"Intelligent Design"
Dan Clore
The only interesting thing about the "theory of intelligent design" is
that it itself betrays no evidence of intelligent design.
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://tinyurl.com/3akhhr
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
Jeffrey Turner
>
> The only interesting thing about the "theory of intelligent design" is
> that it itself betrays no evidence of intelligent design.
But it does keep evolving under legal environmental pressures. I wonder
what that means.
--Jeff
--
It is only those who have neither
fired a shot nor heard the shrieks
and groans of the wounded who cry
aloud for blood, more vengeance, more
desolation. War is hell.
--William Tecumseh Sherman
wf3h
> Dan Clore wrote:
>
> > The only interesting thing about the "theory of intelligent design" is
> > that it itself betrays no evidence of intelligent design.
>
> But it does keep evolving under legal environmental pressures. I wonder
> what that means.
>
lawyers are more intelligent than creationists?
Harry K
I think there is an insult in there somewhere but I can't figure out
which side is one being insulted ;)
Harry K
AC
>> > > The only interesting thing about the "theory of intelligent design" is
>> > > that it itself betrays no evidence of intelligent design.
>>
>> > But it does keep evolving under legal environmental pressures. I wonder
>> > what that means.
>>
>> lawyers are more intelligent than creationists?
>
> I think there is an insult in there somewhere but I can't figure out
> which side is one being insulted ;)
--
Aaron Clausen mightym...@gmail.com
fnor
Bob Casanova
in sci.skeptic, posted by Jorge
<jo...@miamianimalpolice.fl>:
>On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 08:49:40 -0800 (PST), Harry K <turnk...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>>> > Dan Clore wrote:
>At least lawyers made it past the 3rd grade?
So did most creationists. Frightening, isn't it?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
John Wilkins
Creationists, if they are lower than scum sucking bottom feeders.
[Sorry John Pieret. I just *have* to insult lawyers...]
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Alan Morgan
John Wilkins <j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote:
>Harry K <turnk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 13, 7:55 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>> > On Feb 13, 8:52 am, Jeffrey Turner <jtur...@localnet.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Dan Clore wrote:
>> >
>> > > > The only interesting thing about the "theory of intelligent design" is
>> > > > that it itself betrays no evidence of intelligent design.
>> >
>> > > But it does keep evolving under legal environmental pressures. I wonder
>> > > what that means.
>> >
>> > lawyers are more intelligent than creationists?
>>
>> I think there is an insult in there somewhere but I can't figure out
>> which side is one being insulted ;)
>>
>Creationists, if they are lower than scum sucking bottom feeders.
>
>[Sorry John Pieret. I just *have* to insult lawyers...]
I have the urge to repurpose some lawyer jokes...
What's black and brown and looks good on a creationist?
A doberman
What's the difference between a creationist and a terrorist?
You can reason with a terrorist.
How many creationists does it take to change a lightbulb?
None. They'd rather keep everyone in the dark.
Alan
--
Defendit numerus
Harry K
>
> fnor
After all these years I finally got one. I am sooo touched...snif.
Harry K
Ye Old One
<cl...@columbia-center.org> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>The only interesting thing about the "theory of intelligent design" is
>that it itself betrays no evidence of intelligent design.
There is no such thing as a "theory of intelligent design".
--
Bob.
Echosyn
> In article <1icaq4l.v2xqqjbgildyN%j.wilki...@uq.edu.au>,
>
>
>
> John Wilkins <j.wilki...@uq.edu.au> wrote:
This thread is an interesting circle jerk among biased fools of a
common nature and bent. To what do you bozos attribute the ability of
the common ground squirrel to choose to heat its erect and bushed tail
with blood engorgement when the squirrel is confronted by a
rattlesnake, yet not heat its tail when confronted by a gopher snake?
Echosyn
Tiny Bulcher
> On Feb 13, 7:50 pm, amor...@xenon.Stanford.EDU (Alan Morgan) wrote:
>> In article <1icaq4l.v2xqqjbgildyN%j.wilki...@uq.edu.au>,
>>
>>
>>
>> John Wilkins <j.wilki...@uq.edu.au> wrote:
>>> Harry K <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Feb 13, 7:55 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 13, 8:52 am, Jeffrey Turner <jtur...@localnet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Dan Clore wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> The only interesting thing about the "theory of intelligent
>>>>>>> design" is that it itself betrays no evidence of intelligent
>>>>>>> design.
>>
>>>>>> But it does keep evolving under legal environmental pressures.
>>>>>> I wonder what that means.
>>
>>>>> lawyers are more intelligent than creationists?
>>
>>>> I think there is an insult in there somewhere but I can't figure
>>>> out which side is one being insulted ;)
>>
>>> Creationists, if they are lower than scum sucking bottom feeders.
>>
>>> [Sorry John Pieret. I just *have* to insult lawyers...]
>>
>> I have the urge to repurpose some lawyer jokes...
>>
>> What's black and brown and looks good on a creationist?
>> A doberman
>>
>> What's the difference between a creationist and a terrorist?
>> You can reason with a terrorist.
>>
>> How many creationists does it take to change a lightbulb?
>> None. They'd rather keep everyone in the dark.
>
> common nature and bent. To what do you bozos attribute the ability of
> the common ground squirrel to choose to heat its erect and bushed tail
> with blood engorgement when the squirrel is confronted by a
> rattlesnake, yet not heat its tail when confronted by a gopher snake?
Rattlesnakes ate the ones that didn't.
David Hare-Scott
"Echosyn" <non_...@copper.net> wrote in message
news:4e58dd8c-eec8-48f4-a8c3-
To what do you bozos attribute the ability of
> the common ground squirrel to choose to heat its erect and bushed tail
> with blood engorgement when the squirrel is confronted by a
> rattlesnake, yet not heat its tail when confronted by a gopher snake?
>
> Echosyn
>
To what do you attribute it?
David
Echosyn
I attribute it to the same power who gave me the ability to change a
vine into a tree.
What portion of your allotted time on earth have you applied your
whole being to unravelling the mysteries of creation? I have forty-
five years and counting. Wisdom counsels the yammering youth in this
group to get some dirt under their fingernails and pursue the
scientific discipline with honesty, diligence and humility while
keeping their mouths shut and their inner ears and eyes open.
True knowledge comes from first hand discovery and it is not subject
to majority vote.
-Echosyn
One divided by the Golden Section equals One plus the Golden Section.
This is the key to the Elements.
Nick Keighley
> David Hare-Scott wrote:
> > "Echosyn" <non_lo...@copper.net> wrote in message
> > news:4e58dd8c-eec8-48f4-a8c3-
> > To what do you bozos attribute the ability of#
>
> > > the common ground squirrel to choose to heat its erect and bushed tail
> > > with blood engorgement when the squirrel is confronted by a
> > > rattlesnake, yet not heat its tail when confronted by a gopher snake?
are gopher snakes predators?
<wiki>
hmm. non-poisonous but "eat vermin". Are common ground squirrel
vermin?
Do gopher snakes eat common ground squirrel? You are going to have to
explain this.
> > To what do you attribute it?
>
> I attribute it to the same power who gave me the ability to change a
> vine into a tree.
? you did this by what? Careful horticulture? Careful selective
breeding? Prayer? Black magic? You seen to make some extraordinarily
opaque and gnomic statements.
Please explain the connection between squirrel behaviour and vines.
> What portion of your allotted time on earth have you applied your
> whole being to unravelling the mysteries of creation?
I have part of a degree in physics and I read New Scientist.
Does that count?
> I have forty-
> five years and counting. Wisdom counsels the yammering youth in this
> group
I'm not sure that some of those "yammering youths" are that young...
> to get some dirt under their fingernails and pursue the
> scientific discipline with honesty, diligence and humility while
scientific? I thought you were talking about religin?
> keeping their mouths shut and their inner ears and eyes open.
*outer* ears and eyes I can agree with. What's an inner eye and
where is it situated?
> True knowledge comes from first hand discovery and it is not subject
> to majority vote.
true knowledge comes from obersrving the world. And you can
so study it second hand.
> -Echosyn
> One divided by the Golden Section equals One plus the Golden Section.
> This is the key to the Elements.
sounds like mystic gibberish
ok
phi = ~1.618
1 / phi = ~0.618
1 + phi = ~2.618
perhaps you meant the reciprocal of phi?
rphi = ~0.618
1 / rphi = ~1.618
1 + rphi = ~ 1.618
ok. Doesn't this follow trivially from the definition of the GR?
--
Nick Keighley
Ernest Major
<f1e608a1-fd8c-4cb6...@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
Nick Keighley <nick_keigh...@hotmail.com> writes
>On 15 Feb, 05:58, Echosyn <non_lo...@copper.net> wrote:
>> David Hare-Scott wrote:
>> > "Echosyn" <non_lo...@copper.net> wrote in message
>> > news:4e58dd8c-eec8-48f4-a8c3-
>
>> > To what do you bozos attribute the ability of#
>>
>> > > the common ground squirrel to choose to heat its erect and bushed tail
>> > > with blood engorgement when the squirrel is confronted by a
>> > > rattlesnake, yet not heat its tail when confronted by a gopher snake?
>
>are gopher snakes predators?
>
><wiki>
>
>hmm. non-poisonous but "eat vermin". Are common ground squirrel
>vermin?
>Do gopher snakes eat common ground squirrel? You are going to have to
>explain this.
Reading between the lines, it appears to be a claim that the
blood-engorged, erect and bushed tail acts as a decoy for predators
(rattlesnakes) that detect their prey by the prey's body heat -
presumably the bushy nature of the tail prevents the rattlesnake's bite
from connecting with the squirrel's flesh.
If that is the case, natural selection seems an obvious explanation.
>
>
>> > To what do you attribute it?
>>
>> I attribute it to the same power who gave me the ability to change a
>> vine into a tree.
It would be helpful if the nature of the power was specified.
>
>? you did this by what? Careful horticulture? Careful selective
>breeding? Prayer? Black magic? You seen to make some extraordinarily
>opaque and gnomic statements.
He claims to have caused the vine (liana?) Campsis radicans to adopt an
arborescent habit by treating it with electromagnetic forces (or
microwave radiation).
To the best of my knowledge he has not presented photographs or other
evidence of a plant agreeing with Campsis radicans in all respects other
than displaying an arborescent habit. In the absence of the remarkable
evidence for this remarkable claim I would assume some other explanation
holds, such as the Campsis radicans dying, and the seed of some other
plant coincidentally germinating in the same location.
>
>Please explain the connection between squirrel behaviour and vines.
>
I must admit the connection escapes me.
>
>> What portion of your allotted time on earth have you applied your
>> whole being to unravelling the mysteries of creation?
>
>I have part of a degree in physics and I read New Scientist.
>Does that count?
If it doesn't I have a complete degree in physics from a prestigious
English university, and read scientific papers.
I've also authored a review paper in plant systematics, and a
horto-taxonomical paper (neither peer reviewed).
>
>> I have forty-
>> five years and counting. Wisdom counsels the yammering youth in this
>> group
>
>I'm not sure that some of those "yammering youths" are that young...
>
I'm also his senior, though I'm younger than some of the people here.
>
>> to get some dirt under their fingernails and pursue the
>> scientific discipline with honesty, diligence and humility while
>
>scientific? I thought you were talking about religin?
>
>
>> keeping their mouths shut and their inner ears and eyes open.
>
>*outer* ears and eyes I can agree with. What's an inner eye and
>where is it situated?
>
>
>> True knowledge comes from first hand discovery and it is not subject
>> to majority vote.
>
>true knowledge comes from obersrving the world. And you can
>so study it second hand.
>
>
>
>> -Echosyn
>> One divided by the Golden Section equals One plus the Golden Section.
>> This is the key to the Elements.
>
>sounds like mystic gibberish
>
>ok
>phi = ~1.618
>1 / phi = ~0.618
>1 + phi = ~2.618
>
>perhaps you meant the reciprocal of phi?
>
>rphi = ~0.618
>1 / rphi = ~1.618
>1 + rphi = ~ 1.618
>
>ok. Doesn't this follow trivially from the definition of the GR?
>
It being the key to the elements (earth, air, fire and water?) doesn't.
--
alias Ernest Major