Who dares sent me SPAM?: 23 new messages in 15 topics

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

talk.origins@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: In the News: Medical professor questions evolution
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/338f4ae978d69298?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 26 2007 7:47 pm
From: AC

On 24 Apr 2007 14:43:16 -0700,
Fooj <deanlangenfeld@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 24, 8:06 am, Rich Townsend <r...@barVOIDtol.udel.edu> wrote:
>> Jason Spaceman wrote:
>> > From the article:
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> > John Marshall's lecture tonight will question fossil records and the origin
>> > of the first cell.
>>
>> > By GRACE ASSOUAD
>>
>> > For most of his life, and as a physician and man of science, John Marshall
>> > believed in Darwinian evolution, which maintains that all life forms share
>> > a common biological origin.
>>
>> > But Marshall began to look into what he said were holes in the theory. And
>> > after becoming a Christian, Marshall found it hard to reconcile
>> > evolutionary theory with Genesis, the biblical account of how God created
>> > the earth and everything on it in six days. Marshall has since become a
>> > proponent of the view that there are some natural systems that cannot be
>> > adequately explained by natural forces, and therefore must be the result of
>> > intelligent design, or ID.
>>
>> > In a lecture tonight at 7 at the MU School of Medicine, Marshall will talk
>> > about what he calls the holes in Darwinism and how many researchers are too
>> > closed-minded to evaluate - let alone accept - the scientific evidence for
>> > ID.
>>
>> > "A scientist should be open to new evidence and to new ideas, even when they
>> > arise outside the box of naturalism," said Marshall, an MU professor of
>> > medicine who is board certified in internal medicine and gastroenterology
>> > and also the associate director of education at the School of
>> > Medicine. "There's no reason we can't at least look for evidence. But one
>> > of the tactics of people who control mainstream science is, you don't
>> > publish intelligent design material."
>> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> > Read it athttp://columbiamissourian.com/news/story.php?ID=25331
>
>
>> Yet another non-scientist claiming to be a scientist
>
> Is there some scheme among biologists to call engineers and physicians
> non-scientists? Considering that they tend to know more than
> biologists and geologists,

By what definition do they "know more"? Does that mean they'll do
better at Hollywood Squares? That they no more mathematical calculations?
What?

> would it be wise to define science so
> narrowly.

Yes. Engineering is applied physics. It is not physics entire. That's
like calling an auto-mechanic an engineer.

> At this rate, science will be associated with inferior
> technoloigical disciplines.

That doesn't even make sense.

--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@gmail.com

==============================================================================
TOPIC: In the News: MU professor takes heat for views on ?intelligent design?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/dd78417b8fbb343d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 26 2007 12:52 pm
From: richardalanforrest@googlemail.com

On Apr 25, 9:29 pm, Jason Spaceman <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org>
wrote:
> From the article:
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> By JACOB LUECKE of the Tribune's staff
> Published Wednesday, April 25, 2007
>
> A Columbia medical professor made his case for scientific acceptance
> of "intelligent design" last night and found himself taking fire from his
> peers for his view.
>
> John Marshall, a professor of internal medicine at the University of
> Missouri-Columbia, argued in front of about 100 people in a University
> Hospital auditorium that mainstream scientists were trying to kick
> intelligent design "off the playing field of science."
>
> At the heart of the argument for design, say proponents, is that elements of
> life and the physical world cannot be explained by evolution and show signs
> of being formed by an intelligent creator.
>
> "It's as much science as Darwinian evolution is science," Marshall
> said. "And as a theory, I believe that intelligent design fits the evidence
> of biology better than Darwinian evolution."
>
> Marshall held up DNA as a possible example of intelligent design in action,
> calling it the "most complex, densely packed, elaborate assembly of
> information in the known universe."
>
> He said DNA even bears similarities to computer codes or a language.
>
> "There's some three billion characters of information in each of our cells,"
> he said. "If one were to put this code, write it out like you would onto a
> newspaper, you would fill some 75,000 pages of the New York Times."
>
> Some scientists in the audience, however, accused Marshall of masking
> religion as science.
>
> "I think" intelligent design "is a code word for God," said John O'Connor, a
> water consultant and retired chairman of the MU Department of Civil
> Engineering. "I think that there's no reason for us to mince around and
> pretend that that's not really what" intelligent design "is trying to
> propagate."
>
> Frank Schmidt, an MU biochemistry professor, said he counted "21 distortions
> 15 half-truths and 10 untruths" in Marshall's 45-minute presentation.

...which means that he was being unusually honest for a creationist.

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Read it athttp://www.columbiatribune.com/2007/Apr/20070425News006.asp
>
> J. Spaceman

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 26 2007 2:08 pm
From: Desertphile

On 26 Apr 2007 07:18:30 -0700, Rodjk #613 <rjkardo@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Apr 26, 12:29 am, Jason Spaceman
> <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
> > From the article:
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > By JACOB LUECKE of the Tribune's staff
> > Published Wednesday, April 25, 2007
> >
> > A Columbia medical professor made his case for scientific acceptance
> > of "intelligent design" last night and found himself taking fire from his
> > peers for his view.

> <SNIP>

> > Frank Schmidt, an MU biochemistry professor, said he counted "21 distortions
> > 15 half-truths and 10 untruths" in Marshall's 45-minute presentation.

> Wow, is that all?
> That must be some sort of record for an ID supporter.

Rev Kent Hovind can do that is a mere 10 minutes.

http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Hey Amy. How have you been?" -- Buffy
"Rat. And you?" -- Amy
"Dead." -- Buffy

==============================================================================
TOPIC: God Uses Evolution
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/76cb859e64293715?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 26 2007 8:53 pm
From: Therion Ware

On 26 Apr 2007 11:29:54 -0700, cjs1946@gmail.com wrote:

>On Apr 26, 10:50 am, j.wilki...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
>> Therion Ware <autodel...@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
>> > On 26 Apr 2007 05:51:48 -0700, cjs1...@gmail.com wrote in message
>> > <1177591908.118214.37...@o40g2000prh.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> > >God evolved in God's dealing with man. First God threw man out. Then
>> > >God drowned man. Then God attempted to save man. Why I believe that
>> > >God is evolving.
>>
>> > What are the selection pressures on God. Discuss.
>>
>> Well, there are all those other gods competing for worship time...
>>
>>
>>
>> > > My soul or consciousness if you will proves to me that God
>> > >exists....
>> > >Excuse me I have to
>> > >change. CJS
>>
>> Yeah, nappies do get dirty when you are so full of shit.
>> --
>> John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
>> University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
>> "He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
>> bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
>
>No sense of humor?

Voice Over: And now a choice of viewing on BBC Television. Just
started on BBC2, the semi final of Episode 3 of 'Kierkegaard's
Journals', staring Richard Chamberlain, Peggy Mount and Billy Bremer,
and on BBC1, 'Ethel the Frog'

Introduction sort of music with Caption 'ETHEL THE FROG' Cut to
Presenter sitting behind desk)

Presenter: Good evening. On 'Ethel the Frog' tonight we look at
violence The violence of British Gangland. Last Tuesday a reign of
terror was ended when the notorious Wilkin's brothers, John and
Dinsdale, after one of the most extraordinary trials in British legal
history, were sentenced to 400 years imprisonment for crimes of
violence. We examined the rise to power of the Wilkins', the methods
they used to subjugate rival gangs and their subsequent tracking down
and capture by the brilliant Superintendent Harry 'Snapper' Organs of
Q Division. John and Dinsdale Wilkins were born, on probation, in a
small house in Kipling Road, Southwark, the eldest sons in a family of
sixteen. Their father Arthur Wilkin, a scrap metal dealer and TV
quizmaster, was well known to the police, and a devout Catholic. In
1928 he had married Kitty Malone, an up-and-coming East End boxer.
John was born in February 1929 and Dinsdale two weeks later; and again
a week after that. Someone who remembers them well was their next door
neighbour, Mrs April Simnel.

Mrs Simmel: Oh yes Kipling Road was a typical East End Street, people
were in and out of each other's houses with each other's property all
day. They were a cheery lot.

Interviewer: Was it a terribly violent area

Mrs Simmel: Oh no......yes. Cheerful and violent. I remember John was
keen on boxing, but when he learned to walk he took up putting the
boot in the groin. He was very interested in that. His mother had a
terrible job getting him to come in for tea. Putting his little boot
in he'd be, bless him. All the kids were like that then, they didn't
have their heads stuffed with all this Cartesian dualism.

Presenter: At the age of fifteen John and Dinsdale started attending
the Ernest Pythagoras Primary School in Clerkenwell. When the Wilkins
left school they were called up but were found by an Army Board to be
too unstable even for National Service. Denied the opportunity to use
their talents in the service of their country, they began to operate
what they called 'The Operation'... They would select a victim and
then threaten to beat him up if he paid the so-called protection
money. Four months later they started another operation which the
called 'The Other Operation'. In this racket they selected another
victim and threatened not to beat him up if he didn't pay them. One
month later they hit upon 'The Other Other Operation'. In this the
victim was threatened that if he didn't pay them, they would beat him
up. This for the Wilkin brothers was the turning point.

(Cut to Superintendent Organs - Subtitle: Harry "Snapper" Organs)

Organs: John and Dinsdale Wilkins now formed a gang, which the called
'The Gang' and used terror to take over night clubs, billiard halls,
gaming casinos and race tracks. When they tried to take over the MCC
they were for the only time in their lives, slit up a treat. As their
empire spread however, Q Division were keeping tabs on their every
move by reading the colour supplements.

Presenter: One small-time operator who fell foul of Dinsdale Wilkins
was Vince Snetterton-Lewis.

Vince: "Well one day I was at home threatening the kids when I looks
out through the hole in the wall and sees this tank pull up and out
gets one of Dinsdale's boys, so he comes in nice and friendly and says
Dinsdale wants to have a word with me, so he chains me to the back of
the tank and takes me for a scrape round to Dinsdale's place and
Dinsdale's there in the conversation pit with John and Charles
Paisley, the baby crusher, and two film producers and a man they
called 'Kierkegaard', who just sat there biting the heads of whippets
and Dinsdale says 'I hear you've been a naughty boy Clement' and he
splits me nostrils open and saws me leg off and pulls me liver out and
I tell him my name's not Clement and then... he loses his temper and
nails me head to the floor."

Interviewer: He nailed your head to the floor?

Vince: At first yeah

Presenter: Another man who had his head nailed to the floor was Stig
O' Tracy.

Interviewer: I've been told Dinsdale Wilkins nailed your head to the
floor.

Stig: No. Never. He was a smashing bloke. He used to buy his mother
flowers and that. He was like a brother to me.

Interviewer: But the police have film of Dinsdale actually nailing
your head to the floor.

Stig: (pause) Oh yeah, he did that.

Interviewer: Why?

Stig: Well he had to, didn't he? I mean there was nothing else he
could do, be fair. I had transgressed the unwritten law.

Interviewer: What had you done?

Stig: Er... well he didn't tell me that, but he gave me his word that
it was the case, and that's good enough for me with old Dinsy. I mean,
he didn't *want* to nail my head to the floor. I had to insist. He
wanted to let me off. He'd do anything for you, Dinsdale would.

Interviewer: And you don't bear him a grudge?

Stig: A grudge! Old Dinsy. He was a real darling.

Interviewer: I understand he also nailed your wife's head to a coffee
table. Isn't that true Mrs O' Tracy?

Mrs O' Tracy: No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

Stig: Well he did do that, yeah. He was a hard man. Vicious but fair

(Cut back to vince)

Interviewer: Vince, after he nailed your head to the floor, did you
ever see him again

Vince: Yeah.....after that I used to go round his flat every Sunday
lunchtime to apologise and we'd shake hands and then he'd nail my head
to the floor

Interviewer: Every Sunday?

Vince: Yeah but he was very reasonable. Once, one Sunday I told him my
parents were coming round to tea and would he mind very much not
nailing my head that week and he agreed and just screwed my pelvis to
a cake stand.

Presenter: Clearly Dinsdale inspired tremendous fear among his
business associates. But what was he really like?

Gloria: I walked out with Dinsdale on many occasions and found him a
charming and erudite companion. He was wont to introduce one to
eminent celebrities, celebrated American singers, members of the
aristocracy and other gang leaders,

Interviewer (off screen): How had he met them?

Gloria: Through his work for charities. He took a warm interest in
Boys' Clubs, Sailors' Homes, Choristers' Associations and the
Grenadier Guards.

Interviewer: Was there anything unusual about him?

Gloria: Not him. I should say not. Except, that Dinsdale was convinced
that he was being watched by a giant hedgehog whom he referred to as
'Spiny Norman'.

Interviewer: How big was Norman supposed to be?

Gloria: Normally Spiny Norman was wont to be about twelve feet from
snout to tail, but when Dinsdale was depressed Norman could be
anything up to eight hundred yards long. When Norman was about
Dinsdale would go very quiet and start wobbling and his nose would
swell up and his teeth would move about and he'd get very violent and
claim that he'd laid Stanley Baldwin."

Interviewer: "Did it worry you that he, for example, stitched people's
legs together?"

Gloria: "Well it's better than bottling it up isn't it. He was a
gentleman, Dinsdale, and what's more he knew how to treat a female
impersonator."

Presenter: But what do the criminologists think? We asked The Amazing
Kargol and Janet:

Ciminologist: It is easy for us to judge Dinsdale Wilkin too harshly.
After all he only did what many of us simply dream of doing... I'm
sorry. After all we should remember that a murderer is only an
extroverted suicide. Dinsdale was a loony, but he was a happy loony.
Lucky bugger."

Presenter: Most of the strange tales concern Dinsdale, but what about
John? One man who met him was Luigi Vercotti.

Vercotti: I had been running a successful escort agency -- high class,
no really, high class girls -- we didn't have any of *that* -- that
was right out. And I decided (phone rings) Excuse me (he answers
phone) Hello......no, not now......shtoom...shtoom....right......yes,
we'll have the watch ready for you at midnight.......the watch.....the
Chinese watch....yes, right-oh, bye-bye.....mother (he hangs up phone)
Anyway I decided to open a high class night club for the gentry at
Biggleswade with International cuisine and cooking and top line acts,
and not a cheap clip joint for picking up tarts -- that was right out,
I deny that completely --, and one evening in walks Dinsdale with a
couple of big lads, one of whom was carrying a tactical nuclear
missile. They said I had bought one of their fruit machines and would
I pay for it

2nd Interviewer: How much did they want?

Vercotti: They wanted three quarters of a million pounds.

2nd Interviewer: Why didn't you call the police?

Vercotti: Well I had noticed that the lad with the thermonuclear
device was the chief constable for the area. So a week later they
called again and told me the cheque had bounced and said... I had to
see... John.

2nd Interviewer: John?

Vercotti: John (takes a drink) Well, I was terrified. Everyone was
terrified of John. I've seen grown men pull their own heads off rather
than see John. Even Dinsdale was frightened of John.

2nd Interviewer: What did he do?

Vercotti: He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony,
metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious.

Presenter: By a combination of violence and sarcasm, the Wilkins
brothers by February 1966 controlled London and the Southeast of
England. It was in February, though, that Dinsdale made a big mistake.

Gloria: Latterly Dinsdale had become increasingly worried about Spiny
Norman. He had come to the conclusion that Norman slept in an
aeroplane hangar at Luton Airport.

Presenter: And so on Feb 22nd 1966, Dinsdale blew up Luton. (shot of a
H-Bomb exploding) Even the police began to sit up and take notice.

(Cut back to 'Harry Snapper' Organs)

Organs: The Wilkins realised they had gone too far and that the hunt
was on. They went into hiding. I decided on a subtle approach, viz.
some form of disguise, as the old helmet and boots are a bit of a
giveaway. Luckily my years with Bristol Rep. stood me in good stead,
as I assumed a bewildering variety of disguises. I tracked them to
Cardiff, posing as the Reverend Smiler Egret. Hearing they'd gone back
to London, I assumed the identity of a pork butcher, Brian Stoats. On
my arrival in London, I discovered they had returned to Cardiff, I
followed as Gloucester from _King Lear_. Acting on a hunch I spent
several months in Buenos Aires as Blind Pew, returning through the
Panama Canal as Ratty, in _Toad of Toad Hall_. Back in Cardiff, I
relived my triumph as Sancho Panza in _Man of la Mancha_ which the
"Bristol Evening Post" described as 'a glittering performance of rare
perception', although the "Bath Chronicle" was less than enthusiastic.
In fact it gave me a right panning. I quote

Voice Over: As for the performance of Superintendent Harry "Snapper"
Organs as Sancho Panza, the audience were bemused by his high-pitched
Welsh accent and intimidated by his abusive ad-libs.

Organs (off screen):The "Western Daily News" said......

Voice over (John Cleese): 'Sancho Panza (Mr Organs) spoilt an
otherwise impeccably choreographed rape scene by his unscheduled
appearance and persistent cries of "What's all this then?"'

==============================================================================
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 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 26 2007 12:53 pm
From: JTEM

j.wilki...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:

> Yahweh was a Phonecian god, cousin to Ba'al, and a descendant of El.

And the great Temple was clearly from the Egyption school, as was
the monotheism itself. The Nabataeans add Abraham and the nomadic
culture, as well as the tradtion of not depicting gods... as opposed
to
those Phonecians. A rather compelling case can be made for the god
of Abraham being the Moon god.

Sorry, but it's just one of those cases where Occam's Razor fails
miserably. The most likely answer is far from the simplest, but
a complicated weaving of beliefs & practices from a number of
periods and/or cultures.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Press Release: New Creationism book
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/1cb00f73d82c4e42?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 26 2007 1:56 pm
From: Desertphile

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 06:52:02 -0400, Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:

> From the article:
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Midnight in the Garden of Eden: Two Birds with One Stone
>
> Author answers 'biggie' questions of life and religion.
>
> Longwood, FL (PRWEB) April 26, 2007 -- For the first time ever,

What, again?! This makes about twenty times in one week.

http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Hey Amy. How have you been?" -- Buffy
"Rat. And you?" -- Amy
"Dead." -- Buffy

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 26 2007 1:48 pm
From: crownofpapermache@yahoo.com

On Apr 26, 6:52 am, Jason Spaceman <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org>
wrote:
> From the article:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
> Midnight in the Garden of Eden: Two Birds with One Stone
>
> Author answers 'biggie' questions of life and religion.
>>
> Married with seven children, author Denis Towers served two church
> missions and has served in different church positions since the age of
> 17. He is the inventor of a new concept in flight, foil art, three new
> sports, three board games, a composer of sacred and secular music and
> has retired unbeaten in two chosen sports fields. In 2004, he ran for
> federal parliament.

Damn it, people! How can you make sport of the man who invented foil
art?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: a challenge to evolution punks
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/cf1ee2f7a2c72bef?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 26 2007 12:59 pm
From: collection60@googlemail.com

On Apr 26, 5:03 pm, David Iain Greig <dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:
> collectio...@googlemail.com <collectio...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Well, we are socially disadvanted in every way possible. Take your
> > pick.
>
> I'll pick:
> - victims of domestic violence

Yeah, women have shelters and VAWA laws, but there's no VAMA law is
there? Women have all this advertising blaming men, when in fact
unpolitically biased studies show that women do slightly MORE DV than
men. And they initiate 2/3rds of it.

> - equal pay for equal work

Good point. Men are underpaid. Women are overpaid. Or else how do
women spend most of the money? And how comes women do worse work and
are incompetant but through affirmative action get into jobs they
can't manage?

> - the Glass Ceiling

Like the ones that the homeless males and the males doing the worst
jobs such as garbage collector, suffer? Or the men doing the death
professions, such as logging, firefighting, dangerous constructions.

> How many men are murdered by their wives or girlfriends?

Many.

But women get off easier.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 26 2007 1:01 pm
From: collection60@googlemail.com

You are a stupid bitch.

All feminists are evil and must be destroyed.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT: Brain research breakthroughs
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/432d2315fcb1aa32?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 26 2007 4:04 pm
From: r norman

On 26 Apr 2007 12:33:38 -0700, slothrop <slothrop1066@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>http://www.slate.com/id/2164996&GT1=9330
>

>I know many people who would say we can't know anything about what
>this article is talking about, that the whole effort is a waste of
>time, because they know God has told them so...
>

The article is titled "The five biggest neuroscience developments of
the year." However I happen to be a neuroscientists and I would
retitle it to be "The five biggest and most hyperinflated
pseudoscientific extrapolations about what lay people ignorant of
neuroscience might imagine to be the most sensational developments of
the year based entirely on press releases and not the real
neuroscience literature."

==============================================================================
TOPIC: In the News: Darwin Only Had A Theology Degree: Identification of
Tactic Argument
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/38dc4b7e007af971?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 26 2007 4:05 pm
From: "Dana Tweedy"

"Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1177615119.769929.148150@s33g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
snip

>> Please excuse me for snipping most of your post.
>
> ....which we know is caused by the inability to refute.

Ray, you realize, don't you that you snipped away the majority of Steven's
previous post. Are we to infer from that, that you were unable to refute
Steven's statements?

>
>
>> Ray, at one point (in the
>> part I snipped) you noted that Darwin was a Victorian Englishman, who
>> held
>> some typical Victorian English views on race and ethnicity. You also
>> note
>> that he accepted the view of Carrolus Linnaeus, Richard Owen, Galen, and
>> a
>> host of other scholars over thousands of years that humans resembled
>> other
>> primates.
>
> I never mentioned any of those other people.

But do you agree that Darwin accepted Linnaeus, Owen, Galen, and others who
had previously noted the similarity of humans and other apes? If Darwin is
to be considered a man of his time, he would have been aware of those
others, and their work.

> You have straight out
> lied - again.

No, Ray, he didn't lie. The acceptance of Linnaeus and others follows from
your above admission.

> I do not deny the others racist but your phraseology
> says I specifically mentioned these persons and I did not.

Are you really saying that Linnaeus, Owen, Galen, etc were racists?

> Then you
> misrepresent - again, by saying Darwin "accepted the view of" such and
> such persons as if those persons actually taught Darwin his racism.

Steven's point is that it is not racism to note the similarity of humans and
other apes.

> I
> have acknowledged your intellectuality in the past, Steven - you do
> not need to "argue" like Dana Tweedy.

What is wrong with arguing like me?

> You should have just said that
> Darwin was a member of a racist culture instead of engaging in these
> obvious misrepresentations.

Again, Ray, you are missing the point. The knowlege that humans are apes
is not a racist belief. It's a scientific fact.

>
> Robert Edmond Grant, materialist-atheist, in 1827, while at Edinburgh,
> is the main culprit of exposing a young Darwin to the aforementioned
> heresy - a heresy which *presumes* man not to have Divine origin but
> material, from animals.

Ray, where is that a heresy? Where in the Bible does it say that humans
have a "Divine origin"? Humans are mortals, not deities.

> Read all about Mr. Grant and other like
> individuals in Desmond & Moore, "Darwin" 1991:31-39.

What evidence do you have that Grant was a "materialist-atheist"? Grant
was a "free thinker" but does not appear to have been an atheist.

>
>
>> You then insist, without actually showing any connection between
>> these two facts, that racism caused Darwin to think that humans resembled
>> nonhuman primates (what, one wonders, caused the creationist Linnaeus and
>> the anti-evolutionist Owen to think that same thing?).
>
> Everyone admits Darwin was a racist.

Which is irrelevant to the theory of evolution.

> Larson plainly said that he
> compared certain human beings to "primates in the London zoo."

Yes, and appllied that comparison to all humans. Darwin did not suggest
that one popuation was closer to apes than any other. More to the point,
you keep insisting that Darwin linked 'Africans' to apes, when the Feugians
were not an African population.

> In
> addition, Darwin admits and wrote in his notebook to "see" and
> "compare" these humans with apes. Since we are talking about 1838
> Victorian England, one would have to be awfully naieve or a Talk
> Origin Darwinist to deny.

What Steven, and others is denying is that Darwin's racial ideas influenced
the theory of evolution.

> All your comment above says, is: "Darwin's
> racism played no part in comparing certain human beings with apes in
> the London zoo."

It was Darwin's observations that played a part in comparing humans with
other apes. Other scientists had made the same observation, and you aren't
calling them racist as well.

> Want to buy a bridge in Brooklyn, Steven?

Still trying to unload that bridge you bought?

> We have
> Darwin's notebook admissions, Autobio admissions - both written in
> plain prose and here you are feigning like you do not understand.

Ray, Darwin's notations don't support your claims. You are tying to make
Darwin say something he is not saying.
>
> But how could you admit since you are a atheist-Darwinist who has
> already denied this clear evidence?

Again, Steven did not deny any "clear" evidence, or any evidence at all.
Your opinions, and misunderstandings are not evidence.

>
> How could you admit that the origin of modern human evolution theory
> was originally conceived in racism, rejection of God (atheism) and
> *assumption* based on bird mutability?

Especally as all these claims are obvious nonsense. Human evolution was
originated in observations of multiple lines of evidence. Racism had
nothing to do with it. Moreover, Darwin did not reject God, and he had much
more evidence of evolution than simply "bird mutability".

> This is why you and Von Smith
> and the others simply deny these facts - you have to because you are
> atheist-Darwinists without an objective bone in your body (like John
> Harshman).

Ray, you are not one to be lecturing others on objectivity. The "facts"
you are presenting are simply not true.

>
> You cannot admit because that would be admitting to lying, which
> leaves you having to employ tactic with a "straight face."

Ray, you have not considered the alternative possilbity, that you are wrong.

>
> The point is that this latest post of yours is a mandatory defense of
> the tactic which I have already identified here:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c929552e618d6a11?hl=en&

Opinion is not fact, Ray, no matter how often you assert it.

>
> You know exactly what I am talking about and you know exactly what the
> evidence and arguments say. It is so clear and damning you MUST keep
> up the tactic - you have no choice lest you be an admitted liar.

Or, you are wrong. Since the evidence clearly shows that you are wrong,
it's not Steven's fault, and it's not Steven who is practicing a deception.

>
> My on-going point is to expose your tactics that attempt to brazenly
> distort clear evidence and to tell any agnostic lurkers: just think
> what Darwinists do with complicated scientific evidence?

Ray, you have shown on many occasions that you ignore, twist, or otherwise
try to marginalize evidence that contradicts your cliams. Why do you think
anyone should believe you when you accuse others of the same thing?

>
> I understand that you will need to defend and justify through Tactic
> again, but be advised I will not be responding, there is nothing left
> to say in this matter because like I said, since you have initiated a
> circular "misunderstanding" argument that is all that can happen.

Ray takes the ''Brave Sir Robin" defense and runs away, not bothering to
answer why he thinks it's racist to include the phrase 'transitional' and
'African' in the same sentence.

DJT

==============================================================================
TOPIC: CAN WE HANDLE TRUTH !!
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/c2ea2deb04696c69?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 26 2007 1:19 pm
From: rick_sobie@hotmail.com

On Apr 20, 7:49 am, "Danny the Burgundy" <frontd...@timelink.com.au>
wrote:
> "Missy" <miss_missy_1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1177004135.797276.146780@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Who in this group would agree with me that something major is about
> > to happen on the world scene, but you're not sure what it is? Look
> > at Virginia Tech. I found a group of people who have written some
> > fascinating articles, and won't take a cent for doing it. I found
> > them a while back, and want to share this with you.
>
> > The index from the website below has information about:
> > Old Testament prophecies that say America is in trouble
> > (Section A);
> > What you need to know about what Bush is doing
> > (A-15);
> > "That", "how", "when", and "why" the Bible says America is in trouble
> > (Section B);
>
> Sometimes the ethnocentricity of the average American fundamentalist is even
> more gobsmackingly weird than his (her?) religious delusionism.

Check 'im for sixes.

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 26 2007 1:22 pm
From: "nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com"

You're kidding right. You all have no argument. You all come up if
with infantile ridicule about it not being possible that the moon
behaves freely in some aspect, because the moon has no brain. Then the
other guy attests to 100.000.000 years of nearly exact accurate
predictions, which is totally unfounded. Then another guy says that
even human freedom is an illusion. Then you make up strawman about the
moon having a soul. You say absolutely nothing of interest about
freedom, all the terms you use such a cognition, consciousness,
freedom, thinking, mind are completely undefined where you use them,
and when push comes to shove your use of the terms are demonstrably
nonsensical. You were talking about how freedom was rather in terms of
"how much" in opposition to the idea that it was in terms of
alternatives. That demonstrates you have not investigated this issue
very well, and that you have no respect for the common knowledge as it
is used.

Why don't you respect common knowledge and investigate common
knowledge about freedom? Maybe you would come to a different
conclusion as me about the practical knowledge we have on the subject.
But all you have now is mere philosophy which got nothing much to do
with the knowledge about freedom you practically use day in day out.

regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

==============================================================================
TOPIC: A Bible Puzzle
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/dcc8da315787c548?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 26 2007 1:27 pm
From: jcon

On Apr 26, 3:23 am, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In Genesis chapter one we are told that the firmament separated the
> waters above from the waters below and that the stars, the sun, and
> the moon are set in this firmament, which God called heaven.
>
> In Genesis chapter seven we are told that the windows of heaven were
> opened and that the rain fell for forty days and forty nights.
>
> But surely this can't be right, because if you take this literally it
> is suggesting that the rain fell from above the location of the stars,
> the sun, and the moon.
>
> Now some people tell us that the Bible is the inerrant 'Word of God'
> that it should be interpreted literally and that there is nothing in
> it that conflicts with science.
>
> However, the way I see it is if you take the Bible literally it is not
> error free and it does contain much that conflicts with science.
>
> Can anyone prove otherwise?

For the most part, those that claim to take the Bible
literally haven't read it, which makes the whole thing
much easier.

I do recall a book once that tried to go through the
Bible pretty much line by line and *prove* there were
no inconsistencies. I can't remember the title, but in
the end it only proved that with enough practice
someone can twist their own brain like a clown
making balloon animals. Remarkable,
really.

-jc

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 26 2007 1:46 pm
From: snex

On Apr 26, 8:36 am, teafo...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Apr 26, 4:23 am, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> There is no way to avoid a conflict in the citations that you have
> given us. That is, if you choose to make an attempt to take the Bible
> literally.
>
> The only way to do this is to recognize that the Bible is composed of
> a variety of forms of literature.

wrong! there is another way to do it, and that is to admit that the
stories are false. this is how we treat the creation myths of every
other religion, why not do it for the bible too?

> You are dealing with a particular myth which expresses the Biblical
> writers understanding of the way in which God's presence has been with
> us since the very beginning of
> time. It was never intended to be an account that would meet
> contemporary scientific understandings.
>
> Of course, the people who claim to take the Bible literally do not
> really do that. Let's use Matthew 18:9 as an example: "And if your
> eye causes you to stumble, tear it out and throw it
> away; it is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two
> eyes and to be thrown into the hell of fire." I don't know anyone who
> takes that literally. Mistake, I did encounter one
> such person on the psychiatric ward of a hospital in which my wife was
> working. If people really took the Bible literally was you define it,
> we would have psychiatric words filled to over-flowing.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: 101 Scientific Facts & Foreknowledge
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/81cadc4155220ebf?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 26 2007 1:31 pm
From: "Von R. Smith"

On Apr 26, 11:47 am, Rich Townsend <r...@barVOIDtol.udel.edu> wrote:
> SJAB1958 wrote:
> > I took a little peek at the site that our dear associate 'Apobetics'
> > has been cherry-picking from to prove to all us poor ignorant
> > evolutionists are wrong to oppose his viewpoint and boy is it skewed!
>
> > For example "Scientific Fact #14" says this:
>
> > "Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7; 3:19).
> > Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28
> > base and trace elements - all of which are found in the earth."
>
> > It then suggests that you take a look at two particular links one of
> > which is a legitimate scientific website -
> >http://www.lenntech.com/Periodic-chart-elements/human-body.htm
>
> > And if you take a look at this link which takes you to another part of
> > the same website -http://www.lenntech.com/Periodic-chart-elements/earthcrust.htm
>
> > You will find that the composition of human flesh and the earth's
> > crust is completely different, but despite this obvious fact the good
> > old "101 Scientific Facts & Foreknowledge" website happily makes the
> > statement above about 'dust of the ground'
>
> Hmmm, that's a little misleading. While the human body and the Earth's crust
> certainly contain very different proportions of each element, it is certainly
> *NOT* the case that the human body contains elements that aren't found in the
> Earth's crust. Otherwise, where did these elements come from?
>
>

I thought one of the main sources of dust in houses was human
detritus, proving that we came from dust, and to dust we return. ;)

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 26 2007 4:37 pm
From: Rich Townsend

Greg Guarino wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 13:47:33 -0400, Rich Townsend
> <rhdt@barVOIDtol.udel.edu> wrote:
>
>> Hmmm, that's a little misleading. While the human body and the Earth's crust
>> certainly contain very different proportions of each element, it is certainly
>> *NOT* the case that the human body contains elements that aren't found in the
>> Earth's crust. Otherwise, where did these elements come from?
>
> I wading in above my depth here, but...
>
> Human body elements by weight:
> 1. Oxygen (65%)
> 2. Carbon (18%)
> 3. Hydrogen (10%)
> 4. Nitrogen (3%)
> 5. Calcium (1.5%)
> 6. Phosphorus (1.0%)
> 7. Potassium (0.35%)
> 8. Sulfur (0.25%)
> 9. Sodium (0.15%)
> 10. Magnesium (0.05%)
> 11. Copper, Zinc, Selenium, Molybdenum, Fluorine, Chlorine, Iodine,
> Manganese, Cobalt, Iron (0.70%)
> 12. Lithium, Strontium, Aluminum, Silicon, Lead, Vanadium, Arsenic,
> Bromine (trace amounts)

Are any of these elements *not* found in the Earth's crust?

>
> #2, Carbon, is ultimately derived from plants, either directly or
> indirectly via consumption of plant-eating animals. I believe that the
> plants get their carbon from the atmosphere.
>
> #s 1 and 3, Hydrogen and Oxygen I assume are mostly the water in our
> body. The hydrogen especially can be found in any number of other
> compounds. I believe that our hydrogen is ultimately derived from
> water, again in plants.
>
> I'll leave it to someone esle to argue how much of that water is "in
> the earth's crust".
>
> Greg Guarino
>

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 26 2007 1:55 pm
From: raven1

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 19:11:43 GMT, Greg Guarino <greg@risky-biz.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 13:47:33 -0400, Rich Townsend
><rhdt@barVOIDtol.udel.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>>Hmmm, that's a little misleading. While the human body and the Earth's crust
>>certainly contain very different proportions of each element, it is certainly
>>*NOT* the case that the human body contains elements that aren't found in the
>>Earth's crust. Otherwise, where did these elements come from?
>
>I wading in above my depth here, but...
>
>Human body elements by weight:
> 1. Oxygen (65%)
> 2. Carbon (18%)

Don't be silly. Everyone knows that "Carbon" is actually a misprint
for "Silicon", proving the Bible correct.
--

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

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 26 2007 1:53 pm
From: raven1

On 26 Apr 2007 09:20:41 -0700, SJAB1958 <balfres@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I took a little peek at the site that our dear associate 'Apobetics'
>has been cherry-picking from to prove to all us poor ignorant
>evolutionists are wrong to oppose his viewpoint and boy is it skewed!

Imagine my surprise.

>
>For example "Scientific Fact #14" says this:
>
>"Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7; 3:19).
>Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28
>base and trace elements - all of which are found in the earth."

The question that comes immediately to my mind would be "as opposed to
where else?"...

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Winston Challenges Dawkins...
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/413bb7202b9f5149?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 26 2007 1:37 pm
From: eroot@swva.net

On Apr 25, 8:53 pm, "A.Carlson" <amca...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 18:09:48 -0400, raven1
>
>
>
> <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> >On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 20:12:07 GMT, "OlOlOl01" <nospamh...@all.thanks>
> >wrote:
>
> >>Lord Winston, who is a practising Jew, said the tone adopted by Prof Dawkins
> >>and others was counterproductive. "Unfortunately the neo-Darwinists, and I
> >>don't just mean Dawkins, I mean [the philosopher] Daniel Dennett in
> >>particular and [neuroscientist] Steven Pinker are extremely arrogant. I
> >>think scientific arrogance really does give a great degree of distrust. I
> >>think people begin to think that scientists like to believe that they can
> >>run the universe.
>
> >"These scientists say that they're working for us! But what they
> >really want is to rule the world!"
>
> >And we all know that such a thing has never applied to the religious.
>
> What I find most bothersome about his criticisms is that they can all
> be boiled down to a simple "what they are saying may not be taken well
> by others" to which I would reply 'So what!"
>
> His criticisms seem more political in nature than anything else but
> then he is a politician. And since when should science strive to be
> politically correct, particularly in deference to religious
> mythologies? If scientists did not wish to offend then the Origin of
> Species should never have been written or published. For scientists
> to do their job to its fullest they must not be concerned with
> offending others.

"Not being concerned with offending others" is not the same as "going
out of one's way to gleefully offend others."

Eric Root

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Taliban before the Taliban
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/1f1385c6ba52bfb0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 26 2007 1:42 pm
From: eroot@swva.net

On Apr 25, 12:13 am, ayers...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Apr 24, 8:54 am, e...@swva.net wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 10:57 pm, ayers...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > (snip)
>
> > > "JESUS CHRIST" was
>
> > > > crucified and 3 days later rose from the dead." FACT 500 PEOPLE SEEN HIM ALIVE, BELIEVERS AND NON BELIEVERS.
>
> > Not a fact. The earliest any book was written was 30 years after
> > Christ's death. Even if it just happened 30 years ago today, any
> > court would consider such second-hand info to be mere hearsay. You
> > have to just depend on faith, because that is all there actually is.
>
> > THE SHEET HE WAS BARYED
>
> > For Pete's sake learn to spell. And it is very rude to type in all
> > capital letters.
>
> > IN HAS HIS IMAGE ON IT IN WHICH WE DO NOT HAVE TECHNOLGY TO REPRODUCE.
> > HUH.REPENT BEFORE IT'S TO LATE. JESUS WILL JUDGE YOU FOR EVERY WORD
> > THATS COMING OUT OF YOUR MOUTH RATHER YOU BELIEVE OR NOT. EVERY
> > CHRISTAIN I KNOW IS A CHRISTAIN BECAUSE OF EVIDENCE.
>
> > Bull. There is no evidence. Everyone who is Christian is one
> > because it feels good.
>
> > HUH, TAKE ALOT OF FAITH TO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION,
>
> > Not any more than any other scientific theory. Now that you know,
> > don't say it anymore or you are a liar. And you will have to answer
> > to Jesus for lying.
>
> > IN WHICH HAS NO PROOF EXCEPT IN YOUR HEAD.
>
> > Baloney. Is it any wonder normal people consider creationists to be
> > distasteful weirdos?
>
> > GROW UP, AND STOP BE WEAK AND EASLY MISLEAD RESEARCH FOR YOUR SELF
> > FACTS ARE THERE, AND THEY ALL POINT TO GOD.
>
> > That isn't even English. Get the forest out of your eye before you
> > whine and cry about scientists.
>
> > Eric Root
>
> HAHAYOUR FUNNY MONKEY MAN,I'LL PRAY FOR YOU. AND YES I DID MAKE SOME
> TYPOS, AND MISS SPELLINGS. YOU WILL BELIEVE WHEN RAPTURE HAPPENS, AND
> YOU WILL STILL HAVE TIME TO REPENT. GOD (JESUS CHRIST) BLESS YOU ANTI
> CHRIST WITH LOVE.

The only rapture that's going to happen to you is when you pick up an
anvil without a jockstrap.

Eric Root

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 26 2007 1:46 pm
From: eroot@swva.net

On Apr 24, 12:10 am, ayers...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Apr 23, 11:49 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > In the "Department of Dubious Statistics" category. Or
>
> > the "Not taking one's own advice" category.
>
> > > 80% ARE ID, AND GROWING BY 8% A YEAR. RESEARCH BEFORE YOU SPOUT OUT.
> > > YOU SOUND LIKE YOUR 13 OR YOUNGER.
>
> IT'S HARD TO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD WHEN YOUR ON YOUR DEATH BED,YOU WILL
> SEE, CAN YOU AFORD TO BE WRONG? GOOD NIGHT I'LL PRAY FOR YOU.

So, you are on your deathbed? My condolences to your family.

Eric Root

==============================================================================
TOPIC: why I believe in God
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/b5126b49f5eff9aa?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 26 2007 1:45 pm
From: mikegordge@xtra.co.nz

On Apr 26, 4:56 am, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
> free will implies an indeterminate realityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
>
> such a reality or realm cannot emerge from a determined system like
> biology and physicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29
>
> you might convince yourself that the material realm can come about
> without intervention, but the introduction of the mind, the will and the
> conscious can only come about by another indeterminate source, a God

Hey bozo, whats a god? Define it via and in your words, *what you have
observed* See if ewe can do what no other mystics in 4,000 years has
ever done.

If there was nothing, no matter before god then what did god use to
create it / / matter anything from?

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

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?

Thursday, April 26, 2007

23 new messages in 15 topics - digest

No comments:

Links

About Me

Blog Archive