> On Sun, 13 May 2012 19:54:23 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
> <ecpho...@hotmail.com>:
>> On 05/11/2012 02:01 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Thu, 10 May 2012 21:41:28 -0400, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell<pr...@panix.com>:
>>>> In article<am0oq75kbqoe3njf5irmbcinudis2qe...@4ax.com>,
>>>> Bob Casanova<nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>> Ted! You're just the person we need to increase the quality
>>>>> of the science denialists here! In fact, your name has come
>>>>> up a few times fairly recently when the conversation turned
>>>>> to "Where are all the quality loons?" nostalgia, usually
>>>>> following some inane post by Tony, Ray or one of the Lesser
>>>>> Lights such as shrimpie or Glenn.
>>>>> Welcome back!
>>>> s/Lesser Lights/Lesser Darks/
>>> One can be a light *for* the dark as well as a light *in*
>>> the dark. Or whatever...
>>> Ummm, wait a minute; that's wrong. If there's a light in the
>>> dark, the dark runs away and can't be found...
> I've recently gone through the exercise of updating bearfabrique.org
> to something resembling 20112 standards, and the stuff which t.o
> denizens would find interesting lives at:
> The main emphasis is on early man and hominids, and the question of
> how they got here and of what relationships exist between them. The
> main page along those lines is this:
> I'm still a couple of years out from having any meaningful amount of
> time to devote to usenet but I want to get my own statement regarding
> the relationship between hominids and humans into the world before
> this new claim of 4% Neanderthal genes in everybody other than
> Africans becomes the standard answer. It seems obvious to me that
> there are major logical problems with that claim as well as with the
> claim of humans and Neanderthals having a "common ancestor(TM)".
> The new material involves a couple of items which are more or less
> orthogonal to questions of evolution vs design; this includes the
> question of fur coats as well as the notion of splash saltation as an
> alternative to punk-eek.
> A mind is a terrible thing to waste; especially on an evolutionist.
> Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt ideological
> doctrines.
You need to fix up that image of Splifford. The one in your post is
broken up into many pieces. I tried to fix it up in this reply by
removing some lines, but it still is kind of broken up.
Anyway, nice to see you here again, Ted. Try to put in at least one
more appearance this year.
I was away from Usenet myself for seven years, then returned in
November of 2008 to talk.abortion. Two years later I returned here as
well. On the whole, I think talk.origins has actually improved,
though not by much.
>On 05/14/2012 01:08 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 May 2012 19:54:23 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
>> <ecpho...@hotmail.com>:
>>> On 05/11/2012 02:01 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 10 May 2012 21:41:28 -0400, the following appeared
>>>> in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell<pr...@panix.com>:
>>>>> In article<am0oq75kbqoe3njf5irmbcinudis2qe...@4ax.com>,
>>>>> Bob Casanova<nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>>> Ted! You're just the person we need to increase the quality
>>>>>> of the science denialists here! In fact, your name has come
>>>>>> up a few times fairly recently when the conversation turned
>>>>>> to "Where are all the quality loons?" nostalgia, usually
>>>>>> following some inane post by Tony, Ray or one of the Lesser
>>>>>> Lights such as shrimpie or Glenn.
>>>>>> Welcome back!
>>>>> s/Lesser Lights/Lesser Darks/
>>>> One can be a light *for* the dark as well as a light *in*
>>>> the dark. Or whatever...
>>>> Ummm, wait a minute; that's wrong. If there's a light in the
>>>> dark, the dark runs away and can't be found...
> On Sun, 13 May 2012 19:54:23 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
> <ecpho...@hotmail.com>:
>> On 05/11/2012 02:01 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Thu, 10 May 2012 21:41:28 -0400, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell<pr...@panix.com>:
>>>> In article<am0oq75kbqoe3njf5irmbcinudis2qe...@4ax.com>,
>>>> Bob Casanova<nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>> Ted! You're just the person we need to increase the quality
>>>>> of the science denialists here! In fact, your name has come
>>>>> up a few times fairly recently when the conversation turned
>>>>> to "Where are all the quality loons?" nostalgia, usually
>>>>> following some inane post by Tony, Ray or one of the Lesser
>>>>> Lights such as shrimpie or Glenn.
>>>>> Welcome back!
>>>> s/Lesser Lights/Lesser Darks/
>>> One can be a light *for* the dark as well as a light *in*
>>> the dark. Or whatever...
>>> Ummm, wait a minute; that's wrong. If there's a light in the
>>> dark, the dark runs away and can't be found...
> Nope; the fact that dark can't be found in the light is a
> strictly physical phenomenon, not a psychological one.
I bet Mr. Dunsapy (from another thread) could find dark in light without any problem.
(And Ted: Yes, Welcome back!)
-- Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (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
> On Mon, 14 May 2012 19:03:09 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
> <ecpho...@hotmail.com>:
>> On 05/14/2012 01:08 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Sun, 13 May 2012 19:54:23 -0400, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
>>> <ecpho...@hotmail.com>:
>>>> On 05/11/2012 02:01 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 10 May 2012 21:41:28 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell<pr...@panix.com>:
>>>>>> In article<am0oq75kbqoe3njf5irmbcinudis2qe...@4ax.com>,
>>>>>> Bob Casanova<nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>>>> Ted! You're just the person we need to increase the quality
>>>>>>> of the science denialists here! In fact, your name has come
>>>>>>> up a few times fairly recently when the conversation turned
>>>>>>> to "Where are all the quality loons?" nostalgia, usually
>>>>>>> following some inane post by Tony, Ray or one of the Lesser
>>>>>>> Lights such as shrimpie or Glenn.
>>>>>>> Welcome back!
>>>>>> s/Lesser Lights/Lesser Darks/
>>>>> One can be a light *for* the dark as well as a light *in*
>>>>> the dark. Or whatever...
>>>>> Ummm, wait a minute; that's wrong. If there's a light in the
>>>>> dark, the dark runs away and can't be found...
>On 5/14/12 10:08 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 May 2012 19:54:23 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
>> <ecpho...@hotmail.com>:
>>> On 05/11/2012 02:01 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 10 May 2012 21:41:28 -0400, the following appeared
>>>> in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell<pr...@panix.com>:
>>>>> In article<am0oq75kbqoe3njf5irmbcinudis2qe...@4ax.com>,
>>>>> Bob Casanova<nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>>> Ted! You're just the person we need to increase the quality
>>>>>> of the science denialists here! In fact, your name has come
>>>>>> up a few times fairly recently when the conversation turned
>>>>>> to "Where are all the quality loons?" nostalgia, usually
>>>>>> following some inane post by Tony, Ray or one of the Lesser
>>>>>> Lights such as shrimpie or Glenn.
>>>>>> Welcome back!
>>>>> s/Lesser Lights/Lesser Darks/
>>>> One can be a light *for* the dark as well as a light *in*
>>>> the dark. Or whatever...
>>>> Ummm, wait a minute; that's wrong. If there's a light in the
>>>> dark, the dark runs away and can't be found...
>On 05/15/2012 03:19 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 May 2012 19:03:09 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
>> <ecpho...@hotmail.com>:
>>> On 05/14/2012 01:08 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 13 May 2012 19:54:23 -0400, the following appeared
>>>> in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
>>>> <ecpho...@hotmail.com>:
>>>>> On 05/11/2012 02:01 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 10 May 2012 21:41:28 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell<pr...@panix.com>:
>>>>>>> In article<am0oq75kbqoe3njf5irmbcinudis2qe...@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>> Bob Casanova<nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ted! You're just the person we need to increase the quality
>>>>>>>> of the science denialists here! In fact, your name has come
>>>>>>>> up a few times fairly recently when the conversation turned
>>>>>>>> to "Where are all the quality loons?" nostalgia, usually
>>>>>>>> following some inane post by Tony, Ray or one of the Lesser
>>>>>>>> Lights such as shrimpie or Glenn.
>>>>>>>> Welcome back!
>>>>>>> s/Lesser Lights/Lesser Darks/
>>>>>> One can be a light *for* the dark as well as a light *in*
>>>>>> the dark. Or whatever...
>>>>>> Ummm, wait a minute; that's wrong. If there's a light in the
>>>>>> dark, the dark runs away and can't be found...
> On Wed, 16 May 2012 08:14:31 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
> <ecpho...@hotmail.com>:
>> On 05/15/2012 03:19 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Mon, 14 May 2012 19:03:09 -0400, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
>>> <ecpho...@hotmail.com>:
>>>> On 05/14/2012 01:08 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 13 May 2012 19:54:23 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
>>>>> <ecpho...@hotmail.com>:
>>>>>> On 05/11/2012 02:01 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 May 2012 21:41:28 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell<pr...@panix.com>:
>>>>>>>> In article<am0oq75kbqoe3njf5irmbcinudis2qe...@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>> Bob Casanova<nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Ted! You're just the person we need to increase the quality
>>>>>>>>> of the science denialists here! In fact, your name has come
>>>>>>>>> up a few times fairly recently when the conversation turned
>>>>>>>>> to "Where are all the quality loons?" nostalgia, usually
>>>>>>>>> following some inane post by Tony, Ray or one of the Lesser
>>>>>>>>> Lights such as shrimpie or Glenn.
>>>>>>>>> Welcome back!
>>>>>>>> s/Lesser Lights/Lesser Darks/
>>>>>>> One can be a light *for* the dark as well as a light *in*
>>>>>>> the dark. Or whatever...
>>>>>>> Ummm, wait a minute; that's wrong. If there's a light in the
>>>>>>> dark, the dark runs away and can't be found...
But do you have your subconscious indexed to be readily searchable with a tool like Spotlight or Windows Explorer? We can only search what we are consciously aware of via introspection. We search for the keys to our selves under the streetlight, so to speak. Night vision googles augment vision, but do they provide the entire picture?
In article <FNydnWQfpPI4fi7SnZ2dnUVZ_qGdn...@giganews.com>,
*Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> But do you have your subconscious indexed to be readily searchable with > a tool like Spotlight or Windows Explorer?
Yes, but the index is not accessible by conscious processes. All our so called conscious processes are results of not so conscious processes which are results of less conscious processes and so proceed to physics.
Ray Martinez wrote:
> On May 10, 11:07 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Wed, 9 May 2012 20:53:31 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ted Holden
>> <liakhovb...@gmail.com>:
>> Ted! You're just the person we need to increase the quality
>> of the science denialists here! In fact, your name has come
>> up a few times fairly recently when the conversation turned
>> to "Where are all the quality loons?" nostalgia, usually
>> following some inane post by Tony, Ray or one of the Lesser
>> Lights such as shrimpie or Glenn.
>> Welcome back!
> Yourself, Tony, Glen and I am sure Ted too, unlike myself, all accept
> the concept of evolution to exist in nature, Bob.
Concepts don't exist; they are, well, just concepts. Whereas evolution is a
well established fact of life. Without the ability to adapt and evolve, life
would be eextinct on this planet by now. The Earth is not an artifical
garden created for static life; it is and always has been a very turbulent,
unstable environment, forcing life to develop methods for variation and
developmentaø adpatation to the environment. And that would include
evolution - bound to happen whenever required by the conditions. Adapt and
evolve, or diappear from the planet. That's the rules of the game.
So say all us real thinkers. Whereas people basing their worldview on myths
created by ignorant sheepherders instead of rational thought are like brain
amputees, unthinking vegetables.
Rolf, plain and simple, but ...
> The loons and the confused are in one camp, and I am in the straight
> thinking camp.
Straight thinking, is that the same as the 'clear thinking' of the LDS?
>>> I've recently gone through the exercise of updating bearfabrique.org
>>> to something resembling 20112 standards, and the stuff which t.o
>>> denizens would find interesting lives at:
>>> The main emphasis is on early man and hominids, and the question of
>>> how they got here and of what relationships exist between them. The
>>> main page along those lines is this:
>>> I'm still a couple of years out from having any meaningful amount of
>>> time to devote to usenet but I want to get my own statement
>>> regarding the relationship between hominids and humans into the
>>> world before this new claim of 4% Neanderthal genes in everybody
>>> other than Africans becomes the standard answer. It seems obvious
>>> to me that there are major logical problems with that claim as well
>>> as with the claim of humans and Neanderthals having a "common
>>> ancestor(TM)".
>>> The new material involves a couple of items which are more or less
>>> orthogonal to questions of evolution vs design; this includes the
>>> question of fur coats as well as the notion of splash saltation as
>>> an alternative to punk-eek.
>>> A mind is a terrible thing to waste; especially on an evolutionist.
>>> Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt
>>> ideological doctrines.
>> --
>> Bob C.
>> "Evidence confirming an observation is
>> evidence that the observation is wrong."
>> - McNameless
On May 12, 4:13 am, "jonathan" <mat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Inez" <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> What you're seeing at the bottom of Hale crater are just
> things like sand dunes and gullies, the ESA images are only
> about ten meter resolution, the much much better HiRise images
> are down to 1 meter, almost the quality of a rover. You can
> almost see footprints in the sand~
Sorry to be slow getting back here, again time is problematical. What
I get from the older ESA Hale crater images, again just adjusting
contrast and brightness, is this:
Moons in our system of course are supposed to be made of dirt and
green cheese and what not i.e. they're not supposed to be made of
metallic strakes or reflect light all over the place like that.....
> On May 12, 4:13 am, "jonathan" <mat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Inez" <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> What you're seeing at the bottom of Hale crater are just
>> things like sand dunes and gullies, the ESA images are only
>> about ten meter resolution, the much much better HiRise images
>> are down to 1 meter, almost the quality of a rover. You can
>> almost see footprints in the sand~
> Sorry to be slow getting back here, again time is problematical. What
> I get from the older ESA Hale crater images, again just adjusting
> contrast and brightness, is this:
Right, but look at the shape of these dunes nearby Hale crater.
These 'square' shaped dunes are everywhere in the region.
http://www.uahirise.org/ESP_025137_1430
If you know the cooridinates, using the Hirise viewer
you can magnify and see anything bigger than about
ten feet. You can even see trails small rocks make as they
roll down a hill.
> Moons in our system of course are supposed to be made of dirt and
> green cheese and what not i.e. they're not supposed to be made of
> metallic strakes or reflect light all over the place like that.....
Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Yourself, Tony, Glen and I am sure Ted too, unlike myself, all accept
> the concept of evolution to exist in nature, Bob.
> The loons and the confused are in one camp, and I am in the straight
> thinking camp.
> Ray (Christian)
Prof. Ray (Christian) Martinez Cladistics of Linear Mentation
John Calvin Chair of in _Gavia_immer_ (in progress)
Unpublished Documentation Dept. of Exclusionary Theology
University of Ediacara
On May 20, 3:35 pm, David Iain Greig <dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:
> Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Yourself, Tony, Glen and I am sure Ted too, unlike myself, all accept
> > the concept of evolution to exist in nature, Bob.
> > The loons and the confused are in one camp, and I am in the straight
> > thinking camp.
> > Ray (Christian)
> Prof. Ray (Christian) Martinez Cladistics of Linear Mentation
> John Calvin Chair of in _Gavia_immer_ (in progress)
> Unpublished Documentation
> Dept. of Exclusionary Theology
> University of Ediacara
Sigh. Ray got a chair before I was even made an Asst. Prof.?
In article <cabal-jpbh24$154...@darwin.ediacara.org>,
David Iain Greig <dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:
> Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Yourself, Tony, Glen and I am sure Ted too, unlike myself, all accept
> > the concept of evolution to exist in nature, Bob.
> > The loons and the confused are in one camp, and I am in the straight
> > thinking camp.
In article <3c866fe7-415d-40d9-b307-ed33aa591...@r3g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, chris thompson wrote:
> On May 20, 3:35 pm, David Iain Greig <dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:
>> Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > Yourself, Tony, Glen and I am sure Ted too, unlike myself, all accept
>> > the concept of evolution to exist in nature, Bob.
>> > The loons and the confused are in one camp, and I am in the straight
>> > thinking camp.
>> > Ray (Christian)
>> Prof. Ray (Christian) Martinez Cladistics of Linear Mentation
>> John Calvin Chair of in _Gavia_immer_ (in progress)
>> Unpublished Documentation
>> Dept. of Exclusionary Theology
>> University of Ediacara
> Sigh. Ray got a chair before I was even made an Asst. Prof.?
> And my first name really IS Chris.
> Oh well.
Remember the inverted nature of the U. of E. hierarchy -- where
the highest rank is janitor.
-- Robert Grumbine http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/ Science blog
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Robert Grumbine wrote:
> In article<3c866fe7-415d-40d9-b307-ed33aa591...@r3g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, chris thompson wrote:
>> On May 20, 3:35 pm, David Iain Greig<dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:
>>> Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Yourself, Tony, Glen and I am sure Ted too, unlike myself, all accept
>>>> the concept of evolution to exist in nature, Bob.
>>>> The loons and the confused are in one camp, and I am in the straight
>>>> thinking camp.
>>>> Ray (Christian)
>>> Prof. Ray (Christian) Martinez Cladistics of Linear Mentation
>>> John Calvin Chair of in _Gavia_immer_ (in progress)
>>> Unpublished Documentation
>>> Dept. of Exclusionary Theology
>>> University of Ediacara
>> Sigh. Ray got a chair before I was even made an Asst. Prof.?
>> And my first name really IS Chris.
>> Oh well.
> Remember the inverted nature of the U. of E. hierarchy -- where
> the highest rank is janitor.
>> But do you have your subconscious indexed to be readily searchable with >> a tool like Spotlight or Windows Explorer?
>Yes, but the index is not accessible by conscious processes. All our >so called conscious processes are results of not so conscious >processes which are results of less conscious processes and so proceed >to physics.
Good luck with that argument in court: "Physics made me do
it!"
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
> >> But do you have your subconscious indexed to be readily searchable with > >> a tool like Spotlight or Windows Explorer?
> >Yes, but the index is not accessible by conscious processes. All our > >so called conscious processes are results of not so conscious > >processes which are results of less conscious processes and so proceed > >to physics.
> Good luck with that argument in court: "Physics made me do
> it!"
Regardless, we have to say that "Physics made me do it!", or concede that somethings happen by non physical means. Mayhap supernatural events are acceptable legally, but in science they are not allowed.
