To the writers of the Talk.Origins website
someone2
mechanism that has evolved, and follows the known laws of physics,
then I would challenge you to an open debate on the subject. If it is
not suggesting such a thing, then for clarities sake, should you not
make it clear, as otherwise it might give the wrong impression.
Thurisaz the Einherjer
> If the site is anyway suggesting that we are simply a biological
> mechanism that has evolved, and follows the known laws of physics,
> then I would challenge you to an open debate on the subject.
About what? Provide an example argument for your point of view. If that
happens to have some merit (in sharp contrast to 99.9 % of so-called
"arguments" brought forth against good science), someone might want to take
your challenge, but I dare say that you'll have to show at least a few of
your cards.
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
chris.li...@gmail.com
While I cannot speak for the people who run the t.o. site, I think I
can safely say that most of the people who support evoution around
here would say that's all we have evidence for. Anything beyond that
is a matter of faith. If you think you have evidence for anything
supernatural involved in the evolution of humanity- or any other
species- by all means present it. If it's good enough, I'll even tell
you how you can make a million bucks from it (for a small percentage).
Chris
someone2
Well if the writers of talk.origins do come forward, then I will take
them through it. I have no interest in making money out of it.
someone2
wrote:
> someone2:
>
> > If the site is anyway suggesting that we are simply a biological
> > mechanism that has evolved, and follows the known laws of physics,
> > then I would challenge you to an open debate on the subject.
>
> About what? Provide an example argument for your point of view. If that
> happens to have some merit (in sharp contrast to 99.9 % of so-called
> "arguments" brought forth against good science), someone might want to take
> your challenge, but I dare say that you'll have to show at least a few of
> your cards.
>
Are you a writer on the talk.origins website?
Sonofagunzel
How do humans violate the laws of physics?
someone2
You are not a writer for talk.origins, you are starting to behave more
like a stalker, haven't you got something better to do?
Sonofagunzel
That's the first sensible post I've ever read from you.
someone2
Doesn't your behaviour being likened to that of a stalker, and you
thinking that is sensible ring any alarm bells for you?
Sonofagunzel
As a matter of fact it does.
Ernest Major
someone2 <glenn....@btinternet.com> writes
conclude that any debate would be unproductive; on your past record it
would turn into another interminable pseudo-Socratic dialog.
If you had a case to make, you don't need to drag in the "authors of the
talk.origins web site" (you've already been "debating" at least one of
them); you could just make the case, in an appropriate venue.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ron O
I have something up on the TO web site. What is your exact beef? It
just sounds like you object to the fact that people don't make the
disclaimer that "of course, this argument doesn't exclude the
possiblity that invisible pink unicorns exist."
What articles are suggesting what you claim?
If you have objections put up specific examples. Why would you want
to debate about something as stupid as clarifying such an issue? What
does it matter? Does it change the evidence, or make your alternative
any more or less supportable? Your alternative has to stand on its
own merits, not what you think are difficiencies in the alternative
that you don't like. Support your alternative. It is just sad when
people spend all their time claiming that some other alternative isn't
good enough when they know for a fact that their own alternative is
even worse. Just think what you are doing. You are just
demonstrating the fact that you don't have an argument worth talking
about. If the science is so bad, what does that tell you about your
beliefs?
Ron Okimoto
Greg G.
The home page at http://www.talkorigins.org says:
Talk.origins is a Usenet newsgroup devoted to the discussion
and debate of biological and physical origins. Most
discussions in the newsgroup center on the
creation/evolution controversy, but other topics of
discussion include the origin of life, geology, biology,
catastrophism, cosmology and theology.
The TalkOrigins Archive is a collection of articles and
essays, most of which have appeared in talk.origins at one
time or another. The primary reason for this archive's
existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to
the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in
the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted
assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other
creationist pseudosciences.
What is unclear about that?
I don't recall any page on the site that says that there was no god
involved in evolution. It simply refutes weak arguments for that
position. The writers are theists, atheists and agnostics. They all
agree that the evidence indicates that evolution happens and that it
happened in the past, but the evidence does not indicate whether a
supernatural power was subtly involved.
If you wish to debate the topics at talkorigins.org, this Usenet group
is the place to do so.
In regard to the phrase "known laws of physics", those are tentative,
as is all science; to be discarded in light of new evidence. If
something is shown to not follow the "known" laws of physics, those
laws are not actually known, are they?
--
Greg G.
No, I've changed it to "Trust Everyone", didn't I tell you?
--Fox Mulder
Nick Keighley
> If the site is anyway suggesting that we are simply a biological
> mechanism that has evolved, and follows the known laws of physics,
> then I would challenge you to an open debate on the subject.
what evidence do you have that "we" (human beings?):-
1. are not a simple biological mechanism (robots?, plasma vortices?)
2. did not evolve (panspermia? special creation? spontaneous
appearance?)
or
3. do not obey the laws of physics (!?)
I'm frankly baffled as to what you think the alternatives are.
> If it is
> not suggesting such a thing, then for clarities sake, should you not
> make it clear, as otherwise it might give the wrong impression.
I don't think it explicitly says this, but in the absense of any
evidence to the contrary what is wrong with implying this.
I am not a contributer to the talk.origins web site but I'd have no
trouble with the idea that people are not magical.
Why do I share a broken gene for vitamin C synthesis with the great
apes (ok, "other great apes" for the cladist audience).
--
Nick Keighley
Cheezits
> On 19 Apr, 12:27, Sonofagunzel <soas...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> How do humans violate the laws of physics?
>
> You are not a writer for talk.origins, you are starting to behave more
> like a stalker, haven't you got something better to do?
When are you going to answer the question?
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
Robert Carnegie
Amongst other things, t.o contains arguments about how material
evidence or personal subjective experience and personal testimony
support any view that human beings are or are not simply (instances
of) "a biological mechanism that has evolved, and follows the known
laws of physics." That is to say, whether or not there is more to us
than that, or more to our world than that.
I don't think I'm a talk.origins contributor unless I made it into
archives of "Post of the Month" or "Chez Watt" (and which one is more
likely?) I expect some of the people who wrote articles there are
dead now, even not counting the "quote-mine" lists (misused sayings of
Darwin etc). Out of curiosity, what sort of "open debate" do you have
in mind? And who's bringing the beer?
Martin
Didn't you know that all life breaks the laws of thermodynamics? Gotta
be so, I read it from a christian and they'd never lie.
>
Just Lurking
wrote:
> On 19 Apr, 11:37, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > If the site is anyway suggesting that we are simply a biological
> > mechanism that has evolved, and follows the known laws of physics,
> > then I would challenge you to an open debate on the subject.
>
> what evidence do you have that "we" (human beings?):-
>
> 1. are not a simple biological mechanism (robots?, plasma vortices?)
Are you saying that you think you are a robot ?
Where can I buy one of these.
My house needs cleaning.
> snp
> I am not a contributor to the talk.origins web site but I'd have no
> trouble with the idea that people are not magical.
I saw Michael Jordan play and that was definitely *magical* when he
jumped completely backwards and made a perfect jump shot while
horizontal on his BACK about 6 feet off the floor.
A little of old ladies thought Frank SInatra was magical.
A lot of teenage girls thought Paul McCartney was magical.
George Patton was magical in the European theatre.
Winston Churchill pulled some magic himself.
on the other hand George B seems to have lost his magic.
>
> Why do I share a broken gene for vitamin C synthesis with the great
> apes (ok, "other great apes" for the cladist audience).
Humans are not apes because we diverged from apes 5-7 million syears
ago.
Humans are not apes because the common usage of the word "ape" in the
vernacular excludes humans.
"Although the superfamily of apes has always included humans, in its
taxonomical definition, a more specific connotation of the word "ape"
exists in the vernacular. This common usage of the word excludes
humans when referring to apes. This linguistic phenomenon is similar
to the common usage of words such as "animal", "attitude", "behave",
and "temperature", to convey a commonly accepted meaning that is more
specific than the precise definition of the word. Just as people with
a good disposition are commonly excluded from being defined as having
"an attitude", children who are disobedient are commonly said to "not
behave", and healthy people are commonly told they do not have "a
temperature", humans are often excluded from the groups commonly
called "animals" and "apes"."
Don't ape all the other humans trying to reply to this.
http://www.stickergiant.com/page/sg/PROD/funinsa/dcb606
>
> --
> Nick Keighley
someone2
May I ask do you just have something up in the sense of "chat of the
month" or something. If so, then I'd rather debate with the people
behind the site thank you.
By the way, that was really some rant you did there, you didn't even
wait to hear what I was going to say.
someone2
It is the topics stated that I wish to discuss. Though I would like to
discuss them with the people behind the site, openly on this forum.
someone2
wrote:
So you are not a writer of the talk origins website.
Ye Old One
There are many writers here. Get started and maybe, just maybe, a few
will join in.
But, be warned, to attract such great minds, you will need to raise
some good points.
And yes, the site does devote a lot of its time to teaching people the
facts of science which are, simply, that a biological mechanism that
has evolved, over about 4 billion years, and like everything else in
the universe, we do indeed follow the known laws of physics.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Well then, start the debate.
--
Bob.
someone2
An open debate into whether we are simply a biological mechanism that
follows the known laws of physics.
Are you suggesting that the people responsible for the website no
longer monitoring this discussion group, or that there is little
possibility that they will enter into open debate?
Sonofagunzel
He's quick on the uptake.
someone2
Are you still stalking?
The Last Conformist
> If the site is anyway suggesting that we are simply a biological
> mechanism that has evolved, and follows the known laws of physics,
> then I would challenge you to an open debate on the subject. If it is
> not suggesting such a thing, then for clarities sake, should you not
> make it clear, as otherwise it might give the wrong impression.
If you want to debate with the people behind the t.o. archive
specifically, why don't you use their Contact page instead of a public
newsgroup?
Sonofagunzel
What are you wearing?
Augray
wrote in <1176979065.2...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> :
>If the site is anyway suggesting that we are simply a biological
>mechanism that has evolved, and follows the known laws of physics,
>then I would challenge you to an open debate on the subject. If it is
>not suggesting such a thing, then for clarities sake, should you not
>make it clear, as otherwise it might give the wrong impression.
How is that relevant to the talk.origins site?
CreateThis
LOL. What qualifications do you have to "debate" the writers there?
You've already shown beyond a doubt that you have nothing to say but
patent nonsense. Why should those learned people give you the time of
day, doofus?
CT
Ken Denny
> On 19 Apr, 13:19, Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 19, 11:37 am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > > If the site is anyway suggesting that we are simply a biological
> > > mechanism that has evolved, and follows the known laws of physics,
> > > then I would challenge you to an open debate on the subject. If it is
> > > not suggesting such a thing, then for clarities sake, should you not
> > > make it clear, as otherwise it might give the wrong impression.
>
> > Amongst other things, t.o contains arguments about how material
> > evidence or personal subjective experience and personal testimony
> > support any view that human beings are or are not simply (instances
> > of) "a biological mechanism that has evolved, and follows the known
> > laws of physics." That is to say, whether or not there is more to us
> > than that, or more to our world than that.
>
> > I don't think I'm a talk.origins contributor unless I made it into
> > archives of "Post of the Month" or "Chez Watt" (and which one is more
> > likely?) I expect some of the people who wrote articles there are
> > dead now, even not counting the "quote-mine" lists (misused sayings of
> > Darwin etc). Out of curiosity, what sort of "open debate" do you have
> > in mind? And who's bringing the beer?
>
> An open debate into whether we are simply a biological mechanism that
> follows the known laws of physics.
We most assuredly are. You have asserted time after time that the fact
that we are conscious is somehow a violation of some physical law. You
have been asked innumerable times exactly what law of physics that
violates and you have yet to answer. You assume that consciousness is
some kind of magical property that exists outside the physical world
and use this to support you argument that consciousness is some kind
of magical property that exists outside the physical world. In other
words you assume your conclusion with absolutely zero evidence to
support it. You have shown us no trace of evidence to support your
assumed conclusion, you just present the same circular argument over
and over. You started out as an arrogant prick, and you're now a
boring arrogant prick.
>
> Are you suggesting that the people responsible for the website no
> longer monitoring this discussion group, or that there is little
> possibility that they will enter into open debate?
And because you still live with your parents and don't have a job, you
can spend 16 hours a day in front of your computer, flooding us with
hundreds of posts each repeating the same illogical circular argument.
And you also insist that you will only debate with people who you know
don't have time to respond to every post you make. That way when they
fail to respond to every single post, you can pretend that you have
won the debate.
Go away you arrogant, boring, stupid prick.
Dogma Discharge
"someone2" <glenn....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1176987494....@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Are you suggesting that the people responsible for the website no
> longer monitoring this discussion group, or that there is little
> possibility that they will enter into open debate?
>
Cheese and Rice dude, just say what's on your mind and be done with it.
You've got fat hopes of keeping the coversation between yourself and the
writers on the open newsgroup anyway. DO IT.
someone2
Thanks for the advice. Though I would like the debate to be open on
the newsgroup, I will contact them and see if they will enter into the
debate.
someone2
> On 19 Apr 2007 03:37:45 -0700, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com>
> wrote in <1176979065.273859.197...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> :
>
> >If the site is anyway suggesting that we are simply a biological
> >mechanism that has evolved, and follows the known laws of physics,
> >then I would challenge you to an open debate on the subject. If it is
> >not suggesting such a thing, then for clarities sake, should you not
> >make it clear, as otherwise it might give the wrong impression.
>
> How is that relevant to the talk.origins site?
Well if evolution is the theory of an explanation for us, and it is
that a biological mechanism that follows the known laws of physics
evolved through propagation of beneficial mutation, then I would have
thought the relevance is obvious.
JohnN
If you want to debate the designer at the service hosting TO, then
contact him/her directly.
Until then you can post something else silly and and not at all witty.
JohnN
Robert Grumbine
someone2 <glenn....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>If the site is anyway suggesting that we are simply a biological
>mechanism that has evolved, and follows the known laws of physics,
>then I would challenge you to an open debate on the subject. If it is
>not suggesting such a thing, then for clarities sake, should you not
>make it clear, as otherwise it might give the wrong impression.
Some history (all of it 'iirc'):
The usenet group which is now called talk.origins (originally net.origins)
has been around for a very long time as these things are measured in
Internet time (Spring, 1984). Over that fairly lengthy expanse of time,
quite a few people have passed through the group providing posts of substance.
The web site www.talkorigins.org descends from early-mid 1990s efforts
by, iirc, Brett Vickers, then at UCSD, to collect articles and make them
web-accessible. Many of the authors of those early articles no longer
participate in this group, and at least one of our honored posters
(Tero Sand) is deceased.
The site has continued to evolve and move over the decade+ that it
has existed, the people involved have changed, and the content has
changed. One of the changes in content is a migration towards more
substance-oriented vs. flamewar fodder. It's a natural evolution as
the earliest articles were essentially regular newsgroup posts and
the group's purpose is the flamewar. The web site has moved more
towards the science side, a result of which is it being cited as a
source by Science, Nature, educational institutions, and the occasional
conservative columnist (John Derbyshire, in National Review).
So, if you insist that only 'the people responsible' are good enough
for you to talk to, you're out of luck. The people responsible have
never been all together in the newsgroup at the same time. Of those
who have written something which is currently on the site, some are
still here, though not as frequently as when they wrote whatever it
was. Chances are good that if you insist on debating one of
those people, they're not interested.
On the other hand, the way things get onto the site, and new stuff
does make it there regularly, is largely by field-testing here. If
you'll present something of sbustance for debate, there's a chance
of it making it to the web site.
But be clear: You haven't presented anything of substance above
(requoted here for convenience):
>If the site is anyway suggesting that we are simply a biological
>mechanism that has evolved, and follows the known laws of physics,
>then I would challenge you to an open debate on the subject.
What is 'biological mechanism'?
What do you mean by 'simply a biological mechanism'?
Who's 'we'? (the human species, mammals, you and the person you
debate)
'follows the known laws of physics' -- herring so far. Our bodies
work how they work. As best we've seen, they follow the laws of physics
as we already know them. But we haven't explained every detail of
everything using only what is known today about physics. Debator
game, not science. It's science we're after around here. Present
some violation of known physics if you want to debate about it.
If you want to elicit debate around here, you'll have to present
some statement that is a) clear about what is to be debated and
b) someone finds interesting enough to spend time on.
So far, you're neither clear nor interesting.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
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 Carnegie
Those who are dead - there's very little chance of you hearing from
them.
Other than that - here we are in the newsgroup, let's talk. If the
Great Old Ones of t.o choose not to talk with you, that is their free
will. They have spoken, isn't that enough? And if you want an "open
debate" in a form other than posting in this newsgroup - say sitting
on the steps of your local town hall, or a telephone conference call -
I repeat, who is going to bring beer?
LloydBrown
> If the site is anyway suggesting that we are simply a biological
> mechanism that has evolved, and follows the known laws of physics,
> then I would challenge you to an open debate on the subject. If it is
> not suggesting such a thing, then for clarities sake, should you not
> make it clear, as otherwise it might give the wrong impression.
With over 75,000 posts to this newsgroup, you're not likely to add
anything new. Do a search. You might find that whatever you're
proposing has already been suggested and thoroughly dismantled. TO
gets this sort of thing every 48 hours or so.
Robert Carnegie
> In regard to the phrase "known laws of physics", those are tentative,
> as is all science; to be discarded in light of new evidence. If
> something is shown to not follow the "known" laws of physics, those
> laws are not actually known, are they?
I don't like "tentative", could we go with "provisional"? A lot of my
taxes, not to mention my pension fund, is invested partly, indirectly,
in the presumption that the laws of physics as currently perceived
will hold up reasonably well for a while to come.
Augray
wrote in <1176990230.5...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com> :
Of course, it's quite possible that God created our physical bodies
through evolution and then injected "spirits" or "souls" into the
species at the appropriate time, so I must admit that I still don't
see what the relevance is.
Martin
> May I ask do you just have something up in the sense of "chat of the
> month" or something. If so, then I'd rather debate with the people
> behind the site thank you.
Why? What is a system administrator going to talk to you about? Do you
have a point to make as to whether it should be hosted on Apache or IIS?
MySQL or MS SQL?
I know some people can get a bit het up about this kind of thing.
Kermit
Ron is a scientist, and has contributed to the TO website, and has his
own website where he lists Creationist lies. He has challenged you
several times to visit it and respond, but you have not.
>
> By the way, that was really some rant you did there, you didn't even
> wait to hear what I was going to say.
You *have nothing to say, or you would have said it in the last half-
dozen "debates" you've participated(1) in.
If you think humans break any laws of physics, please offer the
evidence for it. If you have no evidence, the honest thing to do is
admit that your belief is religious (or at best, philosophical) in
nature, and is not science.
(1) For sufficiently low values of "participate".
Kermit
Kermit
> If the site is anyway suggesting that we are simply a biological
> mechanism that has evolved, and follows the known laws of physics,
> then I would challenge you to an open debate on the subject. If it is
> not suggesting such a thing, then for clarities sake, should you not
> make it clear, as otherwise it might give the wrong impression.
<monk looks up from sweeping the garden>
"If you would fight the Master, you must first pass the least of his
students. I suppose that would be me, although I can fetch one of the
children if you prefer. Please let me know your preference."
<monk bows and returns to sweeping>
Kermit
Robert Barstead
> On 19 Apr, 12:27, Sonofagunzel <soas...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> On Apr 19, 8:37 pm, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>> > If the site is anyway suggesting that we are simply a biological
>> > mechanism that has evolved, and follows the known laws of physics,
>> > then I would challenge you to an open debate on the subject. If it is
>> > not suggesting such a thing, then for clarities sake, should you not
>> > make it clear, as otherwise it might give the wrong impression.
>>
>
> You are not a writer for talk.origins, you are starting to behave more
> like a stalker, haven't you got something better to do?
>
Whether or not he's a writer for talk.origins, don't you think it's a great
question? Don't you think that this question could initiate a fascinating
conversation. After all, you think that humans violate the laws of physics.
Showing this to be true would put you in the highest rank of thinkers in all
of human history. It would represent a truly profound advance in both human
knowledge and spirituality. All you have to do to be listed amongst the
likes of Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Bacon, Hume, Kant, etc., is
to tell us the irrefutable method you use to show that humans violate the
laws of physics, but other things like robots and cell phones don't. You do
have such a method, don't you? Please, don't disappoint us again.
Enlighten us!
Bob Barstead
someone2
> On 19 Apr 2007 06:43:50 -0700, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com>
The relevance is that if it is implausible that we are simply a
biological mechanism that follows the known laws of physics that
evolved through the propagation of beneficial mutation, and that
instead perhaps should be viewed as an explanation for the human that
we experience being, then this should be clearly pointed out in
schools, unless the children got the wrong impression.
someone2
> In article <1176979065.273859.197...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >If the site is anyway suggesting that we are simply a biological
> >mechanism that has evolved, and follows the known laws of physics,
> >then I would challenge you to an open debate on the subject. If it is
> >not suggesting such a thing, then for clarities sake, should you not
> >make it clear, as otherwise it might give the wrong impression.
>
> Some history (all of it 'iirc'):
>
> The usenet group which is now called talk.origins (originally net.origins)
> has been around for a very long time as these things are measured in
> Internet time (Spring, 1984). Over that fairly lengthy expanse of time,
> quite a few people have passed through the group providing posts of substance.
>
Well on "The Last Conformists" advice I have written to the site
administrator, and invited those currently responsible for the site to
enter into open debate.
Which word in 'biological mechanism' is giving you a problem?
With regards to 'us', for the purposes of debate, I am referring to
humans.
With regards to your comment on the known laws of physics, firstly I
could cover the possibility that we strictly follow the known laws of
physics, and when this is shown to be implausible, cover the
possibility of that we are following laws of physics as yet
undiscovered.
If it isn't of interest to you whether we are or aren't simply
biological mechanisms that follow the known laws of physics, then why
bother responding?
eerok
> If the site is anyway suggesting that we are simply a biological
> mechanism that has evolved, and follows the known laws of physics,
> then I would challenge you to an open debate on the subject. If it is
> not suggesting such a thing, then for clarities sake, should you not
> make it clear, as otherwise it might give the wrong impression.
The word "suggest" can be a real can of worms. Some would say
that the ToE "suggests" atheism, but that is false. Science
is a tool that allows us to be as objective as possible about
things that we can observe; the fact that we need a strict,
methodological tool like science "suggests" that we are not
ordinarily, or at least reliably, very objective.
Science, arguably, is objectivity wrapped in a larger
subjective context. Our life experience is not objective, nor
can one reasonably expect that it should be. But what science
offers is very useful, both in the abstract sense of helping
us understand the world that surrounds us and the pragmatic
sense of solving concrete problems as in physics and medicine.
You could say that science is a point of view; that is, it
provides a lens to look through. What it "suggests" largely
depends on what you're looking at and, more importantly, why.
The practice and products of science are objective, but since
meaning requires a context, and contexts are highly variable,
the larger questions and their range of possible answers are
more matters of opinion. But there are other lenses, and no
one (reasonably) claims that science is good for everything.
So ... what kind of clarity are you after?
--
"The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality."
- George Bernard Shaw
someone2
It won't have been dismantled, it is a simple truth, shown to be so by
reasoning.
SeppoP
You really are a volubly dense writer and a far worse than a dull thinker.
Your drool above can be filtered down to:
"If it is implausible...(blaa blaa blaa) then this should should be pointed out".
Well, why don't you demonstrate why "it is implausible"? Empty assertions don't cost
much, neither do they have much effect on anything.
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
someone2
I have followed your advice, and posted an email to the administrator
of the talk.origins website, inviting those responsible to enter into
debate on the newsgroup. As for whether they will enter into the
debate, or decide to avoid it, we'll have to wait and see.
Ernest Major
someone2 <glenn....@btinternet.com> writes
>
>The relevance is that if it is implausible that we are simply a
>biological mechanism that follows the known laws of physics that
>evolved through the propagation of beneficial mutation, and that
>instead perhaps should be viewed as an explanation for the human that
>we experience being, then this should be clearly pointed out in
>schools, unless the children got the wrong impression.
>
It would help if your sentence had an ascertainable meaning, but since
you have failed miserably to demonstrate your premise, your conclusion,
whatever it may be, is not supported (even if it followed from your
premise, which on past observation cannot be relied upon).
--
alias Ernest Major
Thurisaz the Einherjer
> Are you a writer on the talk.origins website?
Did I claim that I am?
Consider me nothing more than a sypathetic mind.
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
Augray
wrote in <1176994668.0...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com> :
>On 19 Apr, 15:07, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> On 19 Apr 2007 06:43:50 -0700, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com>
>> wrote in <1176990230.544800.115...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com> :
>>
>> >On 19 Apr, 14:29, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> >> On 19 Apr 2007 03:37:45 -0700, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com>
>> >> wrote in <1176979065.273859.197...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> :
>>
>> >> >If the site is anyway suggesting that we are simply a biological
>> >> >mechanism that has evolved, and follows the known laws of physics,
>> >> >then I would challenge you to an open debate on the subject. If it is
>> >> >not suggesting such a thing, then for clarities sake, should you not
>> >> >make it clear, as otherwise it might give the wrong impression.
>>
>> >> How is that relevant to the talk.origins site?
>>
>> >Well if evolution is the theory of an explanation for us, and it is
>> >that a biological mechanism that follows the known laws of physics
>> >evolved through propagation of beneficial mutation, then I would have
>> >thought the relevance is obvious.
>>
>> Of course, it's quite possible that God created our physical bodies
>> through evolution and then injected "spirits" or "souls" into the
>> species at the appropriate time, so I must admit that I still don't
>> see what the relevance is.
>
>The relevance is that if it is implausible that we are simply a
>biological mechanism that follows the known laws of physics that
>evolved through the propagation of beneficial mutation,
Why? On what basis do you make that claim?
>and that
>instead perhaps should be viewed as an explanation for the human that
>we experience being,
But we obviously don't "experience being" all the time.
>then this should be clearly pointed out in
>schools, unless the children got the wrong impression.
I think that most children are aware that they're self-aware, so it
hardly needs to be pointed out. What does that have to do with
evolution?
Mark VandeWettering
> If the site is anyway suggesting that we are simply a biological
> mechanism that has evolved, and follows the known laws of physics,
> then I would challenge you to an open debate on the subject.
Humans are a mechanism that has evolved and follow the known laws
of physics. I don't think that that the adverb "simply" follows:
there is nothing particularly simple about this.
If you'd like to debate any particular issue relating to this, you
are of course free to put forth your issues for open debate, and
people can (and undoubtably will) respond.
Me? I'm pretty sure you're an insincere troll. Nobody is as
dense as you appear to be. But just in case you are, the quality
of your arguments thusfar do not bode well for you.
> If it is not suggesting such a thing, then for clarities sake,
> should you not make it clear, as otherwise it might give the wrong
> impression.
Mark
Mark VandeWettering
>>
>> > If the site is anyway suggesting that we are simply a biological
>> > mechanism that has evolved, and follows the known laws of physics,
>> > not suggesting such a thing, then for clarities sake, should you not
>> > make it clear, as otherwise it might give the wrong impression.
>>
>> evidence or personal subjective experience and personal testimony
>> support any view that human beings are or are not simply (instances
>> of) "a biological mechanism that has evolved, and follows the known
>> laws of physics." That is to say, whether or not there is more to us
>> than that, or more to our world than that.
>>
>> I don't think I'm a talk.origins contributor unless I made it into
>> archives of "Post of the Month" or "Chez Watt" (and which one is more
>> likely?) I expect some of the people who wrote articles there are
>> dead now, even not counting the "quote-mine" lists (misused sayings of
>> Darwin etc). Out of curiosity, what sort of "open debate" do you have
>> in mind? And who's bringing the beer?
>
> An open debate into whether we are simply a biological mechanism that
> follows the known laws of physics.
>
> Are you suggesting that the people responsible for the website no
> longer monitoring this discussion group, or that there is little
> possibility that they will enter into open debate?
If you want to engage clever people, begin with a clever argument.
Mark
Mark VandeWettering
> It is the topics stated that I wish to discuss. Though I would like to
> discuss them with the people behind the site, openly on this forum.
What is stopping you?
Mark
loua...@yahoo.com
>
> Well on "The Last Conformists" advice I have written to the site
> administrator, and invited those currently responsible for the site to
> enter into open debate.
You keep saying that. Even though you have been told at least twice
that "those currently responsible" on the t.o. website are the members
of this newsgroup. And we're all right here. So fine, feel free at
any moment to start your open debate by saying something specific
enough that it _can_ be debated.
Why won't you take yes for an answer?
And before you ask, I've got some few Posts of the Month on the t.o.
web site, so I can certainly be considered an individual contributor
as well as a t.o. group regular.
"Biological mechanism" is the closest you've come to a specific
statement so far, so I'll start the ball rolling if you like.
I assert that human beings are biological mechanisms because we die
when deprived of the standard biological inputs like food, water, or
air. Also we die when portions of the biological mechanism are
removed or damaged -- heart, brain, and spinal cord are among a few
that come to mind.
At the other end of the cycle, humans are biological mechanisms
because we begin life as a single cell and develop into full-scale
humans by well-known biological processes which require constant
inputs of food, water, and oxygen. I know because I've done it myself,
twice.
Now you go.
eerok
> On 19 Apr, 14:45, b...@radix.net (Robert Grumbine) wrote:
>> In article <1176979065.273859.197...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>> someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote:
[...]
>> >If the site is anyway suggesting that we are simply a
>> >biological mechanism that has evolved, and follows the
>> >known laws of physics, then I would challenge you to an
>> >open debate on the subject.
>> What is 'biological mechanism'? What do you mean by
>> 'simply a biological mechanism'? Who's 'we'? (the human
>> species, mammals, you and the person you debate) 'follows
>> the known laws of physics' -- herring so far. Our bodies
>> work how they work. As best we've seen, they follow the
>> laws of physics as we already know them. But we haven't
>> explained every detail of everything using only what is
>> known today about physics. Debator game, not science.
>> It's science we're after around here. Present some
>> violation of known physics if you want to debate about
>> it.
>>
>> If you want to elicit debate around here, you'll have to
>> present some statement that is a) clear about what is to
>> be debated and b) someone finds interesting enough to
>> spend time on.
>>
>> So far, you're neither clear nor interesting.
> Well on "The Last Conformists" advice I have written to the
> site administrator, and invited those currently responsible
> for the site to enter into open debate.
As has been explained to you already, your quest in this
respect is misguided, though I suppose you'll have to discover
that for yourself.
> Which word in 'biological mechanism' is giving you a
> problem?
For me, it's the word "simply." I smell a straw man, since
science doesn't make arbitrary judgments like that -- they are
beyond the scope of observation, lack predictive value, and
have no place in the methodology. So your problem here is one
of your own making.
> With regards to 'us', for the purposes of debate, I am
> referring to humans.
>
> With regards to your comment on the known laws of physics,
> firstly I could cover the possibility that we strictly
> follow the known laws of physics, and when this is shown to
> be implausible, cover the possibility of that we are
> following laws of physics as yet undiscovered.
>
> If it isn't of interest to you whether we are or aren't
> simply biological mechanisms that follow the known laws of
> physics, then why bother responding?
I for one am interested in hearing how the laws of physics are
implausible. Should we expect something from you soon?
George the Guy Who Watches Terrapene carolina triungus
> On Apr 19, 8:09 am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On 19 Apr, 11:37, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > > If the site is anyway suggesting that we are simply a biological
> > > mechanism that has evolved, and follows the known laws of physics,
> > > then I would challenge you to an open debate on the subject.
>
>
> > 1. are not a simple biological mechanism (robots?, plasma vortices?)
>
> Are you saying that you think you are a robot ?
>
> Where can I buy one of these.
>
> My house needs cleaning.
>
> > snp
> > I am not a contributor to the talk.origins web site but I'd have no
> > trouble with the idea that people are not magical.
>
> I saw Michael Jordan play and that was definitely *magical* when he
> jumped completely backwards and made a perfect jump shot while
> horizontal on his BACK about 6 feet off the floor.
>
> A little of old ladies thought Frank SInatra was magical.
>
> A lot of teenage girls thought Paul McCartney was magical.
>
> George Patton was magical in the European theatre.
>
> Winston Churchill pulled some magic himself.
>
> on the other hand George B seems to have lost his magic.
>
>
>
> > Why do I share a broken gene for vitamin C synthesis with the great
> > apes (ok, "other great apes" for the cladist audience).
>
> Humans are not apes because we diverged from apes 5-7 million years
> ago.
To reword Will Cubby's observations:
It took 5-7 million years for man to become what he is today.
And we know what he is today! ;-)
>
> Humans are not apes because the common usage of the word "ape" in the
> vernacular excludes humans.
>
> "Although the superfamily of apes has always included humans, in its
> taxonomical definition, a more specific connotation of the word "ape"
> exists in the vernacular. This common usage of the word excludes
> humans when referring to apes. This linguistic phenomenon is similar
> to the common usage of words such as "animal", "attitude", "behave",
> and "temperature", to convey a commonly accepted meaning that is more
> specific than the precise definition of the word. Just as people with
> a good disposition are commonly excluded from being defined as having
> "an attitude", children who are disobedient are commonly said to "not
> behave", and healthy people are commonly told they do not have "a
> temperature", humans are often excluded from the groups commonly
> called "animals" and "apes"."
>
> Don't ape all the other humans trying to reply to this.
>
> http://www.stickergiant.com/page/sg/PROD/funinsa/dcb606
>
>
>
> > --
> > Nick Keighley
someone2
Ok, well considering that you have got some posts of the month, then
it would seem like you are a reaonable person. So I will enter the
debate with you.
Would you consider it a possibility that a robot driven by a neural
network might be able to have subjective experiences? By experiences I
mean that we for example experience colours, or sounds, by subjective
I mean that while we may both have a public label for a colour being
green for example, there is the possibility that if hypothetically you
were to experience the colour that I experienced as green, you might
find it is the experience of the colour that you label as blue.
David Iain Greig
> On Apr 19, 6:37 am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> If the site is anyway suggesting that we are simply a biological
>> mechanism that has evolved, and follows the known laws of physics,
>> not suggesting such a thing, then for clarities sake, should you not
>> make it clear, as otherwise it might give the wrong impression.
>
>
> Talk.origins is a Usenet newsgroup devoted to the discussion
> and debate of biological and physical origins. Most
> discussions in the newsgroup center on the
> creation/evolution controversy, but other topics of
> discussion include the origin of life, geology, biology,
> catastrophism, cosmology and theology.
>
> The TalkOrigins Archive is a collection of articles and
> essays, most of which have appeared in talk.origins at one
> time or another. The primary reason for this archive's
> existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to
> the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in
> the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted
> assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other
> creationist pseudosciences.
>
> What is unclear about that?
Technically *I* wrote the 'talk.origins website'. The Archive,
on the other hand, I maintain an arms length plausible deniability
sort of thing around.
--D.
Robert Grumbine
Clue: A debate is about some clearly stated proposition which can
be affirmed or denied, and you choose one of the two sides.
First, state some clear proposition. Second, declare whether you're
affirming or denying it.
'would you consider it a possibility ...' is not a proposition
for debate. You're not going to argue that the person does
(if they say they don't) or don't (if they say they do) consider
it a possibility. Quit dancing and declare something.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
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 Barstead
> The relevance is that if it is implausible that we are simply a
> biological mechanism that follows the known laws of physics that
> evolved through the propagation of beneficial mutation, and that
> instead perhaps should be viewed as an explanation for the human that
> we experience being, then this should be clearly pointed out in
> schools, unless the children got the wrong impression.
>
That you use the word "implausible" suggests that you allow for some level
of uncertainty in your perspective; i.e. your confidence is a matter of
degree. If you want to convince us, therefore, your argument should include
some measure of the magnitude of that uncertainty...this is best done using
a mathematical probability calculation. If you aren't up to the math, you
might ask for Dr. Pitman's help.
Bob Barstead
Mike Dworetsky
news:1176989232.8...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 19, 11:14 pm, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On 19 Apr, 13:59, Sonofagunzel <soas...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 19, 10:53 pm, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On 19 Apr, 12:57, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > > > > If the site is anyway suggesting that we are simply a biological
>> > > > > mechanism that has evolved, and follows the known laws of
>> > > > > physics,
>> > > > > then I would challenge you to an open debate on the subject. If
>> > > > > it is
>> > > > > not suggesting such a thing, then for clarities sake, should you
>> > > > > not
>> > > > > make it clear, as otherwise it might give the wrong impression.
>>
>> > > > It
>> > > > just sounds like you object to the fact that people don't make the
>> > > > disclaimer that "of course, this argument doesn't exclude the
>> > > > possiblity that invisible pink unicorns exist."
>>
>> > > > What articles are suggesting what you claim?
>>
>> > > > want
>> > > > to debate about something as stupid as clarifying such an issue?
>> > > > What
>> > > > does it matter? Does it change the evidence, or make your
>> > > > alternative
>> > > > any more or less supportable? Your alternative has to stand on its
>> > > > own merits, not what you think are difficiencies in the alternative
>> > > > that you don't like. Support your alternative. It is just sad
>> > > > when
>> > > > people spend all their time claiming that some other alternative
>> > > > isn't
>> > > > good enough when they know for a fact that their own alternative is
>> > > > even worse. Just think what you are doing. You are just
>> > > > demonstrating the fact that you don't have an argument worth
>> > > > talking
>> > > > about. If the science is so bad, what does that tell you about
>> > > > your
>> > > > beliefs?
>>
>> > > May I ask do you just have something up in the sense of "chat of the
>> > > behind the site thank you.
>>
>> > > By the way, that was really some rant you did there, you didn't even
>> > > wait to hear what I was going to say.
>>
>>
>> Are you still stalking?
>
> What are you wearing?
>
No, no, no!! If you are seriously stalking, the question should be along the
lines of "What colour are your knickers?"
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
AC
Have you ever considered the possibility that these people may have
better things to do than to debate with a guy who couldn't even properly
communicate his ideas, and ended up endlessly repeating the same post
or some slight variation of it over and over and over again?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
AC
someone2 <glenn....@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On 19 Apr, 12:27, Sonofagunzel <soas...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> On Apr 19, 8:37 pm, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>> > If the site is anyway suggesting that we are simply a biological
>> > mechanism that has evolved, and follows the known laws of physics,
>> > then I would challenge you to an open debate on the subject. If it is
>> > not suggesting such a thing, then for clarities sake, should you not
>> > make it clear, as otherwise it might give the wrong impression.
>>
>
> You are not a writer for talk.origins, you are starting to behave more
> like a stalker, haven't you got something better to do?
If you want to talk to the people that have authored articles and FAQs
on the *talkorigins.org* website, then bloody well email them. You post
here to talk to anybody who reads this newsgroup and cares to reply.
If you don't want replies, then don't do public posts, it's that simple.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
AC
>
> Would you consider it a possibility that a robot driven by a neural
> network might be able to have subjective experiences? By experiences I
> mean that we for example experience colours, or sounds, by subjective
> I mean that while we may both have a public label for a colour being
> green for example, there is the possibility that if hypothetically you
> were to experience the colour that I experienced as green, you might
> find it is the experience of the colour that you label as blue.
Was there a reason to start a new thread when all you did was repeat
the same post you endlessly made on the other thread?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
Ian Chua
> On Apr 19, 6:37 am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > If the site is anyway suggesting that we are simply a biological
> > mechanism that has evolved, and follows the known laws of physics,
> > then I would challenge you to an open debate on the subject. If it is
> > not suggesting such a thing, then for clarities sake, should you not
> > make it clear, as otherwise it might give the wrong impression.
>
>
> Talk.origins is a Usenet newsgroup devoted to the discussion
> and debate of biological and physical origins. Most
> discussions in the newsgroup center on the
> creation/evolution controversy, but other topics of
> discussion include the origin of life, geology, biology,
> catastrophism, cosmology and theology.
>
> The TalkOrigins Archive is a collection of articles and
> essays, most of which have appeared in talk.origins at one
> time or another. The primary reason for this archive's
> existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to
> the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in
> the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted
> assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other
> creationist pseudosciences.
>
> What is unclear about that?
>
> involved in evolution. It simply refutes weak arguments for that
> position. The writers are theists, atheists and agnostics. They all
> agree that the evidence indicates that evolution happens and that it
> happened in the past, but the evidence does not indicate whether a
> supernatural power was subtly involved.
>
> If you wish to debate the topics at talkorigins.org, this Usenet group
> is the place to do so.
>
> In regard to the phrase "known laws of physics", those are tentative,
> as is all science; to be discarded in light of new evidence. If
> something is shown to not follow the "known" laws of physics, those
> laws are not actually known, are they?
>
> --
> Greg G.
>
> No, I've changed it to "Trust Everyone", didn't I tell you?
> --Fox Mulder
Excellent response..
someone2
Would you be willing to openly enter a debate on this newsgroup into
the plausibility of us (humans) simply being a biological mechanism
that evolved through the propagation of beneficial mutations?
Mike Dworetsky
OK, now I say we should all stay out of this branch of the thread while
louann_m and someone2 have a discussion/debate. If it degenerates the way
it did with nowhereman (Oh, boy! remember that??) then debate rules and
judges will be needed. Stay civil, both of you. I'm assuming that neither
is at this point needing anyone to declare one or the other a "winner."
If it goes to a more formal debate with rules then a new thread is probably
needed.
someone2
wrote:
> "someone2" <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
Thank you for your sound suggestion.
chris.li...@gmail.com
Uh oh! Based on that single (run-on) sentence, I predict a replay of
the tragedy that happened in Gaza not long ago:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/6500079.stm
Chris
Ken Denny
>
> I mean that while we may both have a public label for a colour being
> green for example, there is the possibility that if hypothetically you
> were to experience the colour that I experienced as green, you might
> find it is the experience of the colour that you label as blue.
I know you won't respond but I'll chime in with this: *If* we had a
complete understanding of how the color receptors in the brain worked
and *if* we could do a thorough examination of the color receptors in
two people's brains, it would be theoretically possible to state
unequivocably whether or not those two people experienced green the
same way or not.
Will in New Haven
> If the site is anyway suggesting that we are simply a biological
> mechanism that has evolved, and follows the known laws of physics,
> then I would challenge you to an open debate on the subject. If it is
> not suggesting such a thing, then for clarities sake, should you not
> make it clear, as otherwise it might give the wrong impression.
It isn't a site, it is a newsgroup.
The newsgroup doesn't suggest anything; the people who post here air
their points of view, some intelligent and many that are moronic.
And you are not someone2. You are no one.
Will in New Haven
loua...@yahoo.com
> Would you consider it a possibility that a robot driven by a neural
> network might be able to have subjective experiences? By experiences I
> mean that we for example experience colours, or sounds, by subjective
> I mean that while we may both have a public label for a colour being
> green for example, there is the possibility that if hypothetically you
> were to experience the colour that I experienced as green, you might
> find it is the experience of the colour that you label as blue.
I presented evidence for people being biological mechanisms. Do you
have any evidence for your assertion that we aren't?
Because vague speculation about "is my red your green" isn't evidence
of anything. What would count as proof either for or against the
question? If it -were- completely and solidly answered, what
difference would it make?
As far as I can tell, you don't know _yourself_ what your question
means clearly enough to notice when you've changed the subject.
Will in New Haven
> On 19 Apr, 11:51, Thurisaz the Einherjer <MAILTOsecret...@carcosa.de>
> wrote:
>
> > someone2:
>
> > > If the site is anyway suggesting that we are simply a biological
> > > mechanism that has evolved, and follows the known laws of physics,
> > > then I would challenge you to an open debate on the subject.
>
> > happens to have some merit (in sharp contrast to 99.9 % of so-called
> > "arguments" brought forth against good science), someone might want to take
> > your challenge, but I dare say that you'll have to show at least a few of
> > your cards.
>
> Are you a writer on the talk.origins website?
EVERYONE who writes here, which is pretty much anyone who wants to, is
"a writer on the talk.origins" newsgroup, which is a discussion forum,
part of usenet and NOT a website.
Will in New Haven
someone2
Maybe it would be best if you followed Mike Dworetsky's suggestion,
and left me and louann_m to have a debate uninterupted.
Ken Denny
> On 2007-04-19, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > If the site is anyway suggesting that we are simply a biological
> > mechanism that has evolved, and follows the known laws of physics,
> > then I would challenge you to an open debate on the subject.
>
> Humans are a mechanism that has evolved and follow the known laws
> of physics. I don't think that that the adverb "simply" follows:
> there is nothing particularly simple about this.
I will add that if someone (not just someoneN but anyone) finds an
instance where humans do not follow the known laws of physics, then it
is our knowledge of physics that is lacking.
loua...@yahoo.com
I wouldn't go that far. I do suspect that his ideas have never been
mantled enough in the first place to be _dis_mantled.
Everybody does the whichness-of-the-why philosophical questions at
some point. Being a college freshman, slightly drunk, or both are
common triggers. Most people are just grounded enough to realize they
haven't made a Unique Intellectual Breakthrough That Will Sweep Away
All In Its Path.
shrug.
Will in New Haven
> On 19 Apr, 13:59, Sonofagunzel <soas...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 19, 10:53 pm, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 19 Apr, 12:57, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > If the site is anyway suggesting that we are simply a biological
> > > > > mechanism that has evolved, and follows the known laws of physics,
> > > > > not suggesting such a thing, then for clarities sake, should you not
> > > > > make it clear, as otherwise it might give the wrong impression.
>
> > > > just sounds like you object to the fact that people don't make the
> > > > disclaimer that "of course, this argument doesn't exclude the
> > > > possiblity that invisible pink unicorns exist."
>
> > > > What articles are suggesting what you claim?
>
> > > > If you have objections put up specific examples. Why would you want
> > > > to debate about something as stupid as clarifying such an issue? What
> > > > does it matter? Does it change the evidence, or make your alternative
> > > > any more or less supportable? Your alternative has to stand on its
> > > > own merits, not what you think are difficiencies in the alternative
> > > > that you don't like. Support your alternative. It is just sad when
> > > > people spend all their time claiming that some other alternative isn't
> > > > good enough when they know for a fact that their own alternative is
> > > > even worse. Just think what you are doing. You are just
> > > > demonstrating the fact that you don't have an argument worth talking
> > > > about. If the science is so bad, what does that tell you about your
> > > > beliefs?
>
> > > May I ask do you just have something up in the sense of "chat of the
> > > month" or something. If so, then I'd rather debate with the people
> > > behind the site thank you.
>
> > > By the way, that was really some rant you did there, you didn't even
> > > wait to hear what I was going to say.
>
> > He's quick on the uptake.
>
> Are you still stalking?
Look, fool, you are posting in a public newsgroup. Anyone may reply.
EVERYONE HERE is a "writer" for this newsgroup, including you until
your death in incredible agony very soon, and anyone may reply to your
posts. The "site" you keep bringing up is a minor offspring of this
newsgroup and the writers on there have no more status here than
anyone else, except possibly you.
Will in New Haven
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
loua...@yahoo.com
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> And you are not someone2. You are no one.
>
> Will in New Haven
He doesn't appear to be Nowhere Man, I'll say that in his favo(u)r.
eerok
You also have to consider the color of the light. Daylight is
around 5500 degrees Kelvin; tungsten light is around 2800
degrees Kelvin. The eye adjusts between these ranges so that
"white" appears neither blue nor yellow.
Color is somewhat abstract; you need an observer, context, and
criteria to decide anything much about how anything appears.
AC
He is, however, a carbon-copy poster. His first challenge to you is
simply the same post he was making on the other thread. At least Nowhere
Man was fun to poke and prod. This guy is just plain dull.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
someone2
Sry I hadn't noticed the reply.
With regards to your evidence that we are biological mechanisms, it
doesn't show that there is not a spiritual being experiencing being a
human in the physical world, and that afterwards we wouldn't
experience Heaven or Hell.
With regards to my assertion that we aren't simply a biological
mechanism, it would help if you answered my question, and I could show
you why.
The point isn't about whether we experience green the same or not,
that was just to allude to what I meant by subjective experiences.
Walter Bushell
"loua...@yahoo.com" <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I wouldn't go that far. I do suspect that his ideas have never been
> mantled enough in the first place to be _dis_mantled.
Did you just give him a Mickey?
Walter Bushell
"Mike Dworetsky" <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
> OK, now I say we should all stay out of this branch of the thread while
> louann_m and someone2 have a discussion/debate. If it degenerates the way
> it did with nowhereman (Oh, boy! remember that??) then debate rules and
> judges will be needed.
It ended with nowhereman declaring victory because Lauann_m used too
many facts, IIRC.
Alan Morgan
someone2 <glenn....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>On 19 Apr, 13:09, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>> On 19 Apr, 11:37, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>> > If the site is anyway suggesting that we are simply a biological
>> > mechanism that has evolved, and follows the known laws of physics,
>> > then I would challenge you to an open debate on the subject.
>>
>>
>> 1. are not a simple biological mechanism (robots?, plasma vortices?)
>> 2. did not evolve (panspermia? special creation? spontaneous
>> appearance?)
>> or
>> 3. do not obey the laws of physics (!?)
>>
>> I'm frankly baffled as to what you think the alternatives are.
>>
>> > If it is
>> > not suggesting such a thing, then for clarities sake, should you not
>> > make it clear, as otherwise it might give the wrong impression.
>>
>> evidence to the contrary what is wrong with implying this.
>>
>> I am not a contributer to the talk.origins web site but I'd have no
>> trouble with the idea that people are not magical.
>>
>> Why do I share a broken gene for vitamin C synthesis with the great
>> apes (ok, "other great apes" for the cladist audience).
>
>So you are not a writer of the talk origins website.
Dude. What. The. Fuck?
What on Earth is your obsession with the writers of the talk origins
website? A number of people who have replied to you contributed articles
to that website and any one of them is capable of grinding you into
a metaphorical pulp on the subject of evolution. I'd be impressed if
you can come up with an idea that is even remotely original, so bring
it on.
Alan
--
Defendit numerus
Vend
wrote:
Would you think that the experience of being a newsgroup which doesn't
experience being experienced makes any difference than the experience
of being a website which experiences not being experienced?
Robert Grumbine
That, and he finally realized he was debating a gurl and ran away, afraid
of getting cooties, or something.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
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
Greg G.
When I was in first grade, I noticed that the olive green posters
looked like a slightly more vivid green through my right eye than
through my left eye. I have always favored my left eye as the image
has always been sharper in it. I blame a slightly different ratio of
rods and cones in the retina.
I have wondered whether some people see the world more vividly than
others and how that affects their personalities. Do people use drugs
to numb themselves against a too strong perception of an over-vivid
world or do they use them to spice up a bland perception? Would a
vivid perception of the world draw one to the arts? Do people with
varying degrees of color-blindness show any common preferences for art
or science?
--
Greg G.
Oh, the evils of alcohol! There's only one thing worse than drink...
THIRST!
WuzYoungOnceToo
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>
> Look, fool, you are posting in a public newsgroup. Anyone may reply.
> EVERYONE HERE is a "writer" for this newsgroup, including you until
> your death in incredible agony very soon, and anyone may reply to your
> posts. The "site" you keep bringing up is a minor offspring of this
> newsgroup and the writers on there have no more status here than
> anyone else, except possibly you.
Uh...not for nothin', Will, but I believe he/she/it is referring to
http://www.talkorigins.org/. Of course, he/she/it is still a fool for
posting his/her/its challenge here instead of e-mailing or otherwise
contacting the website in question, and for pretending to be
interested in debate when that is so obviously not true.
David Iain Greig
Well, first of all, the USENET newsgroup talk.origins is what I am
responsible for, which you persist in confusing with the Archive. I
thought I was clear; I am not involved in running the Archive.
Secondly, we've been discussing human evolution for decades on this
newsgroup. what makes you special?
--D.
>
someone2
Well why don't you enter into the debate and find out. If the point I
am making has already been discussed, then no doubt you would know the
answer to it. You would have decades of arguments for your perspective
behind you. Presumably you hold the perspective you do through reason,
so there's nothing to be nervous about. If you would rather not enter
the debate then that's fine, there's no pressure.
Robert Carnegie
Alan Morgan wrote:
The goal of many trolls is to get attention, defined as worthwhile
people expending valuable brain cells to interact with the troll, who,
in the meantime, puts in the minimum effort necessary to keep other
people responding to them. This thread, for instance, is above 90
posts already.
Demanding attention from the Writers of t.o.org is the acme of
trollhood. Just so do trolls in other domains send letters to every
U.S. Senator and the White House, or conjure spirits from the vasty
deep or whatever it is.
someone2's line of questioning and unrelenting approach suggests one
further angle - that he is a robot. With one monochrome webcam for
vision - hence the fascination with the qualia of colour. Just a
thought.
Robert Carnegie
someone2 wrote:
But you did say an /open/ debate. that's tag-team rules, right?
On the other hand, this is getting very long to read.
Richard Harter
wrote:
>If the site is anyway suggesting that we are simply a biological
>mechanism that has evolved, and follows the known laws of physics,
>then I would challenge you to an open debate on the subject. If it is
>not suggesting such a thing, then for clarities sake, should you not
>make it clear, as otherwise it might give the wrong impression.
Since I am one of the Great Old Ones, being a contributor to the
newsgroup ever since the dusty dim years of the last century when it was
still net.origins, and since I am the author of several articles in
talk.origins website and the author of at least one post of the month I
suppose I qualify as one of "the writers of the Talk Origins website".
Perhaps you would like to debate me. If so, there are several
preliminaries that need to be observed.
First of all your challenge is conditional. You wrote "If the site is
suggesting ... then I would challenge ...." Before I would engage in
any such debate you must establish that the condition of your challenge
has been met, i.e., you must establish that "the site is anyway
suggesting that we are simply a biological mechanism that has evolved."
A naked assertion will not do. To establish the condition you must
provide specific citations from the website and convince me that they
establish the claim.
Secondly, the statement "we are simply a biological mechanism that has
evolved" is rather vague; it needs some clarification.
Thirdly, the phrase, "follows the known laws of physics" is not
acceptable as stated. The difficulties are manifest; it is unlikely
that we know all of the relevant laws of physics. You need to be
clearer about what you actually mean.
Nothing was said in your challenge about the ground rules of the debate.
That is fortunate, because I will set the ground rules of the debate. I
will spell them out once you satisfactorily handled the aforesaid
difficulties.
Have the best of good days.
Greg G.
> In article <o6idnc42JYkoAbrbRVny...@bt.com>,
> "Mike Dworetsky" <platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > OK, now I say we should all stay out of this branch of the thread while
> > louann_m and someone2 have a discussion/debate. If it degenerates the way
> > it did with nowhereman (Oh, boy! remember that??) then debate rules and
> > judges will be needed.
>
> It ended with nowhereman declaring victory because Lauann_m used too
> many facts, IIRC.
cough_Lilith_cough
--
Greg G.
Ideas are great provided they don't degenerate into work.
Jim
<snip>
> The relevance is that if it is implausible that we are simply a
> biological mechanism that follows the known laws of physics that
> evolved through the propagation of beneficial mutation, and that
> instead perhaps should be viewed as an explanation for the human that
> we experience being, then this should be clearly pointed out in
> schools, unless the children got the wrong impression.
"we... should be viewed as an explanation for the human that we
experience being" OK. What the heck does this mean? I cannot make
any sense of this at all, even given the supposition that you think
'human' is some magical quality that imbues only H. sapiens sapiens.
Are you claiming our physical bodies were somehow magicked into
existence specifically to house the human consciousness? Talk about
implausible...
As an aside, let me point out that the distinction between plausible
and implausible depends entirely on how much one knows about the
processes under question - many things that are wildly implausible to
the ignorant seem perfectly reasonable to those who know more, and in
fact some occur as a matter of course.
Jim
First Lilith, now Louann... I just LOVE it when a debate gets fired
up and one of the supremely competent women who frequent t.o. deign to
make mincemeat. I just love it. Thanks Louann.