I hate environmentalists
Rich
the hemp-sandal wearing KOOKS who like to protest G20 meetings. It
reminds me of the YUPPIE, latte-sipping urban envirokooks in California
who banned mountain bikes from wilderness areas for "degrading to the
environment" while they rode 1500lb horses all over the same place.
Birdwatching photographers under fire in Peak District
Tuesday 7th April 2009
Chris Cheesman
Photographers' behaviour has been blamed for a fall in the survival rates
of nesting dipper birds in the Derbyshire Peak District, prompting an
appeal by conservationists.
'Unfortunately, disturbances at one or two of the key dipper sites has
had a direct and negative impact on their nesting success in recent
years,' said Phil Bowler, senior reserve manager at the Derbyshire Dales
National Nature Reserve.
If disturbed, dipper 'chicks' may leave their nest too early - increasing
their vulnerability to predators, warns the conservation watchdog Natural
England.
The risks to a bird's survival also include the attraction of predators
to the nest itself if it is disturbed as a result of it being inspected.
Natural England has issued written advice for photographers which states:
'A number of isolated instances of photographer behaviour have called
into question the ethics of some photographers.'
It continues: 'We do not wish to stop photography, but to encourage
photographers to behave in a responsible manner at nesting sites,
reducing disturbance levels to dippers as much as possible.'
The watchdog's advice leaflet warns photographers to not attempt any
photography during the nesting season (March to July) until they know
where the dipper's nest is. 'This may mean that you will need to retreat
a few metres and watch the movements of the birds until you have located
it [the nest].'
The leaflet was drawn up with the help of photographer Paul Hobson who
said: 'As a photographer, I know that it is entirely possible to get
shots of these beautiful birds successfully, without disturbing them.'
Hobson, whose work has been featured in Amateur Photographer, added: 'We
are hoping photographers and other interested people understand the
reasons behind this code of conduct and follow it.'
Bowler said he hopes the leaflet will raise awareness of the problem
among photographers and casual visitors. He added: 'Simple things such as
limiting the time at the site can make a real difference.'
The advice concludes by telling photographers: 'The welfare of the
subject is more important than your photography.'
Nicko
> These people are the kind who want nature reserved only for their kind,
> the hemp-sandal wearing KOOKS who like to protest G20 meetings. It
> reminds me of the YUPPIE, latte-sipping urban envirokooks in California
> who banned mountain bikes from wilderness areas for "degrading to the
> environment" while they rode 1500lb horses all over the same place.
If there is a problem, it is with people of YOUR kind--who want nature
reserved for them to exploit regardless of the consequences for anyone
but yourself, you arrogant, solipsistic fuck.
Right. It's your world, mister.
Everything else just trying to live in it.
--
YOP...
TonyCooper
<nervou...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 8, 6:31�pm, Rich <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> These people are the kind who want nature reserved only for their kind,
>> the hemp-sandal wearing KOOKS who like to protest G20 meetings. �It
>> reminds me of the YUPPIE, latte-sipping urban envirokooks in California
>> who banned mountain bikes from wilderness areas for "degrading to the
>> environment" while they rode 1500lb horses all over the same place.
>
>If there is a problem, it is with people of YOUR kind--who want nature
>reserved for them to exploit regardless of the consequences for anyone
>but yourself, you arrogant, solipsistic fuck.
>
You have to admire someone who insults with this degree of panache.
"Solipsistic fuck", indeed.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Mark Thomas
Huh?
It's the very first word that enters *my* head when I think of Rich -
isn't it everyone's?
(O;
Ray Fischer
>These people are the kind who want nature reserved only for their kind,
As opposed to you people who want the freedom to kill anything and
steal anything that isn't nailed down?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Twibil
>
> These people are the kind who want nature reserved only for their kind,
> the hemp-sandal wearing KOOKS who like to protest G20 meetings.
Good to hear that you hate environmentalists. But to remain self-
consistant, from now on you're going to be limited to breathing only
diesel exhaust and drinking only industrial waste.
If you *truly hate* those nasty environmentalists I'm sure that you
won't mind making this small sacrifice, and besides: it's a good bet
that nobody here is going to miss you much anyway.
~Pete
Jer
> These people are the kind who want nature reserved only for their kind,
> the hemp-sandal wearing KOOKS who like to protest G20 meetings. It
> reminds me of the YUPPIE, latte-sipping urban envirokooks in California
> who banned mountain bikes from wilderness areas for "degrading to the
> environment" while they rode 1500lb horses all over the same place.
What's wrong with being reminded of the importance for being careful?
Besides, the exhaust from mountain bikes is quite different from that of
horses, and a horse fart disturbs the neighborhood a lot less. And you
know this.
--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Atheist Chaplain
news:DsSdnRzga5qFGkDU...@posted.internetamerica...
what exhaust would that be from the mountain bike, the much smaller farts
from the rider or the puffing and panting as the rider is pedaling harder ??
--
[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of
Scientology International]
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your
Christ." Gandhi
Martin Brown
> Rich <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> These people are the kind who want nature reserved only for their kind,
>
> As opposed to you people who want the freedom to kill anything and
> steal anything that isn't nailed down?
He is well known in other groups as a longstanding redneck troll and
wannbe member of "Fat Ugly Americans for a Dead Planet". He is
apparently a Canuk.
The advice from natural England on how to locate rare ground nesting
birds nests for photography without disturbing them seemed OK to me.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Bruce
>Good to hear that you hate environmentalists. But to remain self-
>consistant, from now on you're going to be limited to breathing only
>diesel exhaust and drinking only industrial waste.
>
>If you *truly hate* those nasty environmentalists I'm sure that you
>won't mind making this small sacrifice, and besides: it's a good bet
>that nobody here is going to miss you much anyway.
I'm sure that one of the people who will miss him most is you, because
you will lose the opportunity to appear as "clever" in replying to the
"idiot" as you did above.
Don't feed the trolls!
(Yes, I know. I just did)
Jer
> "Jer" <gd...@airmail.ten> wrote in message
> news:DsSdnRzga5qFGkDU...@posted.internetamerica...
>> Rich wrote:
>>> These people are the kind who want nature reserved only for their
>>> kind, the hemp-sandal wearing KOOKS who like to protest G20
>>> meetings. It reminds me of the YUPPIE, latte-sipping urban
>>> envirokooks in California who banned mountain bikes from wilderness
>>> areas for "degrading to the environment" while they rode 1500lb
>>> horses all over the same place.
>>
>>
>> What's wrong with being reminded of the importance for being careful?
>> Besides, the exhaust from mountain bikes is quite different from that
>> of horses, and a horse fart disturbs the neighborhood a lot less. And
>> you know this.
>>
>>
>> --
>> jer
>> email reply - I am not a 'ten'
>
> what exhaust would that be from the mountain bike, the much smaller
> farts from the rider or the puffing and panting as the rider is pedaling
> harder ??
>
A mountain bike here has a motor, but that term can also infer the more
pedestrian bicycle. Sorry, don't mean to confuse.
HEMI-Powered
Like all liberal Far Left Loons, and the subset of Green Nazis,
these clowns don't like to be confused by the facts. I don't have
the time and inclination to cite the truth, so I'll only comment
that the particular genre of Far Left Loons protesting in London
were not only Green Nazis, but Socialist Loons and avowed
anarchists who resorrte do damaging private property and attempting
to garner attention by painting themselves with fake blood to make
it look like they were victims of police brutality.
--
HP, aka Jerry
"Laid off yet? Keep buying foreign and you soon will be!" - popular
bumper sticker
C J Campbell
> These people are the kind who want nature reserved only for their kind,
> the hemp-sandal wearing KOOKS who like to protest G20 meetings.
Those guys are running things now. At the more extreme end, people like
Bill McKibben, author of "The End of Nature," are demanding a
moratorium on ALL wildlife photography. McKibben says that there are
already plenty of photos available for publication and that we do not
need any more. More moderate types favor varying degrees of
restrictions to access.
Irresponsible photographers who damage wildlife habitat and stress
animals provide a great deal of ammunition to the Bill McKibbens of the
world. We either clean up our act or the curtain comes down,
permanently. And we would not want to see that, would we?
One of the problems that the more extreme activists do not seem to see
or care about is that as they continually add more and more
restrictions to public access to wildlife and wilderness, the public
becomes more and more detached from our natural wonders -- and they
will begin to care less about them, not more. This form of activism may
well be the environmental movement's worst enemy.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
Martin Brown
> Rich added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>
>> These people are the kind who want nature reserved only for
>> their kind, the hemp-sandal wearing KOOKS who like to protest
>> G20 meetings.
Unlike the rednecked fuckwits who drive everywhere in their 5mpg monster
trucks tearing the land to shreds and shooting everything in sight.
>> It continues: 'We do not wish to stop photography, but to
>> encourage photographers to behave in a responsible manner at
>> nesting sites, reducing disturbance levels to dippers as much as
>> possible.'
>>
>> The watchdog's advice leaflet warns photographers to not attempt
>> any photography during the nesting season (March to July) until
>> they know where the dipper's nest is. 'This may mean that you
>> will need to retreat a few metres and watch the movements of the
>> birds until you have located it [the nest].'
>>
>> The leaflet was drawn up with the help of photographer Paul
>> Hobson who said: 'As a photographer, I know that it is entirely
>> possible to get shots of these beautiful birds successfully,
>> without disturbing them.'
>>
>> Hobson, whose work has been featured in Amateur Photographer,
>> added: 'We are hoping photographers and other interested people
>> understand the reasons behind this code of conduct and follow
>> it.'
>>
>> Bowler said he hopes the leaflet will raise awareness of the
>> problem among photographers and casual visitors. He added:
>> 'Simple things such as limiting the time at the site can make a
>> real difference.'
>>
>> The advice concludes by telling photographers: 'The welfare of
>> the subject is more important than your photography.'
> Like all liberal Far Left Loons, and the subset of Green Nazis,
Did you read this piece at all before you started mouthing off.
Encouraging photographers to behave in a responsible manner is not an
unreasonable request.
It gave good practical advice on how to find and photograph these ground
nesting birds *without* disturbing them. Wildlife photography requires
patience and careful observation.
> these clowns don't like to be confused by the facts. I don't have
How funny that you of all people should say that.
> to garner attention by painting themselves with fake blood to make
> it look like they were victims of police brutality.
You mean like the poor newspaper vendor on his way home who was the
victim of an unprovoked police attack and shortly afterwards died of a
heart attack? That gratuitous assault happens to be partly on video.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Twibil
>
> >Good to hear that you hate environmentalists. But to remain self-
> >consistant, from now on you're going to be limited to breathing only
> >diesel exhaust and drinking only industrial waste.
>
> >If you *truly hate* those nasty environmentalists I'm sure that you
> >won't mind making this small sacrifice, and besides: it's a good bet
> >that nobody here is going to miss you much anyway.
>
> I'm sure that one of the people who will miss him most is you, because
> you will lose the opportunity to appear as "clever" in replying to the
> "idiot" as you did above.
Erm, I said nothing about being "clever", nor did I call the OP an
"idiot", so apparently you are "uneducated" and have no idea what
purpose quote marks actually serve.
> Don't feed the trolls!
>
> (Yes, I know. I just did)
Better yet, don't be a net-nanny.
~Pete
George Kerby
On 4/8/09 11:34 PM, in article 9auqt4tbmo4kag6ej...@4ax.com,
"John A." <jo...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> On 09 Apr 2009 02:33:22 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>> Rich <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> These people are the kind who want nature reserved only for their kind,
>>
>> As opposed to you people who want the freedom to kill anything and
>> steal anything that isn't nailed down?
>
> Folks like that remind me of little brothers. There's one cookie left
> for them and their older brother. They want it all and their brother
> wants to split it evenly. Their mom says split it evenly. So the
> little brother screams and hollers that it's no fair their older
> brother got he they wanted and they didn't.
>
"Their mom says split it evenly. So the little brother screams and hollers
that it's no fair their older brother got he they wanted and they didn't."
WTF are you trying to say here?
George Kerby
On 4/9/09 12:26 AM, in article
DsSdnRzga5qFGkDU...@posted.internetamerica, "Jer"
<gd...@airmail.ten> wrote:
Yeah but what comes after the fart is most disturbing. I don't think
mountain bikes take dumps. They make dump the rider, tho...
George Kerby
On 4/9/09 6:32 AM, in article Xns9BE84CB896...@198.186.190.61,
"Father Guido Sarducci" <d...@novello.com> wrote:
> In message news:49dd5e72$0$1600$742e...@news.sonic.net, rfis...@sonic.net
> (Ray Fischer) said:
>
>> As opposed to you people who want the freedom to kill anything and
>> steal anything that isn't nailed down?
>
> Depends. Are you nailed down?
Oh my, FATHER!
I am so ashamed of you.
George Kerby
On 4/9/09 9:50 AM, in article Xns9BE86E42B4...@198.186.190.61,
"Father Guido Sarducci" <d...@novello.com> wrote:
> In message news:DsSdnRzga5qFGkDU...@posted.internetamerica,
> Jer <gd...@airmail.ten> said:
>
>> Rich wrote:
>>> These people are the kind who want nature reserved only for their kind,
>>> the hemp-sandal wearing KOOKS who like to protest G20 meetings. It
>>> reminds me of the YUPPIE, latte-sipping urban envirokooks in California
>>> who banned mountain bikes from wilderness areas for "degrading to the
>>> environment" while they rode 1500lb horses all over the same place.
>>
>>
>> What's wrong with being reminded of the importance for being careful?
>
> Have you ever stepped on a bug?
>
>> Besides, the exhaust from mountain bikes is quite different from that of
>> horses, and a horse fart disturbs the neighborhood a lot less. And you
>> know this.
>
> Mountain bikes are not powered, genius.
Bull! One human power: No more - no less. Unless you're Lance Armstrong...
George Kerby
On 4/9/09 10:41 AM, in article 7GoDl.40473$_R4....@newsfe11.iad, "Martin
Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> HEMI-Powered wrote:
>> Rich added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>>
>>> These people are the kind who want nature reserved only for
>>> their kind, the hemp-sandal wearing KOOKS who like to protest
>>> G20 meetings.
>
> Unlike the rednecked fuckwits who drive everywhere in their 5mpg monster
> trucks tearing the land to shreds and shooting everything in sight.
>
Like these rat-bastards who should have Jack Bauer attach jumper cables to
their nipples...
<http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6365427.html>
People who kill pets go on to be Serial Killers
SMS
> These people are the kind who want nature reserved only for their kind,
> the hemp-sandal wearing KOOKS who like to protest G20 meetings. It
> reminds me of the YUPPIE, latte-sipping urban envirokooks in California
> who banned mountain bikes from wilderness areas for "degrading to the
> environment" while they rode 1500lb horses all over the same place.
While it's true that mountain bikes are much less damaging to the trails
and wildlife than horses (and often less damaging than hikers), I don't
see what that has to do with:
Jer
> In message news:DsSdnRzga5qFGkDU...@posted.internetamerica,
> Jer <gd...@airmail.ten> said:
>
>>> These people are the kind who want nature reserved only for their kind,
>>> the hemp-sandal wearing KOOKS who like to protest G20 meetings. It
>>> reminds me of the YUPPIE, latte-sipping urban envirokooks in California
>>> who banned mountain bikes from wilderness areas for "degrading to the
>>> environment" while they rode 1500lb horses all over the same place.
>>
>> What's wrong with being reminded of the importance for being careful?
>
Yup, just before I yanked the legs off and ate it.
>
>> Besides, the exhaust from mountain bikes is quite different from that of
>> horses, and a horse fart disturbs the neighborhood a lot less. And you
>> know this.
>
> Mountain bikes are not powered, genius.
Down here they are.
Rich
2f23ba...@a23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
> On Apr 8, 6:31 pm, Rich <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> These people are the kind who want nature reserved only for their kind,
>> the hemp-sandal wearing KOOKS who like to protest G20 meetings. It
>> reminds me of the YUPPIE, latte-sipping urban envirokooks in California
>> who banned mountain bikes from wilderness areas for "degrading to the
>> environment" while they rode 1500lb horses all over the same place.
>
> If there is a problem, it is with people of YOUR kind--who want nature
> reserved for them to exploit regardless of the consequences for anyone
> but yourself, you arrogant, solipsistic fuck.
>
> Right. It's your world, mister.
>
> Everything else just trying to live in it.
>
> --
> YOP...
>
I love nature, I HATE environmentalists.
Rich
$742e...@news.sonic.net:
> Rich <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>These people are the kind who want nature reserved only for their kind,
>
> As opposed to you people who want the freedom to kill anything and
> steal anything that isn't nailed down?
>
That would be the Chinese. Which is why 1/2 the animal species in Asia are
in danger.
Rich
news:I%gDl.19673$%e2....@newsfe24.iad:
> Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Rich <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> These people are the kind who want nature reserved only for their
>>> kind,
>>
>> As opposed to you people who want the freedom to kill anything and
>> steal anything that isn't nailed down?
>
> He is well known in other groups as a longstanding redneck troll and
> wannbe member of "Fat Ugly Americans for a Dead Planet". He is
> apparently a Canuk.
>
No, Americans see everything in black and white. So, if you hate
environmentalists, you must be for environmental exploitation. Personally?
I'd like to see every 4x4 off roader, powerboat driver, shot at close
range. There is a difference between hating leftwing reactionary enviro-
KOOKS and having disdain for nature. There endeth the lesson.
Rich
news:DsSdnRzga5qFGkDU...@posted.internetamerica:
> Rich wrote:
>> These people are the kind who want nature reserved only for their kind,
>> the hemp-sandal wearing KOOKS who like to protest G20 meetings. It
>> reminds me of the YUPPIE, latte-sipping urban envirokooks in California
>> who banned mountain bikes from wilderness areas for "degrading to the
>> environment" while they rode 1500lb horses all over the same place.
>
>
> What's wrong with being reminded of the importance for being careful?
Reminded? Or strong-armed and excluded by hypocritical scum?
Rich
news:2009040908225316807-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom:
> On 2009-04-08 16:31:14 -0700, Rich <no...@nowhere.com> said:
>
>> These people are the kind who want nature reserved only for their kind,
>> the hemp-sandal wearing KOOKS who like to protest G20 meetings.
>
> Those guys are running things now. At the more extreme end, people like
> Bill McKibben, author of "The End of Nature," are demanding a
> moratorium on ALL wildlife photography.
Rachel Carson wrote "Silent Spring" about DDT's effects on bird eggs. So
they banned DDT. Result? 40 million Africans dead of malaria.
Environmentalists, the hardcore, are human-hating, anarchist vermin.
Rich
@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com:
Because like all envirokooks, they are hugely prone to doomsaying and over-
reaction. Photography is not going to cause the extinction or even
marginal decline of birds. There are plenty of worse things, like Third
World population explosions, power wind mills, etc. 2 years ago they
banned rock climbing on some bluffs near Niagara Falls because they said it
could harm lichen on the rocks. They had no proof, no data, they just
decided to ban it. Even though lichen and climbers had existed for at least
40 years..
Bob Larter
One day Rich, you should buy a camera & take a few photos. You might
even learn something.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Larter
[...]
Fuck off, troll.
aquadiver
> SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote in news:XoxDl.4477$im1.2282
I agree that photography is one of the least concerning threats to
birds. Habitat destruction in nesting and wintering grounds and along
migration routes is much more worrisome. But photographers can
contribute to habitat destruction, too. I am most familiar with
underwater photography and the practices of some of the most prominent
photographers, still and video, who will lie on coral, pull sponges
and corals out of the way, bait fish to get them closer, all so they
can get that dramatic shot. To be sure, climate change, sea level
rise, ocean acidification, dynamite fishing and cyanide fishing are
much greater threats on the whole, and there are things we can do to
mitigate those effects. But wildlife and underwater photographers who
destroy habitat in order to get those pictures of cuddly animals that
make people care about them should take much more care to protect the
environment they're working in.
gc
Bob Larter
> In message news:49df33d4$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au, Bob Larter
> Make me.
I don't need to. Identifying you is enough.
Ron Hunter
instinct to seek the highest place available. Why do you think humans
can actually breathe fro below sea level, and up to 17 or 18,000 feet
above? Did we evolve that high? Another small crack in the evolution
theory.
DRS
news:wZudnQlpEp-C2kLU...@giganews.com
> Rich wrote:
[...]
>> Because like all envirokooks, they are hugely prone to doomsaying
>> and over- reaction. Photography is not going to cause the
>> extinction or even marginal decline of birds. There are plenty of
>> worse things, like Third World population explosions, power wind
>> mills, etc. 2 years ago they banned rock climbing on some bluffs
>> near Niagara Falls because they said it could harm lichen on the
>> rocks. They had no proof, no data, they just decided to ban it.
>> Even though lichen and climbers had existed for at least 40 years..
> 40 years? How about about 1 million years? Humans have some built-in
> instinct to seek the highest place available. Why do you think humans
> can actually breathe fro below sea level, and up to 17 or 18,000 feet
> above? Did we evolve that high? Another small crack in the evolution
> theory.
Oh dear, the wingnuts are out in force tonight.
Jer
> In message news:UfWdnX49q7_zK0PU...@posted.internetamerica,
> Jer <gd...@airmail.ten> said:
>
>> Father Guido Sarducci wrote:
>>> In message
>>> news:DsSdnRzga5qFGkDU...@posted.internetamerica, Jer
>>> <gd...@airmail.ten> said:
>>>
>>>> Rich wrote:
>>>>> These people are the kind who want nature reserved only for their
>>>>> kind, the hemp-sandal wearing KOOKS who like to protest G20
>>>>> meetings. It reminds me of the YUPPIE, latte-sipping urban
>>>>> envirokooks in California who banned mountain bikes from wilderness
>>>>> areas for "degrading to the environment" while they rode 1500lb
>>>>> horses all over the same place.
>>>> What's wrong with being reminded of the importance for being careful?
>>> Have you ever stepped on a bug?
>> Yup, just before I yanked the legs off and ate it.
>
When you've graduated from survival class, get back to me, assuming you
survived.
>
>>>> Besides, the exhaust from mountain bikes is quite different from that
>>>> of horses, and a horse fart disturbs the neighborhood a lot less.
>>>> And you know this.
>>> Mountain bikes are not powered, genius.
>>
>> Down here they are.
>
> Your collective ignorance is not an excuse:
>
> www.mountainbike.com
I've already explained it's just a difference of terminology, but you
seem to believe your terminology is more correct than mine. Sad. So,
tell me Don, this reference of yours is expected to make me sound
ignorant? I suspect the true purpose of it is to make yourself feel
superior. It's okay if you do, just don't make the mistake of expecting
me to give a shit. Fucking loon.
George Kerby
On 4/9/09 10:23 PM, in article 2dett4tms2aqt02qq...@4ax.com,
"John A." <jo...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> There's a typo there: "he they" should be "what he". I originally
> typed "what they" and when I meant to change "they" to "he" I
> accidentally changed "what" to "he" instead.
>
> But just in case that wasn't the confusing part for everyone...
>
> The little brother wanted the whole thing.
> The older brother wanted to share.
> Mom said share.
> The little brother claimed that wasn't fair because the older brother
> got what he wanted and the little brother didn't.
>
> Clearer? The point is that it's not unfair to have your selfishness
> thwarted, even if it happens all the time.
OK. Thanks.
Ron Hunter
that 'evolved' on the African plains can easily survive at high
altitudes, and in extreme cold. Go ahead, I'm waiting.
Twibil
>
> Humans have some built-in
> instinct to seek the highest place available.
How odd then that around 50% of the human population live within 10
miles of the sea (you know: at "sea-level"), and a vanishingly small
proportion live in the highest available places.
Do you suppose you could be wrong?
> Why do you think humans
> can actually breathe fro below sea level, and up to 17 or 18,000 feet
> above? Did we evolve that high? Another small crack in the evolution
> theory.
Only for uneducated twits like you. We evolved as cursorial hunters:
animals who were -and still are- able to run down and kill
practically any game animal of the face of the Earth. And to do this,
one must have two things: really good lungs -which we do- and a
prolific number of sweat glands -which we also do.
A few biology classes would do you a world of good. For instance,
you'd learn that whales -which are rarely found at 18,000 feet- also
have an extremely good set of lungs.
~Pete
George Kerby
On 4/10/09 2:16 PM, in article
8bf786b6-d19e-406c...@k19g2000prh.googlegroups.com, "Twibil"
<noway...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> A few biology classes would do you a world of good. For instance,
> you'd learn that whales -which are rarely found at 18,000 feet- also
> have an extremely good set of lungs.
>
I've heard of "land shark" - but "land whale"?
Hmmmmm......
Savageduck
You are unaware of Rush Limbaugh???
--
Regards,
Savageduck
George Kerby
On 4/10/09 3:32 PM, in article 2009041013323842612-savageduck@savagenet,
"Savageduck" <savag...@savage.net> wrote:
Not really. I was thinking along the lines of The Unsinkable Teddy Kennedy.
George Kerby
On 4/10/09 3:32 PM, in article 2009041013323842612-savageduck@savagenet,
"Savageduck" <savag...@savage.net> wrote:
Opps! Forgot the URL...
Alan Browne
> OK, so YOU explain how evolution accounts for the ability of a species
> that 'evolved' on the African plains can easily survive at high
> altitudes, and in extreme cold. Go ahead, I'm waiting.
It's not that extreme as a difference but could not occur at all were it
not for man's intelligence and abilities at hunting as well.
Further, humans have never dwelled at those altitudes, only visited
briefly (days/weeks at most). I don't know what the highest altitude
that people dwell at, but I don't believe it to be over about 10,000 ft
or thereabouts. That is about economics (food mainly).
Said intelligence is in large part due to migrations due to cyclic ice
ages which force migrations over long distances, through wild
temperature changes and through mountain passes at altitude as well.
Whatever intolerance to altitude would have been weeded out in those
migrations. Indeed today, the Indians of the Andes have much more
capacity for high altitude than most people - though it's not clear to
me if this is a genetic or developed state.
In terms of air pressure 17,000 feet is about 1/2 of the atmosphere -
really not a huge excursion in terms of getting oxygen into the blood
stream - and humans certainly do not dwell there for very long. Pilots
of light aircraft have to don oxygen masks at 11,500 ft (IIRC) as the
lower oxygen impairs brain function - but the body does not suffer as much.
So yes, your 'crack in the evolution theory' is not only small and quite
repairable, it is nothing compared to much more challenging problems
with evolution theory. Nonetheless, evolution proves to be right,
amended, corrected and improved every time new evidence is found and
theories are improved and corrected too. For that is the scientific
method. Regretfully, faith based on oral myths do not seem to get such
rigorous editing.
Now, if you're really determined that it was all created by God, then I
guess God created the heavens and the earth to 'look' like evolution
might have happened. It is a job creation program that not only employs
a wide range of scientists but also keeps the God-squad occupied as well
defending the faith.
But you might remember that over time the Catholic Church was forced to
accept that the Earth is not the center of the solar system. Ooops,
then forced to accept that the solar system is not the center of the
universe. This starts to make any creation "theory" look pretty weak.
Further when one wonders why it is only Christian fundamentalists and
Muslims that are so hung up against evolution. How come Buddhists don't
get all upset?
Point is that "creationism" seems to have an origin time that is
slightly less than the time that humans have been writing things down.
That is the root of creationism: real written history.
I'll take the simpler path which is evolution. Inexorably each
so-called "hole" in the theory is filled while ever wilder counter
claims by creationists are debunked.
A most amusing trend of late being creationists 'back interpreting'
passages in the bible to make them fit various scientific proof (ref:
Scientific American, May 2009 issue, Shermer). This is really, per
Shermer, "hindsight bias".
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
Alan Browne
> These people are the kind who want nature reserved only for their kind,
What you know about man's impact on the environment can be written with
a Sharpie on a postage stamp.
Alan Browne
> Besides, the exhaust from mountain bikes is quite different from that of
> horses, and a horse fart disturbs the neighborhood a lot less.
Not sure about that ... hiking in the Grand Canyon and a bunch of lazy
asses on mules go by (pun intended). Their mules decide to piss. It's
about 35C out under the hard sun and there is no wind.
I did not vomit by sheer force of will alone.
Twibil
> On 2009-04-10 13:19:32 -0700, George Kerby <ghost_top...@hotmail.com> said:
>
>
>
> > On 4/10/09 2:16 PM, in article
> > <nowayjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> A few biology classes would do you a world of good. For instance,
> >> you'd learn that whales -which are rarely found at 18,000 feet- also
> >> have an extremely good set of lungs.
>
> > I've heard of "land shark" - but "land whale"?
>
> > Hmmmmm......
>
> You are unaware of Rush Limbaugh???
He shoots!............He *Scores*!!
Twibil
>
> I don't know what the highest altitude
> that people dwell at, but I don't believe it to be over about 10,000 ft
> or thereabouts.
Potosi, Bolivia: world's highest city at 13,451'.
Interestingly, the inhabitants -whose forbears have presumably lived
in the area for eons- not only have more red blood cells than do those
of us who hail from closer to sea-level, but each individual corpuscle
can transport about half-again more oxygen as well.
That nasty "evilution" stuff at work again.
~Pete
Ray Fischer
>Nicko <nervou...@gmail.com> wrote in news:91aa7ff6-7b65-401f-ade5-
>2f23ba...@a23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
>
>>> These people are the kind who want nature reserved only for their kind,
>>> reminds me of the YUPPIE, latte-sipping urban envirokooks in California
>>> who banned mountain bikes from wilderness areas for "degrading to the
>>> environment" while they rode 1500lb horses all over the same place.
>>
>> reserved for them to exploit regardless of the consequences for anyone
>> but yourself, you arrogant, solipsistic fuck.
>>
>> Right. It's your world, mister.
>>
>> Everything else just trying to live in it.
>>
>> --
>> YOP...
>
>I love nature, I HATE environmentalists.
After all, you SHOULD be able to kill people if it's more convenient.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:49dd5e72$0$1600
>> Rich <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>These people are the kind who want nature reserved only for their kind,
>>
>> As opposed to you people who want the freedom to kill anything and
>> steal anything that isn't nailed down?
>
>That would be the Chinese.
Who also have little regard for the environment.
> Which is why 1/2 the animal species in Asia are
>in danger.
Something for which you can be proud.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>Jer <gd...@airmail.ten> wrote in
>news:DsSdnRzga5qFGkDU...@posted.internetamerica:
>
>> Rich wrote:
>>> These people are the kind who want nature reserved only for their kind,
>>> reminds me of the YUPPIE, latte-sipping urban envirokooks in California
>>> who banned mountain bikes from wilderness areas for "degrading to the
>>> environment" while they rode 1500lb horses all over the same place.
>>
>>
>
When people's lives come up against other people's selfish wants,
force is often the only recourse.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>C J Campbell <christophercam...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>news:2009040908225316807-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom:
>
>> On 2009-04-08 16:31:14 -0700, Rich <no...@nowhere.com> said:
>>
>>> These people are the kind who want nature reserved only for their kind,
>>> the hemp-sandal wearing KOOKS who like to protest G20 meetings.
>>
>> Bill McKibben, author of "The End of Nature," are demanding a
>> moratorium on ALL wildlife photography.
>
>Rachel Carson wrote "Silent Spring" about DDT's effects on bird eggs. So
>they banned DDT. Result? 40 million Africans dead of malaria.
Rightard propaganda.
>Environmentalists, the hardcore, are human-hating, anarchist vermin.
Quite the neo-nazi, aren't you?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ron Hunter
I ask only that people who espouse evolution apply the same scientific
method to its flaws as they apply to 'intelligent design'.
Unfortunately, as many people seem to take evolution 'on faith' as do
religious fanatics who take a story written by scientifically primitive
people trying to explain what they found in the world take their
religious beliefs, and writings.
Ron Hunter
> Rich wrote:
>> These people are the kind who want nature reserved only for their kind,
>
> What you know about man's impact on the environment can be written with
> a Sharpie on a postage stamp.
>
>
is that humans should just disappear from the face of the earth, and
leave it to the animals.
Grimly Curmudgeon
drugs began to take hold. I remember Rich <no...@nowhere.com> saying
something like:
>These people are the kind who want nature reserved only for their kind,
>the hemp-sandal wearing KOOKS who like to protest G20 meetings. It
>reminds me of the YUPPIE, latte-sipping urban envirokooks in California
>who banned mountain bikes from wilderness areas for "degrading to the
>environment" while they rode 1500lb horses all over the same place.
<and... snip>
Fuck all that, are dippers any good for eating?
Grimly Curmudgeon
<ghost_...@hotmail.com> saying something like:
>People who kill pets go on to be Serial Killers
Veterinarians - we're watching you.
Grimly Curmudgeon
saying something like:
>OK, so YOU explain how evolution accounts for the ability of a species
>that 'evolved' on the African plains can easily survive at high
>altitudes, and in extreme cold. Go ahead, I'm waiting.
Jesus thinks you're a cunt.
Bob Larter
[...]
> I ask only that people who espouse evolution apply the same scientific
> method to its flaws as they apply to 'intelligent design'.
> Unfortunately, as many people seem to take evolution 'on faith' as do
> religious fanatics who take a story written by scientifically primitive
> people trying to explain what they found in the world take their
> religious beliefs, and writings.
So far, you haven't actually pointed out any "flaws" in evolution - if
anything, you've help demonstrate it.
BTW, seeing as nobody's commented on the "how come we can live in a cold
climate" thing, I might as well do it: We can live in cold climates
because we wear warm clothes! - In many places where humans live, we'd
die if we ran around near-naked, the way we can in hot climates.
Bob Larter
Some of the rabid environmentalist types are just as kooky as Rich, but
that doesn't make /him/ any less kooky.
Alan Browne
> Alan Browne wrote:
<<>>
>> slightly less than the time that humans have been writing things down.
>> That is the root of creationism: real written history.
>>
>> I'll take the simpler path which is evolution. Inexorably each
>> so-called "hole" in the theory is filled while ever wilder counter
>> claims by creationists are debunked.
>>
>> A most amusing trend of late being creationists 'back interpreting'
>> passages in the bible to make them fit various scientific proof (ref:
>> Scientific American, May 2009 issue, Shermer). This is really, per
>> Shermer, "hindsight bias".
>>
>
> I ask only that people who espouse evolution apply the same scientific
> method to its flaws as they apply to 'intelligent design'.
> Unfortunately, as many people seem to take evolution 'on faith' as do
> religious fanatics who take a story written by scientifically primitive
> people trying to explain what they found in the world take their
> religious beliefs, and writings.
That's failed logic. A rational view of things requires evidence and
this is what science seeks: evidence (through observation, measurement
and experiment) to develop or support theory. Evolution theory and fact
has been building inexorably, step by step. Where faiths say they are
complete, science always knows that there is more and that things
unexplained have to be declared as "not yet known".
(A simple example is string theory - lot's of math and physics but no
evidence and likely no definitive evidence will ever be found - so it's
a declared unknown - unless some experiments at CERN prove it not to
exist. So its non-existence can be proven, but not its existence.)
As to flaws, will every little part of evolution be filled? Probably
not. Geologic time has destroyed or irretrievably buried a lot of the
evidence. Interpolating between that evidence is reasonable. Further
where evolution scientists have made errors, they have been corrected
when new evidence emerges. Again the triumph of science is that
bad/wrong theories are discarded. OTOH, I cannot see the leaders of
Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. getting together
to weed out what is 'wrong' with their individual faiths to distill it
to a "true one faith" that everyone henceforth adheres to. Much more
likely to start a holy war (example: the two major branches of Islam
have distrusted and warred against one another over what we would see as
a rather minor spat back in the early days of Islam. So getting Islam
on one page is hard enough, never mind all religions).
Faith is rarely based on factual, concrete evidence so scientific method
cannot go far with it. It's all old documents which report oral
history. This includes such "bedrock" as the 10 commandments, which
nobody has ever seen after Moses smashed them. (Ironically, the 'good'
of the 10 commandments has percolated through into our laws while we
shucked off the chafe of the religious nonsense).
Face it. The only reason the large monotheistic religions survive is
indoctrination of the young setting their core beliefs early in life.
This is the survival mechanism of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
A sign I saw in West Virginia outside a Baptist Church a couple years
ago sums it up: "Reason is the enemy of faith."
How bizarre that God bestowed intelligence on us and then religious
parasites want us to ignore that gift.
Alan Browne
What a pathetic and angry distortion. Environmentalism is about harmony
and balance with the environment.
The environment is our sustenance. Better take care of it. We're
collectively failing to do so.
Pat
Imagine swirled peas.
>
> --
> Ray Fischer
> rfisc...@sonic.net
C J Campbell
> Rich <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> C J Campbell <christophercam...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:2009040908225316807-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom:
>>
>>> On 2009-04-08 16:31:14 -0700, Rich <no...@nowhere.com> said:
>>>
>>>> These people are the kind who want nature reserved only for their kind,
>>>> the hemp-sandal wearing KOOKS who like to protest G20 meetings.
>>>
>>> Those guys are running things now. At the more extreme end, people like
>>> Bill McKibben, author of "The End of Nature," are demanding a
>>> moratorium on ALL wildlife photography.
>>
>> Rachel Carson wrote "Silent Spring" about DDT's effects on bird eggs. So
>> they banned DDT. Result? 40 million Africans dead of malaria.
>
> Rightard propaganda.
An exaggeration, but not entirely untrue. There are trade-offs. And
banning DDT does make it more difficult to control malaria-carrying
mosquito populations.
>
>> Environmentalists, the hardcore, are human-hating, anarchist vermin.
>
> Quite the neo-nazi, aren't you?
Godwin's law already? Guess you lose the argument with Rich. Quite a
feat, actually -- losing an argument with *that.* However, there really
are people at the core of the environmental movement who even advocate
human extinction. You do realize, of course, that extremist views like
that bring a great deal of disrepute to the environmental movement?
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
HEMI-Powered
>>Faith is rarely based on factual, concrete evidence so
>>scientific method cannot go far with it. It's all old documents
>>which report oral history. This includes such "bedrock" as the
>>10 commandments, which nobody has ever seen after Moses smashed
>>them. (Ironically, the 'good' of the 10 commandments has
>>percolated through into our laws while we shucked off the chafe
>>of the religious nonsense).
>
> Although it could be argued that the ten commandments came from
> commonsense laws and/or social conventions of the time, with the
> religious parts added on.
Regardless of anyone's particular religious beliefs, it can safely
be said that ALL scriptures including the Bible, the Koran, and all
the rest, were handed down through the generations millenia ago
through the telling of stories. It has always interested me to hear
the terms "scribes" and "pharisees", meaning those who could read
and write and those who could adminster or manage things, the
latter basically being a modern day bureaucrat.
So, whether one believes that God etched the Ten Commandments in
fire when given them to Moses or any other way, it seems pretty
clear that they represent what some might call common law thinking
wrt one's everyday life, honor, evil, etc.
>>How bizarre that God bestowed intelligence on us and then
>>religious parasites want us to ignore that gift.
>
> I think the thing that scares them is that ultimately, if not
> artificially suppressed, scientific inquiry leads to the
> conclusion that all gods are anthropomorphisms of the universe
> and parts thereof. Religions that don't suppress that don't
> survive. Societies that suppress science wholesale are at a
> disadvantage. So we have the continual competition of ideas as
> religious society tries, consciously or unconsciously, to
> integrate science to its benefit without allowing it to
> dismantle religion altogether.
About the only part of the so-called Intelligent Design movement
that I agree with is that is MUST be true that all that we know of
in the universe could NOT have possibly happened by accident, it
MUST have been the work of some intelligent entity or being. Where
the ID people quickly turn into Loons, though, is the nonsense that
Adam and Eve lived just 6,000 years ago.
A quick couple of examples I like to think about to support some
sort of divine intervention in the universe is the facts that ALL
life is carbon based, for mannels, the basic anatomy of males and
females and their reproductive processes are the same, and as best
we can tell, the basic laws of physics exist across as many
lightyears of the universe as can be studied.
> And so we have another example of evolution - this time social
> evolution. As long as there is a social benefit in both religion
> and science we will have both, and the total suppression of
> either will be disadvantageous and ultimately short-lived. I
> think though that while science is on the stable bedrock of
> material reality (and, by its nature, continually strives for a
> stronger hold on it,) religion is much more malleable and could
> very well evolve into, or be gradually displaced by, something
> very different while retaining its social advantages. It does
> have its own mechanisms, though, to reduce or suppress changes
> in itself, of course, but as can be seen by the multitude of
> denominations and variations in just the Abrahamic religions,
> religion is as subject to schisms as populations are to
> speciation, if not more so. So who knows where things will go,
> but we do know that science is here now and the knowledge and
> material benefits it conveys cannot help but be a factor.
>
Some excellent thoughts, John, thanks for sharing them.
If there is ONE huge danger in the United States today, it is the
euphemism of "secular progressives" who want to rob us of our
religious heritage and right to worship. Although we as a nation
highly value religious and cultural diversity far beyond
Christianity, it is still instructive to remember that this great
country was founded along Judeo-Christian principles and a large
amount of our ideas expressed in the Declaration of Independence
and later the Constitution and Bill of Rights come from the strong
faith and religious feelings of the founders as well as many basic
teachings from the Bible.
Of course, our law is also founded on British common law, although
we corrected many of the deficiencies yet until perhaps the modern
secular progressive movement took hold a few decades ago, no one
really questioned one's right to "freedom of religion", yet today,
Christmas and Easter are under fire and these Loons demand to
rename such benign holidays as St. Patrick's Day as Potato Day.
Puleeze!
--
HP, aka Jerry
"Laid off yet? Keep buying foreign and you soon will be!" - popular
bumper sticker
Alan Browne
> On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 09:34:21 -0400, Alan Browne
> <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> Faith is rarely based on factual, concrete evidence so scientific method
>> cannot go far with it. It's all old documents which report oral
>> history. This includes such "bedrock" as the 10 commandments, which
>> nobody has ever seen after Moses smashed them. (Ironically, the 'good'
>> of the 10 commandments has percolated through into our laws while we
>> shucked off the chafe of the religious nonsense).
>
> commonsense laws and/or social conventions of the time, with the
> religious parts added on.
Certainly no argument from me.
AAA: Face it. The only reason the large monotheistic religions
survive is
>> indoctrination of the young setting their core beliefs early in life.
>> This is the survival mechanism of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
>>
>> A sign I saw in West Virginia outside a Baptist Church a couple years
>> ago sums it up: "Reason is the enemy of faith."
>>
>> How bizarre that God bestowed intelligence on us and then religious
>> parasites want us to ignore that gift.
>
> I think the thing that scares them is that ultimately, if not
> artificially suppressed, scientific inquiry leads to the conclusion
> that all gods are anthropomorphisms of the universe and parts thereof.
> Religions that don't suppress that don't survive. Societies that
> suppress science wholesale are at a disadvantage. So we have the
> continual competition of ideas as religious society tries, consciously
> or unconsciously, to integrate science to its benefit without allowing
> it to dismantle religion altogether.
True, though not that much of a threat as long as practice "AAA" above
is well honed.
> And so we have another example of evolution - this time social
> evolution. As long as there is a social benefit in both religion and
> science we will have both, and the total suppression of either will be
> disadvantageous and ultimately short-lived. I think though that while
> science is on the stable bedrock of material reality (and, by its
> nature, continually strives for a stronger hold on it,) religion is
> much more malleable and could very well evolve into, or be gradually
> displaced by, something very different while retaining its social
> advantages. It does have its own mechanisms, though, to reduce or
Again, principally AAA above.
> suppress changes in itself, of course, but as can be seen by the
> multitude of denominations and variations in just the Abrahamic
> religions, religion is as subject to schisms as populations are to
> speciation, if not more so. So who knows where things will go, but we
> do know that science is here now and the knowledge and material
> benefits it conveys cannot help but be a factor.
Yeah, OT enough. And I doubt we won any conversions to the one true faith.
Savageduck
> On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 09:34:21 -0400, Alan Browne
> <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> Faith is rarely based on factual, concrete evidence so scientific method
>> cannot go far with it. It's all old documents which report oral
>> history. This includes such "bedrock" as the 10 commandments, which
>> nobody has ever seen after Moses smashed them. (Ironically, the 'good'
>> of the 10 commandments has percolated through into our laws while we
>> shucked off the chafe of the religious nonsense).
>
> Although it could be argued that the ten commandments came from
> commonsense laws and/or social conventions of the time, with the
> religious parts added on.
Well that might be an argument, however the Judeo-Christian 10
commandments as espoused by the religious right does not fully meet
your "commonsense" rationale.
The actual "Laws of Moses" or the Talmudic Laws are made up of at least
15 statements which were compacted into the "10 commandments" of
biblical mythology.
Of those, the first 3 or 4, depending on the version followed, are
statements of deistic authority, which have nothing so ever to do with
commonsense, but are part of the reinforcement of a religion or even
the establishment of a new cult. (almost everything related to
etablishing a religion or belief in any god has nothing to do with
commonsense.)
4(or 5) through 10 are common rules of social morality & social
conventions within a community. Again the issue of commonsense is not
in play here. These are rules vital to maintain a cohesive community
(or religious cult.)
Then there are the dietary laws and and the statements justifying
invasion of a sovereign nation ("for I will cast out nations before
you, and enlarge your borders...") and building the wealth of the
officers of the new religion ("The best of the fruits of your ground
you shall bring to the house of the Lord your God." Exodus 34:11-27)
This is a politial manifesto, and always has been.
Commonsense indeed.
>
>> Face it. The only reason the large monotheistic religions survive is
>> indoctrination of the young setting their core beliefs early in life.
>> This is the survival mechanism of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
>>
>> A sign I saw in West Virginia outside a Baptist Church a couple years
>> ago sums it up: "Reason is the enemy of faith."
>>
>> How bizarre that God bestowed intelligence on us and then religious
>> parasites want us to ignore that gift.
>
> I think the thing that scares them is that ultimately, if not
> artificially suppressed, scientific inquiry leads to the conclusion
> that all gods are anthropomorphisms of the universe and parts thereof.
> Religions that don't suppress that don't survive. Societies that
> suppress science wholesale are at a disadvantage. So we have the
> continual competition of ideas as religious society tries, consciously
> or unconsciously, to integrate science to its benefit without allowing
> it to dismantle religion altogether.
>
> And so we have another example of evolution - this time social
> evolution. As long as there is a social benefit in both religion and
> science we will have both, and the total suppression of either will be
> disadvantageous and ultimately short-lived. I think though that while
> science is on the stable bedrock of material reality (and, by its
> nature, continually strives for a stronger hold on it,) religion is
> much more malleable and could very well evolve into, or be gradually
> displaced by, something very different while retaining its social
> advantages. It does have its own mechanisms, though, to reduce or
> suppress changes in itself, of course, but as can be seen by the
> multitude of denominations and variations in just the Abrahamic
> religions, religion is as subject to schisms as populations are to
> speciation, if not more so. So who knows where things will go, but we
> do know that science is here now and the knowledge and material
> benefits it conveys cannot help but be a factor.
>
> Okay - enough rambling. :)
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Jer
> Jer wrote:
>
>> Besides, the exhaust from mountain bikes is quite different from that
>> of horses, and a horse fart disturbs the neighborhood a lot less.
>
> Not sure about that ... hiking in the Grand Canyon and a bunch of lazy
> asses on mules go by (pun intended). Their mules decide to piss. It's
> about 35C out under the hard sun and there is no wind.
>
> I did not vomit by sheer force of will alone.
>
I often feel the same way about personal fragrances.
--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Jer
Is it really evolution? I wonder what physiological changes may occur
if one of those folks came down off the mountain. Would their
corpuscles be any different after acclimation? I'd be interested in
knowing, but I'm not finding much with google.
Jer
> There have been countless examples given as being "impossible" to have
> come about without a divine hand. The eye is one, but it has been
> shown how one can progress through simple steps from simple
> photosensitivity to a focusing modern eyeball, through localization,
> concavity progressing to invagination, protective cell layers, etc.,
> each of which is conveyed by simple developmental variation and gives
> an immediate advantage along the way.
One could argue that these 'improvements' were due to evolutionary
(genetic) mutations - they were deemed improvements because the host
enjoyed a more survivable existence through better hunting skills or a
higher likelihood of successful mating with the improved vision, thereby
passing the genetic mutation on to his/her progeny far more often than
the others without the non-mutated gene. A one-eyed fish got around
okay whereas a two-eyed fish did a lot better, and therefore survived.
I forget which chapter Darwin wrote about this.
Ron Hunter
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>> Rich wrote:
>>>> These people are the kind who want nature reserved only for their kind,
>>> What you know about man's impact on the environment can be written
>>> with a Sharpie on a postage stamp.
>>>
>>>
>> Probably better than what rabid environmentalists seem to believe, which
>> is that humans should just disappear from the face of the earth, and
>> leave it to the animals.
>
> What a pathetic and angry distortion. Environmentalism is about harmony
> and balance with the environment.
>
> The environment is our sustenance. Better take care of it. We're
> collectively failing to do so.
>
>
>
that DO advocate the end of all human existence? If so, then you need
to pay more attention to them. Many of the ideas rabid
environmentalists advocate would result in human beings becoming
extinct, never mind that MOST of the ideas these people propose would
result in collapse of civilization, followed by massive starvation, and
disease, perhaps to the point of extinction.
If your idea of 'harmony and balance' means living in a strictly
agrarian society, without technology, and eschewing anything that would
cause harm to any species of animal, or plant life, that is pretty much
the definition of 'rabid environmentalist'.
Ron Hunter
nicely in my head. I believe in God as the cause, and science as the
method. There is no real conflict, only a misinterpretation of the
message. If you want a really good description of the 'big bang
theory', in strictly non-technical terms, read the first chapter of
Genesis. From there, it is mostly allegory. The Bible is pretty good
history, but it is a bit of a stretch to take it all literally, given
that even the earliest texts were recorded from oral tradition. As you
probably can guess, I am not a fundamentalist Christian.
Ron Hunter
> On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 09:34:21 -0400, Alan Browne
> <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> cannot go far with it. It's all old documents which report oral
>> history. This includes such "bedrock" as the 10 commandments, which
>> nobody has ever seen after Moses smashed them. (Ironically, the 'good'
>> of the 10 commandments has percolated through into our laws while we
>> shucked off the chafe of the religious nonsense).
>
> commonsense laws and/or social conventions of the time, with the
> religious parts added on.
>
>> indoctrination of the young setting their core beliefs early in life.
>> This is the survival mechanism of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
>>
>> A sign I saw in West Virginia outside a Baptist Church a couple years
>> ago sums it up: "Reason is the enemy of faith."
>>
>> How bizarre that God bestowed intelligence on us and then religious
>> parasites want us to ignore that gift.
>
> artificially suppressed, scientific inquiry leads to the conclusion
> that all gods are anthropomorphisms of the universe and parts thereof.
> Religions that don't suppress that don't survive. Societies that
> suppress science wholesale are at a disadvantage. So we have the
> continual competition of ideas as religious society tries, consciously
> or unconsciously, to integrate science to its benefit without allowing
> it to dismantle religion altogether.
>
> And so we have another example of evolution - this time social
> evolution. As long as there is a social benefit in both religion and
> science we will have both, and the total suppression of either will be
> disadvantageous and ultimately short-lived. I think though that while
> science is on the stable bedrock of material reality (and, by its
> nature, continually strives for a stronger hold on it,) religion is
> much more malleable and could very well evolve into, or be gradually
> displaced by, something very different while retaining its social
> advantages. It does have its own mechanisms, though, to reduce or
> suppress changes in itself, of course, but as can be seen by the
> multitude of denominations and variations in just the Abrahamic
> religions, religion is as subject to schisms as populations are to
> speciation, if not more so. So who knows where things will go, but we
> do know that science is here now and the knowledge and material
> benefits it conveys cannot help but be a factor.
>
> Okay - enough rambling. :)
most advanced in science and technology are the most religious? Strange
contradiction, isn't it?
Ron Hunter
terrorists help the cause of Islam. Both tend to make rational people
run screaming from their ideas.
Bob Larter
> John A. wrote:
[...]
>> And so we have another example of evolution - this time social
>> evolution. As long as there is a social benefit in both religion and
>> science we will have both, and the total suppression of either will be
>> disadvantageous and ultimately short-lived. I think though that while
>> science is on the stable bedrock of material reality (and, by its
>> nature, continually strives for a stronger hold on it,) religion is
>> much more malleable and could very well evolve into, or be gradually
>> displaced by, something very different while retaining its social
>> advantages. It does have its own mechanisms, though, to reduce or
>> suppress changes in itself, of course, but as can be seen by the
>> multitude of denominations and variations in just the Abrahamic
>> religions, religion is as subject to schisms as populations are to
>> speciation, if not more so. So who knows where things will go, but we
>> do know that science is here now and the knowledge and material
>> benefits it conveys cannot help but be a factor.
>>
>> Okay - enough rambling. :)
> How, then, do you explain that the countries of the world that are the
> most advanced in science and technology are the most religious? Strange
> contradiction, isn't it?
Say what? The USA is one of the very few advanced nations that *are*
markedly religious, & the most religious nations of all are way down
around 3rd world status.
Bob Larter
Ditto. There's nothing worse being stuck in a crowded train or elevator,
next to someone drenched in perfume or aftershave.
Ray Fischer
>On 2009-04-10 19:46:10 -0700, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) said:
>
>> Rich <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> C J Campbell <christophercam...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:2009040908225316807-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom:
>>>
>>>> On 2009-04-08 16:31:14 -0700, Rich <no...@nowhere.com> said:
>>>>
>>>>> These people are the kind who want nature reserved only for their kind,
>>>>> the hemp-sandal wearing KOOKS who like to protest G20 meetings.
>>>>
>>>> Those guys are running things now. At the more extreme end, people like
>>>> Bill McKibben, author of "The End of Nature," are demanding a
>>>> moratorium on ALL wildlife photography.
>>>
>>> Rachel Carson wrote "Silent Spring" about DDT's effects on bird eggs. So
>>> they banned DDT. Result? 40 million Africans dead of malaria.
>>
>> Rightard propaganda.
>
>An exaggeration, but not entirely untrue. There are trade-offs. And
>banning DDT does make it more difficult to control malaria-carrying
>mosquito populations.
>
>>> Environmentalists, the hardcore, are human-hating, anarchist vermin.
>>
>> Quite the neo-nazi, aren't you?
>
>Godwin's law already?
The Nazis referred to people as vermin. So does Rich.
The similarity isn't my fault.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>Alan Browne wrote:
>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>>> Rich wrote:
>>>>> These people are the kind who want nature reserved only for their kind,
>>>> What you know about man's impact on the environment can be written
>>>> with a Sharpie on a postage stamp.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Probably better than what rabid environmentalists seem to believe, which
>>> is that humans should just disappear from the face of the earth, and
>>> leave it to the animals.
>>
>> What a pathetic and angry distortion. Environmentalism is about harmony
>> and balance with the environment.
>>
>> The environment is our sustenance. Better take care of it. We're
>> collectively failing to do so.
>>
>Are you saying that there AREN'T those in the environmentalist movement
>that DO advocate the end of all human existence? If so, then you need
>to pay more attention to them.
Guilt by association is a sleazy ploy.
> Many of the ideas rabid
>environmentalists advocate would result in human beings becoming
>extinct,
Many of the ideas rabid anti-environmentalists promote would have the
same result.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Jürgen Exner
>How, then, do you explain that the countries of the world that are the
>most advanced in science and technology are the most religious?
Hmmm, let's see
- Afganistan under the Taliban
- Iran, Saudi-Arabia, Indonesia (to cover the most islamic countries)
- Vatican
- Spain, Poland, Italy, Phillipines...
- Tibet, Nepal (to cover the most bhuddistic countries)
- India (to cover the main hinduistic country)
None of those with maybe the exception of very recent India strikes me
as particularly advanced in science or technology.
For Israel (to cover the last major religion) you need to differentiate.
The technological and scientific advances don't come from the orthodox
jews but from the progressive or liberal people, who don't care, if they
touch an elevator button on Sabbath.
Actually, looking back in history it's rather that people like Kepler,
Galileo, and many, many others had to denounce their inventions and
discoveries or be burned as heretics. And this doesn't apply just to
Christianity but equally to Islam. That doesn't strike me as
particularly innovative, either.
Quite the opposite, actually. Progress and innovation happened in the
Rennaisance because the dominance of the church was broken.
jue
HEMI-Powered
>>About the only part of the so-called Intelligent Design movement
>>that I agree with is that is MUST be true that all that we know
>>of in the universe could NOT have possibly happened by accident,
>>it MUST have been the work of some intelligent entity or being.
>>Where the ID people quickly turn into Loons, though, is the
>>nonsense that Adam and Eve lived just 6,000 years ago.
>
> More anthropomorphism. Just because we haven't pinned down the
> ultimate origin doesn't some guy did it. That's just our bias as
> a social tool-using/making species with brains evolved to
> recognize and imitate the handiwork of others. We also see
> bunnies in clouds and faces on Mars.
No one will ever "pin down" the Garden of Eden, but there IS more
than ample proof through carbon dating that human beings, i.e.,
homo sapiens, existed in excess of 150,000 years ago, so, ID is
total horseshit.
> There have been countless examples given as being "impossible"
> to have come about without a divine hand. The eye is one, but it
> has been shown how one can progress through simple steps from
> simple photosensitivity to a focusing modern eyeball, through
> localization, concavity progressing to invagination, protective
> cell layers, etc., each of which is conveyed by simple
> developmental variation and gives an immediate advantage along
> the way.
I'm not going to try to reason with fools about the general subject
of miracles, but if you really want to engage me in a meaningful
factual discussion, please START with your views on the FACTS I
have already cited.
>>A quick couple of examples I like to think about to support some
>>sort of divine intervention in the universe is the facts that
>>ALL life is carbon based, for mannels, the basic anatomy of
>>males and females and their reproductive processes are the same,
>>and as best we can tell, the basic laws of physics exist across
>>as many lightyears of the universe as can be studied.
>
> Or perhaps the conditions on any particular planet will tend to
> lend themselves to one form of biochemistry. Or maybe life on a
> particular planet tends to become homogenous in time as one
> chemistry becomes dominant. (A less common chemistry will likely
> have less edible food organisms available and would thus be at a
> severe disadvantage.)
You're like my daughter who likes to play "what if". Why don't you
try answering my points with specific facts - if you can, but I
already know you cannot as there is more than sufficient scientific
proof on these issues.
> It's hard to say which is the case (though they are not mutually
> exclusive) since we have only looked at one example planet thus
> far. Scientists have, however, postulated other possible
> biochemistries based on different base elements and solvents.
>
> To put it simply: carbon and water aren't the only
> possibilities. They're just what we happen to be the workable
> combination we have here.
> A common myth.
>
>>Of course, our law is also founded on British common law,
>>although we corrected many of the deficiencies yet until perhaps
>>the modern secular progressive movement took hold a few decades
>>ago, no one really questioned one's right to "freedom of
>>religion", yet today, Christmas and Easter are under fire and
>>these Loons demand to rename such benign holidays as St.
>>Patrick's Day as Potato Day. Puleeze!
>
> Puleeze, indeed. See my "cookie" post.
>
I think I misjudged you. You're nothing more than one other brand
of Loon. Maybe a Far Left Loon, maybe a Far Right Loon, maybe an
Intelligent Design, or maybe just an ignorant Loon who likes to
argue. No matter which, I quit. As I said, I do not try to reason
with fools.
Twibil
> If there is ONE huge danger in the United States today, it is the
> euphemism of "secular progressives" who want to rob us of our
> religious heritage and right to worship.
Your only problem is that except for a few militant athiests, there
*are* no such people, nor has anyone's right to worship been
compromised.
Since of course you'll insist otherwise, let's see a list of names of
the people who "want to rob us of our religious heritage and right to
worship".
Because if you can't name 'em they don't exist.
Jer
> Jer wrote:
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>> Jer wrote:
>>>
>>>> Besides, the exhaust from mountain bikes is quite different from
>>>> that of horses, and a horse fart disturbs the neighborhood a lot less.
>>>
>>> Not sure about that ... hiking in the Grand Canyon and a bunch of
>>> lazy asses on mules go by (pun intended). Their mules decide to
>>> piss. It's about 35C out under the hard sun and there is no wind.
>>>
>>> I did not vomit by sheer force of will alone.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I often feel the same way about personal fragrances.
>
> Ditto. There's nothing worse being stuck in a crowded train or elevator,
> next to someone drenched in perfume or aftershave.
>
>
Yeah, that makes it worse, but it isn't an issue of being too strong, I
just find the odor to be so incredibly unpleasant. BO, while not
pleasant, it more tolerable to me than things people do to smell
likable. For me, no odor is far preferable to anything artificial. For
years, I've recommend my special lady friends refrain from adding
anything after their bath - save that nonsense for someone else.
Get lost
wrote:
> Rich wrote:
> > These people are the kind who want nature reserved only for their kind,
>
> What you know about man's impact on the environment can be written with
> a Sharpie on a postage stamp.
>
> -- r.p.e.35mm user resource:http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
> -- r.p.d.slr-systems:http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
> -- [SI] gallery & rulz:http://www.pbase.com/shootin
> -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
> -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
Ban, ban, regulate, restrict. Another socialist Canadian.
Get lost
> >> Rich wrote:
> >>> These people are the kind who want nature reserved only for their kind,
>
> >> What you know about man's impact on the environment can be written
> >> with a Sharpie on a postage stamp.
>
> > is that humans should just disappear from the face of the earth, and
> > leave it to the animals.
>
> that doesn't make /him/ any less kooky.
>
> --
> W
> . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
> \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
> ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
So enviroterrorists are kooky? What a sweet term to apply to them.
DRS
news:9o42u4154s8mtj8g7...@4ax.com
[...]
> Actually, looking back in history it's rather that people like Kepler,
> Galileo, and many, many others had to denounce their inventions and
> discoveries or be burned as heretics. And this doesn't apply just to
> Christianity but equally to Islam. That doesn't strike me as
> particularly innovative, either.
> Quite the opposite, actually. Progress and innovation happened in the
> Rennaisance because the dominance of the church was broken.
The only "scientist" to ever be burned for heresy was Giordano Bruno, and
most scholars agree his heresy was his pantheism. Galileo's claim to have
proven heliocentricity was false (most astronomers agree it was not proven
until the invention of stellar parallax measurement some one hundred and
fifty years later). The Vatican archives have a letter from Cardinal
Bellarmine, one of Galileo's most prominent supporters (Galileo's research
was supported by the church), in which he states broadly that should the
Copernican hypothesis (ie heliocentrism) ever be proven the church would
have a lot a serious rethinking to do. What got Galileo into trouble was
that he claimed to haven proven it when he had not and that he had
formulated a system of philosophy that rendered all others redundant
(prefiguring the Enlightenment claim that the universe was fundamentally
rational), thereby challenging the authority of the church when it was
already under serious threat from the Reformation. It was the latter claim
that caused the greatest outrage at the time, even if it has been forgotten
in the quest to turn Galileo into a poster boy for science and secular
humanism (notwithstanding that Galileo was a pious Catholic).
Contrary to popular myth, most scientific progress from the High Middle Ages
to the Rennaisance occurred within the church and with its active support
and blessing. While not wanting to underplay the tensions between doctrine
and science then and now, the idea that the church always has been, is and
always will be opposed to science is an Enlightenment myth and is utterly
ahistorical.
Ron Hunter
is NOT the religion, but the LEADERS of the religion, who have a vested
interest in the status quo, who oppose scientific progress. The fact
remains, the most technologically advanced countries also are the ones
most religious, and listing those with religious majorities that aren't
technologically advanced, and putting India in the list is a
demonstration of your ignorance of the country. One must learn to
distinguish between religion, and the leaders of a religion.
Ron Hunter
> John A. added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>
>>> About the only part of the so-called Intelligent Design movement
>>> that I agree with is that is MUST be true that all that we know
>>> of in the universe could NOT have possibly happened by accident,
>>> it MUST have been the work of some intelligent entity or being.
>>> Where the ID people quickly turn into Loons, though, is the
>>> nonsense that Adam and Eve lived just 6,000 years ago.
>> More anthropomorphism. Just because we haven't pinned down the
>> ultimate origin doesn't some guy did it. That's just our bias as
>> a social tool-using/making species with brains evolved to
>> recognize and imitate the handiwork of others. We also see
>> bunnies in clouds and faces on Mars.
>
> No one will ever "pin down" the Garden of Eden, but there IS more
> than ample proof through carbon dating that human beings, i.e.,
> homo sapiens, existed in excess of 150,000 years ago, so, ID is
> total horseshit.
>
Non-sequitur. Just because one idea espoused by SOME believers in ID is
patently false, doesn't invalidate the idea.
>> There have been countless examples given as being "impossible"
>> to have come about without a divine hand. The eye is one, but it
>> has been shown how one can progress through simple steps from
>> simple photosensitivity to a focusing modern eyeball, through
>> localization, concavity progressing to invagination, protective
>> cell layers, etc., each of which is conveyed by simple
>> developmental variation and gives an immediate advantage along
>> the way.
>
> I'm not going to try to reason with fools about the general subject
> of miracles, but if you really want to engage me in a meaningful
> factual discussion, please START with your views on the FACTS I
> have already cited.
>
A miracle, by definition, is a happening that you don't understand, and
can't explain in terms of current scientific knowledge. These happen
every day.
>>> A quick couple of examples I like to think about to support some
>>> sort of divine intervention in the universe is the facts that
>>> ALL life is carbon based, for mannels, the basic anatomy of
>>> males and females and their reproductive processes are the same,
>>> and as best we can tell, the basic laws of physics exist across
>>> as many lightyears of the universe as can be studied.
>> Or perhaps the conditions on any particular planet will tend to
>> lend themselves to one form of biochemistry. Or maybe life on a
>> particular planet tends to become homogenous in time as one
>> chemistry becomes dominant. (A less common chemistry will likely
>> have less edible food organisms available and would thus be at a
>> severe disadvantage.)
>
> You're like my daughter who likes to play "what if". Why don't you
> try answering my points with specific facts - if you can, but I
> already know you cannot as there is more than sufficient scientific
> proof on these issues.
>
Sufficient for you, whose mind is already closed to additional facts.
The fact that you resort to attacking the person, rather than his ideas
indicates that you have lost this argument, and know it. You really
aren't able to discuss a subject in a rational, and civil manner, so
please don't reply to this message as I won't be monitoring this thread
further, but do think about the implications of having retired from the
discussion in defeat.
Ray Fischer
>Ban, ban, regulate, restrict. Another socialist Canadian.
Sounds more like a rethuglican American.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Chris Malcolm
Tibetans have similar blood, and it's not all an adaptation reversible
by acclimatisation in adults. It gives Tibetans an increased liability
to strokes if they move down to low altitudes.
Sickle cell anemia is the most famous example of an evolutionary blood
adaptation. It confers protection against malaria at the cost of the
doubled gene inheritance causing sickle cell anemia, so the frequency
of the gene's presence in a population is an evolutionary trade off
between risk of dying of malaria and risk of dying of sickle cell
anemia.
--
Chris Malcolm
Chris Malcolm
> John A. wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 09:34:21 -0400, Alan Browne
>> I think the thing that scares them is that ultimately, if not
It certainly is. Where did you get your list of scientifically and
technologically advanced religious nations from? The only one I can
think of is the US, which is generally regarded as strangely anomalous
in that respect.
--
Chris Malcolm
Chris Malcolm
> "J?rgen Exner" <jurg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9o42u4154s8mtj8g7...@4ax.com
>> Actually, looking back in history it's rather that people like Kepler,
>> Galileo, and many, many others had to denounce their inventions and
>> discoveries or be burned as heretics. And this doesn't apply just to
>> Christianity but equally to Islam. That doesn't strike me as
>> particularly innovative, either.
>> Quite the opposite, actually. Progress and innovation happened in the
>> Rennaisance because the dominance of the church was broken.
> The only "scientist" to ever be burned for heresy was Giordano Bruno, and
> most scholars agree his heresy was his pantheism.
It was the foolish or foolhardy ones who drew the attention of the
Church to their heretical beliefs. Most kept quiet, or published using
secret codes, or emigrated to more tolerant places.
> Galileo's claim to have
> proven heliocentricity was false (most astronomers agree it was not proven
> until the invention of stellar parallax measurement some one hundred and
> fifty years later). The Vatican archives have a letter from Cardinal
> Bellarmine, one of Galileo's most prominent supporters (Galileo's research
> was supported by the church), in which he states broadly that should the
> Copernican hypothesis (ie heliocentrism) ever be proven the church would
> have a lot a serious rethinking to do. What got Galileo into trouble was
> that he claimed to haven proven it when he had not and that he had
> formulated a system of philosophy that rendered all others redundant
> (prefiguring the Enlightenment claim that the universe was fundamentally
> rational), thereby challenging the authority of the church when it was
> already under serious threat from the Reformation. It was the latter claim
> that caused the greatest outrage at the time, even if it has been forgotten
> in the quest to turn Galileo into a poster boy for science and secular
> humanism (notwithstanding that Galileo was a pious Catholic).
> Contrary to popular myth, most scientific progress from the High Middle Ages
> to the Rennaisance occurred within the church and with its active support
> and blessing.
Which is generally regarded by historians of science as the reason why
progress was so slow then, and why progress speeded up so dramatically
once the grip of the Church was loosened.
Even today on purely religious questions the Church seems to prefer
secrecy obfuscation and foot dragging where discoveries which might
call into question ancient doctrine are concerned, as shown by its
behaviour over the Dead Sea Scrolls.
It's nice to note that in 2000 AD the Pope at last apologised to
Galileo and permitted all his works to be read by Catholics without
danger to their immortal souls. Taking hunfreds of years to come to
that decision can hardly be called rapid :-)
--
Chris Malcolm
DRS
news:74dtqaF...@mid.individual.net
> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems DRS <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au>
> wrote:
>> "J?rgen Exner" <jurg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:9o42u4154s8mtj8g7...@4ax.com
>
>>> Actually, looking back in history it's rather that people like
>>> Kepler, Galileo, and many, many others had to denounce their
>>> inventions and discoveries or be burned as heretics. And this
>>> doesn't apply just to Christianity but equally to Islam. That
>>> doesn't strike me as particularly innovative, either.
>>> Quite the opposite, actually. Progress and innovation happened in
>>> the Rennaisance because the dominance of the church was broken.
>
>> The only "scientist" to ever be burned for heresy was Giordano
>> Bruno, and most scholars agree his heresy was his pantheism.
>
> It was the foolish or foolhardy ones who drew the attention of the
> Church to their heretical beliefs. Most kept quiet, or published using
> secret codes, or emigrated to more tolerant places.
Who were these mythical people and where were these mythical places?
>> Galileo's claim to have
>> proven heliocentricity was false (most astronomers agree it was not
>> proven until the invention of stellar parallax measurement some one
>> hundred and fifty years later). The Vatican archives have a letter
>> from Cardinal Bellarmine, one of Galileo's most prominent supporters
>> (Galileo's research was supported by the church), in which he states
>> broadly that should the Copernican hypothesis (ie heliocentrism)
>> ever be proven the church would have a lot a serious rethinking to
>> do. What got Galileo into trouble was that he claimed to haven
>> proven it when he had not and that he had formulated a system of
>> philosophy that rendered all others redundant (prefiguring the
>> Enlightenment claim that the universe was fundamentally rational),
>> thereby challenging the authority of the church when it was already
>> under serious threat from the Reformation. It was the latter claim
>> that caused the greatest outrage at the time, even if it has been
>> forgotten in the quest to turn Galileo into a poster boy for science
>> and secular humanism (notwithstanding that Galileo was a pious
>> Catholic).
>
>> Contrary to popular myth, most scientific progress from the High
>> Middle Ages to the Rennaisance occurred within the church and with
>> its active support and blessing.
>
> Which is generally regarded by historians of science as the reason why
> progress was so slow then, and why progress speeded up so dramatically
> once the grip of the Church was loosened.
I doubt most historians of science would put such a blatantly partisan spin
on it. Before the Archbishop of Toledo in 1085 put together the translation
team of the best scholars in Christendom and began disseminating the
treasures of the Moorish library there the learning of the ancients had been
almost completely lost in Europe. In short, medieval natural philosophers
were essentially starting from scratch. The writings of Aristotle, Avicenna
and Averroes hit the fledgling universities - created by the church but
highly independent - like intellectual lightening bolts. Certainly there
were tensions, particularly over Aristotle's doctrine of the eternity of the
world, but they proved ultimately productive, since the unique character of
the church in European society meant that whoever won the intellectual
battles of the time would frame the intellectual climate for years to come.
In Europe at that time the philosophers were the theologians (to be a master
of any discipline required taking at least minor orders). The arguments
about the eternity or otherwise of the world were part of larger
intellectual battles that were ultimately about different ways of knowing,
and therefore were as much epistemological as ontological or theological.
The general problem of reconciling revealed knowledge with knowledge aquired
by reason culminated in the Thomist's effective divorce of faith and reason
("Summa contra Gentiles", 1264), which in turn opened the way for the
development of science as we know it over the next six hundred years. This
was a largely unrecognised intellectual revolution.
By the early Renaissance the extreme conservatism of the scholastics, the
last great defenders of Aristotle, was symptomatic of the church's wider
problems of corruption, scandal and moral lassitude. The same factors which
had earlier allowed the rapid spread of radical ideas now combined to foster
intellectual stagnation. The Renaissance must be seen in this context.
Pretending that progress in the sciences could only have occurred or could
only occur more rapidly outside the church's auspices is an ahistorical
assumption that confuses the historical contingency of the rise of humanism
with a general principle.
> Even today on purely religious questions the Church seems to prefer
> secrecy obfuscation and foot dragging where discoveries which might
> call into question ancient doctrine are concerned, as shown by its
> behaviour over the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Scholars have had great access to the Dead Sea Scrolls. Not every scholar
has gotten all the access they wanted so they've whinged and the media did a
beat-up. Various conspiracy theories appeared to blame the Vatican (always
an easy target these days) but the truth is more prosaic. Academic politics
and careerism had more to do with the restricted access, since the various
scholars (not all Catholic) who had authority over particular sections of
the scrolls wanted first publication rights.
> It's nice to note that in 2000 AD the Pope at last apologised to
> Galileo and permitted all his works to be read by Catholics without
> danger to their immortal souls. Taking hunfreds of years to come to
> that decision can hardly be called rapid :-)
Why should the church have rushed? In essence, it was being pressured to
apologise for condemning Galileo when Galileo in fact was in the wrong. He
had made a claim - that he had proven Copernicus right - that he could not
sustain. His claim was false and the church of the time rightly rejected
it.