why does god not help us when we need help chat & forums.

Posted In Forum:

Home

MyForums

Show ALL Forums

Author

Thread: why does god not help us when we need help

Dharma

Joined: 8/22/2004

Msg: 48 (view)

why does god not help us when we need help Posted: 5/12/2006 7:55:46 PM
God IS STILL SPEAKING (singing)! HERE http://www.madison.com/mmm/ for example. If you start feeling strange sensations in your soul... go there for the answers.

Dharma

Joined: 8/22/2004

Msg: 25 (view)

Is It Possible? Posted: 5/8/2006 9:21:19 PM
Why not? I love almost everything Jesus stands for. I don't like most of Christianity, though. (That would stand out to you all much more if you knew who I am.)

Dharma

Joined: 8/22/2004

Msg: 41 (view)

why does god not help us when we need help Posted: 5/8/2006 9:15:13 PM
God isn't concerned about religion, per se. Implications of religion, yes. GOD does help. Let me show you one place. I am not kidding, either. This could be painful (in a way that HELPS you) and FUN/funny, as well. I SWEAR TO GOD ON MY LIFE on this. I am telling you the truth. God is speaking in this place. I will blow your mind with this link. (I've given you only a very tiny tiny fragment of the message..only enough for you to pay attention long enough for me to give you more...) http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts4142732.aspx

Dharma

Joined: 8/22/2004

Msg: 2 (view)

God/Mother Nature are Speaking -- by, Surprise! musing music... Posted: 5/8/2006 8:21:34 PM
We call EVERY BODY "BABY" All are children of God and Nature.

Dharma

Joined: 8/22/2004

Msg: 1 (view)

God/Mother Nature are Speaking -- by, Surprise! musing music... Posted: 5/8/2006 8:08:52 PM
One of divinity’s phone’s to humanity is the radio. Listen for awhile and you’ll see. Here are a few things you should know to understand the code (wordplay): "She's such a little dj"--chili peppers car = your body phone = radio (and your soul) blues = (stands for social safety net) painting = creator who paints creation Hollywood = ‘movies’ made in the mind of the creator(s) Love and magic = 'religion' (is a smile on a 'dog') mom/mother/mama/mother nature (hippy me--of many names)= Earth HOME = depends on what you believe (to me HOME is always earth) It's the new mother nature takin over. I like old and new--and new classics. I promise you that this is true. SURPRISE! (You'll learn more in a bit.) I WILL BLOW YOUR MIND! http://www.madison.com/mmm/ The saying goes: When you talk to god it is called prayer. When God talks with you it is called 'crazy.'

Dharma

Joined: 8/22/2004

Msg: 1 (view)

God/Mother Nature are Speaking -- by, Surprise! musing music... Posted: 5/8/2006 8:07:37 PM
One of divinity’s phone’s to humanity is the radio. Listen for awhile and you’ll see. Here are a few things you should know to understand the code (wordplay): "She's such a little dj"--chili peppers car = your body phone = radio (and your soul) blues = (stands for social safety net) painting = creator who paints creation Hollywood = ‘movies’ made in the mind of the creator(s) Love and magic = 'religion' (is a smile on a 'dog') mom/mother/mama/mother nature (hippy me--of many names)= Earth HOME = depends on what you believe (to me HOME is always earth) It's the new mother nature takin over. I like old and new--and new classics. I promise you that this is true. SURPRISE! (You'll learn more in a bit.) I WILL BLOW YOUR MIND! http://www.madison.com/mmm/ The saying goes: When you talk to god it is called prayer. When God talks with you it is called 'crazy.'

Dharma

Joined: 8/22/2004

Msg: 137 (view)

If you had God in the room with you... Posted: 4/19/2006 9:28:12 PM
(God muses music. God never stopped talking.) Peace, all. RE: “Way too religious... for my taste” God want spiritual fruits, not religious nuts. RE: Skinny? You DON’T really want that… I’m telling you the truth. RE: Screwed? Unless you commit crimes against humanity, you’ve got time to work out whatever you did/didn’t do. Forgive is certainly in the vocab. RE: “God is always in the room with you” "Relax child, you were there But only didn’t realize it and you were scared It’s a place where you will learn To face your fears, retrace the tears And ride the whims of your mind Commanding in another world Suddenly, you hear and see This magic new dimension. I-will be watching over you I-am gonna help you see it through I-will protect you in the night I-am smiling next to you...in silent lucidity If you open your mind for me You won’t rely on open eyes to see" –Queensryche

Dharma

Joined: 8/22/2004

Msg: 131 (view)

If you had God in the room with you... Posted: 4/15/2006 10:54:07 PM
ohdriver said: "He/She is in the room. My question is "can I get You anything?" I think that is a Great question. I'd think your question, ohdriver, is quite a respectful 'thank you' on its own merit. That question alone, I'd think, gives lots.

Dharma

Joined: 8/22/2004

Msg: 128 (view)

If you had God in the room with you... Posted: 4/15/2006 4:36:14 PM
I've been up, I've been down I've been lonesome, in this godless town You're my religion, you're my church You're the holy grail at the end of my search Have I been down on my knees for long enough? I've been searching the planet to find Sacred love The spirit moves on the water SHE takes the shape of this heavenly daughter SHE's rising up like a river in flood The word got made into flesh and blood The sky grew dark, and the Earth SHE shook --Sacred Love We said, "Tell me all your thoughts on God? 'cause I would really like to meet HER. And ask HER why we’re who we are." --Counting Blue Cars

Dharma

Joined: 8/22/2004

Msg: 6 (view)

Bush now tries to use ‘signing statements’ to avoid/break laws Posted: 4/2/2006 11:16:24 PM
I am looking right now... it was a 1.5/2 hr discussion on (cspan? book tv? cnn? pbs?... I don't know, yet. I had it on in the 'background.' I paid close attention to what was said, but I need to find the 'where.' When I find it, I'll post that. Feingold is amazing. He is honest and has integrity that is amazing for his position. I'd vote for him for President, without hesitation!

Dharma

Joined: 8/22/2004

Msg: 4 (view)

Bush now tries to use ‘signing statements’ to avoid/break laws Posted: 4/2/2006 10:33:56 PM
In Germany they first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me — and by that time no one was left to speak up. --Pastor Martin Niemöller (Nazi survivor) MORE info about Niemöller at: http://www.serendipity.li/cda/niemoll.html ---- Democracy Now! Five years after President Bush joked, "If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator,” we look at the growing controversy over presidential power and how it relates to many of today’s biggest stories: the Senate ban on torture, the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, domestic surveillance and the jailing of U.S. citizens as enemy combatants. Earlier this week three influential Republicans Senators condemned Bush for claiming he has the authority to ignore a new law banning the torture of prisoners during interrogations... Three influential Republicans Senators are condemning President Bush for claiming he has the authority to ignore a new law banning the torture of prisoners during interrogations. Bush signed the torture ban just last week. But he also quietly issued what is known as a signing statement in which he lays out his interpretation of the new law. http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/06/1451239

Dharma

Joined: 8/22/2004

Msg: 3 (view)

Bush now tries to use ‘signing statements’ to avoid/break laws Posted: 4/2/2006 9:25:06 PM
Thank you, Panda. I didn't pay that much attention to 'signing statements' before, but I do now. I see them (as employed by the Bush Admin) as something akin to, "Yeah I signed, heh heh heh, but I HAD MY FINGERS CROSSED." Thanks for the article...I think this was humorous... "Like Schwarzenegger with his steroids, Bush does not deny using his signing statements; does not like talking about using them; and believes that they add muscle."

Dharma

Joined: 8/22/2004

Msg: 1 (view)

Bush now tries to use ‘signing statements’ to avoid/break laws Posted: 4/2/2006 9:00:56 PM
Bush is signing bills passed by the House and the Senate, but then adding 'his interpretation' to the signing. In the examples below (prohibition of torture, and the patriot act) his 'interpretation' is that he doesn't need to follow the law. Today, there was a panel discussion on the long list of impeachable offenses committed by George Bush Jr. The panel spoke about an issue that caught my attention—signing statements—that I’m guessing most people have never heard about. Bush uses ‘signing statements’ when he signs bills in attempts to further erode Constitutional checks and balances. If you get past the legal jargon, in some of these ‘signing statements’ Bush basically says I sign this into law, but I don’t need to follow this law. (e.g., with the McCain prohibition on torture and reinstatement of the ‘Patriot Act.’) Although Bush signed (for example) the torture ban bill sponsored by Senator McCain (R), Bush then added his ‘interpretation.’ “In this signing document Bush declared he did not consider himself bound by the oversight provisions.” (see below for details) So, while Bush ‘signs,’ he simultaneously proclaims that he is immune to the law that he signs into law. Disgusting! I am in support of Bush and Cheney, being impeached (and then tried for the numerous felonies they’ve committed.) Lots more people need to be held accountable in this administration, as well. A signing statement is a proclamation, normally written, issued by a member of the executive branch of a government, usually the head of that branch, to accompany the signing of a law passed by the legislative branch and generally sets forth how the the executive branch intends to interpret and enforce the new law. The term is mostly used by the United States Government... Until Ronald Reagan became President, only 75 statements had been issued. Reagan and his successors George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton made 247 signing statements between them. As of 2006, George W. Bush, the current President, has issued over 500 signing statements. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_Statement Here are two examples (out of the 500+ signing statements Bush has done!) that are quite important. WASHINGTON (CNN) -- After months of opposition, the White House agreed Thursday to Republican Sen. John McCain's call to ban torture by U.S. personnel. Story at: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/15/torture.bill/ BUSH signed, but with a ‘signing statement!’ Read on… Bush could bypass new torture ban Waiver right is reserved By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff January 4, 2006 WASHINGTON -- When President Bush last week signed the bill outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief. After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a ''signing statement" -- an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law -- declaring that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal specialists said… Some legal specialists said yesterday that the president's signing statement, which was posted on the White House website but had gone unnoticed over the New Year's weekend, raises serious questions about whether he intends to follow the law. Article at: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/01/04/bush_could_bypass_new_torture_ban/ Patriot Act: ‘signing statement’ by President Bush “The USA Patriot Act was re-authorized this month after a lengthy bi-partisan effort to include new provisions safeguarding Congressional oversight. The new provisions mandated President Bush to brief Congress about how the FBI was using expanded authorities to search and monitor suspects. But shortly after he signed the bill into effect, Bush quietly issued what is known as a signing statement in which he lays out his interpretation of the law. In this document Bush declared he did not consider himself bound by the oversight provisions. Bush wrote he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosing it would harm foreign relations, national security or his duties as President.” More at: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/27/1450205 Have you heard about this before? What is your take on this?

Dharma

Joined: 8/22/2004

Msg: 121 (view)

MEAT EATER Vs VEGETARIAN Posted: 3/20/2006 8:59:10 PM
Simbadsailor, You failed to mention that the SOURCE for the 'article' you posted on PETA. Here it is: http://www.fb.org/views/focus/fo2002/fo0311.html Do you think that is a right-wing agribusiness front group has your interest at heart? Their objectives are to increase industry profits. This PETA article is a propoganda piece and not journalism! Truelsen (the author of your post) even CITES the Center for Consumer Freedom! Quite the Orwellian name, really. Center for Consumer Freedom "One of the most vicious corporate front groups in America is the so-called Center for Consumer Freedom, which specializes in attacking the organic movement and public interest groups opposed to genetic engineering and industrial agriculture." http://www.organicconsumers.org/organic/anti_organic_consumer_group.cfm Center for Consumer Freedom "The Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) (formerly called the "Guest Choice Network") is a front group for the restaurant, alcohol and tobacco industries. It runs media campaigns which oppose the efforts of scientists, doctors, health advocates, environmentalists and groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, calling them "the Nanny Culture ‹ the growing fraternity of food cops, health care enforcers, anti-meat activists, and meddling bureaucrats who 'know what's best for you.' " CCF is one of the more active of several front groups created by Berman & Co., a public affairs firm owned by lobbyist Rick Berman." http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom Critical thinking skills are so important... ---------- On the word... “Terrorism”: A World Ensnared by a Word http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/terrorism/2004/0218ensnared.htm by John V. Whitbeck International Herald Tribune Wednesday, February 18, 2004 http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/02/18/edwhit_ed3_.php ---------- On another note, today I saw this (that reminded me of the bodybuilding discussion, earlier): http://www.veganmusclepower.com/bodybuilding.html http://www.veganmusclepower.com/

Dharma

Joined: 8/22/2004

Msg: 112 (view)

MEAT EATER Vs VEGETARIAN Posted: 3/18/2006 2:17:11 PM
With all due respect, designingwoman, I would ask that you please reconsider your use of the word 'terrorist' (terrorism, etc.) There is a HUGE difference between vandalism of a coat and killing people. Terrorists kill people. Animal rights activists OPPOSE and work against violence towards sentient beings, including people. That said, I do not condone vandalism, either. I am not aware of PETA doing any vandalism, and CERTAINLY never terrorism.

Dharma

Joined: 8/22/2004

Msg: 69 (view)

Da Vinci, Einstein, Thoreau, Shaw, Ghandi, etc. Posted: 3/7/2006 3:07:11 PM
For the sake of keeping the discussion going, I’ll present a few great quotes: "Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet." ~Albert Einstein “Truely man is the king of beasts, for his brutality exceeds theirs. We live by the death of others: we are burial places! I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when men such as I will look on the murder of animals as they now look on the murder of men.” ~Leonardo da Vinci "Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from that of their social environment." ~Albert Einstein "The important thing is not to stop questioning." ~Albert Einstein “A man of my spiritual intensity does not eat corpses.” ~George Bernard Shaw “We all love animals. Why do we call some "pets" and others "dinner?" ~K.D. Lang “If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be a vegetarian.” ~Paul McCartney "So I am living without fats, without meat, without fish, but am feeling quite well this way. It always seems to me that man was not born to be a carnivore." ~Albert Einstein It is my view that the vegetarian manner of living by its purely physical effect on the human temperament would most beneficially influence the lot of mankind. ~ Albert Einstein, Letter to 'Vegetarian Watch-Tower', 27 December 1930 "What is the meaning of human life, or, for that matter, of the life of any creature? To know an answer to this question means to be religious. You ask: Does it make any sense, then, to pose this question? I answer: The man who regards his own life and that of his fellow creatures as meaningless is not merely unhappy but hardly fit for life." ~Albert Einstein "A human being is a part of the whole, called by us the 'Universe', a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separate from the rest - a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. Nobody is able to achieve this completely, but the striving for such achievement is in itself a part of the liberation and a foundation for inner security." ~ Albert Einstein, New York Post, 28 November 1972 "I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other...." ~Henry David Thoreau, Walden, 1854 “The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” ~Mahatma Ghandi "Thou shalt not kill" does not apply to murder of one's own kind only, but to all living beings; and this Commandment was inscribed in the human breast long before it was proclaimed from Sinai. ~Leo Tolstoy "It is easier to denature plutonium than to denature the evil spirit of man." ~Albert Einstein

Dharma

Joined: 8/22/2004

Msg: 38 (view)

MEAT EATER Vs VEGETARIAN Posted: 2/28/2006 8:56:13 PM
I have been vegetarian for many years. But I'm not sure what you mean by ok in my books. I am vegetarian for animal cruelty and ecological reasons (which are also very strong points.)

Dharma

Joined: 8/22/2004

Msg: 32 (view)

MEAT EATER Vs VEGETARIAN Posted: 2/28/2006 8:32:32 PM
These are the video documentation that are available to me to give to you via internet. Maybe if you watch the first one (30 seconds), you'll get a better idea of why someone who is vegetarian for ethical reasons might try to appeal to the logic of others to reduce suffering. http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp?video=agri_short Although I liked the taste of beef, I refuse to support this kind of horror. I suggest that if someone cannot give up meat, that they seek 'organic free range' meat (that usually supports small farmers who care more about reducing animal cruelty.) Here are a few more videos: http://www.petatv.com/veg.html I do not perceive logical debate or presentation of facts or ethical arguments as preachy. As far as dating, I would personally have a hard time dating someone who wouldn't consider reducing their meat consumption (after understanding the issues involved). That's my personal dating preference.

Dharma

Joined: 8/22/2004

Msg: 26 (view)

MEAT EATER Vs VEGETARIAN Posted: 2/28/2006 8:15:30 PM
...and I know hundreds of meat-eating people who have a much greater risk for cancer, heart attacks, diabetes, high cholesterol, and contribute to a range of other (environmental, etc) problems than that of a vegetarian. CANCER Increased risk of breast cancer for women who eat meat daily compared to less than once a week: 3.8 times For women who eat eggs daily compared to once a week: 2.8 times For women who eat butter and cheese 2-4 times a week: 3.25 times Increased risk of fatal ovarian cancer for women who eat eggs 3 or more times a week vs. less than once a week: 3 times Increased risk of fatal prostate cancer for men who consume meat, cheese, eggs and milk daily vs. sparingly or not at all: 3.6 times. HEART DISEASE Most common cause of death in the U.S.: heart attack How frequently a heart attack kills in the U.S.: every 45 seconds Average U.S. man's risk of death from heart attack: 50 percent Risk of average U.S. man who eats no meat: 15 percent Risk of average U.S. man who eats no meat, dairy or eggs: 4 percent Amount you reduce risk of heart attack if you reduce consumption of meat, dairy and eggs by 10 percent: 9 percent Amount you reduce risk of heart attack if you reduce consumption by 50 percent: 45 percent Amount you reduce risk if you eliminate meat, dairy and eggs from your diet: 90 percent Average cholesterol level of people eating meat-centered-diet: 210 mg/dl Chance of dying from heart disease if you are male and your blood cholesterol level is 210 mg/dl: greater than 50 percent

Dharma

Joined: 8/22/2004

Msg: 24 (view)

MEAT EATER Vs VEGETARIAN Posted: 2/28/2006 8:03:52 PM
I said vegetarian. I'm not sure how that is relevant to my point. This guy is vegan. http://www.veganbodybuilding.org/robbie.htm#diet I eat lots of these (Morningstar Farms Veggie Dogs) 5 g net carbs and 11 g protein http://www.kelloggs.com/cgi-bin/brandpages/product.pl?product=314&company=23 Their vegan burger have 3 grams net carbs and 12 g protein.

Dharma

Joined: 8/22/2004

Msg: 20 (view)

MEAT EATER Vs VEGETARIAN Posted: 2/28/2006 7:48:43 PM
You can absolutely be a vegetarian body builder: ...Athlete to win Ironman Triathlon more than twice: Dave Scott (6 time winner) ...Food choice of Dave Scott: Vegetarian How to Win an Argument with a Meat Eater http://www.vegsource.com/how_to_win.htm Vegan and Vegetarian Body Building http://www.muscletalk.co.uk/vegetarian-bodybuilding.asp Muscle Menus http://www.muscletalk.co.uk/vegetarian-bodybuilding-recipes.asp Vegan Bodybuilding http://www.veganbodybuilding.com/ Vegetarian Bodybuilder: Debunking the Myths http://ksteveh.tripod.com/NBF_Debunking.html

Dharma

Joined: 8/22/2004

Msg: 248 (view)

Afternoon tea with Aristotle and friends Posted: 2/19/2006 7:31:45 PM
Most of the people who I love to read are (were) on this thread. Since I was gone for several months, could you (e.g., wonka, quietjohn2, bright1raziel, many others... et.al. ) give me hints of new threads to look at and find some creative thought? I'll search the basics, first. :)

dharma

Joined: 8/22/2004

Msg: 2815 (view)

Creation vs Evolution Posted: 12/26/2005 1:20:08 AM
You said this, It's simple, [,,,] When human technology gets supreme we move to another planet and genetically make our own on a planet starting at the begining with cave men, and thats what we humans are just genetically transfored from our god who is us at a supreme technology. human time is in a magnetic sphere around earth, rotation, revolution records and this is why are time is not as gods and is how we are made in his image. Whatever. I did get my kid a holiday gift that is that odd-science kids love... SEA MONKEYS (INSTANT, brine shrimp aquatic pets) With this tiny investment, that the 'sea monkey company' guarantees (yeah right) will live for 2 years... you can watch biology in action. But the research and education is well worth the 'cheezy' gift. My newly 5-year old has checked the tank/hr (no time to proof or edit message// Kids love an instant 'fleeish' sea monkey circus aquatic tricks. pets that need almost no care... GREAT (thinks who) Wait. Why am I itchin'? BVut, my more urgent question is... How the hell did I get into this f'n sea monkey tank? NO, sir. I would not like to learn how to walk on a rope! Sheesh... Poor lil ones...

dharma

Joined: 8/22/2004

Msg: 2616 (view)

Creation vs Evolution Posted: 11/30/2005 10:05:14 PM
Oh, if people only understood some of the 'connect the dots' and 'paint by number' projects... This is from start of the article I mentioned a bit ago [Dragnet Ecology]. (If you can read it all, do; this isn’t available online, other than from the journal, that I’ve found) Oh, so relevant: [BACKGROUND MUSIC] “…Sergeant Friday sweeps aside the irrelevant circumstantial details offered by the actress and solves the puzzle with characteristic ease. Friday’s sidekick, Bill Gannon, responds to a different challenged and touchingly asks for the faded actress’s autograph. ‘I didn’t know you collected autographs,’ says Joe, as they leave the scene. ‘I don’t,’ replies Bill. DRAGNET is a modern version of a morality play, myths and all, the prevailing myth being that it may take time to apprehend the suspect, but eventually ‘just the facts’ will inexorably solve the crime. But isn’t Bill Gannon essential to this process? Many scientists share Joe Friday’s mythic goal. In the simple world of Sergeant Friday, there is a single true answer; in the scientific equivalent, the scientist believes that there is a single truth, and attempts to find it. Much scientific activity uses simple model, and thus amounts to no more than calibration. But as our colleague [UW-Madison,] John Norman... points out, 'I can do a lot with calibrations’ (and he can, too), so we much not underestimate the importance of focusing situations until they become simple… ..critique of science, we invite scientist to move beyond bickering and explore the literature of science studies for themselves…[citations on social relevance, social constuction of science, postmodern case study in physics] …Denying the Enlightenment project may seem pessimistic, but we have seen the man behind the curtain and objectivist realism is now compromised.” "...metaphysics of reality notwitstanding."

Dharma

Joined: 8/22/2004

Msg: 2593 (view)

Creation vs Evolution Posted: 11/29/2005 12:55:14 AM
Wonka reminded me of that article I thought of back in the 40ish pages of the thread. That is: Allen, T., Tainter, J., et. al. Dragnet Ecology---"Just the Facts, Ma'am": The Privilege of Science in a Postmodern World. (Bioscience. June 2001. Vol. 51. No 6. pp. 475-485) [Allen, T. F. H.; Tainter, J. A.; Pires, C., and Hoekstra, T. W. Dragnet Ecology"Just the Facts, Ma'am": The Privilege of Science in a Postmodern World. BioScience. 2001; 51(6):475-485.] I've read thousands of academic journal articles. This one sticks out as memorable, important, and also enjoyable to read... "Science of intrinsic quality needs narratives with explicit values--not just facts--particularly as it faces multiple-level complexity in advising environmental policy, such as planning for energy futures." Importance of defining meanings of words in science 'narratives'--which all science in words vs math, is. And many, many other ideas... IF there is such a thing as a 'fun read' in science lit... this is it! PLUS, this will be one of those 'articles' that people look back on in 20 years for content. I might come back to that later. They talk about how any science, put in words, is a 'story' about the facts. Many different 'stories' can be told about the exact same facts. SO, scientists must be aware of this and take responsibility for the 'story telling,' and as the story teller (who always has values that influence the 'story.' Scientists, aware of this, are better able to understand how their views might influence the story they tell based on facts. This is far from objective, but closer to objective than any other form of understanding we know of so far... If I remember, that article says something like: science isn't perfect, but still the best game we've got in town. The next "Einstein" or "Galileo" might find some missing inspiration, there.

dharma

Joined: 8/22/2004

Msg: 2166 (view)

Creation vs Evolution Posted: 11/16/2005 11:36:45 PM
I am paying attention. I can't type like I used to... I could *&%5 for a slow, but I think slower is good, for me at least? Right on....

dharma

Joined: 8/22/2004

Msg: 94 (view)

if god exists Posted: 11/15/2005 2:10:20 AM
[POKES SELF EMOTE] AND [THINK THEREFORE I AM, IN THAT SOLIPSIST WAY, EMOTE]

dharma

Joined: 8/22/2004

Msg: 2019 (view)

Creation vs Evolution Posted: 11/15/2005 2:06:32 AM
"Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: it transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural & spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity" Albert Einstein I like this quote. :-) Where did he say this?

dharma

Joined: 8/22/2004

Msg: 2015 (view)

Creation vs Evolution Posted: 11/15/2005 1:04:27 AM
A few more jensights... MLR (msg 1923) Drug abuse has been around for a loooooong time. Drugs are not plants. That is one point I have. I don't smoke pot (and could care less about that, except how that plant can really help some people will HIV, and cancer, etc). I do not understand why that is "a drug." But all of your examples of ‘drug abuse’ in the post are what I talked about as like so what is coffee? Like I said, coca leaves are not cocaine like Twinkes are not wheat (even cane sugar is not like processed sugar). Processing and chemical alterations (including, but not limited to, adding ingredients and heat processing... you see how the plant form is NOTHING like the processed product… follow wheat to Hostess sometime.) WHY Doctors tell you to eat foods that are closer to the Earth form! Getting high to get high? Sorry. As far as people doing it throughout history, a lot of that was for the ecstatic separation of mind and body and trance-induction in religious magical rituals. Still is, in some cultures. Exactly, Feral. And this is only dealing with the altered state of conciousness with aid of a plant (actually no drug is needed if the goal is not 'a high,' but learning... if you wonder, learn about "journeying"...). The leaf acts to temporarily suppress appetite and increase energy and concentration. This does almost exactly (though milder) what COFFEE does. Only, people in Peru don’t go to a corporation like Starbucks before heading ‘to work.’ They pay 7 cents from a neighbor for a few leaves and head to the fields that feed the family... MLR: There also seems to be some confusion as to the secular role of the government. There is a huge difference between an officially atheist government and a secular government. I think this idea [‘officially atheist’ government] is an absolutely fantastic point (novel, from my view, in the US discussion)! Atheism could be interpreted/understood as a ‘religion.’ e.g., a definition of “RELIGION” is “A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal, or conscientious devotion.” http://www.thefreedictionary.com/religion Government cannot promote a RELIGION, nor can government Constitutionally promote atheism. “Under God” or “in God we trust” is not religion. To someone who is TRULY ATHIEST, those words mean NOTHING or have no significance—there is no Constitutional fight there. Often, I like the idea of ‘freedom from religion,’ but that doesn’t mean there is no divinity! I find it ironic that the org that espouses ‘freedom from religion’ promotes atheism and ironically tries to fight that on Constitutional grounds! In my opinion, the best way to celebrate the divine (or lack, thereof) is by being human though humor, science, dancing, art, singing, philosophy, making honest mistakes, and so on…(a big so on.) Physical science is about 1/5 at understanding physical science. Physical science is about 1/100.000 of what there is to learn… so… don’t worry about running out of things to learn. Does God have a penis? Is that the censored? Well, I suppose that depends on how you define the divine. The female part does not. The male does. But, the non-physical has no meaning for this talk about body parts of G-d. Rake: I would also like to add that science and not god is responsible for the industrial revolution that took us out of the dark ages and improved the human condition. Um, not exactly. Need to be much, much more specific than that. : ) Listen, I am ‘for God.’ I’m that for sure. AND I like reading and learning from Wonka’s posts. I have a hard time understanding atheism, but have no bad feelings about that. What I do feel upset about is people who attack others based on belief or logical argument…

dharma

Joined: 8/22/2004

Msg: 2014 (view)

Creation vs Evolution Posted: 11/14/2005 11:51:10 PM
1969 seems a good stop point. (I have to put the reference in my post, or I won’t start reading where left off.) Feral: the first major extinction event, the effects of which provide us our earliest fossil evidence, took place after the "appearance of life" on Earth. Either that, or life "happened" and "ended" at approximately the same time, which works, so long as we don't claim to have descended from it. Interesting. Life started, basically, ‘clean slated’ on Earth several times (or your second option) with major extinction events. We are in one, now. j-roc: Evolution doesn't sound feasible; but yet a creator who never had a beginning, just always was, created all out of complete nothingness....yes, that sure sounds feasible. That is a great expression of an idea, j-roc. Beginning is a funny term, really. Every person has many ‘beginnings.’ Why not think the divine does, too? Is this a reference to linear time, or state of mind, or what? Rake: In the end I think that the most disheartening conclusion is that we may never know. Oh, I completely see this different. I don’t think I would want to ‘know’ for sure (we will never know all that can be known… so I think that’s really neat). I think there are ‘truths’ that are timeless, but interpretations of the rest will always go on. If we knew it all, well, then what? Where goes poetry and art? Mystery? Excitement? So on… Of course, everything I say now I’ve said long ago (in very different ways and contexts). Unlike merely being an echo (which I also hear… hear… hear), I try to integrate my views into something relevant. Although not everything I say is ‘scientific,’ I do try to distinguish my views (even though that is difficult, given my non-dualistic world view.) I am sure I am wrong about some things. On other issues I am joking. I am quite sure that “He” or She, or They-that's WE (plural, us, our)--will be able to discern the difference.

dharma

Joined: 8/22/2004

Msg: 1898 (view)

Creation vs Evolution Posted: 11/12/2005 7:56:32 PM
j-roc, yes I understand that (I think there is a "Seinfeld" episode that jokes about that. My point is that the processed form of a plant can be dangerous to heath, even if the actual plant isn't harmful. And, the natural form CAN be good for health in many cases when the processed form is very dangerous. This isn't true for every plant/organism... etc. Some plants are dangerous (e.g., manioc that is a staple food for many) UNLESS manioc is processed to REMOVE toxins, it is not food, but more like poison... so clearly this isn't a simple idea... ------- Something I thought of: THIS GREAT ILLUSTRATION and example of ILLUSION! (BOTH LITERALLY, and symbolically--like creation VERSUS evolution...) I think this is, symbolically, and as analogy, a (well-known) picture that shows something like how I see this creation versus evolution idea, nicely. Is the woman in the picture old? Is she young? Maybe you see both. If you don’t, I could show you how to see both (which is how I feel about what I’m metaphorically trying to do on this thread, sometimes.) Should we fight and call names about who is ‘right’ about the way to see… http://mathworld.wolfram.com/YoungGirl-OldWomanIllusion.html Dharma, I'm not sure you have to worry about it now. You've got plenty of petty squabbling to skip, so you can probably keep up easily with the actual thread. It's not going anywhere right now. Well if things get boring, I’ll play the ironic role of “Devils advocate” in debate (funny figure of speech), or I mean advocate of… One that assumes the reader understands why calling a 'bird' a 'dinosaur' could possibly provoke namecalling among taxonomists. I’d assume that would provoke some response in taxonomists, but not ‘namecalling,’ though. Also, remember that many people here are NOT taxonomists, or biologists, or maybe not even someone with a background in biology. Your audience is diverse. Being basic isn’t going to offend the people who already know, but being overly technical isn’t going to be heard/understood by (even the really smart) people without the background in that (sub)topic. I do this sometimes. That’s why I am hyper-sensitive to the idea. I am more concerned with getting the idea out in a manner that understandable, than ‘being right.’

dharma

Joined: 8/22/2004

Msg: 1896 (view)

Creation vs Evolution Posted: 11/12/2005 7:12:02 PM
I started where I left off and... now I'll post this so that I can go on with back reading. j-roc “Cocaine and nicotine are naturally occuring substances....” MLR: ancient South American drug dealers As far as I know, ‘drugs’ (in the sense of cocaine and modern cigarettes) that aren’t in the way god/nature created them (in plants) are pretty recent things (not 'ancient'). I think you can buy _Erythroxylum coca_ leaves (source of ‘cocaine’) in the local market in many South Amercican countries. I haven't seen where I've been, though. As I understand, the physiological effect of the coca leaf (chewed and put in lip like 'chew') has an even less stimulating effect on the body than that of caffeine. If you think that the botanical form of coca is a 'drug' then coffee beans are what? Coca leaves are not ‘cocaine,’ just as Twinkies are not ‘wheat.’ I've have never done (and never will do) 'coke,' but I might chew some tropical forest plant leaves, someday... There is a big difference, I think. Ok... sorry about being off the flow of topic (because I'm behind)... now I'll catch up and figure out where the topic is...

Dharma

Joined: 8/22/2004

Msg: 1831 (view)

Creation vs Evolution Posted: 11/11/2005 12:48:30 AM
On, 'and... Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church.' Gorilla, you are an outlier on the graph of norm in every single kind of post I've read by you. No matter how much you want to deny, you are most certainly a 'deviant.' +/- Dinosaurs and human beings coexisted, we have the fossils to prove it, with the dinosaur footprints and human footprints in the same ground, petrified I don't think so (in the way I, and many, understand dinosaur and human being, as Homo sp.), but even if that (lived at same time) was proved true (not likely, unless you really tweek the dictionary), how would that disprove evolution? You know, some time ago, on this thread, I talked about a story that my 4 year old child said. I'm going by memory now, but the story was something like this: we're talking about the backyard. Kid said there are dinosaurs right here (and jumped on the ground.) I said something about 'what happened to them." Response, "a big rock came." [I don't remember the exact words, now... go back many pages to see (and compare with my memory of what happened, too.) I hadn't told my child ever about the comet theory, but might have heard on tv... I asked hat happened to the dinosaurs. Response: 'people killed them when they came on the rock.' I always find this funny, but also a little weird (that a small kid says something so 'out there') Anyway. EVEN IF, we pretend that dinosaurs lived with humans (which, even if 'true' would be an ancestor...) But, even so, how does that make evolution wrong? I just like throwing out odd twists (even if not my idea, but especially those posed by a little kid.) :) There was a time when I begged for people to talk because I love this thread. Now, I literally can't keep up (likely cause I follow links and to fairly read a post before I respond. I try to really read and think about posts (and look at links, too)... but... now, maybe this is worse, I can't read lots, because I can't keep up.)

Dharma

Joined: 8/22/2004

Msg: 1741 (view)

Creation vs Evolution Posted: 11/8/2005 11:27:39 PM
This is out of order... but best I can do right now. I'm still reading. QJ: well documented instance of killer whales persuading humans to cooperate with them to catch baleen whales. But, should the actions of a few speak for all? I don’t think so. I think I try to articulate my views in words that do not exist (especially in English!) So, since the majority has a particular viewpoint, I’ve been trying to incorporate my views into that (honestly I’m ready to give up on that strategy… like ‘deprogramming’ a cult member, but in a group session, where the members of the group number into nearly a billion people.) Ahhh! MLR: A killer whale once murdered an animal trainer who was being cruel to him and made it look like an accident. It wasn't discovered until years later by people reviewing tapes of the performance. Basically, the trainer was hurting the whale in the practice sessions so in the performance the whale deliberately belly flopped on the guy and killed him. It looked like an accident until years later the performance was reviewed and it was clear the whale was trying to kill the guy from the beginning of the show and was just being careful not be incredibly obvious about it. I would not be surprised at all if a captive whale (or elephant, or chimp…) intentionally killed someone [though the induced mental trauma and insanity defense seem almost given and uniform for all captive creatures]. In 1792, anonymous (attributed to Taylor) published “A Vindication of the Rights of Brutes.” This made fun of (to shorten) animal rights. Later, Mary Wollstonecraft, did almost the same thing (in logic), EXCEPT she spoke about women versus men (instead of humans versus non-human animals.) She was mocked, at the time. ‘Taylor’ made fun of the idea with ‘brutes.’ Wollstonecraft showed the logic (that we see now). Since, we no mostly agree with the logic of equality of men and women (the logic of Mary is sound, so, the 'silly' logic of Taylor is?), then, why is it ‘funny’ to include non-humans in that? I find that an ethical evolution—not ‘silly’ at all. In case my position wasn’t ever clear, I ‘believe’ many non-human animals are as ‘smart’ as (some, maybe more) that humans. I believe that IQ shouldn’t be a criterion for assigning ‘rights,’ but many in the science community (especially those in animal experimentation) think that. Even if we went by THEIR criteria, whales, apes, and many other beings would be off limits. SO, why the hell are chimps going through literal hell, for science? Silivros: If consciousness creates everything :-) Then there is no such thing as chance. I disagree, in some ways. enviroconscious: It's quite simple really, you can't follow the teachings of the Bible and NOT be an environmentalist. Or any sacred text, for that matter…. loves us, is understanding, teaches forgiveness, and knows what is in our hearts, I think if we live moral lives The ‘live moral lives’… that’s a HUGE statement. You did a bit of your understanding with the following lines (which I think is on the right track, not exactly, but getting there…). I have an understanding of that, but mine differs greatly from ‘anything goes’ or ‘fundamentalism.’ That’s a big issue to discuss, even more than religion (since I don’t think God cares what ‘religion’ people are more than what they do, how they act (and the motivations for how they act…even if they mess up the outcome, but hopefully don’t.) I'm not sure if morality evolved or is learned... or both I know this isn’t (necessarily) directly related to evolution/creation, but isn’t it interesting how many religions include a divine trinity? I think that is an important point. (“father, son, spirit) or (mind, body, soul) or (many others… more accurate than 2’s, anyway) Science, right now, is focused mostly on one of the three (except, maybe psychology). The focus is the material world (very important, indeed, but incomplete). The mind and spirit (though Jung managed to make those one… and tried to include the material, too…) are very important, also. I’m going to need to apologize, in advance. I simply cannot keep up with the posts here. I will post, but will have to find time to read the rest… 1657… and going. (how prolific, indeed!) I’m stil... trying... to read. I might just give up and read the last two pages.

Dharma

Joined: 8/22/2004

Msg: 1628 (view)

Creation vs Evolution Posted: 11/6/2005 9:06:50 PM
On love and linguistics... enviroconscious said: Modern Greek is very similar to New Testament Greek (Koine Greek). There are actually only 3 words for love in Greek, (brotherly love, romantic love, and all encompasing love, as for God). However each has numerous endings to describe...well, basically who it is that is doing the loving. It is difficult to articulate/translate the language, given the differences in linguistics and form. You did some of that, nicely. There are many (hundreds... and way more) of WAYS to understand the word 'LOVE,' in Greek, alone. Then, put those ways into any specific context and the results will be very different. The basic LOVE is the same. So on...

Dharma

Joined: 8/22/2004

Msg: 1626 (view)

Creation vs Evolution Posted: 11/6/2005 9:00:53 PM
All this silly fight about religion... my god is better than yours... (except those are the same) I say we just kinda start over, now. 'Eden' again. Gaia is accepted by science and also welcomed by almost every chuch that exists. How about we go with that. Worship the divine throught the creation (who IS also the creation.) But, what to I know?

Dharma

Joined: 8/22/2004

Msg: 1617 (view)

Creation vs Evolution Posted: 11/6/2005 8:06:17 PM
Majestic_Lizard_Returns (I'll call MLR, unless MLR says no) said: My biggest problem with the Creationist philosophical mindset (and other similar fundamentalists) is that they do tend to think that God will just fix things and that they don't need to be responsible for what mankind does to the planet. I most certainly believe that humankind (some more implicated than others, also some more complex, in thought, than others) are responsible for this mess, and the duty to fix this mess (though that’s mostly NOT technological). God might help us help us… or could also say whales rule! I fish for a wonka bite (sealife, even if in completely different genera)... Guesswho needs to directly respond to one of the many metaphors I’ve presented (poop is the most humorous, but any will do. OTHERWISE, I will also will not respond (most?) posts of that person (and the aliases… same goes for, the ironic person, 'meek'), as others have done. If you can’t understand the comical poop, you don’t understand either a sacred text, or evolution….

Dharma

Joined: 8/22/2004

Msg: 13 (view)

Venezuela what going on? Posted: 11/6/2005 7:17:20 PM
When will 'they' learn that the 'economy' (world, or a nation) is literally at the mercy of (mother) nature. She will try to teach, but will do what is needed if teaching is ignored (and has mostly been), too. What you do to the Earth, you do to yourself. What is bad for nature is bad for the economy. PERIOD. (Bush Jr. is not a good leader, in every way... argue with the 'weather,' Bush.)

Dharma

Joined: 8/22/2004

Msg: 11 (view)

Venezuela what going on? Posted: 11/6/2005 6:36:29 PM
maybe the cia can invade venezuela and bolivia and argentina and of course brazil The CIA does this all the time, everywhere, and has been doing for some time. I have a huge problem when this is used to harm others (and sometimes when grad students accept grants--sad, theologically, to me. You know who you are.) This is the subtle text in the Washington Post article I posted. Chavez suspected that missionaries were spys and harming indigenous cultures. So, he said "out." (Likely he suspected what he should, but that wasn't really the case in this instance... thus the protest.) But, then the tribes responded and said, 'no, actually, these are people who are helping us and we want to be consulted when action is taken 'in our name.' My (very elementary) understanding of this situation is that Chavez (who has taken strides to grant Indians rights to their ancestral lands) is being influenced by the stupid acts of the celeb. religious right (like Robertson.) I don't know much about the whole of the controversy, but I have some pretty good, and informed, intuitions about the whole of the controversy, but I have some pretty factual information, too. This post has nothing to do with the politics, other that stated. I'm connecting dots, here.

Dharma

Joined: 8/22/2004

Msg: 1609 (view)

Creation vs Evolution Posted: 11/6/2005 5:01:26 PM
Quietjohn, I don't think that is what I try to say (sorry that I can’t explain what I think, better). I understand that what I say is sometimes confusing, but I am talking with this 'audience.' I think fundamentalism is destructive, so I try to sway away from that (both in religion, and to a much much less degree, science). If you look at that quick daisyworld animation (http://library.thinkquest.org/C003763/flash/gaia1.htm), this might help me explain a point (here about the effects of vegetation on climate, and human's ability to effect that). When I said something about individual human beings in GAIA as being analogous to brain cells in the human body, we could imagine that with the limited knowledge of ecology we have, we could THINK a way to stop global warming, for example. We know that trees sequester carbon and also emit, but the net is a tree pulls carbon out (and deforestation puts more into the atmosphere and loss of an ancient tree is a HUGE net loss, even if only talking about carbon—but much more, too.) Now, if we were to protect the remaining natural ecosystems (a smart thing to do), WHILE simultaneously restoring natural areas (that mostly have been lost in the last 200—most in last 50 years), we COULD, ‘hypothetically’ reverse global warming. That would take a 'daisy' with knowledge of evolution, and the ability to both react and do what needs to happen. I didn’t say that correctly, but I think the idea is there. The idea is that humans can destroy, but, with our knowledge, can also prevent and reverse previous harm. Do not mistake this for any justification for further harm (or a faith in human ability to every replace what was destroyed prior to today. No way. But, we could prevent our own demise.) I think WE ARE AT THE BREAKING POINT, or almost beyond. But, it’s not too late, if we think about this. Also, I’m sorry about my (hyper) use of certain (forms of) punctuation (like ( ), …, and ---).

Dharma

Joined: 8/22/2004

Msg: 1599 (view)

Creation vs Evolution Posted: 11/6/2005 4:25:35 PM
Guesswho, My goodness, Guesswho. If I could borrow your style ('robot' talk, to me), for a moment, "did you read what I said? What about my questions? You still haven't answered my questions... I am divine. Who are you?" Let's not do that style much more. I hope you understand that I am not attacking you in any way. I agree with a few things you have to say, but I do find what you say very difficult to read because of the style. I've found myself paying less attention to what you write, because of that. (My perceptual characterization is lots of something like: xyz is abc and so there. I don't care if you show me reasons to believe xyz is not abc. Are you a scientist? Who are you?) You seem to think that creation and evolution are two mutually exclusive ideas; I do not. I also have big problems with fundamentalism religion, literal interpretation of (poetic) texts, and other things. I am a bit critical of the WAY science is conducted, but not of 'science' itself. Maybe, we can talk more and find more common ground.

Dharma

Joined: 8/22/2004

Msg: 1593 (view)

Creation vs Evolution Posted: 11/6/2005 3:55:29 PM
“Guesswho”, at least read this micro-recap of he said, she said. You’ve helped ‘weird’ demonstrate his point of the first line, I believe. I think, if we could get beyond your fight/flight reactionary posting strategy (and you take advice about critical reading of your source of info), people might take some things you say as something besides reactionary. You seem to know how to push buttons to evoke response, but not really a meaningful debate (much due to form/style... of posts). thisis2weird said: she's just not listening… i cant respond to you any longer guesswho, and neither will i be reading any of your posts. many individuals have attempted to politely bring you into a meaningful discussion… [and writes in a subsequent post] i tend to favour ID (or some variation thereof) but i still wouldnt want religion taught in public school. all ye of faith ... yes, the creator may have inspired the original authors (or they were old souls and already knew the answers) to write the bible… Guesswho said: Hey. wierd, what you say is really wierd, so weird... At least I am a student of organic chemistry, who are you? About evolution, well, buddy, fat chance!… You think this happened all by itself? [and in a subsequent post, says,] I hate to repeat myself. i am a student of organic chemistry. Who are you? And you did not answer my question about the equation, smart pants. What did I write? I think maybe these posts, juxtaposed, might show you what people are saying. Like you, most people don’t like needing to keep repeating themselves. On a discussion board, if you pose a question and get no reply, you might mention that again (in case that was overlooked.) If still there isn’t a response, that might signal that the question or issue isn’t something people care to talk about. Regarding the motivations for your fervor, you might read my post a page or two back with some alternative ways to conceptualize a belief so that evolution doesn’t conflict with your faith. When I write here, I know my audience is diverse and have different levels of knowledge. Thus, I often write basic things, some just to offer ideas to people (even if the subject matter is not one that I believe, or agree with… plus I often just stick some cheesy humor in there trying to lighten things up, a bit.) I was going to respond more to Gorilla, but tsur’s post with the Galileo quote, did that nicely. Like Galileo, I also believe most people have a God-given ability to reason and think logically. Or are those given just to tempt us into employing these skills?

Dharma

Joined: 8/22/2004

Msg: 1557 (view)

Creation vs Evolution Posted: 11/6/2005 3:02:05 AM
Thank you, thisis2weird. Yes, I am intentionally non-committal about some topics and aspects of some issues. I said, “but I want to restate that I feel ‘intelligent design’ is not science, but rather a DECEPTIVE EUPHEMISM” I stated that too matter-of-factly… I am not very concerned about the idea (that there is an 'intellegent design/er'), but rather the underlying motivations of people who advocate it (being that Pandora box, church/state issue). 'God, protect us from your followers.' comes to mind. ON THIS ANSWERSINGENESIS SITE: I was curious about this genesis site that seems to be quoted over and over. So I looked around there more. I was sometimes amused, but not impressed. I also looked at a couple other sites. The answersingenesis site is considered, by many, the ‘best’ on creationism (that doesn’t say much for the quality of info on these sites in general, huh?) [“And [they] believe that Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church.” (SNL)] ---------------------------------- “Australia’s Aborigines ... did they see dinosaurs?” http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i1/aborigines.asp “The myths and legends of the Aboriginal people, including their accounts of the creation of the world, are known as the Dreamtime. Such stories feature monsters, of whom many are mythological. Others, however, may have reference to real creatures, the Aborigines even insisting on their past ‘flesh-and-blood’ existence.” ----------------------------------- There is an extreme cultural divide here with what the author is trying to use as supporting ‘evidence’ for claims. The author says, “Australia’s Aboriginal heritage is rapidly being lost... There are several traditions which suggest that the ancestors of today’s Aborigines may have had contact with the last few dinosaurian survivors…This magazine has previously shown photographic evidence of ancient rock drawings of dinosaurs…All of this contradicts the evolutionary belief system” It seems a bit disingenuous and disrespectful for this genesis site to co-opt and distort Aboriginal knowledge, art, practices and customs to further their claims. Maybe BrightRaziel could comment on this from a cultural antropology perspective? --------------------------------- [A reply] Did Australia's Aborigines REALLY See Dinosaurs? http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/aig_did_aborigines_see_dinosaurs.htm “Think for a moment what this would have meant to his young naturalist, Charles Darwin, if he had been afforded the opportunity to see a dinosaur with his own eyes. History would not have taken the tragic turns it took after he was used by Satan to sow the lie of evolution among the peoples of the world.” ------------------------------------ As a note: Although this particular response is intended to parody that article, and parts are humorous, I did find other parts of the reply a little culturally insensitive and disrespectful, as well. ** I found the following article a better reply: "Answers" in Genesis' Inconsistencies in Endorsing Myths Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D. http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/aig_and_myths_henke.htm “Although many of them support dragon legends and show sympathy for the existence of the Loch Ness monster (another plesiosaur legend), I see no YEC endorsements for the Big Foot fantasy. I guess that's because the supporters of Big Foot often claim that it's an ape ancestor of humans, and what anti-evolutionist could support that?” --------------- I found this (from another site) funny: Fossilized Human Finger http://home.texoma.net/~linesden/cem/finger/finger.htm What do I make of this kind of 'evidence' ?

Dharma

Joined: 8/22/2004

Msg: 1553 (view)

Creation vs Evolution Posted: 11/6/2005 12:36:18 AM
silivros: I think I'll pound my head against the wall a few times. Knock yourself out. Or, I mean don't knock yourself unconscious, or conscious, or... ah...[bangs head on desk emote] :) Rhetoric and rhetorical questions... spinning... spinning... I meant to put this in the other post: This is a simple and fun FLASH ANIMATION of Daisyworld – evolution by natural selection and Gaia. http://library.thinkquest.org/C003763/flash/gaia1.htm

Dharma

Joined: 8/22/2004

Msg: 5 (view)

Venezuela what going on? Posted: 11/6/2005 12:29:06 AM
I think there is a hint in your link in OP, “Oil rich Venezuela provides approximately 15% of the oil imported to the United States.” There are also additional hints in the ones below. “Venezuela protest worries analysts” The Guardian "President Bush yesterday said rising OIL prices could damage the US recovery but indicated he was prepared to take fiscal and other action to ease the pain. His comments came as a one-day national strike paralyzed crude exports from Venezuela, the world's fourth biggest supplier and an important US provider.” (emphasis added, 2002 article at http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,681656,00.html) Global Exchange: Free Trade Area of the Americas “The Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) is an attempt to expand the failed North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to every country in Central America, South America and the Caribbean, except Cuba. Negotiations began right after the completion of NAFTA in 1994 and were supposed to have been completed by January 1, 2005. But an exciting thing happened: the FTAA was not signed on January 1st. Led by strong social movements across the hemisphere, countries like Venezuela, Argentina, Bolivia, and Brazil have said NO to a model that has increased poverty across the globe, and are instead searching for a better model of regional integration.”(Rest of article at http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/ftaa/) "Tribes Protest Chavez Expulsion Order," Washington Post (Indirectly related article, but interesting. Remember what Pat Roberson said about assassination of Chavez...) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801217.html

Dharma

Joined: 8/22/2004

Msg: 10 (view)

Rainforests, Hurricanes, and Global Warming -- Amazon deforestation worse than thought Posted: 11/5/2005 11:55:55 PM
Hello David, I have been meaning to reply to your posts about species and rainforests on the "Afternoon tea with Aristotle and friends" thread. I’m glad to see you here, too. You make great points. I'd like this thread to really keep going and get more attention to this very important issue--keep posting. :) ALUMINUM and ENERGY Somewhere (I can’t find the source) said that for one aluminum CAN, made from virgin ore, the energy required to produce that is equal to one GALLON of gas. “If we recycle aluminum it cuts energy use by 96 percent when compared to using virgin ore.” http://www.energy.gov/engine/doe/files/dynamic/96200311309_recycle.v20030518.html Aluminum (bauxite) extraction is very extensive and energy expensive. This is a material that is in a thin layer, over a large area. Extraction requires destruction of large areas of habitat above the material. Then, there is the smelting which is, in rainforests, often fueled by burning trees or by the electricity supplied by giant hydroelectric dams. The Tucurui Dam in Brazil, alone, floods an area of primary forest that could fit the entire countries of Grenada, Barbados, and Martinique. That dam was built to supply electricity to industrial extraction (aluminum smelter and refinery, logging, iron and other raw materials—mostly to supply US, in the industrial countries (This sort of thing often opted to do by countries in order to pay off giant foreign debt.) "Two thirds of Tucurui's electricity is despatched to these foreign-owned aluminium companies" http://www.tve.org/earthreport/archive/16Apr2001.html BEEF Since 1960, 24% of Central American rainforests were cleared for cattle ranching (and most of the beef sent to the US.) Most of those ranchers own most of the land (which also is connected to landlessness and poor people) moving into forests (often by logging roads) to eek out a living. In Brazil (and many other countries) ranchers also use bribes (to stake claim to indigenous lands) and violence to evict rainforest people from their land (“a few hundred dollars ten or twelve armed men at your disposal .” (_In the Rainforest_ by Caufield) I just don’t eat beef. If I did, I would get local and organic beef. Below is additional information and sites to learn more. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- WHAT CAN YOU DO to save the rainforest? 1. Reduce your paper and wood consumption. 2. Reduce your oil consumption. 3. Reduce your beef consumption. 4. Hold businesses accountable. 5. Invest in rainforest communities. 6. Support the grassroots. 7. Support rainforest protection organizations. (For details about why these are important, see) http://www.ran.org/info_center/factsheets/01c.html Today deforestation in the Amazon is the result of several activities, the foremost of which include: 1. Clearing for cattle pasture 2. Colonization and subsequent subsistence agriculture 3. Infrastructure improvements 4. Commercial agriculture 5. Logging Deforestation in the Amazon 2004 (Great information-including causes and effects of deforestation at the bottom of the page) http://www.mongabay.com/brazil.html To learn about rainforests: http://www.ran.org/info_center/about_rainforests.html In addition… “Many emergent and resurgent diseases are directly linked to land alterations which bring humans in closer contact with such pathogen.” http://www.mongabay.com/0906.htm FOR MORE INFORMATION AND TO TAKE ACTION TO PROTECT RAINFORESTS, VISIT (these are well-known and respected organizations): Rainforest Action Network (Great org, works on rainforest protection, local people issues, etc) http://www.ran.org/ Rainforest Foundation (Sting's organization that works to protect indigenous communities and their lands) http://www.rainforestfoundationuk.org Forest Conservation Portal (like the 'google' for forest information) http://forests.org/ Rainforestweb.org http://www.rainforestweb.org Rainforest Alliance http://www.rainforest-alliance.org

Dharma

Joined: 8/22/2004

Msg: 1551 (view)

Creation vs Evolution Posted: 11/5/2005 11:00:48 PM
These quotes are from the "Afternoon tea with Aristotle and friends" thread, but the concepts are relevant here. Wonka said: The shadow of doubt is very clearly in the underlying implication of Gaia, which is that the complex dynamic ecosystem acts with conscious intent. The original postulation is a little blurry in this regard, but it metaphorically implies it. I've encountered plenty of fringe science before, that, had they simply formulated it more rigorously, it wouldn't be so fringe. Quietjohn said: but we should leave that [discussion of Gaia, conciousness and ID/evolution proponents] for Trewq's thread I said, I'll post something more responding to wonka and quietjohn (on conciousness and Gaia) on the creation evolution thread. Lovelock, in _Gaia_, says, “The only serious criticism of Gaia was from the biologists, Ford Doolittle and Richard Dawkins—namely that there is no way for natural selection to lead to altruism global in scale. Such an event, they said, would require forsight and planning to be included in the genetic structure of living organisms. Their criticism has been definitively answered. I made a model of a planet with a simple ecosystem of white and black daisies and herbivores to graze them…no foresight or planning was needed, only the unconscious growth and competition of the species leading to their natural selection as Darwin described it.” (ix) (His model) Daisyworld [http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~bloh/] Although I like Lovelock's Daisyworld and think that lends support to evolution, I also think Lovelock avoids talking about Gaia as sentient so as to not ‘commit’ scientific ‘heresy.’ Jane Goodall had similar problems with paternalistic science that found naming chimpanzees scientifically heretical. Lovelock talking about sentience would be analogous to Galileo’s problems with the church, only with the scientific establishment (he even says this). I do not find the notion that the planet has consciousness as not scientific (if science is conceptualized a bit different—we are in a paradigm shift, a ‘science revolution,’ right now). I also think there is a difference between conscious and unconscious ‘intent’…some more to talk with Jung about. Some of point I tried to make earlier is that (maybe Darwin would agree) there is nothing about either evolution or Gaia that preclude a force or ‘designer’ (now that’s become a loaded word, thanks to the ID folks) that ‘created’: mathematics, laws of physics, evolution, and so on (including sentience of Gaia, and although that might seem outside the scope of science, I don't think it necessarily is outside--and I think related to quantum physics.) Dr. Vandana Shiva (a nuclear physicist) has strong criticisms of modern science as a reductionist or mechanical paradigm and patriarchal project (often aimed at profit). Shiva says, “the project that science’s sacredness makes taboo is the examination of science in just the ways any other institution or set of social practices can be examined.” She describes historical progression where Mother Nature became conceptually transformed (helped by Bacon, and others) into dead ‘matter’ (inert particles) to be both tamed and conquered (no wonder this mindset finds the quantum world confusing and frustrating. : ) ). Robert Boyle celebrated mechanical views as a way to conquer nature, non-human animals, the goddess, and Indians. Perhaps the pendulum has swung too far from organic science (less deterministic and dualistic) and towards a mechanistic science. I think that is now redirecting again (partly due to new discoveries in physics.) Maybe there are strong connections between conciousness and quantum physics.

Dharma

Joined: 8/22/2004

Msg: 178 (view)

Afternoon tea with Aristotle and friends Posted: 11/5/2005 10:42:06 PM
I'm not sure what about the ideas of conciousness would make the concept fringe, if they were included in the scientific conceptualization/discussion/description/investigation... of Gaia. I do see that formulation and investigation as more difficult given the way science is done right now. I'll post something more responding to wonka and quietjohn (on conciousness and Gaia) on the creation evolution thread. (btw, sorry about the quote earlier by wonka that I thought quietjohn said... )

Dharma

Joined: 8/22/2004

Msg: 1550 (view)

Creation vs Evolution Posted: 11/5/2005 9:05:05 PM
I said, Now, I'll wait for someone to tell me that dogs don't really crap, but make you think they crap to test your 'faith' in 'dogs' not 'crapping.' (where, to make a point) I changed the word god to 'dog' and evolution ['create' with evolution] to 'crap') And… drumroll please… gorillagrog: It doesn't matter all the so-called "evidence" for evolution as some would say. The Bible disproves the idea entirely. The idea of evolution is impossible to reconcile with the Genesis account. Therefore, evolution is a pipedream which has been used by Satan. I had this so-called ‘debate’ many times with people when I lived in the Bible belt. I was trying to understand these things that make no sense, seem absurd, to me. This idea does not ever really get more complex than this: God made things like fossils and other crappy evidence of evolution to test ‘faith,’ or conversely, that Satan makes people think evolution exists. God and/or Satan (which, or both?), makes you think crap, to trick you… This seems obvious, but I want to restate that I feel ‘intelligent design’ is not science, but rather a DECEPTIVE EUPHEMISM, that might sound benign, but is really intended to open the door to promote teaching of creationism and religion in public schools. This is, more specifically, the creation story of one group and in their way. Why the hostility towards evolution? I don’t see the same hostility towards the theory of gravity. If this ID ‘theory’ is really just a basic idea that some designer created life, why the big ‘debate?’ Just send the kids off to school and tell them that an ‘intelligence’ designed things like mathematics, gravity, laws of physics, evolution, and so on that they learn about in their classes. Send them to school to learn math and science and say that these physical laws and processes were set up (designed) ‘in the beginning’ and the whole system is let to go from those. If you want to get really philosophical, “in the beginning” (debate about this obsession with the literal interpretation of 7 days (why gorilla thinks evolution is ‘impossible’ to reconcile with Genesis), Here are a few random points for those who hold those views (of evolution being threatening to the idea of God) to consider: 1. If you feel God (or faith, etc) is ‘threatened’ by evolution and scientific evidence, you might want to rethink your conceptualization of that (is it really “God” who feels threatened or uncomfortable, or you? Is the idea of adjusting your own conceptualization (or fundamental interpretation) feeling threatening to what you once felt so certain you knew? You’d need to think that G-d wrote the Bible, and not ‘imperfect’ human beings on behalf of (there really isn’t a way for Christians to believe that the Bible was penned by G-d, rather than the M,M,L,J. et.al. for example, so that’s out.). Then, you’d need to literally read that text, which (again) Christians, ironically, are often the strongest supporters of literal interpretation, but should really find literal reading ‘impossible’ (given that it is actually stated about metaphor, parable, and so on.) So, again, that should make reconciliation very possible. 2. enviroconscious made a point about the nature of miracle. Couldn’t a creator make billions of years fit into a week. 3. Another way to think of that is ‘What is a day to the ‘creator’? A ‘day’ to you might be a tiny fraction of a fraction of a… second (or really ‘meaningless’ if that is ‘eternal and timeless’) to that force. 4. The theological debate on this rests on human understanding of time as linear. Why not think ‘creation’ IS CURRENTLY happening—and ‘evolution’ is one of the mechanisms of that force to do this creating? For lack of better way to say, maybe we are CURRENTLY living in the first ‘few pages’ of Genesis (maybe, not only there, though). Gorilla: Darwin says we come from monkeys… Animals as far as I can see are nowhere said to have a spirit in connection with God's spirit. You people say I am not objective… Darwin did not say people came from monkeys. I, and all humans, share a common ancestor with primates, like Gorillas. (Inside note, you’re still not being meek, ‘meek,’ I mean Gorilla.) Micxter said: And as far as the 637 scientists through the ages named steve that may or may not support a certain claim, when taken in the context of tens of thousands of scientists, it is hardly worth mentioning. So ,637 people agreed with one person's opinion. There are probably more than that that would sign a statement that the moon is made of green cheese. “Are Steves biologists? Are they all scientists? Are they all Ph.D.s? About two thirds are biologists (when we last counted, at any rate). (There are, unsurprisingly, few biologists to be found on the creationist lists.) Most are scientists; there are a few borderline cases (economists, philosophers, psychiatrists, science educators, medical researchers, computer scientists, and so forth). Nearly all are Ph.D.s; there are a few M.D.s and Ed.D.s. [Q: regarding micxter's 'through the ages']Did it take a long time to collect the signatures? No. It took about a month to collect most of the original 220. Originally the plan was to stop at 100, but they kept on coming.” Source: Project Steve FAQ, http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/5945_the_faqs_2_16_2003.asp

Dharma

Joined: 8/22/2004

Msg: 1527 (view)

Creation vs Evolution (and dog poop) Posted: 11/4/2005 11:53:36 PM
Evolution is dog poop. :) Follow my idea (and weird metaphor), here... gorilla grod : Things do not evolve, they degenerate, they decompose, they don't gradually get more complex. You can't slip something by Quietjohn... he's on his toes and bright. QJ: since they seem to say very similar things. Maybe you need to go back through the thread and recap what you posted and what the responses were. You all seem to write the same STUFF. 'Things' and stuff and all that crap–-semantics. : ) But, unlike some ideas, linguistic theory changes and adapts to new information. Suppose, I change the word evolution to ‘crap’ (what I hear expressed from some here by some people) and the word ‘god’ to dog... (I have no problem with difference of ideas, but I would like to hear something from ID ideas that says something original, rather than quotes, or presentation of ideas from things on the answer genesis website, all the time... That is boring and leaves nothing interesting to talk about...) It is a fact that dogs crap—that’s both natural and factual, and no matter how hard you try to make a dog stop doing that, or how much you not want to think about dog crap, it will continue to happen--like evolution. Besides, if you’ve ever been in the rainforest, poop (and the dung beetles with their evolutionary poop ‘radar’ making their big poop balls to impress the girls) is actually really cool to observe. ‘Crap’ is only crap if you refuse to see what is amazing and miraculous about crap. Like I said, I think god created evolution (and poop, too, for that matter) and that’s all kinda beautiful, to me—evolution, and even poop, has interesting and miraculous qualities (God/nature agrees). Now, I'll wait for someone to tell me that dogs don't really crap, but make you think they crap to test your 'faith' in 'dogs' not 'crapping.' That's absurd, correct?

Show ALL Forums