Posts by tetrapod.sapien

so lemme see here. when we take something that reliugion tells us about the world or the universe, and we test for it, nothing comes of it. i actually mean, nothing. god floods the entire earth, noahs ark lands on a mountain and humanity comes from seven individuals. geology and genetics support neither.

a scientific theory tells us something about the world. we go out and test it, and lo' and behold, it works (actually the *reason* why there are such fields called geology and genetics and not jehovgology and chrisnetics)!

this should be something that is appreciated, not depreciated.

it is not religious zealotry to defend something which is defesensible. it is called reason, and the defense of reason. if you do not like what i just said, it may be because of cognitive dissonance. check yourself before coming back it me for saying it.

Too many missing links.

check this out:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=13&articleID=0003EFE0-D68A-1212-8F3983414B7F0000

you'll see that the so-called missing links are not the clinchers for the theory you think they would be. but even so, the concept of a missing link shows a misunderstanding of the way evolution works. and please no, "no, tetra, i do understand", because if you did, you wouldn't spout garbage like that. your comment assumes that humans are a pinnacle of evolution, when technically they are not. they are equal on the tree with all living things. there is no "half human" because every fossil that has ever been found is a full version of whater organism it represents.

but, if you really, really, really want a missing link, then here are several:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

and this faq on transitional vertebrate fossils should clear up this "missing link" misunderstanding based on the fact that all data and evidence we have produced and uncovered thus far support the theory of evolution by natural selection:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

if you don't think so, then you'd do well to tell us all what technical problems you have with such data.

Too much grasping for straws.

do you have an example, or are you just talking for the sake of saying words?

ot takes as much or more faith to believe evolution as it does religion or the bible.

really? wow, interesting. so jag here thinks that it is equally if not even more plausible to believe that samson pushed the walls down with his strength and that YHVH split the sea and drowned pharroh's army in comparison to actual fossils, genetic data and observed instances of speciation.

gee golly gosh. what motive are you carrying around with you that you would feel compelled to make such an unsupportable assertion as that?

so uh, the fact that we share 90+% of our genome with chimpanzees is some sort of fluke for you? or could it be, just hypothetically now because i wouldn't want you to feel uncomfortable about what you might be, that we share a common ancestor with them? or could it just be that god is an extremely lazy programmer, since you bring up the "bible" being believable? hmmm, i wonder which is more plausible? data that points at a certain hypothesis with greater accuracy, or no data for a different hypothesis all together? hmmmm, this is a tough one.

I would think the truth shouldn't be that difficult to ascertain unless someone or something is trying to cover it up.

really? like god or satan working to coverup missing links? like god planting fossils in the ground? or creationists covering fossils up? lol.

Maybe life is just a clusterfxxk and everyone is working their angle to make their dollar.

so, i think here you are confusing existential philosophy with geology, biology, genetics, paleontology and athopology. what does the above have anything at all to do with evolutionary science?

All theories that I have encountered lead to someone making a dollar. Scientist particularly phd's must publish or perish.

and so as a result, you only trust things that are published for free? or don't trust anything where a dollar was exchanged? whatever happened to finding religion more believable that evolution?

scientists must publish, therefore all the information they publish is unbelievable? you think it's hard to find reliable things to publish? then you obviously know nothing about peer review.

That goes the same for the Watchtower society. And anyone who operates a printing press, or publishing company. The institute for Creation research ICR, who devote their existence to debunking evolution also must publish or perish. Money may someday lead to the truth, in the meantime it will take us all around it.

really? what date have you been informed of when we may begin trusting published sources that give us data?

Who will have the presence of mind to know the truth when they see it?

a future event hey? well, since i am obviously totally deluded by relying on peer reviewed journalism for a representation of knowledge/science, then it obviously would be someone like you who had the foresight to see the great lies of today, but give us hope for a future time when "truth" will be seen. who will see it? i dunno, you maybe?

I guess God not speaking up is a bad mark for his side.

actually, it's not a "bad mark for his side", because ther is no side since he obviously does not exist. i would call it a lack of a mark. hey, maybe a new term may come of this waste of my time: "amark". i'm now refered to as an amarkeist.

If he exist he must be a cosmic joker watching man try to figure this all out. Then again maybe we are all part of God who gave up our diety to come down here and have a human experience.

a cosmic joker? must be. of course, i am unaware of any transitional data from the joker god to the toaker god.

how is it we went from talking about the theory of evolution by natural selection to the discussion of the existence of gods? did you not know from your exhaustive research into this theory that the two have no technical relation at all? or are you just talking for the sake of words?

This, the earth may be the only game in town. Or maybe this is the pleasure planet for some, the pain planet for others. The struggling planet. The forum for many truths planet.

from a philospohical perspective, sure. from a biological one, technically, no. we have a lot of information about life's history on this planet, based on the parameters and variables we are working within and with, respectively. to confuse the two doesn't help anyone who knows less than you do about the theory. perhaps you should revisit some of your exhaustive research into the theory before spouting off about technical principles when you are really talking about a branch of philosophy.

you may wonder why i even see the need to reply to you. well, trust me, it's not because i actually enjoy it. any jokes or sarcasm are the result of trying to ease some of the drudgery of the exercise. i do it because when there are people who come on the board and say that all the scholars in the world who think that jerusalem fell in 587 are deluded and only interested in publishing for money, and that the actual real date is totally open for debate (as if it was some sort of real debate), there are people on this board who will come and speak up and remind the individual that peer reviewed consensus, data and evidence do not support 607 or any other date. that is why. it is simply not a matter of philosophical principle with evolution. some people would like to give you, or lurkers on the board that the theory is in some sort of disrepute, and that it is equally as believable as anything else. but this is not true. and i don't really care who you are. if you say something that is not true, that could influence someones view of life on planet earth for the sake of some other philosophy, then they should at least know that you do not have data backing up your assertions. data and rhetoric: two different things. sorry. tetra

79

'THE DAWKINS DELUSION' New book responds to Dawkins 'The God Delusion'

by nicolaou in

in the wake of richard dawkins bestseller 'the god delusion' (which i and many others here have read) there has been a good deal of rebuttal from the 'faith' community.

now a new book is out published by alister mcgrath, professor of theology at oxford university.

it is entitled 'the dawkins delusion'.. has anyone read it or ordered it yet?

tetrapod.sapien

a species of plant found in the car park of York train station

lol! yes, i love it.

tetra

10

DUB?

by Sasha in

sorry, no one has told me yet what dub stands for...i know it's a jw.

what do the initials stand for?

tetrapod.sapien

dub is a type of reggae music. love it.

jah one love

tetra

14

Has anyone had a dream that is so .......

by Bumble Bee in

jw
friends

real that you don't believe it is a dream?

i had a dream last night that was sooooooo real.

i was experiencing something that i really didn't want to have to deal with.

tetrapod.sapien

ya, last night actually. it was intense. sort of half waking half sleeping paralysis, with these intense sort of visions when i closed my eyes. i just laid there for like five minutes. i couldn't remember who or when or where i was. i have been having them for a few months now. i see it as subjective of course. i posted a bit on another thread last night when i couldn't sleep:

then i started having dreams, without the aid of lsd, or mushrooms (though, if you took a spinal tap close to the occurance, you would indeed find large amounts of DMT produced by my pineal gland. see how it all comes around?). these dreams are sort of half waking half sleeping gnostico genetic creepiness. they involve the unyeilding sensation that there is a battle going on for control of my mind by alien/archon type entities that have no relation to me genetically. they seem reptillian, if i were to characterize them. and they flash law enforcement badges a lot. badges of all sorts, with paper documents, trying to exert control and domination over me. and sometimes it feels like i should just give in to them, and let them take over part of my mind because they have found a real weak spot: my ego. but i fight them anyways, siding with the gnarly animal and plant world, of which i am a member as i can (again) see all the 2 dimentional shapes of my extant and extinct relatives cleaving to this tree of life on this planet. the roots are dark, as are all of the organisms. and it's like a battle between the animals and these archon/alien types with badges that want to weild control over me and my brethren for nefarious purposes. and actually, these dreams are the reason i am up this morning at 3 am typing all this. they are rather frightening, actually.

tetra

56

Who doesn't give two ****s about the super bowl?

by Euphemism in

so, am i the only person (or at least, the only male) in the usa who won't be glued to my tv in an hour?

tetrapod.sapien

i'm not really sure i even know what sport the super bowl is for.

tetra

9

wolf at the door

by Cellist in

jw
friends

last night, at about 10pm, my husband came in the house and said, "you should hear the wolves!

" of course, i immediately said, "wolves?

or do you mean coyotes?

tetrapod.sapien

beautiful animals.

64

If I was to walk into your home . . .

by Lady Lee in

jw
friends

what one thing would i see that would tell me the most about you?.

the center of my home is my computer and my books.

standing at the door that is the first thing you will see.

tetrapod.sapien

on the wall closest to the door is my 420 day calander "The Best of BC Bud". you'd see the feburary pic of a nice crystally bud, like this one:

and, ironically, my work bike leaning against the wall, lance armstrong's old training frame, the trek 420. lol.

tetra

26

The Blasphemy Challenge

by Elsewhere in

jw
friends

according to the bible, if your sins are not forgiven by jesus you will experience an eternity of fiery torment in hell.

the only sin you won't be forgiven for is blaphemy of the holy spirit.

(mark 3:29).

tetrapod.sapien

if there is a god, and this god is ALSO the literal omniscient YHVH reinvented-jesus of nazarene raised as the christ, then youtube is not going to change anything for me. simply having thought the thought should be enough for a perma-tan. and simply said, i cannot help but think some of the thoughs i have thought.

not that i am really the least bit concerned about there being the above said god.

plus, i am an entire being. who needs someone elses spirit?

tetra (of the 'screwed from the get-go' class)

79

'THE DAWKINS DELUSION' New book responds to Dawkins 'The God Delusion'

by nicolaou in

in the wake of richard dawkins bestseller 'the god delusion' (which i and many others here have read) there has been a good deal of rebuttal from the 'faith' community.

now a new book is out published by alister mcgrath, professor of theology at oxford university.

it is entitled 'the dawkins delusion'.. has anyone read it or ordered it yet?

tetrapod.sapien

sorry ROC, but gods don't bow down to other gods.

i'm glad to see you're getting the hang of it though.

tetragod