Why They Believe
All-seeing-I
One of the most mind-numbing mysteries for those who do not believe in
evolution is trying to understand the people who do. Why is it that so
many obviously intelligent people believe in evolution? Can that
actually be this dumb? the entire universe screams out design with
laws and math and precise processes that are interdependent and need
to be in place for all of them to perform in concert.
2) They have been taught evolution is true.
Clearly the evolutionist has a "follower" type personality. It says
man evolved in their book,so, it must be true.
3) They follow the herd
�all reputable scientists believe,� and "mainstream science says" are
their mantras; and since the majority must be right, they follow suit
4) "You are too stupid"
Anyone that does not follow numbers 1 through 3 above must be stupid
and therefore does not understand why evolution is true. This despite
the fact that nothing such as species divergence gas ever been
observed.
5) Brain damage
Of which i have putforth a theory:
=============================================
"Adman's Hypothesis on Brain Chemistry and the Perception of God"
"If the perception of God is related to brain chemistry, then people
lacking
the necessary brain chemistry due to an unknown mutation will have a
higher
frequency of lacking an ability to perceive God."
=============================================
Boikat
> 1) An inability to see the world for what it is.
>
> One of the most mind-numbing mysteries for those who do not believe in
> evolution is trying to understand the people who do. Why is it that so
> many obviously intelligent people believe in evolution? Can that
> actually be this dumb? the entire universe screams out design with
> laws and math and precise processes that are interdependent and need
> to be in place for all of them to perform in concert.
It's the evidence, stupid.
>
> 2) They have been taught evolution is true.
>
> Clearly the evolutionist has a "follower" type personality. It says
> man evolved in their book,so, it must be true.
It's the evidence, stupid.
>
> 3) They follow the herd
>
> �all reputable scientists believe,� �and "mainstream science says" are
> their mantras; and since the majority must be right, they follow suit
It's the evidence, stupid.
>
> 4) "You are too stupid"
>
> Anyone that does not follow numbers 1 through 3 above must be stupid
> and therefore does not understand why evolution is true. This despite
> the fact that nothing such as species divergence gas ever been
> observed.
See, you are stupid. Speciation (divergence) has been observed in the
wild, and in labs. You've been given links to the supporting
documentation seveal times already.
You *are* too stupid to understand that. It's probably du to those
"created" genes that were designed to keep you in your place: a boot
licking sheeple.
>
> 5) Brain damage
>
> Of which i have putforth a theory:
This ought to be stupid.
>
> =============================================
> "Adman's Hypothesis on Brain Chemistry and the Perception of God"
>
> "If the perception of God is related to brain chemistry, then people
> lacking
> the necessary brain chemistry due to an unknown mutation will have a
> higher
> frequency of lacking an ability to perceive God."
> =============================================
Wow. Color me "surprised". It was stupid.
Since therw are a lot of cases where people have had "religious
experiances", and have seen gods, angles, or other religious
'revalations", *after* they've experienced a mental or physical trama
to the brain, maybe it's you lot that have the brain damage.
Boikat
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>1) An inability to see the world for what it is.
>
>One of the most mind-numbing mysteries for those who do not believe in
>evolution is trying to understand the people who do.
they're called 'scientists'.
Why is it that so
>many obviously intelligent people believe in evolution? Can that
>actually be this dumb? the entire universe screams out design with
>laws and math and precise processes that are interdependent and need
>to be in place for all of them to perform in concert.
?? he says laws govern the universe. but evolution is a law
and he then goes on to say there are no laws governing biology
so he has a contradiction.
so how does he resolve this?
he doesn't
>
>2) They have been taught evolution is true.
>
>Clearly the evolutionist has a "follower" type personality. It says
>man evolved in their book,so, it must be true.
of course, the creationist, never having spent a day in a lab, is here
to tell us how to do lab work.
>
>3) They follow the herd
>
>�all reputable scientists believe,� and "mainstream science says" are
>their mantras; and since the majority must be right, they follow suit
says the guy who follows the creationist herd. if i were him, this is
the argument i'd NEVER use. religion often inpsires a herd mentality.
if it can produce suicide bombers, it can certainly produce
creationists
and it does on both accounts
>
>4) "You are too stupid"
>
>Anyone that does not follow numbers 1 through 3 above must be stupid
>and therefore does not understand why evolution is true. This despite
>the fact that nothing such as species divergence gas ever been
>observed.
>
>5) Brain damage
>
>Of which i have putforth a theory:
>
>
>=============================================
>"Adman's Hypothesis on Brain Chemistry and the Perception of God"
>
>
>"If the perception of God is related to brain chemistry, then people
>lacking
>the necessary brain chemistry due to an unknown mutation will have a
>higher
>frequency of lacking an ability to perceive God."
>=============================================
proof that he doesn't know science.
if you're going to PERCEIVE something, that something must be
MEASUREABLE.
god isn't measureable. so his 'hypothesis' is meaningless...pretty
much standard for creationists.
Dana Tweedy
> 1) An inability to see the world for what it is.
If by "they" you mean "creationists", I would agree.
>
> One of the most mind-numbing mysteries for those who do not believe in
> evolution is trying to understand the people who do.
Evolution is not something one "believes in". Evolution is a fact of
nature. It's a process that's known to happen to populations of imperfectly
reproducing organisms. There's no need to "believe in" something that
happens.
> Why is it that so
> many obviously intelligent people believe in evolution?
Because they are intelligent people.
> Can that
> actually be this dumb? the entire universe screams out design with
> laws and math and precise processes that are interdependent and need
> to be in place for all of them to perform in concert.
The universe doesn't really "scream" design, and even if it did, that
wouldn't mean that evolution doesn't happen. None of the above is an
impediment for evolution.
>
> 2) They have been taught evolution is true.
Again, if "they" refers to creationists, I agree. Evolution is true,
like the sun shines is true, and that radio waves exist is true.
>
> Clearly the evolutionist has a "follower" type personality. It says
> man evolved in their book,so, it must be true.
No. Evolution happens, which is why it must be true. Humans evolved, and
that fact can be seen in many different ways, including the genetic record,
the fossils, the biochemistry of humans and other animals, and the anatomy
of living things. Just being in a book doesn't mean evolution is true.
Having the evidence that shows evolution happened shows it's true.
>
> 3) They follow the herd
Again, if you are referring to creationists, yes, they do.
>
> �all reputable scientists believe,� and "mainstream science says" are
> their mantras; and since the majority must be right, they follow suit
Of course, there is a reason why all reputable scientists accept evolution.
It's because the evidence shows it to be the most correct explanation for
the evidence. No one accepts evolution simply because "the majority is
right". On the other hand, creationists oppose evolution because it's a
conflict with their religious beliefs.
>
> 4) "You are too stupid"
Note that this is your own argument used above.
>
> Anyone that does not follow numbers 1 through 3 above must be stupid
> and therefore does not understand why evolution is true.
Well, a good case could be made that those who don't accept facts, reject
learning, and ignore the opinion of the vast majority of the experts in the
field persons are "stupid", or simply deluded. Evolution is true, because
it's been observed to happen. Denying this is foolish, or determinedly
contrary.
> This despite
> the fact that nothing such as species divergence gas ever been
> observed.
Species divergence has been directly observed many times. You keep
repeating your claim after being shown it's false over and over.
>
> 5) Brain damage
>
> Of which i have putforth a theory:
Unuspported assertions are not a theory.
>
>
> =============================================
> "Adman's Hypothesis on Brain Chemistry and the Perception of God"
>
>
> "If the perception of God is related to brain chemistry, then people
> lacking
> the necessary brain chemistry due to an unknown mutation will have a
> higher
> frequency of lacking an ability to perceive God."
No one has the ability to perceive God. There's no "brain damage" the
prevents anyone from doing so, as it's not possible in the first place.
DJT
Fish4Cats
One of the most mind-numbing mysteries for those who do not believe in
creationism is trying to understand the people who do. Why is it that so
many people believe in creationism? Can they actually be this dumb? The
entire pool of evidence screams out evolution with observations and precise
predictions that are independently verified to stunning accuracy.
2) They have been taught that creationism is true.
Clearly the creationist has a "follower" type personality. It says
man was created in their book, so it must be true.
3) They follow the herd
�all my friends believe,� and "my parents said it's true" are
their mantras; and since the majority must be right, they follow suit
4) "You are too stupid"
Anyone that does not follow numbers 1 through 3 above must be stupid
and therefore does not understand why creationism is true. This is despite
the fact that not a single instance of creation has ever been observed.
5) Brain damage
Of which I have put forth a hypothesis :
=============================================
"Adman's Hypothesis on Brain Chemistry and the Perception of God"
"If the delusion of God is related to brain chemistry, then people
with an overactive brain chemistry due to an unknown mutation will
have a higher frequency of imagining magical space pixies."
=============================================
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by All-seeing-I
<ap...@email.com>:
>1) An inability to see the world for what it is.
You're talking about those who reject evidence, right?
>One of the most mind-numbing mysteries for those who do not believe in
>evolution is trying to understand the people who do.
That's because you don't understand the concept of evidence,
and believe that only books written when people still
thought the sun was a flaming chariot could possibly be
correct.
HTH
<snip>
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
JTEM
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> That's because you don't understand the concept
> of evidence,
Oh, please, this would be ironic even if you weren't
in another thread sniping at me for doing things
like, well, like rejecting the idea that assumptions
are physical evidence (Example: I assume it could
glide, therefore that gliding is a physical adaptation
to an arboreal environment).
Desertphile
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
> 1) An inability to see the world for what it is.
Yes: it's called "religion."
> One of the most mind-numbing mysteries for those who do not believe in
> evolution is trying to understand the people who do.
Yes: it's called "ignorance."
> Why is it that so
> many obviously intelligent people believe in evolution?
Yes: it's called "education."
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
All-seeing-I
wrote:
>
> Yes: it's called "ignorance."
Which is the limit to your ability to rebutt.
All-seeing-I
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 09:19:42 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by All-seeing-I
> <ap...@email.com>:
>
> >1) An inability to see the world for what it is.
>
> You're talking about those who reject evidence, right?
>
> >One of the most mind-numbing mysteries for those who do not believe in
> >evolution is trying to understand the people who do.
>
> That's because you don't understand the concept of evidence,
> and believe that only books written when people still
> thought the sun was a flaming chariot could possibly be
> correct.
Funny you. One main component of the "scientific method" calls for
observation.
Can we assume you are old enough to have observed fish becoming men
based on time, NS and mutations?
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Dec 12, 2:00�pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 09:19:42 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by All-seeing-I
>> <ap...@email.com>:
>>
>> >1) An inability to see the world for what it is.
>>
>> You're talking about those who reject evidence, right?
>>
>> >One of the most mind-numbing mysteries for those who do not believe in
>> >evolution is trying to understand the people who do.
>>
>> That's because you don't understand the concept of evidence,
>> and believe that only books written when people still
>> thought the sun was a flaming chariot could possibly be
>> correct.
>
>Funny you. One main component of the "scientific method" calls for
>observation.
watching a creationist give lectures on science is like watching a
whore lecture a nun on virtue.
>
>Can we assume you are old enough to have observed fish becoming men
>based on time, NS and mutations?
this isn't needed in science. creationists have a quirky, eccentric
view of science...it comes from having never spent a day in a lab
but being arrogant enough to think you iknow science
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Ye Old One
We have observed the ancestors of modern fish and man evolving to
produce both.
What part of that eludes you?
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
It is the limit of your ability to understand.
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.
The [Dropa] stone is real, the troglodytes exist, the graves are
there, many books have been written on the subject...
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
Eric Root
> 1) An inability to see the world for what it is.
>
> One of the most mind-numbing mysteries for those who do not believe in
> evolution is trying to understand the people who do. Why is it that so
> many obviously intelligent people believe in evolution?
For they same reason they "believe" in gravity or germ theory.
> Can that
> actually be this dumb? the entire universe screams out design with
> laws and math and precise processes that are interdependent and need
> to be in place for all of them to perform in concert.
>
So?
> 2) They have been taught evolution is true.
>
And why not? If we had been taught it was false, our teachers would
have been liars.
> Clearly the evolutionist has a "follower" type personality. It says
> man evolved in their book,so, it must be true.
Says you, stomach-groveling stooge of creationism, and worshipper of
ignorance.
>
> 3) They follow the herd
>
If we followed the herd, we'd be creationists.
> �all reputable scientists believe,� �and "mainstream science says" are
> their mantras; and since the majority must be right, they follow suit
>
Since the majority of experts agree that evolution is true, it _is_
more likely to true than what a lunatic fringe of below-average,
science-hating creationists believe. When twenty auto mechanics agree
what is wrong with your car, only a nut would say, "you're wrong, I'm
going to ask my dentist," which is an apples-to-apples analogy of what
creationists do.
> 4) "You are too stupid"
>
> Anyone that does not follow numbers 1 through 3 above must be stupid
> and therefore does not understand why evolution is true. This despite
> the fact that nothing such as species divergence gas ever been
> observed.
You've already been correct on this, so for you to say it is to a
liar.
>
> 5) Brain damage
Sorry, there is not one neuropsychologist or neurologist who will
agree with you.
>
> Of which i have putforth a theory:
>
> =============================================
> "Adman's Hypothesis on Brain Chemistry and the Perception of God"
>
> "If the perception of God is related to brain chemistry, then people
> lacking
> the necessary brain chemistry due to an unknown mutation will have a
> higher
> frequency of lacking an ability to perceive God."
> =============================================
So, don't tell us about it, do some real research.
Eric Root
Sox
news:3804feaf-7a18-40e1...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Silly you.
You propose a severely flawed view of what "observation" means. For most
normal people, it means observing the evidence that is available to observe,
including reasonable, rational interpretations of observations of the
effects of events that did not occur contemporaneously in direct sight of
anyone. If your criteria is only observation of events directly witnessed,
then the book of Genesis, and indeed most of the Old Testament must be
discarded. And that, incidentally, is not an argument for believing the
Bible is literally true -- it is simply pointing out that your criteria for
"observation" is so preposterous, even you don't believe it.
So no, nobody on this forum or anywhere else personally witnessed a long
dead fish-like creature become air breathing. But there are those on this
forum, and elsewhere, who have observed mutations. And described them. And
had those observations confirmed by independent sources. Just as there are
those on this forum, and elsewhere, who have described transitional fossils,
and dated them using using multiple methods which produce consistent
results. And had those results confirmed by independent investigators using
the same or similar methods.
Are you really so dense as to think the only evidence for something is a
person observing it as it happens? Do you, for example, believe that
glaciers once covered much of North America and Europe, despite the fact
that nobody has discovered a journal carefully describing their advance,
inch by inch, or their retreat? If you seriously think there is no evidence
of events that occurred long before there were any people to observe them, I
suggest you step outside some clear night and look up at the stars.
Inez
> 1) An inability to see the world for what it is.
>
> One of the most mind-numbing mysteries for those who do not believe in
> evolution is trying to understand the people who do.
I think you mind was pre-numbed.
> Why is it that so
> many obviously intelligent people believe in evolution?
That is where the evidence points.
All-Seeing-I
> "All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
>
> news:3804feaf-7a18-40e1...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 12, 2:00 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 09:19:42 -0800 (PST), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by All-seeing-I
> >> <ap...@email.com>:
>
> >> >1) An inability to see the world for what it is.
>
> >> You're talking about those who reject evidence, right?
>
> >> >One of the most mind-numbing mysteries for those who do not believe in
> >> >evolution is trying to understand the people who do.
>
> >> That's because you don't understand the concept of evidence,
> >> and believe that only books written when people still
> >> thought the sun was a flaming chariot could possibly be
> >> correct.
>
> > Funny you. One main component of the "scientific method" calls for
> > observation.
>
> > Can we assume you are old enough to have observed fish becoming men
> > based on time, NS and mutations?
>
> Silly you.
>
> You propose a severely flawed view of what "observation" means.
Typical evolutionist needs to redefine what words mean
Free Lunch
<allse...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
You are lying, again.
Boikat
That strawman version of "obderve" has been soundly thrashed to the
pont of no longer even counting as a greasy spot on the ground where
the dead horse used to be. DNA counts as *observed evidence*.
Detailed morphological comparisons counts as *observed evidence*. The
fossil record counts as *observed evidence*.
That has been explained to you several times. Is your inability to
comprehend a result of your "create genes"? If your Sky Pixies show
up, I hope you plan on kicking them in the balls (if they have any)
for making you such a 'tard.
(Though, more likely, you'll be the first in line to lick their boots
(if they have feet and wear boots), and kiss their ass (if they have
an ass to kiss), as they try to enslave the rest of the human race.)
Boikat
Boikat
No, you just need to learn what words mean in context, and what counts
as an "observation" in the context of science. But since you are a
clueless baboon (apologies to baboons) when it comes to science, it's
no real surprise that your version of what counts as a scientific
observation is severely flawed.
Boikat
bpuharic
OK tell me what you think it means and how it applies in science
with your vast scientific experience this should be no problem, right?
you're a creationist and know alla bout science...
educate us
Christopher Denney
> 1) An inability to see the world for what it is.
>
> One of the most mind-numbing mysteries for those who do not believe in
> evolution is trying to understand the people who do. Why is it that so
> many obviously intelligent people believe in evolution? Can that
> actually be this dumb? the entire universe screams out design with
> laws and math and precise processes that are interdependent and need
> to be in place for all of them to perform in concert.
One of the most mind-numbing mysteries for creationists is...
everything.
They don't understand anything so they just say goddidit so they can
feel they are both correct and have something to say.
If other people can explain things in small enough words the
creationist may let go of god being responsible for everything.
They assume everything more complex than empty space has to be
designed, so everything "screams design" to them.
Wake up; it's called credulity. Just because you don't understand how
something could work doesn't mean it can't be a natural process.
Once again you prove your inability to reason, only repeat what you
have been slammed with in previous discussions; clearly presenting you
inability to see the world for what it is, only what you want it to
be. (i.e. designed)
> 2) They have been taught evolution is true.
>
> Clearly the evolutionist has a "follower" type personality. It says
> man evolved in their book,so, it must be true.
Lol. If you cannot build on what others have learned before you, you
are doomed to relearning what has already been discovered.
I am a follower only because my birth followed that of the people
before me.
> 3) They follow the herd
>
> �all reputable scientists believe,� �and "mainstream science says" are
> their mantras; and since the majority must be right, they follow suit
Once more since you are part of the herd of the ignorant you cannot
understand how anyone could not be a herdbeast.
> 4) "You are too stupid"
>
> Anyone that does not follow numbers 1 through 3 above must be stupid
> and therefore does not understand why evolution is true. This despite
> the fact that nothing such as species divergence gas ever been
> observed.
>
> 5) Brain damage
>
> Of which i have putforth a theory:
>
> =============================================
> "Adman's Hypothesis on Brain Chemistry and the Perception of God"
>
> "If the perception of God is related to brain chemistry, then people
> lacking
> the necessary brain chemistry due to an unknown mutation will have a
> higher
> frequency of lacking an ability to perceive God."
> =============================================
I have to agree that perception of god is likely related to the
chemical state of the brain, usually due to drugs or alcohol.
Some people may have a mutation that supplies their brain with the
correct drugs without an external source.
It's still a drug induced hallucination.
Christopher Denney
>
> One of the most mind-numbing mysteries for those who do not believe in
> evolution is trying to understand the people who do. Why is it that so
> many obviously intelligent people believe in evolution? Can that
> actually be this dumb? the entire universe screams out design with
> laws and math and precise processes that are interdependent and need
> to be in place for all of them to perform in concert.
One of the most mind-numbing mysteries for creationists is...
everything.
They don't understand anything so they just say goddidit so they can
feel they are both correct and have something to say.
If other people can explain things in small enough words the
creationist may let go of god being responsible for everything.
They assume everything more complex than empty space has to be
designed, so everything "screams design" to them.
Wake up; it's called credulity. Just because you don't understand how
something could work doesn't mean it can't be a natural process.
Once again you prove your inability to reason, only repeat what you
have been slammed with in previous discussions; clearly presenting you
inability to see the world for what it is, only what you want it to
be. (i.e. designed)
> 2) They have been taught evolution is true.
>
> Clearly the evolutionist has a "follower" type personality. It says
> man evolved in their book,so, it must be true.
Lol. If you cannot build on what others have learned before you, you
are doomed to relearning what has already been discovered.
I am a follower only because my birth followed that of the people
before me.
> 3) They follow the herd
>
> �all reputable scientists believe,� and "mainstream science says" are
> their mantras; and since the majority must be right, they follow suit
Once more since you are part of the herd of the ignorant you cannot
understand how anyone could not be a herdbeast.
> 4) "You are too stupid"
>
> Anyone that does not follow numbers 1 through 3 above must be stupid
> and therefore does not understand why evolution is true. This despite
> the fact that nothing such as species divergence gas ever been
> observed.
>
> 5) Brain damage
>
> Of which i have putforth a theory:
>
> =============================================
> "Adman's Hypothesis on Brain Chemistry and the Perception of God"
>
> "If the perception of God is related to brain chemistry, then people
> lacking
> the necessary brain chemistry due to an unknown mutation will have a
> higher
> frequency of lacking an ability to perceive God."
> =============================================
I have to agree that perception of god is likely related to the
Ye Old One
observe
n verb
1 notice; perceive. �watch attentively. �detect in the course of
a scientific study.
2 say; remark: 'It's chilly,' she observed.
3 fulfil or comply with (an obligation).
DERIVATIVES
observable adjective
observably adverb
observer noun
ORIGIN
Middle English: from Old French observer, from Latin observare
'to watch'.
Good enough for you Mudbrain?
--
Bob.
People may not always remember exactly what you said, but they will
always remember just how bright you made them feel.
Paul J Gans
>1) An inability to see the world for what it is.
>One of the most mind-numbing mysteries for those who do not believe in
>evolution is trying to understand the people who do. Why is it that so
>many obviously intelligent people believe in evolution? Can that
>actually be this dumb? the entire universe screams out design with
>laws and math and precise processes that are interdependent and need
>to be in place for all of them to perform in concert.
>2) They have been taught evolution is true.
>Clearly the evolutionist has a "follower" type personality. It says
>man evolved in their book,so, it must be true.
>3) They follow the herd
>“all reputable scientists believe,” and "mainstream science says" are
>their mantras; and since the majority must be right, they follow suit
>4) "You are too stupid"
>Anyone that does not follow numbers 1 through 3 above must be stupid
>and therefore does not understand why evolution is true. This despite
>the fact that nothing such as species divergence gas ever been
>observed.
>5) Brain damage
>Of which i have putforth a theory:
>=============================================
>"Adman's Hypothesis on Brain Chemistry and the Perception of God"
>"If the perception of God is related to brain chemistry, then people
>lacking
>the necessary brain chemistry due to an unknown mutation will have a
>higher
>frequency of lacking an ability to perceive God."
>=============================================
I note a continuing inability to deal with the problem of
the unpunished slaughter of children.
Perhaps it is brain chemistry?
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Christopher Denney
wrote:
a duplicate post.
sometimes google hates me and hangs up and never returns, then when I
break down and post again... *bam* two posts. meh.
All-Seeing-I
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 15:39:02 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
You could not tell the difference between a Lie and a Truth even if
the Lie crawled up your ass and tickled the roof of your mouth.
All-Seeing-I
> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> >1) An inability to see the world for what it is.
> >One of the most mind-numbing mysteries for those who do not believe in
> >evolution is trying to understand the people who do. Why is it that so
> >many obviously intelligent people believe in evolution? Can that
> >actually be this dumb? the entire universe screams out design with
> >laws and math and precise processes that are interdependent and need
> >to be in place for all of them to perform in concert.
> >2) They have been taught evolution is true.
> >Clearly the evolutionist has a "follower" type personality. It says
> >man evolved in their book,so, it must be true.
> >3) They follow the herd
> >their mantras; and since the majority must be right, they follow suit
> >4) "You are too stupid"
> >Anyone that does not follow numbers 1 through 3 above must be stupid
> >and therefore does not understand why evolution is true. This despite
> >the fact that nothing such as species divergence gas ever been
> >observed.
> >5) Brain damage
> >Of which i have putforth a theory:
> >=============================================
> >"Adman's Hypothesis on Brain Chemistry and the Perception of God"
> >"If the perception of God is related to brain chemistry, then people
> >lacking
> >the necessary brain chemistry due to an unknown mutation will have a
> >higher
> >frequency of lacking an ability to perceive God."
> >=============================================
>
> I note a continuing inability to deal with the problem of
> the unpunished slaughter of children.
>
> Perhaps it is brain chemistry?
Would this slaughter of childern be because of science that gave rise
to swift and immediate abortions?
Mark Evans
And you are old enough to observed creation of the earth, your beloved
watchers, the big flood and the other fantasies you promote?
Mark Evans
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
abortions have been happening since time immemorial.
and i notice you say nothing about infant mortality. probably because
it afflicts the poor and blacks most...both of which have been
traditional enemies of the creationists
Boikat
Maybe he's refering to all the children killed in ye olde floode?
Well, since the floode never happened, I suppose you don't have to
defend that. Maybe it was the first-born of Egypt? Oh, that was
justified, wasn't it. Never mind that a lot of those "first born"
were just little kids, who's only "sin" was to have neen born in
Egypt. But I guess you can ignore that, too. But then there's also
the slaughter ordered by your God-Thing in 1 Samuel 15:3? But it
could be any of several accounts of a God-thing ordered massacre.
You can dismiss all those murdered babies because God-thingy ordered
it.
Oh, and let's not forget how you just wished that all the ancestors of
those alive today, and who do not agree with you, had also been killed
in ye olde floode. You wish everyone dead who does not agree with
your little cave-man world view. How quaint.
You seriously need to sit back and re-read the crap you write. You
are airth a severely mentally ill individual, or a troll with severe
mental problems. Either way, you are demonstrating that you are
mentally disturbed. Maybe your created genes have a built in self
destruct mechanism that kicks in whenever you subconsciencly know that
you're wrong. Damn clever, those alien gene manipultors!
Now, do your little pre-programmed monnnkeey-boy dance. Don't forget
to screech maniacally and throw your poo around!
Boikat
Dana Tweedy
> On Dec 12, 2:00 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 09:19:42 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by All-seeing-I
>> <ap...@email.com>:
>>
>>> 1) An inability to see the world for what it is.
>>
>> You're talking about those who reject evidence, right?
>>
>>> One of the most mind-numbing mysteries for those who do not believe
>>> in evolution is trying to understand the people who do.
>>
>> That's because you don't understand the concept of evidence,
>> and believe that only books written when people still
>> thought the sun was a flaming chariot could possibly be
>> correct.
>
> Funny you. One main component of the "scientific method" calls for
> observation.
Evolution has been observed. What's the problem?
>
> Can we assume you are old enough to have observed fish becoming men
> based on time, NS and mutations?
One doesn't have to very old to observe the evidence of humans evolving from
earlier forms. There's more to evolution than simply mutations, natural
selection, and time, but those are the basics.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
It's odd that you make that claim, when you've shown that you aren't capable
of understanding the difference between a legend and a "lie".
Observation is not redefined. You are simply trying to imply that only one
particular type of observation is valid. There are many more types of
observation that science can use.
DJt
Kermit
> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> > That's because you don't understand the concept
> > of evidence,
>
> in another thread sniping at me for doing things
> like, well, like rejecting the idea that assumptions
> are physical evidence (Example: �I assume it could
> glide, therefore that gliding is a physical adaptation
> to an arboreal environment).
Given that it had claws and had feathers which allowed gliding, what
other model fits the data?
Kermit
Kermit
This must be something else you have imagined, unverifiable by anyone
else. You will find no science book which states that scientists must
be able to observe the process they study. Processes such as plate
tectonics, the birth of a star, evolution, climate change, all have
consequences.
Data must be verifiable, and models which explain them must be
testable and fit all the known data.
Kermit
Kermit
Claiming that truth is something which you imagine and which gives you
warm fuzzies is a ...unique definition. I am willing to consider the
possibility that you are not exactly lying; creationists lie to
themselves for so many years that in time it becomes meaningless to
discuss their honesty. However, a truthful *intent is not sufficient
to establish that you are telling th truth. You must also be *correct.
You have no evidence to support your positions here, and there is much
evidence that you are wrong.
Kermit
Kermit
> On Dec 12, 2:29�pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Yes: it's called "ignorance."
>
> Which is the limit to your ability to rebutt.
Rebutting or refuting does not actually require you to admit defeat.
Reality is not a social construct, whatever you may think. When
scientists point to the evidence and you ignore it, it is still there,
and intelligent lurkers and posters know that you are wrong.
I do not need my heavy bag to acknowledge if I have thrown a good
punch, and we do not need you to change your mind in order to be
correct. Admitting being untouched by reality and reason is not really
something to brag about.
Kermit
Kermit
Back before God became all rainbows and unicorns, when he killed
children for mocking bald heads, he listed a number of crimes and
their punishments. Attacking a woman non-sexually, resulting in a
miscarriage, was not a capital offense, It was a finable offense,
comparable to the other listed crimes against property.
Kermit
SortingItOut
> 1) An inability to see the world for what it is.
Correction: ability.
>
> One of the most mind-numbing mysteries for those who do not believe in
> evolution is trying to understand the people who do. Why is it that so
> many obviously intelligent people believe in evolution? Can that
> actually be this dumb? the entire universe screams out design with
> laws and math and precise processes that are interdependent and need
> to be in place for all of them to perform in concert.
>
> 2) They have been taught evolution is true.
I was taught creation was true long before I'd ever heard of
evolution. I don't remember ever being taught evolution is true. I
had to find that out for myself.
>
> Clearly the evolutionist has a "follower" type personality. It says
> man evolved in their book,so, it must be true.
>
> 3) They follow the herd
Correction: break away from the herd. I was brought up in, and still
live within, a nice, cozy, creationist herd. My understanding of
evolution is definitely not the herd mentality.
>
> �all reputable scientists believe,� �and "mainstream science says" are
> their mantras; and since the majority must be right, they follow suit
>
> 4) "You are too stupid"
I've never said that. However, you seem to be saying it in #1 above
(ASI: "Can [they] actually be this dumb")
>
> Anyone that does not follow numbers 1 through 3 above must be stupid
> and therefore does not understand why evolution is true. This despite
> the fact that nothing such as species divergence gas ever been
> observed.
>
> 5) Brain damage
>
> Of which i have putforth a theory:
>
> =============================================
> "Adman's Hypothesis on Brain Chemistry and the Perception of God"
>
> "If the perception of God is related to brain chemistry, then people
> lacking
> the necessary brain chemistry due to an unknown mutation will have a
> higher
> frequency of lacking an ability to perceive God."
> =============================================
Can you perceive God in a way that can be independently studied? Or
is it your own private perception? Do you understand how different
that is from how science is done?
Mike Dworetsky
Let's turn this argument around. Creationists are always braying the "Were
you there?" "argument" as if that had something to do with the truth about
fossil evidence for evolution.
Hmm. If creationism were true, who exactly observed the work done on days
1-5, given that humans are not supposed to have been around until day 6?
What did Adam and Eve do, dig around for fossils and work out the whole
thing for themselves? Then pass the knowledge on to their descendants by
oral tradition? If the latter, then how did the story ever make it past the
"Tower of Babel" episode?
Or, as actually seems to be the case, was the Genesis account a "Just So"
story made up a lot later?
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Burkhard
> On Dec 12, 7:20 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>> 1) An inability to see the world for what it is.
>>> One of the most mind-numbing mysteries for those who do not believe in
>>> evolution is trying to understand the people who do. Why is it that so
>>> many obviously intelligent people believe in evolution? Can that
>>> actually be this dumb? the entire universe screams out design with
>>> laws and math and precise processes that are interdependent and need
>>> to be in place for all of them to perform in concert.
>>> 2) They have been taught evolution is true.
>>> Clearly the evolutionist has a "follower" type personality. It says
>>> man evolved in their book,so, it must be true.
>>> 3) They follow the herd
>>> their mantras; and since the majority must be right, they follow suit
>>> 4) "You are too stupid"
>>> Anyone that does not follow numbers 1 through 3 above must be stupid
>>> and therefore does not understand why evolution is true. This despite
>>> the fact that nothing such as species divergence gas ever been
>>> observed.
>>> 5) Brain damage
>>> Of which i have putforth a theory:
>>> =============================================
>>> "Adman's Hypothesis on Brain Chemistry and the Perception of God"
>>> "If the perception of God is related to brain chemistry, then people
>>> lacking
>>> the necessary brain chemistry due to an unknown mutation will have a
>>> higher
>>> frequency of lacking an ability to perceive God."
>>> =============================================
>> I note a continuing inability to deal with the problem of
>> the unpunished slaughter of children.
>>
>> Perhaps it is brain chemistry?
>
> Would this slaughter of childern be because of science that gave rise
> to swift and immediate abortions?
>
herbs that also killed the mother in many cases?
TomS
<Iq-dnY6tnbqsK7nW...@bt.com>, Mike Dworetsky stated..."
What I have heard in answer to this question is something like this:
Adam and Eve were told by God, or by angels, what happened (and
the information was passed down through their descendants eventually
to Moses). Or Moses was directly informed by God when he was writing
Genesis. Or Moses learned all the wisdom of the Egyptians.
The notion of "eyewitness testimony" as used by the creationists is
rather "flexible".
--
---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
Ye Old One
>On Dec 12, 7:20�pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>> >1) An inability to see the world for what it is.
>> >One of the most mind-numbing mysteries for those who do not believe in
>> >evolution is trying to understand the people who do. Why is it that so
>> >many obviously intelligent people believe in evolution? Can that
>> >actually be this dumb? the entire universe screams out design with
>> >laws and math and precise processes that are interdependent and need
>> >to be in place for all of them to perform in concert.
>> >2) They have been taught evolution is true.
>> >Clearly the evolutionist has a "follower" type personality. It says
>> >man evolved in their book,so, it must be true.
>> >3) They follow the herd
>> >�all reputable scientists believe,� �and "mainstream science says" are
>> >their mantras; and since the majority must be right, they follow suit
>> >4) "You are too stupid"
>> >Anyone that does not follow numbers 1 through 3 above must be stupid
>> >and therefore does not understand why evolution is true. This despite
>> >the fact that nothing such as species divergence gas ever been
>> >observed.
>> >5) Brain damage
>> >Of which i have putforth a theory:
>> >=============================================
>> >"Adman's Hypothesis on Brain Chemistry and the Perception of God"
>> >"If the perception of God is related to brain chemistry, then people
>> >lacking
>> >the necessary brain chemistry due to an unknown mutation will have a
>> >higher
>> >frequency of lacking an ability to perceive God."
>> >=============================================
>>
>> I note a continuing inability to deal with the problem of
>> the unpunished slaughter of children.
>>
>> Perhaps it is brain chemistry?
>
>Would this slaughter of childern be because of science that gave rise
>to swift and immediate abortions?
No, it is down to religion.
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>I could not tell the difference between a Lie and a Truth even if
>the Lie crawled up my arse and tickled the roof of my mouth.
>
Post corrected.
g...@risky-biz.com
>
> Of which i have putforth a theory:
>
> =============================================
> "Adman's Hypothesis on Brain Chemistry and the Perception of God"
>
> "If the perception of God is related to brain chemistry, then people
> lacking
> the necessary brain chemistry due to an unknown mutation will have a
> higher
> frequency of lacking an ability to perceive God."
> =============================================
...and He will punish them for eternity for the evil chemistry that He
hath bestowed on them.
Greg Guarino
Fish4Cats
> On Dec 12, 7:20 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>> 1) An inability to see the world for what it is.
>>> One of the most mind-numbing mysteries for those who do not believe in
>>> evolution is trying to understand the people who do. Why is it that so
>>> many obviously intelligent people believe in evolution? Can that
>>> actually be this dumb? the entire universe screams out design with
>>> laws and math and precise processes that are interdependent and need
>>> to be in place for all of them to perform in concert.
>>> 2) They have been taught evolution is true.
>>> Clearly the evolutionist has a "follower" type personality. It says
>>> man evolved in their book,so, it must be true.
>>> 3) They follow the herd
>>> their mantras; and since the majority must be right, they follow suit
>>> 4) "You are too stupid"
>>> Anyone that does not follow numbers 1 through 3 above must be stupid
>>> and therefore does not understand why evolution is true. This despite
>>> the fact that nothing such as species divergence gas ever been
>>> observed.
>>> 5) Brain damage
>>> Of which i have putforth a theory:
>>> =============================================
>>> "Adman's Hypothesis on Brain Chemistry and the Perception of God"
>>> "If the perception of God is related to brain chemistry, then people
>>> lacking
>>> the necessary brain chemistry due to an unknown mutation will have a
>>> higher
>>> frequency of lacking an ability to perceive God."
>>> =============================================
>> I note a continuing inability to deal with the problem of
>> the unpunished slaughter of children.
>>
>> Perhaps it is brain chemistry?
>
> Would this slaughter of childern be because of science that gave rise
> to swift and immediate abortions?
Not on the scale that happened in 'the flood'.
..fish
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by JTEM <jte...@gmail.com>:
>
>Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>> That's because you don't understand the concept
>> of evidence,
>
>Oh, please
You're welcome.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by All-seeing-I
<ap...@email.com>:
>On Dec 12, 2:00�pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 09:19:42 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by All-seeing-I
>> <ap...@email.com>:
>>
>> >1) An inability to see the world for what it is.
>>
>> You're talking about those who reject evidence, right?
>>
>> >One of the most mind-numbing mysteries for those who do not believe in
>> >evolution is trying to understand the people who do.
>>
>> That's because you don't understand the concept of evidence,
>> and believe that only books written when people still
>> thought the sun was a flaming chariot could possibly be
>> correct.
>
>Funny you. One main component of the "scientific method" calls for
>observation.
Yep. Now tell the class how "observation" supports
cosmology, quantum mechanics and the formation of stars.
When you can do that I'll believe that you understand the
concept.
>Can we assume you are old enough to have observed fish becoming men
>based on time, NS and mutations?
Nope, nor is direct observation required. If you mistakenly
think it is, can we assume you are old enough to have
observed the events recorded in the Bible? If not it's mere
hearsay, with no supporting evidence.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by All-Seeing-I
<allse...@usa.com>:
>On Dec 12, 5:12�pm, "Sox" <luke...@live.com> wrote:
>> "All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:3804feaf-7a18-40e1...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 12, 2:00 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 09:19:42 -0800 (PST), the following
>> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by All-seeing-I
>> >> <ap...@email.com>:
>>
>> >> >1) An inability to see the world for what it is.
>>
>> >> You're talking about those who reject evidence, right?
>>
>> >> >One of the most mind-numbing mysteries for those who do not believe in
>> >> >evolution is trying to understand the people who do.
>>
>> >> That's because you don't understand the concept of evidence,
>> >> and believe that only books written when people still
>> >> thought the sun was a flaming chariot could possibly be
>> >> correct.
>>
>> > Funny you. One main component of the "scientific method" calls for
>> > observation.
>>
>> > Can we assume you are old enough to have observed fish becoming men
>> > based on time, NS and mutations?
>>
>> Silly you.
>>
>> You propose a severely flawed view of what "observation" means.
>
>Typical evolutionist needs to redefine what words mean
Typical Creationist snips the meat of the response so he
won't have to think.
Eric Root
>
> > On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 09:19:42 -0800 (PST), the following
> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by All-seeing-I
> > <ap...@email.com>:
>
> > >1) An inability to see the world for what it is.
>
> > You're talking about those who reject evidence, right?
>
> > >One of the most mind-numbing mysteries for those who do not believe in
> > >evolution is trying to understand the people who do.
>
> > That's because you don't understand the concept of evidence,
> > and believe that only books written when people still
> > thought the sun was a flaming chariot could possibly be
> > correct.
>
> Funny you. One main component of the "scientific method" calls for
> observation.
>
> Can we assume you are old enough to have observed fish becoming men
> based on time, NS and mutations?
His age is irrelevant, as long as he's old enough to do science.
Paul J Gans
>On Dec 12, 7:20 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>> >1) An inability to see the world for what it is.
>> >One of the most mind-numbing mysteries for those who do not believe in
>> >evolution is trying to understand the people who do. Why is it that so
>> >many obviously intelligent people believe in evolution? Can that
>> >actually be this dumb? the entire universe screams out design with
>> >laws and math and precise processes that are interdependent and need
>> >to be in place for all of them to perform in concert.
>> >2) They have been taught evolution is true.
>> >Clearly the evolutionist has a "follower" type personality. It says
>> >man evolved in their book,so, it must be true.
>> >3) They follow the herd
>> >their mantras; and since the majority must be right, they follow suit
>> >4) "You are too stupid"
>> >Anyone that does not follow numbers 1 through 3 above must be stupid
>> >and therefore does not understand why evolution is true. This despite
>> >the fact that nothing such as species divergence gas ever been
>> >observed.
>> >5) Brain damage
>> >Of which i have putforth a theory:
>> >=============================================
>> >"Adman's Hypothesis on Brain Chemistry and the Perception of God"
>> >"If the perception of God is related to brain chemistry, then people
>> >lacking
>> >the necessary brain chemistry due to an unknown mutation will have a
>> >higher
>> >frequency of lacking an ability to perceive God."
>> >=============================================
>>
>> I note a continuing inability to deal with the problem of
>> the unpunished slaughter of children.
>>
>> Perhaps it is brain chemistry?
>Would this slaughter of childern be because of science that gave rise
>to swift and immediate abortions?
No. It is because it gave rise to humans, many of whom profess a
belief in God, who slaughtered them. Some by gunfire, some by
being bashed head first into a wall, and some by being buried alive.
One lightning bolt would have ended it all.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
guscubed
> On Dec 12, 2:00�pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 09:19:42 -0800 (PST), the following
> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by All-seeing-I
> > <ap...@email.com>:
>
>
>
> > >evolution is trying to understand the people who do.
>
> > and believe that only books written when people still
> > thought the sun was a flaming chariot could possibly be
> > correct.
>
> Funny you. One main component of the "scientific method" calls for
> observation.
>
> Can we assume you are old enough to have observed fish becoming men
> based on time, NS and mutations?
By your 'reasoning' I would expect you to have personally observed the
Intelligent Designer(tm) designing and cerating all life on the
planet. If this is not the case then you are holding your opponent's
theory to a standard of evidence far in excess of the standard you
demand of your own 'theory'.
Michael Siemon
Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
...
> >> I note a continuing inability to deal with the problem of
> >> the unpunished slaughter of children.
> >>
> >> Perhaps it is brain chemistry?
>
> >Would this slaughter of childern be because of science that gave rise
> >to swift and immediate abortions?
>
> No. It is because it gave rise to humans, many of whom profess a
> belief in God, who slaughtered them. Some by gunfire, some by
> being bashed head first into a wall, and some by being buried alive.
>
> One lightning bolt would have ended it all.
Umm, Paul? Given the evidence here from the Creatinoids, you surely
can't _really_ believe that even a lightning bolt from God would
move them, can you? God doesn't count, unless he explicitly agrees
with them. (And no matter what He _does_ say, they will _claim_ it
agrees with them.) Even if God fried the whole lot of them in front
of the rest of mankind, they would claim this was just the Rapture.
LT
> 1) An inability to see the world for what it is.
>
> many obviously intelligent people believe in evolution? Can that
> actually be this dumb? the entire universe screams out design with
> laws and math and precise processes that are interdependent and need
> to be in place for all of them to perform in concert.
>
> 2) They have been taught evolution is true.
>
> Clearly the evolutionist has a "follower" type personality. It says
> man evolved in their book,so, it must be true.
>
> 3) They follow the herd
>
> their mantras; and since the majority must be right, they follow suit
>
> 4) "You are too stupid"
>
> Anyone that does not follow numbers 1 through 3 above must be stupid
> and therefore does not understand why evolution is true. This despite
> the fact that nothing such as species divergence gas ever been
> observed.
>
> 5) Brain damage
>
> Of which i have putforth a theory:
>
> =============================================
> "Adman's Hypothesis on Brain Chemistry and the Perception of God"
>
> "If the perception of God is related to brain chemistry, then people
> lacking
> the necessary brain chemistry due to an unknown mutation will have a
> higher
> frequency of lacking an ability to perceive God."
> =============================================
Someone needs to invent an irony meter capable if withstanding such an
assault.
LT
LT
> > the unpunished slaughter of children.
>
> > Perhaps it is brain chemistry?
>
> Would this slaughter of childern be because of science that gave rise
> to swift and immediate abortions?
If you assume God exists, then no one does more abortions than him.
Some 20%+ pregnancies abort from natural causes.
Oh right, that's part of God's plan. He works in mysterious ways, you
know. When he aborts a fetus, it's all part of a bigger plan. When he
allows a small child to get terminal cancer and die at age 4, it's all
part of a bigger plan.
What a load of shit your faith is, and what a load of shit you are.
LT
Dan Listermann
"LT" <LTfl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ec80f12d-36c3-4bdc...@g7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 12, 10:09 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 12, 7:20 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> If you assume God exists, then no one does more abortions than him.
> Some 20%+ pregnancies abort from natural causes.
>
> Oh right, that's part of God's plan. He works in mysterious ways, you
> know. When he aborts a fetus, it's all part of a bigger plan. When he
> allows a small child to get terminal cancer and die at age 4, it's all
> part of a bigger plan.
My cousin's wife gave birth to a little girl who was born with cancerous
tumor on her spine. "Mysterious ways" my ass.
.
Paul J Gans
>...
<grin>
Seriously, I don't know. I can imaging a video of it being put on
the internet and going viral to the point where everybody on earth
sees it.
Then it *might* have some effect.
But you bring up a broader point. If those who have OD'd on
creationism would not be swayed by a lightning bolt from on
high (which they might well claim was "natural" and had nothing
to do with God at all) then we'd have to conclude that we have
(literally) been putting our faith in the wrong ideas. God's
Plan for us humans has escaped his control and we are left
alone to resist our idiot brethern as best we can.
We likely would have to then look inward into ourselves, seeking
to bring out what was good in us and surpress what was bad, and
not rely on the fear of God to do it for us.
This might not be a bad thing at all.
Of course many of us have been trying to do this for years...
Paul J Gans
>On Dec 12, 1:19 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>> 1) An inability to see the world for what it is.
>>
>> One of the most mind-numbing mysteries for those who do not believe in
>> evolution is trying to understand the people who do. Why is it that so
>> many obviously intelligent people believe in evolution? Can that
>> actually be this dumb? the entire universe screams out design with
>> laws and math and precise processes that are interdependent and need
>> to be in place for all of them to perform in concert.
>>
>> 2) They have been taught evolution is true.
>>
>> Clearly the evolutionist has a "follower" type personality. It says
>> man evolved in their book,so, it must be true.
>>
>> 3) They follow the herd
>>
>> their mantras; and since the majority must be right, they follow suit
>>
>> 4) "You are too stupid"
>>
>> Anyone that does not follow numbers 1 through 3 above must be stupid
>> and therefore does not understand why evolution is true. This despite
>> the fact that nothing such as species divergence gas ever been
>> observed.
>>
>> 5) Brain damage
>>
>> Of which i have putforth a theory:
>>
>> =============================================
>> "Adman's Hypothesis on Brain Chemistry and the Perception of God"
>>
>> "If the perception of God is related to brain chemistry, then people
>> lacking
>> the necessary brain chemistry due to an unknown mutation will have a
>> higher
>> frequency of lacking an ability to perceive God."
>> =============================================
>Someone needs to invent an irony meter capable if withstanding such an
>assault.
Can't be done. One of the results of creato-thermodynamics implies
as much.
Translated out of its scientific jargon it says:
"While a creationist can produce an irony-free posting, there is no
upper limit to the irony that can be produced by a creationist."
The derivation proceed from the fact that there is no Law of Conservation
of Irony and the observation that creationists have no shame.
The inability of a irony meter to withstand maximal creationist
assaults follows immediately.
All-seeing-I
> Michael Siemon <mlsie...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >In article <hg4190$1f...@reader1.panix.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
Excuse me for a moment. I find this conversation rather amusing.
The "creationist" already believe God created. They already believe
the lightening bolts. It is you guys that do not believe God created.
It is you guys that reject the lightening bolts.
Yes. The "lightning bolts" happened already. The events were recorded
in books such as the bible. Yet still, there are those that persist
God did not create man or the universe.
Instead, they persist about things such a big bang for the origins of
the universe and evolution from a SCA for the origins of man.
The truly sad thing is many of them go visit their religion once a
week, but know nothing about it; Then, after visiting their religion,
they get on the internet and claim others are doing what they do
yourselves.
The most mind numbing of all, is when these things are pointed out,
they get angry.
Jesus came, he taught, he did miracles, he died and rose to life but
still, many do not believe. Nothing is going to convince them. not
even a lightning bolt.
There was an occasion when Jesus talked about this kind of lack of
faith. He realized back then that nothing was going to convince
humanity. His example, used an entire city:
Matthew 11:20-24
Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his miracles
had been performed, because they did not repent. "Woe to you, Korazin!
Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had
been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in
sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre
and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum,
will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the
depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed
in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it
will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for
you." (NIV)
Basically Jesus is saying the people of Sodom would have believed the
lightning bolts and thereby saved them selves. But the people of his
day, and even today, just refuse to believe the lightening bolts even
happened.
How about THAT.
You seem to be having a conversations about yourselves.
Kleuskes & Moos
> LT <LTfle...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 12, 1:19 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> >> 1) An inability to see the world for what it is.
>
> >> One of the most mind-numbing mysteries for those who do not believe in
> >> evolution is trying to understand the people who do. Why is it that so
> >> many obviously intelligent people believe in evolution? Can that
> >> actually be this dumb? the entire universe screams out design with
> >> laws and math and precise processes that are interdependent and need
> >> to be in place for all of them to perform in concert.
>
> >> 2) They have been taught evolution is true.
>
> >> Clearly the evolutionist has a "follower" type personality. It says
> >> man evolved in their book,so, it must be true.
>
> >> 3) They follow the herd
>
> >> their mantras; and since the majority must be right, they follow suit
>
> >> 4) "You are too stupid"
>
> >> Anyone that does not follow numbers 1 through 3 above must be stupid
> >> and therefore does not understand why evolution is true. This despite
> >> the fact that nothing such as species divergence gas ever been
> >> observed.
>
> >> 5) Brain damage
>
> >> Of which i have putforth a theory:
>
> >> =============================================
> >> "Adman's Hypothesis on Brain Chemistry and the Perception of God"
>
> >> "If the perception of God is related to brain chemistry, then people
> >> lacking
> >> the necessary brain chemistry due to an unknown mutation will have a
> >> higher
> >> frequency of lacking an ability to perceive God."
> >> =============================================
> >Someone needs to invent an irony meter capable if withstanding such an
> >assault.
>
> Can't be done. One of the results of creato-thermodynamics implies
> as much.
>
> Translated out of its scientific jargon it says:
>
> "While a creationist can produce an irony-free posting, there is no
> upper limit to the irony that can be produced by a creationist."
Note: the probability of an irony-free posting approaches zero as the
number of postings goes to infinity.
> The derivation proceed from the fact that there is no Law of Conservation
> of Irony and the observation that creationists have no shame.
>
> The inability of a irony meter to withstand maximal creationist
> assaults follows immediately.
Golly... Nothing would withstand those levels of irony. Some even use
sarcasm...
Michael Siemon
Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
...
> We likely would have to then look inward into ourselves, seeking
> to bring out what was good in us and surpress what was bad, and
> not rely on the fear of God to do it for us.
>
> This might not be a bad thing at all.
>
> Of course many of us have been trying to do this for years...
Yep; relying on "the fear of God" is one of the major errors
of traditional Calvinism (and some strands of Catholicism, cf.
the _Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man_ :-)) It is always
counterproductive.
Paul J Gans
>Matthew 11:20-24
>How about THAT.
Of course. I was talking to Michael, not you. You don't want
to comprehend what I am saying.
The problem of evil is an old one. Various religions react in
different ways toward it. None, as far as I know, has an excellent
solution, though many have found ways to push it aside.
You, on the other hand, know nothing about such subtilities. You
won't respond to my posts on the killings of children because you
have no answer other than "God allows it."
Sure, it happened. My question was: if God is a god of love,
WHY did he allow it to happen? Saying "God's reasons are too
complex for humans to understand" is not a response. It is
an acknowlegement of a LACK of response. Why, because you are
saying that God tolerates evil and does nothing to suppress it.
Why should I worship this god of yours? I see evil all around
with my own eyes. All I see of your proof is an old book *known*
to be a composite of many stories written by many humans. You
may not believe that, but nevertheless it is true.
That book contains nuggets of moral truths that your God Himself
does not obey. Is he running a dictatorship? Do as I say and
not as I do?
I know that you cannot deal with these questions. Most here are
way ahead of you in thinking about these issues, Christians, Jews,
Buddhists, and yes, even atheists. You are, in fact, like a small
uneducated child running around annoying your elders. Indeed, you
have probably done more to harm the idiotic version of a religion
you profess than anything else.
Your God gave you a brain. At least that's working hypothesis.
What will St. Peter (or whoever) say to you when it is noted that
you have never used it?
Is it possible that we are *supposed* to ponder the great problem
of good and evil and reach our own conclusions?
I repeat, because by this time you have likely forgotten: Why
does god allow the slaughter of innocent children and their
killers to go free and unpunished?
Paul J Gans
>On 14 dec, 18:25, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> LT <LTfle...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Dec 12, 1:19 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>> >> 1) An inability to see the world for what it is.
>>
>> >> One of the most mind-numbing mysteries for those who do not believe in
>> >> evolution is trying to understand the people who do. Why is it that so
>> >> many obviously intelligent people believe in evolution? Can that
>> >> actually be this dumb? the entire universe screams out design with
>> >> laws and math and precise processes that are interdependent and need
>> >> to be in place for all of them to perform in concert.
>>
>> >> 2) They have been taught evolution is true.
>>
>> >> Clearly the evolutionist has a "follower" type personality. It says
>> >> man evolved in their book,so, it must be true.
>>
>> >> 3) They follow the herd
>>
>sarcasm...
I'm sorry. Wilkins is in charge of sarcasm theory. I can't be
expected to do *everything* around here...
Paul J Gans
>...
I suppose that it will come as no surprise that "Portrait..."
was and is one of my favorite books.
Ye Old One
Prove it.
> he taught,
Prove it.
> he did miracles,
Prove it.
> he died
Prove it.
>and rose to life
Prove it.
> but
>still, many do not believe.
How can anyone believe something for which there is ZERO evidence in
support?
> Nothing is going to convince them. not
>even a lightning bolt.
>
>There was an occasion when Jesus talked about this kind of lack of
>faith. He realized back then that nothing was going to convince
>humanity. His example, used an entire city:
>
>Matthew 11:20-24
>
>Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his miracles
>had been performed, because they did not repent. "Woe to you, Korazin!
>Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had
>been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in
>sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre
>and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum,
>will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the
>depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed
>in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it
>will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for
>you." (NIV)
Really is rather an evil and vengeful god you have there. Bloody good
job he isn't real.
>Basically Jesus is saying the people of Sodom would have believed the
>lightning bolts and thereby saved them selves. But the people of his
>day, and even today, just refuse to believe the lightening bolts even
>happened.
>
>How about THAT.
>
>You seem to be having a conversations about yourselves.
Nope. Clearly you reading skills are lacking again.
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.
The [Dropa] stone is real, the troglodytes exist, the graves are
there, many books have been written on the subject...
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
el cid
Of course the premise of your complaint is itself somewhat
childish, basically being that you expect what you would
call justice and expect it within your life/attention-span.
Please don't take this as an attack, I'm just trying to
take the question back a step to why one expects justice,
or happiness or anything.
This whole notion of justice is really rather strange.
Some religions are actually so short of memory that they
seem to suppose that bad things don't happen to good
people. The basic effectiveness of reward/punishment
in conditioning semi-intelligent animals has perhaps
created a meme that we perceive to be more foundational
than it really is. Be good and get a treat versus bad and
get a spanking, or perhaps a smile versus a frown.
So if we fixate on the notion of justice, are we just
failing to grow out of our most remedial childhood
training?
John Stockwell
in understanding anything. How about coming out from
behind that pseudonym and asking some questions that
are about learning, and not about obfuscation?
On Dec 12, 10:19 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> 1) An inability to see the world for what it is.
>
> One of the most mind-numbing mysteries for those who do not believe in
> evolution is trying to understand the people who do. Why is it that so
> many obviously intelligent people believe in evolution? Can that
> actually be this dumb? the entire universe screams out design with
> laws and math and precise processes that are interdependent and need
> to be in place for all of them to perform in concert.
>
> 2) They have been taught evolution is true.
>
> Clearly the evolutionist has a "follower" type personality. It says
> man evolved in their book,so, it must be true.
>
> 3) They follow the herd
>
> �all reputable scientists believe,� and "mainstream science says" are
Christopher Denney
Of course he will just say that eyewitnesses wrote down what they saw,
not realizing they are just eyewitlesses.
What he cannot comprehend is that "eyewitnesses" "wrote down" "what
they saw" in the very soil [rock] and cells of all living things, but
it's in code.
Scientists are the codebreakers.
Christopher Denney
Demonstrating your complete lack of the ability to even understand the
idea of looking at something from another person's point of view.
[snip]
Burkhard
between sorting out global warming and world peace in my unfulfilled
life with too much time on my hands, and if you have dirty socks, would
you like me to launder them for you too?
SkyEyes
> > I note a continuing inability to deal with the problem of
> > the unpunished slaughter of children.
>
> > Perhaps it is brain chemistry?
>
> Would this slaughter of childern be because of science that gave rise
> to swift and immediate abortions?
No, dumbass, if only for the simple reason that abortion is as old as
humanity itself, not a new phenomenon. It was, and still should be,
*entirely* a woman's matter. Traditionally, it has been done using
herbs.
Secondly, read - really *read* - that bible you're always on about.
It's full of the slaughter of children. *Real* children, not just
fetti. How about all the children that were killed during the world-
wide flood? How about the Midianites' children? The Amalekites'
children? How about the children in Sodom and Gomorrah? The bible
god is *always* killing children willy-nilly. One would not be amiss
in thinking that the bible god doesn't care a fig for children.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
All-seeing-I
> >> Michael Siemon <mlsie...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >> >In article <hg4190$1f...@reader1.panix.com>,
> >> > Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> >...
> >> >> >> I note a continuing inability to deal with the problem of
> >> >> >> the unpunished slaughter of children.
>
> >> >> >> Perhaps it is brain chemistry?
>
> >> >> >Would this slaughter of childern be because of science that gave rise
> >> >> >to swift and immediate abortions?
>
> >> >> belief in God, who slaughtered them. �Some by gunfire, some by
> >> >> being bashed head first into a wall, and some by being buried alive.
>
> >> >> One lightning bolt would have ended it all.
> >> >Umm, Paul? Given the evidence here from the Creatinoids, you surely
> >> >can't _really_ believe that even a lightning bolt from God would
> >> >move them, can you? God doesn't count, unless he explicitly agrees
> >> >with them. (And no matter what He _does_ say, they will _claim_ it
> >> >agrees with them.) Even if God fried the whole lot of them in front
> >> >of the rest of mankind, they would claim this was just the Rapture.
>
> >> <grin>
>
> >> the internet and going viral to the point where everybody on earth
> >> sees it.
>
> >> Then it *might* have some effect.
>
> >> creationism would not be swayed by a lightning bolt from on
> >> high (which they might well claim was "natural" and had nothing
> >> to do with God at all) then we'd have to conclude that we have
> >> Plan for us humans has escaped his control and we are left
> >> alone to resist our idiot brethern as best we can.
>
> >> We likely would have to then look inward into ourselves, seeking
> >> to bring out what was good in us and surpress what was bad, and
> >> not rely on the fear of God to do it for us.
>
> >> This might not be a bad thing at all.
>
> >> Of course many of us have been trying to do this for years...
>
> >> --
> to comprehend what I am saying.
That is why I said "excuse me" and I understand exactly whay you are
sating. Or said anyway.
>
> The problem of evil is an old one. �Various religions react in
> different ways toward it. �None, as far as I know, has an excellent
> solution, though many have found ways to push it aside.
>
> You, on the other hand, know nothing about such subtilities. �You
> won't respond to my posts on the killings of children because you
> have no answer other than "God allows it."
>
> Sure, it happened. �My question was: �if God is a god of love,
> WHY did he allow it to happen? �Saying "God's reasons are too
> complex for humans to understand" is not a response. �It is
> an acknowlegement of a LACK of response. �Why, because you are
> saying that God tolerates evil and does nothing to suppress it.
>
> Why should I worship this god of yours? �I see evil all around
> with my own eyes. �All I see of your proof is an old book *known*
> to be a composite of many stories written by many humans. �You
> may not believe that, but nevertheless it is true.
>
> That book contains nuggets of moral truths that your God Himself
> does not obey. �Is he running a dictatorship? �Do as I say and
> not as I do?
>
> I know that you cannot deal with these questions. �Most here are
> way ahead of you in thinking about these issues, Christians, Jews,
> Buddhists, and yes, even atheists. �You are, in fact, like a small
> uneducated child running around annoying your elders. �Indeed, you
> have probably done more to harm the idiotic version of a religion
> you profess than anything else.
>
> Your God gave you a brain. �At least that's working hypothesis.
> What will St. Peter (or whoever) say to you when it is noted that
> you have never used it?
>
> Is it possible that we are *supposed* to ponder the great problem
> of good and evil and reach our own conclusions?
>
> I repeat, because by this time you have likely forgotten: �Why
> does god allow the slaughter of innocent children and their
> killers to go free and unpunished?
First. You have not stated under what conditions. Even today there is
a difference between premeditated murder and causing an accidental
death.
But OK. I'll bite even though you think you and others are SO MUCH
smarter and "way ahead" of me. So here it is.
First, I did not see your post on children. If I did not answer you I
am sorry.
God unfortunately allows it, He does. I speak from first hand
experience. But so does man. The root cause of death and destruction
on this planet generally stems from mankind and what he allows to
influences him.
But one can only guess that what you really mean is "Why does God
allow the murder of children". If so. There is no one person that can
answer that entirely. There is not a human explanation that is wholly
adequate when it is your child that has been killed. So. It is a very
relevant and very valid question to ask.
However. There are those that will abuse such a serious question and
play the "kid card" just to be manipulative and intellectually
dishonest. Something I find to be quite common on TO. I do hope this
does not describe you.
Nonetheless I have pondered deeply, and in agony, why children die.
When it comes right down to it though, everyone is someone's child no
matter what their age. So making the specific inquire about kids, only
shows that some feel a child's life is worth more then another life
based solely on age. Or. They are playing the kid card to make any God
that may exist look bad. OR. They have lost a child. I hope the latter
is not your case.
Honestly. I do not know why children have to die. If the bible is
correct we never were suppose to die, get sick or be unhappy. Even the
explanation for why we do get sick and die remains a question that is
not entirely answered. Why should I suffer because of what Adam and
Eve did in the Garden, right? There are many questions that I think we
all would like answers to. But as a created species, we do have a
promise. It comes quite fittingly at the end of the bible but is
eluded to elsewhere.
<quote>
Revelation 21:3-4: I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, �See,
the home of God is among mortals. God will dwell with them as their
God; they will be God�s peoples, and God will be with them; God will
wipe every tear from their eyes. Death will be no more; mourning and
crying and pain will be no more, for the first things have passed
away.�
</quote>
I assume this means there will come a time when God will live on
earth, all of our questions will be answered, everyone's tears will be
dried, and there will be some kind of restoration, because what
happened in the beginning in the garden, will be no more. There are
other parts in the bible that support this.But this should suffice for
the inquiry about children being killed.
This is the best answer that I can personally give to your question of
why children are killed. It certainly is not something any parent
should have to go through. No father should outlive his children. It
is , that simple.
So it comes to a choice. Do you hate God for children being murdered
or do you let all the hate go and try to live a happier healthire
life. Some choose to live their lives with that hate. I choose not to.
I chose to believe that restoration will take place.
Paul J Gans
Well, of course. But I was trying to get Madman to deal
with what seems very much to be God's dirty linen. But
it is clear that he not only can't, he can't even allow
himself to think about it because it hurts his head.
But what happens to you if you misbehave in this life?
You get punished in the next one? Seems a bit strange.
Jews, for example, take a somewhat different view in that
you get punished in *this* life, but they too have great
difficulty with the problem of evil.
Paul J Gans
I believe in division of labor. Besides, dirty socks are
Madman's duty.
Burkhard
>
> However. There are those that will abuse such a serious question and
> play the "kid card" just to be manipulative and intellectually
> dishonest. Something I find to be quite common on TO. I do hope this
> does not describe you.
>
> Nonetheless I have pondered deeply, and in agony, why children die.
> When it comes right down to it though, everyone is someone's child no
> matter what their age. So making the specific inquire about kids, only
> shows that some feel a child's life is worth more then another life
> based solely on age. Or. They are playing the kid card to make any God
> that may exist look bad. OR. They have lost a child. I hope the latter
> is not your case.
>
Nope to all of these explanations. Children, especially newborns,
won't have harmed anybody so are for all reasonable defintions of sin
free from sin. So while with adults, you can always rationalise that
they "had it coming", with babies even this sorry pretense of an
explanation collapses.
> Honestly. I do not know why children have to die. If the bible is
> correct we never were suppose to die, get sick or be unhappy. Even the
> explanation for why we do get sick and die remains a question that is
> not entirely answered. Why should I suffer because of what Adam and
> Eve did in the Garden, right? There are many questions that I think we
> all would like answers to. But as a created species, we do have a
> promise. It comes quite fittingly at the end of the bible but is
> eluded to elsewhere.
>
> <quote>
> Revelation 21:3-4: I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, �See,
> the home of God is among mortals. God will dwell with them as their
> God; they will be God�s peoples, and God will be with them; God will
> wipe every tear from their eyes. Death will be no more; mourning and
> crying and pain will be no more, for the first things have passed
> away.�
> �</quote>
>
> I assume this means there will come a time when God will live on
> earth, all of our questions will be answered, everyone's tears will be
> dried, and there will be some kind of restoration, because what
> happened in the beginning in the garden, will be no more. There are
> other parts in the bible that support this.But this should suffice for
> the inquiry about children being killed.
>
> This is the best answer that I can personally give to your question of
> why children are killed. It certainly is not something any parent
> should have to go through. No father should outlive his children. It
> is , that simple.
>
> So it comes to a choice. Do you hate God for children being murdered
> or do you let all the hate go and try to live a happier healthire ...
>
> read more �
el cid
I thought that somewhere, early in the Talmud, was something
I can only conjure by having you imagine this in a
Jackie Mason voice with a shrug, "and who said life is fair!?"
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 13:06:25 -0800 (PST), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by All-seeing-I
><ap...@email.com>:
>
>>On Dec 12, 2:00�pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 09:19:42 -0800 (PST), the following
>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by All-seeing-I
>>> <ap...@email.com>:
>>>
>>> >1) An inability to see the world for what it is.
>>>
>>> You're talking about those who reject evidence, right?
>>>
>>> >One of the most mind-numbing mysteries for those who do not believe in
>>> >evolution is trying to understand the people who do.
>>>
>>> That's because you don't understand the concept of evidence,
>>> and believe that only books written when people still
>>> thought the sun was a flaming chariot could possibly be
>>> correct.
>>
>>Funny you. One main component of the "scientific method" calls for
>>observation.
>
>Yep. Now tell the class how "observation" supports
>cosmology, quantum mechanics and the formation of stars.
>When you can do that I'll believe that you understand the
>concept.
[Crickets...]
>>Can we assume you are old enough to have observed fish becoming men
>>based on time, NS and mutations?
>
>Nope, nor is direct observation required. If you mistakenly
>think it is, can we assume you are old enough to have
>observed the events recorded in the Bible? If not it's mere
>hearsay, with no supporting evidence.
[Crickets...]
Congratulations, Addled. With every post, and with every
non-response when your idiocies are pointed out, you degrade
the already-abysmal reputation of fundies and other deniers
of reality even further.
Keep up the good work!
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
All-Seeing-I
> > the home of God is among mortals. God will dwell with them as their
> > wipe every tear from their eyes. Death will be no more; mourning and
> > crying and pain will be no more, for the first things have passed
> > away.
>
> > I assume this means there will come a time when God will live on
> > earth, all of our questions will be answered, everyone's tears will be
> > dried, and there will be some kind of restoration, because what
> > happened in the beginning in the garden, will be no more. There are
> > other parts in the bible that support this.But this should suffice for
> > the inquiry about children being killed.
>
> > This is the best answer that I can personally give to your question of
> > why children are killed. It certainly is not something any parent
> > should have to go through. No father should outlive his children. It
> > is , that simple.
>
> > So it comes to a choice. Do you hate God for children being murdered
> > or do you let all the hate go and try to live a happier healthire ...
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
All of the explainations collapse. Did you bother to read what i said?
All we have is a promise of restoration and that all tears will be
dried. And a choice.
Restoration. Look it up.
Choice. Look it up
Burkhard
You mean God is a delinquent in some type of restorative justice program
where he is willing to atone for his killing of children by making it up
to us? Sounds as plausible as anything you have posted.
> Choice. Look it up
>
Ye Old One
Fiction. Look it up.
All-Seeing-I
Neither of you have been specific about WHAT children and HOW did they
died.
Still you prsist with your innanities to blame God.
What children are you refering to and How did they die moron?
Burkhard
I'm not sure they died moron, I think the term you are looking for here
is innocent, derived from nocere, knowing. So they died "not knowing",
which in a bad light one could call "died moron".
Well, according to you, many drowned. Others were burned. Others still
were put to the sword by kings like Joshua acting on god's command.
And that's just the one on the bible. If god really is an omnipotent
creator god, then those being born e.g with an incurable disease would
also count.
Kleuskes & Moos
> >>> On 14 dec, 18:25, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >>>> LT <LTfle...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Dec 12, 1:19 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> 1) An inability to see the world for what it is.
> >>>>>> One of the most mind-numbing mysteries for those who do not believe in
> >>>>>> evolution is trying to understand the people who do. Why is it that so
> >>>>>> many obviously intelligent people believe in evolution? Can that
> >>>>>> actually be this dumb? the entire universe screams out design with
> >>>>>> laws and math and precise processes that are interdependent and need
> >>>>>> to be in place for all of them to perform in concert.
> >>>>>> 2) They have been taught evolution is true.
> >>>>>> Clearly the evolutionist has a "follower" type personality. It says
> >>>>>> man evolved in their book,so, it must be true.
> >>>>>> 3) They follow the herd
I thought that was dirty underwear...
bpuharic
>
>> � �--- Paul J. Gans- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Excuse me for a moment. I find this conversation rather amusing.
>
>The "creationist" already believe God created. They already believe
>the lightening bolts. It is you guys that do not believe God created.
how do you know this? you keep telling us, in the narcissistic manner
of creationists, that your view of god is the only view possible
>
>Yes. The "lightning bolts" happened already. The events were recorded
>in books such as the bible. Yet still, there are those that persist
>God did not create man or the universe.
creationists are patheists, thinking of god as some gravity like force
that pops stuff into existence...kind of a super wizard of oz
>
>Instead, they persist about things such a big bang for the origins of
>the universe and evolution from a SCA for the origins of man.
that's what the evidence shows
and creationism? 2000 years of failure. you have yet to address this
factx
>
>The most mind numbing of all, is when these things are pointed out,
>they get angry.
the mind numbing thing about creationists is, when you point out their
failures, they get angry.
>
>Jesus came, he taught, he did miracles, he died and rose to life but
>still, many do not believe. Nothing is going to convince them. not
>even a lightning bolt.
you miss the point. you really do.
the resurrection must be believed by FAITH. BUT...by trying to make
your religion into a science, you bring it into disrepute, making
faith impossible.....
god's gonna remember your ass on judgement day
>
>You seem to be having a conversations about yourselves.
and you?
you're talking to yourself
Mitchell Coffey
> MichaelSiemon<mlsie...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >In article <hg5rek$ea...@reader1.panix.com>,
> > Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >...
> >> We likely would have to then look inward into ourselves, seeking
> >> to bring out what was good in us and surpress what was bad, and
> >> not rely on the fear of God to do it for us.
>
> >> This might not be a bad thing at all.
>
> >> Of course many of us have been trying to do this for years...
> >Yep; relying on "the fear of God" is one of the major errors
> >of traditional Calvinism (and some strands of Catholicism, cf.
> >the _Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man_ :-)) It is always
> >counterproductive.
>
> I suppose that it will come as no surprise that "Portrait..."
> was and is one of my favorite books.
There was a film of it done by someone ~35 years ago, wherein the
priest who gives that great, lurid, hell-roasting sermon to the
students-assembled was play by John Gielgud.
Speaking of "Gielgud" - I just had cause to muse that one definition
of immortality is to have your name pre-packaged into spell checkers.
Mitchell
JTEM
Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Given that it had claws
ON A MEAT EATING DINOSAUR? NO WAY!
Oh, I *Do* hope you can spot sarcasm...
> and had feathers which allowed gliding,
Like from rock-to-rock? And the remains are
from a mountainous (Volcanic) region....
> what other model fits the data?
Besides the previously mentioned? Well the most
obvious would be "Secondarily Flightless."
Again, for like the THIRD time: A lack of
imagination does not physical evidence make.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by All-Seeing-I
<allse...@usa.com>:
>On Dec 15, 3:01�pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>> You mean God is a delinquent in some type of restorative justice program
>> where he is willing to atone for his killing of children by making it up
>> to us? Sounds as plausible as anything you have posted.
>Neither of you have been specific about WHAT children and HOW did they
>died.
It's in the Bible. You know, one of those "literally true
ancient texts". Two examples: All children except those of
Noah were drowned in the Flood sent by God because their
parents didn't measure up, and 42 were torn apart by bears
sent by God for mocking Elisha's baldness.
You're welcome.
<snip>
haiku jones
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:39:04 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by All-Seeing-I
>
> >On Dec 15, 3:01�pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> You mean God is a delinquent in some type of restorative justice program
> >> where he is willing to atone for his killing of children by making it up
> >> to us? Sounds as plausible as anything you have posted.
> >Neither of you have been specific about WHAT children and HOW did they
> >died.
>
> It's in the Bible. You know, one of those "literally true
> ancient texts". Two examples: All children except those of
> Noah were drowned in the Flood sent by God because their
> parents didn't measure up, and 42 were torn apart by bears
> sent by God for mocking Elisha's baldness.
And lest we forget, all the firstborn sons of all
the Egyptians that God murdered after first
diddling with Pharoah's brain so that
he could not agree to what God demanded, and
then demanding that very thing of Pharoah.
As Skyeyes has pointed out, not all of these
were still children. But doubtless many were.
And then there were the innocent animals...
Haiku Jones
Augray
wrote in
<a84911a6-3557-4526...@f20g2000vbl.googlegroups.com> :
> Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Given that it had claws
>
>ON A MEAT EATING DINOSAUR? NO WAY!
>
>Oh, I *Do* hope you can spot sarcasm...
>
>> and had feathers which allowed gliding,
>
>Like from rock-to-rock? And the remains are
>from a mountainous (Volcanic) region....
Just because an area has occasional volcanism doesn't mean that it was
mountainous. The fine-grained sediments most of the Jiufotang
Formation fossils are found in argues against a mountainous
environment. Whatever the case, the area was forested. See:
Zhou Z.-H. 2004. Vertebrate radiations of the Jehol Biota and their
environmental background. Chinese Science Bulletin 49(8):754-756.
>> what other model fits the data?
>
>Besides the previously mentioned? Well the most
>obvious would be "Secondarily Flightless."
According to Zhou et al. (2003), Microraptor wasn't secondarily
flightless.
Zhou Z.-H., Paul M. Barrett, P. M., Hilton, J. 2003. An exceptionally
preserved Lower Cretaceous ecosystem. Nature 421:807-814.
>Again, for like the THIRD time: A lack of
>imagination does not physical evidence make.
Has anyone cited a lack of imagination?
Eric Root
> On Dec 12, 12:19�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > 1) An inability to see the world for what it is.
>
> > One of the most mind-numbing mysteries for those who do not believe in
> > evolution is trying to understand the people who do. Why is it that so
> > many obviously intelligent people believe in evolution?
>
>
> > Can that
> > actually be this dumb? the entire universe screams out design with
> > laws and math and precise processes that are interdependent and need
> > to be in place for all of them to perform in concert.
>
>
> > 2) They have been taught evolution is true.
>
> have been liars.
>
> > Clearly the evolutionist has a "follower" type personality. It says
> > man evolved in their book,so, it must be true.
>
> ignorance.
>
>
>
> > 3) They follow the herd
>
>
> > �all reputable scientists believe,� �and "mainstream science says" are
> > their mantras; and since the majority must be right, they follow suit
>
> more likely to true than what a lunatic fringe of below-average,
> science-hating creationists believe. �When twenty auto mechanics agree
> what is wrong with your car, only a nut would say, "you're wrong, I'm
> going to ask my dentist," which is an apples-to-apples analogy of what
> creationists do.
>
> > 4) "You are too stupid"
>
> > Anyone that does not follow numbers 1 through 3 above must be stupid
> > and therefore does not understand why evolution is true. This despite
> > the fact that nothing such as species divergence gas ever been
> > observed.
>
> liar.
>
>
>
> > 5) Brain damage
>
> Sorry, there is not one neuropsychologist or neurologist who will
> agree with you.
>
>
>
> > Of which i have putforth a theory:
>
> > =============================================
> > "Adman's Hypothesis on Brain Chemistry and the Perception of God"
>
> > "If the perception of God is related to brain chemistry, then people
> > lacking
> > the necessary brain chemistry due to an unknown mutation will have a
> > higher
> > frequency of lacking an ability to perceive God."
> > =============================================
>
>
> Eric Root
Crickets. Adman runs again.
JTEM
Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Just because an area has occasional volcanism
> doesn't mean that it was mountainous.
It's not the 50-50 that you appear to be pretending.
> The fine-grained sediments most of the Jiufotang
> Formation fossils are found in argues against
> a mountainous environment.
No, it argues FOR an isolated body of water. There
is absolutely NOTHING in that which excludes
mountains.
Actually, using Solnhofen as a model, we could
argue that this water was periodic, perhaps seasonal.
There is clear indication that dessication took place
at Solnhofen, which of course means that there was
no water present at the time of death... it also means
that there were no predators/scavengers there to eat
them.
As we can rule out fences, barbed wire & the like,
some high rocks go a long ways towards explaining
things...
> Whatever the case, the area was forested.
The oldest image of Mt. Vesuvius -- painted before
the destruction om Pompeii -- depicts it as likewise
verdant:
http://www.vesuvius.tomgidwitz.com/html/5__eyewitnesses.html
Volcanic soil can be quite fertile.
> >Besides the previously mentioned? Well the most
> >obvious would be "Secondarily Flightless."
>
> According to Zhou et al. (2003), Microraptor wasn't
> secondarily flightless.
According to them, it had no means to even glide.
They couldn't identify any means to get this thing
through the air.
Anyways, they issued a conclusion -- an opinion. So
what?
> >Again, for like the THIRD time: �A lack of
> >imagination does not physical evidence make.
> Has anyone cited a lack of imagination?
One needn't officially "Cite" something in order to
demonstrate it.
I thought you knew. Sorry.
Walter Bushell
<a2cae646-d5a4-4482...@r1g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
"Kleuskes & Moos" <kle...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> >
> > >> I'm sorry. Wilkins is in charge of sarcasm theory. I can't be
> > >> expected to do *everything* around here...
> >
> > >Shouldn't that have been: Oh sure, I'll do sarcasm right away, just
> > >between sorting out global warming and world peace in my unfulfilled
> > >life with too much time on my hands, and if you have dirty socks, would
> > >you like me to launder them for you too?
> >
> > I believe in division of labor. Besides, dirty socks are
> > Madman's duty.
>
> I thought that was dirty underwear...
No his job is getting the underwear dirty in the first place, and he is
very good at it.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Augray
wrote in
<91a19a46-e93d-4f79...@z40g2000vba.googlegroups.com> :
> Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 10:40:16 -0800 (PST), JTEM <jte...@gmail.com>
>> wrote in
>> <a84911a6-3557-4526...@f20g2000vbl.googlegroups.com> :
>>
>> > Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Given that it had claws
>> >
>> >ON A MEAT EATING DINOSAUR? NO WAY!
>> >
>> >Oh, I *Do* hope you can spot sarcasm...
>> >
>> >> and had feathers which allowed gliding,
>> >
>> >Like from rock-to-rock? And the remains are
>> >from a mountainous (Volcanic) region....
>>
>> Just because an area has occasional volcanism
>> doesn't mean that it was mountainous.
>
>It's not the 50-50 that you appear to be pretending.
Heck, I'm not even pretending 50-50. I'm saying that volcanic ash fall
is not an argument for a region being mountainous, since ash falls can
occur hundreds of miles from their source. There's also no requirement
that volcanos be restricted to mountain ranges.
>> The fine-grained sediments most of the Jiufotang
>> Formation fossils are found in argues against
>> a mountainous environment.
>
>No, it argues FOR an isolated body of water.
That's a view contradicted by Chinese paleontologists. Wang and Zhou
(2003) write that "Lakes were widespread".
>There
>is absolutely NOTHING in that which excludes
>mountains.
The fine-grained sediments would certainly seem to.
>Actually, using Solnhofen as a model, we could
>argue that this water was periodic, perhaps seasonal.
What makes you think that the water at Solnhofen was periodic? The
Solnhofen rocks formed at the bottom of a salt-water lagoon, bounded
by coral reefs on the east and south and land on the northwest. The
waters were hypersaline, and lower layers of water were anoxic. See
Barthel (1990), Viohl (1985) and de Buisonj� (1985).
>There is clear indication that dessication took place
>at Solnhofen, which of course means that there was
>no water present at the time of death... it also means
>that there were no predators/scavengers there to eat
>them.
No, this is totally false. Again, see Barthel (1990), Viohl (1985) and
de Buisonj� (1985).
>As we can rule out fences, barbed wire & the like,
>some high rocks go a long ways towards explaining
>things...
But it doesn't explain how aerial scavengers were kept away. And I
doubt that any explanation of what happened to the high rocks
afterwards will be forthcoming.
>> Whatever the case, the area was forested.
>
>The oldest image of Mt. Vesuvius -- painted before
>the destruction om Pompeii -- depicts it as likewise
>verdant:
>
>http://www.vesuvius.tomgidwitz.com/html/5__eyewitnesses.html
>
>Volcanic soil can be quite fertile.
All of which would seem to argue against Microraptor gliding from rock
to rock, as opposed to tree to tree.
>> >Besides the previously mentioned? Well the most
>> >obvious would be "Secondarily Flightless."
>>
>> According to Zhou et al. (2003), Microraptor wasn't
>> secondarily flightless.
>
>According to them, it had no means to even glide.
>They couldn't identify any means to get this thing
>through the air.
You seem to have missed the last two sentences:
New material of the dromaeosaurid theropod Microraptor indicates
that this animal possessed wing-like arrays of asymmetrical
feathers on both its fore- and hindlimbs. This observation
provides additional support for the hypothesis that this taxon
was an arboreal glider.
>Anyways, they issued a conclusion -- an opinion. So
>what?
Unlike your opinions, which should be taken seriously?
>> >Again, for like the THIRD time: �A lack of
>> >imagination does not physical evidence make.
>
>> Has anyone cited a lack of imagination?
>
>One needn't officially "Cite" something in order to
>demonstrate it.
You seem to misunderstand. No one has claimed that their supposed lack
of imagination is evidence for something. Keep in mind that this is
not the same as saying that certain observations place constraints on
their causes.
>I thought you knew. Sorry.
So when are you going to demonstrate it?
REFERNECES
Barthel, K. W. 1990. Solnhofen: A Study in Mesozoic Palaeontology.
Translated and revised by N. H. M. Swinburne, edited by S. Conway
Morris. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
de Buisonj�, P. H. 1985. Climatological Conditions During Deposition
of the Solnhofen Limestones. In "The Beginnings of Birds: Proceedings
of the International Archaeopteryx Conference Eichst�tt 1984", edited
by M. K. Hecht, J. H. Ostrom, G. Viohl, & P. Wellnhofer, pp. 45-65.
Eichst�tt: Freunde des Jura-Museums Eichst�tt.
Viohl, G. 1985. Geology of the Solnhofen Lithographic Limestone and
the Habitat of _Archaeopteryx_. In "The Beginnings of Birds:
Proceedings of the International Archaeopteryx Conference Eichst�tt
1984", edited by M. K. Hecht, J. H. Ostrom, G. Viohl, & P. Wellnhofer,
pp. 31-44. Eichst�tt: Freunde des Jura-Museums Eichst�tt.
Wang X.-L. & Zhou Z.-H. 2003. Mesozoic Pompeii. In "The Jehol Biota:
The Emergence of Feathered Dinosaurs, Beaked Birds, and Flowering
Plants", edited by Chang M.-M., Chen P.-J., Wang Y.-Q., Wang Y., &
Miao D.-S., pp. 18-35. Shanghai: Shanghai Scientific & Technical
Publishers.
JTEM
Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Heck, I'm not even pretending 50-50. I'm saying
> that volcanic ash fall is not an argument for
> a region being mountainous, since ash falls can
> occur hundreds of miles from their source.
A person can be born blind, so there's absolutely
no reason to assume that anyone in this group is
capable of sight...
Nope, sorry, it doesn't fly, on a number of levels.
The first and most obvious is that the distance
over which ash /Can/ travel isn't all that relevant.
What is relevant here is the distance we might
reasonably expect to see the kind of killing &
preserving evident here.
Take, for example, the Mt. Saint Helens eruption
of 1980:
http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/Thumblinks/mshmap_page.html
NOTE: Ash traveled much further than any "Zone"
displayed on the map, but there were no fatalities
as a result of this ash.
Bringing us back to the topic: It's is NOT
50-50 here. It is likely -- which is to say,
in all probability there was "mountainous"
terrain within close vicinity.
> There's also no requirement
> that volcanos be restricted to mountain ranges.
There's also no requirement that Microraptor
flew, even as a glider.
Heck, I've seen people restricting themselves to
one ancient level of technology or another building
everything from inter continental boats to hot
air balloons, but it doesn't mean anyone in ancient
times had to do those things.
> >No, it argues FOR an isolated body of water.
>
> That's a view contradicted by Chinese paleontologists.
> Wang and Zhou (2003) write that "Lakes were widespread".
You're not contradicting me. In English, "Lakes
were wide spread" means that there were a lot of
them, and NOT that there weren't any isolated lakes.
> The fine-grained sediments would certainly seem to.
This does not exclude anything I said, nor does it
support what you said.
> >Actually, using Solnhofen as a model, we could
> >argue that this water was periodic, perhaps seasonal.
> What makes you think that the water at Solnhofen was
> periodic?
I already answered that question: The clear evidence
for dessication.
> The waters were hypersaline,
"Dessication."
> >There is clear indication that dessication took place
> >at Solnhofen, which of course means that there was
> >no water present at the time of death... it also means
> >that there were no predators/scavengers there to eat
> >them.
>
> No, this is totally false.
Wrong. Here's your typical Archaeopteryx positioning,
clearly suggesting dessication (note the head pulled
back, as we would expect from such a scenario):
http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/dinobird/img/archaeop.jpg
One common argument against dessication is, of course,
scavengers. But if we assume that this "beach" or whatever
you want to call it was isolated, there is no issue.
> >As we can rule out fences, barbed wire & the like,
> >some high rocks go a long ways towards explaining
> >things...
> But it doesn't explain how aerial scavengers were kept
> away.
You haven't identified any.
> And I doubt that any explanation of what happened to
> the high rocks afterwards will be forthcoming.
Dude, the Himalayas -- home of the world's tallest
mountain -- was still about 70 million years away
from forming!
The planet looked completely different in the
mid Jurassic. The continents have all moved, and
you want to know how a mountain vanished?
> >The oldest image of Mt. Vesuvius -- painted before
> >the destruction om Pompeii -- depicts it as likewise
> >verdant:
>
> >http://www.vesuvius.tomgidwitz.com/html/5__eyewitnesses.html
>
> >Volcanic soil can be quite fertile.
>
> All of which would seem to argue against
> Microraptorgliding from rock to rock, as opposed
> to tree to tree.
Wait a minute. You got regular eruptions wiping out
life there, but Microraptor and the rest wouldn't
return until trees had not only a chance to sprout,
but grow to adulthood?
That makes no sense.
Under my model -- we'll call it... oh... just pulling
any old name from thin air... "The Correct Model."
Anyhow, going by "The Correct Model," wild life can
return almost immediately.
> >According to them, it had no means to even glide.
> >They couldn't identify any means to get this thing
> >through the air.
>
> You seem to have missed the last two sentences:
>
> � � �New material of the dromaeosaurid theropodMicroraptorindicates
> � � �that this animal possessed wing-like arrays of asymmetrical
> � � �feathers on both its fore- and hindlimbs. This observation
> � � �provides additional support for the hypothesis that this taxon
> � � �was an arboreal glider.
You read it. They're saying that the presence of
feathers suggests flight.
They are NOT offering any model, any explanation as
to how this animal might accomplish such a thing. In
fact, nobody could until the "biplane" model was
suggested -- the first & only explanation which did
not require a redrawing of skeletal capabilities.
...which followed by some years.
> >Anyways, they issued a conclusion -- an opinion. So
> >what?
>
> Unlike your opinions, which should be taken seriously?
I stated no opinion. Look again. You misidentified
the presence of feathers as an explanation for how
it might actually go about flying.
Augray
wrote in
<65383a42-5071-4233...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com> :
>Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 11:42:50 -0800 (PST), JTEM <jte...@gmail.com>
>> wrote in
>> <91a19a46-e93d-4f79...@z40g2000vba.googlegroups.com> :
>>
>> > Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 10:40:16 -0800 (PST), JTEM <jte...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote in
>> >> <a84911a6-3557-4526...@f20g2000vbl.googlegroups.com> :
>> >>
>> >> > Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Given that it had claws
>> >> >
>> >> >ON A MEAT EATING DINOSAUR? NO WAY!
>> >> >
>> >> >Oh, I *Do* hope you can spot sarcasm...
>> >> >
>> >> >> and had feathers which allowed gliding,
>> >> >
>> >> >Like from rock-to-rock? And the remains are
>> >> >from a mountainous (Volcanic) region....
>> >>
>> >> Just because an area has occasional volcanism
>> >> doesn't mean that it was mountainous.
>> >
>> >It's not the 50-50 that you appear to be pretending.
>>
>> Heck, I'm not even pretending 50-50. I'm saying
>> that volcanic ash fall is not an argument for
>> a region being mountainous, since ash falls can
>> occur hundreds of miles from their source.
>
>A person can be born blind, so there's absolutely
>no reason to assume that anyone in this group is
>capable of sight...
Nor is there any reason to think that they all are. So, unless you've
got a reason to think that a particular person (location) is blind
(mountainous), it's just idle speculation. And volcanic ash is not a
sure indicator of an area being mountainous.
>Nope, sorry, it doesn't fly, on a number of levels.
>The first and most obvious is that the distance
>over which ash /Can/ travel isn't all that relevant.
>What is relevant here is the distance we might
>reasonably expect to see the kind of killing &
>preserving evident here.
>
>Take, for example, the Mt. Saint Helens eruption
>of 1980:
>
>http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/Thumblinks/mshmap_page.html
>
>NOTE: Ash traveled much further than any "Zone"
>displayed on the map, but there were no fatalities
>as a result of this ash.
So, you're claiming that the Mount Saint Helens's eruption is the
largest and most devastating one possible?
http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/index.html shows a
volcanic deposit that "mantles an area of many hundreds of square
miles".
>Bringing us back to the topic: It's is NOT
>50-50 here. It is likely -- which is to say,
>in all probability there was "mountainous"
>terrain within close vicinity.
In other words, volcanic ash fall is not an argument for an area being
mountainous. Thanks for agreeing with me. And besides, unless you're
saying that forests can't exist next to volcanos, or even on their
slopes, there's really no point is discussing it further. And keep in
mind that Mount Saint Helens had *lots* of trees on its slopes, and
the Jehol deposits preserve the remains of trees.
>> There's also no requirement
>> that volcanos be restricted to mountain ranges.
>
>There's also no requirement that Microraptor
>flew, even as a glider.
But that's certainly what its anatomy suggests.
>Heck, I've seen people restricting themselves to
>one ancient level of technology or another building
>everything from inter continental boats to hot
>air balloons, but it doesn't mean anyone in ancient
>times had to do those things.
But then, if one finds parts that can *only* be used for "inter
continental boats", it might suggest that they had them, just like
asymmetrical feathers only seem to be used for gliding, or powered
flight.
>> >> The fine-grained sediments most of the Jiufotang
>> >> Formation fossils are found in argues against
>> >> a mountainous environment.
>
>> >No, it argues FOR an isolated body of water.
>>
>> That's a view contradicted by Chinese paleontologists.
>> Wang and Zhou (2003) write that "Lakes were widespread".
>
>You're not contradicting me. In English, "Lakes
>were wide spread" means that there were a lot of
>them, and NOT that there weren't any isolated lakes.
So, you're arguing that *all* the lakes were isolated from each other?
>> The fine-grained sediments would certainly seem to.
>
>This does not exclude anything I said, nor does it
>support what you said.
Fine-grain sediments argue against mountainous terrain. Or do
avalanches only result in sand and silt?
>> >Actually, using Solnhofen as a model, we could
>> >argue that this water was periodic, perhaps seasonal.
>
>> What makes you think that the water at Solnhofen was
>> periodic?
>
>I already answered that question: The clear evidence
>for dessication.
There is *no* clear evidence for desiccation, as we'll see.
>> The waters were hypersaline,
>
>"Dessication."
>
>> >There is clear indication that dessication took place
>> >at Solnhofen, which of course means that there was
>> >no water present at the time of death... it also means
>> >that there were no predators/scavengers there to eat
>> >them.
>>
>> No, this is totally false.
>
>Wrong. Here's your typical Archaeopteryx positioning,
>clearly suggesting dessication (note the head pulled
>back, as we would expect from such a scenario):
>
>http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/dinobird/img/archaeop.jpg
That posture *doesn't* suggest desiccation. As Faux & Padian (2007)
write:
However, there are two critical problems with this hypothesis.
First, it has never been observed, and second, it has not been
simulated experimentally.
Faux & Padian conducted experiments with bird carcasses, and such a
posture did *not* result from desiccation. Hence, the posture of the
Berlin Archaeopteryx did *not* result from desiccation.
>One common argument against dessication is, of course,
>scavengers. But if we assume that this "beach" or whatever
>you want to call it was isolated, there is no issue.
Given that there is no place with free oxygen currently on the planet
that *doesn't* have scavengers, why would one think that there was in
the Jurassic?
>> >As we can rule out fences, barbed wire & the like,
>> >some high rocks go a long ways towards explaining
>> >things...
>
>> But it doesn't explain how aerial scavengers were kept
>> away.
>
>You haven't identified any.
Weren't you the person who said that "A lack of imagination does not
physical evidence make"? Given the hundreds of pterosaurs that have
been found in the Solnhofen sediments, and the thousands of insects,
I'd suggest that there's more than a strong possibility that aerial
scavengers were present.
>> And I doubt that any explanation of what happened to
>> the high rocks afterwards will be forthcoming.
>
>Dude, the Himalayas -- home of the world's tallest
>mountain -- was still about 70 million years away
>from forming!
Are you seriously suggesting that mountain ranges are a mechanism for
keeping scavengers away from animal corpses? Are you seriously
suggesting that mountain ranges can disappear without a trace? And God
knows why you're bringing up a mountain range that hadn't formed yet.
>The planet looked completely different in the
>mid Jurassic. The continents have all moved, and
>you want to know how a mountain vanished?
Yes, because there's this science called "geology" that's been known
to find the eroded remains of ancient mountain ranges. But we only
need worry about it if you're seriously going to claim that mountain
ranges prevent aerial scavengers (or any other kind) from reaching a
carcass.
>> >The oldest image of Mt. Vesuvius -- painted before
>> >the destruction om Pompeii -- depicts it as likewise
>> >verdant:
>>
>> >http://www.vesuvius.tomgidwitz.com/html/5__eyewitnesses.html
>>
>> >Volcanic soil can be quite fertile.
>>
>> All of which would seem to argue against
>> Microraptor gliding from rock to rock, as opposed
>> to tree to tree.
>
>Wait a minute. You got regular eruptions wiping out
>life there, but Microraptor and the rest wouldn't
>return until trees had not only a chance to sprout,
>but grow to adulthood?
Of course, by "regular eruptions", we're talking about a geological
time scale, and not on a yearly basis, or even a centennial one.
>That makes no sense.
Since neither I, nor anyone else, is claiming that there were
eruptions on an annual schedule, feel free to stop worrying about it.
It's irrelevant.
>Under my model -- we'll call it... oh... just pulling
>any old name from thin air... "The Correct Model."
Apparently, a model there are no possible scavengers, and where
mountains can magically vanish, can now be considered "correct". Not
exactly parsimonious, but then, when one invokes magic, anything goes.
>Anyhow, going by "The Correct Model," wild life can
>return almost immediately.
Of course, virtually every other model allows that to happen as well,
but that doesn't mean that *all* life will. Besides, I fail to see how
this aspect of your "model" is relevant. Unless you're arguing that
Microraptor could only live in barren, stone-covered areas of
devastation?
>> >> >Besides the previously mentioned? Well the most
>> >> >obvious would be "Secondarily Flightless."
>> >>
>> >> According to Zhou et al. (2003), Microraptor wasn't
>> >> secondarily flightless.
>> >
>> >According to them, it had no means to even glide.
>> >They couldn't identify any means to get this thing
>> >through the air.
>>
>> You seem to have missed the last two sentences:
>>
>> � � �New material of the dromaeosaurid theropod _Microraptor_ indicates
>> � � �that this animal possessed wing-like arrays of asymmetrical
>> � � �feathers on both its fore- and hindlimbs. This observation
>> � � �provides additional support for the hypothesis that this taxon
>> � � �was an arboreal glider.
>
>You read it. They're saying that the presence of
>feathers suggests flight.
No, they're saying that the presence of *asymmetrical* feathers
suggests *gliding*. But you never seem to be able to clue into that.
>They are NOT offering any model, any explanation as
>to how this animal might accomplish such a thing.
That doesn't change the fact that they *did* point out that
Microraptor had a means to glide: asymmetrical�feathers. Since these
are only found on gliding and flying birds, it's not an unreasonable
thing to say.
>In
>fact, nobody could until the "biplane" model was
>suggested -- the first & only explanation which did
>not require a redrawing of skeletal capabilities.
>
> ...which followed by some years.
Which is irrelevant to the fact that they pointed to the asymmetrical
feathers, contrary to your claim that "According to them, it had no
means to even glide". They said that it did. And they also said that
it wasn't secondarily flightless, which was my original point.
>> >Anyways, they issued a conclusion -- an opinion. So
>> >what?
>>
>> Unlike your opinions, which should be taken seriously?
>
>I stated no opinion.
"Dessication."
>Look again. You misidentified
>the presence of feathers as an explanation for how
>it might actually go about flying.
No, I used the presence of flight feathers as *evidence* that it could
glide. I've made no claim about *how* it glided, only that it probably
could.
>>REFERNECES
>>
>>Barthel, K. W. 1990. Solnhofen: A Study in Mesozoic Palaeontology.
>>Translated and revised by N. H. M. Swinburne, edited by S. Conway
>>Morris. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
>>
>>de Buisonj�, P. H. 1985. Climatological Conditions During Deposition
>>of the Solnhofen Limestones. In "The Beginnings of Birds: Proceedings
>>of the International Archaeopteryx Conference Eichst�tt 1984", edited
>>by M. K. Hecht, J. H. Ostrom, G. Viohl, & P. Wellnhofer, pp. 45-65.
>>Eichst�tt: Freunde des Jura-Museums Eichst�tt.
Faux, C. M. & K. Padian. 2007. The opisthotonic posture of vertebrate
skeletons: postmortem contraction or death throes? Paleobiology
33(2):201�226.
JTEM
Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> So, unless you've got a reason to think that
> a particular person (location) is blind
> (mountainous), it's just idle speculation.
> And volcanic ash is not a sure indicator of
> an area being mountainous.
Again, it's not 50-50. The ash requires a volcano,
the rule is that volcanoes tend more towards
mountains than big holes in the ground, and in
order to be killed in an eruption an animal
generally requires proximity.
Sure, there are super volcanoes which kill far,
FAR away, and calderas as opposed to mountains,
but neither is typical.
The only thing that explains both the volcanic
source and the killing off of animals is a nearby
volcano, and there is a BETTER THAN EVEN chance
that such a volcano has an elevated rocky area
associated with it.
> So, you're claiming that the Mount Saint Helens's
> eruption is the largest and most devastating one
> possible?
That would make no sense.
You're arguing against the common mountain-shaped
Volcano, and now you need a super volcano?
Would it make far more sense to simply assume that
the volcano was close enough to kill a lot of
animals without being a super volcano?
> http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/index.htmlshows a
> volcanic deposit that "mantles an area of many hundreds of square
> miles".
We're not speaking generically here. We are speaking
of a very specific formation in a very specific place.
I am not aware of ANYONE claiming to find a super
volcano. What I do find though is more to the point:
: Nearby active volcanoes would periodically erupt,
: sending clouds of poisonous gas and ash into the
: air, and killing anything in the way. The gas
: killed any living thing and the dead were
: sometimes covered with a fine powder of volcanic
: ash, protecting their bodies, and enabling
: preservation in great detail.
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Fossil_Sites/LiaoningSite.htm
> In other words, volcanic ash fall is not an argument
> for an area being mountainous.
I don;t know why you would say something like that, right
after I pointed out that #1 it isn't 50-50 and #2 there
is additional evidence.
The evidence strongly suggests nearby volcanic activity.
As the example of Mt. Saint Helens clearly demonstrates,
the ash can move clear across the continent (and it did),
but the "Killing Zone" was quite limited, AND almost
elusively on one side.
We need more than "ash" to explain the finds.
In the absence of anything pointing to anomalous
activity, we have every reason to associate
elevated rock formation in the immediate vicinity.
> >There's also no requirement thatMicroraptor
> >flew, even as a glider.
>
> But that's certainly what its anatomy suggests.
It's anatomy suggests nothing. It's people who
keep making the suggestions.
After all, exactly how many "Biplane" gliders
can you find in the world?
How many others are supposed to exist in the fossil
record?
Let's see.... NONE!
So the only way you can get this thing into the air
is to claim that it was unique in all the history of
life on earth.
Can you grasp how big of a claim that is?
As an example, let's pretend that the Platypus is
the only mammal with a beak, or lays eggs (it's
not). That STILL wouldn't make it "Unique" amongst
all living creatures today, never mind all living
animals in the entire history of the planet.
> But then, if one finds parts that can *only* be
> used for "inter continental boats", it might
> suggest that they had them, just like
> asymmetrical feathers only seem to be used for
> gliding, or powered flight.
This claim that asymmetrical feathers could ONLY
be used for flight is just pure hogwash.
It's just as capable of performing all the functions
of a symmetrical feather... including display,
camouflage, sexual dimorphism, and thermal
regulation.
...and this is WITHOUT considering the
possibility of it being secondarily flightless.
> >You're not contradicting me. In English, "Lakes
> >were wide spread" means that there were a lot of
> >them, and NOT that there weren't any isolated lakes.
>
> So, you're arguing that *all* the lakes were isolated
> from each other?
I'm not arguing anything. I accurately pointed out
that the evidence from Archeopteryx suggests that
they animals were dessicated after death, which would
mean they couldn't have been introduced to water until
later.
The evidence does suggest this.
> >This does not exclude anything I said, nor does it
> >support what you said.
>
> Fine-grain sediments argue against mountainous terrain.
No they don't. We're BOTH talking volcanic activity
here. Remember that.
> Or do avalanches only result in sand and silt?
You're being binary, suggesting that things must
happen only ONE way or they didn't happen at all.
I know that isn't true, and I highly suspect that
you know as well.
> There is *no* clear evidence for desiccation, as we'll see.
I've already showed it to you. Besides the level of
preservation (an animal first "Mummified" before
being buried is a best-case-scenario), there's the
characteristic bending back of the neck.
> >Wrong. Here's your typical Archaeopteryx positioning,
> >clearly suggesting dessication (note the head pulled
> >back, as we would expect from such a scenario):
>
> >http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/dinobird/img/archaeop.jpg
>
> That posture *doesn't* suggest desiccation.
Of course it does.
> � � �However, there are two critical problems with
> this hypothesis. First, it has never been observed,
Someone should tell the medical examiner in Waco.
After that whole "Koresh" nonsense, they reported
exactly that on at least one of the children,
supposedly due to the fire.
I couldn't find the actual report online, but there are
several sites denouncing a Reich Wing "documentary" on
Waco as a hoax. One of the items they point to is the
claim that the backwards bowing seen in at least on the
children (a victim of the fire) had to result from
cyanide poisoning
> and second, it has not been
> � � �simulated experimentally.
That's just plain nonsense!
I mean, what has?
Besides, this does a rather good job of summing up
your "Cite" -- which is a minority view, by the
way. It comes to the conclusion that they were
dessicated:
http://microecos.wordpress.com/2008/02/09/death-throes-pt-2-opisthomonotony/
> Faux & Padian conducted experiments with bird
> carcasses,
Again with the dinosaurs-evolved-from-birds
argument...
If you prefer, you can simply state that dinosaurs
were birds, in the same sense that humans are
apes...
If you're NOT arguing either of the above, there is
a problem here.
> and such a posture did *not* result from desiccation.
Others have reported that it did.
> Given that there is no place with free oxygen currently
> on the planet that *doesn't* have scavengers,
Another false statement.
> >> But it doesn't explain how aerial scavengers were kept
> >> away.
>
> >You haven't identified any.
>
> Weren't you the person who said that "A lack of
> imagination does not physical evidence make"?
Yes. What you appear to believe is that I said "An
imagination is physical evidence."
They are NOT the same thing at all.
> Given the hundreds of pterosaurs that have
> been found in the Solnhofen sediments, and
> the thousands of insects,
Who says that any particular pterosaur was a
scavenger, and insects aren't the issue you
claim. If they were, nothing would ever
become dessicated.
> I'd suggest that there's more than a strong
> possibility that aerial scavengers were present.
...and you base this on the physical
evidence of unscavenged remains...
> >> And I doubt that any explanation of what happened to
> >> the high rocks afterwards will be forthcoming.
>
> >Dude, the Himalayas -- home of the world's tallest
> >mountain -- was still about 70 million years away
> >from forming!
> Are you seriously suggesting that mountain ranges are
> a mechanism for keeping scavengers away from animal
> corpses?
I'm suggesting that they are a mechanism for isolation,
and they are.
You have this... this... "Style" of "Argument" where
you attack every piece of the puzzle for not being
the whole....
> Are you seriously suggesting that mountain ranges
> can disappear without a trace?
Dude, the planet is unrecognizable from it's early
cretaceous form...
> >Wait a minute. You got regular eruptions wiping out
> >life there, butMicroraptorand the rest wouldn't
> >return until trees had not only a chance to sprout,
> >but grow to adulthood?
>
> Of course, by "regular eruptions", we're talking about
> a geological time scale, and not on a yearly basis, or
> even a centennial one.
Really? Were you the one holding the watch, or was it
your job to mark the calendar?
> >Under my model -- we'll call it... oh... just pulling
> >any old name from thin air... "The Correct Model."
>
> Apparently, a model there are no possible scavengers,
As opposed to no remains every being dessicated... because
they would be scavenged, according to you.
Do you see how absurd you're being? Your very own
argument disproves you.
> >Anyhow, going by "The Correct Model," wild life can
> >return almost immediately.
> Of course, virtually every other model allows
> that to happen as well,
Wrong, again. Tree-top gliders need the trees,
and they need fairly tall trees.
--
Check out my friend's lame ass show:
Werewolfy
> No, this is totally false. Again, see Barthel (1990), Viohl (1985) and
> de Buisonj� (1985).
I can't believe what I am seeing.
Surely, you must know that JTEM is a usenet troll over 15 plus years
annoyance to many forums...yet here you are, discussing things with
him and actually believing he knows something about the subject!
He uses a search engine for information, has no personal knowledge or
any qualification. He talks utter nonsense wherever he goes, and
inevitably ends up using obscenities in a childish tantrum.
He spends most of his days wearing women's clothing too...not that is
relevent to ash and it's properties, just an interesting enough fact.
Werewolfy
Louann Miller
41b505...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
> He spends most of his days wearing women's clothing too...not that is
> relevent to ash and it's properties, just an interesting enough fact.
Hey. *I* spend most of my days wearing women's clothing.
Werewolfy
> Werewolfy <Werewol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in news:483402b0-94a7-4a25-a3e5-
> 41b5053fb...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
>
> > He spends most of his days wearing women's clothing too...not that is
> > relevent to ash and it's properties, just an interesting enough fact.
>
> Hey. *I* spend most of my days wearing women's clothing.
'Louann'..is that a female name and are you a female? If so, then
wearing such clothing is rather normal.
If you are a male, and have a liking for such a thing, I have no
quarrel with that. My target is the parasitic slime that infests forum
after forum, and is called JTEM.
No offence meant to you, Louann. You have never given any to me, so I
think we are equal in that way.
Werewolfy
Louann Miller
dd38da...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>> Hey. *I* spend most of my days wearing women's clothing.
>
> 'Louann'..is that a female name and are you a female? If so, then
> wearing such clothing is rather normal.
Yep.
I'm teasing you, rather mildly. In other words, ;-P