The sudden surge in racist crap....
Wraith
stupid posts? I know there have always been trolls, but in the past few
weeks, it seems to have gotten nuts. Even as I write this, I feel stupid for
letting it get me worked up, but I just don't get this. See, as anyone who
reads my posts, more then anything else I seek to understand the human mind,
peoples philosophies on things, what is going through peoples minds as they
are doing things, what makes them do what they do, stuff like that. I can't
quite fathom the point of these points.
I question whether they are sincere or not. I mean, first of all, can
ANYONE *HONESTLY* be this all-fire moronic? Second they never respond to
responses to their asinine scribblings. Third, they use white-hood accounts
(look! look! I just coined a new phrase! White Hood Account: an anonymous
e-mail/Usenet account used to spread racist propaganda without being
recognized, named for the hoods worn by the Klan), and it seems to me that
if you actually BELIEVED this garbage, and thought for a MOMENT that anyone
ELSE would agree, that you would want to take credit for your post.
If they AREN'T sincere, then what's the point of them posting it at all?
Why waste that much time and thought writing such a long, drawn out
troll-post? Why not just go with the pre-requisite "Goths are pusses who
wear makeup" crap? Do they really have so much time on their hands that they
can just waste it on something like THIS (and I'm asking that seriously, I'm
trying to understand this)? Why seek to make people angry and invoke angry
responses? Why?
If they ARE sincere, I don't get why they post HERE. The racism is one
thing, that's so horribly moronic I don't think I'll ever fully grasp it, no
matter how hard I try (I try to understand viewpoints like this, because I
believe the best way to change a persons view of things is to first fully
understand it. Long story, but it makes sense, trust me). But, why here? Do
they think that Goths are some sort of white-supremacist group? And if so,
why? Where would they get that kind of idea? I'm half black and half white,
and I look like I'm either Latin or Arabic (I've been mistaken for at least
a dozen nationalities) and I've never met a Goth who treated me any
differently because of it.
Yargh, I dunno. I don't even read all of these posts, and I don't get
mad because of WHAT they say, I'm just frustrated that someone would WANT to
say such things. I'm frustrated because it's something I don't understand,
and unlike with a rational human being, I can't just ask, so I can only
speculate, and so far I'm coming up blank. I hate not being able to figure
people out.
Thoughts? Anyone?
--
-Wraith
-Fear not death, but a life poorly lived
-Carpe nocturne
-http://www.geocities.com/wraithtdk/index.htm
Morgoth's Cat
scribed:
> What's the deal lately with the sudden surge in these horrifically
>stupid posts? I know there have always been trolls, but in the past few
>weeks, it seems to have gotten nuts. Even as I write this, I feel stupid for
>letting it get me worked up, but I just don't get this. See, as anyone who
>reads my posts, more then anything else I seek to understand the human mind,
>peoples philosophies on things, what is going through peoples minds as they
>are doing things, what makes them do what they do, stuff like that. I can't
>quite fathom the point of these points.
>
> I question whether they are sincere or not. I mean, first of all, can
>ANYONE *HONESTLY* be this all-fire moronic?
Yes. Look at the numbers of creationists in the US for example, who
actually believe that the Earth and Universe is no older than 6,000
years old, for example.
>Second they never respond to
>responses to their asinine scribblings.
Of course they don't. They're cowards.
> Third, they use white-hood accounts
>(look! look! I just coined a new phrase! White Hood Account: an anonymous
>e-mail/Usenet account used to spread racist propaganda without being
>recognized, named for the hoods worn by the Klan), and it seems to me that
>if you actually BELIEVED this garbage, and thought for a MOMENT that anyone
>ELSE would agree, that you would want to take credit for your post.
>
But logic is a scarce commodity in their mind.
> If they AREN'T sincere, then what's the point of them posting it at all?
>Why waste that much time and thought writing such a long, drawn out
>troll-post?
Because frankly, they're immature fuckwits. Same sort of fuckwits who
go around indulging in mindless vandalism for the "sheer hell of it".
Same sort of fuckwits who randomly knife people in nightclubs. Total
Scum frankly. [1]
>Why not just go with the pre-requisite "Goths are pusses who
>wear makeup" crap?
<HOMER>
Hmmm........pussiess......
</HOMER>
>?Do they really have so much time on their hands that they
>can just waste it on something like THIS (and I'm asking that seriously, I'm
>trying to understand this)?
Yes they do. Most of them are probably still living at home with their
parents and are probably social incompetants scared of women. (oops -
I'm generalising a bit here, but you get the idea).
>Why seek to make people angry and invoke angry
>responses? Why?
>
Because in their twisted mindset, that's a victory for them [2]
> If they ARE sincere, I don't get why they post HERE.
Because thrive on the resulting attention. It is "spreading-the-word".
> The racism is one
>thing, that's so horribly moronic I don't think I'll ever fully grasp it, no
>matter how hard I try (I try to understand viewpoints like this, because I
>believe the best way to change a persons view of things is to first fully
>understand it. Long story, but it makes sense, trust me).
Some people frankly will not, no matter how much you try, accept
reality. They have so much invested in their own crazy little
worldview that they're afraid that if they allow one little chick of
any opposing argument to penetrate it then the whole thing will come
crashing down and they'll be, so they think, left with nothing.
I've seen it many times with creationists. If Hovind or Morris or Gish
[3] told them that the sky was plaid, they'd be here arguing that the
sky was indeed plaid. On talk.origins we constantly get creationists
arguing the equivalent of the sky is plaid.
> But, why here? Do
>they think that Goths are some sort of white-supremacist group?
I thought that was Screwdriver... ;-)
> And if so,
>why? Where would they get that kind of idea? I'm half black and half white,
>and I look like I'm either Latin or Arabic (I've been mistaken for at least
>a dozen nationalities) and I've never met a Goth who treated me any
>differently because of it.
>
The stereotypical image of a goth amongst the "outside word" is still,
I'm sorry to say, a WASP male or female.
> Yargh, I dunno. I don't even read all of these posts, and I don't get
>mad because of WHAT they say, I'm just frustrated that someone would WANT to
>say such things.
They do have freedom of speech (unfortunately I think sometimes, but
you cannot deny someone the chance to say something no matter how
stupid it is or how much you disagree with it).
> I'm frustrated because it's something I don't understand,
>and unlike with a rational human being, I can't just ask, so I can only
>speculate, and so far I'm coming up blank. I hate not being able to figure
>people out.
>
>Thoughts? Anyone?
>
To sum up, they're fuckwits.
Best Regards,
Dave
[1] You may have noticed that I'm angry. That's because I on the right
of the political spectrum and I get fed up of these bastards claiming
to be political "blood-brothers".
[2] I know, forabout six months of my life when I was 16 I held
similar views. Fortunately sense prevailed. An episode of shame which
I don't remember with any good memories at all.
[3] Big-shot US creationists. All of whom are lying scum. One of their
websites is http://www.drdino.com. Go to that, have a laugh at their
drivel and then a cry over how many people believe their crap, and
then go to http://www.talkorigins.org, which will cheer you up no end.
--
**************************************************************
* Supernovae, Supernova Remnants and Young-Earth Creationism *
* http://www.valinor.freeserve.co.uk/supernova.html *
**************************************************************
Wraith
news:3b2944de...@news.freeserve.net...
> actually believe that the Earth and Universe is no older than 6,000
> years old, for example.
I'm not going to get into a creationism vs. whatever debate over Usenet
(been there, it's a nightmare), but the idea creationist think the Earth and
the Universe is no older then 6,000 years ago is largely a myth. I'm not
sure exactly WHERE it came from, but you should really give creationists a
bit more credit.
> Because frankly, they're immature fuckwits. Same sort of fuckwits who
> go around indulging in mindless vandalism for the "sheer hell of it".
> Same sort of fuckwits who randomly knife people in nightclubs. Total
> Scum frankly. [1]
Yea, I'd pretty much figure that, but I try to decipher the minds of scum,
too. Understanding the enemy is an advantage not to be underestimated.
>
> I've seen it many times with creationists. If Hovind or Morris or Gish
> [3] told them that the sky was plaid, they'd be here arguing that the
> sky was indeed plaid. On talk.origins we constantly get creationists
> arguing the equivalent of the sky is plaid.
First off, who's Morris and Gish? Second, back off creationists. I guarntee
you, I've faced evolutionist who are every bit as stupid and illogical ("the
THEORY of evolution is a 100% proven fact!" wha? er, then why did you just
call it a theory?).
A lot of time it's just easier to catch up creationists, because first
of all, a lot of them aren't used to debating the issue, and thus haven't
really been confronted with the tough questions about it. That's not to say
their aren't answers, it's simply that THEY don't know of them. Same way
people get brain-washed, or lulled into cults, the brain-washer/cultists
rely on things that sound so logical when you haven't really had time to
think about it. It's not that their aren't answers to their little rants,
it's just that the victim doesn't quite know what it is.
Second, in the end, a lot of it does come down to simply having faith.
Bottom line, I guarntee there are plenty of creationists that are every
bit as intelligent and logical as any evolutionist. I think you would do
well to learn some respect.
>
> > Yargh, I dunno. I don't even read all of these posts, and I don't get
> >mad because of WHAT they say, I'm just frustrated that someone would WANT
to
> >say such things.
>
> They do have freedom of speech (unfortunately I think sometimes, but
> you cannot deny someone the chance to say something no matter how
> stupid it is or how much you disagree with it).
I hear that argument a lot, and it's always bugged me. See, what people fail
to remember is that just because there isn't a LAW against something (and
I'd never say there SHOULD be a law against free speech, either), doesn't
give you the right to do it. I have the legal right to treat women like
crap, cheat, lie, play with peoples emotions, and generally make the world
suck ass (in other words, act like my ex's current boyfriend, but I
digress). Just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD.
>
> [1] You may have noticed that I'm angry. That's because I on the right
> of the political spectrum and I get fed up of these bastards claiming
> to be political "blood-brothers".
You mean like when someone commits purgery, and then a bunch of important
people from the liers party protest and say he did nothing wrong, mostly
because to say otherwise would be like sayin the other guys were right? Yea,
I hate that, too.
>
> [2] I know, forabout six months of my life when I was 16 I held
> similar views. Fortunately sense prevailed. An episode of shame which
> I don't remember with any good memories at all.
Or perhaps you simply did not seek more logic/evidence-intesive writings on
creationism (of which their are plenty).
>
> [3] Big-shot US creationists. All of whom are lying scum. One of their
> websites is http://www.drdino.com. Go to that, have a laugh at their
> drivel and then a cry over how many people believe their crap, and
> then go to http://www.talkorigins.org, which will cheer you up no end.
Tell you what, I would be more then happy to discuss this with you over
e-mail, provided you can do so calmly without resorting to petty
name-calling or personal attacks (standard debate rule: attack the point,
not the person trying to make it). I like to debate. I hate to argue. Say
what you want about creationists, as many times as I've debated the topic
(and I can't COUNT how many times I have), the first person to start getting
all angry and chanting "stupid fuckwit", without saying anything in response
to the actual POINT (which pretty much derales an INTELIGENT debate) has
always been the evolutionist. At least that's my experience.
Nick/Yaruar
> "Morgoth's Cat" <mango...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
> news:3b2944de...@news.freeserve.net...
> > On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 22:14:15 GMT, "Wraith" <wrai...@nospam.home.com>
> > scribed:
> >
> > Yes. Look at the numbers of creationists in the US for example, who
> > actually believe that the Earth and Universe is no older than 6,000
> > years old, for example.
>
> I'm not going to get into a creationism vs. whatever debate over Usenet
> (been there, it's a nightmare), but the idea creationist think the Earth and
> the Universe is no older then 6,000 years ago is largely a myth. I'm not
> sure exactly WHERE it came from, but you should really give creationists a
> bit more credit.
It's literal biblical creationism. The timelines int he bible can
actually be traced by insanely anal individuals ;-)
Nick/Yaruar
Morgoth's Cat
scribed:
>"Morgoth's Cat" <mango...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
>news:3b2944de...@news.freeserve.net...
>> On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 22:14:15 GMT, "Wraith" <wrai...@nospam.home.com>
>> scribed:
>>
>> Yes. Look at the numbers of creationists in the US for example, who
>> actually believe that the Earth and Universe is no older than 6,000
>> years old, for example.
>
>I'm not going to get into a creationism vs. whatever debate over Usenet
>(been there, it's a nightmare), but the idea creationist think the Earth and
>the Universe is no older then 6,000 years ago is largely a myth. I'm not
>sure exactly WHERE it came from, but you should really give creationists a
>bit more credit.
Were that it was a myth. But unfortunately, it's not. They *do* think
the Earth is 6,000 years old [1]. They *do* think that it was created
in six days around 4,000 BC. See for example, http://www.icr.org or
http://www.aig.org
Something like 100 *million* Americans think that "God created man
pretty much in his present form at one time during the last ten
thousand years" according to a 1991 Opinion Poll [2]
>
>> Because frankly, they're immature fuckwits. Same sort of fuckwits who
>> go around indulging in mindless vandalism for the "sheer hell of it".
>> Same sort of fuckwits who randomly knife people in nightclubs. Total
>> Scum frankly. [1]
>
>Yea, I'd pretty much figure that, but I try to decipher the minds of scum,
>too. Understanding the enemy is an advantage not to be underestimated.
>>
>> I've seen it many times with creationists. If Hovind or Morris or Gish
>> [3] told them that the sky was plaid, they'd be here arguing that the
>> sky was indeed plaid. On talk.origins we constantly get creationists
>> arguing the equivalent of the sky is plaid.
>
>First off, who's Morris and Gish? Second, back off creationists. I guarntee
>you, I've faced evolutionist who are every bit as stupid and illogical ("the
>THEORY of evolution is a 100% proven fact!" wha? er, then why did you just
>call it a theory?).
First off all evolution is a *fact*. It is also a *theory*.
But what is a theory. The common definition of a theory is a guess or
hypthoesis, like you have given above. Which is erroneous.
But in scientific terms, a theory is a structure which explain facts.
Like the theory of gravity. Or the theory of general relativity. Do
you go around for example, complaining about gravity being "only a
theory"?
From: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
"Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond
reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution.
Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the
earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or
are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain
bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about
certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to
evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we
are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary
mechanisms."
- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the
Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol.35 (March 1973)
reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed.,
ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983
"It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those
who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly
that evolution is a FACT, not theory, and that what is at issue within
biology are questions of details of the process and the relative
importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a FACT that the
earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a
FACT that cellular life has been around for at least half of that
period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million
years old. It is a FACT that major life forms now on earth were not at
all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250
million years ago. It is a FACT that major life forms of the past are
no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and
there are none now. It is a FACT that all living forms come from
previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from
ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and
humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of
the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can
deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around
the sun."
- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth"
Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism,
op cit.
> A lot of time it's just easier to catch up creationists, because first
>of all, a lot of them aren't used to debating the issue, and thus haven't
>really been confronted with the tough questions about it. That's not to say
>their aren't answers, it's simply that THEY don't know of them. Same way
>people get brain-washed, or lulled into cults, the brain-washer/cultists
>rely on things that sound so logical when you haven't really had time to
>think about it. It's not that their aren't answers to their little rants,
>it's just that the victim doesn't quite know what it is.
Yet often a lot of this ignorance by creationists (just like racists)
is willful. I'm reminded of a quote from Oliver Wendell Homes Sr - "A
bigot is like the pupil of the eye - the more light is exposed to it
the narrower it gets".
> Second, in the end, a lot of it does come down to simply having faith.
>
There'es nothing faith based in evolution. Creationism, as the US
courts have ruled time and time again, is nothing but religion. See
for example, the following court decisions:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/epperson-v-arkansas.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/peloza.html
> Bottom line, I guarntee there are plenty of creationists that are every
>bit as intelligent and logical as any evolutionist.
Two points:
(1) How can they be, when the whole basis of creationism is ignorance
and falsehoods. To quote Isaac Asimov:
"Tens of millions of Americans, who neither know nor understand the
actual arguments for - or even against - evolution, march in the army
of the night with their Bibles held high. And they are a strong and
frightening force, impervious to, and immunised against, the feeble
lance of mere reason".
(2) Two. Let me replace the word "creationist" with the word "racist"
in the sentence above. Thus: "I guarantee there are plenty of racists
that are every bit as intelligent and logical as any non-racist." And
that statement is just as erroneous as yours I'm afraid.
> I think you would do
>well to learn some respect.
>>
I will respect creationists when they stop trying to insert their
*religion* into classrooms as science.
>> > Yargh, I dunno. I don't even read all of these posts, and I don't get
>> >mad because of WHAT they say, I'm just frustrated that someone would WANT
>to
>> >say such things.
>>
>> They do have freedom of speech (unfortunately I think sometimes, but
>> you cannot deny someone the chance to say something no matter how
>> stupid it is or how much you disagree with it).
>
>I hear that argument a lot, and it's always bugged me. See, what people fail
>to remember is that just because there isn't a LAW against something (and
>I'd never say there SHOULD be a law against free speech, either), doesn't
>give you the right to do it. I have the legal right to treat women like
>crap, cheat, lie, play with peoples emotions, and generally make the world
>suck ass (in other words, act like my ex's current boyfriend, but I
>digress). Just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD.
But in these cases, these actions will come back to you (or me or
whoever) at some point (in this life - although I believe in
reincarnation, I'm not some sort of karma whore). But you per se have
a right to do such things, just as others have a right to do the same
to you. Maybe "right" is not the,correct term. You have the capability
to do said things, but as you said, just because you can doesn't mean
you should.
The idea of restricting free speech is unfortunately a very dangeous
one. But the road to Sheol is paved with good intentions. Where does
one stop?
>>
>> [1] You may have noticed that I'm angry. That's because I on the right
>> of the political spectrum and I get fed up of these bastards claiming
>> to be political "blood-brothers".
>
>You mean like when someone commits purgery, and then a bunch of important
>people from the liers party protest and say he did nothing wrong, mostly
>because to say otherwise would be like sayin the other guys were right? Yea,
>I hate that, too.
>>
>> [2] I know, forabout six months of my life when I was 16 I held
>> similar views. Fortunately sense prevailed. An episode of shame which
>> I don't remember with any good memories at all.
>
>Or perhaps you simply did not seek more logic/evidence-intesive writings on
>creationism (of which their are plenty).
>>
No, not creationism - racism, I'm sorry to say.
>> [3] Big-shot US creationists. All of whom are lying scum. One of their
>> websites is http://www.drdino.com. Go to that, have a laugh at their
>> drivel and then a cry over how many people believe their crap, and
>> then go to http://www.talkorigins.org, which will cheer you up no end.
>
>Tell you what, I would be more then happy to discuss this with you over
>e-mail, provided you can do so calmly without resorting to petty
>name-calling or personal attacks (standard debate rule: attack the point,
>not the person trying to make it).
The problem is that for decades, we have attacked and destroyed the
arguments of creationists, and it does no good at all. They still
continue on, presenting nonsense that has been deunked decades ago as
fact.
A primary example of this is the "moon dust" argument:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moon-dust.html
They are like holocaust revisionists - as Asimov pointed out, they are
"immune to mere reason".
And the plain facts of the matter is that many of them are *liars*.
>I like to debate. I hate to argue. Say
>what you want about creationists, as many times as I've debated the topic
>(and I can't COUNT how many times I have), the first person to start getting
>all angry and chanting "stupid fuckwit", without saying anything in response
>to the actual POINT (which pretty much derales an INTELIGENT debate) has
>always been the evolutionist. At least that's my experience.
>--
Because to be frank, as I've pointed out, most creationists are
stupid, and a lot of them are actually fuckwits.
It's a rather depressing situtation, and it speaks volumes for the
pitiful educational systems, but it's the truth.
Best Regards,
Dave
>-Wraith
>-Fear not death, but a life poorly lived
>-Carpe nocturne
>-http://www.geocities.com/wraithtdk/index.htm
>
>
--
Deviancy
I caught on to this a lil late
I think the answer to the sudden surge in racisit crap is obvious. It's not
a surge, it's always been there. Our ng is just taking it kind of heavy
this week. Like I've said a million times and here it comes again. The
internet is our escape from the real world in many ways and it provides us
with a flimsy shield from others who would rip our throat out if we shared
these opinions in a public outside arena.
Racism can be used as the ultimate troll tool, it will get everyone outraged
and it will cause alot of pain
But it's also something that is used by well really real racists who know we
can't smack them around for being a racisit pig. I can come here and post
about how I beat women because they are the weaker sex. You could call me
an ass, say I need to be beat down etc. But no one can really do that, well
unless you run a tracert and get clever.
But the last racist outburst on this ng proved how idiotic these fucks can
be.
Racism is a odd lil monster. It effects and disturbs even those who the
racisit wouldn't even have an issue with. We try to be good to one another
and we try to disregard culture differences, color differences etc. There
are some of us who don't even have to try, we are just naturally decent folk
who see nothing different and don't even have to try in the least to be
color blind. Then there are those of us who see the differences and we
accept them and we move on. But some of us are fucked up and we see the
differences and we hate, we look down upon, we try to offend, we try to
destroy.
Some love to say hate crimes are going up in society, regardless of the
heavier penalty for a hate crime. I would love to think this isn't true.
But everyday I run into a person who tells me they don't have a racist bone
in their body, then during a certain conversation the word nigger or spic is
used and how crime is caused by this race or that race. Then you question
them on this, you ask them why they said they weren't racist when they are
saying such things. They say they still aren't racist they are just stating
facts. Christ.
So as I go further down the slide of madness, I open my eyes and I see that
there are things that are still going on today that should have stopped
decades ago. We have so many other issues in the world, so many other
things to dislike or even work on, and we have to tolerate assholes who just
want to toss on their white sheets and sit in front of a monitor.
Jeff K deJong
> Some love to say hate crimes are going up in society, regardless of the
> heavier penalty for a hate crime. I would love to think this isn't true.
>
*smirk* Please don't think me the heartless bastard, but ever since I saw
Southpark where Cartman got sent to jail for a 'hate crime'.(He hit some
african-american boy with a rock, which missed the non-african-american
boy that it was intended for). Anywho, the whole point of the story was
that all crimes are motivated by hate and therefore the same crime should
always be treated with the same punishment.
I had flipped through an episode of boston public and I was intrigued that
they were trying to fire a old 'bigot' for not using correct terminology
to refer to a student(I didnt watch the episode so I don't know the whole
story line) But would someone care to point out to me the terms that are
PC and those that aren't?
black
coloured
African-American
White
European-American
Asian
oriental
Asian-American
indian
native
first-nations
heathen
pagan
christian
flamer
fag
Homosexual
gay
lesbian
Homosapien
transgendered
intergendered
cis-gendered
Moral
Moral-free
etc etc
Ok OK, so this is turning into a rant so sue me :P If you think any of the
above terms on PC now do you think they will always be or does PC change
with time?
Jeff~the always confused gothphysicspenguin
Cliff Goodman
I could go on for hours... but I won't.
However, this list was humorous.
PC -> African-American
> White
> European-American
I'm a paleskin, dammit. And I speak with forked tongue *wink*
> Asian
> oriental
> Asian-American
I haven't often heard the third but... the other two seem interchangable
*shrug*
> indian
> native
> first-nations
Native American. That's the term I hear most oft.
> heathen
> pagan
> christian
Heathen *heh* I like that.
Polytheist trips on the tongue and sounds shoddy. Witch is still used.
> flamer
> fag
> Homosexual
> gay
> lesbian
> Homosapien
Gay. Or Homosexual/Lesbian. They seem to be most frequently heard. At
least by me.
> transgendered
> intergendered
> cis-gendered
Never heard of that last one, but perhaps I lead a sheltered life.
> Moral
> Moral-free
OOoooo I vote for the second one!!
> etc etc
> Ok OK, so this is turning into a rant so sue me :P If you think any of the
> above terms on PC now do you think they will always be or does PC change
> with time?
PC is just a frickin' label. It changes periodically depending on the
flavour of the month. And what people want to be called or insist on
being called. PC can be incredibly annoying. I ignore it and hope that
it'll just go away.
Th'Elf
Horizontally Challenged. Make of that what you will *wink*
Hardrock Llewynyth
<yar...@twisted.org.uk> wrote:
>It's literal biblical creationism. The timelines int he bible can
>actually be traced by insanely anal individuals ;-)
No, actually, it isn't. The creation account and genealogies in the
bible are written in mostly non-literal idiomatic language. To claim
that they creation account is literal, and the genealogies are
single-generation steps is to lack understanding of the language and
the idiom in which the books were written.
The biblical writings allow for considerably greater time periods than
Bishop Ussher's 6000 years.
Hardrock
shu latif
i've been seeing a lot of racist crap going on in houston.x and tx.x.
which i'm sure to some people might seem a little more appropiate. i
haven't really bothered to read much of it all because it would just
work me up. and there's no sense in feeding into their trollness. but as
for an explanation...maybe there was some call to start a "race war" as
it was put on the other groups. it's just silly. they're probably
hitting as many newsgroups as possible.
shoe
Hardrock Llewynyth
(Morgoth's Cat) wrote:
>First off all evolution is a *fact*. It is also a *theory*.
>
>But what is a theory. The common definition of a theory is a guess or
>hypthoesis, like you have given above. Which is erroneous.
No, it isn't. In science, a theory is a hypothesis which attempts to
explain observed phenomena and predict future occurences. It can be
tested and proven or disproven.
>But in scientific terms, a theory is a structure which explain facts.
No, that is not a theory, that is what is known as a "model". The
numerous versions of the evolution *model* of creation are no more
"proven fact" than the numerous creation models.
Models cannot be proven or disproven, since the orginal event cannot
be observed. They simply provide the explanation that best fits the
observable facts.
Some theories have been proposed; but these have encroaches into the
realm of the metaphysical. They require many unproven assertions to
be taken as axiomatic; and are unable to be proven or disproven
without doing so.
>Like the theory of gravity. Or the theory of general relativity. Do
>you go around for example, complaining about gravity being "only a
>theory"?
The fact of apparent gravitational attraction is an observable
phenomenon. The theories or models that exist to explain the
phenomenon are unproven and *only* theories or models.
The problem here is that you and many others are mistaking observable
phenomena with the explanation of those phenomena. A thing cannot be
it's own explanation. The map is not the territory.
>There'es nothing faith based in evolution. Creationism, as the US
>courts have ruled time and time again, is nothing but religion. See
>for example, the following court decisions:
That is a load of horseshit.
First, court decisions are hardly scientific processes. Not so long
ago, those exact same courts held the opposing point of view. Are you
going to claim that the nature of reality completely changed in the
space of less than a hundred years?
Second, nearly everything involved in all evolution models is based on
faith in the accuracy of the tools, and faith in the validity of
conclusions based on evidence that is fragmentary at best. There is
no reputable scientist who claims to have all the evidence, since
doing so would get him laughed out of the scientific community. All
evidence is incomplete and therefore inconclusive.
"Palaeontologists have paid an exhorbitant price for Darwin's
argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's
history, yet to preserve our favoured account of evolution by natural
selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very
process we profess to study."
--Stephan Gould, _The Panda's Thumb_
Third, not all creationist models are religious in origin. Something
you would know if you had the breadth of knowledge you are claiming.
Fourth, which evolution model are you referring to? Darwinian (a
model Darwin himself claimed was scientifically invalid since it was
based heavily on speculation)? Neo-Darwinian (which owes more to
Haldane and others than it does to Darwin)? How about the evolution
models proposed by Huxley, Haeckel, Anaximander, Lyell?
Nearly all of these contradict each other to some significant degree.
Are you arguing the Gradualist evolutionary model? The Catastrophic?
The Punctuated Equilibrium? Again, they all contradict one another
and much of the "evidence" used to support one model is "proven" not
to do so. The currently accepted models change significantly at least
every 5-10 years. Darwin's original models have been more or less
demonstrated to be unworkable, and have been modified extensively to
fit more recent discoveries.
"An atheist believes that evolution is the result of chance. Theistic
evolutionists believe that God, having created the Universe, let
purposeless chance evolve live. A creationist...contends that an
intelligent creator creates complex machinery, such as a living body,
deliberately.
"In fact, by rigorous [scientific] standards all three theories are
metaphysical. This is because a theory of non-deliberate design
(evolution) requires proof that no designer every existed; a theory of
deliberate design requires proof that a designer did exist... But
because the intelligence of a designer can be materially grasped
neither in a Boeing 707 nor a bacterium, it is a matter of inference.
Neither of the above proofs is scientifically possible because the
field of science is limited to the material realm. And therfore each
theory of origin is metaphysical."
--Michael Pittman, former Professor of Biology at Cambridge
University. _Adam and Evolution: a scientific critique of
Neo-Darwinism_
"Darwin himself admitted design; thoroughly versed in Paley's
creationist _Natural Theology_(1802), he considered design the most
powerful of all arguments for the existence of reason in the
universe."
--ibid.
"No law of physics or chemistry nas yielded a single principle of
naturalistic innovation, information increase, or functional
integration. Left to themselves, things become more random and less
tidy. The more complex the system, the more elaborate the design
needed to keep randomness at bay."
--ibid.
It's an interesting fact that much of Darwin's theory of natural
selection was based heavily on the work of creationist scientist
Edward Blyth.
I recommend reading the book _Adam and Evolution_, quoted from above,
so you have some idea what you are talking about.
Hardrock
Morgoth's Cat
<hard...@speakeasy.org> scribed:
>On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 17:53:58 GMT, mango...@my-dejanews.com
>(Morgoth's Cat) wrote:
>
>>First off all evolution is a *fact*. It is also a *theory*.
>>
>>But what is a theory. The common definition of a theory is a guess or
>>hypthoesis, like you have given above. Which is erroneous.
>
>No, it isn't. In science, a theory is a hypothesis which attempts to
>explain observed phenomena and predict future occurences. It can be
>tested and proven or disproven.
>
I know that. But the *common* (and incorrect) definition, as usually
used by non-scientists is the equivalent of a hypothesis.
>>But in scientific terms, a theory is a structure which explain facts.
>
>No, that is not a theory, that is what is known as a "model". The
>numerous versions of the evolution *model* of creation are no more
>"proven fact" than the numerous creation models.
>
>Models cannot be proven or disproven, since the orginal event cannot
>be observed. They simply provide the explanation that best fits the
>observable facts.
>
>Some theories have been proposed; but these have encroaches into the
>realm of the metaphysical. They require many unproven assertions to
>be taken as axiomatic; and are unable to be proven or disproven
>without doing so.
>
Then they are not theories. And not scientific either. A key concept
of science is falsibility.
>>Like the theory of gravity. Or the theory of general relativity. Do
>>you go around for example, complaining about gravity being "only a
>>theory"?
>
>The fact of apparent gravitational attraction is an observable
>phenomenon. The theories or models that exist to explain the
>phenomenon are unproven and *only* theories or models.
>
Of course they're *only* a theory. Proof is restricted to alcohol and
mathematics.
>The problem here is that you and many others are mistaking observable
>phenomena with the explanation of those phenomena. A thing cannot be
>it's own explanation. The map is not the territory.
>
>>There'es nothing faith based in evolution. Creationism, as the US
>>courts have ruled time and time again, is nothing but religion. See
>>for example, the following court decisions:
>
>That is a load of horseshit.
>
Nope. Creationism *is* religion. No amount of sticking your fingers in
your ears and shouting horsehit at the top of your voice will change
this.
From arch-creationist Henry Morris (from his book "Scentific
Creationism"):
"A. Creation cannot be proved...
1. Creation is inaccessible to the scientific method.
2. It is impossible to devise a scientific experiment to describe
the creation process, or even to ascertain whether such a process can
take place. The creator does not create at the whim of a scientist".
From another big-cheese creationist, Duane Gish (from a letter to
Discover magazine in 1983):
"Steven Jay Gould states that creationists claim creation is a
scientific theory. This is a false accusation. Creationists have
repeatedly stated that neither creation nor evolution is a scientific
theory (and each is equally religious)"
Go to their websites. The main creationist organisations *require*
their members to sign an oath declaring that the Bible is correct no
matter what.
"
>First, court decisions are hardly scientific processes. Not so long
>ago, those exact same courts held the opposing point of view. Are you
>going to claim that the nature of reality completely changed in the
>space of less than a hundred years?
>
The Courts of the US have ruled repeatedly that creationism is
religion. The creationists themselves state that creationism is
religion. The very basic tenets of Creationism are untestable and
unfalsifiable and unscientific. Creationism has *no* evidence to back
it up.
Evolution on the other hand is a scientific theory and a fact.
See:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
>Second, nearly everything involved in all evolution models is based on
>faith in the accuracy of the tools, and faith in the validity of
>conclusions based on evidence that is fragmentary at best.
nonsense. The amount of evidence for evolution is *overwhelming*.
> There is
>no reputable scientist who claims to have all the evidence, since
>doing so would get him laughed out of the scientific community. All
>evidence is incomplete and therefore inconclusive.
>
Agreed. However, firstly, will you now state that the theory of
heliocentralism is inconclusive?
Secondly, as Gould states: "in science, 'fact' can only mean
'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withold
provisional assent'. I suppose that apples might start to rise
tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics
classrooms".
>"Palaeontologists have paid an exhorbitant price for Darwin's
>argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's
>history, yet to preserve our favoured account of evolution by natural
>selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very
>process we profess to study."
>
>--Stephan Gould, _The Panda's Thumb_
>
Gould was talking about Punc Eq actually.
>Third, not all creationist models are religious in origin. Something
>you would know if you had the breadth of knowledge you are claiming.
>
Let's have an example of this non-religious creationism then.
Especially one which it's adherents are trying to get into
classrooms...
>Fourth, which evolution model are you referring to? Darwinian (a
>model Darwin himself claimed was scientifically invalid since it was
>based heavily on speculation)?
Until genetics confirmed it.
> Neo-Darwinian (which owes more to
>Haldane and others than it does to Darwin)? How about the evolution
>models proposed by Huxley, Haeckel, Anaximander, Lyell?
>
Anaximander was 6th century BC greek for feck's sake.
>Nearly all of these contradict each other to some significant degree.
>
See above.
Reference?
>
>"No law of physics or chemistry nas yielded a single principle of
>naturalistic innovation, information increase,
Crap. See for example
http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/dawkins1.htm
http://www-lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness.html
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html
or do a search in talk.origins for *increase in information*.
> or functional
>integration.
>Left to themselves, things become more random and less
>tidy.
Nope. What you actually mean is that entropy increases. It is a
consequence of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It does not mean that
things get "less tidy" or "more random" at all.
> The more complex the system, the more elaborate the design
>needed to keep randomness at bay."
>
>--ibid.
No design in needed.
>
>It's an interesting fact that much of Darwin's theory of natural
>selection was based heavily on the work of creationist scientist
>Edward Blyth.
>
Everyone around 1830 or so when Blyth was proposing a *version* of
Natural selection was a creationist. Patrick Matthew beat Blyth (1820
vs 1835). From Wallace's biographer, H. Lewis McKinney:
"In spite of these astute observations, however, Blyth did not
understand that he had observed the mechanism for the propogation of
new species. For him natural selection was essentially a conservative
force; his law was 'intended by Providence to keep up the typical
qualities of a species'..."
>I recommend reading the book _Adam and Evolution_, quoted from above,
>so you have some idea what you are talking about.
>
>Hardrock
I suggest that you stop reading comic books and start reading some
proper science books. Try Futuyma's "Evolutionary Biology" for
starters...
Best Regards,
Dave
Lucid H. Dreaming
>On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 15:36:21 -0700, Hardrock Llewynyth
><hard...@speakeasy.org> scribed:
>>No, it isn't. In science, a theory is a hypothesis which attempts to
>>explain observed phenomena and predict future occurences. It can be
>>tested and proven or disproven.
>
>I know that. But the *common* (and incorrect) definition, as usually
>used by non-scientists is the equivalent of a hypothesis.
http://www.kuro5hin.org/?op=displaystory;sid=2001/6/8/52432/25359
This entire conversation has already been done far better than either
of you can.
?
--
Then again, I have voices in my head
We think theres voices in my head
We need help
Help us --Deviancy
Wraith
"Nick/Yaruar" <yar...@twisted.org.uk> wrote in message
news:20010615101951...@toybox.twisted.org.uk...
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, Wraith wrote:
>
> It's literal biblical creationism. The timelines int he bible can
> actually be traced by insanely anal individuals ;-)
Ah. Literalists. The same people who read the book of Revelation and believe
there are going to be actual monsters roaming the earth in the end times.
Some of these people (and I say some because I try not to stereotype, as I
don't know all of them) tend to bother me. It seems to me they aren't real
strong in their faith. I think that a lot of times they are afraid to ask
themselves the tough questions about their beliefs, because deep down, they
are afraid that they won't stand up to scrutiny. This is why I like debate.
I like to be asked the really tough questions about my beliefs. Sure, at
first it can be jarring if I don't know the answer, but instead of just
losing faith and accepting that everything I know is wrong, simply becaue
I'm not smart enough to know how to respond, I don what any inteligent
person would do when faced with an important question they can't answer: I
seek out the answer. I study, I ask around, and I pray until I FIND an
answer. Some times it takes a considerable amount of time, but I've yet to
face a question I couldn't eventually answer logically. In the end, I think
it strengthens my faith.
For the record, though I have tried to avoid mentioning it this time (I have
a tendency to get into religious vs. secular arguments that blow out
proportion, I'm trying very hard to restrict what I will and will not
discuss over the NG this time), I am a Christian. Any aspect about my faith,
I would be more then happy to discuss with anyone over e-mail, provided they
can stick to the basic rule "attack the point, not the person making the
point".
Neal Stanifer
>
> "Nick/Yaruar" <yar...@twisted.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:20010615101951...@toybox.twisted.org.uk...
> > On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, Wraith wrote:
> >
> > It's literal biblical creationism. The timelines int he bible can
> > actually be traced by insanely anal individuals ;-)
>
> Ah. Literalists. The same people who read the book of Revelation and believe
> there are going to be actual monsters roaming the earth in the end times.
I'm not clear on why these literalist interpretations are worse or less
believable or more silly than the versions widely held today in a number
of denominations. No offense, but I rather see this on a par with
saying something like, "Well, of course the cow didn't *literally* lick
the first of the race of Aesgardians out of the snow; that would be
silly. It's a metaphor for the receding of the glaciers."
> Some of these people (and I say some because I try not to stereotype, as I
> don't know all of them) tend to bother me. It seems to me they aren't real
> strong in their faith.
> I think that a lot of times they are afraid to ask
> themselves the tough questions about their beliefs, because deep down, they
> are afraid that they won't stand up to scrutiny. This is why I like debate.
I've met some of these folks, and not just the literalists. In fact, I
don't personally know any literalists although I have it on good
authority that a fair number of them inhabit my city.
Here's the problem: when you're raised to believe that a particular
flavor of faith is THE truth, and that no individual has the authority
to make reasoned decisions on matters of faith (that's the pastor's
job), and that you should never EVER veer from that path either on the
left hand or on the right, then you're really up Shit Creek when you
start putting your faith to the test. Asking a tough question, and
giving an honest answer, might take you away from the strict form of the
faith in which you were raised, and that could send you careering into
Hell Eternal like a swatted moth. And who wants that?
Some of these folks (I went to school with a couple of them from
different faiths) are reasonably intelligent, but there are certain
subjects one simply does not brooch with them if one expects a reasoned
debate. Pity. Worse pity when the dogmas of their faith begin also to
become political dogmas.
Neal
Wraith
> the Earth is 6,000 years old [1]. They *do* think that it was created
> in six days around 4,000 BC. See for example, http://www.icr.org or
> http://www.aig.org
Uhm, I'm a creationist, and I DON'T think that. My parents are creationists.
They don't think that. Everyone in my church are creationists. I've yet to
meet one of them that believes that. That's at least a hundred of us who
DON'T. Therefore, you can't rightfully say that we all do. This was my
point. I said It's largely a myth, only SOME of us believe this. Don't make
gross generalizations.
>
> First off all evolution is a *fact*. It is also a *theory*.
>
> But what is a theory. The common definition of a theory is a guess or
> hypthoesis, like you have given above. Which is erroneous.
the·o·ry (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries
1.A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or
phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely
accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2.The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements,
accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine
musician who had never studied theory.
3.A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of
mathematics.
4.Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather
than theory.
5.A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or
judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return
to the scene of the crime.
6.An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
Clearly, theory is not fact.
>
> But in scientific terms, a theory is a structure which explain facts.
> Like the theory of gravity. Or the theory of general relativity. Do
> you go around for example, complaining about gravity being "only a
> theory"?
Noooo, because as far as I know, it's a law. The Law of gravity. There's a
reason why they call some things laws and some things theory.
>
> From: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
>
> "Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond
> reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution.
> Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the
> earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or
> are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain
> bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about
> certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to
> evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we
> are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary
> mechanisms."
>
> - Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the
> Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol.35 (March 1973)
> reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed.,
> ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983
A speach given by an American Biology teacher in the 70's, not to mention
one that really only expresses his personal (not to mention rather
close-minded) opinion really doesn't prove anything. Besides, I'm not
arguing against the truth of evolution. Personally, I believe in both
evolution and creationism. If you opened your mind enough, and sought out an
inteligent creationist, you'd see that the two are not mutually exclusive.
I'll discuss this further over e-mail, if you wish, but I'd really like to
get this off the group. These things never turn out well on Usenenet.
>
> "It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those
> who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly
> that evolution is a FACT, not theory, and that what is at issue within
> biology are questions of details of the process and the relative
> importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a FACT that the
> earth with liquid water
as oposed to dry, powder-water?
>, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a
> FACT that cellular life has been around for at least half of that
> period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million
> years old. It is a FACT that major life forms now on earth were not at
> all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250
> million years ago. It is a FACT that major life forms of the past are
> no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and
> there are none now. It is a FACT that all living forms come from
> previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from
> ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and
> humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of
> the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can
> deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around
> the sun."
>
> - R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth"
> Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism,
> op cit.
Again, this guy doesn't support his claims, he just shouts "it's a FACT!
it's a FACT!"
Watch this:
"It's time we faced the FACT that these "goths" are nothing more then angry,
violent, ticking timebombs waiting to go off."
-Some dumb-ass psychology professor in a speach I once heard after
Columbine. Reprinted cause I feel like it.
So here we have an expert in the field of psychology making a statement
about his field. Does this make it a fact? Of couse not.
>
> > A lot of time it's just easier to catch up creationists, because
first
> >of all, a lot of them aren't used to debating the issue, and thus haven't
> >really been confronted with the tough questions about it. That's not to
say
> >their aren't answers, it's simply that THEY don't know of them. Same way
> >people get brain-washed, or lulled into cults, the brain-washer/cultists
> >rely on things that sound so logical when you haven't really had time to
> >think about it. It's not that their aren't answers to their little rants,
> >it's just that the victim doesn't quite know what it is.
>
> Yet often a lot of this ignorance by creationists (just like racists)
> is willful. I'm reminded of a quote from Oliver Wendell Homes Sr - "A
> bigot is like the pupil of the eye - the more light is exposed to it
> the narrower it gets".
>
First off, do you belief every quote you hear simply because the way it's
phrased sounds smart? Second, I can say the say the same of
anti-creationists. I've met a lot of people who don't believe in God don't
simply because doing so would mean they'd have to accept all kinds of things
that would just leave their world in pieces.
> > Second, in the end, a lot of it does come down to simply having
faith.
> >
>
> There'es nothing faith based in evolution.
I was talking about creationism.
> Creationism, as the US
> courts have ruled time and time again, is nothing but religion. See
> for example, the following court decisions:
First a biology teacher, now the US court. Your sources leave a lot to be
desired. Perhaps you should skim over the thread a few weeks back about
capital punishment. If the US court system was infallible, we wouldn't have
a disturbing amount of people put on death row who didn't do anything.
>
> > Bottom line, I guarntee there are plenty of creationists that are
every
> >bit as intelligent and logical as any evolutionist.
>
> Two points:
>
> (1) How can they be, when the whole basis of creationism is ignorance
> and falsehoods.
Simple, it's not. Open your mind. Did I mention that Einstein was a
creationist?
To quote Isaac Asimov:
Yargh, do you always let other people do your talking for you?
>
> "Tens of millions of Americans, who neither know nor understand the
> actual arguments for - or even against - evolution, march in the army
> of the night
We're an "army of the night? WOW! How very Gothic!
with their Bibles held high. And they are a strong and
> frightening force, impervious to, and immunised against, the feeble
> lance of mere reason".
Wow! Another opinion! And this one all poetic-like! You must be write!
>
> (2) Two. Let me replace the word "creationist" with the word "racist"
> in the sentence above. Thus: "I guarantee there are plenty of racists
> that are every bit as intelligent and logical as any non-racist." And
> that statement is just as erroneous as yours I'm afraid.
Not really. What amazes me is that you go throughout your posts saying how
we're illogical and can't handle facts, and you can't seem to stop making
statements that are not only horribly close-minded, but so horribly
incorrect it leaves me stunned that you'd even attempt to make them. You
pass judgement on millions of people you've never even met, and that's just
sad.
>
> > I think you would do
> >well to learn some respect.
> >>
>
> I will respect creationists when they stop trying to insert their
> *religion* into classrooms as science.
You mean the same classes that force kids to either say that they believe
something that is still a theory, or else fail them? The same clases that
have no problems making rude, close-minded insults towards someone
religions, yet refuses to let anyone even MENTION the other side of the
argument? Call me crazy, but it doesn't make sense to me to assume a person
can come to a logical conclusion about something by hearing only the
arguments for, and not against.
Besides, not every creationist even WANTS creationism taught in schools.
Again, you're making a very gross over-generalization.
>
> The idea of restricting free speech is unfortunately a very dangeous
> one. But the road to Sheol is paved with good intentions. Where does
> one stop?
Dude, I SAID I wouldn't want free speech restricted. I simply said there are
some things which shouldn't be said. For instance, you see someone who's
overweight, you don't go up to them and say "heya fat-ass, loose some
fucking weight, you're making me sick". I don't care if you CAN, you just
shouldn't.
> >> [2] I know, forabout six months of my life when I was 16 I held
> >> similar views. Fortunately sense prevailed. An episode of shame which
> >> I don't remember with any good memories at all.
> >
> >Or perhaps you simply did not seek more logic/evidence-intesive writings
on
> >creationism (of which their are plenty).
> >>
>
> No, not creationism - racism, I'm sorry to say.
Soooo, you went from passing judgement on millions of people you've never
met, simply because of their nationality, to do the exact same thing to
millions of people you've never met, simply because they have a different
point of view then you? You don't learn from your mistakes, do you?
>
> >> [3] Big-shot US creationists. All of whom are lying scum. One of their
> >> websites is http://www.drdino.com. Go to that, have a laugh at their
> >> drivel and then a cry over how many people believe their crap, and
> >> then go to http://www.talkorigins.org, which will cheer you up no end.
> >
> >Tell you what, I would be more then happy to discuss this with you over
> >e-mail, provided you can do so calmly without resorting to petty
> >name-calling or personal attacks (standard debate rule: attack the point,
> >not the person trying to make it).
>
> The problem is that for decades, we have attacked and destroyed the
> arguments of creationists, and it does no good at all. They still
> continue on, presenting nonsense that has been deunked decades ago as
> fact.
I could say the EXACT thing word for word about anti-creationists. It'd be
just as true, too.
>
> They are like holocaust revisionists - as Asimov pointed out, they are
> "immune to mere reason".
>
> And the plain facts of the matter is that many of them are *liars*.
Oh, well, thank God that anti-creationists always tell the truth, eh? Of
COURSE a good many of them are liars! Name one large group that DOESN'T have
any liars in your group, and I'll show you proof of Angels.
>
> >I like to debate. I hate to argue. Say
> >what you want about creationists, as many times as I've debated the topic
> >(and I can't COUNT how many times I have), the first person to start
getting
> >all angry and chanting "stupid fuckwit", without saying anything in
response
> >to the actual POINT (which pretty much derales an INTELIGENT debate) has
> >always been the evolutionist. At least that's my experience.
> >--
>
> Because to be frank, as I've pointed out, most creationists are
> stupid, and a lot of them are actually fuckwits.
My God you're arrogant. It's clear that you are far too much of a
close-minded, prejudiced, stereo-typing hot-head to conduct an inteligent,
adult conversation. As such, consider this conversation over.
--
Mark Wood
>
> I had flipped through an episode of boston public and I was intrigued that
> they were trying to fire a old 'bigot' for not using correct terminology
> to refer to a student(I didnt watch the episode so I don't know the whole
> story line) But would someone care to point out to me the terms that are
> PC and those that aren't?
>
> black
> coloured
> African-American
You forgot person of color.
> White
> European-American
What about anglo
or caucasian?
> Asian
> oriental
> Asian-American
>
> indian
> native
> first-nations
Perhaps, indigenous persons?
> heathen
> pagan
> christian
??????
> flamer
> fag
> Homosexual
> gay
> lesbian
Or the old standby "queer" which the members of "queer nation seem to
like, but is offensive to someone I knew who called himself a fag.
> Homosapien
??????
> transgendered
> intergendered
> cis-gendered
metagendered?
> Moral
> Moral-free
morality-free
morality reduced
amoral
differently moraled
> etc etc
>
> Ok OK, so this is turning into a rant so sue me :P If you think any of the
> above terms on PC now do you think they will always be or does PC change
> with time?
PC changes on an individual basis (see queer). Primarily it's a
means of casting public scorn upon white males whenever some nonwhite,
or non male hypersensitive asshole gets his or her undies in a bunch.
The whole idea of promoting an environment free of offensive language
or ideas, is merely a whitewash of intolerance and hate for white men.
It was really interesting for me in high school, as a descendant of
East European Jews, Armenians, and Irish indentured servants, having
anti white sentiment directed at me for the "historical oppression
perpetrated by my ancestors." I had the misfortune of being part of
the white minority, at a really dangerous barrio school in California.
-M. Wood
Morgoth's Cat
scribed:
>"Morgoth's Cat" <mango...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
>news:3b2a4576...@news.freeserve.net...
>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 02:43:56 GMT, "Wraith" <wrai...@nospam.home.com>
>> scribed:
>>
>> Were that it was a myth. But unfortunately, it's not. They *do* think
>> the Earth is 6,000 years old [1]. They *do* think that it was created
>> in six days around 4,000 BC. See for example, http://www.icr.org or
>> http://www.aig.org
>
>Uhm, I'm a creationist, and I DON'T think that. My parents are creationists.
>They don't think that. Everyone in my church are creationists. I've yet to
>meet one of them that believes that. That's at least a hundred of us who
>DON'T. Therefore, you can't rightfully say that we all do. This was my
>point. I said It's largely a myth, only SOME of us believe this. Don't make
>gross generalizations.
>
What I forgot to add in the [1] was that there are three main types of
creationists - Young-Earth Creationists, Old-Earth Creationists and
Theistic Evolutionists.
So you would be either the second or the third? If you are, ythen
by-and-large we don't have many disagreements at all.
Nevertheless, almost a half of Americans think that humanity was
created by Yahweh in the last 10,000 years and originated from Adam
and Eve (source: Steve Jones, Almost like a Whale, p1-2)
>>
>> First off all evolution is a *fact*. It is also a *theory*.
>>
>> But what is a theory. The common definition of a theory is a guess or
>> hypthoesis, like you have given above. Which is erroneous.
>
>the·o·ry (th-r, thîr)
>n. pl. the·o·ries
>1.A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or
>phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely
>accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
>2.The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements,
>accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine
>musician who had never studied theory.
>3.A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of
>mathematics.
>4.Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather
>than theory.
>5.A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or
>judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return
>to the scene of the crime.
>6.An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
>
>Clearly, theory is not fact.
No, theories explain facts. Evolution has occured. This is fact. But
the mechanisms to explain evolution are theories.
But so are the mechanisms to explain gravity, the structure of matter
and so on.
>>
>> But in scientific terms, a theory is a structure which explain facts.
>> Like the theory of gravity. Or the theory of general relativity. Do
>> you go around for example, complaining about gravity being "only a
>> theory"?
>
>Noooo, because as far as I know, it's a law. The Law of gravity. There's a
>reason why they call some things laws and some things theory.
Laws are in effect mathematical constructs. Again, from S.J. Gould:
"Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories
are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing
certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of
ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when
scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of
gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't
suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved
from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed
mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered. "
>>
>> From: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
>>
>> "Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond
>> reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution.
>> Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the
>> earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or
>> are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain
>> bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about
>> certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to
>> evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we
>> are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary
>> mechanisms."
>>
>> - Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the
>> Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol.35 (March 1973)
>> reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed.,
>> ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983
>
>A speach given by an American Biology teacher in the 70's, not to mention
>one that really only expresses his personal (not to mention rather
>close-minded) opinion really doesn't prove anything.
Dobzhansky wasn't a teacher. He was a very famous biologist.
"Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated
supporting the fact of evolution - that all living organisms present
on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's
long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this
relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual
divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the
publication of The Origin of Species, the important question,
scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has
taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of
modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions
for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs."
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth
Publishers, p.972
"A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which
most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved
from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a
hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means
"a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or
causes of something known or observed", as the Oxford English
Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of
interconnected statements about natural selection and the other
processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic
theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies
of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena.
In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with
modifications from common ancestors - the historical reality of
evolution - is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the
earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system,
evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the
evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and
unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think
of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution"; it simply
has not been an issue for a century." - Douglas J. Futuyma,
Evolutionary Biology, 1997.
> Besides, I'm not
>arguing against the truth of evolution. Personally, I believe in both
>evolution and creationism. If you opened your mind enough, and sought out an
>inteligent creationist, you'd see that the two are not mutually exclusive.
No they are not. I utterly agree with you. My problems are with the
YECs - the fundys who insist on inserting their religion into schools
as fact.
I'm sorry if I didn't make this clearer at the start. I'll refer to
YEC-creationism from now on.
>I'll discuss this further over e-mail, if you wish, but I'd really like to
>get this off the group. These things never turn out well on Usenenet.
>>
>> "It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those
>> who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly
>> that evolution is a FACT, not theory, and that what is at issue within
>> biology are questions of details of the process and the relative
>> importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a FACT that the
>> earth with liquid water
>
>as oposed to dry, powder-water?
>
No. Liquid Water. There is no such thing as powder-water. Ice, Water
or Water Vapour are the three states of water.
>>, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a
>> FACT that cellular life has been around for at least half of that
>> period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million
>> years old. It is a FACT that major life forms now on earth were not at
>> all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250
>> million years ago. It is a FACT that major life forms of the past are
>> no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and
>> there are none now. It is a FACT that all living forms come from
>> previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from
>> ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and
>> humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of
>> the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can
>> deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around
>> the sun."
>>
>> - R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth"
>> Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism,
>> op cit.
>
>Again, this guy doesn't support his claims, he just shouts "it's a FACT!
>it's a FACT!"
>
The evidence is there. See http://www.talkorigins.org for just a
sprinkling or see Futuyma's "Evolutionary Biology".
>Watch this:
>
>"It's time we faced the FACT that these "goths" are nothing more then angry,
>violent, ticking timebombs waiting to go off."
>
>-Some dumb-ass psychology professor in a speach I once heard after
>Columbine. Reprinted cause I feel like it.
>
>So here we have an expert in the field of psychology making a statement
>about his field. Does this make it a fact? Of couse not.
Because he doesn't have any evidence to support his claims. Evolution
on the other hand is supported by vast realms of evidence. From
molecular biology, to the twin-nested hierarchy, to the fossil record,
to genetics....all of which support evolution.
>>
>> > A lot of time it's just easier to catch up creationists, because
>first
>> >of all, a lot of them aren't used to debating the issue, and thus haven't
>> >really been confronted with the tough questions about it. That's not to
>say
>> >their aren't answers, it's simply that THEY don't know of them. Same way
>> >people get brain-washed, or lulled into cults, the brain-washer/cultists
>> >rely on things that sound so logical when you haven't really had time to
>> >think about it. It's not that their aren't answers to their little rants,
>> >it's just that the victim doesn't quite know what it is.
>>
>> Yet often a lot of this ignorance by creationists (just like racists)
>> is willful. I'm reminded of a quote from Oliver Wendell Homes Sr - "A
>> bigot is like the pupil of the eye - the more light is exposed to it
>> the narrower it gets".
>>
>First off, do you belief every quote you hear simply because the way it's
>phrased sounds smart?
No, the quote is apt.
>Second, I can say the say the same of
>anti-creationists.
> I've met a lot of people who don't believe in God don't
>simply because doing so would mean they'd have to accept all kinds of things
>that would just leave their world in pieces.
And?
Evolution, like all other parts of science, has nothing to do with the
existance or otherwise of a deity.
A superb book on this by a Christian biologist who accepts evolution
is "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth Millar.
>
>> > Second, in the end, a lot of it does come down to simply having
>faith.
>> >
>>
>> There'es nothing faith based in evolution.
>
>I was talking about creationism.
>
Fair enough.
>> Creationism, as the US
>> courts have ruled time and time again, is nothing but religion. See
>> for example, the following court decisions:
>
>First a biology teacher, now the US court. Your sources leave a lot to be
>desired. Perhaps you should skim over the thread a few weeks back about
>capital punishment. If the US court system was infallible, we wouldn't have
>a disturbing amount of people put on death row who didn't do anything.
Sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "does not" will not
change anything. YEC-Creationism is religion. Go and actually read
those decisions:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/epperson-v-arkansas.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/peloza.html
The basic principle of all types of creationism is acts by a
supernatural entity. Which immediately places it into the realms of
religion. Which is fair enough. But creationists must stop trying to
get their *beliefs* accepted as science.
>>
>> > Bottom line, I guarntee there are plenty of creationists that are
>every
>> >bit as intelligent and logical as any evolutionist.
>>
>> Two points:
>>
>> (1) How can they be, when the whole basis of creationism is ignorance
>> and falsehoods.
>
>Simple, it's not. Open your mind. Did I mention that Einstein was a
>creationist?
>
Not really. At the most, he was a deist.
"I think that some of them would be believers an impersonal God, as
believed by Einstein: "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself
in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns
himself with fates and actions of human beings"
http://cns-web.bu.edu/pub/dorman/relig.html
> To quote Isaac Asimov:
>
>Yargh, do you always let other people do your talking for you?
It's the easiest way to get points across.
>>
>> "Tens of millions of Americans, who neither know nor understand the
>> actual arguments for - or even against - evolution, march in the army
>> of the night
>
>We're an "army of the night? WOW! How very Gothic!
>
>with their Bibles held high. And they are a strong and
>> frightening force, impervious to, and immunised against, the feeble
>> lance of mere reason".
>
>Wow! Another opinion! And this one all poetic-like! You must be write!
>>
It's spelt "right" BTW.
These quotes serve a purpose. YEC-Creationism is dangerous, like
racism. Have you read Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale' - that 's
the sort of society that will result if they win.
>> (2) Two. Let me replace the word "creationist" with the word "racist"
>> in the sentence above. Thus: "I guarantee there are plenty of racists
>> that are every bit as intelligent and logical as any non-racist." And
>> that statement is just as erroneous as yours I'm afraid.
>
>Not really. What amazes me is that you go throughout your posts saying how
>we're illogical and can't handle facts, and you can't seem to stop making
>statements that are not only horribly close-minded, but so horribly
>incorrect it leaves me stunned that you'd even attempt to make them. You
>pass judgement on millions of people you've never even met, and that's just
>sad.
>>
I don't pass judgement. The *facts* pass judgement. There may be
millions of people who think the Earth is flat or that the Sun goes
around the Earth. They are wrong. If they don't like that, tough.
>> > I think you would do
>> >well to learn some respect.
>> >>
>>
>> I will respect creationists when they stop trying to insert their
>> *religion* into classrooms as science.
>
>You mean the same classes that force kids to either say that they believe
>something that is still a theory, or else fail them?
One doesn't believe a scientific theory, one accepts the evidence.
You are trying to equate religion with science. Well, religion is only
beliefs and myths. The two are completely different. Science is based
on facts and evidence. It is based upon reality.
It is these facts and evidence which are king, and which support
evolution, relativity, gravity, and countless other scientific
theories.
>The same clases that
>have no problems making rude, close-minded insults towards someone
>religions, yet refuses to let anyone even MENTION the other side of the
>argument?
There is *no* other side of the argument.
> Call me crazy, but it doesn't make sense to me to assume a person
>can come to a logical conclusion about something by hearing only the
>arguments for, and not against.
>
>Besides, not every creationist even WANTS creationism taught in schools.
>Again, you're making a very gross over-generalization.
If you don't than fair enough. But YEC-creationists are constantly
trying to get their relgion inserted into schools, e.g. Kansas.
>>
>> The idea of restricting free speech is unfortunately a very dangeous
>> one. But the road to Sheol is paved with good intentions. Where does
>> one stop?
>
>Dude, I SAID I wouldn't want free speech restricted. I simply said there are
>some things which shouldn't be said. For instance, you see someone who's
>overweight, you don't go up to them and say "heya fat-ass, loose some
>fucking weight, you're making me sick". I don't care if you CAN, you just
>shouldn't.
>
I agree.
>> >> [2] I know, forabout six months of my life when I was 16 I held
>> >> similar views. Fortunately sense prevailed. An episode of shame which
>> >> I don't remember with any good memories at all.
>> >
>> >Or perhaps you simply did not seek more logic/evidence-intesive writings
>on
>> >creationism (of which their are plenty).
>> >>
>>
>> No, not creationism - racism, I'm sorry to say.
>
>Soooo, you went from passing judgement on millions of people you've never
>met, simply because of their nationality, to do the exact same thing to
>millions of people you've never met, simply because they have a different
>point of view then you? You don't learn from your mistakes, do you?
Fuck off. The *evidence* tells us that creationists are utterly wrong.
On the other hand, there is no justifiable logical basis for racism.
>>
>> >> [3] Big-shot US creationists. All of whom are lying scum. One of their
>> >> websites is http://www.drdino.com. Go to that, have a laugh at their
>> >> drivel and then a cry over how many people believe their crap, and
>> >> then go to http://www.talkorigins.org, which will cheer you up no end.
>> >
>> >Tell you what, I would be more then happy to discuss this with you over
>> >e-mail, provided you can do so calmly without resorting to petty
>> >name-calling or personal attacks (standard debate rule: attack the point,
>> >not the person trying to make it).
>>
>> The problem is that for decades, we have attacked and destroyed the
>> arguments of creationists, and it does no good at all. They still
>> continue on, presenting nonsense that has been deunked decades ago as
>> fact.
>
>I could say the EXACT thing word for word about anti-creationists. It'd be
>just as true, too.
No it's not. You seem to have the idea in your head that there are two
sides to the argument.
That idea is wrong. Evolution won the scientific argument 150 years
ago. There is *no* argument.
Evolution happened (and is happening, e.g. AIDS). Get over it. If your
(or mine or any other persons) religion cannot accept reality then I
suggest that you find a new religion which can.
>>
>> They are like holocaust revisionists - as Asimov pointed out, they are
>> "immune to mere reason".
>>
>> And the plain facts of the matter is that many of them are *liars*.
>
>Oh, well, thank God that anti-creationists always tell the truth, eh? Of
>COURSE a good many of them are liars! Name one large group that DOESN'T have
>any liars in your group, and I'll show you proof of Angels.
Non-sequitur.
The whole basis of YEC-creationism is based upon wilful distortion of
the facts. For instance,
http://www.valinor.freeserve.co.uk/supernova.html
>>
>> >I like to debate. I hate to argue. Say
>> >what you want about creationists, as many times as I've debated the topic
>> >(and I can't COUNT how many times I have), the first person to start
>getting
>> >all angry and chanting "stupid fuckwit", without saying anything in
>response
>> >to the actual POINT (which pretty much derales an INTELIGENT debate) has
>> >always been the evolutionist. At least that's my experience.
>> >--
>>
>> Because to be frank, as I've pointed out, most creationists are
>> stupid, and a lot of them are actually fuckwits.
>
>My God you're arrogant. It's clear that you are far too much of a
>close-minded, prejudiced, stereo-typing hot-head to conduct an inteligent,
>adult conversation. As such, consider this conversation over.
Frankly, I hold YEC-creationists in as much regard as
holocaust-deniers, i.e. none at all. They are the new flat-earthers.
Again, if you're religion can't deal with reality, then I suggest that
you find a new religion that can. Basing your reality on bad-written
middle-eastern fiction is hardly a good basis now is it?
If you don't like what I'm saying, fair enough. That is your right.
But it is also your problem, as the facts and evidence show that I am
correct.
You may accuse me of being close-minded. I am close-minded, but only
in the sense of refusing to accept the existance of giant intelligent
marshmallows in orbit around Pluto until *evidence* is presented for
them.
If that is my crime, then I plead guilty with pleasure.
Best Regards,
Dave
>--
>-Wraith
>-Fear not death, but a life poorly lived
>-Carpe nocturne
>-http://www.geocities.com/wraithtdk/index.htm
>
>
--
Morgoth's Cat
<nsta...@igalaxy.net> scribed:
I think the US is in severe danger from the religious Reich, judging
from what I've read and heard anyway. If they ever do take over,
you're all welcome to claim assylum here in Darwinina, where the
Church of England does a fine job protecting us from most religious
nutters... ;-)
Best Regards,
Dave
Morgoth's Cat
Dreaming) scribed:
>In article <3b2aa5fa...@news.freeserve.net>, Morgoth's Cat wrote:
>>On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 15:36:21 -0700, Hardrock Llewynyth
>><hard...@speakeasy.org> scribed:
>
>>>No, it isn't. In science, a theory is a hypothesis which attempts to
>>>explain observed phenomena and predict future occurences. It can be
>>>tested and proven or disproven.
>>
>>I know that. But the *common* (and incorrect) definition, as usually
>>used by non-scientists is the equivalent of a hypothesis.
>
>http://www.kuro5hin.org/?op=displaystory;sid=2001/6/8/52432/25359
>
>This entire conversation has already been done far better than either
>of you can.
>
Or even talk.origins... ;-)
Glenn Olson
<cliff....@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> transgendered
>> intergendered
>> cis-gendered
>
>Never heard of that last one, but perhaps I lead a sheltered life.
It's mostly used by the transgendered to describe... well, the
non-transgendered.
I've never heard it outside that community though.
--
Make the world a better place.
Go to Mars.
Victorian Rose
> What's the deal lately with the sudden surge in these horrifically
> stupid posts? I know there have always been trolls, but in the past few
> weeks, it seems to have gotten nuts. Even as I write this, I feel stupid for
> letting it get me worked up, but I just don't get this. See, as anyone who
> reads my posts, more then anything else I seek to understand the human mind,
> peoples philosophies on things, what is going through peoples minds as they
> are doing things, what makes them do what they do, stuff like that. I can't
> quite fathom the point of these points.
You know, I've been wondering the same thing - and it hasn't only been
here. It's been a bunch of indiviual email lists I'm on as well. FOr
one thing, I think the multiple groups in the To: field might have
something to do with it. People just going down the list
alphabetically and polluting all the lists they with this crap.
On the other hand, it seems to be a serious issue on people's minds,
judging from the vehemence of some of the responses. I think it is one
of those subjects that will never be resolved, no matter how many
insults, examples, statistics people throw back and forth. IF racism
is to be conquered, then it has to be done on an individual level. And
that goes for reverse racism as well. I made the mistake of posting
some thoughts on one of the threads and won't do that again. The hate
is so strong and palpable that it's easy to see why racism still runs
rampant all over the world. I have my own opinion about how things are
and why, but I'll just keep those to myself. I think the world would
be a much better place if some people just learned to keep their
mouths shut insteado f letting their ignorance shine through.
Victorian Rose
Hardrock Llewynyth
<cliff....@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> Asian
>> oriental
>> Asian-American
>
>I haven't often heard the third but... the other two seem interchangable
>*shrug*
Actually, as i recall, the Orient referred mostly to the Middle East
and northwestern Asia. Asian usually refers to Mainland China and
Mongolia, East and Southeast Asia.
>Native American. That's the term I hear most oft.
I tend to prefer using that term. Not because it is politically
correct, but because it is more ethnologically correct than "Indian",
which properly refers to indigenous peoples of the Indian
subcontinent. Just makes things less confusing.
>> flamer
>> fag
>> Homosexual
>> gay
>> lesbian
>> Homosapien
>
>Gay. Or Homosexual/Lesbian. They seem to be most frequently heard. At
>least by me.
A lot of those in the various local non-mainstream sexuality/gender
communties use the catch-all term "queer" to refer to anyone who isn't
a mainstream heterosexual.
>> transgendered
>> intergendered
>> cis-gendered
>
>Never heard of that last one, but perhaps I lead a sheltered life.
I have, it still gives me hives. As does intergendered outside of a
medical context.
A lot of people i know use "transexual" to refer to those who have or
plan to transition physically from one sex to another. "Transgender"
usually refers to those who identify with a gender other than the
physical sex they were born with; and have no intention to modify
their physical sex to reflect their internal identity.
>> Moral
>> Moral-free
>
>OOoooo I vote for the second one!!
Oxymoron. Nothing is morality-free; it merely reflects a morality
different than that of the observer.
>PC is just a frickin' label. It changes periodically depending on the
>flavour of the month. And what people want to be called or insist on
>being called. PC can be incredibly annoying. I ignore it and hope that
>it'll just go away.
Unfortunately, it isn't likely to ever go away, until personal
responsibility and individualism gain universal adherence. Most
people prefer identifying themselves or others with a particular
taxonomic classification; particularly when doing so justifies an
abnegation of responsibility for one's life and actions, or provides a
convenient scapegoat for one's misfortune.
Hardrock
pixie
<hard...@speakeasy.org> wrote:
>On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 17:20:46 -0400, Cliff Goodman
><cliff....@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>> Asian
>>> oriental
>>> Asian-American
>>
>>I haven't often heard the third but... the other two seem interchangable
>>*shrug*
>
>Actually, as i recall, the Orient referred mostly to the Middle East
>and northwestern Asia. Asian usually refers to Mainland China and
>Mongolia, East and Southeast Asia.
>
I've always heard "Asian is for people, Oriental is for rugs."
I've known multiple people deeply offended by the term Oriental for
that reason... people who did not know each other. I always assumed it
was widespread.
pixie
--
"In conclusion, I have dominated the world and you are
all my faithful servants. Goodbye."
Hardrock Llewynyth
Cat) wrote:
On 15 Jun 2001 21:01:00 -0400, in alt.gothic you wrote:
>Nope. Creationism *is* religion. No amount of sticking your fingers in
>your ears and shouting horsehit at the top of your voice will change
>this.
>
>From arch-creationist Henry Morris (from his book "Scentific
>Creationism"):
A hardly unbiased source. I suggest you try reading someone without a
religious agenda. The previously mentioned book by Michael Pittman is
a good start.
And there are many scientific models for creationism. Nearly as many
as evolution models. Including those which can be best termed
"agnostic".
>Go to their websites. The main creationist organisations *require*
>their members to sign an oath declaring that the Bible is correct no
>matter what.
That is because they are Christian. That is like saying that Madelyn
Murry O'Hair's is typical of all non-religious individuals and
organizations, and no other sort exists.
>The Courts of the US have ruled repeatedly that creationism is
>religion. The creationists themselves state that creationism is
>religion. The very basic tenets of Creationism are untestable and
>unfalsifiable and unscientific. Creationism has *no* evidence to back
>it up.
Again, court rulings are not scientific.
>Evolution on the other hand is a scientific theory and a fact.
Contradiction. Theory is not fact.
The talk.origins page contradicts your claims of fact. In fact, it
states exactly what i did, though with much dissembling; that the
concept is still vague and open to interpretation; with many
conflicting models. Aside from that, it doesn't include much actual
information, let alone peer-reviewed evidence, and spends most of it's
time ranting about how no one who doesn't accept the views of the
writer knows anything about science.
The evidence fits just as easily a progressive creation or "day-age"
creation model.
The writer also seems to be heavily biased toward the Catostrophism
model and somewhat antitetical to the Gradualism model. Hardly a
balanced resource.
>nonsense. The amount of evidence for evolution is *overwhelming*.
No, it isn't. There are some serious flaws which you've consistently
ignored. Read the Pittman book.
>Agreed. However, firstly, will you now state that the theory of
>heliocentralism is inconclusive?
Heliocentrism is provable by observation; and has been. Most
Evolution-based origin models are not and cannot be.
>Secondly, as Gould states: "in science, 'fact' can only mean
>'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withold
>provisional assent'. I suppose that apples might start to rise
>tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics
>classrooms".
Which doesn't change the fact that the evidence is hardly
overwhelmingly in favour of chance evolution.
>Gould was talking about Punc Eq actually.
One of many different models, all of which still have adherents
throughout the scientific community. And the quote still applies.
>Let's have an example of this non-religious creationism then.
Read Pittman.
>Especially one which it's adherents are trying to get into
>classrooms...
Not everyone feels the need to evangelize their views, particularly
views which are incomplete, the way that atheist evolutionists and
religious creationists have. May of the agnostic creationists perfer
to simply wait until they have more evidence.
>>Fourth, which evolution model are you referring to? Darwinian (a
>>model Darwin himself claimed was scientifically invalid since it was
>>based heavily on speculation)?
>
>Until genetics confirmed it.
Actually, no; original Darwinism was not confirmed, it was strongly
disproved by, among others, the work of Gregor Mendel. (Original
Darwinism did not permit the existence of discrete species, and
actually used an arbitrary and vague method of classification. His
original concept was created primarily as an attack on the "fixed,
immutable" species view of taxonomist Carolus Linnaeus.)
Hence the Neo-Darwinism of Thomas Huxley, Sir Julian Huxley, Ernst
Haeckel, and J.B.S. Haldane; among others.
Both Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism have been strongly challenged by,
among others, P.-P. Grasse` (French zoologist and former president of
the Acadamie des Sciences), and Professor Niles Eldredge of the
American Natural History Museum.
Darwin was also untrained in Biology, and had little to no knowledge
of genetics.
The only thing that the study of genetics has confirmed is the process
of natural selection, micro-evolution. The application of that to the
orgin of life, macro-evolution, is strictly a step of faith.
>> Neo-Darwinian (which owes more to
>>Haldane and others than it does to Darwin)? How about the evolution
>>models proposed by Huxley, Haeckel, Anaximander, Lyell?
>>
>
>Anaximander was 6th century BC greek for feck's sake.
Yes, and his model is strikingly similar to many current ones.
>>Nearly all of these contradict each other to some significant degree.
>>
>
>See above.
Dismissal is not disproof.
>>"Darwin himself admitted design; thoroughly versed in Paley's
>>creationist _Natural Theology_(1802), he considered design the most
>>powerful of all arguments for the existence of reason in the
>>universe."
>>
>>--ibid.
>
>Reference?
Do you know what "ibid" means? The reference was given multiple
times.
>No design in needed.
An unproven claim taken as axiomatic by far too many "scientists".
You can "prove" anything if you take enough factors as axiomatic.
> "In spite of these astute observations, however, Blyth did not
>understand that he had observed the mechanism for the propogation of
>new species. For him natural selection was essentially a conservative
>force; his law was 'intended by Providence to keep up the typical
>qualities of a species'..."
That is because he never observed anything that would lead logically
to Darwinian evolution.
>I suggest that you stop reading comic books and start reading some
>proper science books. Try Futuyma's "Evolutionary Biology" for
>starters...
I suggest you drop the personal insults so typical of non-scientists
trying to argue "science", stop reading personal diatribes couched as
"scientific fact", and read the book i posted, since it answered all
the questions you posted for me, and pretty much destroys the basis
for most evolutionary models; as well as providing the basis for an
agnostic scientific model of creation (the author is also an agnostic,
iirc) which you claim doesn't exist.
I've read extensively on various models of chance evolution.
Obviously you can't say the same for scientific creationism since all
your sole source seems to be a single website and the information
provided through that website; thus you've taken on a set of biases
you don't seem to want to acknowledge.
Hardrock
Hardrock Llewynyth
>http://www.kuro5hin.org/?op=displaystory;sid=2001/6/8/52432/25359
>
>This entire conversation has already been done far better than either
>of you can.
Except that that article is incorrect, and leaves out the proponents
of Progressive Creation, and "DayAge" Creation.
Evolutionists also *do* attack creationism, claiming that their
"evidence" invalidates any form of creation (not to mention "proves"
the non-existence of some form of creator); when, in fact, it doesn't,
as shown above. And not all proponents of various evolution models
admit to the glaring flaws in their models.
Also, as quoted from the site you posted "The burden of proof always
lies on the postulant, not on the listener." Proponents of
evolution-based origin models have no more proved theirs than
proponents of any other model; though often claim their models to be
scientific fact.
hardrock
wf...@ptd.net
<hard...@speakeasy.org> wrote:
no one claims the theory of evolution is 'fact'.
evolution has a MECHANISM. creation does not. thats why its not
science
and supernatural explanations of the world have ALWAYS failed. every
time. not once have they been successful
thats why creationism is a failure.
Morgoth's Cat
>On 15 Jun 2001 22:31:03 -0400, dth2...@zen.art.rmit.edu.au (Lucid H.
>Dreaming) wrote:
>
>>http://www.kuro5hin.org/?op=displaystory;sid=2001/6/8/52432/25359
>>
>>This entire conversation has already been done far better than either
>>of you can.
>
>Except that that article is incorrect, and leaves out the proponents
>of Progressive Creation, and "DayAge" Creation.
>
>Evolutionists also *do* attack creationism, claiming that their
>"evidence" invalidates any form of creation (not to mention "proves"
>the non-existence of some form of creator); when, in fact, it doesn't,
>as shown above.
Incorrect. The possiblity of theistic evolution is not ruled out by
evolution.
>And not all proponents of various evolution models
>admit to the glaring flaws in their models.
>
Like?
>Also, as quoted from the site you posted "The burden of proof always
>lies on the postulant, not on the listener." Proponents of
>evolution-based origin models have no more proved theirs than
>proponents of any other model; though often claim their models to be
>scientific fact.
>
Evolution requires the existance of lifeforms to evolve - you're
mixing it up with abiogenesis - a completely different field of
science.
Best Regards,
Dave
>hardrock
Morgoth's Cat
<hard...@speakeasy.org> scribed:
>On 15 Jun 2001 21:01:00 -0400, mango...@my-dejanews.com (Morgoth's
>Cat) wrote:
>
>On 15 Jun 2001 21:01:00 -0400, in alt.gothic you wrote:
>
>>Nope. Creationism *is* religion. No amount of sticking your fingers in
>>your ears and shouting horsehit at the top of your voice will change
>>this.
>>
>>From arch-creationist Henry Morris (from his book "Scentific
>>Creationism"):
>
>A hardly unbiased source. I suggest you try reading someone without a
>religious agenda. The previously mentioned book by Michael Pittman is
>a good start.
>
Is Michael Pittman's book the only book you've ever read? Do you have
shares in his publishing company?
>And there are many scientific models for creationism. Nearly as many
>as evolution models. Including those which can be best termed
>"agnostic".
>
How can there be a scientici model for creation? It fails the basic
definition of science - creationist models are unfalsiable. It
postulates supernatural occurances and interventions, which are
outside science.
>>Go to their websites. The main creationist organisations *require*
>>their members to sign an oath declaring that the Bible is correct no
>>matter what.
>
>That is because they are Christian. That is like saying that Madelyn
>Murry O'Hair's is typical of all non-religious individuals and
>organizations, and no other sort exists.
>
You hit the nail on the head here. They are not scientific, they are
religious.
>>The Courts of the US have ruled repeatedly that creationism is
>>religion. The creationists themselves state that creationism is
>>religion. The very basic tenets of Creationism are untestable and
>>unfalsifiable and unscientific. Creationism has *no* evidence to back
>>it up.
>
>Again, court rulings are not scientific.
>
If you have evidence to support creationism, then why don't you
present it?
>>Evolution on the other hand is a scientific theory and a fact.
>
>Contradiction. Theory is not fact.
>
Nope. Species change over time. This is fact. The theory of evolution
explains how these changes occur.
>The talk.origins page contradicts your claims of fact.
Hardly.
> In fact, it
>states exactly what i did, though with much dissembling; that the
>concept is still vague and open to interpretation; with many
>conflicting models.
> Aside from that, it doesn't include much actual
>information, let alone peer-reviewed evidence, and spends most of it's
>time ranting about how no one who doesn't accept the views of the
>writer knows anything about science.
>
You obviously haven't read too far if you think that. Go and look for
example, at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
>The evidence fits just as easily a progressive creation or "day-age"
>creation model.
>
It may fir those hypothesis, but it just as easily fits "the giant
intelligent marshmallows in orbit around Pluto directed evolution"
hypothesis as well.
But this and the aforementioned are *not* scientific.
>The writer also seems to be heavily biased toward the Catostrophism
>model and somewhat antitetical to the Gradualism model. Hardly a
>balanced resource.
>
>>nonsense. The amount of evidence for evolution is *overwhelming*.
>
>No, it isn't. There are some serious flaws which you've consistently
>ignored. Read the Pittman book.
>
Examples?
>>Agreed. However, firstly, will you now state that the theory of
>>heliocentralism is inconclusive?
>
>Heliocentrism is provable by observation; and has been. Most
>Evolution-based origin models are not and cannot be.
>
Evolution has been observed, both in the past, and in the present. For
example:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fossil-hominids.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/marsupials.html
>>Secondly, as Gould states: "in science, 'fact' can only mean
>>'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withold
>>provisional assent'. I suppose that apples might start to rise
>>tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics
>>classrooms".
>
>Which doesn't change the fact that the evidence is hardly
>overwhelmingly in favour of chance evolution.
>
But evolution is not based upon chance. Go and read
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance.html
>>Gould was talking about Punc Eq actually.
>
>One of many different models, all of which still have adherents
>throughout the scientific community. And the quote still applies.
>
That there are some disagreements about how exactly evolution occurs
does not impinge upon the fact that evolution has occured.
Let's take an example.
One day you're in New York. A week later you're in Chicago.
Arguing over whether you went by car or train doesn't mean that you're
not in Chicago.
>>Let's have an example of this non-religious creationism then.
>
>Read Pittman.
>
Do you have shares in this book or something?
Give a concise summary.
>>Especially one which it's adherents are trying to get into
>>classrooms...
>
>Not everyone feels the need to evangelize their views, particularly
>views which are incomplete, the way that atheist evolutionists and
>religious creationists have. May of the agnostic creationists perfer
>to simply wait until they have more evidence.
What evidence?
People have been asking creationists for *decades* for evidence, and
they've presented none.
>
>>>Fourth, which evolution model are you referring to? Darwinian (a
>>>model Darwin himself claimed was scientifically invalid since it was
>>>based heavily on speculation)?
>>
>>Until genetics confirmed it.
>
>Actually, no; original Darwinism was not confirmed, it was strongly
>disproved by, among others, the work of Gregor Mendel. (Original
>Darwinism did not permit the existence of discrete species, and
>actually used an arbitrary and vague method of classification. His
>original concept was created primarily as an attack on the "fixed,
>immutable" species view of taxonomist Carolus Linnaeus.)
>
>Hence the Neo-Darwinism of Thomas Huxley, Sir Julian Huxley, Ernst
>Haeckel, and J.B.S. Haldane; among others.
>
>Both Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism have been strongly challenged by,
>among others, P.-P. Grasse` (French zoologist and former president of
>the Acadamie des Sciences), and Professor Niles Eldredge of the
>American Natural History Museum.
>
And? Evolution is *not* darwinism.
See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html for what Punc-Eq
actually is, not what you think it is.
>Darwin was also untrained in Biology, and had little to no knowledge
>of genetics.
>
And? It's not his fault that genetics weren't discovered until after
the publication of Origin of the Species.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darwinism.html
>The only thing that the study of genetics has confirmed is the process
>of natural selection, micro-evolution. The application of that to the
>orgin of life, macro-evolution, is strictly a step of faith.
>
Incorrect. There is nothing faith-based about macroevolution. See:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
>>> Neo-Darwinian (which owes more to
>>>Haldane and others than it does to Darwin)? How about the evolution
>>>models proposed by Huxley, Haeckel, Anaximander, Lyell?
>>>
>>
>>Anaximander was 6th century BC greek for feck's sake.
>
>Yes, and his model is strikingly similar to many current ones.
>
And?
See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darwin-precursors.html
>>>Nearly all of these contradict each other to some significant degree.
>>>
>>
>>See above.
>
>Dismissal is not disproof.
>
One day you're in New York. A week later you're in Chicago.
Arguing over whether you went by car or train doesn't mean that you're
not in Chicago.
>>>"Darwin himself admitted design; thoroughly versed in Paley's
>>>creationist _Natural Theology_(1802), he considered design the most
>>>powerful of all arguments for the existence of reason in the
>>>universe."
>>>
>>>--ibid.
>>
>>Reference?
>
>Do you know what "ibid" means? The reference was given multiple
>times.
>
Then you refere to it, instead of some book which is out of print. You
present the relevant data, instead of conveniently hiding behind a
book.
>>No design in needed.
>
>An unproven claim taken as axiomatic by far too many "scientists".
>You can "prove" anything if you take enough factors as axiomatic.
>
No. You assert design - it is up to you to provide evidence for it.
>> "In spite of these astute observations, however, Blyth did not
>>understand that he had observed the mechanism for the propogation of
>>new species. For him natural selection was essentially a conservative
>>force; his law was 'intended by Providence to keep up the typical
>>qualities of a species'..."
>
>That is because he never observed anything that would lead logically
>to Darwinian evolution.
>
Totally incorrect.
Blyth argued against transmutation of species because if it occurred
it would destroy species' integrity (de Beer, G 1963. Charles Darwin,
Nelson).
>>I suggest that you stop reading comic books and start reading some
>>proper science books. Try Futuyma's "Evolutionary Biology" for
>>starters...
>
>I suggest you drop the personal insults so typical of non-scientists
>trying to argue "science", stop reading personal diatribes couched as
>"scientific fact"
Baseless assertions on your behalf are no subsititue for evidence.
>, and read the book i posted, since it answered all
>the questions you posted for me,
It's out of print according to amazon.com. Why don't you provide
relevant concise summaries?
>and pretty much destroys the basis
>for most evolutionary models; as well as providing the basis for an
>agnostic scientific model of creation (the author is also an agnostic,
>iirc) which you claim doesn't exist.
>
Creationism is by it's very nature supernatural. Ergo it is religious.
Again, if you disagree why don't you provide relevant summaries?
>I've read extensively on various models of chance evolution.
E.g.?
>Obviously you can't say the same for scientific creationism since all
>your sole source seems to be a single website and the information
>provided through that website; thus you've taken on a set of biases
>you don't seem to want to acknowledge.
>
>Hardrock
Incorrect. I have read many creationist websites, and many creationist
publications. Indeed, I have spent a lot of time debunking several
creationist arguments - see my "Supernovae, Supernova Remnants and
Young-Earth Creationism FAQ" at
http://www.valinor.freeserve.co.uk/supernova.html
You on the other hand, seem to have a fixation for this book of
Pittman's, and seem to know next to nothing about evolution.
Ignorance in your case is definitely not bliss.
Morgoth's Cat
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 20:22:25 -0700, Hardrock Llewynyth
<hard...@speakeasy.org> scribed:
>On 15 Jun 2001 21:01:00 -0400, mango...@my-dejanews.com (Morgoth's
--
Kirk Job Sluder
"Hardrock Llewynyth" <hard...@speakeasy.org> wrote in message
news:cu5oit885lrr58r98...@4ax.com...
> Heliocentrism is provable by observation; and has been. Most
> Evolution-based origin models are not and cannot be.
Actually, evolution as a whole is supported by more independent lines of
evidence than heliocentrism. Granted, there are problems with individual
mechanisms, just as there are problems with heliocentrism, the biggest one
being that no one knows HOW or WHY gravity works the way it does, all we can
do is describe WHAT gravity does. But as a whole evolution makes for a
pretty solid theory.
> Actually, no; original Darwinism was not confirmed, it was strongly
> disproved by, among others, the work of Gregor Mendel. (Original
> Darwinism did not permit the existence of discrete species, and
> actually used an arbitrary and vague method of classification. His
> original concept was created primarily as an attack on the "fixed,
> immutable" species view of taxonomist Carolus Linnaeus.)
Certainly Darwin was not correct on everything. (In fact his works on human
emotion and psychology is only a historical footnote.) But that is the way
science works. Most of the basic core principles of evolution have been
tested and confirmed by not only genetics (a body of work that Darwin
predicted) but by anatomical studies, and population biology.
> Darwin was also untrained in Biology, and had little to no knowledge
> of genetics.
Of course, this was a bit of an anachronism because Biology did not exist as
a separate discipline of study. Charles Darwin did study medicine at the
University of Edinburgh for two years during which he (like most biologists
of the time) independently studied Zoology and Geology. After Darwin's
forced transfer to Cambridge, he became the student of botanist John Stevens
Henslow. In addition Darwin benefitted from growing up in the same family
with physician-biologist Erasimus Darwin, Galton, and William Darwin Fox.
As a result, Darwin was certainly as well trained and as informally trained
as many of his contemporaries including Dalton, and Faraday.
Darwin of course would have had little to no knowledge of genetics because
Gregor Mendel's pioneering work on genetics would not be discovered until
1900. Darwin however did predict the existence of genes in _Origin of
Species_ decades before Mendel provided experimental analysis. Darwin's
great flaw perhaps is that he was not an experimentalist but then again, he
came on the scene right before Koch and Pasteur pioneered experimental
biology.
> The only thing that the study of genetics has confirmed is the process
> of natural selection, micro-evolution. The application of that to the
> orgin of life, macro-evolution, is strictly a step of faith.
Not entirely. Many of the predictions made by evolution have been found to
be true. We have thousands of individual examples of data showing that
species diversity on Earth has changed over time. It is quite telling that
most criticisms of evolution have focused on the scarcity of macrofossils
when we have cubic miles of microfossils from all over the world verifying
the basic claims of evolution. But genetics has also confirmed many of the
claims of evolution including that genetic differences between species
correspond well to anatomical differences, and that similar species share a
common ancestor.
> An unproven claim taken as axiomatic by far too many "scientists".
> You can "prove" anything if you take enough factors as axiomatic.
I find it interesting whenever "proof" is brought up because at least the
biologists I trained under were more concerned about "support" than "proof."
A theorem is only as good as the evidence supporting it and its utility for
making predictions about what we might find in environments. Evolution
certainly is not treated as axiomatic, but as a theory which is supported by
kilotonnes of physical evidence. In fact, evolution has more independent
lines of evidence supporting it than heliocentrism. How many independent
lines of evidence are needed before we suggest that evolution is the best
theory we have for looking at life on Earth?
> Hardrock
--
Kirk Job Sluder
csl...@indiana.edu
http://php.indiana.edu/~csluder/
KB9TUT
Deviancy
Kirk Job Sluder <csl...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:9gippm$qom$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu...
> lines of evidence supporting it than heliocentrism. How many independent
> lines of evidence are needed before we suggest that evolution is the best
> theory we have for looking at life on Earth?
To put this in really real human terms
There will always be people who won't look at Darwins theory as a fact. The
problem with evolution is that it is detremental to faith. There are those
who would prefer to believe that God created Adam and therefore we came from
there. My favorite sticker on a car right now is "God Created Adam and eve,
not adam and steve" haha funny, hehe, geeze people are dense and easily
entertained. There are other religions I believe that take Darwins theory
and smack it around a lil and still find faith in a higher creator.
As for myself
Evolution is a wonderful thing but I tend to go a lil higher with
spirituality and Darwins theory leaves lil to be desired when it comes to my
own faith. I am not close minded, I do see that there is alot of sense in
what he was trying to say, do. But for me personally I care little on what
we evolved from, I only care that after death we go on. I just tend to
think that some who are so into learning about evolution may think once we
die, we die, the end. I'm not saying all are like this, i've just
encountered a few.
I never studied Darwins theory in a detailed kind of way. I found it to be
insignificant when I was in school. I cared little of how I got here and
was just happy I was here.
Nowadays, I still care very little. I'm not much into history unless by
going back we can make a better future. So for example what happened during
Hitlers time was an error in history that I would like to believe made our
future brighter because we proved that wouldn't be tolerated again. But yet
it still happens in other countries, doesn't it.
Sorry, i'm just ranting
My only point was that evolution will never be a mainstream thoery for
looking at life on Earth. There will always be those who want to go a lil
further then that
Kirk Job Sluder
> Evolutionists also *do* attack creationism, claiming that their
> "evidence" invalidates any form of creation (not to mention "proves"
> the non-existence of some form of creator); when, in fact, it doesn't,
> as shown above. And not all proponents of various evolution models
> admit to the glaring flaws in their models.
True, proponents of evolution do a very good job at demonstrating how the
multiple lines of evidence make evolution a better hypothesis than the
alternatives (young-earth creation, intelligent design, etc., etc..)
Certainly I agree that evolution arguments do nothing in regards to proving
the non-existence of some form of creator. However they do show that a
creator is not necessary to explain life on Earth.
> Also, as quoted from the site you posted "The burden of proof always
> lies on the postulant, not on the listener." Proponents of
> evolution-based origin models have no more proved theirs than
> proponents of any other model; though often claim their models to be
> scientific fact.
>
> hardrock
I don't know. Kilotonnes of physical data. Thousands of critically
examined surveys of that physical data. Triangulation of a hypothesis
through multiple lines of evidence by scientists working in different
disciplines. Certainly sounds like there is enough evidence that some form
of evolution is taking place.
Aegia
proven nor disproven.
Aegia
Kirk Job Sluder
"Aegia" <g...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:5P6X6.85476$4f7.6...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> Kirk Job Sluder <csl...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
> news:9giqlh$qr4$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu...
> > examined surveys of that physical data. Triangulation of a hypothesis
> > through multiple lines of evidence by scientists working in different
> > disciplines. Certainly sounds like there is enough evidence that some
> form
> > of evolution is taking place.
> >
> Nice stragidy: overwhelm the opposition with claims that can be neither
> proven nor disproven.
>
> Aegia
I think it depends on what you mean by "proof." "Proof" to me seems to be a
rather strict air-tight claim that I've not seen much use for outside of
mathematics. I can prove that for any right triangle on a plane a^2 + b^2 =
c^2 must be true. For most things in the natural world I prefer a standard
of "support beyond a reasonable doubt."
Mark VandeWettering
>Nice stragidy: overwhelm the opposition with claims that can be neither
>proven nor disproven.
This might be more convincing if you knew how to spell `strategy'.
--
/* __ __ __ ____ __*/float m,a,r,k,v;main(i){for(;r<4;r+=.1){for(a=0;
/*| \/ |\ \ / /\ \ / /*/a<4;a+=.06){k=v=0;for(i=99;--i&&k*k+v*v<4;)m=k*k
/*| |\/| | \ V / \ \/\/ / */-v*v+a-2,v=2*k*v+r-2,k=m;putchar("X =."[i&3]);}
/*|_| |_ark\_/ande\_/\_/ettering <ma...@telescopemaking.org> */puts("");}}
Andrew Glasgow
ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org (Mark VandeWettering) wrote:
> On 17 Jun 2001 14:39:04 -0400, Aegia <g...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Nice stragidy: overwhelm the opposition with claims that can be neither
> >proven nor disproven.
>
> This might be more convincing if you knew how to spell `strategy'.
I think he was using an Bugsism.
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
Hardrock Llewynyth
>no one claims the theory of evolution is 'fact'.
Many people do.
>evolution has a MECHANISM. creation does not. thats why its not
>science
Logic not your strong point? The mechanism of creation is the
creator. It's pretty a pretty self-explanatory term.
>and supernatural explanations of the world have ALWAYS failed. every
>time. not once have they been successful
Failed how? Theistic evolution has not "failed", nor has progressive
creation or guided evolution. They all explain the evidence equally
as well as the variants of chance evolution.
Hardrock
Hardrock Llewynyth
Cat) wrote:
>>Evolutionists also *do* attack creationism, claiming that their
>>"evidence" invalidates any form of creation (not to mention "proves"
>>the non-existence of some form of creator); when, in fact, it doesn't,
>>as shown above.
>
>Incorrect. The possiblity of theistic evolution is not ruled out by
>evolution.
No, it's perfectly correct, though not entirely clear. I should have
written "many evolutionists *do* attack creationism".
>>And not all proponents of various evolution models
>>admit to the glaring flaws in their models.
>>
>Like?
Like Huxley for one. At least Darwin had the intelligence to
acknowledge his lack of evidence linking natural selection to
macro-evolution. Huxley merely denounced detractors as religious
fanatics.
>Evolution requires the existance of lifeforms to evolve - you're
>mixing it up with abiogenesis - a completely different field of
>science.
Except that nearly all theories of origins based on the Evolutionary
model, with the exception of theistic origin models such as theistic
evolution or guided evolution, require or postulate abiogenesis as the
origin for life in this universe. Show me one that doesn't.
Hardrock
kest
>> Ok OK, so this is turning into a rant so sue me :P If you think any of
>> the above terms on PC now do you think they will always be or does PC
>> change with time?
>
PC is way people who feel like they have no control assert control over
those with the power. Members of the minority have the right to call each
other anything they want, thereby asserting their 'brotherhood.' However,
members of the 'majority' aren't really allowed to call the minority
_anything_.
k
--
You had to be there.
Andrew Glasgow
Hardrock Llewynyth <hard...@speakeasy.org> wrote:
> On 17 Jun 2001 06:34:35 -0400, wf...@ptd.net wrote:
>
> >no one claims the theory of evolution is 'fact'.
>
> Many people do.
No, many people claim that evolution has been observed and that
observation is the "fact of evolution".
> >evolution has a MECHANISM. creation does not. thats why its not
> >science
>
> Logic not your strong point? The mechanism of creation is the
> creator. It's pretty a pretty self-explanatory term.
A creator is not a mechanism. It is a cop-out, unless you can produce
the creator or provide a method by which we can test its existence.
> >and supernatural explanations of the world have ALWAYS failed. every
> >time. not once have they been successful
>
> Failed how?
They were less useful than naturalistic explanations.
Demons, "night vapours" and sin cause disease. Nope.
Angels push the planets around. Nope.
Zeus throws thunderbolts. Nope.
The layers of sediment we see everywhere were laid down by the flood.
Nope.
Fossils are produced within already-formed rocks. Nope.
> Theistic evolution has not "failed", nor has progressive
> creation or guided evolution.
Theistic evolution is not an explanation; it is a faith-based
metaphysical belief structure built around the scientific explanation of
evolution.
Progressive creation has failed to be as good an explanation as
evolution.
> They all explain the evidence equally
> as well as the variants of chance evolution.
What is this "chance evolution"?
wf...@ptd.net
<hard...@speakeasy.org> wrote:
>On 17 Jun 2001 06:34:35 -0400, wf...@ptd.net wrote:
>
>>no one claims the theory of evolution is 'fact'.
>
>Many people do.
uh...many people dont. so your statement is, at best, ambiguous.
>
>>evolution has a MECHANISM. creation does not. thats why its not
>>science
>
>Logic not your strong point? The mechanism of creation is the
>creator. It's pretty a pretty self-explanatory term.
DUH!! thats not a mechanism. thats magic. i realize creationists like
magic, but it aint science. sorry.
>
>>and supernatural explanations of the world have ALWAYS failed. every
>>time. not once have they been successful
>
>Failed how? Theistic evolution has not "failed", nor has progressive
>creation or guided evolution. They all explain the evidence equally
>as well as the variants of chance evolution.
>
i used to be a theistic evolutionist. thats a metaphysical belief
about a physical process. no one says its science.
you need to learn about CREATIONISM let alone evolution!!
Robin Levett
> On 17 Jun 2001 06:59:34 -0400, mango...@my-dejanews.com (Morgoth's
> Cat) wrote:
>
> >>Evolutionists also *do* attack creationism, claiming that their
> >>"evidence" invalidates any form of creation (not to mention "proves"
> >>the non-existence of some form of creator); when, in fact, it doesn't,
> >>as shown above.
> >
> >Incorrect. The possiblity of theistic evolution is not ruled out by
> >evolution.
>
> No, it's perfectly correct, though not entirely clear. I should have
> written "many evolutionists *do* attack creationism".
True - and *all* creationists attack evolution. The difference is that
those who accept that evolution explains the variety of life-forms observed
on the earth today, living and dead, better than any alternative so far
proposed, do so because of the evidence. Modern creationists attack
evolution because of their inability to recognise myth when they see it.
Nineteenth century creationists (pre-darwin) at least had the intellectual
honesty by and large to accept the strength of the evidence in the light of
Darwin's theory. It is only those who didn't have that honesty that
remained creationists in the teeth of the evidence.
>
> >>And not all proponents of various evolution models
> >>admit to the glaring flaws in their models.
> >>
> >Like?
>
> Like Huxley for one. At least Darwin had the intelligence to
> acknowledge his lack of evidence linking natural selection to
> macro-evolution. Huxley merely denounced detractors as religious
> fanatics.
Are you going to claim that at that time they weren't? Hint - Huxley's
opponent in the famous debate wasn't from the laity.
>
> >Evolution requires the existance of lifeforms to evolve - you're
> >mixing it up with abiogenesis - a completely different field of
> >science.
>
> Except that nearly all theories of origins based on the Evolutionary
> model, with the exception of theistic origin models such as theistic
> evolution or guided evolution, require or postulate abiogenesis as the
> origin for life in this universe. Show me one that doesn't.
>
> Hardrock
>
*All* theories of origins - without exception - require or postulate
abiogenesis. Making vegetation and animals from earth, fish and whales from
water, and man from dust isn't any less abiogenesis because "goddidit".
--
________________________________________________________________
Robin Levett
rle...@ibmattglobal.net
(address munged by addition of Big Blue)
Atheist = knows of and uses Occam's Razor
Agnostic = knows of but isn't sure whether to use Occam's Razor
Fundy = what's Ockam's erasure?
___________________________________________________
wilkins
> In article <ig5qitkveqrump7r0...@4ax.com>,
> Hardrock Llewynyth <hard...@speakeasy.org> wrote:
<snippity>
> > They all explain the evidence equally
> > as well as the variants of chance evolution.
>
> What is this "chance evolution"?
The evolution of chance. As we all know, when God created the universe
it was entirely rigidly deterministic, which bored God brainless, so he
set things up so that chance would evolve. At first there was just a
little bit of Brownian motion, but eventually the universe developed
full-on gaussian distributions and contingent events. he's much happier
these days, and likes to watch things unfold without His intervention.
I'm told He's especially pleased with order on the edge of chaos; he
likes all those pretty Mandelbrot set plots. ...
--
John Wilkins, Head, Communication Services, The Walter and Eliza Hall
Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, Australia
Homo homini aut deus aut lupus - Erasmus of Rotterdam
<http://www.users.bigpond.com/thewilkins/darwiniana.html>
Hardrock Llewynyth
<csl...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>As a result, Darwin was certainly as well trained and as informally trained
>as many of his contemporaries including Dalton, and Faraday.
IIRC, he wasn't; but i don't have the sources for that handy.
>Not entirely. Many of the predictions made by evolution have been found to
>be true. We have thousands of individual examples of data showing that
>species diversity on Earth has changed over time.
Which isn't necessarily a support for macro-evolution; since it
requires transitional species that are notably missing from the fossil
record, and none exist currently.
>when we have cubic miles of microfossils from all over the world verifying
>the basic claims of evolution. But genetics has also confirmed many of the
>claims of evolution including that genetic differences between species
>correspond well to anatomical differences, and that similar species share a
>common ancestor.
I've not seen anything that supports the "common ancestor" claim that
cannot be easily explained in other ways. And even in the microfossil
record, transitional species are notable for their absence. If you
know of any, please post citations.
>I find it interesting whenever "proof" is brought up because at least the
>biologists I trained under were more concerned about "support" than "proof."
Whenever you aren't dealing with mathematics, "proof" is generally not
considered to be an absolute.
>lines of evidence supporting it than heliocentrism. How many independent
>lines of evidence are needed before we suggest that evolution is the best
>theory we have for looking at life on Earth?
Enough that rules out any other model, or which at leasts makes it
considerably more likely than any other model; which it has not even
remotely done. There are at least three other models which fit the
evidence equally well.
hardrock
Erik Johnson
Mark VandeWettering <ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org> wrote in message
news:slrn9iq320...@peewee.telescopemaking.org...
> On 17 Jun 2001 14:39:04 -0400, Aegia <g...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Nice stragidy: overwhelm the opposition with claims that can be neither
> >proven nor disproven.
>
> This might be more convincing if you knew how to spell `strategy'.
>
correct my errors. It's made me too careless. I'll be more careful
in the future.
Curgoth (Matt Andrews)
>On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 19:29:27 -0700, Hardrock Llewynyth
><hard...@speakeasy.org> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 17:20:46 -0400, Cliff Goodman
>><cliff....@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>> Asian
>>>> oriental
>>>> Asian-American
>>>
>>>I haven't often heard the third but... the other two seem interchangable
>>>*shrug*
>>
>>Actually, as i recall, the Orient referred mostly to the Middle East
>>and northwestern Asia. Asian usually refers to Mainland China and
>>Mongolia, East and Southeast Asia.
>>
>I've always heard "Asian is for people, Oriental is for rugs."
>
>I've known multiple people deeply offended by the term Oriental for
>that reason... people who did not know each other. I always assumed it
>was widespread.
Based on a recent flamewar on the official D&D boards, it seems that
there is a certain region of the U.S. in which this holds true,
whereas in other parts of North America, it is unknown.
IIRC, Orient basically means "East"?
--
Dream Well...
Curgoth
Lucid H. Dreaming
>
>I think it depends on what you mean by "proof." "Proof" to me seems to be a
>rather strict air-tight claim that I've not seen much use for outside of
>mathematics. I can prove that for any right triangle on a plane a^2 + b^2 =
>c^2 must be true. For most things in the natural world I prefer a standard
>of "support beyond a reasonable doubt."
But only on a euclidean plane.
The point being that you have to control every aspect of a universe before
you can prove anything about it.
>
>Kirk Job Sluder
?
--
Then again, I have voices in my head
We think theres voices in my head
We need help
Help us --Deviancy
Wraith
news:3b2c8779....@news.ptdprolog.net...
> no one claims the theory of evolution is 'fact'.
Morgoths Cat can't STOP claiming that. He says that evolution is fact and
that creationists are all stupid and should be lumped in the same boat with
people who deny the Holocaust. Read his posts. That's why I chose to stop
responding to him. Inteligent conversation became impossible.
>
> evolution has a MECHANISM. creation does not. thats why its not
> science
>
> and supernatural explanations of the world have ALWAYS failed. every
> time. not once have they been successful
Actually, it's succeeded a number of times. I'd say as many times as any
other explanation you'll find. And if you're talking about the origins of
the world, no theory can really be proven, can it? It can't be duplicated,
it can't be witnessed, I can't think of any way such a thing can be proven.
All you can do is follow the most logical conclusions, and then.....well,
then you have faith.
--
-Wraith
-Fear not death, but a life poorly lived
-Carpe nocturne
-http://www.geocities.com/wraithtdk/index.htm
Wraith
news:9gjj2v$qqn$1...@s1.uklinux.net...
>
> True - and *all* creationists attack evolution.
I am, and I don't.
Wow, proving YOU wrong was easy enough!
>Modern creationists attack
> evolution because of their inability to recognise myth when they see it.
Close-minded much? I'm a creationist. I believe in evolution. As for my
beliefs being a "myth", I've yet to meet ANYONE who can prove God DOESN'T
exist. True, I can't easily prove he DOES, especially to someone who doesn't
want to believe in him. However, the absense of proof of existence doesn't
prove it's NON-existance.
> Nineteenth century creationists (pre-darwin) at least had the intellectual
> honesty by and large to accept the strength of the evidence in the light
of
> Darwin's theory. It is only those who didn't have that honesty that
> remained creationists in the teeth of the evidence.
Yea, them and the ones that sat down for a while and figured out that Darwin
didn't prove or disaprove ANYTHING. All he did was make a very convincing
case.
> abiogenesis.
I have no idea what this means.
Lucid H. Dreaming
>
>Close-minded much? I'm a creationist. I believe in evolution. As for my
>beliefs being a "myth", I've yet to meet ANYONE who can prove God DOESN'T
>exist. True, I can't easily prove he DOES, especially to someone who doesn't
>want to believe in him. However, the absense of proof of existence doesn't
>prove it's NON-existance.
While you're at it prove to me that out in space there are giant clowns
living in animal shaped balloons.
>
>> abiogenesis.
>
>I have no idea what this means.
Life coming out of no-life.
>-Wraith
Mark VandeWettering
>
>Mark VandeWettering <ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org> wrote in message
>news:slrn9iq320...@peewee.telescopemaking.org...
>> On 17 Jun 2001 14:39:04 -0400, Aegia <g...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Nice stragidy: overwhelm the opposition with claims that can be neither
>> >proven nor disproven.
>>
>> This might be more convincing if you knew how to spell `strategy'.
>>
>Thank you. I must admit I've become too depend on my spell checker to
>correct my errors. It's made me too careless. I'll be more careful
>in the future.
It also might be more convincing if you went back and tried to
understand the claims. The opposition is only overwhelmed by the
claims of evolutionists because they are either to intellectually
lazy or biased to study them.
Hardrock Llewynyth
>On 17 Jun 2001 16:46:09 -0400, Hardrock Llewynyth
><hard...@speakeasy.org> wrote:
>
>>On 17 Jun 2001 06:34:35 -0400, wf...@ptd.net wrote:
>>
>>>no one claims the theory of evolution is 'fact'.
>>
>>Many people do.
>
>uh...many people dont. so your statement is, at best, ambiguous.
No, my statement is accurate, yours is false. Basic logic, which you
should study. You claimed "no one claims that the theory of evolution
is fact". I have heard people claim such, there are examples of such
which have been posted to this newsgroup. Therefore, your assertion
is false.
>DUH!! thats not a mechanism. thats magic. i realize creationists like
>magic, but it aint science. sorry.
I suggest you look up the definition of the word "mechanism".
>i used to be a theistic evolutionist. thats a metaphysical belief
>about a physical process. no one says its science.
All theories of origin are metaphysical.
"In fact, by rigorous [scientific] standards all three theories
[chance evolution, theistic evolution, and progressive creation] are
metaphysical. This is because a theory of non-deliberate design
(evolution) requires proof that no designer every existed; a theory of
deliberate design requires proof that a designer did exist... But
because the intelligence of a designer can be materially grasped
neither in a Boeing 707 nor a bacterium, it is a matter of inference.
Neither of the above proofs is scientifically possible because the
field of science is limited to the material realm. And therfore each
theory of origin is metaphysical."
--Michael Pittman, former Professor of Biology at Cambridge
University. _Adam and Evolution: a scientific critique of
Neo-Darwinism_
>you need to learn about CREATIONISM let alone evolution!!
Apparently, from your posts, i know more than you do about both.
Hardrock
wf...@ptd.net
<hard...@speakeasy.org> wrote:
>On 17 Jun 2001 20:49:47 -0400, wf...@ptd.net wrote:
>
>>On 17 Jun 2001 16:46:09 -0400, Hardrock Llewynyth
>><hard...@speakeasy.org> wrote:
>>
>>>On 17 Jun 2001 06:34:35 -0400, wf...@ptd.net wrote:
>>>
>>>>no one claims the theory of evolution is 'fact'.
>>>
>>>Many people do.
>>
>>uh...many people dont. so your statement is, at best, ambiguous.
>
>No, my statement is accurate, yours is false.
hardly. ambiguity does not count as 'right'.
Basic logic, which you
>should study. You claimed "no one claims that the theory of evolution
>is fact". I have heard people claim such, there are examples of such
>which have been posted to this newsgroup. Therefore, your assertion
>is false.
by all means, cite a peer referenced study which says 'the theory of
evolution is fact'...
>
>>DUH!! thats not a mechanism. thats magic. i realize creationists like
>>magic, but it aint science. sorry.
>
>I suggest you look up the definition of the word "mechanism".
surprise me. you do it for me. tell me how magic qualifies as a
scientific mechanism.
>
>>i used to be a theistic evolutionist. thats a metaphysical belief
>>about a physical process. no one says its science.
>
>All theories of origin are metaphysical.
proof? none. assertion? yep.
>
>"In fact, by rigorous [scientific] standards all three theories
>[chance evolution, theistic evolution, and progressive creation] are
>metaphysical. This is because a theory of non-deliberate design
>(evolution) requires proof that no designer every existed;
really? a demonstration of a mechanism in chemistry requires proof
that no designer did it? since when? such a statement is
scientifically meaningless. however, since we cant rule out
ALTERNATIVE mechanisms to the theorized one, thats the reason theories
arent 'true.'
you simply have never spent time in a lab.
a theory of
>deliberate design requires proof that a designer did exist... But
>because the intelligence of a designer can be materially grasped
>neither in a Boeing 707 nor a bacterium, it is a matter of inference.
wrong. we know how to make 707's. and we know the basic NATURAL laws
of bacterial formation...the construction of lipid membranes, etc.
>Neither of the above proofs is scientifically possible because the
>field of science is limited to the material realm. And therfore each
>theory of origin is metaphysical."
>
>--Michael Pittman, former Professor of Biology at Cambridge
>University. _Adam and Evolution: a scientific critique of
>Neo-Darwinism_
nice little out of context quote. again, you dont know what
'mechanism' means in science...and its obvious you dont know what a
'theory' is, either.
>
>>you need to learn about CREATIONISM let alone evolution!!
>
>Apparently, from your posts, i know more than you do about both.
>
>Hardrock
>
and the only time you've spent in a lab is watching old boris karloff
movies, apparently...and reading out of context quotes.
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
><wf...@ptd.net> wrote in message
>
>>
>> and supernatural explanations of the world have ALWAYS failed. every
>> time. not once have they been successful
>
>Actually, it's succeeded a number of times. I'd say as many times as any
>other explanation you'll find
demons cause disease? angels push the planets around in their orbits??
.. And if you're talking about the origins of
>the world, no theory can really be proven, can it? It can't be duplicated,
>it can't be witnessed, I can't think of any way such a thing can be proven.
>All you can do is follow the most logical conclusions, and then.....well,
>then you have faith.
hardly. all you have to do is see the laws of nature at work. and
theories arent proven at all.
creationism, however, isnt even a theory.
Louann Miller
wrote:
><wf...@ptd.net> wrote in message
>> and supernatural explanations of the world have ALWAYS failed. every
>> time. not once have they been successful
>Actually, it's succeeded a number of times. I'd say as many times as any
>other explanation you'll find.
I'm afraid I can't think of a specific example. Have you got one
handy?
Louann
Noelie S. Alito
"Wraith" <wrai...@nospam.home.com> wrote in message
news:mbgX6.89503$G5.19...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com...
> "Robin Levett" <rle...@ibmrlevett.uklinux.net> wrote in message
> news:9gjj2v$qqn$1...@s1.uklinux.net...
> >
> > True - and *all* creationists attack evolution.
>
> I am, and I don't.
>
> Wow, proving YOU wrong was easy enough!
**Whoop! Whoop! Whoop! Whoop!**
** Semantic conflict alert! ** (Or, at least, it looks like it.)
In talk.origins, "creationist" is used as a shorthand grouping
for YECs (Young Earth Creationists), self-named biblical
literalists, and people who disbelieve Common Descent,
especially with regard to Homo sapiens. I believe Robin
was using the term in this way. This is distinct from many
other definitions of "creationist," of course, such as those
used in Catholic theology.
Also, I should warn you we have gotten a lot of creationists
(in the t.o sense) coming in here claiming to be "evolutionists"
or to accept evolution. In most cases one or more of the
following became evident:
- they blatantly lied about being "evolutionists"
- they have no idea what evolution is (basically using
it as a term for "any science I don't like", such as
cosmology or abiogenetic research)
- they "accept microevolution but not macroevolution"
- they accept it for everything but Homo sapiens
There are a lot of "theistic evolutionists" who also post to
talk.origins, so you'll find some company.
Noelie
--
Who wants group prayer in schools? Not Matthew 6:6ers.
Kirk Job Sluder
> "In fact, by rigorous [scientific] standards all three theories
> [chance evolution, theistic evolution, and progressive creation] are
> metaphysical. This is because a theory of non-deliberate design
> (evolution) requires proof that no designer every existed; a theory of
> deliberate design requires proof that a designer did exist... But
> because the intelligence of a designer can be materially grasped
> neither in a Boeing 707 nor a bacterium, it is a matter of inference.
> Neither of the above proofs is scientifically possible because the
> field of science is limited to the material realm. And therfore each
> theory of origin is metaphysical."
>
> --Michael Pittman, former Professor of Biology at Cambridge
> University. _Adam and Evolution: a scientific critique of
> Neo-Darwinism_
Actually, a theory of non-deliberate design (an abomination of an oxymoron
if I ever saw one) only requires evidence that the theory is sufficient to
explain the data without the need for a creator. For example, I don't need
to prove that angels pushing the planets around don't exist, I only need to
show that Einstein's law of gravitation is sufficient to explain the motion
of the planets. Of course it is quite possible that there is a creator who
is shaping creation in such a way that the resulting evidence can't be
distinguished from the evidence predicted by evolution.
> Apparently, from your posts, i know more than you do about both.
>
> Hardrock
Kirk Job Sluder
"Robin Levett" <rle...@ibmrlevett.uklinux.net> wrote in message
news:9gjj2v$qqn$1...@s1.uklinux.net...
> abiogenesis. Making vegetation and animals from earth, fish and whales
from
> water, and man from dust isn't any less abiogenesis because "goddidit".
True, and I think one of the big differences between many creationists and
most naturalists is that most naturalists are quite comfortable with saying,
"we don't know for certain how life on earth got started." But creationists
have a very tough time separating theories of evolution from theories of
abiogenesis.
Kirk Job Sluder
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 12:35:53 -0500, "Kirk Job Sluder"
> <csl...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>
> >As a result, Darwin was certainly as well trained and as informally
trained
> >as many of his contemporaries including Dalton, and Faraday.
>
> IIRC, he wasn't; but i don't have the sources for that handy.
I guess what would you regard as good training in biology? Two years of
medicine at Edinburgh followed by two years of botany at Cambridge adds up
to a training equivalent to a contemporary B.S. in biology. After college
Darwin dove right into field research on the HMS Beagle.
In contrast, Farady was trained as a bookbinder and then managed to get
on-the-job training under Davey.
> >Not entirely. Many of the predictions made by evolution have been found
to
> >be true. We have thousands of individual examples of data showing that
> >species diversity on Earth has changed over time.
>
> Which isn't necessarily a support for macro-evolution; since it
> requires transitional species that are notably missing from the fossil
> record, and none exist currently.
Actually there are dozens of species transitions in microfossils and
invertebrates.
> I've not seen anything that supports the "common ancestor" claim that
> cannot be easily explained in other ways. And even in the microfossil
> record, transitional species are notable for their absence. If you
> know of any, please post citations.
Of course the question comes down to what do you mean by "easily explained."
Creationism demands that we believe that each species was uniquely created
with divergence in genetic sequences in linear proportion to the estimated
separation division of that species by a common ancestor (from the fossil
record.) Why do the genetic differences correspond quite well to a family
tree model, rather than a technical design model where working proteins are
conserved across all species that share that protein?
In addition, both intelligent design and special creation are very vunerable
to problem that natural systems are built from an apparently ad-hoc sequence
of patches, kludges, and biochemical duct tape. Special creation collapses
pretty quickly when confronted with these problems. Intelligent design
ducks the question by proposing that some mechanisms "evolved" and other
mechanisms were "designed."
> >lines of evidence supporting it than heliocentrism. How many independent
> >lines of evidence are needed before we suggest that evolution is the best
> >theory we have for looking at life on Earth?
>
> Enough that rules out any other model, or which at leasts makes it
> considerably more likely than any other model; which it has not even
> remotely done. There are at least three other models which fit the
> evidence equally well.
>
> hardrock
Which models? ID has some serious flaws both logically and in terms of the
available evidence. Young-earth creationism completely crumbles, as does
old-earth creationism.
Kirk Job Sluder
"Lucid H. Dreaming" <dth2...@zen.art.rmit.edu.au> wrote in message
news:slrn9imsrc....@zen.art.rmit.edu.au...
> The point being that you have to control every aspect of a universe before
> you can prove anything about it.
Are you really to only limit our ability to know to controled experimental
studies? Of course we can support a hypothesis to the point where it is
provisionally true without relying on experimental studies. We can make a
claim that the moon orbits the earth rather than jupiter without having
complete control over the moon. Now perhaps this doesn't qualify as
"proof?" But if "proof" requires complete control then the result is that
we can proove nothing and therefore know nothing.
Morgoth's Cat
><wf...@ptd.net> wrote in message
>news:3b2c8779....@news.ptdprolog.net...
>> On 16 Jun 2001 23:37:01 -0400, Hardrock Llewynyth
>> <hard...@speakeasy.org> wrote:
>
>> no one claims the theory of evolution is 'fact'.
>
>Morgoths Cat can't STOP claiming that.
>He says that evolution is fact and
>that creationists are all stupid and should be lumped in the same boat with
>people who deny the Holocaust. Read his posts.
Please stop misrepresenting me. I have said that evolution is a fact
and it is also a theory. Instead of shooting your mouth off first
learn to read.
And their tactics are akin to holocaust deniers.
>That's why I chose to stop
>responding to him. Inteligent conversation became impossible.
You are certainly entitled to your opinions, but you are not entitled
to your own facts.
Comprendez?
Best Regards,
Dave
--
**************************************************************
* Supernovae, Supernova Remnants and Young-Earth Creationism *
* http://www.valinor.freeserve.co.uk/supernova.html *
**************************************************************
ed rhodes
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, Deviancy wrote:
>
> > Some love to say hate crimes are going up in society, regardless of the
> > heavier penalty for a hate crime. I would love to think this isn't true.
> >
> *smirk* Please don't think me the heartless bastard, but ever since I saw
> Southpark where Cartman got sent to jail for a 'hate crime'.(He hit some
> african-american boy with a rock, which missed the non-african-american
> boy that it was intended for). Anywho, the whole point of the story was
> that all crimes are motivated by hate and therefore the same crime should
> always be treated with the same punishment.
I think you're being too general here. A "hate crime" is a crime of
violence instigated against someone simply because of the group he or
she belongs to as opposed to a crime of violence directed at a person
because of a direct animosity toward that person.
>
> I had flipped through an episode of boston public and I was intrigued that
> they were trying to fire a old 'bigot' for not using correct terminology
> to refer to a student(I didnt watch the episode so I don't know the whole
> story line) But would someone care to point out to me the terms that are
> PC and those that aren't?
>
> black
> coloured
> African-American
Anybody remember a series in which Dan Dailey was a PI incarcerated
for 25 years in a South American jail? In the pilot, he escapes during
a coup and finds the American embassy. He turns to a black man in a
suit who is surrounded by guards and says; "I need to speak to the
ambassador." The man responds; "I am the ambassador." As he's leading
Dailey into the embassy, Dailey turns to one of the guards and says;
"A <colored> ambassador?" the guard responds; "Black." Dailey snaps
back, "What're you, a bigot?" The guard continues; "No, that's what
they like to be called now." Dailey; "They do?" The ambassador
(without turning around) "Yes, we do." Great sequence!
Hardrock Llewynyth
wrote:
>True, and I think one of the big differences between many creationists and
>most naturalists is that most naturalists are quite comfortable with saying,
>"we don't know for certain how life on earth got started." But creationists
>have a very tough time separating theories of evolution from theories of
>abiogenesis.
That is because nearly all evolution models include abiogenesis as the
starting point for the process. The building blocks have to come from
somewhere, and all models speculate on the origins of those building
blocks.
Most non-religious "chance evolution" (the postulate that evolution is
a random process, unguided by outside forces) models must include
abiogenesis as their starting point. Theistic evolution and other
religious variants includes a "prime mover" or deity of some sort as
their starting point.
To seperate abiogenesis from the various evolution models is
disingenuous and does a disservice to those true scientists who
attempt to create a complete model of the origins of life.
I'd like to see someone cite a single scientist who postulates a
chance evolution model who does not assume abiogenesis as his startign
point. "Star seed" models simply beg the question, and are evasions
rather than alternatives.
hardrock
Hardrock Llewynyth
wrote:
>"proof?" But if "proof" requires complete control then the result is that
>we can proove nothing and therefore know nothing.
From a scientific basis, no proof is ever complete (outside of pure
mathematics of course). There is always the chance of falsifiability.
Thus any postulate must ultimately be accepted on faith. the more
extensive the evidence, the less faith is required; but there is
always an element of faith involved.
No true scientist has ever denied that. It is only the layman or the
fanatic that trumpets scientifically obtained knowledge as superceding
faith. There are just too many things that have to be accepted as
axia before that knowledge has any practical meaning.
The only entirely logical view of the world is pure solipsism.
Everything else is faith.
Hardrock
Maco
> No, it isn't. In science, a theory is a hypothesis which attempts to
> explain observed phenomena and predict future occurences. It can be
> tested and proven or disproven.
Outside of mathematics you cannot prove anything, just because, for
example, a ball falls to the ground 100 times, there is nothing to say
it won't the 101st time
> Some theories have been proposed; but these have encroaches into the
> realm of the metaphysical. They require many unproven assertions to
> be taken as axiomatic; and are unable to be proven or disproven
> without doing so.
By definition, axiomatic means something that cannot ve proved, even in
mathematics. Axioms are 'the articles of faith' so to speak, they are
something you accept and work upwards from.
--
Maco
xxxx
Just done an exam on mathematical logic and basic number theory :-(
Morgoth's Cat
<hard...@speakeasy.org> scribed:
>On 18 Jun 2001 13:11:28 -0400, "Kirk Job Sluder" <csl...@indiana.edu>
>wrote:
>
>>True, and I think one of the big differences between many creationists and
>>most naturalists is that most naturalists are quite comfortable with saying,
>>"we don't know for certain how life on earth got started." But creationists
>>have a very tough time separating theories of evolution from theories of
>>abiogenesis.
>
>That is because nearly all evolution models include abiogenesis as the
>starting point for the process.
Nooooo.... Abiogenesis is a seperate field of science. The
prerequisite of evolution is pre-existing lifeforms.
I have no problems with believing that <insert deity here> or <insert
alien race here> created the first life.
But quite simply, we don't know yet how the first life occurred.
> The building blocks have to come from
>somewhere, and all models speculate on the origins of those building
>blocks.
>
>Most non-religious "chance evolution" (the postulate that evolution is
>a random process, unguided by outside forces) models must include
>abiogenesis as their starting point.
You mean, for want of a better term, "naturalistic".
> Theistic evolution and other
>religious variants includes a "prime mover" or deity of some sort as
>their starting point.
>
Correct.
>To seperate abiogenesis from the various evolution models is
>disingenuous
Incorrect. "We don't know" is one of the most powerful statements in
science.
Abiogenesis is about as related to evolution as cosmology or geology
is. i.e. it's not.
>and does a disservice to those true scientists who
>attempt to create a complete model of the origins of life.
>
>I'd like to see someone cite a single scientist who postulates a
>chance evolution model who does not assume abiogenesis as his startign
>point.
This termonology of "chance evolution" is misleading. Chance is not
the driving force of evolution.
Best Regards,
Dave
>"Star seed" models simply beg the question, and are evasions
>rather than alternatives.
>
>hardrock
>
--
Hardrock Llewynyth
<amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.INVALID> wrote:
>What is this "chance evolution"?
It's pretty self-explanatory.
Evolution which occurs as the result of random mutation, ie.
"chance", as opposed to evolution which occurs as a result of guidance
by an outside force, ie. "guided evolution".
It may or may not incorporate the principle of abiogenesis. If it
doesn't, then it postulates a creator who set the process in motion
with the creation of a prototype entity; aka "theistic evolution".
Hardrock
Hardrock Llewynyth
Cat) wrote:
>I have no problems with believing that <insert deity here> or <insert
>alien race here> created the first life.
>But quite simply, we don't know yet how the first life occurred.
Yet nearly all published origin models specify abiogenesis unless they
are of a theistic model; ie, theistic evolution or guided evolution.
And, as you ignored the last time around, the "star seed" model begs
the question of where the life that seeded this planet originated.
And while you may not have any problems with a theistic model of
genesis, many published scientists do, and assume abiogenesis as an
axiomatic starting point.
>>Most non-religious "chance evolution" (the postulate that evolution is
>>a random process, unguided by outside forces) models must include
>>abiogenesis as their starting point.
>
>You mean, for want of a better term, "naturalistic".
Unfortunately, "naturalistic" is too vague a term as currently used.
>>To seperate abiogenesis from the various evolution models is
>>disingenuous
>
>Incorrect. "We don't know" is one of the most powerful statements in
>science.
Yet it is not one that is consistently made.
You still have not cited a single non-theistic model that does not
include abiogenesis as the starting point.
>This termonology of "chance evolution" is misleading. Chance is not
>the driving force of evolution.
Except for guided evolution, it is. The mechanism of change is random
mutation. That is chance. The only other mechanisms available are
programmed paths and guidance by an outside force. It can't be both
random and guided.
Hardrock Llewynyth
<csl...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>Of course the question comes down to what do you mean by "easily explained."
>Creationism demands that we believe that each species was uniquely created
>with divergence in genetic sequences in linear proportion to the estimated
>separation division of that species by a common ancestor (from the fossil
>record.) Why do the genetic differences correspond quite well to a family
>tree model, rather than a technical design model where working proteins are
>conserved across all species that share that protein?
Common ancestor is a loose fit at best, since the fossil record does
not include the transitional forms necessary to prove one. An
archetypal model, such as that posited by Prof. Michael Pittman fits
the visible evidence as well as the common ancestor model.
>Which models? ID has some serious flaws both logically and in terms of the
>available evidence. Young-earth creationism completely crumbles, as does
>old-earth creationism.
Young-earth creationism is based on several key misunderstandings.
Progressive creation, depending on the particular model, is as good a
fit for the evidence as many evolution models. Guided evolution fits
the available evidence as well as any other model, and better than
some.
Hardrock
Hardrock Llewynyth
> By definition, axiomatic means something that cannot ve proved, even in
>mathematics. Axioms are 'the articles of faith' so to speak, they are
>something you accept and work upwards from.
If you had read a bit more carefully, my objection was to falsifable
claims being taken as axiomatic.
Other than that, you've simply reiterated my point about faith. You
can prove anything simply by using the appropriate axia. Once you
take something on faith, you can develop those axia into whatever
proof you want, regardless of the validity of your axia.
hardrock
Shooty
Llewynyth <hard...@speakeasy.org> wrote:
snip
>
> >This termonology of "chance evolution" is misleading. Chance is not
> >the driving force of evolution.
>
> Except for guided evolution, it is. The mechanism of change is random
> mutation. That is chance. The only other mechanisms available are
> programmed paths and guidance by an outside force. It can't be both
> random and guided.
How about selection?
--
Shooty
wf...@ptd.net
>On 18 Jun 2001 13:11:28 -0400, "Kirk Job Sluder" <csl...@indiana.edu>
>wrote:
>
>>True, and I think one of the big differences between many creationists and
>>most naturalists is that most naturalists are quite comfortable with saying,
>>"we don't know for certain how life on earth got started." But creationists
>>have a very tough time separating theories of evolution from theories of
>>abiogenesis.
>
>That is because nearly all evolution models include abiogenesis as the
>starting point for the process. The building blocks have to come from
>somewhere, and all models speculate on the origins of those building
>blocks.
irrelevant. some of them assume panspermia. the development of life
after it got started is irrelevant to the mechanism of life's
beginning.
>
>Most non-religious "chance evolution" (the postulate that evolution is
>a random process, unguided by outside forces) models must include
>abiogenesis as their starting point. Theistic evolution and other
>religious variants includes a "prime mover" or deity of some sort as
>their starting point.
no, they dont. see above.
the religious varieties...as you so quaintly call them...are
untestable metaphysical assumptions. we can test the 'non religious'
mechanisms like stanley miller did...whether or not its CORRECT is
irrelevant to the fact that its SCIENCE.
creationism aint.
>
>To seperate abiogenesis from the various evolution models is
>disingenuous and does a disservice to those true scientists who
>attempt to create a complete model of the origins of life.
whatever a 'true' scientist is. the last thing we need is cape
wearing, wand waving superstitiously inclined creationists telling us
what is/isnt science.
>
wf...@ptd.net
<hard...@speakeasy.org> wrote:
>On 18 Jun 2001 16:48:06 -0400, mango...@my-dejanews.com (Morgoth's
>Cat) wrote:
>
>>I have no problems with believing that <insert deity here> or <insert
>>alien race here> created the first life.
>
>>But quite simply, we don't know yet how the first life occurred.
>
>Yet nearly all published origin models specify abiogenesis unless they
>are of a theistic model; ie, theistic evolution or guided evolution.
there is no model of theistic evolution. thats a metaphysical
belief...i know because i used to be a theistic evolutionist. it isnt
testable. saying 'goddidit' explains precisely nothing.
>
>>This termonology of "chance evolution" is misleading. Chance is not
>>the driving force of evolution.
>
>Except for guided evolution, it is. The mechanism of change is random
>mutation. That is chance. The only other mechanisms available are
>programmed paths and guidance by an outside force. It can't be both
>random and guided.
>
>
define 'outside force'...this is typical creationist babytalk.
outside of what? and what kind of 'force'? how is it measured?
he aint gonna answer any of these questions...he's a creationist. he
thinks science is magic.
Thomas Griffin
Hardrock Llewynyth wrote:
> On 18 Jun 2001 13:33:24 -0400, "Kirk Job Sluder" <csl...@indiana.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >"proof?" But if "proof" requires complete control then the result is that
> >we can proove nothing and therefore know nothing.
>
> From a scientific basis, no proof is ever complete (outside of pure
> mathematics of course). There is always the chance of falsifiability.
>
This much is true.
> Thus any postulate must ultimately be accepted on faith. the more
> extensive the evidence, the less faith is required; but there is
> always an element of faith involved.
>
Here is where you go wrong. Any idea that is accepted as "Absolutely true" with
no acknowledged possibility that it could be wrong requires faith. This is why
in science no idea should ever be accepted to this degree. If we only accept
ideas to the degree warranted by the evidence, then faith is not required. It
simply means that we can never have certainty.
>
> No true scientist has ever denied that. It is only the layman or the
> fanatic that trumpets scientifically obtained knowledge as superceding
> faith. There are just too many things that have to be accepted as
> axia before that knowledge has any practical meaning.
>
Science avoids faith by avoiding absolute acceptance.
Hardrock Llewynyth
>define 'outside force'...this is typical creationist babytalk.
>
>outside of what? and what kind of 'force'? how is it measured?
>
>he aint gonna answer any of these questions...he's a creationist. he
>thinks science is magic.
If you actually were interested in reasoned debate, instead of
dick-pulling self-aggrandizement; i'd answer your question. But since
unlike other, more intelligent people here, you are obviously more
interested in ridicule than discourse, you're relagated to my
killfile.
hardrock
wf...@ptd.net
<hard...@speakeasy.org> wrote:
as he dodges the question.
go ahead..killfile away. im not writing to you anyhow...there are many
folks who read these posts besides you.
and part of the post is an analysis of creationist ideology...the idea
that magic is science.
wf...@ptd.net
<hard...@speakeasy.org> wrote:
>On 18 Jun 2001 13:33:24 -0400, "Kirk Job Sluder" <csl...@indiana.edu>
>wrote:
>
>>"proof?" But if "proof" requires complete control then the result is that
>>we can proove nothing and therefore know nothing.
>
>From a scientific basis, no proof is ever complete (outside of pure
>mathematics of course). There is always the chance of falsifiability.
>Thus any postulate must ultimately be accepted on faith.
or experience. he's the ultimate postmodernist...there is no objective
truth...no objective laws...and that proves god objectively exists...
>
>No true scientist has ever denied that. It is only the layman or the
>fanatic that trumpets scientifically obtained knowledge as superceding
>faith. There are just too many things that have to be accepted as
>axia before that knowledge has any practical meaning.
and what about the creationist who asserts faith supercedes evidence?
>
Louann Miller
<hard...@speakeasy.org> wrote:
>If you actually were interested in reasoned debate, instead of
>dick-pulling self-aggrandizement; i'd answer your question.
Can I borrow that for a tagline? You have such a way with words.
Louann Miller
<hard...@speakeasy.org> wrote:
>On 17 Jun 2001 17:59:56 -0400, Andrew Glasgow
><amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>What is this "chance evolution"?
>
>It's pretty self-explanatory.
>
>Evolution which occurs as the result of random mutation, ie.
>"chance", as opposed to evolution which occurs as a result of guidance
>by an outside force, ie. "guided evolution".
It's not a tough idea here; the standard evolutionary theory
postulates a two-stage process. As in "two." Step one, mutation, you
correctly characterize as random. But there is also a step two,
natural selection, which although not guided by an outside force
(hence the word natural) is not random. A simple but sound explanation
might be "some stuff survives better than other stuff."
Postulate a simple ecosystem with a prey animal, a roadrunner, and a
predator animal, a coyote. Random mutation might produce roadrunners
with top speeds varying from 10-30 mph. Natural selection is that all
things being equal, the local coyote population then eats the slow
ones. Not because God or aliens made them do it that way, but because
_slower is easier to catch._ Then the next generation of roadrunners
is descended from parents who could go 15-35 mph. Over time, the birds
get faster.
(Mind you, the generations of coyotes are also getting faster, or
wilier, or perhaps more skeptical of the claims in the Acme catalog.
The ones who aren't tend to get squished under boulders rather than
breeding. It's a feedback loop.)
>It may or may not incorporate the principle of abiogenesis. If it
>doesn't, then it postulates a creator who set the process in motion
>with the creation of a prototype entity; aka "theistic evolution".
You didn't actually read the previously offered definition of
abiogenesis, did you? It's a blanket term for any process that
produces life from nonlife, whether it's Miller's Molecules or God or
fuzzy little aliens from Alpha Centauri. If you believe that at any
time in the past there was no life, and later for whatever natural or
supernatural reason there was, then you believe in abiogenesis. That
covers pretty much everyone, from Hovind to Gould to the Pope, with
the possible exception of Fred Hoyle's crowd and solipsists.*
Louann
* why does the word solipsist HAVE a plural?
Jon Fleming
<hard...@speakeasy.org> wrote:
Chance is _one_ of the mechanisms of _generating_ _variation_.
Selection is the non-random mechanism or _reducing_ variation.
Generated variation plus a mechanism of reducing variation make up
evolution, which is not just chance.
>That is chance. The only other mechanisms available are
>programmed paths and guidance by an outside force.
You forgot to mention selection.
>It can't be both
>random and guided.
In fact it is neither.
>
--
Change "nospam" to "group" to email
Neal Stanifer
>
> On 18 Jun 2001 13:33:24 -0400, "Kirk Job Sluder" <csl...@indiana.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >"proof?" But if "proof" requires complete control then the result is that
> >we can proove nothing and therefore know nothing.
>
> From a scientific basis, no proof is ever complete (outside of pure
> mathematics of course). There is always the chance of falsifiability.
> Thus any postulate must ultimately be accepted on faith. the more
> extensive the evidence, the less faith is required; but there is
> always an element of faith involved.
This does not diminish the reproducibility of proper scientific
evidence. If we are talking about religion and science, I would have to
ask the question: "Where is religion's reproducibility?"
>
> No true scientist has ever denied that. It is only the layman or the
> fanatic that trumpets scientifically obtained knowledge as superceding
> faith. There are just too many things that have to be accepted as
> axia before that knowledge has any practical meaning.
This is true. All belief has at its core an element of faith. The
difference is that a scientist who does not believe in a particular
religion has much less to rationalize with his faith than does a
scientist who clings doggedly to the faith of his fathers. Does this
mean the faith is wrong? Not necessarily. But the amount of faith
required seems proportional to the degree to which one is attached to
theological Truths.
>
> The only entirely logical view of the world is pure solipsism.
> Everything else is faith.
Interesting. Why would you say that solipsism requires no faith? I
would think it required not only far more faith than most other beliefs,
but also a few dollops of extra arrogance into the bargain.
Neal
Ryan Eby
> On 18 Jun 2001 16:48:06 -0400, mango...@my-dejanews.com (Morgoth's
> Cat) wrote:
>
>>I have no problems with believing that <insert deity here> or <insert
>>alien race here> created the first life.
>
>>But quite simply, we don't know yet how the first life occurred.
>
> Yet nearly all published origin models specify abiogenesis unless they
> are of a theistic model; ie, theistic evolution or guided evolution.
If it is an origin model than it will most likely be abiogenesis since
evolution does not discuss the origin of life, presuming you mean origin of
life when you say "origin model".
>
> And, as you ignored the last time around, the "star seed" model begs
> the question of where the life that seeded this planet originated.
Argue with Chive sometime.
>
> And while you may not have any problems with a theistic model of
> genesis, many published scientists do, and assume abiogenesis as an
> axiomatic starting point.
They may but most of the published papers on evolution I have read do not
mention abiogenesis.
>
>>>Most non-religious "chance evolution" (the postulate that evolution is
>>>a random process, unguided by outside forces) models must include
>>>abiogenesis as their starting point.
>>
>>You mean, for want of a better term, "naturalistic".
>
> Unfortunately, "naturalistic" is too vague a term as currently used.
It's better than "chance"
>
>>>To seperate abiogenesis from the various evolution models is
>>>disingenuous
>>
>>Incorrect. "We don't know" is one of the most powerful statements in
>>science.
>
> Yet it is not one that is consistently made.
>
> You still have not cited a single non-theistic model that does not
> include abiogenesis as the starting point.
Evolution.
>
>>This termonology of "chance evolution" is misleading. Chance is not the
>>driving force of evolution.
>
> Except for guided evolution, it is. The mechanism of change is random
> mutation. That is chance. The only other mechanisms available are
> programmed paths and guidance by an outside force. It can't be both
> random and guided.
There is selection at work. Besides that the mutations are limited by
chemistry.
>
>
Robin Levett
Wraith <wrai...@nospam.home.com> wrote in message
news:mbgX6.89503$G5.19...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com...
> "Robin Levett" <rle...@ibmrlevett.uklinux.net> wrote in message
> news:9gjj2v$qqn$1...@s1.uklinux.net...
> >
>
> I am, and I don't.
>
> Wow, proving YOU wrong was easy enough!
See below.
>
> >Modern creationists attack
> > evolution because of their inability to recognise myth when they see it.
>
> Close-minded much? I'm a creationist. I believe in evolution.
I'm sorry, that sentence robs either creationist or evolution of any
meaning. Creationist (certainly as the term is used here) does not mean
believer in a creator god - it means someone who believes that life was
created in all its observable variety, with evolution playing no part in
speciation. Either you are not a creationist, or you don't "believe in
evolution". If you believe that your god created the first life, and then
evolution took over, you accept theistic evolution - that does not make you
a creationist.
> As for my
> beliefs being a "myth", I've yet to meet ANYONE who can prove God DOESN'T
> exist.
It is the Geneis myth that is in issue here. Creationist take it literally.
> True, I can't easily prove he DOES, especially to someone who doesn't
> want to believe in him. However, the absense of proof of existence doesn't
> prove it's NON-existance.
>
> > Nineteenth century creationists (pre-darwin) at least had the
intellectual
> > honesty by and large to accept the strength of the evidence in the light
> of
> > Darwin's theory. It is only those who didn't have that honesty that
> > remained creationists in the teeth of the evidence.
>
> Yea, them and the ones that sat down for a while and figured out that
Darwin
> didn't prove or disaprove ANYTHING. All he did was make a very convincing
> case.
Proof is for mathematicians and alcohol. A very convincing case, supported
by the evidence, will do.
> > abiogenesis.
>
> I have no idea what this means.
Life from non-life - as in life from dust (as in Genesis).
> --
> -Wraith
> -Fear not death, but a life poorly lived
> -Carpe nocturne
> -http://www.geocities.com/wraithtdk/index.htm
>
--
________________________________________________________________
Robin Levett
rle...@ibmattglobal.net
(address munged by addition of Big Blue)
Atheist = knows of and uses Occam's Razor
Agnostic = knows of but isn't sure whether to use Occam's Razor
Fundy = what's Ockam's erasure?
___________________________________________________
John Everett
> > Thus any postulate must ultimately be accepted on faith.
>
> or experience.
Experience mediated by what? Or do you just directly perceive reality? Do
you accept that on faith, or some sort of meta-experience?
> he's the ultimate postmodernist...there is no objective
> truth...no objective laws...and that proves god
> objectively exists...
Well, it at least gives more credibility to an authority source which has
claimed for millennia that 'we see through a glass darkly.' I know that I'd
certainly like to think that if a God existed that he'd be a much better
poet than a biology textbook writer. "In matters of grave importance, style
not substance is the crucial matter." -- Oscar Wilde.
> and what about the creationist who asserts faith supercedes evidence?
What about the ontologist and the epistemologist who asserts that 'our
world' supercedes 'the world'? Or do you just like to pretend that Husserl
was the final word in the philosophy of science?
John
John Everett
> ... a scientist who does not believe in a particular
> religion has much less to rationalize with his faith
> than does a scientist who clings doggedly to the
> faith of his fathers.
Yes, but the scientist has much more phenomenological data that he must
dismiss because it doesn't fit with the 18th century Positivistic worldview
to which he clings doggedly. "I must just be seeing things." "My mind is
playing tricks on me." "Why I'm just being superstitious." "It's
unexplainable, but there *must* be a Rational(tm) explanation." ... Of
which one cannot speak, one must remain silent.
> > The only entirely logical view of the world is
> > pure solipsism. Everything else is faith.
>
> Interesting. Why would you say that solipsism
> requires no faith?
Duh, Barbie: I think therefore I am.
John
Lucid H. Dreaming
>
>"Lucid H. Dreaming" <dth2...@zen.art.rmit.edu.au> wrote in message
>news:slrn9imsrc....@zen.art.rmit.edu.au...
>> The point being that you have to control every aspect of a universe before
>> you can prove anything about it.
>
>Are you really to only limit our ability to know to controled experimental
>studies? Of course we can support a hypothesis to the point where it is
>provisionally true without relying on experimental studies. We can make a
>claim that the moon orbits the earth rather than jupiter without having
>complete control over the moon. Now perhaps this doesn't qualify as
>"proof?" But if "proof" requires complete control then the result is that
>we can proove nothing and therefore know nothing.
Yes.
Science requires faith that Occams Razor is true.
>Kirk Job Sluder
?
--
Then again, I have voices in my head
We think theres voices in my head
We need help
Help us --Deviancy
John Everett
>
> A very convincing case, supported
> by the evidence, will do.
A convincing case, when applied to an explanatory paradigm, actually only
makes an enchanting campfire story. What will do is *predictive value*.
> Creationist...means someone who believes that life was
> created in all its observable variety, with evolution
> playing no part in speciation.
If evolution plays a part in speciation, why are we hurling headlong into
mass extinctions and a global monogocene -- instead of seeing a constant
macroevolution flowering of biodiversity? Can you offer any predictive
value?
For that matter, how soon before biologists can manipulate the nearly
identical building blocks of life between species and turn a chimp into a
human, just like chemists can manipulate a few common ancestor protons and
electrons and turn lead into gold? Can you offer any predictive value?
> > > abiogenesis.
> >
> Life from non-life - as in life from dust (as in Genesis).
Uh, if 'abiogenesis' = 'Genesis' -- is 'abio' = 'null'? Or are you just
starting to play fast and loose with your rhetoric. At any rate, taking the
Bible literally, life is not from dust, but rather is only formed dust which
contains 'the breath of life' as breathed in by a living supernatural
entity. This explanation seem quite sensible since, time after time, once
the breath of life leaves, only dust remains.
John
(who is going to go out and buy some ivory trinkets now that I know that if
elephants are poached into extinction, chance mutation and natural selection
can bring them right back.)
John Everett
> Science requires faith that Occams Razor is true.
"Less is a bore."
-- Robert Venturi
Louann Miller
<eve...@virtu.sar.usf.edu> wrote:
>If evolution plays a part in speciation, why are we hurling headlong into
>mass extinctions and a global monogocene -- instead of seeing a constant
>macroevolution flowering of biodiversity? Can you offer any predictive
>value?
Because humans can kill species a lot faster than natural selection
can spin off new ones. We're the latest equivalent of the Alvarezes'
dinosaur-killing impactor -- except that we keep right on chomping.
My guess is that unless we manage to strip our own ozone layer (there
was a dramatic bit showing that on the Discovery channel recently, in
connection with a hypothetical solar super-flare) we'll hit a stable
point somewhere. At that point all the surviving species will be the
ones we're no good at killing. Rats, pigeons, and cockroaches; that
sort of niche. Pond scum. Algae. Not nearly as much fun as tigers
burning bright in the forests of the night. We'd better get R&D moving
on that "Jurassic Park" tech for reviving extinct species from cloned
DNA, so we can get some of it back.
>John
>(who is going to go out and buy some ivory trinkets now that I know that if
>elephants are poached into extinction, chance mutation and natural selection
>can bring them right back.)
Actually, the percentage of adult male elephants who have tusks is
declining both in Africa and Asia precisely because poachers are
killing the ones with big tusks and leaving the tiny-tusk or no-tusk
cadre to breed the next generation. Hopefully, in time.
You're being very sloppy with probabilities, by the way. The number of
mutations needed to produce exactly an elephant is incredibly huge,
and the universe has a heat death scheduled at some point; we're not
likely to hit it twice. It's the difference between the chance of a
twenty-digit number winning a hypothetical super-lottery (after all,
SOME number has to win if there's a drawing) and the chance of that
exact number then hitting the jackpot again.
Or to test your theory, you might painstakingly go out and burn all
the world's copies of the Bible -- after all, someone can "right back"
write it over again.
Louann
John Everett
>
> Because humans can kill species a lot faster than
> natural selection can spin off new ones.
I haven't been watching the scoreboard lately. Can you tell me how many
kills have humans scored vs. how many new species natural selection has
scored in, say, the last five centuries?
> We're the latest equivalent of the Alvarezes'
> dinosaur-killing impactor -- except that we
> keep right on chomping.
How lucky for us that, in billions and billions of years, some other
hegenomic survivior of the fittest didn't choke away all of the biodiversity
long before we arrived on the scene. Or is it unscientific to refer to
'luck' -- should I say 'providence' instead?
> ... the percentage of adult male elephants who
> have tusks is declining both in Africa and Asia
> precisely because poachers are killing the ones
> with big tusks and leaving the tiny-tusk or
> no-tusk cadre to breed the next generation.
Well, so much for natural selection benignly guiding us towards adaptive
mutations and the survivial of the fittest. The 'fittest' just seems to be
the ones who per chance stumble safely through the gaunlet of outrageous
forture, rather than that for which the progessivist teleological
assumptions of 19th century science might pray.
> You're being very sloppy with probabilities, by the way.
> The number of mutations needed to produce exactly an
> elephant is incredibly huge...; we're not likely to hit it
> twice.
The universe will provide. I have faith. It did before; it can do it
again. Besides, we've got billions and billions of years. Don't think you
can impose upon my indiscriminate use of natural resources with your
restrictive morality just because you can utter some Jeremiad of prophetic
probabilities.
> ... and the universe has a heat death scheduled at some point
Well then, we better use up all of the elephants while the getting is still
good! They're going up in a puff of smoke one way or another.
> Or to test your theory, you might painstakingly go out and
> burn all the world's copies of the Bible -- after all, someone
> can "right back" write it over again.
No doubt. I bet in billions and billions of years, a monkey banging away at
a typewriter can reproduce it, just in time for him to evolve into a human.
> We'd better get R&D moving on that "Jurassic
> Park" tech for reviving extinct species from cloned
> DNA, so we can get some of it back.
I'm sure the discovery will come hot on the heels of when the chemists
finally discover the philosopher's stone.
John
Leon
> Zeus throws thunderbolts. Nope.
Nope, that's Thor. Just saw (and heard) him flying over yesterday.
Toothgnasher and Toothgrinder sure did look impressive.
HTH,
--Leon
H Duffy
John Everett <eve...@virtu.sar.usf.edu> wrote in message
news:9gno01$49s$1...@sshuraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
> "Louann Miller" wrote...
> > ... the percentage of adult male elephants who
> > have tusks is declining both in Africa and Asia
> > precisely because poachers are killing the ones
> > with big tusks and leaving the tiny-tusk or
> > no-tusk cadre to breed the next generation.
>
> Well, so much for natural selection benignly guiding us towards adaptive
> mutations and the survivial of the fittest. The 'fittest' just seems to
be
> the ones who per chance stumble safely through the gaunlet of
outrageous
> forture, rather than that for which the progessivist teleological
> assumptions of 19th century science might pray.
In an environment where the main predator (that would be us) preys mainly
on those individuals with big tusks, the ones with short or no tusks _are_
the fittest, because they are less likely to become prey, and therefore
more likely to survive and breed. That's exactly what the theory of
survival of the fittest means. And yes, natural selection _does_ happen
"by chance"; That's what mutation is; A chance occurence.
H
Thomas Griffin
John Everett wrote:
> "Neal Stanifer" wrote...
> > ... a scientist who does not believe in a particular
> > religion has much less to rationalize with his faith
> > than does a scientist who clings doggedly to the
> > faith of his fathers.
>
> Yes, but the scientist has much more phenomenological data that he must
> dismiss because it doesn't fit with the 18th century Positivistic worldview
> to which he clings doggedly. "I must just be seeing things." "My mind is
> playing tricks on me." "Why I'm just being superstitious." "It's
> unexplainable, but there *must* be a Rational(tm) explanation." ... Of
> which one cannot speak, one must remain silent.
>
Incorrect. Seeking a rational explanation for a phenomenon is the act of
seeking out all of the data and prior knowledge that is relevant to the
phenomenon and preferring the explanation that is most consistent with all of
the data. If the new data cannot be understood in light of what is already
known then it is put on "hold" until more evidence can reconcile the old data
and the new.
It is paranormal and irrational belief that ignores nearly all of the data that
is known about a phenomenon. As soon as a tidbit of data can be contorted to
seem consistent with a desired paranormal belief, the believer isolates that
data from everything else that is understood so as to protect their preferred
interpretation from any plausible alternative.
>
> > > The only entirely logical view of the world is
> > > pure solipsism. Everything else is faith.
> >
> > Interesting. Why would you say that solipsism
> > requires no faith?
>
> Duh, Barbie: I think therefore I am.
>
>
Your thoughts, and thus your existence could be the hallucination of another
organism.
> John
Thomas Griffin
"Lucid H. Dreaming" wrote:
> In article <9gle14$75t$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>, Kirk Job Sluder wrote:
> >
> >"Lucid H. Dreaming" <dth2...@zen.art.rmit.edu.au> wrote in message
> >news:slrn9imsrc....@zen.art.rmit.edu.au...
> >> The point being that you have to control every aspect of a universe before
> >> you can prove anything about it.
> >
> >Are you really to only limit our ability to know to controled experimental
> >studies? Of course we can support a hypothesis to the point where it is
> >provisionally true without relying on experimental studies. We can make a
> >claim that the moon orbits the earth rather than jupiter without having
> >complete control over the moon. Now perhaps this doesn't qualify as
> >"proof?" But if "proof" requires complete control then the result is that
> >we can proove nothing and therefore know nothing.
>
> Yes.
>
> Science requires faith that Occams Razor is true.
Occams Razor follows logically from the premise that any given assumption has a
probability of being incorrect.
Once we assume this, it is simply a mathematical conclusion that the number of
assumptions increases the probability that an idea is incorrect.
This assumption is ultimately based upon the assumption that people cannot (or at
least do not) form ideas based upon events that have not happened, thus no idea
can be based upon all possible events.
There is a good deal of evidence that people fail to have knowledge of future
events.
Thus, occams razor is based upon the empirically supported idea that we cannot
know all future events with certainty.
To accept Occams razor with absolute certainty requires faith (as does all
absolute acceptance). However, if one simply "strongly" accepts Occam's razor
based upon the massive evidence that supports its underlying assumptions, then
faith is not required.
Thomas
Ken Cox
> Andrew Glasgow wrote:
> >What is this "chance evolution"?
> It's pretty self-explanatory.
>
> Evolution which occurs as the result of random mutation, ie.
> "chance", as opposed to evolution which occurs as a result of guidance
> by an outside force, ie. "guided evolution".
You do realize that neither of those options describes
evolution as it actually occurs here on Earth?
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Ken Cox
> "Louann Miller" wrote...
> > dinosaur-killing impactor -- except that we
> > keep right on chomping.
> How lucky for us that, in billions and billions of years, some other
> hegenomic survivior of the fittest didn't choke away all of the biodiversity
> long before we arrived on the scene.
This has happened at least once, when photosynthesis
developed and molecular oxygen started to accumulate.
Every species before that was (necessarily) anaerobic;
almost all of them died, and were replaced by species
that could handle the oxygen.
There have also been several major die-offs, e.g. at
the ends of the Permian and Cretaceous. These were
probably not due to a single species, though.
> The universe will provide. I have faith. It did before; it can do it
> again. Besides, we've got billions and billions of years.
Hundreds of millions, actually. The Sun is slowly
getting hotter, and in about half a billion years
a runaway greenhouse effect will start.
However, that's the amount of time that life on Earth
has. Humans don't have nearly that long -- genera of
large vertebrates don't tend to last more than a few
million years.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
wf...@ptd.net
<eve...@virtu.sar.usf.edu> wrote:
>"Robin Levett" wrote...
>>
>> A very convincing case, supported
>> by the evidence, will do.
>
>A convincing case, when applied to an explanatory paradigm, actually only
>makes an enchanting campfire story. What will do is *predictive value*.
>
>> Creationist...means someone who believes that life was
>> created in all its observable variety, with evolution
>> playing no part in speciation.
>
>If evolution plays a part in speciation, why are we hurling headlong into
>mass extinctions and a global monogocene -- instead of seeing a constant
>macroevolution flowering of biodiversity? Can you offer any predictive
>value?
simplification of the environment...reducing habitats rather than
expanding them. this causes extinction...exactly as evolution
predicts.
>
>For that matter, how soon before biologists can manipulate the nearly
>identical building blocks of life between species and turn a chimp into a
>human, just like chemists can manipulate a few common ancestor protons and
>electrons and turn lead into gold? Can you offer any predictive value?
for info on experimental evolutionary bio, and speciation, see francis
ayala's webpage at UC irvine.
>
wf...@ptd.net
<eve...@virtu.sar.usf.edu> wrote:
>"Neal Stanifer" wrote...
>> ... a scientist who does not believe in a particular
>> religion has much less to rationalize with his faith
>> than does a scientist who clings doggedly to the
>> faith of his fathers.
>
>Yes, but the scientist has much more phenomenological data that he must
>dismiss because it doesn't fit with the 18th century Positivistic worldview
>to which he clings doggedly.
since when? positivism died in the 20's. only creationists pretend
everything has an answer.
wf...@ptd.net
<eve...@virtu.sar.usf.edu> wrote:
><wf...@ptd.net> wrote...
>> > Thus any postulate must ultimately be accepted on faith.
>>
>> or experience.
>
>Experience mediated by what? Or do you just directly perceive reality? Do
>you accept that on faith, or some sort of meta-experience?
if you want to play cartesian skeptic, 'cogito, ergo sum'. it wasnt
satisfactory in his day, and its not today
>
>> he's the ultimate postmodernist...there is no objective
>> truth...no objective laws...and that proves god
>> objectively exists...
>
>Well, it at least gives more credibility to an authority source which has
>claimed for millennia that 'we see through a glass darkly.'
plato? i bet not...
>> and what about the creationist who asserts faith supercedes evidence?
>
>What about the ontologist and the epistemologist who asserts that 'our
>world' supercedes 'the world'? Or do you just like to pretend that Husserl
>was the final word in the philosophy of science?
>
which is, of course, irrelevant to the observations of evolution...