0
 

home
news
wu-tang clan
bio's
media
store
blogs
forum
contact

Go Back   Wu-Tang Corp. - Official Site of the Wu-Tang Clan > The Elements > Know The Ledge

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-10-2006, 05:50 PM   #61
My First Timbs
rationalist
 
My First Timbs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Age: 69
Posts: 1,288
Rep Power: 12
My First Timbs drunken mastaMy First Timbs drunken masta
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by galt john galt
which form of evolution the physical or the mental is faster? the leaps in logic or the leap in a generation?
sadly, from a cultural standpoint, the physical form of evolution (change in genotypic allelic frequency) is alot faster than the mental (ie change in idealogical stance, etc)
__________________

Available Worldwide via these book sellers:
Barnes and Noble Bookfinder.com
Amazon.com Trafford Publishing Target
My First Timbs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2006, 12:26 AM   #62
sweet sista
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 372
Rep Power: 0
sweet sista grasshopper
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by My First Timbs
peace to all

ask away.

my expertise:

1) Ph.D in Evolutionary Analysis
2) Research Scientist by profession
3) Author of 2 books on Atheism and Religion

okay i have a quetion!
ummm,
explain to me dis
http://www.quranicstudies.com/printout70.html

i mean how could this happen in the middle ages? how could someone know all about these facts without any sort of developed scientific equipments?
sweet sista is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2006, 11:06 PM   #63
My First Timbs
rationalist
 
My First Timbs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Age: 69
Posts: 1,288
Rep Power: 12
My First Timbs drunken mastaMy First Timbs drunken masta
Default

Quote:
okay i have a quetion!
ummm,
explain to me dis
http://www.quranicstudies.com/printout70.html

i mean how could this happen in the middle ages? how could someone know all about these facts without any sort of developed scientific equipments?


I am so glad you brought this up. This “argument” has been floating around for years unchecked and its about time it be addressed cause im so tired of hearing it.

The argument is actually quite funny and sad at the same time. It’s the same type (and form) of uninformed, meaningless “propogandic” babble that the Christian Creationists propose on a daily basis.. (all the while based on an argument from ignorance). I have a sincere distate for this Islamic claim because it is a glowing example of propaganda and INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY (it also shows how the believer is so hasty to latch on to anything that shows a sign of the "miraculous" instead of wholeheartedly and “calmly” and rationally thinking about the situation at hand)

In one of my latest college lectures I spent an extensive amount of time countering this Islamic claim.

But to spare everyone a 3 hour lecture.. the main point is (in a nutshell)

The Quran is far from miraculous or exquisite or mind boggling in its description of alleged biological processes. The alleged accuracy of description of "embryology" (if u wanna call it that) in the quran is far from special. Everything that is “explained” as a form of embryology (before scientific advancement) can easily (very very easily) be explained by the most simplistic observation of living creatures and the natural processes of life…

lets go back for a second...

It all starts with the Islamic issue of “nutfah” or fluid produced duting intercourse that leads to pregnancy.. in other words semen. Those who want desperately to claim that knowledge of “nutfah” is proof the Quran is divinely inspired are sadly mislead.

Muslims of the 6th and 7th century (the alleged time of Muhammed), would damn well know (just as every human who has ever been on the planet and reached sexual maturity..or watched sexually mature creatures other than humanity) that procreation is only possible when there is a “propulsion of fluid or as they say "nutfah")… so strike one against the claim that this is evidence that the Quran is divinely inspired… nothing special here…….its nothing but a direct observation.. whats so divine about it?….nothing

But the meat of the issue is the passage (forgive my type written attempt at Arabic)

“Tom kha;aqna alnot fat alaqa , fakalaqna alalaqat modegha, khalana almodghat azama, fakasawna aleesazam lahma, thom anshanah khalqan”

which directly translates into

We the God(s) created the seminal fluid/nutfah into a clot , then created from it a lump of tissue that went on to develop bones which are later covered with flesh”

Now u must ask yourself honestly.. is any of this evidence of divine inspiration? Is any of this evidence that something magical must have going on in the 6th century for people to “know this”?

The answer u get when u honestly answer those questions is a hard and loud NO !

Humans have had some form or sort of experience with "embryological development" for hundreds of thousands of years (since the dawn of civilization) .. the passage in the Quran is no more than the ordinary joe would know who has ever observed anything that is alive or built anything! (u start with a beginning mold, more parts are added onto it, then it needs a covering and boom..its done..) and as for the whole magical , awe inspiring claim of “clot”.. any human would who has ever observed nature (or unfortunately has had experience with a miscarriage (or even a heavy menstrual cycle ) would describe a “fetal conceptus” as blood clot like)! This isn’t rocket science (it isn’t even science… its called natural observation and conjecture !

Now u must ask yourself honestly again.. is any of this evidence of divine inspiration? Is any of this evidence that something magical must have been going on in the 6th century for people to “know this”?

The answer u get when u honestly answer those questions is a hard and loud NO !

But wait! It gets even better! The Quran’s attempt at “embryology” states (as I noted above) that basically

Step 1) nutfah gushes out ....presumably into the female
Step 2) this fusion of fluids causes a clot of tissue to begin to form (leech like in appearance)

Step 3) the clot like tissue grows into a bigger lump

Step 4) the lumpy mess grows bones

Step 5) the lumpy bony “thing” is then finally wrapped in a covering of skin/flesh

Well I gotta tell you.. if this is divinely inspired it seems that whatever deity did the “inspiring” needs to go back to community college and take remedial Histology courses cause that’s not how a fetus actually develops (in any verterbrate species)

The genesis of the brain and chordata (spinal column) occur concurrently in vertebrate development! The brain obviously isn’t bone.. and it obviously isn’t “a flesh covering”.. yet the Quran doesn’t account for this ! Bones are not made first and then a flesh covering is made.. it simply doesn’t occur that way. Flesh is actually made “first” and bone is subsequently developed and lags behind.

But I know.. none of what im saying is gonna matter and ur prolly gonna say.. “well even if the Quran is incorrect on the intricacies, that doesn’t matter.. the Quran is divinely inspired and ppl back then just didn’t have the tools or means to know even a hint of this type of stuff…”

Keep kidding urself… and worse.. keep being “intellectually dishonest” to yourself. its a religious trend that has been in existence since the dawn on monotheism

timbs
__________________

Available Worldwide via these book sellers:
Barnes and Noble Bookfinder.com
Amazon.com Trafford Publishing Target

Last edited by My First Timbs; 04-11-2006 at 11:11 PM.
My First Timbs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2006, 09:39 PM   #64
dif de la rev
wheel re invent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 525
Rep Power: 0
dif de la rev shaolin monk
Default

has mankind in it's helm at self evolution, hindered the evolution of this planet? and if not how so?
__________________
Who be Whom
dif de la rev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2006, 06:17 AM   #65
WARPATH
Dinosaur Hunter
 
WARPATH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Shadowland
Age: 33
Posts: 7,326
Blog Entries: 2
Rep Power: 41
WARPATH Iron Lungs (Fists of Legend)WARPATH Iron Lungs (Fists of Legend)WARPATH Iron Lungs (Fists of Legend)WARPATH Iron Lungs (Fists of Legend)WARPATH Iron Lungs (Fists of Legend)WARPATH Iron Lungs (Fists of Legend)WARPATH Iron Lungs (Fists of Legend)WARPATH Iron Lungs (Fists of Legend)WARPATH Iron Lungs (Fists of Legend)WARPATH Iron Lungs (Fists of Legend)WARPATH Iron Lungs (Fists of Legend)
Send a message via Skype™ to WARPATH
Default

There are many eukaryotes that seem to do things rather similar to certain prokaryotes. There are photosynthesizing eukaryotic algae as well as prokaryotic autotrophs, and there are both eukaryotic slime molds and fungi and prokaryotic myxobacteria. All in all, there is a great diversity of ways of life on both sides. I'm not sure if I'm being very clear but I guess that these similar-looking forms must be doing something quite differently. Eukaryotes are slower at growing and reproducing, so they must compensate somehow. Perhaps there really are some significant differences in the ecological roles, in the life cycles, for instance.

My question has to do with evolution also in the following sense. Why did eukaryotes evolve and diversify before they gave rise to complex multicellular forms (made possible by their more complicated workings)? Eukaryotes could do things that prokaryotes couldn't, but what were these?
__________________
WARPATH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2006, 08:23 PM   #66
MoT
4.7.9.
 
MoT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Prague
Age: 28
Posts: 120
Rep Power: 0
MoT grasshopper
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by My First Timbs

I agree 100% with the view that what u define as “spirituality” is a viable tool of continued understanding. I just don’t believe in the concept of a “spirit” as metaphysical entity separate from ourselves (but within ourself) that exists in objective reality. What you are explaining as the “spirit”, many others would define as “cultural understanding.. or cultural wealth”.. I would define it as the “ingrained culmination of human understanding”.

Thus “spirituality” (aka “the acknowledgement of the ingrained culmination of cultural understanding”) is indeed an invaluable tool in existence!
you have a great mind sir and it was very intersting reading through these Q&A's.

could you please explain why you don't belive this concept of spirit/soul ? because i've come across many interpretations of WHAT SOUL IS/IS NOT but i dont think any of them stated that it could be an entity separate from ourselves but within ourself.. alone it lacks sense unless it would float through and around each one..

but that would also mean that our perception (even tho parallel to perspective) doesnt catch or recognise some sort of energy fields or sound waves or something completely different that could be beyond the 3rd dimensional "view"...

that was a bit off but also i would appreciate if you could break down
"ingrained culmination of human understanding” and/or “the acknowledgement of the ingrained culmination of cultural understanding” especially the ingrained culmination because not even the dictionary helped me....
__________________
MoT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2006, 11:34 PM   #67
My First Timbs
rationalist
 
My First Timbs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Age: 69
Posts: 1,288
Rep Power: 12
My First Timbs drunken mastaMy First Timbs drunken masta
Default

Quote:
bigben : Alright let me know what you think.
Quote:
dif de la rev: has mankind in it's helm at self evolution, hindered the evolution of this planet? and if not how so?
Quote:

charging soldier:
There are many eukaryotes that seem to do things rather similar to certain prokaryotes. There are photosynthesizing eukaryotic algae as well as prokaryotic autotrophs, and there are both eukaryotic slime molds and fungi and prokaryotic myxobacteria. All in all, there is a great diversity of ways of life on both sides. I'm not sure if I'm being very clear but I guess that these similar-looking forms must be doing something quite differently. Eukaryotes are slower at growing and reproducing, so they must compensate somehow. Perhaps there really are some significant differences in the ecological roles, in the life cycles, for instance.

My question has to do with evolution also in the following sense. Why did eukaryotes evolve and diversify before they gave rise to complex multicellular forms (made possible by their more complicated workings)? Eukaryotes could do things that prokaryotes couldn't, but what were these?
Quote:

MOT:
you have a great mind sir and it was very intersting reading through these Q&A's.

could you please explain why you don't belive this concept of spirit/soul ? because i've come across many interpretations of WHAT SOUL IS/IS NOT but i dont think any of them stated that it could be an entity separate from ourselves but within ourself.. alone it lacks sense unless it would float through and around each one..

but that would also mean that our perception (even tho parallel to perspective) doesnt catch or recognise some sort of energy fields or sound waves or something completely different that could be beyond the 3rd dimensional "view"...

that was a bit off but also i would appreciate if you could break down
"ingrained culmination of human understanding” and/or “the acknowledgement of the ingrained culmination of cultural understanding” especially the ingrained culmination because not even the dictionary helped me....
i havent forgotten about these questions.. i will answer them shortly..
__________________

Available Worldwide via these book sellers:
Barnes and Noble Bookfinder.com
Amazon.com Trafford Publishing Target
My First Timbs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2006, 08:58 PM   #68
My First Timbs
rationalist
 
My First Timbs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Age: 69
Posts: 1,288
Rep Power: 12
My First Timbs drunken mastaMy First Timbs drunken masta
Default

P.S.

I am very appreciative of the individual fromn this site who recently purchased A Call To Sanity from Amazon.com

thanks
__________________

Available Worldwide via these book sellers:
Barnes and Noble Bookfinder.com
Amazon.com Trafford Publishing Target
My First Timbs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2006, 11:41 PM   #69
sweet sista
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 372
Rep Power: 0
sweet sista grasshopper
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by My First Timbs


I am so glad you brought this up. This “argument” has been floating around for years unchecked and its about time it be addressed cause im so tired of hearing it.

The argument is actually quite funny and sad at the same time. It’s the same type (and form) of uninformed, meaningless “propogandic” babble that the Christian Creationists propose on a daily basis.. (all the while based on an argument from ignorance). I have a sincere distate for this Islamic claim because it is a glowing example of propaganda and INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY (it also shows how the believer is so hasty to latch on to anything that shows a sign of the "miraculous" instead of wholeheartedly and “calmly” and rationally thinking about the situation at hand)
Talking like you're the one who is wholehearted about your seek for knowledge and science!? You sound like someone who can't wait to argue about something just to show off. Not to think of the possibility that any of these facts could be true but you're more like a leper, you don't seek for the cure but you just want the itch. True scientists examine things to check if they are true and do they work. So-called scientists check every possible delusion and hallucination and use the ignorance of others in a particular topic just to show that some beliefs are false. Just like that!

Some people try create a self value by denying the most valuable thing in the world. The faith that makes people humans. The faith that stop people hurting to each others. The faith that get people to do good to each others.

Some people who desperately wants to be unique, no matter what is the cost. Even if it means to lose their humanity. Insult their intelligence. They want to be so different from most people. Even if that uniqueness means to be incorrect but they go like “hey, we're different! We're knowledgeable, we're unique, we don't believe in God” yeah it's uniqueness but like the uniqueness of a bad putrid apple among all good apples.

Quote:
Originally Posted by My First Timbs
It all starts with the Islamic issue of “nutfah” or fluid produced duting intercourse that leads to pregnancy.. in other words semen. Those who want desperately to claim that knowledge of “nutfah” is proof the Quran is divinely inspired are sadly mislead.
“Nutfa” as a word taken individually without looking at the exact meanings to it. And without looking at the how God talked about it in the verses and all the other words that complete the whole picture in that verse IS sadly blindness.


Quote:
Originally Posted by My First Timbs

Muslims of the 6th and 7th century (the alleged time of Muhammed), would damn well know (just as every human who has ever been on the planet and reached sexual maturity..or watched sexually mature creatures other than humanity) that procreation is only possible when there is a “propulsion of fluid or as they say "nutfah")… so strike one against the claim that this is evidence that the Quran is divinely inspired… nothing special here…….its nothing but a direct observation.. whats so divine about it?….nothing
At the time and in the area where the Koran was revealed, very few people knew how to read or to write. The environment didn't support that and even those who knew how to read and to write didn't believe in Koran not cuz there was anything wrong with it but cuz the teachings of Koran is to treat people equally and justly that includes the poor and the rich and they were too arrogant to submit to that. The environment at that time didn't support the idea of learning so the biggest interest of the people at that time and in that area were poetry, articulation and battles for the honor of the tribe.

Those things you claim it's just an observation, people weren't interested in observing them. When two couple used to have sex, who had the time in the 6th or 7th century to observe his fluid? And not only that, he is going to describe it in a scientific way like he is from our time.
Everything in the Koran is special for the people of understanding, knowledge and awareness and conscious.

You're the hasty one in this, not the believers!


Quote:
Originally Posted by My First Timbs
But the meat of the issue is the passage (forgive my type written attempt at Arabic)

“Tom kha;aqna alnot fat alaqa , fakalaqna alalaqat modegha, khalana almodghat azama, fakasawna aleesazam lahma, thom anshanah khalqan”

which directly translates into

We the God(s) created the seminal fluid/nutfah into a clot , then created from it a lump of tissue that went on to develop bones which are later covered with flesh”
every normal human being, if he/she thinks deeply and wisely he/she'll find it makes sense. Cuz if not then it's like saying the tree's leafs was there before the tree's bole! How could that be?

Quote:
Originally Posted by My First Timbs
Humans have had some form or sort of experience with "embryological development" for hundreds of thousands of years (since the dawn of civilization) .. the passage in the Quran is no more than the ordinary joe would know who has ever observed anything that is alive or built anything! (u start with a beginning mold, more parts are added onto it, then it needs a covering and boom..its done..) and as for the whole magical , awe inspiring claim of “clot”.. any human would who has ever observed nature (or unfortunately has had experience with a miscarriage (or even a heavy menstrual cycle ) would describe a “fetal conceptus” as blood clot like)!
Okay, sweetheart, c'mon do this boom and create a human and i'll come and start to worship you and consider you as a GOD!

Who did that Boom? You? I think not. It was God who created it all !! that's the miraculous about God and Koran “the words of God” whither it's big or small noticeable or not you still can't do nothing like it! Huh, You gibber jabber like that like “oh it's easy oh it's simple oh oh it's noticeable” aight why don't you do like it,gorgeous scientist?!!

i mean Can you start with mold, add more parts onto it and then cover it and BOOM you did that silly “natural observed” clot??? i think not!

Allah made those things easy to see so you ain't gonna say “well, i can't see dis i can see dat. Dos all unseen” he wants you to see his signs. He ain't gonna talk to you about the three-eyed goblin on some other planet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by My First Timbs

This isn’t rocket science (it isn’t even science… its called natural observation and conjecture !
Ain't rocket science? Not even science? Well, that show how weak and helpless humans are. You can't create even that silly little “nothing” thing!! How pathetic !!
That shows that the world needs a God, cuz even these silly not even scientific things can't be done without God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by My First Timbs
But wait! It gets even better! The Quran’s attempt at “embryology” states (as I noted above) that basically

Step 1) nutfah gushes out ....presumably into the female
Step 2) this fusion of fluids causes a clot of tissue to begin to form (leech like in appearance)

Step 3) the clot like tissue grows into a bigger lump

Step 4) the lumpy mess grows bones

Step 5) the lumpy bony “thing” is then finally wrapped in a covering of skin/flesh

The genesis of the brain and chordata (spinal column) occur concurrently in vertebrate development! The brain obviously isn’t bone.. and it obviously isn’t “a flesh covering”.. yet the Quran doesn’t account for this ! Bones are not made first and then a flesh covering is made.. it simply doesn’t occur that way. Flesh is actually made “first” and bone is subsequently developed and lags behind.
From which hell did you ever get that glorious information about the flesh and the bone and that the flesh was created before the bone 4 god sake? Did you really believed that you're a scientist?! Or did you have it as a dream and now you're pleasing' us with it? IF all scientific resources prove that the bone cells were created first and before the flesh cells.

After the long searches and studies of the best scientists. It was obiouse ta them “once again the best scientists” that the bones cells were created before the flesh cells. So therefore and based on this concrete proof they built successful theories in curing the genetic disorders.

And now you come outta no where and delete the whole list of the “best scientists” and instate yourself as the only scientist. And cancel their old and new theories and start a whole new one of your own that against the nature just cause you want to show off that you're Mr. scientist.

Koran's language is one of the richest languages in the world and that probably what makes it hard to learn in a way that makes you can understand every Arabic book you read. It's one of the most articulated languages. It may has a word that has plenty a lot of meanings and levels or a words that have specific meanings that only mean this particular thing in this particular situation in this particular place at this time at this spot and with this shape Etc. it's kinda so deep. so you need to check the exact meaning to each word.



Quote:
Originally Posted by My First Timbs
Well I gotta tell you.. if this is divinely inspired it seems that whatever deity did the “inspiring” needs to go back to community college and take remedial Histology courses cause that’s not how a fetus actually develops (in any verterbrate species)

huh, the only one who needs to go back to the to community college and take remedial Histology courses in this forum is yourself!! As a matter of fact, you need to take courses in plenty a lot of things.

That's how the fetus develop but if you my dear developed otherwise because of the i dunno nuclear pollution maybe. however, that doesn't change fact of how the normal fetus do develop.



Quote:
Originally Posted by My First Timbs
But I know.. none of what im saying is gonna matter and ur prolly gonna say.. “well even if the Quran is incorrect on the intricacies, that doesn’t matter.. the Quran is divinely inspired and ppl back then just didn’t have the tools or means to know even a hint of this type of stuff…”

Keep kidding urself… and worse.. keep being “intellectually dishonest” to yourself. its a religious trend that has been in existence since the dawn on monotheism

timbs

I'll never say Koran is incorrect Because the truth is your understanding is incorrect and incomplete. Having the tools or not or having the knowledge of this or not has nothing to do with Koran cuz Koran was never something made up by humans.

If the condition that i am in is called religious trend, what the hell do you call the condition that you're in? I don't think it's called Knowledge trend!!
sweet sista is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2006, 12:58 AM   #70
My First Timbs
rationalist
 
My First Timbs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Age: 69
Posts: 1,288
Rep Power: 12
My First Timbs drunken mastaMy First Timbs drunken masta
Default

lol..


how does one respond to such baffoonery?

how does one respond in a "rational manner" to an argument that clearly isnt rational and based on reason?

but nonetheless, i will respond, to sweet sista in due time.

but its obvious (and i truly mean no offense by this) but its obvious you have very little knowledge of how science works and what science is

in addition its obvious you are not objective in your thought processes.
__________________

Available Worldwide via these book sellers:
Barnes and Noble Bookfinder.com
Amazon.com Trafford Publishing Target
My First Timbs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2006, 01:17 AM   #71
sweet sista
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 372
Rep Power: 0
sweet sista grasshopper
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by My First Timbs

in addition its obvious you are not objective in your thought processes.

I ain't being objective?!

sometimes, it's really hard to be objective cuz then it's like you're aksin' me which one is right and which is wrong and then i can't say dis is right and dat is wrong cuz then you'll call me subjective.

How can a person be objective about what's right and wrong?
Truth and lie?
God and devil?

hey bro, think of dis!!^
sweet sista is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2006, 01:53 AM   #72
My First Timbs
rationalist
 
My First Timbs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Age: 69
Posts: 1,288
Rep Power: 12
My First Timbs drunken mastaMy First Timbs drunken masta
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sweet sista
I ain't being objective?!

sometimes, it's really hard to be objective cuz then it's like you're aksin' me which one is right and which is wrong and then i can't say dis is right and dat is wrong cuz then you'll call me subjective.

How can a person be objective about what's right and wrong?
Truth and lie?
God and devil?

hey bro, think of dis!!^
sista,

its actually very easy and simple
as long as one has a rational argument that can be verified and substantiated by positive evidence (not a lack of evidence) , then u dont have to worry about being subjective.

i still havent addressed your post above

but in a nutshell, your claims are of the type

"I dont know the answer to _______, thus there is a possibility of it being due to ________" ... thats irrational (its called an argument from ignorance)

another form of this type of reasoning is:

" ______ seems inexplicable, thus it has to be a result of _______"



you cant base your stance and argument on a lack of evidence.
__________________

Available Worldwide via these book sellers:
Barnes and Noble Bookfinder.com
Amazon.com Trafford Publishing Target
My First Timbs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2006, 11:46 AM   #73
My First Timbs
rationalist
 
My First Timbs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Age: 69
Posts: 1,288
Rep Power: 12
My First Timbs drunken mastaMy First Timbs drunken masta
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigben
HERES AN ARTICLE ON HIM


When David Ray Griffin, noted theologian and professor emeritus at the Claremont School of Theology, first heard someone say that Sept. 11 was an inside job, he scoffed.

"I can remember my exact words. ... I said, 'I don't think that even the Bush administration could perpetrate such a thing,' " said Griffin, who has since written two books, "The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11" and "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions,'' which dispute the official version of events. Specifically, Griffin believes that the U.S. government orchestrated the attacks.

Griffin began to delve into 9/11 conspiracy theories after looking at a time line of the events of Sept. 11, 2001 (by Paul Thompson, who later turned it into a book) on the Internet. He found himself swayed by the catalog of inconsistencies and strange coincidences.

When asked what the most compelling facts are to make the case that the U.S. government was complicit in the attacks, Griffin names three things. The behavior of Bush at the schoolhouse in Florida ("Secret Service should have whisked him out immediately if we're under attack but he stayed over 30 minutes. ... It's pretty clear evidence that they knew they wouldn't be attacked"), the strange pyrotechnics that brought down the World Trade Center ("fire has never brought down a steel high-rise building") and the poorly planned targeting of the West Wing of the Pentagon ("all the important people are in the East Wing -- it doesn't make any sense").

Not only that, Griffin points to historical evidence that the U.S. government would be capable of such a thing. Operation Northwoods, a plan concocted by the Pentagon in the '60s as a way of taking Castro from power, included ideas about how a terrorist attack on U.S. soil could provide a pretext for military action.

But why now? Griffin names the neoconservative think tank the Project for the New American Century as a motivating force. "Once you look at it, they have lots of motivation," he says. "It's what the neocons have been salivating about."

"The goals would be to get control of the world's oil and establish a new doctrine of pre-emptive warfare. That was a difficult sell before 9/11."

While many conspiracy theories have been passed around, it's been very easy to dismiss many of the theorists as, well, crazy. But Griffin comes to his controversial conclusions with lucidity and calm. He even sees a connection between his long-standing work as a theologian and his new position as a political writer.

"In both cases, the concern is for the good of the world as a whole. Those of us who believe in God believe that trashing the world is not what God wants."

David Ray Griffin speaks on "9/11: The Myth & the Reality." 7 p.m. today, Grand Lake Theater, 3200 Grand Ave., Oakland. (510) 452-3556. He also appears at 11:30 a.m. Mon.,Commonwealth Club, 595 Market St., S.F. (415) 597-6700. www.commonwealthclub.org. $15.
ive never read his bok on the alleged events surrounding sept 11. however, I have heard of David Ray Griffin before, (due to the fact that he was one of the main individuals leading an afront against the conservative christian fundamentalist movement)

I also admire his attempt at reconiling supernaturalism and experience , an in addition religion and science.

regarding sept 11, and the conspiracy i really cant comment because i havent read his books. I cant say if i believe that the book is "just another conspiracy theory".. or not until i read te book . Thanks for showing me this... I will read the book next weekend.

peace
__________________

Available Worldwide via these book sellers:
Barnes and Noble Bookfinder.com
Amazon.com Trafford Publishing Target
My First Timbs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2006, 11:56 AM   #74
My First Timbs
rationalist
 
My First Timbs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Age: 69
Posts: 1,288
Rep Power: 12
My First Timbs drunken mastaMy First Timbs drunken masta
Default

def de la rev
Quote:
Quote:

has mankind in it's helm at self evolution, hindered the evolution of this planet? and if not how so?

peace and thanks for the question

I do not believe that mankind is "in a helm or purpose driven conscious act at self evolution". As i said earlier, it is impossible to control your evolution without controlling or changing the environmental stressors that drive evolution. (of course im talking for a purely biological standpoint)

however, from a cultural and social standpoint of the global symbiosis. (which i believe is this crux of your query), it must be known that, in our efforts to progress humanity via various different means (technological, social, ideal changes, etc), as long as the "overall" "long run" fruits of this conscious attempt at "progression" lead to more detriment than benefit, (which i truly believe is occuring in some ways), then we have indeed hindered the "postive growth of the planet" (on a social symbiotic level)..however i wouldnt say that we have hindered the "evolution" of the planet. because evolution merely just means change over time. (it doesnt address whther that change is beneficial or detrimental) a change is a change.
__________________

Available Worldwide via these book sellers:
Barnes and Noble Bookfinder.com
Amazon.com Trafford Publishing Target
My First Timbs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2006, 12:49 PM   #75
My First Timbs
rationalist
 
My First Timbs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Age: 69
Posts: 1,288
Rep Power: 12
My First Timbs drunken mastaMy First Timbs drunken masta
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charging Soldier
There are many eukaryotes that seem to do things rather similar to certain prokaryotes. There are photosynthesizing eukaryotic algae as well as prokaryotic autotrophs, and there are both eukaryotic slime molds and fungi and prokaryotic myxobacteria.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charging Soldier

All in all, there is a great diversity of ways of life on both sides. I'm not sure if I'm being very clear but I guess that these similar-looking forms must be doing something quite differently. Eukaryotes are slower at growing and reproducing, so they must compensate somehow. Perhaps there really are some significant differences in the ecological roles, in the life cycles, for instance.

My question has to do with evolution also in the following sense. Why did eukaryotes evolve and diversify before they gave rise to complex multicellular forms (made possible by their more complicated workings)? Eukaryotes could do things that prokaryotes couldn't, but what were these?


Great question. You were indeed very clear with your question.

The diversity of life (in comparing prokaryotes to eukaryotes) is quite fascinating. As you perfectly stated , eukaryotes are generally slower at growth and reproduction. But it must be said here that eukaryotes do indeed compensate for this slow growth and reproduction.

Meaning, the “trade off” for increased complexity and adaptive ecological specialization is a use of more resources and on average a slower rate of reproduction and growth (growth is a relative and sometimes subjective term).

Regarding differences in ecological roles of prokaryotes vs eukaryotes, it must be understood that different organisms specialize for different ecological roles (niches). Simply stated, different roles or niches require and adamantly demand different levels of complexity.

For example, being a single celled cyanobacterium (such as the prokaryotic blue green algae), doesn’t require a lot of complexity (as dictated by the niches put in place by mother nature) . the cyanobacterium (blue green algae) reproduces primarily by binary fission, it creates its own food, can perform nitrogen fixation, and primarily is non mobile. Thus, having an ecological role or niche of simply soaking up sunlite while floating on the ponds surface doesn’t require much.. so in essence the prokaryotic blue green alage (cyanobacterium) is supremely adapted and will thrive in this niche with no “reason” to change, improve or evolve.

Quote:
My question has to do with evolution also in the following sense. Why did eukaryotes evolve and diversify before they gave rise to complex multicellular forms (made possible by their more complicated workings)? Eukaryotes could do things that prokaryotes couldn't, but what were these?


Eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes (such as for example the prokaryotic photosynthetic cyanobacteria). The “earliest” eukaryotes are pretty much very prokaryotic! (as discussed, being prokaryotic has supreme advantages, thus it is expected that early eukaryotes that are a bit more complex than prokaryotes (but still posses echoes of many of the successful prokaryotic mechanisms) will indeed thrive and diversify to fill all of the new ecological niches available due to them now existing on the planet. This is why and how the earliest eukaryotes diversified rapidly into

*Some being gram negative (just like some prokaryotes)

*Some still possessing forms or derivatives of photosynthetic processes

* although now a bit more complex (due to having more than one cell, the earliest diversified eukaryotes were still primarily non mobile) immobility is a great trait if one needs to be complex but not sacrifice energy constraints


Most importantly, eukaryotes had an advantage because they could indeed due things that prokaryotes couldn’t. The most important being regulation and controil of their own body processes via mitochondria (or proto mitochondria, a golgi apparatus and other organelles such as chloroplasts for plants.)…note.. (the evolution of organelles is a completely other highly complex topic)

The eukaryotic lifestyle has supreme advantages over the prokaryotic life style! The main things that early eukaryotes could do that prokaryotes couldn’t were things such as:

Actively deal with competetion

Deal with environmental changes

Be highly specialized

With the addition of a membrane bound nucleus, early eukaryotes had the advantage over prokaryotes of having a lot more DNA (which gives the ability for more evolution into even more complex organisms)
__________________

Available Worldwide via these book sellers:
Barnes and Noble Bookfinder.com
Amazon.com Trafford Publishing Target
My First Timbs is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:19 PM.


Copyright ©2000 - 2013 The Wu-Tang Corp. & shift-one