 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Biology / Paleontology / October 2004TOBS: WDDK
Hi everyone, I can recommend the book "What Darwin Didn't Know" by Geoffrey Simmons, M.D. This book examines the human body and shows repeatedly that what Darwin was ignorant of about the human body provides convincing proof that design was inherent. Although written by an M.D. it is written in a style that the lay person can easily understand (a feature I found especially useful). He clearly exposes the theory of evolution for what it is a fraud and a hoax. Whilst he does not conclude that there must be a GOD he does conclude that we came about by design. >Hi everyone, >I can recommend the book "What Darwin Didn't Know" by Geoffrey Simmons, M.D. > >This book examines the human body and shows repeatedly that what Darwin was >ignorant of about the human body provides convincing proof that design was >inherent. So how does he explain the following: There is the Plantaris muscle in the human calf. In the monkey it is a useful muscle which causes all the digits to flex at once, and thus is useful in swinging from trees by the feet. In the human is atropied and does not even reach the toes, but disappears into the Achilles tendon. There is no sensible reason for its existence in the human, except a common ancestry with monkeys. Nine percent of the human population don't even have this muscle. Eleven percent of us also lack the palmaris muscle, a long, narrow muscle that runs from the elbow to the wrist that may have been important when we were tree climbers 20 percent of us are missing the pyramidalis muscle, a tiny, triangular pouchlike muscle attached to the pubic bone that may be a relic from the days of our pouched marsupial ancestors. There are also the nipples on a man's chest. What are they for? Then there is the vestigial gene in the human chromosome that allows the individual to make his own vitamin C. This gene is operative in most mammals. Only humans and apes have this gene present but turned off, so if they cannot get vitamin C from their diet, they get scurvy and die. There are a few species like guinea pigs that also cannot make their own vitamin C, but with them it's a different gene that is inoperative. With humans and apes it's the same gene. Then there is the fact that your guts are hung from your spine like those of a quadruped. A vestigial construct that no longer works worth a damn. And there are wisdom teeth, those late erupting teeth for which our small jaw no longer has room, though there was plenty of room in the larger jaws of our remote ancestors. The subclavius muscle, stretching under the shoulder from the first rib to the collarbone, would be useful if we walked on all fours but is so useless now that some people dont even have it. What does your 'proof of design' guru have to say about these questions? ## The mind of the Creationist is like concrete: Mixed up and set. >>Hi everyone, >>I can recommend the book "What Darwin Didn't Know" by Geoffrey Simmons, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > So how does he explain the following: > What does your 'proof of design' guru have to say about these > questions? It might tend to prove that the "designer(s)"* was/were pretty darn incompetent. * Looks like design by [congressional] committee. > The subclavius muscle, stretching under the shoulder from the first > rib to the collarbone, would be useful if we walked on all fours but > is so useless now that some people don't even have it. True some Orangatangs look just like Jason Robards! Still, you point to one side of a vastly greater and diversivied coin. Our eyes are vastly superior to cameras; distinguishing 22 million colours, six million more than computers can handle... And a wide field view to boot... They say that when you die, the last thing you saw is still on your retina; usually just a close up of a rock, though sometimes, it's a smiling murderer. > What does your 'proof of design' guru have to say about these > questions? Not just sure when we'll have heads like melons or designer trees? I don't think I'll be attaining light speed 'til I can turn off the light and run back to my chair before it gets dark :-) > ## The mind of the Creationist is like concrete: Mixed up and set. >Our eyes are vastly superior to cameras; In some respects. >distinguishing 22 million colours, But cameras can see colors in the ultra-violet and infra-red that we cannot. >six million more than computers can handle... Nonsense. >And a wide field view to boot... Fisheye cameras have a wider field of view than the human eye. >They say >that when you die, the last thing you saw is still on your retina; They say the moom is made of green cheese too... ## OK, who stopped payment on your reality check? > >Our eyes are vastly superior to cameras; > > In some respects. They last longer don't they? > >distinguishing 22 million colours, > > But cameras can see colors in the ultra-violet and infra-red that we > cannot. Most people don't use cameras for military purposes... > >six million more than computers can handle... > > Nonsense. Computers can handle 16 million colours. You do the math... > >And a wide field view to boot... > > Fisheye cameras have a wider field of view than the human eye. Too much of a good thing though... It adds distortion to shapes... > >They say > >that when you die, the last thing you saw is still on your retina; > > They say the moom is made of green cheese too... You're not one of those people who believe The Stataes payed billions of dollars to go to Arizona are you? > ## OK, who stopped payment on your reality check? It's nothing personal... >> >Our eyes are vastly superior to cameras; >> >> In some respects. > >They last longer don't they? Mine haven't. >> >distinguishing 22 million colours, >> >> But cameras can see colors in the ultra-violet and infra-red that we >> cannot. > >Most people don't use cameras for military purposes... What has military purposes got to do with IR and UV cameras? >> >six million more than computers can handle... >> >> Nonsense. > >Computers can handle 16 million colours. Computers can handle any number of colors you care to provide. I suspect what you mean is the number of colors common video cards and monitors can handle. That's hardly a limitation applicable to computers. And can you provide a cite for your 22 million colors? >> >And a wide field view to boot... >> >> Fisheye cameras have a wider field of view than the human eye. > >Too much of a good thing though... It adds distortion to shapes... All cameras do. So does the human eye. And cameras don't have blind spots. >> >They say >> >that when you die, the last thing you saw is still on your retina; [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >You're not one of those people who believe The Stataes payed billions >of dollars to go to Arizona are you? No. Nor do I believe that bushwah about residual images on retinas. >> ## OK, who stopped payment on your reality check? > >> >Our eyes are vastly superior to cameras; > >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Mine haven't. You mean you went blind like a cheap camera? Watch the TV too close? Leave your latch key in the blinding sun? I'm on to your snake pit tactics anyway... Whatever I say will be wrong so you may be right, at the expence of others, naturally! You're not hear to enlighten anyone but to argue your own, private, case as some Internet vigil anti seeking to dominate and destroy! But one more : "Latch Key Kid" seeking power from outside your building... Only your arrogance preceeds the poison someone will oneday serve you with your coffee... I have very little time for young Nazis from the skin head club or your kind of slop, crossposted from various other holes spitting out square pegs... Obviously, you and your worm collection are in the wrong place! This isn't : "The Daily Planet!" Do you suspect you or your big group of cycle sluts and juviniles will ever grow up? That would be like trying to get a horse to squat on a toilet.... You wanna come from Apes? You prooved it to me! > > >> >Our eyes are vastly superior to cameras; > > >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > horse > to squat on a toilet.... You wanna come from Apes? You prooved it to me! ============================= No one ever claimed we CAME from Apes. Both humans and apes came from the same distant ancestor.  SignatureMona Lisa......... "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." ~ Carl Sagan ~ ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* > "Spartacus" <J@rogers.com> wrote in message < snippage > > > You wanna come from Apes? You prooved it to me! > ============================= > No one ever claimed we CAME from Apes. Both humans and apes > came from the same distant ancestor. Not quite true, I gather, as if this was the case we'd be equally close to all apes genetically. But we're closer to chimpanzees and bonobos than we are to gorillas, and even further from orangutangs. Thus humans, chimps and bonobos came from the same ancestor. (Of course if you go further back, we *all* - pigs, bacteria, plants, fungi, etc. - came from the same ancestor, but I assume you to have meant the most direct distant ancestor by your wording.) Regards, Brett. > > "Spartacus" <J@rogers.com> wrote in message > < snippage > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > all apes genetically. But we're closer to chimpanzees and bonobos than we > are to gorillas, and even further from orangutangs. * True, but that doesn't change the fact we all had a common ancestor. :-) Thus humans, chimps and > bonobos came from the same ancestor. (Of course if you go further back, we > *all* - pigs, bacteria, plants, fungi, etc. - came from the same ancestor, > but I assume you to have meant the most direct distant ancestor by your > wording.) Regards, Brett. SignatureMona Lisa..... Would you enjoy having someone read each issue of The Watchtower to you for the next year? Well, then, fill in and mail the accompanying coupon, along with the proper contribution, and receive your subscription for The Watchtower on cassette tapes. A recording of each issue of the magazine on a single cassette will be mailed to you, two cassettes a month, 24 for the year's subscription. The contribution is only $36 (U.S.). For persons certified as blind or physically unable to read normal reading material, the year's subscription will be only $12 (U.S.). Please send a year's subscription for the cassettes of The Watchtower. Check the applicable box, and remit the proper contribution. [ ] English, 1 year. I enclose $36. [ ] English, 1 year. I enclose $12, as well as certification of my disability (as supplied by organizations for the blind, doctors, rehabilitation professionals, or others). ----------> This Is The Watchtower's Idea of FREE literature <------- >>>"Spartacus" <J@rogers.com> wrote in message >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > * True, but that doesn't change the fact we all had a common ancestor. :-) True, but it does mean that we did indeed come from apes. So don't say no one ever claimed it. Brett just did. So do I. And any cladist would say that we not only came from apes, but we still are apes. Weird-looking apes, granted, but not so weird as the weirdness of being a weird-looking lobe-finned fish, which we are as well. > Thus humans, chimps and > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>but I assume you to have meant the most direct distant ancestor by your >>wording.) Regards, Brett. > >>>"Spartacus" <J@rogers.com> wrote in message > >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > no one ever claimed it. Brett just did. So do I. And any cladist would > say that we not only came from apes, but we still are apes. ## OK, this is what my instructor said. We ARE apes and we all came from the same "common ancestor." Chimps, bonobos, humans and Apes alike. We did not come from apes as apes are known today. And that is what a fundy means when they say we came from apes. Apes themselves evolved as we humans, chimps and bon's did, all from a common root. Fundies do not believe we are related to the apes and chimps. They believe their god created everything as it looks today. > Weird-looking apes, granted, but not so weird as the weirdness of being > a weird-looking lobe-finned fish, which we are as well. ## If you go back far enough we're related to that first "spark" of life in the seas.......... SignatureMona Lisa......... http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jw-book.html "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." ~ Carl Sagan ~ ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* >>>>>"Spartacus" <J@rogers.com> wrote in message >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > when they say we came from apes. Apes themselves evolved as we humans, > chimps and bon's did, all from a common root. Well, who knows what a fundy means by it? But you're mangling all the various meanings of "ape" here. If you think of it in the everyday sense, chimps and bonobos are apes and we're not, but we're still descended from apes. If you think of it in the cladistic sense, we're all apes: humans, chimps, gorillas, orangutans, gibbons, and their various extinct relatives. And if by "ape" you mean the living species only, then by definition there's no such thing as an extinct ape, so what would you call Dryopithecus? > Fundies do not believe we are related to the apes and chimps. They believe > their god created everything as it looks today. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ## If you go back far enough we're related to that first "spark" of life in > the seas.......... Meaning that we're still life. (Not, in this case, meaning a painting of a bowl of fruit.) > >>>>>"Spartacus" <J@rogers.com> wrote in message > >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Well, who knows what a fundy means by it? ** I do. I live in the bible belt and it's often a topic of conversation as it is on this ARJ-W NG. But you're mangling all the > various meanings of "ape" here. If you think of it in the everyday > sense, chimps and bonobos are apes and we're not, but we're still > descended from apes. ** The way it was taught to us we are all descended from the same animal way back in the past. Why call it an ape then? Why not go ahead and call it an early human, and claim the apes descended from humans? A name is only a word. Both humans and non-human "apes" came from the same root stock - a small tree dwelling mammal. What I think he was saying is the Apes are our cousins, not our parents. Maybe they were.... it doesn't matter to me either way. :-) If you think of it in the cladistic sense, we're > all apes: humans, chimps, gorillas, orangutans, gibbons, and their > various extinct relatives. And if by "ape" you mean the living species > only, then by definition there's no such thing as an extinct ape, so > what would you call Dryopithecus? > > Fundies do not believe we are related to the apes and chimps. They believe > > their god created everything as it looks today. > >>Weird-looking apes, granted, but not so weird as the weirdness of being > >>a weird-looking lobe-finned fish, which we are as well. > > > > ## If you go back far enough we're related to that first "spark" of life in > > the seas.......... > Meaning that we're still life. (Not, in this case, meaning a painting of > a bowl of fruit.) Mona Lisa.......... http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jw-book.html "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." ~ Carl Sagan ~ 004.htm <snip> > > Well, who knows what a fundy means by it? > ** I do. I live in the bible belt and it's often a topic of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > ** The way it was taught to us we are all descended from > the same animal way back in the past. I know John will correct me where I'm wrong, but I'll take a stab at responding (some may be too basic even for you)... There are all sorts of common ancestors. The one I think we've been discussing was from some 6 or 7 mya (arguabley "way back in the past") that ended up with chimps, bonobos, us and many extinct lines, such as (again, arguabley), Orrorin tugenensis, Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba and a few extinct early Homo sapiens (H. s. idaltu, H. s. neanderthal, and others). But back from that common ancestor there have been countless others, at each "branching" of the evolutionary tree (the most recent Dawkins book - I don't have the name - coins the name "concestors" for these COmmon aNCESTORS, and looks back through history at some of them). > Why call it an ape then? We call it an ape because it has characteristics, such as bipedalism, no exterior tail, vertabrate anatomy, etc. etc., etc., identifiable with all other apes. > Why not go ahead and call it an early human, Because it doesn't (didn't) have characteristic of humans (genus Homo), such as use of tools, etc., etc. > and claim the apes descended from humans? Because they didn't. > A name is only a word. Au contraire. We need to use "only words" very precisely to classify and communicate common ideas to others. > Both humans and non-human "apes" came from the same > root stock - a small tree dwelling mammal. Again, there've probably been a few "small tree dwelling mammals" on our tree of ancestry, and the one I think you mean may or may not be the one you really mean. A word is more than just a word. And the common ancestor I mentioned in my first para from 6 or 7 mya may or may not have been tree-dwelling. > What I think he was saying is the Apes are our cousins, > not our parents. Maybe they were... They're both in that context, I think. > it doesn't matter to me either way. :-) Funny, it seems to. Best regards, Brett. <snip> > <snip> > > > Well, who knows what a fundy means by it? [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > Funny, it seems to. Best regards, Brett. > <snip> ============================== It doesn't I assure you. As an agnostic I don't really care where humans originated. As far as I know humans and the apes evolved from some primitive, probably tree dwelling small mammal. The opposable thumb being very handy for tree life and picking fruit, seeds, and nuts. Can that little mammal be called an ape? A pre-ape? Does it really matter in a discussion of creation/evolution on a religious NG? No matter how humans came to evolve the fundies will claim we were created as you SEE us now. SignatureMona Lisa........ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jw-book.html "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." ~ Carl Sagan ~ ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* > <snip> > > > > Well, who knows what a fundy means by it? [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > originated. As far as I know humans and the apes evolved from some > primitive, probably tree dwelling small mammal. first.. you don't know. you parrot what you have read over the year on this very subject what you have read from others. second.. "probably tree dwelling mammal" confirm my first statement... you don't know.. what kids learn in school, and you misses out on.. http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/a/ap/ape.html Modern scientific usage includes as apes the families Hylobatidae (6 species of gibbons and the siamang), which are known as lesser apes, and the family Pongidae or great apes, consisting of Gorillas (Gorilla gorilla), Chimpanzees (common chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes and bonobos, Pan paniscus), humans (Homo sapiens), and Orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus). Chimpanzees, gorillas, humans and orangutans are all more closely related to one another than any of these four genera are to the gibbons and siamangs. On cladistic grounds it is correct to include humans in the Pongidae, and most scientists now do this - the family would otherwise be paraphyletic. Some authors adopt the alternative of including the great apes in the family Hominidae, which is the grouping for humans and their extinct ape-like ancestors, while others use a subfamily to separate the hominids from the extant non-human apes. Current evidence implies that humans share a common, extinct, ancestor with the chimpanzee/bonobo line, from which we separated more recently than the gorilla line. All living members of the Hylobatidae and Pongidae/Humanidae are tailless, and humans can therefore accurately be referred to as bipedal apes. However there are also primates in other families that lack tails. >> <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 110 lines] > therefore accurately be referred to as bipedal apes. However there are > also primates in other families that lack tails. This falls into the category of things Jabbers posts but doesn't read. > >> <snip> > >> [quoted text clipped - 112 lines] > > This falls into the category of things Jabbers posts but doesn't read. ==================================== If he does read it he surely either doesn't understand it, or he doesn't believe it. As a Jehovah's Witness Jabbers is a creationists no matter what he claims or posts here. They can be disfellowshipped and shunned for claiming they believe in evolution. SignatureJoan aka Mona Lisa........ Here you will find clinical studies proving that the Jehovah's Witnesses exhibit rates of mental illness between four and forty times the average for the population at large: http://google.com/groups?selm=D3J0QI5Z38234.4565046296@anonymous.poster ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > ============================== > > It doesn't I assure you. As an agnostic I don't really care where humans > > originated. As far as I know humans and the apes evolved from some > > primitive, probably tree dwelling small mammal. ================= > first.. you don't know. you parrot what you have read over the year on > this very subject what you have read from others. $$ First YOU don't know. You parrot what you read in the Watchtower magazines and books. > second.. "probably tree dwelling mammal" confirm my first statement... > you don't know.. $$ No one knows for sure, not even the unpaid authors of the WTS magazines and books which claim a magical, fantastical creation by some spirit that was floating around the universe with nothing better to do with him/her/it's self. > what kids learn in school, and you misses out on.. > http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/a/ap/ape.html > Modern scientific usage includes as apes the families Hylobatidae (6 > species of gibbons and the siamang), which are known as lesser apes, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > therefore accurately be referred to as bipedal apes. However there are > also primates in other families that lack tails. SignatureJoan...... Would you enjoy having someone read each issue of The Watchtower to you for the next year? Well, then, fill in and mail the accompanying coupon, along with the proper contribution, and receive your subscription for The Watchtower on cassette tapes. A recording of each issue of the magazine on a single cassette will be mailed to you, two cassettes a month, 24 for the year's subscription. The contribution is only $36 (U.S.). For persons certified as blind or physically unable to read normal reading material, the year's subscription will be only $12 (U.S.). Please send a year's subscription for the cassettes of The Watchtower. Check the applicable box, and remit the proper contribution. [ ] English, 1 year. I enclose $36. [ ] English, 1 year. I enclose $12, as well as certification of my disability (as supplied by organizations for the blind, doctors, rehabilitation professionals, or others). ----------> This Is The Watchtower's Idea of FREE literature <------- > > "Brett Aubrey" <brett.aubrey@shaw.ca> wrote in message > news:DUn8d.209927$%S.182718@pd7tw2no... [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > discussion of creation/evolution on a religious NG? No matter how humans > came to evolve the fundies will claim we were created as you SEE us now. Fair enough, but t'was you who typed in the questions, took the course, responded to Jabriol, etc., Best regards, Brett. > > "Brett Aubrey" <brett.aubrey@shaw.ca> wrote in message > news:DUn8d.209927$%S.182718@pd7tw2no... [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > > > Because they didn't. (Addition follows...) (Apes have been around for 7 or 8 my, we (H. sapiens) have been around for ~2.5 my. (And H. sapiens sapiens for only .13 my). Hence we're late on the tree. > > > A name is only a word. > > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > humans came to evolve the fundies will claim we were created as you > SEE us now. Fair enough, but t'was you who typed in the questions, took the course, responded to Jabriol about where we came from, etc. Best regards, Brett. >>>>>>>"Spartacus" <J@rogers.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > cousins, not our parents. Maybe they were.... it doesn't matter to me > either way. :-) It doesn't matter very much to me, but just enough to wrangle about it endlessly on usenet. If you want to call the common ancestor of humans an apes an early human, then fine, but then you would have to consider gibbons to be human too. The point is that if you were to get in a time machine and photograph the most recent common ancestor of all living apes (which is also the most recent common ancestor of apes and humans), and you showed that picture to a thousand people, every one of them would tell you it was a picture of an ape. (Well, given the population, some of them would say "monkey", and a few would say "doggie" or "yo mama". But never mind that.) So why not call it an ape? > If you think of it in the cladistic sense, we're > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > ~ Carl Sagan ~ > 004.htm > > ** The way it was taught to us we are all descended from the same animal > > way back in the past. Why call it an ape then? Why not go ahead and call [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > cousins, not our parents. Maybe they were.... it doesn't matter to me > > either way. :-) ================================ > It doesn't matter very much to me, but just enough to wrangle about it > endlessly on usenet. If you want to call the common ancestor of humans [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > some of them would say "monkey", and a few would say "doggie" or "yo > mama". But never mind that.) So why not call it an ape? ======================== I see your point. :-) Joan aka Mona........ "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." ~ Carl Sagan ~ ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* > ## OK, this is what my instructor said. > We ARE apes and we all came from > the same "common ancestor." Chimps, bonobos, humans and Apes alike. We did [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Fundies do not believe we are related to the apes and chimps. They believe > their god created everything as it looks today. golly in less than 30 seconds you forgot what your instructor said. No wonder you didn't graduate from highschool. snip the rest of the nonsensical drool.. > > ## OK, this is what my instructor said. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > golly in less than 30 seconds you forgot what your instructor said. No > wonder you didn't graduate from highschool. $$ Huh? Of course I graduated HS - unlike you. :-) That's why I live in a beautiful area, in a private home by a lake, and you live in a tiny roach infested apartment in the slums. We have gardens and ponds whereas you have rats and mice. Short memory? You bitterly complained about all the drug dealers and single welfare mothers on your street. Hey, you just claimed you killfiled me. Lied again Jabbers? > snip the rest of the nonsensical drool.. $$ Snip the rest of Jabber's nonsensical drool and regurgitated Watchtower vomit. SignatureJoan..... What happened to your lawsuit against my ISP? Do you own the company as you said you would last spring? Once again Jabriol you make a complete a.s, a total fool of yourself. You must be a masochist. There's no other answer for your behavior. Well, then, have I become YOUR enemy because I tell YOU the truth (about Jabriol)? Galatians 4:16 NWT ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ }<(((({{o> "The test of every religious (like the Watchtower Society), political, or educational system is the man (like Jabriol) that it forms." - ~ Henri Amiel ~ All trees (like the WTS) can be judged by the fruit (Jabriols) they produce. > > "Mona Lisa" <Remove-Socks@This.net> wrote in message > news:<3aqdne49b7nkb_zcRVn-sQ@heartoftn.net>...> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > in a beautiful area, in a private home by a lake, and you live in a tiny > roach infested apartment in the slums. sure in usenet anyone can have their dream house.. but the house you live in.. was not yours, it belonged to your "gypsy husband" becuase you were dumped in TN penniless by your second Gypsy husband as you calim on your website... way to go for Elmhurst grad eh???? > We have gardens and ponds whereas > you have rats and mice. Short memory? You bitterly complained about all > the drug dealers and single welfare mothers on your street. Hey, you just > claimed you killfiled me. Lied again Jabbers? I did... you changed your headers to avoid it. And every has seen yet again your inability to stay on topic. which is why you never graduated from high school.. but here on usenet you can pretend.. > > > "Mona Lisa" <Remove-Socks@This.net> wrote in message > > news:<3aqdne49b7nkb_zcRVn-sQ@heartoftn.net>...> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > in a beautiful area, in a private home by a lake, and you live in a tiny > > roach infested apartment in the slums. ================================= > sure in usenet anyone can have their dream house.. > but the house you live in.. was not yours, it belonged to your "gypsy > husband" > becuase you were dumped in TN penniless by your second Gypsy husband > as you calim on your website... way to go for Elmhurst grad eh???? ** I owned this land when I met my husband who is not a Gypsy. There are no Gypsies in my area. And what have you got against Gypies? Oh wait, you're a racist who calls bi-racial children "black bastard baboon human wannabes." What do you call Gypsies? I never said I was penniless. That's all in your fantasies. :-) Re-read the website. Have your wife or a neighbor read it to you. http://www.heartoftn.net/users/windsong/index.html > > We have gardens and ponds whereas > > you have rats and mice. Short memory? You bitterly complained about all > > the drug dealers and single welfare mothers on your street. Hey, you just > > claimed you killfiled me. Lied again Jabbers? > I did... you changed your headers to avoid it. ** Freudian slip? Yes, you lie all the time. Nothing new there. Here read the website again: http://www.heartoftn.net/users/windsong/index.html Had you worked for a living and even had a trade-school education you could live in a beautiful area like I do instead of the crime-ridden slums you complained about more than once. It really gets your goat that a Non-JW has everything you ever dreamed of, and failed to attain. That I was blessed with good health and ambition to succeed. Something you never had..... eat your heart out evil one. What happened to your lawsuit against my ISP? Do you own the company as you said you would last spring? Once again Jabriol you make a complete a.s, a total fool of yourself. You must be a masochist. There's no other answer for your behavior. Lupe Lu........ "Jabriol wants to be loved; failing this, to be admired; failing this, to be feared; failing even this, to be hated and despised. Jabriol wants to arouse some sort of feeling in people. The soul shrinks from the void and wants contact at any price." ~ Hjalmar Soderberg ~ ========================================================== > > "Joan of Spark" <Remove-Your-Socks@ThisCrazy.net> wrote in message > news:<I6SdnZ4gvbWnhf7cRVn-uw@heartoftn.net>... [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > ** I owned this land when I met my husband who is not a Gypsy. yeah sure.. ans on usent I am the major stockholder of Disney Corp. Snipo..................................................................... > >>>"Spartacus" <J@rogers.com> wrote in message > >>< snippage > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > * True, but that doesn't change the fact we all had a common ancestor. :-) (Yes, I said that, too, Mona - there are many common ancestors, each at a different levels.) > True, but it does mean that we did indeed come from apes. So don't > say no one ever claimed it. Brett just did. So do I. And any cladist > would say that we not only came from apes, but we still are apes. > > Weird-looking apes, granted, but not so weird as the weirdness > of being a weird-looking lobe-finned fish, which we are as well. Well, I understand your ape comment, John, but wouldn't a cladist (or anyone else) choose to define the clade in which we and (other) lobe-finned fish exist something like "lobed vertebrates", or something? That is, are you serious that we'd be defined as a "fish" (kind of a neat thought, though)? Regards, Brett. > >>Thus humans, chimps and bonobos came from the same > >>ancestor. (Of course if you go further back, we *all* - pigs, > >>bacteria, plants, fungi, etc. - came from the same ancestor, > >>but I assume you to have meant the most direct distant > >>ancestor by your wording.) Regards, Brett. >>>>>"Spartacus" <J@rogers.com> wrote in message >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > serious that we'd be defined as a "fish" (kind of a neat thought, though)? > Regards, Brett. The real name is Sarcopterygii. "Fish" or "lobed vertebrates" or whatever isn't a technical term. However, Sarcopterygii is commonly called "lobe-finned fish". Admittedly, this name was attached before it became universal to think of Sarcopterygii as a clade, and thus as including tetrapods. But I think it's really advantageous (and very cool conceptually) to think of tetrapods as just a very oddly adapted group of fish. After all, there's no other group that we give a separate name too just because they moved from the water to the land. Land-snails are still snails. Land-crabs are still crabs. Why can't land-fish be still fish? >>>>Thus humans, chimps and bonobos came from the same >>>>ancestor. (Of course if you go further back, we *all* - pigs, >>>>bacteria, plants, fungi, etc. - came from the same ancestor, >>>>but I assume you to have meant the most direct distant >>>>ancestor by your wording.) Regards, Brett. <snip headers> > >>>>>"Spartacus" <J@rogers.com> wrote in message < snippage > > >>>>>>You wanna come from Apes? You prooved it to me! > >>>>>============================= [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > became universal to think of Sarcopterygii as a clade, and thus as > including tetrapods. My point was based on the thought that a name would be picked based on a term that applies (or describes) the whole clade, not the originating member. But I see what you mean. Thanks. > But I think it's really advantageous (and very cool conceptually) to > think of tetrapods as just a very oddly adapted group of fish. After > all, there's no other group that we give a separate name too just > because they moved from the water to the land. Land-snails are still > snails. Land-crabs are still crabs. Why can't land-fish be still fish? Fair enough. Thanks. Regards, Brett. <snip> > <snip headers> > [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > term that applies (or describes) the whole clade, not the originating > member. But I see what you mean. Thanks. Hey, let me beat that dead horse until I drive it into the ground. Should we stop using the term "tetrapod" to include snakes and other legless lizards? Should we call barnacles crustaceans even though they (meaning the adults) look nothing like a typical crustacean? A phylogenetic perspective on common terms makes a lot of sense in addition to being great fun. Once a fish, always a fish, that's what I say. >>But I think it's really advantageous (and very cool conceptually) to >>think of tetrapods as just a very oddly adapted group of fish. After [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > <snip> > > <snip headers> > > [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > phylogenetic perspective on common terms makes a lot of sense in > addition to being great fun. Once a fish, always a fish, that's what I say. A fish is a fish, of course, of course, And no one can talk to a fish of course That is, of course, unless the fish is the famous Mr. Ed. Hmmm, doesn't have quite the same ring. > >>But I think it's really advantageous (and very cool conceptually) to > >>think of tetrapods as just a very oddly adapted group of fish. After [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > > <snip> > > > >> >Our eyes are vastly superior to cameras; > > > >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > No one ever claimed we CAME from Apes. Both humans and apes came from the > same distant ancestor. Carol the parrot.. just in case you did not learn this, while you hang out with Biker Gangs in the 50's, per evolution and science... Humans are apes, and are classified as a species of the great apes... > > > > >> >Our eyes are vastly superior to cameras; > > > > >> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Gangs in the 50's, per evolution and science... Humans are apes, and > are classified as a species of the great apes... ========================================= Jabriol the Watchtower parrot.. Just in case you did not learn this, while you hung out with drug addicts and Camden NJ inner city Gangs in the 1950's, per evolution and science... Humans are apes, and are classified as a species of the great apes. Which doesn't mean we came from APES as we *SEE* them today. Your cult teaches everything was CREATED as we now SEE it. Others on the NG understand what I'm saying - too bad you don't. Joan aka Mona.... --"Jabriol wants to be loved; failing this, to be admired; failing this, to be feared; failing even this, to be hated and despised. Jabriol wants to arouse some sort of feeling in people. The soul shrinks from the void and wants contact at any price." ~ Hjalmar Soderberg ~ ========================================================== Well, then, have I become YOUR enemy because I tell YOU the truth (about Jabriol)? Galatians 4:16 NWT ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ }<(((({{o> "The test of every religious (like the Watchtower Society), political, or educational system is the man (like Jabriol) that it forms." - ~ Henri Amiel ~ All trees (like the WTS) can be judged by the fruit (Jabriols) they produce. >> >> >Our eyes are vastly superior to cameras; >> >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >You mean you went blind like a cheap camera? No, but the lens on a camera my age still work through a full range of focus, while the lenses in my eyes do not and require correction with auxiliary lenses. > I'm on to your snake pit tactics >anyway... Whatever I say will be wrong so you may be right, No, you can be right too. You haven't bothered to be so far, but you have the choice. > at the expence >of others, naturally! You're not hear to enlighten anyone but to argue your >own, private, case Private case? I argue for truth. I post majority opinions here. It is you who argue for the nut fringe! > as some Internet vigil anti seeking to dominate and destroy! Well it is an internet vigil in a way. I'm a vigilante against Creationist lies and fundamentalist theology. >But one more : "Latch Key Kid" seeking power from outside your building... Your metaphor escapes me. >Only your arrogance preceeds the poison someone will oneday serve you >with your coffee... I have very little time for young Nazis from the skin >head club or your kind of slop, crossposted from various other holes spitting out >square pegs... Obviously, you and your worm collection are in the wrong >place! Invective makes for inadequate rebattal. Try addressing the points I made instead of blustering. >This isn't : "The Daily Planet!" Do you suspect you or your big group of >cycle sluts and juviniles will ever grow up? That would be like trying to get a >horse to squat on a toilet.... You wanna come from Apes? You prooved it to me! When things are proven to you, as in the previous posts, you resort to libel and invective. That's hardly encouragement for honest debate. But that's OK, I've provoked you into showing your true colors. When defeated in argument, cuss and insult, that's your style. ## Controversy is only dreaded by the advocates of error. > No, but the lens on a camera my age still work through a full range > of focus, while the lenses in my eyes do not and require correction > with auxiliary lenses. I too need correctional lenses... Your eyes distinguish depth preception via a three dimentional image. Cameras produce a flat two dimentional rendition. Technology comes from our copying or duplicating (where possible) things that occure naturally but not always as efficiantly. i.e. birds don't need air ports or runways... Those with eye afflictions don't represeent the average. Film has a specific ISO rating. Your eyes adapt over a wide range of ISO to accomodate fpr either light or darkness. > > I'm on to your snake pit tactics > >anyway... Whatever I say will be wrong so you may be right, > > No, you can be right too. > You haven't bothered to be so far, but you have the choice. That's cuz you don't facts when they're presented to you! Why would I lie? Plus you make hastey decisions about what kind of person you think I am. > > at the expence > >of others, naturally! You're not hear to enlighten anyone but to argue your > >own, private, case > > Private case? I argue for truth. I post majority opinions here. > It is you who argue for the nut fringe! The "nut fringe" line seems to vary from time to time. I came here to have my belief in God and His son reconfirmed and established, in good faith! It's not enough that Winesses and Ex-Witnesses might argue amoungst themselves, but you have to further compound the issue by slopping all over The Bible! I haven't been alotted the time to banter indefinately... Or maybe I just don't value being so right all the time as consistently as you do. At least I don't go to a Mechanic and tell him I have Drywall experience! I look for reasons to bring people together. You look for reasons to divide and seperate them. I'd encourage but you belittle. Start tayloring your posts in the appropriate NGs and then talk to me about nut fringes... > > as some Internet vigil anti seeking to dominate and destroy! > > Well it is an internet vigil in a way. I'm a vigilante against > Creationist lies and fundamentalist theology. Knowing the fundamentals can get you places. That's a step up from blind acceptance! It's not what's taught in The Bible that's at question here. It's how the GB uses it against it's own people... Some of the best minds today stand by creationism in unlocking secrets they were incapable of understanding unless they "do" look at it that way... I'm all for innovation and progress, but the unknown produces fear and apprehension that do tend to impede these things necessary for our greater understanding. The road to your future is costly as well and paved with better intentions than arguing over who owns the grappling hook... > >But one more : "Latch Key Kid" seeking power from outside your building... > > Your metaphor escapes me. Does it really? There are bounderies everywhere! If you wiah to voice anything contrary, the majority must understand you fully conceive the full picture and appaerently you do not. Probably because you've never been a Witness and are coming from way off in left field! This isn't an anti-creationism NG... That's not what we're here to discuss... > >Only your arrogance preceeds the poison someone will oneday serve you > >with your coffee... I have very little time for young Nazis from the skin [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Invective makes for inadequate rebattal. > Try addressing the points I made instead of blustering. I don't have to do anything you tell me to do... I'm over 18 and make my own decisions. You speak of Man made conclusions you draw from Man made theories passed down to other men who also seek to further intrench them, in an NG that should be devoted to spiritual refinements... Hello? You're in the wrong NG! > >This isn't : "The Daily Planet!" Do you suspect you or your big group of > >cycle sluts and juviniles will ever grow up? That would be like trying to get a > >horse to squat on a toilet.... You wanna come from Apes? You prooved it to me! > > When things are proven to you, as in the previous posts, you resort to > libel and invective. That's hardly encouragement for honest debate. I'm not "resorting"... I'm purposefully going there! Honestly, I don't want to debate death by natural selection as an alternative to death by disfellowshipping. It would negate my reasons for coming here in the first place. We're talking about issues between people and your talking about issues between hip bones and think this gives president for debate? > But that's OK, I've provoked you into showing your true colors. When > defeated in argument, cuss and insult, that's your style. "slop" isn't a cuss or an insult in the context I used it... I left it undefined in your case. My style? Who's claiming victory for an arguement that isn't being waged? Who's drawing all kinds of conclusions about what I believe or do not before they even know me? Who generalizes about all Witnesses that learned good intentions that come from The Bible, misapplied to them and those shunned by such generalizations? What about what they've been through or are going through that has little to do with large, bipedal hips? "Oh, I know! I'll tell them we come from Apes and The Bible really sucks! That should convince them!" You couldn't be farther from your : "truth" if you busied yourself throwing stones at ocean liners. Fact is, apes will be apes and humans will be humans though huh? "Hey Witnesses! Look over here at us Apostates tellin you the Bible's full of #@$&!" Great approach John... I can see you really thought this out... > ## Controversy is only dreaded by the advocates of error. This assumes if something were correct, it would spur no controversy which can over turn something whether it's correct or not, or we wouldn't pollute our air and water... Being correct isn't always the point then. We see the same words via different perspectives suitable to our particular pursuits in life. That doesn't make it right or wrong, only suitable for the user. It's what we believe that becomes reality. What we call "the present" is strictly a transitory state mutable to a positive future by those willing to share a combined and co-ordinated effort toward its inception. Most findings are widely publisized on The Internet right now. If they're there, why do you need to proove them? Why aren't you looking for what's right about what people believe for a practicle application instead of always trying to reinvent the wheel? Where's the spiritual application of what you advocate? > I too need correctional lenses... Your eyes distinguish depth preception > via a three dimentional image. Cameras produce a flat two dimentional [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > represeent the average. Film has a specific ISO rating. Your eyes adapt > over a wide range of ISO to accomodate fpr either light or darkness. SNIP a lot of other stuff: There is a bit of a flaw here, which should be noted. Eyes do indeed adapt over a range of light conditions - they do it by opening and closing an "iris" to let more or less light onto the light-sensing parts of the eye. It is the latter that is most equivalent to film, not the whole eye. If you want to use the eye/camera analogy, you must compare the whole camera to the eye - a camera is designed to adapt to low or high light in much the same way as our eyes work - by opening and closing an iris, to let more or less light onto the film. >> No, but the lens on a camera my age still work through a full range >> of focus, while the lenses in my eyes do not and require correction >> with auxiliary lenses. > >I too need correctional lenses... Your eyes distinguish depth preception >via a three dimentional image. No, your brain does that, by comparing a pair of two-dimensional images. >Cameras produce a flat two dimentional rendition. So do your eyes. >Technology comes from our copying or duplicating (where >possible) things that occure naturally but not always as efficiantly. In many cases. Not all. >i.e. birds don't need air ports or runways... And none are supersonic or carry tons of cargo. >Those with eye afflictions don't represeent the average. I sure see a lot of optometrist's stores around. > Film has a specific ISO rating. Your eyes adapt >over a wide range of ISO to accomodate fpr either light or darkness. But not over as wide a range as some optical systems. >> > I'm on to your snake pit tactics >> >anyway... Whatever I say will be wrong so you may be right, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >That's cuz you don't facts when they're presented to you! "I don't facts"? > Why would I lie? You don't have to lie to be wrong, just mistaken. >Plus you make hastey decisions about what kind of person you think I am. For example? >> > at the expence >> >of others, naturally! You're not hear to enlighten anyone but to argue [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >The "nut fringe" line seems to vary from time to time. Agreed. Nut fringers dispute each other as often as they dispute mainstream science. There! See? You've managed a truth! >I came here to have my belief in God and His son reconfirmed >and established, in good faith! And, to some degree, I came to have my disbelief in your concept of God and his son confirmed, but not as a matter of faith. I don't use faith. >It's not enough that Winesses and Ex-Witnesses might argue >amoungst themselves, but you have to further compound the >issue by slopping all over The Bible! One of the reasons for my disbelief is that very arguing among the "Witnesses" and the cause of most of it is the Bible. >I haven't been alotted the time to banter indefinately... Or maybe > I just don't value being so right all the time as consistently as you do. You don't value truth? >At least I don't go to a Mechanic and tell him I have >Drywall experience! What are you seeking to imply with that analogy? >I look for reasons to bring people together. Even if you use untruths to do so? The end justifies the means? >You look for reasons to divide and seperate them. Now who's making hasty decisions about what kind of person someone else is? I can think of no other factor in human society more divisive than religion. >I'd encourage but you belittle. You encourage untruth and I belittle it. Yes. >Start tayloring your posts >in the appropriate NGs and then talk to me about nut fringes... I am in the appropriate newsgroup for the subject. I have no idea which one you are in so how can I trim if that could result in trimming my response so you never see it? >> > as some Internet vigil anti seeking to dominate and destroy! >> >> Well it is an internet vigil in a way. I'm a vigilante against >> Creationist lies and fundamentalist theology. > >Knowing the fundamentals can get you places. Fundamentalism isn't a matter of knowing the fundamentals of anything. >That's a step up from blind acceptance! On the contrary, fundamentalism IS blind acceptance. >It's not what's taught in The Bible that's at question here. It is in my newsgroups (alt.bible, alt.religion, alt.talk.creationism) >It's how the GB uses it against it's own people... Some of the best minds >today stand by creationism in unlocking secrets they were incapable of >understanding unless they "do" look at it that way... "Best minds" don't lie and dissimulate Spartacus. My knowledge of science is not extensive, but it is quite adequate to recognize blatant untruths in Creationist propaganda. If the scientific degrees held by some of those propagandists are genuine (many are spurious) then they KNOW they are lying too. It's not a matter of honest differences of opinion. >I'm all for innovation and progress, but the unknown produces fear and >apprehension that do tend to impede these things necessary for our greater understanding. So you would placate those fears with fable and fantasy? >The road to your future is costly as well and paved with better intentions than >arguing over who owns the grappling hook... Another analogy that I don't quite fathom... >> >But one more : "Latch Key Kid" seeking power from outside your >building... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >anything contrary, the majority must understand you fully conceive >the full picture and appaerently you do not. Yet you've amply demonstrated your lack of comprehension of the scientific part of the picture... >Probably because you've never been a Witness and are coming from way off in >left field! I have never been a Witness and never will be. Why? Because I have three Watchtower tracts in my library, each stuffed from cover to cover with lies. >This isn't an anti-creationism NG... This one is! > That's not what we're here to discuss... Then stay out of alt.talk.creationism! >> Invective makes for inadequate rebattal. >> Try addressing the points I made instead of blustering. > > I don't have to do anything you tell me to do... I'm over 18 and make my >own decisions. And you're sticking with invective? >You speak of Man made conclusions you draw from Man made theories passed >down to other men who also seek to further intrench them, Yes. So are you. That's all the Bible is-- man made conclusions drawn from man made theories passed down to other men who also seek to further intrench them. And a good deal of it is simply Judean politics. > in an NG that should be devoted to >spiritual refinements... Hello? You're in the wrong NG! No, YOU are. >> When things are proven to you, as in the previous posts, you resort to >> libel and invective. That's hardly encouragement for honest debate. > >I'm not "resorting"... I'm purposefully going there! That's what resorting means. >Honestly, I don't want to debate death >by natural selection as an alternative to death by disfellowshipping. It >would negate my reasons for coming here in the first place. You are obviously confused about where 'here' is! And what are you doing in alt.biology, sci.bio.paleontology, and sci.anthropology.paleo? It should be obvious to you that Jehova's Witless ideas about science aren't going to last long in those forums! >We're talking about issues between >people and your talking >about issues between hip bones and think this gives president for debate? I think "precedence" is the word you wanted. And sci.bio.paleontology would seem to me to be just the place for a discussion of hip bones. > Fact is, apes will be apes and humans will >be humans though huh? "Hey Witnesses! Look over here at us Apostates tellin >you the Bible's full of #@$&!" Great approach John... I can see you really thought this >out... I have indeed. I've read your tracts. I've read the Bible. Both are indeed full of #@$&!" and if you don't want to hear that, stay out of newsgroups devoted to the subject. >> ## Controversy is only dreaded by the advocates of error. > >This assumes if something were correct, it would spur no controversy which >can over turn something whether it's correct or not, No it does not. Those who seek truth do not dread controversy. >Being correct isn't always the point then. Being correct is ALWAYS the point. > We see the same words via different perspectives suitable to our >particular pursuits in life. That doesn't make it right or wrong, >only suitable for the user. It's what we believe that becomes reality. No. Reality is reality. There is only one reality, you can't have different realities for every 'True Believer'. >What we call "the present" is strictly a transitory state mutable >to a positive future by those willing to share a combined and >co-ordinated effort toward its inception. A 'positive' future? As opposed to a negative one? >Most findings are widely publisized on The Internet right now. Findings? > If they're there, why do you need to proove them? The internet has a plethora of bullshit as well as truth. You have to winnow. >Why aren't you looking for what's right about what people believe for a practicle >application instead of always trying to reinvent the wheel? Because there's nothing right about what people believe with respect to religious fundamentalism, and certainly nothing right about Creationism! > Where's the spiritual application of what you advocate? I don't believe anything has a spiritual application. ## Scrutamini scriptura. These two words have undone the world. > >Cameras produce a flat two dimentional rendition. > > So do your eyes. More semantics... We're binocular aren't we? Do you see things in 3 dimentions or two? And how does a camera render it? > >i.e. birds don't need air ports or runways... > > And none are supersonic or carry tons of cargo. Yes, this has so changed my life... There are advantages and disadvantages to everything... > >Those with eye afflictions don't represeent the average. > > I sure see a lot of optometrist's stores around. Always jam packed are they? My eyes aren't great but I can get by under most circumstances without wearing them. Lots of people who wear glasses can... Glasses don't necessarily mean blindness. > > Film has a specific ISO rating. Your eyes adapt > >over a wide range of ISO to accomodate fpr either light or darkness. > > But not over as wide a range as some optical systems. Your confusing an optical system with film which continues to collect light as long as the shutter remains open. > >That's cuz you don't facts when they're presented to you! > > "I don't facts"? You're intelligent... Fill in the blanks... > > Why would I lie? > > You don't have to lie to be wrong, just mistaken. I'm mistaken to marvel at human anatomy? Or cuz I disagree with your conception of The Bible? Or both? What would you suggest then? That I just lay down and rot? > >Plus you make hastey decisions about what kind of person you think I am. > > For example? That I'm ignorant, close minded, unable to understand you cuz I'm just another brainwashed and feable minded creationist... You don't know me; what I'm capable to understand or not. > >The "nut fringe" line seems to vary from time to time. > > Agreed. Nut fringers dispute each other as often as they dispute > mainstream science. There! See? You've managed a truth! So you agree all you'll get back is flack? Maybe we're getting somewhere after all... Sure... Science ant Technology provide all kinds of answers and more as time goes on; for those who can afford the price tag! Everyone else can go fish... What good is immortality in a world that finds your very existance problematic? This is achievement for us? My slum lord will be so pleased I don't kick before rent date... For all he knows, Man is a major screw up... > >I came here to have my belief in God and His son reconfirmed > >and established, in good faith! > > And, to some degree, I came to have my disbelief in your concept of > God and his son confirmed, but not as a matter of faith. I don't use > faith. Opposite reasons... Imagine... > >It's not enough that Winesses and Ex-Witnesses might argue > >amoungst themselves, but you have to further compound the > >issue by slopping all over The Bible! > > One of the reasons for my disbelief is that very arguing among the > "Witnesses" and the cause of most of it is the Bible. If you want to twist it to The WTS rendition, yes... That doesn't mean The Bible isn't usefull or is rendered invalid. Some Witnesses attempt to follow it in spite of the enormous limitations The WTS imposses on them. If you'd ever been a Witness, you'd know this. Were's your successful discussions with Witnesses via your approach? I'd like to see them. > >I haven't been alotted the time to banter indefinately... Or maybe > > I just don't value being so right all the time as consistently as you do. > > You don't value truth? Caught in a loop of disagreement? This is truth? > >At least I don't go to a Mechanic and tell him I have > >Drywall experience! > > What are you seeking to imply with that analogy? That your posts are cross posted. This is alt.religion. jehovah's witn... Not alt. biology, alt.creationism, sci.bio, paleontology, sci.anthropology or any other ology. It just brings in more arguers, more critisisms, more hate mail, more junk... I'm sick of whenever I find an NG, this is always the case. A lot of people are! > >I look for reasons to bring people together. > > Even if you use untruths to do so? The end justifies the means? What untruths? That people should agree on something without sighting little flaws as big ones? That freedom of expression must always be bantered with... Always looking for wrong? To make "what" right? That believing in God makes you an automatic, first class idiot? Did I ever say I disagreed with science or refuse to discuss it? No... It's all the bring down that goes with it... > >You look for reasons to divide and seperate them. > > Now who's making hasty decisions about what kind of person someone > else is? I can think of no other factor in human society more divisive > than religion. And you're here to see to it that this continues cuz The Bible's full of such BS? If this is your contention, what do you expect from this NG? These are people that believe at least that God sent his son to earth on our behalf. Do you believe this? > >I'd encourage but you belittle. > > You encourage untruth and I belittle it. Yes. I said I would encourge them to speak but can't... They're too busy telling you and your supporters to go home and comb your monkey's hair! You made a good impression all right. Stop with the favoures already. It's killing any attempt to reach them at all... Like I said. Cross posters ruin NGs... > >Start tayloring your posts > >in the appropriate NGs and then talk to me about nut fringes... > > I am in the appropriate newsgroup for the subject. I have no idea > which one you are in so how can I trim if that could result in > trimming my response so you never see it? By entering the appropriate NG with the appropriate reasoning to do so. You can't find a thing to agree with and think this will get them to listen to you? They give them egos the size of Buicks and getting their backs up is the answer? All righty then... > >> > as some Internet vigil anti seeking to dominate and destroy! > >> > >> Well it is an internet vigil in a way. I'm a vigilante against > >> Creationist lies and fundamentalist theology. Perpetrated by Witnesses who police Witnesses and run to elders with the juicy details; By the GB which dictates the course of a Witnesses life from start to finish... Had The WTS followed biblical concepts properly in the first place, I wouldn't even be here... > >Knowing the fundamentals can get you places. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > On the contrary, fundamentalism IS blind acceptance. It comes out to that... Yes... I thought putting others before myself, learning to instill a value system and give my family direction I thought was Bible based would help to cement a lasting relationship and help me appreciate what wonders God would be so pleased with and shower blessings on me... Boy, was I wrong! Give, give, give... That's all I did... In return, the only witness I have left is that of watching body parts drop off; all that I ever had, wiped out and all that I ever was, completely alien to me. > >It's not what's taught in The Bible that's at question here. > > It is in my newsgroups (alt.bible, alt.religion, alt.talk.creationism) Well yes... Kind of... I didn't expect to come here and spill my guts to 1800 other individuals that can't associate with the witness problem or really give a rats *ss about it. So every curmudgeon this side of Idaho will be taking their shot. If you have any NG experience, you know that too. This is getting too long and drawn for now... Anyway, you don't sound vindictive or anything... That's a plus... Address something to this NG only, and I'll be more able and willing to answer you without inciting withdrawl. >> >Cameras produce a flat two dimentional rendition. >> >> So do your eyes. > >More semantics... We're binocular aren't we? So are stereo cameras. But in both cases it's our brain that has to do the decoding. > Do you see things in 3 dimentions or two? I see in three but my eyes only work in two. > And how does a camera render it? Also in two. But if I look through a stereoscope at images taken by two cameras side by side at the same time, I see 3 dimensions. >> >i.e. birds don't need air ports or runways... >> >> And none are supersonic or carry tons of cargo. > >Yes, this has so changed my life... There are advantages >and disadvantages to everything... True. >> >Those with eye afflictions don't represeent the average. >> >> I sure see a lot of optometrist's stores around. > >Always jam packed are they? Well they're sure not starving from lack of business! > My eyes aren't great but I can >get by under most circumstances without wearing them. Lots >of people who wear glasses can... Glasses don't necessarily >mean blindness. But few cameras go out of focus from age. >> > Film has a specific ISO rating. Your eyes adapt >> >over a wide range of ISO to accomodate fpr either light or darkness. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Your confusing an optical system with film which continues to collect light >as long as the shutter remains open. No. I'm referring to night vision systems. >> >That's cuz you don't facts when they're presented to you! >> >> "I don't facts"? > >You're intelligent... Fill in the blanks... I was just teasing. >> > Why would I lie? >> >> You don't have to lie to be wrong, just mistaken. > >I'm mistaken to marvel at human anatomy? No, but you're mistaken to believe Jehovah's Witness bullshit. >Or cuz I disagree with your conception of The Bible? Probably. >Or both? No. >What would you suggest then? That I just lay down and rot? You might try a little scholarship. As opposed to gullible acceptance of Jehovah's Witness drivel. >> >Plus you make hastey decisions about what kind of person you think I am. >> >> For example? > >That I'm ignorant, Definitely. >close minded, Possibly. > unable to understand you cuz I'm just >another brainwashed and feable minded creationist... I think you might well be smart enough to understand, but you are probably brainwashed. Feeble minded? No. Suffering from cognitive dissonance maybe. >> >The "nut fringe" line seems to vary from time to time. >> >> Agreed. Nut fringers dispute each other as often as they dispute >> mainstream science. There! See? You've managed a truth! > >So you agree all you'll get back is flack? No, even nut fringers will debate honestly at times. >Science ant Technology provide all kinds of answers and more as time goes >on; for those who can afford the price tag! Everyone else can go fish... What good is >immortality in a world that finds your very existance problematic? Immortality? >> >I came here to have my belief in God and His son reconfirmed >> >and established, in good faith! [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Opposite reasons... Imagine... And different forums, appropriate to each goal. >> >It's not enough that Winesses and Ex-Witnesses might argue >> >amoungst themselves, but you have to further compound the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >If you want to twist it to The WTS rendition, yes... That doesn't mean >The Bible isn't usefull or is rendered invalid. I have other reasons for believing that. As Mark Twain remarked, "There is no better cure for Christianity than a thorough perusal of the Bible." > Some Witnesses attempt >to follow it in spite of the enormous limitations The WTS imposses on >them. If you'd ever been a Witness, you'd know this. Were's your successful >discussions with Witnesses via your approach? I'd like to see them. My aim is not 'sucessful discussions'. I hardly ever expect to convince those with whom I debate. My target is the kibitzer, the lurker who might otherwise think fundamentalist arguments make sense. >> >I haven't been alotted the time to banter indefinately... Or maybe >> > I just don't value being so right all the time as consistently as you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Caught in a loop of disagreement? This is truth? That's how truth is found. >> >At least I don't go to a Mechanic and tell him I have >> >Drywall experience! >> >> What are you seeking to imply with that analogy? > >That your posts are cross posted. I never cross post. I respond to cross-posted threads, but I do so from newsgroups where my kind of arguments are appropriate. >This is alt.religion. jehovah's witn... Not where I am it isn't. >Not alt. biology, >alt.creationism, sci.bio, paleontology, sci.anthropology or any other ology. Look at your header. Here's where you're posting to: alt.religion.jehovahs-witn,alt.biology,alt.talk.creationism, sci.bio.paleontology,sci.anthropology.paleo >> >I look for reasons to bring people together. >> >> Even if you use untruths to do so? The end justifies the means? > >What untruths? The Bible for starters. > That people should agree on something without sighting little >flaws as big ones? Little flaws? >That freedom of expression must always be bantered with... >Always looking for wrong? And finding it! >Did I ever say I disagreed with science or refuse to >discuss it? No... It's all the bring down that goes with it... Well don't blame my side of the issue. It's the lies of the fundamentalist about my belief system that brings me to its defence. I'm not attacking, I'm defending. >> >You look for reasons to divide and seperate them. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >And you're here to see to it that this continues cuz The Bible's full of >such BS? I'm here to answer the falsehoods the Bible encourages fundamentalists to perpetrate. If that involves attacking the Bible, so be it. > If this is your contention, what do you expect from this NG? Which NG? >These are people that believe at least that God sent his son to earth on our >behalf. Do you believe this? I do not. And I argue that such belief is the cause of much intolerance, hatred and mayhem. >> >I'd encourage but you belittle. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >You made a good impression all right. Stop with the favoures already. It's killing any >attempt to reach them at all... If showing folks the negative side of what you propose has that effect, maybe you should take a look at that side yourself. >Like I said. Cross posters ruin NGs... So why are you doing it? Do you really think the folks in sci.bio.paleontology and sci.anthropology.paleo are dumb enough to buy into Jehovah's Witness ideas on science? >> >Start tayloring your posts >> >in the appropriate NGs and then talk to me about nut fringes... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >By entering the appropriate NG with the appropriate reasoning to do so. I do. I told you where I post and why. >> >> > as some Internet vigil anti seeking to dominate and destroy! >> >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >juicy details; By the GB which dictates the course of a Witnesses life from start to >finish... Had The WTS followed biblical concepts properly in the first place, I wouldn't >even be here... That would be some of that nut fringe line varying... >> fundamentalism IS blind acceptance. > >It comes out to that... Yes... I thought putting others before myself, >learning to instill a value system and give my family direction I thought was >Bible based would help to cement a lasting relationship and help me appreciate what >wonders God would be so pleased with and shower blessings on me... Boy, was I >wrong! Give, give, give... That's all I did... In return, the only witness I have left is that of >watching body parts drop off; all that I ever had, wiped out and all that I ever was, >completely alien to me. Sounds like a lot of the brainwashing has worn off... >> >It's not what's taught in The Bible that's at question here. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >1800 other individuals that can't associate with the witness problem or really give a >rats *ss about it. Then you need to trim your address headers. I acknowledge that you're not the one who is likely guilty of the cross posting. >. Address something to this NG >only, and I'll be more able and willing to answer you without inciting >withdrawl. I would not be welcome in your NG, and if you don't want your piety rained on or the Bible dissed, you probably wouldn't want to frequent mine. ## An honest god is the noblest work of man.... > >Hi everyone, > >I can recommend the book "What Darwin Didn't Know" by Geoffrey Simmons, M.D. [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > ## The mind of the Creationist is like concrete: Mixed up and set. =============================== You can't reason with, or educate a creationist. When you point these facts out to them, they'll say all these things happened when mankind "fell" due to Eve's being tricked and beguiled by the talking serpent. That we became "imperfect" at that time. It's like trying to reason with the mentally ill or a totally inebriated person. It's my understanding that cavies (guinea pigs) are unable to produce their own Vitamin C either. Mona Lisa... "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." ~ Carl Sagan ~ ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* >It's my understanding that cavies (guinea pigs) are unable to produce their >own Vitamin C either. I covered that. " There are a few species like guinea pigs that also cannot make their own vitamin C, but with them it's a different gene that is inoperative. With humans and apes it's the same gene." ## Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage. > >It's my understanding that cavies (guinea pigs) are unable to produce their > >own Vitamin C either. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > ## Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage. And if Iturn off my circuit breaker, there is no electricity in my house. point is? >> " There are a few species like guinea pigs that also cannot make their >> own vitamin C, but with them it's a different gene that is >> inoperative. With humans and apes it's the same gene." >And if Iturn off my circuit breaker, there is no electricity in my house. > >point is? That a defective gene, shared in common, indicates ancestry. So does an almost identical chromosome pattern. ## CULTURE: Anything we do that monkeys don't. > =============================== > You can't reason with, or educate a creationist. When you point these facts > out to them, they'll say all these things happened when mankind "fell" due > to Eve's being tricked and beguiled by the talking serpent. That we became > "imperfect" at that time. It's like trying to reason with the mentally ill > or a totally inebriated person. Do you think the black arts have any supernatural powers? > It's my understanding that cavies (guinea pigs) are unable to produce their > own Vitamin C either. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ~ Carl Sagan ~ > ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message