| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
30 Jun 2004 07:33:31 AM |
| Object: |
Darwin Contribute to Holocaust? |
What is Darwin's contribution, if any, to the coming of the Holocaust?
T. H. Huxley's?
Haeckel's?
Nietzsche's?
.
|
|
| User: "Courageous" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
15 Jul 2004 07:04:59 PM |
|
|
Of course we all know that this new explanation for ousting Hussein is a
post-hoc one.
Is it your position, then, that an explanation post-hoc is incorrect?
C//
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Iain Greig" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
15 Jul 2004 08:03:37 PM |
|
|
Courageous <dontwant@spam.com> wrote:
Of course we all know that this new explanation for ousting Hussein is a
post-hoc one.
Is it your position, then, that an explanation post-hoc is incorrect?
His explanation post-hoc about there being 'big glass windows' in the Dachau
has chamber certainly is incorrect.
/shrug
--D.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Icarus" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
15 Jul 2004 02:49:55 AM |
|
|
AC wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 23:38:59 +0000 (UTC),
Icarus <icarus_uk@email.com> wrote:
<snip>
But the existence of WMD and Iraqi cooperation with the
terrorist attack on the U.S. were the reasons presented to
the U.S. Congress.
Whatever the original justification, that's beside the point.
Anyone can still say "OK so Saddam didn't actually have all
those WMDs but we were still right to invade because he was
an evil dictator and Iraq is a better place without him".
And so what about all the other countries with evil dictators?
All hell is breaking loose in Sudan? Where are all these
marvelous US troops who now have a new job of liberating the
oppressed?
As with Iraq, the question of whether it's right to intervene in
Sudan or anywhere else would be a matter for personal moral
judgment.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
15 Jul 2004 10:19:01 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 07:49:55 +0000 (UTC),
Icarus <icarus_uk@email.com> wrote:
AC wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 23:38:59 +0000 (UTC),
Icarus <icarus_uk@email.com> wrote:
<snip>
But the existence of WMD and Iraqi cooperation with the
terrorist attack on the U.S. were the reasons presented to
the U.S. Congress.
Whatever the original justification, that's beside the point.
Anyone can still say "OK so Saddam didn't actually have all
those WMDs but we were still right to invade because he was
an evil dictator and Iraq is a better place without him".
And so what about all the other countries with evil dictators?
All hell is breaking loose in Sudan? Where are all these
marvelous US troops who now have a new job of liberating the
oppressed?
As with Iraq, the question of whether it's right to intervene in
Sudan or anywhere else would be a matter for personal moral
judgment.
So an evil guy who had actually got rid of his WMDs is a perfectly moral
target, but a province of Sudan where a genocide looms isn't? I'm having a
hard time figuring out what sort of moral compass is being applied here.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Icarus" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
15 Jul 2004 10:32:04 AM |
|
|
AC wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 07:49:55 +0000 (UTC),
Icarus <icarus_uk@email.com> wrote:
AC wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 23:38:59 +0000 (UTC),
Icarus <icarus_uk@email.com> wrote:
<snip>
But the existence of WMD and Iraqi cooperation with the
terrorist attack on the U.S. were the reasons presented to
the U.S. Congress.
Whatever the original justification, that's beside the
point. Anyone can still say "OK so Saddam didn't actually
have all those WMDs but we were still right to invade
because he was an evil dictator and Iraq is a better place
without him".
And so what about all the other countries with evil
dictators? All hell is breaking loose in Sudan? Where are
all these marvelous US troops who now have a new job of
liberating the oppressed?
As with Iraq, the question of whether it's right to intervene
in Sudan or anywhere else would be a matter for personal moral
judgment.
So an evil guy who had actually got rid of his WMDs is a
perfectly moral target, but a province of Sudan where a
genocide looms isn't? I'm having a hard time figuring out
what sort of moral compass is being applied here.
Well this is precisely my point: It's a moral, and hence
subjective issue, rather than an objective one. Everyone is
entitled to their opinion, no matter how bizarre or indefensible
you or I may think it is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
15 Jul 2004 12:15:29 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 15:32:04 +0000 (UTC),
Icarus <icarus_uk@email.com> wrote:
AC wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 07:49:55 +0000 (UTC),
Icarus <icarus_uk@email.com> wrote:
AC wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 23:38:59 +0000 (UTC),
Icarus <icarus_uk@email.com> wrote:
<snip>
But the existence of WMD and Iraqi cooperation with the
terrorist attack on the U.S. were the reasons presented to
the U.S. Congress.
Whatever the original justification, that's beside the
point. Anyone can still say "OK so Saddam didn't actually
have all those WMDs but we were still right to invade
because he was an evil dictator and Iraq is a better place
without him".
And so what about all the other countries with evil
dictators? All hell is breaking loose in Sudan? Where are
all these marvelous US troops who now have a new job of
liberating the oppressed?
As with Iraq, the question of whether it's right to intervene
in Sudan or anywhere else would be a matter for personal moral
judgment.
So an evil guy who had actually got rid of his WMDs is a
perfectly moral target, but a province of Sudan where a
genocide looms isn't? I'm having a hard time figuring out
what sort of moral compass is being applied here.
Well this is precisely my point: It's a moral, and hence
subjective issue, rather than an objective one. Everyone is
entitled to their opinion, no matter how bizarre or indefensible
you or I may think it is.
As a private citizen, I can certainly concur. When it comes to the acts of
nations, it certainly isn't so simple. In any case, the ability to have an
opinion does not equate to the ability to have a good opinion. Clearly
there was ultimately no reasonable grounds for violating international law
and invading Iraq, and if the humanitarian card is to be played, then I
would expect the United States would be sending military forces into Sudan
to assure that another genocide does not occur. Unless, of course, the
President and his advisors are simply looking for a new explanation so as
not to see his numbers drop too much lower in an election year. In that
case, the charge of hypocrisy is fairly well-founded, I'd say.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
15 Jul 2004 01:53:50 PM |
|
|
In article <slrncfd8do.jcs.mightymartianca@mp1.alberni.net>,
mightymartianca@hotmail.com says...
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 07:49:55 +0000 (UTC),
Icarus <icarus_uk@email.com> wrote:
AC wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 23:38:59 +0000 (UTC),
Icarus <icarus_uk@email.com> wrote:
<snip>
But the existence of WMD and Iraqi cooperation with the
terrorist attack on the U.S. were the reasons presented to
the U.S. Congress.
Whatever the original justification, that's beside the point.
Anyone can still say "OK so Saddam didn't actually have all
those WMDs but we were still right to invade because he was
an evil dictator and Iraq is a better place without him".
And so what about all the other countries with evil dictators?
All hell is breaking loose in Sudan? Where are all these
marvelous US troops who now have a new job of liberating the
oppressed?
As with Iraq, the question of whether it's right to intervene in
Sudan or anywhere else would be a matter for personal moral
judgment.
So an evil guy who had actually got rid of his WMDs is a perfectly moral
target, but a province of Sudan where a genocide looms isn't? I'm having a
hard time figuring out what sort of moral compass is being applied here.
It's not a "moral compass", it's a "moral corkscrew".
--
"Go forth, and be excellent to each other"
- Bill & Ted
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robin Levett" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
14 Jul 2004 11:49:52 AM |
|
|
Matt Giwer wrote:
Sporkmastar Fred wrote:
It really doesn't matter how much evidence people give, does it?
You'll always be there, ready to give your fresh and radical opinion
on the subject. I mean, it's what makes you smarter than everyone
else, right? You're right and everyone else is wrong. Makes you
pretty special, doesn't it? Everybody likes to be special.
I also know the Old Testament is total myth. I also know alien
abductions are *****. This is just one more among very many. There
are so many people who believe so many stupid things it is hard to
keep track of them all. Would you believe there are even people who
believe Bush was right to invade Iraq? Who swear WMDs have been found?
And that is only in the last couple years when it is very easy to
check the facts.
Am I right?
I am still waiting for the first physical evidence of gas chambers
You've had it but ignored it, misrepresented it and lied about it - just
like you've ignored, misrepresented and lied about all the evidence
presented.
You still haven't addressed your lies about the Irving case - care to do so
now?
just like I am waiting for Iraqs enormous stockpile of weapons capable
of attacking the US. I am not holding my breath for either.
--
Robin Levett
rlevett@rlevett.ibmuklunix.net (unmunge by removing big blue - don't yahoo)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
08 Jul 2004 07:54:21 AM |
|
|
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rr.RoMeVE.com> wrote in message news:<GjOGc.20530$uK.13989@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
david ford wrote:
What is Darwin's contribution, if any, to the coming of the Holocaust?
T. H. Huxley's?
Haeckel's?
Nietzsche's?
I know the usual response is "I know a holocaust when I see one"
particularly by people who never saw one and cannot define it and are
pissed when someone calls their bluff demanding a definition.
But for the fun of it, What do you mean by holocaust so we can have a
guess as to where you are going with this question.
By [df]"the Holocaust," I mean what's described at
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/index.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005143
.
|
|
|
| User: "Klaus Hellnick" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
09 Jul 2004 10:43:52 AM |
|
|
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0407080458.3efa7b7c@posting.google.com...
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rr.RoMeVE.com> wrote in message
news:<GjOGc.20530$uK.13989@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
david ford wrote:
What is Darwin's contribution, if any, to the coming of the Holocaust?
T. H. Huxley's?
Haeckel's?
Nietzsche's?
I know the usual response is "I know a holocaust when I see one"
particularly by people who never saw one and cannot define it and are
pissed when someone calls their bluff demanding a definition.
But for the fun of it, What do you mean by holocaust so we can have a
guess as to where you are going with this question.
By [df]"the Holocaust," I mean what's described at
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/index.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005143
The site makes a statement I have trouble believing:
" During the era of the Holocaust, the Nazis also targeted other groups
because of their perceived "racial inferiority": Roma (Gypsies), the
handicapped, and some of the Slavic peoples (Poles, Russians, and others).
Other groups were persecuted on political and behavioral grounds, among them
Communists, Socialists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and homosexuals. "
The part I don't believe is the claim that the NAZIS (Nationist Socialist)
party executed people for being "Socialists".
Klaus
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Reichenbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
09 Jul 2004 11:18:43 AM |
|
|
"Klaus Hellnick" <khellnicknospam@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:g7zHc.24839$W6.22005@fe2.texas.rr.com...
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0407080458.3efa7b7c@posting.google.com...
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rr.RoMeVE.com> wrote in message
news:<GjOGc.20530$uK.13989@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
david ford wrote:
What is Darwin's contribution, if any, to the coming of the
Holocaust?
T. H. Huxley's?
Haeckel's?
Nietzsche's?
I know the usual response is "I know a holocaust when I see one"
particularly by people who never saw one and cannot define it and are
pissed when someone calls their bluff demanding a definition.
But for the fun of it, What do you mean by holocaust so we can have a
guess as to where you are going with this question.
By [df]"the Holocaust," I mean what's described at
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/index.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005143
The site makes a statement I have trouble believing:
" During the era of the Holocaust, the Nazis also targeted other groups
because of their perceived "racial inferiority": Roma (Gypsies), the
handicapped, and some of the Slavic peoples (Poles, Russians, and others).
Other groups were persecuted on political and behavioral grounds, among
them
Communists, Socialists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and homosexuals. "
The part I don't believe is the claim that the NAZIS (Nationist Socialist)
party executed people for being "Socialists".
Social Democrats. My grandfather was a committed socialist as a young man.
He was hurried out of the country before Hitler took power when he and some
of his friends were involved in an incident with the Brown Shirts that left
one of the latter dead.
Frank
Klaus
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Giwer" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
10 Jul 2004 02:28:41 AM |
|
|
Frank Reichenbacher wrote:
By [df]"the Holocaust," I mean what's described at
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/index.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005143
The site makes a statement I have trouble believing:
" During the era of the Holocaust, the Nazis also targeted other groups
because of their perceived "racial inferiority": Roma (Gypsies), the
handicapped, and some of the Slavic peoples (Poles, Russians, and others).
Other groups were persecuted on political and behavioral grounds, among them
Communists, Socialists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and homosexuals. "
The part I don't believe is the claim that the NAZIS (Nationist Socialist)
party executed people for being "Socialists".
Social Democrats.
Ridiculous. National Socialists against Social Democrats. That is a
political issue.
My grandfather was a committed socialist as a young man.
He was hurried out of the country before Hitler took power when he and some
of his friends were involved in an incident with the Brown Shirts that left
one of the latter dead.
What did that have to do with him? Was he part of the armed wing of
the SD?
They only locked up the German communists until they reformed their
ways and got honest jobs.
--
If Bush and Buddies had spoken about Iraq under oath
they would charged with perjury. So they only told
lies which people will forgive as with Clinton.
They lied. People died. That is felony murder.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3184
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Reichenbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
12 Jul 2004 08:15:26 AM |
|
|
"Matt Giwer" <jull43@tampabay.rr.RoMeVE.com> wrote in message
news:gZMHc.27400$uK.13401@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
Frank Reichenbacher wrote:
***** NAZI.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Iain Greig" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
12 Jul 2004 09:22:59 AM |
|
|
Frank Reichenbacher <me@nospam-for-me.net> wrote:
"Matt Giwer" <jull43@tampabay.rr.RoMeVE.com> wrote in message
news:gZMHc.27400$uK.13401@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
Frank Reichenbacher wrote:
***** NAZI.
No, no, he has to explain about those 'big glass windows' in the
gas chamber at Dachau that render it useless as a gas chamber, before
he goes away again.
He could start by mentioning his source.
--D.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
12 Jul 2004 04:13:36 PM |
|
|
David Iain Greig <greig@ediacara.org> wrote in message news:<slrncf57m0.pcm.greig@darwin.ediacara.org>...
Frank Reichenbacher <me@nospam-for-me.net> wrote:
"Matt Giwer" <jull43@tampabay.rr.RoMeVE.com> wrote in message
news:gZMHc.27400$uK.13401@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
Frank Reichenbacher wrote:
***** NAZI.
No, no, he has to explain about those 'big glass windows' in the
gas chamber at Dachau that render it useless as a gas chamber, before
he goes away again.
He could start by mentioning his source.
--D.
Why bother to respond to this scum at all? You won't persuade him to
change his view. He is utterly dismissive of any evidence you can
offer. He believes what he believes and clings on to that regardless
of the truth.
Don't give him the opportunity to post his filth. Just ignore him.
RF
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Coffey" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
12 Jul 2004 09:05:46 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 21:13:36 +0000 (UTC),
(Richard Forrest) wrote:
David Iain Greig <greig@ediacara.org> wrote in message news:<slrncf57m0.pcm.greig@darwin.ediacara.org>...
Frank Reichenbacher <me@nospam-for-me.net> wrote:
"Matt Giwer" <jull43@tampabay.rr.RoMeVE.com> wrote in message
news:gZMHc.27400$uK.13401@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
Frank Reichenbacher wrote:
***** NAZI.
No, no, he has to explain about those 'big glass windows' in the
gas chamber at Dachau that render it useless as a gas chamber, before
he goes away again.
He could start by mentioning his source.
--D.
Why bother to respond to this scum at all? You won't persuade him to
change his view. He is utterly dismissive of any evidence you can
offer. He believes what he believes and clings on to that regardless
of the truth.
Don't give him the opportunity to post his filth. Just ignore him.
No, not always. It's amazing how often people are inclined to take as
true unchallenged statements of fact, said with authority. I myself
was surprise to discover how many of Giwer's data effusions are at the
simplest level invented or fantasized. I don't mean I ever imagined
them to be true; while I'd assumed their relationship to the truth was
inverse, I'd figured the function was at least mildly complex. It is
easy to imagine the unaware walking away from a Giwer-encounter
believing some the facts, if none of the logic. It's worth
confronting him on the facts, if you can keep yourself from being
dragged off in other directions.
Mitchell Coffey
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
16 Jul 2004 05:23:32 PM |
|
|
Mitchell Coffey <mdotcoffeyatstarpowerdotnet@hunter.news.rcn.net> wrote in message news:<0ve6f0h2740b2gv0i46lsagbabb1ug2q1e@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 21:13:36 +0000 (UTC),
(Richard Forrest) wrote:
David Iain Greig <greig@ediacara.org> wrote in message news:<slrncf57m0.pcm.greig@darwin.ediacara.org>...
Frank Reichenbacher <me@nospam-for-me.net> wrote:
"Matt Giwer" <jull43@tampabay.rr.RoMeVE.com> wrote in message
news:gZMHc.27400$uK.13401@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
Frank Reichenbacher wrote:
***** NAZI.
No, no, he has to explain about those 'big glass windows' in the
gas chamber at Dachau that render it useless as a gas chamber, before
he goes away again.
He could start by mentioning his source.
Why bother to respond to this scum at all? You won't persuade him to
change his view. He is utterly dismissive of any evidence you can
offer. He believes what he believes and clings on to that regardless
of the truth.
Don't give him the opportunity to post his filth. Just ignore him.
No, not always. It's amazing how often people are inclined to take as
true unchallenged statements of fact, said with authority.
Compare 1989 Ghiselin in
Simpson misled 1995 Cheetham
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0312080520.163bc617%40posting.google.com
I myself
was surprise to discover how many of Giwer's data effusions are at the
simplest level invented or fantasized. I don't mean I ever imagined
them to be true; while I'd assumed their relationship to the truth was
inverse, I'd figured the function was at least mildly complex. It is
easy to imagine the unaware walking away from a Giwer-encounter
believing some the facts, if none of the logic. It's worth
confronting him on the facts, if you can keep yourself from being
dragged off in other directions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Coffey" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
18 Jul 2004 11:17:04 PM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0407161429.34a46113@posting.google.com>...
Mitchell Coffey <mdotcoffeyatstarpowerdotnet@hunter.news.rcn.net> wrote in message news:<0ve6f0h2740b2gv0i46lsagbabb1ug2q1e@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 21:13:36 +0000 (UTC),
(Richard Forrest) wrote:
David Iain Greig <greig@ediacara.org> wrote in message news:<slrncf57m0.pcm.greig@darwin.ediacara.org>...
Frank Reichenbacher <me@nospam-for-me.net> wrote:
"Matt Giwer" <jull43@tampabay.rr.RoMeVE.com> wrote in message
news:gZMHc.27400$uK.13401@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
Frank Reichenbacher wrote:
***** NAZI.
No, no, he has to explain about those 'big glass windows' in the
gas chamber at Dachau that render it useless as a gas chamber, before
he goes away again.
He could start by mentioning his source.
Why bother to respond to this scum at all? You won't persuade him to
change his view. He is utterly dismissive of any evidence you can
offer. He believes what he believes and clings on to that regardless
of the truth.
Don't give him the opportunity to post his filth. Just ignore him.
No, not always. It's amazing how often people are inclined to take as
true unchallenged statements of fact, said with authority.
Compare 1989 Ghiselin in
Simpson misled 1995 Cheetham
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0312080520.163bc617%40posting.google.com
Where in that post does it claim or indicate that Simpson misled Cheetam?
Mitchell Coffey
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
19 Jul 2004 06:31:18 AM |
|
|
(Mitchell Coffey) wrote in message news:<a766a589.0407182022.58804810@posting.google.com>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0407161429.34a46113@posting.google.com>...
Mitchell Coffey <mdotcoffeyatstarpowerdotnet@hunter.news.rcn.net> wrote in message news:<0ve6f0h2740b2gv0i46lsagbabb1ug2q1e@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 21:13:36 +0000 (UTC),
(Richard Forrest) wrote:
David Iain Greig <greig@ediacara.org> wrote in message news:<slrncf57m0.pcm.greig@darwin.ediacara.org>...
Frank Reichenbacher <me@nospam-for-me.net> wrote:
"Matt Giwer" <jull43@tampabay.rr.RoMeVE.com> wrote in message
news:gZMHc.27400$uK.13401@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
Frank Reichenbacher wrote:
***** NAZI.
No, no, he has to explain about those 'big glass windows' in the
gas chamber at Dachau that render it useless as a gas chamber, before
he goes away again.
He could start by mentioning his source.
Why bother to respond to this scum at all? You won't persuade him to
change his view. He is utterly dismissive of any evidence you can
offer. He believes what he believes and clings on to that regardless
of the truth.
Don't give him the opportunity to post his filth. Just ignore him.
No, not always. It's amazing how often people are inclined to take as
true unchallenged statements of fact, said with authority.
Compare 1989 Ghiselin in
Simpson misled 1995 Cheetham
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0312080520.163bc617%40posting.google.com
Where in that post does it claim or indicate that Simpson misled Cheetam?
Paragraphs one and two, below. I can be more specific, if you like.
Kerr, Richard A. 1995. "Did Darwin Get It All Right?"
_Science_ 267: 1421-2. The first two paragraphs:
In a 20-year debate about the pace of evolution,
paleontologist Alan Cheetham had always known
exactly where he stood. Since 1972, when Niles
Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History
and Stephen Gould of Harvard University first proposed
their theory of punctuated equilibrium, some
paleontologists have argued that new species appear
suddenly in the geologic record, after millions of years
of evolutionary stasis. But Cheetham, like many of his
colleagues, thought differently. As a student of the
renowned evolutionary paleontologist George Gaylord
Simpson, Cheetham had learned that a species changes
gradually, through millions of years of natural
selection-- Darwin's survival of the fittest-- until it
is so different that it constitutes a new species.
That's the pattern he expected to confirm when he began
an exhaustive study of the filigreed remains of corallike
animals known as bryozoa, hoping to determine the pace
at which new species had appeared during the past 15
million years. But Cheetham, who works at the
Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural
History, was in for a surprise. "I came reluctantly to the
conclusion," he says, "that I wasn't finding evidence for
gradualism." What Cheetham did see, again and again,
was individual species persisting virtually unchanged
for millions of years and then, in a geologic moment
lasting only 100,000 years or so, giving rise to a new
species.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
19 Jul 2004 07:40:27 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:31:18 +0000 (UTC), (david
ford) wrote:
MitCoffey@aol.com (Mitchell Coffey) wrote in message news:<a766a589.0407182022.58804810@posting.google.com>...
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0407161429.34a46113@posting.google.com>...
Mitchell Coffey <mdotcoffeyatstarpowerdotnet@hunter.news.rcn.net> wrote in message news:<0ve6f0h2740b2gv0i46lsagbabb1ug2q1e@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 21:13:36 +0000 (UTC),
(Richard Forrest) wrote:
David Iain Greig <greig@ediacara.org> wrote in message news:<slrncf57m0.pcm.greig@darwin.ediacara.org>...
Frank Reichenbacher <me@nospam-for-me.net> wrote:
"Matt Giwer" <jull43@tampabay.rr.RoMeVE.com> wrote in message
news:gZMHc.27400$uK.13401@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
Frank Reichenbacher wrote:
***** NAZI.
No, no, he has to explain about those 'big glass windows' in the
gas chamber at Dachau that render it useless as a gas chamber, before
he goes away again.
He could start by mentioning his source.
Why bother to respond to this scum at all? You won't persuade him to
change his view. He is utterly dismissive of any evidence you can
offer. He believes what he believes and clings on to that regardless
of the truth.
Don't give him the opportunity to post his filth. Just ignore him.
No, not always. It's amazing how often people are inclined to take as
true unchallenged statements of fact, said with authority.
Compare 1989 Ghiselin in
Simpson misled 1995 Cheetham
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0312080520.163bc617%40posting.google.com
Where in that post does it claim or indicate that Simpson misled Cheetam?
Paragraphs one and two, below. I can be more specific, if you like.
Kerr, Richard A. 1995. "Did Darwin Get It All Right?"
_Science_ 267: 1421-2. The first two paragraphs:
In a 20-year debate about the pace of evolution,
paleontologist Alan Cheetham had always known
exactly where he stood. Since 1972, when Niles
Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History
and Stephen Gould of Harvard University first proposed
their theory of punctuated equilibrium, some
paleontologists have argued that new species appear
suddenly in the geologic record, after millions of years
of evolutionary stasis. But Cheetham, like many of his
colleagues, thought differently. As a student of the
renowned evolutionary paleontologist George Gaylord
Simpson, Cheetham had learned that a species changes
gradually, through millions of years of natural
selection-- Darwin's survival of the fittest-- until it
is so different that it constitutes a new species.
That's the pattern he expected to confirm when he began
an exhaustive study of the filigreed remains of corallike
animals known as bryozoa, hoping to determine the pace
at which new species had appeared during the past 15
million years. But Cheetham, who works at the
Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural
History, was in for a surprise. "I came reluctantly to the
conclusion," he says, "that I wasn't finding evidence for
gradualism." What Cheetham did see, again and again,
was individual species persisting virtually unchanged
for millions of years and then, in a geologic moment
lasting only 100,000 years or so, giving rise to a new
species.
I think you will need to be more specific, I see nothing regarding
deception. Perhaps you think being wrong constitutes deception. If so,
are you willing to apply that standard to others, including yourself?
If not, why not?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do in order to understand.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
19 Jul 2004 05:51:42 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <matts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<9kgnf0t8il7ejik88fgo8s9rvgfd8j1via@4ax.com>...
On 19 Jul 2004 (david ford) wrote:
MitCoffey@aol.com (Mitchell Coffey) wrote in message news:<a766a589.0407182022.58804810@posting.google.com>...
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0407161429.34a46113@posting.google.com>...
Mitchell Coffey <mdotcoffeyatstarpowerdotnet@hunter.news.rcn.net> wrote in message news:<0ve6f0h2740b2gv0i46lsagbabb1ug2q1e@4ax.com>...
No, not always. It's amazing how often people are inclined to take as
true unchallenged statements of fact, said with authority.
Compare 1989 Ghiselin in
Simpson misled 1995 Cheetham
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0312080520.163bc617%40posting.google.com
Where in that post does it claim or indicate that Simpson misled Cheetam?
Paragraphs one and two, below. I can be more specific, if you like.
Kerr, Richard A. 1995. "Did Darwin Get It All Right?"
_Science_ 267: 1421-2. The first two paragraphs:
In a 20-year debate about the pace of evolution,
paleontologist Alan Cheetham had always known
exactly where he stood. Since 1972, when Niles
Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History
and Stephen Gould of Harvard University first proposed
their theory of punctuated equilibrium, some
paleontologists have argued that new species appear
suddenly in the geologic record, after millions of years
of evolutionary stasis. But Cheetham, like many of his
colleagues, thought differently. As a student of the
renowned evolutionary paleontologist George Gaylord
Simpson, Cheetham had learned that a species changes
gradually, through millions of years of natural
selection-- Darwin's survival of the fittest-- until it
is so different that it constitutes a new species.
That's the pattern he expected to confirm when he began
an exhaustive study of the filigreed remains of corallike
animals known as bryozoa, hoping to determine the pace
at which new species had appeared during the past 15
million years. But Cheetham, who works at the
Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural
History, was in for a surprise. "I came reluctantly to the
conclusion," he says, "that I wasn't finding evidence for
gradualism." What Cheetham did see, again and again,
was individual species persisting virtually unchanged
for millions of years and then, in a geologic moment
lasting only 100,000 years or so, giving rise to a new
species.
I think you will need to be more specific, I see nothing regarding
deception.
[df]"Simpson misled 1995 Cheetham" as in, Simpson led Cheetham down a
wrong road, Simpson directed Cheetham in an erroneous direction.
Simpson told Cheetham one thing, yet Cheetham's observations told
Cheetham something very different.
Perhaps you think being wrong constitutes deception. If so,
are you willing to apply that standard to others, including yourself?
If not, why not?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stanley Friesen" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
21 Jul 2004 09:09:52 AM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote:
Matt Silberstein <matts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<9kgnf0t8il7ejik88fgo8s9rvgfd8j1via@4ax.com>...
...
I think you will need to be more specific, I see nothing regarding
deception.
[df]"Simpson misled 1995 Cheetham" as in, Simpson led Cheetham down a
wrong road, Simpson directed Cheetham in an erroneous direction.
Simpson told Cheetham one thing, yet Cheetham's observations told
Cheetham something very different.
What part of "being mistaken is not the same as deception" do you
disagree with? Why? How is error the same as fraud?
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cubist" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
21 Jul 2004 01:53:56 PM |
|
|
Stanley Friesen <sarima@friesen.net> wrote in message news:<ghusf0d3nml1dti8ja2ot0bus6hih4tkm4@4ax.com>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
Matt Silberstein <matts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<9kgnf0t8il7ejik88fgo8s9rvgfd8j1via@4ax.com>...
...
I think you will need to be more specific, I see nothing regarding
deception.
[df]"Simpson misled 1995 Cheetham" as in, Simpson led Cheetham down a
wrong road, Simpson directed Cheetham in an erroneous direction.
Simpson told Cheetham one thing, yet Cheetham's observations told
Cheetham something very different.
What part of "being mistaken is not the same as deception" do you
disagree with?
The part that would prevent him from being able to accuse Simpson
of deception, I suspect...
Why? How is error the same as fraud?
This last question should be good for an amusing display of
convoluted sophistry, if Ford deigns to tackle it...
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
19 Jul 2004 06:35:42 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 22:51:42 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <matts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<9kgnf0t8il7ejik88fgo8s9rvgfd8j1via@4ax.com>...
On 19 Jul 2004 (david ford) wrote:
MitCoffey@aol.com (Mitchell Coffey) wrote in message news:<a766a589.0407182022.58804810@posting.google.com>...
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0407161429.34a46113@posting.google.com>...
Mitchell Coffey <mdotcoffeyatstarpowerdotnet@hunter.news.rcn.net> wrote in message news:<0ve6f0h2740b2gv0i46lsagbabb1ug2q1e@4ax.com>...
No, not always. It's amazing how often people are inclined to take as
true unchallenged statements of fact, said with authority.
Compare 1989 Ghiselin in
Simpson misled 1995 Cheetham
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0312080520.163bc617%40posting.google.com
Where in that post does it claim or indicate that Simpson misled Cheetam?
Paragraphs one and two, below. I can be more specific, if you like.
Kerr, Richard A. 1995. "Did Darwin Get It All Right?"
_Science_ 267: 1421-2. The first two paragraphs:
In a 20-year debate about the pace of evolution,
paleontologist Alan Cheetham had always known
exactly where he stood. Since 1972, when Niles
Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History
and Stephen Gould of Harvard University first proposed
their theory of punctuated equilibrium, some
paleontologists have argued that new species appear
suddenly in the geologic record, after millions of years
of evolutionary stasis. But Cheetham, like many of his
colleagues, thought differently. As a student of the
renowned evolutionary paleontologist George Gaylord
Simpson, Cheetham had learned that a species changes
gradually, through millions of years of natural
selection-- Darwin's survival of the fittest-- until it
is so different that it constitutes a new species.
That's the pattern he expected to confirm when he began
an exhaustive study of the filigreed remains of corallike
animals known as bryozoa, hoping to determine the pace
at which new species had appeared during the past 15
million years. But Cheetham, who works at the
Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural
History, was in for a surprise. "I came reluctantly to the
conclusion," he says, "that I wasn't finding evidence for
gradualism." What Cheetham did see, again and again,
was individual species persisting virtually unchanged
for millions of years and then, in a geologic moment
lasting only 100,000 years or so, giving rise to a new
species.
I think you will need to be more specific, I see nothing regarding
deception.
[df]"Simpson misled 1995 Cheetham" as in, Simpson led Cheetham down a
wrong road, Simpson directed Cheetham in an erroneous direction.
Simpson told Cheetham one thing, yet Cheetham's observations told
Cheetham something very different.
My, how cleverly worded this is. Dishonesty is so often cloaked in such
language.
Perhaps you think being wrong constitutes deception. If so,
are you willing to apply that standard to others, including yourself?
If not, why not?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
20 Jul 2004 07:13:03 AM |
|
|
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrncfon29.hkg.mightymartianca@mp1.alberni.net>...
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 22:51:42 +0000 (UTC), david ford < > wrote:
Matt Silberstein <matts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<9kgnf0t8il7ejik88fgo8s9rvgfd8j1via@4ax.com>...
On 19 Jul 2004 (david ford) wrote:
MitCoffey@aol.com (Mitchell Coffey) wrote in message news:<a766a589.0407182022.58804810@posting.google.com>...
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0407161429.34a46113@posting.google.com>...
Mitchell Coffey <mdotcoffeyatstarpowerdotnet@hunter.news.rcn.net> wrote in message news:<0ve6f0h2740b2gv0i46lsagbabb1ug2q1e@4ax.com>...
No, not always. It's amazing how often people are inclined to take as
true unchallenged statements of fact, said with authority.
Compare 1989 Ghiselin in
Simpson misled 1995 Cheetham
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0312080520.163bc617%40posting.google.com
Where in that post does it claim or indicate that Simpson misled Cheetam?
Paragraphs one and two, below. I can be more specific, if you like.
Kerr, Richard A. 1995. "Did Darwin Get It All Right?"
_Science_ 267: 1421-2. The first two paragraphs:
In a 20-year debate about the pace of evolution,
paleontologist Alan Cheetham had always known
exactly where he stood. Since 1972, when Niles
Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History
and Stephen Gould of Harvard University first proposed
their theory of punctuated equilibrium, some
paleontologists have argued that new species appear
suddenly in the geologic record, after millions of years
of evolutionary stasis. But Cheetham, like many of his
colleagues, thought differently. As a student of the
renowned evolutionary paleontologist George Gaylord
Simpson, Cheetham had learned that a species changes
gradually, through millions of years of natural
selection-- Darwin's survival of the fittest-- until it
is so different that it constitutes a new species.
That's the pattern he expected to confirm when he began
an exhaustive study of the filigreed remains of corallike
animals known as bryozoa, hoping to determine the pace
at which new species had appeared during the past 15
million years. But Cheetham, who works at the
Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural
History, was in for a surprise. "I came reluctantly to the
conclusion," he says, "that I wasn't finding evidence for
gradualism." What Cheetham did see, again and again,
was individual species persisting virtually unchanged
for millions of years and then, in a geologic moment
lasting only 100,000 years or so, giving rise to a new
species.
I think you will need to be more specific, I see nothing regarding
deception.
[df]"Simpson misled 1995 Cheetham" as in, Simpson led Cheetham down a
wrong road, Simpson directed Cheetham in an erroneous direction.
Simpson told Cheetham one thing, yet Cheetham's observations told
Cheetham something very different.
My, how cleverly worded this is. Dishonesty is so often cloaked in such
language.
What if anything is wrong with what I stated?
Perhaps you think being wrong constitutes deception. If so,
are you willing to apply that standard to others, including yourself?
If not, why not?
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
20 Jul 2004 11:16:27 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 12:13:03 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrncfon29.hkg.mightymartianca@mp1.alberni.net>...
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 22:51:42 +0000 (UTC), david ford < > wrote:
Matt Silberstein <matts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<9kgnf0t8il7ejik88fgo8s9rvgfd8j1via@4ax.com>...
On 19 Jul 2004 (david ford) wrote:
MitCoffey@aol.com (Mitchell Coffey) wrote in message news:<a766a589.0407182022.58804810@posting.google.com>...
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0407161429.34a46113@posting.google.com>...
Mitchell Coffey <mdotcoffeyatstarpowerdotnet@hunter.news.rcn.net> wrote in message news:<0ve6f0h2740b2gv0i46lsagbabb1ug2q1e@4ax.com>...
No, not always. It's amazing how often people are inclined to take as
true unchallenged statements of fact, said with authority.
Compare 1989 Ghiselin in
Simpson misled 1995 Cheetham
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0312080520.163bc617%40posting.google.com
Where in that post does it claim or indicate that Simpson misled Cheetam?
Paragraphs one and two, below. I can be more specific, if you like.
Kerr, Richard A. 1995. "Did Darwin Get It All Right?"
_Science_ 267: 1421-2. The first two paragraphs:
In a 20-year debate about the pace of evolution,
paleontologist Alan Cheetham had always known
exactly where he stood. Since 1972, when Niles
Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History
and Stephen Gould of Harvard University first proposed
their theory of punctuated equilibrium, some
paleontologists have argued that new species appear
suddenly in the geologic record, after millions of years
of evolutionary stasis. But Cheetham, like many of his
colleagues, thought differently. As a student of the
renowned evolutionary paleontologist George Gaylord
Simpson, Cheetham had learned that a species changes
gradually, through millions of years of natural
selection-- Darwin's survival of the fittest-- until it
is so different that it constitutes a new species.
That's the pattern he expected to confirm when he began
an exhaustive study of the filigreed remains of corallike
animals known as bryozoa, hoping to determine the pace
at which new species had appeared during the past 15
million years. But Cheetham, who works at the
Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural
History, was in for a surprise. "I came reluctantly to the
conclusion," he says, "that I wasn't finding evidence for
gradualism." What Cheetham did see, again and again,
was individual species persisting virtually unchanged
for millions of years and then, in a geologic moment
lasting only 100,000 years or so, giving rise to a new
species.
I think you will need to be more specific, I see nothing regarding
deception.
[df]"Simpson misled 1995 Cheetham" as in, Simpson led Cheetham down a
wrong road, Simpson directed Cheetham in an erroneous direction.
Simpson told Cheetham one thing, yet Cheetham's observations told
Cheetham something very different.
My, how cleverly worded this is. Dishonesty is so often cloaked in such
language.
What if anything is wrong with what I stated?
Mistakes are not deceptions.
Perhaps you think being wrong constitutes deception. If so,
are you willing to apply that standard to others, including yourself?
If not, why not?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
19 Jul 2004 06:49:52 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 22:51:42 +0000 (UTC), (david
ford) wrote:
Matt Silberstein <matts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<9kgnf0t8il7ejik88fgo8s9rvgfd8j1via@4ax.com>...
On 19 Jul 2004 (david ford) wrote:
MitCoffey@aol.com (Mitchell Coffey) wrote in message news:<a766a589.0407182022.58804810@posting.google.com>...
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0407161429.34a46113@posting.google.com>...
Mitchell Coffey <mdotcoffeyatstarpowerdotnet@hunter.news.rcn.net> wrote in message news:<0ve6f0h2740b2gv0i46lsagbabb1ug2q1e@4ax.com>...
No, not always. It's amazing how often people are inclined to take as
true unchallenged statements of fact, said with authority.
Compare 1989 Ghiselin in
Simpson misled 1995 Cheetham
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0312080520.163bc617%40posting.google.com
Where in that post does it claim or indicate that Simpson misled Cheetam?
Paragraphs one and two, below. I can be more specific, if you like.
Kerr, Richard A. 1995. "Did Darwin Get It All Right?"
_Science_ 267: 1421-2. The first two paragraphs:
In a 20-year debate about the pace of evolution,
paleontologist Alan Cheetham had always known
exactly where he stood. Since 1972, when Niles
Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History
and Stephen Gould of Harvard University first proposed
their theory of punctuated equilibrium, some
paleontologists have argued that new species appear
suddenly in the geologic record, after millions of years
of evolutionary stasis. But Cheetham, like many of his
colleagues, thought differently. As a student of the
renowned evolutionary paleontologist George Gaylord
Simpson, Cheetham had learned that a species changes
gradually, through millions of years of natural
selection-- Darwin's survival of the fittest-- until it
is so different that it constitutes a new species.
That's the pattern he expected to confirm when he began
an exhaustive study of the filigreed remains of corallike
animals known as bryozoa, hoping to determine the pace
at which new species had appeared during the past 15
million years. But Cheetham, who works at the
Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural
History, was in for a surprise. "I came reluctantly to the
conclusion," he says, "that I wasn't finding evidence for
gradualism." What Cheetham did see, again and again,
was individual species persisting virtually unchanged
for millions of years and then, in a geologic moment
lasting only 100,000 years or so, giving rise to a new
species.
I think you will need to be more specific, I see nothing regarding
deception.
[df]"Simpson misled 1995 Cheetham" as in, Simpson led Cheetham down a
wrong road, Simpson directed Cheetham in an erroneous direction.
Simpson told Cheetham one thing, yet Cheetham's observations told
Cheetham something very different.
David, stop misleading people.
Perhaps you think being wrong constitutes deception. If so,
are you willing to apply that standard to others, including yourself?
If not, why not?
No answer.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do in order to understand.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
20 Jul 2004 07:15:47 AM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <matts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<2snof0td1i9f6c6nn9bg4hfhtv8oe7c543@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 (david ford) wrote:
Matt Silberstein <matts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<9kgnf0t8il7ejik88fgo8s9rvgfd8j1via@4ax.com>...
On 19 Jul 2004 (david ford) wrote:
MitCoffey@aol.com (Mitchell Coffey) wrote in message news:<a766a589.0407182022.58804810@posting.google.com>...
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0407161429.34a46113@posting.google.com>...
Mitchell Coffey <mdotcoffeyatstarpowerdotnet@hunter.news.rcn.net> wrote in message news:<0ve6f0h2740b2gv0i46lsagbabb1ug2q1e@4ax.com>...
No, not always. It's amazing how often people are inclined to take as
true unchallenged statements of fact, said with authority.
Compare 1989 Ghiselin in
Simpson misled 1995 Cheetham
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0312080520.163bc617%40posting.google.com
Where in that post does it claim or indicate that Simpson misled Cheetam?
Paragraphs one and two, below. I can be more specific, if you like.
Kerr, Richard A. 1995. "Did Darwin Get It All Right?"
_Science_ 267: 1421-2. The first two paragraphs:
In a 20-year debate about the pace of evolution,
paleontologist Alan Cheetham had always known
exactly where he stood. Since 1972, when Niles
Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History
and Stephen Gould of Harvard University first proposed
their theory of punctuated equilibrium, some
paleontologists have argued that new species appear
suddenly in the geologic record, after millions of years
of evolutionary stasis. But Cheetham, like many of his
colleagues, thought differently. As a student of the
renowned evolutionary paleontologist George Gaylord
Simpson, Cheetham had learned that a species changes
gradually, through millions of years of natural
selection-- Darwin's survival of the fittest-- until it
is so different that it constitutes a new species.
That's the pattern he expected to confirm when he began
an exhaustive study of the filigreed remains of corallike
animals known as bryozoa, hoping to determine the pace
at which new species had appeared during the past 15
million years. But Cheetham, who works at the
Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural
History, was in for a surprise. "I came reluctantly to the
conclusion," he says, "that I wasn't finding evidence for
gradualism." What Cheetham did see, again and again,
was individual species persisting virtually unchanged
for millions of years and then, in a geologic moment
lasting only 100,000 years or so, giving rise to a new
species.
I think you will need to be more specific, I see nothing regarding
deception.
[df]"Simpson misled 1995 Cheetham" as in, Simpson led Cheetham down a
wrong road, Simpson directed Cheetham in an erroneous direction.
Simpson told Cheetham one thing, yet Cheetham's observations told
Cheetham something very different.
David, stop misleading people.
What if anything is wrong with what I stated?
What are 4 instances where you think that I have engaged in [MS]"misleading people"?
Perhaps you think being wrong constitutes deception. If so,
are you willing to apply that standard to others, including yourself?
If not, why not?
No answer.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Coffey" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
22 Jul 2004 12:18:48 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 22:51:42 +0000 (UTC), (david
ford) wrote:
Matt Silberstein <matts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<9kgnf0t8il7ejik88fgo8s9rvgfd8j1via@4ax.com>...
On 19 Jul 2004 (david ford) wrote:
MitCoffey@aol.com (Mitchell Coffey) wrote in message news:<a766a589.0407182022.58804810@posting.google.com>...
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0407161429.34a46113@posting.google.com>...
Mitchell Coffey <mdotcoffeyatstarpowerdotnet@hunter.news.rcn.net> wrote in message news:<0ve6f0h2740b2gv0i46lsagbabb1ug2q1e@4ax.com>...
No, not always. It's amazing how often people are inclined to take as
true unchallenged statements of fact, said with authority.
Compare 1989 Ghiselin in
Simpson misled 1995 Cheetham
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0312080520.163bc617%40posting.google.com
Where in that post does it claim or indicate that Simpson misled Cheetam?
Paragraphs one and two, below. I can be more specific, if you like.
Kerr, Richard A. 1995. "Did Darwin Get It All Right?"
_Science_ 267: 1421-2. The first two paragraphs:
In a 20-year debate about the pace of evolution,
paleontologist Alan Cheetham had always known
exactly where he stood. Since 1972, when Niles
Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History
and Stephen Gould of Harvard University first proposed
their theory of punctuated equilibrium, some
paleontologists have argued that new species appear
suddenly in the geologic record, after millions of years
of evolutionary stasis. But Cheetham, like many of his
colleagues, thought differently. As a student of the
renowned evolutionary paleontologist George Gaylord
Simpson, Cheetham had learned that a species changes
gradually, through millions of years of natural
selection-- Darwin's survival of the fittest-- until it
is so different that it constitutes a new species.
That's the pattern he expected to confirm when he began
an exhaustive study of the filigreed remains of corallike
animals known as bryozoa, hoping to determine the pace
at which new species had appeared during the past 15
million years. But Cheetham, who works at the
Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural
History, was in for a surprise. "I came reluctantly to the
conclusion," he says, "that I wasn't finding evidence for
gradualism." What Cheetham did see, again and again,
was individual species persisting virtually unchanged
for millions of years and then, in a geologic moment
lasting only 100,000 years or so, giving rise to a new
species.
I think you will need to be more specific, I see nothing regarding
deception.
[df]"Simpson misled 1995 Cheetham" as in, Simpson led Cheetham down a
wrong road, Simpson directed Cheetham in an erroneous direction.
Simpson told Cheetham one thing, yet Cheetham's observations told
Cheetham something very different.
Oh, I get it: "Simpson misled 1995 Cheetham," but not as in the common
understanding of the word as implying deception, as in "Ford mislead
readers into thinking he had evidence that Simpson had deceived
Cheetham."
Perhaps you think being wrong constitutes deception. If so,
are you willing to apply that standard to others, including yourself?
If not, why not?
Mitchell Coffey
____________________________________
Between the rivers
Without a paddle
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "George" |
|
| Title: Re: Define holocaust |
12 Jul 2004 03:24:15 PM |
|
|
David Iain Greig <greig@ediacara.org> wrote in message news:<slrncf57m0.pcm.greig@darwin.ediacara.org>...
Frank Reichenbacher <me@nospam-for-me.net> wrote:
"Matt Giwer" <jull43@tampabay.rr.RoMeVE.com> wrote in message
news:gZMHc.27400$uK.13401@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
Frank Reichenbacher wrote:
***** NAZI.
No, no, he has to explain about those 'big glass windows' in the
gas chamber at Dachau that render it useless as a gas chamber, before
he goes away again.
He could start by mentioning his source.
There -were- glass port holes in the doors of gas chambers. Maybe in
the delusional state that nazism brings on that interprets into large
windows....
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
