That has absolutly nothing to do with why I mentioned the degredation of women. Do you even know the history of your religion? Take a look at just the last few hundred years and you can see what I mean.

Sorry raan, but that argument just gives further evidence that what the Bible says happens is not worth using as a form of education.

Who are we to explain to others how the world was created, only g-d can know and we are folly to try to understand it.

Its a good explanation for why things might sound far fetched and crazy, but it is not a good explanation for why one should think a book is true or in any form explains what has happened.

Though I've said it multiple times, I will say it again.

When I say ignorant, all I am saying, is that they are not familiar with the relevant subject matter. It's not a bad thing. It's just an impairment to the ability to understand. Someone who's never seen the show Seinfeld is ignorant of any joke someone makes that is based on a quote from the show. It's not an insult. It's a statement of fact. I'm sorry that you've continually misinterpreted that.

From the text




Interesting. But honestly I dont care either way, Im just providing somewhere for Rhysus to vent his frustrations of the "ignorant" by reading someone who put nearly probably twice his liftime's worth into the study of this other and similar topics.

PS I realize that the second quote above is not really related to Dagnev's comment directly, it just struck me how close they were. Personally I think Dagnev is the one of the only ones here that has at leasted done a fairly decent job of remaining objective to the point he doesnt insult someone everytime he posts.

I'm always a fan of when a text tries to tell you what Jews believe, because they tend to be wrong.

Mormons are not the only bible believing people who say somethings happened for many years before Adam.

Although reading that text now explains to me the need for Mormons to change the transaltion from god said: to I, god said:

There is even a Jewish tradition that G-d made many worlds before he made this one. Which asks all sorts of philosophical questions.

But so far, from what I have seen, The story of Adam and eve most likely did not happen in the World of Action like the imagery would lead you to believe.

I have found almost everytime someone who is not Jewish says Jews teach "this" they ignore the fact that Jews also teach "not this". "half this". "twice this," and often even "that"

Unfortionately, I would believe this guy over anyone on this forum when it comes to most anything given his background in general. However, he is also merely human, as are we all, and we are all prone to small mistakes. Take the text as a whole, don't quibble over small parts of it.



You happened to hit my second pet peve. There is no church called Mormon, or Mormons. The church you refer to is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.


EDIT: Lastly, I wont dispute you Dagnev, because I know very little of the Jewish faith I do know however that Hugh Nibley is probably one of the most educated, and well spoken men I have ever had the pleasure to meet.

QUOTE
I have been told that it is presumptuous for mortals, let alone infidels, to pretend to understand anything in it.

That quote is speaking about the Koran.

In the original Hebrew, it is said that the Torah has 70 meanings for every word. It is also said that there are 4 levels to understanding every word. The Literal, Metaphor, Explanation, and the Secret. That would roughly give you 280 interpretations of each word, multiplied by the 60,000 words, gives you enough interpretations of the Torah to give each person thier own unique view that nobody else has, and all would be Truth.

Oddly enough, one of my friends is a Mormon. She calls herself, and her roommates, who all go to BYU in Utah, Mormons.

From my post above... sorry if you missed the edit.

Perhaps she should pay attention to the man she sustained as a Prophet of God, as he directly stated that we should be refering to ourselves as the LDS, not Mormons. Ask her about it next time you talk to her

Sorry for the delay, was attending a lecture.

Bischof, Marco. "Introduction to integrative biophysics." In Lecture Notes in Biophysics, Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Capra, Fritjof. The Web of Life: A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems. New York: Doubleday

Lieber, Michael M. "Force and genomic change." Frontier Perspectives 10:1 (2001).

Maniotis, A. et al. "Demonstration of mechanical connections between integrins, cytoskeletal filaments, and nucleoplasm that stabilize nuclear structure." Procedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 4:3 (1997).

I don't remember ever refrencing a church.

Regardless, one of the rules in Judaism is that you can not teach Torah to non Jews, unless the information is readily available to them. So its understandable that he may not know of many things that Jews do know about.

However, someone who is willing to claim that he knows what Jews teach or think, yet is wrong about it, to me loses a bit of Validity because it means he is more interested in getting his point across than the Truth of his point.

Any of those books on the net? I tend to not leave my house much.

Not to hijack the thread, if I can help it (for once), but Daganev - have you been studying German recently?

I refuse to study german, I hate german. And I suck at languages... why do you ask?

I dunno, just the random capitals popping up in the middle of sentences are symptomatic of German studiers.

ahh, I use capitals for emphasis. When I think something is important I capitlize it, because puting the whole word in Bold is just annoying. Its a bad habit, I'll try to stop. However, it does fit the way I speak better.

I doubt much of that is online, the papers might be if you can get a program to track them down, try PubMed at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi

Would you mind giving that list again and put a little note next to each one saying what question that paper answers?

Because I really don't care to learn the intraccies of how nucliod moves information to do something, when it doesn't explain how it moves from the Micro to the Macro. Its that small little step I'm interested in.

For example, I can use Legos to build just about anything, but it takes quite a large step for me to go from building an amorphious blob of legos to building a cool robot with rotating arms.

So anything that does not adress the issue of moving from Micro to Macro, won't really help me, although I'm sure it will be interesting.

Conversly, Economics (a science many people ignore) has a prefect explanation of how one moves from the Micro to the Macro even though the rules of engagment tend to change.

That it were so simple. I'll see what I can do but ultimately it comes down to a lot of little things, trying to just say "And the magic formula relating microevolution to macroevolution is...!" doesn't really work out.


Oh, and Daganev, you're permanently in my good book, just noticed you gave a reference to string theory in the other thread. Good on, mate.