Blogs 4 Brownback

June 21, 2007

Angels and Atoms

Filed under: Faith,Science — Sisyphus @ 9:36 am

I had an interesting thought this week while in church.  It’s common knowledge that God controls all things.  It’s also common knowledge that science is inadequate to explain this Truth.  But how does one reconcile faith with the factually accurate aspects of modern science?

I’m thinking, specifically, of atoms.  Presumably, atoms exist.  The theory of them has existed since Democritus. Moreover, the Bible speaks of them as well, although it refers to them as “motes.” That’s an old word meaning something very small, like an atom. So Jesus specifically mentions atoms when he says in Matthew 7:3, “And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?” Clearly, atoms exist in the Bible.  (Their existence in nuclear weaponry was a matter of heated debate in my household and religious community, but this post will hopefully reconcile and dispel such dissensions as previously existed to mar our brotherhood in Christ.)

Science, being a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing, tells us that atoms are composed of positive parts, called protons, negative parts, called electrons, and neutral parts that are incapable of moral decision, called neutrons. As usual, when scientists tell you something, you can usually find the truth if you look in the opposite direction. What scientists label “positive”, the protons, actually- by their own theories- huddle in the center of the atom, slothful and lazy, sheltering the morally timid neutrons. The ones who go about, energizing things and spreading the Gospel, are the electrons. This leads me to believe that electrons are actually the positive moral force here, not the lazy, good-for-nothing neutrons and certainly not the vile, wicked, electron-counteracting, equivocation-enabling protons.

Electrons are the positive force in the atomic world. They are God’s servants. What, then, could they be, if not angels? Doesn’t this explain how the Lord is at work in every piece of technology we currently operate? Electrons power them all; ergo, the Lord, through the direct intercession of His servants, the angels, powers it all. It also explains smiting; thousands of angels come down from the Heavens and enter the skulls of the evildoers.

I realize this explanation is somewhat unorthodox. But once I realized that atoms are in the Bible, and that DNA therefore probably exists despite the frequent and oft-noted inefficiencies and deceptions of microscopes, I felt that my ongoing feud with the witch-doctors and snake-oil salesmen who comprise the modern scientific community would be resolved if I could explain to them how the Lord operates in their precious pseudoscientific endeavors. If it is sinful for me to aspire for and attain these conclusions, I confess my sins and repent in sackcloth and ashes.

Yet, somehow, I feel that God is pleased. Now that scientists have no recourse to their theories in their evasions of Him, they stand at a crossroads- either they can serve God, or they can serve Satan. They can no longer pretend that this moral choice does not exist. They can no longer be the neutron in the atom of the World. If they choose to join God’s electrons, they can merrily spread the Gospels of Christ like the rest of us. If they choose to remain in the perceived “nuclei” of activity, the research centers and major cities, they can idly putter about, doing their research and working as minions of Satan. But one day, the atom may be split at the kindled wrath of the Almighty. In that day, only the electrons shall survive.

Think on THAT, you fragments! Embrace the Lord, or face the final reckoning!

107 Comments »

  1. Ah, the light finally goes on. This whole site is a lefty slam seeking to discredit Brownback, conservatives, Christianity, and anyone with half a brain who has thought through the issues. It’s actually a good satire, because you obviously know just enough Scripture to toss in nuggets now and again, though not enough to have an understanding of the real truth.

    Comment by Steve — June 21, 2007 @ 10:15 am | Reply

  2. You are quite wrong, Steve.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 21, 2007 @ 11:00 am | Reply

  3. For Steve the light seems to have gone out. That was an excellent analysis, Sisyphus. Hopefully some “scientists” will read it and be enlightened.

    Comment by dadaclu — June 21, 2007 @ 11:04 am | Reply

  4. Are those the same e-e-e-eevil scientists who claim the world is round?

    Comment by Steve — June 21, 2007 @ 11:12 am | Reply

  5. “For Steve the light seems to have gone out. That was an excellent analysis, Sisyphus. Hopefully some “scientists” will read it and be enlightened.”

    We should certainly all pray on it. I’ll pray for you too, Steve. May God have mercy on you.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 21, 2007 @ 11:13 am | Reply

  6. “Are those the same e-e-e-eevil scientists who claim the world is round?”

    Yes.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 21, 2007 @ 11:13 am | Reply

  7. “Ah, the light finally goes on.”

    The light as always been on; God was, is and always will be inspiring all of us with his wonderous uses of electrons.

    This theory concerns me, however. Under the modern science, each atom has an amount of “negative” electron charge to balance out the “positive” proton charge. Are we to believe that alongside the divinity that is God in the form of the electron is a equally powerful evil in the form of a proton that can actually cancel out the Lord’s greatness?

    Comment by Fascinated and Confused — June 21, 2007 @ 11:23 am | Reply

  8. “This theory concerns me, however. Under the modern science, each atom has an amount of “negative” electron charge to balance out the “positive” proton charge. Are we to believe that alongside the divinity that is God in the form of the electron is a equally powerful evil in the form of a proton that can actually cancel out the Lord’s greatness?”

    Those terms are arbitrary, evil scientific denominations. Electrons are actually positive, just, and good; protrons are evil, negative, indolent, sinful, and worthless. Nor are they as powerful; there are more electrons out there. Otherwise, how could ions exist?

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 21, 2007 @ 11:26 am | Reply

  9. The neutrons, and Steve, and other RINOs, are like the church at Laodicea:

    “So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.” Rev. 3:16

    Comment by DPS — June 21, 2007 @ 11:26 am | Reply

  10. Fascinated,
    I think you’re on to something – it’s a whole new blending of science/theology. We can call it “Binary Level Interdisciplinary Numeric Duplicity”. Or maybe “Lunatic Anti-Mathematical Electrons.

    Ah, this reminds me of a scene in one of my favorite historical documentaries:

    Bedevere: “And that, my liege, is how we know the earth to be banana-shaped.”
    Arthur: “This new learning amazes me, Sir Bedevere. Explain again how sheep’s bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.”

    Comment by Steve — June 21, 2007 @ 11:40 am | Reply

  11. “Electrons are actually positive, just, and good; protrons are evil, negative, indolent, sinful, and worthless. Nor are they as powerful; there are more electrons out there. Otherwise, how could ions exist?

    The neutrons, and Steve, and other RINOs, are like the church at Laodicea:”

    What side are photons on?

    Oh, man you guys are so funny!

    Comment by Skeptic — June 21, 2007 @ 11:40 am | Reply

  12. Skeptic
    I don’t study the details of so-called “science” but I’m pretty sure photons are part of the chemical reactions that allow cameras to preserve a picture. Cameras are another example of God’s miracles that people seem unable to grasp like the internet. God created cameras and the internet (among others) and, in essence, hid them under a rock for a man to eventually find and utilize in their search to be closer to Him..

    Comment by Carsick — June 21, 2007 @ 12:08 pm | Reply

  13. “Those terms are arbitrary, evil scientific denominations. Electrons are actually positive, just, and good; protrons are evil, negative, indolent, sinful, and worthless. Nor are they as powerful; there are more electrons out there. Otherwise, how could ions exist?”

    But isn’t an ion just an arbitrary, evil, scientific denomination?

    Assuming that’s not the case, isn’t it possible that there are an equal number of protons and electrons in the universe, but the protons, like the evil libtard moonbats, segregate themselves into fewer, larger groups while the Godly electrons, much like the followers of Jesus, spread their divine joy throughout the universe? Hence, while there may be large piles of concentrated proton-evil somewhere (possibly on the bottom-side of the flat Earth of which we cannot see), the electron-goodness inspires us all, as per the will of the Almighty?

    Comment by Fascinated and Confused — June 21, 2007 @ 12:30 pm | Reply

  14. I still wonder what particles that have no electrical charge have to do with this, or antimatter, or particles with color charge (there are 3 kinds of color charges.)

    Comment by Skeptic — June 21, 2007 @ 12:53 pm | Reply

  15. I think we are witnessing the redefinition of the word “fringe” here. This is like watching a car accident.

    Comment by Steve — June 21, 2007 @ 12:53 pm | Reply

  16. Photons are on the side of light, of course, which is the opposite of delight, or darkness. Carnal delight is the stuff of dark matter — mass without enlightenment.

    Comment by believer — June 21, 2007 @ 1:15 pm | Reply

  17. Fools!

    I, The Dark One, do not concern myself with the workings of mere protons, my deeds are of cosmic scale!

    Muhahahaha!

    Comment by Satan — June 21, 2007 @ 1:42 pm | Reply

  18. Rationalwiki.com… Join the cabal!

    Comment by Helios — June 21, 2007 @ 1:58 pm | Reply

  19. I am the Cabal…

    Comment by Satan — June 21, 2007 @ 1:58 pm | Reply

  20. How does Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle fit into all this?

    Comment by interpreted — June 21, 2007 @ 2:18 pm | Reply

  21. This explains Heisenberg”s Uncertainty Principal. “Scientists” who believe they can predict and explain everything have discovered they can’t predict the action of a single electron. Man has no dominion over the angels!

    Comment by dadaclu — June 21, 2007 @ 2:51 pm | Reply

  22. Once again, I have to think that this is turning out to be a great satire site. Brownback must cringe when he sees this stuff in association with his name.

    Comment by Steve — June 21, 2007 @ 2:53 pm | Reply

  23. ‘lazy, good-for-nothing neutrons’

    Certainly good for something – if they weren’t there, all atoms would undergo positron beta decay.

    Comment by interpreted — June 21, 2007 @ 3:15 pm | Reply

  24. “‘lazy, good-for-nothing neutrons’

    Certainly good for something – if they weren’t there, all atoms would undergo positron beta decay.”

    Yeah, and welfare queens are doing important work by keeping couches from floating away.

    Comment by DPS — June 21, 2007 @ 3:25 pm | Reply

  25. Oh, lord. Your posts always crack me up, Sisyphus.

    It’s common knowledge that God controls all things. It’s also common knowledge that science is inadequate to explain this Truth.

    Common knowledge? Among fundie wingnuts, maybe, but not the rest of the population. In fact, much of the population considers this a myth, not “knowledge.”

    Presumably, atoms exist. The theory of them has existed since Democritus. Moreover, the Bible speaks of them as well, although it refers to them as “motes.”

    I’m pretty sure the Bible wasn’t referring to atoms, because no one knew they existed until recently in history. Also, I’m still waiting for you to show me where in the Bible it talks about ether.

    The ones who go about, energizing things and spreading the Gospel, are the electrons. This leads me to believe that electrons are actually the positive moral force here, not the lazy, good-for-nothing neutrons and certainly not the vile, wicked, electron-counteracting, equivocation-enabling protons.

    That has to do with electrical charges, Sisyphus, not with morality. Science is almost always neutral when it comes to morality. Try to keep up.

    If they choose to remain in the perceived “nuclei” of activity, the research centers and major cities, they can idly putter about, doing their research and working as minions of Satan. But one day, the atom may be split at the kindled wrath of the Almighty. In that day, only the electrons shall survive.

    I wish this were satire, because it would be perfect. As not-satire, though, it makes you look like a complete idiot, Sisyphus.

    Comment by The Skepticist — June 21, 2007 @ 3:55 pm | Reply

  26. “it makes you look like a complete idiot, Sisyphus.”

    From a deranged hippie, that’s high praise, Sisyphus! Congratulations!

    Comment by DPS — June 21, 2007 @ 4:17 pm | Reply

  27. Skepticist,
    Read the comments on the About page. WordPress fesses up that this is a parody site. I think the authors are presumably DailyKos types parodying the Right.

    Comment by Steve — June 21, 2007 @ 4:25 pm | Reply

  28. No, I agree with Steve, this is brilliant satire. I know, you can’t let me see behind the curtain, but thanks for all the laughs. Wow, I was really worried there were people like this out there, thank god this is just a joke.

    Comment by Flippin — June 21, 2007 @ 4:26 pm | Reply

  29. Anything Steve to deny the truth. You claim you are a Christian, well let’s see were you spat right in Jesus’ face:

    “and anyone with half a brain who has thought through the issues.”

    “Thought” Steve? Jesus doesn’t want us to think. He wants us to listen to Him and obey Him. Do you really presume to know better than God Steve? Do you???

    Comment by BJ Tabor — June 21, 2007 @ 4:52 pm | Reply

  30. Steve,

    The WordPress comment was a spoof, posted on many threads on the blog. Look around. And notice that it’s in pretty awkward English. I think it was one of our European trolls.

    Honestly, apart from the commies, Euros, and Darwinists who show up here, you’re the closest thing to a “DailyKos” type here. Maybe you should go hang out with Kommander Kos instead. You two might have more in common than you realize.

    Comment by DPS — June 21, 2007 @ 5:10 pm | Reply

  31. I see that the LIEberals are back with more venom and bile than usual. If Steve wants to see a satire all he need do is turn his television to CNN or MSNBC. Better yet surf the internet and look up Hillary Clinton or that Osoma Bin Ladden Muslim who thinks he actually has a shot at the presidency. Now THAT is funny.

    If I had a nickle for every time I heard a Democrat tell a lie about Jesus Christ or scientific hooey-phooey I could buy the Golden Gate bridge so I could burn it down to keep the sodomites out of Oakland.

    Lord, won’t you come soon? Your people are ready to come home!

    Sam Brownback in 2008 and again in 2012. Jesus Christ forever.

    Comment by Mrs. T.D. Gaines-Crockett — June 21, 2007 @ 5:26 pm | Reply

  32. It’s common knowledge that you are an imbecile.

    Comment by Curious — June 21, 2007 @ 6:43 pm | Reply

  33. Hee hee. Sissyphus, say hi to your pal George Soros for me. And Hillary, too.

    Comment by Steve — June 21, 2007 @ 9:38 pm | Reply

  34. “But isn’t an ion just an arbitrary, evil, scientific denomination?”

    Depends on the charge. If it has extra electrons, it’s a good ion. Heaven is the ultimate ion, it has infinite numbers of angel/electrons flitting about it.

    “Assuming that’s not the case, isn’t it possible that there are an equal number of protons and electrons in the universe, but the protons, like the evil libtard moonbats, segregate themselves into fewer, larger groups while the Godly electrons, much like the followers of Jesus, spread their divine joy throughout the universe?”

    Exactly. That’s precisely what I was driving at in my original post. Thank you, you’ve said it much more succinctly than I could have.

    “I still wonder what particles that have no electrical charge have to do with this, or antimatter, or particles with color charge (there are 3 kinds of color charges.)”

    As yet, it is unclear to me as well. But if they have no charge, it is likely they are morally neutral; as such, they are passively allied with Satan. Those who do not support God, oppose God. Then again, this, too, could be correct:

    “Photons are on the side of light, of course, which is the opposite of delight, or darkness. Carnal delight is the stuff of dark matter — mass without enlightenment.”

    I will pray on it awhile.

    “I, The Dark One, do not concern myself with the workings of mere protons, my deeds are of cosmic scale!”

    So are protons.

    “This explains Heisenberg”s Uncertainty Principal. “Scientists” who believe they can predict and explain everything have discovered they can’t predict the action of a single electron. Man has no dominion over the angels!”

    This explanation makes perfect sense to me.

    “Once again, I have to think that this is turning out to be a great satire site. Brownback must cringe when he sees this stuff in association with his name.”

    It’s not a satire.

    “That has to do with electrical charges, Sisyphus, not with morality. Science is almost always neutral when it comes to morality. Try to keep up.”

    That’s why science is evil. Atoms aren’t science, they’re theology.

    “From a deranged hippie, that’s high praise, Sisyphus! Congratulations!”

    Thank you!

    “Read the comments on the About page. WordPress fesses up that this is a parody site. I think the authors are presumably DailyKos types parodying the Right.”

    That comment is a parody, treefrog. I wrote an entire post about it a couple days ago.

    “If I had a nickle for every time I heard a Democrat tell a lie about Jesus Christ or scientific hooey-phooey I could buy the Golden Gate bridge so I could burn it down to keep the sodomites out of Oakland.”

    Amen!

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 22, 2007 @ 5:09 am | Reply

  35. Notice how the far left come here at first to refute your observations then, failing that, engage in debate then, failing again, decide to discount the site as satire. It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.
    God and Brownback in ’08!!

    Comment by carsick — June 22, 2007 @ 7:24 am | Reply

  36. idiots. spend some time doing something useful.

    Comment by scaleless — June 22, 2007 @ 8:16 am | Reply

  37. Sisyphus:
    Your article is pretty good, but protons and neutrons are not fundamental particles (aka. they are made up of smaller particles). These smaller particles are called quarks and gluons. The gluons are things that hold the quarks together (along with doing a bunch of other stuff). The quarks are the things that have the previously mentioned color (there are three different color “charges:” red, green, and blue). There are six different types of quarks (that scientists know of right now). Of these quarks three of them have charge +2/3 and the other three have charge -1/3 (where the magnitude of the units are the electron charge). The names of the quarks that charge +2/3 (in ascending mass order) are up, charm, and top (the top is heavier than the charm which is heavier than the up). The names of the the charge -1/3 quarks (in the same type of order) are down, strange, and bottom. The most simplistic picture of the proton, says it contain two up quarks, a down quark, and gluons. In a somewhat similar fashion, the neutron consists of two downs, and up and gluons.
    Also for a little bit of clarification, the terms “positive,” “negative,” and “neutral” are assigned based on how a charged particle reacts in an electromagnetic field. Positively charged particles flow with the field lines, negative particles flow against field lines, and neutral particles do nothing. (This statement ignores spin and structure). The thing that one could consider to be arbitrary is the direction of the field lines.
    Note that none of what I said is meant to be refuting what was originally posted, it is simply meant to be somewhat educational to those here. One can simply apply Sisyphus’ arguments to these particles.

    Comment by Phil — June 22, 2007 @ 8:29 am | Reply

  38. I really don’t care what your opinion is but it is BLASPHEMOUS the way you hacked Shakespeare’s Masterpiece to suit your argument. Utterly shameless! This is how is REALLY goes:

    Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
    That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
    And then is heard no more: it is a tale
    Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
    Signifying nothing.

    Comment by sohos — June 22, 2007 @ 8:34 am | Reply

  39. “Notice how the far left come here at first to refute your observations then, failing that, engage in debate then, failing again”

    Right, you have to be a far-left winger now not to believe that subatomic particles are engaged in a moral battle…

    What observations, where’s your laboratory?

    By the way, protons are just a collection of quarks:

    Proton: 2 quarks with charge +2/3 and one quark with charge -1/3

    Neutron: 2 quarks with charge -1/3 and one quark with charge +2/3
    Is this the inner conflict that every warrior faces?

    You’ll also be interested to know that an anti-electron (or positron) is identical to an electron, except that it has a positive charge, in fact every charged particle has an antiparticle with opposite charge.

    Comment by Skeptic — June 22, 2007 @ 10:35 am | Reply

  40. Don’t get me started on muons or taus – what are they, according to Sisyphus – thrones and powers?

    Comment by interpreted — June 22, 2007 @ 11:21 am | Reply

  41. Skeptic
    The “scientists” you so admire are secretly laughing at everybody who actually believes the word “quark” is not a just some silliness they made up to amuse themselves. It was only after realizing some of you treefrogs took it seriously that they figured they could make money doing “research” on a made up nonsense word.
    Next, you’ll be extolling the virtues of Quisp’s adventures.

    http://www.quisp.com/whereveibeen/wib3.html

    Comment by carsick — June 22, 2007 @ 1:31 pm | Reply

  42. interpreted
    muons and taus? Good grief! You’ve been playing those fantasy computer games too long. Get outside in God’s Glorious World! The Son will be good for you.

    Comment by carsick — June 22, 2007 @ 1:37 pm | Reply

  43. What I find surprising is how many people say they agree with Sisyphus. I’m sure that some are just playing along with the satirical nature of the site, but I think a few of the posters are quite serious.

    But perhaps they’ve fooled me.

    Comment by Dustin — June 22, 2007 @ 2:07 pm | Reply

  44. “Notice how the far left come here at first to refute your observations then, failing that, engage in debate then, failing again, decide to discount the site as satire. It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.”

    It’s a symptom of their fundamental dishonesty. It’s who they are, really. I also find it sad.

    “You’ll also be interested to know that an anti-electron (or positron) is identical to an electron, except that it has a positive charge, in fact every charged particle has an antiparticle with opposite charge.”

    So, you’re a Gnostic Manichean heretic as well as a moonbat. How nice for you.

    “Don’t get me started on muons or taus – what are they, according to Sisyphus – thrones and powers?”

    No, they’re words you invented or stole from an invented language like Esperanto or Klingon or Elvish.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 22, 2007 @ 3:36 pm | Reply

  45. You are correct in refering to yourself as a fool, Dustin. You, the demon Decarabia who lurks here under various names, and all the rest of Legion’s minons are fools for thinking that you can come here and undermine the handiwork of God.

    Comment by Mrs. T.D. Gaines-Crockett — June 22, 2007 @ 3:48 pm | Reply

  46. 1. Neutrons, electrons and protons are not called like that because of morals. They´re not sentient and thus can´t have a moral standpoint. It´s about their electrical charge.

    2. All 3 are integral parts of an atom. Stripping one part away will destroy it. Nuclear Weaponry and power generation works in a similar, splitting atoms apart, setting parts of them free which then collide with other atoms, splitting them apart, causing a chain reaction.

    3. Yes, science has not all the asnwers. But they have answers and unlike religion, they always try to improve those answers and correct the mistakes amde by finding them. That´s why science is generally one notch above religion.

    “Yeah, and welfare queens are doing important work by keeping couches from floating away.”

    Try to get some infos first, mkay.

    “It’s common knowledge that God controls all things. It’s also common knowledge that science is inadequate to explain this Truth.

    Common knowledge? Among fundie wingnuts, maybe, but not the rest of the population. In fact, much of the population considers this a myth, not “knowledge.”

    Presumably, atoms exist. The theory of them has existed since Democritus. Moreover, the Bible speaks of them as well, although it refers to them as “motes.”

    I’m pretty sure the Bible wasn’t referring to atoms, because no one knew they existed until recently in history. Also, I’m still waiting for you to show me where in the Bible it talks about ether.

    The ones who go about, energizing things and spreading the Gospel, are the electrons. This leads me to believe that electrons are actually the positive moral force here, not the lazy, good-for-nothing neutrons and certainly not the vile, wicked, electron-counteracting, equivocation-enabling protons.

    That has to do with electrical charges, Sisyphus, not with morality. Science is almost always neutral when it comes to morality. Try to keep up.

    If they choose to remain in the perceived “nuclei” of activity, the research centers and major cities, they can idly putter about, doing their research and working as minions of Satan. But one day, the atom may be split at the kindled wrath of the Almighty. In that day, only the electrons shall survive.

    I wish this were satire, because it would be perfect. As not-satire, though, it makes you look like a complete idiot, Sisyphus.”

    Amen. Oh, and of course, when an atom is split, the neutrons and protons survive, too.

    “That’s why science is evil. Atoms aren’t science, they’re theology.”

    Science has discovered them first, named them first and was the first to bring up real data. Theology has lost this race. Now ditch that topic or I gonna call the science police for infringement. :)

    Comment by PG — June 22, 2007 @ 4:54 pm | Reply

  47. “I’m pretty sure the Bible wasn’t referring to atoms, because no one knew they existed until recently in history.”

    God and the angels did. So did Democritus and Lucretius, among others.

    “Also, I’m still waiting for you to show me where in the Bible it talks about ether.”

    Genesis chapter 1.

    “That has to do with electrical charges, Sisyphus, not with morality. Science is almost always neutral when it comes to morality.”

    Then why use terms like positive and negative? They can’t have their cake and eat it, too.

    “Amen. Oh, and of course, when an atom is split, the neutrons and protons survive, too.”

    But being split is a form of damnation for such stationary indolents. So justice wins out in the end.

    “Science has discovered them first, named them first and was the first to bring up real data. Theology has lost this race. Now ditch that topic or I gonna call the science police for infringement.”

    Those Fascist moonbat militants better stay away from me! This is America, not Soviet Russia. People like them belong in Gitmo.

    Comment by Sisyphus — June 22, 2007 @ 5:18 pm | Reply

  48. @ PG

    “Science has discovered them first, named them first and was the first to bring up real data. Theology has lost this race.”

    Sisyphus has already explained that Jesus discovered atoms. Read the post, please.

    It gets so tiring, having to explain the same thing over and over again to you slow-witted liberals.

    Comment by DPS — June 22, 2007 @ 5:42 pm | Reply

  49. “But being split is a form of damnation for such stationary indolents. So justice wins out in the end.”

    Not really. They tend to rearrange into new atoms or incorporate them in existing ones rather fast.

    “Then why use terms like positive and negative? They can’t have their cake and eat it, too.”

    Electromagnetical charge.

    “Those Fascist moonbat militants better stay away from me! This is America, not Soviet Russia. People like them belong in Gitmo.”

    You´re not good at recognising sarcasm, are you?

    “Sisyphus has already explained that Jesus discovered atoms. Read the post, please.”

    And some greek philosophers, basically ancient scientists, have doen so before him. And of course, Jesus didn´t provide any real data. (And actually, the bible citation is more about sticks and planks.)

    Comment by PG — June 22, 2007 @ 5:56 pm | Reply

  50. “And some greek philosophers, basically ancient scientists, have doen so before him.”

    How could Democritus discover something before Jesus did? Jesus is God and has always existed, and always will.

    Comment by DPS — June 22, 2007 @ 6:01 pm | Reply

  51. By the amount of dissension this post has engendered it is obvious Sisyphus has confounded the unbelievers. A wise man heeds enlightenment, he doesn’t try to debate it with “quarky science”.

    Comment by dadaclu — June 22, 2007 @ 6:17 pm | Reply

  52. Do you realize, Sisyphus my boy, that you may have cracked the conundrum of the ages? Now it all seems so simple – why didn’t I see it before? If your hypothesis about electrons being angels is correct, then I think you’ve figured out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin! Excuse me for using a little algebra here – I’m so excited. Assume for simplicity that the pin is pure iron. Assuming a pinhead area a, and an atomic radius for iron r, and using the atomic number for iron,26, then the number of angels is simply

    Number of angels = N = (a/(pi*r^2)) * 26.

    A pinhead radius is somewhere around 1 millimeter, and assuming that the iron exists in a body centered cubic (bcc) crystal configuration, then the radius of an iron atom can be taken to be about 125 picometers (thats 1.25 X 10^-10 meter). Then the number of angels that DO dance on the head of a pin, if my arithmetic is correct, is 1.66 X 10^15, or 1,660,000,000,000,000. Now, this estimate is probably only accurate to a few percent. Also one could argue about whether the angels in all of the orbitals are actually dancing (flitting about the probability clouds) on the pin head.

    Perhaps refinement could be obtained by use of an atomic force microscope. Also, as far as how many angels CAN dance on the head of a pin, if a negative voltage were applied to the pin with a grounded electrode nearby, more angels could be made to dance at the surface. The voltage would have to be optimized to prevent angels from leaving the pin altogether.

    Now that you’ve made this giant conceptual leap forward, I would suggest applying for a grant from the Discovery Institute to study this issue in depth. Why, you may even win an IgNobel Prize, or at least get a paper published in the Annals of Improbable Research, if not Phys Rev Letters.

    I have to go now, the mean nurse here says that I have to give somebody else a turn to use the computer. She’s already mad at me because I’ve refused to take my meds since this morning, and she says if I don’t take them she’s going to send the orderlies after me, and I don’t like them because they make me wear this awful white jacket with lots of buckles on the front, and the sleeves are so long that I can’t type and

    Comment by Erik Kouros — June 22, 2007 @ 6:37 pm | Reply

  53. Quarks? What an…unG*dly word!

    Don’t you LIEberals know the original source of the word “quark”? Murray Gellmann drew it from Joyce’s _Finnegan’s Wake_, for Heaven’s sake! And he created it in support of his the “eight-fold way”, an evocation of Buddhi-taoism!

    Please, don’t use those unG*dly, anti-christian words here. Atoms there are, but The True Holy Book is not concerned with the works of darkness.

    Comment by Believer — June 22, 2007 @ 6:45 pm | Reply

  54. Hitler once said: “we need living-space”, does that mean I can never use the words “we”, “need” and “living-space”?

    Comment by Skeptic — June 22, 2007 @ 6:59 pm | Reply

  55. ‘Hitler once said: “we need living-space”, does that mean I can never use the words “we”, “need” and “living-space”?’

    Yes. You have used all of them twice, just now. Please stop.

    Comment by DPS — June 22, 2007 @ 7:07 pm | Reply

  56. Hitler once said: “we need living-space”

    I see why they call you Skeptic — one shouldn’t believe anything you say, and you project.

    Hitler didn’t speak English.

    Comment by Believer — June 22, 2007 @ 8:17 pm | Reply

  57. I see, does that mean that the word “quark” is allowed in all languages other than English?

    Comment by Skeptic — June 22, 2007 @ 8:30 pm | Reply

  58. Does that mean that the word “quark” is allowed in all languages other than English?

    Gellmann used the word ‘q–rk’ because it is actually a coined word belonging to no language (Eurish, the language in which _Finnegan’s Wake_ is written, is not a real language) — as a result of which, it is a unG*dly word in all languages.

    Comment by Believer — June 22, 2007 @ 8:33 pm | Reply

  59. Quark! Quark! Quark quark quark!

    Comment by Linus — June 22, 2007 @ 8:36 pm | Reply

  60. Quiet, Linus, you impertinent boob.

    Comment by DPS — June 22, 2007 @ 8:38 pm | Reply

  61. Qua?k! Qua?k! Qua?k qua?k qua?k!

    What are you, some kind of unnatural duck?

    Comment by Believer — June 22, 2007 @ 8:38 pm | Reply

  62. “Gellmann used the word ‘q–rk’ because it is actually a coined word belonging to no language (Eurish, the language in which _Finnegan’s Wake_ is written, is not a real language) — as a result of which, it is a unG*dly word in all languages.”

    I’d argue that it is an unG*dly word in no language then (except Eurish.)

    Bu what if I call it the Jesus particle, would that be alright?

    Comment by Skeptic — June 22, 2007 @ 9:07 pm | Reply

  63. “Bu what if I call it the Jesus particle, would that be alright?”

    Absolutely not! I think it would be OK to refer to electrons as “Jesus’s particles,” however. I would be better not to refer to q****s at all, as the fact of the matter is that they do not exist and referring to them might lead younger readers of this blog to inappropriate thoughts.

    Comment by DPS — June 22, 2007 @ 9:31 pm | Reply

  64. “How could Democritus discover something before Jesus did? Jesus is God and has always existed, and always will.”

    Simple question: Have the ancient greek been around before the times of the new testament? Yes. Question answered.Wether Jesus does or does not exist forever, he has done this one to a given time. And that was after Democritus.

    “I see why they call you Skeptic — one shouldn’t believe anything you say, and you project.

    Hitler didn’t speak English.”

    Actually, he did. He never said this in english, though. But the interpretion is 100% accurate.

    Comment by PG — June 23, 2007 @ 1:15 am | Reply

  65. “Simple question: Have the ancient greek been around before the times of the new testament? Yes. Question answered.Wether Jesus does or does not exist forever, he has done this one to a given time. And that was after Democritus.”

    Are you saying that God didn’t know about atoms until He was made flesh? That’s a pretty strange thing to say.

    Comment by DPS — June 23, 2007 @ 9:40 am | Reply

  66. He did, just as he knew about QUARKS, muons, taus, antimatter, relativity, quantukm mechanics, evolution and the sphericalness of the Earth!

    Comment by Skeptic — June 23, 2007 @ 9:44 am | Reply

  67. “He did,”

    Exactly.

    “just as he knew about QUARKS, muons, taus, antimatter, relativity, quantukm mechanics, evolution and the sphericalness of the Earth!”

    Well, He knew that people like you would pretend that such things existed, so I guess he ‘knew’ about them in that sense. Of course, He also knew that they did not exist, because He had not created them. It is blasphemy to say otherwise.

    Comment by DPS — June 23, 2007 @ 10:12 am | Reply

  68. “Are you saying that God didn’t know about atoms until He was made flesh? That’s a pretty strange thing to say.”

    Well, he didn´t tell us before the greeks discovered it by themselves. (PS: Jesus and God are not quite the same person. Or is HE suffering from schizophrenia? :))

    “Well, He knew that people like you would pretend that such things existed, so I guess he ‘knew’ about them in that sense. Of course, He also knew that they did not exist, because He had not created them. It is blasphemy to say otherwise.”

    Has he told you? Of course not, the only thing you have is a shallow sentence from an old, several times interpreted piece of paper that can be interpreted in like a dozen ways. So, man, you´re the blasphemer here.

    Comment by PG — June 23, 2007 @ 10:33 am | Reply

  69. Actually, he [Hitler] did [speak English].

    Cite, please? And not to some biased LIEberal site with an entry you just created today.

    He never said this in english, though. But the interpretion is 100% accurate.

    Hoo, boy — you don’t know much about translation, do you? When Hitler spoke about the Sudetenland, he used the neologism “Lebensraum”. (Forgive, Lord, for using such a foul word.) It doesn’t mean “living space” in the sense that a speaker of modern English would use it; a better gloss would be “elbow room”, which the accompanying sense of “room to breathe freely”. “Lebensraum” is a classic example of an untranslatable word.

    Comment by Believer — June 23, 2007 @ 10:45 am | Reply

  70. Actually living-space is a perfect translation, the fact that Americans have started to use the word in other meanings as well does not change this, but for modern Americans, “breathing room” would be a nice translation.

    Comment by Skeptic — June 23, 2007 @ 10:50 am | Reply

  71. “Well, He knew that people like you would pretend that such things existed, so I guess he ‘knew’ about them in that sense. Of course, He also knew that they did not exist, because He had not created them. It is blasphemy to say otherwise.”

    Why do you keep insisting that Jesus and God are dumb?

    Comment by Skeptic — June 23, 2007 @ 10:50 am | Reply

  72. Actually living-space is a perfect translation

    No, it is not. It is a literal translation — a very different thing.

    Here’s an example. In the first chapter of the Gospel According to John, the Apostle John used the verb “egeginon” to describe the “creation”. That’s an interesting form of the verb “to be”, which, regrettably, has no exact parallel in English. The best literal translation for that word is “caused to become, with a limited sense of agency” — sort of “stood by while it started”. That’s utter nonsense, of course — the correct translation of the verse is “In the beginning, G*d created the heavens and the Earth”, in which His agency is made clear. The Greek doesn’t capture its own meaning.

    Comment by Believer — June 23, 2007 @ 11:13 am | Reply

  73. Could it be that the English translation of the Bible does not capture the essence of the original version?

    Probably, but somehow I don’t expect you fundies to learn Hebrew or Aramaic…

    Comment by Skeptic — June 23, 2007 @ 11:27 am | Reply

  74. I don’t expect you fundies to learn Hebrew or Aramaic…

    Since the New Testament was written entirely in Koinaoia Greek, with the exception of Luke, which was written in quite pure classical form, that does seem rather useless, now doesn’t it?

    Comment by Believer — June 23, 2007 @ 11:38 am | Reply

  75. Could it be that the English translation of the Bible does not capture the essence of the original version?

    Oh, and there’s an interesting case in which this is really true. In the original forms of the Pentateuch, the Commandment which we translate as “Thou shalt not kill” actually means something quite different. The verb “to kill”, in Ancient Hebrew, has many forms, one of which is the so-called “intensive” form. The intensive form of “to kill” is better translated as “to kill [a person] [on purpose] [maliciously]” — in modern terms, to commit aggravated murder.

    Bottom line: the pacifists who quote that verse? They’re actually quite deeply wrong. But that fact seems to be a secret which only us “fundies” know.

    Comment by Believer — June 23, 2007 @ 11:44 am | Reply

  76. Ah, but the New Testament isn’t your source when it comes to finding excuses for crimes against humanity, all that stuff comes from the OT, Jesus was way too nice and peaceful to condone Jihads.

    Comment by MiddleMan — June 23, 2007 @ 12:19 pm | Reply

  77. “Cite, please? And not to some biased LIEberal site with an entry you just created today.”

    from a British newspaper..

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main…0/ixworld.html

    from FBI files

    http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/bridgd…rickhitler.htm

    from Wikipedia

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Patrick_Hitler

    I know, you will take Wiki as LIEberal, but the FBI?

    “Hoo, boy — you don’t know much about translation, do you? When Hitler spoke about the Sudetenland, he used the neologism “Lebensraum”. (Forgive, Lord, for using such a foul word.) It doesn’t mean “living space” in the sense that a speaker of modern English would use it; a better gloss would be “elbow room”, which the accompanying sense of “room to breathe freely”. “Lebensraum” is a classic example of an untranslatable word.”

    And can still be translated as living space….

    “Here’s an example. In the first chapter of the Gospel According to John, the Apostle John used the verb “egeginon” to describe the “creation”. That’s an interesting form of the verb “to be”, which, regrettably, has no exact parallel in English. The best literal translation for that word is “caused to become, with a limited sense of agency” — sort of “stood by while it started”. That’s utter nonsense, of course — the correct translation of the verse is “In the beginning, G*d created the heavens and the Earth”, in which His agency is made clear. The Greek doesn’t capture its own meaning.”

    Or perhaps we have mistranslated the bible (again) altering the sense (again).

    Comment by PG — June 23, 2007 @ 12:40 pm | Reply

  78. @ Believer:
    from a British newspaper..

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main…0/ixworld.html

    from FBI files

    http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/bridgd…rickhitler.htm

    from Wikipedia

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Patrick_Hitler

    I know, Wiki is liberal bias, but the FBI?

    Living space is still a good translation.

    “Could it be that the English translation of the Bible does not capture the essence of the original version?”

    Definitely. Oh, and Believer, it´s either the case in many cases or in no. Can´t chose the ones that are most comfortable to you.

    “Oh, and there’s an interesting case in which this is really true. In the original forms of the Pentateuch, the Commandment which we translate as “Thou shalt not kill” actually means something quite different. The verb “to kill”, in Ancient Hebrew, has many forms, one of which is the so-called “intensive” form. The intensive form of “to kill” is better translated as “to kill [a person] [on purpose] [maliciously]” — in modern terms, to commit aggravated murder.”

    As long as he´s not directly threatening your life, it is murder. On purpose. Period.

    Comment by PG — June 23, 2007 @ 1:02 pm | Reply

  79. For those who don’t believe Jesus predated the ancient Greeks it’s only necessary to read the Bible wherein Jesus says, “Before Abraham was,I am.”

    Comment by dadaclu — June 23, 2007 @ 2:05 pm | Reply

  80. Well, Mrs. Gaines, the fact that your blog denounces Morgan Freeman in “Evan Almighty” for playing a “ghetto talking, colored” God–along with the fact that the demon you accused me of being has no place in Protestant theology–leads me to believe that you’re not being entirely straightforward yourself.

    I’m rather impressed by the effort being put into this–multiple well maintained and superficially convincing blogs skewering a hopeless fringe candidate. But then again, I guess pointing out the joke sort of ruins it, so I’ll stop now.

    Comment by Dustin — June 23, 2007 @ 2:17 pm | Reply

  81. “For those who don’t believe Jesus predated the ancient Greeks it’s only necessary to read the Bible wherein Jesus says, “Before Abraham was,I am.””

    And when did he point out the thing about atoms to us? That is documented (at least in your interpretion of that bible quote) and it clearly dates AFTER the ancient greek. They were the first humans to discover the thing. Without anyone telling them.

    “Could it be that the English translation of the Bible does not capture the essence of the original version?”

    The right answer: When does it capture it?

    Comment by PG — June 23, 2007 @ 3:50 pm | Reply

  82. @ Skeptic
    “Probably, but somehow I don’t expect you fundies to learn Hebrew or Aramaic…”

    There’s no need to learn Aramaic to read the Bible, since there isn’t any Aramaic in it. And while you’re right that I don’t read Hebrew, my ancient Greek is actually quite good, and I’d be happy to answer any questions you might have.

    The New Testament would be the part that’s in Greek, by the way. ;)

    I don’t understand why you liberals assume that we Christians are ignorant just because we believe in a flat earth, a geocentric universe, and the literal truth of every word of Holy Scripture. That attitude is why everyone hates liberals, you know.

    @ PG
    “They were the first humans to discover the thing.”

    They didn’t discover atoms. They merely guessed that they were there. They had no way of checking. Jesus already knew that they were there, because he made them. Also, he can look at them anytime he wants to, because he has excellent vision.

    Comment by DPS — June 23, 2007 @ 4:32 pm | Reply

  83. “he can look at them anytime he wants to, because he has excellent vision.”

    But he cannot see the exact position and exact momentum of an electron at the same time!

    “The New Testament would be the part that’s in Greek, by the way.”

    Yes, but you’re not going to find anything useful in there since Jesus was a peace-loving, dare I say it, hippie (love thy neighbour, dude)

    All the raping/pillaging/raping stuff is in the OT.

    Comment by Skeptic — June 23, 2007 @ 5:32 pm | Reply

  84. “Yes, but you’re not going to find anything useful in there since Jesus was a peace-loving, dare I say it, hippie (love thy neighbour, dude)”

    Matthew 26:53

    Matthew 10:34

    A hippie with a sword, leading an army of butting-kicking angels.

    Comment by DPS — June 23, 2007 @ 5:51 pm | Reply

  85. Matthew 26:52: Then Jesus saith to him: Put up again thy sword into its place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

    Matthew 26:53:
    Thinkest thou that I cannot ask my Father, and he will give me presently more than twelve legions of angels?

    First Jesus that war violence is only gonna get you killed, then he says he could ask God to send angels to kill the armed men that came to apprehend him, but he choses not to, even though he knows that will mean his death (sounds borderline pacifist to me.)

    Matthew 10:34:
    Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword.

    Matthew 10:35:
    For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

    Matthew 10:36:
    And a man’s enemies shall be they of his own household.

    Here he says that he knows that conversion to Christianity will cause persecution and will turn children against their parents.
    Note that he says he will bring violence BECAUSE (for) he will turn family members against each other.
    It is clear that he does not wish those family members to kill each other, he simply reasons that conflict will be inevitable.

    It’s all about context, DPS, it’s all about context…

    Comment by Skeptic — June 23, 2007 @ 6:08 pm | Reply

  86. “They didn’t discover atoms. They merely guessed that they were there. They had no way of checking. Jesus already knew that they were there, because he made them. Also, he can look at them anytime he wants to, because he has excellent vision.”

    They were the first ones to say that atoms exist. End of story. (And Jesus had no way of checking or oproving it either.) (And of course, Jesus is NOT god. Or does your bible not depict him as son of god? Being father and son at the same time seems rather…unlikely.)

    Of course this is all not really important as the origin of your quite ridicolous claim is a wrong citation out of the bible.

    “Matthew 26:53

    Matthew 10:34

    A hippie with a sword, leading an army of butting-kicking angels.”

    Seeing that Angels = Electrons, even a few legions of them couldn´t cause more tha a light headache to any human. And a hippy armed with a sword is not quite awe-inspiring….

    @Skeptic: Amen to that. But seeing the mental capacity of DPS´ comments, you´re throwing pearls before the swines.

    Comment by PG — June 23, 2007 @ 6:28 pm | Reply

  87. “First Jesus that war violence is only gonna get you killed, then he says he could ask God to send angels to kill the armed men that came to apprehend him, but he choses not to, even though he knows that will mean his death (sounds borderline pacifist to me.)”

    Yes, it is about context. Jesus *clearly* does not do this to avoid violence, but in order to fulfill Scripture. If the Scriptures hadn’t said that Jesus had to be arrested and killed, then He would have called in the angels.

    Matthew 26:53-54 “Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?

    54But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?”

    “Here he says that he knows that conversion to Christianity will cause persecution and will turn children against their parents.
    Note that he says he will bring violence BECAUSE (for) he will turn family members against each other.
    It is clear that he does not wish those family members to kill each other, he simply reasons that conflict will be inevitable.”

    No. As in English, in Greek that expression “not to send peace, but a sword” is one of purpose, not result. Not “I’m coming into the world, and an unfortunate side effect of my coming into the world is going to be that people turn against each other” but “I’m coming into the world *for the purpose of* bringing a sword.” Bringing the sword here is the whole point, not some epiphenomenon.

    “But seeing the mental capacity of DPS´ comments, you´re throwing pearls before the swines.”

    That’s quite impolite, PG. Typical heathen.

    “Being father and son at the same time seems rather…unlikely.”

    You really don’t know very much about Christianity, do you? I’ll let Skeptic explain this one to you. He believes in the Trinity, I bet.

    Comment by DPS — June 23, 2007 @ 7:13 pm | Reply

  88. Matthew: 10:34-36 in plain English:
    I come, not to bring peace, but to bring violence, FOR conversions to my religion will turn family members against each other.

    It seems pretty clear to me that what comes after “FOR” is the cause of what comes before “FOR”.

    As in: “I’m hungry for I haven’t eaten all day.”

    Comment by MiddleMan — June 23, 2007 @ 7:23 pm | Reply

  89. “No. As in English, in Greek that expression “not to send peace, but a sword” is one of purpose, not result. Not “I’m coming into the world, and an unfortunate side effect of my coming into the world is going to be that people turn against each other” but “I’m coming into the world *for the purpose of* bringing a sword.” Bringing the sword here is the whole point, not some epiphenomenon.”

    Wrong here. Two greek teachers I asked say otherwise. ANd of course, you´re not taking the bible word by word again, DPS. YOU HERETIC!

    “You really don’t know very much about Christianity, do you? I’ll let Skeptic explain this one to you. He believes in the Trinity, I bet.”

    Actually, it´s more like described to be 3 separate incarnations of god, with every single one being clearly able to act and think on it´s own. And thanks for that straw man. It only makes the rest of my argument (which you did not dare to answer) more valid.

    Comment by PG — June 24, 2007 @ 4:38 am | Reply

  90. from a British newspaper..

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main…0/ixworld.html

    from FBI files

    http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/bridgd…rickhitler.htm

    from Wikipedia

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Patrick_Hitler

    I know, Wiki is [sic] liberal bias, but the FBI?

    Your links were truncated, so I chased them down to be sure. None of them refers to Adolf Hitler. Apparently, I wasn’t clear — the speaker who you claimed said “living space”, Adolf Hitler, did not speak English.

    Living space is still a good translation.

    No, it isn’t. I’ve already explained why that’s the case. In the reality-based world, you need to learn to accept facts when they’re presented to you. You may not realize it, but you’re engaging in exactly the kind of stereotyping and deceit which you claim to be resisting. There’s a word for that: it’s called hypocrisy.

    You can take any of several rhetorical strategies to get out of the hole you’re in. You can acknowledge that you’re making an essentially religious argument, taking as an article of faith that there are no educated Christians who oppose you. If that’s your religious position, I think you’ll find yourself losing a lot more ground rhetorically than you gain — it’s hard to win converts based on demonstrably false statements. Alternatively, you could claim that I’m really a spoof. You’d have better hopes of winning on those grounds, since so many people here clearly are parodies. That kind of _tuo quoque_ argument is irrefutable, so it’s got a certain charm to puerile arguers — but you’re going to have to explain why I’m so well versed in Christian dogma, too. Who knows, maybe you’ll suggest that I’m two people working together?

    Alternatively, you can stop being an idiot, and acknowledge that you were wrong. I don’t hold out much hope of that, but one never knows.

    Comment by Believer — June 24, 2007 @ 7:31 am | Reply

  91. “Wrong here. Two greek teachers I asked say otherwise.”

    Either your friends don’t exist (which is my guess) or they don’t know New Testament Greek very well, if they said that “ouk elthon balein eirenen alla machairan” is an expression of result. New Testament Greek is pretty different from Classical, which (except in very specific cases or in poetry) does not use the infinitive to express purpose.

    “ANd of course, you´re not taking the bible word by word again, DPS.”

    Ouk. Elthon. Balein. Eirenen. Alla. Machairan. :)

    “Actually, it´s more like described to be 3 separate incarnations of god, with every single one being clearly able to act and think on it´s own. And thanks for that straw man. It only makes the rest of my argument (which you did not dare to answer) more valid.”

    Google “Bekenntnis von Nicäa”. As for “the rest of” your “argument” … what rest of your argument? That Jesus isn’t God? That’s not an argument, it’s a baseless, blasphemous assertion. Jesus is God, has always known about atoms, and can see them whenever he wants.

    Comment by DPS — June 24, 2007 @ 8:53 am | Reply

  92. [...] Best. Blogs4Brownback. Post. EVAR!!!1!! As usual, when scientists tell you something, you can usually find the truth if you look in the opposite direction. What scientists label “positive”, the protons, actually- by their own theories- huddle in the center of the atom, slothful and lazy, sheltering the morally timid neutrons. The ones who go about, energizing things and spreading the Gospel, are the electrons. This leads me to believe that electrons are actually the positive moral force here, not the lazy, good-for-nothing neutrons and certainly not the vile, wicked, electron-counteracting, equivocation-enabling protons. [...]

    Pingback by Sadly, No! » ZOMG!!! — June 25, 2007 @ 5:11 am | Reply

  93. Whether this is satire or earnest, like everything in America these days, it’s most certainly dull and aggressively ignorant.

    Comment by Fuck America — June 25, 2007 @ 5:39 am | Reply

  94. “Your links were truncated, so I chased them down to be sure. None of them refers to Adolf Hitler. Apparently, I wasn’t clear — the speaker who you claimed said “living space”, Adolf Hitler, did not speak English.”

    Yeah, it just states that he had close relatives in the states. Quite shocking if he could not speak english then.

    “No, it isn’t. I’ve already explained why that’s the case. In the reality-based world, you need to learn to accept facts when they’re presented to you. You may not realize it, but you’re engaging in exactly the kind of stereotyping and deceit which you claim to be resisting. There’s a word for that: it’s called hypocrisy.”

    It´s a word-by-word translation. Can´t get any more precise. Yes, Lebensraum CAN mean what you translated it to be. But in the relation the nazis used it, living space is a good translation.

    “Google “Bekenntnis von Nicäa”. As for “the rest of” your “argument” … what rest of your argument? That Jesus isn’t God? That’s not an argument, it’s a baseless, blasphemous assertion. Jesus is God, has always known about atoms, and can see them whenever he wants.”

    I never said something else. I just said the he told it to humanity AFTER the greeks had the theory. He wasn´t first. And, of course, you only believe him to have pointed it out by using a rather shallow translation of a single sentence of the bible. Said sentence is rather about planks and spanks, not about atoms.

    Comment by PG — June 25, 2007 @ 11:41 am | Reply

  95. Wow, is this what is supposed to pass for intelligent debate about science? You’ve gotta be kidding…If it wasn’t for the “eeeevil scientists” you keep talking about you would still be in the 12th century (mentally you still are). It will obviously do no good to attempt to explain that there is no god, you will always be repressive toward any idea that doesn’t fit your tiny world view. Let the Inquisition begin!

    Comment by Bat Guano — June 25, 2007 @ 12:19 pm | Reply

  96. It´s a word-by-word translation. Can´t get any more precise.

    No. Simply, no.

    Look, you claim to be an empiricist, right? OK, so go read Twain’s “Awful German Language” — it’s not under copyright anymore, so you can look for it with your favorite search engine. He points out the following inanity:

    “Gretchen.
    Wilhelm, where is the turnip?
    Wilhelm.
    She has gone to the kitchen.
    Gretchen.
    Where is the accomplished and beautiful English maiden?
    Wilhelm.
    It has gone to the opera.”

    That’s an absolutely accurate word-for-word translation of the original text — and it is utterly wrong.

    Comment by believer — June 25, 2007 @ 1:19 pm | Reply

  97. Bat Guano,
    Your self chosen name shows how poorly you think of yourself. If low self esteem and poor self image are the advertisers for your way of thinking, is there any guess why we choose the Right Way?
    I’ll start you slow, “In the beginning was the word….”

    Comment by carsick — June 25, 2007 @ 5:31 pm | Reply

  98. For the others on this thread who are claiming that they love the Lord (or not!!) but that scientists know best,

    Let me just remind you that God is not an either/or. The majority of Americans (Real and True Americans) believe that God created Man in his present form (even the Godless CBS confirms!). So when you want to argue that this is True from His Word but this other thing isn’t then you are arguing from the minority side, not the majority. And, and even if Right and True Americans were in the minority, God’s Truth is like David and your truth is like Goliath’s (lower case, and a lifeless, headless, large rotting corpse left on the battlefield for the vultures to fight over).
    The Truth will out (as some may say).

    Comment by carsick — June 25, 2007 @ 5:59 pm | Reply

  99. Oops, typo above…
    “In the beginning was the Word…” Not “the word”. My passion took over my typing and editing skills.

    Comment by carsick — June 25, 2007 @ 6:02 pm | Reply

  100. Wow. Assuming this isn’t a satire (as previously suggested) I have no idea where to begin on this one. Not only is your grasp of science worse than a 10 year old’s, but your argument is weak, and your logic deeply flawed. Perhaps your enthusiasm to do what you believe the Lord has called you to do has blinded you.

    Here’s the biggie: Maybe those “ignorant scientists” were simply using the skills and knowledge that God allowed them to have in order to come to a deeper understanding of God’s creations. *ding! Light bulb moment!* Or are you truly suggesting that knowledge itself is sinful? And don’t go quoting from Genesis about the Tree of Knowledge – giving in to temptation was the sin, not the desire to learn.

    I find it appalling that you suggest that doctors, surgeons, and medical researchers are living in sin. I thought serving one another by saving the lives of God’s children was a good thing.

    And as for your theory on the atom, it’s just absurd. To suggest that the particles are conscious and capable of making ethical choices is laughable. To suggest that the atom is governed by anything but quantum mechanics (or string theory, for those physicist out there) is rubbish. If you want to use it as a metaphore, fine, but I doubt it will hit home with anyone besides those as lost as you.

    Know what I think? I think God would want us to use what he gave us to the best of our ability. So use your head, and stop with this nonsense.

    Comment by Eamon — June 26, 2007 @ 5:11 am | Reply

  101. @Eamon

    That’s good enough to make this fagloving-heretical-secular-islamofascist-treehugging-moonbat say: AMEN!

    Comment by Skeptic — June 26, 2007 @ 7:25 am | Reply

  102. It’s embarassing how stupid and ignorant some people are. You need help, Sisyphus.

    Comment by Coco — June 26, 2007 @ 8:30 am | Reply

  103. Bodies fill the fields I see… hungry heroes end… no one to play soldier now, no one to pretend…
    running blind through killing fields, bred to kill them all… victim of what said should be… a servant `til I fall. Soldier boy, made of clay… now an empty shell… twenty one, only son… but I served you well. Bred to kill, not to care… just do as we say finished here, Greeting Death, he’s yours to take away! Back to the front… you coward, you servant, you blindman!

    Barking of machinegun fire, does nothing to me now… sounding of the clock that ticks, get used to it somehow… More a man, more stripes you wear, glory seeker trends… bodies fill the fields I see…the slaughter never ends. Why, Am I dying? Kill, have no fear!! Lie, live off lying… Hell, Hell is here… I was born for dying

    Life planned out before my birth, nothing could I say… had no chance to see myself, moulded day by day… Looking back I realize, nothing have I done left to die with only friend… Alone I clench my gun!

    Comment by Colonel Walter E. Kurtz — June 26, 2007 @ 10:08 am | Reply

  104. Anyone who doesn’t believe in angels is a Communist or a Muslim or worse. Anyone who doesn’t see the Hand of God in the world is blind. Thank you for exposing these secular Islamists to the lies of their heroes Copernicus, Marx, Darwin, and Einstein, Sisyphus. This blog is a national treasure.

    Comment by Marcia P. — June 29, 2007 @ 9:33 am | Reply

  105. For the attention of Mrs. T.D. Gaines-Crockett:

    Existing on damnation’s edge, my mind had never known to witness such a violent show of power overthrown and vile rantings as you… as angels fighting aimlessly, still dying by the sword, legions kill all in sight… to get the one called Lord… The Gates of Hell lie waiting as you’ll soon see, there is no price to pay just follow me and I can take your lost soul from the grave!! Jesus knows your soul can not be saved Mrs. T.D. Gaines-Crockett, so crucify the so called Lord, he soon shall fall to me!! Your souls are damned, your God has fell to slave for me eternally. Hell awaits Mrs. T.D. Gaines-Crockett.

    The Reaper guard’s the darkened gates that Satan calls his home and Demons feed the furnace where… The Dead are free to roam… lonely children of the night, there’s seven ways to go… each leading to the burning hole that Lucifer controls… priests of Hades seek the sacred star… Satan sees the answer lies not far. Zombies screaming souls cry out to you Satanic laws prevail your life is through. Pray to the moon Mrs. T.D. Gaines-Crockett… when it is round… death with you shall then abound… What you seek… for can’t be found… in sea or sky or underground. Now I have you deep inside my everlasting grasp… The seven bloody Gates of Hell is where you’ll live your last days Mrs. T.D. Gaines-Crockett.

    Warriors from Hell’s Domain will bring you to your death with the flames of Hades burning strong and your soul shall never rest Mrs. T.D. Gaines-Crockett. The Gates of Hell lie waiting as you see… there’s no price to pay just follow me, as I can take your lost soul from the grave… Jesus knows your soul can not be saved you harlot of Satan!! Sacrifice the lives of all I know they soon shall die… their souls are damned to rot in Hell and keep the fire growing deep inside… Hell awaits Mrs. T.D. Gaines-Crockett, Hell awaits…

    Comment by Colonel Walter E. Kurtz — July 2, 2007 @ 10:35 am | Reply

  106. I have a theory. It states in the bible that god knows everything in the universe also that we can observe in some quantum physics experiments that particles can see into the future eg. the wave particle trick with the double slit where light rays can be rays of particles depending on a. it been observed b. extra slits been placed in a position where the ray could not of known it lay in its path. Taking this into account the following theories are possible. 1, the whole universe is a thought form in GODS mind. 2. Atoms etc are connected to GODS mind 3. If we go further into the atoms we get quarks and liptons what if we go to the absolute smallest part do we enter a new dimension?

    Comment by thomas flood — July 2, 2007 @ 12:57 pm | Reply

  107. [...] atheists to the Good Book. The power of angels is undeniable; as fellow blogger Sisyphus has documented, Angel Power is what causes appliances to function. Through the epic battles of angels and demons, [...]

    Pingback by The Power Of Angels « Calvinists 4 Conservatism — September 20, 2008 @ 9:09 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Rubric Theme. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 38 other followers

%d bloggers like this: