Disorder: “fantasy-prone personality”
All-Seeing-I
Therefore, they spend most of their time developing complex lies and
molding them into complex theories.
All done to support their fantasy view of the world around them.
Often times, people with mental illness behaviors will most likely NOT
think anything is wrong.
Eric Root
> Evolutionists keep getting hit in the face with scientific truth.
>
Any examples?
> Therefore, they spend most of their time developing complex lies and
> molding them into complex theories.
>
Any examples?
> All done to support their fantasy view of the world around them.
>
Oh, you can read minds.
> Often times, people with mental illness behaviors will most likely NOT
> think anything is wrong.
What does that have to do with anything?
What does being heartless and mean-spirited do for you? When I act
that way, I feel awful, so I avoid it like the plague.
Eric Root
Bob T.
> I keep getting hit in the face with scientific truth.
>
> Therefore, I spend most of my time developing complex lies and
> molding them into complex theories.
>
> All done to support my fantasy view of the world around myself.
I fixed your post.
>
> Often times, people with mental illness behaviors will most likely NOT
> think anything is wrong.
Indeed.
- Bob T.
Davej
> Evolutionists keep getting hit in the face with scientific truth.
>
> Therefore, they spend most of their time developing complex lies and
> molding them into complex theories.
And you prefer the mind-numbing chant of "goddidit, goddidit,
goddidit."
Inez
> Evolutionists keep getting hit in the face with scientific truth.
Yes, this is how scientists learn about the world.
> Therefore, they spend most of their time developing complex lies and
> molding them into complex theories.
?
> All done to support their fantasy view of the world around them.
Pretty hilarious, coming from someone who believes in magic and space
aliens that teach IVF to ancient Sumerians. You've never met a
fantasy you didn't believe in.
> Often times, people with mental illness behaviors will most likely NOT
> think anything is wrong.
Did your shrink tell you that?
All-Seeing-I
You nailed it. A gold star AND a scoobie snack for you.
It is a choice. One of those choices is based on conjecture and
fantasy.(that would be evolution) Fish became man, stuff like that.
The other rooted in history, traditions and accmulated knowledge that
was written by real people describing real events.
which is what most sound minded people believe.
Dan Listermann
"All-Seeing-I" <allse...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:aaf3166f-83a9-4d4a...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
of projection that I have ever seen. You seem to be truly nuts.
.
SeppoP
You wouldn't recognize "scientific truth" even if your nonexistent
sanity depended on it.
-- Seppo P
----------------------------------------------------------------
Creationism is based on ignorance and dishonesty, it breeds from
ignorance and dishonesty,
and it breeds ignorance and dishonesty. Spreading ignorance and
dishonesty is the lifeblood
an sustenance of the creationists. Wallowing in ignorance and dishonesty
is the natural
lifestyle of creationists, without which they couldn't survive.
raven1
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>Evolutionists keep getting hit in the face with scientific truth.
You can't handle the truth.
>Therefore, they spend most of their time developing complex lies and
>molding them into complex theories.
Your inability to understand anything more complex than "goddidit" is
not an indication that it is false.
>All done to support their fantasy view of the world around them.
Quick question: which is more likely to involve fantasy, an appeal to
the supernatural, or empirical evidence?
>Often times, people with mental illness behaviors will most likely NOT
>think anything is wrong.
Q.E.D.
Inez
With no grounding whatever in the physcial evidence.
> which is what most sound minded people believe.
Incorrect. Sound minded people believe in what they see around them
in the real world, not crazy stories of space aliens and magical
beings.
Boikat
In what way? But yes, occasionally, a new scientific discovery could
be call ed a "hit in the face". But certainly none of the
"scientific" claims you've made, since every one of that has blown up
in *your* face, due to faulty logic.
>
> Therefore, they spend most of their time developing complex lies and
> molding them into complex theories.
Projection. It's cleare you do.
>
> All done to support their fantasy view of the world around them.
Massive projection. You're the one pushing myth as realsty, and claim
there are invisable being all arounf us. That sounds like a fantasy
view of the world.
>
> Often times, people with mental illness behaviors will most likely NOT
> think anything is wrong.
Massive, earthshaking, continent splitting, *projection*. No ony do
you think there's othing wrong with you, but you think you know more
about paleontology, biology, geology, anthropology, and so on, than do
the actualo scientists of those fiels, some of which take to time to
educate you dumb ass here inn this very news group..
ASS-I(diot), with egards to your claim in thisthread, you just
discribed yourself to a "T".
Boikat
Boikat
> On Nov 29, 7:34 am, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 29, 7:17 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > Evolutionists keep getting hit in the face with scientific truth.
>
> > > Therefore, they spend most of their time developing complex lies and
> > > molding them into complex theories.
> > > [...]
>
> > And you prefer the mind-numbing chant of "goddidit, goddidit,
> > goddidit."
>
> You nailed it. A gold star AND a scoobie snack for you.
>
> It is a choice. One of those choices is based on conjecture and
> fantasy.(that would be evolution) Fish became man, stuff like that.
If you choose to be an ignorant twit, yes, that is your choice, and
understandible. After all, you are too stupid to grasp even the
basics of science.
>
> The other rooted in history, traditions and accmulated knowledge that
> was written by real people describing real events.
Prove it. Where's your supporting evidence.
>
> which is what most sound minded people believe.
So, you're saying that most people choose to be ignorant, like you?
Boikat
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>Evolutionists keep getting hit in the face with scientific truth.
yeah that happens in science.
creationists don't have to worry about it.
>
>Therefore, they spend most of their time developing complex lies and
>molding them into complex theories.
says the taliban christian. wonder why japanese scientists would do
this?
>
>All done to support their fantasy view of the world around them.
>
>Often times, people with mental illness behaviors will most likely NOT
>think anything is wrong.
now let's see...was it scientists or religoius fanatics who attacked
the WTC??
>
>
VoiceOfReason
In other words, you believe myths and reject facts. The “fantasy-
prone personality” you invented describes you perfectly.
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>On Nov 29, 7:34 am, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 29, 7:17 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Evolutionists keep getting hit in the face with scientific truth.
>>
>> > Therefore, they spend most of their time developing complex lies and
>> > molding them into complex theories.
>> > [...]
>>
>> And you prefer the mind-numbing chant of "goddidit, goddidit,
>> goddidit."
>
>You nailed it. A gold star AND a scoobie snack for you.
>
>It is a choice. One of those choices is based on conjecture and
>fantasy.(that would be evolution) Fish became man, stuff like that.
uh we OBSERVE evolution
god? never seen. same with angels, ghosts, demons etc. in fact these
are often manifestations...clinical signs...of illness
>
>The other rooted in history, traditions and accmulated knowledge that
>was written by real people describing real events.
meaningless. what is a 'real event' described 2000 years ago?
>
>which is what most sound minded people believe.
meaningless
>
VoiceOfReason
It's quite telling that you came up with this after reading the post
about Narcissistic Personality Disorder:
---------------------------------
A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for
admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and
present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of
the following:
1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates
achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without
commensurate achievements)
2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power,
brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
3. believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be
understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status
people (or institutions)
4. requires excessive admiration
5. has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of
especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her
expectations
6. is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others
to achieve his or her own ends
7. lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the
feelings and needs of others
8. is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him
or her
9. shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder
Nomen Publicus
> Evolutionists keep getting hit in the face with scientific truth.
No.
>
> Therefore, they spend most of their time developing complex lies and
> molding them into complex theories.
>
No.
> All done to support their fantasy view of the world around them.
>
No.
> Often times, people with mental illness behaviors will most likely NOT
> think anything is wrong.
>
No.
That's 4 for 4. You are todays total idiot. Congratulations.
--
Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.
-- Don Hirschberg
Mark Evans
Wow, I have never seen such a classic example of projection before.
Mark Evans
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
True. But sound minded people do not make up wild and exotic stories
about the real world either. Stories such as fish jumping out of the
water and begining to walk, talk and build bridges or automobiles.
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well. religion is based on written recorded historical events which
were observed by real humans.
Evolution is just an inference of data.
It would appear that a human-observed event if far more accurate then
an exotic story such as an ape climbed down from a tree and latter
began to build computers.
Dontcha-tink?
If not, then you may have a “fantasy-prone personality”. Hey. Nothing
wrong with that.
I prefer to call it like i see it. And it seems there is more then a
single interpretation for the evidence supporting much of evolution.
Boikat
Neither do scientists.
> Stories such as fish jumping out of the
> water and begining to walk, talk and build bridges or automobiles.
Good thing scientists do not make that claim, as you've worded it.
Boikat
Kermit
> On Nov 29, 7:34 am, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 29, 7:17 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > Evolutionists keep getting hit in the face with scientific truth.
>
> > > Therefore, they spend most of their time developing complex lies and
> > > molding them into complex theories.
> > > [...]
>
> > And you prefer the mind-numbing chant of "goddidit, goddidit,
> > goddidit."
>
> You nailed it. A gold star AND a scoobie snack for you.
>
> It is a choice. One of those choices is based on conjecture and
> fantasy.(that would be evolution) Fish became man, stuff like that.
No, I do not have a *direct choice in what I believe. Given certain
data, and a conscious state, I have to arrive at certain conclusions.
This is perhaps an alien concept to Creationists, who do seem to have
the ability to simply up and beleive anything they want to be true. I
find that as baffling as they do me, and I grew up with them.
To change my mind on something, you would have to procide evidence or
an argument (in the philosophical sense, not in the shouting wake the
neighbors sense).
I can affect it of course in indirect ways. I could choose to start
drinking heavily if someone confronts me with unpleasant facts, or I
could choose to go the university library or internet and look
something up.
But I can't "choose" to think evolution didn't happen any more than I
can choose to think the sky is plaid when I look up.
>
> The other rooted in history, traditions and accmulated knowledge that
> was written by real people describing real events.
I would think some folks are thinking of Herodotus when they say this,
but I know that you are thinking of leprechauns and the like. Keep the
fly swatter handy; bats are *all over the place.
>
> which is what most sound minded people believe.
Ummm... no.
Wipe out any diseases from the face of the planet lately?
Kermit
Kermit
Hahahha!
It took a few generations.
Why do you think a creator god would *fake everything, and what
evidence do you have for it? Oh, right, you see things that nobody
else sees *and expect reasonable folks to believe that your special
perceptions are real, based on usenet posts. Most definitions of
"sound-minded" do not include seeing things which aren't there.
Have any testable models that fit the data?
Have any reason we shouldn't consider you deranged or, at best,
deluded?
Kermit
Kermit
> On Nov 29, 7:17 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > Evolutionists keep getting hit in the face with scientific truth.
>
> In what way? But yes, occasionally, a new scientific discovery could
> be call ed a "hit in the face". But certainly none of the
> "scientific" claims you've made, since every one of that has blown up
> in *your* face, due to faulty logic.
>
>
>
> > Therefore, they spend most of their time developing complex lies and
> > molding them into complex theories.
>
> Projection. It's cleare you do.
>
>
>
> > All done to support their fantasy view of the world around them.
>
> Massive projection. You're the one pushing myth as realsty, and claim
> there are invisable being all arounf us. That sounds like a fantasy
> view of the world.
>
>
>
> > Often times, people with mental illness behaviors will most likely NOT
> > think anything is wrong.
>
> Massive, earthshaking, continent splitting, *projection*. No ony do
> you think there's othing wrong with you, but you think you know more
> about paleontology, biology, geology, anthropology, and so on, than do
> the actualo scientists of those fiels,
When I understood this, I realized that he could not possibly know
anything about his much-loved ancient texts, either. Nobody who is
accomplished in any field would think they know more than the experts
in one which they had not studied. They *know how much work is
involved in becoming truly expert.
Nope; he reads them in translation, with some enthusiasm, makes up
stuff, then dismisses any suggestion that others know more than he
does. Hell, one could do the same as easily for genetics or
paleontology, yes?
> some of which take to time to
> educate you dumb ass here inn this very news group..
Every time I explain something to him, I am explaining it to a lurker,
and also learning it all the better myself.
>
> ASS-I(diot), with egards to your claim in thisthread, you just
> discribed yourself to a "T".
>
> Boikat
Kermit
raven1
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>On Nov 29, 8:37 am, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 29, 8:49 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 29, 7:34 am, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Nov 29, 7:17 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > Evolutionists keep getting hit in the face with scientific truth.
>>
>> > > > Therefore, they spend most of their time developing complex lies and
>> > > > molding them into complex theories.
>> > > > [...]
>>
>> > > And you prefer the mind-numbing chant of "goddidit, goddidit,
>> > > goddidit."
>>
>> > You nailed it. A gold star AND a scoobie snack for you.
>>
>> > It is a choice. One of those choices is based on conjecture and
>> > fantasy.(that would be evolution) Fish became man, stuff like that.
>>
>> > The other rooted in history, traditions and accmulated knowledge that
>> > was written by real people describing real events.
>>
>> > which is what most sound minded people believe.
>>
>> In other words, you believe myths and reject facts. The “fantasy-
>> prone personality” you invented describes you perfectly.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Well. religion is based on written recorded historical events which
>were observed by real humans.
Excuse me, but I'm a bit confused as to your approach here: you reject
the findings of science, because human observation and interpretation
are flawed, yet you accept "ancient texts" as authoritative despite
human observation and interpretation being flawed. Moreover you reject
science even though it is backed by empirical data, and accept
"ancient texts" even though they aren't. You are, if not outright
insane, at least as badly confused as it is possible to be.
>Evolution is just an inference of data.
So is everything else in the corpus of human knowledge. You're still
dog-paddling in a sea of nihilism.
>It would appear that a human-observed event if far more accurate then
>an exotic story such as an ape climbed down from a tree and latter
>began to build computers.
>
>Dontcha-tink?
>
>If not, then you may have a “fantasy-prone personality”. Hey. Nothing
>wrong with that.
>
>I prefer to call it like i see it. And it seems there is more then a
>single interpretation for the evidence supporting much of evolution.
There is no other scientific interpretation. Despite your ventures
into post-modernism and nihilism, the idea that all explanations are
equally viable is palpably idiotic.
Dana Tweedy
> Evolutionists keep getting hit in the face with scientific truth.
Actually, if you look, you'll see it's you who keeps getting hit with
scientific evidence, after you make some silly claim.
>
> Therefore, they spend most of their time developing complex lies and
> molding them into complex theories.
Again, you seem to be describing yourself, not "evolutionists".
>
> All done to support their fantasy view of the world around them.
You mean one involving angels, and beings from space coming down to marry
Earth women....
>
> Often times, people with mental illness behaviors will most likely NOT
> think anything is wrong.
Exactly. You don't seem to realize whats' wrong with your own position.
DJT
Mark Evans
Or ancient writings with revelations, world-covering floods, created
genes and furry trilobites.
Mark Evans
Boikat
> On Nov 29, 8:37 am, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 29, 8:49 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 29, 7:34 am, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 29, 7:17 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Evolutionists keep getting hit in the face with scientific truth.
>
> > > > > Therefore, they spend most of their time developing complex lies and
> > > > > molding them into complex theories.
> > > > > [...]
>
> > > > And you prefer the mind-numbing chant of "goddidit, goddidit,
> > > > goddidit."
>
> > > You nailed it. A gold star AND a scoobie snack for you.
>
> > > It is a choice. One of those choices is based on conjecture and
> > > fantasy.(that would be evolution) Fish became man, stuff like that.
>
> > > The other rooted in history, traditions and accmulated knowledge that
> > > was written by real people describing real events.
>
> > > which is what most sound minded people believe.
>
> > In other words, you believe myths and reject facts. The “fantasy-
> > prone personality” you invented describes you perfectly.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Well. religion is based on written recorded historical events which
> were observed by real humans.
How do you know ther ere obseerved?
>
> Evolution is just an inference of data.
Yes. And?
>
> It would appear that a human-observed event if far more accurate then
> an exotic story such as an ape climbed down from a tree and latter
> began to build computers.
Bullshit.
>
> Dontcha-tink?
You obviously do not.
>
> If not, then you may have a “fantasy-prone personality”. Hey. Nothing
> wrong with that.
Projection.
>
> I prefer to call it like i see it.
Except you willfully turn a blind eye to anything that contradicts
your interpretations of the "ancient texts".
> And it seems there is more then a
> single interpretation for the evidence supporting much of evolution.
Only to a limited extent withing the confines of the actual theory.
If you have a better interpretation, I'm sure everyone would like to
see it. That's been asked of you before, but, and there is no
surprise here, you've never presented any that was not some pure
fantasy on your part.
You're nothing but an intellectual coward, and a self deluded fool.
Boikat
Mark Evans
>
> Well. religion is based on written recorded historical events which
> were observed by real humans.
>
Wha? What have you been smoking? Religion is based on explaining
observations with stories. It predates writing. In fact it often has
a side story in which recording events is taught/given to humanity by
gods. Many of the events in various religious traditions even predate
humanity. Just another example of the decay of your thinking process,
which was not in good shape to start with.
SNIP
>
> I prefer to call it like i see it. And it seems there is more then a
> single interpretation for the evidence supporting much of evolution.
Oh? Seen any miracles lately?
Seriously, you are showing a decline in your posts. You are starting
to sound more and more like a child in your "arguements". Go get some
help. Maybe this decline can be stopped before you become a ward of
the state.
Mark Evans
Dana Tweedy
> On Nov 29, 7:34 am, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 29, 7:17 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Evolutionists keep getting hit in the face with scientific truth.
>>
>>> Therefore, they spend most of their time developing complex lies and
>>> molding them into complex theories.
>>> [...]
>>
>> And you prefer the mind-numbing chant of "goddidit, goddidit,
>> goddidit."
>
> You nailed it. A gold star AND a scoobie snack for you.
>
> It is a choice. One of those choices is based on conjecture and
> fantasy.(that would be evolution) Fish became man, stuff like that.
You seem to have it backwards. "Conjecture and fantasy" is your own belief
in angels, ancient astronauts, and magical creation. "Fish become man" is
a extreme oversimplification of an observed process. You are trying to
bring science down to the level of your own fantasy beliefs.
>
> The other rooted in history, traditions and accmulated knowledge that
> was written by real people describing real events.
Actually, your beliefs are rooted in myth, legend, and folk tales. The
events "described" were made up to fill a cultural need, not the product of
observation, or real events.
>
> which is what most sound minded people believe.
As you said above "Often times, people with mental illness behaviors will
most likely NOT think anything is wrong" Sometimes they will even imagine
themselves to be "sound minded people".
DJT
Dana Tweedy
>> Incorrect. Sound minded people believe in what they see around them
>> in the real world, not crazy stories of space aliens and magical
>> beings.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> True. But sound minded people do not make up wild and exotic stories
> about the real world either.
Like stories about ancient astronauts, and dimention crossing angels?
>Stories such as fish jumping out of the
> water and begining to walk, talk and build bridges or automobiles.
Of course, no one who accepts science would make a story like that. The
ancient ancestors of tetrapods did not "leap" out of the water. Humans
evolved over hundreds of millions of years from those ancestors, by a
process that can be observed happening. No magic is involved, no appeal
to supernatural angels, or beings from beyond the stars. Just normal
everyday evolution.
DJT
Will in New Haven
This is the central question and one he and his ilk dodge regularly.
Why wold good put all the evidence for evolution out there. I think,
deep down, they want their hateful vengeance-monkey god to punish
those of us, which is most people, who are smarter than they are.
--
Will in New Haven
Dana Tweedy
> On Nov 29, 8:37 am, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 29, 8:49 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 29, 7:34 am, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Nov 29, 7:17 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Evolutionists keep getting hit in the face with scientific truth.
>>
>>>>> Therefore, they spend most of their time developing complex lies
>>>>> and molding them into complex theories.
>>>>> [...]
>>
>>>> And you prefer the mind-numbing chant of "goddidit, goddidit,
>>>> goddidit."
>>
>>> You nailed it. A gold star AND a scoobie snack for you.
>>
>>> It is a choice. One of those choices is based on conjecture and
>>> fantasy.(that would be evolution) Fish became man, stuff like that.
>>
>>> The other rooted in history, traditions and accmulated knowledge
>>> that was written by real people describing real events.
>>
>>> which is what most sound minded people believe.
>>
>> In other words, you believe myths and reject facts. The �fantasy-
>> prone personality� you invented describes you perfectly.- Hide
>> quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Well. religion is based on written recorded historical events which
> were observed by real humans.
No, religion is based on a belief in something that can't be observed by
"real humans". The "historical events" you mention supposedly happened long
before they were written down, and in most cases before there were any "real
humans" to write anything down.
>
> Evolution is just an inference of data.
All science is an inference from data. That's why it's superior to folk
tales when it comes to learning about the world.
>
> It would appear that a human-observed event if far more accurate then
> an exotic story such as an ape climbed down from a tree and latter
> began to build computers.
Well, there aren't any "human observed events" of the supernatural. All
those are "exotic stories". Apes coming down from the tree, and evolving
into a species that could build computers is a natural event, and one that
left traces of evidence. It's amusing to see that you are trying to equate
science, and solid theories based on evidence with the same kind of folklore
and legends that you believe without question.
>
> Dontcha-tink?
That's just it. Science minded persons do think. That's why they don't
accept legends as fact.
>
> If not, then you may have a �fantasy-prone personality�. Hey. Nothing
> wrong with that.
again, you are the one who is accepting fantasy as fact.
>
> I prefer to call it like i see it. And it seems there is more then a
> single interpretation for the evidence supporting much of evolution.
No one says there isn't. The fact remains that evolution is the only
interpretation that fits the evidence, can be tested, and can be verified.
Your own fantasies cannot.
DJT
TomS
<_ZqdnYZXqINkPY_W...@bresnan.com>, Dana Tweedy stated..."
>
>All-Seeing-I wrote:
>> Evolutionists keep getting hit in the face with scientific truth.
>
>Actually, if you look, you'll see it's you who keeps getting hit with
>scientific evidence, after you make some silly claim.
Oh, it isn't only *scientific* evidence. There are plenty of other
examples, some as elementary as persistence in misquoting the Bible.
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
Burkhard
> On Nov 29, 8:37 am, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 29, 8:49 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 29, 7:34 am, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 29, 7:17 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>>>> Evolutionists keep getting hit in the face with scientific truth.
>>>>> Therefore, they spend most of their time developing complex lies and
>>>>> molding them into complex theories.
>>>>> [...]
>>>> And you prefer the mind-numbing chant of "goddidit, goddidit,
>>>> goddidit."
>>> You nailed it. A gold star AND a scoobie snack for you.
>>> It is a choice. One of those choices is based on conjecture and
>>> fantasy.(that would be evolution) Fish became man, stuff like that.
>>> The other rooted in history, traditions and accmulated knowledge that
>>> was written by real people describing real events.
>>> which is what most sound minded people believe.
>> In other words, you believe myths and reject facts. The “fantasy-
>> prone personality” you invented describes you perfectly.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Well. religion is based on written recorded historical events which
> were observed by real humans.
yet you claim that "human perception is in itself flawed. So why not the
perception of the people who made these observations? Why not your
perception when reading the records?
>
> Evolution is just an inference of data.
As is all knowledge. You too with your ancient texts do nothing else -
you make inferences from the data (the text) to the truth of the text.
Furthermore, you assume the text is authentic and not a fake(a very
indirect inference based on limited and notoriously unreliable data,
truthful not intentionally deceiving (ibid.)
>
> It would appear that a human-observed event if far more accurate then
> an exotic story such as an ape climbed down from a tree and latter
> began to build computers.
>
> Dontcha-tink?
No. We know that eyewitness evidence is the most unreliable form there
is. Eyewitnesses evidence transmitted over generations, with translation
errors etc, even more so.
Ye Old One
>Creationists keep getting hit in the face with scientific truth.
>
>Therefore, they spend most of their time developing complex lies and
>molding them into complex theories.
>
>All done to support their fantasy view of the world around them.
>
>Often times, people with mental illness behaviors will most likely NOT
>think anything is wrong.
100% correct now.
--
Bob.
Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright
ideas from penetrating. Your bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little
sign of breaking down in the near future.
Eric Root
> On Nov 29, 8:37 am, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 29, 8:49 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 29, 7:34 am, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 29, 7:17 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Evolutionists keep getting hit in the face with scientific truth.
>
> > > > > Therefore, they spend most of their time developing complex lies and
> > > > > molding them into complex theories.
> > > > > [...]
>
> > > > And you prefer the mind-numbing chant of "goddidit, goddidit,
> > > > goddidit."
>
> > > You nailed it. A gold star AND a scoobie snack for you.
>
> > > It is a choice. One of those choices is based on conjecture and
> > > fantasy.(that would be evolution) Fish became man, stuff like that.
>
> > > The other rooted in history, traditions and accmulated knowledge that
> > > was written by real people describing real events.
>
> > > which is what most sound minded people believe.
>
> > In other words, you believe myths and reject facts. The “fantasy-
> > prone personality” you invented describes you perfectly.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Well. religion is based on written recorded historical events which
> were observed by real humans.
>
"Based on" is pretty weak. And none of it was written down by people
that were actually there. It is all somebody's idea of somebody's
idea, etc., back many generations until anyone wrote it down.
> Evolution is just an inference of data.
>
But it is very good inference by highly-intelligent, highly-
experienced people from data that is right in front of them, not
umpteen-many-times hearsay like ancient religious documents.
> It would appear that a human-observed event if far more accurate
Right, and the evidence for evolution is human-observed thousands of
times every day in the here-and-now. Ancient traditions represent
what unsophisticated primitive passed around the campfire in a multi-
generation game of telephone, before it was ever first written.
(snip dishonest mischaracterization)
>
> If not, then you may have a “fantasy-prone personality”.
i have a fantasy-prone personality, and the only disadvantage is a
tendency to woolgather. it is separate from my appreciation of
science.
> Hey. Nothing
> wrong with that.
>
But there is something wrong with pretending an apt analogy fails to
be an apploes to apples comparison.
> I prefer to call it like i see it.
Even when you are wrong, which you nearly always are.
>And it seems there is more then a
> single interpretation for the evidence supporting much of evolution.
There is, but the standard explanation is thousands of times better
than any competitor.
Eric Root
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 29, 7:34 am, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 29, 7:17 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>> > creationists keep getting hit in the face with scientific truth.
>>
>> > Therefore, they spend most of their time developing complex lies and
>> > molding them into complex theories.
>> > [...]
>>
>> And you prefer the mind-numbing chant of "goddidit, goddidit,
>> goddidit."
>
>You nailed it. A gold star AND a scoobie snack for you.
>
>It is a choice. One of those choices is based on conjecture and
>fantasy.(that would be creationism) Man not being an ape, stuff like that.
>
>The other rooted in history, traditions and accmulated knowledge that
>was written by real people describing real events.
>
>which is what most sound minded religious people believe.
>
Corrected without charge.
--
Bob.
If brains were dynamite, you wouldn't have enough to blow your nose.
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Which religion did you get that daft idea from Mudbrain?
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
Science causes disease.
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 29, 8:37 am, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 29, 8:49 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 29, 7:34 am, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Nov 29, 7:17 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > Evolutionists keep getting hit in the face with scientific truth.
>>
>> > > > Therefore, they spend most of their time developing complex lies and
>> > > > molding them into complex theories.
>> > > > [...]
>>
>> > > And you prefer the mind-numbing chant of "goddidit, goddidit,
>> > > goddidit."
>>
>> > You nailed it. A gold star AND a scoobie snack for you.
>>
>> > It is a choice. One of those choices is based on conjecture and
>> > fantasy.(that would be evolution) Fish became man, stuff like that.
>>
>> > The other rooted in history, traditions and accmulated knowledge that
>> > was written by real people describing real events.
>>
>> > which is what most sound minded people believe.
>>
>> In other words, you believe myths and reject facts. The “fantasy-
>> prone personality” you invented describes you perfectly.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Well. religion is based on written recorded historical events which
>were observed by real humans.
No it isn't you moron!
>
>Evolution is just an inference of data.
You really need to check that dictionary Mudbrain.
>
>It would appear that a human-observed event if far more accurate then
>an exotic story such as an ape climbed down from a tree and latter
>began to build computers.
Those same apes invented your gods - every single one of them.
>
>Dontcha-tink?
>
>If not, then you may have a “fantasy-prone personality”. Hey. Nothing
>wrong with that.
Until, like you, you allow it to rule your life.
>
>I prefer to call it like i see it.
Then you need your eyes checked.
> And it seems there is more then a
>single interpretation for the evidence supporting much of evolution.
For some items, but there is no other explanation that fits ALL the
evidence as the ToE does.
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
Desertphile
> Evolutionists keep getting hit in the face with scientific truth.
What is/ are "evoutionists" and why should we care?
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Sox
news:1b510aa9-d867-4d42...@9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Evolutionists keep getting hit in the face with scientific truth.
>
> > molding them into complex theories.
> > [...]
>
> And you prefer the mind-numbing chant of "goddidit, goddidit,
> goddidit."
You nailed it. A gold star AND a scoobie snack for you.
It is a choice. One of those choices is based on conjecture and
fantasy.(that would be evolution) Fish became man, stuff like that.
The other rooted in history, traditions and accmulated knowledge that
was written by real people describing real events.
which is what most sound minded people believe.
Real people describing real events? Uh, not really. First off, personal
obervations of complex, confusing events are notoriously innacurate, even
when recorded immediately after the event, especially when recorded by those
ill-equipped to understand what they are seeing. That is easily -- and
often -- demonstrated in most law courses on evidence. When the stories are
long removed from the actual event, and passed down word-of-mouth through
mutliple generations before being written down, they are even further from
being reliable.
When passed through multiple interpreters they are more likely to be heavily
influenced by the biases of those doing the interpretation, and subject to
"improvements" to juice up the story. A good example are the fantastic tales
of King Arthur and his magical sword Excaliber. It's a good story, but it is
only a story, told more to reinforce the moral standards of the tellers than
to be taken as literal truth. While there may be some small kernal of truth
vaguely connected to the story, most of the details of the story were
clearly made up afterwards.
Most of your stories fall into that category. Confusing events passed down
by people who were trying to make sense of things, but severely limited by
their lack of understanding of the real world. Hence the descriptions of
rabbits chewing their cud. Ooops -- kind of got that one wrong. Also heavily
influenced by the fears and biases of those doing the telling. Hence the
long sections of the Bible obsessed with diagnosing leprosy by seeing if a
white hair sprouts up.
You are aware that there are alternative approaches to simply repeating the
same stories? Ones that account for and remove the biases of the observer?
One of those approaches is science, which insists that what one person
observes is simply not good enough. It has to be repeatable, so that
independent observers observing similar events under similar conditions will
record consistent results. That is the basis of all chemistry and physics
laboratory experiments.
Gravity is an accepted concept not because Galileo did experiments on an
inclined plane and Newton worked out the mathematics, but because any
observer can design an experiment to test the concept and will get
consistent results. Repeated experiments reinforce that the concept is
valid. Those repeatable experiments are not "proof" in a Euclidean sense,
but the consistent results provide confidence that the description is valid.
You can work that out to your own satisfaction as well -- calculate how long
it will take a dropped object to fall from a tall building and try it out
yourself. Be sure to let us know if you come up with something drastically
different than about 9.81 m / sec squared as the acceleration of the dropped
object.
Evolution is an accepted concept not because Darwin meticulously recorded
his observations and spent over twenty years trying to make sense of them
before publishing The Origin of Species, but because any competent observer
can -- and have -- designed experiments to test the concept and come to the
same conclusion. It is consistent. It is repeatable.
Ghosts haunting old buildings is not an accepted concept for the opposite
reason. Notwithstanding popular nonsense, competent observers designing
experiments to confirm the results do not get consistent results. There's a
good reason that Ghost Hunters is a TV show on the SciFy channel and not a
peer reviewed article in a scientific journal.
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
It does not matter how long it took because it did not happen.
Nothing of the sort can be witnessed taking place in real time.
Therefore you must infer from data to make the assumption that man
descended from fish. Data is not always going to be accurate. Data is
not always going to be interpreted correctly.
Anything beyond what we can actually witness for ourselves is
synonymous to a science fiction movie.
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
What you guys dodge is the fact that you may be interpreting
incomplete data.
Also. There is no hateful God, you deranged moron.
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
oh lookie here. 2 apes licking each others arm pits and picking off
their fleas
.
Burkhard
Kleuskes & Moos
The evidence says it did...
> Nothing of the sort can be witnessed taking place in real time.
Depends on what you call real time. Acouple of hundreds of millions of
years seem plenty real to me.
> Therefore you must infer from data to make the assumption that man
> descended from fish.
That's no assumption, just the best explaination for the data we have.
> Data is not always going to be accurate. Data is
> not always going to be interpreted correctly.
And that's why the scientific method stresses all knowledge is
provisional. However, given the quantity of data, this particular bit
of knowledge is considered pretty solid by those in the know...
> Anything beyond what we can actually witness for ourselves is
> synonymous to a science fiction movie.
So, since you cannot witness me for yourself, i'm part of the Star
Trek crew? Cool...
raven1
Of course the data is incomplete. But *all* of it points to evolution,
with *none* of it contradicting evolution, or supporting creationism.
>Also. There is no hateful God, you deranged moron.
Of course there isn't, except in the imagination of its followers.
raven1
"We don't know everything, therefore we know nothing". Will you ever
jump off that merry-go-round of nihilism?
Inez
> On Nov 29, 8:10 am, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 29, 5:49 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 29, 7:34 am, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 29, 7:17 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Evolutionists keep getting hit in the face with scientific truth.
>
> > > > > Therefore, they spend most of their time developing complex lies and
> > > > > molding them into complex theories.
> > > > > [...]
>
> > > > And you prefer the mind-numbing chant of "goddidit, goddidit,
> > > > goddidit."
>
> > > You nailed it. A gold star AND a scoobie snack for you.
>
> > > It is a choice. One of those choices is based on conjecture and
> > > fantasy.(that would be evolution) Fish became man, stuff like that.
>
> > > The other rooted in history, traditions and accmulated knowledge that
> > > was written by real people describing real events.
>
> > With no grounding whatever in the physcial evidence.
>
> > > which is what most sound minded people believe.
>
> > Incorrect. Sound minded people believe in what they see around them
> > in the real world, not crazy stories of space aliens and magical
> > beings.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> True. But sound minded people do not make up wild and exotic stories
> about the real world either. Stories such as fish jumping out of the
Or burning bushes speaking? Or a person living for days inside a
giant fish? Or a man riding around in a floating animal toilet for a
year with two of each animal? Or space aliens teaching ancient
Sumerians to do IVF?
Inez
flood.
> Nothing of the sort can be witnessed taking place in real time.
> Therefore you must infer from data to make the assumption that man
> descended from fish. Data is not always going to be accurate. Data is
> not always going to be interpreted correctly.
Which is why you go with the consensus of how the vast majority of
scientists interpret the data.
> Anything beyond what we can actually witness for ourselves is
> synonymous to a science fiction movie.-
That's one of the stupider things you've yet said.
Ye Old One
So all those texts you rely on are just what I always thought -
fiction. You didn't see them written, you didn't experience the
events.
--
Bob.
"Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible
propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them."
Thomas Jefferson.
Ye Old One
No matter, as all the new data over the last 150 years has only added
to the strength of the ToE.
>
>Also. There is no God, you deranged moron.
Corrected without charge.
--
Bob.
When D-G made Madman out of clay he forgot to magic the brain. I think
that explains everything.
Dana Tweedy
> On Nov 29, 10:46 am, Will in New Haven
>>> Why do you think a creator god would *fake everything, and what
>>> evidence do you have for it?
>>
>> This is the central question and one he and his ilk dodge regularly.
>> Why wold good put all the evidence for evolution out there. I think,
>> deep down, they want their hateful vengeance-monkey god to punish
>> those of us, which is most people, who are smarter than they are.
>>
>> --
>> Will in New Haven- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> What you guys dodge is the fact that you may be interpreting
> incomplete data.
On the contrary. Scientists know that all data are incomplete, which is why
they don't presume to seek "ultimate truth". The data that are availabe
supports the theory of evolution, and the theory will continue to be valid
until something contradicts it.
>
> Also. There is no hateful God, you deranged moron.
Just your own hatred. You are the one making it appear that God hates
knowledge.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
>> Have any testable models that fit the data?
>> Have any reason we shouldn't consider you deranged or, at best,
>> deluded?
>>
>> Kermit- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> It does not matter how long it took because it did not happen.
The evidence indicates that it did.
>
> Nothing of the sort can be witnessed taking place in real time.
Evolution, can be.
> Therefore you must infer from data to make the assumption that man
> descended from fish.
All science is inference from the data, and it's not an assumption that
humans descended from fish, it's a conclusion drawn from the evidence.
You've already shown you don't understand that assumption and inference are
two entirely different things.
>Data is not always going to be accurate. Data is
> not always going to be interpreted correctly.
The data are always going to be accurate, but the interpretation may not be.
If the interpretation is wrong, then more data will show this. You are
simply asserting that it's wrong, without any reason.
>
> Anything beyond what we can actually witness for ourselves is
> synonymous to a science fiction movie.
No, anything beyond our ability to witness is inferred from the evidence.
Science fiction is speculation from what is known now, with a strong blend
of fiction. Science itself is not, and deriving conclusions from the
evidence is what science is best at.
DJT
All-Seeing-I
> On Nov 29, 5:49 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 29, 7:34 am, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 29, 7:17 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Evolutionists keep getting hit in the face with scientific truth.
>
> > > > Therefore, they spend most of their time developing complex lies and
> > > > molding them into complex theories.
> > > > [...]
>
> > > And you prefer the mind-numbing chant of "goddidit, goddidit,
> > > goddidit."
>
> > You nailed it. A gold star AND a scoobie snack for you.
>
> > It is a choice. One of those choices is based on conjecture and
> > fantasy.(that would be evolution) Fish became man, stuff like that.
>
> data, and a conscious state, I have to arrive at certain conclusions.
> This is perhaps an alien concept to Creationists, who do seem to have
> the ability to simply up and beleive anything they want to be true. I
> find that as baffling as they do me, and I grew up with them.
So you admit to being a drone that has no direct choice for yourself.
THAT is good to know.
>
> To change my mind on something, you would have to procide evidence or
> an argument (in the philosophical sense, not in the shouting wake the
> neighbors sense).
You only accept one kind of evidence. That is rather self limiting if
you ask me.
> I can affect it of course in indirect ways. I could choose to start
> drinking heavily if someone confronts me with unpleasant facts, or I
> could choose to go the university library or internet and look
> something up.
You could also use logic, perception, intuition
>
> But I can't "choose" to think evolution didn't happen any more than I
> can choose to think the sky is plaid when I look up.
That is because you are part of the collective now. You have been so
convinced that you will no longer accept anything other explaination.
> > The other rooted in history, traditions and accmulated knowledge that
> > was written by real people describing real events.
>
> I would think some folks are thinking of Herodotus when they say this,
> but I know that you are thinking of leprechauns and the like. Keep the
> fly swatter handy; bats are *all over the place.
You really have trouble with what may be real and what is obviously
not real. Your stubborn streak does not help.
>
> > which is what most sound minded people believe.
>
> Ummm... no.
>
yep.
> Wipe out any diseases from the face of the planet lately?
No. And neither has science.
Viruses like polio and small pox still exist in nature.
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Viruses like polio and small pox still exist in nature.
Smallpox only exists in the lab.
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>True. But sound minded people do not make up wild and exotic stories
>about the real world either. Stories such as fish jumping out of the
>water and begining to walk, talk and build bridges or automobiles.
and yet, if that's what happened then
that's what happened
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>It does not matter how long it took because it did not happen.
>
>Nothing of the sort can be witnessed taking place in real time.
>Therefore you must infer from data to make the assumption that man
>descended from fish. Data is not always going to be accurate. Data is
>not always going to be interpreted correctly.
>
>Anything beyond what we can actually witness for ourselves is
>synonymous to a science fiction movie.
i guess the creationist doesn't realize that almost none of the
history of the universe
happens in real time
no wonder creationism is a failure. creationsits have no sense of
time.
and no one ever saw
god
angels
devils
demons
ghosts
genesis
moses
exodus
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>Well. religion is based on written recorded historical events which
>were observed by real humans.
well. no. they made inferences about things they saw. they attributed
them to demons gods and angels
none of which were ever seen. they made up ideas about gods. no gods
were seen.
>
>Evolution is just an inference of data.
evolution is testable. god isn't
>
>It would appear that a human-observed event if far more accurate then
>an exotic story such as an ape climbed down from a tree and latter
>began to build computers.
evolution is a human observed event.
>
>Dontcha-tink?
uh...no. genesis, for example, was never observed. no one saw it. you
yourself say it mst be seen to be true
where's the person who saw genesis?
your own method says your own method is a lie
>
>If not, then you may have a “fantasy-prone personality”. Hey. Nothing
>wrong with that.
>
>I prefer to call it like i see it. And it seems there is more then a
>single interpretation for the evidence supporting much of evolution.
no, there's not. sorry
you're not a scientist and have no idea what science is.
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>> To change my mind on something, you would have to procide evidence or
>> an argument (in the philosophical sense, not in the shouting wake the
>> neighbors sense).
>
>You only accept one kind of evidence. That is rather self limiting if
>you ask me.
and yo accept EVERYTHING. that's called gullibility
>
>> I can affect it of course in indirect ways. I could choose to start
>> drinking heavily if someone confronts me with unpleasant facts, or I
>> could choose to go the university library or internet and look
>> something up.
>
>You could also use logic, perception, intuition
intuition is useless. and logic? you have no idea what logic is
Eric Root
Which is crazy-person talk for "boikat and Kermit have described me to
a T."
Eric Root
All-Seeing-I
Would that data include all of the forgeries and lies over the last
150 years?
why yes.
it does...
Yeah. /real strength/ NOT
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
That should read "to a Tee" moron.
David Fritzinger
<813c534d-f560-4732...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
All-Seeing-I <allse...@usa.com> wrote:
So, name all of these forgeries. I can think of one actual forgery,
Piltdown man. You will try to bring up Nebraska man, but that was just a
mistake corrected by the scientist who made the discovery. There was
also one forgery (done by someone who was selling the fossile, not by a
scientist) that put two different fossils together. But, that was never
published. What else do you have?
Oh, and you are ignoring the genetic evidence, protein similarities,
biogeographical evidence, etc.
bpuharic
guess the creationist is unaware that every field of science has had
frauds
and religion? that fraud started with a guy named 'abraham'.
creationists havent caught on to the joke yet
bpuharic
with 'you're' language skills, i wouldn't be talking to anyone else
about 'they're' skills
Ye Old One
Oh look, a spilling flume from a cretinist like Mudbrain.
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
Science causes disease.
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
Mike Dworetsky
Smallpox only exists in the lab, because vaccinations developed by
scientists and implemented by medical teams all over the world administered
vaccines and eliminated the infection.
Polio vaccines were also developed by scientists and if the immunization
program could be as universal as the one for smallpox, that would also
probably be eradicated. These days, many doctors in western countries never
even see a case during their careers.
Before science got involved, creationists would wring their hands and moan
that it was God's will that people were getting sick and dying, or being
horribly crippled.
You are too young, I presume, to remember the annual wave of fear among
parents all over the world, particularly during the summer months when polio
epidemics would strike. Ever heard of the "iron lung"?
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 07:11:20 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
><allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Well. religion is based on written recorded historical events which
>>were observed by real humans.
>
>well. no. they made inferences about things they saw. they attributed
>them to demons gods and angels
He keeps misunderstanding that word.
inference
n noun
1 a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning.
2 the process of reaching a conclusion by inferring.
DERIVATIVES
inferential adjective
inferentially adverb
Attributing things to demons gods and angels is not using "reasoning".
>
>none of which were ever seen. they made up ideas about gods. no gods
>were seen.
As I always say, gods are the invention of primitive man.
[snip]
Ye Old One
What forgeries and lies would that be Mudbrain?
Piltdown Man certainly doesn't count because it was the other data
that put it in doubt almost from the outset.
>
>why yes.
>
>it does...
>
>Yeah. /real strength/ NOT
--
Bob.
People may not always remember exactly what you said, but they will
always remember just how bright you made them feel.
Mike Lyle
>> Which is crazy-person talk for "boikat and Kermit have described me
>> to a T."
>
The Oxford English Dictionary gives "to a T" as the primary form "Phr.
to a T (also to a tee)". Please stop doing this to yourself: even if
you're immune, for some reason it makes _me_ squirm.
Oh, and you might do something about those commas, too.
--
Mike.
Eric Root
I don't speak to golf equipment, thank you. And you scrfewed up the
use of a comma, yet again.
Eric Root
Burkhard
> In article
> <813c534d-f560-4732-ba54-21390ded6...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
The really funny thing of course is that AS1 periodically tries to
sell us fake apocryphal texts that have been identified as forgeries
decades, if not centuries ago. In the worst case so far, the author
had copied texts directly from Ben Hur, the novel.
Strangely, he never considers the widespread and well documented
existence of fake "ancient texts" a problem.
Desertphile
wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:28:48 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
> <allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
> >Viruses like polio and small pox still exist in nature.
> Smallpox only exists in the lab.
It might also exist in some graves in high northern latitudes. Now
that the permafrost is no longer perma, maybe we'll see some of
the vanquished diseases return.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
No. That's the beauty of science: it rejects forgeries and lies.
Note the difference between science and Creationism in this
regard.
Burkhard
morons, it might be advisable that you learn things.
This specific expression was first used by James Wright in 1693 and read
like this:
"All the under Villages and Towns-men come to him for Redress;
which he does to a T."
(The Humours and conversations of the town)
While the "tee" spelling is also permissible, the traditional one is
simply "T" and absolutely correct.
The etymology is a bit unclear, but a good candidate sees it as an
abbreviation of the older phrase: "to a tittle", a tittle being a small
symbol in printing like a point, which is easy to overlook or forget
(hence, something done "to the T" is particularly meticulous and accurate)
The German equivalent that lends this interpretation support is "bis
auf's i-tuepfelchen" - right up to the point on an "i".
Ye Old One
<deser...@invalid-address.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 00:44:10 GMT, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net>
>wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:28:48 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>> <allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>> >Viruses like polio and small pox still exist in nature.
>
>> Smallpox only exists in the lab.
>
>It might also exist in some graves in high northern latitudes. Now
>that the permafrost is no longer perma, maybe we'll see some of
>the vanquished diseases return.
Mmmmm. I wonder if the experts have thought of that?
--
Bob.
Read a Spincronic post in the morning and nothing worse will happen to
you for the rest of the day.
Boikat
"To a T" is acceptable usage, monnnkeey-boy.
Boikat
Kermit
> On Nov 29, 9:25�am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 29, 7:03�am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 29, 8:10�am, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > On Nov 29, 7:34�am, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Nov 29, 7:17�am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Evolutionists keep getting hit in the face with scientific truth.
>
> > > > > > > molding them into complex theories.
>
> > > > > > And you prefer the mind-numbing chant of "goddidit, goddidit,
> > > > > > goddidit."
>
> > > > > You nailed it. A gold star AND a scoobie snack for you.
>
> > > > > It is a choice. One of those choices is based on conjecture and
> > > > > fantasy.(that would be evolution) Fish became man, stuff like that.
>
> > > > > The other rooted in history, traditions and accmulated knowledge that
> > > > > was written by real people describing real events.
>
> > > > With no grounding whatever in the physcial evidence.
>
> > > > > which is what most sound minded people believe.
>
> > > > Incorrect. �Sound minded people believe in what they see around them
> > > > in the real world, not crazy stories of space aliens and magical
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > about the real world either. Stories such as fish jumping out of the
> > > water and begining to walk, talk and build bridges or automobiles.
>
> > Hahahha!
>
> > It took a few generations.
>
> > Why do you think a creator god would *fake everything, and what
> > else sees *and expect reasonable folks to believe that your special
> > perceptions are real, based on usenet posts. Most definitions of
> > "sound-minded" do not include seeing things which aren't there.
>
> > Have any testable models that fit the data?
> > Have any reason we shouldn't consider you deranged or, at best,
> > deluded?
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
All the evidence says it did. No other testable model has ever been
offered.
>
> Nothing of the sort can be witnessed taking place in real time.
Sure it can. We witness evolution happening in the field and in the
lab. We understand quite a bit about mutations, which ultimately
produce the pool of variability from which nature filters out the
reproductive success stories. We use evolutionary algorithms to design
computer chips. Etc. Just because the Grand Canyon doesn't happen
before our eyes doesn't mean we can't see uplift and erosion
happening.
> Therefore you must infer from data
Yes; infer and test. As opposed to just making shit up, and ignoring
the data.
> to make the assumption that man
> descended from fish. Data is not always going to be accurate. Data is
> not always going to be interpreted correctly.
Correct. That's why it's utterly unreliable without scientific
methodology - verification thru observation and testing the models.
>
> Anything beyond what we can actually witness for ourselves is
> synonymous to a science fiction movie.
Like religious myths?
Kermit
Kermit
True. I am limited to reality.
>
> > I can affect it of course in indirect ways. I could choose to start
> > drinking heavily if someone confronts me with unpleasant facts, or I
> > could choose to go the university library or internet and look
> > something up.
>
> You could also use logic, perception, intuition
You have given no indication that you can follow or execute the most
basic logic. Perceptions can be faulty for a variety of reasons;
that's why they must be verifiable to be reasonably trustworthy.
Intuition might be a reason to investigate or be cautious. It is best
used for judging other people. Body language and such can give us
information (and it's an unconscious process), but conditioned
responses (e.g. racism) can lead us astray, and intuition should be
taken with a grain of salt. It's useless for answering question about
the nature or reality.
>
>
>
> > But I can't "choose" to think evolution didn't happen any more than I
> > can choose to think the sky is plaid when I look up.
>
> That is because you are part of the collective now. You have been so
> convinced that you will no longer accept anything other explaination.
No, it's because given certain information and thinking about it,
there are sometimes no alternative explanations that make sense. When
the information is insufficient or ambiguous, or the explanations not
entirely satisfactory, I have no or only tentative models for that
subject. (I have, for instance, no opinion on whether or not there is
life on Europa.)
I told you that you wouldn't understand. You claim to know logic, but
find the idea of coming to a conclusion - given certain premises -
anathema. The appearance of the "Collective" is a natural results of
reasonable people looking at the same evidence. It's people who do
*not look at all the pertinent evidence who routinely come to widely
varying conclusions.
>
> > > The other rooted in history, traditions and accmulated knowledge that
> > > was written by real people describing real events.
>
> > I would think some folks are thinking of Herodotus when they say this,
> > but I know that you are thinking of leprechauns and the like. Keep the
> > fly swatter handy; bats are *all over the place.
>
> You really have trouble with what may be real and what is obviously
> not real. Your stubborn streak does not help.
Are you saying that leprechauns are real, or that Herodotus never was?
>
>
>
> > > which is what most sound minded people believe.
>
> > Ummm... no.
>
> yep.
>
> > Wipe out any diseases from the face of the planet lately?
>
> No. And neither has science.
>
Smallpox comes to mind.
> Viruses like polio and small pox still exist in nature.
Assuming by "nature", you include laboratories. Polio would be wiped
out by now if religious and politically motivated imams and other
authorities hadn't lied and spread fear among their people.
>
> > Kermit- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
Kermit
Burkhard
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 07:40:32 -0700, Desertphile
> <desertph...@invalid-address.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 00:44:10 GMT, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net>
> >wrote:
>
> >> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:28:48 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
> >> <allseei...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >> >Viruses like polio and small pox still exist in nature.
>
> >> Smallpox only exists in the lab.
>
> >It might also exist in some graves in high northern latitudes. Now
> >that the permafrost is no longer perma, maybe we'll see some of
> >the vanquished diseases return.
>
> Mmmmm. I wonder if the experts have thought of that?
>
They sure did
http://www.livescience.com/environment/080327-smallpox-corpses.html
Walter Bushell
"Mike Dworetsky" <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
Anybody who saw the Salk vaccine come in does.
I still remember a comic where a woman gets a light sentence, because
she stayed to turn the crank on an iron lung when the electricity went
out, knowing that she would be caught if she stayed. And devices for
collecting coins for charity and fighting the disease were everywhere.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Walter Bushell
<0868e883-95c0-4f49...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Kermit <unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Intuition might be a reason to investigate or be cautious. It is best
> used for judging other people. Body language and such can give us
> information (and it's an unconscious process), but conditioned
> responses (e.g. racism) can lead us astray, and intuition should be
> taken with a grain of salt. It's useless for answering question about
> the nature or reality.
But different subgroups have differing body language, so it's not
totally racism. People don't trust people they can't read and it's not
even a conscious process in most people.
Kermit
> In article
> <0868e883-95c0-4f49-909e-1568b2c65...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
>
> �Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Intuition might be a reason to investigate or be cautious. It is best
> > used for judging other people. Body language and such can give us
> > information (and it's an unconscious process), but conditioned
> > responses (e.g. racism) can lead us astray, and intuition should be
> > taken with a grain of salt. It's useless for answering question about
> > the nature or reality.
>
> But different subgroups have differing body language, so it's not
> totally racism. People don't trust people they can't read and it's not
> even a conscious process in most people.
Correct. Sexism cannot be entirely separated from the higher levels of
aggression of males. Racism is even more complexly intertwined with
fashion, body language, cultural and religious mores, income levels,
simple stereotyping, responses to height, and other issues. Simply
being different causes reactions in people, aside from these other
issues.
I knew when I wrote this that intuition is a complex subject, a catch-
all term that covers a lot of territory. And it's not as though it's a
scientifically defined word...
But consider whom I was responding to.
>
> --
> �A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Kermit
Kermit
> On Nov 29, 9:33�am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > > On Nov 29, 7:17�am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Evolutionists keep getting hit in the face with scientific truth.
>
> > > be call ed a "hit in the face". �But certainly none of the
> > > "scientific" claims you've made, since every one of that has blown up
> > > in *your* face, due to faulty logic.
>
> > > > molding them into complex theories.
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> their fleas
> .
When Mark Salzman was teaching university English in China, a holiday
weekend came up. A student invited him home for the holidays, He was
from a fishing family, and lived far upstream from the city. As they
were lying in a moored fishing boat, gently rocking in the waves, the
student noted that he had a terrible time sleeping in the city because
of the noise. And the food! So strange, so hard to get used to. Then
he asked "Teacher Mark, what do you want to do in life?"
Mark was there to learn kung fu, and replied "I want to learn to do
something, and do it very well."
The student answered "Oh, but that's easy! All you have to do is work
very hard, for many years. Sleeping and eating - they're hard."
Kermit
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On 1 Dec, 14:39, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 07:40:32 -0700, Desertphile
>> <desertph...@invalid-address.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 00:44:10 GMT, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net>
>> >wrote:
>>
>> >> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:28:48 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>> >> <allseei...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>> >> >Viruses like polio and small pox still exist in nature.
>>
>> >> Smallpox only exists in the lab.
>>
>> >It might also exist in some graves in high northern latitudes. Now
>> >that the permafrost is no longer perma, maybe we'll see some of
>> >the vanquished diseases return.
>>
>> Mmmmm. I wonder if the experts have thought of that?
>>
>
>
>They sure did
>http://www.livescience.com/environment/080327-smallpox-corpses.html
Thanks for that.
--
Bob.
Walter Bushell
<3d99db5c-e9a1-4296...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Mark Evans <markev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 29, 10:03�am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 29, 8:10�am, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Nov 29, 5:49�am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Nov 29, 7:34�am, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Nov 29, 7:17�am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > Evolutionists keep getting hit in the face with scientific truth.
> >
> > > > > > Therefore, they spend most of their time developing complex lies and
> > > > > > molding them into complex theories.
> > > > > > [...]
> >
> > > > > And you prefer the mind-numbing chant of "goddidit, goddidit,
> > > > > goddidit."
> >
> > > > You nailed it. A gold star AND a scoobie snack for you.
> >
> > > > It is a choice. One of those choices is based on conjecture and
> > > > fantasy.(that would be evolution) Fish became man, stuff like that.
> >
> > > > The other rooted in history, traditions and accmulated knowledge that
> > > > was written by real people describing real events.
> >
> > > With no grounding whatever in the physcial evidence.
> >
> > > > which is what most sound minded people believe.
> >
> > > Incorrect. �Sound minded people believe in what they see around them
> > > in the real world, not crazy stories of space aliens and magical
> > > beings.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > True. But sound minded people do not make up wild and exotic stories
> > about the real world either. Stories such as fish jumping out of the
> > water and begining to walk, talk and build bridges or automobiles.
>
> Or ancient writings with revelations, world-covering floods, created
> genes and furry trilobites.
>
> Mark Evans
Some how I thought of the Many Worlds interpretation of Quantum
Mechanics and envisioned a world where a species of trilobites invaded
the land and became the ancestors of a technological species.
Walter Bushell
<971b4a99-171b-45d4...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
All-Seeing-I <allse...@usa.com> wrote:
> Anything beyond what we can actually witness for ourselves is
> synonymous to a science fiction movie.
The Bible is science fiction?
Anyway, you cannot convict anyone of anything because the jurors did not
see the crime.
Walter Bushell
<22c0685a-fcbd-4926...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Kermit <unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Some of the Hindu myths make wonderful movies. Superman is a cheap
Christian copy of Krishna, for example.
Paul J Gans
>In article
><22c0685a-fcbd-4926...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> Kermit <unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 29, 10:58?am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>> > On Nov 29, 9:25?am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > On Nov 29, 7:03?am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > > On Nov 29, 8:10?am, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > > > On Nov 29, 5:49?am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > > > > On Nov 29, 7:34?am, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > > > > > On Nov 29, 7:17?am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > > > > > > Evolutionists keep getting hit in the face with scientific
>> > > > > > > > truth.
>> >
>> > > > > > > > Therefore, they spend most of their time developing complex
>> > > > > > > > lies and
>> > > > > > > > molding them into complex theories.
>> > > > > > > > [...]
>> >
>> > > > > > > And you prefer the mind-numbing chant of "goddidit, goddidit,
>> > > > > > > goddidit."
>> >
>> > > > > > You nailed it. A gold star AND a scoobie snack for you.
>> >
>> > > > > > It is a choice. One of those choices is based on conjecture and
>> > > > > > fantasy.(that would be evolution) Fish became man, stuff like that.
>> >
>> > > > > > The other rooted in history, traditions and accmulated knowledge
>> > > > > > that
>> > > > > > was written by real people describing real events.
>> >
>> > > > > With no grounding whatever in the physcial evidence.
>> >
>> > > > > > which is what most sound minded people believe.
>> >
>> > > > > Incorrect. ?Sound minded people believe in what they see around them
s/Christian/Jewish/
--
--- Paul J. Gans
John Wilkins
<gan...@panix.com> wrote:
Superman is the Jewish messiah myth filtered through Christian
sensibilities. And he is the very exemplar of a divine being, one who
has powers far beyond those of mortals, and who intervenes in the lives
of mortals. To say he is somehow Krsna is, I think, as wrong as it is
possible to get.
Batman, now, *he* is interesting.
Walter Bushell
John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
Krsna, Christ what the difference? The names are even etymologically
related. Krsna also has powers far beyond mortals and intervenes in the
lives of mortals.
--
John McKendry
Sounding a little bit like Ray Martinez channeling Gene Scott, I'm
afraid, and I have to question where you got this information.
Wikipedia, following Monier-Williams' Sanskrit Dictionary, says that
"krsna" means "black, dark, dark-blue", and we all know by now that
"christos" means "anointed with oil", so the similarity of meaning
is not obvious. Worse, the similarity of sound is not there. The
Sanskrit "k" (unaspirated unvoiced velar) is not equivalent to
the Greek "ch" (aspirated), the Sanskrit letter transliterated
carelessly as "s" is a retroflex sibilant pronounced roughly "sh",
and is not equivalent to Greek sigma; and obviously you haven't
accounted for the "n" in "krsna" at all. In fact, about the only
phonetic similarity between the two words is the letter "r",
and I'm not too sure about that; the "r" in "krsna" is a syllabic
"r", and the name is correctly pronounced more like "kirshna"
than like "krishna".
> Krsna also has powers far beyond mortals and intervenes in the
> lives of mortals.
Won't even comment on that.
John
Walter Bushell
OK, from my view point I get them confused. >;)