Who dares sent me SPAM?: 25 new messages in 12 topics

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

talk.origins@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Some evolution questions
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/3bd7fa7ccefbe492?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 7:34 am
From: Grandbank

On Apr 21, 6:41 am, Will in New Haven
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:

>
> I have accepted that for years. However, if there is no goal and no
> direction, why is Emmylou Harris clearly superior to every other life
> form?
>
> Will in New Haven

Because of her White Shoes.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 7:50 am
From: Throwback

On Apr 21, 10:29 am, ayers...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Apr 21, 9:33 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 21, 1:49 am, Chris <chris...@notalotofunwanted.aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > Can someone in the evolution camp explain why the nearest living
> > > relative of man is so far away from man (I believe it's the chimp)?
> > > What about the nearest extinct relative? How close are we to it?
> > > Shouldn't we see slightly less evolved humans still living or even not
> > > living for that matter? Doesn't it seem odd that every single human
> > > like creature that is not 100% human is gone? If evolution is a slow
> > > process shouldln't there be humans that are just slightly not human?
> > > If it's faster than that than who does the biological adam (or eve)
> > > mate with?
>
> > > Chris
> > > If life seems jolly rotten
> > > There's spmething you've forgotten
> > > and thats to laugh and smile and dance and sing!
>
> > Well, for one thing over 99% of the species that have ever existed are
> > extinct, so I don't know why anyone would expect our human ancestors
> > to have faired any better than the average, especially when most of
> > them were competing against what became us. We aren't very kind to
> > each other let alone to closely related species.
>
> > As for distance between us and our closest living relatives, distance
> > is, well, relative. Would it surprise you to find out that for our
> > nuclear encoded DNA chimps and humans are more closely related to each
> > other than horses and donkeys? When humans are doing the comparison
> > horses and donkeys get placed in the same genus, but humans and chimps
> > get placed separately. This isn't a placement based on genetic
> > distance. It is a designation based on perception, or some people
> > might claim it is what we would like to believe.
>
> > There are a lot of extant wild ass species, but only two extant horse
> > species left. Some lineages are luckier than others.
>
> > When the first large insert BAC sequences of the Chimp genome were
> > getting placed in GenBank years ago I did an alignment of around
> > 50,000 base-pairs with the human sequence. It was spooky. Even the
> > Alu transposable element repeats lined up. There were some small
> > insertion/deletions, but the two sequences were only 0.7% different.
> > The same sequence of any two unrelated humans would be around 0.1%
> > different. It was like looking at two human sequences that just were
> > poorly done and had a lot of sequencing errors.
>
> > Not surprisingly they are the same sequence, but the difference is in
> > errors of replication that have occurred over the past 5 million years
> > or so.
>
> > Ron Okimoto
>
> humans and chimps
> get placed separately,because we are not even close to being the same.
> Monkey DNA are 10% larger, and 10% longer than humans.They are not
> even close.

I just did a quick search on the chimp human story, and
I was amazed at how slanted it was towards evolution.

I only take a few minutes a day on the 'puter, but I
found the next one:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070412141025.htm

"Human-Chimp Differences Uncovered With Analysis Of Rhesus Monkey
Genome
Science Daily - An international consortium of researchers has
published the genome sequence of the rhesus macaque monkey and aligned
it with the chimpanzee and human genomes. Published April 13 in a
special section of the journal Science, the analysis reveals that the
three primate species share about 93 percent of their DNA, yet have
some significant differences among their genes."

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 8:05 am
From: Throwback

On Apr 21, 10:50 am, Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 10:29 am, ayers...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 21, 9:33 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 21, 1:49 am, Chris <chris...@notalotofunwanted.aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Can someone in the evolution camp explain why the nearest living
> > > > relative of man is so far away from man (I believe it's the chimp)?
> > > > What about the nearest extinct relative? How close are we to it?
> > > > Shouldn't we see slightly less evolved humans still living or even not
> > > > living for that matter? Doesn't it seem odd that every single human
> > > > like creature that is not 100% human is gone? If evolution is a slow
> > > > process shouldln't there be humans that are just slightly not human?
> > > > If it's faster than that than who does the biological adam (or eve)
> > > > mate with?
>
> > > > Chris
> > > > If life seems jolly rotten
> > > > There's spmething you've forgotten
> > > > and thats to laugh and smile and dance and sing!
>
> > > Well, for one thing over 99% of the species that have ever existed are
> > > extinct, so I don't know why anyone would expect our human ancestors
> > > to have faired any better than the average, especially when most of
> > > them were competing against what became us. We aren't very kind to
> > > each other let alone to closely related species.
>
> > > As for distance between us and our closest living relatives, distance
> > > is, well, relative. Would it surprise you to find out that for our
> > > nuclear encoded DNA chimps and humans are more closely related to each
> > > other than horses and donkeys? When humans are doing the comparison
> > > horses and donkeys get placed in the same genus, but humans and chimps
> > > get placed separately. This isn't a placement based on genetic
> > > distance. It is a designation based on perception, or some people
> > > might claim it is what we would like to believe.
>
> > > There are a lot of extant wild ass species, but only two extant horse
> > > species left. Some lineages are luckier than others.
>
> > > When the first large insert BAC sequences of the Chimp genome were
> > > getting placed in GenBank years ago I did an alignment of around
> > > 50,000 base-pairs with the human sequence. It was spooky. Even the
> > > Alu transposable element repeats lined up. There were some small
> > > insertion/deletions, but the two sequences were only 0.7% different.
> > > The same sequence of any two unrelated humans would be around 0.1%
> > > different. It was like looking at two human sequences that just were
> > > poorly done and had a lot of sequencing errors.
>
> > > Not surprisingly they are the same sequence, but the difference is in
> > > errors of replication that have occurred over the past 5 million years
> > > or so.
>
> > > Ron Okimoto
>
> > humans and chimps
> > get placed separately,because we are not even close to being the same.
> > Monkey DNA are 10% larger, and 10% longer than humans.They are not
> > even close.
>
> I just did a quick search on the chimp human story, and
> I was amazed at how slanted it was towards evolution.
>
> I only take a few minutes a day on the 'puter, but I
> found the next one:
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070412141025.htm
>
> "Human-Chimp Differences Uncovered With Analysis Of Rhesus Monkey
> Genome
> Science Daily - An international consortium of researchers has
> published the genome sequence of the rhesus macaque monkey and aligned
> it with the chimpanzee and human genomes. Published April 13 in a
> special section of the journal Science, the analysis reveals that the
> three primate species share about 93 percent of their DNA, yet have
> some significant differences among their genes."

I mean you really have to dig to find the truth.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/316/5822/218

"Gibbs and his colleagues are tackling evolutionary biology in
reverse. They are identifying key genomic differences without yet
knowing how or whether those differences translate into traits that
provide survival advantages. Traditionally, researchers have first
traced changes in the shapes and sizes of beaks, bodies, brains, and
so on, then sought the genes behind them. The hope is that the two
modes of inquiry will meet in the middle. But so far researchers have
come up short in linking genomic changes to traits subjected to
natural selection and other evolutionary forces"

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 8:06 am
From: nmp

Op Sat, 21 Apr 2007 06:41:02 -0700, schreef Will in New Haven:

> On Apr 21, 3:33 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
>> There is no "less" or "more" evolved. Evolution is not goal oriented.
>> It has no direction.
>
> I have accepted that for years. However, if there is no goal and no
> direction, why is Emmylou Harris clearly superior to every other life
> form?

Clearly indeed.

<http://img456.imageshack.us/my.php?image=2006heartofgold015ru2.jpg>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: what is science and what is NOT science
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/6d81c27907da89cf?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 7:35 am
From: Throwback

On Apr 21, 8:45 am, Klaus <khelln...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Throwback wrote:
> > On Apr 18, 10:36 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Apr 18, 6:29 am, Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>On Apr 17, 10:45 pm, Sean Carroll <seanc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>Throwback wrote:
>
> >>>>>And again the question was, in homo sapiens direct
> >>>>>evolutionary line backwards in time, which species
> >>>>>from which homo sapiens sprang from or evolved from
> >>>>>is still in existence and what species is it?
>
> >>>>Dude -- and I say this in the most respectful manner -- go to the
> >>>>library and check out a basic biology textbook.
>
> >>>Now that I have the answer, I recall reading some of
> >>>the crap when I was a kid, that it was
> >>>the mouse lemur ...
>
> >>No, you don't. Our memories are largely reconstructions, and this
> >>"memory" is highly unlikely. There may have been a book or teacher who
> >>said that our ancestors at one point looked like a small lemur. They
> >>would not have said that they *were a particular, still existent,
> >>small lemur.
>
> > No. my memory is it was of some kind of rat or rodent.
>
> Rats are rodents, lemurs are primates.

Yeah, but I was a little kid at the time.
To a kid you see mouse you think rodent.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 7:31 am
From: Throwback

On Apr 21, 1:31 am, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
> "Martin Hutton" <mdhutton1949REM...@hotmailREMOVE.com> wrote in messagenews:f0c5q9$ttb$1@news.datemas.de...
>
> > On 20-Apr-2007, Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip advocacy of evolution-free education]\
>
>
>
>
>
> > > And then we can focus on teaching something a
> > > little more patriotic in school, like:
>
> > > I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the united states
> > > of america, and to the republic, for which it stands,
> > > one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice
> > > for all.
>
> > I'd think you'd get more meaning out of this if your
> > taught the pledge that the Baptist minister Francis
> > Bellamy, who was a Socialist, wanted:
> > I pledge allegiance to my flag, and the republic, for
> > which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with equality,
> > liberty and justice for all.
>
> > How "equality" was removed because the governers of the
> > school at which he taught were racist and misogynist, giving:
> > I pledge allegiance to my flag, and the republic, for
> > which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty
> > and justice for all.
>
> > How, in 1924, the American Legion and the DAR, insisted
> > (and got) the new pledge (Bellamy disliked the changes
> > but was ignored.
> > I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States,
> > and to the republic for which it stands, one nation,
> > indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
>
> > How, in 1954, Congress, under pressure from the KoC and
> > to contrast the US with the godless Commies, changed the
> > pledge to:
> > I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States,
> > and to the republic for which it stands, one nation,
> > under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for
> > all.
>
> > And then they should demonstrate how repeating a phrase
> > every day until it becomes a ritual does not make one more
> > patriotic.
>
> > (BTW From Middle School onwards my daughter decided to
> > use Francis Bellamy's original pledge. This caught on
> > in her homeroom).
>
> Wikipedia tells the history a little differently, but not by much:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance
>
> Incidentally, I find it amusing that Throwback seems to want to
> ride roughshod over his fellow creationists - the Jehovah's Witnesses -

I am not a creationist, just against pseudoscience.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: In the News: Tenn. AG: No constitutional concerns with
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/22627a85d41a8e14?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 9:34 am
From: Free Lunch

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 06:47:49 GMT, in talk.origins
George Evans <georgee3@earthlink.net> wrote in
<C24EC3AC.9863%georgee3@earthlink.net>:
>in article 1177047249.704377.112910@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, snex at
>snex@comcast.net wrote on 4/19/07 10:34 PM:
>
>> On Apr 20, 12:12 am, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> in article teag231u97sgo7lsiu20q5ig79c17pe...@4ax.com, Free Lunch at
>>> l...@nofreelunch.us wrote on 4/19/07 7:48 PM:
>
><snip>
>
>>>> It's not evidence just because you say so. Learn to use words properly.
>>>> Learn not to lie.
>>>>
>>> It is evidence to me. Learn what "subjective" means.
>>>
>> we didnt ask you for "evidence to you." we asked for evidence that your claims
>> are true.
>
>You can take it as evidence for you or not. It's your choice. It's not a
>claim I am trying to prove. It's my testimony about what happened to me.

That doesn't make it evidence in science. It doesn't even make it
evidence that would necessarily be accepted in court. You've made your
claims, but you cannot back them up. There is no reason for anyone to
accept them.

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 7:39 am
From: Harry K

On Apr 20, 11:47 pm, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> in article 1177047249.704377.112...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, snex at
> s...@comcast.net wrote on 4/19/07 10:34 PM:
>
> > On Apr 20, 12:12 am, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >> in article teag231u97sgo7lsiu20q5ig79c17pe...@4ax.com, Free Lunch at
> >> l...@nofreelunch.us wrote on 4/19/07 7:48 PM:
>
> <snip>
>
> >>> It's not evidence just because you say so. Learn to use words properly.
> >>> Learn not to lie.
>
> >> It is evidence to me. Learn what "subjective" means.
>
> > we didnt ask you for "evidence to you." we asked for evidence that your claims
> > are true.
>
> You can take it as evidence for you or not. It's your choice. It's not a
> claim I am trying to prove. It's my testimony about what happened to me.
>
> George Evans

And you expect scientists to believe anything someone 'testifies' to
without any skepticism....I seeeee.

Harry K

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 8:15 am
From: Desertphile

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 17:13:46 GMT, Ye Old One <usenet@mcsuk.net>
wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 07:43:00 -0600, Desertphile
> <desertphile@nospam.org> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 02:57:15 GMT, George Evans
> ><georgee3@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >> in article 93jff4xj53.ln2@bytor.fenris.cjb.net, Cory Albrecht at
> >> coryalbrecht+news@hotmail.com wrote on 4/17/07 12:17 PM:
> >>
> >> > George Evans wrote, On 2007/04/17 01:40:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> >> The lack of evidence in Egypt might be expected. The whole thing would have
> >> >> been completely embarrassing and when Egyptians got embarrassed they tend to
> >> >> try and wipe out any record of it, e.g. the attempt to erase Akhenaten.
> >> >>
> >> > Except that we have found those "erased" and defaced stone faces, along with
> >> > other items, is why we know Akhenaten existed. Why have archaeologists never
> >> > found a similar evidences of a cover up WRT the Israelites?
> >>
> >> What is the reason for the embarrassment over Akhenaten. Is it because he
> >> messed with the religion, or is it because he ended up in ignomy, at the
> >> bottom of the sea?

> >If he is "at the bottom of the sea," why is his body a tourist
> >attraction?
> >
> >Yet one more falsehood in the Bible.

> Indeed, as if we didn't have enough already :)

Funny! And also odd how George somehow failed to answer the
question, eh?

http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Buffy has super strength; why don't we just load her up
like one of those little horses?" -- Anya

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 8:04 am
From: Free Lunch

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 06:47:46 GMT, in talk.origins
George Evans <georgee3@earthlink.net> wrote in
<C24EBFF3.9861%georgee3@earthlink.net>:
>in article 1177042626.618897.314840@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com, snex at
>snex@comcast.net wrote on 4/19/07 9:17 PM:
>
>> On Apr 19, 11:14 pm, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> in article 1177021755.606870.255...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com, snex at
>>> s...@comcast.net wrote on 4/19/07 3:29 PM:
>>>
>>>> On Apr 19, 1:13 am, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>> It is subjective evidence. It's what Jung was detecting as collective
>>>>> consciousness. It is a sense that a realm above can interact somehow, like
>>>>> there is an interface plug somewhere inside us, where God and humanity make
>>>>> contact.
>>>
>>>> there is no such thing as "subjective evidence." if it is subjective, then
>>>> it
>>>> is not evidence, by definition.
>>>
>>> According to you?
>>
>> no, according to the meaning of the word "evidence." you are guilty of
>> the fallacy of equivocation.
>
>Subjective evidence is like character testimony. There's no need for
>independently verification because it is not accepted as physical or
>scientific evidence. The hearer must weigh the evidence.
>
>So I tell you that I prayed for a change of habit from not checking my oil
>to checking it, and it happened the next day without me doing anything else.
>I just automatically checked my oil when I got gas and I have done it ever
>since. My conclusion is that God did it.
>
>Now you have to judge the evidence and conclusion.

You've jumped to a totally indefensible conclusion.

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 8:08 am
From: Free Lunch

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 06:47:48 GMT, in talk.origins
George Evans <georgee3@earthlink.net> wrote in
<C24EC282.9862%georgee3@earthlink.net>:
>in article 1177043330.422772.321280@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com, snex at
>snex@comcast.net wrote on 4/19/07 9:28 PM:
>
>> On Apr 19, 11:24 pm, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> in article 1177031910.915716.119...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com, snex at
>>> s...@comcast.net wrote on 4/19/07 6:18 PM:
>>>
>>>> On Apr 19, 8:12 pm, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>> Other evidence is subjective, like answers to prayer, and the awareness
>>>>> that there is a part of you that can interface with God. An example would
>>>>> be when God changed my bad habit of not checking my oil into a good habit
>>>>> of checking it every time I get gas, in response to my request, in prayer.
>>>
>>>> if god actually answered prayers, then this could be examined
>>>> scientifically. people who pray should get what they want or need more often
>>>> than people who dont pray. yet when we look at the data, we find no such
>>>> thing. prayer is no different from nothing at all.
>>>>
>>> I would like to see a citation regarding that study. In the mean time, I know
>>> my prayer was answered.
>>
>> heres one:
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?ex=1301461200&en=4acf338b
>> e4900000&ei=5088
>>
>> but there are millions of others going on every day. heres a question
>> for you: why has an amputee's prayer to regain his limb never been
>> answered in the entire history of the planet?
>
>How do you know it hasn't happened? If such a thing has happened, it would
>be in a story like, paraplegic person A was carried to person B, person B
>said take up your bed and walk, and person A jumped up in perfect health.
>But you wouldn't believe it.

I would believe it if it were properly documented, not merely claimed,
not merely con men working an audience, but actual evidence that this
person is a paraplegic and has been healed by the intercession of a
religion action.

Why don't any of the gods heal amputations?

>Or another one might be person C gets his ear
>cut off, and even before he can pray, person B picks it up and puts it back
>in place. But once again, you wouldn't believe it.

Of course both of those examples are from a highly unreliable book of
stories. You forgot the one about raising the dead and seeing all of the
kingdoms of the world from a mountaintop.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Bacteria develops resistance against silver.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/983f06b1691ff640?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 7:37 am
From: "Von R. Smith"

On Apr 21, 1:42 am, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote:
> "Al" <alwh...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>
> news:1176965947.518244.112970@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Apr 19, 2:36 pm, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote:
>
> >> Blowtorches! Blowtorches, dammit! That'll teach those stinkin' bacteria!
>
> >> --
> >> Denis Loubet
> >> dlou...@io.comhttp://www.io.com/~dloubethttp://www.ashenempires.com
>
> > Now that you mention heat, that'd be the classic lab evolution of
> > bacteria. I'm sure we could evolve a good golden staf to be rsistant
> > up to 60-70C in no time if we could just find some hosts that will
> > survive that long.
>
> Ok, dammit! Guns! Lots of guns! Let's see them develope immunity to a hail
> of bullets!
>
> Ha!

I wonder if they could evolve a resistance to +2 weapons or better.
The experiments might cost a lot of gold pieces, though, and I don't
think bacteria are worth a lot of x.p.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Fulfilled Bible Prophecy
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/92d33a184d14b5b8?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 8:15 am
From: Desertphile

On 20 Apr 2007 20:33:42 -0700, edward_eck@verizon.net wrote:

> On Apr 20, 9:42 am, Desertphile <desertph...@nospam.org> wrote:

> > The same "god" also got the "prophesy" about Tyre wrong.

> See also Ezekiel 26:7-9 (Nebuchadnezzar never conquored Tyre)
> Ez. 28:8 (Ithobaal II was not killed)
> Ez 29:10, 29:14 (Nebuchadnezzar din't conquor Egypt)
>
> And the Conquest of Canaan (Jericho, Ai) is not supported by
> archaeological evidence.

Good, thank you. It is both funny and sad that Bible worshippers
still believe there are such things as "fulfulled Bible prophesy."
Even though Tyre currently exists and is a tourist trap (the
"prophesy" in the Bible said it would soon be destroyed and never
inhabited again), Fundamentalist Christians *STILL* believe the
"prophesy" was "fulfilled."

On second thought that ain't both funny and sad: it's just sad.

http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Buffy has super strength; why don't we just load her up
like one of those little horses?" -- Anya

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Deity/Human Interaction = Special Babies
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/efa51a8faf57f639?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 7:37 am
From: mevans@gcfn.org

On Apr 21, 1:41 am, JQ <jac...@writeme.com> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 2:16 pm, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
> > "SJAB1958" <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1177130935.498364.147830@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> > > I find it odd that Christians can be perfectly happy with a
> > > manifestation of God, the Holy Spirit joining with Mary to producing
> > > Jesus (God made flesh).
>
> > > Yet those same Christians dismiss as mere mythology any account of a
> > > god joining with a woman and children being born of such unions.
>
> > > Can anyone explain this apparently contradictory thinking, or should I
> > > chalk it up to Orwellian DoubleThink?
>
> > What is to explain? Those other gods are myth. Yahweh is real. No
> > contradiction.
> > HTH.
>
> How figure? I mean, what evidence suggests that your god is more real
> than all the other gods?

Maybe he just doesn't give his real name "just in case". Cuts down on
paternity suits.

Mark Evans

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 8:07 am
From: Libertarius

Radix2 wrote:

> On Apr 21, 2:48 pm, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>Can anyone explain this apparently contradictory thinking, or should I
>>chalk it up to Orwellian DoubleThink?
>
>
> "God works in mysterious ways"?
>
> Oh - and impregnates young women without their prior consent...
>
===>According to the story Mary was seduced into consenting to the
impregnation by being promised her baby would be the next king. -- L.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 8:09 am
From: Libertarius

Perplexed in Peoria wrote:

> "SJAB1958" <balfres@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1177130935.498364.147830@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>I find it odd that Christians can be perfectly happy with a
>>manifestation of God, the Holy Spirit joining with Mary to producing
>>Jesus (God made flesh).
>>
>>Yet those same Christians dismiss as mere mythology any account of a
>>god joining with a woman and children being born of such unions.
>>
>>Can anyone explain this apparently contradictory thinking, or should I
>>chalk it up to Orwellian DoubleThink?
>
>
> What is to explain? Those other gods are myth. Yahweh is real. No
> contradiction.
> HTH.
>
===>Those "other gods" are as "real" to others as "Yahweh" is to you.
All gods exist only in the minds of believers, where they are created
by human imagination. -- L.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Philosophy specifies: organisms process information
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/ec81cd7cd51f6293?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 8:46 am
From: dkomo

r norman wrote:
> Yes, John W., I am trying to catch your attention.
>
> I was recently engaged in a study of that eminent French philosopher
> of science, Michel Serres. (OK, I was browsing through my son-in-laws
> bookshelves). And what he has to say is this:
>
> " [living organisms] can be described as apparatuses which produce
> language from noise and information"
>
> and
>
> "... the living organism... Most often conceived of according to the
> models we have already considered, the organism has been seen as a
> machine ... It is evidently a thermodynamic system... It is a
> hypercomplex system, reducible only with difficulty to known models
> that we have now mastered. What can we precisely say about this
> system? First, that it is an information and thermodynamic system.
> Indeed, it receives, stores, exchanges, and gives off both energy and
> information -- in all forms, from the light of the sun to the flow of
> matter which passes through it (food, oxygen, heat, signals)..."
>
> and
>
> "Formerly, when a given system was analyzed it was a standard -- and
> justifiable -- practice to write two distinct accounts of it: the
> energy account and the information account.... The two accounts had no
> proportion in common; they were not even on the same scale... The same
> thing is not true for the organism: its extreme complication, the
> great miniaturization of its elements, and their number bring these
> two accounts closer and make them comparable. Hence the difference
> between a machine and a living organism is that, for the former, the
> information account is negligible in relationship to the energy
> account, whereas, for the latter, both accounts are on the same
> scale."
>

Comment: a computer is a machine, but its information account is not
negligible in relationship to the energy account even though some of the
Intel Pentium IV processors dissipate the same amount of heat as an iron
on the "cotton" setting.

> This from chapter 7, The Origin of Languge: Biology, Information
> Theory, & Thermodynamics in "Hermes: Literature, Science, Philosophy",
> Ed. Josue Harari & David Bell, Johns Hopkins U Press 1982. The
> Serres original is "Hermes Vol IV: La Distribution: 1977 - Origine du
> Langage.
>
> Certainly you must agree that Serres is the very model of lucidity,
> clarity, and well reasoned argument epitomizing post-modern French
> philosophy of science. How can you argue with someone who
> demonstrates the clear and close affinities between science, painting,
> and religion?
>
> So you MUST accept the informational nature of the organism! And if
> you don't like that example, I can get started on Deleuze and the
> notion of emergence!!
>

In order to round out the notion of information (pseudoinformation?) you
must supply some quotes and references to Derrida and Baudrillard.

--dkomo@cri.com

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 11:04 am
From: r norman

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 23:13:18 +1000, j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au (John
Wilkins) wrote:

>r norman <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Yes, John W., I am trying to catch your attention.
>>
>> I was recently engaged in a study of that eminent French philosopher
>> of science, Michel Serres. (OK, I was browsing through my son-in-laws
>> bookshelves). And what he has to say is this:
>>
>> " [living organisms] can be described as apparatuses which produce
>> language from noise and information"

>> Certainly you must agree that Serres is the very model of lucidity,
>> clarity, and well reasoned argument epitomizing post-modern French
>> philosophy of science. How can you argue with someone who
>> demonstrates the clear and close affinities between science, painting,
>> and religion?
>>
>> So you MUST accept the informational nature of the organism! And if
>> you don't like that example, I can get started on Deleuze and the
>> notion of emergence!!
>
>You're not helping yourself, you know. I think you are trying to sokal
>me.

Your are right, I was really desperate. I had to look up Sokal but
that is exactly what I am trying to do. Still there do seem to be a
few philosophers who take this stuff seriously. Or at least, take it
seriously enough to get publications out of it.

And just because Serres seems off the wall on many things doesn't mean
he is wrong about this one.

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

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 7:59 am
From: eroot@swva.net

On Apr 19, 5:02 pm, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On 19 Apr, 21:34, e...@swva.net wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 19, 7:37 am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 19 Apr, 12:27, Sonofagunzel <soas...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 19, 8:37 pm, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > If the site is anyway suggesting that we are simply a biological
> > > > > mechanism that has evolved, and follows the known laws of physics,
> > > > > then I would challenge you to an open debate on the subject. If it is
> > > > > not suggesting such a thing, then for clarities sake, should you not
> > > > > make it clear, as otherwise it might give the wrong impression.
>
> > > > How do humans violate the laws of physics?
>
> > > You are not a writer for talk.origins, you are starting to behave more
> > > like a stalker, haven't you got something better to do?
>
> > Actually, yu are the one who seems like a stalker, what with the way
> > you keep coming back here and losing the same debate over and over
> > again. Seriously, don't _you_ have anything better to do?
>

(snip irrelevant avoidance behavior)

So, you're going to run away and avoid the simple question, "don't you
have anything better to do than keep coming back and losing the same
argument over and over?" Since you don't seem to ever learn anything
from the debates except ways to re-word your same old failed
arguments, how do you imagine we owe you any answers at all? You owe
answers to all questions put to you long before anyone else owes you
an answer to any question, especially any question you have asked
before in the course of your "debates."

> I thought Mike's idea was a good one, so why do people like you insist
> in posting, can't you just leave us alone to debate and post
> elsewhere.

Some of us are offended by dishonesty, bad behavior, and refusal to
learn. For instance, it is the height of bad manners for you to
pretend that others are being dishonest when all they are doing is
patiently explaining to you problems in your arguments. This is a
public forum and we have a right to point out when you are being an
ass. If you change your faulty behavior people will be nicer to you.

> Surely you have something better to do.

Better than following a miscreant around the party, keeping an eye on
the silverware? (this is a metaphor. The miscreant is you)

> I'm sure people
> are crying out to hear your opinions on other threads.

And give you even more practice at avoiding constructive criticism?

Eric Root

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 7:56 am
From: Throwback

On Apr 21, 6:34 am, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:

> What are you guys talking about?

Definitely not about the subject of the thread.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 8:00 pm
From: cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter)

On 21 Apr 2007 03:34:41 -0700, Vend <vend82@virgilio.it> wrote:

>On 21 Apr, 08:51, David Iain Greig <dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:
>> R. Baldwin <res0k...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
>> > "Richard Harter" <c...@tiac.net> wrote in message
>> >news:46284670.454938234@news.sbtc.net...
>> >> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 11:38:38 +1000, j.wilki...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins)
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>>chris.linthomp...@gmail.com <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>> *sigh*
>>
>> >>>> Never Wake The Old Ones, unless you don't mind being plucked bodily
>> >>>> from the terrestrial sphere, thrust into the gaping maw, impaled by
>> >>>> enormous incisors, carved by loathsome canines, masticated by
>> >>>> monstrous molars, dissolved by unspeakable enzymes (which are
>> >>>> homologous to enzymes found in Lesser Beings, just more so), tested,
>> >>>> contested, ingested, digested, and egested noisily and noisomely back
>> >>>> into the realm of the living, minus your immortal soul.
>>
>> >>>> Don't say you weren't Warned.
>>
>> >>>Or, he might just reminisce, leaving to to *wish* you were being plucked
>> >>>bodily from the terrestrial sphere, thrust into the gaping maw, impaled
>> >>>by enormous incisors, carved by loathsome canines, masticated by
>> >>>monstrous molars, dissolved by unspeakable enzymes (which are homologous
>> >>>to enzymes found in Lesser Beings, just more so), tested, contested,
>> >>>ingested, digested, and egested noisily and noisomely back into the
>> >>>realm of the living, minus your immortal soul...
>>
>> >> Nonsense. I am always kind and gentle in my way.
>>
>> > Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
>>
>> Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Harter Usenet wgah'nagl fhtagn
>>
>> --D. 'Ia! Ia!'
>
>What are you guys talking about? I only understand 'Cthulhu'.

If we explained it we would have to not kill you; you really wouldn't
like that.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: How Best To Explain "Why Are There STILL Monkeys" ?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/3b43e05863014ed6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 10:02 am
From: Tom McDonald

Lucifer wrote:
> On Apr 20, 8:15 pm, lumin...@everywhere.net (Luminoso) wrote:
>> Has anyone come across a method that explains why there are
>> still monkeys/apes today instead of them all becoming humans ?
>> Yes, it's possible to explain, but every way I've ever tried
>> to do it winds up being 'clunky' - takes too long or relies
>> on mathematical or math-like examples. All THEY have to say
>> is "I Believe !". My approach, well, if it takes more than
>> ten seconds you can see their eyes glaze over and their
>> attention wander.
>>
>> So, I suppose the question is really "Is there a GOOD way
>> to explain it ?". Many have addressed this issue but I can't
>> read them all. Maybe some wordsmith managed to condense the
>> issue into a couple of pithy sentences or perfect examples ?
>>
>> The creationist-minded like to believe that every little
>> mutation somehow got transferred to EVERY individual and
>> they all lived in identical conditions and faced exactly
>> the same challenges. If that were true then there indeed
>> would be no more monkeys, every proto-monkey/hominid would
>> have evolved in lockstep.
>
>
> The best way is to say "why don't you try living in the trees for a
> bit swinging from branch to branch"

We are built to be able to brachiate, like gorillas and chimps.
But like gorillas and chimps, we have evolved a terrestrial
habit, and are not very good at swinging from branches for very
long, or for a major portion of our livelihood.

It would be kind of cool to train up a kid to be a
fully-functional brachiator. I'm afraid grownups are probably too
bottom-heavy, even with extreme upper body strengthening, to be
happy in the canopy.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: In the News: Darwin responsible for Blacksburg
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/1518da6c15c3a7cf?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 8:04 am
From: "Elf M. Sternberg"

From the article:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DON WALTON
Published: Apr 20, 2007

We could pretend that today's college campuses are bastions of
morality, and that Blacksburg, in particular, was the virtuous center
of the universe. Yet, we all know the denigration of human life that
is common today on America's university campuses, where the theory of
evolution is dogma, the sanctity of human life is viewed as antiquated
and things like abortion, euthanasia and stem-cell research are
readily advocated.

Why, then, should we be surprised when an almost fully indoctrinated
college senior shows a blatant disregard for human life? Perhaps,
what's surprising about Cho Seung-Hui's dastardly deed is that it is
not a more common occurrence on today's college and university
campuses - places where young people are routinely taught that life
has evolved without purpose and to no end, is governed by the survival
of the fittest and may be justifiably taken from someone when deemed
by others as expendable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read it at:
http://www.hernandotoday.com/MGBKVEE8R0F.html

Elf M. Sternberg

==============================================================================
TOPIC: In the News: Class Questioned (Letter to the Editor)
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/f9a5d64b2e6e3e8c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 8:06 am
From: "Elf M. Sternberg"

From the article:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, April 20, 2007

Furthermore, the writer's assertion that Creation Science is not a
serious scientific alternative to the theory of evolution is again
faulty. Creation Science is an independent theory of its own that can
compete favorably with evolution and even help explain its
gaps. Creation Science has much to offer to science and
scientists. Actually, many of the things evolution claims it knows and
discovers are found to be faulty and baseless. The recent Newsweek of
March 19, 2007 The Evolution Revolution writes,

"If you had asked paleoanthropologists a generation ago what lice
(human hair lice) DNA might reveal about how we became human, they
would have laughed you out of the room. But research into our origins
and evolution has come a long way. Starting with the first discovery
of a fossil suggesting that a different sort of human once lived on
this planet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read it at:

http://www.mccookgazette.com/story/1199865.html

Elf M. Sternberg

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Did someone2 ever get around to making a point or asking a question?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/389fa23d3fc03fc3?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 8:12 pm
From: cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter)

On 20 Apr 2007 20:33:03 -0700, Kermit <unrestrained_hand@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Apr 20, 7:10 pm, Terry <kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
>> I think he sets a record for the biggest nothing thread on Usenet.
>
>Oh, he asked questions. Mostly, he asked if we agreed that we were
>wrong. He seemed disinclined to debate until we got the preliminaries
>out of the way...

I was so disappointed. I think he really wanted to debate me, but just
couldn't bring himself to do it. Do you suppose it was something I
said?

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

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?

Saturday, April 21, 2007

25 new messages in 12 topics - digest

No comments:

Links

About Me

Blog Archive