Monday, July 18, 2016

Fake COG "Scientist" Claims Bill Nye is a Fake Scientist

Leave it to the Church of God to always have a man somewhere that knows more than anyone else does in the world, particularly scientists. Even though not a single one of them have an education OUTSIDE of the Church of God literature that they might have read 50 years ago. This time we have our resident self-appointed lying false prophet from Arroyo Grande, CA making the claim about Bill Nye is not a true scientist.  This is all coming from a man who wallows in naturopathy, Mayan myths, Catholic fantasies, reliance upon nightmares/dreams for truth and who makes a living off peddling herbs and vitamins in his "practice."

Nye recently travelled to see Ken Ham's monstrosity in the middle of Kentucky.  Almost Arrested Elisha, Elijah, Joshua, Amos, Chief Overseer and First Witness Dr. Thiel claims that HE is far more intelligent than Nye and can "quickly disprove evolution."

I think it is time for AronRa to do an interview of Thiel.  It would be fun listening to Thiel make mincemeat of AronRa.....cough, cough.  Let Thiel prove to us that he deserves that "Dr." attached to his name.

 Dinosaurs of Eden: Ken Ham
Apparently when Cain slew Abel there were cute little dino's playing in the field.

The doubly-blessed prophet Thiel writes:
Bill Nye does not see the possibility of an Ark as scientific. 
Yet his clinging to the idea that humans may have come from Mars is a desperate attempt to try explain how life got to Planet Earth as scientists generally realize that spontaneous generation of life and the initial development on the Earth is biologically-impossible (watch, for example, Quickly Disprove Evolution as the Origin of Life). 
I have written about Bill Nye before and do not consider him to be a real scientist (see Evolution and the supposed ‘Science Guy’).  And yes, neither is Ken Ham who has his own issues. 
However, as Ken Ham correctly pointed out, Bill Nye seems to have an agenda–one that does not allow him to consider facts that might contradict his false belief about God and the origin of humans. 
Even back in New Testament times, there were those who called error ‘science,’ which is what evolution as an explanation of the origin of life and the origin of the universe is. Notice: 
20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. (1 Timothy 6:20-21, KJV) 
If Bill Nye was truly a scientist, he would admit that Darwin had no explanation of the origin of life that could be tested to be proven true. Actually, all such attempts have failed to prove Darwin’s hypothesis. 
If Bill Nye would truly consider that matter cannot self-generate and that energy runs out over time, he would realize that there is no current explanation of a creation without a spiritual Creator that makes sense.


Byker Bob said...

I shall attempt to address and relate to Dr. Thiel on his own terms:

Bob, as a naturopath, surely you must realize that an occasional coffee enema can act to detoxify the entire body, as well as remedy candida albicans, parasites and other unpleasant things. A detoxified body and mind will work more soundly, and can be of great assistance in evaluating all of the prophecies that suddenly pop into your mind. Hopefully, this will strengthen your processing capabilities and make you more effective in evaluating news items, and with your amateur prophecy hobby. I recommend a good gourmet quality Columbian coffee, personally picked by Juan Valdez, who is of strong Mayan priesthood stock. Just remember to lie flat on the floor with your legs elevated on the arm of a chair or couch, and to retain the coffee for at least 15 minutes, so that maximum absorption can take place!


Anonymous said...

Would any one believe me if I said that this 2 Gig smart phone upgraded it's own hardware and software from previous models, all by itself, with not external input? Yet this is what we are asked to believe about evolution. Endless magical improvements.

DennisCDiehl said...

Perhaps Almost Arrested might consider Neil Degrasse Tyson, Richard Dawkins, lawrence Krause or Brian Green " real scientists"? I doubt they'd consider him a real Doctor

Anonymous said...

2:46 --- Nope, no magic involved. Organisms with particular traits fill their ecological niche quite nicely and thrive, while others fall by the wayside. In Earth's history, most species have fallen by the wayside, while others have arisen to replace them. Personally, I believe there is a spiritual dimension behind it all --- I suppose that would come under the heading of intelligent design --- but from a purely physical and scientific viewpoint evolution is an elegant theory which accounts for the diversity of life on Earth.

Questeruk said...

Not living in the USA I had not even heard of Bill Nye.

However a short check on internet shows that he studied mechanical engineering at Cornell University, which included taking an astronomy class taught by Carl Sagan, and graduated with a B.S. in mechanical engineering in 1977.

His career appears to be more that of a show business presenter, who got involved in scientific questions, and hence got the title 'the science guy'.

In summary it would seem that he's not and never has been a scientist, but rather he is a (mainly children's) TV performer who was once a mechanical engineer.

Naturally enough I would not rate Bob Thiel as a scientist either!

Unknown said...

Dr. Thiel should be nicknamed "Dr. Do - Little".

Stephen said...

I won't attempt to engage with the ad hominems, but instead will stick to the trunk of the tree here: the science denying, and what Thiel is substituting in it's place and thereby implying is "science" instead, to wit:

"Bill Nye does not see the possibility of an Ark as scientific."

If Thiel knew anything about the scientific method, he would see that Atrahasis' Ark does not meet the criteria of that method. Or was that Utnapishtim's Ark. Maybe it was Ziusudra's Ark. I forget, but I'm pretty sure it was one of those 3 Arks Thiel's trying to make out to be "scientific."

But then, can Thiel see why homeopathic medicine doesn't meet the criteria of the scientific method either? Let's just say, I hope he's that deluded and uncritical, because if he isn't, then he's just a straight-up, undiluted con man. I'm sure he wouldn't be the first in the COGs, especially given ol' Herbert the Pervert himself just as likely was too. At any rate, homeopathy, Armstrongism's apocalypticism, and indeed the bible itself are all snake oil. With Thiel, you get three for the price of one. Step right up, folks. What a bargain!

I would never say that evolution, sans an explanation of how life originated so that it could start evolving in the first place via allelic variation and natural selection, is a perfect explanation, despite the fact it pretty nearly IS a perfect explanation of what happened after that. I readily acknowledge that its weakest link is the very first one, although all the links that come after that are pretty strong, unless, of course, Thiel thinks the entire fossil record was falsified by "satan," as if there were no problems with that hypothesis...


Stephen said...


Now let's compare the creationisms.

Yes, you read that correctly, it's plural. Because, you see, there are many different religions, each of which has a core of believers who think their religion is "Truth" with a capital "T." Unfortunately, no religion provides any bedrock that would allow it to successfully falsify any other religion, and there is no god that provides superior evidence of his existence that would support the argument that THIS is the REAL god, and that THIS is the REAL creation story, which stands head and shoulders above all the others. Teach the Controversy! Wait a second...which controversy should we teach? Evolution doesn't have this problem, as it's just one theory, not 10,000 competing theories.

The logical problems of there being so many different competing and incompatible creationisms, is enough to be their death knell alone. However, the next problem with the creationisms is the unending sequence of weakest link after weakest link after weakest link, which is what makes each one on its own so much less probable than evolution.

The first link of every creationism story is just as weak as the first link for evolution as discussed above. If we don't have any evidence for how life got started in the first place, we have an equivalent amount of evidence for even the mere existence of Odin, or any other deity that might be proposed.

But then, whatever Thiel proposes creationism's next link ought properly to be, that's going to be just as weak, just as unsupportable with any observation, and therefore just as improbable, given he trusts the universe we inhabit to speak for itself.

Of course, if Thiel doesn't, either his reasoning is viciously circular (my hypothesis explains why there shouldn't be any evidence for, or else he's patently delusional, denying that he does, in fact, live in the universe, complete with all the details of its astronomical record, fossil record, geologic record, DNA, etc. If he thins he lives in some other universe with different details, then more power to him, but, he should realize that means he necessarily sacrifices all rights to tell those of us who don't live in his science-free universe what's true with a "T" of any size.

Anonymous said...

Nye understands the proper use of the scientific method - essentially, here is our hypothesis, let's test it as rigorously as we can and from the data see what conclusions we can reach.

Thiel works from the opposite direction - namely, I've already decided on my conclusion, how can I explain away any facts that don't support it?

DennisCDiehl said...

C'mon Dr. Almost Arrested. Put on your thinking cap.

Michael said...

Clicked on one of Thiel's links on a whim. Oh. My. God.
(Quickly Disprove Evolution as the Origin of Life )

WTF, this is way too horrible on sooooo many levels. Content, delivery, quality, everything. (It would be a complete waste for Aron to even bother.)

I hesitate to comment on anything, but some of it is just so... irresistible :-)

Really, though, HWA would be appalled at the non-COG quality.
First of all the irritating acoustics of that room make listening to it a chore. At least put a bed, rug, curtain or fluffy couch somewhere to help soak up some of the horrible sound reflection.
Then instead of helpful graphics he holds up, with shaking hands, sheets of paper or heavy books whose content is indiscernible, being too tiny too read and wobbling around. And for about like 5 seconds each.

I'm pretty sure Thiel is some sort of joker, doing a parody of COG splinters or something. He can't really be seriously presenting this... ?
Oh, he can? Well, I suppose with COGs anything is possible.

With that unwieldy encyclopedia he holds up, almost cut off by the lower end of the screen, he declares "this is protein", while the structural formula, small as it is, is clearly not of a protein but of an amino acid.
Clearly has no clue whatsoever.

I can't go on. This isn't even acceptable by COG standards.

Michael said...

Anon 2:46 said:

"Would any one believe me if I said that this 2 Gig smart phone upgraded it's own hardware and software from previous models, all by itself, with not external input?"

If, like organic entities, smart phones were able to self-replicate with extremely slight modifications each time, then yes, it would actually begin to fall within the realm of believability, if not logical necessity.

Anonymous said...

4.24 PM So, failed designs fall by the way side, but successful designs replace them. But your 'elegant theory' makes no mention of the mechanism responsible for making these successful designs, plus improvements. Detail the mechanism, and you will get the Nobel science prize. Yours is voodoo science, and defrauds God of the praise and gratitude that He rightly earned.
Your sir, are a cheat, crook and chicken thief.

Anonymous said...

Nye believes in man made global warming, eh...

Anonymous said...

Evolution does not follow common laws of nature as stated below.

In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant—it is said to be conserved over time. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it transforms from one form to another
There is a lot of energy in the universe. Where did it come from?

The law of biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, is the conclusion that complex living things come only from other living things, by reproduction (e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders). That is, modern life does not arise from non-living material, which was the position held by spontaneous generation. People of the past were ridiculed for believing that a pile of garbage could spontaneously create a rat, but now were have the commonly accepted modern myth that life came from a slim pool!

Evolutionary theory deals mainly with how life changed after its origin. Science does try to investigate how life started but has no provable process.
Scientists have not even been able to create the amino acid alphabet (of 20 amino acids) that make up proteins. And in this regard, the concoctions that origin of life researchers have come up with almost always consist of 50/50 mixtures of L-type (left-handed) and D-type (right-handed) amino acids
Please provide one scientific provable fact that supports evolution.

DennisCDiehl said...

The fossil record of whale evolution from land to ocean mammal is a nice example as well as that of humans. I guess that's two examples...sorry šŸ˜‡

DennisCDiehl said...

When one is defending their fables and faith no facts will ever be good enough to change a mind

Anonymous said...

Please provide one theological fact that supports your faith

Black Ops Mikey said...

Let the other shoe drop:

Let's get Bill Nye and Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson give their take on British Israelism.

By the way, Armstrongists generally can't understand science because they have not inherited structural visualization -- that's why they depend on magic to explain the universe.

Byker Bob said...

There are two sides and many details and forms of logic encompassed in this topic, and the outcome is one that each individual must resolve for himself or herself.

It's much easier to resolve from the Christian perspective, because all one must do in the face of the fossil record is to acknowledge that God used the evolutionary process as His carefully guided creative tool, and that the book of Genesis uses simplistic language to describe the sequence of events in such a way that the uneducated goat herders of antiquity would have been capable of understanding.

Evolution is not necessarily "Godless" unless one chooses to use it to disprove the existence of God. Those of that persuasion are left to explain the first spark, the causation, in the absence of some sort of supreme being. But, depending on how one structures all of this in one's own mind, in some cases, one might as well flip a coin, because there are vast unknowns inherent in either side to the argument. It's not unlike the black box experiment in high school physics lab.


Stephen said...

Anon6:52AM said:

"Evolution does not follow common laws of nature as stated below. In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant—it is said to be conserved over time. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it transforms from one form to another. There is a lot of energy in the universe. Where did it come from?"

WTF does this have to do with evolution?

"The law of biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, is the conclusion that complex living things come only from other living things, by reproduction (e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders). That is, modern life does not arise from non-living material, which was the position held by spontaneous generation. People of the past were ridiculed for believing that a pile of garbage could spontaneously create a rat, but now were have the commonly accepted modern myth that life came from a slim pool!"

I certainly hope you're not the guy who's been trying (and failing!) to accuse other people of straw man fallacies, because it certainly is telling that the only way you can knock down evolution is by having to resort to setting up a straw man of it first.

Complex, modern living things do only come from other complex, modern living things. Scientists don't propose that complex modern living things just popped into existence. Neither evolution nor scientific biogenesis have anything to do with spontaneous generation. The idea that life originated as a simple, self-replicating molecule, similar perhaps to a ribozyme, is a heck of a lot more probable than saying an invisible man in the sky created everything in six days 6000 years ago.

"Evolutionary theory deals mainly with how life changed after its origin. Science does try to investigate how life started but has no provable process. Scientists have not even been able to create the amino acid alphabet (of 20 amino acids) that make up proteins. And in this regard, the concoctions that origin of life researchers have come up with almost always consist of 50/50 mixtures of L-type (left-handed) and D-type (right-handed) amino acids."

First of all, this is wrong. Scientists have been synthesizing all 20 of the amino acids used in peptides for at least fifty years. But they don't even have to because they're ubiquitous, even in outer space. There were over 90 different amino acids found in the Murchison meteorite. They arise from basic natural processes involving the ultraviolet spectrum.

"Please provide one scientific provable fact that supports evolution."

Dennis already did, so, I'll ask you: Please provide one scientific, provable fact that supports creationism, and once you've done that, one scientific, provable fact that supports the existence of your invisible man in the sky, and once you've done that, one scientific, fact that proves your invisible man in the sky was the invisible man in the sky that did that creating.

You have to do that just to enter the competition. Until you can do that, evolution is competing unopposed.

Anonymous said...

"Hippos likely evolved from a group of anthracotheres about 15 million years ago, the first whales evolved over 50 million years ago, and the ancestor of both these groups was terrestrial."
"likely", "we suspect", " we consider"

There is no hard fact about whale evolution.Again it is a theory and guesses. No hard facts to be found.
Dr Carl Werner, author of Evolution: the Grand Experiment, has checked out the claims, interviewing the researchers and others. He found that none of the fossils holds up as transitional to whales. His findings, published in a major 25-page Appendix to the new 2014 edition of his book, utterly destroy the whale evolution story. Here are some highlights.


None of these fossils holds up as transitional to whales
We have already pointed out the extreme story-telling that occurred with Pakicetus, involving Dr Philip Gingerich.3 An incomplete skull fossil was imagined to be that of a whale-like creature, displayed as an artist’s impression on the cover of the prestigious journal, Science, in 1983. Some years later the rest of Pakicetus was found, published in 2001, and it proved to be nothing like a whale. Contrary to what Dr Gingerich had imagined, there was no blowhole, there were no flippers (only hooves), and there was no whale neck (just a neck typical for land mammals). Even so, Dr Werner reveals that the American Museum of Natural History in New York and the Natural History Museum in London have not stopped using the falsely-reconstructed skull that shows a blowhole (see figure 1).

In a National Geographic documentary in 2009, Dr Gingerich still claimed that Pakicetus should be classed with whales, based on its ear-bone. However, the ear-bone is not like a whale, which has a finger-like projection (sigmoid process), but is plate-like, like the fossils of land animals known as artiodactyls."

Much of paleontology is fable and faith but that's okay I guess.

Hometown said...

Anonymous 8:43
That isn't the point.
No one can come up with one scientific 'fact' that supports evolution or a lot of other ideas from science either.
Evolution requires just as much faith as does belief in creation because there simply are no hard scientific facts to support much of it at all.
The famous "Lucy" was fashioned from one small bone.
A finger or thigh bone is used to reconstruct and entire idea of something.
The first Neanderthal was thought to be short and hunched over. It was decades before it was discovered the poor soul had extreme arthritis. But this colored how Neanderthal was seen and presented. It was rubbish but science does this a lot actually.
Those outside the job never realize this but much of what passes for science in this realm is falsity taken for granted.
It isn't creationism vs. evolution. It is more that both sides take much for granted and they have 'faith' in the articles the officials hand off to them. However what you do not see is how manipulated things are both in science and religion.

Science, history, religion all have their fables, myths and fanatical zealots who swear they have the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Substituting a religious like belief in the infallibility of science for religion is not a good idea either.

Anonymous said...

Yes, keep hammering away on that last nail, Stephen.[July 18, 2016 at 6:50 PM]
Discovering and learning the Laws of science and especially astronomy demotes THEIR AUTHORITY, but not our intelligence, or at least it doesn't have to. That's why I say Scientific Naturalism is NOT a religion of "Why?", but only an evolving explanation of "How?"

The Universe exists, right?
So, let's learn something from it.
No jihads required!


Anonymous said...

Someone wrote: "In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant—it is said to be conserved over time. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it transforms from one form to another"

This statement has no bearing on the process of the evolution of life; Earth's biosphere isn't a closed, zero-sum system. It constantly receives new energy from both the sun (external heat engine) and the core/mantle (internal heat engine). This has been the case since well before life ever appeared on the planet.

Anonymous said...

Actually, Bill Nye is a mechanical engineer. He's more of a pop culture "science guy" or a professional lab coat wearer. He's also seems to slouch toward playing a part-time political pundit. I'm sure he's quite capable of debunking the notion that men rode on the backs of dinosaurs. But his work is not particularly useful in a serious scientific debate about origins.

Dr. Peter Higgs who proposed the Higgs boson (or God particle) - searched for and possibly discovered at CERN is an agnostic. But he admits that quite a few of his colleagues in particle physics - perhaps the "hardest" science of them all - are also believers in a Creator and he has respect for their reasons.

Thoughtful debate is not usually engaged with pop culture sound bites.

Anonymous said...

"Your sir, are a cheat, crook and chicken thief."

So, a person who accepts a scientifically based conclusion is guilty of stealing chickens?

Gerald Bronkar said...

From my perspective, the major difference between theologians and scientists is that when a scientist discovers and scientifically validates new information, he updates his data base, and may change his opinion, if the discovery is counter to his previous understanding.

This is not true of the theologian. For the most part, Christians, Jews and Muslims already know everything because they read it in their holy book. Anything that contradicts these stories that were pounded into our heads from childhood is discarded. These holy books have prevented discovery and removed the opportunity for free thought.

It would be in the interest of humanity to discover how and why these books are still so available and revered in 2016.

From my experience and learning, science never claims to have all the answers. Scientists freely admit their inability to resolve many questions concerning life and the universe, but they want to learn more. Is that an evil desire?

Only the theologians and prophets claim to have all knowledge, which they derive from their ancient texts. What a sham! These holy texts are responsible for much of the conflict we see in our world today. Our cherished beliefs are killing us.

Byker Bob said...

Is anyone else aware of the seven principles of the Kybalion?


Anonymous said...

Everyone knows that proteins are the building blocks and molecular machines to support life. What most people don't know is the extremely complex process that happens thousands of times a second in our body's cell to keep you alive. To see this process go to YouTube and search on Harvard's Central Dogma of biology.

The point is simple, life is way to complex to have "developed" by chance.

Here are some of the steps to create a new protein in a cell. Note that you need many specialized proteins and enzymes to create a protein. (Chicken and egg problem)

In you cell, your DNA needs to unwind, to replicate itself. It uses DNA helicase to 'unzip' the 2 strands. Then free amino acids swoop in and join to the "template strand" carried by specialized little tug boat proteins that have to be carrying the right amino acid to match the DNA coding. RNA is not as stable as DNA and T is replaced by U. (that was transcription) Before the mRNA strand zooms out of the nucleus into the cell where it meets up with tRNA and rRNA unnecessary coding is snipped off and the strand reconnected. A coded cap is then installed to tell the gate keeper of the nucleus wall to allow it out. tRNA runs off into the cytoplasm to find the amino acids that will connect to the single RNA strand (the base pairs) rRNA just clicks them together. This is translation. The amino acids form to make a polypeptide chain, when 1 or more of these chains are connected and fold, that makes a protein. This protein is not done. It must be sent to the Golgi (like a metal fabrication and distribution center) in the Golgi, the protein is further modified and "stamped" as to it's ultimate destination.

Not to worry. This complex process came about long ago by pure chance!

Anonymous said...

God the Father and Christ spent 50-100 millions years after the dinosaur era, working their guts out, designing all these new creatures and vegetation. Instead of paying God with praise, glory and gratitude (since He has given mankind the fruits of His labour), people instead claim it just happened by magic. You are robbing God blind. You should be ashamed of yourselves. In prayer I apologize, pointing out that we are not all ungrateful. I feel sooo embarrassed bringing this up in prayer. It's a good thing that God has all that character, since He certainty needs it in dealing with all these spoilt, entitled, ungrateful people.

Anonymous said...

1.13 PM Gerald, most of what you say is true, but in your post you state that the bible is just another book. In fact it is the inspired word of God. This is proven by the scientific method to the individual, by answered prayer that sometimes involves God putting a bible verse into that persons head. True, I cannot prove this to outsiders, but so what, what's that to me. Let them eat cake.

Anonymous said...

It always frustrates me when people say that evolution is wrong because it doesn't explain the origins of life. They are different subjects. It would be like saying gravity is wrong because it doesn't explain friction.

If you are going to criticize evolution you should at least know what it is.

Questeruk said...

The problem with so many of the examples used to verify evolution, is that very flimsy evidence ‘evolves’ into fact. What started as maybe one scientists suggestion or idea becomes solid fact as it is told and retold. This doesn't only happen with evolution, but in many other areas of life.

Take the example of ‘Lucy’. I won’t go into how one part of a bone was found, and then another part found fairly near it in 1971, but then three years later other bones were found one and a half miles away, in completely different rock stratum, and all matched up to form Lucy. It was decided that it was a ‘hominina’, part of the’human’ branch.

Be that as it may, one of the discoverers of the bones, Donald Johanson, later had doubts about it’s classification. For brevity I quote from Wikipedia:-

“In 1979, *Johanson and *White claimed that Lucy came under an ape/man classification (Australopithecus afarensis). But even before that startling announcement, the situation did not look too good for Lucy. In 1976, Johanson said that "Lucy has massive V-shaped jaws in contrast to man." (*National Geographic Magazine, 150:790-810. ) In 1981, he said that she was "embarrassingly un-Homo like." (Science 81, 2(2):53-55.) Time magazine reported in 1977 that Lucy had a tiny skull, a head like an ape, a brain case size the same as that of a chimp 450 cc and "was surprisingly short legged" (*Time, November 7, 1,979, pp. 68–69).

"Although the Lucy fossils were initially dated at three million years, Johanson had announced them as 3.5 million because he said the species was 'the same' as a skull found by Mary Leakey at Laetoli, Tanzania. By proposing Mary Leakey's find as the 'type specimen' for Australopithecus afarensis, he was identifying Lucy with another fossil 1,000 miles from the Afar [in northern Ethiopia] and half a million years older! Mary thought the two not at all the same and refused to have any part of linking her specimen with [Johanson's] afarensis . . She announced that she strongly resented Johanson's 'appropriating' her find, her reputation and the older date to lend authority to Lucy. Thus began the bitter, persistent feud between Johanson and the Leakeys." *R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 285.”

So the discoverer of the bones had serious misgivings about the classification of the bones, but also is quite happy to imply that these bones were the same as bones found 1000 miles away.

If this was an isolated incident then it wouldn’t be much of a problem, but it happens all the time. Dennis said “The fossil record of whale evolution from land to ocean mammal is a nice example as well as that of humans.”

Really? Others have mentioned how flawed the supposed trail of whale evolution is. Lucy has a very dubious background. There are other so called documented sequences of evolution. Remember that of the horse – long held to be a classic story of evolution, and taught in schools as fact. This was later show to be completely in error, but still does the rounds as a valid example.

I like a quote from Dr Niles Eldredge, a distinguished scientist at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. He said “Many scientists really do seem to believe that they have a special access to the truth. They call press conferences to trumpet new discoveries…and they expect to be believed – by their peers, and especially by the public at large. Throwing down scientific thunderbolts from Olympian heights, scientists come across as authoritarian truth givers, whose word must be taken unquestioned.” He went on to add “That all the evidence shows the behaviour of scientists to be no different from the ways in which other people behave is somehow overlooked in all this.”

Anonymous said...

One hears a lot about humans being "created in God's image, after God's likeness", but it brings up all kinds of questions.

Why does God have sensory organs? Why does God need a face? Since God is invisible, why would God's face need to express emotion? Why does God need eyelids? What would cause God to blink? Does God have nostrils? Does God require respiration or nasal drainage? For what purposes does God have teeth? Why does God have a mouth? Why does God have ears? Does God exist in an environment that transmits sound? Does God sweat or otherwise require features to dissipate heat? Why does God have legs? Why does God need a means of locomotion against physical surfaces? Why does God need to sit on a throne? Do God's legs get tired? Does God need posture? Why are arms useful to God? Does God need to do manual labor? Why manipulative fingers? Why only ten? Why are God's limbs shaped to only bend certain ways? Why is God's form built around a spinal column? Does God have a central nervous system? Does God only have just the tailbone,or still have a full tail? Is it long? Why does God have hair? Does God need to shed dead cells? What about toenails? Does God need toes to keep balance when walking? Does God grow? Why does God's form have structures that are less efficient in form and function than similar structures on other animals? Why would God have an image that implies so many limitations? Who chose this form for God?

Anonymous said...

Byker Bob said..."Is anyone else aware of the seven principles of the Kybalion?"

Wikipedia is ;)
The Principle of Gender is confusing ideas and assumptions which lead to too much woo.
From my experiences, both sexes do both just as well. We need to stop polluting our waters with that bullshit, and use a better model like the Four stages of competence which applies to both sexes equally and is equally usefull as well.


Anonymous said...

"Instead of paying God with praise, glory and gratitude..."

Where's the receipt?

July 19, 2016 at 11:41 AM,
July 19, 2016 at 2:43 PM,
July 19, 2016 at 4:05 PM,
July 19, 2016 at 2:57 PM
You are logically impaired.
Can you write one paragraph without contradicting youself? or is your name Poe?

"Instead of paying God with praise, glory and gratitude (since He has given mankind the fruits of His labour), people instead claim it just happened by magic. You are robbing God blind. You should be ashamed of yourselves. In prayer I apologize, pointing out that we are not all ungrateful. I feel sooo embarrassed bringing this up in prayer. It's a good thing that God has all that character, since He certainty needs it in dealing with all these spoilt, entitled, ungrateful people."

Whether or not god exists, you can't rob god or the universe.
Robbing is what people can do to other people and their belongings.

"Not to worry. This complex process came about long ago by pure chance!"

Did you come to know that idea[This complex process came about long ago by pure chance!] by chance?
Does the the collapse of the state vector happen by chance? If it did, how would we know? By chance?
or choice?


Stephen said...

Life exists on this planet. That much is undeniable. How did it get here? It depends on who you ask.

If you ask the natural world, and allow it to have its own voice, what would it say? What would the geologic and fossil records say for themselves? What do the genetic codes present in every living thing say about their pasts?

Does the natural world say the earliest life forms are humanoid giants, some with 50 heads and 100 arms, and others with only one head and one eye, or colossal sea monsters, or something capable of laying eggs the size of planets?


Does it say that all life was created at one time? Or perhaps, that all life was created gradually, and then extinguished in a global flood, and then less than 1% of it was re-created again only 6000 years ago, only to have another extreme bottleneck in land based animals and plants 4400 years ago?

No, if you let the geologic and fossil record have their own voice, that isn't what they say at all. They say something very different.

However, before we started asking the natural world, and allowing it to speak with its own voice, to tell us its own story about its own past, there were many different groups of people who had already spoken for it, telling other stories for themselves.

Many people don't like the story the natural world has to tell. The prefer the old stories from before we began inquiring of the natural world. So they attack the story the natural world tells. Sometimes they say the natural world is lying, artificially constructed by an evil deity to deceive us. Other times, they say humans aren't smart enough to listen to understand what nature is saying. And still other times, they say it's not that at all, that we can understand nature's voice well enough, but that there is a grand conspiracy afoot, by millions of people for over a hundred years, to lie to us about the story nature is telling.

Many people think that if they can sow doubts about the story nature's voice has to tell, that they can discredit either nature itself, our ability to understand nature, or else the trustworthiness of those who are best positioned to listen to its voice. And if they can manage to discredit that story, they think their story about cosmic eggs and sea monsters must, by default, be accepted. They think that all that is necessary to establish a story about ice giants is to deliver a sucker punch to the opposition. Maybe this works in the Olympics, but it doesn't work here.

In order to accept your story, you're going to have to come up with actual support for that story. Evolution, as we understand it thus far, may not be a perfect understanding, but it does appear to be the story about life that nature is telling us. Even if it could be shown that evolution isn't the story nature is telling, anyone who cares to look can see that nature's voice certainly is not telling the Hebrew creation story.

So, while evolution may be a "just a theory," not unlike heliocentrism, gravity, and relativity, none of the myriad creation stories are even "hypotheses." They're just unscientific assertions. No one has even attempted to put them onto a scientific footing. I wonder why. All of us "evilutionists" are waiting. Until you can, there's only one story that meets scientific criteria, and no other story even rises to the level of competing with it.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 4:13
You are a complete Doofungool

Byker Bob said...

4:13, have you ever considered that man is made in God's image not because of physical features, but because like God, man has the ability to exercise dominion, and to self-actualize? It's silly to think that an omnipresent being would have physical features, although obviously He could manifest Himself as such.


Stephen said...

The whole "created in god's image" idea is a leftover from the time when El Elyon lived on top of Mt. Lel with his wife Beirut and 70 of their children and grandchildren, in exactly the same way as Zeus and his wife Hera lived on top of Mt. Olympus with their divine offspring. COG people will recognize this idea from the "table of nations" in Genesis 10-11, in which each one of those children is supposed to rule over one of the 70 "families of the earth."

It is one of the echoes from the proto-Hebraic pagan Ugaritic pantheon we find in ancient Canaan. Yahweh is one of those 70 children, as are Asherah, Baal Hadad, Dagon, Leviathan, Lucifer, Moloch, Resheph, Shalom, and Zedek, which also make cameo appearances in the bible.

We also find numerous references that show the early biblical religion wasn't monotheistic, but henotheistic. Despite the fact that the early ancient Israelites were forbidden to worship Yahweh's siblings, the ruling gods of the other nations also in their pantheon, it initially doesn't dispute their existence alongside Yahweh as other, legitimate gods, with the legitimate right to rule their respective nations, though later redactors would remove many of those references and editors would then insert denials of their existences.

Christians certainly aren't going to like the idea that the Jewish roots of their religion is itself a later development from the preexisting Canaanite paganism, rather than some "pure" Abrahamic, Mosaic, Noachic, or even Adamic religion. They also aren't going to be comfortable with the fact that their religion isn't really monotheistic, but is still henotheistic, as El Elyon and Yahweh became fused, their wives, Beirut and Asherah disappeared, and the rest of the pantheon was demoted to become the mostly nameless angels, demons, and demigods of the current Jewish and Christian pantheon. It's not really all that different than it was way back in ancient Ugarit.

Anonymous said...

6.11 PM DBP, your list are not the same person. No one likes a house detective.

Byker Bob said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Byker Bob said...

DPB ~ The Wikipedia article just gives you the Cliff's Notes on the Kybalion.
Reading only that, and drawing conclusions would be similar to judging a book by its title or cover.

This is really fascinating material, off the beaten path, and something which most of us would probably not encounter in our normal reading activities. It's not another cult or religion. If anyone has even the remotest interest in understanding some of the principles and processes of the universe, I'd recommend going to and see for yourself.

No harm, no foul if you don't. It's not one of those "my baby" things to me, just something that might be of general interest to anyone with philosophical yearnings.


Gerald Bronkar said...

Anonymous 1:13PM,
Are you stating that you know the bible is the word of God because while praying you had some scripture pop into your head? That is some incredible faith, which is another form of belief without reason. This seems to be an odd method of proving your point. Do you honestly believe this is proof of anything?

Please tell me, why do so many on this site post anonymously? Are they hiding from a spiritual superior, or just embarrassed by their posts?

Once you separate yourself from the splinter groups, there is no need for fear. Of course, separating can be a long and painful process. I know it is not easy to walk away from the crazy ideas we have been taught from childhood, but once you do, the freedom is beyond belief.

I can no longer relate to people trying to pick a spiritual leader who will take them to the promised land. Freedom means you are the captain of your ship. You make the choices, and take responsibility for your situation. The best way to learn life's lessons.

Michael said...

from Dennis:
"Please tell me, why do so many on this site post anonymously?"

I completely understand the need for anonymity, but for all the anonymous posters, you can in fact select a pseudo-name to use and still remain completely anonymous.

It's just that having to reference "Anon 3:18PM" etc. based on the time they post, which will be different with their very next post, it does get a little confusing with all the Anons and different times, making it hard to follow a conversation and know who said what when...

Michael said...

Sorry, that was Gerald who asked that not Dennis

nck said...


I like that assessment of biblical religion as a game of shifting cards.
At least wcg was instinctively right in its assessment that the "universe" was to be ruled by a family.

Hinduism is also greatly misunderstood as polytheism while their "gods" are manifestations of the One principle, sortah.

You make a great leap from Canaanite paganism to "Jerusalemite Centrally Commanded Temple" religion. In between there was the "original" Hebrew religion as practiced by "the Commander of the Host of the Lord." Joshuah was to IMMEDIATELY bow down for this MAN. Which was made a angelic being in the later narrative. Later the temple scribes did everything in their power to do away with the "original" religion. Trying to edit Moses Snake staff, the High places, his Midian priest family, the Mountain God he met up there etc etc.

To me Petra is not a place of safety. It is indeed the seat of the original religion, the Serra Mountains (perhaps the true mt sinai i don't know), the High Place is an awesome sight, while most tourists just visit the Roman structures below.


Stephen said...


There is no "in between." The "original" Hebrew religion is the old pagan Canaanite religion. The origin of Yahweh is as a part of the ancient Canaanite pantheon. Since archaeology shows there was no enslavement, no wandering, and no conquest, the origin of the Israelites and Jews is that they are simply Canaanites tribes as well.

There is no particularly "great leap" required to go from the pagan temples dedicated to Dagon, Moloch, or Baal Hadad, worshiped by Canaanites and Philistines, to just one more pagan temple dedicated to the worship of their sibling, Yahweh, worshiped by more Canaanites, the Israelites and Jews. These Canaanites are all people of a common origin and they all worshiped the same pantheon. It's all one unified pagan religion.

The archaeology shows that Jerusalem in the tenth century B.C. was an unassuming little Canaanite village, and that the bible probably didn't begin to be written until the late 7th century B.C. That would mean that any tenth century pagan temple dedicated to the pagan Yahweh in Jerusalem, rather than being some grand and opulent structure, was simply one more little pagan temple dedicated to the pagan Yahweh, which, at the time, would have been indistinguishable from those other temples dedicated to the worship of Yahweh's other siblings, if we could get in a time machine and go back and witness the reality of the situation. And to call it "the first temple" is likely wrong. It would be unusual if the Philistines and the other Canaanites didn't also worship Yahweh, being that he was in their pantheon too, and there were probably other pagan temples dedicated to the worship of Yahweh outside of Israel and Judah. That's just how paganism works. So the first pagan temple to Yahweh in Jerusalem probably wasn't the first pagan temple to Yahweh. And at that time there would have been no problem with Israelites and Jews worshiping Yahweh's siblings as well. The only "problem" is one constructed later in the text as the biblical authors invented Yahweh's "jealousy," and projected a later henotheistic development onto the past, where it never existed before. So, yes, Hebrew editors and redactors did do everything in their power to do away with the "original" pagan Jewish religion.

The archaeology, the textual criticism, and comparative religion all show that the bible simply cannot be trusted to tell the truth about it's own religion. However, judging by other documents of that era, the only surprise here might be that we ever expected it to.

Anonymous said...

Gerald, I choose to be anonymous because I still have relatives in the COGs. Byker Bob has stated the same. I could create a pseudonym like BB has but, considering how infrequently I post, it's not worth the effort.

Byker Bob said...

In support of what 7:24 has stated, I believe that the posts written by people who wish to remain anonymous are important, and often insightful. Sometimes the sheer number of anonymous postings make it difficult to track who is saying what, and to respond appropriately, but I also have to remember that this is causing the same confusion for the "watchers" with whom current ACOG members must often contend. It is important to me that we protect the brave ones from any reprisals they might otherwise suffer from church groups that do not practice freedom of speech, freedom to dissent, or generally, the pursuit of happiness.

There are ways in which we can respond specifically to anonymous posters, like using their time and date. Often, their posts contain valuable information, or voice questions and concerns for which there simply are no other venues to express. Hope that helps.


Stephen said...

Something that's kinda funny is, even when you post your name or handle, people still call you anon X:XX. Sometimes I don't realize when a post is a response to me because of that.

Gerald Bronkar said...

Thank you for the explanations regarding anon postings. Makes good sense if you are protecting family members, a pay check, or just started waking up and getting out. We need to be cautious and understand how low some church "leaders" can sink.

I have old friends who have been ministers involved in one splinter or another since the 60's. These poor guys have no options, and now in their late sixties or early seventies. They are truly stuck, and may be okay with that, while others may be posting anonymously. I get it. Thanks!

Dennis, you are lucky you got out when you did, and I am lucky to have been fired from the church in 1973. I was writing job descriptions for the personnel department. So glad I was only 29, and able to land on my feet--no thanks to the brethren.

Since we weren't in Petra, I had already lost my faith in HWA. My questions were just beginning. I am embarrassed to have been mixed up in Armstrongism for 13 years, but it could have been longer had I not pissed off my boss. I know from personal experience, it is very hard to leave. The fear is overwhelming, but it is mostly imagined.

The escape is so rewarding. On the other hand, if you are 75 and have no means of financial support, hang on until the bitter end. It is probably too late for you.

Anonymous said...

6.11 PM DBP, your list are not the same person.
July 19, 2016 at 8:37 PM

Sorry, I made a mistake.


Anonymous said...

BB said:"DPB ~ The Wikipedia article just gives you the Cliff's Notes on the Kybalion."

I know, I guess my sarcastic wink wasn't enough of a hint.


nck said...


Did I just see BB endorse the works of a Chicago businessman (merchant, publisher, author), going completely bust financially, ending up in California (LA area) talking about the laws of cause and effect?

I must look beyond the cover.


Byker Bob said...

Nck, endorse is certainly not the word I would choose, because it goes too far. Mention, or bring to attention might be more accurate.

Frankly, any reference which I would mention will most likely be interesting, however in most cases, that reference is going to include things with which I or other readers may tend to find valid or with which we might agree, and other information and concepts with which we might find to be bogus, and disagree.

As Rod Serling used to say, in prefacing his old Twilight Zone episodes, "Submitted for your approval...." It is up to the reader to determine whether there are any applicable or helpful nuggets. The Kybalion seems to have information regarding laws and interrelationships throughout the universe, collected and presented in a way in which I had partially deduced over the course of my lifetime. However, I had never seen these presented anywhere else in one cohesive package. There are also ancilliary ideas with which I tend to disagree. Let the individual reader beware.


Byker Bob said...

Nck, one more general thing. There are still people amongst us who don't subscribe to eclectic notions in terms of personal education, or sources if guidance. That one truth thing, or one leader thing seems to linger for some. These "single-sourcers" believe that when you leave Armstrongism, it means you've deferred to or have been seduced by another guru.

In the past, all it took was one quote from some well-known thinker, and some of the anonymi (both believers and non-believers) pounced, posting, "Ah! So that's BB's new guru! (And in reality, I have no gurus). And then they attacked the person whom I quoted for the next 6 months.

It's really important to me that people don't now assume that the Kybalion is my new book of guiding precepts, because to me, it's just an interesting book, with a couple of unique ideas. I think it explains some basic concepts about the interrelationships within the universe that blend with the evolution theme of our recent discussions. People can check it out, or not.


nck said...

The joke was of course about the similarities with "the one most despised".
You took the opportunity to turn expound more.
Since you are serious I could take my (poor joke) comment down if you so please. But you already turned it into a positive experience.

It is an amazing experience when one has deduced a coherent set of thoughts over a period of time and find out later that others wrote a book along the same patterns, institutions are asking the same questions or even stumble upon countries that are based on the privately deduced principles.


Byker Bob said...

No need to edit, nck. I wasn't offended in any way.

What occurs to me regarding these deducements is that part of the fund of knowledge that we all carry around with us is probably innate. When we read or hear things that resonate deeply within us, we're simply acknowledging truths that perhaps we had never heard expressed. If God is truly in every individual component of the universe, (panentheism), then there is a natural connectivity which would perfectly explain the parallel and simultaneous evolutions of species which are dependent upon one another. This is something that neither creationists, nor evolutionists have been able to explain satisfactorally.


R.L. said...

If Dr. Thiel thinks Bill Nye "has an agenda," I have some news for him.

Ken Ham probably has one, too. :-)

Anonymous said...

...non-locality, quanglement, superposition, holographic cosmology, shifting identities for traveling neutrinos, frozen neutrinos, quark soup, the idea that space is entangled with space, event horizons could be complementary to the cosmic horizon, ER=EPR, Penrose's Orch-OR, computational complexity may drive the expansion of the Universe!

nck said...


A topic like that could likely draw more than a hundred responses if time/space allowed.
In the Planet Alumni days (early 21st century :-) ) I remember Corey Wicks being fought like the devil for his thoughts on the subject. (which centered around meditation skills to discover)

I like the occurence of synchronisity though.

A sermon I once heard comes to mind. It was about man only able to quench or limit the holy spirit, which was freely offered and unbound. But I am not really equipped right now to comment intelligently on the subject, so I will meditate it.


nck said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Among people who were once in the WCG, it's not unusual to find some afflicted with the mental malady of thinking they have superpowers of discernment, that they may "know the secrets of the universe", the "TRUE 'science of mind'", etc.

Often, such egocentrics will drop cryptic hints regarding the "ancient knowledge" they believe they are in possession of, or wild "facts" which are unsupportable - except by the most tenuous of "sources"

The best of such "ancient knowledge" ideas are simply common sense notions wrapped in esoteric packaging.
The worst of such "ancient knowledge" ideas are bullshit. Some may have been derived from older cultures, within which they once made sense.

Example: The Promise Keepers' misogynistic tenets.

It's good to be able to provide good information that people find interesting, relevant, and up-to-date. Stuff that will hold up, in these times, to the best available scrutiny. (Not crap from kooks.)

Example of what this IS NOT: Ralph posting a link to a video (perhaps I should call it a voodoo) of the "fact" that Noah's Ark has been "discovered"
I watched the video, and it's a pile of pure shit.
The "amateur" archeologist Ron Wyatt - well known for being a lying fraud - presents his "evidence" at the heart of the video.
The way real science works is NOT to try and prove something because you are hell-bent on a conclusion. In the video, Ron Wyatt's half-assed "scientist friends", hell-bent on verifying what Ron claimed- used terms like, "I hope to prove that...", and "We're gonna hang in there like smell on a skunk...", among many other quotes that revealed the LACK OF REAL SCIENCE used, even though the video falsely suggests otherwise.

Stephen said...


Yes, if you've been trained to accept one crazy thing without any evidence, then there's nothing stopping you from accepting virtually any other crazy thing, for which there is also no evidence. If you believe bible stories, then why not conspiracy theories, legends about giants, apocryphal tales about sorcerers, leprechauns, tooth fairies, UFOs, and Bigfoot. What's to stop you? There must be that "kernel of truth" to every story that's ever been told, right? No, usually there isn't.

It's an epistemic error. It's the error of counting guesswork as though it were knowledge. It's the error of figuring that if something is not absolutely impossible, then it's probably true. It's the error of shifting the burden of proof, making whatever wacky far-out thing you want to believe the default, and demanding that it be disproven before you'll let go of it. That way you never have to have any evidence, you never have to defend your beliefs, and they never need be scrutinized. Everyone else has to make their case, but you don't.

Never let a lack of evidence spoil a good story.

Michael said...

Stephen wrote:
"Yes, if you've been trained to accept one crazy thing without any evidence, then there's nothing stopping you from accepting virtually any other crazy thing, for which there is also no evidence."

For what it's worth, when I "officially" left WCG in the late 80s, for months or actually years afterward I pondered somewhat incredulously how I could have believed so many crazy things for so long, and wanting to avoid that ever again, the result being that it really turned me into quite the skeptic. If that was pure nonsense that I had been so fervent about, what else could I be sorely mistaken about?

I would venture to say that such skepticism has served me well since. All claims need to be critically examined, not just COGdom, that is just one instance among innumerable "crazy things" out there.