The Missing Mythological Narratives of Naturalism
C.J.W.
Actually, there is a lot missing, a lot that can be
deconstructed.
That's why it is fun to get one into some writing.
But perhaps I can help them out on this by writing some
naturalistic mythological narratives for them.
An interesting example of where one is missing,
"The living world is full of innumerable other systems,
particularly
among the insects and invertebrates, for which gradual
evolutionary
explanations have never been provided. A particularly
fascinating
case is the mating flight of the dragonfly. The male flies
ahead of the female and grips her head with terminal
claspers. The female then bends her abdomen
forward and receives the sperm from a special
copulatory organ which is situated toward the front
on the under surface of the abdomen of the male
dragonfly and which he fills with semen from the true
reproductive aperture before the start of the mating
flight. This strange manoeuvre, which seems a curiously
round about way to bring sperm to egg, depends
on the unique and complex machinery which forms
the male copulatory organ. Although in its detailed
structure it varies enormously in different species,
the fundamental design of this extraordinary complex
organ is essentially the same in all species of dragonfly.
No other insect possesses anything remotely like it,
nor is it led up to gradually by a sequence of simpler
transitional structures.
As Tillyard remarked:
'The copulatory apparatus of the male Dragonfly is
one of the most remarkable structures in the Animal
Kingdom. The “palpal organ” on the pedipaip of the
male Spider, and the hectocotylous arm of the Cephalopod
Mollusc, extraordinary as they are, do not defy
all explanation, since in each case they are
modifications of an appendage already present.
But the apparatus of the male Dragonfly is not
homologous with any known organ in the Animal
Kingdom; it is not derived from any pre-existing
organ; and its origin, therefore, is as complete
a mystery as it well could be.' "
(Evolution: A Theory In Crisis
By Michael Denton :219-220)
Yet another one, missing.....well then, perhaps I can write one.
Once upoon a time, there was a group of dragonfly ancestors.
I suppose the technical term for this group would be,
proto-wannabedragonflyus. Now the problem
with this group of ancestors was that they lacked
a good copulatory organ. So the male dragonflies
were buzzing around after the females, and only few
survived. Sometimes they would buzz after a female
and bump into each other. Then in their lil'
proto-dragonfly heads they would feel something like,
"Hey man, can't you see I'm trying to evolve
a good copulatory organ here, now out of my way!"
But these poor proto-dragonflies still just did not
have good one. But one day, one thought, "Man,
I bet if I flew ahead of her and gripped on
with these terminal claspers thingies, this
would work better!"
And he did. It was a success, so all the lil' dragonfly
babies began to look like the daddy dragonfly,
who just happened to figure out his lil' terminal
claspers.
So all the dragonflies lived happily ever after.
http://mynym.blogspot.com/2005/01/what-no-mythological-narrative.html
Bob
wrote:
>Mythological narratives of naturalism are typical to Darwinists.
>
>Actually, there is a lot missing, a lot that can be
>deconstructed.
>That's why it is fun to get one into some writing.
>
>But perhaps I can help them out on this by writing some
>naturalistic mythological narratives for them.
>
>An interesting example of where one is missing,
>"The living world is full of innumerable other systems,
>particularly
>among the insects and invertebrates, for which gradual
>evolutionary
>explanations have never been provided.
except evolutionary models have not only been provided, but discovered
for a number of organisms
and not a single creationist model has ever...not once...been
established.
those of us who are scientists laugh at creationists and their bizarre
notion that evidence 'against' evolution is evidence for creation.
what a stupid idea.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
C.J.W.
Bob wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 00:42:43 GMT, "C.J.W." <watt...@bellatlantic.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Mythological narratives of naturalism are typical to Darwinists.
> >
> >Actually, there is a lot missing, a lot that can be
> >deconstructed.
> >That's why it is fun to get one into some writing.
> >
> >But perhaps I can help them out on this by writing some
> >naturalistic mythological narratives for them.
> >
> >An interesting example of where one is missing,
> >"The living world is full of innumerable other systems,
> >particularly
> >among the insects and invertebrates, for which gradual
> >evolutionary
> >explanations have never been provided.
>
> except evolutionary models have not only been provided, but discovered
> for a number of organisms
"A number..."
What number will do, one, two?
Do you realize how many organisms there are? That's not even the point,
not really.
> and not a single creationist model has ever...not once...been
> established.
Those who believe in more than a naturalistic narrative about origins are
not claiming that there should be naturalistic models for their claims.
> those of us who are scientists laugh at creationists and their bizarre
> notion that evidence 'against' evolution is evidence for creation.
>
> what a stupid idea.
"Me scientist! So...haha!"
Yeah, am I supposed to care? I really don't care. Do you think that a
lot of people do? Modern scientists have a piss-poor track record on
some things and some of them have been plain moral degenerates.
Example, Kinsey:
http://mynym.blogspot.com/2005/01/alfred-kinsey.html
--
--W
http://mynym.blogspot.com/
Mark K. Bilbo
of the bushes shouting:
> Modern scientists have a piss-poor track record on
> some things...
How would you know?
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
-- Seneca the Younger
Bob
wrote:
>
>
>Bob wrote:
>
>>
>> except evolutionary models have not only been provided, but discovered
>> for a number of organisms
>
>"A number..."
>
>What number will do, one, two?
horses. whales
and the of successes ID has had?
even one will do.
oh. you cant provide that.
yeah, i know
>> and not a single creationist model has ever...not once...been
>> established.
>
>Those who believe in more than a naturalistic narrative about origins are
>not claiming that there should be naturalistic models for their claims.
ah. but it's science. somehow, magically, in the natural world,
something happened
you guys cant get your story straight. here in the dover/lebanon area,
creationists are trying to get ID in the schools as science.
you dont have a 'model'. you cant tell us how it works. 'god did it'
says nothing.
>
>> those of us who are scientists laugh at creationists and their bizarre
>> notion that evidence 'against' evolution is evidence for creation.
>>
>> what a stupid idea.
>
>"Me scientist! So...haha!"
>
>Yeah, am I supposed to care? I really don't care. Do you think that a
>lot of people do? Modern scientists have a piss-poor track record on
>some things and some of them have been plain moral degenerates.
gee. and christians for 19 centuries justified slavery.
you'll forgive me if i say religion hasn't been a boon for moral
values
and it's ironic you criticize science on your scientist invented
computer.
William
wrote:
>Bob wrote:
>> and not a single creationist model has ever...not once...been
>> established.
>
>Those who believe in more than a naturalistic narrative about origins are
>not claiming that there should be naturalistic models for their claims.
Does this "more than a naturalistic narrative about origins" also
provide an explanation for what is observed?
William
Elf M. Sternberg
> and not a single creationist model has ever...not once...been
> established.
Sure they have. "God did it so you don't have to think about
it." They'd say the same thing about automobiles if they didn't know
any better.
Elf
Eros
LOL! Do you mean *this* Michael Denton?;-
"It is clear, then, that Darwin's special theory was largely correct.
Natural selection has been directly observed and there can be no
question now that new species do originate in nature; furthermore, it
is now possible to explain in great detail the exact sequence of events
that lead to species formation. Moreover, although there are some areas
of disagreement among students of evolution as to the relative
significance of natural selection as opposed to purely random processes
such as genetic drift in the process of speciation, no one doubts that
natural selection plays an important role in the process. The
validation of Darwin's special theory, which has been one of the major
achievements of twentieth century biology, has inevitably had the
effect of enormously enhancing the credibility of his general theory of
evolution." -- (Michael Denton, (1985), "Evolution: A Theory in
Crisis", Burnett Books, p 85-86)
and...
"...it is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument
presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic
assumption of modern science - that the cosmos is a seamless unity
which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason
and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin
of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This
is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called
"special creationist school". According to special creationism, living
organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built
into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms
analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of
supernatural acts, involving the suspension of natural law. Contrary to
the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is
critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of
the organic world - that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on
the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in
the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals,
atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies." -- Michael Denton, 1998, 'Nature's
Destiny'(page xvii-xviii)
[snip ridiculous and pointless little story]
EROS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Evolution and Darwinism are often taken to mean the same thing. But
they don't. Evolution of life over a very long period of time is a
FACT, if we are to believe evidence gathered during the last two
centuries from geology, paleontology, molecular biology and many other
scientific disciplines. Despite the many believers in Divine creation
who dispute this ..., the probability that evolution has occurred
approaches certainty in scientific terms."
-- 'The Neck of the the Giraffe', (1982), Francis Hitching. p4.
John Wilkins
> > As Tillyard remarked:
> >
> > 'The copulatory apparatus of the male Dragonfly is
> > one of the most remarkable structures in the Animal
> > Kingdom. The "palpal organ" on the pedipaip of the
> > male Spider, and the hectocotylous arm of the Cephalopod
> > Mollusc, extraordinary as they are, do not defy
> > all explanation, since in each case they are
> > modifications of an appendage already present.
> > But the apparatus of the male Dragonfly is not
> > homologous with any known organ in the Animal
> > Kingdom; it is not derived from any pre-existing
> > organ; and its origin, therefore, is as complete
> > a mystery as it well could be.' "
> > (Evolution: A Theory In Crisis
> > By Michael Denton :219-220)
And it's not true, anyway:
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046/j.1439-0469.2001.0016
5.x
Page 221:
"The common presence of paired penis and parameres on the
ninth abdominal segment excludes an evolutionary derivation
of the penis from parameres ( --- gonapophyses --- endites),
unless one postulates more than one pair of endites per
segment and pair of legs in the groundplan (Kukalov á -Peck
1991, 1997), or another complex nature such as an inclusion of
leg homologues of the tenth segment (Nielsen 1957). Since
there is no unequivocal evidence for the latter assumptions, we
prefer the more simple interpretation that the penis of
ectognathous insects is a secondary differentiation of the
cuticle in the area of the opening of the ductus ejaculatorius.
This hypothesis of course implies that the paired anlage and
the apparent segmentation of the penis are considered as
secondary phenomena, even though one may not forget that
the two mentioned facts indeed represent conflicting evidence
which could instead support the interpretation of Kukalová -
Peck (1991, 1997)."
Note that the hypothesis they reject was 1957. Denton ought to have
known of this and responded.
--
John S. Wilkins jo...@wilkins.id.au AA#2207
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God cheats
Elf M. Sternberg
> Do you realize how many organisms there are? That's not even the point,
> not really.
The point is that there is *not yet* a single organism that
cannot be fit into an evolutionary and completely naturalistic
narrative. Not a one. When you find one, then we'll sit up and listen.
Elf
Fencingsax
The Afripean Swallow
sanguinevikings
C.J.W. wrote:
> <snip>
Cut, paste, decontextualise.
Hey Presto: Snake oil.
Wakboth
C.J.W. wrote:
> Mythological narratives of naturalism are typical to Darwinists.
You really don't know anything about science in general and biology in
particular; specifically theory of evolution.
-- Wakboth
TomS
Bob stated..."
>
>On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 00:42:43 GMT, "C.J.W." <watt...@bellatlantic.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Mythological narratives of naturalism are typical to Darwinists.
>>
>>Actually, there is a lot missing, a lot that can be
>>deconstructed.
>>That's why it is fun to get one into some writing.
>>
>>But perhaps I can help them out on this by writing some
>>naturalistic mythological narratives for them.
>>
>>An interesting example of where one is missing,
>>"The living world is full of innumerable other systems,
>>particularly
>>among the insects and invertebrates, for which gradual
>>evolutionary
>>explanations have never been provided.
>
>except evolutionary models have not only been provided, but discovered
>for a number of organisms
>
>and not a single creationist model has ever...not once...been
>established.
I'm not sure what you mean by "established", but there have
been creationist models proposed. For example, the "vapor
canopy" model. I suppose that the "changing speed of light"
might count, too. We have to be rather generous, it's true, in
finding something that would count as a "model established".
It does seem to be true that there haven't been any proposed
in the last several decades.
Mostly, we seem to get things like "baramin" which, by the most
generous standards, don't have enough to them to be counted as a
model.
>
>
>those of us who are scientists laugh at creationists and their bizarre
>notion that evidence 'against' evolution is evidence for creation.
>
>what a stupid idea.
>
>---------------------------
>to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
>and enter 'wf3h' in the field
>
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"... they have never yet realized to themselves the creation of even one
species. If they have formed a definite conception of the process, let them tell
us how a new species is constructed, and how it makes an appearance."
Herbert Spencer, The Development Hypothesis (1852)
Mark K. Bilbo
<1105955945....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, Wakboth lept out
of the bushes shouting:
>
The man is trying to raise ignorance to an artform...
Ash
>
> Bob wrote:
>
>
>>On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 00:42:43 GMT, "C.J.W." <watt...@bellatlantic.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Mythological narratives of naturalism are typical to Darwinists.
>>>
>>>Actually, there is a lot missing, a lot that can be
>>>deconstructed.
>>>That's why it is fun to get one into some writing.
>>>
>>>But perhaps I can help them out on this by writing some
>>>naturalistic mythological narratives for them.
>>>
>>>An interesting example of where one is missing,
>>>"The living world is full of innumerable other systems,
>>>particularly
>>>among the insects and invertebrates, for which gradual
>>>evolutionary
>>>explanations have never been provided.
>>
>>except evolutionary models have not only been provided, but discovered
>>for a number of organisms
>
>
> "A number..."
>
> What number will do, one, two?
>
> Do you realize how many organisms there are? That's not even the point,
> not really.
>
>
for a Creationist point of view
maff
C.J.W. wrote:
> Mythological narratives of naturalism are typical to Darwinists.
>
So how come Christian fundamentalists aren't well known for their
intellect and or contributions to science?
Naturalism
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/naturalism/
Materialism
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/materialism/index.shtml
Science and Religion
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/science/index.shtml
Faith & Reason
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/reason/index.shtml
Science & Religion
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/sci.shtml
Faith & Reason
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/fai.shtml
maff
C.J.W. wrote:
> Mythological narratives of naturalism are typical to Darwinists.
>
So how come Christian fundamentlists aren't well known for their
intellect or their contributions to science?
Naturalism
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/naturalism/index.shtml
Materialism
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/materialism/index.shtml
Science and Religion
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/science/index.shtml
Faith and Reason
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/reason/index.shtml
Science and Religion
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/sci.shtml
Faith and Reason
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/fai.shtml
Glenn
"maff" <maf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105994577.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> C.J.W. wrote:
> > Mythological narratives of naturalism are typical to Darwinists.
> >
> [...]
>
> So how come Christian fundamentalists aren't well known for their
> intellect and or contributions to science?
>
"fundamentalist" would allow you to challenge that, atheist idiot "he
who reports interesting news" maff.
http://www.infidels.org/index.shtml
Are you the moron "Paul Draper" mentioned on the page?
Bob
<glenns...@SPAMqwest.net> wrote:
>
>"maff" <maf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1105994577.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> C.J.W. wrote:
>> > Mythological narratives of naturalism are typical to Darwinists.
>> >
>> [...]
>>
>> So how come Christian fundamentalists aren't well known for their
>> intellect and or contributions to science?
>>
>Many have and are, although you think that using the word
>"fundamentalist" would allow you to challenge that, atheist idiot "he
>who reports interesting news" maff.
>
difference in terminology. creationists make contributions to areas
where their beliefs are not an issue. they have made no contributions
to an understanding of the origin of species on the basis of
creationism.
Tukla Ratte
< snip >
> and not a single creationist model has ever...not once...been
> established.
They have a model: "Goddidit".
< snip >
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347
Glenn
"Bob" <wf...@ptd.net> wrote in message
news:41ec2dec...@usenet.ptd.net...
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:27:15 -0700, "Glenn"
> <glenns...@SPAMqwest.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"maff" <maf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:1105994577.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> C.J.W. wrote:
> >> > Mythological narratives of naturalism are typical to Darwinists.
> >> >
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> So how come Christian fundamentalists aren't well known for their
> >> intellect and or contributions to science?
> >>
> >Many have and are, although you think that using the word
> >"fundamentalist" would allow you to challenge that, atheist idiot "he
> >who reports interesting news" maff.
> >
>
> difference in terminology. creationists make contributions to areas
> where their beliefs are not an issue. they have made no contributions
> to an understanding of the origin of species on the basis of
> creationism.
>
also we see Bob telling us what "maff" really said, and implying that he
agrees with what "maff" *really* said. Most curious.
Tukla Ratte
> Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
< snip >
>> The point is that there is *not yet* a single organism that
>>cannot be fit into an evolutionary and completely naturalistic
>>narrative. Not a one. When you find one, then we'll sit up and
>> listen.
>
> The Afripean Swallow
Did your modem disconnect before you could finish your sentence?
John Wilkins
Eros
Glenn wrote:
> "maff" <maf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1105994577.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > C.J.W. wrote:
> > > Mythological narratives of naturalism are typical to Darwinists.
> > >
> > [...]
> >
> > So how come Christian fundamentalists aren't well known for their
> > intellect and or contributions to science?
> >
> Many have and are, although you think that using the word
> "fundamentalist" would allow you to challenge that, atheist idiot "he
> who reports interesting news" maff.
If "many are" as you claim, you will have no difficulty at all in
providing the names of a couple of Christian fundamentalists who are
well known for their intellect and or contributions to science, will
you Sheldon... Go ahead, we're waiting with bated breath!
> http://www.infidels.org/index.shtml
>
> Are you the moron "Paul Draper" mentioned on the page?
Pot... kettle.... black, Sheldon.
EROS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eskimo: "If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?"
Priest: "No, not if you did not know."
Eskimo: "Then why did you tell me?"
Eros
Are you suggesting then, that Denton was just 'dicking around'? :)
EROS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in
praise of intelligence." -- [Bertrand Russell]
Augray
> Mythological narratives of naturalism are typical to Darwinists.
>
> Actually, there is a lot missing, a lot that can be
> deconstructed.
> That's why it is fun to get one into some writing.
>
> But perhaps I can help them out on this by writing some
> naturalistic mythological narratives for them.
>
> An interesting example of where one is missing,
> "The living world is full of innumerable other systems,
> particularly
> among the insects and invertebrates, for which gradual
> evolutionary
> explanations have never been provided. A particularly
> fascinating
> case is the mating flight of the dragonfly. The male flies
> ahead of the female and grips her head with terminal
> claspers. The female then bends her abdomen
> forward and receives the sperm from a special
> copulatory organ which is situated toward the front
> on the under surface of the abdomen of the male
> dragonfly and which he fills with semen from the true
> reproductive aperture before the start of the mating
> flight. This strange manoeuvre, which seems a curiously
> round about way to bring sperm to egg, depends
> on the unique and complex machinery which forms
> the male copulatory organ. Although in its detailed
> structure it varies enormously in different species,
> the fundamental design of this extraordinary complex
> organ is essentially the same in all species of dragonfly.
> No other insect possesses anything remotely like it,
> nor is it led up to gradually by a sequence of simpler
> transitional structures.
>
> As Tillyard remarked:
>
> 'The copulatory apparatus of the male Dragonfly is
> one of the most remarkable structures in the Animal
> Kingdom. The “palpal organ” on the pedipaip of the
> male Spider, and the hectocotylous arm of the Cephalopod
> Mollusc, extraordinary as they are, do not defy
> all explanation, since in each case they are
> modifications of an appendage already present.
> But the apparatus of the male Dragonfly is not
> homologous with any known organ in the Animal
> Kingdom; it is not derived from any pre-existing
> organ; and its origin, therefore, is as complete
> a mystery as it well could be.' "
> (Evolution: A Theory In Crisis
> By Michael Denton :219-220)
Denton's referring to a book from 1917. Couldn't he have come up with
something more recent? The reference he gives is:
Tillyard, R. J. (1917) _The Biology of the Dragonfly_. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, p215.
In fact, the name of the book is "The Biology of Dragonflies", and a
quick perusal leaves no doubt that Tillyard was an evolutionist.
[snip]
John Wilkins
Well, yes, but there's a better lesson here - evolutionary theory states
that no feature exists which is not a modification of some prior
feature. Denton ought to have known this, and searched the literature to
find out if any testable hypotheses had been proposed for the structure
before he asserted that there is no prior structure from which it
evolved. As it happens, it is a structure of the cuticle, with homologs
in related insects.
John Harshman
> Mythological narratives of naturalism are typical to Darwinists.
I'll ignore most of the strawmen and get to the central strawman.
> Actually, there is a lot missing, a lot that can be
> deconstructed.
> That's why it is fun to get one into some writing.
>
> But perhaps I can help them out on this by writing some
> naturalistic mythological narratives for them.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Nor would we necessarily expect such a thing. Extinction accounts fot he
absence of many intermediates in the modern world. For some of these
intermediates, we have fossils. Unfortunately the fossil record of
dragonflies is almost entirely limited to their wings.
> As Tillyard remarked:
>
> 'The copulatory apparatus of the male Dragonfly is
> one of the most remarkable structures in the Animal
> Kingdom. The “palpal organ” on the pedipaip of the
> male Spider, and the hectocotylous arm of the Cephalopod
> Mollusc, extraordinary as they are, do not defy
> all explanation, since in each case they are
> modifications of an appendage already present.
> But the apparatus of the male Dragonfly is not
> homologous with any known organ in the Animal
> Kingdom; it is not derived from any pre-existing
> organ; and its origin, therefore, is as complete
> a mystery as it well could be.' "
> (Evolution: A Theory In Crisis
> By Michael Denton :219-220)
But aren't the claspers modified cerci? That's what my references say.
Or are you talking about just the secondary genital organ? Or do you
know what you're talking about?
The strange thing is that Denton either has become an evolutionist as of
his second book or (as some think) was an evolutionist all along, but
such a bad writer as to make that hard to tell in his first book.
Denton's position (at least now) would be that dragonflies are descended
from more primitive insects that lacked the claspers. I have no idea how
he thinks that the transition from no claspers to claspers happened, but
neither do I care.
> Yet another one, missing.....well then, perhaps I can write one.
[snip another poorly written attempt; so far we know you aren't cut out
for parables or just so stories; keep trying]
Al Klein
Wilkins) said in alt.atheism:
>Well, yes, but there's a better lesson here - evolutionary theory states
>that no feature exists which is not a modification of some prior
>feature.
Which theory would that be? I believe that there are a few mechanisms
that can cause a totally new feature to appear.
--
"I've heard the call. I believe God wants me to run for president."
--George W. Bush, quoted in George Magazine, September, 2000
"God gave the savior to the German people. We have faith,
deep and unshakeable faith, that he was sent to us by
God to save Germany."
--Hermann Goering, speaking of Hitler
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
Mark K. Bilbo
of the bushes shouting:
> Fencingsax wrote:
>
>> Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
>
> < snip >
>
>>> The point is that there is *not yet* a single organism that
>>>cannot be fit into an evolutionary and completely naturalistic
>>>narrative. Not a one. When you find one, then we'll sit up and
>>> listen.
>>
>> The Afripean Swallow
>
> Did your modem disconnect before you could finish your sentence?
Tukla's sitting there saying "What? WHAT???"
Eros
Ahem... looks like I'll have to make my puns a little less subtle. :)
EROS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We are the products of editing, rather than of authorship." -- George
Wald, U.S. biochemist, "The Origin of Optical Activity," in Annals of
the New York
Academy of Sciences, vol. 69 (1957)
John Wilkins
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 11:48:29 +1100, john...@wilkins.id.au (John
> Wilkins) said in alt.atheism:
>
> >Well, yes, but there's a better lesson here - evolutionary theory states
> >that no feature exists which is not a modification of some prior
> >feature.
>
> Which theory would that be? I believe that there are a few mechanisms
> that can cause a totally new feature to appear.
Such as?
John Wilkins
Eros
So you say now! ;)
EROS.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"All Bibles are man-made." -- [Thomas Edison]
Glenn
"Eros" <eros_tal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1106004509.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Glenn wrote:
> > "maff" <maf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1105994577.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > C.J.W. wrote:
> > > > Mythological narratives of naturalism are typical to Darwinists.
> > > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > So how come Christian fundamentalists aren't well known for their
> > > intellect and or contributions to science?
> > >
> > Many have and are, although you think that using the word
> > "fundamentalist" would allow you to challenge that, atheist idiot
"he
> > who reports interesting news" maff.
>
> If "many are" as you claim, you will have no difficulty at all in
> providing the names of a couple of Christian fundamentalists who are
> well known for their intellect and or contributions to science, will
> you Sheldon... Go ahead, we're waiting with bated breath!
>
> > http://www.infidels.org/index.shtml
> >
> > Are you the moron "Paul Draper" mentioned on the page?
>
> Pot... kettle.... black, Sheldon.
>
But this is a good one, although it also stands on it's own merit, so to
speak.
Bob
<glenns...@SPAMqwest.net> wrote:
>
>>
>So we see here that Bob disagrees with what "maff" actually said, and
>also we see Bob telling us what "maff" really said, and implying that he
>agrees with what "maff" *really* said. Most curious.
>
yawn. more creationist non-response
does any creationist answer ANY question directed at them?
that one is not
Michael Siemon
"Eros" <eros_tal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> John Wilkins wrote:
> > Eros <eros_tal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
....
> > > > > Are you suggesting then, that Denton was just 'dicking around'?
> :)
> > > > Well, yes, but there's a better lesson here -...
> > > > Denton ought to have known this, and searched the
> > > > literature to find out if any testable hypotheses
> > > > had been proposed for the structure ... As it happens,
> > > > it is a structure of the cuticle, with homologs
> > > > in related insects.
....
> > > Ahem... looks like I'll have to make my puns a little less subtle.
> :)
> So you say now! ;)
Trust me -- John got your pun the first time.
maff
If you want to sacrifice your life and money for Christian fascism then
by all means go for it.
Jefferson Davis
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/7db7fa663cb9ed
Constitution of the Confederate States of America
http://americancivilwar.com/documents/confederate_constitution.html
March 11,1861
We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its
sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent
federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity,
and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our
posterity~invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God~do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.
Tukla Ratte
> In our last episode <352qaqF...@individual.net>, Tukla Ratte lept out
> of the bushes shouting:
>
>>Fencingsax wrote:
< snip >
>>>The Afripean Swallow
>>
>>Did your modem disconnect before you could finish your sentence?
>
> Tukla's sitting there saying "What? WHAT???"
I thought he was going to describe a sex act I hadn't heard of.
Mark K. Bilbo
of the bushes shouting:
> Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
>
>> In our last episode <352qaqF...@individual.net>, Tukla Ratte lept
>> out of the bushes shouting:
>>
>>>Fencingsax wrote:
>
> < snip >
>
>>>>The Afripean Swallow
>>>
>>>Did your modem disconnect before you could finish your sentence?
>>
>> Tukla's sitting there saying "What? WHAT???"
>
> I thought he was going to describe a sex act I hadn't heard of.
Oh you mean the one that requires two pulleys and a yak?
Al Klein
Wilkins) said in alt.atheism:
>Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 11:48:29 +1100, john...@wilkins.id.au (John
>> Wilkins) said in alt.atheism:
>>
>> >Well, yes, but there's a better lesson here - evolutionary theory states
>> >that no feature exists which is not a modification of some prior
>> >feature.
>>
>> Which theory would that be? I believe that there are a few mechanisms
>> that can cause a totally new feature to appear.
>
>Such as?
Expression of a so-far not expressed gene, for one.
--
"Does it ever amaze anyone else how little faith some heterosexuals have
in heterosexuality? It's supposed to be this god-given human instinct
that only the warped and perverted ever stray from; but, it seems, if we
once tell our straight children a message even as mild as "some people
are gay, and that's all right," that'll be enough to send lil' Suzy into
the arms of women forever. It's a wonder the race has survived this
long, really..."
- ENN...@deimos.ucs.umass.edu Charles M Seaton (21 Dec 1994)
unrestra...@hotmail.com
Yeah, am I supposed to care? I really don't care. Do you think that a
lot of people do? Modern scientists have a piss-poor track record on
some things and some of them have been plain moral degenerates."
Ah. Therefore... they don't know science?
You are wise beyond your years. If I ever need heart surgery, I'll say
"No thanks! I don't want a heart surgeon working on my heart; I've
heard that some of them have been immoral. I'll just use my cousin
Billy Bubba."
A working scientist has spent at least 4 years in the university -
usually 8 or more, plus "on the job" training. *You are not even
willing to follow up on questions we have asked you; you do not
investigate links, and you display not merely ignorance, but a contempt
for knowledge and the effort required to obtain it.
You are a barbarian, a visigoth, an enemy of civilization. You would
have been at home in China in the 60s when those academics - guilty by
definition of wrong thinking - were either killed or sent to the fields
to be farmers. "Scientists! We don't need no steenkin' scientists!"
Your kind even now are killing academics in Iraq, trying their best to
drive the country into a Hellhole of ignorance, disease, poverty, and
complete despair.
<snarl>
There are proposed paths for the evolution of the dragonfly's mating
mechanisms. In any event, scientists are acutely aware that they don't
know everything; they are determined to learn more.
You know little, claim to know more than everyone who disagrees with
you, and are determined to learn nothing else. You have closed your
account with reality. You are a prisoner in a cell of your own making.
This is sad, but you are so disagreeable that it is impossible to feel
sympathy.
Kermit
Eros
Really? How do you know?
EROS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Now, if anything at all can be known to be wrong, it seems to me to be
unshakably certain that it would be wrong to make any sentient being
suffer eternally for any offence whatever." -- Antony Flew, "The
Presumption of Atheism" God, Freedom, and Immortality, (Buffalo, NY:
Prometheus Books, 1984), p. 64.
John Wilkins
> Michael Siemon wrote:
> > In article <1106016341.7...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Eros" <eros_tal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > John Wilkins wrote:
> > > > Eros <eros_tal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > ....
> >
> > > > > > > Are you suggesting then, that Denton was just 'dicking
> around'?
> > > :)
> >
> > > > > > Well, yes, but there's a better lesson here -...
> > > > > > Denton ought to have known this, and searched the
> > > > > > literature to find out if any testable hypotheses
> > > > > > had been proposed for the structure ... As it happens,
> > > > > > it is a structure of the cuticle, with homologs
> > > > > > in related insects.
> > ....
> >
> > > > > Ahem... looks like I'll have to make my puns a little less
> subtle.
> > > :)
> >
> > > So you say now! ;)
> >
> > Trust me -- John got your pun the first time.
>
>
>
> Really? How do you know?
>
Some things just stick out like a .... sore thumb.
Eros
Glenn wrote:
> "Eros" <eros_tal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1106004509.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Glenn wrote:
> > > "maff" <maf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1105994577.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > > >
> > > > C.J.W. wrote:
> > > > > Mythological narratives of naturalism are typical to
Darwinists.
> > > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > So how come Christian fundamentalists aren't well known for
their
> > > > intellect and or contributions to science?
> > > >
> > > Many have and are, although you think that using the word
> > > "fundamentalist" would allow you to challenge that, atheist idiot
> "he
> > > who reports interesting news" maff.
> >
> > If "many are" as you claim, you will have no difficulty at all in
> > providing the names of a couple of Christian fundamentalists who
are
> > well known for their intellect and or contributions to science,
will
> > you Sheldon... Go ahead, we're waiting with bated breath!
I see you couldn't back up your ridiculous claim. But nobody's
surprised that you failed to answer a simple question, Sheldon. Facts
are not your thing, are they. Word games and obfuscation are much more
your style.
Why not prove me wrong and simply back up your claim that there are
many Christian fundamentalists who are well known for their intellect
and or contributions to science? How hard can it be?
> > > http://www.infidels.org/index.shtml
> > >
> > > Are you the moron "Paul Draper" mentioned on the page?
> >
> > Pot... kettle.... black, Sheldon.
> >
>
> Ordinarily I don't feel I even need to respond to your posts, "Eros".
So I've noticed... you're very good at ignoring the relevant questions,
aren't you, Sheldon!
> But this is a good one, although it also stands on it's own merit, so
to
> speak.
That's shallow praise coming from you, Sheldon. You wouldn't know
something of merit if had "MERIT" stamped all over it in large red
letters, and jumped up and bit you on your big fat butt.
EROS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"As Darwin so convincingly argued, there are many details which his
hypothesis explains while that of special creation does not." -- J.L.
Mackie, The Miracle of Theism (New York: Oxford University Press), p.
140.
Eros
Geez you're quick, John... are you omnipresent in this newsgroup? :)
EROS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Those who look to science to provide evidence to bolster their faith
in the fantasy of God won't find it in the ripples of the big bang." --
Victor J. Stenger, "Big Bang Ripples No Message from God"
(http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/vjs/www/huweb.txt)
John Wilkins
Michael Siemon
john...@wilkins.id.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
> Eros <eros_tal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
....
> > Geez you're quick, John... are you omnipresent in this newsgroup? :)
> >
> My deity has been noted before, yes.
Is that an Atkins' deity? or something a little less meaty?
John Wilkins
At the moment it's a high-carb deity. I hope to reduce my deity to
something *very* much less meaty...
--
John S. Wilkins jo...@wilkins.id.au AA#2207
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God deits
John Wilkins
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:34:57 +1100, john...@wilkins.id.au (John
> Wilkins) said in alt.atheism:
>
> >Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 11:48:29 +1100, john...@wilkins.id.au (John
> >> Wilkins) said in alt.atheism:
> >>
> >> >Well, yes, but there's a better lesson here - evolutionary theory states
> >> >that no feature exists which is not a modification of some prior
> >> >feature.
> >>
> >> Which theory would that be? I believe that there are a few mechanisms
> >> that can cause a totally new feature to appear.
> >
> >Such as?
>
> Expression of a so-far not expressed gene, for one.
The gene is the precursor. If a mutation causes "new" genes, then the
old sequence is the precursor. If duplication, the unduplicated gene is
a precursor. Nothing from nothing comes...
Gary Bohn
news:354n4tF...@individual.net:
> Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
>
>> In our last episode <352qaqF...@individual.net>, Tukla Ratte
>> lept out of the bushes shouting:
>>
>>>Fencingsax wrote:
>
> < snip >
>
>>>>The Afripean Swallow
>>>
>>>Did your modem disconnect before you could finish your sentence?
>>
>> Tukla's sitting there saying "What? WHAT???"
>
> I thought he was going to describe a sex act I hadn't heard of.
>
It was a reference to Monty Python's Holy Grail.
--
apatriot #23, aa #2179, Grand Poobah, EAC Department of Oxygen
Deprivation
Responsible for brain damage everywhere!
Gary Bohn
Gary Bohn
news:871xck1...@drizzle.com:
> "C.J.W." <watt...@bellatlantic.net> writes:
>
>> Do you realize how many organisms there are? That's not even the
>> point, not really.
>
> The point is that there is *not yet* a single organism that
> cannot be fit into an evolutionary and completely naturalistic
> narrative. Not a one. When you find one, then we'll sit up and
> listen.
>
> Elf
>
C.J.W. brought to into this? This is going to be fun.
Gary Bohn
news:1106094573....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
> Michael Siemon wrote:
>> In article <1106016341.7...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>> "Eros" <eros_tal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > John Wilkins wrote:
>> > > Eros <eros_tal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> ....
>>
>> > > > > > Are you suggesting then, that Denton was just 'dicking
> around'?
>> > :)
>>
>> > > > > Well, yes, but there's a better lesson here -...
>> > > > > Denton ought to have known this, and searched the
>> > > > > literature to find out if any testable hypotheses
>> > > > > had been proposed for the structure ... As it happens,
>> > > > > it is a structure of the cuticle, with homologs
>> > > > > in related insects.
>> ....
>>
>> > > > Ahem... looks like I'll have to make my puns a little less
> subtle.
>> > :)
>>
>> > So you say now! ;)
>>
>> Trust me -- John got your pun the first time.
>
>
>
> Really? How do you know?
>
If I got it, John got it. I have made some extremely subtle double
intenders (GW) that no one but John responded to.
Mark K. Bilbo
out of the bushes shouting:
> Tukla Ratte <tukla...@tukla.net> wrote in
> news:354n4tF...@individual.net:
>
>> Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
>>
>>> In our last episode <352qaqF...@individual.net>, Tukla Ratte lept
>>> out of the bushes shouting:
>>>
>>>>Fencingsax wrote:
>>
>> < snip >
>>
>>>>>The Afripean Swallow
>>>>
>>>>Did your modem disconnect before you could finish your sentence?
>>>
>>> Tukla's sitting there saying "What? WHAT???"
>>
>> I thought he was going to describe a sex act I hadn't heard of.
>>
>>
> It was a reference to Monty Python's Holy Grail.
Which is another sex act he's never heard of.
(But don't *tell him)
Gary Bohn
news:1gqmwak.jq1air1uv86c7N%john...@wilkins.id.au:
> Eros <eros_tal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Michael Siemon wrote:
>> > In article <1106016341.7...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>> > "Eros" <eros_tal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > John Wilkins wrote:
>> > > > Eros <eros_tal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > ....
>> >
>> > > > > > > Are you suggesting then, that Denton was just 'dicking
>> around'?
>> > > :)
>> >
>> > > > > > Well, yes, but there's a better lesson here -...
>> > > > > > Denton ought to have known this, and searched the
>> > > > > > literature to find out if any testable hypotheses
>> > > > > > had been proposed for the structure ... As it happens,
>> > > > > > it is a structure of the cuticle, with homologs
>> > > > > > in related insects.
>> > ....
>> >
>> > > > > Ahem... looks like I'll have to make my puns a little less
>> subtle.
>> > > :)
>> >
>> > > So you say now! ;)
>> >
>> > Trust me -- John got your pun the first time.
>>
>>
>>
>> Really? How do you know?
>>
> Some things just stick out like a .... sore thumb.
Especially if you beat it with said shtick.
Gary Bohn
news:KbidnVRGZ5R...@megapath.net:
> In our last episode <Xns95E2D20F5...@130.133.1.4>, Gary Bohn
> lept out of the bushes shouting:
>
>> Tukla Ratte <tukla...@tukla.net> wrote in
>> news:354n4tF...@individual.net:
>>
>>> Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
>>>
>>>> In our last episode <352qaqF...@individual.net>, Tukla Ratte
>>>> lept out of the bushes shouting:
>>>>
>>>>>Fencingsax wrote:
>>>
>>> < snip >
>>>
>>>>>>The Afripean Swallow
>>>>>
>>>>>Did your modem disconnect before you could finish your sentence?
>>>>
>>>> Tukla's sitting there saying "What? WHAT???"
>>>
>>> I thought he was going to describe a sex act I hadn't heard of.
>>>
>>>
>> It was a reference to Monty Python's Holy Grail.
>
> Which is another sex act he's never heard of.
>
> (But don't *tell him)
>
I really have to learn to swallow my water before reading your posts.
Lucky I sell and service computers for a living, I have lots of extra
keyboards.
Gary Bohn
> Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:34:57 +1100, john...@wilkins.id.au (John
>> Wilkins) said in alt.atheism:
>>
>> >Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 11:48:29 +1100, john...@wilkins.id.au (John
>> >> Wilkins) said in alt.atheism:
>> >>
>> >> >Well, yes, but there's a better lesson here - evolutionary theory
>> >> >states that no feature exists which is not a modification of some
>> >> >prior feature.
>> >>
>> >> Which theory would that be? I believe that there are a few
>> >> mechanisms that can cause a totally new feature to appear.
>> >
>> >Such as?
>>
>> Expression of a so-far not expressed gene, for one.
>
> The gene is the precursor. If a mutation causes "new" genes, then the
> old sequence is the precursor. If duplication, the unduplicated gene
> is a precursor. Nothing from nothing comes...
The next creationist tirade.
David Wilson
> > Page 221:
> >
> > "The common presence of paired penis and parameres on the
> > ninth abdominal segment excludes an evolutionary derivation
> > of the penis from parameres ( --- gonapophyses --- endites),
> > unless one postulates more than one pair of endites per
> > segment and pair of legs in the groundplan (Kukalov á -Peck
> > 1991, 1997), or another complex nature such as an inclusion of
> > leg homologues of the tenth segment (Nielsen 1957). Since
> > there is no unequivocal evidence for the latter assumptions, we
> > prefer the more simple interpretation that the penis of
> > ectognathous insects is a secondary differentiation of the
> > cuticle in the area of the opening of the ductus ejaculatorius.
> > This hypothesis of course implies that the paired anlage and
> > the apparent segmentation of the penis are considered as
> > secondary phenomena, even though one may not forget that
> > the two mentioned facts indeed represent conflicting evidence
> > which could instead support the interpretation of Kukalová -
> > Peck (1991, 1997)."
> >
> > known of this and responded.
> > --
> > John S. Wilkins jo...@wilkins.id.au AA#2207
> > web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
> >
> > God cheats
>
>
>
I think he was merely pointing out some phallusies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Wilson
SPAMMERS_fingers@WILL_BE_fwi_PROSECUTED_.net.au
(Remove underlines and upper case letters to obtain my email address.)
Mark K. Bilbo
out of the bushes shouting:
> "Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-a...@org.webmaster> wrote in
> news:KbidnVRGZ5R...@megapath.net:
>
>> In our last episode <Xns95E2D20F5...@130.133.1.4>, Gary Bohn
>> lept out of the bushes shouting:
>>
>>> Tukla Ratte <tukla...@tukla.net> wrote in
>>> news:354n4tF...@individual.net:
>>>
>>>> Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In our last episode <352qaqF...@individual.net>, Tukla Ratte
>>>>> lept out of the bushes shouting:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Fencingsax wrote:
>>>>
>>>> < snip >
>>>>
>>>>>>>The Afripean Swallow
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Did your modem disconnect before you could finish your sentence?
>>>>>
>>>>> Tukla's sitting there saying "What? WHAT???"
>>>>
>>>> I thought he was going to describe a sex act I hadn't heard of.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> It was a reference to Monty Python's Holy Grail.
>>
>> Which is another sex act he's never heard of.
>>
>> (But don't *tell him)
>>
>>
> I really have to learn to swallow my water before reading your posts.
> Lucky I sell and service computers for a living, I have lots of extra
> keyboards.
I also must note it's rarely safe to write such things as "learn to
swallow my water" where I can see them...
Richard Smol
> Mythological narratives of naturalism
do not exist.
RS
Al Klein
Wilkins) said in alt.atheism:
>The gene is the precursor. If a mutation causes "new" genes, then the
>old sequence is the precursor. If duplication, the unduplicated gene is
>a precursor. Nothing from nothing comes...
And if a totally new gene occurs, the molecules are still the same
molecules as were in the old gene, so ...
Therefore even the universe isn't new - it just came from a precursor
of some sort.
--
"religion did for bullshit, what Stonehenge did for rocks"
- The World Famous Tink
Gary Bohn
Yes I know, from experience. I was hoping that by posting on aa you
might miss the opportunity. But I do realize you owe me one, so shoot.
<ducks>
--
apatriot #23, aa #1779, Grand Poobah (Pubbah)(Hell! head honcho), EAC
Department of Oxygen Deprivation Responsible for brain damage
everywhere!
Gary Bohn
Conservatism is the political philosophy that it ain't broke so don't
try to fix it. Therefore, if that is indeed how it is, that is what
ought to be.
The Wilkins
C.J.W.
"Elf M. Sternberg" wrote:
> "C.J.W." <watt...@bellatlantic.net> writes:
>
> > Do you realize how many organisms there are? That's not even the point,
> > not really.
>
> The point is that there is *not yet* a single organism that
> cannot be fit into an evolutionary and completely naturalistic
> narrative. Not a one. When you find one, then we'll sit up and listen.
The pattern of nature is not "evolutionary"/sequential, according to the
evidence and observation, not mere narrative.
""Thousands of different sequences,
protein and nucleic acid, have now
been compared in hundreds of different species
but never has any sequence been found to be in
any sense the lineal descendant or ancestor of any
other sequence. Anyone who doubts this need
only consult the sequence difference matrices
given in Dayhoff’s standard reference book
Atlas of Protein Structure and Function,
available in any major library.
It is now well established that the pattern of
diversity at a molecular level conforms to
a highly ordered hierarchic system. Each class
at a molecular level is unique, isolated and unlinked
by intermediates. Thus molecules, like fossils have
failed to provide the elusive inter mediates so
long sought by evolutionary biology. Again,
the only relationships identified by this new
technique are sisterly. At a molecular level, no
organism is “ancestral” or “primitive” or
“advanced” compared with its relatives.
Nature seems to conform to the same
non-evolutionary and intensely circumferential
pattern that was long ago perceived by
the great comparative anatomists of
the nineteenth century."
(Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
By Michael Denton :290)
http://mynym.blogspot.com/2005/01/delawarean-on-creationism.html#comments
The ideas of the theists who believed in intelligent design were predictive
and explanatory of the evidence, not Darwinism and its myopic mythological
narratives. Just because someone can think of a naturalistic narrative that
"might" be "possible" (because a Darwinist seems to believe that if you the
words a million years some, then it's all more and more "possible") does not
mean it comports with the evidence and does not mean it is true. All that
means is that you have enough of an imagination to make and tell a
naturalistic narrative.
Further, one ought to look to history and philosophy as well as science when
looking at the issue of origins, Darwinists are quite myopic and only look to
science. But even there, their science is the pseudo-science of, "As long as
it is naturalistic then....well, it's science! And science, it seems true.
Okay then, so every naturalistic mythological narrative that might be posible
in a million years should be taught to everyone as if it is true. We're
scientific now!")
Then they get all ridiculous about being scientific.
--
--W
http://mynym.blogspot.com/
C.J.W.
"Elf M. Sternberg" wrote:
> "C.J.W." <watt...@bellatlantic.net> writes:
>
> > Do you realize how many organisms there are? That's not even the point,
> > not really.
>
> The point is that there is *not yet* a single organism that
> cannot be fit into an evolutionary and completely naturalistic
> narrative. Not a one. When you find one, then we'll sit up and listen.
By the way, what is the narrative for the dragonfly and its copulatory organs?
Mark K. Bilbo
Shoot?
I owe you a shoot?
And you *duck?
I'm... I'm flattered...
John Wilkins
Why? Does it piss you off?
Bob
wrote:
>
>
>The ideas of the theists who believed in intelligent design were predictive
>and explanatory of the evidence, not Darwinism and its myopic mythological
>narratives.
how does 'god did it' explain anything?
Just because someone can think of a naturalistic narrative that
>"might" be "possible" (because a Darwinist seems to believe that if you the
>words a million years some, then it's all more and more "possible") does not
>mean it comports with the evidence and does not mean it is true. All that
>means is that you have enough of an imagination to make and tell a
>naturalistic narrative.
all science is naturalistic, including evolutionary biology. i'm a
chemist and have never seen a non-naturalistic explanation for
anything.
>
>Further, one ought to look to history and philosophy as well as science when
>looking at the issue of origins,
why? they aren't empirical. they can not be tested.
> Darwinists are quite myopic and only look to
>science.
science is the study of nature. period. it is not philosophy. it is
not art. art is art; that's why we call it art. science is a strictly
delimited area of study. it studies nature.
there is no need to bring religion into it. in fact, your way was
tried. religion USED to be used to explain the natural world
it was ALWAYS wrong. always.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
Mark K. Bilbo
Wilkins lept out of the bushes shouting:
My mood's a little fluid lately...
John Wilkins
BUGS: Will you shoot him now, or take him home?
DAFFY: Shoot me now! Shoot me now!
ELMER: *BLAM!*
DAFFY to BUGS: You're desthpicable...
Mark K. Bilbo
Wilkins lept out of the bushes shouting:
Bugs Bunny is my hero...
Gary Bohn
Sorry Mark. I'm old.I'm slow and I'm using 2 different computers posting
to 2 different ngs where this thread is crossposted. I thought I was
responding to John Wilkins.
I have no idea of what shoot means to you so maybe it might not be safe
to give you that opportunity without a little clarification.
--
apatriot #23, aa #1779, Grand Poobah, EAC Department of Oxygen
Deprivation
Responsible for brain damage everywhere!
Gary Bohn
Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
emotionally modifies evidence to fit the bible.
Mark K. Bilbo
And rummaging through Robyn's underwear drawer. I'm impressed!
> I thought I was
> responding to John Wilkins.
>
> I have no idea of what shoot means to you so maybe it might not be safe to
> give you that opportunity without a little clarification.
No idea why but I am in a mood lately...
Augray
wrote in news:<41EEDDE1...@bellatlantic.net>:
You really should read the rest of the messages in the thread before
responding like that. See
news:1gqjdoy.1ebi3ug1bimo9bN%john...@wilkins.id.au
Augray
wrote in news:<41EEDD94...@bellatlantic.net>:
"It is clear, then, that Darwin's special theory was largely correct.
Natural selection has been directly observed and there can be no
question now that new species do originate in nature; furthermore, it
is now possible to explain in great detail the exact sequence of events
that lead to species formation. Moreover, although there are some areas
of disagreement among students of evolution as to the relative
significance of natural selection as opposed to purely random processes
such as genetic drift in the process of speciation, no one doubts that
natural selection plays an important role in the process. The
validation of Darwin's special theory, which has been one of the major
achievements of twentieth century biology, has inevitably had the
effect of enormously enhancing the credibility of his general theory of
evolution."
(Evolution: A Theory in Crisis By Michael Denton :85-86)
> Just because someone can think of a naturalistic narrative that
> "might" be "possible" (because a Darwinist seems to believe that if you the
> words a million years some, then it's all more and more "possible") does not
> mean it comports with the evidence and does not mean it is true.
Very true. It has to be in agreement with the evidence.
> All that
> means is that you have enough of an imagination to make and tell a
> naturalistic narrative.
I thought that was reserved for supernaturalistic narratives.
> Further, one ought to look to history and philosophy as well as science when
> looking at the issue of origins, Darwinists are quite myopic and only look to
> science. But even there, their science is the pseudo-science of, "As long as
> it is naturalistic then....well, it's science!
How do you propose to test the supernatural?
> And science, it seems true.
> Okay then, so every naturalistic mythological narrative that might be posible
> in a million years should be taught to everyone as if it is true. We're
> scientific now!")
No, naturalists tend to rely on evidence, rather than myth.
> Then they get all ridiculous about being scientific.
It beats whining.
Bob
wrote:
>
>"It is clear, then, that Darwin's special theory was largely correct.
>Natural selection has been directly observed and there can be no
>question now that new species do originate in nature; furthermore, it
>is now possible to explain in great detail the exact sequence of events
>that lead to species formation. Moreover, although there are some areas
>of disagreement among students of evolution as to the relative
>significance of natural selection as opposed to purely random processes
>such as genetic drift in the process of speciation, no one doubts that
>natural selection plays an important role in the process. The
>validation of Darwin's special theory, which has been one of the major
>achievements of twentieth century biology, has inevitably had the
>effect of enormously enhancing the credibility of his general theory of
>evolution."
>(Evolution: A Theory in Crisis By Michael Denton :85-86)
>
i remember reading a review of denton's book by phillip johnson.
johnson slammed the book for not singing the party line on
creationism.
Gary Bohn
Postpartum depression? Little let down after the birth? You want to
chat, you have my e-mail.
Robibnikoff
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-a...@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:q8SdnXwt9rm...@megapath.net...
Look here. What do I have to do to keep you guys out of my bedroom?!?!? ;)
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Mark K. Bilbo
of the bushes shouting:
Stop buying all these pretty, frilly...
Wait, is this a *harness????
Robibnikoff
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-a...@org.webmaster> wrote in message
snip
>>
>> Look here. What do I have to do to keep you guys out of my bedroom?!?!?
>> ;)
>
> Stop buying all these pretty, frilly...
Frilly?!?!?! Why the very idea! Hrumph!
> Wait, is this a *harness????
Whoops! I see George forgot to put the toys away! :)
Mark K. Bilbo
Actually, I'm hyper. Don't ask me why. I even just cut my caffeine in
half. Go figure...
Mark K. Bilbo
of the bushes shouting:
>
> "Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-a...@org.webmaster> wrote in message
> news:bYKdnXY0T71...@megapath.net...
>> In our last episode <359lnbF...@individual.net>, Robibnikoff lept
>> out of the bushes shouting:
>
> snip
>>>
>>> Look here. What do I have to do to keep you guys out of my
>>> bedroom?!?!? ;)
>>
>> Stop buying all these pretty, frilly...
>
> Frilly?!?!?! Why the very idea! Hrumph!
Those aren't yours?
Oh, I'm rummaging in *George's drawer. My mistake.
>> Wait, is this a *harness????
>
> Whoops! I see George forgot to put the toys away! :)
<clink> <clatter> <clinkity> <clank>
How long *is this chain anyway?
Robibnikoff
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-a...@org.webmaster> wrote in message
> In our last episode <359t9bF...@individual.net>, Robibnikoff lept out
> of the bushes shouting:
>
>>
>> "Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-a...@org.webmaster> wrote in message
>> news:bYKdnXY0T71...@megapath.net...
>>> In our last episode <359lnbF...@individual.net>, Robibnikoff lept
>>> out of the bushes shouting:
>>
>> snip
>>>>
>>>> Look here. What do I have to do to keep you guys out of my
>>>> bedroom?!?!? ;)
>>>
>>> Stop buying all these pretty, frilly...
>>
>> Frilly?!?!?! Why the very idea! Hrumph!
>
> Those aren't yours?
>
> Oh, I'm rummaging in *George's drawer. My mistake.
>
>>> Wait, is this a *harness????
>>
>> Whoops! I see George forgot to put the toys away! :)
>
> <clink> <clatter> <clinkity> <clank>
>
> How long *is this chain anyway?
Long enough! :)
Mark K. Bilbo
of the bushes shouting:
>
> "Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-a...@org.webmaster> wrote in message
> news:jsGdncJIAoZ...@megapath.net...
>> In our last episode <359t9bF...@individual.net>, Robibnikoff lept
>> out of the bushes shouting:
>>
>>
>>> "Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-a...@org.webmaster> wrote in message
>>> news:bYKdnXY0T71...@megapath.net...
>>>> In our last episode <359lnbF...@individual.net>, Robibnikoff lept
>>>> out of the bushes shouting:
>>>
>>> snip
>>>>>
>>>>> Look here. What do I have to do to keep you guys out of my
>>>>> bedroom?!?!? ;)
>>>>
>>>> Stop buying all these pretty, frilly...
>>>
>>> Frilly?!?!?! Why the very idea! Hrumph!
>>
>> Those aren't yours?
>>
>> Oh, I'm rummaging in *George's drawer. My mistake.
>>
>>>> Wait, is this a *harness????
>>>
>>> Whoops! I see George forgot to put the toys away! :)
>>
>> <clink> <clatter> <clinkity> <clank>
>>
>> How long *is this chain anyway?
>
> Long enough! :)
It's stuck on something, lemme...
Tukla? What're you doing in there?
Robibnikoff
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-a...@org.webmaster> wrote in message
> In our last episode <359vioF...@individual.net>, Robibnikoff lept out
> of the bushes shouting:
>
>>
>> "Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-a...@org.webmaster> wrote in message
>> news:jsGdncJIAoZ...@megapath.net...
>>> In our last episode <359t9bF...@individual.net>, Robibnikoff lept
>>> out of the bushes shouting:
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-a...@org.webmaster> wrote in message
>>>> news:bYKdnXY0T71...@megapath.net...
>>>>> In our last episode <359lnbF...@individual.net>, Robibnikoff lept
>>>>> out of the bushes shouting:
>>>>
>>>> snip
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Look here. What do I have to do to keep you guys out of my
>>>>>> bedroom?!?!? ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> Stop buying all these pretty, frilly...
>>>>
>>>> Frilly?!?!?! Why the very idea! Hrumph!
>>>
>>> Those aren't yours?
>>>
>>> Oh, I'm rummaging in *George's drawer. My mistake.
>>>
>>>>> Wait, is this a *harness????
>>>>
>>>> Whoops! I see George forgot to put the toys away! :)
>>>
>>> <clink> <clatter> <clinkity> <clank>
>>>
>>> How long *is this chain anyway?
>>
>> Long enough! :)
>
> It's stuck on something, lemme...
>
> Tukla? What're you doing in there?
Oh my! Guess the secret's out, eh? :)
Mark K. Bilbo
of the bushes shouting:
<closes drawer quickly>
Not if you get me a hammer and nails...
Robibnikoff
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-a...@org.webmaster> wrote in message
How about a glue gun? :)
Gary Bohn
<snip>
>
> Oh, I'm rummaging in *George's drawer. My mistake.
Like we believe you!
>
>>> Wait, is this a *harness????
>>
>> Whoops! I see George forgot to put the toys away! :)
>
> <clink> <clatter> <clinkity> <clank>
>
> How long *is this chain anyway?
He has chains in his drawers? He must have to cinch his belt up awefully
tight.
Gary Bohn
Mark K. Bilbo
of the bushes shouting:
Perfect!
Now, there'll be funny noises coming from the drawer for a while but if
you ignore them, they'll stop...
Robibnikoff
"Gary Bohn" <gary...@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns95E5323E2...@130.133.1.4...
Doesn't work. As you well know!
Robibnikoff
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-a...@org.webmaster> wrote in message
Doesn't bother me, but the cat's looking really confused :)
Mark K. Bilbo
of the bushes shouting:
<while passing out duplicate sets of Robyn's keys>
Oh come now, us get through a locked door? Pshaw...
Mark K. Bilbo
She's tried. Believe me, she's tried. Took me forever to pick the lock
last time. And Tukla had to go potty. It was not pretty...
Mark K. Bilbo
of the bushes shouting:
The cat?
Weren't there two?
stoney
<alt-a...@org.webmaster> wrote:
>In our last episode <Xns95E2DB698...@130.133.1.4>, Gary Bohn lept
>out of the bushes shouting:
>
>> "Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-a...@org.webmaster> wrote in
>> news:KbidnVRGZ5R...@megapath.net:
>>
>>> In our last episode <Xns95E2D20F5...@130.133.1.4>, Gary Bohn
>>> lept out of the bushes shouting:
>>>
>>>> Tukla Ratte <tukla...@tukla.net> wrote in
>>>> news:354n4tF...@individual.net:
>>>>
>>>>> Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In our last episode <352qaqF...@individual.net>, Tukla Ratte
>>>>>> lept out of the bushes shouting:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Fencingsax wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> < snip >
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The Afripean Swallow
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Did your modem disconnect before you could finish your sentence?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tukla's sitting there saying "What? WHAT???"
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought he was going to describe a sex act I hadn't heard of.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> It was a reference to Monty Python's Holy Grail.
>>>
>>> Which is another sex act he's never heard of.
>>>
>>> (But don't *tell him)
>>>
>>>
>> I really have to learn to swallow my water before reading your posts.
>> Lucky I sell and service computers for a living, I have lots of extra
>> keyboards.
>
>I also must note it's rarely safe to write such things as "learn to
>swallow my water" where I can see them...
And *never* with Tukla.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
stoney
<alt-a...@org.webmaster> wrote:
>In our last episode <41EB147F...@bellatlantic.net>, C.J.W. lept out
>of the bushes shouting:
>
>> Modern scientists have a piss-poor track record on
>> some things...
>
>How would you know?
It's drooling idiocy, terminal ignorance, and blatant dishonesty is
legion.
stoney
<alt-a...@org.webmaster> wrote:
>In our last episode <354n4tF...@individual.net>, Tukla Ratte lept out
>of the bushes shouting:
>
>> Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
>>
>>> In our last episode <352qaqF...@individual.net>, Tukla Ratte lept
>>> out of the bushes shouting:
>>>
>>>>Fencingsax wrote:
>>
>> < snip >
>>
>>>>>The Afripean Swallow
>>>>
>>>>Did your modem disconnect before you could finish your sentence?
>>>
>>> Tukla's sitting there saying "What? WHAT???"
>>
>> I thought he was going to describe a sex act I hadn't heard of.
>
>Oh you mean the one that requires two pulleys and a yak?
Yakimaw.....
stoney
<alt-a...@org.webmaster> wrote:
>In our last episode <1gqooec.172d8w31ljx5ohN%john...@wilkins.id.au>, John
>Wilkins lept out of the bushes shouting:
>
>> Mark K. Bilbo <alt-a...@org.webmaster> wrote:
>>
>>> In our last episode <Xns95E443572...@130.133.1.4>, Gary Bohn
>>> lept out of the bushes shouting:
>>>
>>> > "Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-a...@org.webmaster> wrote in
>>> > news:hq2dnT3XrbC...@megapath.net:
>>> >
>>> >> In our last episode <Xns95E2DB698...@130.133.1.4>, Gary Bohn
>>> >> lept out of the bushes shouting:
>>> >>
>>> >>> "Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-a...@org.webmaster> wrote in
>>> >>> news:KbidnVRGZ5R...@megapath.net:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> In our last episode <Xns95E2D20F5...@130.133.1.4>, Gary
>>> >>>> Bohn lept out of the bushes shouting:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>> Tukla Ratte <tukla...@tukla.net> wrote in
>>> >>>>> news:354n4tF...@individual.net:
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> In our last episode <352qaqF...@individual.net>, Tukla
>>> >>>>>>> Ratte lept out of the bushes shouting:
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>Fencingsax wrote:
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> < snip >
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>The Afripean Swallow
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>Did your modem disconnect before you could finish your sentence?
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> Tukla's sitting there saying "What? WHAT???"
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> I thought he was going to describe a sex act I hadn't heard of.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>> It was a reference to Monty Python's Holy Grail.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Which is another sex act he's never heard of.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> (But don't *tell him)
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>> I really have to learn to swallow my water before reading your
>>> >>> posts. Lucky I sell and service computers for a living, I have lots
>>> >>> of extra keyboards.
>>> >>
>>> >> I also must note it's rarely safe to write such things as "learn to
>>> >> swallow my water" where I can see them...
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> > Yes I know, from experience. I was hoping that by posting on aa you
>>> > might miss the opportunity. But I do realize you owe me one, so shoot.
>>> >
>>> > <ducks>
>>>
>>> Shoot?
>>>
>>> I owe you a shoot?
>>>
>>> And you *duck?
>>>
>>> I'm... I'm flattered...
>>
>> BUGS: Will you shoot him now, or take him home?
>>
>> DAFFY: Shoot me now! Shoot me now!
>>
>> ELMER: *BLAM!*
>>
>> DAFFY to BUGS: You're desthpicable...
>
>Bugs Bunny is my hero...
Meep meep.
stoney
<alt-a...@org.webmaster> wrote:
>In our last episode <1gqoi9m.ixupkp159g7soN%john...@wilkins.id.au>, John
>> Why? Does it piss you off?
>
>My mood's a little fluid lately...
/cue
"Under Pressure"....