yadda yadda 2:
The MEK is NOT a real terrorist group.
That''s not surprising. I find a good rule of thumb is that if something is posted here by What-a-Coincidence, it's complete nonsense.
funkyderek
JoinedPosts by funkyderek
-
14
Iran Busts CIA-Backed Terror Group
by What-A-Coincidence inhttp://www.jonesreport.com/article/05_08/19iran_cia_terror.htmlannouncement follows neo-con general's urge for bush administration to support terrorist bombings in iran.
paul joseph watson / prison planet | may 19, 2008. the iranian intelligence ministry busted a cia-backed terror group that was planning to bomb scientific, educational, and religious centers, and carry out assassinations, according to a report in the tehran times.
the arrests come weeks after ret.
-
-
funkyderek
-
10
Communicating With The Dead
by choosing life ini studied in the "truth" book back in the 70's.
when we were talking about why it was wrong to communicate with the dead, the study conductor said it was because they were really demons posing as dead persons.
he also said that it would be mean on god's part if the dead were really still alive and god refused any communication with them.
-
-
funkyderek
Sirona:
People who can talk to the dead do exist.
Absolutely. Anybody can talk to the dead. Of course the dead, being dead, never talk back.
-
136
I am the Faithful and Discreet Slave
by jwblog inwhen i first attended the congregation of jehovahs witnesses i never even thought about whom or what was the faithful and discreet slave.
i do not believe that this information is ever taught to the public directly.
i think you have to be baptised or start attending the same meetings as those that are baptised.. anyway what made all of you adapt the teaching of the faithful and discreet slave (class or whatever)?
-
-
funkyderek
Ah! Like a persistent case of herpes, Stevie Brown the insane liar has returned. A new username (of course) but spouting the same nonsense as always. Presumably he's under the delusion (one of many) that if he picks a different username nobody will remember all the false predictions he made in the past. But of course his unintentionally hilarious style of posting gives him away. It seems that he tries to start off with something vaguely sensible but after only a handful of posts he simply can't help claiming that he's the faithful and discreet slave (and Muhammad, on at least one occasion). For those not familiar with his modus operandi, it usually ends with him making a specific concrete prediction about a date in the near future and then disappearing. Without exception, these predictions fail (as they are after all, the delusions of a deeply deeply disturbed individual) and when Stevie returns with a new username he ignores any mention of them. Sometimes he rants and raves impotently at those who point out his repeated pattern of deception but ultimately he's just a harmless nutter, a little like JCanon but not as intelligent or entertaining.
For those who don't remember him, just check out his previous posts under the following usernames: Brownboy, TruthorLie, EliJah, TheWord and probably a few more.
-
81
Mr. Flipper & Son Hear, See, and Get Footprints of Bigfoot on Pack Trip
by flipper inso, the long awaited trip began for my son and i to return to the same place he heard a bigfoot a year ago in the forests of northern california.
the trip started out unfortunately for us to be a 7 mile hike instead of a 2 to 3 mile hike in to our base camp , as huge snow drifts covered the road , making it even inaccessible for 4 wheel drive, so , with packs on backs we hiked over 50 ft long snow drifts on places on the trail.
even snow was covering one creek near the lake we were destined for .
-
-
funkyderek
(Mr.) flipper:
Picture 5, 6, 7 - The Bigfoot track .I wear a size 10 shoe. The footprint is about 14 inches long.
I have looked at those photos. Maybe it's the resolution, maybe it's my monitor or maybe my failing eyesight, but I just can't see a footprint in any of them. Can you draw around it or maybe enhance it in some way?
But what would make a 14-inch footprint in snow anyway? Maybe something made a 10-inch footprint and it melted around the edges as snow is wont to do. In any case, once again, you've come back from another bigfoot-hunting trip with no evidence whatsoever. But don't despair. If you're being honest and not completely gullible (like imagining a bear or a person to be Bigfoot), then it must be the case that Bigfoot is incredibly easy to find. Every time you or your family go anywhere near the woods, you see and hear a Bigfoot without really trying and find multiple lines of physical evidence for its existence. It's inevitable then, that in the very near future, somebody will be luckier than you and manage to take an actual photograph or see a convincing footprint, perhaps they'll even shoot a Bigfoot thinking it's a bear. I'm sure you must be puzzled as to why this hasn't happened already given its noise and visibility. I know you dismiss the lack of evidence by claiming there's "more evidence every year" but how do you explain the lack of actual evidence? Why is the existence of this creature still a mystery?
-
60
GOOD NEWS! Scientists to create human/animal embryos for research in the UK
by nicolaou ini know it's emotive and i know some will fundamentally disagree that this is good news at all but i believe it is.. .
from the bbc; regulators have agreed in principle to allow human-animal embryos to be created and used for research.
but scientists wanting to use hybrids will still need to make individual applications, the human fertilisation and embryology authority said.
-
-
funkyderek
jschwehm:
I find this quite troubling for a variety or reasons and the main one being that the only cures that are being performed in humans with stem cells are by using adult stem cells.
That's hard to believe. Are you sure that the main reason you find it troubling is not because your religion has condemned it? Seems like quite a coincidence that for scientific reasons you hold a minority opinion that just happens to be the same as the opinion a member of your religion "should" hold.
-
49
The Dawkins Deception (bogus reasoning on the "improbability" of God)
by hooberus inrecently i carefully read (and highlighted) chapter 4 of richard dawkins book "the god delusion".
dawkins argument is meant to show that "there almost certainly is no god".
his reasoning (taken from various points on different pages by myself) is basically as follows:.
-
-
funkyderek
hooberus:
Really, so I guess then you don't have a problem with me claiming that Dawkins "almost certainly does not exist" based on the same logic.
Not at all. Claim away, but don't pretend that any of your claims are based on logic.
After all any being like him would be very improbable by chance- therefore Richard Dawkins [nor any other atheist] "almost certainly does not exist ."
I used to be encouraged when you'd post something like this. It's nonsense of course but at least you're using your noodle instead of just copypasta (see what I did there). However, you've been trying this for long enough that you should have learned the rudiments of rational argument by now. I think, for you it's a bit like a cargo cult. You've seen people debating and because they make claims you don't understand or believe, you think that's all there is to it, and so, in order to be part of the debate, you spew out nonsense like the above, hoping that the (to you) mysterious forces of logic will look kindly on your offering. Stop being ridiculous and try a bit of rational argument. Despite your record, I refuse to believe you're completely incapable of it.
-
49
The Dawkins Deception (bogus reasoning on the "improbability" of God)
by hooberus inrecently i carefully read (and highlighted) chapter 4 of richard dawkins book "the god delusion".
dawkins argument is meant to show that "there almost certainly is no god".
his reasoning (taken from various points on different pages by myself) is basically as follows:.
-
-
funkyderek
hooberus:
So you don't think that it is fallacious to use an an argument based on the improbability of something coming about by chance against the probability of existence of something not believed to have come about by chance?
Not at all. Merely simplified. But I thought I said that already.
-
49
The Dawkins Deception (bogus reasoning on the "improbability" of God)
by hooberus inrecently i carefully read (and highlighted) chapter 4 of richard dawkins book "the god delusion".
dawkins argument is meant to show that "there almost certainly is no god".
his reasoning (taken from various points on different pages by myself) is basically as follows:.
-
-
funkyderek
hooberus:
Dawkins argument is fallacious.
Not at all. Merely simplified. He could have included the trivial absurdity you postulated, namely that a powerful intelligent entity can just be, without having to come into existence. But as such a hypothesis has no explanatory power, no evidence in its favour and nothing to make it more likely than any other entity or situation just happening to exist, it has no place in a serious discussion except perhaps as a qualifying footnote to the effect that it cannot be categorically disproven that the universe may be such that the existence of any entity anyone is capable of imagining is possible.
-
46
Endosymbiosis --- A challenge to Dawkins' Universal Darwinism
by hamilcarr ininspired by dawkins' notion of universal darwinism, biologists have been trying to prove that all sorts of evolution can be explained by a simple paradigm of random mutation and natural selection.
because of dawkins' ardor to spread the word, many have no idea there's far more to discover about evolutionary mechanisms beyond natural selection.. one of these challenges to dawkins' universal darwinism is called the endosymbiotic theory, popularized by lynn margulis in the 90s.
she's known for her bold rejection of some neo-darwinian interpretations.
-
-
funkyderek
hamilcarr:
The incorporation of foreign organisms (and consequently, the transfer of information) may trigger off mutations etc.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Can you explain and perhaps provide an example please?
-
46
Endosymbiosis --- A challenge to Dawkins' Universal Darwinism
by hamilcarr ininspired by dawkins' notion of universal darwinism, biologists have been trying to prove that all sorts of evolution can be explained by a simple paradigm of random mutation and natural selection.
because of dawkins' ardor to spread the word, many have no idea there's far more to discover about evolutionary mechanisms beyond natural selection.. one of these challenges to dawkins' universal darwinism is called the endosymbiotic theory, popularized by lynn margulis in the 90s.
she's known for her bold rejection of some neo-darwinian interpretations.
-
-
funkyderek
BurnTheShips:
Hamlet is just a merger of many already extant English words, no new information comes from already extant words.
Right?
No, not at all. That's not even close to being right or relevant.
hamilcarr:
According to a later theory by Margulis, symbiotic relations between organisms of different kingdoms (or domains, for instance between prokaryots and eukaryots) are the driving force behind evolution. Results from the Human Genome Project have recently lend support to this hypothesis because it was shown that significant portions of the human genome are either of bacterial or viral in origin.
OK, but you understand it's not that the human genome collided with that of a virus, right? That the differences between apes and humans are not the result of endosymbiosis, right?