evolution and "materialism"

['Rev Dr' Lenny Flank]

A simple question for the IDers out there:

What, precisely, about "evolution" is any more "materialistic"
than, say, weather forecasting or accident investigation or medicine.
Please be as specific as possible.

I have never, in all my life, ever heard any weather forecaster mention
"god" or "divine will" or any "supernatural" anything, at
all. Ever. Does this mean, in your view, that weather forecasting is
atheistic (oops, I mean, "materialistic" and "naturalistic"
-- we don't want any judges to think ID's railing against
"materialism" has any RELIGIOUS purpose, do we)?

I have yet, in all my 44 years of living, to ever hear any accifdent
investigator declare solemnly at the scene of an airplane crash, "We
can't explain how it happened, so an Unknown Intelligent Being must
have dunnit." I have never yet heard an accident investigator say
that "this crash has no materialistic causes - it must have been
the Will of Allah". Does this mean, in your view, that accident
investigation is atheistic (oops, sorry, I meant to say
"materialistic" and "naturalistic" - we don't want any
judges to know that it is "atheism" we are actually waging a
religious crusade against, do we)?

How about medicine. When you get sick, do you ask your doctor to
abandon his "materialistic biases" and to investigate possible
"supernatural" or "non-materialistic" causes for your disease?
Or do you ask your doctor to cure your naturalistic materialistic
diseases by using naturalistic materialistic antibiotics to kill your
naturalistic materialistic germs?

Since it seems to me as if weather forecasting, accident investigation,
and medicine are every bit, in every sense,just as utterly completely
totally absolutely one-thousand-percent "materialistic" as
evolutionary biology is, why, specifically, is it just evolutionary
biology that gets your panties all in a bunch? Why aren't you and
your fellow Wedge-ites out there fighting the good fight against
godless materialistic naturalistic weather forecasting, or medicine, or
accident investigation?

Or does that all come LATER, as part of, uh, "renewing our culture"
... . . ?

================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"

Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation email list:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/

[Kevin Wayne Williams]

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:
> A simple question for the IDers out there:
>
> What, precisely, about "evolution" is any more "materialistic"
> than, say, weather forecasting or accident investigation or medicine.
> Please be as specific as possible.

[massive snip]

>
> How about medicine. When you get sick, do you ask your doctor to
> abandon his "materialistic biases" and to investigate possible
> "supernatural" or "non-materialistic" causes for your disease?
> Or do you ask your doctor to cure your naturalistic materialistic
> diseases by using naturalistic materialistic antibiotics to kill your
> naturalistic materialistic germs?

Unfortunately, there is an entire subculture of idiots that want to
legitimize quackery under labels like "alternative medicine." In one
sense, they are even worse than creationists. Most creationists are like
they are because they were brought up by creationist parents, and our
society has not ever found a balance between allowing parents the right
to bring up children and preventing parents from destroying any chance
they may have of being useful adults. Most of the "alternative medicine"
types actually embrace it as an adult. Just imagine the level of brain
malfunction it takes to be given a choice between an effective medicine
and the "vibrations" off a crystal, and then choose the pretty rock.

Revolting.

KWW

[catshark]

On 5 Sep 2005 06:01:57 -0700, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@ij.net>
wrote:

This sounds like fun. In what other areas does everyone take
"materialistic" explanations for granted?

How about police work? "Sorry Maam, we won't be investigating the rape you
suffered. The lead detective thinks the perp was a demon and we're not
allowed to make any assumptions about their motives, means or methods."

>
>Since it seems to me as if weather forecasting, accident investigation,
> and medicine are every bit, in every sense,just as utterly completely
>totally absolutely one-thousand-percent "materialistic" as
>evolutionary biology is, why, specifically, is it just evolutionary
>biology that gets your panties all in a bunch? Why aren't you and
>your fellow Wedge-ites out there fighting the good fight against
>godless materialistic naturalistic weather forecasting, or medicine, or
>accident investigation?
>
>Or does that all come LATER, as part of, uh, "renewing our culture"
>... . . ?
>
>
>
>================================================
>Lenny Flank
>"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
>
>
>Creation "Science" Debunked:
>http://www.geocities.com/lflank
>DebunkCreation email list:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/

--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------

[I]n its relation to Christianity, intelligent design
should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation . . .

- William A. Dembski -

[Martin Edwards]

This was more or less the system in the Middle Ages, the punch line
being that the complainant got burned.

--
You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause - Chico Marx

www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955

[Dave Oldridge]

Kevin Wayne Williams <kww.n...@verizon.nut> wrote in
news:11horb7...@news.supernews.com:

In fact, this is a pretty good litmus test for separating the real
spiritual healers from the fakes. The real ones don't mind conventional
medicine and, in fact, usually insist on it.

--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

[Mark Stahl]

"Dave Oldridge" <dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns96C86BDD6F25C...@24.71.223.159...

Can you give a good example of "real" spiritual healing, and/or a "real"
spiritual healer?

[Craig Franck]

"'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" wrote

> A simple question for the IDers out there:

>
> What, precisely, about "evolution" is any more "materialistic"
> than, say, weather forecasting or accident investigation or medicine.
> Please be as specific as possible.

I don't think you'll have any more luck this time around, but I have
come across this argument:

Evolution gives rise to biodiversity. Medicine manipulates existing
living things. It seems that giving rise to creatures (or life or the
universe itself the way creationists like to conflate things) requires
something over and above facts of relations between what exists.
(Prototyping an automobile is a completely different process from
fixing an end production unit that has broken down along side the
road. You don't need to know how to program a microprocessor
to simply tune up a car. It may take a billion dollar chip factory to
make a controller for thirty dollar alarm clock, etc.)

In addition, it may be there are no ultimate answers: every answer
generates at least two more questions. So you never reach the end.
There are -- in principle -- no unanswerable medical questions. So
to look to evolution or cosmology for materialistic answers means
you are looking for materialism to answer unanswerable questions.

> I have never, in all my life, ever heard any weather forecaster mention
> "god" or "divine will" or any "supernatural" anything, at
> all. Ever.

Well, I believe a kooky one in Germany thinks the Gulf Coast disaster
was God paying GWB back for the war in Iraq.

> I have yet, in all my 44 years of living, to ever hear any accifdent
> investigator declare solemnly at the scene of an airplane crash, "We
> can't explain how it happened, so an Unknown Intelligent Being must
> have dunnit."

X-Files. . .

--
Craig Franck
craig....@verizon.net
Cortland, NY

['Rev Dr' Lenny Flank]

Craig Franck wrote:
>

<snip>

>
> I don't think you'll have any more luck this time around

Of course not.

>
> Evolution gives rise to biodiversity. Medicine manipulates existing
> living things.

Um, so does evolution.

<snip>

>
> In addition, it may be there are no ultimate answers: every answer
> generates at least two more questions. So you never reach the end.
> There are -- in principle -- no unanswerable medical questions.

But . . . if there are no ultimate answers, then ANY question, by
definition, is unasnwerable. Medical, biological, whatever.

So
> to look to evolution or cosmology for materialistic answers means
> you are looking for materialism to answer unanswerable questions.

So it's OK to be atheistic, as long as it isn't about "unanswerable
questions" . . . .

Interesting, uh, theology . . . . .

>
> > I have never, in all my life, ever heard any weather forecaster mention
> > "god" or "divine will" or any "supernatural" anything, at
> > all. Ever.
>
> Well, I believe a kooky one in Germany thinks the Gulf Coast disaster
> was God paying GWB back for the war in Iraq.

Well, Pat Robertson moves hurricanes through prayer, too. (shrug)

Not exactly meteorology though, is it.

[Dave Oldridge]

"Mark Stahl" <st...@nospam.aecom.yu.edu> wrote in
news:wY2dnbBMipO...@giganews.com:

Agnes Sanford. To the best of my knowledge she ALWAYS insisted that
anyone she was praying for see a doctor.

[Craig Franck]

"'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" wrote

> Craig Franck wrote:

> > Evolution gives rise to biodiversity. Medicine manipulates existing
> > living things.
>
> Um, so does evolution.

That's true. I think the idea is that a robust enough natural process can
give rise to anything; having conceded that, it seems there are two
classes of statements, one that refers to what the natural process gave
rise to, and one that refer to the natural process itself. Species evolve,
not individual creatures.

Existential questions such as why I am me rather than someone else
can't even be formulated in a positivistic way. To say there is no reason
other than it's a fact of evolution and that's the end of it is, in my opinion,
being excessively materialistic, even if it does all come down to linguistic
confusion over indexicals such as "I" and "me."

http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2005/05/geoffrey-madell-on-indexicals.html

> <snip>
> >
> > In addition, it may be there are no ultimate answers: every answer
> > generates at least two more questions. So you never reach the end.
> > There are -- in principle -- no unanswerable medical questions.
>
> But . . . if there are no ultimate answers, then ANY question, by

> definition, is unanswerable. Medical, biological, whatever.

I don't think that follows. Knowing the ratio of the mass of an electron
to the mass of a proton is different than knowing why that ratio exists.
The former is certainly knowable, even if the latter may be unknowable.

['Rev Dr' Lenny Flank]

Craig Franck wrote:
> "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" wrote
>
> > Craig Franck wrote:
>
> > > Evolution gives rise to biodiversity. Medicine manipulates existing
> > > living things.
> >
> > Um, so does evolution.
>
> That's true. I think the idea is that a robust enough natural process can
> give rise to anything

Who on earth ever said such a stupid thing?

; having conceded that, it seems there are two
> classes of statements, one that refers to what the natural process gave
> rise to, and one that refer to the natural process itself. Species evolve,
> not individual creatures.
>
> Existential questions such as why I am me rather than someone else
> can't even be formulated in a positivistic way.

And therefore have nothing to do with evolution. Or any other area of
science.

To say there is no reason
> other than it's a fact of evolution and that's the end of it is, in my opinion,
> being excessively materialistic, even if it does all come down to linguistic
> confusion over indexicals such as "I" and "me."

That is a matter for philosophers to argue over, not scientists.
(shrug)

If that is all the IDers are botching about, then may I suggest they
take their philosophical arguments to philosophy class, and leave
science out of it?

>
> http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2005/05/geoffrey-madell-on-indexicals.html
>
>
> > <snip>
> > >
> > > In addition, it may be there are no ultimate answers: every answer
> > > generates at least two more questions. So you never reach the end.
> > > There are -- in principle -- no unanswerable medical questions.
> >
> > But . . . if there are no ultimate answers, then ANY question, by
> > definition, is unanswerable. Medical, biological, whatever.
>
> I don't think that follows. Knowing the ratio of the mass of an electron
> to the mass of a proton is different than knowing why that ratio exists.
> The former is certainly knowable, even if the latter may be unknowable.
>

Science deals with the "how" questions. It doesn't deal with the "why"
questions. Those are for theologians and philosophers to argue over,
not for scientists.

ID can argue philosophy/theology until Jeuss comes back, and no one
will care.

When IDers lie to us, though, by cliaming that thier
philosophy/theology is actually SCIENCE, well, some people DO care
about that.

[Craig Franck]

"'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" wrote

> Craig Franck wrote:

> > "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" wrote

> > > Um, so does evolution.

> >
> > That's true. I think the idea is that a robust enough natural process can
> > give rise to anything
>
> Who on earth ever said such a stupid thing?

It seems intuitive to me. If there is something it can't do, just add more
robustness. (I'm including the human mind as a type of natural process.)

> >; having conceded that, it seems there are two
> > classes of statements, one that refers to what the natural process gave
> > rise to, and one that refer to the natural process itself. Species evolve,
> > not individual creatures.
> >
> > Existential questions such as why I am me rather than someone else
> > can't even be formulated in a positivistic way.
>
> And therefore have nothing to do with evolution. Or any other area of
> science.

Yes, but not everyone compartmentalizes like that. Russel felt that any
philosophy that doesn't take into account modern science is doomed to
irrelevancy. It's hard to see how philosophical statements about evolution
have nothing to do with evolution, although you're quite right they are not
scientific.

Also, it's not clear how logical empiricism (or however you wish to classify
science) can deal with claims that some future society might find an
expanded view of science far superior to the one currently held by most
scientists without getting into a philosophical debate.

A good example is stem cell research. It's a scientific, medical, and public
policy question. To only consider the scientific aspects of stem cells is
essentially to resign from the debate. Most Creationists believe the exact
same thing about the evolution/creationism debate. Saying all you wish to
talk about is science is simply the flip side of the claim that only religion
is relevant.

> > To say there is no reason
> > other than it's a fact of evolution and that's the end of it is, in my opinion,
> > being excessively materialistic, even if it does all come down to linguistic
> > confusion over indexicals such as "I" and "me."
>
>
> That is a matter for philosophers to argue over, not scientists.
> (shrug)
>
> If that is all the IDers are botching about, then may I suggest they
> take their philosophical arguments to philosophy class, and leave
> science out of it?

I take it they want to expanded concept of "science" back to where it
was when it was called natural philosophy.

I have a friend who is extremely pro-life, and what the smarter of the
crowd understands is that whoever frames the debate wins, right from the
start. Creationists want to tell *you* what should be included in a grade
school science class.

> > > But . . . if there are no ultimate answers, then ANY question, by
> > > definition, is unanswerable. Medical, biological, whatever.
> >
> > I don't think that follows. Knowing the ratio of the mass of an electron
> > to the mass of a proton is different than knowing why that ratio exists.
> > The former is certainly knowable, even if the latter may be unknowable.
> >
>
> Science deals with the "how" questions. It doesn't deal with the "why"
> questions. Those are for theologians and philosophers to argue over,
> not for scientists.
>
> ID can argue philosophy/theology until Jeuss comes back, and no one
> will care.
>
> When IDers lie to us, though, by cliaming that thier
> philosophy/theology is actually SCIENCE, well, some people DO care
> about that.

I agree that ID is not science.

['Rev Dr' Lenny Flank]

Craig Franck wrote:
> "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" wrote
>
> > Craig Franck wrote:
>
> > > "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" wrote
>
> > > > Um, so does evolution.
> > >
> > > That's true. I think the idea is that a robust enough natural process can
> > > give rise to anything
> >
> > Who on earth ever said such a stupid thing?
>
> It seems intuitive to me. If there is something it can't do, just add more
> robustness. (I'm including the human mind as a type of natural process.)

Then let's see natural processes produce a stone so big that it can't
be moved, then move it.

>
> > >; having conceded that, it seems there are two
> > > classes of statements, one that refers to what the natural process gave
> > > rise to, and one that refer to the natural process itself. Species evolve,
> > > not individual creatures.
> > >
> > > Existential questions such as why I am me rather than someone else
> > > can't even be formulated in a positivistic way.
> >
> > And therefore have nothing to do with evolution. Or any other area of
> > science.
>
> Yes, but not everyone compartmentalizes like that.

Too bad. Science is what it is. Science is science. Religion is
religion. Science is not religion. Religion is not science.

Sorry if the fundies don't like that. (shrug)

Russel felt that any
> philosophy that doesn't take into account modern science is doomed to
> irrelevancy. It's hard to see how philosophical statements about evolution
> have nothing to do with evolution, although you're quite right they are not
> scientific.

I couldn't care less about philosophical arguments involving evolution.
Philosphers have been arguing with each other for thousands of years,
about virtually everything, and likely will continue for thousands of
more years. Let them. (shrug) It has nothing to do with science.

>
> Also, it's not clear how logical empiricism (or however you wish to classify
> science) can deal with claims that some future society might find an
> expanded view of science far superior to the one currently held by most
> scientists without getting into a philosophical debate.

It deals with such claims by stating "show it to me when you have one".

>
> A good example is stem cell research. It's a scientific, medical, and public
> policy question. To only consider the scientific aspects of stem cells is
> essentially to resign from the debate.

That depends on what "the debate" is. IDers claim that "the debate" is
about science. It's not MY fault they are just lying to us about that.
But I can certainly make them live up to their own ground rules.
Particularly since it's illegal to teach religion in science classrooms
-- whether the fundies like it or not.

If the fundies want to "debate" philosophy, then let them. As soon as
they stop lying top everyone by claiming their religious philosophy is
really "science".

Most Creationists believe the exact
> same thing about the evolution/creationism debate. Saying all you wish to
> talk about is science is simply the flip side of the claim that only religion
> is relevant.

The IDers claim their crap is science.

It's not.

I don't care about their philosophical debating. Nor do I care about
their religious opinions.

> > > To say there is no reason
> > > other than it's a fact of evolution and that's the end of it is, in my opinion,
> > > being excessively materialistic, even if it does all come down to linguistic
> > > confusion over indexicals such as "I" and "me."
> >
> >
> > That is a matter for philosophers to argue over, not scientists.
> > (shrug)
> >
> > If that is all the IDers are botching about, then may I suggest they
> > take their philosophical arguments to philosophy class, and leave
> > science out of it?
>
> I take it they want to expanded concept of "science" back to where it
> was when it was called natural philosophy.
>

Too bad what they want. (shrug)

> I have a friend who is extremely pro-life, and what the smarter of the
> crowd understands is that whoever frames the debate wins, right from the
> start. Creationists want to tell *you* what should be included in a grade
> school science class.

Too bad what they want. (shrug)

>
> > > > But . . . if there are no ultimate answers, then ANY question, by
> > > > definition, is unanswerable. Medical, biological, whatever.
> > >
> > > I don't think that follows. Knowing the ratio of the mass of an electron
> > > to the mass of a proton is different than knowing why that ratio exists.
> > > The former is certainly knowable, even if the latter may be unknowable.
> > >
> >
> > Science deals with the "how" questions. It doesn't deal with the "why"
> > questions. Those are for theologians and philosophers to argue over,
> > not for scientists.
> >
> > ID can argue philosophy/theology until Jeuss comes back, and no one
> > will care.
> >
> > When IDers lie to us, though, by cliaming that thier
> > philosophy/theology is actually SCIENCE, well, some people DO care
> > about that.
>
> I agree that ID is not science.

Then it doesn't belong in a science classroom. The follow-on
philosophizing becomes utterly irrelevant to the, uh, "debate".

The IDers, of course, are entirely free to philosophize all they want.

But not in science classrooms. (shrug)

[david ford]

Or 'homicide' investigation? Or insurance 'fraud' investigation?
Everybody knows totally-blind-at-every-level processes didit-- it's
common knowledge.
Intelligence/ mind had zip to do with anything of what Lenny and I
mentioned.

Timeline of Materialism, Spontaneous Generation, and Blindwatchmaking
Views
news:dford3-348j...@individual.net

> Or does that all come LATER, as part of, uh, "renewing our culture"
> ... . . ?

I say we need to degrade the culture.

Taking a firm, godless stand for death
news:dford3-b1c67abe.0...@posting.google.com

1979 Schaeffer & Koop on the a-moral implications of atheism
news:dford3-b1c67abe.0...@posting.google.com

Haeckel on murdering the disabled
news:dford3-3a8e...@individual.net

1868 Haeckel, 2003 Dawkins, 1997 George Williams, 1995 Dennett:
Darwinists downgrading the value of human life
news:dford3-399a...@individual.net

2-pronged role of Darwinian thought in Holocaust's arrival
news:dford3-11257231...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

['Rev Dr' Lenny Flank]

Sorry, Ford -- I should have prefaced my question by stating explicitly
that I only wanted to hear from sane, coherent people.

Run along, little boy.

[bro...@noguchi.mimcom.net]

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:
> Craig Franck wrote:
> > "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" wrote
> >
> > > Craig Franck wrote:
> >
> > > > "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" wrote
>

> Sorry if the fundies don't like that. (shrug)
>

> Let them. (shrug)
>

> > > That is a matter for philosophers to argue over, not scientists.
> > > (shrug)

> Too bad what they want. (shrug)
>

> Too bad what they want. (shrug)
>

> But not in science classrooms. (shrug)
>

New form of shoulder aerobics?

[david ford]

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:
> Sorry, Ford -- I should have prefaced my question by stating explicitly
> that I only wanted to hear from sane, coherent people.

Do you consider the Darwin below "coherent"?

As the years passed, Darwin weakened his affirmation of
Darwinian natural selection. To illustrate, witness this 1871
statement from his _The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation
to Sex_ (1981 Princeton University Press reprint of the 1871
edition), volume one, 152-3:
Thus a very large yet undefined extension may safely be
given to the direct and indirect results of natural
selection; but I now admit, after reading the essay by
Nageli on plants, and the remarks by various authors with
respect to animals, more especially those recently made by
Professor Broca, that in the earlier editions of my 'Origin
of Species' I probably attributed too much to the action of
natural selection or the survival of the fittest. I have
altered the fifth edition of the Origin so as to confine my
remarks to adaptive changes of structure. I had not formerly

sufficiently considered the existence of many structures
which appear to be, as far as we can judge, neither
beneficial nor injurious; and this I believe to be one of
the greatest oversights as yet detected in my work. I may be
permitted to say as some excuse, that I had two distinct
objects in view, firstly, to shew that species had not been
separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had
been the chief agent of change, though largely aided by the
inherited effects of habit, and slightly by the direct
action of the surrounding conditions. Nevertheless I was not
able to annul the influence of my former belief, then widely
prevalent, that each species had been purposely created; and
this led to my tacitly assuming that every detail of

structure, excepting rudiments, was of some special, though
unrecognised, service. Any one with this assumption in his
mind would naturally extend the action of natural selection,
either during past or present times, too far. Some of those
who admit the principle of evolution, but reject natural
selection, seem to forget, when criticising my book, that I
had the above two objects in view; hence if I have erred in
giving to natural selection great power, which I am far from
admitting, or in having exaggerated its power, which is in
itself probable, I have at least, as I hope, done good
service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate
creations.

Himmelfarb, Gertrude. 1959. _Darwin and the Darwinian
Revolution_ (NY: Doubleday & Company), 480pp. From
the chapter "The Origin of Man," a paragraph on 343, a
paragraph on 346-7, the following line, my reference to a
snipped 1871 Darwin quote, and the Himmelfarb paragraph
on 348 that followed the Darwin quote:
Sexual selection had a far more important role in the
_Descent [of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex_]
than in the _Origin_. It assumed much of the burden for
the origin of species that had earlier been carried by
natural selection-- so much so that it would no longer be
accurate to describe the theory as that of natural
selection. Darwin himself had taken to referring to his
theory as "the principle of evolution."^37 This principle

included several explanations for the origin of man, of
which natural selection was only one, the others being
sexual selection, the inherited effect of use and disuse,
the direct action of the environment, the correlation of
growth, and one unspecified cause. Of these, sexual
selection, not natural selection, was the most important,
as Darwin himself now admitted: "For my own part I
conclude that of all the causes which have led to the
differences in external appearance between the races of
man, and to a certain extent between man and the lower
animals, sexual selection has been by far the most
efficient."^38
....
Having dispensed with natural selection when there was
no evidence of utility, he [Darwin] soon came to
dispense with it even where he might have made out a
case for utility. More and more, the Lamarckian
principle of the inherited effects of use and disuse came
to replace natural selection. A variety of phenomena
were now attributed to this cause: the smallness of the
tail in some monkeys and its absence in man, the
development of the vocal organs and power of speech,

the thin legs and thick arms of Indians who spent most
of their lives in canoes, the larger hands of English
laborers compared with those of the gentry, the
hardened skin on the soles of the feet, the inferiority of
Europeans compared with savages in sight and other
senses, customs such as the deliberate eradication of hair
and other mutilations;^46 even the virtuous habits
inculcated in youth. Where once he would have
re-interpreted these findings to make them conform to
natural selection-- and they are amenable to such
re-interpretation-- he was now easily persuaded of the
simpler Lamarckian idea.

In a remarkable confession Darwin explained how and
why he formerly erred in giving too much prominence
to natural selection:

[snip 1871 Darwin quote. A slightly-fuller quote than
what Himmelfarb quoted is above]

The confession is fascinating, not only for what Darwin
said but how he said it-- the alternating rhythm of
self-recrimination and self-extenuation. In the second
edition, perhaps smarting as a result of Mivart's
triumphant citation of this passage, he tried to undo the
damage by recanting, in effect, some of his earlier
recantation. He now declared himself convinced "that
very many structures which now appear to us useless,
will hereafter be proved to be useful, and will therefore
come within the range of natural selection."^48

> Run along, little boy.

Yes, sir.

[Craig Franck]

"david ford" wrote

He's coherent, but I think you need to stick to people who actually
keep up on the latest findings in genetics. It's interesting from a
historical perspective, but its like quoting James Clerk Maxwell
on quantum field theory.

[Chris Krolczyk]

david ford wrote:
> 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:

(snip)

> > Since it seems to me as if weather forecasting, accident investigation,
> > and medicine are every bit, in every sense,just as utterly completely
> > totally absolutely one-thousand-percent "materialistic" as
> > evolutionary biology is, why, specifically, is it just evolutionary
> > biology that gets your panties all in a bunch? Why aren't you and
> > your fellow Wedge-ites out there fighting the good fight against
> > godless materialistic naturalistic weather forecasting, or medicine, or
> > accident investigation?
>
> Or 'homicide' investigation? Or insurance 'fraud' investigation?
> Everybody knows totally-blind-at-every-level processes didit-- it's
> common knowledge.
> Intelligence/ mind had zip to do with anything of what Lenny and I
> mentioned.

It's amazing how openly David Ford admits his cluelessness
these days - all he seems to be able to do is pointlessly
gainsay other posts, and with a tone that clearly states
that his beef isn't so much with "materialism" as it is
with *any* form of empirical investigation, regardless
of the phenomenon being investigated.

(Oh, and David? What *is* the form of intelligence
at work when a hurricane plows into a coastal region
or a lightning strike hits one house in a neighborhood
and not another? Feel free to resort to any ID-friendly
explanation you wish to; I'm sure we could all use the
laugh.)

-Chris Krolczyk

[Mark Stahl]

"Dave Oldridge" <dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message

news:Xns96C948A7FFB29...@24.71.223.159...

Good advice, I'm sure, but where was the "real healing" part? Or was it
always just a coincidence that people would "magically" get better once they
saw the doctor?

[josephus]

david ford wrote:

David you do seem to be doing some better communicating, but your links
are broken, they are incomplete. my browser will not open any of them
no matter how I paste it up. you still have a bad case of quotminging.
josephus

[Dave Oldridge]

"Mark Stahl" <st...@nospam.aecom.yu.edu> wrote in

news:i_KdnZ2dnZ2IBPXCnZ2dn...@giganews.com:

No, it's that the doctors noticed rather unusual recoveries of patients
for whom she prayed. Her approach to healing, and to Christianity in
general was unusual for a healer (outside the RCC, anyway). She was
Episcopalian (not exactly the denomination favoured by flaming flakes).

[Mark Stahl]

"Dave Oldridge" <dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message

news:Xns96CD829F49F66...@24.71.223.159...

What does that mean, exactly? As a doctor, I'd like to know.

> Her approach to healing, and to Christianity in
> general was unusual for a healer (outside the RCC, anyway). She was
> Episcopalian (not exactly the denomination favoured by flaming flakes).
>

Based on previous experience, anyone who claims to be a "real spiritual
healer" would have to be assumed to be a flake of some kind, until proven
otherwise. Is there some kind of literature to back up the claim that this
particular person is a "real" spiritual healer, and not yet another in the
long string of snake oil salesmen who prey on the sick?

[Dave Oldridge]

"Mark Stahl" <st...@nospam.aecom.yu.edu> wrote in

news:E8qdnbMQvfd...@giganews.com:

Just what it said. Unusual and very sudden remissions of all sorts of
conditions, contrary to prognosis--in one case the disappearance of a 35-
lb tumor overnight was reported.

>> Her approach to healing, and to Christianity in
>> general was unusual for a healer (outside the RCC, anyway). She was
>> Episcopalian (not exactly the denomination favoured by flaming
>> flakes).

> Based on previous experience, anyone who claims to be a "real
> spiritual healer" would have to be assumed to be a flake of some kind,
> until proven otherwise. Is there some kind of literature to back up
> the claim that this particular person is a "real" spiritual healer,
> and not yet another in the long string of snake oil salesmen who prey
> on the sick?

She is the author of several books still in print which you can read and
judge for yourself, though the one I'm most impressed with is more
theological in nature and it's out of print.

She was the daughter of Presbyterian missionaries in China during the
same period Pearl Buck was there. She married an Episcopalian priest.

Her approach to healing is pretty Orthodox compared to what you usually
see and not really THAT different from when Fr. Gardner used to anoint
the sick at Thurs. morning mass at St. James Anglican in Vancouver some
years ago.

There is more of this going on than makes the flashy headlines, you know.
Or maybe you DON'T know that a bishop is specifically commanded at
consecration to heal the sick???

[Robert J. Kolker]

Dave Oldridge wrote:

>
> Just what it said. Unusual and very sudden remissions of all sorts of
> conditions, contrary to prognosis--in one case the disappearance of a 35-
> lb tumor overnight was reported.

The doctors don't know everything. Medicine is more of an art than a
science. The problem is when medical "science" fails in its predictions
some of the gullible public rattle their prayer beads and sing -Ave
Maria-. That is how Lourdes remains a going concern.

Bob Kolker

[Mark Stahl]

"Dave Oldridge" <dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message

news:Xns96CEC77F746d...@24.71.223.159...

This kind of thing happens with some degree of regularity in the absence of
"faith healing". If I had a dollar for every time a prognosis turned out to
be incorrect I wouldn't be living in this studio apartment. The human body
is complex, and we don't know everything there is to know about it. Why
invoke "faith healing" when it's much more likely that something unusual but
entirely physical happened?

That said, I'd like to see the case reports.

>
>>> Her approach to healing, and to Christianity in
>>> general was unusual for a healer (outside the RCC, anyway). She was
>>> Episcopalian (not exactly the denomination favoured by flaming
>>> flakes).
>
>> Based on previous experience, anyone who claims to be a "real
>> spiritual healer" would have to be assumed to be a flake of some kind,
>> until proven otherwise. Is there some kind of literature to back up
>> the claim that this particular person is a "real" spiritual healer,
>> and not yet another in the long string of snake oil salesmen who prey
>> on the sick?
>
> She is the author of several books still in print which you can read and
> judge for yourself, though the one I'm most impressed with is more
> theological in nature and it's out of print.

I was thinking more along the lines of scholarly works in which the cases
were described medically, as opposed to taking the word of the "faith
healer" on, pardon the expression, "faith." I would think her own books
would be virtually useless in judging what her capabilities are.

>
> She was the daughter of Presbyterian missionaries in China during the
> same period Pearl Buck was there. She married an Episcopalian priest.
>
> Her approach to healing is pretty Orthodox compared to what you usually
> see and not really THAT different from when Fr. Gardner used to anoint
> the sick at Thurs. morning mass at St. James Anglican in Vancouver some
> years ago.
>
> There is more of this going on than makes the flashy headlines, you know.

Oh, really? You mean it's some kind of revelation that people who have a
positive mental outlook have better medical outcomes? Not really. We learned
that 1st year of med school. If there is some kind of incantation or magic
potion that makes 35-lb tumors disappear overnight in any sort of safe and
repeatable manner, I know quite a few oncologists who want to know all about
it and wouldn't make it a secret.

> Or maybe you DON'T know that a bishop is specifically commanded at
> consecration to heal the sick???

Who cares what they're "commanded" to do? It's not like they actually do it.
In fact, the bishop who runs the school my father used to teach at seemed
commanded to do the opposite, when he reduced/eliminated health insurance
for his employees.

[Mark Stahl]

"Robert J. Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:3oigupF...@individual.net...

Indeed. Much like creationist thought, it is not necessarily the case that
if prevailing medical opinion is wrong about something that "faith healing"
must be correct.

[Stanley Friesen]

"'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@ij.net> wrote:
>

>Craig Franck wrote:
>> I don't think that follows. Knowing the ratio of the mass of an electron
>> to the mass of a proton is different than knowing why that ratio exists.
>> The former is certainly knowable, even if the latter may be unknowable.
>>
>Science deals with the "how" questions. It doesn't deal with the "why"
>questions. Those are for theologians and philosophers to argue over,
>not for scientists.

True. However the question of why the ratio takes the value it does is
a not *that* sort of why question. Theoretical physicists are indeed
looking for such answers - in the form of a theory that *predicts* the
value of such things.

--
The peace of God be with you.

Stanley Friesen

[Dave Oldridge]

"Mark Stahl" <st...@nospam.aecom.yu.edu> wrote in

news:L62dnZzw8K5...@giganews.com:

Especially if you're a bad judge of character....

>> She was the daughter of Presbyterian missionaries in China during the
>> same period Pearl Buck was there. She married an Episcopalian
>> priest.
>>
>> Her approach to healing is pretty Orthodox compared to what you
>> usually see and not really THAT different from when Fr. Gardner used
>> to anoint the sick at Thurs. morning mass at St. James Anglican in
>> Vancouver some years ago.
>>
>> There is more of this going on than makes the flashy headlines, you
>> know.
>
> Oh, really? You mean it's some kind of revelation that people who have
> a positive mental outlook have better medical outcomes? Not really. We

No, there's nothing particularly new about that.

> learned that 1st year of med school. If there is some kind of
> incantation or magic potion that makes 35-lb tumors disappear
> overnight in any sort of safe and repeatable manner, I know quite a
> few oncologists who want to know all about it and wouldn't make it a
> secret.

Unlike potions, real miracles do not necessarily follow repeatable
pathways.

>> Or maybe you DON'T know that a bishop is specifically commanded at
>> consecration to heal the sick???

> Who cares what they're "commanded" to do? It's not like they actually
> do it. In fact, the bishop who runs the school my father used to teach
> at seemed commanded to do the opposite, when he reduced/eliminated
> health insurance for his employees.

So part of your anger is at some clergy who you feel mistreated you?
Welcome to the club. It is, in fact, a rather large club.

[Mark Stahl]

"Dave Oldridge" <dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message

news:Xns96CE873D46ECC...@24.71.223.159...

Why do you think character has anything to do with the issue of whether she
can actually heal people?

>
>>> She was the daughter of Presbyterian missionaries in China during the
>>> same period Pearl Buck was there. She married an Episcopalian
>>> priest.
>>>
>>> Her approach to healing is pretty Orthodox compared to what you
>>> usually see and not really THAT different from when Fr. Gardner used
>>> to anoint the sick at Thurs. morning mass at St. James Anglican in
>>> Vancouver some years ago.
>>>
>>> There is more of this going on than makes the flashy headlines, you
>>> know.
>>
>> Oh, really? You mean it's some kind of revelation that people who have
>> a positive mental outlook have better medical outcomes? Not really. We
>
> No, there's nothing particularly new about that.

Precisely my point.

>
>> learned that 1st year of med school. If there is some kind of
>> incantation or magic potion that makes 35-lb tumors disappear
>> overnight in any sort of safe and repeatable manner, I know quite a
>> few oncologists who want to know all about it and wouldn't make it a
>> secret.
>
> Unlike potions, real miracles do not necessarily follow repeatable
> pathways.

LOL. Right. Conveniently, they sometimes "happen" but usually don't, for no
apparent reason and then turn out to have mundane explanations after all. If
they're unpredictable as you claim, surely no "healer" can summon them and
you admit it's a fraud.

>
>>> Or maybe you DON'T know that a bishop is specifically commanded at
>>> consecration to heal the sick???
>
>> Who cares what they're "commanded" to do? It's not like they actually
>> do it. In fact, the bishop who runs the school my father used to teach
>> at seemed commanded to do the opposite, when he reduced/eliminated
>> health insurance for his employees.
>
> So part of your anger is at some clergy who you feel mistreated you?
> Welcome to the club. It is, in fact, a rather large club.

I think it's rather amusing that you project some sort of "anger" upon me
when in fact I express none. No one mistreated me, what makes you imagine
that? Do you have some sort of issue here? Although it is rather frustrating
to imagine people bilked out of their money by "faith healers", this is only
in the abstract.

Meanwhle, you haven't provided any kind of justification for this supposed
genuine "faith healing" or bishops healing the sick. This is unsurprising in
the extreme, I have to say.

[Dave Oldridge]

"Mark Stahl" <st...@nospam.aecom.yu.edu> wrote in

news:nbqdnZ2dnZ06Me-knZ2dn...@giganews.com:

I'm just not going to bother wasting my time on trying to move a cement
block with a spoon. The information is out there, if you seek it. One
reason I gave you an actual name was because, much as she had a
reputation for being able to do spiritual healing, she also had a knack
for teaching it. But you're probably not interested.

[david ford]

Do you agree with this Dawkins?:

Dawkins, Richard. 1989. _The Selfish Gene_ (Oxford: Oxford
University Press), 352pp., 195:
Much of what Darwin said is, in detail, wrong.
surrounding material in
news:u2k2i0dlm2htnq42a...@4ax.com

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
how has the theory of NS survived?:
Grasse, C. P. Martin, Berlinski, 1929 D. M. S. Watson
news:Pine.SGI.3.96.9806...@umbc8.umbc.edu

[david ford]

Chris Krolczyk wrote:
> david ford wrote:
> > 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> > > Since it seems to me as if weather forecasting, accident investigation,
> > > and medicine are every bit, in every sense,just as utterly completely
> > > totally absolutely one-thousand-percent "materialistic" as
> > > evolutionary biology is, why, specifically, is it just evolutionary
> > > biology that gets your panties all in a bunch? Why aren't you and
> > > your fellow Wedge-ites out there fighting the good fight against
> > > godless materialistic naturalistic weather forecasting, or medicine, or
> > > accident investigation?
> >
> > Or 'homicide' investigation? Or insurance 'fraud' investigation?
> > Everybody knows totally-blind-at-every-level processes didit-- it's
> > common knowledge.
> > Intelligence/ mind had zip to do with anything of what Lenny and I
> > mentioned.
>
> It's amazing how openly David Ford admits his cluelessness
> these days

Here's something else I'm clueless about:
How did recorded-in-DNA/ genetic information originate?

I think Howard gave an answer, but I'm totally clueless about what your
answer, Chris, is.

1985 A.G. Cairns-Smith; How did recorded-in-DNA/ genetic information
originate?
news:dford3-32gv...@individual.net
How does a seeingwatchmakingist account for the origin of
the recorded-in-DNA/ genetic information within:
a human? a bacterium? the first biological lifeform?
news:dford3-348n...@individual.net

> - all he seems to be able to do is pointlessly
> gainsay other posts, and with a tone that clearly states
> that his beef isn't so much with "materialism" as it is
> with *any* form of empirical investigation, regardless
> of the phenomenon being investigated.
>
> (Oh, and David? What *is* the form of intelligence
> at work when a hurricane plows into a coastal region
> or a lightning strike hits one house in a neighborhood
> and not another?

Beats me.

> Feel free to resort to any ID-friendly
> explanation you wish to; I'm sure we could all use the
> laugh.)

I hope you didn't laugh at

Intelligence isn't needed to account for this "engine"
news:dford3-b1c67abe.0...@posting.google.com

[*Hemidactylus*]

With his link slinging he's the anti-maff. Can you imagine if maff and
Ford got into a pier six brawl? We'd be up to our ears in links, but
below our ankles in actual back and forth conversation that could be
folllowed without clicking links to keep up and pretty much devoid of
substantive argument. I shudder at the thought.

We could stand back and watch a textbook case of mutual assured
destruction.

[david ford]

josephus wrote:
> david ford wrote:

> > I say we need to degrade the culture.
> >
> > Taking a firm, godless stand for death
> > news:dford3-b1c67abe.0...@posting.google.com
> >
> > 1979 Schaeffer & Koop on the a-moral implications of atheism
> > news:dford3-b1c67abe.0...@posting.google.com
> >
> > Haeckel on murdering the disabled
> > news:dford3-3a8e...@individual.net
> >
> > 1868 Haeckel, 2003 Dawkins, 1997 George Williams, 1995 Dennett:
> > Darwinists downgrading the value of human life
> > news:dford3-399a...@individual.net
> >
> > 2-pronged role of Darwinian thought in Holocaust's arrival
> > news:dford3-11257231...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
>
> David you do seem to be doing some better communicating, but your links
> are broken, they are incomplete. my browser will not open any of them
> no matter how I paste it up. you still have a bad case of quotminging.

Thanks for this.
(They are Google group message IDs; were you to paste one, insert
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=
in front, turn @ into %40
and hit enter, it would work.)

I suggest you do what I do all the time:
do a control-f/ "find" on a somewhat-distinctive word to locate the URL
you want:

Rape in New Orleans
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1125803542.293791.168380%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

Terri Schiavo story with villains, victims, and heroes
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1125332830.051705.205450%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com

1978 Graber: "homosexuality appears to have been widespread in several
volunteer [Freikorps] units"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1126151010.843839.115080%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com

I freely acknowledge that the secular, scientific religion of atheism
has a 'bloody history.' And I boldly embrace that 'bloody history.'
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1121400956.627638.38960%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

Yahya and Koster on the use of fear and force
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407030811.4e8cd1bd%40posting.google.com

Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1%40individual.net

2-pronged role of Darwinian thought in Holocaust's arrival

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1125723152.824465.111490%40g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

Haeckel re: Jesus; Fest on "Social Darwinism in Hitler's thought"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1125598958.059080.62950%40g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

Hitler's human breeding plan using selection + mutations
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1124684179.251743.95950%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1124731489.829229.220700%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

Should a person fear being judged for his or her actions?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1125418165.686474.220010%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com

What matters is what elite judges having a secular religion say.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3aenpiF69fl4rU1%40individual.net

1990 Lynn Margulis
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1125116281.603256.38930%40g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

Gange on information content; Wigner contra materialism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1124167154.817991.159730%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com

genetic code, coding falsely appears to be code-programmer workproduct;
1973 Dobzhansky
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1123647563.631181.310000%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com

1985 Cairns-Smith: "Present-day organisms are manifestly pieces of
'high technology', and what is more seem to be necessarily so."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1123558517.582123.223890%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com

Meaning of "Christian"?

Do you think it's possible for someone to both
a) aggressively pursue homosexual activity,
while at the same time
b) be a follower of Jesus Christ and seek to follow the commands in the
Bible's New Testament?

Goebbels: "Goering... addressed a sharp letter to Bishops Galen... and
Berning"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1124768891.979046.93770%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

A Good Tautology is Hard to Avoid
http://groups.google.co.in/group/talk.origins/msg/80d1ba07087d43b5?

Draft 2 of a chronology of Darwinian thought and the march to the Final
Solution
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1122434358.640904.162640%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com

////////////////////////////////////////////////////
A Chronology

Dawkins, Richard. 1989. _The Selfish Gene_ (NY: Oxford University
Press), 352pp. On 2:
....I think 'nature red in tooth and claw' sums up our modern
understanding of natural selection admirably.

Darwin, Charles. 1859. _On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural
Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for
Life_ (London: John Murray), 513pp.

1859 Darwin vs. the Judeo-Christian conception of the unity of man
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1120016676.023811.113660%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
1989 Koster: "it was Christianity that put an end to slavery around
the globe"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406281819.5f06fed5%40posting.google.com

1863 Darwinist ethnologist Oscar Peschel:
The Negro is far removed from the European and close to
the ape through its small build, through the relatively
small breadth of its skull, through its relatively long upper
limbs, and further the relatively short length of the
thigh.... Also the Negro is more animal, in that it gives
off a disgusting odor, distorts its face in grimaces, and its
voice has a harsh, grating tone.
Cited in
Weikart, Richard. 2004. _From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics,
Eugenics, and Racism in Germany_ (USA: Palgrave Macmillan), 312pp.,
112. About Weikart's book:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407030531.19253d93%40posting.google.com

1866 Rolle and 1941 Hitler parallel
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1118762703.384545.317610%40g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

1868 Haeckel and 1941 Hitler parallel
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1118920740.543349.176440%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com

1868 Haeckel, 2003 Dawkins, 1997 George Williams, 1995 Dennett:

Darwinist atheists/ materialists downgrading the value of human life
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-399aluF5uql89U1%40individual.net

1871 Darwin: [CD]"the civilised races of man"-- e.g. [CD]"the
Caucasian"-- [CD]"will almost certainly exterminate and replace
throughout the world the savage races"-- e.g. [CD]"the negro or
Australian," as in Australian aborigine-- with the end result being
[CD]"man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407060404.711490be%40posting.google.com

Hitler encounters the T0E as a child: A Victory for Atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1118403178.860854.170600%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Stalin encounters the T0E in seminary: A Victory for Atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1118511187.489582.241590%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Hitler's secular religion
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1120837574.592972.268980%40g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
1941 Hitler & 2003 Dawkins observation re: conflicting religions
http://groups.google.co.in/group/talk.origins/msg/939d21b69b475095?
1943 Goebbels & Hitler agree on "the insanity of the Christian doctrine
of redemption"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1120260213.363834.164990%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Hitler opposed Christianity
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1117657689.616680.167840%40g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

Haeckel on murdering the disabled

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3a8etdF65smnrU4%40individual.net

Haeckel and Buchner and a Darwinian a-moral climate; Hitler was a
homosexual
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1118315214.069039.280490%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
1934 Ebermayer: "Hess... was for many years the Fuhrer's partner"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1121399969.441145.63680%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
a spiritual void among especially-influential Germans
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1118976003.052269.211420%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Proctor, Robert N. 1988. _Racial Hygiene: Medicine under the Nazis_
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), 414pp. On 6:
The published record of the German medical profession
makes it clear that many intellectuals cooperated fully in
Nazi racial programs, and that many of the social and
intellectual foundations for these programs were laid long
before the rise of Hitler to power. What I want to argue in
addition to this, however (and here I shall be drawing
upon a growing body of recent German scholarship on
this question) is that biomedical scientists played an
active, even leading role in the initiation, administration,
and execution of Nazi racial programs.
2004 Richard Weikart: "physicians... were committed to a racist
eugenics ideology that the Nazis favored"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407120310.7d3f3929%40posting.google.com

1922 Max Nordau:
Good and bad.... are subject to the laws of evolution in
society and therefore in a constant state of flux....
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0411271314.4b84581e%40posting.google.com

undated Theodor Fritsch-- Weikart characterizes Fritsch as [Weikart on
55]"a highly influential anti-Semitic publicist":
Morality and ethics arise from the law of preservation of
the species, of the race. Whatever insures the future of
the species, whatever is suited to raise the species to an
ever higher level of physical and mental perfection, that is
moral.
Cited in Weikart, 55.

early 1930s Hitler: "the process of selection can be accelerated by
political means"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1121831594.290068.147940%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com

If you were in 1938 Nazi Germany, would you have opposed or supported
the killing of Baby Knauer?
From
1997 Wesley Smith on Germany's slippery slope slide from devaluing
some human life to a little euthanasia/ killing to mass killings
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3abe1cF6ac7t2U1%40individual.net
That case came to their
attention in late 1938. A baby had been born with birth
defects: Baby Knauer was blind and had a leg and part of
an arm missing. The parents were distraught and,
accepting the general value system of their time, were
deeply ashamed to have brought a useless eater into the
world. They wrote requesting permission to have their
child "put to sleep." Hitler was quite interested in the
case and sent one of his personal physicians, Karl
Rudolph Brandt, to investigate. Brandt's instructions

from the Fuhrer were to verify the facts of the baby's
condition and, if true, to assure the child's doctors and
her parents that if she was killed, no one would face
punishment or liability. Brandt was then to witness the
euthanasia and report back to Hitler. The doctors in the
case who met with Brandt agreed that there was "no
justification for keeping the child alive," and Baby
Knauer soon became one of the first victims of the
Holocaust.^27

1939
Wesley Smith in his 1997 _Forced Exit: The Slippery Slope from
Assisted Suicide to Legalized Murder_
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3abe1cF6ac7t2U1%40individual.net
In early 1939, children born with birth defects or with
congenital diseases began to be killed under the
euthanasia program. These unfortunate children were
admitted to medical clinics by their doctors, where they
would be euthanized. Most of these children were
voluntarily turned over to medical authorities by their
own parents; some (but certainly not all) knew, or at least
suspected, that their disabled children were being sent to

their deaths. New reporting rules made it mandatory for
midwives and doctors to notify authorities when a baby
was born with birth defects. Once the referees
determined that the children were eligible for euthanasia,
they were killed either by intentional starvation or an
overdose of a drug, most typically a sedative called
Luminal. The euphemism of choice for this butchery was
"treatment."
It wasn't long before the list of those eligible to be killed
expanded.
Note the "killed either by intentional starvation or an overdose of a
drug."

1940 Nazi film "All Life is Struggle" embraced Darwinian natural
selection
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407042043.1c2ccf1f%40posting.google.com

1941 Hitler: law of selection justifies incessant struggle/ war
http://groups.google.co.in/group/talk.origins/msg/6ab79a88a19145a0?

1942 Eichmann: "possible final remnant... is the product of natural
selection," 1942 Heydrich
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c075c58afa667237?

excerpts from a 1942 Nazi biology textbook for the middle school
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/textbk01.htm

1943 Goebbels: a "process of selection between the strong and the
weak"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1120450591.444214.186670%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

Paul Johnson: Hitler practiced social engineering
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407070355.27039a45%40posting.google.com

1973 Watson and 1978 Crick
From

1979 Schaeffer & Koop on the a-moral implications of atheism

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0504061225.4c675814%40posting.google.com
In May 1973, James D. Watson, the Nobel Prize
laureate who discovered the double helix of DNA,
granted an interview to _Prism_ magazine, then a
publication of the American Medical Association.
_Time_ later reported the interview to the general
public, quoting Watson as having said,
If a child were not declared alive until three days
after birth, then all parents could be allowed the
choice only a few are given under the present
system. The doctor could allow the child to die
if the parents so choose and save a lot of misery
and suffering. I believe this view is the only
rational, compassionate attitude to have.
In January 1978, Francis Crick, also a Nobel
laureate, was quoted in the _Pacific News Service_
as saying,
. . . no newborn infant should be declared human
until it has passed certain tests regarding its
genetic endowment and that if it fails these tests
it forfeits the right to live.

Dawkins, Richard. 1989. _The Selfish Gene_ (NY: Oxford University
Press), 352pp. On 2:
....I think 'nature red in tooth and claw' sums up our modern
understanding of natural selection admirably.

1868 Haeckel, 2003 Dawkins, 1997 George Williams, 1995 Dennett:
Darwinists downgrading the value of human life

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-399aluF5uql89U1%40individual.net

any atheists against Terri Schindler Schiavo's being starved to death?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3adrlvF69l60hU1%40individual.net

===========================//////////////////////
"113 Kurds Are Found In Mass Grave: Hussein Victims Almost All Women,
Children"
http://groups.google.co.in/group/talk.origins/msg/7992007d0af62942?

any atheists against Terri Schindler Schiavo's being starved to death?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3adrlvF69l60hU1%40individual.net

2004 Don Feder
http://groups.google.co.in/group/talk.origins/msg/3e1e6d8dfe1e67ec?

1979 Schaeffer & Koop on the a-moral implications of atheism

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0504061225.4c675814%40posting.google.com

Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness
brochure "Are We Ready for This?"
http://www.uupa.org/AreWeReady.htm

godlessness in trouble: science, 'frauds' trigger decline in atheism
http://groups.google.co.in/group/talk.origins/msg/79b2d7995f3a2d27?

The 1919 experiment was ambiguous.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970808020249.13466K-100000%40umbc10.umbc.edu

Note: for any of the documents posted, you can do a control-f/ "find"
and locate desired text further down in the message.

Saddam URLs
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-37nm2uF5gqtjkU2%40individual.net
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0505010547.10c7a881%40posting.google.com

========================================
1993 Mark Ludwig
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3a19gpF65ij6fU3%40individual.net
computer simulations illustrate intelligent design, at the bottom of
replies to Larry Moran posts
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39lhabF61ut8sU1%40individual.net

Terri Schindler Schiavo was intentionally starved to death. Germany
went down this road before:

Wesley Smith in his 1997 _Forced Exit: The Slippery Slope from
Assisted Suicide to Legalized Murder_
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3abe1cF6ac7t2U1%40individual.net
In early 1939, children born with birth defects or with
congenital diseases began to be killed under the
euthanasia program. These unfortunate children were
admitted to medical clinics by their doctors, where they
would be euthanized. Most of these children were
voluntarily turned over to medical authorities by their
own parents; some (but certainly not all) knew, or at least
suspected, that their disabled children were being sent to
their deaths. New reporting rules made it mandatory for
midwives and doctors to notify authorities when a baby
was born with birth defects. Once the referees
determined that the children were eligible for euthanasia,
they were killed either by intentional starvation or an
overdose of a drug, most typically a sedative called
Luminal. The euphemism of choice for this butchery was
"treatment."
It wasn't long before the list of those eligible to be killed
expanded.

Note the "killed either by intentional starvation or an overdose of a
drug."

[Smith]"These ideas later came to haunt Hoche; he would turn against
the German euthanasia program-- even though much of its rationale
derived from his own writings-- after one of his relatives became a
victim."
Of the people currently arguing for euthanasia, and currently arguing
for Terri Schindler Schiavo to continue being starved to death, how
many are going to be killed/ 'euthanized' when they become elderly?
How many of those currently arguing for euthanasia will have in future
years relatives of theirs being killed/ 'euthanized'?

Much more Wesley Smith is in
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3abe1cF6ac7t2U1%40individual.net

Control - f/ "find" for:

Darwin's bible; Hsu
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3a18k3F66sgjpU1%40individual.net

Do you think that the more one looks at atheists, particularly
hard-core
militantly-godless types:
the better atheism looks?
the worse atheism looks?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3a19amF65ij6fU2%40individual.net

the 'high-tech' approach present in car engines and certain biological
systems; 1942 D'Arcy Wentworth. Thompson; "immaterial" vs. "material"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3a19o0F65ij6fU5%40individual.net

[Wolfe in _The New Republic_]"She [O'Hair] was dictatorial,
irresponsible, racist, overbearing, corrupt, anti-Semitic, homophobic,
anti-Catholic, and at times criminal. .... this crudely embarrassing
atheist [i.e. O'Hair]"
[O'Hair to her father]"the Jews in big business are running this
country into the ground."
[O'Hair to her son William, after slapping him hard in the
face]"Listen, kid, the United States of America is nothing more than a
fascist slave labor camp run by a handful of Jew bankers in New York
City."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39rvm4F63q0jrU1%40individual.net

[Gofreemind]"For newer atheists, Madalyn was anything but heroic. Her
rude, obnoxious public displays were an embarrassment."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0503090734.55fbdce3%40posting.google.com

On the Origin of Life
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net

replies to Larry Moran posts:
Larry's shifting conceptions of "species," "speciation," and
"evolution"
1972 and 1977 Gould and Eldredge on punk-eek and the fossil record
1998 Dawkins observation that certain religious claims are either
correct or incorrect
1977, 1980, and 1982 Gould the saltationist
1941 Jacques Barzun on Darwin's hedging and self-contradiction
1988 A. Lima-de-Faria on the phlogiston-like contradictory nature of
"selection"
2000 Michael Ruse on Gould's "being a bit of a phoney" concerning
religion
punk-eek on stasis
in passim: the allegation that the imperfect fossil record tells lies
computer simulations illustrate intelligent design
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39lhabF61ut8sU1%40individual.net

1983 Simpson on quantum evolution
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0410130414.284a56ed%40posting.google.com

Intelligence isn't needed to account for this "engine"

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0503101041.2bfdea1a%40posting.google.com

Ludwig on computer viruses
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980207214705.12692A-100000%40umbc10.umbc.edu

Vitz on his socialization in school
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-393h24F5qte75U1%40individual.net

Control - f/ "find" for: clay
Batch of replies to John Wilkins
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-389cg9F5lbshpU1%40individual.net

1960 Madalyn Murray O'Hair to her son William
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0503051050.3208401b%40posting.google.com

Al Gore; link to Byrd (D-WV) speech
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0503031422.18277f4e%40posting.google.com

[1986. Yockey]""those who believe.... the galaxy is pullulating with
civilizations"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0404100938.e7c05f7%40posting.google.com

godlessness in trouble
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-38r8v3F5qkkv1U1%40individual.net

2004 Alister McGrath: "The rise of militant Islam in Afghanistan was
the direct outcome of the Soviet invasion of that nation in 1979, and
its clumsy attempts to support an atheist regime."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-36d74dF51tdmoU1%40individual.net

Robert Griffiths
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-37ekfeF5cmdhjU1%40individual.net
Einstein: physics was designed
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-37f67dF59po8jU1%40individual.net

a t.o. philosopher on 'function' and 'purpose' in biology
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-37c9m5F59n45nU1%40individual.net

Habermas interview with Flew
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-336m89F3u087fU1%40individual.net

1983 Bruce Alberts; Haeckel's fraudulent embryo depictions; 1956
Goldschmidt
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-38m3vrF5o7bk2U1%40individual.net

Darwin only talks to and through his prophets.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-37f8trF5cdutnU1%40individual.net

Reply to the Larry Moran post that John nominated as a POTM
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-38hcs9F5ovk6pU1%40individual.net

_Reason_ article with the upshot of: Release the nonviolent drug
offenders
http://www.reason.com/9908/fe.js.prison.html

a cost-effect trade-off
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0411220549.41c1db87%40posting.google.com

What is wrong in this Newton?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=111tdsaha9hq7d1%40corp.supernews.com

Newton was a creationist regarding biology.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3877igF5kk9siU2%40individual.net

Ancestor, or sharer of a common ancestor?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401121821.675a5dce%40posting.google.com
Similarities & Common Descent
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401011520.5d1f4671%40posting.google.com

questions for John W. regarding Bell
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401182159.641ac183%40posting.google.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401201054.28ea2342%40posting.google.com

Meaning of "evolution" and "species"?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-386md9F5lsv5cU1%40individual.net

Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1%40individual.net
aka
http://tinyurl.com/4glkm

Sandage won the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences' 1991 Crafoord Prize
Ref:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.980830000755.10441B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

fabled primordial soup never existed
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-37mt00F5fb7kmU1%40individual.net

1962 Ehrlich and Holm:
Few nonevolutionists realize that the term
_adaptation_ is one of the least understood
and most misused in population biology.
Cite in
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990112233000.17813A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

IDiots' failure to acknowledge the facts is due to
their emotionally-held religious convictions.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406261739.60e1f6fd%40posting.google.com

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0408221106.6e95a488%40posting.google.com

Mayr URLs
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-36l297F52q8rcU1%40individual.net

Ford caught in fraud!
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-37eet3F5ecn1tU1%40individual.net

How does a seeingwatchmakingist account for the origin of
the recorded-in-DNA/ genetic information within:
a human? a bacterium? the first biological lifeform?

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-348nj6F47evohU1%40individual.net

mutation URLs
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-37elv4F5260vbU1%40individual.net

One literature search for "mutation"; mutation URLs
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-37elv4F5260vbU1%40individual.net

the Koran on hell; link to
"Christianity" is not monolithic when it comes to the nature of hell.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3720ncF56q00hU1%40individual.net

Have Humphrey, Dwyer, Dennett, and Dawkins gone around [LM]"behaving
like idiots"?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-36ptr0F53hkerU1%40individual.net

Hsu "almost tempted to join my colleague, Paul Feyerabend"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-35lfj3F4ojm7rU1%40individual.net

Mivart's _On The Genesis of Species_
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0411191923.147109da%40posting.google.com

Einstein: physics was designed
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-37f67dF59po8jU1%40individual.net

have Maff, Humphrey, Dwyer, Dennett, and Dawkins gone around
[LM]"behaving like idiots"?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-36ptr0F53hkerU1%40individual.net

Fire the IDiots
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403121312.35d2e0c%40posting.google.com

Larry contradicts himself on Jeffrey Schwartz
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-36kvdkF531sqaU1%40individual.net

Larry, is Maff [LM]"an idiot"?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-35v5eaF4qc08oU1%40individual.net

homeobox mutations; 1989 Christopher Wills
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.10A.B3.9910231652340.8332-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.91.960814031530.14511K-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

Suppose there was "an omnipotent, omniscient designer" of computers
and computer software
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-348naoF46plv5U1%40individual.net

Motivations for Continuing to Cling to Philosophy of Materialism, 1999
Paul Vitz on personal convenience; 2002 Benjamin Wiker
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-35qe6lF4orjsoU1%40individual.net

1984 Dean Kenyon
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-34j9b2F4a5gioU1%40individual.net

February 1927 Einstein, i.e. before Einstein's 1930-1931 acceptance
that the universe is expanding: "Try and penetrate with our limited
means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the
discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible
and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we
can comprehend is my religion."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-36d74dF51tdmoU1%40individual.net

Einstein to zu Lowenstein: "people who say there is no God. But what
really makes me angry is that they quote me for support of such views";

1941 Einstein; Lenin's becoming an atheist; 1922 Lenin; Bertrand
Russell never taken in by Soviet regime; 2005 President Bush inaugural
speech
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-35nbd1F4pm3jiU1%40individual.net

theological leanings of twenty signers of the Declaration of
Independence
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-35bcc1F4j6a0cU1%40individual.net

Hawking is not an atheist
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.980927230202.15518B-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.981023223535.2360A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.981002001223.7287B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

Flew and the nature of hell
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-33b5roF3v2ikjU1%40individual.net

Taking a firm, godless stand for death

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0410291758.3dfffe4b%40posting.google.com

1999 John Maynard Smith; 1986 Robert Shapiro;
1993 Philip E. Johnson (a creationist): "consider the possibility that
life is what it so evidently seems to be, the product of creative
intelligence"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-35aengF4jt97eU1%40individual.net

1931 Sir Arthur Eddington
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.91.960629225254.11815G-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

2001 Gerald Schroeder, 1999 Paul Davies, 1992 Hubert Yockey, & 1968
Michael Polanyi: [Davies]"life cannot be 'written into' the laws of
physics" presently known
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-33b2blF3tdum0U1%40individual.net

Nancy Pearcey's "DNA: The Message in the Message"
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9606/opinion/pearcy.html

Michael Kinsley's "Blogged Down"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-32ldo1F3oc5uoU1%40individual.net

Timeline of Materialism, Spontaneous Generation, and Blindwatchmaking
Views

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-348jecF47mfcjU1%40individual.net

1985 A.G. Cairns-Smith, 1986 Andrew Scott, 1999 Freeman Dyson
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-33bltcF3rgbovU1%40individual.net

some 1915-1999 doses of reality
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-33arf3F3vjdggU1%40individual.net

Gould, John Maynard Smith, J.B.S. Haldane, and Richard Lewontin were
Marxists; 2004 R.J. Rummel's "The killing machine that is Marxism"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-32gfjsF3l6o15U1%40individual.net

Hugh Ross and Reasons to Believe
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-32j00lF3nl519U1%40individual.net

1985 A.G. Cairns-Smith; How did recorded-in-DNA/ genetic information
originate?

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-32gv43F3jsrelU1%40individual.net

Raup, David M. 1991. _Extinction: Bad Genes or Bad Luck?_ (NY: W.W.
Norton & Company), introduction by Gould, 210pp. On 187, a paragraph:
In the fossil record, many adaptive breakthroughs-- bursts of
speciation accompanied by the origin of new families and
orders--
occur after the big mass extinctions. The expansion of mammals
immediately following the dinosaur extinction is a classic
example. Although this effect is most striking after Big Five
mass extinctions, similar patterns are seen at all scales.

1985 Gould: "we professionals are adrift ourselves in many areas";
Gould's "Not Necessarily a Wing"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0411221033.48b47b7a%40posting.google.com

Michael J. Behe & David W. Snoke's "Simulating evolution by gene
duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid
residues"
http://www.proteinscience.org/cgi/content/abstract/ps.04802904v1

This website's name is derived from a bogus argument.

A collection of URLs, most of which are posts of mine, is at

Shroud of Turin Links

Brilliant
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=80d0c26f.0401111430.463f2d7f%40posting.google.com

Maddox's 1989 editorial, Gribbin, Eddington, Hoyle, Narliker
?not there

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970108224604.23566B-100000%40umbc10.umbc.edu

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970426004908.4822A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

Batch of URLs, version 8
Table of Contents:
1) Personal Growth, Thinking
2) Shroud of Turin
3) Miscellaneous Essays
4) Intelligent Design
5) Origin of Life
6) Theory of Natural Selection & Evolution
7) Materialism
8) Social Darwinism
9) Iraq
http://groups.google.co.in/group/talk.origins/msg/dfdc07f7e4813201?

===============================================.
===================================.
Batch of URLs, version 8

Note: to find a particular name or date quickly, do a "control - f"/
find for the date or a part of the name. To print before reading an
item, as a suggestion, click Google's link to view the post in its
original format. Control-a to select all, Control-c to copy, in Word
do a Control-v to paste, Control-a to select all, change the font to
Times New Roman or Palatino, change the font size to say 9 or 10 or 11
to save toner, and print. Underline things with which you agree or
disagree, and jot your comments in the margins. If it's especially
lengthy, when done reading perhaps make your own table of contents of
the high and low points.

Table of Contents:
1) Personal Growth, Thinking
2) Shroud of Turin
3) Miscellaneous Essays
4) Intelligent Design
5) Origin of Life
6) Theory of Natural Selection & Evolution
7) Materialism
8) Social Darwinism
9) Iraq

===================================.
1) PERSONAL GROWTH, THINKING

cutting unwanted habits
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0402162021.7b453b5c%40posting.google.com

make & review your personal mission statement
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0402182045.2bfc1422%40posting.google.com

Attitudes of Gratitude
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0305141814150.4467-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu

rituals and _The Power of Full Engagement_
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0311170006270.30236-100000%40linux3.gl.umbc.edu

Naturally Improve Your Vision
http://www.rebuildyourvision.com

fitness with bodyweight exercises
http://www.mattfurey.com

Bill O'Reilly on friendship
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0311140006240.21825-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu

1992 Susan Jeffers on soul-friendships, dating & friendship parallels
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0409071812.147c3ea4%40posting.google.com

On Equality in Friendship
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403091709.8ed252a%40posting.google.com

What to Say When You Talk to Yourself
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0402242044.52e2e080%40posting.google.com

archive of excellent sermons
http://resources.christianity.com/churchredeemer/

Feynman on uncertainty; Lyttleton's bead-on-a-wire illustration
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990601090737.1777A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Feynman, R. Reid, and Berlinski on _ad hominems_
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990102235105.11328B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

reconstructing arguments
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.981215001959.431B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
"why" is vague

1985 Robert G.B. Reid on "received aphorisms"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980613224255.8353A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

Macbeth on the illusion of the monolith
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.981115234755.21390A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

===================================.
2) SHROUD OF TURIN

faulty Carbon Dating of
1) must look at preponderance of evidence
2) C-14 tests are undependable
3) archeologists and chemists were needed during the 1988 testing,
faulty methodology in sample collection
4) bioplastic layer
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.981224131117.5044D-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

The Shroud of Turin's 'Blood' Images: Blood, or Paint?
A History of Science Inquiry
go to the "Student Papers" link on the left-hand side of:
http://www.shroud2000.com/StudentCenter.html
A slightly earlier copy is on the website
http://www.shroud.com/menu.htm

Shroud chronology; Pia's discovery; Pray Manuscript
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.21L.01.0012100021370.2760451-100000%40irix2.gl.umbc.edu
for what reasons would an artist go to all the _trouble_ of making the
Shroud?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.21L.01.0012262313360.12146-100000%40linux1.gl.umbc.edu

1986 Edwards et al. "On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ"
http://www.messiahshighway.org/MHSITE/shared/crucify.html

what the Shroud body image is
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.981228235350.26179D-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

Everybody in STURP rejected McCrone's painting claim. In 1974,
McCrone declared the Vinland Map a fake, but 1987 data suggests his
basis for doing so was erroneous. He took the results personally.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990105002606.15627A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
===================================.
3) MISCELLANEOUS ESSAYS

The Search for a Loophole to the Beginning of the Universe
in the Big Bang and to the Seeming-Design of Physics
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005292327160.25513-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
Einstein thought a super-intelligence designed physics

Genesis might mention the expansion of the universe
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980711003240.23871B-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu

Mujahideen: The Resistance in Afghanistan
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.21L.01.0101011312370.615920-100000%40irix1.gl.umbc.edu

Living Physics: A Biography of Richard Feynman
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10003220756520.4269-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu

essay on engineers' role in architecture
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.31L.02.0104220055390.3913733-100000%40irix1.gl.umbc.edu

Bacchiocchi chapter "Hell: Eternal Torment Or Annihilation?"
http://www2.andrews.edu/~samuele/books/immortality_resurrection/6.htm

Essay using Kevles's _In the Name of Eugenics_
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=5orcou%241eeo%40nntp6.u.washington.edu

Essay using Gould's _Wonderful Life_
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=5orcos%241eem%40nntp6.u.washington.edu

The Discovery That the Universe Is Expanding: Developments in
Theoretical and Observational Cosmology, 1915-1930
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0308140928380.13996-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu

Richard H. on interpreting Genesis 1
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.981222230932.19980E-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

Berlinski's "The Deniable Darwin" on the Discovery Institute website
http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSC&command=view&id=130

Critique of Roe v. Wade
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.961103170616.15767C-100000%40umbc10.umbc.edu

===================================.
4) INTELLIGENT DESIGN

biology indicates character of what caused it
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401122013.6f9dd130%40posting.google.com
For a correction of the Oparin citation, see
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401291051.1300302c%40posting.google.com

omphalic YEC and blindwatchmakingist parallels
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0411270821.29ee3dd9%40posting.google.com

analysis of Hume on inferring from seeming-design the attribute of
intelligence
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3282quF3ih2arU1%40individual.net

Biology has the appearance of having been designed by intelligence.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-36pqk2F55ibnrU1%40individual.net

Dawkins vs. an atheist philosopher
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0411180756.6c069f04%40posting.google.com

1997 Robert Dorit
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0411180714.f671793%40posting.google.com

1960 C.H. Waddington, 1964 Simpson
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0411180732.d680c63%40posting.google.com

1997 Graham Bell
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0411251458.7eded865%40posting.google.com

1999 Paul Davies on nanotools in "the intricate machine we call the
living cell"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0411271934.2af28f31%40posting.google.com

1988 M.J. French on the buttercup and the locomotive; 1953 J. Huxley
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0411251245.129ea4a2%40posting.google.com

1970/1971 Jacques Monod on criteria for distinguishing "products of a
conscious purposive activity"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0411151338.444f099d%40posting.google.com

1860 Thomas H. Huxley: "one is almost involuntarily possessed by the
notion, that some more subtle aid to vision than an achromatic, would
show the hidden artist, with his plan before him, striving with skilful
manipulation to perfect his work"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0412011738.4fe29d9a%40posting.google.com

1988 Crick: "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they
see was not designed, but rather evolved."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407251846.6acacaef%40posting.google.com

1995 Christian de Duve: "Foresight Excluded," "Cells are so obviously
programmed to develop according to certain lines, organs adapted to
perform certain functions, organisms suited to certain environments,
that the word _design_ almost unavoidably comes to mind."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-325tvsF3i3t01U1%40individual.net

1966 George C. Williams: "Whenever I believe that an effect is
produced as the function of an adaptation perfected by natural
selection to serve that function, I will use terms appropriate to human
artifice and conscious design." "There are convincing analogies
between bird wings and airship wings, between bridge suspensions and
skeletal suspensions, between the vascularization of a leaf and the
water supply of a city."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-31tnfkF3e6alfU2%40individual.net

1982 Francois Jacob: "The importance of Darwin's solution was to
explain by the selection of already formed structures something that
very much looks like instruction."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-320ufsF3grelkU1%40individual.net

the human hearing system: masterpiece that appears to be engineer(s)
workproduct
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-320g33F3giod4U1%40individual.net

Acoustic Engineers and Bird Alarm Calls
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.10A.B3.9912112245430.200386-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

1962 Oparin: "the universal 'purposiveness' of the organisation of
living beings is an objective and self-evident fact"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407240715.2b0e119a%40posting.google.com

1999 Leigh: "creationists and antidarwinians are multiplying"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406141942.49257583%40posting.google.com

The intelligent design hypothesis can provide for a metaphysical
research program; links to Popper.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0405050538.4f5d9820%40posting.google.com

Rana on Design Hypothesis Evidence
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0405071913.10142d50%40posting.google.com

Julie Thomas on biological design
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-329osfF3jopn9U1%40individual.net

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990727211344.2639819A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

ID + common descent: A Proposal
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0404181835.d59cf7d%40posting.google.com
religious faith and common descent
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0405051933.522f5d0e%40posting.google.com
1910s remarks by Caullery, Edmund B. Wilson, and Bateson on the idea of
top-down unfolding/ [Bateson]"unpacking of an original complex which
contained within itself the whole range of diversity which living
things present"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0405161853.5f28f100%40posting.google.com

Tasks for Creationists
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.10A.B3.9911162135460.1502473-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

on "order" and varieties of "complexity"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407211714.53153989%40posting.google.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407211714.53153989%40posting.google.com

on engines, writing, and alien spacecraft
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.91.960706021635.26447D-100000%40umbc10.umbc.edu

Access Research Network (creationist site)
http://www.arn.org

Sean Pitman (creationist)
http://www.naturalselection.0catch.com

concept of "blindwatchmaking"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401101006.38dc8f17%40posting.google.com

Dawkins on Blind Watchmaking
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0312252139.7b1d31bf%40posting.google.com

Feynman on giving all the information; Dobzhansky, Mayr, Wilson, Gould,
Futuyma, Dawkins, Sagan, Simpson
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970912002214.12893C-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

Bashing Big Bang theory
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0402061734.3914cb3b%40posting.google.com
1982 Richard Morris, 1992 Antony Flew
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990311073639.27782B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
1966 Hannes Alfven; 1990 H.C. Arp, G. Burbidge, F. Hoyle, J.V.
Narliker, and N.C. Wickramasinghe; on Jean-Claude Pecker
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.980824234855.3753B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
on Eric Lerner
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970122231808.6380G-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

parameters of a well-grounded argument for intelligent
design of biology
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990117234124.33617B-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

observations on debating in talk.origins
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990322085934.13882040B-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

Dembski (a creationist): "Darwinian magic gig is now up"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0402130634.7e7e2395%40posting.google.com

Trade Secrets, Theory of Natural Selection Bibliography (Articles),
Advice to Creationists

Theory of Natural Selection Bibliography (Books)

ToC of Woodward's new book on ID's history
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0310070021180.13014-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu

1988 Mayr, 1972 Vanderkooi, 1973 Allbrook (latter 2 are creationists)
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0402110525.e820a9d%40posting.google.com

2004 Marshall Berman's "Intelligent Design Creationism: A Threat to
Society - Not Just Biology"
http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/Berman012604.htm
which has a link to a PDF of the original article.

encounter of Behe (a creationist) with Denton's book
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0310070016110.13014-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu
in Behe's own words
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980529004405.20294A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

accounting for parallel and convergent supposed-blindwatchmaking
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990712220140.883597C-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

Definitions:
the word "species"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0402022042.2584c45e%40posting.google.com
Gould on the notion of species as 'natural kinds'
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0309061149130.1109-100000%40linux1.gl.umbc.edu
body structure is the basis for calling something of one "kind" versus
another
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990118235404.100720A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
with a followup at
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990124234421.577677C-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

meanings of "round" and "evolution"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970903014308.20976E-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
legerdemain in the use of the word 'evolution'
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990704214620.893193A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
Ward and Ehrlich & Holm on the word "species"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990112233000.17813A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Ehrlich & Ehrlich on present-day non-appearance of new animal kinds
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.10A.B3.9910252319240.1435666-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

views of Cuvier, d'Orbigny, and Agassiz (all creationists)
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.980819011221.8126B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

1800s creationists came to accept that the earth is old; Raup
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.10A.B3.10001161617160.1771572-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

go away, young-earthism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0310190200530.8725-100000%40linux1.gl.umbc.edu

wheel found in nature; table of contents for Benyus's book
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.10A.B3.9911092251540.520954-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
highly-advanced 'computer' found in nature; Benyus; Tomlin
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0411131155.3c571bd5%40posting.google.com

Reasons to Believe resources, including Radio Archives
http://www.reasons.org/resources/index.shtml?main

Dawkins favors teaching of both design & evolution arguments
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.21L.01.0011250952260.615582-100000%40irix1.gl.umbc.edu

# of functional amino acid sequences?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990425235307.3226566A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

Sean P. (a creationist) on:
Stacking the Deck
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=80d0c26f.0401040827.4811a655%40posting.google.com
amino acid sequences
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=80d0c26f.0312211829.68031aac%40posting.google.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=80d0c26f.0312301019.6875127a%40posting.google.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=80d0c26f.0312181225.4c095dcd%40posting.google.com

===================================.
5) ORIGIN OF LIFE

===================================.
6) THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION & EVOLUTION

1999 Leigh: "the primary problem with the synthesis is that its makers
established natural selection as the director of adaptive evolution by
eliminating competing explanations"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0408191912.73c050d1%40posting.google.com

Dawkins, Richard. 1989. _The Selfish Gene_ (Oxford: Oxford
University Press), 352pp., 195:
Much of what Darwin said is, in detail, wrong.
surrounding material in

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=u2k2i0dlm2htnq42avhemsueaqi7pje2mh%404ax.com

Stalin's contributions to science
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406212039.69fbcce1%40posting.google.com

Synthetic Euphoria URLs
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-35qfcuF4rpudvU1%40individual.net

E&G's 1972 article
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970329001407.19794B-100000%40umbc10.umbc.edu
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970709233254.17288E-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

1980 John Durant: the secular myths of evolution have had "a damaging
effect on scientific research", leading to "distortion, to needless
controversy, and to the gross misuse of science"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406081707.2b79a9e0%40posting.google.com

Gould's 1980 "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406040941.7de39c48%40posting.google.com

Agree with J. Huxley's "no"?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0405271915.6b9b6ce1%40posting.google.com

1871 Alfred W. Bennett on Mivart's arguments
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407261736.55e8de3%40posting.google.com

1983 Jeremy Rifkin: "Darwin's theory of evolution... has enjoyed a
rather privileged position within the academic community"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407260734.14893b70%40posting.google.com

1971 Salisbury's Doubts about the Synthetic Euphoria
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0402290951.48d08417%40posting.google.com

1967 Macbeth calls for "a full disclosure"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0405231903.3eb81283%40posting.google.com

1958 Eiseley on "careful domestic breeding"; 1863 Darwin: "the belief
in Natural Selection must at present be grounded entirely on general
considerations"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0405130534.8eee3f1%40posting.google.com

the panda's "thumb" argument
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0405181220.3a30b3b5%40posting.google.com
Gould and false dichotomy
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403101915.25dc7a6a%40posting.google.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401291823.78264831%40posting.google.com

Darwin: "If the death of neither man nor gnat are designed, I see no
reason to believe that their _first_ birth or production should be
necessarily designed."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0404161917.475b5fc0%40posting.google.com

Darwin to Gray on the fan-tail
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0404170630.5cb94298%40posting.google.com

Futuyma on saltation: do a "control-f"/ find for "rapp" within
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970709000347.26045B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

"theory of evolution" as conceived by Stebbins, Simpson, Sagan,
Dawkins, Julian and Thomas Henry Huxley, Futuyma, Gould, Wald, and
Haeckel
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0405050529.eeb2100%40posting.google.com

Dobzhansky, 1900 Haeckel ("the law of the persistence of matter and
force; that law knows nothing of a beginning"), and 1987 Dawkins reject
the position that intelligent design is responsible for common descent
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401311740.48df353%40posting.google.com

1957 Bertrand Russell: "there is no reason to suppose that the world
had a beginning at all" (to get to it quickly, do a "control - f"/
find for: 1957
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=887u3v%24pe3%241%40nnrp1.deja.com

1983 Jeremy Rifkin, 1939 Luther Burbank, 2002 Judith Hooper, Darwin
Autobiography: I feel "compelled to look to a First Cause having an
intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man," 1921 George
Bernard Shaw
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0404070956.1db2b888%40posting.google.com

1860 T.H. Huxley on knowing "all the consequences to which all possible
combinations, continued through unlimited time, can give rise"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0402142040.31d13e07%40posting.google.com

Sara Joan Miles's "Charles Darwin and Asa Gray Discuss Teleology and
Design"
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF9-01Miles.html

1930s Dewar (a creationist), Darwin, and bears
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.960901020131.26306A-100000%40umbc10.umbc.edu

1950 Anthony Standen on analogies in biology
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403301036.7be3ee37%40posting.google.com

1915 Edmund Wilson
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0404012157.387ae93e%40posting.google.com

the problem of evil: 1921 George Bernard Shaw, 1997 Phillip E. Johnson
(a creationist), link to 1967 Dobzhansky
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403232133.8702bad%40posting.google.com
1967 Dobzhansky on the problem of evil
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401260957.1a5b69fc%40posting.google.com

historical background to rise and fall of the Synthetic Euphoria; 1936
A. Franklin Shull
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403271329.1e569adf%40posting.google.com

1939 Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403211957.32de5a36%40posting.google.com

1916 Caullery: "data of Mendelism embarrass us"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403191919.590c22e3%40posting.google.com

1937 Goldschmidt on winning souls for Darwin
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403131825.1eefa6ee%40posting.google.com

fruit fly URLs
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403082115.67a4b153%40posting.google.com

Robert Jastrow Speaks
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980502234441.3024B-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

1950 Anthony Standen on the T0E
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403061926.298a316f%40posting.google.com

the fraud known as the fossil horse series
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.980816003836.28616B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

Macbeth on phylogeny trees
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990126225603.790598A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
1977 G&E on diagrams and the uninitiated
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.91.960722001816.872M%40umbc8.umbc.edu
1980 Gould on the tips and nodes of trees
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970901005523.14415B-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

2001 Bernard d'Abrera
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403032014.15573cd3%40posting.google.com

Inferring from similar sequences a common author
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980602004254.9289B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

1979 Gould & Lewontin on Darwin's sainthood
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980525231720.5351B-100000%40umbc10.umbc.edu

1995 George Johnson on "an evolutionary Just So story"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.981207224209.13544B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

Gould lied for Darwin with the reference being _An Urchin in the Storm_
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970728093741.24782C-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

1996 David Cox (a creationist)
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980611233722.19633C-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

Coyne and Feynman on Santa Claus
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.981124234529.22878A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
Coyne: classic peppered moth story "is in bad shape, and, while not yet
ready for the glue factory, needs serious attention"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0402230510.519fe8a1%40posting.google.com

T0E good for study of morphogenesis?: Goodwin
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0402230503.56fa7a7%40posting.google.com

T0E good for taxonomy?: 1973 Fairbairn (a creationist); 1982 Colin
Patterson; 5 November 1981 Patterson
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0402161147.29fee40e%40posting.google.com

1933 and 1940 Goldschmidt on macro- vs. microevolution
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401311639.3dc8e050%40posting.google.com

1982 Gould on Frazetta's snakes and Long's rodents
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401311711.7a718a17%40posting.google.com

Popper
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990701213746.698847A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

1952 Goldschmidt; analogy of earth's reversal of direction in the
unrecorded past; 1953 Martin
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970810221802.13362E-100000%40umbc10.umbc.edu

1952 Goldschmidt on the theory of NS's "crazy-quilt" prediction;
creationist Behe recommends research on a
intelligent-design-of-common-descent hypothesis
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401271936.9a5dfd2%40posting.google.com

Gould: Goldschmidt was one of the premier geneticists of our century
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970728093741.24782C-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

Sean P. (a creationist) on Dawkins's "Methinks it is like a weasel"
illustration
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401142214.3c4c92b0%40posting.google.com

1970 Chauvin on "childhood hypotheses of biology"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0311281553180.20099-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu

1990 Bengtson on Cambrian explosion
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0312062024.ed6b5eb%40posting.google.com

1979 Futuyma: "ultra-modern synthesis" needed
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990307202439.1296706B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

1963 Ehrlich & Holm on faith in the ToE
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980608234330.51A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
ReMine, and Birch & Ehrlich on the unfalsifiability of the ToE
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990620062330.18490880A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

1960 (+1957) Waddington: theory of NS invokes "a Maxwell demon"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0311250005200.7036-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu

Mark Ludwig and computer viruses
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980207214705.12692A-100000%40umbc10.umbc.edu

1992 Orr & Coyne on Fisher
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970329001049.19794A-100000%40umbc10.umbc.edu
1992 _American Naturalist_ paper by Orr & Coyne
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980614220859.6338A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

1992 vs. 1960 Mayr
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.44L.01.0309211728220.3046858-100000%40irix2.gl.umbc.edu

Simpson and Dobzhansky on the need for a mechanism,
Dawkins on mutation, Gordon Rattray Taylor and David Raup on
explosive radiations, Arthur Koestler on testing Darwinian and
Lamarckian theory by experiment
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8beptq%24hgk%241%40nnrp1.deja.com

1953 George Gaylord Simpson on different mutations getting together
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406092025.6cda0564%40posting.google.com

Dawkins, Catley on the coming Kuhnian revolution, Collingridge & Earthy
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.981113234219.18273B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

Macbeth on Faulty Extrapolation in Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0308240006280.21425-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu

fallacy of false extrapolation
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.44L.01.0309100834320.2240460-100000%40irix2.gl.umbc.edu
better conception of faulty extrapolation
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0309142357280.7954-100000%40linux3.gl.umbc.edu

1950 Anthony Standen on the T0E
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403061926.298a316f%40posting.google.com

1970 Mayr on organisms' observed resistance to change
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.44L.01.0309181335410.2863259-100000%40irix2.gl.umbc.edu
1980 Rensberger, 1980 Alberch
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8bepfm%24h45%241%40nnrp1.deja.com
fruit flies, 1978 Hampton Carson, 1978 Koestler
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8dbdpj%24p14%241%40nnrp1.deja.com

indigestion with the Synthefish
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980609231835.5454A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

1870 Alfred W. Bennett
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401011924.3e7a32f5%40posting.google.com

1932 Newman: theory of NS "falls far short of adequacy"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0311222228300.23433-100000%40linux3.gl.umbc.edu

Dobzhansky's 1937 redefinition of "evolution"; Radl in English in 1930
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.981011235608.19729A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

how has the theory of NS survived?:
Grasse, C. P. Martin, Berlinski, 1929 D. M. S. Watson

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980608234718.51C-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

Erik Nordenskiold, 1922 Wilhelm Johannsen, 1869 Louis Agassiz (a
creationist)
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.981004230112.14734B-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

1925 Louis Trenchard More
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0312292155.468c11bd%40posting.google.com

1982 Saunders & Ho and Gould on neo-Darwinian vagueness; 1925 Osborn;
1940 Haldane on materialism; 1996 and 1995 Dawkins and 1960 J. Huxley
on slow rate and gradual nature of Darwinian NS; abstract of and
extracts from 1977 G&E _Paleobiology_ paper
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0312182040.1e80e3b8%40posting.google.com

1922 Bateson, Lerner, Orwell
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990810225527.4089209B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
1922 Bateson, Gould on the major synthesists, 1982 Saunders & Ho
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990131235540.126906A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

Chris N. discusses my theory of NS essay; 1987 Powell; gradualism and
J. Huxley, Dawkins, Schindewolf, Mayr, Lovtrup, 1913 Bateson
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.10A.B3.10004021232370.15068389-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

1893 Weismann
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.9911282317410.13320-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu

1959 Gertrude Himmelfarb on 1871 Darwin backtracking; 1892 Henry de
Varigny
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0312222212.4728f71b%40posting.google.com

1871 Darwin backtracks a bit on his theory of NS
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0310120131230.26092-100000%40linux1.gl.umbc.edu

1998 Steele, Lindley, & Blanden praise Berlinski

1981 Francis Crick: "plausibility is not enough," is "usually
contaminated with our unstated prejudices"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0312241905.3fa22296%40posting.google.com

1981 Francis Crick: "there is too much speculation running after too
few facts"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0410041659.1c8da045%40posting.google.com

1st post in thread "Naive ?s on the Blindwatchmaker Thesis"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0312242003.1777307%40posting.google.com
2nd post, on common descent
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0312262134.70086e1b%40posting.google.com&oe=UTF-8

1st post in thread "Mind-Created Nested Hierarchies"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0312212155.7cacc078%40posting.google.com&oe=UTF-8

1961 Litynski: the French rejected the theory of natural selection
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0312132138.4484341e%40posting.google.com

1982 Schindel: "gradual morphological transitions... are missing"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0312132052.d07eb6e%40posting.google.com

Simpson misled 1995 Cheetham
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0312080520.163bc617%40posting.google.com

1980 Eldredge: "time to reexamine" theory of NS
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0311302356490.22520-100000%40linux3.gl.umbc.edu

1977 G&E, in Students Refusing to Eat the Rotting Synthefish
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990809215300.1512874G-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

NIEH
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980604010337.18472C-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Koestler, Waddington, Dobzhansky, and a remark for Gould
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980606011626.8316A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

R.H. Brady
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.10A.B3.9910122240220.1584938-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
Brady and Waddington on tautology
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.9910102327070.29158-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu

Gould's 1980 rejection of the extrapolationist model; 1981 Lovtrup; a
fossil record request for Andrew M.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990222232808.1486760C-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

1991 Eldredge on _Archaeopteryx_
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970731000322.23196D-100000%40umbc10.umbc.edu
a scenario on getting the blindwatchmaking thesis through peer-review
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970724000528.22439B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

1979 Futuyma on gradualism, _Archaeopteryx_
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990125233303.654987B-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

Schindewolf; Simpson on bats
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10001222211190.17988-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu

needs more work: Fatally Flawed: Vestigial Organs, Biogeography,
Homology,
and Embryology as Evidence for the Theory of Evolution
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.44L.01.0305250118100.2340516-100000%40irix2.gl.umbc.edu
_Basilosaurus_'s purported vestigial leg
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970709233733.17288H-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
Mayr and G. Nelson & N. Platnick on biogeography
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990719222253.1868077A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Bogus 'Vestigial Leg' Claims
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.9910142302001.6397-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu

1983 Daniel Brooks
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990628151138.260287C-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

1971 Roy Danson
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.980927230308.15518C-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

1992 1997 Richard Milton
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0311082031310.9519-100000%40linux1.gl.umbc.edu
followup questions for a talk.origins heavy hitter
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0311160022220.23666-100000%40linux1.gl.umbc.edu
questions on Larry's "The Modern Synthesis of Genetics and Evolution"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0404121927.4b34084b%40posting.google.com

Steven Stanley, David Woodruff, R.D. Martin
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990810224526.4184761C-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

Goldschmidt's 1940 challenge to neo-Darwinists
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.10A.B3.9910222320320.1712214-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

Simpson on rapidity/ "quantum evolution"; P. Johnson (a creationist) on
Dawkins's bluster
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.10A.B3.10001152331430.1317621-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

1996 Torbjorn Fagerstrom, Peter Jagers, Peter Schuster, & Eors
Szathmary
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10001122031240.8486-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu

H.E. Green
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980517234017.19252B-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

Edmund Leach
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990108222710.16677D-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

T0E is falsified, unfalsifiable; Jerry Adler & John Carey's comment
about Balkan prime ministers; Richard Milner
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970724000800.22592B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

1987 Wallace Arthur
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.21L.01.0007210001340.12641-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu

did Gould lie for Darwin?; Gould notes that there is continuing
controversy about _how_ blindwatchmaking can occur
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970709000645.26045D-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

Kevin Padian
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.21L.01.0011232014001.12280-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu

Begley on cracks in the facade
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980315232017.21172A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

Sagan & Druyan
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.9910292306060.23045-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu

hominid fossils: John Reader, Jonathan Howard, Robert Martin,
Richard Milner, G&E
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970719003518.27334A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

Ager, Eldredge & Tattersall
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990509232910.38199A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

Douglas Erwin takes a jab at Dawkins
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0310251702280.20106-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu

1969 Frank Salisbury
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970806015202.17075A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

1999 Jeffrey Schwartz
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.31L.02.0108010937030.271781-100000%40irix1.gl.umbc.edu

Gordon Rattray Taylor
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970714005739.2969L-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

Wesson's _Beyond Natural Selection_
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0310170022580.13465-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu
2 mentions of Wesson in R. Morris and G. Johnson, Shermer, Goodwin
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0310210019270.25956-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu
some mentions of Wesson on the web
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0310262325120.19582-100000%40linux1.gl.umbc.edu

1983 John McDonald
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980530001102.4784B-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

Stove, Franklin
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.10A.B3.9911040912361.2450231-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

1961 Rostand
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0310280012200.31488-100000%40linux3.gl.umbc.edu

rapidity and: Kemp reviewing a Stanley book, Futuyma, ReMine (a
creationist)
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990817184618.974150B-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

1993 Walter ReMine on terraforming
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990604150603.1454147A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

Stanley on punk-eek bringing joy to the hearts of creationists
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970709000347.26045B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

about Hsu
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980422000741.15045A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
abstract of Hsu's "Darwin's three mistakes"; Hsu quoting Ernst Chain
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980426214908.24131A-100000%40umbc10.umbc.edu
Hsu "almost tempted to join my colleague, Paul Feyerabend"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-35lfj3F4ojm7rU1%40individual.net

1989 Christopher Wills on insignificance of known cases of gradual
'evolution' in fossil record
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8bhf4m%24eta%241%40nnrp1.deja.com
du Nouy, Hoyle & Wickramasinghe, Hoyle
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.21L.01.0008280023040.30799-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu

Robinow, Lipson
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.980901001254.2980C-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

1966 White
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990214111525.14909A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

gradualism and: 1980 Eldredge, 1980 Gould, 1995 Gould
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.980923234116.21653A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Simpson, Eldredge in _Synthese_, Ager, Corner, Rosen, Grasse,
Patterson, Raup, Stanley
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.981222231509.19980I-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Gould's "conflated with natural selection" remark
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.981018235616.9626A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

J. Gray on Darwinian orthodoxy; White
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990127225856.924057A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Joe Lurker and Hayward (both creationists) on unorthodoxy
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990131234421.129749A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

1966 (not '67) Wistar Symposium
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970812001743.19938D-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

Schutzenberger:
wasn't a creationist; options for the blindwatchmakingist
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980527000035.6222A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
_Commentary_ letter
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980505233721.19820A-100000%40umbc10.umbc.edu
1966 Wistar symposium paper
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980504231554.22521A-100000%40umbc10.umbc.edu
interview part 1 of 2
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980512014917.3590B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
interview part 2 of 2
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980512015253.3590C-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

Grene on Schindewolf; Margulis; Calder; Gould on hogwash in
evolutionary theory
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970721233453.16211D-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Margulis; Gould on paedomorphosis
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970805010133.12918J-100000%40umbc10.umbc.edu

neo-Darwinists' _ad hoc_ "record's imperfect" excuse:
Saunders & Ho, Hitching
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.9911070756040.20708-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu

1988 Lima-de-Faria
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990727211504.2639819B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

Rosen
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.980913231459.8446A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

1944 J. Huxley, 1986 Lewin, 1985 Kemp, 1991 Lewontin
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.10A.B3.9909011608210.1038433-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

von Bertalanffy
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.10A.B3.9912252146070.602910-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
more von Bertalanffy
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.10A.B3.9912252143380.602910-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

H. Graham Cannon
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.9911222044330.19223-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
Cannon was a creationist; Of Pandas and People
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.9911082221330.16551-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu

1931 Dewar (a creationist) and Koestler on eggs, need for
accumulation & integration of beneficial mutations
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.21L.01.0011192246500.983-100000%40linux1.gl.umbc.edu

Endler & McLellan
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.981129232400.13409D-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

1970 Mayr, 1980 Gorman, 1982 and 1980 Rensberger, 1980 Lewin, 1981
Ruse, 1981 Jastrow, 1976 Bethell, 1982 Hitching
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.21L.01.0009120411410.1773811-100000%40irix2.gl.umbc.edu

Raup's letter to _Science_
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990626223450.19598328B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

1996 _Developmental Biology_ paper by Gilbert, Opitz, & Raff
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980602230744.671C-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

1993 Ernst Mayr, 1996 Gilbert, Opitz, & Raff, 1997 Boyce Rensberger
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.980901001930.2980I-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

Hitching, Begley, 1929 D.M.S. Watson
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980315232017.21172A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

===================================.
7) MATERIALISM

1993 Mark Ludwig on arrogant materialism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980225181424.16839B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

Dallas Willard: "science says nothing. It is not the kind of thing
that can say anything. Only scientists say things...."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407260437.2d8959da%40posting.google.com

Koster: scientific atheism is an idea whose time is gone
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406212033.90a39c1%40posting.google.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406230445.7cff0545%40posting.google.com

1997 Edward O. Wilson: "scientific materialism explains vastly more of
the tangible world.... Its discoveries suggest that, like it or not,
we are alone. We must measure and judge ourselves, and we will decide
our own destiny."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0408121848.fb6ab07%40posting.google.com

Sagan and Epicurus
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407201818.54c23af1%40posting.google.com
Sagan on "the central finding of modern biology"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0408090536.64a1b388%40posting.google.com

1949 Simpson: "man is the result of a purposeless materialistic
process that did not have him in mind"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407211226.2988d48b%40posting.google.com

1987 Dawkins: "the whole _point_ of the theory of evolution by natural
selection was that it provided a _non_-miraculous account of the
existence of complex adaptations"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407280430.4459fca3%40posting.google.com

1957 Julian Huxley on _Religion without Revelation_
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407270344.53d3af56%40posting.google.com

1982 Stebbins: "evolution [i.e. blindwatchmaking] was opportunistic and
devoid of purpose"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407220448.59612c65%40posting.google.com

Can anybody think of data that would lead a devout materialist to cease
to [1923 J. Huxley]"reject any explanation which proceeds... by
miracles"?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990818214806.410371A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

probably very early 1960s._Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism: Manual_ on
materialist philosophy
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406291759.69949980%40posting.google.com

1962 Oparin: "embittered war which has been waged between the two
irreconcilable philosophic camps of idealism and materialism"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407240610.4ae98f%40posting.google.com

1940 Haldane on materialism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=s0c890946imhfig6q7uq1cid7hhj68ppbs%404ax.com

2003 Dawkins conundrum; 2004 Francisco J. Ayala; 1845 Marx: "a society
consisting only of atheists is possible"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406201230.66ad3150%40posting.google.com

Yahya and Koster on the use of fear and force
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407030811.4e8cd1bd%40posting.google.com

Ronald Numbers on Dennett
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6hihi0pd6bbh9minslv76qrvmrpr3aea7m%404ax.com
Dennett: Baptists ought to be put in cages
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406241903.4c152fe7%40posting.google.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407101059.ab87e1f%40posting.google.com

1997 Nicholas Humphrey
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406081943.625bd70c%40posting.google.com
Andrew Brown's comments on Humphrey
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406131334.2de61508%40posting.google.com

1979 Futuyma on "the positive implications of Darwinism"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407231747.5c38b6ef%40posting.google.com

murders attributable to atheism and atheists
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0408190521.1f35e85e%40posting.google.com

Klinghoffer's "Worshipers At The Secular Altar"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0410120549.37264dde%40posting.google.com

about James Dwyer, [Humphrey]"whose critique of the idea of parents'
rights stands as a model of philosophical and legal reasoning"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0410041757.39f6608e%40posting.google.com

Dawkins: children being [Dawkins]"given religious instruction in
whatever particular religion their parents deem suitable" constitutes
[Dawkins]"mental child abuse"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0409100307.a0643a2%40posting.google.com

2004 Dawkins on "the time-consuming, wealth-consuming,
hostility-provoking, fecundity-forfeiting rituals of religion"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0409021642.4830e330%40posting.google.com

Dobzhansky and Simpson on bigotry
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.10A.B3.9908202237180.716616-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

Peter S. Williams, "Darwin's Rottweiler and the Public Understanding
of
Scientism"
http://www.arn.org/docs/williams/pw_dawkinsfallacies.htm

===================================.
8) SOCIAL DARWINISM

[Humanist Manifesto II, at
<http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto2.html>]"THIRD: We
affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience.
Ethics is autonomous and situational needing no theological or
ideological sanction. Ethics stems from human need and interest."

[Humanist Manifesto III, at
<http://www.americanhumanist.org/3/HumandItsAspirations.htm>]"The
lifestance of Humanism-- guided by reason, inspired by compassion, and
informed by experience-- encourages us to live life well and fully. It
evolved through the ages and continues to develop through the efforts
of thoughtful people who recognize that values and ideals, however
carefully wrought, are subject to change as our knowledge and
understandings advance."

1998 Morain & Morain: "humanism.... frees one from guilt," 1989
Frederick Edwords, 1976 "A New Bill of Sexual Rights and
Responsibilities"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0409201821.588252b6%40posting.google.com

1976 Ronald Reagan on a "natural law"/ "higher law of morality"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0412021517.f5e01d1%40posting.google.com

1995 Dennett: "Darwinian thinking helps us see why the traditional
hope of solving these problems (finding a moral algorithm) is forlorn"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0408021033.78218bde%40posting.google.com

Secular humanism has everything to do with abortion and euthanasia.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0408161826.47fa8898%40posting.google.com

convert to secular humanism to enjoy guiltless sexual activity of many
varieties
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0409241109.17e2611d%40posting.google.com

1998 Lloyd and Mary Morain: "religion is a vital part of the lives of
many, and it gives every indication of continuing to be so"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0408300540.7b13d3a%40posting.google.com

1998 Lloyd and Mary Morain on "Religion and the Religious Attitude";
text of Humanist Manifesto I
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0408300540.7b13d3a%40posting.google.com

Convert to secular humanism and you, too, can worship mankind/
humankind/ humanity, of which you yourself happen to be a part.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0408161700.2c671238%40posting.google.com

1989 Frederick Edwords: "The most critical irony in dealing with
Modern Humanism is the inability of its advocates to agree on whether
or not this worldview is religious."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0409260357.69af867e%40posting.google.com

===================================.
9) IRAQ

pre 9/11 Bodansky on Saddam Hussein -- al Qaeda connection
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0410310429.7c879e44%40posting.google.com

Halpern and Franks: a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0410181916.406c976b%40posting.google.com

2002 Pollack on horrific brutality of the Saddam regime
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0410210733.27b1a49d%40posting.google.com

1993 Kanan Makiya's interview with Taimour
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0410270611.342725d0%40posting.google.com

pre-1982 poisoning of an Iraqi chemist
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0410251916.425f3ca2%40posting.google.com

2003 Kaplan & Kristol on tyranny in Iraq
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0410250243.6567731b%40posting.google.com

1990 David Korn on human rights in Iraq
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0410301923.52e4dab5%40posting.google.com

2002 Pollack: Saddam ran the whole show in Iraq with respect to
inflicting terror on the Iraqi people
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0410230431.85d547%40posting.google.com

Saddam ran the whole show in Iraq with respect to Iraq's WMD interests:
at
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/
the "Key Findings" PDF, specifically its opening "Key Findings"
section. To understand the basis for the report, read the "Note on
Methodological Approach" section.

French ruse to dupe U.S. over Iraq
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0409060917.3e15f487%40posting.google.com

Saunders and Dale on WMDs
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0410160816.6d02034b%40posting.google.com

Krauthammer on WMDs: "given what every intelligence agency on
the planet agreed was going on in Iraq, the president made the right
choice, indeed the only choice"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0409061546.2570d71e%40posting.google.com

Clifford May's 21 October 2004 "No Diversion: The Case Against the War
in Iraq Has Weakened"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0410250312.9543d81%40posting.google.com

===============================.
Are Jews one of several [Darwin]"races"?

Darwin, Charles. 1859. _On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural
Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for
Life_ (London: John Murray), 513pp.

Do individuals of Jewish ancestry collectively qualify as a
[Darwin]"rac[e]"?

Do individuals of Jewish ancestry collectively qualify as a
[Darwin]"rac[e]" subject to [Darwin]"natural selection"?

Are individuals of Jewish ancestry one of several [Darwin]"races"
engaged [Darwin]"in the Struggle for Life"?

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Hitler: law of selection justifies incessant struggle/ war
http://groups.google.co.in/group/talk.origins/msg/6ab79a88a19145a0?

1940 Nazi film "All Life is Struggle" embraced Darwinian natural
selection
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407042043.1c2ccf1f%40posting.google.com

excerpts from a 1942 Nazi biology textbook for the middle school
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/textbk01.htm

1942 Heydrich:
The Jews... no doubt a large part of them will be
eliminated by natural diminution. The survivors, the
hardiest among them, must be given an appropriate
treatment, because they represent a natural selection....
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407032023.243f5883%40posting.google.com

2004 Richard Weikart: "physicians... were committed to a racist
eugenics ideology that the Nazis favored"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407120310.7d3f3929%40posting.google.com

Hitler encounters the T0E: A Victory for Atheism
http://groups.google.co.in/group/talk.origins/msg/e9b71ae73bcf99a3?

Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu

[david ford]

*Hemidactylus* wrote:

> josephus wrote:
> > David you do seem to be doing some better communicating, but your links
> > are broken, they are incomplete. my browser will not open any of them
> > no matter how I paste it up. you still have a bad case of quotminging.
>
> With his link slinging he's the anti-maff. Can you imagine if maff and
> Ford got into a pier six brawl? We'd be up to our ears in links, but
> below our ankles in actual back and forth conversation that could be
> folllowed without clicking links to keep up and pretty much devoid of
> substantive argument. I shudder at the thought.
>
> We could stand back and watch a textbook case of mutual assured
> destruction.

Maff and I once had a good conversation about Einstein.

Einstein to zu Lowenstein: "people who say there is no God. But what
really makes me angry is that they quote me for support of such views";

1941 Einstein; Lenin's becoming an atheist; 1922 Lenin; Bertrand
Russell never taken in by Soviet regime; 2005 President Bush inaugural
speech
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-35nbd1F4pm3jiU1%40individual.net

theological leanings of twenty signers of the Declaration of
Independence
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-35bcc1F4j6a0cU1%40individual.net

Einstein: physics was designed
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-37f67dF59po8jU1%40individual.net

[Fraud's personal Cthulhu]

Cometh the hour, cometh "david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu>
who, with imperceptibly subtle footwork in alt.atheism, gave us this:

> what I do all the time:
>do a control-f/ "find" on a somewhat-distinctive word to locate the URL
>you want:

Why don't you theists just accept you don't know what you're talking
about instead of lying about everything?

Thanks, also, for explaining how you harvest your lies. Why don't you
just fuck off and read some books instead of crapping out your
Hitlerian/Christian book-burning mentality in Usenet?

Cthulhu says "tortured souls are tough and taste rather sour. Be happy, die happy, make me a happy eater.

:-)

[maff]

david ford wrote:
[...]

Nah. We never had any such conversation, Christian fascist degenerate.

David Ford
http://snipurl.com/d6r4

--
Scientific creationism: a religious dogma combining massive ignorance
with incredible arrogance.

Creationist: (1) One who follows creationism. (2) A moron. (3) A person
incapable of doing math. (4) A liar. (5) A very gullible true believer.

[maff]

david ford wrote:
[...]

Nah. Your links are worthless, Christian fascist idiot.

[*Hemidactylus*]

maff wrote:
> david ford wrote:
> [...]
>
> Nah. We never had any such conversation, Christian fascist degenerate.
>
> David Ford
> http://snipurl.com/d6r4
>

So do you think you've got what it takes to get into a battle of links
with Ford?

[*Hemidactylus*]

Maff claims it never happened and insulted you in the process. Are you
going to stand for that? He posted a URL as a countermeasure. Sounds
like a preparatory strike to me, testing for weaknesses in your missile
shield. *Casus belli*?

[david ford]

Yes.

[Mark Stahl]

"Dave Oldridge" <dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message

news:Xns96CEA48E95492...@24.71.223.159...

I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. You could just respond to my
points, though.

> The information is out there, if you seek it. One
> reason I gave you an actual name was because, much as she had a
> reputation for being able to do spiritual healing, she also had a knack
> for teaching it.

Didn't you claim that miracles were not supposed to follow repeatable
pathways? If that were the case, she would obviously not be able to teach
what she does, since she herself can not even repeat it. Or have it happen
in real life, or whatever.

> But you're probably not interested.

Oh, I'm very, very interested. It's always good to be up on whatever new
schemes the snake oil salesmen are cooking up to defraud the sick.

[Dave Oldridge]

"Mark Stahl" <st...@nospam.aecom.yu.edu> wrote in

news:iKOdnY6MmtL...@giganews.com:

Nice and easy with the false accusations, aren't you!

Well, so much for the idea that you might actually feel any moral
obligation to truth or honesty...

Don't bother to reply. Anything you say would have to be checked for
veracity.

[Mark Stahl]

"Dave Oldridge" <dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message

news:Xns96CFCF1B09157...@24.71.223.159...

Please, go ahead and find a "false accusation". I will wait, patiently,
while you do. Good luck.

>
> Well, so much for the idea that you might actually feel any moral
> obligation to truth or honesty...

I'm pretty sure that between myself and someone devoted to "miracles" and
"faith healing" the truth and honesty bit is rather clearly on my side. And
I refuse to be lectured on "moral obligations" by someone who supports
taking advantage of sick and desperate people with "faith healing". Talk
about your lack of moral values...

>
> Don't bother to reply.

Of course! You wouldn't want any reality to intrude on your fantasy world,
or any actual inquiry into your quacks-- erm, i mean, "faith healers" to
take place. (Cowardly in the extreme on your part, but entirely expected).

> Anything you say would have to be checked for
> veracity.

Please do. (That's quite a lot more than can be done with faith healers, of
course. They conveniently have "miracles" on their side. No checking allowed
there!)

[Dave Oldridge]

"Mark Stahl" <st...@nospam.aecom.yu.edu> wrote in

news:C4mdnWmkdNU...@giganews.com:

Right above where I pointed it out.

>> Well, so much for the idea that you might actually feel any moral
>> obligation to truth or honesty...
>
>
> I'm pretty sure that between myself and someone devoted to "miracles"
> and "faith healing" the truth and honesty bit is rather clearly on my
> side. And I refuse to be lectured on "moral obligations" by someone
> who supports taking advantage of sick and desperate people with "faith
> healing". Talk about your lack of moral values...

Since I support neither of those things and since you choose to continue
to lie about that, there is no moral high ground for you. You are worse
scum than you're trying to paint me--by far.

>> Don't bother to reply.
>
> Of course! You wouldn't want any reality to intrude on your fantasy
> world, or any actual inquiry into your quacks-- erm, i mean, "faith
> healers" to take place. (Cowardly in the extreme on your part, but
> entirely expected).

There is no reality in your chicken-shit lying garbage.

Take your false accusations and fold them until they are all corners and
then stuff them in with your head.

>> Anything you say would have to be checked for
>> veracity.

> Please do. (That's quite a lot more than can be done with faith
> healers, of course. They conveniently have "miracles" on their side.
> No checking allowed there!)

I gave you places to check. You declined.

But then you're a cowardly, lying piece of human flotsam, so why should
anyone bother with YOUR opinion of anything?

[Mark Stahl]

"Dave Oldridge" <dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message

news:Xns96D0B3A667BDD...@24.71.223.159...

Sorry, I still don't see it. Could you be more specific?

>
>>> Well, so much for the idea that you might actually feel any moral
>>> obligation to truth or honesty...
>>
>>
>> I'm pretty sure that between myself and someone devoted to "miracles"
>> and "faith healing" the truth and honesty bit is rather clearly on my
>> side. And I refuse to be lectured on "moral obligations" by someone
>> who supports taking advantage of sick and desperate people with "faith
>> healing". Talk about your lack of moral values...
>
> Since I support neither of those things

Excuse me? Which of "those things" do you not "support"? Are you not the one
trying to pass off "faith healing" as being "real"? (I am sure I can
reproduce the quote above)? Or are you claiming it's all some big
misunderstanding and you're not advocating "faith healing" now?

> and since you choose to continue
> to lie about that,

Perhaps you could clarify your position, then, because I am simply
reflecting in the most honest way possible my understanding of what you've
said. Please, feel free to clarify then if you think I've "lied" about
anything.

> there is no moral high ground for you. You are worse
> scum than you're trying to paint me--by far.
>

Oooh, testy, testy. Fine. If you're so misunderstood, explain yourself. I am
happy to listen.

>
>>> Don't bother to reply.
>>
>> Of course! You wouldn't want any reality to intrude on your fantasy
>> world, or any actual inquiry into your quacks-- erm, i mean, "faith
>> healers" to take place. (Cowardly in the extreme on your part, but
>> entirely expected).
>
> There is no reality in your chicken-shit lying garbage.

Right. I mean, we all know that "faith healers" have not consistently been
proven to be hucksters who have no ability to induce miracles (something you
yourself admit). Oh wait, yes they have!

When pressed on the issue, all you offer is a retreat and profanity. Doesn't
speak too well for your position.

>
> Take your false accusations and fold them until they are all corners and
> then stuff them in with your head.

This is precious!

Please, I am more than willing to look-- show me a single "false
accusation." Of course, when I say "false" I mean "actually false", not
"faith-based" false. Do you know the difference?

>
>>> Anything you say would have to be checked for
>>> veracity.
>
>> Please do. (That's quite a lot more than can be done with faith
>> healers, of course. They conveniently have "miracles" on their side.
>> No checking allowed there!)
>
> I gave you places to check. You declined.

I asked for case reports, journal articles.... anything whose veracity could
be checked beyond the pitch of someone who is selling something. I gave my
reasons, all of which are eminently reasonable (popular texts are simply not
acceptable sources in any medical debate, for much the same reasons that
Darwin's Black Box is not an acceptable source in an evolution debate.) I
never declined a reasonable source, which you never (of course) could offer,
as much as I asked, politely and repeatedly. (Actually, all you offered was
a name, which isn't even a "place to check", so here you are- shall I say
it?- *lying* - but I'll take the charitable view and say you were probably
just wrong, again.)

Shocking, I must say. Or not.

>
> But then you're a cowardly, lying piece of human flotsam, so why should
> anyone bother with YOUR opinion of anything?
>

Right. You're the one advocating a practice which is *known and proven* to
be full of scam artists and hucksters who take advantage of sick people--
not to mention the one who runs away from discussion trailing childish
profanities when pressed for details that support his claims, and *I'm* the
"cowardly, lying piece of human flotsam." OK, sure. I'm the one who provides
actual help and care for people, based on the best knowledge of the time and
not imaginary "miracles" that either don't exist or can't be induced anyway
(obviating the need for the paid "healer") and *I'm* the "human flotsam".
Well, there's logic for ya. I suppose this is to be expected from people who
think that belief in miracles is rational.

Feel the christian love.

Please, if you eventually grow up, try to defend your position with
something approaching rationality. Until then, I will patiently await
evidence for "faith healing" before prescribing it for patients. Thank you
for providing a shining example of the type of thinking that has been the
cause of so much human suffering.

[Dave Oldridge]

"Mark Stahl" <st...@nospam.aecom.yu.edu> wrote in

news:89mdneQ2o8YVbrre...@giganews.com:

Yep...and on occasion it IS real. But YOU are the one making blanket
FALSE accusations of fraud--of taking advantage of sick people.

> I can reproduce the quote above)? Or are you claiming it's all some
> big misunderstanding and you're not advocating "faith healing" now?

I'm merely pointing out that, in the few cases where I've judged it to be
genuine, there was no pressure to pay money (Fr. Gardner just passed the
usual collection plate and I'm sure Thur. morning mass cost him more than
he took in--he got the big money on Sunday's mass and spent a huge chunk
of that helping poor people around the community). Nobody was EVER
charged for Holy Unction there, it would have been thought of as
sacrilege to contemplate it.

>> and since you choose to continue
>> to lie about that,
>
> Perhaps you could clarify your position, then, because I am simply
> reflecting in the most honest way possible my understanding of what
> you've said. Please, feel free to clarify then if you think I've
> "lied" about anything.

Oh, I think you damn well know where you went over the lien.

>> there is no moral high ground for you. You are worse
>> scum than you're trying to paint me--by far.

> Oooh, testy, testy. Fine. If you're so misunderstood, explain
> yourself. I am happy to listen.

I'm not sure you are. The sin was deliberate and malicious and you damn
well know it.

>>>> Don't bother to reply.
>>>
>>> Of course! You wouldn't want any reality to intrude on your fantasy
>>> world, or any actual inquiry into your quacks-- erm, i mean, "faith
>>> healers" to take place. (Cowardly in the extreme on your part, but
>>> entirely expected).
>>
>> There is no reality in your chicken-shit lying garbage.
>
> Right. I mean, we all know that "faith healers" have not consistently
> been proven to be hucksters who have no ability to induce miracles
> (something you yourself admit). Oh wait, yes they have!

Right and we all know that counterfeiters have consistently made phony
money. Therefore we should not accept ANY money as being valid and go
back to the barter system. Is that how logic works in your world?

It's true, there are a lot of phonies in the racket. I've even seen a
few.

> When pressed on the issue, all you offer is a retreat and profanity.
> Doesn't speak too well for your position.

Because I know that once you start with the deliberate defamations, there
is nothing to be gained in a "debate." One doesn't debate liars, one
merely exposes them. You have not got one SHRED of evidence that I EVER
took advantage of anyone's illness, yet you felt free to accuse me.

>> Take your false accusations and fold them until they are all corners
>> and then stuff them in with your head.
>
> This is precious!

No, it's probably the best advice you're gonna get today, considering the
kind of social company wretches like you tend to keep. Why are YOUR lies
and hypocrisy any better morally than those of the fundy creationists who
make a habit of lying about science?

> Please, I am more than willing to look-- show me a single "false
> accusation." Of course, when I say "false" I mean "actually false",
> not "faith-based" false. Do you know the difference?

Yep...I showed you. You went right over the line.

>>>> Anything you say would have to be checked for
>>>> veracity.

>>> Please do. (That's quite a lot more than can be done with faith
>>> healers, of course. They conveniently have "miracles" on their side.
>>> No checking allowed there!)
>>
>> I gave you places to check. You declined.

> I asked for case reports, journal articles.... anything whose veracity
> could be checked beyond the pitch of someone who is selling something.

Well, if you had ever seen what happens to someone who does come forward
with a solid report of one of these events, you would immediately know
why they tend to clam up. It's not just the pack of liars like you who
immediately brand the person reporting the miracle as a fraud and liar
(usually with about as much evidence as you have for claiming that I took
advantage of sick people--i.e. not a shred), it's all the wannabe "true
believers" who chase after them, too. There are reasons for keeping
these matters fairly private. But anyone of GOOD will who goes looking
will find some evidence for them. I know I did, and I was fairly
skeptical (though not as dogmatically so as you appear to be). But at
least SOME things have happened right under my nose, so to speak. I
don't expect you to believe my accounts. You don't accept anything that
conflicts with your prejudice, so you will just do the usual and claim
that I am a liar (once more without a shred of actual evidence).

> I gave my reasons, all of which are eminently reasonable (popular
> texts are simply not acceptable sources in any medical debate, for

NEWS FLASH: This is NOT a medical debate. These are NOT medical
procedures. Nor should they be considered a substitute for them. As I
already pointed out, an HONEST spiritual healer will insist that the
patient keep seeing medical professionals until THEY discharge the
patient. How they rationalize what happens is their business, of course,
but there are enough phony spiritual healers around (think how much funny
money there would be if the penalties for counterfeiting were the same)
that people need ways to tell the difference. But YOU had to attack the
very idea that there could be such a thing. Why? It threatens your
self-centered world view.

> much the same reasons that Darwin's Black Box is not an acceptable
> source in an evolution debate.) I never declined a reasonable source,
> which you never (of course) could offer, as much as I asked, politely
> and repeatedly. (Actually, all you offered was a name, which isn't
> even a "place to check", so here you are- shall I say it?- *lying* -
> but I'll take the charitable view and say you were probably just
> wrong, again.)

You don't HAVE a 'charitable' view. What you have is a malevolent view.
You really need to tame that thing.

> Shocking, I must say. Or not.

Shocking in anyone pretending to be objective.

>> But then you're a cowardly, lying piece of human flotsam, so why
>> should anyone bother with YOUR opinion of anything?
>>
>
> Right. You're the one advocating a practice which is *known and
> proven* to be full of scam artists and hucksters who take advantage of
> sick people-- not to mention the one who runs away from discussion

And this whole discussion started when I told you how to separate most of
the scam artists from the real thing. Scam artists don't want medical
professionals around their "patients." That's because they are scam
artists. What they want are inflated tales of healings to bring more
money into the meetings.

> trailing childish profanities when pressed for details that support
> his claims, and *I'm* the "cowardly, lying piece of human flotsam."

I told you where you could find some details. You refused categorically
to even look.

> OK, sure. I'm the one who provides actual help and care for people,
> based on the best knowledge of the time and not imaginary "miracles"
> that either don't exist or can't be induced anyway (obviating the need
> for the paid "healer") and *I'm* the "human flotsam". Well, there's
> logic for ya. I suppose this is to be expected from people who think
> that belief in miracles is rational.

Yes, you ARE the 'human flotsam' because, instead of sticking to
attacking the frauds, you made false, malicious charges of fraud against
people you had absolutely no evidence against. If you were in my
spiritual care, I would be passing you over at the communion rail if you
did it this loudly in my parish....until you showed up in confession and
talked about it.

> Feel the christian love.

I'm perfectly willing to forgive you, WHEN you repent. Otherwise, you
can go kiss your demon's ass all you want.

> Please, if you eventually grow up, try to defend your position with
> something approaching rationality. Until then, I will patiently await
> evidence for "faith healing" before prescribing it for patients. Thank
> you for providing a shining example of the type of thinking that has
> been the cause of so much human suffering.

Rationality left the building when you falsely accused me. And I didn't
suggest you PRESCRIBE faith healing for your patients. It's pretty
obvious that, on some levels, you need it yourself. What's a problem is
that you seem to be operating from some level of envy here and some
honest anger at the frauds. Well, one way to tell the difference is that
the frauds will usually tell your patients to leave your care, whereas
the genuine article will not mind if you continue to monitor their
progress (and normally will, in fact, insist on it). How you rationalize
that progress is up to you...

But you can start your own healing by being less ready to judge what you
do not know.

[Chris Krolczyk]

david ford wrote:
> Chris Krolczyk wrote:
> > david ford wrote:
> > > 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:
> >
> > (snip)
> >
> > > > Since it seems to me as if weather forecasting, accident investigation,
> > > > and medicine are every bit, in every sense,just as utterly completely
> > > > totally absolutely one-thousand-percent "materialistic" as
> > > > evolutionary biology is, why, specifically, is it just evolutionary
> > > > biology that gets your panties all in a bunch? Why aren't you and
> > > > your fellow Wedge-ites out there fighting the good fight against
> > > > godless materialistic naturalistic weather forecasting, or medicine, or
> > > > accident investigation?
> > >
> > > Or 'homicide' investigation? Or insurance 'fraud' investigation?
> > > Everybody knows totally-blind-at-every-level processes didit-- it's
> > > common knowledge.
> > > Intelligence/ mind had zip to do with anything of what Lenny and I
> > > mentioned.
> >
> > It's amazing how openly David Ford admits his cluelessness
> > these days
>
> Here's something else I'm clueless about:
> How did recorded-in-DNA/ genetic information originate?
>
> I think Howard gave an answer, but I'm totally clueless about what your
> answer, Chris, is.

Well, shucks, David, if you've actually received a
competent answer previously, how would my opinion on
the subject really matter? Your attention span isn't
*that* limited, is it?

(snip)

> > - all he seems to be able to do is pointlessly
> > gainsay other posts, and with a tone that clearly states
> > that his beef isn't so much with "materialism" as it is
> > with *any* form of empirical investigation, regardless
> > of the phenomenon being investigated.
> >
> > (Oh, and David? What *is* the form of intelligence
> > at work when a hurricane plows into a coastal region
> > or a lightning strike hits one house in a neighborhood
> > and not another?
>
> Beats me.

In other words, you don't have anything resembling
a better answer even though your argument seems to
depend on your providing one. What a surprise.

> > Feel free to resort to any ID-friendly
> > explanation you wish to; I'm sure we could all use the
> > laugh.)
>
> I hope you didn't laugh at
>
> Intelligence isn't needed to account for this "engine"
> news:dford3-b1c67abe.0...@posting.google.com

Nah. The bit about the car not being "designed" just shows
how dysfunctional your thinking about scientific research
really is. Piss-poor analogy to the "totally-mindless processes"
of nature, to boot.

Care to take up a hobby you might actually be *good* at,
like, say, Tiddlywinks?

-Chris Krolczyk

[Mark Stahl]

"Dave Oldridge" <dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message

news:Xns96D170430F22D...@24.71.223.159...

No, of course it is not. This has been proven, conclusively, by the best
methods we have to prove such things. Of course, you wouldn't want reality
intruding on your prejudiced and selfish worldview, so off we go to fantasy
land again. Let me know when you come back. I specifically asked you to
defend your claim that faith healing was ever real. You could not. How can
you justify that and continue to make your claim?

> But YOU are the one making blanket
> FALSE accusations of fraud--of taking advantage of sick people.

In every case I am aware of (which is a rather large number), "faith
healing" is fraud. Certainly you have done nothing to change that knowledge,
and so the accusation, while I'm sure it hurts your feelings and provokes
your emotional outbursts, is completely valid.

>
>> I can reproduce the quote above)? Or are you claiming it's all some
>> big misunderstanding and you're not advocating "faith healing" now?
>
> I'm merely pointing out that, in the few cases where I've judged it to be
> genuine,

LOL. What in the world makes you a qualified judge of healing? And why, if
you were so convinced, not provide such details that proved convincing to
you when asked instead of profanity-laced tirades? I suspect it is because
you know your evidence is flimsy. So be it, but watch what you claim to be
"true" and "real." At best, you can say that you, yourself, were convinced
of something despite a lack of actual evidence. *At best*.

> there was no pressure to pay money (Fr. Gardner just passed the
> usual collection plate and I'm sure Thur. morning mass cost him more than
> he took in--he got the big money on Sunday's mass and spent a huge chunk
> of that helping poor people around the community). Nobody was EVER
> charged for Holy Unction there, it would have been thought of as
> sacrilege to contemplate it.

My recollection is that Extreme Unction, the sacrament of the sick, is not
intended to heal but as a blessing for those who are ill. Either way, you
mentioned someone else entirely (Agnes Sanford) and never discussed Gardner
in terms of being a faith healer at all (merely comparing what your "real
faith healer" did to what your bishop did.) I do not doubt that the bishop
did not charge (directly) for his sacrament-- why should he what with
tithing and all-- but surely Sanford's books aren't free.... nope, Amazon
charges for them.

Regardless, the proof of whether someone is a genuine healer or a scam
artist is not in whether they charge-- all healers charge. It's in whether
(and to some degree how) they obtain results. There is nothing-- absolutely
nothing, anywhere, of any scientific value whatsoever-- that supports faith
healing as being effective or, to be blunt, "real" in a meaningful sense. (I
include the "how" because it is always possible to simply be wrong, which is
regrettable but acceptable so long as you make every effort to not be and
correct your errors. Vioxx may have been a "bad" drug, but it was developed
reasonably and scientifically found to be flawed, thus I continue to trust
allopathy. "Faith healing" has no such mechanism.) I do not mean to say that
people do not often derive comfort or inspiration from their faiths; they
do, and being in a positive state of mind is important for healing, and of
course there is such a thing as "psychological healing". What I am referring
to is the specific treatment of disease, which faith healing has not ever
accomplished. I am more than open-minded on this matter, having read a large
amount of the available literature; and it simply does not happen, which
seems to be in open conflict with your claim. So I am hoping either you have
some new information or meant something else, because if you're trying to
claim that "faith" can literally "heal" (beyond the psychological), you're
just wrong according to everything I have ever seen, and that includes
everything you've written here.

>
>>> and since you choose to continue
>>> to lie about that,
>>
>> Perhaps you could clarify your position, then, because I am simply
>> reflecting in the most honest way possible my understanding of what
>> you've said. Please, feel free to clarify then if you think I've
>> "lied" about anything.
>
> Oh, I think you damn well know where you went over the lien.

Definitely not. Please enlighten me.

>
>>> there is no moral high ground for you. You are worse
>>> scum than you're trying to paint me--by far.
>
>> Oooh, testy, testy. Fine. If you're so misunderstood, explain
>> yourself. I am happy to listen.
>
> I'm not sure you are. The sin was deliberate and malicious and you damn
> well know it.

There is no such thing as sin, and I certainly did no such thing maliciously
or deliberately. I think you're just defensive because you've been placed in
the position of defending fairy tales as being real. Surely that would make
anyone uncomfortable, although I guess a person "of faith" would have to get
used to it.

>
>>>>> Don't bother to reply.
>>>>
>>>> Of course! You wouldn't want any reality to intrude on your fantasy
>>>> world, or any actual inquiry into your quacks-- erm, i mean, "faith
>>>> healers" to take place. (Cowardly in the extreme on your part, but
>>>> entirely expected).
>>>
>>> There is no reality in your chicken-shit lying garbage.
>>
>> Right. I mean, we all know that "faith healers" have not consistently
>> been proven to be hucksters who have no ability to induce miracles
>> (something you yourself admit). Oh wait, yes they have!
>
> Right and we all know that counterfeiters have consistently made phony
> money. Therefore we should not accept ANY money as being valid and go
> back to the barter system. Is that how logic works in your world?
>
> It's true, there are a lot of phonies in the racket. I've even seen a
> few.

But we have also seen real money, and have ways of verifying the real thing.
This is manifestly *not the case* for "faith healing". This is the crucial
difference, which you consistently miss. Why?

>
>> When pressed on the issue, all you offer is a retreat and profanity.
>> Doesn't speak too well for your position.
>
> Because I know that once you start with the deliberate defamations, there
> is nothing to be gained in a "debate."

Perhaps, and yet here I am after you've started with them. Perhaps I am a
glutton for punishment.

> One doesn't debate liars, one
> merely exposes them.

Precisely what I am doing.

>You have not got one SHRED of evidence that I EVER
> took advantage of anyone's illness, yet you felt free to accuse me.

Is that a guilty conscience, or just really poor reading comprehension? I
have never accused you, personally, of taking advantage of anyone's illness,
only being supportive of those who do. I have thusfar assumed it was because
you're naieve, or uneducated about medicine, or simply blinded by your
demon-haunted worldview. Should I change that assumption?

>
>>> Take your false accusations and fold them until they are all corners
>>> and then stuff them in with your head.
>>
>> This is precious!
>
> No, it's probably the best advice you're gonna get today, considering the
> kind of social company wretches like you tend to keep.

Please, more details. How am I a "wretch" and what kind of social company do
I keep? I am sure my friends would like to know. Maybe I could call my mom.
Seriously, let's hear.

> Why are YOUR lies
> and hypocrisy any better morally than those of the fundy creationists who
> make a habit of lying about science?

I suppose because my "lies" are all in your imagination. Please, point out a
single lie. I have asked you to do so before and you failed, utterly.... I
am not expecting anything different but I am a patient person. Erm, I mean
wretch. Go on.

If anything, your claims of pseudoscientific "faith healing" is kin to
creationism, BTW.

>
>> Please, I am more than willing to look-- show me a single "false
>> accusation." Of course, when I say "false" I mean "actually false",
>> not "faith-based" false. Do you know the difference?
>
> Yep...I showed you. You went right over the line.

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Really. I suspect this
is just non-responsive blather to distract from the fact that you can't
point to any "false accusations." Again, unsurprising but at this point
expected.

>
>>>>> Anything you say would have to be checked for
>>>>> veracity.
>
>>>> Please do. (That's quite a lot more than can be done with faith
>>>> healers, of course. They conveniently have "miracles" on their side.
>>>> No checking allowed there!)
>>>
>>> I gave you places to check. You declined.
>
>> I asked for case reports, journal articles.... anything whose veracity
>> could be checked beyond the pitch of someone who is selling something.
>
> Well, if you had ever seen what happens to someone who does come forward
> with a solid report of one of these events, you would immediately know
> why they tend to clam up. It's not just the pack of liars like you who
> immediately brand the person reporting the miracle as a fraud and liar
> (usually with about as much evidence as you have for claiming that I took
> advantage of sick people--i.e. not a shred), it's all the wannabe "true
> believers" who chase after them, too. There are reasons for keeping
> these matters fairly private.

Yes, of course. This is the exact same reason the scientific literature
isn't filled with creation science-- the eevil bias of liars like me who
love their "reality-based science" sooo much they can't see a miracle when
one is clearly.... umm, told to them by someone who heard it from someone
who had this completely un-repeatable thing happen.....

Do you have any idea how empty this claim of yours is? Many-- not just a
few, but *many* studies have been done of all sorts of "faith healing" from
intercessionary prayer to meditation and the like, by people desperately
trying to find an effect. They have never succeeded. Why do you suppose that
is, I wonder?

> But anyone of GOOD will who goes looking
> will find some evidence for them. I know I did, and I was fairly
> skeptical (though not as dogmatically so as you appear to be).

Well, somehow I doubt that. You admit you are predisposed to believe in
miracles, making you the opposite of skeptical. Besides, if you had any of
this evidence you might have simply shared it when asked instead of calling
me names, leading the discussion onto tangents, and invoking demonic
possession of all things. Somehow I think your claim can't be taken
seriously here.

> But at
> least SOME things have happened right under my nose, so to speak. I
> don't expect you to believe my accounts. You don't accept anything that
> conflicts with your prejudice,

How would you *know* that? This is untrue in the extreme, but you would
never have any way to judge it having never actually presented anything
either way. For that matter, you don't even know what my prejudices might
*be*! Pardon me if I see through your attempt to dodge the actual
presentation of evidence for your claims, yet again.

> so you will just do the usual and claim
> that I am a liar (once more without a shred of actual evidence).

As far as I know, you're the only one claiming anyone is a liar in
contradiction to actual evidence. I even tried to be nice about it when you
were.... umm, wrong. But whatever.

>
>> I gave my reasons, all of which are eminently reasonable (popular
>> texts are simply not acceptable sources in any medical debate, for
>
> NEWS FLASH: This is NOT a medical debate. These are NOT medical
> procedures. Nor should they be considered a substitute for them.

NEWS FLASH: you claimed it was "real" "spiritual healing". Medicine is the
art of healing. "Faith healing", were it real, would in fact be a "medical
procedure", making this a "medical debate". Besides which, you yourself
advocated the involvement of a medical doctor along with "faith healing", if
I recall... why would that be necessary if we were not discussing a medical
issues? This "news flash" is frankly ludicrous.

> As I
> already pointed out, an HONEST spiritual healer will insist that the
> patient keep seeing medical professionals until THEY discharge the
> patient. How they rationalize what happens is their business, of course,
> but there are enough phony spiritual healers around (think how much funny
> money there would be if the penalties for counterfeiting were the same)
> that people need ways to tell the difference. But YOU had to attack the
> very idea that there could be such a thing. Why?

Because there is no evidence for it and, as even you admit, quite a lot of
examples of it being fraudulent.

> It threatens your
> self-centered world view.

Please provide evidence for this absurd claim. What is my world view, and
how is it "self-centered"? Remember, I am the one concerned with people
getting real, actual, testable, repeatable, effective, healing here. You're
the one concerned with validating his superstitions.

>
>> much the same reasons that Darwin's Black Box is not an acceptable
>> source in an evolution debate.) I never declined a reasonable source,
>> which you never (of course) could offer, as much as I asked, politely
>> and repeatedly. (Actually, all you offered was a name, which isn't
>> even a "place to check", so here you are- shall I say it?- *lying* -
>> but I'll take the charitable view and say you were probably just
>> wrong, again.)
>
> You don't HAVE a 'charitable' view. What you have is a malevolent view.
> You really need to tame that thing.

What is malevolent about it? Do tell.

>
>> Shocking, I must say. Or not.
>
> Shocking in anyone pretending to be objective.

Allow me to highlight the sarcasm for those who missed it.

>
>>> But then you're a cowardly, lying piece of human flotsam, so why
>>> should anyone bother with YOUR opinion of anything?
>>>
>>
>> Right. You're the one advocating a practice which is *known and
>> proven* to be full of scam artists and hucksters who take advantage of
>> sick people-- not to mention the one who runs away from discussion
>
> And this whole discussion started when I told you how to separate most of
> the scam artists from the real thing.

Yes, you claimed that you could tell scam artists from the "real thing" by
their willingness/insistence on continuing medical care by a physician. This
is, of course, a ridiculous way of identifying a "real" from a fraudulent
healer. Here's a real news flash: the way you can tell a "real" faith healer
from a scam artist is that a "real" faith healer could *actually heal people
through faith*! In all of the annals of medicine, this has never, ever
happened. Not even once, that I know of. I was hoping you had some new
information but I see that you offer empty apologetics, personal insults,
and superstition instead. Oh well.

> Scam artists don't want medical
> professionals around their "patients." That's because they are scam
> artists. What they want are inflated tales of healings to bring more
> money into the meetings.

Very, very true. But the presence of medical professionals has little to
nothing to do with any of it, so your method fails on that account as well.
Patients will do what they will do, and if they're the type to be taken in
by faith healers there's not much we can do about it.

>
>> trailing childish profanities when pressed for details that support
>> his claims, and *I'm* the "cowardly, lying piece of human flotsam."
>
> I told you where you could find some details. You refused categorically
> to even look.

Not at all. Using what miniscule information you sort of provided, I looked
and found absolutely nothing. I asked for more detail and was accused of
having unspecified prejudices and of being human flotsam. Pardon me for
being unimpressed with your data.

>
>> OK, sure. I'm the one who provides actual help and care for people,
>> based on the best knowledge of the time and not imaginary "miracles"
>> that either don't exist or can't be induced anyway (obviating the need
>> for the paid "healer") and *I'm* the "human flotsam". Well, there's
>> logic for ya. I suppose this is to be expected from people who think
>> that belief in miracles is rational.
>
> Yes, you ARE the 'human flotsam' because, instead of sticking to
> attacking the frauds, you made false, malicious charges of fraud against
> people you had absolutely no evidence against.

Don't be silly. Since faith healing has consistently been shown to be
fraudulent, it is hardly malicious to point that out in the absence of new
evidence.

> If you were in my
> spiritual care,

What is "spiritual care"?

> I would be passing you over at the communion rail if you
> did it this loudly in my parish....

I know it's verboten to engage in any of that "reality-based" stuff at the
communion rail, so don't worry....

> until you showed up in confession and
> talked about it.
>

Of course you would, because to your type, even the sacraments you imagine
to be from a loving god are to be used as weapons against people with whom
you have petty disagreements. That is so incredibly small and petty, I can't
help but be amused.

>> Feel the christian love.
>
> I'm perfectly willing to forgive you, WHEN you repent.

Repent of what, precisely?

> Otherwise, you
> can go kiss your demon's ass all you want.

LOL... ghosts, goblins, and demons everywhere. Is every day hallowee'en to
you people? Didn't you ever learn that demons are figments of your
imagination too?

>
>> Please, if you eventually grow up, try to defend your position with
>> something approaching rationality. Until then, I will patiently await
>> evidence for "faith healing" before prescribing it for patients. Thank
>> you for providing a shining example of the type of thinking that has
>> been the cause of so much human suffering.
>
> Rationality left the building when you falsely accused me.

Well, I suspect that trying to engage in a rational discussion with someone
who actually believes that the laws of physics can be suspended on the whim
of a supernatural being through the intercession of a shaman wasn't so
rational of me, so perhaps there never was any rationality from the start.
My apologies. That said... where did I falsely accuse you of something?
Please specifically provide the quotation.

> And I didn't
> suggest you PRESCRIBE faith healing for your patients. It's pretty
> obvious that, on some levels, you need it yourself.

Really? On what "levels" would those be, and why would you say such a thing?

> What's a problem is
> that you seem to be operating from some level of envy here

I suppose as long as you think "envy" means the same thing as "rationality",
that might have some sort of validity. Otherwise, I have no idea what you
could be talking about but I'm sure you won't clarify.

> and some
> honest anger at the frauds.

Of course. Taking advantage of the sick, planting false hopes, and taking
their money is morally wrong.

> Well, one way to tell the difference is that
> the frauds will usually tell your patients to leave your care, whereas
> the genuine article will not mind if you continue to monitor their
> progress (and normally will, in fact, insist on it).

That's utterly absurd. The one and only way to "tell the difference" would
be if the "genuine article" *actually healed someone*. I mean, really. How
simple could it be? And yet, it hasn't happened. So I ask why you claim
there are such "genuine articles".

> How you rationalize
> that progress is up to you...
>
> But you can start your own healing

"healing" from what, pray tell?

> by being less ready to judge what you
> do not know.

Pot, meet kettle! How ironic.

[david ford]

Fraud's personal Cthulhu wrote:
> Cometh the hour, cometh "david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu>
> who, with imperceptibly subtle footwork in alt.atheism, gave us this:
>
> > what I do all the time:
> >do a control-f/ "find" on a somewhat-distinctive word to locate the URL
> >you want:
>
> Why don't you theists just accept you don't know what you're talking
> about instead of lying about everything?

I "don't know what" I'm "talking about."

> Thanks, also, for explaining how you harvest your lies. Why don't you
> just fuck off and read some books instead of crapping out your
> Hitlerian/Christian book-burning mentality in Usenet?

Please rephrase your question, without using the word "why."

Fischer, David Hackett. 1970. _Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic
of Historical Thought_ (NY and Evanston: Harper & Row, Publishers),
338pp. On 14, a paragraph:
These [just-discussed questions] are urgent questions, and they are
empirical questions, which can be put to the test. The reader will
note that none of them are "why" questions. In my opinion-- and I
may be a minority of one-- that favorite adverb of historians
should be consigned to the semantical rubbish heap. A "why"
question tends to become a metaphysical question. It is also an
imprecise question, for the adverb "why" is slippery and difficult
to define. Sometimes it seeks a cause, sometimes a motive,
sometimes a reason, sometimes a description, sometimes a process,
sometimes a purpose, sometimes a justification. A "why" question
lacks direction and clarity; it dissipates a historian's energies

and interests. "Why did the Civil War happen?" "Why was Lincoln
shot?" A working historian receives no clear signals from these
woolly interrogatories as to which way to proceed, how to begin,
what kinds of evidence will answer the problem, and indeed what
kind of problem is raised. There many more practical adverbs--
who, when, where, what, how-- which are more specific and more
satisfactory. Questions of this sort _can_ be resolved
empirically, and from them a skilled historian can construct a
project with much greater sophistication, relevance, accuracy,
precision, and utility, instead of wasting his time with
metaphysical dilemmas raised by his profound "why" questions, which
have often turned out to be about as deep as the River Platte.

[unrestra...@hotmail.com]

Dave Oldridge wrote:
> "Mark Stahl" <st...@nospam.aecom.yu.edu> wrote in

<big snipperoo>

> > Right. I mean, we all know that "faith healers" have not consistently
> > been proven to be hucksters who have no ability to induce miracles
> > (something you yourself admit). Oh wait, yes they have!
>
> Right and we all know that counterfeiters have consistently made phony
> money. Therefore we should not accept ANY money as being valid and go
> back to the barter system. Is that how logic works in your world?
>
> It's true, there are a lot of phonies in the racket. I've even seen a
> few.
>

The problem, Dave, is that we know there is real money. While it's true
that only many faith healers have been proven to be frauds, not all of
them, it's also unfortunately true that *none of them have been
established to be real.

The closer we look, the faster their miracles retreat out of sight.

When Houdini's mother died, he visited numerous mediums (media?). He
proved that *all of them were using trickery for special effects. His
friend Sir Arthur Conan Doyle said of one particularly famous medium
whom Houdini had exposed: "But that doesn't mean he doesn't contact the
dead on *other occasions." Doyle was a true believer. Ironic, coming
from the creator of the icon of rationalism, Sherlock Holmes.

Houdini desperately wanted to believe. When he died, his wife visited
many mediums. She did not have Houdini's eyes for deception, and never
exposed any that I know of. But she did have two things: a secret
password, and a promise not to tell anyone what it was. *None of the
mediums she visited ever gave her the secret password.

So here you are, a True Believer, saying that not all of them have been
proven false. But which one has been established as real? The only
evidence you have are the anecdotes she wrote of in her own books. Or
the *undocumented tales told by believers, which grow in the telling.

Where is the faith healer established to be so by evidence? Where are
the case studies? Where are the medical records?

Which do *you think are most common - people who perform miracles, or
people who lie to themselves or others? And why do you believe -
because it makes you feel good, or because the evidence goes that way?
I can point you to books written by American aborigine shamans who
have performed miracles - according to their books. Or Indian gurus -
confirmed by their followers. I can give you links to videos of martial
arts masters who can stop a charging attacker without touching him -
but only when it's one of his students.

<snip>

> Dave Oldridge+
> ICQ 1800667

Kermit

[david ford]

Howard's answer had the same level of sophistication, plausibility, and
detail as your typical just-so story. I was curious to see if you
could provide a better answer.

> Your attention span isn't
> *that* limited, is it?

Yes.

I'm totally clueless about what your answer, Chris, is to the question,

How did recorded-in-DNA/ genetic information originate?

1985 A.G. Cairns-Smith; How did recorded-in-DNA/ genetic information
originate?

news:dford3-32gv...@individual.net
How does a seeingwatchmakingist account for the origin of
the recorded-in-DNA/ genetic information within:
a human? a bacterium? the first biological lifeform?
news:dford3-348n...@individual.net

> (snip)

>
> > > - all he seems to be able to do is pointlessly
> > > gainsay other posts, and with a tone that clearly states
> > > that his beef isn't so much with "materialism" as it is
> > > with *any* form of empirical investigation, regardless
> > > of the phenomenon being investigated.
> > >
> > > (Oh, and David? What *is* the form of intelligence
> > > at work when a hurricane plows into a coastal region
> > > or a lightning strike hits one house in a neighborhood
> > > and not another?
> >
> > Beats me.
>
> In other words, you don't have anything resembling
> a better answer even though your argument seems to
> depend on your providing one. What a surprise.

"a better answer" than what?

> > > Feel free to resort to any ID-friendly
> > > explanation you wish to; I'm sure we could all use the
> > > laugh.)
> >
> > I hope you didn't laugh at
> >
> > Intelligence isn't needed to account for this "engine"
> > news:dford3-b1c67abe.0...@posting.google.com
>
> Nah. The bit about the car not being "designed" just shows
> how dysfunctional your thinking about scientific research
> really is. Piss-poor analogy to the "totally-mindless processes"
> of nature, to boot.
>
> Care to take up a hobby you might actually be *good* at,
> like, say, Tiddlywinks?

Maybe.
Do you "laugh" at any of this?:

It's common knowledge that a high level of intelligence only existed
when humans began to exist.
Therefore, when life originated long ago on the early earth, life came
from non-life totally apart from the input of any mind/ intelligence.

Abiogenesis occurred within a small timeframe, because the earliest
that life could have arisen on earth is when life _did_ arise on
earth.
This proves that abiogenesis occurred readily/ easily.

We used to think that abiogenesis needed billions of years to occur.
We now know that abiogenesis doesn't need billions of years to occur,
given the above-described small timeframe.

Life could have gone from earth to Mars, as debris from asteroid
collisions on earth went into space and perhaps traveled to Mars.
Life could have gone from Mars to earth.
If life is discovered on Mars, we will then know that abiogenesis
occurred at least twice: on earth, and also on Mars.

In the laboratory experiments using non-highly-reducing atmospheres,
it's quite clear that significant amounts and varieties of amino acids
aren't produced. Therefore, the early earth's atmosphere _must_ have
been highly-reducing.

the IDiotic allegation that the primordial soup never existed
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net

[mur...@tntech.edu]

david ford wrote:

["snip"]

>
> I "don't know what" I'm "talking about."

"No" "'shit'" "."

---DP"M"

">"

[t1gercat]

The essay is Sophistry. "Who," "What" or "How" are just as imprecise
and slippery as "Why." In fact they're worse because they imply
precision but offer none. "Why" is honestly open-ended, begging more
than one answer, if more than one is necessary. Let's take one of the
author's weak examples -- "Who assassinated Lincoln?" If we answer
John Wilkes Booth, we're correct, assuming the witnesses didn't lie.
But "Who" can also be answered in terms of a conspiracy, and suddenly
we're mired in a mixture of fact and conjecture. In any event, "Who
shot Lincoln?" is no better a question than "Why was Lincoln shot?" The
"why," in fact, would seem be a corolary of the "who," anyway. Once we
know "who" and "how," the "why," when answered with support from facts,
provides the logic of the episode.

Wexford

[shane]

Actually, just the opposite, tons of it.

[Dave Oldridge]

"Mark Stahl" <st...@nospam.aecom.yu.edu> wrote in

news:0JednaKy9og...@giganews.com:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:i_KdnZ2dnZ2IBPXCnZ2dnfRKv96dnZ2dRVn-052dnZ0@giganews.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> co m:

Well, yeah, nobody prints things for free or distributes them for free.
Though you can often borrow books from your local public library for free
(well they're supported by donations and taxes). Extreme Unction is
actually an RCC term for the ritual which literally grew out of St. James
injunction to anoint the sick with oil and pray for their recovery. The
reason I suggest Sanford is that she is pretty much a non-nonsense,
middle-of-the-road Episcopalian in theology and teaches a pretty good
course in effective prayer in her writings.

Her basic advice is to forget everything you think you know about it and
start reading the gospels carefully, paying special attention to what
Jesus is reported there to have said about the principles of effective
prayiny.

> Regardless, the proof of whether someone is a genuine healer or a scam
> artist is not in whether they charge-- all healers charge. It's in
> whether (and to some degree how) they obtain results. There is

Ultimately that IS true. Which is why you should be suspicious of any
so-called "healer" who tries to sequester a patient from conventional
medical care. Because ONLY by checking with your doctor could you
possible know if results ARE being obtained. And THAT, my friend, goes
for ANY kind of healing, spiritual or physical.

> nothing-- absolutely nothing, anywhere, of any scientific value
> whatsoever-- that supports faith healing as being effective or, to be
> blunt, "real" in a meaningful sense. (I include the "how" because it

So YOu say. My experience (and that of many others) has been different.

> is always possible to simply be wrong, which is regrettable but
> acceptable so long as you make every effort to not be and correct your
> errors. Vioxx may have been a "bad" drug, but it was developed
> reasonably and scientifically found to be flawed, thus I continue to
> trust allopathy. "Faith healing" has no such mechanism.) I do not mean

Actually, when it is working, faith healing has the same mechanism you
use on the drugs. That is, physicians examine the patient and decide
that the illness is cured.

> to say that people do not often derive comfort or inspiration from
> their faiths; they do, and being in a positive state of mind is
> important for healing, and of course there is such a thing as
> "psychological healing". What I am referring to is the specific
> treatment of disease, which faith healing has not ever accomplished. I

OK, let me relate something that happened to me personally. Now the
brand of "faith healing" I used was perhaps not as "orthodox" as some
others, but the fact is, it certainly worked.

I was working in a chem lab in the late 50's. I blundered and picked up
the metal gauze over the burner while it was still red hot and got badly
charred skin on my index finger and thumb for my mistake. My lab partner
was somewhat amazed when, in just minutes and a little meditation, I
literally ended up without a mark on me. Now, seriously, this burn went
right into the flesh of both digits and you could smell burnt flesh. It
SHOULD have been a painful burn.

Of course, now come the accusations and recriminations. Why? Because I
had no intention of submitting such a thing to the skeptical community at
the university where it happened and subjecting myself to the same kind
of abuse that is regularly handed to anyone claiming to see a miracle.

> am more than open-minded on this matter, having read a large amount of
> the available literature; and it simply does not happen, which seems
> to be in open conflict with your claim. So I am hoping either you have
> some new information or meant something else, because if you're trying
> to claim that "faith" can literally "heal" (beyond the psychological),
> you're just wrong according to everything I have ever seen, and that
> includes everything you've written here.

Well, it's pretty obvious that YOUR faith won't heal. That's because
your faith is that it won't! So your faith is doing exactly what you
have programmed it to do.

[snip]

> Definitely not. Please enlighten me.

Look, since you obviously think that gratuitous defamation of character
is good manners, let's just drop the whole subject. You have faith in
your lies. That's all you have faith in.

>>>> there is no moral high ground for you. You are worse
>>>> scum than you're trying to paint me--by far.
>>
>>> Oooh, testy, testy. Fine. If you're so misunderstood, explain
>>> yourself. I am happy to listen.
>>
>> I'm not sure you are. The sin was deliberate and malicious and you
>> damn well know it.
>
> There is no such thing as sin, and I certainly did no such thing
> maliciously or deliberately. I think you're just defensive because
> you've been placed in the position of defending fairy tales as being
> real. Surely that would make anyone uncomfortable, although I guess a
> person "of faith" would have to get used to it.

No, I think you just gratuitously attack what you fear. And you fear
faith because you think it competes with your living which, for some
reason you feel a little anxious about....

Could it be that all those allopathic drugs that the drug company reps
keep coming into your office to peddle DON'T always cure the way they are
claimed to? Could it be that all too many of them don't even alleviate
the symptoms so much as change them to new symptoms? Why is it, anyway,
that the ads I'm seeing on TV caution about side effects that seem to me,
anyway, to often be worse than the illness the drug is being ADVERTISED
to alleviate?

Could it be that, by making commerce out of people's health, we have
created a monster? I can see why you MIGHT be nervous if people turn to
faith healing for a boost. But seriously, give some thought to it if you
run into a healer who pretty much insists on standard medical care for
his or her "patients." People who really WANT to distribute healing
don't care how it's accomplished. People who traffick in phony remedies
DO care and often go to great lengths to eliminate anything they see as
competition.

Of course, it's up to you as a professional what you do and permit. But,
it's also up to you (as a person)to examine your own motives very
closely.

>>>>>> Don't bother to reply.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course! You wouldn't want any reality to intrude on your
>>>>> fantasy world, or any actual inquiry into your quacks-- erm, i
>>>>> mean, "faith healers" to take place. (Cowardly in the extreme on
>>>>> your part, but entirely expected).
>>>>
>>>> There is no reality in your chicken-shit lying garbage.
>>>
>>> Right. I mean, we all know that "faith healers" have not
>>> consistently been proven to be hucksters who have no ability to
>>> induce miracles (something you yourself admit). Oh wait, yes they
>>> have!
>>
>> Right and we all know that counterfeiters have consistently made
>> phony money. Therefore we should not accept ANY money as being valid
>> and go back to the barter system. Is that how logic works in your
>> world?
>>
>> It's true, there are a lot of phonies in the racket. I've even seen
>> a few.
>
> But we have also seen real money, and have ways of verifying the real
> thing. This is manifestly *not the case* for "faith healing". This is
> the crucial difference, which you consistently miss. Why?

Yes it is. What the heck do you think I've been talking about? A
dishonest faith healer doesn't want any "medical quacks" near his
"patient." Why? Because they would probably quite quickly see that the
patient is not improving and possibly even getting worse if conventional
treatments have been terminated.

A REAL faith healer, on the other hand, will practically insist that the
doctor remain in charge of the case and that no treatment is stopped or
changed except for real medical reasons.

>>> When pressed on the issue, all you offer is a retreat and profanity.
>>> Doesn't speak too well for your position.
>>
>> Because I know that once you start with the deliberate defamations,
>> there is nothing to be gained in a "debate."
>
> Perhaps, and yet here I am after you've started with them. Perhaps I
> am a glutton for punishment.

Now you lie. I did not defame your character in any way whatsoever. YOU
did that. All by yourself, with your childish reaction and unproven
accusations.

>> One doesn't debate liars, one
>> merely exposes them.
>
> Precisely what I am doing.

No, precisely what you are NOT doing. Instead of exposing any lies all
you have done is make baseless accusations.

>>You have not got one SHRED of evidence that I EVER
>> took advantage of anyone's illness, yet you felt free to accuse me.
>
> Is that a guilty conscience, or just really poor reading

No, it's ANGER. The same kind of ANGER you might feel if I accused you,
without a shred of evidence, of abusing children. You really ARE a
perverse liar, aren't you...

> comprehension? I have never accused you, personally, of taking
> advantage of anyone's illness, only being supportive of those who do.

Uh, that's not the way it read here. And in any case that's also a lie.
I'm actually quite UNSUPPORTIVE of such people, as YOU will find out if
you ever do it in my sights!

> I have thusfar assumed it was because you're naieve, or uneducated
> about medicine, or simply blinded by your demon-haunted worldview.
> Should I change that assumption?

Yes, but you probably won't. Why? Because you're naive, or uneducated
about spiritual matters--possibly medical matters, too, or simply blinded
by your materialism-limited worldview. Is THAT a fair assumption?

>>>> Take your false accusations and fold them until they are all
>>>> corners and then stuff them in with your head.
>>>
>>> This is precious!
>>
>> No, it's probably the best advice you're gonna get today, considering
>> the kind of social company wretches like you tend to keep.
>
> Please, more details. How am I a "wretch" and what kind of social
> company do I keep? I am sure my friends would like to know. Maybe I
> could call my mom. Seriously, let's hear.

You're a wretch because you think that being an obnoxious libeller is
good manners. Probably you SHOULD call your mom. Get her to wash your
mouth out with soap.

>> Why are YOUR lies
>> and hypocrisy any better morally than those of the fundy creationists
>> who make a habit of lying about science?

> I suppose because my "lies" are all in your imagination. Please, point

No sir, they are NOT in my imagination. They are right here in the
newsgroup in your posts and archived on Google (unless you've turned that
flag off).

> out a single lie. I have asked you to do so before and you failed,
> utterly.... I am not expecting anything different but I am a patient
> person. Erm, I mean wretch. Go on.

I already did.

> If anything, your claims of pseudoscientific "faith healing" is kin to
> creationism, BTW.

Like I said, I'm not really interested in debating someone whose ONLY
argument is that the other side is abunch of liars and cheats. When I
hear stuff like that, the first word that comes to mind is "projection."

>>> Please, I am more than willing to look-- show me a single "false
>>> accusation." Of course, when I say "false" I mean "actually false",
>>> not "faith-based" false. Do you know the difference?
>>
>> Yep...I showed you. You went right over the line.
>
>
> I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Really. I suspect
> this is just non-responsive blather to distract from the fact that you
> can't point to any "false accusations." Again, unsurprising but at
> this point expected.

And therein lies the problem. You are so fucking ARROGANT in your self-
righteous fundamentism that you think that you could never POSSIBLY say
anything wrong, even when you detract from people's characters without a
SHRED of evidence for your claims. Stuff it in the place I said. Get
over it. Get a life.

>>>>>> Anything you say would have to be checked for
>>>>>> veracity.
>>
>>>>> Please do. (That's quite a lot more than can be done with faith
>>>>> healers, of course. They conveniently have "miracles" on their
>>>>> side. No checking allowed there!)
>>>>
>>>> I gave you places to check. You declined.
>>
>>> I asked for case reports, journal articles.... anything whose
>>> veracity could be checked beyond the pitch of someone who is selling
>>> something.
>>
>> Well, if you had ever seen what happens to someone who does come
>> forward with a solid report of one of these events, you would
>> immediately know why they tend to clam up. It's not just the pack
>> of liars like you who immediately brand the person reporting the
>> miracle as a fraud and liar (usually with about as much evidence as
>> you have for claiming that I took advantage of sick people--i.e. not
>> a shred), it's all the wannabe "true believers" who chase after them,
>> too. There are reasons for keeping these matters fairly private.

> Yes, of course. This is the exact same reason the scientific
> literature isn't filled with creation science-- the eevil bias of
> liars like me who love their "reality-based science" sooo much they
> can't see a miracle when one is clearly.... umm, told to them by
> someone who heard it from someone who had this completely
> un-repeatable thing happen.....

Again, no it's not. Creation science, if true, would not be invasive of
the personal lives of those who study it or teach it. In fact, you
really had to twist to try and make these seem equal. Look, I don't have
a lot of details other than cases of my own cognizance. But I've seen
enough to know that, behind all the counterfeits, there is some real
money. I've suggested one way you might test the coin, and instead of
noting it, you immediately took issue with the idea that there even might
be a coin.

So one more time? Why are you so FRIGHTENED of the idea that God might
heal someone? Competition? Only the phonies REALLY fear competition?
But you might actually be a real healer who is just insecure about the
growing amount of phoniness in the whole business.

> Do you have any idea how empty this claim of yours is? Many-- not just
> a few, but *many* studies have been done of all sorts of "faith
> healing" from intercessionary prayer to meditation and the like, by
> people desperately trying to find an effect. They have never
> succeeded. Why do you suppose that is, I wonder?

Hmmmmph....how many of them actually applied what Jesus taught in the
gospels? I mean, you can "do chemistry" by pouring flour and salt into
flasks until the cows come home and not much of interest will happen. It
LOOKS like chemistry, but it ain't the real thing.

>> But anyone of GOOD will who goes looking
>> will find some evidence for them. I know I did, and I was fairly
>> skeptical (though not as dogmatically so as you appear to be).
>
> Well, somehow I doubt that. You admit you are predisposed to believe
> in miracles, making you the opposite of skeptical. Besides, if you had

It's not so much a predisposition as actual experience.

> any of this evidence you might have simply shared it when asked
> instead of calling me names, leading the discussion onto tangents, and
> invoking demonic possession of all things. Somehow I think your claim
> can't be taken seriously here.

You were the one who started in with the defamation. I didn't "call you
names" but called you what you manifestly ARE. You labelled yourself by
your own actions. Don't blame me. Not that you won't....you seem to be
in the habit of blaming others for your faults.

>> But at
>> least SOME things have happened right under my nose, so to speak. I
>> don't expect you to believe my accounts. You don't accept anything
>> that conflicts with your prejudice,
>
> How would you *know* that? This is untrue in the extreme, but you
> would never have any way to judge it having never actually presented
> anything either way. For that matter, you don't even know what my
> prejudices might *be*! Pardon me if I see through your attempt to
> dodge the actual presentation of evidence for your claims, yet again.

Pardon me, if I don't care any more. You already showed your true colors
when you started defaming characters with zero evidence.

>> so you will just do the usual and claim
>> that I am a liar (once more without a shred of actual evidence).

> As far as I know, you're the only one claiming anyone is a liar in
> contradiction to actual evidence. I even tried to be nice about it
> when you were.... umm, wrong. But whatever.

No, I'm not making any claim that is in contradiction of actual evidence.
You made a blanket accusation of people taking advantage of the sick.
You did so without a shred of evidence.

>>> I gave my reasons, all of which are eminently reasonable (popular
>>> texts are simply not acceptable sources in any medical debate, for
>>
>> NEWS FLASH: This is NOT a medical debate. These are NOT medical
>> procedures. Nor should they be considered a substitute for them.
>
> NEWS FLASH: you claimed it was "real" "spiritual healing". Medicine is
> the art of healing. "Faith healing", were it real, would in fact be a

Yep.

> "medical procedure", making this a "medical debate". Besides which,

Nope. Faith healing is a branch of theurgy, not of medicine.

> you yourself advocated the involvement of a medical doctor along with
> "faith healing", if I recall... why would that be necessary if we were
> not discussing a medical issues? This "news flash" is frankly
> ludicrous.

Real faith healing does have medical results, hence the need for a
physician to verify them. Usually the person doing the theurgy is not a
medical doctor (though you'd probably be surprised at the number of MD's
who are not afraid to try a little theurgy).

>> As I
>> already pointed out, an HONEST spiritual healer will insist that the
>> patient keep seeing medical professionals until THEY discharge the
>> patient. How they rationalize what happens is their business, of
>> course, but there are enough phony spiritual healers around (think
>> how much funny money there would be if the penalties for
>> counterfeiting were the same) that people need ways to tell the
>> difference. But YOU had to attack the very idea that there could be
>> such a thing. Why?
>
> Because there is no evidence for it and, as even you admit, quite a
> lot of examples of it being fraudulent.

>> It threatens your
>> self-centered world view.
>
> Please provide evidence for this absurd claim. What is my world view,
> and how is it "self-centered"? Remember, I am the one concerned with
> people getting real, actual, testable, repeatable, effective, healing
> here. You're the one concerned with validating his superstitions.

And where have I EVER suggested that people should NOT get real, actual,
testable, etc. healing. YOU have a problem with someone OUTSIDE your
profession engaging in a practice (theurgy) that might actually render
some of your (rather expensive) services unnecessary in the long run.
This is what *I'm* seeing here and then you have the hypocrisy to get in
a high dudgeon about someone praying for the sick.

>>> much the same reasons that Darwin's Black Box is not an acceptable
>>> source in an evolution debate.) I never declined a reasonable
>>> source, which you never (of course) could offer, as much as I asked,
>>> politely and repeatedly. (Actually, all you offered was a name,
>>> which isn't even a "place to check", so here you are- shall I say
>>> it?- *lying* - but I'll take the charitable view and say you were
>>> probably just wrong, again.)
>>
>> You don't HAVE a 'charitable' view. What you have is a malevolent
>> view. You really need to tame that thing.
>
> What is malevolent about it? Do tell.

What is malevolent about it is the fact that it lets you outright libel
people you don't even know. Of course, if you actually named names, you
might be made to pay for that kind of thing in cash.

>>> Shocking, I must say. Or not.
>>
>> Shocking in anyone pretending to be objective.
>
> Allow me to highlight the sarcasm for those who missed it.

>>>> But then you're a cowardly, lying piece of human flotsam, so why
>>>> should anyone bother with YOUR opinion of anything?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Right. You're the one advocating a practice which is *known and
>>> proven* to be full of scam artists and hucksters who take advantage
>>> of sick people-- not to mention the one who runs away from
>>> discussion
>>
>> And this whole discussion started when I told you how to separate
>> most of the scam artists from the real thing.
>
> Yes, you claimed that you could tell scam artists from the "real
> thing" by their willingness/insistence on continuing medical care by a
> physician. This is, of course, a ridiculous way of identifying a
> "real" from a fraudulent healer. Here's a real news flash: the way you

Why? Scam artists avoid te "competition."

> can tell a "real" faith healer from a scam artist is that a "real"
> faith healer could *actually heal people through faith*! In all of the

Hmmm....if we put your results to the same test, would you pass?

> annals of medicine, this has never, ever happened. Not even once, that
> I know of. I was hoping you had some new information but I see that
> you offer empty apologetics, personal insults, and superstition
> instead. Oh well.

I offered you some chronicles to read. Instead of dealing with them you
resorted to empty apologetics, personal insults and superstition. Oh
well.

>> Scam artists don't want medical
>> professionals around their "patients." That's because they are scam
>> artists. What they want are inflated tales of healings to bring more
>> money into the meetings.

> Very, very true. But the presence of medical professionals has little
> to nothing to do with any of it, so your method fails on that account
> as well. Patients will do what they will do, and if they're the type
> to be taken in by faith healers there's not much we can do about it.

Probably not. And if they happen to be prayed for by someone who
actually knows how, there is NOTHING you can do about that. Except rant
and complain exactly as you have here.

>>> trailing childish profanities when pressed for details that support
>>> his claims, and *I'm* the "cowardly, lying piece of human flotsam."
>>
>> I told you where you could find some details. You refused
>> categorically to even look.

> Not at all. Using what miniscule information you sort of provided, I
> looked and found absolutely nothing. I asked for more detail and was
> accused of having unspecified prejudices and of being human flotsam.
> Pardon me for being unimpressed with your data.

I won't pardon you at all. You never even examined any details. Now go
play in te traffic or something while I argue with creationists.

>>> OK, sure. I'm the one who provides actual help and care for people,
>>> based on the best knowledge of the time and not imaginary "miracles"
>>> that either don't exist or can't be induced anyway (obviating the
>>> need for the paid "healer") and *I'm* the "human flotsam". Well,
>>> there's logic for ya. I suppose this is to be expected from people
>>> who think that belief in miracles is rational.
>>
>> Yes, you ARE the 'human flotsam' because, instead of sticking to
>> attacking the frauds, you made false, malicious charges of fraud
>> against people you had absolutely no evidence against.
>
> Don't be silly. Since faith healing has consistently been shown to be
> fraudulent, it is hardly malicious to point that out in the absence of
> new evidence.
>
>> If you were in my
>> spiritual care,
>
> What is "spiritual care"?

Something you will never know about, since you flatly refuse it.

>> I would be passing you over at the communion rail if you
>> did it this loudly in my parish....
>
> I know it's verboten to engage in any of that "reality-based" stuff at
> the communion rail, so don't worry....

Apparently, you are a fundamentalist atheist, so I'm not too worried
about seeing you there. You're not THAT kind of hypocrite.

>> until you showed up in confession and
>> talked about it.

> Of course you would, because to your type, even the sacraments you
> imagine to be from a loving god are to be used as weapons against
> people with whom you have petty disagreements. That is so incredibly
> small and petty, I can't help but be amused.

Once more you fail to understand what I say in plain English. Yet
somehow you scammed your way through medical school with this brand of
"logic."

>>> Feel the christian love.
>>
>> I'm perfectly willing to forgive you, WHEN you repent.
>
>
> Repent of what, precisely?

For one thing the sin of false witness.

>> Otherwise, you
>> can go kiss your demon's ass all you want.

> LOL... ghosts, goblins, and demons everywhere. Is every day
> hallowee'en to you people? Didn't you ever learn that demons are
> figments of your imagination too?

They all say that, right up until they directly encounter one. Too bad--
for many of you it's the last thing you do. Forever...

>>> Please, if you eventually grow up, try to defend your position with
>>> something approaching rationality. Until then, I will patiently
>>> await evidence for "faith healing" before prescribing it for
>>> patients. Thank you for providing a shining example of the type of
>>> thinking that has been the cause of so much human suffering.
>>
>> Rationality left the building when you falsely accused me.
>
> Well, I suspect that trying to engage in a rational discussion with
> someone who actually believes that the laws of physics can be
> suspended on the whim of a supernatural being through the intercession
> of a shaman wasn't so rational of me, so perhaps there never was any
> rationality from the start. My apologies. That said... where did I
> falsely accuse you of something? Please specifically provide the
> quotation.

I already pointed it out. But then, you don't seem to understand, do
you, that the laws of physics are a created artifact, along with the rest
of the physical universe. God's interventions are not commonly in the
form of suspending those laws, but they can be suspended.

>
>> And I didn't
>> suggest you PRESCRIBE faith healing for your patients. It's pretty
>> obvious that, on some levels, you need it yourself.
>
> Really? On what "levels" would those be, and why would you say such a
> thing?

Because you have wrapped your soul in fear of the unknown and then
protected it by pretending it doesn't exist.

>> What's a problem is
>> that you seem to be operating from some level of envy here

> I suppose as long as you think "envy" means the same thing as
> "rationality", that might have some sort of validity. Otherwise, I
> have no idea what you could be talking about but I'm sure you won't
> clarify.

No, envy means that someone else might be treading on territory that you
think should be yours exclusively.

>> and some
>> honest anger at the frauds.

> Of course. Taking advantage of the sick, planting false hopes, and
> taking their money is morally wrong.

I agree. Which is why I get so angry when you accuse me of abetting that
kind of thing.

>> Well, one way to tell the difference is that
>> the frauds will usually tell your patients to leave your care,
>> whereas the genuine article will not mind if you continue to monitor
>> their progress (and normally will, in fact, insist on it).

> That's utterly absurd. The one and only way to "tell the difference"
> would be if the "genuine article" *actually healed someone*. I mean,
> really. How simple could it be? And yet, it hasn't happened. So I ask
> why you claim there are such "genuine articles".

Because I've seen it. Oh, I can't give you names, places and journal
articles, but I've seen. From friends who have experienced cures that
medical science thought impossible. I COULD introduce you to people, but
with that attitude--forget it, sir! Do the homework first.

>> How you rationalize
>> that progress is up to you...
>>
>> But you can start your own healing
>
> "healing" from what, pray tell?

Fear and envy mostly, I'd say.

>> by being less ready to judge what you
>> do not know.

> Pot, meet kettle! How ironic.

Hmmmph!

[Dave Oldridge]

unrestra...@hotmail.com wrote in news:1126754805.741491.91260
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

>
> Dave Oldridge wrote:
>> "Mark Stahl" <st...@nospam.aecom.yu.edu> wrote in
>
> <big snipperoo>
>
>> > Right. I mean, we all know that "faith healers" have not consistently
>> > been proven to be hucksters who have no ability to induce miracles
>> > (something you yourself admit). Oh wait, yes they have!
>>
>> Right and we all know that counterfeiters have consistently made phony
>> money. Therefore we should not accept ANY money as being valid and go
>> back to the barter system. Is that how logic works in your world?
>>
>> It's true, there are a lot of phonies in the racket. I've even seen a
>> few.
>>
>
> The problem, Dave, is that we know there is real money. While it's true
> that only many faith healers have been proven to be frauds, not all of
> them, it's also unfortunately true that *none of them have been
> established to be real.

In YOUR eyes.

> The closer we look, the faster their miracles retreat out of sight.

Then do what REAL investigators do. Try to learn their technique for
yourself and see if you can make it work.

> When Houdini's mother died, he visited numerous mediums (media?). He
> proved that *all of them were using trickery for special effects. His

Pretty much, though some of them do seem to touch something darker even
than mere trickery. Again, I speak from personal experience. Just because
what is "contacted" SAYS it's the spirit of a particular dead person does
not mean that it is telling the truth.

> friend Sir Arthur Conan Doyle said of one particularly famous medium
> whom Houdini had exposed: "But that doesn't mean he doesn't contact the
> dead on *other occasions." Doyle was a true believer. Ironic, coming
> from the creator of the icon of rationalism, Sherlock Holmes.

> Houdini desperately wanted to believe. When he died, his wife visited
> many mediums. She did not have Houdini's eyes for deception, and never
> exposed any that I know of. But she did have two things: a secret
> password, and a promise not to tell anyone what it was. *None of the
> mediums she visited ever gave her the secret password.

That's nice. I would not really expect them to know it.

> So here you are, a True Believer, saying that not all of them have been
> proven false. But which one has been established as real? The only
> evidence you have are the anecdotes she wrote of in her own books. Or
> the *undocumented tales told by believers, which grow in the telling.
>
> Where is the faith healer established to be so by evidence? Where are
> the case studies? Where are the medical records?

For one thing, I don't particularly like the term "faith healer." A person
who understands how to pray effectively is sometimes associated with
remarkable healings, but the most effective of them take no personal credit
for the healing at all (and, contrary to what Mark has claimed, do not want
big dollars for it, either).

> Which do *you think are most common - people who perform miracles, or
> people who lie to themselves or others? And why do you believe -
> because it makes you feel good, or because the evidence goes that way?

I believe because I cannot reject the evidence of my own experience.

> I can point you to books written by American aborigine shamans who
> have performed miracles - according to their books. Or Indian gurus -

I used to be able to do better. I could introduce you to the shaman.

> confirmed by their followers. I can give you links to videos of martial
> arts masters who can stop a charging attacker without touching him -
> but only when it's one of his students.

I dunno, that latter trick works OK if there is a wall around and you can
dance the attacker into running into it hard. I saw a demo on TV by an old
master of Kung Fu or some such who took on six burly attackers from the
audience. They never laid a hand on him, though they got various bruses
and stuff from running into each other a lot!

Of course not being hit is not usually as painful for the attacker as not
being hit and hitting back.

[Tracy Hamilton]

The level of sophistication in the answer far exceeded that of the
question. The answer showed:

Awareness of the unlikelihood of abiogenetic origins
of catalytic molecules, template based replication,
and transcription in three different molecules.
Awareness of the most likely solution, and maybe even
why it is most likely.
Awareness of the difference between the first life, and
modern life, and the implications for how much we can
know about the mechanisms of evolution for each.
Background knowledge of the experimental support for
these evolutionary mechanisms.
Awareness of the relationship between structure
and function in biochemistry.
Awareness that bacteria are modern organisms.

The question showed unawareness of the basics of genetics,
leading to an inability to well define originate. For example, your
DNA originated in your parents DNA (particularly a few
mutations if you wish to confine originate to
unique sequence not previously in the population).
If you want detailed answers, ask specific questions.
Warning: this may involve actual learning.

We would like to see you come up with a better QUESTION, one that
shows familiarity with science.

[snip]

Tracy P. hamilton

[Chris Krolczyk]

I've done reseach in abiogenesis? Sorry to disappoint you,
but I haven't. Neither have you, however. And since this
little point was already answered by Howard earlier (and
reiterated by Tracy Hamilton in this thread), the point
is moot.

> > Your attention span isn't
> > *that* limited, is it?
>
> Yes.

You know, with straight lines like *that*...

> I'm totally clueless about what your answer, Chris, is to the question,
> How did recorded-in-DNA/ genetic information originate?

Since I'm not doing research in abiogenesis, I fail to
see how this is relevant. And what's *your* explanation,
David? C'mon, let's read it...

(snip)

> > > > (Oh, and David? What *is* the form of intelligence
> > > > at work when a hurricane plows into a coastal region
> > > > or a lightning strike hits one house in a neighborhood
> > > > and not another?
> > >
> > > Beats me.
> >
> > In other words, you don't have anything resembling
> > a better answer even though your argument seems to
> > depend on your providing one. What a surprise.
>
> "a better answer" than what?

Empirical ones. What did you *think* I'm writing about?

Y'know, the more I read some of your replies, the more
I get the feeling that you actually do have something
on the order of a learning defect, at least as far
as reading comprehension is concerned.

> > > > Feel free to resort to any ID-friendly
> > > > explanation you wish to; I'm sure we could all use the
> > > > laugh.)
> > >
> > > I hope you didn't laugh at
> > >
> > > Intelligence isn't needed to account for this "engine"
> > > news:dford3-b1c67abe.0...@posting.google.com
> >
> > Nah. The bit about the car not being "designed" just shows
> > how dysfunctional your thinking about scientific research
> > really is. Piss-poor analogy to the "totally-mindless processes"
> > of nature, to boot.
> >
> > Care to take up a hobby you might actually be *good* at,
> > like, say, Tiddlywinks?
>
> Maybe.
> Do you "laugh" at any of this?:

(snip)

Once I find out what point you were trying to make WRT to
ID with all of that, maybe I will - it just depends on
how funny it is.

-Chris Krolczyk