ye old one the plagiarist
el cid
"How does Religion account for Race?" thread
As one solution, you could run away and never come
back.
All-seeing-I
The phrase that best fits here:
"Run Forrest! Run"
Glenn
Or he could "run away", come back, "run away", come back...
Stuart
You're not one to talk.
Stuart
All-seeing-I
I do accept that none of you are educate-able
el cid
Kinda funny in how you are demonstrating you didn't
understand the movie Forrest Gump.
RAM
I see Forrest has had a good impact on you. He knows science. But
all you know is "bull shit" and then you sling it at science and hope
something sticks.
Keep it up Forrest; ASSinine is obviously piqued at your presence here.
RAM
So says the one who is profoundly ignorant of science methods and
techniques by which evidence is gathered and analyzed and subjected to
peer review.
You and the rest of the scientists on TO know damn well you are
ignorant and will remain scientifically uneducated or you would be
distorting empirical data from basic biological research rather than
engaging in the empty ASSinine assertion game that is your 10000 + TO
MO.
Ron O
Stupid is as stupid does. Adman has done it all.
Ron Okimoto
Caranx latus
<snip>
> I do accept that none of you are educate-able
Did you mean to use the word "educable"?
Eric Root
Where do you get that idea? None of my teachers have thought I was
uneducable.
Eric Root
Ye Old One
You do it enough so you should know.
Why not face up to at least these two examples of your past stupid
claims?
1) That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
[Message-ID: <e3xDk.44738$De7....@bignews7.bellsouth.net>]
2) That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
[Message-ID: <3Olyk.31543$Ep1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net>]
Now, all you have to do is justify them, with evidence of course, or
finally admit you were a fool to make them.
Or are you just going to go on being a cowardly lying troll?
--
Bob.
When D-G made Madman out of clay he forgot to magic the brain. I think
that explains everything.
Boikat
You're not even educable. Your statement is ironic that you would
make that claim, since you are the one who said:
"It is literally easier to believe "God Did It" and takes far less
effort."
Also, considering how many times your've asked for evidence of things
like speciation, transitional fossils, and so on, and were presented
with that information, you would turn right around and claim nobody
ever presented the evidence you asked for. So if anyone around here
is "uneducate-able", it's you, Monnnkeey-boy. Either that, or you are
simply a dishonest prick.
Boikat
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hey, It is not ME that believes a fairy tale like something as
different as a FISH can eventually give rise to something like a human
that flew to the moon.
THAT would be you evo-freaks.
You guys have a real problem with suspension of disbelief.
It does not turn off properly in your brains.
John Harshman
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 12:55:40 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
> <ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>> On Dec 28, 12:53 pm, el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Time to stop running and hiding from your plagiarism in the
>>> "How does Religion account for Race?" thread
>>>
>>> As one solution, you could run away and never come
>>> back.
>> The phrase that best fits here:
>>
>> "Run Forrest! Run"
>>
> You do it enough so you should know.
>
> Why not face up to at least these two examples of your past stupid
> claims?
>
> 1) That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
> [Message-ID: <e3xDk.44738$De7....@bignews7.bellsouth.net>]
>
> 2) That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
> [Message-ID: <3Olyk.31543$Ep1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net>]
>
> Now, all you have to do is justify them, with evidence of course, or
> finally admit you were a fool to make them.
>
> Or are you just going to go on being a cowardly lying troll?
>
>
(Don't think he's cowardly or lying either, not exactly. He runs away a
lot, true. And he has no great regard for the truth. But he's not
organized enough to attribute that to either cowardice or mendacity.)
Boikat
> On Dec 28, 6:57�pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 28, 4:23�pm, Stuart <bigdak...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 28, 10:55 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 28, 12:53 pm, el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Time to stop running and hiding from your plagiarism in the
> > > > > "How does Religion account for Race?" thread
>
> > > > > As one solution, you could run away and never come
> > > > > back.
>
> > > > The phrase that best fits here:
>
> > > > "Run Forrest! Run"
>
> > > You're not one to talk.
>
> > > Stuart
>
> > Stupid is as stupid does. �Adman has done it all.
>
> > Ron Okimoto- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Hey, It is not ME that believes a fairy tale like something as
> different as a FISH can eventually give rise to something like a human
> that flew to the moon.
Yet, that is what several different lines of evidence indicate.
>
> THAT would be you evo-freaks.
As opposed to creatotards that say "goddidit!" because it takes too
much effort to learn actual science?
>
> You guys have a real problem with suspension of disbelief.
You have a real problem with reality.
>
> It does not turn off properly in your brains.-
That's funny, coming from someoe that also claims he has genes
"created' by aliens. It must have been the "stupids" gene, and they
gave you an overabundance. That must really suck.
Boikat
All-seeing-I
> Ye Old One wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 12:55:40 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
> > <ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >> On Dec 28, 12:53 pm, el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Time to stop running and hiding from your plagiarism in the
> >>> "How does Religion account for Race?" thread
>
> >>> As one solution, you could run away and never come
> >>> back.
> >> The phrase that best fits here:
>
> >> "Run Forrest! Run"
>
> > You do it enough so you should know.
>
> > Why not face up to at least these two examples of your past stupid
> > claims?
>
> > 1) That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
>
> > 2) That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
>
> > Now, all you have to do is justify them, with evidence of course, or
> > finally admit you were a fool to make them.
>
> > Or are you just going to go on being a cowardly lying troll?
>
> He may be a cowardly lying troll, but he seldom plagiarizes.
>
> (Don't think he's cowardly or lying either, not exactly. He runs away a
> lot, true. And he has no great regard for the truth. But he's not
>
> - Show quoted text -
I will assume there is a compliment in there. Somewhere. heh..
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Dec 28, 6:57�pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Dec 28, 4:23�pm, Stuart <bigdak...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 28, 10:55 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Dec 28, 12:53 pm, el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > Time to stop running and hiding from your plagiarism in the
>> > > > "How does Religion account for Race?" thread
>>
>> > > > As one solution, you could run away and never come
>> > > > back.
>>
>> > > The phrase that best fits here:
>>
>> > > "Run Forrest! Run"
>>
>> > You're not one to talk.
>>
>> > Stuart
>>
>> Stupid is as stupid does. �Adman has done it all.
>>
>> Ron Okimoto- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Hey, It is not ME that believes a fairy tale like something as
>different as a FISH can eventually give rise to something like a human
>that flew to the moon.
But that is what the evidence proves.
>
>THAT would be you evo-freaks.
>
>You guys have a real problem with suspension of disbelief.
>
>It does not turn off properly in your brains.
>
>
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
Science causes disease.
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
The [Dropa] stone is real, the troglodytes exist, the graves are
there, many books have been written on the subject...
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<jhar...@pacbell.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Ye Old One wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 12:55:40 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>> <ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 28, 12:53 pm, el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Time to stop running and hiding from your plagiarism in the
>>>> "How does Religion account for Race?" thread
>>>>
>>>> As one solution, you could run away and never come
>>>> back.
>>> The phrase that best fits here:
>>>
>>> "Run Forrest! Run"
>>>
>> You do it enough so you should know.
>>
>> Why not face up to at least these two examples of your past stupid
>> claims?
>>
>> 1) That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
>> [Message-ID: <e3xDk.44738$De7....@bignews7.bellsouth.net>]
>>
>> 2) That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
>> [Message-ID: <3Olyk.31543$Ep1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net>]
>>
>> Now, all you have to do is justify them, with evidence of course, or
>> finally admit you were a fool to make them.
>>
>> Or are you just going to go on being a cowardly lying troll?
>>
>>
>He may be a cowardly lying troll, but he seldom plagiarizes.
Bloody rubbish. A very large slice of his stock material he gets from
creationist website and you know it.
>
>(Don't think he's cowardly or lying either, not exactly. He runs away a
>lot, true. And he has no great regard for the truth. But he's not
>organized enough to attribute that to either cowardice or mendacity.)
--
Bob.
Ernest Major
<use...@mcsuk.net> writes
Do you intend to address the prima facie case against yourself?
>>
>>(Don't think he's cowardly or lying either, not exactly. He runs away a
>>lot, true. And he has no great regard for the truth. But he's not
>>organized enough to attribute that to either cowardice or mendacity.)
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by All-seeing-I
<ap...@email.com>:
>I will assume there is a compliment in there. Somewhere. heh..
Absolutely! It's of the "He's probably not really an idiot
or a lying bastard, although he plays one remarkably well."
variety.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Ye Old One
I thought I had.
--
Bob.
"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product
of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still
primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No
interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."
- letter from Albert Einstein to Eric Gutkind, Jan. 3, 1954.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/13/peopleinscience.religion
Ernest Major
--
alias Ernest Major
Glenn
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 07:29:27 -0800, John Harshman
> <jharsh...@pacbell.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>
>
> >Ye Old One wrote:
> >> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 12:55:40 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
> >> <ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >>> On Dec 28, 12:53 pm, el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Time to stop running and hiding from your plagiarism in the
> >>>> "How does Religion account for Race?" thread
>
> >>>> As one solution, you could run away and never come
> >>>> back.
> >>> The phrase that best fits here:
>
> >>> "Run Forrest! Run"
>
> >> You do it enough so you should know.
>
> >> Why not face up to at least these two examples of your past stupid
> >> claims?
>
> >> 1) That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
>
> >> 2) That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
>
> >> Now, all you have to do is justify them, with evidence of course, or
> >> finally admit you were a fool to make them.
>
> >> Or are you just going to go on being a cowardly lying troll?
>
> >He may be a cowardly lying troll, but he seldom plagiarizes.
>
> Bloody rubbish. A very large slice of his stock material he gets from
> creationist website and you know it.
>
his own "ammunition" file as "useful bits that may prove useful one
day" and simply copies it from there? I'm not saying you are right
about ASI plagiarizing on a regular basis...it seems you do and are
willing to plagiarize and see no wrong in it. Is this not a true
double standard?
I'll leave you with the question of what the difference is between
taking material from a another's website and taking stored material
previously taken from another to use without citing source.
Tim DeLaney
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:58:25 +0000, Ernest Major
>
>
>
>
>
> >In message <5dfkj5lucu3q3jev2v26cokce6gtkhc...@4ax.com>, Ye Old One
> ><use...@mcsuk.net> writes
> >>On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 07:29:27 -0800, John Harshman
> >><jharsh...@pacbell.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >>>Ye Old One wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 12:55:40 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
> >>>> <ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Dec 28, 12:53 pm, el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> Time to stop running and hiding from your plagiarism in the
> >>>>>> "How does Religion account for Race?" thread
>
> >>>>>> As one solution, you could run away and never come
> >>>>>> back.
> >>>>> The phrase that best fits here:
>
> >>>>> "Run Forrest! Run"
>
> >>>> You do it enough so you should know.
>
> >>>> Why not face up to at least these two examples of your past stupid
> >>>> claims?
>
> >>>> 1) That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
>
> >>>> 2) That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
>
> >>>> Now, all you have to do is justify them, with evidence of course, or
> >>>> finally admit you were a fool to make them.
>
> >>>> Or are you just going to go on being a cowardly lying troll?
>
> >>>He may be a cowardly lying troll, but he seldom plagiarizes.
>
> >>Bloody rubbish. A very large slice of his stock material he gets from
> >>creationist website and you know it.
>
> >Do you intend to address the prima facie case against yourself?
>
> I thought I had.
>
> --
> Bob.
>
> "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product
> of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still
> primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No
> interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."
>
> - Show quoted text -
You haven't. Every post you make without addressing the
plagiarism issue degrades your credibility, such as it is.
I would suggest some sort of "mea culpa" with a resolve to
make amends in the future as best you can.
Tim
el cid
> In message <a6kkj5dlukpggckn4cn45efuhs4cs33...@4ax.com>, Ye Old One> ><{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >>In message <5dfkj5lucu3q3jev2v26cokce6gtkhc...@4ax.com>, Ye Old One
> >><use...@mcsuk.net> writes
> >>>On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 07:29:27 -0800, John Harshman
> >>><jharsh...@pacbell.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >>>>Ye Old One wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 12:55:40 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
> >>>>> <ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On Dec 28, 12:53 pm, el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Time to stop running and hiding from your plagiarism in the
> >>>>>>> "How does Religion account for Race?" thread
>
> >>>>>>> As one solution, you could run away and never come
> >>>>>>> back.
> >>>>>> The phrase that best fits here:
>
> >>>>>> "Run Forrest! Run"
>
> >>>>> You do it enough so you should know.
>
> >>>>> Why not face up to at least these two examples of your past stupid
> >>>>> claims?
>
> >>>>> 1) That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
>
> >>>>> 2) That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
>
> >>>>> Now, all you have to do is justify them, with evidence of course, or
> >>>>> finally admit you were a fool to make them.
>
> >>>>> Or are you just going to go on being a cowardly lying troll?
>
> >>>>He may be a cowardly lying troll, but he seldom plagiarizes.
>
> >>>Bloody rubbish. A very large slice of his stock material he gets from
> >>>creationist website and you know it.
>
> >>Do you intend to address the prima facie case against yourself?
>
> >I thought I had.
>
> I appear to have overlooked it. Could you provide a message ID please.
His first attempt to explain his plagiarism is here:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/6b8c4ba161db95f6?hl=en
He continues elsewhere. In summary, he thinks that by "virtue"
of having a stock collection of things he has copied word for
word from other places, he can cut and paste them in without
attribution with impunity. He even thinks it's a good thing.
So while he has accused others of plagiarism, he shows that
he routinely commits plagiarism himself and is so morally
bankrupt that he feels no shame in it. Worse, he advocates
it.
I await to see if the rabble that often join him in his
often vapid abuse of any creationists have the integrity
to censure him for his absurd and corrupt example.
RAM
Yes but you are still a loon who hopes he will get respect by good ole
boy gabbiness.
It doesn't work for me. You are a crazy ape with no sense of
reality. Any idiotic myth in ancient history has more reality than
scientific evidence.
God doesn't need or want fruit cakes in heaven.
Genesis 3:1 - 1
Dave Fritzinger
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> You haven't. �Every post you make without addressing the
> plagiarism issue degrades your credibility, such as it is.
>
> I would suggest some sort of "mea culpa" with a resolve to
> make amends in the future as best you can.
Yeah, I would go along with that. Most importantly, you should provide
the source of your quotes.
r norman
There have been rather an ample number of people who have censured him
for his behavior. His explanation fails on so many accounts that it
is laughable. That he chose to pull out his ancient stock attack
rather than explaining his own situation is characteristic of his lack
of integrity. So much for YOO. He is recognized for what he is. Why
would you not expect to find idiocy and lack of integrity and
unacceptable behavior on the part of some people who believe in
evolution? Such things are quite evident on the creationist side. It
is unacceptable no matter where and by whom. And it appears
unstoppable on this news group on both sides.
Why not participate in elevating the level of discussion here by
keeping to the high road, ignoring those who persist in personal
attack, name calling, foul language? Just let it lie there
unanswered.
John Harshman
Already has. To paraphrase: "Ain't no thing."
el cid
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 12:08:34 -0800 (PST), el cid
> >I await to see if the rabble that often join him in his
> >often vapid abuse of any creationists have the integrity
> >to censure him for his absurd and corrupt example.
> There have been rather an ample number of people who have censured him
> for his behavior. �His explanation fails on so many accounts that it
> is laughable. �That he chose to pull out his ancient stock attack
> rather than explaining his own situation is characteristic of his lack
> of integrity. �So much for YOO. �He is recognized for what he is. �Why
> would you not expect to find idiocy and lack of integrity and
> unacceptable behavior on the part of some people who believe in
> evolution? �Such things are quite evident on the creationist side. �It
> is unacceptable no matter where and by whom. �And it appears
> unstoppable on this news group on both sides.
>
> Why not participate in elevating the level of discussion here by
> keeping to the high road, ignoring those who persist in personal
> attack, name calling, foul language? �Just let it lie there
> unanswered. �
I hear you but ...
The fact remains that on usenet in general and on talk.origins
in particular pack behavior is perceived. Somebody presents
a bit of anti-scientific nonsense and people pounce, often
adding refutation of lesser merit than those that have
proceeded them. Decades of attempts to get people to read
prior refutations of nonsense prior to chiming in has not
worked. And on this front I do not profess innocence.
Further, while there is no actual co-ordination
in the CABAL, it plays like there is a concerted effort
to shout down anything critical of evolution. I'm fatalistic
enough to see that the medium and human behavior
patterns will keep it this way.
So I choose to play the roll of net.cop in the
"police your own" squad even though it damages what
could be my own reputation regards sanity and proper
scientific decorum. If this includes occasionally
hounding poster like YOO when they make idiotic
comments like
<quote>
All licensed drugs on the market today are tested with respect to the
theory of evolution. You cannot do modern biochemistry without it
</quote>
I will so hound him for a time. He may not be
worth the trouble but ignoring stupidity on the
part of proponents of evolution when so much is
posted attacking antagonists of evolution is counter-
productive to the valid mission of this newsgroup.
r norman
You are far from the group I am referring to. You just happened to be
the author of the piece I chose for my rant. I, too, sometimes try
to do the same as you, specifically chiding "evos" for particularly
bad logic and arguments. And I believe I am at the forefront of the
argument that, not only are virtually no drugs (if any at all) based
on evolution, but that a creationist can be a perfectly capable,
effective, and competent medical researcher or practitioner.
I gave up on YOO some time ago and he is in my kill file. As to those
on the vicious attack team, I have been told by some of them that that
role IS their particular virtue, here. That they have selected
themselves to do exactly nothing but make vicious attacks on
creationists. Over and over, totally mindlessly and foul mouthed --
that is their aim in life. So be it. There is nothing that can be
done about it except leave. So you can expect nothing from them about
YOO, they probably cheer him on.
Glenn
> is laughable. ļæ½That he chose to pull out his ancient stock attack
> rather than explaining his own situation is characteristic of his lack
> would you not expect to find idiocy and lack of integrity and
> unacceptable behavior on the part of some people who believe in
> is unacceptable no matter where and by whom. ļæ½And it appears
> unstoppable on this news group on both sides.
Such things are to me quite evident on the evolutionist side as well,
and evos vastly outnumber creatos here.
>
> Why not participate in elevating the level of discussion here by
> keeping to the high road, ignoring those who persist in personal
> attack, name calling, foul language? ļæ½Just let it lie there
> unanswered.
ļæ½
Kept to the high road there may only be three posts here per month,
boring as hell, and none in the spirit of discussing origins.
Your understanding of what constitutes elevating the level of
discussion likely varies with mine and others, as does what should be
or can be ignored or engaged.
Would you have ignored Wilkins' charge against me of dishonesty if it
had been directed at yourself?
r norman
wrote:
>> for his behavior. �His explanation fails on so many accounts that it
>> is laughable. �That he chose to pull out his ancient stock attack
>> rather than explaining his own situation is characteristic of his lack
>> of integrity. �So much for YOO. �He is recognized for what he is. �Why
>> would you not expect to find idiocy and lack of integrity and
>> unacceptable behavior on the part of some people who believe in
>> evolution? �Such things are quite evident on the creationist side. �It
>> is unacceptable no matter where and by whom. �And it appears
>> unstoppable on this news group on both sides.
>
>Such things are to me quite evident on the evolutionist side as well,
>and evos vastly outnumber creatos here.
>>
>> Why not participate in elevating the level of discussion here by
>> keeping to the high road, ignoring those who persist in personal
>> attack, name calling, foul language? �Just let it lie there
>> unanswered.
> �
>Kept to the high road there may only be three posts here per month,
>boring as hell, and none in the spirit of discussing origins.
>Your understanding of what constitutes elevating the level of
>discussion likely varies with mine and others, as does what should be
>or can be ignored or engaged.
>
>Would you have ignored Wilkins' charge against me of dishonesty if it
>had been directed at yourself?
You are right on all accounts here.
As to the last item -- Wilkins has shown by the caliber of his posting
to be someone to take seriously, even when (especially when) he is so
wrong as he was in that instance. Sadly, I should point out that in
several of these threads about YOO's dishonesty, you seem to have
chosen (or been goaded into) some behavior that seemed to me to
elevate the level of personal animosity unnecessarily. People who
agreed with you were subject to some seeming hostility because they
did not agree with you intensely enough.
el cid
> > is laughable. That he chose to pull out his ancient stock attack
> > rather than explaining his own situation is characteristic of his lack
> > would you not expect to find idiocy and lack of integrity and
> > unacceptable behavior on the part of some people who believe in
> > is unacceptable no matter where and by whom. And it appears
> > unstoppable on this news group on both sides.
>
> Such things are to me quite evident on the evolutionist side as well,
> and evos vastly outnumber creatos here.
>
> > Why not participate in elevating the level of discussion here by
> > keeping to the high road, ignoring those who persist in personal
> > unanswered.
>
> �
> Kept to the high road there may only be three posts here per month,
> boring as hell, and none in the spirit of discussing origins.
> Your understanding of what constitutes elevating the level of
> discussion likely varies with mine and others, as does what should be
> or can be ignored or engaged.
>
> Would you have ignored Wilkins' charge against me of dishonesty if it
> had been directed at yourself?
I agree with Wilkins. He presented you with basic
logic. If X then Y. You were complaining he did not say Y.
He pointed to the reason he did not personally verify X
and so said, "if X then Y". You don't seem to get it.
You also deleted his reason for not verifying X when you
attacked him. I agree your posting was dishonest (on top
of demonstrating a lack of logical thinking).
What you further don't seem to realize is that your
misbehavior lends support to YOO. One metaphorically
feces covered wrestler doesn't look as insane when
you similarly smear yourself so enthusiastically.
Glenn
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 14:52:47 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
Not true of the last. But there is no shortfall of that type of
behavior here, and I can understand how it may seem to be to you. But
haven't you just engaged in a little of what you have advised to
ignore?
Glenn
You really need all your eggs in one basket before accusing others of
serious flaws. First of all I was not "complaining", merely stating a
fact that "if X then Y" does not constitute "Y".
> He pointed to the reason he did not personally verify X
> and so said, "if X then Y". You don't seem to get it.
Get what? If he didn't personally verify X he could not have,
according to his own logic, claimed "Y". Yet he did, in his second
statement.
> You also deleted his reason for not verifying X when you
> attacked him. I agree your posting was dishonest (on top
> of demonstrating a lack of logical thinking).
And this, the heart of the matter, is left bare, without a hint of
reasoning.
I did not attack him for not verifying X. I attacked him for claiming
"Y" via "if X then Y".
>
> What you further don't seem to realize is that your
> misbehavior lends support to YOO. One metaphorically
> feces covered wrestler doesn't look as insane when
> you similarly smear yourself so enthusiastically.
I disagree, but likely to fall on deaf ears.
Ron O
Just another example of how stupid is as stupid does. An incompetent
that doesn't even know when he is holding the short end of the stick.
Got any honest and valid anti-evolution arguments that you have
found? Why haven't you found any if someone else believes the fairy
tales?
Ron Okimoto
r norman
wrote:
>On Dec 29, 4:05�pm, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
Of course I have -- otherwise I wouldn't bother with t.o. at all. I
even recall you and I going a few rounds in years past, if you are the
same Glenn. But although I recall you can get a bit cranky (as do we
all at times) you are more engaging and more interesting and present
far better information than, say, those in the category like
All-Seeing. He, like YOO, is in my kill file. You are not.
Glenn
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 15:16:26 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
In other words, I am in the good graces of a hypocrite? 8-|())
r norman
wrote:
>On Dec 29, 5:15�pm, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
I have been called far worse. I am even guilty of being far worse.
Besides, you do it so gracefully, I can't complain.
Glenn
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:25:34 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
This doesn't mean we'll be swapping spit till the wee hours of the
morning.
All-seeing-I
This IS an honest argument.
You guys keep talking the talk, but you do not walk the walk.
Your ToE reads like a B-Grade science-fiction movie.
Is the earth actually the "Planet of the Apes"?
Is "the Blob" going select you for extinction?
Will "The Mummy" return to life and reveal it's DNA to be that of a
Chimp?
Is there anything observable on this planet right now that suggest
fish can mutate their way into becoming human beings, that in turn
became so intelligent they could fly to the moon?
WTF are you people thinking for chrissake.
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
That is exactly what they do. And they make real science look quite
bad.
Ye Old One
Certainly. Message-ID: <hcqjj5dk63ua6f5fs...@4ax.com>
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<elcid...@gmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>So I choose to play the roll of net.cop in the
>"police your own" squad even though it damages what
>could be my own reputation regards sanity and proper
>scientific decorum. If this includes occasionally
>hounding poster like YOO when they make idiotic
>comments like
>
><quote>
>All licensed drugs on the market today are tested with respect to the
>theory of evolution. You cannot do modern biochemistry without it
></quote>
You have a problem with that statement?
You are aware, I would hope, that I gave further explanations
regarding that? You will also be aware that all drugs have to be
tested, by law? Both in isolation and often in the form of drug
cocktails? You will also be aware, I hope, that said testing has to be
appropriate so as to avoid the disaster like thalidomide?
You would also, I presume, be aware that the ToE underpins modern
biology?
http://www.nature.org.uk/nature-online/evolution/how-did-evol-theory-develop/the-story/index.html
http://www.scienceinpublic.com/blog/evolution/darwin-150
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4552466.stm
and that is just the first few I found.
--
Bob.
Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture,
medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area
of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no
biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with
which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's
Statement on Evolution. http://www.botany.org/outreach/evolution.php
raven1
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
Really? It sounds like a combination of Argument from Personal
Incredulity, and sheer determination to ignore the overwhelming
evidence for evolution no matter how often it is presented to you.
el cid
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:51:42 -0800 (PST), el cid
> <elcidbi...@gmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >So I choose to play the roll of net.cop in the
> >"police your own" squad even though it damages what
> >could be my own reputation regards sanity and proper
> >scientific decorum. If this includes occasionally
> >hounding poster like YOO when they make idiotic
> >comments like
>
> ><quote>
> >All licensed drugs on the market today are tested with respect to the
> >theory of evolution. You cannot do modern biochemistry without it
> ></quote>
>
> You have a problem with that statement?
>
> You are aware, I would hope, that I gave further explanations
> regarding that? You will also be aware that all drugs have to be
> tested, by law? Both in isolation and often in the form of drug
> cocktails? You will also be aware, I hope, that said testing has to be
> appropriate so as to avoid the disaster like thalidomide?
> You would also, I presume, be aware that the ToE underpins modern
> and that is just the first few I found.
Your conviction is laughably wrong.
We know you can copy and paste text but it seems you seldom
understand what you copy and paste.
Here's where we did this before.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/96cdb95855d462d5/da94d45b425a5f6a
Your comments about biochemistry are as readily refuted
as any. In the referenced thread I cited the current
issue of "Annual Reviews of Biochemistry" and the
articles it contained showing how they fail to support
your assertion about doing biochemistry. You
ran away. That's posting #28 in the google view cited.
I note that even within that thread you tempered
your statement some in response to Ernest Major.
As you don't understand the words you copy and
paste, you likely don't remember why.
I know you can parrot comments about evolution
underlying all of modern biology but clearly you
do not understand what that really means.
You clearly don't understand what happened with
thalidomide. Interestingly, you call the US
scientifically backwards when the US FDA never
approved thalidomide when Europe did. You don't
understand pharmaceutical/toxicological testing
but you pipe off with pretense of authority on
the topic.
Your ignorance on these and other topics are
related to your recently exposed plagiarism.
Beyond the basic morality of not repeating
- word for word - that which you did not write
and passing it off as your own, plagiarism is
a vacant intellectual enterprise where words
you do not even understand get repeated. It's
mock knowledge and makes a mockery of knowledge.
You have a negative impact on the side of
science in talk.origins. Why don't you just
do science a favor and go away.
r norman
I completely endorse El Cid's comments.
Furthermore, I would like to ask you, YOO, two things.
First, you emphasize as your first point how drugs have to be tested
by law. Specifically, could you describe exactly how Clinical Trials,
Phases 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4, are designed in accordance with the Theory
of Evolution or, indeed, how they have anything whatsoever to do with
the theory of evolution? In case you are not familiar with the notion
of Clinical Trials, oreven of drug testing in general as appears
evident from you response, these are all quite specifically human
trials that are required by law.
Second, you emphasize as your first point how drugs have to be tested
by law. Specifically, could you describe exactly how the very notion
of a clinical trial was first described by Avicenna in 1025 CE in
accordance with the theory of evolution?
That is just the first point in your response. I could go on but it
would be pointless.
Glenn
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:32:04 -0800 (PST), el cid
>
>
>
> >On Dec 29, 9:52锟絧m, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:51:42 -0800 (PST), el cid
> >> <elcidbi...@gmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >> >So I choose to play the roll of net.cop in the
> >> >"police your own" squad even though it damages what
> >> >could be my own reputation regards sanity and proper
> >> >scientific decorum. If this includes occasionally
> >> >hounding poster like YOO when they make idiotic
> >> >comments like
>
> >> ><quote>
> >> >All licensed drugs on the market today are tested with respect to the
> >> >theory of evolution. You cannot do modern biochemistry without it
> >> ></quote>
>
> >> You have a problem with that statement?
>
> >> You are aware, I would hope, that I gave further explanations
> >> regarding that? You will also be aware that all drugs have to be
> >> tested, by law? Both in isolation and often in the form of drug
> >> cocktails? You will also be aware, I hope, that said testing has to be
> >> appropriate so as to avoid the disaster like thalidomide?
> >> You would also, I presume, be aware that the ToE underpins modern
> >> biology?http://www.nature.org.uk/nature-online/evolution/how-did-evol-theory-...
>
> >Your conviction is laughably wrong.
> >We know you can copy and paste text but it seems you seldom
> >understand what you copy and paste.
> >Here's where we did this before.
> Phases 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4, are designed in accordance with the Theory
> of Evolution or, indeed, how they have anything whatsoever to do with
> of Clinical Trials, oreven of 锟絛rug testing in general as appears
> evident from you response, 锟絫hese are all quite specifically human
> trials that are required by law.
>
> Second, you emphasize as your first point how drugs have to be tested
> of a clinical trial was first described by Avicenna in 1025 CE in
> accordance with the theory of evolution?
>
> would be pointless.
What's really weird is that YOO should be at the top of his game right
now, and it seems he has tried to be careful and restrained and to
have made fewer posts today than usual. None of them however were
hardly any better than this one. This is one of the better ones IMO
but only because the subjects of plagiarism and copyright were not
raised. I'm considering the pointlessness of replying to the few
addressed to me.
I have not paid much attention to YOO in the past, only periodically
to see his modus operandi at work and unchanging. It was just on
chance that I opened the POTM nomination post and saw what didn't fit
and could easily be checked. Perhaps he just hasn't and won't get any
better than this.
el cid
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:32:04 -0800 (PST), el cid
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 29, 9:52锟絧m, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:51:42 -0800 (PST), el cid
> >> <elcidbi...@gmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >> >So I choose to play the roll of net.cop in the
> >> >"police your own" squad even though it damages what
> >> >could be my own reputation regards sanity and proper
> >> >scientific decorum. If this includes occasionally
> >> >hounding poster like YOO when they make idiotic
> >> >comments like
>
> >> ><quote>
> >> >All licensed drugs on the market today are tested with respect to the
> >> >theory of evolution. You cannot do modern biochemistry without it
> >> ></quote>
>
> >> You have a problem with that statement?
>
> >> You are aware, I would hope, that I gave further explanations
> >> regarding that? You will also be aware that all drugs have to be
> >> tested, by law? Both in isolation and often in the form of drug
> >> cocktails? You will also be aware, I hope, that said testing has to be
> >> appropriate so as to avoid the disaster like thalidomide?
> >> You would also, I presume, be aware that the ToE underpins modern
> >> biology?http://www.nature.org.uk/nature-online/evolution/how-did-evol-theory-...
>
> >Your conviction is laughably wrong.
> >We know you can copy and paste text but it seems you seldom
> >understand what you copy and paste.
> >Here's where we did this before.
> Phases 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4, are designed in accordance with the Theory
> of Evolution or, indeed, how they have anything whatsoever to do with
> of Clinical Trials, oreven of 锟絛rug testing in general as appears
> evident from you response, 锟絫hese are all quite specifically human
> trials that are required by law.
>
> Second, you emphasize as your first point how drugs have to be tested
> of a clinical trial was first described by Avicenna in 1025 CE in
> accordance with the theory of evolution?
>
> would be pointless.
I'd like to help him get started.
Here's the EMEA guidelines for preclinical testing.
http://www.emea.europa.eu/pdfs/human/ich/028695en.pdf
He can direct us to the part where the selection of
animal models makes reference to evolution.
I'd help further by citing some text from within:
"When the metabolite profile and the target for drug
activity in rodent are consistent with that of
human, the nonclinical abuse liability evaluations
should be conducted in rodents. Nonhuman primates
should be reserved only for those limited cases where
there is clear evidence that they would be predictive
of human abuse liability and the rodent model is
inadequate."
Perhaps he can opine on the choice of rats vs.
mice for the rodent model and how this relates
to evolution and why, in terms of evolutionary
relationships, specific rat, mouse, or guinea
pig strains that exhibit PK/PD profiles
more similar to human parameters, half-lives,
AUC, protein binding, bioavailability etc..
And I'm specifically asking for why you would
select Sprague Dawley rats over Wistar rats
respective to evolution.
Later we might discuss the various reasons
that rodent models are often superior to
primate models despite the sort of conclusion
a scientific neonate might leap to, especially
if they misunderstood the oft quoted sentiment
that evolution underlies all of modern biology.
If he needs time, perhaps he can wait and
bring his arguments to the next SOT meeting
where the authors of these guidelines often
discuss issues of safety testing. I could
introduce him to some of the key players.
Oh heck, I'm feeling so generous I'll help
some more.
ICH Topic S 7 A
Safety Pharmacology Studies for Human Pharmaceuticals
http://www.emea.europa.eu/pdfs/human/ich/053900en.pdf
Wherein one finds:
"It is recognized that there are species differences
in pharmacodynamic sensitivity. Therefore, doses should
include and exceed the primary pharmacodynamic or
therapeutic range."
And that is as much about evolution as you are
probably going to find in the guidelines for
humans. For veterinary medicine there are some
relaxations for approval in a species if testing
has been performed in a closely related (evolutionarily)
species.
As a final word, people should feel good about
this. Very talented MDs, pharmacologists,
pharmacokineticists, toxicologists and more
have concluded from lifetimes of experience
that phenomenology matters more than preconceived
adherence to oversimplified understanding of
biology. This isn't because they doubt the
truth of an evolutionary natural history for
humans (well not as a rule, there is some bias
toward bible belters in US toxicology but even
there I've only met a scattered few creationists).
It is because they recognize that real biology
is very complex as is drug safety. This can
partially be understood due to the very rapid
evolution of cytochrome P450s and other liver
enzymes responsible for detoxification (or
activation or toxification) of drugs. And
this rapid evolution is further understood
to be due to adaptive requirements of dietary
changes humans have faced with the enzymes
working on drugs being catch as catch can
solutions left over from those dietary and other
biochemical challenges. Add to this various
idiosyncratic factors involving immune
system effects in reacting to covalently
adducted drug metabolites and you simply
cannot rely on animal testing for more than
the grossest sorts of toxicity despite the
fact that many of us keep trying to do
better in predictive toxicology.
chris thompson
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:32:04 -0800 (PST), el cid
>
>
>
> >On Dec 29, 9:52锟絧m, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:51:42 -0800 (PST), el cid
> >> <elcidbi...@gmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >> >So I choose to play the roll of net.cop in the
> >> >"police your own" squad even though it damages what
> >> >could be my own reputation regards sanity and proper
> >> >scientific decorum. If this includes occasionally
> >> >hounding poster like YOO when they make idiotic
> >> >comments like
>
> >> ><quote>
> >> >All licensed drugs on the market today are tested with respect to the
> >> >theory of evolution. You cannot do modern biochemistry without it
> >> ></quote>
>
> >> You have a problem with that statement?
>
> >> You are aware, I would hope, that I gave further explanations
> >> regarding that? You will also be aware that all drugs have to be
> >> tested, by law? Both in isolation and often in the form of drug
> >> cocktails? You will also be aware, I hope, that said testing has to be
> >> appropriate so as to avoid the disaster like thalidomide?
> >> You would also, I presume, be aware that the ToE underpins modern
> >> biology?http://www.nature.org.uk/nature-online/evolution/how-did-evol-theory-...
>
> >Your conviction is laughably wrong.
> >We know you can copy and paste text but it seems you seldom
> >understand what you copy and paste.
> >Here's where we did this before.
> Phases 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4, are designed in accordance with the Theory
> of Evolution or, indeed, how they have anything whatsoever to do with
> of Clinical Trials, oreven of 锟絛rug testing in general as appears
> evident from you response, 锟絫hese are all quite specifically human
> trials that are required by law.
Let's make it easier.
Go back to first principles. Koch's postulates specify that
identification of a human pathogen can only proceed when the disease
is replicated in an animal.
Why was leprosy not induced in chimpanzees? Or gorillas?
Are humans most closely related to armadillos?
Next, why are models of disease so successful if close relatives of
humans are not used for experimentation? Why are rats used for obesity
experiments? Are there no fat chimps? My colleague was recently
successful in inducing human-like diabetes in pigs- should that even
be possible? The whole point of that exercise was to find a nonhuman
model by the way. And no, there was no genetic manipulation.
We need not go all the way to clinical trials to see that in the main
YOO was incorrect (as I said before). There are hundreds of animal
models that ignore evolutionary relationships for the sake of
applicabillty, efficiency, cost, or simple convenience. Our
medications have not seemed to suffer as a result.
Chris
>
> Second, you emphasize as your first point how drugs have to be tested
> by law. 锟絊pecifically, could you describe exactly how the very notion
> of a clinical trial was first described by Avicenna in 1025 CE in
> accordance with the theory of evolution?
>
> That is just the first point in your response. 锟絀 could go on but it
> would be pointless.
Ernest Major
overlooked it. Sorry.
That only addresses half the case. It explains how you came to post
someone else's words without attribution. While I don't expect
participants here to practice full academic rigour (which many of them
don't understand) on attribution, there are a number of reasons why you
should provide attribution.
1) copyright - society has agreed that people have property rights in
their prose (and poetry). I'm not convinced that post articles or large
extracts is justified on fair use grounds, but at the least one should
provide a link to the source.
2) verifiability - so that people can check that you've presented the
material accurately and in context.
3) reputation - in many groups reputation is a significant currency. By
failing to attribute you are denying the author the increment in
reputation that he is entitled to.
I understand that you have worked in an academic environment, and might
be expected to know better.
All this is assuming that you were just being reckless about attribution
(had failed to record the source, and were too lazy to relocate it), and
had no intention of passing the work off as your own.
It doesn't address the other half of the case. When the material was
nominated for POTM, you demurred, saying that you didn't think it was
good enough. As you don't really have the right to make that demurral
for another author, that gives a distinct impression that you were
passing off the work as your own.
At the time I nearly challenged you on your failure to disclaim
authorship, but I decided it wasn't ethical to do so without verifying
that they were someone else's words, and I didn't have time to do so
before catching a train. By the time I got back a week later I had
forgotten about it.
--
alias Ernest Major
JTEM
John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> To paraphrase: "Ain't no thing."
Ironic, isn't it, that a shameless lout
like yourself -- one who often lies his
ass off and then depends on groupthink to
redeem him -- would be amongst those
judging the behavior of others?
Nashton
> Ye Old One wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 12:55:40 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>> <ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 28, 12:53 pm, el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Time to stop running and hiding from your plagiarism in the
>>>> "How does Religion account for Race?" thread
>>>>
>>>> As one solution, you could run away and never come
>>>> back.
>>> The phrase that best fits here:
>>>
>>> "Run Forrest! Run"
>>>
>> You do it enough so you should know.
>>
>> Why not face up to at least these two examples of your past stupid
>> claims?
>>
>> 1) That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
>> [Message-ID: <e3xDk.44738$De7....@bignews7.bellsouth.net>]
>>
>> 2) That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
>> [Message-ID: <3Olyk.31543$Ep1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net>]
>>
>> Now, all you have to do is justify them, with evidence of course, or
>> finally admit you were a fool to make them.
>>
>> Or are you just going to go on being a cowardly lying troll?
>>
>>
> He may be a cowardly lying troll, but he seldom plagiarizes.
Nor does ASI abuse women, copy and paste articles in their entirety and
attribute what he said to others, like YOO.
YOO happens to be the slimiest, greasiest poster in here, good for
nothing and his presence is not really wanted nor is it necessary.
>
> (Don't think he's cowardly or lying either, not exactly. He runs away a
> lot, true. And he has no great regard for the truth. But he's not
> organized enough to attribute that to either cowardice or mendacity.)
>
Burkhard
Could one not backward engineer this argument? At least of you think
specicism is acceptable. We do not without need test medication on
animals that are so closely related to us, evolutionary, because that
would be just like testig the new itching powder on your mother rather
then the guy from next door. So the task for an evolutionary theory of
animal trials could well be to find that animal that is as distance
as possible, while still close enough to have acceptable predictive
power.
Not that I think that has anything to do with the way it is handled in
practice, animal testing became well established in the 18th century
and i can't see that the ToE improved much on these earlier "hands
down ideas
Ron O
Well, then you should be able to demonstrate that by putting up real
evidence that what you claim is true. So? Where is this evidence?
You can't just lie and expect other people to believe that your claims
are true when even you know that your claims are not true. Lying may
be a form of argument, but it is not an honest and valid form of
argument.
>
> You guys keep talking the talk, but you do not walk the walk.
You could demonstrate this for some, but it isn't true for the guys
that matter. I have a publication in the Journal of Molecular
Evolution. If you want I can give you the reference, and you can look
it up and tell me where there is a problem. You just have to face the
fact that reality passed you by long ago and ignorance and dishonesty
isn't going to change reality.
>
> Your ToE reads like a B-Grade science-fiction movie.
The sad thing is that no matter how bad you claim biological evolution
is, your alternative is so much worse that it wouldn't even make the
scale that claim for evolution. If evolution is a B movie, you don't
even have a movie. By comparison you would be equivalent
entertainment to a game of Telephone and you are the guy at the end of
the line of participants that gets the scrambled version of the
story. Really, demonstrate otherwise.
>
> Is the earth actually the "Planet of the Apes"?
No it is actually the planet of the prokaryotes. No matter how much
you protest, humans are still what are called apes. Why do we have
the body of an ape? Why is your upper body built for brachiation in
the trees? Why are we bone for bone, tissue for tissue and even our
DNA falls within all other ape DNAs. You can close your eyes and
pretend, but that isn't an honest and valid argument. Denial of the
facts isn't valid and honest.
>
> Is "the Blob" going select you for extinction?
Beats me what this means. Was "The Blob" a B movie? Your problem is
that you are a flat earther of the modern age. Ignorance,
incompetence and dishonesty isn't going to change that fact. Your
notions are already extinct, but you are more like a "Dawn of the
Dead" zombie that can't comprehend that fact any longer.
>
> Will "The Mummy" return to life and reveal it's DNA to be that of a
> Chimp?
Only in your fantasy world. They have tested the DNA of real mummies,
and the human mummies are human. They even attempt parentage
testing. How can they do that with just the DNA? It has something to
do with descent with modification. A real fact of life.
>
> Is there anything observable on this planet right now that suggest
> fish can mutate their way into becoming human beings, that in turn
> became so intelligent they could fly to the moon?
The DNA of extant animals tells the story. You may be too incompetent
to learn how to do the analysis, but there are many others that are
competent enough to do it. Denial is just stupid and dishonest.
Where is your anti-evolution argument as good as the DNA evidence?
There is a project underway to sequence the genomes of 10,000
vertebrates. Put your predictions in on what they will find based on
your model. The sad thing is that you can't make any predictions
based on your model. That is why it got tossed in the trash heap of
history. Biological evolution will be confirmed with the massive
amounts of new data. You are related to a fish, and we will discovery
finer details of just how you are related to that fish.
>
> WTF are you people thinking for chrissake.-
Your major problem is that you have given up on thinking. Where are
the honest and valid anti-evolution arguments? You have tried
hundreds so put up the ones that you have been able to verify are
honest and valid. Why is that a problem for you, but I can go to an
Evolution textbook and pull out all the honest and validated arguments
that you should want. Just one would be so much better than you have
done that you should just give up. There is a gap so wide there that
even you can't miss it. But you will miss it because you are one of
the rubes that are ignorant, incompetent and dishonest (a combination
of all three). Isn't it sad that there are political powers that
depend on guys like you for their existence?
Ron Okimoto
Greg G.
...
> Your ToE reads like a B-Grade science-fiction movie.
Then creationism is a script the Three Stooges rejected for being too
silly.
r norman
wrote:
John, what in the world did you ever do for this guy to so
relentlessly hunt you down?
el cid
Even if I had not read some of the clash up to this
point, I'd be tempted to answer such a question with
' he did something that threatened they guy's ego '.
The problem with such trite solutions to generic
problems is that they are hauntingly accurate.
Glenn
Not sure what you mean, unless it's an expression of self fulfilling
prophecy. There are many reasons why people react to perceived threats
other than just ego. It may be that reacting to threats to ego alone
is no more prevalent here than in general, but other reasons such as
threats to beliefs probably are. And most everything is included in
"beliefs".
Jack Frieze
>
> No it is actually the planet of the prokaryotes. �No matter how much
> you protest, humans are still what are called apes. �Why do we have
> the body of an ape? �Why is your upper body built for brachiation in
> the trees? �Why are we bone for bone, tissue for tissue and even our
Is this still the accepted wisdom? The 2 October 2009 _Science_,
in it's articles describing the 4.4 million BP _Ardipithecus_remains,
interprets the skeletons as lacking adaptations for brachiation,
vertical climbing and knuckle-walking and posits their development
after the human-chimpanzee split. I do realize the fossils were
incomplete and, to my untrained eye, of only fair preservation and
that I have not read any dissenting opinions.
--
Jack Frieze Cold of heart, dull of wit, short on guts, void of
soul
> DNA falls within all other ape DNAs. �You can close your eyes and
> pretend, but that isn't an honest and valid argument. �Denial of the
> facts isn't valid and honest.
>
> Ron Okimoto
Ye Old One
No, you are incapable of that.
>
>You guys keep talking the talk, but you do not walk the walk.
>
>Your ToE reads like a B-Grade science-fiction movie.
Only to an idiot like you.
>
>Is the earth actually the "Planet of the Apes"?
At the moment, yes, apes are in control - or so some claim.
>
>Is "the Blob" going select you for extinction?
Ah! Wondered where you have come from.
>
>Will "The Mummy" return to life and reveal it's DNA to be that of a
>Chimp?
Actually, yes, I think there are some ape mummies.
>
>Is there anything observable on this planet right now that suggest
>fish can mutate their way into becoming human beings, that in turn
>became so intelligent they could fly to the moon?
Yes, lots of observations.
>
>WTF are you people thinking for chrissake.
Got nothing to do with chris.
--
Bob.
You couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season in a field full
of horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the
clue mating dance.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>As to those
>on the vicious attack team, I have been told by some of them that that
>role IS their particular virtue, here. That they have selected
>themselves to do exactly nothing but make vicious attacks on
>creationists. Over and over, totally mindlessly and foul mouthed --
>that is their aim in life.
I don't know anyone who fits that bill. Certainly not "foul mouthed",
that seems to be totally the domain of a handful of creationists.
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
Ye Old One
Since you have shown, repeatedly, that you know nothing about
science...
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
Science causes disease.
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
The [Dropa] stone is real, the troglodytes exist, the graves are
there, many books have been written on the subject...
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
Wrong, which is becoming a bit of a habit with you.
>Here's where we did this before.
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/96cdb95855d462d5/da94d45b425a5f6a
>
>Your comments about biochemistry are as readily refuted
>as any.
Then go ahead and try.
> In the referenced thread I cited the current
>issue of "Annual Reviews of Biochemistry" and the
>articles it contained showing how they fail to support
>your assertion about doing biochemistry.
It is not my assertion, it is the assertion of the scientific
community. I've certainly given many example - do you want more?
> You
>ran away.
Pardon?
> That's posting #28 in the google view cited.
So what? Nothing you posted in any way refuted the widely held view
that evolution underpins all of the life sciences.
>
>I note that even within that thread you tempered
>your statement some in response to Ernest Major.
>As you don't understand the words you copy and
>paste, you likely don't remember why.
Since it was many months ago, no, I do not remember the details. I do
remember that we still have, as a fact, there very widely held view
that evolution underpins all of the life sciences.
>
>I know you can parrot comments about evolution
>underlying all of modern biology but clearly you
>do not understand what that really means.
Yes I do. It means that the majority of scientists agree that
evolution underpins biology.
>
>You clearly don't understand what happened with
>thalidomide. Interestingly, you call the US
>scientifically backwards when the US FDA never
>approved thalidomide when Europe did.
Yes, that is true.
> You don't
>understand pharmaceutical/toxicological testing
>but you pipe off with pretense of authority on
>the topic.
I do understand the testing, and understand what went wrong in the
thalidomide disaster. A lot has chanced since then, one of the main
things being a more careful consideration of animal testing -
something greatly influenced by our knowledge of evolution.
>
>Your ignorance on these and other topics are
>related to your recently exposed plagiarism.
>Beyond the basic morality of not repeating
>- word for word - that which you did not write
>and passing it off as your own, plagiarism is
>a vacant intellectual enterprise where words
>you do not even understand get repeated. It's
>mock knowledge and makes a mockery of knowledge.
If you don't understand you cannot select. Selecting is not just
sticking a pin in a pile of papers or generating a random number and
selecting that record from a file.
>
>You have a negative impact on the side of
>science in talk.origins. Why don't you just
>do science a favor and go away.
I could say the same to you.
--
Bob.
Thank you for setting aside the time to show your ignorance of
science. I will, of course, ignore it.
Glenn
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 15:48:08 -0700, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net>
> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >As to those
> >on the vicious attack team, I have been told by some of them that that
> >role IS their particular virtue, here. �That they have selected
> >themselves to do exactly nothing but make vicious attacks on
> >creationists. �Over and over, totally mindlessly and foul mouthed --
> >that is their aim in life.
>
> I don't know anyone who fits that bill. Certainly not "foul mouthed",
> that seems to be totally the domain of a handful of creationists.
>
Christopher Denney
[snip]
> Is there anything observable on this planet right now that suggest
> fish can mutate their way into becoming human beings, that in turn
> became so intelligent they could fly to the moon?
Yes, it's called DNA. We use the same DNA that fish do, just more and
differently arranged.
Is there anything you have observed that would prevent ANY given
configuration from morphing into ANY other, given time?
>
> WTF are you people thinking for chrissake.
You wouldn't understand.
At least we think.
Not much about Christ, though.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Dec 29, 8:51�pm, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:32:04 -0800 (PST), el cid
>>
>>
>>
>> <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> by law. �Specifically, could you describe exactly how Clinical Trials,
>> Phases 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4, are designed in accordance with the Theory
>> of Evolution or, indeed, how they have anything whatsoever to do with
>> the theory of evolution? �In case you are not familiar with the notion
>> of Clinical Trials, oreven of �drug testing in general as appears
>> evident from you response, �these are all quite specifically human
>> trials that are required by law.
>>
>> Second, you emphasize as your first point how drugs have to be tested
>> by law. �Specifically, could you describe exactly how the very notion
>> of a clinical trial was first described by Avicenna in 1025 CE in
>> accordance with the theory of evolution?
>>
>> That is just the first point in your response. �I could go on but it
>> would be pointless.
>
>What's really weird is that YOO should be at the top of his game right
>now, and it seems he has tried to be careful and restrained and to
>have made fewer posts today than usual.
It is christmas, I have family around.
> None of them however were
>hardly any better than this one. This is one of the better ones IMO
>but only because the subjects of plagiarism and copyright were not
>raised. I'm considering the pointlessness of replying to the few
>addressed to me.
>I have not paid much attention to YOO in the past, only periodically
>to see his modus operandi at work and unchanging. It was just on
>chance that I opened the POTM nomination post and saw what didn't fit
>and could easily be checked. Perhaps he just hasn't and won't get any
>better than this.
--
Bob.
Did you know that 1 in 4 people make up a quarter of the world's
population?
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>First, you emphasize as your first point how drugs have to be tested
>by law. Specifically, could you describe exactly how Clinical Trials,
>Phases 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4, are designed in accordance with the Theory
>of Evolution or, indeed, how they have anything whatsoever to do with
>the theory of evolution?
As I understand it, all new pharmaceuticals, and older once requiring
relicensing, have to undergo rather rigorous animal testing before
they can be licensed for human testing.
>In case you are not familiar with the notion
>of Clinical Trials, oreven of drug testing in general as appears
>evident from you response, these are all quite specifically human
>trials that are required by law.
But long before you get to the human trials there has to be animal
tests.
>
>Second, you emphasize as your first point how drugs have to be tested
>by law. Specifically, could you describe exactly how the very notion
>of a clinical trial was first described by Avicenna in 1025 CE in
>accordance with the theory of evolution?
Things have changed a lot since then.
>
>That is just the first point in your response. I could go on but it
>would be pointless.
--
Bob.
God: Whew! I just created a 24-hour period of alternating light and
darkness on Earth.
Angel: What are you going to do now?
God: I think I'll call it a day.
Ye Old One
<chris.li...@gmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Let's make it easier.
>
>Go back to first principles. Koch's postulates specify that
>identification of a human pathogen can only proceed when the disease
>is replicated in an animal.
>
>Why was leprosy not induced in chimpanzees? Or gorillas?
I think we all know that using our really close relatives would give
the best results. However, it is because they are so close that there
are ethical reasons not to use them.
>
>Are humans most closely related to armadillos?
>
>Next, why are models of disease so successful if close relatives of
>humans are not used for experimentation? Why are rats used for obesity
>experiments? Are there no fat chimps? My colleague was recently
>successful in inducing human-like diabetes in pigs- should that even
>be possible? The whole point of that exercise was to find a nonhuman
>model by the way. And no, there was no genetic manipulation.
>
>We need not go all the way to clinical trials to see that in the main
>YOO was incorrect (as I said before). There are hundreds of animal
>models that ignore evolutionary relationships for the sake of
>applicabillty, efficiency, cost, or simple convenience.
But the selection is a trade-off. And without the knowledge of
evolution it would be very difficult to weigh that trade-off.
> Our
>medications have not seemed to suffer as a result.
Our medication has improved as a result of our growing understanding
of evolution.
>
>Chris
--
Bob.
el cid
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:32:04 -0800 (PST), el cid
> >On Dec 29, 9:52�pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:51:42 -0800 (PST), el cid
> >> <elcidbi...@gmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >> >So I choose to play the roll of net.cop in the
> >> >"police your own" squad even though it damages what
> >> >could be my own reputation regards sanity and proper
> >> >scientific decorum. If this includes occasionally
> >> >hounding poster like YOO when they make idiotic
> >> >comments like
>
> >> ><quote>
> >> >All licensed drugs on the market today are tested with respect to the
> >> >theory of evolution. You cannot do modern biochemistry without it
> >> ></quote>
>
> >> You have a problem with that statement?
>
> >> You are aware, I would hope, that I gave further explanations
> >> regarding that? You will also be aware that all drugs have to be
> >> tested, by law? Both in isolation and often in the form of drug
> >> cocktails? You will also be aware, I hope, that said testing has to be
> >> appropriate so as to avoid the disaster like thalidomide?
> >> You would also, I presume, be aware that the ToE underpins modern
> >> biology?http://www.nature.org.uk/nature-online/evolution/how-did-evol-theory-...
> >> and that is just the first few I found.
>
> >Your conviction is laughably wrong.
> >We know you can copy and paste text but it seems you seldom
> >understand what you copy and paste.
>
> Wrong, which is becoming a bit of a habit with you.
>
> >Here's where we did this before.
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/96cdb95...
>
> >Your comments about biochemistry are as readily refuted
> >as any.
>
> Then go ahead and try.
>
> > In the referenced thread I cited the current
> >issue of "Annual Reviews of Biochemistry" and the
> >articles it contained showing how they fail to support
> >your assertion about doing biochemistry.
>
> It is not my assertion, it is the assertion of the scientific
> community. I've certainly given many example - do you want more?
No. The scientific community does not contend that
"You cannot do modern biochemistry without it [evolution]"
Those were your words even though you try to shift the
goal posts.
> > You
> >ran away.
>
> Pardon?
I gave you detailed refutation of you claim and you ran
away.
> > That's posting #28 in the google view cited.
>
> So what? Nothing you posted in any way refuted the widely held view
> that evolution underpins all of the life sciences.
Goal post shifting will not work.
Your quote is "You cannot do modern biochemistry without it"
That's BS. You were referenced the latest edition of Annual
Review of Biochemistry which showed the best of a years
biochemistry proceeding with essentially no reference to
evolution. You ran away, now you hide your head in the
sand and try to shift the goal posts.
> >I note that even within that thread you tempered
> >your statement some in response to Ernest Major.
> >As you don't understand the words you copy and
> >paste, you likely don't remember why.
> Since it was many months ago, no, I do not remember the details. I do
> remember that we still have, as a fact, there very widely held view
> that evolution underpins all of the life sciences.
Meaningless words.
> >I know you can parrot comments about evolution
> >underlying all of modern biology but clearly you
> >do not understand what that really means.
> Yes I do. It means that the majority of scientists agree that
> evolution underpins biology.
Still a goal post shift and meaningless words. The
words you used that have a tangible meaning are
"You cannot do modern biochemistry without it" and
that's BS.
> >You clearly don't understand what happened with
> >thalidomide. Interestingly, you call the US
> >scientifically backwards when the US FDA never
> >approved thalidomide when Europe did.
> Yes, that is true.
> > You don't
> >understand pharmaceutical/toxicological testing
> >but you pipe off with pretense of authority on
> >the topic.
> I do understand the testing, and understand what went wrong in the
> thalidomide disaster. A lot has chanced since then, one of the main
> things being a more careful consideration of animal testing -
> something greatly influenced by our knowledge of evolution.
Here's a link for you from _Animal models in toxicology_
http://books.google.com/books?id=Rno1rYxR264C&pg=PA5
Nothing about evolution.
Here's a nice quote from _Developmental Biology_
8th edition, Scott Gilbert Chapter 21
The thalidomide tragedy showed the limits of animal models as
tests of the potential teratogenic effects of drugs. Different
species (and strains within species) metabolize thalidomide
differently. Pregnant mice and rats�the animals usually used
to test such compounds�do not generate malformed pups when
given thalidomide. Rabbits produce some malformed offspring,
but the defects are different from those seen in affected
human infants. Primates such as the marmoset appear to
have a susceptibility similar to that of humans, and affected
marmoset fetuses have been studied in an attempt to discover
how thalidomide causes these disruptions.
Notice it say "limits of animal models".
Do you think these textbooks from the field support your
assertions about a consensus of the scientific community?
> >Your ignorance on these and other topics are
> >related to your recently exposed plagiarism.
> >Beyond the basic morality of not repeating
> >- word for word - that which you did not write
> >and passing it off as your own, plagiarism is
> >a vacant intellectual enterprise where words
> >you do not even understand get repeated. It's
> >mock knowledge and makes a mockery of knowledge.
> If you don't understand you cannot select. Selecting is not just
> sticking a pin in a pile of papers or generating a random number and
> selecting that record from a file.
I could write a script to match key words. You've
shown no more sophistication. If it were a Turing
test you would fail.
> >You have a negative impact on the side of
> >science in talk.origins. Why don't you just
> >do science a favor and go away.
>
> I could say the same to you.
You can say many things, few of them seem to be
supportable by more than your own assertion.
This is far from your field. You do not know what
you are talking about and don't know when to shut
up or admit you are wrong.
You parrot back things you don't understand.
I find this consistent with your lack of shame
in your admitted plagiarism.
Ye Old One
No problem.
>
>That only addresses half the case. It explains how you came to post
>someone else's words without attribution. While I don't expect
>participants here to practice full academic rigour (which many of them
>don't understand) on attribution, there are a number of reasons why you
>should provide attribution.
>
>1) copyright - society has agreed that people have property rights in
>their prose (and poetry). I'm not convinced that post articles or large
>extracts is justified on fair use grounds, but at the least one should
>provide a link to the source.
If a source exists.
>
>2) verifiability - so that people can check that you've presented the
>material accurately and in context.
If I had said "Fred Bloggs say [text] about this" then I would expect
to provide some verifiability to that. However, that is not how the
text was used, It was used as an explanation, to educate the person I
replied to.
>
>3) reputation - in many groups reputation is a significant currency. By
>failing to attribute you are denying the author the increment in
>reputation that he is entitled to.
You cannot always identify an author/source. Doing a quick scan of the
section of notes/aids provide by the local school for 4th year
biology, some 20 pages in total, a good 70% does not give a source.
Digging deeper, a lot comes from on-line teacher's resources like the
one I've mentioned. Nowadays the school has an intranet the students
and teachers can access, so less is now printed than it used to be.
This allows new material to be inserted quickly and changes made
whenever required. students have accounts which give them access to
those parts applicable to the course.
>
>I understand that you have worked in an academic environment, and might
>be expected to know better.
I have, but there are levels. What I would do if writing a book is
different from what I would do if writing notes for a class and that
is different from posting something on usenet.
>
>All this is assuming that you were just being reckless about attribution
>(had failed to record the source, and were too lazy to relocate it), and
>had no intention of passing the work off as your own.
Well, let me reverse this for a moment. I get some coursework in
from, for the sake of argument, a 14 year old. A set of questions were
asked and the student comes up with the answers. Do I expect the
student to rewrite everything in their own words, of course not. Do I
expect them to cite every source, again, of course not. By the time
they submit the work I want to see that have gained the knowledge to
use the available information to answer questions. Of course, they
can't do that without actually understanding what they are reading.
>
>It doesn't address the other half of the case. When the material was
>nominated for POTM, you demurred, saying that you didn't think it was
>good enough.
I don't think it was/is, it is a very basic answer as was very soon
pointed out.
> As you don't really have the right to make that demurral
>for another author, that gives a distinct impression that you were
>passing off the work as your own.
In the sense that it was my post, sure. An attempt to use the
information available to me to educate someone. Given the person in
question I did not feel the need to do much work but I did take the
time to search my own files to find an answer, even if it was not the
best.
>
>At the time I nearly challenged you on your failure to disclaim
>authorship, but I decided it wasn't ethical to do so without verifying
>that they were someone else's words, and I didn't have time to do so
>before catching a train. By the time I got back a week later I had
>forgotten about it.
And after the convincing demolition of the maths (which I really must
go into sometime) I dropped it, inadvertently marking the thread to
skip rather than as "download and mark read". That would have made it
a lot easier to find it.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
group when s/he wrote:
>NashtOff happens to be the slimiest, greasiest poster in here, good for
>nothing and his presence is not really wanted nor is it necessary.
Text corrected. The bill will be sent as soon as I have some spare
time.
--
Bob.
NashtOff - the moron who claimed "All drugs are derived from the ToE."
Mark Isaak
Personally, I take the dimmest view of posters who post unwarranted
accusations, even implied ones, of posters who spend most of their energy
saying how horrible one or more other people are, and especially of
posters who do the above behaviors repeatedly. Plagiarism deserves
condemnation, but it is not nearly as bad (IMHO) as being just plain
hateful.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
el cid
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 22:45:25 -0800 (PST), chris thompson
> <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >Let's make it easier.
>
> >Go back to first principles. Koch's postulates specify that
> >identification of a human pathogen can only proceed when the disease
> >is replicated in an animal.
>
> >Why was leprosy not induced in chimpanzees? Or gorillas?
>
> I think we all know that using our really close relatives would give
> the best results. However, it is because they are so close that there
> are ethical reasons not to use them.
As the saying goes, the problem of ignorance is not
what you know, it's what you "know" that isn't so.
The best animal models seldom are so simple as evolutionary
relatedness, the ethics and economics of animal experiments
aside. In fact, close relatedness isn't even a good first guess.
Glenn
> On Dec 30, 4:46�pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>
snip
>
> You parrot back things you don't understand.
> I find this consistent with your lack of shame
> in your admitted plagiarism.
I haven't seen YOO admit to plagiarism.
I think you should reconsider your position. You can't beat the claim.
Every bit of knowledge gained, whether by accident or whatever, can
and is atributed to and incorporated into the modified or added to
"ToE". Apparent consistent explanations can be and are provided for
anything and everything in biology. So any drug development can be
regarded as having incorporated all available existing knowledge at
the time, which is all included in the "ToE". It isn't just NS+RM=S.
Burkhard
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 07:15:36 +0000, Ernest Major
>
>
>
> >In message <c3flj55nef9cejhbgh43nlprfrokb3e...@4ax.com>, Ye Old One> >><{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >>>In message <a6kkj5dlukpggckn4cn45efuhs4cs33...@4ax.com>, Ye Old One> >>>><{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >>>>>In message <5dfkj5lucu3q3jev2v26cokce6gtkhc...@4ax.com>, Ye Old One
> >>>>><use...@mcsuk.net> writes
> >>>>>>On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 07:29:27 -0800, John Harshman
> >>>>>><jharsh...@pacbell.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>Ye Old One wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 12:55:40 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
> >>>>>>>> <ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On Dec 28, 12:53 pm, el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Time to stop running and hiding from your plagiarism in the
> >>>>>>>>>> "How does Religion account for Race?" thread
>
> >>>>>>>>>> As one solution, you could run away and never come
> >>>>>>>>>> back.
> >>>>>>>>> The phrase that best fits here:
>
> >>>>>>>>> "Run Forrest! Run"
>
> >>>>>>>> You do it enough so you should know.
>
> >>>>>>>> Why not face up to at least these two examples of your past stupid
> >>>>>>>> claims?
>
> >>>>>>>> 1) That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
>
> >>>>>>>> 2) That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
>
> >>>>>>>> Now, all you have to do is justify them, with evidence of course, or
> >>>>>>>> finally admit you were a fool to make them.
>
> >>>>>>>> Or are you just going to go on being a cowardly lying troll?
>
> >>>>>>>He may be a cowardly lying troll, but he seldom plagiarizes.
>
> >>>>>>Bloody rubbish. A very large slice of his stock material he gets from
> >>>>>>creationist website and you know it.
>
> >>>>>Do you intend to address the prima facie case against yourself?
>
> >>>>I thought I had.
>
> >>>I appear to have overlooked it. Could you provide a message ID please.
>
Really? Quite shocking. OFSTED and the Qualifications and Curriculum
Authority take a rather dim view on this and offer teacher training
how to spot plagiarism and cut and paste from websites. Your
hypothetical student should have clearly failed his task under
national guidelines.
http://www.qcda.gov.uk/10075.aspx
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2006/mar/03/schools.uk1
Strange that a UK based teacher should not know this.
<snip>.
r norman
>On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 21:31:30 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>>On Dec 29, 8:51锟絧m, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:32:04 -0800 (PST), el cid
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> by law. 锟絊pecifically, could you describe exactly how Clinical Trials,
>>> Phases 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4, are designed in accordance with the Theory
>>> of Evolution or, indeed, how they have anything whatsoever to do with
>>> the theory of evolution? 锟絀n case you are not familiar with the notion
>>> of Clinical Trials, oreven of 锟絛rug testing in general as appears
>>> evident from you response, 锟絫hese are all quite specifically human
>>> trials that are required by law.
>>>
>>> Second, you emphasize as your first point how drugs have to be tested
>>> by law. 锟絊pecifically, could you describe exactly how the very notion
>>> of a clinical trial was first described by Avicenna in 1025 CE in
>>> accordance with the theory of evolution?
>>>
>>> That is just the first point in your response. 锟絀 could go on but it
>>> would be pointless.
>>
>>What's really weird is that YOO should be at the top of his game right
>>now, and it seems he has tried to be careful and restrained and to
>>have made fewer posts today than usual.
>
>It is christmas, I have family around.
>
>> None of them however were
>>hardly any better than this one. This is one of the better ones IMO
>>but only because the subjects of plagiarism and copyright were not
>>raised. I'm considering the pointlessness of replying to the few
>>addressed to me.
>>I have not paid much attention to YOO in the past, only periodically
>>to see his modus operandi at work and unchanging. It was just on
>>chance that I opened the POTM nomination post and saw what didn't fit
>>and could easily be checked. Perhaps he just hasn't and won't get any
>>better than this.
It has not escaped my attention, nor that of anyone else here, that
you have completely ignored my two direct questions to you, questions
that will allow you to explain just how the process of drug testing as
required by law is based on the theory of evolution.
It has also not escaped my attention, nor that of anyone else here,
that you have not explained how your blatant plagiarism (which you
dismiss as mere cut-and-paste) was never acknowledged. Even after
your plagiarized words were nominated for Post of the Month you failed
to admit that you did not write them.
JTEM
el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Even if I had not
Hey, crotch stain; you're making my point.
Here you are waving the finger of righteousness at
one twat, even as you defend Harshman because, well,
who gives a fuck? The point is that you do it.
Harshman is a liar. He makes shit up. He does it all
the time. I've caught him doing it with others as
well as with myself.
I walk morons like you through it here:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/af6ff405b9a4f419?hl=en&dmode=source
And I do it again, here:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/01f797b5b34a5139?hl=en&dmode=source
You're welcome, you worthless hypocrite.
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> Well, let me reverse this for a moment. I get some coursework in
> from, for the sake of argument, a 14 year old. A set of questions were
> asked and the student comes up with the answers. Do I expect the
> student to rewrite everything in their own words, of course not. Do I
> expect them to cite every source, again, of course not.
I'm sure glad you aren't teaching my kids, then! If I thought their
teachers were deliberately letting them get away with plagiarism,
I'd be in the principal's office trying to get someone fired. You
insult 14-year-olds with your implication that they can't learn
something so basic.
Or do you think a 14-year-old should wait until she gets to college
and fails her first course because no one taught her to use her own
words and to cite her sources?
Here at UC Davis, deliberate plagiarism ("such as deliberate copying
or use of another???s work without credit") is likely to result in a
suspension, and unintentional plagiarism (which "may result from
not knowing how to cite sources properly, sloppy research and note-
taking, or careless cutting and pasting from electronic resources")
is a violation of the Code of Academic Conduct, and is subject to
discipline. See http://sja.ucdavis.edu/files/plagiarism-001.html,
a policy that's pretty much standard in universities.
Steve Carlip
Glenn
> Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Well, let me reverse this for a moment. I �get some coursework in
> > from, for the sake of argument, a 14 year old. A set of questions were
> > asked and the student comes up with the answers. Do I expect the
> > student to rewrite everything in their own words, of course not. Do I
> > expect them to cite every source, again, of course not. �
>
> I'm sure glad you aren't teaching my kids, then! �If I thought their
> teachers were deliberately letting them get away with plagiarism,
> I'd be in the principal's office trying to get someone fired. �You
> insult 14-year-olds with your implication that they can't learn
> something so basic.
One way we learn and retain is by putting information into our own
words. The responsibility of a teacher is to ensure accurate
information is provided as well as stressing the importance of
determining and identifying sources of information.
el cid
> el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Even if I had not
>
> Hey, crotch stain; you're making my point.
>
> Here you are waving the finger of righteousness at
> one twat, even as you defend Harshman because, well,
> who gives a fuck? The point is that you do it.
> Harshman is a liar. He makes shit up. He does it all
> the time. I've caught him doing it with others as
> well as with myself.
>
> I walk morons like you through it here:
>
>
> And I do it again, here:
>
>
> You're welcome, you worthless hypocrite.
I read you screeds and some of the exchanges.
I'm not qualified to judge the full merits of various claims
as I'm no expert on anatomy and certainly not on birds,
reptiles and dinosaurs. I'm stuck looking at the forms
of argument and how claims are supported.
Your style of leading with invective makes it hard to
take you seriously. Even when I try, I find that if
there is any merit to your claims it must involve
knowledge that you are not bothering to present but
are assertedly givens. By contrast, John has presented
arguments with quotes that actually support what
he writes, at least as far as non-technical language
usage goes. If you mode of argumentation wasn't
already familiar to me regarding topics I do
understand well, I might reserve some small degree
of doubt but I've seen people argue in your style
that are beyond confused. In fact, it's a sign of
cognitive dissonance.
Feel free to attack me again, at this point I
think it only does harm to your reputation.
el cid
Shhhh. Ye Old One has tangled with Steve before.
One of them is an internationally recognized expert
in cosmology and the other is, well is Ye Old One.
Early Feb., regarding general relativity.
It's time to go stock up on microwave popcorn
and enjoy YOO's self-destruction proceed.
RAM
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 21:31:30 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
I wish to second rnorman's comments to your dismissive post.
Plagiarism is never tolerated by teachers/faculty and the internet has
introduced new challenges to check on students work to see if indeed
it is plagiarized. It is a very serious issue and I have seen it
enforced twice in my academic career by the firing of two faculty (one
tenured with fifteen plus years of service).
While this is not an academic setting it is quite clear plagiarism is
an important moral issue.
You need to at minimum address rnorman's concerns which I feel are
shared by many.
John Harshman
John Harshman
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 02:19:43 -0800 (PST), JTEM <jte...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> To paraphrase: "Ain't no thing."
>> Ironic, isn't it, that a shameless lout
>> like yourself -- one who often lies his
>> ass off and then depends on groupthink to
>> redeem him -- would be amongst those
>> judging the behavior of others?
>>
>
> John, what in the world did you ever do for this guy to so
> relentlessly hunt you down?
>
I believe I disagreed with him on a few points, which he takes as
personal attack. And then I refused to admit that my disagreement was
dishonest, which makes me extra bad.
Glenn
Nah I was just singing a Xmas song and it moved into my fingers then a
strange physical force pushed the send button before I could stop
it.stop it.stop it.
r norman
Well you ARE bad .... but I mean that in a good way.
John Harshman
John Harshman
saying that because I'm one of the popular kids, and captain of the
football team, and student council president.
Boikat
What nonsense!
.....Your tea, Sire.
Boikat
r norman
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
At least you are not dating the head cheerleader.
John Harshman
off her glasses.
chris thompson
No. Do not say shhh on this. Glenn is absolutely, utterly, without
exception correct. Putting things into your own words is a sure sign
you have learned the material. Whatever Steve says (and it will
probably be good) what Glenn said gets straight to the heart of the
matter.
Chris
chris thompson
You forgot Hall Monitor.
Chris
Glenn
What keyboard? I have a rotary phone. Speak louder.
You got me thinking about what I said about YOO not making as many
posts, and his reply that he had Xmas company. Eyeball count at
Outlook Express shows no significant change in number of posts since
the 23nd, except for the 28th, when he was likely to have noticed the
little problem, his last post (to you about that) also being the
latest post in the day since the 23rd. Those 22 posts could be an
indication he was reading more than usual and posting a lot less.
28th - 22 posts
27 - 52
26 - 40
25 - 48
24 - 36
23 - 51
His post count is 1200 this month, about 40 per day average. I don't
buy the "have family" story. But maybe he meant new years:
">What's really weird is that YOO should be at the top of his game
right
>now, and it seems he has tried to be careful and restrained and to
>have made fewer posts today than usual.
"It is christmas, I have family around."
Though to be fair, that was today the 30th, and he made only 37 posts
today. Of course, that is still average for the month.
all your base are belong to us. make your time.
Stop
Glenn
The hell you are. I'M the smart girl who recently took off her glasses.
Glenn
in Alaska. Sadly it was unscrupulously taken away.
John Harshman
OK, this is getting way too obsessive.