"Adman's Hypothesis on Brain Chemistry and the Perception of God"
![[M]adman's profile photo](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a/default-user=s40-c)
[M]adman
For every characteristic that a species possesses there must be a set of
instructions at the chromosome level to give that species the specific
characteristic. For instance, all dogs have their eyes located in the same
place. So dogs should have a set of instructions at the chromosome level
where the eyes are to placed when the dog is forming in the womb.
In comparison, many humans throughout history have the characteristic to
perceived God very clearly; while others have not. This phenomenon can be
observed on T.O.
Therefore the atheist/evolutionist appear to be lacking the necessary
instructions at the chromosome level for their brain to develop the
necessary ability to perceive God. I have tested this understanding using
various questions regarding God over an extended period of time and have
observed "believers in God" understand and respond to the questions in a
positive manor while the atheist/evolutionist does not.
This phenomenon can best be explained by a micro-evolutionary genetic drift
and/or mutation within a small percentage of human population. This mutation
places them outside the norm. A norm which has been observed throughout
history. That norm is the ability to perceive God. Therefore the
atheist/evolutionist has what can be considered a mild form of brain damage
caused by genetic drift and/or mutation. The mutation is yet to be
identified.
I predict the mutation will be found
I predict medical science will develop a surgery to repair the damaged part
of the brain
So to formalize my hypothesis:
=============================================
"Adman's Hypothesis on Brain Chemistry and the Perception of God"
"If the perception of God is related to brain chemistry, then people lacking
the necessary brain chemistry due to an unknown mutation will have a higher
frequency of lacking an ability to perceive God."
=============================================
I await peer review.
--
It is all about the truth with:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
wf3h
> -
> For every characteristic that a species possesses there must be a set of
> instructions at the chromosome level to give that species the specific
> characteristic. For instance, all dogs have their eyes located in the same
> place. So dogs should have a set of instructions at the chromosome level
> where the eyes are to placed when the dog is forming in the womb.
>
> In comparison, many humans throughout history have the characteristic to
> perceived God very clearly; while others have not. This phenomenon can be
> observed on T.O.
well, no. perceiving something is different than perceiving something
accurately. we perceived the stars...we didn't know what they were.
>
> Therefore the atheist/evolutionist appear to be lacking the necessary
> instructions at the chromosome level for their brain to develop the
> necessary ability to perceive God. I have tested this understanding using
> various questions regarding God
adman's logic:
god exists
proof of this is that some people don't believe god exists
science proves this
science is always wrong because it's not based on ancient texts
therefore god exists
YOU CONVINCED ME!!
>
> =============================================
> "Adman's Hypothesis on Brain Chemistry
how can you formulate a hypothesis about something you don't have?
Bill
I totally disagree. Someones life course is epigenetic &
phyleogenetic. Not genetic.
The best *analogy* I can come up with is pornography.
Obviously there are people who don't mind being porn stars.
I have yet to hear of one who did not have some trauma in their life.
I have also yet to find an athiest who either did not have,
1) Had trauma, & blamed god. (i think, but not sure dawkins & darwin
did)
2) They were brought up by parents who had the trauma.
rno...@umich.edu
<snip silliness>
> I await peer review.
My dictionary defines "peer" as "a person or thing of the same
effectiveness or ability as the one(s) in question". I doubt if we
will ever be able to find a person or thing with intelligence equal to
Madman.
Chris
He meant "pear review" since only a fruit would take this seriously.
Chris
Chris
> -
> For every characteristic that a species possesses there must be a set of
> instructions at the chromosome level to give that species the specific
> characteristic. For instance, all dogs have their eyes located in the same
> place. So dogs should have a set of instructions at the chromosome level
> where the eyes are to placed when the dog is forming in the womb.
>
Thank you for your admission that homosexuality is genetically
determined.
Chris
snip
wf3h
now comes the amateur psychology..
>
> 1) Had trauma, & blamed god. (i think, but not sure dawkins & darwin
> did)
uh...doesn't BLAMING god mean you BELIEVE in god?
oh...creationists don't do logic.
>
slothr...@hotmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
This is a joke, right? I must be slow today...
slothrop
Bill
If you look at your "rating". It just went up.
Because I gave you what you deserve.
And the answer to your question is "yes".
Bill
>
> - Show quoted text -
All "sloth's are slow".
wf3h
so an atheist is someone who believes in god....
and people wonder why religion is dying...you just put a knife in its
heart
slothr...@hotmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
tell me about it, though it comes in handy sometimes with the
slothettes...
Will in New Haven
I have a bag of rocks that could do a peer review of (M)adman's work.
--
Will in New Haven
Bill
It will get worse, before it gets better.
[M]adman
There are exceptions to every rule
[M]adman
in handy with the fast slothetts
[M]adman
Yes [sigh]. I */am/* that smart. But i try not to talk over your heads
I really try
Burkhard
> -
> For every characteristic that a species possesses there must be a set of
> instructions at the chromosome level to give that species the specific
> characteristic. For instance, all dogs have their eyes located in the same
> place. So dogs should have a set of instructions at the chromosome level
> where the eyes are to placed when the dog is forming in the womb.
>
> In comparison, many humans throughout history have the characteristic to
> perceived God very clearly; while others have not. This phenomenon can be
> observed on T.O.
3 mistakes already. First even if it were true that most people
report that they perceive God, this does not mean they perceive God -
they could be lying due to social pressures or the danger of being
burned by fundamentalist weirdos like yourself. So you would have to
control for the interviewer effect.
Second, "perceiving", just like "seeing" is a somewhat ambiguous
term, sometimes interpreted extensionally, sometimes intensionally. If
you see or perceive a mirage, what you see or perceive does not exist
(or at least not where you see it, or in the form). So you are in
danger of smuggling in an existential assumption for which you don't
have yet provided any evidence. "People report that they perceive
soemthing they call God" is therefore what you should have.
You make your mistakes worse by claiming that the majority of people
in societies have perceived God - moving from an existential
assumption to a unique existential assumption. But in many past
societies, the majority of people perceived lotsof Gods. So you would
have to refine your hypothesis: The majority of people in past
societies have perceived Gods of varying types, some of them many,
some of them just one.
>
> Therefore the atheist/evolutionist appear to be lacking the necessary
> instructions at the chromosome level for their brain to develop the
> necessary ability to perceive God.
Or have evolved further so that the defective perception is less
likely to affect them. Just as say acquiring over time better
eyesight. both interpretations would be equally consistent with your
findings. A (admittedly weak) argument in favour of the latter
interpretation is that we observe a pattern here; Societies start as
polytheistic, then they rid themselves of most Gods, and eventually of
the last one standing.
In your approach, the explanation for this pattern would have to be
that originally, we were able to perceive all the Gods, but a slow
process of degenerative mutation first disabled us to perceive most
of them, and eventually all of them. Like going slowly blind.
> I have tested this understanding using
> various questions regarding God over an extended period of time and have
> observed "believers in God" understand and respond to the questions in a
> positive manor while the atheist/evolutionist does not.
>
that is not really a test, it is a repetition of your initial
observation, with some tautologies thrown in.
> This phenomenon can best be explained by a micro-evolutionary genetic drift
> and/or mutation within a small percentage of human population.
More likely epigenetics. As our diet improves, we avoid certain
mushrooms and mycotoxins, and we eliminate certain bacteria etc in
the food chain, we are less likely to experience hallucinations. See
e.g. the problem of egotism tat affected people in the past and has
known associations ot religious experiences - hence "Saint Anthony's
Fire". Also, we are better and better in treating illnesses such as
some form of Chorea (whos elinkto religious experience is well
documented, and it was even named after it - see Chorea sancti viti or
Veitstanz2)
>This mutation
> places them outside the norm. A norm which has been observed throughout
> history. That norm is the ability to perceive God. Therefore the
> atheist/evolutionist has what can be considered a mild form of brain damage
> caused by genetic drift and/or mutation. The mutation is yet to be
> identified.
Since evolution would only allow this mutation to persist if it
confers advantages, it is more likely that a prior shortcoming such
as a tendency for hallucinations is eliminated. Having hallucinations
when a predator is near is after all not good for you.
> I predict the mutation will be found
> I predict medical science will develop a surgery to repair the damaged part
> of the brain
you mean less messy than burning people who disagree with you? Ach,
you soppy old liberal!
> So to formalize my hypothesis:
>
> =============================================
> "Adman's Hypothesis on Brain Chemistry and the Perception of God"
>
> "If the perception of God is related to brain chemistry, then people lacking
> the necessary brain chemistry due to an unknown mutation will have a higher
> frequency of lacking an ability to perceive God."
> =============================================
>
> I await peer review.
>
> --
> It is all about the truth with:
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
You would have to test the hypothesis before you have soemthing that
can be reviewed. Possible tests would be to see if people in the past
had co-occurrent other beliefs, e.g. in the eater bunny, Santa Claus
or Ghosts. that could help to decide if the mutation is beneficial or
degenerative. Prima facie evidence indicates the former, as with the
"perception" of God, atheists are also less likely to perceive any of
the other invented entities
Burkhard
Then you have a very limited social circle, which would be consistent
with your general unpleasantness. None of the many atheists I know
reports trauma of this type.
Bill
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> I have a bag of rocks that could do a peer review of (M)adman's work.
Funny, I always called them "puppets".
unrestra...@hotmail.com
It's possible to try too hard, you know.
Kermit
unrestra...@hotmail.com
Interesting ideas. How could you test it?
Here are some of the issues:
Mutations are the ultimate source of all inheritable characteristics
in the human or any other species. Mutations themselves are not
indicative of a problem. There are about 200 mutations on the average
for every human being. Some characteristics, like which language we
speak, are not genetic. Have you looked at the twin studies on
religious belief? Is there any association?
So one question which comes to mind is: is the predisposition to
perceive(1) a god the deviation from the paleolithic "norm", or is the
failing to perceive one(2), even if raised in a religious environment
the deviation? Which one is associated with more successful
reproduction? Do not discount the possibility that neither has a
reproductive advantage over the other. They may be neutral drift.
Do the two groups of people interbreed freely? If not, you may be
witnessing the beginnings of a speciation event.(3)
How would you disprove this model in principle? It should be possible,
or it ain't science. What verifiable results would you expect from
this model?
(1) This says nothing of the actual *existence of said gods. Do you
have any objective, corroborating evidence for these? If a person
blind from birth tests people who claim to perceive things at a great
distance without hearing them, he will receive supporting evidence.
Two sighted people in a land of the blind could write messages on a
piece of paper, and when a blind scientist takes it to another, that
sighted person could read it back. Over and over, any message. Perhaps
you could pray to God to deliver a message to another perceiver, and
we skeptics could compare notes after a dozen trials to see if we were
getting anywhere. If that's too difficult, I'm open to suggestions.
(2) My wife and I have often speculated on whether or not I am a
mutant. I was raised religiously, but it didn't take. When my Baptist
preacher grandpa pointed to a sunset and said he saw evidence in it
for God, I just saw a sunset. Of course, he "clearly saw" that the
Russians invented Rock and Roll.
(3) I'm thinking Morlocks and Eloi.
Kermit
Anlatt the Builder
You don't have to be an atheist to recognize this as nonsense.
[M]adman
Your grandpa did not have the mutation. You obviously do.
VoiceOfReason
> -
> For every characteristic that a species possesses there must be a set of
> instructions at the chromosome level to give that species the specific
> characteristic. For instance, all dogs have their eyes located in the same
> place. So dogs should have a set of instructions at the chromosome level
> where the eyes are to placed when the dog is forming in the womb.
Define characteristic.
> In comparison, many humans throughout history have the characteristic to
> perceived God very clearly; while others have not.
Do you have any data to support that assertion?
Have you done studies that investigate the possibility that there are
people who wrongly believe they have the ability to perceive God? Or
that there are people who lie when they say they can perceive God?
How do you tell the difference between someone who perceives a god,
and someone who only says they perceive a god?
How do you account for the fact that some people perceive one God,
while others perceive many gods? Or that the gods they perceive have
extremely different characteristics, depending upon the society?
Why do you assume this is nature versus nurture? If it's nurture,
then it's a simple fact that someone is born of religious parents is
more likely grow up to be religious. If your assert that it's nature,
then how often are god-perceiving children born to atheist parents?
> This phenomenon can be
> observed on T.O.
Your unsupported assertion does not constitute a phenomenon.
> Therefore the atheist/evolutionist
Atheists and evolutionists are not equivalent. This has been pointed
out to you numerous times.
> appear to be lacking the necessary
> instructions at the chromosome level for their brain to develop the
> necessary ability to perceive God.
Which chromosome? What research did you do to arrive at this
assertion?
> I have tested this understanding using
> various questions regarding God over an extended period of time and have
> observed "believers in God" understand and respond to the questions in a
> positive manor while the atheist/evolutionist does not.
More likely, theists will more often reply positively to theistic
question, while atheists will not.
Also, how do you account for the theists who frequently disagree with
you?
> This phenomenon can best be explained by a micro-evolutionary genetic drift
> and/or mutation within a small percentage of human population that takes
> them away from the norm. A norm which has been observed throughout history.
The "norm throughout history" is a useless concept. For example, the
norm throughout history is that human beings were illiterate. Do you
also assume a genetic basis for literacy?
> That norm is the ability to perceive God. Therefore the atheist/evolutionist
> has what can be considered a mild form of brain damage caused by genetic
> drift and/or mutation. The mutation is yet to be identified.
You obviously do not understand the concept of brain damage.
(Predictable jokes left as an excercise for the reader.)
> So to formalize my hypothesis:
> =============================================
> "Adman's Hypothesis on Brain Chemistry and the Perception of God"
> "If the perception of God is related to brain chemistry, then people lacking
> the necessary brain chemistry due to an unknown mutation will have a higher
> frequency of lacking an ability to perceive God."
> =============================================
Hypothesis? You are aware, I hope, that a properly formed hypothesis
contains within it a mechanism for falsifying it?
Until you determine a mechanism for accurately assessing a person's
ability to perceive god(s), what you have is not a hypothesis, but a
set of unsupported assertions.
It's not enough to type scientific-sounding words. You have to
understand the basics of science first.
> I await peer review.
The schoolkids are busy doing their homework. Maybe you should follow
their example.
VoiceOfReason
GCPAXS...@spammotel.com
> -
> For every characteristic that a species possesses there must be a set of
> instructions at the chromosome level to give that species the specific
> characteristic. For instance, all dogs have their eyes located in the same
> place. So dogs should have a set of instructions at the chromosome level
> where the eyes are to placed when the dog is forming in the womb.
>
> observed on T.O.
For most Christians "to perceive God clearly" is blasphemous
in the extreme, because God is considered to be transcendent.
Perhaps you would like to rephrase your statement.
> Therefore the atheist/evolutionist appear to be lacking the necessary
> instructions at the chromosome level for their brain to develop the
> necessary ability to perceive God. I have tested this understanding using
> various questions regarding God over an extended period of time and have
> observed "believers in God" understand and respond to the questions in a
> positive manor while the atheist/evolutionist does not.
>
> This phenomenon can best be explained by a micro-evolutionary genetic drift
> and/or mutation within a small percentage of human population. This mutation
> places them outside the norm. A norm which has been observed throughout
> history. That norm is the ability to perceive God. Therefore the
> atheist/evolutionist has what can be considered a mild form of brain damage
> caused by genetic drift and/or mutation. The mutation is yet to be
> identified.
>
> I predict the mutation will be found
> I predict medical science will develop a surgery to repair the damaged part
> of the brain
>
> So to formalize my hypothesis:
>
> =============================================
> "Adman's Hypothesis on Brain Chemistry and the Perception of God"
>
> "If the perception of God is related to brain chemistry, then people lacking
> the necessary brain chemistry due to an unknown mutation will have a higher
> frequency of lacking an ability to perceive God."
> =============================================
>
Baron Bodissey
> -
> For every characteristic that a species possesses there must be a set of
> instructions at the chromosome level to give that species the specific
> characteristic. For instance, all dogs have their eyes located in the same
> place. So dogs should have a set of instructions at the chromosome level
> where the eyes are to placed when the dog is forming in the womb.
>
> In comparison, many humans throughout history have the characteristic to
> perceived God very clearly; while others have not. This phenomenon can be
> observed on T.O.
>
Religion served a function in the distant past: it explained things
for which people had no explanations: weather, disease, earthquakes,
stars, where we came from, etc. Now that science has answered all
those questions why do we still have religion? Possibly to answer the
one question science can't answer: why are we here? Personally, I
think it's a meaningless question but different strokes for different
folks.
Baron Bodissey
When science is on the march, nothing stands in its way.
– Amazon Women on the Moon
Robert Weldon
> On 10 Mar, 18:53, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
>
> > -
>
> You would have to test the hypothesis before you have soemthing that
> can be reviewed. Possible tests would be to see if people in the past
> had co-occurrent other beliefs, e.g. in the eater bunny, Santa Claus
> or Ghosts. that could help to decide if the mutation is beneficial or
> degenerative. Prima facie evidence indicates the former, as with the
> "perception" of God, atheists are also less likely to perceive any of
> the other invented entities
hmmm, "eater bunny". So that would be the one King Arthur had so much
trouble with then???
Dave Oldridge
news:Uyytl.14117$9a....@bignews1.bellsouth.net:
>-
>For every characteristic that a species possesses there must be a set
>of instructions at the chromosome level to give that species the
>specific characteristic. For instance, all dogs have their eyes located
>in the same place. So dogs should have a set of instructions at the
>chromosome level where the eyes are to placed when the dog is forming
>in the womb.
>
>In comparison, many humans throughout history have the characteristic
>to perceived God very clearly; while others have not. This phenomenon
>can be observed on T.O.
I have a problem with your use of "many" and "very clearly" here. REAL
mystics are few and far between, even in our very populous world. Fakes,
of course, abound. Creationists are living proof of that!
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 454777283
Burkhard
Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries, you
horrible spelling mistake checking person ;;o)
heekster
<chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mar 10, 3:12 pm, "rnor...@umich.edu" <rnor...@umich.edu> wrote:
>> On Mar 10, 11:53 am, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
>>
>> <snip silliness>
Orange you glad you said that before anyone else did?
heekster
wrote:
You seem capable of producing a lie, for any occasion.
heekster
wrote:
>-
>For every characteristic that a species possesses there must be a set of
>instructions at the chromosome level to give that species the specific
>characteristic. For instance, all dogs have their eyes located in the same
>place. So dogs should have a set of instructions at the chromosome level
>where the eyes are to placed when the dog is forming in the womb.
>
>In comparison, many humans throughout history have the characteristic to
>perceived God very clearly; while others have not. This phenomenon can be
>observed on T.O.
>
>Therefore the atheist/evolutionist appear to be lacking the necessary
>instructions at the chromosome level for their brain to develop the
>necessary ability to perceive God. I have tested this understanding using
>various questions regarding God over an extended period of time and have
>observed "believers in God" understand and respond to the questions in a
>positive manor while the atheist/evolutionist does not.
>
>This phenomenon can best be explained by a micro-evolutionary genetic drift
>and/or mutation within a small percentage of human population. This mutation
>places them outside the norm. A norm which has been observed throughout
>history. That norm is the ability to perceive God. Therefore the
>atheist/evolutionist has what can be considered a mild form of brain damage
>caused by genetic drift and/or mutation. The mutation is yet to be
>identified.
>
>I predict the mutation will be found
>I predict medical science will develop a surgery to repair the damaged part
>of the brain
>
>So to formalize my hypothesis:
>
>=============================================
>"Adman's Hypothesis on Brain Chemistry and the Perception of God"
>
>"If the perception of God is related to brain chemistry, then people lacking
>the necessary brain chemistry due to an unknown mutation will have a higher
>frequency of lacking an ability to perceive God."
>=============================================
>
>I await peer review.
Impossible.
No one else would stoop that low.
[M]adman
Sour grapes but no peer review
[M]adman
In a way you are right. But it is still an incomplete explanation.
There are many parts to religion that has nothing to do with unexplained
phenomenon
[M]adman
"Mystics" is a strawman.
[M]adman
And yet you found the time to reply
[M]adman
Ghosts, Bunny? Those are not apple to apple comparisons
Boikat
> -
> For every characteristic that a species possesses there must be a set of
> instructions at the chromosome level to give that species the specific
> characteristic. For instance, all dogs have their eyes located in the same
> place. So dogs should have a set of instructions at the chromosome level
> where the eyes are to placed when the dog is forming in the womb.
>
> In comparison, many humans throughout history have the characteristic to
> perceived God very clearly; while others have not. This phenomenon can be
> observed on T.O.
>
> instructions at the chromosome level for their brain to develop the
> various questions regarding God over an extended period of time and have
> observed "believers in God" understand and respond to the questions in a
> positive manor while the atheist/evolutionist does not.
>
> places them outside the norm. A norm which has been observed throughout
> history. That norm is the ability to perceive God. Therefore the
> atheist/evolutionist has what can be considered a mild form of brain damage
> caused by genetic drift and/or mutation. The mutation is yet to be
> identified.
>
What if "the mutation" is what caused the "god-spot"?
> I predict medical science will develop a surgery to repair the damaged part
> of the brain
Remove the god-spot? Sure, why not.
>
> So to formalize my hypothesis:
>
> =============================================
> "Adman's Hypothesis on Brain Chemistry and the Perception of God"
>
> "If the perception of God is related to brain chemistry, then people lacking
> the necessary brain chemistry due to an unknown mutation will have a higher
> frequency of lacking an ability to perceive God."
> =============================================
>
> I await peer review.
I've peered at your hypothesis, and see it is ass backwards. It's
well known that preople who have suffered some forms of brain damage
can have "visions" and other assorted hallucinations that are
perceived as a "religious experiance", therefore, if there is a
mutation that replicates a similar form of "damage" or structural
alteration that mimics the damage would also have similar effect, in
that those wiith the muttion would have religious hallucinations. Of
course, they would believe those hallucinations were the "ultimate
truth", and if so impelled, would attempt to convey aothers of their
"ultimate truth" also.
Gee. That sounds familiar (and no, it's not the science side which
claims "ultimate truth".)
.
>
> --
> It is all about a mutated brain with:
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
Boikat
VoiceOfReason
You can't peer review sewage.
Chris
> Chris wrote:
> > On Mar 10, 2:53 pm, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
> >> -
> >> For every characteristic that a species possesses there must be a
> >> set of instructions at the chromosome level to give that species the
> >> specific characteristic. For instance, all dogs have their eyes
> >> located in the same place. So dogs should have a set of instructions
> >> at the chromosome level where the eyes are to placed when the dog is
> >> forming in the womb.
>
> > determined.
>
> > Chris
> > snip
>
> There are exceptions to every rule
Will this be the exception where you actually present evidence for one
of your assertions?
Didn't think so.
Chris
Free Lunch
<papa_...@hotmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
We could always dredge up some bacteria that specialize in it.
[M]adman
That is what i keep saying about evolution
Boikat
Like the time you fidn to reply to the following:
supporting your claim that Kent Hovind was a "brilliant" scienist taht
made many great discoveries?
supporting your claim that wars have been fought because science
dispelled some religious belief?
supporting your claim that WWI was a manifestation of Hitler's
understanding of the ToE?
supporting your cliam that you have "created genes" and not "evolved
ape genes"?
Will you ever find the time so support those claims, or are you too
busy starting new threads that demonstrate your ignorance?
Boikat
Greg G.
...
>
> supporting your claim that WWI was a manifestation of Hitler's
> understanding of the ToE?
>
Boikat
Actually, admonkey blamed *both* WWI and WWII on Hitlers inderstanding
of the ToE. Both are absurd, but I like to pick on the WWI claim due
to it's pure stupidity.
Boikat
John S. Wilkins
> -
> For every characteristic that a species possesses there must be a set of
> instructions at the chromosome level to give that species the specific
> characteristic. For instance, all dogs have their eyes located in the same
> place. So dogs should have a set of instructions at the chromosome level
> where the eyes are to placed when the dog is forming in the womb.
You desperately need to read a book on development.
...
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
VoiceOfReason
And you're consistently proven wrong.
Erwin Moller
> -
Hi Madman,
> For every characteristic that a species possesses there must be a set of
> instructions at the chromosome level to give that species the specific
> characteristic. For instance, all dogs have their eyes located in the same
> place. So dogs should have a set of instructions at the chromosome level
> where the eyes are to placed when the dog is forming in the womb.
Hmm, CNCabej will noy agree 100% with that.
Epigenetics and stuff.
But lets say genes define the resulting organism for 100% for now (for
the sake of your argument)
>
> In comparison, many humans throughout history have the characteristic to
> perceived God very clearly; while others have not. This phenomenon can be
> observed on T.O.
"perceived God" is a bit vague.
They have developed a concept we call God, but I hardly believe many
think they directly perceived God (unless delusional or on LSD).
>
> Therefore the atheist/evolutionist appear to be lacking the necessary
> instructions at the chromosome level for their brain to develop the
> necessary ability to perceive God.
That is jumping to conclusions.
What about the influence of the environment? Childhood?
Can you say a childsoldier that kills, mutulates and rapes in some civil
war HAS THE CHOMOSOME INSTRUCTION to do so?
I think not: I think the kid was teached/conditioned to do so.
Much alike with religion: Religious people are conditioned to be religious.
Do you think you would have thought up the whole bible the same way it
is now if the bible wasn't there in the first place and other people
told you about it?
I have tested this understanding using
> various questions regarding God over an extended period of time and have
> observed "believers in God" understand and respond to the questions in a
> positive manor while the atheist/evolutionist does not.
I can image that.
Ask Rumsfeld what he thinks about socialism.
>
> This phenomenon can best be explained by a micro-evolutionary genetic drift
> and/or mutation within a small percentage of human population.
What phenomenon excactly?
The phenomenon that atheist don't respond positive to your 'various
questions' concerning God?
This mutation
> places them outside the norm. A norm which has been observed throughout
> history. That norm is the ability to perceive God. Therefore the
> atheist/evolutionist has what can be considered a mild form of brain damage
> caused by genetic drift and/or mutation. The mutation is yet to be
> identified.
LOL.
Get serious.
>
> I predict the mutation will be found
> I predict medical science will develop a surgery to repair the damaged part
> of the brain
First Madman: I don't think you show of a lot of understanding about
evolution if you are talking about 'norms'.
You probably ment 'average' or 'Allele frequency' or something like that.
Second: If we atheist have mild braindamage, why is it you see a
negative correlation between education and religion?
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1384909
(Bottomline: Religious believers as a group are significantly less
intelligent than religious sceptics.)
Or is it braindamage makes excellent scientists in your view?
>
> So to formalize my hypothesis:
>
> =============================================
> "Adman's Hypothesis on Brain Chemistry and the Perception of God"
>
> "If the perception of God is related to brain chemistry, then people lacking
> the necessary brain chemistry due to an unknown mutation will have a higher
> frequency of lacking an ability to perceive God."
> =============================================
>
> I await peer review.
I gave you some response.
I await your response.
Erwin Moller
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
Burkhard
That is your claim, i offered the test. Either there is a correlation,
and people who claim to perceive God are also more likely to claim
they perceive Ghosts, or they are not. If they correlate, as i
suspect, then according to your own research methodology, you would
have to assume that the part of the brain responsible for God
perception is also responsible for Ghost perception. What that then
means for your conclusion is a different thing, you can of course
still maintain tat "perceiving Ghosts" is an important ability that
some people have lost.
Desertphile
<spint...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 10, 8:02 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> > On Mar 10, 3:56 pm, Bill <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > and people wonder why religion is dying...you just put a knife in its
> > heart
> It will get worse, before it gets better.
The problem with religion dying off is that the people infected
with it try to take as many non-infected people as possible down
with them when they die off.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Chris
Greg G.
Even when we're raisin' hell with dried up fruit puns.
Boikat
> [M]adman <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
> > -
> > For every characteristic that a species possesses there must be a set of
> > instructions at the chromosome level to give that species the specific
> > characteristic. For instance, all dogs have their eyes located in the same
> > place. So dogs should have a set of instructions at the chromosome level
> > where the eyes are to placed when the dog is forming in the womb.
>
> You desperately need to read a book on development.
He desparately needs to read "My First Science Book".
Boikat
unrestra...@hotmail.com
> unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Mar 10, 11:53 am, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
> >> -
> >> For every characteristic that a species possesses there must be a
> >> set of instructions at the chromosome level to give that species the
> >> specific characteristic. For instance, all dogs have their eyes
> >> located in the same place. So dogs should have a set of instructions
> >> at the chromosome level where the eyes are to placed when the dog is
> >> forming in the womb.
>
> >> characteristic to perceived God very clearly; while others have not.
> >> This phenomenon can be observed on T.O.
>
> >> instructions at the chromosome level for their brain to develop the
> >> using various questions regarding God over an extended period of
> >> time and have observed "believers in God" understand and respond to
> >> the questions in a positive manor while the atheist/evolutionist
> >> does not.
>
> >> genetic drift and/or mutation within a small percentage of human
> >> has been observed throughout history. That norm is the ability to
> >> perceive God. Therefore the atheist/evolutionist has what can be
> >> considered a mild form of brain damage caused by genetic drift
> >> and/or mutation. The mutation is yet to be identified.
>
> >> I predict medical science will develop a surgery to repair the
> >> damaged part of the brain
>
>
> >> =============================================
> >> "Adman's Hypothesis on Brain Chemistry and the Perception of God"
>
> >> "If the perception of God is related to brain chemistry, then people
> >> lacking the necessary brain chemistry due to an unknown mutation
> >> will have a higher frequency of lacking an ability to perceive God."
> >> =============================================
>
> >> I await peer review.
>
> >> --
> >> It is all about the truth with:
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
> > Here are some of the issues:
> > Mutations are the ultimate source of all inheritable characteristics
> > in the human or any other species. Mutations themselves are not
> > indicative of a problem. There are about 200 mutations on the average
> > for every human being. Some characteristics, like which language we
> > speak, are not genetic. Have you looked at the twin studies on
> > religious belief? Is there any association?
>
> > So one question which comes to mind is: is the predisposition to
> > perceive(1) a god the deviation from the paleolithic "norm", or is the
> > failing to perceive one(2), even if raised in a religious environment
> > the deviation? Which one is associated with more successful
> > reproduction? Do not discount the possibility that neither has a
> > reproductive advantage over the other. They may be neutral drift.
>
> > Do the two groups of people interbreed freely? If not, you may be
> > witnessing the beginnings of a speciation event.(3)
>
> > How would you disprove this model in principle? It should be possible,
> > or it ain't science. What verifiable results would you expect from
> > this model?
>
> > (1) This says nothing of the actual *existence of said gods. Do you
> > have any objective, corroborating evidence for these? If a person
> > blind from birth tests people who claim to perceive things at a great
> > distance without hearing them, he will receive supporting evidence.
> > Two sighted people in a land of the blind could write messages on a
> > piece of paper, and when a blind scientist takes it to another, that
> > sighted person could read it back. Over and over, any message. Perhaps
> > you could pray to God to deliver a message to another perceiver, and
> > we skeptics could compare notes after a dozen trials to see if we were
> > getting anywhere. If that's too difficult, I'm open to suggestions.
>
> > (2) My wife and I have often speculated on whether or not I am a
> > mutant. I was raised religiously, but it didn't take. When my Baptist
> > preacher grandpa pointed to a sunset and said he saw evidence in it
> > for God, I just saw a sunset. Of course, he "clearly saw" that the
> > Russians invented Rock and Roll.
>
> > (3) I'm thinking Morlocks and Eloi.
>
> > Kermit
>
> Your grandpa did not have the mutation. You obviously do.
Which is why I said "My wife and I have often speculated on whether
or not I am a mutant. I was raised religiously, but it didn't take."
We are only half joking when I say that. Note that:
1. evolutionary theory postulates taht *all inheritable
characteristics come from mutations, so they are not automatically
bad, and
2. "perceiving" gods do not imply their actual existence without
corroborating evidence.
Kermit
Greg G.
> phyleogenetic. Not genetic.
>
> The best *analogy* I can come up with is pornography.
>
> Obviously there are people who don't mind being porn stars.
>
> I have yet to hear of one who did not have some trauma in their life.
>
> I have also yet to find an athiest who either did not have,
>
> 1) Had trauma, & blamed god. (i think, but not sure dawkins & darwin
> did)
The trauma I had was with creationist authors, not with God. I was
amused by the quotes of scientists collected by the creationists. I
wanted to see if I could find some by myself in the evolutionist
literature. I found the context of the quote mines and saw the
statements were reasonable and the meaning was distorted without the
context, which seemed very dishonest to me. I found that the evidence
for evolution was far greater than the creationist authors were
telling me.
Then the preachers were echoing the dishonest authors, speaking with
the same gravitas about evolution as they did with talk of heaven. If
they would speak so incorrectly about things that could be checked out
here on earth while still alive, how could I believe them when they
spoke of things they could not possibly know?
It was a rough period in my life, dealing with those issues. It had a
happy ending, though - I was able to escape the mind-trap of faith.
>
> 2) They were brought up by parents who had the trauma.
Nope, not in my case. I bet I had the best attendance record for
Sunday school of anyone in the class for at least eight years.
Ijon Tichy
snipped
> So to formalize my hypothesis:
>
> =============================================
> "Adman's Hypothesis on Brain Chemistry and the Perception of God"
>
> "If the perception of God is related to brain chemistry, then people
> lacking the necessary brain chemistry due to an unknown mutation will
> have a higher frequency of lacking an ability to perceive God."
> =============================================
>
> I await peer review.
>
>
>
Ok, so you asked some loaded questions on T.O. - very funny.
You may want to look here
http://atheistempire.com/reference/brain/main.html
quote from the article
God and the Brain
Is Belief a Psychological Condition?
Synopsis: Findings seem to point to a region of the brain commonly
referred to as the 'God Spot' or 'God Module', that when stimulated
creates hallucinations that are interpreted as mystical or spiritual
experiences. This 'spot' is stimulated during meditation and prayer and
is affected by electromagnetic fields and epilepsy. The resulting
hallucinations may be the cause of mystical, spiritual and paranormal
experiences as they can give feelings such as a presence in the room or
an out of body experience. In the case of epileptics, this may be the
reason for many of them becoming obsessed with religion. For those who
experience the stimulation it is explained related to their own
personal beliefs; a visit from an angel or lost loved one, an
extraterrestrial encounter, a higher plane of consciousness or a visit
from God.
End of quote
Next time you have a 'hypothesis' you may want to check if someone else
has done some actual research on the subject.
Another interesting point is the similarity between religious people and
epileptics.
regards
Ijon Tichy
Inez
>
> > =============================================
> > "Adman's Hypothesis on Brain Chemistry and the Perception of God"
>
> > "If the perception of God is related to brain chemistry, then people lacking
> > the necessary brain chemistry due to an unknown mutation will have a higher
> > frequency of lacking an ability to perceive God."
> > =============================================
>
> > I await peer review.
>
> > It is all about the truth with:
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > ·.¸Adman¸.·
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> I totally disagree. Someones life course is epigenetic &
> phyleogenetic. Not genetic.
>
> The best *analogy* I can come up with is pornography.
>
> Obviously there are people who don't mind being porn stars.
>
> I have yet to hear of one who did not have some trauma in their life.
>
> I have also yet to find an athiest who either did not have,
>
> 1) Had trauma, & blamed god. (i think, but not sure dawkins & darwin
> did)
>
>
I don't know any religious people who didn't have some trauma in their
lives they wanted God to save them from, or weren't raised by
religious parents.
Walter Bushell
jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> [M]adman <gr...@hotmail.et> wrote:
>
> > -
> > For every characteristic that a species possesses there must be a set of
> > instructions at the chromosome level to give that species the specific
> > characteristic. For instance, all dogs have their eyes located in the same
> > place. So dogs should have a set of instructions at the chromosome level
> > where the eyes are to placed when the dog is forming in the womb.
>
> You desperately need to read a book on development.
> ...
He would need to develop before he could understand the book. Offhand, I
suggest reversion therapy followed by re-parenting, as the only method
that would stand a chance.
Walter Bushell
<9ca5e5a0-5202-4c90...@q18g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
_Stranger in a Strange Land_ perhaps.
Bill
> On 10 Mar, 19:04, Bill <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 10, 6:53 pm, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
>
> > > -
> > > For every characteristic that a species possesses there must be a set of
> > > instructions at the chromosome level to give that species the specific
> > > characteristic. For instance, all dogs have their eyes located in the same
> > > place. So dogs should have a set of instructions at the chromosome level
> > > where the eyes are to placed when the dog is forming in the womb.
>
> with your general unpleasantness. None of the many atheists I know
> reports trauma of this type.-
Try Richard Dawkins "Being fondled by the Latin master in the Squash
Court was a disagreeable sensation for a nine-year-old,"
Why bring the mole hill to Richard Dawkins, when he brings the
mountain to us.
Now we can argue later. But here it is.
" Religion's Real Child Abuse
by Richard Dawkins
In the wake of the current scandal over child abuse by priests , I
have had a letter from an American woman in her mid forties who was
brought up Roman Catholic. She has two strong recollections from when
she was seven. She was sexually abused by her parish priest in his
car. And around the same time a little schoolfriend of hers, who had
tragically died, went to hell because she was a Protestant. Or so my
correspondent was led to believe by the then official doctrine of her
church. Her view now is that, of these two examples of Roman Catholic
child abuse, the one physical and the other mental, the second was by
far the worst. She writes:
"Being fondled by the priest simply left the impression (from the mind
of a 7 year old) as 'yuchy' while the memory of my friend going to
hell was one of cold, immeasurable fear. I never lost sleep because of
the priest ? but I spent many a night being terrified that the people
I loved would go to Hell. It gave me nightmares."
I am sure her experience is far from unique. And what if we assume a
less altruistic child, worried about her own eternity rather than a
friend's? Odious as the physical abuse of children by priests
undoubtedly is, I suspect that it may do them less lasting damage than
the mental abuse of bringing them up Catholic in the first place.
Happily I was spared the misfortune of a Roman Catholic upbringing
(Anglicanism is a significantly less noxious strain of the virus).
Being fondled by the Latin master in the Squash Court was a
disagreeable sensation for a nine-year-old, a mixture of embarrassment
and skin-crawling revulsion, but it was certainly not in the same
league as being led to believe that I, or someone I knew, might go to
everlasting fire. As soon as I could wriggle off his knee, I ran to
tell my friends and we had a good laugh, our fellowship enhanced by
the shared experience of the same sad pedophile. I do not believe that
I, or they, suffered lasting, or even temporary damage from this
disagreeable physical abuse of power. Given the Latin Master's
eventual suicide, maybe the damage was all on his side.
Of course I accept that his misdemeanors, although by today's
standards enough to earn imprisonment followed by a life sentence of
persecution by vigilantes, were mild compared to those committed by
some priests now in the news. I am in no position to make light of the
horrific experiences of their altar-boy victims. But reports of child
abuse cover a multitude of sins, from mild fondling to violent
buggery, and I am sure many of those cases now embarrassing the church
fall at the mild end of the spectrum . Doubtless, too, some fall at
the violent end, which is terrible but I would make two points about
it. First, just because some pedophile assaults are violent and
painful, it doesn't mean that all are. A child too young to notice
what is happening at the hands of a gentle pedophile will have no
difficulty at all in noticing the pain inflicted by a violent one.
Phrases like 'predatory monster' are not discriminating enough, and
are framed in the light of adult hang-ups. Second (and this is the
point with which I began) the mental abuse constituted by an
unsubstantiated threat of violence and terrible pain, if sincerely
believed by the child, could easily be more damaging than the physical
actuality of sexual abuse. An extreme threat of violence and pain is
precisely what the doctrine of hell is. And there is no doubt at all
that many children sincerely believe it, often continuing right
through adulthood and old age until death finally releases them.
It will be said that the Catholic Church no longer preaches hell fire
in its full horror. That depends on how upmarket is your area and how
progressive your priest . But eternal punishment certainly was the
normal doctrine dished out to congregations, including terrified
children, back in the time when many of the priests now facing
expulsion or prosecution committed their physical abuses. Most of the
victims bringing or supporting lawsuits are now in their middle years.
They therefore, along with many others who were never physically
abused, probably experienced mental terrorism of the hell fire type.
The long retrospect of the law entitles middle-aged victims to
lucrative redress, decades after they suffered physically. Nobody
thinks the physical injuries of sexual abuse could possibly last
decades , so the damages now being claimed have to be the mental
consequences of the original physical abuse. A typical claimant, now
54, said that his "life was marred by inexplicable confusions, anger,
depression and lost faith." (Parenthetically, one can't help
marvelling at the idea of a life being marred by lost faith. Perhaps
it would get the sympathy of a jury.) But the point is this. If you
can sue for the long-term mental damage caused by physical child
abuse, why should you not sue for the long-term mental damage caused
by mental child abuse? Only a minority of priests abuse the bodies of
the children in their care. But how many priests abuse their minds?
Why aren't Catholics and ex-Catholics lining up to sue the church into
the ground, for a lifetime of psychological damage?
I am not advocating this course of action. Much as I would like to see
the Roman Catholic Church ruined, I hate opportunistically
retrospective litigation even more. Lawyers who grow fat by digging
dirt on long-forgotten wrongs, and hounding their aged perpetrators,
are no friends of mine. All I am doing is calling attention to an
anomaly. By all means, let's kick a nasty institution when it is down,
but there are better ways than litigation. And an obsessive
concentration on sexual abuse by priests is in danger of blinding us
to all their other forms of child abuse.
The threat of eternal hell is an extreme example of mental abuse, just
as violent sodomy is an extreme example of physical abuse. Most
physical abuse is milder, and so is most of the mental abuse inherent
in a typical religious education. The priest who urged a 14-year-old
altar boy to give him oral sex, "blessing it as a way to receive Holy
Communion " wasn't only abusing the trust normally enjoyed by any
teacher, youth leader or scoutmaster. He was cashing in on the years
of religious brainwashing that the child had endured as a cradle
Catholic. Holy Communion: nice one! But again, only an extreme example
of what churches ? and also mosques and synagogues ? do to child minds
in their care, in the normal course of events.
'What shall we tell the children?' is a superb polemic on how
religions abuse the minds of children, by the distinguished
psychologist Nicholas Humphrey. It was originally delivered as a
lecture in aid of Amnesty International, and has now been reissued as
a chapter of his book, The Mind Made Flesh, just published by Oxford
University Press. It is also available on the worldwide web and I
strongly recommend it. Humphrey argues that, in the same way as
Amnesty works tirelessly to free political prisoners the world over,
we should work to free the children of the world from the religions
which, with parental approval, damage minds too young to understand
what is happening to them. He is right, and the same lesson should
inform our discussions of the current pedophile brouhaha. Priestly
groping of child bodies is disgusting. But it may be less harmful in
the long run than priestly subversion of child minds.
Bill
So why blame god?
> > 2) They were brought up by parents who had the trauma.
>
> Nope, not in my case.
So (in your case) number 2 didn't happen?
Walter Bushell
<c7e03288-97cb-4caf...@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
VoiceOfReason <papa_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> How do you account for the fact that some people perceive one God,
> while others perceive many gods? Or that the gods they perceive have
> extremely different characteristics, depending upon the society?
One's experience of God or Gods is obviously metaphorical and the
metaphors have to come from experience.
Dwib
> And yet you found the time to reply
Heekster must be stuck with the notion that you could actually be
impacted by his comments.
Mark Isaak
> So to formalize my hypothesis:
>
> =============================================
> "Adman's Hypothesis on Brain Chemistry and the Perception of God"
>
> "If the perception of God is related to brain chemistry, then people
> lacking the necessary brain chemistry due to an unknown mutation will
> have a higher frequency of lacking an ability to perceive God."
> =============================================
>
> I await peer review.
William James explored essentially this topic in much more detail over a
century ago:
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/621
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
heekster
wrote:
>Baron Bodissey wrote:
>>> So to formalize my hypothesis:
>>>
>>> =============================================
>>> "Adman's Hypothesis on Brain Chemistry and the Perception of God"
>>>
>>> "If the perception of God is related to brain chemistry, then people
>>> lacking the necessary brain chemistry due to an unknown mutation
>>> will have a higher frequency of lacking an ability to perceive God."
>>> =============================================
>>>
>>> I await peer review.
>>>
>>> --
>>> It is all about the truth with:
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> ·.¸Adman¸.·
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> Religion served a function in the distant past: it explained things
>> for which people had no explanations: weather, disease, earthquakes,
>> stars, where we came from, etc. Now that science has answered all
>> those questions why do we still have religion? Possibly to answer the
>> one question science can't answer: why are we here? Personally, I
>> think it's a meaningless question but different strokes for different
>> folks.
>
>In a way you are right. But it is still an incomplete explanation.
>
You would know, being the premier exponent of incomplete explanations.
>There are many parts to religion that has nothing to do with unexplained
>phenomenon
Yet, you always fail to list even one single example.
heekster
wrote:
>heekster wrote:
>> Impossible.
>> No one else would stoop that low.
>
>And yet you found the time to reply
Count your blessings.
You will probably have to remove your shoes and socks.
Greg G.
I didn't blame God. If the preachers couldn't tell the truth about
what evolutionists said, when it could be checked, how was I to
believe what they said about things that couldn't be checked. What
they taught about God seemed hollow. They had already discredited
mainstream Christianity as "salad-bar" Christians, so the whole thing
became hollow.
I missed the camaraderie of the group but I no longer enjoyed hearing
people talk with certainty when it was so artificial and contrived. It
seemed they were trying to convince themselves.
I did have a problem with the concept of an omnipotent, omniscient,
and benevolent being and the existence of evil. Then I read that other
people had expressed the same question as far back as Ancient Greece.
I wasn't angry with God about it, I was just disappointed that the
concept of an OOB being was no longer viable in my mind.
>
> > > 2) They were brought up by parents who had the trauma.
>
> > Nope, not in my case.
>
> So (in your case) number 2 didn't happen?
Number 2 happens. I've seen the bumper stickers.
Free Lunch
in talk.origins:
>VoiceOfReason wrote:
>> On Mar 10, 9:23 pm, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
>>> heekster wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:23:10 -0700 (PDT), Chris
>>>> <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On Mar 10, 3:12 pm, "rnor...@umich.edu" <rnor...@umich.edu> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mar 10, 11:53 am, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> <snip silliness>
>>>
>>>>>>> I await peer review.
>>>
>>>>>> My dictionary defines "peer" as "a person or thing of the same
>>>>>> effectiveness or ability as the one(s) in question". I doubt if we
>>>>>> will ever be able to find a person or thing with intelligence
>>>>>> equal to Madman.
>>>
>>>>> He meant "pear review" since only a fruit would take this
>>>>> seriously.
>>>
>>>> Orange you glad you said that before anyone else did?
>>>
>>> Sour grapes but no peer review
>>
>> You can't peer review sewage.
>
>That is what i keep saying about evolution
You can say what you want. Everyone here knows that you have no idea
what you are talking about. You have demonstrated that you are a fool
and that anyone who follows your lead would be a fool indeed.
Stop worshipping ignorance.
[M]adman
In your dreams maybe
heekster
wrote:
In the talk.origins newsgroup, definitely, and consistently.
[M]adman
footstool.
Boikat
My. You really told him. So, do you plan on growing up any time
soon?
Boikat
Boikat
You wish.
Boikat
Charles Brenner
> For every characteristic that a species possesses there must be a set of
> instructions at the chromosome level to give that species the specific
> characteristic. For instance, all dogs have their eyes located in the same
> place. So dogs should have a set of instructions at the chromosome level
> where the eyes are to placed when the dog is forming in the womb
> I await peer review.
I'm sorry, but your submission does not meet our minimum publication
standards.
The referees felt that even the opening premise of the paper -- that
everything of significance about a person is genetically pre-
determined -- is too weak to withstand the slightest scrutiny.
Ye Old One
<spint...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Mar 10, 7:40 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>> On Mar 10, 3:04 pm, Bill <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 10, 6:53 pm, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
>>
>> > > -
>> > > For every characteristic that a species possesses there must be a set of
>> > > instructions at the chromosome level to give that species the specific
>> > > characteristic. For instance, all dogs have their eyes located in the same
>> > > place. So dogs should have a set of instructions at the chromosome level
>> now comes the amateur psychology..
>>
>>
>>
>> > 1) Had trauma, & blamed god. (i think, but not sure dawkins & darwin
>> > did)
>>
>> uh...doesn't BLAMING god mean you BELIEVE in god?
>
>
>If you look at your "rating". It just went up.
There is no rating system on usenet.
>
>Because I gave you what you deserve.
>
>
>And the answer to your question is "yes".
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>VoiceOfReason wrote:
>> On Mar 10, 9:23 pm, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
>>> heekster wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:23:10 -0700 (PDT), Chris
>>>> <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On Mar 10, 3:12 pm, "rnor...@umich.edu" <rnor...@umich.edu> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mar 10, 11:53 am, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> <snip silliness>
>>>
>>>>>>> I await peer review.
>>>
>>>>>> My dictionary defines "peer" as "a person or thing of the same
>>>>>> effectiveness or ability as the one(s) in question". I doubt if we
>>>>>> will ever be able to find a person or thing with intelligence
>>>>>> equal to Madman.
>>>
>>>>> He meant "pear review" since only a fruit would take this
>>>>> seriously.
>>>
>>>> Orange you glad you said that before anyone else did?
>>>
>>> Sour grapes but no peer review
>>
>> You can't peer review sewage.
>
>That is what i keep saying about evolution
And, in so doing, expose your stupidity.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
No, it is a nightmare for you - constantly proven wrong. It must
really hurt you.
--
Bob.
[M]adman
He will know what that means.
I would not expect anyone of your caliber to understand though..
Boikat
So, when do you plan on growing up?
Boikat
unrestra...@hotmail.com
I can't help but notice that you seem to prefer to respond only to
insults, rather than the posts with substantial content. Why is that?
Here are two observations, if you would care to comment on either,
please do:
1. Whether a genetic trait or not, the mere perception of a god does
not establish its existence without corroborating evidence. People
hear voices (psychosis), and people see faces in road signs, and
bunnies in clouds (pareidolia).
2. Whether they see real evidence for the existence of gods or not,
how does this relate to evolutionary science?
Kermit
Mark Isaak
> On Mar 11, 10:01 pm, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
>> Free Lunch wrote:
>> [...]
>> > Stop worshipping ignorance.
>>
>> footstool.
>
> My. You really told him. So, do you plan on growing up any time
> soon?
Adman can't grow up. Part of growing up is having the willingness, even
eagerness, to admit mistakes. Adman sees that as a weakness.
Robert Carnegie
premise, why assume that non-belief, rather than belief, is caused by
genetic damage and brain damage?
For one thing: people with brain damage or mental illness in later
life sometimes have extremely intense religious beliefs. Nowadays
many of these are not locked up, so you can easily meet them.
Evolution does not have a value system other than survival and
reproduction. So do we think that belief in God improves your chance
of reproduction?
Also, there is no evidence I know of that any genetic factor makes it
possible or not possible to believe in the automobile. For example.
So what's so special about God that people need a particular gene to
believe in him?
Here's an idea: suppose God decided to help people to believe in him
by giving them this gene. But he doesn't want to save everyone, so he
didn't give the gene to everyone.
That's kind of mean, I think.
Bill
> You can say what you want. Everyone here
Except me.
Bill
> Free Lunch wrote:
> >>>>>>>> I await peer review.
So (whoever is awaiting)
You await "acceptance" from your peers?
Shouldn't "the truth be the truth" even if the whole world
disagrees?
Obviously, what you "think" you have found, isn't real.
Or, you wouldn't be awaiting approval.
Bill
> On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:56:16 -0700 (PDT), Bill
> There is no rating system on usenet.
Lucky for you.
Bill
> On Mar 12, 7:12 am, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
> I can't help but notice that you seem to prefer to respond only to
> insults,
Easily proven.
Don't insult, and you have 0 responces.
Now, by the fact that you have *years* of postings.
What do you think?
Are your (*evolutionists*) comments insults?
Walter Bushell
<c44d2f36-6587-47d0...@t3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Bill <spint...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Of course I accept that his misdemeanors, although by today's
> standards enough to earn imprisonment followed by a life sentence of
> persecution by vigilantes, were mild compared to those committed by
> some priests now in the news. I am in no position to make light of the
> horrific experiences of their altar-boy victims. But reports of child
> abuse cover a multitude of sins, from mild fondling to violent
> buggery, and I am sure many of those cases now embarrassing the church
> fall at the mild end of the spectrum . Doubtless, too, some fall at
> the violent end, which is terrible but I would make two points about
> it. First, just because some pedophile assaults are violent and
> painful, it doesn't mean that all are. A child too young to notice
> what is happening at the hands of a gentle pedophile will have no
> difficulty at all in noticing the pain inflicted by a violent one.
The think is abuse by a Latin Master in nothing compared to abuse by
GOD's anointed, in the Catholic religion the priest is far removed from
the laity and is another category of human being, whereas in
Protestantism the priest or minister is a man with a special job.
Walter Bushell
heekster <heek...@ifiwxtc.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:23:10 -0700 (PDT), Chris
> <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Mar 10, 3:12 pm, "rnor...@umich.edu" <rnor...@umich.edu> wrote:
> >> On Mar 10, 11:53 am, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip silliness>
> >>
> >> > I await peer review.
> >>
> >> My dictionary defines "peer" as "a person or thing of the same
> >> effectiveness or ability as the one(s) in question". I doubt if we
> >> will ever be able to find a person or thing with intelligence equal to
> >> Madman.
> >
> >He meant "pear review" since only a fruit would take this seriously.
> >
> Orange you glad you said that before anyone else did?
Arguing by strawberry is just as illegitimate as by strawman.
Walter Bushell
<3afc4f07-c42b-4929...@s20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
VoiceOfReason <papa_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 10, 9:23 pm, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
> > heekster wrote:
> > > On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:23:10 -0700 (PDT), Chris
> > > <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> On Mar 10, 3:12 pm, "rnor...@umich.edu" <rnor...@umich.edu> wrote:
> > >>> On Mar 10, 11:53 am, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
> >
> > >>> <snip silliness>
> >
> > >>>> I await peer review.
> >
> > >>> My dictionary defines "peer" as "a person or thing of the same
> > >>> effectiveness or ability as the one(s) in question". I doubt if we
> > >>> will ever be able to find a person or thing with intelligence equal
> > >>> to Madman.
> >
> > >> He meant "pear review" since only a fruit would take this seriously.
> >
> > > Orange you glad you said that before anyone else did?
> >
> > Sour grapes but no peer review
>
> You can't peer review sewage.
That has to be reviewed by peeers.
Walter Bushell
<6f74a7c0-08e7-4252...@v13g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
"rno...@umich.edu" <rno...@umich.edu> wrote:
> On Mar 10, 11:53 am, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
>
> <snip silliness>
>
> > I await peer review.
>
> My dictionary defines "peer" as "a person or thing of the same
> effectiveness or ability as the one(s) in question". I doubt if we
> will ever be able to find a person or thing with intelligence equal to
> Madman.
Oh, noes. We have several here that are effectively in the same bracket,
Suzanne, Jabbers, Pagano, Nowhereman to name a few.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
I'm betting that you know that you don't know what you are talking
about.
unrestra...@hotmail.com
I find it telling that you also do not answer the two questions I
posed. In fact, they were snipped without attribution. I assume that
you cannot answer either. You can easily prove me wrong, however.
I'll rephrase them slightly:
1. Please provide corroborating evidence for the actual existence of
one or more gods. We know that humans can see things which aren't
there, so we need a way of distinguishing perception from merely
apparent perception.
2. How does the mere existence of one or more gods affect evolutionary
science? Many scientists, as you know, are theists.
You might note that there no actual insults in this or my previous
post.
Kermit
unrestra...@hotmail.com
>
> > On Mar 12, 7:12 am, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
> > I can't help but notice that you seem to prefer to respond only to
> > insults,
>
> Easily proven.
Note that I said "Seem to prefer". I have not added up Madman's
responses and categorized them into substance / insults. Ignores are
always difficult to assess.
>
> Don't insult, and you have 0 responces.
Not does my observation, if true, imply that he would respond to *all
insulting posts.
>
> Now, by the fact that you have *years* of postings.
Correct...
>
> What do you think?
I think that some of the Creationists here ignore the insults and try
to respond only to posts of substance. Zoe and Sean Pitman come to
mind.
Others, like you, Madman, and others will post a thread which is
intended to be substantial, but follows ups are rare or simply focused
on the insults.
>
> Are your (*evolutionists*) comments insults?
Us collectively?
A couple of us respond only with insults. Some, like me, will
initially try with substance but get frustrated, and will respond to
insults with insults. A few of us (they tend to be the ones with the
most education) will never use sophomoric insults or crudity, but will
not mince words when pressed.
Why, do you see it differently?
Kermit
unrestra...@hotmail.com
Which, presumably, is why you were unable to post this.
Kermit
unrestra...@hotmail.com
> On Mar 12, 3:01 am, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
>
> > Free Lunch wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> I await peer review.
>
> So (whoever is awaiting)
>
> You await "acceptance" from your peers?
>
> Shouldn't "the truth be the truth" even if the whole world
> disagrees?
For the megalomaniac, yes. For those of us who are aware of our own
fallibility, and who seek the truth of how things work rather than to
be the winner of all arguments, we want verification by others who
share this need to understand reality.
The reality is, of course, independent of our understanding of it. But
it will never be properly understood or described by those who are
unwilling to learn (that is, adding to, or changing, one's current
knowledge).
>
> Obviously, what you "think" you have found, isn't real.
It might be. It seems to be. All testing so far supports it. But there
is a possibility that we might be wrong about any particular thing. A
near certainty that we are wrong about *some things.
How sad it would be to go thru life so frightened of being wrong that
we are unable to learn, unable to correct mistakes, unable to look at
the world with the open eyes of a child.
>
> Or, you wouldn't be awaiting approval.
Awaiting confirmation, not approval. Some folks have other things to
do than wrestle with their own self-esteem.
Kermit
Walter Bushell
<01d14bfe-fafb-4119...@y13g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Will in New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> On Mar 10, 3:12 pm, "rnor...@umich.edu" <rnor...@umich.edu> wrote:
> > On Mar 10, 11:53 am, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
> >
> > <snip silliness>
> >
> > > I await peer review.
> >
> > My dictionary defines "peer" as "a person or thing of the same
> > effectiveness or ability as the one(s) in question". I doubt if we
> > will ever be able to find a person or thing with intelligence equal to
> > Madman.
>
> I have a bag of rocks that could do a peer review of (M)adman's work.
>
> --
> Will in New Haven
The bag of rocks is way to smart to be Madman's peer.
Bill
> On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 10:46:26 -0700 (PDT), Bill <spintro...@hotmail.com>
> I'm betting that you know that you don't know what you are talking about.
If you knew your bet was certain.
You wouldn't have pretended to know that
I knew that I know that I don't know what I thought I knew as if I
knew what I was talking about
what I thought I knew as if you knew I knew.
Bill
> On Mar 13, 10:57 am, Bill <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I find it telling that you also do not answer the two questions I
> posed.
> I'll rephrase them slightly:
If I didn't answer them once.
What makes you think rephrasing them, will inspire me to answer this
time?