Who dares sent me SPAM?: 25 new messages in 21 topics

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

talk.origins@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
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: Tues, Apr 24 2007 8:03 am
From: eroot@swva.net

On Apr 23, 10:56 am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On 23 Apr, 02:27, "louan...@yahoo.com" <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 22, 1:06 pm, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > > You say:
> > > ---
> > > "doesn't not show" is meaningless. The fact that I can't see an
> > > invisible pink unicorn in my garage doesn't show that there's not one
> > > -- it is after all _invisible._
> > > ---
>
> > > I didn't use the double negative, and even if I had of, it while it
> > > would be an obvious mistake, I'm not sure it would render it
> > > meaningless.
>
> > Read your own sentence more carefully. "Doesn't show that there is
> > not" contains two negatives. What's worse, it makes no testable claim
> > that could be discussed using evidence. ("Had of" had better pass
> > unmourned.)
>
> > > So what evidence have you for your scenario that we are biological
> > > mechanisms as opposed to spiritual beings experiencing being a
> > > human in the physical world, and that afterwards we wouldn't
> > > experience Heaven or Hell?
>
> > I've made claims only about biological mechanisms (i.e. "life is what
> > dies if you squish it.") YOU'RE the one claiming the further existence
> > of Heaven, Hell, and an afterlife. YOU present evidence in favor of
> > them. I believe this is the third consecutive "debate" post where I've
> > asked you to do so.
>
> > > If you can't produce any evidence for your perspective, then perhaps
> > > you could take a look at the response I just gave to Richard Harter,
> > > where I outline my explanation of the evidence.
>
> > I did read it. The other four replies to it are quite correct; all
> > assertions, no data. And even if your assertions were right, how do
> > you go from "neural loops" to Heaven, Hell, and an afterlife? That
> > post doesn't connect to what's supposed to be your chosen debating
> > side even in its own terms.
>
> > C.S. Lewis remarks somewhere that any theologian who can't explain a
> > theological point in plain, ordinary English doesn't understand it
> > very well themselves. I suggest you try to hit that goal post. Even if
> > you fail, you'll learn something.
>
> Which paragraph did you tick up until, or didn't you want to play the
> living in denial test?
>

You aren't here to query her about ticking off your questionaire,
which is after all just another version of the same faulty routine you
have been starting threads about for months. Your job is to answer
her questions about where you get all that "Heaven, Hell, and
afterlife" stuff from, and how does it in anyway relate to neural
loops.

> When you say it was "all assertions, no data", which assertion did you
> disagree with?

Non of your business. To answer would just be to fall back into your
neurotic routine.

(snip rest of drivel)

Still not listening to constructive criticism, I see.

Eric Root

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 10:06 am
From: Mark VandeWettering

["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
On 2007-04-24, Cheezits <Cheezits32@hotmail.com> wrote:
> collection60@googlemail.com uddered:
> [etc.]
>> That's the ultimate sacred cow.
>
> I wouldn't steak my reputation on that.

I wouldn't want to meat the person who had a beef with women's equality.

Mark
>
> Sue

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 8:37 am
From: Immortalist

On Apr 23, 7:31 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 9:26 pm, 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
>
> > 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
>
> > --
> > Dalehttp://www.vedantasite.org
>
> strawman.-

I think that he is shifting the burden of proof onto us here. He
proposes something and he expects us to unfairly prove it wrong. But
his daddy should have taught him that "the one who proposes must
defend."

http://youtube.com/watch?v=bt0KLj3XgTo
http://youtube.com/watch?v=b__aC5NLcoI

Scully: Your sister was abducted by aliens? Mulder, that's
ridiculous!

Mulder: Well, until you can prove it didn't happen, you'll just have
to accept it as true.

The truth may be out there, but who has the job of producing it in an
argument? In the section on "Validity, Truth, and Soundess," we
discuss the concept of a burden of proof, which is defined there as
"how much each side of a dispute needs to prove in order to win
someone's agreement." Sometimes, however, whoever is carrying the
heavier burden attempts to shift that onus onto the other side--as
Mulder does above. In claiming that his sister was abducted by aliens,
he carries a much greater burden of proof, because we normally
consider alien-abduction stories as incredible; as a result, it is up
to Mulder to produce proof of his claim. But in the dialogue above, he
shifts that burden to Scully, creating the fallacious impression that,
if Scully can't prove it false, Mulder's alien-abduction story must be
true. On the contrary, since Mulder is making an incredible claim, it
is up to him to support it.

In easily verifiable claims, the person initiating the claim normally
assumes the burden of proof. Not doing so, however, should probably
not be considered a fallacy. The fallacy occurs whenever someone
shifts the burden of proof to avoid the difficulty of substantiating a
claim which would be very difficult to support.

http://www2.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/burden.html

In the common law, burden of proof is the obligation to prove
allegations which are presented in a legal action. More colloquially,
burden of proof refers to an obligation in a particular context to
defend a position against a prima facie other position...

...The standard of proof is the level of proof required in a legal
action to convince the court that a given proposition is true. The
degree of proof required depends on the circumstances of the
proposition. Typically, most countries have two levels of proof: the
balance of probabilities (BOP), called the preponderance of evidence
in the US, and beyond a reasonable doubt (BARD). In addition to these,
the US introduced a third standard called clear and convincing
evidence...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

(1) Why can't the religious believer simply put the burden on the
skeptic, and ask him to justify his unbelief, with the underlying
assumption that as between theism and atheism, it is the former that
is obviously true and the latter that is obviously false?

(2) This not being possible in any way that is of immediate interest
to religious belief, how does the believer regard his inability to
prove the truth of faith in the manner the skeptic demands?

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth11.html

The concept of a "burden of proof" is important in debates - whoever
has a burden of proof is obligated to "prove" their claims in some
fashion. If someone doesn't have a burden of proof, then their job is
much easier: all that is required is to either accept the claims or
point out where they are inadequately supported.

It is thus no surprise that many debates, including those between
atheists and theists, involve secondary discussions over who has the
burden of proof and why. When people are unable to reach some sort of
agreement on that issue, it can be very difficult for the rest of the
debate to accomplish much. Therefore, it is often a good idea to try
to define in advance who has the burden of proof.

The first thing to keep in mind is that the phrase "burden of proof"
is a bit more extreme than what is often needed in reality. Using that
phrase makes it sound like a person has to definitely prove, beyond a
doubt, that something is true; that, however, is only rarely the case.
A more accurate label would be a "burden of support" - the key is that
a person must support what they are saying. This can involve empirical
evidence, logical arguments, and even positive proof.

Which of those must be presented will depend very much upon the nature
of the claim in question. Some claims are easier and simpler to
support than others - but regardless, a claim without any support is
not one which merits rational belief. Thus, anyone making a claim
which they consider rational and which they expect others to accept
must provide some support.

An even more basic principle to remember here is that some burden of
proof always lies with the person who is making a claim, not the
person who is hearing the claim and who may not initially believe it.
In practice, then, this means that the initial burden of proof lies
with the theist, not with the atheist. Both the atheist and the theist
probably agree on a great many things, but it is the theist who
asserts the further belief in the existence of a god.

This extra claim is what must be supported, and the requirement of
rational, logical support for a claim is very important. The
methodology of skepticism, critical thinking, and logical arguments is
what allows us to separate sense from nonsense; when a person abandons
that methodology, they abandon any pretense of trying to make sense or
engage in a sensible discussion.

The principle that the claimant has the initial burden of proof is
often violated, however, and it isn't unusual to find someone saying,
"Well, if you don't believe me then prove me wrong," as if the lack of
such proof automatically confers credibility on the original
assertion. Yet that simply isn't true - indeed, it's a fallacy
commonly known as "Shifting the Burden of Proof." If a person claims
something, they are obligated to support it and no one is obligated to
prove them wrong.

If a claimant cannot provide that support, then the default position
of disbelief is justified. We can see this principle expressed in the
United States justice system where accused criminals are innocent
until proven guilty (innocence is the default position) and the
prosecutor has the burden of proving the criminal claims.

Technically, the defense in a criminal case doesn't have to do
anything - and occasionally, when the prosecution does an especially
bad job, you will find defense lawyers who rest their case without
calling any witnesses because they find it unnecessary. Support for
the prosecution claims here is so obviously weak that a counter-
argument simply isn't deemed important.

In reality, however, that rarely happens. Most of the time, those
required to support their claims do offer something - and then what?
At that point the burden of proof shifts to the defense. Those who do
not accept the support offered must at the very least show just cause
why that support is insufficient to warrant rational belief. This may
involve nothing more than poking holes in what has been said
(something defense attorneys often do), but it is often wise to
construct a sound counter-argument which explains evidence better than
the initial claim does (this is where the defense attorney mounts and
actual case).

Regardless of exactly how the response is structured, what is
important to remember here is that some response is expected. The
"burden of proof" is not something static which one party must always
carry; rather, it is something which legitimately shifts during the
course of a debate as arguments and counter-arguments are made. You
are, of course, under no obligation to accept any particular claim as
true, but if you insist that a claim isn't reasonable or credible, you
should be willing to explain how and why.

http://atheism.about.com/od/doesgodexist/a/burdenofproof.htm

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 8:12 am
From: Kermit

On Apr 24, 1:30 am, "Rolf" <r...@tele2.no> wrote:
> "Bobby Bryant" <bdbry...@wherever.ur> skrev i meldingnews:JohXh.546$RX.107@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...> In article <1177348876.520379.213...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> > SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> > > 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?
>
> > a) What definition of "born again" are you using?
>
> > b) Why do you add the the "truly" qualifier? Please give a realistic
> > example that illustrates the difference between "truly born again"
> > and "not-truly born again".
>
> > Thanks.
>
> You beat me to it; we need a consensus regarding what 'born again' means.
> For what it may be worth, i think that the real, intended meaning of the
> term is to cast off the cloak of false identity we all hide our true
> identity with.
> To be born again means, as St. Paul repeatedly stresses, is to become one
> with "The Christ in you". This resurrection of Christ - in you - is the true
> meaning of Christendom. That is what it is all about.
>
> I guess most of us have an adequate understanding of what kind of
> (mythological) human being Jesus-Christ is/was. But look what a mess
> literalism has made of religion. Instead of being a source for spiritual
> renewal it has become the absurd faith in a life hereafter in a mythical
> 'heaven' where we will meet all our dear ones again and live eternally
> happily ever thereafter. Unless we end up in hell of course, where the Devil
> has a lot of interesting diversions for us.

I always thought that if the quotes of Jesus in the scriptures were to
be trusted, he sounded a lot like a Bodhisattva born into a Jewish
culture.

"The Kingdom of Heaven is within you."
"It is easier for a camel to go thru the eye of a needle than for a
rich man to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven."
"Some of you shall not die before the Son of Man comes again."

Etc. Sounds like he was talking about detachment and enlightenment.
And the Holy Spirit would be the Buddha nature within. Etc.

Ah well. I just want to garden, and walk without wobbling. And maybe
visit the Shaunessy Twins one last time.

And get the American Creationists to leave our science classes alone.
And fix that annoying drip in the shower.
And get that book I've been looking at in Barnes and Noble.
And lose six pounds.
And...

>
> Interesting theology - after God's ultimate victory, the devil still rules
> his own kingdom - and then, we must presume, without further intervention by
> his arch-enemy, God.

Yeah, what's up with that? Is that his reward for an almost successful
rebellion?

>
> I suppose I also will have to claim that a true 'born again' Christian would
> not be bragging about it.

Not to mention public displays of piety.

>
> > --
> > Bobby Bryant
> > Reno, Nevada
>
> > Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.

Kermit

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Some evolution questions
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/3bd7fa7ccefbe492?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 10:14 am
From: Mark VandeWettering

On 2007-04-24, Throwback <throwback8@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 12:48 pm, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@attbi.com> wrote:
>> On 2007-04-23, Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 22, 8:15 pm, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@attbi.com> wrote:
>> >> On 2007-04-22, Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Apr 22, 12:27 am, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@attbi.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On 2007-04-21, Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > On Apr 21, 12:07 pm, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@attbi.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> On 2007-04-21, Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> > On Apr 21, 10:29 am, ayers...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> On Apr 21, 9:33 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > On Apr 21, 1:49 am, Chris <chris...@notalotofunwanted.aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > > Can someone in the evolution camp explain why the nearest living
>> >> >> >> >> > > relative of man is so far away from man (I believe it's the chimp)?
>> >> >> >> >> > > What about the nearest extinct relative? How close are we to it?
>> >> >> >> >> > > Shouldn't we see slightly less evolved humans still living or even not
>> >> >> >> >> > > living for that matter? Doesn't it seem odd that every single human
>> >> >> >> >> > > like creature that is not 100% human is gone? If evolution is a slow
>> >> >> >> >> > > process shouldln't there be humans that are just slightly not human?
>> >> >> >> >> > > If it's faster than that than who does the biological adam (or eve)
>> >> >> >> >> > > mate with?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > > Chris
>> >> >> >> >> > > If life seems jolly rotten
>> >> >> >> >> > > There's spmething you've forgotten
>> >> >> >> >> > > and thats to laugh and smile and dance and sing!
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > Well, for one thing over 99% of the species that have ever existed are
>> >> >> >> >> > extinct, so I don't know why anyone would expect our human ancestors
>> >> >> >> >> > to have faired any better than the average, especially when most of
>> >> >> >> >> > them were competing against what became us. We aren't very kind to
>> >> >> >> >> > each other let alone to closely related species.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > As for distance between us and our closest living relatives, distance
>> >> >> >> >> > is, well, relative. Would it surprise you to find out that for our
>> >> >> >> >> > nuclear encoded DNA chimps and humans are more closely related to each
>> >> >> >> >> > other than horses and donkeys? When humans are doing the comparison
>> >> >> >> >> > horses and donkeys get placed in the same genus, but humans and chimps
>> >> >> >> >> > get placed separately. This isn't a placement based on genetic
>> >> >> >> >> > distance. It is a designation based on perception, or some people
>> >> >> >> >> > might claim it is what we would like to believe.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > There are a lot of extant wild ass species, but only two extant horse
>> >> >> >> >> > species left. Some lineages are luckier than others.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > When the first large insert BAC sequences of the Chimp genome were
>> >> >> >> >> > getting placed in GenBank years ago I did an alignment of around
>> >> >> >> >> > 50,000 base-pairs with the human sequence. It was spooky. Even the
>> >> >> >> >> > Alu transposable element repeats lined up. There were some small
>> >> >> >> >> > insertion/deletions, but the two sequences were only 0.7% different.
>> >> >> >> >> > The same sequence of any two unrelated humans would be around 0.1%
>> >> >> >> >> > different. It was like looking at two human sequences that just were
>> >> >> >> >> > poorly done and had a lot of sequencing errors.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > Not surprisingly they are the same sequence, but the difference is in
>> >> >> >> >> > errors of replication that have occurred over the past 5 million years
>> >> >> >> >> > or so.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > Ron Okimoto
>>
>> >> >> >> >> humans and chimps
>> >> >> >> >> get placed separately,because we are not even close to being the same.
>> >> >> >> >> Monkey DNA are 10% larger, and 10% longer than humans.They are not
>> >> >> >> >> even close.
>>
>> >> >> >> > I just did a quick search on the chimp human story, and
>> >> >> >> > I was amazed at how slanted it was towards evolution.
>>
>> >> >> >> It's not "slanted towards" evolution. It's evolution.
>>
>> >> >> > No, it's exactly what I said.
>>
>> >> >> No. What you said was deliberately trying to obfuscate what all rational
>> >> >> people accept. That you choose not to is an indication of your slant,
>> >> >> not anyone elses.
>>
>> >> >> > In fact, many of the articles claimed the actual percentage
>> >> >> > differences in the DNA were far lower than they actually were,
>>
>> >> >> There are different ways of measuring the similarities of genomes. The
>> >> >> variations in the numbers reported are often simply variations in the
>> >> >> way that these numbers are measured.
>>
>> >> > And they were stacked to make it appear the percentage
>> >> > differences of the dna portions they tested were far lower
>> >> > than they actually are, and claimed it a stunning proof
>> >> > of the evolutionary lines of descent.
>>
>> >> No. They were reporting the numbers that were associated with the
>> >> measurements that they made. If you measured the genomes in the same
>> >> way that they did (and were honest) you would report similar numbers.
>>
>> > It appears since chimp and human DNA are of different
>> > lengths, instead of lining up one end of the dna from the
>> > chimp with one end of the human dna, they placed the dna
>> > where there was the most similarities, and then started to
>> > calculate the differences from that point.
>> > the
>>
>> And?
>>
>> Since you've admitted that you don't even know the lengths of human
>> and chimp genomes, why should anyone take your discomfort with the
>> particular results of scientists seriously?
>>
>> Mark
>
> If scientists can't even agree on the actual percentage differences
> and thus the length, how could you possibly expect me, as
> a nonscientists, to know?

I wouldn't expect you to know. But then I would also expect you to not
draw conclusions based upon your feeble knowledge of the subject matter.
The simple fact is that scientists do agree on the percentages, at least
within the bounds of error that they themselves know, understand, and
freely admit too.

Others in this channel have patiently explained to you how scientists
measure the difference between genomes. That you have chosen to
interpret this information as some kind of conspiracy to endorse
atheism, or to claim that the fact that a scientist may use one number
derived from one measure and a different one derived from a second
represents some kind of inconsistency demonstrates that no one should
take your discomfort seriously.

Not even you.

Mark

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 10:21 am
From: Mark VandeWettering

On 2007-04-24, Throwback <throwback8@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 3:05 pm, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@attbi.com> wrote:
>> On 2007-04-23, Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 23, 12:48 pm, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@attbi.com> wrote:
>> >> On 2007-04-23, Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Apr 22, 8:15 pm, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@attbi.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On 2007-04-22, Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > On Apr 22, 12:27 am, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@attbi.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> On 2007-04-21, Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> > On Apr 21, 12:07 pm, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@attbi.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> On 2007-04-21, Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > On Apr 21, 10:29 am, ayers...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> On Apr 21, 9:33 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > On Apr 21, 1:49 am, Chris <chris...@notalotofunwanted.aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > Can someone in the evolution camp explain why the nearest living
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > relative of man is so far away from man (I believe it's the chimp)?
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > What about the nearest extinct relative? How close are we to it?
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > Shouldn't we see slightly less evolved humans still living or even not
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > living for that matter? Doesn't it seem odd that every single human
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > like creature that is not 100% human is gone? If evolution is a slow
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > process shouldln't there be humans that are just slightly not human?
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > If it's faster than that than who does the biological adam (or eve)
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > mate with?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > Chris
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > If life seems jolly rotten
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > There's spmething you've forgotten
>> >> >> >> >> >> > > and thats to laugh and smile and dance and sing!
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > Well, for one thing over 99% of the species that have ever existed are
>> >> >> >> >> >> > extinct, so I don't know why anyone would expect our human ancestors
>> >> >> >> >> >> > to have faired any better than the average, especially when most of
>> >> >> >> >> >> > them were competing against what became us. We aren't very kind to
>> >> >> >> >> >> > each other let alone to closely related species.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > As for distance between us and our closest living relatives, distance
>> >> >> >> >> >> > is, well, relative. Would it surprise you to find out that for our
>> >> >> >> >> >> > nuclear encoded DNA chimps and humans are more closely related to each
>> >> >> >> >> >> > other than horses and donkeys? When humans are doing the comparison
>> >> >> >> >> >> > horses and donkeys get placed in the same genus, but humans and chimps
>> >> >> >> >> >> > get placed separately. This isn't a placement based on genetic
>> >> >> >> >> >> > distance. It is a designation based on perception, or some people
>> >> >> >> >> >> > might claim it is what we would like to believe.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > There are a lot of extant wild ass species, but only two extant horse
>> >> >> >> >> >> > species left. Some lineages are luckier than others.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > When the first large insert BAC sequences of the Chimp genome were
>> >> >> >> >> >> > getting placed in GenBank years ago I did an alignment of around
>> >> >> >> >> >> > 50,000 base-pairs with the human sequence. It was spooky. Even the
>> >> >> >> >> >> > Alu transposable element repeats lined up. There were some small
>> >> >> >> >> >> > insertion/deletions, but the two sequences were only 0.7% different.
>> >> >> >> >> >> > The same sequence of any two unrelated humans would be around 0.1%
>> >> >> >> >> >> > different. It was like looking at two human sequences that just were
>> >> >> >> >> >> > poorly done and had a lot of sequencing errors.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > Not surprisingly they are the same sequence, but the difference is in
>> >> >> >> >> >> > errors of replication that have occurred over the past 5 million years
>> >> >> >> >> >> > or so.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > Ron Okimoto
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> humans and chimps
>> >> >> >> >> >> get placed separately,because we are not even close to being the same.
>> >> >> >> >> >> Monkey DNA are 10% larger, and 10% longer than humans.They are not
>> >> >> >> >> >> even close.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > I just did a quick search on the chimp human story, and
>> >> >> >> >> > I was amazed at how slanted it was towards evolution.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> It's not "slanted towards" evolution. It's evolution.
>>
>> >> >> >> > No, it's exactly what I said.
>>
>> >> >> >> No. What you said was deliberately trying to obfuscate what all rational
>> >> >> >> people accept. That you choose not to is an indication of your slant,
>> >> >> >> not anyone elses.
>>
>> >> >> >> > In fact, many of the articles claimed the actual percentage
>> >> >> >> > differences in the DNA were far lower than they actually were,
>>
>> >> >> >> There are different ways of measuring the similarities of genomes. The
>> >> >> >> variations in the numbers reported are often simply variations in the
>> >> >> >> way that these numbers are measured.
>>
>> >> >> > And they were stacked to make it appear the percentage
>> >> >> > differences of the dna portions they tested were far lower
>> >> >> > than they actually are, and claimed it a stunning proof
>> >> >> > of the evolutionary lines of descent.
>>
>> >> >> No. They were reporting the numbers that were associated with the
>> >> >> measurements that they made. If you measured the genomes in the same
>> >> >> way that they did (and were honest) you would report similar numbers.
>>
>> >> > It appears since chimp and human DNA are of different
>> >> > lengths, instead of lining up one end of the dna from the
>> >> > chimp with one end of the human dna, they placed the dna
>> >> > where there was the most similarities, and then started to
>> >> > calculate the differences from that point.
>> >> > the
>>
>> >> And?
>>
>> >> Since you've admitted that you don't even know the lengths of human
>> >> and chimp genomes, why should anyone take your discomfort with the
>> >> particular results of scientists seriously?
>>
>> > I don't think there is anything wrong with doing it that way
>> > inherently (I don't object to it), I simply wanted to point out for
>> > those following the thread the foundation of what was done so we can
>> > proceed to analyze and discuss the portions they then compared.
>>
>> But you admitted that you don't even know what was done.
>
> Then how do you think they compared the dna strands?

The issue was not my level of understanding. The issue was your claim that:

TB> And they were stacked to make it appear the percentage
TB> differences of the dna portions they tested were far lower
TB> than they actually are, and claimed it a stunning proof of
TB> the evolutionary lines of descent.

It's clear that you don't understand the least thing about how
these numbers were derived. Therefore, your claim that scientists
dishonestly "stacked" the numbers to favor an evolutionary outcome is
unsupported. It also seems a little dishonest to adopt a shield of
moderation ("I don't think there is anything wrong with doing it that
way inherently...") when your original claim was so intemperate.

Mark

==============================================================================
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 9:15 am
From: Desertphile

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 20:40:35 -0500, Dick C
<foo.dickcr@comcast.net> wrote:

> http://www.nctexasbirds.com/images/hot_news.jpg

The on-line version of the "Arkansas Democrat Gazette" did not
have the "Letters" letter as far as I could find. Their search
engine sucks, so perhaps I missed it.

http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"I've hired myself out as a tourist attraction." -- Spike

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 8:17 am
From: Harry K

On Apr 24, 2:04 am, Jason Spaceman <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org>
wrote:
> From the article:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> John Marshall's lecture tonight will question fossil records and the origin
> of the first cell.
>
> By GRACE ASSOUAD
>
> For most of his life, and as a physician and man of science, John Marshall
> believed in Darwinian evolution, which maintains that all life forms share
> a common biological origin.
>
> But Marshall began to look into what he said were holes in the theory. And
> after becoming a Christian, Marshall found it hard to reconcile
> evolutionary theory with Genesis, the biblical account of how God created
> the earth and everything on it in six days. Marshall has since become a
> proponent of the view that there are some natural systems that cannot be
> adequately explained by natural forces, and therefore must be the result of
> intelligent design, or ID.
>
> In a lecture tonight at 7 at the MU School of Medicine, Marshall will talk
> about what he calls the holes in Darwinism and how many researchers are too
> closed-minded to evaluate - let alone accept - the scientific evidence for
> ID.
>
> "A scientist should be open to new evidence and to new ideas, even when they
> arise outside the box of naturalism," said Marshall, an MU professor of
> medicine who is board certified in internal medicine and gastroenterology
> and also the associate director of education at the School of
> Medicine. "There's no reason we can't at least look for evidence. But one
> of the tactics of people who control mainstream science is, you don't
> publish intelligent design material."
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Read it athttp://columbiamissourian.com/news/story.php?ID=25331
>
> J. Spaceman

I find it extremely difficult to believe that a grown man, presumably
college educted, would be able to buy into 'creationism' hook-line-
sinker. Becoming a Christian - yes. Creationist - no, at least not
without a lobotomy.

Harry K

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 3:29 pm
From: bdbryant@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant)

In article <1177427840.193988.40140@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Harry K <turnkey4099@hotmail.com> writes:

> I find it extremely difficult to believe that a grown man, presumably
> college educted, would be able to buy into 'creationism' hook-line-
> sinker.

Not just buy into it, but become a crusader for it.

--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada

Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Do we have all the steps between fish and bears?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/5de0ca7f01a333d1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 3:20 pm
From: John Harshman

kalnas@gmail.com wrote:

> Any pictures of fossils?
>
Google is your friend. Search on Panderichthys, Tiktaalik, Icthyostega,
Seymouria, Diadectes, Eothyris, Varanops, Ophiacodon, Sphenacodon,
Biarmosuchus, Thrinaxodon, Probainognathus, Morganucodon, Peralestes,
Bobolestes, Viverravus, Miacis, Cephalogale, Ursavus. For a start.

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 8:20 am
From: Throwback

http://classes.yale.edu/Fractals/CA/welcome.html

http://www.brucelipton.com/article/fractal-evolution

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 8:24 am
From: Nick Keighley

On 23 Apr, 07:15, derdag <der...@chilledwatertech.com> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 10:50 pm, Terry <Kilow...@charter.net> wrote:

> > If the conditions that caused life on this planet do not exist today,
> > doesn't that greatly lower the odds that life exists elsewhere?
>
> It seems pretty consistant with my understanding of the Bible, that
> the ID may have done this many times in many places.

I think you have an unusual understanding of the Bible.

> Oh.. Do I have to allow your presupposition that the conditions
> caused life, because I don't.

I don't think the conditions *caused* life. They allowed it to occur.

--
Nick Keighley

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 8:28 am
From: Nick Keighley

On 22 Apr, 03:50, Terry <Kilow...@charter.net> wrote:

> If the conditions that caused life on this planet do not exist today,
> doesn't that greatly lower the odds that life exists elsewhere?

A big difference in current conditions compared with the time
that life originated is all the free oxygen in the atmospere.
Now what could have caused that? And how does that affect the
probability of life arising elsewhere?

I think the most impressive thing is that life seemed to appear on
earth almost as soon as it was possible. That is when the surface
stopped being bombarded with stray bits of matter left over from
the formation of the solar system.

--
Nick Keighley

==============================================================================
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 10:26 am
From: Mark VandeWettering

On 2007-04-24, Throwback <throwback8@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 2:13 pm, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@attbi.com> wrote:
>> ["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
>> On 2007-04-23, Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 23, 12:45 pm, AC <mightymartia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On 21 Apr 2007 11:25:16 -0700,
>>
>> >> Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Apr 21, 1:34 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@nospam.org> wrote:
>> >> >> On 20 Apr 2007 07:01:18 -0700, Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > On Apr 19, 10:03 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >> >> > > On 19 Apr 2007 11:02:48 -0700, the following appeared in
>> >> >> > > talk.origins, posted by Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com>:
>> >> >> > > <snip>
>> >> >> > > >Wait! The scientists were frustrated, as they couldn't put what they
>> >> >> > > >observed into an evolutionary context (meaning the atheistic
>> >> >> > > >philosophy of darwin's cult of pseudoscience).
>> >> >> > > I think I've detected your basic problem. You think all
>> >> >> > > scientists are atheists, which is incorrect, but that's not
>> >> >> > > your basic problem.
>> >> >> > Strawman. I never said that.
>>
>> >> >> What you wrote (above) certainly means the same thing.
>>
>> >> > Look, claiming something is an atheistic philosophy is
>> >> > not the same as saying "all scientists are atheists".
>> >> > It is totally and completely retarded to assert otherwise.
>>
>> >> What's more retarded is claiming that evolution is an atheistic
>> >> philosophy.
>>
>> > If the outlook or philosophy of darwinism is not
>> > atheistic, please tell me what the god of darwinism is?
>>
>> There is no god of Darwinism. Neither is there a god of meteorology, nor
>> of paleontology, nor cosmology, nor...chemistry
>>
>> Mark
>
> But chemistry doesn't venture into philosophy.

Neither does evolution.

> Evolution is simply the branch of science that attempts
> to explain philosophy scientifically.

Nonsense.

Mark

==============================================================================
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 9:23 am
From: Desertphile

On 23 Apr 2007 21:01:47 -0700, Christian Pecaut
<workoutwellforall@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.

Golly, such a sad waste of time and effort.

Even if Richard Dawkins' book is 100% wrong, evolution still
occured and still occurs.

http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"I've hired myself out as a tourist attraction." -- Spike

==============================================================================
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 3:26 pm
From: Greg Guarino

On 23 Apr 2007 03:35:58 -0700, Ian Chua <ichua@purdue.edu> wrote:

>Can anyone suggest a useful application of the theory that man evolved
>from a unicellular organism?

Here's a handy one from today's NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/24/science/24conv.html?_r=1&ref=science&oref=slogin
------------------------------------------------------
On the Trail of Parkinson's, Through Yeast Cells

from the article:
Q. Have you found a key to Parkinson's disease?

A. I think we found a pathway, rather than a key.

We had this idea. We took the gene from a human brain cell that was
malfunctioning and was thought to be a cause of Parkinson's. We
inserted it into a yeast cell. The yeast died. Next, we did a very
broad genetic analysis and asked, "Which genes can save that cell from
the Parkinson's protein?" We took 5,000 different genes and we tested
them one by one. From that, we found several genes, and one that is
particularly strong, that express a protein that can save yeast cells
from the Parkinson's gene.

To take the experiment further, we collaborated with some other labs.
Together, we took this gene and put it into the brains of nematodes
that were engineered to express a human Parkinson's gene. Sure enough,
it saved their neurons from dying. We tried the same thing with fruit
flies and then with rat embryonic neurons. The anti-Parkinson's gene
saved them, too. Later, we screened through some 150,000 chemical
compounds to see if we could find a substance that saved yeast from
Parkinson's. And we did.

Q. Why start your experiment with yeast, of all things?

A. (Laughs) I know. Even people in my laboratory thought we were crazy
to try to study neurodegenerative diseases with a yeast cell. It's not
a neuron. But I thought we might be looking at a very general problem
in the way proteins were being managed in a cell. And yeasts are easy
to study because they are such simple cells.

As biology has moved forward, we've come to realize that the same
rules apply to all living things. If there's a defect in basic cell
biology, it might be shared by other cells. So we can learn a lot
about complicated organisms from studying very simple cells like
yeast.
------------------------------------------------------
Greg Guarino

==============================================================================
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 8:27 am
From: Bloopenblopper@juno.com

On Apr 23, 7:30 pm, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Recently, there was an exchange that questioned the peer review
> process with respect to Peter Duesberg. In the May 2007 edition of
> Scientific American is an article by Peter Duesberg. An editor's note
> is included nest to the author information disclaiming that SciAm
> endorses Duesberg's claims about HIV and AIDS. The article discusses a
> controversial theory about cancer being caused by chromsomal damage
> rather than a series of gene mutations.
>
> I have reconstructed the discussion as Bloopenblopper trimmed a post
> including the first paragraph included here.
>
> Pagano:
>
> >>>> This is laughable. Everyone who depends on the secular scientific
> >>>> community for their livelihood and who disputes the sacrosanct
> >>>> theories is crushed. The easiest way to destroy someone who bucks the
> >>>> orthodoxy is through peer review. I suspect the fear of being
> >>>> squeezed out of the ability to publish has stifled many new ideas that
> >>>> contradict the current sacrosanct theories consistent with atheism.
>
> Bloopenblopper:
>
> >> >Give an example.
>
> Pagano:
>
> >> Dr Peter Duesberg, a National Academy of Sciences member was
> >> ostracized and isolated for disputing the truthlikeness of the
> >> sacrosanct HIV-causes-AIDS theory.
>
> Bloopenblopper:
>
> >Yeah, but he was still able to get peer-reviewed articles published.
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Duesberg
>
> Pagano:
> I never said that he was summarily drummed out. I simply noted that
> his daring to buck the sacrosanct and secular dogma of HIV-causes-
> AIDS
> caused him considerable difficulty. The fact that he was a National
> Academy of Sciences member is probably the only thing that saved him.
> Had some post doc dared to do the same thing his career in his field
> would have been destroyed.
>
> Tony backtracked after being asked for an example of somebody who was
> "crushed", he claimed that Duesberg had been caused "considerable
> difficulty". The article in the magazine is evidence that Peter
> Duesberg is busy publishing controversial cancer research and
> apparently obtaining funds.
>
> --
> Greg G.
>
> Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean
> politics won't take an interest in you.
> --Pericles 430 B.C.

See his website, http://www.duesberg.com. Duesberg does complain of
discrimination and blackballing in the scientific community, and at
least one instance of censorship ( http://www.duesberg.com/papers/ch12.html
). His main complaint is being denied funding, which is certainly
true. Still, he does not claim to have been crushed or destroyed. He
is a professor of Molecular and Cell Biology at Berkeley, where he
runs a laboratory. On his site is an index ( http://www.duesberg.com/papers/index.html
) of his papers and correspondences published in respectable journals
involving both his controversial theories on AIDS and cancer. See in
particular this article in Genetica: http://www.duesberg.com/papers/The%20AIDS%20Dilemma.pdf
, and this one in Science http://www.duesberg.com/papers/ch2.html .

==============================================================================
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 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 8:28 am
From: Harry K

On Apr 23, 8:30 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.
>
> George Evans- Hide quoted text -
>

Then all he has to do is wave a hand and presto-zippo, there you both
are. Why go through all the rigamarole?

Harry K

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 8:31 am
From: WuzYoungOnceToo

On Apr 24, 1:12 am, t...@again.spammers (The Enigmatic One) wrote:
> In article <1177369494.778353.189...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> wuzyoungonce...@yahoo.com says...
>
> >> But I guess it would just not be sexy enough to own only a simple
> >> shotgun. People want big bullets, and mean-looking weapons. They do not
> >> only want to be able to defend themselves, they want to look good while
> >> they do it. Just like in the movies, indeed.
>
> >Thank you for proving my point.
>
> Wow.
>
> You're quite the little fucktard.

What a compellingly eloquent argument. Very impressive.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Darwin married 2 opium addicted 10 year old transvestite prostitutes at
the same time
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/4568d065a0db317e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 8:36 am
From: Throwback

And ejaculated in a donkey's ear.

Just testing the moderation policy.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Maybe it won't
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/50a303874df0d353?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 8:46 am
From: "thomchll@aim.com"

It might take a year (I hope not.) to get an appartment. I have to see
the person next week.
Who knows how logn it will take?
Bill Thomas
bt3456@gmail.com

==============================================================================
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 8:47 am
From: Ferrous Patella

Real people wear fake gods!
--
"Her vocabulary was as bad as, like, whatever."
Annual English Teachers' awards for best student
metaphors/analogies found in actual student papers

==============================================================================
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 8:45 am
From: snex

On Apr 24, 7:14 am, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 10:02 pm, e...@swva.net wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 10:45 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 23, 9:36 pm, e...@swva.net wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 23, 1:42 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 23, 1:31 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Apr 22, 10:27 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Apr 22, 6:20 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 3:20 pm, snex <hiya_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 3:11 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 2:51 pm, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 2:43 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > (snip)
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > With all due respect, it's not your place to tell the rest of the
> > > > > > > > > > > > world what they "should" or "should not" think or believe. (shrug)
>
> > > > > > > > > > > actually its my place to say anything i damn well please. whether or
> > > > > > > > > > > not they listen, is up to them.
>
> > > > > > > > > > (snip)
>
> > > > > > > > > > Oddly enough, that is PRECISELY the answer I get from fundies when I
> > > > > > > > > > ask them what right they think they have to "peacefully coerce"
> > > > > > > > > > everyone else to their religious opinions.
>
> > > > > > > > > oddly enough, fundies are precisely right when they give that answer.
>
> > > > > > > > Indeed. Since you and the fundies are alike in nearly every respect,
> > > > > > > > it's no wonder that you accept their answers just as thoroughly as
> > > > > > > > they do.
>
> > > > > > > what a bunch of nonsense. this is akin to something ray martinez would
> > > > > > > say. the fundies have a right to free speech just as i do. dont like
> > > > > > > it? go to a country that doesnt have it. im sure youll enjoy it oh so
> > > > > > > much.
>
> > > > > > > > > they have the right to spout their lies just as much as i have the
> > > > > > > > > right to point out that they are lies.
>
> > > > > > > > > what, you have a problem with freedom of speech?
>
> > > > > > > > No, it appears that YOU are the one who has a gripe against the First
> > > > > > > > Amendment.
>
> > > > > > > i do? where?
>
> > > > > > > > Alas, though, your idiotic campaign to stamp out religion only harms
> > > > > > > > us when it comes to fighting IDers and fundies. After all, ID is a
> > > > > > > > political fight, and in a political fight, one needs the active
> > > > > > > > support of at least 50% of the population to win. Indeed, in the US,
> > > > > > > > about half the population is against ID, and about half is for it.
> > > > > > > > Since atheists make up, at most, 15% of the population, this means
> > > > > > > > that about 35% of the population is BOTH theist and accepts
> > > > > > > > evolution. In other words, about two out of every three people who
> > > > > > > > oppose ID and accept evolution, are theists. To win a political fight
> > > > > > > > against ID, we need the support of those people. We simply will not
> > > > > > > > win without them. And I kind of doubt that rabidly screaming at them
> > > > > > > > "RELIGION IS STUPID !!!!!!!', like you do, is going to win much from
> > > > > > > > them in the way of support. So, in pure terms of political tactics,
> > > > > > > > attacking people who are ON OUR SIDE, is . . . well . . . awfully
> > > > > > > > stupid.
>
> > > > > > > what a crock of shit. if theists are so stupid that they would
> > > > > > > deliberately vote for creationism *when they know it is false* merely
> > > > > > > because we mean old atheists dare to ask them hard questions, then
> > > > > > > they are just as dishonest as the creationists. in that case, it
> > > > > > > *doesnt matter one whit* whether evolution or creation is taught,
> > > > > > > because rationality has already lost.
>
> > > > > > > > Which leaves me with no choice but to counter it.
>
> > > > > > > > If it weren't for that, I'd be happy to let you wage jihad and tilt at
> > > > > > > > your Quixotic windmills as much as you like. The odds of evangelical
> > > > > > > > atheists successfully stamping out religion are roughly akin to the
> > > > > > > > odds of the flat-earthers successfully changing geology textbooks in
> > > > > > > > the US. So y'all are actually pretty harmless in the bigger scheme of
> > > > > > > > things, though loud and utterly obnoxious. Alas, though, some of us
> > > > > > > > are engaged in a political fight -- which you are not helping.
>
> > > > > > > im sorry reverend, but i adhere to a moral standard of defending the
> > > > > > > truth and attacking lies. if that doesnt suit your selfish political
> > > > > > > purposes, well, you can go fuck yourself. im not going to shut up, nor
> > > > > > > are any other "evangelical atheists." we're here, and we have a right
> > > > > > > to speak our opinions. get used to it.
>
> > > > > > He didn't say you had no right to speak. He was discussing the
> > > > > > consequences of your actions. His "political purposes" seem to be
> > > > > > keeping religion out of public schools in the US. What are yours -
> > > > > > feeling righteous?
>
> > > > > 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.
>
> > > > None of us are arguing with you there, so you yourself are pulling a
> > > > dishonest creationist-like stunt for even saying it. What I want to
> > > > know is, in the Grand Duchy of Snexko, is it all right to even have
> > > > religious statements _in church_?
>
> > > actually, lenny flank was arguing with it.
>
> > > regarding your question, youll have to define what you mean by "all
> > > right." if you mean "have the legal right to" then of course its "all
> > > right." its also "all right" to preach creationism, anti-semitism,
> > > promotion of black slavery, or any other number of opinions civilized
> > > people agree are dumb.
>
> > > but if you mean "should go unchallenged in doing so" then no, its not
> > > "all right."
>
> > > > > these statement apply with or without the first amendment. public
> > > > > schools teach our best understanding of *reality.*
>
> > > > So what? All of us (except the creationists) agree with you there.
> > > > You are grinding an axe unnecessarily, just because you are stuck in
> > > > axe-grinding mode.
>
> > > > > if gods were a part
> > > > > of that reality, then it wouldnt be a violation of the first amendment
> > > > > to teach about them. if scientists had discovered that lightning was a
> > > > > result of zeus throwing lightning bolts, then that would be a
> > > > > legitimate topic for science class. anybody could look outside and
> > > > > *see* zeus for themselves using the scientific method.
>
> > > > Blah blah irrelevant blah.
>
> > > > > > Like the creationists, you fight for truth and attack lies - even when
> > > > > > they aren't there.
>
> > > > Exactly. What use to gain a few more percent of snex's "intellectual
> > > > honesty" at the price of having a $()%$%-ed up personality? I don't
> > > > want to be any more of a linear, absolutist, concrete thinker than I
> > > > already am.
>
> > > when its no longer a social stigma to admit you are an atheist in most
> > > of this country, you can thank me (or more likely dawkins and pz
> > > myers).
>
> > Well, there we also disagree: I think that when it's no longer a
> > social stigma to admit you are an atheist, it will be no thanks to
> > Dawkins or you. You couldn't shoot yourselves in the foot any more
> > than the way you are now.
>
> Indeed. As I noted earlier, one of the reasons I don't consider
> myself to be an "atheist" is because doing so would identify me with
> certain people that I don't want to be identified with. Snex is a
> good example. He is just another fundamentalist, and I don't want to
> be associated or identified with fundamentalists like him. (shrug)

what is a "fundamentalist atheist" reverend? please enlighten us as to
what the fundamentals of atheism are. if not, cut the rhetoric
bullshit. nobody is impressed. either defend your arguments or not,
but dont pretend that calling others names wins the day for you.

>
> ================================================
> 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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Can creationism be antisemitic?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/9c6d3eb8eff9a250?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 8:49 am
From: Ye Old One

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 01:13:01 GMT, T Pagano <not.valid@address.net>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

>On 22 Apr 2007 09:55:14 -0700, wf3h <wf3h@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
>>Creationism seems to function on denial.
>
>Everyone denies some things. One is obligated to deny falsity. What
>do creationists deny that is true?

Science.
>
>
>> It denies the existence of
>>natural laws operating in the world.
>
>Which law of nature do creationists deny?

All of them.
>
>
>> Creationists deny that Christians
>>who disagree with them are Christians.
>
>The disagreement often involves the so-called christian denying a
>tenet of the faith.
>
>
>> They deny that scientists can
>>be scientists while being Christian.
>
>ditto.
>
>>
>>They attribute non-belief in creationism to evil intent. Everyone is
>>intent on destroying creationist fundamentalism. Everyone hates god.
>
>
>Non belief in creationism is merely a symptom of "evil" intent.

Non belief in creationism is a sign of common sense.

>
>>Since Jews (except for the ultra orthodox) do not accept the Xtian
>>version of creation,
>
>This is irrelevent unless wf3h can demonstrate that consensus is
>related to the objective truth. Atheists care nothing for the
>objective truth. Truth for the atheist is what ever the mob says it
>is.

Nope.

--
Bob.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Scientific Models Are Usually Wrong Though Helpful
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/2218488a3cc44ea7?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Apr 24 2007 8:47 am
From: Dick

On 23 Apr 2007 06:18:36 -0700, Wakboth <Wakboth2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 23 huhti, 12:54, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>> On Apr 23, 5:44 am, Cubist <Xub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Ian Chua wrote:
>> > > Scientific models are a product of the human imagination.
>> > > They are often used to solve problems or predict system behavior
>> > > successfully.
>> > > But the models may not be the reality we perceive.
>>
>> > Sure -- "the map is not the territory", after all. This is why
>> > scientific models are tested against reality, and those models which
>> > fail such testing are abandoned. Is this a problem?
>>
>> Incorrect - scientific models can never be tested against reality.
>> They can only be tested with what we can perceive.
>
>If we cannot perceive something, even indirectly, it might as well not
>be real.
>
>-- Wakboth

Man has developed tools throughout his history to extend what he
perceives. Just because man is limited in his understanding does not
mean there are no forces acting on him and his environment effecting
his universe.

Radio waves come to mind, they are impacted by sun spots as is the
weather. The sunspots existed long before we could directly detect
them or even speculate about their existence.

I suspect there is still much about our universe to which we are
still blind. We keep on learning about what has always been there.
How brief a period of man's scientific quest has the sub atomic been
known.

The ostrich still should pull his head out of the sand, if possible.

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

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 21 topics - digest

No comments:

Links

About Me

Blog Archive