Had a rather heated discussion yesterday with a colleague about
evolution vs. creation.  The basis of his argument is that scientific
process is flawed, and the knowledge gained from using scientific
process is incorrect.  He is offended by people referring to science
as 'fact'.

I argued that science doesn't presume to be factual, that hypothesis
are presented to the community, they are reviewed and tested, and are
not accepted until they can be proved.  If the proofs are found to be
incorrect later, then they are rejected.

He claims to love science, but I think he doesn't understand what it
is.

I also argued that creation is based on tradition and is not conducive
to expanding knowledge, ideas are not allowed to be challenged, as
this is considered blasphemy.  He says that any expansion of knowledge
on creation is through divine inspiration, and that this is
encouraged.

I am not arguing that creation is wrong, I think that it was the best
way of describing the world when it was written, however humans have a
larger knowledge base now and our ideas are more sophisticated.  In
the modern age it seems appropriate to describe our world in terms of
evolution.  In the future I'm sure that this description will change
and improve.

Comments?  I'm trying to understand my colleague, and I don't think he
is ignorant, but how can I get through his fervour?

Dom.

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 19:03:54 -0500, "The Pre-Meltdown Kid"
<entropic3.14decay@optonline2.718.net> wrote:

>
>I, otoh, could *easily* be convinced of god, creation--just show me the 
>beef.
>But some tele-evangelist ejaculating in my hair is not convincing.  Not to 
>me, at any rate.
>"Intelligent design" is just a slicker hustle, ultimately circular.


Its all faith. Both science, and religion.

Lots of things known to be true, in science, have been proven
wrong..sometimes utterly wrong.  

Religion..well...there is not much proving either way in religion.
Its faith. Shrug

You mention televangilists, but leave out the human secularists
blowing their nuts in your hair too.   The vast majority of believers
pretty much keep their religion to themselves, or inside their peer
group. So do most secular humanists.  Tis the shysters and those
called to make converts that are the pains in the ass.  Be it a fundy
religious preacher, a Scientologist, or a Liberal.

If someone has deep faith, you are not going to change his mind very
far.  You can only kill them, or modify them a bit to make them less
overt. It takes something inside them themselves to change. 

Evolution?  I see no dicotomy between religious evolution and
scientific evolution.  Both could be correct and intertwined.
Or not.

The John Scheiderloops would have us believe it was "seeding" by
another alien species. Could be. Or not.

Frankly...intelligent design is as good a theory as any. The Designer
being God, or a altruistic being called K()#! fpht from another
galaxy. 

No one knows how old the planet is, nor how many civilizations its
supported before ours, or what happened to the dinosaur civilizations
yada yada yada. 

Its all faith.

Me..I believe in evolution. Now if it was directed, or happened by
luck of the draw...not a clue. Nor do I really care one way or
another.

Gunner

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:35:04 -0500, "vinny" <friggenbozo@gawab.com>
wrote:

>
>"Dom" <dominic.vrolijks@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:226f2e65-3ddf-42e5-b052-bab9befd2ed3@f10g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> Had a rather heated discussion yesterday with a colleague about
>> evolution vs. creation.  The basis of his argument is that scientific
>> process is flawed, and the knowledge gained from using scientific
>> process is incorrect.  He is offended by people referring to science
>> as 'fact'.
>>
>> I argued that science doesn't presume to be factual, that hypothesis
>> are presented to the community, they are reviewed and tested, and are
>> not accepted until they can be proved.  If the proofs are found to be
>> incorrect later, then they are rejected.
>>
>> He claims to love science, but I think he doesn't understand what it
>> is.
>>
>> I also argued that creation is based on tradition and is not conducive
>> to expanding knowledge, ideas are not allowed to be challenged, as
>> this is considered blasphemy.  He says that any expansion of knowledge
>> on creation is through divine inspiration, and that this is
>> encouraged.
>>
>> I am not arguing that creation is wrong, I think that it was the best
>> way of describing the world when it was written, however humans have a
>> larger knowledge base now and our ideas are more sophisticated.  In
>> the modern age it seems appropriate to describe our world in terms of
>> evolution.  In the future I'm sure that this description will change
>> and improve.
>>
>> Comments?  I'm trying to understand my colleague, and I don't think he
>> is ignorant, but how can I get through his fervour?
>>
>> Dom.
>
>Both ideas are prolly correct.
>Eveolution happened, its happeneing before our eyes, but there came a time 
>when  a man was "mutated". A man.
> The the woman thing, sounds like the story in the bible is explaining the 
>use of cloning dna from a rib bone.
>  The apple is a figure of speach, I mean do apples even grow in Iraq?
>
> And the snake was also a figure of speach. It's all thru history the snake 
>is the bad guy. people friggen hate snakes, especially in the middle east.
>
>I have one problem with evolution:
> Dinosour bones. How in the hell can dinosaur bones from 2 million years ago 
>be laying on the surface of the ground in the american midwest? Throw 
>something down, and a week later its buried under and inch of sand. 
>

Never tried to remove the rocks from a field eh?  Chuckle..you get a
fresh crop every year. And in the midwest..some places..the lack of
rain ....

Chuckle..just outside of Bakersfield, is a place we call Sharks Tooth
Hill.  Its a area, filled with prehistoric sharks teeth. Some REALLY
big ones.  Its also at about 900 ft above sea level.

Why are coal mines so deep underground in many places? I toured one in
Kentucky years ago, still have the slab of coal that has the perfect
imprint of a fern leaf in it.  From about 1000 feet into the side of a
mountain.

Why are we drilling 18,000' deep for oil and finding it?

The planets crust has been shifted, curled, mixed, blended and
shuffled many times. 

Fascinating actually.

Gunner

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:54:35 -0500, "The Pre-Meltdown Kid"
<entropic3.14decay@optonline2.718.net> wrote:

>
>"vinny" <friggenbozo@gawab.com> wrote in message 
>news:fn5uj8$68j$1@aioe.org...
>>
>> "Dom" <dominic.vrolijks@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>> news:226f2e65-3ddf-42e5-b052-bab9befd2ed3@f10g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>> Had a rather heated discussion yesterday with a colleague about
>>> evolution vs. creation.  The basis of his argument is that scientific
>>> process is flawed, and the knowledge gained from using scientific
>>> process is incorrect.  He is offended by people referring to science
>>> as 'fact'.
>>>
>>> I argued that science doesn't presume to be factual, that hypothesis
>>> are presented to the community, they are reviewed and tested, and are
>>> not accepted until they can be proved.  If the proofs are found to be
>>> incorrect later, then they are rejected.
>>>
>>> He claims to love science, but I think he doesn't understand what it
>>> is.
>>>
>>> I also argued that creation is based on tradition and is not conducive
>>> to expanding knowledge, ideas are not allowed to be challenged, as
>>> this is considered blasphemy.  He says that any expansion of knowledge
>>> on creation is through divine inspiration, and that this is
>>> encouraged.
>>>
>>> I am not arguing that creation is wrong, I think that it was the best
>>> way of describing the world when it was written, however humans have a
>>> larger knowledge base now and our ideas are more sophisticated.  In
>>> the modern age it seems appropriate to describe our world in terms of
>>> evolution.  In the future I'm sure that this description will change
>>> and improve.
>>>
>>> Comments?  I'm trying to understand my colleague, and I don't think he
>>> is ignorant, but how can I get through his fervour?
>>>
>>> Dom.
>>
>> Both ideas are prolly correct.
>> Eveolution happened, its happeneing before our eyes, but there came a time 
>> when  a man was "mutated". A man.
>> The the woman thing, sounds like the story in the bible is explaining the 
>> use of cloning dna from a rib bone.
>>  The apple is a figure of speach, I mean do apples even grow in Iraq?
>>
>> And the snake was also a figure of speach. It's all thru history the snake 
>> is the bad guy. people friggen hate snakes, especially in the middle east.
>>
>> I have one problem with evolution:
>> Dinosour bones. How in the hell can dinosaur bones from 2 million years 
>> ago be laying on the surface of the ground in the american midwest? Throw 
>> something down, and a week later its buried under and inch of sand.
>
>Excellent point.
>And, we are also witnessing de-evolution.

Only in the social sense.

Gunner

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:25:58 -0600, Al Porter <aptr@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:35:04 -0500, "vinny" <friggenbozo@gawab.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>>
>>I have one problem with evolution:
>> Dinosour bones. How in the hell can dinosaur bones from 2 million years ago 
>>be laying on the surface of the ground in the american midwest? Throw 
>>something down, and a week later its buried under and inch of sand. 
>>
>
> Ever heard of "erosion"? Wind, water, and weather in general tend to
>wear the terrain down, thus exposing stuff buried underneath.
>
> It's too bad nature can't erode away the stupidity of the religious
>types in the same way...
>
> A lot of them say that "god" has a plan for everyone, and that
>everything happens according to "god's" plan.
>
> Does that include murders, rapes, genocide, wars, etc...?
>

You will have to ask the Secular Humanists about that. They have been
responsible for most of the wars in the last 90 yrs.
> 
>
> Al

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 01:48:23 GMT, NoOne N Particular
<twoblues@pacbell.net> wrote:

>
>> 
>> Frankly...intelligent design is as good a theory as any. The Designer
>> being God, or a altruistic being called K()#! fpht from another
>> galaxy. 
>> 
>If the design is so intelligent, why is it so f'd up?
>
>Wayne

Why would you say its fucked up?  Seems to be working rather
marvelously actually.

Gunner

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 01:00:48 -0600, Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 18:22:58 +0530, Gunner Asch wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 01:48:23 GMT, NoOne N Particular
>> <twoblues@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>
>>>> Frankly...intelligent design is as good a theory as any. The Designer
>>>> being God, or a altruistic being called K()#! fpht from another
>>>> galaxy.
>>>> 
>>>If the design is so intelligent, why is it so f'd up?
>>>
>>>Wayne
>> 
>> Why would you say its fucked up?  Seems to be working rather marvelously
>> actually.
>> 
>You have neither my knees nor my back.  Speaking as a systems architect 
>(it's my day job), I can tell you that we resemble really screwed up fish 
>a lot more than we resemble something purpose-designed to walk on land 
>and build stuff.


Perfect? No. But we are hardly single cell slime molds either.

Gunner

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 20:42:48 -0800, jk <klessig@suddenlink.net> wrote:

>NoOne N Particular <twoblues@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>> 
>>> Frankly...intelligent design is as good a theory as any. The Designer
>>> being God, or a altruistic being called K()#! fpht from another
>>> galaxy. 
>>> 
>>If the design is so intelligent, why is it so f'd up?
>>
>>Wayne
>No one who takes their clothes off and LOOKS in a mirror, can honestly
>believe in INTELLEGENT design, period.
>jk


Speak for yourself, fatty.

I actually look pretty damned good (for a crippled up old man) nekked.
The ladies dont run screaming..and most get that "look".......

<G>

Gunner

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 22:38:50 -0800, Protagonist <szaki10@comcast.net>
wrote:

>Gunner Asch wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 19:03:54 -0500, "The Pre-Meltdown Kid"
>> <entropic3.14decay@optonline2.718.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> I, otoh, could *easily* be convinced of god, creation--just show me the 
>>> beef.
>>> But some tele-evangelist ejaculating in my hair is not convincing.  Not to 
>>> me, at any rate.
>>> "Intelligent design" is just a slicker hustle, ultimately circular.
>> 
>> 
>> Its all faith. Both science, and religion.
>> 
>> Lots of things known to be true, in science, have been proven
>> wrong..sometimes utterly wrong.  
>> 
>> Religion..well...there is not much proving either way in religion.
>> Its faith. Shrug
>> 
>> You mention televangilists, but leave out the human secularists
>> blowing their nuts in your hair too.   The vast majority of believers
>> pretty much keep their religion to themselves, or inside their peer
>> group. So do most secular humanists.  Tis the shysters and those
>> called to make converts that are the pains in the ass.  Be it a fundy
>> religious preacher, a Scientologist, or a Liberal.
>> 
>> If someone has deep faith, you are not going to change his mind very
>> far.  You can only kill them, or modify them a bit to make them less
>> overt. It takes something inside them themselves to change. 
>> 
>> Evolution?  I see no dicotomy between religious evolution and
>> scientific evolution.  Both could be correct and intertwined.
>> Or not.
>> 
>> The John Scheiderloops would have us believe it was "seeding" by
>> another alien species. Could be. Or not.
>> 
>> Frankly...intelligent design is as good a theory as any. The Designer
>> being God, or a altruistic being called K()#! fpht from another
>> galaxy. 
>> 
>> No one knows how old the planet is, nor how many civilizations its
>> supported before ours, or what happened to the dinosaur civilizations
>> yada yada yada. 
>> 
>> Its all faith.
>> 
>> Me..I believe in evolution. Now if it was directed, or happened by
>> luck of the draw...not a clue. Nor do I really care one way or
>> another.
>> 
>> Gunner
>> 
>
>How would a Zionist like you, who only believe is MONEY know that?
>JS

What would a fagboi like you know about me? 
Say..wasnt it you who was bragging about how much money you allegedly
make?

Did I mention I make ..well..more than you do.

Pissoff Adolph.

Gunner

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 23:34:13 +0530, Gunner Asch
<gunner@NOSPAM.earthlink.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 01:00:48 -0600, Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 18:22:58 +0530, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 01:48:23 GMT, NoOne N Particular
>>> <twoblues@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>>
>>>>> Frankly...intelligent design is as good a theory as any. The Designer
>>>>> being God, or a altruistic being called K()#! fpht from another
>>>>> galaxy.
>>>>> 
>>>>If the design is so intelligent, why is it so f'd up?
>>>>
>>>>Wayne
>>> 
>>> Why would you say its fucked up?  Seems to be working rather marvelously
>>> actually.
>>> 
>>You have neither my knees nor my back.  Speaking as a systems architect 
>>(it's my day job), I can tell you that we resemble really screwed up fish 
>>a lot more than we resemble something purpose-designed to walk on land 
>>and build stuff.
>
>
>Perfect? No. But we are hardly single cell slime molds either.
>
>Gunner


Well...there is Protagatard....


Gunner

If the knowledge gained from the scientific method was incorrect then
we would be living in a nuke-free world.

God loves you both, but he still thinks your friend is a knob.

"That70sTick" <rol4@liquidschwarz.com> wrote in message 
news:3348aa99-ae18-4db7-aa21-6960d5d7e3e2@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> If the knowledge gained from the scientific method was incorrect then
> we would be living in a nuke-free world.
>
> God loves you both, but he still thinks your friend is a knob.

Well, he seems to love some a whole lot more than others, dats f'sure.

And apparently he thinks I'm a knob, as well.

Sed friend should be interested in my mathematical/statistical proof that 
God exists (and therefore, that Creation is true):

My life could not be this miserable by chance alone.
-- 
------
Mr. P.V.'d  (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

AND,
Make sure whomever you do vote for believes in
ABSOLUTE separation of Church & State--ferchrissakes

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie, 
all d'numbuhs

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:34:26 -0800 (PST), Dom
<dominic.vrolijks@gmail.com> wrote:

>Had a rather heated discussion yesterday with a colleague about
>evolution vs. creation.  
<snip>
=======
Never [try to] teach a pig how to sing.  It wastes your time and
it annoys the pig.

"Dom" <dominic.vrolijks@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:226f2e65-3ddf-42e5-b052-bab9befd2ed3@f10g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Had a rather heated discussion yesterday with a colleague about
> evolution vs. creation.  The basis of his argument is that scientific
> process is flawed, and the knowledge gained from using scientific
> process is incorrect.  He is offended by people referring to science
> as 'fact'.
>
> I argued that science doesn't presume to be factual, that hypothesis
> are presented to the community, they are reviewed and tested, and are
> not accepted until they can be proved.  If the proofs are found to be
> incorrect later, then they are rejected.
>
> He claims to love science, but I think he doesn't understand what it
> is.
>
> I also argued that creation is based on tradition and is not conducive
> to expanding knowledge, ideas are not allowed to be challenged, as
> this is considered blasphemy.  He says that any expansion of knowledge
> on creation is through divine inspiration, and that this is
> encouraged.
>
> I am not arguing that creation is wrong, I think that it was the best
> way of describing the world when it was written, however humans have a
> larger knowledge base now and our ideas are more sophisticated.  In
> the modern age it seems appropriate to describe our world in terms of
> evolution.  In the future I'm sure that this description will change
> and improve.
>
> Comments?  I'm trying to understand my colleague, and I don't think he
> is ignorant, but how can I get through his fervour?
>
> Dom.

Both ideas are prolly correct.
Eveolution happened, its happeneing before our eyes, but there came a time 
when  a man was "mutated". A man.
 The the woman thing, sounds like the story in the bible is explaining the 
use of cloning dna from a rib bone.
  The apple is a figure of speach, I mean do apples even grow in Iraq?

 And the snake was also a figure of speach. It's all thru history the snake 
is the bad guy. people friggen hate snakes, especially in the middle east.

I have one problem with evolution:
 Dinosour bones. How in the hell can dinosaur bones from 2 million years ago 
be laying on the surface of the ground in the american midwest? Throw 
something down, and a week later its buried under and inch of sand. 

"Dom" <dominic.vrolijks@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:226f2e65-3ddf-42e5-b052-bab9befd2ed3@f10g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Had a rather heated discussion yesterday with a colleague about
> evolution vs. creation.  The basis of his argument is that scientific
> process is flawed, and the knowledge gained from using scientific
> process is incorrect.  He is offended by people referring to science
> as 'fact'.
>
> I argued that science doesn't presume to be factual, that hypothesis
> are presented to the community, they are reviewed and tested, and are
> not accepted until they can be proved.  If the proofs are found to be
> incorrect later, then they are rejected.
>
> He claims to love science, but I think he doesn't understand what it
> is.
>
> I also argued that creation is based on tradition and is not conducive
> to expanding knowledge, ideas are not allowed to be challenged, as
> this is considered blasphemy.  He says that any expansion of knowledge
> on creation is through divine inspiration, and that this is
> encouraged.
>
> I am not arguing that creation is wrong, I think that it was the best
> way of describing the world when it was written, however humans have a
> larger knowledge base now and our ideas are more sophisticated.  In
> the modern age it seems appropriate to describe our world in terms of
> evolution.  In the future I'm sure that this description will change
> and improve.
>
> Comments?  I'm trying to understand my colleague, and I don't think he
> is ignorant, but how can I get through his fervour?
>
> Dom.

As with any religious/philosophical/science  discussion, I find it interesting 
how humans attempt to quantify things in human terms.  The concept of God by 
it's very nature is beyond such limitations. 

"vinny" <friggenbozo@gawab.com> wrote in message 
news:fn5uj8$68j$1@aioe.org...
>
> "Dom" <dominic.vrolijks@gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:226f2e65-3ddf-42e5-b052-bab9befd2ed3@f10g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> Had a rather heated discussion yesterday with a colleague about
>> evolution vs. creation.  The basis of his argument is that scientific
>> process is flawed, and the knowledge gained from using scientific
>> process is incorrect.  He is offended by people referring to science
>> as 'fact'.
>>
>> I argued that science doesn't presume to be factual, that hypothesis
>> are presented to the community, they are reviewed and tested, and are
>> not accepted until they can be proved.  If the proofs are found to be
>> incorrect later, then they are rejected.
>>
>> He claims to love science, but I think he doesn't understand what it
>> is.
>>
>> I also argued that creation is based on tradition and is not conducive
>> to expanding knowledge, ideas are not allowed to be challenged, as
>> this is considered blasphemy.  He says that any expansion of knowledge
>> on creation is through divine inspiration, and that this is
>> encouraged.
>>
>> I am not arguing that creation is wrong, I think that it was the best
>> way of describing the world when it was written, however humans have a
>> larger knowledge base now and our ideas are more sophisticated.  In
>> the modern age it seems appropriate to describe our world in terms of
>> evolution.  In the future I'm sure that this description will change
>> and improve.
>>
>> Comments?  I'm trying to understand my colleague, and I don't think he
>> is ignorant, but how can I get through his fervour?
>>
>> Dom.
>
> Both ideas are prolly correct.
> Eveolution happened, its happeneing before our eyes, but there came a time 
> when  a man was "mutated". A man.
> The the woman thing, sounds like the story in the bible is explaining the 
> use of cloning dna from a rib bone.
>  The apple is a figure of speach, I mean do apples even grow in Iraq?
>
> And the snake was also a figure of speach. It's all thru history the snake 
> is the bad guy. people friggen hate snakes, especially in the middle east.
>
> I have one problem with evolution:
> Dinosour bones. How in the hell can dinosaur bones from 2 million years 
> ago be laying on the surface of the ground in the american midwest? Throw 
> something down, and a week later its buried under and inch of sand.

Excellent point.
And, we are also witnessing de-evolution.
-- 
------
Mr. P.V.'d  (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

AND,
Make sure whomever you do vote for believes in
ABSOLUTE separation of Church & State--ferchrissakes

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie, 
all d'numbuhs

>
> 

"F. George McDuffee" <gmcduffee@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote in message 
news:4oucp3pn8e2t9eadsrhpnjq1b3881m7fvd@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:34:26 -0800 (PST), Dom
> <dominic.vrolijks@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Had a rather heated discussion yesterday with a colleague about
>>evolution vs. creation.
> <snip>
> =======
> Never [try to] teach a pig how to sing.  It wastes your time and
> it annoys the pig.

One way to determine the futility/utility of a religious argerment is to ask 
the religioused:
What would it take to prove to you that xyz (god, creation, ekc) is *not* 
true?
The usual answer:
""Nothing you can say will change my mind""
Or, they haven't analyzed the subject sufficiently to determine what could 
sway them.

Discussion over.

I, otoh, could *easily* be convinced of god, creation--just show me the 
beef.
But some tele-evangelist ejaculating in my hair is not convincing.  Not to 
me, at any rate.
"Intelligent design" is just a slicker hustle, ultimately circular.
-- 
------
Mr. P.V.'d  (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

AND,
Make sure whomever you do vote for believes in
ABSOLUTE separation of Church & State--ferchrissakes

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie, 
all d'numbuhs


>
> 

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:35:04 -0500, "vinny" <friggenbozo@gawab.com>
wrote:


>
>I have one problem with evolution:
> Dinosour bones. How in the hell can dinosaur bones from 2 million years ago 
>be laying on the surface of the ground in the american midwest? Throw 
>something down, and a week later its buried under and inch of sand. 
>

 Ever heard of "erosion"? Wind, water, and weather in general tend to
wear the terrain down, thus exposing stuff buried underneath.

 It's too bad nature can't erode away the stupidity of the religious
types in the same way...

 A lot of them say that "god" has a plan for everyone, and that
everything happens according to "god's" plan.

 Does that include murders, rapes, genocide, wars, etc...?

 

 Al

"Dom" <dominic.vrolijks@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:226f2e65-3ddf-42e5-b052-bab9befd2ed3@f10g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> Comments?
>

Yeah go eat shit you fucking crossposting moron.

--

> 
> Frankly...intelligent design is as good a theory as any. The Designer
> being God, or a altruistic being called K()#! fpht from another
> galaxy. 
> 
If the design is so intelligent, why is it so f'd up?

Wayne

In article <fn5uj8$68j$1@aioe.org>, "vinny" <friggenbozo@gawab.com> wrote:

>I have one problem with evolution:
> Dinosour bones. How in the hell can dinosaur bones from 2 million years ago 
>be laying on the surface of the ground in the american midwest? Throw 
>something down, and a week later its buried under and inch of sand. 

Erosion. Wind, water, blowing sand -- all erode rock, and expose underlying 
layers.

-- 
Regards,
        Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Clearly creationism and ntelligent design is correct,... the facts are
right in front of our faces,... look how many dysfunctional petiphile
priest there are and how many other righteous leaders of god telling
their followers what is right and wrong,... while blowing/dipping/
terrorizing/damning/... who in their right and wrong!?!?
I mean, how can you argue,... they've been doing it long enough,...
they must be right!?
I'm just so glad there are few woman in this group,... their poor
little weak minds might explode thinking about these things... we men
are so much more capable... you know what I mean?

...

Al Porter wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:35:04 -0500, "vinny" <friggenbozo@gawab.com>
> wrote:
> 
>>I have one problem with evolution:
>>Dinosour bones. How in the hell can dinosaur bones from 2 million years ago 
>>be laying on the surface of the ground in the american midwest? Throw 
>>something down, and a week later its buried under and inch of sand. 
>>
> 
>  Ever heard of "erosion"? Wind, water, and weather in general tend to
> wear the terrain down, thus exposing stuff buried underneath.
> 
>  It's too bad nature can't erode away the stupidity of the religious
> types in the same way...
>
>  Al

Also has "vinny" ever looked at the Grand Canyon ?  In person, if you
didn't know anything about erosion before, that should enlighten you.
:-)
    ...lew...

Gunner Asch wrote:
>>Does that include murders, rapes, genocide, wars, etc...?
>>
> 
> You will have to ask the Secular Humanists about that. They have been
> responsible for most of the wars in the last 90 yrs.
> 
Buy why limit it to the last 90 yrs? There quite a few before
and the current Islamic one that are strictly "religously"
inspired.
    ...lew...

NoOne N Particular <twoblues@pacbell.net> wrote:

>
>> 
>> Frankly...intelligent design is as good a theory as any. The Designer
>> being God, or a altruistic being called K()#! fpht from another
>> galaxy. 
>> 
>If the design is so intelligent, why is it so f'd up?
>
>Wayne
No one who takes their clothes off and LOOKS in a mirror, can honestly
believe in INTELLEGENT design, period.
jk

Dom wrote:
> Had a rather heated discussion yesterday with a colleague about
> evolution vs. creation.  The basis of his argument is that scientific
> process is flawed, and the knowledge gained from using scientific
> process is incorrect.  He is offended by people referring to science
> as 'fact'.
> 
> I argued that science doesn't presume to be factual, that hypothesis
> are presented to the community, they are reviewed and tested, and are
> not accepted until they can be proved.  If the proofs are found to be
> incorrect later, then they are rejected.
> 
> He claims to love science, but I think he doesn't understand what it
> is.
> 
> I also argued that creation is based on tradition and is not conducive
> to expanding knowledge, ideas are not allowed to be challenged, as
> this is considered blasphemy.  He says that any expansion of knowledge
> on creation is through divine inspiration, and that this is
> encouraged.
> 
> I am not arguing that creation is wrong, I think that it was the best
> way of describing the world when it was written, however humans have a
> larger knowledge base now and our ideas are more sophisticated.  In
> the modern age it seems appropriate to describe our world in terms of
> evolution.  In the future I'm sure that this description will change
> and improve.
> 
> Comments?  I'm trying to understand my colleague, and I don't think he
> is ignorant, but how can I get through his fervour?
> 
> Dom.

Both theories are correct. The catch is that you need to allow for those 
aliens that transplanted us here and formed religions around themselves 
to hide what they actually were.... ;-|)


If you really want some interesting reading go find the Area 51 series 
of books by Robert Doherty (Bob Mayer is his real name) He goes through 
and breaks down all the religious items and many of the cultural myths 
and explains them out as being alien involvement. The guy is a good 
writer and makes all of it plausible. And like I told my wife, Who knows 
  for sure?

-- 
Steve W.
Near Cooperstown, New York

Life is not like a box of chocolates
it's more like a jar of jalapenos-
what you do today could burn your ass tomorrow!

jk wrote:
> 
> NoOne N Particular <twoblues@pacbell.net> wrote:
> 
> >
> >>
> >> Frankly...intelligent design is as good a theory as any. The Designer
> >> being God, or a altruistic being called K()#! fpht from another
> >> galaxy.
> >>
> >If the design is so intelligent, why is it so f'd up?
> >
> >Wayne
> No one who takes their clothes off and LOOKS in a mirror, can honestly
> believe in INTELLEGENT design, period.
> jk


   Sounds like a personal problem.  I hear there are pills that will
help....


-- 
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Gunner Asch wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 19:03:54 -0500, "The Pre-Meltdown Kid"
> <entropic3.14decay@optonline2.718.net> wrote:
> 
>> I, otoh, could *easily* be convinced of god, creation--just show me the 
>> beef.
>> But some tele-evangelist ejaculating in my hair is not convincing.  Not to 
>> me, at any rate.
>> "Intelligent design" is just a slicker hustle, ultimately circular.
> 
> 
> Its all faith. Both science, and religion.
> 
> Lots of things known to be true, in science, have been proven
> wrong..sometimes utterly wrong.  
> 
> Religion..well...there is not much proving either way in religion.
> Its faith. Shrug
> 
> You mention televangilists, but leave out the human secularists
> blowing their nuts in your hair too.   The vast majority of believers
> pretty much keep their religion to themselves, or inside their peer
> group. So do most secular humanists.  Tis the shysters and those
> called to make converts that are the pains in the ass.  Be it a fundy
> religious preacher, a Scientologist, or a Liberal.
> 
> If someone has deep faith, you are not going to change his mind very
> far.  You can only kill them, or modify them a bit to make them less
> overt. It takes something inside them themselves to change. 
> 
> Evolution?  I see no dicotomy between religious evolution and
> scientific evolution.  Both could be correct and intertwined.
> Or not.
> 
> The John Scheiderloops would have us believe it was "seeding" by
> another alien species. Could be. Or not.
> 
> Frankly...intelligent design is as good a theory as any. The Designer
> being God, or a altruistic being called K()#! fpht from another
> galaxy. 
> 
> No one knows how old the planet is, nor how many civilizations its
> supported before ours, or what happened to the dinosaur civilizations
> yada yada yada. 
> 
> Its all faith.
> 
> Me..I believe in evolution. Now if it was directed, or happened by
> luck of the draw...not a clue. Nor do I really care one way or
> another.
> 
> Gunner
> 

How would a Zionist like you, who only believe is MONEY know that?
JS

Al Porter wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:35:04 -0500, "vinny" <friggenbozo@gawab.com>
> wrote:
> 
> 
>> I have one problem with evolution:
>> Dinosour bones. How in the hell can dinosaur bones from 2 million years ago 
>> be laying on the surface of the ground in the american midwest? Throw 
>> something down, and a week later its buried under and inch of sand. 
>>
> 
>  Ever heard of "erosion"? Wind, water, and weather in general tend to
> wear the terrain down, thus exposing stuff buried underneath.
> 
>  It's too bad nature can't erode away the stupidity of the religious
> types in the same way...
> 
>  A lot of them say that "god" has a plan for everyone, and that
> everything happens according to "god's" plan.
> 
>  Does that include murders, rapes, genocide, wars, etc...?
> 
>  
> 
>  Al

As they say, shit all ways flows to the top, devil just has an easier 
time to scoop it up.
JS

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 18:22:58 +0530, Gunner Asch wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 01:48:23 GMT, NoOne N Particular
> <twoblues@pacbell.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>
>>> Frankly...intelligent design is as good a theory as any. The Designer
>>> being God, or a altruistic being called K()#! fpht from another
>>> galaxy.
>>> 
>>If the design is so intelligent, why is it so f'd up?
>>
>>Wayne
> 
> Why would you say its fucked up?  Seems to be working rather marvelously
> actually.
> 
You have neither my knees nor my back.  Speaking as a systems architect 
(it's my day job), I can tell you that we resemble really screwed up fish 
a lot more than we resemble something purpose-designed to walk on land 
and build stuff.

-- 
Tim Wescott
Control systems and communications consulting
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Need to learn how to apply control theory in your embedded system?
"Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" by Tim Wescott
Elsevier/Newnes, http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html

Thanks to all for your responses today.  It has been interesting, and
I must admit a little entertaining to hear some other views.

Cheers, Dom.

"Dom" <dominic.vrolijks@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1993ec14-a8dd-404a-8172-32504053725f@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Thanks to all for your responses today.  It has been interesting, and
> I must admit a little entertaining to hear some other views.
>
> Cheers, Dom.

Likewise thanks for helping to further populate my killfile with
crossposting morons.

< PLonK >

--

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:34:26 -0800 (PST), Dom <dominic.vrolijks@gmail.com>
wrote:

>I am not arguing that creation is wrong, 

  It very clearly is.
  OTOH You could claim that the "god" of E. Coli #996453 created the
entire universe, fossils, you & your memories 5 seconds ago.
  An infinite number of such claims could be made but not even
the noise "god" has any real operant meaning.

>I think that it was the best
>way of describing the world when it was written

  It described nothing even as the folk-tales of the oral
traditions & superstitions kept being edited with each 
telling.

  BTW, What's wrong with "I don't know." or "Clearly
define the question!!!"?

  Anyway, the answer is exactly 42.
-- 
Cliff

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:34:26 -0800 (PST), Dom <dominic.vrolijks@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Had a rather heated discussion yesterday with a colleague about
>evolution vs. creation.  The basis of his argument is that scientific
>process is flawed, and the knowledge gained from using scientific
>process is incorrect.  He is offended by people referring to science
>as 'fact'.
>
>I argued that science doesn't presume to be factual, that hypothesis
>are presented to the community, they are reviewed and tested, and are
>not accepted until they can be proved.  If the proofs are found to be
>incorrect later, then they are rejected.
>
>He claims to love science, but I think he doesn't understand what it
>is.
>
>I also argued that creation is based on tradition and is not conducive
>to expanding knowledge, ideas are not allowed to be challenged, as
>this is considered blasphemy.  He says that any expansion of knowledge
>on creation is through divine inspiration, and that this is
>encouraged.
>
>I am not arguing that creation is wrong, I think that it was the best
>way of describing the world when it was written, however humans have a
>larger knowledge base now and our ideas are more sophisticated.  In
>the modern age it seems appropriate to describe our world in terms of
>evolution.  In the future I'm sure that this description will change
>and improve.
>
>Comments?  I'm trying to understand my colleague, and I don't think he
>is ignorant, but how can I get through his fervour?
>
>Dom.

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 17:24:42 -0600, F. George McDuffee
<gmcduffee@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote:

>On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:34:26 -0800 (PST), Dom
><dominic.vrolijks@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Had a rather heated discussion yesterday with a colleague about
>>evolution vs. creation.  
><snip>
>=======
>Never [try to] teach a pig how to sing.  It wastes your time and
>it annoys the pig.

  Teach them to fly.
  Use surplus JATO units.
-- 
Cliff

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 16:32:57 +0530, Gunner Asch <gunner@NOSPAM.earthlink.net>
wrote:

>On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 19:03:54 -0500, "The Pre-Meltdown Kid"
><entropic3.14decay@optonline2.718.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>I, otoh, could *easily* be convinced of god, creation--just show me the 
>>beef.
>>But some tele-evangelist ejaculating in my hair is not convincing.  Not to 
>>me, at any rate.
>>"Intelligent design" is just a slicker hustle, ultimately circular.
>
>
>Its all faith. Both science, and religion.

  BS.
  If I claim that there is a red brick on the road at the intersection of
third and union cannot you go check?

>Lots of things known to be true, in science, have been proven
>wrong..sometimes utterly wrong.  
>
>Religion..well...there is not much proving either way in religion.
>Its faith. Shrug

  Meaningless.

>You mention televangilists, but leave out the human secularists
>blowing their nuts in your hair too.   The vast majority of believers
>pretty much keep their religion to themselves, or inside their peer
>group. So do most secular humanists.  Tis the shysters and those
>called to make converts that are the pains in the ass.  Be it a fundy
>religious preacher, a Scientologist, or a Liberal.

  "The purpose of fighting is to win." - Gummer

>If someone has deep faith, you are not going to change his mind very
>far.  You can only kill them, or modify them a bit to make them less
>overt. It takes something inside them themselves to change. 

  "The purpose of fighting is to win." - Gummer

>Evolution?  I see no dicotomy between religious evolution and
>scientific evolution.  Both could be correct and intertwined.
>Or not.

  New Conservative Science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Museum

>The John Scheiderloops would have us believe it was "seeding" by
>another alien species. Could be. Or not.
>
>Frankly...intelligent design is as good a theory as any. The Designer
>being God, or a altruistic being called K()#! fpht from another
>galaxy. 
>
>No one knows how old the planet is, 

  Yes they do.

>nor how many civilizations its
>supported before ours, or what happened to the dinosaur civilizations
>yada yada yada. 
>
>Its all faith.
>
>Me..I believe in evolution. 

  Then how did wingers devolve?

>Now if it was directed, or happened by
>luck of the draw...not a clue. Nor do I really care one way or
>another.
>
>Gunner
-- 
Cliff

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 01:27:57 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

>jk wrote:
>> 
>> NoOne N Particular <twoblues@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> 
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Frankly...intelligent design is as good a theory as any. The Designer
>> >> being God, or a altruistic being called K()#! fpht from another
>> >> galaxy.
>> >>
>> >If the design is so intelligent, why is it so f'd up?
>> >
>> >Wayne
>> No one who takes their clothes off and LOOKS in a mirror, can honestly
>> believe in INTELLEGENT design, period.
>> jk
>
>
>   Sounds like a personal problem.  I hear there are pills that will
>help....

  At the vets's or the pet/fish shop?

  "The purpose of fighting is to win." - Gummer
-- 
Cliff

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 23:34:13 +0530, Gunner Asch <gunner@NOSPAM.earthlink.net>
wrote:

>
>Perfect? No. But we are hardly single cell slime molds either.

  Wingers need two cells? Is one a brain cell?
  How lonely is it?

  "The purpose of fighting is to win." - Gummer
-- 
Cliff

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:35:04 -0500, "vinny" <friggenbozo@gawab.com> wrote:

>
>"Dom" <dominic.vrolijks@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:226f2e65-3ddf-42e5-b052-bab9befd2ed3@f10g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> Had a rather heated discussion yesterday with a colleague about
>> evolution vs. creation.  The basis of his argument is that scientific
>> process is flawed, and the knowledge gained from using scientific
>> process is incorrect.  He is offended by people referring to science
>> as 'fact'.
>>
>> I argued that science doesn't presume to be factual, that hypothesis
>> are presented to the community, they are reviewed and tested, and are
>> not accepted until they can be proved.  If the proofs are found to be
>> incorrect later, then they are rejected.
>>
>> He claims to love science, but I think he doesn't understand what it
>> is.
>>
>> I also argued that creation is based on tradition and is not conducive
>> to expanding knowledge, ideas are not allowed to be challenged, as
>> this is considered blasphemy.  He says that any expansion of knowledge
>> on creation is through divine inspiration, and that this is
>> encouraged.
>>
>> I am not arguing that creation is wrong, I think that it was the best
>> way of describing the world when it was written, however humans have a
>> larger knowledge base now and our ideas are more sophisticated.  In
>> the modern age it seems appropriate to describe our world in terms of
>> evolution.  In the future I'm sure that this description will change
>> and improve.
>>
>> Comments?  I'm trying to understand my colleague, and I don't think he
>> is ignorant, but how can I get through his fervour?
>>
>> Dom.
>
>Both ideas are prolly correct.
>Eveolution happened, its happeneing before our eyes, but there came a time 
>when  a man was "mutated". A man.
> The the woman thing, sounds like the story in the bible is explaining the 
>use of cloning dna from a rib bone.
>  The apple is a figure of speach, I mean do apples even grow in Iraq?

  Apples were imported to North America IIRC.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_appleseed
[
Johnny Appleseed, born John Chapman (September 26, 1774�February 18, 1847), was
an American pioneer nurseryman who introduced the apple to large parts of Ohio,
Indiana, and Illinois. He became an American legend while still alive, largely
because of his kind and generous ways, his great leadership in conservation, and
the symbolic importance of apples.

He was also a missionary for the Church of the New Jerusalem, or Swedenborgian
Church, so named because it teaches the theological doctrines contained in the
writings of Emanuel Swedenborg.
]
  Not that the early recorded forms of the tales had apples.

> And the snake was also a figure of speach. It's all thru history the snake 
>is the bad guy. people friggen hate snakes, especially in the middle east.

  No snake in the early recorded tales either IIRC.

>I have one problem with evolution:
> Dinosour bones. How in the hell can dinosaur bones from 2 million years ago 
>be laying on the surface of the ground in the american midwest? 

  Erosion.

>Throw 
>something down, and a week later its buried under and inch of sand. 

  A winger's brain ....
  "The purpose of fighting is to win." - Gummer
-- 
Cliff

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 16:38:34 +0530, Gunner Asch <gunner@NOSPAM.earthlink.net>
wrote:

>>And, we are also witnessing de-evolution.
>
>Only in the social sense.

  Wingers & fundies that would have died of stupidity & shame are 
protected & reproducing.

  "The purpose of fighting is to win." - Gummer
-- 
Cliff

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 18:22:21 +0530, Gunner Asch <gunner@NOSPAM.earthlink.net>
wrote:

>On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:25:58 -0600, Al Porter <aptr@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:35:04 -0500, "vinny" <friggenbozo@gawab.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>I have one problem with evolution:
>>> Dinosour bones. How in the hell can dinosaur bones from 2 million years ago 
>>>be laying on the surface of the ground in the american midwest? Throw 
>>>something down, and a week later its buried under and inch of sand. 
>>>
>>
>> Ever heard of "erosion"? Wind, water, and weather in general tend to
>>wear the terrain down, thus exposing stuff buried underneath.
>>
>> It's too bad nature can't erode away the stupidity of the religious
>>types in the same way...
>>
>> A lot of them say that "god" has a plan for everyone, and that
>>everything happens according to "god's" plan.
>>
>> Does that include murders, rapes, genocide, wars, etc...?
>>
>
>You will have to ask the Secular Humanists about that. They have been
>responsible for most of the wars in the last 90 yrs.

  Winger BS. 
  Found those "WMDs" yet?

  "The purpose of fighting is to win." - Gummer

>> 
>>
>> Al
-- 
Cliff

"Al Porter" <aptr@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:t52dp3hvie7j8vkpnm3qfp8a5cfk3vp032@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:35:04 -0500, "vinny" <friggenbozo@gawab.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>I have one problem with evolution:
>> Dinosour bones. How in the hell can dinosaur bones from 2 million years 
>> ago
>>be laying on the surface of the ground in the american midwest? Throw
>>something down, and a week later its buried under and inch of sand.
>>
>
> Ever heard of "erosion"? Wind, water, and weather in general tend to
> wear the terrain down, thus exposing stuff buried underneath.
>
> It's too bad nature can't erode away the stupidity of the religious
> types in the same way...
>
> A lot of them say that "god" has a plan for everyone, and that
> everything happens according to "god's" plan.
>
> Does that include murders, rapes, genocide, wars, etc...?

I hear arguments that god never gives you more than you can handle; so what 
about about people who commit suicide? Maybe god yells out "Ops! I messed up 
again!". 

Check out the blurb at the bottom of www.yunx.com.  It's a cool little 
"story" about a situation sorta like yours...  Starts off with "BANG!" at 
the very bottom right area of the web page.

Regards,
Joe Agro, Jr.
(800) 871-5022
01.908.542.0244
Automatic / Pneumatic Drills: http://www.AutoDrill.com
Multiple Spindle Drills: http://www.Multi-Drill.com

V8013-R


"Dom" <dominic.vrolijks@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:226f2e65-3ddf-42e5-b052-bab9befd2ed3@f10g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Had a rather heated discussion yesterday with a colleague about
> evolution vs. creation.  The basis of his argument is that scientific
> process is flawed, and the knowledge gained from using scientific
> process is incorrect.  He is offended by people referring to science
> as 'fact'.
>
> I argued that science doesn't presume to be factual, that hypothesis
> are presented to the community, they are reviewed and tested, and are
> not accepted until they can be proved.  If the proofs are found to be
> incorrect later, then they are rejected.
>
> He claims to love science, but I think he doesn't understand what it
> is.
>
> I also argued that creation is based on tradition and is not conducive
> to expanding knowledge, ideas are not allowed to be challenged, as
> this is considered blasphemy.  He says that any expansion of knowledge
> on creation is through divine inspiration, and that this is
> encouraged.
>
> I am not arguing that creation is wrong, I think that it was the best
> way of describing the world when it was written, however humans have a
> larger knowledge base now and our ideas are more sophisticated.  In
> the modern age it seems appropriate to describe our world in terms of
> evolution.  In the future I'm sure that this description will change
> and improve.
>
> Comments?  I'm trying to understand my colleague, and I don't think he
> is ignorant, but how can I get through his fervour?
>
> Dom. 

Gunner Asch <gunner@NOSPAM.earthlink.net> wrote in 
news:hks3p3hnpmk0hsgnn4cjkbigsdctf0ig7e@4ax.com:

<snip>
> 
> Why would you say its fucked up?  Seems to be working rather
> marvelously actually.
> 
> Gunner
> 

Take a look at Ted Kennedy and Nancy Peloci and tell me God didn't take a 
snooze when laying out their designs. ;)


Bill

Protagonist wrote:
> As they say, shit all ways flows to the top, devil just has an easier 
> time to scoop it up.
> JS
As opposed to what plumbers are taught. :-)

Shit flows down hill, hot on the left and payday is friday.
    ...lew...

"Dom" <dominic.vrolijks@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:226f2e65-3ddf-42e5-b052-bab9befd2ed3@f10g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Had a rather heated discussion yesterday with a colleague about
> evolution vs. creation.  The basis of his argument is that scientific
> process is flawed, and the knowledge gained from using scientific
> process is incorrect.  He is offended by people referring to science
> as 'fact'.
>
> I argued that science doesn't presume to be factual, that hypothesis
> are presented to the community, they are reviewed and tested, and are
> not accepted until they can be proved.  If the proofs are found to be
> incorrect later, then they are rejected.
>
> He claims to love science, but I think he doesn't understand what it
> is.
>
> I also argued that creation is based on tradition and is not conducive
> to expanding knowledge, ideas are not allowed to be challenged, as
> this is considered blasphemy.  He says that any expansion of knowledge
> on creation is through divine inspiration, and that this is
> encouraged.
>
> I am not arguing that creation is wrong, I think that it was the best
> way of describing the world when it was written, however humans have a
> larger knowledge base now and our ideas are more sophisticated.  In
> the modern age it seems appropriate to describe our world in terms of
> evolution.  In the future I'm sure that this description will change
> and improve.
>
> Comments?  I'm trying to understand my colleague, and I don't think he
> is ignorant, but how can I get through his fervour?

On the one hand, science and religion can never be reconciled, because their 
fundamental operation are at odds.  Science is in a constant flux of 
proving/disproving, usually something new (called progress), whilst religion 
eternally seeks to re-affirm what already is.  Religion is fundamentally 
circular.

But Religion is also big, big, big, big bidniss.
According to my Economist-reading wife, the Vatican paid out, in one lump 
sum I think, $1.5 BILLION in all the priest/sex stuff.
One wonders how much they have left in the kitty.
In CA, the big diocese over there paid a $660 million class action 
settlement.  Dat's some expensive fondling, eh??
I wonder what the sum total of all the Tele-evangelists assets are--billions 
I'm sure. And Jimmy Swaggart deserves every penny of his share.

And I'll bet the jw's are worth billions, which they pretty much deserve. 
You may differ from their religious take, and not appreciate them pounding 
on yer door (never asking for money, btw), but their social philosophy is 
almost beyond reproach.

Otoh, one could call science quasi religious, in that it vests so much into 
what have so far been pretty much unassailable "laws", a kind of 10 
Commandments, if you will:
Newton, Thermo (the real scientific religious bedrock), relativity, QM, 
electrodynamics (maxwell), and a bunch of mathematical/geometrical 
"laws"--bearing in mind that physics/math accommodates a dizzying array of 
geometries, which always struck me as pretty weird.

However, science uses these religio/scientific laws to essentially move on, 
not to cater to themselves, or to jerk themselves off.  The laws are 
formulated to be as general as possible, to explain as much as possible.

Unfortunately, science, as practiced, is its own Big Bidniss, with its own 
attendant corruption, truly rampant in Big Pharm, which is conducting 
bullshit biochemical experiments on the whole effing world.
Much less widespread in the "pure" sciences, such as laser physics, 
superconductivity, etc., because industry hinges on the results, so you 
can't bullshit too much.
Cold Fusion notwithstanding.

But always, you play the game properly and kiss the right ass and kiss it 
properly, or you don't get funded.

Which sometimes engenders outright fraudulent results, but this is probably 
not the explicit rule--except in Big Pharm, where corruption, fraud, payola, 
and Corporate Pathology ARE the explicit rule, and whose philosophy is:
              God invented humans so's we can charge them exhorbitant rates 
to experiment on them.
-- 
------
Mr. P.V.'d  (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

AND,
Make sure whomever you do vote for believes in
ABSOLUTE separation of Church & State--ferchrissakes

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie, 
all d'numbuhs



>
> Dom. 

On Jan 22, 8:42 pm, jk <kles...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
> NoOne N Particular <twobl...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> >> Frankly...intelligent design is as good a theory as any. The Designer
> >> being God, or a altruistic being called K()#! fpht from another
> >> galaxy.
>
> >If the design is so intelligent, why is it so f'd up?
>
> >Wayne
>
> No one who takes their clothes off and LOOKS in a mirror, can honestly
> believe in INTELLEGENT design, period.
> jk

Probably because neither you or I has ever seen Kathryn Zeta Jones
with her clothes off.

Jon Banquer
San Diego, CA

"Jeffrey Lebowski" <Nope@nono> wrote in message 
news:gM6dnbwVRexacgvanZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@scnresearch.com...
>
> "Dom" <dominic.vrolijks@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1993ec14-a8dd-404a-8172-32504053725f@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> Thanks to all for your responses today.  It has been interesting, and
>> I must admit a little entertaining to hear some other views.
>>
>> Cheers, Dom.
>
> Likewise thanks for helping to further populate my killfile with
> crossposting morons.
>
> < PLonK >

So you are partial to regular morons. I can send plenty of those your way.

jon_banquer wrote:
> On Jan 22, 8:42 pm, jk <kles...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
> 
>>NoOne N Particular <twobl...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Frankly...intelligent design is as good a theory as any. The Designer
>>>>being God, or a altruistic being called K()#! fpht from another
>>>>galaxy.
>>>
>>>If the design is so intelligent, why is it so f'd up?
>>
>>>Wayne
>>
>>No one who takes their clothes off and LOOKS in a mirror, can honestly
>>believe in INTELLEGENT design, period.
>>jk
> 
> 
> Probably because neither you or I has ever seen Kathryn Zeta Jones
> with her clothes off.


Ohhh, I've seen PICTURES.......

Jon

"NoOne N Particular" <twoblues@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:H1xlj.219$xq2.16@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
>
> >
> > Frankly...intelligent design is as good a theory as any. The Designer
> > being God, or a altruistic being called K()#! fpht from another
> > galaxy.
> >
> If the design is so intelligent, why is it so f'd up?
>
> Wayne


One look at human beings and life on Earth and it's clear that it was not
designed by anything intelligence. Science hasn't got all the answers, at
least not yet, but it's as good as it gets for us humans. Religion, on the
other hand, has no answers so it just makes them up as they go and says that
God told the clergy everything. No rational mind would ever believe in
religion. Rationality and religion are opposites.

Hawke

Hawke wrote:
> "NoOne N Particular" <twoblues@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:H1xlj.219$xq2.16@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
> 
>>>Frankly...intelligent design is as good a theory as any. The Designer
>>>being God, or a altruistic being called K()#! fpht from another
>>>galaxy.
>>>
>>
>>If the design is so intelligent, why is it so f'd up?
>>
>>Wayne
> 
> 
> 
> One look at human beings and life on Earth and it's clear that it was not
> designed by anything intelligence. Science hasn't got all the answers, at
> least not yet, but it's as good as it gets for us humans. Religion, on the
> other hand, has no answers so it just makes them up as they go and says that
> God told the clergy everything. No rational mind would ever believe in
> religion. Rationality and religion are opposites.


Yup, the Bible is SO ambiguous, you can just read ANYTHING into what it 
says there.
And, stuff is SO contradictory, what is permitted here is forbidden 
there.  Total madness.

Jon

vinny wrote:
>   The apple is a figure of speach, I mean do apples even grow in Iraq?
> 
They probably did X thousand years ago.  There were some relly WET lands 
there before Saddam drained them in 1991, and they are coming back.


> I have one problem with evolution:
>  Dinosour bones. How in the hell can dinosaur bones from 2 million years ago 
> be laying on the surface of the ground in the american midwest? Throw 
> something down, and a week later its buried under and inch of sand. 
> 
> 

This goes both ways.  Sand will cover things up one place, while the 
wind and water will scour things out somewhere else.  The central US
used to be a big sea!

Jon

vinny wrote:
> I have one problem with evolution:
>  Dinosour bones. How in the hell can dinosaur bones from 2 million years ago 
> be laying on the surface of the ground in the american midwest? Throw 
> something down, and a week later its buried under and inch of sand. 
> 
> 

The Earth's crust is constantly eroding in places and folding in places 
as the plates interact.  "New" geological epochs are constantly being 
exposed.  A good geology book will give the details of the process.

If you want to read something interesting, find Fish with Fingers, 
Whales with Legs, by Carl Zimmer.

> Ohhh, I've seen PICTURES.......

She's got a perfect ass.

Jon Banquer
San Diego, CA

"jon_banquer" <jon_banquer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a32b7803-5101-41bc-9e4c-d0cd8d2b9e98@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> > Ohhh, I've seen PICTURES.......
>
> She's got a perfect ass.
>

Brad?

Sorry, I couldn't help it.
Art

Protagonist wrote:

> 
> As they say, shit all ways flows to the top, devil just has an easier 
> time to scoop it up.
> JS
> 

So your being a top machinist means your shit I guess.
-- 
Regards,
Steve Saling
aka The Garlic Dude �
Gilroy, CA
The Garlic Capital of The World
http://tinyurl.com/2avg58

"GarlicDude" <pulsar@garlic.com> wrote in message 
news:13pg9mgkmtiqb24@corp.supernews.com...
> Protagonist wrote:
>
>>
>> As they say, shit all ways flows to the top, devil just has an easier 
>> time to scoop it up.
>> JS
>>
>
> So your being a top machinist means your shit I guess.
> -- 
> Regards,
> Steve Saling
> aka The Garlic Dude �
> Gilroy, CA
> The Garlic Capital of The World
> http://tinyurl.com/2avg58
>

Yeah, that has to be the most cockeyed aphorism I've ever heard. It looks 
like he wrote down each of those words on scraps of paper, folded them up so 
he couldn't see what was on them, and then wrote the sentence that resulted 
as he took them out and opened them up.

--
Ed Huntress 

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 07:21:20 -0600, Bill <wpflumus@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Gunner Asch <gunner@NOSPAM.earthlink.net> wrote in 
>news:hks3p3hnpmk0hsgnn4cjkbigsdctf0ig7e@4ax.com:
>
><snip>
>> 
>> Why would you say its fucked up?  Seems to be working rather
>> marvelously actually.
>> 
>> Gunner
>> 
>
>Take a look at Ted Kennedy and Nancy Peloci and tell me God didn't take a 
>snooze when laying out their designs. ;)

  They look as old as Gunner?

>Bill

  "The purpose of fighting is to win." - Gummer
-- 
Cliff

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 13:07:49 GMT, "Joe AutoDrill" <bob@youthelate.com> wrote:

>Check out the blurb at the bottom of www.yunx.com.  It's a cool little 
>"story" about a situation sorta like yours...  Starts off with "BANG!" at 
>the very bottom right area of the web page.

  Crazed fundie loonies are persistant. If only they were bright enough to 
know what the subject is about.
  BTW, Fudies are a danger too. Look at all their wars & superstitious
rules to impose on others by force. AND they can inbreed with wingers I 
fear.
-- 
Cliff

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 08:28:07 -0500, "The Pre-Meltdown Kid"
<entropic3.14decay@optonline2.718.net> wrote:

>According to my Economist-reading wife, the Vatican paid out, in one lump 
>sum I think, $1.5 BILLION in all the priest/sex stuff.

  Probably best to compare with the long--term costs of hookers & etc,
like in the good old conservative days.
  Before repubs dating in airports or with pages too.
-- 
Cliff

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 08:28:07 -0500, "The Pre-Meltdown Kid"
<entropic3.14decay@optonline2.718.net> wrote:

>But Religion is also big, big, big, big bidniss.
>According to my Economist-reading wife, the Vatican paid out, in one lump 
>sum I think, $1.5 BILLION in all the priest/sex stuff.
>One wonders how much they have left in the kitty.

  IIRC The Catholic church is the worlds largest landlord & slumlord.
  But the Greek Orthodox ones own the most land (acres) in the US.
  And, in terms of "equivalent after-tax income", they make more
than lawyers (but a little less than doctors) in the US per the GAO.
  Better work week & hours too.
  There are hundreds of books of full of sermons to copy ... and 
you just have to love PhDs from Freedom University.
-- 
Cliff

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 08:28:07 -0500, "The Pre-Meltdown Kid"
<entropic3.14decay@optonline2.718.net> wrote:

>And I'll bet the jw's are worth billions, which they pretty much deserve. 

   Bushs & the moonies ... 
http://www.bcrevolution.ca/moonies.htm
-- 
Cliff

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 13:07:08 -0800, "Hawke" <desmithers@dslextreme.com> wrote:

>Science hasn't got all the answers, at
>least not yet

  In point of fact it sort of leans towards saying that there
is much that we cannot "know" no matter what. Not even
counting how dumb & limited we are.
-- 
Cliff

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:31:15 -0600, Jon Elson <elson@wustl.edu> wrote:

>
>
>vinny wrote:
>>   The apple is a figure of speach, I mean do apples even grow in Iraq?
>> 
>They probably did X thousand years ago.  There were some relly WET lands 
>there before Saddam drained them in 1991, and they are coming back.

  I don't think apple trees grow well in swamps.
-- 
Cliff

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:31:15 -0600, Jon Elson <elson@wustl.edu> wrote:

>> I have one problem with evolution:
>>  Dinosour bones. How in the hell can dinosaur bones from 2 million years ago 
>> be laying on the surface of the ground in the american midwest? Throw 
>> something down, and a week later its buried under and inch of sand. 
>> 
>> 
>
>This goes both ways.  Sand will cover things up one place, while the 
>wind and water will scour things out somewhere else.  The central US
>used to be a big sea!

  It was not filled in with wind-blown sand to dry/fill it up.
-- 
Cliff

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:24:52 -0500, BobCP <ctcboater@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>vinny wrote:
>> I have one problem with evolution:
>>  Dinosour bones. How in the hell can dinosaur bones from 2 million years ago 
>> be laying on the surface of the ground in the american midwest? Throw 
>> something down, and a week later its buried under and inch of sand. 
>> 
>> 
>
>The Earth's crust is constantly eroding in places and folding in places 

  The folding can sometimes result in older rocks above younger ones.

>as the plates interact.  "New" geological epochs are constantly being 
>exposed.  A good geology book will give the details of the process.
>
>If you want to read something interesting, find Fish with Fingers, 
>Whales with Legs, by Carl Zimmer.
-- 
Cliff

Cliff schrieb:

> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:31:15 -0600, Jon Elson <elson@wustl.edu> wrote:
> 
>>
>> vinny wrote:
>>>   The apple is a figure of speach, I mean do apples even grow in Iraq?
>>>
>> They probably did X thousand years ago.  There were some relly WET lands 
>> there before Saddam drained them in 1991, and they are coming back.
> 
>   I don't think apple trees grow well in swamps.

The Bible didn't say "apple" anyway.

Monika.

-- 
Every time you reboot, God kills a kitten.

E-mail address is valid until 4 weeks after the expiration date. Use 
@arcor.de instead.

I missed the Staff meeting, but the Memos showed that Gunner Asch
<gunner@NOSPAM.earthlink.net> wrote on Sat, 19 Jan 2008 16:32:57 +0530
in rec.crafts.metalworking :
>If someone has deep faith, you are not going to change his mind very
>far.  You can only kill them, or modify them a bit to make them less
>overt. It takes something inside them themselves to change. 

	As the saying goes, just because you have silenced a man, does not
mean you have converted him.
>
>Evolution?  I see no dicotomy between religious evolution and
>scientific evolution.  Both could be correct and intertwined.
>Or not.
>
>The John Scheiderloops would have us believe it was "seeding" by
>another alien species. Could be. Or not.

	That just moves the locus of the original Series of Improbable
Events to somewhere else.


>Me..I believe in evolution. Now if it was directed, or happened by
>luck of the draw...not a clue. Nor do I really care one way or
>another.

	Me neither, I'm too busy making a living and trying to make a
life.
--
pyotr filipivich
"I had just been through hell and must have looked like death warmed 
over walking into the saloon, because when I asked the bartender 
whether they served zombies he said, �Sure, what'll you have?'"
from I Hear America Swinging  by Peter DeVries 

I missed the Staff meeting, but the Memos showed that Al Porter
<aptr@hotmail.com> wrote on Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:25:58 -0600 in
rec.crafts.metalworking :
>On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:35:04 -0500, "vinny" <friggenbozo@gawab.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>>
>>I have one problem with evolution:
>> Dinosour bones. How in the hell can dinosaur bones from 2 million years ago 
>>be laying on the surface of the ground in the american midwest? Throw 
>>something down, and a week later its buried under and inch of sand. 
>>
>
> Ever heard of "erosion"? Wind, water, and weather in general tend to
>wear the terrain down, thus exposing stuff buried underneath.
>
> It's too bad nature can't erode away the stupidity of the religious
>types in the same way...
>
> A lot of them say that "god" has a plan for everyone, and that
>everything happens according to "god's" plan.

	That's mostly the modern Evangelical Protestants, who, to be
charitable, are busy doing their own thing.
>
> Does that include murders, rapes, genocide, wars, etc...?

	Are you trying to impose a moral judgment here, or just expressing
a personal opinion?   Machts nichts.

	As the saying goes, for anything to be considered free, it has to
be able to chose, and that includes in stupid, self-destructive or
harmful ways.  People are free to choose do evil things.
	But then again, I'm predestined to believe in free-will, so there
isn't anything I can do about it.


tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
Monotheism, someone has said, offers two simple axioms: 
     1) There is a God. 
     2) It's not you. 

"Monika Krug" <monikakrug@expires-2008-01-31.arcornews.de> wrote in message
news:4799019e$0$5958$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net...
> Cliff schrieb:
>
>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:31:15 -0600, Jon Elson <elson@wustl.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> vinny wrote:
>>>>   The apple is a figure of speach, I mean do apples even grow in Iraq?
>>>>
>>> They probably did X thousand years ago.  There were some relly WET lands there before Saddam drained them in 1991, and they are
>>> coming back.
>>
>>   I don't think apple trees grow well in swamps.
>
> The Bible didn't say "apple" anyway.
>
> Monika.
>
> -- 
> Every time you reboot, God kills a kitten.


The Holy Scriptures do reference extraterrestrials and spacecraft visiting our Earth.

John

"Lew Hartswick" <lhartswick@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13pefutfcb06229@corp.supernews.com...
> Protagonist wrote:
> > As they say, shit all ways flows to the top, devil just has an easier
> > time to scoop it up.
> > JS
> As opposed to what plumbers are taught. :-)
>
> Shit flows down hill, hot on the left and payday is friday.
>     ...lew...
>

WELL THEN I'LL BE IN TOMORROW TO PICK UP MY FUCKING CHECK.

"Ed Huntress" <huntres23@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:47982831$0$6345$607ed4bc@cv.net...
>
> "GarlicDude" <pulsar@garlic.com> wrote in message
> news:13pg9mgkmtiqb24@corp.supernews.com...
> > Protagonist wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> As they say, shit all ways flows to the top, devil just has an easier
> >> time to scoop it up.
> >> JS
> >>
> >
> > So your being a top machinist means your shit I guess.
> > -- 
> > Regards,
> > Steve Saling
> > aka The Garlic Dude �
> > Gilroy, CA
> > The Garlic Capital of The World
> > http://tinyurl.com/2avg58
> >
>
> Yeah, that has to be the most cockeyed aphorism I've ever heard. It looks
> like he wrote down each of those words on scraps of paper, folded them up
so
> he couldn't see what was on them, and then wrote the sentence that
resulted
> as he took them out and opened them up.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress

You're giving him a lot of credit. The reason for the nonsense may simply be
it's the output of a severely limited brain.

Hawke

"pyotr filipivich" <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:mm9ip3pr1qjsrrvr7ktav0sc3e6tr66tkk@4ax.com...
> I missed the Staff meeting, but the Memos showed that Al Porter
> <aptr@hotmail.com> wrote on Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:25:58 -0600 in
> rec.crafts.metalworking :
> >On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:35:04 -0500, "vinny" <friggenbozo@gawab.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >>I have one problem with evolution:
> >> Dinosour bones. How in the hell can dinosaur bones from 2 million years
ago
> >>be laying on the surface of the ground in the american midwest? Throw
> >>something down, and a week later its buried under and inch of sand.
> >>
> >
> > Ever heard of "erosion"? Wind, water, and weather in general tend to
> >wear the terrain down, thus exposing stuff buried underneath.
> >
> > It's too bad nature can't erode away the stupidity of the religious
> >types in the same way...
> >
> > A lot of them say that "god" has a plan for everyone, and that
> >everything happens according to "god's" plan.
>
> That's mostly the modern Evangelical Protestants, who, to be
> charitable, are busy doing their own thing.
> >
> > Does that include murders, rapes, genocide, wars, etc...?
>
> Are you trying to impose a moral judgment here, or just expressing
> a personal opinion?   Machts nichts.
>
> As the saying goes, for anything to be considered free, it has to
> be able to chose, and that includes in stupid, self-destructive or
> harmful ways.  People are free to choose do evil things.
> But then again, I'm predestined to believe in free-will, so there
> isn't anything I can do about it.

Well, it's your choice to believe that, isn't it? So much for predestined.

Hawke

Whadda Maroon....
            Buggs Bunny

Actually, shit flotation direction in water depends upon it's specific gravity.
Lighter than water, it floats.  Heavier than water it sinks.  The specifically
correct quote is "shit always goes down hill."  Remember that guys, it's
important!  An awful lot of engineering effort has gone into verifying this
theory (fact actually).

Mike Eberlein

Hawke wrote:

> "Ed Huntress" <huntres23@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:47982831$0$6345$607ed4bc@cv.net...
> >
> > "GarlicDude" <pulsar@garlic.com> wrote in message
> > news:13pg9mgkmtiqb24@corp.supernews.com...
> > > Protagonist wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> As they say, shit all ways flows to the top, devil just has an easier
> > >> time to scoop it up.
> > >> JS
> > >>
> > >
> > > So your being a top machinist means your shit I guess.
> > > --
> > > Regards,
> > > Steve Saling
> > > aka The Garlic Dude �
> > > Gilroy, CA
> > > The Garlic Capital of The World
> > > http://tinyurl.com/2avg58
> > >
> >
> > Yeah, that has to be the most cockeyed aphorism I've ever heard. It looks
> > like he wrote down each of those words on scraps of paper, folded them up
> so
> > he couldn't see what was on them, and then wrote the sentence that
> resulted
> > as he took them out and opened them up.
> >
> > --
> > Ed Huntress
>
> You're giving him a lot of credit. The reason for the nonsense may simply be
> it's the output of a severely limited brain.
>
> Hawke

Hawkette wrote:
> 
> You're giving him a lot of credit. The reason for the nonsense may simply be
> it's the output of a severely limited brain.
> 
> Hawkette


   An area that you're well versed in.  All you have to do is look in a
mirror to see a prime example.

-- 
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

cavalamb himself wrote:
> 
> Whadda Maroon....
>             Buggs Bunny


   Hawke is an insult to Maroons everywhere. :(


-- 
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

John Scheldroup wrote:
> 
> The Holy Scriptures do reference extraterrestrials and spacecraft visiting our Earth.
> 
> John


   And a burning bush! ;-)


-- 
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

On Jan 22, 5:48 pm, NoOne N Particular <twobl...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > Frankly...intelligent design is as good a theory as any. The Designer
> > being God, or a altruistic being called K()#! fpht from another
> > galaxy.
>
> If the design is so intelligent, why is it so f'd up?
>
> Wayne
Well, I'd say it's not really as good as any other. If things are
intelligently designed, then who designed the designer? And who
designed *that* designer? Where does it stop?

It's like saying that the earth rests on a giant turtle. What doe the
turtle rest on? It it "turtles all the way down"? How could that
possible work?

> >If the design is so intelligent, why is it so f'd up?
>
> >Wayne
>
> Why would you say its fucked up?  Seems to be working rather
> marvelously actually.
>
> Gunner
Are you really saying that things are designed the best that they
could be? How about people? Are they designed to be as good as they
can be? Are people already perfect? Or are they perfectible in the
future?

Or did this so-called designer just not care or make a shoddy design?

> >You have neither my knees nor my back.  Speaking as a systems architect
> >(it's my day job), I can tell you that we resemble really screwed up fish
> >a lot more than we resemble something purpose-designed to walk on land
> >and build stuff.
>
> Perfect? No. But we are hardly single cell slime molds either.
>
> Gunner
Well, yes, but complexity is not the same as perfection.  And biology
really only makes sense in light of evolution, not some crazy creation
myth. At least evolution has predictive power and can (potentially) be
disproved whereas intelligent design can never be disproved.  The only
think I can think of that could prove intelligent design, off the top
of my head, is if a new living species were magically created inside a
sealed glass cube. Personally, I'm not holding my breath that that
will ever happen.

Just because we don't completely understand something doesn't mean
it's false or that we won't understand it in the future.

(BTW, I haven't talked to you in a while --  hope everything is going
well).

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:479A99B3.DF262F3D@earthlink.net...
> John Scheldroup wrote:
>>
>> The Holy Scriptures do reference extraterrestrials and spacecraft visiting our Earth.
>>
>> John
>
>
>   And a burning bush! ;-)
>
>

For those having exposed thy life composed in
a peace thread;
Blessed are those that pace in drift for they have
walked the peace aether;
Let them dwell in the realm of Zoltar his cosmic
crystal menagerie forever and ever.

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Foundations of the Unity of Science
Second Edition, Volume 2 Number 2
Thomas S Kuhn

looks like mine is 1973 first published
in 1962 University of Chicago Press

John

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:479A9977.151A0DED@earthlink.net...
> cavalamb himself wrote:
> >
> > Whadda Maroon....
> >             Buggs Bunny
>
>
>    Hawke is an insult to Maroons everywhere. :(
>
>
> -- 
> Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
> prove it.
> Member of DAV #85.
>
> Michael A. Terrell
> Central Florida

Terrell, lame body, lame brain, lame ideas. Get the picture? Crippled in all
areas.

Hawke

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:04:30 -0800 (PST), jpolaski@rgs.uci.edu wrote:

>> >If the design is so intelligent, why is it so f'd up?
>>
>> >Wayne
>>
>> Why would you say its fucked up?  Seems to be working rather
>> marvelously actually.
>>
>> Gunner
>Are you really saying that things are designed the best that they
>could be? How about people? Are they designed to be as good as they
>can be? Are people already perfect? Or are they perfectible in the
>future?

Of course they are not perfect. Thats the whole idea..to work at it as
best you can. Some religions give you one shot at it..others put you
on a perpetual wheel in which you get many shots at obtaining
perfection.
>
>Or did this so-called designer just not care or make a shoddy design?


"God made the world in 6 days flat
On the seventh, he said "Ill rest"
So he let the thing, into orbit swing
To give it a dry run test
A billion years went by
Then he looked at this whirrling blob
HIS spirits fell, as he shrugged Oh Well
Twas only a six day job"

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:12:08 -0800 (PST), jpolaski@rgs.uci.edu wrote:

>> >You have neither my knees nor my back.  Speaking as a systems architect
>> >(it's my day job), I can tell you that we resemble really screwed up fish
>> >a lot more than we resemble something purpose-designed to walk on land
>> >and build stuff.
>>
>> Perfect? No. But we are hardly single cell slime molds either.
>>
>> Gunner
>Well, yes, but complexity is not the same as perfection.  And biology
>really only makes sense in light of evolution, not some crazy creation
>myth. At least evolution has predictive power and can (potentially) be
>disproved whereas intelligent design can never be disproved.  The only
>think I can think of that could prove intelligent design, off the top
>of my head, is if a new living species were magically created inside a
>sealed glass cube. Personally, I'm not holding my breath that that
>will ever happen.
>
>Just because we don't completely understand something doesn't mean
>it's false or that we won't understand it in the future.
>

Nor does it mean all is fucked up, either.

>(BTW, I haven't talked to you in a while --  hope everything is going
>well).

If I was any better, Id be twins.
Hope you are doing well yourself. Call me one of these days.

Gunner

Hawke wrote:
> 
> "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:479A9977.151A0DED@earthlink.net...
> > cavalamb himself wrote:
> > >
> > > Whadda Maroon....
> > >             Buggs Bunny
> >
> >
> >    Hawke is an insult to Maroons everywhere. :(
> 
> Terrell, lame body, lame brain, lame ideas. Get the picture? Crippled in all
> areas.
> 
> Hawke


   I can still out think you, out work you, and kick your sorry ass a
mile down the highway, hawkie, you brain dead freak.


-- 
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Dom wrote:
> Had a rather heated discussion yesterday with a colleague about
> evolution vs. creation.  The basis of his argument is that scientific
> process is flawed, and the knowledge gained from using scientific
> process is incorrect.  He is offended by people referring to science
> as 'fact'.
> 
> I argued that science doesn't presume to be factual, that hypothesis
> are presented to the community, they are reviewed and tested, and are
> not accepted until they can be proved.  If the proofs are found to be
> incorrect later, then they are rejected.
> 
> He claims to love science, but I think he doesn't understand what it
> is.
> 
> I also argued that creation is based on tradition and is not conducive
> to expanding knowledge, ideas are not allowed to be challenged, as
> this is considered blasphemy.  He says that any expansion of knowledge
> on creation is through divine inspiration, and that this is
> encouraged.
> 
> I am not arguing that creation is wrong, I think that it was the best
> way of describing the world when it was written, however humans have a
> larger knowledge base now and our ideas are more sophisticated.  In
> the modern age it seems appropriate to describe our world in terms of
> evolution.  In the future I'm sure that this description will change
> and improve.
> 
> Comments?  I'm trying to understand my colleague, and I don't think he
> is ignorant, but how can I get through his fervour?


    First, you have to get through your own misconceptions.  What on 
Earth (or anywhere else) makes you think humans, in general, are more 
sophisticated than they were 20 or 30 centuries ago?  If that were true, 
then you wouldn't be having the discussion you describe.

    A larger knowledge base?  Of course.  We're better than ever before 
at using the resources of the world around us.  We can survive more 
easily.  We can live in comfort.  We can also destroy ourselves, and 
other species, and maybe even a whole world, by means that primitive 
people would surely have thought to be god-like.

    Knowledge, however, doesn't grow on trees.  What we know and use has 
come to us from an astonishingly small number of people who (at least in 
limited ways) have transcended their primitive nature and actually used 
their minds to learn things.  But if you look at history (any part of 
history, any period, any part of the world), you'll see how rare 
learning really is, and how brutal and beastly and hostile we can be.

    Regardless of where humans came from, human civilization is, and 
must be, something created and maintained only by hard work, endless 
dilligence, and extreme caution about swallowing any of a trillion forms 
of madness that tempt us every day.

    Understanding your collegue isn't hard.  He's a dangerous mammal 
with some acquired skills.  If protecting himself from self-delusion 
isn't one of those skills, then it isn't.  You deal every day with 
people of widely varying skill sets, and you learn which skills can be 
relied on for which kinds of tasks.  Don't rely on your collegue for 
anything that needs critical thinking, the ability to challenge 
preconceptions, or the independence of mind required to see things in 
new ways.

    Simple.

KG

> > > > Whadda Maroon....
> > > >             Buggs Bunny
> > >
> > >
> > >    Hawke is an insult to Maroons everywhere. :(
> >
> > Terrell, lame body, lame brain, lame ideas. Get the picture? Crippled in
all
> > areas.
> >
> > Hawke
>
>
>    I can still out think you, out work you, and kick your sorry ass a
> mile down the highway, hawkie, you brain dead freak.
> Michael A. Terrell
> Central Florida


Ha, Ha, Ha, sure you can. In your dreams. You're a beat up, broken down,
uneducated crip. You can't do jack. But you sure can talk shit, and that's
about it. What's pathetic is that you can't even do that well. If I ran into
you on the street I'd brush you out of the way like an old piece of shit and
keep on keep on walking like you weren't even there. Oh wait, I'd have to
push your wheel chair out of the way wouldn't I?

Hawke

"Kirk Gordon" <kg1@gordon-eng2.com> wrote in message
news:479D05F6.2020209@gordon-eng2.com...
> Dom wrote:
> > Had a rather heated discussion yesterday with a colleague about
> > evolution vs. creation.  The basis of his argument is that scientific
> > process is flawed, and the knowledge gained from using scientific
> > process is incorrect.  He is offended by people referring to science
> > as 'fact'.
> >
> > I argued that science doesn't presume to be factual, that hypothesis
> > are presented to the community, they are reviewed and tested, and are
> > not accepted until they can be proved.  If the proofs are found to be
> > incorrect later, then they are rejected.
> >
> > He claims to love science, but I think he doesn't understand what it
> > is.
> >
> > I also argued that creation is based on tradition and is not conducive
> > to expanding knowledge, ideas are not allowed to be challenged, as
> > this is considered blasphemy.  He says that any expansion of knowledge
> > on creation is through divine inspiration, and that this is
> > encouraged.
> >
> > I am not arguing that creation is wrong, I think that it was the best
> > way of describing the world when it was written, however humans have a
> > larger knowledge base now and our ideas are more sophisticated.  In
> > the modern age it seems appropriate to describe our world in terms of
> > evolution.  In the future I'm sure that this description will change
> > and improve.
> >
> > Comments?  I'm trying to understand my colleague, and I don't think he
> > is ignorant, but how can I get through his fervour?
>
>
>     First, you have to get through your own misconceptions.  What on
> Earth (or anywhere else) makes you think humans, in general, are more
> sophisticated than they were 20 or 30 centuries ago?  If that were true,
> then you wouldn't be having the discussion you describe.
>
>     A larger knowledge base?  Of course.  We're better than ever before
> at using the resources of the world around us.  We can survive more
> easily.  We can live in comfort.  We can also destroy ourselves, and
> other species, and maybe even a whole world, by means that primitive
> people would surely have thought to be god-like.
>
>     Knowledge, however, doesn't grow on trees.  What we know and use has
> come to us from an astonishingly small number of people who (at least in
> limited ways) have transcended their primitive nature and actually used
> their minds to learn things.  But if you look at history (any part of
> history, any period, any part of the world), you'll see how rare
> learning really is, and how brutal and beastly and hostile we can be.
>
>     Regardless of where humans came from, human civilization is, and
> must be, something created and maintained only by hard work, endless
> dilligence, and extreme caution about swallowing any of a trillion forms
> of madness that tempt us every day.
>
>     Understanding your collegue isn't hard.  He's a dangerous mammal
> with some acquired skills.  If protecting himself from self-delusion
> isn't one of those skills, then it isn't.  You deal every day with
> people of widely varying skill sets, and you learn which skills can be
> relied on for which kinds of tasks.  Don't rely on your collegue for
> anything that needs critical thinking, the ability to challenge
> preconceptions, or the independence of mind required to see things in
> new ways.
>
>     Simple.
>
> KG

You might also mention that the Bible says that God created the world in six
days and on the seventh day he rested. Why? Does God need to rest? Does God
get tired? I though he was all powerful. You wouldn't think that a being
that made the universe would be tired after making the earth, would you?
When you contrast the Bible to actual known facts and start asking hard
questions you quickly find that it's full of errors and too many questions
can't be answered. Like did Jesus have any brothers and sisters? Did Mary
have any other children? Was she celebate or sterile? How about Joseph?
Start asking questions and you find out "believers" don't know anything. If
you analyze what the Bible says scientifically you find all kinds of errors.
How can there be errors in a book that comes from God? Simple answer, there
can't. Now how about a book written by man?

Hawke

He Rested 'who' ?   his peoples.
Martin H. Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
TSRA, Endowed; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal.
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder
IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member.
http://lufkinced.com/


Hawke wrote:
> "Kirk Gordon" <kg1@gordon-eng2.com> wrote in message
> news:479D05F6.2020209@gordon-eng2.com...
>> Dom wrote:
>>> Had a rather heated discussion yesterday with a colleague about
>>> evolution vs. creation.  The basis of his argument is that scientific
>>> process is flawed, and the knowledge gained from using scientific
>>> process is incorrect.  He is offended by people referring to science
>>> as 'fact'.
>>>
>>> I argued that science doesn't presume to be factual, that hypothesis
>>> are presented to the community, they are reviewed and tested, and are
>>> not accepted until they can be proved.  If the proofs are found to be
>>> incorrect later, then they are rejected.
>>>
>>> He claims to love science, but I think he doesn't understand what it
>>> is.
>>>
>>> I also argued that creation is based on tradition and is not conducive
>>> to expanding knowledge, ideas are not allowed to be challenged, as
>>> this is considered blasphemy.  He says that any expansion of knowledge
>>> on creation is through divine inspiration, and that this is
>>> encouraged.
>>>
>>> I am not arguing that creation is wrong, I think that it was the best
>>> way of describing the world when it was written, however humans have a
>>> larger knowledge base now and our ideas are more sophisticated.  In
>>> the modern age it seems appropriate to describe our world in terms of
>>> evolution.  In the future I'm sure that this description will change
>>> and improve.
>>>
>>> Comments?  I'm trying to understand my colleague, and I don't think he
>>> is ignorant, but how can I get through his fervour?
>>
>>     First, you have to get through your own misconceptions.  What on
>> Earth (or anywhere else) makes you think humans, in general, are more
>> sophisticated than they were 20 or 30 centuries ago?  If that were true,
>> then you wouldn't be having the discussion you describe.
>>
>>     A larger knowledge base?  Of course.  We're better than ever before
>> at using the resources of the world around us.  We can survive more
>> easily.  We can live in comfort.  We can also destroy ourselves, and
>> other species, and maybe even a whole world, by means that primitive
>> people would surely have thought to be god-like.
>>
>>     Knowledge, however, doesn't grow on trees.  What we know and use has
>> come to us from an astonishingly small number of people who (at least in
>> limited ways) have transcended their primitive nature and actually used
>> their minds to learn things.  But if you look at history (any part of
>> history, any period, any part of the world), you'll see how rare
>> learning really is, and how brutal and beastly and hostile we can be.
>>
>>     Regardless of where humans came from, human civilization is, and
>> must be, something created and maintained only by hard work, endless
>> dilligence, and extreme caution about swallowing any of a trillion forms
>> of madness that tempt us every day.
>>
>>     Understanding your collegue isn't hard.  He's a dangerous mammal
>> with some acquired skills.  If protecting himself from self-delusion
>> isn't one of those skills, then it isn't.  You deal every day with
>> people of widely varying skill sets, and you learn which skills can be
>> relied on for which kinds of tasks.  Don't rely on your collegue for
>> anything that needs critical thinking, the ability to challenge
>> preconceptions, or the independence of mind required to see things in
>> new ways.
>>
>>     Simple.
>>
>> KG
> 
> You might also mention that the Bible says that God created the world in six
> days and on the seventh day he rested. Why? Does God need to rest? Does God
> get tired? I though he was all powerful. You wouldn't think that a being
> that made the universe would be tired after making the earth, would you?
> When you contrast the Bible to actual known facts and start asking hard
> questions you quickly find that it's full of errors and too many questions
> can't be answered. Like did Jesus have any brothers and sisters? Did Mary
> have any other children? Was she celebate or sterile? How about Joseph?
> Start asking questions and you find out "believers" don't know anything. If
> you analyze what the Bible says scientifically you find all kinds of errors.
> How can there be errors in a book that comes from God? Simple answer, there
> can't. Now how about a book written by man?
> 
> Hawke
> 
> 

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 21:16:06 -0600, "Martin H. Eastburn"
<lionslair@consolidated.net> wrote:

>He Rested 'who' ?   his peoples.

  ??

>Martin H. Eastburn
>@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
>TSRA, Endowed; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal.
>NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder
>IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member.
>http://lufkinced.com/
>
>
>Hawke wrote:
>> "Kirk Gordon" <kg1@gordon-eng2.com> wrote in message
>> news:479D05F6.2020209@gordon-eng2.com...
>>> Dom wrote:
>>>> Had a rather heated discussion yesterday with a colleague about
>>>> evolution vs. creation.  The basis of his argument is that scientific
>>>> process is flawed, and the knowledge gained from using scientific
>>>> process is incorrect.  He is offended by people referring to science
>>>> as 'fact'.
>>>>
>>>> I argued that science doesn't presume to be factual, that hypothesis
>>>> are presented to the community, they are reviewed and tested, and are
>>>> not accepted until they can be proved.  If the proofs are found to be
>>>> incorrect later, then they are rejected.
>>>>
>>>> He claims to love science, but I think he doesn't understand what it
>>>> is.
>>>>
>>>> I also argued that creation is based on tradition and is not conducive
>>>> to expanding knowledge, ideas are not allowed to be challenged, as
>>>> this is considered blasphemy.  He says that any expansion of knowledge
>>>> on creation is through divine inspiration, and that this is
>>>> encouraged.
>>>>
>>>> I am not arguing that creation is wrong, I think that it was the best
>>>> way of describing the world when it was written, however humans have a
>>>> larger knowledge base now and our ideas are more sophisticated.  In
>>>> the modern age it seems appropriate to describe our world in terms of
>>>> evolution.  In the future I'm sure that this description will change
>>>> and improve.
>>>>
>>>> Comments?  I'm trying to understand my colleague, and I don't think he
>>>> is ignorant, but how can I get through his fervour?
>>>
>>>     First, you have to get through your own misconceptions.  What on
>>> Earth (or anywhere else) makes you think humans, in general, are more
>>> sophisticated than they were 20 or 30 centuries ago?  If that were true,
>>> then you wouldn't be having the discussion you describe.
>>>
>>>     A larger knowledge base?  Of course.  We're better than ever before
>>> at using the resources of the world around us.  We can survive more
>>> easily.  We can live in comfort.  We can also destroy ourselves, and
>>> other species, and maybe even a whole world, by means that primitive
>>> people would surely have thought to be god-like.
>>>
>>>     Knowledge, however, doesn't grow on trees.  What we know and use has
>>> come to us from an astonishingly small number of people who (at least in
>>> limited ways) have transcended their primitive nature and actually used
>>> their minds to learn things.  But if you look at history (any part of
>>> history, any period, any part of the world), you'll see how rare
>>> learning really is, and how brutal and beastly and hostile we can be.
>>>
>>>     Regardless of where humans came from, human civilization is, and
>>> must be, something created and maintained only by hard work, endless
>>> dilligence, and extreme caution about swallowing any of a trillion forms
>>> of madness that tempt us every day.
>>>
>>>     Understanding your collegue isn't hard.  He's a dangerous mammal
>>> with some acquired skills.  If protecting himself from self-delusion
>>> isn't one of those skills, then it isn't.  You deal every day with
>>> people of widely varying skill sets, and you learn which skills can be
>>> relied on for which kinds of tasks.  Don't rely on your collegue for
>>> anything that needs critical thinking, the ability to challenge
>>> preconceptions, or the independence of mind required to see things in
>>> new ways.
>>>
>>>     Simple.
>>>
>>> KG
>> 
>> You might also mention that the Bible says that God created the world in six
>> days and on the seventh day he rested. Why? Does God need to rest? Does God
>> get tired? I though he was all powerful. You wouldn't think that a being
>> that made the universe would be tired after making the earth, would you?
>> When you contrast the Bible to actual known facts and start asking hard
>> questions you quickly find that it's full of errors and too many questions
>> can't be answered. Like did Jesus have any brothers and sisters? Did Mary
>> have any other children? Was she celebate or sterile? How about Joseph?
>> Start asking questions and you find out "believers" don't know anything. If
>> you analyze what the Bible says scientifically you find all kinds of errors.
>> How can there be errors in a book that comes from God? Simple answer, there
>> can't. Now how about a book written by man?
>> 
>> Hawke
>> 
>> 

Hawkie wrote:
> 
> Ha, Ha, Ha, sure you can. In your dreams. You're a beat up, broken down,
> uneducated crip. You can't do jack. But you sure can talk shit, and that's
> about it. What's pathetic is that you can't even do that well. If I ran into
> you on the street I'd brush you out of the way like an old piece of shit and
> keep on keep on walking like you weren't even there. Oh wait, I'd have to
> push your wheel chair out of the way wouldn't I?
> 
> Hawkie


   What a pathetic dreamer, birdbrain.  If you think you can do it then
come on down to Florida, or shut that stupid mouth of yours.  BTW, I am
not in a wheelchair, I use a cane in my left hand. My disability is
really none of your business, but you're not man enough to understand
that, and you never will be.

   One little punk like you tried to take my cane away, to impress his
buddies. He ended up down on his bare knees, on sharp gravel with that
hand pinned to his back by my cane while he begged me to let him up.  I
let him up, after he promised never to bother me again.  He was man
enough to keep his word, and never did.  In fact, whenever I had to pick
up or deliver computer equipment to that church, he would grab some of
the other young men and they help load or unload my truck.

   Hawkie, you would be on your knees, till the police arrived to arrest
you for assaulting me.

   As far as education, some of my electronics are aboard the
International Space Station to provide vice, video and data channels on
the KU band. It will handle up to a 40 Mb/s data stream.  The NOAA earth
station at Wallops Island Virginia for control of their LEO satellites
was a complete turnkey job I worked on, as well as the two tracking
stations we built for the European Space Agency.  One was a fixed
station, and the other was mobile, consisting of an enclosed trailer, a
portable tracking antenna system and a diesel generator.  NASA has a lot
of the Telemetry equipment from the plant I worked at, as an engineering
tech.

   What have you ever done, other than show everyone what a total loser
you are?  As far as 'talking shit', I hear that three Roto Rooter
franchises are fighting for the EPA 'Superfund' contract to clean out
your mouth.  You would have to go to a sewage treatment plant to have a
tooth pulled, because no self respecting dentist would have anything to
do with that nasty mouth of yours.

  Have you ever worked a day in your life?  Have you ever done ANYTHING
to help your fellow man?  Or are you the shallow, brain dead loser that
you show yourself to be on USENET?

-- 
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Hawkie wrote:
> 
> You might also mention that the Bible says that God created the world in six
> days and on the seventh day he rested. Why? Does God need to rest? Does God
> get tired? I though he was all powerful. 


   He rested because the job was done, dumb ass.  It's obvious that God
has a great sense of humor because he created enough idiots like you, to
entertain everyone else.

-- 
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:49:30 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

>   As far as education, some of my electronics are aboard the
>International Space Station to provide vice

  Interesting. 
  What one(s)?
-- 
Cliff

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:49:30 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

>   As far as education, some of my electronics are aboard the
>International Space Station to provide vice, video and data channels on
>the KU band. It will handle up to a 40 Mb/s data stream.  The NOAA earth
>station at Wallops Island Virginia for control of their LEO satellites
>was a complete turnkey job I worked on, as well as the two tracking
>stations we built for the European Space Agency.  One was a fixed
>station, and the other was mobile, consisting of an enclosed trailer, a
>portable tracking antenna system and a diesel generator.  NASA has a lot
>of the Telemetry equipment from the plant I worked at, as an engineering
>tech.

  So wingers actually can be trained to solder? Somebody 
probably misspelled soldier and the results were ...
-- 
Cliff

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:49:30 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

>   One little punk like you tried to take my cane away, to impress his
>buddies. He ended up down on his bare knees, on sharp gravel with that
>hand pinned to his back by my cane while he begged me to let him up.  I
>let him up, after he promised never to bother me again.  He was man
>enough to keep his word, and never did.  In fact, whenever I had to pick
>up or deliver computer equipment to that church, he would grab some of
>the other young men and they help load or unload my truck.

  So you get in fights with fundies at churches too? Then club them?

  Hawke clearly posted "and keep on keep on walking like you 
weren't even there".

  "The purpose of fighting is to win." - Gummer
-- 
Cliff

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:49:30 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Or are you the shallow, brain dead loser that
>you show yourself to be on USENET?


We have a winner!


Gunner

> > You might also mention that the Bible says that God created the world in
six
> > days and on the seventh day he rested. Why? Does God need to rest? Does
God
> > get tired? I though he was all powerful.
>
>
>    He rested because the job was done, dumb ass.  It's obvious that God
> has a great sense of humor because he created enough idiots like you, to
> entertain everyone else.
>
> -- 
> Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
> prove it.
> Member of DAV #85.
>
> Michael A. Terrell
> Central Florida


Stands to reason you'd be a "believer". Which just confirms what I said
before. You don't know jack. As a consequence you can do nothing but make
lame attempts at name calling. Which again shows you to be a pathetic jerk
who isn't worth wasting time on.  So I won't, except to say that unlike you
I don't need a cane. Unless I had the misfortune to run into you in person.
In which case I just might feel the need to take yours away and cane you
with it for being such an insolent buffoon, just like your friend PopGunner.

Hawke

Hawke wrote:
>>
> 
> Stands to reason you'd be a "believer". Which just confirms what I said
> before. You don't know jack. As a consequence you can do nothing but make
> lame attempts at name calling. Which again shows you to be a pathetic jerk
> who isn't worth wasting time on.  So I won't, except to say that unlike you
> I don't need a cane. Unless I had the misfortune to run into you in person.
> In which case I just might feel the need to take yours away and cane you
> with it for being such an insolent buffoon, just like your friend PopGunner.
> 
> Hawke
> 
> 

Stands to reason you wouldn't.

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 01:18:45 -0800, cavalamb himself
<cavelamb@Xearthlink.net> wrote:

>Hawke wrote:
>>>
>> 
>> Stands to reason you'd be a "believer". Which just confirms what I said
>> before. You don't know jack. As a consequence you can do nothing but make
>> lame attempts at name calling. Which again shows you to be a pathetic jerk
>> who isn't worth wasting time on.  So I won't, except to say that unlike you
>> I don't need a cane. Unless I had the misfortune to run into you in person.
>> In which case I just might feel the need to take yours away and cane you
>> with it for being such an insolent buffoon, just like your friend PopGunner.
>> 
>> Hawke
>> 
>> 
>
>Stands to reason you wouldn't.

I take it that the Parakeet isnt aware that many of us here, are
practictioners of the teachings of Cane Masters. (among other arts)

But..shrug..if he ever tries..it will be fascinating to note his new,
upright and stiff posture, with 29" of hickory in his colon stiffining
that yellow colored rubber spine of his.

Gunner

Hawke wrote:
> 
> Stands to reason 


   Yawn.  You wouldn't know reason, even if it was rammed down your
throst.


-- 
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Gunner wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:49:30 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
> <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> >Or are you the shallow, brain dead loser that
> >you show yourself to be on USENET?
> 
> We have a winner!
> 
> Gunner


   That's not hard to do against a birdbrain. :(


-- 
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 13:45:11 -0500, Cliff <Clhuprich@aol.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:49:30 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
><mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>   As far as education, some of my electronics are aboard the
>>International Space Station to provide vice, video and data channels on
>>the KU band. It will handle up to a 40 Mb/s data stream.  The NOAA earth
>>station at Wallops Island Virginia for control of their LEO satellites
>>was a complete turnkey job I worked on, as well as the two tracking
>>stations we built for the European Space Agency.  One was a fixed
>>station, and the other was mobile, consisting of an enclosed trailer, a
>>portable tracking antenna system and a diesel generator.  NASA has a lot
>>of the Telemetry equipment from the plant I worked at, as an engineering
>>tech.
>
>  So wingers actually can be trained to solder? Somebody 
>probably misspelled soldier and the results were ...

  Stay out of the Sciences too. You don't need Astrology or 
Cosmetology.
-- 
Cliff

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:52:32 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Hawkie wrote:
>> 
>> You might also mention that the Bible says that God created the world in six
>> days and on the seventh day he rested. Why? Does God need to rest? Does God
>> get tired? I though he was all powerful. 
>
>
>   He rested because the job was done, dumb ass.  It's obvious that God
>has a great sense of humor because he created enough idiots like you, to
>entertain everyone else.

  We have fundies such as the Baptists for that: 
http://landoverbaptist.org/
-- 
Cliff

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 10:15:38 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Hawke wrote:
>> 
>> Stands to reason 
>
>
>   Yawn.  You wouldn't know reason, even if it was rammed down your
>throst.

  I do love a gibbering winger.
-- 
Cliff

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:59:49 -0800, jpolaski wrote:
> On Jan 22, 5:48 pm, NoOne N Particular <twobl...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> > Frankly...intelligent design is as good a theory as any. The Designer
>> > being God, or a altruistic being called K()#! fpht from another
>> > galaxy.
>>
>> If the design is so intelligent, why is it so f'd up?
>>
>> Wayne
> Well, I'd say it's not really as good as any other. If things are
> intelligently designed, then who designed the designer? And who
> designed *that* designer? Where does it stop?
> 
> It's like saying that the earth rests on a giant turtle. What doe the
> turtle rest on? It it "turtles all the way down"? How could that
> possible work?

They go to negative infinity, through the singularity to positive
infinity, and the sky is our view of the bottom turtle's ass. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich