Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Paleontologists brought to tears, laughter by Creation Museum
87 views
Skip to first unread message
Desertphile
Apr 27, 2013, 2:40:41 PM4/27/13
to
Paleontologists brought to tears, laughter by Creation Museum
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jiVuN2BMp6tmuGBGOedALIY4_FaA?docId=CNG.9e6ceb5a895e01ff16609ef70332eef3.81&index=0
By Britt Kennerly (AFP) � Jun 30, 2009
PETERSBURG, Kentucky (AFP) � For a group of paleontologists, a tour of
the Creation Museum seemed like a great tongue-in-cheek way to cap off
a serious conference.
But while there were a few laughs and some clowning for the camera,
most left more offended than amused by the frightening way in which
evolution -- and their life's work -- was attacked.
"It's sort of a monument to scientific illiteracy, isn't it?" said
Jerry Lipps, professor of geology, paleontology and evolution at
University of California, Berkeley.
"Like Sunday school with statues... this is a special brand of
religion here. I don't think even most mainstream Christians would
believe in this interpretation of Earth's history."
The 27 million dollar, 70,000-square-foot (6,500-square-metre) museum
which has been dubbed a "creationist Disneyland" has attracted 715,000
visitors since it opened in mid-2007 with a vow to "bring the pages of
the Bible to life."
Its presents a literal interpretation of the Bible and argues that
believing otherwise leads to moral relativism and the destruction of
social values.
Creationism is a theory not supported by most mainstream Christian
churches.
Lisa Park of the University of Akron cried at one point as she walked
a hallway full of flashing images of war, famine and natural disasters
which the museum blames on belief in evolution.
"I think it's very bad science and even worse theology -- and the
theology is far more offensive to me," said Park, a professor of
paleontology who is an elder in the Presbyterian Church.
"I think there's a lot of focus on fear, and I don't think that's a
very Christian message... I find it a malicious manipulation of the
public."
Phil Jardine posed for a picture below a towering, toothy dinosaur
display.
The museum argues that the fossil record has been misinterpreted and
that Tyrannosaurus rex was a vegetarian before Adam and Eve bit into
that sin-inducing apple.
Jardine, a palaeobiologist graduate student from the University of
Birmingham, was having fun on the tour, but told a reporter that he
was disturbed by the museum's cartoonish portrayal of scientists and
teachers.
"I feel very sorry for teachers when the children who come here start
guessing if what they're being taught is wrong," Jardine said.
Arnie Miller, a palentologist at the University of Cincinnati who was
chairman of the convention, said he hoped the tour would introduce the
scientists to "the lay of the land" and show them firsthand what's
being put forth in a place that has elicited vehement criticism from
the scientific community.
"I think in some cases, people were surprised by the physical quality
of the exhibits, but needless to say, they were unhappy with things
that are inaccurately portrayed," he said.
"And there was a feeling of unhappiness, too, about the extent to
which mainstream scientists and evolutionists are demonized -- that if
you don't accept the Answers in Genesis vision of the history of Earth
and life, you're contributing to the ills of society and of the
church."
Daryl Domning, professor of anatomy at Howard University, held his
chin and shook his head at several points during the tour.
"This bothers me as a scientist and as a Christian, because it's just
as much a distortion and misrepresentation of Christianity as it is of
science," he said.
"It's not your old-time religion by any means."
--
Nemo me impune lacessit.
"The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of
scientific truth." --Prof. Richard Feynman, 1963, The Feynman Lectures on Physics
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jiVuN2BMp6tmuGBGOedALIY4_FaA?docId=CNG.9e6ceb5a895e01ff16609ef70332eef3.81&index=0
By Britt Kennerly (AFP) � Jun 30, 2009
PETERSBURG, Kentucky (AFP) � For a group of paleontologists, a tour of
the Creation Museum seemed like a great tongue-in-cheek way to cap off
a serious conference.
But while there were a few laughs and some clowning for the camera,
most left more offended than amused by the frightening way in which
evolution -- and their life's work -- was attacked.
"It's sort of a monument to scientific illiteracy, isn't it?" said
Jerry Lipps, professor of geology, paleontology and evolution at
University of California, Berkeley.
"Like Sunday school with statues... this is a special brand of
religion here. I don't think even most mainstream Christians would
believe in this interpretation of Earth's history."
The 27 million dollar, 70,000-square-foot (6,500-square-metre) museum
which has been dubbed a "creationist Disneyland" has attracted 715,000
visitors since it opened in mid-2007 with a vow to "bring the pages of
the Bible to life."
Its presents a literal interpretation of the Bible and argues that
believing otherwise leads to moral relativism and the destruction of
social values.
Creationism is a theory not supported by most mainstream Christian
churches.
Lisa Park of the University of Akron cried at one point as she walked
a hallway full of flashing images of war, famine and natural disasters
which the museum blames on belief in evolution.
"I think it's very bad science and even worse theology -- and the
theology is far more offensive to me," said Park, a professor of
paleontology who is an elder in the Presbyterian Church.
"I think there's a lot of focus on fear, and I don't think that's a
very Christian message... I find it a malicious manipulation of the
public."
Phil Jardine posed for a picture below a towering, toothy dinosaur
display.
The museum argues that the fossil record has been misinterpreted and
that Tyrannosaurus rex was a vegetarian before Adam and Eve bit into
that sin-inducing apple.
Jardine, a palaeobiologist graduate student from the University of
Birmingham, was having fun on the tour, but told a reporter that he
was disturbed by the museum's cartoonish portrayal of scientists and
teachers.
"I feel very sorry for teachers when the children who come here start
guessing if what they're being taught is wrong," Jardine said.
Arnie Miller, a palentologist at the University of Cincinnati who was
chairman of the convention, said he hoped the tour would introduce the
scientists to "the lay of the land" and show them firsthand what's
being put forth in a place that has elicited vehement criticism from
the scientific community.
"I think in some cases, people were surprised by the physical quality
of the exhibits, but needless to say, they were unhappy with things
that are inaccurately portrayed," he said.
"And there was a feeling of unhappiness, too, about the extent to
which mainstream scientists and evolutionists are demonized -- that if
you don't accept the Answers in Genesis vision of the history of Earth
and life, you're contributing to the ills of society and of the
church."
Daryl Domning, professor of anatomy at Howard University, held his
chin and shook his head at several points during the tour.
"This bothers me as a scientist and as a Christian, because it's just
as much a distortion and misrepresentation of Christianity as it is of
science," he said.
"It's not your old-time religion by any means."
--
Nemo me impune lacessit.
"The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of
scientific truth." --Prof. Richard Feynman, 1963, The Feynman Lectures on Physics
Robert Carnegie
Apr 27, 2013, 2:35:12 PM4/27/13
to
On Saturday, 27 April 2013 18:41:36 UTC+1, Desertphile wrote:
> Paleontologists brought to tears, laughter by Creation Museum
> Paleontologists brought to tears, laughter by Creation Museum
> By Britt Kennerly (AFP) � Jun 30, 2009
2009? Dessy, you are no Jason Spaceman. Unless you are, that is.
Thrinaxodon
Apr 27, 2013, 2:51:54 PM4/27/13
to
Ron O
Apr 27, 2013, 2:55:54 PM4/27/13
to
On Apr 27, 12:41�pm, Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> Paleontologists brought to tears, laughter by Creation Museum
>
> http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jiVuN2BMp6tmuGBGOe...
> Paleontologists brought to tears, laughter by Creation Museum
>
>
> By Britt Kennerly (AFP) � Jun 30, 2009
>
> PETERSBURG, Kentucky (AFP) � For a group of paleontologists, a tour of
Apparently attendence is declining for the past 4 years and they
raised the price of admission. So anyone that hasn't gone, yet, has
to pay more ($30 instead of $25).
The AIG lost money in 2011, but the museum is still making money, so
it isn't too late to plan a trip.
Ron Okimoto
Richard Clayton
Apr 27, 2013, 3:51:28 PM4/27/13
to
On 27-Apr-13 14:40, Desertphile wrote:
> Paleontologists brought to tears, laughter by Creation Museum
>
> http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jiVuN2BMp6tmuGBGOedALIY4_FaA?docId=CNG.9e6ceb5a895e01ff16609ef70332eef3.81&index=0
>
> By Britt Kennerly (AFP) � Jun 30, 2009
> Paleontologists brought to tears, laughter by Creation Museum
>
> http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jiVuN2BMp6tmuGBGOedALIY4_FaA?docId=CNG.9e6ceb5a895e01ff16609ef70332eef3.81&index=0
>
>
> PETERSBURG, Kentucky (AFP) � For a group of paleontologists, a tour of
recent, they would have been met by one of the museum staff with a stern
dictum that they aren't allowed to say anything negative about their visit.
One example:
http://skepchick.org/2013/04/creationists-not-telling-the-truth/
Lately the Creation Museum seems to be very sensitive about people
criticizing them on those dang newfangled intertweets and blogowebs. I
wonder if it's because of their flagging attendance numbers?
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." � Rudyard Kipling
Mike Dworetsky
Apr 27, 2013, 4:43:15 PM4/27/13
to
Desertphile wrote:
> Paleontologists brought to tears, laughter by Creation Museum
>
> http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jiVuN2BMp6tmuGBGOedALIY4_FaA?docId=CNG.9e6ceb5a895e01ff16609ef70332eef3.81&index=0
>
> By Britt Kennerly (AFP) - Jun 30, 2009
> Paleontologists brought to tears, laughter by Creation Museum
>
> http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jiVuN2BMp6tmuGBGOedALIY4_FaA?docId=CNG.9e6ceb5a895e01ff16609ef70332eef3.81&index=0
>
Oh, like this is yesterday's news. Still, I comment on one point below.
>
> PETERSBURG, Kentucky (AFP) - For a group of paleontologists, a tour of
> the Creation Museum seemed like a great tongue-in-cheek way to cap off
> a serious conference.
>
> But while there were a few laughs and some clowning for the camera,
> most left more offended than amused by the frightening way in which
> evolution -- and their life's work -- was attacked.
>
> "It's sort of a monument to scientific illiteracy, isn't it?" said
> Jerry Lipps, professor of geology, paleontology and evolution at
> University of California, Berkeley.
>
> "Like Sunday school with statues... this is a special brand of
> religion here. I don't think even most mainstream Christians would
> believe in this interpretation of Earth's history."
>
> The 27 million dollar, 70,000-square-foot (6,500-square-metre) museum
> which has been dubbed a "creationist Disneyland" has attracted 715,000
> visitors since it opened in mid-2007 with a vow to "bring the pages of
> the Bible to life."
>
> Its presents a literal interpretation of the Bible and argues that
> believing otherwise leads to moral relativism and the destruction of
> social values.
>
> Creationism is a theory not supported by most mainstream Christian
> churches.
>
> Lisa Park of the University of Akron cried at one point as she walked
> a hallway full of flashing images of war, famine and natural disasters
> which the museum blames on belief in evolution.
Of course, before 1859, the year of Darwin's famous publication of Origin of
> a serious conference.
>
> But while there were a few laughs and some clowning for the camera,
> most left more offended than amused by the frightening way in which
> evolution -- and their life's work -- was attacked.
>
> "It's sort of a monument to scientific illiteracy, isn't it?" said
> Jerry Lipps, professor of geology, paleontology and evolution at
> University of California, Berkeley.
>
> "Like Sunday school with statues... this is a special brand of
> religion here. I don't think even most mainstream Christians would
> believe in this interpretation of Earth's history."
>
> The 27 million dollar, 70,000-square-foot (6,500-square-metre) museum
> which has been dubbed a "creationist Disneyland" has attracted 715,000
> visitors since it opened in mid-2007 with a vow to "bring the pages of
> the Bible to life."
>
> Its presents a literal interpretation of the Bible and argues that
> believing otherwise leads to moral relativism and the destruction of
> social values.
>
> Creationism is a theory not supported by most mainstream Christian
> churches.
>
> Lisa Park of the University of Akron cried at one point as she walked
> a hallway full of flashing images of war, famine and natural disasters
> which the museum blames on belief in evolution.
Species, there was no such thing as war, Napoleon Bonaparte was a famous
flower grower in Corsica, Genghis Khan was doing important agrarian reform
work in Asia, there was no famine, plague was unknown, and no one ever died
in earthquakes, floods, etc. We have all read history and the Bible, so we
know that to be a fact.
Uh, don't we? What?
Where do they get such crazy ideas, and more important, why do some people
actually believe them?
SNIPPAGE
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Paul J Gans
Apr 27, 2013, 6:54:36 PM4/27/13
to
Richard Clayton <richZIG.e....@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 27-Apr-13 14:40, Desertphile wrote:
>> Paleontologists brought to tears, laughter by Creation Museum
>>
>> http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jiVuN2BMp6tmuGBGOedALIY4_FaA?docId=CNG.9e6ceb5a895e01ff16609ef70332eef3.81&index=0
>>
>> By Britt Kennerly (AFP) ? Jun 30, 2009
>On 27-Apr-13 14:40, Desertphile wrote:
>> Paleontologists brought to tears, laughter by Creation Museum
>>
>> http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jiVuN2BMp6tmuGBGOedALIY4_FaA?docId=CNG.9e6ceb5a895e01ff16609ef70332eef3.81&index=0
>>
>>
>> PETERSBURG, Kentucky (AFP) ? For a group of paleontologists, a tour of
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
Apr 27, 2013, 6:59:28 PM4/27/13
to
Walter Bushell
Apr 27, 2013, 7:07:28 PM4/27/13
to
In article <klhkvc$5th$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
For the Creation Museum wouldn't our critiques encourage attendance?
--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx
--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx
Paul J Gans
Apr 27, 2013, 8:46:52 PM4/27/13
to
the uneducated see that their claims fail. They claim, for
instance, that radioactive dating doesn't work -- but for
some reason, nuclear power plants, radiation therapy, and
nuclear weapons all do work.
And the more contorted the explanation for these anomalies,
the more it seems as if the Bible is incomplete.
They are surrounded by trouble.
Robert Carnegie
Apr 27, 2013, 9:05:13 PM4/27/13
to
On Saturday, 27 April 2013 21:43:15 UTC+1, Mike Dworetsky wrote:
> Desertphile wrote:
>
> > Paleontologists brought to tears, laughter by Creation Museum
> Desertphile wrote:
>
> > Paleontologists brought to tears, laughter by Creation Museum
> > By Britt Kennerly (AFP) - Jun 30, 2009
>
> Oh, like this is yesterday's news. Still, I comment on one point below.
>
>
> Oh, like this is yesterday's news. Still, I comment on one point below.
>
> > Lisa Park of the University of Akron cried at one point as she walked
> > a hallway full of flashing images of war, famine and natural disasters
> > which the museum blames on belief in evolution.
>
> Of course, before 1859, the year of Darwin's famous publication of Origin of
> Species, there was no such thing as war, Napoleon Bonaparte was a famous
> flower grower in Corsica, Genghis Khan was doing important agrarian reform
> work in Asia, there was no famine, plague was unknown, and no one ever died
> in earthquakes, floods, etc. We have all read history and the Bible, so we
> know that to be a fact.
>
> Uh, don't we? What?
>
> Where do they get such crazy ideas, and more important, why do some people
> actually believe them?
The bible does say that God makes those things happen to punish
> > a hallway full of flashing images of war, famine and natural disasters
> > which the museum blames on belief in evolution.
>
> Of course, before 1859, the year of Darwin's famous publication of Origin of
> Species, there was no such thing as war, Napoleon Bonaparte was a famous
> flower grower in Corsica, Genghis Khan was doing important agrarian reform
> work in Asia, there was no famine, plague was unknown, and no one ever died
> in earthquakes, floods, etc. We have all read history and the Bible, so we
> know that to be a fact.
>
> Uh, don't we? What?
>
> Where do they get such crazy ideas, and more important, why do some people
> actually believe them?
the nations. Presumably he is currently punishing us for believing
in evolution.
I think the report could be a misunderstanding of what is on show,
although I'm not going to go there to see for myself what they're
saying. Or maybe Professor Park is sensitive to flashing images.
Or to klezmer music. (In that we aren't told, we don't know that
there /wasn't/ klezmer music. Or maybe she was wearing heels.)
We've heard the claim before that Hitler's project was based on
a belief in evolution. I don't see where the rest fits in other
than as Act of God. Wait though: maybe they're talking about
famines in Russia and China in the twentieth century. Well,
Russia wasn't using real evolutionary science, but the colossal
homeopathic hoax of Lysenkoism, and China took it into its head
to kill birds and unintentionally breed pests. But I suppose
that the overriding fact here for the Creation Science Funhouse
is that these things happened to atheists. I still have nothing
on "natural disasters".
Bob Berger
Apr 27, 2013, 10:24:10 PM4/27/13
to
In article <klhrhs$h7q$1...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul J Gans says...
Not sure that last one is a good example. Remember, the last time the US tried
using an nuclear weapon, the damn thing blew up.
using an nuclear weapon, the damn thing blew up.
Richard Clayton
Apr 27, 2013, 10:38:40 PM4/27/13
to
bubble" -- fundamentalist leaders have long been able to control the
information available to their followers, through homeschooling, insular
retail outlets like Lifeway, and the branding of off-message figures as
"controversial" (e.g. "crimethinkers"). Even the allegedly-liberal
mainstream media tends to treat religious kookery with a generous
helping of deference.
The growth and ubiquity of the internet has made that bubble ever-harder
to maintain. (Oh, sure, you could put an internet filter on your PC, but
your kid will probably figure out a way around it within a week.) Ken
Ham, like a lot of modern Christian fundamentalists, seems vexed by the
existence of a de-centralized mass communication system where people can
say mean things about his kooky little museum and _he can't stop them._
eridanus
Apr 28, 2013, 3:15:38 AM4/28/13
to
El domingo, 28 de abril de 2013 00:07:28 UTC+1, Walter Bushell escribi�:
Clearly, yeah. Well... er... it depends on how many people read these
post. Assuming such an improbable efficacy as 1/1000, if these post
are read by 100 people, it means 0.1 person would go to visit this
Creation Museum. But if the comments affect only 1/10,000
Let's figure 30 people read these post, not counting some US agency of
Intelligence. Well, the amount of people influenced is minimal.
Eridanus
post. Assuming such an improbable efficacy as 1/1000, if these post
are read by 100 people, it means 0.1 person would go to visit this
Creation Museum. But if the comments affect only 1/10,000
Let's figure 30 people read these post, not counting some US agency of
Intelligence. Well, the amount of people influenced is minimal.
Eridanus
Nashton
Apr 28, 2013, 7:14:09 AM4/28/13
to
On 2013-04-27 3:40 PM, Desertphile wrote:
> Paleontologists brought to tears, laughter by Creation Museum
>
> http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jiVuN2BMp6tmuGBGOedALIY4_FaA?docId=CNG.9e6ceb5a895e01ff16609ef70332eef3.81&index=0
>
> By Britt Kennerly (AFP) � Jun 30, 2009
> Paleontologists brought to tears, laughter by Creation Museum
>
> http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jiVuN2BMp6tmuGBGOedALIY4_FaA?docId=CNG.9e6ceb5a895e01ff16609ef70332eef3.81&index=0
>
>
> PETERSBURG, Kentucky (AFP) � For a group of paleontologists, a tour of
> the Creation Museum seemed like a great tongue-in-cheek way to cap off
> a serious conference.
>
> But while there were a few laughs and some clowning for the camera,
> most left more offended than amused by the frightening way in which
> evolution -- and their life's work -- was attacked.
The latter is why they were the most offended, most likely.
> a serious conference.
>
> But while there were a few laughs and some clowning for the camera,
> most left more offended than amused by the frightening way in which
> evolution -- and their life's work -- was attacked.
Robert Carnegie
Apr 28, 2013, 7:33:26 AM4/28/13
to
On Sunday, 28 April 2013 08:15:38 UTC+1, eridanus wrote:
> El domingo, 28 de abril de 2013 00:07:28 UTC+1, Walter Bushell escribi�:
> El domingo, 28 de abril de 2013 00:07:28 UTC+1, Walter Bushell escribi�:
> > For the Creation Museum wouldn't our critiques encourage attendance?
>
> Clearly, yeah. Well... er... it depends on how many people read these
> post. Assuming such an improbable efficacy as 1/1000, if these post
> are read by 100 people, it means 0.1 person would go to visit this
> Creation Museum. But if the comments affect only 1/10,000
> Let's figure 30 people read these post, not counting some US agency of
> Intelligence. Well, the amount of people influenced is minimal.
>
> Eridanus
Ron O said "It isn't too late to plan a trip." Although the literal
>
> Clearly, yeah. Well... er... it depends on how many people read these
> post. Assuming such an improbable efficacy as 1/1000, if these post
> are read by 100 people, it means 0.1 person would go to visit this
> Creation Museum. But if the comments affect only 1/10,000
> Let's figure 30 people read these post, not counting some US agency of
> Intelligence. Well, the amount of people influenced is minimal.
>
> Eridanus
meaning of this statement is neutral, it also has a meaning of
encouraging you to go there. And anyway, I disagree with Ron.
Any time after 1859, when the book _On the Origin of Species_
by Charles Darwin was published, is too late to plan to visit
the "Creation Museum".
eridanus
Apr 28, 2013, 8:48:02 AM4/28/13
to
El domingo, 28 de abril de 2013 12:33:26 UTC+1, Robert Carnegie escribi�:
perhaps he was being sarcastic. I am not sure. I cannot read minds.
I presented here, in other post, my idea that all those European
gentlemen, when they got the news about the book, many of them were
interested into buying this book. If I were living at that time,
in England, by example, I would had not bought the book, assuming
I would had been poor. For a book at that time was not printed for
poor people. Later on, in my own time, I had not either bought
the book, for I had not enough interest in the details of evolution.
To me it did not presented any particular challenge to accept, once
I saw those monkeys on a zoo. Apart from the capacity to speak I
had the idea that humans were not high above the intelligence of
monkeys.
I had a little sampling over the great variety of dogs, and cows,
and hens, and doves, and cats, etc. These changes were caused by
human intervention. So, nature could had produced similar changes
if they were favorable in a much longer period of time. Then, I
never tried to read the Origins of Species.
The main problem here is one... a sort of political problem. The
conservatives try to protect the past; they call this "their heritage".
On the other hand, religious leaders have much to loose id people
lost the attachment to their religious heritage. They live on this
nicely, by asking money to their people. In this sense, if people
would started to loose their faith, their way of life would come to
an end. So, they are fighting for their lives, in a metaphorical sense.
I understand perfectly their position.
But in general, they are working on a good field. Perhaps you had read
about the experiment of Solomon Asch, about social conformity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments
the experiment was trying to show light on how the ascent of the Nazis
were possible and all that occurred later.
these experiments show that humans are tamed to not challenge the
assertions of other people. Then, if other people was telling something
that looked wrong to your senses, you began to doubt of your own senses.
Sometimes, you can be a little shock, but you rarely dare to challenge
the opinion of three or four people that are telling something
different to what you were seeing. In the test, the experimenter asked
before to his confederates that were purposely lying to test how much
resistance had the person that was tested. About 70% or so, replied in
accord with the majority. A few other, dared to give mixed replies,
sometimes correct, sometimes not. Then a few of them, were daring enough
to challenge the wrong view of the majority a few times. In other moments
he was not so daring.
Now, considering that the guy being tested do not knew the other people,
it is remarkable how much influence they had over him.
If you apply this experiment to the believe in any religion, you can see
how strong is this effect of conditioning.
I sometimes hallucinate considering how many educated people seems not
to know any word about operand conditioning. Or what a vague notions they
have over this matter. Or how little interest most people shows on this
issue. It is like they "were tamed" into shunning this common phenomenon.
For operant conditioning is not specially something done by a guy with
a white smock. Operant conditioning is occurring continuously in life,
in all places. The main difference is that instead of a technician
wearing a white smock, there are dozens of people conditioning each other
in different directions.
Then, any educated person worried by the education of his children
should know better how to "install" a good and strong behavior in his
children. Mostly to minimized the negative influence other people can
have on them. Then, operant conditioning is not a trivial knowledge
like memorizing some... list of something, that is better to have printed
to consult when it would be needed.
Eridanus
I presented here, in other post, my idea that all those European
gentlemen, when they got the news about the book, many of them were
interested into buying this book. If I were living at that time,
in England, by example, I would had not bought the book, assuming
I would had been poor. For a book at that time was not printed for
poor people. Later on, in my own time, I had not either bought
the book, for I had not enough interest in the details of evolution.
To me it did not presented any particular challenge to accept, once
I saw those monkeys on a zoo. Apart from the capacity to speak I
had the idea that humans were not high above the intelligence of
monkeys.
I had a little sampling over the great variety of dogs, and cows,
and hens, and doves, and cats, etc. These changes were caused by
human intervention. So, nature could had produced similar changes
if they were favorable in a much longer period of time. Then, I
never tried to read the Origins of Species.
The main problem here is one... a sort of political problem. The
conservatives try to protect the past; they call this "their heritage".
On the other hand, religious leaders have much to loose id people
lost the attachment to their religious heritage. They live on this
nicely, by asking money to their people. In this sense, if people
would started to loose their faith, their way of life would come to
an end. So, they are fighting for their lives, in a metaphorical sense.
I understand perfectly their position.
But in general, they are working on a good field. Perhaps you had read
about the experiment of Solomon Asch, about social conformity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments
the experiment was trying to show light on how the ascent of the Nazis
were possible and all that occurred later.
these experiments show that humans are tamed to not challenge the
assertions of other people. Then, if other people was telling something
that looked wrong to your senses, you began to doubt of your own senses.
Sometimes, you can be a little shock, but you rarely dare to challenge
the opinion of three or four people that are telling something
different to what you were seeing. In the test, the experimenter asked
before to his confederates that were purposely lying to test how much
resistance had the person that was tested. About 70% or so, replied in
accord with the majority. A few other, dared to give mixed replies,
sometimes correct, sometimes not. Then a few of them, were daring enough
to challenge the wrong view of the majority a few times. In other moments
he was not so daring.
Now, considering that the guy being tested do not knew the other people,
it is remarkable how much influence they had over him.
If you apply this experiment to the believe in any religion, you can see
how strong is this effect of conditioning.
I sometimes hallucinate considering how many educated people seems not
to know any word about operand conditioning. Or what a vague notions they
have over this matter. Or how little interest most people shows on this
issue. It is like they "were tamed" into shunning this common phenomenon.
For operant conditioning is not specially something done by a guy with
a white smock. Operant conditioning is occurring continuously in life,
in all places. The main difference is that instead of a technician
wearing a white smock, there are dozens of people conditioning each other
in different directions.
Then, any educated person worried by the education of his children
should know better how to "install" a good and strong behavior in his
children. Mostly to minimized the negative influence other people can
have on them. Then, operant conditioning is not a trivial knowledge
like memorizing some... list of something, that is better to have printed
to consult when it would be needed.
Eridanus
jillery
Apr 28, 2013, 10:28:46 AM4/28/13
to
TomS
Apr 28, 2013, 11:54:51 AM4/28/13
to
"On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 11:40:41 -0700, in article
<ms6on815p9s421jej...@4ax.com>, Desertphile stated..."
[...snip...]
As if the idea of destroying everybody and everything in the world
except for a few people and animals, and then celebrating that in
an amusement park, represents something other than moral
---Tom S.
<ms6on815p9s421jej...@4ax.com>, Desertphile stated..."
[...snip...]
>Its presents a literal interpretation of the Bible and argues that
>believing otherwise leads to moral relativism and the destruction of
>social values.
[...snip...]
>believing otherwise leads to moral relativism and the destruction of
>social values.
As if the idea of destroying everybody and everything in the world
except for a few people and animals, and then celebrating that in
an amusement park, represents something other than moral
relativism and the destruction of social values.
--
---Tom S.
Robert Carnegie
Apr 28, 2013, 12:34:38 PM4/28/13
to
On Sunday, 28 April 2013 13:48:02 UTC+1, eridanus wrote:
> El domingo, 28 de abril de 2013 12:33:26 UTC+1, Robert Carnegie escribi�:
> El domingo, 28 de abril de 2013 12:33:26 UTC+1, Robert Carnegie escribi�:
> > Ron O said "It isn't too late to plan a trip." Although the literal
> > meaning of this statement is neutral, it also has a meaning of
> > encouraging you to go there. And anyway, I disagree with Ron.
> > Any time after 1859, when the book _On the Origin of Species_
> > by Charles Darwin was published, is too late to plan to visit
> > the "Creation Museum".
>
> perhaps he was being sarcastic. I am not sure. I cannot read minds.
>
> I presented here, in other post, my idea that all those European
> gentlemen, when they got the news about the book, many of them were
> interested into buying this book. If I were living at that time,
> in England, by example, I would had not bought the book, assuming
> I would had been poor. For a book at that time was not printed for
> poor people. Later on, in my own time, I had not either bought
> the book, for I had not enough interest in the details of evolution.
> To me it did not presented any particular challenge to accept, once
> I saw those monkeys on a zoo. Apart from the capacity to speak I
> had the idea that humans were not high above the intelligence of
> monkeys.
>
> I had a little sampling over the great variety of dogs, and cows,
> and hens, and doves, and cats, etc. These changes were caused by
> human intervention. So, nature could had produced similar changes
> if they were favorable in a much longer period of time. Then, I
> never tried to read the Origins of Species.
Well... I assume that in the year 1884, when a famous British writer
> > meaning of this statement is neutral, it also has a meaning of
> > encouraging you to go there. And anyway, I disagree with Ron.
> > Any time after 1859, when the book _On the Origin of Species_
> > by Charles Darwin was published, is too late to plan to visit
> > the "Creation Museum".
>
> perhaps he was being sarcastic. I am not sure. I cannot read minds.
>
> I presented here, in other post, my idea that all those European
> gentlemen, when they got the news about the book, many of them were
> interested into buying this book. If I were living at that time,
> in England, by example, I would had not bought the book, assuming
> I would had been poor. For a book at that time was not printed for
> poor people. Later on, in my own time, I had not either bought
> the book, for I had not enough interest in the details of evolution.
> To me it did not presented any particular challenge to accept, once
> I saw those monkeys on a zoo. Apart from the capacity to speak I
> had the idea that humans were not high above the intelligence of
> monkeys.
>
> I had a little sampling over the great variety of dogs, and cows,
> and hens, and doves, and cats, etc. These changes were caused by
> human intervention. So, nature could had produced similar changes
> if they were favorable in a much longer period of time. Then, I
> never tried to read the Origins of Species.
and musician put on their latest operetta _Princess Ida_, it already
included the song that is represented here
<http://ordman.net/Edward/Darwinian.html>
which discusses an ape that fell in love with a beautiful woman,
and tried to be loveable by becoming "Darwinian Man". This was a
show for an audience of the general public, so they should have
got the joke. I'm not sure what the authors think about
"Darwinian Man" as an idea; they say that he is only a shaved
monkey, but that's just about what you have said, too.
Paul J Gans
Apr 28, 2013, 2:12:06 PM4/28/13
to
along with dinos and humans sharing a cave.
>>And the more contorted the explanation for these anomalies,
>>the more it seems as if the Bible is incomplete.
>>
>>They are surrounded by trouble.
TomS
Apr 28, 2013, 2:14:30 PM4/28/13
to
"On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 09:34:38 -0700 (PDT), in article
<e57edc87-9b27-4431...@googlegroups.com>, Robert Carnegie
stated..."
In The Mikado (1885), Pooh-Bah boasts of his ancient lineage:
"I am, in point of fact, a particularly haughty and exclusive person,
of pre-Adamite ancestral descent. You will understand this when I
tell you that I can trace my ancestry back to a protoplasmal
primordial atomic globule. Consequently, my family pride is
something inconceivable."
--
---Tom S.
<e57edc87-9b27-4431...@googlegroups.com>, Robert Carnegie
stated..."
"I am, in point of fact, a particularly haughty and exclusive person,
of pre-Adamite ancestral descent. You will understand this when I
tell you that I can trace my ancestry back to a protoplasmal
primordial atomic globule. Consequently, my family pride is
something inconceivable."
--
---Tom S.
Paul J Gans
Apr 28, 2013, 2:15:32 PM4/28/13
to
Richard Clayton <richZIG.e....@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 27-Apr-13 20:46, Paul J Gans wrote:
>> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>>> In article <klhkvc$5th$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
>>> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
[major snip]
>On 27-Apr-13 20:46, Paul J Gans wrote:
>> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>>> In article <klhkvc$5th$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
>>> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
seems to be suffering a bit. The news of the collapse of
the "We must have austerity" theory seems to be getting
out as well, along with lots of other stuff.
Problem is, often folks don't know what to make of all
this information.
Bob Berger
Apr 28, 2013, 3:36:24 PM4/28/13
to
In article <kljopm$ijd$4...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul J Gans says...
wasn't an astroid.
>
>Bob Berger <Bob_m...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>In article <klhrhs$h7q$1...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul J Gans says...
>
>>>Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>>>>For the Creation Museum wouldn't our critiques encourage attendance?
>>>
>>>No. They are nervous because if thought about at all, even
>>>the uneducated see that their claims fail. They claim, for
>>>instance, that radioactive dating doesn't work -- but for
>>>some reason, nuclear power plants, radiation therapy, and
>>>nuclear weapons all do work.
>
>>Not sure that last one is a good example. Remember, the last time the US tried
>>using an nuclear weapon, the damn thing blew up.
>
>There is that, but the "Let's Nuke'm" syndrome seems to go
>along with dinos and humans sharing a cave.
The Creation Museum folks are claiming the dinos had nukes? Hmmm... Maybe it
>Bob Berger <Bob_m...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>In article <klhrhs$h7q$1...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul J Gans says...
>
>>>Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>>>>For the Creation Museum wouldn't our critiques encourage attendance?
>>>
>>>No. They are nervous because if thought about at all, even
>>>the uneducated see that their claims fail. They claim, for
>>>instance, that radioactive dating doesn't work -- but for
>>>some reason, nuclear power plants, radiation therapy, and
>>>nuclear weapons all do work.
>
>>Not sure that last one is a good example. Remember, the last time the US tried
>>using an nuclear weapon, the damn thing blew up.
>
>There is that, but the "Let's Nuke'm" syndrome seems to go
>along with dinos and humans sharing a cave.
wasn't an astroid.
Walter Bushell
Apr 28, 2013, 5:22:07 PM4/28/13
to
In article <kljtn...@drn.newsguy.com>,
one of them blew it would set off the rest and "all that would be left
would be cockroaches and mammals." (Far Side?)
Bob Berger <Bob_m...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> The Creation Museum folks are claiming the dinos had nukes? Hmmm... Maybe it
> wasn't an astroid.
Iridium enriched hydrogen fusion plants. The skeptics were saying if
> The Creation Museum folks are claiming the dinos had nukes? Hmmm... Maybe it
> wasn't an astroid.
one of them blew it would set off the rest and "all that would be left
would be cockroaches and mammals." (Far Side?)
Walter Bushell
Apr 28, 2013, 5:25:46 PM4/28/13
to
In article <kljopm$ijd$4...@reader1.panix.com>,
> There is that, but the "Let's Nuke'm" syndrome seems to go
> along with dinos and humans sharing a cave.
The people with that attitude have left the caves?
> along with dinos and humans sharing a cave.
Robert Carnegie
Apr 28, 2013, 8:54:20 PM4/28/13
to
On Sunday, 28 April 2013 19:14:30 UTC+1, TomS wrote:
> In The Mikado (1885), Pooh-Bah boasts of his ancient lineage:
>
> "I am, in point of fact, a particularly haughty and exclusive person,
> of pre-Adamite ancestral descent. You will understand this when I
> tell you that I can trace my ancestry back to a protoplasmal
> primordial atomic globule. Consequently, my family pride is
> something inconceivable."
Oh, that's right, yes. A potentially confusing description,
> In The Mikado (1885), Pooh-Bah boasts of his ancient lineage:
>
> "I am, in point of fact, a particularly haughty and exclusive person,
> of pre-Adamite ancestral descent. You will understand this when I
> tell you that I can trace my ancestry back to a protoplasmal
> primordial atomic globule. Consequently, my family pride is
> something inconceivable."
isn't it!
Paul J Gans
Apr 28, 2013, 9:10:30 PM4/28/13
to
Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <kljopm$ijd$4...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> There is that, but the "Let's Nuke'm" syndrome seems to go
>> along with dinos and humans sharing a cave.
>The people with that attitude have left the caves?
Only to keep up with the neighbors.
>In article <kljopm$ijd$4...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> There is that, but the "Let's Nuke'm" syndrome seems to go
>> along with dinos and humans sharing a cave.
>The people with that attitude have left the caves?
eridanus
Apr 29, 2013, 7:51:32 AM4/29/13
to
El domingo, 28 de abril de 2013 17:34:38 UTC+1, Robert Carnegie escribi�:
Ok, One cannot be interested in everything at once, specially if one
as my had to worry about getting a new job often. On the other hand
in my family no one was interested in matters of science or in books.
In fact I was deemed crazy for being reading a book sometimes.
I had not any friends interested in science, in fact not any friends
at all, except some coworkers I could to talk withe them about
intellectual matters either. I had not much time to go to a library,
and books were in general out of my budget.
It was some years later, that I was aware that existed something like
the theory of evolution. I read a little about it and accepted
without any doubt. It seemed logical all that I read. Then, when in
rare occasions I saw the Origin of Species, in Spanish, I felt not
any curiosity, for I had accepted easily the short version of the theory.
I had more curiosity for other matters, for in general I have had
little education. I was interested in understanding who was right if
the communist or the capitalists. But economics were rather
incomprehensible to me. The books I read of propaganda from both
side do not convinced me. Then, I began to have an education in
science reading the easy articles of Scientific American, and National
Geographic. Then I passed a time studying some advanced maths, and
some books on electronics. I was working for 25 years in a
communications central of a phone company as a technical operator.
If I had not been studying maths and some electronics, I would not been
able to pass the examinations to enter in the phone company.
Then, I had too many things to learn to take the time of reading
"The Origins of Species". We cannot not be an expert on everything.
Then, as I was learning by myself reading books... I had to become
a little skeptical. Perhaps because I started being skeptical as
a boy in primary school. I love to entertain in my mind very long
disputes about the science topics that I had read in the school book.
It was only a little book in three grades, first grade, medium grade
and superior.
I do not see why you try to criticize me not being curious enough
to read the book of Darwin. I had watched recently a lot of videos
I downloaded in youtube. I love them. Even I had not anything
to argue against evolution. I had seen several videos on the adventure
of Darwin and his life.
But I was also interested in "behaviorism", a matter nobody loves here,
to the point to not argue a single word about some of my posts.
I understand that all people here have not any interest in this matter
of behavior modification. I understand it. No all people can be
interested in everything.
Then, I will confess you something. When I fist met behavior psychology,
about rather pissed off that Scientific American had not posted any
article on this mater in nearly 30 years. Then I canceled my subscription.
The magazine had presented some articles about psychology, but it never
presented anyone talking from the point of view of behaviorism.
But nobody here in interested in this topic. It looks as it were a
social taboo.
Eridanus
.
as my had to worry about getting a new job often. On the other hand
in my family no one was interested in matters of science or in books.
In fact I was deemed crazy for being reading a book sometimes.
I had not any friends interested in science, in fact not any friends
at all, except some coworkers I could to talk withe them about
intellectual matters either. I had not much time to go to a library,
and books were in general out of my budget.
It was some years later, that I was aware that existed something like
the theory of evolution. I read a little about it and accepted
without any doubt. It seemed logical all that I read. Then, when in
rare occasions I saw the Origin of Species, in Spanish, I felt not
any curiosity, for I had accepted easily the short version of the theory.
I had more curiosity for other matters, for in general I have had
little education. I was interested in understanding who was right if
the communist or the capitalists. But economics were rather
incomprehensible to me. The books I read of propaganda from both
side do not convinced me. Then, I began to have an education in
science reading the easy articles of Scientific American, and National
Geographic. Then I passed a time studying some advanced maths, and
some books on electronics. I was working for 25 years in a
communications central of a phone company as a technical operator.
If I had not been studying maths and some electronics, I would not been
able to pass the examinations to enter in the phone company.
Then, I had too many things to learn to take the time of reading
"The Origins of Species". We cannot not be an expert on everything.
Then, as I was learning by myself reading books... I had to become
a little skeptical. Perhaps because I started being skeptical as
a boy in primary school. I love to entertain in my mind very long
disputes about the science topics that I had read in the school book.
It was only a little book in three grades, first grade, medium grade
and superior.
I do not see why you try to criticize me not being curious enough
to read the book of Darwin. I had watched recently a lot of videos
I downloaded in youtube. I love them. Even I had not anything
to argue against evolution. I had seen several videos on the adventure
of Darwin and his life.
But I was also interested in "behaviorism", a matter nobody loves here,
to the point to not argue a single word about some of my posts.
I understand that all people here have not any interest in this matter
of behavior modification. I understand it. No all people can be
interested in everything.
Then, I will confess you something. When I fist met behavior psychology,
about rather pissed off that Scientific American had not posted any
article on this mater in nearly 30 years. Then I canceled my subscription.
The magazine had presented some articles about psychology, but it never
presented anyone talking from the point of view of behaviorism.
But nobody here in interested in this topic. It looks as it were a
social taboo.
Eridanus
.
Arkalen
Apr 29, 2013, 8:11:49 AM4/29/13
to
they think their audience is ? To me it always seemed obvious it was
fundamentalist Christian evolution-deniers (and their children) and
anti-Creationists looking for a laugh (or a view of the enemy). Neither
of those groups would be deterred by mainstream scientists bashing the
museum, very much the opposite.
I'd say that also accounts for their flagging numbers -
evolution-denying fundamentalist Christians is still a fairly limited
pool, anti-creationists out for a laugh even more so, so once everybody
in those pools has gone once you're depending on repeat visits, which in
a non-evolving (ha) museum is going to be a lower number than first-timers.
If they think that their flagging attendance is related to their bad
press in mainstream circles that suggests they think they have an
audience among the uncommitted middle, and I find that hard to believe.
But then, I guess Creationists aren't characterized by their attachment
to facts and reality.
eridanus
Apr 29, 2013, 8:12:41 AM4/29/13
to
El domingo, 28 de abril de 2013 17:34:38 UTC+1, Robert Carnegie escribi�:
the impression that we had something in common with those monkeys.
A little more than being both mammal animals. If I would had taken
more time to think about this matter, I would had said, that "we",
monkeys and humans, had a common ancestor.
Remember that I do not knew the word fossil and had not any idea
about past eras of the earth and when I found those "weird things"
(fossils) I thought, these are like the bones of very ancient marine
creatures. And this part here was below sea level in another times.
It was in fact some 20 miles from the sea, and the level that had
the "bones" (fossils) were some 50 meters or more below the general
flat of the desert. Then, I was aware that the rain had carved
this place making little dry creeks that went in the direction of
a nearby river, called Zaquia el Hamra, it means red river for the
bottom is full of dry red mud. A barrier of dunes close the way of
the river to the sea, and so some red mud was accumulating at the
bottom from the years that had rained.
Then, being rather ignorant I had a propensity to speculate with
the things I had seen. I had this bent for i was raised a very
talkative boy. But I had to keep my tendency to talk to myself,
for nobody was interested in those sort of speculations.
Eridanus
Greg Guarino
Apr 29, 2013, 11:45:04 AM4/29/13
to
"... a hallway full of flashing images of war, famine and natural
Kermit
Apr 29, 2013, 12:12:23 PM4/29/13
to
> >In article <klhkvc$5t...@reader1.panix.com>,
These folks are very practiced in *not considering the implications of
any statements they make. They are, therefore, oblivious to any
fallout from contradictions in their conversation. For many years as a
child I thought adult speech was *supposed to be a series of non
sequitors unconstrained by reality.
kermit
> > Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> Richard Clayton <richZIG.e.clayZIG...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On 27-Apr-13 14:40, Desertphile wrote:
> >> >> Paleontologists brought to tears, laughter by Creation Museum
>
> >> >>http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jiVuN2BMp6tmuGBGOe...
> >> >On 27-Apr-13 14:40, Desertphile wrote:
> >> >> Paleontologists brought to tears, laughter by Creation Museum
>
any statements they make. They are, therefore, oblivious to any
fallout from contradictions in their conversation. For many years as a
child I thought adult speech was *supposed to be a series of non
sequitors unconstrained by reality.
kermit
eridanus
Apr 29, 2013, 1:06:20 PM4/29/13
to
El lunes, 29 de abril de 2013 17:12:23 UTC+1, Kermit escribi�:
Of course. I recall from my childhood, that we never were train to
analyze or criticize statements either on science or in religious
doctrine. People were encourage to memorize the shit, not to
understand it. We were tamed to be like robots, for being obedient
bots; not analytical tools scrutinizing what we were told.
On a simple analysis, we are closer to robots, than to rational beings.
This is the main problem encountered by people that want to create
an artificial intelligence. We are telling the robot "to learn"
what reality is about. For we have a set of artificial speeches that
tells us what reality is made of.
Then we are doing the same with a robot.
Eridanus
> On 27 Apr, 17:46, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > >In article <klhkvc$5t...@reader1.panix.com>,
>
> > > Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > >> Richard Clayton <richZIG.e.clayZIG...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> >On 27-Apr-13 14:40, Desertphile wrote:
>
> > >> >> Paleontologists brought to tears, laughter by Creation Museum
>
> >
>
> > >> >>http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jiVuN2BMp6tmuGBGOe...
>
> > >> >> _FaA?docId=CNG.9e6ceb5a895e01ff16609ef70332eef3.81&index=0
>
> >
>
>
> > Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > >In article <klhkvc$5t...@reader1.panix.com>,
>
> > > Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > >> Richard Clayton <richZIG.e.clayZIG...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> >On 27-Apr-13 14:40, Desertphile wrote:
>
> > >> >> Paleontologists brought to tears, laughter by Creation Museum
>
> >
>
> > >> >>http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jiVuN2BMp6tmuGBGOe...
>
> > >> >> _FaA?docId=CNG.9e6ceb5a895e01ff16609ef70332eef3.81&index=0
>
> >
>
> > No. �They are nervous because if thought about at all, even
> > the uneducated see that their claims fail. �They claim, for
> > instance, that radioactive dating doesn't work -- but for
> > some reason, nuclear power plants, radiation therapy, and
> > nuclear weapons all do work.
>
> > And the more contorted the explanation for these anomalies,
> > the more it seems as if the Bible is incomplete.
>
> > They are surrounded by trouble.
>
> > the uneducated see that their claims fail. �They claim, for
> > instance, that radioactive dating doesn't work -- but for
> > some reason, nuclear power plants, radiation therapy, and
> > nuclear weapons all do work.
>
> > And the more contorted the explanation for these anomalies,
> > the more it seems as if the Bible is incomplete.
>
> > They are surrounded by trouble.
>
> > � �--- Paul J. Gans
>
> These folks are very practiced in *not considering the implications of
> any statements they make. They are, therefore, oblivious to any
> fallout from contradictions in their conversation. For many years as a
> child I thought adult speech was *supposed to be a series of non
> sequitors unconstrained by reality.
> Kermit
>
> These folks are very practiced in *not considering the implications of
> any statements they make. They are, therefore, oblivious to any
> fallout from contradictions in their conversation. For many years as a
> child I thought adult speech was *supposed to be a series of non
> sequitors unconstrained by reality.
Of course. I recall from my childhood, that we never were train to
analyze or criticize statements either on science or in religious
doctrine. People were encourage to memorize the shit, not to
understand it. We were tamed to be like robots, for being obedient
bots; not analytical tools scrutinizing what we were told.
On a simple analysis, we are closer to robots, than to rational beings.
This is the main problem encountered by people that want to create
an artificial intelligence. We are telling the robot "to learn"
what reality is about. For we have a set of artificial speeches that
tells us what reality is made of.
Then we are doing the same with a robot.
Eridanus
Earle Jones
Apr 29, 2013, 6:55:32 PM4/29/13
to
In article <7e3311d5-8e88-40c9...@googlegroups.com>,
*
Eridanus: I am very much interested in behaviorism. I first learned
about it by reading an old book, "Cumulative Record" by B. F. Skinner,
who some think of as "the father of behaviorism." I have recommended
the book to many people.
I was especially intrigued by the chapter, "Superstition in Pigeons"
where Skinner describes his behavioral approach to training animals. He
describes a very simple experiment -- an experiment that any high-school
science class could duplicate.
I don't have time to expound on it here, but I do recommend it.
Cheers!
earle
*
Eridanus: I am very much interested in behaviorism. I first learned
about it by reading an old book, "Cumulative Record" by B. F. Skinner,
who some think of as "the father of behaviorism." I have recommended
the book to many people.
I was especially intrigued by the chapter, "Superstition in Pigeons"
where Skinner describes his behavioral approach to training animals. He
describes a very simple experiment -- an experiment that any high-school
science class could duplicate.
I don't have time to expound on it here, but I do recommend it.
Cheers!
earle
*
Richard Clayton
Apr 29, 2013, 6:58:21 PM4/29/13
to
repeat-visit draw wouldn't matter.
Darwin123
Jul 14, 2013, 5:00:59 PM7/14/13
to
On Saturday, April 27, 2013 4:43:15 PM UTC-4, Mike Dworetsky wrote:
> Desertphile wrote:
>
> > Paleontologists brought to tears, laughter by Creation Museum
>
> >
>
> > http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jiVuN2BMp6tmuGBGOedALIY4_FaA?docId=CNG.9e6ceb5a895e01ff16609ef70332eef3.81&index=0
> Of course, before 1859, the year of Darwin's famous publication of Origin of
> Desertphile wrote:
>
> > Paleontologists brought to tears, laughter by Creation Museum
>
> >
>
> > http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jiVuN2BMp6tmuGBGOedALIY4_FaA?docId=CNG.9e6ceb5a895e01ff16609ef70332eef3.81&index=0
> Species, there was no such thing as war, Napoleon Bonaparte was a famous
> flower grower in Corsica, Genghis Khan was doing important agrarian reform
> work in Asia, there was no famine, plague was unknown, and no one ever died
> in earthquakes, floods, etc. We have all read history and the Bible, so we
> know that to be a fact.
Dang Heathens! Before there were Darwinists, there were Heathens.
Gengis Kahn was a Heathen. Bonaparte was a Heathen. Pompey was
destroyed because of the Heathens. The Vikings were Heathen. The Aztecs
were Heathen. The Jews are Heathen. The Canaanites were Heathen.
King James II didn't hate women. He only burnt Heathens.
Torquemoda burnt Jews because they were Heathen. The Bubonic Plague
was spread by the Heathens. The Canaanites were killed because they
were Heathen. The Indians wee massacred because they were Heathen. Small
pox spread among the Indians because they were Heathen. Indians were
destroyed because they were Heathen.
During the Crusades, the Moslems killed the Infidels. The
Crusaders also killed Heathens. The Orthodox Christians were both
Infidels and Heathen, which is why both sides killed them.
The Romans killed the Carthagians because they were Heathen. The
Barbarians killed the Romans because they were Heathen.
It is Heathens all the way down!
0 new messages