Darwin and his fundamental fear.
Nashton
always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been
developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all
trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind,
if there are any convictions in such a mind?
Letter to William Graham, Down, July 3rd, 1881. In The Life and Letters
of Charles Darwin
Including an Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Francis Darwin (London: John
Murray, Albermarle
Street, 1887), Volume 1, pp. 315-316.
All-Seeing-I
There are only two (2) posibilties for the existance of mankind.'
1) God created man as described in the bible
2) God created man as described by the Sumarians
Man is not a chimp
It IS that simple.
Free Lunch
<allse...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
Both have been shown to be wrong -- unless you are claiming that God is
intentionally misleading us.
>Man is not a chimp
You are wrong.
>It IS that simple.
You are that foolish.
All-Seeing-I
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 06:29:11 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 24, 7:43�am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
> >> "With me," he said, the horrid doubt
> >> always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been
> >> developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all
> >> trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind,
> >> if there are any convictions in such a mind?
>
> >> Letter to William Graham, Down, July 3rd, 1881. In The Life and Letters
> >> of Charles Darwin
> >> Including an Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Francis Darwin (London: John
> >> Murray, Albermarle
> >> Street, 1887), Volume 1, pp. 315-316.
>
> >There are only two (2) posibilties for the existance of mankind.'
>
> >1) God created man as described in the bible
> >2) God created man as described by the Sumarians
>
> Both have been shown to be wrong -- unless you are claiming that God is
> intentionally misleading us.
How is God doing that?
John Harshman
Why?
Caranx latus
Assuming that God exists, if the evidence that we have collected to
date doesn't mean what we clearly think it means, then who do you
suppose created that evidence?
RAM
A Repost from: Darwin's Doubt."
To answer your question implies it is meaningful. It is not. So, I'm
changing the focus to be relevant.
We are in the 21st century and we know (at least) some of us that the
history of bias originates from emotionally held beliefs like
religion, anti-science ideologies like creationism, etc. Science in
part because of its diversity and in part due to the fact its
theoretical underpinnings are problematic renders it less subject to
ideological, cliche ridden beliefs like creationism and your silly
trope about the ToE.
This ape kind finds much religious dogma and hate in ancient and
modern history but no wars between or among scientists ever recorded
or even discussed. So if you want to trust those who hate vs those
who search; do so with an open mind to the type of negative emotional
strings religions can and do have on their adherents. In contrast
the
emotional commitments of scientists are to provide insight into
nature, including religious commitment. The mad scientists are few
and far between and they are powerless compared to say the Bush
regime. In sum, trusting science oriented apes leads to a better
society and understanding of the role of religions than trusting
religions to be honest about science and kind to all peoples.
RAM
No you are that simple.
Worse yet you are a loon like Lloyd Pye and believe #2 above.
See if Nasty agrees with you! Ask him!
Mr Snotty Antiscience has a loon supporter! It must be Xmas.
RAM
Look at what you think and write. It is Loony. We don't blame
God! Empirical evidence of on local floods, human evolution, and an
old earth are indisputable except for certain loons or religious
fanatics and you are both. So if you claim otherwise he must be into
deception.
Dan Listermann
"Nashton" <na...@na.ca> wrote in message news:hgvr3n$ftj$1...@aioe.org...
> "With me," he said, the horrid doubt
> always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been
> developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all
> trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if
> there are any convictions in such a mind?
Na, na. You need to trust the convictions of the campfire mumblings of
bronze age goat herders.
.
JTEM
Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote
> >Man is not a chimp
>
> You are wrong.
I disagree, with both the wording and the implied
lineage. I feel it far more accurate to say that
Chimps evolved from __US__ than that we are some
kind of chimp... and I say that knowing that there
are few here who can acknowledge the "far more" in
the preceding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominini
Nashton
I would really, REALLY like to know how you in your infinite wisdom have
accomplished what many philosophers are still struggling with.
When I say that you're delusional and simple, I'm not kidding.
>
>> Man is not a chimp
>
> You are wrong.
Do you have anything to say about the paradox I started the thread with?
Or are you going to content yourself with this BS?
Nashton
> On Dec 24, 7:43 am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>> "With me," he said, the horrid doubt
>> always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been
>> developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all
>> trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind,
>> if there are any convictions in such a mind?
>>
>> Letter to William Graham, Down, July 3rd, 1881. In The Life and Letters
>> of Charles Darwin
>> Including an Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Francis Darwin (London: John
>> Murray, Albermarle
>> Street, 1887), Volume 1, pp. 315-316.
>
> A Repost from: Darwin's Doubt."
>
> To answer your question implies it is meaningful. It is not. So, I'm
> changing the focus to be relevant.
Who are you to decide whether it's meaningful or not? Are you *that*
full of yourself?
> We are in the 21st century and we know (at least) some of us that the
> history of bias originates from emotionally held beliefs like
> religion, anti-science ideologies like creationism, etc. Science in
> part because of its diversity and in part due to the fact its
> theoretical underpinnings are problematic renders it less subject to
> ideological, cliche ridden beliefs like creationism and your silly
> trope about the ToE.
CRAP. CRAP and more irrelevant CRAP.
> This ape kind finds much religious dogma and hate in ancient and
> modern history but no wars between or among scientists ever recorded
> or even discussed. So if you want to trust those who hate vs those
> who search; do so with an open mind to the type of negative emotional
> strings religions can and do have on their adherents. In contrast
> the
> emotional commitments of scientists are to provide insight into
> nature, including religious commitment. The mad scientists are few
> and far between and they are powerless compared to say the Bush
> regime. In sum, trusting science oriented apes leads to a better
> society and understanding of the role of religions than trusting
> religions to be honest about science and kind to all peoples.
>
What an utter load of CRAP. This is not about the drivel your spouting
above, ignoramus. This is a question requiring some kind of debating
skills and knowledge in philosophy. You are inept, obviously.
Sometimes I have to wonder if the posters in here were hand-picked for
their stupidity.
John Harshman
Perhaps if you explained why that's appropriate? I can't find anything
in your link below that supports the claim, unless you think that just
the name Hominini is significant. But that's there rather than Panini
purely because Homo was listed first in the 1756 edition of Systema
Naturae, and for no other reason.
Now I seem to recall that you think the hominin ancestor was bipedal,
and thus more like a human than like a chimp. That would be an argument,
at least, though the evidence to back up such a claim seems lacking.
Still, it's possible. But nothing of that sort is in your link.
Those were two attempts to guess what you meant. Was either of them
correct? If not, what did you mean?
hersheyh
> On Dec 24, 7:43 am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>
> > "With me," he said, the horrid doubt
> > always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been
> > developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all
> > trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind,
> > if there are any convictions in such a mind?
>
> > Letter to William Graham, Down, July 3rd, 1881. In The Life and Letters
> > of Charles Darwin
> > Including an Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Francis Darwin (London: John
> > Murray, Albermarle
> > Street, 1887), Volume 1, pp. 315-316.
>
> There are only two (2) posibilties for the existance of mankind.'
What is it with creationists and dichotomous thinking (if it can be
called thinking)?
>
> 1) God created man as described in the bible
> 2) God created man as described by the Sumarians
Even as a simple matter of logic, you need to include the creation
myths of a myriad of other cultures. And the possibility that man
created God as described in the Bible and by the Sumarians. In
addition to the fact that the mechanism (brief tho it is -- molded out
of clay and animating it sounds like sculpture and golem/frankenstein
myths) described in the Bible makes no chemical sense.
> Man is not a chimp
Man is indeed neither the common chimp (Pan troglodytes) nor the
bonobo (Pan paniscus) and is not directly evolved from either
species. But all three species share a most recent common ancestor
(which may also have been shared with the gorillas since all three
divergences occurred almost, but not quite, simultaneously in
geological time).
> It IS that simple.
Well, for people who insist on kindergarten taxonomy and cannot think
past a dichotomy involving the first two possibilities that comes to
his mind, everything is simple.
RAM
You really get silly and snotty when you can't respond.
Your question doesn't have a any substance just like you. It was
relevant in 19th century thinking but we have progressed. Well at
least some of us.
Free Lunch
in talk.origins:
Whichever way you look at it, humans and the other chimps are closely
related.
Free Lunch
<allse...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
I don't claim He is. Your doctrines force us to conclude that you are
saying that He is intentionally misleading us by providing evidence that
is in conflict with your doctrine.
You have to choose:
Your current doctrines teach that God intentionally misleads us by
planting false evidence.
Your alternative is to admit that you teach false doctrines because you
do not like the implications of the evidence that exists.
You have no other choices.
Dan Listermann
"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:leqdnblz56V...@giganews.com...
chimps evolved from humans.
.
Free Lunch
talk.origins:
>Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 06:29:11 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>> <allse...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>>
>>> On Dec 24, 7:43 am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>>>> "With me," he said, the horrid doubt
>>>> always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been
>>>> developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all
>>>> trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind,
>>>> if there are any convictions in such a mind?
>>>>
>>>> Letter to William Graham, Down, July 3rd, 1881. In The Life and Letters
>>>> of Charles Darwin
>>>> Including an Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Francis Darwin (London: John
>>>> Murray, Albermarle
>>>> Street, 1887), Volume 1, pp. 315-316.
>>> There are only two (2) posibilties for the existance of mankind.'
>>>
>>> 1) God created man as described in the bible
>>> 2) God created man as described by the Sumarians
>>
>> Both have been shown to be wrong -- unless you are claiming that God is
>> intentionally misleading us.
>
>I would really, REALLY like to know how you in your infinite wisdom have
>accomplished what many philosophers are still struggling with.
I cannot think of a single philosopher who is struggling with that
question. Please name some and explain exactly why they are struggling
with the idea that the stories told by the Sumerians and Hebrews about
origins are false and natural processes are valid.
>When I say that you're delusional and simple, I'm not kidding.
No doubt you are not. That does not make you correct.
>>> Man is not a chimp
>>
>> You are wrong.
>
>Do you have anything to say about the paradox I started the thread with?
>Or are you going to content yourself with this BS?
You don't have a paradox.
heekster
>On Dec 24, 7:43�am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>> "With me," he said, the horrid doubt
>> always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been
>> developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all
>> trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind,
>> if there are any convictions in such a mind?
>>
>> Letter to William Graham, Down, July 3rd, 1881. In The Life and Letters
>> of Charles Darwin
>> Including an Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Francis Darwin (London: John
>> Murray, Albermarle
>> Street, 1887), Volume 1, pp. 315-316.
>
>There are only two (2) posibilties for the existance of mankind.'
>
>1) God created man as described in the bible
There are two accounts of the creation of man in the bible. Which one
are you referring to?
>2) God created man as described by the Sumarians
>
Assuming you meant "Sumerians", what are you referring to?
>Man is not a chimp
>
Thanks for that newsflash, einstein.
Jim
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 06:51:26 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
Well, yeah, there is another choice, supplied by the early Gnostics,
to wit: the entirety of physical creation is so foully corrupt that it
was clearly created not by the Light, but rather by a dark demigod
(Satan, if you will) who was Itself created either by God or by higher
creator beings created by God. By this thinking God is one or two
layers removed from the actual creation of the physical world, and the
dark Creator being would of course stuff Its creation just chock full
of misleading and false bits to further lead us away from the Light.
Indeed, there are hints of this in Genesis where it is said that the
Creator made Light. Since God IS Light (by the early Gnostic
reasoning), the only way for that bit of Genesis to be true is if the
Creator of the Universe was not God, but a lesser, Dark being who
created the illusion of light. Kind of pessimistic, but there it is.
heekster
No, you were not hand picked.
As for your stupidity, it speaks for itself.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
I see the argument. It seems to be a rather pointless way to try to make
conflicting doctrines work together and takes some logical legerdemain
to do so.
Nashton
Because you can't think or are ill-informed/uneducated or clueless.
Here you uneducated king of meaningless one-liners:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Philosophers_of_science
>
>> When I say that you're delusional and simple, I'm not kidding.
>
> No doubt you are not. That does not make you correct.
Idiocy #2
>
>>>> Man is not a chimp
>>> You are wrong.
>> Do you have anything to say about the paradox I started the thread with?
>> Or are you going to content yourself with this BS?
>
> You don't have a paradox.
Prove that I don't.
TomS
<2n47j5tsj88a58d4b...@4ax.com>, heekster stated..."[...snip...]
>>Sometimes I have to wonder if the posters in here were hand-picked for
>>their stupidity.
>
>No, you were not hand picked.
Not by design.
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
Dan Listermann
"Nashton" <n...@nana.ca> wrote in message
news:hh00qn$so3$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 06:29:11 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>> <allse...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>>
>>> On Dec 24, 7:43 am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>>>> "With me," he said, the horrid doubt
>>>> always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been
>>>> developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at
>>>> all
>>>> trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind,
>>>> if there are any convictions in such a mind?
>>>>
>>>> Letter to William Graham, Down, July 3rd, 1881. In The Life and Letters
>>>> of Charles Darwin
>>>> Including an Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Francis Darwin (London: John
>>>> Murray, Albermarle
>>>> Street, 1887), Volume 1, pp. 315-316.
>>> There are only two (2) posibilties for the existance of mankind.'
>>>
>>> 1) God created man as described in the bible
>>> 2) God created man as described by the Sumarians
>>
>> Both have been shown to be wrong -- unless you are claiming that God is
>> intentionally misleading us.
>
> I would really, REALLY like to know how you in your infinite wisdom have
> accomplished what many philosophers are still struggling with.
I suppose that, all things considered, there are some really poor
"philosophers" out there who are having a hard time giving up on their
bronze age goat herder babble. There are nutcases everywhere.
.
Wombat
> "John Harshman" <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
That could be construed as being an insult to chimps.
Wombat
RAM
Snip
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Philosophers_of_science
>
From that list I recommend for you edification:
James Robert Brown
Helen Longino
Elliot Sober
The last understands science best. He understands methodological
strategies and research techniques and not just theory construction.
I'll bet you would learn something and it would positively affect you
conduct on TO.
Dan Listermann
"Wombat" <tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote in message
news:83bee684-821a-41c8...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
.
Ray Martinez
> "With me," he said, the horrid doubt
> always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been
> developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all
> trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind,
> if there are any convictions in such a mind?
>
> Letter to William Graham, Down, July 3rd, 1881. In The Life and Letters
> of Charles Darwin
> Including an Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Francis Darwin (London: John
> Murray, Albermarle
> Street, 1887), Volume 1, pp. 315-316.
Ultimate context (and other such quotes):
Darwin trusted his mind when it came to ascertaining evolution. But
when it came to the appearance of design, he said the mind is
untrustworthy, having arisen from the mind of a monkey. No one could
be this hypocritical; Darwin was deluded-deceived (like all
evolutionists).
Ray
RAM
What you say is always silly but:
Have a Merry Christmas!
hersheyh
> On Dec 24, 5:43�am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>
> > "With me," he said, the horrid doubt
> > always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been
> > developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all
> > trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind,
> > if there are any convictions in such a mind?
>
> > Letter to William Graham, Down, July 3rd, 1881. In The Life and Letters
> > of Charles Darwin
> > Including an Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Francis Darwin (London: John
> > Murray, Albermarle
> > Street, 1887), Volume 1, pp. 315-316.
>
> Ultimate context (and other such quotes):
>
> Darwin trusted his mind when it came to ascertaining evolution.
Not a problem you have. No one in his right mind would trust your
mind when it comes to evaluating evolution or even describing what it
is.
BTW, is this next year going to be *the* year when your manuscript
will surface?
M
>> On Dec 24, 5:43 am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> "With me," he said, the horrid doubt
>>> always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been
>>> developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or
>>> at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a
>>> monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?
>>
>>> Letter to William Graham, Down, July 3rd, 1881. In The Life and
>>> Letters of Charles Darwin
That is in fact a beautiful thought that radiates intelligence and integrity
in equal measure. Darwin was an inspiring man and mind. A beacon to
humanity. And to see you creationists trying to wipe your arses on him day
after day just shows the world *how low humanity can sink*...
M.
Ray Martinez
> On Dec 24, 3:33�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 24, 5:43�am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>
> > > "With me," he said, the horrid doubt
> > > always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been
> > > developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all
> > > trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind,
> > > if there are any convictions in such a mind?
>
> > > Letter to William Graham, Down, July 3rd, 1881. In The Life and Letters
> > > of Charles Darwin
> > > Including an Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Francis Darwin (London: John
> > > Murray, Albermarle
> > > Street, 1887), Volume 1, pp. 315-316.
>
> > Ultimate context (and other such quotes):
>
> > Darwin trusted his mind when it came to ascertaining evolution.
>
> Not a problem you have. �No one in his right mind would trust your
> mind when it comes to evaluating evolution or even describing what it
> is.
>
ALL of my claims concerning evolution are derived from big name
evolution and anti-evolution scholars, including Darwin.
> BTW, is this next year going to be *the* year when your manuscript
> will surface?
>
I am working as fast as I can. It takes time to establish facts,
gather evidence. This is a major project. I have a thesis and I have
the time and resources to work full time on it. So 2010 is looking
real good.
Ray
>
>
> > But
> > when it came to the appearance of design, he said the mind is
> > untrustworthy, having arisen from the mind of a monkey. No one could
> > be this hypocritical; Darwin was deluded-deceived (like all
> > evolutionists).
>
> > Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Nashton
We wouldn't want to insult your idol.
Nashton
> On Dec 24, 3:33 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 24, 5:43 am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> "With me," he said, the horrid doubt
>>> always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been
>>> developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all
>>> trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind,
>>> if there are any convictions in such a mind?
>>> Letter to William Graham, Down, July 3rd, 1881. In The Life and Letters
>>> of Charles Darwin
>>> Including an Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Francis Darwin (London: John
>>> Murray, Albermarle
>>> Street, 1887), Volume 1, pp. 315-316.
>> Ultimate context (and other such quotes):
>>
>> Darwin trusted his mind when it came to ascertaining evolution.
>
> Not a problem you have. No one in his right mind would trust your
> mind when it comes to evaluating evolution or even describing what it
> is.
>
> BTW, is this next year going to be *the* year when your manuscript
> will surface?
How about your intelligence. Think it'll poke its head through the
surface anytime soon?
Devils Advocaat
And this from the man who thinks new species emerge through "creation
ex materia (from a clay-like ground)", which obviously forms the basis
of his whole refutation of the theory of evolution, but when asked
about this process cherry picks and misuses part of a Biblical verse
(being Matthew 19:26), "with God all things are possible".
Not exactly a scientific approach, actually more of a cop out.
Reddfrogg
> On Dec 24, 12:58�pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 24, 3:33�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 24, 5:43�am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > "With me," he said, the horrid doubt
> > > > always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been
> > > > developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all
> > > > trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind,
> > > > if there are any convictions in such a mind?
>
> > > > Letter to William Graham, Down, July 3rd, 1881. In The Life and Letters
> > > > of Charles Darwin
> > > > Including an Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Francis Darwin (London: John
> > > > Murray, Albermarle
> > > > Street, 1887), Volume 1, pp. 315-316.
>
> > > Ultimate context (and other such quotes):
>
> > > Darwin trusted his mind when it came to ascertaining evolution.
>
> > Not a problem you have. �No one in his right mind would trust your
> > mind when it comes to evaluating evolution or even describing what it
> > is.
>
> ALL of my claims concerning evolution are derived from big name
> evolution and anti-evolution scholars, including Darwin.
Ray, "derived from" does not mean "heavily distorted from". You
obviously don't understand the concept of evolution, or the science
that supports it.
>
> > BTW, is this next year going to be *the* year when your manuscript
> > will surface?
>
> I am working as fast as I can. It takes time to establish facts,
> gather evidence.
and a lot more to ignore the evidence, apparently.
> This is a major project. I have a thesis and I have
> the time and resources to work full time on it. So 2010 is looking
> real good.
In other words: Not this year either.
DJT
David Fritzinger
Nashton <n...@nana.ca> wrote:
> hersheyh wrote:
> > On Dec 24, 3:33 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 24, 5:43 am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >>> "With me," he said, the horrid doubt
> >>> always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been
> >>> developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all
> >>> trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind,
> >>> if there are any convictions in such a mind?
> >>> Letter to William Graham, Down, July 3rd, 1881. In The Life and Letters
> >>> of Charles Darwin
> >>> Including an Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Francis Darwin (London: John
> >>> Murray, Albermarle
> >>> Street, 1887), Volume 1, pp. 315-316.
> >> Ultimate context (and other such quotes):
> >>
> >> Darwin trusted his mind when it came to ascertaining evolution.
> >
> > Not a problem you have. No one in his right mind would trust your
> > mind when it comes to evaluating evolution or even describing what it
> > is.
> >
> > BTW, is this next year going to be *the* year when your manuscript
> > will surface?
>
> How about your intelligence. Think it'll poke its head through the
> surface anytime soon?
>
This is rather ironic, considering your posting history, Nashton.
Especially when compared to the posting history of Howard (Did I get the
name right?).
RAM
> hersheyh wrote:
> > On Dec 24, 3:33 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 24, 5:43 am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>
> >>> "With me," he said, the horrid doubt
> >>> always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been
> >>> developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all
> >>> trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind,
> >>> if there are any convictions in such a mind?
> >>> Letter to William Graham, Down, July 3rd, 1881. In The Life and Letters
> >>> of Charles Darwin
> >>> Including an Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Francis Darwin (London: John
> >>> Murray, Albermarle
> >>> Street, 1887), Volume 1, pp. 315-316.
> >> Ultimate context (and other such quotes):
>
> >> Darwin trusted his mind when it came to ascertaining evolution.
>
> > Not a problem you have. �No one in his right mind would trust your
> > mind when it comes to evaluating evolution or even describing what it
> > is.
>
> > BTW, is this next year going to be *the* year when your manuscript
> > will surface?
>
> How about your intelligence. Think it'll poke its head through the
> surface anytime soon?
You are an arrogant schmuck who knows nothing compared to him. We all
wish we were Howard Hershey when it comes to knowing biology.
Your nasty brain farts have left you a complete air head!
RAM
For another year of excuses for the mythical manuscript!
Richard Clayton
> "With me," he said, the horrid doubt
> always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been
> developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all
> trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind,
> if there are any convictions in such a mind?
>
> Letter to William Graham, Down, July 3rd, 1881. In The Life and Letters
> of Charles Darwin
> Including an Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Francis Darwin (London: John
> Murray, Albermarle
> Street, 1887), Volume 1, pp. 315-316.
What creationists never seem to grasp is this: It doesn't matter what
Darwin feared. It doesn't matter if he doubted. It doesn't matter if
he was a racist, or a communist, or even if he spent his evenings
twisting the heads off of kittens. Science isn't a religion and
Charles Darwin wasn't a prophet.
What matters� the ONLY thing that matters� is the evidence... which,
of course, provides overwhelming support for the theory evolution.
(I'm sure Nashton or ASI or Pagano will provide superficial denials,
but as regulars know, t.o creationists routinely flee from discussions
of evidence.) I'm sure the theory of evolution (like the theory of
gravity) will continue to receive revisions and adjustments, as it
should; that's how science works. But we won't suddenly discover the
universe was created 6,000 years ago, in seven days; the evidence has
spoken, and it just didn't happen like that.
Oh, and by the way, merry Christmas, everybody! (Even if you don't
celebrate the holiday, I hope it's a great day for you, full of
family, friends, and the best things in life.)
hersheyh
>
> > "With me," he said, the horrid doubt
> > always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been
> > developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all
> > trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind,
> > if there are any convictions in such a mind?
>
> > Letter to William Graham, Down, July 3rd, 1881. In The Life and Letters
> > of Charles Darwin
> > Including an Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Francis Darwin (London: John
> > Murray, Albermarle
> > Street, 1887), Volume 1, pp. 315-316.
>
> Ultimate context (and other such quotes):
In order to understand context, you might want to read the entire
letter.
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-13230
Not only will you understand the context of the exerpt above, but you
will also find a section that you can use to accuse Darwin of being
culturally biased against Turks. Of course, Darwin is not a God to me
and I understand him as a person of his times.
A similar thing can be seen with the founder of the Protestant church
(Martin Luther, not Billy Bob Gene Scott) and his views of what should
be done with the Jews from his writings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies
I presume that you reject this treatise and at least recognize its
role in anti-Semitism and the Holocaust. [Just to be fair, I do
recognize the role of Mendelism and some versions of Social Darwinism
in the Holocaust as well.]
Nashton
And where is your manuscript/thesis/dissertation?
If you're going to get all smug about what you perceive as being a
shortcoming in another individual, what about yours?
RAM
The MA thesis was on patterns of income inequality and changing
demographic patterns for the US. It tried for the first time to
assess the effects the distinction of nonwhite (mostly African
American next Hispanics, then Asians and lastly American Indians) in
1950 and Negro in 1960 had on understanding changes in minority income
differentials.
The diss is rather dry and 35 years old and it was on a Weberian
approach to political sociology analyzing the effects of social
inequality on political participation and voting patterns.
Now what are your science credentials that you so obviously arrogantly
feel you can tell the Howard Hersheys of TO that they don't have any
scientific evidence for the ToE? Where is your manuscript/thesis/
dissertation?
Snip
hersheyh
My PhD thesis was in Oncology (the study of oncs ;-) -- bad joke) was
from McArdle Laboratories for Cancer Research at the University of
Wisconsin - Madison. It was about the mechanism of DNA synthesis in
cell culture. But that was waaaaaay back in the ancient history of
molecular biology (1972). Which, you might note, was even before t.o.
existed. It's rather dated now. But it was 214 pages long and
actually included a bibliography with 158 citations and involved
actual independent research on actual cells, unlike a certain thesis
that has recently been discussed on t.o.
Now that I've shown mine, where is your manuscript/thesis/
dissertation? Was it also from Patriot University? Or was yours
repeatedly promised to be presented soon, like Ray has yet to do after
several years of promising?
> If you're going to get all smug about what you perceive as being a
> shortcoming in another individual, what about yours?
Don't worry. I am not a degree snob. If you can present a good
logical argument based on empirical evidence, I don't give a flying
fig if you clean stables for a living (creationists are good at
shoveling shit, so this would be a natural occupational ladder for
them). Nor would I care that you flunked grade school even though you
were home-schooled by your own mother (thanks mom). But don't evade
or make promises that you don't or can't keep or come in with nothing
but bullshit and invective. I enjoy using verbal stilettos to skewer
arrogant ignorants who know next to nothing (and are too
intellectually lazy to even look up stuff on the web) but still think
they have 'brilliant' arguments against science done by people who
actually do know stuff about biology. You know, people like you and
Ray.
John Wilkins
<lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 06:29:11 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
> <allse...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>
> >On Dec 24, 7:43�am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
> >> "With me," he said, the horrid doubt
> >> always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been
> >> developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all
> >> trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind,
> >> if there are any convictions in such a mind?
> >>
> >> Letter to William Graham, Down, July 3rd, 1881. In The Life and Letters
> >> of Charles Darwin
> >> Including an Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Francis Darwin (London: John
> >> Murray, Albermarle
> >> Street, 1887), Volume 1, pp. 315-316.
Often overlooked with this quote is that Darwin is talking about
*religion*: monkey brains are not reliable at finding out the existence
or nature of God. He most certainly does not think that monkey brains
are incompetent to find out about the *world*; in fact he clearly
thinks they can.
> >
> >There are only two (2) posibilties for the existance of mankind.'
> >
> >1) God created man as described in the bible
> >2) God created man as described by the Sumarians
>
> Both have been shown to be wrong -- unless you are claiming that God is
> intentionally misleading us.
>
> >Man is not a chimp
>
> You are wrong.
>
Kermit
<snip a bunch of stuff>
Here are two quotes:
> Who are you to decide whether it's meaningful or not? Are you *that*
> full of yourself?
and...
> CRAP. CRAP and more irrelevant CRAP.
Do you find their juxtaposition
A) Amusing
B) Baffling
C) Ironic
D) All of the above
Kermit
Erwin Moller
> On Dec 24, 7:43 am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>> "With me," he said, the horrid doubt
>> always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been
>> developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all
>> trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind,
>> if there are any convictions in such a mind?
>>
>> Letter to William Graham, Down, July 3rd, 1881. In The Life and Letters
>> of Charles Darwin
>> Including an Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Francis Darwin (London: John
>> Murray, Albermarle
>> Street, 1887), Volume 1, pp. 315-316.
>
>
> 1) God created man as described in the bible
> 2) God created man as described by the Sumarians
Look up "false dichotomy" one day.
I can think up thousands other explanations beside the 2 you conjured
up, here, right from my armchair.
Here is one for you:
-------------------------------------
There are only two (2) possible explanations for Madman's behaviour:
1) He is REALLY that stupid.
2) He is abducted by aliens and is currently under their control.
And Madman is not a chimp! It is THAT Simple.
-------------------------------------
Does that kind of logic ring a bell? ;-)
>
> Man is not a chimp
I think we can agree to that.
>
> It IS that simple.
Things are, in general NOT simple.
Some amongst us have this need to dumb things down to their own level,
and loose precious information and nuances in the process.
Have a nice christmas.
Erwin Moller
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
Burkhard
>
> > "With me," he said, the horrid doubt
> > always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been
> > developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all
> > trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind,
> > if there are any convictions in such a mind?
>
> > Letter to William Graham, Down, July 3rd, 1881. In The Life and Letters
> > of Charles Darwin
> > Including an Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Francis Darwin (London: John
> > Murray, Albermarle
> > Street, 1887), Volume 1, pp. 315-316.
>
> Ultimate context (and other such quotes):
>
> Darwin trusted his mind when it came to ascertaining evolution. But
> when it came to the appearance of design, he said the mind is
> untrustworthy, having arisen from the mind of a monkey.
This interpretation is as disconnected from the text and context of
the quote as your bible intrepretations often are from the text of the
bible. Darwin raises in the quote the _general_ question of the
epistemological implications of his theory, and that means he asks
also if he can trust his mind in ascertaining evolution.
Tristan Miller
In article <13469bc9-9323-452e-
a7f7-7a7...@v13g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, Ray Martinez wrote:
> I am working as fast as I can. It takes time to establish facts,
> gather evidence. This is a major project. I have a thesis and I have
> the time and resources to work full time on it. So 2010 is looking
> real good.
How can you afford to do this? Are you independently wealthy or do you
have a patron?
Regards,
Tristan
--
_
_V.-o Tristan Miller >< Space is limited
/ |`-' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- <> In a haiku, so it's hard
(7_\\ http://www.nothingisreal.com/ >< To finish what you
hersheyh
> On Dec 24, 12:58�pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 24, 3:33�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 24, 5:43�am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > "With me," he said, the horrid doubt
> > > > always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been
> > > > developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all
> > > > trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind,
> > > > if there are any convictions in such a mind?
>
> > > > Letter to William Graham, Down, July 3rd, 1881. In The Life and Letters
> > > > of Charles Darwin
> > > > Including an Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Francis Darwin (London: John
> > > > Murray, Albermarle
> > > > Street, 1887), Volume 1, pp. 315-316.
>
> > > Ultimate context (and other such quotes):
>
> > > Darwin trusted his mind when it came to ascertaining evolution.
>
> > Not a problem you have. �No one in his right mind would trust your
> > mind when it comes to evaluating evolution or even describing what it
> > is.
>
> ALL of my claims concerning evolution are derived from big name
> evolution and anti-evolution scholars, including Darwin.
Must be hard work mining out all those quotes so as to distort their
meaning. The only anti-evolution scholars with any scientific
credibility were prior to the death of the last creationist with good
claims to be a scientist, namely the openly racist Louis Agassiz.
Since a large part of your argument seems to be that Darwin was a
racist and led to the Holocaust, I would like to see your comparison
of Darwin with the old earth creationist Agassiz and the young earth
creationist Martin Luther (especially wrt what the state and church
should do to Jews).
Mitchell Coffey
> "With me," he said, the horrid doubt
> always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been
> developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all
> trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind,
> if there are any convictions in such a mind?
>
> Letter to William Graham, Down, July 3rd, 1881. In The Life and Letters
> of Charles Darwin
> Including an Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Francis Darwin (London: John
> Murray, Albermarle
> Street, 1887), Volume 1, pp. 315-316.
I suppose someone has already pointed out that Darwin specified the
conviction "of man's mind" that he was discussing in the sentence
immediately previous to the passage you quote. That was his "inward
conviction [...] that the Universe is not the result of chance." If
it follows one assumes he possessed similar doubt regarding our
capacities to reason-though questions of science, the lesson here is
it doubt works both ways.
The passage in fuller context:
"Nevertheless you have expressed my inward conviction, though far more
vividly and clearly than I could have done, that the Universe is not
the result of chance. But then with me the horrid doubt always arises
whether the convictions of man�s mind, which has been developed from
the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy.
Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey�s mind, if there
are any convictions in such a mind?"
See: http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-13230
Mitchell Coffey
Ye Old One
>On Dec 24, 7:43�am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>> "With me," he said, the horrid doubt
>> always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been
>> developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all
>> trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind,
>> if there are any convictions in such a mind?
>>
>> Letter to William Graham, Down, July 3rd, 1881. In The Life and Letters
>> of Charles Darwin
>> Including an Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Francis Darwin (London: John
>> Murray, Albermarle
>> Street, 1887), Volume 1, pp. 315-316.
>
>There are only two (2) posibilties for the existance of mankind.'
>
>1) God created man as described in the bible
>2) God created man as described by the Sumarians
We know, with 100% certainty, that both those ideas are wrong.
>
>Man is not a chimp
True, but we are the closest relative they have.
>
>It IS that simple.
>
The only truly simple thing is a creationist's mind.
--
Bob.
People may not always remember exactly what you said, but they will
always remember just how bright you made them feel.
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Dec 24, 8:33�am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 06:29:11 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>> <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Dec 24, 7:43�am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>> >> "With me," he said, the horrid doubt
>> >> always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been
>> >> developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all
>> >> trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind,
>> >> if there are any convictions in such a mind?
>>
>> >> Letter to William Graham, Down, July 3rd, 1881. In The Life and Letters
>> >> of Charles Darwin
>> >> Including an Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Francis Darwin (London: John
>> >> Murray, Albermarle
>> >> Street, 1887), Volume 1, pp. 315-316.
>>
>> >There are only two (2) posibilties for the existance of mankind.'
>>
>> >1) God created man as described in the bible
>> >2) God created man as described by the Sumarians
>>
>> Both have been shown to be wrong -- unless you are claiming that God is
>> intentionally misleading us.
>
>How is God doing that?
Gods don't do a thing, they are fictional.
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
Ye Old One
group when s/he wrote:
>CRAP. CRAP and more irrelevant CRAP.
All we ever get from NashtOff.
--
Bob.
NashtOff - the moron who claimed "All drugs are derived from the ToE."
Ye Old One
group when s/he wrote:
>Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 11:19:51 -0400, Nashton <n...@nana.ca> wrote in
>> talk.origins:
>>
>>> Free Lunch wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 06:29:11 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>>>> <allse...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 24, 7:43 am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>>>>>> "With me," he said, the horrid doubt
>>>>>> always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been
>>>>>> developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all
>>>>>> trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind,
>>>>>> if there are any convictions in such a mind?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Letter to William Graham, Down, July 3rd, 1881. In The Life and Letters
>>>>>> of Charles Darwin
>>>>>> Including an Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Francis Darwin (London: John
>>>>>> Murray, Albermarle
>>>>>> Street, 1887), Volume 1, pp. 315-316.
>>>>> There are only two (2) posibilties for the existance of mankind.'
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) God created man as described in the bible
>>>>> 2) God created man as described by the Sumarians
>>>> Both have been shown to be wrong -- unless you are claiming that God is
>>>> intentionally misleading us.
>>> I would really, REALLY like to know how you in your infinite wisdom have
>>> accomplished what many philosophers are still struggling with.
>>
>> I cannot think of a single philosopher who is struggling with that
>> question. Please name some and explain exactly why they are struggling
>> with the idea that the stories told by the Sumerians and Hebrews about
>> origins are false and natural processes are valid.
>
>Because you can't think or are ill-informed/uneducated or clueless.
Cries NashtOff at his refection in the mirror.
John Wilkins
<3c790aff-2f08-4543...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
I demur. Darwin is explicitly discussing whether the monkey mind can be
trusted on metaphysical matters. He is perfectly happy to accept that
it can be trusted on matters of observation and experience, given that
it evolved to do so.
Rolf
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 06:29:11 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
> <allse...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>
>>> "With me," he said, the horrid doubt
>>> always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been
>>> developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or
>>> at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a
>>> monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?
>>>
>>> Letter to William Graham, Down, July 3rd, 1881. In The Life and
>>> Letters of Charles Darwin
>>> Including an Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Francis Darwin (London:
>>> John Murray, Albermarle
>>> Street, 1887), Volume 1, pp. 315-316.
>>
>>
>> 1) God created man as described in the bible
>> 2) God created man as described by the Sumarians
>
> Both have been shown to be wrong -- unless you are claiming that God
> is intentionally misleading us.
>
>
>
What have I got wrong - I thought both Chimp, Bonobo, Gorilla, Orangutan and
Human are all APES?
Which leads to the conclusion that man is netiher chimp, bonobo or any of
the other. Nor is chimp not human.
Simple enough?
TomS
<261220091832168437%jo...@wilkins.id.au>, John Wilkins stated..."
Of course, some of those who use this quote of Darwin may not be
trying to use Darwin's authority, but merely like the turn of phrase.
Rather as Abraham Lincoln referred to the "house divided" from the
Bible not to claim Biblical endorsement for his stand on the fugitive
slave laws in the USA.
I still stand by my objection to the whole argument that it doesn't
have any special relevance to evolution, but clearly applies with at
least as much force (if not more so) to any claim about non-divine
dependency of human knowledge.
Humans do clearly do have knowledge about some things in ways that
are very similar to the ways that primates have knowledge. It would
be absurd to deny that, and absurd to claim that that means something
lacking in our knowledge. And mature humans know some things in ways
similar to the ways that infants do, by the way. And humans do grow
from fertilized eggs. And, of course, "mankind" is related to
"monkeykind".
>>
>> No one could
>> > be this hypocritical; Darwin was deluded-deceived (like all
>> > evolutionists).
>> >
>> > Ray
>>
>>
>
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
Free Lunch
in talk.origins:
>Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 06:29:11 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>> <allse...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>>
>>> On Dec 24, 7:43 am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>>>> "With me," he said, the horrid doubt
>>>> always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been
>>>> developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or
>>>> at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a
>>>> monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?
>>>>
>>>> Letter to William Graham, Down, July 3rd, 1881. In The Life and
>>>> Letters of Charles Darwin
>>>> Including an Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Francis Darwin (London:
>>>> John Murray, Albermarle
>>>> Street, 1887), Volume 1, pp. 315-316.
>>>
>>> There are only two (2) posibilties for the existance of mankind.'
>>>
>>> 1) God created man as described in the bible
>>> 2) God created man as described by the Sumarians
>>
>> Both have been shown to be wrong -- unless you are claiming that God
>> is intentionally misleading us.
>>
>>> Man is not a chimp
>>
>> You are wrong.
>>
>
>What have I got wrong - I thought both Chimp, Bonobo, Gorilla, Orangutan and
>Human are all APES?
Of the great apes, humans are most closely related to the chimps. That
was why Jared Diamond called one of his books _The Third Chimpanzee_.
>Which leads to the conclusion that man is netiher chimp, bonobo or any of
>the other. Nor is chimp not human.
>
>Simple enough?
Too simple.
TomS
<dn8cj51oeqk44u6l0...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch stated..."
The superfamily Hominoidea comprises the apes.
If one splits off the gibbons and siamang (the lesser apes), what
remains is the family Hominidae, or great apes.
If one splits off the orangutan, what remains are the African apes:
gorilla, chimpanzee, bonobo, and human.
>
>>Which leads to the conclusion that man is netiher chimp, bonobo or any of
>>the other. Nor is chimp not human.
>>
>>Simple enough?
>
>Too simple.
>
>>>> It IS that simple.
>>>
>>> You are that foolish.
>>
>
Ray Martinez
> On Dec 24, 4:28�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 24, 12:58�pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 24, 3:33�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 24, 5:43�am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > > "With me," he said, the horrid doubt
> > > > > always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been
> > > > > developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all
> > > > > trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind,
> > > > > if there are any convictions in such a mind?
>
> > > > > Letter to William Graham, Down, July 3rd, 1881. In The Life and Letters
> > > > > of Charles Darwin
> > > > > Including an Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Francis Darwin (London: John
> > > > > Murray, Albermarle
> > > > > Street, 1887), Volume 1, pp. 315-316.
>
> > > > Ultimate context (and other such quotes):
>
> > > > Darwin trusted his mind when it came to ascertaining evolution.
>
> > > Not a problem you have. �No one in his right mind would trust your
> > > mind when it comes to evaluating evolution or even describing what it
> > > is.
>
> > ALL of my claims concerning evolution are derived from big name
> > evolution and anti-evolution scholars, including Darwin.
>
> Must be hard work mining out all those quotes so as to distort their
Lie.
Exactly what you do. Like saying Darwin compared artificial selection
and natural selection to show how the latter works minus human
intelligence. He did so to show how the latter works minus
Intelligence since no one ever said human intelligence produced the
wild (obviously). In fact, I can't find even one scholar who has ever
said what you say. You are exposed as a brazen liar (as usual)
attempting to erase and distort the fact that Darwin was arguing
against Creationism-ID in "The Origin"----attempting to disprove the
scientific veracity of special creation.
Burkhard
Then you did not read John van Whyte's bool, which emphasises the
importance of Darwin's extensive studies on artificial selection and
animal husbandry for his theory? Or indeed Darwin's own book, The
Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication, which makes the
link explicitly, in particular at p. 432ff? Or Janet Bown's
assessment of the importance of artificual selection for his notion of
natural selection?
After all, artificial selection _is_ natural selection if you see man
as part of nature.
JTEM
John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> JTEM wrote:
> > I disagree, with both the wording and the implied
> > lineage. I feel it far more accurate to say that
> > Chimps evolved from �__US__ �than that we are some
> > kind of chimp... and I say that knowing that there
> > are few here who can acknowledge the "far more" in
> > the preceding.
>
> Perhaps if you explained why that's appropriate?
Even though I have in the past, many times, and I
have only recently documented you spilling blatant
lies in your pursuit of a pissing match?
Why didn't you say so?!?
Anyhow, hartmesh, there is a very strong likelihood
that the common ancestor between man & chimps was
bipedal in a way that only humans are today, and chimps
are not. It wasn't so much a case where we were like
the chimps and then evolved, it was a case where the
Chimps were like us, and then re-adapted to trees.
> I can't find anything
> in your link below that
It's only a conversation we've had dozens of times over
the years, but in your quest for piss you must pretend
that everything is created new with each post...
JTEM
Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> Whichever way you look at it, humans and the
> other chimps are closely related.
Agreed.
But humans & Chimps diverged from, say, Gorillas
at the exact same time. We are equal in generations
away.
Mitchell Coffey
> On Dec 24, 3:33�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 24, 5:43�am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>
> > > "With me," he said, the horrid doubt
> > > always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been
> > > developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all
> > > trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind,
> > > if there are any convictions in such a mind?
>
> > > Letter to William Graham, Down, July 3rd, 1881. In The Life and Letters
> > > of Charles Darwin
> > > Including an Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Francis Darwin (London: John
> > > Murray, Albermarle
> > > Street, 1887), Volume 1, pp. 315-316.
>
> > Ultimate context (and other such quotes):
>
> In order to understand context, you might want to read the entire
>
> Not only will you understand the context of the exerpt above, but you
> will also find a section that you can use to accuse Darwin of being
> culturally biased against Turks. �Of course, Darwin is not a God to me
> and I understand him as a person of his times.
Let me add here what I believe is an original point regarding Darwin's
comments on Turks in this passage. (Wilkins may wish to comment.)
The date of the letters is 1881. Darwin was a supporter of the
Liberal (a.k.a., "Whig") political party. William Gladstone, the de
facto leader of the Liberals, had been out of power from 1874-1880.
During that period, Gladstone had taken up as one of his leading
issues strident rhetorical attacks on the oppressive policies of the
Ottoman Empire ("The Turks") following a failed revolt in Bulgaria,
then a Provence of the Empire. My understanding is that historians
today generally conclude that Gladstones' rhetoric regarding the Turks
was sincere, not done for politically expedience, but overblown.
My point is that in the letter in question, Darwin wasn't randomly
choosing to pick on the downtrodden Turks. He was responding to a
highly visible issue adopted by the leader of his Party and then-Prime
Minister. While Gladstone was anything but a warmonger, his
positioning undermined the peace and stability of Europe, while doing
little to benefit the Bulgarians. Darwin, like most people of the
time, understood no strict line between biological and cultural change
among human groups. (Wilkins has a more subtle analysis regarding
this latter point.) Hence Darwin was arguing in the letter that
natural selection processes would continue then-manifest decline in
the Ottoman Empire. It follows from this context that Darwin argued
that the oppressions of the Ottoman would resolve themselves without
overt and direct action by Great Britain.
While Turks wouldn't be happy with Darwin's argument, it was calmer
than that of the leader of his own Party and many more of his
contemporaries, it was neither racist nor arbitrary, and pro-peace.
As a more general observation, Darwin would seldom apply natural
selection to social issues or public policy. When he did, in most or
all, as in the Graham letter, he use natural selection to argue in
favor of maintaining the status quo. By "status quo" I don't mean
necessarily a conservative or by modern standards objectionably
position. His position on the Turks was, as I said, pro-peace.
While, for instance, there were those at the time who claimed that
natural selection supported their preexisting inclination to oppose
assistance to the poor or otherwise needy, Darwin explicitly reject
that claim in (among elsewhere) Descent of Man.
For background and citations regarding Gladstone, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ewart_Gladstone . Comments
regarding Wilkins' analysis are from personal communication.
Mitchell Coffey
Bob T.
>
> Lie.
>
Love the new signature, Ray - it's perfect for you.
- Bob T.
john wilkins
Lacking easy access to the Internet, due to a move, and the fact that I
live in a third world country, all I can say here, is that for Darwin
and most of his contemporaries, "race" was a cultural as well as a
biological notion (British "race", for example). In fact, no clear
distinction between biology and culture seem to be widespread before
genetics becomes accepted. I'll elaborate when my Mac gets online.
Rolf
What IS the "scientific veracity of special creation."?
Where IS the evidence?
Darwin realized the DYNAMIC properties of life.
Darwin realized that the world is not STATIC.
The evidence convinced him, and us.
You are a Don Quichote, albeit less funny.
>
>
> The only anti-evolution scholars with any scientific
>> credibility were prior to the death of the last creationist with good
>> claims to be a scientist, namely the openly racist Louis Agassiz.
>> Since a large part of your argument seems to be that Darwin was a
>> racist and led to the Holocaust, I would like to see your comparison
>> of Darwin with the old earth creationist Agassiz and the young earth
>> creationist Martin Luther (especially wrt what the state and church
>> should do to Jews).
>>
>>
>>
>>>> BTW, is this next year going to be *the* year when your manuscript
>>>> will surface?
>>
>>> I am working as fast as I can. It takes time to establish facts,
>>> gather evidence.
Give us an example of your 'evidence gathering.'
This is a major project. I have a thesis and I have
>>> the time and resources to work full time on it. So 2010 is looking
>>> real good.
>>
>>> Ray
>>
All yoy write tells us that you are nowhere near finishing your silly paper.
You have already lost, the silly arguments that you keep repeating ad
nauseam here is proof of that.
bpuharic
>On Dec 24, 7:43�am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>> "With me," he said, the horrid doubt
>> always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been
>> developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all
>> trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind,
>> if there are any convictions in such a mind?
>>
>> Letter to William Graham, Down, July 3rd, 1881. In The Life and Letters
>> of Charles Darwin
>> Including an Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Francis Darwin (London: John
>> Murray, Albermarle
>> Street, 1887), Volume 1, pp. 315-316.
>
>There are only two (2) posibilties for the existance of mankind.'
>
>1) God created man as described in the bible
>2) God created man as described by the Sumarians
>
>Man is not a chimp
>
>It IS that simple.
since neither the bible nor the sumerians were around to see how god
created, and they have no viable mechanism to tell us HOW god created
ANYTHING
we can dismiss both regarding origins.
>
Desertphile
> "With me," he said, the horrid doubt
> always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been
> developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all
> trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind,
> if there are any convictions in such a mind?
>
> Letter to William Graham, Down, July 3rd, 1881. In The Life and Letters
> of Charles Darwin
> Including an Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Francis Darwin (London: John
> Murray, Albermarle
> Street, 1887), Volume 1, pp. 315-316.
Nobody gives a flying monkey turd what Darwin feared and did not
fear.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Christopher Denney
> On Dec 24, 7:43 am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>
> > "With me," he said, the horrid doubt
> > always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been
> > developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all
> > trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind,
> > if there are any convictions in such a mind?
>
> > Letter to William Graham, Down, July 3rd, 1881. In The Life and Letters
> > of Charles Darwin
> > Including an Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Francis Darwin (London: John
> > Murray, Albermarle
> > Street, 1887), Volume 1, pp. 315-316.
>
Incorrect, unless you can prove every other creation myth in history
false.
> 1) God created man as described in the bible
> 2) God created man as described by the Sumarians
>
> Man is not a chimp
No, chimps are our cousins, we come from the same ancestors, not the
same parents.
> It IS that simple.
Or are YOU that simple?