Who dares sent me SPAM?: 25 new messages in 15 topics

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

talk.origins@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
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 3 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 7:03 pm
From: j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins)

<balsero@devnull.org> wrote:

> Kermit wrote:
> >
> > On Apr 20, 7:10 pm, Terry <kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
> > > I think he sets a record for the biggest nothing thread on Usenet.
> >
> > Oh, he asked questions. Mostly, he asked if we agreed that we were
> > wrong. He seemed disinclined to debate until we got the preliminaries
> > out of the way...
> >
> > Kermit
>
>
> And then he finally said something along the lines of: "I am just
> going outside and may be some time."
>
> It's been more than eight hours now...
>
Maybe he's got the 'flu.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 2:21 am
From: SJAB1958

On 21 Apr, 03:10, Terry <kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
> I think he sets a record for the biggest nothing thread on Usenet.

call me denser than a super-cooled BEC, but who are you on about?

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 2:25 am
From: richardalanforrest@googlemail.com

On Apr 21, 4:33 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 20, 7:10 pm, Terry <kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > I think he sets a record for the biggest nothing thread on Usenet.
>
> Oh, he asked questions. Mostly, he asked if we agreed that we were
> wrong. He seemed disinclined to debate until we got the preliminaries
> out of the way...
>
> Kermit

His current debating mode is to propose an hypothetical machine whose
behaviour can be explained by "node interactions" and ask if it's
behaviour can be explained by "node interactions".

I can't see the point of this myself, but perhaps he will reveal the
great hidden truth which can be obtained by stating the bleedin'
obvious.

Perhaps the answer is that his intellectual capacity is so far beyond
ours that we can never understand him.

Somehow I doubt it.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Christianity before Constantine
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/426813edd4a03d4c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 7:03 pm
From: j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins)

Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> In message <1hwx7nc.fvxm2ozpsa94N%j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au>, John Wilkins
> <j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au> writes
> >Throwback <throwback8@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Apr 19, 11:29 pm, Walter Bushell <p...@oanix.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > > > You have to admit the explanation could be true, except the Buddhist
> >> > > > told it about the Buddha Gautama. We know there were Buddhist
> >> > > > missonaries in Egypt in the 1st Century.
> >> >
> >> > > Cite please? I'm interested to hear about this.
> >> >
> >> > You will recall that there was _extensive_ trade between the Med and
> >> > India at the time
> >>
> >> I heard they found cocaine in Egyptian mummies.
> >> Don't know if that's true or not.
> >
> >It came from an Old World plant.
>
> Do you have a URL for that? I've suspected that this might be the case -
> both Nicotiana and Erythroxylon have Old World species, but I've never
> seen the case made.

I chased it up about a year ago and found a site that gave credible
information, but I can't recall where I got it now.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."

==============================================================================
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 2:09 am
From: SJAB1958

On 21 Apr, 08:33, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> On Apr 21, 7:49 am, Chris <chris...@notalotofunwanted.aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Can someone in the evolution camp explain why the nearest living
> > relative of man is so far away from man (I believe it's the chimp)?
>
> Chimps are very close to man indeed. Some taxonomists classify them
> and us as being in the same genus.
>
> They are highly intelligent, tool-using creatures living in complex
> societies. In some measures of intelligence they can outperform
> humans.
>
> > What about the nearest extinct relative?
>
> Neaderthal man.
>
> > How close are we to it?
>
> In most respects Neanderthals fall within the range of variation of
> modern man. A Neanderthal dressed in modern clothing could walk down a
> street without promoting much comment.
>
> > Shouldn't we see slightly less evolved humans still living or even not
> > living for that matter?
>
> There is no "less" or "more" evolved. Evolution is not goal oriented.
> It has no direction.
>
> > Doesn't it seem odd that every single human
> > like creature that is not 100% human is gone?
>
> No. Why should it?
>
> > If evolution is a slow
> > process shouldln't there be humans that are just slightly not human?
>
> Define what "human" means. A few decades ago we thought that humans
> had unique characteristics which set them apart from all other
> animals. I recall reading a book called "Man the toolmaker", which
> ascribed the global dominance of man to his unique tool-making
> abilities. Now we find tool-making pretty well everywhere in the
> animal kingdom. We then thought that man was uniquely intelligent. Now
> we find that in some measures of intelligence we are outperformed by
> chimps.
>
> 100,000 years ago there were three species of man still living, us,
> Neanderthals, and the relict Erectus population on Flores (and
> possibly other Indonesian Islands). The others went extinct. We
> didn't.
>
> > If it's faster than that than who does the biological adam (or eve)
> > mate with?
>
> Evolution happens to populations, not indviduals. The Spiderman movies
> are not good sources for biological science.

Put Spiderman up there with the X-men, the Hulk, and various other
comicbook heros and yes it isnt good biological science but it is
cracking good fun if that is what you enjoy.
>
> RF
>
>
>
>
>
> > Chris
> > If life seems jolly rotten
> > There's spmething you've forgotten
> > and thats to laugh and smile and dance and sing!
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 2:21 am
From: "Steven J."

On Apr 21, 1:49 am, Chris <chris...@notalotofunwanted.aol.com> wrote:
> Can someone in the evolution camp explain why the nearest living
> relative of man is so far away from man (I believe it's the chimp)?
>
Darwin's explanation (and it seems a good one) is that closer
relatives were competing with us for the same ecological niche
(originally, savanna hunter-gatherer; later, hunter-gatherer in other
relatively open environments), and we out-competed them for food and
space (also, we probably killed and ate them).
>
> What about the nearest extinct relative? How close are we to it?
>
Richard Forrest has suggested _Homo neanderthalensis_. I was thinking
of going for _H. heidelbergensis_. It's not always clear whether
different early hominine populations represent distinct species, or
simply subspecies of a widespread and varying species.
>
> 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?
>
You're assuming that there is some clear-cut criterion for determining
who, or what, is and isn't human. As noted, paletontologists disagree
even as to whether the Neanderthals were members of our species or
not. And slightly earlier hominines are sometimes given distinctive
species names, and sometimes lumped together as "archaic _Homo
sapiens_. All species have variation in them (ways in which
individuals are different from each other). That variation does not
mean that some members of the species are less than 100% in that
species (although there are cases, in living populations as well as in
extinct ones, where it is uncertain whether two different populations
are different subspecies or different species).

Humans show less genetic variation among themselves than do, e.g.
chimpanzees, or many other species. It is thought that at one point,
within the last few thousand generations, we went through a genetic
bottleneck -- a period when our species was reduced to a fairly small
population in a small area -- which left us unusually genetically
uniform. That, and intermarriage between adjacent human populations,
keeps us pretty genetically uniform, with only minor local
variations.
>
> If it's faster than that than who does the biological adam (or eve)
> mate with?
>
Again, you seem to assume that there is some clear dividing line
between human and nonhuman, or between our species and others. There
is now, of course, because the intermediates are all dead, but if you
went back through the generations you'd never find a point where
parents and children were of different species, or more different from
one another than the parents were from one another. Incidentally, no
one is quite sure how far back in the family tree one would have to go
to find individuals who couldn't interbreed with us, if we weren't
handicapped by living thousands of generations apart. Most
paleontologists think there wasn't much interbreeding between early
_H. sapiens_ and the Neanderthals, but the two groups were probably
interfertile.
>
> Chris
> If life seems jolly rotten
> There's spmething you've forgotten
> and thats to laugh and smile and dance and sing!

-- Steven J.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 2:32 am
From: Ian Chua

On Apr 21, 2:49 am, Chris <chris...@notalotofunwanted.aol.com> wrote:
> Can someone in the evolution camp explain why the nearest living
> relative of man is so far away from man (I believe it's the chimp)?
> What about the nearest extinct relative? How close are we to it?
> Shouldn't we see slightly less evolved humans still living or even not
> living for that matter? Doesn't it seem odd that every single human
> like creature that is not 100% human is gone? If evolution is a slow
> process shouldln't there be humans that are just slightly not human?
> If it's faster than that than who does the biological adam (or eve)
> mate with?
>
> Chris
> If life seems jolly rotten
> There's spmething you've forgotten
> and thats to laugh and smile and dance and sing!

Its the sea slug Aplysia Californica.
A lot of laboratory experiments have been done on it to advance
medical science because it has biomolecules which ae homologous to
those found in humans. Sometimes, process studies like metabolism,
adsorption, sensory responses, etc. are also done on it its organelles
and cells.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 3:46 am
From: "alwaysaskingquestions"

<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?

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 2:05 am
From: SJAB1958

On 21 Apr, 09:29, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
> "SJAB1958" <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1177138993.775415.94280@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> > On 21 Apr, 06:56, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@sbcglobal.net>
> > wrote:
> > > "JQ" <jac...@writeme.com> wrote in messagenews:1177134104.886976.265880@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> > > > 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?
>
> > > You are changing the question from whether there is a contradiction in
> > > Christian belief to whether there is evidence. Personally, I don't know
> > > of any evidence, hence I am not a Christian. But that doesn't mean that
> > > I think Christianity is self-contradictory.
>
> > > SJAB1958 seems to be suggesting that since Christians are wrong about
> > > one thing, it would only be consistent for them to be wrong about everything.
>
> > Did I say anything about Christains being wrong about anything? No, I
> > didnt.
>
> > I am questioning why they believe the impregnation of Mary by their
> > God is a true historical event, but they reject the idea that other
> > accounts exist of non-Christian gods doing exactly the same thing with
> > other mortal women.
>
> > For if one account can be considered true without any solid evidence
> > to support it, you should consider all such accounts true.
>
> > On the other hand if all the other accounts are mere stories because
> > there is no solid evidence for them, the the Biblical account should
> > also be considered a mere story.
>
> Isn't that what I just said? Wrong about one thing means you should be
> wrong about everything to be 'consistent'? Believe one silly story,
> and you should believe every silly story, otherwise snex and SJAB1958
> will laugh at you. My, my. What absolutely convincing rhetoric. I'm
> shocked that Christianity hasn't completely disappeared under the force
> of your onslaught!

The only person that mentioned anything about the Christians being
wrong is you.

I merely asked for the apparent contradiction to be cleared up.

There is quite a difference between what I said and how you have
interpreted it.

> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

==============================================================================
TOPIC: recommended reading
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/44f0bc9e93d1794e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 9:15 am
From: "Ross Langerak"

"JQ" <jacqui@writeme.com> wrote in message
news:1177134648.643728.270300@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> I'm interested in learning more about biology in general and evolution
> in particular. I know the basics, but don't understand a lot of the
> technical terms. What should I be reading?
>
> Note that my current education has consisted mostly of year 12
> biology, my mum-s uni microbiology textbooks and Richard Dawkins.
> Yeah, I'm a bit behind par.
>
http://www.talkorigins.org/

==============================================================================
TOPIC: "Feathers and function in dinosaurs"
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/c7384161008ef46f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 2:16 am
From: JTEM

Kent Paul Dolan <xanth...@well.com> wrote:

> Which part of [....]

Apparently I have to bring you up to date, again.

You were pretending that the dating wasn't under
dispute. I demonstrated that it was. You immediately
leapt off that subject, trying desperately to distract
from the fact that you had been shown to be an
idiot... again.

Now do you want to accept reality, or do you want
to continue barking worthless accusations?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: In the News: Darwin Only Had A Theology Degree
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/38dc4b7e007af971?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 2:19 am
From: Rodjk #613

On Apr 20, 7:46 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 19, 10:09 pm, Rodjk #613 <rjka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 20, 4:58 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 19, 3:41 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > > On Apr 19, 1:16 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > >>Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
>
> > > > >>>From the article:
> > > > >>>----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >>>It would surprise many to know that Charles Darwin, the founder of
> > > > >>>modern evolutionary theory, was not a scientist but a
> > > > >>>theologian.
>
> > > > >>It would surprise many more to know that whether or not one is a
> > > > >>scientist depends solely on what degrees one has.
>
> > > > >>>Darwin only had a divinity degree and no formal training
> > > > >>>in the sciences. Yet, the staunch evolutionists who make fun of
> > > > >>>theologians using science to defend creation
>
> > > > >>Do you think he could name even one such theologian? What I generally
> > > > >>see are fundamentalists (seldom if ever theologians) making a hash of
> > > > >>science in attempts to attack evolution.
>
> > > > >>>would never criticize the
> > > > >>>great Darwin on the grounds that he was a mere theologian.
>
> > > > >>Yes, because that would be a very stupid argument. A divinity degree
> > > > >>doesn't make you a theologian, nor does lack of a science degree prevent
> > > > >>you from being a scientist. Deeds, not degrees, are the relevant
> > > > >>criteria, and by those criteria Darwin was a scientist, and creationists
> > > > >>are not.
>
> > > > > If this is your view then how come you never jump in and correct one
> > > > > of many evolutionists at Talk Origins who assert a higher degree
> > > > > holder is not qualified to render any opinion outside of his major?
>
> > > > I don't recall any such claims. What people do tend to claim is that a
> > > > person who knows nothing about a subject is unqualified to render an
> > > > opinion. Now one moderately good clue as to whether a person knows
> > > > anything can be his degree, since one supposedly has to know something
> > > > about a field to get a degree in it. But whether or not the person
> > > > spouts ignorant nonsense is a better guide.
>
> > > > > This "standard" eliminates Daniel Dennett (philosophy) from having any
> > > > > scholarly status in evolution. Dennett, in my opinion, is the
> > > > > brightest all-around evolutionary scholar alive.
>
> > > > This standard wouldn't eliminate Dennett, even if you applied it. (Which
> > > > you shouldn't, and nobody does.) Dennett is a philosopher of science,
> > > > and is well qualified by formal degrees to speak on philosophy of
> > > > science, including biology. He has also been known to say the odd
> > > > sensible thing too.
>
> > > > > Of course the "brights" here at T.O. who take said position do so ad
> > > > > hoc when confronting Creationist sources, so I guess I really have no
> > > > > point.
>
> > > > The last part of your sentence is clearly true.
>
> > > > > In reality, we know anyone who holds a graduate degree is qualified to
> > > > > render an opinion and be used as a source. Said degree simply means
> > > > > the person has the intellect to obtain a doctorate and that the
> > > > > intellect is then qualified to master and speak on any discipline if
> > > > > they so choose. Velikovsky had a Ph.D. in psychology and was a genius
> > > > > ancient history researcher of whom Einstein used as a source for
> > > > > information in that discipline. When Einstein died he was in the
> > > > > process of re-reading "Worlds in Collision."
>
> > > > Velikovsky was a wacko who was ignorant of most subjects, including all
> > > > the sciences and, according to people who should know, archaeology and
> > > > comparative mythology. Dropping Einstein's name doesn't change that
> > > > fact. Nor does his possession of a doctorate. So yes, you have provided
> > > > an example in which a degree tells you nothing about a person's
> > > > qualifications. Like I said, deeds are what counts, not degrees.
>
> > > > Mind you, I throw my degree around whenever I find it useful, as a
> > > > shorthand clue that I may know something about evolutionary biology. But
> > > > if I subsequently spout nonsense, you have grounds to question my
> > > > competence.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Velikovsky was an atheist who singlehandedly showed major Biblical
> > > claims true corresponding to historical reality.
>
> > Well, Velikovsky was Jewish. He was not an atheist.http://www.varchive.org/obs/index.htmforsome of his writings on the
>
> I said he was Jewish and an atheist. You are not paying attention or
> doing what Darwinists always do: misrepresent.

Oh really? Kindly point out where you said he was "Jewish and an
atheist".
While it is possible to be both, as Einstein was, you did not make
that claim.

Anyway, what you seem to miss is that while he was Jewish, he
certainly was not an atheist. The writings here:
http://www.varchive.org/obs/index.htm
are by Velikovski himself, and they clearly show that he was not an
atheist.

Here are some of the quotes which I took from the archive:

http://www.varchive.org/dy/student.htm
"So I could again turn my thoughts to problems not concerned
specifically with myself and, walking in the streets of the Caucasian
village, I wrote page after page of The Third Exodus, a pamphlet of
religious fervor and Zionist zeal."

From:
http://www.varchive.org/dy/berlin.htm
"In Jerusalem I found the girl I had loved, Esther Bashist. She
assured me that she loved me, but it was hardly sincere, and I asked
God what was the purpose of these nine years of love at a distance to
be ended at the first meeting."

"On April 15 we were married in Berlin by the well-known Rabbi Munk in
the courtyard of his synagogue; the dinner thereafter we had, at the
insistence of my landlady, only recently widowed, in her apartment."

From:
http://www.varchive.org/dy/america.htm
"Warm and loving she met me and I had to be grateful to God that he
spared her and she was before me not broken in spirit or body."

Also:
"Actually God let me know of the past of the world and possibly of its
architectonics, more that it was disclosed to any other person, if I
am right in what I found."

>
> Jews can be atheists - ding dong. Maybe you could explain to us how
> being Jewish automatically makes said person know that God exists?

Well, the quotes from Velikovski's own writings would be a hint,
wouldn't they?
I quoted them again above.

> > subject.
> > Also, from Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Velikovskyitdiscusses his
> > religious views.
> > As usual, your facts are wrong..
>
> Wikipedia is not a source since Britney Spears could contribute - ding
> dong.

How about the writings of Velikovski himself?

> As usual, just another Darwinist without any sense and who thinks the
> convenience of Wikipedia = facts. How any person could even think of
> using Wikipedia and be taken seriously shows that the average
> Darwinist is an unread yuppie who thinks evidence is found and
> established by googling. Anyone can contribute at Wikipedia. "If it is
> on the Net it must be true" = Darwinian "intelligence."

Funny how you ignore the other reference, the one to Velikovsky's own
writings.

>
> Velikovsky is famous for positing outrageous natural explanations to
> explain suupernatural phenomena, like his best friend Einstein, both
> were strict atheists who bait and switched the meaning of God to avoid
> controversy and the stigma. Read Jammer for a detailed account of
> Einstein's crafty ways of evading the atheist label - ding dong.

Einstein did not deny he was an atheist.
He openly stated it.

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Theology-Albert-Einstein.htm
"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but
have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called
religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the
world so far as our science can reveal it." (Albert Einstein, 1954)

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony
of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and
actions of human beings." (Albert Einstein)

From:
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Theology-Albert-Einstein.htm
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious
convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not
believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have
expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called
religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the
world so far as our science can reveal it." (Albert Einstein, 1954)
>From Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh
Hoffman, Princeton University Press

I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or
has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I
nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his
physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish
such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life
and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the
existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a
portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in
nature. (Albert Einstein, The World as I See It)

Rodjk #613

>
> Ray

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

On Apr 20, 6:11 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 20, 9:34 am, "Rolf" <r...@tele2.no> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> skrev i meldingnews:1177030705.403890.134890@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On Apr 19, 3:41 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> > > wrote:
> > > > Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > > On Apr 19, 1:16 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > >>Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
>
> > > > >>>From the article:
> > > > >>>----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >>>It would surprise many to know that Charles Darwin, the founder of
> > > > >>>modern evolutionary theory, was not a scientist but a
> > > > >>>theologian.
>
> > > > >>It would surprise many more to know that whether or not one is a
> > > > >>scientist depends solely on what degrees one has.
>
> > > > >>>Darwin only had a divinity degree and no formal training
> > > > >>>in the sciences. Yet, the staunch evolutionists who make fun of
> > > > >>>theologians using science to defend creation
>
> > > > >>Do you think he could name even one such theologian? What I generally
> > > > >>see are fundamentalists (seldom if ever theologians) making a hash of
> > > > >>science in attempts to attack evolution.
>
> > > > >>>would never criticize the
> > > > >>>great Darwin on the grounds that he was a mere theologian.
>
> > > > >>Yes, because that would be a very stupid argument. A divinity degree
> > > > >>doesn't make you a theologian, nor does lack of a science degree
> > prevent
> > > > >>you from being a scientist. Deeds, not degrees, are the relevant
> > > > >>criteria, and by those criteria Darwin was a scientist, and
> > creationists
> > > > >>are not.
>
> > > > > If this is your view then how come you never jump in and correct one
> > > > > of many evolutionists at Talk Origins who assert a higher degree
> > > > > holder is not qualified to render any opinion outside of his major?
>
> > > > I don't recall any such claims. What people do tend to claim is that a
> > > > person who knows nothing about a subject is unqualified to render an
> > > > opinion. Now one moderately good clue as to whether a person knows
> > > > anything can be his degree, since one supposedly has to know something
> > > > about a field to get a degree in it. But whether or not the person
> > > > spouts ignorant nonsense is a better guide.
>
> > > > > This "standard" eliminates Daniel Dennett (philosophy) from having any
> > > > > scholarly status in evolution. Dennett, in my opinion, is the
> > > > > brightest all-around evolutionary scholar alive.
>
> > > > This standard wouldn't eliminate Dennett, even if you applied it. (Which
> > > > you shouldn't, and nobody does.) Dennett is a philosopher of science,
> > > > and is well qualified by formal degrees to speak on philosophy of
> > > > science, including biology. He has also been known to say the odd
> > > > sensible thing too.
>
> > > > > Of course the "brights" here at T.O. who take said position do so ad
> > > > > hoc when confronting Creationist sources, so I guess I really have no
> > > > > point.
>
> > > > The last part of your sentence is clearly true.
>
> > > > > In reality, we know anyone who holds a graduate degree is qualified to
> > > > > render an opinion and be used as a source. Said degree simply means
> > > > > the person has the intellect to obtain a doctorate and that the
> > > > > intellect is then qualified to master and speak on any discipline if
> > > > > they so choose. Velikovsky had a Ph.D. in psychology and was a genius
> > > > > ancient history researcher of whom Einstein used as a source for
> > > > > information in that discipline. When Einstein died he was in the
> > > > > process of re-reading "Worlds in Collision."
>
> > > > Velikovsky was a wacko who was ignorant of most subjects, including all
> > > > the sciences and, according to people who should know, archaeology and
> > > > comparative mythology. Dropping Einstein's name doesn't change that
> > > > fact. Nor does his possession of a doctorate. So yes, you have provided
> > > > an example in which a degree tells you nothing about a person's
> > > > qualifications. Like I said, deeds are what counts, not degrees.
>
> > > > Mind you, I throw my degree around whenever I find it useful, as a
> > > > shorthand clue that I may know something about evolutionary biology. But
> > > > if I subsequently spout nonsense, you have grounds to question my
> > > > competence.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Velikovsky was an atheist who singlehandedly showed major Biblical
> > > claims true corresponding to historical reality. Because he was an
> > > atheist this means his conclusions are supremely objective and immune
> > > from a pro-supernatural bias dismissal.
>
> > WTF doeas that mean? Am I reading what I think I am reading?
>
> > "The conclusions of an atheist are supremely objective and immune from a
> > pro-superantural bias dismissal"
>
> > That is what Ray wrote, isn't it? And doesnt that simply mean that the words
> > of an atheist are 'supremely objective'?
>
> > Well then, so what?
>
> The context was conclusions which prove certain Biblical claims
> correct. Since Velikovsky was an atheist nobody can accuse him of a
> supernatural bias. Velikovsky would explain the miracle to really be
> natural phenomena, but the point was (and is) the Bible is correct:
> what Joshua said really happened; confirmed incontrovertibly by other
> civilizations recording said event too, but obviously not knowing why
> or causation.

Was Velikovsky an atheist? Can you provide a realiable reference for
that Ray? I was under the impression he was a fairly keen Zionist,
but of course this doesn't necessarily imply religiosity one way or
the other.

As for the Bible being correct ... well - even if a historical event
correlates to the record in the Bible this doesn't mean that the event
was either recorded accurately or happened in the way it was
eventually related. The most we can say, if at all, is that certain
Egyptian dynasties could be tied to the Exodus over a certain period -
but the chances are we'll never know for sure. As no record of Moses
trials and tribulations exist categorically outside of the Old
Testament itself the Bible becomes self-referential again.

In any event the only 'miracles' Velikovsky was trying to explain were
the catastrophic events of a global scale, such as the deluge. The
rest was an attempt at comparative archaeology which rests on so many
dubious or false assumptions it's hard to know where to start.

>
> > Can Ray really, as I must conclude from what he writes, be so stupid that he
> > claims an atheist is supremeley objective - but only as long as he supports
> > a creationist argument, is that it? From all else that I have seen of Ray's
> > writings, his opinion is that 'evolutionists=atheists=liars'.
>
> Explained above, which you seem unable to understand. This is WHY
> Velikovsky was so hated. Here we have an atheist producing irrefutable
> evidence showing Biblical history absolutely correct. This is why it
> is "supremely objective." Velikovsky simply re-explained the miracle
> to be natural phenomena but the "damage" was done. Since he proved
> said claim correct we dismiss his explanations (being an atheist)
> which leaves said miracle event true and proven. What don't you
> understand? Carl Sagan understood that's why he led the charge to have
> Velikovsky blacklisted. Imagine that; rational men like Sagan behaving
> like a third-world moron; advocating censorship of a scholar? If
> Velikovsky was a real nut he would go unnoticed, but he was a genius,
> an atheist, and he proved certain Biblical claims absolutely true. His
> attempted censorship and blacklisting is also excellent evidence
> supporting the existence of Satan.
>

Er .... Ray.... he never proved anything, even in his own lifetime.
If you measure his 'success' on the number of books sold and the
rejection of his theories by the mainstream scientific establishment
then he joins such luminaries as Von Daniken. His arguments are just
as convincing to scientists and arcaeologists.

Carl Sagan didn't lead a charge to have him blacklisted - I'm happy to
be demonstrated wrong on this point if you can provide any evidence.
The AAAS asked Sagan to refute the 'science' behind Velikovsky's
assumptions, which Sagan did on a number of occasions. That's about
it.

Lastly Dr. V never demonstrated that Biblical claims were true. At
best, even assuming his crazy notions of colliding worlds were true,
would demonstrate that the Bible had recorded _events_ accurately.
This doesn't mean that the stories attributed to those events were
true. For example, the deluge, under Velikovsky's cosmology, might
have happened, but this still doesn't mean any evidence for Noah and
the many impossible things attributed to his journey ever actually
occured. We could say that _something_ like Noah's Ark was built and
a few animals rescued, but this still requires divine fiat if we move
to saving _all_ the animals. Which makes the 'evidence' provided by
Velikovsky redundant. Why introduce 'scientific' evidence when God
could have done it anyway?

Kind of moot considering Velikovsky was wrong in any event.

> > Velikovsky definitely was a crank and AFAIK, Worlds in Collision have long
> > since been properly debunked. Velikovsky belongs in the particular hall of
> > fame together with Adamski, Däniken, Dembski, Behe, Michael Egnor, Dr. Scott
> > and then some.
>
> His scholarship has stood the test of time.

Er ... no Ray. It didn't even stand the test at the time of the
publishing.

Velikovsky proves that
> atheists are not loyal to wherever the evidence leads, but will never
> embrace or acknowledge the evidence which proves the Bible correct -
> that's what Velikovsky proves.

He never presented evidence that the Bible was correct. He made a
series of very bad assumptions and premises and worked backwards from
there. A bit like creationists really.

He was a brutally honest scholar who
> operated under one premise: lets test the Bible and see if the claims
> are confirmed in other civilizations?

Er ... no Ray. He was repeatedly shown where and how he was wrong and
refused to surrender his claims. That is not the work of a 'brutally
honest scholar' but that of a mistaken ideologue who desperately wants
his idea to be true in spite of the evidence. A bit like creationists
really.

Other atheists, like Sagan,
> assume the Bible incorrect and refuse to acknowledge the evidence
> showing their biased assumptions false.

If there was evidence to show that the Bible is true in the way you
assume it to be true then the scientific evidence would be accepted by
the scientific community. The evidence for a young earth and sudden
creation simply isn't there Ray and if you were in any way able to
face up to this simple fact you'd admit that your own assumptions are
faulty.

Velikovsky is undoubtedly the
> only atheist to make it to heaven based on his intergrity to
> acknowledge the evidence even if it harmed his own worldview.

Er ... Ray ... even with my poor knowledge of theology I don't believe
anyone can get into heaven unless they acknowledge Christ as their
saviour. This is a fairly big sticking point about the whole
Christian faith thing I'm led to believe. Your Velikovsky is burning
in hell along with all the other non-believers if he didn't accept
Christ.

This is
> why Dr. Scott called him "the greatest scholar of the 20th
> century....he proved them all wrong that's why he is SO HATED" (caps
> mine).

Nah - I think what was annoying was that an otherwise intelligent and
respected person could cling so hard to a concept so obviously
erroneous. Here's a quote from Gould:

"Velikovsky is neither crank nor charlatan - although to state my
opinion and to quote one of my colleagues, he is at least gloriously
wrong.... Velikovsky would rebuild the science of celestial mechanics
to save the literal accuracy of ancient legends"

Hardly hated it seems. Just very very very wrong.

>
> Ray
>
> SNIP....

==============================================================================
TOPIC: development of feathers in evolution analyzed at the molecular level
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/d5fdaf187d3df9a9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 2:20 am
From: JTEM

Kent Paul Dolan <xanth...@well.com> wrote:

> Apparently you cannot even read with understanding
> the articles you URL -- the scientists themselves say
> that it is too early to classify those tracks as confirmed
> bird tracks...

While they most definitely *Are* tracks, or at least there
has yet to be any dispute on that much....

Your Longisquama cite? Well, there have been those who
dispute the very notion of feathers.... plenty of people...

>
> > Now, why don't you go back to blowing smoke...
>
> ...that would be you, claiming that documents you URL
> say what even the involved researchers disclaim them
> saying.
>
> Do have a nice, idiot-appropriate day of heavy drooling.
>
> Quantum valeat.
>
> xanthian.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: the pope should resign
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/21adb8ace4a04d40?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 10:22 am
From: "alwaysaskingquestions"

"snex" <snex@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1177113981.724392.280070@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 20, 6:08 pm, "alwaysaskingquestions"

[...]

>> > and yet, countries in which people are properly educated about
>> > contraception do not have AIDS epidemics. why is this?
>>
>> 1.3 million sufferers in North America may not be an epidemic in your
>> terms
>> but its a hell of a lot of people.
>> Leaving that aside, your basic argument about the role of the Catholic
>> Church is completely misfounded.
>>
>> http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/mar/07030610.html
>> "A short examination, however, of the HIV/AIDS rates of those African
>> countries that have a large Catholic population shows that the Church's
>> accusers have not done the homework or are deliberately misreporting the
>> facts. The available statistics show that countries with a large Catholic
>> percentage population, show significantly lower rates of HIV/AIDS
>> infections
>> than countries with mostly non-Catholic populations.
>>
>> 2003 statistics from the World Factbook of the US Central Intelligence
>> Agency, shows Burundi at 62% Catholic with 6% AIDS infection rate.
>> Angola's
>> population is 38% Roman Catholic and has 3.9% AIDS rate. Ghana is 63%
>> Christian, with in some regions as much as 33% Catholic and has 3.1% AIDS
>> rate. Nigeria, divided almost evenly between the strongly Muslim north
>> and
>> Christian and "animist" south, has 5.4% AIDS rate.
>>
>> Strongly Christian Uganda continues to frustrate condom-pushing NGO's by
>> maintaining its abstinence and fidelity AIDS prevention programs and one
>> of
>> the lowest rates of AIDS in Africa, at 4.1%. Uganda's population is
>> listed
>> by the CIA Factbook as 33% Roman Catholic and 33% Protestant.
>>
>> Of African countries with low Catholic populations, Botswana is typical
>> with
>> 37.3% AIDS, one of the highest in Africa, and 5% of the total population
>> Catholic. In 2003, Swaziland was shown to have a 38.8% AIDS infection
>> rate
>> and only 20% Catholic population. "
>>
>> So which one are you - "not done the homework" or "deliberately
>> misreporting
>> the facts" ?

> do you realize how silly it is to claim that 6% AIDS infection rate is
> a *good* thing? 6% in america would be 15 million people!

The silliness here is you trying to blame AIDS on the Pope when the level of
AIDS is actually lower in countries where the Church has more influence

> the muslim
> countries in africa have <1%,

You don't know much about Islamic teaching on sexuality and contraception,
do you ?

>as well as virtually all first world
> countries. have you bothered to look at the AIDS rates in central and
> south america?

Ahem, Latin America, where the Catholic Church has a strong presence, has a
lower AIDS rate at 0.5% than the 0.8% in North America where the Church has
much less influence - you're really digging yourself in deeper here.

> by the way, the CIA factbook does not say that botswana is 5%
> catholic. it only lists "chistian" without breaking it up into
> denominations.

And it gives Christians in total as 15% so I doubt if the 5% for Catholics
is far away.

> to claim these rates are somehow a victory of the catholic church is
> disengenous, considering how much better other poor countries not
> under the thumb of the pope are doing.
>
>>
>> If you can step aside from your vitriolic hatred of the Catholic Church
>> and
>> learn about the problems dispassionately, you might try reading what
>> UNAIDS
>> has to say about reducing AIDS - they identify condoms as *part* of the
>> answer but far from *all* of it - they identify overall behavioural
>> change
>> as far more
>> important.http://data.unaids.org/pub/GlobalReport/2006/2006_GR_CH06_en.pdf
>
> when is the catholic church going to stop lying about condoms?

So you can't step aside from your vitriolic hatred of the Catholic Church -
never let the facts get in the way of a good rant, eh?

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 11:36 am
From: "alwaysaskingquestions"

"snex" <snex@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1177116601.100995.28970@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 20, 7:43 pm, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
>> On 20 Apr, 04:47, macaddic...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com (macaddicted) wrote:
>> <snip>> I can get a lot closer to 100% the Church's way than your way.
>>
>> > Which begs the question: Why are worldwide AIDS prevention
>> > organizations
>> > beginning to press the delay of sexual activity and the practice of
>> > monogamy, in addition to the use of condoms, as a practical method of
>> > preventing AIDS. This is, after all, nearly what the Church is
>> > advising.
>>
>> > While abstinence is the most difficult, and certainly the least
>> > pleasurable, of the STD prevention measures, yet even you must admit
>> > that it is the most effective.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Analogy: We want to reduce the numeber of people killed in car
>> accidents.
>> We can teach two options:
>> 1) Never ride a veichle and never cross the street. Has a success rate
>> of nearly 100% when properly applied.
>> 2) Wear seatbelts, don't drive when you are drunk/high/ill, strictly
>> follow the driving rules. Has a success rate smaller than option 1.
>>
>> So, what do you think the best option to teach is?
>
> rational answer: teach all options and be honest about their success
> rates.

Unlike you, dishonestly trying to blame AIDS on the Catholic Church when
AIDS rates are actually lower in countries where the Church has greater
influence.

> catholic answer: teach (1) only. all other options are morally wrong.
> any catholic politician who enacts a law supporting anything other
> than (1) will be excommunicated.

And that is an outright lie.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Books
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/2d653e2e975239ca?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 11:26 am
From: "Rolf"

"Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> skrev i melding
news:678Wh.5086$2v1.3038@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "9fingers" <gd9fingers@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1177093729.028218.88730@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> > I have some questions about books. I'm just a layman, so I'm looking
> > for books on that level.
> >
> > - I recently read "Extinction Bad Genes or Bad Luck" by Raup, and
> > "The Sixth Extinction" by Leaky and Lewin. These were written in the
> > 90's so I'm wondering if Raup's ideas are still relevant today. Are
> > there any more current books on the subject of extinction?
>
> There have been two pretty-good books on the Permian extinction recently,
> one by Erwin and one by Benton. Worth a read. You can find them
> by searching Amazon.
>

Being a layman myself I am not so sure, I bought the Erwin book because it
looked interesting, but found it very boring.
I guess there is nothing wrong with the book itself, it is just that there
is too much detailed information and a lot of guesswork.
To me, it seeemed like the essence was that yes, there were some extinction
events at certain times that may have been caused by this or that and had
some consequences. And yes, I belive that may all be very true, but then
what, unless I should happen to be a scientist with a professional interest
in the subject?

After reading the entire book (though I may have skipped some pages) I had
to ask myself: What did I learn?

You may have a particular interest in extinction and in that case I suppose
you will have to pursue that, but for a good overview of evolution I would
recommend Richard Fortey's 'Life - An Unathorised Biography.'

> I strongly recommend David Quammen's "Song of the Dodo" for some good
> perspectives on the current great extinction, as well as a lot of
> excellent writing.
>
> Incidentally, my take on Raup's question "Bad Genes or Bad Luck?" is that
> it doesn't matter much for the theory of evolution. Extinction is a
> process of species-level selection. Most adaptive evolution takes place
> due to organism-level selection, and population sizes are large enough
> so that the good/bad genes make a noticeable difference in spite of all
> the noise caused by good/bad luck.
>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Harsham the piss whore
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/853d373e79363233?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 2:28 am
From: JTEM

John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> When I mention the specimen that was initially misidentified as a
> pterodactyl, he just snips that out.

Here on my planet -- the Earth. Please come visit some time -- I
posted a cite in which that very specimen figured quite
prominently.

So you're either arguing against me from ignorance (you have
no idea what I've actually stated, what my position is), or you're
intentionally misrepresenting the facts in order to secure your
desperately sought after pissing match.

I suppose we could always split the difference... say that you're
a frigging idiot.

==============================================================================
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 11:38 am
From: Jim Willemin

ayers_39@hotmail.com wrote in
news:1177129898.376282.258840@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:

> On Apr 20, 10:24 pm, Lexington Victoria-Rice
> <notphalennotwebnotcontent...@oohay.com> wrote:
>> Jim Willemin wrote:
>> > lumin...@everywhere.net (Luminoso) wrote in 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 ?

<snip>

>
> yes we still have monkeys/apes ,and the answer is because there is no
> answer for a myth.If evolution where a fact there would be no monkeys/
> apes left. there is no reson to evolve then split again. You will go
> spend the rest of your life trying to find an answer, but will find
> non,because it is a myth. sorry do not pass go,and keep trying. God
> (JESUS CHRIST) bless you.

Um, what you seem to be missing here is that I DO have an answer, one that
seems to be correct by every test I can give it, one that makes sense with
everything else I know, and is eminently satisfactory and satisfying - it
is just an answer that you, in your blind arrogance and false humility,
fail to see or accept. In truth, I pity you: your world is so small, so
petty, so limited to mere human conception and scale compared to the depth,
richness, and overwhelming awe and surpassing wonder that God has granted
to me every time I look at any part of nature that I simply cannot
comprehend how you function in reality, let alone find a satisfactory place
in it.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 3:37 am
From: Lucifer

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

The best way is to say "why don't you try living in the trees for a
bit swinging from branch to branch"

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 3:39 am
From: Lucifer

On Apr 21, 3:24 am, Lexington Victoria-Rice
<notphalennotwebnotcontent...@oohay.com> wrote:
> Jim Willemin wrote:
> > lumin...@everywhere.net (Luminoso) wrote in 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.
>
> >> So, I suppose the question is really "Is there a GOOD way
> >> to explain it ?". Many have addressed this issue but I can't
> >> read them all. Maybe some wordsmith managed to condense the
> >> issue into a couple of pithy sentences or perfect examples ?
>
> >> The creationist-minded like to believe that every little
> >> mutation somehow got transferred to EVERY individual and
> >> they all lived in identical conditions and faced exactly
> >> the same challenges. If that were true then there indeed
> >> would be no more monkeys, every proto-monkey/hominid would
> >> have evolved in lockstep.
>
> > Most Americans are descended from Europeans, Africans, or Asians. Why are
> > there still Europeans, Africans, and Asians?
>
> Strict immigration laws.
>
> Not enough boats.

And the fact that some of us wouldn't leave Europe even if repeatedly
threatened with a cricket bat :p

==============================================================================
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 2 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 11:51 am
From: "Rolf"

"SJAB1958" <balfres@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
news:1177139551.309207.115970@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On 21 Apr, 07:59, Jason Spaceman <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org>
> 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >

If by "any part of the universe" the author is referring to our solar system
and planet Earth, I believe James Lovelock have made a sound argument for
how and why this planet became habitable. Basically, we are living on a
planet made habitable for 'advanced' life forms because the early life forms
contributed to modifying the environment, creating a suitable biosphere.

In essence something like a bootstrap operation. Without biological life,
our planet would not have a breathable oxygen atmosphere. And the overall
global climate also is a result of the interaction between life and it's
environment.

I don't believe Strobel knows what he is writing about. Especially about
'materialistic theories' to explain the origin of life. As far as I can
tell, science have not attempted to explain - in every detail - the origin
of life. Instead, science have shown how it thinsk life could have evolved,
and science knows no reason why it could not, even if not every detail of
the process is known.
Leave alone knowable, we are dealing with invisible, non-detectable events
between 3 and 10 billion years ago

We may however with certinty declare that we do not know that any
supernatural forces did it. Supernature, including Yahweh and similar gods
per definition is non-detectable and will forever remain so.

> > "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."
> >

And his evidence is: absence of evidence.

> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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 athttp://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/BPnews.asp?ID=25462
> >
> > J. Spaceman
>
> Strobel, Meyer, Richards and Behe are all well known IDiots and their
> conjecture about a designer and this designer allegedly being the
> Biblical/Christian God is only a religious belief and can never be
> declared as a scientific theory.
>
>

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 3:46 am
From: Alexander

On Apr 21, 7:59 am, Jason Spaceman <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org>
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.
>
> 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.
>
> "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."
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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 athttp://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/BPnews.asp?ID=25462
>
> J. Spaceman

Well ok - let's for a crazy moment just assume that ID is true - there
_is_ evidence for design and that at some point we were definitely
'designed'. What can the science of ID tell us next?

Who the designer is?

Er ... no - apparently the identity of the designer is not discernible

The nature of the designer?

Um ... no again as there is no way of deciding how to test for the
nature of an unknown and indiscernible designer.

How the designer designed?

Er ... sorry ... another blank. It does look remarkably like
naturalistic evolution but we'll gloss over that and move on.

When the designer designed?

Um ... might have been ... you know ... about the same time as ...
um ... other stuff got made ... kinda.

Can ID tell us anything other than 'we were designed by some unknown
designer at an unknown point in time by methods that are not known to
us'?

Er ... no .... it can't.

Well that's going to be a short lesson plan anyway.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: another prayer study fraud
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/21d2f4bba4ad452e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 21 2007 3:16 am
From: Robert Carnegie

edward_eck@verizon.net wrote:
"Once again, the news is not good."

Can we clarify the question of calling this "another prayer study
fraud"? The quote above, on close reading, appears to refer to the
previous problems with this particular study.

There is a point of view that all religion and therefore all prayer is
fraud somewhere along the line, but I suspect that wasn't the
argument, either.

How far have other prayer experiments in the literature been actually
fraudulent?

==============================================================================
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 3:34 am
From: Vend

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

What are you guys talking about? I only understand 'Cthulhu'.

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

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 15 topics - digest

No comments:

Links

About Me

Blog Archive