who came first; God or man?

[MsTerry]

Braggy,

YOU are special to me, that's why I call you Jeffi


Many things will remain a mystery as long as you cling to your ignorance religiously.

I know you are ThePhiant because you get some kind of pleasure out of making fun of people's names. That's a rare perversion. The writing styles are identical, except that I must say, you seem to be taking more time and giving more thought to your posts. I appreciate that. Your spelling is improving as is your ability to complete a thought in a sentence. Bravo!

It's Jeffy, by the way, with a "y." My mother and some of my lovers have referred to me that way. I take as a sign of affection.

-Jeff

[MsTerry]

Jeffi,

I keep hoping for you, obviously, but it's a small hope.
Now YOU are sounding like the Willie, are you reincarnated?

[Frederick M. Dolan]

Sure it's controversial -- like all translations of the Biblical texts. For just one example of an alternative translation, consult the version of the Jewish Publication Society. And, as I already pointed out, there's good reason to believe that in characterizing himself as jealous, God was punning on a root meaning of Yahweh, which would mean that the line you're pointing to is in fact evidence for the primacy of what the tradition has taken to be the divine name, i.e. Yahweh.

The choice isn't between "I am that I am" and "jealous." In Exodus God also gives his name as YWYH. So the question is whether God's naming himself Yahweh is any less clear than his characterization of himself later on as jealous. I think not. However, I'm not sure what's at stake here. If the point is simply that the Jewish God is not transcendental but rather involved, engaged, motivated by strong feelings, etc., I couldn't agree more!


Jealous is not a controversial translation. Check any Bible translation. Check out the opinions in The Book of J by Harold Bloom and David Rosenberg. These folks are true Bible scholars, recognized world wide. They say "Jealous."

Exodus 34 and Ezekiel 39 could not be more clear. "I yam wat I yam." is Popeye talk. "The Lord" is speaking in a riddle. That's not a name but an intellectual challenge.

As further evidence I offer "The First Commandment."
Any comments on the translation of that one? Why was it first?

-Jeff

[theindependenteye]

>Does anyone know how black people became black? WE are all a little black no matter what anyone thinks. The dark skin comes from the iodine in the fish from the ocean. So if you have even eaten fish you are atleast a tad bit black eh?

My ancestors were all black from staying out late at night. But then they migrated to England and licked the chalk on the white cliffs of Dover.

Cheers—
Conrad

[MsTerry]

[QUOTE]
A bat does not need to be propelled to fly. At least, not our local ones. A flying fish is not even close to evolving into a bird.

why don't you put a bat on the ground and see how it can't take off.
it needs to drop itself to fly

[MsTerry]

I was exposed to this being the name of God, while I was in India visiting Father Bede. India has as you probably know a longer history with "Jesus" and God than the West.
John was not Greek but used this language to further his beliefs. Just as people nowadays use English to communicate intenationally
Most likely John spoke it or wrote in his native tongue or dialect, after which it got translated in Latin (the rulers at the time) and from there on translated into Greek.
Even if it skipped one step, alot of nuances can get lost in translation as you probably are more aware of than anyone else on board.


No, "logos" doesn't mean sheer sound. It means intelligible speech. John is in Greek, and uses "Theos" to refer to God. "Theos" has a range of meanings in ancient Greek, and just what John meant by it is of course massively subject to dispute, but "unspeakable" is not a particularly good candidate.

[Kermit1941]

Jealous is not a controversial translation.


As further evidence I offer "The First Commandment."
Any comments on the translation of that one? Why was it first?

-Jeff


I had always ( perhaps naively ) assumed that the first commandment,

( sometimes translated as "Thou shalt have no gods before me". )

meant that

You should worship this God ( " I am" or " I am that I am" or " I am what I am " )

exclusively. No other god should be placed at a higher level.

Are you suggesting that
because God is jealous of other potential gods that jealous is a proper descriptive name?

[Frederick M. Dolan]

I was exposed to this being the name of God, while I was in India visiting Father Bede. India has as you probably know a longer history with "Jesus" and God than the West.
John was not Greek but used this language to further his beliefs. Just as people nowadays use English to communicate intenationally
Most likely John spoke it or wrote in his native tongue or dialect, after which it got translated in Latin (the rulers at the time) and from there on translated into Greek.
Even if it skipped one step, alot of nuances can get lost in translation as you probably are more aware of than anyone else on board.

Since nobody knows who wrote John, it's hard to say anything about what language its author spoke.

[Braggi]

Sure it's controversial -- like all translations of the Biblical texts. For just one example of an alternative translation, consult the version of the Jewish Publication Society. ...

OK, Fred, please check before sending me off. Did you look at their translation? Here it is:

"13 But ye shall break down their altars, and dash in pieces their pillars, and ye shall cut down their Asherim. 14 For thou shalt bow down to no other god; for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous p. 108 God;..."

Isn't that what I posted? I'm confused. Here's the link so you can read the whole book. https://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/jps/exo034.htm

Note how nasty the 13th verse is. That's not unique in the Holy Bible. That God gets particularly bad on the 13th verse sometimes. (Check out the Song of Sophia.) For those who don't know, Asherim are wooden carvings, often lifesize, of The Goddess. Sadly, since they were made of wood none survive. Lots of hand held clay ones exist, however. You can even purchase newly made ones, supposedly formed in original ancient molds. A lot of the originals are on display in the basement of the Louvre, although when I was there the label on it exposed the total ignorance of the Louvre as to what they actually were.


... And, as I already pointed out, there's good reason to believe that in characterizing himself as jealous, God was punning on a root meaning of Yahweh, which would mean that the line you're pointing to is in fact evidence for the primacy of what the tradition has taken to be the divine name, i.e. Yahweh. ...


Now, how do you know that God wasn't defining the word YHWH to mean Jealous? He's God right? He can invent any word He wants and then define it. I have offered two clear statements from the Guy Himself and you're arguing with me. Amazing. That means you're arguing with Him.



... The choice isn't between "I am that I am" and "jealous." In Exodus God also gives his name as YWYH. So the question is whether God's naming himself Yahweh is any less clear than his characterization of himself later on as jealous. I think not. However, I'm not sure what's at stake here. If the point is simply that the Jewish God is not transcendental but rather involved, engaged, motivated by strong feelings, etc., I couldn't agree more!

There is a point here, but I'm not sure you're ready to grasp it. It's a lot bigger than the Name but it will take a very long story to explain it all. A number of stories.

I think I know why the Bible was written, and it wasn't to save sinners. God's name plays a significant part in that.

I just deleted what I was writing again. I'm impressed with how I'm hesitating in this thread. Sometimes the better part of Wisdom is keeping one's (virtual) mouth shut.

-Jeff

[Braggi]

...
Are you suggesting that
because God is jealous of other potential gods that jealous is a proper descriptive name?

Absolutely.

Now, one must ask oneself, why would an all powerful, almighty, one and only deity need to protect His unique position? There would be no other Gods, right? So that commandment only makes sense if other Gods existed and Jealous was, er, jealous of them.

Why, we must ask ourselves, would He be Jealous?

-Jeff

[Braggi]

[quote=Braggi;47564]

why don't you put a bat on the ground and see how it can't take off.
it needs to drop itself to fly

Bats need to drink water every night. Their homes are always within a short distance of a body of water. How do they get a drink if they can't take off afterward?

By the way, bats are the only creatures known to have evolved from different ancestor animals. There are at least five distinct ancestor species. The bats we have around here share a common ancestor with mice. There are fruit bats that share common ancestors with dogs.

You could learn a lot about evolution studying bats.

-Jeff

[MsTerry]

[Many things will remain a mystery as long as you cling to your ignorance religiously
you sure have a way with words to make someone feel comfortable.


I know you are ThePhiant because you get some kind of pleasure out of making fun of people's names. That's a rare perversion. The writing styles are identical, except that I must say, you seem to be taking more time and giving more thought to your posts. I appreciate that. Your spelling is improving as is your ability to complete a thought in a sentence. Bravo!
I used Jeffi instead of Jeffy because you send me an email in private telling ME that my name couldn't be Terry but should be Teri or Terri. You should have told my parents that way back then.
Since you feel you have such superior knowledge over someone like me, explain this to me; How come MsTerry used a direct link to The Phiant(a post under The Phiant's moniker) if the goal was to be a different person with a different name than The Phiant?
Even a teenager could figure that one out.



It's Jeffy, by the way, with a "y." My mother and some of my lovers have referred to me that way. I take as a sign of affection.

-Jeff

my last name starts with a P, so you may call me TP. LOL

[Frederick M. Dolan]

OK, Fred, please check before sending me off. Did you look at their translation? Here it is:

"13 But ye shall break down their altars, and dash in pieces their pillars, and ye shall cut down their Asherim. 14 For thou shalt bow down to no other god; for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous p. 108 God;..."

Isn't that what I posted? I'm confused. Here's the link so you can read the whole book. https://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/jps/exo034.htm

You're referring to a 1917 translation! I'm referring to the current version. The web is a great thing, but in some cases it may still be necessary to visit a library.


Note how nasty the 13th verse is. That's not unique in the Holy Bible. That God gets particularly bad on the 13th verse sometimes. (Check out the Song of Sophia.) For those who don't know, Asherim are wooden carvings, often lifesize, of The Goddess. Sadly, since they were made of wood none survive. Lots of hand held clay ones exist, however. You can even purchase newly made ones, supposedly formed in original ancient molds. A lot of the originals are on display in the basement of the Louvre, although when I was there the label on it exposed the total ignorance of the Louvre as to what they actually were.

To be clear, I don't dispute that the Old Testament God was nasty. Jung's "Answer to Job" makes the case as definitively as one could wish. I dispute only the claim that God is speaking more clearly in the passages you quote than in those where he names himself Yahweh. I'm still waiting to hear what is at stake in the question of which is the more clear.


Now, how do you know that God wasn't defining the word YHWH to mean Jealous?

Answering this question involves separating the various sources of the Biblical text, figuring out which are oldest, etc. -- a monumental task that's been going on for a few hundred years now.


There is a point here, but I'm not sure you're ready to grasp it. It's a lot bigger than the Name but it will take a very long story to explain it all. A number of stories.

I think I know why the Bible was written, and it wasn't to save sinners. God's name plays a significant part in that.

I just deleted what I was writing again. I'm impressed with how I'm hesitating in this thread. Sometimes the better part of Wisdom is keeping one's (virtual) mouth shut.

-Jeff

There are lots of theories about who wrote the various parts of the Bible and why. If you have something to add to them, I for one wish you would state it! You've already failed to defend your claim that God's naming himself as "jealous" is somehow clearer than his naming himself "Yahweh," so let's let that go. If clarity and certainty aren't the issue, what is??

[Frederick M. Dolan]

Absolutely.

Now, one must ask oneself, why would an all powerful, almighty, one and only deity need to protect His unique position? There would be no other Gods, right? So that commandment only makes sense if other Gods existed and Jealous was, er, jealous of them.

Why, we must ask ourselves, would He be Jealous?

-Jeff

Dozens of hypotheses have been advanced to explain this. For example, Gnostics held that the Biblical god was an impostor, and that his jealousy was an expression of anxiety about his attempt to usurp the true god. If you agree with this or with another of the interpretations that have been advanced to explain God's characterization of himself as jealous, or if you have something new to suggest, why don't you just say so?

[Kermit1941]

Quote:
Braggi wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=47639#post47639)
Absolutely.

Now, one must ask oneself, why would an all powerful, almighty, one and only deity need to protect His unique position? There would be no other Gods, right? So that commandment only makes sense if other Gods existed and Jealous was, er, jealous of them.

Why, we must ask ourselves, would He be Jealous?

-Jeff
[/quote]



Dozens of hypotheses have been advanced to explain this. For example, Gnostics held that the Biblical god was an impostor, and that his jealousy was an expression of anxiety about his attempt to usurp the true god. If you agree with this or with another of the interpretations that have been advanced to explain God's characterization of himself as jealous, or if you have something new to suggest, why don't you just say so?



When, as a teenager, I first read the ten commandments
I pondered this same question.
Why would an almighty God worry about whether or not anyone worshiped him?

I hypothesized that the first of the ten commandments was invented
by the religious leaders who were jealous of the rival religions
and made this commandment in hopes of leading them away from the
other religious practices.

In fact I noticed that the first five commandments have more to do with
worship of God than of ethical behavior.

I have my own version of the ten commandments.


The Ten Suggestions.

1) You should be kind to everyone, even those who are unkind
to you, for people tend to repay kindness with kindness and
unkindness with unkindness.

2) Be on guard against so called ethical rules that lead to
unkind actions.

3) Never rationalize an unkind act by thinking that the act
was really an indirect kindness.

4) Be ever ready to do good deeds for friends and associates.

5) Be ever ready to listen to counsel from friends and associates,
for however wise you are, you don't know everything.

6) Avoid harming anyone.

7) Fulfill your promises.

8) Earn everything you wish to have.

9) Don't lie.

10) Don't wish to have that which belongs to someone else.


</pre>

[MsTerry]

Since neither one of you two has a problem with the existence of GOD, only with how to address god, it can not be that great of a jump to see that creationism and evolution are intertwined and inseperable,


You're referring to a 1917 translation! I'm referring to the current version. The web is a great thing, but in some cases it may still be necessary to visit a library.



To be clear, I don't dispute that the Old Testament God was nasty. Jung's "Answer to Job" makes the case as definitively as one could wish. I dispute only the claim that God is speaking more clearly in the passages you quote than in those where he names himself Yahweh. I'm still waiting to hear what is at stake in the question of which is the more clear.



Answering this question involves separating the various sources of the Biblical text, figuring out which are oldest, etc. -- a monumental task that's been going on for a few hundred years now.



There are lots of theories about who wrote the various parts of the Bible and why. If you have something to add to them, I for one wish you would state it! You've already failed to defend your claim that God's naming himself as "jealous" is somehow clearer than his naming himself "Yahweh," so let's let that go. If clarity and certainty aren't the issue, what is??

[Kermit1941]

Since neither one of you two has a problem with the existence of GOD, only with how to address god, it can not be that great of a jump to see that creationism and evolution are intertwined and inseperable,



:)

Ms Terry, your statement suggests that you've let your wishful thinking cloud your judgment.


Rather than attempt to persuade any of us to accept the entire dogma of Creationism, I suggest you pick any particular claim of Creationism and let us debate that one claim with you.

Kermit < [email protected] >

[mykil]

I conquer with Miss Terry. No one here is debunking god. Everyone has been discussing the bible and the Jewish Kieran and this is all. IT seems that no one even cares whose god is being discussed; they all are assuming god is real. This is kinda entertaining in this aspect.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
As a recovering Christian and a believer in my own true god, I like seeing others speak their own proclamations toward their own true god. Kinda enlightens me as to exactly where on this earth all are coming from. I have read the bible cover to cover when I was younger. I think I got free candy and cookies to go the distance. I would never even attempt on doing this again for it was the worst written piece of … on this gods green earth. I was jealous of the other children for they had the Childs version of the big book while I had to suffer through with the King James Version I got as a hand me down. Talk about dirt poor when you will do anything for a cookie! But all in all I do believe in my god. I am a believer; I think everyone believes in something. Now as far as that is concerned MY GOD grew with me personally hand in hand. I have made my god up in my head and Have stuck to the boundaries of thou shall not kill [although on occasion I wish to take that one back], and all the basic Ten Commandments, the Buddhism moral precepts are kinda me except for the no sex, maybe someday when I am way over eighty I might be willing to go that distance!<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
The discussion of god in general is boring! The discussion of the Jewish Kieran is Boring! Why do you guyz suffer so? Why discuss something that is less than entertaining? Why can’t anyone of you use your own heads and come up with an answer that you think is pleasing and the truth without quoting references from the big books or using someone else’s text from thousands of years ago? I really believe you are ALL smarter than this.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>

:)

Ms Terry, your statement suggests that you've let your wishful thinking cloud your judgment.


Rather than attempt to persuade any of us to accept the entire dogma of Creationism, I suggest you pick any particular claim of Creationism and let us debate that one claim with you.

Kermit < [email protected] >

[MsTerry]

Kermit,

I have enjoyed your contributions, but I'm surprised to hear you ask for something to debate. I've brought up several times the notion that there seems to be a need for a source of intelligence to be able to figure out the next steps of evolution.
If I have fins and have a need to manifest limbs with claws to crawl, I need to have a source of intelligence to figure this out. Since claws have not been manifested before, this will need some creative thinking.
Does this come from the inside or from the outside?


:)

Ms Terry, your statement suggests that you've let your wishful thinking cloud your judgment.


Rather than attempt to persuade any of us to accept the entire dogma of Creationism, I suggest you pick any particular claim of Creationism and let us debate that one claim with you.

Kermit < [email protected] >

[MsTerry]

So Frederick after you have proven that your Biblical knowledge is grand enough to make a Jehovah's witness shiver, I am still puzzled as to why you would dismiss the Bible as a work of imagination. If you had called it a work of philosophy or a book of wisdom, I could understand that. But what are your real thoughts on that?


Dozens of hypotheses have been advanced to explain this. For example, Gnostics held that the Biblical god was an impostor, and that his jealousy was an expression of anxiety about his attempt to usurp the true god. If you agree with this or with another of the interpretations that have been advanced to explain God's characterization of himself as jealous, or if you have something new to suggest, why don't you just say so?

w

[Braggi]

... Why can’t anyone of you use your own heads and come up with an answer that you think is pleasing and the truth without quoting references from the big books or using someone else’s text from thousands of years ago? I really believe you are ALL smarter than this.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>


I just finished reading "The Subtle Knife," which is part two of the trilogy by Philip Pullman, the first of which is "The Golden Compass." Please go see The Golden Compass if you can still find it in the theaters. The movie is great to see. The book is, as you might expect, much better. The Subtle Knife is way better than the first book. Can hardly wait to get into the The Amber Spyglass. God is much discussed in these books.

I agree, Mykil, I haven't taken the time to describe my vision of "God." Below I'll paste in something I wrote nearly 20 years ago. It still holds up pretty well for me. I didn't have a title back then, perhaps now I would introduce the piece as: God is Love.


My religion is the oldest and most broadly distributed on the Earth. I am a Pagan and so were YOUR ancestors. Paganism is the religion of everyone's ancestors. They ALL worshipped the Goddess in one form or another.
All reality is the storehouse of Wisdom in Paganism. There is no single book of truth that excludes the truths from other sources. There is no dogma to defend, because every scientific or personal discovery increases the body of Wisdom that is honored in a scientific culture. No discovery threatens a Pagan teaching, because Paganism seeks Truth and Wisdom, and if a teaching is wrong because of lack of knowledge, it is changed, just as all reality is constantly changing.
My religion views the entire cosmos as alive, both as a whole and in all of its parts. We are all a part of It, from our deepest, most primal emotion to our greatest aspirations and imaginings, from the simplest one celled plants and animals, to the peaks of the evolutionary spirals, from water, rock and dust to suns and galaxies. The Goddess is everywhere and is everything and is everybody.
Paganism is about polarity. Not the polarity of absolute good vs. absolute evil, but the polarity of balance. Nothing in reality is absolute. Polarity sets reality in motion. From the simplest atom, Hydrogen, polarity creates the reality we know. A proton encircled by an electron, Plus and Minus, Positive and Negative. Forces that are not equal, yet are balanced. Forces that each have their own value, their own power, yet are unstable or insignificant without the balancing force. In more complex reality, polarity holds larger atoms and molecules together, crystals and polymers, DNA and protoplasm. One celled animals and colonies, simple plants, all seeking balance and thriving when they accomplish it. Always there is polarity, and the healthiest colonies are those who have found balance and who honor the polarity that stimulates Life.
Sexuality is the primary Divine tool for creating increased complexity, and the constantly changing Sacred Scrolls of DNA store the bounty. Sexual polarity is honored and respected. Looking wider, we find planets and moons, solar systems, constellations and galaxies, all in balance, gravitational and centrifugal forces pulling and attracting, polarity on the largest scale we can imagine, the fabric of macro-reality. Beyond that are the realms of spirit and fantasy. The imagined worlds and the Spirit Beings. Why would polarity end here? Is God not a manifestation of polarity? My religion recognizes Goddess and God. The Divine reflects reality, "as above, so below."

-Jeff

[Frederick M. Dolan]

So Frederick after you have proven that your Biblical knowledge is grand enough to make a Jehovah's witness shiver, I am still puzzled as to why you would dismiss the Bible as a work of imagination. If you had called it a work of philosophy or a book of wisdom, I could understand that. But what are your real thoughts on that?



w

In calling the Bible an imaginative work, my intention wasn't at all dismissive. I don't think there's anything more important than imagination and imaginative works. If you want to call it philosophy or wisdom that's fine with me too.

[Braggi]

Jeffi,
Now YOU are sounding like the Willie, are you reincarnated?

No, no. You saw both me and Willie at the party in the park, remember? We're not the same person. I was the one in the pants you liked and the leather hat.

And you're right, I should quit giving you a bad time.
I'll try to be a little more serious.

-Jeff

[Frederick M. Dolan]

I conquer with Miss Terry. No one here is debunking god. Everyone has been discussing the bible and the Jewish Kieran and this is all. IT seems that no one even cares whose god is being discussed; they all are assuming god is real. This is kinda entertaining in this aspect.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
As a recovering Christian and a believer in my own true god, I like seeing others speak their own proclamations toward their own true god. Kinda enlightens me as to exactly where on this earth all are coming from. I have read the bible cover to cover when I was younger. I think I got free candy and cookies to go the distance. I would never even attempt on doing this again for it was the worst written piece of … on this gods green earth. I was jealous of the other children for they had the Childs version of the big book while I had to suffer through with the King James Version I got as a hand me down. Talk about dirt poor when you will do anything for a cookie! But all in all I do believe in my god. I am a believer; I think everyone believes in something. Now as far as that is concerned MY GOD grew with me personally hand in hand. I have made my god up in my head and Have stuck to the boundaries of thou shall not kill [although on occasion I wish to take that one back], and all the basic Ten Commandments, the Buddhism moral precepts are kinda me except for the no sex, maybe someday when I am way over eighty I might be willing to go that distance!<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
The discussion of god in general is boring! The discussion of the Jewish Kieran is Boring! Why do you guyz suffer so? Why discuss something that is less than entertaining? Why can’t anyone of you use your own heads and come up with an answer that you think is pleasing and the truth without quoting references from the big books or using someone else’s text from thousands of years ago? I really believe you are ALL smarter than this.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>

For my own part, studying the Bible is necessary to understand who we are as a civilization. The Greeks, Jews, and Christians made us who we are and it's important to understand them. I do take your point though that this isn't the same as or necessarily conducive to personal spiritual growth.

[Braggi]

In calling the Bible an imaginative work, my intention wasn't at all dismissive. I don't think there's anything more important than imagination and imaginative works. If you want to call it philosophy or wisdom that's fine with me too.

The Bible consists of writings from many sources. Imagination is certainly one of them. There are many similarities to myths from older cultures and other cultures that lived in the same areas the Hebrews roamed around in. So plagiarism or imagination, there are a lot of creative writings in there. Remember they were nomads for a long time and visited many places where they did a lot of mingling with the local people (assuming those stories from the Holy Bible are true). It was easy enough for them to pick up myths and legends and modify them for their own uses.

-Jeff

[Kermit1941]

Kermit,

I have enjoyed your contributions, but I'm surprised to hear you ask for something to debate. I've brought up several times the notion that there seems to be a need for a source of intelligence to be able to figure out the next steps of evolution.
If I have fins and have a need to manifest limbs with claws to crawl, I need to have a source of intelligence to figure this out. Since claws have not been manifested before, this will need some creative thinking.
Does this come from the inside or from the outside?



Ah. Good. You have stated clearly what is your concern.

You imagine that evolution from one form to a quite different form requires an intelligence to plan the steps of the evolution.

I do not believe such intelligent planning is required.


Let's consider the evolution of claws from fins.

Suppose we jump to a period of time when some fish have evolved into
amphibians and even almost reptiles.

We will focus our attention on a species that has not yet developed claws.

Let's call our species " Amps"

Not all amps have fins exactly alike.
Some are slightly more clawlike than the average.

Those that are slightly more clawlike will have an advantage over their peers.

This advantage extends to more likely having offspring.

The next generation has, on the average, slightly more clawlike fins .

This process continues for generation after generation until all
individual Amps have claws.

No additional intelligent designer is required.

If you insist on an intelligence to guide evolution, then
place that intelligence in the
logical principles of evolution
such as
"Those individuals better fitted to their environment are more
likely to produce offspring like themselves, than are those individuals not
so fitted",

and

"No two individuals are exactly alike [ Not even identical twins ] "

Also there are many other principles that apply to speed evolution,
but I should not mention them here because this is not a discussion
at that level of detail.


I suggest that you consider that God made the universe in such a way
that without interference from Him, creatures would evolve following
the logical rules which we have found to guide evolution.


Kermit Rose < [email protected] >

[MsTerry]

I don't remember having the pleasure of meeting either one of you. A guy with a leather hat would definitely catch my attention.


No, no. You saw both me and Willie at the party in the park, remember? We're not the same person. I was the one in the pants you liked and the leather hat.

And you're right, I should quit giving you a bad time.
I'll try to be a little more serious.

-Jeff

[MsTerry]

Let's consider the evolution of claws from fins.
Suppose we jump to a period of time when some fish have evolved into
amphibians and even almost reptiles.
Kermit Rose < [email protected] >


Kermit, you point exactly to the problem.
YOU WANT TO SKIP A FEW STEPS!!! for the convenience of proving your point!
If a fish starts using its fins to move along mud or sand or rocks, sooner rather than later, it will loose its fins all together. They aren't designed for that purpose. The species of fish will as a consequence die off. It doesn't have a few thousand years to sit and wait to evolve into amphibians.

[Kermit1941]

Kermit Rose < [email protected] >


Kermit, you point exactly to the problem.
YOU WANT TO SKIP A FEW STEPS!!! for the convenience of proving your point!
If a fish starts using its fins to move along mud or sand or rocks, sooner rather than later, it will loose its fins all together. They aren't designed for that purpose. The species of fish will as a consequence die off. It doesn't have a few thousand years to sit and wait to evolve into amphibians.



I had presumed that the Amps fish ancestors would not have used their fins
primarily for digging.

Catfish [ and many other fish ] are a counter example to your claim that fish that use their fins to move along mud or sand will eventually lose their fins.


And it would be much much longer than a few thousand years for fish to evolve into amphibians.

As I woke up this morning I found my self thinking of a general reply to you.

"If you wish to see God in nature, don't use someone else's painting of God to anticipate nature. First look closely at nature to see what God really looks like."

Kermit Rose < [email protected] >

[mykil]

Claws to fins, hmmm; get real! LOL! The only logical explanation for the little fishes to come up out of the depths has to be the tide, and nothing else! Sooner or latter a few species close to the shore line where on dry land due to the tide. Pretty much all of our evolution was caused by the tide at that point in time. Not that the fin to claw was irrelevant, it is just you need to understand how it all happens and then you might get your theories correct and not lead anyone astray. The evolution from water to land was as natural as it is going to be when we get around to evolving past this earth and are free to roam around our galaxy as whatever form on life will have us!!!





I had presumed that the Amps fish ancestors would not have used their fins
primarily for digging.

Catfish [ and many other fish ] are a counter example to your claim that fish that use their fins to move along mud or sand will eventually lose their fins.


And it would be much much longer than a few thousand years for fish to evolve into amphibians.

As I woke up this morning I found my self thinking of a general reply to you.

"If you wish to see God in nature, don't use someone else's painting of God to anticipate nature. First look closely at nature to see what God really looks like."

Kermit Rose < [email protected] >

[TayanaGirl37]

Spice for the pot...

What's the difference between "and God said" and the big bang? For me, not much! Neither can be proven or reproduced so either takes a measure of "faith" to accept.

Many things considered "science" frequently behave no differently when realized or examined than religion. Studies are just numbers, interpreted by a created system.

At what point does cohesive, effective randomness become evidence of some intelligence with a level of intent? (Choose for yourself who/what that force is and the level of intent involved as far as I'm concered. What I wonder about is absolute chaos as the source for the incredible depth of order, repetition and consistency evidence in our world apart from any force or intelligence. Something expanded usually creates more of that thing, not the inversion of it as far as I can tell.)

Darwin's research completely killed the validity of that done by and postulated by Lamont. And now, we have epigentics (yeah, I'm still interested in this one!) that either conflict with Darwin and support Lamont OR is a bridge between the two.

Last, not least, but definitely my favorite: If Pavlov had attempted his experiements on cats, the basis of human pyschology would be completely different!

Enjoy....
Heidi

[MsTerry]

"If you wish to see God in nature, don't use someone else's painting of God to anticipate nature. First look closely at nature to see what God really looks like."

Kermit Rose < [email protected] >

I couldn't have said it better myself, Kermit, so I am gonna quit while I am ahead.

[Valley Oak]

God has spoken.

(read my 'user title')

[MsTerry]

Did I miss something?


God has spoken.

(read my 'user title')

[Frederick M. Dolan]

Spice for the pot...

What's the difference between "and God said" and the big bang? For me, not much! Neither can be proven or reproduced so either takes a measure of "faith" to accept.

Many things considered "science" frequently behave no differently when realized or examined than religion. Studies are just numbers, interpreted by a created system.

At what point does cohesive, effective randomness become evidence of some intelligence with a level of intent? (Choose for yourself who/what that force is and the level of intent involved as far as I'm concered. What I wonder about is absolute chaos as the source for the incredible depth of order, repetition and consistency evidence in our world apart from any force or intelligence. Something expanded usually creates more of that thing, not the inversion of it as far as I can tell.)

Darwin's research completely killed the validity of that done by and postulated by Lamont. And now, we have epigentics (yeah, I'm still interested in this one!) that either conflict with Darwin and support Lamont OR is a bridge between the two.

Last, not least, but definitely my favorite: If Pavlov had attempted his experiements on cats, the basis of human pyschology would be completely different!

Enjoy....
Heidi

For me, the difference between "and God said" and the Big Bang is that religion is an expression of one's emotional, imaginative, and intuitive relationship to the human condition and its mysteries whereas science attempts not to express an attitude but to come up with an explanation that makes the best fit possible with whatever is the current standard in the relevant fields. I realize there are Christians who are committed to the idea that Genesis is a factual account of the beginnings of the universe, but in the larger spectrum of religious feeling and belief that is a pretty unusual position. Genesis is an expression of the idea that our being here has a purpose. Christians who are uneasy with evolution aren't really bothered by the science. They are disturbed by the larger idea that that the phenomenon of conscious human existence is purposeless, that human life is a mere accident. Any reflective person would be challenged by this idea -- Darwin himself was. But the problem won't be resolved by proving one fact as opposed to another.

[Sonomamark]

You know, I'm late to this, but I have to wonder why this thread has devolved to quibbling over the discredited, internally inconsistent, patently contrary to factual truth "Bible".

Who cares about the translation of this ridiculous and meaningless document? I certainly don't. There are only three choices in relation to it: 1) Reject it out of hand as irrational and demonstrably false; 2) Rationalize its inadequacies as "metaphor" and cling to some "core meaning" divined from it; or 3) Subscribe wholesale to its irrationality and become a fundamentalist.

I'll take #1, thank you.

As to the thread topic, well, presuming the deity is masculine (given the linguistic form), odds are good it comes first. Though this appears to be a homosexual encounter (god v. "man"), so...anyone's guess.



SM


Absolutely.

Now, one must ask oneself, why would an all powerful, almighty, one and only deity need to protect His unique position? There would be no other Gods, right? So that commandment only makes sense if other Gods existed and Jealous was, er, jealous of them.

Why, we must ask ourselves, would He be Jealous?

-Jeff

[Braggi]

...
Who cares about the translation of this ridiculous and meaningless document? ...

Ridiculous? Many would agree. Meaningless? Not. Very meaningful. The adherents to the teachings in this collection of facts and fantasy and the offshoot documents are quickly destroying the ability of the Earth to remain fertile. I always have to make a sickly chuckle when I hear a his-storian call older, more mature religions "primitive fertility cults." Primitive? A simplistic monotheistic religion is more evolved? Hardly. And "fertility?" Yes. So the monotheistic religions, having only one sex, are sterile. So, advanced sterility cults? They are killing us.

They are destroying the Earth as we know it and perhaps will poison the biosphere to the point where all life will fail. Certainly all human life unless huge changes are undertaken.

So talking about it is useful. Comparing the truth with the lies is useful. Ferreting out the intentions of the authors is useful. It's a tricky game when the intended audience is "believers." That's one reason I'm attempting, with only minimal success, to tread softly.

-Jeff

[shellebelle]

I agree and they have a solid past in it as well. Ever wonder why you wear clothes, hmm hmmm, you were "civilized" congratulations! Thats just the start but that wasn't necessarily the intent of the original messengers.


Ridiculous? Many would agree. Meaningless? Not. Very meaningful. The adherents to the teachings in this collection of facts and fantasy and the offshoot documents are quickly destroying the ability of the Earth to remain fertile. I always have to make a sickly chuckle when I hear a his-storian call older, more mature religions "primitive fertility cults." Primitive? A simplistic monotheistic religion is more evolved? Hardly. And "fertility?" Yes. So the monotheistic religions, having only one sex, are sterile. So, advanced sterility cults? They are killing us.

They are destroying the Earth as we know it and perhaps will poison the biosphere to the point where all life will fail. Certainly all human life unless huge changes are undertaken.

So talking about it is useful. Comparing the truth with the lies is useful. Ferreting out the intentions of the authors is useful. It's a tricky game when the intended audience is "believers." That's one reason I'm attempting, with only minimal success, to tread softly.

-Jeff

[Braggi]

Spice for the pot...

What's the difference between "and God said" and the big bang? For me, not much! Neither can be proven or reproduced so either takes a measure of "faith" to accept. ...


There is a mountain of difference and that mountain is called "evidence."

For "... and God said ..." there is none.

-Jeff

[shellebelle]

Hey Barry just posted that Mark Morford has found a pill that lets you feel God!! Check out his post https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?t=30946

Guess which drug is illegal?

One deadens nerves, barely works, has foul side effects. The other helps you feel God

[MsTerry]

They are destroying the Earth as we know it and perhaps will poison the biosphere to the point where all life will fail. Certainly all human life unless huge changes are undertaken.

.

-Jeff

hmmmm, That sounds like either the big bang theory or the evolution theory on amphetamines.
Jeff, do you suggest we stand in the way of Evolution?

[MsTerry]

This is quite a philosophical proposition!
Aren't you saying in the same breath that all writings are works of the imagination, since they originate in that subjective place called "the mind"?


In calling the Bible an imaginative work, my intention wasn't at all dismissive. I don't think there's anything more important than imagination and imaginative works. If you want to call it philosophy or wisdom that's fine with me too.

[Frederick M. Dolan]

This is quite a philosophical proposition!
Aren't you saying in the same breath that all writings are works of the imagination, since they originate in that subjective place called "the mind"?

Of course, all distinctively human activities involve imagination in one way or another. But the imagination that devises explanations in terms of natural laws is different from the imagination that creates narratives that tell us who we are and what we're doing here. A text like Genesis was never intended to be factually true in the sense that a journalist today would understand fact nor was it meant to offer an explanation in the sense that a scientist today would understand explanation. Genesis offers an interpretation of what it means to be. Some people regard it as divinely inspired, of course, but that's their business. Whatever the source it's clearly inspired in some way or another, so why quibble? If there's one thing Genesis isn't, however, it's a theory or hypothesis to be tested. Its authors and editors could not possibly have intended it as such for the very good reason that no such notions were known to them. The spectacle of scientists arguing against the Bible is as ridiculous as fundamentalists taking the Bible literally. Neither seems to have the slightest notion of what religious faith is.

[Braggi]

hmmmm, That sounds like either the big bang theory or the evolution theory on amphetamines.
Jeff, do you suggest we stand in the way of Evolution?

Do you suggest that we don't?

Your question is unclear.

Every time we exterminate another species we certainly stand in the way of evolution. By sterilizing habitats we continue to do that. And now we "need" ethanol!?!? From the Amazon!?!? Gods, save us from ourselves!

-Jeff

[Kermit1941]

This is quite a philosophical proposition!
Aren't you saying in the same breath that all writings are works of the imagination, since they originate in that subjective place called "the mind"?


Gee.

Before now I thought EVERYONE would have said exactly the same thing.

Of course. Everything we say or think has to be a work of the imagination.

How could it be otherwise?

Kermit Rose < [email protected] >

[alanora]

(Am attempting to address the vaguenesses which inspire wonder in me re Mykil's post. The parentheses are mine, 'cept for the one about sometimes wanting to commit murder. me)


I conquer with Miss Terry.(Do you and MT together vanquish something/one, or are you simply in agreement about parts of these ruminations?) No one here is debunking god. (They just want scientific proof) Everyone has been discussing the bible and the Jewish Kieran and this is all.(I am totally unfamiliar with this work despite years of enforced hebrew schooling) IT seems that no one even cares whose god is being discussed; they all are assuming god is real. This is kinda entertaining in this aspect.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
As a recovering Christian and a believer in my own true god, I like seeing others speak their own proclamations toward their own true god.(Beware those who do not walk heir talk) Kinda enlightens me as to exactly where on this earth all are coming from. I have read the bible cover to cover when I was younger. I think I got free candy and cookies to go the distance. I would never even attempt on doing this again for it was the worst written piece of … on this gods green earth. I was jealous of the other children for they had the Childs version of the big book while I had to suffer through with the King James Version I got as a hand me down. Talk about dirt poor when you will do anything for a cookie! But all in all I do believe in my god. I am a believer; I think everyone believes in something. Now as far as that is concerned MY GOD grew with me personally hand in hand. I have made my god up in my head and Have stuck to the boundaries of thou shall not kill [although on occasion I wish to take that one back], and all the basic Ten Commandments, the Buddhism moral precepts are kinda me except for the no sex, maybe someday when I am way over eighty I might be willing to go that distance!<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
The discussion of god in general is boring! (I find it fascinating and Kabbalah as been drawing me closer to real study)The discussion of the Jewish Kieran is Boring! Why do you guyz suffer so?(It gives me joy, not suffering and is the mystical traditions of a people over 5000 years. btw they have 72 names for G-d whose viewing in their original hebrew reacts with something already within to awaken higher frequency, evolution.) Why discuss something that is less than entertaining? (What would be more entertaining than the essence of life itself, besides commingling body parts?)Why can’t anyone of you use your own heads and come up with an answer that you think is pleasing and the truth without quoting references from the big books or using someone else’s text from thousands of years ago?(Am happy to share my cosmology, with no intention of persuasion, and suggest a perusal of the "keys of Enoch" which I have been reading on and off for thirty years, splains everything!) I really believe you are ALL smarter than this. ( Thanks for taking the journey with me......blessings. Mindy)<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>

[TayanaGirl37]

Interesting assumption: "But the problem won't be resolved by proving one fact as opposed to another" that disagreeing is a problem as opposed to an opportunity to examine, explore, and discover. I've always wondered why it's so essential for each of us to convince others that our perspective is the "right" one. I'm NOT saying I agree with destruction of the biosphere that some here are convinced is a direct fallout of Judeo-Christian perspectives (I personally vote more for plain apathy on the part of the average individual).


Yogic teaching I've found helpful: If you have a concept you have a conflict. Deciding, insisting any one thing is the only way it can be inherently sets up judgment and conflict. I see very little difference between territorial behavior and convincing. And I believe that part of what holds us back from evolving further are the deep-seated, typically unconscious behavior patterns that served us as lower species and have become the cage that imprisons us now. I wonder what we could become and accomplish if the Us/Them, Threat/Not threat grouping instincts really did reduce to the point where we developed to function as one planet, one people.

I'm all for discussion and hearing other's views, wanting them to hear mine. And I think fighting over the "rightness" of any of them absorbs energy we can invest better in other places.

Sat Nam,
Heidi

[MsTerry]

Jeff,

If you are a firm believer in evolution, and I think you are, it seems a little strange that you want to pick and choose what is good and bad evolution.
Do you know what the earth looked like before organism developed?
Maybe we are going back to that. Would that be bad?
Since the human race is the most destructive predator of all time, would the earth be better of without them?


Do you suggest that we don't?

Your question is unclear.

Every time we exterminate another species we certainly stand in the way of evolution. By sterilizing habitats we continue to do that. And now we "need" ethanol!?!? From the Amazon!?!? Gods, save us from ourselves!

-Jeff

[MsTerry]

now I understand why you were puzzled at my earlier accusations. I saw your view as narrower than it is and I stand corrected.


Of course, all distinctively human activities involve imagination in one way or another. But the imagination that devises explanations in terms of natural laws is different from the imagination that creates narratives that tell us who we are and what we're doing here. A text like Genesis was never intended to be factually true in the sense that a journalist today would understand fact nor was it meant to offer an explanation in the sense that a scientist today would understand explanation. Genesis offers an interpretation of what it means to be. Some people regard it as divinely inspired, of course, but that's their business. Whatever the source it's clearly inspired in some way or another, so why quibble? If there's one thing Genesis isn't, however, it's a theory or hypothesis to be tested. Its authors and editors could not possibly have intended it as such for the very good reason that no such notions were known to them. The spectacle of scientists arguing against the Bible is as ridiculous as fundamentalists taking the Bible literally. Neither seems to have the slightest notion of what religious faith is.

[MsTerry]

Frederick,

We have only discussed 2 theories so far; evolution and creationism.
What about the outside sources like meteorites?
We know that they have probable provided phosphorous as a source for growth.
What about the notion that they actually carried DNA or RNA as a source to get the gene pool started?


For me, the difference between "and God said" and the Big Bang is that religion is an expression of one's emotional, imaginative, and intuitive relationship to the human condition and its mysteries whereas science attempts not to express an attitude but to come up with an explanation that makes the best fit possible with whatever is the current standard in the relevant fields. I realize there are Christians who are committed to the idea that Genesis is a factual account of the beginnings of the universe, but in the larger spectrum of religious feeling and belief that is a pretty unusual position. Genesis is an expression of the idea that our being here has a purpose. Christians who are uneasy with evolution aren't really bothered by the science. They are disturbed by the larger idea that that the phenomenon of conscious human existence is purposeless, that human life is a mere accident. Any reflective person would be challenged by this idea -- Darwin himself was. But the problem won't be resolved by proving one fact as opposed to another.

[Frederick M. Dolan]

Frederick,

We have only discussed 2 theories so far; evolution and creationism.
What about the outside sources like meteorites?
We know that they have probable provided phosphorous as a source for growth.
What about the notion that they actually carried DNA or RNA as a source to get the gene pool started?

Evolution and creationism aren't two theories. They were not designed for the same purpose. Evolution is the hypothesis that complex structures evolved from simpler structures. It's a scientific theory. Creationism is an idea or image not a hypothesis. It expresses awe at the fact that there is something rather than nothing and hope that there is a purpose for their being something rather than nothing. The two ideas, evolution and creation, are not really comparable. Each belongs to a different language game, one about prediction, control, and explanation and the other about our emotional reaction to the human condition.

[Braggi]

Interesting assumption: "But the problem won't be resolved by proving one fact as opposed to another" that disagreeing is a problem as opposed to an opportunity to examine, explore, and discover. I've always wondered why it's so essential for each of us to convince others that our perspective is the "right" one. ...

Sat Nam,
Heidi


You know Heidi, I'm not sure what conversation you're sitting in on, but I haven't seen a lot of arguing or disagreeing. We're having a discussion, and a fairly gentle, mature one at that, considering it's on an online forum and discussing some pretty huge topics.

If you take issue with a statement, go ahead and say your piece. I think it's fine to state opinions and learn the opinions of others. If we all agreed the world would be a boring place indeed.

I think each of us has access to a slice of the Truth and no one understands the Whole Truth. That's one reason discussions like these are so valuable.

-Jeff

[Braggi]

You're referring to a 1917 translation! I'm referring to the current version. The web is a great thing, but in some cases it may still be necessary to visit a library.


Excuse me Frederick, but you made a statement that wasn't backed up by any quotes. I did a web search to find the quotes myself rather than badger you for them because I'm that kind of guy. I found a project that is currently underway by the organization you mentioned (to get that translation on the web) and then you give me grief because I haven't found the translation you MEANT even though you gave me no way to identify the translation, to find that quote nor the quote itself. You didn't give me the date of the quote. How was I supposed to know what you were talking about?


... You've already failed to defend your claim that God's naming himself as "jealous" is somehow clearer than his naming himself "Yahweh," so let's let that go. If clarity and certainty aren't the issue, what is??

I think the name Jealous is useful while the other things stated as names are not useful. I supported my claim with the actual quotes and since there are more than one citation with the identical name it is supported by redundancy You can find nearly identical translations in almost any Bible translation you choose to read. If you have an alternative one, by all means, share it. If you have a clear name, by all means share it. BTW, Yahweh appears nowhere in ancient Hebrew texts. There are no vowels in ancient Hebrew and the addition of those vowels, while largely agreed upon by scholars, has not been proven as far as I know. The word translated to Jealous is pretty clear and agreed upon. If you disagree, I welcome evidence but the scholars I have read use the term Jealous.

And yes, it is meaningful to establish that for further discussion or at least to understand why one scholar or group of scholars would differ from their peers.

-Jeff

[Frederick M. Dolan]

Excuse me Frederick, but you made a statement that wasn't backed up by any quotes. I did a web search to find the quotes myself rather than badger you for them because I'm that kind of guy. I found a project that is currently underway by the organization you mentioned (to get that translation on the web) and then you give me grief because I haven't found the translation you MEANT even though you gave me no way to identify the translation, to find that quote nor the quote itself. You didn't give me the date of the quote. How was I supposed to know what you were talking about?

You tried to "refute" my claim by citing something you found on the web that seemed to imply that my claim was inaccurate. I pointed out that you were mistaken and that your source was out-dated. End of story.


I think the name Jealous is useful while the other things stated as names are not useful. I supported my claim with the actual quotes and since there are more than one citation with the identical name it is supported by redundancy You can find nearly identical translations in almost any Bible translation you choose to read. If you have an alternative one, by all means, share it. If you have a clear name, by all means share it. BTW, Yahweh appears nowhere in ancient Hebrew texts. There are no vowels in ancient Hebrew and the addition of those vowels, while largely agreed upon by scholars, has not been proven as far as I know. The word translated to Jealous is pretty clear and agreed upon. If you disagree, I welcome evidence but the scholars I have read use the term Jealous.

And yes, it is meaningful to establish that for further discussion or at least to understand why one scholar or group of scholars would differ from their peers.

-JeffGod clearly states his name as Yahweh. It's as clear a statement of his name as any other. The vowels don't matter -- call it YHWH or whatever. There's no point disputing this. We agree that jealousy is a central quality of God, so we're not really disagreeing. Our dispute reflects two strains in Jewish theology, the personal god who is jealous and the mystical god who is sheer being, "I am that I am." They are both there in the tradition.

[Sonomamark]

Frederick, while pulling back to try to draw broad structural analysis is often a good thing, the description you give here does not fit the usage of the word "creationism" that is in common play. It does not reflect the philosophy expressed by those who claim to espouse what they call "creationism". It might be nice if it did, but it doesn't.

Creationism as it is expressed and advocated is a theory of the origin of organic life as having occurred through the intentional act or acts of a supernatural, intelligent and self-aware being.

Actually, the definition you give here for evolution isn't accurate, either. Evolution as it is used in the "evolution debate" is not generalized to "complex v. simple structures". It is specific to the origin of organic life and its speciation. No one claims that the structure of, say, a galaxy is a product of evolution. Emergence from complexity, certainly--and I certainly buy the argument that life is just another example of structural emergence from a complex system. But the term "evolution" as it is used is limited to biology.

These theories clash. They are comparable, and given how much comparing occurs between them, it seems silly to say that they aren't. While those who espouse creationism may feel awe at the fact that there is something and/or hope due to their theological credulity, neither are required for adherence to creationism, nor is adherence to creationism a requirement for feeling said awe or hope.

Looking for broad patterns can be helpful. Overgeneralizing to the point of losing a handle on what's being discussed isn't, and with all due respect, I believe that's what you've done here.


SM


Evolution and creationism aren't two theories. They were not designed for the same purpose. Evolution is the hypothesis that complex structures evolved from simpler structures. It's a scientific theory. Creationism is an idea or image not a hypothesis. It expresses awe at the fact that there is something rather than nothing and hope that there is a purpose for their being something rather than nothing. The two ideas, evolution and creation, are not really comparable. Each belongs to a different language game, one about prediction, control, and explanation and the other about our emotional reaction to the human condition.

[Frederick M. Dolan]

Frederick, while pulling back to try to draw broad structural analysis is often a good thing, the description you give here does not fit the usage of the word "creationism" that is in common play. It does not reflect the philosophy expressed by those who claim to espouse what they call "creationism". It might be nice if it did, but it doesn't.

Creationism as it is expressed and advocated is a theory of the origin of organic life as having occurred through the intentional act or acts of a supernatural, intelligent and self-aware being.

Actually, the definition you give here for evolution isn't accurate, either. Evolution as it is used in the "evolution debate" is not generalized to "complex v. simple structures". It is specific to the origin of organic life and its speciation. No one claims that the structure of, say, a galaxy is a product of evolution. Emergence from complexity, certainly--and I certainly buy the argument that life is just another example of structural emergence from a complex system. But the term "evolution" as it is used is limited to biology.

These theories clash. They are comparable, and given how much comparing occurs between them, it seems silly to say that they aren't. While those who espouse creationism may feel awe at the fact that there is something and/or hope due to their theological credulity, neither are required for adherence to creationism, nor is adherence to creationism a requirement for feeling said awe or hope.

Looking for broad patterns can be helpful. Overgeneralizing to the point of losing a handle on what's being discussed isn't, and with all due respect, I believe that's what you've done here.


SM

You are really too boring to respond to in earnest. You seem to have nothing to say beyond tired generalizations drawn from textbooks on critical thinking. I suggest you concentrate on the 101 corridor -- a subject on which you do indeed shine.

[Hummingbear]

You are really too boring to respond to in earnest. You seem to have nothing to say beyond tired generalizations drawn from textbooks on critical thinking. I suggest you concentrate on the 101 corridor -- a subject on which you do indeed shine.

Mr Dolan, this seems to be expressed in the form of an ad hominem.
I believe that you meant to say that the content of that particular post was boring and/or cliche'd, not that Mark himself is.

[Frederick M. Dolan]

Mr Dolan, this seems to be expressed in the form of an ad hominem.
I believe that you meant to say that the content of that particular post was boring and/or cliche'd, not that Mark himself is.

Not at all. My judgment is based not only on this but also on earlier encounters with Sonomamark.

[Hummingbear]

If I have fins and have a need to manifest limbs with claws to crawl, I need to have a source of intelligence to figure this out. Since claws have not been manifested before, this will need some creative thinking.
Does this come from the inside or from the outside?

I'm rather late getting back to this point, but it's so easy to answer, if you just consult nature rather than metaphysical speculation.

Take a tadpole. It has fins, no limbs. Watch it for a few days, and it grows legs, toes, and (for toads) even claws. So the plan for making this specific transformation is obviously embedded in the tadpole's body. It doesn't "think" about how to do this any more than babies think about how to grow teeth--rather less, I imagine.

[Braggi]

[quote=Braggi;47928]Excuse me Frederick, but you made a statement that wasn't backed up by any quotes. ... How was I supposed to know what you were talking about?[/UNQUOTE]

You tried to "refute" my claim by citing something you found on the web that seemed to imply that my claim was inaccurate. I pointed out that you were mistaken and that your source was out-dated. End of story.

God clearly states his name as Yahweh. ...

And I reply that Yahweh is a meaningless or at best, inscrutable word. Jealous is not, unless Yahweh means jealous which you are implying it does.

You made a claim about a unique translation with no support except the name of the organization. You derided my reply even though I backed it with quotes from the source you stated. You have neither given the quote, nor the citation nor any link to that source so I assume you were wrong or just unwilling to share your esoteric knowledge. In any case, it's like the guy who thinks HIV doesn't cause AIDS. One crackpot vs. all the experts. Agreed, sometimes the crackpot has something useful to share.

So either inform us or stop these meaningless posts. Don't just argue for the sake of seeing your words in print. If you have wisdom to share, please do. Either write out the quote if you have the source in your hands or give a link to it. It's common courtesy in conversations like this.

Please note I have given actual quotes and how to find them in support of my statements. You have done neither.

-Jeff

[Braggi]

Not at all. My judgment is based not only on this but also on earlier encounters with Sonomamark.


As someone who knows Sonomamark quite well, I can assure you he's far from boring. I'm sorry to see a prejudiced relationship beginning between you two because I value what each of you has to say.

-Jeff

[alanora]

Kabbalah, 5000 y o mystical tradition, holds that there are 72 names of G-d, (as well as much other info), and the mere gazing at them, in their original hebrew, is said to awaken the soul's plan encoded within. May be too old or esoteric for some, I am currently very drawn to this system of knowledge, and wonder if there are any teachers out there. Mindy Oh yes, children play nice and trust the process to unfold perfectly..look for the gift. me


As someone who knows Sonomamark quite well, I can assure you he's far from boring. I'm sorry to see a prejudiced relationship beginning between you two because I value what each of you has to say.

-Jeff

[MsTerry]

I beg to differ,
Creationism is as much about prediction, control, and explanation as is evolution. Just because we use different parts of the brain to explain certain phenomena doesn't mean one is more right than the other.
The difference is that evolution suggests a kind of randomness in the beginning of life and no purpose, while creationism finds some kind of an order and purpose in the beginning of life.
Aside from semantics, neither one can be proven right or wrong.
The both have some crucial missing links, and no real evidence.



Evolution and creationism aren't two theories. They were not designed for the same purpose. Evolution is the hypothesis that complex structures evolved from simpler structures. It's a scientific theory. Creationism is an idea or image not a hypothesis. It expresses awe at the fact that there is something rather than nothing and hope that there is a purpose for their being something rather than nothing. The two ideas, evolution and creation, are not really comparable. Each belongs to a different language game, one about prediction, control, and explanation and the other about our emotional reaction to the human condition.

[MsTerry]

That is real cute!
A tadpole is a stage of development for a frog, an amphibian.
Show me a fish that can grow legs with or without thinking.


I'm rather late getting back to this point, but it's so easy to answer, if you just consult nature rather than metaphysical speculation.

Take a tadpole. It has fins, no limbs. Watch it for a few days, and it grows legs, toes, and (for toads) even claws. So the plan for making this specific transformation is obviously embedded in the tadpole's body. It doesn't "think" about how to do this any more than babies think about how to grow teeth--rather less, I imagine.

[Frederick M. Dolan]

[quote=Frederick M. Dolan;47930]

And I reply that Yahweh is a meaningless or at best, inscrutable word. Jealous is not, unless Yahweh means jealous which you are implying it does.

You made a claim about a unique translation with no support except the name of the organization. You derided my reply even though I backed it with quotes from the source you stated. You have neither given the quote, nor the citation nor any link to that source so I assume you were wrong or just unwilling to share your esoteric knowledge. In any case, it's like the guy who thinks HIV doesn't cause AIDS. One crackpot vs. all the experts. Agreed, sometimes the crackpot has something useful to share.

So either inform us or stop these meaningless posts. Don't just argue for the sake of seeing your words in print. If you have wisdom to share, please do. Either write out the quote if you have the source in your hands or give a link to it. It's common courtesy in conversations like this.

Please note I have given actual quotes and how to find them in support of my statements. You have done neither.

-Jeff

I'm quoting from the latest (1985) translation of the Tanakh from the Jewish Publication Society, at Exodus 34:14. I don't have the source at hand just now and don't know of an internet source, but if you like I can write it out for you later when I can get to the text. As for my being one crackpot in opposition to all the experts, note that the JPS text is the authoritative English translation of the Hebrew. Their choice of "impassioned" rather than "jealous" for the Hebrew "ganno" is based among other things on the fact that the etymology of the word relates to "heat" or "fire," that this word is used only in relation to God, and that a different Hebrew word is normally used to mean "jealous" as it applies to human beings. The "jealous" translation is, I believe, typical of Christian versions of the Bible and I suspect it reflects a certain anti-Semitic animus against the "old" Jewish god who is supposed to have been purified by the Christian revelation.

[Frederick M. Dolan]

I beg to differ,
Creationism is as much about prediction, control, and explanation as is evolution. Just because we use different parts of the brain to explain certain phenomena doesn't mean one is more right than the other.
The difference is that evolution suggests a kind of randomness in the beginning of life and no purpose, while creationism finds some kind of an order and purpose in the beginning of life.
Aside from semantics, neither one can be proven right or wrong.
The both have some crucial missing links, and no real evidence.

Yes, some people do advance creationism as a kind of "explanation," but their motives are theological and ideological not scientific. They believe that their religious faith is threatened by the scientific account and so they attempt to refute the latter. If they had a clearer understanding of the Bible, and indeed of the nature of religious faith, they might grasp that proof and evidence in the ordinary sense are neither available nor necessary to faith.

[Kermit1941]

Jeff,

If you are a firm believer in evolution, and I think you are, it seems a little strange that you want to pick and choose what is good and bad evolution.
Do you know what the earth looked like before organism developed?
Maybe we are going back to that. Would that be bad?
Since the human race is the most destructive predator of all time, would the earth be better of without them?


:wink:

To accept the theory of evolution is not the same thing as not wanting to influence the path of future evolution.

We of course will influence the path of future evolution.
How we do so will depend on our understanding of nature.
How we do so will depend on our motivations and values.

Since people individually and collectively wish to survive,
it is imperative that we, as a society, learn how to sustain a livable environment.

Kermit Rose < [email protected] >

[Kermit1941]

Frederick,

We have only discussed 2 theories so far; evolution and creationism.
What about the outside sources like meteorites?
We know that they have probable provided phosphorous as a source for growth.
What about the notion that they actually carried DNA or RNA as a source to get the gene pool started?

:hello: Ms Terry!

:):

There is only one theory.

Meteorite source of life on earth would be covered by the current theory of evolution.

Creationism is not a theory
because
it does not provide any tests that theoretically might prove particular claims in it to be wrong.


Kermit Rose < [email protected] >

[mykil]

IT will grow!!
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
Scientists put nothing into a sterile jar and closed the lid. Sterilizing it completely, storing it in zero gravity and still there was growth. I forget the exact details, but after a few weeks there was orgasms, err microscopic organs growing in zero gravity in a completely sterile environment. What do you make of this anyone? Now theorize on this and rethink your evolutionary skills as a whole. One growth, one world one universe oh and now without a doubt indefinite parallel universes living in harmony as one! Intertwined by a multifaceted of similar universes with their own parallel universes. !!! WOW and you guyz are still on the fins to claw theories!! LMAO!!!

[Kermit1941]

Frederick, while pulling back to try to draw broad structural analysis is often a good thing, the description you give here does not fit the usage of the word "creationism" that is in common play. It does not reflect the philosophy expressed by those who claim to espouse what they call "creationism". It might be nice if it did, but it doesn't.



Hello Sonomamark.

I agree with your comment about how Creatiionists think about Creationism.





Creationism as it is expressed and advocated is a theory of the origin of organic life as having occurred through the intentional act or acts of a supernatural, intelligent and self-aware being.



This is precisely why Frederick says it is not correct to call Creationism a theory.

A statement of supernatural intervention is not a [ scientific ] theory because it is not a description of natural cause effect relationships.
If the Creationism hypothesis were wrong, there would be no way to disprove it.





Actually, the definition you give here for evolution isn't accurate, either. Evolution as it is used in the "evolution debate" is not generalized to "complex v. simple structures". It is specific to the origin of organic life and its speciation. No one claims that the structure of, say, a galaxy is a product of evolution. Emergence from complexity, certainly--and I certainly buy the argument that life is just another example of structural emergence from a complex system. But the term "evolution" as it is used is limited to biology.


You might be thinking of evolution theory as being limited to biology. I certainly do not.

I myself do claim that the structure of a galaxy is a product of evolution.
I anticipate that if you look at what astronomers speculated about the development of our galaxy, you will find they use the word evolution quite a lot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_formation_and_evolution

https://www.stsci.edu/science/starburst/

https://www.galex.caltech.edu/ABOUT/about.html






These theories clash. They are comparable, and given how much comparing occurs between them, it seems silly to say that they aren't. While those who espouse creationism may feel awe at the fact that there is something and/or hope due to their theological credulity, neither are required for adherence to creationism, nor is adherence to creationism a requirement for feeling said awe or hope.


We may compare creationism and evolution, but we usually contrast them.

Adherence to creationism requires only that you do not following scientific philosophy and do follow religious philosophy.


Frederick is correct to point out that evolution is a scientific theory and that creationism is not a scientific theory.

This is another case where a word "theory" means one thing in one context, and quite another in another context.




Looking for broad patterns can be helpful. Overgeneralizing to the point of losing a handle on what's being discussed isn't, and with all due respect, I believe that's what you've done here.



Now that the word evolution has been generalized, we should qualify which specific evolution we mean in each discussion we have about it.

If in a post you mean evolution to refer only to the puzzle of origin of life, and it's development through the ages, then please make that clear within the post.





SM



Kermit Rose < [email protected] >

[Kermit1941]

I beg to differ,
Creationism is as much about prediction, control, and explanation as is evolution.


:):
I would love to see some examples of creationist predictions of yet unobserved animal characteristics.

Would you for example, predict that after sufficient time, that animals who live in cities where paved roads are everywhere, will evolve wheels on their
feet to enable them to run faster?



Just because we use different parts of the brain to explain certain phenomena doesn't mean one is more right than the other.



Don't think which philosophy you follow has anything to do with which side of the brain is most used.
In any case, the existence of controversy does not determine the validity or non-validity of anything.





The difference is that evolution suggests a kind of randomness in the beginning of life and no purpose, while creationism finds some kind of an order and purpose in the beginning of life.



:):

I do not see it that way.

It is not that evolution suggests a kind of randomness in the beginning of life and no purpose.

It is that biologists presume randomness in nature and seek to understand, without using the concept of purpose, why life developed the way it did.


It is because "purpose" refers to deliberate action. We do not expect the tadpole to have a brain which enables it to say, "I want to become a frog, and this is how I will do it."

Biologists look at a tadpole becoming a frog, and make guesses how it happens.

Then they can do experiments to see whether or not their guess is right or wrong.

One guess is that the element iodine is essential to the mechanism for changing to the frog shape.

This guess is confirmed by observing that when the tadpoles are put in
iodine deficient water, they take much longer to become frogs.

And when tadpoles are put in iodine enriched water, they become frogs much sooner, producing miniature frogs.

Would creationists ever make this type of experiment?




Aside from semantics, neither one can be proven right or wrong.
The both have some crucial missing links, and no real evidence.


What are the crucial missing links of creationism?

Everything alive is evidence for biological evolution.

It's not a matter of proving one point of view right or wrong.

People who prefer the word "evolution" think of evolution of animals and plants over the ages without having to invoke "purpose".

They are not trying to prove that evolution is true.

The biological theory of evolution is a framework of ideas. It is a context in which to interpret observed facts. Its power is that claims that are inconsistent with observed facts according to that framework are correctly judged to be false.

For example, we correctly judge that Centaurs, half man and half horse, never existed.

Could creationists make such judgments?



Kermit Rose < [email protected] >

[Kermit1941]

That is real cute!

A tadpole is a stage of development for a frog, an amphibian.
Show me a fish that can grow legs with or without thinking.


Yes, a tadpole is a stage of development for a frog which is an
amphibian.

The frog is an amphibian because in its tadpole stage it breathes air dissolved in the water and in its frog stage it breathes air directly.

How would it be relevant to show a fish that can grow legs?

Since you agree that this is not likely to happen, I imagine that you don't expect it to happen based on your image of creationism.

Based on my image of evolution, I also don't expect individual fish to grow legs.

It took fish many many generations over a range of years larger than I know in order to evolve into land animals.


Kermit Rose < [email protected] >

[MsTerry]

All of a sudden, I get the impression that the Willie came back as Kermit the frog. hmmmmmm.
Animals with wheels?
Where is zipcode 32303?


:):

Would you for example, predict that after sufficient time, that animals who live in cities where paved roads are everywhere, will evolve wheels on their
feet to enable them to run faster?...

[Kermit1941]

All of a sudden, I get the impression that the Willie came back as Kermit the frog. hmmmmmm.
Animals with wheels?



:):





Where is zipcode 32303?

Tallahassee, Florida


Kermit Rose < [email protected] >

[MsTerry]

Welcome Back Willie!
:wink::wink::wink::wink::wink: :wink::wink::wink::wink::wink::wink:
And thanks for fulfilling my prediction as accurate.
of course it creates a problem for me, should I consider myself akin to Christine or akin to a scientist.
after all there was a prediction after careful consideration: Willie will be back
there were facts; a recent sign up, numerous posts with explicit responses
and then there was the final straw; an unmistakable kind of humor.
Should I call it the Willie or the Willie not theory?


:):



Kermit Rose < [email protected] >

[Kermit1941]

Welcome Back Willie!
:wink::wink::wink::wink::wink: :wink::wink::wink::wink::wink::wink:
And thanks for fulfilling my prediction as accurate.
of course it creates a problem for me, should I consider myself akin to Christine or akin to a scientist.
after all there was a prediction after careful consideration: Willie will be back
there were facts; a recent sign up, numerous posts with explicit responses
and then there was the final straw; an unmistakable kind of humor.
Should I call it the Willie or the Willie not theory?


:hello: Ms Terry!


It seems you are making up a new game for me.

I, of course, deny your prediction as accurate.

Who is Christine?

It would be surprising indeed if no-one else shared the same sense of humor as Willie.

There are many many new sign ups to Wacco. Several people have made numerous posts with explicit responses.

I believe that the facts you reference are not compelling evidence for my being Willie.

In fact, it's not possible to gather compelling evidence for my being Willie,
because I'm not Willie.

Besides, I would never never refer to myself as lump lump.

Kermit Rose < [email protected] >

[MsTerry]

:2cents::2cents:



Who is Christine?I suppose that is a jocular inquiry?


It would be surprising indeed if no-one else shared the same sense of humor as Willie.not really, the only other person I know of (but she was sharper at it) is dead


There are many many new sign ups to Wacco.
On Xmas eve?

Several people have made numerous posts with explicit responses.
only 2 people respond to a post line by line; Kermit and Willie

.
Besides, I would never never refer to myself as lump lump.
Do you prefer Kermit or Rose instead?

[Braggi]

IT will grow!!
<o:p></o:p>
Scientists put nothing into a sterile jar and closed the lid. Sterilizing it completely, storing it in zero gravity and still there was growth. I forget the exact details ... LMAO!!!


Yeah, I'll bet you did.

Go look it up and give us a link, Precious.

-Jeff

[Braggi]

... As for my being one crackpot in opposition to all the experts, note that the JPS text is the authoritative English translation of the Hebrew. ...

I'm not suggesting YOU are a crackpot, but that your experts disagree with every other one I've read, including some of the most respected and awarded Hebrew scholars on the planet. JPS is unique in my experience and their translation stands alone.


... Their choice of "impassioned" rather than "jealous" for the Hebrew "ganno" is based among other things on the fact that the etymology of the word relates to "heat" or "fire," that this word is used only in relation to God, and that a different Hebrew word is normally used to mean "jealous" as it applies to human beings. ...

That all sounds very politically correct.


... The "jealous" translation is, I believe, typical of Christian versions of the Bible and I suspect it reflects a certain anti-Semitic animus against the "old" Jewish god who is supposed to have been purified by the Christian revelation.

It's clear you weren't raised a Christian. That notion is completely off base. You would have been labeled a heretic at risk of your life and property a few hundred years ago had you suggested such a thing.

I don't know of any Christian cult that denigrates the Jewish God in any way. His dark side is completely ignored in Sunday school and in sermons. It's not discussed in polite company and the actual reading of the story of the Midianites, for instance, isn't ever brought up in public discussion.

-Jeff

[Braggi]

:):

For example, we correctly judge that Centaurs, half man and half horse, never existed.

Could creationists make such judgments?

Kermit Rose < [email protected] >

Creationists do believe that donkeys talk. Or at least that one did.

Unicorns existed. The last one died just a couple of years ago in Geyserville, near here. My daughter and I used to feed it when we visited Isis Oasis Sanctuary.

-Jeff

[Sonomamark]

You really can't come up with anything but the ad hominems when intellectually challenged, can you, Frederick? That's three posts--I gave you one, but three don't go unresponded to.

"Dreary Marxist" indeed. Fine, if insult is the way you want to go, here's a shoe that will fit you well: you are a poseur, sir, with shallow analysis, vapid intellectual skills and a knee-jerk impulse to sling mud when confronted with legitimate challenges to your poor efforts at critical thinking. Your presence here contributes nothing. And now you have joined my Ignore list.

SM




You are really too boring to respond to in earnest. You seem to have nothing to say beyond tired generalizations drawn from textbooks on critical thinking. I suggest you concentrate on the 101 corridor -- a subject on which you do indeed shine.

[Kermit1941]

From: MsTerry <small> </small>
Category: WaccoTalk
Thread: who came first; God or man?

:2cents::2cents:





<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --> <!-- using waccobburl --> Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Kermit1941 wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=48025#post48025)
Who is Christine?
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->




I suppose that is a jocular inquiry?




Not at all. I will guess that since you are claiming that I'm Willie, that Christine is someone that Willie related to. But since I'm not Willie,
I don't know who Christine is.



<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --> <!-- using waccobburl --> Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> It would be surprising indeed if no-one else shared the same sense of humor as Willie. </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->


not really, the only other person I know of (but she was sharper at it) is dead




What's her name?


<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --> <!-- using waccobburl --> Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> There are many many new sign ups to Wacco </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->


.
On Xmas eve?





Hmmmmm.

I did not notice which day it was that I signed up. Barry could tell us how many people signed up the same day that I did.


<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --> <!-- using waccobburl --> Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Several people have made numerous posts with explicit responses. </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->





only 2 people respond to a post line by line; Kermit and Willie






This is not quite true. I have seen at least one other Wacco post replied to, line by line.


I had thought that it was the norm to reply line by line.


<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --> <!-- using waccobburl --> Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> .
Besides, I would never never refer to myself as lump lump. </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->




Do you prefer Kermit or Rose instead?






Of course. I will let you guess which one I prefer.

Kermit Rose < [email protected] >

[Kermit1941]

Creationists do believe that donkeys talk. Or at least that one did.

Unicorns existed. The last one died just a couple of years ago in Geyserville, near here. My daughter and I used to feed it when we visited Isis Oasis Sanctuary.

-Jeff


:):

Hello Jeff.

I came close to using the unicorn example, but decided against it because the Rhino beast has just one horn.

Tell me more details about this donkey that supposedly talked.


Kermit Rose < [email protected] >

[Valley Oak]

I would like to know more about the donkey talking part!

Edward


Creationists do believe that donkeys talk. Or at least that one did.

Unicorns existed. The last one died just a couple of years ago in Geyserville, near here. My daughter and I used to feed it when we visited Isis Oasis Sanctuary.

-Jeff

[Braggi]

:):

I came close to using the unicorn example, but decided against it because the Rhino beast has just one horn.

Tell me more details about this donkey that supposedly talked.

Kermit Rose < [email protected] >

No, not supposedly. Actually talked. Remember that the Holy Bible is the unaltered Word of God and every word of it is true. :wink:

This is a pretty good telling of the tale. Be sure to read to the bottom paragraph. It might explain the behavior of our President.
https://www.anunseenworld.com/balaamandthetalkingdonkey.html

The name of the subject of this tale, Balaam, is not a coincidence. Balaam, or Baalam, is the plural of the popular male God, Baal, worshipped alongside His Goddess and queen, Ashera (also known by other names). It was more of a title than a name and is one of many words for "Lord," but in the Holy Bible it always refers to this God in particular, as far as I know.

At the end of this story Balaam is killed "by the sword" by the Israelites during the genocide of the Midianites. The citation is noted in the article. That's a pretty powerful statement since Gods are, by definition, immortal.

The unicorn, BTW, was an actual animal, not a fabrication. Oops, I guess it was sort of a fabrication, but not of words. I actually have a little powdered unicorn horn (it's a magical substance, after all).

-Jeff

[Barry]

<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --><!-- using waccobburl -->
Barry could tell us how many people signed up the same day that I did.
6 people signed up on Christmas Eve Day. Kermit Rose is not Willie. Willie is local, KR is not, IP addresses do not match.

[MsTerry]

<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --> <!-- using waccobburl --> Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Kermit1941 wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=48025#post48025)
Who is Christine?
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> [quote]





Not at all. I will guess that since you are claiming that I'm Willie, that Christine is someone that Willie related to. But since I'm not Willie,
I don't know who Christine is.It is quite easy to find out who Christine is, Especially since Willie mentions her in his "farewell". If you ever were to go to Waccotalk, you'll see her name.


<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --> <!-- using waccobburl --> Quote:<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;">
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->




What's her name?LuLu



<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --> <!-- using waccobburl --> Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> .
Besides, I would never never refer to myself as lump lump. </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->


Of course. I will let you guess which one I prefer.Ok Rose,
tell me how does a person from Tallahassee Florida find out about Wacco?
How did this person end up with the same year of birth(1941) as the Willie ?
And how come that same person is so interested in biology, just like, that's right, The Willie?

[mykil]

Oh did I mention it was dark out too? There have been numerous studies in this field, it alwayz grows there big boy!!!



Yeah, I'll bet you did.

Go look it up and give us a link, Precious.

-Jeff

[Frederick M. Dolan]

You really can't come up with anything but the ad hominems when intellectually challenged, can you, Frederick? That's three posts--I gave you one, but three don't go unresponded to.

"Dreary Marxist" indeed. Fine, if insult is the way you want to go, here's a shoe that will fit you well: you are a poseur, sir, with shallow analysis, vapid intellectual skills and a knee-jerk impulse to sling mud when confronted with legitimate challenges to your poor efforts at critical thinking. Your presence here contributes nothing. And now you have joined my Ignore list.

SM

I like that eighteenth-century "sir." And I'm VERY happy to join your Ignore list.

[MsTerry]

Sir Frederick,
Do you have an extra application form? I want to be enlisted too!


I like that eighteenth-century "sir." And I'm VERY happy to join your Ignore list.

[MsTerry]

<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --><!-- using waccobburl -->

Of course. I will let you guess which one I prefer.


I received an anonymous email with a picture of you?



https://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20080110/i/r4247959251.jpg?x=400&y=269&sig=_Kbqm1OxzJNoSUsddVOz9g--


<cite id="captionCite"></cite>

[Kermit1941]

<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --><!-- using waccobburl -->

I received an anonymous email with a picture of you?



https://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20080110/i/r4247959251.jpg?x=400&y=269&sig=_Kbqm1OxzJNoSUsddVOz9g--


<cite id="captionCite"></cite>


:):

Nice picture. But that's not me. My skin is greener.

Kermit < [email protected] >

[Braggi]

Oh did I mention it was dark out too? There have been numerous studies in this field, it alwayz grows there big boy!!!


If what you were saying were true, canning food wouldn't work. If there's no food, than certainly there's nothing alive. If you could come up with a study, you'd post it, but you can't because you're talking nonsense.

Find a citation with a link to the study and I'll be happy to read and comment. For now I think we have to agree you have no factual basis for your statements.

-Jeff

[Braggi]

Sir Frederick,
Do you have an extra application form? I want to be enlisted too!


No need to apply. You've been on Sonomamark's Ignore list since the day you arrived.

-Jeff

[MsTerry]

Jeff,

How come you know all the rascals like Sonomamark, Valley Oak, Willie, Mykil and even LuLu on such an intimate level?


No need to apply. You've been on Sonomamark's Ignore list since the day you arrived.

-Jeff

[mykil]

LMFAO! DEAREST JEFF; we don't have to agree on anything their dude! And I never eat canned food!!! EVER!!! Eating the cheese is hard enough! And you know I can’t read soooo… IT was a program on the big TV their big boy. You know on one of those learning channel programs and I did look into this and what I did see was fascinating. If you really need to learn more you may look this up yourself. For me to sit her and tell you some fiction is like telling ghost stories and you know I believe in those too! When I was watching this program I was in complete awe over the growth in our environment and things started making for sense to me as far as how this place really works. They are putting things toge5ther so fast in the labs it is hard to keep up. The parallel universe just took on a whole new meaning also. Now they say each galaxy is created when two such universes collide, this sparks so sort of bump in the dark, you know things that go bump in the night? And bam!!! New galaxy! LMAO! For those of you that really don’t watch TV you are really missing out on something spectacular. The new scientific programs are what we should have had in school growing up as children. There really are about ten channels t6hat do nothing but teach boring teachings in a fascinating way! And real people get paid to do these programs and this is how they make there living, so by watching the big TV you are actually doing good in our society!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Creating jobs not shunning real people for stupid beliefs and not wanting a TV in your home!!!!!!!!!! TV has evolved past stupid prime time programs you hated the big box for in the first place.



If what you were saying were true, canning food wouldn't work. If there's no food, than certainly there's nothing alive. If you could come up with a study, you'd post it, but you can't because you're talking nonsense.

Find a citation with a link to the study and I'll be happy to read and comment. For now I think we have to agree you have no factual basis for your statements.

-Jeff

[mykil]

:):

Nice picture. But that's not me. My skin is greener.

Kermit < [email protected] >


I think MISS Terry is trying to get you to give her a ride Kermy!

[Zeno Swijtink]

Many scientists in the 17th c. still believed in spontaneous generation, following Aristotle: they showed experimentally that if you put oats in a bag, close the bag and wait a while, you'll hear chirpy sounds emerging from the bag, and mice will come out of the bag when you open it.

Francis Bacon supported these ideas I think.


If what you were saying were true, canning food wouldn't work. If there's no food, than certainly there's nothing alive. If you could come up with a study, you'd post it, but you can't because you're talking nonsense.

Find a citation with a link to the study and I'll be happy to read and comment. For now I think we have to agree you have no factual basis for your statements.

-Jeff

[Kermit1941]

.

Now they say each galaxy is created when two such universes collide,


Not quite. The speculation was that our universe came into being by the collision of two other universes.

At one time astronomers speculated that the planets of our solar system came into being by the near collision of our sun with another star.

Now the consensus among astronomers is that almost every star goes through a stage where planets are likely to be formed.

Similarly, I expect this speculation of our universe coming into being by the near collision of two universes to be short lived.

I anticipate that physicists will come to see the logic for why each universe must exist, and does not need any rare event to explain it.

What is the distinction between galaxy and universe?

A galaxy is a huge cluster of stars such that this cluster is separated from other galaxies.

A universe consists of all the galaxies that could theoretically be reached by traveling from one galaxy if you had infinite time in which to travel.

I speculate that:

Each universe is finite in that it has finite mass.

Each universe is infinite in space and time, but each galaxy within the universe has only a finite lifetime.


Kermit Rose < [email protected] >

[Kermit1941]

I think MISS Terry is trying to get you to give her a ride Kermy!


:):

I don't have a bike.

But if I did, and knew how to drive it, and Ms Terry asked me politely for a ride, I'd be glad to oblige.

On the other hand, if Ms Terry is just trying to get me riled, then
we can continue to play this game, because I like Ms Terry too much to get riled by what she does.


Kermit < [email protected] >