My problem with skeptics
Gary Wayne
your views like Evolution. I for one think its a lucky hit if I
perceive on the physical realm. You wanna know why? Because its not a
physical experience. It takes place on the astral.
I know you'll all say thats just an excuse, well I say prove without
doubt evolution if you can & I will prove obe.
GW
Ian H Spedding
2238.public.lawson.webtv.net>, ELth...@webtv.net says...
>
> All you skeptics are always saying prove this & prove that. Well prove
> your views like Evolution. I for one think its a lucky hit if I
> perceive on the physical realm. You wanna know why? Because its not a
> physical experience. It takes place on the astral.
So what is this astral plane, then?
> I know you'll all say thats just an excuse, well I say prove without
> doubt evolution if you can & I will prove obe.
Evolution has been proven beyond any _reasonble_ doubt. It
hasn't been proven beyond _any_ doubt because no theory in
science is that certain.
Ian
--
Ian H Spedding
Janice
ELth...@webtv.net says...
>All you skeptics are always saying prove this & prove that.
I don't. I have no interest in the asking for evidence routine.
--
Alt.Out-of-Body Unlimited:
http://www.geocities.com/janice240obe/index.html
The Lucid Dreaming Nook:
http://www.geocities.com/janice240obe/nook1.html
Janice
nom...@hotmail.com says...
>>>All you skeptics are always saying prove this & prove that.
>>
>> I don't. I have no interest in the asking for evidence routine.
>
>the hard-nosed skeptics right now, as you can probably tell.
Yes, they seem to be getting on your nerves.
Practice smiling! :^)
Rogue Noir
scientific method to verify, say, life after death or the existence of
nonphysical planes. But just because it can't be measured doesn't rule out
the possibility of existence. It may be far-fetched, but personally, I feel
that science will eventually catch on and be able to connect OBE phenomonon
with quantum theory, superstrings, and higher Euclidean dimensions as
opposed to being "just in our heads" (and of course, I'm not imposing this
belief on others.) We're still centuries away from obtaining any "proof"
that's remotely "scientific" in nature.
"Gary Wayne" <ELth...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:8953-3ED...@storefull-2238.public.lawson.webtv.net...
Ian H Spedding
an...@anon.com says...
>
> It's ridiculously impossible to conduct an experiment utilizing the
> scientific method to verify, say, life after death or the existence of
> nonphysical planes. But just because it can't be measured doesn't rule out
> the possibility of existence. It may be far-fetched, but personally, I feel
> that science will eventually catch on and be able to connect OBE phenomonon
> with quantum theory, superstrings, and higher Euclidean dimensions as
> opposed to being "just in our heads" (and of course, I'm not imposing this
> belief on others.) We're still centuries away from obtaining any "proof"
> that's remotely "scientific" in nature.
Not necessarily. Any phenomenon which has an effect in the
obervable universe can be investigated by science in principle.
The hypothesis of life after death proposes that something like a
soul survives the death of the body and either continues to exist
in some form in this world or passes on to another dimension. In
either case, the assumption is that the soul is 'something' not
'nothing', whether it is what we would call matter or energy,
which means it should be observable in some way. If it passes on
to another dimension or plane of existence that means this other
dimension is linked to our world. Information can pass between
the two and that in turn should be detectable. On the other
hand, any plane of existence which is totally separate from ours
- nothing passes between them, not souls, consciousness,
information, matter or energy - is simply irrelevant.
Laura
news:MPG.193c1042e...@news.CIS.DFN.DE...
> In article <8953-3ED1B88D-656@storefull-
> 2238.public.lawson.webtv.net>, ELth...@webtv.net says...
> Evolution has been proven beyond any _reasonble_ doubt. It
> hasn't been proven beyond _any_ doubt because no theory in
> science is that certain.
Has it indeed?
The only form of evolution that has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt
is micro-evolution - how a species is capable of adapting certain traits to
deal with different environments. This is really what Darwin discovered.
Then he postulated macro-evolution - where one species can evolve into a
completely different species through many steps of micro-evolution. It
sounds plausible enough, but there is a _disturbing_ lack of evidence in the
fossil record of these gradual changes. The infamous 'missing link' between
pre-humans and humans has not been found. No skeleton with an
almost-opposable thumb. Similarly, no remains of any creatures that are
half-way to becoming another species. Macro-evolution remains an
unsubstantiated theory, but one that is presented as a proven fact in
schools. We're all brought up thinking that it is the absolute truth. Well,
unless we're brought up with strict creationist beliefs, which is even more
ridiculous.
DanKettler
GW: > All you skeptics are always saying prove this & prove that...
DK: The most important fact, about what they say, is that these
are newsgroups FOR THE DISCUSSION OF THESE SUBJECTS.
DK: That means you can discuss them WITHOUT PROVIDING PROOF, OR EVIDENCE, AT ALL.
DK: The obligation the "skeptics" say you have to prove it is _THEIR_ delusion.
DK: My advice is DO NOT LET THAT DELUSION BE YOURS ALSO.
DK: All you need to know of so-called skeptics...
DK: http://www.psicounsel.com/page9328-a.htm
DK: Linked from most search engines by typing...
DK: " skeptics what they do and why "
GW: I say prove without doubt evolution...
DK: I say, they don't have to prove anything,
and neither do you. They are not worthy
of your time. Others of like mind
are worthy of it. They can be
helped by you.
<snip>
--
DrPostman
<MAILVIAWEBSITE@no_spamKETTLERENTERPRISES.COM> wrote:
>DK: I say, they don't have to prove anything,
> and neither do you. They are not worthy
> of your time. Others of like mind
> are worthy of it. They can be
> helped by you.
Just send $999.95 to "Buy A Doo for Bru" at HotCometBoi.con
--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
You can email me at: eckles(at)midsouth.rr.com
"The services provided by Sylvia Browne Corporation are highly
speculative in nature and we do not guarantee that the results
of our work will be satisfactory to a client."
-Sylvia's Refund Policy
John Griffin
"DanKettler" <MAILVIAWEBSITE@no_spamKETTLERscams.COM> wrote
> Gary Wayne wrote:
>
> GW: > All you skeptics are always saying prove this & prove that...
>
> DK: The most important fact, about what they say, is that these
> are newsgroups FOR THE DISCUSSION OF THESE SUBJECTS.
Speaking of THESE SUBJECTS, do you have any facts or rational
argument to support anything you've ever said about them? If you
do, why have you kept it secret for years?
> DK: That means you can discuss them WITHOUT PROVIDING
> PROOF, OR EVIDENCE, AT ALL.
A discussion in which you can make off-the-wall assertions without
any apparent foundation would be as worthless as you are.
> DK: The obligation the "skeptics" say you have to prove it is _THEIR_
delusion.
You don't get it. (duh) Asking you for evidence of any of the silly
nonsense you post is actually just a fun way of reminding you that
it's all fantasy. Just part of the discussion made meaningless by
you and others of lack mind insisting on making apparently
random claims with impunity. Anyway, why do you bother to
post stuff if you con't care whether anyone believes you?
Pardon the apparent typo. Couldn't resist.
> DK: My advice is DO NOT LET THAT DELUSION BE YOURS ALSO.
My son's cat baked a cake yesterday. Just believe it. No fair
asking for proof that it was really a cake.
> DK: All you need to know of so-called skeptics...
can be learned by reading this newsgroup, wherein you will find
both sides of the story, as dramatically opposed to the mounds
of verbal manure you can find at
> DK: http://www.psicounsel.com/page9328-a.htm
>
> DK: Linked from most search engines by typing...
>
> DK: " skeptics what they do and why "
>
> GW: I say prove without doubt evolution...
>
> DK: I say, they don't have to prove anything,
> and neither do you. They are not worthy
> of your time. Others of like mind
> are worthy of it. They can be
> helped by you.
Okay, don't prove anything. Just advance your explanation for any
phenomenon and eliminate all other explanations.
Ian H Spedding
says...
>
> "Ian H Spedding" <ian_sp...@lineone.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.193c1042e...@news.CIS.DFN.DE...
[...]
> > Evolution has been proven beyond any _reasonble_ doubt. It
> > hasn't been proven beyond _any_ doubt because no theory in
> > science is that certain.
>
> Has it indeed?
Yes, it has.
> The only form of evolution that has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt
> is micro-evolution - how a species is capable of adapting certain traits to
> deal with different environments. This is really what Darwin discovered.
> Then he postulated macro-evolution - where one species can evolve into a
> completely different species through many steps of micro-evolution. It
> sounds plausible enough, but there is a _disturbing_ lack of evidence in the
> fossil record of these gradual changes. The infamous 'missing link' between
> pre-humans and humans has not been found. No skeleton with an
> almost-opposable thumb. Similarly, no remains of any creatures that are
> half-way to becoming another species. Macro-evolution remains an
> unsubstantiated theory, but one that is presented as a proven fact in
> schools. We're all brought up thinking that it is the absolute truth. Well,
> unless we're brought up with strict creationist beliefs, which is even more
> ridiculous.
As you say, micro-evolution or evolutionary change that occurs
_within_ a species is well established, industrial melanism in
the peppered moth being a prominent example.
Macro-evolution or speciation, the process by which one species
divides into two or more, follows from micro-evolution. For
example, we can envisage a species in which one group of animals
becomes geographically isolated from the remainder. Perhaps
rising sea-levels during an inter-glacial warm spell traps them
on an island. The process of micro-evolution continues in both
populations but follows divergent evolutionary pathways. The
changes will accumulate until a point is reached at which the two
populations can no longer breed with each other. Two daughter
species have been formed from the original parent.
Anyone who concedes that micro-evolution happens but denies the
possibility of macro-evolution must explain why not. Cumulative
micro-evolutionary changes should lead eventually to the
formation of new species unless there is some insurmountable
barrier to prevent it. And, so far as I know, no such barrier
has been theorised let alone demonstrated.
In any event, theoretical considerations aside the formation of
new species has been observed, four examples of which can be
found here:
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html>
In many cases though, the emergence of new species takes place
over thousands or millions of years and such events can only be
inferred from the fossil record. Because fossilization is, by
its nature, an extremely rare occurence and because we are far
from having uncovered them all, this record is fragmentary. Even
so, it is misleading to suggest that "there is a _disturbing_
lack of evidence" of transitional forms in the fossil record.
Quite the reverse, in fact, since the record contains a lot of
evidence of the sort of gradual change to which you were
alluding. Details can be found here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
It is longer than I care to remember since I was at school so I
have no direct experience of the way evolution is currently
presented in biology classes. Nontheless, the consensus of the
scientific community is that the theory of evolution stands on a
par with those of quantum mechanics and relativity. It is as
well supported by observation and experiment and should be taught
as such.
Carnac
"Laura" <la...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:bb7mvi$1v58$1...@news.cybercity.dk...
> > Evolution has been proven beyond any _reasonble_ doubt. It
> > hasn't been proven beyond _any_ doubt because no theory in
> > science is that certain.
>
> Has it indeed?
> The only form of evolution that has been proven beyond any reasonable
doubt
> is micro-evolution - how a species is capable of adapting certain traits
to
> deal with different environments. This is really what Darwin discovered.
> Then he postulated macro-evolution - where one species can evolve into a
> completely different species through many steps of micro-evolution. It
> sounds plausible enough, but there is a _disturbing_ lack of evidence in
the
> fossil record of these gradual changes. The infamous 'missing link'
between
No, there is not a disturbing lack of evidence which demonstrates
'speciation'. They discovered land dwelling dinosaurs several years ago
with what appeared to be the initial forms of wings, which provides fairly
good evidence. The wings weren't complete, but the fossils demonstrated
that they were pre-wings, most likely from which modern birds derived their
wings. Are you going to say now that 'The devil placed those fossils
there'? :P
> pre-humans and humans has not been found. No skeleton with an
> almost-opposable thumb. Similarly, no remains of any creatures that are
> half-way to becoming another species. Macro-evolution remains an
> unsubstantiated theory, but one that is presented as a proven fact in
> schools. We're all brought up thinking that it is the absolute truth.
Well,
> unless we're brought up with strict creationist beliefs, which is even
more
> ridiculous.
I think the difference between science and religion such as Xtianity, is the
fact that generally when science is confronted with data which contradicts
current ideas, then the data is re-evaluated, and the ideas are changed if
necessary. Xtianity doesn't appear to like to take onboard conflicting
evidence. Xtians won't change their ideas, but grasp onto them, and will
either call anybody with opposing ideas liars, or charlatans.
pz
"Laura" <la...@nospam.net> wrote:
> "Ian H Spedding" <ian_sp...@lineone.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.193c1042e...@news.CIS.DFN.DE...
> > In article <8953-3ED1B88D-656@storefull-
> > 2238.public.lawson.webtv.net>, ELth...@webtv.net says...
>
> > Evolution has been proven beyond any _reasonble_ doubt. It
> > hasn't been proven beyond _any_ doubt because no theory in
> > science is that certain.
>
> Has it indeed?
Yes, it has.
> The only form of evolution that has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt
> is micro-evolution - how a species is capable of adapting certain traits to
> deal with different environments. This is really what Darwin discovered.
No. Darwin had no valid concept of genetics, let alone population
genetics, so he certainly couldn't have made the distinction between
micro- and macro-evolution.
> Then he postulated macro-evolution
No. Micro- and macro-evolution are concepts first articulated by
Richard Goldschmidt, about 70 years after Darwin published the
_Origin_.
I must say, you aren't doing very well so far. These are blatant
anachronisms that you are presenting as facts.
> - where one species can evolve into a
> completely different species through many steps of micro-evolution. It
> sounds plausible enough, but there is a _disturbing_ lack of evidence in the
> fossil record of these gradual changes.
Again, no. There is very good evidence in the fossil record for
transitions between many species, including our own.
> The infamous 'missing link' between
> pre-humans and humans has not been found.
Define "pre-human" and "human". We have a good record of a pattern
of near continuous morphological change in the human lineage. One of
the most amusing observations I've seen is that creationists
typically make this claim, that there is a discrete boundary between
human and non-human, yet no two of them seem to be able to draw that
boundary at the same place.
> No skeleton with an
> almost-opposable thumb.
Nobody expects such a thing in the hominid lineage. That would be an
attribute of a pre-APE species.
> Similarly, no remains of any creatures that are
> half-way to becoming another species.
Of course not. It doesn't make much sense to talk about "half-way"
between species.
ALL species are transitional in some sense. We have lovely lineages
within many groups -- hominids, whales, horses, for instance. I
simply do not understand how anyone can look at the assemblages
found for whales, as an example, and claim that no one has found
transitional forms. It really requires a kind of willful, ignorant
denial.
> Macro-evolution remains an
> unsubstantiated theory, but one that is presented as a proven fact in
> schools.
Completely wrong again. Macroevolution is an observed phenomenon.
What we lack right now is a good theory for it. Microevolution is
*part* of it, but there's more to it than that.
> We're all brought up thinking that it is the absolute truth.
We are? You didn't go to the same schools I did, I guess. I was
brought up to reject this silly notion of absolute truth.
> Well,
> unless we're brought up with strict creationist beliefs, which is even more
> ridiculous.
About as ridiculous as someone who pontificates on the subject of
evolution with virtually no knowledge of the subject.
--
pz
DanKettler
acronym: PSF - pseudo-skeptic-fanatic
John Griffin wrote:
> "DanKettler" <MAILVIAWEBSITE@no_spamKETTLERscams.COM> wrote
> > Gary Wayne wrote:
> > GW: > All you skeptics are always saying prove this & prove that...
> > DK: The most important fact, about what they say, is that these
> > are newsgroups FOR THE DISCUSSION OF THESE SUBJECTS.
> Speaking of THESE SUBJECTS, do you have any facts or rational
> argument to support anything you've ever said about them? If you
> do, why have you kept it secret for years?
Evidently, you are an idiot. You read the newsgroups, and have for years.
You must be an idiot if you say I've not provided any rational arguments.
GOOGLE archives show that I have, many times. Do a keyword search,
and look at the URL references at the end of this post.
http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
> > DK: That means you can discuss them WITHOUT PROVIDING
> > PROOF, OR EVIDENCE, AT ALL.
> A discussion in which you can make off-the-wall assertions without
> any apparent foundation would be as worthless as you are.
These newsgroups are for discussion. Most rational people
understand that does not require providing proof to
so-called "skeptics."
> > DK: The obligation the "skeptics" say you have to prove it is _THEIR_
> delusion.
> You don't get it. (duh) Asking you for evidence of any of the silly
> nonsense you post is actually just a fun way of reminding you that
> it's all fantasy.
_Demanding_ evidence shows your fanaticism. Most of you hardly ever _ask_.
You are not reminding me, and I don't believe you are
getting that through to others that theirs is nothing
but "fantasy." What you are showing, here, is your
own fantasy of what others supposedly perceive from
your writing.
You are, as always, making it clear that you are a fanatic.
> Just part of the discussion made meaningless by
> you and others of lack mind insisting on making apparently
> random claims with impunity.
In the delusion that fanatics like you see things, they seem like "claims."
They are not "random claims." They are discussions. These discussions
are not invitations for so-called skeptics to engage in dialogue.
To the deluded mind-set of a PSF, a discussion is a "claim."
> Anyway, why do you bother to
> post stuff if you con't care whether anyone believes you?
As I explained quite a few times (but you fanatics never get
it) these are discussion groups. Those involved in the
discussions believe what we are writing about.
For the most part, we do not _care_ what you believe, or do not believe.
> Pardon the apparent typo. Couldn't resist.
> > DK: My advice is DO NOT LET THAT DELUSION BE YOURS ALSO.
> My son's cat baked a cake yesterday. Just believe it. No fair
> asking for proof that it was really a cake.
Only to the mind-set of a fanatic does the above make sense.
We are not having discussions to try to convince "skeptics."
We already find experience with the paranormal valid. We
who believe wish to get involved in discussion so we can
help each other by exchanging information.
> > DK: All you need to know of so-called skeptics...
> can be learned by reading this newsgroup, wherein you will find
> both sides of the story, as dramatically opposed to the mounds
> of verbal manure you can find at
DK: Much of what you will find at the following consist of
DK: copies of the inane writing of so-called "skeptics" in
DK: newsgroups.
> > DK: http://www.psicounsel.com/page9328-a.htm
> >
> > DK: Linked from most search engines by typing...
> >
> > DK: " skeptics what they do and why "
> >
> > GW: I say prove without doubt evolution...
> >
> > DK: I say, they don't have to prove anything,
> > and neither do you. They are not worthy
> > of your time. Others of like mind
> > are worthy of it. They can be
> > helped by you.
> Okay, don't prove anything. Just advance your explanation for any
> phenomenon and eliminate all other explanations.
I've discussed this with "skeptics." For the most part, they have nothing new
to say. Much of what they write is illogical and stupid.
Much of the skeptical debate is linked from...
SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF PSYCHIC PHENOMENA
http://www.psicounsel.com/scistudy.html
An example of their "logic" is shown here...
http://www.psicounsel.com/logic.html
What I've written about debate in newsgroups is at...
http://www.psicounsel.com/faqevid.html
--
John Griffin
"DanKettler" <MAILVIAWEBSITE@no_spamKETTLERENTERPRISES.COM> wrote in message
news:3ED837FB.D0ED98C5@no_spamKETTLERENTERPRISES.COM...
>
> acronym: PSF - pseudo-skeptic-fanatic
>
> John Griffin wrote:
>
> > "DanKettler" <MAILVIAWEBSITE@no_spamKETTLERscams.COM> wrote
>
> > > Gary Wayne wrote:
>
> > > GW: > All you skeptics are always saying prove this & prove that...
>
> > > DK: The most important fact, about what they say, is that these
> > > are newsgroups FOR THE DISCUSSION OF THESE SUBJECTS.
>
> > Speaking of THESE SUBJECTS, do you have any facts or rational
> > argument to support anything you've ever said about them? If you
> > do, why have you kept it secret for years?
>
> Evidently, you are an idiot. You read the newsgroups, and have for years.
Speaking of newsgroups, I see you've moved your "counseling"
advertisements and their accompanying drivel, out of alt.paranormal.
This thread was proceeding nicely in alt.out-of-body until you showed
up and interjected another copy of some of your standard carping.
Some people were trying to explain the process of evolution to some
others who're captivated by one of the dozens of creation stories and
an ultimate "out of body" story. No one had asked you how the normal
people treat you. Maybe they didn't even know you were reading that
group. You decided to tell them anyway, but since you can't get
alt.paranormal out of your mind, which you might be, you crossposted
to it. I bet you didn't even notice. Maybe that's an example of those
psychic powers you say you have but can't talk about.
> You must be an idiot if you say I've not provided any rational arguments.
It's a matter of semantics. When I say "rational," I mean rational.
I don't mean voluminous and repetitious.
> GOOGLE archives show that I have, many times. Do a keyword search,
> and look at the URL references at the end of this post.
It will show that you post things many times, that's for sure.
> http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
>
> > > DK: That means you can discuss them WITHOUT PROVIDING
> > > PROOF, OR EVIDENCE, AT ALL.
>
> > A discussion in which you can make off-the-wall assertions without
> > any apparent foundation would be as worthless as you are.
>
> These newsgroups are for discussion. Most rational people
> understand that does not require providing proof to
> so-called "skeptics."
No rational person bitches about being asked to back
up things he represents as facts. You do.
Expand your conception of "discussion" to the one rational
people have. "I'm not going to take your word for that,"
however expressed, is a reasonable part of any discussion.
> > > DK: The obligation the "skeptics" say you have to prove it is _THEIR_
> > delusion.
>
> > You don't get it. (duh) Asking you for evidence of any of the silly
> > nonsense you post is actually just a fun way of reminding you that
> > it's all fantasy.
>
> _Demanding_ evidence shows your fanaticism. Most of you hardly ever
_ask_.
A challenge isn't a demand. You always have the choice of either
providing evidence or tacitly admitting you're either lying, a fool
or a nut.
> You are not reminding me, and I don't believe you are
> getting that through to others that theirs is nothing
> but "fantasy."
Any worthwhile fantasy has automatic defense mechanisms,
in the form of powerful emotions which can easily cause the
mind to block out facts.
>What you are showing, here, is your
> own fantasy of what others supposedly perceive from
> your writing.
rotfl. I told you above what I think gulls perceive from my writing.
I also know that it irritates you. Oh, well.
> You are, as always, making it clear that you are a fanatic.
What's "clear" to you is determined by your filters. Nearly
all of my comments are followups. Sometimes when one
of the "believers" posts something, either because he wants
to know what others think of it or because he's stupid, I let
him know what I think of it. If I continually started threads
telling them what I think, even that wouldn't be fanaticism.
> > Just part of the discussion made meaningless by
> > you and others of lack mind insisting on making apparently
> > random claims with impunity.
>
> In the delusion that fanatics like you see things, they seem like
"claims."
> They are not "random claims." They are discussions. These discussions
> are not invitations for so-called skeptics to engage in dialogue.
Posted here, they're implicit invitations to do exactly that.
> To the deluded mind-set of a PSF, a discussion is a "claim."
To an actual deluded mind, an unsupportable assertion is a "discussion."
"I have psychic powers. This is a discussion, not a claim"
is actually two unsupported claims.
> > Anyway, why do you bother to
> > post stuff if you con't care whether anyone believes you?
>
> As I explained quite a few times (but you fanatics never get
> it) these are discussion groups. Those involved in the
> discussions believe what we are writing about.
So you want nothing more than a mutual stroking. That's
both cowardly and sick.
> For the most part, we do not _care_ what you believe, or do not believe.
That's a big fat lie.
> > Pardon the apparent typo. Couldn't resist.
Whew...you didn't find it.
> > > DK: My advice is DO NOT LET THAT DELUSION BE YOURS ALSO.
>
> > My son's cat baked a cake yesterday. Just believe it. No fair
> > asking for proof that it was really a cake.
>
> Only to the mind-set of a fanatic does the above make sense.
Good. I knew you'd like it.
> We are not having discussions to try to convince "skeptics."
> We already find experience with the paranormal valid. We
> who believe wish to get involved in discussion so we can
> help each other by exchanging information.
You want to help each other contrive and "improve" silly stories
that have no basis in fact.
> > > DK: All you need to know of so-called skeptics...
>
> > can be learned by reading this newsgroup, wherein you will find
> > both sides of the story, as dramatically opposed to the mounds
> > of verbal manure you can find at
>
> DK: Much of what you will find at the following consist of
> DK: copies of the inane writing of so-called "skeptics" in
> DK: newsgroups.
>
> > > DK: http://www.psicounsel.com/page9328-a.htm
> > >
> > > DK: Linked from most search engines by typing...
> > >
> > > DK: " skeptics what they do and why "
> > >
> > > GW: I say prove without doubt evolution...
> > >
> > > DK: I say, they don't have to prove anything,
> > > and neither do you. They are not worthy
> > > of your time. Others of like mind
> > > are worthy of it. They can be
> > > helped by you.
>
> > Okay, don't prove anything. Just advance your explanation for any
> > phenomenon and eliminate all other explanations.
>
> I've discussed this with "skeptics." For the most part, they have nothing
new
> to say. Much of what they write is illogical and stupid.
If that was supposed address the foregoing, it's an excellent
illustration of illogical and stupid. What part of the idea of
eliminating all but one answer needs elaboration?
> Much of the skeptical debate is linked from...
>
> SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF PSYCHIC PHENOMENA
>
> http://www.psicounsel.com/scistudy.html
Does "psicounsel" imply that you have some qualifications to
counsel humans in some way? Yes. Has any evidence of
such qualifications ever been seen in any newsgroup? No.
> An example of their "logic" is shown here...
>
> http://www.psicounsel.com/logic.html
>
> What I've written about debate in newsgroups is at...
>
> http://www.psicounsel.com/faqevid.html
An exposition of your claimed psychic powers is at
David Mitchell
> "Ian H Spedding" <ian_sp...@lineone.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.193c1042e...@news.CIS.DFN.DE...
>
>>In article <8953-3ED1B88D-656@storefull-
>>2238.public.lawson.webtv.net>, ELth...@webtv.net says...
>
>
>>Evolution has been proven beyond any _reasonble_ doubt. It
>>hasn't been proven beyond _any_ doubt because no theory in
>>science is that certain.
>
>
> Has it indeed?
> The only form of evolution that has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt
> is micro-evolution - how a species is capable of adapting certain traits to
> deal with different environments. This is really what Darwin discovered.
> Then he postulated macro-evolution - where one species can evolve into a
> completely different species through many steps of micro-evolution. It
> sounds plausible enough, but there is a _disturbing_ lack of evidence in the
> fossil record of these gradual changes.
Well, not really. Given that there have been many tens of _billions_ of
animals since life began, and that we have only ever found a few tens of
thousands of fossils at best, it's hardly surprising we don't have the
full picture.
What do you make of the DNA commonality between various species?
> The infamous 'missing link' between
> pre-humans and humans has not been found. No skeleton with an
> almost-opposable thumb. Similarly, no remains of any creatures that are
> half-way to becoming another species. Macro-evolution remains an
> unsubstantiated theory, but one that is presented as a proven fact in
> schools. We're all brought up thinking that it is the absolute truth. Well,
> unless we're brought up with strict creationist beliefs, which is even more
> ridiculous.
No-one has ever claimed that schools are good at teaching The Truth :-)
--
=======================================================================
= David - Visit www.thehungersite.com
= Mitchell - Feed someone for nothing
=======================================================================
Laura
"Carnac" <car...@realitys-edge.com> wrote in message
news:rKUBa.46703$1s1.6...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> I think the difference between science and religion such as Xtianity, is
the
> fact that generally when science is confronted with data which contradicts
> current ideas, then the data is re-evaluated, and the ideas are changed if
> necessary. Xtianity doesn't appear to like to take onboard conflicting
> evidence. Xtians won't change their ideas, but grasp onto them, and will
> either call anybody with opposing ideas liars, or charlatans.
Well, that is the ideal of science, but not always the reality of it. So
much contradictory evidence is neatly archived because it doesn't happen to
fit well with the current theory. Maybe later, someone will study this
evidence again, and maybe it will just sit there forever.
As for christians.... let's just say that I'm not one of them, before I say
something I'll regret later ;-)
Laura
"pz" <pzm...@pharyngula.org> wrote in message
news:pzmyers-772EB5...@news.fu-berlin.de...
> In article <bb7mvi$1v58$1...@news.cybercity.dk>,
> "Laura" <la...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> > "Ian H Spedding" <ian_sp...@lineone.net> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.193c1042e...@news.CIS.DFN.DE...
> > > In article <8953-3ED1B88D-656@storefull-
> > > 2238.public.lawson.webtv.net>, ELth...@webtv.net says...
> >
> > > Evolution has been proven beyond any _reasonble_ doubt. It
> > > hasn't been proven beyond _any_ doubt because no theory in
> > > science is that certain.
> >
> > Has it indeed?
>
> Yes, it has.
>
> > The only form of evolution that has been proven beyond any reasonable
doubt
> > is micro-evolution - how a species is capable of adapting certain traits
to
> > deal with different environments. This is really what Darwin discovered.
>
> No. Darwin had no valid concept of genetics, let alone population
> genetics, so he certainly couldn't have made the distinction between
> micro- and macro-evolution.
I am aware that genetics was nowhere near being discovered at the time of
Darwin. He did, however, observe isolated species and noted how they seemed
to have changed subtly to be better suited for their particular environment.
This led to his theory on the origin of species.
>
> > Then he postulated macro-evolution
>
> No. Micro- and macro-evolution are concepts first articulated by
> Richard Goldschmidt, about 70 years after Darwin published the
> _Origin_.
I stand corrected. Sort of. Ok, he didn't postulate macro-evolution is those
exact words, but he did theorize that humans were descended from apes - that
is not exactly micro-evolution there, is it? So the actual terms were coined
much later. You earned a cookie :-)
>
> I must say, you aren't doing very well so far. These are blatant
> anachronisms that you are presenting as facts.
And your caustic sarcasm is duly noted and appreciated.
>
> > - where one species can evolve into a
> > completely different species through many steps of micro-evolution. It
> > sounds plausible enough, but there is a _disturbing_ lack of evidence in
the
> > fossil record of these gradual changes.
>
> Again, no. There is very good evidence in the fossil record for
> transitions between many species, including our own.
Including our own.... Let's talk about Lucy, then. Lucy was an
australopithecine - I do believe those are classed as pre-humans (one of our
ancestors). The footprint in the mud may look pretty human to the untrained
eye, but a closer study shows that her method of walking was more similar to
an upright walking chimp than to a modern human. Modern humans have a gait
with a characteristic heel-stroke first, then a roll across the arch, and
finally a pushing off using the big toe and the ball just behind it.
Absolutely no apes or pre-human remains can have walked anything like that.
Their anatomy shows that.
>
> > The infamous 'missing link' between
> > pre-humans and humans has not been found.
>
> Define "pre-human" and "human". We have a good record of a pattern
> of near continuous morphological change in the human lineage. One of
> the most amusing observations I've seen is that creationists
> typically make this claim, that there is a discrete boundary between
> human and non-human, yet no two of them seem to be able to draw that
> boundary at the same place.
First off, I am not a creationist nor a christian. I'm not saying that
evolution isn't true. I'm just pointing out that it still is a theory, not a
solid fact.
I think evolution does make sense, but perhaps it doesn't work exactly like
the current theory perscribes.
I think I just defined a pre-human above, or at least one particular case
where something is amiss.
>
> > No skeleton with an
> > almost-opposable thumb.
>
> Nobody expects such a thing in the hominid lineage. That would be an
> attribute of a pre-APE species.
Apes. Chimpanzees, Gorillas, Orangutangs, etc. yes?
Can any of them touch each of their fingertips to the tip of their thumbs?
>
> > Similarly, no remains of any creatures that are
> > half-way to becoming another species.
>
> Of course not. It doesn't make much sense to talk about "half-way"
> between species.
>
> ALL species are transitional in some sense. We have lovely lineages
> within many groups -- hominids, whales, horses, for instance. I
> simply do not understand how anyone can look at the assemblages
> found for whales, as an example, and claim that no one has found
> transitional forms. It really requires a kind of willful, ignorant
> denial.
Actually, I think there must be something to evolution, but I also think
that we do not entirely understand how it works just yet, and I'm sure there
are errors made because of it.
>
> > Macro-evolution remains an
> > unsubstantiated theory, but one that is presented as a proven fact in
> > schools.
>
> Completely wrong again. Macroevolution is an observed phenomenon.
> What we lack right now is a good theory for it. Microevolution is
> *part* of it, but there's more to it than that.
Microevolution is an observed phenomenon, certainly. Macroevolution is
thought to be observed in a way through the study of ancient remains. These
may actually be proof, or we may be misinterpreting them entirely. We can't
say we're sure yet.
You seem to admit that microevolution does not translate automatically into
macroevolution, given a large enough timescale. What could the missing
mechanism be, then?
>
> > We're all brought up thinking that it is the absolute truth.
>
> We are? You didn't go to the same schools I did, I guess. I was
> brought up to reject this silly notion of absolute truth.
Sure, let's split another hair while we're at it :-)
Did they, or did they not, present evolution as a fact? Weren't you taught
that apes were your ancestors? Did they remember to tell you that there's
not enough proof to call it a fact? Did they stress that it was a theory?
>
> > Well,
> > unless we're brought up with strict creationist beliefs, which is even
more
> > ridiculous.
>
> About as ridiculous as someone who pontificates on the subject of
> evolution with virtually no knowledge of the subject.
Is that as ridiculous as someone who flaunts his unbridled sarcasm in
another's face, when he could have been civil instead?
And although you know the subject matter better than I, surely that doesn't
make your pontification on the subject a morally superior act.
I have an open mind, and I am prepared to discuss this, but you seem to be
more interested in debunking who you think is a wild-eyed creationist zealot
freak. I'm no creationist, and certainly not a christian. I do not subscribe
to any religious dogma whatsoever. I don't need a 'spiritual pacifier' -
I'll make up my own mind about everything, fitting together the bits and
bobs of experience, reading, hearing, watching, doing - using both the
scientific and the spiritual as resources.
In closing, I still consider evolution in some form highly likely. My point
was only that it is still officially a theory.
Carnac
> > Again, no. There is very good evidence in the fossil record for
> > transitions between many species, including our own.
>
> Including our own.... Let's talk about Lucy, then. Lucy was an
> australopithecine - I do believe those are classed as pre-humans (one of
our
> ancestors). The footprint in the mud may look pretty human to the
untrained
> eye, but a closer study shows that her method of walking was more similar
to
> an upright walking chimp than to a modern human. Modern humans have a gait
> with a characteristic heel-stroke first, then a roll across the arch, and
> finally a pushing off using the big toe and the ball just behind it.
> Absolutely no apes or pre-human remains can have walked anything like
that.
> Their anatomy shows that.
You seem to think that from a genetic viewpoint, huge amounts of genetic
material need to be altered in order to gain new traits. Our own DNA is not
remarkably different from the 'monkeys' - 1 or 2%. It doesn't require a
massive DNA change to jump from species to species. It's even possible that
massive solar radiation bursts made the distinction between human and 'ape',
in quite a short time frame.
Evidence for 'evolution' from a genetic view point comes in another form in
relation to immunity to HIV infection which stems from the days of the
bubonic plague. It was found that point mutations in a gene encoding a
surface protein protected those who had the mutations from bubonic plague,
and today, from HIV infection. We're still evolving, and it certainly
hasn't stopped. Just because we became 'top of the food chain', doesn't
mean that we aren't still prey.
pz
"Laura" <la...@nospam.net> wrote:
[..]
> In closing, I still consider evolution in some form highly likely. My point
> was only that it is still officially a theory.
In closing, you demonstrate that you are an uneducated idiot.
Do you even understand what "theory" means in science? Apparently
not. "Theory" is a term of high praise -- it is an idea that binds
together a wide range of observations, integrates and makes sense of
a substantial chunk of the world. It is not a guess. It is not a
tentative explanation. It's a dead giveaway that someone doesn't
have a clue when they couple the word "only" to "theory".
--
pz
Mark Baron
> news:pzmyers-772EB5...@news.fu-berlin.de...
> > In article <bb7mvi$1v58$1...@news.cybercity.dk>,
> > "Laura" <la...@nospam.net> wrote:
[snip]
> >
> > > No skeleton with an
> > > almost-opposable thumb.
> >
> > Nobody expects such a thing in the hominid lineage. That would be an
> > attribute of a pre-APE species.
>
> Apes. Chimpanzees, Gorillas, Orangutangs, etc. yes?
> Can any of them touch each of their fingertips to the tip of their thumbs?
They can't do this? Are they unable to bring their thumb across their palm?
Trish
Did Darwin actually say that??? That we were descended from apes? Or that
we all had a common ancestor?
> > I must say, you aren't doing very well so far. These are blatant
> > anachronisms that you are presenting as facts.
>
> And your caustic sarcasm is duly noted and appreciated.
> >
> > > - where one species can evolve into a
> > > completely different species through many steps of micro-evolution. It
> > > sounds plausible enough, but there is a _disturbing_ lack of evidence
in
> the
> > > fossil record of these gradual changes.
> >
> > Again, no. There is very good evidence in the fossil record for
> > transitions between many species, including our own.
>
> Including our own.... Let's talk about Lucy, then. Lucy was an
> australopithecine - I do believe those are classed as pre-humans (one of
our
> ancestors). The footprint in the mud may look pretty human to the
untrained
> eye, but a closer study shows that her method of walking was more similar
to
> an upright walking chimp than to a modern human. Modern humans have a gait
> with a characteristic heel-stroke first, then a roll across the arch, and
> finally a pushing off using the big toe and the ball just behind it.
> Absolutely no apes or pre-human remains can have walked anything like
that.
> Their anatomy shows that.
Ok. Confused.
I recall that the Laetoli footprints were comparable to a hominid, not an
"upright walking chimp" at all. Brain size of a. afarensis was comparable
to a chimp's. Where have you read that their anatomy in reference to
locomotion was more comparable to a chimp's?
> > > The infamous 'missing link' between
> > > pre-humans and humans has not been found.
> >
> > Define "pre-human" and "human". We have a good record of a pattern
> > of near continuous morphological change in the human lineage. One of
> > the most amusing observations I've seen is that creationists
> > typically make this claim, that there is a discrete boundary between
> > human and non-human, yet no two of them seem to be able to draw that
> > boundary at the same place.
>
> First off, I am not a creationist nor a christian. I'm not saying that
> evolution isn't true. I'm just pointing out that it still is a theory, not
a
> solid fact.
> I think evolution does make sense, but perhaps it doesn't work exactly
like
> the current theory perscribes.
> I think I just defined a pre-human above, or at least one particular case
> where something is amiss.
Pre-human meaning pre-homo? Maybe I'm not understanding you, but it seems
like you might be having trouble accepting australopithecines within our
family tree. Are you still looking for an earlier homo? Hey .... are you a
Leakey? : )
> > > No skeleton with an
> > > almost-opposable thumb.
> >
> > Nobody expects such a thing in the hominid lineage. That would be an
> > attribute of a pre-APE species.
>
> Apes. Chimpanzees, Gorillas, Orangutangs, etc. yes?
> Can any of them touch each of their fingertips to the tip of their thumbs?
Ok. We did _not_ descend from apes. Modern apes (including humans)
descended from a common ancestor. We evolved to have an opposable thumb.
They did not.
Trish
Mark Baron <baron...@mayo.edu.invalid> wrote in message
news:bba93a$1i3$1...@tribune.mayo.edu...
I should have been more specific in my own post:
Most primate hands share adaptations that are fairly unique and are often
used to define the primate order. These include nails instead of claws,
ridged pads on the fingertips for greater sensitivity and divergent thumbs
that are often opposable. That is, the thumb can be moved to face at least
some of the fingers, allowing a stronger grip with the hand or a more
sensitive precision grip between the thumb and finger. Only humans have
*completely* opposable thumbs, in which the thumb can rotate to face each of
the other four fingers. This characteristic makes our hands uniquely nimble
and dexterous, and it facilitates our use of tools--from hammers to
computers.
Trish
Trish <spirito...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:cU2Ca.27172$Io.22...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Edit: Modern apes did not evolve to have a completely opposable thumb, as
we do.
Dick Hertz (Hey, who's Dick Hertz?)
order to write:
> acronym: PSF - pseudo-skeptic-fanatic
acronym: SFBK - shit-for-brains kook
Your problem with skeptics is the same as your problem with reality,
Desperate Dan.
DanKettler
> "DanKettler" <MAILVIAWEBSITE@no_spamKETTLERENTERPRISES.COM> wrote in message
> news:3ED837FB.D0ED98C5@no_spamKETTLERENTERPRISES.COM...
> > acronym: PSF - pseudo-skeptic-fanatic
DK: http://www.psicounsel.com/acronym.html
> > John Griffin wrote:
> > > "DanKettler" <MAILVIAWEBSITE@no_spamKETTLERscams.COM> wrote
> > > > Gary Wayne wrote:
> > > > GW: > All you skeptics are always saying prove this & prove that...
> > > > DK: The most important fact, about what they say, is that these
> > > > are newsgroups FOR THE DISCUSSION OF THESE SUBJECTS.
> > > Speaking of THESE SUBJECTS, do you have any facts or rational
> > > argument to support anything you've ever said about them? If you
> > > do, why have you kept it secret for years?
> > Evidently, you are an idiot. You read the newsgroups, and have for years.
> Speaking of newsgroups, I see you've moved your "counseling"
> advertisements and their accompanying drivel, out of alt.paranormal.
Where do you see recent "'counseling' advertisements" in alt.paranormal?
Where do you see the movement of these to alt.out-of-body?
Why are the PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATICS (PSF), like yourself, such blatant liars?
<snip stupidity>
> > You must be an idiot if you say I've not provided any rational arguments.
> It's a matter of semantics. When I say "rational," I mean rational.
> I don't mean voluminous and repetitious.
It's a matter of opinion. Your posts, generally, are
irrational. How does an irrational person like yourself
determine what is rational?
> > GOOGLE archives show that I have, many times [presented rational
> > discussion]. Do a keyword search, and look at the URL references
> > at the end of this post. ***
JG: > It will show that you post things
JG: > many times, that's for sure.
DK: > > http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
> > > > DK: That means you can discuss them WITHOUT PROVIDING
> > > > DK: PROOF, OR EVIDENCE, AT ALL.
> > > A discussion in which you can make off-the-wall assertions without
> > > any apparent foundation would be as worthless as you are.
> > These newsgroups are for discussion. Most rational people
> > understand that does not require providing proof to
> > so-called "skeptics."
JG: > No rational person bitches about being ** asked to back
JG: > up things he represents as facts. You do.
DK: My exposure of you fanatics has nothing to do with being ** "asked."
DK: It has to do with the activities of fanatics like you...
DK: ON THE NET...
DK: http://www.psicounsel.com/discsens.html
DK: OFF THE NET...
DK: http://www.psicounsel.com/takstock.html
DK: Those activities are those of CENSORING and TERRORIZING BIGOTED FANATICS!
DK: You are not rational skeptics.
> Expand your conception of "discussion" to the one rational
> people have. "I'm not going to take your word for that,"
> however expressed, is a reasonable part of any discussion.
DK: Since my discussion is not about being "asked" for proof,
DK: but rather the activities of CENSORING, BIGOTED, FANATICS
DK: AND LIARS, your statement above is irrelevant.
DK: Asking for proof is fine, but that's not all you sick people do.
> > > > DK: The obligation the "skeptics" say you have to prove it is _THEIR_
> > > delusion.
> > > You don't get it. (duh) Asking you for evidence of any of the silly
> > > nonsense you post is actually just a fun way of reminding you that
> > > it's all fantasy.
> > _Demanding_ evidence shows your fanaticism. Most of you hardly ever
> > _ask_.
JG: > A challenge isn't a demand.
DK: Again, NET CENSORSHIP AND TERRORISM is not a "challenge."
DK: Calling people frauds, idiots, and kooks, or trying to terrorise
and censor them just because they do not answer you is not
"challenge."
DK: If you believe that is all PSF do,
DK: that's stupid, because you read
DK: these newsgroups.
DK: If you don't believe it, but are
DK: attempting to promote propaganda,
DK: that's also stupid.
> You always have the choice of either
> providing evidence or tacitly admitting
> you're either lying, a fool or a nut.
DK: When I am involved in a discussion with another
DK: person in alt.out-of-body or alt.paranormal about
DK: an OUT OF BODY experience, and we both believe
DK: in the phenomena, then a "skeptic" says "prove
DK: it," I am not "lying, a fool, or a nut" when
DK: I ignore him/her.
DK: The PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATIC (PSF) who thinks I'm
DK: "lying, a fool, or a nut" is an idiot for
DK: thinking I am.
DK: Evidence for paranormal phenomena has been
DK: presented on USENET in a scientific manner,
DK: and you people have refused to...
DK: ...refute the evidence.
DK: http://www.psicounsel.com/psilabts.html
<snip>
***
http://www.psicounsel.com/scistudy.html
Janice
spirito...@earthlink.net says...
>I recall that the Laetoli footprints were comparable to a hominid, not an
>"upright walking chimp" at all. Brain size of a. afarensis was comparable
>to a chimp's. Where have you read that their anatomy in reference to
>locomotion was more comparable to a chimp's?
I don't know what scientists have come to make of them since the 1980s,
but back then we were taught that they were fully bipedal.
Speaking of which, can anyone recommend a good book that would help me
catch up with what's been learned about hominid evolution since the
1980s?
Laura
> In article <bba3r9$1lj1$1...@news.cybercity.dk>,
> "Laura" <la...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> > In closing, I still consider evolution in some form highly likely. My
point
> > was only that it is still officially a theory.
>
> In closing, you demonstrate that you are an uneducated idiot.
Again an uncalled for and primitive attack. How is it again that you
consider yourself superior?
>
> Do you even understand what "theory" means in science? Apparently
> not. "Theory" is a term of high praise -- it is an idea that binds
> together a wide range of observations, integrates and makes sense of
> a substantial chunk of the world. It is not a guess. It is not a
> tentative explanation. It's a dead giveaway that someone doesn't
> have a clue when they couple the word "only" to "theory".
Theory may be a term of high praise, but it still doesn't mean proof. It is
a working model, which seems to explain things well. I am not disregarding
the value of a good theory. Let me offer an example. The earth is round, not
flat. This is a proven fact, not a theory. It was a theory in the days of
Kepler and Copernicus, but not now, because we have observed beyond a shadow
of a doubt that it is so.
It is a pity that you have to repeatedly descend to the level of simple
flaming, when that is completely unnecessary, and not productive in any way.
I can't change the fact that you feel your alleged education makes you a
superior human being. Good for you, I suppose.
Laura
"Mark Baron" <baron...@mayo.edu.invalid> wrote in message
news:bba93a$1i3$1...@tribune.mayo.edu...
>
Well, some of them are able to, as it turns out. I was relying on memory,
and I was wrong. Chimpanzees actually have both opposable thumbs and big
toes.
>
>
Trish
Janice <JayAVo...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1942bedd9...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> In article <cU2Ca.27172$Io.22...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> spirito...@earthlink.net says...
>
> >I recall that the Laetoli footprints were comparable to a hominid, not an
> >"upright walking chimp" at all. Brain size of a. afarensis was
comparable
> >to a chimp's. Where have you read that their anatomy in reference to
> >locomotion was more comparable to a chimp's?
>
> I don't know what scientists have come to make of them since the 1980s,
> but back then we were taught that they were fully bipedal.
>
> Speaking of which, can anyone recommend a good book that would help me
> catch up with what's been learned about hominid evolution since the
> 1980s?
Ditto! I'm stuck back in the 80's myself.
Mark Baron
Thanks for your answers, Trish and Laura. I knew our resident simian expert
would come through for us.
John Griffin
"DanKettler" <MAILVIAWEBSITE@no_spamKETTLERENTERPRISES.COM> wrote
> John Griffin wrote:
>
> > "DanKettler" <MAILVIAWEBSITE@no_spamKETTLERENTERPRISES.COM> wrote in
message
> > news:3ED837FB.D0ED98C5@no_spamKETTLERENTERPRISES.COM...
>
> > > acronym: PSF - pseudo-skeptic-fanatic
>
> DK: http://www.psicounsel.com/acronym.html
>
> > > John Griffin wrote:
>
> > > > "DanKettler" <MAILVIAWEBSITE@no_spamKETTLERscams.COM> wrote
>
> > > > > Gary Wayne wrote:
>
> > > > > GW: > All you skeptics are always saying prove this & prove
that...
>
> > > > > DK: The most important fact, about what they say, is that these
> > > > > are newsgroups FOR THE DISCUSSION OF THESE SUBJECTS.
>
> > > > Speaking of THESE SUBJECTS, do you have any facts or rational
> > > > argument to support anything you've ever said about them? If you
> > > > do, why have you kept it secret for years?
>
> > > Evidently, you are an idiot. You read the newsgroups, and have for
years.
>
> > Speaking of newsgroups, I see you've moved your "counseling"
> > advertisements and their accompanying drivel, out of alt.paranormal.
>
> Where do you see recent "'counseling' advertisements" in alt.paranormal?
Good lord...I hope the drivel that always accompanies the half
dozen URLs isn't supposted to be the point of your posts!
> Where do you see the movement of these to alt.out-of-body?
Well, as I mentioned, this thread was only in that newsgroup.
You found it, so I figured you were reading that group after
again humiliating yourself out of alt.paranormal for a while.
Some day it would be mildly interesting to find out how many
repetitions it takes you to understand a simple fact.
> Why are the PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATICS (PSF), like yourself, such blatant
liars?
Your "PSF" thing was too lame to say even once.
> <snip stupidity>
>
> > > You must be an idiot if you say I've not provided any rational
arguments.
>
> > It's a matter of semantics. When I say "rational," I mean rational.
> > I don't mean voluminous and repetitious.
>
> It's a matter of opinion. Your posts, generally, are
> irrational. How does an irrational person like yourself
> determine what is rational?
I'll never give away my secret. If you knew, you too might start
using your (such as it is) brain.
> > > GOOGLE archives show that I have, many times [presented rational
> > > discussion]. Do a keyword search, and look at the URL references
> > > at the end of this post. ***
>
> JG: > It will show that you post things
> JG: > many times, that's for sure.
>
> DK: > > http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
>
> > > > > DK: That means you can discuss them WITHOUT PROVIDING
> > > > > DK: PROOF, OR EVIDENCE, AT ALL.
>
> > > > A discussion in which you can make off-the-wall assertions without
> > > > any apparent foundation would be as worthless as you are.
>
> > > These newsgroups are for discussion. Most rational people
> > > understand that does not require providing proof to
> > > so-called "skeptics."
>
> JG: > No rational person bitches about being ** asked to back
> JG: > up things he represents as facts. You do.
>
> DK: My exposure of you fanatics has nothing to do with being ** "asked."
You've been bitching about being asked. How does that work, fool?
Bitch first, get the questions you're bitching about later? You've been
asked dozens of times.
> DK: It has to do with the activities of fanatics like you...
Apparently you were pissed off by my evidence that the normal
people aren't fanatics. I really expected you to try to dispute it
instead of snipping it. (Sure, I did.....rotfl.)
> DK: ON THE NET...
>
> DK: http://www.psicounsel.com/discsens.html
>
> DK: OFF THE NET...
>
> DK: http://www.psicounsel.com/takstock.html
>
> DK: Those activities are those of CENSORING and TERRORIZING BIGOTED
FANATICS!
>
> DK: You are not rational skeptics.
>
> > Expand your conception of "discussion" to the one rational
> > people have. "I'm not going to take your word for that,"
> > however expressed, is a reasonable part of any discussion.
>
> DK: Since my discussion is not about being "asked" for proof,
> DK: but rather the activities of CENSORING, BIGOTED, FANATICS
> DK: AND LIARS, your statement above is irrelevant.
Actually, my statement was way too complicated for a mind like yours.
You really can't participate in a discussion, for several reasons. You
have nothing to add, you don't think anyone should question your
silly attempts to add something, and you're a flibbertigibbet, just to
mention a few examples.
> DK: Asking for proof is fine, but that's not all you sick people do.
I'll have to admit that the normal people do more than ask for proof.
They try to explain your errors, misconceptions and stupid ideas,
but you're way too prolific with those, and you don't listen.
No rational person paints fake hair on his head. You do.
> > > > > DK: The obligation the "skeptics" say you have to prove it is
_THEIR_
> > > > delusion.
>
> > > > You don't get it. (duh) Asking you for evidence of any of the
silly
> > > > nonsense you post is actually just a fun way of reminding you that
> > > > it's all fantasy.
>
> > > _Demanding_ evidence shows your fanaticism. Most of you hardly ever
> > > _ask_.
>
> JG: > A challenge isn't a demand.
>
> DK: Again, NET CENSORSHIP AND TERRORISM is not a "challenge."
I challenge you to back up that or any other of your hundreds of
goofy assertions.
> DK: Calling people frauds, idiots, and kooks, or trying to terrorise
> and censor them just because they do not answer you is not
> "challenge."
I have never called a non-fraud a fraud, fraud.
> DK: If you believe that is all PSF do,
> DK: that's stupid, because you read
> DK: these newsgroups.
>
> DK: If you don't believe it, but are
> DK: attempting to promote propaganda,
> DK: that's also stupid.
>
> > You always have the choice of either
> > providing evidence or tacitly admitting
> > you're either lying, a fool or a nut.
>
> DK: When I am involved in a discussion with another
> DK: person in alt.out-of-body or alt.paranormal about
> DK: an OUT OF BODY experience, and we both believe
> DK: in the phenomena, then a "skeptic" says "prove
> DK: it," I am not "lying, a fool, or a nut" when
> DK: I ignore him/her.
You're trolling for "counseling" clients. There must be at
least one or two crazy people in alt.out-of-body.
> DK: The PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATIC (PSF) who thinks I'm
> DK: "lying, a fool, or a nut" is an idiot for
> DK: thinking I am.
>
> DK: Evidence for paranormal phenomena has been
> DK: presented on USENET in a scientific manner,
> DK: and you people have refused to...
>
> DK: ...refute the evidence.
No evidence for paranormal phenomena has been presented
either here or anywhere else. Anecdotes and purported lab
tests by people no one has ever heard of and will never hear of
again are not evidence. They're stories.
> DK: http://www.psicounsel.com/psilabts.html
>
> <snip>
>
> ***
>
> http://www.psicounsel.com/scistudy.html
>
> http://www.psicounsel.com/faqevid.html
Also, see the exposition of Kettler's psychic powers at
Gonzalez, Elver
The real problem is that some skeptics are only
"pseudoskeptics"....example # 1 is the JREF forum with his admistrator
Mr. Hal Bidlack.
He is a God believer and prayer and also ask for donations for his
foundation and boss James Randi.
Dan Pressnell
news:3ED837FB.D0ED98C5@no_spamKETTLERENTERPRISES.COM...
> You must be an idiot if you say I've not provided any rational arguments.
>
> GOOGLE archives show that I have, many times. Do a keyword search,
> and look at the URL references at the end of this post.
>
> http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
I went there and found this link, which is pretty instructive, because I
wanted to know how your brain contributed to your psychic experiences:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&newwindow=1&safe
=off&selm=33C64AA5.63C7%40psicounsel.spamblock.com
Dan
David Mitchell
Hi Laura,
Don't mind pz, it's just his way :-)
To be honest he often says the things we (sceptics) would _like_ to say,
if we had the in-depth knowledge to back it up, but I think he's being
more aggressive than is warranted in this case.
I hope he doesn't dissuade you from posting here in future.
Laura
"David Mitchell" <da...@edenroad.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bbfd1m$6in$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
> Laura wrote:
> > "pz" <pzm...@pharyngula.org> wrote in message
> > news:pzmyers-13996B...@news.fu-berlin.de...
> >
> >>In article <bba3r9$1lj1$1...@news.cybercity.dk>,
> >> "Laura" <la...@nospam.net> wrote:
> >>
> > It is a pity that you have to repeatedly descend to the level of simple
> > flaming, when that is completely unnecessary, and not productive in any
way.
> > I can't change the fact that you feel your alleged education makes you a
> > superior human being. Good for you, I suppose.
>
> Hi Laura,
>
> Don't mind pz, it's just his way :-)
Good to know :-)
>
> To be honest he often says the things we (sceptics) would _like_ to say,
> if we had the in-depth knowledge to back it up, but I think he's being
> more aggressive than is warranted in this case.
He says those things, which is fine, and could lead to an interesting
debate, but then kills it off before it even starts by all the namecalling.
>
> I hope he doesn't dissuade you from posting here in future.
He's not that scary :-)
pz
David Mitchell <da...@edenroad.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Laura wrote:
> > "pz" <pzm...@pharyngula.org> wrote in message
> > news:pzmyers-13996B...@news.fu-berlin.de...
> >
> >>In article <bba3r9$1lj1$1...@news.cybercity.dk>,
> >> "Laura" <la...@nospam.net> wrote:
> >>
> > It is a pity that you have to repeatedly descend to the level of simple
> > flaming, when that is completely unnecessary, and not productive in any way.
> > I can't change the fact that you feel your alleged education makes you a
> > superior human being. Good for you, I suppose.
>
> Hi Laura,
>
> Don't mind pz, it's just his way :-)
>
> To be honest he often says the things we (sceptics) would _like_ to say,
> if we had the in-depth knowledge to back it up, but I think he's being
> more aggressive than is warranted in this case.
Not at all. So far, Laura has managed to trot out a "greatest hits"
series of creationist stupidities -- the 'just a theory' canard
being one of the most common and most indicative of a complete
absence of any kind of decent science education.
>
> I hope he doesn't dissuade you from posting here in future.
I'll always be ready if she isn't dissuaded. She's not very good
sport, though. I want more of a challenge.
--
pz
Laura
> In article <bbfd1m$6in$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> David Mitchell <da...@edenroad.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Laura wrote:
> > > "pz" <pzm...@pharyngula.org> wrote in message
> > > news:pzmyers-13996B...@news.fu-berlin.de...
> > >
> > >>In article <bba3r9$1lj1$1...@news.cybercity.dk>,
> > >> "Laura" <la...@nospam.net> wrote:
> > >>
> > > It is a pity that you have to repeatedly descend to the level of
simple
> > > flaming, when that is completely unnecessary, and not productive in
any way.
> > > I can't change the fact that you feel your alleged education makes you
a
> > > superior human being. Good for you, I suppose.
> >
> > Hi Laura,
> >
> > Don't mind pz, it's just his way :-)
> >
> > To be honest he often says the things we (sceptics) would _like_ to say,
> > if we had the in-depth knowledge to back it up, but I think he's being
> > more aggressive than is warranted in this case.
>
> Not at all. So far, Laura has managed to trot out a "greatest hits"
> series of creationist stupidities -- the 'just a theory' canard
> being one of the most common and most indicative of a complete
> absence of any kind of decent science education.
1) I am not a creationist.
2) A theory is a working hypothesis about something, describing and
predicting how that something works. A theory need not be 100% correct to do
this. Theories have been known to change or be discarded entirely in favor
of newer and better theories. Correct?
If you can agree to that, how can you disagree when I say that theory is not
solid fact?
>
> >
> > I hope he doesn't dissuade you from posting here in future.
>
> I'll always be ready if she isn't dissuaded. She's not very good
> sport, though. I want more of a challenge.
Not a very good sport? What is it exactly that you want? Judging from your
previous posts, namecalling and personal insults and all, you seem to want a
flamewar. If that is not the case, you need to manage your anger better.
Zugzwang
Your real problem is the empty space between your ears, moron.
Janice
>He's not that scary :-)
Oh, don't tell him that. He'll try harder. :-)
Janice
pzm...@pharyngula.org says...
>In article <bbfd1m$6in$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> David Mitchell <da...@edenroad.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> To be honest he often says the things we (sceptics) would _like_ to say,
>> if we had the in-depth knowledge to back it up, but I think he's being
>> more aggressive than is warranted in this case.
>
>Not at all. So far, Laura has managed to trot out a "greatest hits"
>series of creationist stupidities -- the 'just a theory' canard
>being one of the most common and most indicative of a complete
>absence of any kind of decent science education.
Having an inadequate education in science means someone warrants
aggression? I'm glad I didn't major in literature, then!
Trish
Trust me. He's not angry. Not in the slightest.
Chris Krolczyk
> The real problem is that some skeptics are only
> "pseudoskeptics"....example # 1 is the JREF forum with his admistrator
> Mr. Hal Bidlack.
>
> He is a God believer and prayer and also ask for donations for his
> foundation and boss James Randi.
Just can't get over being banned from the JREF forum, can you?
Moron.
-Chris Krolczyk
lorz
He just hasn't captured anyone to torture in the dungeon lately.
You are fresh meat. So to speak..
pz
Janice <JayAVo...@netscape.net> wrote:
> Having an inadequate education in science means someone warrants
> aggression?
No. Having an inadequate education and then pretending you are
knowledgeable in the subject warrants a curt dismissal.
--
pz
Laura
"lorz" <lo...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:ol5Da.30$Va...@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com...
I'm just wondering who's torturing who here :-)
Laura
So do manners that belong in the gutter.
Laura
Come to think of it, pz, why *do* you hang around ěn a newsgroup dedicated
to something so unscientific as out of body experiences? So far, you have
proven to be a better evolutionary biologist than I, but that doesn't
actually explain your presence. Had any experiences of your own, or are you
just here for the sport? ;-)
lorz
"Laura" <la...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:bbk85t$2hbr$1...@news.cybercity.dk...
>
> "pz" <pzm...@pharyngula.org> wrote in message
> news:pzmyers-29398E...@news.fu-berlin.de...
> > In article <MPG.1945bde7f...@news.cis.dfn.de>,
> > Janice <JayAVo...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Having an inadequate education in science means someone warrants
> > > aggression?
> >
> > No. Having an inadequate education and then pretending you are
> > knowledgeable in the subject warrants a curt dismissal.
>
> Come to think of it, pz, why *do* you hang around ìn a newsgroup dedicated
> to something so unscientific as out of body experiences? So far, you have
> proven to be a better evolutionary biologist than I, but that doesn't
> actually explain your presence. Had any experiences of your own, or are
you
> just here for the sport? ;-)
>
>
Alright, who left the can of worms out? ;)
JSP
news:bbff0p$288j$1...@news.cybercity.dk:
Makes you go hmmm...
>>
>> I hope he doesn't dissuade you from posting here in future.
>
> He's not that scary :-)
Not even from an evolutionary point of view? ;^p
If he wishes you to be a Creationist, you are. Spare us the facts.
You know the type, Magical Thinkers who accost pedestrians with their
nonsensical, judgemental rants.
--
JSP
Seek you the nursery rhymes and old shadows,
humble student seeking answers...
Janice
pzm...@pharyngula.org says...
>Having an inadequate education and then pretending you are
>knowledgeable in the subject warrants a curt dismissal.
Ah. Pontificating without a license. :)
Gonzalez, Elver
Exactly moron woo woo pseudoskeptics....you are the kind of donators
that JREF cult want !!!
Keep donating....
John Baker
"Gonzalez, Elver" <elverg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:efcbcc21.0306...@posting.google.com...
You know, it's a wonder anybody this stupid can even figure out how to post
to newsgroups. I guess we have to "thank" Steve Jobs and Bill Gates for
making it so easy even Elver can do it. <G>
Cl.Massé
news: MPG.19420ff71...@news.CIS.DFN.DE...
> As you say, micro-evolution or evolutionary change that occurs
> _within_ a species is well established, industrial melanism in
> the peppered moth being a prominent example.
>
> Macro-evolution or speciation, the process by which one species
> divides into two or more, follows from micro-evolution. For
> example, we can envisage a species in which one group of animals
> becomes geographically isolated from the remainder. Perhaps
> rising sea-levels during an inter-glacial warm spell traps them
> on an island. The process of micro-evolution continues in both
> populations but follows divergent evolutionary pathways. The
> changes will accumulate until a point is reached at which the two
> populations can no longer breed with each other. Two daughter
> species have been formed from the original parent.
>
> Anyone who concedes that micro-evolution happens but denies the
> possibility of macro-evolution must explain why not. Cumulative
> micro-evolutionary changes should lead eventually to the
> formation of new species unless there is some insurmountable
> barrier to prevent it. And, so far as I know, no such barrier
> has been theorised let alone demonstrated.
>
> In any event, theoretical considerations aside the formation of
> new species has been observed, four examples of which can be
> found here:
>
> <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html>
>
> In many cases though, the emergence of new species takes place
> over thousands or millions of years and such events can only be
> inferred from the fossil record. Because fossilization is, by
> its nature, an extremely rare occurence and because we are far
> from having uncovered them all, this record is fragmentary. Even
> so, it is misleading to suggest that "there is a _disturbing_
> lack of evidence" of transitional forms in the fossil record.
> Quite the reverse, in fact, since the record contains a lot of
> evidence of the sort of gradual change to which you were
> alluding. Details can be found here:
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
>
> It is longer than I care to remember since I was at school so I
> have no direct experience of the way evolution is currently
> presented in biology classes. Nontheless, the consensus of the
> scientific community is that the theory of evolution stands on a
> par with those of quantum mechanics and relativity. It is as
> well supported by observation and experiment and should be taught
> as such.
Non sequitur. The fact is, evolution is not proven because the fossil
record is fragmentary.
--
~~~~ %20cl...@free.fr%20 LPF
My OBEs are literal.
Ian H Spedding
jjmm...@hotmail.com says...
As a scientist you should know that "proof" is for mathematics
and alcohol. In science, theories are supported to a greater or
lesser extent by evidence.
The evidence for evolution is much more than the admittedly
fragmentary fossil record. The web pages I cited list some of
that other evidence. If you think it can be challenged then you
should explain how.
Ian
--
Ian H Spedding
Gonzalez, Elver
Is this your best argument Mr. pseudoskeptic?
Vesselin Peev
> In article <bb7mvi$1v58$1...@news.cybercity.dk>,
> "Laura" <la...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> > "Ian H Spedding" <ian_sp...@lineone.net> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.193c1042e...@news.CIS.DFN.DE...
> > > In article <8953-3ED1B88D-656@storefull-
> > > 2238.public.lawson.webtv.net>, ELth...@webtv.net says...
>
> > > Evolution has been proven beyond any _reasonble_ doubt. It
> > > hasn't been proven beyond _any_ doubt because no theory in
> > > science is that certain.
> >
> > Has it indeed?
>
> Yes, it has.
No, it hasn't.
> Again, no. There is very good evidence in the fossil record for
> transitions between many species, including our own.
There is no evidence is the fossil record for transitions at all; do
not delude people to falsely believe that we have conclusively proved
that there are millions of fossils that are transitional -- there is
not even one if we practice rigorous science.
The best "evidence" to support your *claim* on the internet is at
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html.
The best refutation of the above is at
http://www.alternativescience.com/talk-origins-transitions.htm. I
suggest that you look at the latter very carefully and see how your
claims are totally wrong.
> About as ridiculous as someone who pontificates on the subject of
> evolution with virtually no knowledge of the subject.
Stop ridiculing people and look within yourself.
Vesselin Peev
> In article <cU2Ca.27172$Io.22...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> spirito...@earthlink.net says...
>
> >I recall that the Laetoli footprints were comparable to a hominid, not an
> >"upright walking chimp" at all. Brain size of a. afarensis was comparable
> >to a chimp's. Where have you read that their anatomy in reference to
> >locomotion was more comparable to a chimp's?
>
> I don't know what scientists have come to make of them since the 1980s,
> but back then we were taught that they were fully bipedal.
>
> Speaking of which, can anyone recommend a good book that would help me
> catch up with what's been learned about hominid evolution since the
> 1980s?
"Forbidden Archeology" by Michael Cremo.
Vesselin Peev
> ALL species are transitional in some sense. We have lovely lineages
> within many groups -- hominids, whales, horses, for instance. I
> simply do not understand how anyone can look at the assemblages
> found for whales, as an example, and claim that no one has found
> transitional forms. It really requires a kind of willful, ignorant
> denial.
It really requires a kind of more skeptic (not pseudo-skeptic)
thinking.
You have omitted the other possibility. That a vastly superior
intellect designed all the species according to the same principles,
with object-oriented design and reuse of structures in different
species.
Similarity of species is no proof that we have descended from a single
organism, or some kind of whale is a transitional species from a
horse!
Proof for the existence of transitional species would be the finding
of many whales who gradually became more horse-like over numerous
generations.
There are no such fossils found at all, and since the fossils in the
record already paint a very good picture of Earth history, these
"missing" links of transitional fossils will never be found.
"transitional in some sense"? Is *some sense* your science?
Then he's my new theory that I just made up with your help: Man is
descended from two crossed sticks of wood, because there's a very good
transitional similarity between the cross and the human figure. I am
the next Darwin!
Lovely lineages? Yes, they are lovely, but not lineages.
-Vesko
Carnac
news:a865f818.03060...@posting.google.com...
> generations.
> There are no such fossils found at all, and since the fossils in the
> record already paint a very good picture of Earth history, these
> "missing" links of transitional fossils will never be found.
Go and look up the fossil evidence of the 'feathered' dinosaurs -
transitional? :P
> "transitional in some sense"? Is *some sense* your science?
> Then he's my new theory that I just made up with your help: Man is
> descended from two crossed sticks of wood, because there's a very good
> transitional similarity between the cross and the human figure. I am
> the next Darwin!
You've prolly just got issues with descending from the apes... maybe you
have a 'species superiority complex'. :P
Trish
Carnac <car...@realitys-edge.com> wrote in message
news:la1Ea.50626$1s1.6...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
[sarcasm]But if we descended from the apes why are the apes still
here???[/sarcasm]
God forbid (literally) that we might have any link at all to primates. Why,
they are _animals_!
Matthew Kriebel
elverg...@hotmail.com (Gonzalez, Elver) wrote:
Answer the question kookboi.
Carnac
> > You've prolly just got issues with descending from the apes... maybe you
> > have a 'species superiority complex'. :P
>
> [sarcasm]But if we descended from the apes why are the apes still
> here???[/sarcasm]
Why are your parents still here then (if they're still alive)? Do offspring
necessarily have to reflect the parents to such a fine degree? ;) Never
heard of genetic defects being passed to children?
> God forbid (literally) that we might have any link at all to primates.
Why,
> they are _animals_!
Makes life fun. ;)
Chris Krolczyk
Understanding the level of discourse you're capable of
(i.e., pathetic), it's perfectly adequate.
And when are you gonna get around to *your* version
of what happened with Hal and Linda's calls to the cops,
"Elver"?
-Chris Krolczyk
Ian H Spedding
<UB1Ea.33523$rO.31...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
spirito...@earthlink.net says...
[...]
> God forbid (literally) that we might have any link at all to primates. Why,
> they are _animals_!
Shame on you, that's no way to talk about archbishops!
Trish
> "Trish" <spirito...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:UB1Ea.33523$rO.3101681@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> > > You've prolly just got issues with descending from the apes... maybe
you
> > > have a 'species superiority complex'. :P
> >
> > [sarcasm]But if we descended from the apes why are the apes still
> > here???[/sarcasm]
>
> Why are your parents still here then (if they're still alive)? Do
offspring
> necessarily have to reflect the parents to such a fine degree? ;) Never
> heard of genetic defects being passed to children?
Ok. I'll just phrase it differently. Apes and humans have a common
ancestor.
Oh wow! (lightbulb over my head starts flashing)
Chris Krolczyk
Understanding the level of discourse you're capable of
Carnac
> > Why are your parents still here then (if they're still alive)? Do
> offspring
> > necessarily have to reflect the parents to such a fine degree? ;)
Never
> > heard of genetic defects being passed to children?
>
> Ok. I'll just phrase it differently. Apes and humans have a common
> ancestor.
>
> Oh wow! (lightbulb over my head starts flashing)
At least in your ignorance, you can still be comical. ;)
Ian H Spedding
vessel...@hotmail.com says...
>
> pz <pzm...@pharyngula.org> wrote in message news:<pzmyers-772EB5...@news.fu-berlin.de>...
> >
> > ALL species are transitional in some sense. We have lovely lineages
> > within many groups -- hominids, whales, horses, for instance. I
> > simply do not understand how anyone can look at the assemblages
> > found for whales, as an example, and claim that no one has found
> > transitional forms. It really requires a kind of willful, ignorant
> > denial.
>
> It really requires a kind of more skeptic (not pseudo-skeptic)
> thinking.
> You have omitted the other possibility. That a vastly superior
> intellect designed all the species according to the same principles,
> with object-oriented design and reuse of structures in different
> species.
The _possibility_ of an intelligent designer is not omitted but
without supporting evidence or even a coherent theory it is
relegated to the category of speculation.
Anyone who proposes the existence of an intelligent designer must
first explain why we should consider such a claim and second
explain why he isn't as intelligent as we are. There are many
examples in nature of what any competent human scientist or
engineer would judge to be poor design: the inverted retina of
the human eye or the human spine which is so prone to postural
problems are just two examples. If we poor humans can see how
such 'designs' could be improved what does it say about the
intelligence of the being who is supposed to have originally
designed them?
> Similarity of species is no proof that we have descended from a single
> organism, or some kind of whale is a transitional species from a
> horse!
> Proof for the existence of transitional species would be the finding
> of many whales who gradually became more horse-like over numerous
> generations.
> There are no such fossils found at all, and since the fossils in the
> record already paint a very good picture of Earth history, these
> "missing" links of transitional fossils will never be found.
Once again, science does not expect proof but it does require
evidence. And there is evidence in the fossil record of
transitional forms which I have pointed out. The fact that I
refer to them or that you choose not to acknowledge them is
irrelevant to science, though. The vast majority of competent
opinion in the relevant fields classifies some fossils as
transitional based on a web of supporting evidence. It is not
conclusive proof but it is vastly superior to the total lack of
evidence for an intelligent designer.
Cl.Massé
> As a scientist you should know that "proof" is for mathematics
> and alcohol. In science, theories are supported to a greater or
> lesser extent by evidence.
Many theories supported by evidence have been proven false.
Trish
Rest assured, your sentiments are returned in kind. ; )
Carnac
> > > Ok. I'll just phrase it differently. Apes and humans have a common
> > > ancestor.
> > >
> > > Oh wow! (lightbulb over my head starts flashing)
> >
> > At least in your ignorance, you can still be comical. ;)
>
> Rest assured, your sentiments are returned in kind. ; )
Ignorance is bliss, they say. ;)
Trish
I'd suggest you would recognize that firsthand. ; )
Carnac
> > Ignorance is bliss, they say. ;)
>
> I'd suggest you would recognize that firsthand. ; )
Heh heh - I obviously did recognise it. :P
Ian H Spedding
jjmm...@hotmail.com says...
>
> "Ian H Spedding" <ian_sp...@lineone.net> a écrit dans le message
> news: MPG.1949b0064...@news.CIS.DFN.DE...
> >
> > As a scientist you should know that "proof" is for mathematics
> > and alcohol. In science, theories are supported to a greater or
> > lesser extent by evidence.
>
> Many theories supported by evidence have been proven false.
A better way to put it would be that some theories have been
superceded when inherent flaws have been exposed. They were
replaced by theories which better explained a greater range of
evidence. Both Newtonian mechanics and relativity theory explain
the world at our everyday level of experience equally well
but at very large scales and extremely high energies relativity
succeeds where classical physics fails.
But that is the way of science. That is how it develops and
improves our understanding of the world. It isn't a failing, it
is its strength.
Trish
hahahaha! Ok. You win. ; )
pz
vessel...@hotmail.com (Vesselin Peev) wrote:
The Hindu creationist? You have got to be kidding.
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/groves.html>
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/lepper.html>
--
pz
Trish
With a title like that, I had figured as much.
I don't want to plow through the creationist crap. The last books
(specifically on human evolution) I've read were varieties of Leakey and
Johanson. I'd like to know what has happened since they found a. afarensis.
But I'm not sure where to look for accurate information. Maybe there is
more I haven't found yet at the talk.origins site.
Cl.Massé
"Ian H Spedding" <ian_sp...@lineone.net> a écrit dans le message
news: MPG.194d1d6c1...@news.CIS.DFN.DE...
> A better way to put it would be that some theories have been
> superceded when inherent flaws have been exposed. They were
> replaced by theories which better explained a greater range of
> evidence. Both Newtonian mechanics and relativity theory explain
> the world at our everyday level of experience equally well
> but at very large scales and extremely high energies relativity
> succeeds where classical physics fails.
What are the connecting points between classical and quantum mechanics?
There is none. QM don't reduce to CM when h tends to zero, a
non-trivial conceptual transformation has to be done, so non-trivial
that it is not even understood. CM is not even an approximate
calculational way of QM, it is utterly false, even if it has a practical
utility.
Ditto for relativity, there is no continuity between a Cartesian and a
Minskowskian space, even if c tends to infinity.
And there is a host of theories that have been proven false, not even
approximatively true. Theory of heat as a fluid. Geocentrism.
Aristotle's theory of motion. Theory of colour as different mixtures of
black and white. Nature loath vacuum. The skull is full of water...
Janice
pzm...@pharyngula.org says...
>The Hindu creationist? You have got to be kidding.
>
><http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/groves.html>
><http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/lepper.html>
So, PZ, regarding my original question about a good book for catching up
on what's been learned about human evolution since the 1980s, what would
you recommend? Perhaps the Tattersall book "The Fossil Trail" mentioned
at one of those links?
--
Alt.Out-of-Body Unlimited:
http://www.geocities.com/janice240obe/index.html
The Lucid Dreaming Nook:
http://www.geocities.com/janice240obe/nook1.html
pz
Janice <JayAVo...@netscape.net> wrote:
> In article <pzmyers-631A5B...@news.fu-berlin.de>,
> pzm...@pharyngula.org says...
>
> >The Hindu creationist? You have got to be kidding.
> >
> ><http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/groves.html>
> ><http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/lepper.html>
>
> So, PZ, regarding my original question about a good book for catching up
> on what's been learned about human evolution since the 1980s, what would
> you recommend? Perhaps the Tattersall book "The Fossil Trail" mentioned
> at one of those links?
I'm not the best person to ask about human evolution -- it's on the
fringe of my interests, and the research in that field is so
painfully slow and dependent on fortuitous finds. It's also
afflicted with horrible abominations like Pinker. Tattersall is
probably as good as any. I heard somewhere that Jared Diamond is due
to come out with a new book soon, and he's one author in that field
that I really enjoy reading.
I think there is going to be some major renovations of human
evolutionary explanations in the next few years, though, fueled by
discoveries in comparative molecular biology, rather than fossils.
--
pz
Trish
>
> I think there is going to be some major renovations of human
> evolutionary explanations in the next few years, though, fueled by
> discoveries in comparative molecular biology, rather than fossils.
>
> --
> pz
And he leaves, dangling this like a carrot.
Ah ha! I know what to do. (grin)
Ian H Spedding
jjmm...@hotmail.com says...
[...]
> > > Many theories supported by evidence have been proven false.
>
> "Ian H Spedding" <ian_sp...@lineone.net> a écrit dans le message
> news: MPG.194d1d6c1...@news.CIS.DFN.DE...
> >
> > A better way to put it would be that some theories have been
> > superceded when inherent flaws have been exposed. They were
> > replaced by theories which better explained a greater range of
> > evidence. Both Newtonian mechanics and relativity theory explain
> > the world at our everyday level of experience equally well
> > but at very large scales and extremely high energies relativity
> > succeeds where classical physics fails.
>
> What are the connecting points between classical and quantum mechanics?
> There is none. QM don't reduce to CM when h tends to zero, a
> non-trivial conceptual transformation has to be done, so non-trivial
> that it is not even understood. CM is not even an approximate
> calculational way of QM, it is utterly false, even if it has a practical
> utility.
>
> Ditto for relativity, there is no continuity between a Cartesian and a
> Minskowskian space, even if c tends to infinity.
You have misunderstood. I was not suggesting that classical
mechanics is a special case within quantum mechanics but that
relativity theory replaced Newtonian physics because it has
greater explanatory power. The search for that replacement was
inspired by the known flaws in classical theory. That does not
mean that relativity grew out of classical physics or that they
are commensurable.
Science assumes that even its best theories are probably no more
than approximations of the truth, which is why the measure of a
good theory is empirical rather than metaphysical, in other
words, it is more important to know that the theory works when it
is put to the test.
> And there is a host of theories that have been proven false, not even
> approximatively true. Theory of heat as a fluid. Geocentrism.
> Aristotle's theory of motion. Theory of colour as different mixtures of
> black and white. Nature loath vacuum. The skull is full of water...
Certainly, if you go back far enough in history you will find a
lot of theories that have since been discarded when better
knowledge showed they were inadequate _and_ when a replacement
was put forward. You can say they were "false" but I think that
it is careless usage. Strictly speaking, in order to know
something is false you must first know what is true. But in how
many areas do we know what is really true?
If you look closely at most of our knowledge it is really only
approximately true. As I understand it, quantum theory is
astoundingly accurate but even so it is not entirely true since
there is difficulty in reconciling it with relativity, for
example.
Science can show that each successful theory is better than the
one it replaces. This means that there is a trail of discarded
theories - each thought to be good in its day - going back into
the past. It also suggests that today's successful theories will
one day be replaced by something better. This is not a weakness
of science, though, it is a measure of its success in improving
our understanding of the world. The important thing to remember
is that science deals not in truth but in explanations and the
means by which we can find out which are the better ones.
If you say that OBEs involve the conscious mind leaving the
physical body then you are putting forward an explanation which
can be tested. That places it within the domain of science.
Cl.Massé
And in the future, evolution theory will perhaps seem as "quaint" as the
theory of the skull full of water.
Carnac
news:3ee8cf22$0$4604$626a...@news.free.fr...
> "Ian H Spedding" <ian_sp...@lineone.net> a écrit dans le message
> news: MPG.195147895...@news.CIS.DFN.DE...
>
> And in the future, evolution theory will perhaps seem as "quaint" as the
> theory of the skull full of water.
Most of those dodgie 'theories' were put forth by 'members' of the church,
anyhow, with church backing. :P
Ian H Spedding
jjmm...@hotmail.com says...
>
> "Ian H Spedding" <ian_sp...@lineone.net> a écrit dans le message
> news: MPG.195147895...@news.CIS.DFN.DE...
> >
> And in the future, evolution theory will perhaps seem as "quaint" as the
> theory of the skull full of water.
You could be right. That is the way of science. But for the
present, there is no better alternative.
Cl.Massé
CubGa.477$Ab2....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> Most of those dodgie 'theories' were put forth by 'members' of the
> church, anyhow, with church backing. :P
Church? The Bible is the book of three religions: Judaism,
Christianity, and Islam. It contains the description of the world
creation. Are you peddling the idea of a Christian plot?
Carnac
> "Carnac" <car...@realitys-edge.com> a écrit dans le message news:
> CubGa.477$Ab2....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
>
> > Most of those dodgie 'theories' were put forth by 'members' of the
> > church, anyhow, with church backing. :P
>
> Church? The Bible is the book of three religions: Judaism,
> Christianity, and Islam. It contains the description of the world
> creation. Are you peddling the idea of a Christian plot?
Did I mention the bible? :P Where in that paragraph was that word
mentioned? :P
Cl.Massé
news: MPG.194bcb091...@news.CIS.DFN.DE...
> Anyone who proposes the existence of an intelligent designer must
> first explain why we should consider such a claim and second
> explain why he isn't as intelligent as we are. There are many
> examples in nature of what any competent human scientist or
> engineer would judge to be poor design: the inverted retina of
> the human eye or the human spine which is so prone to postural
> problems are just two examples. If we poor humans can see how
> such 'designs' could be improved what does it say about the
> intelligence of the being who is supposed to have originally
> designed them?
You have it backward. The humans have problems with their spine because
of poor design of their surroundings on their part. In natural
conditions, there is no such problems, especially because the spine
muscles are better developed. Same for the caries, which appeared with
the refining of sugar.
Cl.Massé
> > DK: The most important fact, about what they say, is that these
> > are newsgroups FOR THE DISCUSSION OF THESE SUBJECTS.
"John Griffin" <thathi...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message news:
bb8o8v$72slj$1...@ID-185531.news.dfncis.de...
> Speaking of THESE SUBJECTS, do you have any facts or rational
> argument to support anything you've ever said about them? If you
> do, why have you kept it secret for years?
> > DK: That means you can discuss them WITHOUT PROVIDING
> > PROOF, OR EVIDENCE, AT ALL.
> A discussion in which you can make off-the-wall assertions without
> any apparent foundation would be as worthless as you are.
Tss tss tss. Most of the OBEer posters here speak about their
experiences, their feelings, and their sensations. All of that is
proven by the fact they experienced, felt, and sensed it.
The sceptics speak about their frustrations, their doubts, and their
persecution mania. All of that exist by the same token by the very fact
they are frustrated, doubtful, and believing they are persecuted.
There is no logical contradiction, both can exist simultaneously.
Merely, nobody really speak about OBE.
John Griffin
> "DanKettler" <MAILVIAWEBSITE@no_spamKETTLERscams.COM> wrote
>
> > > DK: The most important fact, about what they say, is that these
> > > are newsgroups FOR THE DISCUSSION OF THESE SUBJECTS.
>
> "John Griffin" <thathi...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message news:
> bb8o8v$72slj$1...@ID-185531.news.dfncis.de...
>
> > Speaking of THESE SUBJECTS, do you have any facts or rational
> > argument to support anything you've ever said about them? If you
> > do, why have you kept it secret for years?
>
> > > DK: That means you can discuss them WITHOUT PROVIDING
> > > PROOF, OR EVIDENCE, AT ALL.
>
> > A discussion in which you can make off-the-wall assertions without
> > any apparent foundation would be as worthless as you are.
>
> Tss tss tss. Most of the OBEer posters here speak about their
> experiences, their feelings, and their sensations. All of that is
> proven by the fact they experienced, felt, and sensed it.
Delusions, hallucinations and dreams are pretty much like that.
> The sceptics speak about their frustrations, their doubts, and their
> persecution mania. All of that exist by the same token by the very fact
> they are frustrated, doubtful, and believing they are persecuted.
rotfl. That's so far off target that I almost wish
I had said it as a spoof. In reference to the "OBE"
phenomenon, the skeptics say "why do you need to invent
a story like that when the power of the human mind to
fool the human by sending weird signals to its own
consciousness is so well known?"
> There is no logical contradiction, both can exist simultaneously.
> Merely, nobody really speak about OBE.
All I've said about "OBE experience" is that it's all in the mind.
Delusion and hallucination are completely adequate explanations for
a question that's only confused by conjecture about an actual
discorporeal existence of the mind. That doesn't mean that people
shouldn't talk about it -- either pro or con.
Cl.Massé
news: fd12f075.0306...@posting.google.com...
> rotfl. That's so far off target that I almost wish
> I had said it as a spoof. In reference to the "OBE"
> phenomenon, the skeptics say "why do you need to invent
> a story like that when the power of the human mind to
> fool the human by sending weird signals to its own
> consciousness is so well known?"
There is a whole thread about that (A serious and sincere question to
skeptics), and you continue to repeat the same slogans over and over.
Does you mind send you weird signals in order you don't listen to the
counter-arguments?
Do you know OBE is quite frequent? Almost everybody had or will have an
OBE. But most don't speak about it because they are afraid people like
you think they are insane. Actually, you do suffer from a
pseudo-scepticism mania.
John Griffin
> > I had said it as a spoof. In reference to the "OBE"
> > phenomenon, the skeptics say "why do you need to invent
> > a story like that when the power of the human mind to
> > fool the human by sending weird signals to its own
> > consciousness is so well known?"
>
> There is a whole thread about that (A serious and sincere question to
> skeptics), and you continue to repeat the same slogans over and over.
> Does you mind send you weird signals in order you don't listen to the
> counter-arguments?
>
> Do you know OBE is quite frequent? Almost everybody had or will have an
> OBE. But most don't speak about it because they are afraid people like
> you think they are insane. Actually, you do suffer from a
> pseudo-scepticism mania.
I have a weird feeling that you wanted to disagree with what I said,
or that you wish there were effective counters. That the mind can
leave the body but can't create an illusion of doing so is not one.
Entertain me by saying trying to dismiss that as a slogan.
Cl.Massé
news: fd12f075.03062...@posting.google.com...
> I have a weird feeling that you wanted to disagree with what I said,
> or that you wish there were effective counters. That the mind can
> leave the body but can't create an illusion of doing so is not one.
> Entertain me by saying trying to dismiss that as a slogan.
You didn't read the thread. I can't do it for you. When you have,
you'll see that what you said is irrelevant.
John Griffin
> > or that you wish there were effective counters. That the mind can
> > leave the body but can't create an illusion of doing so is not one.
> > Entertain me by saying trying to dismiss that as a slogan.
>
> You didn't read the thread. I can't do it for you. When you have,
> you'll see that what you said is irrelevant.
The thread is irrelevant - especially if it's just a few
fervent believers insisting that the mind can't create an
illusion of leaving the body but can actually do it.
Hallucination is a well known phenomenon. Conjectures
aren't necessary. They are fun, though.
Cl.Massé
news: fd12f075.0306...@posting.google.com...
> The thread is irrelevant - especially if it's just a few
> fervent believers insisting that the mind can't create an
> illusion of leaving the body but can actually do it.
> Hallucination is a well known phenomenon. Conjectures
> aren't necessary. They are fun, though.
You avoid the issue.
--
~~~~ %20cl...@free.fr%20
My OBEs are literal.
John Griffin
> > fervent believers insisting that the mind can't create an
> > illusion of leaving the body but can actually do it.
> > Hallucination is a well known phenomenon. Conjectures
> > aren't necessary. They are fun, though.
>
> You avoid the issue.
You need to say that.
I know you'd prefer to be able to challenge what I said,
but "ya gotta do what ya gotta do."