OT:Crackpot Science (It's gyres all the way down)

[Kleuskes & Moos]

I saw this first on Pharyngula, but now ArsTechnica is running with it,
too. That must be the highest honor for a crackpot.

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/01/how-the-craziest-fing-theory-of-everything-got-published-and-promoted.ars
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/01/the_comparison_to_jabberwocky.php

Sadly, and this came from Pharyngula, there's a proper career going to
the dogs here.

(after posting it to the wrong n.g. by miskate).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_________________________________________
/ I always have fun because I'm out of my \
\ mind!!! /
-----------------------------------------
\
\
___
{~._.~}
( Y )
()~*~()
(_)-(_)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 01/29/2012 07:04 PM, Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
> I saw this first on Pharyngula, but now ArsTechnica is running with it,
> too. That must be the highest honor for a crackpot.
>
> http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/01/how-the-craziest-fing-theory-of-everything-got-published-and-promoted.ars
> http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/01/the_comparison_to_jabberwocky.php
>
> Sadly, and this came from Pharyngula, there's a proper career going to
> the dogs here.
>
> (after posting it to the wrong n.g. by miskate).

I posted the eels seek Atlantis thread to a Mac group before realizing
my miskate. Who did you unfurl this thread upon?

[Kleuskes & Moos]

The "linux advocates" in cola, or what passes as advocates there. I like
to haunt it every now and then, pestering win-trolls.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_____________________________________
/ What I want to find out is -- do \
\ parrots know much about Astro-Turf? /

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 01/29/2012 07:29 PM, Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 19:19:25 -0500, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>

>> On 01/29/2012 07:04 PM, Kleuskes& Moos wrote:
>>> I saw this first on Pharyngula, but now ArsTechnica is running with it,
>>> too. That must be the highest honor for a crackpot.
>>>
>>> http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/01/how-the-craziest-fing-theory-of-everything-got-published-and-promoted.ars
>>> http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/01/the_comparison_to_jabberwocky.php
>>>
>>> Sadly, and this came from Pharyngula, there's a proper career going to
>>> the dogs here.
>>>
>>> (after posting it to the wrong n.g. by miskate).
>>
>> I posted the eels seek Atlantis thread to a Mac group before realizing
>> my miskate. Who did you unfurl this thread upon?
>
> The "linux advocates" in cola, or what passes as advocates there. I like
> to haunt it every now and then, pestering win-trolls.

Isn't that where "Flatfish" hangs out?

[Kleuskes & Moos]

That's it. Flattie isn't very popular, though.

--
_________________________________________
/ I think I'll KILL myself by leaping out \
| of this 14th STORY WINDOW while reading |
\ ERICA JONG'S poetry!! /
-----------------------------------------

[nando_r...@yahoo.com]

On 30 jan, 01:04, Kleuskes & Moos <kleu...@somewhere.else.net> wrote:
> I saw this first on Pharyngula, but now ArsTechnica is running with it,
> too. That must be the highest honor for a crackpot.
>

> http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/01/how-the-craziest-fing-the...http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/01/the_comparison_to_jabberwo...

>
> Sadly, and this came from Pharyngula, there's a proper career going to
> the dogs here.

Looks like Darwinist fascists are out to destroy the career of this
scientist for opposing Darwinian selection theory.

[alextangent]

On Jan 30, 11:40 am, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"

<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 30 jan, 01:04, Kleuskes & Moos <kleu...@somewhere.else.net> wrote:
>
> > I saw this first on Pharyngula, but now ArsTechnica is running with it,
> > too. That must be the highest honor for a crackpot.
>

> >http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/01/how-the-craziest-fing-the......

>
> > Sadly, and this came from Pharyngula, there's a proper career going to
> > the dogs here.
>
> Looks like Darwinist fascists are out to destroy the career of this
> scientist for opposing Darwinian selection theory.

The guy looks like he's in need of help, which you'd have recognised
if you'd bothered to read the paper.

[Kleuskes & Moos]

Nando... Your caring for fellow-crackpots is touching, but crackpots are
by definition not suited to science. It's sad, to be sure, but still a
crackpot theory is a crackpot theory.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
___________________________________
/ I'm DESPONDENT ... I hope there's \
| something DEEP-FRIED under this |
\ miniature DOMED STADIUM ... /

[Ron O]

On Jan 30, 5:59 am, Kleuskes & Moos <kleu...@somewhere.else.net>
wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 03:40:10 -0800, nando_rontel...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On 30 jan, 01:04, Kleuskes & Moos <kleu...@somewhere.else.net> wrote:
> >> I saw this first on Pharyngula, but now ArsTechnica is running with it,
> >> too. That must be the highest honor for a crackpot.
>

> >>http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/01/how-the-craziest-fing-the......

>
> >> Sadly, and this came from Pharyngula, there's a proper career going to
> >> the dogs here.
>
> > Looks like Darwinist fascists are out to destroy the career of this
> > scientist for opposing Darwinian selection theory.
>
> Nando... Your caring for fellow-crackpots is touching, but crackpots are
> by definition not suited to science. It's sad, to be sure, but still a
> crackpot theory is a crackpot theory.

It probably gives Nando hope. All he has to do is come up with a
catchy word for his ideas and he might get them published. Something
like gyrodoms or freeyros.

Ron Okimoto

[nando_r...@yahoo.com]

On 30 jan, 12:59, Kleuskes & Moos <kleu...@somewhere.else.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 03:40:10 -0800, nando_rontel...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On 30 jan, 01:04, Kleuskes & Moos <kleu...@somewhere.else.net> wrote:
> >> I saw this first on Pharyngula, but now ArsTechnica is running with it,
> >> too. That must be the highest honor for a crackpot.
>

> >>http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/01/how-the-craziest-fing-the......

>
> >> Sadly, and this came from Pharyngula, there's a proper career going to
> >> the dogs here.
>
> > Looks like Darwinist fascists are out to destroy the career of this
> > scientist for opposing Darwinian selection theory.
>
> Nando... Your caring for fellow-crackpots is touching, but crackpots are
> by definition not suited to science. It's sad, to be sure, but still a
> crackpot theory is a crackpot theory.

It's not a crackpot theory, you are just a fucking fascist.




> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­----

>  ___________________________________
> / I'm DESPONDENT ... I hope there's \
> | something DEEP-FRIED under this   |
> \ miniature DOMED STADIUM ...       /
>  -----------------------------------
>   \
>    \
>        ___
>      {~._.~}
>       ( Y )
>      ()~*~()
>      (_)-(_)

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­----

[Kleuskes & Moos]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 04:37:24 -0800, nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:

> On 30 jan, 12:59, Kleuskes & Moos <kleu...@somewhere.else.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 03:40:10 -0800, nando_rontel...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > On 30 jan, 01:04, Kleuskes & Moos <kleu...@somewhere.else.net> wrote:
>> >> I saw this first on Pharyngula, but now ArsTechnica is running with
>> >> it, too. That must be the highest honor for a crackpot.
>>
>> >>http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/01/how-the-craziest-fing-the......
>>
>> >> Sadly, and this came from Pharyngula, there's a proper career going
>> >> to the dogs here.
>>
>> > Looks like Darwinist fascists are out to destroy the career of this
>> > scientist for opposing Darwinian selection theory.
>>
>> Nando... Your caring for fellow-crackpots is touching, but crackpots
>> are by definition not suited to science. It's sad, to be sure, but
>> still a crackpot theory is a crackpot theory.
>
> It's not a crackpot theory, you are just a fucking fascist.

Sure. I may be a fascist, a nazi, a racist and a bigot but it's _still_ a
crackpot theory.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
___________________________________
/ Four thousand different MAGNATES, \
| MOGULS & NABOBS are romping in my |
\ gothic solarium!! /

-----------------------------------
\
\
___
{~._.~}
( Y )
()~*~()
(_)-(_)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Boikat]

On Jan 30, 6:37 am, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"

<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 30 jan, 12:59, Kleuskes & Moos <kleu...@somewhere.else.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 03:40:10 -0800, nando_rontel...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On 30 jan, 01:04, Kleuskes & Moos <kleu...@somewhere.else.net> wrote:
> > >> I saw this first on Pharyngula, but now ArsTechnica is running with it,
> > >> too. That must be the highest honor for a crackpot.
>
> > >>http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/01/how-the-craziest-fing-the......
>
> > >> Sadly, and this came from Pharyngula, there's a proper career going to
> > >> the dogs here.
>
> > > Looks like Darwinist fascists are out to destroy the career of this
> > > scientist for opposing Darwinian selection theory.
>
> > Nando... Your caring for fellow-crackpots is touching, but crackpots are
> > by definition not suited to science. It's sad, to be sure, but still a
> > crackpot theory is a crackpot theory.
>
> It's not a crackpot theory,

How do you test it? Please discribe the experiment you would devise
to validat or disconfirm the theory.

> you are just a fucking fascist.

In you demented little mind, everyone who disagrees with you is a
facist or a nazi.

Boikat

[Boikat]

On Jan 30, 5:40 am, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"

<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 30 jan, 01:04, Kleuskes & Moos <kleu...@somewhere.else.net> wrote:
>
> > I saw this first on Pharyngula, but now ArsTechnica is running with it,
> > too. That must be the highest honor for a crackpot.
>

> >http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/01/how-the-craziest-fing-the......

>
> > Sadly, and this came from Pharyngula, there's a proper career going to
> > the dogs here.
>
> Looks like Darwinist fascists are out to destroy the career of this
> scientist for opposing Darwinian selection theory.

Please provide a citation from the "scientist", where he states that
he opposes "Darwinian selection theory".

Boikat

[nando_r...@yahoo.com]

Fuckin lying Darwinist fascist, you have not read the paper. You're an
intellectual fraud, a thug, and you're all gang-banging anything
against natural selection theory.

[Burkhard]

There is a bt of world salad here that seems to be more or less

[Burkhard]

On Jan 30, 1:35 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

oops, accidental hit send:

There is a bit of word salad here where he tries to offer an
alternative to Darwinian selection theory (and argues in favour of
Gould, and tha the thinks they are incompatible on tha issue says it
all, really):

"The Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection does not
address
how novelty emerges in the universe [784,785]. As modeled here and as
observable in the natural
world, gyres expand and develop as a consequence of continual IEM
flow, rearrangement, and
coalescence. When the maximum carrying capacity of a gyrosystem is
reached, it extrudes IEM due to
spatiotemporal constraints imparted by sub- and supragyrosystems; this
models self-organized
criticality [786]. Gyrosystem collapse thus converts the accumulated,
unsustainable, potential IEM
into kinetic IEM, eliciting the emergence of an a priori unpredictable
organization that is more
thermodynamically stable. Written another way, theory shows that the
disassembled gyrosystem
provides the architectural basis and thermodynamic driving force for
evolutionary complexification.
This theory supports what Gould and Eldredge implied in their theory
of punctuated equilibrium [787]:
evolutionary emergence occurs by a true quantal leap. I conclude that
my theory is a comprehensive
and scientifically accurate alternative to natural selection."

Leaving aside that even if it made sense, and were true, it would be
an alternative to RM, not NS, it's parts like this that make it look
to me like a Sokal experimen, with string theory a possible target of
derison.

[alextangent]

On Jan 30, 3:57 pm, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"

I have, but that wasn't the point, which was; have you?

[Boikat]

Meh, It looks like the "scientist" did not understand what Gould and
Eldredge were saying, since even PE still involves NS.

>
> Leaving aside that even if it made sense, and were true,  it would be
> an alternative to RM, not NS,

Even at that, he's still not saying anything counter to RM, just
offering an explaination as to the cause of mutations.

> it's parts like this that make it look
> to me like a Sokal experimen, with string theory a possible target of
> derison.

Or too much coffee at the keyboard, late at night, with nothing better
to do that let loose of volly of... something.

Boikat

[Vurgil]

In article
<nando-df9a8d40-71b4-4...@dn8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com
>,

When creationists run out of facts, which they do as soon as they open
their mouths, they descent to insults, which is anti-Christian of them.

The Theory of Evolution and True Christianity:

Most of True Christianity has already accepted the overwhelming physical
evidence that human's physical bodies were formed by Evolution.

But it is only the souls of those humans that True Christianity is
concerned with, and Evolution in particular, and Science in general, say
nothing at all about such souls.

Thus between the Theory of Evolution and other sciences on the one hand,
and True Christianity on the other, there is, and can be, no conflict.

So that any religion, like creationism, that impugns Evolution is no
part of True Christianity, or of any true religion.

[Vurgil]

In article
<nando-e643b0b9-d037-4...@h6g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
,

"nando_r...@yahoo.com" <nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 30 jan, 12:59, Kleuskes & Moos <kleu...@somewhere.else.net> wrote:
> > On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 03:40:10 -0800, nando_rontel...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On 30 jan, 01:04, Kleuskes & Moos <kleu...@somewhere.else.net> wrote:
> > >> I saw this first on Pharyngula, but now ArsTechnica is running with it,
> > >> too. That must be the highest honor for a crackpot.
> >
> > >>http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/01/how-the-craziest-fing-the.....
> > >>.
> >
> > >> Sadly, and this came from Pharyngula, there's a proper career going to
> > >> the dogs here.
> >
> > > Looks like Darwinist fascists are out to destroy the career of this
> > > scientist for opposing Darwinian selection theory.
> >
> > Nando... Your caring for fellow-crackpots is touching, but crackpots are
> > by definition not suited to science. It's sad, to be sure, but still a
> > crackpot theory is a crackpot theory.
>
> It's not a crackpot theory, you are just a fucking fascist.

Any hypothesis put forward by creationists is crackpot.

The Theory of Evolution and True Christianity:

Most of True Christianity has already accepted the overwhelming physical

evidence that human's PHYSICAL bodies were formed by Evolution.

But it is only the SOULS of those humans that True Christianity is

[johnetho...@yahoo.com]

On Jan 30, 7:57 am, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"

We know that you are insane. It isn't necessary to keep proving it.

[Vurgil]

Looks like Creationist fascists are out to destroy the career of any
scientist who supports science.

[Barry OGrady]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 13:10:22 -0700, Vurgil <Vur...@arg.erg> wrote:

>In article
><nando-df9a8d40-71b4-4...@dn8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com
>>,
> "nando_r...@yahoo.com" <nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 30 jan, 12:59, alextangent <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
>> > On Jan 30, 11:40 am, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
>> >
>> > <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > On 30 jan, 01:04, Kleuskes & Moos <kleu...@somewhere.else.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > > > I saw this first on Pharyngula, but now ArsTechnica is running with it,
>> > > > too. That must be the highest honor for a crackpot.
>> >
>> > > >http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/01/how-the-craziest-fing-the....
>> > > >..
>> >
>> > > > Sadly, and this came from Pharyngula, there's a proper career going to
>> > > > the dogs here.
>> >
>> > > Looks like Darwinist fascists are out to destroy the career of this
>> > > scientist for opposing Darwinian selection theory.
>> >
>> > The guy looks like he's in need of help, which you'd have recognised
>> > if you'd bothered to read the paper.
>>
>> Fuckin lying Darwinist fascist, you have not read the paper. You're an
>> intellectual fraud, a thug, and you're all gang-banging anything
>> against natural selection theory.
>
>When creationists run out of facts, which they do as soon as they open
>their mouths, they descent to insults, which is anti-Christian of them.

Insults are very Christian.

>The Theory of Evolution and True Christianity:
>
>Most of True Christianity has already accepted the overwhelming physical
>evidence that human's physical bodies were formed by Evolution.
>
>But it is only the souls of those humans that True Christianity is
>concerned with, and Evolution in particular, and Science in general, say
>nothing at all about such souls.

There is no true Christianity and there are no souls.

>Thus between the Theory of Evolution and other sciences on the one hand,
>and True Christianity on the other, there is, and can be, no conflict.

To say that is wishful thinking. Let go of your security blanket,
of, as Gladys would say, baby blamket.

>So that any religion, like creationism, that impugns Evolution is no

>part of True Christianity, or any true religion.

No religion is true.

=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=
God is a spirit. 0% proof!

[nando_r...@yahoo.com]

On Jan 30, 9:06 pm, Vurgil <Vur...@arg.erg> wrote:

> But it is only the SOULS of those humans that True Christianity is
> concerned with, and Evolution in particular, and Science in general, say
> nothing at all about such souls.

Science doesn't say anything about souls, but evolution theory says
lots and lots about emotions=>the heart=>the soul, evolution theory is
social darwinism.

The reason science doesn't say anything about the soul, is because the
soul chooses. God also chooses. Emotions also choose. All what chooses
is categorically not a matter of fact, but a matter of subjective
opinion. If you don't understand that then you are spiritually dead on
an intellectual level. And likely most of those Christians who accept
evolution theory are spiritually dead on an intellectual level.

Parents who say their baby is a modified descendant from them as a
satisfactory explanation for the origin of their baby are not
Christians. A Christian has to look for the decisions by which the
baby came to be, and then form a subjective opinion about the spirit
in which those decisions were made. And that would be the truth about
the origin of their baby for Christian parents, and descent with
modification does not remotely explain origins of anything for a
Christian. Evolution theory is stupid, and it's adherents social
darwinists. And the only thing that is keeping stupid evolution theory
in dominance is because the adherents of it are intellectual thugs.

The only thing neccessary to see the futility of evolution theory is
to accept the fact that freedom is real. When freedom is accepted as
real, then it is only reasonable to hypothesize that there are
sophisticated ways of deciding in nature. So Darwinists make it a
point to oppose all theories which posit freedom is real with
intellectual thuggery, like with this paper. Any acceptance of the
fact that freedom is real shows up evolution theory to be trite, and
besides the point of what's really going on.

[Boikat]

On Jan 30, 4:58 pm, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"

<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 30, 9:06 pm, Vurgil <Vur...@arg.erg> wrote:
>
> > But it is only the SOULS of those humans that True Christianity is
> > concerned with, and Evolution in particular, and Science in general, say
> > nothing at all about such souls.
>
> Science doesn't say anything about souls, but evolution theory says
> lots and lots about emotions=>the heart=>the soul,

You are using "heart" as a metaphore for something along the lines of
"strenght of emotion". Evolution does not adress the heart in that
context. Evolution only addresses the heart as a "blood pump".
Therefore, your line of reasonong, is as usual, flawed.

> evolution theory is
> social darwinism.
>

Wrong.

> The reason science doesn't say anything about the soul, is because the

> soul chooses...

And nando falls off the deep end into meaningless blather, again.

<snip remaining insane stream of inane blathercrap>

Boikat

[Vurgil]

In article <k37ei7tch93qrnbbu...@4ax.com>,

Some forms of Buddhism might be, but theist religions all require that
one assume that which cannot be objectively established.

[Vurgil]

In article
<nando-dec86954-59a1-4...@e27g2000vbu.googlegroups.com
>,

"nando_r...@yahoo.com" <nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Jan 30, 9:06 pm, Vurgil <Vur...@arg.erg> wrote:
>
> > But it is only the SOULS of those humans that True Christianity is
> > concerned with, and Evolution in particular, and Science in general, say
> > nothing at all about such souls.
>
> Science doesn't say anything about souls, but evolution theory says
> lots and lots about emotions=>the heart=>the soul,

NOt any of the evolution theory I have ever come across.

> evolution theory is social darwinism.

Social Darwinism is a corruption of evolution in precisely the same was
that Creationism is a corruption of Christianity.

>
> The reason science doesn't say anything about the soul, is because the
> soul chooses.

WRONG! Science says nothing about things that it cannot detect.
And despite the fervent efforts of many fervent theists, souls have not
been found to be scientifically detectable.

The hypotheses of Evolution matches the physical evidence so well , and
so much better than any other hypotheses that science has upgraded it to
a scientific theory.
No hypothesis involving any gods comes anywhere nearly as close to
matching up with the physical evidence as does Evolution.

Re the Theory of Evolution and True Christianity:

Most of True Christianity has already accepted the overwhelming physical

evidence that human's physical bodies were formed by Evolution.

But it is only the souls of those humans that True Christianity is

concerned with, and Evolution in particular, and Science in general, say
nothing at all about such souls.

Thus between the Theory of Evolution and other sciences on the one hand,
and True Christianity on the other, there is, and can be, no conflict.

So that any religion, like creationism, that impugns Evolution is no

part of True Christianity, or of any honest religion.

[Barry OGrady]

>Re The Theory of Evolution and True Christianity:

>
>Most of True Christianity has already accepted the overwhelming physical
>evidence that human's physical bodies were formed by Evolution.
>
>But it is only the souls of those humans that True Christianity is
>concerned with, and Evolution in particular, and Science in general, say
>nothing at all about such souls.

There is no true Christianity and there are no souls.

>Thus between the Theory of Evolution and other sciences on the one hand,
>and True Christianity on the other, there is, and can be, no conflict.

To say that is wishful thinking. Let go of your security blanket,
of, as Gladys would say, baby blamket.

>So that any religion, like creationism, that impugns Evolution is no

>part of True Christianity, or any true religion.

No religion is true.

[Garamond Lethe]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 00:04:54 +0000, Kleuskes & Moos wrote:

> I saw this first on Pharyngula, but now ArsTechnica is running with it,
> too. That must be the highest honor for a crackpot.
>
> http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/01/how-the-craziest-fing-

theory-of-everything-got-published-and-promoted.ars
> http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/01/
the_comparison_to_jabberwocky.php

>
> Sadly, and this came from Pharyngula, there's a proper career going to
> the dogs here.
>

> (after posting it to the wrong n.g. by miskate).

I know a few people at Case so I spent some time tracking this down.
Here are my notes that I emailed to someone who was curious.

1) I can't improve on PZ Myers' summary:

"While the strange terminology and nonsensical claims could be clues that
this is an elaborate Poe of some sort, the story I’ve heard from some
other sources is that Andrulis is not getting tenure and will be leaving
Case next year, and that he seems to have a history of tuning in and out
— so what this most likely is is a developing personal tragedy. I hope he
gets the care he clearly needs; his other work suggests that this is an
intelligent mind that is currently going off the rails."[1]

Andrulis' career as a researcher is over. While I'd be the first to
argue that this is as it should be, I take no joy in it whatsoever.

2) Case had done the proper thing and retracted the press release.
RetractionWatch has the story[2].

3) This case does raise a interesting (and difficult) question: how to
handle press releases for marginal, controversial or unpopular work?
Setting external peer review as condition for a press release works
pretty well nearly all of the time: it's neutral, the decision is
rendered by external experts, and it minimizes the interference from
departmental politics. And that policy worked perfectly for the first 15
rejections of the manuscript[3]. Because he made the 16th submission to
a marginal journal and was unlucky enough to get a reviewer who didn't
read the manuscript, he got his press release. Case should be updating
its policy in short order.

4) You mentioned being concerned about being able to refute this.
There's no need for concern (not even the creationists are taking him
seriously[4]). To make a refutable argument requires a baseline of
rationality --- a baseline that assures us the author was able to grasp
what he was writing. That baseline isn't reached here.

In conclusion, I don't find any malice or dishonesty here. As an
academic I find it far too easy to identify with Andrulis: I'm sure he
got that same incredible rush that I get when I think I've puzzled out
how a corner of the universe works, and like me I'm sure he diligently
went about checking his results to make sure he was right. For whatever
reason he has lost the ability to critique his own work or accept the
critiques of others. So, despite my agnosticism, I can't think of a more
fitting way to close than to quote "There but for the grace of God go I."

[1] http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/01/27/the-comparison-to-
jabberwocky-is-inevitable/
[2] http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2012/01/28/case-western-explains-
why-it-withdrew-press-release-about-andrulis-origin-of-life-paper/
[3] Accoring to Andrulis: "That manuscript was sent to and through 12
different peer-reviewed journals and article servers (arXiv) — where I
had 4 decision appeals, 15 total rejections, and 1 retraction."
http://tinfoilpalace.eamped.com/2011/12/23/theory-of-the-origin-evolution-
and-nature-of-life/
[4] http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/oh_now_we_under055641.html

[Michael Siemon]

In article <o_idnc_5t49...@giganews.com>,

Yes; thanks for a sympathetic-if-sad view of this. Let me just repeat
your main statement: "Andrulis' career as a researcher is over. While

[Vurgil]

In article <3qmei75dkvph8j20l...@4ax.com>,

Actually there is no scientific way to prove no souls, just as there is
scientific way to prove souls exist. So it is purely a matter of faith.
I, myself, have no faith in them, but cannot prove they do not exist.

>
> >Thus between the Theory of Evolution and other sciences on the one hand,
> >and True Christianity on the other, there is, and can be, no conflict.
>
> To say that is wishful thinking. Let go of your security blanket,
> of, as Gladys would say, baby blamket.
>
> >So that any religion, like creationism, that impugns Evolution is no
> >part of True Christianity, or any true religion.
>
> No religion is true.

That, like the existence of souls, is a matter beyond science's ability
to settle either way, so any opinion on the subject can be buttressed by
no more than pure faith.

[Kleuskes & Moos]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 21:19:42 -0600, Garamond Lethe wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 00:04:54 +0000, Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
>
>> I saw this first on Pharyngula, but now ArsTechnica is running with it,
>> too. That must be the highest honor for a crackpot.

I'm still on my first coffee, so i'll snip my way through this, responnding
only to what irks me.

<snip>

> Andrulis' career as a researcher is over. While I'd be the first to
> argue that this is as it should be, I take no joy in it whatsoever.

Nor do I. In fact, having had some psychological trouble myself, I rather
sympathize with the guy. Hence my closing words "Sadly a proper career is
going to the dogs here". Which i meant.

> 4) You mentioned being concerned about being able to refute this.

Umm... No. At least i did not mention that.

> In conclusion, I don't find any malice or dishonesty here.

Neither did I and, frankly, I cannot remember having implied that.

--
_____________________________
< if it GLISTENS, gobble it!! >

[Garamond Lethe]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 07:47:58 +0000, Kleuskes & Moos wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 21:19:42 -0600, Garamond Lethe wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 00:04:54 +0000, Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
>>
>>> I saw this first on Pharyngula, but now ArsTechnica is running with
>>> it,
>>> too. That must be the highest honor for a crackpot.
>
> I'm still on my first coffee, so i'll snip my way through this,
> responnding only to what irks me.
>
> <snip>

Part of what you snipped included

"I know a few people at Case so I spent some time tracking this down.
Here are my notes that I emailed to someone who was curious."

So blame it on a combination of lack of coffee on your part and lack of
sufficient emphasis on my part, with my part perhaps being the greater.
My apologies.

[Kleuskes & Moos]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 02:15:41 -0600, Garamond Lethe wrote:

> On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 07:47:58 +0000, Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 21:19:42 -0600, Garamond Lethe wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 00:04:54 +0000, Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
>>>
>>>> I saw this first on Pharyngula, but now ArsTechnica is running with
>>>> it,
>>>> too. That must be the highest honor for a crackpot.
>>
>> I'm still on my first coffee, so i'll snip my way through this,
>> responnding only to what irks me.
>>
>> <snip>
>
> Part of what you snipped included
>
> "I know a few people at Case so I spent some time tracking this down.
> Here are my notes that I emailed to someone who was curious."
>
> So blame it on a combination of lack of coffee on your part and lack of
> sufficient emphasis on my part, with my part perhaps being the greater.
> My apologies.

Ooops... Must have missed that. No apologies neccesary. I'll make it a
habit first to finish my coffee before responding online.

"1. Insert foot into mouth. 2. Broadcast globally".

--
___________________________________
< PARDON me, am I speaking ENGLISH? >
-----------------------------------

[Garamond Lethe]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:57:07 +0000, Kleuskes & Moos wrote:

> On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 02:15:41 -0600, Garamond Lethe wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 07:47:58 +0000, Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 21:19:42 -0600, Garamond Lethe wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 00:04:54 +0000, Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I saw this first on Pharyngula, but now ArsTechnica is running with
>>>>> it,
>>>>> too. That must be the highest honor for a crackpot.
>>>
>>> I'm still on my first coffee, so i'll snip my way through this,
>>> responnding only to what irks me.
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>
>> Part of what you snipped included
>>
>> "I know a few people at Case so I spent some time tracking this down.
>> Here are my notes that I emailed to someone who was curious."
>>
>> So blame it on a combination of lack of coffee on your part and lack of
>> sufficient emphasis on my part, with my part perhaps being the greater.
>> My apologies.
>
> Ooops... Must have missed that. No apologies neccesary. I'll make it a
> habit first to finish my coffee before responding online.
>
> "1. Insert foot into mouth. 2. Broadcast globally".
>

No, really, this was mostly my fault. Seeing the word "You" in a
response to your post should allow you to assume that I'm talking to you,
not someone else. Had *I* posted with sufficient coffee I would have
noticed that and changed "you" to "[my correspondent]" or suchlike. It's
a detail, but it's the kind of detail I like to get right.

And hey, if we all starting posting here while fully conscious what fun
would that be?


Garamond
[Who is currently posting at 2:23a via three hours of sleep and two cans
of diet coke, in between rounds of nonlinear optimization theory and cat
herding. Life is good, if occasionally incoherent.]

[chris thompson]

On Jan 30, 7:49 am, Kleuskes & Moos <kleu...@somewhere.else.net>
wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 04:37:24 -0800, nando_rontel...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On 30 jan, 12:59, Kleuskes & Moos <kleu...@somewhere.else.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 03:40:10 -0800, nando_rontel...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> > On 30 jan, 01:04, Kleuskes & Moos <kleu...@somewhere.else.net> wrote:
> >> >> I saw this first on Pharyngula, but now ArsTechnica is running with
> >> >> it, too. That must be the highest honor for a crackpot.
>
> >> >>http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/01/how-the-craziest-fing-the......
>
> >> >> Sadly, and this came from Pharyngula, there's a proper career going
> >> >> to the dogs here.
>
> >> > Looks like Darwinist fascists are out to destroy the career of this
> >> > scientist for opposing Darwinian selection theory.
>
> >> Nando... Your caring for fellow-crackpots is touching, but crackpots
> >> are by definition not suited to science. It's sad, to be sure, but
> >> still a crackpot theory is a crackpot theory.
>
> > It's not a crackpot theory, you are just a fucking fascist.
>
> Sure. I may be a fascist, a nazi, a racist and a bigot but it's _still_ a
> crackpot theory.

Hey, at least you are a FUCKING fascist. Most fascists never fucked at
all.

Chris

PS: We gotta give Nando some credit- he didn't call you a communist
fascist!

[Kleuskes & Moos]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 04:24:38 -0600, Garamond Lethe wrote:
<snip>

Ok. Wanna have a fight whose fault it was? ;)

> And hey, if we all starting posting here while fully conscious what fun
> would that be?

None at all.

> Garamond
> [Who is currently posting at 2:23a via three hours of sleep and two cans
> of diet coke, in between rounds of nonlinear optimization theory and cat
> herding. Life is good, if occasionally incoherent.]

The less coherent bits are usually the best.
--
______________________________________
/ Why are these athletic shoe salesmen \
\ following me?? /
--------------------------------------

[Kleuskes & Moos]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 02:50:47 -0800, chris thompson wrote:

>> Sure. I may be a fascist, a nazi, a racist and a bigot but it's _still_
>> a crackpot theory.
>
> Hey, at least you are a FUCKING fascist. Most fascists never fucked at
> all.
>
> Chris
>
> PS: We gotta give Nando some credit- he didn't call you a communist
> fascist!

Always look on the bright side...

--
______________________________________
/ My pants just went to high school in \
\ the Carlsbad Caverns!!! /

[James Beck]

On Jan 30, 10:19 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 00:04:54 +0000, Kleuskes & Moos wrote:

[snip]

> Andrulis' career as a researcher is over.

[snip]

Possibly. I'm not aware of any evidence indicating that the rate of
mental illness is lower among researchers than it is in the general
population. John Nash was able to continue contributing after
schizophrenia. Andrulis' condition may be manageable, and treatments
may be better now.

[Kleuskes & Moos]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 08:11:44 -0800, James Beck wrote:

> On Jan 30, 10:19 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 00:04:54 +0000, Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Andrulis' career as a researcher is over.
>
> [snip]
>
> Possibly.

Possibly, you wanna check your attributions. I don't like it much when
people put words in my mouth.

> I'm not aware of any evidence indicating that the rate of
> mental illness is lower among researchers than it is in the general
> population. John Nash was able to continue contributing after
> schizophrenia. Andrulis' condition may be manageable, and treatments may
> be better now.

Possibly. Having a mental illness does not equal being stoopid. But then
again, I never said it did.

--
_____________________________________
< Can I have an IMPULSE ITEM instead? >

[Paul J Gans]

I can cast little light on this except to say that in my experience
with university press offices I'm not at all surprised that they
ran with this.

In general we are not allowed to talk to the press about our research
without first contacting the press office. They then take charge of
the entire thing. You can scream and holler, but it won't make any
difference. Some idiot (I use the term advisedly) with zero understanding
of any of the content will write the press release based on fumes from
his auto exhaust or similar source. Again, you can scream and holler
but it will do no good.

I have no idea if this has any relevence in the Andrulis affair. But
it is a response to Myers' lines below:

"It's madness stamped with the Case Western Reserve University
School of Medicine seal of approval. If Andrulis did Sokal the
journal, he also Sokal'ed the institution that employs him. Who
wrote that bullshit? Do they have anyone competent review their
press releases before they mail them out to the whole wide world?
Was there anyone thinking in all the steps from crank professor
to PR department to journal editor to reviewers? There were so
many points where this crackpottery should have been detected
and rejected, and it didn't happen."

Above from: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/01/27/the-comparison-to-jabberwocky-is-inevitable/

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[James Beck]

On Jan 31, 11:36 am, Kleuskes & Moos <kleu...@somewhere.else.net>
wrote:

> On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 08:11:44 -0800, James Beck wrote:
> > On Jan 30, 10:19 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 00:04:54 +0000, Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
>
> > [snip]
>
> >> Andrulis' career as a researcher is over.
>
> > [snip]
>
> > Possibly.
>
> Possibly, you wanna check your attributions. I don't like it much when
> people put words in my mouth.
>
> > I'm not aware of any evidence indicating that the rate of
> > mental illness is lower among researchers than it is in the general
> > population. John Nash was able to continue contributing after
> > schizophrenia. Andrulis' condition may be manageable, and treatments may
> > be better now.
>
> Possibly. Having a mental illness does not equal being stoopid. But then
> again, I never said it did.

Just for grins, you might note that the attributed text indents n-
times, while the header indents n-1 times. After you do that, consider
switching to decaf.

[Richard Harter]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:36:04 +0000 (UTC), Kleuskes & Moos
<kle...@somewhere.else.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 08:11:44 -0800, James Beck wrote:
>
>> On Jan 30, 10:19 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 00:04:54 +0000, Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Andrulis' career as a researcher is over.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Possibly.
>
>Possibly, you wanna check your attributions. I don't like it much when
>people put words in my mouth.

Let your ears hear the wisdom of your mouth. This statement
"Andrulis' career as a researcher is over." is attributed to Garamond
Lethe. Your name appears as part of his text that is being quoted.

[Kleuskes & Moos]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:40:11 +0000, Richard Harter wrote:

>>Possibly, you wanna check your attributions. I don't like it much when
>>people put words in my mouth.
>
> Let your ears hear the wisdom of your mouth. This statement "Andrulis'
> career as a researcher is over." is attributed to Garamond Lethe. Your
> name appears as part of his text that is being quoted.
> Let your ears hear the wisdom of your mouth.

Sorry. Dutch expression. Proverbs don't seem to obey strict language
barriers. Nasty habit, that.

> This statement "Andrulis'
> career as a researcher is over." is attributed to Garamond Lethe. Your
> name appears as part of his text that is being quoted.

I'll be sure to carefully check the level of indenting next time.
--
____________________________________
< Jesus is my POSTMASTER GENERAL ... >

[Barry OGrady]

There is no reason to think souls are real.

>> >Thus between the Theory of Evolution and other sciences on the one hand,
>> >and True Christianity on the other, there is, and can be, no conflict.
>>
>> To say that is wishful thinking. Let go of your security blanket,
>> of, as Gladys would say, baby blamket.
>>
>> >So that any religion, like creationism, that impugns Evolution is no
>> >part of True Christianity, or any true religion.
>>
>> No religion is true.
>
>That, like the existence of souls, is a matter beyond science's ability
>to settle either way, so any opinion on the subject can be buttressed by
>no more than pure faith.

[Gladys Swager]

On Feb 1, 11:03 am, Barry OGrady wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012, Vurgil wrote:
> > Barry OGrady wrote:

> >> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 , Vurgil wrote:
>
> >> >Social Darwinism is a corruption of evolution

http://creation.com/darwinism-it-was-all-in-the-family

> >>>in precisely the same way that Creationism is a corruption of Christianity.
>
How did you come to the idea that 'Creationism is a corruption of
Christianity'.
Genesis 1 : 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth
Colossians 1 : 16 For by Him (Jesus Christ) were all things created
taht are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible.

Creationism is a study to show that how God created is true
in terms of science concepts known to--day

> >> >> The reason science doesn't say anything about the soul, is because the
> >> >> soul chooses.
>

Souls cannot be put under a microscope.

.
> >> >And despite the fervent efforts of many fervent theists, souls have not
> >> >been found to be scientifically detectable.
>

And science cannot scientifically prove everything about all that is
in existence,
Science cannot prove how 'things' came into existence originally

> >> >The hypotheses of Evolution matches the physical evidence so well , and
> >> >so much better than any other hypotheses that science has upgraded it to
> >> >a scientific theory.
> >> >No hypothesis involving any gods comes anywhere nearly as close to
> >> >matching up with the physical evidence as does Evolution.
>

Evolution is about material things in the universe. It cannot tell
about
their emergence or when they came on the scene of the Universe.

> >> >Re The Theory of Evolution and True Christianity:
>
> >> >Most of True Christianity has already accepted the overwhelming physical
> >> >evidence that human's physical bodies were formed by Evolution.
>

And Evolution, said to be Science, must have the objective proof.
evolutionists have said the proof is there, but they are extremely
short in bringing
it to public knowledge.
I would say that many Christians have accepted evolution as having
occurred
because they were taught it in their schooling from the early 1960's
and haven't had access to the information of the Creation Scientists
since then.
If the Evolutionists are so sure they have it right in all respects
wouldn't you think they would be willing for the Creation Scientists
to give it to teh public on teh same basis they have through the
schools
from the early 1960's and allow the public to decide on an equal
basis?
It may be that the Evolutionists are 'running scared'!

> >> >But it is only the souls of those humans that True Christianity is
> >> >concerned with, and Evolution in particular, and Science in general, say
> >> >nothing at all about such souls.
>
> >> There is no true Christianity and there are no souls.
>

> >Actually there is no scientific way to prove no souls, just as there is no

> >scientific way to prove souls exist. So it is purely a matter of faith.
> >I, myself, have no faith in them, but cannot prove they do not exist.
>
> There is no reason to think souls are real.
>
> >> >Thus between the Theory of Evolution and other sciences on the one hand,
> >> >and True Christianity on the other, there is, and can be, no conflict.
>
> >> To say that is wishful thinking. Let go of your security blanket,
> >> of, as Gladys would say, baby blamket.
>
> >> >So that any religion, like creationism,  that impugns Evolution is no
> >> >part of True Christianity, or any true religion.
>
> >> No religion is true.
>

And you have studied every religion that is in the world
to know that not even one of them is true?

> >That, like the existence of souls, is a matter beyond science's ability
> >to settle either way, so any opinion on the subject can be buttressed by
> >no more than pure faith.
>

And what about evolution. have you seen any species gradually
changing
into another species. 'Grubs' do go into a coccoon state, emerge as
various
types of insects, but they produce 'grubs' of a similar kind.
>
And science is science and cannot prove all things.
Not even in respect of organic life.
But science is not all there is and science has not proved
everything,
even within the scientific study.
Gladys Swager

[Garamond Lethe]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 08:11:44 -0800, James Beck wrote:

> On Jan 30, 10:19 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 00:04:54 +0000, Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Andrulis' career as a researcher is over.
>
> [snip]
>
> Possibly. I'm not aware of any evidence indicating that the rate of
> mental illness is lower among researchers than it is in the general
> population.

I found Daniel Nettle's "Schizotypy and mental health amongst poets,
visual artists, and mathematicians" (2005) [1] and Rawlings and
Locarnini's "Dimensional schizotypy, autism, and unusual word
associations in artists and scientists" (2007) [2]. Not quite on point,
but interesting.

> John Nash was able to continue contributing after
> schizophrenia.

This isn't a point I'm interested in arguing too strenuously, but I will
point out a few differences.

Nash had accomplished brilliant work before his illness took hold, did
not embarrass his institution publicly, and thus was tolerated on campus
during the worst of his illness. When the illness relented, he needed
very little in terms of resources to get back to productive work.

Andrulis has, as best I can tell, done some very solid work, but it's not
so good that he would be deemed irreplaceable. He needs a well-equipped
(and expensive) lab in order to be productive and grants to pay for it.
Every funding agency he applies to will /not/ be making a decision
whether or not he is a good researcher and sufficiently recovered;
rather, they'll be asking if it's worth taking a risk on him when there
are dozens (or hundreds) of nearly-as-good applicants without his
baggage. His potential future employers will mentally play through this
scenario as well and wonder why they should take a risk on someone who
may be unfundable when they have so many less-risky CVs to choose from.

> Andrulis' condition may be manageable, and treatments may
> be better now.

Absolutely, and he may be able to find work teaching at a community
college or abroad.


[1] http://members.efn.org/~ronunger/stuff/schizotypy%20artists%20and%
20mathematicians.pdf
[2] http://eppl604-autism-and-creativity.wmwikis.net/file/view/
sdarticle-5.pdf

[Josh Miles]

On 1/30/2012 5:59 AM, alextangent wrote:
> On Jan 30, 11:40 am, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"

> <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> On 30 jan, 01:04, Kleuskes& Moos<kleu...@somewhere.else.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I saw this first on Pharyngula, but now ArsTechnica is running with it,
>>> too. That must be the highest honor for a crackpot.
>>

>>> http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/01/how-the-craziest-fing-the......
>>
>>> Sadly, and this came from Pharyngula, there's a proper career going to
>>> the dogs here.
>>
>> Looks like Darwinist fascists are out to destroy the career of this
>> scientist for opposing Darwinian selection theory.
>

> The guy looks like he's in need of help, which you'd have recognised
> if you'd bothered to read the paper.

Nando would not have recognized it because he is in some pretty serious
need of help himself. A few years back he wrote a post about atoms
making decisions.

[Josh Miles]

On 1/31/2012 10:06 PM, Gladys Swager wrote:
> And Evolution, said to be Science, must have the objective proof.
> evolutionists have said the proof is there, but they are extremely
> short in bringing
> it to public knowledge.

It's there. You just choose to ignore it.

<snip>

> And what about evolution. have you seen any species gradually
> changing
> into another species. 'Grubs' do go into a coccoon state, emerge as
> various
> types of insects, but they produce 'grubs' of a similar kind.

No one who knows anything about evolution would expect to see that. In
fact, if that were to happen, it would be a serious blow *against* the
theory of evolution!

[chris thompson]

On Jan 31, 11:06 pm, Gladys Swager <gswa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 1, 11:03 am, Barry OGrady wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 30 Jan 2012, Vurgil wrote:
> > > Barry OGrady wrote:
> > >> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 , Vurgil wrote:
>
> > >> >Social Darwinism is a corruption of evolution
>
> http://creation.com/darwinism-it-was-all-in-the-family
>
> > >>>in precisely the same way that Creationism is a corruption of Christianity.
>
> How did you come to the idea that 'Creationism is a corruption of
> Christianity'.
> Genesis 1 : 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth
> Colossians 1 : 16  For by Him (Jesus Christ) were all things created
> taht are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible.
>
> Creationism is a study to show that how God created is true
> in terms of science concepts known to--day

No, it flies in the face of all science- biology, geology, astronomy,
among others.

>
> > >> >> The reason science doesn't say anything about the soul, is because the
> > >> >> soul chooses.
>
> Souls cannot be put under a microscope.
> .> >> >And despite the fervent efforts of many fervent theists, souls have not
> > >> >been found to be scientifically detectable.
>
> And science cannot scientifically prove everything about all that is
> in existence,
> Science cannot prove how 'things' came into existence originally

You show your misunderstanding of all science here. Science cannot
"prove" anything.

>
> > >> >The hypotheses of Evolution matches the physical evidence so well , and
> > >> >so much better than any other hypotheses that science has upgraded it to
> > >> >a scientific theory.
> > >> >No hypothesis involving any gods comes anywhere nearly as close to
> > >> >matching up with the physical evidence as does Evolution.
>
> Evolution is about material things in the universe. It cannot tell
> about
> their emergence or when they came on the scene of the Universe.

Correct. Evolution is not about the creation of matter in the
universe. But it does tell us where species came from.

>
> > >> >Re The Theory of Evolution and True Christianity:
>
> > >> >Most of True Christianity has already accepted the overwhelming physical
> > >> >evidence that human's physical bodies were formed by Evolution.
>
> And Evolution, said to be Science, must have the objective proof.

Again, you talk about proof. There's no proof in science, only
evidence. Do you know the difference?

> evolutionists have said the proof is there, but they are extremely
> short in bringing
> it to public knowledge.

Haven't been to any museums in the last 300 years, have you?

> I would say that many Christians have accepted evolution as having
> occurred
> because they were taught it in their schooling from the early 1960's
> and haven't had access to the information of the Creation Scientists
> since then.

There are no "creation scientists". They're charlatans.

> If the Evolutionists are so sure they have it right in all respects

Not all respects. There's always more to learn.

> wouldn't you think they would be willing for  the Creation Scientists
> to give it to teh public on teh same basis they have through the
> schools
> from the early 1960's and allow the public to decide on an equal
> basis?

In the schools? Public schools? No. That would be illegal. It's
teaching religion in public schools. Are you familiar with the First
Amendment? Do you know what it means?

> It may be that the Evolutionists are 'running scared'!

Pardon me while I stroll.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > >> >But it is only the souls of those humans that True Christianity is
> > >> >concerned with, and Evolution in particular, and Science in general, say
> > >> >nothing at all about such souls.
>
> > >> There is no true Christianity and there are no souls.
>
> > >Actually there is no scientific way to prove no souls, just as there is no
> > >scientific way to prove souls exist. So it is purely a matter of faith.
> > >I, myself, have no faith in them, but cannot prove they do not exist.
>
> > There is no reason to think souls are real.
>
> > >> >Thus between the Theory of Evolution and other sciences on the one hand,
> > >> >and True Christianity on the other, there is, and can be, no conflict.
>
> > >> To say that is wishful thinking. Let go of your security blanket,
> > >> of, as Gladys would say, baby blamket.
>
> > >> >So that any religion, like creationism,  that impugns Evolution is no
> > >> >part of True Christianity, or any true religion.
>
> > >> No religion is true.
>
> And you have studied every religion that is in the world
> to know that not even one of them is true?
>
> > >That, like the existence of souls, is a matter beyond science's ability
> > >to settle either way, so any opinion on the subject can be buttressed by
> > >no more than pure faith.
>
> And what about evolution. have you seen any species gradually
> changing
> into another species.

Gradually? No, that type of evolution takes a lot longer than a human
lifetime. But have we seen one species change into another? Yes- look
at the history of _Spartina_.

> 'Grubs' do go into a coccoon state, emerge as
> various
> types of insects, but they produce 'grubs' of a similar kind.

Development is not evolution. Do you know the difference? Do you know
any biology at all?

>
> And science is science and cannot prove all things.

Science is not in the business of proving anything. You are evidently
not in the business of knowing anything about science.

> Not even in respect of organic life.

Is there inorganic life? What on earth are you babbling about?

> But science is not all there is and science has not proved
> everything,

Science has not proved anything. Get it straight.

> even within the scientific study.

What on earth are you babbling about?

Chris

> Gladys Swager

[nando_r...@yahoo.com]

On Jan 31, 6:45 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

It's not madness. Every real scientist has an intuitive and
speculative mode of thought associated to their work to come up with
ideas about how things work. And Andrulis ran into a breaking point
where he could not really do science anymore tied to infantile notions
of cause and effect, because it hindered his intuitive speculative
mode of thought. So he put it out there, essentially requesting a
paragadigm shift. For those who complain about gyres all the way down,
one could equally complain about causes all the way down. His paradigm
is useful, and he is fair in stating hypothesis which can be explored
and verified. For instance his hypothesis about oxygen in the
atmosphere.

I would say his statement about mathematics being useless is false
though. There are ways to make numbers come alive, which is
essentially what he is requesting. Any madness Andrulis may have must
be associated with trying to fit into an evolutionist mode of thought.
Some people take it really seriously when evolutionists say free will
is not real, and act accordingly. Then the individual's sanity becomes
directly threatened by evolution theory.

[James Beck]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 23:51:38 -0600, Garamond Lethe
<cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 08:11:44 -0800, James Beck wrote:
>
>> On Jan 30, 10:19 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 00:04:54 +0000, Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Andrulis' career as a researcher is over.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Possibly. I'm not aware of any evidence indicating that the rate of
>> mental illness is lower among researchers than it is in the general
>> population.
>
>I found Daniel Nettle's "Schizotypy and mental health amongst poets,
>visual artists, and mathematicians" (2005) [1] and Rawlings and
>Locarnini's "Dimensional schizotypy, autism, and unusual word
>associations in artists and scientists" (2007) [2]. Not quite on point,
>but interesting.

Yes. Interesting reading. My best friend's younger son was diagnosed
as PDD/NOS about 13 years ago. His condition spans the test
instrument.

>> John Nash was able to continue contributing after
>> schizophrenia.
>
>This isn't a point I'm interested in arguing too strenuously, but I will
>point out a few differences.

I used Nash mainly because he's notable and familiar (he's also an
asshole, but that's beside the point). I chose to say that he was
'able to contribute' with some care. His published research output was
near nil after his hospitalization. I could have made my comment more
clear by saying something more like: They won't fire Andrulis (it's
probably illegal, btw), but that doesn't mean he can't contribute.
Unless he leaves voluntarily, he'll probably retire from Case.

As an aside, community colleges are reluctant to hire research
faculty, including graduates of research schools, even on an adjunct
basis. They hire for different skills, so it's not a simple case of
stepping down to one. Consider not disparaging them so casually.

[Garamond Lethe]

It's my understanding that he was not going to receive tenure and is on
his way out.

> As an aside, community colleges are reluctant to hire research faculty,
> including graduates of research schools, even on an adjunct basis. They
> hire for different skills, so it's not a simple case of stepping down to
> one. Consider not disparaging them so casually.

<grin> I used to be an instructor at Tallahassee Community College, and
if they'd hire me....

No disparagement was intended.

[James Beck]

In that case, it will depend on how it shakes out. If it blows up into
an issue of mental illness, they'll probably have to get used to
having him around. He may be too proud to push it, but I'd be
surprised if a lawyer didn't advise him to. His best option may be to
be the bad penny.

[Paul J Gans]

This is one of those situations where the victim has the burden of proof.
No reason has to be given for denying tenure. So it becomes the job
of the denied to show that there was malice or discrimintory intent
or the like.

That's often practically impossible, and given the evidence of his paper,
it will be a very difficult argument to make.

[James Beck]

On Feb 2, 12:16 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

That misses the point. Try firing a treatable, mentally ill faculty
member under existing law. For that matter, try explaining to a jury
how a tenure-track faculty member became so isolated that no one
noticed his mental condition. Post-Frabrikant and Cowen (never mind
Amy Bishop) a university without a mental health policy, or with one
but ignoring it, would have a lot of explaining to do. I have no doubt
that the university would argue that their decision had nothing to do
with his mental illness, but at the very least, a jury would find the
timing very suspicious.

Since you brought up the evidence of his paper, the question will be
what it is evidence of, and there will be a strong presumption that
the recruiting committee did not hire an idiot for a highly
competitive tenure track slot.

[Kermit]

On Jan 30, 12:10 pm, Vurgil <Vur...@arg.erg> wrote:
> In article

> <nando-df9a8d40-71b4-474e-88c2-4e4799458...@dn8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >,
>  "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com" <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > On 30 jan, 12:59, alextangent <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 30, 11:40 am, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
>
> > > <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > On 30 jan, 01:04, Kleuskes & Moos <kleu...@somewhere.else.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > I saw this first on Pharyngula, but now ArsTechnica is running with it,
> > > > > too. That must be the highest honor for a crackpot.
>

> > > > >http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/01/how-the-craziest-fing-the....

> > > > >..
>
> > > > > Sadly, and this came from Pharyngula, there's a proper career going to
> > > > > the dogs here.
>
> > > > Looks like Darwinist fascists are out to destroy the career of this
> > > > scientist for opposing Darwinian selection theory.
>
> > > The guy looks like he's in need of help, which you'd have recognised
> > > if you'd bothered to read the paper.
>

> > Fuckin lying Darwinist fascist, you have not read the paper. You're an
> > intellectual fraud, a thug, and you're all gang-banging anything
> > against natural selection theory.
>
> When creationists run out of facts, which they do as soon as they open
> their mouths, they descent to insults, which is anti-Christian of them.

>
> The Theory of Evolution and True Christianity:
>
> Most of True Christianity has already accepted the overwhelming physical
> evidence that human's physical bodies were formed by Evolution.
>

> But it is only the souls of those humans that True Christianity is
> concerned with, and Evolution in particular, and Science in general, say
> nothing at all about such souls.
>

> Thus between the Theory of Evolution and other sciences on the one hand,
> and True Christianity on the other, there is, and can be, no conflict.
>

> So that any religion, like creationism,  that impugns Evolution is no

> part of True Christianity, or of any true religion.

I believe that Nando is muslim, although I have never seen him confirm
or deny it.

Kermit

[Kermit]

On Jan 31, 8:06 pm, Gladys Swager <gswa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 1, 11:03 am, Barry OGrady wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 30 Jan 2012, Vurgil wrote:
> > > Barry OGrady wrote:
> > >> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 , Vurgil wrote:
>
> > >> >Social Darwinism is a corruption of evolution
>
> http://creation.com/darwinism-it-was-all-in-the-family
>
> > >>>in precisely the same way that Creationism is a corruption of Christianity.
>
> How did you come to the idea that 'Creationism is a corruption of
> Christianity'.
> Genesis 1 : 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth
> Colossians 1 : 16  For by Him (Jesus Christ) were all things created
> taht are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible.

My college buddy, who earned his PhD in microbiology, was a devout
Christian, and accepted mainstream science. Taught me some
evolutionary science, in fact. Some folks like that will call
themselves Creationists, because they believe God created everything,
but they believe science accurately describes how. Be careful about
linguistic confusion here.

"Creationist" usually means (and you seem to be be using it this way)
somebody who believes his or her religious scriptures are literally
true regarding the creation of the universe. (There are also Muslim
Creationists, Hindu, etc.) About half of US Christians and most
Christians world wide have no problem with mainstream science.

>
> Creationism is a study to show that how God created is true
> in terms of science concepts known to--day

Actually, the Creationist community seems to study very little. It
certainly doesn't study the world around us, for their claims are at
odds with the evidence.

>
> > >> >> The reason science doesn't say anything about the soul, is because the
> > >> >> soul chooses.
>
> Souls cannot be put under a microscope.

Correct. Science can only study what it *sees (or otherwise
perceives). This evidence can be what is visible directly to the eyes,
or it can be more distanced evidence as seen by tools (such as images
in a telescope), or deduced from evidence one or more steps removed
from its consequences (such as the moon's gravitational effects on the
tides).

Science cannot study souls or gods until they provide tangible,
verifiable, evidence.

The bible is not scientific evidence; no amount of testing it or
reading it over and over can distinguish it from other religious
scriptures or traditions. A microscope will reveal no difference
between the Bardo Thodal and the Kings James Version of the Bible.
Neither make s any testable propositions, as a theory would. My
college buddy was a Christian, but it was not for scientific reasons -
science says nothing about God.

> .> >> >And despite the fervent efforts of many fervent theists, souls have not
> > >> >been found to be scientifically detectable.
>
> And science cannot scientifically prove everything about all that is
> in existence,
> Science cannot prove how 'things' came into existence originally

A couple of points. In the scientific community, they shy away from
the word "proof". A scientist will look at a set of related data (e.g.
the movements of the visible bodies in the solar system) and come up
with a model, an hypothesis, that explains them. It has to fit *all
facts(1), and be testable (or falsifiable in principle). It is
testable because it makes predictions: is this model is the correct
description of what is going on here, then X would happen under Y
conditions... So other scientists set up Y conditions, or look for Y
conditions, and carefully observe to see if X indeed happens. If it
does, that is strong supporting evidence for it (if not, it is
falsified).

If it can be said to be proven, it's only in the legal sense - beyond
reasonable doubt. Unlike trials, however, theories continue to be
tested all the time. Only and other closed systems of logic can be
said be able to prove anything for certain. one plus one equals two,
absolutely and no doubt about it, given the definition of the terms.

"China has more people than India". I think that is right, and I can
show you supporting evidence, but I *might be wrong. That's the kind
of truth that science deals with.

>
> > >> >The hypotheses of Evolution matches the physical evidence so well , and
> > >> >so much better than any other hypotheses that science has upgraded it to
> > >> >a scientific theory.
> > >> >No hypothesis involving any gods comes anywhere nearly as close to
> > >> >matching up with the physical evidence as does Evolution.
>
> Evolution is about material things in the universe. It cannot tell
> about
> their emergence or when they came on the scene of the Universe.

Sure it can. Here are some of the classes of evidence that establish
common descent from a common ancestor:

Fossil evidence sorted by time, corresponding to progression of early,
simple forms to diversity of modern forms, with numerous clear
transitional series.
Fossil evidence showing progression of whole ecosystems, with various
types of fossils associated with only certain other fossils.
Fossil evidence corresponding to plate tectonics, magnetic striping,
and other geological evidence.
Nested hierarchy of morphology.
Nested hierarchy of all the genomes studied so far.
The fact that these two nested hierarchies *match* is evidence in
itself.
Vestigial organs, structures, molecules, and behaviors.
Life is unified by a sharing of fundamental polymers, nucleic acids,
protein catalysts, etc.
You might want to check out:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Here is some of the evidence for the age of the Earth and life on it:
The radiometric dating of rocks.
The presence of plutonic intrusions within the column, which require
more than 4,000 years to solidify.
Thousands of feet of chalk deposits and evaporite sequences.
Metamorphic rocks (some forms of metamorphism require long periods at
low heat).
The succession in the fossil record.
Cyclothems (the repetitive and cyclic depositions of marine and
nonmarine strata).
The dating of the lower layers of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice
Caps.
Thousands of layers of sedimentary desposits, showing worm tracks and
burrows, solidified into rock.

Science has put people on the moon, reattached severed limbs, cures
about half of childhood leukemia, invented refrigerators, and put the
internet together and developed the computers we are using to talk to
each other. Science is incomplete, but that doesn't mean it knows
nothing.

>
> > >> >Re The Theory of Evolution and True Christianity:
>
> > >> >Most of True Christianity has already accepted the overwhelming physical
> > >> >evidence that human's physical bodies were formed by Evolution.
>
> And Evolution, said to be Science, must have the objective proof.

It does (see above). It is objective evidence because anybody can look
at it.

> evolutionists have said the proof is there, but they are extremely
> short in bringing
> it to public knowledge.

Actually, it's readily available to you right now. The internet, your
local library (if you still have one), the closest natural history
museums, all show copious evidence. Science classes at your local
junior college are a good choice if you're feeling ambitious - they do
have introductory classes.

> I would say that many Christians have accepted evolution as having
> occurred
> because they were taught it in their schooling from the early 1960's
> and haven't had access to the information of the Creation Scientists
> since then.

That, or they have looked at the evidence, which you apparently have
not.

> If the Evolutionists are so sure they have it right in all respects
> wouldn't you think they would be willing for  the Creation Scientists
> to give it to teh public on teh same basis they have through the
> schools
> from the early 1960's and allow the public to decide on an equal
> basis?

By public, you mean children. Should the children decide between
alchemy and chemistry, between astrology and astronomy?

Creationism - immediate creation of species as they are, on a fairly
young Earth (about 10,000 years ago), and typically a global flood
with the population spreading out from a handful of people even fewer
years ago? I'm sorry, but that flies in the face of overwhelming
evidence. That would require a trickster god, producing a world that
*looks like it is ancient planet (about 500,000 times older than ten
thousand years), and in which all of the species including humans
evolved. If you think that, because you trust you interpretation of
the bible more than the evidence of your eyes, fine. But you can't
claim that and then insist that Creationism is science also. As far as
determining the truthful explanation of the world around us, science
says that testable models explaining the evidence we have is what
counts. You can accept Creationism or science, but not both.

My college buddy said that "science is studying how God does things."
There are evolutionary scientists who are respected in the scientific
community who are Evangelical Christians. They can do perfectly good
science.

Creationists want the cachet of science without paying the price.(2)

> It may be that the Evolutionists are 'running scared'!

Of what?

>
> > >> >But it is only the souls of those humans that True Christianity is
> > >> >concerned with, and Evolution in particular, and Science in general, say
> > >> >nothing at all about such souls.
>
> > >> There is no true Christianity and there are no souls.
>
> > >Actually there is no scientific way to prove no souls, just as there is no
> > >scientific way to prove souls exist. So it is purely a matter of faith.
> > >I, myself, have no faith in them, but cannot prove they do not exist.
>
> > There is no reason to think souls are real.
>
> > >> >Thus between the Theory of Evolution and other sciences on the one hand,
> > >> >and True Christianity on the other, there is, and can be, no conflict.
>
> > >> To say that is wishful thinking. Let go of your security blanket,
> > >> of, as Gladys would say, baby blamket.
>
> > >> >So that any religion, like creationism,  that impugns Evolution is no
> > >> >part of True Christianity, or any true religion.
>
> > >> No religion is true.
>
> And you have studied every religion that is in the world
> to know that not even one of them is true?

Have you made a careful study of all of them and compared them to
yours? There are hundreds of Christian sects alone; for how many of
those have you even skimmed their doctrines? Religion may offer you a
path for life; they may give you meaning or direction, but they are a
crummy source for scientific knowledge. You wouldn't pull out your
bible to change a tire, would you? If you didn't already know how,
you'd likely pull out the car's manual from the glove compartment.

>
> > >That, like the existence of souls, is a matter beyond science's ability
> > >to settle either way, so any opinion on the subject can be buttressed by
> > >no more than pure faith.
>
> And what about evolution. have you seen any species gradually
> changing> into another species.

Here's one with noticeable change over one human generation:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm

> 'Grubs' do go into a coccoon state, emerge as
> various
> types of insects, but they produce 'grubs' of a similar kind.

Development into adults is something different from evolution of a
species. You're making a reference to "each after their own kind",
yes?

I assure you that if a dog gave birth to a cat it would be a major
problem for modern biology (assuming no labwork tomfoolery). The
average difference from one generation to another in a population
undergoing normal evolution is no greater than the difference you see
between any parents in your church and their children.

>
> And science is science and cannot prove all things.

Of course not. More importantly, it has not yet discovered everything
that it is capable of discovering. We don't know the limits to our
knowledge of that kind, but we are nowhere near the limits yet.

> Not even in respect of organic life.
> But science is not all there is and science has not proved
> everything,
> even within the scientific study.

Correct.

The question is which do you respect more when considering the nature
of the material world:
The creator's handiwork, or your interpretation of your favorite
bible?

> Gladys Swager

(1) Sometimes there are fairly trivial disparities. It may turn out
that the disparate observations are an error of some sort, or it may
turn out that the model, the theory, is perfectly good when tweaked a
little, or it may be the first trickle that turns into a flood of data
at odds with the theory, at which point the established theory is
dumped (and hopefully replaced with another. But if it's wrong, it's
wrong.
(2) Not only hard work, and subjecting one's work to peer review (the
results of which can be a blow to the ego), but the willingness to
give up any model (explanation) if it doesn't fit the facts.

Kermit

[Paul J Gans]

I have not read the original material and am not aware that he's
been judged mentally ill by anyone. Nor am I aware of the particulars
of this case. My statement on tenure denial is generally true.
Demonstrating mental illness in such a venue is not easy.

In the end the University may be stuck with his medical bills if he
is really ill. But I doubt that they have to either give him a
tenured position or hold one for him.

[Garamond Lethe]

That's not being done here. He had a term limited contract that allowed
him to apply for promotion and tenure when the term expires (or before).

> For that matter, try explaining to a jury how
> a tenure-track faculty member became so isolated that no one noticed his
> mental condition.

The university does not act in loco parentis for their faculty. Yes,
people noticed his condition. But you can't involuntarily commit someone
because they're doing bad research. Beyond that, I don't see what Case
could have done in an official capacity.

> Post-Frabrikant and Cowen (never mind Amy Bishop) a
> university without a mental health policy, or with one but ignoring it,
> would have a lot of explaining to do.

Fabrikant's behavior was abusive --- and that now sends up red flags.
Amy Bishop was known for "disproportionate and occasionally violent
reaction[s]". I won't say that kind of behavior is no longer tolerated,
but it certainly gets much more scrutiny than it did in the past. (I see
that the Case Faculty Handbook lists "Actual or threatened physical abuse
of any person on university premises or at functions sponsored or
supervised by the University" and one of the handful of activities that
can lead to immediate suspension.)

I have *no* reason to think Andrulis ever threatened anyone.

> I have no doubt that the
> university would argue that their decision had nothing to do with his
> mental illness, but at the very least, a jury would find the timing very
> suspicious.

Unfortunately if you're suffering from a mental illness only to the point
where you're doing bad work, you can be fired. On the other hand, if
you're suffering to the point where you can't work at all, you might get
disability and have a job waiting for you when you get better.

> Since you brought up the evidence of his paper, the question will be
> what it is evidence of,

It's evidence that he's not doing tenure-quality work.

> and there will be a strong presumption that the
> recruiting committee did not hire an idiot for a highly competitive
> tenure track slot.

He's not an idiot. He has a decent body of work. In a world where there
were more biology research jobs than researchers people would probably be
more willing to tolerate his behavior. He doesn't live in that world.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <w7-dnV5zmfL...@giganews.com>,

Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The university does not act in loco parentis for their faculty. Yes,
> people noticed his condition. But you can't involuntarily commit someone
> because they're doing bad research. Beyond that, I don't see what Case
> could have done in an official capacity.

Most good researchers do bad research, sometime. The ability to go
beyond conventional wisdom comes with attributes that can make the
people around you Nash their teeth.

--
It is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant
and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting. -- H. L. Mencken

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:03:42 -0500, Barry OGrady wrote
(in article <870hi7de5arbt5ecv...@4ax.com>):

>
> No religion is true.

Blasphemy. Joan Chen is the One True Goddess, all bow and worship her!

--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

[Gladys Swager]

http://creation.com/inexplicable-insect-metamorphosis

Gladys Swager

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 4 Feb 2012 17:49:29 -0800 (PST), Gladys Swager
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

Insects remain the same species as they reproduce.

Despite the claims of the crazy enemies of knowledge at creation.com,
metamorphosis is not inexplicable. Only their willingness to lie about
biology is.

[Gladys Swager]

On Feb 5, 2:12 pm, Free Lunch wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Feb 2012, Gladys Swager in alt.talk.creationism:

> >On Feb 1, 8:34 pm, Josh Miles wrote:
> >> On 1/31/2012 10:06 PM, Gladys Swager wrote:
>
> >> > And Evolution, said to be Science, must have the objective proof.
> >> > evolutionists have said the proof is there, but they are extremely
> >> > short in bringing it to public knowledge.
>
> >> It's there. You just choose to ignore it.
>

> >> > And what about evolution. have you seen any species gradually
> >> > changing into another species.
> >> >'Grubs' do go into a coccoon state, emerge as various
> >> > types of insects, but they produce 'grubs' of a similar kind.
>
> >> No one who knows anything about evolution would expect to see that. In
> >> fact, if that were to happen, it would be a serious blow *against* the
> >> theory of evolution!
>
> >http://creation.com/inexplicable-insect-metamorphosis
>

http://creation.com/whats-in-an-egg

> Insects remain the same species as they reproduce.
>
> Despite the claims of the crazy enemies of knowledge at creation.com,
> metamorphosis is not inexplicable. Only their willingness to lie about
> biology is.

It may be they are seeing the world more realistically than you are,
as they are applying their scientific understandings more correctly..
Gladys Swager

[John S. Wilkins]

But much more likely they are simply ignorant of the biology, as you
seem to be:

http://molevol.cmima.csic.es/belles/pdfs/2011-Belles-ELS.pdf

Understand that metamorphosis is just a complex form of developmental
sequence, and is under the same controls as any other developmental
stage in the lifecycle of an organism. That it seems extreme to *us*
doesn't mean a thing (except how ignorant we are until we go and study
the process).

The genes that are expressed in the pre-pupal instar organism and the
post-pupal instar organism are largely localised along the same pattern;
this should give you a clue. What looks like a radical reorganisation
has a shared deeper identity. We just don't see the endocrinal and
genetic regulatory mechanisms in action.

Knowledge is ever so much better than ignorance, you know.

--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

[Barry OGrady]

There is no chance of that.
Face it Gladys, you have been sold a faulty bill of goods.

>Gladys Swager

[Barry OGrady]

I think the creation 'scientists' know they are wrong just as
Christians who claim a good and almighty God know they
are wrong, but both are stuck with a belief system so they
must try to twist the facts to make them fit.
I suppose its a bit like a solicitor who must defend his client
even though he knows the client is guilty.

>--
>John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
>http://evolvingthoughts.net
>But al be that he was a philosophre,
>Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

You need a spell chequer!

[harry k]

> Gladys Swager- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

They have no "scientific understandings" - only lies about science.

Harry K

[Tim Norfolk]

On Jan 31, 5:24 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:57:07 +0000, Kleuskes & Moos wrote:

> > On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 02:15:41 -0600, Garamond Lethe wrote:
>
> >> On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 07:47:58 +0000, Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
>

> >>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 21:19:42 -0600, Garamond Lethe wrote:
>
> >>>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 00:04:54 +0000, Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
>

> >>>>> I saw this first on Pharyngula, but now ArsTechnica is running with
> >>>>> it,
> >>>>> too. That must be the highest honor for a crackpot.
>

> >>> I'm still on my first coffee, so i'll snip my way through this,
> >>> responnding only to what irks me.
>
> >>> <snip>
>
> >> Part of what you snipped included
>
> >> "I know a few people at Case so I spent some time tracking this down.
> >> Here are my notes that I emailed to someone who was curious."
>
> >> So blame it on a combination of lack of coffee on your part and lack of
> >> sufficient emphasis on my part, with my part perhaps being the greater.
> >> My apologies.
>

> > Ooops... Must have missed that. No apologies neccesary. I'll make it a
> > habit first to finish my coffee before responding online.
>
> > "1. Insert foot into mouth. 2. Broadcast globally".
>
> No, really, this was mostly my fault.  Seeing the word "You" in a
> response to your post should allow you to assume that I'm talking to you,
> not someone else.  Had *I* posted with sufficient coffee I would have
> noticed that and changed "you" to "[my correspondent]" or suchlike.  It's
> a detail, but it's the kind of detail I like to get right.
>
> And hey, if we all starting posting here while fully conscious what fun
> would that be?
>
> Garamond
> [Who is currently posting at 2:23a via three hours of sleep and two cans
> of diet coke, in between rounds of nonlinear optimization theory and cat
> herding.  Life is good, if occasionally incoherent.]
>
>
>
> > --
> >  ___________________________________
> > < PARDON me, am I speaking ENGLISH? >
> >  -----------------------------------
> >   \
> >    \
> >        ___
> >      {~._.~}
> >       ( Y )
> >      ()~*~()
> >      (_)-(_)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

What kind of optimization are you doing?

[Tim Norfolk]

> making decisions.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Wasn't it only a couple of weeks ago that we had rocks making
decisions?

[Gladys Swager]

On Feb 5, 3:31 pm, harry k wrote:

> On Feb 4, 8:13 pm, Gladys Swager wrote:
> > On Feb 5, 2:12 pm, Free Lunch wrote:
> > > On Sat, 4 Feb 2012, Gladys Swager in alt.talk.creationism:
> > > >On Feb 1, 8:34 pm, Josh Miles wrote:
> > > >> On 1/31/2012 10:06 PM, Gladys Swager wrote:
>
> > > >> > And Evolution, said to be Science, must have the objective proof.
> > > >> > evolutionists have said the proof is there, but they are extremely
> > > >> > short in bringing it to public knowledge.
>
> > > >> It's there. You just choose to ignore it.
>
> > > >> > And what about evolution. have you seen any species gradually
> > > >> > changing into another species.
> > > >> >'Grubs' do go into a coccoon state, emerge as various
> > > >> > types of insects, but they produce 'grubs' of a similar kind.
>
> > > >> No one who knows anything about evolution would expect to see that. In
> > > >> fact, if that were to happen, it would be a serious blow *against* the
> > > >> theory of evolution!
>
> > > >http://creation.com/inexplicable-insect-metamorphosis
>
> >http://creation.com/whats-in-an-egg
>
> > > Insects remain the same species as they reproduce.
>
> > > Despite the claims of the crazy enemies of knowledge at creation.com,
> > > metamorphosis is not inexplicable. Only their willingness to lie about
> > > biology is.
>
> > It may be they are seeing the world more realistically than you are,
> > as they are applying their scientific understandings more correctly..
>

> They have no "scientific understandings" - only lies about science.
>

They have the scinetific credentials. They know the Evolutionists'
understandings,
as they had to study an Evolutionary-based curriculum in their school
and Tertiary
studies. They do not reject everything they were taught in those
studies.
They do reject that all there is came into being of its own 'volition'
- (using an extended
meaning because things do not have reality)
A lie = nothing became something all of its own volitiion
-oops how can nothing have volition! -
and that something somehow had all the genetic variabilty for all
succeeding
forms of life !!?? . Pull the other leg while you are at it!!. .

Although Evolutionists can't prove abiogenesis they act as if they
know all about it,
is my reaction atter the readings I have done on this topic.

Evolution is guesswork to support the view there is no God as given in
the Bible.
Evolution supports atheism.
Gladys Swager

[Garamond Lethe]

Hi, Gladys.

From the article you cited:

"Darwinists who want to make a strong case for evolution will routinely
avoid certain biological topics—chiefly because those topics [insect
metamorphosis] resist all gradualist explanations."

Almost sounds like Mr. Devine knows what he's talking about, doesn't it?

However, plugging <insect metamorphosis evolution> into scholar.google.com
yields 2,970 hits (not all of them necessarily on point, of course).

And that's just what has been published since 2010.

Shall we start with the first one?

"Insect metamorphosis can be classified into three modalities: ametabolan
(no changes), hemimetabolan (progressive changes) and holometabolan
(dramatical changes at the end of the cycle). The metamorphic changes are
mainly regulated by two hormones: the moulting hormone, which promotes
the moults, and the juvenile hormone (JH), which represses the
transformation into the adult. The action of these two hormones is
mediated by a number of transcription factors, and the molecular
mechanisms regulating the expression of these and of the corresponding
target genes are finally refined by the action of micro ribonucleic
acids. Among the different transcription factors involved, those of the
Broad-Complex group are especially interesting because they have a
differential expression and JH dependency in holometabolans and
hemimetabolans. Holometabolan metamorphosis probably evolved from
hemimetabolan ancestors, although the mechanisms underlying such a
transition are still obscure."


Belles, Xavier (March 2011) Origin and Evolution of Insect Metamorphosis.
In: Encyclopedia of Life Sciences (ELS). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd:
Chichester. DOI: 10.1002/9780470015902.a002285

http://molevol.cmima.csic.es/belles/pdfs/2011-Belles-ELS.pdf

There's a nice discussion in the last section on "Current Theories on the
Evolution of Metamorphosis" that traces theories from 1883 to Truman and
Riddiford (1999, 2002) --- who come in for a bit of a drubbing, btw.

At this point, Mr. Devine is looking a bit of an idiot, yes?

I'm afraid I can't help him, but I do have a question for you: Why
didn't you do the minimal amount of checking to see if he knew what he
was talking about? We're talking about less than ten seconds to fire up
a browser, navigate to scholar.google and type in the obvious query. But
it never crossed your mind to do so.

While I'd like to say that moderate doses of skepticism plus the ability
and willingness to look things up are hallmarks of scientific thinking,
I'm afraid that's too strong of a statement. That's simply a hallmark of
competence (be it scientific, literary, philosophical or theological).

Which brings us to Creationists.....

The two defining characteristics of modern creationists are their
willingness to give up at the slightest provocation and their insistence
on creating God in their image. Found a problem in evolutionary biology
that can't be understood by an uninterested teenager in tenth-grade
biology class? Why, it must be a miracle! Not only are *we* never going
to figure out a naturalistic explanation, but God Himself couldn't figure
out one either and was reduced to using miracles to work around the
problem.

Contrast this attitude with mainstream Christian thought: God is
cleverer than we are but plays by rules He has set down, and has given us
the ability to find out what the rules are so that we may better
appreciate His cleverness. To say that one understand some biological
system sufficiently well to *know* that a miracle was required is simply
idolatry: one has constructed a God out of one's own limitations and has
proceeded to worship it.

As gods go, you can do better.

[David Hare-Scott]

More likely he/she is manufacturing them for his/her amusement out of whole
cloth.

D

[John S. Wilkins]

also this:

http://web.neurobio.arizona.edu/gronenberg/nrsc581/neuromodulation/endoc
rineevolution.pdf

[John S. Wilkins]

Barry OGrady <ath...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:

> On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 15:33:27 +1100, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
> Wilkins) wrote:

...

> >--
> >John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
> >http://evolvingthoughts.net
> >But al be that he was a philosophre,
> >Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
>
> You need a spell chequer!
>

Technically, Chaucer does.

[Garamond Lethe]

Two related problems:

1) Given 10M+ heterogeneous cores, a load-imbalanced yet tightly-coupled
application and a hard power bound of 20MW, identify how many cores
should be used, which ones, which processes should be assigned to which
cores, and how much power to schedule to each core (and when) in order to
optimize either execution time or throughput.

2) A subset [not the right word, but bear with me] of that is called the
Unit Commitment problem, which most shows up in electrical grid
optimization (which generators do you turn on when in order to match load
with the least amount of cost?). I found a clever approximation using
linear programming (instead of mixed integer-linear programming) for a
special case of problem #1 and spent far too much time trying to make
that trick work for unit commitment. I'm finally convinced it's a dead
end, but that process has led to an idea for a nonlinear approximation of
unit commitment. I suspect the problem formulation isn't going to turn
out to be convex --- and so not any more efficient than MILP ---, but
hey, that's why they call it research.

I'm writing grants for the former and getting paid to work on the latter.

[jillery]

ISTM Gladys needs to get back on her medication.

[jillery]

You know how it goes. Nando got his rocks off, and new he's moved on
to something new.

[Barry OGrady]

Gladys lacks that ability. More likely she was sold creationism while
young and impressionable and now she is old (80) she can't learn
anything. She can't even learn copy and paste to get her urls right.

>D

[Josh Miles]

That's not what you were talking about--assuming, of course, that you
know the difference between metamorphosis and speciation.

[Josh Miles]

On 2/4/2012 7:49 PM, Gladys Swager wrote:

I seem to have misread what you said above. I thought you were making
the standard "a monkey has never given birth to a human" argument. Still
doesn't change the fact that you have absolutely no clue what you're
talking about, though.

[Barry OGrady]

The creationists never do try to explain how God exists
from nothing and has all knowledge and power from nothing.

>Although Evolutionists can't prove abiogenesis they act as if they
>know all about it,
>is my reaction atter the readings I have done on this topic.

You are well aware that abiogenesis has nothing to do
with evolution.

>Evolution is guesswork to support the view there is no God as given in
>the Bible.

The earth is stationary and is the centre of the universe.
To say otherwise is guesswork to support the view there is no God

as given in the Bible.

>Evolution supports atheism.

And Catholicism and most Christians!

Gladys has completely lost it.

>Gladys Swager

[Gladys Swager]

On Feb 5, 8:36 pm, Barry OGrady wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Feb 2012, "David Hare-Scott" wrote:
> >Barry OGrady wrote:

http://creation.com/inexplicable-insect-metamorphosis
>
http://creation.com/whats-in-an-egg

>
> >>> It may be they are seeing the world more realistically than you are,
> >>> as they are applying their scientific understandings more correctly..
>
> >> There is no chance of that.
> >> Face it Gladys, you have been sold a faulty bill of goods.
>

The Almighty God creating makes more sense that nobody causing
something
to develop out of nothing ......and then what????

> >More likely he/she is manufacturing them for his/her amusement out of whole
> >cloth.
>
> Gladys lacks that ability.

Denigration does not win you any points.
I have read enough of the Science given to school pupils to know
that what is proposed just does not add up.

> More likely she was sold creationism while young and impressionable

> and now she is old (80) she can't learn anything. .
>
> God is a spirit. 0% proof! -
>
One day you will have to answer to God Almighty.
Gladys Swager

[Gladys Swager]

On Feb 5, 10:55 pm, Barry OGrady wrote:

> On Sat, 4 Feb 2012 , Gladys Swager wrote:
>
> >http://creation.com/inexplicable-insect-metamorphosis
>
> >http://creation.com/whats-in-an-egg
>

> >They have the scinetific credentials. They know the Evolutionists'
> >understandings, as they had to study an Evolutionary-based curriculum
> >in their school and Tertiary studies. They do not reject everything they
> >were taught in those studies.
> >They do reject that all there is came into being of its own 'volition'
> >- (using an extended meaning because things do not have reality)
> >A lie = nothing became something all of its own volitiion
> > -oops how can nothing have volition! -
> >and that something somehow had all the genetic variabilty for all
> >succeeding forms of life !!?? .  Pull the other leg while you are at it!!.   .
>
> The creationists never do try to explain how God exists
> from nothing and has all knowledge and power from nothing.
>

The Creationists do not have to explain how God exists,

> >Although Evolutionists can't prove abiogenesis they act as if they
> >know all about it,
> >is my reaction atter the readings I have done on this topic.
>
> You are well aware that abiogenesis has nothing to do
> with evolution.
>

Abiogenesis is the tranforming of soemthing that is lifeless
into life. From whence is that life supposed to have come? .

> >Evolution is guesswork to support the view there is no God as given in
> >the Bible.
>
> The earth is stationary and is the centre of the universe.
> To say otherwise is guesswork to support the view there is no God
> as given in the Bible.
>

And who gave you that idea?

> >Evolution supports atheism.
>
> And Catholicism and most Christians!
>

And there are Christians who do not agrre with 'goo-to-you-
evolution.
They believe God created.

> Gladys has completely lost it.
>

There is change within an organism from its parents in procreationm
but it is still the same type of organism.
But where are the organisms that have changed from one type of
organism into
another type of organism, both histroically and in present time?.
Gladys Swager

[Ernest Major]

In message
<21e0b84b-afec-431a...@uc9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
Gladys Swager <gsw...@gmail.com> writes

The factuality of common descent with modification through the agency of
natural selection and other processes does not depend on how life
originated. It doesn't matter whether life on earth originated from
spontaneous abiogenesis, supernatural biogenesis, directed abiogenesis,
global panspermia, local panspermia, directed panspermia, accidental
panspermia, or some other alternative that has escaped my attention.

That apart, your question assumes your conclusion. For an analogy,
crystallisation is the transforming of something that is disordered into
something that is ordered. From whence is that order supposed to have
come?

>
>> >Evolution is guesswork to support the view there is no God as given in
>> >the Bible.
>>
>> The earth is stationary and is the centre of the universe.
>> To say otherwise is guesswork to support the view there is no God
>> as given in the Bible.
>>
>And who gave you that idea?
>
>> >Evolution supports atheism.
>>
>> And Catholicism and most Christians!
>>
>And there are Christians who do not agrre with 'goo-to-you-
>evolution.
>They believe God created.

And there are Christians who believe that evolution is how God created.
Evolution is a fact; if you claim that evolution entails atheism then
you are de facto supporting atheism.

>
>> Gladys has completely lost it.
>>
>There is change within an organism from its parents in procreationm
>but it is still the same type of organism.
>But where are the organisms that have changed from one type of
>organism into
>another type of organism, both histroically and in present time?.
>Gladys Swager
>

The factuality of common descent with modification through the agency of
natural selection and other processes does not depend on the observation
of "organisms changing from one type to another" in historical and/or
present time; it is not a priori required that speciation be a
sufficiently fast process to be observed in such time. (We don't observe
stars, oceans, or stratovolcanoes, among other things, forming on such
timescales, but that doesn't invalidate scientific knowledge about their
formation.)

However, it turns out that some modes of speciation as sufficiently fast
that they can be observed on such timescales, and have been observed in
the laboratory, under domestication, and in the field. It is almost
routine in agronomy.

You may like to investigate the origins of Primula kewensis, Spartina
anglica, Senecio cambrica, Tragopogon mirus, Tragopogon miscellus,
Sorbus pseudomeinichii, Digitalis mertonensis, Aesculus carnea etc. You
might also like in investigate the recreation of species from their
ancestors, such as Arabidopsis sueica, Brassica napus, Triticum
aestivum, Madia citrigracilis and Nicotiana tabacum.
--
alias Ernest Major

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 4 Feb 2012 20:13:09 -0800 (PST), Gladys Swager
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

No, the anti-evolution creationists are not applying any scientific
understanding at all. The ones who do it full time, like Ken Ham and his
former Australian partners, the ones who got into a fight with him over
_money_ are telling their lies for money. Evolution deniers are frauds.
They are liars. Sure, they blame God for the lies they tell, but that
does not change the fact that they are indeed liars. No believer should
give money to those criminals or accept any of the anti-science claims
they make.

>Gladys Swager

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 4 Feb 2012 23:07:17 -0800 (PST), Gladys Swager
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

The ones who have decent scientific educations are the ones who are the
most obvious liars. Fools who know no science and believe the
anti-science nonsense spewed by creationist organizations may merely be
the deluded, but the educated who are telling these falsehoods for money
are, indeed, criminals.

>They know the Evolutionists' understandings,
>as they had to study an Evolutionary-based curriculum in their school and Tertiary
>studies. They do not reject everything they were taught in those studies.

Which is why they know that anti-evolution creationism is a flat-out
lie.

>They do reject that all there is came into being of its own 'volition'

This, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with evolution, but no
physicists are saying that the universe came into being of its own
volition. That is just another lie that the science-hating religious
frauds teach.

>- (using an extended meaning because things do not have reality)
>A lie = nothing became something all of its own volitiion
> -oops how can nothing have volition! - and that something somehow
>had all the genetic variabilty for all succeeding
>forms of life !!?? . Pull the other leg while you are at it!!. .

No scientists claim that all genetic variability existed in the first
populations of life. Again, you are repeating a lie that the
science-haters are preaching. Variation comes because there is imperfect
reproduction of genes.

>Although Evolutionists can't prove abiogenesis they act as if they
>know all about it,
>is my reaction atter the readings I have done on this topic.

You have already demonstrated that you have no understanding of biology,
so your attempts to criticise will be of no value to anyone. Why do you
think that saying "we don't know the details" is a weakness when they
don't know the details? Why do you prefer that people tell lies, even
when there is clear evidence that the creationist claims have been shown
to be false?

>Evolution is guesswork to support the view there is no God as given in
>the Bible.

No, evolution has happened and continues to happen. The facts that have
been gathered have nothing to do with any gods.

Your willingness to interpret the Bible in a way that shows that the
Bible is false is your choice. Don't blame God for your lies.

>Evolution supports atheism.

So you say, but you say many things that are not true.

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 05:15:40 -0800 (PST), Gladys Swager
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

>On Feb 5, 10:55 pm, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Sat, 4 Feb 2012 , Gladys Swager wrote:
>>
>> >http://creation.com/inexplicable-insect-metamorphosis
>>
>> >http://creation.com/whats-in-an-egg
>>
>> >They have the scinetific credentials. They know the Evolutionists'
>> >understandings, as they had to study an Evolutionary-based curriculum
>> >in their school and Tertiary studies. They do not reject everything they
>> >were taught in those studies.
>> >They do reject that all there is came into being of its own 'volition'
>> >- (using an extended meaning because things do not have reality)
>> >A lie = nothing became something all of its own volitiion
>> > -oops how can nothing have volition! -
>> >and that something somehow had all the genetic variabilty for all
>> >succeeding forms of life !!?? .  Pull the other leg while you are at it!!.   .
>>
>> The creationists never do try to explain how God exists
>> from nothing and has all knowledge and power from nothing.
>>
>The Creationists do not have to explain how God exists,

Why not? They are the ones who are preaching nonsense that conflicts
with the physical evidence. Why don't they have to explain why they are
doing that?

>> >Although Evolutionists can't prove abiogenesis they act as if they
>> >know all about it,
>> >is my reaction atter the readings I have done on this topic.
>>
>> You are well aware that abiogenesis has nothing to do
>> with evolution.
>>
>Abiogenesis is the tranforming of soemthing that is lifeless
>into life. From whence is that life supposed to have come? .

"From" is redundant in that sentence, "whence" means "from where".

>> >Evolution is guesswork to support the view there is no God as given in
>> >the Bible.
>>
>> The earth is stationary and is the centre of the universe.
>> To say otherwise is guesswork to support the view there is no God
>> as given in the Bible.
>>
>And who gave you that idea?

I guess you are more ignorant of the Bible than you are willing to
admit.

>> >Evolution supports atheism.
>>
>> And Catholicism and most Christians!
>>
>And there are Christians who do not agrre with 'goo-to-you-evolution.
>They believe God created.

Their error-filled beliefs do not change reality.

>> Gladys has completely lost it.
>>
>There is change within an organism from its parents in procreationm
>but it is still the same type of organism.

So what?

>But where are the organisms that have changed from one type of organism into
>another type of organism, both histroically and in present time?.

Aside from some plants who have had some significant changes from one
generation to the next because of their more flexible reproductive
methods, there are no changes from one type to another. The changes come
over many generations.

>Gladys Swager

Why do you insist on being ignorant and dishonest? Why do you blame God
for the lies you tell?

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 18:38:32 +1100, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins)
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

>Barry OGrady <ath...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 15:33:27 +1100, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
>> Wilkins) wrote:
>...
>> >--
>> >John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
>> >http://evolvingthoughts.net
>> >But al be that he was a philosophre,
>> >Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
>>
>> You need a spell chequer!
>>
>Technically, Chaucer does.

As I recall, our obsession with "proper spelling" came well after
Johnson wrote his dictionary.

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 05:03:00 -0800 (PST), Gladys Swager
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

>On Feb 5, 8:36 pm, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Feb 2012, "David Hare-Scott" wrote:
>> >Barry OGrady wrote:
>
>http://creation.com/inexplicable-insect-metamorphosis
>>
>http://creation.com/whats-in-an-egg
>>
>> >>> It may be they are seeing the world more realistically than you are,
>> >>> as they are applying their scientific understandings more correctly..
>>
>> >> There is no chance of that.
>> >> Face it Gladys, you have been sold a faulty bill of goods.
>>
>The Almighty God creating makes more sense that nobody causing something
>to develop out of nothing ......and then what????

Maybe if you bothered to learn a little about science, you wouldn't just
be repeating the lies of the confidence men who make money selling their
fraudulent stories to believers.

>> >More likely he/she is manufacturing them for his/her amusement out of whole
>> >cloth.
>>
>> Gladys lacks that ability.
>
>Denigration does not win you any points.
>I have read enough of the Science given to school pupils to know
>that what is proposed just does not add up.

You have made it quite clear that you neither understand what scientists
have discovered nor care that you misrepresent what they have
discovered.

>> More likely she was sold creationism while young and impressionable
>> and now she is old (80) she can't learn anything. .
>>
>> God is a spirit. 0% proof! -
>>
>One day you will have to answer to God Almighty.

I would rather be in my position than be in yours. I am not spending
time blaming God for the lies I tell.

>Gladys Swager

[walksalone]

Gladys Swager <gsw...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:2e619fd8-fdcb-4185...@vh10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com:

Follow-ups set to talk origin only.

> On Feb 5, 8:36 pm, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Feb 2012, "David Hare-Scott" wrote:
>> >Barry OGrady wrote:
>
> http://creation.com/inexplicable-insect-metamorphosis
>>
> http://creation.com/whats-in-an-egg

It would help your somewhat less than stunning presentation if you were
to use credible websites. Not credible to you, credible to majority the
audience that you are accounting to impress favorably. On the other hand,
if you're not attempting to impress the audience favorably, you're doing
a stellar job.

There are websites devoted to the exercises of biology, and those that
you like because they coddled your misconceptions are not even close to
being qualified to anybody who seriously wants to know.

>> >>> It may be they are seeing the world more realistically than you
>> >>> are, as they are applying their scientific understandings more
>> >>> correctly..
>>
>> >> There is no chance of that.
>> >> Face it Gladys, you have been sold a faulty bill of goods.
>>
> The Almighty God creating makes more sense that nobody causing

Ah yes, the infamous godidit argument. Also known as the argument from
ignorance or the appeal to unfounded authority. No one doubts you have
this misconception it's very important to you, primary that there is but
Jesus and big daddy with a hairy chest and a wheelbarrow full of gonads.
For you, this is acceptable. If you're trying to impress others with your
lack of knowledge and demonstrated lack of ability to discuss the subject
with a coherency that one must question your motives. No, I will not
accept your claims to shame because, I can read and I can study. Which
brings me to the point of this intrusion on your Tap dance. Primarily, I
subscribed to this particular newsgroup strictly for the purpose could
more. You're doing fine in the Baptist newsgroup for your ratings are on-
topic. But you lack the ability to even demonstrate the need of a god or
any decide yourself, let alone any certainty as to which god this must
be. I am certain Bumba does not care that you do not worship him, and
really why would any all-powerful deity required worship for the created
objects of your myth?
So what I'm going to do some good SQ to back up your baggage and go back
to the Baptist newsgroup where you are not only on-topic, but among
kindred souls as the saying goes.

> something
> to develop out of nothing ......and then what????

No one knows how the universe or universes came into being. No one. No
one was there to record the incidences claimed within the Hebrew Bible
for for borrowed from other mythologies. There is nothing unique within
the Hebrew Bible that can be taken as a moral standard or ethical
objective meant to improve the life of humanity. Indeed, what we find our
rules and regulations similar to the Royal courts of the time and the
society in general. We find many claim events, such as the Golden age to
Judea, spectacularly missing from the archives of history. It may not be
nice, but Lady you have been conned by your own desires and quite
possibly, those that you admire your child. But cannot shout anymore, but
in this particular case and part your life, you still are.

>> >More likely he/she is manufacturing them for his/her amusement out
>> >of whole cloth.
>>
>> Gladys lacks that ability.
>
> Denigration does not win you any points.

But it was an accurate description based on your posting history.

> I have read enough of the Science given to school pupils to know
> that what is proposed just does not add up.

Not to you, she worried that your requirements in place. Goddidit
satisfies your requirements, but your requirements for evidence
apparently are substandard compared to the majority of the posters in
this particular newsgroup. This is the impression you have given people
over the years.
What does not add up, is that science does not give lip service to your
gods. And yes ma'am, it is gods not god. Of course this requires you to
read and understand the Hebrew Bible in context and this is something I
fear you are unable to do.

>> More likely she was sold creationism while young and impressionable
>> and now she is old (80) she can't learn anything. .
>>
>> God is a spirit. 0% proof! -
>>
> One day you will have to answer to God Almighty.

Oh dear, the standard threat. If you do not kiss my gods ass, he will
smack you on your pee pee, for eternity no less. I'm always found it
rather bizarre that the majority of the gods of history and humanity are
a concern about vengeance on those that are supposedly, their followers.
Insofar as I have encountered, that is a unique ornamentation,
requirement really, applied to the followers of the revealed gods of the
district. Big daddy, Junior, and his uncle.

I would tell you what you can do with your toothless threats but this is
a public forum and etiquette of some variety is still in style. It even
applies sometimes, to people like myself. I realize that you do not feel
it applies to you and therefore you feel perfectly comfortable in racing
your skirt and leaving a deposit on the carpet. Not for not even for me
but on occasion I just might.

walksalone who had never understood the emotional dependency demonstrated
by those who claim to follow gods, particularly when they try to narrow
down to one god, which in reality exclusively in one version of the so-
called xian myth. After all, they don't even have the original documents
anymore but pretend that they have an mostly correct volume that has all
the answers. But the question for me is, if those are the answers, what
are the questions?

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the
sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation
or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite
eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons,
about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such
things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by
experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful
and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the
non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on
these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he
might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how
totally in error they are.
-- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis

[Harry K]

Had you done _any_ readings about the ToE other than in creationist
lying sources you wouild then know that it has ab zero to do with the
origin of life or the universe.

So much for that claim.

> Evolution is guesswork to support the view there is no God as given in
> the Bible.
> Evolution supports atheism.

Evolution and science in general has nothing to say about god at all.
Science only deals in things for which there is evidence or things
were that evidence leads to an inference something is there to be
found.

God, and religion in general, meets neither of those criteria.

Harry K

[Harry K]

> ISTM Gladys needs to get back on her medication.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Better would be for her to repeat some grade and HS classes she
apparently either flunked or ignored.

Harry K

[jillery]

In a seriousness, it didn't take the first time. I would be very
surprised if she would do any better going over it again. I mean,
it's not like she can't find this stuff out on her own, or that she
hasn't already been told what is correct.

[Paul J Gans]

In talk.origins John S. Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>Barry OGrady <ath...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:

>> On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 15:33:27 +1100, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
>> Wilkins) wrote:
>...
>> >--
>> >John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
>> >http://evolvingthoughts.net
>> >But al be that he was a philosophre,
>> >Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
>>
>> You need a spell chequer!
>>
>Technically, Chaucer does.

Uniform spelling is a modern affectation. All true libertarians
should be against uniform spelling as it is an unwarranted
influence on a person's freedom.

Uniform spelling is a communist plot to pollute our precious
body fluids.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 16:58:54 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

As long as my words are spelled properly for soundex, that should be
good enough.

[Mike Painter]

Gladys Swager wrote:
>>
>> They have no "scientific understandings" - only lies about science.
>>
> They have the scinetific credentials. They know the Evolutionists'
> understandings,
> as they had to study an Evolutionary-based curriculum in their school
> and Tertiary
> studies. They do not reject everything they were taught in those
> studies.
> They do reject that all there is came into being of its own 'volition'
> - (using an extended
> meaning because things do not have reality)
> A lie = nothing became something all of its own volitiion
> -oops how can nothing have volition! -
> and that something somehow had all the genetic variabilty for all
> succeeding
> forms of life !!?? . Pull the other leg while you are at it!!. .
>
> Although Evolutionists can't prove abiogenesis they act as if they
> know all about it,
> is my reaction atter the readings I have done on this topic.
>
> Evolution is guesswork to support the view there is no God as given in
> the Bible.
> Evolution supports atheism.
> Gladys Swager

If they do science they CAN NOT reject what they don't like.

Science is based on evidence and to deny it is to deny science. They can try
to falsify it but they can't deny it.

If science worked the way religion did we would have 50,000 different ideas
about most things and none of them would work.

[Devils Advocaat]

On Feb 5, 4:43 am, Barry OGrady <athe...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 15:33:27 +1100, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S.

> >But much more likely they are simply ignorant of the biology, as you
> >seem to be:
>
> >http://molevol.cmima.csic.es/belles/pdfs/2011-Belles-ELS.pdf
>

> >Understand that metamorphosis is just a complex form of developmental
> >sequence, and is under the same controls as any other developmental
> >stage in the lifecycle of an organism. That it seems extreme to *us*
> >doesn't mean a thing (except how ignorant we are until we go and study
> >the process).
>
> >The genes that are expressed in the pre-pupal instar organism and the
> >post-pupal instar organism are largely localised along the same pattern;
> >this should give you a clue. What looks like a radical reorganisation
> >has a shared deeper identity. We just don't see the endocrinal and
> >genetic regulatory mechanisms in action.
>
> >Knowledge is ever so much better than ignorance, you know.
>

> I think the creation 'scientists' know they are wrong just as
> Christians who claim a good and almighty God know they
> are wrong, but both are stuck with a belief system so they
> must try to twist the facts to make them fit.
> I suppose its a bit like a solicitor who must defend his client
> even though he knows the client is guilty.

>
> >--
> >John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
> >http://evolvingthoughts.net
> >But al be that he was a philosophre,
> >Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
>
> You need a spell chequer!

Doesn't a chequer need a chancellor in order to work?
>
> =-=-=-=-==-=-=-=

[Josh Miles]

On 2/5/2012 7:15 AM, Gladys Swager wrote:
> On Feb 5, 10:55 pm, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>> Evolution is guesswork to support the view there is no God as given in
>>> the Bible.
>>
>> The earth is stationary and is the centre of the universe.
>> To say otherwise is guesswork to support the view there is no God
>> as given in the Bible.
>>
> And who gave you that idea?

Well, that's what the Bible says.