First Pluto is not a planet, and now . . . .
Triceratops 'never really existed but was just a young version of another dinosaur' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1299666/Triceratops-really-existed.html or http://tinyurl.com/28tbfy8 ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: First Pluto is not a planet, and now . . . .
On 03/08/2010, at 8:24 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: Triceratops 'never really existed but was just a young version of another dinosaur' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1299666/Triceratops-really-existed.html Or more precisely, it's been discovered that _Torosaurus_ has been discovered to be mature _Triceratops_. And in this case, I believe _Triceratops_ has precedence so _Torosaurus_ is folded in. Stupid headlines and stupid commenters and stupid reporting and fascist owners are why I won't touch the Daily Mail... And this isn't news at all, btw - http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=are-torosaurus-and-triceratops-one-2009-09-28 is 10 months old. But thanks, it's a great example of science at work. It's also becoming common - lots of what were thought to be different species are becoming merged as the numbers of specimens increases. What we're learning is that some dinosaurs had some pretty impressive phenotypic plasticity through their lifetimes. C. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: First Pluto is not a planet, and now . . . .
Charlie Bell wrote: But thanks, it's a great example of science at work. It's also becoming common - lots of what were thought to be different species are becoming merged as the numbers of specimens increases. What we're learning is that some dinosaurs had some pretty impressive phenotypic plasticity through their lifetimes. There can't be too many different species, Noah's Ark wasn't big enough to carry them all! Alberto Monteiro ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: First Pluto is not a planet, and now . . . .
On 03/08/2010, at 10:35 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Charlie Bell wrote: But thanks, it's a great example of science at work. It's also becoming common - lots of what were thought to be different species are becoming merged as the numbers of specimens increases. What we're learning is that some dinosaurs had some pretty impressive phenotypic plasticity through their lifetimes. There can't be too many different species, Noah's Ark wasn't big enough to carry them all! Convert cubits to metric. It's much bigger then... ;-) C. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: First Pluto is not a planet, and now . . . .
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 5:35 AM, Alberto Monteiro albm...@centroin.com.brwrote: There can't be too many different species, Noah's Ark wasn't big enough to carry them all! What, evolution stopped with the Ark? As long as we're on that subject, it dawned on me a while ago that the trouble I have with creationists is that they believe in a God who is too stupid to have created evolution. Nick ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: First Pluto is not a planet, and now . . . .
On 3 Aug 2010, at 16:10, Nick Arnett wrote: On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 5:35 AM, Alberto Monteiro albm...@centroin.com.br wrote: There can't be too many different species, Noah's Ark wasn't big enough to carry them all! What, evolution stopped with the Ark? As long as we're on that subject, it dawned on me a while ago that the trouble I have with creationists is that they believe in a God who is too stupid to have created evolution. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=faith-and-foolishness Every two years the National Science Foundation produces a report, Science and Engineering Indicators, designed to probe the public’s understanding of science concepts. And every two years we relearn the sad fact that U.S. adults are less willing to accept evolution and the big bang as factual than adults in other industrial countries. ... When presented with the statement “human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals,” just 45 percent of respondents indicated “true.” Compare this figure with the affirmative percentages in Japan (78), Europe (70), China (69) and South Korea (64). -- William T Goodall Mail : w...@wtgab.demon.co.uk Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://blog.williamgoodall.name/ Debunking bullshit is a thankless task. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: First Pluto is not a planet, and now . . . .
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 8:29 AM, William T Goodall w...@wtgab.demon.co.ukwrote: ... When presented with the statement “human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals,” just 45 percent of respondents indicated “true.” Compare this figure with the affirmative percentages in Japan (78), Europe (70), China (69) and South Korea (64). Americans apparently are increasingly afraid of lightning. It is bad luck to be superstitious! Nick ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: First Pluto is not a planet, and now . . . .
On Aug 3, 2010, at 10:33 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 8:29 AM, William T Goodall w...@wtgab.demon.co.uk wrote: ... When presented with the statement “human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals,” just 45 percent of respondents indicated “true.” Compare this figure with the affirmative percentages in Japan (78), Europe (70), China (69) and South Korea (64). Americans apparently are increasingly afraid of lightning. Hey, self=fulfilling prophecy and confirmation bias are sort of a national cultural tradition around here. :p (The people who answered false might rightly claim that 1. they've always believed in non-evolutionary creation, and 2. they've never been hit by lightning, so it must be working, right? ;) ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: First Pluto is not a planet, and now . . . .
_ From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Nick Arnett Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 10:34 AM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: First Pluto is not a planet, and now . . . . It is bad luck to be superstitious! Yes, it is. I get extremely annoyed at myself for giving in to superstitious thinking on certain things, and whenever I start beating myself up, I'm usually doing it in front of someone who can see exactly *why* my brain is doing what it's doing, and just has sympathy and reassurance. Julia ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Creationism [was: First Pluto is not a planet, and now . . . .]
Nick Arnett wrote: There can't be too many different species, Noah's Ark wasn't big enough to carry them all! What, evolution stopped with the Ark? As long as we're on that subject, it dawned on me a while ago that the trouble I have with creationists is that they believe in a God who is too stupid to have created evolution. I think the problem with creationists is that it's a good excuse for satanism. If God is such a motherfscker to create the world in six days and place everywhere signs that the Earth is 5 billion years old and the Universe is 15 billion years old, just to deceive His creation, then Satan can't be that bad in rebelling. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: First Pluto is not a planet, and now . . . .
On Aug 3, 2010, at 10:10 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: As long as we're on that subject, it dawned on me a while ago that the trouble I have with creationists is that they believe in a God who is too stupid to have created evolution. They also believe in a god who loves them so much that he'll destroy them if they don't believe totally in him and do everything he says without question. And who killed and then resurrected his son just to show them he meant business. That's always sounded like a rather unhealthy kind of relationship to me. You wanna tempt the wrath of the whatever from high atop the thing? -- Toby Ziegler ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Creationism [was: First Pluto is not a planet, and now . . . .]
On Aug 3, 2010, at 10:13 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Nick Arnett wrote: There can't be too many different species, Noah's Ark wasn't big enough to carry them all! What, evolution stopped with the Ark? As long as we're on that subject, it dawned on me a while ago that the trouble I have with creationists is that they believe in a God who is too stupid to have created evolution. I think the problem with creationists is that it's a good excuse for satanism. If God is such a motherfscker to create the world in six days and place everywhere signs that the Earth is 5 billion years old and the Universe is 15 billion years old, just to deceive His creation, then Satan can't be that bad in rebelling. I've actually heard the claim that all the evidence that the earth is 5 billion years old (and so forth) are tricks of the devil, designed to erode our faith in God. Not just read it somewhere, but heard it spoken as though it was true. Then again, there's the Jewish tradition that The Satan isn't an embodiment of pure evil or some bad dude in red pajamas with a goatee and a pitchfork, but is, in fact, the prosecuting angel, whose role is to find out whether believers are truly faithful. He works _for_ God in that capacity and asks permission from God to do what he does. The idea that Christianity or Judaism believe that the devil is a separate but (thankfully, not quite) equal power to God is nonsense: it goes against the whole idea of monotheism. You can accept or not accept the monotheistic God of Judeo-Christianity as you see fit, but you can't accept it _and_ have this other power floating out there, too. He works for God or he doesn't exist. Dave ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Creationism [was: First Pluto is not a planet, and now . . . .]
The idea that Christianity or Judaism believe that the devil is a separate but (thankfully, not quite) equal power to God is nonsense: it goes against the whole idea of monotheism. You can accept or not accept the monotheistic God of Judeo-Christianity as you see fit, but you can't accept it _and_ have this other power floating out there, too. He works for God or he doesn't exist. I think that Enoch was a monotheistic Jew. Most of the common understanding of the devil comes from Enoch. Indeed, in the book of Jude, Enoch was quoted as scripture. The idea of the Satan as chief of the fallen angels who used their divinely given free will to oppose God doesn't contradict monotheism. It sorta puts Satan as a super-Hitler...someone who can convince others to do evil, and can do evil on his own, but a creature of God who sins. Non-monotheistic Judaism is seen earlier in the Old Testament, before, say, Isaiah and Jeremiah. The gods of the Egyptians, for example, were not considered a fantasy, but weaker gods than Yahweh. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Creationism [was: First Pluto is not a planet, and now . . . .]
On Aug 3, 2010, at 12:48 PM, Dave Land wrote: The idea that Christianity or Judaism believe that the devil is a separate but (thankfully, not quite) equal power to God is nonsense: it goes against the whole idea of monotheism. You can accept or not accept the monotheistic God of Judeo-Christianity as you see fit, but you can't accept it _and_ have this other power floating out there, too. He works for God or he doesn't exist. Dave It is fun, however, to point out to Satanists that they are, in fact, at least indirectly Christians. It makse their heads explode quite entertainingly. :D HAH, YES. HE ACTUALLY SAYS IN HIS LETTER, I BET YOU DON'T EXIST 'COS EVERYONE KNOWS ITS YORE PARENTS. OH YES, said Death, with what almost sounded like sarcasm, I'M SURE HIS PARENTS ARE JUST IMPATIENT TO BANG THEIR ELBOWS IN TWELVE FEET OF NARROW UNSWEPT CHIMNEY, I DON'T THINK. (: HAPPY HOGSWATCH :) ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Creationism [was: First Pluto is not a planet, and now . . . .]
On 3 Aug 2010, at 19:35, Bruce Bostwick wrote: On Aug 3, 2010, at 12:48 PM, Dave Land wrote: The idea that Christianity or Judaism believe that the devil is a separate but (thankfully, not quite) equal power to God is nonsense: it goes against the whole idea of monotheism. You can accept or not accept the monotheistic God of Judeo-Christianity as you see fit, but you can't accept it _and_ have this other power floating out there, too. He works for God or he doesn't exist. Dave It is fun, however, to point out to Satanists that they are, in fact, at least indirectly Christians. It makse their heads explode quite entertainingly. :D I point out that Christians are actually Satanists. One big happy pantheon Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : w...@wtgab.demon.co.uk Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://blog.williamgoodall.name/ Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Creationism [was: First Pluto is not a planet, and now . . . .]
On Aug 3, 2010, at 4:00 PM, William T Goodall wrote: On 3 Aug 2010, at 19:35, Bruce Bostwick wrote: On Aug 3, 2010, at 12:48 PM, Dave Land wrote: The idea that Christianity or Judaism believe that the devil is a separate but (thankfully, not quite) equal power to God is nonsense: it goes against the whole idea of monotheism. You can accept or not accept the monotheistic God of Judeo-Christianity as you see fit, but you can't accept it _and_ have this other power floating out there, too. He works for God or he doesn't exist. Dave It is fun, however, to point out to Satanists that they are, in fact, at least indirectly Christians. It makse their heads explode quite entertainingly. :D I point out that Christians are actually Satanists. One big happy pantheon Maru In the sense that Christians, Satanists, Jews, and Muslims are all part of the same larger belief-system, at least. Sibling rivalry Maru ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Creationism [was: First Pluto is not a planet, and now . . . .]
On 04/08/2010, at 3:48 AM, Dave Land wrote: Then again, there's the Jewish tradition that The Satan isn't an embodiment of pure evil or some bad dude in red pajamas with a goatee and a pitchfork, but is, in fact, the prosecuting angel, whose role is to find out whether believers are truly faithful. He works _for_ God in that capacity and asks permission from God to do what he does. So God needs to use entrapment? Charlie. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Creationism [was: First Pluto is not a planet, and now . . . .]
On Aug 3, 2010, at 3:49 PM, Charlie Bell wrote: On 04/08/2010, at 3:48 AM, Dave Land wrote: Then again, there's the Jewish tradition that The Satan isn't an embodiment of pure evil or some bad dude in red pajamas with a goatee and a pitchfork, but is, in fact, the prosecuting angel, whose role is to find out whether believers are truly faithful. He works _for_ God in that capacity and asks permission from God to do what he does. So God needs to use entrapment? Heh. I just report 'em. I don't make 'em up. This is the sort of thing that makes me a very liberal Christian. Dave ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Creationism [was: First Pluto is not a planet, and now . . . .]
So God needs to use entrapment? Heh. I just report 'em. I don't make 'em up. This is the sort of thing that makes me a very liberal Christian. In defense of the Jews of about 400 BCE to 200 BCE their theology was actually a bit different than the characterization of it by folks who haven't studied what they wrote. At the time, everyone in the area were very aware of overkings and underkings; and of the overkings court. In post-Restoration Jewish though, the great court was Yahweh's. He had, as court functionaries, the equivalent of the DA and the advocate for humans: Satan and Michael. In the stories, Satan's job was to test man...to see if he would keep covenant, and to argue for man's failings. Michael's was to be man's advocate. Michael tended to win, but Satan had his proper role. In many ancient, and actually modern, social structures, one had to be tested, to be refined in the flame to be proven worthy and true. That testing was Satan's job. But, from the standpoint of the Jews, he was rather too zealous in his work. Thu, in God's mercy, we were given a stronger advocate. Even when the theology changed to Enoch's, Michael was still stronger than Satan. God, of course, ruled all, but allowed for his creatures to have the freedom of their own wills. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
