Animals, the Great Beyond, and Creation

Nathan Poe · Mar 6, 2007

dad said:
And a good book it is.

Not really. It's long winded, disjointed, pretty thin on plot, morally contradictory, purilely graphic, and chock full of shallow, one-dimensional characters -- The kind of thing Charles Dickens might've written after a three-day bender.

If God authored the Bible, he should've hired a ghostwriter -- or perhaps a HolyGhostwriter.

Contracelsus · Mar 6, 2007

dad said:
I have no reason to assume that people do not have spiritual experiences with bad spirits, as well as good spirits, no, of course. We know there is a spiritual, but it is not all angels that are good.

Interesting point. Valid certainly. But then the obvious question arises: how do YOU know the nature of the spirit you feel?

Remember there are a lot of pagans who did good things. And most of them, even the wiccans today, are desirous of doing good and feel the spirit they feel drives them to care for the world and their fellow people.

I think this is why it is important to ask, because you claim (as do all religious people) that they feel their faith is valid and others may be deceived. But the support we have for our beliefs of the non-physical must have some underlying "physical" reality that we can use to judge competing beliefs.

Jesus is the way to salvation, that's why He came. Why?

I was posing that because you obviously feel that the statements of Jesus in the New Testament ring true for you and the indeed he came to save people. But clearly you feel that for some reason and would expect to be able to convince a Wiccan that that is the case for all people.

What about those people who don't "feel" it? How do you convince them to want to "feel" it? How do you convince them that their CURRENT FEELINGS are incorrect and YOUR current feelings are correct?

Not even close, but, then again, that was not the idea anyhow, it would seem.
Tell us of your spiritual beliefs, now. Do you believe in the spiritual?

Why does my spirituality have anything to do with this? If I were a strict trinitarian or a unitarian or a docetist or an adoptionist, it doesn't matter. What matters is how any person of faith "convinces" other people of different faiths.

Clearly as you state we are all stuck in the fishbowl, but some, such as yourself, claim extra knowledge outside of the fishbowl. But the problems arise when you compare the knowledge YOU have of the space outside of the fishbowl with what a devout pagan or a muslim has of the outside of the fishbowl.

Unfortunately we can all only agree on what is in the fishbowl with any certainty.

Apart from shouting bible verses at DIFFERENT believers, how do you convince them that their special non-physical, non-PO knowledge is wrong and yours is right?

dad · Mar 6, 2007

Nathan Poe said:
Not really. It's long winded, disjointed, pretty thin on plot, morally contradictory, purilely graphic, and chock full of shallow, one-dimensional characters -- The kind of thing Charles Dickens might've written after a three-day bender.

It might seem that way to those that don't get most of it. Like a young child that can barely read, trying to read The Merchant of Venice. It only has limited appeal.

If God authored the Bible, he should've hired a ghostwriter -- or perhaps a HolyGhostwriter.

Ghost written books in ghost code, need a ghost to unlock it, so that mere natural man can understand what it is that is going on. This is news?

dad · Mar 6, 2007

Contracelsus said:
Interesting point. Valid certainly. But then the obvious question arises: how do YOU know the nature of the spirit you feel?

I know by God's word. Any spiriit that confesses not that Jesus came in the flesh is NOT of God. Simple really. We were provided the 'litmus' test.

Remember there are a lot of pagans who did good things. And most of them, even the wiccans today, are desirous of doing good and feel the spirit they feel drives them to care for the world and their fellow people.

So? What, is this now about goodness, and morals??

I think this is why it is important to ask, because you claim (as do all religious people) that they feel their faith is valid and others may be deceived. But the support we have for our beliefs of the non-physical must have some underlying "physical" reality that we can use to judge competing beliefs.

Perhaps, that includes the same past belief. Yet there is no proof. Sad, that, for you.

I was posing that because you obviously feel that the statements of Jesus in the New Testament ring true for you and the indeed he came to save people. But clearly you feel that for some reason and would expect to be able to convince a Wiccan that that is the case for all people.

This isn't the place for that anyhow. It is a creation and science forum. WE simply look at things like known quantities, and science claims that can or can't be backed up! Morals, really, is not an issue here.

What about those people who don't "feel" it? How do you convince them to want to "feel" it? How do you convince them that their CURRENT FEELINGS are incorrect and YOUR current feelings are correct?

I don't feel a same past, what about me?

Why does my spirituality have anything to do with this? If I were a strict trinitarian or a unitarian or a docetist or an adoptionist, it doesn't matter. What matters is how any person of faith "convinces" other people of different faiths.

The spiritual is a known quantity. Regardless of your beliefs. What does only harping of the physical have to do with the creation debate of the far past??

Clearly as you state we are all stuck in the fishbowl, but some, such as yourself, claim extra knowledge outside of the fishbowl. But the problems arise when you compare the knowledge YOU have of the space outside of the fishbowl with what a devout pagan or a muslim has of the outside of the fishbowl.

Whether the Houris of heaven of the mulims, or the pagan gods and spirits of Rome, there are similarities of understanding, and experiences.

Unfortunately we can all only agree on what is in the fishbowl with any certainty.

And where the bowl ends, and that it does have limits.

Apart from shouting bible verses at DIFFERENT believers, how do you convince them that their special non-physical, non-PO knowledge is wrong and yours is right?

No need to! All that was needed is showing that the same past is a myth, not science. How we access the great beyond, if at all, is up to the people. Power to the people. Power to the people of faith, to have their own faith taught, and not some strange God omitting, bible opposing same past MYTH.

aerophagicbricolage · Mar 6, 2007

dad said:
So? What are you insinuating?

What caused the deficiency?

You are certain of that, I suppose?

I know. We didn't. But it sure seems the different past convinced some! Pitiful.

Click to expand...

It's not a deficiency, it's the exact same mutation in exactly the same place on that gene that makes the animal unable to produce Vitamin C.

And yes, I am certain of what I said. 100%.

Contracelsus · Mar 6, 2007

dad said:
This isn't the place for that anyhow. It is a creation and science forum. WE simply look at things like known quantities, and science claims that can or can't be backed up! Morals, really, is not an issue here.

Actually this is the perfect place for it. I am hoping that you will accept that indeed your "feelings" about the area outside of the fishbowl are really just that. That in reality you don't, technically speaking, "know" anything about what it's like out there.

Let me grant you that you have been told about this space by the Bible. That is not really "person knowledge" on your part. But you can't really "test" it.

Sure you'll know when you die and you either cease to exist or you meet God or Al'lah damns you to hell or you get reincarnated as an insect to relive it until you get it right, that's when you'll actually "know" anything about the nonPO universe.

So you tell us that when Wiccan "Draws down the moon" and intensely feels the good vibes of the Mother Earth Goddess that that is deception but your similar good vibes feeling of Jesus eternal love and God's gift of salvation through grace, is indeed truth.

You can't really convince other members of the earth that your feelings are right and theirs are wrong.

In essence that is what faith is all about.

The spiritual is a known quantity.

You would have everyone believe that. Perhaps YOUR spiritual is known to YOU, but what about OTHER people's spiritual? Don't they have a right to make claims that directly contradict YOUR claims only they use their spiritual data versus yours?

Who is right? How does an IMPARTIAL THIRD PARTY know how to judge?

How we access the great beyond, if at all, is up to the people. Power to the people. Power to the people of faith, to have their own faith taught, and not some strange God omitting, bible opposing same past MYTH.

Again, you are speaking so ecumenically! It is good to know that it is just up to each individual to pursue their own personal path to the "great beyond". Then there is no need for faith-battles or wars of competing ideologies.

A heaven on earth based on the great equivalence of all beliefs. Even the right to NOT have a belief!

That, unfortunately, takes the "outside the fishbowl" universe out of the equation if we have no way for an unbiased 3rd party to assess who is right and who is wrong.

If there was a way to _test_ the great beyond. To access it so that everyone has the exact same information and we can compare.

But to my knowledge in all of history and all of human endeavor, there has never been a time like that. There has never been an entire concensus on the "supernatural".

Kudos to you if you have that information. I should hope you will share it with us all so we can all learn from it and all come to your exalted state of true knowledge.

FishFace · Mar 6, 2007

dad said:
As you've told us before, people who don't already believe your myth see no evidence for your myth, so there is no reason for them to believe your same past myth.

What myth? That the universe can be studied and analysed, and laws can be drawn up describing it? You deny that that is possible?
Of course, it makes no difference - your myth is still a myth, that no impartial third party can have evidence for.

Come back when you have some evidence that you can demonstrate has not just been made up. We all know when that will be! Meanwhile have the decency to not call it science. I mean that.

Call what science? You are claiming that the Bible is true without evidence. I don't think you're claiming it is science, thankfully, but you're still claiming it's rational.

None the disbelieving, pitiful physical only folks can see. But that really should be no surprise.

Why bother with science if you're just going to invent evidence every time you can't actually produce any? Here's the rub: Praying doesn't cure people. Nothing you say can alter that - it has been demonstrated on at least two separate clinical trials. You can't wail about "physical only" and "spiritual" - the study was done, and the results were clear; prayer does not increase the likelihood of a cure.

You assume that the prayer was not somehow actually answered, and wave the answer away. And where's that?

I do not assume it at all - there is no evidence for the prayer being answered. If the answer is always "no," or if the answer is "no" as often as would be expected were there no answerer, it doesn't matter whether it's answered, does it?

Prayer is always answered. Desperate, sincere, well directed prayer, in accordance to the bible, and will of God even gets the results it asks for.

And yet you have absolutely no evidence for that claim, whatsoever.

It is a fact that both quantum realities, and animal observations push the limits of natural explanations to the unknown. No?

No. Because the sentence you uttered didn't make any sense. Quantum Physics requires new natural explanations, and this study, if it had produced a valid conclusion could have also done.

How about this?

Cynics will quite rightly point out that there is always some global event that could be used to 'explain' the times when the Egg machines behaved erratically. After all, our world is full of wars, disasters and terrorist outrages, as well as the occasional global celebration. Are the scientists simply trying too hard to detect patterns in their raw data?
The team behind the project insist not. They claim that by using rigorous scientific techniques and powerful mathematics it is possible to exclude any such random connections.[/quote]

You've got the answer, right there. If, indeed, there is any correlation between the data, then, without the raw data, and the details of many many events occurring, plotted against those data, how do you suppose we are meant to draw proper conclusions?

You, of course, leap straight in, since it suits you. The reasonable amongst us like to make sure it's the data talking, not the people who decided that the data matched history.

Better not to talk of a disappeared thread. No one can really verify you were hung out to dry.

Since you're shamefully near to bringing up the same old lunacy with epistemology, you might be able to show the world how warped your philosophy is, once again.

Science cannot clash with my ideas, as they include science, the whole fishbowl!

No they don't. Whenever science makes a conclusion you don't like, you ignore it. For example, science concludes that the universe is expanding, using exactly the same basic assumptions as allow us to know that the sun will come up tomorrow. You don't like this, so you ignore it, without any reason to, whatsoever.

All that attempts to clash is your religion

I am an atheist, I have none.

and same past myth, and assumption.

I am going to start counting from now, since I know you'll start ignoring me: Please support the claim, without making any assumptions, that the sun will rise tomorrow.
As a bonus question, you can do the same, but show that the sun rose yesterday. Remember, no assumptions at all.

FishFace · Mar 6, 2007

dad said:
So you assume the Bible is not the word of God without evidence. Great.

Straight question: Do you understand burden of proof?

Why must I provide evidence that the Bible is not the word of God? Do I say you have to provide evidence that neither the Koran, Vedas, Egyptian Book of the Dead, or the Bible of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, are the words of their respective Gods?
No, because the default position is NOT to believe that something is the word of God. That is a silly place to start.

Another straight question: Do you understand why it is unreasonable to be inconsistent?

If you don't have to provide evidence for all of those books not being the word of their Gods, do you understand that I don't have to provide evidence for yours not being the word of God?

If you don't understand, then maybe you can learn.

I just posted a new link for a sample. I think there may be hundreds more around that bring out the same sort of thing. Looks like you may be surrounded.

Oh, the humanity! Another link whose conclusion can entirely be explained by experimental bias. That's not very shocking, dad.

And a good book it is.

Evidence, please.

In other words, you clearly, and certainly do not, and cannot know what you are talking about in your silly doubting wild claims.

Why is it silly to doubt your claims of people coming back from the dad? All I have is your assurance that they're true. If someone assured you that pixies existed, would you believe them?

This is consistency, again, dad - it's quite fundamental.

No need I don't posit that as a claim of science.

Whenever your claim enters the real world, you need to provide evidence for it. You can't bypass the rules of rational thinking by saying, "It's not science" - otherwise I could claim that the Flying Spaghetti Monster existed (but that's not a claim of science)

You DO need to support YOUR science claims. It is that simple. That absolute.

No, I don't make any claims of science. None at all. The universe is expanding? That's not a science claim - it needs no evidence. The Flying Spaghetti Monster? Nor is that - needs no evidence.

Isn't that ridiculous dad? Do you understand why I have made these examples? It's because by following your flawed reasoning, these are the barmy conclusions one makes.

If I make a PO science claim, yes, but you are the one that does that, to the amusement of many, and are starting to appear as frustrated as wile e coyote, repeatedly failing to do it.

NOTE TO EVERYBODY: dad apparently does not have to provide proof for his claims. You have to wonder what strange world he lives in, where any old claim can be accepted as truth, regardless of evidence.

Here's a hint, dad, if non-science claims don't need proof, I'm going to make the non-science claim that you are wrong. Prove me wrong!

Evidence for what?

For prayer working.

The spiritual, past, and future? That is out of the realm of science, as you ought to know.

IOW: I have no evidence, but I want you to believe anyway. If someone asked you to believe something, but had no evidence for it, what would you say to them?

Looks like it may take a while for you to get it. Work on that.

Looks like you'll never understand that you need evidence before making a claim.

You fit your same past beliefs to your observations.

There are enough results, one would think, to be aware that there has to be more than the natural, physical science, with all the limits it has had, and continues to have.

Not answered this question: twice. There are no results - if there are, why didn't you include them? Studies show that prayer has no effect

FishFace · Mar 6, 2007

dad said:
Under the present scheme of things, apparently. But tell us how it had to work the same back then, and how you might know that. Really. It seems a simple matter of explaining how things got the way they are, and one can't only use the present realities to do that, can one?

HERE YOU GO AGAIN! Stop throwing out principles of science when it suits you!

Do I have to start asking the question that you failed to answer 20 times already? You are not reasoning soundly. You cannot just claim, ad-hoc, that the rules of the universe changed whenever science disagrees with you.

Nathan Poe · Mar 6, 2007

dad said:
It might seem that way to those that don't get most of it. Like a young child that can barely read, trying to read The Merchant of Venice. It only has limited appeal.

I suppose worshippers of any work of literature can always fall back on the old "You just don't get it" cop-out when someone else has a difference of opinion.

And yet, The Merchant of Venice itself only has a limited appeal to those who can read -- Personally, it's not one of Shakespeare's better works.

Now Othello, on the other hand... There's a thriller for you...

Ghost written books in ghost code, need a ghost to unlock it, so that mere natural man can understand what it is that is going on. This is news?

So, you don't get it either? You just pretend you do?

dad · Mar 6, 2007

aerophagicbricolage said:
dad said:

It's not a deficiency, it's the exact same mutation in exactly the same place on that gene that makes the animal unable to produce Vitamin C.

And yes, I am certain of what I said. 100%.

Click to expand...

So, I guess we could look at 2 possibilities I can think of off hand. 1) - That the genetics were passed cross species in the past in a way not now possible. or, 2) - Something happened at some point, that caused both kinds of creatures to not be able to produce the vitamin any more? Hard to say. Any ideas?

Nathan Poe · Mar 6, 2007

dad said:
So, I guess we could look at 2 possibilities I can think of off hand. 1) - That the genetics were passed cross species in the past in a way not now possible. or, 2) - Something happened at some point, that caused both kinds of creatures to not be able to produce the vitamin any more? Hard to say. Any ideas?

Common ancestry. How's that idea?

aerophagicbricolage · Mar 6, 2007

dad said:
aerophagicbricolage said:

So, I guess we could look at 2 possibilities I can think of off hand. 1) - That the genetics were passed cross species in the past in a way not now possible. or, 2) - Something happened at some point, that caused both kinds of creatures to not be able to produce the vitamin any more? Hard to say. Any ideas?

Click to expand...

How did we manage to give bonobos 98% of our DNA? And why?

dad · Mar 6, 2007

Contracelsus said:
Actually this is the perfect place for it. I am hoping that you will accept that indeed your "feelings" about the area outside of the fishbowl are really just that. That in reality you don't, technically speaking, "know" anything about what it's like out there.

Whether you accept that the bible is hooked into the great beyond, or not doesn't matter. Long as you admit there is more than this temporary state, that alone puts the same past myth into place.

Let me grant you that you have been told about this space by the Bible. That is not really "person knowledge" on your part. But you can't really "test" it.

So? Jesus went ahead and prepared it for us. Many have had experiences, dreams, visions, after death experiences, and etc. It is no secret. Not something done in a closet. Perhaps it's time you came out, and let all know your true beliefs on the spiritual? Then we can compare notes. What do you have on offer? A claim that it is all in the wonky heads of the majority of man? Or maybe some real spiritual belief? Or...? Since you have no science for your same past myth, I guess you ought to at least tell us your beliefs.

Sure you'll know when you die and you either cease to exist or you meet God or Al'lah damns you to hell or you get reincarnated as an insect to relive it until you get it right, that's when you'll actually "know" anything about the nonPO universe.

Nonsense. Believers are appointed to be able to know. The not knowing is for science of the box. And beliefs that don't really cover the great beyond. Nothing to do with us.

So you tell us that when Wiccan "Draws down the moon" and intensely feels the good vibes of the Mother Earth Goddess that that is deception but your similar good vibes feeling of Jesus eternal love and God's gift of salvation through grace, is indeed truth.

I thought I covered that? There is a spiritual good and bad. It is not evidenced by feelings either. Jesus rose from the dead, and etc etc. It is not in the heads of man, but in the lives and hearts, and experiences

You can't really convince other members of the earth that your feelings are right and theirs are wrong.

Why would I want to?

In essence that is what faith is all about.

Says you. Don't forget your myth is included in that.

You would have everyone believe that. Perhaps YOUR spiritual is known to YOU, but what about OTHER people's spiritual? Don't they have a right to make claims that directly contradict YOUR claims only they use their spiritual data versus yours?

Not science claims, any more than your same past myth. That is the point. As for competing beliefs, aside and beyond natural science, take any, take all, or take none! Long as your myth is kicked out the schoolroom door as being science, I could not care what you do or don't believe. If you were in an area where bible believers were a majority, your belief can get in line with the big boys. Not as equal, but as a little minority also ran. Or, if it was the majority belief, whatever it is you believe, it would be the big kid on the block! Fine with me. Just cut the fraudulent science claims, and all is well.

Who is right? How does an IMPARTIAL THIRD PARTY know how to judge?

Doesn't matter. Who has a real science case? That is the question, and 'you don't' is the answer. The rest is elementary.

Again, you are speaking so ecumenically! It is good to know that it is just up to each individual to pursue their own personal path to the "great beyond". Then there is no need for faith-battles or wars of competing ideologies.

I suggest that Christians sneak in and convert all they can everywhere they can, too bad about those that may not like it! But we are not talking about beliefs here, but your failed science claims. After they are swept up, and away, we can see what might take their place for explaining creation.

A heaven on earth based on the great equivalence of all beliefs. Even the right to NOT have a belief!

That won't last long, but you can try that now, for a bit if you like. Don't call it science, of course.

That, unfortunately, takes the "outside the fishbowl" universe out of the equation if we have no way for an unbiased 3rd party to assess who is right and who is wrong.

Precisely, out of your PO equation! And that leaves NOTHING. So, something has to step up to the plate. That would be the beliefs of those in the area where it is taught. Period.

If there was a way to _test_ the great beyond. To access it so that everyone has the exact same information and we can compare.

If wishes were horses, POers would ride, I guess. As it is, they go only as far as the present natural, thus far, and no further! The libne is drawn in the sand.

But to my knowledge in all of history and all of human endeavor, there has never been a time like that. There has never been an entire concensus on the "supernatural".

Kudos to you if you have that information. I should hope you will share it with us all so we can all learn from it and all come to your exalted state of true knowledge.

Never will be, till we rule forever. Meanwhile, men realize there is a spiritual of some kind. That makes it a player.

dad · Mar 6, 2007

Nathan Poe said:
Common ancestry. How's that idea?

Unsupported, why?

dad · Mar 6, 2007

]

FishFace said:
What myth? That the universe can be studied and analysed, and laws can be drawn up describing it? You deny that that is possible?

No, of course it can. We are talking about the past and the future. Write that down, you keep missing it.

Of course, it makes no difference - your myth is still a myth, that no impartial third party can have evidence for.

All myths are myths. So?

Call what science? You are claiming that the Bible is true without evidence. I don't think you're claiming it is science, thankfully, but you're still claiming it's rational.

It is the heart and soul of sanity and reason.

Why bother with science if you're just going to invent evidence every time you can't actually produce any?

WEll, when it comes to discussing miracles, as YOU were, there obviously is no point, which is the point. Focus.

Here's the rub: Praying doesn't cure people. Nothing you say can alter that - it has been demonstrated on at least two separate clinical trials. You can't wail about "physical only" and "spiritual" - the study was done, and the results were clear; prayer does not increase the likelihood of a cure.

Nonsense. The studies simply missed out on the kind of answered prayer that is fairly common. It saw only cases, as perhaps a majority may be, where the answer was NO. The kind of healing they maybe got was the real deal. No more disease, or pain, etc. That is very fine as well. But you can't observe it, can you? Guess you miss it all. Better keep science where it belongs, in it's place, and not go messing in things too high for it!

I do not assume it at all - there is no evidence for the prayer being answered. If the answer is always "no," or if the answer is "no" as often as would be expected were there no answerer, it doesn't matter whether it's answered, does it?

Of course it matters. Often, no is the best answer. Remember also it depends on several factors like who is praying for what, when, and why, etc. as well.

And yet you have absolutely no evidence for that claim, whatsoever.

The bible says so. Since you have no science or anything else, it stands! As it always has, and will. You are like an empty raging wind, or a storm tossed sea.

No. Because the sentence you uttered didn't make any sense. Quantum Physics requires new natural explanations, and this study, if it had produced a valid conclusion could have also done.

It may require, but you can't deliver. That is the point, because it involves MORE than the natural where time is involved.

You've got the answer, right there. If, indeed, there is any correlation between the data, then, without the raw data, and the details of many many events occurring, plotted against those data, how do you suppose we are meant to draw proper conclusions?

Unless you had access to more than the natural, as always, you are only playing with half a deck.

You, of course, leap straight in, since it suits you. The reasonable amongst us like to make sure it's the data talking, not the people who decided that the data matched history.

Then get to it.

Since you're shamefully near to bringing up the same old lunacy with epistemology, you might be able to show the world how warped your philosophy is, once again.

Ease up on the ranting, and try to get topical.

No they don't. Whenever science makes a conclusion you don't like, you ignore it. For example, science concludes that the universe is expanding, using exactly the same basic assumptions as allow us to know that the sun will come up tomorrow. You don't like this, so you ignore it, without any reason to, whatsoever.

Well, how would I know if it is expanding? Seems like all you really have is redshifted light, and the CMB, and alone, they really say little, you again lean solely on your myth.

I am an atheist, I have none.

You don't believe in anything? How about love? Or a same state future?

I am going to start counting from now, since I know you'll start ignoring me: Please support the claim, without making any assumptions, that the sun will rise tomorrow.

Why? What does that have to do with animals, and creation, and the great beyond? Science doesn't do the future. Only, like Buzz lightyear, by assumption it can fly to infinity and beyond.

As a bonus question, you can do the same, but show that the sun rose yesterday. Remember, no assumptions at all.[/quote

Funny games you try to play. Back on topic.

dad · Mar 6, 2007

aerophagicbricolage said:
dad said:

How did we manage to give bonobos 98% of our DNA? And why?

Click to expand...

Good question. Sounds a little suspicious to me. Did they have aids as well?

dad · Mar 6, 2007

FishFace said:
HERE YOU GO AGAIN! Stop throwing out principles of science when it suits you!

Stop trying to apply them where they can't be shown to apply. If you did, you would find you had only solid science left, that couldn't be thrown out.

You are not reasoning soundly. You cannot just claim, ad-hoc, that the rules of the universe changed whenever science disagrees with you.

Or that they were the same, with no science to back it up! I think we all know that. I don't throw anything out but godless, unbased assumptions and myths. And why wouldn't I if you can't prove and support them? It isn't sound just to take the word of someone with a grudge on, and bone to pick with God, is it? I have met such folks.

dad · Mar 6, 2007

Nathan Poe said:
I suppose worshippers of any work of literature can always fall back on the old "You just don't get it" cop-out when someone else has a difference of opinion.

And yet, The Merchant of Venice itself only has a limited appeal to those who can read -- Personally, it's not one of Shakespeare's better works.

Now Othello, on the other hand... There's a thriller for you...

The point was that they miss a lot, due to their limitations. It wasn't that there was something wrong with the book.

So, you don't get it either? You just pretend you do?

Of course I do, being a believer, it was written for us, and we have the keys of heaven, to unlock the mysteries. We also made friends with the Ghost that wrote it.

aerophagicbricolage · Mar 6, 2007

dad said:
aerophagicbricolage said:

2373]
Apes are the only animals that can contract AIDs. However, know for a fact that an AIDs virus does not have the capacity to hold even an appreciable percentage of human DNA. We started building a lambda phage DNA library, but they could not hold enough DNA to be considered efficient. Your claim makes no sense, as DNA evidence is insanely strong evidence for common ancestry. Heck, apes and humans share huge amounts of DNA in common even with fruit flies. Approximately 50%.

Click to expand...

Animals, the Great Beyond, and Creation

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Active Member

Senior Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Undefeated!

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Active Member

Similar threads