Who dares sent me SPAM?: 25 new messages in 13 topics

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

talk.origins@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

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

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 11:54 am
From: "alwaysaskingquestions"

"Radix2" <dyera@tcg.com.au> wrote in message
news:1177131649.541222.314910@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> 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...

You obviously didn't read the bit about Gabriel appearring to her and
getting her consent.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 4:10 am
From: SJAB1958

On 21 Apr, 11:54, "alwaysaskingquestions"
<alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Radix2" <d...@tcg.com.au> wrote in message
>
> news:1177131649.541222.314910@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > 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...
>
> You obviously didn't read the bit about Gabriel appearring to her and
> getting her consent.

are you suggesting that god didnt feel able to chat her up himself so
he sent an underling, and then only impregnated her via his spirit and
not in person, sounds like god has some social skills to study and
some serious therapy to go through before the second coming.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 12:41 pm
From: "alwaysaskingquestions"

"SJAB1958" <balfres@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1177153804.501141.72390@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On 21 Apr, 11:54, "alwaysaskingquestions"
> <alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Radix2" <d...@tcg.com.au> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1177131649.541222.314910@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > 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...
>>
>> You obviously didn't read the bit about Gabriel appearring to her and
>> getting her consent.
>
> are you suggesting that god didnt feel able to chat her up himself so
> he sent an underling, and then only impregnated her via his spirit and
> not in person, sounds like god has some social skills to study and
> some serious therapy to go through before the second coming.

I'm not making any comment on the validity of the story, just that radix
hadn't even got the story right.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 4:52 am
From: Ron O

On Apr 21, 12:41 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?

Genesis 6:1-4. The Bible has an account as plain as the recitation of
the patriarchs that there were other gods that were around and liked
human women and produced the "heroes of old, warriors of renown." The
half gods were not given names, presumably, because everyone knew who
they were. So other gods are real too by the same evidence. Biblical
scholars are pretty much in agreement about the acknowldegment of
polytheism in the Bible.

For those that don't have a Bible handy:

When mankind began to increase and to spread all over the earth and
daughters were born to them, the sons of the gods saw that the
daughters of men were beautiful; so they took for themselves such
women as they chose. But the Lord said, "My life-giving spirit shall
not remain in man for ever; he for his part is mortal flesh: he shall
live for a hundred and twenty years." In those days when the sons of
the gods had intercourse with the daughters of men and got children by
them, the Nephilim were on earth. They were the heroes of old, men of
renown.

Ron Okimoto

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 4:23 am
From: "nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com"

You are just imagining things with what I say, making up a strawman,
and then you say that nobody else believes that strawman. For instance
some people have imagined about rocks thinking, about rocks having a
soul, or rocks having a spirit. I never said any of those things.

As before, like I believe can be found in billions of texts, including
for decisions in inanimate nature. You have not actually shown any
alternative way how anybody could reasonably consider any decision non
spiritual. There exists no working concept of decisionmaking that is
not spiritual.

You have discounted all material things as being able to decide,
except a brain. I went one further, I also discounted the material
brain as deciding anything, saying that decisions are essentially
spiritual. So I believe in one less material godhead then you do, and
really it is arbitrary that you believe in this particular material
godhead of the brain as the sole thing in the entire universe that has
the power of freedom, since we can well see by the weather that most
anything behaves freely in some aspects.

regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

==============================================================================
TOPIC: In the News: The universe has a designer, speakers say
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/10c843d438f9419c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 7:37 am
From: Jeffrey Turner

Jason Spaceman wrote:

> From the article:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Posted on Apr 20, 2007 | by Gregory Tomlin
>
> DALLAS (BP)--Science, when done right, points powerfully to a designer
> whose characteristics "just happen to match the descriptions of the
> God of the Bible," author and Christian apologist Lee Strobel said
> during a conference on the theory of Intelligent Design at Southern
> Methodist University in Dallas.

Surprise. What an amazing coincidence. A true revelation. I am
convinced. Was the process "hocus pocus" or "alla kazaam"?

> Once an avowed atheist and journalist who investigated the evidence
> for Christianity and creation prior to his conversion, Strobel said
> all materialistic theories have failed to explain the origin of life
> or how any part of the universe became habitable.

Which proves it was "presto change-o."

> "The universe is fine-tuned on a razor's edge in a way that defies
> chance. It is better explained by the existence of a Creator," Strobel
> said. "It seems logical and rational that, if there is a God, that He
> would leave evidence behind for us to find Him."

Hallelujah. Do you have a bone, or just a fingerprint? Scat?

> Strobel was joined by noted scientists Stephen Meyer, Jay Richards and
> Michael Behe for the "Darwin vs. Design" presentation of the Center
> for Science & Culture at the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based
> group of researchers exploring the worldview implications of science.
> The Christian Legal Society at SMU's Dedman Law School sponsored the
> April 13-14 sessions.

The Christian Legal Society is a scientific organization?

> Not everyone, however, welcomed the scientists proposing Intelligent
> Design. At least three SMU professors lodged protests against the
> conference, which they claimed would promote a "mystical world view"
> lacking scientific credibility.

Cads and spoilsports.

> Seven students also protested inside the conference, holding up signs
> with questions related to Darwinian evolution. SMU police escorted two
> students out of the conference after the students attempted to move
> closer to the stage where Strobel, Meyer, Richards and Behe were
> speaking to an audience of more than 1,500.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Read it at http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/BPnews.asp?ID=25462

An audience of 1,000? I hope the take was good.

--Jeff

--
We can have democracy or we can have
great wealth concentrated in the hands
of the few. We cannot have both.
--Justice Louis Brandeis

==============================================================================
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 4:35 am
From: richardalanforrest@googlemail.com

On Apr 21, 11:46 am, "alwaysaskingquestions"
<alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1177140821.932042.246250@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> [...]
>
> > Now
> > we find that in some measures of intelligence we are outperformed by
> > chimps.
>
> Got any references for that or can you enlarge upon which measures of
> intelligence?

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/90280123e0bdd7fb

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 8:07 am
From: "J.J. O'Shea"

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 06:46:59 -0400, alwaysaskingquestions wrote
(in article <58u8dfF2ia4ojU1@mid.individual.net>):

>
> <richardalanforrest@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:1177140821.932042.246250@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> [...]
>
>> Now
>> we find that in some measures of intelligence we are outperformed by
>> chimps.
>
> Got any references for that or can you enlarge upon which measures of
> intelligence?
>
>

There are very few chimp creationists.

--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 1:08 pm
From: Tony Raymonds

In article <v5cj23tg0slr5v0do8bp6chnaju729g3q0@4ax.com>, Chris
<christo9@notalotofunwanted.aol.com> writes
>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)?

Depends on your perspective. From a genetic point of view they are very
close indeed.

>What about the nearest extinct relative? How close are we to it?

Probably Neanderthals, they appear to be the last species to separate
from our particular branch of the tree. Note that they appear to be a
side branch and not ancestral to us though.

The other possibility is the hobbits, although that is somewhat
controversial:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis

>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?

It doesn't seem odd to me at all.

If you put two species which share the same ecological niche (resources)
in the same environment and then sooner or later you will end up with
only one species remaining. The other one will be extinct, out competed
for food or shelter.

Humans are not very good at sharing resources with other organisms. Look
at the speed we are wiping out the great apes and their habitats. At
this rate our closest living relatives will soon no longer be chimps
because there won't be any chimps left.
--
tony2@wacky.zzn.com

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 6:01 am
From: TomS

"On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 17:31:33 +1000, in article
<1hwxkdf.1wlsd031qu5xzbN%j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au>, John Wilkins stated..."
>
>Chris <christo9@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?
>
>There are at least four human species between us and the last common
>ancestor we had with chimps. As there are two species of chimp now, it's
>likely that there were several species between them and the LCA. It
>happens that few of them have been fossilised.
>
>Why do you think this is so "far away"? Ten or so species is not all
>that distant. There's a lot more species diversity among other groups
>with that sort of distance betwwen existing/surviving species. And what
>does "100% human" mean? Were Homo erectus, H ergaster, H
>neanderthalensis (not an ancestor but a cousin) 100% human?
>
>There *were* human species (that is, species in the human branch of that
>split) that are not completely *modern* human. They are extinct. Had
>things gone somewhat differently, they may well have survived through to
>now. In fact, erectus was alive as recently as 50,000 years ago, and
>probably coexisted with modern humans, who most likely competitively
>excluded them to extinction.

What qualifies as a *human* species? Does that refer to any species
which is on the Homo sapiens side of the division between chimps
and "fully modern humans"? So that, for example, Australopithecines
were human? Or would be draw the line so that even Neandertals
weren't human?

>
>And single species do not evolved from a single breeding par, an "Adam
>and Eve". They evolve from populations of thousands or millions.
>
>>
>> Chris
>> If life seems jolly rotten
>> There's spmething you've forgotten
>> and thats to laugh and smile and dance and sing!
>
>

--
---Tom S.
"When people use the X is not a fact or Y is not proven gambits it is a tacit
admission that they have lost the science argument and they are just trying to
downplay the significance of that failing."
BK Jennings, "On the Nature of Science", Physics in Canada 63(1)

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

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 7:41 am
From: "Gerry Murphy"

"Martin Hutton" <mdhutton1949REMOVE@hotmailREMOVE.com> wrote in message
news:f0c5q9$ttb$1@news.datemas.de...
>
> On 20-Apr-2007, Throwback <throwback8@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 19, 10:03 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> > > On 19 Apr 2007 11:02:48 -0700, the following appeared in
> > > talk.origins, posted by Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > >Wait! The scientists were frustrated, as they couldn't put what they
> > > >observed into an evolutionary context (meaning the atheistic
> > > >philosophy
> > > >of darwin's cult of pseudoscience).
> > >
> > > I think I've detected your basic problem. You think all
> > > scientists are atheists, which is incorrect, but that's not
> > > your basic problem.
> >
> > Strawman. I never said that.
> >
> > > You think all those who accept the
> > > overwhelming evidence supporting the ToE are atheists, which
> > > is also incorrect, but that's not your basic problem either.
> >
> > Strawman. I never thought that. But it appears you believe
> > you possess psychic powers, as to be able to read my
> > mind.
> >
> >
> > > Those two are merely the result of your basic problem, which
> > > is that you've been brainwashed since birth by "Christian"
> > > fundamentalists and other assorted Biblical literalists, and
> > > are therefore unable to think; all you can do is regurgitate
> > > fundamentalist propaganda.
> >
> > No, but what you need to do is stick your conjectural,
> > speculative evolutionary lines of descent up your
> > collective pseudoscientific fannies.
> >
> > And they should put a caption in all the textbooks
> > where they are teaching these young impressionable
> > kids these lines of descent that reads as follows:
> >
> > "These evolutionary lines of descent are speculative
> > conjecture, and not undisputed scientific fact.
> >
> > 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).
>
> --
> Martin Hutton
>

Minor quibble, as I remember the pledge the cadence was different so
I thought your versions from 1924 on were in error and I looked it up.
My memory was correct, the phrase used was United States 'of America'.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 12:45 pm
From: Klaus

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. You seem to have severe
difficulties with English, especially comprehension and grammer, though
your spelling is good. Are you using some kind of translation machine?
Klaus

>
>>The living mouse lemurs are our cousins, *many millions of times
>>removed, and they have been evolving as long as we have since we have
>>had a common ancestor. For some species, such as the mouse lemur, the
>>changes may not be so obvious and dramatic, but it's probably enough
>>that they would be considered a different species.
>>
>>Kermit
>
>
>

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 1:51 pm
From: "Diane L."

Throwback wrote:
<snip>
> 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.

Or they could teach basic punctuation instead.

Diane, L,

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 12:52 pm
From: Klaus

Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article <1hwqqjy.cvcj9j1p4sxw3N%j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au>,
> j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
>
>
>>TomS <TomS_member@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:09:55 +1000, in article
>>><1hwqodl.1wwu9az1dgvq9dN%j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au>, John Wilkins stated..."
>>>
>>>>Throwback <throwback8@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Apr 16, 12:38 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>...
>>>>
>>>>>>In general we can't tell that a fossil represents an ancestral
>>>>>>population rather than an extunct side branch. Chimpanzees and bonobos
>>>>>>have no identified fossil record, so we very little evidence on which
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>estimate the number of species in that lineage.
>>>>>
>>>>>So we can't be sure which species in existence is our
>>>>>direct ancestor in the evolutionary line.
>>>>
>>>>No species in existence is in our direct ancestral lineage. Our
>>>>ancestral species are all extinct, and have been for at least 40,000
>>>>years if not double or triple that.
>>>>...
>>>
>>>There are no Homo sapiens in our direct ancestral lineage?
>>
>>Nice try, sport. But as we are all that species, that species is not an
>>ancestral *species* to ours. So there, &c &c, and a tongue poke too.
>
>
> I was under the impression that we split off from chimps, and that
> chimps although changed in time are still the same species as then.
> The concept of same species can be obscure in time.
>

No. I think you are confused by that evolutionary laddeer nonsense.
Ancestral species do not somehow become frozen when a new species is
formed. After the speciation event, both species continue to evolve. The
degree of change in morphology will vary in accord with environmental
pressures.
Klaus

==============================================================================
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 3 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 12:14 pm
From: "Martin Hutton"

On 20-Apr-2007, j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:

> louann_m@yahoo.com <louann_m@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 20, 2:26 pm, Jim Willemin <jim***willemin@hot***mail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Most Americans are descended from Europeans, Africans, or Asians. Why
> > > are
> > > there still Europeans, Africans, and Asians?
> >
> > The wording I like is "my mom and dad told me my ancestors came from
> > England. But that can't be true, I've been there and _there are still
> > Englishmen_."
>
> They're not True Englishmen. You can't get the wood, you know...

I certainly can! Like an oak...and without blue pills.

--
Martin Hutton

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 5:33 am
From: TomS

"On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 19:15:59 GMT, in article
<46290031.6082531@news.east.earthlink.net>, Luminoso stated..."
>
>Has anyone come across a method that explains why there are
>still monkeys/apes today instead of them all becoming humans ?
[...snip...]

Several people have mentioned the response "how come there are still
Europeans". When I first tried this with an acquaintance, he replied,
"That's different." I admit that I had no rejoinder.

I suspect that the reason for this question is a misunderstanding of
evolution as a "climbing of the Great Chain of Being". In that case,
the "explanation" is this: because as monkeys are turning into
people, the animals on the next rung below monkeys are turning
into monkeys, to replace them - shrews are turning into monkeys,
lizards are turning into shrews, fish are turning into lizards, worms
are turning into fish, ... and, at the bottom, rocks are turning into
bacteria. Of course, the question is then, "How come there are
still rocks?"

There was an old "B.C." cartoon (yes, B.C.!) in which one
character replied something like, "Because some monkeys had
a choice."

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 1:39 pm
From: "Steve O"

"Luminoso" <luminoso@everywhere.net> wrote in message
news:46290031.6082531@news.east.earthlink.net...
> 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.
>

Just tell them , "If man was made out of dust, how come there is still dust
around my house?"
Even the most die-hard fundie nut can usually get their heads around that
one.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Arkansas: Panel to consider evolution critique
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/10e81a61b7c5e2f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 5:17 am
From: Ron O

On Apr 21, 3:25 am, Jason Spaceman <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org>
wrote:
> From the article:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> BY JOHN KRUPA
>
> Posted on Wednesday, April 18, 2007
>
> ROGERS - The School Board president wants a district committee to
> review a set of supplemental materials that attack evolutionary
> theory.
>
> President Joye Kelley said after Tuesday's board meeting that the
> committee then would recommend whether to incorporate the materials
> into the district's secondary science curriculum.
>
> The statement came after the School Board approved 21 science
> textbooks that a member of the textbook selection committee painted as
> slanted toward evolutionary theory.
>
> Don Eckard, a Rogers dentist who served as the lone community
> representative on the selection committee, said last month and again
> Tuesday night that the science books do not present a balanced view of
> evolution.
>
> Eckard said students should be exposed to the scientific evidence that
> both supports and refutes evolution. Eckard, a Christian, said he
> isn't for teaching creationism or intelligent design in schools. He
> presented the supplemental materials Tuesday and asked the board to
> vote on them in May.
>
> The supplemental materials consist of a 36-page handout and a
> corresponding DVD.
>
> The DVD and most of the printed materials are produced by the
> Seattle-based Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture. Mark
> Moore, a former Pea Ridge science teacher who spoke against the
> science textbooks with Eckard last month, wrote the additional
> material.

Let them go and do what they want to do. The sooner the new scam goes
to court and gets nailed for the dishonest scam that it is, the
better. My guess is that the Discovery Institute is secretly trying
to get the rubes to drop the issue. The Discovery Institute are the
guys that were caught lying about intelligent design for over a
decade. It is a no brainer that they will have no credibility with
their replacement scam. Anyone just has to demonstrate that they came
up with the replacement scam while they were still lying about the
intelligent design scam, and that even though they were claiming to be
able to teach something about intelligent design, the new scam doesn't
even mention that ID ever existed. It is just your classic bait and
switch scam. Promise one thing and deliver something else that is
pretty worthless.

>
> The institute's materials are titled "Icons of Evolution: The Growing
> Scientific Controversy Over Darwin," and present infor- mation that
> challenges evolutionary theory.

Oh, Oh. They should review the history of the Ohio fiasco where the
Ohio rubes took the bait and switch, but found out that the Discovery
Institute didn't have a valid lesson plan for the new scam. They
still do not have a valid lesson plan for the new scam. All they have
is dishonest scam material. The Ohio rubes found out how dishonest it
was and had to drop all mention of "Icons" out of their original
attempt at producing something worth teaching.

The saddest thing is that rubes are still willing to go to the
dishonest scam artists after they know that they have been lied to by
the scam artists for years. The Rogers board should contact the Ohio
rubes and find out what they know before they make the same mistakes.
I wonder why they never do something sensible like that?

It should be a no brainer for any rube that wants to believe the
intelligent design scam artists. Why did the Discovery Institute
never produce an intelligent design public school lesson plan in all
the years that they advocated teaching it? They have had the "teach
the controversy" replacement scam kicking around since at least 1999,
but again, they have never put up a teach the controversy public
school lesson plan for evaluation. Never. When the guy running the
scams never even bother to demonstrate that they can actually teach
the scams, why would any rube believe them today with that lame track
record? We are talking about scam artists that were forced to admit
that the reason that they never produced an intelligent design lesson
plan was due to the fact that they never had anything worth teaching.
What is going to be their lame excuse for not having a "teach the
controversy" lesson plan available for evaluation?

Ron Okimoto

> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Read it athttp://www.nwanews.com/adg/News/187743/
>
> J. Spaceman

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 8:26 am
From: r norman

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."

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!!

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Does Bloopenblopper save (or replace) induction with a priorism?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/ca7c35865aed0e39?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 5:36 am
From: Bloopenblopper@juno.com

On Apr 20, 9:30 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On 19 Apr 2007 11:19:12 -0700, Bloopenblop...@juno.com wrote:
>
> >On Apr 19, 1:53 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> >All right, I'll have to think about your other points, but for now, I
> >should point out that
>
> >> >Give an example.
>
> >> Dr Peter Duesberg, a National Academy of Sciences member was
> >> ostracized and isolated for disputing the truthlikeness of the
> >> sacrosanct HIV-causes-AIDS theory.
>
> >Yeah, but he was still able to get peer-reviewed articles published.
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Duesberg
>
> I never said that he was summarily drummed out. I simply noted that
> his daring to buck the sacrosanct and secular dogma of HIV-causes-AIDS
> caused him considerable difficulty. The fact that he was a National
> Academy of Sciences member is probably the only thing that saved him.
> Had some post doc dared to do the same thing his career in his field
> would have been destroyed.
>
> This example demonstrates that the secular claim that theories are
> always provisional is nonsense whenever a theory has been elevated to
> the level of secular dogma.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano

It will again be necessary to retrace the context of this
conversation. I won't snip previous quotes anymore. Snex said:

> science makes assertions about the natural world (and only the natural
> world that we can readily observe) that are based on both logic and
> empirical facts. there is no forcefully imposed penalty for failing to
> believe in the assertions of science. the reasons to accept scientific
> assertions are logic, evidence, and intellectual honesty.

To which you said:

> This is laughable. Everyone who depends on the secular scientific
> community for their livelihood and who disputes the sacrosanct
> theories is crushed. The easiest way to destroy someone who bucks the
> orthodoxy is through peer review. I suspect the fear of being
> squeezed out of the ability to publish has stifled many new ideas that
> contradict the current sacrosanct theories consistent with atheism.

I asked you to give an example. You said:

> Dr Peter Duesberg, a National Academy of Sciences member was
> ostracized and isolated for disputing the truthlikeness of the
> sacrosanct HIV-causes-AIDS theory.

It doesn't matter if you were trying to say that he was summarily
drummed out. It remains that he was able to get his views published in
peer-reviewed scientific journals, and he was still able to get
funding from sources other than the National Institute of Health.
Therefore, he is not a good example of someone whose livelihood was
crushed by the orthodoxy and whose ideas were destroyed by peer
review. You still do not have a good example to back up your claim.

But none of this really captures what snex was trying to say in the
first place. For much of history in most places on the globe,
religious authorities could have you sent to a dungeon or even
executed for publicly challenging their dogma. Even after the
secularization of European government beginning in the Renaissance,
religion still wielded significant political power. Not until the
institution of freedom of speech in the late 18th and 19th centuries
could you safely challenge government or religion. The scientific
community, regardless of how close-minded it has become, has never
been guilty of such crimes. The only possible exception I can think of
would be the Lysenkoism of Stalin's state religion...persecuting
evolutionists!

==============================================================================
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: Sat, Apr 21 2007 12:38 pm
From: Cheezits

Richard Clayton <pockZIGetnZIGerd@verizon.net> wrote:
> Josh Hayes wrote:
>> Ye Old One <usenet@mcsuk.net> wrote in
>> news:7qhi23l2cra892u2ictbgiehkijqe1hngb@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 21:26:09 +0000 (UTC), David Iain Greig
>>> <dgreig@ediacara.org> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>>
>>>> Cheezits <Cheezits32@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Sue (serious debate, my butt)
>>>> Sue's butt makes a return appearance on talk.origins!
>>>>
>>> I would say "more! more!" but that may get me into trouble.

>> In the old days, the response would have been, "GIF! GIF!", which
>> gives you some sense of just how old the old days were.
>
> HAH! Back in MY day, we used to yell "ASCII! ASCII!"

Now I guess it would be "Youtube! Youtube!"

Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green

==============================================================================
TOPIC: hi everybody
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/57d093eb5e09d1db?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 5:39 am
From: mjuned15@gmail.com

hi myself juned
iwanna know
about the universe
my mail ID is
mjuned15@gmail.com

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 5:59 am
From: Radix2

On Apr 21, 10:39 pm, mjune...@gmail.com wrote:
> hi myself juned
> iwanna know
> about the universe
> my mail ID is
> mjune...@gmail.com

Well the universe is a very big place and also very old compared to we
tiny islands of thought. There is much beauty in it, but also chaos.
Do you have a specific question you would like to ask the group on
their opinions of this majesty?

==============================================================================
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 12:34 pm
From: Cheezits

Terry <kilowatt@charter.net> wrote:
> I think he sets a record for the biggest nothing thread on Usenet.

You're new around here, aren't you? :-D

I'm waiting for him to get around to answering questions.

Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green

==============================================================================
TOPIC: On the Nature of Science
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/332603e0f0613ab1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 5:41 am
From: TomS

"On 20 Apr 2007 10:06:40 -0700, in article
<1177088800.017604.153440@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Glenn stated..."
>
>On Apr 20, 5:16 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> "On 16 Apr 2007 18:26:21 -0700, in article
>> <1176773181.790926.101...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Glenn stated..."
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Apr 16, 11:23 am, "Kent" <musquods...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Since there is much discussion of what science is now this new group
>> >> you might be interested in an article that appeared in the recent
>> >> issue of "Physics in Canada". A pdf version of the pape can be found
>> >> athttp://trshare.triumf.ca/~jennings/PhysicsInCanada-63-2007-7.pdf
>>
>> >"Trying to classify evolution or any empirical model as fact or non-
>> >fact is a failure of categories and indicates a profound ignorance of
>> >the nature of empirical knowledge."
>>
>> >If true there are many evolutionists here who are profoundly ignorant.
>>
>> "When people use the _X is not a fact or _Y is not proven gambits it
>> is a tacit admission they have lost the science argument and they are
>> just trying to downplay the significance of that failing."
>>
>> The final sentence of that article.
>>
>In the same spirit, "When people use the _X is a fact or _Y is proven
>gambits it is a tacit admission they have lost the science argument
>and they are just trying to downplay the significance of that
>failing."
>

I suppose that I could point out that your lame response is a
tacit admission of the poverty of your thoughts. But I won't
do that.

Perhaps you didn't notice that this quotation is taken from the
article that the original poster was citing as an authority. Perhaps
you didn't read the argumentation presented in that article to
back up the concluding statement.

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

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 13 topics - digest

No comments:

Links

About Me

Blog Archive