Doug, this ones for you! Believe it or not you can read this Give it a try. I was totally amazed.
i cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdgnieg.The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? yaeh and I awlyas thought slpeling was ipmorantt!
Things that make you go hmmmmm!!
Jeff Umsted
Posted by Joe Rees (Member # 211) on :
Well I gotta say I am amazed too. First thought this was going to be some kind of ebonics which i simply cannot get - with each being it's own puzzle. But this was surprisingly simple. First and last letter eh. Hmmmmm indeed.
Posted by Mike Pipes (Member # 1573) on :
wow taht was rlealy cool epcext sohrt wrdos are eseair to tpye.
Posted by David Wright (Member # 111) on :
We knew this already, how else can you explain us understanding OP's posts.
Posted by Myra Grozinger (Member # 327) on :
I read this straight through without a hitch.It's a-m-a-z-i-n-g.
Posted by Bob Stephens (Member # 858) on :
It's all gibberish but I understood every word. I think it has more to do with sentence structure and our ability to understand what words will relate to one another in a fashioned sequence that make logical sense in the communicative process. Deductive reasoning and cognitive recognition of the spoken language in which we are taught. In other words, a line of bull feces such as I have just typed out in the wttirn wrod.
Posted by Dave Sherby (Member # 698) on :
Dave Posted by Ray Rheaume (Member # 3794) on :
my brain hurts.....
Rapid
Posted by Doug Allan (Member # 2247) on :
Tahkns Jfef!!
I wlil dletee Wbetsre's Dcioitnray form my fvaoiters lnik, and bcak dwon form any frutehr anyonnig sepllnig crorcetoins. Sielha, I gesus you'lal can rlaex as wlel now. Posted by Bruce Bowers (Member # 892) on :
Don't you be picking on Sheila, Doug, she'll whoop your butt! LOL!
As far as OP goes, maybe all that wind jumbled those letters into the right order in his mind.
Doubly, as far reading it straight through without a hitch... of course you did. You're the bomb!
Go to work now, Bruce... Ok... Ok...
Posted by Rovelle W. Gratz (Member # 4404) on :
What Bob Sed.
Posted by Si Allen (Member # 420) on :
Yer all wrong...we have been trained to read gibberish by Old Paints Postings! If ya can read them, ya can read anything!
Posted by J.G. Kurtzman (Member # 1736) on :
Soooo----now ve know vat happened vit da Chef from da Muppets.....ee es cooking vit da paint. Could be dat he someday he vill songwrite da "Blues" on Cape Cod...
J.G. Kurtzman
Posted by Sheila Ferrell (Member # 3741) on :
sknaht Goud, I dedeen taht . . . .oll
Posted by William Bass (Member # 4929) on :
lol <----see, you understood that because the first and last letters are in the right place, even though the middle is all messed up.
I already knew the human brain was a miracle. The DNA that CODES for the human brain is an even bigger miracle. By the way, a CODE is a language, including the genetic CODE. Language cannot be the result of random chance; it is rather evidence of intelligence. DNA is evidence that we were engineered by One greater than we; DNA is, thus, just ONE "disproof" of that darwinian evolution nonsense.
Posted by Bob Stephens (Member # 858) on :
I've always known that aliens were responsible for out intelligence. How the hell do you think the pyramids were built?
Posted by William Bass (Member # 4929) on :
Glad to see someone else recognizes that we're not happy accidents.
The same DNA code language is used for ALL but a few bacteria. This is analagous to the fact that many computer programs are written using Microsoft's Visual Basic programming language. This points not to a common ancestor but a common Designer.
I do not adhere to the alien theory (although it does at least admit that intelligence was involved with the design of living creatures ~ interestingly, one of the co-discoverers of DNA came to the "alien" conclusion because he realized that DNA could not have formed by random chance as required by the evolution model).
I am a staunch Biblical Creationist (I believe that the earth was created about 6000 years old in 6 24 hour days, that the dinosaurs were co-created with man (but became extinct due mostly to the new post-flood climate), that Noah's flood created the fossil record [fossils are found in sedimentary rock, which forms only under water]). The scientific evidence for a young universe, young earth, world-wide flood, and co-habitation of men and dinosaurs (in the past) is astounding (and also suppressed).
I'll have to research the pyramid subject.
[ September 22, 2004, 12:48 AM: Message edited by: William Bass ]
Posted by Doug Allan (Member # 2247) on :
god could have created aliens & darwinians too ... if there is, as I suspect, one higher power - creator of all, I'm not so sure of his name or his plan enough to go posting about it.
Posted by William Bass (Member # 4929) on :
While I am strongly convinced that the God of the Bible is the Creator, it's okay with me if people choose to remain uncertain of who the Creator is (I do feel much phsical evidence validates the Bible--for instance, the fossils--but ultimately it is an act of faith to choose to believe the Bible). Regardless, people can still enjoy knowing that evolution is a big fairy tale.
Not one of the evolution stories is plausible, yet they are presented to us BESIDE actual science in text books (creating the illusion that evolution IS science).
HERE'S A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES... 1) I have a biology text book that declares on one page that it is a biological law that life comes only from life. Yet, elsewhere the book spends several pages to try to convince the reader that the first lifeform came from NON-LIFE.
2)Evolution purports that the sun, planets, moons, asteroids, and comets all "evolved" from a spinning gas cloud over about 4 billion years. If this were true...the sun would rotate faster than anything else in the solar system (it is one of the slowest rotators), the planets, moons, asteroids, comets, and sun would all have a roughly similar composition (it is hard to find two that are similar to each other), all objects in the solar system would rotate in the same direction the sun does and would revolve in the sun's equatorial plane (planets and moons rotate and revolve in all kinds of directions and planes), most likely every planet and moon would have cooled off millions of years ago (many objects are still cooling off). Saturn's rings, comets, the moon's distance from the earth and the earth's rotation speed and magnetic field are also indicators of a young solar system.
Every part of evolution dogma is just as riddled with inconsistencies, logical flaws, and physical impossibilities. Evolution is SOMEBODY'S religion parading around like science. Evolution is BELIEF (i.e., FAITH) in the unobservable and untestable, science deals only with the observable and testable. Evolution is NOT science. (And this brain thing seemed like a good thread to point that out.)
I get a big kick out of pointing out the holes in the evolution "theory," in case nobody noticed. .
No offense is intended.
[ September 22, 2004, 02:56 AM: Message edited by: William Bass ]
Posted by Ray Rheaume (Member # 3794) on :
Well, since we've already drifted a bit.....
Going back in time, which exsisted before the earth began, you have to consider the validity of the "big bang theory". Who or what made it bang?
answer here_____________________________
The answer cannot be proved beyond all doubt since no one was there to witness it and record the event, but still people will answer the question.
If you base it on science, you have to accept that time is endless in both directions...past and future. So, what was there BEFORE the big bang?
Most religions have a description of creation, but none have a definitive point in relation to now as when time began. Most say it is before creation...there are many refrences to that in religious dogmas. Similarly, the "end of time", also referred to often, varies between those same beliefs. Without a reference point, you cannot define what point time we are in now...reading this. In other words, are we living in the middle of time, early part or near the end?
I have way too much time on my hands. Rapid
Posted by William Bass (Member # 4929) on :
Hey. I found the missing person.
BTW, I always appreciate responses to my posts, even if they present a dissenting opinion or thought.
I must kindly disagree with you Ray. I believe the Big Bang is a Big Dud.
NO, Ray. I got way too much time on my hands. lol. (Actually, I don't, I'm just good at wasting the little time I got.)<--that's not a one-eyed smiley...that's the end of a sentence inside parentheses.
Posted by Doug Allan (Member # 2247) on :
William, while I appreciate your views & your arguments in their defense... I must say I find your efforts at "pointing out the holes in the evolution theory" are in themselves flawed to the point of being ludicrous.
A book containing a contridiction goes further to discrediting itself as a source then it does to proving one half of the contridiction over the other.
Furthermore, every time I've coerced any form of evolution out of a spinning gas cloud... the resulting cosmic debris ALWAYS rotates, orbits or congeals into a multitude of forms of various temperature & moving in many directions around the kitchen.
Although I can not pinpoint the beginning of religion, I do know that the ending is when Steve shows up ... so untill then, let me just say VOTE FOR KERRY
Posted by John Stagner (Member # 4091) on :
I like you, Doug, always enjoy your posts - but as long as we're stating our positions here... I gotta say I'm with William on this, and Modern Science has difinitively proven that John Kerry IS a spinning Cloud of Gas...
Again - no offense intended - only humor. Can we still be friends? btw - could we get a Graemlin with "tongue-in-cheek"...?
Posted by Doug Allan (Member # 2247) on :
friends it is!
(just be careful if you're voting for that soulless vacuum of a black hole out there) Posted by Bruce Bowers (Member # 892) on :
quote:Going back in time, which existed before the earth began, you have to consider the validity of the "big bang theory". Who or what made it bang?
Well, the answer is obviously my ex-wife... she banged everybody.
Doug, why would you implore us to vote for a "soulless vacuum of a black hole out there"...
[ September 23, 2004, 06:43 PM: Message edited by: Bruce Bowers ]
Posted by Doug Allan (Member # 2247) on :
for a minute I thought there was another black hole in your future... till I read slower & saw that you said EX-wife (your other comment reminds me of the witty zinger of all-time from our childhood... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ...No I'm not... YOU are! Posted by Bruce Bowers (Member # 892) on :
NO! You are!
Too funny! Hahahahahaqha! Posted by Todd Gill (Member # 2569) on :
We as puny humans do not have the capacity to understand something not having a beginning. Everything we experience in our visual world seems to have a beginning and an ending....Even George W Bush will have an ending...in 2008! (hehehe)
God said, "I am the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end" Rev 22:13
He is "the great I am"......for us to imagine a being that always existed is more than we can fathom, it's outside our realm of imagination so many choose to put complex speculations together and call them truth in man's never-ending attempt to be master of his destiny.
My personal belief system tells me this is a futile way to live, because we are really not the master of anything....we will die, we have very little control over most things. We cannot make someone love us, yet God does. We cannot keep a spouse from leaving us should they decide to, yet God is always with us. He is ready to accept us whatever place in life we are, should we accept His Gift freely given. He doesn't care whether we are a drunken hobo laying in our own vomit or a polished Wall Street executive. Success doesn't impress him.
Things we cannot comprehend are sometimes just that:uncomprehendable, undefinable....this is where faith comes in - faith is trust in things unseen.
I too believe that dinasaurs and man coexisted.
In the book of Job (Job 40:15-19), God speaks to Job describing one of his creations:
(15) "Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you, ...he eats grass like an ox.(16)See now, his strength is in his hips...his power is in his stomach muscles...(17) He moves his tail like a cedar...(18) His bones are like beams of bronze...his ribs like bars of iron...
Many people believe this scripture describes a dinasaur, perhaps a brontasaurus or something to that effect.
One perspective from Potterville, MI.
Posted by Bob Stephens (Member # 858) on :
Evolution is fascinating. I've started collecting snakes over the past two years and what did I acquire this evening?
Looks like a snake but isn’t? Its tail breaks off when attacked? It has external ears?
Care to take a guess?
Posted by Ray Rheaume (Member # 3794) on :
A beat up Chevy pickup with a loose back bumper and dual CB antennas!
What did I win? Rapid
[ September 23, 2004, 10:37 PM: Message edited by: Ray Rheaume ]
Posted by Bob Stephens (Member # 858) on :
Haha Ray, not reptilian enough!
Posted by Ray Rheaume (Member # 3794) on :
Musta been the rust. Sure looked like scales to me.
Rapid
Posted by William Bass (Member # 4929) on :
Glass Snake: the Legless Lizard.
That's a very good point, Bob. If anything looks like an "in-between" creature, the glass snake certainly does. If I believed in some form of evolution, I think the Glass Snake would be near the top of my list of evidences. I have been studying the Creation/Evolution issue for some time, and I am now amazed that I have not heard any one mention the Glass Snake before.
Of course, I don't think that it IS an inbetween species. I happen to think God simply made a legless variety of lizard.
What would a lizard do if he were born without legs or legs so small he couldn't use them? A Glass Snake has a body DESIGNED to provide locomotion without legs. His bone structure must be significantly different than that of most lizards. Not only would he have to lose his legs, but he would also have to simultaneously gain bone and muscle structure suited to slithering. Could a regular lizard move if you cut his legs off?
That a lizard should slither much like a snake is perhaps similar to the bat which flies much like a bird. However, no one thinks that bats are becoming birds or that birds are becoming bats.
(Here is another interesting point: flight requires that so many variables be just right that it is tremendously difficult to imagine that ability EVER evolving by chance, but flight has supposedly, by chance, evolved 4 different times: insects, reptiles (pterodactyl), birds, and bats.)
(Edited for clarity and to try to remove what seemed like a rude tone ~ an unintentional rude tone, mind you).
[ September 24, 2004, 02:17 PM: Message edited by: William Bass ]
Posted by William Bass (Member # 4929) on :
(interesting pics at end of post)
Todd,
Count me among those who consider Job to be referring to a brontosaur-type creature. Many study Bibles have a comment out to the side saying it must be an elephant or a hippo, but those guys definitely do NOT move their tails like a cedar.
There is some fossil evidence that men and dinos lived together. There is tremendous circumstantial evidence that they have: ie, all the "dragon" legends of ancient civilizations.
The Creation Model says that dinos and men were made on day 6. The flood wiped out everything (and created the fossil "record"), but Noah would have had dinos on the ark (baby ones, probably). However, dinos were not able to survive well in the new post-flood climate. The few species that did manage to survive were hunted to extinction up until about the middle ages.
There is the possibility that a few still exist today. There are reports of smaller brontosaur-type creatures in Africa and South America, reports indicate these are vegetarian creatures but are extremely violent and quite capable of keeping alligators and hippos out of their territory. Creatures similar to the pterodactly apparently exist in South America and Africa and certain American Indian legends indicate they may have inhabited the southern regions of the US until a couple of hundred years ago. The Loch Ness monster is very likely a surviving band of pleisiosaur-type creatures--Loch Ness is an extremely protected water area and the murky, 1000 ft waters prevent any practical observations.
One interesting point: reptiles NEVER stop growing. According to the Bible (and therefore the Creation Model), man could live to be nearly 1000 years old (likely due to a protective covering over the earth that blocked UV radiation and maintained optimum atmospheric conditions -- ie. the "waters above the firmament"--this covering was probably part of the 40 days of rain that caused the world-wide flood). There is no reason not to think the giant dinosaurs were just extremely old reptiles before they were killed by the flood. That is why the few that might be around today are always "small" versions -- nothing lives very long in the post-flood world. Also, some of our common reptile friends might be a little more interesting if they could continue to grow for 500 to 1000 years.
Another interesting point: sea life fossils are plentiful in the MOUNTAINS. And fossils of land-dwelling creatures are found in sedimentary rock (sedimentary rock forms under water). What are sea-life creatures doing in the mountains and what are land-dwelling creatures doing in sedimentary rock? World wide flood makes sense and is indicated not only by the Bible (which gives a realistic account) but also by several ancient myths.
Mid-Action Fossils point to sudden, catastrophic formation of fossils(Fighting Dinos, Fish Eating Fish, Ichthyosaur Giving Birth):
Polystrate Fossils (fossils that run through more than one sediment layer) disprove the "layers-equal-millions-of-years" nonsense. The following pic is a petrified tree that runs vertically through hundreds of sediment layers.
[ September 24, 2004, 03:23 AM: Message edited by: William Bass ]
Posted by William Bass (Member # 4929) on :
Doug,
The self-contradicting text book is Heath's Biological Science: A Molecular Approach (1990). It is a standard high school biology text, and it follows the BSCS guidelines (in other words, it's full of evolution doctrines). This book derides Biblical creationism in its first chapter, which is read by pretty much ALL students. The book spends an entire chapter (Chapter 4-The Origin of Life) explaining how life evolved from non-living matter (i.e., spontaneous generation). Chapter 4, which will also be read by ALL students, ends by giving credence to a nonsense "theory" called the Gaia Hypothesis (the earth itself is a living organism???). The book then tucks scientific facts that contradict evolution in the appendices, where they are safe from most students' view. The book usually refers to assumed evolutionary events as though they were proven facts. That's sneaky propaganda, in my opinion. Appendix 16A: Spontaneous Generation says in one place:
quote:Louis Pasteur...was able to prove that microorganisms cannot arise from nonliving matter.
At the end of the section, the book says:
quote:Biologists at last united in accepting the idea that 'all organisms arise only from others of their kind.' They described this principle as biogenesis.
Most high school biology texts mention Louis Pasteur disproving spontaneous generation, and most of them teach evolution, which ultimately requires spontaneous generation (spontaneous generation, BTW, is an ancient Greek philosophy). Therefore, most high school biology texts are self-contradicting.
I probably have not done the hole-poking as well as it could be done. Here is an excellent online book called Evolution Cruncher. Evolution Cruncher is written by Biblical Creationists. For a non-biblical-creationist point of view (in the area of biological evolution), I recommend Darwin's Black Box, which you can purchase from Books-A-Million. This book is written by Michael Behe, a molecular biologist. He does an excellent job of disproving Darwinian evolution based on the irreducible complexity of certain cellular functions. This book is very well written--informative, interesting, and even funny in a few places. However, he reaches the conclusion that the aliens did it and planted ALL the info for ALL creatures in the first cell (a similar idea was espoused by a co-discoverer of DNA and now this alien idea is seriously considered by many scientists who are dissatisfied with the spontaneous generation idea).
Intergalactic space travel is highly unlikely for many reasons. Even if all energy contained in matter could be extracted (E=mc2), the amount of matter required for speeds that are only relatively small fractions of the speed of light (i.e., 1/10 the speed of light)would be monumental for a 10kg craft (a pretty small craft), especially if you want to do things like slow down, stop, turn around, etc. Also, collision with space dust (quite a bit of dust in space) at 1/10 the speed of light would result in a sudden and tragic end to the trip. Also, the radiation outside of the protective magnetic field of a planet is deadly. Kinda hard on that alien stuff. Physics rules.
Here are some quotes from people involved in astronomy:
quote:But in a single big bang there are no targets at all, because the whole universe takes part in the explosion. There is nothing for the expanding universe to hit against, and after sufficient expansion, the whole affair should go dead. However, we actually have a universe of continuing activity instead of one that is uniform and inert. -- Sir Fred Hoyle, "The Big Bang under Attack," Science Digest, vol 92 (May 1984), p 84.
quote:There now seems no way to reconcile the predictions of any version of the Big Bang with the reality of the universe that we observe, no way to get from the perfectly smooth Big Bang to the imperfect lumpy universe we see today. As one COBE scientist, George Smoot of the Univ. of California at Berkeley, put it, 'Using the forces we now know, you can't make the universe we now know.' -- Eric Lerner, "COBE Confounds the Cosmologists," Aerospace America, vol. 28 (March 1990), pp. 38.
The Big Bang wasnt a chemical explosion--there were no chemicals. It wasnt an atomic explosion--there were no atoms. What kind of explosion was it? And how did nothing become something? You don't find it ridiculous to say that ALL the matter in the universe was once contained in area smaller than an atom? Currently, scientists call the events that caused nothing to become something and that caused the nothing-something to explode SINGULARITIES, i.e., they don't have a clue and physical laws actually indicate such events are impossible.
Your kitchen experiments make me think that you and I went to the same culinary school, Doug .
[ September 24, 2004, 03:27 AM: Message edited by: William Bass ]
Posted by William Bass (Member # 4929) on :
Speaking of voting...
I don't intend to vote for EITHER candidate. If you want to see me get kicked off the BB, let me start ranting about politics. lol.
I do think its funny, tho, that the POLITICIANS (ie., BOTH parties) have told us one thing and done another for DECADES and we still vote for them. I see only rhetorical differences between Dems and Repubs.
You might consider Peroutka of the Constitution Party. If he doesn't get assasinated or bought off in his first week in office (for attempting to get the govmt to actually obey the Constitution), he might do the U.S. some good.
Posted by Doug Allan (Member # 2247) on :
William, since I think it is rude to ignore someone, but even more rude to try to decieve them into believing they have your attention while secretly ignoring them... I must confess that of your 4 posts in a row... I got worn out after 2. I saw my name, so I tried to read the third but skipped a big chunk out of the middle. (...ohhh, So that was you in my culinary cosmic debris lab )
quote:If you want to see me get kicked off the BB, let me start ranting about politics. lol.
Im sure nobody wants you to get kicked off the BB. BTW, don't forget that religion is just as taboo as politics on here.
I said earlier that "god could have created aliens & darwinians too ... if there is, as I suspect, one higher power - creator of all, I'm not so sure of his name or his plan enough to go posting about it." That was my feeble attempt at dropping a subtle hint that I agree with Steve's determination that Religious posts, like political ones, serve only to divide us. My posts may have appeared to identify myself as an atheist. That is not the case any more then I am an apolitical enigma. Other then my blatent light-hearted deviation into politics above... you won't see me starting any discussions of a political or religious nature... but I usually get my 2 cents in when someone else goes there & I think we both owe it to our hosts to keep that to a minimum.
...anyway, most importantly, don't forget that The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.
Posted by Todd Gill (Member # 2569) on :
I just wanted to be the last one posting...
Posted by Doug Allan (Member # 2247) on :
hahahahahaha
Posted by William Bass (Member # 4929) on :
To Bob and Doug:
Bob, I thought the Glass Snake point you made was quite intelligent. If anything looks like an "in-between" species--the Glass Snake certainly does (I still dont think it is, of course). I really hope that my response didn't come across as arrogant. Sorry if it did.
Doug, Thanks for reading my posts (short novels?). I appreciate your effort to read them, because your time is waaay more valuable than mine (as you are actually IN business and I'm really just a Hardee's Biscuit Cook who now owns a plotter).
I was enjoying the discussion. I felt like others were enjoying it, too. I was trying really hard to keep the "religion" aspect to a minimum (but it is the basis of the model for origins to which I adhere). I was trying to keep it kind of scholarly-like.
Is eoviotuln a sicenitfic ro a rigelouis tpoic? Posted by William Bass (Member # 4929) on :
Todd, you're hilarious.
Posted by Todd Gill (Member # 2569) on :
Ok, you guys! I just can't seem to get the last word in.....oh, maybe I just did! QUICK! Steve....lock this one out! Hahahaha.
Posted by William Bass (Member # 4929) on :
You win, Todd.
Posted by John Largent (Member # 4606) on :
How in the hell did we go from a totally mis-spelled paragraph to Religion to evolution to politics to Bush bashing?
Somewhere up at the top is an inference that this is a Sign Painter's BB.
And, thank you, Bruce, for the great laugh . . About the Big Bang!
Posted by William Bass (Member # 4929) on :
Sorry, John. I went on an OT thread. I confess, it's all my fault.
Posted by William Bass (Member # 4929) on :
Jfef dnid't konw waht he was gttineg itno, aerpaplnty, wehn he psoetd tihs trhaed.
![[Rolling On The Floor]](graemlins/rolf.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[I Don t Know]](graemlins/dunno.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Off Topic]](graemlins/offtopic.gif)
on an OT thread. I confess, it's all my fault.