Who dares sent me SPAM?: 25 new messages in 17 topics

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

talk.origins@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 6:12 pm
From: "Dana Tweedy"

"Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1177443977.949061.33760@o40g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 23, 4:27 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 21, 5:44 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Your "Reverend" title is simply an attempt to shield yourself from the
>> > identification.
>>
>> Hey Ray, have you, uh, done any further, um, "research" on this matter
>> lately?
>>
>
> Why should I research something that you admit to by using in your
> name?

Maybe because he's been pulling your leg?

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

Or maybe not... Did you bother to check?

>
> Like I said, you do this hoping that it will shield your atheist views
> from being seen as such. In reality, all it does is announce to the
> world that "I am a mother-fucking liar."

No, Ray, that's what you are telling the world.

>
> Whatever 'Rev' actually means to you, it exists publically as a bait
> and switch for the reason just explained. If I had to guess you are
> probably a Priest in Satan's Church - an Anton La Vey wanna be.

No, Ray, that's what you appear to be...

>
>
>> (snicker) (giggle) BWA HA HA HA HA
>> HA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>
> How embarrassed persons usually act.

Embarassed persons don't laugh at you, Ray.

DJT

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Google Groups....
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/502d517fea4e3db9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 10:18 pm
From: Rocky Promontory

"chris.linthompson@gmail.com" wrote:
> ...once again experiencing vapor lock.
> I figure it's the extraordinary volume of hot air spewed forth by
> creationists that jams Google Groups.

"So after a hectic week of believing that war was peace,
that good was bad, that the moon was made of blue cheese,
and that God needed a lot of money sent to a certain box number,
the Monk started to believe that thirty-five percent of all tables
were hermaphrodites, and then broke down. The man from the Monk shop
said that it needed a whole new motherboard, but then pointed out
that the new improved Monk Plus models were twice as powerful,
had an entirely new multi-tasking Negative Capability feature
that allowed them to hold up to sixteen entirely different and
contradictory ideas in memory simultaneously without generating
any irritating system errors, were twice as fast and at least
three times as glib, and you could have a whole new one for less
than the cost of replacing the motherboard of the old model."

- Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

http://www.mat.upm.es/~jcm/adams.html

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

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 3:19 pm
From: bullpup@bellsouth.net

On Apr 24, 6:28 am, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> As before, what are you going to do with your power of choosing if not
> relate to the spiritual domain?

What "spiritual realm"?

>
> Measurement is an automated process, there's no choosing in it. Any
> choosing in measurement is noted as error. So you see, stricly
> speaking you can't use your choosingpowers in science, in science you
> may only act as a machine, noting down the information that the
> environment gives you.

Well, gee. Then I guess your whinging about "knowledge of choice"
doesn't apply to science, so you can stop whinging about that now.

>
> As I look to things I get information from those things. That's an
> automated process. But then there's also something like relating to
> things, where I relate my choosing to the choosing of what I'm looking
> at. So that way I know a thing by my heart as well as by my mind. I
> mean you do have lots of knowledge this way, that is by choosing and
> not by measurement.

Yeah, but at the same time, you can't tell the differnce between a
turtle and a bowling ball. Tou you, while a turtle can move, and walk
away, the bowling ball just sits there because it has decided not to
move. Right?

Boikat

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 3:23 pm
From: bullpup@bellsouth.net

On Apr 24, 6:32 am, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Well I'm not really 100 percent certain for anything in the future.

Nothing? You mean that you don't expect the sun to rise tomorrow?
Granted, you can never be 100% certain of *everything* 9like the sun
rising), and there are some things that have a certain amount of
uncertanty (Like will my car start when i turn the key. While I
*anticipate* that it will, it may not for some reason)

> That's engrained in my thought that the future is fundamentally
> uncertain.

That's because you are detatched from reality. Since you can't be 100
% certain of *everything*, you are certain of *nothing*. No wonder
your mind is a mess.

Boikat

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 3:28 pm
From: bullpup@bellsouth.net

On Apr 24, 6:35 am, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> But you experience the future as being uncertain directly by your
> senses, or don't you?

Only a few things, like "what will I eat for lunch tomorrow", or
"Which route to work will I take tomorrow". On the other hand, there
are some future events that I am certain about, like sunrise, or that
a bowling ball sitting in the middle of the floor will still be there
in the morning, unless someone moves it.

You, on the other hand, are uncertain about even sunrise, or inert
objects deciding to move on their own, like a bowling ball sitting in
the middle of the floor.

Boikat

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 10:20 pm
From: Ye Old One

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 20:52:30 -0500, Dale Kelly
<dale.kelly@comcast.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:

>On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:38:58 -0700, bullpup wrote:
>
>> Nuclear decay. HTH, HAND--
>
>quantum mechanics is a FARCE

Learn a bit about it before you make such a daft claim.

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

The UP says nothing of the sort.
>
>quantum physicists have ASSUMED that uncertainty means a random normal
>population with which they can apply certain statistical procedures to,
>the uncertainty principle says you are uncertain even of randomness and a
>normal population

Don't know what you have been reading, but you misread it.
>
>secondly, quantum mechanics ALWAYS defaults to Newtonian physics in the
>REAL world, and ALL interpretations of quantum mechanics agree with this
>
>there are absolutely ZERO observations of quantum behavior,

Ah! You missed the hundreds of papers published on the subject. Not
surprised, you wouldn't understand them anyway.

> it is all
>pseudoscience (and so is Einstein)
>
>you are WRONG, evolution punk

And you are a VERY stupid brat.

--
Bob.

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

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 10:27 pm
From: Ye Old One

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 21:26:47 -0500, Dale Kelly
<dale.kelly@comcast.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:

>the modern definition of life is emergent behavior

Is it?
>
>even plants with no minds or free will are considered to be alive, just
>because they have emergent behavior

No, plants are considered alive because they are alive.
>
>emergent behavior in consciousness depends on the mysterious intermediary
>called the subconscious

Does it?
>
>we do not communicate directly with the central nervous system, we
>supposedly use an intermediary, the mysterious subconscious

Half right, but then you only have half a brain.

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

Please provide evidence that any god exists/has existed.
>
>more so, I suggest that when we will our bodies to act, they act with an
>intermediary of God, not the subconscious

Evidence?
>
>provide proof of the subconscious or shut up, evolution punks

Tonight, when you are asleep, your subconscious does the world a
disfavor - it keeps you alive.

--
Bob.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 3:44 pm
From: "Gerry Murphy"

"Nic" <harrisondalen@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1177386515.865152.226680@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On 24 Apr, 03:26, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > the modern definition of life is emergent behavior
> >
> > even plants with no minds or free will are considered to be alive, just
> > because they have emergent behavior
>
> Wasn't me who cursed the fig tree.

And the Lord said unto the tree, "Wilt thou?", and it wilted. 8-}

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 3:46 pm
From: "Gerry Murphy"

"Bill Morse" <wdNOSPAmorse@verizonOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:6ceXh.2618$Rd.0@trndny08...
> Dale Kelly wrote:
>
> > the modern definition of life is emergent behavior
> >
> > even plants with no minds or free will are considered to be alive, just
> > because they have emergent behavior
> >
> > emergent behavior in consciousness depends on the mysterious
intermediary
> > called the subconscious
> >
> > we do not communicate directly with the central nervous system, we
> > supposedly use an intermediary, the mysterious subconscious
> >
> > I suggest there is more proof of God as an intermediary than there is of
> > a mysterious subconscious
> >
> > more so, I suggest that when we will our bodies to act, they act with an
> > intermediary of God, not the subconscious
> >
> > provide proof of the subconscious or shut up, evolution punks
>
> Who is he _talking_ to? And how does he make his voice _do_ that?

Wait a minute! Didn't I say that on the other side? Where am I? 8-}

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The insanity keeps coming
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/853d373e79363233?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 3:25 pm
From: Bob Casanova

On 24 Apr 2007 12:20:32 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com>:

>Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>> Get someone else to pull it out for you.

>Thank you

You're welcome.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 3:28 pm
From: Bob Casanova

On 24 Apr 2007 20:09:42 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by nmp <address@is.invalid>:

>Op Tue, 24 Apr 2007 00:17:14 -0700, schreef Bob Casanova:
>
>[IPU]
>
>> Absolutely! "Pink" is what She *is*, not Her color. After all, She's
>> invisible; invisible deities have no color.
>
>But she does.

Heretic! Her pinkness is an ineffable part of Her
exquisiteness! Nothing so crass as "color" can touch Her!

> And she is *so* pink, you just can't see it. That's because
>we humans are so inadequate. And that's why we must have faith.
>
>I'll have that funny spaghetti monster and its pirate meatballs for
>dinner any time. But don't you dare speaking wrongly about our invisible
>pink unicorn. She is the sweetest, the best, the pinkiest, the
>unicorniest of all.
>
>
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 3:42 pm
From: Bob Casanova

On 24 Apr 2007 09:56:29 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Woland <jerrydeon@gmail.com>:

>On Apr 24, 3:17 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On 23 Apr 2007 09:01:08 -0700, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by jet <jtr...@cox.net>:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Apr 22, 2:08 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 04:53:08 -0400, the following appeared
>> >> in talk.origins, posted by Sammy <s...@home.com>:
>>
>> >> > here we have the followers of Darwin, not only proud of his being an
>> >> >Atheist but also so incapable of finding a woman who would want the
>> >> >likes of him... so he had to stay inside his own family to find a
>> >> >wife... his own first cousin ! ( Source : Wikipedia.com )
>>
>> >> Edition No. 3,436,853 of "Attack the Messenger". Can't you
>> >> idiots come up with any material actually *relevant*?
>> >> (Rhetorical question...)
>>
>> >> > when it comes to the things of God an Atheist is the last person on
>> >> >earth to consult with... Atheists hate God and their hate is real, not
>> >> >some delusion.
>>
>> >> The delusion is the one shared by those morons who don't
>> >> understand the simple, and true, claim that atheists *have
>> >> no belief that any deities exist*. Try to let that concept
>> >> sink in, then consider whether one can "hate" a being one
>> >> does not believe exists. Do you "hate" Odin? How about the
>> >> Invisible Pink Unicorn Who Created All That Is?
>>
>> >Well, hate may be strong, but I do find the whole "Pink" bit on the
>> >pretentious side. Being invisible isn't good enough, she has to be
>> >pink as well?
>>
>> Absolutely! "Pink" is what She *is*, not Her color. After
>> all, She's invisible; invisible deities have no color.
>> --
>>
>> Bob C.
>>
>> "Evidence confirming an observation is
>> evidence that the observation is wrong."
>> - McNameless
>
>No, no no. Her color is 'invisible-pink,' a wavelength to which only
>the truly faithful are privy.

Another heretic! She has no color; Her pinkness is, as I
told another heretic, an ineffable part of Her
exquisiteness. "Color" is for lower beings!
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 10:32 pm
From: Ye Old One

On 24 Apr 2007 07:01:13 -0700, Throwback <throwback8@gmail.com>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

>On Apr 23, 2:09 pm, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> In article <slrnf2pogs.2b4.mightymartia...@rotten.egg.sandwich>,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> AC <mightymartia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 21 Apr 2007 11:31:16 -0700,
>> > Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > On Apr 21, 10:31 am, Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> On Apr 21, 1:31 am, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@sbcglobal.net>
>> > >> wrote:
>>
>> > >> > "Martin Hutton" <mdhutton1949REM...@hotmailREMOVE.com> wrote in
>> > >> > messagenews:f0c5q9$ttb$1@news.datemas.de...
>>
>> > >> > > On 20-Apr-2007, Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >> > [snip advocacy of evolution-free education]\
>>
>> > >> > > > And then we can focus on teaching something a
>> > >> > > > little more patriotic in school, like:
>>
>> > >> > > > I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the united states
>> > >> > > > of america, and to the republic, for which it stands,
>> > >> > > > one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice
>> > >> > > > for all.
>>
>> > >> > > I'd think you'd get more meaning out of this if your
>> > >> > > taught the pledge that the Baptist minister Francis
>> > >> > > Bellamy, who was a Socialist, wanted:
>> > >> > > I pledge allegiance to my flag, and the republic, for
>> > >> > > which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with equality,
>> > >> > > liberty and justice for all.
>>
>> > >> > > How "equality" was removed because the governers of the
>> > >> > > school at which he taught were racist and misogynist, giving:
>> > >> > > I pledge allegiance to my flag, and the republic, for
>> > >> > > which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty
>> > >> > > and justice for all.
>>
>> > >> > > How, in 1924, the American Legion and the DAR, insisted
>> > >> > > (and got) the new pledge (Bellamy disliked the changes
>> > >> > > but was ignored.
>> > >> > > I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States,
>> > >> > > and to the republic for which it stands, one nation,
>> > >> > > indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
>>
>> > >> > > How, in 1954, Congress, under pressure from the KoC and
>> > >> > > to contrast the US with the godless Commies, changed the
>> > >> > > pledge to:
>> > >> > > I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States,
>> > >> > > and to the republic for which it stands, one nation,
>> > >> > > under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for
>> > >> > > all.
>>
>> > >> > > And then they should demonstrate how repeating a phrase
>> > >> > > every day until it becomes a ritual does not make one more
>> > >> > > patriotic.
>>
>> > >> > > (BTW From Middle School onwards my daughter decided to
>> > >> > > use Francis Bellamy's original pledge. This caught on
>> > >> > > in her homeroom).
>>
>> > >> > Wikipedia tells the history a little differently, but not by
>> > >> > much:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance
>>
>> > >> > Incidentally, I find it amusing that Throwback seems to want to
>> > >> > ride roughshod over his fellow creationists - the Jehovah's Witnesses -
>>
>> > >> I am not a creationist, just against pseudoscience.
>>
>> > > The above is darwin's cult belief #2 :
>>
>> > > "We believe all who oppose our pseudoscientific cult are
>> > > fundamentalist creationists."
>>
>> > Define "cult".
>> > Define "pseudoscience".
>> > Define "science".
>>
>> *
>> I'll start:
>>
>> A "cult" is a "pre-religion" that has not yet received its IRS tax
>> exemption. After a "cult" receives its tax exemption, it officially
>> becomes a "religion".
>>
>> (See: Scientology)
>>
>> earle
>> *
>
>Please note that in the us, colleges and universities
> take in more revenue than the top 10 religious organizations
> combined.

Cite the figures or admit your error.

--
Bob.

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 3:31 pm
From: Bob Casanova

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:59:13 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Ferrous Patella
<mail125797@pop.net>:

>news:5uar23thggfbju35ibttk494s9cdm66t3v@4ax.com by Bob Casanova:
>
>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:33:22 GMT, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by Ferrous Patella
>> <mail125797@pop.net>:
>>
>>>news:462BF945.3030506@deadspam.com by Noelie S. Alito:
>>>
>>>> Noelie
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> P.S. I'm baa-ack!
>>>
>>>Dude! I noticed the 8997 score in my Xnews and was going like, "Who the
>>>heck is that?"
>>>
>>>Good to see you again.
>>
>> "Dude"? Dudette, maybe? ;-)
>>
>> Welcome back, Noelie!
>
>I though "Dude" as a interjection was genderless. Kinda like the last
>couple of generations version of my generations "Wow" (best delivered by
>the hippy girl on the Smothers Brothers Show.)

I thought it was intended as a salutation, but what do I
know; I don't even text-message.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Hi
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/26a2ad9b5e4cad5a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 3:34 pm
From: Bob Casanova

On 24 Apr 2007 04:45:50 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by For Life <lacksalot@gmail.com>:

>On Apr 24, 2:06 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On 23 Apr 2007 18:10:49 -0700, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by For Life <lacksa...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >On Apr 22, 3:42 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >> On 22 Apr 2007 04:31:12 -0700, the following appeared in
>> >> talk.origins, posted by For Life <lacksa...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >> >On Apr 22, 1:50 am, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On Apr 21, 7:55 pm, For Life <lacksa...@gmail.com> wrote:> Hi
>>
>> >> >> I think it's time you posted something to this group more than two
>> >> >> characters long.
>>
>> >> >Hello
>>
>> >> Hello. Have anything both meaningful and rational to post?
>>
>> >yes.
>>
>> Good. Go post it to alt.flame.
>
>I want to post it here, if that's OK with you.

Well then *do it*! Don't be coy; shit or get off the pot;
don't stand there holding the door open, etc., etc.

>If it's not, tough.

Sure; that's what killfiles exist for.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 3:35 pm
From: Bob Casanova

On 24 Apr 2007 05:41:34 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by For Life <lacksalot@gmail.com>:

Because they know how to deal with those who act as you do.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

==============================================================================
TOPIC: NEW! - Share Islam .com - NEW
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/c3775588a6ca8568?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 3:36 pm
From: Bob Casanova

On 24 Apr 2007 08:51:59 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by snex <snex@comcast.net>:

>On Apr 24, 2:09 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On 22 Apr 2007 14:08:01 -0700, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by snex <hiya_s...@yahoo.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Apr 22, 3:59 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >> On 22 Apr 2007 12:34:25 -0700, the following appeared in
>> >> talk.origins, posted by Stile4aly <stile4...@yahoo.com>:
>>
>> >> >On Apr 22, 12:09 pm, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> >> On Apr 22, 1:58 pm, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > Op Sun, 22 Apr 2007 10:42:09 -0700, schreef snex:
>>
>> >> >> > > whoever "amal.follo...@gmail.com" is, he deserves nothing more than a
>> >> >> > > "cheap shot." hes a hit and run troll.
>>
>> >> >> > Of course he is. But taking cheap shots is always wrong. You could choose
>> >> >> > to ignore him as well.
>>
>> >> >> > While "amal.followme" may not deserve anything more (I'm not sure), you
>> >> >> > choose to misrepresent an entire religious community only because of what
>> >> >> > *he* does. It's very counter-productive. For instance we have in this
>> >> >> > newsgroup Stile4aly, who is a Muslim who also accepts evolution
>> >> >> > completely and who has proven himself to be very tolerant and friendly
>> >> >> > towards other people's convictions and you tell him that the wise prophet
>> >> >> > he believes in with his heart is a pedophile. Pedophile - which in
>> >> >> > today's society can only mean something utterly despicable. Is that fair?
>>
>> >> >> perhaps stile4aly should consider the fact that his prophet *may in
>> >> >> fact have been* a pedophile. his deepest convictions are really
>> >> >> irrelevant on the matter. you (hypothetically) may believe with all of
>> >> >> your heart that your priest that was convicted of molesting children
>> >> >> didnt really do it, but that doesnt make it so.
>>
>> >> >You're right, my deepest convictions on the matter are irrelevant, yet
>> >> >you seem to assume that I have done no actual study on the matter and
>> >> >conclude that Muhammad was not a pedophile "just because." That's the
>> >> >whole reason I pointed to the wiki page in the first place. Yes, the
>> >> >verbiage of the hadith themselves suggest that she was quite young,
>> >> >but the entire point is that we can't necessarily accept the hadith at
>> >> >face value (as many Muslims do), we must do an actual historical
>> >> >analysis and a comparative analysis against other hadith. Those
>> >> >analyses show that Aisha must have been older than 6 at betrothal,
>> >> >more likely 12 - 15, which would make her 15 - 19 at consummation.
>>
>> >> >Many Muslims don't critically analyze the Quran or Hadith, and I find
>> >> >it ironic that you throw around the worldnetdaily claim of Muhammad
>> >> >being a pedophile when you clearly haven't done such a study
>> >> >yourself. You often berate most if not all theists for failing to
>> >> >critically analyze their beliefs, but this is a Trojan Horse. It's
>> >> >your belief that any critical analysis of religion must lead to that
>> >> >religion being rejected, plain and simple. Theism is irrational, and
>> >> >no irrational belief is valid in your view.
>>
>> >> >Cheers for the kind words from NMP.
>>
>> >> You can add mine. I have nothing but contempt for those
>> >> religious leaders (currently mostly Islamic, but
>> >> historically represented in nearly all major religions) who
>> >> encourage barbaric actions against the innocent, which IIRC
>> >> is *specifically* forbidden in the Koran. But most "normal"
>> >> followers of Islam don't seem to be anything of the sort,
>> >> yourself specifically included. Keep it up; you're somewhat
>> >> of an exemplar of rational Islam, and we need as many as we
>> >> can get. The same applies to rational Christians, to
>> >> counteract the irrationality of the fundies.
>>
>> >just why do we need "rational muslims" or "rational christians?" whats
>> >wrong with applying rationality to all aspects of one's life,
>> >including religion?
>>
>> We know your opinion, as well as your intolerance for any
>> hint of faith. Buzz off.
>
>i couldnt help but notice you failed to answer the question.

I cannot help but note that I really don't care what bigots
note.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 3:39 pm
From: Bob Casanova

On 24 Apr 2007 10:16:29 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by skyeyes <skyeyes@dakotacom.net>:

>On Apr 22, 10:33 am, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Me too, it's entirely irrelevant as a criticism of Islam. Of which, by
>> the way, I *am* very critical (the same way as I am critical of
>> Christianity and all other religions). But this particular one is only
>> ever used to take cheap shots at Muslims. And it's very unfair.
>>
>> "Haha your prophet was a pedophile, nananananana."
>
>Inasmuch as the Muslims are constantly criticizing the West for what
>they see as our rampant sexuality, pointing out that Mohammad was
>indeed a pedophile is entirely appropriate.

You seem to be overgeneralizing just a bit; there are Muslim
posters even here who don't act like snex (whose tirades
were the object of nmp's post); i.e., like spoiled, bigoted
and intolerant brats.

>I've just finished reading _Why I Am Not a Muslim_ by Ibn Warraq. He
>points out that in Islam, *everything* concerning men and women comes
>down to sex. He also backs up the claim that the prophet consummated
>a marriage with a 9-year-old girl, which certainly qualifies as
>pedophilia in my book. He also imparts information that I didn't
>know, which is that Mohammad violated his own "four wives only" rule
>and married a great number of women. Warraq states frankly that
>Mohammad was a first-rate sexual over-achiever.
>
>Seen in the light of the teachings of Islam that the Muslims are so
>eager to cram down our throats, all this screams "hyprocisy" to me,
>which is why I point it out at every possible opportunity.
>
>Your mileage may vary.
>
>Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
>skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Critique of Richard Dawkin's, "Selfish Gene"
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/624687acfdb6cca1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 3:38 pm
From: "Perplexed in Peoria"

<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1177450821.975495.59020@r35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> IMO it's wrong to criticize Dawkins because he's just an English
> eccentric. You should in stead criticize people who read Dawkins, who
> as far as I can tell, knowingly engage in a guilty pleasure when
> reading books with titles such as "Selfish Gene", "God delusion",
> "Devil's Chaplain". Of course sometimes I also criticize Dawkins
> because that is the more obvious thing to do, but really you should
> try to criticize the readers of Dawkins in stead because that's where
> the evil is at, eventhough that's a more complicated thing to do.

Nando, you are an evil piece of shit!

But I'm not sure whether it is because you read Dawkins, or because
you criticize him without first reading him.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Application of the Theory That Man Evolved From a Unicellular Organism
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/67dcc970703b6f39?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 3:42 pm
From: Cheezits

Ian Chua <ichua@purdue.edu> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 10:24 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>> Ian Chua wrote:
>> > Can anyone suggest a useful application of the theory that man
>> > evolved from a unicellular organism?
>>
>> it answers the question 'where did we come from?'
>>
>> and that is useful enough
>
> You're confused - let me paraphrase the question:
> "Can anyone suggest a useful application of the theory that man came
> from a unicellular organism?"

That isn't a paraphrase. It isn't even a rephrase. Wf3h got it right.

Whe are you going to realize that the only way to discredit evolution as
a scientific theory is by presenting actual evidence against it?

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Petrified forest discovered
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/26b2075412657db5?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 3:43 pm
From: "Perplexed in Peoria"

"eerok" <eerok@addr.invalid> wrote in message news:597bc9F2k80c9U1@mid.individual.net...
> Robert Carnegie wrote:
> > On Apr 24, 7:10 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> "R. Baldwin" <res0k...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
>
>
> >> > NPR announced today that a petrified forest has been found
> >> > on private property near Yakima. Apparently the trees were
> >> > standing when buried by a lava flow. Has anyone seen an
> >> > article about this?
>
> >> Two stories, apparently about two different forests.
> >>
> >> The one you're talking about at 15 million years old:
> >>
> >> http://www.kirotv.com/news/12769514/detail.html
> >>
> >> and this was estimated at about 300 million years old:
> >>
> >> http://tinyurl.com/2bt2bl
>
>
> > They took all the trees, and put 'em in a tree museum...
>
>
> And they charged the people
> A dollar and a half just to see em

Yeah, but I'm glad I wasn't in the neighborhood when they paved the parking lot!

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 3:44 pm
From: Boswell

On 24 Apr 2007 15:00:45 -0700, "nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com"
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote:

>And as before, besides shortterm variation in results, longterm
>stability is also evidence of free bands of variation. So to say every
>model that defines initial variables will inevitably screw up in the
>long term, but we observe longterm stability. The reason that models
>screws up long term is because as time goes by the sensitivity to
>initial conditions becomes higher and higher, to impossible
>magnitudes. We need to add mathematics to the model on a continuous
>basis to keep it predicting accurately from the initial conditions.
>That adding of mathematics becomes increasingly impossible when we
>have to calculate the exact position starting from thousands of years
>ago, or longer. We can easily solve this problem by free behaviour,
>and have more elegant models with simple formula's, and not humongous
>formula's with hypersensitivity to initial conditions thousands of
>years ago.

You are a hopeless idiot, and there's no point in replying to your
incoherent diatribes. You think Newtonian mechanics should be replaced
with fantasies about cometary whims. You snip all responses and
indulge in what appears to be some kind of solipsistic auto-erotic
babbling. Perhaps it brings you a bit of pleasure, but it can't be
good for your health in the long run.

>regards,
>Mohammad Nur Syamsu

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 3:45 pm
From: Bob Casanova

On 24 Apr 2007 05:04:00 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com"
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com>:

>You can make up countless theories to cover the facts just as well.

Post three, all of which make unique testable predictions.

<snip>
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Margaret Beckett "Wars will start due to climate change"
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/3ffa08d9dfe32481?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 3:44 pm
From: "Dr.GH"

On Apr 19, 11:29 am, "OlOlOl01" <nospamh...@all.thanks> wrote:
> "MichaelJP" <m...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>
> news:QZOdnUUzj7u8fbjbRVnyiAA@giganews.com...
>
> > "John Rowland" <j...@journeyflow.spamspam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:f03r6t$c1o$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
> >> Ed wrote:
> >>> She is either remarkably prescient, or a lunatic. Make up your own
> >>> mind, but she spends her summers in a caravan
>
> >>> Climate change 'threatens world stability'
> >>> By Laura Clout and agencies
> >>> Last Updated: 10:45am BST 17/04/2007
>
> >>> Drought, floods and rising sea levels linked to climate change could
> >>> start wars around the world, Margaret Beckett will predict today.
>
> >> But wars will kill lots of people, reducing both demand for food and
> >> energy consumption, so shouldn't the headline be "Global wars will
> >> provide solution to environmental problems"?
>
> > Yes, certainly a sizeable thermonuclear exchange would solve the problem.
> > Several billion killed and the ensuing nuclear winter would ensure no-one
> > was worried about global warming. Problem solved!
>
> Actually, you have hit the Darwinian solution right on.
> Global warming (and its various consequences on the
> general climatic system, pollution, resource shortages,
> starvation and much of the present malaise affecting
> mankind are man-made by overpopulation (if there
> were only a thousand people on this planet, these problems
> would hardly exist or could easily be resolved with even our
> present technologies.)
>
> The Darwinian solution (=the Malthuisian solution) is that when
> a species becomes excessively dominant in an ecology then that
> ecology modifies such as to redress the balance.
>
> The fossil record shows half a dozen mass extinctions of species in
> the history of planet Earth (the microbiological record is nbeginning
> to show some interesting shake ups as well).
> The mass of Joe Public is too ignorant, the middle classes and
> corporations too self centred and materialistic to act.
> That leaves the politicians and 'government' - but they suffer blindness
> beyond the dates of their assumed re-elections and pensions.
>
> Fasten your seat belts.

Yeah, It is going to be very very bad starting in Africa and SE Asia,
but spreading everywhere.

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 3:46 pm
From: "Steve Marshall"

"Dale Kelly" <dale.kelly@comcast.net> wrote

> there is no cat-dog
> no man-pig
> no elephant-bird
> etc.

You seem to be suggesting that cat's evolved in to dogs and men evolved in
to pigs. That would have to be the case for you intermediate species. As
you are yet again wrong your examples are ludicrous.

There are however things like frogs and lungfish.

Steve M

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who dares sent me SPAM?

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

25 new messages in 17 topics - digest

No comments:

Links

About Me

Blog Archive