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: 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 10:31 pm
From: Walter Bushell

In article <f0jdrq$24p$1@reader2.panix.com>,
nospam@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:

> And has the constitutionality of this law ever been challanged?
>
> As I recall, a city in Florida tried to outlaw the killing of animals
> for religious purposes, but found that they could not ban the sort of
> practices they wanted to ban without also shutting down kosher meat
> suppliers, since the law could not specify or exempt a particular
> religion without violating the first amendment.

And it raises thorny problems, for example, according to Scripture
Jesus's parents sacrificed two birds.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 8:17 pm
From: Chris Thompson

Sammy <sams@home.com> wrote in news:mi8m23dbdg2psk2b9g7gklods5d7qh74tc@
4ax.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 )
>

snip

You're just jealous because no Wedgwood would cross the street to piss on
you if you were on fire, let alone allow you to marry into the family.

Chris

==============================================================================
TOPIC: In the News: Tenn. AG: No constitutional concerns with
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/22627a85d41a8e14?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 25 2007 2:40 am
From: George Evans

in article 1177386437.346365.223860@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com, snex at
xens@comcast.net wrote on 4/23/07 8:47 PM:

> On Apr 23, 10:30 pm, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> in article 1177263941.259373.211...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com, snex at
>> x...@comcast.net wrote on 4/22/07 10:45 AM:
>>
>>> On Apr 22, 11:34 am, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> in article 1177140958.178360.128...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com, snex at
>>>> s...@comcast.net wrote on 4/21/07 12:35 AM:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> i wouldnt believe your examples because it is more likely that the people
>>>>> in
>>>>> them are lying. how about we do something that cant be faked? everybody
>>>>> knows that ron santo (former baseball player) lost his legs to diabetes.
>>>>> it
>>>>> cannot be questioned that he has no legs. why doesnt god give them back?
>>>>> why
>>>>> isnt there a single documented case of this miracle *ever* happening?
>>>>> wouldnt you expect them to happen just as often as cancer cures, or
>>>>> whatever
>>>>> you claim happened to you to make you check your oil? or does god just
>>>>> hate
>>>>> amputees?
>>
>>>> There is a saying about human beings. A man convinced against his will, Is
>>>> of
>>>> the same opinion still. I would guess the answer to your burning question,
>>>> Why doesn't God do something convincing for me? is that he loves you too
>>>> force you.
>>
>>> so why did he force you then, by answering your prayers? i guess he doesnt
>>> love you as much as he loves me. and that means that i will go to heaven and
>>> you wont!
>>
>> I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that He loves you more, that's OK,
>> but He wants us both with Him in heaven.
>
> if thats what he wants, then nothing we can do will prevent him. i
> mean, hes omnipotent, right?

The only thing that can stop it is our choice.

George Evans

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 9:41 pm
From: George Evans

in article 1177308243.058421.120300@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com, snex at
snex@comcast.net wrote on 4/22/07 11:04 PM:

> On Apr 23, 12:59 am, George Evans <georg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> in article q48k231rrolp77qetv0osqqdpcvvr8d...@4ax.com, Free Lunch at
>> l...@nofreelunch.us wrote on 4/21/07 7:34 AM:

<snip>

>>> That doesn't make it evidence in science. It doesn't even make it evidence
>>> that would necessarily be accepted in court. You've made your claims, but
>>> you cannot back them up. There is no reason for anyone to accept them.
>>>
>> Of course it would be accepted in court. It is eyewitness testimony. If a
>> witness says, "I saw that person run out of the shop," the defense can't
>> object on the grounds that it isn't evidence. It doesn't even have to be
>> corroborated before it is entered into evidence.
>>
> a witness claiming to see supernatural things will be completely trashed by
> opposing council, and whoever called that witness will have a damaged case.

In other word, you agree it is evidence, thank you.

George Evans

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 9:41 pm
From: George Evans

in article qeop23heu7ii6bb1hc8pbnkh82sujlt42d@4ax.com, Ye Old One at
usenet@mcsuk.net wrote on 4/23/07 9:43 AM:

> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 05:59:13 GMT, George Evans
> <georgee3@earthlink.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>> in article s2ok231qil5n9mj0o0glh5mkms37u1erti@4ax.com, Ye Old One at
>> usenet@mcsuk.net wrote on 4/21/07 12:09 PM:

<snip>

>>> Was it god? Of course not - there is no god. You just remembered to check
>>> you oil once, then repeated it. That is just what a child does when it
>>> learns from a mistake. Do you claim that every time a child learns a new
>>> habit is must be god doing it?
>>>
>> No, on the children. They haven't developed strong habits. This happened when
>> I was 35.
>>
> What part of "that is just what a child does when it learns from a mistake"
> went over your head?

The "that is just what" part.

George Evans

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 9:41 pm
From: George Evans

in article dhop239q1rre6b47llh4p6srfr8eeig9cq@4ax.com, Ye Old One at
usenet@mcsuk.net wrote on 4/23/07 9:48 AM:

> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 05:59:15 GMT, George Evans
> <georgee3@earthlink.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>> in article 8cok239knefsru11k5er24oj63810e65ep@4ax.com, Ye Old One at
>> usenet@mcsuk.net wrote on 4/21/07 12:37 PM:
>>
>>> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 06:47:51 GMT, George Evans
>>> <georgee3@earthlink.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, I'm not surprised that you don't see it. But what I want to know is
>>>> why you didn't correct your mistake about Akhenaten's missing remains?
>>>
>>> What mistake? I didn't make one.
>>
>> I said Akhenaten is missing.
>
> You said he "ended up at the bottom of the sea?"

That symbol at the end of my phrase is a question mark. He is definitely
missing though.

>> You said I was wrong.
>
> Correct. He was buried in 1336 B.C., in a pink granite sarcophagus - on dry
> land.

You apparently don't realize that Egyptologist are in disagreement about
whether he was buried in 1336 BC, at all. To some the tomb doesn't look
used.

>> I quoted the whole passage showing that he was missing. Your mistake.
>>
> I haven't made a mistake - I corrected yours. Do try to learn from it because
> if you repeat you claim now it will be classed as a lie.

You need to take your own advice.

<snip>

>> Well, what are you going to do?
>
> What I always do - correct the lies that people like you keep telling.

Try again, and this is your last chance.

George Evans

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 7:47 pm
From: wf3h

On Apr 24, 7:25 am, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> According to Scott, her science is methodological naturalism, and she
> calls herself a philosophical naturalist. The difference between the
> two is that the methododology doesn't presume that nature is all there
> is, but the philosphy does presume it. So you see she just changed one
> word, and her religion=science.
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu

who cares what she believes (if what you say is true)?

cargo cultists have made a religion out of the US airforce.

gods have no effect on science. they are completely irrelevant. nature
is nature and works by rules, not by gods.

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 8:02 pm
From: Harry K

On Apr 24, 5:40 am, CreateThis <CreateT...@yippee.con> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 05:04:41 -0400, Jason Spaceman
>
> <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
> >after becoming a Christian, Marshall found it hard to reconcile
> >evolutionary theory with Genesis
>
> I recommend suicide.
>
> CT

But not by shooting in the head. Only empty space there.

I find it extemely hard to believe that an adult with a college degree
could possibly buy into creationism. Get religion - yes. Get
Creationism - no.

Harry K

==============================================================================
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 8:35 pm
From: JQ

On Apr 24, 1:01 pm, Christian Pecaut <workoutwellfor...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> http://www.imaginenine.com/pdmnm565.htm
>
> Richard Dawkins
> The Selfish Gene (2nd Edition)
> Oxford, England, 1989
> 266 pages plus notes, bibliography, and index
>
> Annotation in process - 2-12-98 - nm
>
> Annotation still in process - 3-7-98 - note: at 7,000 words
> and half done, this annotation is completely out of hand;
> more like a critique of the "anti-paradigm"
> (sort of like critiqueing the "anti-christ" - ha ha . . . just
> kidding . . . sort of)
> than a review. Anyway, in its current form,
> I don't know what I'm going to do with it exactly.
>
> I wrote about twelve thousand words of answer to eighteen of the
> following twenty-six points, back in Febuary, March, and April, but
> I've been having enormous difficulties pulling all these papers
> together. So, for the moment, I'm just going to post the points
> themselves. Hopefully, that will serve some sort of expository
> purpose. September 16, 1998
>
> Note: I've left in the link marks for the full paper, but, until and
> unless I post it, they won't do much.
>
> Outline for Annotation Regarding Dawkins' "Selfish Gene" and
> Sociobiology in General
> I.Introduction.
>
> A. USES A FAULTY AND DISPROVEN STRUCTURAL SYSTEM.
>
> 1. This Book Presumes That The Mathematical Discoveries Of
> Bertrand Russell And Alfred North Whitehead Were Never Made.
>
> 2. This "Selfish Gene" Idea Does Not Include The Gene's Effect
> On The Surrounding BioEcoSystem, Which Is Absolutely Decisive Factor
> In Nature's Natural Selection Process.

Actually it does, albiet quite briefly. He then wrote The Extended
Phenotype, which I strongly suggest you read.

>
> 3. Dawkins Posits A "Selfish-Or-Altruism" "Framework" For Human
> And Biological Operations, Which I Understand Be An Absolute Fraud.

Could you explain what you mean and what is wrong with it?

>
> B. ENGAGES IN A FAULTY AND INACCURATE OVERLAY BETWEEN SPECIES.
>
> 4. The Author Engages In A Grossly Excessive Mixing Of Metaphor
> With Literal Reality.

He does love metaphor a bit too much, doesn't he?

>
> 5. Humans as machines - no logical level stuff.

I saw nothing wrong with his description of humans as machines. Could
you explain why you found a problem with this?

>
> 6. Claims that harm to, or killing of, or pain in animals is the
> same dynamic as harm to, killing of, or pain in humans.

What's wrong with this?

>
> 7. Uses The Terms Sister Brother Son Daughter Mother Father In
> Such A Way As To Produce An Exact Overlay In The Reader's Mind Between
> An Insect's Operations and A Human's Operations, Hitchcock Style.

He speaks in terms of genes. Genetically, the offspring of your
parents are your siblings. Where's the problem? His terminology is
accurate.

>
> 8. The "Thin-Stream" Absurdity - Claiming That A One-Generation
> Progression Is The Same As A Ten-Thousand Generation Progression.
>
> C. USES A SCIENTIFICALLY INACCURATE IDEOLOGICAL BASIS FOR THE
> BIOECOSYSTEM.
>
> 9. Claims that Darwinism is not cooperation.

This is an outright lie.

>
> 10. Claims that nature is essentially hostile.

He most definitely does not.

>
> 11. Most (99%) of nature is cooperative, but he takes .01% of
> the low level operations and calls it the high level system.

Did you even read the book or just the title?

>
> 12. He Insists That Even When Two Organisms Cooperate, It's In
> Order To Make Some Other Entity Lose - Everything, According To This
> Dawkins Book, Is "Winner/Loser" - No Understanding Of New
> Configurations Simply Increasing The Value Of What Came Before.

He devotes about half a chapter to explaining why this view is WRONG.
He is very insistent about the existence of win-win scenarios.

>
> 13. Presumes that the argument is "Hostile Nature Should Be
> 'Accepted' vs. Hostile Nature Should Be Thwarted" Rather Than "Nature
> Is Cooperative vs. Nature Is Hostile".

THERE IS NO ARGUMENT. Get a modern version of the book; he's answered
all these misconceptions.

>
> D. THE OLD "BIGGER IS BETTER" NONESENSE.
>
> 14. Claims that bigger, stronger is better.

No he doesn't. Where does he say this? He says, continually, that in
evolutionary terms 'fitter' means MORE SUITED TO SURVIVE IN ITS
ENVIRONMENT. He says this in all of his biology books.

>
> 15. Uses The Explicitly Derogatory Term "Runt" To Describe A
> Smaller-Than-Average Offspring, Explicitly Stating That Said "Runt" Is
> Less Worthy Of Survival.

In particular examples where smaller size is indeed less suited to
survival.

>
> 16. Claiming That Larger Organisms Are Better Able To Eat
> Smaller Organisms.
>
> E. INNACCURATELY PRESUMES THAT GENES ARE HELPFUL/HARMFUL BEHAVIORAL
> DETERMINANT.

How is this inaccurate?

>
> 17. He Presumes That Helpful-Or-Harmful ("Selfish-Or-Altruistic"
> In His Frame Of Thinking) Is Rooted In The Genes.

Well, it's heritable, so it probably is literally in the genes. Even
if it isn't, refer to his defenition of gene for the purposes of his
work.

>
> 18. Tit for Tat game tactic is cooperative over many rounds but
> human operations are in first round.

Tit for tat was pitted against other automated systems. Not knowing
what system you're pitting it against, the first round is essentially
random. Dawkins explains how the imbalance between 'cooperative' and
'uncooperative' automated systems affected tit for tat's success. At
length.

>
> F. FAULTY METHODOLOGICAL REASONING.
>
> 19. The Author Engages In A Gross Overmixing Of Studies And
> Guesses.

I agree that it may appear so given that he often slips into
speculation and metaphor without warning.

>
> 20. Glossing over the fact that we share 99% of our genes in
> common.

This is irrelevant to every single argument he makes.

>
> G. PRESUMES THAT CARETAKING IS JUST A DECEPTIVE RIP-OFF.
>
> 21. Presumes that deception is just another behavioral trait
> rather than that deception in humans is extremely destructive.=

How is this innacurate?

>
> 22. Presumes The Cuckoo's Operations Involve Deception.

I thought that that was just obvious.

>
> H. PRESUMES THAT CARETAKING CANNOT EXIST.
>
> 23. He Expresses Rage, I mean RAGE, that a bird of another
> species will adopt and care for a Cuckoo Bird.

He discusses the 'enslavement' of other birds for the cuckoo's
benefit. I didn't detect any rage in his tone, but I don't find cuckoo
behaviour all that attractive either.

>
> 24. Claims that population explosion of humans is ordinarily
> stopped in nature by famine, war plague rather than population
> explosion of humans is ordinarily stopped in nature by other
> caretaking.

Could you explain this please?

>
> 25. Claims that the central, naturally evolved mechanism for
> purpose of arresting and solving damage, namely good memory equals
> carrying a grudge a deliberately derogatory reference.

Um... I think that you may have some trouble following Dawkins'
methods of discussion. You seem to have misunderstood several points.

>
> I. NO HIGH LEVEL UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT SCIENCE IS.
>
> 26. He Presumes That All Ideas Of God Or Religion Are Anti-
> Science And Fraudulent.

No he doesn't (although he certainly doesn't like religion, does he?)
Whenever he refers to specific religious claims as unscientific it is
bacause they are unscientific. He does not suggest that all religious
people are anti-scientific. I find no errors on this point. Could you
explain where you got this impression?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The real cause of global warming is revealed
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/51b7352189b87c5e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 8:46 pm
From: JQ

On Apr 24, 11:17 am, Mike Ruskai
<BUTthann...@DONTearthlinkLIKE.netSPAM> wrote:
> On or about Mon, 23 Apr 2007 20:40:35 -0500 did Dick C
> <foo.dic...@comcast.net> dribble thusly:
>
> >http://www.nctexasbirds.com/images/hot_news.jpg
>
> I can't quite figure out if that's satire, or the real thing.
>
> If real, I find it genuinely puzzling that such a badly broken brain
> can still construct full and intelligible sentences.

You found that intelligible? Then you're cleverer than me.

We all know it's all about lack of pirates. Ramen!

> --
> - Mike
>
> Ignore the Python in me to send e-mail.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Future Evolution Of the Human Race
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/49ac1aeadb402723?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 25 2007 1:46 pm
From: j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins)

Desertphile <desertphile@nospam.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 08:50:10 +1000, j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au (John
> Wilkins) wrote:
>
> > Desertphile <desertphile@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Apr 21, 12:05 pm, Martin Andersen <d...@ikke.nu> wrote:
> > > > Desertphilewrote:
> > > > > On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 22:11:44 GMT, Richard Clayton
> > > > > <pockZIGetnZIG...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >> Therion Ware wrote:
> > > > >>> On 19 Apr 2007 16:04:14 -0700, Ian Chua wrote in message
> > > > >>> <1177023854.902677.291...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>:
> > > >
> > > > >>>> If you think thehumanrace have evolved to the extent that it
> > > > >>>> can engineer its future, what aspects of improvement would be
> > > > >>>> desirable?
> > > > >>> The capacity for vitamin production would be nice, along with
> > > > >>> some form of photosynthetic effect, so that people could live on
> > > > >>> sunlight!
> > > >
> > > > >> I read a science fiction book series with a similar
> > > > >> premise. Unfortunately it more or less caused the collapse
> > > > >> ofhumancivilization, since autotrophs don't really *need* each
> > > > >> other.
> > > >
> > > > > "Unfortunately?" The collapse ofhumancivilizaion would be a GOOD
> > > > > thing.
> > >
> > > > By what metric?
> > >
> > > The number of species that have gone extinct and will go extinct
> > > because of Humanity.
>
> > So, species have a moral value intrinsically? All of them, or just the
> > cute and cuddly ones?
>
> Mostly the cute and cuddly ones: I don't like the parasites.
> However, most species deserve to exist, and humans have a moral
> and ethical responsibility to let them exist: which, out of
> ignorance and greed we have failed to do. Best that humanity got
> out of the way and let everyone else exist.

So evolution is basically an immoral process, for it clearly doesn't
respect the rights of species to exist, given that 99% or so of them are
extinct.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."

==============================================================================
TOPIC: 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: Wed, Apr 25 2007 1:46 pm
From: j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins)

Mark Isaak <eciton@earthlink.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 01:29:00 +0000, Bill Morse wrote:
>
> > Josh Hayes wrote:
> >
> >> Walter Bushell <proto@oanix.com> wrote in
> >> news:proto-63F9CC.02245622042007@ 032-325-625.area1.spcsdns.net:
> >>
> >>> In article <1hwxko1.1otrr8z1t3nn4pN%j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au>,
> >>> j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> In *my* day, it was "dots! dashes!"
> >>>
> >>> That could make a fellow morose.
> >>
> >> Boy, Walter, you sure telegraphed that one. You been hitting the SOS?
> >>
> > I don't understand. You guys must be talking in code.
>
> To appreciate it, you need some of whatever Ed is on.

Well there's no need to become over wrought.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Layman question
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/bb4cf2f61e888a0f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 8:52 pm
From: JQ

I have a question.

I know that in mammals, the sex-determinate chromosome is in the
sperm, and in birds (for example) it's in the ova. Since sex
presumably evolved long before bird-mammal speciation (at least I hope
it did! And don't bug me about the shaky terminology, I don't know
much about this), either the bird line or the mammal line went through
some serious changes. How is it possible for the sex-determining
chromosomes to turn up in the opposite gender like that? I can't see
any way in which the species could survive something like that (eg, I
can't see how reproduction in any intermediate stage could result in
anything except total mess).

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 9:25 pm
From: "Big K"

I am just a layman also, but why don't you go back a step. Check and see how
sex is determined in reptiles and fishes You might figure out an answer.
Just a thought.
Big K

"JQ" <jacqui@writeme.com> wrote in message
news:1177473164.910908.228320@r30g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>I have a question.
>
> I know that in mammals, the sex-determinate chromosome is in the
> sperm, and in birds (for example) it's in the ova. Since sex
> presumably evolved long before bird-mammal speciation (at least I hope
> it did! And don't bug me about the shaky terminology, I don't know
> much about this), either the bird line or the mammal line went through
> some serious changes. How is it possible for the sex-determining
> chromosomes to turn up in the opposite gender like that? I can't see
> any way in which the species could survive something like that (eg, I
> can't see how reproduction in any intermediate stage could result in
> anything except total mess).
>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Human genes vs meat, cereal food.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/cbf34822f0b9739a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 25 2007 3:54 am
From: "Martin Hutton"

On 24-Apr-2007, skyeyes <skyeyes@dakotacom.net> wrote:

> On Apr 23, 5:07 pm, "Martin Hutton"
> <mdhutton1949REM...@hotmailREMOVE.com> wrote:
> > On 23-Apr-2007, skyeyes <skye...@dakotacom.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Apr 20, 6:43 am, Desertphile <desertph...@nospam.org> wrote:
> > > > On 18 Apr 2007 16:57:55 -0700, skyeyes <skye...@dakotacom.net>
> > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Apr 17, 11:30 am,Desertphile<desertph...@nospam.org> wrote:
> > > > > > On 17 Apr 2007 10:47:14 -0700, WuzYoungOnceToo
> >
> > > > > > <wuzyoungonce...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Apr 17, 12:00 pm,Desertphile<desertph...@nospam.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 17 Apr 2007 09:04:58 -0700, WuzYoungOnceToo
> >
> > > > > > > > > Oh, man. There's nothing like a big bowl of buffalo (N.A.
> > > > > > >bison,
> > > > > > > > > actually) stew. Delicious.
> >
> > > > > > > > I will just have to take your word for it. :-)
> > > > > > > You might choose to do so, but there's no reason you "have"
> > > > >to.
> > > > > > >Bison
> > > > > > > meat isn't that difficult to come by if you live in any sort
> > > > >of
> > > > > > > metropolitan area. And of course, there's always the
> > > > >internet.
> >
> > > > > > For the past 30 years I have been vegetarian (which may be why
> > > > >I'm
> > > > > > fat and very ugly. Hummm.... gotta think about that some day).
> >
> > > > > > Here on the Rez one may buy sheepburgers and goatburgers. Fuzzy
> > > > > > adorable sheep and goats, I bet.
> > > > > <Perks hopefully> Anymutton stew??? Barbequed baby goat??? With
> > > > > fry bread???
> >
> > > > > What time's dinner?
> >
> > > > Dinner is at 6:00 PM; heart bypass surgery will be prompylt at
> > > > 8:00 PM. :-) Nothing is better than piping hot fry bread with some
> > > > spicy guacamole, though the Navajos around here eat it with honey.
> >
> > > > Gods.... I'm actually drooling. Disgusting.
> >
> > > My Fella over in NM is a Navajo. When we're together, we eat mutton
> > > stew with fry bread - or Navajo tacos made out of fry bread - for
> > > dinner, and then fry bread with honey for dessert. Yummmmmmmy!
> >
> > > Fortunately for my waistline/unfortunately for my love life, we don't
> > > get to eat dinner together *that* often. (Long distance
> > > relationships, no matter how passionate and authentic, are difficult._
> >
> > > Fry bread, on the other hand, is easy and delicious. :) :) :)
> >
> > What's the bread fried in? Mutton fat?
> >
> > When I was a lad my mum would make us breakfast with bread fried
> > in bacon fat. Hmm Hmm Hmmmmmm (And it was real smoke cured bacon
> > ...not this chemical cured crap).
>
> Well, nowadays they tend to fry it in Crisco or vegetable oil.

Yuch! Fried stuff should be cooked in animal fats - butter, pork
rind drippings, beef suet &c.

Might as well bake it as cook in "partially hydrogenated" or
regular veggie oil.

> Originally, it was fried in lard that the Native Americans got from
> the U.S. Army or from the Res supply depot. Lard is really the way to
> go with fry bread, if you don't mind dying young. (It's worth it,
> trust me.)

Ah...lard. The all purpose artery hardener! And there's nought
wrong with dying young...I hear only the good do that, so I'm
good for a couple more decades.

Here's a recipe to stall the heart:
285g Self-Raising Flour
150g Shredded Suet
150ml Milk
110-160g Currants or Raisins
85g Castor Sugar
1 Lemon, zest only, finely grated
Pinch Salt
Mix all of the dry ingredients, including the grated lemon zest, together
thoroughly
Add enough milk to produce a soft dough.
Turn out onto a floured surface.
Roll out the mixture to produce a roll approximately 15cm (6 in) long and
5cm (2 in) in diameter.
Prepare either a tea towel lightly dusted with flour, or sheet of kitchen
foil or a double thickness of greaseproof paper, brushed with melted butter.

Wrap loosely but securely, leaving enough space for it to rise.
Tie or seal the ends.
Place in the steamer and cover tightly.
Steam for 1½ to 2 hours.
Serve cut into thck slices with hot custard. (made with heavy cream, of
course)

And there you have Spotted Dick (I kid you not!)...don't go
swimming after you eat it otherwise you'll sink like a stone!

--
Martin Hutton

==============================================================================
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 9:13 pm
From: ayers_39@hotmail.com

On Apr 24, 8:54 am, e...@swva.net wrote:
> On Apr 23, 10:57 pm, ayers...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>
>
> > "JESUS CHRIST" was
>
> > > crucified and 3 days later rose from the dead." FACT 500 PEOPLE SEEN HIM ALIVE, BELIEVERS AND NON BELIEVERS.
>
> Not a fact. The earliest any book was written was 30 years after
> Christ's death. Even if it just happened 30 years ago today, any
> court would consider such second-hand info to be mere hearsay. You
> have to just depend on faith, because that is all there actually is.
>
> THE SHEET HE WAS BARYED
>
> For Pete's sake learn to spell. And it is very rude to type in all
> capital letters.
>
> IN HAS HIS IMAGE ON IT IN WHICH WE DO NOT HAVE TECHNOLGY TO REPRODUCE.
> HUH.REPENT BEFORE IT'S TO LATE. JESUS WILL JUDGE YOU FOR EVERY WORD
> THATS COMING OUT OF YOUR MOUTH RATHER YOU BELIEVE OR NOT. EVERY
> CHRISTAIN I KNOW IS A CHRISTAIN BECAUSE OF EVIDENCE.
>
> Bull. There is no evidence. Everyone who is Christian is one
> because it feels good.
>
> HUH, TAKE ALOT OF FAITH TO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION,
>
> Not any more than any other scientific theory. Now that you know,
> don't say it anymore or you are a liar. And you will have to answer
> to Jesus for lying.
>
> IN WHICH HAS NO PROOF EXCEPT IN YOUR HEAD.
>
> Baloney. Is it any wonder normal people consider creationists to be
> distasteful weirdos?
>
> GROW UP, AND STOP BE WEAK AND EASLY MISLEAD RESEARCH FOR YOUR SELF
> FACTS ARE THERE, AND THEY ALL POINT TO GOD.
>
> That isn't even English. Get the forest out of your eye before you
> whine and cry about scientists.
>
> Eric Root

HAHAYOUR FUNNY MONKEY MAN,I'LL PRAY FOR YOU. AND YES I DID MAKE SOME
TYPOS, AND MISS SPELLINGS. YOU WILL BELIEVE WHEN RAPTURE HAPPENS, AND
YOU WILL STILL HAVE TIME TO REPENT. GOD (JESUS CHRIST) BLESS YOU ANTI
CHRIST WITH LOVE.

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 9:17 pm
From: j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins)

Jeffrey Turner <jturner@localnet.com> wrote:

> Gerry Murphy wrote:
>
> > "Von R. Smith" <traklman@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>On Apr 22, 11:12 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Apr 22, 11:27 pm, Josh Hayes <jos...@spamblarg.net> wrote:
>
>
> >>>> I was
> >>>> just skimming down the threads, and saw the one titled "Re: the pope
> >>>>should resign", and had decided to just skip it, when I wondered --
> >>>> has a
> >>>>pope ever resigned before? Or have they all served until they died?
> >>>
> >>>>I suppose it's the sort of thing I could find out with ten minutes of
> >>>> web
> >>>>searching, but I don't want to waste that ten minutes: I want YOU guys
> >>>> to
> >>>>do that.
> >>>
> >>>>So. Has it ever happened? And if so, what were the details?
> >>>
> >>>Several popes have abdicated, either in response to a scandal
> >>>(usually, the alleged sale of church offices)
> >>
> >>I thought the sale of church offices was par for the course. They
> >>called it the Rule of Par Simony. :p
> >
> > Groan!! 8-}
>
> You've got to be more indulgent.
>
Well that's the guiding rule of the priest that administers the sales:
The Principle of Pére Simony
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 25 2007 2:17 pm
From: j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins)

CreateThis <CreateThis@yippee.con> wrote:

> On 23 Apr 2007 18:12:53 -0700, bullpup@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> >On Apr 23, 9:00 pm, Malrassic Park <Malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 23 Apr 2007 17:48:36 -0700, LloydBrown <l...@lloydwrites.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Any similarity this topic might have to t.o is purely coincidental.
> >>
> >> But you can at least memorize his spiel and rattle it all back to the
> >> proselytizers who come knocking at your door.
> >
> >I'd rather give them printed copies of "Kissing Hank's Ass".
> >
> >Boikat
>
> I like boiling oil through the transom.
>
Meet them at the door in your boxer shorts and ask if they can come back
in 20 minutes, after you've finished having sex on the couch...

--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."

==============================================================================
TOPIC: 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: Tues, Apr 24 2007 9:17 pm
From: j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins)

Ye Old One <usenet@mcsuk.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 00:38:33 -0400, "Dana Tweedy"
> <reddfrogg@comcast.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >
> ><ayers_39@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:1177387563.563778.162660@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> >snip ignored posting
> >
> >>
> >> BET is racism
> >
> >Who is "BET"?
>
> I'll wager he doesn't know.

Pascal agrees...
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 25 2007 2:17 pm
From: j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins)

SJAB1958 <balfres@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?

The answer is: four. This is the number of the ABBA tribute band called
Bjorn Again. Truly.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Apr 25 2007 4:20 am
From: "Tachyglossus"

"urthogie" <urthogie@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1177456647.706194.79690@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> I've been thinking lately a lot about what it will take for the
> majority of America to accept evolution.
>
> 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.
>
> A deeper question is this, though:
>
> Do human societies have an inclination towards valid hypotheses (e.g.
> eventual acceptance of heliocentric theory) or towards delusion? I
> don't know.
>
> 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?
>

I can't answer the specific questions you raise; but I can say that when
I've tried to explain evolution to people who've somehow managed not to hear
much about it, I've often been stunned to find how bad they are at keeping
in mind all the separate concepts that have to be thought of simultaneously
in order for the whole idea to make sense. It's almost as if the idea of
'random genetic variation allied to fundamentally non-random cumulative
selection' is somehow beyond the reach of millions of people because they've
always forgotten the beginning of the explanation by the time you've got to
the end....

I suppose it's a bit like that study from a few years back which discovered
that if someone can't handle ambiguity; isn't able to tolerate lack of
closure; and gets distressed when they can't indulge in moralistic blame,
then *they'll vote Republican*. If you can't hold six concepts in your mind
simultaneously *you'll be a creationist*...

==============================================================================
TOPIC: How to meet people that are really interested in you?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/ac59c9844d36be47?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 9:22 pm
From: Lexington Victoria-Rice

jacksp012@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi group!
>
> I have just come across a new dating website - www.livedatesearch.com.
> What is different from others is that here you can meet people who
> like you for sure!
>
> How it works: you sign up and upload a picture and then you see who
> clicks on "I LIKE" link on your profile.
> Then you can contact those people or enter live chat.
>
> The idea is really new since I have not seen any profile-based dating
> sites where I could get to know that the person I'm talking to is
> definately interested in.
>
> Website is http://livedatesearch.com/
>
> What do you think about it?
>
> Jack Spence.
>

Jack, if you were just a spammer I would be upset; but since you are a
regular who really did just happen across a website that has a new take
on dating and decided to share it with your pals I will be sure to look
into it.

--
"Fundamentalists can kiss my left behind."

Some bumper sticker or t-shirt.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Commentary: No faith in ID
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/a575ce10dc9bbe18?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 10:31 pm
From: "Denis Loubet"

"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:f0ki8e$v1u$1@news.datemas.de...
> From the article:
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Daniel Palos, Contributing Writer
> Issue date: 4/24/07 Section: Opinion
>
(snip)
> Stating facts is not science; it is merely stating facts. Using the
> scientific method to verify a hypothesis that can be tested in the
> material
> sense is science-this has been said many times in the past weeks. You
> cannot test for supernatural things in the material sense.

There I have to argue. If the supernatural thing one is proposing to test
for is defined as interacting with the material world, then you should
certainly be able to test for it by detecting its effects on the material
world.

Granted, the falsification rate appears to be 100%, but the principle is
sound.

--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Earth-like planet found
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/72ede77532fe8aab?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 9:33 pm
From: Joshua Zelinsky

Somewhat OT but still really cool. See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18293978/

Regards,

Josh Zelinsky

==============================================================================
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 9:32 pm
From: "Tachyglossus"

"Scooter the Mighty" <Greyguy3@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1177424096.886283.152080@b40g2000prd.
>
> The thing is though is Duesburg is just plain wrong about HIV-AIDS.
> His claims have been taken seriously, studied and debunked. He blames
> AIDS on AZT, Amyl Nitrates, and homosexuality,

Ummm... Am I the only person hereabouts who reads the above and begins to
wonder if ... by any chance ... Duesburg ... might just ... possibly ... be
pusuing ... an *anti-gay agenda* ...?!? At the very least, it's a
*weird-looking* collection of 'causes'...!

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

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 20 topics - digest

No comments:

Links

About Me

Blog Archive