Very nice, Onion stylee...
Abaddon
JoinedPosts by Abaddon
-
6
Sparlock and The Simpsons
by Honesty inhttp://sparlockthewarriorwizard.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/sparlock-and-the-simpsons/.
if rumors are true, and they generally are, then sparlock the warrior wizard is set to make a special guest appearance on an upcoming episode of the simpsons.. .
according to matt groening, the shows creator, sparlock will feature in a simpsons episode to air on thanksgiving day.
-
-
-
-
-
Abaddon
Apostate!
Firstly their divine marshmallosities are plural. None of this single god or fire-sale three for one silliness.
Secondly, you speak of toasting them? Does not the First of Candy state, "So as they wish it be done to others so shall it be done unto them with knobs on"?
-
-
-
Abaddon
Wow. Same shit different decade.
I have not looked at a Flood thread in a long time. And they haven’t changed from the days when I used to play with the science deniers.
The same old tactics are in evidence; sheer mind-boggling ignorance, extraordinary claims without the evidence to back it up, massive arrogance and and idolatrous level of self-satisfaction about their own opinions that means they don't need no stinkin' facts.
Bit like racists and homophobes, except these people's bias is directed towards knowledge rather than other people (well, scientists get caught in the fall out but fighting ignorance is kind of the job of sceince, so...)
I've been to Egypt and seen buildings that magically survived 'the Flood', which musta kinda been a stealth 'Flood' as the Egyptian's quite literally went on eating, drinking and marrying when it was happening, and forgot to mention it.
Just like the dead rising from the graves around Jerusalem was forgotten about aside from one scripture that says this happened when Jesus was resurrected.
If Egypt’s too far for y’all, there are trees alive in California today that were growing on any possible date for the Flood, that could not have possibly survived it.
Add that in to the absence of any credible geological support for the ‘Flood’, the fact, as Terry points out ‘da maths don’t work’, the fact that any the Ark would have suffocated its occupants and been unable to cope with the mountains of shit even a modest estimate of the number of ‘kinds’ that would have been aboard let alone carry the required fodder… all ignored, or magiced away with god didit, even if they have to make claims not made in scripture, which Revelation expressly forbids people from doing...
Even the bits which kind-of show it was a STORY (survived the flood, first thing Noah does is KILL SOME ANIMALS FROM A VERY LIMITED STOCK TO SYA THANK YOU TO GOD, conservationist EPIC FAIL) are ignored.
Special pleading and extraordinary claims are deployed (the Himalayas grew in a few centuries, magic atmospheric layers the water could exist before the ‘Flood’ if you don’t engage with the laws of physics too strongly, etc..) but these people’s paradigms of belief mean that as they reached their beliefs without the benefit of scientific reasoning scientific reasoning will not persuade them to change their beliefs. It is like explaining algebra to a duck. Pointless, frustrating, and annoying.
From experience those that lurk and are not quite as bat-shit all out to not use their supposedly god-given mind are the ones who do benefit, not the ones who defend Biblical bullshit. They actually do take stuff on board.
Some even realise the irony is that people who supposedly want to worship god actually end up worshipping a book. But that book gives them closure and certainty, which is more important to them than updating their version of reality to allow for a belief in god and science, which loads of people have.
And by doing so they start to worship their own opinions rather than reason.
By way of example I can assert that giant marshmallows ruled the Earth 3,000 years ago and will return to take all true believers to candyland.
I know this by divine marshmallow revelation and am writing a holy book on iPads (with a crayon). Yes, I know other people claim divine revelation that contradicts mine but they are wrong. I know there is no evidence, but marshmallows do not leave fossil evidence and after they left there was a conspiracy to write-them out of history.
See? Come up with some bullshit and just explain away anything that contradicts it.
Another good example is provided by djeggnog: he ends up by claiming that the fact we are here proves he is right.
No mate, the fact you are here proves we really do share a common ancestor with primates.
-
311
"Mentally diseased" article to be published in The Independent tomorrow
by cedars inhi everyone.
as a parting gift to you all before i take a much needed break from this forum, i thought you would be pleased to know that the independent, a leading uk newspaper, will be publishing a piece on the "mentally diseased" watchtower article in tomorrow's edition.. i would like to thank everybody who has assisted the journalist, jerome taylor, in his investigation.. best wishes to all of you,.
cedars.
-
-
Abaddon
Up to 585 comments... a prize to anyone who guess the handle I am using :-)
One apologist was spamming with the same post over and over and over and the mod very kindly deleted them all - I did request this but it was such blatent trolling I can;t imagine they'd of missed it...
-
311
"Mentally diseased" article to be published in The Independent tomorrow
by cedars inhi everyone.
as a parting gift to you all before i take a much needed break from this forum, i thought you would be pleased to know that the independent, a leading uk newspaper, will be publishing a piece on the "mentally diseased" watchtower article in tomorrow's edition.. i would like to thank everybody who has assisted the journalist, jerome taylor, in his investigation.. best wishes to all of you,.
cedars.
-
-
Abaddon
The page is sometime coming up unavailable; it pops up again if you refresh, but that should give you an idea about the number of people reading this around the world.
-
20
Dino dies in Flood...
by Tashawaa inhttp://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?article_id=27686
.... where to start??????
how about what was missing from the article... like a reliable dating method by two sources?.
-
-
Abaddon
OK, it appears to be a real fossil, but boy oh boy...
They located the dinosaur’s skull the following day. Jordan Hall was digging with a pick axe when he hit bone and a piece flew up toward Taylor’s ear. Taylor caught the flying bone fragment, examined it and recognized sinus cavities in it.
Taylor was not happy about the sloppy work Pete and his sons had done. The vertebral column had been badly undercut, and, fearing damage, he was furiously repacking dirt beneath the fragile bones. To all within earshot, particularly the DeRosas, Taylor explained that paleontologists never remove dirt from directly under dinosaur bones until they are encased in plaster, stressing that without the support they could easily break.
...
Perhaps the saddest thing about this situation is the tragically missed opportunity to glorify God it represents for the Creationist Movement. All too typically in the Christian community, what began in unity ended in disagreement and division, and, instead of benefiting all the groups involved and contributing significantly to the creation science, this God-given opportunity was used to enhance the work of a selfish few and received scant attention from genuine creation scientists. If the kind of selfishness and infighting characterized by this episode continues to take place when a valuable fossil is found by members of the body of Christ, it is likely that creationists will have little to contribute to the debate between creation and evolution for decadesto come, at least when it comes to the field of paleontology—often called the most evolutionistic of the sciences
http://documents.raisingthetruth.com/Chapter2/AllosaurusTBeh.pdf
In short, the allosaur was discovered in part a year earlier, a fee-paying expedition to 'find an allosaur' was organised the following year, the dig was done incompetently, and it all descended into a snarling mess. This website documents the entire mess: http://www.raisingthetruth.com
-
20
Dino dies in Flood...
by Tashawaa inhttp://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?article_id=27686
.... where to start??????
how about what was missing from the article... like a reliable dating method by two sources?.
-
-
Abaddon
This may be a genuine discovery, in which case it is a pity as it is quite likely valuable information will be lost when amateurs extract it from the matrix.
As described it in no way "debunks the theory of evolution" or proves a global flood.
HOWEVER... my bullshit sensor is going off the scale here.
So you get almost $1k a head off people to go on a bone hunt, and jiminy, they find 'bones'. It is on private land so no competent oversight. WOuld not surprise me if these 'bones' remained in the CreationIDiotist circles free of any real investigation.
Many sincere people will be impressed, but somewhere (as has happened before in both CreationIDiotist and real scientific circles) there is someone who has seeded a site with plaster-casts knowing the ruse will not be discovered as those finding them don't trust real scientists. Next season they will be inudated with people wanting to find bones, all willing to pay for it.
I could be wrong, I could be right...
-
269
The Hubble, Yahweh, the Bible, and faith.
by Nickolas inthere have been several threads in which the views of the universe provided by the hubble space telescope have been discussed.
i guess this will be another one.
there's a new series being broadcast here in canada on the oasis hd nature channel entitled hubble's canvas.
-
-
Abaddon
Awen:
As far as the actual evolution of sexual reproduction, there are ideas but they are not proven; you can Google as well as I and have already provided links in your post. Here is another:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1w0FiwfyUMM
It looks at the very start of the process (how haploid cells with one copy of each chromosome fuse to become duploid cells with two copies of each chromosome. how this is not irreducably complex as is often claimed, and why this would be advantagous). It is part of a series which means if there are bits you don't get or questions that remain unanswered you can go backwards or forwards in the sequence.
But remember, Google, Wiki and YouTube are not the normal methods of academic learning. You can do scholarly research outside of academic environments but it takes considerabley more time and effort than a bit of surfing.
- Evolution would imply that an organism uses the most direct and simplest means to evolve.
Yes but no. Organisms in a population of organisms that have characteristics that allow them to have a greater number of offspring than is normal for that population of organism will result in those characteristics being more common in sucessive generation of that population. A complex 'accidental' charateristic that allows greater transmission of genes to successive generations will 'win' over a simple pre-existing characteristic. An organism also does not 'know' the difference between complex and non-complex, there is no 'choice', there is just success in passing on genes. Some are better than others.
- Sexual reproduction in humans for example is quite complex so why do we reproduce this way and not assexually as Evolution says the first single cell organisms did?
Try http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pC8LZlmwCzE&feature=related. Human sexual reproduction is a further elaboration of pre-existing sexual reproductions and as such is slighly more complex than those methods of sexual reprodction that went before it as they were of those that went before them. As the linked video shows, it all started with cells fusing.
Each layer of oomplexity was selected for because it allowed greater success in passing on genes and/or greater variability in the genes passed on so as to allow natural selection more to select from. For example, if an asexual organism can have 1x chances of a new trait, an sexual organism will have 2x chances (this is VERY simplified). So we reproduce sexually as it allowed us to be more adaptable and successful in our environment; some organisms still successfully use asexual reproduction as it wiorks perfectly well for them in their environment.
- Why is the fertilized egg not attacked by the mother's immune system since it constitutes a foreign body (containing male chromosomes) before the placenta is "created".
Two-way process that is not fully understood; progesterone is a immuno-suppresant, the placenta produces another one, and the fetus is active in not being rejected. The placenta is key. But this bio-feedback loop did not happen overnight and each step along the way from cell fusion to eggs to live bearing had advantages.
- How could nature evolve a female member of a species that produces eggs and is internally equipped to nourish a growing embryo, while at the same time evolving a male member that produces motile sperm cells?
Not seperate things. Happened at same time. If a 'male' organism got too out-of-step with 'female' organisms it would not be able to reproduce and vice-versa. Thus over huge amounts of time this arrose in minute steps.
Great questions Awen and some of the answers are not fully understood yet. However, do not fall for the IDist or Creationist dimwittery of assuming just because evolutionists cannot explain everything evolution is fundamentally wrong. We might not be able to fully explain some things but the evidence for evolution, both in fossils and in genes, is incontravertable, and falsifies any literal interpretation of any creation myth.
-
42
Name Things That Are Unique To Jehovah's Witnesses
by minimus inthey are the only religion that i know of that disapprove of a college education.
they alone believe in the significance of 1914. they exclusively believe that christ jesus is michael the archangel.....to name a few.. what can you add to the list?.
.
-
-
Abaddon
They are a cult without a leader and all the more deadly for it. The majority of cults fade after their first leader dies, or transition to a new single-point of authority. The Borg transitioned from Russell to Rutherford, but Knorr or whatever that flagrant non-entity was turned it into a poisonous snake with no head and a smell with no shit. I can only think of the scientossologists as doing similar and they have a more identifiable head.
Now headed by an unaccountable committee it is free of the dangers of transitions between leaders and the potential loss of momentum or large-scale changes as like some cancerous growth its leadership will just go on and on, replacing some corpsicle with another as they snuff it.
There is no hyper-rich Hubbard at the centre of the web, no child-molesting messiah. There is nothing behind the curtain.
As an organisation it is the epitome of soullessness and pointlessness.
Oh, the WCG actually apologised for 1975
-
49
More on Saturday's drama: Endo-symbiotic theory mentioned not once but twice
by sir82 ini don't want to give a full synopsis of saturday's drama, for fear of inducing stupor among this thread's readers, but.... .
the drama deals with a jw family with 3 kids, 2 of whom are in various stages of rebellion against all things jw.. the older brother is one of the "rebels", while the younger brother is a thoroughly annoying piece of brown-nosing crapola, completely buying into the jw mindset.. anyways, the younger brother is asking the older brother about why he doesn't want to attend the family study any more.. the older kid's rambling answer touches on something along the lines of "i'm learning things in school about how life really came here.
it's not as simple as you think!".
-
-
Abaddon
EH? The endosymbiotic theory has nothing to do with abiogenesis (the origin of life). Endosymbiotic theory postulates that eukaryotic organisms absorbed or were invaded by bacteria that developed a symbitoic (co-operative, like cows and their gut bacteria or ants and aphids) relationship with the host cell, later becoming organelles like mitochondria, or possibly that two types of bacteria acheived the same ends through a progressively closer symbiosis, one eventually absorbing the other.
This is one of two things, sheer ignorance and trying to sound with-it, or deliberately creating a strawman by maing it sound like endosymbiotic theory is a theory of abiogenesis.