Who dares sent me SPAM?: 25 new messages in 14 topics

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

talk.origins@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: VT massacre, Creationists, apology?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/833cb8101482318?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 6:31 pm
From: eroot@swva.net

On Apr 23, 2:40 pm, ayers...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Apr 23, 1:10 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@nospam.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 22 Apr 2007 18:02:04 -0700, hbarwood <hbarw...@troy.edu> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 22, 6:07 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@nospam.org> wrote:
> > > > Some Creationists have written newspaper articles blaming what
> > > > they claim they believe to be "evolution" and/or "evolutionary
> > > > theory" for the horrible murders; it is now known that the killer
> > > > was mentally ill and had long been known to be mentally ill, and
> > > > that his motive was to "punish" wealthy people. There is zero
> > > > evidence that the biology sciences made Cho kill people.
>
> > > > So..... where are the apologies by the Creationists who said
> > > > otherwise? Why are they silent?
> > > The newspapers in my area have been filled with "opinion" writers
> > > lambasting the "atheist" shooter. Ignoring the blatant Christian
> > > symbology in his video, they lather on about how he was subverted by
> > > evolution to discount human life. Most of this crap is coming out of
> > > the usual suspects (Coral Ridge Ministries, etc.). They also appear to
> > > be confused by his major and constantly harp on his "science" training
> > > (he was an English major).
>
> > Cho wrote about his dissapointment with Christianity and his
> > fellow Christians. His religion does not appear to have been the
> > motivation for his despicable crime, however, any more than
> > science.
>
> > This is yet one more example of someone who was known to be
> > mentally ill who did not get medical treatment--- and was allowed
> > to buy guns. "Teen Screen" is designed to try to help such people,
> > but many cults in the USA actively oppose "Teen Screen:" they
> > would rather have young people kill themselves and others.
>
> > > Just when you think this crowd cannot possibly sink any lower, they
> > > manage to find a way.
>
> > Yes, that is very ugly and despicable behavior. There is a
> > newspaper article, via Google News, that laments the political
> > spins that right-wingers, left-wingers, and moderates have put on
> > the crime--- thousands of people and groups using the crime to
> > further their politics.
>
> > --http://desertphile.org
> > Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
> > "I've hired myself out as a tourist attraction." -- Spike
>
> FACT TAKE GOD OUT< AND YOU GET GODLESS KILLERS.After all you lie to
> people, and tell them they where monkeys, and there is no after life
> after flesh, then your lifes are needless useless. CHECK OUT ALL THE
> PAST SCHOOL SHOOTINGS,ALL DONE BY darwinist, and evolutionist.

You can't offer one shred of evidence that any of those killers were
pro-science. Nope, you're either lying or crazy.

> WONDER
> WHY.

Okay, if you permit supernatural explanations, then: because you are
either lying, crazy, or a stomach-grovelling lickspittle of Satan.

> GOD(JESUS CHRIST)BLESS YOU ANYWAY. THE DAY TO ANSWER TO JESUS
> CHRIST FOR BELIEVER, AND NON BELIEVER.

Yeah, the day when all y'all creationists refuse to go to heaven so
you won't have to share it with all those yucky smart people.

Eric Root

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 6:31 pm
From: "chris.linthompson@gmail.com"

On Apr 22, 4:01 pm, Ken Shaw <kshaw1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 22, 11:55 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > Creationism seems to function on denial. It denies the existence of
> > natural laws operating in the world. Creationists deny that Christians
> > who disagree with them are Christians. They deny that scientists can
> > be scientists while being Christian.
>
> > They attribute non-belief in creationism to evil intent. Everyone is
> > intent on destroying creationist fundamentalism. Everyone hates god.
>
> > Since Jews (except for the ultra orthodox) do not accept the Xtian
> > version of creation, and since creationists believe everyone who
> > denies creationism is evil, do creationists think Jews are evil? With
> > the hatred that spews forth from creationism (I myself heard Mike Behe
> > call all science journal editors 'atheists'), is it possible that,
> > among its other many faults, creationism is inherently antisemitic?
>
> I don't know about creationists being inherently antisemitic but many
> major creationists are antisemites. Harun Yahya is a holocaust denier
> and Kent Hovind has quoted approvingly from the Protocols.
>
> Ken

Not only that, but most creationists have to harbor yet another source
of cognitive dissonance, in that they are told to be pro-Israel, while
at the same time despising the Jew. Granted, it's only until the End
Times come, and those Israelites that don't convert will just be swept
into oblivion.

Chris

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 6:58 pm
From: wf3h

On Apr 23, 8:13 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On 22 Apr 2007 09:55:14 -0700, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> >Creationism seems to function on denial.
>
> Everyone denies some things. One is obligated to deny falsity. What
> do creationists deny that is true?
>
> > It denies the existence of
> >natural laws operating in the world.
>
> Which law of nature do creationists deny?

which DONT they deny? they deny any natural processes are responsible
for speciation. they deny any SUPPORTING processes, such as
radioactive decay/dating are accurate

>
> > Creationists deny that Christians
> >who disagree with them are Christians.
>
> The disagreement often involves the so-called christian denying a
> tenet of the faith.

in your opinion.

>
> > They deny that scientists can
> >be scientists while being Christian.
>
> ditto.

in your opinion. IOW you agree, so, QED>

>
>
>
> >They attribute non-belief in creationism to evil intent. Everyone is
> >intent on destroying creationist fundamentalism. Everyone hates god.
>
> Non belief in creationism is merely a symptom of "evil" intent.

QED.
>
> >Since Jews (except for the ultra orthodox) do not accept the Xtian
> >version of creation,
>
> This is irrelevent unless wf3h can demonstrate that consensus is
> related to the objective truth. Atheists care nothing for the
> objective truth. Truth for the atheist is what ever the mob says it
> is.

you don't know what atheists care for or dont care for. you're
stereotyping...which, again, proves my point about creationist
paranoia.

>
> >and since creationists believe everyone who
> >denies creationism is evil, do creationists think Jews are evil? With
> >the hatred that spews forth from creationism (I myself heard Mike Behe
> >call all science journal editors 'atheists'), is it possible that,
> >among its other many faults, creationism is inherently antisemitic?
>
> wf3h's bald assertions are designed to marginalize creationists not
> refute any of their positions.

says the guy who, above, made bald assertions about 'atheists' (IOW
those who disagree with him).

He doesn't argue for their truth
> because he couldn't do so if his life depended on it.

you're offering support for my position. i said you're paranoid. you
are. i said you consider xtians who accept evolution to be non xtians.
you agreed above.

QED.

>
> Since 1996 I can only recall a couple of opponents denying my labeling
> of them an atheist. I'd love wf3h to identify where, when and under
> what circumstances he heard Behe make such a claim and whether or not
> the editor denied the claim.

i didn't say he accuses an editor. he accused ALL editors, in my
presence, at a lecture at the episcopal cathedral church of the
nativity in bethlehem, PA.

but, tony, you've done a WONDERFUL job of proving EXACTLY what i said
about creationists. you demonstrated EVERY characteristic i said
creationists exhibit in their paranoid hatred of science, and of other
xtians.

thanks very much.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: implications of cause and effect
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/b302395e5c051640?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 8:30 pm
From: Dale Kelly

1) you could believe in an absolute beginning and a first cause, but a
first cause is an effect and requires a cause, so there can be no
absolute beginning

2) you could believe in an infinite linear continuum of cause and effect,
but then you would have to deal with the fact that at the limit of
infinity you have cause or effect, not cause and effect, since cause and
effect is binary, and an unfulfilled continuum

3) cause and effect is cyclical, the last effect is always the first cause
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuga

I challenge any evolution punks to prove this is a false dichotomy

--
Dale
http://www.vedantasite.org

== 2 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 6:38 pm
From: bullpup@bellsouth.net

On Apr 23, 8:30 pm, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
> 1) you could believe in an absolute beginning and a first cause, but a
> first cause is an effect and requires a cause, so there can be no
> absolute beginning
>
> 2) you could believe in an infinite linear continuum of cause and effect,
> but then you would have to deal with the fact that at the limit of
> infinity you have cause or effect, not cause and effect, since cause and
> effect is binary, and an unfulfilled continuum
>
> 3) cause and effect is cyclical, the last effect is always the first causehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuga
>
> I challenge any evolution punks to prove this is a false dichotomy

Nuclear decay. HTH, HAND

Boikat

== 3 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 6:50 pm
From: "Steven J."

On Apr 23, 8:30 pm, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
> 1) you could believe in an absolute beginning and a first cause, but a
> first cause is an effect and requires a cause, so there can be no
> absolute beginning
>
You have just asserted, _a priori_, that there are no uncaused
causes. Traditional western theists assert, contrarily, that one
uncaused first cause must and does exist. Their assertion rests on as
much evidence (indeed, the same sort of evidence: their own
intuitions) as yours does. Meanwhile, quantum physics deals very
successfully with events that do not have "causes" in the sense that
they are the only possible outcome of the exact set of circumstances
in which they occurred. So it is far from clear that you are correct
here.
>
> 2) you could believe in an infinite linear continuum of cause and effect,
> but then you would have to deal with the fact that at the limit of
> infinity you have cause or effect, not cause and effect, since cause and
> effect is binary, and an unfulfilled continuum
>
There isn't any limit to infinity. That's what infinity *means*. In
an infinite series of cause and effect, one can always go further
back, no matter how far back one has already gone, and find another
cause, and the prior cause of that cause, and so on forever.
>
> 3) cause and effect is cyclical, the last effect is always the first causehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuga
>
> I challenge any evolution punks to prove this is a false dichotomy
>
Okay. "Dichotomies" contain exactly two categories or possibilities
(again, that's what the word "dichotomy" *means*), and you've just
listed three. How much falser can a dichotomy be, that to have, even
as presented, more than the minimal number of possibilities for a
dichotomy?
>
> --
> Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org

-- Steven J.

== 4 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 1:52 am
From: Lee Oswald Ving

Dale Kelly <dale.kelly@comcast.net> wrote in
news:pan.2007.04.24.01.32.08@comcast.net:

> 1) you could believe in an absolute beginning and a first cause, but a
> first cause is an effect and requires a cause, so there can be no
> absolute beginning
>
> 2) you could believe in an infinite linear continuum of cause and
> effect, but then you would have to deal with the fact that at the
> limit of infinity you have cause or effect, not cause and effect,
> since cause and effect is binary, and an unfulfilled continuum
>
> 3) cause and effect is cyclical, the last effect is always the first
> cause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuga
>
> I challenge any evolution punks to prove this is a false dichotomy

Projection ad Absurdum.

When we reach a point where we don't know, we say, "We don't know. Let's
see if we can find out more."

Not, "Hey, let's make up some happy-ass shit that makes us feel better."

Bitch.

== 5 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 8:52 pm
From: Dale Kelly

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:38:58 -0700, bullpup wrote:

> Nuclear decay. HTH, HAND--

quantum mechanics is a FARCE

the uncertainty principle says that you cannot even know if the
population you are dealing with is random, YOU CAN KNOW NOTHING,
empirically that is

quantum physicists have ASSUMED that uncertainty means a random normal
population with which they can apply certain statistical procedures to,
the uncertainty principle says you are uncertain even of randomness and a
normal population

secondly, quantum mechanics ALWAYS defaults to Newtonian physics in the
REAL world, and ALL interpretations of quantum mechanics agree with this

there are absolutely ZERO observations of quantum behavior, it is all
pseudoscience (and so is Einstein)

you are WRONG, evolution punk

--
Dale
http://www.vedantasite.org

== 6 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 9:55 pm
From: Rich Townsend

Dale Kelly wrote:
> 1) you could believe in an absolute beginning and a first cause, but a
> first cause is an effect and requires a cause, so there can be no
> absolute beginning
>
> 2) you could believe in an infinite linear continuum of cause and effect,
> but then you would have to deal with the fact that at the limit of
> infinity you have cause or effect, not cause and effect, since cause and
> effect is binary, and an unfulfilled continuum
>
> 3) cause and effect is cyclical, the last effect is always the first cause
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuga
>
> I challenge any evolution punks to prove this is a false dichotomy
>
>

Well, a dichotomy has two opposing statements. You have three. Therefore, your
dichotomy is false.

cheers,

Rich

== 7 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 9:55 pm
From: Rich Townsend

Well, a dichotomy has two opposing statements. You have three. Therefore, your
dichotomy is false.

cheers,

Rich

== 8 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 6:56 pm
From: snex

On Apr 23, 8:52 pm, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:38:58 -0700, bullpup wrote:
> > Nuclear decay. HTH, HAND--
>
> quantum mechanics is a FARCE
>
> the uncertainty principle says that you cannot even know if the
> population you are dealing with is random, YOU CAN KNOW NOTHING,
> empirically that is
>
> quantum physicists have ASSUMED that uncertainty means a random normal
> population with which they can apply certain statistical procedures to,
> the uncertainty principle says you are uncertain even of randomness and a
> normal population
>
> secondly, quantum mechanics ALWAYS defaults to Newtonian physics in the
> REAL world, and ALL interpretations of quantum mechanics agree with this
>
> there are absolutely ZERO observations of quantum behavior, it is all
> pseudoscience (and so is Einstein)
>
> you are WRONG, evolution punk

your computer would not work without quantum effects. neither would
scanning tunneling microscopes.

>
> --
> Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org

== 9 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 7:00 pm
From: Rich Townsend

Dale Kelly wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:38:58 -0700, bullpup wrote:
>
>> Nuclear decay. HTH, HAND--
>
> quantum mechanics is a FARCE
>
> the uncertainty principle says that you cannot even know if the
> population you are dealing with is random, YOU CAN KNOW NOTHING,
> empirically that is
>
> quantum physicists have ASSUMED that uncertainty means a random normal
> population with which they can apply certain statistical procedures to,
> the uncertainty principle says you are uncertain even of randomness and a
> normal population
>
> secondly, quantum mechanics ALWAYS defaults to Newtonian physics in the
> REAL world, and ALL interpretations of quantum mechanics agree with this

What absolute rubbish. The Klein-Gordon equation is fully relativistic. The
Dirac equation is fully relativistic. Quantum electrodynamics is fully relativistic.

Ever heard of Thomas precession? It's a relativistic effect. If it is ignored,
the spin-orbit effect in atomic physics is off by a factor 2. This has
observable consequences that can be measured by anyone with a spectrograph and a
brain. Sadly, you're lacking in the latter, and I imagine you've never been
within a mile of the former.

>
> there are absolutely ZERO observations of quantum behavior, it is all
> pseudoscience (and so is Einstein)
>
> you are WRONG, evolution punk
>

Argumentum ad Dirty Harry?

== 10 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 7:03 pm
From: dmcanzi@remulak.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi -- non-mailable)

In article <pan.2007.04.24.01.32.08@comcast.net>,
Dale Kelly <dale.kelly@comcast.net> wrote:
>1) you could believe in an absolute beginning and a first cause, but a
>first cause is an effect and requires a cause, so there can be no
>absolute beginning
>
>2) you could believe in an infinite linear continuum of cause and effect,
>but then you would have to deal with the fact that at the limit of
>infinity you have cause or effect, not cause and effect, since cause and
>effect is binary, and an unfulfilled continuum
>
>3) cause and effect is cyclical, the last effect is always the first cause
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuga
>
>I challenge any evolution punks to prove this is a false dichotomy

A true dichotomy has two parts, not three.

--
David Canzi | Eternal truths come and go. |

==============================================================================
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 1:29 am
From: Bill Morse

Josh Hayes wrote:

> Walter Bushell <proto@oanix.com> wrote in
> news:proto-63F9CC.02245622042007@ 032-325-625.area1.spcsdns.net:
>
>> In article <1hwxko1.1otrr8z1t3nn4pN%j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au>,
>> j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
>>
>>> In *my* day, it was "dots! dashes!"
>>
>> That could make a fellow morose.
>
> Boy, Walter, you sure telegraphed that one. You been hitting the SOS?
>
> -JAH
I don't understand. You guys must be talking in code.
--
Yours, Bill Morse (And isn't it ironic)

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 6:34 pm
From: bullpup@bellsouth.net

On Apr 23, 8:13 pm, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 24 apr, 02:10, stew dean <stewd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The orbit of a planet is the function of it's past and current state.
> > The future is set by the past.
>
> Think about that. It's completely ridiculous isn't it?

Yet, that is what Dubois says in his paper about anticipatory
wystems. or did you forget that part?

> The future is
> set by the past? How is that not saying the future is in the past?
> That can't be right of course. Why isn't the future just the future?
> Look at what you're doing, you're deeply violating your own sense of
> reasonability by the scientific method.

But you think the scientific method is a 'sciencetrick", remember?

> The fundamentally uncertain
> future which we experience all the time.

Except that the future is not "fundimentally uncertain". Now, maybe
you think there's a 50/50 chance that the sun will not come up
tomorrow, but I'm 100% sure it will, clouds or no clouds.

Boikat

==============================================================================
TOPIC: No environment is static, but the phenotypic embodiment of genotypic
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/7ac79c347228e17?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 6:36 pm
From: Baron Bodissey

On Apr 22, 8:00 pm, derdag <der...@chilledwatertech.com> wrote:

<snip>
Show us some novel "random" "incremental" "selected" changes that
revert a species back into a configuration 'phenotypically' like a
previously expressed morphology which seemed fit for a previous cycle
through some kind of similar environment in the past where the
organism existed with past features, but different genetic code.
<snip>

If I've interpreted your convoluted verbiage correctly, how's this for
an example: Lady beetles (Coccinellidae) probably shared a common
ancestor with handsome fungus beetles (Endomychidae). Lady beetles are
primitively predacious; endomychids are fungivorous. However, one
derived tribe of lady beetles (Psylloborini) has returned to fungus
feeding with concommitant morphological changes. This would seem to
meet your requirements for an example.

Baron Bodissey
They are ill discoverers that think there is no land when they see
nothing but sea.
- Francis Bacon

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Define:Religion
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/b783700e59ad49bb?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 6:21 pm
From: Cemtech

In article <timberwoof.spam-4229AA.12412522042007@nnrp-
virt.nntp.sonic.net>, timberwoof.spam@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com says...
> In article <pan.2007.04.22.18.55.26@comcast.net>,
> Dale Kelly <dale.kelly@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 22:37:55 -0700, SJAB1958 wrote:
> >
> > > So I have a question for everyone, "How can certain members of a given
> > > minority even suggest that atheism and 'evolutionism' (aka 'Darwinism')
> > > are religions?"--
> >
> >
> > because they deify Darwin
>
> In another post I listed various things you have not read. I will add to
> that The Apostle of the FSM:
> http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/
>
> You know nothing. Darwinsts worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

Arrr! RAmen!
--
Steve "Chris" Price
Associate Professor of Computational Aesthetics
Amish Chair of Electrical Engineering
University of Ediacara "A fine tradition since 530,000,000 BC"

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 6:20 pm
From: Cemtech

In article <pan.2007.04.22.18.55.26@comcast.net>, dale.kelly@comcast.net
says...
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 22:37:55 -0700, SJAB1958 wrote:
>
> > So I have a question for everyone, "How can certain members of a given
> > minority even suggest that atheism and 'evolutionism' (aka 'Darwinism')
> > are religions?"--
>
>
> because they deify Darwin

You must mean literally.
----------------
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
de·i·fy /'di??fa?/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation
[dee-uh-fahy] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
?verb (used with object), -fied, -fy·ing. 1. to make a god of; exalt to
the rank of a deity; personify as a deity: to deify a beloved king.
2. to adore or regard as a deity: to deify wealth.

--------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1300?50; ME deifien < OF deifier < LL deificare. See
deification, -ify]

?Related forms
de·i·fi·er, noun
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc.
2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source de·i·fy (de'?-fi',
da'-) Pronunciation Key
tr.v. dei·fied, dei·fy·ing, dei·fies

To make a god of; raise to the condition of a god.
To worship or revere as a god: deify a leader.
To idealize; exalt: deifying success.

[Middle English deifien, from Old French deifier, from Late Latin
deificare, from deificus, deific; see deific.]

de'i·fi'er n.

(Download Now or Buy the Book) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the
English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source
deify

c.1340, from O.Fr. deifier, from L.L. deificare, from deificus "making
godlike," from L. deus "god" + facere "to make, do" (see factitious).

verb
1. consider as a god or godlike; "These young men deify financial
success"
2. exalt to the position of a God; "the people deified their King"
--------------------------

Now many of the examples are not literal means of deifications.
So I'll state now that Darwin was not a god, ergo, I do not deify him
literally.

Now you de-deify your god.

--
=========================================
"Hell even my spellchecker knows. Everytime it finds
'creationism' it recommends 'cretinism'! - Steve Price

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The real cause of global warming is revealed
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/51b7352189b87c5e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 8:40 pm
From: Dick C

http://www.nctexasbirds.com/images/hot_news.jpg

--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin

Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dickcr@comcast.net

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 6:43 pm
From: eroot@swva.net

On Apr 23, 2:07 pm, Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 11:08 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In message <1177339854.702381.287...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> > Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> writes
>
> > >On Apr 22, 3:53 pm, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@sbcglobal.net>
> > >wrote:
> > >> "Throwback" <throwba...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > >>messagenews:1177269511.030370.305750@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> > >> > On Apr 21, 8:36 pm, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@sbcglobal.net>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> > > "Throwback" <throwba...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > >> > >messagenews:1177180772.880821.299320@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> > >> > > > From the apostle of abiogenesis in darwin's cult:
>
> > >> > > >http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/NM/miller.html
>
> > >> > > > "My opinion or working hypothesis is
> > >> > > > that the first replicated molecule had effectively no asymmetric
> > >> > > > carbon "
>
> > >> > > > Here he is claiming darwin's cult belief #7 :
>
> > >> > > > "We believe that despite the science of chemistry, carbon
> > >> > > > in the past was not tetrahedral, thus there was no dextro
> > >> > > > or levorotary forms of the amino acids used to form proteins."
>
> > >> > > Er. I am not a fan of Stanley Miller, but I think you are
> > >> > >misinterpreting
> > >> > > him here. He is definitely not claiming that carbon was not tetrahedral
> > >> > > in the past. He is suggesting that each carbon in the replicated
> > >> > >molecule
> > >> > > either had two hydrogens or had a double bond (to oxygen, say).
>
> > >> > He is refering to the fact that amino acids being dextro or
> > >> > levorotary, and his hypothesis is that the symmetrical carbon
> > >> > in amino acids that makes dextro and levorotary forms
> > >> > wasn't symmetrical (or tetrahedral) in the past.
>
> > >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tryptophan#Function
>
> > >> > Notice the structural representation of tryptophan.
> > >> > It has a carbon bonded to 4 different groups. This
> > >> > is the carbon that gives rise to the dextro and
> > >> > levorotary foms. The carbon is bonded to four
> > >> > different groups. H, NH2, CH2, and COOH.
> > >> > His claim is that this carbon, in the past, must
> > >> > not have been tetrahedral, and thus there would have
> > >> > been no dextro or levorotary forms.
>
> > >> I understand how chirality works. Since he has a PhD in organic chemistry,
> > >> I assume that Miller also understands how chirality works. The point is
> > >> that you are (deliberately?) misinterpreting Miller. When he says 'the first
> > >> replicated molecule had effectively no asymmetric carbon', he is saying that
> > >> amino acids and sugars were not part of the first replicated molecule.
>
> > >No, he is claiming the first amino acid was not chiral,
> > >thus there would be no dextro or levorotary forms of the
> > >amino acids.
>
> > Your claim is implausible. Please provide a citation.
>
> > (Note for clarity. The simplest amino acid, glycine, NH2.CH2.COOH, is
> > not chiral, and it is possible that someone would refer to this as the
> > first amino acid. This would not translate into a claim that carbon, in
> > the past, was not tetrahedral, and that there were not d- and l-isomers
> > of organic compounds.)
>
> How many amino acids are chiral?

How many times are you going to run from saying where you get you list
of "cult beliefs." Also, you fail miserably to show you have any idea
what a cult belief, since you keep misapplying the term. Evolution is
ordinary science. Evolution-denial is some sort of personality
disorder. (Just so you know).

Eric Root

==============================================================================
TOPIC: what has science become?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/123a346e2233285d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 6:49 pm
From: Boswell

On 23 Apr 2007 17:18:24 -0700, "nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com"
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote:

>The bad thing about science now is people such as Eugenie Scott.
>People who don't believe in anything but science. Being human, that
>equates to having science as a religion. That's a terrible thing,
>because it makes everything in science very emotional because it's
>their religion too. Really which of these science-fans could live it
>down when natural selection theory is found to be structurally false,
>as several philosophers have argued. So the fact is theories go by
>unchallenged, it's just a game of politics, being clever like a lawyer
>at defending the theory. That people don't have any religion outside
>of science also results in an enormous dogmatizing going on in
>science. In recent years the scientific method has been dogmatized to
>death. But there exists no such thing as the scientific method which
>all theory must adhere to. It is absolutely impossible to understand
>quantum-mechanics with a dogmatic view of the scientific method. Real
>science procedes by more complex things called "reasonability" and
>"common sense" and stuff like that. Another thing that is happening is
>that we now must accept things which are evidenced, eventhough the
>evidence is very thin. For example the red-shift theory. They got a
>very few observations that corresponded to redshift theory, and then
>people were told that redshift was a fact. I find it very doubtful,
>considering the evidence is so thin. Or take Hawkings multiverse
>delusion. Really is it okay to engage in such a complete fantastical
>delusion in science on that scale? Wasn't the main reason Hawking
>advanced this theory because he got a kick out of it, rather then any
>scientific reason? And then of course there are the Darwinists, who

Uh... do you know of any galaxies outside the local group that aren't
redshifted? Do you know of any whose visual size don't match their
redshift distance? So far as I know the agreement is virtually
perfect. And Hawking didn't propose the multiverse model, though his
current thinking seems compatible with it. You can complain that a
theory lacks 'reasonability' and 'common,' but if it's simple,
elegant, matches well with observation and accounts for a wide range
of facts within the relevant domain of interest, that's all that
matters from a scientific viewpoint. Nature may not match your common
sense conceptions of it.

>endlessly make up stuff indistinghuishable from moral precepts. I
>mean, if science is your religion, you're obviously going to fall back
>on natural selection theory as the basis for your morality. Think what
>would happen if Newton accepted evolutionary psychology developed by
>Tooby, and Cosmides. What a nightmare. There's no way Newton could
>have thought of anything special when he would be caught up in that
>horriffying slush.

So you don't like the their ideas about reciprocal social exchanges?
Can you demonstrate specifically where their ideas are wrong?
And aren't you the fellow who thinks comets don't actually follow
Newtonian paths, but meander around wherever their free will prompts
them to go? Are you complaining that you think evolutionary psychology
will lead comets to make bad choices that lead them down bad paths?

>regards,
>Mohammad Nur Syamsu

==============================================================================
TOPIC: From soc.history.what-if A World Without Grass
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/e9c80daf3d122b45?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 6:53 pm
From: username_not_found@yahoo.com.au

On Apr 23, 1:19 pm, j.wilki...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
> <username_not_fo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > On Apr 23, 12:36 am, Desertphile <desertph...@nospam.org> wrote:
> > > On 21 Apr 2007 14:07:41 -0700, username_not_fo...@yahoo.com.au
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 19, 9:41 pm, JennyB <jennybr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > How goes the age of mamals without grass?
> > > > Get oat! That's such a corny idea I'm a-maized you thought of it.
> > > > It's not just a run-of-the-mill idea, it really cuts against the
> > > > grain, and gets me all rye-led up. I can barley imagine wheat a world
> > > > without grass would be like, although I'm sure someone somewhere would
> > > > be chaffed to find out. They'd be so happy they'd start beating the
> > > > durum, in fact. They'd talk about it until they had sor(e) ghums.
> > > > They'd keep doing it until the situation turned triticale, then they'd
> > > > be classed as a cereal offender. No need to sugar coat it, they'd get
> > > > caned. They'd be bamboo-zled, in fact. Once that happened, they
> > > > wouldn't last long, but at least their punishment would be over
> > > > quick. In a t-rice, actually. And don't you emmer forget it.
>
> > > You could make good bread writing for Seinfield.
>
> > Some of my ideas are pretty half-baked, though.
>
> Well I couldn't do it. Id be always loafing about. Like they say, if you
> can't stand the heat, get out of the oven.

You certainly have a floury turn of phrase.

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 7:02 pm
From: wf3h

T Pagano wrote:
>>
> Duesburg bucked the status quo in the late 1980s.

but YOU said scientists dont do that.

He has been shunned
> and marginalized since them.

and the original post in this thread showed that's wrong. he's still
publishing. mike behe went from associate professor at my graduate
alma mater, to full professor AFTER he exposed his beliefs in
creationism

so you stand refuted.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: God is real
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/207c2fc0fcba7b57?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 7:09 pm
From: edward_eck@verizon.net

On Apr 22, 2:21 pm, "titus" <duck...@epix.net> wrote:
> evolution is make beleve no changing me i will curse you out if you beleve
> in evolution

I should _hope_ god isn't real. If he is, he's got a lot of explaining
to do.
(Bet he gets really PO'd at all these religious wackos who blaime him
for everything.)
And what does God say when he sneezes? "Me bless me" sounds downright
weird.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: A Challenge For The Wise Fools
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/8faa746952e9704c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 7:05 pm
From: Tom McDonald

SJAB1958 wrote:
> There are those here who claim to know and understand the truth. Of
> those I would ask one question, how many of you have truly been born
> again?
>

I don't claim to know and understand "the" truth. I do claim to
be interested in asking and seeking answers for questions I have
about spiritual and religious things.

But I have been born again. In important ways, to me anyhow, I am
born again every time I attend communion.

"Truly" born again? Ah! One of those spiritual and religious
questions I'm looking into.

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

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "talk.origins"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to talk.origins-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com?hl=en

Who dares sent me SPAM?

Monday, April 23, 2007

25 new messages in 14 topics - digest

No comments:

Links

About Me

Blog Archive