How can you possibly make the Creation “Museum” look sillier?
This may not be a LOL image, but I thought it was hilarious.
If you’re having trouble reading the blurry print, it says:
According to God’s Word, thorns came after Adam’s sin, about six thousand years ago, not millions of years ago. Since we have discovered thorns in the fossil record, along with dinosaurs and other plants and animals, they all must have lived at the same time as humans, after Adam’s sin.
How can you argue with logic like that that?
Oh my non-existent god. Should I laugh or cry at such huge amounts of stupid? What the hell, I could use a good laugh. Therefore I concur, it’s hilarious. Even without the logic comment; that just makes it better, and slightly more bearable.
I would find it interesting if someone was studying the overlap of time periods. In other words. A race has a beginning coinciding with the flourishing of the previous race. It only slowly builds up steam and attains a majority number while the previous race declines to extinction. We have a point of beginning, a point of majority, and a point of exclusiveness and unfortunately not enough distinct terms to describe the process in ordinary language.
Words themselves are at fault for gross misunderstandings.
I doubt if very many people could feel comfortable describing a first race human with the word “human”. I think that most people use the word human to refer to a fifth race human, but in actuality the fifth race human has already begun the “cross” with the girasas kingdom and so the true human has already gone extinct.
I wish I could convince evolutionists that the prospects of evolution to the scientific mind would entail danger and “defeat” in the sense that we cannot win battles with a higher kingdom. Their effort at ascending the human is part of a natural process. Would scientists embrace an evolution of the type I describe and further the cause of evolution by standing in the leadership roles?
Currently, our best prospect for gathering together is still the minister and the church.
Everyone is good for something, even if it’s only as a bad example.
From AIG:
Link
They also note that evidence of cancer in Dinosaurs….but, doesn’t their fairy tale explicitily say animals were created before man? Therefore, there shouldn’t be any issue in the “dilemna” above.
They’re not even logical with the cards they stack. Color me astonished.
Thorns? There’s an almighty prick involved in there, somewhere.
With a bat to the face.
It’s the only way.
Brenda said,
Indeed. There wasn’t anything in that comment that could be readily understood.
Try again?
Sigh.
And how is the weather in Lemuria these days? Mmmm. And what do you think of the going price of Atlantean crystals? Hmm-mmmm. You know, my little Sally was thinking of getting her DNA enhanced to a triple helix. Kids these days want to grow up so fast, don’t you think? I swear, I must have been at least twenty-five before I even thought of boosting my chromosomes to a higher quantum chakra harmonic.
Oh, I saw just the most ravishing crop circle the other day, in Mr. Whitby’s corn field. . . .
I need to use that line as a tag form now on.
The logic is impeccable. Only two of the premises are wrong.
The study of biodiversity through time is not new. Is that what you mean? (What do you mean by “race”?)
Why do you state idle speculation as fact?
Definition of evolution: Changes in the allele frequencies in a population by means of mutation, selection, and drift.
Why do you keep babbling about a “higher kingdom”? Show us that it exists, and then come back. In this order.
No, evolutionary biologists do not make the slightest effort “at ascending the human”. One reason is that no way is “up”.
If you show that it really occurs.
See the definition above: there is no cause of evolution. You do not understand what you are talking about.
You have failed to explain why we should gather together.
Look, theosophy is just another religion.
The logic is impeccable. Only two of the premises are wrong.
The study of biodiversity through time is not new. Is that what you mean? (What do you mean by “race”?)
Why do you state idle speculation as fact?
Definition of evolution: Changes in the allele frequencies in a population by means of mutation, selection, and drift.
Why do you keep babbling about a “higher kingdom”? Show us that it exists, and then come back. In this order.
No, evolutionary biologists do not make the slightest effort “at ascending the human”. One reason is that no way is “up”.
If you show that it really occurs.
See the definition above: there is no cause of evolution. You do not understand what you are talking about.
You have failed to explain why we should gather together.
Look, theosophy is just another religion.
I followed the link – those are a scream!!! I love the “about to pop a wheelie” one. :)
Yet another indication the education bridge in this country has fallen down.
Crikey. This kind of thing really threatens the modern relevance of satire. I mean, with real crazies pedaling this kind of weirdness, who needs spoof kooks like the Landover Baptists to provide the required material for our amusement?
If these ideas could become familiar to people, the discussions would improve. I’m trying to tell you about a new theory of evolution. You are asking to see, touch, and sense in some way a girasas.
Try to grasp the picture I am presenting to you first. See my webpage for a fuller version and if you need a version more complete than that there is plenty of source material to study.
I am asking people to consider that what Blavatsky has written in THE SECRET DOCTRINE describes an evolutionary process where one kingdom of nature enters earth when another kingdom of nature exists on it and the highest existing form would be the one chosen to concentrate effort for habitation. A dinosaur form may have become prey for a non-material kingdom’s descent into material existence.
If that thought can be pondered, then the reverse of the cycle can be seen as advancement through a higher kingdom’s penetration into the human form (highest in existence on earth today). We ascend, associate with the girasas, make plans, dwell on their characteristics and capabilities (which we can see hear sense) and try to apply our knowledge and thinking to the future which means some day the girasas will no longer need the human form and we shall continue our cycle into a new “descent” through animals. What do we need to do to tolerate first one higher kingdom (from this point in time) and then one lower kingdom, living as they do on some things and embuing them with capability (or acquiring new capability) as our intellect directs us?
Catch up. This is old material that was not understood, but belittled and the world is in need of its correct reception. What will you do if the day dawns when this new theory becomes widely known, accepted, or practiced to the point that we seek those “examples” who have greater penetration and contact than we do and we seek to aid those who have discomfort from the “fit” and we attempt to isolate preferences in a selective manner?
Let’s get started.
Higher kingdom? Fifth race human? Someone had a nice big bowl of crazy for breakfast, followed by a side of crazy and tall glass of crazy to wash it all down.
Someone one this forum has an extra 21st chromosome, and it ain’t me…
You should check out my blog, practically all I do is debunk Answers in Genesis:
http://aigbusted.blogspot.com
I have recently started a series called “Evolution for Creationists” in which I try to explain evolution in a very simple way and show some of the major lines of evidence for it.
Blavatskyite. Enough said.
If people who side with scientists want to gain respect in that community, learn to apply the principles at work rather than to follow their example.
Science means inquiry, thoughtful exploration, and sharing of findings. I am sharing with people and have for over 12 years, with the other tasks being previously done. Yet I am not reaping any benefits. Why do I do it? I do it with the promise of benefits.
No.
If you were to resume your psychotherapy, the discussion would improve.
You are asserting pot-head new-agey thoughts as if they were true.
Don’t do that.
It looks like somebody needs to go to a Robert Bly weekend.
Ahhh, the humor of the 1990’s.
Personally, I loved the throw away line at the end : “Logic, you’re doing it wrong.”
This has to be a satire. Please make it a satire.
I am not asserting thoughts as if they are true. I am challenging you to acquire knowledge of material that has been rejected.
I am offering to you a NEW CONCEPT. History does not contain this concept prior to Blavatsky’s work. Will she ever receive credit and stand along Plato perhaps? Where would be the harm?
Brook, I think the ‘Logic, you’re doing it wrong’ tag is to make it like one of the (de)motivational posters of http://www.despair.com/, which are indeed satires of motivational posters (though way truer.)
“Hey, it’s a girasa-girass!”
“Nah, girasas got long necks. Like THIS! *yank*”
Damn right PZ. Are you man enough to accept the challenge? Can you show us all that you’ve earned your beard by wasting vast amounts of your time learning the finer points of an utterly rejected doctrine of sophistry and woo?
Step up to the plate, buddy, and bring your bong.
It’s been rejected for a reason, Brenda. It’s quite ludicrous.
Oooooooh. Is that a dare? Am I going to be accused of being closed-minded next?
I’ve got a challenge for you. Instead of wasting your time ‘thinking’ your way through crackpottery, why don’t you instead turn your focus on what the scientific community has already actually learned through hypothesis generation and testing through evidence? There’s more than enough there to keep you occupied for years to come.
Brenda,
A few questions if I may, so that I too can be enlightened like you.
Do you really believe what you are saying, and if so why?
WTF are girasas?
Please define the following:
Race
Kingdom
Highest Existing Form
First through Fifth Race Humans
Thanks and may the force be with you.
Brenda,
You’re not terribly consistent.
You shriek (all caps, not very friendly) that this is a NEW CONCEPT, but you also say:
So, which delusion are you operating under, that this is secret HISTORY or that its so new to not be historical?
Also, asking people to read several books AND your website isn’t distillation of information. Kinda makes you look like you don’t really know what you’re talkin’ about.
Baby steps.
OT but related, Rio Rancho may drop the teaching of ID, which apparently has been going on there:
http://kob.com/article/stories/S267410.shtml?cat=504
Glen D
“Their effort at ascending the human. . . ”
I was referring to the girasas who have some sort of interest in acquiring the earth for themselves. We get the boot and are forced to descend again through animals forms in an effort to reach the fourth race, I suppose.
I admit, I’ve been on a fair number of forums and blogs, but this is the first time I’ve seen one get spammed by a Theosophist. Do you think we could invite her over to “After the bar closes”?
Fuck the definitions. I don’t care how the fuck Brenda redefines words to make them fit her psychoses.
The only real question is whether or not she has any (I repeat, “any”, and when I say “any”, I mean “any” as in the “smallest possible amount greater than none”) evidence for her specious meanderings other than the writings of a romanticising mystic?
Do Theosophists also promote new and ascended forms of the English language? That last post is utterly incomprehensible from a grammar and sytax perspective.
I can try to inform you, but it is sometimes difficult for me because it is like attempting to teach the whole world.
Great giants of intellect, including Einstein, missed the correct rendering of the concept of evolution presented by Blavatsky OR were reluctant to unveil it. All those PhDs and professors have to hear from me “what might be” because journalists won’t help me present the ideas.
When H.P.B. wrote the SD, I believe that she labored knowing that the idea would need to be kept secret: guarded for a time until other conditions could ripen. For instance, I didn’t just read theosophy. I branched out to study a second organization with roots in the 30s. There is some complimentary data and some conflicting data when we study them both.
I think that the idea was intended to be kept secret until the last quarter of the century which has been earmarked as a “pregnant” time for light givers to periodically make an effort at greater revelation of truth and truthful doctrines.
I didn’t know when I started the study of theosophy in 1975 that I would find information that I feel responsible for disseminating. I didn’t know the existent organization(s) would opt out of that responsibility.
I want people to join The Theosophical Society, overtake its board of directors, and set it on a proper course. We just need members who can vote because there are only (at one time it was 5,000 members) a limited number of members.
I don’t like my job. I wanted to wait and “embrace” whoever I could someday identify as this “periodic revealer,” instead I had to step into the shoes and I know people resent my efforts because I don’t have royal birth or extensive education. Before the idea, all I did was give birth to my son (while studying with both organizational groups here in Los Angeles).
I worry about my son and what he will grow up to be.
That makes two of us. o_O
Does anyone else remember that old Firesign Theater bit about the Lazy O/Magic Circle Dude Ranch and Collective Love Farm? Quoting from memory:
“There was a bunch of Theosophists in the back room raisin’ the Devil. They had ‘im about four feet off the ground, and I could tell by the look in his third eye that he was up to no good.”
Every time I hear the name “Blavatsky,” that’s what comes to mind.
I’m not raving. I’m calmly making it possible for experts to take up my plea.
If Jesus Christ were my son, I would want to take the sting out of his life. I would want him to be accepted as a genius or talented forerunner of a race and from him we could all benefit with guidance. But He spoke in parables and many didn’t understand his teachings. I’m sorry he died on the cross, but I also think others have died “on the cross” between the girasas and human because we (humans) don’t help them to acclimate the new conditions.
The birth of a new race (6th) is expected in about 400,000 years. What we are learning today is a mindset that will help us to practice for the future occurrence of two kingdoms living in one body.
We just have occasional glimpses into the entire process. But scientists can piecemeal a picture together for the rest of us, if they would try.
Lots of people died on the cross, because that’s what the Romans were fond of doing.
Unfortunately, everyone seems to fawn over only one of them.
Brenda, scientists are already piecemealing a picture together, if only you would see it.
Brenda,
Perhaps I (and the world) could understand your seemingly disjointed ramblings better if you would answer the questions that I asked. Nobody here is impressed by arguments from authority, so we dont care if you are not royalty or educated, please just explain in this new “theory” of evolution to us.
Ceiling Cat is watching you post
From up in his lofty location–
The comments make Ceiling Cat shudder and say
“O Hai. You can has medication.”
Cuttlefish shines with such awesomeness that I fear gazing upon it shall drive me insane.
Brenda:
You would be hard pressed to do a better parody if you weren’t being serious.
Cuttlefish wins Teh Internet — but I am still the Lord of the Computers Internet Blog. :-)
I swear that after reading Brenda Tucker’s first post I was going to congratulate her on a particularly good satire. Having read the rest of the thread my brains feel as if they’ve been tied in knots by the FSM and then tenderised with an unopened bottle of Chianti.
Ryan,
The point is not that there weren’t animals before man, it’s that creationist bibliolatry requires them to believe that there was no imperfection before Adam’s sin. Cancer is a Bad Thing, therefore it can’t have been present in the original creation. Things went wrong only when Adam ate the apple (although where this places Satan’s rebellion in the scheme of things I don’t quite know). If a dinosaur had cancer, then it had to have been after Adam’s sin. Therefore dinosaurs coexisted with humans.
QED.
(Quod Est Deridendum: which is to be laughed at.)
Synapses misfire,
Concepts randomly ordered;
Brenda is posting
Brenda,
Here’s what everyone heard you say:
Get on with it.
Thank you Brenda for making me aware of Theosophy. I had heard of it before, but until now I was unaware of exactly how batshit crazy it is.
Bananas Brenda needs her own ScienceBlog, but hosted over at the Colbert Report web site; her ability to offer insights that are simply inaccessible to lower-kingdom creatures like ourselves suggests, clearly, a higher-kingdom intelligence
Or are our one-kingdom bodies at fault?
Brenda,
Logic.
You’re doing it wrong.
I do like the Theosophical Society’s motto:
“There is no religion higher than truth.”
However that begs the question of how high you would have to be to believe in their brand of religion.
noncarborundum,
That makes (tortured) sense, but when they say that they’re saying something outside of the Bible, that “man’s sin” affected every other living creature….which should give any literalist fool a headache.
Plus, I’m sure they can squeeze some “good” out of Cancer. They already do for tsunamis.
Brenda, you do know that Helena Blavatsky was a shameless con-artist and fake spiritualist? That Theosophy was the Scientology of the nineteenth century, ie a made-up religion with a charismatic leader?
And what the hell are girasas?
Somehow, it’s just perfect that a theosophist would pick this fairly trivial thread built on creationist humor to make her grand introduction. It’s so random.
Alice Shortcakel (#56) asked,
Giraffes cross-bred with asafoetida.
Wow. I wonder if medication could help this poor woman. She really seems so clearly detached from reality that there is probably a chemical reason.
Brenda: If you really want to test your ideas, perhaps the best way to advance them even, is to go see a psychiatrist, tell him your ideas, take the medication he prescribes. Then revisit your ideas after a few weeks and see if you have any new insights.
In an idle and ill-advised moment, I clicked on Brenda’s website link. All I can say is: whoa. Imagine being so nutty that not even Theosophists will give you a hearing.
PZ (#57):
Oh, she’s been around before. To quote Ecclesiastes 1:4–9,
Sez it all, I rather think.
I cannot help but notice that Brenda’s writing style is not only rambling, but quite similar to the theosophy entry on wikipedia. Might just be a coincidence, or adhering to a 19th century brand of crazy simply makes you write that way.
For those who haven’t encountered Blavatskyism (or, the thesophical society) before, this article might be of interest. http://www.randi.org/joom/component/option,com_wrapper/Itemid,80/
My conclusion: Blavatsky was nothing more than a con artist.
Urbandictionary.com defines ‘Katherine Harris Crazy’ as:
“someone whose head is so far up their own ass that they lose their sense of sight, except of course for the sight of their own sigmoid colon.”
I would like to humbly submit ‘Brenda Tucker Crazy’ as:
“someone whose grasp of reality is so fleeting that they genuinely believe that their either unfounded or heavily refuted opinions merit them a position of enlightenment.”
Example:
“Dude! Did you see ‘Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial’? I never realized how Brenda Tucker Crazy Behe truly is!”
Blake Stacy:
I think I use asafoetida in a recipe I have for Indian yogurt chicken.
If you’re telling me that this is some sort of species dedicated to making tasty indian fare, well sign me up man! I welcome this new supreme race and look forward to their recipes!
Cuttlefish – you’ve broken your usually perfect meter! The first line doesn’t quite scan right – it should be more like “the great Ceiling Cat, he is watching you post” or something…
MATM:
You can define those things yourself. It’s easy. See my webpage. I sympathize with you. It is a new word. It is a strange adventure.
I do not like to be called crazy. I have children. The first year after the idea occurred to me, my own brain often felt as if it were rewiring. I know you might be afraid. So am I. It’s difficult for me to see religious people addressed with ridicule. I want to help them. I want to school to become a psychologist, but dropped out when I encountered the path in a book called THE YOGA SUTRAS OF PATANJALI and that book led me to theosophical writings, joining, and working at the headquarters. This to me was in place of the university education which I had surrendered.
When I started reading theosophy, the books often asked us not to take what was written on faith, but to test it for ourselves. That is what I thought I was doing.
I think it would be easier for people to become “instruments” of the girasas kingdom or hosts to them if they would learn to purify – vegetarian, non-alcohol consumption, and purifying meditations. Then, the girasas would feel more comfortable in the body they are offered. I don’t know why.
I’m on this thread because I have time and I like being with a “little known word”: pharyngula (little known among public) because I use a word that I coined and it isn’t in any dictionary yet.
You could see my blog at http://community.myfoxla.com/blogs/Brendatucker if you’d like more.
I think of this, myself.
Theosophy falls into the “not even wrong” category, and while it is admirable for some of the patient souls here to try and engage our new Theosophist friend in rational discourse, anyone with these kind of batshit crazy beliefs can’t be reasoned with. When someone writes things like:
then the only thing is to nod politely and look for the nearest exit.
I need to deal with girasas, too? cheese, like the thetans aren’t enough…
Ryan,
I don’t think literalism forces you to believe only that which is explicitly stated in the Bible*; it just prohibits you from believing things that contradict that which is explicitly stated in the Bible. But IANAL (I Am Not A Literalist), so I may have this wrong.
—————
*The Bible (NT, but it’s all the same to these bozos) explcitly states that it’s incomplete:
omigod
well, no wonder creationists cant think
this seems hilarious at first but those creo churches really do encourage them to think like that
Cosmic 401(k)s, Kabbalistic Dental Plans, Third Kingdom HMOs, etc.
Brenda,
Thanks for the response,
I checked your site and I will define them myself—nonsense… I am afraid too, afraid that you are spewing your ridiculous nonsense on the wrong blog. For your own sake, if you really do not like being thought of as crazy, stop and examine the assertions that you are making about whatever the hell you are talking about before you post them on a blog associated with science and skepticism.
An open mind can be a good thing, but not so open that your brain falls out.
noncarborundum,
True, that. But my point wasn’t about a ‘gap’ in this Biblical history, but that it conflicts with literal and even most metaphorical readings (i.e. there’s not a way out that isn’t far more metaphorical and allegorical in a section of the Bible that the YECers insist is literal).
Much though I am tempted to jump on the bash-Brenda bandwagon (and making fun of Blavatsky is just too easy for an historian) I’ll not pile on the poor woman so. She obviously needs a serious injection of something (logic, historical understanding, sedatives… it’s pretty much a toss-up.)
Going through Scalzi’s photo-essay though, I did note an interesting fact about Ken Ham’s little “museum” that I hadn’t seen before from this picture. The document that Martin Luther is nailing to the door of Wittenberg Cathedral is not the 95 Theses but a set of strung-together quotes (or pseudo-quotes) from Luther loosely identified as “correspondence”. The title is the dubious quote from the Diet of Worms (“Here I stand, I can do no other. God help me, Amen.”) and thus isn’t even correspondence. It’s like they just couldn’t stop themselves from quote-mining, even when they didn’t need to (it’s not like the 95 Theses are some kind of problem for creationists.) It’s Ham and his folks providing their own LOL content, without even needing to draw in other captions.
There are still Blavatsky followers?
Wow.
phat
Ryan,
Not to beat a dead (or at least dying, and in any case quite peripheral) horse, but where does the “Adam’s sin brought death and disease to the animal kingdom” assertion actually contradict anything in the rest of the Bible? As far as I can tell, at least it doesn’t contradict anything Genesis says about the prelapsarian creation.
Has a horse ever been described as “peripheral” before?
Brenda
I checked out your blog.
You sound more than a little schizo to me. I suggest you get evaluated by a psychiatrist ASAP.
Dogmaticalness, thy name is Ken Ham (What’s Wrong with Progressive Creation?):
If the days of creation are really “geologic ages” of millions of years, then the gospel message is undermined at its foundation because it puts death, disease, thorns, and suffering before the Fall. This idea also shows an erroneous approach to Scripture–that the Word of God can be interpreted on the basis of the fallible theories of sinful people.
[…]
Now if the Garden of Eden were sitting on a fossil record of
dead things millions of years old, then there was the shedding of blood before sin. This would destroy the foundation of the Atonement.
The Bible is clear: the sin of Adam brought death and suffering into the world. As Romans 8:19-22 tells us, the whole of creation “groans” because of the effects of the fall of Adam, and the creation will be liberated “from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God” (Rom. 8:21). Also, bear in mind that thorns came into existence after the Curse. Because there are thorns in the fossil record, it had to be formed after Adam and Eve sinned.
Anything that undermines the validity of his precious Bible must be denied. In his heart of hearts, does he really believe in his own bullshit? I doubt it.
He’s an ordinary con artist. Anyone could do what he does. What stops 99.9% of the public from doing what he does is called “having a conscience”.
Why do Creationists make such a hellish stink over being “descended from apes and monkeys,” and yet, at the same time, have no problem having a legendary ancestor who Creationists alledge single-handedly wrecked the entire Universe?
noncarborundum (77),
Why are you asking for a contradiction?
I didn’t find one, myself, but then again, it’s not important that one be found (talk about flogging a dead horse!), since my point still stands.
If you’re not a literalist, and you haven’t explicitly disagreed that the interpretation I described leads to a larger allegorical reading (a no-no for a literalist), are there any specific nits that you’re picking at?
You know…people like those creationists are among the reasons I’m currently thinking about quiting my job next year and going back to university. Palaeontology as a major.
Yes, we know. You have announced this in every Pharyngula thread of the last few days. Doesn’t it occur to you that your blogwhoring might be counterproductive?
————–
I see. Now it’s time for you to learn that not only is no way “up”, but also no way is “down”. There is no “higher” or “lower”.
Evolution does not have a direction. Life diversifies, it doesn’t follow any straight lines, let alone any directions.
Please! Einstein was not a biologist! He has nothing to do with the theory of evolution!
And I notice that you say “correct”. Let’s play science. If you were wrong, how would you know?
OMFG. The True IRA. :-o
Yes, we know. You have announced this in every Pharyngula thread of the last few days. Doesn’t it occur to you that your blogwhoring might be counterproductive?
————–
I see. Now it’s time for you to learn that not only is no way “up”, but also no way is “down”. There is no “higher” or “lower”.
Evolution does not have a direction. Life diversifies, it doesn’t follow any straight lines, let alone any directions.
Please! Einstein was not a biologist! He has nothing to do with the theory of evolution!
And I notice that you say “correct”. Let’s play science. If you were wrong, how would you know?
OMFG. The True IRA. :-o
has anyone deciphered what those girasas are, yet ?
I tried to find it on Brenda’s lunatic blog, but failed.
I worry about my son and what he will grow up to be.
Lets just hope its not you!!!
Too bad I missed out on the contest, but I came up with a good one:
My LOLCreashunist
No, you aren’t. See above for the definition of evolution.
No. We are asking to be shown evidence that any such phenomenon exists.
Men are from Mars, women are from Venus, scientists are from Missouri. Show us. If the picture is wrong, we are not interested in grasping it, so show us it isn’t wrong.
You keep using that word “evolutionary”. It doesn’t mean what you think it means.
I call bullshit. Are you even aware that this was a mass extinction event? Global? On land and in the sea? Forget the dinosaurs — the ammonites died out, and so did most of the plankton! The mosasaurs, the bennettitalean plants… I could go on for an hour.
No, we are not highest by any objective measure. By any objective measure, the term “highest” simply cannot be applied.
We are just the third species of chimpanzee.
Show us.
Show us.
Show us.
Show us both.
Show us.
Show us.
Show us… no, forget about it, first show that the girasas exists.
Why is there no evidence that any such thing has ever happened before?
Why did Napoleon cross the Mississippi?
Like mine, your question is wrong.
Well, it’s younger than the theory of evolution…
Learn here what the word “theory” means; you have demonstrated that you don’t know that.
A theory cannot be practiced. The word simply doesn’t apply. As I just said, you don’t know what the word “theory” means.
——————-
Oh man. In addition to being dubious, the above is a very bad translation. Anders is an adverb: ich kann nicht anders means “I cannot do otherwise”, “I cannot do anything else”.
No, you aren’t. See above for the definition of evolution.
No. We are asking to be shown evidence that any such phenomenon exists.
Men are from Mars, women are from Venus, scientists are from Missouri. Show us. If the picture is wrong, we are not interested in grasping it, so show us it isn’t wrong.
You keep using that word “evolutionary”. It doesn’t mean what you think it means.
I call bullshit. Are you even aware that this was a mass extinction event? Global? On land and in the sea? Forget the dinosaurs — the ammonites died out, and so did most of the plankton! The mosasaurs, the bennettitalean plants… I could go on for an hour.
No, we are not highest by any objective measure. By any objective measure, the term “highest” simply cannot be applied.
We are just the third species of chimpanzee.
Show us.
Show us.
Show us.
Show us both.
Show us.
Show us.
Show us… no, forget about it, first show that the girasas exists.
Why is there no evidence that any such thing has ever happened before?
Why did Napoleon cross the Mississippi?
Like mine, your question is wrong.
Well, it’s younger than the theory of evolution…
Learn here what the word “theory” means; you have demonstrated that you don’t know that.
A theory cannot be practiced. The word simply doesn’t apply. As I just said, you don’t know what the word “theory” means.
——————-
Oh man. In addition to being dubious, the above is a very bad translation. Anders is an adverb: ich kann nicht anders means “I cannot do otherwise”, “I cannot do anything else”.
Ryan,
Whoa, dude. Let’s not get worked up over this. I’m just trying to make sense of what you wrote, and having a hard time of it. Nothing more than that.
I think where we disagree is on the question of whether the interpretation we’ve been discussing is in any way allegorical. You may see it that way, but my reading of the literalist project is that it’s not: it’s taken as a literally true (if not literally biblical) extrapolation from what the Bible says. If Genesis says that the original creation was “very good” (God’s own words), and mentions only vegetable foods, and introduces the idea of death only as punishment for Adam’s sin, then “obviously” there was literally no disease, no death, and no predation in the prelapsarian world. That these things manifestly exist now “must” have been the result of that sin. Therefore Adam, by his disobedience, literally introduced disease, death and decay into the animal kingdom. That these things are literally, not allegorically, true is an article of faith to the YECs.
Of course the only reasonable way of reading Genesis is allegorically, but the failure (and irony) of the literalists’ approach is that they refuse to read it that way, and therefore miss any larger lessons they might otherwise be able to draw from it.
This post made me fire up google to look for demotivational posters. The first one I found was amazingly Pharyngula appropriate.
Coincidence, or something more? Truly we are touched by His Noodly Appendage.
We just need to write Brenda off as one of those bizarre purveyors of spiritual woo.
She’s a wannabe Deepak. Probably has some lame book to sell.
“Dinos ate veggies! Abortion is murder!”
Can’t stop myself reading, though deeply it pains,
As they work themselves into a furious fervor
At the creation museum: INVISIBLE BRAINZ!
noncarborundum (88),
Now that makes for an understandable question.
The problem isn’t in the ‘very good’ part (as I joked before, Christians have found ways to rationalizationize ‘bad’ as ‘good’), but with what species are to die, according to that verse.
As such, a literalist who believes that there was no animal death pre-‘fall’ has to take the meaning of ‘you’ as allegorical of all living creatures. Not only that, but said literalist would also have to work against the fact that such an interpretation has no biblical basis (e.g. it runs against other literalist interpretations.
So much for cut and dry interpretations.
To me, an even more reasonable way of reading Genesis is not reading it at all.
The contortions required for allegorical meaning seem unnecessary to me, even if they aren’t as convoluted as with a literalist viewing.
From what I can tell, ‘girasas’ are like magical energy beings that can float to and from the ten kingdoms, and humans can ascend to be like them.
Kind of like in Stargate, only with more giraffe and, you know, people readily admit that Stargate is complete fiction.
Yeah, about that…
You may be right, but it’s hard to blame them for that one. “I can do no other” is by far the commonest rendition of this in English. It can be found this way on the sites of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Church of the Lutheran Confession, and (as “none other”) the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod; not to mention a number of online references, including this one. (Bartlett’s has “I can do no otherwise”, which is just strange.)
I don’t mean to defend YECs, but there are hundreds of criticisms calling out to be made here. Citing this is like calling out an orchestra for claiming to perform “The Rite of Spring” because “sacre” really means “consecration”–when the real problem is that they played every note wrong.
“Yet I am not reaping any benefits. Why do I do it? I do it with the promise of benefits.”
Loons with benefits? Pass
Whenever I read “Blavatsky”, I think “Pynchon”:
One must be ever so careful. They’re not always what they appear, these seekers. Too often they prove far less metaphysical than you’d hope, in fact so sworn to the solid world that *you* begin to feel like a mystic, just by default. Madame Blavatsky herself, recall, was working for the Tsarist secret service…And what’s it matter, really, materialist or spiritualist, they’re all bloody bomb-chuckers, aren’t they….
~from Against the Day
And of course there’s the Blavatskian wing of Psi section, in Gravity’s Rainbow. LOL
Okay… But, Doctor Who is true, right? Isn’t it? Anyone?
I’m afraid our dear sweet deluded Brenda has made a girasis of herself in full view of the kingdom of rational humans.
It’s always strange when someone walks in with their own pet delusion and doesn’t get that it’s complete crazy talk.
The eyes roll and then you’re left sitting there going… “Wow! That’s a whole lotta crazy.”
#21 and #23-
NSFW: http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/YOU_ARE_DOING_IT_WRONG
I want people to join The Theosophical Society
Haha! Not to pile on, but having seen Ms. Tucker’s loony ravings here before…
WHY ON EARTH would we WANT TO DO THAT?!
Sorry for the screeching. Ahem.
A dinosaur form may have become prey for a non-material kingdom’s descent into material existence.
So . . . angels ate the dinosaurs? Am I reading this right?
Assuming I am, I actually kind of like the idea. It’s clearly not science, or anything remotely resembling it, but as cracked out sci-fi premises go, it has a certain charm.
“The birth of a new race (6th) is expected in about 400,000 years.”
Who’s bringing the popcorn?
Hey, guys.
Has anyone considered that Brenda might be schizophrenic? It doesn’t seem right to engage her if she’s not able to argue properly…
Just my two bits.
I’m curious about something mentioned here:
I’m not actually sure what could possible take up more than 5 minutes in such a class. How does “goddidit” possibly stretch to an entire term of education?
And Brenda. The last few weeks I have come across multiple threads on multiple sites in which you’ve ‘landed’ and expressed your unique take on things.
I must say, I’ve never before come across anyone quite so deluded and entertaining at the same time. You’re so extreme with your Theosophical Blavatsky ramblings that I’m still engaged in an attempt to decipher whether your posts are pure, glorious parody, or gibberingly, desperately, batshit insane.
All I know is that I’ve derived immense enjoyment out of your posts, and for this I thank you.
And if it happens that you are the latter, then I apologise for the unkind words, but request that you take them in the spirit intended, that of affection. Though I in no way share your outlandish views, I see you as an eccentric aunt, and would very much enjoy having a beer with you and exploring these colourfull views of yours.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 26, 2007 4:20 PM
While Noncarborundum has already pointed out to you that this is the official Lutheran version of the original German quote (“Hier stehe ich. Ich kann nicht anders. Gott helfe mir. Amen.”) I’ll just add that it is also the accepted historical translation and has been since at least the publication of Bainton’s Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther. So are you technically correct about the translation?
Sure, kudos to you.
And thus you miss the point and wander into irrelevancy. There is, in fact, nothing in the records of the Imperial Diet to indicate that Luther even spoke these words (and thus the point of it being a dubious quote) except for the “Gott helfe mir. Amen.” So who cares if it’s a long-standing but somewhat quirky translation? Not the point and mere pedantry to even bother pointing it out.
Tlazolteotl, look, I don’t want to enter into anything hastily, but I might be persuaded to join the Society if they have cloaks and secret meetings in dank places underground. The cloaks would have to be mandatory for all, though, I like my crazy to have a dress code.
That is one big bootstrap operation.
No, I don’t think Brenda is crazy in a meds-will-help way. I’ve known too many otherwise sane individuals, most of ’em right out of college, who followed the siren call of their own blathering stream of consciousness into the waiting arms of some half-assed woo association out to make money off turning them into fund generators.
Most survived and surfaced later, shamefaced but wiser. A few are still caught up, too stubborn or frightened of reality to give it up. I’m still bitter about friends lost in the seventies to the Divine Light Mission (now called Elan Vital, but the same ol’ BS).
Theosophy must be having its fifteen minutes on the www, though – it’s come up in several places unrelated to ScienceBlogs last couple days.
This “logic” is so whacked out, I’m almost convinced Bill O’Reilly must have written it.
OK, I realize I’m just a lowly sociologist. But what in the fuck is Brenda and a Blavatskyite? I tried to look it up, and, well…it’s a bunch of blah, blah, blah, right?
I mean, I know the words Brenda is using, but the order in which she places them, well, Alister McGrath is almost coherent compared to Brenda….
Well, let’s all be glad that the word “theosophy” got attached to genny-wine crank material at a very early date. I can just imagine the sort of pompous apologist bloviators who would use it today and give it that veneer of credibility necessary for it to work its way into the lexicon and become a humongous annoyance. “Coming up next on the Infotainment Hour: Our spiritucussion segment, featuring Aleister McGrath and Deepak Chopra on theosophy and what it means for religio-Americans…”
Oh sure. That’s why. Yeah, sure. I coulda tol ya. I was there. It was just like that when god suddenly caused causality to bear its own reference. Ho, yes. I was there when the plants began to grow some hours before the light got here. No problem. It was as it was. And then I began taking these notes. My clock seems to have stopped. Does anyone have the time? Relative to rapture, that is.
Actually, IN THE BEGINNING, there were merely hot, molty lumps. They are our Ur-Fathers. We are stone.
Can I go to church now?
Haha oh wow!
With no brain activity I think it is legal to bury these creationist.boagie
Literal translations might not get you where you need to get to! However . . . if you would like to learn Japanese on the otherhand then compare all the Bible’s translations in all kindreds and tongues and of course languages then come back and tell me that it is the same yo!
http://squidoo.com/japanesevocabulary2
http://squidoo.com/essentialjapanesewords http://squidoo.com/usefuljapanesewords http://squidoo.com/omiai
or even better hit these ones!
I almost hate to say this, but has anyone considered that theosophy and scientology can be seen as complementary concepts separated by time? Perhaps L Ron merely uncovered a deeper meaning of the original bullshit, and discovered that it was universal bullshit, i.e., that it could be applied universally to fleece the stupid.
Meta-bullshit.
This “logic” is so whacked out, I’m almost convinced ya that’s right…..
Angelina Mina
happy-funtime.blogspot.com
This “logic” is so whacked out, I’m almost convinced ya that’s right…..i really appreciated it
Angelina Mina
happy-funtime.blogspot.com
wow! has anyone deciphered what those girasas are, yet ?
I tried to find it on Brenda’s lunatic blog, but failed.
i really appreciates it
thanks for it
god is great
jasmine
tech-chek.blogspot.com
I tried to come up with some anagrams for girasa and the closest seems to be “Gas Air” although if you live near the Mississippi and have seen some of these ugly fish, this one might fit as well “A Gar Is”
thanks for sharing it .
Too bad I missed out on the contest, but I came up with a good one:
Eliena andrews
healthtreatments.blogspot.com
Let’s do that! Sounds like fun. I hope we will be allowed to make up new stuff too (I want more than just a girasas kingdom).
Actually, we can thank Theosophy for supplying some background to the Chthulu mythos. I saw this brand of woo mentioned several times in H.P. Lovecraft books.
In fact, theosophy looks strangely creepy, expecting another race to pop up and wipe us out while old races coexist and look upon us from their ascended positions.
And all those Lemuria and Atlantis places on the bottom of the sea, waiting to rise again…ancient horror.
And the SD books were a reason I abandoned woo. Atrocious writing.
You are all being very harsh on Brenda Tucker. She is a fictional character in The Archers on BBC’s Radio 4 and it must be very hard to get decent intellectual debate while working at Jaxx Caff and living one’s life in 12 minute bursts. Ambridge’s only religious debate was when Peggy Woolley decided to boycott the village church because they offended her by appointing a female vicar.
Brenda Tucker is clearly sick of Tom’s extreme interest in sausages and has instead decided on a revolutionary takeover of The Oesophageal Society.
As a refugee from a fantasy world, she must be allowed her delusions so she can maintain a tenuous grip on, er, fantasy.
“Try to grasp the picture I am presenting to you first.”
Ouch.
Well, I tried really hard but I couldn’t see the picture. All I could see were the cans of fingerpaint Brenda swore she was going to use to paint the picture.
Only they weren’t actually cans, they were tattered old paper boxes. And they didn’t have any paint in them. And the labels didn’t say “paint.” There were just some dirt smudges that if you squinted hard enough you might be able top pretend they said “FECMU.”
I love Theosophy. I haven’t been blindsided like that in quite a while. I guess I can’t keep up on ALL the woo now can I? But that batch of woo is damn funny.
“I am offering to you a NEW CONCEPT”
No, thanks. I like the OLD ONE(S).
Beware of New Agers. They might seem a lot less dangerous than other kinds of fundies, but while other fundies will gladly shoot you if you don’t conform to their views, New Agers will just blather on and on in a really friendly, non-threatening, understanding, “I just want everybody to get along” way until you want to shoot yourself just to get away from them.
Wow. I walk past a building with a “Theosophical Society” sign outside it every day. The name sounded quite inoffensive…
I think I might walk on the other side of the road from now on.
Anthroposophy, Steiner’s spin-off of theosophy, seems relatively inoffensive, apart from some of the medical woo (anti-vaccinationism in particular). I’ve known several products of, or instructors in, Waldorf schools, and they all seem like decent, balanced human beings. Some of the Waldorf principles of early childhood education aren’t much different from those in Montessori schools, and there are undoubtedly quite a few rational scientists who put their kids in Montessori schools. Biodynamic farming doesn’t seem all bad, and holistic approaches in medicine shouldn’t be dismissed automotically either, IMO. You can justify the latter with scientific explanations of neurotransmitter, cortisol, and melatonin levels, or with spiritual New Age woo, but the outcome is essentially the same.
Funny how these things pop up. I was reading Yeats and found he was into theosophy. I like my poetry mystical and my science rational.
I see that Nick Gardner has already explained the origin of “YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG”, but I may as well pile on and link to Macrochan’s stash of doing-it-wrong images. Like Nick’s link, it’s not safe for work, and also contains some genuinely horrifying content.
This one is safe, though, and made me giggle.
Am I the only one who just glazed over after the first paragraph of Brenda’s posts? Honestly, if I wanted to read gibberish, I’d just go read about Time Cube. At least the Time Cube rant sounds kind of interesting if you chant it angrily.
“I want people to join The Theosophical Society, overtake its board of directors, and set it on a proper course.”
You know, folks, it’d actually be fun to do this, and set the Society on a collision course with the Scientologists.
I dunno. The Scientologists are pretty scary. The Theos are kinda spacey and harmless compared to the Cult of Scientology.
I really love all this attention and I think that in the interest of fairness, we should let other people hear about this idea and hopefully they will all want to comment upon it too.
The idea was not only dismissed by journalists and practicing scientists, but the idea was not ever communicated to newcomers within The Theosophical Society.
As a result, newagers are still entering this group and many others unaware of what might be an end result of the challenge that is issued to them to test and confirm the information given for themselves. Don’t take it on belief, we are told, but test it for yourselves. It’s here for each of us to discover.
What I have discovered is that this state of bliss that is often marketed is induced by the presence and activity of a higher kingdom as are the powers tooted. The human meanwhile plays second fiddle – lower on the hierarchy – and it isn’t exactly the self-culture that many people think it is when they begin their personal experimentation.
If we could just talk about it at a national level – even if it is to just hurl insults at me for a time – the information could be disbursed, allowing other inquiring minds to benefit from my findings.
There’s a place in THE SECRET DOCTRINE that discusses Adam in the sense that there are seven Adams, one for each race, and since the 5th Adam purportedly was “dug up” from where it was buried waiting for the clock to strike the proper hour, breathed into somehow (since the buried form would be what was accomplished during the 3rd round when all forms were water based life forms), and then set to work multiplying (whatever – somehow it increased in numbers), then the 6th race Adam might also be buried and when it is uncovered, something could be done to reimplement the gains made from the last round into the forms coming into existence in this round. If we can apply that particular set of circumstances (not too sure if it would prove similar.)
Thank you so much for your generous “assessments.” I am so thrilled that you can speak your minds even at the threat of being overburdened with this new type of intelligence and life.
I am not sorry that I dropped out of college to study this. I’m just sorry that there weren’t other people prepared enough to present what material there is to study. The children have eager minds and if they find good material that has been rejected on a large scale, they won’t understand the world they live in: why they are taught some things and not others.
Look, even the members of The Theosophical Society didn’t know what they had (or didn’t teach it). I have a letter from a former International Vice President telling me my idea isn’t right. God, somebody tell me how to convince that organization that they must present the findings of the students if they encourage us to test for ourselves.
And we are overburdened. I know. I’ve tried to engage them in working for humans and instead of doing what we ask them to do, they turn around and force my little, weak form and mind to try to accomplish the work for myself.
Can they do that? Can they force me to do the work I ask them to do? Not fair.
Ummm… yeahhhh.
*slowly steps away and makes no sudden movements*
That’s like my reaction.
I thought about changing – no longer practicing vegetarianism, no longer participating in either group (done), no longer reading their material, etc., but I didn’t want to make abrupt movements. No reason to offend.
Do you hear voices?
Ryan, the link to your anti-AiG blog was appreciated!
Um, Brenda aside, my vague recollection (after scrolling down this long thread) is that the topic post was on the silly notion of thorns and thistles being post-Fludde, or post-Fall, or some such.
Do any of the Great Minds in attendance know when thorns and thistles did first arise, roughly? An admittedly half-hearted google didn’t come up with much that looked relevant…
Are they contemporaneous with the rise of flowering plants, or are there, um, pre-flowering thorns and thistles?
Thanks in advance and, again, thanks to Ryan!
I’ve now seen a more fleshed-out version of this same claim, taken from one of AiG’s bits of bull puckey, which adverts to thorn fossils having been found in the Devonian strata of 350 MYA.
Of course, they then find “biblical” reasons to dispute this, attribute almost all of the fossil record to the Fludde, etc., but assuming that the Devonian part is accurate (and I fully realize this is a long leap with AiG), then that would appear to answer my pinheaded question above.
Though I’d sure like to have a confirmation from a more reliable source. Perhaps I’ll google “thorns devonian” and see if anything comes up other than AiG…
Yes! Finally, my years of training in paleobotany pay off! I knew this day would come!
Answer is, depends on your definition. Thistles are flowering plants in the Asteraceae, and that family only dates back to the Eocene. So thistles, pretty young.
Thorns as such are also unique to angiosperms, and no angiosperms have yet been found that are older than the early Cretaceous.
However, if you just want to talk about poky things, a lot of plants have those and have for a very long time. Many ferns have sharp protuberances on their rhizomes, cycad leaflets can be wicked sharp, conifer cones can have sharp prickles on the end of the cone scales.If you happen to be very tiny, trichomes along the stem can be a big pain as well. Basically, sharp defenses for plants have been around just about as long as vascular plants have been hanging out on land (early Devonian, if you don’t count the soft mossy things. Shut up, Baragwanathia!) Heck, Sawdonia was one of the earliest land plants, very simple anatomically, but had spines all over it, hence the name.
So I guess you could say that sure, thorns are evidence of the Fall, if Adam screwed up in the Devonian. That would play right into their hands if you use the widespread move of plants onto the land as the benchmark of Eden, which kind of makes sense in a warped sort of way, but not so much if you want to explain the two hundred million years or so of animals before that.
To Richard Harris: YOU HAVE MY SENSE OF HUMOR!!!! I think I love you!
Brenda!Brenda!Brenda! Who the Hell IS Brenda anyways. She needs to go back to the
girasas kingdom where she apparently came from.
YAAAAAWWWNNN…..
Steviepinhead – if you really want to delve into it, go search for zosterophylls. Some good genera names to search are Sawdonia, Deheubarthia, Discalis, Serrulacaulis, Konioria (that one has curvy spines!), and Crenaticaulis. Another early Devonian group with spines is the trimerophytes, specifically Psilophyton.All the prickly Devonian plants you could ask for, although if you use the strict definition of a thorn as a modified branch, they don’t count.
Brenda,
Are you asserting that you are the only enlightened individual in the history of man (5th Kingdom, that is) _not_ to be dually inhabited by both current and higher kingdoms? I find that very much like saying “Well, I’m not crazy…it’s everyone else!” Now, I’m not saying you’re crazy, you’re doing a very good job of that yourself, but let’s stop and analyse your purpose in posting here:
+ You want to defend a religion of which the majority of followers would persecute you. Very noble.
+ You want to challenge the norms. A fine tradition.
Now let’s examine why this is futile.
+ The people you are defending A)make up the majority of people in this country. We are the minority. Why defend the overlord? B)Many of said people would gladly see you dead. Again, noble, but it doesn’t overtly demonstrate your mantal capacity. Finally, C)whatever intention you had in making your first post has been long-since obscured by your ranting. It does no good to a cause to begin in such cause, only to veer into self-interested rhetoric. Focus.
+ An individual with little to no following stands next-to-no chance of making change. My advice would be to stay underground and build a following before making such a bold public maneuver. Witness to your friends, relatives, or children. Word sounds have power. Words have no sound in text form. Humility is a virtue, my dear. Frankly, you’ve turned both cheeks. It’s time to move on. If these people don’t get it, then to hell with them. Why would you want such sheeple in your flock?
Knowing that the word encompasses ALL religion in its definition, I will use the more contemporary (churchified) sense when I tell you that, with at least a few followers, you could make a decent media-drenched cult. You may even be the next Ruby Ridge. Wouldn’t it be nice to have some attention paid to you at the expense of those who would not listen despite your many pleas? The FBI is a powerful scapegoat, and I think we’re all a bit sick of the pointless here-and-now evening news. To be persecuted by a high-ranking organization is to be embraced by the sympathies of those like you. Take a cue from the Jesus you hold so dear. Instigate the blaze of glory your revolutionary concepts are entitled to.
To read your posts is to feel as though you have been “waiting for Mister Right”…decades of Vogue Magazine should have instructed us all that this approach rarely works. To offer my advice again, I think it best that you KNOW how special you are, but assume that others have no inkling, and, thusly, act in a manner that would suggest you are an average, everyday woman who just so happens to have been enlightened. Subtlety is a female art.
With…ALL of that said, I leave you to it. I don’t believe you, but good luck with that.
-Jennifer-
ps – All criticism of content aside, in the interest of the technical writers of the World, please go back to college. Your writing is atrocious. Ted Kacsinzki gained MUCH credibility by his scholarship.
Damn it! Back to the thorns! This is supposed to be a thread about thorns!
Oh, COME ON…if you can’t goad someone to desperate suicide, I mean, REALLY, what’s the point in life?
Ok, fine, but if a perfectly nice thread about plants and Adam is going to be hijacked immediately, then hijacked again the one time it starts to go back on topic, I want an entire post about fossil plants. It’s just too animal-centric around here. And no, I’m not going to go get my own blog. [pouts]
This is “genuinely horrifying content”. The ignorance! It leaves me speechless.
:-D That sounds like “practicing Catholic”. It’s redundant, though: “scientist” is defined as “someone who does science”.
The Devonian ended 359 Ma ago…
This is “genuinely horrifying content”. The ignorance! It leaves me speechless.
:-D That sounds like “practicing Catholic”. It’s redundant, though: “scientist” is defined as “someone who does science”.
The Devonian ended 359 Ma ago…
…I know practically nothing about Evolutionary theory that I haven’t learned from this thread (a frightening concept), but may I suggest the Wobbly Headed Bob series of ‘meanwhiles’ by Johnen Vasquez? They seem rather more than relevant to the whole attitude of our martyred Queen B.
Now, now, I am sure that Brenda’s family is really glad she has found the Internets. They don’t have to listen to her all day while she is typing. Unless she talks to the computer while she types.
Now this whole thing makes me wonder, how many Americans actually believe things that clearly contradict any proof of evolution available? Are they serious? Do they believe they are “scientists”? And finally how close can they get to nuclear weapons? Just asking ‘cuz if they ever get the idea of taking human to a higher level, I’m making a bunker…
Hate to disturb the party here, but there is evidence that radio carbon dating is not just inaccurate, but woefully misleading. Any one care for more info or are we so intoxicated by the ‘wine of Babylon’we have stopped caring?
A quick search suggests that you’re the only person that’s actually mentioned carbon dating on this thread. Care to explain the relevance?
Are you interested in learning if your info is a) correct and b) relevant, or are you just here to preach?
In fact their logic is fine. The problem is that the have an assumption, that the bible is literally correct, which is wrong. The logical structure is fine otherwise.
Better luck next time!
MartinM,
true to the herding instinct of the average pseudoscientist,you look for apparent safety in numbers. No, I am not here to preach, but deliver some food for thought if anyone cares. So sorry to shake you out of your stupor, but I think you may be interested in what I have to say.
Well, get on with it, then.
Well, before I dig in, just a quick reminder of the fact real science is not about how many people agree with any other person’s position. I am not here to seek the safety of the majority opinion and hope you are not. I will not belabour the point further except to say that once upon a time, the majority opinion was that the world was flat and any dissent was summarily burnt at the stake. It is clear to me from the ridicule implied in your response to my input and the postings here that we have not moved away from that position held in the Dark ages.
Oh it’s on…
any wagers on the woo we’re about to experience?
Quantum Consciousness? Girases?
Carlie,
Bring on the Paleobotany!!!
More thorns
Science on Science blogs!!!
When I was a little girl, I very much wanted a giant club moss. In the end, my desperate parents, got me a fossil
plant collection.
I ended up in math–but, I STILL WANT A GIANT CLUB MOSS!
“It is clear to me from the ridicule implied in your response to my input and the postings here that we have not moved away from that position held in the Dark ages.”
Come on, give it up already, the whole “you just don’t get it” bit gets old.
I just don’t understand why you Americans actually try to mix wild, UNPROVEN, beliefs with science. The fact is anyone can say “what you say may be false so what I say must be right”, but that’s just a truly stupid way to argue.
Philosopher (also widely known physicist and mathematician) Descartes said if one wants to learn he must forget everything he knows. This however does not mean that everything you know is false, it just mean that you can only trust what you can prove.
See it’s simple, we argue pointlessly, you religious/sect freaks (pretty much the same to me anyways)forget the main point : god/girasas/”any other mystical concept” is not proven.
I saw something like “Science means inquiry, thoughtful exploration, and sharing of findings”. No, not all inquiry, thoughtful exploration and sharing is science, a big part of it is philosophy ( ex : “what is desire?”, an inquiry which requires thought, but no science), and another part is religion (ex : what does god want?). I’ve never heard of theosophy before or anything quite like it, to me it looks like some kind of mix of buddhism, hinduism and something else. So yeah, maybe the assertions can be taken as philosophy (although not by me…) but it can’t be mistaken with anything even remotely scientific, it really can’t…