Who dares sent me SPAM?: 21 new messages in 14 topics

talk.origins
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins?hl=en

talk.origins@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: "a question of where you put Grandma"
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/853d373e79363233?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 5:54 pm
From: Glenn

On Apr 23, 4:49 pm, CreateThis <CreateT...@yippee.con> wrote:
> On 23 Apr 2007 12:32:14 -0700, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 23, 6:18 am, CreateThis <CreateT...@yippee.con> wrote:
> >> On 23 Apr 2007 05:48:59 -0700, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >... I was impressed by your lack of groupthink.
>
> >> The "groupthink" label is a sophomoric excuse for your intellectual
> >> laziness. Commonly held views are often best. Rejecting them
> >> categorically makes you feel like a "maverick thinker" but really just
> >> reduces your homework.
>
> >Claiming that commonly held views are often "best" makes you sound
> >like an idiot. Commonly held views are very often wrong, although they
> >may be "best" when fitting in with the group. Perhaps you missed that
> >in the psych class that provided you with this deep insight.
>
> Then you must feel like a major idiot for holding the *very* commonly
> held view that your god exists.

Most things known to be wrong have been shown to be wrong, dipstick.
Show your work. I notice that you didn't disagree that commonly held
views are usually wrong.

>Is that one only good for fitting in
> with the group?
>
Theists may have one thing in general in common, but I wouldn't regard
them as a "group". It's quite clear that not all theists agree on much
of anything other than the existence of a Creator.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Duesberg in SciAm
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/d5597f6919259ef9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 5:55 pm
From: bullpup@bellsouth.net

On Apr 23, 6:30 pm, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Recently, there was an exchange that questioned the peer review
> process with respect to Peter Duesberg. In the May 2007 edition of
> Scientific American is an article by Peter Duesberg. An editor's note
> is included nest to the author information disclaiming that SciAm
> endorses Duesberg's claims about HIV and AIDS. The article discusses a
> controversial theory about cancer being caused by chromsomal damage
> rather than a series of gene mutations.
>
> I have reconstructed the discussion as Bloopenblopper trimmed a post
> including the first paragraph included here.
>
> Pagano:
>
> >>>> This is laughable. Everyone who depends on the secular scientific
> >>>> community for their livelihood and who disputes the sacrosanct
> >>>> theories is crushed. The easiest way to destroy someone who bucks the
> >>>> orthodoxy is through peer review. I suspect the fear of being
> >>>> squeezed out of the ability to publish has stifled many new ideas that
> >>>> contradict the current sacrosanct theories consistent with atheism.
>
> Bloopenblopper:
>
> >> >Give an example.
>
> Pagano:
>
> >> Dr Peter Duesberg, a National Academy of Sciences member was
> >> ostracized and isolated for disputing the truthlikeness of the
> >> sacrosanct HIV-causes-AIDS theory.

"Truthlikeness"?

>
> Bloopenblopper:
>
> >Yeah, but he was still able to get peer-reviewed articles published.
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Duesberg
>
> Pagano:
> I never said that he was summarily drummed out. I simply noted that
> his daring to buck the sacrosanct and secular dogma of HIV-causes-
> AIDS
> caused him considerable difficulty. The fact that he was a National
> Academy of Sciences member is probably the only thing that saved him.
> Had some post doc dared to do the same thing his career in his field
> would have been destroyed.
>
> Tony backtracked after being asked for an example of somebody who was
> "crushed", he claimed that Duesberg had been caused "considerable
> difficulty". The article in the magazine is evidence that Peter
> Duesberg is busy publishing controversial cancer research and
> apparently obtaining funds.
>

Tony has the only bicycle with twenty reverse gears.

Boikat

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 6:24 pm
From: T Pagano

On 23 Apr 2007 16:30:44 -0700, "Greg G." <ggwizz@gmail.com> wrote:

>Recently, there was an exchange that questioned the peer review
>process with respect to Peter Duesberg. In the May 2007 edition of
>Scientific American is an article by Peter Duesberg. An editor's note
>is included nest to the author information disclaiming that SciAm
>endorses Duesberg's claims about HIV and AIDS. The article discusses a
>controversial theory about cancer being caused by chromsomal damage
>rather than a series of gene mutations.
>
>I have reconstructed the discussion as Bloopenblopper trimmed a post
>including the first paragraph included here.
>
>Pagano:
>>>>> This is laughable. Everyone who depends on the secular scientific
>>>>> community for their livelihood and who disputes the sacrosanct
>>>>> theories is crushed. The easiest way to destroy someone who bucks the
>>>>> orthodoxy is through peer review. I suspect the fear of being
>>>>> squeezed out of the ability to publish has stifled many new ideas that
>>>>> contradict the current sacrosanct theories consistent with atheism.
>
>Bloopenblopper:
>>> >Give an example.
>
>Pagano:
>>> Dr Peter Duesberg, a National Academy of Sciences member was
>>> ostracized and isolated for disputing the truthlikeness of the
>>> sacrosanct HIV-causes-AIDS theory.
>
>Bloopenblopper:
>>Yeah, but he was still able to get peer-reviewed articles published.
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Duesberg
>
>Pagano:
>I never said that he was summarily drummed out. I simply noted that
>his daring to buck the sacrosanct and secular dogma of HIV-causes-
>AIDS
>caused him considerable difficulty. The fact that he was a National
>Academy of Sciences member is probably the only thing that saved him.
>Had some post doc dared to do the same thing his career in his field
>would have been destroyed.
>
>
>
>Tony backtracked after being asked for an example of somebody who was
>"crushed", he claimed that Duesberg had been caused "considerable
>difficulty". The article in the magazine is evidence that Peter
>Duesberg is busy publishing controversial cancer research and
>apparently obtaining funds.

Duesburg bucked the status quo in the late 1980s. He has been shunned
and marginalized since them. One wonders how much research money has
gone his way in the last 20 years. The fact that the editor published
a disclaimerdistancing themselves from Duesberg says it all. Wonder
how many disclaimers the Sci Am editor prints.

Regards,
T Pagano

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Noah and "Origin" of cats mentioned on BBC Radio
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/bcda40c29ce6d5d9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 5:58 pm
From: Robert Carnegie

_The Unbelievable Truth_ is a new raucous radio panel game in which
comedians try to sneak surprising truths into otherwise nonsensical
speeches, topic and truths being prepared in advance. Similar things
have been done before, and I'm concerned, both that it's too hard to
distinguish rare facts from inventions, and - I think this is a
different point - rare facts may be not facts when you inquire, being
often misunderstood or even invented outright.

Anyway, one that I hadn't heard about Noah's Ark is reproduced for
instance here:
http://ww2.netnitco.net/users/legend01/cattale.htm

The story of how the cat was born when a lion sneezed - sexually
confused as it is - was described as "Hebrew mythology" and therefore
technically a "true" statement in the game. The use of catgut in
_Fiddler on the Roof_ was not mentioned.

Other tellings of the lion thing, however, have Noah petitioning the
lion itself for a solution, rather than God.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,899403,00.html
dismisses one other claim made, as I feared - although I am rather
glad in this case - "that Brahms shot cats with an arrow" either for
sport or as obscure natural musicological research.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: To the writers of the Talk.Origins website
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/83a7ea3085fa6ee1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 5:55 pm
From: Scooter the Mighty

On Apr 23, 4:49 pm, brog...@noguchi.mimcom.net wrote:
> On Apr 24, 3:02 am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 22, 9:21 pm, Scooter the Mighty <Greyg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 22, 10:25 am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 20 Apr, 21:23, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>
> > > > > On 20 Apr 2007 10:02:59 -0700, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > >On 20 Apr, 17:08, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>
> > > > > [snip]
> <snip>
> > When you said
> > ---
> > Here's the part that you don't get- If nodes 1-1,000,000,000 firing in
> > any of a number of known and understood ways is what conscious is,
> > then if that happened we would know if the robot was or wasn't
> > conscious, and consciousness would (or at least could) affect the
> > behavior of the robot.
> > ---
>
> > The bit you have to get is that if the nodes still behaved the way
> > they would be expected to in a lab or a small system, then they would
> > be behaving as they would be expected to if no consciousness were
> > affecting their behaviour.
>
> The problematic "bit" here is your insistence that consciousness is
> something other than "node behaviour." For a materialist, the
> consciousness is the "node behaviour." Something will not behave the
> same with our without consciousness because things that differ "only"
> in being conscious or not, must have different "node behaviour"
> because consciousness is a certain sort of "node behaviour."
>
> You assume that consciousness is non-physical and then use that
> assumption in your "proof" that consciousness is non-physical.
>
>
>
> > > Your argument only works IF you assume that there is more to
> > > consciousness than just basic "node activity." If there isn't, then
> > > you see consciousness clearly written in the node activity when you go
> > > to look.
>
> > You are just showing you have missed the point. We have subjective
> > experiences. Even if these were thought to be a "point of view of what
> > the neural activity of a section of overall neural state represented",
> > we could still consider whether the existence of the perspective
> > influenced behaviour.
>
> Those subjective experiences are the very same thing as the neural
> activity. He has not missed the point. You just keep assuming your
> conclusion again and again.
>
Yes, exactly. You keep assuming that there is a difference between
the neural activity and the experience, and I'm saying there isn't.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: what has science become?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/123a346e2233285d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 9:01 pm
From: raven1

On 23 Apr 2007 17:18:24 -0700, "nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com"
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote:

>The bad thing about science now is people such as Eugenie Scott.
>People who don't believe in anything but science.

I know of no one who fits that description.
--

"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"

==============================================================================
TOPIC: VT massacre, Creationists, apology?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/833cb8101482318?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 5:59 pm
From: snex

On Apr 23, 7:54 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:33:49 -0700, snex wrote:
> > [...]
> > there are no "pro-science" theists, only "pro-evolution" theists, or
> > "pro-[insert specific scientific theory here]" theists. just like
> > creationists, theists pick and choose which parts of science to ignore
> > in order to maintain their beliefs. if theists were "pro-science,"
> > they would apply the scientific method to the claims of their
> > religion.
>
> Non sequitur. Your argument is like saying that, because I am
> pro-chocolate, I should apply chocolate to my olives, too.

actually it would be a category error, if your criticism were correct.

alas, it is not. theists make claims about the nature of reality.
science is the method that "pro-science" people use to examine claims
about the nature of reality. theists refuse to do so.

>
> > why do you think they refuse to do this?
>
> Why don't you find your nearest Jesuit school, go to a science department
> there, and ask? Seriously.

why dont you save me the time and tell me yourself? why shouldnt
science be applied to the claim that jesus rose from the dead?

>
> --
> Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
> "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
> the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
> being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
> exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 6:23 pm
From: eroot@swva.net

On Apr 23, 1:33 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 8:59 am, e...@swva.net wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 2:15 am, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 22, 8:02 pm, hbarwood <hbarw...@troy.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 22, 6:07 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@nospam.org> wrote:
>
> > > > > Some Creationists have written newspaper articles blaming what
> > > > > they claim they believe to be "evolution" and/or "evolutionary
> > > > > theory" for the horrible murders; it is now known that the killer
> > > > > was mentally ill and had long been known to be mentally ill, and
> > > > > that his motive was to "punish" wealthy people. There is zero
> > > > > evidence that the biology sciences made Cho kill people.
>
> > > > > So..... where are the apologies by the Creationists who said
> > > > > otherwise? Why are they silent?
>
> > > > > --http://desertphile.org
> > > > > Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
> > > > > "I've hired myself out as a tourist attraction." -- Spike
>
> > > > The newspapers in my area have been filled with "opinion" writers
> > > > lambasting the "atheist" shooter. Ignoring the blatant Christian
> > > > symbology in his video, they lather on about how he was subverted by
> > > > evolution to discount human life. Most of this crap is coming out of
> > > > the usual suspects (Coral Ridge Ministries, etc.). They also appear to
> > > > be confused by his major and constantly harp on his "science" training
> > > > (he was an English major).
>
> > > > Just when you think this crowd cannot possibly sink any lower, they
> > > > manage to find a way.
>
> > > dont you dare defend yourself or other atheists, or reverend flank
> > > will come by to tell you you are hurting the cause.
>
> > > > HB
>
> > Boy, are you delusional. At no point in that other thread were you
> > were ever defending atheists. You were going out of your way to
> > attack the beliefs of friendly, pro-science theists. The point is,
> > what the heck is the point to that? The world would be a sorry place
> > if only committed atheists were pro-science.
>
> there are no "pro-science" theists, only "pro-evolution" theists, or
> "pro-[insert specific scientific theory here]" theists. just like
> creationists, theists pick and choose which parts of science to ignore
> in order to maintain their beliefs. if theists were "pro-science,"
> they would apply the scientific method to the claims of their
> religion. why do you think they refuse to do this?
>
>
>
> > Eric Root

What actual benefit would we get for doing that? You'd just find some
other thing to grouse about. <8^)

Eric Root

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 6:28 pm
From: snex

On Apr 23, 8:23 pm, e...@swva.net wrote:
> On Apr 23, 1:33 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 8:59 am, e...@swva.net wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 23, 2:15 am, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 22, 8:02 pm, hbarwood <hbarw...@troy.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 22, 6:07 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@nospam.org> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Some Creationists have written newspaper articles blaming what
> > > > > > they claim they believe to be "evolution" and/or "evolutionary
> > > > > > theory" for the horrible murders; it is now known that the killer
> > > > > > was mentally ill and had long been known to be mentally ill, and
> > > > > > that his motive was to "punish" wealthy people. There is zero
> > > > > > evidence that the biology sciences made Cho kill people.
>
> > > > > > So..... where are the apologies by the Creationists who said
> > > > > > otherwise? Why are they silent?
>
> > > > > > --http://desertphile.org
> > > > > > Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
> > > > > > "I've hired myself out as a tourist attraction." -- Spike
>
> > > > > The newspapers in my area have been filled with "opinion" writers
> > > > > lambasting the "atheist" shooter. Ignoring the blatant Christian
> > > > > symbology in his video, they lather on about how he was subverted by
> > > > > evolution to discount human life. Most of this crap is coming out of
> > > > > the usual suspects (Coral Ridge Ministries, etc.). They also appear to
> > > > > be confused by his major and constantly harp on his "science" training
> > > > > (he was an English major).
>
> > > > > Just when you think this crowd cannot possibly sink any lower, they
> > > > > manage to find a way.
>
> > > > dont you dare defend yourself or other atheists, or reverend flank
> > > > will come by to tell you you are hurting the cause.
>
> > > > > HB
>
> > > Boy, are you delusional. At no point in that other thread were you
> > > were ever defending atheists. You were going out of your way to
> > > attack the beliefs of friendly, pro-science theists. The point is,
> > > what the heck is the point to that? The world would be a sorry place
> > > if only committed atheists were pro-science.
>
> > there are no "pro-science" theists, only "pro-evolution" theists, or
> > "pro-[insert specific scientific theory here]" theists. just like
> > creationists, theists pick and choose which parts of science to ignore
> > in order to maintain their beliefs. if theists were "pro-science,"
> > they would apply the scientific method to the claims of their
> > religion. why do you think they refuse to do this?
>
> > > Eric Root
>
> What actual benefit would we get for doing that? You'd just find some
> other thing to grouse about. <8^)

youre right. religions arent the only wacko ideas out there. theres
new-age (rhymes with sewage), astrology, psychic mediums, water
dowsers, homeopathic medicine, transcendental meditation.. the list
goes on and on.

>
> Eric Root

==============================================================================
TOPIC: A Challenge For The Wise Fools
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/8faa746952e9704c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 12:58 am
From: Mark Isaak

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:21:16 -0700, SJAB1958 wrote:

> There are those here who claim to know and understand the truth. Of
> those I would ask one question, how many of you have truly been born
> again?

I changed my major twice. Surely that counts for something.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering

==============================================================================
TOPIC: God is real
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/207c2fc0fcba7b57?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 9:03 pm
From: raven1

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 20:21:55 -0400, "Gerry Murphy"
<gerrymurphy@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>"titus" <duckboy@epix.net> wrote in message
>news:XINWh.4265$Oc.205528@news1.epix.net...
>> evolution is make beleve no changing me i will curse you out if you beleve
>> in evolution
>>
>
>Foul varlet! If you dare utter that curse you'll feel the wrath of
>my neutrino laser cannon, against which there is no defense.

Err, Squire, won't the neutrinos just pass thru 'im without effect...?
--

"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"

==============================================================================
TOPIC: God as a Christian appropriation of pagan Sun worship
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/e723cb0d119c1e57?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 7:00 pm
From: Malrassic Park

On 23 Apr 2007 17:48:36 -0700, LloydBrown <lloyd@lloydwrites.com>
wrote:

>Any similarity this topic might have to t.o is purely coincidental.

But you can at least memorize his spiel and rattle it all back to the
proselytizers who come knocking at your door.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 6:12 pm
From: bullpup@bellsouth.net

On Apr 23, 9:00 pm, Malrassic Park <Malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 23 Apr 2007 17:48:36 -0700, LloydBrown <l...@lloydwrites.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Any similarity this topic might have to t.o is purely coincidental.
>
> But you can at least memorize his spiel and rattle it all back to the
> proselytizers who come knocking at your door.

I'd rather give them printed copies of "Kissing Hank's Ass".

Boikat

==============================================================================
TOPIC: the pope should resign
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/21adb8ace4a04d40?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 6:05 pm
From: Robert Carnegie

Perplexed in Peoria wrote:

> "snex" <xens@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1177305424.849104.30480@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> > On Apr 22, 5:26 pm, "alwaysaskingquestions"
> > <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > "snex" <x...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > >
> > > news:1177261506.005686.86150@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > > On Apr 22, 11:44 am, "alwaysaskingquestions"
> > > > <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> "snex" <x...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > >> >> > no it isnt. this is the exact position of the catholic church on
> > > >> >> > condoms.
> > >
> > > >> >> Please give one example of a Catholic politician who has been
> > > >> >> excommunicated
> > > >> >> for enacting a law supporting contraception.
> > >
> > > >> > the catholic church has announced that it will do so.
> > >
> > > >> OK then, cite where they have announced that.
> > >
> > > > ah, it seems that they only threaten to excommunicate politicians who
> > > > allow abortion or stem cell research. thats *totally* different.
> > > > *rolls eyes*
> > >
> > > And it seems you have no concerrn at all for the accuracy of the accusations
> > > you make.
> > >
> > > *rolls eyes*
> > >
> > > So now, can you give a cite for where the Catholic Church has said that it
> > > will excommunicate politicians who *allow* (your word) abortions or stem
> > > cell research.
> >
> > http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0603754.htm
> >
> > Instances where Catholic politicians pass laws that go against the
> > teachings of the church call for "a reflection, because these
> > (legislators) would not be able to approach the Eucharist," he said.
> >
> > "No one in the world is authorized to contradict church doctrine
> > concerning the protection of life at all stages," he added.
>
> Well, we finally got a cite for one of snex's claims. Unfortunately, we
> can't tell from the Cardinal's own words that he is talking about legislators
> here. We only have the paraphrase provided by the interviewer.

I presume the word actually used couldn't be printed :-)

> However, assuming the paraphrase is accurate, an inability 'to approach the
> Eucharist' simply suggests that such legislators are in a state of sin, not
> that they should be excommunicated. A technical quibble, but an important one.

What happens if you do try to approach the Eucharist and they see you
coming?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Hi
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/26a2ad9b5e4cad5a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 6:10 pm
From: For Life

On Apr 22, 3:42 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On 22 Apr 2007 04:31:12 -0700, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by For Life <lacksa...@gmail.com>:
>
> >On Apr 22, 1:50 am, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
> >> On Apr 21, 7:55 pm, For Life <lacksa...@gmail.com> wrote:> Hi
>
> >> I think it's time you posted something to this group more than two
> >> characters long.
>
> >Hello
>
> Hello. Have anything both meaningful and rational to post?

yes.

>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
> - McNameless

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 6:11 pm
From: For Life

On Apr 22, 7:01 pm, CreateThis <CreateT...@yippee.con> wrote:
> On 22 Apr 2007 04:31:12 -0700, For Life <lacksa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 22, 1:50 am, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
> >> On Apr 21, 7:55 pm, For Life <lacksa...@gmail.com> wrote:> Hi
>
> >> I think it's time you posted something to this group more than two
> >> characters long.
>
> >Hello
>
> Goodbye

Why so hasty to leave?

> <plonk>

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 6:12 pm
From: For Life

On Apr 23, 7:41 pm, Cemtech <c...@cox.net> wrote:
> In article <1177206942.888997.137...@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> lacksa...@gmail.com says...
>
> > Hi
>
> No I'm not!!

That's spelled 'high'.

> Oh...
>
> Hi =)

jidiot...

> --
> Steve "Chris" Price
> Associate Professor of Computational Aesthetics
> Amish Chair of Electrical Engineering
> University of Ediacara "A fine tradition since 530,000,000 BC"

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Can creationism be antisemitic?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/9c6d3eb8eff9a250?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 1:13 am
From: T Pagano

On 22 Apr 2007 09:55:14 -0700, wf3h <wf3h@vsswireless.net> wrote:

>Creationism seems to function on denial.

Everyone denies some things. One is obligated to deny falsity. What
do creationists deny that is true?

> It denies the existence of
>natural laws operating in the world.

Which law of nature do creationists deny?

> Creationists deny that Christians
>who disagree with them are Christians.

The disagreement often involves the so-called christian denying a
tenet of the faith.

> They deny that scientists can
>be scientists while being Christian.

ditto.

>
>They attribute non-belief in creationism to evil intent. Everyone is
>intent on destroying creationist fundamentalism. Everyone hates god.

Non belief in creationism is merely a symptom of "evil" intent.

>Since Jews (except for the ultra orthodox) do not accept the Xtian
>version of creation,

This is irrelevent unless wf3h can demonstrate that consensus is
related to the objective truth. Atheists care nothing for the
objective truth. Truth for the atheist is what ever the mob says it
is.

>and since creationists believe everyone who
>denies creationism is evil, do creationists think Jews are evil? With
>the hatred that spews forth from creationism (I myself heard Mike Behe
>call all science journal editors 'atheists'), is it possible that,
>among its other many faults, creationism is inherently antisemitic?

wf3h's bald assertions are designed to marginalize creationists not
refute any of their positions. He doesn't argue for their truth
because he couldn't do so if his life depended on it.

Since 1996 I can only recall a couple of opponents denying my labeling
of them an atheist. I'd love wf3h to identify where, when and under
what circumstances he heard Behe make such a claim and whether or not
the editor denied the claim.

Regards,
T Pagano

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Wedging in creation theory
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/7c6491e9b9485d3a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 6:13 pm
From: "nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com"

On 24 apr, 02:10, stew dean <stewd...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The orbit of a planet is the function of it's past and current state.
> The future is set by the past.

Think about that. It's completely ridiculous isn't it? The future is
set by the past? How is that not saying the future is in the past?
That can't be right of course. Why isn't the future just the future?
Look at what you're doing, you're deeply violating your own sense of
reasonability by the scientific method. The fundamentally uncertain
future which we experience all the time.

regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 6:28 pm
From: bullpup@bellsouth.net

On Apr 23, 7:36 pm, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Those "cognitive abilities" you are referring to are what's called
> "weak anticipation" by Dubois, go look up "strong anticipation" and
> what it means.
>

You might try that some time.

> > No, I do not believe that everything behaves freely.
>
> That's philosphy, not practice.

Then why are you whinging about *science* all of the time?

>
> > > alternatives in the future, getting decided upon, and what does the
> > > job of realizing the one alternative in stead of the other is
> > > spiritual.
>
> > You've said that before, but you have never explained it.
>
> I've explained it lots of times.

Not so that it makes any sense without a lobotomy.

>
> > What is the
> > spiritual?
>
> For any alternatives you choose to act on, your likes and dislikes are
> what does the job of realising the one alternative and discarding the
> other. The likes and dislikes are spiritual.

No it's not.

> >How does it interface with the physical?
>
> By realising the one alternative, and discarding the other.

How is that "spiritual"?

>
> > How does one measure
> > it?
>
> You can only approach the spiritual by choosing, not measurement.

Yes, you can "choose" to believe in any imaginary concept you like.
Now, how does one measure that. What metric is used?

>
> > Oh, yes, I forgot, there is no spiritometer. One cannot measure
> > freedom scientifically.
>
> You can choose, so you can know the spiritual domain.

Again, you can choose to imagine any fantasy "element' you want. The
problem is justifying that, scientifically", which is what you are
trying to do.

>
> What else are you going to do with your choosingpower anyway.
> Measurement is just for machines really.

Is the speed of light a machine? How about the speed or sound? Or
how about the speed of a car. yes, a car is a machine, but is the
speed of a car a machine? How about acidity? Is that a machine too?

Once again, you make a comment that is nonsensical.

>
> > > That is how you practically use knowledge about freedom.
>
> > You have no clue about what I know of freedom.
>
> Sure I do know. I can also do the sciencetrick

"sciencetrick"?

> of investigating an
> issue, and my investigation

What "investigation">

> says you also use the common logic of
> alternatives in the future getting decided spiritually.

Please present the full text of your "sciencetrick investigation" for
peer review.

Boikat

==============================================================================
TOPIC: How do body parts evolve?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/2b6bc830768793f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 1:18 am
From: Bill Morse

John Harshman wrote:

> Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
>
>> "Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1177354326.281248.291870@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>Well, thanks to everyone who took time to write a sensible reply. I'm
>>>sorry my example of tail-less monkeys was not historically valid
>>>although some of you seem to have understood the crux of my questions
>>>which is this:
>>>Is the process (evolution) which generates new features of survival/
>>>reproductive benefit smooth or jagged. I think this is referred to as
>>>the question of micro- or macro-evolution.
>>
>>
>> You think wrong. Micro- and macro-evolution are not competing theories.
>> They are either (depending on who you ask) two different processes
>> producing two different kinds of results - or else they are one process
>> viewed on two different time scales.
>>
>> I think that the right way to characterize the question you are getting
>> at
>> is to ask whether evolution is gradual or 'saltational'. The big name
>> associated with the 'saltational' idea is Richard Goldschmidt. Orthodox
>> modern Darwinism tends to accept gradualism, though the issue is confused
>> a bit by PE (punctuated equilibrium) which asserts that even gradual
>> change can be fast enough so that it can't be distinguished from
>> saltation in the fossil record.
>>
>>
>>>I had not considered that a single mutation could produce such
>>>startling results. Would it be correct to say that a single mutation
>>>could produce a whole new nipple on a pig thus allowing a mother to
>>>feed an extra piglet thus producing comparatively more offspring thus
>>>increasing the chances that this "extra nipple mutation" is passed on
>>>and eventually "fixed"?
>>
>>
>> Yes, it probably could. But whether the extra (pair of, probably)
>> nipples
>> are advantageous would depend upon litter size, and other things. A pig
>> who produces small litters would probably find the extra nipples to be
>> nothing but a nuisance.
>>
>>
>>>But how does this apply to entirely new appendages and organs? In the
>>>case of a pig the "data" for building a nipple is already there
>>>however, this data itself could not have arrived in one go. I suppose
>>>this approaches the "but you can't have half an eye" debate but I
>>>really do fail to see how an organism without say, an anus, could
>>>evolve one.
>>
>>
>> Once again, you have chosen a bad example. We have had flow-thru
>> digestive tracks far longer than we have had legs, nipples, and even
>> brains.
>
> And our ancestors had single-opening digestive tracts long before that.
> Flow-through digestion has apparently been lost once too, in flatworms
> (not counting all the parasites that have lost their digestive tracts
> altogether).
>
> As for the failure of imagination, imagine this: a polyp-like organism
> that ingests and excretes through a single opening develops a somewhat
> elongated opening, the two sides of which gradually specialize, one in,
> out out. Now suppose that a constriction gradually evolves in the
> middle, which partially separates the two functions, and that this
> constriction gradually evolves into a partition, so there are two holes
> where there was once one. Viola: a mouth and an anus, gradually evolved.
> Now I don't know if there are any living intermediates, though I
> wouldn't be surprised. But there are certainly analogous sorts of
> intermediates in various other organs, including hearts, eyes, lungs,
> and so on.
>
> The general answer is that new features evolve from old features,
> generally by successive slight modifications, and most features can
> begin as little bumps, pockets, thickenings, or other simple shapes, not
> the fancy organs we see at the end of the process.

Exactly. You have explained an anus, and the rest of the organs are easier
to understand. What use is a little bit of a kidney? Well if it helps
remove wastes more quickly than simple diffusion, it allows a higher
metabolic rate. It doesn't at first have to be either elaborate or
efficient - it just has to be better than no kidney. The heart can start
out (to use your term) as a thickening that contracts to speed up
circulation. The lungs can start as a pocket that increases surface area
and thus increases gas exchange.

As to micro vs. macro, be aware that as an elaboration to John's point about
new features evolving from old features, one of the very common genetic
processes by which this occurs is duplication of a set of genes. This
leaves the old genes to perform their original function while making a new
set that can change to perform a new function - but they already have a lot
of functionality, so the change can be relatively rapid, and can appear as
a "saltation".
--
Yours, Bill Morse

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "talk.origins"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to talk.origins-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com?hl=en

Who dares sent me SPAM?

Monday, April 23, 2007

21 new messages in 14 topics - digest

No comments:

Links

About Me

Blog Archive