Who dares sent me SPAM?: 25 new messages in 10 topics

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

talk.origins@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

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

== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 7:33 pm
From: "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank"

On Apr 23, 9:25 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 9:12 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > the irony is that flank compares dawkins to abortion clinic bombers
>
> > Whaaaaaaa . . . . .???????
>
> > What the hell are you gibbering about?
>
> > Dude, you are seriously fucked in the head. (sigh)
>
> from the mouth of the good reverend himself:
>
> "But once again I am struck by how remarkably similar the evangelical
> atheists are to the foaming fundies. Both want science to support
> their particular religious opinions. Both declare that the Bible must
> be taken literally, in its entirety, or it is entirely meaningless.
> Both assert that if evolution happens, that means there is no God.
> Both declare that Biblical-literalist fundamentalism is the only "True
> Christianity(tm)(c)" and that all other forms of "liberal"
> Christianity are either dishonest or stupid. Both conclude, either
> implicitly or explicitly, that anyone who is not with them, must be
> against them. Both are utterly totally implacably intolerant of
> anyone who doesn't agree with their religious opinions (indeed, both
> of them get awfully testy whenever anyone even calls their religious
> opinions "religious opinions"). Both will not rest, ever, until they
> have stamped the other out completely."
>
> nevermind the fact that i refuted every single point of this with no
> reply from the reverend.
>

(sigh) Like I said, you are seriously fucked in the head.

================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"

Author:
"Deception by Design: The Intelligent Design Movement in America"
http://www.redandblackpublishers.com/deceptionbydesign.html

Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank

== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 7:36 pm
From: "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank"

On Apr 23, 9:19 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 9:11 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 7:14 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > flank claims that the claims contain truth.
>
> > (sigh) Hey, retard, let me repeat once again for you, since you seem
> > to be too dense to have grasped it the first time:
>
> > *ahem*
>
> > I am not a theist.
>
> > I do not assert or accept the existence of any god, gods, goddesses or
> > any other supernatural entity of any sort, in any way shape or form.
>
> > Which part of that are you too fucking stupid to understand?
>
> > Geez.
>
> you asserted that your religious opinion is more valid than ray's. i
> await your justification for this assertion.
>

(sigh) What a retard.

OK, dude, I give up. You win. Congratulations. Not only am I, uh,
no longer a, um, theist, but now I believe that all theists everywhere
should be beaten to death with shovels.

Happy now?

================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"

Author:
"Deception by Design: The Intelligent Design Movement in America"
http://www.redandblackpublishers.com/deceptionbydesign.html

Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank

== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 7:36 pm
From: eroot@swva.net

On Apr 23, 1:42 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 1:31 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 22, 10:27 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 22, 6:20 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 22, 3:20 pm, snex <hiya_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 22, 3:11 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Apr 22, 2:51 pm, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Apr 22, 2:43 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > (snip)
>
> > > > > > > > With all due respect, it's not your place to tell the rest of the
> > > > > > > > world what they "should" or "should not" think or believe. (shrug)
>
> > > > > > > actually its my place to say anything i damn well please. whether or
> > > > > > > not they listen, is up to them.
>
> > > > > > (snip)
>
> > > > > > Oddly enough, that is PRECISELY the answer I get from fundies when I
> > > > > > ask them what right they think they have to "peacefully coerce"
> > > > > > everyone else to their religious opinions.
>
> > > > > oddly enough, fundies are precisely right when they give that answer.
>
> > > > Indeed. Since you and the fundies are alike in nearly every respect,
> > > > it's no wonder that you accept their answers just as thoroughly as
> > > > they do.
>
> > > what a bunch of nonsense. this is akin to something ray martinez would
> > > say. the fundies have a right to free speech just as i do. dont like
> > > it? go to a country that doesnt have it. im sure youll enjoy it oh so
> > > much.
>
> > > > > they have the right to spout their lies just as much as i have the
> > > > > right to point out that they are lies.
>
> > > > > what, you have a problem with freedom of speech?
>
> > > > No, it appears that YOU are the one who has a gripe against the First
> > > > Amendment.
>
> > > i do? where?
>
> > > > Alas, though, your idiotic campaign to stamp out religion only harms
> > > > us when it comes to fighting IDers and fundies. After all, ID is a
> > > > political fight, and in a political fight, one needs the active
> > > > support of at least 50% of the population to win. Indeed, in the US,
> > > > about half the population is against ID, and about half is for it.
> > > > Since atheists make up, at most, 15% of the population, this means
> > > > that about 35% of the population is BOTH theist and accepts
> > > > evolution. In other words, about two out of every three people who
> > > > oppose ID and accept evolution, are theists. To win a political fight
> > > > against ID, we need the support of those people. We simply will not
> > > > win without them. And I kind of doubt that rabidly screaming at them
> > > > "RELIGION IS STUPID !!!!!!!', like you do, is going to win much from
> > > > them in the way of support. So, in pure terms of political tactics,
> > > > attacking people who are ON OUR SIDE, is . . . well . . . awfully
> > > > stupid.
>
> > > what a crock of shit. if theists are so stupid that they would
> > > deliberately vote for creationism *when they know it is false* merely
> > > because we mean old atheists dare to ask them hard questions, then
> > > they are just as dishonest as the creationists. in that case, it
> > > *doesnt matter one whit* whether evolution or creation is taught,
> > > because rationality has already lost.
>
> > > > Which leaves me with no choice but to counter it.
>
> > > > If it weren't for that, I'd be happy to let you wage jihad and tilt at
> > > > your Quixotic windmills as much as you like. The odds of evangelical
> > > > atheists successfully stamping out religion are roughly akin to the
> > > > odds of the flat-earthers successfully changing geology textbooks in
> > > > the US. So y'all are actually pretty harmless in the bigger scheme of
> > > > things, though loud and utterly obnoxious. Alas, though, some of us
> > > > are engaged in a political fight -- which you are not helping.
>
> > > im sorry reverend, but i adhere to a moral standard of defending the
> > > truth and attacking lies. if that doesnt suit your selfish political
> > > purposes, well, you can go fuck yourself. im not going to shut up, nor
> > > are any other "evangelical atheists." we're here, and we have a right
> > > to speak our opinions. get used to it.
>
> > He didn't say you had no right to speak. He was discussing the
> > consequences of your actions. His "political purposes" seem to be
> > keeping religion out of public schools in the US. What are yours -
> > feeling righteous?
>
> if religious statements contain truths, then they have a legitimate
> purpose in public schools. if they do not contain truths, then they
> have no legitimate purpose there.

None of us are arguing with you there, so you yourself are pulling a
dishonest creationist-like stunt for even saying it. What I want to
know is, in the Grand Duchy of Snexko, is it all right to even have
religious statements _in church_?

>
> these statement apply with or without the first amendment. public
> schools teach our best understanding of *reality.*

So what? All of us (except the creationists) agree with you there.
You are grinding an axe unnecessarily, just because you are stuck in
axe-grinding mode.

> if gods were a part
> of that reality, then it wouldnt be a violation of the first amendment
> to teach about them. if scientists had discovered that lightning was a
> result of zeus throwing lightning bolts, then that would be a
> legitimate topic for science class. anybody could look outside and
> *see* zeus for themselves using the scientific method.
>

Blah blah irrelevant blah.

>
>
> > Like the creationists, you fight for truth and attack lies - even when
> > they aren't there.

Exactly. What use to gain a few more percent of snex's "intellectual
honesty" at the price of having a $()%$%-ed up personality? I don't
want to be any more of a linear, absolutist, concrete thinker than I
already am.

>
> > > > ================================================
> > > > Lenny Flank
> > > > "There are no loose threads in the web of life"

(snip)

Eric Root

== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 7:39 pm
From: snex

On Apr 23, 9:33 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 9:25 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 9:12 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > the irony is that flank compares dawkins to abortion clinic bombers
>
> > > Whaaaaaaa . . . . .???????
>
> > > What the hell are you gibbering about?
>
> > > Dude, you are seriously fucked in the head. (sigh)
>
> > from the mouth of the good reverend himself:
>
> > "But once again I am struck by how remarkably similar the evangelical
> > atheists are to the foaming fundies. Both want science to support
> > their particular religious opinions. Both declare that the Bible must
> > be taken literally, in its entirety, or it is entirely meaningless.
> > Both assert that if evolution happens, that means there is no God.
> > Both declare that Biblical-literalist fundamentalism is the only "True
> > Christianity(tm)(c)" and that all other forms of "liberal"
> > Christianity are either dishonest or stupid. Both conclude, either
> > implicitly or explicitly, that anyone who is not with them, must be
> > against them. Both are utterly totally implacably intolerant of
> > anyone who doesn't agree with their religious opinions (indeed, both
> > of them get awfully testy whenever anyone even calls their religious
> > opinions "religious opinions"). Both will not rest, ever, until they
> > have stamped the other out completely."
>
> > nevermind the fact that i refuted every single point of this with no
> > reply from the reverend.
>
> (sigh) Like I said, you are seriously fucked in the head.

ad hominem. you are sounding more like ray in every post!

>
> ================================================
> Lenny Flank
> "There are no loose threads in the web of life"
>
> Author:
> "Deception by Design: The Intelligent Design Movement in America"http://www.redandblackpublishers.com/deceptionbydesign.html
>
> Creation "Science" Debunked:http://www.geocities.com/lflank

== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 7:45 pm
From: snex

On Apr 23, 9:36 pm, e...@swva.net wrote:
> On Apr 23, 1:42 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 1:31 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 22, 10:27 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 22, 6:20 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 22, 3:20 pm, snex <hiya_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Apr 22, 3:11 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Apr 22, 2:51 pm, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 2:43 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > (snip)
>
> > > > > > > > > With all due respect, it's not your place to tell the rest of the
> > > > > > > > > world what they "should" or "should not" think or believe. (shrug)
>
> > > > > > > > actually its my place to say anything i damn well please. whether or
> > > > > > > > not they listen, is up to them.
>
> > > > > > > (snip)
>
> > > > > > > Oddly enough, that is PRECISELY the answer I get from fundies when I
> > > > > > > ask them what right they think they have to "peacefully coerce"
> > > > > > > everyone else to their religious opinions.
>
> > > > > > oddly enough, fundies are precisely right when they give that answer.
>
> > > > > Indeed. Since you and the fundies are alike in nearly every respect,
> > > > > it's no wonder that you accept their answers just as thoroughly as
> > > > > they do.
>
> > > > what a bunch of nonsense. this is akin to something ray martinez would
> > > > say. the fundies have a right to free speech just as i do. dont like
> > > > it? go to a country that doesnt have it. im sure youll enjoy it oh so
> > > > much.
>
> > > > > > they have the right to spout their lies just as much as i have the
> > > > > > right to point out that they are lies.
>
> > > > > > what, you have a problem with freedom of speech?
>
> > > > > No, it appears that YOU are the one who has a gripe against the First
> > > > > Amendment.
>
> > > > i do? where?
>
> > > > > Alas, though, your idiotic campaign to stamp out religion only harms
> > > > > us when it comes to fighting IDers and fundies. After all, ID is a
> > > > > political fight, and in a political fight, one needs the active
> > > > > support of at least 50% of the population to win. Indeed, in the US,
> > > > > about half the population is against ID, and about half is for it.
> > > > > Since atheists make up, at most, 15% of the population, this means
> > > > > that about 35% of the population is BOTH theist and accepts
> > > > > evolution. In other words, about two out of every three people who
> > > > > oppose ID and accept evolution, are theists. To win a political fight
> > > > > against ID, we need the support of those people. We simply will not
> > > > > win without them. And I kind of doubt that rabidly screaming at them
> > > > > "RELIGION IS STUPID !!!!!!!', like you do, is going to win much from
> > > > > them in the way of support. So, in pure terms of political tactics,
> > > > > attacking people who are ON OUR SIDE, is . . . well . . . awfully
> > > > > stupid.
>
> > > > what a crock of shit. if theists are so stupid that they would
> > > > deliberately vote for creationism *when they know it is false* merely
> > > > because we mean old atheists dare to ask them hard questions, then
> > > > they are just as dishonest as the creationists. in that case, it
> > > > *doesnt matter one whit* whether evolution or creation is taught,
> > > > because rationality has already lost.
>
> > > > > Which leaves me with no choice but to counter it.
>
> > > > > If it weren't for that, I'd be happy to let you wage jihad and tilt at
> > > > > your Quixotic windmills as much as you like. The odds of evangelical
> > > > > atheists successfully stamping out religion are roughly akin to the
> > > > > odds of the flat-earthers successfully changing geology textbooks in
> > > > > the US. So y'all are actually pretty harmless in the bigger scheme of
> > > > > things, though loud and utterly obnoxious. Alas, though, some of us
> > > > > are engaged in a political fight -- which you are not helping.
>
> > > > im sorry reverend, but i adhere to a moral standard of defending the
> > > > truth and attacking lies. if that doesnt suit your selfish political
> > > > purposes, well, you can go fuck yourself. im not going to shut up, nor
> > > > are any other "evangelical atheists." we're here, and we have a right
> > > > to speak our opinions. get used to it.
>
> > > He didn't say you had no right to speak. He was discussing the
> > > consequences of your actions. His "political purposes" seem to be
> > > keeping religion out of public schools in the US. What are yours -
> > > feeling righteous?
>
> > if religious statements contain truths, then they have a legitimate
> > purpose in public schools. if they do not contain truths, then they
> > have no legitimate purpose there.
>
> None of us are arguing with you there, so you yourself are pulling a
> dishonest creationist-like stunt for even saying it. What I want to
> know is, in the Grand Duchy of Snexko, is it all right to even have
> religious statements _in church_?

actually, lenny flank was arguing with it.

regarding your question, youll have to define what you mean by "all
right." if you mean "have the legal right to" then of course its "all
right." its also "all right" to preach creationism, anti-semitism,
promotion of black slavery, or any other number of opinions civilized
people agree are dumb.

but if you mean "should go unchallenged in doing so" then no, its not
"all right."

>
>
>
> > these statement apply with or without the first amendment. public
> > schools teach our best understanding of *reality.*
>
> So what? All of us (except the creationists) agree with you there.
> You are grinding an axe unnecessarily, just because you are stuck in
> axe-grinding mode.
>
> > if gods were a part
> > of that reality, then it wouldnt be a violation of the first amendment
> > to teach about them. if scientists had discovered that lightning was a
> > result of zeus throwing lightning bolts, then that would be a
> > legitimate topic for science class. anybody could look outside and
> > *see* zeus for themselves using the scientific method.
>
> Blah blah irrelevant blah.
>
>
>
> > > Like the creationists, you fight for truth and attack lies - even when
> > > they aren't there.
>
> Exactly. What use to gain a few more percent of snex's "intellectual
> honesty" at the price of having a $()%$%-ed up personality? I don't
> want to be any more of a linear, absolutist, concrete thinker than I
> already am.

when its no longer a social stigma to admit you are an atheist in most
of this country, you can thank me (or more likely dawkins and pz
myers).

>
>
>
> > > > > ================================================
> > > > > Lenny Flank
> > > > > "There are no loose threads in the web of life"
>
> (snip)
>
> Eric Root

== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 9:44 pm
From: Tom McDonald

snex wrote:
> On Apr 23, 9:33 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 23, 9:25 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 23, 9:12 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> the irony is that flank compares dawkins to abortion clinic bombers
>>>> Whaaaaaaa . . . . .???????
>>>> What the hell are you gibbering about?
>>>> Dude, you are seriously fucked in the head. (sigh)
>>> from the mouth of the good reverend himself:
>>> "But once again I am struck by how remarkably similar the evangelical
>>> atheists are to the foaming fundies. Both want science to support
>>> their particular religious opinions. Both declare that the Bible must
>>> be taken literally, in its entirety, or it is entirely meaningless.
>>> Both assert that if evolution happens, that means there is no God.
>>> Both declare that Biblical-literalist fundamentalism is the only "True
>>> Christianity(tm)(c)" and that all other forms of "liberal"
>>> Christianity are either dishonest or stupid. Both conclude, either
>>> implicitly or explicitly, that anyone who is not with them, must be
>>> against them. Both are utterly totally implacably intolerant of
>>> anyone who doesn't agree with their religious opinions (indeed, both
>>> of them get awfully testy whenever anyone even calls their religious
>>> opinions "religious opinions"). Both will not rest, ever, until they
>>> have stamped the other out completely."
>>> nevermind the fact that i refuted every single point of this with no
>>> reply from the reverend.
>> (sigh) Like I said, you are seriously fucked in the head.
>
> ad hominem. you are sounding more like ray in every post!

It's not ad hominem if it is true. And, in your case, Lenny is
right on the button.

== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 7:54 pm
From: eroot@swva.net

On Apr 23, 10:24 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 9:19 pm, e...@swva.net wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 1:23 am, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 22, 6:11 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 22, 3:20 pm, snex <hiya_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 22, 3:09 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Apr 22, 2:51 pm, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > the reasons why people should not form religious opinions until
> > > > > > > evidence is in are the same exact reasons why people should not form
> > > > > > > scientific opinions until evidence is in. do you think religious
> > > > > > > opinions are so fundamentally different from every other type of
> > > > > > > opinion that the idea that error should be eliminated first does not
> > > > > > > apply? if so, why?
>
> > > > > > Who the hell cares, Snex? Why are you on such a Mission from God to
> > > > > > stamp out religion? Why such a hardon for theists? What did Mother
> > > > > > Theresa or Martin Luther King Jr ever do to you?
>
> > > > > did you just ask me why i care that people believe lies, and base
> > > > > their decisions in the real world on those lies, and expect other
> > > > > people to respect those lies?
>
> > > > So opinions that disagree with yours, are "lies" . . . .. ?
>
> > > no, reverend. lies are lies. example of a lie: "jesus christ was
> > > crucified and 3 days later rose from the dead." all evidence available
> > > indicates that this statement is false, therefore to assert it is a
> > > lie.
>
> > > > > why dont you answer the question, reverend?
>
> > > > (sigh) Dude, let me remind you that we're both on the same side here.
>
> > > > Don't be going all fundie on me and attacking me simply because I
> > > > don't agree with your opinions. Let's leave that to the FUNDIES.
>
> > > > See, this is precisely why I say that the evangelical atheists are no
> > > > different than the evangelical fundies. They're both intolerant
> > > > bellicose pricks who simply can't tolerate anyone having an opinion
> > > > different from theirs. (shrug)
>
> > > LOL! yes im so intolerant for asking you questions. how dare i.
>
> > > ill repeat it, just in case you didnt bother to read it the first time
> > > (i know you have a habit of doing that)
>
> > > the reasons why people should not form religious opinions until
> > > evidence is in are the same exact reasons why people should not form
> > > scientific opinions until evidence is in. do you think religious
> > > opinions are so fundamentally different from every other type of
> > > opinion that the idea that error should be eliminated first does not
> > > apply? if so, why?
>
> > > > ================================================
> > > > Lenny Flank
> > > > "There are no loose threads in the web of life"
>
> > > > Author:
> > > > "Deception by Design: The Intelligent Design Movement in America"http://www.redandblackpublishers.com/deceptionbydesign.html
>
> > > > Creation "Science" Debunked:http://www.geocities.com/lflank
>
> > Do you think I should not form aesthetic opinions until all the
> > evidence is in? Am I wrong for liking bluegrass music before I've
> > listened to Edith Piaf? Am I wrong for liking Steve Ditko's work
> > before I've seen the work of Johnny Romita, Jr.? Am I wrong for
> > liking station wagons? Why aren't my religious opinions parallel to
> > my aesthetic opinions as opposed to my scientific ones?
>
> do your religious opinions make assertions about your own state of
> mind, or about external reality? i understand that a few religions
> stick to the former, but there is no denying that the vast vast
> majority of religious people are talking about the latter.
>
> and, if your religious opinions stick to the former, in what way are
> they different from your aesthetic opinions at all?
>
>
>
> > Eric Root

I declare befored all the world that I have no evidence that they are
different from my aesthetic opinions. Since I consider religious
belief to be a matter of taste, I stand up for my tastes in religious
beliefs the same way I stand up for my other preferences that I
consider to be my prerogative and nobody else's business. That's why
I argue with fundamentalists, including you. I don't "have" to be a
fan of heavy metal music, for instance, and I don't "have" to be an
atheist.

Eric Root

== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 7:57 pm
From: ayers_39@hotmail.com

On Apr 23, 10:19 pm, e...@swva.net wrote:
> On Apr 23, 1:23 am, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 22, 6:11 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 22, 3:20 pm, snex <hiya_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 22, 3:09 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 22, 2:51 pm, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > the reasons why people should not form religious opinions until
> > > > > > evidence is in are the same exact reasons why people should not form
> > > > > > scientific opinions until evidence is in. do you think religious
> > > > > > opinions are so fundamentally different from every other type of
> > > > > > opinion that the idea that error should be eliminated first does not
> > > > > > apply? if so, why?
>
> > > > > Who the hell cares, Snex? Why are you on such a Mission from God to
> > > > > stamp out religion? Why such a hardon for theists? What did Mother
> > > > > Theresa or Martin Luther King Jr ever do to you?
>
> > > > did you just ask me why i care that people believe lies, and base
> > > > their decisions in the real world on those lies, and expect other
> > > > people to respect those lies?
>
> > > So opinions that disagree with yours, are "lies" . . . .. ?
>
> > no, reverend. lies are lies. example of a lie: "jesus christ was
> > crucified and 3 days later rose from the dead." all evidence available
> > indicates that this statement is false, therefore to assert it is a
> > lie.
>
> > > > why dont you answer the question, reverend?
>
> > > (sigh) Dude, let me remind you that we're both on the same side here.
>
> > > Don't be going all fundie on me and attacking me simply because I
> > > don't agree with your opinions. Let's leave that to the FUNDIES.
>
> > > See, this is precisely why I say that the evangelical atheists are no
> > > different than the evangelical fundies. They're both intolerant
> > > bellicose pricks who simply can't tolerate anyone having an opinion
> > > different from theirs. (shrug)
>
> > LOL! yes im so intolerant for asking you questions. how dare i.
>
> > ill repeat it, just in case you didnt bother to read it the first time
> > (i know you have a habit of doing that)
>
> > the reasons why people should not form religious opinions until
> > evidence is in are the same exact reasons why people should not form
> > scientific opinions until evidence is in. do you think religious
> > opinions are so fundamentally different from every other type of
> > opinion that the idea that error should be eliminated first does not
> > apply? if so, why?
>
> > > ================================================
> > > Lenny Flank
> > > "There are no loose threads in the web of life"
>
> > > Author:
> > > "Deception by Design: The Intelligent Design Movement in America"http://www.redandblackpublishers.com/deceptionbydesign.html
>
> > > Creation "Science" Debunked:http://www.geocities.com/lflank
>
> Do you think I should not form aesthetic opinions until all the
> evidence is in? Am I wrong for liking bluegrass music before I've
> listened to Edith Piaf? Am I wrong for liking Steve Ditko's work
> before I've seen the work of Johnny Romita, Jr.? Am I wrong for
> liking station wagons? Why aren't my religious opinions parallel to
> my aesthetic opinions as opposed to my scientific ones?
>
> Eric Root

"JESUS CHRIST" was
> crucified and 3 days later rose from the dead." FACT 500 PEOPLE SEEN HIM ALIVE, BELIEVERS AND NON BELIEVERS. THE SHEET HE WAS BARYED 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. HUH, TAKE ALOT OF FAITH TO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION, IN WHICH HAS NO PROOF EXCEPT IN YOUR HEAD. GROW UP, AND STOP BE WEAK AND EASLY MISLEAD RESEARCH FOR YOUR SELF FACTS ARE THERE, AND THEY ALL POINT TO GOD.

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 7:31 pm
From: "Steven J."

On Apr 23, 8:13 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On 22 Apr 2007 09:55:14 -0700, wf3h <w...@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?
>
That "transitional fossils" exist. That "stasis" and "microevolution"
are different things. That "microevolution" and "speciation" are
different things. Given your own posting history, perhaps we should
include "that defining one's terms is important to conducting an
argument," since you've never bothered to explain what you mean by
such crucial terms as "nascent," or "calm, global-like flooding."
>
> > 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.
>
Are you agreeing with wf3h?
>
> > They deny that scientists can
> >be scientists while being Christian.
>
> ditto.
>
Good grief, Tony, *I* did better than that in upholding the good name
of creationism. At least *try*, damn it.
>
> >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.
>
Again, you don't seem to be disagreeing with the person you're trying
to refute. Symptoms are, after all, caused by whatever they're
symptoms of, so you here attribute non-belief in creationism to "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.
>
It is relevant to the question of whether creationists might hate
Jews, and that (not the facticity of evolution) was the point of
wf3h's post. It is not uncommon for people to attribute to entire
groups the behavior and beliefs of most members of the group, or even
of the most outspoken and conspicuous members of the group, no matter
what the majority is like. If most Jews reject creationism, then
creationists might conclude that "Jews" in general had apostasized,
rejecting the revelation that God had given them. Please note that I
criticized this argument upthread, but at least I understood it.

In the paragraph above, your last two sentences manage the difficult
feat of displaying greater confusion than the first sentence.
Obviously, "the mob" mostly supports theism, yet atheists are defined
by not accepting belief in God as truth. Therefore, it cannot be true
that "truth for the atheist is whatever the mob says it is." Again,
you toss that term "objective truth" around, with no indication that
it can be defended (indeed, no indication that you would define it) as
anything other than "the subjective beliefs or preferences of Tony
Pagano." Of course, it is almost surely correct that most atheists
care nothing for your personal subjective beliefs or preferences, if
only because most atheists have never heard of you. A lot of atheists
(I am not sure about "most," much less "all," atheists) hold that
"truth," or at least "fact," is that which is supported by converging
lines of strong evidence, and care rather strongly about it.
>
> >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.
>
Oddly, you don't argue against the truth of wf3h's assertions. You
don't argue for the truth of any creationist positions. And why
should not creationism be marginalized? It is a grossly aberrant way
of thinking, holding that evidence means nothing unless it confirms
arbitrary dogma.
>
> 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

-- Steven J.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 7:40 pm
From: snex

<snip>
>
> > >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.
>
> Again, you don't seem to be disagreeing with the person you're trying
> to refute. Symptoms are, after all, caused by whatever they're
> symptoms of, so you here attribute non-belief in creationism to "evil"
> intent.
>

if he were trying to refute it, he would have changed the subject line.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: corruption of science
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/9a4df947b4526422?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 7:34 pm
From: wf3h

verulam wrote:
> Dear All,
> I have glanced through the first thirty odd postings on this thread
> and, so it seems to me, Dale Kelly has two concerns in this claim.
>
> The first of those is the claim that science is corrupt and pays no
> attention to its own claimed methodology. I have to say I agree with
> that claim.
> My own web site "A Habit of Lies: How Scientists Cheat"
> http://freespace.virgin.net/john.hewitt1/
> elaborates just one of many example.

well i guess this is what we expect from someone who's never done
science

yes, scientists cheat. no, it's not common. if it was, computers
wouldn't work and planes wouldn't fly. science is tested against the
real world. cases of fraud are readily detected.

so his general analysis is faulty and wrong.

>
> The second of his concerns will be whatever specific issue gives rise
> to his claim about scientific cheating. He has not really elaborated
> his concern on this thread but I have the impression that it concerns
> evolutionary theory.
> As I say, I am not sure where he is coming from on that one. The
> evidence that evolution is a historic fact is hard to gainsay - one
> cannot easily dispute the fact that evolution has occurred. On the
> other hand I can agree that evolutionary theory, as a description of
> the evolutionary process, is not a well constructed piece of theory.
>

well, he said it so it must be true. after all, he said it...\

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 7:36 pm
From: wf3h

verulam wrote:
> >
> The advantages of that reconstruction are, in part, that it is much
> more coherent with the rest of science and in part that it seems to be
> more consistent with observations about humans. In particular, it
> leads to theories of humor and sexuality which, I feel, work better
> than anything in the scientific literature.

earthworms don't have humor. nor do plants. nor do bacteria

IOW your 'theory' doesn't fit about 99.99999% of life on earth

and you say it's MORE useful than evolution??

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 8:00 pm
From: wf3h

verulam wrote:
>
>>
> My views on evolutionary theory are described in considerable detail
> on my other web site. http://www.sexandphilosophy.co.uk
> I hold that a theory of evolution should be constructed on the basis
> of data, rather than genes, which should, themselves, be perceived as
> formatting part of the the data in DNA.
>
> The advantages of that reconstruction are, in part, that it is much
> more coherent with the rest of science and in part that it seems to be
> more consistent with observations about humans. In particular, it
> leads to theories of humor and sexuality which, I feel, work better
> than anything in the scientific literature.

it seems carl sagan's observation that 'yes, they laughed at galileo
but they also laughed at bozo the clown' applies here. those who
disagree with evolution often have their own agenda, and john just
told us his. he finds science inadequate because it doesn't support
HIS view of evolution! go figure.

his view is useless...being highly restricted to sentient beings with
a sense of humor...

and here's what he says about scientists:

What the scientific establishment do is

Ignore their critics.
Resist the publication of critical views.
Give irrelevant, meaningless replies to inquiries.
Abusively insinuate that the critic is stupid or ignorant.
Tell third parties that the critic's work is of "poor quality," that
it is pseudoscience or junk science.
Invent "quality control" procedures so structured as to ensure that
any work they chose to ignore is labeled as of "poor quality"
regardless of its true merit.

this is kind of like saying all black people smell and are
ignorant...after all...everyone KNOWS it!!

he offers no proof. he offers no citations. he offers NO rebuttal to
the very fact that he's on the internet courtesy of the work of
scientists.

he says:

I am certainly not part of the British scientific establishment.

but then contradicts himself by saying HIS theory of evolution works
better than anyone else's.

proof of his assertion that scientists lie?

uh..they IGNORE him!! go figure.

he's made an ironclad case...for the justification of him being
ignored, that is.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Scientific Models Are Usually Wrong Though Helpful
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/2218488a3cc44ea7?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 7:38 pm
From: Ian Chua

On Apr 23, 3:26 pm, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 12:45 pm, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 12:14 pm, AC <mightymartia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 23 Apr 2007 02:54:23 -0700,
>
> > > Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
> > > > On Apr 23, 5:44 am, Cubist <Xub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> Ian Chua wrote:
> > > >> > Scientific models are a product of the human imagination.
> > > >> > They are often used to solve problems or predict system behavior
> > > >> > successfully.
> > > >> > But the models may not be the reality we perceive.
>
> > > >> Sure -- "the map is not the territory", after all. This is why
> > > >> scientific models are tested against reality, and those models which
> > > >> fail such testing are abandoned. Is this a problem?
>
> > > > Incorrect - scientific models can never be tested against reality.
> > > > They can only be tested with what we can perceive.
>
> > > Ah, I see, so you're going to be advocating epistemological nihilism.
>
> > Nope - I'm not advocating anything more than just establishing that
> > scientific models and theories
> > are mere representation of reality through human imagination but not
> > reality itself.
>
> But you are advocating epistemological nihilism, even in your denial.
> Insisting that knowledge is unattainable is nihilism.
>
> Either way, your knowledge of a god is imaginary, but with nihilism,
> it is imaginary at two levels.
>
Not sure where you're heading with this. We're talking about
scientific models and theories.

>
>
> > > That doesn't surprise me. It's the last refuge of the Creationist,
> > > when they know that their beliefs are completely without foundation.
>
> > > --
> > > Aaron Clausen
> > > mightymartia...@gmail.com
>
> --
> Greg G.
>
> Here, Pavlov, come here, boy!

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 7:47 pm
From: Ian Chua

On Apr 23, 3:58 pm, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> On Apr 23, 7:02 pm, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 12:57 pm, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 23, 4:02 pm, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 23, 10:42 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 23, 3:09 pm, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Apr 23, 9:16 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Apr 23, 11:27 am, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Apr 23, 6:15 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Apr 23, 10:21 am, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > Scientific models are a product of the human imagination.
> > > > > > > > > > They are often used to solve problems or predict system behavior
> > > > > > > > > > successfully.
> > > > > > > > > > But the models may not be the reality we perceive.
>
> > > > > > > > > So what?
> > > > > > > > > They work, and what's more they work far better than other models of
> > > > > > > > > how the universe behaves.
> > > > > > > > > If I am ill, I think that antibiotics work better than prayer. And if
> > > > > > > > > I am ill, I don't think I am being punished for my sins.
>
> > > > > > > > > Is this some sort of attempt to argue that because evolutionary theory
> > > > > > > > > is only a model it may be wrong?
> > > > > > > > > Of course it might be wrong - that's the nature of science.
>
> > > > > > > > Excellent - I completely agree with this point.
>
> > > > > > > "But to suggest that because evolutionary theory may be wrong some
> > > > > > > other "theory", such as one of the many esposed by creationists, can
> > > > > > > be correct is downright silly. Those other "theories" were falsified
> > > > > > > centuries ago. In science a falsified theory does not make a comeback,
> > > > > > > and those who persist in supporting falsified theories lose any
> > > > > > > credibilty."
>
> > > > > > > Am I to understand that you do not agree with this point?
>
> > > > > > > If not, perhaps you can give an example of a completely and utterly
> > > > > > > falsified scientific theory which *has* made a comeback?
>
> > > > > > > I'm sure that you will also agree that scientific theory is based on
> > > > > > > the interpretation of the evidence as objectively as possible, and
> > > > > > > that personal conviction carries no weight in science no matter how
> > > > > > > strongly that personal conviction is held.
>
> > > > > > Scientific models used to be influenced by religious beliefs.
>
> > > > > They aren't today.
>
> > > > > > The efficacy of the model only depends on whether it can be validated
> > > > > > and useful.
>
> > > > > The problem you have if you want to push religious conviction into
> > > > > science is that it cannot be validated.
>
> > > > > > Yet one cannot deny that the model is not reality itself.
>
> > > > > So what? It works. I don't care if it is any ultimate reality or not.
>
> > > > Correct - that's my understanding too.
>
> > > This partial agreement is somewhat disingenuous.
> > > Why not confirm whether or not you agree with the point my post was
> > > making?
>
> > > Just to remind you:
>
> > > It doesn't affect the nature of science or the validity of its
> > > findings.
>
> > It does not affect Nature as Nature is reality. But it does affect
> > the nature of science if
> > the scientific models and theories are taken as absolute realities.
>
> Which is something no scientist does.
>
> The idea of an "absolute reality" is an philosophical concept which
> has little relevance to science. All theories in all branches of all
> science are treated as provisional. That alone denies the possibility
> that science can every reach any absolute reality.
>
> Why waste your time over something which scientists don't do?
>
> > > If you want to claim some superior reality based on your personal
> > > convictions, fine. Just don't call it science.
>
> > > And by the way: if you want others to change their beliefs so that
> > > they line up with yours - i.e. by wanting to call your beliefs
> > > science" and have them taught as science in science classroom - then
> > > you need to offer rather more than the strength of your personal
> > > conviction in support of your argument. The world is filled with
> > > people whose convictions are different from yours. Many are
> > > diametrically opposed to yours. Unless you can provide some objective
> > > way of judging the validity of all those personal convictions, why
> > > should anyone accept yours rather than anyone else's?
>
> > Nope - I'm not making other claims in this context.
>
> You have in other contexts. If you are not leading up to some
> assertion about the validity of evolutionary theory as science, and
> suggesting that someones personal conviction has as much validity, I
> wonder what is the point of all this posting.
>
The point is very simple - a scientific theory or model is not reality
but only a product of human imagination and innovation.
Personal convictions about a theory or usefulness of the model may
help the scientist develop a more robust model or theory.
The issue is not the validity of the scientist's personal convictions
but rather the model's validity.
But ultimately, the model or theory is still a product of human
imagination.

> RF
>
> > > RF
>
> > > > > > > Or do you think that personal conviction is evidence?
>
> > > > > > > RF
>
> > > > > > > > > RF

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 7:52 pm
From: Ian Chua

On Apr 23, 4:07 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com>
wrote:
> In article <1177354392.862619.254...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 2:11 pm, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@attbi.com> wrote:
> > > On 2007-04-23, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 23, 12:50 pm, SeppoP <seppo_pietikai...@xyahoox.com> wrote:
> > > >> Ian Chua wrote:
> > > >> > On Apr 23, 8:33 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > >> >> In message <1177330278.810267.302...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> > > >> >> e...@swva.net writes
>
> > > >> >>> On Apr 23, 6:04 am, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
> > > >> >>>> On Apr 23, 5:21 am, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
> > > >> >>>>> Scientific models are a product of the human imagination.
> > > >> >>>>> They are often used to solve problems or predict system behavior
> > > >> >>>>> successfully.
> > > >> >>>>> But the models may not be the reality we perceive.
> > > >> >>>> 1) Newton's Corpuscular Theory of Light - Reality or Product of
> > > >> >>>> Human Imagination?
> > > >> >>>> 2) Huyghen's Wave Theory of Light - Reality or Product of Human
> > > >> >>>> Imagination?
> > > >> >>>> 3) Particle-Wave Duality of Light - Reality or Product of Human
> > > >> >>>> Imagination?
> > > >> >>> Creationism - Reality or Product of Human Imagination?
> > > >> >>> Eric Root
> > > >> >> You may be falling into his trap. He may be going in the direction of
> > > >> >> the nihilisitic and post-modernist argument that as models are not
> > > >> >> reality creationism and science are equally valid. However we should
> > > >> >> encourage awareness, with a nod to Eric Blair, that some models are
> > > >> >> more
> > > >> >> valid than others. Or, equivalently, while we can't know that a model
> > > >> >> is
> > > >> >> right, we can know that a model is wrong.
> > > >> >> --
> > > >> > Correct - the models are often wrong.
>
> > > >> >> alias Ernest Major
>
> > > >> How does your creationism model fare in the alleged competition when
> > > >> faced with the maps/models/theories?
>
> > > > Not relevant - science is too narrow to explain God.
>
> > > Why? Or more specifically, "why should we believe you when you say so?"
>
> > Each creature, including human beings, has the ability to acquire and
> > process only certain information.
>
> I'm not sure if you are saying that the amount or complexity of
> information we can learn is limited (some of us are smarter than others.
> I am smarter than a cat.) or of you are saying that there are areas of
> knowledge that are closed to certain kinds of beings. For instance,
> Buddhism has the doctrine of Buddha Nature, which people have but dogs
> lack: Dogs can't become enlightened. But I do agree with you about
> certain humans: I've noticed that some of them, no matter how carefully
> one explains things to them, cannot understand how science really works.
> They insist on clinging to their own fantasy-world definitions and
> explanations of things.
>
> > Unless we have the power to create life, we do not have the capacity
> > to use our science to know a Creator God.
>
> Do you mean that until I can whack a nail into a piece of wood, I cannot
> meet a carpenter? Or I can't talk to an electrical engineer until I've
> calculated Ef for a transistor?
>
> On what basis do you claim that knowledge of abiogenesis is a
> prerequisite for knowledge of God? On what basis do you imply that god
> is knowable?
>
God cannot be discovered by scientific means.

> --
> Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>http://www.timberwoof.com
> Level 1 Linux technical support: Read The Fscking Manual!
> Level 2 Linux technical support: Write The Fscking Code Yourself!

==============================================================================
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 7:40 pm
From: Ken Rode

On Apr 23, 10:09 pm, edward_...@verizon.net wrote:
> On Apr 22, 2:21 pm, "titus" <duck...@epix.net> wrote:
>
> > evolution is make beleve no changing me i will curse you out if you beleve
> > in evolution
>
> I should _hope_ god isn't real. If he is, he's got a lot of explaining
> to do.
> (Bet he gets really PO'd at all these religious wackos who blaime him
> for everything.)
> And what does God say when he sneezes? "Me bless me" sounds downright
> weird.

In keeping with the King James Version, I would expect that God uses
good English grammar, like "I bless Me." or possibly "We bless Us." if
He uses the royal pronouns.

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 2:45 am
From: "Perplexed in Peoria"

"For Life" <lacksalot@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1177377157.623071.212750@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> 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...

That is spelled j'idiot. It is a contraction of 'Je sui idiot'.

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

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 2:48 am
From: John Harshman

Dale Kelly wrote:

> the modern definition of life is emergent behavior
>
> even plants with no minds or free will are considered to be alive, just
> because they have emergent behavior
>
> emergent behavior in consciousness depends on the mysterious intermediary
> called the subconscious
>
> we do not communicate directly with the central nervous system, we
> supposedly use an intermediary, the mysterious subconscious
>
> I suggest there is more proof of God as an intermediary than there is of
> a mysterious subconscious
>
> more so, I suggest that when we will our bodies to act, they act with an
> intermediary of God, not the subconscious
>
> provide proof of the subconscious or shut up, evolution punks

Perhaps in the future you could limit your postings to
alt.drugs.psychedelics, since you seem to be tripping here.

None of your premises are true. The modern definition of life refers to
reproduction and metabolism, not to emergent behavior, which is good
considering the difficulty we have in defining "emergent". Plants are
alive because they reproduce and metabolize. The subconscious is a term
used in Freudian psychiatry, not in biology. If there is "proof" of god,
please trot it out. Your bizarre form of dualism is worse than the more
usual form.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 2:46 am
From: Bill Morse

Dale Kelly wrote:

Who is he _talking_ to? And how does he make his voice _do_ that?
--
Yours, Bill Morse

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 2:49 am
From: John Harshman

Dale Kelly wrote:

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 2:54 am
From: Lee Oswald Ving

Dale Kelly <dale.kelly@comcast.net> wrote in
news:pan.2007.04.24.02.28.15@comcast.net:

> more so, I suggest that when we will our bodies to act, they act with
> an intermediary of God, not the subconscious

What did I just tell you about making shit up instead of admitting you have
no idea, bitch?

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 7:50 pm
From: Ray Martinez

On Apr 23, 3:20 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 11:50 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 22, 6:06 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 22, 4:34 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> -- [snip]
>
> > > > Don Imus was fired for something much less antiseptic. I can only
> > > > interpret your "query" above as rhetorical attempting to act like it
> > > > is not. Since Darwinists have gotten away with it by successfully
> > > > brainwashing society with the "it is science" card your "query" is
> > > > just as I said.
>
> > > Ray, you have never bothered to justify the rather astonishing
> > > assertion that it *is* racism to use the words "African" and
> > > "transitional" in the same context. Also, I think that "antiseptic"
> > > does not mean what you think it means, unless you really meant that
> > > Dana Tweedy's remarks kill more germs than Don Imus's radio show.
>
> > You have evaded my previous commentary. Why? This usually indicates
> > that the commentary is confirmed.
>
> Which previous commentary? The thing about Don Imus? He was fired
> for calling a women's basketball team ... well, as one commentator put
> it, a term so vile it can only be heard 24 hours a day on stations
> playing hip-hop music.

Wrong. He was not fired for what you are implying. He was fired for
something, by comparsion to the gutter racism you are attempting to
justify and rationalize, antiseptichttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/antiseptic.

> He ought not have done that, although he'd got
> away with doing similar things for years. He was not fired for
> asserting that African Pygmies are fully human and have the same
> evolutionary potential as other humans. I think it unlikely that he
> would have been fired for making such a point, but that was, after
> all, exactly what Dana was saying.
>

You should stop placing all the blame on poor Dana. Since you agree
that there is no gutter racism in placing Africans and transitional in
the same sentence and context - you are the unrepentant gutter racist.

Steven J. Thompson is an admitted racist.

> > Your first "question" is a rhetorical point attempting to assert that
> > gutter racism is not as such when the "it is science" card is played.
> > Again, what makes you different from Imus? The latter and his remarks
> > were much more antiseptic than your gutter racism.
>
> Could you define the term "antiseptic" as you are using it? Anyway,
> Ray, *you* were the one who brought up African Pygmies and
> "transitional forms" in the same context.

I am a Creationist (as you know) and I asked Dana IF said pygmies were
transitional. Dana said they could be if.....

I then pointed out that the comment is racist, that there is never any
justification in this day and age to make such a demeaning comment.
And here you are defending, playing the "it is science" card. Since
when is gutter racism science? We know Darwin originated modern human
evolution theory after rejecting God as Creator, then his racist mind
then "saw" the "similarities" between human beings and apes "in the
London zoo" (Larson 2004:67). What could cause "rational" and educated
men to think that an idea conceived in racism is science? Answer: the
level of hatred of God.

*You* were the one who
> suggested that African Pygmies might appear to be less than human. If
> you did not suspect that these Africans were less human than other
> members of _Homo sapiens, why did you not ask the equally sensible
> question, could Sherpas or Swiss be considered transitional forms?
> Dana would have given you the exact same answer to that question, so
> it is only your own choice of Pgymies as a subject that introduces
> "gutter racism" into the topic.
>
> > > > What would happen if a Fox network newscaster said "African-pygmies
> > > > could be transitional if....." Would he obtain the "it is science"
> > > > exemption?
>
> > > Ray, it *is* science, and is not racism.
>
> > It is gutter racism. The hypocritical exemption Darwinists receive can
> > only be explained by the existence of Satan.
>
> Again, how can it be racism, much less "gutter" racism (presumably,
> the vilest and stupidest sort of racism) to assert, as Dana did, that
> all humans are equally human and all groups have the potential to be a
> transitional form to some other sort of human? How can it be racism,
> much less gutter racism, to assume that people can read for meaning
> and interpret remarks in context?
>
> > > Nothing but hysterical
> > > hypersensitivity (or the tactical feigning of such sensitivity) could
> > > regard it as such. Would some racial huckster demand that it be
> > > treated as racism? Perhaps; is it not enough that you have debased
> > > yourself to the level of a Gene Scott? Must you adopt Al Sharpton as
> > > a role model as well? Are you aiming for some Guiness World Record in
> > > hypocrisy and paranoia?
>
> > We already know what atheist-Darwinists think of theist scholars and
> > African-American leaders, what is your point?
>
> "Atheist-Darwinists" generally distinguish between different theist
> scholars (Pope Benedict is not John Haught, and neither of them, thank
> the Higher Power of your choice, is Gene Scott), and between different
> African-American leaders. Is it not "gutter racism" to lump disparate
> people with disparate positions and credentials into a single
> undifferentiated mass, based merely on aspects of their religious
> creed or ethnic background?
>
> > > > The success of the exemption is spectacular proof for the existence of
> > > > an invisble Satan.
>
> > > So your positioin is this: the fact that no one who knows anything
> > > about evolutionary theory thinks that evolutionary theory is racist
> > > (and, for that matter, that no one who knows anything about Dana
> > > Tweedy thinks that Dana is racist) is proof of Satan, as opposed to,
> > > e.g. proof that evolutionary theory and Dana Tweedy are not, in fact,
> > > racist. Or, more generally, the fact that no one with a clue and a
> > > functioning brain agrees with you proves that you are right and that
> > > everyone else is deluded by Satan.
>
> > Why has Steven completely twisted the simple point?
>
> It seems to me that I have accurately represented the simple point:
> you cannot admit that you are wrong, or that your opponents are right,
> on any point, and will go to the most paranoid and absurd lengths to
> justify your obstinance.
>
> > The simple point: Placing Africans and transitional in the same
> > context is gutter racism.
>
> Woe betide those poor Kenyans trying to deal with the Turkana boy; no
> matter what position they take, they're Africans placing themselves in
> the same context as "transitional," so they must be gutter racists.
>
> > This explains why he has atttempted to twist and misrepresent the
> > simple issue and point.
>
> > > Ray, I'm not very optimistic about this upcoming paper of yours
> > > ("upcoming," in the sense that Ultima Pangea is upcoming, but not
> > > necessarily that fast, of course). I have this horrible feeling
> > > (based on everything you write) that it's going to be scores of pages
> > > of "every scientifically literate person on Earth disagrees with me,
> > > and that just proves that Gene Scott was right about God's penalty and
> > > Satan." It's a very ambitious sort of conspiracy-theoretical tripe,
> > > but it's still conspiracy-theoretical tripe.
>
> > When has any Darwinist been optimistic about any unfriendly paper?
>
> Ray, we "Darwinists" here have been known to complain about the poor
> quality of the local creationists. Most of us would love an argument
> against evolution that actually forced us to think and work to pick it
> apart. If we thought your paper was going to be any good, there would
> be a lot of enthusiasm for it, if only for the opportunity it gave to
> locate errors and pick them apart. But your arguments, as Wolfgang
> Pauli once put it in reference to a different matter, are not only not
> right, they're not even wrong. They don't have enough to do with the
> subject they're supposed to refute to be wrong about it.
>
> > Somehow I do not feel slighted. I can and will prove ToE
> > scientifically false. That's what I said up-thread - no wonder you are
> > unoptimistic. Has any Darwinist been optimistic about a claim of
> > falsification? Does anyone know what this guy is talking about?
>
> Phillip Gingerich was enthusiastic enough about the evidence (genetic
> and fossil) that showed that whales evolved from primitive
> artiodactyls rather than from mesonychids, even though he had long
> backed the mesonychid connection, which was falsfied by the new
> evidence. Does that count?
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > All human populations have evolved. All human
> > > > > populations are capable of further evolution. In this respect, humans
> > > > > do not differ from any other biological species. It is hardly special
> > > > > pleading to point out that "all human populations" include African
> > > > > human populations.
>
> > > > Forty percent of the American population says we did not evolve.
> > > > Atheists have no choice but to believe in the "miracle."
>
> > > I do not see that the above remarks really address my point. If you
> > > wish, you may read my paragraph above as "according to all
> > > evolutionists, including Dana Tweedy, all human populations evolved,
> > > etc." You have not offered any reason for your exclusion of Africans
> > > from the human race.
>
> > You had no point. All you did was to say that you believe in human
> > evoution. We know this, what is your point? This is the second time in
> > the same post that you have told us something that we already knew but
> > did not make a point.
>
> My first point is that scientific facts are not determined by polling
> data. In politics, what 40% of Americans think matters; they're
> potentially a pressure group that will need to be either placated or
> persuaded somehow. But in science, the majority can be either right
> or wrong, depending on what the evidence shows. My second point is
> that evolution, whether of humans or of other species, is not a
> miracle, is not incredible, and is accepted on evidence rather than on
> faith. My third point is that even if polls were relevant (again,
> they are not), and even if evolution were a religious belief (again,
> it is not), saying that all human populations are the result of
> evolution and all have the potential for further evolution is in no
> way racist. My fourth point is that nothing you have said offers even
> a bad argument against any of the first three points; you just assert
> things without bothering to support them.
>
> > The issue is that you are attempting to act like placing Africans and
> > transitional is the same context is not gutter racism. In response, I
> > point out the continued attempt to justify and rationalize.
>
> The issue here is that you are wrong, and refuse either to admit it or
> to offer evidence and arguments for your position.
>
> > > Neither reproduction, nor mutations, nor inheritance, nor natural
> > > selection, are "miracles."
>
> > True. What is your point? Did you forget that we are talking about
> > racist human evolution from African genesis?
>
> Ray, one of my pet peeves is the modern tendency to promiscuously
> accuse one's opponents of racism. "Darwinists" do this too, by the
> way: a common "Darwinist" taunt to creationists is "humans ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

==============================================================================
TOPIC: VT massacre, Creationists, apology?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/0833cb8101482318?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 8:04 pm
From: eroot@swva.net

On Apr 22, 7:07 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?
>

Because they are twisted creeps?

> --http://desertphile.org
> Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
> "I've hired myself out as a tourist attraction." -- Spike

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 8:04 pm
From: nospam@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek)

In article <1177371044.476015.137980@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
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.

What exactly is the difference between "chromosomal damage" and "a
series of gene mutatuions"?

--
Please reply to: | "One of the hardest parts of my job is to
pciszek at panix dot com | connect Iraq to the War on Terror."
Autoreply is disabled | -- G. W. Bush, 9/7/2006

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

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

25 new messages in 10 topics - digest

No comments:

Links

About Me

Blog Archive