OT teehee
susan
disclaimer
http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/11/19/going-rogue-is-sarah-palin-a-creationist/
ruylopez
Thanks for this.
Is this what you want, republicans? Really? A presidential nominee that
doesn't believe in evolution? Good luck with that. Oh wait, she believes
in "micro-evolution" - a distinction that lacks any scientific meaning.
What a laugh! So apparently she decided to play a good girl for Katie
last year and buy into this whole evolution bit, but now that she has
"gone rogue", she's back to admitted that she doesn't think humans arose
as a result of evolution. Sound electable to you, Repos? Hah!
The comments are pretty depressing. A window into the mind of a Palin
supporter. Scary.
____________________________________________________________________�
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
susan
All I did was post what I thought was a funny picture and clever caption.
Abbey Johnsson
> On Nov 22 2009 11:13 AM, susan wrote:
>
> > I didn't even read this blog, but got a kick out of the picture and
> > disclaimer
> >
> >
> >
>
http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/11/19/going-rogue-is-sarah-palin-a-creationist/
>
> Thanks for this.
>
> Is this what you want, republicans? Really? A presidential nominee that
> doesn't believe in evolution? Good luck with that. Oh wait, she believes
> in "micro-evolution" - a distinction that lacks any scientific meaning.
> What a laugh! So apparently she decided to play a good girl for Katie
> last year and buy into this whole evolution bit, but now that she has
> "gone rogue", she's back to admitted that she doesn't think humans arose
> as a result of evolution. Sound electable to you, Repos? Hah!
>
> The comments are pretty depressing. A window into the mind of a Palin
> supporter. Scary.
you walked right into it mr savage. susan was trying to show us she has
a sense of humor but she was also waiting to pounce on the first replyer
who took it too seriously.
______________________________________________________________________�
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
ruylopez
> jeez - you talkin' to me?
>
> All I did was post what I thought was a funny picture and clever caption.
No, only the "Thanks for this." was directly addressed to you. I know you
are not a Palin supporter. The rest was just a commentary on the link you
posted. You really should go ahead and read it.
------�
ruylopez
> On Nov 22 2009 11:46 AM, ruylopez wrote:
>
> > On Nov 22 2009 11:13 AM, susan wrote:
> >
> > > I didn't even read this blog, but got a kick out of the picture and
> > > disclaimer
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/11/19/going-rogue-is-sarah-palin-a-creationist/
> >
> > Thanks for this.
> >
> > Is this what you want, republicans? Really? A presidential nominee that
> > doesn't believe in evolution? Good luck with that. Oh wait, she believes
> > in "micro-evolution" - a distinction that lacks any scientific meaning.
> > What a laugh! So apparently she decided to play a good girl for Katie
> > last year and buy into this whole evolution bit, but now that she has
> > "gone rogue", she's back to admitted that she doesn't think humans arose
> > as a result of evolution. Sound electable to you, Repos? Hah!
> >
> > The comments are pretty depressing. A window into the mind of a Palin
> > supporter. Scary.
>
> you walked right into it mr savage. susan was trying to show us she has
> a sense of humor but she was also waiting to pounce on the first replyer
> who took it too seriously.
What are you talking about, Mr. or Ms. Johnson? I am just commenting on
the blog that was linked here, which I find pretty amusing, and which
offers new, to me, evidence regarding Sarah's anti-science views on
evolution. We in the science community are quite familiar with Sarah's
frightening lack of scientific acumen, but she had been a good girl lately
regarding evolution, and I am surprised to see she has also gone "rogue"
on this subject in her new book. Hadn't seen it yet.
Did she pounce on me? What was I not supposed to take seriously? Do you
think she only wanted to show us a picture of a monkey? I think we can
give PDS a little more credit than that.
Paul Popinjay
news:ba9ot6x...@recgroups.com...
>
> What are you talking about, Mr. or Ms. Johnson? I am just commenting on
> the blog that was linked here, which I find pretty amusing, and which
> offers new, to me, evidence regarding Sarah's anti-science views on
> evolution. We in the science community are quite familiar with Sarah's
> frightening lack of scientific acumen, but she had been a good girl lately
> regarding evolution, and I am surprised to see she has also gone "rogue"
> on this subject in her new book. Hadn't seen it yet.
>
> Did she pounce on me? What was I not supposed to take seriously? Do you
> think she only wanted to show us a picture of a monkey? I think we can
> give PDS a little more credit than that.
>
Pretty smug, Ruy, and I never unerstand the need of you people to knock
everyone who might believe differently. I happen to buy the possibility
that we did not evolve as is commonly taught. I can also buy the idea that
we are less than 10,000 years old. And I do remember that your interest was
piqued during the "Abiotic Oil" thread a couple years ago. Where does THAT
fit in with your Darwinian dogma?
Abbey Johnsson
Do you
> think she only wanted to show us a picture of a monkey? I think we can
> give PDS a little more credit than that.
yes! but like i said, she was waiting for someone to reply the way you
did. you sprung the trap and she gotcha with "who, little ol me?. i was
just trying to show a funny. lighten up".
i'm surprised a psychology expert like you couldnt see that coming.
______________________________________________________________________�
Will in New Haven
wrote:
> "ruylopez" <a680...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
All your willful ignorance won't change anything.
Evolution happened. It is continuing to happen. You have a right to
your opinion but no one needs to respect it.
--
Will in New Haven
Paul Popinjay
news:9c18d202-e096-470a-a637-
> All your willful ignorance won't change anything.
> Evolution happened. It is continuing to happen. You have a right to
> your opinion but no one needs to respect it.
Please wipe your ass with that respect. You don't know what the fuck
happened. All it is is theory. You cannot prove that man evolved from
something un-manlike. Seems like it is you fucks who are the closed-minded
ones. Either way, I don't care. Don't reply to this, because I don't give
a fuck what you think. I was talking to Ruy, and I don't need comments from
you or Clave or the rest of the penis gallery.
Will in New Haven
wrote:
> "Will in New Haven" <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in message
Go to http://gettafuckingeducationyouasshole.com
No one has to give you an education in biology and geology. No one has
to respect your intellect or your wishes. You are a contemptible
ignoramus. No one cares who you were talking to, you fascist piece of
shit.
Paul Popinjay
> Go to http://gettafuckingeducationyouasshole.com
> No one has to give you an education in biology and geology. No one has
> to respect your intellect or your wishes. You are a contemptible
> ignoramus. No one cares who you were talking to, you fascist piece of
> shit.
Who is the ignoramus? You gave me a broken link, duh fucking duh.
Will in New Haven
wrote:
> "Will in New Haven" <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in message
> news:bc1ba118-1ffe-4839-b6ac-
>
> > Go tohttp://gettafuckingeducationyouasshole.com
> > No one has to give you an education in biology and geology. No one has
> > to respect your intellect or your wishes. You are a contemptible
> > ignoramus. No one cares who you were talking to, you fascist piece of
> > shit.
>
> Who is the ignoramus? You gave me a broken link, duh fucking duh.
You clicked on it? Most of the idiots over on talk.origins don't do
that. Of course, it's a broken link. You can't get a complete
education in biology on the internet.
susan
"Paul Popinjay" <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:hec4u8$5ub$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
teehee
Dude777
> Evolution happened. It is continuing to happen.
We can hope so seeing as the libs abort their progeny at a much higher rate.
ramashiva
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> On Nov 22, 2:16 pm, "Paul Popinjay" <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > "Will in New Haven" <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in message
> > news:9c18d202-e096-470a-a637-
> > > All your willful ignorance won't change anything.
> > > Evolution happened. It is continuing to happen. You have a right to
> > > your opinion but no one needs to respect it.
> > Please wipe your ass with that respect. You don't know what the fuck
> > happened. All it is is theory. You cannot prove that man evolved from
> > something un-manlike. Seems like it is you fucks who are the closed-minded
> > ones. Either way, I don't care. Don't reply to this, because I don't give
> > a fuck what you think. I was talking to Ruy, and I don't need comments from
> > you or Clave or the rest of the penis gallery.
> Go tohttp://gettafuckingeducationyouasshole.com
> No one has to give you an education in biology and geology. No one has
> to respect your intellect or your wishes. You are a contemptible
> ignoramus. No one cares who you were talking to, you fascist piece of
> shit.
This post has the Ramashiva Seal of Approval and Endorsement.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Will in New Haven
That isn't at all certain. Many family values pukes are quite the
hypocrites. Also, the phenomenon of children going along with their
parents politically has many exceptions.
Paul Popinjay
news:7a801366-5bf5-4887...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> This post has the Ramashiva Seal of Approval and Endorsement.
Nevermind all that. Why aren't you busy helping Destiny get her money back?
Paul Popinjay
> Many family values pukes are quite the
> hypocrites.
As opposed to ALL anti-family values pukes being hypocrites.
Paul Popinjay
Check this out, Einstein. Proof possitive that the world is less than
10,000 years old.
Will in New Haven
wrote:
> "Will in New Haven" <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in messagenews:f10ba748-5c14-45dd...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
You do classier broken links than I do. I never HEARD of
brokenlinks.com.
Kudus.
Will in New Haven
wrote:
> "Will in New Haven" <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in message
> news:8e8bc258-863f-4577-8a60-
>
> > Many family values pukes are quite the
> > hypocrites.
>
> As opposed to ALL anti-family values pukes being hypocrites.
There are very few people who are _against_ family values. Well, I am
one but that is still very few. Most people just don't want the
government involved in _enforcing_ someone else's idea of family
values.
number6
But force people to wear seat belts ... helmets on a bike .. buy
medical insurance ... recycle plastic ... Someone else's idea of
protecting you ...
Paul Popinjay
--------------------------------
You're a caveman.
brewmaster
> On Nov 22 2009 11:13 AM, susan wrote:
>
> > I didn't even read this blog, but got a kick out of the picture and
> > disclaimer
> >
> >
> >
>
http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/11/19/going-rogue-is-sarah-palin-a-creationist/
>
> Thanks for this.
>
> Is this what you want, republicans? Really? A presidential nominee that
> doesn't believe in evolution? Good luck with that. Oh wait, she believes
> in "micro-evolution" - a distinction that lacks any scientific meaning.
> What a laugh! So apparently she decided to play a good girl for Katie
> last year and buy into this whole evolution bit, but now that she has
> "gone rogue", she's back to admitted that she doesn't think humans arose
> as a result of evolution. Sound electable to you, Repos? Hah!
>
> The comments are pretty depressing. A window into the mind of a Palin
> supporter. Scary.
I don't want her for anything, but seriously, do you think believing in
evolution somehow changes someone's ability to decide about troop levels
in Afghanistan?
I'd vote for Mitt Romney in a RHM and we all know he believes the earth is
only 6000 years old, but so what?
Brew
--
Hatred is purity...weakness is disease!
FEAR - Foreign Policy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOCcbKAhlY0
----�
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
ramashiva
wrote:
> "Will in New Haven" <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in message
> news:bc1ba118-1ffe-4839-b6ac-
> > Go tohttp://gettafuckingeducationyouasshole.com
> > No one has to give you an education in biology and geology. No one has
> > to respect your intellect or your wishes. You are a contemptible
> > ignoramus. No one cares who you were talking to, you fascist piece of
> > shit.
> Who is the ignoramus? You gave me a broken link, duh fucking duh.
Jesus, Paul. What the fuck is wrong with you??? You seriously think
that ---
http://gettafuckingeducationyouasshole.com
is a real link???
You are coming across as incredibly stupid and ignorant in this
thread.
You seriously think evolution is just a theory??? Well yeah, in the
sense that scientists use the world "theory". Not in the sense that
"theory" is used in common parlance.
The evidence that evolution is real and actually occurred and
continues to occur is massive and overwhelming. We share something
like 99% of our genes with chimpanzees. To anyone with a brain, which
obviously excludes you, that is conclusive evidence that chimpanzees
and humans share a common ancestor.
This country is in real trouble when scientific illiterates like you
are allowed to vote.
I don't recall the exact figures, but polls show that something like
half the population rejects the theory of evolution. A similar number
rejects global warming science as a hoax.
Scientific truth is not determined by polls. Our education system has
failed when half the population rejects well-established science for
irrational reasons, the primary reason being that the science in
question reaches conclusions which are disagreeable or inconvenient.
Global warming is occurring. Human burning of fossil fuels is an
important cause of this global warming. Climate science is extremely
complex, and global warming is not yet well enough understood to make
accurate predictions about what might happen in the future. So what
global warming science gives us is a range of possible future
scenarios with probability estimates for these scenarios.
The worst case scenarios are global castastrophe on an unprecedented
scale. It is totally irrational to say that it is not certain these
worst case scenarios will occur, therefore we should do nothing. By
the time it is perfectly clear that global warming WILL result in
global catastrophe, it will be too late to act.
It may already be too late to act, because there are positive feedback
loops involved with global warming which could greatly accelerate the
pace of global warming. These positive feedback loops involve the
temperature of ocean water.
Water vapor itself is a powerful greenhouse gas. As the ocean and the
atmosphere heat up, more water evaporates from the oceans, there is
more water vapor in the air, and more global warming occurs, since
water vapor is a greenhouse gas.
This type of positive feedback loop can result in runaway global
warming,
There is a second potential positive feedback loop involved with
global warming. As Stephen Jacobs pointed out in another thread,
"should ocean water temperatures at moderate depths increase by a
couple degrees a huge amount of methane hydrate will start to
decompose, increasing "greenhouse gases" faster than man ever has.
There is a very real danger that the climate system will run away at
that point."
Again, global warming science is so complex that we do not know what
will happen. But these positive feedback loops present a clear
potential for a sudden acceleration in the pace of global warming,
resulting in the catastrophes of the worst case scenarios occurring
much sooner than anyone expects.
It is not certain that your house will ever burn down. Does that mean
you should not have fire insurance on your house? Of course not.
It is not certain that global warming will ever result in global
catastrophe. Does that mean we should not take steps NOW to lessen
the probability that such catastrophes will occur in the future? Of
course not.
But there are enough anti-science whackjobs like yourself who can
vote, that serious action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions may be
delayed past the point of no return, where a global catastrophe will
occur no matter what we do.
We may already be past the point of no return. No one knows. But the
only rational course of action is to do everything we can NOW to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions, so that a global warming catastrophe
MAY be averted, or at least its severity mitigated.
We all know that anti-science whackjobs and right-wing nutcases are
basically the same people. If you moronic brownshirt fucks have your
way, and nothing serious is done to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
hundreds of millions of people may die as a result of your idiocy.
Wake the fuck up. This is serious shit. As Will Reich says, get a
fucking education already, you fucking assholes. Get the fuck out of
the way and let the rational adults among us take what actions we can
to try to avert global catastrophe.
Imagine the Katrina/New Orleans disaster occurring thousands of times
all over the world. You think hundreds of millions of refugees from
low lying coastal areas will not create total chaos in the entire
world?
Wake the fuck up.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
ramashiva
wrote:
> "ramashiva" <ramash...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:7a801366-5bf5-4887...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> > This post has the Ramashiva Seal of Approval and Endorsement.
> Nevermind all that. Why aren't you busy helping Destiny get her money back?
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.gambling.poker/browse_thread/threa...
Paul, this is serious shit. I do not find your lame attempts at humor
at all amusing.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
ramashiva
> On Nov 22 2009 8:46 AM, ruylopez wrote:
> > On Nov 22 2009 11:13 AM, susan wrote:
> > > I didn't even read this blog, but got a kick out of the picture and
> > > disclaimer
> http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/11/19/going-rogue-is-s...
> > Thanks for this.
> > Is this what you want, republicans? Really? A presidential nominee that
> > doesn't believe in evolution? Good luck with that. Oh wait, she believes
> > in "micro-evolution" - a distinction that lacks any scientific meaning.
> > What a laugh! So apparently she decided to play a good girl for Katie
> > last year and buy into this whole evolution bit, but now that she has
> > "gone rogue", she's back to admitted that she doesn't think humans arose
> > as a result of evolution. Sound electable to you, Repos? Hah!
> > The comments are pretty depressing. A window into the mind of a Palin
> > supporter. Scary.
> I don't want her for anything, but seriously, do you think believing in
> evolution somehow changes someone's ability to decide about troop levels
> in Afghanistan?
> I'd vote for Mitt Romney in a RHM and we all know he believes the earth is
> only 6000 years old, but so what?
So what??? I'll tell you what, you misanthropic whackjob. Anyone who
rejects well established science because that science conflicts with
his religious beliefs demonstrates a lack of education and
intelligence which disqualifies him from being President or holding
any other political office.
That's what. Asshole.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
ramashiva
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> Kudus.
Kudos. By the way, did you know that "kudos" is a singular noun?
Just a bit of linguistic trivia to brighten your day.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Paul Popinjay
> We share something
> like 99% of our genes with chimpanzees.
I don't. Speak for yourself. Besides, when I wear
mine out, I throw them away.
> If you moronic brownshirt fucks have your
> way, and nothing serious is done to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
> hundreds of millions of people may die as a result of your idiocy.
> Wake the fuck up. This is serious shit. As Will Reich says, get a
> fucking education already, you fucking assholes.
Uh huh. You're the one claiming relation to chimps, not I. Anyway, as you
well know, I went through 8th grade, and that was a long time ago. What do
you propose? Should I register for 9th?
Will in New Haven
I don't like that either. It took a LOT by the last administration and
the McCain campaign to get me to the point where I didn't mind the
Democrat victory.
Will in New Haven
> On Nov 22, 12:45 pm, Will in New Haven
>
> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> > Kudus.
>
> Kudos. By the way, did you know that "kudos" is a singular noun?
> Just a bit of linguistic trivia to brighten your day.
I didn't know that but I do know that I was offering Paul some
antelopes.
ramashiva
wrote:
> "ramashiva" <ramash...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:367aca15-cedd-4c5c-828e-
No, you should enroll in a community college and get an associate's
degree in whatever interests you most. Computer science might be a
good choice for you. Good grades in community college and decent
scores on the college entrance examination should get you into a four-
year college in the California system.
Once you get into a four-year college, I would recommend dual majors
in economics and biology, since these seem to be your areas of
greatest ignorance.
You are obviously a very smart guy. For someone with so little formal
education, you write amazingly well and are very well informed on a
wide variety of subjects.
You remind me of my father, who was also named Paul, and who was also
an extreme right-wing nutcase. My father had to drop out of school in
the 9th grade to run the family farm when his father died. He
enlisted in the Army when he was 18, rose to the rank of Master
Sergeant, and served as an Army drill instructor through the end of
World War II.
My father was an extremely intelligent man who could most
appropriately be described as an uneducated genius. Like you, he was
a voracious reader, and he did a great job of educating himself. He
held a series of management positions in insurance, accounting, data
processing, and TV broadcasting. He never achieved great financial
success, but I would say he did pretty damn well for an Illinois farm
boy with an 8th grade education.
Anyway, get an education, Paul. You are wasting a lot of your
intellectual potential if you don't.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
ramashiva
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> On Nov 22, 4:39 pm, ramashiva <ramash...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 22, 12:45 pm, Will in New Haven
>
> > <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> > > Kudus.
>
> > Kudos. By the way, did you know that "kudos" is a singular noun?
> > Just a bit of linguistic trivia to brighten your day.
>
> I didn't know that but I do know that I was offering Paul some
> antelopes.
LOL. You are the master of wit and comebacks on this newsgroup. By
the way, did did you know that the plural of "antelope" is
"antelope"? Of course you did. You were just fucking with me some
more.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Will in New Haven
I knew it and rejected it. I won't say "sheeps" because it is so
obviously wrong. I know that the word "antelopes" has only one
appropriate usage, when you are referring to various kinds of the
critters, but I don't like using the same term for the singular and
the plural and I choose not to.
Of course, I was offering him some Lesser Kudu, the Greater Kudu is
endangered.
ramashiva
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> > > > <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> > > > > Kudus.
I wonder what the criteria are for determining which nouns have the
same singular and plural form. No wonder English is so hard to
learn. Can you imagine the poor suckers trying to learn English who
find out that the plural form of an English noun is normally formed by
adding "s" to the singular form, but some nouns have the same form for
both singular and plural?
Then imagine the reaction when they find out that nouns that are
cognates of a foreign language like Latin have their plural formed
according to the rules of that foreign language. For example, the
plural of datum is data.
Add to that the non-phonetic spelling system -- "fish" = "ghoti" --
and it must be a total nightmare to learn how to speak and write
English correctly.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
John the Savage
> On Nov 22 2009 12:34 PM, ruylopez wrote:
>
>
> Do you
>> think she only wanted to show us a picture of a monkey? I think we can
>> give PDS a little more credit than that.
>
>
> yes! but like i said, she was waiting for someone to reply the way you
> did. you sprung the trap and she gotcha with "who, little ol me?. i was
> just trying to show a funny. lighten up".
>
> i'm surprised a psychology expert like you couldnt see that coming.
>
I still don't get what this "gotcha!" trap is you think I fell into. I
took her link as an opportunity to comment on its comments. I did not
ascribe anything to susan. Anyway.
John the Savage
>
> Pretty smug, Ruy, and I never unerstand the need of you people to knock
> everyone who might believe differently.
This isn't a "belief" issue. There is no modern biology without
evolution. The evidence is beyond reasonable dispute. The arguments
against it are all fallacious. You cannot find a single, educated
biologist anywhere who doesn't believe that the diversity of life on
Earth arises by the processes commonly understood as "evolution". There
is no debate. People that "believe differently" are simply wrong. What
would be your opinion of a gambler who "believes" that splitting tens is
always the right play? Would you feel the need to "knock" them, just
because they believe differently than you? Would they simply be an idiot?
Why don't you take my word for it, or the word of any other legitimate
biologist on the planet, or get yourself into some biology classes and
learn for yourself. I can't believe you seriously:
> happen to buy the possibility
> that we did not evolve as is commonly taught. I can also buy the idea that
> we are less than 10,000 years old.
What do you mean by "we"? Can you elaborate on this a bit? I think you
are trolling ambiguously. If you mean this seriously, in the way you
know it will be read, I'm pretty amazed.
> And I do remember that your interest was
> piqued during the "Abiotic Oil" thread a couple years ago. Where does THAT
> fit in with your Darwinian dogma?
>
It doesn't have anything to do with it. Petroleum is not abiotic,
period. And even if there were major abiotic sources of oil, it would
not disprove evolution. Evolution is here to stay. Darwin is an
absolute great, and it bothers me that every religious ignoramus on
Earth feels compelled to dispute his mammoth contribution when they have
no idea what they are talking about. Einstein doesn't have to put up
with this shit. Curie doesn't have to put up with this shit. Charles
deserves better.
John the Savage
>
> I don't want her for anything, but seriously, do you think believing in
> evolution somehow changes someone's ability to decide about troop levels
> in Afghanistan?
>
Being President involves a lot more decisions than troop levels in
Afghanistan. A fundamental distrust of science is not something we need
at the highest levels of government. An ignorance and continuing denial
of accepted science well over 100 years old is not something we need at
the highest levels of government. I don't want a leader with some
bizarre notion of "God" making policy and agenda decisions for our
country based on it. It's ridiculous. If you expect our competitors,
like Russia and China, to stop funding science or to start walking
backwards when it comes to basic principles of biology you are drunk as
fuck. Falling behind in science isn't something that is going to help
us one lick, and it is something I can guarantee would happen if some
creationist ends up being the President.
> I'd vote for Mitt Romney in a RHM and we all know he believes the earth is
> only 6000 years old, but so what?
>
Please do. I would love to see the Republicans throw their nomination
away on some New-Earth Creationist.
Paul Popinjay
news:EvudnbZLfv_XTpTW...@giganews.com...
>
> This isn't a "belief" issue. There is no modern biology without
> evolution. The evidence is beyond reasonable dispute. The arguments
> against it are all fallacious.
Same was said when they thought the universe revolved around the Earth. And
they were just as smug, just as arrogant, and just as wrong as YOU are
today. I didn't come from no monkeys, numb nuts.
Paul Popinjay
> You are obviously a very smart guy.
>
No I'm not. I'm a dope. I guess that shows how smart YOU are.
Paul Popinjay
>
> Please do. I would love to see the Republicans throw their nomination
> away on some New-Earth Creationist.
With your leftist bias showing for all here to see, it's obvious that you
subscribe to political principles and concepts that are just as clearly full
of shit as you say the creationists are. And that's not just a belief, numb
nuts. You're lucky there is a right wing, because without it, you would
have grown up in tyrannical slavery instead of having the freedom to develop
your foolish way of thinking. I guess one man's absolutes are another man's
dog turds. But in reality there are no two sides to the truth, no matter
what anyone believes. It's still a free country, Ruy, and you have the
right to be wrong. God bless America, and God bless the Republican Party,
the hope of mankind.
Paul Popinjay
> > > > <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> > > > > Kudus.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What the FUCK are you guys going on about?!!!
misanthropic whackjob
> On Nov 22, 1:17�pm, "brewmaster" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 22 2009 8:46 AM, ruylopez wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 22 2009 11:13 AM, susan wrote:
>
> > > > I didn't even read this blog, but got a kick out of the picture and
> > > > disclaimer
>
> > http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/11/19/going-rogue-is-s...
>
> > > Thanks for this.
>
> > > Is this what you want, republicans? �Really? �A presidential nominee that
> > > doesn't believe in evolution? �Good luck with that. �Oh wait, she
believes
> > > in "micro-evolution" - a distinction that lacks any scientific meaning.
> > > What a laugh! �So apparently she decided to play a good girl for Katie
> > > last year and buy into this whole evolution bit, but now that she has
> > > "gone rogue", she's back to admitted that she doesn't think humans arose
> > > as a result of evolution. �Sound electable to you, Repos? �Hah!
>
> > > The comments are pretty depressing. �A window into the mind of a Palin
> > > supporter. �Scary.
>
> > I don't want her for anything, but seriously, do you think believing in
> > evolution somehow changes someone's ability to decide about troop levels
> > in Afghanistan?
>
> > I'd vote for Mitt Romney in a RHM and we all know he believes the earth is
> > only 6000 years old, but so what?
>
> So what??? I'll tell you what, you misanthropic whackjob.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
> Anyone who
> rejects well established science because that science conflicts with
> his religious beliefs demonstrates a lack of education and
> intelligence which disqualifies him from being President or holding
> any other political office.
>
> That's what. Asshole.
>
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)
--
I don't care about you! Fuck you! - FEAR
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyM4uAJBujA
------�
ramashiva
> Abbey Johnsson wrote:
> > On Nov 22 2009 12:34 PM, ruylopez wrote:
> > Do you think she only wanted to show us a picture of a monkey?
> > I think we can give PDS a little more credit than that.
> > yes! but like i said, she was waiting for someone to reply the way you
> > did. you sprung the trap and she gotcha with "who, little ol me?. i was
> > just trying to show a funny. lighten up".
> > i'm surprised a psychology expert like you couldnt see that coming.
> I still don't get what this "gotcha!" trap is you think I fell into.
You didn't fall into any trap. Abbey is an anklebiting idiot who
understands nothing.
> I took her link as an opportunity to comment on its comments.
> I did not ascribe anything to susan.
Of course you didn't. But Susan tried to make it appear that you did
--
"jeez - you talkin' to me?"
So she could make her usual passive-aggressive response --
"All I did was post what I thought was a funny picture and clever
caption."
In Abbey and Susan you are dealing with two real slack-jawed idiots
incapable of anything more than anklebiting harassment.
Any time you spend replying to either of them is time wasted to no
purpose.
I have wasted way too much time on both of them, but I try to refrain
from replying to them as much as possible.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
ramashiva
wrote:
> I don't care about you!
I don't care that you don't care about me.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Paul Popinjay
news:0d4pt6x...@recgroups.com...
> I don't care about you! Fuck you! - FEAR
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyM4uAJBujA
>
That was cool. Seen an old man have a heart attack in Manhattan he died
while we just stood there lookin at him, ain't he cute. Yeah! That rocks!
Abbey Johnsson
> On Nov 22, 3:58�ｿｽpm, John the Savage <savage0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Abbey Johnsson wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 22 2009 12:34 PM, ruylopez wrote:
>
> > > �ｿｽDo you think she only wanted to show us a picture of a monkey?
>
> > > �ｿｽI think we can give PDS a little more credit than that.
>
> > > yes! �ｿｽbut like i said, she was waiting for someone to reply the way you
> > > did. you sprung the trap and she gotcha with "who, little ol me?. i was
> > > just trying to show a funny. lighten up".
>
> > > i'm surprised a psychology expert like you couldnt see that coming.
>
> > I still don't get what this "gotcha!" trap is you think I fell into.
>
> You didn't fall into any trap. Abbey is an anklebiting idiot who
> understands nothing.
>
> > I took her link as an opportunity to comment on its comments.
> > �ｿｽI did not ascribe anything to susan.
>
> Of course you didn't. But Susan tried to make it appear that you did
> --
>
> "jeez - you talkin' to me?"
>
> So she could make her usual passive-aggressive response --
>
> "All I did was post what I thought was a funny picture and clever
> caption."
lol. exactly! you agree with me. she set it up from the beginning.
tyvm!
and try to calm down, coleman. i picture you drooling down the front of
your shirt when you get so excited. thats not very kungfoo master kunalina
like. shouldnt you be sitting cross legged on a cloud somewhere chortling
at the misadventures of all the lowly foolish earthbound creatures below
you?
______________________________________________________________________�ｿｽ
ramashiva
> On Nov 22 2009 9:22 PM, ramashiva wrote:
> > On Nov 22, 3:58 pm, John the Savage <savage0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Abbey Johnsson wrote:
> > > > On Nov 22 2009 12:34 PM, ruylopez wrote:
> > > > Do you think she only wanted to show us a picture of a monkey?
> > > > I think we can give PDS a little more credit than that.
> > > > yes! but like i said, she was waiting for someone to reply the way you
> > > > did. you sprung the trap and she gotcha with "who, little ol me?. i was
> > > > just trying to show a funny. lighten up".
> > > > i'm surprised a psychology expert like you couldnt see that coming.
> > > I still don't get what this "gotcha!" trap is you think I fell into.
> > You didn't fall into any trap. Abbey is an anklebiting idiot who
> > understands nothing.
> > > I took her link as an opportunity to comment on its comments.
> > > I did not ascribe anything to susan.
> > Of course you didn't. But Susan tried to make it appear that you did
> > --
> > "jeez - you talkin' to me?"
> > So she could make her usual passive-aggressive response --
> > "All I did was post what I thought was a funny picture and clever
> > caption."
> lol. exactly! you agree with me. she set it up from the beginning.
> tyvm!
Yes, Susan constantly sets these passive-aggressive traps. Only one
problem. None of John's remarks were directed to Susan, so she had to
make it appear that they were, so she could make her passive-
aggressive response.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Pepe Papon
<rama...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Then imagine the reaction when they find out that nouns that are
>cognates of a foreign language like Latin have their plural formed
>according to the rules of that foreign language. For example, the
>plural of datum is data.
Things are changing, though. The plural of "stadium", for example,
is supposed to be "stadia", but nobody says "stadia". I've even seen
academic publications use "stadiums".
--
~ Seth Jackson
MySpace URL - http://www.myspace.com/sethjacksonsong
Songwriting and Music Business Info: http://www.sethjackson.net
Paul Popinjay
>
> Things are changing, though. The plural of "stadium", for example,
> is supposed to be "stadia", but nobody says "stadia". I've even seen
> academic publications use "stadiums".
That's because it IS "stadiums", Swifty. If there were two of you, Pepe,
you and your twin brother, what would they call you two? Moronia?
susan
"ramashiva"
LOLOL I am so fucking clever I get people to reply to me who promise they
won't, I trick others into thinking I mean one thing when I really mean
something else.
Who is the dumb one here?
Beldin the Sorcerer
On Nov 22, 5:16 pm, "misanthropic whackjob" <acae...@webnntp.invalid>
wrote:
> I don't care about you!
I don't care that you don't care about me.
***
But you fantasize about her.
da pickle
>> "John the Savage"
>> This isn't a "belief" issue. There is no modern biology without
>> evolution. The evidence is beyond reasonable dispute. The arguments
>> against it are all fallacious.
>
>
> Same was said when they thought the universe revolved around the Earth.
> And they were just as smug, just as arrogant, and just as wrong as YOU are
> today. I didn't come from no monkeys, numb nuts.
There are plenty of scientific theories that were once beyond reasonable
dispute until some folks stopped believing that all the arguments against
the current consensus were fallacious ... rather the "deniers" knew that
thinking outside the box of current consensus was often required to move
science forward. Some of those pioneers of science were not just called
names, some of them were killed for their doubts.
Newton's theory of absolute time is a good one to remember ... and
Einstein's belief in the Cosmological Constant.
Everyone "knew" for quite some time that the Earth was flat and the stars
overhead revolved around the Earth.
We might also remember the absolute need for the aether for light to travel
through "space."
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Paul Popinjay" <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:hecm7l$nn3$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
Paul the shithead, ladies and gentlemen!
Failing to understand evolutionary theory since the beginning of his moronic
life.
Paul Popinjay
>
> There are plenty of scientific theories that were once beyond reasonable
> dispute until some folks stopped believing that all the arguments against
> the current consensus were fallacious ... rather the "deniers" knew that
> thinking outside the box of current consensus was often required to move
> science forward. Some of those pioneers of science were not just called
> names, some of them were killed for their doubts.
>
> Newton's theory of absolute time is a good one to remember ... and
> Einstein's belief in the Cosmological Constant.
>
> Everyone "knew" for quite some time that the Earth was flat and the stars
> overhead revolved around the Earth.
>
> We might also remember the absolute need for the aether for light to
> travel through "space."
Thank you, Pickle! And I know this is the real Pickle, because the fake
Pickle is too much of a dope to write this. As I have stated elsewhere in
other Popinjay posts, I think the real Pickle is one of the most
level-headed and wisest RGPers of all time. (besides myself, of course). So
where does this leave people like RuyLopez, Ramashiva, Will in New Haven,
and Peg Smith? I'll tellya where it leaves them, it leaves them thinking
within the constraints of the box, that's where.
-PP
Paul Popinjay
news:hee7gp$88h$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
> Paul the shithead, ladies and gentlemen!
>
> Failing to understand evolutionary theory since the beginning of his
> moronic life.
>
I fucked your girlfriend, you little punk.
Jerry Sturdivant
"Paul Popinjay"
> God bless America, and God bless the
> Republican Party, the hope of mankind.
PP cracks me up. He should have his own comedy show.
Jerry (oh, wait!) �n Vegas
Will in New Haven
There has been a great deal of work done in the many years since
Darwin wrote. Many of the details of the ToE have been examined and
modified to fit observed fact. Unlike the time when "everyone knew"
the Earth was flat, which was never true, there is an actual
scientific community today which evaluates and changes and updates
according to observed phenomena and experimental data. There are also
interested edycated amateurs outside the scientific community, per se,
who have pointed out various factors and helped keep the discussion
going.
Details of larger ideas, like Newton's and Einstein's, have indeed
been changed over the years. This is one of the _strength's_ of
science, which does not rely on revealed truth but on evidence.
In those many years, there has been no strong _scientific_ challenge
to evolution, none at all. Even ID, which was a great way to get a lot
of money out of creationists, conceded common descent with
modifications, ie evolution. The IDers just proposed that there was
some kind of guiding hand behind the whole thing. They had no
scientific argument for this but a fairly interesting philisophical
one. However, in order to get creationists to give them money they had
to insist that their idea be taught in the science classroom, where it
is a non-starter.
As a follower of Titanic Thomson, I have to admire the ID crowd. "A
sucker has no business with his money."
The idea that the general concept of common ancestry and modification
will be overturned is laughably unlikely.
John the Savage
Couldn't come up with anything from the last, oh, 100 years, eh Pickle?
You should really catch up on the whole modern science thing.
Cosmological constant is close .. but then you're talking about
something completely unproven, for which there was zero evidence, that
Einstein simply believed was needed to make the math work, as he tried
to impose a static universe on his theory. If you want a modern
corollary to that, you might think about what these Higgs Bosons are.
On evolution, you are making yourself look silly. The modern world of
the internet, published online journals, masses of labs all over the
world doing modern molecular biological work is nothing like the
archaic, pre-science era of most of your examples here. Yet in all this
modern biology, there hasn't been a single reasonable challenge to
evolution. All of modern biology depends on the theory of evolution,
without which nothing makes sense. There are mountains, just mountains
of evidence, at the species level, at the behavioral level, at the
molecular level, about which you obviously know nothing. There is
absolutely no dissent in the educated community. Frankly, your
ambiguous rant about pre-science errors just makes you look ignorant
here. It's rather uncharacteristic. I'm surprised you are not willing
to stand up for evolution. You are either ignorant of the basic
information, or much less objective than I thought you were. If you
want to challenge it, you are going to have to do a lot better than this.
da pickle
> Frankly, your ambiguous rant about pre-science errors just makes you look
> ignorant here.
"pre-science" ... that is funny.
> It's rather uncharacteristic. I'm surprised you are not willing to stand
> up for evolution.
I would "stand up" for evolution if that had some sort of scientific
meaning.
I am a "believer" in evolution. I am not a believer in consensus science.
> You are either ignorant of the basic information, or much less objective
> than I thought you were. If you want to challenge it, you are going to
> have to do a lot better than this.
I do not have to do anything. There are some pretty pompous folks here that
seem to think that even the slightest question of their stated opinions can
only be the ranting of a ignorant and unobjective responder. Scientist,
heal thyself.
Jerry Sturdivant
I suppose the Theory of Relativity; the Theory of Plate Tectonics; the
Theory of Flight; the Theory of Attraction; the Theory of Gravity and
Electrical Theory (additional "the theory ofs," on request) just aren't
true? Your attempt to discredit Darwin's Theory of Evolution because they
still use the word, theory, is laughable.
Jerry (laughing) 'n Vegas
- Pagan to Christian: "How many TIMES have you been reborn?
Pepe Papon
Paul, you claim to be a dope. I'm starting to believe you.
John the Savage
> "John the Savage"
>
>> Frankly, your ambiguous rant about pre-science errors just makes you look
>> ignorant here.
>
> "pre-science" ... that is funny.
>
Why is that funny? If you go back, say, 300 years, and tried to talk to
people in America or Europe about "science", they would have no idea
what you were talking about. The word is new, the rigorous methods and
professional practice of science is new, and the view of science as the
major avenue for knowledge is new. Your old examples have little
relevance to the modern situation. Evolution is so fundamental, so well
established, that it is much more accurate to compare it to Newton's
basic theory of gravity - massive objects attract each other with a
force that varies with the inverse square of the distance between them.
While small modifications have been made, the basic tenants of the
theory persist and surely will forever. So it is with the origin of the
diversity of life.
>> It's rather uncharacteristic. I'm surprised you are not willing to stand
>> up for evolution.
>
> I would "stand up" for evolution if that had some sort of scientific
> meaning.
>
Evolution is fundamental, period. If you believe in it, we need you to
stand up for it. Only about 40% of Americans are actually willing to
endorse the theory, and this is flatly pathetic. I am sick of fighting
this battle against the ignorant masses who will hold us back at every
opportunity if you let them. When it comes to evolution, you are with
me, or you are against me. If you are with me, as you say:
> I am a "believer" in evolution.
.. then I expect you to not answer an ignorant rant about how man isn't
the product of evolution with a rebuttal, not a nebulous ruse about how
science has been wrong in the past. Seriously?
> I am not a believer in consensus science.
>
We're talking about evolution. Are you going to doubt that massive
objects attract each other, because the whole damned scientific
community is in "consensus" about the existence of gravity? Are you
saying unwilling to support ideas when everyone agrees on them? Do you
have any idea what you are actually saying?
>
> I do not have to do anything. There are some pretty pompous folks here that
> seem to think that even the slightest question of their stated opinions can
> only be the ranting of a ignorant and unobjective responder.
Evolution is not an opinion. Nor is it an opinion that gravity exists,
or that always splitting tens is a losing play. Sometimes, questioning
the obvious just makes you sound really dumb.
da pickle
>>> Frankly, your ambiguous rant about pre-science errors just makes you
>>> look ignorant here.
>>
>> "pre-science" ... that is funny.
>>
>
> Why is that funny? If you go back, say, 300 years, and tried to talk to
> people in America or Europe about "science", they would have no idea what
> you were talking about. The word is new, the rigorous methods and
> professional practice of science is new, and the view of science as the
> major avenue for knowledge is new. Your old examples have little
> relevance to the modern situation. Evolution is so fundamental, so well
> established, that it is much more accurate to compare it to Newton's basic
> theory of gravity - massive objects attract each other with a force that
> varies with the inverse square of the distance between them. While small
> modifications have been made, the basic tenants of the theory persist and
> surely will forever. So it is with the origin of the diversity of life.
I will leave the explanation of light and its propagation to you and the
other "real" scientists.
>>> It's rather uncharacteristic. I'm surprised you are not willing to
>>> stand up for evolution.
>>
>> I would "stand up" for evolution if that had some sort of scientific
>> meaning.
>>
>
> Evolution is fundamental, period. If you believe in it, we need you to
> stand up for it. Only about 40% of Americans are actually willing to
> endorse the theory, and this is flatly pathetic. I am sick of fighting
> this battle against the ignorant masses who will hold us back at every
> opportunity if you let them. When it comes to evolution, you are with me,
> or you are against me. If you are with me, as you say:
I think that those that often call others ignorant might not be worthy of my
support.
>> I am a "believer" in evolution.
>
> .. then I expect you to not answer an ignorant rant about how man isn't
> the product of evolution with a rebuttal, not a nebulous ruse about how
> science has been wrong in the past. Seriously?
You putting words and meaning in my space is beneath you. Heard that
before?
What is this man that you speak of? A really smart monkey? No mystery of
human-ness for you? You have it all figured out. Nothing left to consider.
Seriously ... I am to take this juvenile concept of the meaning of life
seriously?
>> I am not a believer in consensus science.
>>
>
> We're talking about evolution. Are you going to doubt that massive
> objects attract each other, because the whole damned scientific community
> is in "consensus" about the existence of gravity? Are you saying
> unwilling to support ideas when everyone agrees on them? Do you have any
> idea what you are actually saying?
Objects "attract" each other? Action at a distance? Are you up on all
that? Why do they do that, if they do that?
>> I do not have to do anything. There are some pretty pompous folks here
>> that seem to think that even the slightest question of their stated
>> opinions can only be the ranting of a ignorant and unobjective responder.
>
> Evolution is not an opinion. Nor is it an opinion that gravity exists, or
> that always splitting tens is a losing play. Sometimes, questioning the
> obvious just makes you sound really dumb.
Ah, questioning the obvious. Back to the flat earth are we? You are on a
mission today, ruy.
John the Savage
> "John the Savage"
>
>>>> Frankly, your ambiguous rant about pre-science errors just makes you
>>>> look ignorant here.
>>> "pre-science" ... that is funny.
>>>
>> Why is that funny? If you go back, say, 300 years, and tried to talk to
>> people in America or Europe about "science", they would have no idea what
>> you were talking about. The word is new, the rigorous methods and
>> professional practice of science is new, and the view of science as the
>> major avenue for knowledge is new. Your old examples have little
>> relevance to the modern situation. Evolution is so fundamental, so well
>> established, that it is much more accurate to compare it to Newton's basic
>> theory of gravity - massive objects attract each other with a force that
>> varies with the inverse square of the distance between them. While small
>> modifications have been made, the basic tenants of the theory persist and
>> surely will forever. So it is with the origin of the diversity of life.
>
> I will leave the explanation of light and its propagation to you and the
> other "real" scientists.
>
What is the point of this? We're talking about evolution. There are
all sorts of open questions and ongoing debates in science right now and
lots of things we simply don't understand. But how the diversity of
life on Earth arises once it begins is simply not one of them. There
may be nuances that are not well understood, but it is the basic
mechanism we are talking about, and it is pretty well clear.
>>>
>> Evolution is fundamental, period. If you believe in it, we need you to
>> stand up for it. Only about 40% of Americans are actually willing to
>> endorse the theory, and this is flatly pathetic. I am sick of fighting
>> this battle against the ignorant masses who will hold us back at every
>> opportunity if you let them. When it comes to evolution, you are with me,
>> or you are against me. If you are with me, as you say:
>
> I think that those that often call others ignorant might not be worthy of my
> support.
>
I don't care if you support me. It is the theory that needs the support
of everyone who can understand it because it is essential and important
that we raise the scientific IQ of our country. You are simply not
helping.
http://www.unscientificamerica.com/
>
>>> I am a "believer" in evolution.
>> .. then I expect you to not answer an ignorant rant about how man isn't
>> the product of evolution with a rebuttal, not a nebulous ruse about how
>> science has been wrong in the past. Seriously?
>
> You putting words and meaning in my space is beneath you. Heard that
> before?
>
I included all of your words. If I misrepresented your meaning, I trust
you will let me know.
> What is this man that you speak of? A really smart monkey? No mystery of
> human-ness for you? You have it all figured out. Nothing left to consider.
> Seriously ... I am to take this juvenile concept of the meaning of life
> seriously?
>
Where did I propose to talk about the "meaning of life"? This isn't
about the meaning of life. This is about how the diversity of life
arises from what came before it. Don't get all spiritual on me. You
can have whatever meaning you want.
>
>>> I am not a believer in consensus science.
>>>
>> We're talking about evolution. Are you going to doubt that massive
>> objects attract each other, because the whole damned scientific community
>> is in "consensus" about the existence of gravity? Are you saying
>> unwilling to support ideas when everyone agrees on them? Do you have any
>> idea what you are actually saying?
>
> Objects "attract" each other? Action at a distance? Are you up on all
> that? Why do they do that, if they do that?
>
Science doesn't tell you "why". Never has, and never will. Science
just observes what is. You are basically changing the subject. You can
have whatever explanation of "why" you would like.
> Ah, questioning the obvious. Back to the flat earth are we? You are on a
> mission today, ruy.
>
Scientific illiteracy bothers me. I am not against your more
philosophical angles and they are worth considering in the proper
context. Here, all you are doing with them is supporting the illiterate
notions of the anti-science community. Stop it.
Will in New Haven
When Paul Popinjay does it, it is _exactly_ and by definition "the
ranting of an ignroant and unobjective responder."
da pickle
>> What is this man that you speak of? A really smart monkey? No mystery
>> of human-ness for you? You have it all figured out. Nothing left to
>> consider. Seriously ... I am to take this juvenile concept of the meaning
>> of life seriously?
>>
>
> Where did I propose to talk about the "meaning of life"? This isn't about
> the meaning of life. This is about how the diversity of life arises from
> what came before it. Don't get all spiritual on me. You can have
> whatever meaning you want.
So, "man" has nothing further to it than a really smart monkey. That is
what I thought you meant.
> Science doesn't tell you "why". Never has, and never will. Science just
> observes what is. You are basically changing the subject. You can have
> whatever explanation of "why" you would like.
Why does the ball fall to the ground, Daddy?
>> Ah, questioning the obvious. Back to the flat earth are we? You are on
>> a mission today, ruy.
>
> Scientific illiteracy bothers me. I am not against your more
> philosophical angles and they are worth considering in the proper context.
> Here, all you are doing with them is supporting the illiterate notions of
> the anti-science community. Stop it.
I am not ... so stop saying that I am.
da pickle
> I do not have to do anything. There are some pretty pompous folks here
> that
> seem to think that even the slightest question of their stated opinions
> can
> only be the ranting of a ignorant and unobjective responder. Scientist,
> heal thyself.
When Paul Popinjay does it, it is _exactly_ and by definition "the
ranting of an ignroant and unobjective responder."
===============================
Paul is not in error as to his own belief. I believe he believes what he
believes. It does not hurt me at all that he holds his belief.
When folks go beyond stating their own beliefs and try to put down the
beliefs of others, I feel it is they that might be going a bit too far ...
at least when they propound absolutes in what I "believe" to be a
non-absolute universe. So, I question their insistance on only their belief
being the "truth" ... I would question Paul's insistance on his belief being
the only truth,but he does not give a rats ass what anyone else thinks.
I think you are a pretty smart fellow, Will, and I believe you know what I
am talking about.
To ignore the "time before time" sorts of questions is to ignore the core of
the apple while admiring the color of the fruit.
Will in New Haven
> "Will in New Haven"
>
> > I do not have to do anything. There are some pretty pompous folks here
> > that
> > seem to think that even the slightest question of their stated opinions
> > can
> > only be the ranting of a ignorant and unobjective responder. Scientist,
> > heal thyself.
>
> When Paul Popinjay does it, it is _exactly_ and by definition "the
> ranting of an ignroant and unobjective responder."
>
> ===============================
>
> Paul is not in error as to his own belief. I believe he believes what he
> believes. It does not hurt me at all that he holds his belief.
I know he believes that. To believe it is to willfully ignore the
evidence.
>
> When folks go beyond stating their own beliefs and try to put down the
> beliefs of others, I feel it is they that might be going a bit too far ...
> at least when they propound absolutes in what I "believe" to be a
> non-absolute universe. So, I question their insistance on only their belief
> being the "truth" ... I would question Paul's insistance on his belief being
> the only truth,but he does not give a rats ass what anyone else thinks.
The phyisical universe is real. It provides evidence of what went on
before. There is only that evidence. If there is a creator, which is
an open question and I'm not saying there isn't, the creator put that
evidence there. Either it points to the truth or the creator put it
there to fool people who investigate the universe.
> I think you are a pretty smart fellow, Will, and I believe you know what I
> am talking about.
>
> To ignore the "time before time" sorts of questions is to ignore the core of
> the apple while admiring the color of the fruit.
Ignoring things we can't grasp or understand is advised by such
foolish persons as the Buddha. Let the mystery be.
da pickle
"Will in New Haven"
> To ignore the "time before time" sorts of questions is to ignore the core
> of
> the apple while admiring the color of the fruit.
Ignoring things we can't grasp or understand is advised by such
foolish persons as the Buddha. Let the mystery be.
====================================
We might never grasp what we cannot grasp as long as we believe that we
cannot grasp beyond what we have held before.
If you meet the Budda in the road ... kill him.
John the Savage
> "John the Savage"
>> the meaning of life. This is about how the diversity of life arises from
>> what came before it. Don't get all spiritual on me. You can have
>> whatever meaning you want.
>
> So, "man" has nothing further to it than a really smart monkey. That is
> what I thought you meant.
>
Well, I didn't say that. Does this have something to do with evolution?
If I might bring you back down to Earth a bit, we *were* talking about
evolution. So, if you'd like to show me what any of this has to do with
it, that would be cool. It's not that I don't have thoughts pertaining
to this spacey-stuff you are wandering about in, but maybe that's better
placed somewhere else.
>
>> Science doesn't tell you "why". Never has, and never will. Science just
>> observes what is. You are basically changing the subject. You can have
>> whatever explanation of "why" you would like.
>
> Why does the ball fall to the ground, Daddy?
>
.. and here we go again. Actually, the ground falls to the ball as
well. And besides that, why doesn't the ball fall right through to the
center of the Earth, since it is mostly empty space? Why doesn't the
electron fall into the nucleus? It seems that even this "direct
contact" stuff involved "action at a distance".
>> Scientific illiteracy bothers me. I am not against your more
>> philosophical angles and they are worth considering in the proper context.
>> Here, all you are doing with them is supporting the illiterate notions of
>> the anti-science community. Stop it.
>
> I am not ... so stop saying that I am.
>
Of course you are! Stop playing dumb. Your answer to this evolution
"debate" was to simply chime in with all these examples of times people
turned out to be wrong before. Any reasonable reader would have to
conclude that you meant to show that these evolution folks could be
wrong which will only encourage those that doubt it, or are completely
uneducated about it. It's quite the unusual choice in such a debate for
someone who believes evolution has got it right, don't you think?
John the Savage
>
> Paul is not in error as to his own belief. I believe he believes what he
> believes. It does not hurt me at all that he holds his belief.
>
> When folks go beyond stating their own beliefs and try to put down the
> beliefs of others, I feel it is they that might be going a bit too far ...
> at least when they propound absolutes in what I "believe" to be a
> non-absolute universe. So, I question their insistance on only their belief
> being the "truth" ... I would question Paul's insistance on his belief being
> the only truth,but he does not give a rats ass what anyone else thinks.
>
But it does hurt you when we have a nation of science illiterates. They
do not simply keep their "beliefs" to themselves. Rather they are
voters, they are supporters of politicians, they ARE politicians
(remember what this thread is about??) that make decisions based on
false, fallacious ideas and it hurts everyone. It damages our nation
when we foster a culture of people and politicians who are incapable of
rigorous analytical thought, or who at least have serious blind spots
therein, or who fundamentally distrust modern science. It hurts our
nation, and it hurts our future. Paul's beliefs, Sarah's beliefs, etc.
are not in a bubble, and the generally shocking lack of scientific
knowledge in the average American *does* have a negative effect on the
rest of us.
>
> To ignore the "time before time" sorts of questions is to ignore the core of
> the apple while admiring the color of the fruit.
>
You can't talk sensibly about the core of the apple until you admit the
apple exists.
da pickle
"John the Savage"
>>> Where did I propose to talk about the "meaning of life"? This isn't
>>> about the meaning of life. This is about how the diversity of life
>>> arises from what came before it. Don't get all spiritual on me. You
>>> can have whatever meaning you want.
>>
>> So, "man" has nothing further to it than a really smart monkey. That is
>> what I thought you meant.
>>
>
> Well, I didn't say that. Does this have something to do with evolution?
> If I might bring you back down to Earth a bit, we *were* talking about
> evolution. So, if you'd like to show me what any of this has to do with
> it, that would be cool. It's not that I don't have thoughts pertaining to
> this spacey-stuff you are wandering about in, but maybe that's better
> placed somewhere else.
I am tired of your alleged misunderstanding. You said that man is the end
product of evolution. I believe that simplifies the question too much.
Sorry if you do not see that you are saying that man is just a smart monkey,
but that is your belief.
>>> Science doesn't tell you "why". Never has, and never will. Science
>>> just observes what is. You are basically changing the subject. You can
>>> have whatever explanation of "why" you would like.
>>
>> Why does the ball fall to the ground, Daddy?
>>
>
> .. and here we go again. Actually, the ground falls to the ball as well.
> And besides that, why doesn't the ball fall right through to the center of
> the Earth, since it is mostly empty space? Why doesn't the electron fall
> into the nucleus? It seems that even this "direct contact" stuff involved
> "action at a distance".
You apparently are not very up to date on your theories. You said science
does not answer "why" questions. I disagree. (Even under the most simple
theory of "gravity", objects in orbit continuously "fall" toward the center
of the larger object ... super simplified.) Action at a distance is really
quite "god-like."
>>> Scientific illiteracy bothers me. I am not against your more
>>> philosophical angles and they are worth considering in the proper
>>> context. Here, all you are doing with them is supporting the illiterate
>>> notions of the anti-science community. Stop it.
>>
>> I am not ... so stop saying that I am.
>
> Of course you are! Stop playing dumb.
I am not. Stop playing god.
> Your answer to this evolution "debate" was to simply chime in with all
> these examples of times people turned out to be wrong before.
I am talking about scientific theories. Sometimes, people have found that
the consensus is wrong. There are many who believe that absolute truth has
been found. I disagree with them. I disagree that you have found the
truth. (In anything.)
> Any reasonable reader would have to conclude that you meant to show that
> these evolution folks could be wrong which will only encourage those that
> doubt it, or are completely uneducated about it. It's quite the unusual
> choice in such a debate for someone who believes evolution has got it
> right, don't you think?
Got what right? You seem to misunderstand a lot more than I thought you
did. A theory is a theory not a fact. There are "assumptions" my friend.
I believe the evidence for the evolution of life to be quite strong ... very
strong ... I have heard no better theory. I have heard no good theory of
why "man" seems to be so "human" and why it appears that "man" is not JUST
a really, really well evolved monkey.
You are happy with the theory that man is nothing more than the end product
of "evolution" and nothing more ... that there is nothing more to look for
... that there is nothing to the concept of "soul" or that "something" that
seems to be more than just the physical. I think that such thinking is
limiting. But I still like the theory of evolution for explaining a lot of
"why" questions.
da pickle
> But it does hurt you when we have a nation of science illiterates.
That you worship science is your right. As long as you do not hurt the
Pauls and Susans and others who disagree with your canon, then you will be
free to continue with your choice.
>> To ignore the "time before time" sorts of questions is to ignore the core
>> of the apple while admiring the color of the fruit.
>
> You can't talk sensibly about the core of the apple until you admit the
> apple exists.
Ah, existence ... another subject for another time. And what about the
"concept" of time before time? I think we should just ignore all the
paradoxes ... they are so troublesome for those that belief in truth.
Beldin the Sorcerer
She never had sex with any non-human.
>
>
ruylopez
> "John the Savage"
>
>
> >>> Where did I propose to talk about the "meaning of life"? This isn't
> >>> about the meaning of life. This is about how the diversity of life
> >>> arises from what came before it. Don't get all spiritual on me. You
> >>> can have whatever meaning you want.
> >>
> >> So, "man" has nothing further to it than a really smart monkey. That is
> >> what I thought you meant.
> >>
> >
> > Well, I didn't say that. Does this have something to do with evolution?
> > If I might bring you back down to Earth a bit, we *were* talking about
> > evolution. So, if you'd like to show me what any of this has to do with
> > it, that would be cool. It's not that I don't have thoughts pertaining to
> > this spacey-stuff you are wandering about in, but maybe that's better
> > placed somewhere else.
>
>
> I am tired of your alleged misunderstanding. You said that man is the end
> product of evolution. I believe that simplifies the question too much.
> Sorry if you do not see that you are saying that man is just a smart monkey,
> but that is your belief.
>
You really are not making any sense to me. First of all, man is not the
"end product" of evolution. Evolution is a continual process with no
defined end point. Man is no more the "end" of it than cockroach is.
Second, I don't understand why my belief that man is the product of
evolution leads to this "nothing more than a really smart monkey" bit,
while your professed belief in the same does not. All I have said here is
that I believe man is the product of evolution, and in fact you have said
the same thing. Yet somehow, when I say it, you add all this meaning such
as "soul" and this monkey business that you do not add to your own belief.
Why does my belief simplify the question, while yours does not?
For the record, I do believe that you think there is a much greater divide
between man and animal than I do. Whether that is because I fail to give
man enough credit, or because you fail to give monkey enough credit, I do
not know. I do believe there is a "mind" in man that is something
essentially non-physical, and this is what is commonly understood as
consciousness, but I believe it is produced by entirely physical
processes. I do not believe there is any "ghost in the machine", and I do
not believe there is anything in the human mind that is not the product of
something the brain is doing. We are what our brains do, and nothing
more. In the end, this produces something non physical, which is your
consciousness, but the brain itself is producing it, and the brain and the
consciousness are the product of evolution.
I do not believe in a "soul" that is more than what I have referred to as
a "mind", but I think what most people mean by "soul" is encompassed by
what I mean by "mind".
I do not believe consciousness is the exclusive domain of man. I believe
that not only might other animals possess it, but also that machines will
possess it in the near future. This follows naturally from refusing to
believe in ghosts.
A simple thought experiment for you:
Imagine that I took one of your ~100 billion neurons, just one, and I
replaced it with a silicon chip that made all the same connections that
neuron made, and functioned in exactly the same way. Would you still be
you? Most everyone finds this question fairly easy to answer: yes. But
what if I did it to 10? No big difference, 10 neurons in the space of 100
billion is no big deal. Besides, they are functioning just the same.
What about 100, 1 million, 100 billion? What if I did this to every
single neuron in your brain, one at a time? Would you still be in there?
Now a sentient, silicon being? If not, at what point do you stop being
you? Where did you go?
I believe "we", meaning our minds, are the elegant product of systems of
neural networks and connections that are designed by evolution to serve
the purpose of preserving our genes. It cannot be understood from the
physics of a neuron, or from the neurons themselves, but from the systems
they create. There is no magic. A machine could be made to do the same.
The hurdles are only technological.
>
>
> >>> Science doesn't tell you "why". Never has, and never will. Science
> >>> just observes what is. You are basically changing the subject. You can
> >>> have whatever explanation of "why" you would like.
> >>
> >> Why does the ball fall to the ground, Daddy?
> >>
> >
> > .. and here we go again. Actually, the ground falls to the ball as well.
> > And besides that, why doesn't the ball fall right through to the center of
> > the Earth, since it is mostly empty space? Why doesn't the electron fall
> > into the nucleus? It seems that even this "direct contact" stuff involved
> > "action at a distance".
>
> You apparently are not very up to date on your theories. You said science
> does not answer "why" questions. I disagree. (Even under the most simple
> theory of "gravity", objects in orbit continuously "fall" toward the center
> of the larger object ... super simplified.)
Some why questions, yes. Not the sort you have been asking. Science just
observes, and attempts to discover the rules by which the Universe runs.
Knowing the rules does not tell you why the rules are there, or what is
really going on. It only tells you what the rules are. It does not aim
for more than that. The sort of "why" questions you have been asking, if
I'm understanding you correctly, are the domain of religious thought, not
scientific though.
> Action at a distance is really
> quite "god-like."
See? I have no idea what "god-like" is. You do not find it "god-like",
presumably, when you are typing on your computer, but in fact as you press
the keys with your fingers it is electrostatic interactions that are
causing the displacement and not "direct contact". What you distinguish
as "action at a distance" is really only "action at a large distance". I
don't think it's any big deal, it is just how the universe works, as we
can plainly see. We don't know "why" it works, or "why" it is, and as I
said, these are the sorts of "why" questions that science does not even
attempt to answer, and will never.
>
> > Your answer to this evolution "debate" was to simply chime in with all
> > these examples of times people turned out to be wrong before.
>
>
> I am talking about scientific theories. Sometimes, people have found that
> the consensus is wrong. There are many who believe that absolute truth has
> been found. I disagree with them. I disagree that you have found the
> truth. (In anything.)
>
It doesn't seem to me like you even want to look for it. You just want to
assert that there is no real truth, as far as I can tell. Maybe I've got
you wrong, but on that point we are just going to disagree.
>
> > Any reasonable reader would have to conclude that you meant to show that
> > these evolution folks could be wrong which will only encourage those that
> > doubt it, or are completely uneducated about it. It's quite the unusual
> > choice in such a debate for someone who believes evolution has got it
> > right, don't you think?
>
>
> Got what right?
The explanation for the diversity of life and the origin of man. This
would imply that creationists have "got it wrong".
> You seem to misunderstand a lot more than I thought you
> did. A theory is a theory not a fact.
What then, is a fact? Calling it a "theory", that has stood for 150
years, is quite the compliment in science, as you surely know.
> There are "assumptions" my friend.
> I believe the evidence for the evolution of life to be quite strong ... very
> strong ... I have heard no better theory. I have heard no good theory of
> why "man" seems to be so "human" and why it appears that "man" is not JUST
> a really, really well evolved monkey.
>
I don't know why it appears this way to you. It does not appear this way
to me. We can talk, and besides that we are remarkably similar. I think
you are not giving our primate friends enough credit. You'd really be
amazed at all the human like things they can do.
________________________________________________________________________�
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com