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: In the News: Medical professor questions evolution
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/338f4ae978d69298?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 1:09 pm
From: JohnN

On Apr 24, 5:04 am, Jason Spaceman <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org>
wrote:
> From the article:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> John Marshall's lecture tonight will question fossil records and the origin
> of the first cell.
>
> By GRACE ASSOUAD
>
> For most of his life, and as a physician and man of science, John Marshall
> believed in Darwinian evolution, which maintains that all life forms share
> a common biological origin.
>
> But Marshall began to look into what he said were holes in the theory. And
> after becoming a Christian, Marshall found it hard to reconcile
> evolutionary theory with Genesis, the biblical account of how God created
> the earth and everything on it in six days. Marshall has since become a
> proponent of the view that there are some natural systems that cannot be
> adequately explained by natural forces, and therefore must be the result of
> intelligent design, or ID.
>
> In a lecture tonight at 7 at the MU School of Medicine, Marshall will talk
> about what he calls the holes in Darwinism and how many researchers are too
> closed-minded to evaluate - let alone accept - the scientific evidence for
> ID.
>
> "A scientist should be open to new evidence and to new ideas, even when they
> arise outside the box of naturalism," said Marshall, an MU professor of
> medicine who is board certified in internal medicine and gastroenterology
> and also the associate director of education at the School of
> Medicine. "There's no reason we can't at least look for evidence. But one
> of the tactics of people who control mainstream science is, you don't
> publish intelligent design material."
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Read it athttp://columbiamissourian.com/news/story.php?ID=25331
>
> J. Spaceman

And how will the good doctor reconcile his knowledge of medical
science and his Christian belief in demon possession? I wonder if my
health insurance covers exorcisms?

JohnN

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 1:26 pm
From: WuzYoungOnceToo

On Apr 24, 4:04 am, Jason Spaceman <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org>
wrote:
>
> And after becoming a Christian, Marshall found it hard to reconcile
> evolutionary theory with Genesis, the biblical account of how God created
> the earth and everything on it in six days.

So he had a 50-50 shot at making the logical call even if he'd relied
on a coin toss, and still blew it.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: True to his form, Charles Darwin married his first cousin...
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/4568d065a0db317e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 8:09 pm
From: nmp

Op Tue, 24 Apr 2007 00:17:14 -0700, schreef Bob Casanova:

[IPU]

> Absolutely! "Pink" is what She *is*, not Her color. After all, She's
> invisible; invisible deities have no color.

But she does. And she is *so* pink, you just can't see it. That's because
we humans are so inadequate. And that's why we must have faith.

I'll have that funny spaghetti monster and its pirate meatballs for
dinner any time. But don't you dare speaking wrongly about our invisible
pink unicorn. She is the sweetest, the best, the pinkiest, the
unicorniest of all.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 8:10 pm
From: nmp

Op Tue, 24 Apr 2007 10:55:47 -0700, schreef Seamus:

> On Apr 22, 4:53 am, Sammy <s...@home.com> wrote:
>> so incapable of finding a woman who would want the
>> likes of him...
> Ms. Wedgewood most likely had many suitors, if for the only reason she
> was an heiress to one of the great fortunes of Victorian Britain; also
> from her portraits I can say, though she was no raving beauty, she
> definitely was not bad looking.

Pictures, please.

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 8:09 pm
From: carlip-nospam@physics.ucdavis.edu

Perplexed in Peoria <jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

[...]
> Yes. Under normal circumstances, Newton's equations and Einstein's equations
> for gravitation are time-reversible. But what happens when your apple falls
> into a black hole? I'm not an expert, but something a bit weird happens with
> respect to time-reversibility in this case. Time dilation becomes infinite,
> or negative, or at right angles to itself, or something equally absurd.
> Unless you look at it in the right way. And that apparently takes some subtlety.

Two things to remember:

1. For time-reversibility, you have to reverse *everything*, not just a single
piece of the system.
2. Although the exterior of a black hole is static, the interior is not; it is
a dynamical system, changing with time.

So if you want to look at the time reversal of an apple falling into a black
hole, you have to reverse not just the apple, but the interior dynamics. This
gives you a "white hole," a perfectly good solution of the classical field
equations of general relativity (although one that probably doesn't exist in
our Universe).

Steve Carlip

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Bible Cosmology -- Creationists Take Note
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/241397cc6b554992?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 1:11 pm
From: susan1@attbi.com

Before any one else in here questions the origins of life and the
theory underlying biology and botany as currently taught, please
follow this link, take a look at biblical astornomy and see if you
want to argue for that view, as well.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm

Note the picture of the Cosmos about 2/3 of the way down the page.
Would you like to throw that into a text book and force teachers to
give it equal time in the classroom so students can have an alternate
view of what the universe is really like?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: not enough intermediate species
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/14427384260ff06a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 4:16 pm
From: "mel turner"

"Dale Kelly" <dale.kelly@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.04.24.17.31.34@comcast.net...
> there is no cat-dog

But there was a common ancestor to both cats and dogs [and also
weasels and bears and seals and hyenas and mongooses...].

> no man-pig

But we and pigs did have a common ancestor a while back.

> no elephant-bird

Well, not any more. Look up "Aepyornis".

> etc.

"Etc."? Did your imagination dry up?

> also not enough time for all mutations to add up

Let's see your undoubtedly terribly impressive calculations of
the time needed for "all mutations to add up". Show your work.

cheers

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 4:40 pm
From: r norman

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 19:17:16 GMT, bdbryant@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant)
wrote:

>In article <pan.2007.04.24.17.31.34@comcast.net>,
> Dale Kelly <dale.kelly@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> there is no cat-dog
>> no man-pig
>> no elephant-bird
>> etc.
>
>And -- very curiously -- the theory of evolution doesn't predict that
>any such creatures ever existed.

More evidence for evolution. Evolution doesn't predict that such
creatures existed and there weren't any such creatures. Therefore
evolution must be true!

(no, I am not serious)

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 4:19 pm
From: raven1

On 24 Apr 2007 12:46:18 -0700, Ray Martinez <pyramidial@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Apr 23, 4:27 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 21, 5:44 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Your "Reverend" title is simply an attempt to shield yourself from the
>> > identification.
>>
>> Hey Ray, have you, uh, done any further, um, "research" on this matter
>> lately?
>>
>
>Why should I research something that you admit to by using in your
>name?

Because it might spare you some embarrassment...?

>
>The point is that by signing your name including 'Rev' this gives the
>explicit impression and implication that you are Christian Clergy.

Why? I'm a legally ordained minister myself, entitled to use the
honorific, although I'm certainly not Christian, and make no claim to
be. Further, every Unitarian minister I know uses the title, and not
one would present himself as Christian Clergy (most are openly
agnostic). Stop being so bloody provincial; not everyone calling
themselves "Reverend" is a Christian, or wants people to think they
are.
--

"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 4:18 pm
From: "J.J. O'Shea"

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:33:49 -0400, snex wrote
(in article <1177349629.069472.184580@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>):

> there are no "pro-science" theists, only "pro-evolution" theists, or
> "pro-[insert specific scientific theory here]" theists. just like
> creationists, theists pick and choose which parts of science to ignore
> in order to maintain their beliefs. if theists were "pro-science,"
> they would apply the scientific method to the claims of their
> religion. why do you think they refuse to do this?

Right. That's it. <ker-plonk>.

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

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 1:24 pm
From: Boswell

On 24 Apr 2007 05:04:00 -0700, "nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com"
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote:

>You can make up countless theories to cover the facts just as well.
>Evidence has to be more substantial then I've seen with redshift
>theory IMO.

I assume you're responding to my request that you back up your claims
about cosmology and evolutionary psychology. You can't back them up
because you were cluelessly wrong. So you ignore Usenet convention and
delete everything, hoping somehow that you'll seem more intelligent
and coherent if you do your bleating into a contextual vacuum. What's
the point? It just makes you look idiotic.

>You are forced to accept evolutionary psychology if you follow the
>scientific method, that's a scary thought. As a rule I will reject
>most any knowledge about people that isn't balanced out with good
>knowledge about people behaving freely. Now we have John Cleese of
>monty python fame telling us that Elizabeth Hurley looks beautiful, as
>a matter of pseudoscientific fact. He did mention some things about
>beauty being in the eye of the beholder, but the thing is he did not
>validate the free aspect of beauty scientifically at all, he did not
>locate any decision, he did not identify any alternatives and so on.
>So we have all this knowledge of beauty as a material process, but we
>get about zero information on beauty as a spiritual event. Elizabeth
>Hurley doesn't show much of any warmth in her appearance. But now we
>will get Darwinist women trying to look like Elizabeth Hurley, to gain
>the factual beauty. We will get women looking like emotionless
>puppets, and oh yeah there's something spiritual about beauty also....
>some eye of the beholder stuff....unscientific religious stuff....
>It's manipulative, bleeding morality into science, not good for
>science at all.

Apparently you think you can support your claims with random babble.
It appears that you are almost totally unable to engage in coherent
discussion. You think perhaps that you are criticizing science, but
you're merely giving the impression of a vacant-eyed drooler. You
won't respond to this, or else you'll delete it all and continue your
irrelevant mutterings. You'll never back up any of your claims with
solid evidence and reasoned argument. That's my prediction. It's a
hypothesis about your competence and integrity.

>Yes I do believe that comets and planets behave freely in some
>aspects, and science indicates that they do by showing variation in
>results from same startingconditions.

Or perhaps because the solar system isn't actually an idealized two
body system consisting of the sun and the comet. It was good enough
for Newton and remained so for NASA. If you want to believe that
comets have minds of their own, it's up to you. Try not to drool on
your keyboard.

>regards,
>Mohammad Nur Syamsu

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

== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 1:29 pm
From: Lorentz

I tried to post this, but something wnet wrong (God?). So I will try
again.

> 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
Alright, if I accept this, then there can be no absolute
beginning. If God is defined as an abslute beginning, then God doesn't
exist. If God is not an absolute beginning, then the argument is
irrelevant.
>
> 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
Cause and effect is not binary. The fact that something causes
something, and the fact that it is caused by something else, are not
mutually exclusive. An unfulfilled continuum is not illogical,
whatever that means.
If God is an infinite continuum of cause and effect, than God is
either a cause of an effect. Whichever way you swing, the continuum is
still unfulfilled. The existence of God, by your own argument, does
not at all bring logical closure and hence is unrelated to what you
just said (whatever it is).
>
> 3) cause and effect is cyclical, the last effect is always the first causehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuga

Cause and effect is not cyclic. The last effect is never the first
cause in any logical chain.
>
> I challenge any evolution punks to prove this is a false dichotomy
Your statements are false, but do not even represent a
dichotomy. They are just an unrelated chain of falsehoods, which are
barely comprehensible.

== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 10:40 pm
From: Guido

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
>
>
Easy. Point 2 is nonsense. An alternating sequence does not have a
limit. You don't seem to grasp the meaning of "infinity".

== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 10:41 pm
From: Guido

BernardZ wrote:
>> 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.
>
> This is disputed. There is still Einstein law of hidden variables out
> there.
>
> In any case you still have a cause and an effect.
>
That's not a "law" as far as I am aware, merely a hypothesis. No-one has
ever found evidence for these hidden variables.

== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 10:48 pm
From: Guido

Dale Kelly wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:03:51 +0200, Jim Willemin wrote:
>
>> Why, specifically? Rich is talking about observations, presumably oft-
>> repeated observations. Why are the observers wrong in what they see?
>
> the standard model of particle phsyics explains all interactions and is
> non-relatitivistic
>
Bwahahahahaha! This must be the stupidest remark on modern physics I
have ever heard.

(I wrote a long reply instead, but decided against it)

== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 8:46 pm
From: Greg Guarino

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 21:27:41 -0500, Dale Kelly
<dale.kelly@comcast.net> wrote:

Drawing inferences 101:

>> But without that bent space and time, the spin-orbit effect is off by a
>> factor 2. Please explain how you otherwise account for the
>>discrepancy.--

I have no knowledge of the concept above. Yet the response below,
(reprinted in its entirety)...

>WRONG

... makes me pretty confident that interlocutor #2 doesn't know
anything about it either.

Greg Guarino

== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 1:55 pm
From: Greg Guarino

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 09:34:44 +0100, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <pan.2007.04.24.01.32.08@comcast.net>, Dale Kelly
><dale.kelly@comcast.net> writes
>>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
>>
>>
>It's a false trichotomy, unless you'd have us eliminate the 2nd
>alternative as incoherent. You omit the possibility that events could be
>uncaused.

Here's a better dichotomy:

1) If everything must been caused by something else, then nothing
exists.

2) As regards the ultimate question of existence, the logic of cause
and effect that we observe in common human experience fails. We have
to admit that we don't, and won't, know the answer.

Greg Guarino

...who prefers #2.

== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 2:02 pm
From: chazwin

On Apr 24, 2:30 am, 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

There is no problem here, except the on ein your mind.
Perhaps you would like to offer an explanation whereby "god" explains
this paradox??

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

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 1:33 pm
From: "nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com"

Cognition is a much more complex thing then simple spirituality. With
cognition you feed the information from the enivorenment into your
mind, and you recreate the environment in your mind, and then you know
that what is in your mind is based on that information you got from
the environment. Now where is the deciding in cognition? I don't know,
there doesn't neccessarily seem to be any deciding in cognition. If a
computer matches a ball in it's computermemory, to a ball it sees
through a camera, that matching seems to be cognition already. That's
an automated process, so really that word cognition is not something
that is neccessarily associated to decisionmaking. Of course many of
our decisions are made in that imperfectly recreated universe in our
mind, so that's why you are confused that decisionmaking is cognitive.
But you have to actually show precisely where in cognition a decision
takes place, if you want to argue that cognition is a matter of
deciding.

We don't neccessarily think about stuff. If by thinking you mean the
relationship between one alternative and another, then we do think in
every decision. But really thinking is more accurately described as a
rational process. There are no decisions made in rational processes.
Usually what we call rational thought starts out with giving a high
value to life. So then we calculate or reason with life as having a
high value, and then proceed to act on that scenario where the value
of life turns out the highest. No decision need take place in that
calculation. The deciding part is in attributing that high value to
the life variable at the start. One can easily experience that if one
looks at a life or death movie, one is thinking about what happens
next, but in the background one is contiuously valueing life, or so to
say one is continuously choosing for life as being good and worth
preserving. The valueing life is the deciding part, the thinking only
occurs based on the valueing. You make scenario's in your mind how
lives can be saved, because you first placed a high value on life by
your emotions. So to say emotions have primacy over thinking.

I suggest you also read up on psychology, because my interpretation is
standard in some psychology texts that I've seen. Psychologists
rightly place much more emphasis on emotion rather then on thinking.
Can you show me any psychologist who places thinking before emotion?

regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Was the Garden of Eden actually in the Sunni Triangle?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/c8e7237f4f58fcdb?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 1:40 pm
From: Lorentz

> When they put the Bible together my take is that they didn't believe
> in a literal garden of Eden. If it did exist it would be burried
> beneath thousands of feet of flood sediments, and you wouldn't need a
> sword to prevent people from visiting there.

Furthermore, it is obvious that if there was a Flood then it
would have to have flooded the Garden of Eden. It was my fault as a
child for not having put the two together. Unless the Garden was built
with a really high wall, one would have to assume it was flooded.

Of course, Cain was exiled to the East of Eden, and there are
other references to places relative to Eden. All these locations must
have been erased by the Flood. Has any of this Antediluvian geography
been mapped? I mean relative to itself, not to the postFlood world.

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 1:41 pm
From: TCE

On Apr 19, 9:05 am, Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> Greg G. wrote:
> > In regard to the phrase "known laws of physics", those are tentative,
> > as is all science; to be discarded in light of new evidence. If
> > something is shown to not follow the "known" laws of physics, those
> > laws are not actually known, are they?
>
> I don't like "tentative", could we go with "provisional"? A lot of my
> taxes, not to mention my pension fund, is invested partly, indirectly,
> in the presumption that the laws of physics as currently perceived
> will hold up reasonably well for a while to come.

Damn; that's where I've been going wrong :-(

---
Strange

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 1:44 pm
From: TCE

On Apr 19, 2:17 pm, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On 19 Apr, 20:09, David Iain Greig <dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> > someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > > On 19 Apr, 17:22, David Iain Greig <dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:
> > >> Greg G. <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > On Apr 19, 6:37 am, 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.
>
> > >> > The home page athttp://www.talkorigins.orgsays:
>
> > >> > Talk.origins is a Usenet newsgroup devoted to the discussion
> > >> > and debate of biological and physical origins. Most
> > >> > discussions in the newsgroup center on the
> > >> > creation/evolution controversy, but other topics of
> > >> > discussion include the origin of life, geology, biology,
> > >> > catastrophism, cosmology and theology.
>
> > >> > The TalkOrigins Archive is a collection of articles and
> > >> > essays, most of which have appeared in talk.origins at one
> > >> > time or another. The primary reason for this archive's
> > >> > existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to
> > >> > the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in
> > >> > the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted
> > >> > assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other
> > >> > creationist pseudosciences.
>
> > >> > What is unclear about that?
>
> > >> Technically *I* wrote the 'talk.origins website'. The Archive,
> > >> on the other hand, I maintain an arms length plausible deniability
> > >> sort of thing around.
>
> > >>http://www.ediacara.org/~to
>
> > >> --D.>
>
> > > Would you be willing to openly enter a debate on this newsgroup into
> > > the plausibility of us (humans) simply being a biological mechanism
> > > that evolved through the propagation of beneficial mutations?
>
> > Well, first of all, the USENET newsgroup talk.origins is what I am
> > responsible for, which you persist in confusing with the Archive. I
> > thought I was clear; I am not involved in running the Archive.
>
> > Secondly, we've been discussing human evolution for decades on this
> > newsgroup. what makes you special?
>
> Well why don't you enter into the debate and find out. If the point I
> am making has already been discussed, then no doubt you would know the
> answer to it. You would have decades of arguments for your perspective
> behind you. Presumably you hold the perspective you do through reason,
> so there's nothing to be nervous about. If you would rather not enter
> the debate then that's fine, there's no pressure.

The thing is Mrs Naive, no-one understands your "arguments" as they're
drivel. It doesn't matter if we talk about crap for 100 years or 10
minutes, it's still crap.

---
Strange

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 8:53 pm
From: AC

On 24 Apr 2007 12:39:24 -0700,
richardalanforrest@googlemail.com <richardalanforrest@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 24, 12:41 pm, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>> On Apr 24, 3:06 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 24, 3:47 am, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Apr 23, 3:58 pm, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Apr 23, 7:02 pm, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > On Apr 23, 12:57 pm, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > On Apr 23, 4:02 pm, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > On Apr 23, 10:42 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > On Apr 23, 3:09 pm, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > On Apr 23, 9:16 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > On Apr 23, 11:27 am, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 23, 6:15 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 23, 10:21 am, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Scientific models are a product of the human imagination.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > They are often used to solve problems or predict system behavior
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > successfully.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > But the models may not be the reality we perceive.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > So what?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > They work, and what's more they work far better than other models of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > how the universe behaves.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > If I am ill, I think that antibiotics work better than prayer. And if
>> > > > > > > > > > > > I am ill, I don't think I am being punished for my sins.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Is this some sort of attempt to argue that because evolutionary theory
>> > > > > > > > > > > > is only a model it may be wrong?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Of course it might be wrong - that's the nature of science.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > Excellent - I completely agree with this point.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > "But to suggest that because evolutionary theory may be wrong some
>> > > > > > > > > > other "theory", such as one of the many esposed by creationists, can
>> > > > > > > > > > be correct is downright silly. Those other "theories" were falsified
>> > > > > > > > > > centuries ago. In science a falsified theory does not make a comeback,
>> > > > > > > > > > and those who persist in supporting falsified theories lose any
>> > > > > > > > > > credibilty."
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > Am I to understand that you do not agree with this point?
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > If not, perhaps you can give an example of a completely and utterly
>> > > > > > > > > > falsified scientific theory which *has* made a comeback?
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > I'm sure that you will also agree that scientific theory is based on
>> > > > > > > > > > the interpretation of the evidence as objectively as possible, and
>> > > > > > > > > > that personal conviction carries no weight in science no matter how
>> > > > > > > > > > strongly that personal conviction is held.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > Scientific models used to be influenced by religious beliefs.
>>
>> > > > > > > > They aren't today.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > The efficacy of the model only depends on whether it can be validated
>> > > > > > > > > and useful.
>>
>> > > > > > > > The problem you have if you want to push religious conviction into
>> > > > > > > > science is that it cannot be validated.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > Yet one cannot deny that the model is not reality itself.
>>
>> > > > > > > > So what? It works. I don't care if it is any ultimate reality or not.
>>
>> > > > > > > Correct - that's my understanding too.
>>
>> > > > > > This partial agreement is somewhat disingenuous.
>> > > > > > Why not confirm whether or not you agree with the point my post was
>> > > > > > making?
>>
>> > > > > > Just to remind you:
>>
>> > > > > > It doesn't affect the nature of science or the validity of its
>> > > > > > findings.
>>
>> > > > > It does not affect Nature as Nature is reality. But it does affect
>> > > > > the nature of science if
>> > > > > the scientific models and theories are taken as absolute realities.
>>
>> > > > Which is something no scientist does.
>>
>> > > > The idea of an "absolute reality" is an philosophical concept which
>> > > > has little relevance to science. All theories in all branches of all
>> > > > science are treated as provisional. That alone denies the possibility
>> > > > that science can every reach any absolute reality.
>>
>> > > > Why waste your time over something which scientists don't do?
>>
>> > > > > > If you want to claim some superior reality based on your personal
>> > > > > > convictions, fine. Just don't call it science.
>>
>> > > > > > And by the way: if you want others to change their beliefs so that
>> > > > > > they line up with yours - i.e. by wanting to call your beliefs
>> > > > > > science" and have them taught as science in science classroom - then
>> > > > > > you need to offer rather more than the strength of your personal
>> > > > > > conviction in support of your argument. The world is filled with
>> > > > > > people whose convictions are different from yours. Many are
>> > > > > > diametrically opposed to yours. Unless you can provide some objective
>> > > > > > way of judging the validity of all those personal convictions, why
>> > > > > > should anyone accept yours rather than anyone else's?
>>
>> > > > > Nope - I'm not making other claims in this context.
>>
>> > > > You have in other contexts. If you are not leading up to some
>> > > > assertion about the validity of evolutionary theory as science, and
>> > > > suggesting that someones personal conviction has as much validity, I
>> > > > wonder what is the point of all this posting.
>>
>> > > The point is very simple - a scientific theory or model is not reality
>> > > but only a product of human imagination and innovation.
>>
>> > Quite sp.
>>
>> > > Personal convictions about a theory or usefulness of the model may
>> > > help the scientist develop a more robust model or theory.
>>
>> > Nonsense.
>> > It's evidence which leads to the development of a more robust model.
>> > Personal conviction of the validity of a model may lead a scientist to
>> > further testing, but so can the conviction that the model is false.
>> > The scientist may have no conviction one way or another. What matters
>> > is how well the model or theory stands up to testing against the
>> > evidence.
>>
>> > > The issue is not the validity of the scientist's personal convictions
>>
>> > but rather the model's validity.
>>
>> > The validity of the model is built on the evidence. The personal
>> > convictions of the scientist don't enter into it.
>>
>> > > But ultimately, the model or theory is still a product of human
>> > > imagination.
>>
>> > It's tested against the evidence, and reflects a portion of what you
>> > may want to call "absolute reality".
>>
>> Can you quote any scientist who said that their model or theory
>> is the absolute reality?
>
> Which part of " reflects a portion of what *you* may want to call
> "absolute reality" (notes: emphasis on "you") do you not understand?
>
> And what is not clear about this?
> "The idea of an "absolute reality" is an philosophical concept which
> has little relevance to science. All theories in all branches of all
> science are treated as provisional. That alone denies the possibility
> that science can every reach any absolute reality."
>
>>
>> >It represents real phenomena.
>>
>> Correct - it is only a representation, but not the absolute relaity.
>>
>
> No scientist has claimed that it does.
> Why are you going on about it?
>
>> > It's not just a bit of fantasy, or a game with words and numbers.
>>
>> > So, to repeat my question: Why are you wasting time building a fanatsy
>> > about what scientists do and how science works which is simply wrong?
>>
>> It is a fantasy to belief that a scientific model or theory is
>> absolute reality.
>
> Quite so. It's a fantasy which no scientist, or anyone who understands
> the nature of science would have.
> Why do you keep going on about it?

I think that's pretty obvious. He's preparing a nihilistic argument that
no knowledge is reliable, so his religious beliefs are an equal footing
as science (via both being based upon, as he puts it, the "imagination"
of the scientists).

I'm not sure how you argue against epistemological nihilism. If a person
wishes to deny the veracity of all knowledge just to prop up their
pseudo-scientific beliefs, then they're welcome to it. I can't imagine
being comfortable with a philosophical position that makes your own
world view as unfounded as any and all is exactly a wise thing from a
theological point of view, and I wonder whether it isn't a heretical
position, but I'll leave that to the philosophers and theologians.

--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@gmail.com

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 2:00 pm
From: chazwin

Utterly bogus and specious

On Apr 24, 3:26 am, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
> the modern definition of life is emergent behavior
>
> even plants with no minds or free will are considered to be alive, just
> because they have emergent behavior
>
> emergent behavior in consciousness depends on the mysterious intermediary
> called the subconscious
>
> we do not communicate directly with the central nervous system, we
> supposedly use an intermediary, the mysterious subconscious

Proove it!

>
> I suggest there is more proof of God as an intermediary than there is of
> a mysterious subconscious
>
> more so, I suggest that when we will our bodies to act, they act with an
> intermediary of God, not the subconscious
>
> provide proof of the subconscious or shut up, evolution punks
>
> --
> Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 4:03 pm
From: "That Guy" <7@f.com>

"snex" <xens@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1177381901.471247.71340@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 23, 9:26 pm, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote:

>> I suggest there is more proof of God as an intermediary than there is of
>> a mysterious subconscious

Your suggestion that proof exists is not proof.

For example, if I suggest that there is more proof that infinity equals zero
than there is to support your theory, would you start believing that
infinity equals zero?

No one gives a rat's ass about what you "suggest" there is proof for. Show
us the proof, or kindly shut up.

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

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?

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

25 new messages in 14 topics - digest

No comments:

Links

About Me

Blog Archive