Would you guys both take the discussion offlist? Please? > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] On Behalf Of MIKE OSSIPOFF > Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 4:18 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [EM] Very brief Russ reply > > > Russ said: > > I made the mistake of trying to persuade him that the 9/11 > attacks were > unlikely to have been planned and organized by someone > involved with the > Bush Administration. However, I cannot "prove" that it wasn't, which > apparently means to Mike that I have tried and failed to "refute" this > conspiracy theory. > > I reply: > > First, a conspiracy occurs whenever 2 or more people agree to > commit a > crime. Thousands of people go to jail for conspiracies. No > one doubts that > 9/11 was a conspiracy by that standard definition. It's just > a question of > whether a few foreign indivuduals successfully conspired to > do 9/11 on their > own, a particularly improbable conspiracy theory, and one > contradicted by > mountains of evidence. > > Russ continued: > > What I *can* do, however, is to demonstrate that such a > conspiracy would > be massive in its scope > > I reply: > > No one has denied that. > > Russ continued: > > and absurdly risky for anyone to attempt. > > I reply: > > Russ is repeating a replied-to argument without referring > to the reply, a > common practice of Russ's, but one whilch violates this > mailing list's > guidelines (as does his bringing up 9l/11). > > Maybe it wasn't so risky when considering the gullibility of > the public, and > the media's support for the president. > > Russ continued: > > As I wrote before, Mike believes passionately that the WTC was wired > with explosives that were detonated > > I reply: > > Passionately? I didn't say that. I believe that apparently ordinary > explosive demolition is consistent with the physical evidence > and witness > reports, and the opinions of fire-protection experts, and that the > administration's story of collapse by fire is inconsistent with that > evidence. But it isn't entirely clear where Russ gets > "passionately". Except > that, as I said, Russ says things that give him satisfaction > to hear himself > say, without regard to other considerations such as what Russ > believes to be > true. > > Russ continued: > > on cue to bring the buildings down. > Now, you can amuse yourself without end by imagining the logistics of > managing something like that without getting caught. > > I reply: > > A close member of Bush's family was in charge of security > there. That could > help some. > > Russ continued: > > > But it goes way > beyond that. In the course of our discussions, I sent Mike a > link about > an analysis of the WTC collapse by a prestigious team of > perhaps dozens > of structural engineering experts. I don't have the link handy, but I > recall that they won an award for their work. > > I reply: > > Actuallly I receilved no such link. If Russ had one, he'd > have included it > in his posting. > > Was their award awarded by the Independent 9/11 Committee? :-) > > Russ continues: > > I haven't read their report, but I think we can safely assume that we > would know it if they had concluded that the WTC couldn't > have collapsed > as it did without pre-installed explosives. They obviously came to no > such conclusion. But Mike read a book by a *theologian* who makes that > very claim -- that the WTC could not have possibly collapsed as it did > with pre-installed explosives -- and that was good enough for him. He > dismisses my citing of the professional study as an "appeal > to authority." > > I reply: > > What else do you call it? You invoke a link that yoiu don't > give us, ans say > that it proves your point. > > Russ continued: > > By the way, I should have pointed out earlier that Mike told me via > email that the EM group is already aware of his views on 9/11. > > I replyi: > > In one discussion about Gore vs Nader, I conceded that if > Gore had been > allowed to take the office that he'd won, he wouldn't have > paticipated in a > terrorist act that killed 3000 Americans, and so a Gore > presidency would be > significantly better than a Bush presidency. But I that > doesn't mean we > shoudl vote for Democrats, just because there's somone much worse. > > I'd said: > > "The funny thing is that that comes from someone who believes that the > evolution of species has never taken place." > > Russ replied: > > Mike thinks he trumps me whenever he brings up my views on evolution. > The only problem is that he distorts my views. I never said or wrote > what he claims. > hat I have made clear is that I do not believe that we > could have gotten here by purely naturalistic processes with > absolutely > no intelligent design or guidance (as the Neo-Darwinian Theory of > Evolution (NDT) says). > > I reply: > > No, actually you were initiallyy saying that no evolution of species > happened. You call that "macro-evolution", and you were > angrily arguing > against it. But yes, later you backed down from that > position, replacing it > with something conveniently impossible to verify or disprove. > > Ruiss continiued: > > Do you suppose "natural selection" can > work if a million harmful mutations occur for every beneficial one? > > I reply: > > Where do you get the million figure? I thought you said that > no figure was > available. > > No one denies that most mutations reduce the survivability of the > individual. But a few increase the individual's > survivability. As long as > the frequency of the mutations isn't such as to kill off the entire > population (and it obviously is not) then the fact that > harmful mutations > are more common than beneficial ones is irrelevant. A few > mutations happen. > A few individuals don't survive. A far fewer number are > benefited. The > benefiting individuals produce more offspring and thereby become more > numerous in the population. That's called natural selection. > > Evolution speeded up when sexual reproduction began. Then, > variety increased > due to shuffling of existing genes. > > When a split-off population is isolated in a new environment, > eventuallly > those gradual changes can naturallly be expected to make that > population > reproductively incompatible with the parent population, and > with other > offshoot populations. Reproductive incompatibility is the > usual standard for > a different species. But define different species how you > want to. It's > hardly surprising that those gradual changes will sometimes > change the > population enough to make it qualify as a different species. > > I respect people's religion, but Russ wants to substitute his > for science. > There's nothing iimplausible about natural selection leading > to evolution of > species. > > Russ continued: > > Radio engineers know that you cannot recover a signal if the > signal/noise ratio is too low, but evolutionists apparently think that > "natural selection" can "select" good mutations without being > overwhelmed by the bad ones *regardless* of the ratio. That's > nonsense. > > I reply: > > Russ isn't being entirely clear with us about what he means. > Experience > shows that mutation doesn't happen with sufficient severity > and frequency to > kill off entire populations typically, if that's what he's > talking about. > The few adversely mutated individuals die or doen't do as > well. The fewer > beneficially mutated individuals do better than the others, > and so their > attrilbutes eventually predominate, given sufficient time. > > What selects the beneficial mutations from the harmful ones? The > beneficially mutated individuals thrive and the adversely > mutated ones die, > or do poorly. Which part of that doesn't Russ understand? > > Mike Ossipoff > > _________________________________________________________________ > FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now! > http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/ > > ---- > Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em > for list info >
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
