http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins?hl=en
talk.origins@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Scientific Models Are Usually Wrong Though Helpful - 5 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/2218488a3cc44ea7?hl=en
* In the News: Darwin Only Had A Theology Degree - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/38dc4b7e007af971?hl=en
* To the writers of the Talk.Origins website - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/83a7ea3085fa6ee1?hl=en
* not enough intermediate species - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/14427384260ff06a?hl=en
* a challenge to evolution punks - 6 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/cf1ee2f7a2c72bef?hl=en
* The insanity keeps coming - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/853d373e79363233?hl=en
* Human genes vs meat, cereal food. - 2 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/cbf34822f0b9739a?hl=en
* Chez Watt - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/1f1385c6ba52bfb0?hl=en
* How to meet people that are really interested in you? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/ac59c9844d36be47?hl=en
* Darwin married 2 opium addicted 10 year old transvestite prostitutes at the
same time - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/4568d065a0db317e?hl=en
* Clue for 'Bimms' - 3 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/9d49121d7d4f2e78?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Scientific Models Are Usually Wrong Though Helpful
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/2218488a3cc44ea7?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 7:12 pm
From: AC
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:16:56 -0500,
Dick <remdickhm@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 23 Apr 2007 16:18:29 GMT, AC <mightymartianca@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 23 Apr 2007 06:49:49 -0700,
>>Ian Chua <ichua@purdue.edu> wrote:
>>> On Apr 23, 8:55 am, e...@swva.net wrote:
>>>> On Apr 23, 6:27 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.
>>>>
>>>> But this is the important point. Do you agree with it? In the past,
>>>> scientific theories have been replaced by other scientific theories.
>>>
>>> Correct! The fact that new scientific theories and models have
>>> replaced
>>> old ones did not mean the old ones did not work - it means the
>>> theories
>>> and models have some limitations. The new theories and models
>>> that work are still not the reality but a product of our human
>>> imagination
>>> and innovation.
>>
>>You know, there have been damn few scientific theories (and by that, I mean
>>theories developed since science was formalized as a methodology) that
>>have been outright replaced. Some of the old geological theories have largely
>>been supplanted, but even Newtonian Mechanics has not been replaced so much
>>as it has been subsumed into General Relativity.
>>
>>So give us some examples of *scientific* theories that have been replaced,
>>when they were replaced and what they were replaced with, and why.
>
> I think your argument cuts two ways. Science as a methodology has
> existed a few hundred years. Mankind has had religious convictions
> throughout history. Many themes have continued suggesting they held
> up under man's review.
Can you give me some notion as to how one would "review" religious claims?
Surely you must admit the reason that methodological naturalism was
developed was simply because other methodologies (where they existed at
all) could not produce consistently testable explanations.
>
> I think science has been successful because of its narrow application.
> Religions have risked dealing with the totality of man's experience:
> love, war, birth, art, etc. Greater exposure to criticism than
> science which is often hard to understand. I understand the value of
> limited application to the measurable, but I think it is narrow of the
> scientific persuasion to not recognize the greater field of interest
> that religions address.
That may be so, but the problem has always been when conflicting religious
views meet head on, there seems no objective means of testing them.
>
> Political forces are part of man's existence. If politics is the art
> of the possible, so is science the art of the possible, just different
> populations. Scientists were greatly divided over the morality of
> developing and using the atomic bomb, where was objectivity then?
Since that was fundementally a moral question, it wasn't a question for
science to answer. Scientists are practioners of science, not science
embodied.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@gmail.com
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 12:39 pm
From: richardalanforrest@googlemail.com
On Apr 24, 12:41 pm, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
> On Apr 24, 3:06 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 24, 3:47 am, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>
> > > 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.
>
> > Quite sp.
>
> > > Personal convictions about a theory or usefulness of the model may
> > > help the scientist develop a more robust model or theory.
>
> > Nonsense.
> > It's evidence which leads to the development of a more robust model.
> > Personal conviction of the validity of a model may lead a scientist to
> > further testing, but so can the conviction that the model is false.
> > The scientist may have no conviction one way or another. What matters
> > is how well the model or theory stands up to testing against the
> > evidence.
>
> > > The issue is not the validity of the scientist's personal convictions
>
> > but rather the model's validity.
>
> > The validity of the model is built on the evidence. The personal
> > convictions of the scientist don't enter into it.
>
> > > But ultimately, the model or theory is still a product of human
> > > imagination.
>
> > It's tested against the evidence, and reflects a portion of what you
> > may want to call "absolute reality".
>
> Can you quote any scientist who said that their model or theory
> is the absolute reality?
Which part of " reflects a portion of what *you* may want to call
"absolute reality" (notes: emphasis on "you") do you not understand?
And what is not clear about this?
"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."
>
> >It represents real phenomena.
>
> Correct - it is only a representation, but not the absolute relaity.
>
No scientist has claimed that it does.
Why are you going on about it?
> > It's not just a bit of fantasy, or a game with words and numbers.
>
> > So, to repeat my question: Why are you wasting time building a fanatsy
> > about what scientists do and how science works which is simply wrong?
>
> It is a fantasy to belief that a scientific model or theory is
> absolute reality.
Quite so. It's a fantasy which no scientist, or anyone who understands
the nature of science would have.
Why do you keep going on about it?
RF
>
> > RF
>
> > > > RF
>
> > > > > > RF
>
> > > > > > > > > > Or do you think that personal conviction is evidence?
>
> > > > > > > > > > RF
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > RF
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 7:40 pm
From: Ye Old One
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 23:42:08 +0100, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>In message <86cq23doeh6g77d9gbq65ip60n1h0hhedn@4ax.com>, Ye Old One
><usenet@mcsuk.net> writes
>>On 23 Apr 2007 11:46:45 -0700, Ian Chua <ichua@purdue.edu> enriched
>>this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>>On Apr 23, 1:41 pm, dmca...@remulak.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi -- non-
>>>mailable) wrote:
>>>> In article <1177322063.659386.17...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> How do you know, based on REALITY, not mere perception, that
>>>> people are conversing with you over the internet?
>>>>
>>>It appears there are now 2806 subscribers on this Usenet.
>>>Do we know whether there are some subscribers using multiple
>>>pseudonyms here?
>>
>>Subscribers? "this usenet"?
>>
>>WTF are you talking about?
>>
>He means that there are 2806 "subscribers" to talk.origins via Google
>Groups.
So what is trying to claim that that means?
--
Bob.
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 7:41 pm
From: Ye Old One
On 23 Apr 2007 19:52:16 -0700, Ian Chua <ichua@purdue.edu> enriched
this group when s/he wrote:
>God cannot be discovered by scientific means.
>
As an invention of the minds of man, gods do not exist in the
scientific sense.
--
Bob.
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 12:44 pm
From: Ye Old One
On 23 Apr 2007 19:47:27 -0700, Ian Chua <ichua@purdue.edu> enriched
this group when s/he wrote:
>The point is very simple - a scientific theory or model is not reality
>but only a product of human imagination and innovation.
Based on the facts available to science.
>Personal convictions about a theory or usefulness of the model may
>help the scientist develop a more robust model or theory.
Based on the facts available to science.
>The issue is not the validity of the scientist's personal convictions
>but rather the model's validity.
If the model explains all the facts, mirrors the reality and helps
scientists predict things for which they then find evidence in the
real world - the model is valid.
>But ultimately, the model or theory is still a product of human
>imagination.
Based on the facts available to science.
--
Bob.
==============================================================================
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: Tues, Apr 24 2007 7:17 pm
From: AC
On 23 Apr 2007 19:50:47 -0700,
Ray Martinez <pyramidial@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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.....
Anyone who will successfully breed is a transitional, Ray. That means
me, you and George W. Bush. The fact is you didn't and still don't
understand the concept, but, due to your deeply dishonest nature, that
doesn't stop you from misrepresenting it and libelling Dana.
>
> 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.
Let's just remember here that it was you who called me an infidel Jew.
It's very clear who the racist is here.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@gmail.com
==============================================================================
TOPIC: To the writers of the Talk.Origins website
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/83a7ea3085fa6ee1?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 9:17 pm
From: Jim Willemin
someone2 <glenn.spigel2@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:1177430455.901093.13770@r3g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
> On 24 Apr, 13:57, Ken Denny <k...@kendenny.com> wrote:
><snip obtuseness>
>> > The only messages that couldn't be accounted for would be messages
>> > to the brain required to implement your will. These could be at the
>> > quantum level as as simple as the behaviour not being random, but
>> > showing a distinct pattern representing the implementation of your
>> > will.
>>
>> They absolutely *would* be accounted for. Why do you think they
>> wouldn't be accounted for. Oh, that's right. The whole point of your
>> argument rests on assuming that they aren't accounted for. Well
>> you're wrong. They absolutely are accounted for.
>>
>
> You seem to miss the point, that if all messages were accounted for in
> the robot, and all the nodes continued to follow the known laws of
> physics, the same as it would if it weren't experiencing,
Pardon me for intruding here but: THE POINT IS THAT THE MESSAGES WOULD
BE DIFFERENT FOR EXPERIENCING AND NOT EXPERIENCING - all accounted for
by the laws of physics. As soon as consciousness sets in a new level of
self-programming is attained such that the depth of feedback for each
output is drastically increased - and the new set of messages produced
by this new level of self-programming are exactly what comprise
consciousness. It seems like you have posted the sentences below
several hundred times verbatim, and you still don't get that
consciousness, experience and behavior are all parts of the same
physical process. Granted that you don't believe that - can you
understand that others can understand the same things differently than
you? Can you understand that all you have is a thought experiment which
depends entirely on your basic assumption that consciousness is not
physical? Can you understand that your thought experiment gives
completely different results when one assumes that consciousness is a
physical process whether or not you accept that assumption? Can you
understand that the only way to resolve the question of which set of
basic assumptions is closer to reality is to build a conscious robot?
then even if
> it was experiencing, it couldn't be said to be influencing the
> behaviour. If we were a mechanism that could be explained in the same
> sense as the robot, then us being conscious couldn't affect behaviour.
> It would have to be only coincidental that we express the subjective
> experiences we experience.
>
<snip remainder>
==============================================================================
TOPIC: not enough intermediate species
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/14427384260ff06a?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 7:17 pm
From: bdbryant@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant)
In article <pan.2007.04.24.17.31.34@comcast.net>,
Dale Kelly <dale.kelly@comcast.net> writes:
> there is no cat-dog
> no man-pig
> no elephant-bird
> etc.
And -- very curiously -- the theory of evolution doesn't predict that
any such creatures ever existed.
> also not enough time for all mutations to add up
You forgot to show your calculations.
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 3:49 pm
From: raven1
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:30:03 -0500, Dale Kelly
<dale.kelly@comcast.net> wrote:
>there is no cat-dog
>no man-pig
>no elephant-bird
>etc.
No one expects there to be, except for people who don't have a clue
about science
>also not enough time for all mutations to add up.
Why not?
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
==============================================================================
TOPIC: a challenge to evolution punks
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/cf1ee2f7a2c72bef?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 7:20 pm
From: nmp
Op Tue, 24 Apr 2007 09:37:48 -0500, schreef Dale Kelly:
> I do not believe in a devil, I believe God orchestrates all experience,
> good and bad, for his purposes
But why?
== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 7:28 pm
From: nmp
Op Tue, 24 Apr 2007 07:56:44 -0700, schreef Kermit:
> Visible robot fish!
>
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/10/1007_051007_robot_fish.html
Lovely :)
== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 12:33 pm
From: Kelsey Bjarnason
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:36:05 +0000, John Harshman wrote:
> Pete G. wrote:
>
>> "John Harshman" <jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>> news:deeXh.532$RX.326@newssvr11.news.
>>
>>
>>>The subconscious is a term
>>>used in Freudian psychiatry
>>
>>
>> It most certainly bloody *is not*! The term 'subconscious' has nothing to do
>> with Freudian psychoanalysis, and is never used in properly psychoanalytic
>> writings. English-speaking Freudians have 'conscious', 'pre-conscious' and
>> 'unconscious' -- and *that's it*.
>>
>> [Handy reference: Charles Rycroft, Penguin Dictionary of Psychoanalysis]
>
> OK. So where does "subconscious" come from? Who uses it?
Project managers; it's the only explanation for the lack of conscious
thought that goes into most projects. :)
== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 7:57 pm
From: nmp
Op Tue, 24 Apr 2007 07:27:59 -0700, schreef Scooter the Mighty:
> On Apr 23, 7:26 pm, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
[..]
>> I suggest there is more proof of God as an intermediary than there is
>> of a mysterious subconscious
>
> I suggest that there is more proof that you're a drug addled junkie then
> there is that God exists.
I would say that in normal, straight thinking people, LSD would not have
the effects that Mr. Kelly is suffering.
Psychedelic drugs can be useful and interesting for people who want to
explore the depths of their minds: psychonauts.
I tried acid a few times when I was young (around 20), but I certainly
never became a creationist as a result. I do remember one episode in
which I started to feel very connected to everything around me. It was an
outdoor trip and I felt very much "one with nature". Everything around me
felt like "family" - for lack of a better word. It was truly a very
interesting & profoundly moving emotional experience, even if a bit
frightening.
I may want to repeat that experience some day. It wasn't bad.
== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 4:01 pm
From: "J.J. O'Shea"
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:48:18 -0400, nmp wrote
(in article <pan.2007.04.24.17.50.36@is.invalid>):
> Op Tue, 24 Apr 2007 06:25:16 -0700, schreef collection60:
>
>> If you really want to be a rebel... challenge feminism and declare all
>> the biological advantages and artificial social disadvantages we have as
>> males.
So she turned you down again, eh? There's a product known as 'mouth wash'.
Trying using some.
>
> *All* societies in the world nowadays are male-dominated. So tell me how,
> exactly, us males are disadvantaged socially? In the private sector, do
> females get better paying jobs than us? In politics, are they in the
> majority in positions of power and authority?
>
> About those biological so-called "advantages": the typical male may be
> able to run faster and lift heavier weights than the typical female, but
> do we have thighs as soft and hips as curvaceous? ;)
Some boys don't _like_ soft thighs or curvy hips.
Not that there's anything _wrong_ with that, of course.
>
> Whether any one trait should be considered an advantage depends on point
> of view, right?
>
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 1:07 pm
From: "J.J. O'Shea"
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 22:48:41 -0400, John Harshman wrote
(in article <deeXh.532$RX.326@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>):
> Perhaps in the future you could limit your postings to
> alt.drugs.psychedelics, since you seem to be tripping here.
If I may paraphrase the words of that great philosopher, Will Smith: "He's
not tripping, he's fallen and he can't get up."
Or, in the words of that _other_ great philosopher, Bugs Bunny: "Wot a
maroon."
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: The insanity keeps coming
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/853d373e79363233?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 12:20 pm
From: JTEM
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> Get someone else to pull it out for you.
OO! The one-line wonder blesses us again!
Thank you for taking time away from not giving
creationists anything to think about.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Human genes vs meat, cereal food.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/cbf34822f0b9739a?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 12:35 pm
From: skyeyes
On Apr 23, 5:07 pm, "Martin Hutton"
<mdhutton1949REM...@hotmailREMOVE.com> wrote:
> On 23-Apr-2007, skyeyes <skye...@dakotacom.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 20, 6:43 am, Desertphile <desertph...@nospam.org> wrote:
> > > On 18 Apr 2007 16:57:55 -0700, skyeyes <skye...@dakotacom.net>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 17, 11:30 am,Desertphile<desertph...@nospam.org> wrote:
> > > > > On 17 Apr 2007 10:47:14 -0700, WuzYoungOnceToo
>
> > > > > <wuzyoungonce...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Apr 17, 12:00 pm,Desertphile<desertph...@nospam.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > On 17 Apr 2007 09:04:58 -0700, WuzYoungOnceToo
>
> > > > > > > > Oh, man. There's nothing like a big bowl of buffalo (N.A.
> > > > > >bison,
> > > > > > > > actually) stew. Delicious.
>
> > > > > > > I will just have to take your word for it. :-)
> > > > > > You might choose to do so, but there's no reason you "have" to.
> > > > > >Bison
> > > > > > meat isn't that difficult to come by if you live in any sort of
> > > > > > metropolitan area. And of course, there's always the internet.
>
> > > > > For the past 30 years I have been vegetarian (which may be why I'm
> > > > > fat and very ugly. Hummm.... gotta think about that some day).
>
> > > > > Here on the Rez one may buy sheepburgers and goatburgers. Fuzzy
> > > > > adorable sheep and goats, I bet.
> > > > <Perks hopefully> Anymutton stew??? Barbequed baby goat??? With
> > > > fry bread???
>
> > > > What time's dinner?
>
> > > Dinner is at 6:00 PM; heart bypass surgery will be prompylt at
> > > 8:00 PM. :-) Nothing is better than piping hot fry bread with some
> > > spicy guacamole, though the Navajos around here eat it with honey.
>
> > > Gods.... I'm actually drooling. Disgusting.
>
> > My Fella over in NM is a Navajo. When we're together, we eat mutton
> > stew with fry bread - or Navajo tacos made out of fry bread - for
> > dinner, and then fry bread with honey for dessert. Yummmmmmmy!
>
> > Fortunately for my waistline/unfortunately for my love life, we don't
> > get to eat dinner together *that* often. (Long distance
> > relationships, no matter how passionate and authentic, are difficult._
>
> > Fry bread, on the other hand, is easy and delicious. :) :) :)
>
> What's the bread fried in? Mutton fat?
>
> When I was a lad my mum would make us breakfast with bread fried
> in bacon fat. Hmm Hmm Hmmmmmm (And it was real smoke cured bacon
> ...not this chemical cured crap).
Well, nowadays they tend to fry it in Crisco or vegetable oil.
Originally, it was fried in lard that the Native Americans got from
the U.S. Army or from the Res supply depot. Lard is really the way to
go with fry bread, if you don't mind dying young. (It's worth it,
trust me.)
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 12:37 pm
From: skyeyes
On Apr 19, 4:30 am, "Dan Luke" <c17...@dingdongsouth.net> wrote:
> "skyeyes" wrote:
>
> >> Oh, man. There's nothing like a big bowl of buffalo (N.A. bison,
> >> actually) stew. Delicious.
>
> > Buffalo chili is to *die* for. Yum.....
>
> Buffalo burgers are the best!
Oh, gawd, yes!!!!
> There was this burger joint in Houston that served big, rare, meaty,
> dripping...
Oddly enough, the Village Inn pancake house chain used to serve
buffalo burgers. They were respectable, for being a pancake chain.
> I've got to stop: I'm drooling on the keyboard.
I've got to stop by Wild Oats on my way home from work tonight and buy
some ground buffalo meat. Now I've got a yen for buffalo
tacos. :) :) :)
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Chez Watt
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/1f1385c6ba52bfb0?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 3:43 pm
From: "Dana Tweedy"
"AC" <mightymartianca@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:slrnf2sfc7.2ck.mightymartianca@rotten.egg.sandwich...
> On 23 Apr 2007 21:10:12 -0700,
> ayers_39@hotmail.com <ayers_39@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.
>
> I'll pray to Cthulu that you are driven mad quickly.
I think you are a little late for that....
DJT
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 12:46 pm
From: Ray Martinez
On Apr 23, 4:27 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 5:44 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Your "Reverend" title is simply an attempt to shield yourself from the
> > identification.
>
> Hey Ray, have you, uh, done any further, um, "research" on this matter
> lately?
>
Why should I research something that you admit to by using in your
name?
The point is that by signing your name including 'Rev' this gives the
explicit impression and implication that you are Christian Clergy.
Like I said, you do this hoping that it will shield your atheist views
from being seen as such. In reality, all it does is announce to the
world that "I am a mother-fucking liar."
Whatever 'Rev' actually means to you, it exists publically as a bait
and switch for the reason just explained. If I had to guess you are
probably a Priest in Satan's Church - an Anton La Vey wanna be.
> (snicker) (giggle) BWA HA HA HA HA
> HA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
How embarrassed persons usually act.
Ray
==============================================================================
TOPIC: How to meet people that are really interested in you?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/ac59c9844d36be47?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 12:42 pm
From: jacksp012@gmail.com
Hi group!
I have just come across a new dating website - www.livedatesearch.com.
What is different from others is that here you can meet people who
like you for sure!
How it works: you sign up and upload a picture and then you see who
clicks on "I LIKE" link on your profile.
Then you can contact those people or enter live chat.
The idea is really new since I have not seen any profile-based dating
sites where I could get to know that the person I'm talking to is
definately interested in.
Website is http://livedatesearch.com/
What do you think about it?
Jack Spence.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Darwin married 2 opium addicted 10 year old transvestite prostitutes at
the same time
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/4568d065a0db317e?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 3:49 pm
From: "J.J. O'Shea"
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 11:36:44 -0400, Throwback wrote
(in article <1177429004.289460.76910@n35g2000prd.googlegroups.com>):
> And ejaculated in a donkey's ear.
>
> Just testing the moderation policy.
>
Which part of "There's no moderation for content" is unclear, moron?
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Clue for 'Bimms'
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/9d49121d7d4f2e78?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 3:52 pm
From: "Geoff"
chosp wrote:
> "Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:vqydnURGeoIpVbfbnZ2dnUVZ_uCinZ2d@giganews.com...
>> Ernest Major wrote:
>>
>>>> As far as Islam goes, I don't think there really are any
>>>> non-fundamentalist Muslims. It's rather a contradiction in terms.
>>>
>>> It seems to me that that hypothesis is contradicted by observation.
>>
>> Personally, I have never met a Muslim that didn't believe that the
>> Koran is the inerrant word of their god. That, by my definition, is a
>> fundamentalist.
>
> What is the percentage of all existing Muslims
> that you have actually met?
> Mighty broad brush you're using here.
Going to school at Rensselaer and Case Western, there were plenty of Muslims
and non-observant/ex-Muslims. Since then I have worked with a lot of them as
well.
Being curious about Islam and non-Euro culture, I enjoy talking with both
and even played some cricket with the guys from Pakistan while at Case.
Without exception, the observant Muslims all believed that the Koran was the
inerrant word of Allah. And the non-observant ones told me that, unlike
Christianity, generally there are not degrees of faith.
I've always remembered this and it really struck me when I read basically
the same thing in End Of Faith.
So far, three different people have taken exception to my observation. I'm
more than ready to be shown that it's wrong, but so far everyone just
assumes it's not. If I'm wong, show me.
Islam is different from Christianity in more ways than just theology. There
are fundamental reasons why Islam favors theocracy. As a religion, it is
imbued with more politics than probably any other religion, thus making it
difficult to separate the two. Even in secular Turkey, local governments are
often and increasingly being run in accord with the Koran.
Similarly, Christianity has unfolded along with the ascendancy of secular
institutions and thought. As a result, there is a spectrum of adherence to
Biblical inerrancy vs. rational explanations for the world as we see it.
Not so for Islam. The Islamic world has been thrust into the post-industrial
world and is in many respects (certainly theistically, politically, and
socially) still mired in the 15th century.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 3:55 pm
From: "Geoff"
Bloopenblopper@juno.com wrote:
> So--to answer your original question--no, I don't think it's at all
> apparent that fundamentalists are a minority within evangelicalism, or
> that they are a small minority within American Christianity.
Roger that. I like the trends in the data though.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 3:59 pm
From: "Geoff"
Bloopenblopper@juno.com wrote:
> So--to answer your original question--no, I don't think it's at all
> apparent that fundamentalists are a minority within evangelicalism, or
> that they are a small minority within American Christianity.
But 28% is still a minority (although a whole lot bigger a minority than I
thought) contrary to snex's post.
It stretches credulity to think that such a large proportion of Americans
can still be so brainwashed. It just shows to go ya what a powerful meme
religion is.
==============================================================================
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
No comments:
Post a Comment