Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex

Religions > Atheism > Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 2

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"david ford"
Date:	10 Apr 2004 12:15:51 AM
Object:	Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex

Chris Krolczyk <chriskrolczyk@hotmail.com> on 31 Mar 2004:
david ford:
Severian <severian@chlamydia-is-not-a-flower.com> wrote:
david ford:

Do you think Sagan's assertion that "THE COSMOS IS ALL THAT IS OR EVER
WAS OR EVER WILL BE." has been demonstrated through the tools and
methods employed by scientists? [See Carl Sagan, _Cosmos_ (1980), 4.
Caps in original.]

Carl Sagan doesn't speak for me. We atheists don't have priests or
pastors that tell us what things we should believe or not believe. We
don't have a Magic Book to worship and idolize.

I don't profess to believe the same as everyone else who calls
themselves atheists. Atheism is not a faith. Atheism is a lack of
belief in god(s). Some atheists may believe that there is no god, but
you claim that all atheists believe what YOU say they believe.

My definitions are as follows:
An atheist says "There is no god or gods."
An agnostic says, "I don't know whether or not there is a god. I
haven't seen any evidence or arguments for god's/gods' existence that
are persuasive to me."

Very good, David. You're learning.

Learning is good. Of course, I only learn things that I already agree
with.

Keep in mind that the following is more accurate WRT
agnosticism, though:

"An agnostic says 'I don't know whether or not there is a
god. I haven't seen any evidence or arguments for god's/gods'
existence *or nonexistence* that are very persuasive."

Fair enough.

[S]"Carl Sagan doesn't speak for me." Does this mean your answer to
my question about Sagan's assertion is "no"?

That little problem concerning reading comprehension
problem must still be bothering you, David.

[CK]"Problem" is mentioned once too many times. I'll bet you were
testing me, to see if I caught that in my reading.

It's pretty clear that Severian answer addresses what *Sagan*
wrote, not what you authored about atheism and agnosticism
afterward. Why you chose to append it is beyond me.

What is your answer to this question?:
Do you think Sagan's assertion that "THE COSMOS IS ALL THAT IS OR EVER
WAS OR EVER WILL BE." has been demonstrated through the tools and
methods employed by scientists? [See Carl Sagan, _Cosmos_ (1980), 4.
Caps in original.]

Many people who call themselves Christians accept evolution as a fact,
and the theory of evolution as the best current scientific explanation
for the fact of evolution. Therefore, David Ford does as well, since
he calls himself a Christian.

Most of those people who call themselves Democrats support the right
of doctors to exterminate pre-born life. Therefore my neighbor Mr.
John Smyth supports the right of doctors to carry licenses to kill
pre-born life, since he calls himself a Democrat.

Analogies aren't your strong suit either, I see.

Or subtlety, for that matter.

[CK]"Analogies aren't your strong suit either, I see." That may be
the case, but at least I was able to recognize as bogus Darwin's
analogy when I first saw it, that bogus analogy being between
artificial/human-directed selection and an allegedly superbly-creative
and complexity-generating process/force, Darwinian natural selection.
All I saw was a flawed argument presented by Severian, and in
response, I posted an argument similarly-flawed. What analogy was
Severian trying to make through presentation of a flawed argument?

An atheist has faith that God does not exist.

Some may. Many just don't believe. I think faith is a load of crap.

What are the
experiments and observations demonstrating that God doesn't exist?
There aren't any such observations and experiments. And yet atheists
believe that God does not exist. Despite the lack of supporting
observations, atheists have faith that God does not exist.

Please quit telling me what I believe: I have no faith.

I don't believe in God in the same way that I don't believe in Odin,
Zeus or the Trickster Coyote.

Let me know if you have any problems with my above definitions.

I think he just *did*. But, hey, if you're going to conflate
scientific evidence with personal *beliefs* concerning
the opinion of whether there's a God or not, and thereby
undercut the possibility of being taken seriously on the
subject, go right ahead.

In your view, with his "COSMOS" comment, did Sagan [CK]"conflate
scientific evidence with personal *beliefs* concerning the opinion of
whether there's a God or not"?

Agnostics, on the other hand, don't allege that God doesn't exist.

Agnosticism is about knowledge, rather than belief.

How about this:
Dawkins has a great faith in What Science Will Do Some Day, for
example, demonstrate how it is that life can come from non-life apart
from the input of any intelligence.

Perhaps he feels that way; I have no idea and can't speak for him. I
think a reasonable demonstration is very likely. But calling it
"faith" is ridiculous. It is not a *dogmatic* belief.

You [S]"think a reasonable demonstration" of [df]"how it is that life
can come from non-life apart from the input of any intelligence" is
[S]"very likely" within how many years?

What does this have to do with the previous material
you quoted, David?

My question about likelihood built on my comment on Dawkins's faith in
What Science Will Do Some Day and on Severian's response to that
comment.

Will this demonstration involve highly-contrived artificial/
intelligence-produced laboratory circumstances that lack an even
faintly remote resemblance to what happens outside?

If we're talking about *hypothetical* issues concerning
abiogenesis, why are you bringing up an obviously
prejudiced conclusion concerning "what happens outside",
David?

I don't follow. What was my [CK]"prejudiced conclusion"? That life
can only come from non-life with the input of intelligence, whether
human or not-human?

And what *does* "happen outside", in your opinion?

Wind blows. Lightning strikes. Days and seasons come and go. Water
evaporates and precipitates. Rocks erode. Continents move.
Mountains form. Stars are born and die. The sun warms. Etc.
.

User: "Stanley Friesen"
Title: Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex	10 Apr 2004 08:30:24 PM

(david ford) wrote:

No. But then Sagan is not, strictly speaking, a scientist. He is a
science writer, there is a difference.

In your view, with his "COSMOS" comment, did Sagan [CK]"conflate
scientific evidence with personal *beliefs* concerning the opinion of
whether there's a God or not"?

Yes.
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
.

User: "david ford"
Title: Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex	11 Apr 2004 01:25:46 PM

Stanley Friesen <sarima@friesen.net> wrote in message news:<0o7h709v5n1qas01cp4d5lh67cejmlov3i@4ax.com>...

dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:

No. But then Sagan is not, strictly speaking, a scientist. He is a
science writer, there is a difference.

Sagan, Carl. 1997. _Billions and Billions: Thoughts on Life
and Death at the Brink of the Millennium_ (New York:
Random House, Inc.), 241pp. At the very end of the book,
there is an "About the Author" section. What appears below
is an abbreviated version of that section, and is from the dust
jacket:
CARL SAGAN was the David Duncan Professor of
Astronomy and Space Sciences and director of the
Laboratory for Planetary Studies at Cornell University;
Distinguished Visiting Scientist at the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory, California Institute of Technology; and the
cofounder and president of the Planetary Society, the
largest space-interest group in the world. For the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration he was
an adviser on the _Mariner, Voyager,_ and _Viking_
unmanned space missions, and he briefed astronauts for
journeys to the moon. His Peabody Award-winning
public television series, _Cosmos_, has been seen by
more than 500 million people in over sixty countries,
and the accompanying book spent seventy weeks on
_The New York Times_ bestseller list. The author of
thirty books, Sagan was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for
_The Dragons of Eden: Speculations on the Evolution of
Human Intelligence_ in 1978, and his novel, _Contact_,
is now a major motion picture. In their posthumous
award to Dr. Sagan of their highest honor, the National
Science Foundation declared that his "research
transformed planetary science... his gifts to mankind
were infinite."
Do you still maintain that [SF]"Sagan is not, strictly speaking, a scientist"?

In your view, with his "COSMOS" comment, did Sagan [CK]"conflate
scientific evidence with personal *beliefs* concerning the opinion of
whether there's a God or not"?

Yes.

I agree.
.

User: "Stanley Friesen"
Title: Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex	12 Apr 2004 08:57:56 AM

(david ford) wrote:

Stanley Friesen <sarima@friesen.net> wrote in message news:<0o7h709v5n1qas01cp4d5lh67cejmlov3i@4ax.com>...

(david ford) wrote:

No. But then Sagan is not, strictly speaking, a scientist. He is a
science writer, there is a difference.

Sagan, Carl. 1997. _Billions and Billions: Thoughts on Life
and Death at the Brink of the Millennium_ (New York:
Random House, Inc.), 241pp. At the very end of the book,
there is an "About the Author" section. What appears below
is an abbreviated version of that section, and is from the dust
jacket:
CARL SAGAN was the David Duncan Professor of
Astronomy and Space Sciences and director of the
Laboratory for Planetary Studies at Cornell University;
Distinguished Visiting Scientist at the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory, California Institute of Technology; and the
cofounder and president of the Planetary Society, the
largest space-interest group in the world. For the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration he was
an adviser on the _Mariner, Voyager,_ and _Viking_
unmanned space missions, and he briefed astronauts for
journeys to the moon. His Peabody Award-winning
public television series, _Cosmos_, has been seen by
more than 500 million people in over sixty countries,
and the accompanying book spent seventy weeks on
_The New York Times_ bestseller list. The author of
thirty books, Sagan was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for
_The Dragons of Eden: Speculations on the Evolution of
Human Intelligence_ in 1978, and his novel, _Contact_,
is now a major motion picture. In their posthumous
award to Dr. Sagan of their highest honor, the National
Science Foundation declared that his "research
transformed planetary science... his gifts to mankind
were infinite."

Do you still maintain that [SF]"Sagan is not, strictly speaking, a scientist"?

He may have started as a scientist. The Pulitzer Prize is for skill in
writing, not for scientific acumen, similarly for the Peabody Award.
NASA advisor is a technical or engineering position. Only the first two
items are actual scientific positions, and even there the second is more
administrative. Most of the rest are political action groups and the
like. [Contact is science *fiction*, and not even particularly good or
original SF at that].
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
.

User: "MzBeauti21"
Title: Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex	12 Apr 2004 03:27:24 PM

How to become a millionare
"I'm 19 and I make more money than my my parents and so can you"
Turn $6.00 into $60,000...read this to find out how!!!
READING THIS COULD CHANGE YOUR LIFE!!!
I found this on a bulletin board like this one and decided to try it.
A little while back, I was browsing through a newsgroup, just like you are now,
and came across an article similar to this that said you could make thousands
of dollars within weeks with only an initial investment of $6.00! So I thought,
"Yeah right, this must be a scam", but like most of us, I was curious, so I
kept reading.
Anyway, it said that you need to send $1.00 to each of the 6 names and address
stated in the article. You then place your own name and address in the bottom
of the list at #6, and post the article in at least 200 newsgroups. (There are
thousands) No catch, that was it. So after thinking it over, and talking to a
few people first, I thought about trying it. I figured "what have I got to lose
except 6 stamps and $6.00, right?"
Then I invested the measly $6.00 (I use the word "measly" because $6 really is
measly compared to the money I have made through the initial investment). Well
GUESS WHAT!!... within 7 days, I started getting money in the mail! I was
shocked! I figured it would end soon, but the money just kept coming in.
In my first week, I made about $25.00. By the end of the second week I had
made a total of over $1,000.00! In the third week I had over $10,000.00 and
it's still growing.
This is now my fourth week and I have made just over $42,000.00 and it's still
coming in rapidly. It's certainly worth $6.00, and 6 stamps, I have spent more
than that on the lottery!!
Let me tell you how this works and most importantly, why it works.... Also,
make sure you print a copy of this article NOW, so you can get the information
off of it as you need it.
I promise you that if you follow the directions exactly, that you will start
making more money than you thought possible by doing something so easy!
Suggestion:
Read this entire message carefully! (print it out or download it.)
Follow the simple directions and watch the money come in! It's easy. It's
legal. And, your investment is only $6.00 (Plus postage)
IMPORTANT:
This is not a rip-off; it is not indecent; it is not illegal; and it is
virtually no risk - it really works!!!! If all of the following instructions
are adhered to, you will receive extraordinary dividends.
PLEASE NOTE:
Please follow these directions EXACTLY, and $50,000 or more can be yours in 20
to 60 days.
This program remains successful because of the honesty and integrity of the
participants. Please continue it's success by carefully adhering to the
instructions.
You will now become part of the Mail Order business. In this business your
product is not solid and tangible, it's a service. You are in the business of
developing Mailing Lists.
Many large corporations are happy to pay big bucks for quality lists. However,
the money made from the mailing lists is secondary to the income which is made
from people like you and me asking to be included in that list.
Here are the 4 easy steps to success:
STEP 1:
Get 6 separate pieces of paper and write the following on each piece of paper
"PLEASE PUT ME ON YOUR MAILING LIST."
Now get 6 US $1.00 bills and place ONE inside EACH of the 6 pieces of paper so
the bill will not be seen through the envelope (to prevent thievery).
Next, place one paper in each of the 6 envelopes and seal them. You should now
have 6 sealed envelopes, each with a piece of paper stating the phrase "PLEASE
PUT ME ON YOUR MAILING LIST.", your name and address, and a $1.00 bill. What
you are doing is creating a service. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY LEGAL!
You are requesting a legitimate service and you are paying for it!
Like most of us I was a little skeptical and a little worried about the legal
aspects of it all. So I checked it out with the U.S. Post Office
(1-800-725-2161) and they confirmed that it is indeed legal!
Mail the 6 envelopes to the following addresses:
#1) Bryan Wax
1739 A Ave
Emerson, IA 51533
#2) Mike Peplow
3756 S. GoldRdige Dr.
Magna, UT 84044
#3) Joe Arenas
1600 Malibu
Carrollton, TX 75006
#4) Alfonso Gonzalez
727 E. San Ysidro Blvd. #714
San Ysidro, CA 92173
#5) Richonda Scott
CMR 402 BOX 274
APO, AE 09180
#6) Mil Benjamin
13701 Beachwood
Cleveland, OH 44105
STEP 2: Now take the #1 name off the list that you see above, move the other
names up (6 becomes 5, 5 becomes 4, etc...) and add YOUR Name as number 6 on
the list.
STEP 3: Change anything you need to, but try to keep this article as close to
original as possible. Now, post your amended article to at least 200
newsgroups. (I think there are close to 32,000+) All you need is 200, but
remember, the more you post, the more money you make!
This is perfectly legal! If you have any doubts, refer to Title 18 Sec. 1302 &
1341 of the Postal lottery laws. Keep a copy of these steps for yourself and,
whenever you need money, you can use it again, and again.
PLEASE REMEMBER that this program remains successful because of the honesty and
integrity of the participants and by their carefully adhering to the
directions.
Look at it this way. If you are of integrity, the program will continue and the
money that so many others have received will come your way.
NOTE:
You may want to retain every name and address sent to you, either on a computer
or hard copy and keep the notes people send you. This VERIFIES that you are
truly providing a service. (Also, it might be a good idea to wrap the $1 bill
in dark paper to reduce the risk of mail theft.)
So, as each post is downloaded and the directions carefully followed, six
members will be reimbursed for their participation as a List Developer with one
dollar each.
Your name will move up the list geometrically so that when your name reaches
the #1 position you will be receiving thousands of dollars in CASH!!!
What an opportunity for only $6.00 ($1.00 for each of the first six people
listed above)
Send it now, add your own name to the list and you're in business!
---DIRECTIONS ----- FOR HOW TO POST TO NEWSGROUPS------------
Step 1)
You do not need to re-type this entire letter to do your own posting.
Simply put your cursor at the beginning of this letter and drag your cursor to
the bottom of this document, and select 'copy' from the edit menu. This will
copy the
entire letter into the computer's memory.
Step 2)
Open a blank 'notepad' file and place your cursor at the top of the blank page.
From the 'edit' menu select 'paste'. This will paste a copy of the letter into
notepad so that you can add your name to the list. Step 3) Save your new
notepad file as a .txt file. If you want to do your postings in different
settings, you'll always have this file to go back to.
Step 4)
Use Netscape or Internet explorer and try searching for various newsgroups
(on-line forums, message boards, chat sites, discussions, etc.)
Step 5)
Visit these message boards and post this article as a new message by
highlighting the text of this letter and selecting paste from the edit menu.
Fill in the Subject, this
will be the header that everyone sees as they scroll through the list of
postings in a particular group, click the post message button. You're done with
your first one!
Congratulations...THAT'S IT!
All you have to do is jump to different newsgroups and post away, after you get
the hang of it, it will take about 30 seconds for each newsgroup!
**REMEMBER, THE MORE NEWSGROUPS YOU POST IN, THE MORE MONEY YOU WILL MAKE!! BUT
YOU HAVE TO POST A MINIMUM OF 200**
That's it! You will begin receiving money from around the world within days!
You may eventually want to rent a P.O.Box due to the large amount of mail you
will receive. If you wish to stay anonymous, you can invent a name to use, as
long as the postman will deliver it.
**JUST MAKE SURE ALL THE ADDRESSES ARE CORRECT.**
Now the WHY part:
Out of 200 postings, say I receive only 5 replies (a very low example). So then
I made $5.00 with my name at #6 on the letter.
Now, each of the 5 persons who just sent me $1.00 make the MINIMUM 200
postings, each with my name at #5 and only 5 persons respond to each of the
original 5, that is another $25.00 for me, now those 25 each make 200 MINIMUM
posts with my name at #4 and only 5 replies each, I will bring in an additional
$125.00!
Now, those 125 persons turn around and post the MINIMUM 200 with my name at #3
and only receive 5 replies each, I will make an additional $626.00!
OK, now here is the fun part, each of those 625 persons post a MINIMUM 200
letters with my name at #2 and they each only receive 5 replies, that just made
me $3,125.00!!!
Those 3,125 persons will all deliver this message to 200 newsgroups with my
name at #1 and if still ONLY 5 persons per 200 newsgroups react I will receive
$15,625,00!
With an original investment of only $6.00! AMAZING! When your name is no longer
on the list, you just take the latest posting in the newsgroups, and send out
another $6.00 to names on the list, putting your name at number 6 again. And
start posting again.
The thing to remember is do you realize that thousands of people all over the
world are joining the internet and reading these articles everyday?, JUST LIKE
YOU are now!!
So, can you afford $6.00 and see if it really works?? I think so...
People have said, "what if the plan is played out and no one sends you the
money? So what! What are the chances of that happening when there are tons of
new honest users and new honest people who are joining the internet and
newsgroups everyday and are willing to give it a try?
Estimates are at 20,000 to 50,000 new users, every day, with thousands of those
joining the actual internet.
Remember, play FAIRLY and HONESTLY and this will really work!!!
.

User: "david ford"
Title: Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex	13 Apr 2004 08:03:07 PM

Stanley Friesen <sarima@friesen.net> wrote:
david ford:
Stanley Friesen:
david ford:

No. But then Sagan is not, strictly speaking, a scientist. He is a
science writer, there is a difference.

Sagan, Carl. 1997. _Billions and Billions: Thoughts on Life
and Death at the Brink of the Millennium_ (New York:
Random House, Inc.), 241pp. At the very end of the book,
there is an "About the Author" section. What appears below
is an abbreviated version of that section, and is from the dust
jacket:
CARL SAGAN was the David Duncan Professor of
Astronomy and Space Sciences and director of the
Laboratory for Planetary Studies at Cornell University;
Distinguished Visiting Scientist at the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory, California Institute of Technology; and the
cofounder and president of the Planetary Society, the
largest space-interest group in the world. For the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration he was
an adviser on the _Mariner, Voyager,_ and _Viking_
unmanned space missions, and he briefed astronauts for
journeys to the moon. His Peabody Award-winning
public television series, _Cosmos_, has been seen by
more than 500 million people in over sixty countries,
and the accompanying book spent seventy weeks on
_The New York Times_ bestseller list. The author of
thirty books, Sagan was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for
_The Dragons of Eden: Speculations on the Evolution of
Human Intelligence_ in 1978, and his novel, _Contact_,
is now a major motion picture. In their posthumous
award to Dr. Sagan of their highest honor, the National
Science Foundation declared that his "research
transformed planetary science... his gifts to mankind
were infinite."

Do you still maintain that [SF]"Sagan is not, strictly
speaking, a scientist"?

More Sagan biographical material appears below.
Would it be accurate to characterize your position as
follows?: Sagan was at one point a scientist, but later on, he
ceased to be a scientist.
From the back pages of _Billions and Billions_ (1997):
CARL SAGAN was the David Duncan Professor of
Astronomy and Space Sciences and Director of the
Laboratory for Planetary Studies at Cornell University.
He played a leading role in the American space program
since its inception. He was a consultant and adviser to
NASA since the 1950s, briefed the _Apollo_ astronauts
before their flights to the Moon, and was an
experimenter on the _Mariner, Viking, Voyager,_ and
_Galileo_ expeditions to the planets. He helped solve
the mysteries of the high temperature of Venus (answer:
massive greenhouse effect), the seasonal changes on
Mars (answer: windblown dust), and the reddish haze of
Titan (answer: complex organic molecules).
For his work, Dr. Sagan received the NASA medals for
Exceptional Scientific Achievement and (twice) for
Distinguished Public Service, as well as the NASA
_Apollo_ Achievement Award. Asteroid 2709 Sagan is
named after him. He was also awarded the John F.
Kennedy Astronautics Award of the American
Astronautical Society, the Explorers Club 75th
Anniversary Award, the Konstantin Tsiolkovsky Medal
of the Soviet Cosmonauts Federation, and the Masursky
Award of the American Astronomical Society ("for his
extraordinary contributions to the development of
planetary science.... As a scientist trained in both
astronomy and biology, Dr. Sagan has made seminal
contributions to the study of planetary atmospheres,
planetary surfaces, the history of the Earth, and
exobiology. Many of the most productive planetary
scientists working today are his present and former
students and associates").
He was also a recipient of the Public Welfare Medal, the
highest award of the National Academy of Sciences (for
"distinguished contributions in the application of science
to the public welfare.... Carl Sagan has been
enormously successful in communicating the wonder
and importance of science. His ability to capture the
imagination of millions and to explain difficult concepts
in understandable terms is a magnificent achievement").
Dr. Sagan was elected Chairman of the Division of
Planetary Sciences of the American Astronomical
Society, President of the Planetology Section of the
American Geophysical Union, and Chairman of the
Astronomy Section of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science. For twelve years he was the
editor-in-chief of _Icarus_, the leading professional
journal devoted to planetary research. He was
cofounder and President of the Planetary Society, a
100,000-member organization that is the largest
space-interest group in the world; and Distinguished
Visiting Scientist, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California
Institute of Technology.
I quoted from a Sagan paper in
amount of time for origin of life
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.91.960716004349.25182J-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
.

User: "Stanley Friesen"
Title: Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex	13 Apr 2004 09:18:00 PM

(david ford) wrote:

More Sagan biographical material appears below.
Would it be accurate to characterize your position as
follows?: Sagan was at one point a scientist, but later on, he
ceased to be a scientist.

He ceased to make significant scientific contributions, turning to
public speaking instead.
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
.

User: "Mitchell Coffey"
Title: Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex	14 Apr 2004 01:57:06 AM

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 02:18:00 +0000 (UTC), Stanley Friesen
<sarima@friesen.net> wrote:

dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:

More Sagan biographical material appears below.
Would it be accurate to characterize your position as
follows?: Sagan was at one point a scientist, but later on, he
ceased to be a scientist.

He ceased to make significant scientific contributions, turning to
public speaking instead.

How does this differ from tenure?
Mitchell Coffey
.

User: "John Wilkins"
Title: Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex	14 Apr 2004 03:30:08 PM

Mitchell Coffey <mdotcoffeyatstarpowerdotnet@hunter.news.rcn.net> wrote:

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 02:18:00 +0000 (UTC), Stanley Friesen
<sarima@friesen.net> wrote:

dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:

More Sagan biographical material appears below.
Would it be accurate to characterize your position as
follows?: Sagan was at one point a scientist, but later on, he
ceased to be a scientist.

He ceased to make significant scientific contributions, turning to
public speaking instead.

How does this differ from tenure?

His brain still worked.
--
John Wilkins
john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au http://www.wilkins.id.au
"Men mark it when they hit, but do not mark it when they miss"
- Francis Bacon
.

User: "david ford"
Title: Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex	01 May 2004 10:02:41 PM

(John Wilkins) wrote in message news:<1gc965v.19dwepa12v1d3rN%

>...

Mitchell Coffey <mdotcoffeyatstarpowerdotnet@hunter.news.rcn.net> wrote:

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 02:18:00 +0000 (UTC), Stanley Friesen
<sarima@friesen.net> wrote:

dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:

More Sagan biographical material appears below.
Would it be accurate to characterize your position as
follows?: Sagan was at one point a scientist, but later on, he
ceased to be a scientist.

He ceased to make significant scientific contributions, turning to
public speaking instead.

How does this differ from tenure?

His brain still worked.

Not very well. He did, after all, strenuously advocate materialism
without having solid grounds for belief in materialism.
.

User: "Richard Forrest"
Title: Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex	02 May 2004 07:48:31 AM

(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0405011907.7831efb9@posting.google.com>...

john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au (John Wilkins) wrote in message news:<1gc965v.19dwepa12v1d3rN%john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au>...

Mitchell Coffey <mdotcoffeyatstarpowerdotnet@hunter.news.rcn.net> wrote:

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 02:18:00 +0000 (UTC), Stanley Friesen
<sarima@friesen.net> wrote:

(david ford) wrote:

More Sagan biographical material appears below.
Would it be accurate to characterize your position as
follows?: Sagan was at one point a scientist, but later on, he
ceased to be a scientist.

He ceased to make significant scientific contributions, turning to
public speaking instead.

How does this differ from tenure?

His brain still worked.

Not very well. He did, after all, strenuously advocate materialism
without having solid grounds for belief in materialism.

So he should have advocated the supernatural without having any ground
for belief in the supernatural?
RF
.

User: "david ford"
Title: Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex	02 May 2004 01:55:49 PM

(Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0405020453.5162a453@posting.google.com>...

dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0405011907.7831efb9@posting.google.com>...

john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au (John Wilkins) wrote in message news:<1gc965v.19dwepa12v1d3rN%john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au>...

Mitchell Coffey <mdotcoffeyatstarpowerdotnet@hunter.news.rcn.net> wrote:

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 02:18:00 +0000 (UTC), Stanley Friesen
<sarima@friesen.net> wrote:

dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:

More Sagan biographical material appears below.
Would it be accurate to characterize your position as
follows?: Sagan was at one point a scientist, but later on, he
ceased to be a scientist.

He ceased to make significant scientific contributions, turning to
public speaking instead.

How does this differ from tenure?

His brain still worked.

Not very well. He did, after all, strenuously advocate materialism
without having solid grounds for belief in materialism.

So he should have advocated the supernatural without having any ground
for belief in the supernatural?

What is meant by [RF]"supernatural"?
If a not-material entity or entities creates the universe of which we
are aware out of nothing in the Big Bang creation event, would that
not-material entity or entities be [RF]"supernatural"?
.

User: "AC"
Title: Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex	02 May 2004 08:36:44 PM

On Sun, 2 May 2004 18:55:49 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

richard@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0405020453.5162a453@posting.google.com>...

dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0405011907.7831efb9@posting.google.com>...

john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au (John Wilkins) wrote in message news:<1gc965v.19dwepa12v1d3rN%john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au>...

Mitchell Coffey <mdotcoffeyatstarpowerdotnet@hunter.news.rcn.net> wrote:

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 02:18:00 +0000 (UTC), Stanley Friesen
<sarima@friesen.net> wrote:

dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:

More Sagan biographical material appears below.
Would it be accurate to characterize your position as
follows?: Sagan was at one point a scientist, but later on, he
ceased to be a scientist.

He ceased to make significant scientific contributions, turning to
public speaking instead.

How does this differ from tenure?

His brain still worked.

Not very well. He did, after all, strenuously advocate materialism
without having solid grounds for belief in materialism.

So he should have advocated the supernatural without having any ground
for belief in the supernatural?

I'd just love to hear what you mean by "non-material", How does one test
for the "non-material"? How would one falsify a claim that something had
been produced, modified or destroyed by the "non-material"? Is something
"non-material" even falsifiable?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.

User: "The Watcher"
Title: Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex	02 May 2004 01:45:07 PM

On Sun, 2 May 2004 12:48:31 +0000 (UTC),

(Richard
Forrest) wrote:
(snip)

So he should have advocated the supernatural without having any ground
for belief in the supernatural?

Was there a requirement for him to advocate either of those positions?
.

User: "David Jensen"
Title: Chez Watt: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex	10 Apr 2004 08:30:58 AM

At least one enemy of science is honest about it:

Learning is good. Of course, I only learn things that I already agree
with.

User: "david ford"
Title: Re: Chez Watt: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex	10 Apr 2004 09:13:03 PM

David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message news:<2otf70lpijvmlip5pfjutn0ejhdijqhuh4@4ax.com>...

At least one enemy of science is honest about it:

Learning is good. Of course, I only learn things that I already agree
with.

I don't wish to be considered an [DJ]"enemy of science." Join me, and
give three cheers for the _fact_ that [Sagan]"THE COSMOS IS ALL THAT
IS OR EVER WAS OR EVER WILL BE." Any IDiot that fails to cheer along
should be fired.
.

User: "Chris Krolczyk"
Title: Re: Chez Watt: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex	12 Apr 2004 08:03:25 PM

(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404101814.145fece5@posting.google.com>...

David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message news:<2otf70lpijvmlip5pfjutn0ejhdijqhuh4@4ax.com>...

At least one enemy of science is honest about it:

Learning is good. Of course, I only learn things that I already agree
with.

Can't deal with your own words being thrown back
at you, can you, David?
Free clue: sarcasm doesn't translate well on
Usenet. *Bad* attempts at sarcasm translate
even *less* well.
-Chris Krolczyk
.

User: "david ford"
Title: Re: Chez Watt: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex	13 Apr 2004 07:47:03 AM

(Chris Krolczyk) wrote in message news:<c743abb.0404121704.591e2a32@posting.google.com>...

dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404101814.145fece5@posting.google.com>...

David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message news:<2otf70lpijvmlip5pfjutn0ejhdijqhuh4@4ax.com>...

At least one enemy of science is honest about it:

Learning is good. Of course, I only learn things that I already agree
with.

Can't deal with your own words being thrown back
at you, can you, David?

I can, and did.

Free clue: sarcasm doesn't translate well on
Usenet. *Bad* attempts at sarcasm translate
even *less* well.

[CK]"translate well" into what-- understanding?
.

User: "Chris Krolczyk"
Title: Re: Chez Watt: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex	14 Apr 2004 04:28:48 PM

(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404130448.74f4d54c@posting.google.com>...

chriskrolczyk@hotmail.com (Chris Krolczyk) wrote in message news:<c743abb.0404121704.591e2a32@posting.google.com>...

(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404101814.145fece5@posting.google.com>...

David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message news:<2otf70lpijvmlip5pfjutn0ejhdijqhuh4@4ax.com>...

At least one enemy of science is honest about it:

Learning is good. Of course, I only learn things that I already agree
with.

Can't deal with your own words being thrown back
at you, can you, David?

I can, and did.

So you think. Then again, weak attempts at
sarcasm in lieu of an actual response seems
to be a serious problem with you.

Free clue: sarcasm doesn't translate well on
Usenet. *Bad* attempts at sarcasm translate
even *less* well.

[CK]"translate well" into what-- understanding?

Care to ask a question that's a little *less* obvious,
David?
-Chris Krolczyk
.

User: "david ford"
Title: Re: Chez Watt: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex	14 Apr 2004 11:05:03 PM

(Chris Krolczyk) wrote in message news:<c743abb.0404141330.2e765486@posting.google.com>...

dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404130448.74f4d54c@posting.google.com>...

(Chris Krolczyk) wrote in message news:<c743abb.0404121704.591e2a32@posting.google.com>...

dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404101814.145fece5@posting.google.com>...

David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message news:<2otf70lpijvmlip5pfjutn0ejhdijqhuh4@4ax.com>...

At least one enemy of science is honest about it:

Learning is good. Of course, I only learn things that I already agree
with.

Can't deal with your own words being thrown back
at you, can you, David?

I can, and did.

So you think.

I think that I'm always wrong.
I'm always wrong.

Then again, weak attempts at
sarcasm in lieu of an actual response seems
to be a serious problem with you.

Free clue: sarcasm doesn't translate well on
Usenet. *Bad* attempts at sarcasm translate
even *less* well.

[CK]"translate well" into what-- understanding?

Care to ask a question that's a little *less* obvious,
David?

[CK]"sarcasm doesn't translate well on Usenet"
Do ponderers of my sarcasm acquire increased understanding of the
issues involved?
Do ponderers of my sarcasm acquire better critical thinking skills?
Do ponderers of my sarcasm lose/ i.e. cease to have any knee jerk
response along the lines of "df's an old-earth creationist, so he's
wrong on this point he's trying to make"?
BTW, [df]"I only learn things that I already agree with" is
nonsensical.
And yet somehow it netted the response [DJ]"At least one enemy of
science is honest about it:"
I close this post with the observation that belief in spontaneous
generation, blindwatchmaking, and mental spoon-bending is scientific.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401291120.41a6d843%40posting.google.com
.

User: "Lieutenant Kizhe Katson"
Title: Re: Chez Watt: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex	17 Apr 2004 12:13:47 AM

(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404142006.2b205036@posting.google.com>...

chriskrolczyk@hotmail.com (Chris Krolczyk) wrote in message news:<c743abb.0404141330.2e765486@posting.google.com>...

(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404130448.74f4d54c@posting.google.com>...

chriskrolczyk@hotmail.com (Chris Krolczyk) wrote in message news:<c743abb.0404121704.591e2a32@posting.google.com>...

(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404101814.145fece5@posting.google.com>...

David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message news:<2otf70lpijvmlip5pfjutn0ejhdijqhuh4@4ax.com>...

At least one enemy of science is honest about it:

Learning is good. Of course, I only learn things that I already agree
with.

Can't deal with your own words being thrown back
at you, can you, David?

I can, and did.

So you think.

I think that I'm always wrong.
I'm always wrong.

Then again, weak attempts at
sarcasm in lieu of an actual response seems
to be a serious problem with you.

Free clue: sarcasm doesn't translate well on
Usenet. *Bad* attempts at sarcasm translate
even *less* well.

[CK]"translate well" into what-- understanding?

Care to ask a question that's a little *less* obvious,
David?

[CK]"sarcasm doesn't translate well on Usenet"
Do ponderers of my sarcasm acquire increased understanding of the
issues involved?

Depends on which "issues" one refers to. W.r.t. the issues
surrounding the evolution vs. creationism vs. ID debate, no. W.r.t.
the issues of specific personalities in threads on t.o, yes.
"Ponderers of [Ford's] sarcasm" would come to understand that,
notwithstanding Ford's patina of erudition (due to his apparently wide
reading, and propensity to quote from all manner of evolutionary
literature at the drop of a hat), really he's just another Creationist
crank with an axe to grind, and little more understanding of the
subject than your average Bible-waving ranter.

Do ponderers of my sarcasm acquire better critical thinking skills?

I suppose a newbie, encountering Ford's sarcasm for the first time,
might be stretched to consider what was wrong with it. After the Nth
repetition, however....

Do ponderers of my sarcasm lose/ i.e. cease to have any knee jerk
response along the lines of "df's an old-earth creationist, so he's
wrong on this point he's trying to make"?

That would be the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" fallacy, I
think. But we do, after a while, *develop* a knee-jerk reaction of
"Oh, David's being silly again".

BTW, [df]"I only learn things that I already agree with" is
nonsensical.
And yet somehow it netted the response [DJ]"At least one enemy of
science is honest about it:"

I close this post with the observation that belief in spontaneous
generation, blindwatchmaking, and mental spoon-bending is scientific.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401291120.41a6d843%40posting.google.com

User: "Chris Krolczyk"
Title: Re: Chez Watt: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex	15 Apr 2004 08:19:43 PM

(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404142006.2b205036@posting.google.com>...

chriskrolczyk@hotmail.com (Chris Krolczyk) wrote in message news:<c743abb.0404141330.2e765486@posting.google.com>...

(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404130448.74f4d54c@posting.google.com>...

chriskrolczyk@hotmail.com (Chris Krolczyk) wrote in message news:<c743abb.0404121704.591e2a32@posting.google.com>...

(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404101814.145fece5@posting.google.com>...

David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message news:<2otf70lpijvmlip5pfjutn0ejhdijqhuh4@4ax.com>...

At least one enemy of science is honest about it:

Learning is good. Of course, I only learn things that I already agree
with.

Can't deal with your own words being thrown back
at you, can you, David?

I can, and did.

So you think.

I think that I'm always wrong.
I'm always wrong.

Then again, weak attempts at
sarcasm in lieu of an actual response seems
to be a serious problem with you.

Free clue: sarcasm doesn't translate well on
Usenet. *Bad* attempts at sarcasm translate
even *less* well.

[CK]"translate well" into what-- understanding?

Care to ask a question that's a little *less* obvious,
David?

No, no and no. As usual, your "questions" are
too ridiculous to really deserve answers.
Actually, the last one is quite irrelevant, David. *None*
of your debating partners are nearly as knee-jerk in their
replies as you are, IMHO.

BTW, [df]"I only learn things that I already agree with" is
nonsensical.

This is a stunningly honest admission coming from
the author of that sentence.

And yet somehow it netted the response [DJ]"At least one enemy of
science is honest about it:"

Some people just like poking at roadkill, David.

I close this post with the observation that belief in spontaneous
generation, blindwatchmaking, and mental spoon-bending is scientific.

Close it any way you want; as usual, your deficiency in
thinking is that quoting a self-refential URL is actually
a form of argument.
-Chris Krolczyk
.

User: "david ford"
Title: Re: Chez Watt: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex	16 Apr 2004 10:30:57 PM

(Chris Krolczyk) wrote in message news:<c743abb.0404151721.79a3cb57@posting.google.com>...

dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404142006.2b205036@posting.google.com>...

(Chris Krolczyk) wrote in message news:<c743abb.0404141330.2e765486@posting.google.com>...

dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404130448.74f4d54c@posting.google.com>...

(Chris Krolczyk) wrote in message news:<c743abb.0404121704.591e2a32@posting.google.com>...

dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404101814.145fece5@posting.google.com>...

David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message news:<2otf70lpijvmlip5pfjutn0ejhdijqhuh4@4ax.com>...

At least one enemy of science is honest about it:

Learning is good. Of course, I only learn things that I already agree
with.

Can't deal with your own words being thrown back
at you, can you, David?

I can, and did.

So you think.

I think that I'm always wrong.
I'm always wrong.

Then again, weak attempts at
sarcasm in lieu of an actual response seems
to be a serious problem with you.

Free clue: sarcasm doesn't translate well on
Usenet. *Bad* attempts at sarcasm translate
even *less* well.

[CK]"translate well" into what-- understanding?

Care to ask a question that's a little *less* obvious,
David?

No, no and no. As usual, your "questions" are
too ridiculous to really deserve answers.

And yet you answered my three questions. Strange.
Perhaps one batch of my questions to Larry Moran were [CK]"too
ridiculous to really deserve answers," and that's part of the reason
he didn't (and won't) answer them.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0404101701.55803164%40posting.google.com
Larry did, though, kindly reply to my question-filled post
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0404121927.4b34084b%40posting.google.com
albeit with responses generally similarly-brief to your [CK]"No, no
and no."
About my 3 questions above, I suspect that Sverker Johansson came to
see the problem with trying to prove the correctness of the evolution
hypothesis through an argument that relies upon equivocation/
shifting-meanings of the word "evolution," and increased his critical
thinking abilities, through the experience of arguing against an
argument that used a poor definition of "round" to "prove" that the
earth isn't round.
meanings of "round" and "evolution"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970903014308.20976E-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
legerdemain in the use of the word "evolution"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990704214620.893193A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
It is a desire/goal of mine that individuals reading my posts judge
what is presented (whether in my own words or as a quotation) on the
basis of the content of and evidence for those words, and not judge
those words on the basis of who is making them (whether I or the
author of a quotation).
Saying things opposite of what I actually think, or saying things that
are nonsensical, helps make that goal happen.
Wesley R. Elsberry had the right idea in responding to one of my
quotations. Others in the thread in question had a poor (and
knee-jerk) response to a mangled version of the quotation.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=199906260218.TAA02457%40cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com

Actually, the last one is quite irrelevant, David. *None*
of your debating partners are nearly as knee-jerk in their
replies as you are, IMHO.

Please present an example of those words of mine that make you think I
make knee-jerk replies.
IMHO, you made a knee-jerk [CK]"Handwaving, David. Handwaving."
response to one of my questions:
Stated Larry, [LM]"Actually, there's probably a slight *majority* of
knowledgeable scientists who think that macroevolution is decoupled
from microevolution. The number who continue to believe that
macroevolution is just a whole bunch of microevolution is shrinking
rapidly."
Then asked I, [df]"During which years did a majority of a)
geneticists, b) morphologists, and c) paleontologists [LM]"believe
that macroevolution is just a whole bunch of microevolution"?"
Larry's response to my question was simply, [LM]"Roughly from 1940 to
about 1980."
Your knee-jerk response to my question was [CK]"Handwaving, David.
Handwaving. Larry clearly states that there's a *phenomenon* of this
happening, not "which years" it occurred in."
References
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=c743abb.0402131400.472b6f23%40posting.google.com
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=slrnc2l75k.jr0.lamoran%40bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca

BTW, [df]"I only learn things that I already agree with" is
nonsensical.

This is a stunningly honest admission coming from
the author of that sentence.

I knew the sentence was nonsensical I wrote it.
Up above, I also opined, [df]"I'm always wrong." Do you consider this
to be [CK]"a stunningly honest admission"?

And yet somehow it netted the response [DJ]"At least one enemy of
science is honest about it:"

Some people just like poking at roadkill, David.

I close this post with the observation that belief in spontaneous
generation, blindwatchmaking, and mental spoon-bending is scientific.

Close it any way you want; as usual, your deficiency in
thinking is that quoting a self-refential URL is actually
a form of argument.

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401291120.41a6d843%40posting.google.com

In addition to my spoon-bending post, I also find amusing
Dewar, Darwin, and bears
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.960901020131.26306A-100000%40umbc10.umbc.edu
My, my, playing and playing off evolutionists in newsgroups is indeed
fun.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=6OGdnU40bvehf7rd4p2dnA%40speakeasy.net
indigestion with the Synthefish
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980609231835.5454A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
Of course, the people _really_ playing them are fellow evolutionists
that are scientists and that consistently fail to present even
semi-solid evidence or argument for the blind watchmaker hypothesis,
and yet continue to loudly proclaim that it's a well-established
*fact* that life and biology arose and developed through
totally-mindless processes.
Feynman on giving all the information; Dobzhansky, Mayr, Wilson,
Gould, Futuyma, Dawkins, Sagan, Simpson
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970912002214.12893C-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
.

User: "Chris Krolczyk"
Title: Re: Chez Watt: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex	18 Apr 2004 04:52:53 PM

(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404161932.532699ca@posting.google.com>...

Larry did, though, kindly reply to my question-filled post
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0404121927.4b34084b%40posting.google.com
albeit with responses generally similarly-brief to your [CK]"No, no
and no."

A slight correction: the above URL - and post - does indeed
exist, but it's not Larry Moran replying. It's Tracy Hamilton.
I suspect that David isn't really checking his own posting
history, despite his constant self-reference to it.
-Chris Krolczyk
.

User: "Michelle Malkin"
Title: Re: Chez Watt: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex	24 Apr 2004 11:52:02 PM

"Chris Krolczyk" <chriskrolczyk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c743abb.0404181354.68c7f0b9@posting.google.com...

dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message

news:<b1c67abe.0404161932.532699ca@posting.google.com>...

Larry did, though, kindly reply to my question-filled post

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0404121927.4b34084b%40posting.google.com

albeit with responses generally similarly-brief to your [CK]"No, no
and no."

A slight correction: the above URL - and post - does indeed
exist, but it's not Larry Moran replying. It's Tracy Hamilton.

I suspect that David isn't really checking his own posting
history, despite his constant self-reference to it.

-Chris Krolczyk

Chris, could you tell me (and probably a bunch of other folks)
what 'Chez Watt' means?
Mickey
.

User: "Chris Krolczyk"
Title: Re: Chez Watt: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex	26 Apr 2004 06:35:23 PM

"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<zfmdnW6Us9Yq2RbdRVn-sA@comcast.com>...

Chris, could you tell me (and probably a bunch of other folks)
what 'Chez Watt' means?

Hi, Mickey.
This thread seems to've split pretty badly, but the
relevant material is at
http://home.comcast.net/~ferrous.patella/ChezWatt/index.html
(A slight peeve: although I'm sure that the names
of the authors of <sarcasm>The Real Winners</sarcasm>
were left off the page for legal or ethical reasons,
all that material *is* in the public domain and should
be cross-referenced to see who in the hell was responsible
for some of those "gems". Just my $0.02 on the subject.)
-Chris Krolczyk
.

User: "catshark"
Title: Re: Chez Watt: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex	26 Apr 2004 06:55:46 PM

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 23:35:23 +0000 (UTC),

(Chris
Krolczyk) wrote:

"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<zfmdnW6Us9Yq2RbdRVn-sA@comcast.com>...

Chris, could you tell me (and probably a bunch of other folks)
what 'Chez Watt' means?

Hi, Mickey.

This thread seems to've split pretty badly, but the
relevant material is at

http://home.comcast.net/~ferrous.patella/ChezWatt/index.html

(A slight peeve: although I'm sure that the names
of the authors of <sarcasm>The Real Winners</sarcasm>
were left off the page for legal or ethical reasons,
all that material *is* in the public domain and should
be cross-referenced to see who in the hell was responsible
for some of those "gems". Just my $0.02 on the subject.)

That's why god invented Google.

-Chris Krolczyk

---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Nunc Id Vides, Nunc Ne Vides
- Unseen University Motto -
.

User: "Pithecanthropus Erectus"
Title: Re: Chez Watt: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin ofmeiosis, sex	25 Apr 2004 05:08:10 AM

Michelle Malkin wrote:

"Chris Krolczyk" <chriskrolczyk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c743abb.0404181354.68c7f0b9@posting.google.com...

dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message

news:<b1c67abe.0404161932.532699ca@posting.google.com>...

Larry did, though, kindly reply to my question-filled post

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0404121927.4b34084b%40posting.google.com

albeit with responses generally similarly-brief to your [CK]"No, no
and no."

A slight correction: the above URL - and post - does indeed
exist, but it's not Larry Moran replying. It's Tracy Hamilton.

I suspect that David isn't really checking his own posting
history, despite his constant self-reference to it.

-Chris Krolczyk

Chris, could you tell me (and probably a bunch of other folks)
what 'Chez Watt' means?

Mickey

Chez watt is how talk.origins gathers its more amusing posts.
Nominations are made when someone reads something that makes them say
"Say What?" The nominations are saved by Ferrous Patella, who presents
them for voting each month. The favorites are housed in Chez Watt.
http://home.comcast.net/~ferrous.patella/ChezWatt/
discusses the origin of Chez Watt and the nominations process.
http://home.comcast.net/~ferrous.patella/ChezWatt/#Winners
is a list of the winners.
--
"The countries the most famous and the most respected of antiquity are
those which distinguished themselves by promoting and patronizing
science, and on the contrary those which neglected or discouraged it are
universally denominated rude and barbarous. The patronage which Britain
has shown to Arts, Science and Literature has given her a better
established and lasting rank in the world than she ever acquired by her
arms."
Thomas Paine
.

User: "Ferrous Patella"
Title: Re: Chez Watt: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin ofmeiosis, sex	25 Apr 2004 11:30:11 AM

Michelle Malkin wrote:
[...]

Chris, could you tell me (and probably a bunch of other folks)
what 'Chez Watt' means?

See:
http://home.comcast.net/~ferrous.patella/ChezWatt/index.html
.

User: "Chris Krolczyk"
Title: Re: Chez Watt: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex	18 Apr 2004 04:46:58 PM

(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404161932.532699ca@posting.google.com>...

chriskrolczyk@hotmail.com (Chris Krolczyk) wrote in message news:<c743abb.0404151721.79a3cb57@posting.google.com>...

(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404142006.2b205036@posting.google.com>...

chriskrolczyk@hotmail.com (Chris Krolczyk) wrote in message news:<c743abb.0404141330.2e765486@posting.google.com>...

(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404130448.74f4d54c@posting.google.com>...

chriskrolczyk@hotmail.com (Chris Krolczyk) wrote in message news:<c743abb.0404121704.591e2a32@posting.google.com>...

(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404101814.145fece5@posting.google.com>...

David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message news:<2otf70lpijvmlip5pfjutn0ejhdijqhuh4@4ax.com>...

At least one enemy of science is honest about it:

Learning is good. Of course, I only learn things that I already agree
with.

Can't deal with your own words being thrown back
at you, can you, David?

I can, and did.

So you think.

I think that I'm always wrong.
I'm always wrong.

Then again, weak attempts at
sarcasm in lieu of an actual response seems
to be a serious problem with you.

Free clue: sarcasm doesn't translate well on
Usenet. *Bad* attempts at sarcasm translate
even *less* well.

[CK]"translate well" into what-- understanding?

Care to ask a question that's a little *less* obvious,
David?

No, no and no. As usual, your "questions" are
too ridiculous to really deserve answers.

And yet you answered my three questions. Strange.

Perhaps *I'm* fond of poking at intellectual roadkill,
David. And answering an otherwise ridiculous scarcely
counts as endorsement of it. Such is Usenet.

Perhaps one batch of my questions to Larry Moran were [CK]"too
ridiculous to really deserve answers," and that's part of the reason
he didn't (and won't) answer them.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0404101701.55803164%40posting.google.com

I only see one question in that post, David, and
the statement that you repeat by Larry Moran is
nowhere in sight.
Maybe you're not nearly the quote-miner you think
you are.

Wrong URL, David. All I'm getting when I
cut-and-paste it is a "no results" prompt.
Care to try again?

About my 3 questions above, I suspect that Sverker Johansson came to
see the problem with trying to prove the correctness of the evolution
hypothesis through an argument that relies upon equivocation/
shifting-meanings of the word "evolution," and increased his critical
thinking abilities, through the experience of arguing against an
argument that used a poor definition of "round" to "prove" that the
earth isn't round.

Ah. Now I get it: if quote-mining and referencing your
own posts doesn't work, then weak sarcasm and changing
the subject will.
Very mature of you, David.
How *do* you find the time for posting
between your daily temper tantrums?

It is a desire/goal of mine that individuals reading my posts judge
what is presented (whether in my own words or as a quotation) on the
basis of the content of and evidence for those words, and not judge
those words on the basis of who is making them (whether I or the
author of a quotation).

Sure you do. Which is why you can't cobble up a real
arugment by *yourself* and have to therefore rely
on suspect quotations.

Saying things opposite of what I actually think, or saying things that
are nonsensical, helps make that goal happen.

Saying utterly nonsensical things makes the goal
of presenting valid counterarguments to the ToE
happen?
What a strange little world you live in,
David. You admit to the nonsensical nature
of your counterarguments, and somehow think
them superior to logical or evidentiary arguments
despite the fact that your quote-mining is *based
on logical or evidentiary arguments made by
scientists*, although they're usually taken
quite out of context in order to prove your
points.
How very...unique.

Wesley R. Elsberry had the right idea in responding to one of my
quotations. Others in the thread in question had a poor (and
knee-jerk) response to a mangled version of the quotation.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=199906260218.TAA02457%40cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com

He doesn't seem to be affirming Schindel's position,
there. Maybe you were thinking of *another* Wesley
R. Elsberry, perhaps?

Actually, the last one is quite irrelevant, David. *None*
of your debating partners are nearly as knee-jerk in their
replies as you are, IMHO.

Please present an example of those words of mine that make you think I
make knee-jerk replies.

Most of your posts, actually.
Simple enough?

IMHO, you made a knee-jerk [CK]"Handwaving, David. Handwaving."
response to one of my questions:

There *is* such a thing as calling 'em as you
sees 'em, David. Of course, a man of *your*
rhetorical skills might not want to pursue
such a brevity-laden course of response.

Stated Larry, [LM]"Actually, there's probably a slight *majority* of
knowledgeable scientists who think that macroevolution is decoupled
from microevolution. The number who continue to believe that
macroevolution is just a whole bunch of microevolution is shrinking
rapidly."

Then asked I, [df]"During which years did a majority of a)
geneticists, b) morphologists, and c) paleontologists [LM]"believe
that macroevolution is just a whole bunch of microevolution"?"
Larry's response to my question was simply, [LM]"Roughly from 1940 to
about 1980."
Your knee-jerk response to my question was [CK]"Handwaving, David.
Handwaving. Larry clearly states that there's a *phenomenon* of this
happening, not "which years" it occurred in."

What does "roughly from 1940 to about 1980" mean, David?
Your ability to read English, much less read for context,
seems to be a bit off.
(Snip)

BTW, [df]"I only learn things that I already agree with" is
nonsensical.

This is a stunningly honest admission coming from
the author of that sentence.

I knew the sentence was nonsensical I wrote it.

Can't recognize sarcasm when it's thrown back
at you, David? I find that interesting.

Up above, I also opined, [df]"I'm always wrong." Do you consider this
to be [CK]"a stunningly honest admission"?

If you were being *honest*, yes. And actually,
I don't find you to be merely "wrong" - I also
find you to be intellectually dishonest, smug,
and increasingly tiresome. But hey, not to
worry; a few more posts of yours in this thread
and I'm sure there's a few *other* things I can
think of you as.

Of course, the people _really_ playing them are fellow evolutionists
that are scientists and that consistently fail to present even
semi-solid evidence or argument for the blind watchmaker hypothesis,
and yet continue to loudly proclaim that it's a well-established
*fact* that life and biology arose and developed through
totally-mindless processes.

Mind if I quote-mine a bit for my sake, David?
From news:<c743abb.0404051720.345a8ba4@posting.google.com>:

What, if anything, is wrong with the following argument?:

In the creation (i.e. intelligent design) versus evolution (i.e.