|
|
| |||||||||||||||
| From | Message | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 I am going to read the two articles referenced by stalhandske in a few minutes. I just need to help my wife find her wedding band somewhere in the house. |
||||||||||||||
|
Who wants to go to heaven? All the nice girls are in hell..... |
||||||||||||||
|
Bob Anyone denying it is a fool with an ulterior motive. |
||||||||||||||
|
Riaan Just everlasting peace in the arms of the father forever and ever and ever...sounds a bit hellish to me 😎 |
||||||||||||||
|
I'll miss Elvis, Jerry Lee Lewis, The Beatles, The Carpenters, The Monkeys, The BG's, Mama's and the Papa's..... And the classical music! A juicy steak, the occasional lobster, and some of my own culinary creations. And red wine! Nope, I'd much rather have eternity right here. |
||||||||||||||
|
Actually People are scared of death and imagine all types of rationalizations to avoid thinking about their imminent cessation. This life is plenty and all we deserve anyway. Enjoy it. Smooth the road for others. Check out gracefully. Period |
||||||||||||||
|
Heaven and hell If I were God and you told me this life isn’t enough, and you want immortality in paradise, I’d bitchslap you and ask you why the hell you deserve immortality and why you’re an ungrateful cur. |
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Riaan Sounds heavenly |
||||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 30-Oct-21, 11:33 |
I've had it once again, and I start to agree with the assessments by Zorro and Bob, which I initially did not agree with. I do now - I was once again utterly mistaken about this guy. |
||||||||||||||
|
Mark Twain on the Forbidden Fruit Rian's dream reminded me of Twain's story. |
||||||||||||||
|
Zorro 7:18 Yes, it's an acquired taste, for sure. The New Testament itself says that in Hebrews 12:29... "For our God is a consuming fire." That's why deathbed repentance is not a recommended tactic. But a consistent Stoic like you would have a head start on many others. |
||||||||||||||
|
Bob You inspire me, btw |
||||||||||||||
|
Riaan 7:49 I'll share a braai with you, mate, with a beef fillet on rock salt on a slow roast! And I'm not talking about one of these fancy gas things; it should be fuelled by Red Gum for a long, even flame. All with a good Coonawarra Cab Sav to wash it down. If you care to bring a good Stellenbosch red, we can work our way through that as well. We'll leave Zorro, the Righteous Pagan, to his beer and sausages. It seems to be all he wants. |
||||||||||||||
|
Beer and sausages I made lamb meatballs stuffed with Humboldt Fog goat cheese on a bed of saffron rice, lightly steamed broccoli with lemon garlic tahini sauce. Malbec, a pear torte with pears from the back yard. McCallum 12 year But I don’t have a problem with brats and beer |
||||||||||||||
|
And THAT |
||||||||||||||
|
Zorro |
||||||||||||||
|
A Quantifiable force. |
||||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 30-Oct-21, 21:23 |
Coram's tune academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu viz. by this brief article by Jon Cohen published in the journal Science (one of the highest rated scientific journals), and which in fact is referenced in the 'cutting edge creation research' article from which Coram has copied and pasted his entire '25% argument'. This man does not do honest research by himself. The funny thing is that the author of Coram's article doesn't really comment on what Cohen concludes (even though it is in the reference list), and why should he (or Coram) as it explains "the 25%" but in a way that the creationist would not accept (or understand). Apparently Coram never read that paper despite the fact that it is part of the work he cites. I don't know if there is a concept reciprocal to cherry picking, but that is what quite obviously has happened here. When there is data that does not fit, it is ignored. |
||||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 31-Oct-21, 03:23 |
Coram is like a worm on a hook Of course not, as that wasn't the purpose of citing it! As Coram should have known if he would have paid any attention. I cited that paper only to respond to his repeated '25% claim', the value of which is assessed in that paper. Coram is like soap in a bathtub, slippery! When you prove him wrong on one point, he 'forgets' all about it and continues with another. The present case is precisely analogous to the earlier one about the Second Law of Thermodynamics. He is sufficiently intelligent to have realised that his 'copy and paste' activity on that point was totally wrong, but instead of admitting it (simply saying that he was mistaken; that seems to be overwhelmingly difficult), he forgot all about it. And, again, the fact is that the basic biochemistry and biophysics of humans and apes (and pigs!) are basically exactly the same - there is hardly any difference! This does not depend on the 'percentage' of sequence similarity which is an entity very difficult to standardise (see my quote of the Science paper) in an objective way. But when the methodology is the same, based on the genetic material, apes are closer to humans than any other animal although pigs come pretty close too. The likeness is perhaps most clearly proven in practise by the fact that pig kidneys have recently successfully been transplanted to humans. When amino acid sequences of key proteins are compared, it turns out that the catalytically most important regions are nearly identical (this is the reason for my statement), whereas other protein regions less important for catalysis may differ more. Actually, when it comes to some key proteins in human metabolism, their most important domains are nearly identical to the corresponding protein in radish! Yes, we are certainly related to the plants as well, but much further removed cousins. |
||||||||||||||
|
Stal 03:23 Actually, 'Trumpian' is a better description. I gave the conventional historical-critical analysis of Genesis 1 that every competent Bible College student could deliver without prior warning. I never claimed it was my original interpretation; indeed I explicitly SAID it was 'mainstream'. Coram responded by saying it was so 'out there' that no commentator would agree with it, as though I had just dreamed it up. So I gave a reference to it as presented in one of my College texts, giving ISBN number and page number. His next post accused me of plagiarism, and that I only admitted to it when challenged! As if HE had put that reference in front of ME! Apart from the fact that his original allegation was the exact OPPOSITE of plagiarism. That guy has no problem directly contradicting himself, if the only alternative is to admit that he has no clue. You're wrong, Stal, when you say he is smart. He is only as smart as a petshop parrot that can quote Shakespeare. (By-the-way, tell Coram that carbon atoms in humans are the same as carbon atoms in fungi; he will laugh you to scorn for such a huge lie!) |
||||||||||||||
|
Guys |
||||||||||||||
|
zorroloco 31-Oct-21, 09:41 |
Deleted by zorroloco on 31-Oct-21, 09:49.
|
||||||||||||||
|
Bob He’s a fanatic. I’ll say it again... he just knocks over the pieces, craps all over the board, and claims victory. He needs to smoke some herb and get in touch with the Earth Mother. His beliefs are totally out of sync with the Earth. His. beliefs are devil inspired and lead to our destruction and the degradation of our sacred planet. He strives for the demise of our ecosystem in order to bring about what he sees as the end times, in which, in his immature and unbalanced mind, means he alone (and the Prince dude) will go to heaven and everyone else burns. He probably thinks god will use his club membership to ascertain who’s been naughty and who’s been nice. His sick patriarchal fables are anti-life. If the devil exists, he lives in the hearts of people like Andrew. |
||||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 31-Oct-21, 10:25 |
Zorro His assessment <This is why I don’t trust anything you say, stalhandske. You’re not objective. You don’t base your opinion on evidence - you base it on which “side” is presenting the evidence. If people who present the evidence are on “your side” (agree with you,) you believe it. If they’re not on your side (don’t agree with you,) you either ignore it or look for excuses to reject it. Hopefully you’re only like that when it comes to the theory of evolution, but it appears to be your functioning mindset.> would be a true insult to any scientist, but I honestly don't give a damn because I know my value and from where the assessment comes. Coram has no freeking idea about the extent of the evidence for similarity of biochemistry and biophysics among mammals. I tried to give a small glimpse of that, but it was of course ignored. All in all, I am actually deeply sorry for all this. But it was of course initially provoked by Coram via his initially chosen 'chess identity'. I have now said enough. Finally, let's not at least insult him any longer which will only help him in his planned retreat, which last time was stuffed with GK complaints. Fortunately GK has apparently noted this and removed his rights of complaint. |
||||||||||||||
|
About coram: I agree with zorroloco. stalhandske, you can do whatever you like, but against indoctrination, propaganda, dogma and self-righteousness such as his, you won't be able to dent him. He is truly dressed in the armor of God, shield, sword, breastplate and all. Logic, verified facts, research and true knowledge means nothing to him. I see that coram referenced a post by myself, and think I should answer that. Actually, before I became an atheist, I was a devout Christian and had lengthy talks with pastors, reverends and priests from many denominations, trying to understand the Bible better. I read a lot of books by learned theologians, especially pertaining to the Protestant faith, in which I was brought up. Even after I left the faith I still went back to long discussions with all reverends, priests and pastors. So to answer his question on what an atheist would know about the Bible- in fact much more than the average person who blindly follows dogma. That is exactly why I made the informed decision to leave Christianity. "....You think real scientists would ignore 25 percent of human genetic material and 18 percent of chimp genetic material when comparing the two genomes so they can arrive at a 98 percent similarity?...." It is obvious to even a simple policeman that the poor bloke doesn't understand the least about the concept. He hasn't the foggiest. stalhandske explained that very clearly, twice that I can see at a quick glance. Also both those articles that stalhandske referenced on 29-Oct-21, 07:05 explains it. It doesn't mean that there is 25% difference between human and chimpanzee DNA! It seems he read that number and have no idea what it means, so he goes on and on ad infinitum about the discrepancy he perceives there to be. No discrepancy! I had to laugh- he didn't catch my joke about the nice girls who are all in hell. And for sure I don't think of evolution as pantheism. I merely consider it the most likely explanation of how we got to this current point in time with all these myriad of life forms around the planet. I didn't even see that particular thread before. The thread usually referenced here took me directly to another one. I couldn't find a quick reference and took the long route, which was how I discovered the thread "The 10-Week Campaign of Hate". The opposite is in fact true. I don't hate him at all. There are very few people that I actively and positively hate- and I have met all four of them face to face and told them so in an effort to solve the problem. Me, hateful? Nope. I am the most loving person you could ever meet. I didn't read back further than that. I didn't realize that I warrant any attention! |
||||||||||||||
|
Ok guys We don’t much like him. We don’t care about his views or his opinions about us. Ergo, reading and commenting on his monologue is pointless. Worse, it feeds his martyr complex and encourages him to dig his heels in even more. I propose a moratorium on looking at his ‘club.’ It’s better for us, better for Andrew, better for the club, better for GK. All in favor, say aye. Aye |
||||||||||||||
|
riaannieman 31-Oct-21, 12:28 |
Deleted by riaannieman on 31-Oct-21, 12:51.
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
I see he really laid into me as well. But I find it really funny. I'm not offended, though. A little surprised at the reaction that I caused without even knowing about it. Some of what I said in this thread was taken out of context and twisted into a new meaning. For example: I said that I would take the excerpts provided by stalhandse as truth. That was not intentded to mean that the content of the quotes were true, but rather that the quotes were posted in this thread as a true and accurate representation of what coram said in his own club. My definition of a club was not intended as a preamble or preparation to request the removal of that club, but as a genuine description of what a club is and how that club is not a club. At the time I didn't even know about the thread that is applicable now, having discovered it really recently. So any inference that I was looking for a reason to report him is unfounded. As for criticism against evolution theory, I welcome any constructive criticism. But constructive is the operative word here. Not dogma and very narrow interpretations of scripture. I also try to criticize scientific theories to the best of my ability, especially if I think a particular theory holds promise, like string theory. Not that I'm claiming any particular expertise in such theories. Just a healthy interest. I vaguely understand the broad concepts of things like string/bubble theory. That doesn't mean I can't be a proponent of such. The same with evolution theory. If thousands upon thousands of fossils found is not a very good indication by itself for the high probability of evolution theory being correct, then DNA research certainly reinforces the concept. And when august zoologists and biologists like Sir David Attenborough brings the wonders of nature to me, explaining exactly how certain things work, it is easier to understand how evolution is a mechanism for speciation and the beautiful diversity of life found all around us. Books by eminent authors like the book Climbing mount improbable (Richard Dawkins) also explain the little baby steps taken in the evolutionary process- life didn't have to climb the cliff but rather took the long and gentle back slope to reach the top. As for my remark about eliminating himself from the gene pool- I never proposed murder at all, just expressed regret that he is allowed to procreate. My entry was made tongue-in-cheek, as the reference to the website infers. The website is described by Wikipedia as tongue-in-cheek. No ill intent was meant. en.m.wikipedia.org. I am shocked that my intent has been twisted and portrayed as malice. That is not so. Well, now I suppose I could vote as well. I see now the dangers in engaging with this person, in the sense that innocent posts in our club can be twisted to fit an agenda. I have only read "The 10-Week Campaign of Hate" in full, and briefly glanced at the other one usually referenced here before when it was referenced, usually by stalhandske. Although his complaint function has been revoked, I urge you to be careful and mindful of the GK rules. From myself: Aye. |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
