Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Religion without hell?
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 56 (12562)
07-02-2002 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Syamsu
07-02-2002 7:21 AM


Maybe we should talk about that being a naturalistic fallacy. Being born selfish would not make being selfish good. We tend to look at what's natural as what's right, whereas nature is only value-burdened after humans ascribe values to nature.
Syamsu, I see that Quetzal mentioned other biologists. Let me pull out two I consider influential. One is E.O. Wilson of sociobiology fame, and the other is the late S.J. Gould, nemesis of Dawkins. Have you any comments on them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Syamsu, posted 07-02-2002 7:21 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 32 of 56 (12679)
07-03-2002 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Syamsu
07-02-2002 7:21 AM


Syamasu: After considering the issue somewhat overnight, I think I would be willing to devote the time necessary to developing an essay describing the scientific basis for the evolution of altruism and its application to humans. However, as you might imagine, this is a significantly broad topic, and I won't be able to get to it for several weeks.
On the other hand, I'd like to leave you with the following bit of information. I don't consider Dawkins's ideas as posited in "Selfish Gene" to be particularly troubling from either a scientific OR philosophical standpoint. I think you are under certain amount of misapprehnsion concerning what he's actually saying in that book. And remember, as I've stated before, I don't necessarily find the idea on the genetic side particularly compelling, nor do I find his other concept - memetic evolution - to be particularly well supported yet. However, both provide very interesting perspectives.
In a nutshell, this is what I think he's saying:
1. Interallelic selection: This is the genetic heart of Dawkins's "selfish gene" (an admittedly poor choice of terms). In interallelic selection, different alleles of the same gene compete for the highest number of copies transmitted to the gene pool of the next (and subsequent) generations. The allele that brings the highest fitness to its carrier usually "wins". Some alleles may, however, use a different strategy to increase the numbers of copies of themselves in the gene pool of later generations - even at the expense of the biological fitness of their carriers. Certain alleles are even able to damage gametes bearing a different allele on the homologous chromosome during or after gametogenesis. The carriers of such "selfish alleles" produce less offspring because they produce fewer gametes, however ALL the gametes bear the selfish gene, thus increasing the frequency of the allele in the population. Alternatively, a "selfish allele" can genetically program their carrier to help other carriers of the same allele - thus increasing the fitness of the beneficiary. This is Dawkins's basis for altruistic behavior through the process of kin selection. Logically it makes some sense considering there is little difference (from the allele's standpoint - not the individual's) in whether the organism is genetically programmed to produce one more offspring than the population average or whether it programs the organism to assist its parent to produce two more brothers/sisters, or it's aunt/uncle to produce four more cousins, since the net frequency of the allele in the population will be the same. It's an interesting way of looking at the difference between exclusive fitness (which is based on the individual organism) and inclusive fitness (which also takes into consideration fitness realized by helping relatives to reproduce)
2. Memetic evolution: Where the procedure breaks down is at the level of social organisms with complex communications or learning systems. This is most notable at the level of primates, especially humans, but can also be applied (to a greater or lesser extent) in other social organisms such as dolphins and killer whales or those with complex dominance or group hierarchies (for instance) such as wolves, lions, etc. Here Dawkins introduces his idea of the meme - a more or less complex discreet cultural (learned) element - the cultural equivalent of a gene - that can be transmitted down the generations just like genes. According to Dawkins, memes are also "selfish" and somehow self-perpetuating, with evolutionary selection pressures akin to natural selection.
Neither of these two concepts appears to me to be either "evil" or particularly dangerous or pernicious. As perceptual tools, they are very interesting, especially taken together. I don't however, find them particularly persuasive or compelling. And they certainly don't lead to racism or anything else.
[Edited to add: I want to re-read the chapters on gamesmanship and aggression to make sure I'm not missing something significant. If so, I'll post it tomorrow.]
[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 07-03-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Syamsu, posted 07-02-2002 7:21 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Syamsu, posted 07-04-2002 12:19 AM Quetzal has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 33 of 56 (12722)
07-04-2002 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Quetzal
07-03-2002 11:37 AM


Dawkins says among other things that universal love doesn't exist. Again, it's not fair to point out anyone misunderstanding Dawkins, while at the same time not pointing out his convoluted writings. It would be considerably less bad if Dawkins had written a formal treatment of his ideas somewhere, besides his personal writings. I also think that this is an interpretative work, much like Darwin's work, and we will have Dawkins interpreters with contrary opinions, just like we have Darwin interpreters with contrary opinions. If your essay would succeed in translating it into a formal treatment of it, then IMO you should get priority for the findings over Dawkins himself.
You have not actually stated what it means for you to have these selfish genes in your body, or that of your family, and people in society generally. So I think your denial that Dawkins theory is pernicious etc. is empty, until you begin to address questions like that, or dismiss those questions for some reason.
I guess it would be kinreproduction, rather then kinselection, like the parentinggene or something.
I think the selfishness you point out could also be described as a mechanism that guards against mutation. It's not likely we will ever come to know for sure which is the more appropriate way of describing when we go about it in the way Dawkins does. I still think that Dawkins' selfishness logically just means for a unit of selection to contribute to it's own reproduction. It wouldn't matter how much a particular gene contributes to another gene's reproduction, it would still be noted as a selfish gene, and not an altruist gene, just because it contributed to it's own reproduction.
Memetics is I think a reformulation of previous comparisons of organisms to language, with the change that now language is mainly compared to viruses in stead of independent organisms.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Quetzal, posted 07-03-2002 11:37 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Quetzal, posted 07-04-2002 8:14 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 34 of 56 (12735)
07-04-2002 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Syamsu
07-04-2002 12:19 AM


Again, I feel compelled to point out that I don't see all of Dawkins's selfish gene theory to be completely valid. I simply don't think that there is any empirical evidence for de facto interallelic competition/selection. It is merely a different way of looking at natural selection - a reductio argument, if you will. Natural selection operates on the phenotype, not the genotype. The effects, obviously, of this phenotypical selection are "felt" at the genome level - they don't operate at the genome level.
As far as Dawkins saying "universal love" doesn't exist, based on my readings and understanding of both ecology and biology, I'd have to agree with him as far as that goes. However, a lot of that depends on how you define "universal love". If you mean "universal altruism", I'd say the evidence leads to the opposite conclusion whether you're talking about humans or some other animal. If you have some other operational definition, then please provide it.
As far as formal treatment goes, "Selfish Gene" was never intended as a formal treatment of the subject. He's not trying to articulate some universal "Truth" (tm). As for my yet-to-be-written essay, I think you're sadly mistaken about my intent: I have no intention of "formalizing" the selfish gene concept for the simple reason that I don't subscribe to it. As I've mentioned repeatedly. You really should read the book so you know what it is you're arguing about.
quote:
You have not actually stated what it means for you to have these selfish genes in your body, or that of your family, and people in society generally. So I think your denial that Dawkins theory is pernicious etc. is empty, until you begin to address questions like that, or dismiss those questions for some reason.
That would be, in fact, what the essay will conclude with. A lot of background needs to be covered to show why and how I arrived at my conclusion. On the other hand, I did give you my preliminary answer to this question above: "I don't consider Dawkins's ideas as posited in "Selfish Gene" to be particularly troubling from either a scientific OR philosophical standpoint." You'll have to be content with that until I can find the time to write more detail.
quote:
I think the selfishness you point out could also be described as a mechanism that guards against mutation.
This is an interesting comment. Considering that there are literally thousands of peer-reviewed studies show how common mutation actually is in various organisms including humans, it would appear that if there was such a mechanism it was extraordinarily weak and inefficient. Cells, of course, do have built-in error-correcting and repair mechanisms. Mutations occur when these mechanisms fail. Dawkins, however, is talking about preferential replication, not mutation.
quote:
It's not likely we will ever come to know for sure which is the more appropriate way of describing when we go about it in the way Dawkins does. I still think that Dawkins' selfishness logically just means for a unit of selection to contribute to it's own reproduction. It wouldn't matter how much a particular gene contributes to another gene's reproduction, it would still be noted as a selfish gene, and not an altruist gene, just because it contributed to it's own reproduction.
Well, yeah. That's basically what he's saying (although based on your previous arguments concerning reproduction, I'd choose to call it replication.) Dawkins in fact argues against the existence of altruistic genes. I personally don't think his contention is supported. For example, the fosB gene in mice to me seems to be a good candidate for what I would consider an altruistic gene, since it's presence or absence turns on or off the nuturing or maternal instinct. (ref: Brown, J. R., H. Ye, R. T. Bronson, P. Dikkes, M. E. Greenberg. 1996. A defect in nurturing in mice lacking the immediate early gene fosB. Cell 86:297-309)
quote:
Memetics is I think a reformulation of previous comparisons of organisms to language, with the change that now language is mainly compared to viruses in stead of independent organisms.
No, Dawkins's memes are discreet cultural ideas or packets of behaviors that are inheritable or transferable. In humans, language would be the channel/mechanism by which "inheritance" of memes occurs. Other organisms have different methods (imprinting, mimicry, the "tutor effect" etc).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Syamsu, posted 07-04-2002 12:19 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Syamsu, posted 07-04-2002 9:16 AM Quetzal has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 35 of 56 (12738)
07-04-2002 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Quetzal
07-04-2002 8:14 AM


If you don't make a formal treatment, or find one, then your essay would not have much of a basis to begin with. In any case I would be glad if you produced it, since essays facillitate criticism more then these discussions. I've been waiting for an essay on Darwinism and Nazism for 3 years now, from some people on talk.origins, so by that experience I don't have my hopes too high that anything will materialise in the foreseeable future. Until such time that you do produce something I will consider your denial essentially empty of reason.
Since "guarding against mutations" is just different words to describe the same thing you described before, I don't see how you can say it doesn't exist. You can say they are not appriopate words to describe.
Dawkins is trying to formulate universal truths (tm), that is why he talks in terms of "the truth", which is unusual for scientists, since they mostly talk in terms of facts and theories. One universal truth he (re)posits is that Nature is red in tooth and claw, which is basicly false, since as before, Nature is more accurately metaphorically described as wet in penis and vagina.
Another universal truth is the supposed "blind pitiless indifference" at the bottom of Nature, which in this book he establishes by denying universal love. Plain preaching of evil.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Quetzal, posted 07-04-2002 8:14 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Quetzal, posted 07-05-2002 4:30 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 36 of 56 (12816)
07-05-2002 4:30 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Syamsu
07-04-2002 9:16 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
If you don't make a formal treatment, or find one, then your essay would not have much of a basis to begin with. In any case I would be glad if you produced it, since essays facillitate criticism more then these discussions. I've been waiting for an essay on Darwinism and Nazism for 3 years now, from some people on talk.origins, so by that experience I don't have my hopes too high that anything will materialise in the foreseeable future. Until such time that you do produce something I will consider your denial essentially empty of reason.
If this is your attitude, why would I bother? In fact, why would anyone bother? No wonder you've never received a response from TO. You need to learn how to talk to people without denigrating them or insulting them. You'll probably get better responses. Try it some time.
quote:
Since "guarding against mutations" is just different words to describe the same thing you described before, I don't see how you can say it doesn't exist. You can say they are not appriopate words to describe.
Since "guarding against mutation" has absolutely nothing to do with the "selfish gene" concept, you're wrong. The phrase does not represent an accurate or even related concept.
quote:
Dawkins is trying to formulate universal truths (tm), that is why he talks in terms of "the truth", which is unusual for scientists, since they mostly talk in terms of facts and theories. One universal truth he (re)posits is that Nature is red in tooth and claw, which is basicly false, since as before, Nature is more accurately metaphorically described as wet in penis and vagina.
Yet another completely unsupported assertion. Show by page number where Dawkins states he is formulating "universal truths" in the book "Selfish Gene".
quote:
Another universal truth is the supposed "blind pitiless indifference" at the bottom of Nature, which in this book he establishes by denying universal love. Plain preaching of evil.
Goodbye, Syamasu. You are not worth dealing with any further.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu[/B][/QUOTE]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Syamsu, posted 07-04-2002 9:16 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Syamsu, posted 07-05-2002 5:52 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 37 of 56 (12817)
07-05-2002 5:52 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Quetzal
07-05-2002 4:30 AM


I don't think it was ever likely there was going to be an essay to begin with, since you neglected to even answer simple questions about the issue on numerous occasions. Maybe you use science for the religious purpose of believing in your own innocense eh?
Dawkins writes in terms of "the truth", as is demonstrated by the quote Schrafinator pulled from "The Selfish Gene" elsewhere. For you to say he doesn't write in terms of universal truths is deceptive, when he is generally known for writing in terms of "the truth".
Again, I said it is possible to describe allelles that destroy other allelles which are not the same, in terms of guarding against mutation, in stead of describing them in terms of selfishness.
I don't think there would be insult or degradation if you would not refer to your authority constantly, and dismiss my authority constantly. If you are better read as I'm sure you are, then I guess it would be easier to refute my arguments with all your knowledge. That's as far as authority should matter in a discussion.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Quetzal, posted 07-05-2002 4:30 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
allen
Guest


Message 38 of 56 (23037)
11-17-2002 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by John
06-20-2002 10:40 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
This sort of "moral" pain also exists before death of course. I just meant to say that hellish pain exists, regardless of whether you believe in God and hell, or not.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

But calling a particular pain 'hellish' is colloquial for 'it hurts a lot.' It doesn't mean anything concrete.

----------------------------------------------------------------
nothing is concrete to you John .lol

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by John, posted 06-20-2002 10:40 AM John has not replied

     
allen
Guest


Message 39 of 56 (23039)
11-17-2002 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Quetzal
07-01-2002 12:33 PM


can you boyz pleze stop for a moment , ahumm.. ive have a question that i believe maybe one or some of you may have an answer to;
ok... if cells and genes dont have a mind to do what they do, let's go one step further and look at the soul of a human...
can anyone explain the existance of a soul IN a human body, and please explain to me how it can exist in flesh..and when the flesh dies, does it evaporate into thin air...also.. i need someone with a strong mind on something i have witnessed in the night sky.. a rather
strange formation of several triangular faced pyrimids in a formation of a triangle itself.. with a triangular pyrimid shapped in itself..and the outter more spaced 3 triangles emitt a light beam to the center pyrimid, and from the center of the pyrimid comes a translucent beam that widens as it heads towards the earth, stopping exactlly 12 inches from the ground, and shinning from the width of the beam, a form of a man wearing all white clothing, a robe with a white wide belt, and sandels .. I AM VERY SERIOUS that i wittnessed this happening near my home... is there some way that with these pyrimid shapped objects one can emmitt a 3-d immage , and project it to earth from the sky??! Is there a scientist out there that can explain how this could come about? PLEASE do not post garbage..this really did happen, and i think and feel there is a way we humans can
make one of these things . . . either by the positioning of the angle of each pyrimid and how it projects the light to the center pyrimid..and soforth.. please let me know.. as i have actually seen with my own eyes this being done from the clear night sky around 11:00 at night. thanks and please again..i think i was shown this so we can bring about this technoligy.. please answer soon..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Quetzal, posted 07-01-2002 12:33 PM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by John, posted 11-18-2002 12:09 AM You replied

     
John
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 56 (23041)
11-18-2002 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by allen
11-17-2002 10:43 PM


quote:
Originally posted by allen:
can anyone explain the existance of a soul IN a human body, and please explain to me how it can exist in flesh..
Well point one out and I'll see what I do. Its near impossible the properly analyze the situation not having a soul to study.
quote:
and when the flesh dies, does it evaporate into thin air...also..
Like I said.... ain't got a soul to study.
quote:
I AM VERY SERIOUS that i wittnessed this happening near my home... is there some way that with these pyrimid shapped objects one can emmitt a 3-d immage , and project it to earth from the sky??!
Yeah, actually, you can do this with lasers. You need several lasers and a lot of processing power. Basically, you have described the process of generating a hologram. About the flying pyramids... don't know what to tell you; but assuming the pyramids as a base for the lasers, generating an image at the surface should be no problem. If this image is solid-- you can touch it-- then I doubt we have anything capable of getting close.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by allen, posted 11-17-2002 10:43 PM allen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by allen, posted 11-18-2002 6:37 AM John has not replied

  
allen
Guest


Message 41 of 56 (23077)
11-18-2002 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by John
11-18-2002 12:09 AM


speaking of souls.. when i was about 16 years old i worked in an old folks home washing dishes... one day after being there for several months, a nurse came to the kitchen to ask who wanted to see a soul leave a dying woman who had refused to eat for the better of several weeks...i exclaimed there was no way that you could see a soul leaving a body.. the nurse exclaimed ..yes, she sees it all the time when she attends to the dying. Ok so i and 2 other workers agreed to sneak down to this dying womans room.. she was about 96 years old and the better of 6 foot tall. Arriving in her room i saw what appeared to be a skeleton covered in flesh that had sunken to the very backside of the dying woman..it was actually quite shocking for me as i have had never seen a human in this state before in my life.. as i turned to leave the room, the nurse grabbed my arm, and said dont leave its about to happen. So i reluctantly stayed to watch.. tho i did not believe it would happen, several minutes passed as we watched the dying womans chest raise and fall, slowing ever so slowly to an almost gental and calming final exhalation..then from that last exhale, came a cloud like vapor that exited in a stream whisping and rolling upward, pausing ever so long a few inches above her chest in a pillow shaped form, then all at once, began to slowly rise as if ordered to by some command from above.. i wanted to touch it , and as i stepped forward and began to reach like a child that was in awe of a new thing, the nurse blocked my hand ,and told me strictly not to touch it because it was the womans soul leaving her body..and if i touched it , it would interupt its asend into heaven. I withdrew my outstreached arm, and reluctantly withdrew my reach. I believe we all stood there for a long moment with our mouths open and eyes widened like we just witnessed some other relm. The nurse giggled with delight as she exclaimed...see i told you, it happens all the time.
I walked out of that room with the hairs on my neck standing as i almost couldnt walk normally for a few steps, as if some strange being was in the room with us, an electic or static feeling covered our entire bodies..and all at once, you could feel like a heavy weight had fallen off your being..and i ran like the dickens back to the kitchen...where i seemingly felt i had to peer out into the dark corners of the kitchen to see if some being were spying on me..oh a frightfull night that was..i will never forget that night .
so do you think what i saw was just the last vapor of water leaving or evaporating upward.. and what about the shape of the vapor assembling itself directly over her chest and stomache area?.. and pausing for a long moment, then going up ever so slowly..slower than steam from a tea kettle. Just what was it that i really had seen that night ? again i am serious..please do not be whimsickle. thanks for reading this...it has ben many years that i have told this since i was 16. im 46 now. so you can see i havent told this to anyone for all these years.untill now. thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by John, posted 11-18-2002 12:09 AM John has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Primordial Egg, posted 11-18-2002 6:41 AM You have not replied
 Message 43 by David unfamous, posted 11-18-2002 7:18 AM You have not replied
 Message 53 by John, posted 11-20-2002 9:58 AM You have not replied

     
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 56 (23078)
11-18-2002 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by allen
11-18-2002 6:37 AM


quote:
Originally posted by allen:
speaking of souls.. when i was about 16 years old i worked in an old folks home washing dishes... one day after being there for several months, a nurse came to the kitchen to ask who wanted to see a soul leave a dying woman who had refused to eat for the better of several weeks...i exclaimed there was no way that you could see a soul leaving a body.. the nurse exclaimed ..yes, she sees it all the time when she attends to the dying. Ok so i and 2 other workers agreed to sneak down to this dying womans room.. she was about 96 years old and the better of 6 foot tall. Arriving in her room i saw what appeared to be a skeleton covered in flesh that had sunken to the very backside of the dying woman..it was actually quite shocking for me as i have had never seen a human in this state before in my life.. as i turned to leave the room, the nurse grabbed my arm, and said dont leave its about to happen. So i reluctantly stayed to watch.. tho i did not believe it would happen, several minutes passed as we watched the dying womans chest raise and fall, slowing ever so slowly to an almost gental and calming final exhalation..then from that last exhale, came a cloud like vapor that exited in a stream whisping and rolling upward, pausing ever so long a few inches above her chest in a pillow shaped form, then all at once, began to slowly rise as if ordered to by some command from above.. i wanted to touch it , and as i stepped forward and began to reach like a child that was in awe of a new thing, the nurse blocked my hand ,and told me strictly not to touch it because it was the womans soul leaving her body..and if i touched it , it would interupt its asend into heaven. I withdrew my outstreached arm, and reluctantly withdrew my reach. I believe we all stood there for a long moment with our mouths open and eyes widened like we just witnessed some other relm. The nurse giggled with delight as she exclaimed...see i told you, it happens all the time.
I walked out of that room with the hairs on my neck standing as i almost couldnt walk normally for a few steps, as if some strange being was in the room with us, an electic or static feeling covered our entire bodies..and all at once, you could feel like a heavy weight had fallen off your being..and i ran like the dickens back to the kitchen...where i seemingly felt i had to peer out into the dark corners of the kitchen to see if some being were spying on me..oh a frightfull night that was..i will never forget that night .
so do you think what i saw was just the last vapor of water leaving or evaporating upward.. and what about the shape of the vapor assembling itself directly over her chest and stomache area?.. and pausing for a long moment, then going up ever so slowly..slower than steam from a tea kettle. Just what was it that i really had seen that night ? again i am serious..please do not be whimsickle. thanks for reading this...it has ben many years that i have told this since i was 16. im 46 now. so you can see i havent told this to anyone for all these years.untill now. thanks.

How do you know you didn't imagine this? Especially if you've never mentioned this to anyone....memories have a habit of changing to what we would want them to be, rather than what they actually were.
------------------
It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains
fall out. - Bertrand Russell

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by allen, posted 11-18-2002 6:37 AM allen has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by joz, posted 11-20-2002 12:42 PM Primordial Egg has not replied

  
David unfamous
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 56 (23082)
11-18-2002 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by allen
11-18-2002 6:37 AM


I've played some very convincing jokes on my friends in the past, but you can't beat the twisted mind of the care home nurse.
Seriously, isn't this the trick played on juniors at mortuarys? Something to do with bodies releasing trapped gases from the lungs long after death. Sometimes the 'breath' is exhaled with such force that the vocal chords resonate, causing moans. Creepy.
Presumably the 'cloud' was a result of condensation due to low room temperature (bodies would be kept in low temperatures to slow decomposition). Air turbulance could be attributed to the vapour twirling, with a sprinkling of added drama to make the story worth telling.
Yep, it would make the hairs on my neck stand on end too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by allen, posted 11-18-2002 6:37 AM allen has not replied

  
RedVento
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 56 (23103)
11-18-2002 1:09 PM


This might be interesting to you guys
The Origin and History of the Doctrine of Endless Punishment
Deals with the origins of hell, and its origins in the OT (it wasnt just for sinners...)
Seams like Christians really have no originality at all....
Red

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Chara, posted 11-18-2002 5:26 PM RedVento has replied
 Message 46 by forgiven, posted 11-18-2002 9:06 PM RedVento has replied

  
Chara
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 56 (23126)
11-18-2002 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by RedVento
11-18-2002 1:09 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by RedVento:
Seams like Christians really have no originality at all....
Red[/B][/QUOTE]
It never ceases to puzzle me that people use the existence of tales in other cultures as evidence against things written in the Bible. Resting on the belief that God is the Creator and all things come from him .... why wouldn't other cultures have those "stories"? Mayhap they didn't just make them up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by RedVento, posted 11-18-2002 1:09 PM RedVento has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by RedVento, posted 11-19-2002 8:55 AM Chara has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024