A scientific theory against God and morality
John Wilkins
theory that is opposed to religion, God's word, and theology, as well as being
offensive morally, philosophically and socially. And yet, scientists will not
permit the teaching of any other theory in the classrooms, exposing children
to a pernicious influence that will ultimately cause a number of them to lose
their faith in God and become morally dissolute.
This theory, which is imposed upon the naive minds of children and adults who
know no better than to swallow the "faith" of scientists, tells us that
everything is just the outcome of random forces and blind mechanical laws. It
denies that there is a purpose in the universe. It supports the idea that life
came out of the accidental workings of the physical universe rather than being
the result of intentional and purposeful actions of the creator. Its
fundamental assumption is that everything "just happens". The influence of
this theory on biology, particularly genetics, underpins claims that humans
have no free will and are just guided by genes.
For centuries, this theory and the theories of atheistic philosophers from
which it arose, has been used to undercuts social order. These philosophers
believe that we are nothing more than the sum of our appetites, and some have
even suggested that the social order, the economy, sexual behaviours, and
religion are just physical causes operating upon us and within us. Epicureans
believe in this theory, and it may have played a part in both the fall of the
Roman Empire and in the Holocaust.
Theologians, mostly Christian, but also Jewish and Islamic, and increasingly
other religions, have identified this "theory" as the foundation for the ruin
of religion. Catholic theologians, although some have accepted this theory,
have been seriously concerned about how this will destroy the philosophical
foundations of doctrine, and have sought to either reject it outright or try
to reconcile and ameliorate it with Catholic teachings, in particular the
basis of Catholic philosophy, without much success. In the nineteenth century,
the Church was so concerned about it, they published many articles against it
as being contradictory to the teachings of the Divine Doctor, Thomas Aquinas.
Even Darwin had to admit that it underlay his views.
Many people who accept this theory have done horrible things, in the name of
science. Hundreds of thousands have been killed by it. Hitler accepted it and
used it as the basis for his war effort. Stalin made it Party doctrine, and
used it to reject Russian Orthodox religion. Medical doctors have used it to
"treat" mental illnesses and to castrate people. It has been used to cause
cancer, to poison the environment, and to underpin the monopolies of
pharmaceutical companies. The military have used in for generations. It is
used by the mass entertainment industry to poison the minds of children, in
computer games and so-called "educational" TV, as well as in the liberal media.
One cannot believe this theory and be a good Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox
believer. Fight it in the schools and in society. Teach the controversy
wherever you can. There *are* scientific alternatives.
Oppose, as best you can, the theory of atoms.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
Servum tui ero, ipse vespera
Milan
"John Wilkins" <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:drh9ho$1hv8$1...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au...
Amen, brother! They shall not pass.
regards
Milan
John Burton
No, no, it was Euclidean geometry!
John
John Wilkins
Everything in this post is historically true, so far as I can tell.
Epicureanism was regarded as the most dangerous opposition to religion from
Aristotle on, and in the mid-nineteenth century Thomists opposed atomism as
being inconsistent with Aristotle's hylomorphism duality of form and substance.
Woehler's synthesis of urea (without the aid of the kidneys of man nor dog) in
1828 underlay the decline of vitalism, based on the chemical properties of
living matter. The religious opposition to atomism was real, and although
religion has been forced to accept it, the issues of opposition to evolution,
which came rather late in the piece (around 1880 or later), are the same as
the issues of opposition to atomism.
I may get around to documenting all this sometimes.
Thurisaz the Einherjer
> ...Oppose, as best you can, the theory of atoms.
Good one. I almost fell for it. :)
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
Why I am not a christian:
http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus/nojebus
FiveLongYears
types.. Now I just like to read it for entertainment. Question..
Why do all the fundies sound like they are brainwashed? I mean
granted, it's cause they are, but why don't they shake off the lyrics
to random christian rants? Everyone wants to sound like jessie
jackson, who is not worthy of capital lettering.
FLY
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>I am saddened
You should be with a brain as poor as yours.
--
Bob.
Sla#s
<SNIP>...exposing children
> to a pernicious influence that will ultimately cause a number of them to
> lose
> their faith in God ..
Wow! You mean for the first time in two thousand years they will be allowed
to think for themselves?
Slatts
VoiceOfReason
John Wilkins wrote:
<...>
> Oppose, as best you can, the theory of atoms.
Indeed! Since it gave us atom bombs, it must be Evil!
Jesus H Christ
news:f5apt1lqkg486706h...@4ax.com:
You need to let up on the ol' posting trigger finger there dude.
You failed to read the last line of the body of the post.
Here's a hint; the sig says;
"John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
Servum tui ero, ipse vespera"
cheers,
jesus!
Sanity's Little Helper
Read it again - carefully.
--
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208, HB #6
Sanity's Little Helper
<snip most of excellent spoof creationist rant>
> Oppose, as best you can, the theory of atoms.
You do Realise that a large majority of your audience is American, and
therefore most of the people reading this have absolutely no sense of
irony.
Sanity's Little Helper
Indeed, and the theory of Gravity gave us hanging.
TomS
<drhjq8$1pp3$1...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au>, John Wilkins stated..."
>
>John Wilkins wrote:
[...snip...]
>>One cannot believe this theory and be a good Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox
>> believer. Fight it in the schools and in society. Teach the controversy
>> wherever you can. There *are* scientific alternatives.
>>
>> Oppose, as best you can, the theory of atoms.
>
>Everything in this post is historically true, so far as I can tell.
>Epicureanism was regarded as the most dangerous opposition to religion from
>Aristotle on, and in the mid-nineteenth century Thomists opposed atomism as
>being inconsistent with Aristotle's hylomorphism duality of form and substance.
>
>Woehler's synthesis of urea (without the aid of the kidneys of man nor dog) in
>1828 underlay the decline of vitalism, based on the chemical properties of
>living matter. The religious opposition to atomism was real, and although
>religion has been forced to accept it, the issues of opposition to evolution,
>which came rather late in the piece (around 1880 or later), are the same as
>the issues of opposition to atomism.
>
>I may get around to documenting all this sometimes.
>
Atomism was traditionally identified with materialism.
There is the interpretation of Galileo's troubles with the
Catholic Church which says that the real problem was with his
endorsement of the atomic theory. I don't think that this
interpretation has held up well with later investigators, but it
does bring up the point of atomic theory.
Moreover, the standard exposition of the atomic theory relied
upon the effects of *chance*, as opposed to divine power. Of course,
the anti-evolutionists have made a big deal about the supposed
reliance of evolution on "mere chance". Although evolution doesn't
rely upon "mere chance".
This provides just another set of examples of how the
anti-evolutionists rely upon arguments which are not about
evolutionary biology, but against something else altogether
(atomism, in this case). Or against and outdated version of
evolutionary biology (neo-lamarckian). Or, at most, against some
facet of evolutionary biology which the anti-evolutionists
themselves accept
(microevolution).
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is so
much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. ... The evidences ... of
Natural Theology distinctly imply that the author of the Kosmos worked under
limitations..." John Stuart Mill, "Theism", Part II
David Jensen
"Sanity's Little Helper" <elv...@noshpam.net> wrote in
<1ecr6mgj2i12q$.fr4kh6z00lbt$.d...@40tude.net>:
>On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 12:34:55 +1000, John Wilkins wrote:
>
><snip most of excellent spoof creationist rant>
>> Oppose, as best you can, the theory of atoms.
>
>You do Realise that a large majority of your audience is American, and
>therefore most of the people reading this have absolutely no sense of
>irony.
I could probably drag a few people out of churches around here this
morning who agree that atomic theory is pernicious if it doesn't show
God's great works as they understand them -- and I live in one of the
most enlightened cities in the US.
John McKendry
The atheistic Daltonists on t.o. don't like to acknowledge it, but it's
well known that Dalton was acutely sensitive to the criticism that atoms
are "only a theory", and spent his life trying to fabricate real evidence
to support his conjectures. Only hours before his death, he was still
performing his experiments, feverishly mixing chemicals and measuring the
resulting products.
In other words, he decanted on his deathbed.
John
loua...@yahoo.com
John Wilkins wrote:
(re: evils of atomism)
> Everything in this post is historically true, so far as I can tell.
> Epicureanism was regarded as the most dangerous opposition to religion from
> Aristotle on, and in the mid-nineteenth century Thomists opposed atomism as
> being inconsistent with Aristotle's hylomorphism duality of form and substance.
I don't have much data on this, but I read recently that the medieval
church was deeply opposed to the concept of zero when it worked its way
west from India via the Moslem world. Having a symbol for nothing and
treating it like any other number for computational processes was
apparently the height of nihlism. (Pointers to more detailed sources
on this subject are solicited and welcome.)
In other news: I'm just now getting to see seasons 1 and 2 of Penn and
Teller's "Bullshit!" via a friend's DVD set. I liked their creationism
episode. It was filmed at the time Cobb County GA was debating its
textbook disclaimer and ended with the school board upholding the
stickers to wide public applause. Good long interviews with both Gish
and Eugenie Scott.
Heck, just the intro scene was priceless. Penn gave the evolution side
of the story by rather formally reading a passage from Darwin (there is
a grandeur in this view of life...) and a short Dawkins quote about
evolution as randomly generated changes non-randomly selected in
replicators.
Teller was standing silent (of course) next to him while he did this,
holding a large leatherbound Bible. Then Penn invited him to give the
creationist side. Teller paused exactly long enough for maximum humor
value, and started hitting Penn in the head with the Bible.
Pretty much the same content as any five years of reading t.o., in
other words. <g>
Louann
Robert J. Kolker
>
> In other words, he decanted on his deathbed.
You are evil.
Bob Kolker
raven1
<jlas...@comcast.dot.net> wrote:
>
> In other words, he decanted on his deathbed.
AIEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
Joe Cummings
wrote:
Get Wilkins away from punning, and he can be quite interesting
at times.
Being an oldie around these parts, I was scraping the moss
from one of my legs when I read this.
I was reminded of a book that had lain unread for quite a
while:
The Atomic Debates.
Brodie and the Rejection of the Atomic Theory
Ed. W.H.Brock. Leicester Universitu Press, 1967
This deals with the attitude of British chemists towards atoms
in the nineteenth century, and how amongst many of them there was
scepticism about their existence.
Brodie even had a calculus of non-atomic chemistry.
The "fundamental equation" of this calculus was :
xy=x+y
Hmmm.
Have fun,
Hoe Cummings
J. J. Lodder
> Oppose, as best you can, the theory of atoms.
Yeah, right.
Nuke the bastards!
Jan
nando_r...@yahoo.com
> I am saddened and offended to have to report to you that there is a scientific
> theory that is opposed to religion, God's word, and theology, as well as being
> offensive morally, philosophically and socially. And yet, scientists will not
> permit the teaching of any other theory in the classrooms, exposing children
> to a pernicious influence that will ultimately cause a number of them to lose
> their faith in God and become morally dissolute.
That would be Darwin's theory of evolution.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
Robert J. Kolker
How can a biological theory, based on observed fact have any moral
import whatsoever? Is the atomic theory potentially immoral? What about
quantum field theory?
And scientists will agree to teaching alternative -scientific theories-
in science classes. ID is not a scientific theory. Neither is so-called
scientific creationism (the same thing really). Neither are empirically
falsifiable.
Bob Kolker
John Wilkins
pernicious, I tell you!!!!!
nando_r...@yahoo.com
evolution immoral at the Scopes trial, where he helped convict a
teacher who taught from a eugenics textbook. W. J. Bryan also warned
against how Darwinism played out in Germany, calling it a theory of
hate. Most historians consider the influence of Darwinism on
intellectual climate of opinion the main thing that generated the
enormous rise in pseudobiological racism that precipitated Nazi's
biomedical racial vision of humanity. After the holocaust sociobiology
was sucesfully surpressed for over 40 years, but not under the new name
of evolutionary psychology darwinist racism rears it's ugly head again.
Over 90 percent of Chinese geneticists support China's farreaching
eugenics laws. The western scientists are basicly silent or
collaborating.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
wf...@comcast.net
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Creationist fundamentalist William Jennings Bryan called the theory of
>evolution immoral at the Scopes trial, where he helped convict a
>teacher who taught from a eugenics textbook. W. J. Bryan also warned
>against how Darwinism played out in Germany,
the problem with this creationist's view of history is that it's wrong
selective breeding was invented long before darwin was born.
creationists knew about this, and on this basis prohibited blacks from
marrying whites, and jews from marrying christians because the
creationists were worried about 'race mongrelization'.
creationists, in addition, murdered 2,000,000 blacks in pursuit of the
slave trade while enslaving 10,000,000 others
creationists expelled jews from every country in western europe,
conducted pogroms against jews, and confined them to ghettoes. they
also made them wear distinctive badges, an idea later picked up by the
nazis.
it was creationists who caused the bloodiest war in american history
to nando all of this is irrelevant. he thinks racism started in 1859.
calling it a theory of
>hate. Most historians consider the influence of Darwinism on
>intellectual climate of opinion the main thing that generated the
>enormous rise in pseudobiological racism that precipitated Nazi's
>biomedical racial vision of humanity
uh, no they don't. for example, in the document 'dabru emet', 200
jewish scholars and historians pointed out that, without christian
antisemtisim, the nazi holocaust could never have happened.
so nando is lying.
VoiceOfReason
Sanity's Little Helper wrote:
> On 29 Jan 2006 05:57:11 -0800, VoiceOfReason wrote:
>
> > John Wilkins wrote:
> >
> > <...>
> >
> >> Oppose, as best you can, the theory of atoms.
> >
> > Indeed! Since it gave us atom bombs, it must be Evil!
>
> Indeed, and the theory of Gravity gave us hanging.
*Gasp* So the truth comes out. Science must be stopped!
VoiceOfReason
John McKendry wrote:
<...>
> In other words, he decanted on his deathbed.
There's another week in Purgatory for you...
John Wilkins
telling each other our best puns.
Hmmm, on second thought, that might be the punishment.
Robert J. Kolker
The PRC will handle its population problem however its leaders see fit.
That is the way it works there. What are they supposed to do in a
country that has four times the population it can reasonably carry.
Bob Kolker
catshark
wrote:
>Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in
>news:f5apt1lqkg486706h...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 12:34:55 +1000, John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au>
>> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>>I am saddened
>>
>> You should be with a brain as poor as yours.
>>
>
>You need to let up on the ol' posting trigger finger there dude.
Hush! John gets unintentional loki points for things like this, redeemable
at the Panda's Thumb for beer, which greatly improves the finances of his
friends.
>
>You failed to read the last line of the body of the post.
>
>
>Here's a hint; the sig says;
>
>"John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
> University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
> Servum tui ero, ipse vespera"
>
>
>cheers,
>jesus!
>
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Nunc Id Vides, Nunc Ne Vides
- Unseen University Motto -
Geoff
news:1138522348....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Ya know.. a while back, I posted that we should ignore you funky
> types.. Now I just like to read it for entertainment.
Try being entertained again...especially the last line.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
nando_r...@yahoo.com
http://www.icjs.org/what/njsp/dabruemet.html
"Nazism was not a Christian phenomenon. Without the long history of
Christian anti-Judaism and Christian violence against Jews, Nazi
ideology could not have taken hold nor could it have been carried out.
Too many Christians participated in, or were sympathetic to, Nazi
atrocities against Jews. Other Christians did not protest sufficiently
against these atrocities. But Nazism itself was not an inevitable
outcome of Christianity. If the Nazi extermination of the Jews had been
fully successful, it would have turned its murderous rage more directly
to Christians. "
Obviously you are lying, and I'm telling the truth.
regards,
Mohammed Nor Syamsu
Matt Silberstein
<jo...@wilkins.id.au> in <drh9ho$1hv8$1...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au> wrote:
[snip]
>Oppose, as best you can, the theory of atoms.
Atoms have been doing their best to oppose me, I see no reason to
treat them any better. Certainly the atoms in my chair oppose me with
far more force than would seem appropriate.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Matt Silberstein
<fivelo...@aol.com> in
<1138522348....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>Ya know.. a while back, I posted that we should ignore you funky
>types.. Now I just like to read it for entertainment. Question..
>Why do all the fundies sound like they are brainwashed? I mean
>granted, it's cause they are, but why don't they shake off the lyrics
>to random christian rants? Everyone wants to sound like jessie
>jackson, who is not worthy of capital lettering.
>
Did you catch someone or is this another bit of bait?
Matt Silberstein
<use...@mcsuk.net> in <f5apt1lqkg486706h...@4ax.com>
wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 12:34:55 +1000, John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au>
>enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>>I am saddened
>
>You should be with a brain as poor as yours.
I know that I am saddened, at times, with John's brain. To think of it
as poor makes me quite a bit sadder.
Matt Silberstein
Helper" <elv...@noshpam.net> in
<1cducs7ll2xto$.kkaq3nq3zvc7$.d...@40tude.net> wrote:
>On 29 Jan 2006 05:57:11 -0800, VoiceOfReason wrote:
>
>> John Wilkins wrote:
>>
>> <...>
>>
>>> Oppose, as best you can, the theory of atoms.
>>
>> Indeed! Since it gave us atom bombs, it must be Evil!
>
>Indeed, and the theory of Gravity gave us hanging.
That's knot funny.
Matt Silberstein
"nando_r...@yahoo.com" <nando_r...@yahoo.com> in
<1138567667.1...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Whoosh
loua...@yahoo.com
It's not that you're not both nuts. But Kolker's a smarter nut than you
and makes fewer mistakes.
Lt. Kizhe Catson
> I am saddened and offended to have to report to you that there is a scientific
> theory that is opposed to religion, God's word, and theology, as well as being
.....cut to the chase:
> Oppose, as best you can, the theory of atoms.
Were you aware of this site?:
http://commonsensescience.org/Atomism.htm
And you thought you were only joking.....
-- Kizhe
Robert Weldon
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1138629326.8...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
And this supports your thesis in what way???
Robert Weldon
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1138628891....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Gee, another eugenicist on the Darwinist side.
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nor Syamsu
Look up the meaning of eugenics, then tell me how not allowing more than one
children *for population control*, fits that definition.
wf...@comcast.net
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> in the document 'dabru emet',
>
>http://www.icjs.org/what/njsp/dabruemet.html
>
>"Nazism was not a Christian phenomenon. Without the long history of
>Christian anti-Judaism and Christian violence against Jews, Nazi
>ideology could not have taken hold nor could it have been carried out.
and that is exactly my point...which is what you deny
John Wilkins
thi sweekend.
--
John Wilkins
> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 12:34:55 +1000, in talk.origins , John Wilkins
> <jo...@wilkins.id.au> in <drh9ho$1hv8$1...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Oppose, as best you can, the theory of atoms.
>
> Atoms have been doing their best to oppose me, I see no reason to
> treat them any better. Certainly the atoms in my chair oppose me with
> far more force than would seem appropriate.
>
>
John Wilkins
> John Wilkins wrote:
>> I am saddened and offended to have to report to you that there is a scientific
>> theory that is opposed to religion, God's word, and theology, as well as being
>
>
>> Oppose, as best you can, the theory of atoms.
>
> Were you aware of this site?:
> http://commonsensescience.org/Atomism.htm
>
> And you thought you were only joking.....
>
> -- Kizhe
>
continuing to be taught, though.
catshark
Matt Silberstein wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 14:52:57 +0000, in talk.origins , "Sanity's Little
> Helper" <elv...@noshpam.net> in
> <1cducs7ll2xto$.kkaq3nq3zvc7$.d...@40tude.net> wrote:
>
> >On 29 Jan 2006 05:57:11 -0800, VoiceOfReason wrote:
> >
> >> John Wilkins wrote:
> >>
> >> <...>
> >>
> >>> Oppose, as best you can, the theory of atoms.
> >>
> >> Indeed! Since it gave us atom bombs, it must be Evil!
> >
> >Indeed, and the theory of Gravity gave us hanging.
>
> That's knot funny.
Has it come to gallows humor now?
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Some mornings it just don't seem worthwhile
chewing through the leather straps.
catshark
Matt Silberstein wrote:
> On 29 Jan 2006 12:47:47 -0800, in talk.origins ,
> "nando_r...@yahoo.com" <nando_r...@yahoo.com> in
> <1138567667.1...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> >John Wilkins wrote:
> >> I am saddened and offended to have to report to you that there is a scientific
> >> theory that is opposed to religion, God's word, and theology, as well as being
> >> offensive morally, philosophically and socially. And yet, scientists will not
> >> permit the teaching of any other theory in the classrooms, exposing children
> >> to a pernicious influence that will ultimately cause a number of them to lose
> >> their faith in God and become morally dissolute.
> >
> >That would be Darwin's theory of evolution.
>
> Whoosh
And here I thought they had grounded all the SSTs.
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Nunc Id Vides, Nunc Ne Vides
Michael Siemon
John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> Matt Silberstein wrote:
> > On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 12:34:55 +1000, in talk.origins , John Wilkins
> > <jo...@wilkins.id.au> in <drh9ho$1hv8$1...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >> Oppose, as best you can, the theory of atoms.
> >
> > Atoms have been doing their best to oppose me, I see no reason to
> > treat them any better. Certainly the atoms in my chair oppose me with
> > far more force than would seem appropriate.
> >
> >
> Apropos of which, Resistentialism.
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistentialism>
Oh my, yes. Anyone who has not read the 1948 Spectator report
must drop everything, right now!, and go find it. It is just
too good.
John Wilkins
John Wilkins
accidental, opposition between man and the inanimate kingdom. So it came to be
an inspiration to all those who were making their first tentative attempts to
ride a British motorcycle."
James Morgan, "Give us something to believe in," Financial Times (London),
April 26, 1997
http://www.wordspy.com/words/resistentialism.asp
Matt Silberstein
<jo...@wilkins.id.au> in <drm2lv$p69$2...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 12:34:55 +1000, in talk.origins , John Wilkins
>> <jo...@wilkins.id.au> in <drh9ho$1hv8$1...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Oppose, as best you can, the theory of atoms.
>>
>> Atoms have been doing their best to oppose me, I see no reason to
>> treat them any better. Certainly the atoms in my chair oppose me with
>> far more force than would seem appropriate.
>>
>>
>Apropos of which, Resistentialism. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistentialism>
I did not know that had a name, I have been using that as an
explanation for years. I learned it as "things hate people". Explains
a lot.
Matt Silberstein
<catsh...@yahoo.com> in
<1138660618.7...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 14:52:57 +0000, in talk.origins , "Sanity's Little
>> Helper" <elv...@noshpam.net> in
>> <1cducs7ll2xto$.kkaq3nq3zvc7$.d...@40tude.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On 29 Jan 2006 05:57:11 -0800, VoiceOfReason wrote:
>> >
>> >> John Wilkins wrote:
>> >>
>> >> <...>
>> >>
>> >>> Oppose, as best you can, the theory of atoms.
>> >>
>> >> Indeed! Since it gave us atom bombs, it must be Evil!
>> >
>> >Indeed, and the theory of Gravity gave us hanging.
>>
>> That's knot funny.
>
>Has it come to gallows humor now?
There is a trap there, don't go through that door.
catshark
Matt Silberstein wrote:
> On 30 Jan 2006 14:36:58 -0800, in talk.origins , "catshark"
> <catsh...@yahoo.com> in
> <1138660618.7...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Matt Silberstein wrote:
> >> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 14:52:57 +0000, in talk.origins , "Sanity's Little
> >> Helper" <elv...@noshpam.net> in
> >> <1cducs7ll2xto$.kkaq3nq3zvc7$.d...@40tude.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On 29 Jan 2006 05:57:11 -0800, VoiceOfReason wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> John Wilkins wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> <...>
> >> >>
> >> >>> Oppose, as best you can, the theory of atoms.
> >> >>
> >> >> Indeed! Since it gave us atom bombs, it must be Evil!
> >> >
> >> >Indeed, and the theory of Gravity gave us hanging.
> >>
> >> That's knot funny.
> >
> >Has it come to gallows humor now?
>
> There is a trap there, don't go through that door.
That's obvious. It is not noose to me.
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Nunc Id Vides, Nunc Ne Vides
catshark
Matt Silberstein wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 08:07:46 +1000, in talk.origins , John Wilkins
> <jo...@wilkins.id.au> in <drm2lv$p69$2...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>
> >Matt Silberstein wrote:
> >> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 12:34:55 +1000, in talk.origins , John Wilkins
> >> <jo...@wilkins.id.au> in <drh9ho$1hv8$1...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >>> Oppose, as best you can, the theory of atoms.
> >>
> >> Atoms have been doing their best to oppose me, I see no reason to
> >> treat them any better. Certainly the atoms in my chair oppose me with
> >> far more force than would seem appropriate.
> >>
> >>
> >Apropos of which, Resistentialism. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistentialism>
>
> I did not know that had a name, I have been using that as an
> explanation for years. I learned it as "things hate people". Explains
> a lot.
I too have come to this conclusion without benefit of a name for it.
Virtually the only times I *really* lose it is with inanimate objects.
They are the only things I ever raise my voice at . . . except for
cats, and cats are transitional forms between inanimate and animate
objects.
Mitchell Coffey
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Creationist fundamentalist William Jennings Bryan called the theory of
>evolution immoral at the Scopes trial, where he helped convict a
>teacher who taught from a eugenics textbook.
[snip]
(1) Since that teacher's lawyers asked the Judge & jury to return a
guilty verdict against his client, it can hardly be said that Bryan
helped (or hurt) Scope's conviction.
(2a) You know very well that Scopes was not tried for teaching from "a
eugenics textbook."
(2b) You may actually think that an American teacher had some say in
which textbook got taught, but you would be wrong. The text had been
chosen by the government of the State of Tennessee.
(2c) You will be unable to muster any evidence that Scopes taught from
any of the four pages of the textbook in question wherein it discussed
eugenics.
(2d) I own a copy of the textbook in question, Civic Biology, George
William Hunter, Jr.; American Book Company, 1914. There is no way on
earth that you can honestly call a 448 page book that advances
eugenics for all of four pages "a eugenics textbook."
(2e) You can't even honestly call it a evolution textbook. It
dedicates only six pages to evolution (pp.192-196, pp.253-254), with a
smattering of references to related topics.
(2f) You can't honestly call the book "Darwinist." Consider how it
doesn't bother to explain natural selection until pages pp.253 & 254,
tucked away in the chapter on Heredity and Variation. It actually
teaches that the primary importance of the concept of natural
selection is that it greatly contributed to human understanding and
use of artificial selection.
The Author of the textbook clearly considered natural selection
secondary with regard to evolution. He emphasized Mendelian genetics
and mutation, not Darwin's mechanisms. (pp.253-260)
(2g) The textbook does not justify eugenics using Darwinian rhetoric;
it gives Mendelian genetics that office. Indeed, it locates it's
discussion of eugenics at the end of the section where it teaches
Mendelism. (pp.261-265)
(3) William Jennings Bryan was a racist who didn't give a damn about
Social Darwinism when it was being pushed by his allies in the Ku Klux
Klan; who, to move briefly off topic, had also lobbied for laws
limiting the teaching of evolution.
(4) I also own a copy of the textbook that replaced Civic Biology
after the Scopes trial, New Civic Biology, George William Hunter,
Jr.; American Book Company, 1926. Due to the demands of the
Fundamentalists, it no longer advocates evolution, and only mentions
evolution and Darwin briefly and vaguely. The eugenics, however,
remains. In the end, the Fundamentalists were fine with that. The
objection to eugenics was a smokescreen.
William Jennings Bryan isolated Hunter's four pages of eugenics to
make a general condemnation of evolutionary theory -- even though
Hunter neither derived nor defend them with Darwinian principles, as
Bryan claimed. It was a lawyers trick. It has become a political
myth, used today by ID and creation advocates to misrepresent their
historical role and to position the Scopes Trial as something other
than a move to suppress the teaching of science. They ignore the fact
that, in the end, the only thing in Hunter's text the Fundamentalists
truly objected to was evolution, not eugenics.
Mitchell Coffey
nando_r...@yahoo.com
> William Jennings Bryan isolated Hunter's four pages of eugenics to
> make a general condemnation of evolutionary theory
Gee, I didn't know Bryan actually isolated the four pages. And with
some lawyer acrobatics you turn this whole thing upside down. The
Darwinist lawyer Darrow tricked W.J. Bryan out of attacking Darwinist
eugenics at the trial, by throwing the trial. You're lying that it is
"just 4 pages" of eugenics, eugenics is the central theme of the
textbook as described in the opening.
Attributing lawyer trickery to W. J. Bryan is bullshit. He got done in,
by Mencken and Darrow, Mencken the flaming eugenicist.... People who
doubt W. J. Bryan's honesty in his opposition to Darwinism as a theory
of hate are solely Darwinist fanatics. He may be wrong, but W.J. Bryan
was not dishonest. Darrow and Mencken on the other hand were both
dishonest, regardless if they were wrong or right about the issue.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Attributing lawyer trickery to W. J. Bryan is bullshit. He got done in,
> by Mencken and Darrow, Mencken the flaming eugenicist.... People who
> doubt W. J. Bryan's honesty in his opposition to Darwinism as a theory
> of hate are solely Darwinist fanatics. He may be wrong, but W.J. Bryan
> was not dishonest. Darrow and Mencken on the other hand were both
> dishonest, regardless if they were wrong or right about the issue.
William Jenning Bryant was actually a very smart man. He was parodied in
-Inherit the Wind- in a rather unfair way. Bryant was dead wrong about
the eugenic aspect of Darwin's theory. Darwin himself, never advocated
eugenics. S.J. Gould showed that Bryant leaped to a conclusion from four
pages of a rather thick biology book.
Mencken was one of the most witty man of letters the U.S. has ever
produced. He is a bit of a prickly pear and not you basic warm and fuzzy
kind of guy. No touchy-feely for or from Mencken, no sir.
Clarence Darrow was a leading defender of civil liberties in the U.S.
Sometimes he went a bit far, as in saving Leopold and Loeb from the
hangman. That pair should have ended up dancing at the end of a rope.
Bob Kolker
TomS
<0pvtt195nrd7t84ql...@4ax.com>, Mitchell Coffey stated..."
This is consistent with the book having been written during the
"eclipse of Darwinism" (to use the expression of Julian Huxley's 1942
book "Evolution, the Modern Synthesis"). During the early 20th century,
scientists generally felt that explanations worked better with reference
to the work of Mendel, rather than that of Darwin.
>
>(2g) The textbook does not justify eugenics using Darwinian rhetoric;
>it gives Mendelian genetics that office. Indeed, it locates it's
>discussion of eugenics at the end of the section where it teaches
>Mendelism. (pp.261-265)
It is impossible to imagine how eugenics could be so justified -
even in the imagination of its most avid supporters, or of the most
vigorous despisers of the notion of "common descent".
>
>(3) William Jennings Bryan was a racist who didn't give a damn about
>Social Darwinism when it was being pushed by his allies in the Ku Klux
>Klan; who, to move briefly off topic, had also lobbied for laws
>limiting the teaching of evolution.
>
>(4) I also own a copy of the textbook that replaced Civic Biology
>after the Scopes trial, New Civic Biology, George William Hunter,
>Jr.; American Book Company, 1926. Due to the demands of the
>Fundamentalists, it no longer advocates evolution, and only mentions
>evolution and Darwin briefly and vaguely. The eugenics, however,
>remains. In the end, the Fundamentalists were fine with that. The
>objection to eugenics was a smokescreen.
Does creationism today have any better right to claim distance
from eugenics?
Recall that the anti-evolutionists insist upon their acceptance
of "variation within kinds", which they call "micro"evolution. They
tell us that they only reject "macro"evolution.
Eugenics never had any connection with "macro"evolution.
There is, therefore, nothing that the creationists can point to,
to distance themselves from eugenics, when they are making this
attack on evolution.
Not that I am making that accusation, myself, for I think that
the explanation for their behavior is better explained by other
facets of anti-evolutionism, such as the pervasive inconsistency,
lack of information about history and science, and a consuming
fear of being related to the rest of the world.
>
>William Jennings Bryan isolated Hunter's four pages of eugenics to
>make a general condemnation of evolutionary theory -- even though
>Hunter neither derived nor defend them with Darwinian principles, as
>Bryan claimed. It was a lawyers trick. It has become a political
>myth, used today by ID and creation advocates to misrepresent their
>historical role and to position the Scopes Trial as something other
>than a move to suppress the teaching of science. They ignore the fact
>that, in the end, the only thing in Hunter's text the Fundamentalists
>truly objected to was evolution, not eugenics.
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is so
much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. ... The evidences ... of
Natural Theology distinctly imply that the author of the Kosmos worked under
limitations..." John Stuart Mill, "Theism", Part II
rev.goetz
John Wilkins wrote:
> I am saddened and offended to have to report to you that there is a scientific
> theory that is opposed to religion, God's word, and theology, as well as being
> offensive morally, philosophically and socially. And yet, scientists will not
> permit the teaching of any other theory in the classrooms, exposing children
> to a pernicious influence that will ultimately cause a number of them to lose
> their faith in God and become morally dissolute.
>
> know no better than to swallow the "faith" of scientists, tells us that
> everything is just the outcome of random forces and blind mechanical laws. It
> denies that there is a purpose in the universe. It supports the idea that life
> came out of the accidental workings of the physical universe rather than being
> the result of intentional and purposeful actions of the creator. Its
> fundamental assumption is that everything "just happens". The influence of
> this theory on biology, particularly genetics, underpins claims that humans
> have no free will and are just guided by genes.
>
> For centuries, this theory and the theories of atheistic philosophers from
> which it arose, has been used to undercuts social order. These philosophers
> believe that we are nothing more than the sum of our appetites, and some have
> even suggested that the social order, the economy, sexual behaviours, and
> religion are just physical causes operating upon us and within us. Epicureans
> believe in this theory, and it may have played a part in both the fall of the
> Roman Empire and in the Holocaust.
>
> Theologians, mostly Christian, but also Jewish and Islamic, and increasingly
> other religions, have identified this "theory" as the foundation for the ruin
> of religion. Catholic theologians, although some have accepted this theory,
> have been seriously concerned about how this will destroy the philosophical
> foundations of doctrine, and have sought to either reject it outright or try
> to reconcile and ameliorate it with Catholic teachings, in particular the
> basis of Catholic philosophy, without much success. In the nineteenth century,
> the Church was so concerned about it, they published many articles against it
> as being contradictory to the teachings of the Divine Doctor, Thomas Aquinas.
> Even Darwin had to admit that it underlay his views.
>
> Many people who accept this theory have done horrible things, in the name of
> science. Hundreds of thousands have been killed by it. Hitler accepted it and
> used it as the basis for his war effort. Stalin made it Party doctrine, and
> used it to reject Russian Orthodox religion. Medical doctors have used it to
> "treat" mental illnesses and to castrate people. It has been used to cause
> cancer, to poison the environment, and to underpin the monopolies of
> pharmaceutical companies. The military have used in for generations. It is
> used by the mass entertainment industry to poison the minds of children, in
> computer games and so-called "educational" TV, as well as in the liberal media.
>
> One cannot believe this theory and be a good Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox
> believer. Fight it in the schools and in society. Teach the controversy
> wherever you can. There *are* scientific alternatives.
>
> Oppose, as best you can, the theory of atoms.
> John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
> University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
> Servum tui ero, ipse vespera
Atoms are nothing but waves.
Walter Bushell
John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> Michael Siemon wrote:
> > In article <drm2lv$p69$2...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au>,
> > John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> >
> >> Matt Silberstein wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 12:34:55 +1000, in talk.origins , John Wilkins
> >>> <jo...@wilkins.id.au> in <drh9ho$1hv8$1...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> [snip]
> >>>
> >>>> Oppose, as best you can, the theory of atoms.
> >>> Atoms have been doing their best to oppose me, I see no reason to
> >>> treat them any better. Certainly the atoms in my chair oppose me with
> >>> far more force than would seem appropriate.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Apropos of which, Resistentialism.
> >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistentialism>
> >
> > Oh my, yes. Anyone who has not read the 1948 Spectator report
> > must drop everything, right now!, and go find it. It is just
> > too good.
> >
> http://www.handstones.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/yewtree/resources/resistentialism.h
> tm
Can anyone help me find that paper by Asimov (IIRC) about a molecule
that extends into the future and hence starts dissolving before being
added to the water; we are going to need it to combat this peril.
--
"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any
charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgement of his
peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totali-
tarian government whether Nazi or Communist." -- W. Churchill, Nov 21, 1943
Susan S
<catsh...@yahoo.com>:
Coincidentally, I have a cat on my lap at this very moment! If I poke
her, she becomes animate, otherwise she merely resembles a dry puddle.
Raising your voice at cats just scares them and while some people think
that is fun (Matt, you know who you are [and so does everyone else]) the
rest of us have to chase after them and that never works.
Susan Silberstein
Assume that anywhere a cat can go, a cat has been.
Matt Silberstein
<otoerem...@ix.netcom.com> in
<rtfvt1dp6j628qpi0...@4ax.com> wrote:
[snip]
>Raising your voice at cats just scares them and while some people think
>that is fun (Matt, you know who you are [and so does everyone else]) the
>rest of us have to chase after them and that never works.
I find nothing fun about yelling at cats, I prefer to make fun of them
using clever retorts. For example, I enjoy reminding them how few cats
have actually earned their Ph.Ds.
Shane
> In article <drm61e$2lee$1...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au>,
> John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>
>> Michael Siemon wrote:
>>> In article <drm2lv$p69$2...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au>,
>>> John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Matt Silberstein wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 12:34:55 +1000, in talk.origins , John Wilkins
>>>>> <jo...@wilkins.id.au> in <drh9ho$1hv8$1...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>>> Oppose, as best you can, the theory of atoms.
>>>>> Atoms have been doing their best to oppose me, I see no reason to
>>>>> treat them any better. Certainly the atoms in my chair oppose me with
>>>>> far more force than would seem appropriate.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Apropos of which, Resistentialism.
>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistentialism>
>>>
>>> Oh my, yes. Anyone who has not read the 1948 Spectator report
>>> must drop everything, right now!, and go find it. It is just
>>> too good.
>>>
>> http://www.handstones.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/yewtree/resources/resistentialism.h
>> tm
>
> Can anyone help me find that paper by Asimov (IIRC) about a molecule
> that extends into the future and hence starts dissolving before being
> added to the water; we are going to need it to combat this peril.
The Endochronic Properties of Resublimated Thiotimoline
http://homepage.mac.com/jhjenkins/Asimov/Stories/Story062.html
John Wilkins
> Mitchell Coffey:
>
>> William Jennings Bryan isolated Hunter's four pages of eugenics to
>> make a general condemnation of evolutionary theory
>
> Gee, I didn't know Bryan actually isolated the four pages. And with
> some lawyer acrobatics you turn this whole thing upside down. The
> Darwinist lawyer Darrow tricked W.J. Bryan out of attacking Darwinist
> eugenics at the trial, by throwing the trial. You're lying that it is
> "just 4 pages" of eugenics, eugenics is the central theme of the
> textbook as described in the opening.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/hunt192.htm
>
> Attributing lawyer trickery to W. J. Bryan is bullshit. He got done in,
> by Mencken and Darrow, Mencken the flaming eugenicist.... People who
> doubt W. J. Bryan's honesty in his opposition to Darwinism as a theory
> of hate are solely Darwinist fanatics. He may be wrong, but W.J. Bryan
> was not dishonest. Darrow and Mencken on the other hand were both
> dishonest, regardless if they were wrong or right about the issue.
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nor Syamsu
>
John Wilkins
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 19:56:33 GMT, in talk.origins , Susan S
> <otoerem...@ix.netcom.com> in
> <rtfvt1dp6j628qpi0...@4ax.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Raising your voice at cats just scares them and while some people think
>> that is fun (Matt, you know who you are [and so does everyone else]) the
>> rest of us have to chase after them and that never works.
>
> I find nothing fun about yelling at cats, I prefer to make fun of them
> using clever retorts. For example, I enjoy reminding them how few cats
> have actually earned their Ph.Ds.
*Please* visit my home. I have a PhD and three cats control my every move.
Mitchell Coffey
"Isolated," as in "set apart;" i.e., Bryan ignored 98% book. When I
get home I'll look up the "opening" of Civic Biology (1914); by
"opening" I assume you mean the introduction or first few pages of
Chapter One. Meanwhile, why don't you quote the book's opening, since
you seem to have access to it.
One doesn't attack "Social Darwinism," having defended in print denying
African-Americans the right to vote, having risen to speak at your
party's national convention to call for the defeat of a resolution
amending the party platform to condemn the Ku Klux Klan by name,
having, as Secretary of State, planned the invasion of the Hemisphere's
only black-run republic, without causing your honesty to be called into
question. Yet William Jennings Bryan did all of this.
Bryan did pull a trick; I note that you don't actually address the
issue. I also note that you don't actually defend your assertion about
Darrow court-room dishonesty (and you seem to think that Mencken had
some court-room role within the trial). Darrow waved the defense's
right to a final summation, which automatically obviated the
prosecution's -- that is, Bryan's -- summation. I'm perfectly willing
to call that a "trick," if an entirely legal one, but your claim that
it was "dishonest" is chilling. Your notion that the defense is
obligated to give up it's rights so that the prosecution can get more
air-time, suggests you miss some key points about legal institutions
intended to protect the rights of the accused. The Government isn't
suppose to get to turn our Constitution on and off at its convenience,
despite what our current President my think.
Finally, Bryan did get to attack "Darwinist eugenics" at the trial,
just not whenever he wanted too.
Mitchell Coffey
Matt Silberstein
<jo...@wilkins.id.au> in <drops3$3jr$5...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 19:56:33 GMT, in talk.origins , Susan S
>> <otoerem...@ix.netcom.com> in
>> <rtfvt1dp6j628qpi0...@4ax.com> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Raising your voice at cats just scares them and while some people think
>>> that is fun (Matt, you know who you are [and so does everyone else]) the
>>> rest of us have to chase after them and that never works.
>>
>> I find nothing fun about yelling at cats, I prefer to make fun of them
>> using clever retorts. For example, I enjoy reminding them how few cats
>> have actually earned their Ph.Ds.
>
>*Please* visit my home. I have a PhD and three cats control my every move.
If I am ever within a 1,000 miles of your home I promise to visit.
Nick Roberts
John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> Michael Siemon wrote:
> > In article <drm2lv$p69$2...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au>,
> > John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> >
> >> Matt Silberstein wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 12:34:55 +1000, in talk.origins , John
> > > > Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> in
> > > > <drh9ho$1hv8$1...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> [snip]
> >>>
> >>>> Oppose, as best you can, the theory of atoms.
> > > > Atoms have been doing their best to oppose me, I see no reason
> > > > to treat them any better. Certainly the atoms in my chair
> > > > oppose me with far more force than would seem appropriate.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Apropos of which, Resistentialism.
> >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistentialism>
> >
> > Oh my, yes. Anyone who has not read the 1948 Spectator report
> > must drop everything, right now!, and go find it. It is just
> > too good.
> >
> http://www.handstones.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/yewtree/resources/resistentialism.htm
Isn't this just a tarted-up and Frenchified version of Murphy's Law?
(although the Clark-Trimble experiment is interesting, as it would
appear to contravene Finagle's corollary).
--
Nick Roberts tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk
John Wilkins
UK (Murphy was active in the 1950s as a test pilot, ISTR), it would be the
other way around.
catshark
wrote:
Besides, Murphy's and Sod's Laws are crude approximations that assign the
mechanism of the phenomena to undifferentiated and undemonstrated "forces"
such as "fate" or "luck", while Resistentialism has a clearly identified
phenomenological source, opening up avenues of empirical investigation that
the former lack.
Von R. Smith
loua...@yahoo.com wrote:
> John Wilkins wrote:
>
> (re: evils of atomism)
>
> > Everything in this post is historically true, so far as I can tell.
> > Epicureanism was regarded as the most dangerous opposition to religion from
> > Aristotle on, and in the mid-nineteenth century Thomists opposed atomism as
> > being inconsistent with Aristotle's hylomorphism duality of form and substance.
>
> I don't have much data on this, but I read recently that the medieval
> church was deeply opposed to the concept of zero when it worked its way
> west from India via the Moslem world. Having a symbol for nothing and
> treating it like any other number for computational processes was
> apparently the height of nihlism. (Pointers to more detailed sources
> on this subject are solicited and welcome.)
Heck, zoe *still* isn't reconciled to the concept of 0 as a distinct
number.
She thinks 5/0 = 5/1
Mark Isaak
<RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 08:56:49 +1000, in talk.origins , John Wilkins
><jo...@wilkins.id.au> in <drops3$3jr$5...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>
>>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 19:56:33 GMT, in talk.origins , Susan S
>>> <otoerem...@ix.netcom.com> in
>>> <rtfvt1dp6j628qpi0...@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> Raising your voice at cats just scares them and while some people think
>>>> that is fun (Matt, you know who you are [and so does everyone else]) the
>>>> rest of us have to chase after them and that never works.
>>>
>>> I find nothing fun about yelling at cats, I prefer to make fun of them
>>> using clever retorts. For example, I enjoy reminding them how few cats
>>> have actually earned their Ph.Ds.
>>
>>*Please* visit my home. I have a PhD and three cats control my every move.
>
>If I am ever within a 1,000 miles of your home I promise to visit.
I would like to visit, too, but my cats won't let me.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
skyeyes
>Question.. Why do all the fundies sound like they are brainwashed? I mean
>granted, it's cause they are, but why don't they shake off the lyrics to random christian rants?
It's because they *are* chants. It's how they're taught. As a Former
Fundie, I can tell you that actual *logic* and *facts* in no way figure
into Fundie education. They're taught pat [wrong] answers to pat
[stupid] questions. The technique teaches them to simply shout their
material over and over, even in the face of a reasoned response.
*Especially* in the face of a reasoned response. Remember, it's not
about reality, it's about Standing Up for Jebus. Arguments over
evolution are really arguments about the Fundie algorhythm for
salvation. If you take away The Garden of Eden, you take away their
salvation. They're not about to let you do that.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
Matt Silberstein
<eci...@earthlinkNOSPAM.next> in
<fb02u11bb73knrrll...@4ax.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 00:49:14 GMT, Matt Silberstein
><RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 08:56:49 +1000, in talk.origins , John Wilkins
>><jo...@wilkins.id.au> in <drops3$3jr$5...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>>>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 19:56:33 GMT, in talk.origins , Susan S
>>>> <otoerem...@ix.netcom.com> in
>>>> <rtfvt1dp6j628qpi0...@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>> Raising your voice at cats just scares them and while some people think
>>>>> that is fun (Matt, you know who you are [and so does everyone else]) the
>>>>> rest of us have to chase after them and that never works.
>>>>
>>>> I find nothing fun about yelling at cats, I prefer to make fun of them
>>>> using clever retorts. For example, I enjoy reminding them how few cats
>>>> have actually earned their Ph.Ds.
>>>
>>>*Please* visit my home. I have a PhD and three cats control my every move.
>>
>>If I am ever within a 1,000 miles of your home I promise to visit.
>
>I would like to visit, too, but my cats won't let me.
If I had even 2 more sq. ft. in the bathroom I would live with at
least one more cat.
Ye Old One
<RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> enriched this group when
s/he wrote:
>On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 18:39:58 GMT, in talk.origins , Mark Isaak
><eci...@earthlinkNOSPAM.next> in
><fb02u11bb73knrrll...@4ax.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 00:49:14 GMT, Matt Silberstein
>><RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 08:56:49 +1000, in talk.origins , John Wilkins
>>><jo...@wilkins.id.au> in <drops3$3jr$5...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 19:56:33 GMT, in talk.origins , Susan S
>>>>> <otoerem...@ix.netcom.com> in
>>>>> <rtfvt1dp6j628qpi0...@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>>> Raising your voice at cats just scares them and while some people think
>>>>>> that is fun (Matt, you know who you are [and so does everyone else]) the
>>>>>> rest of us have to chase after them and that never works.
>>>>>
>>>>> I find nothing fun about yelling at cats, I prefer to make fun of them
>>>>> using clever retorts. For example, I enjoy reminding them how few cats
>>>>> have actually earned their Ph.Ds.
>>>>
>>>>*Please* visit my home. I have a PhD and three cats control my every move.
>>>
>>>If I am ever within a 1,000 miles of your home I promise to visit.
>>
>>I would like to visit, too, but my cats won't let me.
>
>If I had even 2 more sq. ft. in the bathroom I would live with at
>least one more cat.
What has the size of a bathroom got to do with the number of cats you
keep?
--
Bob.
David Jensen
Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in
<8h42u1hek26ucd3b5...@4ax.com>:
Where do you keep your litter box?
Ye Old One
Don't have one, unless one of the cats is ill or we have a new arrival
that needs to be kept in for its first few weeks.
Cats are NOT indoor only creatures, they need time outside. The
evolution of the cat is a very interesting subject if you look at it.
--
Bob.
Mitchell Coffey
nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Mitchell Coffey:
>
> > William Jennings Bryan isolated Hunter's four pages of eugenics to
> > make a general condemnation of evolutionary theory
>
> Gee, I didn't know Bryan actually isolated the four pages. And with
> some lawyer acrobatics you turn this whole thing upside down. The
> Darwinist lawyer Darrow tricked W.J. Bryan out of attacking Darwinist
> eugenics at the trial, by throwing the trial. You're lying that it is
> "just 4 pages" of eugenics, eugenics is the central theme of the
> textbook as described in the opening.
Last night, as promised, I re-read the introduction and first three
chapters of the textbook in question, Hunter's Civic Biology (1914).
There is no reference, direct or indirect, to eugenics in the "opening"
of the book. In fact, one of these opening chapters systematically
lays out what the author expected students to get out of the book.
This would be where eugenics could be expected to be described as the
central theme, but it isn't there.
I can find no evidence for your claim that "eugenics is the central
theme of the textbook". Please correct me if you have evidence
otherwise.
Mitchell Coffey
nando_r...@yahoo.com
to the best of your advantage. Everybody is perfectly within their
right to call Darrow a bastard for not letting Bryan have his say at
trial. Some might say a clever bastard, but a bastard nevertheless.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
John Wilkins
> On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 18:39:58 GMT, in talk.origins , Mark Isaak
> <eci...@earthlinkNOSPAM.next> in
> <fb02u11bb73knrrll...@4ax.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 00:49:14 GMT, Matt Silberstein
>> <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 08:56:49 +1000, in talk.origins , John Wilkins
>>> <jo...@wilkins.id.au> in <drops3$3jr$5...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Matt Silberstein wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 19:56:33 GMT, in talk.origins , Susan S
>>>>> <otoerem...@ix.netcom.com> in
>>>>> <rtfvt1dp6j628qpi0...@4ax.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>>> Raising your voice at cats just scares them and while some people think
>>>>>> that is fun (Matt, you know who you are [and so does everyone else]) the
>>>>>> rest of us have to chase after them and that never works.
>>>>> I find nothing fun about yelling at cats, I prefer to make fun of them
>>>>> using clever retorts. For example, I enjoy reminding them how few cats
>>>>> have actually earned their Ph.Ds.
>>>> *Please* visit my home. I have a PhD and three cats control my every move.
>>> If I am ever within a 1,000 miles of your home I promise to visit.
>> I would like to visit, too, but my cats won't let me.
>
> If I had even 2 more sq. ft. in the bathroom I would live with at
> least one more cat.
>
>
2sqft. I refer to him as the furry fuzzy bag of sago.
skyeyes
>If I had even 2 more sq. ft. in the bathroom I would live with at least one more cat.
I have 6 cats. Or more accurately, 6 cats have me. I have a 1600 sq.
foot house, and it's not *nearly* big enough. Please, if you know of a
cat that can be happy in 2 sq. feet, let me know. Maybe it can teach
my crew to use less space... <Wistful smile>
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
nando_r...@yahoo.com
that Darwin's theory is the basis for progress in our modern
civilization.
That is already sufficient for making eugenics the theme of the
textbook, above all other things in the textbook.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
Mitchell Coffey
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Nando,
A month or two you admitted to lying over the years in this newsgroup,
and you said you are sorry. But here you are back to your old ways:
The actual exchange was thus --
I wrote:
" William Jennings Bryan isolated Hunter's four pages of eugenics to
make a general condemnation of evolutionary theory"
You responded:
"Gee, I didn't know Bryan actually isolated the four pages. And with
some lawyer acrobatics you turn this whole thing upside down. The
Darwinist lawyer Darrow tricked W.J. Bryan out of attacking Darwinist
eugenics at the trial, by throwing the trial. You're lying that it is
"just 4 pages" of eugenics, eugenics is the central theme of the
textbook as described in the opening."
So I went and re-read the introduction and first three chapters. I
reported back that there was no mention of eugenics in the book's
"opening," as you claimed there would be.
I note several things regarding your response:
(1) You claim you "could find some quote," but you don't actually
supply such a quote.
(2) You made the claim that I was " lying that it is 'just 4 pages' of
eugenics [in Hunter's textbook], eugenics is the central theme of the
textbook as described in the opening." You made a positive claim, yet
evidently to cover for you inability to produce the quote you claim
exists, by somehow claiming the burden is on me to find it!
(N.B.: I've documented my claims on this issue -- author, book,
publisher, copyright date and page numbers.)
(3) You originally claimed "[E]ugenics is the central theme of the
textbook as described in the opening." Now that I've searched the
opening you've changed your story -- now you imply some vague quote is
located somewhere in the book.
(4) You've changed your claim about the central theme of the book. It
was originally ""[E]ugenics is the central theme of the textbook as
described in the opening." Now it's "some quote which says that
Darwin's theory is the basis for progress in our modern civilization."
(5) After that, you assert that some (evidently nonexistent) quote
about "Darwin's theory) "is already sufficient for making eugenics the
theme of the textbook, above all other things in the textbook." This
is a leap of logic and is counter-factual, and cannot be defended
without misrepresenting the historical record.
(6) Only a quotemining fool thinks that one quote located anywhere in
a textbook, given no special prominence, ignoring what is said in the
rest of the book, can be cited to determine the book's central themes.
Nando, you're back to your old ways, and real bad. Please prove me
wrong by producing from Civic Biology (1914) a quote on eugenics, from
the opening of the textbook, of sufficient importance to demonstrate
that the central theme of that text is eugenics.
Mitchell Coffey
Mitchell Coffey
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I suggest that because you live under what was until recently an
authoritarian autocracy run by (non-Darwinian) mass-murders, it
explains why you would allow the State to oppress its people by
limiting the ability of the accused to defend themselves.
Darrow was only a bastard if one admits that Bryan was a bastard for
similarly preventing Darrow from presenting all the witnesses he
wanted to testify.
Darrow let Bryan have his say at the trial. Neither Bryan nor Darrow
got to say everything they wanted, as you would expect in an American
trial; Darrow for instance was denied the opportunity to make the
greater part of his case when the judge ruled that he couldn't have
witnesses discuss the scientific validity of evolution. Bryan,
however, was allowed to introduce discussion of religious objections
to evolution, as well as crank-sociological objections to evolutions,
and the pseudo-scientific views of an obscure crack-pot college
professor of zero reputation among his peers. This lack of symmetry
wasn't exactly honest and fair.
Darrow preempted both Bryan and his own closing statements when he
decided to ask the jury for a guilty verdict (both the defense and the
prosecution want Scopes found guilty; both side hoped to appeal the
case up to the Supreme Court, if possible.) As I recall, asking for
his client to be convicted automatically, under law, prevented the
closing statements.
In any case, both Darrow and Bryan moved to prevent the other from
saying certain things,or introducing certain witnesses and evidence,
as they thought appropriate; that's what lawyers are supposed to do.
Bryan was not prevented from giving his speech far and wide after the
trial, and he would have done so, had he lived.
Mitchell Coffey
nando_r...@yahoo.com
implies eugenics.
-----
http://www.eugenics-watch.com/roots/chap08.html
"In a front page of the book, facing the title page, there is a mild
but clear piece of propaganda. There are two photographs, a city street
and a country lane. The caption: "Compare the unfavorable artificial
environment of a crowded city with the more favorable environment of
the country."
-----
It might have been in the accompany lab-experiments textbook.
There are many things in the textbook, but tell me then what you
consider the theme of the textbook, if anything, if not eugenics?
You were obviously wrong that the eugenics was based on mendellism,
since Hunter explicitly points to Darwinism as the basis for progress.
"If the stock of domesticated animals can be improved upon, it is not
unfair to ask if the health and vigor of the future generations of men
and women on the earth might not be improved by applying to them the
laws of selection.
You are also wrong in saying the trial wasn't about eugenics. It's
quite clear from the speech that Bryan prepared that he was attacking
eugenics.
"Bryan wrote a summation of the case for the jury (which he did not
give, because both sides agreed to dispense with arguments) which was
later published. In it, he attacked "evolution," saying, "Its only
program for man is scientific breeding, a system under which a few
supposedly superior intellects, self-appointed, would direct the mating
and the movements of the mass of mankind -- an impossible system!""
Civic biology just uses the common eugenicist arguments also found in
Darwin's Descent of Man.
(Civic Biology)
"Parasitism and its Cost to Society. - Hundreds of families such as
those described above exist today, spreading disease, immorality, and
crime to all parts of this country. The cost to society of such
families is very severe. Just as certain animals or plants become
parasitic on other plants or animals, these families have become
parasitic on society. They not only do harm to others by corrupting,
stealing, or spreading disease, but they are actually protected and
cared for by the state out of public money. Largely for them the
poorhouse and the asylum exist. They take from society, but they give
nothing in return. They are true parasites.
"The Remedy. - If such people were lower animals, we would probably
kill them off to prevent them from spreading. Humanity will not allow
this, but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or
other places and in various ways preventing intermarriage and the
possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race. Remedies
of this sort have been tried successfully in Europe and are now meeting
with some success in this country."
"Euthenics. -- Euthenics, the betterment of the environment, is another
important factor in the production of a stronger race. The strongest
physical characteristics may be ruined if the surroundings are
unwholesome and unsanitary. The slums of a city are "at once symptom,
effect and cause of evil." A city which allows foul tenements, narrow
streets, and crowded slums to exist will spend too much for police
protection, for charity, and for hospitals. Every improvement in
surroundings means improvement of the chances of survival of the race.
..
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
nando_r...@yahoo.com
The main thing in the trial was of course when Darrow got to
interrogate Bryan. After that Darrow threw the trial, leaving Bryan no
chance to counter. Bryan explicitly said this was unfair.
Darrow further showed he had no class when he used his final words to
take a jab at creationists. While Bryan used his final words to talk
about how people should get to decide this issue for themselves.
It happens all the time, people try to be clever, rather then try to be
honest. Bryan could have made a good platform to attack the Darwinists,
which considering Bryan's stature and talent for rethoric, could have
meant that eugenics would become politically dead in the USA. That
would have made things much more difficult for Nazi's to legitimize
their own policies with USA eugenic policies.
After having been done in so by Darrow and Mencken, Bryan died a few
days later. Evil won, and still the Darwinists continue to ridicule and
throw bile on Bryan with the usual dishonesty.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
Ron O
John Wilkins wrote:
> I am saddened and offended to have to report to you that there is a scientific
> theory that is opposed to religion, God's word, and theology, as well as being
> offensive morally, philosophically and socially. And yet, scientists will not
> permit the teaching of any other theory in the classrooms, exposing children
> to a pernicious influence that will ultimately cause a number of them to lose
> their faith in God and become morally dissolute.
>
SNIP:
.
>
> One cannot believe this theory and be a good Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox
> believer. Fight it in the schools and in society. Teach the controversy
> wherever you can. There *are* scientific alternatives.
>
> Oppose, as best you can, the theory of atoms.
> --
> John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
> University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
> Servum tui ero, ipse vespera
Joking aside, ID would probably be a better fit for such a theory.
What about Behe's theory that god may be dead? That one should be a
real eye opener for the scammed. It has to be seriously considered and
deserves equal time, right? Behe says it and he is one of the guys you
can really trust in the ID department. Everyone should just be glad
that he is an incompetent screw up.
Ron Okimoto
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> After having been done in so by Darrow and Mencken, Bryan died a few
> days later. Evil won, and still the Darwinists continue to ridicule and
> throw bile on Bryan with the usual dishonesty.
Bryan was a great deal smarter than he is made out to be. He was a two
time presidential candidate (he almost won, one election) and a
secretary of state. In addition he was a learned man. His arguments
against eugenics on moral grounds are sound. His argument against
evolution (the fact) is futile. Life is descended from earlier life
forms by some process. We can argue about the manner of the descent, but
not the fact of the descent.
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nor Syamsu
Change your name. Being named after a goat herder and the founder of an
evil demonic religion is no credit to you.
Bob Kolker
>
nando_r...@yahoo.com
not one I chose. I generally try to use this as my public name.
We should destroy the beliefs of people that are instrumental in
murder. No matter if the beliefs are truthful, or factually accurate.
When we have reasonably ascertained that it is the case the belief is
instrumental in murder they may be destroyed with a soldier's
discipline by an effort of verbal violence.
You however are a wuss, and you have an abiding respect for whatever
facts and theories a person believes, even when such supposed facts and
theories are instrumental in murder.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
Robert J. Kolker
> My name basically means messenger of sunlight, it's a name given to me,
> not one I chose. I generally try to use this as my public name.
>
> We should destroy the beliefs of people that are instrumental in
> murder. No matter if the beliefs are truthful, or factually accurate.
> When we have reasonably ascertained that it is the case the belief is
> instrumental in murder they may be destroyed with a soldier's
> discipline by an effort of verbal violence.
That is why Moslems must be wiped off the face of the earth.
Delenda al Islama est.
We will make a Desolation and call it Victory.
May all the imps of hell suck the juice out of Mohammed's eyeballs.
He was a goatherd, a pederist and he invented one of the most evil
relgions ever.
>
> You however are a wuss, and you have an abiding respect for whatever
> facts and theories a person believes, even when such supposed facts and
> theories are instrumental in murder.
Using a hammer to bludgeon people to death is no reason not to use a
hammer to bang in nails. The misuse of a science is not the science itself.
Bob Kolker
Matt Silberstein
<use...@mcsuk.net> in <f082u19km0uo9qm5s...@4ax.com>
wrote:
Well, I do happen to live in a apartment. I once lived on the top
(5th) floor and one cat was able and eager to jump out the bathroom
window to the roof next door. She would wander for days before
returning home. Once she missed and dropped into the light well. We
ran down to the first floor, found the neighbor at home, and climbed
out the window. There was a formerly white, not grass stained cat look
as abashed as a cat can.
Now I live in 3 of 5. Our building is the smallest in the area, so
roof work is out. And the park is two blocks away. That makes
potential cats potential indoor cats.
Matt Silberstein
<sky...@dakotacom.net> in
<1138833602....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>
>>If I had even 2 more sq. ft. in the bathroom I would live with at least one more cat.
>
>I have 6 cats. Or more accurately, 6 cats have me. I have a 1600 sq.
>foot house, and it's not *nearly* big enough. Please, if you know of a
>cat that can be happy in 2 sq. feet, let me know. Maybe it can teach
>my crew to use less space... <Wistful smile>
No, I simply don't have room for a litter box.
Matt Silberstein
My Cat is, I am happy to say, larger than that.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
murder, you are just basing your opposition to Islam on bigotry, it has
nothing to do with freedom of speech.
We can know very well that the theories and facts as you believe them
are instrumental in murder, as you previously shown by your support for
Chinese eugenics. They are hammers to bludgeon people to death, you
don't use them to bang in nails. Science can get along just fine
without you Bob.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
Ye Old One
Then you should not have cats.
>I once lived on the top
>(5th) floor and one cat was able and eager to jump out the bathroom
>window to the roof next door. She would wander for days before
>returning home. Once she missed and dropped into the light well. We
>ran down to the first floor, found the neighbor at home, and climbed
>out the window. There was a formerly white, not grass stained cat look
>as abashed as a cat can.
>
>Now I live in 3 of 5. Our building is the smallest in the area, so
>roof work is out. And the park is two blocks away. That makes
>potential cats potential indoor cats.
If you cannot provide proper conditions for an animal you shouldn't
have one.
--
Bob.
Robert J. Kolker
Also without you, Mahmoud.
The use to which a science or technology is put, depends on choices. It
is not inherent in the theory. I am sure Einstein did not have atomic
bombs in mind when he formulated the Special Theory of Relativity.
Bob Kolker
Matt Silberstein
<use...@mcsuk.net> in <8hg4u1d45c4j2enmm...@4ax.com>
wrote:
I agree. I keep the one Cat I have, but she is quite capable outside
on her own.
Chris Krolczyk
nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:
> We should destroy the beliefs of people that are instrumental in
> murder.
You read it here first, folks: Nando wants the Wahabi
interpretation of Islam abolished; after all, it was
instrumental in the decision of Al Qaeda to
undertake the 9/11 attacks, and is therefore worthy
of destruction.
-Chris Krolczyk