peptide-RNA world

[Burkhard]

found it on my twitter stream, did not have time to read it too carefully

http://www.deepstuff.org/new-evidence-emerges-on-the-origins-of-life/

the original paper is here
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/05/27/1507569112.abstract

I found the adapter analogy helpful myself

[Kalkidas]

"Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:mkk779$8ms$1...@dont-email.me...

Yet another faith-based article that claims to find "evidence" for
something that is an axiom without which the faith would fall apart.
Reminds me of Josh McDowell.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

[Burkhard]

Kalkidas wrote:
> "Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:mkk779$8ms$1...@dont-email.me...
>> found it on my twitter stream, did not have time to read it too
>> carefully
>>
>> http://www.deepstuff.org/new-evidence-emerges-on-the-origins-of-life/
>>
>> the original paper is here
>> http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/05/27/1507569112.abstract
>>
>> I found the adapter analogy helpful myself
>
> Yet another faith-based article that claims to find "evidence" for
> something that is an axiom without which the faith would fall apart.
> Reminds me of Josh McDowell.
>

so nothing to say really about the actual content, the carefully
constructed experiments, and carefully phrased conclusions and the
exsting new things we learned about chemistry ? No surprise there then.

"It contradicts something that someone told me who got it told from
someone who read it in a book", so it simply must be wrong

[Kalkidas]

"Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message

news:mkka8m$j4f$1...@dont-email.me...

No. It's just that I happen to know for a fact that organic life did not
come about by an impersonal process of material evolution from simple
chemicals acting solely according to mathematical equations. So any
scheme that purports to "explain" how organic life came about in that
way is a fantasy cooked up in the fertile brain of someone with
insufficient education.

[John Harshman]

On 6/2/15, 6:40 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
> "Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:mkka8m$j4f$1...@dont-email.me...
>> Kalkidas wrote:
>>> "Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:mkk779$8ms$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>> found it on my twitter stream, did not have time to read it too
>>>> carefully
>>>>
>>>> http://www.deepstuff.org/new-evidence-emerges-on-the-origins-of-life/
>>>>
>>>> the original paper is here
>>>> http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/05/27/1507569112.abstract
>>>>
>>>> I found the adapter analogy helpful myself
>>>
>>> Yet another faith-based article that claims to find "evidence" for
>>> something that is an axiom without which the faith would fall apart.
>>> Reminds me of Josh McDowell.
>>>
>> so nothing to say really about the actual content, the carefully
>> constructed experiments, and carefully phrased conclusions and the
>> exsting new things we learned about chemistry ? No surprise there
>> then.
>>
>> "It contradicts something that someone told me who got it told from
>> someone who read it in a book", so it simply must be wrong
>
> No. It's just that I happen to know for a fact that organic life did not
> come about by an impersonal process of material evolution from simple
> chemicals acting solely according to mathematical equations.

Now I'm curious. How did you come to this knowledge and what makes it so
certain?

[Kalkidas]

"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:bMqdnfFQaYOGX_DI...@giganews.com...

Unfortunately, curiosity is not enough. A man must change his idea of
himself and stop trying to control everything. In other words, one must
humble himself and surrender to the Lord.

[Jimbo]

Yet you ignore questions about why Krishna should be regarded as The
Lord instead of Yahweh. Apparently it all comes down to your personal
preferences. And you chose to believe your religion's counter-factual
claims about the age of the universe. That's your right, but your own
desire to believe your religion's creation stories doesn't equate to
knowledge about life's origins.

[Burkhard]

Never mind that, I'd like to know why he knows better than the authors
of the Rig Veda:

Who really knows, and who can swear,
How creation came, when or where!
Even gods came after creation’s day,
Who really knows, who can truly say
When and how did creation start?
Did He do it? Or did He not?
Only He, up there, knows, maybe;
Or perhaps, not even He.

[Jimbo]

On Tue, 02 Jun 2015 17:48:08 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

Good question. He is not known for answering good questions.

[Greg Guarino]

So the Bible, *and* the Rig Veda were both written in English? Makes you
think, doesn't it?

[Aerion]

It's Bishop Usher's interpretation of the age of the universe, at least
3000 years after the book of Genesis was written. The Bible itself
says nothing about the age of the universe.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 2 Jun 2015 06:40:17 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub>:

So your mind is made up, and you refuse to be swayed by
facts? Nice of you to confirm that, since it's been obvious
to me, and I believe to just about everyone here, for quite
a while.

Incidentally, you can't possibly "know for a fact" that
abiogenesis was undirected and the result of natural
processes; the most you can know is that your particular
religious texts seem to you to imply otherwise.

And as for your "insufficient education" comment, I can only
be thankful that my IronyMeter was recently upgraded.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Jimbo]

Kalkidas is an adherent of Vedic religion - which he distinguishes
from later forms of Hinduism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_cosmology

The Bible says the world was created in seven days. Neither cosmogony
agrees with evidence-based estimates of the universe's age.

[John Harshman]

Yeah, I pretty much knew going in that you wouldn't answer the question.
But hope springs eternal, and all.

So, in other words, in order to know, you must listen to the voices in
your head?

[Kalkidas]

"Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message

news:mkkmlu$52q$1...@dont-email.me...

While you're at it, explain why *you* (and Max Muller and Wendy Doniger
O'Flaherty and all other preachers who don't practice) think you know
better than them.

> Who really knows, and who can swear,
> How creation came, when or where!
> Even gods came after creation's day,
> Who really knows, who can truly say
> When and how did creation start?
> Did He do it? Or did He not?
> Only He, up there, knows, maybe;
> Or perhaps, not even He.

Joke's on you for thinking these are rhetorical questions.

[Mark Isaak]

In other words, you don't know.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[Kalkidas]

"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message

news:ff-dnWl8vpEnYfDI...@giganews.com...

I answered the question. You just don't want to humble yourself.

> So, in other words, in order to know, you must listen to the voices in
> your head?

[Jimbo]

You haven't answered the question of why anyone should humble
themselves before Krishna rather than some other god. The answer to
that one must be a secret because you have never answered it, or even
responded, though you've been asked a number of times.

*Why* is it a secret, though? Why do you invariably fail to answer
this important question? What if Krishna is the wrong choice? Since
you never supply evidence to support your claims, you should at least
make an attempt to justify your claim that your own religious beliefs
are objectively true while other religious beliefs are wrong.

Wouldn't that be genuinely more humble than your present approach of
simply proclaiming you possess humility and that therefore your
beliefs should be given precedence over every sort of physical
evidence?

[Burkhard]

Wow, that's quite an honour! I'm but a rank amateur in comparison.

>and all other preachers

I never preach. I leave that to preachers, they get paid handsomely for
it. Don;t think Max of Wendy were in the preaching business either

>who don't practice)

You have no idea how much, or little I practice, but then evidence isn;t
high o the list of your belief-forming agents, is it?

>think you know
> better than them.

Well, again unlike you, I (and Muller or Doniger, or pretty much
everybody else) can distinguish between "understanding X" and "studying
X in detail" and "accepting X unthinkingly lock, stock and barrel"

>
>> Who really knows, and who can swear,
>> How creation came, when or where!
>> Even gods came after creation's day,
>> Who really knows, who can truly say
>> When and how did creation start?
>> Did He do it? Or did He not?
>> Only He, up there, knows, maybe;
>> Or perhaps, not even He.
>
> Joke's on you for thinking these are rhetorical questions.

Mhh? That would be your reading, surely? I take it at face value

[Aerion]

But "days" are not defined strictly as 24 hours.

[Kalkidas]

"Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message

news:mkl3eu$r9i$1...@dont-email.me...

Anyone who cites scripture to make an argument about scripture is
preaching. You cited the Rg Veda in to attempt to "prove" that I think I
know more than the author of the Vedas. You clearly meant to imply that
the author of the Veda does not himself know how the universe, or
organic life, was created. This is false, of course. First, The Veda has
no author, but is co-eternal with God, from whom it emanates as sound
vibration, which is passed down orally from Guru to Guru, and much later
recorded in writing. Second, you cited a mistranslation -- which is
close to Doniger but possibly Muller, neither of whom had the faintest
idea of what the purpose of the Veda is. This is to be expected from
scholars who study and preach but don't practice. They are easily
mislead into impersonalist views, which do not require any humility or
surrender, since they assert that ultimately everything, including God
Himself, is an illusion, so there is no one to surrender to.

Those who practice Veda know Veda, and they teach others to know and
practice Veda. You don't practice, and you don't know.

[Kalkidas]

"Jimbo" <xkl...@npt8t.ops> wrote in message
news:st0sma12knobn1hdc...@4ax.com...

Still waiting for you to back up your boasts by conducting the
experiment I gave you for objectively determining the truth or falsity
of a particular religious claim.

[Jimbo]

You can either interpret 'days' literally and come into conflict with
science, or interpret them as longer, and perhaps indeterminate,
periods. The order in which the different 'kinds' appear will still
conflict with the order revealed by the fossil record, though.

[John Harshman]

I take "humble yourself" to mean "believe everything Kalkidas believes",
and then I won't need any evidence for anything. Right?

>> So, in other words, in order to know, you must listen to the voices in
>> your head?

How many voice are there in your head, by the way?

[Jimbo]

I haven't boasted about anything. I've asked you to clarify your
challenge. As I've told you previously, I'm asking you to state *how*
I can perform this experiment. In order to perform it, I must first
determine which god I should dedicate myself to. You choose Krishna
but won't say why that's a better choice than Yahweh, or Allah, or
Thor.

You also haven't said how you gained your claimed knowledge about
abiogenesis by following instructions contained in the Vedas. Are you
too proud to answer these simple and pertinent questions? If so, that
throws some doubt on your claim that your own humility is greater than
that of others who haven't made your own religious choices. So walk
the walk. Don't just talk the talk. If your humility is real, answer
these necessary prelimenary questions.

[Burkhard]

330 million, one would guess.

[Burkhard]

Eh, nonsense? There are lost of reason why one may want to cite
scripture, without endorsing or not endorsing it. For historical
research e.g.

You cited the Rg Veda in to attempt to "prove" that I think I
> know more than the author of the Vedas.

More to show that you can't even on your own terms build a coherent argument

You clearly meant to imply that
> the author of the Veda does not himself know how the universe, or
> organic life, was created.

Yup

This is false, of course. First, The Veda has
> no author, but is co-eternal with God, from whom it emanates as sound
> vibration,

which actually is not logically inconsistent with what I wrote, or what
the text says on the face of it.

which is passed down orally from Guru to Guru, and much later
> recorded in writing.

Or so you say. Not that a Chinese whisper argument is particularly
trust inspiring.

Second, you cited a mistranslation -- which is
> close to Doniger but possibly Muller, neither of whom had the faintest
> idea of what the purpose of the Veda is.

You don't really need that for a good translation. And as matter of
fact, I cited from Varadaraja V. Raman. Now, my Sanskrit is rather
rusty, and we focused of course on classical, not Vedic Sanskrit, but
good enough to do basic plausibility checks (to the extend that that is
possible with Vedic Sanskrit anyway) If you have a better translation,
feel free to post it and give the reasons why you think it's better, I
can then brush up on what I know and see if it holds water.

[jillery]

Obviously it was Revealed to him. Which means it's obviously true,
becuz it's... you know... Revealed.

--
Intelligence is never insulting.

[Jimbo]

On Tue, 02 Jun 2015 18:48:26 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Yep - a revelation! Strange that he won't reveal how we can determine
that his own revelation is valid and everybody else's is fake.

[jillery]

That's obvious too. Kalkidas is the center of the Universe. We are
privileged that he lowers himself to share with us.

[RonO]

On 6/2/2015 7:24 AM, Burkhard wrote:
> found it on my twitter stream, did not have time to read it too carefully
>
> http://www.deepstuff.org/new-evidence-emerges-on-the-origins-of-life/
>
> the original paper is here
> http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/05/27/1507569112.abstract
>
> I found the adapter analogy helpful myself
>

These guys are proposing that the first translated peptides did not fold
into unique shapes because the initial properties of the first tRNA
synthases (the enzymes that put the amino acid onto the tRNA) worked by
size and not things like polarity. They will have to figure out a
transition to our current genetic code where polarity obviously matters.

This also means that they are positing that the initial system was not
very efficient in producing the same protein sequence, and that the same
piece of mRNA could code for a number of protein sequences. My guess is
one of the first ribozymes besides the translation (RNA to protein)
machinery was a protease that degraded all the dead weight protein
products produced. Such a ribozyme no longer exists to my knowledge.
That job has been taken over by peptide proteases.

Ron Okimoto

[Kalkidas]

"Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message

news:mkla39$o63$1...@dont-email.me...

Certainly. Here is a much better translation:

No body covers (you), but (you have) always existed, just as dust that
exists in the air.
Who can capture (you), where, whose arrows can make (you) bow to, who
exists that's so inexplicable, mysterious.
No death exists (for you), (you are) immortal, therefore night and day
have no meaning (for you).
(People) light fire religiously to (worship) you, each and everyone,
those that are rich, as also those that are not.
You exist where nothing exists, (you are) the highest of high,
invisible, infinite, most ancient of all.
You are hidden where nothing can be concealed, no heat exists that can
diminish your power, nothing can be produced against your wishes.
(Our) wishes we forward (to you), bless the mankind with continued
existence, o' foremost one that exists.
(You are) the true friend that all pray for, heartily accept this poet's
prayer.
With your might that spreads like rays, issue wealth, unlimited, to last
forever.
Produce wealth and distribute through your powers, for our lasting
pleasure, that donation may last forever.
Who for sure knows what in this world, about which we speak, how was it
produced, when was it created?
Apart from the lord, the master of this creation, who else can know that
what existed earlier?
It is the maker of the creation, whose blessings decide what is to be
preserved, and what is not to be.
As the chief of the highest heaven, please make known to us, that what
is yet unknown.

You can find the elaborate explanation of this translation, with
original sanskrit (transliteration) and word-for-word synonyms at

https://www.academia.edu/8501007/Nasadiya_Sukta_-_Explanation_to_the_Translation_of_Hymn_10.129_of_Rig_veda

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.

https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 02 Jun 2015 10:51:13 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

Oops: "...was NOT undirected...". Mea culpa.

[Burkhard]

you really want to go with a translation that has deva as "lord", and
not as plural? Do you want to reconsider?

[Kalkidas]

"Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message

news:mknok1$29i$1...@dont-email.me...

It's a far better translation than any other I've seen. For one thing,
it's emphatically personalistic, which is the actual position of the
Veda. The hymn is a prayer to the personal Lord.

And even if you take "deva" with long-a as plural -- although sandhi
would seem to allow for short a as well, since the one occurence of
"deva" is followed by "asya", the sandhi would be long-a in any case
(although the two words are separated in the text, they need not be. It
could be rendered "devasya" rather than "deva asya")-- the hymn still
says that the deva(s), i.e. God or the gods, know about creation. So,
contrary to your implication, the hymn does *not* say that no one knows
how the universe and the organisms came to be.

Indeed, the Purusha Sukta from the same Rg Veda is quite detailed in its
description of creation. And then there are the upanishads, which are
also part of the Veda. And there is the "Fifth Veda", Itihasa and
Purana, which are even more detailed.

There really is no reason at all to accuse the Vedas of ignorance about
creation. Unless you are a dry speculative scholar analyzing the Veda
with an atheistic methodology, as if it were an isolated dead specimen,
thinking yourself superior in every way to the "benighted savages who
produced this work of primitive superstition". Like Muller, Whitney and
all the rest of the cultural chauvinists of the last centuries.

[Burkhard]

so with other words you think its the better one because you like it
better.

which is the actual position of the
> Veda. The hymn is a prayer to the personal Lord.
>
> And even if you take "deva" with long-a as plural -- although sandhi
> would seem to allow for short a as well, since the one occurence of
> "deva" is followed by "asya", the sandhi would be long-a in any case
> (although the two words are separated in the text, they need not be. It
> could be rendered "devasya" rather than "deva asya")-- the hymn still
> says that the deva(s), i.e. God or the gods, know about creation. So,
> contrary to your implication, the hymn does *not* say that no one knows
> how the universe and the organisms came to be.

Read on to the next sentence.

>
> Indeed, the Purusha Sukta from the same Rg Veda is quite detailed in its
> description of creation. And then there are the upanishads, which are
> also part of the Veda. And there is the "Fifth Veda", Itihasa and
> Purana, which are even more detailed.
>
> There really is no reason at all to accuse the Vedas of ignorance about
> creation. Unless you are a dry speculative scholar analyzing the Veda
> with an atheistic methodology,

you mean like, valuing actual evidence?

as if it were an isolated dead specimen,
> thinking yourself superior in every way to the "benighted savages who
> produced this work of primitive superstition".

Quite on the contrary, appreciating their sound and humble skepticism
and their realization of the limits of our knowledge. You could learn a
LOT from them

[John Harshman]

On 6/3/15, 2:39 PM, Kalkidas wrote:

> There really is no reason at all to accuse the Vedas of ignorance about
> creation. Unless you are a dry speculative scholar analyzing the Veda
> with an atheistic methodology, as if it were an isolated dead specimen,
> thinking yourself superior in every way to the "benighted savages who
> produced this work of primitive superstition". Like Muller, Whitney and
> all the rest of the cultural chauvinists of the last centuries.

Would you grant the same courtesy to the bible, the koran, and the eddas?

[Kalkidas]

"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message

news:Xc2dnTbJ3-Me4fLI...@giganews.com...

Of course I grant them the same courtesy, but not necessarily the same
importance. Dean Koontz is not William Shakespeare.

[John Harshman]

On 6/3/15, 3:40 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
> "John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:Xc2dnTbJ3-Me4fLI...@giganews.com...
>> On 6/3/15, 2:39 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>
>>> There really is no reason at all to accuse the Vedas of ignorance
>>> about
>>> creation. Unless you are a dry speculative scholar analyzing the Veda
>>> with an atheistic methodology, as if it were an isolated dead
>>> specimen,
>>> thinking yourself superior in every way to the "benighted savages who
>>> produced this work of primitive superstition". Like Muller, Whitney
>>> and
>>> all the rest of the cultural chauvinists of the last centuries.
>>
>> Would you grant the same courtesy to the bible, the koran, and the
>> eddas?
>
> Of course I grant them the same courtesy, but not necessarily the same
> importance. Dean Koontz is not William Shakespeare.

By what criteria do you judge the Vedas to be Shakespeare and the rest
to be Koontz? And if we are to credit all their ideas about the origin
and history of the world, how do we decide that some are correct and
others incorrect?

[Kalkidas]

"Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message

news:mkntjf$oe1$1...@dont-email.me...

I learned to LOL at them, that's for sure. Since you're on a witch-hunt
for people who think they know more than the Vedas, you need look no
further than the "Indologists".

[Kalkidas]

"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message

news:sLudnR7SBYMWGfLI...@giganews.com...

There are many ways to evaluate ancient literary collections. Start with
sheer volume of writings. The Vedic literature has no rivals there. Look
at the sophistication of the philosophies. Again, the Vedic literature
is alone. The others have little or no philosophical sense. The
Christians and Muslims had to borrow philosophy from Aristotle and
Plato. And the Greeks and European pagans seem themselves to be more or
less a degraded form of the Vedic tradition. Look at the continuity of
the civilization that produced them. The civilization of India is the
longest-lived continuous civilization of which we have knowledge. At
least it is comparable to the antiquity of Chinese civilization.

For these and other reasons, I see nothing greater than Veda coming from
antiquity.

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/2/15 9:48 AM, Burkhard wrote:
> Jimbo wrote:

>> On Tue, 2 Jun 2015 08:52:25 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message

> Who really knows, and who can swear,
> How creation came, when or where!
> Even gods came after creation’s day,
> Who really knows, who can truly say
> When and how did creation start?
> Did He do it? Or did He not?
> Only He, up there, knows, maybe;
> Or perhaps, not even He.

Kalkidas knows more than everyone else because he is humble. He said so
himself.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[John Harshman]

Sorry, but Koontz also has more sheer volume than Shakespeare. By your
own criteria that's a loser.

> Look
> at the sophistication of the philosophies. Again, the Vedic literature
> is alone.

Only according to fans of the Vedas. Followers of other religions disagree.

> The others have little or no philosophical sense. The
> Christians and Muslims had to borrow philosophy from Aristotle and
> Plato. And the Greeks and European pagans seem themselves to be more or
> less a degraded form of the Vedic tradition.

OK, now that's just weird Hindu nationalism.

> Look at the continuity of
> the civilization that produced them. The civilization of India is the
> longest-lived continuous civilization of which we have knowledge. At
> least it is comparable to the antiquity of Chinese civilization.

In what way is that an argument for quality?

> For these and other reasons, I see nothing greater than Veda coming from
> antiquity.

So, the same kind of special pleading you see from supporters of
everything else. How is any of this an argument against their ignorance
of creation?

[Kalkidas]

"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message

news:bIidnXH_Md7MCvLI...@giganews.com...

Everything I stated is true. Your ignorance of philosophy and
comparative religion should make you embarrassed to bluster like this.
But then, you also lack humility.

Later.

[Kalkidas]

"Mark Isaak" <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote in message
news:mko4du$c3c$2...@dont-email.me...

Well I know more than you, because you're not humble. That's for sure.

[Jimbo]

Your original claim in this thread was that you 'know for a fact that

organic life did not come about by an impersonal process of material
evolution from simple chemicals acting solely according to

mathematical equations.' Upon being asked how you know this, you
finally replied that it's because you believe that the Vedas represent
a large body of ancient religious literature of higher philosophical
quality than other ancient religious literature. Therefore, according
to you, the vedic account of creation must be correct.

Adherents of other religions will claim that their own scriptures are
of highest philosophical quality and, even more importantly,
constitute revealed truth. The vedic stories might seem compelling to
you, but others would see them as degraded in comparison to their own
doctrines.

But there's an issue that none of you address. Why should *any*
creation story be regarded as objectively true? None of these stories
account for any of the wide variety of evidence that modern science,
including abiogenetic research and evolutionary theory explain. None
of them have the explanatory power of modern scientific theories. So
why shouldn't they all be regarded merely as stories told by people
who had no real understanding of physical systems and processes?

You claim to 'know for a fact' that your god or gods were involved in
the creation of the universe, but your beliefs provide no tools for
improving our understanding of physical systems. You have completely
failed to demonstrate that your own faith-based opinions are better
than any others. They may or may not bring you some sort of spiritual
insight, but they plainly do not give you any insight into processes
within the physical universe.

[jillery]

On Wed, 3 Jun 2015 19:06:06 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

>Well I know more than you, because you're not humble. That's for sure.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dg8NPPEms54>

And for those afraid of Youtube:

<http://www.cowboylyrics.com/lyrics/davis-mac/its-hard-to-be-humble-27748.html>

[Burkhard]

In the "I shall be the most humble person in the world. No one will
match Hercule Poirot for his humbility."
category

>> X knows more than everyone else because he is humble. He said

[Burkhard]

Funny that , since the referent of my "them" was the Vedas

[John Harshman]

It's an odd sort of humility you display, one that looks more like smug
satisfaction in your own superior understanding.

[Will in New Haven]

On Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 11:52:58 AM UTC-4, Kalkidas wrote:
> "John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message

Or, as in your case, become a complete fraud.

--
cordially as always
Will in New Haven

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 03 Jun 2015 17:09:52 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net>:

It's not, except as in the rare instance of "quantity has a
quality all its own", which is generally restricted to
combat operations. It also requires, as does China, a
special definition of "continuous civilization", one which
allows multiple sequential cultures to count as
"continuous". IIRC the longest single period (after the
Aryan/Vedic invasions which destroyed the long-lived Indus
Valley Civilization) in which a single nation or empire held
sway over a large part of India was less than 300 years (the
Maurya Empire was one such). Using that measure, the
"continuous civilization" of Mesoamerica lasted at least as
long, as did those of the Middle East and Egypt. And yes,
China.

There's some general info on the history of India here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_India

>> For these and other reasons, I see nothing greater than Veda coming from
>> antiquity.

>So, the same kind of special pleading you see from supporters of
>everything else. How is any of this an argument against their ignorance
>of creation?

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 04 Jun 2015 08:45:36 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:

But Hercule had an advantage over Kalki; he actually *had*
little gray cells, and used them.

[Kalkidas]

"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message

news:ovSdnSTVp4tR9-3I...@giganews.com...

Funny how your "criticisms" are all personal. You have nothing to say
about the Veda.

[Jimbo]

So you don't think it's arrogant to claim that a lack of humility is
the only thing preventing everyone from sharing your own religious
beliefs? If so, why isn't the Southern Baptist preacher correct in
claiming that it's only a lack of humility (and depravity) that
prevents everyone from sharing *his* own religious beliefs?

By the way, Burkhard has attempted to discuss a passage from the Rig
Veda with you, and you've ignored my own attempts to engage you in a
discussion of the vedic creation story, so you have no reason to
complain that no one has anything to say about the Veda.

[John Harshman]

No, you just ignore the ones that aren't personal. Such as the fact that
you gave quantity as a criterion for quality, yet ignored when I pointed
out a problem with that. And age. And claims of sophistication. And
bizarre pretend history.

Still, you're the one who is so inordinately proud of your humility, so
that ought to be fair game too.

[John Harshman]

What continuous civilization is he claiming? I would have thought the
"Aryan" one, the one associated with the Vedas and Sanskrit and related
languages. I'd say that the empires of Ashok and the Mughals would
definitely count there, despite the fact that the ruling elites had a
different religion. Clearly the Harappan civilization wouldn't count.
Not sure what to do with the Dravidians.

Anyway, that would be in the neighborhood of 4000 years ago. I really
don't see anything else with that degree of continuity other than China.
And I see similar continuity there. It isn't a question of states or
empires. Even under Mongol or Manchu rule, or as multiple states, it was
still a Han society.

[Kalkidas]

"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message

news:RvidnUoSR8wRXO3I...@giganews.com...

[John Harshman]

Here's another personal criticism: you show no ability to read, learn,
or respond to arguments.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 04 Jun 2015 14:33:03 -0700, the following appeared

That would also be my guess, but he's rather reticent
regarding specifics. His statement, "The civilization of

India is the longest-lived continuous civilization of which

we have knowledge", allows of multiple interpretations of
both "continuous" and "civilization" (and for that matter,
"India"; was the Buddhist Kushan Empire "Indian"? How about
the Ephthalite Empire, which conquered at least part of the
Gupta Empire?). What we call "India" has a long and tangled
history, one far from monolithic *or* continuous in
geographical area, population, culture or religion.

> I'd say that the empires of Ashok and the Mughals would
>definitely count there, despite the fact that the ruling elites had a
>different religion. Clearly the Harappan civilization wouldn't count.
>Not sure what to do with the Dravidians.

IIRC the Harappa/Mohenjo-Daro culture (the Indus Valley
Civilization) *was* Dravidian. But regardless, it wasn't
Vedic and therefore can't be included in his duration
reference.

>Anyway, that would be in the neighborhood of 4000 years ago.

I thought it was even longer; a brain fart had the fall of
the Indus Valley Civilization at 3500BCE rather than
1900BCE, but you are correct. Damn, it's a bitch to get old
and forgetful...

> I really
>don't see anything else with that degree of continuity other than China.

How about Egypt? Its continuity was at least as long as that
of Vedic culture if one allows for multiple sequential
cultures in the same geographical area with very similar
populations. Even Iraq should qualify, having the oldest
city in existence.

>And I see similar continuity there. It isn't a question of states or
>empires. Even under Mongol or Manchu rule, or as multiple states, it was
>still a Han society.

OK, I guess it depends on what one considers to be a
"continuous civilization". I could make a case for 12,000BCE
for the cultures in the Americas, but I don't consider them
to be "continuous" in the usual sense.

>> There's some general info on the history of India here:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_India
>>
>>>> For these and other reasons, I see nothing greater than Veda coming from
>>>> antiquity.
>>
>>> So, the same kind of special pleading you see from supporters of
>>> everything else. How is any of this an argument against their ignorance
>>> of creation?

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 04 Jun 2015 15:02:54 -0700, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net>:

Any bets whether he thinks that's an ad hominem?

[John Harshman]

Maybe the copts. But a complete change of religion (twice) and language
(only once) could be used as an argument against that continuous
culture. Whereas in the case of India, only a numerically inferior elite
changed religion and the language stayed more or less the same.

>> And I see similar continuity there. It isn't a question of states or
>> empires. Even under Mongol or Manchu rule, or as multiple states, it was
>> still a Han society.
>
> OK, I guess it depends on what one considers to be a
> "continuous civilization". I could make a case for 12,000BCE
> for the cultures in the Americas, but I don't consider them
> to be "continuous" in the usual sense.

I doubt you could make a good case, but it doesn't really matter, as the
main point is that age and continuity are not a good criterion for the
superiority or validity of the Vedas.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 15:34:46 -0700, the following appeared

Point, but given the "softness" of the entire concept
there's no way to be sure what he meant.

>>> And I see similar continuity there. It isn't a question of states or
>>> empires. Even under Mongol or Manchu rule, or as multiple states, it was
>>> still a Han society.
>>
>> OK, I guess it depends on what one considers to be a
>> "continuous civilization". I could make a case for 12,000BCE
>> for the cultures in the Americas, but I don't consider them
>> to be "continuous" in the usual sense.
>
>I doubt you could make a good case, but it doesn't really matter, as the
>main point is that age and continuity are not a good criterion for the
>superiority or validity of the Vedas.

Agreed, of course; it's nearly a vacuous as Ray's claim
regarding the number of Christians being evidence of the
correctness of his beliefs (not quite as vacuous, though,
since Ray rules out most Christians as actually being
Christian because they accept things Ray forbids his deity
to do).

Reality doesn't depend on counting noses.