O.T. Thank god we're not in Kansas anymore
scarecrow
limited to how the theory should be taught in public schools. The board
is considering redefining science itself. Advocates of "intelligent
design" are pushing the board to reject a definition limiting science
to natural explanations for what's observed in the world.
Instead, they want to define it as "a systematic method of continuing
investigation," without specifying what kind of answer is being sought.
The definition would appear in the introduction to the state's science
standards.
The proposed definition has outraged many scientists, who are
frustrated that students could be discussing supernatural explanations
for natural phenomena in their science classes.
"It's a completely unscientific way of looking at the world," said
Keith Miller, a Kansas State University geologist.
Mike Smith
>
> Instead, they want to define it as "a systematic method of continuing
> investigation," without specifying what kind of answer is being sought.
> The definition would appear in the introduction to the state's science
> standards.
Holy crap! That definition covers everything from literary criticism to
trying to reach level 255 in Pac-Man!
--
Mike Smith
Zemborato
"Mike Smith" <mike_UNDER...@acm.DOT.org> wrote in message
news:118js66...@news.supernews.com...
http://www.salon.com/comics/boll/2005/05/12/boll/story.gif
Zem 2.0
------------------
Now with sig line!
Michel Forest
LOL! *THE RED STATES*!!
Steven Sullivan
For a tipoff about the religious fucknuts' background agenda of all
this, see:
http://jgrr.blogspot.com/2005/05/beware-simple-machines.html
and follow links therefrom to "the Wedge Strategy' and 'the Vise
Strategy'.
for a brief history of the attempt by religious fucknuts to hijack
science education in the US:
http://jgrr.blogspot.com/2005/05/story-thus-far.html
--
-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee
danc...@yahoo.com
A cute cartoon. Scientifically incorrect though. The freezing point
of water varies depending on the pressure. As the pressure gets lower,
the freezing point goes up and the boiling point goes down.
Zemborato
<danc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1116351349....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Zemborato wrote:
> > http://www.salon.com/comics/boll/2005/05/12/boll/story.gif
> >
>
> A cute cartoon. Scientifically incorrect though. The freezing point
> of water varies depending on the pressure. As the pressure gets lower,
> the freezing point goes up and the boiling point goes down.
Don't be ridiculous, that's just God changing His mind.
Steven Sullivan
sea jai
"Steven Sullivan" <ssu...@panix.com> wrote in message news:d6d5q8$gjj$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>
> For a tipoff about the religious fucknuts' background agenda of all
> this,
>
Which is probably better than being a regular fucknut, fucknut.
Steven Sullivan
Testify, Xbox-lad!
Mike Smith
> danc...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>>A cute cartoon. Scientifically incorrect though. The freezing point
>>of water varies depending on the pressure. As the pressure gets lower,
>>the freezing point goes up and the boiling point goes down.
>
>
>
> Yes, and you learned that in a science class. Or was that in the Bible?
It doesn't matter where he larned it! Jebus is still the one that makes
it happen!
--
Mike Smith
Quintillionth Quaff
"scarecrow" <stra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1116323367.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> TOPEKA, Kan. - The Kansas school board's hearings on evolution weren't
> limited to how the theory should be taught in public schools. The board
> is considering redefining science itself. Advocates of "intelligent
> design" are pushing the board to reject a definition limiting science
> to natural explanations for what's observed in the world.
>
> Instead, they want to define it as "a systematic method of continuing
> investigation," without specifying what kind of answer is being sought.
> The definition would appear in the introduction to the state's science
> standards.
>
> The proposed definition has outraged many scientists, who are
> frustrated that students could be discussing supernatural explanations
> for natural phenomena in their science classes.
While the modern day scientists teach the theories Darwin et al as if they
are scientific fact.
>
> "It's a completely unscientific way of looking at the world," said
> Keith Miller, a Kansas State University geologist.
If man evolved from monkeys and apes, why do we still have monkeys and apes?
Let Keith Miller, a geologist (who knows what about biology? I don't see a
Dr. before his name either.) answer that one. Or maybe the skull cavity
known as Sully can answer that when he's done playing with his Xbox game,
"Kill American Moral Values - The Liberal Minority Way."
Ever wonder why jackass state are Blue States? Because the Dems are feelin'
blue cause they loss and loss and .... If I was a jackass I'd be blue too.
Q pissin' Q
Zemborato
"Quintillionth Quaff" <bu...@home.org> wrote in message
news:iZWdnaWh9_g...@comcast.com...
> If man evolved from monkeys and apes, why do we still have monkeys and
apes?
If man was created out of clay, why is there still clay?
Quintillionth Quaff
"Zemborato" <zemborat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mYzie.1435$5Z1...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Quintillionth Quaff" <bu...@home.org> wrote in message
> news:iZWdnaWh9_g...@comcast.com...
>
>
>> If man evolved from monkeys and apes, why do we still have monkeys and
> apes?
>
>
> If man was created out of clay, why is there still clay?
>
Who said man was created out of clay? I know it was mentioned in YES'
"Turn of the Century." No religion that I am aware states it. The Roman
Catholic religion has a rite that says, "From dust (not dirt) you were born
and to dust you shall return." That statement is a metaphor.
Q "Eatin' and Drinkin' the Body and Blood of Christ" Q
Bibles that are falling apart usually belong to people who are not.
danc...@yahoo.com
I think the Bible predates the Farenheit temperature scale.
So I did learn that in a scientific class. I forget whether it was
chem or physics. The teacher brought in an evacuation pump and put
some water inside the glass case and then lowered the pressure to the
point where it was freezing and boiling at the same time.
It's one of the interesting properties of water that the freezing point
goes up as the pressure goes down. It's the reverse for most other
materials.
Zemborato
>
> "Zemborato" <zemborat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:mYzie.1435$5Z1...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "Quintillionth Quaff" <bu...@home.org> wrote in message
> > news:iZWdnaWh9_g...@comcast.com...
> >
> >
> >> If man evolved from monkeys and apes, why do we still have monkeys and
> > apes?
> >
> >
> > If man was created out of clay, why is there still clay?
> >
>
> Who said man was created out of clay? I know it was mentioned in YES'
> "Turn of the Century." No religion that I am aware states it. The Roman
> Catholic religion has a rite that says, "From dust (not dirt) you were
born
> and to dust you shall return." That statement is a metaphor.
Err...the source of the legend isn't the point. The
take-from-still-have-leftovers obviousness is the point.
To make it as simple as possible for you, just because one lineage mutates
doesn't mean that all other lineages mutate the same or die off.
Quintillionth Quaff
Thanks for the simplicity yet, it is possible that some intelligent design
was employed to take a "lineage mutate" and have it become MAN. Oops, sorry
for not being politically correct, I meant to say, have it become HUMAN.
Damn can't say that either cause man is in human. Ok Ok I got it, I meant
to say, "have it become PERSON." Damn again. PERSON has SON in it
referring to the masculine gender. What is one to say and be PC? Oh wait I
got it. I should have said, and have it become PERSYN. Yeah that's it and
it also refers to the Chris Squire group SYN. So simple. Now, what were
you simply trying to say. It makes no sense to me. Make it simpler please.
Q "a simpleton" Q
"To get to the meat of the matter, I will come right to the point, and take
note of the fact that the heart of the issue in the final analysis escapes
me."
Steven Sullivan
> "Quintillionth Quaff" <bu...@home.org> wrote in message
> news:iZWdnaWh9_g...@comcast.com...
> > If man evolved from monkeys and apes, why do we still have monkeys and
> apes?
> If man was created out of clay, why is there still clay?
If modern-day monkeys and apes and men evolved from the same
ancestor...well, that would be what the evidence indicates.
Massive amounts of evidence also indicates that anyone who produces the
'why are there still monkeys?" line in an argument about evolution, is an
ignorant douchenozzle.
Todd Mitchell
news:mYzie.1435$5Z1...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Quintillionth Quaff" <bu...@home.org> wrote in message
> news:iZWdnaWh9_g...@comcast.com...
>
>
> > If man evolved from monkeys and apes, why do we still have monkeys and
> apes?
>
>
> If man was created out of clay, why is there still clay?
*Gumby* damnit!
--
"I heard about it watching TV." - HASHIM AL-SHIBLI, on his appointment as
human rights minister in Iraq.
Zemborato
The issue of whether or not there is an external directive force that
sometimes tinkers with the evolutionary process is entirely unrelated to why
a legacy version of an evolutionary result may be retained.
gmelin
Quintillionth Quaff wrote:
> "Zemborato" <zemborat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:mYzie.1435$5Z1...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "Quintillionth Quaff" <bu...@home.org> wrote in message
> > news:iZWdnaWh9_g...@comcast.com...
> >
> >
> >> If man evolved from monkeys and apes, why do we still have monkeys
and
> > apes?
> >
> >
> > If man was created out of clay, why is there still clay?
> >
>
> Who said man was created out of clay? I know it was mentioned in
YES'
> "Turn of the Century." No religion that I am aware states it. The
Roman
> Catholic religion has a rite that says, "From dust (not dirt) you
were born
> and to dust you shall return." That statement is a metaphor.
"The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground" [Gen 2:7]
So . . . why is there still dust?
gmelin
gmelin
Quintillionth Quaff wrote:
> While the modern day scientists teach the theories Darwin et al as if
they
> are scientific fact.
They are scientifically sound.
> If man evolved from monkeys and apes, why do we still have monkeys
and apes?
Oh jeez, this again. Man did not evolve *from* monkeys and apes;
monkeys, apes and man (a varient of ape) all evolved from common
ancestors. And even if man did evolve from monkeys and apes, that
doesn't mean they don't cease to exist. That's not how evolution
works; it's diversification, and is only superficially linear.
gmelin
gmelin
Zemborato wrote:
> "Quintillionth Quaff" <bu...@home.org> wrote in message
> news:xpydndesv8a...@comcast.com
YES'
> > "Turn of the Century." No religion that I am aware states it. The
Roman
> > Catholic religion has a rite that says, "From dust (not dirt) you
were
> born
> > and to dust you shall return." That statement is a metaphor.
>
> Err...the source of the legend isn't the point. The
> take-from-still-have-leftovers obviousness is the point.
>
> To make it as simple as possible for you, just because one lineage
mutates
> doesn't mean that all other lineages mutate the same or die off.
He might as well ask, "If I was born to my parents, how come they are
still alive."
I mean, you'd think they'd have been killed to prevent it from
happening again . . .
gmelin
Stephen Bruun
> While the modern day scientists teach the theories Darwin et al as if they
> are scientific fact.
Some of 'em are round-earthers too. Communists.
> If man evolved from monkeys and apes, why do we still have monkeys and
apes?
Man did not exactly evolve from monkeys and apes - monkeys, apes and man all
evolved from a common ancestor species (which is now dead).
Of course, there's nothing in evolutionary theory that says that an ancestor
species *has* to die out the second that a new species evolves. Remember
that evolution takes place at the individual genetic level. Just because
*some* members of a population carry a mutated gene that ultimately results
in a new species, does not mean that *every* member of the population has
the mutation.
--
To reply, remove YOUR OWN EYES
Stephen Bruun
design
> > was employed to take a "lineage mutate" and have it become MAN.
Zemborato <zemborat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:AxMie.1750$VB6....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> The issue of whether or not there is an external directive force that
> sometimes tinkers with the evolutionary process is entirely unrelated to
why
> a legacy version of an evolutionary result may be retained.
Also: yes, it's *possible* that some kind of deliberate "design" was
involved, but how do you go about gathering *evidence* to support that
position? Not specious statistical arguments, purporting (by grievous
misuse of both biology and statistics) to show that Homo sapiens couldn't
have come about by "chance," but actual evidence that points toward a
conscious designer? The "design" arguments floating around right now don't
tell us anything about the alleged designer or the processes by which the
designs were executed - they're just attacks on evolutionary theory,
offering no constructive, testable theoretical framework in its place.
"Intelligent design" may be a philosophical or theological viewpoint, but in
its current state, it is not science.
Michel Forest
Here's a friendly reminder: "don't feed the trolls."
Steven Sullivan
It's possible that invisible gremlins are responsible for me getting
a flat tire.
IT'S POSSIBLE, DAMMIT. Don't give me none of your book larnin' 'n
logickin'.
It is *certain*, however, that Quiffy is a troll. May I suggest you
tell him to go fuck himself, and move on?
Teakbois
: It is *certain*, however, that Quiffy is a troll.
So, it's okay for you to feed the trolls, but no one else should? You
reply to nearly every post that guy makes (and all of his alternate
identities as well).
Teakbois
<YOUR...@OWNstarpowerEYES.net> muttered:
>
>Man did not exactly evolve from monkeys and apes - monkeys, apes and man all
>evolved from a common ancestor species (which is now dead).
>
You're the third person to bring this up, monkey-man!
gmelin:
Oh jeez, this again. Man did not evolve *from* monkeys and apes;
monkeys, apes and man (a varient of ape) all evolved from common
ancestors. And even if man did evolve from monkeys and apes, that
doesn't mean they don't cease to exist. That's not how evolution
works; it's diversification, and is only superficially linear.
Sullivan:
Chet
Chris Jemmett
They are responsible for everything
>
> IT'S POSSIBLE, DAMMIT.
If you talk to the son of the invisible gremlin you know everything is
possible.
Don't give me none of your book larnin' 'n
> logickin'.
'Bout time for a new book burnin' era.
> It is *certain*, however, that Quiffy is a troll. May I suggest you
> tell him to go fuck himself, and move on?
My invisible gremlin fucks his invisible gremlin.
Chris "and yours too" Jemmett
Stephen Bruun
news:kfpn815ogjqrk228d...@4ax.com...
> You're the third person to bring this up, monkey-man!
Good to know that I'm not alone. A fine illustration of convergence of
evidence.
The posts were shown chronologically, and I tend to respond to posts in the
order I read them rather than go through the entire thread and then
backtrack.
I apologize for forgetting to obtain a permission slip to allow me to
respond to a factual error in someone's post, along with the required essay
question in which I explain how I think my posts make the world a better
place (which is, of course, the only justifiable reason for ever posting).
Quintillionth Quaff
"Teakbois" <bobby...@cool-running.com> wrote in message
news:714c8109b0edaef1...@localhost.talkaboutthemusic.com...
Matt, I assure you there only me and no one else I post as. Am I a troll?
I think not. I just respond to those who must respond to my posts or others
in a mean spirited manner. You and others are quite unobservant regarding
to whom I respond to in this newsgroup. If I am a troll than so you must be
too.
Q "I'm just drinker of quaff. Many quaffs at that, that is" Q
Quintillionth Quaff
"gmelin" <gme...@scc.losrios.edu> wrote in message
news:1116448300.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> He might as well ask, "If I was born to my parents, how come they are
> still alive."
>
> I mean, you'd think they'd have been killed to prevent it from
> happening again . . .
>
> gmelin
>
I feel sorry for the children who take your classes. Your logic is lacking
and its lacking is profound as observed by your above post.
Chris Jemmett
Quintillionth Quaff wrote:
>
> Matt, I assure you there only me and no one else I post as.
You forgot the burp, troll.
Quintillionth Quaff
If you understood grammar, then the Genesis quote would make sense. The
order of creation in Genesis would also further your understanding of Gen
2.7. Hint, the earth (dust) on which man was to dominate was created first.
As I posted earlier the reference is a metaphor. As usual your argument(s)
are beneath that of an educator.
"Quite frankly, teachers are the only profession that teach our children."
Vice President Al Gore
Teakbois
<YOUR...@OWNstarpowerEYES.net> muttered:
>Teakbois <Bobby...@cool-running.com> wrote in message
>news:kfpn815ogjqrk228d...@4ax.com...
>> You're the third person to bring this up, monkey-man!
>
>Good to know that I'm not alone. A fine illustration of convergence of
>evidence.
>
Also evidence that you don't read through the thread before posting.
>The posts were shown chronologically, and I tend to respond to posts in the
>order I read them rather than go through the entire thread and then
>backtrack.
>
Maybe you should read them in the correct order?
>I apologize for forgetting to obtain a permission slip to allow me to
>respond to a factual error in someone's post, along with the required essay
>question in which I explain how I think my posts make the world a better
>place (which is, of course, the only justifiable reason for ever posting).
Apology accepted. Don't let it happen again, and be sure to keep your
essay to 100 words or less.
Quintillionth Quaff
"Steven Sullivan" <ssu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:d6funt$e5q$2...@reader1.panix.com...
> Zemborato <zemborat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Quintillionth Quaff" <bu...@home.org> wrote in message
>> news:iZWdnaWh9_g...@comcast.com...
>
>
>> > If man evolved from monkeys and apes, why do we still have monkeys and
>> apes?
>
>
>> If man was created out of clay, why is there still clay?
>
> If modern-day monkeys and apes and men evolved from the same
> ancestor...well, that would be what the evidence indicates.
Popular consensus says that reality is based on popular consensus.
> Massive amounts of evidence also indicates that anyone who produces the
> 'why are there still monkeys?" line in an argument about evolution, is an
> ignorant douchenozzle.
Yawn - boring as usual skull cavity Sully. You know more about when JA poos
his pants and what YES bootleg material is available than science. That is
frightening. And you post under mutiple names. You the troll from the J.
Tull newsgroup?
Q "*" Q
Quintillionth Quaff
You really don't have a clue as to what your typing do u? Diversification?
Superficially linear? Reading your posts are laborious. You must really
impress the girls with your nonsense.
Quintillionth Quaff
"Stephen Bruun" <YOUR...@OWNstarpowerEYES.net> wrote in message
news:RJOdnVpdgbW...@rcn.net...
Got proof or is it just a theory? You know what they say, everyone's got
theories and they're dime a dozen. If evolution takes place at the
individual genetic level, say an individual mutation wouldn't the mutation
die off and the elvolution theory of the survial of the fittest (the
non-mutants) arise an the non-mutantbe the sole surviors? How did the
mutant (the defect) replace or displace the greater number of non-mutants?
>
>
> --
> To reply, remove YOUR OWN EYES
>
>
To rely, OPEN YOUR EYES
Quintillionth Quaff
"Chris Jemmett" <ccje...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:1116473163.4...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Quintillionth Quaff wrote:
>>
>> Matt, I assure you there only me and no one else I post as.
>
>
> You forgot the burp, troll.
>
Ok skull cavity's butt buddy. U shore putt me inn my place.
Steven Sullivan
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > It's possible that invisible gremlins are responsible for me getting
> > a flat tire.
> They are responsible for everything
Including 'Talk'?
DanC
"Teakbois" <bobby...@cool-running.com> wrote in message
news:714c8109b0edaef1...@localhost.talkaboutthemusic.com...
Too many trolls and not enough food - this is what we've seen.
Dan
Chris Jemmett
Quintillionth Quaff burped:
> "Chris Jemmett" <ccje...@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:1116473163.4...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Quintillionth Quaff slurred:
> >>
> >> Matt, I assure you there only me and no one else I post as.
> >
> > You forgot the burp, troll.
> >
> Ok skull cavity's butt buddy.
You do manifest some strange thoughts, especially for one who is the
leader of a.m.y's Christian Crusade.
> U shore putt me inn my place.
Quaffy, you are the single most convincing arguement I have ever seen
against any sort of "intelligent design".
Stephen Bruun
> If you understood grammar, then the Genesis quote would make sense. The
> order of creation in Genesis would also further your understanding of Gen
> 2.7.
Which order of creation in Genesis? There are two:
Genesis 1:
Day 2: Earth brings forth plant life, including trees.
Day 5: Aquatic animals and birds
Day 6: Land animals and, *after* God looks at them and beholds that it was
good, "man . . . male and female created he them."
Genesis 2:
Plants are seeded in the ground simultaneously with the creation of the
land.
"God formed man out of the dust of the ground."
"God planted a garden eastward of Eden" and the trees sprouted.
"God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an
help meet for him."
God makes animals and Adam names them, "but for Adam there was not found an
help meet for him."
God anesthetizes Adam and fashions Eve from Adam's rib.
> As I posted earlier the reference is a metaphor.
What else is a metaphor? There being a first human named Adam? A six-day
creation? A global flood? Why not the whole thing?
Stephen Bruun
> news:RJOdnVpdgbW...@rcn.net...
> > ancestor
> > species *has* to die out the second that a new species evolves.
Remember
> > that evolution takes place at the individual genetic level. Just
because
> > *some* members of a population carry a mutated gene that ultimately
> > results
> > in a new species, does not mean that *every* member of the population
has
> > the mutation.
Quintillionth Quaff <bu...@home.org> wrote in message
news:m5OdnYvbqbU...@comcast.com...
> Got proof or is it just a theory?
See http://www.talkorigins.org/.
> If evolution takes place at the
> individual genetic level, say an individual mutation wouldn't the mutation
> die off and the elvolution theory of the survial of the fittest (the
> non-mutants) arise an the non-mutant be the sole surviors?
You assume that the non-mutants are "the fittest." While many mutations are
fatal or neutral, some mutations are beneficial. A mutation that makes a
creature faster, more agile, or more fertile could give the creature an
evolutionary edge against others in its species.
> How did the
> mutant (the defect) replace or displace the greater number of non-mutants?
Again, you assume that a mutation must be a "defect." Not every mutation is
a defect.
If a mutation allows a creature to have more offspring (either by increased
fertility or by helping the creature to avoid death by predation or disease)
then the percentage of creatures carrying the mutant gene will gradually
increase over time.
Sometimes a mutation is beneficial and harmful at the same time. An African
who carries one copy of the sickle-cell gene is, essentially, immune from
malaria. This confers an enormous survival benefit in malaria-prone
regions. But *two* copies of the gene causes sickle-cell disease, which is
horribly painful and potentially fatal. The gene survives because, as
terrible as sickle-cell disease is, it confers a *net* benefit to the
population. In evolutionary terms, the avoidance of malaria is "worth" some
of the population getting sickle-cell disease.
People who believe evolution happens do not *approve* of this heartless
process; if it were up to us, we would not engineer so hideous a trade-off
as the sickle-cell gene. We don't *like* sickle-cell disease. We simply
acknowledge that its existence is a tragic side effect of a random gene
mutation which, in this instance, confers a net benefit on people with one
copy of the gene.
Other trade-offs are evident in human beings. Standing erect frees up our
hands for tool use, but it's rough on our spines and knees. The human
larynx is in a slightly different place than the chimpanzee larynx. This
shift allows the capacity for speech, but it also makes it easier for a
human to choke on food.
The evidence is there. You just have to be willing to recognize it.
Quintillionth Quaff
>
> Quintillionth Quaff burped:
>
>> "Chris Jemmett" <ccje...@rogers.com> wrote in message
>> news:1116473163.4...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Quintillionth Quaff slurred:
>> >>
>> >> Matt, I assure you there only me and no one else I post as.
>> >
>
>> > You forgot the burp, troll.
>> >
>
>> Ok skull cavity's butt buddy.
>
> You do manifest some strange thoughts, especially for one who is the
> leader of a.m.y's Christian Crusade.
Do you even know the definition of crusade? If so you misused the word.
Post again please.
For your edification I have never crusaded the Catholic/Christian cause. I
have defended my Roman Catholic faith here whenever someone links fanatical
Christians with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. You will never
see me originate a thread here or elsewhere crusading a Catholic/Christian
cause or belittling anyone's choice to be atheist or agnostic. I would also
join with the likes of skull cavity to speak out against fanatical
Christians.
I even lean towards accepting evolutionary theories, but I can not believe
all this beauty that surrounds me "just happened." If you can then that's
fine. I choose to believe that an "intelligent design" had a hand in
creating all that surrounds me. And let's not pretend that science has
answers for everything or that evolutionary theories are fact. If they were
than why are they still called theories.
>
>> U shore putt me inn my place.
>
> Quaffy, you are the single most convincing arguement I have ever seen
> against any sort of "intelligent design".
So you say. Still, I can go on with life knowing you think poorly of me.
Because in the grand scheme of things You, this newsgroup, YES, rock n'
roll, and much more of the same means nothing to me, my loved ones or my
faith in God.
Q "haven't had a drink yet but it's getting close to happy hour" Q
Quintillionth Quaff
"Stephen Bruun" <YOUR...@OWNstarpowerEYES.net> wrote in message
> Quintillionth Quaff <bu...@home.org> wrote in message
> news:QIGdnf6odPa...@comcast.com...
>> If you understood grammar, then the Genesis quote would make sense. The
>> order of creation in Genesis would also further your understanding of Gen
>> 2.7.
>
> Which order of creation in Genesis? There are two:
>
> Genesis 1:
> Day 2: Earth brings forth plant life, including trees.
> Day 5: Aquatic animals and birds
> Day 6: Land animals and, *after* God looks at them and beholds that it was
> good, "man . . . male and female created he them."
>
> Genesis 2:
> Plants are seeded in the ground simultaneously with the creation of the
> land.
> "God formed man out of the dust of the ground."
> "God planted a garden eastward of Eden" and the trees sprouted.
> "God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an
> help meet for him."
> God makes animals and Adam names them, "but for Adam there was not found
> an
> help meet for him."
> God anesthetizes Adam and fashions Eve from Adam's rib.
In both examples you wrote above, earth (dust) was created before Adam and
Eve.
>
>> As I posted earlier the reference is a metaphor.
>
> What else is a metaphor? There being a first human named Adam? A six-day
> creation? A global flood? Why not the whole thing?
Yes, one could assume that the "whole thing" is a metaphor. I choose to
believe God is the creator. Those that do not is ok by me. I won't shove
God down your throat so don't shove down my throat that my faith is .... If
you really want to shove something down my throat make it a cold beer.
Q "tonight I am thinking an imported brew would go well with a shell steak
grilled medium rare over smoking mesquite wood chips with a dish of grilled
green peppers, yellow squash, tomatoes, and sweet red onions." Q
Teakbois
<YOUR...@OWNstarpowerEYES.net> muttered:
>> "Stephen Bruun" <YOUR...@OWNstarpowerEYES.net> wrote in message
You sure know your mutants!!!
Todd Mitchell
>Zemborato <zemboratonosp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "Quintillionth Quaff" <b...@home.org> wrote in message
>> news:iZWdnaWh9_g...@comcast.com...
>> > If man evolved from monkeys and apes, why do we still have monkeys
and
>> apes?
>> If man was created out of clay, why is there still clay?
>
>If modern-day monkeys and apes and men evolved from the same
>ancestor...well, that would be what the evidence indicates.
>
>Massive amounts of evidence also indicates that anyone who produces
the
>'why are there still monkeys?" line in an argument about evolution, is
an
>ignorant douchenozzle.
Not sure how many people read This Modern World, but the latest cartoon
*sums it up*:
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0520,tomorrow,64024,9.html
--
Storks!
Steven Sullivan
Is it Science or Religion?: Intelligent Design Problem Solving Flowchart
http://photos1.blogger.com/img/137/3111/1024/Intelligent1.jpg
Stephen Bruun
news:1116615104....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Not sure how many people read This Modern World, but the latest cartoon
> *sums it up*:
>
> http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0520,tomorrow,64024,9.html
Magnifique! I'm reminded of the Onion's articles about fundamentalist
Aesopians and demands for the repeal of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Tom Tomorrow has a couple of books out. I'm gonna have to look for those.
Todd Mitchell
news:lLidnS92MpU...@rcn.net...
The dude really is genius. His website www.thismodernworld.com has a blog
that's pretty freakin hilarious as well.
--
"I heard about it watching TV." - HASHIM AL-SHIBLI, on his appointment as
human rights minister in Iraq.
gmelin
Quintillionth Quaff wrote:
> I even lean towards accepting evolutionary theories, but I can not
believe
> all this beauty that surrounds me "just happened."
There were a lot of people in the wake of WW2 who could not believe the
holocaust happened; such atrocity beggared imagination. And yet, it
happened, even though there are still people to this day who choose not
to believe it. Go figure.
And let's not pretend that science has
> answers for everything or that evolutionary theories are fact. If
they were
> than why are they still called theories.
*sigh* Because the word "theory" refers to the set of defining
principles that govern our understanding of something. Literature
exists, and yet I still teach a course in literary theory.
gmelin
Quintillionth Quaff
>
> Quintillionth Quaff wrote:
>> I even lean towards accepting evolutionary theories, but I can not
> believe
>> all this beauty that surrounds me "just happened."
>
> There were a lot of people in the wake of WW2 who could not believe the
> holocaust happened; such atrocity beggared imagination. And yet, it
> happened, even though there are still people to this day who choose not
> to believe it. Go figure.
That was a poor comparative analogy. It doesn't even lend itself to
"evolutionary theory."
>
> And let's not pretend that science has
>> answers for everything or that evolutionary theories are fact. If
> they were
>> than why are they still called theories.
>
> *sigh* Because the word "theory" refers to the set of defining
> principles that govern our understanding of something. Literature
> exists, and yet I still teach a course in literary theory.
>
Literary Theory
... is the theory (or the philosophy) of the interpretation of
literature and literary criticism.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_theory
The the interpretation of literature you teach (unproven assumptions) has
what to do with an author's intent or meaning of his work? Again your
comparative anology is weak.
Theory: an unproved assumption. You state that, "...theory refers to a set
of defining principles that govern our understanding of something," and
omitted what should logically preclude that statement, *At this moment*
"this theory (an unproven assumption) ....our understanding of something."
In your analogy above, it was not an *unproven assumption* "that the
holocaust happened; atrocity beggared imagination." The holocaust
atrocities are documented facts that even a layman such as myself can
testify to because I have seen it's physcial evidence during my visits to
Germany, Austria, Luxembourg, and Poland to name a few countries. The
reason that there are those who still don't believe it happened can be
explained in numerous ways, one being they are deniers of history.
Q "not quite drunk yet" Q
gmelin
Quintillionth Quaff wrote:
> "gmelin" <gme...@scc.losrios.edu> wrote in message
> news:1116880999....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Quintillionth Quaff wrote:
> >> I even lean towards accepting evolutionary theories, but I can not
> > believe
> >> all this beauty that surrounds me "just happened."
> >
> > There were a lot of people in the wake of WW2 who could not believe the
> > holocaust happened; such atrocity beggared imagination. And yet, it
> > happened, even though there are still people to this day who choose not
> > to believe it. Go figure.
>
> That was a poor comparative analogy. It doesn't even lend itself to
> "evolutionary theory."
The point is that just because someone "can not believe" something, be
it the holocaust of evolution, does not make it any less true. I can
not believe you didn't understand that, and yet . . .
> > *sigh* Because the word "theory" refers to the set of defining
> > principles that govern our understanding of something. Literature
> > exists, and yet I still teach a course in literary theory.
> >
>
> Literary Theory
> ... is the theory (or the philosophy) of the interpretation of
> literature and literary criticism.
> According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_theory
That's correct, but in a rather superficial way. Too bad you didn't go
on to read the rest of it.
> The the interpretation of literature you teach (unproven assumptions) has
> what to do with an author's intent or meaning of his work?
Your sentence is difficult to parse, but I think you are making the
assumption that the only objective in literary criticism is to devine
authorial intent. This is far from the case, and one of the major
controversies in the study of literature has to do with whether or not
the author is at all relevant in interpreting a text.
> Theory: an unproved assumption.
Since you like Wickedpedia, I looked up the word "theory" for you.
Some highlights:
"The word theory has a number [of] distinct meanings depending on the
context."
"In the sciences, a theory is a model or framework describing the
behaviour of a certain natural or social phenomenon."
"A theory makes generalizations about observations and consists of an
interrelated, coherent set of ideas."
"In common usage a theory is often viewed as little more than a guess
or a hypothesis. But in science and generally in academic usage, a
theory is much more than that. A theory is an established paradigm that
explains all or much of the data we have and offers valid predictions
that can be tested."
"There is sometimes confusion between the scientific use of the word
theory and its more informal use as a synonym for "speculation" or
"conjecture." In science, a body of descriptions of knowledge is
usually only called a theory once it has a firm empirical basis [. . .]
This is true of such established theories as evolution."
"Other claims such as Intelligent Design [. . .] are not scientific
theories, but pseudoscience."
You state that, "...theory refers to a set
> of defining principles that govern our understanding of something,"
That's about what it means, yes.
and
> omitted what should logically preclude
Preclude means to prevent by prior action. Do you meen "precede"?
that statement, *At this moment*
> "this theory (an unproven assumption)
A scientific theory is not simply an unproven assumption. Your
continued use of the phrase simply highlights your lack of knowledge.
....our understanding of something."
What?
> In your analogy above, it was not an *unproven assumption* "that the
> holocaust happened; atrocity beggared imagination." The holocaust
> atrocities are documented facts that even a layman such as myself can
> testify to because I have seen it's physcial evidence during my visits to
> Germany, Austria, Luxembourg, and Poland to name a few countries.
Evolution is also based on documented facts and evidence. The fact
that you personally "can not believe" it is more a function of your own
limitations that the validity of evolution.
The
> reason that there are those who still don't believe it happened can be
> explained in numerous ways, one being they are deniers of history.
Exactly how we can describe people who deny evolution.
gmelin
Quintillionth Quaff
>
>
> Quintillionth Quaff wrote:
>> "gmelin" <gme...@scc.losrios.edu> wrote in message
>> news:1116880999....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Quintillionth Quaff wrote:
>> >> I even lean towards accepting evolutionary theories, but I can not
>> > believe
>> >> all this beauty that surrounds me "just happened."
>> >
>> > There were a lot of people in the wake of WW2 who could not believe the
>> > holocaust happened; such atrocity beggared imagination. And yet, it
>> > happened, even though there are still people to this day who choose not
>> > to believe it. Go figure.
>>
>> That was a poor comparative analogy. It doesn't even lend itself to
>> "evolutionary theory."
>
> The point is that just because someone "can not believe" something, be
> it the holocaust of evolution, does not make it any less true. I can
> not believe you didn't understand that, and yet . . .
And yet what...? I certainly don't understand what you mean by "holocaust
of evolution." I think you meant to type the word or not of.
I don't presume to speak for all Catholics or Christians but, as a Roman
Catholic I lean towards accepting evolutionary theor(ies). However,
evolution theories are just that, theories. Personally, I can not discount
that evolution may be part of God's plan or if you prefer an intelligent
designer's plan.
>
>> > *sigh* Because the word "theory" refers to the set of defining
>> > principles that govern our understanding of something. Literature
>> > exists, and yet I still teach a course in literary theory.
>> >
>>
>> Literary Theory
>> ... is the theory (or the philosophy) of the interpretation of
>> literature and literary criticism.
>> According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_theory
>
> That's correct, but in a rather superficial way. Too bad you didn't go
> on to read the rest of it.
But I did. To bad you didn't read this sentence
Since theorists of literature often draw on a very heterogeneous tradition
of Continental philosophy and the philosophy of language, any classification
of their approaches is only an approximation.
Or this one.
Since then, and as of 2004, the controversy over the use of theory in
literary studies has all but died out, and discussions on the topic within
literary and cultural studies tend now to be considerably milder and less
Since then, and as of 2004, the controversy over the use of theory in
literary studies has all but died out...
>
>> The the interpretation of literature you teach (unproven assumptions) has
>> what to do with an author's intent or meaning of his work?
>
> Your sentence is difficult to parse,
It was a long day and I was less than critical of reviewing of my post.
>but I think you are making the
> assumption that the only objective in literary criticism is to devine
> authorial intent.
In a simplistic way YES, but let me paste a quote from the link above that
make the statement better than me.
Another crucial distinction among the various theories of literary
interpretation is intentionality, the amount of weight given to the author's
own opinions about and intentions for a work. For most pre-20th century
approaches, the author's intentions are a guiding factor and an important
determiner of the 'correct' interpretation of texts.
This is far from the case, and one of the major
> controversies in the study of literature has to do with whether or not
> the author is at all relevant in interpreting a text.
Are you speaking about an author interpreting his own text? If not he then
who, a literary theorist?
>
>> Theory: an unproved assumption.
>
> Since you like Wickedpedia, I looked up the word "theory" for you.
> Some highlights:
> "The word theory has a number [of] distinct meanings depending on the
> context."
> "In the sciences, a theory is a model or framework describing the
> behaviour of a certain natural or social phenomenon."
> "A theory makes generalizations about observations and consists of an
> interrelated, coherent set of ideas."
> "In common usage a theory is often viewed as little more than a guess
> or a hypothesis. But in science and generally in academic usage, a
> theory is much more than that. A theory is an established paradigm that
> explains all or much of the data we have and offers valid predictions
> that can be tested."
From
http://wilstar.com/theories.htm
Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise
terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and
universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical
equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don't
really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value
based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.
Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, the law
of thermodynamics, and Hook's law of elasticity.
Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a
rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is
observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or
refuted by experimentation or continued observation.
Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory
is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon
proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of
researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a
hypothesis.
In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be
true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make
predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much
more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory
explains a whole series of related phenomena.
If you read the above carefully you can see the holes in the writer's
definitions.
Hypothesis: ...educated guess based on observation.
Theory: ...an explanation of ...based upon proven hypotheses and verified
multiple times ...
Question: If a hypothesis is proven and verified multiple times how is it
still labeled a hypothesis?
Theory is not Scientific Law. You argue as if it is. In many schools it is
taught as if it is. You are both incorrect.
> "There is sometimes confusion between the scientific use of the word
> theory and its more informal use as a synonym for "speculation" or
> "conjecture." In science, a body of descriptions of knowledge is
> usually only called a theory once it has a firm empirical basis [. . .]
> This is true of such established theories as evolution."
> "Other claims such as Intelligent Design [. . .] are not scientific
> theories, but pseudoscience."
>
> You state that, "...theory refers to a set
>> of defining principles that govern our understanding of something,"
>
> That's about what it means, yes.
>
> and
>> omitted what should logically preclude
>
> Preclude means to prevent by prior action. Do you meen "precede"?
I don't know what I was thinking when I typed precluded. Kind of like when
you typed holocaust of evolution.
>
> that statement, *At this moment*
>> "this theory (an unproven assumption)
>
> A scientific theory is not simply an unproven assumption. Your
> continued use of the phrase simply highlights your lack of knowledge.
>
> ....our understanding of something."
>
> What?
>
>> In your analogy above, it was not an *unproven assumption* "that the
>> holocaust happened; atrocity beggared imagination." The holocaust
>> atrocities are documented facts that even a layman such as myself can
>> testify to because I have seen it's physcial evidence during my visits to
>> Germany, Austria, Luxembourg, and Poland to name a few countries.
>
> Evolution is also based on documented facts and evidence. The fact
> that you personally "can not believe" it is more a function of your own
> limitations that the validity of evolution.
You referring to me here?
>
> The
>> reason that there are those who still don't believe it happened can be
>> explained in numerous ways, one being they are deniers of history.
>
> Exactly how we can describe people who deny evolution.
>
> gmelin
Well, you are the one who believes that scientific theory is the same as
scientific law.
>
zee jhai
"Steven Sullivan" <ssu...@panix.com> wrote in message news:d6gcmp$k3u$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> Zemborato <zemborat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Quintillionth Quaff" <bu...@home.org> wrote in message
> > > >>
> > > >> "Zemborato" <zemborat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > >> news:mYzie.1435$5Z1...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
> > > >> >
> > > >> > news:iZWdnaWh9_g...@comcast.com...
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> If man evolved from monkeys and apes, why do we still have monkeys
> > and
> > > >> > apes?
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > If man was created out of clay, why is there still clay?
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >> "Turn of the Century." No religion that I am aware states it. The
> > Roman
> > > >> Catholic religion has a rite that says, "From dust (not dirt) you were
> > > > born
> > > >> and to dust you shall return." That statement is a metaphor.
> > > >
> > > > take-from-still-have-leftovers obviousness is the point.
> > > >
> > > > To make it as simple as possible for you, just because one lineage
> > mutates
> > > > doesn't mean that all other lineages mutate the same or die off.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Thanks for the simplicity yet, it is possible that some intelligent design
> > > was employed to take a "lineage mutate" and have it become MAN.
>
> > The issue of whether or not there is an external directive force that
> > sometimes tinkers with the evolutionary process is entirely unrelated to why
> > a legacy version of an evolutionary result may be retained.
>
<snip> blah blah blah SS same ole BS </snip>
Hey, Steve, you ever been mistaken for a man?
Steven Sullivan
hmm..SS didn't write that. Or were you hissing?
> Hey, Steve, you ever been mistaken for a man?
I'll tell you when you figure out nested quoting.
--
-S "and not a moment before" Sullivan
gmelin
Quintillionth Quaff wrote:
> > The point is that just because someone "can not believe" something, be
> > it the holocaust of evolution, does not make it any less true. I can
> > not believe you didn't understand that, and yet . . .
>
> And yet what...? I certainly don't understand what you mean by "holocaust
> of evolution." I think you meant to type the word or not of.
Yeah.
> I don't presume to speak for all Catholics or Christians but, as a Roman
> Catholic I lean towards accepting evolutionary theor(ies). However,
> evolution theories are just that, theories.
The problem lies in your understanding of the word theory.
Personally, I can not discount
> that evolution may be part of God's plan or if you prefer an intelligent
> designer's plan.
I prefer neither. You cannot "discount"; I see no reason to consider
the possibility in the first place. Everything is explicable without
having to postulate a "designer."
> >> Literary Theory
> >> ... is the theory (or the philosophy) of the interpretation of
> >> literature and literary criticism.
> >> According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_theory
> >
> > That's correct, but in a rather superficial way. Too bad you didn't go
> > on to read the rest of it.
>
> But I did. To bad you didn't read this sentence
This has gotten really tangential, but I'll pursue it abit more.
> Since theorists of literature often draw on a very heterogeneous tradition
> of Continental philosophy and the philosophy of language,
This is one approach; it's not universal.
any classification
> of their approaches is only an approximation.
Of course.
> Or this one.
>
> Since then, and as of 2004, the controversy over the use of theory in
> literary studies has all but died out, and discussions on the topic within
> literary and cultural studies tend now to be considerably milder and less
The rest is mkissing, but essentially alludes to the fact that some
scholars draw on literary theory and others do not. True. The problem
is that none of 5his is particularly relevant to the meaning of the
word "theory" in the first place. "Creationists" pin of the word
"theory" to try and argue that, "Since it's just a theory, we don't
know if it's real." This is fallacious, which I why I brought in
literary theory: it's true that there is disagreement among literary
theorists, but no one is arguing that literature isn't real just
because we have literary theory.
> >but I think you are making the
> > assumption that the only objective in literary criticism is to devine
> > authorial intent.
>
> In a simplistic way YES, but let me paste a quote from the link above that
> make the statement better than me.
>
> Another crucial distinction among the various theories of literary
> interpretation is intentionality, the amount of weight given to the author's
> own opinions about and intentions for a work. For most pre-20th century
> approaches, the author's intentions are a guiding factor and an important
> determiner of the 'correct' interpretation of texts.
You are aware that we are over a hundered years beyond "pre-20th
century," right? Let me provide the rest of the paragraph for you:
The New Criticism was the first school to disavow the role of the
author in interpreting texts, preferring to focus on "the text itself"
in a close reading. In fact, as much contention as there is between
formalism and later schools, they share the tenet that the author's
interpretation of a work is no more inherently meaningful than any
other.
HTH.
> This is far from the case, and one of the major
> > controversies in the study of literature has to do with whether or not
> > the author is at all relevant in interpreting a text.
>
> Are you speaking about an author interpreting his own text?
That's only rarely available. In many cases, we have no idea what the
author's intent was beyond the text itself, as that's all we have.
Consider the works of Shakespeare; considered the greatest literary
acheivement of all time, yet we know *nothing* about what Shakepeare
had in mind, and we cannot be sure how much the texts that have come
down to us reflect what he originally created, nor even who "he" really
was. Bit doesn't matter; _Hamlet_ is great (or not -- your choice)
becuase of what it is, not what it was intended to be. Indeed, perhaps
a large part of the reason why Shakepeare is so well regarded is the
protean quality it has. It can be adapted easily to nearly limitless
contexts. We don't know what Shakepeare's intent was with _Romeo and
Juliet_, but we can be confident he didn't intend Romeo and Tybalt to
be waving "Sword" brand pistols at each other in "Verona Beach"
Florida. Nor did he intend _Richard III_ to be a parable of the rise
of 20th Century facism; nor _Love's Labours Lost_ to involve the
popular music of the 1920's and 30's; nor _Henry V_ to be a patriotic
boost for England in the darkestdays of WWW2, not mention an unfilted
examination of the horrors of war post-Vietnam. But all of those are
potentially valid interpretations that have been staged (well, filmed,
actually). We don't need to know Shakespeare's intent for the texts to
be full of meaning.
And even if we do know the author's intent, that does not of necessity
invalidate other interpretations. There are cases where authors have
encountered interpretations of their work that differ greatly from what
they intended, but they accept them as adding to the richness of the
work. Indeed, ambiguity is sometimes part of the intent; the author
*wants* it to be "open to interpretation," to mean "different things to
different people."
If not he then
> who, a literary theorist?
A reader. An interpreter. Anyone who interacts with a text.
> From
>
> http://wilstar.com/theories.htm
You don't like the Wickedpedia definitions? You can go forum-shopping
all you want, but surely you can do better than the personal,
"family-entertainment" site of some dude who *used to* teach high
school.
Yeah. He didn't do a very good job. But then, I wouldn't have given
much credibility to the site in the first place; even though he insists
he's putting forward the case for evolution, he refers to that position
as "the opposition," and has a great deal of Christian-oriented
material on the site. Here's a case where understanding authorial
intent is useful. Meanwhile, try going to, say, Talkorigins, and see
if you can find the holes in their definitions.
> Hypothesis: ...educated guess based on observation.
Poorly-phrased. A hypothosis is better understood as a reasonable
inference drawn from available evidence.
> Theory: ...an explanation of ...based upon proven hypotheses and verified
> multiple times ...
>
> Question: If a hypothesis is proven and verified multiple times how is it
> still labeled a hypothesis?
Because the guy's phrasing isn't very good.
> Theory is not Scientific Law. You argue as if it is.
No I don't. That Jerry Wibur guy does. Please try to challenge me
based on my own statements, not those of some guy with suspect
credibility.
In many schools it is
> taught as if it is.
Schools teach the theory of evolution as being exactly what it is: the
means by which we can understand the devlopment of life.
> > Evolution is also based on documented facts and evidence. The fact
> > that you personally "can not believe" it is more a function of your own
> > limitations that the validity of evolution.
>
> You referring to me here?
Well, you are the one who "can not believe." If there's something you
can't do, that's a limitation. But ultimately this applies to anyone
who rejects evolution simple because they "can not believe."
> Well, you are the one who believes that scientific theory is the same as
> scientific law.
No, you're cofusing me with that Wilmer dude again. Scientific theory
is the way we understand the workings of the physical world.
gmelin