Re-broadcast of Keyes/Dershowitz debate
just me :)
C-SPAN will re-broadcast the Keyes/Dershowitz debate from
Franklin & Marshall College, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, on
Friday, December 22, 2000, at 8:00 pm Eastern time. Please
check your local listings for the time in your area.
C-SPAN first broadcast this debate on its "American
Prospectives" program. It was the highest rating that C-SPAN
has ever gotten for "American Perspectives."
Set your VCRs! You don't want to miss this!
C-SPAN's Program Description:
"In a structured debate which featured opening statements,
rebuttal, closing statements, and questions from the
audience, Ambassador Keyes and Professor Dershowitz
debated the question, "Does Organized Religion Have the
Answers to 21st Century Problems?" Among the points of
contention were the influence of religion on the founding
fathers, the relation between religion and morality, the Bible
as a source of moral guidance, and the role of religion in
public discourse and politics. In often heated debate in
response to audience questions, participants addressed
issues such as sexual orientation, civil rights, Christianity,
and the role of government in making social policy."
rose...@idt.net
>From the Alan Keyes Media Office
GOODY ! ! !
Watching Keyes get his ass kicked over again is the best Christmas present I
could get.
sol...@my-deja.com
> GOODY ! ! !
>
> Watching Keyes get his ass kicked over again is the best Christmas
present I
> could get.
>
>
C-Span said they got the most responses from that show of the entire
series this whole year.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Oldjack57
friendly confines of "Geraldo".
Carol Lee Smith
On Fri, 22 Dec 2000 sol...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > GOODY ! ! !
> > Watching Keyes get his ass kicked over again is the best Christmas
> present I could get.
> Did you see the first one? It was like a Founding Father vs Satan.
> C-Span said they got the most responses from that show of the entire
> series this whole year.
I found the debate (which was a re-run of the original debate from months
ago) to be very interesting.
It started out polite enough, though Keyes initial presentation did not
appear to address the question of the debate at all.
It got quite exciting later on, and most exasperating for the moderator
who proclaimed that he was a moderator, not a lion tamer.
I have read a lot of Dershowitz, but I never saw him in a debate
performance. He was a very well-spoken defender of non-theism and human
morality--morality without a basis in religion or belief in god(s).
The program on later--Politically Incorrect--was a puff piece in
comparison, but interesting in its own way. The transcript of that will
probably be up on the website, if it is not there already.
=------------
Winter Solstice, Thursday, December 21, 2000 at 8:37 a.m. EST. marks the Sun's lowest point as seen from the Northern Hemisphere in
its annual apparent journey across the sky. It is the shortest day of the
year, and the longest night. For many societies, this event was an
important marker in the periodic oscillation of the year, part of the
seemingly endless cycle of birth, death and renewal. Many cultures
invested this time with special metaphysical, even religious significance.
As Christianity gained political and cultural hegemony throughout the
world, it appropriated many of the earlier, ancient symbols and
celebrations marking this time of year and grafted them onto its own
belief system. The Winter Solstice remains a universal holiday, one
rooted not exclusively in religious creeds, but in the natural events of
the world around us.
Kenneth Pangborn
"Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.100122...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
>
>
> On Fri, 22 Dec 2000 sol...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > > GOODY ! ! !
>
> > > Watching Keyes get his ass kicked over again is the best Christmas
> > present I could get.
This rather reminds me of AL Gore proclaiming that he WON the election. Or
David Boise reading the U.,S. Supreme Court ruling thinking they had WON.
Aren't delusions just grand. How two people can watch the same event and
draw opposite conclusions.
DishDude
Very true indeed. I thought Keyes handled himself quite well against
Douchewits. I particularly liked Keyes 'O.J.' shot on Douchewits.
--
"I am sorry I ever invented the Electoral College" -Al Gore.
Rick
Kenneth Pangborn
"DishDude" <dis...@ptdprolog.net> wrote in message
news:3A476083...@ptdprolog.net...
I found amusing how they kept doing stand-ups after the SCOTUS ruled
about how it was a GREAT VICTORY for Gore. Kind of like Hitler in his bunker
moving pieces on his war board for non-existent units as the Russians were
pounding on the door to the bunker entrance. Still living in a delusion.
All Dershowitz proves was how ill mannered and NASTY he could be. How
personally insulting. That isn't a win by any means when you have reduced
your opposition to mere name calling.
Carol Lee Smith
> Kenneth Pangborn wrote:
> > "Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> > > On Fri, 22 Dec 2000 sol...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > > > GOODY ! ! !
> > > > > Watching Keyes get his ass kicked over again is the best Christmas
> > > > present I could get.
> > This rather reminds me of AL Gore proclaiming that he WON the election. Or
> > David Boise reading the U.,S. Supreme Court ruling thinking they had WON.
> > Aren't delusions just grand. How two people can watch the same event and
> > draw opposite conclusions.
> Very true indeed. I thought Keyes handled himself quite well against
> Douchewits. I particularly liked Keyes 'O.J.' shot on Douchewits.
This is an attack on the right to a fair trial.
I don't like it that O.J. got off in the first trial.
However, denigrating an attorney who defended OJ is denigrating a system
in which everyone should be entitled to defense.
The right to a fair trial may not be explicitely spelled out in the
Constitution, but it is something we all expect to have.
I have no less respect for Alan Dershowitz because he was involved in the
defense of a man who at least was found guilty in the second trial. Small
consolation to the parents and family of those murdered.
If Keyes was able to defend his interpretation of the question of the
debate he would not have had to stoop to such mudslinging.
Furthermore, if he was any good he would have been able to address the
point of the debate in the first place. His opening remarks did not
address the question of the debate.
-----------------
raymond...@my-deja.com
But who was the Founding Father and who was Satan?
> http://www.deja.com/
raymond...@my-deja.com
Carol Lee Smith <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Dec 2000, DishDude wrote:
>
> > Kenneth Pangborn wrote:
>
> > > "Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
>
> > > > On Fri, 22 Dec 2000 sol...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > GOODY ! ! !
> > > > > > Watching Keyes get his ass kicked over again is the best Christmas
> > > > > present I could get.
>
> > > This rather reminds me of AL Gore proclaiming that he WON the election. Or
> > > David Boise reading the U.,S. Supreme Court ruling thinking they had WON.
> > > Aren't delusions just grand. How two people can watch the same event and
> > > draw opposite conclusions.
>
> > Very true indeed. I thought Keyes handled himself quite well against
> > Douchewits. I particularly liked Keyes 'O.J.' shot on Douchewits.
>
> This is an attack on the right to a fair trial.
>
> I don't like it that O.J. got off in the first trial.
>
> However, denigrating an attorney who defended OJ is denigrating a system
> in which everyone should be entitled to defense.
They secured his aquittal in a circus trial, resulting in a gross miscarriage
of justice.
>
> The right to a fair trial may not be explicitely spelled out in the
> Constitution, but it is something we all expect to have.
>
> I have no less respect for Alan Dershowitz because he was involved in the
> defense of a man who at least was found guilty in the second trial. Small
> consolation to the parents and family of those murdered.
>
> If Keyes was able to defend his interpretation of the question of the
> debate he would not have had to stoop to such mudslinging.
>
> Furthermore, if he was any good he would have been able to address the
> point of the debate in the first place. His opening remarks did not
> address the question of the debate.
> -----------------
>
> Winter Solstice, Thursday, December 21, 2000 at 8:37 a.m. EST. marks the Sun's lowest point as seen from the Northern Hemisphere in
> its annual apparent journey across the sky. It is the shortest day of the
> year, and the longest night. For many societies, this event was an
> important marker in the periodic oscillation of the year, part of the
> seemingly endless cycle of birth, death and renewal. Many cultures
> invested this time with special metaphysical, even religious significance.
> As Christianity gained political and cultural hegemony throughout the
> world, it appropriated many of the earlier, ancient symbols and
> celebrations marking this time of year and grafted them onto its own
> belief system. The Winter Solstice remains a universal holiday, one
> rooted not exclusively in religious creeds, but in the natural events of
> the world around us.
>
>
Kenneth Pangborn
WRONG! He was held liable in a CIVIL TRIAL where you could obtain a
verdict against a ham sandwich the burden of proof is so low. In the
criminal case the state could not PROVE its case. In the civil trial the
plaintiff didn't have to! All it had to do was inflame an ALL WHITE JURY!
Carol Lee Smith
> I found amusing how they kept doing stand-ups after the SCOTUS ruled
> about how it was a GREAT VICTORY for Gore. Kind of like Hitler in his bunker
> moving pieces on his war board for non-existent units as the Russians were
> pounding on the door to the bunker entrance. Still living in a delusion.
> All Dershowitz proves was how ill mannered and NASTY he could be. How
> personally insulting. That isn't a win by any means when you have reduced
> your opposition to mere name calling.
Let me understand what you are saying here. Dershowitz was SO GOOD that
he reduced Keyes to a stance in which he could do nothing better than name
calling?
So it is the fault of one debater when the other is reduced to name
calling?
How interesting.
Alan Keyes attack on science:
Republican presidential candidate Alan Keyes' remarks on evolution were
made at Hylton High school in Virginia on 2/27/00. Listen to his speech on
C-SPAN's RealPlayer at
http://www.c-span.org/Campaign2000/keyesspeeches.asp
The remarks on evolution begin about 27:00, which you can zoom to on Real
Player using the slide-bar.
Here's a rough transcript in which Keyes contrasts the philosophy in the
Declaration of Independence with the philosophy that grows out of
evolution:
***********************ALAN KEYES on EVOLUTION**********************
But now in our schools there is a different ideology. It isn't
taught in the civics courses (I don't know what we do teach in the civics
courses), but we teach it in the science classes. it masquerades as
science though it is taught as indoctrination. Last time I looked science
you can question it; there is no scientific theory that you're not allowed
to question. The questions aren't likely to work in some cases, but in
other cases the fact that you were willing to question certain basic
assumptions, I mean the questions that Einstein was willing to raise about
Newtonian physics created the world in which we live.
Skepticism is the hallmark of the scientist's mind; always question
the theory in light of the facts. There is only one so-called scientific
theory where you are not allowed to do that, and where our children are
not to be exposed to any alternative except the one that has been placed
before them in this dogmatic fashion. And that is the ideology of
evolution. Why would they insist upon it in this way? Because it
represents the total subversion of the premise of our way of life. What
would we have to do to the declaration of independence if we were to
revise it to reflect the dogma that is now quite seriously taught to our
young people and which shapes their consciousness. This is, by virtue of
the claims of science, what they now believe about themselves. You do
realize that, don't you. What would we have to do to the declaration to
make it conform?
First we'd have to take out that inconvenient reference to truth,
since it's obvious that the purpose of evolution is to explain away the
appearance that an intelligent being created it in such a way as to
dispense with any need to any reference to such an intelligent cause. But
I've often wondered, why do we go to all that trouble? Do we go to all
that trouble in the rest of science to look for a cause that is not
commensurate with the effect? Usually you look for a commensurate cause.
But this is the one area of so-called science where we don't look for a
commensurate cause. We actually want to look for a cause that is not
commensurate with the effect. That's amazing.
But having dispensed with the possibility of an intelligent creator,
that does raise serious questions about the possibility of truth, doesn't
it, since truth does imply a kind of intelligent cohesion that could
ultimately be known and understood. If we discard that idea, then we're
left with something like this: "We hold these ideas to be more or less
familiar to everybody though no longer necessarily accepted by everybody,
that all of us have more or less evolved to about the same point, and that
as a consequence of this evolutionary process we all of us are equally
inclined to whine a lot about our rights."
Sad to say, even if one could state the sort of evolutionary
declaration principles with somewhat greater respect, there would still be
a problem. What authority does the evolution process have? Why should
one care about its results? Is there any particular reason to respect
those results? If evolution says we've more or less reached the same
point, but I say, no we haven't, because you reached the point without the
gun and I reached the point with the gun, doesn't that put us in a
position where the whole evolution thing doesn't matter, where equality is
no longer of any importance, and isn't it a point that the underlying
premise of evolution-- crudely stated, I know, but still I think
reasonably accurate--is the survival of the fittest. And what is the
survival of the fittest? It is the domination of the stronger over the
weaker in terms of the circumstances in which both find themselves. Do we
experience any regret in terms of evolutionary science for those weaklings
that are now extinguished? No we don't. They were extinguished because
they were not able to cope, and not being able to cope, why should we shed
any tears over them? We may look at them with curiosity and interest, but
beyond that, why do we care?
The interesting thing about that doctrine is that, actually, dressed
up in fancy scientific duds, it turns out to be for human affairs the same
brutal, ugly principle that governed all along: that might makes right,
and we needn't shed a tear of concern for the hindmost, for justice cares
only for the strong. I point all this out not just because it's
interesting theory, but because this is what our children learn. And if
we don't understand what we're doing, let me put it clearly, we have
thrown out the principle of justice on which our nation was founded, that
promises justice to the weak as well as the strong, and we have substitute
for it an ideology that offers no sympathy for the weak and confirms the
domination of the strong. We have destroyed in our schools and therefore
in the hearts and consciousness of our children already the principles
without which our whole way of life is a meaningless sham. And don't
think this is just an academic treatise -- what on earth is a politician
doing talking about this stuff.
I'll tell you why. The major issue we face as a moral challenge in this
country today is a direct reflection of the same abandonment of principle
of the same surrender to the age-old lie that might makes right. For we
see there clear as day in the arguments that are made by the proponents of
abortion, who tell us that that child in the womb is rightly subject to
his mother's choice because it is not viable apart from her body, because
it is wholly dependent upon her physically, because she has it absolutely
within her power. What are we looking at there, if not the claim that
absolute power means the absolute right to dispose of the being in your
power in any way you choose. It is the same awful ugly premise of
despotism and tyranny and slavery and conquest and oppression that has
sadly consigned so many human beings to oppression, to death, through the
centuries of mankind's
existence.
Yet here we are, a people supposedly governed by a principle that
respects all, regardless of their weakness or strength, embracing now the
lie that in fact once again surrenders the very heart of our civilization
to the principle that might makes right, that the one who has the power
has the power to destroy the lives of those that are within its power.
------------------------------
Kenneth Pangborn
"Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.100122...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
> > I found amusing how they kept doing stand-ups after the SCOTUS ruled
> > about how it was a GREAT VICTORY for Gore. Kind of like Hitler in his
bunker
> > moving pieces on his war board for non-existent units as the Russians
were
> > pounding on the door to the bunker entrance. Still living in a
delusion.
> > All Dershowitz proves was how ill mannered and NASTY he could be. How
> > personally insulting. That isn't a win by any means when you have
reduced
> > your opposition to mere name calling.
>
> Let me understand what you are saying here. Dershowitz was SO GOOD that
> he reduced Keyes to a stance in which he could do nothing better than name
> calling?
>
> So it is the fault of one debater when the other is reduced to name
> calling?
Gee and some of us actually thought that Dershowitz did by far the most
name calling and use of propaganda techniques. Silly US, huh?
sol...@my-deja.com
> Alan Keyes attack on science:
>
> Republican presidential candidate
> Alan Keyes' remarks on evolution were
> made at Hylton High school in Virginia
> on 2/27/00. Listen to his speech on
> C-SPAN's RealPlayer at
> http://www.c-span.org/Campaign2000/keyesspeeches.asp
>
> The remarks on evolution begin about
> 27:00, which you can zoom to on Real
> Player using the slide-bar.
>
> Here's a rough transcript in which
> Keyes contrasts the philosophy in the
> Declaration of Independence with the
> philosophy that grows out of
> evolution:
This is not an attack on Science. I think I would know. I have a
Masters in Physics and I am an employee at US research laboratory. This
is more of an attack on the theory of evolution that is accepted as
fact without any proof. I totally agree with Keyes on this point. When
I was taught evolution at school there were no facts put forward that
would support this theory. Because of this and because it is taught to
every grade school child, evolution has become a wholesale
indoctrination in our culture.
--Robert Soliday
Carol Lee Smith
Perhaps you would like to give us some examples of what you mean.
On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, Kenneth Pangborn wrote:
> "Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> > Let me understand what you are saying here. Dershowitz was SO GOOD that
> > he reduced Keyes to a stance in which he could do nothing better than name
> > calling?
> > So it is the fault of one debater when the other is reduced to name
> > calling?
> Gee and some of us actually thought that Dershowitz did by far the most
> name calling and use of propaganda techniques. Silly US, huh?
Kenneth Pangborn
> You are the one who used the term "name calling."
>
> Perhaps you would like to give us some examples of what you mean.
Hmm like the term "fascist?" How about referring to Keyes as an
"extremist?" Or the references to Mr. Bush?
and...@my-deja.com
You're right on target, Robert (and Alan Keyes). The theory of
evolution, as it is commonly forced upon American students, is junk
science. It's riddled with hoaxes, errors, pure speculation, and self-
contradictions. Forcing students to learn this stuff is like forcing
them to learn astrology.
I'm not sure if the motivation is more political or anti-religious.
But regardless of the motivation, it's not real science. The Catholic
Church Humani Generis expressly prohibits the teaching of the theory of
evolution as proven fact, but it is anyway in the U.S.
Andy
Andy Groves
For his next trick, Mr. Schlafly will describe a scientific theory that
better describes the diversity of life as we see it today, and wil
describe the evidence that supports his theory.
--
Andy Groves
Donate free food at The Hunger Site -
http://www.thehungersite.com
David C. Fritzinger
Andy, you saying this is a complete joke. Speaking of irony meters
blowing up!!!
It's riddled with hoaxes,
Gee, the "hoaxes are discovered by other scientists. What about
the hoaxes and frauds in creationism. They get refuted by real
scientists, and the creationists just ignore the refutation and
present the same old BS as if it were true.
errors,
Point some out, big boy!
pure speculation
No, you have that wrong, again. The ID people are the ones that
use pure speculation.
, and self-
> contradictions.
Whereas, creationism can't have self contradictions, since their
only explanation is GODIDIT, which explains nothing.
Forcing students to learn this stuff is like forcing
> them to learn astrology.
Gee, so you're saying that astrology is better than creationism 8^)
>
> I'm not sure if the motivation is more political or anti-religious.
> But regardless of the motivation, it's not real science.
This said by someone who has repeatedly demonstrated that he
knows no real science.
The Catholic
> Church Humani Generis expressly prohibits the teaching of the
theory of
> evolution as proven fact, but it is anyway in the U.S.
I believe you are refuted on this in other threads. Chalk it up to
another Schlafly lie. You asked me before why I call you a liar. Look
at your post that I am responding to, and you will see. Every point
you made has been refuted, repeatedly. And still you keep bringing
out the same old BS. Sad, really.
Dave Fritzinger
Andy Groves
and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <92dumo$51p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> reference to things that don't exist, and then tons of namecalling are
> used to distract the reader from the lack of substance.
>
> The Humani Generis is at http://www.newadvent.org/docs/pi12hg.htm
> It is a brief but insightful document. It includes the following (note
> the prohibition at the end):
>
> "Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not
> been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences,
No concept in natural sciences has been proved. One can only do that in
the field of mathematical logic. Scientific theories simply have
supporting evidence.
> explains the
> origin of all things,
evolution does not explain the origin of all things. It explains the
diversity of living things.
> and audaciously support the monistic and
> pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution.
Of course the world is in continual evolution... wouldn't you agree that
the world is changing all the time? Now, with respect to biological
evolution, isn't it the case that populations of living things change
over time? Isn't it the case that we can observe them changing over
time? Isn't it the case that we can find evidence of creatures living in
the past, but no evidence of similar creatures living today?
Well?
--
Andy Groves
Donate free food at The Hunger Site -
http://www.thehungersite.com
and...@my-deja.com
This is an example of the Darwinian dialect. Every claim is just a
reference to things that don't exist, and then tons of namecalling are
used to distract the reader from the lack of substance.
The Humani Generis is at http://www.newadvent.org/docs/pi12hg.htm
It is a brief but insightful document. It includes the following (note
the prohibition at the end):
"Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not
been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the
origin of all things, and audaciously support the monistic and
pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution.
Communists gladly subscribe to this opinion so that, when the souls of
men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the
more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical
materialism. ... We charge the Bishops and the Superiors General of
Religious Orders, binding them most seriously in conscience, to take
most diligent care that such opinions be not advanced in schools, in
conferences or in writings of any kind, and that they be not taught in
any manner whatsoever to the clergy or the faithful."
David C. Fritzinger
But, why didn't you say anything about the creationist hoaxes, the
lack of creationist scientific discoveries, etc. Those weren't
"Darwinian dialect" (Nice alliteration, by the way. Too bad it is the
same old Schlafly BS), but direct accusations. Refute them, Andy.
You won't, because you can't.
Dave Fritzinger
Jonathan Stone
You know, Roger may have a point, albeit by accident.
Evolution, as taught in many US high schools (by a basketball coach
doubling as bio teacher, or a science teacher with creationist
leanings) might well have the faults Roger describes. Especially in
states like Texas (or many of the states which follow Texas' lead) ,
where Creationist fruit-loops conspired to ruin the bio textbooks for
decades or more.
In more fortunate countries, students *do* learn the facts behind the
theory of evolution. Much the same goes for other scientific
disciplines and for mathematics, of course.
Andy Groves
jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan Stone) wrote:
> In article <92du56$4j1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Andy Groves <gro...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >In article <92dti7$43h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >>
> >> You're right on target, Robert (and Alan Keyes). The theory of
> >> evolution, as it is commonly forced upon American students, is junk
> >> science. It's riddled with hoaxes, errors, pure speculation, and self-
> >> contradictions. Forcing students to learn this stuff is like forcing
> >> them to learn astrology.
> >
> >For his next trick, Mr. Schlafly will describe a scientific theory that
> >better describes the diversity of life as we see it today, and wil
> >describe the evidence that supports his theory.
>
> You know, Roger may have a point, albeit by accident.
I think Andy posted it. Difficult to tell them apart....
> Evolution, as taught in many US high schools (by a basketball coach
> doubling as bio teacher, or a science teacher with creationist
> leanings) might well have the faults Roger describes. Especially in
> states like Texas (or many of the states which follow Texas' lead) ,
> where Creationist fruit-loops conspired to ruin the bio textbooks for
> decades or more.
>
It's one thing to say that evolution is taught badly; it's quite another
to say that evolution is wrong. Which does Andy beleive? If evolution is
wrong, what's the explanation for the diversity of life on Earth?
and...@my-deja.com
Andy Groves <gro...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <92dvk6$5me$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > The Humani Generis is at http://www.newadvent.org/docs/pi12hg.htm
> > It is a brief but insightful document. It includes the following
(note
> > the prohibition at the end):
> >
> > "Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has
not
> > been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences,
>
> No concept in natural sciences has been proved. One can only do that
in
> the field of mathematical logic. Scientific theories simply have
> supporting evidence.
Many scientific theories can be proven through repeated experimental
verification. Evolution is not one of them.
> > explains the
> > origin of all things,
>
> evolution does not explain the origin of all things. It explains the
> diversity of living things.
Most Darwinists claim that evolution explains the origin of all living
things, which is the plain meaning here.
> > and audaciously support the monistic and
> > pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution.
>
> Of course the world is in continual evolution... wouldn't you agree
that
> the world is changing all the time? Now, with respect to biological
> evolution, isn't it the case that populations of living things change
> over time? Isn't it the case that we can observe them changing over
> time? Isn't it the case that we can find evidence of creatures living
in
> the past, but no evidence of similar creatures living today?
Bottom line: you're assuming that evolution *must* be true, not testing
whether it is true.
Evolution is not the same as the change you cite above. Evolution
entails a progression towards something. Change does not.
Andy
wf...@ptd.net
>In article <92e01i$621$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Andy Groves <gro...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> In article <92dvk6$5me$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> and...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>> > The Humani Generis is at http://www.newadvent.org/docs/pi12hg.htm
>> > It is a brief but insightful document. It includes the following
>(note
>> > the prohibition at the end):
>> >
>> > "Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has
>not
>> > been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences,
>>
>> No concept in natural sciences has been proved. One can only do that
>in
>> the field of mathematical logic. Scientific theories simply have
>> supporting evidence.
>
>Many scientific theories can be proven through repeated experimental
>verification. Evolution is not one of them.
since evolution is a lab science, how do you know this?
>
>> > explains the
>> > origin of all things,
>>
>> evolution does not explain the origin of all things. It explains the
>> diversity of living things.
>
>Most Darwinists claim that evolution explains the origin of all living
>things, which is the plain meaning here.
prove it.
Christopher Peters
Wrong. Evolution does not have any goal or purpose.
>Andy
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com
>http://www.deja.com/
>
--
Chris Peters (cpe...@world.std.com)
"Real programmers don't use mice."
Carol Lee Smith
Keyes a facist?
If he called him an extremist, he isn't wrong. I think Keyes is an
extremist. His anti evolution-theory stance is very extremist.
He would be very dangerous in a position of power and I am
glad he did not get the nomination.
To what to you refer when you state "references to Mr. Bush" ?
On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, Kenneth Pangborn wrote:
------------------------------------
and...@my-deja.com
world!cpe...@uunet.uu.net (Christopher Peters) wrote:
> In article <92ed5m$fso$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <and...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
> >Evolution is not the same as the change you cite above. Evolution
> >entails a progression towards something. Change does not.
> >
>
> Wrong. Evolution does not have any goal or purpose.
Merriam-Webster online definition of evolution: "a process of change in
a certain direction."
hrgr...@my-deja.com
I propose a test that you might try: look up the definitions of SHEAF,
STALK and GERM in Merriam-Webster and compare them with their
mathematical meanings. Perhaps the Encyclopedia Britannica can help you
in determining the latter .... ;-)
HRG.
Null A.N.D. Void
>> and...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> > "Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has
>not
>> > been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences,
>> No concept in natural sciences has been proved. One can only do that
>in
>> the field of mathematical logic. Scientific theories simply have
>> supporting evidence.
>Many scientific theories can be proven through repeated experimental
>verification. Evolution is not one of them.
No scientific theory to date is proven, and none *can* be proven. Only
mathematical *theorems* are proven. There is a big difference. Even
the most useful and most cross checked theories to date, lets give
electromagnetism as an example, is contingent on future experimental
results. There is no point in time that one can say, "with this
experiment, such and such theory is proven - further experimentation
is not necessary". Repeated verification only strengthens theories but
it takes one experiment to open the road for revision. Thus, evolution
is as much proven as any other scientific theory (which is not saying
much) and as strong as any other (which is saying a lot). In fact,
T.O. Evolution is stronger than a lot of theories which
fundementalists don't seem to be objecting to. Also, we know, for a
fact that the Newtonian Mechanics is incomplete. However, nobody
objects to it being taught in schools. What are you objecting to
exactly? Sure, TOE will be revised and developed further in the
details, there might even be major modifications. However, just
because no theory can be proven we cannot stop teaching them, we would
still be in the trees if that had been the attitude! TOE is the
foundation for working technologies such as genetics. Discarding it
would be like discarding electromagnetism as a valid theory.
>> > explains the
>> > origin of all things,
>> evolution does not explain the origin of all things. It explains the
>> diversity of living things.
>Most Darwinists claim that evolution explains the origin of all living
>things, which is the plain meaning here.
I doubt that but what most people claim is irrelevant. Here, we are
responsible for our own statements. Evolution is compatible with, say,
life originating on earth as well as being implanted by magic pixies,
as long as you don't claim that those magic pixies implanted humans
and dinosaurs together or humans were introduced in their present form
and shape 4000 years ago. If you have problems with observations
relating to these feel free to jump in.
>> > and audaciously support the monistic and
>> > pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution.
>>
>> Of course the world is in continual evolution... wouldn't you agree
>that
>> the world is changing all the time? Now, with respect to biological
>> evolution, isn't it the case that populations of living things change
>> over time? Isn't it the case that we can observe them changing over
>> time? Isn't it the case that we can find evidence of creatures living
>in
>> the past, but no evidence of similar creatures living today?
>
>Bottom line: you're assuming that evolution *must* be true, not testing
>whether it is true.
>
>Evolution is not the same as the change you cite above. Evolution
>entails a progression towards something. Change does not.
By "progress" you are implicating that evolutionary change is good.
Bearing in mind that "good" is a personal thing, *any* change is
towards something. Atoms grow *towards* a crystal (something better,
wouldn't you say?). Water *turns into* snowflakes (pretty). A river
flows *towards* something. A photon from the sun moves *towards*
something. The sun evolves *towards* something... etc. This does not
mean that "stuff" knows about their destination or are making a
conscious choice to better themselves. That evolution cannot be
happening because it is producing something good (ie "progressing") is
a cross between Zeno's paradox and Murphy's Laws and has no scientific
value at all. By that token, a star cannot get any brighter because
getting brighter is a good thing and good things cannot happen by
themselves, left alone, all things should disintegrate to maximum
disorder. Of course that is the overall direction but other things
nevertheless happen (fundementally because of the matter/energy
imbalance). Why do you not question that elementary particles can be
born out of energy or that molecules can assemble from atoms, all by
"themselves" but when it comes to organic self replicating assembly of
molecules evolving, you think it's an impossibily?
wf...@ptd.net
who said a direction cant be random?
Kenneth Pangborn
"David C. Fritzinger" <dfri...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:92dumo$51p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Do de PILTDOWN MAN bring anything to ya?
Kenneth Pangborn
"Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.100122...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
> Keyes a facist?
>
> If he called him an extremist, he isn't wrong. I think Keyes is an
extremist. His anti evolution-theory stance is very extremist.
In YOUR opinion.(NOT = to a FACT!)
> He would be very dangerous in a position of power and I am glad he did
not get the nomination.
> To what to you refer when you state "references to Mr. Bush" ?
George W. Bush.
Geoff Sheffield
You don't agree with the Merriam-Webster definition.
Scientists apparently don't agree either.
What do you think of the definition that scientists actually use?
--
Geoff Sheffield
Geoff Sheffield
> Andy Groves <gro...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <92dvk6$5me$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > and...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > > The Humani Generis is at http://www.newadvent.org/docs/pi12hg.htm
> > > It is a brief but insightful document. It includes the following
> (note
> > > the prohibition at the end):
> > >
> > > "Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has
> not
> > > been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences,
> >
> > No concept in natural sciences has been proved. One can only do that
> in
> > the field of mathematical logic. Scientific theories simply have
> > supporting evidence.
>
> Many scientific theories can be proven through repeated experimental
> verification. Evolution is not one of them.
That depends on the definition of evolution. Your comments
below indicate that you don't know the definition.
>
> > > explains the
> > > origin of all things,
> >
> > evolution does not explain the origin of all things. It explains the
> > diversity of living things.
>
> Most Darwinists claim that evolution explains the origin of all living
> things, which is the plain meaning here.
Can you cite a single one who makes this claim?
(I know that the creationist definition of evolution includes
abiogenesis, but the scientific one does not. Hence, my
request for evidence for your claim, and my comment that
you don't even know the definition of evolution.)
[snip]
--
Geoff Sheffield
Schlafly
news:92foub$fqb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
A definition is just a definition. Science is interested in theories
and facts, not abusing language. Why are the evolutionists here
so interested in rewriting dictionary definitions?
Andy Groves
> Andy Groves <gro...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <92dvk6$5me$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > and...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > > The Humani Generis is at http://www.newadvent.org/docs/pi12hg.htm
> > > It is a brief but insightful document. It includes the following
> (note
> > > the prohibition at the end):
> > >
> > > "Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has
> not
> > > been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences,
> >
> > No concept in natural sciences has been proved. One can only do that
> in
> > the field of mathematical logic. Scientific theories simply have
> > supporting evidence.
>
> Many scientific theories can be proven through repeated experimental
> verification. Evolution is not one of them.
Really? What would your standard for repeated verification be in the
case of evolution?
> > > explains the
> > > origin of all things,
> >
> > evolution does not explain the origin of all things. It explains the
> > diversity of living things.
>
> Most Darwinists claim that evolution explains the origin of all living
> things, which is the plain meaning here.
It's not my fault if the Vatican writes ambiguous prose. They said "all
things", not "all living things".
> > > and audaciously support the monistic and
> > > pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution.
> >
> > Of course the world is in continual evolution... wouldn't you agree
> that
> > the world is changing all the time? Now, with respect to biological
> > evolution, isn't it the case that populations of living things change
> > over time? Isn't it the case that we can observe them changing over
> > time? Isn't it the case that we can find evidence of creatures living
> in
> > the past, but no evidence of similar creatures living today?
>
> Bottom line: you're assuming that evolution *must* be true, not testing
> whether it is true.
If you obsserve change in populations of living things, you are
observing biological evolution.
> Evolution is not the same as the change you cite above. Evolution
> entails a progression towards something. Change does not.
Biological evolution does *NOT* entail a progression towards something,
and I challenge you to produce a quote from an evolutionary biologist
(in context, naturally) that claims it does. The fact that you believe
this shows you do not understand what you are trying to argue against.
--
Andy Groves
Donate free food at The Hunger Site -
http://www.thehungersite.com
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
well, there goes another irony meter...good thing i get 'em by the
gross...with right wing nuts like schlafly around, they're cheaper by
the dozen dozen.
>
>
>
Geoff Sheffield
Because the editors of the dictionary didn't do proper research
before printing the definition?
Can you find a single proponent of evolution that says "evolution
implies change in a certain direction" or "evolution implies
change toward a specified goal?". If you cannot, then the
quoted definition is either erroneous or ambiguous and shouldn't
have been published.
The problem that you apparently cannot see is that just because
a scientist says that he accepts evolution doesn't mean that he
accepts "evolution" according to every definition that has ever
been proposed.
So why don't you find a scientist that agrees with the "evolution
implies change in a certain direction" interpretation of the
quoted definition?
Andy Groves
Because they're not appropriate? When were general dictionaries meant to
be the sole arbiter of scientific defintions? The most commonly accepted
defintion of biological evolution is "a change in a population's allele
frequency over time".
Biological evolution is not goal directed; it does not progress towards
anything inevitably, although one might make predictions about short-
term evolutionary changes in the light of previous observations.
--
Andy Groves
Donate free food at The Hunger Site -
http://www.thehungersite.com
Andy Groves
Just for the record - "a process of change in a certain direction" is
not the same as what you wrote above - "a progression towards
something".
--
Andy Groves
Donate free food at The Hunger Site -
http://www.thehungersite.com
hrgr...@my-deja.com
Never fully accepted by the scientific community. Fraud discovered by
scientists.
An excellent example for the self-correction mechanism of science.
A comparison with the treatment of the Paluxy footprints by
creationists is left as an exercise for the reader.
HRG.
Howard Hershey
In the case of evolution, the only direction is toward maximal fitness
to the local environment (but only in the case of selectable traits).
There is no 'certain direction' in the evolution of selectively
neutral traits).
rich hammett
> Andy
You win.
rich
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
--
-remove no from mail name and spam from domain to reply
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu
\ ..basketball [is] the paramount
/ synthesis in sport of intelligence, precision, courage,
\ audacity, anticipation, artifice, teamwork, elegance,
/ and grace. --Carl Sagan
David C. Fritzinger
> Andy Groves <gro...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <92dvk6$5me$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > and...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > > The Humani Generis is at
http://www.newadvent.org/docs/pi12hg.htm
> > > It is a brief but insightful document. It includes the following
> (note
> > > the prohibition at the end):
> > >
> > > "Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which
has
> not
> > > been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences,
> >
> > No concept in natural sciences has been proved. One can only
do that
> in
> > the field of mathematical logic. Scientific theories simply have
> > supporting evidence.
>
> Many scientific theories can be proven through repeated
experimental
> verification. Evolution is not one of them.
LEARN SOME SCIENCE!!! (Yes, that was shouting). By definition,
no scientific theory can be proven. They can, however, be falsified.
Thus far, all the evidence supports the ToE, and, creationism has
been falsified.
>
> > > explains the
> > > origin of all things,
> >
> > evolution does not explain the origin of all things. It explains the
> > diversity of living things.
>
> Most Darwinists claim that evolution explains the origin of all
living
> things, which is the plain meaning here.
Andy Groves' statement is correct.
>
> > > and audaciously support the monistic and
> > > pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution.
> >
> > Of course the world is in continual evolution... wouldn't you
agree
> that
> > the world is changing all the time? Now, with respect to
biological
> > evolution, isn't it the case that populations of living things
change
> > over time? Isn't it the case that we can observe them changing
over
> > time? Isn't it the case that we can find evidence of creatures
living
> in
> > the past, but no evidence of similar creatures living today?
>
> Bottom line: you're assuming that evolution *must* be true, not
testing
> whether it is true.
You didn't answer the question, and you didn't answer it because
you know that the answer would have to be yes.
>
> Evolution is not the same as the change you cite above.
Evolution
> entails a progression towards something. Change does not.
Again, I will repeat what I said above. LEARN SOME SCIENCE!!!
Evolution does not "progress towards something", unless that
something is an organism that is more fit to survive and leave
offspring in its current environment. There is no "progression".
Evolution can (an has) resulted in parasites that have lost the
ability to live independently. It has resulted in the loss of organs.
This is no progression, except as I defined it above.
You know, now that you have begun to give your definition of
evolution, it is clear why you think evolution could be equated with
eugenics. In eugenics, people are bred towards some ideal
human race, which is what you seem to think evolution would also
do. However, there is no progression to evolution. Organisms
differentially survive and leave offspring in a manner that depends
on how well they fit into their environment.
Again, before you continue to try to argue against evolution, please
learn something about it. You will find your arguments are that
much more effective. However, once you begin to learn what
evolution really is, and what the ToE really says, you will probably
stop being a creationist.
Dave Fritzinger
David C. Fritzinger
M-W is WRONG! Get your scientific definition from scientists, not
from a dictionary.
Dave Fritzinger
David C. Fritzinger
> news:92foub$fqb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <92em2b$meo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > > >Evolution is not the same as the change you cite above.
Evolution
> > > > >entails a progression towards something. Change does
not.
> > > > Wrong. Evolution does not have any goal or purpose.
> > > Merriam-Webster online definition of evolution: "a process of
change
> > in
> > > a certain direction."
> > You don't agree with the Merriam-Webster definition.
> > Scientists apparently don't agree either.
> > What do you think of the definition that scientists actually use?
>
> A definition is just a definition. Science is interested in theories
> and facts, not abusing language. Why are the evolutionists here
> so interested in rewriting dictionary definitions?
Because we want a definition that is scientifically correct.
Dave Fritzinger
David C. Fritzinger
<IuI26.34495$RC1.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
"Kenneth Pangborn" <kenpa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
The PIltdown Man was a hoax. No one knows who the hoaxter
was. Some scientists doubted that the Piltdown man was real
from very close to the beginning. As more discoveries of
pre-hominid fossils were made, it became more and more
obvious that Piltdown Man did not match the other fossils. Finally,
in the early 1950s, the British Museum allowed scientists to
re-examine the Piltdown Man artifacts, and their true nature was
discovered. As I said above, a hoax discovered by scientists.
AFAIK, no creationists played a part in the discovery of the hoax.
More details are available at talk.origins.org. Now, let's talk about
the Paluxy "mantracks" if you want a hoax that creationists keep
perpetuating...
and...@my-deja.com
Geoff Sheffield <geo...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <92fqlj$cno$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "Schlafly" <roger...@deja.com> wrote:
> > Geoff Sheffield <geo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:92foub$fqb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > In article <92em2b$meo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > > > >Evolution is not the same as the change you cite above.
> Evolution
> > > > > >entails a progression towards something. Change does not.
> > > > > Wrong. Evolution does not have any goal or purpose.
> > > > Merriam-Webster online definition of evolution: "a process of
> change
> > > in
> > > > a certain direction."
> > > You don't agree with the Merriam-Webster definition.
> > > Scientists apparently don't agree either.
> > > What do you think of the definition that scientists actually use?
> >
> > A definition is just a definition.
> > Science is interested in theories
> > and facts, not abusing language. Why are the evolutionists here
> > so interested in rewriting dictionary definitions?
> >
>
> Because the editors of the dictionary didn't do proper research
> before printing the definition?
And your evidence for this is ________? In fact, dictionaries
scrupulously look to scientific authorities for definitions.
> Can you find a single proponent of evolution that says "evolution
> implies change in a certain direction" or "evolution implies
> change toward a specified goal?". If you cannot, then the
> quoted definition is either erroneous or ambiguous and shouldn't
> have been published.
If you don't like the dictionary definition, then provide your own here
and stick to it as we analyze it.
> The problem that you apparently cannot see is that just because
> a scientist says that he accepts evolution doesn't mean that he
> accepts "evolution" according to every definition that has ever
> been proposed.
No, the problem is that many evolutionists view evolution as a program
rather than a term having a fixed definition.
> So why don't you find a scientist that agrees with the "evolution
> implies change in a certain direction" interpretation of the
> quoted definition?
Let's start with this: can you find a scientist that embraces evolution
based on a fixed definition? If you can find such a scientist (I'm not
sure you can), then we can look at the definition endorsed by him or
her.
Andy
Jonathan Stone
>In article <92ft4u$jdf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Geoff Sheffield <geo...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> In article <92fqlj$cno$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>,
>>
>> Because the editors of the dictionary didn't do proper research
>> before printing the definition?
>
>And your evidence for this is ________?
The proffered definition is prima facie evidence.
Open and shut case.
>
>> Can you find a single proponent of evolution that says "evolution
>> implies change in a certain direction" or "evolution implies
>> change toward a specified goal?". If you cannot, then the
>> quoted definition is either erroneous or ambiguous and shouldn't
>> have been published.
>
>If you don't like the dictionary definition, then provide your own here
>and stick to it as we analyze it.
Please explin what part of "change in allele frequency in a population
over time" implies a direction, or a specified goal.
[...]
Andy Groves
> Let's start with this: can you find a scientist that embraces evolution
> based on a fixed definition? If you can find such a scientist (I'm not
> sure you can), then we can look at the definition endorsed by him or
> her.
>
Here we go. I'm a scientist, and this is my definition of biological
evolution:
"A change in the allele frequency of a population with time".
--
Andy Groves
Donate free food at The Hunger Site -
http://www.thehungersite.com
and...@my-deja.com
Andy Groves <gro...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <92gnfe$9mj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Let's start with this: can you find a scientist that embraces
evolution
> > based on a fixed definition? If you can find such a scientist (I'm
not
> > sure you can), then we can look at the definition endorsed by him or
> > her.
> >
>
> Here we go. I'm a scientist, and this is my definition of biological
> evolution:
>
> "A change in the allele frequency of a population with time".
The "over time" is redundant with "change". All change is over time.
Last week I killed some ants. Under your definition, that's
evolution.
The Creationists' Flood was evolution, under your definition.
Pure chance in the death of organisms is evolution under your
definition.
In fact, anything involving the death (or birth) of any organism
constitutes evolution under your definition.
The good news is that no one, not even creationists, would deny the
existence of evolution under your definition.
The bad news is that your definition is nothing more than saying that
evolution happens whenever an organism originates or dies, regardless
of the mechanism.
Andy
Carol Lee Smith
On Thu, 28 Dec 2000, Kenneth Pangborn wrote:
> "David C. Fritzinger" <dfri...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > sol...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > > Carol Lee Smith <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
> > > > > Alan Keyes attack on science:
> > > > > Republican presidential candidate
> > > > > Alan Keyes' remarks on evolution were
> > > > > made at Hylton High school in Virginia
> > > > > on 2/27/00. Listen to his speech on
> > > > > C-SPAN's RealPlayer at
> > > > > http://www.c-span.org/Campaign2000/keyesspeeches.asp
> > > > > Here's a rough transcript in which
> > > > > Keyes contrasts the philosophy in the
> > > > > Declaration of Independence with the
> > > > > philosophy that grows out of
> > > > > evolution:
<snip>
> > > > This is not an attack on Science. I think I would know. I have a
> > > > Masters in Physics and I am an employee at US research laboratory.
> > > This is more of an attack on the theory of evolution that is
accepted
> > > > as fact without any proof. I totally agree with Keyes on this
<snip>
> > Andy, you saying this is a complete joke. Speaking of irony meters
> > blowing up!!!
> > It's riddled with hoaxes,
> >
> > Gee, the "hoaxes are discovered by other scientists. What about
> > the hoaxes and frauds in creationism. They get refuted by real
> > scientists, and the creationists just ignore the refutation and
> > present the same old BS as if it were true.
> > errors,
> > Point some out, big boy!
> Do de PILTDOWN MAN bring anything to ya?
Is there a way you could phrase that so we understand your point?
Who uncovered the problems with PILTDOWN MAN ?
Who straightened it out?
Do you suppose that the Piltdown Man theory did not withstand the rigors
of the scientific method?
Winter Solstice, Thursday, December 21, 2000 at 8:37 a.m. EST. marks the Sun's lowest point as seen from the Northern Hemisphere in
its annual apparent journey across the sky. It is the shortest day of the
year, and the longest night. For many societies, this event was an
important marker in the periodic oscillation of the year, part of the
seemingly endless cycle of birth, death and renewal. Many cultures
invested this time with special metaphysical, even religious significance.
As Christianity gained political and cultural hegemony throughout the
world, it appropriated many of the earlier, ancient symbols and
celebrations marking this time of year and grafted them onto its own
belief system. The Winter Solstice remains a universal holiday, one
rooted not exclusively in religious creeds, but in the natural events of
the world around us.
David Jensen
hrgr...@my-deja.com wrote in <92fvu8$lr0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>> Do de PILTDOWN MAN bring anything to ya?
>>
>
>Never fully accepted by the scientific community. Fraud discovered by
>scientists.
>
>An excellent example for the self-correction mechanism of science.
>
>A comparison with the treatment of the Paluxy footprints by
>creationists is left as an exercise for the reader.
It's not a fraud. Paluxy is an "inspired recreation" of how things
were....
Kenneth Pangborn
"Jon" <jonv...@justice.com> wrote in message
news:3a4b79b2$0$57178$272e...@news.execpc.com...
> Kenneth Pangborn <kenpa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > If he called him an extremist, he isn't wrong. I think Keyes is an
> > extremist. His anti evolution-theory stance is very extremist.
> >
> >
> > In YOUR opinion.(NOT = to a FACT!)
>
> that dinosaurs never existed?
Do you believe in flying saucers and little green men from Mars?
Do you believe that Al Gore invented the internet?
Do you believe that votes went uncounted in Florida?
Then I have some waterfront property in Florida to sell you.
Kenneth Pangborn
<raymond...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:92a9nc$cqe$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <Pine.OSF.3.96.100122...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu>,> > On Mon, 25 Dec 2000, DishDude wrote:
> >
> > > Kenneth Pangborn wrote:
> >
> > > > "Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> >
> > > > > On Fri, 22 Dec 2000 sol...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > GOODY ! ! !
> > > > > > > Watching Keyes get his ass kicked over again is the best
Christmas
> > > > > > present I could get.
> >
> > > > This rather reminds me of AL Gore proclaiming that he WON the
election. Or
> > > > David Boise reading the U.,S. Supreme Court ruling thinking they had
WON.
> > > > Aren't delusions just grand. How two people can watch the same
event and
> > > > draw opposite conclusions.
> >
> > > Very true indeed. I thought Keyes handled himself quite well against
> > > Douchewits. I particularly liked Keyes 'O.J.' shot on Douchewits.
> >
> > This is an attack on the right to a fair trial.
> >
> > I don't like it that O.J. got off in the first trial.
> >
> > However, denigrating an attorney who defended OJ is denigrating a system
> > in which everyone should be entitled to defense.
>
> They secured his aquittal in a circus trial, resulting in a gross
miscarriage
> of justice.
>
Yes but WHO was responsible for the circus? The defense or a jackass
prosecutor who put on 39 days of DNA science that put the jury to sleep
after 2 hours?????
Michelle Malkin
<kenpa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>"Jon" <jonv...@justice.com> wrote in message
>news:3a4b79b2$0$57178$272e...@news.execpc.com...
>> Kenneth Pangborn <kenpa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > If he called him an extremist, he isn't wrong. I think Keyes is an
>> > extremist. His anti evolution-theory stance is very extremist.
>> >
>> >
>> > In YOUR opinion.(NOT = to a FACT!)
>>
>> Hey Ken, do you believe that the earth is 7000 years old and
>> that dinosaurs never existed?
You didn't answer the question. Afraid?
>
>Do you believe in flying saucers and little green men from Mars?
Possibly and not bloody likely.
>
>Do you believe that Al Gore invented the internet?
No. And, I don't think he was being totally
serious when he made his comment about it.
>
>Do you believe that votes went uncounted in Florida?
Definitely. Lots of them. Thousands.
>
>
>Then I have some waterfront property in Florida to sell you.
Keep it. It's worthless.
Michelle Malkin (Mickey)
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
aa #1 ULC #3 EAC Bible Thumper Thumper
BAAWA Knight Who Says SPONG!
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
http://www.50megs.com/www2/questioner
http://www2.50megs.com/questioner/
http://www.thehungersite.com
http://bigcats.care2.com
http://rainforest.care2.com//
rich hammett
> Andy Groves <gro...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> In article <92gnfe$9mj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> and...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> > Let's start with this: can you find a scientist that embraces
> evolution
>> > based on a fixed definition? If you can find such a scientist (I'm
> not
>> > sure you can), then we can look at the definition endorsed by him or
>> > her.
>> >
>>
>> Here we go. I'm a scientist, and this is my definition of biological
>> evolution:
>>
>> "A change in the allele frequency of a population with time".
> The "over time" is redundant with "change". All change is over time.
No, you can measure change over any independent variable quite meaningfully,
and dependent variables often work as well.
> Last week I killed some ants. Under your definition, that's
> evolution.
You probably killed a fairly random distribution of alleles, so your
attempt was ineffectual.
> The Creationists' Flood was evolution, under your definition.
No, it was "fairy tale" in my definition.
> Pure chance in the death of organisms is evolution under your
> definition.
You might catch on.
> In fact, anything involving the death (or birth) of any organism
> constitutes evolution under your definition.
Yes, at the quantum level.
> The good news is that no one, not even creationists, would deny the
> existence of evolution under your definition.
Many of them would.
> The bad news is that your definition is nothing more than saying that
> evolution happens whenever an organism originates or dies, regardless
> of the mechanism.
Not when the definition is accompanied by observations and illustrations of
the effects of the said process over hundreds of millions of years.
rich
> Andy
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
Null A.N.D. Void
>> >Evolution is not the same as the change you cite above. Evolution
>> >entails a progression towards something. Change does not.
>> Wrong. Evolution does not have any goal or purpose.
>Merriam-Webster online definition of evolution: "a process of change in
>a certain direction."
As opposed to being completely chaotic?
What is this direction? I mean, "cars move in a certain direction"
does not explain how they move or what the direction is, does it?
I do not think evolution is completely chaotic so yes, it is correct
(but somewhat tautological) to say it has a direction. If you had,
say, one mole of worlds with similar initial starting conditions and
observed the evolution of living organisms for billions of years,
depending on what macro properties you would care to measure, you
would probably end up with statistical distributions where
overwhelming majority of the worlds would yield similar measurements
within a standard deviation. And *that* would be the direction. This,
obviously, does not mean it is scientifically meaningful to ask
individual organisms what their future plans are, or that there are
tiny "directors" tucked away in these organisms, which laymen usually
understand from "direction". At the deeper level, of course physics is
ultimately responsible, so physical properties of matter/energy is
*the* director.
Do you seriously think an 8 word definition in a dictionary will
describe an entire theory accurately and completely? (I don't even
know if MW intended that definition for the colloquial usage of the
word evolution of for the Theory of Evolution).
Staffina Security
when she sides with Dershowitz-- a man with no idea of the founding
fathers' intent and value system. In their moral wasteland we'd have an
America with no constitutional law, and where the only wrongs would be
not destroying the traditional value's this country was founded on.
Kenneth Pangborn
"David Jensen" <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:s36o4tstr0patqe7q...@4ax.com...
Correction, the exposing the Piltdown man as a fraud was largely brought out
by an Episcopalian Priest (church of England, same deal). The scientific
community at first circled the wagons and TRIED to defend it till they had
the world laughing at them. Shall we time warp to China?
Kenneth Pangborn
"Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.100122...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
Actually, Carol the man who tore \at it was an Episcopalian PRIEST!
NEXT!!!!!!
Kenneth Pangborn
"Michelle Malkin" <malk...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:qj9o4tc12nof4n7kc...@4ax.com...
> On 29 Dec 2000 00:42:13 -0500, "Kenneth Pangborn"
> <kenpa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jon" <jonv...@justice.com> wrote in message
> >news:3a4b79b2$0$57178$272e...@news.execpc.com...
> >> Kenneth Pangborn <kenpa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > > If he called him an extremist, he isn't wrong. I think Keyes is an
> >> > extremist. His anti evolution-theory stance is very extremist.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > In YOUR opinion.(NOT = to a FACT!)
> >>
> >> Hey Ken, do you believe that the earth is 7000 years old and
> >> that dinosaurs never existed?
>
> You didn't answer the question. Afraid?
Nope it was a SILLY question, on a par with mine about flying saucers.
> >
> >Do you believe in flying saucers and little green men from Mars?
>
> Possibly and not bloody likely.
> >
> >Do you believe that Al Gore invented the internet?
>
> No. And, I don't think he was being totally serious when he made his
comment about it.
> >
> >Do you believe that votes went uncounted in Florida?
>
> Definitely. Lots of them. Thousands.
> >
>
> >
> >Then I have some waterfront property in Florida to sell you.
>
> Keep it. It's worthless.
Okay I have a bridge for ya between Manhattan and Brooklyn. You seem
willing to buy lots of BS. ALL the votes were counted in Florida!
Except for the absentee ballots in Democratic controlled counties. 5
MILLION across the country!
Geoff Sheffield
Then you should be able to quote a scientific source that
agrees with your quoted definition. In the absence of such
a source, I would say that the editor didn't do proper
research. Unfortunatly, the burden of proof is on you to
demonstrate that the definition agrees with scientific
definitions.
>
> > Can you find a single proponent of evolution that says "evolution
> > implies change in a certain direction" or "evolution implies
> > change toward a specified goal?". If you cannot, then the
> > quoted definition is either erroneous or ambiguous and shouldn't
> > have been published.
>
> If you don't like the dictionary definition, then provide your own
here
> and stick to it as we analyze it.
That might be step 2. Do you agree that the dictionary definition
is inadequate?
>
> > The problem that you apparently cannot see is that just because
> > a scientist says that he accepts evolution doesn't mean that he
> > accepts "evolution" according to every definition that has ever
> > been proposed.
>
> No, the problem is that many evolutionists view evolution as a program
> rather than a term having a fixed definition.
I noticed in another thread that you didn't like the definitions
from a textbook. Whoever wrote that textbook was willing to
use them as fixed definitions.
>
> > So why don't you find a scientist that agrees with the "evolution
> > implies change in a certain direction" interpretation of the
> > quoted definition?
>
> Let's start with this: can you find a scientist that embraces
evolution
> based on a fixed definition?
Sure, the guy who wrote the textbook you quoted in the other
thread.
> If you can find such a scientist (I'm not
> sure you can), then we can look at the definition endorsed by him or
> her.
>
You have apparently already found one. Can't you even keep
your argument consistent from thread to thread?
--
Geoff Sheffield
Andy Groves
That is of course true. One might wonder then, why scientists adopt a
definition like that (which, incidentally, is found in evolution
textbooks).
This is where "over time" comes into play. Yes, a population's allele
frequency will change every time a member of the population dies. What
evolutionary biologists are interested in is how the frequency of
alleles is passed through successive generations.
Let's say you have a population consisting of 1000 individuals, and 4
different alleles present in each of 250 members. Each generation, each
member produces one offspring asexually and then dies.
If you kill ten members of the population randomly at every generation,
the allele frequency of the population is unlikely to change
significantly over, say 10 generations.
If you kill ten members of the population bearing one particular allele
every generation, the allele frequency of your population will change
over time.
So you are completely right that sucha defintion is unhelpful when
applied within the time of one generation. But that is not what
evolution is concerned with. Rather, it is concerned with how allele
frequencies vary in a population as it reproduces.
I could have worded the defintion like that, I suppose, butI hadn't
allowed for that degree of nitpicking. Anyhow, if you would like to
propose an alternative defintion, we can see how many biologists in the
group prefer yours to mine.
--
Andy Groves
Donate free food at The Hunger Site -
http://www.thehungersite.com
Geoff Sheffield
> Andy Groves <gro...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <92gnfe$9mj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > Let's start with this: can you find a scientist that embraces
> evolution
> > > based on a fixed definition? If you can find such a scientist
(I'm
> not
> > > sure you can), then we can look at the definition endorsed by him
or
> > > her.
> > >
> >
> > Here we go. I'm a scientist, and this is my definition of biological
> > evolution:
> >
> > "A change in the allele frequency of a population with time".
>
> The "over time" is redundant with "change". All change is over time.
You don't know much about calculus either, do you?
(Just to clue you in, it would be possible to study the
change in certain allele frequencies as you move from
north to south. But even though you were observing
changes in allele frequencies, you wouldn't be observing
evolution.)
>
> Last week I killed some ants. Under your definition, that's
> evolution.
Perhaps. Did you measure the allele frequencies before
and after? It seems likely that killing a few ants
didn't change the overall frequency of ant alleles, but
you may know differently.
>
> The Creationists' Flood was evolution, under your definition.
That assumes the flood occurred. If it did occur, it definitely
was evolution. In fact, study of allele frequencies existing
today provides overwhelming evidence that
the Creationist Flood did not occur.
>
> Pure chance in the death of organisms is evolution under your
> definition.
>
> In fact, anything involving the death (or birth) of any organism
> constitutes evolution under your definition.
Yes. Why is that a problem?
>
> The good news is that no one, not even creationists, would deny the
> existence of evolution under your definition.
That remains to be seen. But it is true that many creationists
make the outright claim that micro-evolution does occur. Perhaps
this is what they mean by micro-evolution.
>
> The bad news is that your definition is nothing more than saying that
> evolution happens whenever an organism originates or dies, regardless
> of the mechanism.
>
Why is this bad news? The definition is an accepted definition.
And you agree that the definition agrees with what happens in
the real world.
So now the discussion can proceed to the mechanisms of evolution.
For example, do you think that mutations are a mechanism of
evolution (according to this definition)?
Do you think that natural selection is a mechanism of
evolution (according to this definition)?
Do you think that genetic drift is a mechanism of
evolution (according to this definition)?
What do you think the cumulative effect of these
mechanisms would be over billions of years?
--
Geoff Sheffield
and...@my-deja.com
You're wrong. The "allele frequency of a population" does NOT
change "as you move from north to south."
> > Last week I killed some ants. Under your definition, that's
> > evolution.
>
> Perhaps. Did you measure the allele frequencies before
> and after? It seems likely that killing a few ants
> didn't change the overall frequency of ant alleles, but
> you may know differently.
You're wrong again. The death of any member of a population
automatically changes the allele frequency of that population.
> > The Creationists' Flood was evolution, under your definition.
>
> That assumes the flood occurred. If it did occur, it definitely
> was evolution. In fact, study of allele frequencies existing
> today provides overwhelming evidence that
> the Creationist Flood did not occur.
Oh great. The "Flood was evolution", if it did occur!
Birth and death are "mechanisms of evolution" under the above
definition. That's why the definition lacks real meaning.
Andy
David C. Fritzinger
<2d236.42359$RC1.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
Of course, you have some evidence that this is the case. And that,
even if it is true, the priest was a creationist (most aren't, you
know). And, you still haven't addressed Paluxy...
Dave Fritzinger
David C. Fritzinger
<sf236.42374$RC1.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
If you believe that, it's no wonder that you bought that bridge in NYC
8^)
Dave Fritrzinger
Al Klein
<kenpa...@earthlink.net> posted in alt.atheism:
> Okay I have a bridge for ya between Manhattan and Brooklyn. You seem
>willing to buy lots of BS. ALL the votes were counted in Florida!
All the votes aren't counted in ANY presidential election in ANY
state. There are, and always have been, errors.
--
Al - Unnumbered Atheist #infinity
aklein at villagenet dot com
David C. Fritzinger
See mcoon's post on Andy's problems with honesty and the M-W definition
of evolution.
Dave Fritzinger
David C. Fritzinger
and...@my-deja.com wrote:
Actually, it does, at least with some organisms. Humans are one. Let's
look at the alleles for skin color. As you move from north to south, the
alleles for darker skin color increase, on average. So, you are wrong,
again.
>
>
> > > Last week I killed some ants. Under your definition, that's
> > > evolution.
> >
> > Perhaps. Did you measure the allele frequencies before
> > and after? It seems likely that killing a few ants
> > didn't change the overall frequency of ant alleles, but
> > you may know differently.
>
> You're wrong again. The death of any member of a population
> automatically changes the allele frequency of that population.
True, but to an insignificant amount, unless the population is very small.
>
>
> > > The Creationists' Flood was evolution, under your definition.
> >
> > That assumes the flood occurred. If it did occur, it definitely
> > was evolution. In fact, study of allele frequencies existing
> > today provides overwhelming evidence that
> > the Creationist Flood did not occur.
>
> Oh great. The "Flood was evolution", if it did occur!
>
> > > Pure chance in the death of organisms is evolution under your
> > > definition.
> > >
> > > In fact, anything involving the death (or birth) of any organism
> > > constitutes evolution under your definition.
> >
> > Yes. Why is that a problem?
> >
> > >
> > > The good news is that no one, not even creationists, would deny the
> > > existence of evolution under your definition.
> >
> > That remains to be seen. But it is true that many creationists
> > make the outright claim that micro-evolution does occur. Perhaps
> > this is what they mean by micro-evolution.
> >
No doubt it is.
>
> > >
> > > The bad news is that your definition is nothing more than saying
> that
> > > evolution happens whenever an organism originates or dies,
> regardless
> > > of the mechanism.
> > >
> >
> > Why is this bad news? The definition is an accepted definition.
> > And you agree that the definition agrees with what happens in
> > the real world.
> >
> > So now the discussion can proceed to the mechanisms of evolution.
> >
> > For example, do you think that mutations are a mechanism of
> > evolution (according to this definition)?
> >
> > Do you think that natural selection is a mechanism of
> > evolution (according to this definition)?
> >
> > Do you think that genetic drift is a mechanism of
> > evolution (according to this definition)?
> >
> > What do you think the cumulative effect of these
> > mechanisms would be over billions of years?
>
> Birth and death are "mechanisms of evolution" under the above
> definition. That's why the definition lacks real meaning.
No it doesn't. If more offspring have a certain allele, that is evolution.
If more of a population with a certain allele die, for whatever reason,
there will be fewer of that allele in the next generation. That is
evolution. Is that so hard to understand?
Dave Fritzinger
David Jensen
Staffina Security <mike....@excite.com> wrote in
<3A4CA82D...@excite.com>:
The enemy of Alan Dershowitz is seldom my friend, even though the man is
a pain. Not all jerks are created equally. Some are jerks, but are also
smart and generally right. Some are jerks and stupid and wrong. Neither
is pleasant to be around, but I'd still rather have Dershowitz generally
arguing on the side of things I believe in than against them.
David Jensen
"Kenneth Pangborn" <kenpa...@earthlink.net> wrote in
<2d236.42359$RC1.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>:
>
>"David Jensen" <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
>news:s36o4tstr0patqe7q...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 28 Dec 2000 18:14:38 GMT, in wi.general
>> hrgr...@my-deja.com wrote in <92fvu8$lr0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>>
>>
>> >> Do de PILTDOWN MAN bring anything to ya?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Never fully accepted by the scientific community. Fraud discovered by
>> >scientists.
>> >
>> >An excellent example for the self-correction mechanism of science.
>> >
>> >A comparison with the treatment of the Paluxy footprints by
>> >creationists is left as an exercise for the reader.
>>
>> It's not a fraud. Paluxy is an "inspired recreation" of how things
>were....
>
In case you don't understand sarcasm, Paluxy is an intentional fraud
perpetrated by a Liar for Christ.
>
>Correction, the exposing the Piltdown man as a fraud was largely brought out
>by an Episcopalian Priest (church of England, same deal). The scientific
>community at first circled the wagons and TRIED to defend it till they had
>the world laughing at them. Shall we time warp to China?
I've not heard this particular story. Please, identify the source of it.
Kenneth Pangborn
And I probably won't get into preposterous minutia.
The point is not the absurd degree to which one can TRY to put words into
the Bible. I take a simple approach, the Bible says God took 6 days to
create the heavens and the Earth, but it doesn't say HOW he did it. He could
have as easily USED evolution as anything else.
Kenneth Pangborn
> In case you don't understand sarcasm, Paluxy is an intentional fraud
> perpetrated by a Liar for Christ.
Not familiar with that minutia.
Kenneth Pangborn
> Kenneth Pangborn <kenpa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > You didn't answer the question. Afraid?
> >
> > Nope it was a SILLY question, on a par with mine about flying saucers.
>
> taught as the absolute, unquestionable truth as clearly
> demonstrated by the true voice of god, the bible. Do you think
> Keyes is silly? Do you think the bible is silly? Do you think it
> is silly to teach children that dinosaurs never existed and the
> earth is 7000 years old?
>
No that is NOT taught by all Christian faiths. That is mainly the belief of
the BORN AGAIN types.
Kenneth Pangborn
> In article
> > Okay I have a bridge for ya between Manhattan and Brooklyn.You seem
> > willing to buy lots of BS. ALL the votes were counted in Florida!
> > Except for the absentee ballots in Democratic controlled counties. 5
> > MILLION across the country!
>
> If you believe that, it's no wonder that you bought that bridge in NYC
Gee since the LEGAL case to try to block absentee ballots was ADMITTED by
the DNC I find it easy to believe. Of course seeing so many DNC lawyers in
Florida, we kind of take some of this on the basis of a priori knowledge
honey......
Kenneth Pangborn
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message
news:iv6q4tsdrphjdostk...@4ax.com...
> On 29 Dec 2000 10:41:02 -0500, "Kenneth Pangborn"
> <kenpa...@earthlink.net> posted in alt.atheism:
>
> > Okay I have a bridge for ya between Manhattan and Brooklyn. You seem
> >willing to buy lots of BS. ALL the votes were counted in Florida!
>
> All the votes aren't counted in ANY presidential election in ANY
> state. There are, and always have been, errors.
ALL the VOTES are counted. Do you understand the difference between a BALLOT
and a VOTE?
Kenneth Pangborn
> Hey Ken, let me ask you again, do you believe that the earth is
> 7000 years old? Do you believe that dinosaurs never existed?
Oh Christ, I suppose you will hold your breath and stomp youyr feet till I
answqer your INFANTILE QUESTION..
Q1: No I think it is at least a WEEK older.
Q2. I think they existed.
>
> And I won't ken you... I don't know about alien life, Al Gore
> never said he invented the internet although he sponsored two
> significant bills that funded research and development of the
> internet, and lots of votes went uncounted in florida.
Sorry guy the Internet as such existed PRIOR to that. Not as extensive. But
it existed. The Bills Gore VOTED for (didn't create) basically allowed
expanded PRIVATE use of the then EXISTING net!
>
>
> So don't Ken me again and go ahead and answer.
Oh don't have a tantrum. Your mommy almost has your pablum ready.
>
>
Michelle Malkin
<kenpa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
The bridge is being used. Leave it where it is. As
to the votes - there were thousands that weren't
counted, including people whose pages in the
voters' sign in book went mysteriously missing and
others who weren't allowed to vote because their
race had mysteriously changed in the records. And,
there was at least one machine that wouldn't allow
the card chads to be punched out no matter how
hard people tried. This election was stolen by a
bunch of Republican crooks and their cronies. Your
not being able to accept this shows exactly how
much bullshit you've allowed yourself to swallow.
Excuse me. I'm going to watch "The Terror of Tiny
Town". Even a silly movie like this makes more
sense than you do.
hrgr...@my-deja.com
I suspect that "no constitutional law" is your shorthand
for "constitutional law I do not agree with".
HRG.
and...@my-deja.com
You're wrong. The "allele frequency of a population" of humans does
not change "as you move from north to south". The population's allele
frequency remains constant regardless of how you move. If you change
the population, then you may change the allele frequency, but that's
not what we are discussing.
> > > > Last week I killed some ants. Under your definition, that's
> > > > evolution.
> > >
> > > Perhaps. Did you measure the allele frequencies before
> > > and after? It seems likely that killing a few ants
> > > didn't change the overall frequency of ant alleles, but
> > > you may know differently.
> >
> > You're wrong again. The death of any member of a population
> > automatically changes the allele frequency of that population.
>
> True, but to an insignificant amount, unless the population is very
small.
You may claim it's insignificant, but it does change.
> > > For example, do you think that mutations are a mechanism of
> > > evolution (according to this definition)?
> > >
> > > Do you think that natural selection is a mechanism of
> > > evolution (according to this definition)?
> > >
> > > Do you think that genetic drift is a mechanism of
> > > evolution (according to this definition)?
> > >
> > > What do you think the cumulative effect of these
> > > mechanisms would be over billions of years?
> >
> > Birth and death are "mechanisms of evolution" under the above
> > definition. That's why the definition lacks real meaning.
>
> No it doesn't. If more offspring have a certain allele, that is
evolution.
> If more of a population with a certain allele die, for whatever
reason,
> there will be fewer of that allele in the next generation. That is
> evolution. Is that so hard to understand?
Everything related to birth or death is defined to be evolution. It's
easy to understand. It's a meaningless, non-scientific definition.
Al Klein
<kenpa...@earthlink.net> posted in alt.atheism:
>"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message
>news:iv6q4tsdrphjdostk...@4ax.com...
>> On 29 Dec 2000 10:41:02 -0500, "Kenneth Pangborn"
>> <kenpa...@earthlink.net> posted in alt.atheism:
>> > Okay I have a bridge for ya between Manhattan and Brooklyn. You seem
>> >willing to buy lots of BS. ALL the votes were counted in Florida!
>> All the votes aren't counted in ANY presidential election in ANY
>> state. There are, and always have been, errors.
>ALL the VOTES are counted. Do you understand the difference between a BALLOT
>and a VOTE?
Tautologies are nice. Are you a solipsist.
Carol Lee Smith
You are invited to post evidence of remarks Dershowitz has made proving he
has no idea of the founding fathers' intent and value system.
You are very unclear in your remark: " In their moral wasteland ...."
To whom do you refer? Who is "their" ?
----------------------------
"A lot of people think there's no harm in a nativity scene, but it
projects a sense of discrimination, when one religion is favored more than
another," said Blaker, a local atheist, journalist and minivan-driving
mother of two. She is threatening legal action if the religious scene goes
back on public property next year. After Blaker made a formal complaint at
last Friday's township board meeting, officials made a few hasty
alterations to the holiday display. Now, Frosty the Snowman leans
jauntilly against a sign welcoming visitors to the North Pole, just to the
left of the kneeling wise men and shepherds. (DN 12/19/00)
http://forums.about.com/ab-atheism3/messages?lgnF=y&msg=38.1
Carol Lee Smith
> "Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> > On Thu, 28 Dec 2000, Kenneth Pangborn wrote:
> > > "David C. Fritzinger" <dfri...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > Do de PILTDOWN MAN bring anything to ya?
> > Is there a way you could phrase that so we understand your point?
> > Who uncovered the problems with PILTDOWN MAN ?
> Actually, Carol the man who tore \at it was an Episcopalian PRIEST!
> NEXT!!!!!!
Do tell us more about this claim.
Are you suggesting that for about 40 years there were not numerous people
within the scientific community doubting the authenticity of the Piltdown
"remains" ?
---------------------
Piltdown man: (n) 1. A hoax in which a skull with both human and
ape-like features (actually, a chimera assembled from a modern human
cranium and an ape's jaw) was "discovered" in an English quarry.
Despite initial enthusiasm about the find (particularly among British
paleontologists -- "As we always thought, mankind originated in
Britain", rule Britannia et cetera), further examination exposed the
hoax, and the Piltdown man now serves as a fine example of science's
self-correcting properties. 2. A hoax which shows how {evilutionists}
have fabricated all their so-called "evidence" about man's origins
[conn, {SciCre}].
http://www.ediacara.org/jargon.html
Carol Lee Smith
> Kenneth Pangborn <kenpa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > You didn't answer the question. Afraid?
> > Nope it was a SILLY question, on a par with mine about flying saucers.
> You pathetic coward. How can you say it is silly when it is
> taught as the absolute, unquestionable truth as clearly
> demonstrated by the true voice of god, the bible. Do you think
> Keyes is silly? Do you think the bible is silly? Do you think it
> is silly to teach children that dinosaurs never existed and the
> earth is 7000 years old?
Or 10,000 years old.
Or that dinosaurs existed, but co-existed with human "kind" ?
----------------------------
Winter Solstice, Thursday, December 21, 2000 at 8:37 a.m. EST. marks the Sun's lowest point as seen from the Northern Hemisphere in
its annual apparent journey across the sky. It is the shortest day of the
year, and the longest night. For many societies, this event was an
important marker in the periodic oscillation of the year, part of the
seemingly endless cycle of birth, death and renewal. Many cultures
invested this time with special metaphysical, even religious significance.
As Christianity gained political and cultural hegemony throughout the
world, it appropriated many of the earlier, ancient symbols and
celebrations marking this time of year and grafted them onto its own
belief system. The Winter Solstice remains a universal holiday, one
rooted not exclusively in religious creeds, but in the natural events of
the world around us.
Jon Fleming
<kenpa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> Who uncovered the problems with PILTDOWN MAN ?
>
> Actually, Carol the man who tore \at it was an Episcopalian PRIEST!
>NEXT!!!!!!
Lie. NEXT!
(We all know what five exclamation points mean, don't we?)
J.S. Weiner (paleontologist) initiated the investigation. The paper
which established that Piltdown was a hoax was written by Weiner, Sir
Kenneth Oakley (physical anthropologist, geologist, and
paleontologist) and Sir Wilfred Le Gros Clark (paleontologist).
There's a good discussion at
<http://www.tiac.net/users/cri/piltdown.html>
--
Change "nospam" to "group" to email
Dethstryk
<jkhs4t48q3lkefbqd...@4ax.com>:
>> Actually, Carol the man who tore \at it was an Episcopalian PRIEST!
>>NEXT!!!!!!
>
>Lie. NEXT!
>
>(We all know what five exclamation points mean, don't we?)
Six. Six exclamations, not five.
------------------------
Dethstryk #1884
jema...@tcainternet.com
Macdougall
>On 30 Dec 2000 00:49:27 -0500, "Kenneth Pangborn"
><kenpa...@earthlink.net> posted in alt.atheism:
>
>>"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message
>>news:iv6q4tsdrphjdostk...@4ax.com...
>>> On 29 Dec 2000 10:41:02 -0500, "Kenneth Pangborn"
>>> <kenpa...@earthlink.net> posted in alt.atheism:
>
>>> > Okay I have a bridge for ya between Manhattan and Brooklyn. You seem
>>> >willing to buy lots of BS. ALL the votes were counted in Florida!
>
>>> All the votes aren't counted in ANY presidential election in ANY
>>> state. There are, and always have been, errors.
>
>>ALL the VOTES are counted. Do you understand the difference between a BALLOT
>>and a VOTE?
Sheesh. What is it with these creationist wackos and their word
games?
Kenneth Pangborn
> On Fri, 29 Dec 2000, Jon wrote:
>
> > Kenneth Pangborn <kenpa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > > You didn't answer the question. Afraid?
>
> > > Nope it was a SILLY question, on a par with mine about flying saucers.
>
> > You pathetic coward. How can you say it is silly when it is
> > taught as the absolute, unquestionable truth as clearly
> > demonstrated by the true voice of god, the bible. Do you think
> > Keyes is silly? Do you think the bible is silly? Do you think it
> > is silly to teach children that dinosaurs never existed and the
> > earth is 7000 years old?
>
> Or 10,000 years old.
>
> Or that dinosaurs existed, but co-existed with human "kind" ?
There does seem to be a little evidence of that. Not much. But SOME.
David C. Fritzinger
and...@my-deja.com wrote:
As Steve Martin would say, EXCUUUSSE MMMEEEEEE!!!! Obviously, if you mean
the entire population of humans on the planet, it doesn't change, and it
can't (by definition, since you are talking about the whole planet). But,
if you look at sub-populations, which is what I was talking about, it most
assuredly does. I think what we see here is Andy grasping at straws.
>
>
> > > > > Last week I killed some ants. Under your definition, that's
> > > > > evolution.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps. Did you measure the allele frequencies before
> > > > and after? It seems likely that killing a few ants
> > > > didn't change the overall frequency of ant alleles, but
> > > > you may know differently.
> > >
> > > You're wrong again. The death of any member of a population
> > > automatically changes the allele frequency of that population.
> >
> > True, but to an insignificant amount, unless the population is very
> small.
>
> You may claim it's insignificant, but it does change.
Read what I said.
>
>
> > > > For example, do you think that mutations are a mechanism of
> > > > evolution (according to this definition)?
> > > >
> > > > Do you think that natural selection is a mechanism of
> > > > evolution (according to this definition)?
> > > >
> > > > Do you think that genetic drift is a mechanism of
> > > > evolution (according to this definition)?
> > > >
> > > > What do you think the cumulative effect of these
> > > > mechanisms would be over billions of years?
> > >
> > > Birth and death are "mechanisms of evolution" under the above
> > > definition. That's why the definition lacks real meaning.
> >
> > No it doesn't. If more offspring have a certain allele, that is
> evolution.
> > If more of a population with a certain allele die, for whatever
> reason,
> > there will be fewer of that allele in the next generation. That is
> > evolution. Is that so hard to understand?
>
> Everything related to birth or death is defined to be evolution. It's
> easy to understand. It's a meaningless, non-scientific definition.
No, what we have said is that if there is a change in the ratio of
different alleles in a population of organisms, that is evolution. That
most frequently happens when a group carrying a certain allele is able to
reproduce better or worse than the rest of the population. There are
multiple reasons why this may happen.
BTW, are you going to answer mcoon's post on your dishonesty in defining
evolution, according to the M-W dictionary?
Dave Fritzinger
David C. Fritzinger
Kenneth Pangborn wrote:
You claimed 5 million absentee ballots. There were, what, a couple thousand
in Florida? Where are the rest? Obviously, you are saying this because you
don't want to admit that GWB lost the popular vote, which he did, by over
500,000 votes nationwide.
Dave Fritzinger
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
>On 29 Dec 2000 10:35:51 -0500, "Kenneth Pangborn"
><kenpa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> Who uncovered the problems with PILTDOWN MAN ?
>> Actually, Carol the man who tore \at it was an Episcopalian PRIEST!
>>NEXT!!!!!!
>Lie. NEXT!
>(We all know what five exclamation points mean, don't we?)
>J.S. Weiner (paleontologist) initiated the investigation. The paper
>which established that Piltdown was a hoax was written by Weiner, Sir
>Kenneth Oakley (physical anthropologist, geologist, and
>paleontologist) and Sir Wilfred Le Gros Clark (paleontologist).
Episcopalian PRIESTS, ALL!!!!!
Carol Lee Smith
> > > taught as the absolute, unquestionable truth as clearly
> > > demonstrated by the true voice of god, the bible. Do you think
> > > Keyes is silly? Do you think the bible is silly? Do you think it
> > > is silly to teach children that dinosaurs never existed and the
> > > earth is 7000 years old?
cs > > Or 10,000 years old.
cs > > Or that dinosaurs existed, but co-existed with human "kind" ?
> There does seem to be a little evidence of that. Not much. But SOME.
Don't think there is any.
You catagorically claim atheists lie and then you pass on the David
Barton/D.James Kennedy/Kent Hovind lies?
Outstanding!
--------------------------
"It is wonderful that five thousand years have now elapsed since the
creation of the world, and still it is undecided whether or not there has
ever been an instance of the spirit of any person appearing after death.
All argument is against it; but all belief is for it." --Samuel Johnson
Bonz
message <92em2b$meo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> :
>In article <G69Fu...@world.std.com>,
> world!cpe...@uunet.uu.net (Christopher Peters) wrote:
>> In article <92ed5m$fso$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <and...@my-deja.com>
>wrote:
>
>> >Evolution is not the same as the change you cite above. Evolution
>> >entails a progression towards something. Change does not.
>> >
>>
>> Wrong. Evolution does not have any goal or purpose.
>
>Merriam-Webster online definition of evolution: "a process of change in
>a certain direction."
Then the definition isn't the same definition that biologists
use.
What is it with you and dictionaries?
い
Bonz alt.atheism #1497
い
Bonz
wrote in message <92fqlj$cno$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net> :
>Geoff Sheffield <geo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:92foub$fqb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> In article <92em2b$meo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> and...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> > > >Evolution is not the same as the change you cite above. Evolution
>> > > >entails a progression towards something. Change does not.
>> > > Wrong. Evolution does not have any goal or purpose.
>> > Merriam-Webster online definition of evolution: "a process of change
>> in
>> > a certain direction."
>> You don't agree with the Merriam-Webster definition.
>> Scientists apparently don't agree either.
>> What do you think of the definition that scientists actually use?
>
>A definition is just a definition. Science is interested in theories
>and facts, not abusing language. Why are the evolutionists here
>so interested in rewriting dictionary definitions?
Dictionary definitions don't interest me at all. When I sit down
at a table with other biologists, we either already understand
the terms, or we define terms as we use them. (For the purpose of
this discussion, I am limiting the definition ...)
Dictionary editors, interviewing people who aren't in the field,
may well get a different definition. I have no idea why I should
care.
Al Klein
in alt.atheism:
>>On 30 Dec 2000 00:49:27 -0500, "Kenneth Pangborn"
>><kenpa...@earthlink.net> posted in alt.atheism:
>>>ALL the VOTES are counted. Do you understand the difference between a BALLOT
>>>and a VOTE?
>Sheesh. What is it with these creationist wackos and their word
>games?
They can't afford to lose. If they do, they'd have to give up the
faith that keeps them sane. So they carry that into every discussion,
even if it has nothing to do with their faith. (Or does the election
have something to do with the faith of some of them?)