Re: [Vo]:Creationism (was Re:OT: periodic table)
Thomas sez: OrionWorks wrote: Thomas sez: The discussion in question was on the Wall Builders, all one I suspect many progressives have difficulty following the logic attributed to comments such as ...a biblically based legal system is superior to all others. from the very next comment where Supremacy, based on religion is associated with the reign of the Taliban. Well, when you find another nation, where you are freer and richer than we are, let me know. I've read your reply several times and I have yet to adequately comprehend what it might be that you're really asking me to clarify for your benefit. It might be due to the possibility that IMO, you haven't adequately comprehended the ramifications of what it is that you're really asking of me. Nevertheless, I'll give it a try. My childhood was spent growing up in Japan, Formosa, Guam, and El Salvador. I've had the rare luxury of experiencing a number of interesting world cultures and POVs. I eventually came to live in Madison Wisconsin back around 1967. I like living in Madison, Wisconsin. I like to think that we Madisonians are located reasonably close within the heartland of the good'ol USA. Truth of the matter is that since my 1967 transplant I have felt no pressing desire to once again uproot myself, to re-experience the rich tapestries of other countries. Maybe I just hate to travel extensively. In any case, it's probably an admission of ignorance on my part for there are several countries, particularly in the European commonwealth that would likely dispute your conviction on the matter of who is truly freer and richer. Complicating matters, an incomprehensible irony often lost within the personal paradigms of certain individuals is the discovery that the citizenry of some nations may consider the word free to be a four-letter word. They may feel that to be free eventually leads one to the doorstep of the devil. They WANT someone in authority to tell them what they should do with their lives, and how they should go about doing it, hour-by-hour, day-by-day. They LIKE being inside a cage of predictable boundaries. It isolates them from a cacophony of bewildering choices and the terrifying consequences of being forced to live with the consequences of those personal choices freedom lays at our doorstep. And while we're on the subject of four letter words, other individuals may also feel that being rich is just as evil. Granted, I don't agree with those opinions, but so be it. I have no idea if these personal observations were of any benefit to you. Probably not. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Creationism (was Re:OT: periodic table)
OrionWorks wrote: Thomas sez: The discussion in question was on the Wall Builders, all one I suspect many progressives have difficulty following the logic attributed to comments such as ...a biblically based legal system is superior to all others. from the very next comment where Supremacy, based on religion is associated with the reign of the Taliban. Well, when you find another nation, where you are freer and richer than we are, let me know. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [Vo]:Creationism (was Re:OT: periodic table)
Thomas sez: The discussion in question was on the Wall Builders, all one word .com, program. David Barton talks about the beliefs of the founding fathers. It was clear to us that a Biblically based legal system is superior to all others. This is not clear to many people, particularly those who favor what is called the Progressive Agenda. If you want to see supremacy, based on religion, you need to study the reign of the Taliban. I suspect many progressives have difficulty following the logic attributed to comments such as ...a biblically based legal system is superior to all others. from the very next comment where Supremacy, based on religion is associated with the reign of the Taliban. Personally, I think the expression of such opinions, particularly as combined together above, performs an excellent job shooting its own agenda in the foot. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Creationism (was Re:OT: periodic table)
Hey Jeff, Yea !, They haven't even got warmed up yet. After religion- evolution somebody got started on global warming and next will be politics. Just shows you what a good education at one of our universities will buy. After all , if they don't teach you to hold your drinks at the Dime Box Saloon, it means our educational system has failed. Too bad some missed a good report in NET that Steve wrote regarding attending the conference in India. Richard Jeff Fink wrote, the contributors to this forum represent the most amazing dichotomy I have ever encountered
Re: [Vo]:Creationism (was Re:OT: periodic table)
thomas malloy wrote: As for Radical Islamists R I's teaching their children to be shaids (martyrs), they are honoring their god. Dawkins can't see any difference between the two religious systems. Of course he can! You may not agree with Dawkins -- I have some quarrels with him myself -- but you should not put words in his mouth or ascribe to him views that he does not hold. This is a strawman argument fallacy. Dawkins does not care for any form of religion, but he understands perfectly well that some forms are extremely dangerous, but others cause little or no harm. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Creationism (was Re:OT: periodic table)
On 7/2/2008 12:40 AM, thomas malloy wrote: Jed Rothwell wrote: thomas malloy wrote: Harry Veeder wrote: Did Dawkins say exactly that? It was reported on one of the Salem Radio Network talk shows. They are normally reliable, but not inerrorant. Dawkins did say exactly that: teaching religion is a form of child abuse. He said that in the book and elsewhere. However, taken out of context it sounds worse than it is. Actually, I think everyone would agree with Dawkins about some extreme forms of religious belief. In particular, people who strongly believe in one religion often feel that indoctrination in any other religion causes harm. In other Most fundamentalist evangelicals believe that Christianity is able to compete in an open market of ideas. Competing to what end? Supremacy? Harry
RE: [Vo]:Creationism (was Re:OT: periodic table)
Richard, With the exception of you, Mr. Malloy, and me, the contributors to this forum represent the most amazing dichotomy I have ever encountered. With open minds and open eyes they fearlessly assail the bastions of physics, and with rather meager amounts of experimental data and observations, manage to crack its foundations. These same people, when presented with problematic observations that conflict with the theories cherished by paleontologists, geologists, and astronomers choose to also ignore these problems and side with the entrenched academia. Unproven theories and speculations, like the existence of an Ort Cloud, are accepted as Gospel. I don't get it. When these guys look down one channel of science, they are courageous, open minded, and analytical. When they look down another channel they turn into, into... I don't know what! They have no investigative curiosity when they come up against THE THEORY. Do you think it is because the alternative is just too frightful for them to deal with? Jeff -Original Message- From: R.C.Macaulay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 10:06 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Creationism (was Re:OT: periodic table) Howdy Vorts, The bartender at the Dime Box Saloon stops serving tequila to patrons that get into arguments on either religion or politics. It is a waste of time and eventually results in somebody breaking the mirror behind the bar which starts a brawl. A smart patron knows when thing start getting out of hand because evolutionists start digressing into voodoo science and creationists start thinking they can argue with drunks. Richard Harry wrote, I see Sheldrake was talking about telepathy. A few years I had an idea for a telepathy experiment for telepathically challenged people like myself. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.20/1259 - Release Date: 2/4/2008 8:42 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.21/1263 - Release Date: 2/6/2008 8:14 PM
Re: [Vo]:Creationism (was Re:OT: periodic table)
Harry Veeder wrote: On 7/2/2008 12:40 AM, thomas malloy wrote: Jed Rothwell wrote: thomas malloy wrote: Harry Veeder wrote: Did Dawkins say exactly that? It was reported on one of the Salem Radio Network talk shows. They are normally reliable, but not inerrorant. Dawkins did say exactly that: teaching religion is a form of child abuse. He said that in the book and elsewhere. However, taken out of context it sounds worse than it is. Actually, I think everyone would agree with Dawkins about some extreme forms of religious belief. In particular, people who strongly believe in one religion often feel that indoctrination in any other religion causes harm. In other Most fundamentalist evangelicals believe that Christianity is able to compete in an open market of ideas. Competing to what end? Supremacy? Harry The discussion in question was on the Wall Builders, all one word .com, program. David Barton talks about the beliefs of the founding fathers. It was clear to us that a Biblically based legal system is superior to all others. This is not clear to many people, particularly those who favor what is called the Progressive Agenda. If you want to see supremacy, based on religion, you need to study the reign of the Taliban. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [Vo]:Creationism (was Re:OT: periodic table)
thomas malloy wrote: Harry Veeder wrote: Did Dawkins say exactly that? It was reported on one of the Salem Radio Network talk shows. They are normally reliable, but not inerrorant. Dawkins did say exactly that: teaching religion is a form of child abuse. He said that in the book and elsewhere. However, taken out of context it sounds worse than it is. Actually, I think everyone would agree with Dawkins about some extreme forms of religious belief. In particular, people who strongly believe in one religion often feel that indoctrination in any other religion causes harm. In other words, many Christians don't like to see children being indoctrinated in the Muslim religion, and vice versa. Very few people outside of the extreme Muslim cults think it is a good idea to dress small children in martyr outfits with fake bombs on them. That seems like child abuse to me. Dawkins gives some other examples. He described a woman who, when she was a small child, had her best friend killed in an automobile accident. The parents told her that her dead friend was in hell because she was not Catholic. The thought terrified her for years, and caused long-term psychiatric damage. That is child abuse, by any reasonable standard. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Creationism (was Re:OT: periodic table)
Howdy Michel, A real old antique Mickey Mouse watch is valuable just like Disney stock is up up. This has little to do with the mysterious planet you made reference to... well.. err. except .. if you drink enough French wine it can get your head spinning like the planet you told us about. you may even get to believing you're one of those monkeys. There are sur'nuff people that patronize the Dime Box saloon that look and act like monkeys and they sur'nuff evolved from sum'tin..I guess what you wonder like we do..is.. where did they come from.. we think they came from New Orleans and you must think they 'evolved.. don't much matter cuz once they get on welfare they have more money to spend at the Dime Box. Richard Michel Jullian wrote, ...evolution and Mickey Mouse watches...
Re: [Vo]:Creationism (was Re:OT: periodic table)
Jed Rothwell wrote: thomas malloy wrote: Harry Veeder wrote: Did Dawkins say exactly that? It was reported on one of the Salem Radio Network talk shows. They are normally reliable, but not inerrorant. Dawkins did say exactly that: teaching religion is a form of child abuse. He said that in the book and elsewhere. However, taken out of context it sounds worse than it is. Actually, I think everyone would agree with Dawkins about some extreme forms of religious belief. In particular, people who strongly believe in one religion often feel that indoctrination in any other religion causes harm. In other Most fundamentalist evangelicals believe that Christianity is able to compete in an open market of ideas. dead friend was in hell because she was not Catholic. The thought terrified her for years, and caused long-term psychiatric damage. That is child abuse, by any reasonable standard. Touches As for Radical Islamists R I's teaching their children to be shaids (martyrs), they are honoring their god. Dawkins can't see any difference between the two religious systems. R I's are famous for their opposition to freedom in general, and religious freedom in particular. IMHO, you have to be blind not to see the difference between the two religions. well what else would you expect from a member of CSICOP, eh? BTW, I throughly enjoyed the link to Professor Sheldrake's page with the Dawkin's anecdote. I sent him a letter mentioning Otto Schmitt's disdain for the Skeptic magazine, and his fascination with metaphysics. In particular, his bending spoons with Yuri Geller. Dr. Sheldrake's assistant replied that she had forwarded it to him. She doubts that Dr. Dawkin's accepts the validity of Remove Viewing. Now if I can just tie this flat bastard file in a knot! --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [Vo]:Creationism (was Re:OT: periodic table)
Harry wrote.. Is this intended as an argument against an eternal universe? Didn't ask that question, Perhaps you can give your insight on the subject. The measure and the thing being measured are not necessarily one and the same thing. You may have become attached to the unattached to make such a statement. A simple explanation of a yardstick will suffice but please include your reason for knowing measure rather than the thing being measured.. Time is a watch? Watch the pointer hands on a watch move as it ticks. Do you happen to notice something strange ? You must wait for the hands to circle the face. Folks at the Dime Box Saloon hoss shoe pitching and debate society eagerly await your wisdom on the subject, and pass me down that jar of pickled eggs on the bar while you've thunk about it. Richard
RE: [Vo]:Creationism (was Re:OT: periodic table)
When we consider excavated observations ranging from the Cambrian explosion to overthrusts to polystrate tree trunks, it is clear to me that the theory of evolution is fatally flawed and totally bankrupt. So, where do I go for the truth about our origins? Jeff P.S. I can't seem to find the verse about the sun rising out of the ocean. Could you give me a more specific reference so I can look it up. Thanks. -Original Message- From: Michael Foster [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 5:59 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Creationism (was Re:OT: periodic table) I really hate to jump in on such a subject that is so far off topic, but this is something that has bugged me for years. I really don't understand what the argument is about. I'm not religious, nor am I much of an atheist (requires too much faith in the unknown). As God works in mysterious ways, I can't see why evolution isn't one of them. A literal interpretation of the Bible holds no water as we seem to agree that the sun doesn't rise up from the ocean as it says in Genesis. Thus, it's an allegorical document, inspiring as it may be, its moral truth given by example. You might even say that He can be found in the fine- structure constant. After all, Richard Feynman himself rather hinted at such an idea. All else in the universe grows from alpha, all the atomic structure, all the chemistry and all the evolution. My ways are not your ways, seems to put it nicely. Not much original thinking here, but maybe it should be repeated from time to time, just to calm everyone down. M. Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.19/1256 - Release Date: 2/2/2008 1:50 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.20/1259 - Release Date: 2/4/2008 8:42 PM
RE: [Vo]:Creationism (was Re:OT: periodic table)
Jeff Fink wrote: When we consider excavated observations ranging from the Cambrian explosion to overthrusts to polystrate tree trunks, it is clear to me that the theory of evolution is fatally flawed and totally bankrupt. And it is clear to me that you don't know much about biology, or evolution. You sound a little like people who assert with unshakable confidence that cold fusion cannot be real. Do you really suppose there are huge unsolved problems in biology, but hundreds of thousands of biologists worldwide deny that, or they haven't noticed? Again, that's like saying the McKubre, Storms, Fleischmann and hundreds of others make gross errors in calorimetry, but they never noticed or they don't want to admit it. I think you should have more respect for professional knowledge, and for over a hundred years of patient, dedicated research by millions of people. I do not like to see people reject scientific conclusions out of hand without deep knowledge of a subject. This has been the whole problem with cold fusion. People think that the problem is insufficient openness to new ideas, but I think it is mainly insufficient discipline and attention to the conventional rules of science. I am, as Fleischmann says, a painfully conventional person. If everyone would play by the rules and do their homework, there would be no dispute about cold fusion, and certainly no grave doubts about evolution. So, where do I go for the truth about our origins? The truth is obvious and indisputable. We are the product of natural selection. It explains everything discovered so far, and I see no likelihood that it will fail to explain some future discovery, such as rabbits in the Precambrian (J. S. Haldane's example of how evolution might be falsified). Along the same lines, thomas malloy wrote: The aforementioned show just infuriated me. What we want is to point out to the little darlings to rather complex mechanisms behind life. The structure that turns the flagellum, the electron transfer mechanism, the optic nerve, DNA in general and it's folding in particular, come to mind. These things are described in any advanced textbook on biology. No one is trying to prevent kids from learning about them! My kids high school textbooks covered such things. I cannot understand why you are upset. The only dispute is over the origin of this complexity. The biologists who discovered these complex mechanisms also discovered mountains of evidence that the complexity is the result of natural selection. Other people -- who know nothing about biology -- claim that it is the result of some cosmic intelligence at work. Again, this reminds me of skeptics who get upset because calorimeters and mass spectroscopy demonstrates over and over again that cold fusion is real. Why get upset about proven facts? Nature is as it is, and the universe does not care what you think. It was suggested that I put together a talk and market my services to schools, IMHO that sounds like fun. I could purchase a copy of that DVD on cellular mechanisms and take it as a tax deduction. There are any number of good textbooks at schools describing cellular mechanisms. There is no need for you to make one, and especially no need for one that proposes bogus mechanisms to explain these things. We know in great detail how and why cellular mechanisms evolved, and we are learning more every year. We don't need an alternative theory any more than cold fusion scientists need fruitcakes such as Shanahan to tell them why calorimetry doesn't work. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Creationism (was Re:OT: periodic table)
On 5/2/2008 7:55 AM, R.C.Macaulay wrote: Harry wrote.. Is this intended as an argument against an eternal universe? Didn't ask that question, Perhaps you can give your insight on the subject. I was trying to understand your remark. The measure and the thing being measured are not necessarily one and the same thing. You may have become attached to the unattached to make such a statement. A simple explanation of a yardstick will suffice but please include your reason for knowing measure rather than the thing being measured.. I didn't say it is better knowing measure. A doctor can measure my height with a yard stick but that doesn't mean she knows me. Time is a watch? Watch the pointer hands on a watch move as it ticks. Do you happen to notice something strange ? You must wait for the hands to circle the face. We wait for many things. Sometimes we wait for the sun to go down or for the rain to end. We wait for the movie to begin. We wait to use the toilet... Folks at the Dime Box Saloon hoss shoe pitching and debate society eagerly await your wisdom on the subject, and pass me down that jar of pickled eggs on the bar while you've thunk about it. Richard Harry
Re: [Vo]:Creationism (was Re:OT: periodic table)
no, fundamentalist christian creationists are less than 3 percent of the population. They just shout a lot louder then everyone else. On 2/4/08, Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In school it's only mentioned in a historical context here. I understand there are very many (10%?) creationists in the US, I was just wondering if/to what extent public school teaching was affected by this. Michel - Original Message - From: OrionWorks [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 3:23 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re:OT: periodic table On 2/4/08, Michel Jullian wrote: Excellent :))) BTW, to what extent is creationism taught (or evolution discredited) in US schools? Any other country where this happens? Michel What's creationism's status in France? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks -- That which yields isn't always weak.
Re: [Vo]:Creationism (was Re:OT: periodic table)
Thomas sez: TheTwincities Creation Science Society has a DVD of Dr. Dawkins debating another scientist. He seems so reasonable. OTOH, he maintians that teaching your children about the Bible is child abuse. Those are fighting words! Surprisingly, there are times when I actually sympathize with your POV even though as you well know, typically I don't. I have an old science fiction atheist friend who is a respected card carrying member of the atheist/agnostic movement in Madison, Wisconsin. Recently he got another of his letters published in TIME magazineAGAIN. His letter was on whether to teach Christianity in our schools. Surprisingly, he thinks it's a good idea to expose children to the basic history that resulted in Judean-Christianity. His letter argued rather convincingly, IMO, that the Judeo-Christian perspective currently frames how a large part of our American society has defined itself. It's important, he stated, to understand and educate our children with the underlying concepts of Judeo-Christian perspective as it would help explain why vast portions of our society have behaved and responded to world events in the manner that they have within modern history. He believed teaching these perspectives would ultimately help our children become better informed, more capable of eventually making up their own minds. I suspect my atheist colleague hopes most rational children, once educated, will eventually chose to explore alternative perspectives. IMO, It's best to teach as many POVs possible. Not educating our children about what was recorded in the bible is just plain stupid. It's also ironic. Many atheists would have easy pickings highlighting specific biblical incidents that would seem to hint that Christianity's claim that we need to love one another as ourselves does not always seem to follow its own advice. This is particularly the case as recorded in Old Testament lore where the unfolding drama between men and women was flagrantly homicidal at times. So... let the little darlings make up their own minds. They eventually will anyway when all those lovely little hormones kick in, all that fun stuff combined with the urge to declare one's sovereign independence from the parental units. Incidentally, if the tables had been turned and the only official philosophy taught in schools was atheism I suspect you would consider that child abuse, would you not? Pehaps you and Mr. Dawkins are not that different from one another. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.Zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Creationism (was Re:OT: periodic table)
OrionWorks sez: The Creationists lost their case. It's my understanding that for the moment Intelligent Design aka Creationsism is not considered a viable scientific theory and should not be taught in schools as an alternative scientific theory. Thomas sez: The aforementioned show just infuriated me. What we want is to point out to the little darlings to rather complex mechanisms behind life. The structure that turns the flagellum, the electron transfer mechanism, the optic nerve, DNA in general and it's folding in particular, come to mind. It was suggested that I put together a talk and market my services to schools, IMHO that sounds like fun. I could purchase a copy of that DVD on cellular mechanisms and take it as a tax deduction. Ah, teaching the little darlings how g_d bakes her cookies, and getting a tax deduction to boot! What more could one ask for! If you do put together your educational talk for the little darlings I hope you will be willing to at least point to an example of how the amazing flagellum could have evolved over eons as suggested by the theory of evolution. Intelligent Designers claim that the mechanical design of the flagellum is just too complex to have gradually evolved in tiny evolutionary steps. IDers claimed there exists no recorded intermediary steps that lead to the amazing flagellum mechanism. The flagellum mechanism is essentially a rotating propeller propelling the bacterium through the medium. Where were the intermediate steps that led up to the flagellum, IDers argued. But that's precisely what a few biologists revealed - an intermediary step. There exists a strain of bacteria that possesses a spike or spear on one end. I believe the spike was used to spear it's host to gain entry and/or to inject toxin. When the spike was analyzed it turned out to be an exact replica of the flagellum MINUS ONE ESSENTIAL PROTEIN. Missing that one essential protein resulted in the flagellum being incapable of rotating like a propeller. Sans that missing protein it is the flagella design in every other aspect - a good example of a simplified pre-evolutionary-step that could have lead to the propeller flagellum. What's amazing about this pre-step variation is that the spike results in a completely different function that turns out to be advantageous for the bacterium. I suspect that if IDer's had gotten their hands on the spike-like bacterium first before focusing on the flagellum mechanism they would have argued the exact same POV, claiming there exist no pre-steps leading to the bacterium's spear. The line in the sand is constantly being redrawn to preserve the sanctity of one's ideology. IMO, it's not an advisable approach to follow when teaching the little darlings how science evolves. The debate is never ending. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Creationism (was Re:OT: periodic table)
I'm an engineer. I have been thoroughly indoctrinated in traditional physics, yet I believe in cold fusion because there are sufficient facts and observations to convince me. The three example problems with evolution that I mentioned in my last post have no viable explanations. The lame reasoning for these peculiar events given by our trusted scientific community, make me laugh. I was once a dedicated and vocal supporter of The Theory up until my early twenties. As a kid, I gave my poor Sunday school teacher, Mr. Dunkleburger, such a rough time on the subject that he told my Dad I was the son of the devil. I was snowed by the public school system on the subject of evolution, but not any more. Jeff -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 11:54 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Creationism (was Re:OT: periodic table) Jeff Fink wrote: When we consider excavated observations ranging from the Cambrian explosion to overthrusts to polystrate tree trunks, it is clear to me that the theory of evolution is fatally flawed and totally bankrupt. And it is clear to me that you don't know much about biology, or evolution. You sound a little like people who assert with unshakable confidence that cold fusion cannot be real. Do you really suppose there are huge unsolved problems in biology, but hundreds of thousands of biologists worldwide deny that, or they haven't noticed? Again, that's like saying the McKubre, Storms, Fleischmann and hundreds of others make gross errors in calorimetry, but they never noticed or they don't want to admit it. I think you should have more respect for professional knowledge, and for over a hundred years of patient, dedicated research by millions of people. I do not like to see people reject scientific conclusions out of hand without deep knowledge of a subject. This has been the whole problem with cold fusion. People think that the problem is insufficient openness to new ideas, but I think it is mainly insufficient discipline and attention to the conventional rules of science. I am, as Fleischmann says, a painfully conventional person. If everyone would play by the rules and do their homework, there would be no dispute about cold fusion, and certainly no grave doubts about evolution. So, where do I go for the truth about our origins? The truth is obvious and indisputable. We are the product of natural selection. It explains everything discovered so far, and I see no likelihood that it will fail to explain some future discovery, such as rabbits in the Precambrian (J. S. Haldane's example of how evolution might be falsified). Along the same lines, thomas malloy wrote: The aforementioned show just infuriated me. What we want is to point out to the little darlings to rather complex mechanisms behind life. The structure that turns the flagellum, the electron transfer mechanism, the optic nerve, DNA in general and it's folding in particular, come to mind. These things are described in any advanced textbook on biology. No one is trying to prevent kids from learning about them! My kids high school textbooks covered such things. I cannot understand why you are upset. The only dispute is over the origin of this complexity. The biologists who discovered these complex mechanisms also discovered mountains of evidence that the complexity is the result of natural selection. Other people -- who know nothing about biology -- claim that it is the result of some cosmic intelligence at work. Again, this reminds me of skeptics who get upset because calorimeters and mass spectroscopy demonstrates over and over again that cold fusion is real. Why get upset about proven facts? Nature is as it is, and the universe does not care what you think. It was suggested that I put together a talk and market my services to schools, IMHO that sounds like fun. I could purchase a copy of that DVD on cellular mechanisms and take it as a tax deduction. There are any number of good textbooks at schools describing cellular mechanisms. There is no need for you to make one, and especially no need for one that proposes bogus mechanisms to explain these things. We know in great detail how and why cellular mechanisms evolved, and we are learning more every year. We don't need an alternative theory any more than cold fusion scientists need fruitcakes such as Shanahan to tell them why calorimetry doesn't work. - Jed No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.20/1259 - Release Date: 2/4/2008 8:42 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.20/1259 - Release Date: 2/4/2008 8:42 PM
Re: [Vo]:Creationism (was Re:OT: periodic table)
Did Dawkins say exactly that? I saw him interviewed on the BBC late last year and he said he objected to the religious labelling of children, as in My child is Catholic or That child is Jewish. He said they should be free to self-identify with a particular religion when they are old enough. Harry Thomas sez: TheTwincities Creation Science Society has a DVD of Dr. Dawkins debating another scientist. He seems so reasonable. OTOH, he maintians that teaching your children about the Bible is child abuse. Those are fighting words!
Re: [Vo]:Creationism (was Re:OT: periodic table)
Harry Veeder wrote: Did Dawkins say exactly that? [about child abuse] Dawkins says a lot of things. Some, taken out of context, sound pretty extreme. But mainly he is a typical witty, British academic intellectual -- nothing to be afraid of. I saw him interviewed on the BBC late last year and he said he objected to the religious labelling of children, as in My child is Catholic or That child is Jewish. He said they should be free to self-identify with a particular religion when they are old enough. He says that more often, more seriously, and he has a good point. Dawkins has a misplaced belief in the open mindedness of science. He thinks that scientists are easily willing to give up beliefs in the fact of evidence that contradicts them. He obviously does not know the history of cold fusion. Brian Josephson has a link to a document showing that Dawkins is not as dispassionate and objective as he thinks himself to be: http://www.sheldrake.org/DC/controversies/Dawkins.html This is a common failing among scientists. No doubt all of us are guilty of it, but I think it is better for a person to admit his failings, and to agree that he is dogmatic about some ideas, and incapable of objectivity. For example, I admit that no amount of historical or sociological proof (such as the book Collapse) would convince me that the human race cannot overcome global warming and prevent a catastrophe. I know how bad things are. I know that we might destroy ourselves. But I cannot believe catastrophe is inevitable. I cannot believe that we are automatons without free will, doomed to keep repeating stupid, wasteful, destructive acts until we kill ourselves. We do seem that way at times! Perhaps free will is an illusion, but it is one that I cannot free myself from believing. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Creationism (was Re:OT: periodic table)
Jed sez: ... Dawkins has a misplaced belief in the open mindedness of science. He thinks that scientists are easily willing to give up beliefs in the fact of evidence that contradicts them. He obviously does not know the history of cold fusion. Brian Josephson has a link to a document showing that Dawkins is not as dispassionate and objective as he thinks himself to be: http://www.sheldrake.org/DC/controversies/Dawkins.html From the on-line article: It's not a low grade debunking exercise; it's a high grade debunking exercise. Now, that's funny! Thanks, Jed. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Creationism (was Re:OT: periodic table)
On 5/2/2008 4:26 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Harry Veeder wrote: Did Dawkins say exactly that? [about child abuse] Dawkins says a lot of things. Some, taken out of context, sound pretty extreme. But mainly he is a typical witty, British academic intellectual -- nothing to be afraid of. I saw him interviewed on the BBC late last year and he said he objected to the religious labelling of children, as in My child is Catholic or That child is Jewish. He said they should be free to self-identify with a particular religion when they are old enough. He says that more often, more seriously, and he has a good point. Dawkins has a misplaced belief in the open mindedness of science. He thinks that scientists are easily willing to give up beliefs in the fact of evidence that contradicts them. He obviously does not know the history of cold fusion. Brian Josephson has a link to a document showing that Dawkins is not as dispassionate and objective as he thinks himself to be: http://www.sheldrake.org/DC/controversies/Dawkins.html This is a common failing among scientists. No doubt all of us are guilty of it, but I think it is better for a person to admit his failings, and to agree that he is dogmatic about some ideas, and incapable of objectivity. For example, I admit that no amount of historical or sociological proof (such as the book Collapse) would convince me that the human race cannot overcome global warming and prevent a catastrophe. I know how bad things are. I know that we might destroy ourselves. But I cannot believe catastrophe is inevitable. I cannot believe that we are automatons without free will, doomed to keep repeating stupid, wasteful, destructive acts until we kill ourselves. We do seem that way at times! Perhaps free will is an illusion, but it is one that I cannot free myself from believing. - Jed I see Sheldrake was talking about telepathy. A few years I had an idea for a telepathy experiment for telepathically challenged people like myself. The experiment would consist of an image sender and an image receiver, the internet and a collection of digital images. The image sender would view a supplied digital image and then intentionally send the image to an image receiver. However, a devilish program would be allowed to randomly intercept the image and replace it with a different image. The task of the image receiver would be to guess 'yes' or 'no' if they received the same image as sent by the image sender. The receiver is not expected to visualise mentally what the sender sees. He is also not expected to match the senders image with an image from a set of images before him. If telepathy is entirely a myth, you would expect the receiver to guess correctly 50% of the time in the long run. The number of image senders and receivers could also be varied to see if telepathic effect is intensified by the number of participants. Harry Veeder.
Re: [Vo]:Creationism (was Re:OT: periodic table)
Howdy Vorts, The bartender at the Dime Box Saloon stops serving tequila to patrons that get into arguments on either religion or politics. It is a waste of time and eventually results in somebody breaking the mirror behind the bar which starts a brawl. A smart patron knows when thing start getting out of hand because evolutionists start digressing into voodoo science and creationists start thinking they can argue with drunks. Richard Harry wrote, I see Sheldrake was talking about telepathy. A few years I had an idea for a telepathy experiment for telepathically challenged people like myself.
Re: [Vo]:Creationism (was Re:OT: periodic table)
OrionWorks wrote: Thomas sez: TheTwincities Creation Science Society has a DVD of Dr. Dawkins debating another scientist. He seems so reasonable. OTOH, he maintians that teaching your children about the Bible is child abuse. Those are fighting words! Surprisingly, there are times when I actually sympathize with your POV even though as you well know, typically I don't. I have an old science Incidentally, if the tables had been turned and the only official philosophy taught in schools was atheism I suspect you would consider that child abuse, would you not? That is what is being taught in the schools, thank you. At last night's Republican caucus, I introduced a resolution, it would have allowed school's to present different world views, it failed. The World continues to deteriorate Pehaps you and Mr. Dawkins are not that different from one another. Night and day. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [Vo]:Creationism (was Re:OT: periodic table)
Harry Veeder wrote: Did Dawkins say exactly that? It was reported on one of the Salem Radio Network talk shows. They are normally reliable, but not inerrorant. I saw him interviewed on the BBC late last year and he said he objected to the religious labelling of children, as in My child is Catholic or That child is Jewish. He said they should be free to self-identify with a particular religion when they are old enough. Harry Thomas sez: TheTwincities Creation Science Society has a DVD of Dr. Dawkins debating another scientist. He seems so reasonable. OTOH, he maintians that teaching your children about the Bible is child abuse. Those are fighting words! --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [Vo]:Creationism (was Re:OT: periodic table)
From Michel Jullian In school it's only mentioned in a historical context here. I understand there are very many (10%?) creationists in the US, I was just wondering if/to what extent public school teaching was affected by this. Michel You may find the following amusing. ;-) A PBS NOVA program recently did an insightful job of describing the recent creationism debate in America where an attempt had been made by proponents of that POV to force the school board to teach the theory of Intelligent Design alongside Evolution. Of course, since NOVA is a science based series I would imagine certain creationists are likely to cry foul claiming they have their own anti-creationist agenda. Perhaps there is an element of truth to this suspicion. Nevertheless, what was uncovered in the NOVA program was revealing. See: NOVA, Judgment Day, Intelligent Design on Trial. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/ Careful sifting through of previous revisions of text from one highly regarded book that supported the Intelligent Design theory ultimately contradicted what IDers had claimed their book was about. In recent history the U.S. courts had ruled that any book that discussed and used the word Creationism in the context of another SCIENTIFIC theory could NOT be taught as SCIENCE in a science class room environment. Intelligent Design proponents argued that their favorite book on ID was NOT about Creationism. They claimed ID taught an alternative scientific theory based on the theory of sudden evolutionary-like jumps where it was theorized an Outside Intelligence had to be the only logical explanation for the sudden creation of brand new species. IDrs claimed to have piles of scientific data to prove their point - that historical fossils showed sudden evolutionary leaps that couldn't be explained by the traditional gradual changing theory of evolution. The ID book on trial, in fact, did NOT contain any references to the word Creationism anywhere in within its text. Therefore, IDers claimed their ID theory should not be judged within the context of being a religious treatise on Creationism. Unfortunately for the IDers that's not exactly what a few researchers eventually discovered in their investigations of how their favorite book on ID came into being. It was discovered that previous revisions of the book ORIGINALLY HAD USED the belief in Creationsism as a scientific theory. In fact the word Creationism had been peppered through the original pre-published text. The revisionists did their best to clean out all references to the word creationism to comply to the federal court decisions. However, the revisionists weren't as through as they had hoped. Researchers discovered curiously garbled phrases here and there where the word Creationism had literally been cut or SPLIT in half between hastily revised sentence structures, i.e.: creat followed by ionism later on in the same sentence structure. Ironically, it was if one was watching the evolution of the Intelligent Design text go through a process similar to what DNA code goes through during the mutation process! The Creationists lost their case. It's my understanding that for the moment Intelligent Design aka Creationsism is not considered a viable scientific theory and should not be taught in schools as an alternative scientific theory. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Creationism (was Re:OT: periodic table)
However, I suggest that the absence God does not mean the absence of a spiritual intelligence. This intelligence is presumed to have developed at the same time intelligence was developing in the material world. Religion confuses this intelligence with a God. In fact, it is simply another consequence of evolution, but based on radiation energy rather than matter. Of course, the spiritual intelligence is beyond ours because it has been soaking up knowledge for billions of years from millions of intelligent species. No wonder it looks like a God to us. Ed Jed Rothwell wrote: Michael Foster wrote: As God works in mysterious ways, I can't see why evolution isn't one of them. Many religious biologists agree. However, by and large scientists and biologists in particular tend to be atheists. The best explication for their reasoning can be found in R. Dawkins, The God Delusion. To make a long story very short, his main argument -- which is very ancient -- is that introducing God is a violation of Ockham's razor; i.e. multiplying entities unnecessarily. If the complexity and the origin of life are difficult to explain, it is far more difficult to explain how God might have originated. Furthermore, the laws of physics, chemistry and Darwinian evolution satisfactorily explain all aspects of life (so far anyway), without reference to any motivation, plan or conscious action by any intelligent being, mortal or immortal. In other words, there is no evidence whatever that extraterrestrials seeded earth with the first cells, or that a cosmic intelligence guided the development of life. There is no need to invoke such ideas to explain the phenomena discovered thus far. Perhaps, in the future, some aspect of biology will require such explanations, but I doubt that will happen. Dawkins restates the argument in another thought provoking way. As far as anyone knows, complexity and intelligence only appear as the end product of natural forces, after billions of years of evolution. There is no evidence that they can arise by any other means. On the other hand, there is ample evidence that the laws of physics were operative from the moment of the big bang on. So the forces that would eventually drive evolution were there all along, but it does not seem physically possible that they were accompanied by or controlled by intelligence. The Dawkins book has attracted a lot of emotional attacks, but by and large I think it is a quiet philosophical exposition which should not upset any intelligent reader, even a very religious one. All of his arguments have been around since Darwin, and many for thousands of years before that, so any educated believer will be familiar with them. So I can't see why they would upset anyone. I have not read the other best selling books about atheism, but based on reviews and extracts they seem to be more confrontational and emotional. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Creationism (was Re:OT: periodic table)
Michael Foster wrote: As God works in mysterious ways, I can't see why evolution isn't one of them. Many religious biologists agree. However, by and large scientists and biologists in particular tend to be atheists. The best explication for their reasoning can be found in R. Dawkins, The God Delusion. To make a long story very short, his main argument -- which is very ancient -- is that introducing God is a violation of Ockham's razor; i.e. multiplying entities unnecessarily. If the complexity and the origin of life are difficult to explain, it is far more difficult to explain how God might have originated. Furthermore, the laws of physics, chemistry and Darwinian evolution satisfactorily explain all aspects of life (so far anyway), without reference to any motivation, plan or conscious action by any intelligent being, mortal or immortal. In other words, there is no evidence whatever that extraterrestrials seeded earth with the first cells, or that a cosmic intelligence guided the development of life. There is no need to invoke such ideas to explain the phenomena discovered thus far. Perhaps, in the future, some aspect of biology will require such explanations, but I doubt that will happen. Dawkins restates the argument in another thought provoking way. As far as anyone knows, complexity and intelligence only appear as the end product of natural forces, after billions of years of evolution. There is no evidence that they can arise by any other means. On the other hand, there is ample evidence that the laws of physics were operative from the moment of the big bang on. So the forces that would eventually drive evolution were there all along, but it does not seem physically possible that they were accompanied by or controlled by intelligence. The Dawkins book has attracted a lot of emotional attacks, but by and large I think it is a quiet philosophical exposition which should not upset any intelligent reader, even a very religious one. All of his arguments have been around since Darwin, and many for thousands of years before that, so any educated believer will be familiar with them. So I can't see why they would upset anyone. I have not read the other best selling books about atheism, but based on reviews and extracts they seem to be more confrontational and emotional. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Creationism (was Re:OT: periodic table)
I really hate to jump in on such a subject that is so far off topic, but this is something that has bugged me for years. I really don't understand what the argument is about. I'm not religious, nor am I much of an atheist (requires too much faith in the unknown). As God works in mysterious ways, I can't see why evolution isn't one of them. A literal interpretation of the Bible holds no water as we seem to agree that the sun doesn't rise up from the ocean as it says in Genesis. Thus, it's an allegorical document, inspiring as it may be, its moral truth given by example. You might even say that He can be found in the fine- structure constant. After all, Richard Feynman himself rather hinted at such an idea. All else in the universe grows from alpha, all the atomic structure, all the chemistry and all the evolution. My ways are not your ways, seems to put it nicely. Not much original thinking here, but maybe it should be repeated from time to time, just to calm everyone down. M. Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Re: [Vo]:Creationism (was Re:OT: periodic table)
On 4/2/2008 7:06 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: However, I suggest that the absence God does not mean the absence of a spiritual intelligence. This intelligence is presumed to have developed at the same time intelligence was developing in the material world. Religion confuses this intelligence with a God. In fact, it is simply another consequence of evolution, but based on radiation energy rather than matter. Of course, the spiritual intelligence is beyond ours because it has been soaking up knowledge for billions of years from millions of intelligent species. No wonder it looks like a God to us. Ed Like a primal world wide web? Harry
Re: [Vo]:Creationism (was Re:OT: periodic table)
Harry Veeder wrote: On 4/2/2008 7:06 PM, Edmund Storms wrote: However, I suggest that the absence God does not mean the absence of a spiritual intelligence. This intelligence is presumed to have developed at the same time intelligence was developing in the material world. Religion confuses this intelligence with a God. In fact, it is simply another consequence of evolution, but based on radiation energy rather than matter. Of course, the spiritual intelligence is beyond ours because it has been soaking up knowledge for billions of years from millions of intelligent species. No wonder it looks like a God to us. Ed Like a primal world wide web? Exactly! Ed Harry
Re: [Vo]:Creationism (was Re:OT: periodic table)
Like a primal world wide web? Exactly! Ed Harry I think the password is 42. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Creationism (was Re:OT: periodic table)
Howdy Vorts, We best leave the debate of Creationism vs. Evolution to the academians since they are the intellectuals. After all the talk is finished there remains one central word that has never been examined in regards to the pros and cons. That word is TIME. Forget about how long ago the universe was formed, created, hammered together or molded. If time has always been.. we are faced with a concept that it is eternal' no beginning and no end. This would mean... that starting today, regardless of how much time goes by in the future, that amount of time that elapses will never be greater than the time that has already gone by. The simple fact that both time and distance can be measured overweighs the the chance subscribed by evolutionists.. Forget the physical ..the rocks and stars above.. explain how time could be an accident and not by design. Whenever I listen to people debating evolution I pull out my Mickey Mouse watch and yardstick and ask ..If you are so intelligent to debate something .. start with explaining this darn watch. Richard
Re: [Vo]:Creationism (was Re:OT: periodic table)
On 4/2/2008 11:27 PM, R.C.Macaulay wrote: Howdy Vorts, We best leave the debate of Creationism vs. Evolution to the academians since they are the intellectuals. After all the talk is finished there remains one central word that has never been examined in regards to the pros and cons. That word is TIME. Forget about how long ago the universe was formed, created, hammered together or molded. If time has always been.. we are faced with a concept that it is eternal' no beginning and no end. This would mean... that starting today, regardless of how much time goes by in the future, that amount of time that elapses will never be greater than the time that has already gone by. Is this intended as an argument against an eternal universe? The simple fact that both time and distance can be measured overweighs the the chance subscribed by evolutionists.. The measure and the thing being measured are not necessarily one and the same thing. Forget the physical ..the rocks and stars above.. explain how time could be an accident and not by design. Whenever I listen to people debating evolution I pull out my Mickey Mouse watch and yardstick and ask ..If you are so intelligent to debate something .. start with explaining this darn watch. Time is a watch? Harry
Re: [Vo]:Creationism (was Re:OT: periodic table)
Jed Rothwell wrote: Michael Foster wrote: As God works in mysterious ways, I can't see why evolution isn't one of them. The Dawkins book has attracted a lot of emotional attacks, but by and large I think it is a quiet philosophical exposition which should not upset any intelligent reader, even a very religious one. All of his arguments have been TheTwincities Creation Science Society has a DVD of Dr. Dawkins debating another scientist. He seems so reasonable. OTOH, he maintians that teaching your children about the Bible is child abuse. Those are fighting words! --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
