for the rock record

[UC]

A good book, but the authors suffer from extreme ignorance of
semantics.

http://www.amazon.com/For-Rock-Record-Geologists-Intelligent/dp/0520257596/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1348240049&sr=8-1&keywords=for+the+rock+record

They still use vernacular terms, which are for contemporary species
only. It's stupidities such as this that cause confusion among the
general populace.

[prawnster]

On Sep 21, 8:15 am, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> A good book, but the authors suffer from extreme ignorance of
> semantics.
>

> http://www.amazon.com/For-Rock-Record-Geologists-Intelligent/dp/05202...
>

Money quote:

"For the Rock Record is dedicated to the proposition that the idea of
intelligent design should be of serious concern to everyone. The
purveyors of intelligent design theories and its kindred philosophies
threaten the scientific literacy that our society needs by confusing
faith and the practice of science."

Sorry, folks, but historical geology is not science. Very much like
Darwinism, it's gazing at something static and then telling a story
about how it got that way. Pure phantasy.

Also, why should the idea of intelligent design be of serious concern
to everyone? How does intelligent design and its kindred philosphies
threaten the scientific literacy of our society? Along with Bill Nye
Science Guy and many cranks here on usernet, these authors are
asserting that if everyone doesn't believe their phantasies, then
somehow science will come to a halt. So, pray tell: how did science
proceed in the longlongago before Darwinism and before the current
fad of gradualistic geology? That's right, it proceeded just fine.

See, we don't even have to make predictions about this: we already
know that science carries on just fine whether people believe in
gradualistic geology or Noah's Flood or fiat creation or evolution.
QED.

[David Iain Greig]

prawnster <zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:
> Sorry, folks, but historical geology is not science. Very much like
> Darwinism, it's gazing at something static and then telling a story
> about how it got that way. Pure phantasy.

Also, then, so much for astronomy which is also gazing at something
and then telling a story about how it got that way. Cast them
out of the temple of science, with their telescopes!

And congrats on being the first Uniformitarian here in ages. How did
you manage to post here from the 17th century (this would explain a LOT)?

--D.

--
david iain greig dgr...@ediacara.org
sp4 kox
http://www.ediacara.org/~dgreig arbor plena alouattarum


--D.

[Kermit]

On 21 Sep, 09:45, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 21, 8:15 am, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > A good book, but the authors suffer from extreme ignorance of
> > semantics.
>
> >http://www.amazon.com/For-Rock-Record-Geologists-Intelligent/dp/05202...
>
> Money quote:
>
> "For the Rock Record is dedicated to the proposition that the idea of
> intelligent design should be of serious concern to everyone.  The
> purveyors of intelligent design theories and its kindred philosophies
> threaten the scientific literacy that our society needs by confusing
> faith and the practice of science."
>
> Sorry, folks, but historical geology is not science.  Very much like
> Darwinism, it's gazing at something static and then telling a story
> about how it got that way.

Nothing is static except in your mind. Everything changes, but not
necessarily at a pace that are convenient for humans to perceive. So
you think there are no explanations for the things we see around us -
the bricks in walls, the footsteps in mud, the book on the shelf? No
wonder you are so hostile and ignorant. The world must be a scary,
inexplicable place for you.

>  Pure phantasy.

When a dog hears a conversation, it must sound like barking to him.

>
> Also, why should the idea of intelligent design be of serious concern
> to everyone?

It is part and parcel of the mindset that allows police states, and
denies uncomfortable truths like global warming or credit card bills.

Specifically in the US, it is at the forefront of an assault on
reasoned discourse and public school education. Creationism,
historical revisionism, and religious conformity are constant weapons
in this war on reason and civility.

>  How does intelligent design and its kindred philosphies
> threaten the scientific literacy of our society?  Along with Bill Nye
> Science Guy and many cranks here on usernet, these authors are
> asserting that if everyone doesn't believe their phantasies, then
> somehow science will come to a halt.

No. This betrays you contempt for evidence and reason. To be a member
in good standing of the reality-based community, one does not have to
come to any particular conclusion; one has to arrive there for
evidential reasons.

But to be a Real Man, a True American, a Good Christian, one must
assert certain pseudo-conclusions, and to assert them in the face of
contrary evidence *increases the worth of these tribal markers. Secure
tribal membership requires doubling down against rational discourse.

>  So, pray tell: how did science
> proceed in the longlongago before Darwinism and before the current
> fad of gradualistic geology?  That's right, it proceeded just fine.

And as evidence accumulated, it had to come to different conclusions.

Mainstream evolutionary science is the only *testable model that fits
all the data.

>
> See, we don't even have to make predictions about this: we already
> know that science carries on just fine whether people believe in
> gradualistic geology or Noah's Flood or fiat creation or evolution.
> QED.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! Believing in literal
truth of mythology in the twenty-first century is *just *like science!

Kermit

[John Stockwell]

On Friday, September 21, 2012 10:45:20 AM UTC-6, prawnster wrote:
> On Sep 21, 8:15�am, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > A good book, but the authors suffer from extreme ignorance of
>
> > semantics.
>
> >
>
> > http://www.amazon.com/For-Rock-Record-Geologists-Intelligent/dp/05202...
>
> >
>
>
>
> Money quote:
>
>
>
> "For the Rock Record is dedicated to the proposition that the idea of
>
> intelligent design should be of serious concern to everyone. The
>
> purveyors of intelligent design theories and its kindred philosophies
>
> threaten the scientific literacy that our society needs by confusing
>
> faith and the practice of science."
>
>
>
> Sorry, folks, but historical geology is not science. Very much like
>
> Darwinism, it's gazing at something static and then telling a story
>
> about how it got that way. Pure phantasy.

Historical geology is no different from any other branch of science.

>
>
>
> Also, why should the idea of intelligent design be of serious concern
>
> to everyone? How does intelligent design and its kindred philosphies
>
> threaten the scientific literacy of our society?

If you are filling your brain with ID crap, you aren't working on real
science.

> Along with Bill Nye
>
> Science Guy and many cranks here on usernet, these authors are
>
> asserting that if everyone doesn't believe their phantasies, then
>
> somehow science will come to a halt. So, pray tell: how did science
>
> proceed in the longlongago before Darwinism and before the current
>
> fad of gradualistic geology? That's right, it proceeded just fine.

We haven't used "gradualistic" (by which I would guess
you mean "classical uniformitarian) geology in decades.

>
>
>
> See, we don't even have to make predictions about this: we already
>
> know that science carries on just fine whether people believe in
>
> gradualistic geology or Noah's Flood or fiat creation or evolution.

I suppose that you think that gasoline simply appears magically in
the gas pump. You are fed, clothed, and kept from freezing in the dark by
modern geology and geophysics. In fact, likely your Bible was printed on
paper using chemicals derived from petroleum discovered using the principles
of modern geology.

>
> QED.



-John

[UC]

They discuss arguments against 'transitional fossils', saying some
people claim Archeopteryx is a bird (thus it cannot be transitional)
or that it is a dinosaur (thus it cannot be transitional). The authors
fall into the trap of allowing the use of the word 'bird'. Human
languages refer to the present. The word 'bird' cannot be used to
refer to the remote past, when there were no 'birds' in the modern
sense.

Archeopteryx is neither 'bird' nor 'dinosaur'. It is Archeopteryx and
nothing else.

[Kermit]

It's also a fish, but that's less informative than "bird".

Kermit

[UC]

No, it's not a fish. 'Fish' is a modern word for modern animals.

[UC]

On Sep 21, 5:55 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Archeopteryx is not a bird. There were no birds then.

[prawnster]

On Sep 21, 10:45 am, David Iain Greig <dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:
> [...]

> Also, then, so much for astronomy which is also gazing at something
> and then telling a story about how it got that way.  Cast them
> out of the temple of science, with their telescopes!
>

Let me correct your sentence:
"Also then, so much for cosmology, which is also gazing at something

and then telling a story about how it got that way."

Yes, as I've pointed out repeatedly, cosmology is pure speculative BS,
just like evolution. Cosmology isn't science.

Astronomy, to the degree it restricts itself to repeatedly observing
the
movements of heavenly bodies within the Solar System, is science.

Why so much time for usernet these days, Davey? TV on the fritz?
Or did your husband leave you?

[jillery]

Nobody cares but you.

[UC]

Fuck you and the donkey you rode in on.

[John S. Wilkins]

In fact taxonomic classes are increasingly informative as they are
increasingly (forgive the intended pun) specific. That is, after all,
the purose of classifications. And classifications are, after all, what
informs our language. The idiot UC can't deal with the role of
specilised disciplines (not limited to science, but also engineering,
medicine, music, business, art, politics, and plumbing), but we
understand this...

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

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 22:54:54 -0400, UC wrote
(in article
<b21f5714-d721-4928...@n9g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>):

> On Sep 21, 10:40ï¿œpm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 17:31:15 -0700 (PDT), UC
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>> On Sep 21, 5:55ï¿œpm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 21 Sep, 13:40, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> They discuss arguments against 'transitional fossils', saying some
>>>>> people claim Archeopteryx is a bird (thus it cannot be transitional)
>>>>> or that it is a dinosaur (thus it cannot be transitional). The authors
>>>>> fall into the trap of allowing the use of the word 'bird'. Human
>>>>> languages refer to the present. The word 'bird' cannot be used to
>>>>> refer to the remote past, when there were no 'birds' in the modern
>>>>> sense.
>>
>>>>> Archeopteryx is neither 'bird' nor 'dinosaur'. It is Archeopteryx and
>>>>> nothing else.
>>
>>>> It's also a fish, but that's less informative than "bird".
>>
>>>> Kermit
>>
>>> Archeopteryx is not a bird. There were no birds then.
>>
>> Nobody cares but you.
>
> Fuck you and the donkey you rode in on.
>

You really are an invertebrate pervert.

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

[UC]

On Sep 22, 12:40�am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

> John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net

> But al be that he was a philosophre,
> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

Hah. The cladidiots want to make everything 'fish'. What sort of
fucking idiot can use language that way? We need MORE SPECIFIC
language, not less.

[Richard Norman]

Next think you know someone is going to call you an "animal"!

[John S. Wilkins]

Richard Norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 18:00:46 -0700 (PDT), UC
> <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sep 22, 12:40 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> >> Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On 21 Sep, 13:40, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > > They discuss arguments against 'transitional fossils', saying some
> >> > > people claim Archeopteryx is a bird (thus it cannot be transitional)
> >> > > or that it is a dinosaur (thus it cannot be transitional). The authors
> >> > > fall into the trap of allowing the use of the word 'bird'. Human
> >> > > languages refer to the present. The word 'bird' cannot be used to
> >> > > refer to the remote past, when there were no 'birds' in the modern
> >> > > sense.
> >>
> >> > > Archeopteryx is neither 'bird' nor 'dinosaur'. It is Archeopteryx and
> >> > > nothing else.
> >>
> >> > It's also a fish, but that's less informative than "bird".
> >>
> >> In fact taxonomic classes are increasingly informative as they are
> >> increasingly (forgive the intended pun) specific. That is, after all,
> >> the purose of classifications. And classifications are, after all, what
> >> informs our language. The idiot UC can't deal with the role of
> >> specilised disciplines (not limited to science, but also engineering,
> >> medicine, music, business, art, politics, and plumbing), but we
> >> understand this...
> >>
> >

> >Hah. The cladidiots want to make everything 'fish'. What sort of
> >fucking idiot can use language that way? We need MORE SPECIFIC
> >language, not less.
>
> Next think you know someone is going to call you an "animal"!

He is clearly a mineral. An anthracite, I think.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 22:48:05 -0400, John S. Wilkins wrote
(in article <1kqvkp9.1xlp3nclkra2dN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>):

Oh, he's much softer, and browner, and not nearly as shiny, as that.

[Mark Isaak]

On 9/22/12 6:00 PM, UC wrote:
> On Sep 22, 12:40 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>> Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 21 Sep, 13:40, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> They discuss arguments against 'transitional fossils', saying some
>>>> people claim Archeopteryx is a bird (thus it cannot be transitional)
>>>> or that it is a dinosaur (thus it cannot be transitional). The authors
>>>> fall into the trap of allowing the use of the word 'bird'. Human
>>>> languages refer to the present. The word 'bird' cannot be used to
>>>> refer to the remote past, when there were no 'birds' in the modern
>>>> sense.
>>
>>>> Archeopteryx is neither 'bird' nor 'dinosaur'. It is Archeopteryx and
>>>> nothing else.
>>
>>> It's also a fish, but that's less informative than "bird".
>>
>> In fact taxonomic classes are increasingly informative as they are
>> increasingly (forgive the intended pun) specific. That is, after all,
>> the purose of classifications. And classifications are, after all, what
>> informs our language. The idiot UC can't deal with the role of
>> specilised disciplines (not limited to science, but also engineering,
>> medicine, music, business, art, politics, and plumbing), but we
>> understand this...
>>

> Hah. The cladidiots want to make everything 'fish'.

Not everything. Starfish, jellyfish, and silverfish, for example, are
not fish.

Happy now?

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[jillery]

On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 18:00:46 -0700 (PDT), UC
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

IIUC that's what Wilkins said. Are you now into violent agreements?

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 23:42:40 -0400, Mark Isaak wrote
(in article <k3m0fh$4r6$1...@dont-email.me>):

He will never be happy so long as a single person who knows that dogs are
wolves remains alive.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 00:15:04 -0400, jillery wrote
(in article <033t58dvhs44gt7sl...@4ax.com>):

He's the Language Guy. He's into showing that he knows not how to use
language.

[jillery]

Yeppers.

[John Harshman]

Lignite? Or were you thinking of something softer still?

[Nick Keighley]

On Sep 21, 5:45 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 21, 8:15 am, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > A good book, but the authors suffer from extreme ignorance of
> > semantics.

this is from UC the guy who thinks words don't change over time

> >http://www.amazon.com/For-Rock-Record-Geologists-Intelligent/dp/05202...
>
> Money quote:
>
> "For the Rock Record is dedicated to the proposition that the idea of
> intelligent design should be of serious concern to everyone.  The
> purveyors of intelligent design theories and its kindred philosophies
> threaten the scientific literacy that our society needs by confusing
> faith and the practice of science."

right on the nail

> Sorry, folks, but historical geology is not science.

yes. Yes it is. My uncle was a geologist are you saying he was
mistaken or lying for the whole of his life? He was employed at some
point by a mining company, were they wasting their money? Are oil
companies being conned?

At one time I recall there was an alternative theory about oil
formation; that it seeped up from deep in the earth. An oil company
decided to sponser a drill in a geologically crazy place (Finland?). I
don't recall ever hearing more about this.

> Very much like
> Darwinism, it's gazing at something static and then telling a story
> about how it got that way.  Pure phantasy.

good chunk of astronomy is the same.

> Also, why should the idea of intelligent design be of serious concern
> to everyone? How does intelligent design and its kindred philosphies
> threaten the scientific literacy of our society?

it's the ant-intellectual climate. A significant chunk of the
population are uneducatable. This reduces the pool of smart people.
Smart people are a scarce resource that no country can afford to
squander. America's dominance of science and engineering was probably
triggered by Hitler causing large numbers of smart people to leave
europe.

> Along with Bill Nye
> Science Guy and many cranks here on usernet, these authors are
> asserting that if everyone doesn't believe their phantasies, then
> somehow science will come to a halt.  So, pray tell: how did science
> proceed in the longlongago before Darwinism and before the current
> fad of gradualistic geology?

they knew a lot less. Science worked just fine because peoplelooked at
the evidence. And people eventually worked out how geology worked.
Lyell Hutton etc.

> That's right, it proceeded just fine.

yes, over-throwing superstition and replacing it with real knowledge.

> See, we don't even have to make predictions about this: we already
> know that science carries on just fine whether people believe in
> gradualistic geology or Noah's Flood or fiat creation or evolution.
> QED.

if you want to live in the bronze age (even that requires knowledge of
metallurgy) go ahead, just leave the rest of us out of it.

[Nick Keighley]

On Sep 22, 1:40 am, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 21, 10:45 am, David Iain Greig <dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:

> > Also, then, so much for astronomy which is also gazing at something
> > and then telling a story about how it got that way.  Cast them
> > out of the temple of science, with their telescopes!
>
> Let me correct your sentence:

you mean "corrupt your sentence"

> "Also then, so much for cosmology, which is also gazing at something
> and then telling a story about how it got that way."
>
> Yes, as I've pointed out repeatedly, cosmology is pure speculative BS,
> just like evolution.  Cosmology isn't science.
>
> Astronomy, to the degree it restricts itself to repeatedly observing
> the
> movements of heavenly bodies within the Solar System, is science.

what about stellar evolution? What about the thermo-neuclear processes
that go on in stars? What about the spectra of stars? Super novae?
galaxies? galactic clusters? and super-clusters?

<snip>

[Richard Norman]

Schist is harder and a different color.

[Nick Keighley]

On Sep 23, 10:10 am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> On Sep 21, 5:45 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> > Sorry, folks, but historical geology is not science.
>
> yes. Yes it is. My uncle was a geologist are you saying he was
> mistaken or lying for the whole of his life? He was employed at some
> point by a mining company, were they wasting their money? Are oil
> companies being conned?
>
> At one time I recall there was an alternative theory about oil
> formation; that it seeped up from deep in the earth. An oil company
> decided to sponser a drill in a geologically crazy place (Finland?). I
> don't recall ever hearing more about this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

it was sweden. They spent 40M USD and got zilch

<snip>

[Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org]

On Sunday, September 23, 2012 2:05:16 AM UTC+1, UC wrote:
> Hah. The cladidiots want to make everything 'fish'. What sort of
> fucking idiot can use language that way?

No they don't. On the other hand, I notice that serious and professional
scientists are "what sort of fucking idiot" as far as you're concerned.
I submit that /your/ use of language leaves a great deal to be desired.
You should ask someone whom you respect about that.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 01:48:14 -0400, John Harshman wrote
(in article <goKdnZFdZc8...@giganews.com>):

Much softer.

[jillery]

On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 07:42:29 -0400, Richard Norman

That's not gneiss, but it's funny.

[Paul J Gans]

Now that's an interesting point. I'm aware that it is classed
as a mineral. But would not describing it as "organic remains"
or "fossil trees" be better? After all, mineral to me implies
something inorganic.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Paul J Gans]

Nick Keighley <nick_keigh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sep 21, 5:45?pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:

>> On Sep 21, 8:15?am, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> > A good book, but the authors suffer from extreme ignorance of
>> > semantics.

>this is from UC the guy who thinks words don't change over time

He could look up the word "nice" at

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nice

or any other decent dictionary site that gives word origins.

[snippo]

[Richard Norman]

Sort of depends on how you define both 'mineral' and 'organic'. Is
graphite an organic mineral? diamond? I have seen food supplement
ads advertising "organic calcium".

Where is UC? He is our expert on word usage!

[UC]

On Sep 23, 2:25 pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 17:34:24 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

> >John S. Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:

Busy with Nietzsche.

[Paul J Gans]

Yeah, along with the foods that claim to contain no chemicals.

I would class graphite as a mineral, mainly because it has had
to be remorphed (I think I just invented a word!) to get to
be graphite. Diamond is certainly a mineral. No process I've
ever heard of involving plants, animals, or wee little creatures
of fewer than two cells, produces it (or graphite, for that matter.)

But of course it is all a matter of usage and definition.

>Where is UC? He is our expert on word usage!

Perhaps he's off realizing that the written and spoken language
are different?

[Walter Bushell]

In article
<1d40a56b-bc1d-43f4...@ft6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

Nick Keighley <nick_keigh...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> At one time I recall there was an alternative theory about oil
> formation; that it seeped up from deep in the earth. An oil company
> decided to sponser a drill in a geologically crazy place (Finland?). I
> don't recall ever hearing more about this.

How about Hawaii? That would be a great place to test the theory.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

[Richard Norman]

On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 22:38:53 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans

<gan...@panix.com> wrote:

>Richard Norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 17:34:24 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
>><gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>

<snip to leave only (in)organic chemistry>

>>>>He is clearly a mineral. An anthracite, I think.
>>>
>>>Now that's an interesting point. I'm aware that it is classed
>>>as a mineral. But would not describing it as "organic remains"
>>>or "fossil trees" be better? After all, mineral to me implies
>>>something inorganic.
>
>>Sort of depends on how you define both 'mineral' and 'organic'. Is
>>graphite an organic mineral? diamond? I have seen food supplement
>>ads advertising "organic calcium".
>
>Yeah, along with the foods that claim to contain no chemicals.
>
>I would class graphite as a mineral, mainly because it has had
>to be remorphed (I think I just invented a word!) to get to
>be graphite. Diamond is certainly a mineral. No process I've
>ever heard of involving plants, animals, or wee little creatures
>of fewer than two cells, produces it (or graphite, for that matter.)
>
>But of course it is all a matter of usage and definition.

I used to spend an awful lot of time on the extremely important
"organic" biochemical reaction
H2O + CO2 --> H2CO3 --> H+ + HCO3-
It turns out to be tremendously important in physiology. Red blood
cells are stuffed with the necessary enzyme, carbonic anhydrase, and
the parietal cells in the stomach that secrete HCl are, too. Many
other cells use it to help regulate pH, both intracellular and
extracellular. The "inorganic" version minus the enzyme occurs far
too slowly to be of any use.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <1kqvkp9.1xlp3nclkra2dN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,

Not an irony?

[Paul J Gans]

Ah yes.

One of my favorite things was to try to teach students that there is
a major difference between the overall reaction (which is what you
have up there) and the mechanism, which would be a set of reactions
involving all sorts of intermediates, just as you point out.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 12:48:47 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com>:

Kinky! Him being dead and all...
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

[John S. Wilkins]

Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

He did. He asked himself. He respects nobody else.

[John S. Wilkins]

Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

Minerals have always included what we now recognise to be organic
materials... the distinction itself between inorganic and organic makes
little sense.

[Paul J Gans]

Oh, that's true enough. As you know the distinction was important
long ago when it was thought that organic material could only come
from living things. Wohler's synthesis of urea from inorganic
materials in (wait, clickity click) 1828. The term "organic
material" has essentially been meaningless ever since.

Its one remaining area of importance is to keep friendly feuding
going in chemistry departments between the "organic" chemists
and all the other kinds. And even that is getting old.

[Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org]

On Monday, September 24, 2012 11:10:10 PM UTC+1, John S. Wilkins wrote:
> Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 23, 2012 2:05:16 AM UTC+1, UC wrote:
> > > Hah. The cladidiots want to make everything 'fish'. What sort of
> > > fucking idiot can use language that way?
> >
> > No they don't. On the other hand, I notice that serious and professional
> > scientists are "what sort of fucking idiot" as far as you're concerned.
> > I submit that /your/ use of language leaves a great deal to be desired.
> > You should ask someone whom you respect about that.
>
> He did. He asked himself. He respects nobody else.

How does he feel about Jesus? I ask because of Matthew 5:22.

[John S. Wilkins]

I don't think the words mean the same thing these days...

[John S. Wilkins]

Scientific rivalries never get old. Just older.

[UC]

On Sep 24, 6:10 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-orig...@moderators.isc.org

>
> <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 23, 2012 2:05:16 AM UTC+1, UC wrote:
> > > Hah. The cladidiots want to make everything 'fish'. What sort of
> > > fucking idiot can use language that way?
>
> > No they don't.  On the other hand, I notice that serious and professional
> > scientists are "what sort of fucking idiot" as far as you're concerned.
> > I submit that /your/ use of language leaves a great deal to be desired.
> > You should ask someone whom you respect about that.
>
> He did. He asked himself. He respects nobody else.
> --

> John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net

> But al be that he was a philosophre,
> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

Scientists, too many of them, are blithering idiots, at least when it
comes to verbal skill and explaining things.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <k3qtii$4sp$1...@reader1.panix.com>,

I was understanding that all chemists were organic.

But seriously isn't this like the difference between night and day?
There is twilight which confuses the issue, but surely the chemistry
of making sulfuric acid in quantity and synthesis of DNA are quite
different?

[UC]

On Sep 25, 1:20 pm, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <k3qtii$4s...@reader1.panix.com>,

The WORST people to write about evolution are evolutionary
'scientists'. They're complete twits. They should hire professional
writers to do it.

[jillery]

Of course, I could say the same thing about Nietzsche translators, but
that would also be wrong. After all, I have a sample of only one.

[Richard Norman]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 16:31:30 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I have a sample of two and conclude that half of them are.

[UC]

On Sep 25, 5:45 pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 16:31:30 -0400, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com>

I am the best alive today. Positively.

[Richard Norman]

Here is an interesting review of a translation of "Beyond Good and
Evil" that the reviewer claims "does a much better job than Kaufmann
did (Hollingdale did not even try)"

[Richard Norman]

It would help if I actually cited the review I referred to:
http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/23148-beyond-good-and-evil/

[Glenn]

"Richard Norman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:2vm468dv3g9auih1m...@4ax.com...

Oh, I thought you meant Andy Kaufman in character, being played by UC.

[jillery]

I have read that your daughter dabbles in Nietzsche translations, but
to the best of my recollection I haven't had the pleasure of reading
anything from her. OTOH I have had the sad experience of reading
posts from UC, which consists mostly of repetitious and unsupported
assertions. My impression is your daughter would have to work hard to
demonstrate poorer verbal skills and explanations than him.

[Richard Norman]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 23:23:26 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

I have read (tried to read, actually) my daughter's Nietzsche. I put
the blame on Friedrich. Then again I have tried to read some of her
other philosophical work and there I put my blame on philosophy.

Try reading a molecular biology research paper if you want complete
unintelligibility. Or, better, try organic chemistry or particle
physics!

[UC]

On Sep 26, 9:50�am, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 23:23:26 -0400, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:42:52 -0400, Richard Norman

> ><r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 16:31:30 -0400, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com>

There is a lot of bad prose out there folks....

[UC]

On Sep 26, 9:50 am, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 23:23:26 -0400, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:42:52 -0400, Richard Norman

> ><r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 16:31:30 -0400, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com>

I am NOT in sympathy with the reviewer who prefers literal
translations, and consistency in translating words. Translation is not
about the words but the thoughts behind them. Most writers use several
terms for the same ideas. The trick is to understand his point and
express it as best one can in the idiom of the period. You cannot
translate Nietzsche into contemporary language. It is impossible. He
was a 19th century writer and MUST remain so. And 'Affekt' is simply
'emotion'. 'Affect' is a psychological term or medical term.

[UC]

So if she used 'affect' for 'Affekt' she is wrong. If she translates
'Trieb' always as 'drive' and never as 'instinct' she is wrong.
Everything depends on context. I don't think much of Kaufmann's
translations, but most later ones are even worse.

[UC]

Regarding the translation of 'das Weib' it should be 'woman', perhaps
'Woman', and 'das Weib an sich' could be 'woman as such' or 'woman as
woman'. Not only Kant used this expression 'an sich'. It is a standard
German idiom, perhaps derived from a Latin expression.

[UC]

This is total BS:

"She also seems to display more consistency in using the same English
word to translate the same philosophically relevant German word than
we find in Kaufmann. This is especially important in Nietzsche�s case
because of his mastery of the language he uses. His choice of words
often sets up echos across the text, suggesting unobvious
possibilities for interpretation to those who can hear them. A
translator can make these inaudible. So, for instance, Kaufmann
renders the German word Trieb as both �drive� and �instinct� and then
also uses the latter to translate Instinkt."

Whoever writes this kind of drivel knows nothing about translation.

[UC]

This is from the Intro to my translation, not written by me.

"The title of this work has been given unusual attention by critics
over the years. Nietzsche is making a contribution to the history of
morality or moral values, but the word �genealogy� has at times
suggested that he is doing something radically different. The French
writer Michel Foucault maintained that �genealogy� was fundamentally
different from �history,� and that in the actual text Nietzsche
distinguishes between �origin,� a term belonging to traditional
historiography, and �emergence�, �lineage�, �birth�, and �descent�.
But even a cursory reading of the text demonstrates that Nietzsche
uses terms like �descent� (Herkunft) and �origin� (Ursprung)
interchangeably; indeed, he draws no distinction between history and
genealogy, claiming only that those who have previously engaged in the
history of morals have done so without an appropriate attention to,
and appreciation of, historical phenomena."

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 09:22:38 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com>:

For a change I actually agree with you on this, and anyone
who has read a Japanese instruction manual literally (and
poorly) "translated" into English would probably agree.
Incidentally, I've read that the term for the correct
process is "transliteration" although the dictionary gives a
much more restrictive definition for this, and gives a
primary definition for "translate" ("To render in another
language") more akin to the desired process.

> Most writers use several
>terms for the same ideas. The trick is to understand his point and
>express it as best one can in the idiom of the period. You cannot
>translate Nietzsche into contemporary language. It is impossible. He
>was a 19th century writer and MUST remain so. And 'Affekt' is simply
>'emotion'. 'Affect' is a psychological term or medical term.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 10:50:41 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com>:

Because their papers are opaque to the untrained? That
hardly makes them "twits", and would be an identical
"problem" in any specialized field, scientific or otherwise;
try reading an account of an English cricket match sometime.
Scientific papers, unlike Sunday-supplement "science"
articles, are intended to be read by scientists, not the
general public.

> They should hire professional
>writers to do it.

The "professional writers" would need to understand science
and current scientific terminology in the field in question
in order to make this work; IOW they'd have to actually *be*
scientists, or at least have the same knowledge as the
scientists for whom they're writing.

[UC]

On Sep 26, 1:10�pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 09:22:38 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC

> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com>:

Well, I wasn't born yesterday.....

[UC]

On Sep 26, 1:15�pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 10:50:41 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC

> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com>:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sep 25, 1:20�pm, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> In article <k3qtii$4s...@reader1.panix.com>,
> >> �Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Its one remaining area of importance is to keep friendly feuding
> >> > going in chemistry departments between the "organic" chemists
> >> > and all the other kinds. �And even that is getting old.
>
> >> I was understanding that all chemists were organic.
>
> >> But seriously isn't this like the difference between night and day?
> >> There is twilight which confuses the issue, but surely the chemistry
> >> of making sulfuric acid in quantity and synthesis of DNA are quite
> >> different?
>
> >> --
> >> This space unintentionally left blank.
>
> >The WORST people to write about evolution are evolutionary
> >'scientists'. They're complete twits.
>
> Because their papers are opaque to the untrained?

Not at all. Many are not native speakers, and few understand the
function of writing and have the knack for it.

> That
> hardly makes them "twits", and would be an identical
> "problem" in any specialized field, scientific or otherwise;
> try reading an account of an English cricket match sometime.
> Scientific papers, unlike Sunday-supplement "science"
> articles, are intended to be read by scientists, not the
> general public.

Perhaps so, but scientists are generally the worst writers, perhaps
because so many are not native speakers.

[UC]

On Sep 26, 9:50�am, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 23:23:26 -0400, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:42:52 -0400, Richard Norman

> ><r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 16:31:30 -0400, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com>

'Das Weib an sich' could be 'woman per se'.

[Richard Norman]

On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 10:06:15 -0700 (PDT), UC
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Sep 26, 1:00�pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> we find in Kaufmann. This is especially important in Nietzsche�s case

>> because of his mastery of the language he uses. His choice of words
>> often sets up echos across the text, suggesting unobvious
>> possibilities for interpretation to those who can hear them. A
>> translator can make these inaudible. So, for instance, Kaufmann

>> renders the German word Trieb as both �drive� and �instinct� and then

>> also uses the latter to translate Instinkt."
>>
>> Whoever writes this kind of drivel knows nothing about translation.
>
>This is from the Intro to my translation, not written by me.
>
>"The title of this work has been given unusual attention by critics
>over the years. Nietzsche is making a contribution to the history of

>morality or moral values, but the word �genealogy� has at times

>suggested that he is doing something radically different. The French

>writer Michel Foucault maintained that �genealogy� was fundamentally
>different from �history,� and that in the actual text Nietzsche
>distinguishes between �origin,� a term belonging to traditional
>historiography, and �emergence�, �lineage�, �birth�, and �descent�.

>But even a cursory reading of the text demonstrates that Nietzsche

>uses terms like �descent� (Herkunft) and �origin� (Ursprung)

>interchangeably; indeed, he draws no distinction between history and
>genealogy, claiming only that those who have previously engaged in the
>history of morals have done so without an appropriate attention to,
>and appreciation of, historical phenomena."

Six consecutive posts by one person! Methinks the good semiotician
doth protest too much. The translator I have in mind is a tenured
full professor who incidentally receives royalty checks from Cambridge
Univ. Press for it. Somebody must think the work is OK.

I now await the expected diatribe against the academic community in
general and philosophy departments in specific.

[UC]

On Sep 26, 2:05�pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 10:06:15 -0700 (PDT), UC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 26, 1:00�pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >> we find in Kaufmann. This is especially important in Nietzsche�s case

> >> because of his mastery of the language he uses. His choice of words
> >> often sets up echos across the text, suggesting unobvious
> >> possibilities for interpretation to those who can hear them. A
> >> translator can make these inaudible. So, for instance, Kaufmann

> >> renders the German word Trieb as both �drive� and �instinct� and then

> >> also uses the latter to translate Instinkt."
>
> >> Whoever writes this kind of drivel knows nothing about translation.
>
> >This is from the Intro to my translation, not written by me.
>
> >"The title of this work has been given unusual attention by critics
> >over the years. Nietzsche is making a contribution to the history of

> >morality or moral values, but the word �genealogy� has at times

> >suggested that he is doing something radically different. The French

> >writer Michel Foucault maintained that �genealogy� was fundamentally
> >different from �history,� and that in the actual text Nietzsche
> >distinguishes between �origin,� a term belonging to traditional

> >historiography, and �emergence�, �lineage�, �birth�, and �descent�.

> >But even a cursory reading of the text demonstrates that Nietzsche

> >uses terms like �descent� (Herkunft) and �origin� (Ursprung)

> >interchangeably; indeed, he draws no distinction between history and
> >genealogy, claiming only that those who have previously engaged in the
> >history of morals have done so without an appropriate attention to,
> >and appreciation of, historical phenomena."
>

> Six consecutive posts by one person! �Methinks the good semiotician
> doth protest too much. �The translator I have in mind is a tenured

> full professor who incidentally receives royalty checks from Cambridge

> Univ. Press for it. �Somebody must think the work is OK.

>
> I now await the expected diatribe against the academic community in
> general and philosophy departments in specific.

Why should I bother? The sort of people you mention are the LEAST
qualified to do translation work.

I have received my advances from my publisher. So that makes us even.
No, it doesn't, I am better.

[UC]

send me your e-mail and I will send you my work, to show you what I am
talking about

[Richard Norman]

I really have no interest in reading or evaluating your translations.
I am only interested in the fact that there is an abundance of people
doing Nietzsche translation. I will let Nietzsche scholars evaluate
their relative merits.

Incidentally, Nietzsche is not the only German philosopher my daughter
has translated for publication. There is also Hegel, Schelling and
Schopenhauer. However her "real" work is published in philosophy
journals and book articles.

[UC]

On Sep 26, 4:30 pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 12:47:36 -0700 (PDT), UC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

My approach is wholistic, which is something that escapes 'scholars'.
'Scholars' have no business doing translations. At best, they should
be advisors. There are questions of style, vocabulary, etc. that are
simply beyond their comprehension and abilities. Translating is a
sideline for scholars, but that does NOT mean that scholars should be
doing it at all. They should not.

[UC]

On Sep 26, 4:30 pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 12:47:36 -0700 (PDT), UC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Translation is like tennis. It's something that you have to possess a
knack for.

[UC]

On Sep 26, 4:30 pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 12:47:36 -0700 (PDT), UC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hegel is the Devil, Schilling and Schopenhauer are of minor interest
to me but should be more popular than they are.

[Richard Norman]

There is not "one thing" called "translation". It is many different
things for many different purposes.

Read "Is That a Fish in Your Ear? Translation and the Meaning of
Everything" by David Bellos.

[UC]

Of course that is true, and this is where 'scholars' fall short. A
translation has to be made with certain 'controls' in place, so to
speak, and with a specific sort of audience in mind. Most important of
all is avoiding 'contamination' from our own time, as well as avoiding
'interference' from the German.

Scholars sometimes forget that they are dealing with something that
was not written last week, or try to minimise the gap. You cannot do
that.

[UC]

Oh, though I have not read that particular book (which I shall
endeavour to find) I have read tons and tons of literature on the
subject.

[UC]

> There is not "one thing" called "translation". �It is many different

> things for many different purposes.
>

> Read "Is That a Fish in Your Ear? �Translation and the Meaning of
> Everything" by David Bellos.

Some of the hardest things to get 'scholars' to understand are
stylistic issues, and to understand that these are probably more
important that 'philosophical' ones. First of all, it has to sound
like a 19th century work. You have to have 19th century English at
your fingertips. I read tons of Victorian literature (Trollope among
others) so I have a good feel for Victorian style. You must ignore the
German sentence structure to some extent. You have to ignore his
punctuation. You have to understand how someone would express his
point in English the way it would be expressed by an educated
Victorian British aristocrat.

Note this passage:

84.
Die Philologie des Christenthums. � Wie wenig das Christenthum den
Sinn f�r Redlichkeit und Gerechtigkeit erzieht, kann man ziemlich gut
nach dem Charakter der Schriften seiner Gelehrten absch�tzen: sie
bringen ihre Muthmaassungen so dreist vor wie Dogmen und sind �ber der
Auslegung einer Bibelstelle selten in einer redlichen Verlegenheit.
Immer wieder heisst es �ich habe Recht, denn es steht geschrieben ��
und nun folgt eine unversch�mte Willk�rlichkeit der Auslegung, dass
ein Philologe, der es h�rt, mitten zwischen Ingrimm und Lachen stehen
bleibt und sich immer wieder fragt: ist es m�glich! ist diess ehrlich?
Ist es auch nur anst�ndig?

84
The philology of Christianity � How poorly Christianity cultivates a
sense of integrity can be inferred from the character of the writings
of its scholars. They set out their conjectures as audaciously as if
they were dogmas, and are but seldom at a loss as to the
interpretation of a passage in Scripture. Again and again they say, �I
am right, for it is written� � and then follows an interpretation
which, utterly without foundation, takes such outrageous liberties
that a philologist, when he hears it, is torn between anger and
laughter, asking himself again and again: Is it possible? Is it
honest? Is it even decent?


The part: "an interpretation which, utterly without foundation, takes
such outrageous liberties" is NOT a literal translation, but I could
not come up with any literal translation as good as this.

[John S. Wilkins]

UC <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

...

> My approach is wholistic, which is something that escapes 'scholars'.
> 'Scholars' have no business doing translations. At best, they should
> be advisors. There are questions of style, vocabulary, etc. that are
> simply beyond their comprehension and abilities. Translating is a
> sideline for scholars, but that does NOT mean that scholars should be
> doing it at all. They should not.

So much is explained!

[John S. Wilkins]

Richard Norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Try reading a molecular biology research paper if you want complete
> unintelligibility. Or, better, try organic chemistry or particle
> physics!

I always get a kick out of biologists who tell philosophers how
impenetrable they are...

[John S. Wilkins]

Bilgewater. On their own fields, most scientists have spent years
talking and explaining to the uninformed (i.e., students) and can
communicate very well indeed when the ledium permits. Mostly the
problems arise when journalists, who generally don't know that the earth
orbits the sun, get involved.

> >
> > > They should hire professional
> > >writers to do it.
> >
> > The "professional writers" would need to understand science
> > and current scientific terminology in the field in question
> > in order to make this work; IOW they'd have to actually *be*
> > scientists, or at least have the same knowledge as the
> > scientists for whom they're writing.

To be a *good* science communicator you need to master two fields - the
science and the techniques - and to have a medium or outlet by which you
can express thinsg unfiltered. Few manage to do this. Ed Yong, Carl
Zimmer and a precious few others manage this. Byt and large the problem,
however, is the "professional writers" who specialised in English
studies or politics and understand nothing about the physical world by
words.

[UC]

On Sep 26, 5:55�pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

This is quite false.

> Mostly the
> problems arise when journalists, who generally don't know that the earth
> orbits the sun, get involved.

Journalists no longer exist. Read "How I found Livingstone" by
Stanley. Here was a man who could write!

> > > > They should hire professional
> > > >writers to do it.
>
> > > The "professional writers" would need to understand science
> > > and current scientific terminology in the field in question
> > > in order to make this work; IOW they'd have to actually *be*
> > > scientists, or at least have the same knowledge as the
> > > scientists for whom they're writing.
>
> To be a *good* science communicator you need to master two fields - the
> science and the techniques - and to have a medium or outlet by which you
> can express thinsg unfiltered. Few manage to do this. Ed Yong, Carl
> Zimmer and a precious few others manage this. Byt and large the problem,
> however, is the "professional writers" who specialised in English
> studies or politics and understand nothing about the physical world by
> words.

Huh?

> --
> John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net

[UC]

On Sep 26, 5:55�pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

> Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Try reading a molecular biology research paper if you want complete
> > unintelligibility. �Or, better, try organic chemistry or particle
> > physics!
>
> I always get a kick out of biologists who tell philosophers how
> impenetrable they are...
> --

Scientists are barely literate. The more educated they are, the worse
they are.

[Paul J Gans]

Hear, hear!

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[UC]

On Sep 26, 6:40�pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> John S. Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:

Scientists are nearly illiterate and must learn to write as well as
Stanley or Darwin to be taken seriously by the general public. This
book is a farce.

[UC]

My amazon.com review:

This is a collection of essays by scientists. If they expect to reach
the public, they need to learn to write much better. They also need to
learn a great deal more about language. For instance, in the article
about Archeopteryx, the author offers critiques of several arguments
presented by creationists. He neglects to point out (or is perhaps
entirely oblivious to the fact) that Archeopteryx cannot be a 'bird'
because 'bird' is a term for the contemporary world. There were no
'birds' then. Archeopteryx is neither 'bird' nor 'dinosaur'; it can be
called only 'Archeopteryx' and nothing else. It is not a
'transitional' animal either, because we have no idea what, if any,
successors it may have led to, and we have no idea whether it is the
ancestor of 'birds'.

The use of vernacular terms such as 'bird' to refer to remote ancient
eras is a mistake. Our language refers to today's world. The fact that
these 'scientists' don't understand this makes for considerable
confusion and undermines their credibility.

As usual, stupidity reigns in academe....

Why do they even bother?

Scientists are nearly illiterate and must learn to write as well as
Stanley or Darwin to be taken seriously by the general public. This

book is a farce. Send these people back to grade school and teach them
how to read and write.

[Free Lunch]

On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 16:24:38 -0700 (PDT), UC
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.origins:

Scientists rarely try to write for ignorant fools who refuse to learn
anything about science.

[UC]

On Sep 26, 8:00 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 16:24:38 -0700 (PDT), UC

> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.origins:

Huh? Not what I was saying at all. I'm talking about basic literary
skills.

[Paul J Gans]

UC <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Sep 26, 6:40?pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> John S. Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> On Sep 26, 1:15 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >> > On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 10:50:41 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> >> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
>> >> > <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com>:
>>
>> >> > >On Sep 25, 1:20 pm, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>> >> > >> In article <k3qtii$4s...@reader1.panix.com>,

>> >> > >> ?Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > >> > Its one remaining area of importance is to keep friendly feuding
>> >> > >> > going in chemistry departments between the "organic" chemists

>> >> > >> > and all the other kinds. ?And even that is getting old.

>> ? ?--- Paul J. Gans

>Scientists are nearly illiterate and must learn to write as well as
>Stanley or Darwin to be taken seriously by the general public. This
>book is a farce.

You are another one that thinks that using a nym allows you to
say anything, no matter how stupid, and get away with it.

As others have noted, you are a fool.

[UC]

No, scientists who don't understand how to present ideas clearly and
with all the nuances intact are the fools. Scientists who allow
creationists to define the argument are a disgrace. I was looking at
the chapter on Archeopteryx and was disgusted at how inept the
presentation was.

[UC]

Scientists keep trying to defend idiotic terms such as 'transitional'
fossils and wonder why people object. The term is wrong. THERE ARE NO
TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS.

[UC]

Of course, that chapter was written by a woman. Typical.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <1kr2lih.1luq7yxufvznnN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,

jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

> UC <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> ...
> > My approach is wholistic, which is something that escapes 'scholars'.
> > 'Scholars' have no business doing translations. At best, they should
> > be advisors. There are questions of style, vocabulary, etc. that are
> > simply beyond their comprehension and abilities. Translating is a
> > sideline for scholars, but that does NOT mean that scholars should be
> > doing it at all. They should not.
>
> So much is explained!

The puzzle is "How can someone who can type grammatical sentences and
meaningful paragraphs can be so stupid?".

[Walter Bushell]

In article <62d668lkcejullm7e...@4ax.com>,

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> >I am NOT in sympathy with the reviewer who prefers literal
> >translations, and consistency in translating words. Translation is not
> >about the words but the thoughts behind them.
>

> For a change I actually agree with you on this, and anyone
> who has read a Japanese instruction manual literally (and
> poorly) "translated" into English would probably agree.
> Incidentally, I've read that the term for the correct
> process is "transliteration" although the dictionary gives a
> much more restrictive definition for this, and gives a
> primary definition for "translate" ("To render in another
> language") more akin to the desired process.

Well as a fish I never go anyplace without a porpoise, as Dr.
Professor Chuckie Darwin would say. Hence, literal translations have
their place, but not the best for most porpoises.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <1kr2lda.4ersq81lwvr2sN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,

jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

> To be a *good* science communicator you need to master two fields - the
> science and the techniques - and to have a medium or outlet by which you
> can express thinsg unfiltered. Few manage to do this. Ed Yong, Carl
> Zimmer and a precious few others manage this. Byt and large the problem,
> however, is the "professional writers" who specialised in English
> studies or politics and understand nothing about the physical world by
> words.

Didn't you mean "but words" rather than "by words".

[jillery]

On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 23:08:49 -0400, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
wrote:

The advances in artificial intelligence is remarkable, but not yet
complete.

[jillery]

On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 09:45:16 -0400, Richard Norman
<r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 23:23:26 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:42:52 -0400, Richard Norman
>><r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 16:31:30 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:22:54 -0700 (PDT), UC
>>>><uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>>
>>>>>On Sep 24, 6:10 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>>>>>> Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-orig...@moderators.isc.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>>>>>> > On Sunday, September 23, 2012 2:05:16 AM UTC+1, UC wrote:
>>>>>> > > Hah. The cladidiots want to make everything 'fish'. What sort of
>>>>>> > > fucking idiot can use language that way?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > No they don't.  On the other hand, I notice that serious and professional
>>>>>> > scientists are "what sort of fucking idiot" as far as you're concerned.
>>>>>> > I submit that /your/ use of language leaves a great deal to be desired.
>>>>>> > You should ask someone whom you respect about that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He did. He asked himself. He respects nobody else.

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

>>>>>Scientists, too many of them, are blithering idiots, at least when it
>>>>>comes to verbal skill and explaining things.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Of course, I could say the same thing about Nietzsche translators, but
>>>>that would also be wrong. After all, I have a sample of only one.
>>>
>>>I have a sample of two and conclude that half of them are.
>>
>>

>>I have read that your daughter dabbles in Nietzsche translations, but
>>to the best of my recollection I haven't had the pleasure of reading
>>anything from her. OTOH I have had the sad experience of reading
>>posts from UC, which consists mostly of repetitious and unsupported
>>assertions. My impression is your daughter would have to work hard to
>>demonstrate poorer verbal skills and explanations than him.
>
>I have read (tried to read, actually) my daughter's Nietzsche. I put
>the blame on Friedrich. Then again I have tried to read some of her
>other philosophical work and there I put my blame on philosophy.

>
>Try reading a molecular biology research paper if you want complete
>unintelligibility. Or, better, try organic chemistry or particle
>physics!

I assume that your daughter is an actual human being, with a life that
consists of more than translating Nietzsche. The above was my
hamfisted and futile attempt to extract from you if she had ever
posted anything to T.O.

[Richard Norman]

On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 06:29:41 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

She has a rather full life managing a career around a family which
includes the two most delightful grandchildren in the entire universe.
That leaves no time for nonsense such as this group -- I am retired
and so have nothing better to do.

She writes the most delightful prose in letters and various
commentaries and lucid and expressive text in blogs promoting various
social activism causes. However she also writes the most turgid and
impenetrable stuff in philosophy. That was what I was attempting to
say. In her defense, every specialist's writings are incomprehensible
to non-specialists and for good reason no matter what UC may bellow.