The Artist and the Scientist
C.J.W.
Pokemoto
>From: "C.J.W." watt...@bellatlantic.net
>Date: 12/17/04 11:46 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <41C3C93D...@bellatlantic.net>
Anyone should read the collections of essays by Richard Feynman if you have
this skewed concept of science. He has a specific essay on it, but I can't
remember which book.
What are our general theories if not looking at the big picture? Why is
physics looking for the grand unified theory? Why must the theory of
biological evolution fit with all of biology? Why can it make disparate facts
fit together into a whole and make sense. There is a wonder and beauty in
understanding nature. The plain fact is that the superficial artists can die
in ignorance with misplaced beliefs of what they see. This may be good enough
for them, but not for all of us.
Ron Okimoto
snex
things his way, but the artist was trying to be forceful. theres always
a hint of truth in these things if you look close enough. :)
Augray
in news:<Fc6dnXM3ZYI...@comcast.com>:
The Devil is in the details. :)
C.J.W.
Pokemoto wrote:
> >Subject: The Artist and the Scientist
> >From: "C.J.W." watt...@bellatlantic.net
> >Date: 12/17/04 11:46 PM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: <41C3C93D...@bellatlantic.net>
> >
> >A parable,
> >http://mynym.blogspot.com/2004/11/artist-and-scientist.html
> >--
> >--W
> >http://mynym.blogspot.com/
>
> Anyone should read the collections of essays by Richard Feynman if you have
> this skewed concept of science. He has a specific essay on it, but I can't
> remember which book.
Ummm, that is rather the point.
> What are our general theories if not looking at the big picture? Why is
> physics looking for the grand unified theory? Why must the theory of
> biological evolution fit with all of biology? Why can it make disparate facts
> fit together into a whole and make sense. There is a wonder and beauty in
> understanding nature. The plain fact is that the superficial artists can die
> in ignorance with misplaced beliefs of what they see. This may be good enough
> for them, but not for all of us.
There are truths that scientists tend to deny. That is the point. There are also
truths that artists tend to deny. Maybe scientists should marry artists....
On t.o, it is popular to deny truth by saying that science is the pursuit of
naturalistic explanation. I.e., it is not the pursuit of truth but instead is
something else. That parable represents t.o to some extent. Perhaps I should
write another, just for t.o.
It'd be more of a satire than anything.
--
--W
http://mynym.blogspot.com/
C.J.W.
snex wrote:
Yes, she was making him her Victim.
Watch out, women....they are scarey!
Especially to geeks.....although geeks do like to talk about titillating tittles a
lot. For they are so, titillating. You might say that they like the tittles of
mommy Nature quite a bit. In fact, they want to say that she does absolutely
everything. They are unlike Plato who says to come out of the womb/cave and be born
again to see the essence of things. Instead, they want to crawl back inside. They
want the tittles of the law but not the jots. As Jesus said though, no jot or
tittle of it will pass away.
On t.o, they just want tittles.
--
--W
http://mynym.blogspot.com/
C.J.W.
"C.J.W." wrote:
> Pokemoto wrote:
>
> > >Subject: The Artist and the Scientist
> > >From: "C.J.W." watt...@bellatlantic.net
> > >Date: 12/17/04 11:46 PM Central Standard Time
> > >Message-id: <41C3C93D...@bellatlantic.net>
> > >
> > >A parable,
> > >http://mynym.blogspot.com/2004/11/artist-and-scientist.html
> <snip>
>
> On t.o, it is popular to deny truth by saying that science is the pursuit of
> naturalistic explanation. I.e., it is not the pursuit of truth but instead is
> something else. <snip>
Which is represented in that parable somewhat. I.e., looking at pigments and such
instead of looking to the mind of the artist standing right there next to him.
Intelligent design vs. naturalistic pigments, etc.
C.J.W.
"C.J.W." wrote:
> Pokemoto wrote:
>
> > >Subject: The Artist and the Scientist
> > >From: "C.J.W." watt...@bellatlantic.net
> > >Date: 12/17/04 11:46 PM Central Standard Time
> > >Message-id: <41C3C93D...@bellatlantic.net>
> > >
> > >A parable,
> > >http://mynym.blogspot.com/2004/11/artist-and-scientist.html
> <snip>
>
> On t.o, it is popular to deny truth by saying that science is the pursuit of
> naturalistic explanation. I.e., it is not the pursuit of truth but instead is
> something else. <snip>
Which is represented in that parable somewhat. I.e., looking at pigments and such
instead of looking to the mind of the artist standing right there next to him.
Intelligent design vs. naturalistic pigments, etc.
It's interesting. I post parables and things of philosophy to Usenet and get maybe
five hits or so on them. I post some windsurfing picture links and get well over
fifty hits. I suppose that generally people prefer just pictures. Thinking, now
that's just hard!
Ken Shaw
C.J.W. wrote:
Have you considered that you are a boring writer with absolutely nothing
new or interesting to say but OTOH you have posted not bad windsurfing
photos? I read two of your essays and find your egotism and ignorance
tiring and will not be reading anymore.
Ken
Pokemoto
>From: "C.J.W." watt...@bellatlantic.net
>Date: 12/18/04 5:02 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <41C4BC2E...@bellatlantic.net>
Depending on analogies or your "parables" is bullshit. That is it in black and
white. If you have something to say just say it, and back it up with something
real. One of the main things wrong with ID is their reliance on analogy. It
is a sign that they don't have an argument. If you have something real, you
don't need the analogy, you just have to state the data and then hash out what
it might mean.
Screwing around with just so stories is called hand waving and counts for just
about zero in science. You might think that you are being smart, but you
aren't. Your type of post is usually called trolling.
Ron Okimoto
Highly Annoyed Rodent of Unusual Size & Typing Ability
I'm predicting the artist was a bigger hit with the ladies.
--
"The blood of Uranus cannot be destroyed!"
--Hercules & The Captive Women.
"My name is George. I look after the place while The Master is away."
--The shocking conclusion to Manos Goes To Washington.
Chris Thompson
news:41C3C93D...@bellatlantic.net:
But global climate change is junk science, right?
Sheesh.
Chris Thompson
<zombiefreaks...@bushwhacked.org> wrote in
news:Xns95C3CE926F436fk...@68.6.19.6:
> C.J.W.
>
>> A parable,
>> http://mynym.blogspot.com/2004/11/artist-and-scientist.html
>> --
>> --W
>> http://mynym.blogspot.com/
>>
>>
>
> I'm predicting the artist was a bigger hit with the ladies.
>
Maybe- until they needed a cure for the clap.
Chris
Highly Annoyed Rodent of Unusual Size & Typing Ability
You're assuming people learn from their mistakes.
Heinz Kiosk
completely misses the point about the wonder with which many scientists
view the universe. Knowledge increases your wonder, it doesn't reduce it.
It is wrong on another level too. Many scientists I know are
well-rounded people with all kinds of liberal-arts interests (way more
so than the general average out there)
Tom
Chris Thompson
When it begins to feel like they're pissing ground glass, they'll
notice.
Chris
Dona...@gmail.com
C.J.W.
Ken Shaw wrote:
Well, I have considered it. Other people tell me that I am brilliant. Who to believe?
It's a difficult decision.
It's probably the case that windsurfing forums have more traffic than talk.origins.
That's all. It's ashame that evolutionists have made the issue of origins so dead,
boring. Because it does not have to be that way at all.
> I read two of your essays and find your egotism and ignorance
> tiring and will not be reading anymore.
That's fine with me. But, you can always come on there and try to demonstrate your
claims about ignorance if you like. That might be fun. In fact, you should demonstrate
your claims here when you make them. Sorry to have tired you out so. Poor thing.....
--
--W
http://mynym.blogspot.com/
C.J.W.
Heinz Kiosk wrote:
> C.J.W. wrote:
> > A parable,
> > http://mynym.blogspot.com/2004/11/artist-and-scientist.html
> > --
> > --W
> > http://mynym.blogspot.com/
> >
> The problem with it is that as a parable it is absolute crap, because it
> completely misses the point about the wonder with which many scientists
> view the universe. Knowledge increases your wonder, it doesn't reduce it.
Not the way that some do science, based on philosophic naturalism. They are
the ones who have said that it is like their universal solvent.
> It is wrong on another level too. Many scientists I know are
> well-rounded people with all kinds of liberal-arts interests (way more
> so than the general average out there)
If they think that all is matter in motion then art is like excrement, just
more matter in more motion.
It is true though, scientists enjoy all the benefits of civilization and
perhaps admit to civilization in many ways. Yet, in their philosophy they
often begin to undermine it. That's one of the points of that parable. Note
that if all scientists are as you say, then it is only a cautionary tale that
is of little relevance to them. And that is fine with me. I hope that is so
and they truly understand that the creative process of a mind is not mere
matter in motion.
--
--W
http://mynym.blogspot.com/
Augray
<watt...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in
news:<41D9CA83...@bellatlantic.net>:
Speaking of demonstrating claims, when are you going to demonstrate that
even one evolutionist believes that "once upon a time, a group of avian
ancestors jumped out of trees, killing themselves enough times that
eventually they grew wings and flew away"?
Chris Thompson
>
>
No, the sad thing is that the field is alive, exciting, and interesting,
with more information being published every week, but so many people
remain ignorant of it- and sadly, there are some that remain willfully
ignorant of it.
Chris
Richard Forrest
I have to say that I find this one of the most unbelievable claims you
have yet made on this forum.
Are you sure that you haven't made this up? If you truly believe that
there are people out there you think that you are 'brilliant', I can't
imagine what sort of world you live in.
> Who to believe?
Perhaps you should not believe the voices in your head. They are not
your friends.
> It's a difficult decision.
Well, I'll make it for you. You are not brilliant. You are a poor
writer. The voices in your head are lying to you.
>
> It's probably the case that windsurfing forums have more traffic than
talk.origins.
Quite probably. And why does that matter?
> That's all. It's ashame that evolutionists have made the issue of
origins so dead,
> boring.
YOU are ashamed that 'evolutionists' have made the subject boring. Why?
Are you an 'evolutionist'? Do you take responsiblity for the words and
actions of 'evolutionists'?
>Because it does not have to be that way at all.
So you are proposing that we create works of pure fiction to make it
more interesting for you? Some of us find that a knowledge of the
subject makes it interesting.
>
> > I read two of your essays and find your egotism and ignorance
> > tiring and will not be reading anymore.
>
> That's fine with me. But, you can always come on there and try to
demonstrate your
> claims about ignorance if you like.
It's rather hard to find anything you've written which does *not*
demonstrate ignorance. I suppose that a few passages, such as "I am
here to crush the anti-word who works by creeepiness, fear and so on.
These who say that the
Retard par excellence is the creator of all complexity and the origin
of Life are his willing
servants. Yes, you will scatter and hop, hop about. Good! It is best
that you are reduced to your
most pathetic state of, "Me fear!" The intelligence of the slaves of
the Beast is all binary anyway,
"Me likey!" "Me no likey!" And they feeel that any inane or insane
naturalisic explanations for the
origins of all things that fit with the "Me likey." are valid. So it is
best to just cut to the
chase." demonstrate an unhinged mind, but assertions such as
"Now, once upone a time everyone was vegetarians. Yes, it is
true."
Humans have the teeth and digestive systems of omnivores.
"Things were designed to evolve upwards, not degenerate."
Evolution does not have a direction.
"Typically Darwin said it would be the strongest, in a struggle..."
He didn't. He said fittest. This does not mean strongest.
"No, Darwin's theory changed minds and in the way it did so it caused
racism."
According to this little gem, there could be no racism before Darwin.
"Modern evolutionists are changing the meaning of words to suit
themselves."
Scientist define the meanings of words to avoid confusion.
"If you're looking to Darwin for some semblance of human dignity, etc.,
all
you're going to do is make yourself look idiotic. There is none to be
found
there because he denies the metaphysical that human dignity rests on."
Just try reading Darwin.
"At any rate, my general but accurate summary of the tree down theory
is in no way innacurate."
Emm..no. It wasn't acurate.
"The case for merging reptile and bird is weak and the difference in
their anatomy great."
Which shows a rather great lack of knowledge of anatomy.
"NDT is based on random mutation."
Ignorance is no excuse in this case.
" evolutionist fanboys ... undermine civilization and preach
animalization"
"Synthetic theory has to attribute purpose to some mutations over
others"
" many self defined evolutionists say that natural laws can be made to
explain *everything* "
"Faith is based on how people view evidence."
"Science based on philosophic naturalism has a pattern of being or
supporting Evil."
"Philosophic naturalism dissolves the metaphysical into the physical
and so cannot be called very philosophical."
" the origin of living organisms is unobservable, untestable."
"You've corrupted the term "science" so much for the sake of salvaging
evolutionism that it can mean anything from adherence to philosphic
naturalism
to crass empiricism"
"It seems that there is an anti-Semitic streak running through
socialism, often
linked to a hatred or denial of the God of the Jews. This pattern is
pretty
consistent, with few exceptions."
It's too easy. Almost ever single posting you've ever made demonstrates
your ignorance.
> That might be fun. In fact, you should demonstrate
> your claims here when you make them. Sorry to have tired you out so.
Poor thing.....
> --
> --W
> http://mynym.blogspot.com/
Why not try to learn something?
RF
C.J.W.
Augray wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 22:18:43 +0000 (UTC), "C.J.W."
> <watt...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in
> news:<41D9CA83...@bellatlantic.net>:
>
> >
> >
> > Ken Shaw wrote:
> >
> > > C.J.W. wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > "C.J.W." wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>Pokemoto wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>>Subject: The Artist and the Scientist
> > > >>>>From: "C.J.W." watt...@bellatlantic.net
> > > >>>>Date: 12/17/04 11:46 PM Central Standard Time
> > > >>>>Message-id: <41C3C93D...@bellatlantic.net>
> <snip>
> > > I read two of your essays and find your egotism and ignorance
> > > tiring and will not be reading anymore.
> >
> > That's fine with me. But, you can always come on there and try to demonstrate your
> > claims about ignorance if you like. That might be fun. In fact, you should demonstrate
> > your claims here when you make them. Sorry to have tired you out so. Poor thing.....
>
> Speaking of demonstrating claims, when are you going to demonstrate that
> even one evolutionist believes that "once upon a time, a group of avian
> ancestors jumped out of trees, killing themselves enough times that
> eventually they grew wings and flew away"?
"Okay, now you might be saying: "Enough with the procedure. Give us
some hypotheses; tell us what scientists think!" We'll do just that
......
"Trees Down Scenario: Given an arboreal ancestor of a flying lineage,
flight must have proceeded from the trees into the air. A semi-bipedal
leaping and gliding animal could have evolved flight -- leaping off of trees
would provide the acceleration and speed necessary for flight.
Gliding is most useful in the trees, so if that ancestor was a glider,
then it must have co-opted its gliding structures into wings; it must
have started to flap its gliding membrane."
On Display: Vertebrate Flight
Museum of Paleontology, University of California, 1101
Valley Life Sciences Building, Berkeley, CA 94720-4780, USA
Why don't you demonstrate any innacuracy in my little summary of this sort of thing? It is
disingenuos to deny that evolutionists put these displays on in museums, etc.
Side note:
All these silly denials, there have been many made here. From atheists supposedly not making
the "God is a Big Meanie argument." to a denial of the existence of a tree down theory. Well,
I am going to begin to stay here and document everything, compiling lists of citations and the
like. I guess that is the solution to these sort of transparent denials. It may well be that
people claiming science actually have no idea what they're talking about, what has been
published, etc., too.
They often seem rather ignorant, thus the pattern of projection of it.
--
--W
http://mynym.blogspot.com/
Augray
<watt...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in
news:<41DBE82F...@bellatlantic.net>:
Taken from http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/flight/origins.html
> Why don't you demonstrate any innacuracy in my little summary of this sort of thing?
I'd be glad to. Where's the part about "a group of avian ancestors
jumped out of trees, killing themselves enough times that eventually
they grew wings and flew away"? There's no mention in the passage that
you supplied about animals deliberately jumping out of trees with the
intent of growing wings, since the ancestor in this passage could
already glide. Nor is there any mention of dead animals reproducing. I'd
also point out that no one believes that avian ancestors had a gliding
membrane, and it would seem that the passage is concerned with the
evolution of flight in general, in birds, bats, and pterosaurs, and not
birds exclusively.
> It is
> disingenuos to deny that evolutionists put these displays on in museums, etc.
But it's not disingenuous to misrepresent them?
> Side note:
> All these silly denials, there have been many made here. From atheists supposedly not making
> the "God is a Big Meanie argument." to a denial of the existence of a tree down theory.
No one denies the existence of a tree down theory, I'm merely denying
your caricature of it. And just as a side note, I'm not an atheist.
> Well,
> I am going to begin to stay here and document everything, compiling lists of citations and the
> like.
It's about time.
> I guess that is the solution to these sort of transparent denials.
And here I though *you* were the one being transparent.
> It may well be that
> people claiming science actually have no idea what they're talking about, what has been
> published, etc., too.
In that case, you'll have to rely on more than just webpages. I'd be
happy to point you to some recent papers. Here's one to get you started:
Xu, X., Zhou, Z.-H., Wang, X.-L., Kuang, X., Zhang, F.-C. & Du, X. 2003.
Four-winged dinosaurs from China. Nature 421:335-340.
> They often seem rather ignorant, thus the pattern of projection of it.
Speaking of projection...
Richard Forrest
RF
C.J.W.
Augray wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 12:49:00 +0000 (UTC), "C.J.W."
> <watt...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in
> news:<41DBE82F...@bellatlantic.net>:
>
> >
> >
> > Augray wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 22:18:43 +0000 (UTC), "C.J.W."
> > > <watt...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in
> > > news:<41D9CA83...@bellatlantic.net>:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ken Shaw wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > C.J.W. wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "C.J.W." wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>Pokemoto wrote:
> <snip>
> > "Okay, now you might be saying: "Enough with the procedure. Give us
> > some hypotheses; tell us what scientists think!" We'll do just that
> > ......
> > "Trees Down Scenario: Given an arboreal ancestor of a flying lineage,
> > flight must have proceeded from the trees into the air. A semi-bipedal
> > leaping and gliding animal could have evolved flight -- leaping off of trees
> > would provide the acceleration and speed necessary for flight.
> > Gliding is most useful in the trees, so if that ancestor was a glider,
> > then it must have co-opted its gliding structures into wings; it must
> > have started to flap its gliding membrane."
> > On Display: Vertebrate Flight
> > Museum of Paleontology, University of California, 1101
> > Valley Life Sciences Building, Berkeley, CA 94720-4780, USA
>
> Taken from http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/flight/origins.html
>
Yeah, I wasn't sure my link would be good because I found it by a proxy.
> > Why don't you demonstrate any innacuracy in my little summary of this sort of thing?
>
> I'd be glad to. Where's the part about "a group of avian ancestors
> jumped out of trees, killing themselves enough times that eventually
> they grew wings and flew away"? There's no mention in the passage that
> you supplied about animals deliberately jumping out of trees with the
> intent of growing wings,
I didn't say that they deliberately did it. I just said that they did it.
> since the ancestor in this passage could
> already glide.
Because its group had jumped in the trees.
> Nor is there any mention of dead animals reproducing.
Nor is there any mention of that in my satire.
> I'd
> also point out that no one believes that avian ancestors had a gliding
> membrane, and it would seem that the passage is concerned with the
> evolution of flight in general, in birds, bats, and pterosaurs, and not
> birds exclusively.
My summary is concerned with all the branches too. Don't try to minimize the tree down mythological
narrative of naturalism.....
"Based on physical principles, gliding is a better process for the
origin of powered flight than the "ground-up" process, which
physically is not feasible in space or time (considering air resistance,
metabolic energy costs, and mechanical resistance to bipedal running).
Proto-avian ancestors of Archaeopteryx and Microraptor probably
flapped their sparsely feathered limbs synchronously while descending
from leaps or heights, with such "flutter-gliding" presented as
a synthesis of the two earlier theories of flight origin (making
use of the available potential energy from gravity, involving
wing thrusts and flapping, coping with air resistance that
slows air speed, but effecting positive fitness value in
providing lift and slowing dangerous falls)."
(Journal of Theoretical Biology
Volume 224, Issue 1 , 7 September 2003, Pages 9-26
Physical theory, origin of flight, and a synthesis proposed for birds
By Charles A. Long, , a, G. P. Zhangb,
Thomas F. Georgec and Claudine F. Longa)
Once upon a time, some would be avian ancestors were jumping around in trees. Then, they started
growing one lil' feather and then another!
But just what is, the lil' feather?
http://mynym.blogspot.com/2004/11/lil-feather.html
> > It is
> > disingenuos to deny that evolutionists put these displays on in museums, etc.
>
> But it's not disingenuous to misrepresent them?
I didn't misrepresent them.
<snip>
> > It may well be that
> > people claiming science actually have no idea what they're talking about, what has been
> > published, etc., too.
>
> In that case, you'll have to rely on more than just webpages. I'd be
> happy to point you to some recent papers. Here's one to get you started:
>
> Xu, X., Zhou, Z.-H., Wang, X.-L., Kuang, X., Zhang, F.-C. & Du, X. 2003.
> Four-winged dinosaurs from China. Nature 421:335-340.
That doesn't indicate that I misrepresented the naturalistic narrative that they feeeel that they
have to, just have to tell.
I wonder if they had another artist make a lil' picture with feathers on it, again. Well, one thing
is certain, mommy Nature did it somehow. How about you cite me some of the text that you want me to
read rather than pretending that they said something profound in a journal that is not available
online? Hmmm?
Why is it, do you suppose, that talk.origins does not do that much talking about origins and when
they do they argue, "Scientists know all about origins....well, I can't say why. But there's
mountains, just mountains of evidence!"
<snip>
--
--W
http://mynym.blogspot.com/
C.J.W.
Chris Thompson wrote:
> "C.J.W." <watt...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in
> news:41D9CA83...@bellatlantic.net:
>
> >
> >
> > Ken Shaw wrote:
> >
> >> C.J.W. wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "C.J.W." wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>Pokemoto wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>>>Subject: The Artist and the Scientist
> >> >>>>From: "C.J.W." watt...@bellatlantic.net
> >> >>>>Date: 12/17/04 11:46 PM Central Standard Time
> >> >>>>Message-id: <41C3C93D...@bellatlantic.net>
> <snip>
> > It's probably the case that windsurfing forums have more traffic than
> > talk.origins. That's all. It's ashame that evolutionists have made
> > the issue of origins so dead, boring. Because it does not have to be
> > that way at all.
>
> No, the sad thing is that the field is alive, exciting, and interesting,
> with more information being published every week, but so many people
> remain ignorant of it- and sadly, there are some that remain willfully
> ignorant of it.
Sadly, those who put the physical before the metaphysical have no sense of
either. So these are the people who begin to indoctrinate rather than
educate.
And indoctrination is always boring, dead. So no wonder people don't flock
to it....
--
--W
http://mynym.blogspot.com/
C.J.W.
Richard Forrest wrote:
> C.J.W. wrote:
> > Augray wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 22:18:43 +0000 (UTC), "C.J.W."
> > > <watt...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in
> > > news:<41D9CA83...@bellatlantic.net>:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ken Shaw wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > C.J.W. wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "C.J.W." wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>Pokemoto wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>>Subject: The Artist and the Scientist
> <sniP>
> > They often seem rather ignorant, thus the pattern of projection of
> it.
> > --
> > --W
> > http://mynym.blogspot.com/
> You do understand what 'gliding' means, do you? Or perhaps not.
It means that some glided to the ground and others fell down and went
splat.
Thus, as you can see, we can harness the power of the animate and begin to
say that the inanimate can "select" the animate. Maybe.....it helps if you
are an invert psychologically, then this message will have great appeal to
you.
Once upon a time, things fell down and went splat, from this process the
lil' feathers grew! Each one, you see, they begin as little blobs of
tissue and just change, get a little harder there or here, a little more
structure. It just takes a lot of things jumping out of trees and dying,
then there are more and more feathers. Amazing!
http://mynym.blogspot.com/2004/11/lil-feather.html
http://mynym.blogspot.com/2004/11/wings-of-eagle_11.html
--
--W
http://mynym.blogspot.com/
C.J.W.
Richard Forrest wrote:
> C.J.W. wrote:
> > Ken Shaw wrote:
> >
> > > C.J.W. wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > "C.J.W." wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>Pokemoto wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>>Subject: The Artist and the Scientist
> > > >>>>From: "C.J.W." watt...@bellatlantic.net
> > > >>>>Date: 12/17/04 11:46 PM Central Standard Time
> > > >>>>Message-id: <41C3C93D...@bellatlantic.net>
> <snip>
> > > Have you considered that you are a boring writer with absolutely
> nothing
> > > new or interesting to say but OTOH you have posted not bad
> windsurfing
> > > photos?
> >
> > Well, I have considered it. Other people tell me that I am
> brilliant.
>
> I have to say that I find this one of the most unbelievable claims you
> have yet made on this forum.
Well, I shrug at that.
> Are you sure that you haven't made this up? If you truly believe that
> there are people out there you think that you are 'brilliant', I can't
> imagine what sort of world you live in.
I said that they have told me that. Of course, they could be lying.
> > Who to believe?
>
> Perhaps you should not believe the voices in your head. They are not
> your friends.
Try not to think to much, it might be like a voice in your head. Maybe
you're one of those mental retards who tries to think without words. Those
damnable words, they create voice! Oh, no...it is sentience. I wish your
sentences contained more sentience, though.
> > It's a difficult decision.
>
> Well, I'll make it for you. You are not brilliant.
Of course, you could be lying.
<snip>
> > It's probably the case that windsurfing forums have more traffic than
> talk.origins.
>
> Quite probably. And why does that matter?
It just indicates that there is more to life than science.
Yet, if talk.origins was less talk.science and more talk.science then maybe
it would be of equal interest to people.
> > That's all. It's ashame that evolutionists have made the issue of
> origins so dead,
> > boring.
>
> YOU are ashamed that 'evolutionists' have made the subject boring. Why?
No, it is ashame.
<snip>
> "Now, once upone a time everyone was vegetarians. Yes, it is
> true."
> Humans have the teeth and digestive systems of omnivores.
I did not say that they do not.
> "Things were designed to evolve upwards, not degenerate."
> Evolution does not have a direction.
I did not say that it does. It does seem a rather directionless type of
philosophy.
> "Typically Darwin said it would be the strongest, in a struggle..."
> He didn't. He said fittest. This does not mean strongest.
That's just wrong. Apparently you do not know what Darwin wrote. Maybe you
should try reading it.
> "No, Darwin's theory changed minds and in the way it did so it caused
> racism."
> According to this little gem, there could be no racism before Darwin.
Straw man.....
I guess you realize that what you just said doesn't even make any sense.
Do all those who change mind to cause racism, therefore prevent there being
racism before them? Sheesh man, try to think....
> "Modern evolutionists are changing the meaning of words to suit
> themselves."
> Scientist define the meanings of words to avoid confusion.
No, liars define evolution one way publicly to explain all of reality and
then another on Usenet where they know its a free forum. That is where
they know that they'll get their sorry butts kicked for making such stupid
claims. But then they go out, back to the public, and say the same thing
again about "evolution" being a total philosophy that explains everything.
Perhaps they just want to merge the animal and human, male and female in
the same way that zoophiles and homophiles do. If so, they are moral
degenerates who will say anything.
> "If you're looking to Darwin for some semblance of human dignity, etc.,
> all
> you're going to do is make yourself look idiotic. There is none to be
> found
> there because he denies the metaphysical that human dignity rests on."
> Just try reading Darwin.
You mean the part about one race eliminating the other races?
He had no respect for the human race because he did not have the eyes to
see those who run this race.
> "At any rate, my general but accurate summary of the tree down theory
> is in no way innacurate."
> Emm..no. It wasn't acurate.
Yes it was.
> "The case for merging reptile and bird is weak and the difference in
> their anatomy great."
> Which shows a rather great lack of knowledge of anatomy.
Your statement shows your ignorance. But rather than just stating that, I
will begin to prove it, if you like. You have made so many statements
here, about Darwin, this that and the other idiotic statement that it would
take a while.
> "NDT is based on random mutation."
> Ignorance is no excuse in this case.<sniP>
It is based on random mutation. No random mutation and there is nothing
for a deified mommy Nature to "select," naturally.....
It seems that the bundle of sticks here has been at work.
Interesting....it is not as if I do not notice what this groupie group
does. There is very little talking about origins in talk.origins. So, did
you try to compile quotes on your own or is there some link for them? I
would rather discuss things as they come up rather than having a massive
rehash of old issues, thus the final edit. If you're going to throw out
red herrings all over the place, just choose one or two.
--
--W
http://mynym.blogspot.com/
Richard Forrest
>
> > "Now, once upone a time everyone was vegetarians. Yes, it is
> > true."
> > Humans have the teeth and digestive systems of omnivores.
>
> I did not say that they do not.
Your statement implies that they should not. But then you're so stupid
that you don't understand the implications of what you write.
>
> > "Things were designed to evolve upwards, not degenerate."
> > Evolution does not have a direction.
>
> I did not say that it does. It does seem a rather directionless type
of
> philosophy.
>
'evolve upward'? You don't even understand your own words.
> > "Typically Darwin said it would be the strongest, in a struggle..."
> > He didn't. He said fittest. This does not mean strongest.
>
> That's just wrong. Apparently you do not know what Darwin wrote.
Maybe you
> should try reading it.
>
Stupid riposte. I've read Darwin. You evidently haven't. More igorance.
Silly little boy.
> > "No, Darwin's theory changed minds and in the way it did so it
caused
> > racism."
> > According to this little gem, there could be no racism before
Darwin.
>
> Straw man.....
>
> I guess you realize that what you just said doesn't even make any
sense.
> Do all those who change mind to cause racism, therefore prevent there
being
> racism before them? Sheesh man, try to think....
>
'cause racism' means 'caused racism'. So once again you demonstrate
that you don't understand your own words. If I was as stupid and
ignorant as you are, I'd try to conceal the fact rather than boast
about it.
> > "Modern evolutionists are changing the meaning of words to suit
> > themselves."
> > Scientist define the meanings of words to avoid confusion.
>
> No, liars define evolution
Yes, creationist redefine evolution all the time. They are the liars.
>one way publicly to explain all of reality and
> then another on Usenet where they know its a free forum. That is
where
> they know that they'll get their sorry butts kicked for making such
stupid
> claims.
You call making a public show of ignorance and stupidity as you do
'kicking but'? If you were not such as self-important child you's
realise that it your but that is being kicked.
> But then they go out, back to the public, and say the same thing
> again about "evolution" being a total philosophy that explains
everything.
>
My word, you do live in a strange parallel universe!
> Perhaps they just want to merge the animal and human, male and female
in
> the same way that zoophiles and homophiles do. If so, they are moral
> degenerates who will say anything.
>
Careful, your bigotry is showing.
> > "If you're looking to Darwin for some semblance of human dignity,
etc.,
> > all
> > you're going to do is make yourself look idiotic. There is none to
be
> > found
> > there because he denies the metaphysical that human dignity rests
on."
> > Just try reading Darwin.
>
> You mean the part about one race eliminating the other races?
>
> He had no respect for the human race because he did not have the eyes
to
> see those who run this race.
>
Writes someone who, even if he could read Darwin, does not have the
intellect to understand what Darwin wrote. Still, bearing in mind that
your level of intellectual development and reading skill might just
allow you to cope with 'Jill and John go to the Zoo', it should not
surprise us.
> > "At any rate, my general but accurate summary of the tree down
theory
> > is in no way innacurate."
> > Emm..no. It wasn't acurate.
>
> Yes it was.
Comming from someone who doesn't understand what 'gliding' means, your
assertion bears little weight.
>
> > "The case for merging reptile and bird is weak and the difference
in
> > their anatomy great."
> > Which shows a rather great lack of knowledge of anatomy.
>
> Your statement shows your ignorance.
Bearing in mind that I have studied the anatomy of both birds and
dinosaurs both as fossils and recent skeletons, I doubt it.
Unfortunately, I doubt if I could make it simple enough for a
microcephalic paedomorph such as yourself to understand.
> But rather than just stating that, I
> will begin to prove it, if you like.
I'll see you back here in about 10 years, which is what it will take
you to get a good working knowledge of vertebrate anatomy.
> You have made so many statements
> here, about Darwin,
Bearing in mind that I've actually read some of Darwin's works, whereas
you haven't, perhaps you should take account of what I write on the
subject.
> this that and the other idiotic statement that it would
> take a while.
>
> > "NDT is based on random mutation."
> > Ignorance is no excuse in this case.<sniP>
>
> It is based on random mutation. No random mutation and there is
nothing
> for a deified mommy Nature to "select," naturally.....
>
> It seems that the bundle of sticks here has been at work.
> Interesting....it is not as if I do not notice what this groupie
group
> does. There is very little talking about origins in talk.origins.
So, did
> you try to compile quotes on your own or is there some link for them?
I
> would rather discuss things as they come up rather than having a
massive
> rehash of old issues, thus the final edit. If you're going to throw
out
> red herrings all over the place, just choose one or two.
> --
> --W
> http://mynym.blogspot.com/
Get a life. Get a girlfriend. Don't spend so long fantasizing.
RF
Richard Forrest
C.J.W. wrote:
> Richard Forrest wrote:
>
> > C.J.W. wrote:
> > > Augray wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 22:18:43 +0000 (UTC), "C.J.W."
> > > > <watt...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in
> > > > news:<41D9CA83...@bellatlantic.net>:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ken Shaw wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > C.J.W. wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "C.J.W." wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>Pokemoto wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>>Subject: The Artist and the Scientist
> > <sniP>
> > > They often seem rather ignorant, thus the pattern of projection
of
> > it.
> > > --
> > > --W
> > > http://mynym.blogspot.com/
> > You do understand what 'gliding' means, do you? Or perhaps not.
>
> It means that some glided to the ground and others fell down and went
> splat.
>
No it doesn't.
Try learning.
And try not to make such an utter fool of yourself.
RF
Lilith
> Once upon a time, things fell down and went splat, from this process
the
> lil' feathers grew! Each one, you see, they begin as little blobs of
> tissue and just change, get a little harder there or here, a little
more
> structure. It just takes a lot of things jumping out of trees and
dying,
> then there are more and more feathers. Amazing!
Oh my goodness.
Are you sure you're not just some weird Loki troll who's trying to put
people on? It's a cute parody, anyway... a straw man of evolution all
ready for Comedy Central.
Now's your chance to tell the world that you were really putting us on
with a parody...to save yourself from anyone thinking you're serious
about that stupidity up there.
Augray
<watt...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in
news:<41DC187E...@bellatlantic.net>:
>
>
> Augray wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 12:49:00 +0000 (UTC), "C.J.W."
> > <watt...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in
> > news:<41DBE82F...@bellatlantic.net>:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Augray wrote:
[snip]
> > > > Speaking of demonstrating claims, when are you going to demonstrate that
> > > > even one evolutionist believes that "once upon a time, a group of avian
> > > > ancestors jumped out of trees, killing themselves enough times that
> > > > eventually they grew wings and flew away"?
> > >
> > > "Okay, now you might be saying: "Enough with the procedure. Give us
> > > some hypotheses; tell us what scientists think!" We'll do just that
> > > ......
> > > "Trees Down Scenario: Given an arboreal ancestor of a flying lineage,
> > > flight must have proceeded from the trees into the air. A semi-bipedal
> > > leaping and gliding animal could have evolved flight -- leaping off of trees
> > > would provide the acceleration and speed necessary for flight.
> > > Gliding is most useful in the trees, so if that ancestor was a glider,
> > > then it must have co-opted its gliding structures into wings; it must
> > > have started to flap its gliding membrane."
> > > On Display: Vertebrate Flight
> > > Museum of Paleontology, University of California, 1101
> > > Valley Life Sciences Building, Berkeley, CA 94720-4780, USA
> >
> > Taken from http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/flight/origins.html
> >
>
> Yeah, I wasn't sure my link would be good because I found it by a proxy.
Providing the reference is important.
> > > Why don't you demonstrate any innacuracy in my little summary of this sort of thing?
> >
> > I'd be glad to. Where's the part about "a group of avian ancestors
> > jumped out of trees, killing themselves enough times that eventually
> > they grew wings and flew away"? There's no mention in the passage that
> > you supplied about animals deliberately jumping out of trees with the
> > intent of growing wings,
>
> I didn't say that they deliberately did it.
"...jumped out of trees" would seem to imply deliberate action, just
like "jumping out of a plane" does.
> I just said that they did it.
People jump out of trees (and planes) all the time. Does anyone expect
them to grow wings?
> > since the ancestor in this passage could
> > already glide.
>
> Because its group had jumped in the trees.
So, the jumping came before? Then why mention it?
> > Nor is there any mention of dead animals reproducing.
>
> Nor is there any mention of that in my satire.
"...killing themselves enough times that eventually they grew wings and
flew away". The words "themselves" and "they" would seem to refer to the
same group, the group that's dead after killing themselves.
> > I'd
> > also point out that no one believes that avian ancestors had a gliding
> > membrane, and it would seem that the passage is concerned with the
> > evolution of flight in general, in birds, bats, and pterosaurs, and not
> > birds exclusively.
>
> My summary is concerned with all the branches too.
Then why did you refer to "avian ancestors"?
> Don't try to minimize the tree down mythological
> narrative of naturalism.....
Hypothetical, not mythological.
> "Based on physical principles, gliding is a better process for the
> origin of powered flight than the "ground-up" process, which
> physically is not feasible in space or time (considering air resistance,
> metabolic energy costs, and mechanical resistance to bipedal running).
> Proto-avian ancestors of Archaeopteryx and Microraptor probably
> flapped their sparsely feathered limbs synchronously while descending
> from leaps or heights, with such "flutter-gliding" presented as
> a synthesis of the two earlier theories of flight origin (making
> use of the available potential energy from gravity, involving
> wing thrusts and flapping, coping with air resistance that
> slows air speed, but effecting positive fitness value in
> providing lift and slowing dangerous falls)."
The above is the abstract of the paper cited below.
> (Journal of Theoretical Biology
> Volume 224, Issue 1 , 7 September 2003, Pages 9-26
> Physical theory, origin of flight, and a synthesis proposed for birds
> By Charles A. Long, , a, G. P. Zhangb,
> Thomas F. Georgec and Claudine F. Longa)
>
> Once upon a time, some would be avian ancestors were jumping around
> in trees. Then, they started growing one lil' feather and then another!
Gee, another misrepresentation. What happened to the part about
"effecting positive fitness value in providing lift and slowing
dangerous falls"? What did you disagree with in that paper? Also, Long
et al. assume that the precursors of feathers appeared before flight or
gliding. But you knew that, right?
> But just what is, the lil' feather?
>
> http://mynym.blogspot.com/2004/11/lil-feather.html
A picture of a flight feather? So what? Feathers of a simpler form have
been found. See:
Chen, P.-J., Dong, Z. M., and Zheng, S.-N. 1998. An exceptionally
well-preserved theropod dinosaur from the Yixian Formation of China.
Nature 391:147-152.
> > > It is
> > > disingenuos to deny that evolutionists put these displays on in museums, etc.
> >
> > But it's not disingenuous to misrepresent them?
>
> I didn't misrepresent them.
Yes, you did.
> <snip>
>
> > > It may well be that
> > > people claiming science actually have no idea what they're talking about, what has been
> > > published, etc., too.
> >
> > In that case, you'll have to rely on more than just webpages. I'd be
> > happy to point you to some recent papers. Here's one to get you started:
> >
> > Xu, X., Zhou, Z.-H., Wang, X.-L., Kuang, X., Zhang, F.-C. & Du, X. 2003.
> > Four-winged dinosaurs from China. Nature 421:335-340.
>
> That doesn't indicate that I misrepresented the naturalistic narrative that
> they feeeel that they have to, just have to tell.
>
> I wonder if they had another artist make a lil' picture with feathers on it,
> again.
Yes, they did. But considering that feathers were found on the animal
described therein, it wasn't unreasonable.
> Well, one thing is certain, mommy Nature did it somehow. How about
> you cite me some of the text that you want me to read
I *did* give you a citation.
> rather than pretending
> that they said something profound in a journal that is not available online?
> Hmmm?
Are you afraid of libraries or something? I gave you a reference that
will be relatively easy to get a hold of. But if you like, I can point
you to something *really* obscure.
> Why is it, do you suppose, that talk.origins does not do that much talking
> about origins and when they do they argue, "Scientists know all about
> origins....well, I can't say why. But there's mountains, just mountains of
> evidence!"
Oh, so you're concerned about evidence? That's why I pointed you to the
paper in Nature. Lots of evidence there. I've got lots more too,
whenever you're ready.
> <snip>
Dana Tweedy
"C.J.W." <watt...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:41DC187E...@bellatlantic.net...
snipping
>> > Why don't you demonstrate any innacuracy in my little summary of this
>> > sort of thing?
>>
>> I'd be glad to. Where's the part about "a group of avian ancestors
>> jumped out of trees, killing themselves enough times that eventually
>> they grew wings and flew away"? There's no mention in the passage that
>> you supplied about animals deliberately jumping out of trees with the
>> intent of growing wings,
>
> I didn't say that they deliberately did it. I just said that they did it.
Which, as is clear from the quoted material, is not what they did at all.
>
>> since the ancestor in this passage could
>> already glide.
>
> Because its group had jumped in the trees.
Where does the article say that?
>
>> Nor is there any mention of dead animals reproducing.
>
> Nor is there any mention of that in my satire.
Which is completely wrong.
>
>> I'd
>> also point out that no one believes that avian ancestors had a gliding
>> membrane, and it would seem that the passage is concerned with the
>> evolution of flight in general, in birds, bats, and pterosaurs, and not
>> birds exclusively.
>
> My summary is concerned with all the branches too. Don't try to minimize
> the tree down mythological
> narrative of naturalism.....
What makes you think the narrative is "mythical"? We see today animals who
use the "tree down" method of gliding.
>
> "Based on physical principles, gliding is a better process for the
> origin of powered flight than the "ground-up" process, which
> physically is not feasible in space or time (considering air resistance,
> metabolic energy costs, and mechanical resistance to bipedal running).
> Proto-avian ancestors of Archaeopteryx and Microraptor probably
> flapped their sparsely feathered limbs synchronously while descending
> from leaps or heights, with such "flutter-gliding" presented as
> a synthesis of the two earlier theories of flight origin (making
> use of the available potential energy from gravity, involving
> wing thrusts and flapping, coping with air resistance that
> slows air speed, but effecting positive fitness value in
> providing lift and slowing dangerous falls)."
> (Journal of Theoretical Biology
> Volume 224, Issue 1 , 7 September 2003, Pages 9-26
> Physical theory, origin of flight, and a synthesis proposed for birds
> By Charles A. Long, , a, G. P. Zhangb,
> Thomas F. Georgec and Claudine F. Longa)
>
> Once upon a time, some would be avian ancestors were jumping around in
> trees. Then, they started
> growing one lil' feather and then another!
Individuals don't evolve, populations do. Feathers were already in place,
probably for insulation purposes.
>
> But just what is, the lil' feather?
>
> http://mynym.blogspot.com/2004/11/lil-feather.html
And why should anyone care about your ignorance?
>
>> > It is
>> > disingenuos to deny that evolutionists put these displays on in
>> > museums, etc.
>>
>> But it's not disingenuous to misrepresent them?
>
> I didn't misrepresent them.
Do you really think that your "satire" was a correct representation?
>
> <snip>
>
>> > It may well be that
>> > people claiming science actually have no idea what they're talking
>> > about, what has been
>> > published, etc., too.
>>
>> In that case, you'll have to rely on more than just webpages. I'd be
>> happy to point you to some recent papers. Here's one to get you started:
>>
>> Xu, X., Zhou, Z.-H., Wang, X.-L., Kuang, X., Zhang, F.-C. & Du, X. 2003.
>> Four-winged dinosaurs from China. Nature 421:335-340.
>
> That doesn't indicate that I misrepresented the naturalistic narrative
> that they feeeel that they
> have to, just have to tell.
So, do you really feel you correctly described the process?
>
> I wonder if they had another artist make a lil' picture with feathers on
> it, again.
The fossils clearly show feather impressions.
> Well, one thing
> is certain, mommy Nature did it somehow.
We know of no other processes than natural processes. If you have any
evidence of supernatural processes, please provide it.
> How about you cite me some of the text that you want me to
> read rather than pretending that they said something profound in a journal
> that is not available
> online? Hmmm?
How about doing some minimal research before you make ignorant comments?
>
> Why is it, do you suppose, that talk.origins does not do that much talking
> about origins and when
> they do they argue, "Scientists know all about origins....well, I can't
> say why.
Scientists neve claim to "know all".
> But there's
> mountains, just mountains of evidence!"
The internet is a great resource, but not the entire repository of
scientific knowlege. Sometimes you have to do some reading offline.
DJT
Augray
<watt...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in
news:<41DC197A...@bellatlantic.net>:
>
>
> Richard Forrest wrote:
>
> > C.J.W. wrote:
> > > Augray wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 22:18:43 +0000 (UTC), "C.J.W."
> > > > <watt...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in
> > > > news:<41D9CA83...@bellatlantic.net>:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ken Shaw wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > C.J.W. wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "C.J.W." wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>Pokemoto wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>>Subject: The Artist and the Scientist
> > <sniP>
> > > They often seem rather ignorant, thus the pattern of projection of it.
> > > --
> > > --W
> > > http://mynym.blogspot.com/
> > You do understand what 'gliding' means, do you? Or perhaps not.
>
> It means that some glided to the ground and others fell down and went
> splat.
The "splat" part isn't necessary for gliding, or even evolution.
> Thus, as you can see, we can harness the power of the animate and begin to
> say that the inanimate can "select" the animate. Maybe.....it helps if you
> are an invert psychologically, then this message will have great appeal to
> you.
Are you actually claiming that an environment has no influence on the
creatures that inhabit it?
> Once upon a time, things fell down and went splat, from this process the
> lil' feathers grew! Each one, you see, they begin as little blobs of
> tissue and just change, get a little harder there or here, a little more
> structure. It just takes a lot of things jumping out of trees and dying,
> then there are more and more feathers. Amazing!
>
> http://mynym.blogspot.com/2004/11/lil-feather.html
> http://mynym.blogspot.com/2004/11/wings-of-eagle_11.html
Yet another misrepresentation.
Chris Thompson
news:41DC19D9...@bellatlantic.net:
Missed the mark again. There's no need to put one before the other.
They are separate and independent studies. Those who believe one has to
have priority are living in a fantasy land- no matter which they
support.
Chris
C.J.W.
Richard Forrest wrote:
> C.J.W. wrote:
> > Richard Forrest wrote:
> >
> > > C.J.W. wrote:
> > > > Ken Shaw wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > C.J.W. wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "C.J.W." wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>Pokemoto wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>>Subject: The Artist and the Scientist
> > > > > >>>>From: "C.J.W." watt...@bellatlantic.net
> > > > > >>>>Date: 12/17/04 11:46 PM Central Standard Time
> > > > > >>>>Message-id: <41C3C93D...@bellatlantic.net>
> <snip>
> > > "Now, once upone a time everyone was vegetarians. Yes, it is
> > > true."
> > > Humans have the teeth and digestive systems of omnivores.
> >
> > I did not say that they do not.
>
> Your statement implies that they should not. But then you're so stupid
> that you don't understand the implications of what you write.
No, it doesn't imply that.
It does imply that there should be a pattern of an ancient prejudice
indicating that humans think it wrong to eat animals. And that is what
there is.
> > > "Things were designed to evolve upwards, not degenerate."
> > > Evolution does not have a direction.
> >
> > I did not say that it does. It does seem a rather directionless type
> of
> > philosophy.
> >
>
> 'evolve upward'? You don't even understand your own words.
Just recently in the National Geographic "evolution" was said to be the
explanation for all diversity, all complexity, out of nothing.
That is evolving upwards, creation and generation. But I did not say that
evolution has a "direction," although evolutionists do.
> > > "Typically Darwin said it would be the strongest, in a struggle..."
> > > He didn't. He said fittest. This does not mean strongest.
> >
> > That's just wrong. Apparently you do not know what Darwin wrote.
> Maybe you
> > should try reading it.
> >
>
> Stupid riposte. I've read Darwin. You evidently haven't. More igorance.
> Silly little boy.
That was already proven in the threads you are drawing from. Yet, I doubt
you even read them either.
Example,
"In the next chapter the Struggle for Existence amongst all organic beings
throughout the world, which inevitably follows from the high
geometrical ratio of their increase, will be considered. This is the
doctrine of Malthus, applied to the whole animal and vegetable
kingdoms. As many more individuals of each species are born than can
possibly survive; and as, consequently, there is a frequently
recurring struggle for existence, it follows that any being, if it
vary however slightly in any manner profitable to itself, under the
complex and sometimes varying conditions of life, will have a better
chance of surviving, and thus be naturally selected. From the strong
principle of inheritance, any selected variety will tend to
propagate its new and modified form."
The Preservation of Favoured Races in the STRUGGLE for Life
"...there is a frequently recurring struggle for existence.....
This fundamental subject of Natural Selection will be treated at
some length in the fourth chapter; and we shall then see how Natural
Selection almost inevitably causes much Extinction of the less
improved forms of life...."
You've read Darwin like a lot of talk.origins has read the Bible.
> > > "No, Darwin's theory changed minds and in the way it did so it
> caused
> > > racism."
> > > According to this little gem, there could be no racism before
> Darwin.
> >
> > Straw man.....
> >
> > I guess you realize that what you just said doesn't even make any
> sense.
> > Do all those who change mind to cause racism, therefore prevent there
> being
> > racism before them? Sheesh man, try to think....
> >
>
> 'cause racism' means 'caused racism'. So once again you demonstrate
> that you don't understand your own words.
Caused does not mean cause, or else one would write caused and not
cause....
Darwin's theory changed minds and in the way it did so it
caused racism.
That is history.
> If I was as stupid and
> ignorant as you are, I'd try to conceal the fact rather than boast
> about it.
Hmmm....
> > > "Modern evolutionists are changing the meaning of words to suit
> > > themselves."
> > > Scientist define the meanings of words to avoid confusion.
> >
> > No, liars define evolution
>
> Yes, creationist redefine evolution all the time. They are the liars.
Then quote their supposed contradictions.
I can quote what evolutionists say publicly by their public organizations,
editorials, etc., and then what they say on Usenet or the talk.origins
site. It is fascination how different it is. Yet those here, much like
you, go on at great length about the "ignorance" of people they disagree
with based on people accepting the public of evolutionism, based on
accepting what evolutionists say publicly.
<snip>
> > But then they go out, back to the public, and say the same thing
> > again about "evolution" being a total philosophy that explains
> everything.
> >
>
> My word, you do live in a strange parallel universe!
Hehe....one in which facts and evidence can be cited, etc., yep...
> > Perhaps they just want to merge the animal and human, male and female
> in
> > the same way that zoophiles and homophiles do. If so, they are moral
> > degenerates who will say anything.
> >
>
> Careful, your bigotry is showing.
Bigotry against zoophiles?
Hmmm.....perhaps only a zoophile would say that.
<snip>
> > He had no respect for the human race because he did not have the eyes
> to
> > see those who run this race.
> >
>
> Writes someone who, even if he could read Darwin, does not have the
> intellect to understand what Darwin wrote.
Please, you who deny that he wrote about struggle. Don't be ridiculous....
You must know on some level that the objective reader picks up on you
sniveling that he didn't write about struggle and then a simple citation of
Darwin proving that he did. In fact, his chapters and his book were titled
by it. Duh, dopey dopes....
<snip>
Yep, that's enough of that, more ignorance.
--
--W
http://mynym.blogspot.com/
C.J.W.
Chris Thompson wrote:
> "C.J.W." <watt...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in
> news:41DC19D9...@bellatlantic.net:
>
> >
> >
> > Chris Thompson wrote:
> >
> >> "C.J.W." <watt...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in
> >> news:41D9CA83...@bellatlantic.net:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> <snip>
> > Sadly, those who put the physical before the metaphysical have no
> > sense of either. So these are the people who begin to indoctrinate
> > rather than educate.
> >
> > And indoctrination is always boring, dead. So no wonder people don't
> > flock to it....
> > --
> > --W
> > http://mynym.blogspot.com/
> >
> >
>
> Missed the mark again. There's no need to put one before the other.
> They are separate and independent studies. Those who believe one has to
> have priority are living in a fantasy land- no matter which they
> support.
No wonder so much in education is boring and dead now, the cold toads argue
to separate the mind from the body. And that IS death.
--
--W
http://mynym.blogspot.com/
C.J.W.
Richard Forrest wrote:
Yes it does.
> Try learning.
You are ignorant.
> And try not to make such an utter fool of yourself.
Projection.
Oh, how I like Usenet and talk.origins. Yes, the little minds of the cold
toads here always have had such good arguments and demonstrated such
knowledge!
--
--W
http://mynym.blogspot.com/
C.J.W.
Lilith wrote:
> C.J.W. wrote:
>
> > Once upon a time, things fell down and went splat, from this process
> the
> > lil' feathers grew! Each one, you see, they begin as little blobs of
> > tissue and just change, get a little harder there or here, a little
> more
> > structure. It just takes a lot of things jumping out of trees and
> dying,
> > then there are more and more feathers. Amazing!
>
> Oh my goodness.
>
> Are you sure you're not just some weird Loki troll who's trying to put
> people on? It's a cute parody, anyway... a straw man of evolution all
> ready for Comedy Central.
That's like saying that criticizing Michael Moore type ideas is a straw man
that modern Leftism has nothing to do with. Yet actually, he is a very
real, big fat man.
In the same sense, cold toads looking for Life in Death is a very real set
of ideas that can be proven by citing what they write.
> Now's your chance to tell the world that you were really putting us on
> with a parody...to save yourself from anyone thinking you're serious
> about that stupidity up there.
Oh, don't be such a crybaby....there are those who are looking for the
design of feathers and the like coming out and being created by processes
of dying and death. For how else will a deified Nature be made to "select"
one thing over another, the animate instead of the inanimate?
--
--W
http://mynym.blogspot.com/
C.J.W.
Augray wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 16:20:16 +0000 (UTC), "C.J.W."
> <watt...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in
> news:<41DC197A...@bellatlantic.net>:
>
> >
> >
> > Richard Forrest wrote:
> >
> > > C.J.W. wrote:
> > > > Augray wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 22:18:43 +0000 (UTC), "C.J.W."
> > > > > <watt...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in
> > > > > news:<41D9CA83...@bellatlantic.net>:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ken Shaw wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > C.J.W. wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "C.J.W." wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>Pokemoto wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>>>Subject: The Artist and the Scientist
> > > <sniP>
> > > > They often seem rather ignorant, thus the pattern of projection of it.
> > > > --
> > > > --W
> > > > http://mynym.blogspot.com/
> > > You do understand what 'gliding' means, do you? Or perhaps not.
> >
> > It means that some glided to the ground and others fell down and went
> > splat.
>
> The "splat" part isn't necessary for gliding, or even evolution.
Some form of Nature "selecting" for feathers and the like is necessary.
And apparently, some believe that "splat" will do as far as Nature "selecting"
things.
> > Thus, as you can see, we can harness the power of the animate and begin to
> > say that the inanimate can "select" the animate. Maybe.....it helps if you
> > are an invert psychologically, then this message will have great appeal to
> > you.
>
> Are you actually claiming that an environment has no influence on the
> creatures that inhabit it?
Are you actually claiming that the environment will make feathers?
> > Once upon a time, things fell down and went splat, from this process the
> > lil' feathers grew! Each one, you see, they begin as little blobs of
> > tissue and just change, get a little harder there or here, a little more
> > structure. It just takes a lot of things jumping out of trees and dying,
> > then there are more and more feathers. Amazing!
> >
> > http://mynym.blogspot.com/2004/11/lil-feather.html
> > http://mynym.blogspot.com/2004/11/wings-of-eagle_11.html
>
> Yet another misrepresentation.
A misrepresentation of what, exactly?
--
--W
http://mynym.blogspot.com/
C.J.W.
Dana Tweedy wrote:
> "C.J.W." <watt...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
> news:41DC187E...@bellatlantic.net...
> snipping
>
> >> > Why don't you demonstrate any innacuracy in my little summary of this
> >> > sort of thing?
> >>
> >> I'd be glad to. Where's the part about "a group of avian ancestors
> >> jumped out of trees, killing themselves enough times that eventually
> >> they grew wings and flew away"? There's no mention in the passage that
> >> you supplied about animals deliberately jumping out of trees with the
> >> intent of growing wings,
> >
> > I didn't say that they deliberately did it. I just said that they did it.
>
> Which, as is clear from the quoted material, is not what they did at all.
What, do you think that the avian ancestors sat down and had a deliberation
about it?
I didn't say that anything deliberately did anything. The people that create
the mythological narratives of naturalism are those who begin to say that Nature
"selected," perhaps by having a deliberation about it. Nature, it did it
deliberately. It designed the wings and the feathers, just so.
> >> since the ancestor in this passage could
> >> already glide.
> >
> > Because its group had jumped in the trees.
>
> Where does the article say that?
That is part of the tree down theory. Your ignorance is telling.
(You see, I am going to begin to play with rhetoric. I have little use for the
cat and mouse games, typical to talk.origins. So I will be the cat and you can
be my little mouse.)
> >> Nor is there any mention of dead animals reproducing.
> >
> > Nor is there any mention of that in my satire.
>
> Which is completely wrong.
If you're going to say that it is "completely" wrong then write a little about
why.
<snip>
> > My summary is concerned with all the branches too. Don't try to minimize
> > the tree down mythological
> > narrative of naturalism.....
>
> What makes you think the narrative is "mythical"? We see today animals who
> use the "tree down" method of gliding.
....and they just happen to be jumping in trees and the like.
....which you just speciously denied a few lines up.
So you see why I begin to play rhetorical games on talk.origins for much of the
time. That's all this place really is, much of the time. So I note to any
reader who might happen by and think, "It seems like a lot of rhetoric." do not
blame me for this simple fact.
> > "Based on physical principles, gliding is a better process for the
> > origin of powered flight than the "ground-up" process, which
> > physically is not feasible in space or time (considering air resistance,
> > metabolic energy costs, and mechanical resistance to bipedal running).
> > Proto-avian ancestors of Archaeopteryx and Microraptor probably
> > flapped their sparsely feathered limbs synchronously while descending
> > from leaps or heights, with such "flutter-gliding" presented as
> > a synthesis of the two earlier theories of flight origin (making
> > use of the available potential energy from gravity, involving
> > wing thrusts and flapping, coping with air resistance that
> > slows air speed, but effecting positive fitness value in
> > providing lift and slowing dangerous falls)."
> > (Journal of Theoretical Biology
> > Volume 224, Issue 1 , 7 September 2003, Pages 9-26
> > Physical theory, origin of flight, and a synthesis proposed for birds
> > By Charles A. Long, , a, G. P. Zhangb,
> > Thomas F. Georgec and Claudine F. Longa)
> >
> > Once upon a time, some would be avian ancestors were jumping around in
> > trees. Then, they started
> > growing one lil' feather and then another!
>
> Individuals don't evolve, populations do.
Yes, that's why I said a group of avian ancestors.
> Feathers were already in place,
> probably for insulation purposes.
I am curious, did each little lump change into a feather one at a time, or all
together? I.e., first there was a lil' hair, then it sprouted some little
spines....because that's just what little hairs do sometimes. Eventually, this
lil' hair was going to be a good thing for powered flight. Fortunately, mommy
Nature in her foresight "selected" it for just such a reason, saving it for
later, when it would be useful for flight.
> > But just what is, the lil' feather?
> >
> > http://mynym.blogspot.com/2004/11/lil-feather.html
>
> And why should anyone care about your ignorance?
Ignorance of what?
http://mynym.blogspot.com/2004/11/just-birds-not-bees.html
You really need to learn to stop being so passive and questionable. You answers
are typically questionable, like talk.origins typically is.
> >> > It is
> >> > disingenuos to deny that evolutionists put these displays on in
> >> > museums, etc.
> >>
> >> But it's not disingenuous to misrepresent them?
> >
> > I didn't misrepresent them.
>
> Do you really think that your "satire" was a correct representation?
If you can't cut through the jargon to actually see the narrative then you are
lacking in critical thinking skills. How about you write a summary, minus
jargon, a short narrative of how scientists explain the evolution of flight by
the tree down theory. Go ahead, try it, stop being so passive and
questionable. Your answers are very questionable.
I think that most people on talk.origins see a mythological narrative of
naturalism, see that a lot of scientific terms or jargon are used to tell it,
then they believe it becaues some scientists believe it. Then perhaps they
murmer, "For the science of me....me like science."
<snip>
> >> Xu, X., Zhou, Z.-H., Wang, X.-L., Kuang, X., Zhang, F.-C. & Du, X. 2003.
> >> Four-winged dinosaurs from China. Nature 421:335-340.
> >
> > That doesn't indicate that I misrepresented the naturalistic narrative
> > that they feeeel that they
> > have to, just have to tell.
>
> So, do you really feel you correctly described the process?
I accurately reflected the narrative being told.
How about you try it, with no jargon? I.e., let's try and get at the truth of
things rather than the science of things. Let's try to get to the truth, rather
than just naturalistic explanation.
> > I wonder if they had another artist make a lil' picture with feathers on
> > it, again.
>
> The fossils clearly show feather impressions.
That would be better than last time.
> > Well, one thing
> > is certain, mommy Nature did it somehow.
>
> We know of no other processes than natural processes. If you have any
> evidence of supernatural processes, please provide it.
So what natural processes are responsible for your sentences there?
What type of evidence would you accept as evidence of the supernatural?
Nothing, correct?
So why, then, is anyone supposed to be all suprised that you apparently believe
in philosophic naturalism when it comes to origins and believe in whatever
mythological narrative of naturalism that happens to be current? Do you think
that is surprising, or a conclusion that can be falsified in any way, shape or
form?
> > How about you cite me some of the text that you want me to
> > read rather than pretending that they said something profound in a journal
> > that is not available
> > online? Hmmm?
>
> How about doing some minimal research before you make ignorant comments?
Oh, quit sniveling.....you're going to have to be active instead of passive
sometime. So questionable, you are....
How about you cite me an excerpt of all the things you are lecturing on about
"ignorance"?
How about you write your own short summary, sans jargon and equivocation, of the
hypotheses on the evolution of flight?
Come out, come out wherever you are....into the real world of facts, logic and
evidence.
> > Why is it, do you suppose, that talk.origins does not do that much talking
> > about origins and when
> > they do they argue, "Scientists know all about origins....well, I can't
> > say why.
>
> Scientists neve claim to "know all".
Yet they sure do try to be the thought police when it comes to talking about
origins.
You know, just as you do. All that is done is throwing a few claims about
"ignorance" of some nebulously defined term like evolution, etc. People pick up
on the dishonesty, fraud and disingenuous of the position.....so I do not know
they they bother trying to police talking about origins as if they do "know all"
while simultaneously promoting some false humility on the same topic. They
certainly act like know it alls, always claiming ignorance, etc.
A nebulous claim of ignorance, which is mainly just about their style of
rhetoric and nothing more.
> > But there's
> > mountains, just mountains of evidence!"
>
> The internet is a great resource, but not the entire repository of
> scientific knowlege. Sometimes you have to do some reading offline.
All these claims of ignorance, yet how long would it take to scan a few excerpts
on some issues, like the evolution of flight?
Please.....the claim of ignorance is a rhetorical tool.
--
--W
http://mynym.blogspot.com/
C.J.W.
Augray wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 16:15:55 +0000 (UTC), "C.J.W."
> <watt...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in
> news:<41DC187E...@bellatlantic.net>:
>
> >
> >
> > Augray wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 12:49:00 +0000 (UTC), "C.J.W."
> > > <watt...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in
> > > news:<41DBE82F...@bellatlantic.net>:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Augray wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > > I'd be glad to. Where's the part about "a group of avian ancestors
> > > jumped out of trees, killing themselves enough times that eventually
> > > they grew wings and flew away"? There's no mention in the passage that
> > > you supplied about animals deliberately jumping out of trees with the
> > > intent of growing wings,
> >
> > I didn't say that they deliberately did it.
>
> "...jumped out of trees" would seem to imply deliberate action, just
> like "jumping out of a plane" does.
I did not say they deliberately tried to grow wings.
They jumped out of one tree, maybe to another tree. Or maybe not....
> > I just said that they did it.
>
> People jump out of trees (and planes) all the time. Does anyone expect
> them to grow wings?
If they tried to jump from one tree to another then according to evolutionists, eventually they
might be able to fly. Apparently that's all it takes. If only humans had just jumped out of
trees back when they were more like monkeys, then we'd be flying around now. Too bad about that,
that they didn't.
But you are right to question if that is a reasonable hypothesis.
> > > since the ancestor in this passage could
> > > already glide.
> >
> > Because its group had jumped in the trees.
>
> So, the jumping came before? Then why mention it?
Because it is a part of the mythological narrative of naturalism at hand.
> > > Nor is there any mention of dead animals reproducing.
> >
> > Nor is there any mention of that in my satire.
>
> "...killing themselves enough times that eventually they grew wings and
> flew away". The words "themselves" and "they" would seem to refer to the
> same group, the group that's dead after killing themselves.
They is a reference to their group.
There are living and dead in the same group.
> > > I'd
> > > also point out that no one believes that avian ancestors had a gliding
> > > membrane, and it would seem that the passage is concerned with the
> > > evolution of flight in general, in birds, bats, and pterosaurs, and not
> > > birds exclusively.
> >
> > My summary is concerned with all the branches too.
>
> Then why did you refer to "avian ancestors"?
The summary is concerned with more than just birds because that mythological narrative of
naturalism, as a pattern, has been applied to more than just birds.
> > Don't try to minimize the tree down mythological
> > narrative of naturalism.....
>
> Hypothetical, not mythological.
It is the same sort of narrative.
<snip>
> > (Journal of Theoretical Biology
> > Volume 224, Issue 1 , 7 September 2003, Pages 9-26
> > Physical theory, origin of flight, and a synthesis proposed for birds
> > By Charles A. Long, , a, G. P. Zhangb,
> > Thomas F. Georgec and Claudine F. Longa)
> >
> > Once upon a time, some would be avian ancestors were jumping around
> > in trees. Then, they started growing one lil' feather and then another!
>
> Gee, another misrepresentation. What happened to the part about
> "effecting positive fitness value in providing lift and slowing
> dangerous falls"? What did you disagree with in that paper?
What happened to it? It was summarized. You're going to have to wrap your mind around the fact
that these mythological narratives of naturalism are actually explaining real birds, with real
feathers and the like eventually.
I.e., cut the jargon and the rhetoric and tell it like it is. How about you give a short summary
of the "hypothesis," i.e. the mythological narrative, sans jargon? Let's just see what it looks
like, in good clear language, minus the extra rhetorical devices.
<snip>
> > But just what is, the lil' feather?
> >
> > http://mynym.blogspot.com/2004/11/lil-feather.html
>
> A picture of a flight feather? So what? Feathers of a simpler form have
> been found. See:
There should be many forms of feathers, all arranged in a gradualistic evolution of the feather.
Perhaps you should not even be able to call one form a "feather." There should be many, many
forms and an almost easy way to tell a narrative of how it happened too.
> Chen, P.-J., Dong, Z. M., and Zheng, S.-N. 1998. An exceptionally
> well-preserved theropod dinosaur from the Yixian Formation of China.
> Nature 391:147-152.
"Both specimens have interesting integumentary structures that could provide information about
the origin of feathers."
Yep, impressive. I wonder how mommy Nature must've "selected" what random mutation "created"?
Hmmm? Well, if you start from the position that naturally, oh so naturally, natural selection
must have selected feathers then you already know that Nature MUST have done so.
That was easy. And would you just look at the science of that?
So then, tell me the clear narrative of how it MUST have happened.
> > > > It is
> > > > disingenuos to deny that evolutionists put these displays on in museums, etc.
> > >
> > > But it's not disingenuous to misrepresent them?
> >
> > I didn't misrepresent them.
>
> Yes, you did.
Are you going to give a good clear summary of the narrative?
I doubt it.
<snip>
> > That doesn't indicate that I misrepresented the naturalistic narrative that
> > they feeeel that they have to, just have to tell.
> >
> > I wonder if they had another artist make a lil' picture with feathers on it,
> > again.
>
> Yes, they did. But considering that feathers were found on the animal
> described therein, it wasn't unreasonable.
>
> > Well, one thing is certain, mommy Nature did it somehow. How about
> > you cite me some of the text that you want me to read
>
> I *did* give you a citation.
If you've read it, then scan a telling excerpt. Preferrably one that does what you are not
doing with this red herring, gives a summary of the evolution of flight in narrative form.
That is the type of thing I do when I cite something. I don't just cite it for the sake of
citing it.
<snip>
Wow, that's really fun, talking about citations. Woo hoo....
--
--W
http://mynym.blogspot.com/
Dana Tweedy
>
>
> Dana Tweedy wrote:
>
>> "C.J.W." <watt...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
>> news:41DC187E...@bellatlantic.net...
>> snipping
>>
>> >> > Why don't you demonstrate any innacuracy in my little summary of
>> >> > this
>> >> > sort of thing?
>> >>
>> >> I'd be glad to. Where's the part about "a group of avian ancestors
>> >> jumped out of trees, killing themselves enough times that eventually
>> >> they grew wings and flew away"? There's no mention in the passage that
>> >> you supplied about animals deliberately jumping out of trees with the
>> >> intent of growing wings,
>> >
>> > I didn't say that they deliberately did it. I just said that they did
>> > it.
>>
>> Which, as is clear from the quoted material, is not what they did at all.
>
> What, do you think that the avian ancestors sat down and had a
> deliberation
> about it?
What does this misrepresentation have to do with your previous ones?
>
> I didn't say that anything deliberately did anything.
However you did imply it rather heavily.
> The people that create
> the mythological narratives of naturalism are those who begin to say that
> Nature
> "selected," perhaps by having a deliberation about it. Nature, it did it
> deliberately. It designed the wings and the feathers, just so.
What other designer do we have evidence of? What, other than nature can we
observe?
>
>> >> since the ancestor in this passage could
>> >> already glide.
>> >
>> > Because its group had jumped in the trees.
>>
>> Where does the article say that?
>
> That is part of the tree down theory. Your ignorance is telling.
That's not what the theory says, it's your own misrepresentation.
>
> (You see, I am going to begin to play with rhetoric. I have little use
> for the
> cat and mouse games, typical to talk.origins. So I will be the cat and
> you can
> be my little mouse.)
I'd rather be the person, and simply ask you to be reasonable.
>
>> >> Nor is there any mention of dead animals reproducing.
>> >
>> > Nor is there any mention of that in my satire.
>>
>> Which is completely wrong.
>
> If you're going to say that it is "completely" wrong then write a little
> about
> why.
Because it's a misrepresentation.
>
> <snip>
>
>> > My summary is concerned with all the branches too. Don't try to
>> > minimize
>> > the tree down mythological
>> > narrative of naturalism.....
>>
>> What makes you think the narrative is "mythical"? We see today animals
>> who
>> use the "tree down" method of gliding.
>
> ....and they just happen to be jumping in trees and the like.
some are, yes. But they are not trying to kill themselves, which is what
your "satire" implied.
>
> ....which you just speciously denied a few lines up.
I did not "deny" that at all. You are simply being contrary.
>
> So you see why I begin to play rhetorical games on talk.origins for much
> of the
> time. That's all this place really is, much of the time. So I note to
> any
> reader who might happen by and think, "It seems like a lot of rhetoric."
> do not
> blame me for this simple fact.
Why not forget the games, and simply try to deal with the evidence. We see
today that some animals glide from trees, and other higher places. That
means that it's possible that early birds adopted this method as well.
Calling it "mythical" is merely ignoring the real world.
>
>> > "Based on physical principles, gliding is a better process for the
>> > origin of powered flight than the "ground-up" process, which
>> > physically is not feasible in space or time (considering air
>> > resistance,
>> > metabolic energy costs, and mechanical resistance to bipedal running).
>> > Proto-avian ancestors of Archaeopteryx and Microraptor probably
>> > flapped their sparsely feathered limbs synchronously while descending
>> > from leaps or heights, with such "flutter-gliding" presented as
>> > a synthesis of the two earlier theories of flight origin (making
>> > use of the available potential energy from gravity, involving
>> > wing thrusts and flapping, coping with air resistance that
>> > slows air speed, but effecting positive fitness value in
>> > providing lift and slowing dangerous falls)."
>> > (Journal of Theoretical Biology
>> > Volume 224, Issue 1 , 7 September 2003, Pages 9-26
>> > Physical theory, origin of flight, and a synthesis proposed for birds
>> > By Charles A. Long, , a, G. P. Zhangb,
>> > Thomas F. Georgec and Claudine F. Longa)
>> >
>> > Once upon a time, some would be avian ancestors were jumping around in
>> > trees. Then, they started
>> > growing one lil' feather and then another!
>>
>> Individuals don't evolve, populations do.
>
> Yes, that's why I said a group of avian ancestors.
Only individuals can "start growing one lil' feather". Individuals either
have a trait or they do not. They can't decide ahead of time what trait
might be useful. Feathers already existed in pre-avian theropods, so they
did not need to "invent" the feather.
>
>> Feathers were already in place,
>> probably for insulation purposes.
>
> I am curious, did each little lump change into a feather one at a time, or
> all
> together?
Why would that matter? Feathers were most likely developed for insulation
over many generations, so there's no need for them to come from a "little
lump". They most likely evolved from reptilian scales.
> I.e., first there was a lil' hair, then it sprouted some little
> spines....because that's just what little hairs do sometimes.
Mocking what you don't understand does not give you any better insight into
what you are discussing. Feathers most likely didn't start out as hairs,
but as scales.
> Eventually, this
> lil' hair was going to be a good thing for powered flight. Fortunately,
> mommy
> Nature in her foresight "selected" it for just such a reason, saving it
> for
> later, when it would be useful for flight.
Nature doesn't have foresight, but it does make use of structures that
already exist. Again, if you are going to simply mock what you don't
understand, perhaps you'd be better off collecting baseball cards, or
something more to your speed.
>
>> > But just what is, the lil' feather?
>> >
>> > http://mynym.blogspot.com/2004/11/lil-feather.html
>>
>> And why should anyone care about your ignorance?
>
> Ignorance of what?
Science, and the scientific method.
>
> http://mynym.blogspot.com/2004/11/just-birds-not-bees.html
And, again, why should anyone care about your ignorant rantings?
>
> You really need to learn to stop being so passive and questionable. You
> answers
> are typically questionable, like talk.origins typically is.
I prefer to choose my own style, thank you.
>
>> >> > It is
>> >> > disingenuos to deny that evolutionists put these displays on in
>> >> > museums, etc.
>> >>
>> >> But it's not disingenuous to misrepresent them?
>> >
>> > I didn't misrepresent them.
>>
>> Do you really think that your "satire" was a correct representation?
>
> If you can't cut through the jargon to actually see the narrative then you
> are
> lacking in critical thinking skills.
I can see that your narrative is lacking in understanding and insight.
Again, I ask, do you really think your "satire" was an accurate
representation?
> How about you write a summary, minus
> jargon, a short narrative of how scientists explain the evolution of
> flight by
> the tree down theory. Go ahead, try it, stop being so passive and
> questionable. Your answers are very questionable.
Why don't you try to understand what scientists actually write, rather than
just misrepresenting? The "tree down" conjecture holds that birds
developed powered flight through a number of stages, in which gliding down
from trees was one of the stages.
>
> I think that most people on talk.origins see a mythological narrative of
> naturalism,
Then you would be wrong. Conjectures like the "tree down" idea give a
starting place for research, and a way to explain what otherwise cannot be
known. We may never know how birds went from ground dwelling to powered
flyers, but that doesn't mean we must stop looking.
> see that a lot of scientific terms or jargon are used to tell it,
> then they believe it becaues some scientists believe it. Then perhaps
> they
> murmer, "For the science of me....me like science."
You really appear have a deep seated hatred and jealousy of those who have
an education. That's just sad.
>
> <snip>
>
>> >> Xu, X., Zhou, Z.-H., Wang, X.-L., Kuang, X., Zhang, F.-C. & Du, X.
>> >> 2003.
>> >> Four-winged dinosaurs from China. Nature 421:335-340.
>> >
>> > That doesn't indicate that I misrepresented the naturalistic narrative
>> > that they feeeel that they
>> > have to, just have to tell.
>>
>> So, do you really feel you correctly described the process?
>
> I accurately reflected the narrative being told.
No, you did not. You misrepresented the mechanism, and misrepresented the
process.
>
> How about you try it, with no jargon? I.e., let's try and get at the
> truth of
> things rather than the science of things. Let's try to get to the truth,
> rather
> than just naturalistic explanation.
What other explanations can be tested? Is "Godmustadunnit" a useful
explanation for how powered flight developed?
>
>> > I wonder if they had another artist make a lil' picture with feathers
>> > on
>> > it, again.
>>
>> The fossils clearly show feather impressions.
>
> That would be better than last time.
The last time of what?
>
>> > Well, one thing
>> > is certain, mommy Nature did it somehow.
>>
>> We know of no other processes than natural processes. If you have any
>> evidence of supernatural processes, please provide it.
>
> So what natural processes are responsible for your sentences there?
A computer, an internet, and a naturally occuring being using both.
>
> What type of evidence would you accept as evidence of the supernatural?
Any means of observing the supernatual. Give some physical evidence that
the supernatural exists.
>
> Nothing, correct?
Incorrect. If you can show any evidence of a supernatual presence, or
influence, please do so.
>
> So why, then, is anyone supposed to be all suprised that you apparently
> believe
> in philosophic naturalism when it comes to origins and believe in whatever
> mythological narrative of naturalism that happens to be current?
You are simply making false assumptions here. I don't believe in
philosophic naturalism. I do accept that science can only work by the use
methodological naturalism. There is a difference. Naturalistic
explanation cannot be "mythological" in the way that supernatural
explanations are. Naturalistic explanations are always open to question,
and testing, and falsification. You may not like the current scientific
theories, but unless you can show some reason why they are not possible,
your objections are just your personal disbelief.
> Do you think
> that is surprising, or a conclusion that can be falsified in any way,
> shape or
> form?
I simply think you are quite mistaken about science, and what science seeks
to explain.
>
>> > How about you cite me some of the text that you want me to
>> > read rather than pretending that they said something profound in a
>> > journal
>> > that is not available
>> > online? Hmmm?
>>
>> How about doing some minimal research before you make ignorant comments?
>
> Oh, quit sniveling.
I haven't sniveled even once.
> ....you're going to have to be active instead of passive
> sometime. So questionable, you are....
Well "Master Yoda" you use your techniques, I'll use mine. And why not
deal with the issue? Why not do some minimal level of research, so you
appear less like a technology hating loon.
>
> How about you cite me an excerpt of all the things you are lecturing on
> about
> "ignorance"?
You mean your conflation of methodological naturalism with philosophic
naturalism? Your flip dismissal of scientific concepts and conjectures
that you don't understand and mock?
>
> How about you write your own short summary, sans jargon and equivocation,
> of the
> hypotheses on the evolution of flight?
Been done, above.
>
> Come out, come out wherever you are....into the real world of facts, logic
> and
> evidence.
I'm there. However you are still hiding in the shadows of denial and hatred
of scientists.
>
>> > Why is it, do you suppose, that talk.origins does not do that much
>> > talking
>> > about origins and when
>> > they do they argue, "Scientists know all about origins....well, I can't
>> > say why.
>>
>> Scientists neve claim to "know all".
>
> Yet they sure do try to be the thought police when it comes to talking
> about
> origins.
False claim. Any evidence to offer to this charge? Scientists don't care
what ideas you choose to believe about origins. However if you want a
scientific answer, you have to follow the rules. "Anything goes" does not
apply to scientific investigation, and there are rules and procedures. You
may, however ignore science and believe whatever you wish.
>
> You know, just as you do. All that is done is throwing a few claims about
> "ignorance" of some nebulously defined term like evolution, etc.
Evolution is defined as change in allele frequencies in a population over
time. Any "nebulousity" of the defintion comes from Creationist who chose
to define the term as "anything that contradicts Genesis".
> People pick up
> on the dishonesty, fraud and disingenuous of the position...
"People" meaning your own fantasy and projection.
> ..so I do not know
> they they bother trying to police talking about origins as if they do
> "know all"
> while simultaneously promoting some false humility on the same topic.
> They
> certainly act like know it alls, always claiming ignorance, etc.
How can they claim to be "know it alls" when they are claiming ignorance?
You are just projecting your own jealousy and hatred on those who are
educated.
>
> A nebulous claim of ignorance, which is mainly just about their style of
> rhetoric and nothing more.
Again, have you ever actually studied how science works?
>
>> > But there's
>> > mountains, just mountains of evidence!"
>>
>> The internet is a great resource, but not the entire repository of
>> scientific knowlege. Sometimes you have to do some reading offline.
>
> All these claims of ignorance, yet how long would it take to scan a few
> excerpts
> on some issues, like the evolution of flight?
Sorry, but sometimes you HAVE to do your own work. You can be led to water,
but you have to be willing to drink.
>
> Please.....the claim of ignorance is a rhetorical tool.
While your use of your personal ignorance is simply a tool to remove
yourself from having to face reality.
DJT
C.J.W.
Dana Tweedy wrote:
> "C.J.W." <watt...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
> news:41E08DE3...@bellatlantic.net...
> >
> >
> > Dana Tweedy wrote:
> >
> >> "C.J.W." <watt...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
> >> news:41DC187E...@bellatlantic.net...
> >> snipping
> >>
> >> >> > Why don't you demonstrate any innacuracy in my little summary of
> >> >> > this
> >> >> > sort of thing?
> >> >>
> >> >> I'd be glad to. Where's the part about "a group of avian ancestors
> >> >> jumped out of trees, killing themselves enough times that eventually
> >> >> they grew wings and flew away"? There's no mention in the passage that
> >> >> you supplied about animals deliberately jumping out of trees with the
> >> >> intent of growing wings,
> >> >
> >> > I didn't say that they deliberately did it. I just said that they did
> >> > it.
> >>
> >> Which, as is clear from the quoted material, is not what they did at all.
> >
> > What, do you think that the avian ancestors sat down and had a
> > deliberation
> > about it?
>
> What does this misrepresentation have to do with your previous ones?
What does your misrepresentation have to do with my summary?
> > I didn't say that anything deliberately did anything.
>
> However you did imply it rather heavily.
The notion of natural selection states that Nature is "selecting," as if it
deliberately makes a choice.
> > The people that create
> > the mythological narratives of naturalism are those who begin to say that
> > Nature
> > "selected," perhaps by having a deliberation about it. Nature, it did it
> > deliberately. It designed the wings and the feathers, just so.
>
> What other designer do we have evidence of?
Humans, who design things..
> What, other than nature can we
> observe?
You can make observations by insight rather than just sight.
> >> >> since the ancestor in this passage could
> >> >> already glide.
> >> >
> >> > Because its group had jumped in the trees.
> >>
> >> Where does the article say that?
> >
> > That is part of the tree down theory. Your ignorance is telling.
>
> That's not what the theory says, it's your own misrepresentation.
Why are you ignorant of the theory?
> > (You see, I am going to begin to play with rhetoric. I have little use
> > for the
> > cat and mouse games, typical to talk.origins. So I will be the cat and
> > you can
> > be my little mouse.)
>
> I'd rather be the person, and simply ask you to be reasonable.
Do you understand metaphors, the metaphysical, or any sort of insight through
such at all?
> >> >> Nor is there any mention of dead animals reproducing.
> >> >
> >> > Nor is there any mention of that in my satire.
> >>
> >> Which is completely wrong.
> >
> > If you're going to say that it is "completely" wrong then write a little
> > about
> > why.
>
> Because it's a misrepresentation.
You are misrepresenting it.
Why will you not write a short summary, in clear language, of the tree down
theory?
> >> > My summary is concerned with all the branches too. Don't try to
> >> > minimize
> >> > the tree down mythological
> >> > narrative of naturalism.....
> >>
> >> What makes you think the narrative is "mythical"? We see today animals
> >> who
> >> use the "tree down" method of gliding.
> >
> > ....and they just happen to be jumping in trees and the like.
>
> some are, yes. But they are not trying to kill themselves, which is what
> your "satire" implied.
No it didn't.
All it implied is that some died from it and others didn't. I did not say that
animals thought, "I am depressed, now I shall kill myself." I did not say that
animals do much of anything deliberately. I said that some jumped around in
trees and wound up dead. Something can kill itself without intending to.
(But on the other hand, maybe the police avian ancestors just didn't do a good
job of talking down the jumpers. And those they did talk down said, "Hey man, I
was just trying to grow some wings here!" This talk of Nature selecting things
or assuming that some unstated implication that animals had some little
deliberations about something and did it "deliberately" is absurd. It is also
the material of satire, just like the original theory.)
> > ....which you just speciously denied a few lines up.
>
> I did not "deny" that at all. You are simply being contrary.
"Because its group had jumped in the trees." (a simple statement of a fact)
"Where does the article say that?" (the implied denial of a simple fact)
Okay, you speciously questioned it with yet another questionable question.
I will have to learn that ridiculous mode of communication to satirize it. For
it is fairly prevalent on talk.origins, questionable questioning.
> > So you see why I begin to play rhetorical games on talk.origins for much
> > of the
> > time. That's all this place really is, much of the time. So I note to
> > any
> > reader who might happen by and think, "It seems like a lot of rhetoric."
> > do not
> > blame me for this simple fact.
>
> Why not forget the games, and simply try to deal with the evidence.
Because you start playing games and games are fun.
> We see
> today that some animals glide from trees, and other higher places. That
> means that it's possible that early birds adopted this method as well.
> Calling it "mythical" is merely ignoring the real world.
I did not say that adaptation between gliding, gliding longer and flying was
impossible.
> >> > "Based on physical principles, gliding is a better process for the
> >> > origin of powered flight than the "ground-up" process, which
> >> > physically is not feasible in space or time (considering air
> >> > resistance,
> >> > metabolic energy costs, and mechanical resistance to bipedal running).
> >> > Proto-avian ancestors of Archaeopteryx and Microraptor probably
> >> > flapped their sparsely feathered limbs synchronously while descending
> >> > from leaps or heights, with such "flutter-gliding" presented as
> >> > a synthesis of the two earlier theories of flight origin (making
> >> > use of the available potential energy from gravity, involving
> >> > wing thrusts and flapping, coping with air resistance that
> >> > slows air speed, but effecting positive fitness value in
> >> > providing lift and slowing dangerous falls)."
> >> > (Journal of Theoretical Biology
> >> > Volume 224, Issue 1 , 7 September 2003, Pages 9-26
> >> > Physical theory, origin of flight, and a synthesis proposed for birds
> >> > By Charles A. Long, , a, G. P. Zhangb,
> >> > Thomas F. Georgec and Claudine F. Longa)
> >> >
> >> > Once upon a time, some would be avian ancestors were jumping around in
> >> > trees. Then, they started
> >> > growing one lil' feather and then another!
> >>
> >> Individuals don't evolve, populations do.
> >
> > Yes, that's why I said a group of avian ancestors.
>
> Only individuals can "start growing one lil' feather".
I said they.
And it would be the individual that began to.
Also, in the end, it is not my fault that evolutionary theory is contradictory
if it moves from groupie groups to individuals and forgets that all it speak of
would have to happen in a single real bird, with real feathers, etc.
Sometimes reading the narratives, one has to wonder if they even remember such.
> Individuals either
> have a trait or they do not. They can't decide ahead of time what trait
> might be useful. Feathers already existed in pre-avian theropods, so they
> did not need to "invent" the feather.
Did pre-avian theropods have the avian lung?
> >> Feathers were already in place,
> >> probably for insulation purposes.
> >
> > I am curious, did each little lump change into a feather one at a time, or
> > all
> > together?
>
> Why would that matter? Feathers were most likely developed for insulation
> over many generations, so there's no need for them to come from a "little
> lump".
Well, some seem to think that they came from scales.
> They most likely evolved from reptilian scales.
Yes, and I suppose the scales came from a little lump. But, those little lumps,
they seem to be made of pretty complicated cells and the like. At any rate, did
the lil' scale start getting a hard spine to it, then little hairs spouted out
of it? Then, perhaps some more little hairs along the spine, as the scale just
changed and changed.....wow, that'd really be something.
> > I.e., first there was a lil' hair, then it sprouted some little
> > spines....because that's just what little hairs do sometimes.
>
> Mocking what you don't understand does not give you any better insight into
> what you are discussing. Feathers most likely didn't start out as hairs,
> but as scales.
I say, if you're going to make up a mythological narrative of naturalism then
you may as well make it hairy. One little hair, then another......
But okay, let's go with scales, one little scale, then another...all scaly! But
then, feathers tipped the scale so that it grew some hairs..... (You see, how
I've put the hairs back into the narrative again.)
> > Eventually, this
> > lil' hair was going to be a good thing for powered flight. Fortunately,
> > mommy
> > Nature in her foresight "selected" it for just such a reason, saving it
> > for
> > later, when it would be useful for flight.
>
> Nature doesn't have foresight, but it does make use of structures that
> already exist.
Oh, it had best be capable of doing a little more than that. It would have to
create the structures.
Once upon a time, there was a Big Bang.....and it contained within it, the lil'
feathers that go on lil' birds. So if you wait long enough, that is what will
happen from a very big, Big Bang. Amazing, isn't it?
<snip>
> >> And why should anyone care about your ignorance?
> >
> > Ignorance of what?
>
> Science, and the scientific method.
If it is not about getting to the truth of origins then I have little use for
it.
And a method defined, not based on getting at the truth, but instead based on
getting a naturalistic explanation, is then something that I have little use
for.
> > http://mynym.blogspot.com/2004/11/just-birds-not-bees.html
>
> And, again, why should anyone care about your ignorant rantings?
I shall help you, since you seem incapable.
"The evolution of birds is far more complex than the above
discussion implies. In addition to the problem of the origin
of the feather and flight, birds possess other unique adaptations
which also seem to defy plausible evolutionary explanations.
One such adaptation is the avian lung and respiratory system.
In all other vertebrates the air is drawn into the lungs through
a system of branching tubes which finally terminate in tiny
air sacs, or alveoli, so that during respiration the air is
moved in and out through the same passage.
In the case of birds, however, the major bronchi break
down into tiny tubes which permeate the lung tissue (see
Figure 9.2). These so- called parabronchi eventually join
up together again, forming a true circulatory system so
that air flows in one direction through the lungs.
This unidirectional flow of air is maintained during both
inspiration and expiration by a complex system of
interconnected air sacs in the bird’s body which
expand and contract in such a way so as to ensure
a continuous delivery of air through the parabronchi.
The existence of this air sac system in turn has necessitated
a highly specialized and unique division of the body
cavity of the bird into several compressible compartments.
Although air sacs occur in certain reptilian groups, the
structure of the lung in birds and the overall functioning
of the respiratory system is quite unique. No lung in any
other vertebrate species is known which in any way
approaches the avian system. Moreover, it is identical
in all essential details in birds as diverse as humming
birds, ostriches and hawks.
Just how such an utterly different respiratory system could
have evolved gradually from the standard vertebrate
design is fantastically difficult to envisage, especially
bearing in mind that the maintenance of respiratory
function is absolutely vital to the life of an organism
to the extent that the slightest malfunction leads to
death within minutes. Just as the feather cannot function
as an organ of flight until the hooks and barbules are
coadapted to fit together perfectly, so the avian lung
cannot function as an organ of respiration until the
parabronchi system which permeates it and the air
sac system which guarantees the parabronchi their
air supply are both highly developed and able to
function together in a perfectly integrated manner.
Moreover, the unique function and form of the avian
lung necessitates a number of additional unique
adaptations during avian development.
………
In attempting to explain how such an intricate and highly
specialized system of correlated adaptations could have
been achieved gradually through perfectly functional
intermediates, one is faced with the problem of the feather
magnified a thousand times.
The suspicion inevitably arises that perhaps no functional
intermediate exists between the dead-end and continuous
through-put types of lung. The fact that the design of the
avian respiratory system is essentially invariant in ALL
birds merely increases one’s suspicion that no fundamental
variation of the system is compatible with the preservation
of respiratory function. One is irresistibly reminded of
Cuvier’s view that the great divisions of nature are
grounded in necessity and that intermediates cannot
exist because such forms are incoherent and non functional.”
(Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, Michael Denton :210-212)
http://mynym.blogspot.com/2004/11/avian-lung.html
In, and out, you see....
<sniP>
> >> Do you really think that your "satire" was a correct representation?
> >
> > If you can't cut through the jargon to actually see the narrative then you
> > are
> > lacking in critical thinking skills.
>
> I can see that your narrative is lacking in understanding and insight.
> Again, I ask, do you really think your "satire" was an accurate
> representation?
Yes, and it seems that is the reason that no one will give summary using clear
language, sans the cloak of jargon.
For then we could compare them. But this, you have not done. It is almost as
if you are hiding something. But what is to be expected among those who are
concerned with naturalistic explanation more than truth and knowledge, the
traditional pursuit of science.
> > How about you write a summary, minus
> > jargon, a short narrative of how scientists explain the evolution of
> > flight by
> > the tree down theory. Go ahead, try it, stop being so passive and
> > questionable. Your answers are very questionable.
>
> Why don't you try to understand what scientists actually write, rather than
> just misrepresenting? The "tree down" conjecture holds that birds
> developed powered flight through a number of stages, in which gliding down
> from trees was one of the stages.
How does that go against my summary?
> > I think that most people on talk.origins see a mythological narrative of
> > naturalism,
>
> Then you would be wrong. Conjectures like the "tree down" idea give a
> starting place for research, and a way to explain what otherwise cannot be
> known. We may never know how birds went from ground dwelling to powered
> flyers, but that doesn't mean we must stop looking.
But it does mean that you should stop being the thought police with regard to
talking about origins. Others may want to talk about origins too, as it is,
talk.origins.
> > see that a lot of scientific terms or jargon are used to tell it,
> > then they believe it becaues some scientists believe it. Then perhaps
> > they
> > murmer, "For the science of me....me like science."
>
> You really appear have a deep seated hatred and jealousy of those who have
> an education. That's just sad.
Are you sad? Are you crying some lil' tears right now?
Well, I have little use for your emotional arguments based on supposed hatreds
or your own sadness.
> > <snip>
> >
> >> >> Xu, X., Zhou, Z.-H., Wang, X.-L., Kuang, X., Zhang, F.-C. & Du, X.
> >> >> 2003.
> >> >> Four-winged dinosaurs from China. Nature 421:335-340.
> >> >
> >> > That doesn't indicate that I misrepresented the naturalistic narrative
> >> > that they feeeel that they
> >> > have to, just have to tell.
> >>
> >> So, do you really feel you correctly described the process?
> >
> > I accurately reflected the narrative being told.
>
> No, you did not. You misrepresented the mechanism, and misrepresented the
> process.
How about you write down the narrative and then I'll compare mine representation
to your representation?
> > How about you try it, with no jargon? I.e., let's try and get at the
> > truth of
> > things rather than the science of things. Let's try to get to the truth,
> > rather
> > than just naturalistic explanation.
>
> What other explanations can be tested?
Design can be.....
But first, I say that you ought to admit that some of these mythological
narratives of naturalism are pretty inane, like the tree down theory. Or, at
least admit that science ought to be done in the pursuit of truth, rather than
just naturalistic explanation.
> Is "Godmustadunnit" a useful
> explanation for how powered flight developed?
It is useful to eliminate the more absurd mythological narratives of
naturalism. I.e., if scientists did not waste their time writing such drivel
then perhaps they could admit to typology, which is the way that they ae
classifying things into Kingdoms, etc., anyway. Is "Naturemustadunit" useful
all the time? Is talking about origins always useful? That is no standard at
all.
> >> > I wonder if they had another artist make a lil' picture with feathers
> >> > on
> >> > it, again.
> >>
> >> The fossils clearly show feather impressions.
> >
> > That would be better than last time.
>
> The last time of what?
When they had an artist just paint some feathers on, as I recall.
Note, that fossil will most likely more and more clearly fit into actually being
a bird.
> >> > Well, one thing
> >> > is certain, mommy Nature did it somehow.
> >>
> >> We know of no other processes than natural processes. If you have any
> >> evidence of supernatural processes, please provide it.
> >
> > So what natural processes are responsible for your sentences there?
>
> A computer, an internet, and a naturally occuring being using both.
So ultimately, the Big Bang caused those sentences and that had no cause, or
something along those lines. So then, I wonder, why should one consider the
sentences that you write to be valid? How could they have ever been anything
other than what they are? And why is your awareness supposedly correlating
closely to the truth?
And why do you have this consistent habit of blaming me for my sentences, as if
they could be something other than they are?
> > What type of evidence would you accept as evidence of the supernatural?
>
> Any means of observing the supernatual. Give some physical evidence that
> the supernatural exists.
You are asking for physical evidence of the non-physical.
The contradiction is your own. That is like saying that the stories of the
ancient Israelites are all based on natural occurances. The theistic scholar
begins to say that the Red Sea was the Reed Sea and there was a strong wind that
day, etc. Then the atheistic scholar replies that, "Well, then it was natural
and wasn't because God did anything. But I have issues with people walking into
an 80 mile-per-hour cross-wind."
What is it that you mean, precisely? Give direct physical evidence, of the
nonphysical? Put it in a test-tube and say, "There, there is the nonphysical.
And would you look at that, it was in and of the physical all along!"
If that is what you mean by evidence then it is little wonder that you miss any
sense of transphysical realities. Like say, your own mind. And it is little
wonder that your sentences will lack sentience more and more. Little wonder
indeed....
http://mynym.blogspot.com/2004/12/wonder-of-world-wondering.html
> > Nothing, correct?
>
> Incorrect. If you can show any evidence of a supernatual presence, or
> influence, please do so.
Your own mind. Perhaps you have experienced it? I would enter it into the
"evidence" if it did not seem as if it was missing.
"If the evidence for the existence of the mind is so fundamental in
our experience, why are so many scientists materialists? According
to Sir John Eccies and Daniel Robinson, it was Darwin who
misled succeeding generations of scientists with his naïve
assertion that thought is a secretion of the brain much like
gravity is a property of matter. Although no scientist now
accepts this view of thinking, materialists have kept inventing
arguments to defend the unproven idea that our mental
experience is material in nature. These new arguments,
based as they were on unverifiable speculation, have eventually
died at the hands of everyday experience. C.D. Broad
once said that Behaviorism, a variant of materialism, belongs
to a class of theories that are so “preposterously silly” that
only “very learned men” could have thought of them. The
theories gain acceptance, he went on to say, because they
are presented in highly technical terms by learned persons
who are themselves 'too confused to know exactly
what they mean.'"
(The Wonder of the World: A Journey from
Modern Scienceto the Mind of God
by Roy Abraham Varghese :310)
That is very true. That is how you get mythological
narratives like this:
"Once upon a time, a group of mammalian ancestors flopped
themselves out of the sea. They just kept flopping because
that's what they did. So some died and some lived....they
started losing one lil' fish scale, then another. Then their fins
began to turn into one lil' leg, then another and another.
Then their lungs...."
http://mynym.blogspot.com/2004/11/origin-of-mind.html
> > So why, then, is anyone supposed to be all suprised that you apparently
> > believe
> > in philosophic naturalism when it comes to origins and believe in whatever
> > mythological narrative of naturalism that happens to be current?
>
> You are simply making false assumptions here. I don't believe in
> philosophic naturalism. I do accept that science can only work by the use
> methodological naturalism. There is a difference.
Well, you police the discussion of origins on the basis of philosophic
naturalism.
So there is no false assumption there.
> Naturalistic
> explanation cannot be "mythological" in the way that supernatural
> explanations are.
Oh, yes they can be.
They are a story, a narrative. And those can be mythological.
> Naturalistic explanations are always open to question,
> and testing, and falsification.
Not if some Darwinists had their way.
And yes, I can provide examples if you like.
> You may not like the current scientific
> theories, but unless you can show some reason why they are not possible,
> your objections are just your personal disbelief.
No they aren't. I'm talking about origins on the basis of what is true in
totality, all experience, history, records and witness.
I have little use for those who are so myopic on the issue of origins as to
think that science is necessarily capable of revealing all mysteries. Science
came out of those who had already settled some mysteries based on a lot more
than just science itself. They didn't begin with science and science would
never have come about if they had. So there is a distinct oddity and irony in
the way that discussions about origins are policed by claims of "science" or
"scientists" here.
> > Do you think
> > that is surprising, or a conclusion that can be falsified in any way,
> > shape or
> > form?
>
> I simply think you are quite mistaken about science, and what science seeks
> to explain.
>
> >
> >> > How about you cite me some of the text that you want me to
> >> > read rather than pretending that they said something profound in a
> >> > journal
> >> > that is not available
> >> > online? Hmmm?
> >>
> >> How about doing some minimal research before you make ignorant comments?
> >
> > Oh, quit sniveling.
>
> I haven't sniveled even once.
You are sniveling about ignorance. I think it's because it's easier to write
that then to actually write an accurate narrative to represent supposed
"misrepresentations," "ignorance," etc. You seem to scared to do so. Or maybe
you are too busy crying those lil' tears of your sadness. It's so sad, isn't
it?
> > ....you're going to have to be active instead of passive
> > sometime. So questionable, you are....
>
> Well "Master Yoda" you use your techniques, I'll use mine. And why not
> deal with the issue? Why not do some minimal level of research, so you
> appear less like a technology hating loon.
Technology? How did that get in there? Another positive word to make the
mythological narrative of naturalism at hand seem more reasonable?
Technology has to do with creativity and design, the ingenuity of humans as
applied to knowledge, yet it is much more than just knowledge or data recording.
What do those who believe in philosophic naturalism deny? Those very things,
creation and design.
> > How about you cite me an excerpt of all the things you are lecturing on
> > about
> > "ignorance"?
>
> You mean your conflation of methodological naturalism with philosophic
> naturalism?
Now, now....you attempt to police the discussion of origins and philosophizing
about the same on the basis of philosophic naturalism.
And if you argue that you are doing that based on methodological naturalism then
I still disagree with it. That silly censorship. I am against it. People can
think and write about origins in a free way, so you may as well quit trying to
police it.
> Your flip dismissal of scientific concepts and conjectures
> that you don't understand and mock?
If such conjectures are actually true then you would not be too embarassed to
write a short summary when asked, etc. And if they are true, then an attacking
can have the salubrious effect of refining and defining them or helping them to
be communicated better.
I will, certainly, keep making a satire of them. And you can try to blame me
that they are the material of satire, as you like. I leave the reader to judge
such.
> > How about you write your own short summary, sans jargon and equivocation,
> > of the
> > hypotheses on the evolution of flight?
>
> Been done, above.
>
> >
> > Come out, come out wherever you are....into the real world of facts, logic
> > and
> > evidence.
>
> I'm there. However you are still hiding in the shadows of denial and hatred
> of scientists.
Sounds spooky....
Boo!
Scared?
Oh, that's right. You are sad, so sad....and not glad. How sad that is....
> >> > Why is it, do you suppose, that talk.origins does not do that much
> >> > talking
> >> > about origins and when
> >> > they do they argue, "Scientists know all about origins....well, I can't
> >> > say why.
> >>
> >> Scientists neve claim to "know all".
> >
> > Yet they sure do try to be the thought police when it comes to talking
> > about
> > origins.
>
> False claim. Any evidence to offer to this charge? Scientists don't care
> what ideas you choose to believe about origins.
Well, there are more than a few who seem to say otherwise.
> However if you want a
> scientific answer, you have to follow the rules.
I didn't say that I wanted a scientific answer.
No, rather I say I seek an answer that is true. You know, unlike scientists...
> "Anything goes" does not
> apply to scientific investigation, and there are rules and procedures.
Making rules and procedures to find a lie, does not make it true.
> You
> may, however ignore science and believe whatever you wish.
Of course I may. However, there are those who will still try to police how
origins get talked about on talk.origins, etc.
> > You know, just as you do. All that is done is throwing a few claims about
> > "ignorance" of some nebulously defined term like evolution, etc.
>
> Evolution is defined as change in allele frequencies in a population over
> time.
That is not what has been said publicly.
Do you want to know what has been said publicly on this matter? If it is
something much more and/or different than that, then who is lying about what
evolution is? Would they not all know? Or are some "ignorant"?
> Any "nebulousity" of the defintion comes from Creationist who chose
> to define the term as "anything that contradicts Genesis".
I would not look to creationists to define evolutionism, do you? If there are
contradictory definitions and representations of it, is that the creationists
fault too?
> > People pick up
> > on the dishonesty, fraud and disingenuous of the position...
>
> "People" meaning your own fantasy and projection.
Some of it:
http://mynym.blogspot.com/2004/12/i-do-not-have-national-geographic.html
Come to think of it, I'll put up more of it. It's easier to just link. And
maybe some of it needs to be vetted by those who would want to tear it apart
too.
> > ..so I do not know
> > they they bother trying to police talking about origins as if they do
> > "know all"
> > while simultaneously promoting some false humility on the same topic.
> > They
> > certainly act like know it alls, always claiming ignorance, etc.
>
> How can they claim to be "know it alls" when they are claiming ignorance?
They claim ignorance in others to police the discussion of origins.
Although, it seems that they don't know what the hell they're talking about.
E.g., the rather mutable definition of evolution....I wonder who is "ignorant"?
> You are just projecting your own jealousy and hatred on those who are
> educated.
Or maybe you're projecting about me projecting.
Sounds like quite a project, eh? Don't hate me because I'm more intelligent
than you. Maybe once you admit that intelligence exists in scientific terms
then you'll be more intelligent.
> > A nebulous claim of ignorance, which is mainly just about their style of
> > rhetoric and nothing more.
>
> Again, have you ever actually studied how science works?
Yes....
That's why I don't worship the term science, in fact.
<snip>
> > All these claims of ignorance, yet how long would it take to scan a few
> > excerpts
> > on some issues, like the evolution of flight?
>
> Sorry, but sometimes you HAVE to do your own work. You can be led to water,
> but you have to be willing to drink.
I already looked at his citation. It doesn't go against my summary, etc.
> > Please.....the claim of ignorance is a rhetorical tool.
>
> While your use of your personal ignorance is simply a tool to remove
> yourself from having to face reality.
What am I ignorant of?
You seem ignorant of what evolutionists define evolution as. I guess I'll have
to hit on this whole theme of ignorance you have going. Start calling you
ignorant, etc....you just have to start it. Just because you don't like an
accurate satire, too.
--
--W
http://mynym.blogspot.com/
Richard Forrest
C.J.W. wrote:
> Richard Forrest wrote:
>
> > C.J.W. wrote:
> > > Richard Forrest wrote:
> > >
> > > > C.J.W. wrote:
> > > > > Ken Shaw wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > C.J.W. wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "C.J.W." wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>Pokemoto wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>>Subject: The Artist and the Scientist
> > > > > > >>>>From: "C.J.W." watt...@bellatlantic.net
> > > > > > >>>>Date: 12/17/04 11:46 PM Central Standard Time
> > > > > > >>>>Message-id: <41C3C93D...@bellatlantic.net>
> > <snip>
> > > > "Now, once upone a time everyone was vegetarians. Yes, it is
> > > > true."
> > > > Humans have the teeth and digestive systems of omnivores.
> > >
> > > I did not say that they do not.
> >
> > Your statement implies that they should not. But then you're so
stupid
> > that you don't understand the implications of what you write.
>
> No, it doesn't imply that.
>
> It does imply that there should be a pattern of an ancient prejudice
> indicating that humans think it wrong to eat animals.
Which there isn't.
> And that is what
> there is.
Which there isn't. Any such predjudice is associated only with
agrcultural communities.
>
> > > > "Things were designed to evolve upwards, not degenerate."
> > > > Evolution does not have a direction.
> > >
> > > I did not say that it does. It does seem a rather directionless
type
> > of
> > > philosophy.
> > >
> >
> > 'evolve upward'? You don't even understand your own words.
>
> Just recently in the National Geographic "evolution" was said to be
the
> explanation for all diversity, all complexity, out of nothing.
>
> That is evolving upwards, creation and generation. But I did not say
that
> evolution has a "direction," although evolutionists do.
>
1) Evolutionists most certainly do *not* say that evolution has a
direction.
2) Increasing diversity is not a 'direction'.
Quote: "He said fittest. This does not mean strongest."
Thank you for supporting my assertion.
> > > > "No, Darwin's theory changed minds and in the way it did so it
> > caused
> > > > racism."
> > > > According to this little gem, there could be no racism before
> > Darwin.
> > >
> > > Straw man.....
> > >
> > > I guess you realize that what you just said doesn't even make any
> > sense.
> > > Do all those who change mind to cause racism, therefore prevent
there
> > being
> > > racism before them? Sheesh man, try to think....
> > >
> >
> > 'cause racism' means 'caused racism'. So once again you demonstrate
> > that you don't understand your own words.
>
> Caused does not mean cause, or else one would write caused and not
> cause....
>
> Darwin's theory changed minds and in the way it did so it
> caused racism.
>
> That is history.
>
No, it's ignorant projection.
> > If I was as stupid and
> > ignorant as you are, I'd try to conceal the fact rather than boast
> > about it.
>
> Hmmm....
>
> > > > "Modern evolutionists are changing the meaning of words to suit
> > > > themselves."
> > > > Scientist define the meanings of words to avoid confusion.
> > >
> > > No, liars define evolution
> >
> > Yes, creationist redefine evolution all the time. They are the
liars.
>
> Then quote their supposed contradictions.
Try Kent Hovind's web site.
Then read this and learn.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
>
> I can quote what evolutionists say publicly by their public
organizations,
> editorials, etc., and then what they say on Usenet or the
talk.origins
> site.
WHy not provide a few examples then?
> It is fascination how different it is. Yet those here, much like
> you, go on at great length about the "ignorance" of people they
disagree
> with based on people accepting the public of evolutionism, based on
> accepting what evolutionists say publicly.
>
> <snip>
>
> > > But then they go out, back to the public, and say the same thing
> > > again about "evolution" being a total philosophy that explains
> > everything.
> > >
> >
> > My word, you do live in a strange parallel universe!
>
> Hehe....one in which facts and evidence can be cited, etc., yep...
You forget that you have not presented any facts, evidence or coherent
argument.
>
> > > Perhaps they just want to merge the animal and human, male and
female
> > in
> > > the same way that zoophiles and homophiles do. If so, they are
moral
> > > degenerates who will say anything.
> > >
> >
> > Careful, your bigotry is showing.
>
> Bigotry against zoophiles?
>
> Hmmm.....perhaps only a zoophile would say that.
> <snip>
>
> > > He had no respect for the human race because he did not have the
eyes
> > to
> > > see those who run this race.
> > >
> >
> > Writes someone who, even if he could read Darwin, does not have the
> > intellect to understand what Darwin wrote.
>
> Please, you who deny that he wrote about struggle. Don't be
ridiculous....
>
I don't deny it. He did write about the struggle. What he didn't say is
that the strongest survived as you claimed.
> You must know on some level that the objective reader picks up on you
> sniveling that he didn't write about struggle and then a simple
citation of
> Darwin proving that he did. In fact, his chapters and his book were
titled
> by it. Duh, dopey dopes....
> <snip>
Well, as I said "He said fittest. This does not mean strongest.", I
suggest that you wipe the egg off your face
>
> Yep, that's enough of that, more ignorance.
> --
> --W
> http://mynym.blogspot.com/
RF
Bob
<watt...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>
>
>I think that most people on talk.origins see a mythological narrative of
>naturalism, see that a lot of scientific terms or jargon are used to tell it,
>then they believe it becaues some scientists believe it. Then perhaps they
>murmer, "For the science of me....me like science."
i guess to cjw, death isnt a reality. because that's all natural
selection is...differential death.
funny how creationists think
>
>
>You know, just as you do. All that is done is throwing a few claims about
>"ignorance" of some nebulously defined term like evolution, etc
those of us who are scientists, but not biologists, certainly look at
evolution as science.
the theologians, of course, knowing everything, dont.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
Bob
<watt...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>
>
>Dana Tweedy wrote:
>
>> However you did imply it rather heavily.
>
>The notion of natural selection states that Nature is "selecting," as if it
>deliberately makes a choice.
>
death is a choice, reproduction is a choice
>
>
>You can make observations by insight rather than just sight.
one wonders what the acceleration due to gravity is, observed by
insight rather than measurement...
>
>
>I have little use for those who are so myopic on the issue of origins as to
>think that science is necessarily capable of revealing all mysteries.
that certainly is the creationist position. 'god did it' explains all.
>Technology? How did that get in there? Another positive word to make the
>mythological narrative of naturalism at hand seem more reasonable?
>
>Technology has to do with creativity and design, the ingenuity of humans as
>applied to knowledge, yet it is much more than just knowledge or data recording.
>
>What do those who believe in philosophic naturalism deny? Those very things,
>creation and design.
what cjw ignores that that ALL design is expressed thru physical laws.
no one has ever seen a supernatural event cause a change in nature.
Bob
<watt...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>
>Darwin's theory changed minds and in the way it did so it
>caused racism.
>
>That is history.
>
one wonders what cjw would have made of jefferson davis, confederate
president, who wrote a defense of slavery based on creationism, as did
senator james jackson, contemporary of thomas jefferson.
one wonders what cjw would have made of the role creationism played in
the rwanda genocide of 1994
oh. creationists dont do THEIR history.
Richard Forrest
Simple: he ignores it.
RF
Richard Forrest
Simple: he ignores it.
RF
unrestra...@hotmail.com
"
Who, your Mom?
"Who to believe? It's a difficult decision."
Apparently, not for you. I know several, and have met a few more,
scientists, and most of them are well-read and have an appreciation for
art. I have also lived in the artist community, and many of them are
total goofballs. Just because someone has (or claims to have) artistic
creativity doesn't mean they can necessarily think their way out of a
paperbag.
Do you have any evidence to support this thesis of yours, or do you
expect us to be so dazzled by your literary brilliance that we accept
it unthinkingly?
Kermit
unrestra...@hotmail.com
argument." '
I remember that thread. *You made the claim that this was the *main
*argument the vast majority of atheists used for their lack of belief..
You failed to back it up when challenged. As you backpedal furiously
from your assertion, you craftily rephrase it, hoping we won't
notice...
I'll repeat what I said then: while I have seen that argument used (and
generally in response to the "God is necessary for moral behavior"
assertion used by many theists) on alt.atheism, neither I now any
atheist who posted in reply claimed tohave been persuaded for that
reason. Nor do I know any.
Nobody, I think, has ever denied "the existence of a tree down theory".
Certainly no scientist. What they deny is that it is the current
prevailing one for birds, and that you correctly represent it.
Kermit
unrestra...@hotmail.com
like monkeys, then we'd be flying around now."
We'd be a lot smaller now, with smaller brains. Some of our cousins
did, and here they are:
http://www.americazoo.com/goto/index/mammals/dermoptera.htm
If only they'd taken to the savannah! They might have killed *us off,
and *they'd be responding to anti-science posts on the web.
Kermit
Double Felix
unrestra...@hotmail.com wrote:
> "If only humans had just jumped out of trees back when they were more
> like monkeys, then we'd be flying around now."
>
> We'd be a lot smaller now, with smaller brains. Some of our cousins
> did, and here they are:
> http://www.americazoo.com/goto/index/mammals/dermoptera.htm
Ah yes, dermoptera-- "skin-wing"
cute little buggers
> If only they'd taken to the savannah! They might have killed *us off,
> and *they'd be responding to anti-science posts on the web.
>
> Kermit
Oh, I hardly think Usenet would exist. Instead, they'd just be flinging
poo at each other, unlike... uh, never mind!
- Felix
unrestra...@hotmail.com
sense of
> either. So these are the people who begin to indoctrinate rather than
> educate.
Sadly, there are those insist on putting the imaginary before the
physical. They, of course, are miffed when others decline to shore up
their fantasies with social support.
> And indoctrination is always boring, dead. So no wonder people don't
flock
> to it...
Indeed. Yet there are others who have been told that they will die
unless they accept an interpretation of their religion which is
contrary to facts. And so we have this hardcore group, mostly here in
the US, which fight tooth and nail against science, and the
indoctrination goes on.
The ironic part is that much good science has been done by theists. But
about as much good science has been done by those hostile to science as
has good art been done by those hostile to art.
Kermit
But many of us who have not gone on to be scientists still find the
real world fascinating, and ongoing scientific research exciting.
Kermit
unrestra...@hotmail.com
They are
the ones who have said that it is like their universal solvent."
Eh? Who? Name two.
Every scientist I know or have talked to or have read is fascinated by
the universe. That's why they *do science. I've met businessmen who
havedismissed the natural world as uninteresting. This is common among
politicians. All of the fundamentalists I knew growing up would say
"God did it", then dismiss any questions about the universe as
disturbing or boring.
"If they think that all is matter in motion then art is like excrement,
just
more matter in more motion."
Who has ever worded it like that, except you? Why would I think that
art is boring, or sex uninteresting, or love nonexistent, because I
think there are *reasons for their existence? At most the naturalisitic
investigations would *explain why I pet cats, hang art on the wall,
look at pretty girls, play with my daughter, and mow my lawn.
"It is true though, scientists enjoy all the benefits of civilization
and
perhaps admit to civilization in many ways. Yet, in their philosophy
they
often begin to undermine it. That's one of the points of that parable.
Note
that if all scientists are as you say, then it is only a cautionary
tale that
is of little relevance to them. And that is fine with me. I hope that
is so
and they truly understand that the creative process of a mind is not
mere
matter in motion."
Riiiigghhtt. Some might say that scientists have made their small
contribution to civilization. Feel free to discard the use of anything
developed by science.
Why would anyone consider your skanky fantasy a cautionary tale of any
sort?
"Matter in motion"... a curious phrase. Positively medieval. I don't
know of anyone except you or your ilk who talk like that. We have
advanced since Descartes, as bright as he was. Life is not a bunch of
billiard balls bouncing around. He thought dogs felt no pain when
kicked, because they had no soul; their bodies just went thru the
motions. Do you believe dogs feel no pain when kicked? Do you believe
when my cat stares at at a bird on the fence, she is not thinking of
catching and eating it?
Do you have *any quotes from an "evolutionist" who doesn't think he has
thoughts, feeling, or appreciation of beauty? Any at all?
Kermit
Augray
<watt...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in
news:<41E08751...@bellatlantic.net>:
No, that would seem to be your purview, considering that you're the one
who used the term.
> > > Thus, as you can see, we can harness the power of the animate and begin to
> > > say that the inanimate can "select" the animate. Maybe.....it helps if you
> > > are an invert psychologically, then this message will have great appeal to
> > > you.
> >
> > Are you actually claiming that an environment has no influence on the
> > creatures that inhabit it?
>
> Are you actually claiming that the environment will make feathers?
No, I'm not. The fact that you think I am shows how little you know
about evolutionist claims.
> > > Once upon a time, things fell down and went splat, from this process the
> > > lil' feathers grew! Each one, you see, they begin as little blobs of
> > > tissue and just change, get a little harder there or here, a little more
> > > structure. It just takes a lot of things jumping out of trees and dying,
> > > then there are more and more feathers. Amazing!
> > >
> > > http://mynym.blogspot.com/2004/11/lil-feather.html
> > > http://mynym.blogspot.com/2004/11/wings-of-eagle_11.html
> >
> > Yet another misrepresentation.
>
> A misrepresentation of what, exactly?
Of evolutionist beliefs. A particularly silly one is:
Because of random mutations in their genetic code the information
that made them began to be written differently.
This shows that you have no idea what you're talking about. It's like
saying:
Because of changes in the spelling of certain words, these words
began to be written differently.
Belief in evolution doesn't rely on circular arguments.
Augray
<watt...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in
news:<41E08571...@bellatlantic.net>:
Actually, a philosophical naturalist would claim that the mind and the
body are intimately entwined. But acknowledging that would blow your
claim out of the water.
Augray
<watt...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in
news:<41E0947D...@bellatlantic.net>:
> Augray wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 16:15:55 +0000 (UTC), "C.J.W."
> > <watt...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in
> > news:<41DC187E...@bellatlantic.net>:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Augray wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 12:49:00 +0000 (UTC), "C.J.W."
> > > > <watt...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in
> > > > news:<41DBE82F...@bellatlantic.net>:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Augray wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > > > I'd be glad to. Where's the part about "a group of avian ancestors
> > > > jumped out of trees, killing themselves enough times that eventually
> > > > they grew wings and flew away"? There's no mention in the passage that
> > > > you supplied about animals deliberately jumping out of trees with the
> > > > intent of growing wings,
> > >
> > > I didn't say that they deliberately did it.
> >
> > "...jumped out of trees" would seem to imply deliberate action, just
> > like "jumping out of a plane" does.
>
> I did not say they deliberately tried to grow wings.
>
> They jumped out of one tree, maybe to another tree. Or maybe not....
Why didn't you mention that?
> > > I just said that they did it.
> >
> > People jump out of trees (and planes) all the time. Does anyone expect
> > them to grow wings?
>
> If they tried to jump from one tree to another then according to
> evolutionists, eventually they might be able to fly. Apparently
> that's all it takes.
Another falsehood. Do you feel that your position is so weak that you
have to lie?
> If only humans had just jumped out of
> trees back when they were more like monkeys, then we'd be flying
> around now. Too bad about that, that they didn't.
You seem transfixed on the idea that evolutionists believe that jumping
causes flight, a belief that's painfully wrong.
> But you are right to question if that is a reasonable hypothesis.
Actually, I was questioning your representation of the hypothesis, not
the hypothesis itself.
> > > > since the ancestor in this passage could
> > > > already glide.
> > >
> > > Because its group had jumped in the trees.
> >
> > So, the jumping came before? Then why mention it?
>
> Because it is a part of the mythological narrative of naturalism at hand.
Then your "mythological narrative" should present things in the order
that they supposedly occurred in.
> > > > Nor is there any mention of dead animals reproducing.
> > >
> > > Nor is there any mention of that in my satire.
> >
> > "...killing themselves enough times that eventually they grew wings and
> > flew away". The words "themselves" and "they" would seem to refer to the
> > same group, the group that's dead after killing themselves.
>
> They is a reference to their group.
>
> There are living and dead in the same group.
Ah, so it's the living *and* the dead that grew wings and flew away.
Thanks for clearing that up. Are you aware that dead things don't grow
wings, or anything else for that matter?
> > > > I'd
> > > > also point out that no one believes that avian ancestors had a gliding
> > > > membrane, and it would seem that the passage is concerned with the
> > > > evolution of flight in general, in birds, bats, and pterosaurs, and not
> > > > birds exclusively.
> > >
> > > My summary is concerned with all the branches too.
> >
> > Then why did you refer to "avian ancestors"?
>
> The summary is concerned with more than just birds because that mythological narrative of
> naturalism, as a pattern, has been applied to more than just birds.
Then why did you *only* refer to "avian ancestors"?
> > > Don't try to minimize the tree down mythological
> > > narrative of naturalism.....
> >
> > Hypothetical, not mythological.
>
> It is the same sort of narrative.
So gravity is a myth? After all, this "action at a distance" is only
hypothetical as well.
> <snip>
>
> > > (Journal of Theoretical Biology
> > > Volume 224, Issue 1 , 7 September 2003, Pages 9-26
> > > Physical theory, origin of flight, and a synthesis proposed for birds
> > > By Charles A. Long, , a, G. P. Zhangb,
> > > Thomas F. Georgec and Claudine F. Longa)
> > >
> > > Once upon a time, some would be avian ancestors were jumping around
> > > in trees. Then, they started growing one lil' feather and then another!
> >
> > Gee, another misrepresentation. What happened to the part about
> > "effecting positive fitness value in providing lift and slowing
> > dangerous falls"? What did you disagree with in that paper?
>
> What happened to it? It was summarized.
Where in
Once upon a time, a group of avian ancestors jumped out of trees,
killing themselves enough times that eventually they grew wings and
flew away.
was it summarized? What did you disagree with in that paper?
> You're going to have to wrap your mind around the fact
> that these mythological narratives of naturalism are actually
> explaining real birds, with real feathers and the like eventually.
Do you seriously think that evolution doesn't deal with real creatures?
> I.e., cut the jargon and the rhetoric and tell it like it is.
What "jargon" are you referring to? What rhetoric? If anyone makes use
of rhetoric, it's you.
> How about you give a short summary of the "hypothesis," i.e.
> the mythological narrative, sans jargon? Let's just see what
> it looks like, in good clear language, minus the extra
> rhetorical devices.
You're the one making the claim that they've provided "a short summary
of the 'hypothesis,' i.e. the mythological narrative, sans jargon". But
your failure should be a hint to you that it may very well be impossible
to describe how it happened "sans jargon", just like it's impossible to
describe how a computer works "sans jargon".
> <snip>
>
> > > But just what is, the lil' feather?
> > >
> > > http://mynym.blogspot.com/2004/11/lil-feather.html
> >
> > A picture of a flight feather? So what? Feathers of a simpler form have
> > been found. See:
>
> There should be many forms of feathers, all arranged in a gradualistic
> evolution of the feather.
And there have been.
> Perhaps you should not even be able to call one form a "feather."
That would depend on your definition of "feather" wouldn't it? Why don't
you give me one, and we'll go from there?
> There should be many, many
> forms and an almost easy way to tell a narrative of how it happened too.
This, of course, depends on what you mean by "how it happened". As for
the path to avian flight, there's lots of evidence that gives a general
outline. I find it amusing that you couldn't provide an accurate one
yourself, but instead have to create strawmen.
> > Chen, P.-J., Dong, Z. M., and Zheng, S.-N. 1998. An exceptionally
> > well-preserved theropod dinosaur from the Yixian Formation of China.
> > Nature 391:147-152.
>
> "Both specimens have interesting integumentary structures that could provide information about
> the origin of feathers."
>
> Yep, impressive. I wonder how mommy Nature must've "selected" what random mutation "created"?
> Hmmm? Well, if you start from the position that naturally, oh so naturally, natural selection
> must have selected feathers then you already know that Nature MUST have done so.
Who claims that? "Hypothetical" is not the same as "certainty".
> That was easy. And would you just look at the science of that?
What science? Your straw man had no science at all.
> So then, tell me the clear narrative of how it MUST have happened.
I don't mark a claim that a particular path is the way it *must* have
happened. Perhaps you could outline *your* beliefs as to have it *must*
have happened. So far all I've seen from you is an argument from
incredulity.
> > > > > It is
> > > > > disingenuos to deny that evolutionists put these displays on in museums, etc.
> > > >
> > > > But it's not disingenuous to misrepresent them?
> > >
> > > I didn't misrepresent them.
> >
> > Yes, you did.
>
> Are you going to give a good clear summary of the narrative?
My ability, or inability, to give a summary has nothing to do with your
misrepresentations.
> I doubt it.
"Narrative" is rather vague. Are you interested in the origin of
feathers, the origin of flight, refinements of the avian flight
mechanism, or something else?
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > > It may well be that
> > > > > people claiming science actually have no idea what they're talking about, what has been
> > > > > published, etc., too.
> > > >
> > > > In that case, you'll have to rely on more than just webpages. I'd be
> > > > happy to point you to some recent papers. Here's one to get you started:
> > > >
> > > > Xu, X., Zhou, Z.-H., Wang, X.-L., Kuang, X., Zhang, F.-C. & Du, X. 2003.
> > > > Four-winged dinosaurs from China. Nature 421:335-340.
> > >
> > > That doesn't indicate that I misrepresented the naturalistic narrative that
> > > they feeeel that they have to, just have to tell.
> > >
> > > I wonder if they had another artist make a lil' picture with feathers on it,
> > > again.
> >
> > Yes, they did. But considering that feathers were found on the animal
> > described therein, it wasn't unreasonable.
Wouldn't you agree?
> > > Well, one thing is certain, mommy Nature did it somehow. How about
> > > you cite me some of the text that you want me to read
> >
> > I *did* give you a citation.
>
> If you've read it, then scan a telling excerpt.
Oh, you want a *quote*. Why didn't you say so?
Here we provide new evidence suggesting that basal dromaeosaurid
dinosaurs were four-winged animals and probably could glide,
representing an intermediate stage towards the active,
flapping-flight stage.
> Preferrably one that does what you are not
> doing with this red herring, gives a summary of the evolution of flight in narrative form.
But then, I never claimed that the paper I cited contained such a
"narrative", merely that it had evidence for the evolution of avian
flight.
> That is the type of thing I do when I cite something. I don't just cite it for the sake of
> citing it.
When you cite at all. But then,
http://mynym.blogspot.com/2004/11/lil-feather.html seems to be a cite
just for the sake of it.
> <snip>
>
> Wow, that's really fun, talking about citations. Woo hoo....
Is that why you hold back? Having too much fun with the single citation
you're provided so far? Or would you care to criticize the evidence in
favor of avian evolution, rather than misrepresent beliefs? You *are*
familiar with the evidence, right?
John Wilkins
That's right. Welcome to the zoo.
--
John S. Wilkins jo...@wilkins.id.au
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God cheats
Dana Tweedy
snipping
>>, do you think that the avian ancestors sat down and had a
>> > deliberation
>> > about it?
>>
>> What does this misrepresentation have to do with your previous ones?
>
> What does your misrepresentation have to do with my summary?
I did not misrepresent you, however you have misrepresented evolutoinary
theory. Care to answer the question?
>
>> > I didn't say that anything deliberately did anything.
>>
>> However you did imply it rather heavily.
>
> The notion of natural selection states that Nature is "selecting," as if
> it
> deliberately makes a choice.
Which does not deal with the point I made. Please try to keep on topic.
Nature selects the way a sieve selects anything bigger than will fit through
the holes.
>
>> > The people that create
>> > the mythological narratives of naturalism are those who begin to say
>> > that
>> > Nature
>> > "selected," perhaps by having a deliberation about it. Nature, it did
>> > it
>> > deliberately. It designed the wings and the feathers, just so.
>>
>> What other designer do we have evidence of?
>
> Humans, who design things..
Are you now claiming that humans designed wings and feathers? Need I
remind you that humans came along long after birds.
>
>> What, other than nature can we
>> observe?
>
> You can make observations by insight rather than just sight.
As did Aristotle, who was famously wrong about most things.
snipping meaningless prattle
>> some are, yes. But they are not trying to kill themselves, which is
>> what
>> your "satire" implied.
>
> No it didn't.
>
> All it implied is that some died from it and others didn't.
What makes you think any significant number died from the glide? Flying
squirrels today don't usually die when they glide from one tree to another.
That is part of your misrepresentation of the conjecture.
> I did not say that
> animals thought, "I am depressed, now I shall kill myself."
Is that the only why the concept can be expressed?
> I did not say that
> animals do much of anything deliberately. I said that some jumped around
> in
> trees and wound up dead. Something can kill itself without intending to.
Yet very few animals adapted to gliding wind up dead due to falls. Your
misrepresentation is that the leaping out of trees preceeded the adaptation
for gliding, which no one ever claimed.
snip more prattle
>> > ....which you just speciously denied a few lines up.
>>
>> I did not "deny" that at all. You are simply being contrary.
>
> "Because its group had jumped in the trees." (a simple statement of a
> fact)
Which is not a "statement of fact" but a misrepresentation.
>
> "Where does the article say that?" (the implied denial of a simple fact)
No, more of a request for clarification. The conjecture does not state that
the animals "jumped in the trees", although it's one possibility. The
pre-avian theropods possilby climbed trees to pursue food, or escape
predators. Both strategies are seen today in populations of living
animals.
>
> Okay, you speciously questioned it with yet another questionable question.
You haven't answered the question, or has that escaped your notice?
snipping prattle
>> We see
>> today that some animals glide from trees, and other higher places. That
>> means that it's possible that early birds adopted this method as well.
>> Calling it "mythical" is merely ignoring the real world.
>
> I did not say that adaptation between gliding, gliding longer and flying
> was
> impossible.
Again, you rather imply it's impossible by giving it the appelation
"mythical". You don't seem to understand that conjectures of how flight
began are not meant to be the final word on the subject. Behavior does not
fossilize, so it's very difficult to know for certian how flight began. The
"trees down" is just one possible method of how powered flight began.
>
snipping more for length.
>> >> > Once upon a time, some would be avian ancestors were jumping around
>> >> > in
>> >> > trees. Then, they started
>> >> > growing one lil' feather and then another!
>> >>
>> >> Individuals don't evolve, populations do.
>> >
>> > Yes, that's why I said a group of avian ancestors.
>>
>> Only individuals can "start growing one lil' feather".
>
> I said they.
which is often used poor grammar for refering to individuals. In any case,
it's a rather juvenile misrepresentation of evolutionary theory.
>
> And it would be the individual that began to.
And, as I have pointed out, individuals don't evolve.
>
> Also, in the end, it is not my fault that evolutionary theory is
> contradictory
It's not, your misrepresentation of it may be, but the theory itself is
quite clear.
> if it moves from groupie groups to individuals and forgets that all it
> speak of
> would have to happen in a single real bird, with real feathers, etc.
Hint, the theory is not forgetting anything. It's your misrepresentation
that is in error.
>
> Sometimes reading the narratives, one has to wonder if they even remember
> such.
Since you don't take the time to understand the narratives, or what they
intend to model, it's not surprising you might get such a feeling.
>
>> Individuals either
>> have a trait or they do not. They can't decide ahead of time what trait
>> might be useful. Feathers already existed in pre-avian theropods, so
>> they
>> did not need to "invent" the feather.
>
> Did pre-avian theropods have the avian lung?
There's some debate among the researchers who study ancient birds on that
subject. Since lungs themselves don't fossilize, all we have to go on is
the skeletal evidence. Some researchers feel that pre-avian theropods
skeletons do show adaptations indicating they had a primitive avian syle
lung. Others state that theropods, including early birds like Archeopteryx
may have had lungs more like crocodiles. Until more evidence is found,
all we can say is "maybe".
>
>> >> Feathers were already in place,
>> >> probably for insulation purposes.
>> >
>> > I am curious, did each little lump change into a feather one at a time,
>> > or
>> > all
>> > together?
>>
>> Why would that matter? Feathers were most likely developed for
>> insulation
>> over many generations, so there's no need for them to come from a "little
>> lump".
>
> Well, some seem to think that they came from scales.
That's what the evidence indicates.
>
>> They most likely evolved from reptilian scales.
>
> Yes, and I suppose the scales came from a little lump.
No, scales came from the skin.
> But, those little lumps,
> they seem to be made of pretty complicated cells and the like.
All cells are "pretty complicated".
> At any rate, did
> the lil' scale start getting a hard spine to it, then little hairs spouted
> out
> of it? Then, perhaps some more little hairs along the spine, as the scale
> just
> changed and changed.....wow, that'd really be something.
Instead of mocking what you don't understand, why not do a little research,
and find out what scientists are actually saying about the evolution of
feathers? I'll give you one reference to get you started, but you really
need to start looking things up on your own.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?colID=1&articleID=000CD7F6-B16F-1E41-89E0809EC588EEDF
snipping more juvenile prattle
>> Nature doesn't have foresight, but it does make use of structures that
>> already exist.
>
> Oh, it had best be capable of doing a little more than that. It would
> have to
> create the structures.
Out of what already exists before. Nature tends to be conservative, and
doesn't tend to make up new things, if it can use items already at hand.
>
> Once upon a time, there was a Big Bang..
That's an entirely different subject. If you want to talk cosmology, I
suggest you start a new thread.
> ...and it contained within it, the lil'
> feathers that go on lil' birds. So if you wait long enough, that is what
> will
> happen from a very big, Big Bang.
The atoms that make up feathers, and all the other matter in the universe
came from the intial expansion of the universe, yes. But "waiting long
enough" is not a mechanism. Do you care to actually learn something about
the mechanism of how evolution works?
> Amazing, isn't it?
Again, I suggest you do some research into the matter before you simply
mock.
>
> <snip>
>
>> >> And why should anyone care about your ignorance?
>> >
>> > Ignorance of what?
>>
>> Science, and the scientific method.
>
> If it is not about getting to the truth of origins then I have little use
> for
> it.
How do you know what is "the truth"? What method do you use to evaluate
what ideas are more likely to be accurate?
>
> And a method defined, not based on getting at the truth, but instead based
> on
> getting a naturalistic explanation, is then something that I have little
> use
> for.
Again, as I said before, if you don't like science, don't accept it. No one
is holding a gun to your head and insisting you must accept what science
puts forth. If you find supersition and ignorance work better for you, then
go for it.
>
>> > http://mynym.blogspot.com/2004/11/just-birds-not-bees.html
>>
>> And, again, why should anyone care about your ignorant rantings?
>
> I shall help you, since you seem incapable.
snipping quote from Denton on avian respiration.
> In, and out, you see....
I'm not sure how quoting a 20 year old book by some anti-evolutionist, who
has recanted his own position is supposed to "help" me. I''m quite aware
of Michael Denton's book. But unlike you, I am also aware that Denton was
wrong about a great many things, which he later admitted in another book.
At worst, if theropod lungs were completely incompatible with avian
lungs, all that would indicate is that theropods and birds were more
distantly related than we thought. As it turns out, as Denton was not
aware of at the time, later findings of bird like theropods tend to indicate
that bird-like theropods may have had primitive avian style lungs. The
issue is not resolved, as Denton indicated, but very much under
investigation. Until there is more evidence, we can't say for certian which
style of lungs early birds had.
One is also reminded that both birds and other Archeosaurs have septate
lungs, where Mammals have aveolar lungs. If a "common designer" wanted
birds to have a endothermic (ie warm blooded) respiration, why didn't he/she
give them mammilan style lungs, rather than modify the septate lung?
>
> <sniP>
>
>> >> Do you really think that your "satire" was a correct representation?
>> >
>> > If you can't cut through the jargon to actually see the narrative then
>> > you
>> > are
>> > lacking in critical thinking skills.
>>
>> I can see that your narrative is lacking in understanding and insight.
>> Again, I ask, do you really think your "satire" was an accurate
>> representation?
>
> Yes, and it seems that is the reason that no one will give summary using
> clear
> language, sans the cloak of jargon.
That was already done, yet you still ask for it. I'll state it again. The
"trees down" conjecture states that powered flight began by a number of
stages, including a gliding stage where early dino/birds used their wings
much the same way that modern flying squirrels and other modern gliding
animals do. The mechanism of this process was mutation and natural
selection, where those animals that posessed traits that allowed them to
glide further were favored. Note also that this conjecture is not the
only way that flight could have begun, but is only one possible scenerio.
snipping
>> Why don't you try to understand what scientists actually write, rather
>> than
>> just misrepresenting? The "tree down" conjecture holds that birds
>> developed powered flight through a number of stages, in which gliding
>> down
>> from trees was one of the stages.
>
> How does that go against my summary?
Your 'satire' is a gross misrepresentation, that implies that the animals
that were ill suited for flight were leaping out of trees, killing
themselves in the expectation they, the individuals would grow wings. This
misrepresents natural selection, and the process of mutation/selection on
which evolution depends. It does not take into account that theropod
anatomy was already very much like primitive birds, and that feathers had
already evolved before the animals ever attempted gliding.
>> > I think that most people on talk.origins see a mythological narrative
>> > of
>> > naturalism,
>>
>> Then you would be wrong. Conjectures like the "tree down" idea give a
>> starting place for research, and a way to explain what otherwise cannot
>> be
>> known. We may never know how birds went from ground dwelling to powered
>> flyers, but that doesn't mean we must stop looking.
>
> But it does mean that you should stop being the thought police with regard
> to
> talking about origins. Others may want to talk about origins too, as it
> is,
> talk.origins.
Who's stopping you from talking about it? Who is making you accept
scientific explanations? If you feel that modern science cannot find the
"truth" however you define it, what is stopping you from accepting whatever
you wish?
>
>> > see that a lot of scientific terms or jargon are used to tell it,
>> > then they believe it becaues some scientists believe it. Then perhaps
>> > they
>> > murmer, "For the science of me....me like science."
>>
>> You really appear have a deep seated hatred and jealousy of those who
>> have
>> an education. That's just sad.
>
> Are you sad? Are you crying some lil' tears right now?
No, nothing nearly that dramatic. Just a bit of sadness that someone
displays hatred and ignorance like it was something to be proud of.
>
> Well, I have little use for your emotional arguments based on supposed
> hatreds
> or your own sadness.
Then why do you respond? Why not try to find out what is behind this
irrational hatred and jealousy? It really doesn't matter to me, but you
might find your life more enjoyable if you find out why you are jealous of
those more educated.
snipping
>> > How about you try it, with no jargon? I.e., let's try and get at the
>> > truth of
>> > things rather than the science of things. Let's try to get to the
>> > truth,
>> > rather
>> > than just naturalistic explanation.
>>
>> What other explanations can be tested?
>
> Design can be.....
How. Please be very specific. How do you test "design" without recourse
to the natural world?
>
> But first, I say that you ought to admit that some of these mythological
> narratives of naturalism are pretty inane, like the tree down theory.
You can say what you like, but I'm not likely to take you up on it. Trees
down may or may not be correct, but it's hardly "inane".
> Or, at
> least admit that science ought to be done in the pursuit of truth, rather
> than
> just naturalistic explanation.
Sorry, but you have the wrong idea. Science has never been the "pursuit of
truth". Science is the study of natural events and natural causes. Those
who know the "Truth" cannot be scientists, because in science there is no
single "truth", only what the present evidence indicates. If you want the
"Truth" you have to go somewhere else. All science can do is approximate.
>
>> Is "Godmustadunnit" a useful
>> explanation for how powered flight developed?
>
> It is useful to eliminate the more absurd mythological narratives of
> naturalism. I.e., if scientists did not waste their time writing such
> drivel
> then perhaps they could admit to typology, which is the way that they ae
> classifying things into Kingdoms, etc., anyway.
What is "typology" in your statement? Can you define what you mean?
> Is "Naturemustadunit" useful
> all the time?
So far is has been, ever since the end of the Middle Ages. Nothing useful
has ever come out of "Godmustadunit" as an explanation of a phenomena, as
it's a sterile field of study.
> Is talking about origins always useful? That is no standard at
> all.
You are entitled to your opinion, but why are you limiting this anti-science
attitude to origins? Why aren't you questioning all of science's claims.
Why pick on biology? Or is it that you are only interested in refuting
what opposes your religious beliefs?
>
>> >> > I wonder if they had another artist make a lil' picture with
>> >> > feathers
>> >> > on
>> >> > it, again.
>> >>
>> >> The fossils clearly show feather impressions.
>> >
>> > That would be better than last time.
>>
>> The last time of what?
>
> When they had an artist just paint some feathers on, as I recall.
Would you please be a little less opaque? What are you charging, and on
what basis?
>
> Note, that fossil will most likely more and more clearly fit into actually
> being
> a bird.
What "fossil" are you talking about? I refer to a great many individual
theropod fossils showing clear feather impressions that have been discovered
over the last 150 years, but especially about the recent dino/bird finds
that have been coming out of China.
>
>> >> > Well, one thing
>> >> > is certain, mommy Nature did it somehow.
>> >>
>> >> We know of no other processes than natural processes. If you have any
>> >> evidence of supernatural processes, please provide it.
>> >
>> > So what natural processes are responsible for your sentences there?
>>
>> A computer, an internet, and a naturally occuring being using both.
>
> So ultimately, the Big Bang caused those sentences and that had no cause,
> or
> something along those lines.
That's a rather long stretch, and smells rather of straw.
>So then, I wonder, why should one consider the
> sentences that you write to be valid?
No one says you have to consider them valid. But I notice you didn't
bother to ignore them.
> How could they have ever been anything
> other than what they are?
They could have been different if I wrote something else.
> And why is your awareness supposedly correlating
> closely to the truth?
How do we know it is? For all I know I'm just a figment of your
imagination. How do you test, if you don't accept natural occurances?
>
> And why do you have this consistent habit of blaming me for my sentences,
> as if
> they could be something other than they are?
What makes you think I'm blaming you for anything?
>
>> > What type of evidence would you accept as evidence of the supernatural?
>>
>> Any means of observing the supernatual. Give some physical evidence
>> that
>> the supernatural exists.
>
> You are asking for physical evidence of the non-physical.
No, you are expecting me to accept the non-physical, without evidence. I'm
asking you to produce some evidence that the supernatual exists, or admit
that you can't.
>
> The contradiction is your own.
False again. You suggested that scientists reject natural explanations.
I'm just asking you how to do that, and remain scientific.
> That is like saying that the stories of the
> ancient Israelites are all based on natural occurances.
Maybe they are. How do we know?
> The theistic scholar
> begins to say that the Red Sea was the Reed Sea and there was a strong
> wind that
> day, etc. Then the atheistic scholar replies that, "Well, then it was
> natural
> and wasn't because God did anything. But I have issues with people
> walking into
> an 80 mile-per-hour cross-wind."
But you don't with a supernatual being parting the waters? We have no
evidence that incident actually occured. You either accept it on faith, or
you look for the evidence. The point is, not every question is amenible to
scientific inquiry.
>
> What is it that you mean, precisely? Give direct physical evidence, of
> the
> nonphysical? Put it in a test-tube and say, "There, there is the
> nonphysical.
> And would you look at that, it was in and of the physical all along!"
You are the one claiming that science should consider non-physical causes.
I'm pointing out how impractical that position really is. The whole point
is, you can't produce evidence of the supernatual. Therefore you can't use
the supernatual in scientific investigations. What's worse is you seem to
think that science should be able to confirm or deny the supernatural. If
you really didn't care what scientists stated, you wouldn't bother.
>
> If that is what you mean by evidence then it is little wonder that you
> miss any
> sense of transphysical realities.
You are projecting again. I never said that I don't accept the
supernatural on any level. I am pointing out that the supernatural is not
the provence of science, and you shouldn't expect scientists to support your
personal supernatural beliefs. Science is not seeking the ultimate truth,
it's just trying to find out what's there to be seen.
> Like say, your own mind.
My mind, whatever you think of it, is not supernatural. It's part of my
physical body.
> And it is little
> wonder that your sentences will lack sentience more and more. Little
> wonder
> indeed....
> http://mynym.blogspot.com/2004/12/wonder-of-world-wondering.html
Little wonder people prefer pictures of wind surfing to your prose.
>
>> > Nothing, correct?
>>
>> Incorrect. If you can show any evidence of a supernatual presence, or
>> influence, please do so.
>
> Your own mind. Perhaps you have experienced it? I would enter it into
> the
> "evidence" if it did not seem as if it was missing.
When you have nothing left, you throw insults. How quaint. In any case,
my mind is part of my physical body. It's not supernatural.
snipping philosphic blather
> That is very true. That is how you get mythological
> narratives like this:
>
> "Once upon a time, a group of mammalian ancestors flopped
> themselves out of the sea. They just kept flopping because
> that's what they did. So some died and some lived....they
> started losing one lil' fish scale, then another. Then their fins
> began to turn into one lil' leg, then another and another.
> Then their lungs...."
> http://mynym.blogspot.com/2004/11/origin-of-mind.html
You do recognize that too is just your own gross misrepresentation. Lungs,
and legs, existed before fish began to leave the sea. Your "mythological
narrative" is nothing but your own misunderstanding of how evolution works.
>
>> > So why, then, is anyone supposed to be all suprised that you apparently
>> > believe
>> > in philosophic naturalism when it comes to origins and believe in
>> > whatever
>> > mythological narrative of naturalism that happens to be current?
>>
>> You are simply making false assumptions here. I don't believe in
>> philosophic naturalism. I do accept that science can only work by the
>> use
>> methodological naturalism. There is a difference.
>
> Well, you police the discussion of origins on the basis of philosophic
> naturalism.
Again, your assumption is false. I do not "police" anywhere, on any
philosophic grounds. I state my beliefs and opinions, based on the
physical evidence. My personal beliefs are my own, and do not include
philosophic naturalism.
>
> So there is no false assumption there.
Not only one false assumption, but two.
>
>> Naturalistic
>> explanation cannot be "mythological" in the way that supernatural
>> explanations are.
>
> Oh, yes they can be.
"This is just contradiction". Naturalistic explanations may be either
close to, or far from the correct answer, but they are not mythical in the
same sense that a supernatural explanation must be.
>
> They are a story, a narrative. And those can be mythological.
Mythological stories involve magic, or other supernatual elements.
>
>> Naturalistic explanations are always open to question,
>> and testing, and falsification.
>
> Not if some Darwinists had their way.
>
> And yes, I can provide examples if you like.
Then please do so. Evolution, as a scientific theory, is always open to
questioning, but the questioning has to be of a scientific nature. If you
question evolution because you think it's Icky, or because it violates your
personal religious beliefs, that's not a relevant objection.
>
>> You may not like the current scientific
>> theories, but unless you can show some reason why they are not possible,
>> your objections are just your personal disbelief.
>
> No they aren't. I'm talking about origins on the basis of what is true in
> totality, all experience, history, records and witness.
Then you are not talking about science, because science doesn't deal with
"what is true in totality". "History" can be changed. Records can be
altered, and witnesses can be wrong, or subborned. Only the evidence
speaks clearly and without ambiguity.
>
> I have little use for those who are so myopic on the issue of origins as
> to
> think that science is necessarily capable of revealing all mysteries.
So you say, but you keep coming back to science, as if you were looking for
some kind of validation. If you really don't think science is capable of
revealing all mysteries (something it never claims to be), then simply
reject science, and go on your merry way. No one is going to stop you.
> Science
> came out of those who had already settled some mysteries based on a lot
> more
> than just science itself. They didn't begin with science and science
> would
> never have come about if they had. So there is a distinct oddity and
> irony in
> the way that discussions about origins are policed by claims of "science"
> or
> "scientists" here.
Again, if you are so afraid, jealous and hateful of science, why do you keep
looking for scientific validation? Just reject the findings of science,
and do something else. No one is going to make you accept science.
snipping
>> >>
>> >> How about doing some minimal research before you make ignorant
>> >> comments?
>> >
>> > Oh, quit sniveling.
>>
>> I haven't sniveled even once.
>
> You are sniveling about ignorance.
Oh. I thought you were using the dictionary definition of the term. I
didn't realize you were defining it as "being opposed to my assertions".
> I think it's because it's easier to write
> that then to actually write an accurate narrative to represent supposed
> "misrepresentations," "ignorance," etc. You seem to scared to do so. Or
> maybe
> you are too busy crying those lil' tears of your sadness. It's so sad,
> isn't
> it?
As I've already shown above, I'm neither frightened or unable to show where
you misrepresent.
>
>> > ....you're going to have to be active instead of passive
>> > sometime. So questionable, you are....
>>
>> Well "Master Yoda" you use your techniques, I'll use mine. And why not
>> deal with the issue? Why not do some minimal level of research, so you
>> appear less like a technology hating loon.
>
> Technology? How did that get in there? Another positive word to make the
> mythological narrative of naturalism at hand seem more reasonable?
Ah, I see. You accept technology, but reject the scientific method that
gave us the technology. Is that why you cling to the thing you claim to
hate so much?
>
> Technology has to do with creativity and design, the ingenuity of humans
> as
> applied to knowledge, yet it is much more than just knowledge or data
> recording.
Technology is the child of science. You can't reject science, and the
scientific method, and then say "Well, technology is allright". No wonder
you become so envious of those who are educated, they understand what you
hate, and they control the operation of what you want to have.
>
> What do those who believe in philosophic naturalism deny? Those very
> things,
> creation and design.
Wrong on both counts. Creation and design are actions performed by
naturally occuring beings. I do not accept philosophic naturalism, but I
know that those who do, are not ignorant of the ability of humans to create
and design. What they seem to deny is the idea that a supernatural being
had to have created and designed all living things.
>
>> > How about you cite me an excerpt of all the things you are lecturing on
>> > about
>> > "ignorance"?
>>
>> You mean your conflation of methodological naturalism with philosophic
>> naturalism?
>
> Now, now....you attempt to police the discussion of origins and
> philosophizing
> about the same on the basis of philosophic naturalism.
How do you get that? I'm disagreeing with you, not "policing" anything.
I'm pointing out you are conflating the belief in philosopic naturalism for
the methodological naturalism that science demands. One can accept one,
and not the other.
>
> And if you argue that you are doing that based on methodological
> naturalism then
> I still disagree with it. That silly censorship.
Where am I censoring you? You are free to disagree as much as you like,
but that doesn't make you right.
> I am against it. People can
> think and write about origins in a free way, so you may as well quit
> trying to
> police it.
What gives you the idea I'm trying to "police" anything? Don't I have the
right to speak my mind as well? Is opposition to your misinformation
"censorship" in your little world?
>
>> Your flip dismissal of scientific concepts and conjectures
>> that you don't understand and mock?
>
> If such conjectures are actually true then you would not be too embarassed
> to
> write a short summary when asked, etc.
First of all, the conjectures are not assumed to be automatically true, but
are starting points for investigation. Second, I already had given you a
"short summary" before you wrote this, so please don't ascribe this to
"embarassment" on my part. Your "satire" misrepresented the concept,
whether or not you wish to admit that. You refuse to avail yourself of the
information that's easily within your reach. If that's what you need to
keep your beliefs safe from challenge, then so be it.
> And if they are true, then an attacking
> can have the salubrious effect of refining and defining them or helping
> them to
> be communicated better.
Attacking and misrepresenting are two quite different things. I notice
you never indicate what you think is wrong with the conjectures, you just
mock them, and misrepresent them.
>
> I will, certainly, keep making a satire of them.
And continue to misrepresent them.
> And you can try to blame me
> that they are the material of satire, as you like. I leave the reader to
> judge
> such.
As it should be. Don't be surprised if the readers think you to be ignorant
and deluded, however.
snipping prattle
>> > Yet they sure do try to be the thought police when it comes to talking
>> > about
>> > origins.
>>
>> False claim. Any evidence to offer to this charge? Scientists don't
>> care
>> what ideas you choose to believe about origins.
>
> Well, there are more than a few who seem to say otherwise.
Such as? Examples please? Remember, simply opposing your
misrepresentations is not being "thought police". Who has prevented you
from writing? Who has been censoring your statements?
>
>> However if you want a
>> scientific answer, you have to follow the rules.
>
> I didn't say that I wanted a scientific answer.
Then why do you ask for one?
>
> No, rather I say I seek an answer that is true. You know, unlike
> scientists...
Right, because science is not interested in any particular version of the
"TRUTH(TM)" Science is interested in what explanations best fit the
evidence.
>
>> "Anything goes" does not
>> apply to scientific investigation, and there are rules and procedures.
>
> Making rules and procedures to find a lie, does not make it true.
Nor does choosing ahead of time what "truth" you want to believe, in spite
of the evidence.
>
>> You
>> may, however ignore science and believe whatever you wish.
>
> Of course I may. However, there are those who will still try to police
> how
> origins get talked about on talk.origins, etc.
How is opposition to your misrepresentations "policing"? Does anyone here
try to stifle your writings?
>
>> > You know, just as you do. All that is done is throwing a few claims
>> > about
>> > "ignorance" of some nebulously defined term like evolution, etc.
>>
>> Evolution is defined as change in allele frequencies in a population over
>> time.
>
> That is not what has been said publicly.
By whom? By scientists or by the general public? Are you depending on
Creationists for your information here?
>
> Do you want to know what has been said publicly on this matter? If it is
> something much more and/or different than that, then who is lying about
> what
> evolution is?
Scientists define evolution as above. How others define it is not the
problem for scientists. Creationists want "Evolution" to mean "Anything
that Contradicts Genesis". That is not how scientists use the term.
> Would they not all know? Or are some "ignorant"?
Many people are ignorant of science, yourself included. That's not meant to
be an insult, but a comment on your position. You started from ignorance,
and have not changed that position.
>
>> Any "nebulousity" of the defintion comes from Creationist who chose
>> to define the term as "anything that contradicts Genesis".
>
> I would not look to creationists to define evolutionism, do you?
Unfortunately, Creationists often do define "evolutionism", and as
scientists have no use for that particular term, they have been able to get
away with it in the popular press.
> If there are
> contradictory definitions and representations of it, is that the
> creationists
> fault too?
Scientists don't use the term, so any representations and defintions of the
term are left up to the creationists and the popular press. Evolution
itself is defined by scientists, and it's not what Creationists claim. So
are you going to listen to the scientists,or those who oppose science?
>
>> > People pick up
>> > on the dishonesty, fraud and disingenuous of the position...
>>
>> "People" meaning your own fantasy and projection.
>
> Some of it:
> http://mynym.blogspot.com/2004/12/i-do-not-have-national-geographic.html
>
> Come to think of it, I'll put up more of it. It's easier to just link.
> And
> maybe some of it needs to be vetted by those who would want to tear it
> apart
> too.
Another good example of how you are not being "policed" or censored. You
are free to post your ignorance whenever, and however you like.
snipping
> Although, it seems that they don't know what the hell they're talking
> about.
> E.g., the rather mutable definition of evolution....I wonder who is
> "ignorant"?
>
>> You are just projecting your own jealousy and hatred on those who are
>> educated.
>
> Or maybe you're projecting about me projecting.
>
> Sounds like quite a project, eh? Don't hate me because I'm more
> intelligent
> than you. Maybe once you admit that intelligence exists in scientific
> terms
> then you'll be more intelligent.
I notice you changed my statement about your hatred of those more educated
to "those more intelligent". That is not what I said, or what I meant. I
am not talking intelligence, I'm talking education.
>
>> > A nebulous claim of ignorance, which is mainly just about their style
>> > of
>> > rhetoric and nothing more.
>>
>> Again, have you ever actually studied how science works?
>
> Yes....
Your words betray that as untrue.
>
> That's why I don't worship the term science, in fact.
That's why you appear to hate and fear scientists, yet be unable to leave
science alone. You are rather like a puppy who is afraid of the vacuum
cleaner, yet can't stop barking at it. Science is not an object of
worship, it's a way of answering questions. You fear science, because you
are afraid that it might be right, and your religious beliefs are in error.
But you keep "barking" at your object of fear, in hopes that you will find
some way to show you are better than those more educated than yourself.
>
> <snip>
>
>> > All these claims of ignorance, yet how long would it take to scan a few
>> > excerpts
>> > on some issues, like the evolution of flight?
>>
>> Sorry, but sometimes you HAVE to do your own work. You can be led to
>> water,
>> but you have to be willing to drink.
>
> I already looked at his citation. It doesn't go against my summary, etc.
Except that it shows your "summary" is a complete misrepresentation.
>
>> > Please.....the claim of ignorance is a rhetorical tool.
>>
>> While your use of your personal ignorance is simply a tool to remove
>> yourself from having to face reality.
>
> What am I ignorant of?
Science, and the scientific method. That is why you fear it, and cannot
pull yourself away.
>
> You seem ignorant of what evolutionists define evolution as.
No, I'm quite aware. You seem to be under the impression that evolution is
a belief, not a scientific theory. That's a matter of ignorance.
> I guess I'll have
> to hit on this whole theme of ignorance you have going. Start calling you
> ignorant, etc....you just have to start it. Just because you don't like
> an
> accurate satire, too.
Your "satire" was quite inaccurate, which betrays your ignorance of the
concept.
DJT
Walter Bushell
"Dana Tweedy" <redd...@nospam.net> wrote:
<snip>
> One is also reminded that both birds and other Archeosaurs have septate
> lungs, where Mammals have aveolar lungs. If a "common designer" wanted
> birds to have a endothermic (ie warm blooded) respiration, why didn't he/she
> give them mammilan style lungs, rather than modify the septate lung?
<snip>
better , why didn't us hominoids, the crown of creation, get avian style
lungs? As we started by chasing down prey, being able to run long
distances would obviously be helped by the avian system, as it has to be
more efficient.
--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.