewing, with the bedpost-levitating and epithet-hurling is mildly entertaining. Wildly unoriginal, but deserving of at least a coupla style points.
The evidence for biological evolution is vast, including direct empirical observation, strong inference from comparative biochemistry, morphology, behavior, and development, pretty much open-snd-shut inference from comparative genomics, inference from biogeography, and--yes--the existence of numerous "transitional" forms in the fossil record.
The question of why biological enzymes sythesize only left-handed amino acids (with exceptions) bears not at all on any of this evidence. It's a fascinating question, to be sure, and AFAIK nobody knows the reason, but that's mainly because we're talking about events that occurred almost 4 billion years ago that left no (yet identified) physical evidence. Of course it's a question dominated by speculation. So what?
What's your explanation? God played eenie-meenie-miney-moe?
What you're not providing, see, is the logical link between "almost all amino acids are left-handed" and "evolution can't be true." There's a lot missing in there.
(where are they?)
I'm looking at Homo creotardus right now. (And, yeah, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, calling you a homo.)
Also, make more 2nd Law arguments. Much funnier.
Redhead,
Homochirality!
You are drawing at strings now. This is still lacking! Again its only a plausible hypothesis.
The Beta-dacay electrons does not explain the process of biological molecules. These are two similar but separate entities. Moreover, we don't catch this happening in living things.
Teno, now its your turn to prove something. Trot out your scientific proof by citing the literature like I did.
Now, do you, or do you not have an argument with proof?
What all of this does indeed show, such as in the Miller experiment as well as all theories pertaining to evolution is that no matter how hard we continue to try, science cannot create something from nothing. Everything that science is working with has already been created. Bacteria comes from bacteria.
Evolutionists still cannot get past the idea of what came first, the chicken or the egg?
Evolutionists believe that the very same processes that have been observed only to cause decay, death, and destruction caused NOTHING to create something, and the something to make itself come alive and then to evolve into more complex creatures culminating with man.
WHAT GREAT FAITH!
Shorter Groppi:
SCIENCE DOESN'T KNOW EVERYTHING THEREFORE MAGIC MAN IN THE SKY DID IT YOU'RE ALL GOING TO HELL! 11!
Haha.
How old is the earth Teno?
Teno, please show us your great idea. Make sure to include the literature citations to back up your idea. That is the only way to show how great you are.
However, if you keep doing the same stupid things over and over, we have your number. Scientificly illiterate troll.
CJO in #672, looks like you got your 2nd law arguments served up promptly in #675. They keep getting funnier every time I hear 'em.
yawn.
Your entire argument boils down to the classic god of the gaps argumentum ad ignorantiam.
For pete sake Redhead, it says it right in the cited material itself.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/wu801259101p3725/
The dumbass spoketh; Evolutionists still cannot get past the idea of what came first, the chicken or the egg?
Please point out where people are stumped by this "conundrum". Fossilized eggs have been found that predate the chicken by many millions of years.
Just because you are ether stupid or ignorant (or both) does not mean that the people you disagree with are.
Teno, time to lay out your great theory for us to bask in your greatness. Just be sure to include the proper citations to the scientific literature. We are not the ones who should be defending our claims. Let's see yours. Quit hiding them. Or are you too scared to show them?
Better yet, put all your arguemnts together a nice scientific paper and submit it to an appropriate refereed journal for publication. That way you can win a Nobel prize by upsetting the science establishment. Nothing stopping you, unless you know you have nothing but rhetoric.
They don't come any stupider than you Janine! It kind of reminds me of what I'm dealing with - the whole bunch.
They don't come any stupider than you Janine!
Now there's a charm offensive.
My three-year-old in screaming shrieking tantrum mode is more appealing than this FCCwit.
Cork your piehole, Groppi. You win this round of "People Who Need to be Thinned From the Herd."
Teno.
How old is the earth???
Dumbass, please explain why you think people who know that evolution is true are stumped the the chicken and the egg question? Evidence please?
Funny how you are avoiding Nerd's reasonable request. Methinks you are in over your head.
I take great pride in having moral idiots calling me "stupid". After all, you are the slimy shit who believes that the threat of eternal punishment is what keeps you from raping.
Please call "stupid" again. It makes me laugh, you husk of a human.
You keep asking for the scientific literature Redhead, and I am only supplying you with what you had supplied me with.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/wu801259101p3725/
You claimed that this scientific article/experiment was proof of the origin of left-handed amino acids. What you threw at me (obviously because you neglected to either read or understand it properly)is that it clearly states in there the "difference" between Beta-dacay electrons and biological molecules.
And this was your argument for some kind of proof of the emergence of left-handed amino acids? Right, when Bigfoot reveals himself.
Teno, I've stopped playing the game you keep trying to play, and I have moved on to make Teno prove his ideas. Now, time for you to prove your ideas. Lay them out, show the proper scientic backing, and we might even applaud. But then, we both know you have nothing except goddidit, which means you have to prove god first. We are waiting.
Steve_C,
Teno. How old is the earth???
Lets stick to the topic of amino acids right now. Because your question opens up another heated debate.
How on earth do you people expect to learn anything new from what you were taught if you don't have the decency to think outside of the box? I have learned "both sides" of the story and am thankful I was privy to such.
You all misunderstand the dumbass. He merely wants to teach both sides of the controversy.
Groppi, Steve_C asked you a simple question. Maybe if you can take a break from your rolling online Tourette's fit long enough to listen quietly for one of the voices in your head, Mother Mary will whisper an answer you can share with the rest of us. How old is the earth? Did goB poof it into existence 4BYA? 10KYA? 6KYA? Last Thursday? How do you know? With what will you support your claim?
Lets stick to the topic of amino acids right now. Because your question opens up another heated debate.
No, you've shown you've got nothing intelligent to say on that topic. Cut your losses, move on. How old is the earth, FCCwit?\
He merely wants to teach both sides of the controversy.
Everything Groppi knows about science he learned from Paul Harvey.
Redhead,
You the accuser and now accusing the accused even after I had supplied and exposed your own cited material smack-back in the face of LACKING the distinct difference between Beta-dacay electrons and biological molecules.
The cited material that you cited plainly says what it says. You trying to use it against me(for something its not) is flying in the face of not smelling your own bad breath.
This is the biggest cop-out I've ever heard. You are the one who is hiding behind your own little misunderstanding of amino acids.
Sorry to rain on your pride Redhead especially with all your little cronies blindly following behind you.
Um no. Not heated.
No, he only knows one side, and is stuck on the falacious idea that by disproving abiogenesis he proves ID. The major point he misses is that disproving abiogenesis does nothing for proof positive for his ideas. He's just a stuck in the rut IDiot.
Groppi:
The cited material that you cited plainly says what it says.
Why, so it does:
I'll get to how old the earth is soon enough, its almost like your trying to revert the conversation away from Redheads flub-up on amino acids.
Dude. nobody knows the reason for the amino-acid thing. There is a good possibility that it's unknowable.
So what?
I repeat, yet again: so what?
Teno, since you've started polluting this thred with your bullshit, upwards of 99% of what you've said, if not ALL of it, has been obvious, blatant lies. Now, isn't your imaginary god supposed to have some sort of problem with bearing false witness?
I see creationists lie all the time, and not once have I seen one express the slightest remorse, nor any willingness to abandon rhetoric that has been shown to be false. Why is that? You make blatantly false attacks on other people's morals, but you yourself are an unrepentant liar, which is universally regarded as immoral, in fact it's supposedly one of the big ten DON'Ts your imaginary god wrote in stone.
Of course, you're a creationist, so the truth is your mortal enemy, your delusions demand that you ignore the facts and make shit up at every opportunity. You think your imaginary friend will give you a free pass on bearing false witness, because you're doing it to prop up your pitifully weak faith.
You are nothing more than a willfully ignorant lying sociopath. If you had the slightest speck of evidence to back up ANYTHING you've said, you would have posted it by now. You haven't. You haven't even tried. You've got nothing, and on some level you know it. You're a fraud. You keep repeating idiotic arguments debunked decades ago. And you will never have anything to say worth listening to. Just the same bullshit lies creationists have been worshipping for centuries.
One more time
God of the gaps.
That's all you've got Teno.
Rev is right Teno. And god doesn't exist, so you have no argument whatsoever.
http://www.baptistlink.com/godandcountry/creation/cedebate.html
http://www.blogger.com/profile/5645637
If this is the same Teno... WOW. What a religious fuckbot.
Dude, you're pretty scary.
What flub-up, liar?
http://www.genesisevidence.org/
hehehe... this is too good.
Why sure it clearly says that, but it also clearly tells us that it is Beta-decay electrons verses biological molecules.
Hmmm last time I checked, these are two distincly differenct things and they used the experiment only to relate such probabilities. Nothing more. It doesnt prove one iota that left-handed amino acids arose by these means. And it was Redhead who claimed they did.
How much longer to you want to keep rolling with this? I've got all day here. Somebody needs to concede here so I can move onto the next question on the age of the earth.
Hehe. Wow. You're really full of yourself. Coming from the founder of the Genesis Evidence Ministry.
No god. No creation. No concessions.
How much longer are you going to continue with your argumentum ad ignorantiam?
I've got all day here. Somebody needs to concede here so I can move onto the next question on the age of the earth.
If you've got all day then we can table the chirality issue. You haven't made any sort of case for its relevance to the larger question anyway, you're just picking on a perceived gap in abiogenesis models (that you've shown no interest in trying to understand) without making even the semblance of an argument as to why we should care.
Teno "The Wisconsin Marriage Defender" Groppi
For example, if you believe in evolution, you eventually have to allow for "Spontaneous Generation" which has been proven by EMPIRICAL and TESTABLE SCIENCE to be a greater folly than Mohammar Khaddafi declaring war on the U.S.!
In plain language, to believe in evolution, that all life had a common ancestor, and that life formed from non-life, you MUST believe that YOU came from a ROCK! You gotta have ROCKS in your head to believe that! Must be STONED!
Thank you, Steve C. I get a bad case of the giggles when someone like this calls me stupid.
Thank you Steve for those links!
All the better to laugh at you, dumbass.
We'll be here for the duration. (And PZ gets paid by the post, and we need to help pay his daughter's tuition.)
Be sure to tip your waitresses.
Did you understand anything in the abstract at all?
Do you even understand how probabilities relate to evidence?
If you toss a die 1,000 times, and the number 6 comes up 5/6th of the time instead of 1/6th, is that not evidence that the die is loaded?
The paper shows that the combination of chemical elements can be "loaded" to come up in favor of L-amino-acids.
You liar.
Waiting on little Redridinghood to concede. I'm sure you'd all love to know how old the earth really is.
Teno. You are a fluke of the universe. You have no right to be here. Whether you can hear it or not, the universe is laughing behind your back.
Yes, I am still laughing.
Teno. You're our favorite kind of creobot.
The Deluded Minister.
I posted your links because I know everyone will get a huge laugh from them.
Hey everyone, even better, he voted for RON PAUL! Hahahaha.
I'm sure you'd all love to know how old the earth really is.
We know just fine. Your stalling tactic is pathetic. I would have thought no way you could come off as more of a loser than your opening salvo showed you to be, but you've proved one thing anyway. I concede that your ability to appear delusional is truly prodigious.
CJO,
What is to understand, the cited scientific article plainly states what it does. What is left to talk about it?
It clearly tells us its about Beta-decay electrons verses biological molecules. Again, these are two distinctly different things and they used the experiment only to relate such probabilities. Nothing more. It doesn't prove one iota that left-handed amino acids arose by these means. And it was Redhead who claimed they did.
It doesnt prove one iota that left-handed amino acids arose by these means.
Science doesn't deal in proof, which is reserved for math, logic, and whisky. The abstract advanced no proof, only a hypothesis. You're ignorance on the difference is just more evidence of your profound ignorance.
BTW, on the first link from Steve_C, Groppi identifies himself as a YEC. What a surprise.
Alright, I can be accused of quotemining but it seems that dumbass is afraid of "HOMO-FASCISTS". Queers are intolerant bigots.
And to the larger question your point is exactly what?
What is to understand...?
I'm not even talking about the cited article, cretin, which you have just latched onto as a stalling tactic. I'm talking about chirality in general, and its irrelevance to the larger issue. Unless you can show that the current uncertainty about the origin of homochirality is somehow an insurmountable problem for either evolutionary theory or current models of abiogenesis, it's a red herring, and we should move on to ridiculing your denial of the consensus on the age of the earth.
Well as you say Ken that indeed science is not based on "proof", than its basically in the same catagory as FAITH.
Pick your poison! :D
Groppi, heed well what Janine said at #716. Therefore, make peace with your god, whatever you conceive him to be - hairy thunderer, or cosmic muffin. With all its hopes, dreams, promises, and urban renewal, the world continues to deteriorate.
Give up.
This lame creobot is running a very predictable script.
OK FCCwit, if science is identical to faith, when you're sick, do you consult a doctor or a priest?
Liar.
Science is based on evidence. You know, the stuff that you don't have any of?
its basically in the same catagory as FAITH.
It's called 'inference,' moron. Prove the sun will rise tomorrow.
I'm sure the Teno believes there was a global flood and that Noah really built an Ark.
How literal is he????
For someone who came here talking a big game you really don't understand science one bit do you?
What is your definition of a scientific theory?
This from his header at his T-Rex Soft Tissue blog.
Soft tissue, blood vessels, and blood cells found inside Tyrannosaurus Rex leg bone! It is not millions of years old, probably not even thousands. Dinosaurs lived with man, and were on the ark, just as the Bible indicates.
Teno, we have no reason to wait for your answer. You have your droppings all over the intertubes.
Steve C, Teno believes that there were T-Rexes on Noah's Ark.
Why certainly CJO it is a red hearing. Not that I'm not seeing the larger issue as you call it, but simply because we DON'T WITNESS HOMOCHIRALITY HAPPENING IN BIOLOGICAL THINGS.
Liar, liar, pants on fire.
Liar and moron.
If all cars are not red, then they are all blue *roll*
Do you take pleasure in being an intellectual retard?
T-Rex was a domestic animal! They used their giant teeth to crack coconuts!
I bet the AiG Museum is his all time favorite place on God's Green Earth, well, other than church.
Thank you for reading the Teno Groppi sites, much appreciated. Maybe it will do you all some good.
BTW, where is Redhead? Has she conceded or is she diligently looking to dredge up some other kind of cited material?
Maybe she has come to finally realize that the F-word has no deterrent power over me -- just as the rest of you will come to find out.
Teno, the cited paper is one of a long line showing beta decay is chiral, which means it selectively degrades one enantiomer (D-amino acids and L-sugars). I first read about this in the '70's, in one of Asimov's collection of essays. The source used in the cited paper was carbon 14. Guess what, carbon 14 is produced constantly in the atmosphere, and is present in all recently made organic molecules. You have some in your body.
I also have a paper, if I felt like digging it out in my OPRD collection, where a totally chiral product was made from a mixture with just 1% excess of chiral catalyst. It doesn't take much to perturb the system to make one enantiomer if there is a driving force to do so. That whole line of reasoning has been refuted.
Now lets get to your ideas. Please lay them out with the proper citation of the scientif literature. I won't be holding my breath, as the first thing you have to do is show the unrefuted physical evidence for god.
Dino is my dinosaur
His tail is in the kitchen
And his head's out the door
(I apologize for the obscure reference to an eighties song. I loved The Screaming Blue Messiahs!)
A good laugh always does me some good.
Makes my godless liberal heart swell with glee.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 17, 2008
Thank you for reading the Teno Groppi sites, much appreciated. Maybe it will do you all some good.
And the self delusion continues.
Just to let you know, I am a lesbian, you know, a HOMO-FASCIST.
Hello Redhead, at least thank you for talking civilly this time.
Yes I am fully away of the carbon issue. However again, we don't witness homochirality happening in biological things.
And even if it did happen once, it would have to have done this many many MANY times to produce all the different living organisms that we see today.
Teno must have watched The Flintstones at some point and thought it was a documentary.
You're still a liar and a moron.
The sheer amount of dumb in this sentence is breathtaking.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 17, 2008
And even if it did happen once, it would have to have done this many many MANY times to produce all the different living organisms that we see today.
He does not understand the concept of "common ancestry". Strike that, he rejects the concept of "common ancestry".
His common ancestor is dirt.
In his case, it's all in his head.
Additionally,
Estimates of global species diversity have varied from 2 million to 100 million species, with a best estimate of somewhere near 10 million, and only 1.4 million have actually been named. With new species being discovered every day.
Then (as your theory goes) it breaks off into common ancestry. And one amino acid fluke of left-handedness created all of these? If this is so, why aren't we witnessing any of this today?
Teno, we stopped playing your game. Now pony up your ideas and the proof behind them. I especially await the physical evidence for your imaginary god.
Because you touch yourself at night
Because, you lying moron, it happened before all modern species evolved; before single cells became multicellular organisms; before photosynthetic bacteria started adding oxygen to the atmosphere.
Do you even understand what "common ancestor" means?
The dumbass squawks; And one amino acid fluke of left-handedness created all of these? If this is so, why aren't we witnessing any of this today?
Could it be that if any arises anywhere, there are billions of microbiobs ready to snack on them.
Also, please talk to any expert on DNA if you doubt that all known living things are not related, even if the split in the family tree occurs hundred of millions years ago. Strike that, you believe the Earth is only a few thousand years old.
Silly creationist, myths are for kids
Redhead, proof that your theory of left-handed amino acids FAILS in the evidence of all the million of diversified species that exist in the world today. And now you are falling back on your last piece of straw you can pull out of your hat -- proof of God!
God is no more imaginary then your evolutionary theory.
"God is no more imaginary then your evolutionary theory."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_c3CkSmT3c
Evolution happened, deal with it.
Liar.
Then you should be able to prove that, liar.
Kel @ 750 - dammit! There went my ginger ale.
Again, where are all the transitional (intermediate) forms?
Mammals (which whales are) give birth HEAD-first (except, of course, partial-birth aborted humans, which are turned backwards on purpose, so their brains can be sucked out before their head is out of the womb. If whales gave birth like mammals should, we wouldn't worry about having to "save the baby whales", they'd all drown! It takes too long for a whale to give birth. Wouldn't you know, whales naturally give birth upside-down! Now how did evolution "know" how to do that? Did it wait until all the babies drowned and then realize that they needed to give breach birth? Too late, they'd be as extinct as the theory of evolution!
Now he's just boring.
Teno, you seem to be a bit dense, so I will do you a favor; I will explain what is happening now. We are taunting you with French accents. We are passing gas in your general direction. We are bombarding you with barnyard animals.
Look up!
We are now dropping an empty replica of a Trojan Bunny on your head.
You are ignoring evidence. Mockery is all we have for you now.
Fetchez la vache!
Teno, time for you to post your ideas and show their evidence. I have stopped playing the "try to refute the scientist" game because you are so pathetic. So now we will look at your ideas, which you have failed to show.
So, pony out your ideas for us to refute. Be sure to include your physical proof for your imaginary god somewhere in your garbage that you spew. I eagerly await refuting it.
Janine, if wit was spit, your mouth would be drier than a shallow well in an African heat wave. :D
Somebody please tell a decent joke! Please alert me here to "EVIDENCE"?
Now how did evolution "know" how to do that?
Evolution knows nothing! Those whale that survived are able to reproduce. Those that did not, died out. Nothing intelligent nor magical about it.
At least you are being more honest about where you are coming from, tossing in the bit about abortions. I would suggest you find out about breech birth.
Teno, no trotting out of your ideas? Come on, you had a go us. Turn about is fair play.
Dumbass, the reason you do not find me witty is because you are a husk of a human with a husk of a brain.
Redhead, pony up ay?
Okay -- so you want to play horse. I'll be the front end and you be yourself. :D
Teno Groppi,
Psst, Teno - why not ask them how evolution explains PYGMIES + DWARFS??
Good grief.
Somebody please tell a decent joke!
I don't know any decent jokes. We're hanging around to learn to what depth of madness and stupidity you'll descend next, while taunting you, and, as Janine said, passing gas in your general direction. Because Janine took a particular liberty with her citation of scripture, the obvious implication is that you should probably take into your calculations the likelihood that some of the gas wafting your way is a result of the occasional malicious queef.
Janine, evolution knows nothing hey?
With that said, it can certainly be said -- there sits a woman with an open mind. I can feel the draft from here.
See, I can play this game too! :D
Evolution knows nothing at all and it's still smarter and more honest than you are.
Ken, both you and Janine couldn't ad-lib a fart after a baked-bean dinner.
This is fun, lets keep it going! :D
Still afraid to put your ideas out there for refutation? What do we have here. Must be some type mad non-scientist, who thinks everybody must perform for him. Now it's time for you to show your ideas, and the evidence behind them from the scientific literature. I'm very interested in your physical evidence for your imaginary god.
TENO+ARK WAS REAL=FAIL
Was someone talking about Me? My nonexistent ears are burning.
Sorry, little creationist, evolution is both a theory and a fact. I made your species by a process of directed breeding of intelligent apes, not by a spontaneous act of special creation.
Redhead (I think pinhead now applies), even if I gave you proof of God, its questionable if whether or not you even have the capability to acknowledge Him. Since an atheist cannot find God for the same reason a thief cannot find a policeman!
Apparently, neither can you, since you have to rip-off a well-known John Belushi line.
You don't have any proof of Me. Believe Me, I would know.
Teno, I'm a big boy. I can take real evidence for god. But I can also laugh when the physical evidence, after being examined by scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers, is shown to be of natural origin. Score one against god at that point. You have no evidence, and you are aware of that. That is why you keep avoiding presenting anything. So, it's time for you present your ideas and scientific proof. I have the popcorn ready.
Teno lives in a magic fantasy world where Jesus and Mary love him.
The discussion is starting to feel as cruel and pointless as teasing a developmentally disabled child. If every minute is a special miracle just for Groppi, who am I to try to pry him out of the intellectual cess pit he's splashing around in?
Also, to further debunk the creotards' arguments, let me say GENETICS WORKS.
Can we send the creotards to Saudi Arabia?
Wowbagger,
Pygmies and dwarfs come from a process called "natural selection" (this is not evolution of any sort in the creationists view).
However, it appears that dwarfing has infected your brain not
microcephaly, but clue deficit disorder of the third kind.
Teno show proof that we're all related to Noah and his family.
The Muslim fundamentalists and the creotards would get along, lol.
Also:
http://www.digital-recordings.com/publ/publife.html
It's just painfully sad to watch stupid people try to be funny isn't it?
More lies, please. More 2nd Law arguments. You have to just let it come from the heart, Teno. You can't force it. Loosen up. Breeeeeaathe.
Pinhead,
There is actually more proof for God then you think. The Bible itself is a recorded eye-witnessable testament not only by God Himself, but from writers ranging from 2,000 - 4,000 years ago. This is tangible enough historical evidence backed up by archeological evidence.
It certainly beats an invisible evolutionary theory that was witnessed by the ghost of Elvis.
Since creationists are liars, their "view" is false.
He's just afraid of evolution. He's afraid of not having his big Daddy who loves him. He's willing to study science to the extent that he can fling some terms around, but when he follows the science towards evolution, he suddenly retreats back to his thousands-of-years-old book of stories.
Actually, it's not. Or rather, it's full of lies. I told some; the human writers told the rest.
Nope, not that either.
In #657, I claimed that Teno was here at the invitation of a poster named "Clueless." Honesty compels me to admit that poor memory, contempt, and a vivid imagination led to that error. In #579 he said he was led here by "Curious," clearly, the only passing acquaintance he has ever had with any form of curiousity.
*shows one line of evidence*
"What about ?"
*shows different line of evidence*
"What about ?"
*shows different line of evidence*
"What about ?"
*shows different line of evidence*
"What about ?"
*shows different line of evidence*
"Nope, didn't happen. Goddidit 6,000 years ago"
Genetic evidence shows quite conclusively that we shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees. Just as it shows we share a common ancestor with all life and certainly all animals. Every piece of evidence points to a gradual emergence of life over billions of years and eventually led to us, just as it did for the millions of other lifeforms that are alive today. There's not a single thing that shows that the world is 6000 years old and was created by a deity.
We have galaxies that are 13 billion light years away from us, that means that light from those galaxies left 13 billion years ago and we look 13 billion years back in time when we see them. The earth ages the same as the moon, as meteorites and as the sun; all of which are over 4 billion years old. We don't see life in the fossil record until 3.5 billion years ago, then complex life around 700 million years ago. We don't get amphibians until 385 million years ago, don't get mammals until about 220 million years ago, and no large mammals until 10 million years after the extinction event known as the K-T boundary which happened around 65 million years ago. Indeed we don't see human-like ancestors until a few million years ago, and we don't see homosapiens in the fossil record until around 200,000 years ago. Humans and dinosaurs are separated by 64,800,000 years!
So even if evolution didn't happen, you still need a mechanism to explain the diversity of life as seen now and in the fossil record. Common ancestry is there in our genetic code, we can see it in the morphology of animals and in the fossil record. If that didn't come about through a combination of mutation, natural selection and genetic drift in isolated populations, then you need another mechanism that fits in with the facts. Evolution not happening doesn't stop the universe from being at least 13.7 billion years old, nor does it stop the earth from being 4.5 billion years old. It doesn't change what the fossil record says about the gradual emergence of life, nor does it change the time scales. So even if evolution is wrong, creationism is by no means right. FSMism is a better fit than creationism because it at least explains the evidence we see.
In short, creationists are gullible fools who believe the desert scribblings of bronze-age herders over the entire scientific establishment. They have no knowledge whatsoever, and use that ignorance as a selling point of their beliefs. Throughout our society we have a pride in knowing, that we want to see experts discuss ideas. We want athletes who are the best competing, we want economists who know what they are doing (whether such a person exists is another story), we want politicians who are going to lead us, we want domain experts in every possible job out there. But when it comes to science, creationists think their own ignorance trumps people who have dedicated their lives to it all because they have a book that isn't even consistent with itself telling htem science is wrong.
In summary: the everlasting truth of the Bible is proven by some scattered and largely contradictory eyewitness accounts from hundreds of years ago, combined with a few archaeological finds that show that some of the nations mentioned in the Bible really existed. Evolution, meanwhile, has to be proven by having fossils of every transitional species that ever existed, and video footage of a dog evolving into a cat in an amount of time that can fit inside the attention span of the average creationist.
We're essentially speaking entirely separate languages here. You might as well try to explain vegetarianism to a dog.
Teno, no god = no holy scriptures = no theology. QED.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 17, 2008
It certainly beats an invisible evolutionary theory that was witnessed by the ghost of Elvis.
This is a new one. I never realized that Elvis Presley had anything to do with the theory of evolution.
By the way dumbass, the bible is not a primary source.
Funny that the "eyewitness" accounts of the new testament were written by people who never even met Jesus!
Janine, Kel, don't you just love godbots who just don't have any idea about how the bible got stuck together? Certainly makes our jobs easier.
There is actually more proof for God then you think. The Bible itself is a recorded eye-witnessable testament not only by God Himself, but from writers ranging from 2,000 - 4,000 years ago. This is tangible enough historical evidence backed up by archeological evidence.
Yeah, that's the stuff. Stick to what you know best, and it's comedy gold.
That Currrious was here before and got stomped. Another idiot christian troll.
Liar.
http://ebonmusings.org/atheism/otarch.html
I'd say it makes it harder, because again their ignorance trumps any knowledge. Just because the historians say that Mark had to be written after the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70CE, and that Matthew & Luke were derived from Mark, and that John was authored by up to three people almost a century later, the bible says they are eyewitness accounts so they must be eyewitness accounts. ;)
Patricia, I'm sure you have taught clan Bucktard much more about scripture than these IDiots will ever know. The clan can certainly recite it better.
The Bible itself is a recorded eye-witnessable testament
Teno's got us here. The Bible is certainly eye-witnessable. I've witnessed Bibles not only in motel rooms but in bookstores, with entire walls full of bibles, displacing science books by the score. I've seen a Gutenberg Bible in the Bancroft stacks in Berkeley, but in my eagerness to peruse an original Shakespeare folio, I ignored it. Why, some of you may even have one in your own home! I don't. I've got young children, one of whom is an avid reader. Like Pete Townsend's Tommy, my son doesn't know who Jesus was or what praying is. I'd like him to appreciate some decent fairy tales before he goes exploring the cheap derivative mind-rot and depravity in that collection of bronze-age pr0n promoted here by the creotards.
Well then I suggest that all you who live in America to pack your bags up and move to the Soviet Union where you'll have more luck having your evolutionist ideas believed.
Religion is still the guiding force in the world. And still runs GOVERNMENT! This is because most of Americas principles were founded off of the Judeo-Christian religion and the Bible. It is far more reaching then any of you numbnoggins can comprehend.
And there is far more archeological evidences then you've put forth. Why don't you try some Google searches.
Oh and Kel, if your looking for answers to the age of the Universe and the light issue continue to look to the Teno G. sites.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 17, 2008
Janine, Kel, don't you just love godbots who just don't have any idea about how the bible got stuck together? Certainly makes our jobs easier.
Easier only in that you know exactly where the person is coming from. Difficult in that the person is knowingly wearing mental blinders.
You could have Hector Avolos point out where the stories of the bible come from. Teno would find the primary sources suspect.
I'm Teno Groppi, . Chris Long introduced me to this list. I am a King James Bible believing literal Genesis creationist, basing my beliefs on scripture and science (empirical science, not evolutionary theories).
But he does make for great troll stomping.
Orcball!
Well then I suggest that all you who live in America to pack your bags up and move to the Soviet Union where you'll have more luck having your evolutionist ideas believed.
Religion is still the guiding force in the world. And still runs GOVERNMENT! This is because most of Americas principles were founded off of the Judeo-Christian religion and the Bible. It is far more reaching then any of you numbnoggins can comprehend.
And there is far more archeological evidences then you've put forth. Why don't you try some Google searches.
Oh and Kel, if your looking for answers to the age of the Universe and the light issue continue to look to the Teno G. sites.
Hey, Teno, the Soviet Union has been gone for a while now.
Still no thesis and evidence posted by Teno. One must begin to think the IDiot is just full of you know what. Come on Teno, show us what you've got. I bet we yawn at it, as we have seen it before.
the bible says they are eyewitness accounts so they must be eyewitness accounts
It doesn't, actually. The texts of Mark and Matthew have absolutely nothing at all to say about provenance or authorship. Luke, unique in this regard among the gospels, has a brief, formulaic preamble saying that "many have undertaken to compile a narrative" and that "eyewitnesses...have handed them down to us," so the author admits up front that it is at best a compilation of prior eyewitness accounts.
And the traditional attributions to the named authors weren't made until the late 2nd Century at the earliest. (If John Mark were actually the author of Mark, he would have seen Jesus in the flesh at least once on his arrival in the vicinity of Jerusalem, according to Acts, and the attributions to Matthew and John would make them eyewitnesses in the tradition as they were among the twelve.) In any case, the attributions are extra-biblical, made by Papias and other elders of the early church.
Oh and additionally someone here asked how do we know that we are all related to Noah?
Again, its in the Bible! This is a word that all you evolutionists should surely know -- GENEALOGY! (recorded genealogy).
No thanks, scientists have a much better track record than you. Here in the southern hemisphere we have the Large Magellenic Cloud. It's a dwarf galaxy that orbits our own. In 1987 a star inside the galaxy and the observation enabled us to gauge how far away it was: 168,000 light years away. That means that the supernova on the LMC happened 168,000 years ago. We have a means to look back in time in space by looking at distant objects, just as we have a means of looking back in time on earth by looking at the lower layers of rock.
There are thousands upon thousands of scientists who have dedicated their lives to learning about the natural world. These are the people I trust with evidence, you have shown that you are just an ignorant retard who thinks he knows better than all scientists combined. A little moron who takes a book of mythology as literal fact. You know nothing, you have no knowledge of science, you don't even understand the basics. Why would I ever read your site when you can't even demonstrate that you understand even the basics of the natural world?
hehehehe...
AWESOME!
Yes, and that's a bad thing. Which, hopefully, can be changed.
Liar.
Far more evidence that the bible is a lie, yes indeed.
Hey Teno,
Why should we listen to a moron that is unaware that the Soviet union ceased to exist in 1991?
"Religion is still the guiding force in the world. And still runs GOVERNMENT! This is because most of Americas principles were founded off of the Judeo-Christian religion and the Bible."
Name three of those principles and where they can be found in the Bible.
hilarious.
"Again, its in the Bible! "
What, all those "begats"? Man, you have a selectively low standard for evidence.
That's it, I'm calling poe.
That was even better than what I had hoped he would say...
So who's my great great great great great great great great grandfather?
Religion is the foundation for our country? Yet it's barely mentioned in the constitution other than defining that there be a clear division between the two.
I wonder what Teno thinks of Unitarians. hehe.
What! Is the newly scientific citation more credible then documented history. There are many historic recorded documents that talk about the existence of Jesus even by the Romans. But some of the more phenomenal archeological ones exists in the Old Testament. It is a goldmine of treasures, and some even yet to be discovered!
Isn't this joker some old ancient balrog that turns up periodically?
Before I landed here I would have sworn that no christians existed that didn't know the bible thoroughly. This has been quite an eye opener for me.
Kel, check out the links that Steve C provided. Teno is not a poe. If
Clearly this happened because God was left handed. Creator of all life and he still can't operate a standard pair of scissors.
Okay,.....Teno Groppi.
Far more evidence that the bible is a lie, yes indeed.
In and of itself, it's not a lie, any more than The Iliad is. It takes a stupid and dishonest sack of shit like our Teno to make a collection of myths and legends from the Iron Age and make of it a despicable lie.
Posted by: Patricia | November 17, 2008
Before I landed here I would have sworn that no christians existed that didn't know the bible thoroughly. This has been quite an eye opener for me.
Being The Queen Of The Sluts, I thought you would have been more worldly. Or did it take giving up the bible to bring out the slut within?
Liar.
Liar.
Pants on fire.
You betcha! especially when the "documented history" is nothing more than allegorical mythology. The authors (that's right, there was more than one) of Genesis were not there to witness the beginning of the universe, they were not there in the garden of eden, they were not there when the great flood happened or when the tower of babel was struck down. They were not there when abraham wandered the land, just as they were not there when a few slaves escaped from Egypt. The bible is not a historical document, it's a mythical account of the origins of the tribal middle-eastern herders who settled in a then-fertile area. The tales of the torah have as much historical credibility as the Australian Aboriginal dreamtime myths.The bible is not a historical document, it's fantasy, mythic storytelling. It has as much credibility as a historical document as The Iliad. Just because the greeks existed, and archaeological findings have a place that fits the description of Troy, it does not mean the Goddess Athena appeared to the greeks before the battle. The facts of the earth's history are imprinted into the lands, we only need to look to learn about the distant past. Just as we only need to look to the stars to see the distant past in space. When we see the moon, we are seeing it 1.2 seconds ago. We are seeing the sun 8.33 minutes ago. We see Aplha Centauri 4.5 years ago. We see the Andromeda Galaxy 2.3 million years ago. We can and do look back in time because the evidence is there. If you are going to ignore it for the sake of belief, at least have the intellectual honesty to admit that you know nothing and stop arguing against people who have more knowledge than you'll ever aquire.
That's like saying Lord of the Rings is evidence of magic Teno.
You're kinda nuts.
There was no ark. The was no immaculate conception. No talking burning bush. No walking on water. No zombie jesus. No adam. No eve. No talking snake. No tree of knowledge. No angels. No demons. No Satan.
Shall I go on?
The bible is not evidence for anything but superstition and deception.
Teno, please cite the chapter and verse of the bible where it endorses government via a republic or a democracy rather than a monarchy or a theocracy.
There are many historic recorded documents that talk about the existence of Jesus even by the Romans.
No, you're lying. True, there is Josephus: regarded as a forged interpolation by most honest (read: "not Christian") scholars, and on good grounds too. The best evidence is the silence of Origen, who is clearly familiar with the Antiquities as he quotes from other parts of it. It's pretty hard to believe he wouldn't have made a fuss about the passage in question. Best guess is it was inserted by a contemporary of Eusebius, or possibly by the man himself. No other Roman, Hellenistic or named Jewish writer of the period has a thing to say about Yeshua ben Yosef.
But hey, buck up! Lying for and about Jesus has a long history at least.
But some of the more phenomenal archeological ones exists in the Old Testament. It is a goldmine of treasures, and some even yet to be discovered!
You better hope it's yet to be discovered, 'cause what we've got so far ain't lookin so good for your team.
"You better hope it's yet to be discovered, 'cause what we've got so far ain't lookin so good for your team. "
And every time something new is discovered (e.g., the Gospel of Judas, the Dead Sea Scrolls), the usual religious suspects freak out and declare it heresy.
Ray Fox, you asked me to name three principles of American government that are found in the Bible that are based off of Judeo-Christian principles.
Well I think the poster Curious (a friend of mine) had adequately answered this for you. One of them being the right to bear arms in self defense. A second would be one that is still extremely prevalent in all courts of law today -- being the Ten Commandments. And thirdly, marriage laws. Just to name a few, of course there are lots more.
And no to your statement about begats. Its a little more precise then that. These are also backed up by eras. For instance from the genealogy given in the Bible we know that Adam existed around - 930, Lamech - 874-1651, Noah - 1056-2006, Terah - 1879-2084, Abraham - 2009-2184, Flood - 1650.
The timeline today from Jesus was 2,000 years, and from Jesus to Abraham was 2,000 years, and from Abraham back to Adam is about 2,000 years which gives us an approximate age of 6,000 years.
Oh and I also see that Curious did not adequately answer the number of Jews that were present a Mount Sinai during the "National Revelation" of God. I will answer that answer correctly so that you will see how scripture works. And then I will have to adjourn this conversation for tomorrow:
It is quite obvious from the verses in the Torah Starting in Exodus 12:37 - "The children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot, the men, besides the young children."
"from 20 years old and older" This is actually based on what it says in Numbers chapter 1:
1. The Lord spoke to Moses in the Sinai Desert, in the Tent of Meeting on the first day of the second month, in the second year after the exodus from the land of Egypt, saying.
2. Take the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, by families following their fathers' houses; a head count of every male according to the number of their names.
3. From twenty years old and upwards, all who are fit to go out to the army in Israel, you shall count them by their legions you and Aaron.
and further in verse 46-47:
The sum of all those who were counted: six hundred and three thousand, five hundred and fifty.
But the Levites, according to their father's tribe were not numbered among them.
Hence the term "600,000 of army age" in the article.
Now if you take the number 600,000 (or more accurately 603,550) and add Levites (which in chapter 3, is placed at about 22,000) and add women and children - a conservative estimate of one child per family, would net about 2 million people. In reality, it was most probably over 3 million.
To be adjourned tomorrow.
Teno if we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys?
Janine, Before I quit godding I was a very straitlaced fundie christian. My only friends were fundies too. Now I never see them because they're shunning me. That's the best part!
"One of them being the right to bear arms in self defense."
Seriously? Guns in the Bible? You or someone else is going to have to help me out with this one.
"A second would be one that is still extremely prevalent in all courts of law today -- being the Ten Commandments."
Massive fail. There are no laws against coveting (without coveting, our economic system would fail, after all). There are no laws against adultery. There are no laws regulating the honor of one's father and mother. There are no laws against graven images. There are no laws about having no god before the Big G. You'd have to move to Saudi Arabia to find a country that is even close to being ruled by the ten comandments. The only two comandments that are enshrined in law (and NOT in the Constitution, I might add) are the ones against killing and stealing. And do you seriously think that Christians or Jews were the first ones to come up with prohibitions on stealing and killing?
"And thirdly, marriage laws. Just to name a few, of course there are lots more."
I seem to recall there being tons of plural marriage in the Bible. The Bible also doesn't provide much in the way of ways to get out of marriage either, at least nothing remotely pleasant.
Triple massive fail. And here I was all ready to be enlightened on the biblical basis of the three branches of government, bicameral legislatures, and the ways to elect leaders. You didn't even mention democracy, for crying out loud.
Hey Rev., did you go take a look at that punk troll over on the promo thread? We're trying to figure out who the little sap is.
Circularly polarized light (which is what stars emit) produces just this bias in interstellar gas. Next!
To be adjourned tomorrow.
I can't fucking believe this shit wait.
Oh and one more thing,
Kel, you say that newly scientific citation are more credible then documented history. And that its nothing more than allegorical mythology. Additionally you say that the Genesis account was not there to witness the beginning of the Universe.
I'll tell you one thing Kel, it certainly gives us more of an adequate answer than that of the evolution theory.
But I'd like to clue you in on something else Kel. Keep in mind that everything we are being told, taught and led to believe as "fact" is simply not fact at all. It is only the "current theory" and "thought of the day", which historically is/has often shown not to be true. And as such, there are no such things as facts, everything is simply an opinion based on the information we have at the current time. Additionally, it should be noted that we are lead to believe that if something is labeled as "scientific fact" that it is true, and this is not the case either. Even Albert Einstein himself (one of the greatest minds in science and philosophy) broke the jurisdictions regarding "facts" when he quoted: If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.
To be fair, there are also some about very special cases of lying -- libel, slander, perjury --, but that's it.
Could you show me the census data for Egypt then? the Sinai? So all the boys under 20 weren't counted? What was the error rate of the census?
Devil is in the data.
Someone wanna do the dirty work and find out how many points Teno has accumulated in the Crackpot Index . He gets points for the following:
2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).
5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.
5 points for each word in all capital letters
10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein
20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact
20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.
20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.
40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.
50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.
Ah. Which one? The older one (Gen. 2:4b onwards) or the younger one (Gen. 1:1 -- 2:3)? Were Man and Woman created last and at the same time as each other, or was Man created first, then the rest of the Earth, and then Woman last, using a pun that only works in Sumerian ("life" and "rib" both pronounced ti) but not in Hebrew, never mind that a Sumerian story about the creation of a goddess from a god's rib exists and uses just this pun? The one with Elohim as the plural creators ("let us make Man"), or the one with Yahwe as the sole creator of perhaps just the Jewish people?
How can one believe to possess the truth and at the same time be a postmodernist? How do you live with doublethink?
This is called quote-mining. It is evil. You're going to find out why.
All the wars of the world, all the Caesars, have not the staying power of the Bible.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=2441
I'm open to correction (not being in any sense a Biblical scholar or historian), but AFAIR, even the Vatican, who own the Josephus text in question, now acknowledge that it's a much later forgery. It was said to be the sole contemporaneous record that mentioned a messiah named Yeshua, with the few other "supporting" documents merely mentioning a Jewish messiah, but not by name. Surviving Roman records from the period indicate that self-professed "god men" were ten-a-penny at the time all over the Levant. The "historical evidence" for a particular Jewish messiah named Yeshua and from Nazareth turns out to be extraordinarily thin. What's worse, there's no trace of any settlement in Nazareth for a couple of hundred years either side of Jesus' putative birthday: you'd think it a minor inconvenience for an omnipotent deity to plant a couple of shards of pottery in a piddly desert village.
"It is only the "current theory" and "thought of the day", which historically is/has often shown not to be true."
Hate to burst your bubble, Teno, but your biblical worldview "current theory" and "thought of the day" passed its sell-by date hundreds of years ago.
"And as such, there are no such things as facts, everything is simply an opinion based on the information we have at the current time."
Ah yes, the ever-popular last-ditch solipsistic Matrix gambit. If you can't beat the facts, just declare everything invalid and go down in Pyrrhic victory.
Take the red pill, Neo.
Also, perhaps he should get points for the following:
-Saying your opponents are under Satan's control and comparing them to Hitler all in the same paragraph.
- Telling your opponents to move to the Soviet Union, even though it was dissolved over 15 years ago.
These are some of the lamest troll arguements I've ever seen.
And unsurprisingly, it took centuries till the Gospels started to be considered divinely inspired scripture. Even after the churches had managed to agree on which ones to consider genuine, attempts to use all four of them to write a single book about the life and works of Jesus, a so-called gospel harmony, didn't cease for a long time.
I bet you've never encountered the term "gospel harmony", Teno. Google is your friend.
Staying power? With all the editing going on throughout the millennia? Google for "documentary hypothesis", and read up on the additions to the gospels, like the Marcan Appendix or the story with "whosoever among you is without sin throw the first stone".
And besides, didn't you just say there was no such thing as a fact, that everything was mere opinion? So isn't the opinion of humanevents.com mere opinion...?
Then please demonstrate how the Genesis account, and not Evolutionary Biology, gives greater insight into the study of various prehistoric organisms, such as the vetulicolians, placoderms, dinosaurs or ground sloths. Where in the Book of Genesis does it talk about whether or not vetulicolians were deuterostomes or protostomes? Where in the Book of Genesis does it talk about placoderms or dinosaurs, or where does it explain why we can observe that humans have more in common with the common morel than the common dandelion, or even where it says that we have more in common with the common dandelion than we do with Deinococcus?
I mean, Teno Groppi, you are aware that we have witnessed dozens of creationists make this very boast, and none of them have ever bothered to make good on this very boast, right?
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 17, 2008
Even Albert Einstein himself (one of the greatest minds in science and philosophy) broke the jurisdictions regarding "facts" when he quoted: If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.
Even with this bit of quote mining, this is prove of the scientific method trumping Einstein. If Einstein did change facts to fit his theory, these facts are testable. Other, perhaps less brilliant scientists, can test Einstein's works and make the changes.
The idea is not to rest on authority. But Teno is the opposite of this process. Teno rests on the authority of The King James Bible
Teno, that article you linked to is merely a variation of this argument; "In God We Trust" is on US currency, therefore the US is a christian nation.
Another lie.
Trivia tidbit for the sane people:
I've been reading about the early years of the development of special relativity and general relativity, and of course Einstein wanted to make sure that his theory was in accord with the facts; that is, with empirical experimental data.
His first few calculations for the amount that light would be deflected by the gravity of the sun were wrong; fortunately for his ego, the eclipse-viewers who were going to test his (changing) predictions for what that deflection should be were prevented from doing so by local circumstances (clouds, etc) at the various eclipses they went to. When he finally got the prediction right, it was demonstrated to be correct at the next solar eclipse.
There is no Saint Einstein.
That's right.
If you think the theory of evolution explains the origins of the universe then you are completely ignorant. The theory of evolution explains the diversity of life on this planet. We use cosmology to understand the universe around us, and geology to understand the world we sit on. We use biolochemistry to understand the origins of life, it's only with the diversity of life that we use evolution. And given cosmology and physics demonstrate the universe to be at least 13.7 billion years old, the world to be between 4.5 and 4.6 billion years old, and geology tells us that we see a gradual emergence of life over the course of 3.5 billion years, I'd say that evolution fits far better than the genesis myth.
Let me explain to you the difference between scientific fact and scientific theory. A scientific fact is an observation, it's a piece of evidence. In the case of evolution, the fossil record and where it sits in the different strata is fact. A hypothesis is an explanation for the facts. A theory is a hypothesis that has been very much tested and attempted to be falsified. Evolution has survived 150 years of intense scientific scrutiny, it's come from an age where there was no knowledge of the atom and ended up when we know the relationship between matter and energy. In short, you still know nothing and it's hilarious to watch someone so clueless flail about in their ignorance. You are incredibly amusing because of how oblivious you are to the world around us and you project your own ignorance onto others. People here on the other hand are trained in the ways of science, they have spent years learning about the things you try and teach them it's wrong. And why? Because you take a book of fairy tales a little too seriously.
Werd to that, it's embarrassing to even read them. Even for a creationist, he's bad.
promo thread?
Damn! Seems like I missed him. If you are wondering what all that amino acid business up in the 640s and later (comment numbers) was all about; here's the story. On Saturday I asked him for some evidence for creation that wasn't a shot at evolution. He mentioned an amino acid comment he had made earlier. I looked and found this: "water decomposes the molecules of amino acid bonds". I called it gibberish, because it is. It seems he meant that water breaks the bonds between amino acids making large complex molecules impossible, hence goddidit.
Today he offered this:
This was an attempt to prove his point. Now every scientifically literate person (which obviously excludes Teno) here immediately sees the fatal flaw with this. That's the fact that this reaction is catalyzed by the protease, which is an enzyme, which is a long chain of amino acids. He is in effect making the claim that long chains of amino acids couldn't form naturally because they would be hydrolyzed by long chains of amino acids.
Sorry Rev., stupid spelling typo. PZ tossed the Fester troll in the pit. He was on the pro forma thread. He sure looked familiar.
Ahh yeah, I came in there after he got thrown in the latrine.
Sorry to burst your bubbles, but you are the minority. Christianity is still predominant in America as well as the world, with an outreach that is steadily increasing.
According to the CIA, the following is the order of religious preferences in the United States:
Christian: (78.5%)
Protestant (51.3%)
Roman Catholic (23.9%)
Mormon (1.7%)
other Christian (1.6%)
unaffiliated (12.1%)
none (4%)
other or unspecified (2.5%)
Jewish (1.7%)
Buddhist (0.7%)
Muslim (0.6%)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
This is the first point you've made that is true.
However, it is essentially meaningless because the facts about cosmology and evolution are not decided by the ignorant (and sometimes lying) majority, but by those who study the evidence.
Or in other words: So what?
Okay, the solipsist gambit isn't quite the last gasp, the appeal to majority is. And specifically, the appeal to authority that fails to mention that the fastest growing religious category is "none of the above".
Winning the battle for the 3rd world, but in industrialised nations, Christianity is falling. What's even funnier is that in the developed world, only the US and Turkey have a substancial number of creationists. Most Christians believe in evolution - the scientific support is just too strong.
"Sorry to burst your bubbles, but you are the minority."
And?
Teno Groppi, why can't you support your claim that the Genesis Account has explanatory power to describe the diversities of Life on Earth?
For those who came late to this party Teno makes his entrance at comment #507. It is a long and carefully numbered 6 point refutation of evolution. You might find point #4 especially revealing. (snicker) Tip to abb3w.
Appeal to Authority fallacy, via Appeal to Tyranny of the (alleged) Majority.
Teno Groppi: It doesn't prove one iota that left-handed amino acids arose by these means.
Ken Cope Science doesn't deal in proof, which is reserved for math, logic, and whisky.
Actually, it does, in the same sense of the word "prove" that someone might use when trying to prove their brain is not a piece of cauliflower.
Note Florida Benchmark SC.3.N.3.1: Recognize that words in science can have different or more specific meanings than their use in everyday language; for example, energy, cell, heat/cold, and evidence. The formal use of the word "prove" in science is slightly more specific than in mathematics, indicating a probabilistic proof (cf. Arthur/Merlin protocols in mathematical complexity theory).
(I ought to bookmark that paper....)
Teno Groppi Well as you say Ken that indeed science is not based on "proof", than its basically in the same catagory as FAITH.
Wrong, and already addressed earlier.
abb3w: For myself, I reserve the term "Faith" for the primary tenets that must be believed without possibility of proof, as opposed to propositions proven as inferences under some rule (which itself is a proposition). I refer to the latter as "Inference"; "Belief" includes both.
Science is a methodology for inference. Under the assumptions of Logic, ZF, and Reality-Evidence relateability, it has an algorithmic expression which may be proven (in the mathematical sense) to indicate the relative probabilities for correctness within a set of hypotheses.
Teno Groppi And even if it did happen once, it would have to have done this many many MANY times to produce all the different living organisms that we see today.
No. It would have had to occur at a steady rate at the formation of life, thereby altering the rates of autocatalysis and the basis of life.
Teno Groppi If this is so, why aren't we witnessing any of this today?
Depends what you mean by "any of this". If you mean Biogenic Transition, it's because the autocatalytic rate of production is immeasurably slower than for biological production, and thus the few "spontaneous" products (EG, near black smokers) become "alive" because they are incorporated via ingestion. If you mean speciation, science observes it fairly often, at rates consistent with the data of the fossil and genetic records.
Teno Groppi Keep in mind that everything we are being told, taught and led to believe as "fact" is simply not fact at all. It is only the "current theory" and "thought of the day", which historically is/has often shown not to be true. And as such, there are no such things as facts, everything is simply an opinion based on the information we have at the current time.
Science isn't in the business of absolute truth; rather, it is (as I noted just now) in the business of indicating the relative probabilities for correctness within a set of hypotheses. New evidence and new hypotheses can change the probabilities; however, without those, the probabilities remain.
As such, there are "facts": to wit, the individual observations. From there, we proceed to two more relevant Florida Standards: Benchmark SC.6.N.3.1: Recognize and explain that a scientific theory is a well-supported and widely accepted explanation of nature and is not simply a claim posed by an individual. Thus, the use of the term theory in science is very different than how it is used in everyday life.
...and... Benchmark SC.912.N.3.1: Explain that a scientific theory is the culmination of many scientific investigations drawing together all the current evidence concerning a substantial range of phenomena; thus, a scientific theory represents the most powerful explanation scientists have to offer.
"Theory" is a title belt, lost by the holding hypothesis only when a new contender or additional evidence sways the balance of "best", under the mathematically provable criterion of Minimum Message Length Induction.
Well, Teno was just as boring as I thought he would be. All the creobot arguments packaged together into one big lie with absolutely no evidence behind any of it.
Teno, I give your arguments one YAWN.
Oh, and Teno, I ask again: Would you agree with the Commutativity of Logical Inclusive Disjunction, which states that (P OR Q) is logically equivalent to (Q OR P), such that either disjunction may be inferred from the other?
Kel The theory of evolution explains the diversity AND SIMILARITIES of life on this planet.
FTFY.
abb3w, I happen to be stubbornly white knuckling my way through a symbolic logic class so that I may repeat the course in the Spring more comfortably as review, so I can confidently claim that you know we're both right. The scientific method is, broadly speaking, inductive, and makes claims that are stronger or weaker, not deductively valid or invalid, as in a deductive argument in which the conclusion would have to be true if the premises were. Science generalizes from observation and experiment, and revises those generalizations when necessary. Not to get all Popperian either, because even Hume advised common sense and Russell didn't lose sleep over the possibility of the existence of the celestial teapot. I have confidence in the scientific method; the claims of science are far stronger than anything so otiose as religion.
It's actually more subtle than that, Ken. It's possible to mathematically prove correct that an algorithmic version of science will indicate the relative probabilities within a set of hypotheses, positing only that logic is valid for inference, ZF is self-consistent (not complete), and that Reality is relateable to Evidence. If you're taking a math course, you might find reading this amusing, where I outlined the proof for the edification of the Fark masses. =)
Yes, abb3w, just about any such discussion is more subtle than a comments thread will allow, but the correctness of an algorithmic version of science (I'd like some expansion of that, please) is provable mathematically. I've got to respect the disciplines and their boundaries, especially the fuzzy bits. Anybody who rejects evidence has no business discussing the subject of reality. I'm comfortable with computing in general, and am enjoying the applicability of symbolic logic to fiendish online disputation and game design, however, math is at best a second language that I will never learn to think in as a native would. I've exhausted my reserves of polite interest in math, having reached my fifth decade now using more geometry than most people will learn. I plead 2D/3D animation artist (see url by clicking name).
Strawberry Blondie, you're far more generous than I: I give his lies for Jesus one tepid MEH.
Teno Groppi* has a blog that is one big bowl of bile: http://wismd.blogspot.com/
In one of his other blogs (he has seven) he accuses Sarah Palin of being a socialist.
He's clearly got a few roos loose in the top paddock.
*I keep wanting to type Teeny Gropey but making fun of a poster's name would be very childish.
According to Teno Groppi (November 15, 2008 3:11 PM)
In plain language, to believe ... that life formed from non-life, you MUST believe that YOU came from a ROCK!
Two interesting things:
(1) Those who hold that life formed from non-life hold that life came from carbon-containing materials, not from rock.
(2) On the other hand, those who believe in the literal truth of the Bible DO believe that Adam came from pulverized rock: Geneses 2:7 "the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground".
Stanton, you are right. Probably any response to Teno's less than insipid arguments is too much.
It's the wife who has the red hair. I'm just the bald scientist/nerd that keeps all the electronics running.
We're only the custodians of our respective electronic villages, eh Nerd? Now, if I could only get Firefly music server on Vista to cooperate with that old Soundbridge...
Ken Cope: the correctness of an algorithmic version of science (I'd like some expansion of that, please) is provable mathematically.
By "provable", I mean "follows as a formally correct inference under the rules of Logic".
By "rules of logic", I prefer as a basis the definition of Uniary Negation (aka, NOT) via Joint Denial (NOR), the definition of Logical Inclusive Disjunction (OR) via Uniary Negation and Joint Denial, the Commutativity and Associativity of Logical Inclusive Disjunction, and the Robbins Axiom stating P is equi-inferrable with ((P NOR Q) NOR (P NOR (NOT Q))) for arbitrary static propositions. This may be shown equivalent to the usual rules of Boolean logic.
By "provable mathematically", I mean that the algorithm's correctness may be shown to follow directly from the ZF axioms (independent of the Axiom of Choice, incidentally).
The algorithm is roughly:
1) Gather evidence/data
2) Form conjectures about interrelation of data
3) Encode expresion of data via conjecture into hypothesis
4) Use criterion to show relative probabilities within set of hypotheses.
By "conjecture", I mean a form of computer program (for a Universal Church-Turing Automata); the hypothesis adds an input set (starting data tape) for this program, so that when the program is run, the computer (UCTA) will output the original data set. As an oversimplificaton, this may be thought of as modeling the "ideal", and then adding tweaks to show how the actual data may be slightly off from "ideal".
The probability of a hypothesis within the set being correct is (as I understand the math) inverse to log of the product of program and input set sizes. Slightly oversimplifying, the simpler the hypothesis, the more likely it is to be correct. For the full proof, you want a pair of papers... which I've temporarily misplaced the bookmark for (courtesy LJ maintenance time). I'll post them once I find 'em.
abb3w, thanks. I'll catch up later this evening.
Boy this sounds an awful lot like you guys!
Evolution while being conceivable, has not been confirmed and never will be. But most evolutionists are not interested in testing the gradualism of Darwin but rather in protecting their dubious hypothesis (guess). You can imagine the academic chaos if every honest scholar admitted that evolution never took place!
What would it do to every secular college science faculty if creationism were accepted and evolution proved a fraud? They would finally be considered uneducated, unscholarly, and unnecessary. And maybe they would become unemployed! They would fall into the same category as flat-earthers, astrologers, new age gurus, and snake handlers! (That is exactly my attitude toward the soothsayers of science.)
Bigoted judges who have ruled in favor of the myth-tellers would feel the sting of public embarrassment and join the ranks of the unemployed.Scientists would no longer seek to confirm the theory of evolution (now presumed to be a fact before beginning an investigation!) and they could get on with the business of true science. Scientists would no longer see only what is "respectable and acceptable," and would look at the evidence, making judgments based on that evidence even if it contradicts popular theory. They would decide that truth is more important than denigrating, denying and denouncing creationists.
Clergymen and theologians would sheepishly have to apologize to their followers for leading them into the swamps of theistic evolution, day-age theory, gap theory, progressive evolution, and other unscriptural nonsense. Such religious leaders might once again preach that the Bible is reliable in toto as we creationists have been saying for many years.
I can see an assortment of prestigious scientists, clergymen, professors, publishers, film makers, media personalities, and others holding a televised news conference where they apologize profusely to the youth of the world for teaching fraud, falsehood, fakery, and foolishness while calling it "science."Now, a word of advice: Don't hold your breath for that news conference to take place. It won't, because many evolutionists are vain, venal and venomous people. They are especially venomous when dealing with or discussing creationists.
Evolutionists, not being very bright and living in a permanent fog, have not understood that creationism has not been disproved, only disbelieved. Evidently they can't make that distinction. Many of them think that making a statement makes it a fact, and by denouncing creationism, they discredit it! Of course, they only discredit themselves in the eyes of informed, honest people.
Evolutionists have been discrediting themselves for many years, but especially in recent years. And it often takes place in formal public debates with creationists.
The Institute for Creation Research in California has been a pioneer in scientific research, education and apologetics. Dr. Henry Morris, Dr. Duane Gish and others have gone into universities and faced evolutionists in public debate-on their turf!Dr. Morris spoke of those debates: "We are always careful to stick to scientific arguments, especially using the fossil record to show that macro-evolution has not occurred in the past". The evolutionists, however, more often than not, do not stick to scientific arguments. They will attack the Bible, show that creationists have religious motivations, argue that one can be religious and still believe in evolution, contend that creationism is not scientific, or attack our personal character or credentials.
"But one thing they will not do is give any real scientific evidence for macro-evolution. This is because there isn't any real evidence for macro-evolution! This is why creationists almost always win the debates. We win, not because we are better debaters, but because creation is true, evolution is false, and real science confirms this."
Evolutionists have learned that creationists are not simply "bible thumpers." They expected creationists to quote a few Bible verses then sit down, but evolutionists have discovered that it doesn't work that way. The creationist deals with geology, biology, paleontology, and other branches of science, and they ask questions that evolutionists cannot answer. The creationists also provide a model that proves to be far more acceptable to thinking people than the claptrap of evolution.Dr. Henry Morris was scheduled to debate a professor at the University of Houston, but a university official canceled the debate at the last minute because he did not want scientific creationism discussed on his campus! Wait a minute! I thought a university was a place for various ideas to be disseminated, debated and discussed by inquiring minds. Surely it is not a place for propaganda-or is it? Could it be that only what is politically correct is permitted at the University of Houston?At the National Academy of Sciences all but one person agreed that debating with creationists should be avoided! Well, wonder what they are afraid of? Could it be the truth? If evolution is really as scientific as evolutionists claim, they should be eager to engage creationists in debate. Maybe, just maybe, the evolutionists are not so sure of the correctness of their cause and are embarrassed to face creationists in formal debates. Maybe that is one reason many evolutionists get mean-spirited when they discuss creationism. They don't have the answers so they attack.
More tomorrow
You idiot, Teno Troll. Why not just link instead of copy-pasting slabs of second-hand stupidity?
Oh yeah, you stopped pasting early:
No original ideas, no arguments, no honesty, don't know how to link... pathetic.
Plagiarist Teno Groppi failed to cite the source for his post #883, which is a verbatim cut and paste from here:
http://www.cstnews.com/Code/MeanSpirited.html
This is the sort of behavior that would get any college student subjected to discipline, suspension, even expulsion.
From a creationist of Teno Groppi's loathsome ilk, it's typical of the sort of dishonest behavior we've learned to expect.
Dance dance dance, dance around the arguments. Teno follows up the Matrix gambit with the appeal to popularity, followed by the copy-pasted screed from a like-minded attack chihuahua. What inconsequential gibberish will he try next?
Wow Teno is a morphing creobot minister.
such a tool.
When all else fails, appeal to conspiracy!
Evolutionists, not being very bright and living in a permanent fog, have not understood that creationism has not been disproved, only disbelieved. Evidently they can't make that distinction. Many of them think that making a statement makes it a fact, and by denouncing creationism, they discredit it! Of course, they only discredit themselves in the eyes of informed, honest people.
Projection, thy name is Creationism.
Liar.
Teno's going to have to do a lot better if wants to discuss something. Cut/paste from creationist web sites is for incompetent losers. Give use some original material, like some physical evidence for god. Otherwise, stay home.
"The Institute for Creation Research in California has been a pioneer in scientific research, education and apologetics."
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
On the subject of debates. What do they prove? How many people in the typical audience of a debate have the background in basic science necessary to keep the debaters honest. If a creationist were to bring out that old discredited lie that evolution violated the second law of thermodynamics, how many people in the audience would be able to spot that lie?
What if a completely different format were used? Something like this: The audience would consist non-scientists but technically and mathematically literate types with some college level science in their background. Engineers perhaps. Individually vetted by both sides to be genuinely uncertain re evolution vs. creationism. Furthermore instead of a few minutes per point each side would have hours to make it's case. The audience would be provided with sources and encouraged to study them and to ask questions. Such a debate might take place over the course of a weekend, with the audience (a de facto jury actually) encouraged to talk with participants and each other and to fact check all the arguments during breaks. Now what happens when the creationists bring out the 2lot argument? Some of the audience members are likely to be very familiar with thermodynamics and able to spot the flaw and explain it to others. Some engineers are going to be involved with flood control and erosion or otherwise have a professional knowledge of geology. Who wants to run "Flood Geology" past that group? Who, in short, wins that debate? And does anyone seriously believe that creationists, denied their Gish gallop, would agree to debate under these terms?
Yes, I know that there is no way in Hell that such a debate would occur.
Has Teno Groppi pointed out exactly how the Book of Genesis explains the diversities of life on Earth better than Evolutionary Biology can, yet?
Teno does cut/paste from known creationist sites. No originality. Absolutely no scientific literature cited. So Stanton, the answer is no.
He won't even explain how we can see the LMC 168,000 light years away or M31 2,300,000 light years away. A star went supernova in the LMC 168,000 years ago meaning it hit the end of it's lifecycle then. How do creationists explain this? "Goddidit that way"
I thought as much: meh.
Does Teno Groppi even realize that he's made a complete idiot out of himself over having metaphysically scooped his brains and intellectual honesty out of his pumpkin-like head in the name of fanatical piety?
Stanton, Teno Groppi is a creobot. He's probably claiming victory to his friends. So of course not. But we know better.
abb3w @881, I'll spend some energy studying what you gave me, but I'd like to hear from you again after you've had a peek at these two rather non-controversial portions of the talk.origins faq, with which you're no doubt already familiar:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/falsify.html
I am, at least in principle, more comfortable erring on the side of ambiguity rather than certainty about the state of scientific knowledge and proof, which is always in flux, but only up to a point. In practical terms, of course, science is a pragmatic and useful destroyer of both ambiguity, and mistaken certainty; yet at its exotic fringes, science thrives on new and unsuspected (if not rigidly defined) areas of doubt and uncertainty.
Teno is too close to the truth.
I've made contact with Beagle Headquarters. Darwin's Bulldogs have given the order to have him terminated.
Brownian, I hope you realize you've compromised EAC security by posting that here. Oh crap...
"Does Teno Groppi even realize that he's made a complete idiot out of himself "
I think he might be, in some deep and buried way, aware of it. It's only when they get desperate that they pull out the Matrix gambit and the appeal to popularity.
Cope: I'd agree that Popperian falsification is an oversimplification. I find that the requirement that a hypothesis be distinguishable from the null hypothesis suffices.
There's some subtle philosophical points where the FAQ and I differ. However, this is because I'm in the habit of constructing science from primary philosophical premises up. While I've encountered one or two wags who were willing to reject the validity of experimental methodology as a primary premise, rejection of "Reality is relateable to Experience" is a bit more difficult. Under Minimum Message Length Induction, experiment is simply another form of data gathering (with hopes for easier math), with the heart of science being the analysis of the data.
Even the most iron-headed YEC I've encountered was willing to admit the validity of the axiomatic commutativity of OR; he just considered Biblical Inerrancy a more important premise. The advantage of the ground-up approach is that somewhere along the way, the YEC has to reject a primary premise, or accept the constraints of working within the bounds of Science. Rejecting any of the "inoffensive" primary premises I use results in the minor problem of appearing a fool to third parties to the discussion, and the major problem of being unable to prove that their brain is not a piece of cauliflower.
Tresmal, you bring up a very good point for the existence of evolutionists. I guess the false evolutionary precepts in science is a tool that creationists can use to prove their point of G-d's existence.
That in itself may be the only reason it truly exists!
As for copying and pasting an article, I have done nothing wrong here "Don" happens to be a good friend of mine. And if you blind bots cared to read thouroughly you would have noticed at the end of the article some very specific copyrights are posted. I have CAPITALIZED it below.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Dr. Don Boys
© 2000 Cornerstone Communications
Evolutionists show their mean-spirited nature when they debate creationists, usually at a state university. One of the best known evolutionists, Niles Eldredge, refers to these debates in his book, Monkey Business: "Creationists travel all over the United States, visiting college campuses and staging 'debates' with biologists, geologists, and anthropologists. The creationists nearly always win. The audience is frequently loaded with the already converted and the faithful."
He continued: "And scientists, until recently, have been showing up at the debates ill-prepared for what awaits them. Thinking the creationists are uneducated, Bible-thumping clods, they are soon routed by a steady onslaught of direct attacks on a wide variety of scientific topics. No scientist has an expert's grasp of all the relevant points of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, and anthropology. Creationists today-at least the majority of their spokesmen-are highly educated, intelligent people. Skilled debaters, they have always done their homework. And they nearly always seem better informed than their opponents, who are reduced too often to a bewildered state of incoherence." (Emphasis added.)
Well, that is some admission from a leading evolutionist! But note that he tried to remove some of the sting by charging creationists with loading the audience with our own people. That is simply not true. In fact, the opposite is true. I know of no debate where the audience has been loaded with creationists. I have debated university professors on affirmative action, homosexuality, sexual permissiveness, etc., and have never had more than three or four people in large audiences who agreed with my position (to my knowledge).
We creationists do not "load" the audience (not that I'm above such a thing). It's only that it is very difficult or impossible to do in a secular university. No, Eldredge was wrong. They lose the debates because they have taken the wrong side of the argument!
The unfair, unreasonable, unacceptable, unblushing, unbecoming, uncivil, unconscionable and ungentlemanly tactics of evolutionists are obvious to all who have seen them in debates or read their books and articles. (Leading evolutionist Stephen J. Gould calls creationists, "kooky," "yahoos" and "latter-day antediluvians" and he characterizes scientific creationism as "the nonsense term of the century.") However, Steve refuses to make those charges in public debate where informed creationists can make him look like a "yahoo." He recently declared, "Creationist-bashing is a noble and necessary pursuit these days." Steve seems to hate creationists because he obviously hates our God.
Isaac Asimov showed his hatred and bigotry (hatred and bigotry on the left?) when he wrote that creationists "...are stupid, lying people who are not to be trusted in any way."
Richard Dawkins calls us feeble-minded, pathetic and intellectual cavemen in his book, The Blind Watchmaker. He also wrote: "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." Then in a November 1983 article, published in the Times Literary Supplement, Dawkins calls us a "gang of ignorant crackpots." See what I mean when I say that many evolutionists are as mean as a junk-yard dog?Like Gould, Asimov, Dawkins, et al., H. L. Mencken was a writer with bile problems and a hatred toward creationists. He used the Scopes Trial as a showcase for his vindictive, vicious and vitriolic journalism. He gave "thanksgiving" that creationist William Jennings Bryan had not been elected President of the United States, although he was not thrilled with Coolidge. After ridiculing Coolidge, he referred to the Scopes Trial and ridiculed Bryan and Christians everywhere. He suggested that we believe the Earth is square (we don't, but some of us believe his head was), witches should be put to death and Jonah swallowed the whale! Mencken was a hater of God and of creationists and he was a better word-smith than he was a thinker!
Evolutionists hate creationists and anyone who believes that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God. They are as uncomfortable as a dog in hot ashes when we talk of personal accountability to a sovereign God. They are bigots and haters with a few exceptions. Please remember that they are the ones who believe incredibly silly things without any scientific data to support their philosophy and religion. They are often arrogant, asinine and audacious.
Dr. Alfred Rehwinkel summed it up very well: "Meanwhile, their [evolutionists] unproven theories will continue to be accepted by the learned and the illiterate alike as absolute truth, and will be defended with a fanatic intolerance that has a parallel only in the bigotry of the darkest Middle Ages. If one does not accept evolution as an infallible dogma, implicitly and without question, one is regarded as an unenlightened ignoramus or is merely ignored as an obscurantist or a naive, uncritical fundamentalist."
Now, with the above evidence proving that evolutionists are not the loving, kind, gracious, thoughtful, and amiable people they profess to be, I am said to be "too militant" in my approach to this issue. We are in a war, and evolutionists are the enemy. They are after another generation of children, and your tax dollars are funding their nonsense and their non-science.
Evolutionists are mean-spirited because they hate us and our Savior. Let the battle continue without quarter.
Copyright, 2000, Don Boys, Ph.D (Permission is granted for this article to be used by ANYONE, ANYWHERE AS LONG AS NO CHANGES ARE MADE, including this tag. We suggest that pastors and others duplicate it and give to members, publish in newspapers, use on radio and television broadcasts, WEB SITES, etc. (Maybe USA Today and ABC News should receive a few thousand copies of this article. SEND TO YOUR LOCAL EVOLUTIONIST, etc.)
http://www.cstnews.com/Code/MeanSpirited2.html
Teno, if evolution is unscientific, and you have proof positive for another theory, why don't you write up your findings and submit them to an appropriate scientific journal, for example Science or Nature. That way, you get to be the first person to get the theory into print, which will secure your Nobel prize.
But then again, if you have no evidence (proof positive), then your paper will be rejected. We both know you have no scientific evidence for your claims. But you can, with evidence, debate them in the proper forum, which is called the scientific literature. Otherwise, it isn't science, and is called religion.
Wow. Teno you're a deluded ignorant fool.
Evolution is a fact. God is a myth.
YECs are really some of he most gobsmacked sad little minds.
abb3w
Rejecting any of the "inoffensive" primary premises I use results in the minor problem of appearing a fool to third parties to the discussion, and the major problem of being unable to prove that their brain is not a piece of cauliflower.
Teno appeared to be a fool to third parties within a line or two of his first garbage dump here. Nobody with a piece of cauliflower for brains would stoop to behaving like such a stupid, wanking, insipid godbot.
Teno Groppi:
I guess the false evolutionary precepts in science is a tool that creationists can use to prove their point of G-d's existence.
The point of creationists is to prove the existence of a dead and resurrected Nazarene whose believers will wind up in a magic castle in the sky forever and ever if and only if they believe it and regularly ritually cannibalize said dead and resurrected Naz, by rejecting science, common sense, common courtesy, any baseline ethics whatsoever, and otherwise by routinely pissing on other people's legs while claiming it's raining. Got it.
As for copying and pasting an article, I have done nothing wrong here "Don" happens to be a good friend of mine.
Got that? It's OK to steal the work of another writer and represent it as one's own, as long as the work belongs to another creationist.
And if you blind bots cared to read thouroughly you would have noticed at the end of the article some very specific copyrights are posted. I have CAPITALIZED it below.
I would have noticed if I cared to read thouroughly post #883? I noticed it in the material you stole and represented here as your own, material I knew I'd be able to find by yanking a random string of words and entering it in a search engine because you, Teno Groppi are obviously a lying, thieving plagiarist. By excising that paragraph, you ignored the admonition that permission to post the material was conditional, and you violated that condition by truncating the material and posting the rest here as if it were your own original writing. "It's all there, black and white, clear as crystal! You stole fizzy lifting drinks. You bumped into the ceiling which now has to be washed and sterilized, so you get *NOTHING*! You lose! Good day sir!"
Ken, good work showing Teno is a plagiarist. We always know there are lies in any creationist. They seem to have a fragile hold on telling the truth.
Teno, if you wish to debate evolution, a scientific theory, the scientific literature is the place to do so. The same for the science of abiogenesis. Science is only refuted by more science. Religious myths are irrelevant to science.
Now, if you want to discuss the religious myths for origins, then that can be done anywhere. Just don't expect science to show up, and nothing said in these debates will effect science.
Ken sir,
Oh, you should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about. Because as Willy Wonka said: There's no earthly way of knowing, which direction we are going... There's no knowing where we're rowing... Or which way the river's flowing... Is it raining? Is it snowing? Is a hurricane a-blowing? Not a speck of light is showing... So the danger must be growing... Are the fires of hell a-glowing? Is the grisly reaper mowing? Yes, the danger must be growing, cause the rowers keep on rowing... And they're certainly not showing... Any signs that they are slowing!
Invention, my dear friends, is 93% perspiration, 6% electricity, 4% evaporation, and 2% butterscotch ripple. That's 105 percent!
Eh well, it happens every time, they all become blueberries!
Well, the suspense is terrible. I hope it will last... :D
Oh and Ken,
Don is a good friend of mine (a close one at that). Would you like him to pay a visit to this site? I can certainly ask him.
Teno, we don't need Don to come. Another IDiot adds nothing to a scientific debate (neither do you for that matter). Come back when you are willing to cite the scientific literature to back up your inane claims.
Stupid, wanking, insipid, lying plagiarist godbot Teno Groppi in post #908 continues to demonstrate his solitary monkey-at-a-typewriter skill: cutting and pasting.
In post #909,
Don is a good friend of mine (a close one at that). Would you like him to pay a visit to this site?
No need to add sock-puppetry to your epic stack of ethical failures.
No copyrights were posted in #883 where you first pasted that bilge. No mention that it was written by someone else, and reposted with or without permission. That makes it plagierism, whether "Don" is a friend of yours or not. Whether he gave you permission to post it or not. Posting it as your own is plagierism. There is nothing in 883 to indicate that it was not your own, not even quotation marks.
Look Steve however you want to see it -- call it plagiarism if you will. SO WHAT! Don doesn't mind in the least. And besides, how do you know I didn't help him write it?
Now Ken, your just a pitcher with a big mouth, a fast ball and a slow brain! And as for Pinhead, if you look in fine details of the Bible, one can certainly see that SCIENCE (which you hold so dear) is credibly found. In fact so credible is the Bibles performance in science that we have to stop and wonder how it achieved this knowledge some 4,000 ago without some sort of divine intervention. The Bible itself is the very bases for SCIENCE today!
Did you know that many of the military tactics that we use today all stem from the Bible.
Kosher sanitary laws (they even knew about bacteria even before the microscope). These very laws are what put into effect the FDA.
Leviticus 17:11 (which describes the value of blood)- For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your soul, for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul. We all know that blood is dependent to all living things. And when we further examine the moving parts of blood we realize that it serves several amazing functions, such as carrying water, oxygen and nutrients to every cell of the body, as well as the function to remove the "waste material" of the body. In essence the blood is a giver of life as well as a purifier. It is indeed the atonement for the soul. So the question remains, besides G-d requiring it, how is it that we knew this without knowing about the moving parts of blood without a microscope.
Additionally for those who study astronomy know that there is a star called Alcyone that is found within the star system of the Pleiades (the seven sisters).
This star (which is the brightest in the constellation Pleiades) is said to be the hinge in which all gravity in our system (galaxy) seems to axis on. Yet in Job 38:31, G-d asks Job, - "Canst thou bind the sweet influence of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?" It is also interesting to know that the Hebrew word for "Pleiades" is "kee-maw" which means "Pivot or hinge". So the intriguing question is, how did Job know that this it what keeps us on our course in the solar system, instead of drifting aimlessly through space?
By some other means Job also seems to know that the earth is suspended in space when he states in (Job 26:7) - He stretches out the north over empty space, He hangs the earth on nothing. The fact that Job knows that the earth floats in empty space (which is a vacuum) by means of gravity is amazing!
In Job 36:27-29 it states - For He draws up drops of water, which distill as rain from the mist, which the clouds drop down and pour abundantly on man. Indeed, can anyone understand the spreading of clouds, the thunder from His canopy? How is it that Job even seems to know about "evaporation"?
Job 26:8 states - He binds up the water in His thick clouds, yet the clouds are not broken under it. Amazingly Job even understands the process of what constitutes "condensation".
Job 37:11 states - Also with moisture He saturates the thick clouds, He scatters His bright clouds. As silly at it may sound to us in this day and age, it still begs the question of how Job knew that clouds make water, or better yet how he had a firm understanding of "Hydrology", which is the study of earth's water system, from its distribution, circulation and the atmosphere.
Moreover, so colossal and complete is the bible in its first opening verse of Genesis 1, that it contains all the physics related to our existence in a matter of 5 superseding terms: In the beginning (time) G-d (force) created (action) the Heavens (space) and the Earth (matter).
So off with all of your crapola about science and G-d. The Bible is scientifically based. And additionally archeologically sound as I mentioned in a previous post.
And BTW this information is coming from a book that I'm personally writing. And this is only the tip of the iceberg. :D
To be adjourned...
Teno Groppi and his BFF Don Boys may look forward to being kicked to the curb by the GOP:
http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/19/kathleen-parker-fundies-are-killing-t…
That blogpost cites Kathleen Parker, writing in the Washington Post, who has this to say about the fundie base of the GOP:
Teno, you ignorant ass, science has disproven creationism. The Bible is a piece of literature having nothing to do with science, and trying to represent fanciful tales of gods, monsters, planet drowning floods and the like as literally true is to miss the point of the parables and metaphors.
Now that shameless moron Teno Groppi is spamming the comments here with bible verses, it's time for him to go, be ignored, banished to the dungeon, or all three.
The rest of you may want some more fun kicking him around, but I really don't want to have to scrape any more of that deep stench off of my shoes.
As a physiologist, I can only remark:
What
the
fuck?
Teno, you quoting scripture means you are acknowledging that you have lost the scientific argument because you have no proof. Time to cut your losses and stay home. Any arguments you bring lacking scientific citations are reliqious.
Religious arguments do not effect science in any manner. Religion and science divorced a couple of centuries back, and science just ignores religion these days. There is no going back for science. So you need to adjust your religion to fit with the scientific facts, or just acknowledge you are out of synch with reality.
Whats a matter guys, you don't want to be tested in your thinking views as well as your objective views about creation.
I don't think any of you are being intellectually honest with yourselves.
You know, he's right--it's all there...all of physics. Incredible! I'm rethinking my entire worldview even as I type.
Teno, as a working scientist I have to be honest with myself. However, you haven't proved the necessary background for your scripture to mean anything. First show the physical evidence for your imaginary god (fail). Then you have to prove that the scriptures are divinely inspired (fail). You may want to check the show described in this thread first which really refutes the divine insparation:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/11/watch_tv_tonight.php
Time for you to be honest with yourself, and acknowledge that you need science to refute science. And science is not found in the scriptures.
Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 19, 2008
Look Steve however you want to see it -- call it plagiarism if you will. SO WHAT! Don doesn't mind in the least. And besides, how do you know I didn't help him write it?
Shorter Teno. So what if I am dishonest, I am dealing with dangerous and evil people.
Aren't you at least curious as to whats in the Bible pertaining to future technology?
Oh of course not, I forget... Your arrogance blinds you...
additionally you come up with so many excused that you could even continue posting on the back of a microscopic postage stamp with room enough leftover for a shopping list.
Teno, I've read the bible twice cover to cover. That was the start of my journey to atheism due to the incoherent ramblings of the deranged authors. They had some real problems, and kept trying to push them on everybody. Plus, the godly seemed to be very amoral.
There is no science in the bible. Period, end of story. God doesn't exist, and the bible is a true work of fiction. So you want to believe fiction is true? What does that say about your mind?
Dumbass, the bible has nothing to say about modern technology, let alone future technology.
Also, why should anybody care? You have already stated that it is no big deal the you are not honest. So how can anyone honestly argue with you?
This is the reason why most of the people named in your plagiarized essay will not debate the likes of you. Everyone gets covered in tar. There is no standard to be maintained except everyone must knell to your big sky daddy.
No evidence has FAILED here Pinhead. Since we have the actual evidence itself -- the Bible! What I had supplied you with was Biblical scientific doctrine that you refuse to even acknowledge. Why don't you at least try refuting it.
If you want to play this game again, show me evidence that the tongue is connected to the brain?
Teno, you have what you need to do in my post #920. Until you show the proper evidence for god, and that the bible is divinely inspired, all you have is your belief. I don't share your belief, and will not share your belief without you proving the above. Claims are cheap. Show some evidence from non-scripture sources.
Shorter Teno- How dare you doubt the bible.
Oh dear, he is now blabbering. He was more coherent was he was cutting and pasting. Funny thing, there is still that lack of meaning. Dishonest git.
But Nerd, the bible trumps facts!
Here you go.
(oh...that's not what you meant? Hard to tell sometimes.)
The Bible itself is the very bases for SCIENCE today!
Hoo boy. This just gets better and better.
This star (which is the brightest in the constellation Pleiades) is said to be the hinge in which all gravity in our system (galaxy) seems to axis on.
That is a new one. It's desperately stupid, of course, even more so than standard creationist tripe, but you have acheived something at least: you've made an assertion that I have never heard in 5 years bashing this crap on the toobz. And possibly you've set a new standard for "breathtaking inanity."
In Teno's mind, yes. In my mind no.
After last nights Nova, Teno should be questioning the accuracy of the bible. Watch the show found in the link in post #920 Teno. You might learn something.
Great slabs of plagiarised text and scripture. Thundering stupidity.
Much better.
Okay Pinhead I'm game!
How about the scientific analysis that shows evidence that patients prayed over before and after surgery heal faster.
http://1stholistic.com/PRAYER/hol_prayer_proof.htm
show me evidence that the tongue is connected to the brain
The tongue bone is connected to the jaw bone
The jaw bone is connected to the head bone
The head bone is connected to the brain bone
Oh, hear the word of the Lord
Dem bones, dem bones gonna talk aroun'
Dem bones, dem bones, gonna talk aroun'
Dem bones, dem bones, gonna talk aroun'
Oh, hear the word of the Lord
We're in full-on Groppi Gallup mode here, people.
Look out for that cliff, Teno!
I'm mostly interested in this one:
In the most widely publicized studies of the effect of intercessory prayer, cardiologist Randolph Byrd studied 393 patients admitted to the coronary-care unit at San Francisco General Hospital. Some were prayed for by home-prayer groups, others were not. All the men and women got medical care. In this randomized, double-blind study, neither the doctors and nurses nor the patients knew who would be the object of prayer.
The results were dramatic and surprised many scientists.The men and women whose medical care was supplemented with prayer needed fewer drugs and spent less time on ventilators. They also fared better overall than their counterparts who received medical care but nothing more.
Teno, that paper was falsified. Other, good work has shown no effect, or a negative effect. Still at square zero.
Just admit you have nothing and go away.
Oh, my. I'm afraid I had forgotten all about the incontrovertible scientific evidence for the healing powers of prayer.
Another dent in my worldview...
CJO, too late! He is well over the cliff. If he ever looks down, he will fall. Just like Wile E Coyote.
But then, Teno's reality is just as real as a Loony Tunes short.
Still nothing. Yawn. Prayer, if it works, it always works. Doesn't always work. Appears to be the function of who writes the article. Yawn
Now prove your god with some physical evidence moron.
Pinhead, show me precisely where it was falsified?
If you yourself would like proof of something (the invisible) that you cant see (working). There is a simple experiment that you can do. Unless you do it yourself instead of taking others words for it. Take four canning jars and fill two with fresh grapes and the other with cooked white rice. Now place Labels on the two grape jars, one reading good and the other bad. Do the same for the cooked white rice. You can use other sources of food but these two (as I've personally observed) allow you to see some real effects.
Now, place these jars on a counter top or a table where several people can view them for at least several weeks. You will see an obvious difference in the ones labeled good and bad -- as the bad ones will have deteriorated (molded) much sooner than the good ones. I've performed this experiment in the view of several large classrooms and each time the experiment reveals the same results -- the bad ones go off sooner than the good ones.
So what is going on here? Its quite obvious that the invisible conscious mind is manipulating atoms behind the scenes. Now if this is so, this logically tells us that when faith and prayer is spoken about (or referred to) in the Bible it has a scientific basis to it (and not just from ones own mind, but from observers).
Hence God is the invisible -- is He not? Even such technological things as the workings of cell phones. You are in a sense also acknowledging the concept of Gods existence.
Why is there this double standard than?
So what is going on here? Its quite obvious that the invisible conscious mind is manipulating atoms behind the scenes. Now if this is so, this logically tells us that when faith and prayer is spoken about (or referred to) in the Bible it has a scientific basis to it (and not just from ones own mind, but from observers).
Even if this was true, that the mind can manipulate matter, that is not proof of god. It just proves that the mind can manipulate matter.
/jawfloor
Forget intercessionary prayer. I think we've proved Poe's Law, once and for all.
@661 Rev. BDC
er. Thanks for the link. I'm afraid though that it's a bit over my head, a bit out of my field, and a bit beyond my current level of motivation to get a grasp of the significance of handedness. It was very well written, but it may be more useful for a more chemistry minded person.
I on the other hand, am halfway through the last paper of my undergraduate career... and it's a bloodbath. So I'll probably have to suspend my autodidactic tendencies until a later date.
On an unrelated note:
... I can't believe you two are still having this discussion. rock on.
oh really
Seems not to work at all
What did the American Heart Journal have to say?
Teno, what about all the kids that die at the hands of their wacked out parents who think that modern medicine is unnecessary and they can prey away the illness?
Will you pull the no true Scotsman tactic to explain why their prayers weren't enough?
BAD grapes! Naughty rice!
I haven't heard of anything so daft since some dimbulb shoved electrified forks in a pickle to make it glow in the dark for Jesus.
Last link isn't fully up any longer
so here
Hey Rev, I say, give those murderers all the mercy they can successfully intercessorily pray for. In separate, permanently locked rooms.
Teno Troll:
Bwahahaha!
At least when it stops pasting slabs (no, troll, I don't bother reading them) it's somewhat amusing. Gotta love the "experiment" with the jars - but better take care not to misspell "good" as "god"!
<snicker>
If the bible is evidence, then why did it get so many things wrong? It's hard to find anything in the bible that happened as the bible says; it's not a book to be trusted at all.
Surely if the bible constituted evidence, it would have paralleled science as we see it today. Instead it has a creation story that has as much accuracy as the creation story of the Australian Aboriginals.
Did Teno seriously just claim that the use of a cell-phone is an acknowledgment of God's existence because we can't see wireless waves and say we're not being intellectually honest?
Teno: You sir, are an affront to human thought everywhere. If you had an ounce of honour you would commit seppuku with a melon-baller and line the inside of your cranial cyst with copies of the 'Parable of the Talents' to atone for your squandering of the brains you believe God gave you.
Neither the god you believe in nor the pantheistic deity you're misrepresenting in a pathetic and desperate attempt to corner us is defined as 'stuff we can't see but still does stuff'. If using a cell-phone is an acknowledgment of God then so is flying a kite, infecting a loved one with the flu, and microwaving a hot dog, and we know you don't believe that, you dishonest cinderblock-headed ignoramus.
Teno Groppi Did you know that many of the military tactics that we use today all stem from the Bible.
More stem from Caesar's De Bello Gallico and Sun Tzu's Art of War.
Teno Groppi The Bible is scientifically based. And additionally archeologically sound as I mentioned in a previous post.
Not particularly. See this, which PZ pointed to before it aired.
Teno Groppi you don't want to be tested in your thinking views as well as your objective views about creation.
Only if you're willing to start with first principles. Would you agree with the Commutativity of Logical Inclusive Disjunction, which states that (P OR Q) is logically equivalent to (Q OR P)?
Teno Groppi If you want to play this game again, show me evidence that the tongue is connected to the brain?
That presupposes agreement as to a basis of inference between propositions, which you have not yet provided me, and which I am actively seeking. Would you agree with the Commutativity of Logical Inclusive Disjunction, which states that (P OR Q) is logically equivalent to (Q OR P)?
Teno Groppi I've performed this experiment in the view of several large classrooms and each time the experiment reveals the same results -- the bad ones go off sooner than the good ones.
...and you haven't published? And didn't try for the James Randi prize while it was around? Oh, you impoverished fellow.
yeah. what he said.
What if I crush the grapes and add some sugar and water? Which ones will ferment faster, the "good" or the "bad" grapes?
Teno. As I said, falsified. YYAAWWNN.
Now show some physical evidence for your imaginary god. Moses' eternally burning bush would be nice. Or something else that is nice and solid, that can be confirmed by scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers to be of divine origin.
This is an experiment done by Dr. Masaru Emoto. He additionally has a book out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjfN3K_v1uY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTz-cYk9Wu4&feature=related
Poor doctor gets no good results, then writes a book. Well guess what. YAWN.
Now show us your physical evidence for your imaginary god. This is getting very boring with your constant evasions of what should be simple request. One might think you have overreached, and you know it.
As you wish Pinhead!
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:John_Kanzius_Produces_Hydrogen_f…
I'll wait for your next reply. :D
And further, something bearing Jehovah's signature. I don't want no generic miracles that can just as easily be attributed to Ganesha, Ahura Mazda, or Odin.
You're proving your god; not just any god.
Emoto woo!
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/01/your_friday_dose_of_woo_holy_…
Pinhead, are you making up your own results now?!
Please direct me to where any results were fudged.
Your drawing at strings again. If you start spinning them like Owlmirror you could knit a blanket.
Nerd @957,
How could it be confirmed to be divine? It would be more parsimonious to consider it the product of as-yet unknown phenomena, or of highly-advanced science. Scientists would not be converting, they'd be rubbing their hands in glee, getting as many observations as possible, and thinking up conjectures to test via experiments so as to begin to develop an explanatory theory.
Any deity worth its salt should be able to, you know, avoid parlor tricks and just directly affect belief.
SC, until you try the experiment for yourself, you have no room to talk... run along now!
What a fucking waste of time this clown is.
Teno, do know how I know that you're lying (and have been lying continuously)?
It's simple.
Even you don't believe that God is real and acts in the world.
Because if you did, you wouldn't be copying and pasting all the nonsense you have been spewing.
You wouldn't have to.
All you would have to do is pray.
"God, show these unbelievers that you exist."
That's it.
If your God were real, your God would answer.
Your God doesn't answer, because your God isn't real.
Your God is imaginary. He's made up. All of your stories about him are made up. All of your "science" about him is made up.
There's no one there.
Poster W,
Is that W as in "Wuse"?
Teno, I'm not that familiar with the bible - what does it have to say about approved methods for healing? Does it mention antibiotics, surgery and transplants?
Owlmirror,
How do you know G-d doesn't answer? Maybe he just doesn't answer you, after all who wants to listen to continuous spinning?
I think (like G-d) I'm going to start ignoring you too.
970 posts? WTF? Did crackers hijack this thread?
Teno @960, what does the fact that pumping RF into salt water electrolyses it briefly whereupon the products "burn" have to do with evolution, or god, or anything, really?
And I laughingly note it mentions "They subsequently quietly reported that they surpassed 100% efficiency".
'w' was me, acting through divine revelation from Rev. BDC, KoT.
I assume you meant the word 'wuss'. Such a mistake is proof of Perkūnas, who is not Jehovah, and thus invalidates Jehovah's own claim of solitary godhood.
Please refute.
Teno, I bet you the experiment won't work when it's double blind. Have someone randomly shuffle the "Good" and "Bad" labels inside duplicate envelopes, then affix them to the food items. When you don't know which item is receiving the good vibes and which is receiving the bad, I bet you suddenly can't tell which is rotting faster. This is because you haven't designed the experiment to account for your own confirmation bias, which appears to be quite strong.
Your badly designed experiments prove nothing, and only a fool would run them as you propose.
I'm neither deaf nor blind. I see no God and I hear no God. If God spoke I would hear it; if God wrote I would see it.
But I would have no reason to "spin" (tell the truth that you are a liar) if God spoke. God doesn't speak, so I get to keep telling the truth that you are a liar.
Tell you what. You've already posted more than God has. Far, far more than God has.
So now just stop posting and pray to God that he should speak.
Teno Groppi: Did you know that many of the military tactics that we use today all stem from the Bible.
Really? What infantry tactics used by the U.S. Military can be definitively derived from the Bible?
Wowbagger,
You ask a very good question. I'd like to follow up with antibiotics. Many of the herbs and plants that are mentioned in the Bible are actually what goes into our modern medicine today. In fact Moses melted down the golden calf into liquid gold and fed it to the Jews. Gold has many medicinal values in the body, one of them to relieve pain.
And incidentally, the very same principle for the vaccine came from Moses at the bitter waters of Marah (that's a hard one to explain).
Teno Groppi: Did you know that many of the military tactics that we use today all stem from the Bible.
Really? What infantry tactics used by the U.S. Military can be definitively derived from the Bible?
Teno, I've been doing my research - I've found that all the bible has to say about healing and medicine is that if someone's sick or injured the bible says to heal them, all you have to do is a) anoint them in oil and b) pray and they'll be fine.
So, what do you do when you're sick or injured, Teno? Do you listen to the bible? Or do you go to a doctor or a hospital working in 100% non-biblical medicine?
I guess if the answer is the latter we know how strong your faith is.
Does it mention antibiotics
Nah, all you need is a band-aid with "GOOD" written on it, that will keep the microbes out.
I'm disappointed that Teno has not answered my question about fermentation. The holidays are coming up and I need to know if it would be better to label the vats "GOOD" or "JESUS" or "BAD EVIL LUCIFER SATAN"
-"I'd like a pound of yeast and ten pounds of sugar, Daddy is baking"
Brownian. OM,
Wuse, wus, wuss, whussss... what the difference?
talk about spelling, how did we go from Brownian. OM to just plain W? Huge spelling difference, its not even close. At this point, you couldn't match wits with a Speak N' Spell! :D
I'm really just joking here.
ugh
Only if you willfully ignore the history of the medicinal uses of both biological and non-biological materials in human cultures all around the world.
What actually is hard to explain, you ignorant fool, is why such behaviours are global and pre-date Moses if the knowledge was transmitted from God to Moses.
Teno's brilliant logic at work:
Extrapolating in this way he'll no doubt claim that because the bible mentions sand it predicts silicon chip technology and therefore computers; likewise, because it mentions the moon it predicts the Apollo missions.
Keep grasping at those straws, Teno - is that short for 'tenuous'?
Wowbagger,
You've obviously misunderstood me. Modern medicinal technology is an off-shoot of natural ingredients that were used during Biblical times.
Today's medicines are absolutely acceptable to use.
Joking is not praying.
Stop joking, stop posting, start praying.
Wow... really? Hydrogen from H2O??? SHUT UP!
Huh. So there really is a god. Glad that's cleared up.
I'm really just joking here.
Please tell me that goes for all your, erm, output here.
Clearly a miracle proving the divinity of Shiva, stupid.
D'uh.
Does Teno Groppi win the prize for outright idiocy among all the trolls of Pharyngula? We've had more offensive trolls, more amusing trolls, more repetitive trolls, but have we ever had one who displays the depth and range of pure 24-carat stupid Groppi has produced on this thread? I put this question to those commenters of longer standing than myself.
Tenuous Teno wrote:
Heart transplants are an offshoot of herbs, oil and praying? Cochlear implants are an offshoot of herbs, oil and praying? Bone and skin grafts are an offshoot of herbs, oil and praying? Laser surgery is an offshoot of herbs, oil and praying?
I guess that's why we see Dr House consulting the bible on every episode...
He's got my vote.
He still hasn't explained how we see galaxies millions / billions of light years away or why everything in the solar system ages to ~4.5 billion years. Come on Teno, the Andromeda galaxy as being measured by different standard candles sits 2.3 million light years away from earth. How is that explained in your model?
I don't think so. In fact, it's almost hard to explain how stupid he is. Almost like his stupidity is a miracle in itself. But who to attribute the miracle to? Jehovah wouldn't create the perfect moron to spout his praises, so it couldn't be Him. Proof perhaps of Koalemos?
I just read most of this thread from top to bottom (very slow day at work) and I am almost certain that this Teno guy is pulling your legs. I even went as far as to try and figure out if his name was an anagram of something or somebody we know but if it is I didn't get it. The "good" and "bad" jars seemed to be the tip off and then the totally non-sequitur link to the hydrogen-from-water guy clinched it for me.
Am I right Teno? Are you trying to break some Poe record? Do I win a prize?
Josh,
The first person in recorded history to demonstrate sophisticated tactical warfare was "Abraham" when he rescued his nephew "Lot" from the Mesopotamian army as well as free Israelite captives. Genesis 14:15. This was a nighttime surprise raid from two different direction. Abrahams raid is a classical standard model night time maneuver which is taught in military academies throughout the world.
Abrahams reign did not stop there, it continued through his son Isaac, and from Isaac to Jacob and his 12 sons (the 12 tribes of Israel) who later migrated to Egypt through Jacobs younger son Joseph.
Exodus 17:8-13 - The Amalekites came and attacked the Israelites at Rephidim. Moses said to Joshua, Choose some of our men and go out to fight the Amalekites. Tomorrow I will stand on top of the hill with the staff of G-d in my hands. So Joshua fought the Amalekites as Moses had ordered, and Moses, Aaron and Hur went to the top of the hill. As long as Moses held up his hands, the Israelites were winning, but whenever he lowered his hands, the Amalekites were winning. When Moses' hands grew tired, they took a stone and put it under him and he sat on it. Aaron and Hur held his hands up one on one side, one on the other so that his hands remained steady till sunset. So Joshua overcame the Amalekite army with the sword.
We read about Joshua and his battle at Jericho. Joshua 6:3-4 - And ye shall compass the city, all ye men of war, and go round about the city once. Thus shalt thou do six days. And seven priests shall bear before the ark seven trumpets of rams' horns: and the seventh day ye shall compass the city seven times, and the priests shall blow with the trumpets. Today the military has developed devices that use high frequency sound waves to cause nausea and disorientate an enemy.
Than we read about Joshua when he burns the city of Ai, Joshua 8:28-29. He used the mountains with the sun rising in the east shinning right in the eyes of the Canaanites and attacking downhill the Canaanites couldn't see fighting in the face of the sun, nor did they eat or prepare since it was early morning.
Joshua defeats the Canaanites. Joshua 10:9-10 - Joshua therefore came unto them suddenly, and went up from Gilgal all night. And the Lord discomfited them before Israel, and slew them with a great slaughter at Gibeon, and chased them along the way that goeth up to Bethhoron, and smote them to Azekah, and unto Makkedah.
The next hero of the bible is Gideon, he rises up against the midianites. He chooses "300" soldiers... they carry torches, clay pots and shofers (ram horns) and at midnight Gideon strategically separates his 300 men and positions them around the midian camp on 3 sides leaving the southern part open. Judges 7:20 - And the three companies blew the trumpets, and brake the pitchers, and held the lamps in their left hands, and the trumpets in their right hands to blow withal: and they cried, The sword of the Lord, and of Gideon. The torches are seen by the midianites and in a panic they flee. The midianites are also blinded by the torches and they start fighting themselves... its a state of confusion and complete chaos! While the remaining Israelite army in the southern part is waiting in ambush for the fleeing midianites and slaughter them.
The next military hero of the bible is woman named "Deborah". The Philistines had taken over the Jezreel valley. It also happened to be during the rainy season which made the ground muddy so the enemy could not get there military up the muddy slopes without getting bogged in the mud. Than the Israelites attack down hill with a victorious victory. Judges 4:4-7.
Saul was the next and his son Jonathan using secret ravines to work their way around the Philistines, quarantining them into a small battlefield area and triumphing over them. Soul takes back control over the central mountain ridge of the Canane also cutting the trade routs in the Jezreel valley and made headway in creating a united territorial kingdom for the Israelites. 1 Samuel 13:2
Than came King David when he took out the Philistine giant "Goliath" 1 Samuel 17:44-45 with a rock and sling as a military weapon.
The bible it seems was even used as a guide book by the Greeks during the reign of Leonites. They seem to have applied the same strategy of using "300" Spartan soldiers by way of the narrow Thermopolis pass to hold back nearly 300 thousand Persian soldiers. And as mentioned earlier that many of these strategic maneuvers that were used by the Jews in ancient times are still being taught in militaries throughout the world and are still winning wars and securing territories.
Vitis01, sad to say, the Teno Troll is, I think, for real.
That's the whole point of Poe's law.
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.
So this thread has turned from "evolution is an affront to entropy" to "look at how wonderful the bible is". Turns out it's all the same with believers, always about their holy book. It would be funny to put a Christian, a Jew, a Hindu, a Sikh, and a Muslim all in the same room to battle out theology. They all use the same kinds of justifications for their holy book, and we nonbelievers can sit back and laugh at the whole thing.
Yes, and no race or tribe or nation other than the Jews ever devised military tactics without ever having encountered the bible.
Keep grasping, Tenuous Teno. This is fun!
1000?