Who dares sent me SPAM?: 25 new messages in 20 topics

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

talk.origins@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 8:21 pm
From: "Gerry Murphy"

"titus" <duckboy@epix.net> wrote in message
news:XINWh.4265$Oc.205528@news1.epix.net...
> evolution is make beleve no changing me i will curse you out if you beleve
> in evolution
>

Foul varlet! If you dare utter that curse you'll feel the wrath of
my neutrino laser cannon, against which there is no defense.

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 5:20 pm
From: derdag

On Apr 23, 3:34 pm, Lee Jay <ljfin...@msn.com> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 11:22 am, WuzYoungOnceToo <wuzyoungonce...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 23, 8:02 am, Lee Jay <ljfin...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > We've got the dumbest administration in history and probably the most
> > > conservative and you think there's no correlation?
>
> > A better question is: Why in the hell would you suggest any such
> > correlation? Who was in the White House when Columbine (and numerous
> > other mass murders on U.S. soil) went down? Did you find some
> > correlation then?
>
> One has nothing to do with the other. The administration is dumb as a
> stump, and they are conservative. This has nothing to do with what
> that idiot student did.
>
> > > Professors tend to be liberal (because liberals get educations while
> > > conservatives get indoctrinations) and also tend to be bookworm-
> > > types. This is not universally true but about 90% of mine were in
> > > that category. They do well in academia but poorly handling real
> > > equipment like driving cars or fixing houses. And you want to give
> > > these types of people guns? Frankly, I don't think many people who
> > > didn't grow up with guns would ever be qualified to safely handle one
> > > in a true emergency situation.
>
> > That's one of the dumbest (and baseless) things I've ever read here.
>
> Personal experience with a lot of professors after 8 years in
> college. Many are just not hands-on types. Surely, you must realize
> that there are hands-on types of people and people that are not so
> good and hands-on types of stuff.
>
> > > Being able to hit a paper target at a range isn't the same thing as hitting a person who is shooting back.
>
> > That's the first true thing you've said. Are you suggesting that
> > liberals are inherently less capable of the sort of mental discipline
> > that would be involved in carrying out the latter in a life-or-death
> > situation?
>
> You should learn to read. I'm talking about professors who have spent
> a lifetime in academia. That most professors are liberal and most
> professors are not too hands-on does not imply that most liberals are
> not hands on, just those that happen to be professors.
>
> Lee Jay

What about people who don't care to be sniveling, cowering victims,
just waiting to take a bullet from your liberal posterchildren? What
about our children who have been trained to defend themselves? What
about people like me and my children, who wish to be self reliant, not
slopping up morsels at the public trough as so many pathetic Gorons
and homosexual pimping Democrats? Why shouldn't we be free to defend
ourselves and the helpless liberals who may be near us awaiting their
bullet?

Not everyone thinks like a helpless, sniveling liberal, bed wetter.
My kids need to stay alive in order to work and sweat supporting a
bunch of helpless liberals. You should consider allowing them to
defend themselves and all of the filthy, stupid, lawless, liberals who
they may be able to save and yet later, provide for.

Gun free zones have been proven to be gun free until some sick,
misfit, coddled liberal walks in there with a gun and kills at will.
VT is a perfect example of how that logic works out.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 5:54 pm
From: Mark Isaak

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:33:49 -0700, snex wrote:

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

Non sequitur. Your argument is like saying that, because I am
pro-chocolate, I should apply chocolate to my olives, too.

> why do you think they refuse to do this?

Why don't you find your nearest Jesuit school, go to a science department
there, and ask? Seriously.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 8:23 pm
From: "Gerry Murphy"

"Ron O" <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1177270869.057781.132450@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
<snip>

> Isn't projection wonderful. Where are these guys coming from? How
> many newbies ignorant of reality have shown up in the last couple of
> weeks?

It's spring ( in the northern hemisphere at least ) and a new crop of
nutters is sprouting. 8-}

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 5:25 pm
From: "Gerry Murphy"

"Ferrous Patella" <mail125797@pop.net> wrote in message
news:Xns991B79E5D86FCmail125797popnet@130.81.64.196...
> news:mi8m23dbdg2psk2b9g7gklods5d7qh74tc@4ax.com by Sammy:
>
> > marrying and having children by incest was allowed by God for the
> > purpose of producing the human race up until the time the law of God
> > was handed down to Moses over 3,000 years ago.
>
> This sounds like a expedisous case of moral (ahem) relativism on God's
> part to get over the hump in start-up mode.
>
> --
> "Her vocabulary was as bad as, like, whatever."
> Annual English Teachers' awards for best student
> metaphors/analogies found in actual student papers
>

Wouldn't "hump in start-up mode" ( or possibly "humpin' start-up mode")
be a good name for a rock band? 8-}

==============================================================================
TOPIC: "a question of where you put Grandma"
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/853d373e79363233?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 5:25 pm
From: JTEM

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

> >On numerous occasions -- in direct response to
> >particular articles and/or insane arguments -- I did
> >accurately state that nobody would call him on his
> >insanity. And, yeah, that was accurate.
>
> Well, no one was calling me on what I posted.

Exactly. Not anything you posted...

> Calling what I posted "insane arguments"

....is the understatement of the century.

I mean, even when you pulled a boner the likes of
which a Harshman could notice -- when you stopped
arguing that the dating was not under dispute, and
started arguing that you never argued the dating was
under dispute -- nobody called you on it.

Then there's your monumental failure to separate
relevant points from your wishful thinking. Like
arguing that the archaeopteryx fossils misidentified
as Compsognathus had feathers... what the hell
was that all about?

Were you pretending that they weren't misidentified
as Compsognathus, a dinosaur that nobody associated
with feathers, let alone an arboreal lifestyle? Nope. Did
it refute me in the least? Nope. What it did was augment
my point. I said "The didn't see any feathers, and they
didn't see anything that looked like a bird or a tree
climber." You say "No, wait! There were feathers [but
they still didn't see a bird or a tree climber].

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 5:27 pm
From: JTEM

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

> Let's just say that this is a surprising development,

you said the same thing about indoor plumbing...

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 5:26 pm
From: snex

On Apr 23, 7:19 pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On 23 Apr 2007 17:14:19 -0700, in talk.origins
> snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote in
> <1177373659.218850.146...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:
>
>
>
> >On Apr 23, 7:09 pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> On 23 Apr 2007 16:52:26 -0700, in talk.origins
> >> snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote in
> >> <1177372346.018048.132...@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >> >On Apr 23, 5:55 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Apr 23, 12:42 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> > if religious statements contain truths, then they have a legitimate
> >> >> > purpose in public schools. if they do not contain truths, then they
> >> >> > have no legitimate purpose there.
>
> >> >> Um, in case you didn't notice, Snex, I've spent the past 25 years
> >> >> fighting to keep religious statements out of public school biology
> >> >> classrooms.
>
> >> >why?
>
> >> In the United States we don't allow religious doctrines to be taught in
> >> public schools because of the Establishment Clause. Religious people can
> >> be found who disagree on every single item of doctrine. What possible
> >> reason is there for allowing such contentious and unsubstantiated claims
> >> to be allowed in school in the place of education?
>
> >flank claims that the claims contain truth. if he thinks this, then
> >the claims arent contentious or unsubstantiated in his world.
>
> From what I have read over time, your claims appear to misrepresent what
> Flank said.

perhaps you can convince the good reverend to answer my simple
questions then, so he can coherently present his position.

>
> >i, however, agree that religious claims are contentious and
> >unsubstantiated, and thats why i will persist in pointing this out to
> >anybody who asserts these claims, be it ray martinez or dana tweedy.
>
> A person who carelessly throws Dana and Ray into the same bucket is
> acting exactly like Ray.

oh brother. if you replace "dana" and "ray" with "africans" and
"transitional", and "acting like ray" with "is a racist," then your
claim is *identical* to ray's.

ray and tweedy are both human beings.
ray and tweedy are both theists.
ray and tweedy are both christians.
the only differences between them are how many sciences they deny in
order to maintain their beliefs, and how hostile they are to people
who disagree.

>
> >> >> (sigh)
>
> >> >> ================================================
> >> >> Lenny Flank
> >> >> "There are no loose threads in the web of life"
>
> >> >> Author:
> >> >> "Deception by Design: The Intelligent Design Movement in America"http://www.redandblackpublishers.com/deceptionbydesign.html
>
> >> >> Creation "Science" Debunked:http://www.geocities.com/lflank

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 5:26 pm
From: Cemtech

In article <1177195715.220132.82000@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
pyramidial@yahoo.com says...
> On Apr 21, 3:26 pm, CreateThis <CreateT...@yippee.con> wrote:
> > On 21 Apr 2007 14:30:59 -0700, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >http://www.grazian-archive.com/quantavolution/QuantaHTML/vol_15/velik...
> >
> > >Dana will undoubtedly say "what evidence" = inability to refute.
> >
> > >The paper also shows us how Velikovsky's critics misrepresented him,
> > >engaged in brazen unsupported assertions, and how Velikovsky's
> > >evidence was subsequently re-confirmed.
> >
> > >Velikovsky proves that the modern "science" status quo are fucking
> > >liars inside and out. That is, persons who also accept ToE =
> > >Scientism, closed minds to any evidence which proves that the Bible
> > >and the ancients were correct. Could we expect anything else from
> > >atheists?
> >
> > >Ray Martinez, Christian-Creationist
> >
> > You are one weird, pitiful dude. Thankfully, you're no Christian.
> >
> > CT
>
> Since you are an Atheist and you think I am not a Christian, this
> confirms my Christianity since an Atheist would never approve of a
> real Christian.

I'm not an athiest and if you're a real Chistian, I'd rather be a
Satanist.
--
Steve "Chris" Price
Associate Professor of Computational Aesthetics
Amish Chair of Electrical Engineering
University of Ediacara "A fine tradition since 530,000,000 BC"

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Atypical Speculation on Garden of Eden
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/458eef56222c8a8e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 5:28 pm
From: Cemtech

In article <1177197711.049717.90960@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
pchristainsen@yahoo.com says...
> Divine transport
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/4502

/deletia

> I credit Dr. Thiering's speculation.

That might be embarassing.

> I take the Adam and Eve story as historical.

That would make you a Hyper-evolutionist.

> Issues -
>
> When did the story of Adam and Eve take place? Is it around 4000 BC?

If so, you're a Hyper-evolutionist.

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

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 5:43 pm
From: Carl

On Apr 23, 8:28 pm, Cemtech <c...@cox.net> wrote:
> In article <1177197711.049717.90...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> pchristain...@yahoo.com says...
>
> > Divine transport
> >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/4502
>
> /deletia
>
> > I credit Dr. Thiering's speculation.
>
> That might be embarassing.

What's with your fencing with words? "Might"?

Either it is embarassing or not. It has not yet been embarassing.
>
> > I take the Adam and Eve story as historical.
>
> That would make you a Hyper-evolutionist.

There you go with the fancy words.

Why don't you just cut it out?

>...

Be serious.

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 5:26 pm
From: JQ

On Apr 24, 2:21 am, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> There are those here who claim to know and understand the truth. Of
> those I would ask one question, how many of you have truly been born
> again?

Uh, no thank you. Once was enough. And my skull'd be too big now,
anyway.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: God as a Christian appropriation of pagan Sun worship
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/e723cb0d119c1e57?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 5:30 pm
From: Custard Creme

God is a Christian appropriation of the Sun. Christmas is an
appropriation of the Winter Solstice. Both live in the heavens, God
spreads light, looks down on all of us and believers "See the light",
he rises to heaven and comes back down to earth.

Pagan worship of the moon and sun was rewritten by the Christian
victors who replaced pagan stories with Christian ones but kept the
days the pagans worshipped on. Easter, the time when flowers bloom,
leaves reappear on the trees and rabbits have bunnies is the time
Jesus "Came back to life".

The pagans were forced to worship a man rather than natural
phenomenon, no wonder they had to be slaughtered in the process.

Stained glass windows in churches bear images of the various
characters of the bible story through which the sun is supposed to
shine through into the church - between the Sun and the people is the
filter of the ruling elite.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 5:48 pm
From: LloydBrown

Any similarity this topic might have to t.o is purely coincidental.

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 5:30 pm
From: Cemtech

In article <1177197899.873683.233470@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
amal.followme@gmail.com says...
> NEW! - Share Islam .com - NEW
> :)
>
> http://islamtomorrow.com/
> http://www.quranhome.com/

Is this a new P2P Islam network? BitTaliban?
--
Steve "Chris" Price
Associate Professor of Computational Aesthetics
Amish Chair of Electrical Engineering
University of Ediacara "A fine tradition since 530,000,000 BC"

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 8:34 pm
From: "Dana Tweedy"

"Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1177372189.420586.298670@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
snip

>> No, Ray. The one caught red-handed in a lie is Gene Scott. I emailed
>> the Stanford registrar's office and asked for verification of Scott's
>> claim that his degree was "cross-departmental in Philosophy and
>> Religion" and "was granted by the University itself and not by any
>> department" and therefore "the hardest degree to earn and the last
>> one(s) handed-out at graduation." (Note that these words were taken
>> almost verbatim from your own posts, Ray.)
>>
>> Here's what the Stanford Registrar's Office had to say on the matter:
>> "I don't know of any degrees of the sort you've described. We haven't
>> ever 'rated' our degrees, we'd prefer to believe they were all hard-
>> earned! and stanford has never awarded honorary degrees. the claim
>> does smack a bit of gilding the lily, tho', doesn't it?"
>>
>
> First we remind everyone that Clayton is an Athiest-Darwinist and Dr.
> Scott is a Theist-Supernaturalist who has refuted Clayton's theory:

Why would that matter, if what Richard said is correct? Mr. Scott did not
refute any scientific theory, but even if he did, what Richard said is still
correct.

>
> And we remind everyone that Clayton has been identified as an
> unrepentant racist for advocating that it is acceptable to place
> Africans and transitional in the same sentence and context. Clayton is
> furious and out for blood - lashing out.

Ray, you have never demonstrated that it is racist to use the term "African"
and "transitional" in the same sentence (never mind that the original
statement was taken out of context). Before you accuse Richard of "gutter
racism" you need to demonstrate your claim is reasonable, or even sane.

>
> "Stanford University" (according to Richard Clayton) writes:
>
> "I don't know of any degrees of the sort you've described. We haven't
> ever 'rated' our degrees, we'd prefer to believe they were all hard-
> earned! and stanford has never awarded honorary degrees. the claim
> does smack a bit of gilding the lily, tho', doesn't it?"
>
> Why didn't Clayton tell us the persons name who wrote this
> "professional" looking reply?

He said it was the Standford Registrar. Did you check it out for yourself?

> How many errors in grammar and
> punctuation is seen above?

Such as?

>And *this* person speaks for Stanford
> University? Where in the "statement" does it say that Dr. Scott, in
> the 1950s, did not earn the degree in question, that is, cross
> departmental, but from the University itself, handed-out last at
> graduation? What does "honorary degrees" have to do with anything?
>
> Whoever claimed "honorary degree"?

Red herring. The registrar stated that Standford does not rate it's
doctorates, and "I don't know of any degrees of the sort you described".

>
> Dr. Scott's is cross departmental in Philosophy and Religion, and he
> has three Ph.D. minors (45 units each) in Geography, Psychology and
> Comparitive Religion.

So he claimed. But you have never checked on this, to see if it was true.

> Dr. Scott was trained to be a professional
> educator; he spent his life doing just that.

How is a televangelist a professional educator?

> He was honored on the
> Stanford allumni magazine, and his doctoral dissertation (theology of
> Reinhold Niebuhr and its influence on Christian education) is
> available in the Stanford Library.

All doctorial dissertations are available from the library, Ray.

>
> An honorary degree is an insult usually handed-out to celebrities
> (uneducated persons). Someone has made a major blunder. But the
> "reply" said they do not hand out these kinds of degrees.

Irrelevant to the fact that Gene made up his story.

>
> It is obvious that Clayton *may* have contacted Stanford - we don't
> know for sure. And we do not know what Clayton said in his
> correspondence because we have not seen the original email with date
> attached. These observations are obvious since the "reply" above does
> not match the "contested claim" of Dr. Scott.

Why does the reply not match the fact that Mr. Scott tended to fib?

>
> Clayton wants us to believe that some unnamed person at Stanford (who
> cannot even write), claiming to speak for the University, but without
> mentioning Dr. Scott, knows the criteria and facts of Ph.D.
> requirements in the 1950s, and the Ph.D. programs offered, and this
> same hooded individual and their "reply" above contradicts Dr. Scott.
>
> What does all of this mean?

It means that Mr. Scott lied, and you are trying to avoid that fact.

>
> Confirms that Clayton is a racist and is enraged to the point that he
> will offer flimsy "evidence" as seen above to get revenge on his
> worldview enemies.

Like, fer instance, saying someone is racist based on an out of context
remark? Sounds like what you do, Ray.

> Produce a name at Stanford, Richard that will say
> they are talking about Dr. Scott and that in the 1950s the last
> diplomas handed-out at graduation were not from the University itself
> to the Ph.D.s who earned that highest degree and honor. Do it or you
> are caught in a red-faced lie.

Again, Ray, it's your hero who has been caught lying. But you have been
too, so don't feel too bad about it.

DJT

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 5:36 pm
From: "nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com"

Those "cognitive abilities" you are referring to are what's called
"weak anticipation" by Dubois, go look up "strong anticipation" and
what it means.

> No, I do not believe that everything behaves freely.

That's philosphy, not practice.

> > alternatives in the future, getting decided upon, and what does the
> > job of realizing the one alternative in stead of the other is
> > spiritual.
>
> You've said that before, but you have never explained it.

I've explained it lots of times.

> What is the
> spiritual?

For any alternatives you choose to act on, your likes and dislikes are
what does the job of realising the one alternative and discarding the
other. The likes and dislikes are spiritual.

>How does it interface with the physical?

By realising the one alternative, and discarding the other.

> How does one measure
> it?

You can only approach the spiritual by choosing, not measurement.

> Oh, yes, I forgot, there is no spiritometer. One cannot measure
> freedom scientifically.

You can choose, so you can know the spiritual domain.

What else are you going to do with your choosingpower anyway.
Measurement is just for machines really.

> > That is how you practically use knowledge about freedom.
>
> You have no clue about what I know of freedom.

Sure I do know. I can also do the sciencetrick of investigating an
issue, and my investigation says you also use the common logic of
alternatives in the future getting decided spiritually.

regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

==============================================================================
TOPIC: In the News: Class Questioned (Letter to the Editor)
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/f9a5d64b2e6e3e8c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 5:08 pm
From: Cemtech

In article <1177176959.012419.79380@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
MitchAlsup@aol.com says...
> On Apr 21, 10:06 am, "Elf M. Sternberg" <e...@drizzle.com> wrote:
> > From the article:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Friday, April 20, 2007
> >
> > Furthermore, the writer's assertion that Creation Science is not a
> > serious scientific alternative to the theory of evolution is again
> > faulty.
>
> Ok, I'll play along. What is Creation Science?

It's the study of making up things.

> What theories has it posited?

It's posited here and there.

> What eveidence has it supplied?

You have to have a Purchase Order first.
Other than that, it's supplied lots of methane.

> ANd what conclusions has it
> made that stand the test of time?

Oh look at that interesting thing in the sky there.
/em runs away.

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Has a pope ever resigned?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/828f103da74ebe81?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 8:41 pm
From: "Perplexed in Peoria"

"jcon" <cirejcon@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1177373401.552194.297120@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 23, 4:59 pm, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
> > "Steve Marshall" <s...@atmos.plusBlockA.com> wrote in messagenews:462d26e9$0$8716$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
> >
> > > "jcon" <cirej...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >
> > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_IX
> >
> > > > The last Pope to abdicate was Pope Gregory XII,
> > > > in 1409, and I *think* that since then, all have served
> > > > until they died.
> >
> > > Some died in unusual circumstances - for a Catholic!
> >
> > > Pope Leo VII (936-9) died of a heart attack during sex.
> > > Pope John VII(955-64) was beaten to death by the husband of the woman he
> > > was having sex with.
> > > Pope John XIII (965-72) was similarly murdered.
> > > Pope Paul II (1467-71) allegedly died of a heart attack while being
> > > sodomised by a page boy.
> >
> > > And these Bible bashers are always going on about morals and trying to tell
> > > us when and how it's right to have sex !
> >
> > Interesting. However, I cannot find references to this in Wiki or any other source.
> > And some of the dates are very wrong. I am curious as to what happened to
> > John VIII thru XII - five popes who, by your dates, must have somehow fit into
> > the years 964 to 965.
> >
>
> Some of these are listed in Wikipedia under "Myths and Legends
> Surrounding the Papacy" with no details:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myths_and_legends_surrounding_the_Papacy
>
> I think it's safe to say that if a Pope *did* die during sex,
> it's extremely unlikely that fact would ever get out.

So, in other words, you think it extremely unlikely that these stories are
based on actual evidence. ;-)

Ok. So John VII should have been written John XII. That takes care of most
of the discrepancies which led me to think this was purely made up.

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 12:40 am
From: bdbryant@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant)

In article <1177371044.476015.137980@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
"Greg G." <ggwizz@gmail.com> writes:
> 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.

Yeah, but since when have facts, or reality in general, mattered to
Tony?

--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada

Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 5:41 pm
From: Cemtech

In article <1177206942.888997.137750@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
lacksalot@gmail.com says...
> Hi

No I'm not!!

Oh...

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: In the News: Darwin responsible for Blacksburg
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/1518da6c15c3a7cf?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 12:42 am
From: Mark Isaak

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 17:00:25 -0700, Cemtech wrote:

> In article <1177185207.416845.148470@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
> rcoppock@adnc.com says...
>> Everybody has an axe to grind in the recent school shooting.
>> Talk radio last week had a caller who was sure that male
>> circumcision was responsible. Soon, some kook just has
>> to notice Cho's major, and then demand that we ban English
>> departments from our schools.
>
> It was the evils of Shakespearianism that lead him to it!

Obviously. Shakespeare's birthday was coming up (it is today), and he
didn't want people celebrating it.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Search for life
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/ca29e4eb039fda1b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 5:47 pm
From: Glenn

On Apr 23, 3:43 pm, "Von R. Smith" <trakl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 9:45 am, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 6:24 am, "Von R. Smith" <trakl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 23, 6:22 am, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 22, 11:07 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:> On Apr 23, 12:01 am, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > -- [snip]
>
> > > > > > Did it occur to you to actually respond to the OPs question?
>
> > > > > I thought that, by implication and analogy, I was replying to the OP's
> > > > > question. Or, at least (since others had offered more direct answers)
> > > > > attempting to demonstrate why it was implicitly based on an
> > > > > implausible assumption. I fear I had not properly taken into account
> > > > > the danger of my reply being read and construed by obnoxious dullards.
>
> > > > Or written by one who manages to write with flair yet can't read for
> > > > comprehension.
>
> > > What would you know about reading for comprehension, Glenn? I thought
> > > it was a skill you held in contempt.
>
> > I thought you were a floating turd. Prove me wrong.
>
> Juvenile and non-responsive.
>
Just as your little comment was, Von. Do you intend to continue this
little flame war? I thought by implication and analogy that I had
responded in kind to you.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > But you can prove me wrong by explaining in your own words what you
> > > thought Steven's point was, and how it fails to answer the OP's
> > > question.
>
> > So all I have to do is explain what I thought to prove you wrong, eh.
>
> > >Or you can confirm my impression of you by making a non-
> > > responsive smart-ass comment. Up to you.
>
> > I don't give a hoot about what "thoughts" of yours you "confirm",
> > Von.
> > Apparently you liked Steven's comments but not mine, and frankly
> > it doesn't matter to me, but in my book telling someone (by
> > implication) they didn't respond to a question isn't quite as smart-
> > assed a comment as saying "uh-huh" and calling the person a dullard.
>
> Did somebody say "uh-huh" or call you a dullard, Glenn? I didn't.
>
Are you dense or just playing troll?
>
> > Why don't you tell me why explaining in your own words what you
> > thought Steven's point was and how it answered or failed to answer the
> > OP's question,
>
> I asked you first, and moreover I'm not the one suggesting that Steven
> didn't answer the OP's question. So tell me what you thought the OP's
> original question was, and how Steven's response failed to answer it.
>
Actually you made some comment about reading comprehension first, and
that seemed more important to you than to have me tell you my thoughts
so that I could redeem myself in your eyes. This does make about as
much of an interesting exchange as talking about the odds of unknown
life existing elsewhere. If *you* feel you have something to
contribute, by all means be my guest. Or just continue to float.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: how to reply to this fool?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/78a289522f236128?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 5:48 pm
From: bullpup@bellsouth.net

On Apr 23, 5:25 pm, urthogie <urtho...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I don't know enough about evolution to reply to this fool at the
> sparknotes messageboard (http://mb.sparknotes.com/mb.epl?
> b=15&m=1249692&t=352981), he says:
>
> "I would like to ask one, and only one thing from all you
> evolutionists out there. Please consider the background information
> below.
>
> Dogs, wolves, coyotes, panthers, cats, tigers, and humans exist.
> A dog's haploid gamete has 39 chromosomes,
> a wolf's has 39, and
> a coyote's has 39.
> A panther's has 19,
> a cat's has 19, and
> a tiger's has 19.
> Finally, a human being's haploid gamete has 23.
>
> You have diploids with 46 chromosomes, and so do your parents.
> Dogs, wolves, and coyotes could have had a common ancestor that also
> had diploids with 78 chromosomes.
> Panthers, cats, and tigers could have had a common ancestor that also
> had diploids with 38 chromosomes.
>
> My question is: Is there any proof that there is even a possibility
> that all these organisms were slowly evolved from a common,
> unicellular, bacteria-like ancestor 3.5 billion years ago?
>
> If not....

Others addressed the evidence, but let this slip by...

> ....here is some food for thought: Should tax money be invested in
> textbooks that affirm the common ancestry as fact?"

Yes. Unless some other explaination that can withstand scientific
scrutiny can be presented. Nobody's done that yet.

>
> What's the easiest way to prove him wrong?

That's a hard one to answer. With most creationists, you can lead
them to knowledge that demonstrates their claims or supposed
"problems" with evolution (common ancestry, and so on) are wrong, but
you can't make them think. Usually, they dismiss any citations of
evidence for common ancestry (or other facets of biological evolution)
out of hand, and whine, "does not!", and rather than address the
evidence, skip off with another "problem" with the ToE.

Boikat

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 5:54 pm
From: Scooter the Mighty

On Apr 23, 2:55 pm, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On 23 Apr, 21:47, Scooter the Mighty <Greyg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > Here's the part that you don't get- If nodes 1-1,000,000,000 firing in
> > > > any of a number of known and understood ways is what conscious is,
> > > > then if that happened we would know if the robot was or wasn't
> > > > conscious, and consciousness would (or at least could) affect the
> > > > behavior of the robot.
>
> > > > In short, you're assuming your conclusions. If consciousness is just
> > > > node activity, then looking at node activity is looking at
> > > > consciousness, so if you knew what the node activity was then you'd
> > > > know if the robot were conscious. What you're saying is equivelent to
> > > > saying that if you knew what all the parts of a CD player were doing
> > > > you wouldn't have to know whether or not it was playing Beethoven's
> > > > 5th symphony to explain it's behavior. Except that what the parts of
> > > > the CD player are doing is playing Beethoven's 5th symphony, so if you
> > > > know exactly what it's parts are doing you know that it IS playing
> > > > that particular piece of music.
>
> > > You know what conscious experiences are so you know what it means
> > > whether they are exist or not. The point is about whether the
> > > existance of conscious experiences affects behaviour.
>
> > > Your example is just one of a behaviour. What I am saying is that as
> > > long as the CD player followed the known laws of physics, whether the
> > > CD player experienced playing Beethoven's 5th symphony would not
>
> > I gave a bad analogy. Here is a better one: What you are saying is
> > equivelent to saying that if you know what all the parts of a device
> > are doing, you don't need to know if it's a CD player or a microwave
> > oven to explain it's behavior. If you know what the parts are doing,
> > you know if they're generating music or microwaves. They are both
> > physical systems (like conscious and unconscious systems) but they do
> > different things.
>
> Are you Richard Harter?
>

No.

> If you are then it is not about the behaviour which determines whether
> you call it a CD player or a microwave oven.

What does that have to do with what I said? Different mechanical
devices output different behavior, even though they all out put the
sort of behavior you'd expect given their input. Consciousness is a
different process than non-conscious processes, and leads to different
behavior.

> It is whether it
> experienced being a CD player or a microwave oven would affect its
> behaviour.

You need to stop conflating the terms "consciousness" and
"experience." You can only have an experience if you are conscious,
unless you're going to claim that, say, a digital camera has the same
experience of "red" as a human when you take a picture of a red wall.
An experience is just part of consciousness, so trying to seperate
them out is a pointless exercise.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who dares sent me SPAM?

Monday, April 23, 2007

25 new messages in 20 topics - digest

No comments:

Links

About Me

Blog Archive