Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs

Nature Genetics - 39, 31 - 40 (2006)
Published online: 10 December 2006; | doi:10.1038/ng1946
Convergent adaptation of human lactase persistence in Africa and Europe

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

DATA

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Links

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Data, do you really think anyone is going to be able to follow this article? Hell, I get the impression that some of the righties on this site don't even know what DNA looks like.

"Institute for Genome Sciences & Policy and Department of Biology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708, USA."

Fuck DOOK.

For the laymen/women:

SNP

Haplotype

Zygosity

Allele

And finally, for the title:

Convergent Evolution

Ness
Occasionally I think it would behoove some of these dolts to do something besides parrot Rush or watch football. Evolution is currently understood at a molecular level, yet they desperately cling to their cherished superstitions. Besides, it might help someone understand lactose intolerance.

it might help someone understand lactose intolerance.

I'm no expert, but I've gotten the impression that lactose intolerance is and should be the norm for adults. Evolutionarily, the purpose of milk is to feed recently born animals until they are able to digest "extrinsic" foods. It's no surprise that most adults have some form of intolerance-they are not supposed to still be drinking milk after being weaned early on. Unfortunately, milk is such a mainstay in the human diet through our extremely creative cooking techniques. And who don't like ice cream?

I guess this article is over the heads of the "evolution is just a theory" crowd. Just more proof that they talk completely out of their ass.

Besides, it might help someone understand lactose intolerance.

LOL!!!


Evolution is just a theory, when we are able to predict its outcome with certainty than is will become law. We still no it is fact though, we are just bound by the use of our words.

when we are able to predict its outcome with certainty

We can. If you overuse antibiotics, you can predict that some organisms will become resistant. Just look at
MRSA

What more do you want?

"A physical law, scientific law, or a law of nature is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behavior. They are typically conclusions based on repeated scientific experiments over many years, and which have become accepted universally within the scientific community."

en.wikipedia.org

This describes evolution perfectly.

mediamatters.org

"You sometimes hear people who say they reject evolution claim that our bodies show clear signs of being ''intelligently designed.'' I wonder how many of them have had appendicitis."

carlzimmer.com

scienceblogs.com

"We all know the phrase "Garbage In, Garbage Out" ... creationists are instances of "Information In, Garbage Out.""

scienceblogs.com

www.talkreason.org

I wonder how many evolution detractors are also licking the putrid, purulent vagina of mAnn Coulter.

MoneyWar,

Evolution is just a theory, when we are able to predict its outcome with certainty than is will become law.

No, not quite. Scientists only need to formulate a mechanism that will determine when mutation will occur, not what mutation will occur.

Scientists only need to formulate a mechanism that will determine when mutation will occur

I'd say this is fundamentally impossible, considering the wide variety of mutagenic factors. A single UV photoproduct, such as cyclobutane or a 6-4 product can interfere with replication, thus introducing mutations.

UV radiation with the required energy to be mutagenic is almost unavoidable, unless you live in an unlit cave or hundreds of meters underwater.

Pleasant,

Skating on the edge there, we already know when mutation occurs. I bombard you with radiation.........

Just in case you want more info:

en.wikipedia.org

we already know when mutation occurs.

Do we? How many do you have?

Hint: Divide 3 billion by 1,000. That's an approximate number of single base-pair mutations that exist in your own genome.

Ness
Plenty of cosmic rays make it deep in the Earth.
They even see 'em at SNO, 6800 feet under ground.

www.sno.phy.queensu.ca

ness,

Chemo?????? !!!!!!!

Plenty of cosmic rays make it deep in the Earth.

It would be a bitch of a study to conduct, but I'd be interested in the mutagenic capacity of comsic rays, since they are pretty much ubiquitous. Perhaps the various DNA repair mechanisms that have evolved in mammals are the result of this, but I have a feeling that mutations from cosmic radiation are pretty rare, and that repair mechanisms are more involved with repairing macro-sized fuckups (that's a biology term, I promise) that occur due to events in mitosis and meiosis.

Chemo?????? !!!!!!!

What about it?

"mutagenic capacity of comsic(sic) rays"

Cosmic ray muons have charge -e, 206 times the mass of electrons and range in energies into the 100's of GeV. That's ionizing radiation last time I checked.

MoneyWar,

Darwin's theory is about mutation as it naturally occurs. Granted, you can blast stuff with radiation and cause mutation. You can also splice DNA such that flies end up with legs growing out of their eyes. That doesn't have anything to do with the theory though.

Time for ninjutsu class. Hopefully this thread will end up on the front page.

Shalom.

fstdt.com

I guess this article is over the heads of the "evolution is just a theory" crowd.

My point here is not for or against evolution science; rather it is an aside to the conversation.

Every area of study from mathematics to the hard sciences to the social sciences to the arts, philosophy, theology and to the business world have journals and articles that are directed at specific audiences who have varying levels of expertise in the respective areas.

Each employs specific terminology and assumes specific knowledge on the part of its readership; each would be fairly unintelligible to someone outside the field. To assume that this article is over the head of someone because of their religious beliefs is a non sequitur. It may be true; it may not be.

Your conclusion would have to take into account such data as the level of scientific education received by individuals who identify themselves as fundamentalist Christian. Moreover, you would have to take into account the possibility that one can understand what the article says and still disagree with it--even if the disagreement is based on some non scientific assumption. Consider that it would take you years of study to read Aquinas' Summa Theologica and grasp what he is saying. The interesting thing is that you can do so without believing that any of it is true. Understanding something does not necessitate accepting it as truth.

Moreover, to believe one is intellectually superior to anyone else who does not understand the article (or any focused body of knowledge) is also a non sequitur.

There are philosophers who can't make heads or tails of Powerpoint for Dummies and there are computer scientists who cannot follow Philosophy for Dummies. Neither group are true dummies.

Just more proof that they talk completely out of their ass.

To make an unsubstantiated claim and then use that as support or "proof" for another assumption is poor reasoning. In point of fact your comment here is an example of the very point you are trying to make.

Self praise goes but a little ways.

Cheers

Data just likes to give me a headache. Most of the time I get it but sometimes it gives me a headache and sometimes I just don't care. There will be payback for the headaches. Sometime. Somewhere. :)






Headache?
I don't even know you.
Molecular biology gives me a headache, too.
That's why I do astrophysics, it's much simpler.

Stupid goddam smart people.

Grendel
To assume that this article is over the head of someone because of their religious beliefs is a non sequitur.

That may be true, but similarly the Bible is also over the head of its believers. It's a complicated book that can't be understood by taking its words out of context and reinterpreted to fit theological presumptions.

Thanks for the warm welcome message.

That may be true, but similarly the Bible is also over the head of its believers. It's a complicated book that can't be understood by taking its words out of context and reinterpreted to fit theological presumptions.

In general I agree with you, but what you suggest raises a whole host (pardon my Catholic pun) of interesting questions and exegetical issues that are probably best suited for another thread.

What one gets out of any text, and the Bible is no different, is based on what assumptions one brings to the text.

Before one can even claim to any kind of truth or meaning (either sacred, literary or historical) to be found in a biblical text, one has to justify or claim that his or her mode of interpretation is the correct one or at least the best.

Any one biblical text or book is complicated and sophisticated in its own right. Put them all together under the rubric of scripture or the "Bible" and then one adds yet another complex layer of meaning.

To borrow an image from Ezekiel, interpretation of biblical texts can easily become an analytical exercise of examining wheels within wheels.

As far as the Bible being over the head of readers. I would say no.

Consider this,

Four different people, a child, a psychologist, a feminist and a Marxist historian read "Cinderella."

The psychologist says the story is actually about issues of abandonment and personal empowerment. The feminist says it is actually a text whose function is to reinforce accepted oppressive patriarchal notions of the subservient nature of women. It depicts women as unable to handle power without the guidance of men. The Marxist says, no, no. That text originally written down in France at the height and power of Louis XIV is really about reinforcing class based power structures--that the aristocratic class is presented as superior to the bourgeoisie and will always rise above. Finally, the little girl reads the story and says its about a lonely girl who finds true love because she is a good person.

Which one is the right reading or the best? Is the little girl's less legitimate because it lacks intellectual sophistication? Or is is the most appropriate or legitimate because in modern accounts, she represents the text's intended audience?

Consider the length and complexity of biblical texts, the various genres they represent, the cultural influences to be found in them, the historical context of their writing, the theological and philosophical trends and beliefs during the rich long history of their compiling and the rich long history of their interpretation and the questions such as the ones above multiply exponentially.

Good to hear from you, Ray.

Cheers

Evolution is about as much a theory as the theory of gravity.

But superstition has always guided most major facultative decision making in our times and previously. Witness everything from superstar athelets who run through seemingly bizzare rituals to assure victory, all the way up to "with the grace of God" or "Allah permits" suffixed to the most mundane.

Superstition rules. We make choices daily, big and small almost subconsciously driven by a clockmakers complexity of inner fears and hopes - all unsubstantiated but nevertheless more comforting that a cold reality.

Rational thought is too scary for a great many. As Dave points out above: "Stupid goddam smart people."

That's the real issue.

The limited number of those who can accept the underpinnings of cold, rational thought can't ever sway the majority who seek comfort in the arms of an irrational belief that promises a reason for everything and a benevolent purpose if one "toes the line".

The limited number of those who can accept the underpinnings of cold, rational thought can't ever sway the majority who seek comfort in the arms of an irrational belief that promises a reason for everything and a benevolent purpose if one "toes the line".

Fascinating. I think we are to assume that you are among the "limited number." Even so, I would be willing to bet that you, like every human that ever lived, spends your waking time pursuing your own happiness--a state which is foundationally an emotional state, rather than a cold rational one. Your end goal is always your emotional well being--not cold rational thought. If anything you use the latter so that you may achieve the former.

Human beings experience the world emotionally and intellectually. Intrestingly, using reason you must have logically arrived at the conclusion that using reason is the better of the two in order to know the world. I am curious. What does cold rational thought say about using a measuring tool to test the accuracy of itself?

Also, I sense a tone(thanks to an ability to read a text with emotional sensitivity) a sense of pride at being one of the "limited number." If so, how ironic that your use of cold rational thought gives you a warm satisfying emotional feeling of superiority.

You must take comfort in your ability to be able to navigate an uncertain world with all that rationale thought.

Cheers


i have no rational basis for the following statement, but i think there will be a rehabilitation of sorts, of lamarck's ideas about evolution, specifically a reevaluation on the genotype/haplotype level.
grendel,
that's the most persuasive explanation i've read in favour of biblically derived gnosis; the idea that there is an exponential number of interpretations of biblical text when viewed from different cultural perspectives. well done, that man!(or woman)

Evolution is currently understood at a molecular level, yet they desperately cling to their cherished superstitions.

I believe God created evolution.

God created all things and set it all into motion. And evolution is part of that.

The limited number of those who can accept the underpinnings of cold, rational thought

The reason there is only a limited number is because most people realize to the core of their beings how limited, small and insignificant a world without a limitless God would be. There is a comfort in knowing that we are not our own Creator or that our "cold" ratinal thouhts are the Alpha and Omega of life here on earth.

It is enough to know that God exists and humbly admit that even though I can not even know one billionth of one billionth of a percent of His plan, that He still loves me, as He does all of His creation.

www.fstdt.com

Data, thanks for the link. Though I wouldn't characterize people who didn't believe in God as harshly as you do.

Also, I sense a tone(thanks to an ability to read a text with emotional sensitivity) a sense of pride at being one of the "limited number." If so, how ironic that your use of cold rational thought gives you a warm satisfying emotional feeling of superiority.

Awesome point Grendel.

I used to believe as Mr. Cairo did. Of course I was an arrogant, self centered, selfish teenager who believed the world revolved around me. I can remember arguing that "we are all our own gods". How completely narcissistic and ugly. Thank God I have a little more humility now. Not much more but enough not to put me or my "cold rational thought" at the cetner of the Universe.

I haven't characterized anyone's superstitions, I have simply provided links and quotes.

For example, Steve Weinberg, Nobel prize in physics:
"Religion is an insult to human dignity."

Or Thomas Edison, I hope you have heard of him:
"Religion is all bunk."

Or perhaps Jefferson:
"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."

Tom Paine wrote, in Age of Reason:

"From the time I was capable of conceiving an idea, and acting upon it by reflection, I either doubted the truth of the christian system, or thought it to be a strange affair; I scarcely knew which it was: but I well remember, when about seven or eight years of age, hearing a sermon read by a relation of mine, who was a great devotee of the church, upon the subject of what is called Redemption by the death of the Son of God. After the sermon was ended, I went into the garden, and as I was going down the garden steps (for I perfectly recollect the spot) I revolted at the recollection of what I had heard, and thought to myself that it was making God Almighty act like a passionate man, that killed his son, when he could not revenge himself any other way; and as I was sure a man would be hanged that did such a thing, I could not see for what purpose they preached such sermons. This was not one of those kind of thoughts that had any thing in it of childish levity; it was to me a serious reflection, arising from the idea I had that God was too good to do such an action, and also too almighty to be under any necessity of doing it. I believe in the same manner to this moment; and I moreover believe, that any system of religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system.

It seems as if parents of the christian profession were ashamed to tell their children any thing about the principles of their religion. They sometimes instruct them in morals, and talk to them of the goodness of what they call Providence; for the Christian mythology has five deities: there is God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, the God Providence, and the Goddess Nature. But the christian story of God the Father putting his son to death, or employing people to do it, (for that is the plain language of the story,) cannot be told by a parent to a child; and to tell him that it was done to make mankind happier and better, is making the story still worse; as if mankind could be improved by the example of murder; and to tell him that all this is a mystery, is only making an excuse for the incredibility of it.

How different is this to the pure and simple profession of Deism! The true deist has but one Deity; and his religion consists in contemplating the power, wisdom, and benignity of the Deity in his works, and in endeavouring to imitate him in every thing moral, scientifical, and mechanical.

The religion that approaches the nearest of all others to true Deism, in the moral and benign part thereof, is that professed by the quakers: but they have contracted themselves too much by leaving the works of God out of their system. Though I reverence their philanthropy, I can not help smiling at the conceit, that if the taste of a quaker could have been consulted at the creation, what a silent and drab-colored creation it would have been! Not a flower would have blossomed its gaieties, nor a bird been permitted to sing."

I haven't characterized anyone's superstitions, I have simply provided links and quotes.

I know, but I was being mischievous since I suspected you were really ridiculing those that believed in God so I wanted to smoke you out. Your quotes above reveal where you really stand. Why hide behind others though? Or do you really believe that because a nobel prize winner or jefferson said it, then it must be true.

Pretty hilarious if you think that.

Data, I believe when people have to feel a strong need to defend their disbelief in God it usually points to someone with a profound understanding that God is real and they are trying to figure out a way to ignore the voice within.

At least that is what happened to me. WhenI really got honest with myself I realized part of my obsession with proving God didn't exist was that I knew He did.

Read Paine, I could have written that.

Thanks, by the way, now I can file you away with the rest who think they're smarter than Jefferson and Weinberg.

www.math.utah.edu

Thanks, by the way, now I can file you away with the rest who think they're smarter than Jefferson and Weinberg.

I never said I was smarter then them. I suggested that to base your own beliefs about God on what others say is probably not the best way to go. Such quotes may be instrumetnal in helping you develop your belief system, and i can give any number of quotes from Thomas Merton or CS Lewis which helped me understand mine -- but when all is said and done, such faith or non-faith requires you to look within for the answer.

Wow
The Stupid is strong with this one.

You can't prove a negative, Copernicus.
I don't have to prove anything.
Burden of proof's on you.

Your imaginary friend doesn't exist.

Burden of proof's on you.

Proof is all around you Data. proof is all around you.

The Stupid is strong with this one.

To use your quote, "Thanks, by the way, now I can file you away with the rest who think they're smarter than Merton and CS Lewis."

Proof is all around you Data. proof is all around you.

Data, BTW I didn't intend to get into a pissing contest over this. My faith in God is not about which side has the better quotes. It is very personal, as your belief is to you.

All I can talk about here is my experience in how I cam to know God. If you wish to denigrate it so be it. I felt the same anger towards believers when I was a non-believer. But that is just me, and your reasons for acting with hostility towards people with faith may be comletely different then mine.

But know that I have no reeason to denigrate your faith, nor do I feel a need to preach to you about mine. I shared with this thread that I believe God exists and he created evolution just as he as created everything else in the universe. People may agree or disagree as they see fit.

I shared with this thread that I believe God exists and he created evolution

How conveeeenient.

proof is all around you.

So write a book, publish it, and become the greatest theologian in the history of the world. What proof, specifically, do you point to?

Proof is all around you Data. proof is all around you.

Posted by Bowa at 2007-01-31 08:17 AM | Reply


What "proof" would that be? The morning sun? A baby's smile?

The proof is that you are a dumbass, and you prove it with every post.

It's a good thing homo sapiens is confined to quarters.

www.bigskyastroclub.org

"Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity -- in all this vastness -- there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. It is up to us. It's been said that astronomy is a humbling, and I might add, a character-building experience. To my mind, there is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world."
-Carl Sagan

"folly of human conceits"
=
"church of the presumptuous assumption"

www.google.com

church of the presumptuous assumption

FF.

Evidence?

fstdt.com

""Most people today believe in evolution. Too bad it has been already scientifically proven false! There are so many questions that evolutionists cant answer. Here are a few:
[...]
If evolution is true, how come so many animals are extinct? Shouldn't they have "evolved?" If evolution means survival of the fittest, why are humans and animals alike willing to risk their lives for others?
[...]""

jesuslover14, Christian Forums [Comments (2)] [2007-Jan-30]

www.fstdt.com

"Laugh at your own ignorance, the sun is the center of the universe whether you want to accept it or not."

JacobHall86, Christian Forums [Comments (37)] [2007-Jan-29]"

"[Would you please tell us what your scientific qualifications (for evaluating evolution) are? What is your profession?]

My qualification is I'm a God-fearing college dropout redneck hick landlord who goes after darwinism with freaking vengeance....and I just happen to have the truth on my side."

supersport, Theology Web [Comments (66)] [2007-Jan-28]


Hey Ness
It's a fun(die) site, no?

fstdt.com

It's a fun(die) site, no?


'Tis. I'm tempted to sign up for one of these X-tian forums, just to give me something fun to do during class.

""Dinosaurs were in existance in the Word of God. Job referred to a 'leviathan', and the leviathan is mentioned three other times in Scripture. In fact, we see dinosaurs today - they are also called reptiles. They may be smaller today than they were 7,000 years ago, but so are we."

"And finally, no other religioin predates Christianity. Christianity is the worship of Christ. Christ is the ever existing one and people have worshiped Christ since people were created by God!""

I CAN'T STOP! AHHHHH!!!

Time for Chinese buffet.

I knew you'd like it, Ness.

"No, everyone is born Christian. Only later in life do people choose to stray from Jesus and worship satan instead. Atheists have the greatest "cover" of all, they insist they believe in no god yet most polls done and the latest research indicates that they are actually a different sect of Muslims."

fstdt.com

It's a fun(die) site, no?


'Tis. I'm tempted to sign up for one of these X-tian forums, just to give me something fun to do during class.


Ignorance is very often determined by cultural circumstances, educational opportunity, values and beliefs, inculcated from birth or are even innate limits on one's mental ability. Moreover, it requires labeling by a third party who assesses it by what he or she believes to be some kind of objective standard.

In short, though willful ignorance exists, it more often than not is culturally determined according to a value system and a belief of what knowledge is. In short what constitutes ignorance is determined by the dominant thought system or belief. It is what it is not. One can be ignorant of God, of science, history etc--a variety of things. Whether this ignorance is a bad thing is determined by the company one is with.

Arrogance, however, is a different thing altogether. It is an eruption of emotion that comes from the heart and core of an individual psyche. (It differs from confidence, which is rooted in a rational understanding and acceptance of one's abilities and knowledge.) For those feeling it, arrogance is a pleasing and soothing feeling that is applied to one's insecure and tender ego like a salve. The sad thing about this medicinal salve is that its active ingredients are extracted only from the humiliation and degradation of others. (Confidence does not require this.)

Ignorance is not necessarily willful and it is often relative to time, place and culture. The rational mind can usual recognize this in others and can be quite understanding, perhaps even compassionate or merciful when appropriate. Arrogance is always willful, always self centered and ironically shows an ignorance of one's own limitations and vision.

Well, back to lunch

Cheers

arrogance is a pleasing and soothing feeling that is applied to one's insecure and tender ego like a salve.

Gotta love this. Simply because I find humor in the irrational beliefs of others, I am automatically arrogant, as if I am impacted in any way by these perverse notions. I have often tried to have a civil discussion about religious beliefs with those who follow said beliefs, but more often than not I am met with a shaking head and a "no, you're wrong because my book says so."

Who's really being arrogant there? Is it me, who asks the questions, or those who ignore the questions and repeat their mantra over and over, thus absolving them of any responsibility for answering my questions with their own words and thoughts?

And then there's this:

""Just recently my son Bobby came out to me. I had been worried for awhile. His teachers said most of his grades were slipping and he seemed depressed and withdrawn.

Bobby said he'd been hiding it for awhile because he was afraid I would reject him. I sat him down and told him that I loved him and that God loved him, but that his salvation was in danger if he did not resist his unnatural tempations. I told him how being gay would mean he would live a shorter life, and that if he couldnt change his orientation he could be celibate like most the ex-gays are. He started crying saying something along the lines of "I knew you wouldnt understand! You're just like everyone else!" before running to his room and slamming the door.

What did I do wrong? I dont want to lose my son, but I fear I already have. I talked it over with his therapist, who had the ludicrous idea that homosexuality was unchangable and that trying to repress could lead to lots of psychological damage (I've dropped him and will try to be finding another therapist with more moral beliefs). I wouldnt be surprised if he's the one who's feeding my son all the homosexual propaganda about how its 'ok' to be gay. That, or how homosexuality has engulfed the media, making it seem 'cool' and 'hip' and how they were just another oppressed minority. You didnt have to worry about seeing two men making out on tv at my age! I dont want to sound like a fanatic, but Im worried what other effects will come out of this increasingly secular, immoral society obsessed with filth.

Am I too late? Or is it possible to save my son


[Note: the boy eventually took his own life.]"

What a delusional, sad existence. Her irrationality is directly responsible for her son's death.

If my "arrogance" keeps me from falling into this kind of thinking, I'll cherish it.

Shalom.

Simply because I find humor in the irrational beliefs of others, I am automatically arrogant

----

Study that statement and you will see why it's true.

Pirate---Worshippers of evil, dickless, baby killing, alien gods deserve ridicule. Count yourself among the ridiculed. Doesn't your church teach you that when others ridicule your stupidity that it makes you stronger in your moronic beliefs? Most churches teach that to keep the sheeple in line and to continue their unthinking ways. I'm sure your beliefs are strong.

Count yourself among the ridiculed.

----

Thanks!

Of course, Bob, you realize you are not known for having rational beliefs yourself here on the Drudge.

Study that statement and you will see why it's true.

I understand your point. I maintain that the beliefs of fundamentalists of any religion are, more often than not, completely out of whack. People find no difficulty in joking about Islam. But as soon as you point out the equally absurd ideas in a religion closer to home, it's a shit fit.

""[On homosexuality being a condition one is born with]

Just because you are born a certain way doesn't meant that is the way you have to be. Some people are born Asian, but through surgeries and counseling they can change."

propaneharry, IMDB [Comments (80)] [2006-May-06]"

Tell me that's not funny.

Well, Michael Jackson changed from black to white.

"Some people are born Asian, but through surgeries and counseling they can change."

It's going to be a difficult drive home, what with all the convulsive laughter.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhaHAhaahaha
hahahHaHa


ha

Pirate---LOL---Coming from someone who worships evil dickless baby killing alien gods. I only speak of facts. Pisses you off doesn't it dummy.

Actually I think it was human to plastic.

i141.photobucket.com

I only speak of facts. Pisses you off doesn't it dummy.

----

Yea, I don't sleep at night cause I'm so upset about what some dude on the internet thinks about me.

i82.photobucket.com

Pirate---Think of the 27,000 babies that starved to death last night according to the Christian Childrens Fund. I'm sure it will give you a warm fuzzy contemplating gods work.

Come on, Bob.

The 27,000 babies that starved to death last night aren't God's work.

That's just screams Illuminati.

You're slipping, dude.

Illuminati don't kill babies by starvation---that has your Gods fingerprints all over it. Sorry--your God doesn't have any fingerprints does It. No fingerprints--no dick.

No fingerprints--no dick.

Mafia S.O.P.

Illuminati don't kill babies by starvation---that has your Gods fingerprints all over it. Sorry--your God doesn't have any fingerprints does It. No fingerprints--no dick.

----

Oh, that's right. Cause everything say is fact.

So according to you, God is a superstition. So you're stating actions on earth are caused by God, a superstition.

Creationists state actions on earth are also caused by God, a superstition.

You and Creationists have much in common.

Pirate--It may surprise you to know that I believe in creationism and evolution, but not in your evil dickless alien baby killing God.

I was just pointing out to you what YOU worship---not what I think.

But what makes a god a god---can you say? I doubt it.

I believe in creationism and evolution, but not in your evil dickless alien baby killing God.

----

Oh, I see. You don't believe in him but you blame things on him.

That's like not believing in the Easter Bunny and then blaming the Easter Bunny for getting sick.

Can't have it both ways. Either the Christian God is real or he's not.

He can't be not real and then be blamed for bad things.

There's not point in going further if you believe that.


Data, do you really think anyone is going to be able to follow this article? Hell, I get the impression that some of the righties on this site don't even know what DNA looks like.

Posted by ness_gadol

images.google.com

Anywho, I'm outta here for a few hours.

Pirate---AGAIN---since you weren't bright enough to pick up on it the first time---I don't blame anything on your dickless pimp god for anything since It doesn't exist. I was merely pointing out the being that YOU worship.

Hell, I get the impression that some of the righties on this site don't even know what DNA looks like.

Posted by ness_gadol


It looks like the intertwined snakes on the medical profession logo that was the symbol of Enki, the creation god of the Sumerians. The spread wings above the logo are the symbol of the home of the Sumerian gods.

that has your Gods fingerprints all over it

I don't blame anything on your dickless pimp god for anything since It doesn't exist

----


You blamed him twice and now you're saying you don't blame him.

Dude, quit snorting midol.

Out for good.

Pirate---you are simply too stupid to grasp the point even when spelled out for you. No wonder you are a republican with no understanding of the concept America.

It looks like the intertwined snakes on the medical profession logo that was the symbol of Enki, the creation god of the Sumerians. The spread wings above the logo are the symbol of the home of the Sumerian gods.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob


LOL

Bani---What is so funny? Can you explain?

Grendel
As far as the Bible being over the head of readers. I would say no.

I would expect that answer from you or any other believer.


Which one is the right reading or the best?


That is not to hard answer. The right reading is based on the author's prejudices, his evidence, his state of knowledge, the history of his times and the intent of what he trying to communicate. It's no different than you and talking over baseball. In short - original context.

Example. Christians take Isaiah's Suffering Servant to be about Christ. Not so. It's about King Usiah who had leprosy. Isaiah saw him as suffering for the sins of Israel. I could go on and on about forced interpretations of the Bible.

Consider the length and complexity of biblical texts, the various genres they represent, the cultural influences to be found in them, the historical context of their writing, the theological and philosophical trends and beliefs during the rich long history of their compiling and the rich long history of their interpretation and the questions such as the ones above multiply exponentially.

It is also true that the Bible has been exhaustively studied. Secular scholars have taken the reigns from the theologians. The presumption that the Bible has supernatural origins whose words have hidden meaning does not hold up to the current state of knowledge.

No wonder you are a republican with no understanding of the concept America.

----

Who said I was a Republican?

So you're saying I need to accept as my God your interpretation of my God that you don't even believe in?

And that you say I have no understanding of the concept of America.

Enki, restorer of balance

my favorite is: God of Semen! LOL

Enki was not perfect, as god of water he had a penchant for beer and as god of semen he had a string of incestuous affairs.

en.wikipedia.org

Bani---All true and more, but as I said as I said---what's so funny? You do know semen has something to do with DNA don't you?

www.fstdt.com

Pirate--You are correct---I made some assumptions. I assumed you worshipped the biblical god which is supposed to be All Knowing---All Powerful---and All Good.

If you worshipped that god then you would have to concede that one or more of those attributes were false if It lets 27,000 die of starvation each and every night of the year.

But tell me of the god you DO worship---does it have a goats head? At least a goat has a dick.

Bani---All true and more, but as I said as I said---what's so funny? You do know semen has something to do with DNA don't you?

Posted by Buffalo_Bob


Gotta Go worship Enki...later BB

Love them titties, Data:>)

Bani---Enki doesn't deserve to be worshipped either, but at least he has genitals.

At least a goat has a dick.

----

You seem to be fascinated with penises.

Apparently, one of your requirements for a god is a human penis.

Strange.

In previous conversations with you, you blame pro-lifers for not caring about babies after they are born. You use the same argument of x number of children starving. So now God is at blame instead of pro-lifers. How convenient it must be for you to shift blame whenever it suits your needs.

Read up on Paradise Lost and then you'll understand the concept of free will.

Apparently, one of your requirements for a god is a human penis.

Not at all, and your propensity for jumping to illogical conclusions is showing again. I bring up the penis bit because worshippers of this evil toad insist on calling It a He with some awe and reverence as they gloat over the nights starving baby count.


Strange.

What is strange is how mercury affects your brain. What does it taste like? Chicken?




In previous conversations with you, you blame pro-lifers for not caring about babies after they are born. You use the same argument of x number of children starving. So now God is at blame instead of pro-lifers. How convenient it must be for you to shift blame whenever it suits your needs.

Read up on Paradise Lost and then you'll understand the concept of free will.


Posted by Pirate at 2007-01-31 09:47 PM

Again dummy----I blame your dickless god for nothing----it doesn't exist except in your mercury laden brain. The pro lifers who bleat about the sanctity of life and would force women to give birth to unwanted fetuses while thousands of live human beings starve to death every day represent the largest turds in humanity. Especially when they try to tell others how holy they are and how they are going to heaven for worshipping some baby killing toad. Count yourself as a toady.

The fact that the toad doesn't exist doesn't stop you from worshipping the concept, and being a lump of humanoid cancer.

But that's just my opinion.

Think of the 27,000 babies that starved to death last night according to the Christian Childrens Fund. I'm sure it will give you a warm fuzzy contemplating gods work.

Illuminati don't kill babies by starvation---that has your Gods fingerprints all over it
----

Illogical conclusions? Those are your quotes above in italics. Now tell me again how you are not putting the blame on God in spite of your quotes.

And then insult me some more, call me stupid and claim victory. If there is anything I've learned about you, that's your MO.

The end.

Grendel
As far as the Bible being over the head of readers. I would say no.

I would expect that answer from you or any other believer.


Whatever.

Which one is the right reading or the best?

That is not to hard answer. The right reading is based on the author's prejudices, his evidence, his state of knowledge, the history of his times and the intent of what he trying to communicate. It's no different than you and talking over baseball. In short - original context.



There are numerous concerns and objections that can be made to this.

1) For most texts, especially biblical, authorial intent can never be absolutely known. In fact it has to be constructed by a reader. This becomes the point of criticism and as such multiplies the problem. When a reader constructs the meaning, he or she creates a text, becomes an author if you will, and we then have another layer of authorial intent to decipher when we read that interpretation.

2) To reconstruct the prejudices of an author, his historical context if you will, one has to look at other texts and make interpretations! (Even artifacts are a kind of text that require interpretation.) What I find humorous is when scholars use a text to to reconstruct a cultural world view and then after doing so proceed to examine the very same text to show how it reflects that world view! Is it any wonder that they always "prove" their thesis?

Ultimately, what you get is a reconstruction of a world view based on the examination of other texts which in order to understand their context must be based on the reconstruction of the world view of other texts. Interpretations are thus used to shore up other interpretations.

3) In reconstructing a different cultural world view one can never escape one's own prejudices, beliefs or world views. As I said before what we get from a text depends upon what we bring to it. (Original archaic languages alone present numerous interpretive hurdles)

4) Literary analysis or biblical exegesis is not a scientific discipline. Interpretations are always value and belief laden; there is no real objective reading of any text. What one gets are communities of readers who agree on interpretations and may spend their time trying to convince others of the validity of the interpretation--or precisely trying to convince each other of the validity of the assumptions that we bring to the text.

Cont.

Cont.

You are part of a community as am I--different ones to be sure. What we are engaging in is precisely what I have just spelled out.


If historical or cultural context is as you say the most important in understanding a text, than perhaps you should acknowledge that the best we can do in interpreting scripture would be to do so according to the exegetical tradition that developed concurrent with the creation of many of the texts.

Ancient rabbis believed that every word of scripture had at least seventy facets of meaning.(This is something I like to mention to fundamentalist Christians or believe in a single literal reading.) The original semetic cultures that produced the texts were adamant about the polysemous nature of these texts.

In short if I was to do as you say and try to get as close as I could to the original authorial intention of the text, I would say that the original intent was for them to create a text that required its reader to discover many various meanings of the text.

Think about it. How presumptuous of us and intellectually reductive for us thousands of years hence in a culture far different from the one which gave birth to these texts to turn around and say, they writers of the texts may have believed in polysemy, but this lone interpretation that I have come up with is the singular "right" or "correct" one that negates all other possible readings.

The right reading? We can not know that; the best we can hope for are multiple readings that we believe are more right than others.

Exhaustive readings of scripture? I don't think so. I am not even sure that this is possible.

Cheers

Pirate---Now why would I blame a god that I don't believe in for anything? What a dumbass you are. It is amusing to explain the simplest concepts to you again and again, but I'll soon get tired of your dullness.

You see if I don't believe in your god, I could hardly blame It for anything now could I? When I wrote those things, they were written in perspective. From the perspective of someone who acutally DID believe in those things. I know these concepts are still way over your head, but I'm looking forward to your next post showing me how dim you really are.

Do you think the guy who writes the Superman comic books can really fly? It's called perspective. See, he pretends he's Superman, and says what he thinks Superman would say. It doesn't really mean he thinks he's Superman or that he really IS Superman. There is no Santa Claus either---it was just a movie, and your dad.

From the perspective of someone who acutally DID believe in those things.

----

So you, as a non believer, are telling me, as a believer, what I should believe.

How udderly ridiculous.

Pirate---I don't recall ever saying what I thought you should believe. There you go again with those illogical conclusions. The perspective I was speaking of was MY concept of what a believer is, and if it differs from what you believe then you are free to say so, and free to tell me how my concept of what a believer is, is different from reality.

So tell me---what makes a god a god? Any idea, or do you just worship because people tell you to get on your knees?

Pirate---Think of the 27,000 babies that starved to death last night according to the Christian Childrens Fund. I'm sure it will give you a warm fuzzy contemplating gods work.

----

The more you hedge the worse it becomes. The word in bold is a command you gave to me. To think about the children that died from starvation. Then you follow with a sentence about contemplating gods work. Let's analyze this:

1) You meant gods work was the starving children (which is the most likely case by other other post about it having god's fingerprint all over it). And now are hedging about it.

2) You meant what you are saying now about "your perspective". If that's true, then your communication skills are lacking. Or "Your perspective" is grossly and maliciously off-base. Christians getting a warm fuzzy over children dying from starvation?

Either way, any further discussion with you would be futile.

Thus, I bid you good night.

How udderly ridiculous.

Pirate

"The more you hedge the worse it becomes. The word in bold is a command you gave to me. To think about the children that died from starvation. Then you follow with a sentence about contemplating gods work. Let's analyze this:"


You accused me of telling you what to believe---how does me telling you to think of those starving children equate to telling you what to believe. I guess you think you made a point.




1) You meant gods work was the starving children (which is the most likely case by other other post about it having god's fingerprint all over it). And now are hedging about it.

If you believe in the biblical God, you must believe that these children died of starvation because God wanted that way---OR God was powerless to stop it. Which would you say was true? I say God had nothing to do with it, but from your perspective---did those children die because God wanted it that way or was God powerless to stop it?





2) You meant what you are saying now about "your perspective". If that's true, then your communication skills are lacking. Or "Your perspective" is grossly and maliciously off-base. Christians getting a warm fuzzy over children dying from starvation?

My communication skills are fine. It is your comprehension skills that are lacking. If your God is all powerful then It must have wanted those children dead since It could have easily prevented their starvation. If you love God then you must condone this action, and your love of God must give you a warm fuzzy. Or you don't condone this action and your God is either evil or powerless to stop the starvation---which is it. Do you love your all powerful god that kills children. Or is your god powerless to stop the starvation. Which is it? Can you communicate your thoughts?

You accused me of telling you what to believe

and then you go on to say...

If you believe in the biblical God, you must believe that these children died of starvation because God wanted that way---OR God was powerless to stop it.

----

You just told me what to believe in that very post.

Seriously though, that's one reason why it's futile discussing this with you. So I'm done.

Pirate--what was the first word in that post.IF---do you know what the word IF means? Geez you are stupid. You amaze me with every post.

But if my logic was wrong--correct me. Otherwise STFU and get your warm fuzzies as your God kills another 27,000 tonight. Or don't you love your God. Just asking.

It's not that complicated Grendel. You're throwing up barriers. We'll continue some other time.

UV radiation with the required energy to be mutagenic is almost unavoidable, unless you live in an unlit cave

So Dick Cheney will never change?

Comments are closed for this entry.

Drudge Retort
RSS Spec