by Sam87 537 Replies latest jw friends
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satin
Satin is a cloth that typically has a glossy surface and a dull back. A satin is a warp-dominated weaving technique that forms a minimum number of interlacings in a fabric. If a fabric is formed with a satin weave using filament fibers such as silk, nylon, or polyester, the corresponding fabric is termed a "satin." If the yarns used are short-staple yarns such as cotton, the fabric formed is considered a sateen.
S
Haha that is what I get for installing a spelling plugin on my ubuntu linux. At least Satin is real. Not like Satan.
I guess you could call him beelzebub or gog of magog instead if that would be easier. ^_^
Imagine we were talking about history and someone came out with the statement that everyone thought the world was flat until Columbus proved it was round. It's a common misconception and is often taught in schools so it's a quite understandable mistake.
However, if someone comes along with links to a detailed refutation of that claim, explains what people really believed at the time and what Columbus was really trying to do, imagine how annoyed they'd be if the original poster replied that they wouldn't bother reading the links because they found history boring, but still believed that Columbus proved the world was round, and would not be "bullied" into any other belief. They would, quite rightly, be dismissed as stupid and willfully ignorant. They would essentially have declared themselves completely unqualified to take part in any discussion of the subject, and it would not be surprising if someone pointed this out.
Even moreso than history, biology is a subject that requires some effort to understand. Anyone not willing to at least read enough to be aware of the arguments has no right to get involved in a discussion about it. For that reason, I do not believe I was harsh in dismissing whyizit and dido as shamefully and willfully ignorant. Their ignorance is more shameful for the fact that they asked questions but ignored or baselessly rejected the answers. Don't get me wrong, they may both be very nice people but they've demonstrated that their opinions aren't worth diddly-squat.
I LIKE where this thread has ended up. Almost makes me believe in aether.
off the topic, I konw, but have to say that aether is not a complete bullshit and according to one of the latest New Scientist magazines it just might hold more water than Einstein's space-time fourth dimension. Certainly it does away with dark matter and dark energy ...
Anyhow, back to our topic now .........
Has anybody looked at any of Jordan Maxwell's films? Like this one:
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=3230844946178601907&q=jordan+maxwell
Some interesting ideas in there concerning the origin of religion. I can't say I agree with everything they say, as certain parallels between Christ and some of the other mythological characters seem a little tenuous and others bizarre (spot the ones I mean!). But, some great information and certainly thought provoking.
I wrote half this last might then got bored and got stoned. Some has been superceeded by the flurry of pages since, but hey...
dido
Right, let`s get this straight, i know the basis of evolution and i choose to believe in creation over it. Nothing is proven.
On the basis of basics thus says you. This is like you (assuming you have no specialist knowledge) declaring it is obvious that William Shakespeare could not have written the plays accreditted to him and that it was either Marlowe or Queen Elizabeth I, and then feeling all the people who'd studied the subject had better treat your statement with equal seriousness as though it were coming from someone who knew shit from melted chocolate. And the 'choose to believe' is interesting. So it isn't a question of which seems most likely but rather a decison that you believe in Creation without an adequate knowledge of the evidences for or against?
Now when it comes to bacteria, it`s the body that has built up resistence to the antibiotics not the bacteria,
And this is where we are not on an even playing field; I know I am right - not because I am cleverer than you simply because I learnt it. You are confusing two different things. Yes, one can build up a resistence to a drug, like alcohol for example. One can build up resistence to pathogens, which is why people who have moved to countries with bad sanitation don't stay ill, they get ill when they first go there, sometimes frequently, and then adjust.
But a micro-organism evolving resistence to drugs is as well documented and as total and utter a fact as vermin like rats becoming resitent to poisons through evolutionary processes.
You have heard of the 'superbug' MRSA; Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus. Staphylococcus aureus is a micro-organism. There's some 'families' that are not resistent, but some strains not only resist Methicillin but almost all antibiotics. It did not use to. But it does now.
http://www.link.med.ed.ac.uk/RIDU/Mrsa.htm
This is just one small and simple example of MANY. I could tell you about a new species of plant discovered in York Train station's car park, about how sickle-cell disease proves evolution, I can, quite literally go on all night. I could tell you all about how 'ring-species' prove evolution; hell why not.
The Herring gull is known in the UK. So is the Lesser black-backed gull. They don't breed with each other. Walk East through Europe and Asia and you get into areas where there are just black backed gulls. Slowly the black-backed gulls get greyer. By time you are on the USA's Eastern coast the black-backed gulls are actually Herring gulls.
Any black-backed gull can breed with a black-backed gull from a few hundred, maybe a thousand kilometers away. But the genetic difference between the herring gull and black-backed gull is so great they don't breed.
Thus a single organism, by spreading geographically, has become two species that don't interbreed; replace miles with years and you have an exact model of how evolution takes place. There is no 'first' Herring gull or 'first' black-backed gull. Any one is close enough to those close to it in miles/time to breed with them. But there are still two species.
Thus there was no first human. The first human was quite capable of breeding with some generations before him; he wasn't a different species to them. But the gradual chnage over generations would meant faced with an ancestor many generation in the past there would have been no chance of succesul fertilisation.
But there's no point in me wearing out my poor ickle fingers if you remain convinced you can basically turn to a community of tens of thousands of people who've spent their lives studying a subject and say "Sorry scientists, I only have a basic knowledge but on the basis of that you are all wrong". And I'm arrogant? Well, yes, but only if I can back opinions up with knowledge. You lack that common courtesy
If you REALLY want to learn, ask, and I am sure others and I can point you to useful sources of information.
swotting up on evolution theories? I think that is totally boring.
You can have your cake, OR eat it. If you think studying is boring then you will NEVER be able to know for sure if you are not believing in supersticious nonsense. Take that choice if you wish, but if you do don't expect to have your opinions treated with any regard when on the basis of no knowledge you dismiss modern science. You will (at best) be a back seat driver who's never driven. Don't blame us for this situation; only you can change it.
And stop feeling so sorry for yourself (if some of the other posters want to think of me as an unenlightened fool, just because i haven`t got a degree in science). Do you seriously expect to have a worthwhile opinion without study? Do you apply this to other areas?
Why not tell the pilot to put his feet up next time you are on a plane. Or go to a hospital and tell a consultant to go play golf you'll see the patients?
If you wouldn't be so arrogant as to do that how come you are so clever as to 'know' evolution is wrong without knowing anything about it? All people have said is "how can you expect to have valid opinion about something you know nothing about", and ALL your comments show you to be dreadfully ill-informed about the biological sciences in general let alone evolutionary biology - yet you're arrogant enough to assume you can overcome this gap in knowledge!! You are complaining about people calling you on being arrogantly assured in your opinion being right when you don't have enough knowledge to have a worthwhile opinion. Be less arrogant and you'll get called on your behaviour less. Again, don't blame people for the reaction your attitude generates.
take aids for instance, it was created because man had unnatural sex with monkeys
See? For god's sake, it's like me passing comment on 13th Century ceramic manufacture and getting pissed with people who point out (rightly) I am making myself look foolish by implying I know enough to pass judgement whilst displaying I know too little to do so.
Oh; the pepper moth had two varients. The light ones stood out against soot-darkend bark and were eaten more frequently and thus bred less frequently and thus the dark ones grew to dominate the population. Evolution. Men being infertile due to pollutants in the environment is not evolution. Dog breeding shows how the lordly wolf can be turned into a handbag rat (Pekes, Poodles, Chiwowwahs) or a saucege dog. Horse breeding (like dog breeding) can make breeds so different in size that further interbreeding is impossible.
Once a population of a species (i.e. organisms that can interbreed) becomes isolated from other populations, be it by geography or morphology (body size/shape), they will drift further apart over time. It will get to a point where not only are they behaviourally or morphologically incapable of interbreeding, but so genetically distant they cannot breed at all even if 'helped', or that their offspring are infertle (i.e. so genetically screwed up as to be infertle due to their parantage). This (genepool isolation) is another method of evolution; the gull example shows how one species changes into another over time, the above example shows how isolation of a genetic pool can produce another species. Many caves have totally unique species that have evolved in polulations of once sigted animals that became isolated in a subterranian locale. SUlphur vents at the bottom of ocena trenchs seem to be similar, as they are as isolated as those caves on the ever dark sea bed.
But you now use the childish "I'm bored" escape. Thank you or wasting our time, I thought you were genuine but you don't really want a discussion, you want your opinions agreed with in an easy to digest, not too-hard to chew form. Not stupid, just lazy.
And no one will fight the corner for creation; look at the threads, it's always the creationists who run away because it is too difficult or troubling to carry on discussing, or ignore the obvious flaws in their arguments and post rubbish links from profit maikng creationist web-sites that pay their directors vastly inflated salaries, or go into cycles of repeating themselves and not dealing with the evidence against their beliefs.
Creationism is as much of an industry as Holocaust denial; the websites, the DVD's, the lectures. And 'true believers' in Creationism are as hard to disuade as anti-Zionists. I know, I've argued with both. It is all about the pathology of belief.
Beardo
I see that you would dismiss the ability to contact the dead or curse others, but listen with interest whilst they describe how the god booboo made the world out of a lurgie.
Of course it may be necessary to put on a pair of metaphorical-filtering lenses.
Yup. Including the possibility that the creation myths are just ideas about how we came into exostence, metaphors of begining used to explain a culture or tribe's origin with no referenc to reality what-so-ever other than acknowledging that things must have started somehow.
Why is that such an unbelivable possibility? If Thor 'explained' lightning, and Odin the All-Father making the world out of the bones and flesh of his grandfather 'explained' origins when people knew no better, why do you persist in thinking that the creation myth must still have 'some' truth in it?? Maybe if you'd really studied evolution you would understand (as I did one day) that just as you don't need Thor to explain lightning you don't need Odin to explain creation.
but having studied ancient Egypt (admittedly the occult side of their knowledge.... and no, I'm not an expert... yet)
One could be an expert in their beliefs. But are their beliefs real? One can be an expert on Harry Potter but that doesn't mean you can ride a broomstick!
those ancients appeared to have had great insight into our human form without the medical sciences we take for granted today
Ah, the Erik von Bullshit angle; one of his books hilariously asks how could a cave-drawing of a human skeleton be so accurate millenia before they invented the x-ray. I do hope I don't have to point out why such a comment is utterly absurd? I suppose you've heard of the crystal skull found in South America that was 'impossible' to make using native technologies and thus 'proved' they 'must' have had a higher technical ability? The skull that was re-examined and found to have the marks of modern tools on it? Often a little thought or a little time shows 'well how did they' arguments to be based on lack of knowledge or inaccuarte assumptions. Hell, there's people who STILL believe the pyramids were made with UFO's despite there being perfectly reasonable explanations for them...
My jury has been out for a while concerning how they obtained this knowledge, but I am willing to delve into the occult world for answers.
Oh, you may well get an answer, from your own or someone else's sub-concious or imagination. That doesn't mean you will have the RIGHT answer. But having believed in the paranormal without a logical reason to do so I do not expect to disuade you from your beliefs using logic.
There may well be a right way, or at least a series of determining factors.
Why is it so important that you are right and others are wrong?
I'm not sure what a cachism is?
A statement of belief, as in the Roman Catholic catechism (sorry my spelling sucks, that's the right way).
I'm also not sure if you know what my experiences are, as I haven't really gone in to them in detail, nor do I wish to.
Nope, but unless you are willing to state that all paranormal experiences ever had by anyone anytime anywhere are totally consistent with yours (I can disprove this by example so don't try), you still have to ask yourself "If I experiece x paranormal experience and person B experiences another which is cannot be true if my experience is true, how do I know who is wrong or how can I exclude BOTH experiences just being over-active imagination".
That's the problem with believers. They get so wrapped up in the subjectivity of belief, in their personal experience, in the elevation of personal opinon to an object of worship, they fail to consider that other people with beliefs (unprovable just like their) have contradictory experiences, beliefs and opinions.
You do obviously have a perfect right to your opinions. You do not have a right to your own facts. And thus far when it is pointed out your beliefs have never, ever, by any one any when been shown to be factual, you ignore this and carry on stating opinion like it MEANS something.
As to the variety of people I have connected with who have had odd encounters, they range from ghostly encounters to UFO (in the sky) encounters.
You were lied to by dubbies for years, many of who didn't think they were lying. Why do you feel you can rely on the statements of others without proof.
Don't you think it is remarkable that since video cameras became common items to own there has not been a massive increase in videos of UFO's some of which would defy alternate explanation? Don't you find it amasing that people never have documentary evidence? And as I say, groups, schmoops. Hundreds of people can be convinced to drink poisoned Kool-Aid, or be 'suggested' into beliving something. There's lots of fun links here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_hysteria
I'll go with the 'AIDs was engineered' as a BIO weapon theory.
Oh, goody. Please provide proof or some form of evidence. If you cannot, then it is not a theory, it is a hypothesis, like astrology or creationism.
stevenyc
Good one. I forgot the 'so, what WOULD prove it' approach.
Your question to Ross (LittleToe) about 'what if strong evidence was discovred that the universe started without any external assistence' (which as I think we both know is very likely to be produced within the next decade if that long) is an interesting one. Having gone from cluless theist to stone-cold atheist I now (having realised I was primarily atheistic about the warmed-over silly tribal gods of my culture) am a little ambivalent about the god issue as god is now a very vauge concept and thus easier to accept the possibility of.
The more one insists about god's nature and characteristics the easier it is to disprove even if only indirectly.
If the ideas of god being beyond/out of/before this iteration of reality we live in are just same old bullshit, I can see no reason why god cannot be an intrinsic element of this Universe. A way of expressing the ultimate interconnected nature of things, even if only as an abstract concept (rather than a discrete entity). Teilhard (French RC priest and paleontoltogist) and others have expressed ideas about god being the Universe being aware (through evolution of sentience) of itself, sort of a god of parts, very Brahmanist in its own way.
TopHat
You can (and do) have no problem telling us your opinon. Now make us care by showing us where you are right and all the BWAHAHAHAHAHA scientists wrong.
I believe it would be a total waste of time to have any life evolve over billions of years when one can create a whole being at one sitting.
Go tell god; if there is one all the evidence is he did just that. Of course, you'd rather believe a bronze-age goatherd than the evidence.
Deputy Dog
If God created time and is supernatural, why would He be suject to it? He is supernatural.
If + unverifiable statement.
If I said "If invisable purple kangaroo created time and is supernatural, why would invisable purple kangaroo be suject to it? Invisable purple kangaroo is supernatural". I would be saying something as factual as what you said above.
But you accept a vastly complex being can exist out of space and time without an origin.
This means you insisting there has to be a designer invalidates your own belief structure.
If you say that 'no, some things can exist out of space and time, god was always there' you are saying exactly what a cosmologist says when they say that before our space and time there were certain conditions present - except your conditions are vastly complex, and the cosmologists are just 'materials' and 'rules'.
The fact we exist in a universe where the rules allow us is no more aming than a puddle filling a hole in the ground as though the hole in the ground were made for the puddle. If there was no hole there the puddle would not be able to marvel how god made the hole to fit the puddle perfectly!
whyizit
If god made the Earth in literal days how does light from stars millions of light years away (that would take millions of years to get to Earth) get to Earth in under 5,000 years? Did god make the Earth with the 'appearence of age' and put the dino bones in there 'to fool us'.
You really have a childish view of god. Don't worry though, god doesn't care you think of him in that way.
Oh, and please let me have your secret Christian Bible decoder ring. Scholars have often argued over what parts of the Bible were literal and what parts were not. Your magical ring will help clear up any doubts, along with Beardo's glasses...
Breado, Thanks for posting http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=3230844946178601907&q=jordan+maxwell.....I always felt the book of JOB did not belong in the Holy Scriptures.
But there's no point in me wearing out my poor ickle fingers if you remain convinced you can basically turn to a community of tens of thousands of people who've spent their lives studying a subject and say "Sorry scientists, I only have a basic knowledge but on the basis of that you are all wrong". And I'm arrogant? Well, yes, but only if I can back opinions up with knowledge. You lack that common courtesy
If you REALLY want to learn, ask, and I am sure others and I can point you to useful sources of information.
HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, Are you trying to force people to believe as YOU DO? I give my opinion but I will NOT force anyone to believe as I do, if they DO NOT want to. Your theroy has HOLES in it. It IS a fact. BUT that is what you want to believe...so go ahead..I am not stopping you.
I see that you would dismiss the ability to contact the dead or curse others, but listen with interest whilst they describe how the god booboo made the world out of a lurgie.
Not at all dear boy - I don't dismiss anything. You are putting words into my mouth. What I was pointing out, was that I would not be drawn to those particular aspects of their belief system at this present time and wouldn't use the 'curse' facility if it was offered. Although, I might change my mind and use it against you if you don't watch your mouth
One could be an expert in their beliefs. But are their beliefs real? One can be an expert on Harry Potter but that doesn't mean you can ride a broomstick!
Now you really don't know what you are talking about. There are some excellent studies, both handwritten and documented on film that you may like to look at. One series is called Magical Egypt (run a search) and I'm sure you could find a book or two to look at as well Then take a look at the "Temple of Man" ...
Fancy comparing the ancient Egyptians to Harry Potter
Concerning the construction of the Pyramids. Study " Coral Castle " and try and work that one out you cynical git. Rationalists have tried for decades and still haven't found the answer. Edward used very basic tools, but claimed to have knowledge stretching right back to ancient Egypt.
Oh, you may well get an answer, from your own or someone else's sub-concious or imagination. That doesn't mean you will have the RIGHT answer. But having believed in the paranormal without a logical reason to do so I do not expect to disuade you from your beliefs using logic.
You may not disuade me - but I always listen.
Nope, but unless you are willing to state that all paranormal experiences ever had by anyone anytime anywhere are totally consistent with yours (I can disprove this by example so don't try)
Wasn't going to try - waste of energy.
That's the problem with believers. They get so wrapped up in the subjectivity of belief, in their personal experience, in the elevation of personal opinon to an object of worship, they fail to consider that other people with beliefs (unprovable just like their) have contradictory experiences, beliefs and opinions.
Huh? Man, you're on a real trip today. I dwell in the land of subjectivity and see continual contradictions. You really are barking up the wrong tree thowing that at me. I see life as being paradoxical and understand that others may view my perceptions as either nonsensical, confused or conflicted, but that does not take away my own core belief that will always remain personal - as I said a while ago, I don't care what you think, I just present by own experiences and pop them on the table for you & others to consider. I'm on the lonely road concerning who I am and what I believe. I have no sect, no group, no specific label, I'm just me. You are welcome to sneer in disgust at my 'faith' in certain areas. I'm happy for you to have none if that's what you choose. That's ok.
You do obviously have a perfect right to your opinions. You do not have a right to your own facts. And thus far when it is pointed out your beliefs have never, ever, by any one any when been shown to be factual, you ignore this and carry on stating opinion like it MEANS something.
Are you so sure that 'my beliefs' (God knows what you think they are LOL) mean little to anybody at all? I connect with people I know, share information & experiences and therefore influence others and others influence me, even you, you horrible cold alien.
As for meaning something to me - well of course they do. Obviously. Your world must be very mechanical and dusty - full of vile robots staring at each other.
Why do you feel you can rely on the statements of others without proof.
A little trust in my friends is all it takes. I know some of these guys very well indeed, for a number of years. Not enough for you - I know that.
Don't you think it is remarkable that since video cameras became common items to own there has not been a massive increase in videos of UFO's some of which would defy alternate explanation? Don't you find it amasing that people never have documentary evidence?
Don't you think its remarkable that a good mate of mine bought a new video camera and when he tried to use it to film an apparition, mysteriously the batteries went flat, even though he just charged them? Or, the camera would only work outside the room and not inside the room where the events were taking place on another occasion? ROTFL - I can just imagine your response.
Oh, goody. Please provide proof or some form of evidence. If you cannot, then it is not a theory, it is a hypothesis, like astrology or creationism.
Hehe - do your own research. There are loads of documents available.
Look - I'm not responding to any more of your messages on this thread. Your not on the same journey as me, but I will read through anything you have to say and consider it.
Regards you big freak pie
