Who dares sent me SPAM?: 25 new messages in 16 topics

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

talk.origins@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Fractal Evolution
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/b83011e91ce6a101?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 26 2007 11:32 am
From: geoproc@hotmail.com

On Apr 26, 3:40 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
wrote:
> Throwback wrote:
> > On Apr 24, 12:29 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> > wrote:
>
> >>Throwback wrote:
>
> >>>http://classes.yale.edu/Fractals/CA/welcome.html
>
> >>>http://www.brucelipton.com/article/fractal-evolution
>
> >>Do you have a point of some kind? If so, what is it?
>
> > To start a thread on the topic so people if interested can read
> > about it if interested. If not, there is plenty of other things to
> > read here, and they can move on to the next thread.
> > Are you claiming the subject is not on topic?
>
> So you have no point. You neither affirm nor deny the claims made in the
> sites you referenced. And if the subject is on topic, you will have to
> explain in more (or any) detail why. Not everything to do with evolution
> is relevant to talk.origins.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I found it interesting. I've been playing with the Game of Life myself
recently, and felt it'd be a perfect test subject for ID, as there are
structures in the Lifeverse which have been proven to be impossible to
generate by the rules of the game (Gardens of Eden) - they have to be
created. And because it's mathematical it should be easy to calculate
information and stuff. I guess the only reason they're not working on
it is because they're so busy with their other research.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Animals in the depths of the sea
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/7cf244bec318c56b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 26 2007 6:35 pm
From: "Michael R. James"

nmp <address@is.invalid> wrote:
> Just some pictures, enjoy:
> <http://science.readigg.com/description/16137.html>

Fascinating stuff.
If we play the old Sesame Street "one-of-these-things-is-
not-like-the-others" Game, interestingly enough, we find
that the one object that is clearly unlike the rest is
also the one object that can definatively be classified as
intelligently designed.

mike
--
mrjames@swcp.com

http://www.swcp.com/~mrjames/

"When you can measure what you are speaking about and express it
in numbers you know something about it; but when you cannot express
it in numbers your knowledge is a meagre and unsatisfactory kind"
- Lord Kelvin

==============================================================================
TOPIC: popular acceptance of evolution in America
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/1a1f4299cdceee68?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 26 2007 11:37 am
From: urthogie

On Apr 25, 9:50 pm, b...@juno.com wrote:
> On Apr 24, 4:17 pm,urthogie<urtho...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > I've been thinking lately a lot about what it will take for the
> > majority of America to accept evolution.
>
> There would have to be some actual observations of speciation, that
> undergo actual rigorous falsification testing. Rather than just angry
> censoring and useing the courts to ram your opinions down our throats.

Speciation has been observed. Google is your friend.

> Evangelicalism is not anti-intellectual. You are confusing it with
> Fundamentalism.
>
No I'm not. Read Richard Hofstader's pullitzer-prize winning book
Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. He devotes much of the book to
the strong connections between evangelicalism and anti-
intellectualism. Fundamentalism, too of course,

>
> > Do human societies have an inclination towards valid hypotheses (e.g.
> > eventual acceptance of heliocentric theory) or towards delusion? I
> > don't know.
>
> Europe is currently inclined toward the delusional hypothesis that
> everything "just happened by chance" for "no reason." They call this
> "evolution." This combined with sexual selfishness means they are not
> reproducing at even a replacement rate. Because of this, the
> demographics of the Muslim immigrants will conquer Europe for Islam in
> the near future.
>
This isn't really a logical argument. How much Muslims have sex has
nothing to do with whether evolution is true or not. The Europeans
are most likely more in support of evolution because they don't have a
nagging evangelical and fundamentalist influence in their country.
>
> > A relevant factor is that people who don't believe in evolution almost
> > surely reproduce at a faster rate than those who do. Considering that
> > people pass on their cultural beliefs to their kids, does evolution
> > have a chance for popular acceptance in America?
>
> Funny thing about Americans. They accept HARD SCIENCE. And by hard
> science, I mean the ones that make mathematically precise predictions,
> which have a remote chance of leading to technology. Americans are
> very practical, and they like any science that gives them technology.
>
> On the other hand, Americans are not very interested in metaphyscial
> research programmes such as evolution, especially since Nazism and
> Communism were based on it.

Have you ever heard of slavery? It was based on misinterpretations of
Darwinism. So was the tolerance of Robber Barons in the 1800's under
the guise of "social darwinism" (a falsified doctrine).

Once again, regardless of how Darwinism is used and misinterpeted has
no reflection on its actual truth, any more than Hitler's relgious
belief in God has on the truth of theism.

Lastly, American opposition to evolution stems largely from the
evangelical tradition. Read about the Scopes Monkey Trial, will ya?
And the reactions to it.

Educate yourself.

Peace

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 26 2007 11:41 am
From: urthogie

On Apr 25, 9:50 pm, b...@juno.com wrote:

> Funny thing about Americans. They accept HARD SCIENCE. And by hard
> science, I mean the ones that make mathematically precise predictions,
> which have a remote chance of leading to technology. Americans are
> very practical, and they like any science that gives them technology.

Genetics and evolution have all been converted into mathematical
formulas as early as the 1960's. Just as an example, read (Tajima
1989), which explains how mathematical analysis of nucleotide base
pairs can indicate the nature, types, and extent of natural selection
that occured.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 26 2007 11:42 am
From: urthogie

On Apr 25, 9:50 pm, b...@juno.com wrote:

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 26 2007 7:14 pm
From: Ye Old One

On 25 Apr 2007 19:50:42 -0700, bimms@juno.com enriched this group when
s/he wrote:

>On Apr 24, 4:17 pm, urthogie <urtho...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> I've been thinking lately a lot about what it will take for the
>> majority of America to accept evolution.
>
>There would have to be some actual observations of speciation,

There has been. Lots of it.

>hat
>undergo actual rigorous falsification testing. Rather than just angry
>censoring and useing the courts to ram your opinions down our throats.

Nope, the courts were used to stop your sort from ramming lies down
the throats of innocent children.

>> I think it hasn't happened already because of America's evangelical
>> tradition, which is notoriously anti-intellectual. The popular
>> support of evolution will be inversely correlated to the popular
>> support of evangelicism.
>
>Evangelicalism is not anti-intellectual. You are confusing it with
>Fundamentalism.

All religion is anti-intellectual.
>
>
>>
>> Do human societies have an inclination towards valid hypotheses (e.g.
>> eventual acceptance of heliocentric theory) or towards delusion? I
>> don't know.
>
>Europe is currently inclined toward the delusional hypothesis that
>everything "just happened by chance" for "no reason." They call this
>"evolution."

No it isn't. Western Europeans have always been more intellectual than
Americans, particularly in the UK, Germany, Holland and Scandinavia.
Far from being deluded, much of Europe has emerged from under the
cloud of religion.

> This combined with sexual selfishness means they are not
>reproducing at even a replacement rate.

Our planet needs to reduce its population.

> Because of this, the
>demographics of the Muslim immigrants will conquer Europe for Islam in
>the near future.

Nope - because when muslims are exposed to Western European culture
they are more likely to turn secular themselves.
>
>>
>> A relevant factor is that people who don't believe in evolution almost
>> surely reproduce at a faster rate than those who do. Considering that
>> people pass on their cultural beliefs to their kids, does evolution
>> have a chance for popular acceptance in America?
>
>Funny thing about Americans. They accept HARD SCIENCE. And by hard
>science, I mean the ones that make mathematically precise predictions,
>which have a remote chance of leading to technology. Americans are
>very practical, and they like any science that gives them technology.

No, that would be more like the Japanese.
>
>On the other hand, Americans are not very interested in metaphyscial
>research programmes such as evolution,

American's tend to do everything - just not as well as the rest of the
world.

> especially since Nazism and
>Communism were based on it.

Liar!
>
>
--
Bob.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Women shortchanged yet once agaiaaaian. Women only receive 70% of the
pity a man does.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/6d81c27907da89cf?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 26 2007 11:38 am
From: collection60@googlemail.com

Are Women insane tyrants? Or do women only make 70% of the pity that
men make?

New facts about women:

* Estrogen is pure distilled liquid madness. One drop and you'll be
whining how women make only 70cents to the man's dollar despite that
you've never seen this occur in real life, making false rape claims,
and how women are strong independant smart victims eternally in need
of financial and emotional help because their VCRs oppress them by
being too technical and they can't sort out their fucked up lives.

* Female logic is the most potent weapon against technology. Most men
do not dare repeat the lies that women make, for fear their computers
will explode through the sheer illogicality of the women's words they
are trying to repeat.

Of course, feminists have come up with a new counter fact: Women only
make 70% of the false-pity that men make, according to the US Census
Bureau. When a man lies about a problem, he will receive all sorts of
extra support that females don't. It's time women rise up and demand
more victimisation!

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 26 2007 12:30 pm
From: "Dana Tweedy"

(removing other newsgroups)
<collection60@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1177612687.541117.16880@u32g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> Are Women insane tyrants? Or do women only make 70% of the pity that
> men make?

snipping misogyny...

Can't get laid, eh?

DJT

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Attention Sean Carroll: Exhibit A (Re: why I believe in God)
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/b5126b49f5eff9aa?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 26 2007 11:38 am
From: collection60@googlemail.com

Women have always had everything better than men, due to oppression of
women. The only reason women didn't work as much as men before, is
because they didn't want to. Most likely because work wasn't so easy
as it is today.

http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/bax/1895/07/woman.htm

Ernest Belfort Bax

The Woman Question

(27 July 1895)

The Woman Question, Justice, 27th July, 1895, p.6.
Transcribed by Ted Crawford.
Marked up by Einde O'Callaghan for the Marxists' Internet Archive.
Taking a hint from the suggestion of "TATTLER" a few weeks ago in
Justice that it is time above question was fairly thrashed out among
Socialists the editor of Justice has invited me to briefly state my
views.

Up till quite recently Socialists like Radicals other advanced
persons, were supposed, as a matter of course, to swallow that
conventional lie of modern civilisation - the theory of "woman the
victim of man's oppression." This dogma, which, like the doctrine of
Manchester school, that the ideal of human liberty is attained under
the capitalistic regime of free industrial and commercial competition,
has dominated the thought of the Anglo-Saxon race for two generations
and has been the chief instrument in effecting a revolution which has
placed the whole judicial and administrative machinery of the country
at the disposal of one sex oppress the other (in all causes, i.e. into
which the sex question prominently enters.) Let us look at the present
condition of this so-called "victim."

While under our present marriage laws the wife is under no obligation
to maintain the husband, not even though she have money and he be
destitute (saving the ratepayer's right to be recouped for his
maintenance in the workhouse) the husband is bound at criminal law to
maintain his wife in comfort under all circumstances. Hitherto
exception has been made in the case of adultery on the part of wife.
Now, in a Bill before Parliament this last reservation is proposed to
be virtually abrogated by a "caoutchouc" paragraph which enforces
"alimony" where the husband can be shown by his defect or "misconduct
to have contributed to the adultery. "

Thus, if a man has ever had a dispute with his wife or even come home
late, as in a recent case, he will presumably have, "by defect or
misconduct, contributed to the adultery;" just as now if a man ever
had words with his wife and raised his voice above its normal pitch or
come home late he may deemed to have committed technical cruelty
entitling the said wife to separation or divorce with "alimony."

2. A wife is perfectly free to leave her husband at will, and he has
no remedy (Jackson case). If a husband leaves his wife she can compel
him to surrender to her a third of his income or earnings, and for
desertion, i.e., for leaving her without money, he can be punished
with hard labour.

3. A husband is further liable for her debts and her civil
delinquencies (torts).

4. A husband cannot obtain relief against a wife for any act,
negligence, or language of hers, while for any one of these
considerations she can get judicial separation, exclusive rights over
the children, if any, and a third of his income or earrings for
herself, with so much per head in addition for each child. Thus if a
man gives his wife an unfriendly pat on the cheek with his open hand
she can get established comfortably for life on the fruits of his
labour; if, on the contrary, she smashes his head in with a poker she
may be fined five shillings which the injured husband has to pay; and
should he succeed in obtaining a separation it is only on, condition
of his keeping the virago in comfortable idleness.

A little illustration will bring home to the reader this complete
serfdom of the husband to the wife under our marriage laws. A man, not
long ago, obtain the offer of employment in America. His wife did wish
him to go. Not having any money or work home he insisted. The wife who
had money of own, and to whom he moreover gave £25 with promise of
more on his arrival at his destination, went straight to the
Guardians, had him arrested on board ship at Southampton, dragged
before the magistrate, and sentenced to three months hard labour. The
sentence was subseqently quashed after the man had been in gaol and
was ruined. Most feudal barons would surely have been satisfied with
such powers as this over their "villeins."

At criminal law it is a well-known fact which anyone may verify by the
records of the courts that women enjoy an almost complete immunity for
all offences committed against men, as such. For assault, perjury, and
blackmailing practised on men, women are virtually never even
prosecuted, let alone convicted. On the other hard, savage and
vindictive laws, savagely and vindictively enforced by judges are
dealt out to men for the most trifling assaults or other offences
committed against women. In fact it seems that the express aim of the
modern political woman and her "Women's" Associations is to deprive
men of the last shred of protection against criminal women with a view
of giving the latter every facility for exercising their calling.

If one looks at the matter fairly, one surely cannot be surprised at
occasional violence committed on women - wife assaults, wife murders,
&c. Legalised tyranny and inequality has always throughout history led
to sporadic outbursts of brutality on the side of its victims. It is
always so, and always will be so.

Such is the present position of advantage enjoyed by women by virtue
of their sex. Such are the facts as opposed to the popular "legend" on
the subject. Space forbids my further analysing the present subjection
at law of men to women in this article, which is the more unnecessary
as I have elaborated the subject in further detail elsewhere.

Of course, under Socialism, the side of the question based on property
falls away. Our existing infamous marriage laws must disappear when
both sexes are alike economically free. When once this is so, a
perfectly free marriage, without let or hindrance, would necessarily
result. Should, as Herbert Burrows seems to have suggested, a bastard
"public opinion" try any games on of attempting by ostracism to supply
the place of the defunct coercive legal bond in enforcing any special
form of marriage, such as monogamy, we shall have to do our best to
strangle that "public opinion" as quickly as possible. If driven to
it, even opponents might combine in an association whose members
pledged themselves (like the Oneida Creekers), to marital relations
strictly limited to a fixed period, say six months. To thus raise anti-
monogamy to the level of a principle would surely be a pity as a
result of the "cussedness" of trying to compel outward conformity to
monogamy among people whose temperaments were unsuited to it. In using
the ugly word "lust" for any form of marriage he does not like,
Herbert Burrows resembles the respectable bourgeois of my boyhood's
days who used to stigmatise every form of liberty he did not like
(e.g., the right of workmen to combine) as "licence." No, friend
Herbert, I trust a society even half-way into Socialism will be past
being caught with that sort of chaff.

At the same time I regard it as highly probable that for a long while
to come voluntary monogamy (voluntary, in fact, and not in name
merely) will be the dominant form of the sexual relation. The attempt
to enforce it, however, whether by law or "public opinion," will I am
equally convinced be contrary to the whole spirit of a reasonable
society. To make out that there is an absolute and immutable moral
superiority in monogamy irrespective of temperament or circumstances
over every other form of sexual relation is surely absurd. Only by
society encouraging perfect freedom can the most perfect form of the
sexual relation, that best adapted to human needs, be wrought out.
Monogamy, like every other institution, will have to make good its
case by showing its superiority to other forms, and not by the aid of
external tyranny, whether juridical or social.

Before concluding this article I would point out what is liable to be
overlooked, viz., that the coercive effect of "public opinion" could
only be operative in a Socialist society when the whole community was
practically unanimous in condemning a course of conduct and not in
defence of any arbitrary dogma, however strongly held by a section of
the community. The case is different under capitalist conditions when
a man can be forced to wear a "pot" hat against his will, owing to the
"public opinion" of the class on whom he is dependent for his
livelihood insisting on it.

E. Belfort Bax

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 26 2007 12:25 pm
From: Boswell

On 26 Apr 2007 01:41:44 -0700, VS Prasad <profvsprasad@gmail.com>
wrote:

>During 1800s, Anthropologists had a problem as to how to classify
>human beings. One researcher proposed the expression "intelligent
>animal". After advanced studies on monkeys, it was dropped. Another
>researcher proposed "tool using animal". After observing some animals
>making wooden tools and sharpening them with knife like stones, it
>was dropped. Another researcher proposed "weapon using animal". A
>decade ago, a rare film was shot by an amateur in an African forest.
>One short monkey was hit very badly by a big monkey. The short monkey
>prepared a wooden knife using stones and hid it on the top of a tree.
>After some days, when the big monkey came to attack the short monkey,
>it ran up to the tree for the weapon it has hid and killed the big
>monkey. The one thing that the anthropologists found with any group
>of human beings, even if they did not have contacts with the out side
>world for thousands of years, is spirituality with some form of
>religion. So, man is a "spiritual animal" if you want to call him
>that way.

Unspecified animals "making wooden tools and sharpening them with
knife like stones"? I don't believe it. Although both chimpanzees and
monkeys have been observed using stones as tools, they don't, so far
as I know, shape wooden tools with stone flakes. I think you're
relaying urban or rural legends.

Human beings do have a tendency to believe in, and become emotionally
attached to made up stories. If we like a story, often we don't bother
to check whether or not it's actually true. We take it 'on faith.'
That seems to be what you're doing with the stories you tell here. The
one about the monkey carving the wooden knife and hiding it is sort of
entertaining, but I think it's bullshit. You haven't presented any
evidence that "man is a 'spiritual animal.' " You have merely
presented yourself as another example of someone who believes bullshit
stories. If you can back up the story, I'll apologize.

>The Upanishads say that "Manush" (human) was so named because he has
>"Manas" a mind higher than that of the animals which realises the
>divinity in creation. It was present since the creation of human
>beings. Religion is the characteristic feature of most of the human
>beings. It was not attained through reasoning using mind. Illiterate
>tribes located in inaccessible forests also have religion. It is as
>eternal and and as unchanging as the Almighty. Disbelief by a few
>will not affect it.

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 26 2007 11:42 am
From: Glenn

On Apr 25, 6:02 pm, Bloopenblop...@juno.com wrote:
> On Apr 24, 2:43 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 4:30 pm, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Recently, there was an exchange that questioned the peer review
> > > process with respect to Peter Duesberg. In the May 2007 edition of
> > > Scientific American is an article by Peter Duesberg. An editor's note
> > > is included nest to the author information disclaiming that SciAm
> > > endorses Duesberg's claims about HIV and AIDS. The article discusses a
> > > controversial theory about cancer being caused by chromsomal damage
> > > rather than a series of gene mutations.
>
> > > I have reconstructed the discussion as Bloopenblopper trimmed a post
> > > including the first paragraph included here.
>
> > > Pagano:
>
> > > >>>> This is laughable. Everyone who depends on the secular scientific
> > > >>>> community for their livelihood and who disputes the sacrosanct
> > > >>>> theories is crushed. The easiest way to destroy someone who bucks the
> > > >>>> orthodoxy is through peer review. I suspect the fear of being
> > > >>>> squeezed out of the ability to publish has stifled many new ideas that
> > > >>>> contradict the current sacrosanct theories consistent with atheism.
>
> > > Bloopenblopper:
>
> > > >> >Give an example.
>
> > > Pagano:
>
> > > >> Dr Peter Duesberg, a National Academy of Sciences member was
> > > >> ostracized and isolated for disputing the truthlikeness of the
> > > >> sacrosanct HIV-causes-AIDS theory.
>
> > > Bloopenblopper:
>
> > > >Yeah, but he was still able to get peer-reviewed articles published.
> > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Duesberg
>
> > > Pagano:
> > > I never said that he was summarily drummed out. I simply noted that
> > > his daring to buck the sacrosanct and secular dogma of HIV-causes-
> > > AIDS
> > > caused him considerable difficulty. The fact that he was a National
> > > Academy of Sciences member is probably the only thing that saved him.
> > > Had some post doc dared to do the same thing his career in his field
> > > would have been destroyed.
>
> > > Tony backtracked after being asked for an example of somebody who was
> > > "crushed", he claimed that Duesberg had been caused "considerable
> > > difficulty". The article in the magazine is evidence that Peter
> > > Duesberg is busy publishing controversial cancer research and
> > > apparently obtaining funds.
>
> > That he "backtracked" is not the only way to read what Tony said.
> > "Give an example" is what Tony was asked to do, and his understanding
> > of "crushed" is not as it were, written in stone by you to the
> > exclusion of Tony's clarification.
> > His answer *is* true; "Dr Peter Duesberg, a National Academy of
> > Sciences member was ostracized and isolated for disputing the
> > truthlikeness of the sacrosanct HIV-causes-AIDS theory." You might not
> > regard that as "crushed" but it would be your personal opinion of a
> > word Tony had chosen to mean experienced "considerable difficulty".
> > And Tony never said that a "crushed" researcher could or would never
> > publish anything ever again. He said the *fear* of being squeezed out
> > of the ability to publish has stifled many new ideas. Duesberg's
> > research on HIV/AIDS *was* "squeezed out", and he did suffer ostracism
> > and loss of funding. Bloopenblopper provides reference to that effect
> > elsewhere in the thread. Bloopenblopper as well should note here that
> > Tony didn't claim that Duesberg was "destroyed", or that he would
> > never publish ever again, but that a post doc who did something
> > similar would have been.
>
> Whatever. I'm not going to pick apart Pagano's semantics any further.

Yet you continue to do so below.

> The point is that whatever Duesberg suffered, it is so mild that
> citing it as an example is not sufficient to establish the claim that

That may be the point you'd like to establish, but the OPs point was
that Tony "backtracked". The only point of dispute I can see here
concerns the topic of publishing. Greg said "Duesberg is busy
publishing controversial cancer research and apparently obtaining
funds." Well, he isn't publishing on HIV/AIDS, and it appears to me
that he hasn't got government funding since the 90s. He supposedly
gets some money from private sources - which I wouldn't characterize
as the "scientific community".
>
> > > >>>> This is laughable. Everyone who depends on the secular scientific
> > > >>>> community for their livelihood and who disputes the sacrosanct
> > > >>>> theories is crushed. The easiest way to destroy someone who bucks the
> > > >>>> orthodoxy is through peer review. I suspect the fear of being
> > > >>>> squeezed out of the ability to publish has stifled many new ideas that
> > > >>>> contradict the current sacrosanct theories consistent with atheism.
>
> Duesberg has gotten his ideas out for an appreciable number of
> scientists to hear, and these scientists have rejected them.

I don't know what you mean by "appreciable", or of what time frame you
refer, but from 1996 I found this, by Richard Strohman: "Finally, I
agree with Derbyshire: Duesberg has been mistreated. What Peter
Duesberg has been arguing for--more research on substances known or
suspected to be immunosuppressive--should not be controversial, it
should be welcomed. If true, then Duesberg should be taken seriously
and not, as Derbyshire suggests, placed "peripheral to the mainstream
AIDS debate ... as a maverick rather than as a heretic." That debate
would be impoverished or non-existent were it not for Duesberg's
persistent scientific criticisms over 10 years. Derbyshire cannot have
it both ways where a serious critic with something constructive to
offer is also marginalised and mistreated by our AIDS leadership."
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/313/7065/1147/c

I wonder how much more progress Duesberg would have made and could now
make on cancer research if he could have gotten government funding
then and now.

>Pagano
> claims that a post doc would not have been able to do even that much,
> but has thus far offered no example of such a post doc. Of course,
> what he says is an unfalsifiable conspiracy theory: we should not
> expect to find such an example regardless of whether it exists or not.

Perhaps logically true, but then we can observe those with AIDS on AZT
live longer than those not on AZT, and infer that those on AZT would
have died sooner had they not been on AZT. We can infer that you would
die if thrown into the sun, but that has never been observed. Had
Duesberg not already been tenured and contributed to science before
HIV, I wonder whether he would have survived at all. I don't think
it's a stretch to assume that Tony has a valid point here, since post
docs going into their fields need to know whether they can make a
living. Duesberg was quoted in 99: "Duesberg said students visit early
in the semester and seem interested. But after a few weeks, they fade
away. "They're told by the graduate advisers and by their peers, they
may not be able to get a job, I may not be able to pay them, and it
would be bad for their reputations," he said." http://www.aegis.com/news/ap/1999/AP990313.html
>
> Much less is the example of Duesberg sufficient to refute Snex's claim
> in the post that started this whole exchange, which is that science
> does not impose forceful penalties for refusing to accept its
> conclusions. This stands in contrast to religion which frequently
> imposes forceful psychological, if not physical, penalties on people
> who do not accept its claims.

Denying grants is not a forceful penalty?? From the last URL, "Since
1987, Duesberg has had 20 grant applications turned down. A spokesman
for the NIH declined to comment. "

Tony in the other thread: "Dr Peter Duesberg, a National Academy of
Sciences member was ostracized and isolated for disputing the
truthlikeness of the sacrosanct HIV-causes-AIDS theory."

You agreed: "Yeah, but he was still able to get peer-reviewed articles
published."

As Tony has said, he never claimed that Duesberg was denied the
ability publish at all. But being ostracised, isolated and denied
funding would seem to have an effect on publishing research. What
effect that was we can not know.

>
> Google groups seems to have gotten jammed somehow. That is why I seem
> to have made two similar posts above.
>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Winston Challenges Dawkins...
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/413bb7202b9f5149?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 26 2007 6:45 pm
From: "OlOlOl01"

"slothrop" <slothrop1066@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1177599947.882102.253980@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 25, 3:12 pm, "OlOlOl01" <nospamh...@all.thanks> wrote:
>> The God disunion: there is a place for faith in science, insists Winston
>>
>> · IVF pioneer attacks 'patronising' evolutionist
>> · Claim that insulting tone damages public trust
>>
>> James Randerson, science correspondent
>> Wednesday April 25, 2007
>> The Guardian
>>
>> Lord Winston has condemned Professor Dawkins
>> for his attitude to religious faith. Photograph: Murdo MacLeod
>>
>> His nickname is Darwin's Rottweiler and he earned it - and a reputation
>> that
>> spans the globe - with his pugnacious defence of the theory of evolution.
>> But Professor Richard Dawkins' strident views, and the way with which
>> they
>> are delivered, came under surprise attack yesterday from an equally
>> eminent
>> scientist, though one better known for his more avuncular style.
>> Lord Winston condemned Prof Dawkins for what he called his "patronising"
>> and
>> "insulting" attitude to religious faith, and argued that he and others
>> like
>> him were in danger of damaging the public's trust in science. He
>> particularly objected to Prof Dawkins' latest book, The God Delusion,
>> which
>> is an outright attack on religion.
>> "I find the title of 'The God Delusion' rather insulting," said Lord
>> Winston, "I have a huge respect for Richard Dawkins but I think it is
>> very
>> patronising to call a serious book about other peoples' views of the
>> universe and everything a delusion. I don't think that is helpful and I
>> think it portrays science in a bad light."
>> Lord Winston, an IVF pioneer well known as the presenter of science
>> documentaries such as The Human Body, Superhuman and Human Instinct, will
>> argue for a more conciliatory approach to religion in a public lecture at
>> the University of Dundee tonight. Entitled The Science Delusion, it is
>> part
>> of the university's Greatest Minds lecture series.
>> "The reason I've called it the Science Delusion is because I think there
>> is
>> a body of scientific opinion from my scientific colleagues who seem to
>> believe that science is the absolute truth and that religious and
>> spiritual
>> values are to be discounted," said Lord Winston. "Some people, both
>> scientists and religious people, deal with uncertainty by being certain.
>> That is dangerous in the fundamentalists and it is dangerous in the
>> fundamentalist scientists."
>> Lord Winston, who is a practising Jew, said the tone adopted by Prof
>> Dawkins
>> and others was counterproductive. "Unfortunately the neo-Darwinists, and
>> I
>> don't just mean Dawkins, I mean [the philosopher] Daniel Dennett in
>> particular and [neuroscientist] Steven Pinker are extremely arrogant. I
>> think scientific arrogance really does give a great degree of distrust. I
>> think people begin to think that scientists like to believe that they can
>> run the universe.
>> He added: "I have a huge admiration for Richard Dawkins. But I'm not sure
>> that his way of approaching his view of the universe is wise. Dawkins is
>> not
>> an arrogant man, but I think he does portray certainty in a way that
>> sometimes sounds arrogant".
>> Prof Dawkins declined to comment on Lord Winston's criticisms until he
>> had
>> seen the full text of the lecture.
>> However, Prof Dennett at Tufts University in the US, said, the dangers of
>> religion had been "swept under the rug" for centuries and needed to be
>> exposed. "[I] think it is time to risk offence and not mince words. Let's
>> find out just how good, or bad, religion actually is," he said.
>> The philosopher AC Grayling at Birkbeck College, London, dismissed Lord
>> Winston's arguments as "tiresome guff". "Belief in supernatural entities
>> in
>> the universe ... is false, and in the light of increasing scientific
>> knowledge about nature has definitely come to be delusional," he said.
>>
>> Full text
>> at:http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,2064899,00.html
>
>
> I am just so SICK of religious people calling people like Dawkins
> "arrogant". How many times a DAY do I have conversations with mystical
> wackos who've just finished reading con-men like Chopra and are happy
> talking to me about their knowledge of "infinity" and the
> unquantifiable nature of purposely-vague terms like "love" and
> "consciousness". They tell me patronizingly that science can NEVER
> (does this word "never" even appear in "The God Delusion?") explain
> this or that aspect of human nature because their mystical mentors
> have told them so and institutions like churches need certain aspects
> of human nature to remain mysteries in order to stay in existence.
> They talk in absolutes so frequently without ever considering that
> maybe there's a bit of arrogance in their own discourse that how can I
> not conclude there's something purposely dishonest going on?
> Of all the anti-Dawkinists I've yet talked to, the only thing I've
> heard is that "The God Delusion" is arrogant. Damn it, I can't imagine
> using that as my argument for not reading something or basing my
> criticism solely on that. I'm sure there are factual or logical errors
> in the book, as there are in other books of it's type, why is it
> people aren't jumping on those? One of Dawkins' and Dennett's goals,
> as far as I can see, is trying to find out how things work, to give
> explanations for why we believe the things we believe. Many people
> believe there are Mysteries that can't --no, that SHOULDN'T-- be
> explained or quantified at all lest they get all sad and depressed and
> frightened.
> The hell with them.
> It gets me upset because they're the majority and they push this whole
> "You can never know this and this and this" with such authority. How
> is that not arrogant?
> I'm starting to compile a list of all the "You can never..."
> Statements of Truth that have been claimed over the centuries, and I'm
> amazed that people haven't learned from past mistakes. "People can
> never master the power of flight" (pre-Wright Brothers) and "Genetic
> material can never explain the complexities of human biology" (pre-
> discovery of DNA) come to mind, but the list appears to be endless.
> And it appears mystical people will continue to add to it.
>
> I want to hear Dawkins and Dennett tell us something that we can never
> ever know or explain.
>
>
Dawkins has reserved the right to reply when he has
digested Winston's full text. Ithink the key statement
in the Guardian article (and I do detect some bias in
there whwrin the word 'rottweiler' gets used in juxtaposition
with Dawkins and 'avuncular' with Winston) is:
"Lord Winston, who is a practising Jew..."
explains it all.

They might as easily have said: "Lord Winston, who was
brainwashed into repeating fantastical beliefs at a tender age..."

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Desertphile proves Creationism is false--- on video!
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/811d71bdf382177c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 26 2007 11:56 am
From: Woland

On Apr 25, 7:16 pm, Terry <Kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 13:57:52 -0600, Desertphile
>
> <desertph...@nospam.org> wrote:
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VauSPWbOin0
>
> >Pasta Sauce: The Creationist's Nightmare! 03:21
>
> >Kent Hovind / Duane Gish / Kirk What's-his-name / Other
> >Creationist Nutcases debunked.... by a jar of pasta sauce! If
> >Creationism is true, a jar of pasta sauce can change into a goat:
> >if evolutionary theory is correct, the jar of pasta sauce will
> >always be a jar of pasta sauce. Let's perform the test and see
> >what happens.
>
> Your humor is as dry as your sandy vagina.

I just threw up in my mouth.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 26 2007 1:12 pm
From: Desertphile

On 26 Apr 2007 05:20:43 -0700, Seamus <zawadzki@yahoo.com> wrote:

http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Hey Amy. How have you been?" -- Buffy
"Rat. And you?" -- Amy
"Dead." -- Buffy

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 26 2007 1:13 pm
From: Desertphile

On 26 Apr 2007 08:44:53 -0700, Bloopenblopper@juno.com wrote:

> On Apr 25, 3:57 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@nospam.org> wrote:
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VauSPWbOin0
> >
> > Pasta Sauce: The Creationist's Nightmare! 03:21
> >
> > Kent Hovind / Duane Gish / Kirk What's-his-name / Other
> > Creationist Nutcases debunked.... by a jar of pasta sauce! If
> > Creationism is true, a jar of pasta sauce can change into a goat:
> > if evolutionary theory is correct, the jar of pasta sauce will
> > always be a jar of pasta sauce. Let's perform the test and see
> > what happens.

> I don't get it. Creationists (and for that matter, all monotheists)
> say that a jar of pasta sauce can turn into a goat if God wills it,
> but that doesn't mean that they predict that it will if you will it.

The video is a reply to a Creationist's video that claims a jar of
peanut butter will evolve into, or spawn, new life if evolution
happens. The Creationist's video insists the entire processed food
industry is predicated upon evolution not happening: my jar of
pasta sauce is predicated upon Creationism not happening.

http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Hey Amy. How have you been?" -- Buffy
"Rat. And you?" -- Amy
"Dead." -- Buffy

==============================================================================
TOPIC: A Bible Puzzle
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/dcc8da315787c548?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 26 2007 1:58 pm
From: duke

On 26 Apr 2007 01:23:44 -0700, SJAB1958 <balfres@hotmail.com> wrote:

>However, the way I see it is if you take the Bible literally it is not
>error free and it does contain much that conflicts with science.
>Can anyone prove otherwise?

The bible is the revealed Word of God but written in the hand of man. Man used
many of his own stories to present the revelations. God's word is inerrant, not
man's attempt to present it.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

==============================================================================
TOPIC: 101 Scientific Facts & Foreknowledge
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/81cadc4155220ebf?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 26 2007 7:11 pm
From: Greg Guarino

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 13:47:33 -0400, Rich Townsend
<rhdt@barVOIDtol.udel.edu> wrote:

>
>Hmmm, that's a little misleading. While the human body and the Earth's crust
>certainly contain very different proportions of each element, it is certainly
>*NOT* the case that the human body contains elements that aren't found in the
>Earth's crust. Otherwise, where did these elements come from?

I wading in above my depth here, but...

Human body elements by weight:
1. Oxygen (65%)
2. Carbon (18%)
3. Hydrogen (10%)
4. Nitrogen (3%)
5. Calcium (1.5%)
6. Phosphorus (1.0%)
7. Potassium (0.35%)
8. Sulfur (0.25%)
9. Sodium (0.15%)
10. Magnesium (0.05%)
11. Copper, Zinc, Selenium, Molybdenum, Fluorine, Chlorine, Iodine,
Manganese, Cobalt, Iron (0.70%)
12. Lithium, Strontium, Aluminum, Silicon, Lead, Vanadium, Arsenic,
Bromine (trace amounts)

#2, Carbon, is ultimately derived from plants, either directly or
indirectly via consumption of plant-eating animals. I believe that the
plants get their carbon from the atmosphere.

#s 1 and 3, Hydrogen and Oxygen I assume are mostly the water in our
body. The hydrogen especially can be found in any number of other
compounds. I believe that our hydrogen is ultimately derived from
water, again in plants.

I'll leave it to someone esle to argue how much of that water is "in
the earth's crust".

Greg Guarino

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 26 2007 12:17 pm
From: Greg Esres

<<Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7; 3:19).
Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28
base and trace elements - all of which are found in the earth.>>

Well, duh!

<<You will find that the composition of human flesh and the earth's
crust is completely different, but despite this obvious fact the good
old "101 Scientific Facts & Foreknowledge" website happily makes the
statement above about 'dust of the ground'>>

We don't have gold or copper in the earth's crust? That chart implies
the non-existence of many elements in the crust simply because the
percentages are low.

Scientific Fact #14 seems correct, but irrelevant.

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 26 2007 12:18 pm
From: Ray Martinez

On Apr 26, 1:26 am, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1177554160.709597.152940@r30g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 10:16 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> -- [snip]
>
> >> Ray, the fact that you egregiously misread Darwin's writings to
> >> support your own preconceptions does not amount to a falsification of
> >> anything. You understand neither Darwin nor our own replies to you,
> >> and misread this as proof that we cannot be persuaded to abandon a
> >> disproved belief.
>
> > The Darwinist cannot refute what I said, which was based on what
> > Darwin's mouth plainly said and based on what my scholarly source has
> > said. In an attempt to get around this unpleasantry the Darwinist (who
> > in this particular case is Steven J. Thompson) ceases debate and
> > discussion, and suddenly employs what I will call "Tactic" - a way to
> > sow doubt in the face of crystal clear evidence that the Darwinist
> > does not like.
>
> > Tactic, in this instance, is the introduction of a circular argument -
> > the "accusation" of "misunderstanding." By claiming his opponent
> > "misunderstands" (as opposed to legitimate disagreement) Thompson has
> > **initiated** a "circular tactic argument." It is as such because I
> > then *could* say and claim, in rebuttal, the same thing concerning
> > Thompson - that he misunderstands - and around and around we go.
>
> Please excuse me for snipping most of your post.

....which we know is caused by the inability to refute.

> Ray, at one point (in the
> part I snipped) you noted that Darwin was a Victorian Englishman, who held
> some typical Victorian English views on race and ethnicity. You also note
> that he accepted the view of Carrolus Linnaeus, Richard Owen, Galen, and a
> host of other scholars over thousands of years that humans resembled other
> primates.

I never mentioned any of those other people. You have straight out
lied - again. I do not deny the others racist but your phraseology
says I specifically mentioned these persons and I did not. Then you
misrepresent - again, by saying Darwin "accepted the view of" such and
such persons as if those persons actually taught Darwin his racism. I
have acknowledged your intellectuality in the past, Steven - you do
not need to "argue" like Dana Tweedy. You should have just said that
Darwin was a member of a racist culture instead of engaging in these
obvious misrepresentations.

Robert Edmond Grant, materialist-atheist, in 1827, while at Edinburgh,
is the main culprit of exposing a young Darwin to the aforementioned
heresy - a heresy which *presumes* man not to have Divine origin but
material, from animals. Read all about Mr. Grant and other like
individuals in Desmond & Moore, "Darwin" 1991:31-39.

> You then insist, without actually showing any connection between
> these two facts, that racism caused Darwin to think that humans resembled
> nonhuman primates (what, one wonders, caused the creationist Linnaeus and
> the anti-evolutionist Owen to think that same thing?).

Everyone admits Darwin was a racist. Larson plainly said that he
compared certain human beings to "primates in the London zoo." In
addition, Darwin admits and wrote in his notebook to "see" and
"compare" these humans with apes. Since we are talking about 1838
Victorian England, one would have to be awfully naieve or a Talk
Origin Darwinist to deny. All your comment above says, is: "Darwin's
racism played no part in comparing certain human beings with apes in
the London zoo." Want to buy a bridge in Brooklyn, Steven? We have
Darwin's notebook admissions, Autobio admissions - both written in
plain prose and here you are feigning like you do not understand.

But how could you admit since you are a atheist-Darwinist who has
already denied this clear evidence?

How could you admit that the origin of modern human evolution theory
was originally conceived in racism, rejection of God (atheism) and
*assumption* based on bird mutability? This is why you and Von Smith
and the others simply deny these facts - you have to because you are
atheist-Darwinists without an objective bone in your body (like John
Harshman).

You cannot admit because that would be admitting to lying, which
leaves you having to employ tactic with a "straight face."

The point is that this latest post of yours is a mandatory defense of
the tactic which I have already identified here:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c929552e618d6a11?hl=en&

You know exactly what I am talking about and you know exactly what the
evidence and arguments say. It is so clear and damning you MUST keep
up the tactic - you have no choice lest you be an admitted liar.

My on-going point is to expose your tactics that attempt to brazenly
distort clear evidence and to tell any agnostic lurkers: just think
what Darwinists do with complicated scientific evidence?

I understand that you will need to defend and justify through Tactic
again, but be advised I will not be responding, there is nothing left
to say in this matter because like I said, since you have initiated a
circular "misunderstanding" argument that is all that can happen.

Ray

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 26 2007 12:44 pm
From: "Gerry Murphy"

"Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1177615119.769929.148150@s33g2000prh.googlegroups.com...

So, Ray,

I see you're still posting. Did I miss the publication of your paper?
You remember, the one you were going to finish before posting again.

<mock horror>
Could it be that you lie?
</mock horror>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT: Brain research breakthroughs
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/432d2315fcb1aa32?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 26 2007 12:33 pm
From: slothrop

http://www.slate.com/id/2164996&GT1=9330

I know many people who would say we can't know anything about what
this article is talking about, that the whole effort is a waste of
time, because they know God has told them so...

slothrop

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Galileo - Take 2
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/84f3ceb5b7dc1e32?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 26 2007 12:35 pm
From: "alwaysaskingquestions"

"David Wilson" <see_sig@for_my.address> wrote in message
news:200704261937.l3QJb1o02451@fwi.net.au...
> In article <1hx6c94.9rleid1mu3t14N%j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au> on April 26th in
> talk.origins j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:

[...]

> I apologise to aaq for my heavy handedness.

Readily accepted, particularly in view of the invaluable contribution you
made before you got .... distracted, let's call it :)

> I'm afraid the 12 years I spent in academia in the dim dark past has given
> me a very low threshold of tolerance for the copying of other people's
> work
> without proper attribution.

We all have our flash points; I've just been caught up in a different thread
which touched on one of my flas points and allowed myself to get drawn into
an argument that I'd simply have been better ignoring.

[...]

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Is he here?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/d327b4c756b5e118?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 26 2007 12:42 pm
From: JTEM

Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:

> He posts through Google Groups, which seems to be having
> problems right now.

Yes. It also coincided with a rather busy couple of days for me.

Thee's something like 36 to 48 hours worth of posts to wade
through, so there's always a good chance that I might not
catch up...

==============================================================================
TOPIC: A Summary Of Intelligent Design Theory
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/04e65d67a04d1590?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 26 2007 12:41 pm
From: rem642b@yahoo.com (Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t)

> From: shipmodeler1 <rog...@comcast.net>
> Here's the best definition of ID I've been able to find:
> Part II: What the theory of intelligent design IS:
> Intelligent design is a scientific theory

Wrong, there's no such theory, just a handwave to pretend.

> which argues

Scientific theories don't argue. They simply present a model that
predicts future observations based on some presumed underlying
mechanism. It's the *advocates* of one theory or another which
argue for that theory and against alterative theories that cover
the same or overlapping class of observations.

> that best explanation for some natural phenomena is intelligence,

Intelligence where?? In the mind of the naive beholder? In the
presumed mind of the natural objects presumed to be exhibiting the
phenomena? In the presumed mind of some presumed manipulator of the
natural objects, like a puppeteer? In the presumed mind of some
presumed designer of the natural objects? In the presumed mind of
whatever worker actually implemented the presumed design by
fabricating the object not exactly as the design had specified?
Until this ambiguity is resolved, it remains far from being a theory.

> especially when the phenomenon has certain informational
> properties

Precisely *what* informational properties? What *is* an
"informational properties" in the first place? How does one observe
"informational properties" of a phenomenon"? How does one quantify
such observations, in what units? For example, how many quatloos of
"informational properties" are in the "Northern Lights" at this
moment?

> which in our observation-based experience are caused by
> intelligence.

That's flat out wrong. The *only* observation-based experience
whereby certain phenomena are surely caused by intelligence are
when a human being, or any of a few other species of animals
(several apes, elephants, horses, dogs, cats, several cetacians,
several mollusks, several birds, etc.) demonstrate the ability to
solve novel problems that could not possibly have been mere "smart"
programming due to instinct due to natural selection based on many
similar past experiences of ancestors, nor to simple imprinting
whereby an animal has the instinct to copy things it sees other
animals do, or learn things humans train it to do. For example,
when food was placed in a sealed jar, and an octopus figured out
how to twist the lid to unscrew it to open it to get the food.
Extrapolating even to other animals, claiming they *all* are
intelligent, is absurd. Extrapolating to some alleged behaviour of
some unseen unknown agent who allegedly designed life is even more
absurd.

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 26 2007 12:43 pm
From: Woland

On Apr 26, 11:32 am, collectio...@googlemail.com wrote:
> On Apr 26, 12:59 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 06:57:35 -0400, collectio...@googlemail.com wrote
> > (in article <1177585055.338302.167...@t39g2000prd.googlegroups.com>):
>
> > > J.J. O'Shea wrote:
> > >> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:48:18 -0400, nmp wrote
> > >> (in article <pan.2007.04.24.17.50...@is.invalid>):
>
> > >>> Op Tue, 24 Apr 2007 06:25:16 -0700, schreef collection60:
>
> > >>>> If you really want to be a rebel... challenge feminism and declare all
> > >>>> the biological advantages and artificial social disadvantages we have as
> > >>>> males.
>
> > >> So she turned you down again, eh?
>
> > > Who, your mom?
>
> > >> There's a product known as 'mouth wash'.
> > >> Trying using some.
>
> > > There is a proceedure known as facial surgery. Try using some, may be
> > > you'll become bearable to look at.
>
> > >>> *All* societies in the world nowadays are male-dominated. So tell me how,
> > >>> exactly, us males are disadvantaged socially? In the private sector, do
> > >>> females get better paying jobs than us? In politics, are they in the
> > >>> majority in positions of power and authority?
>
> > >>> About those biological so-called "advantages": the typical male may be
> > >>> able to run faster and lift heavier weights than the typical female, but
> > >>> do we have thighs as soft and hips as curvaceous? ;)
>
> > >> Some boys don't _like_ soft thighs or curvy hips.
>
> > > That'll be you then.
>
> > Looks like I hit a nerve.
>
> No. you lied that you hit a nerve.
>
> In fact I hit a nerve when I told you the truth that females are lying
> fake evil monsters who hate innocent good males.

With an attitude like that I'm not surprised that they would treat you
as such.

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

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?

Thursday, April 26, 2007

25 new messages in 16 topics - digest

No comments:

Links

About Me

Blog Archive