vortexring

Mormonism is the only world religion (13 million members and growing fast) built on a foundation of almost pure counterknowledge. Apparantly. Seems a fair one to me. As to your Royal House; did you see the incredible amount of freaks crying their crocodile tears when Diana died? Fuck my old boots. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

But do you have power out of proportion to your size? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Sure, but how many have their arguement hampered by an official institute declaring their religion to be untrue? Doesn't all this highlight mans misuse and misapplication of religion? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

I explained why it struck me as being odd. You even replied directly to my explanation. In answering your point; if you believe in God, wouldn't it be unrealistic to believe only your God is the true God, and all other religions are false? To me, this would again stink of man's misuse and misapplication of religion. Your latter point, I recognize it. But do you recognize my original point that Mormonism is the only religion whose major claims have been officially declared untrue.... 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Cheeky fucker. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Isn't your reply Speedracer's normal job? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

How long is a stick? Come on, if someone has influence, popularity, statuis, etc....not looking for anything indepth. The distance from the middle to the end multiplied by 2. Jeez.... 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Mate, a very significant amount of British people don't give a shit. What do an even greater amount think of UK Iraq/Afghan policies? I'd expect such behaviour to occur more often in the coming years. However... Wish it'd been me they'd tried turning away. These days if I pop down to the shops prior to going home from work (wearing my 'green grow bag'), I generally find people look, but rarely come up and chat as they used to. Wonder why... 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

I think the real issue here is simply a clash of fundamentalisms. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

But you can't, if you consider the Lamanites wiped out the Nephites and were given a 'skin of blackness' by God to mark their sinfulness; many Mormons believe Lamanites built the Mayan cities and were the ancestors of today's Native Americans. And that every dark skinned human today is an ancestor of the Lamanites. A Mormon missionary has actually told me the latter. If I remember correctly I think I scratched my head, offered him some more orange juice, and made a mental note not to introduce him to one of my black mates... 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Hey, it's common knowledge he's the Anti-Christ didn't-cha know? Tenner says he becomes the next president. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

I'm not trying to have a bash at Mormons whatsoever. As I've already mentioned, I've enjoyed their company in the past. What always struck me as a little odd was the missionaries utmost belief that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints(Mormons) was the worlds only 'true' religion. I guess many religions may believe their one is the only 'true' one as such - but how many have been declared to be officially untrue be a major institute? No archaeologist who isn't a Mormon believes a word of the Book of Mormon. And that's where my point lies. I'd be interested to hear of a Mormons opinion in this matter, as naturally enough, he or she would disagree to my thinking. As for the Lamanites; well, isn't that a bone of contention!? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Have a look here, it also includes some other links of interest. Lamanites here. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Apparantly Mormonism is the only religion whose major claims have been officially declared to be untrue by the America's National Museum of Natural History, part of the Smithsonian Institution. How fascinating! Is it also true they're encouraged to believe their religion is THE one and only religion to follow? It'd be great to hear a Mormons explanation of these points, especially the first. I'd imagine they're aware of this, so how do they/you counter such a point, to justify the integrity of their/your religion? p.s. Seeing US politics being the subject of choice these days, wouldn't Obama have been related to the original Lamanites, the society with skins stained dark by God to show they were evil/sinners? For the record, I've had the Mormons visit me several times some years ago, and I've enjoyed their company. Unfortunately I've since moved and can't ask them these questions. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Which makes some kind sense in regards to what I've said in an earlier thread: "As it says on the NASA website: 'the method for ensuring that all of the right components find each other in the right quantities and under the right circumstances has yet to be identified." It just happened? Well, of course it did. The 'how?' and 'why?' are already close to being answered. Perhaps the real question is over the Big Bang; its cause, and most importantly, what existed prior? Besides, if the Universe is expanding, is it infinite? Also, what's providing the energy for this continual expansion? And here's another one! I read recently how they'll soon be switching on the largest Supercollider in around 8 days time. And it seems, similiar to when we split the atom, certain scientists reckon we might destroy the Universe: http://techfreep.com/worlds-largest-supercollider-could-destroy-the-universe.htm I've often wondered what it's like taking a header down a blackhole. . . 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Duh! Cheers for pointing out my rather obvious and glaring error - that's from drinking till 0400 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

It isn't my title, it's Shapiro's. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

"Two very different groups will find this development dangerous, and for different reasons, but this outcome is best explained at the end of my discussion. Just over a half century ago, in the spring of 1953, a famous experiment brought enthusiasm and renewed interest to this field. Stanley Miller, mentored by Harold Urey, demonstrated that a mixture of small organic molecules (monomers) could readily be prepared by exposing a mixture of simple gases to an electrical spark. Similar mixtures were found in meteorites, which suggested that organic monomers may be widely distributed in the universe. If the ingredients of life could be made so readily, then why could they not just as easily assort themselves to form cells? In that same spring, however, another famous paper was published by James Watson and Francis Crick. They demonstrated that the heredity of living organisms was stored in a very large large molecule called DNA. DNA is a polymer, a substance made by stringing many smaller units together, as links are joined to form a long chain. The clear connection between the structure of DNA and its biological function, and the geometrical beauty of the DNA double helix led many scientists to consider it to be the essence of life itself. One flaw remained, however, to spoil this picture. DNA could store information, but it could not reproduce itself without the assistance of proteins, a different type of polymer. Proteins are also adept at increasing the rate of (catalyzing) many other chemical reactions that are considered necessary for life. The origin of life field became mired in the "chicken-or-the egg" question. Which came first: DNA or proteins? An apparent answer emerged when it was found that another polymer, RNA (a cousin of DNA) could manage both heredity and catalysis. In 1986, Walter Gilbert proposed that life began with an "RNA World." Life started when an RNA molecule that could copy itself was formed, by chance, in a pool of its own building blocks. Unfortunately, a half century of chemical experiments have demonstrated that nature has no inclination to prepare RNA, or even the building blocks (nucleotides) that must be linked together to form RNA. Nucleotides are not formed in Miller-type spark discharges, nor are they found in meteorites. Skilled chemists have prepared nucleotides in well-equipped laboratories, and linked them to form RNA, but neither chemists nor laboratories were present when life began on the early Earth. The Watson-Crick theory sparked a revolution in molecular biology, but it left the origin-of-life question at an impasse. Fortunately, an alternative solution to this dilemma has gradually emerged: neither DNA nor RNA nor protein were necessary for the origin of life. Large molecules dominate the processes of life today, but they were not needed to get it started. Monomers themselves have the ability to support heredity and catalysis. The key requirement is that a suitable energy source be available to assist them in the processes of self-organization. A demonstration of the principle involved in the origin of life would require only that a suitable monomer mixture be exposed to an appropriate energy source in a simple apparatus. We could then observe the very first steps in evolution. Some mixtures will work, but many others will fail, for technical reasons. Some dedicated effort will be needed in the laboratory to prove this point. Why have I specified five years for this discovery? The unproductive polymer-based paradigm is far from dead, and continues to consume the efforts of the majority of workers in the field. A few years will be needed to entice some of them to explore the other solution. I estimate that several years more (the time for a PhD thesis) might be required to identify a suitable monomer-energy combination, and perform a convincing demonstration. Who would be disturbed if such efforts should succeed? Many scientists have been attracted by the RNA World theory because of its elegance and simplicity. Some of them have devoted decades of their career in efforts to prove it. They would not be pleased if Freeman Dyson's description proved to be correct: "life began with little bags, the precursors of cells, enclosing small volumes of dirty water containing miscellaneous garbage." A very different group would find this development as dangerous as the theory of evolution. Those who advocate creationism and intelligent design would feel that another pillar of their belief system was under attack. They have understood the flaws in the RNA World theory, and used them to support their supernatural explanation for life's origin. A successful scientific theory in this area would leave one less task less for God to accomplish: the origin of life would be a natural (and perhaps frequent) result of the physical laws that govern this universe. This latter thought falls directly in line with the idea of Cosmic Evolution, which asserts that events since the Big Bang have moved almost inevitably in the direction of life. No miracle or immense stroke of luck was needed to get it started. If this should be the case, then we should expect to be successful when we search for life beyond this planet. We are not the only life that inhabits this universe." Robert Shapiro Pretty interesting eh? Hopefully you'll find the web site fairly interesting too. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Linz, I don't quite understand you, as I was only pointing something out to Birdlike. Here's the original point in case you missed it: "In an ideal world. What would more likely happen would be for the thumb to displace the eye temporarily whilst the rapist would naturally move his head back and grab the hand/s to remove the thumb from his eye/s. Still, it at least exposes the trachea for attack. Having a mindset to aggressively destroy/remove even a rapists eye is difficult for many. Actually being able to do so effectively isn't so easy as you assume." 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

I just don't see how a person who is facing death at the hands of a rapist would find harming him difficult. I would think that the circumstances would be a huge push past the blockage that normally would restrain us. Who said the victims facing death? How would a victim know this? How many one eyed rapists are there? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Only if I could watch the resulting explosion. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Now that's just plain daft - ban hands. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

So it should. He's Scottish. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

In an ideal world. What would more likely happen would be for the thumb to displace the eye temporarily whilst the rapist would naturally move his head back and grab the hand/s to remove the thumb from his eye/s. Still, it at least exposes the trachea for attack. Having a mindset to aggressively destroy/remove even a rapists eye is difficult for many. Actually being able to do so effectively isn't so easy as you assume. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Who can tell? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'