| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"MsAnthrope" |
| Date: |
03 Feb 2005 08:41:57 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Is Anyone Here an ADVENTIST?! |
In article <1107423912.431243.254020@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Orion7
says...
Don't you know evolution is a farce? You are obviously a product of the
brain washing which goes on in our Schools, Colleges and Universities.
I have seen the desperate lengths these Professors and Scientists go to
make people believe in evolution, even fabricating evidence to support
their unsupportable theories.
1st Rule of Creationism: Ignored evidence will go away
2nd Rule of Creationism: Interpret any challenge as personal insult
3rd Rule of Creationism: Claim evidence then quietly slip away
4th Rule of Creationism: Don't be confused by facts
5th Rule of Creationism: Insist that science ignores your proof
6th Rule of Creationism: Claim superiority for Christian education.
7th Rule of Creationism: Always appear to know more than you do.
8th Rule of Creationism: Shift the burden of proof to your critics.
9th Rule of Creationism: Lying for the Lord is okay.
10th Rule of Creationism: Never acknowledge your demonstrated errors
--
MsAnthrope
http://web.newsguy.com/rubyred
.
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
23 Feb 2005 03:50:22 PM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"Fred Stone" wrote in message
news:1109168882.60c48a8b025d2b68a2f3c73c03e1241c@teranews...
"Andrew" wrote:
"snex" wrote in message
news:1109146294.219416.61400@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
if a "vertical change" is an increase in information then it has
already been supplied to you. the ability to digest man-made
substances is new information.
This is horizontal change, adaption...
"Bacteria can adapt to a range of conditions and food supplies.
They can
change the type of enzymes that they produce if the food source
changes."
http://www.naturclean.com/AboutBac.html
It's a change in the DNA, as has been explained to you over and
over
again. Don't you ever *learn* anything, Andrew?
Bacteria are smart dudes, Fred. They can swap genes with relatives to
adapt
to new environments. This adaptation which requires a change in the
genes
will obviously change the DNA.
Andrew
a change to DNA is a mutation. but, where did they get the DNA to
degrade nylon oligomers?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
23 Feb 2005 04:11:11 PM |
|
|
In article <384bqlF5jj2u0U1@individual.net> "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> writes:
"Fred Stone" wrote in message news:1109168882.60c48a8b025d2b68a2f3c73c03e1241c@teranews...
"Andrew" wrote:
"snex" wrote in message
news:1109146294.219416.61400@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
if a "vertical change" is an increase in information then it has
already been supplied to you. the ability to digest man-made
substances is new information.
This is horizontal change, adaption...
"Bacteria can adapt to a range of conditions and food supplies. They can
change the type of enzymes that they produce if the food source changes."
http://www.naturclean.com/AboutBac.html
It's a change in the DNA, as has been explained to you over and over
again. Don't you ever *learn* anything, Andrew?
Bacteria are smart dudes, Fred. They can swap genes with relatives to adapt
to new environments. This adaptation which requires a change in the genes
will obviously change the DNA.
So you're saying that Pseudomonas aeruginosa picked up some plasmids
left lying about by some other bug which had figured out a way
to deal with this new polymer? How does this do anything more than
push the basic argument back by one species?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
23 Feb 2005 04:18:22 PM |
|
|
In article <384bqlF5jj2u0U1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"Fred Stone" wrote in message
news:1109168882.60c48a8b025d2b68a2f3c73c03e1241c@teranews...
"Andrew" wrote:
"snex" wrote in message
news:1109146294.219416.61400@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
if a "vertical change" is an increase in information then it has
already been supplied to you. the ability to digest man-made
substances is new information.
This is horizontal change, adaption...
"Bacteria can adapt to a range of conditions and food supplies. They can
change the type of enzymes that they produce if the food source
changes."
http://www.naturclean.com/AboutBac.html
It's a change in the DNA, as has been explained to you over and over
again. Don't you ever *learn* anything, Andrew?
Bacteria are smart dudes, Fred. They can swap genes with relatives to adapt
to new environments. This adaptation which requires a change in the genes
will obviously change the DNA.
Is Andrew claiming that this swapping is the only method by which
bacteria can change DNA?
And since bacteria do not reproduce sexually, how does one determine
when many such micro changes in DNA accumulate enough differences to be
adjudged macro and a new species?
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
23 Feb 2005 05:14:46 PM |
|
|
In article <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil-E3DEFE.15182223022005@[63.218.45.211]> Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> writes:
Xref: news.arizona.edu alt.atheism:221901
In article <384bqlF5jj2u0U1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"Fred Stone" wrote in message
news:1109168882.60c48a8b025d2b68a2f3c73c03e1241c@teranews...
"Andrew" wrote:
"snex" wrote in message
news:1109146294.219416.61400@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
if a "vertical change" is an increase in information then it has
already been supplied to you. the ability to digest man-made
substances is new information.
This is horizontal change, adaption...
"Bacteria can adapt to a range of conditions and food supplies. They can
change the type of enzymes that they produce if the food source
changes."
http://www.naturclean.com/AboutBac.html
It's a change in the DNA, as has been explained to you over and over
again. Don't you ever *learn* anything, Andrew?
Bacteria are smart dudes, Fred. They can swap genes with relatives to adapt
to new environments. This adaptation which requires a change in the genes
will obviously change the DNA.
Is Andrew claiming that this swapping is the only method by which
bacteria can change DNA?
And since bacteria do not reproduce sexually, how does one determine
when many such micro changes in DNA accumulate enough differences to be
adjudged macro and a new species?
Actually, as Andrew alludes to, the little buggers are CONSTANTLY
having sex, if "rummaging through your DNA and trying bits on for
size" can be defined as "sex", as Lynn Margulis described it in her
book "Microcosmos". My question in light of that would be: how
tight can the even basic concept of "species" be, given that
this wanton promiscuity is constantly going on?
- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
23 Feb 2005 09:27:28 AM |
|
|
In article <1109168882.60c48a8b025d2b68a2f3c73c03e1241c@teranews> Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> writes:
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote in
news:382vheF5jfkl3U1@individual.net:
"snex" wrote in message
news:1109146294.219416.61400@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
if a "vertical change" is an increase in information then it has
already been supplied to you. the ability to digest man-made
substances is new information.
This is horizontal change, adaption...
"Bacteria can adapt to a range of conditions and food supplies. They
can
change the type of enzymes that they produce if the food source
changes."
http://www.naturclean.com/AboutBac.html
It's a change in the DNA, as has been explained to you over and over
again. Don't you ever *learn* anything, Andrew?
Amusingly, the only scientific argument I've seen presented
by a creationist discussing the problem of the nylon-eating bug
goes in exactly the opposite direction of Andrew's. Whoo, boy,
does it ever: it claims that at least FORTY-EIGHT mutations
are involved -- 47 point mutations and one frameshift -- and
then goes on to argue that this represents far too many mutations
to have occured by blind chance.
This is a much better argument than Andrew's, although it has
of course been criticized in turn. None the less, depending
on exactly what Andrew means by "vertical change", this
scientific-creationist argument against the nylon bug's
having gained this ability by pure chance represents
an entire skyscraper of verticality.
-- cary
(for those wanting more information, this argument was made
by Lee Spetner, author of "Not by Chance", and is discussed
several places on the web)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
23 Feb 2005 11:58:13 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 15:27:28 +0000 (UTC),
(Cary Kittrell) said in alt.atheism:
of course been criticized in turn. None the less, depending
on exactly what Andrew means by "vertical change"
You don't recognize Argumentum ad hand-waving when you see it? He's
probably indirectly quoting Morris. You know, Henry the Idiot of the
ICR? He also uses the "it's just a horizontal change (or devolution),
not a vertical evolution" "argument" without defining either word.
Read
http://www.icr.org/bible/tracts/scientificcaseagainstevolution.html
for a good laugh. Notice the "bible/tracts/ part of the URL? Good
"scientific case" there.
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid
consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and
ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who
works on the basis of reward and punishment. "
- Letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
23 Feb 2005 03:46:00 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:pmgp111o5fiu802200vd0brqcdj46ajr3a@4ax.com...
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 15:27:28 +0000 (UTC),
(Cary Kittrell) said in alt.atheism:
of course been criticized in turn. None the less, depending
on exactly what Andrew means by "vertical change"
You don't recognize Argumentum ad hand-waving when you see it? He's
probably indirectly quoting Morris. You know, Henry the Idiot of the
ICR? He also uses the "it's just a horizontal change (or devolution),
not a vertical evolution" "argument" without defining either word.
Read
http://www.icr.org/bible/tracts/scientificcaseagainstevolution.html
for a good laugh. Notice the "bible/tracts/ part of the URL? Good
"scientific case" there.
I would challenge you to please quote material from the site for discussion
or rebuttal instead of these immature ad hominems, which indicate that you
are insecure in your own position.
"Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and
true strategy for people who have a case that is weak."
http://www.bartleby.com/61/71/A0087100.html
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
23 Feb 2005 03:56:40 PM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:pmgp111o5fiu802200vd0brqcdj46ajr3a@4ax.com...
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 15:27:28 +0000 (UTC),
(Cary Kittrell) said in alt.atheism:
of course been criticized in turn. None the less, depending
on exactly what Andrew means by "vertical change"
You don't recognize Argumentum ad hand-waving when you see it?
He's
probably indirectly quoting Morris. You know, Henry the Idiot of
the
ICR? He also uses the "it's just a horizontal change (or
devolution),
not a vertical evolution" "argument" without defining either word.
Read
http://www.icr.org/bible/tracts/scientificcaseagainstevolution.html
for a good laugh. Notice the "bible/tracts/ part of the URL? Good
"scientific case" there.
I would challenge you to please quote material from the site for
discussion
or rebuttal instead of these immature ad hominems, which indicate
that you
are insecure in your own position.
"Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and
true strategy for people who have a case that is weak."
http://www.bartleby.com/61/71/A0087100.html
Andrew
pointing out your use of plagiarized ideas is not ad hominem. stop
being dishonest andrew. god hates that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
23 Feb 2005 06:01:51 PM |
|
|
snex wrote:
Andrew wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:pmgp111o5fiu802200vd0brqcdj46ajr3a@4ax.com...
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 15:27:28 +0000 (UTC),
(Cary Kittrell) said in alt.atheism:
of course been criticized in turn. None the less, depending
on exactly what Andrew means by "vertical change"
You don't recognize Argumentum ad hand-waving when you see it?
He's
probably indirectly quoting Morris. You know, Henry the Idiot of
the
ICR? He also uses the "it's just a horizontal change (or
devolution),
not a vertical evolution" "argument" without defining either word.
Read
http://www.icr.org/bible/tracts/scientificcaseagainstevolution.html
for a good laugh. Notice the "bible/tracts/ part of the URL? Good
"scientific case" there.
I would challenge you to please quote material from the site for
discussion
or rebuttal instead of these immature ad hominems, which indicate
that you
are insecure in your own position.
"Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and
true strategy for people who have a case that is weak."
http://www.bartleby.com/61/71/A0087100.html
Andrew
pointing out your use of plagiarized ideas is not ad hominem. stop
being dishonest andrew. god hates that.
I suspect he meant calling Morris an idiot, but even that doesn't make
it ad-hom, just an insult
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
23 Feb 2005 10:30:34 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 00:01:51 +0000, Ash
<ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> said in alt.atheism:
I suspect he meant calling Morris an idiot, but even that doesn't make
it ad-hom, just an insult
How is my praising Morris an insult? To truth?
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious
conviction."
- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
23 Feb 2005 04:33:43 PM |
|
|
In article <384bsoF5k4aq5U1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:pmgp111o5fiu802200vd0brqcdj46ajr3a@4ax.com...
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 15:27:28 +0000 (UTC),
(Cary Kittrell) said in alt.atheism:
of course been criticized in turn. None the less, depending
on exactly what Andrew means by "vertical change"
You don't recognize Argumentum ad hand-waving when you see it? He's
probably indirectly quoting Morris. You know, Henry the Idiot of the
ICR? He also uses the "it's just a horizontal change (or devolution),
not a vertical evolution" "argument" without defining either word.
Read
http://www.icr.org/bible/tracts/scientificcaseagainstevolution.html
for a good laugh. Notice the "bible/tracts/ part of the URL? Good
"scientific case" there.
I would challenge you to please quote material from the site for discussion
or rebuttal instead of these immature ad hominems, which indicate that you
are insecure in your own position.
Citing a site is quite sufficient. Those interested can then go to the
site. But most of those in alt.atheism have seen enough of those sites
already to know about what they will find. Nothing scientific, however
much is claimed to be scientific.
"Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and
true strategy for people who have a case that is weak."
http://www.bartleby.com/61/71/A0087100.html
It is also a natural response by the reasonable to persistent unreason.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
23 Feb 2005 05:45:00 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 13:46:00 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:pmgp111o5fiu802200vd0brqcdj46ajr3a@4ax.com...
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 15:27:28 +0000 (UTC),
(Cary Kittrell) said in alt.atheism:
of course been criticized in turn. None the less, depending
on exactly what Andrew means by "vertical change"
You don't recognize Argumentum ad hand-waving when you see it? He's
probably indirectly quoting Morris. You know, Henry the Idiot of the
ICR? He also uses the "it's just a horizontal change (or devolution),
not a vertical evolution" "argument" without defining either word.
Read
http://www.icr.org/bible/tracts/scientificcaseagainstevolution.html
for a good laugh. Notice the "bible/tracts/ part of the URL? Good
"scientific case" there.
I would challenge you to please quote material from the site
Sorry, can't do - it's expressly forbidden ON THE SITE. Click on the
javascript link to the copyright notice to see why. *NOTHING* on the
site can be reproduced in ANY medium without their express written
permission.
instead of these immature ad hominems, which indicate that you
are insecure in your own position.
"Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and
true strategy for people who have a case that is weak."
"Truth tellin' ain't backstabbin'."
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"So much blood has been shed by the Church because of an omission from the Gospel: "Ye
shall be indifferent as to what your neighbor's religion is." Not merely tolerant of it,
but indifferent to it. Divinity is claimed for many religions; but no religion is great
enough or divine enough to add that new law to its code."
- Mark Twain, a Biography
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
24 Feb 2005 04:40:45 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 13:46:00 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:pmgp111o5fiu802200vd0brqcdj46ajr3a@4ax.com...
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 15:27:28 +0000 (UTC),
(Cary Kittrell) said in alt.atheism:
of course been criticized in turn. None the less, depending
on exactly what Andrew means by "vertical change"
You don't recognize Argumentum ad hand-waving when you see it? He's
probably indirectly quoting Morris. You know, Henry the Idiot of the
ICR? He also uses the "it's just a horizontal change (or devolution),
not a vertical evolution" "argument" without defining either word.
Read
http://www.icr.org/bible/tracts/scientificcaseagainstevolution.html
for a good laugh. Notice the "bible/tracts/ part of the URL? Good
"scientific case" there.
I would challenge you to please quote material from the site
Sorry, can't do - it's expressly forbidden ON THE SITE. Click on the
javascript link to the copyright notice to see why. *NOTHING* on the
site can be reproduced in ANY medium without their express written
permission.
"No portion of this booklet may be used in any form without written
permission of the publishers, with the exception of brief excerpts in
magazine articles, reviews, etc"
I guess brief excerpts are allowed, though not sure how brief. Not sure
if they can get round any "fair use" argument however firm they are though.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
24 Feb 2005 08:44:43 AM |
|
|
"Ash" wrote in message news:cvkave$vf7$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
Al Klein wrote:
"Andrew" said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" wrote:
(Cary Kittrell) said in alt.atheism:
of course been criticized in turn. None the less, depending
on exactly what Andrew means by "vertical change"
You don't recognize Argumentum ad hand-waving when you see it? He's
probably indirectly quoting Morris. You know, Henry the Idiot of the
ICR? He also uses the "it's just a horizontal change (or devolution),
not a vertical evolution" "argument" without defining either word.
Read
http://www.icr.org/bible/tracts/scientificcaseagainstevolution.html
for a good laugh. Notice the "bible/tracts/ part of the URL? Good
"scientific case" there.
I would challenge you to please quote material from the site
Sorry, can't do - it's expressly forbidden ON THE SITE. Click on the
javascript link to the copyright notice to see why. *NOTHING* on the
site can be reproduced in ANY medium without their express written
permission.
"No portion of this booklet may be used in any form without written
permission of the publishers, with the exception of brief excerpts in
magazine articles, reviews, etc"
Further on it says: "You may print out pages for personal use. You may also
print out pages in whole as evangelistic tools.... ...They may not be resold."
I guess brief excerpts are allowed, though not sure how brief. Not sure
if they can get round any "fair use" argument however firm they are though.
Here's what the law says:
"The fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction...
FOR SUCH PURPOSES AS CRITICISM, COMMENT, news reporting,
teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or
research, IS NOT AN INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html
Therefore Al is left without excuse to accept my previous challenge to cite
material from the site for comment or rebutal, instead of his immature ad
hominems which reflect the insecurity of his own position.
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
24 Feb 2005 09:43:02 AM |
|
|
In article <3867ipF5jjoi7U1@individual.net> "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> writes:
"Ash" wrote in message news:cvkave$vf7$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
Al Klein wrote:
I would challenge you to please quote material from the site
{...}
Sorry, can't do - it's expressly forbidden ON THE SITE. Click on the
javascript link to the copyright notice to see why. *NOTHING* on the
site can be reproduced in ANY medium without their express written
permission.
"No portion of this booklet may be used in any form without written
permission of the publishers, with the exception of brief excerpts in
magazine articles, reviews, etc"
Further on it says: "You may print out pages for personal use. You may also
print out pages in whole as evangelistic tools.... ...They may not be resold."
I guess brief excerpts are allowed, though not sure how brief. Not sure
if they can get round any "fair use" argument however firm they are though.
Here's what the law says:
"The fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction...
FOR SUCH PURPOSES AS CRITICISM, COMMENT, news reporting,
teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or
research, IS NOT AN INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html
Therefore Al is left without excuse to accept my previous challenge to cite
material from the site for comment or rebutal, instead of his immature ad
hominems which reflect the insecurity of his own position.
Your point being, I take it, that if the owners of the site decide
to get snarky about this, Al would ultimately prevail in court?
Are you willing to pay such legal fees as would be required to
earn him this victory?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
24 Feb 2005 10:58:20 AM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <3867ipF5jjoi7U1@individual.net> "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> writes:
"Ash" wrote in message news:cvkave$vf7$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
Al Klein wrote:
I would challenge you to please quote material from the site
{...}
Sorry, can't do - it's expressly forbidden ON THE SITE. Click on the
javascript link to the copyright notice to see why. *NOTHING* on the
site can be reproduced in ANY medium without their express written
permission.
"No portion of this booklet may be used in any form without written
permission of the publishers, with the exception of brief excerpts in
magazine articles, reviews, etc"
Further on it says: "You may print out pages for personal use. You may also
print out pages in whole as evangelistic tools.... ...They may not be resold."
I guess brief excerpts are allowed, though not sure how brief. Not sure
if they can get round any "fair use" argument however firm they are though.
Here's what the law says:
"The fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction...
FOR SUCH PURPOSES AS CRITICISM, COMMENT, news reporting,
teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or
research, IS NOT AN INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html
Therefore Al is left without excuse to accept my previous challenge to cite
material from the site for comment or rebutal, instead of his immature ad
hominems which reflect the insecurity of his own position.
Your point being, I take it, that if the owners of the site decide
to get snarky about this, Al would ultimately prevail in court?
Are you willing to pay such legal fees as would be required to
earn him this victory?
I doubt they would have any case in the unlikely event of choosing to
take anyone to court
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
24 Feb 2005 11:11:19 AM |
|
|
In article <cvl13c$7qt$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk> Ash <ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> writes:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <3867ipF5jjoi7U1@individual.net> "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> writes:
"Ash" wrote in message news:cvkave$vf7$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
Al Klein wrote:
I would challenge you to please quote material from the site
{...}
Sorry, can't do - it's expressly forbidden ON THE SITE. Click on the
javascript link to the copyright notice to see why. *NOTHING* on the
site can be reproduced in ANY medium without their express written
permission.
"No portion of this booklet may be used in any form without written
permission of the publishers, with the exception of brief excerpts in
magazine articles, reviews, etc"
Further on it says: "You may print out pages for personal use. You may also
print out pages in whole as evangelistic tools.... ...They may not be resold."
I guess brief excerpts are allowed, though not sure how brief. Not sure
if they can get round any "fair use" argument however firm they are though.
Here's what the law says:
"The fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction...
FOR SUCH PURPOSES AS CRITICISM, COMMENT, news reporting,
teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or
research, IS NOT AN INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html
Therefore Al is left without excuse to accept my previous challenge to cite
material from the site for comment or rebutal, instead of his immature ad
hominems which reflect the insecurity of his own position.
Your point being, I take it, that if the owners of the site decide
to get snarky about this, Al would ultimately prevail in court?
Are you willing to pay such legal fees as would be required to
earn him this victory?
I doubt they would have any case in the unlikely event of choosing to
take anyone to court
I think it's extremely likely that you're right. Nonetheless, the
world is full of litigious types who will take you to court anyhow,
if they're carrying a lance and you appear somewhat like a windmill,
and it can cost you considerable money to respond.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
24 Feb 2005 02:01:19 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 15:43:02 +0000 (UTC),
(Cary Kittrell) said in alt.atheism:
Are you willing to pay such legal fees as would be required to
earn him this victory?
Legal fees nothing. Total indemnification against all losses, both
direct and indirect. In writing, notarized, and approved by his
attorney. With a largish bond posted against performance, of course.
The ICR has the resources to cost me tens, or maybe hundreds, of
thousands, just in direct costs, if they want to. Andrew isn't
important enough to me to risk a year's income.
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"Given that you exist and that you are aware of your situation and
surroundings, you will find yourself in a place which has conditions
exactly suitable to your being there. If the environment was
hostile or incompatible in some important way then you would not be
there in the first place. Therefore the suitability and seeming
perfection of your universe cannot be taken as evidence of anything
more than your existence in it."
- Edward Warren, "The naturalistic fallacy"
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
24 Feb 2005 02:19:43 PM |
|
|
In article <qfcs1196s8k1gp7d2lmiegs76hktoco73o@4ax.com> Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 15:43:02 +0000 (UTC),
(Cary Kittrell) said in alt.atheism:
Are you willing to pay such legal fees as would be required to
earn him this victory?
Legal fees nothing. Total indemnification against all losses, both
direct and indirect. In writing, notarized, and approved by his
attorney. With a largish bond posted against performance, of course.
And, he ought to clean your pool.
(Beg pardon? Oh. Well, he should build one for you first, then)
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
24 Feb 2005 05:53:57 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 20:19:43 +0000 (UTC),
(Cary Kittrell) said in alt.atheism:
In article <qfcs1196s8k1gp7d2lmiegs76hktoco73o@4ax.com> Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 15:43:02 +0000 (UTC),
(Cary Kittrell) said in alt.atheism:
Are you willing to pay such legal fees as would be required to
earn him this victory?
Legal fees nothing. Total indemnification against all losses, both
direct and indirect. In writing, notarized, and approved by his
attorney. With a largish bond posted against performance, of course.
And, he ought to clean your pool.
(Beg pardon? Oh. Well, he should build one for you first, then)
I'll take his doing all my yard work instead. :)
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious
conviction."
- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
24 Feb 2005 01:58:20 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 06:44:43 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
said in alt.atheism:
Further on it says: "You may print out pages for personal use. You may also
print out pages in whole as evangelistic tools.... ...They may not be resold."
What you just did violates their claimed copyright.
However ... this isn't "print[ing] out pages" and it's not for
personal use or evangelistic purposes.
Here's what the law says:
"The fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction...
FOR SUCH PURPOSES AS CRITICISM, COMMENT, news reporting,
teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or
research, IS NOT AN INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT.
Does it say that this law supercedes statements by the copyright
holder? (Hint: No.)
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"The United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
- Treaty of Tripoli, 1797, ratified by Congress
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
24 Feb 2005 01:56:14 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 10:40:45 +0000, Ash
<ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
....
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:pmgp111o5fiu802200vd0brqcdj46ajr3a@4ax.com...
http://www.icr.org/bible/tracts/scientificcaseagainstevolution.html
Sorry, can't do - it's expressly forbidden ON THE SITE. Click on the
javascript link to the copyright notice to see why. *NOTHING* on the
site can be reproduced in ANY medium without their express written
permission.
"No portion of this booklet may be used in any form without written
permission of the publishers, with the exception of brief excerpts in
magazine articles, reviews, etc"
I'd quote the actual page I was referring to, but it says that doing
so is a violation of their copyright.
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but
not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings."
-A. Einstein (1929 -- Einstein Archive 33-272)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
24 Feb 2005 02:01:06 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 10:40:45 +0000, Ash
<ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
...
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:pmgp111o5fiu802200vd0brqcdj46ajr3a@4ax.com...
http://www.icr.org/bible/tracts/scientificcaseagainstevolution.html
Sorry, can't do - it's expressly forbidden ON THE SITE. Click on the
javascript link to the copyright notice to see why. *NOTHING* on the
site can be reproduced in ANY medium without their express written
permission.
"No portion of this booklet may be used in any form without written
permission of the publishers, with the exception of brief excerpts in
magazine articles, reviews, etc"
I'd quote the actual page I was referring to, but it says that doing
so is a violation of their copyright.
yeah, I suspect they made up some unenforceable copyright notice
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
24 Feb 2005 05:53:18 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 20:01:06 +0000, Ash
<ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
I'd quote the actual page I was referring to, but it says that doing
so is a violation of their copyright.
yeah, I suspect they made up some unenforceable copyright notice
Or the law allows that. IANAL yada yada.
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
- H. L. Mencken
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
23 Feb 2005 10:26:14 AM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"snex" wrote in message
news:1109146294.219416.61400@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
if a "vertical change" is an increase in information then it has
already been supplied to you. the ability to digest man-made
substances
is new information.
This is horizontal change, adaption...
"Bacteria can adapt to a range of conditions and food supplies. They
can
change the type of enzymes that they produce if the food source
changes."
http://www.naturclean.com/AboutBac.html
guess how they change the type of enzymes they produce? by mutation of
their DNA. learn something about biology before making an ***** of
yourself.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
23 Feb 2005 08:33:06 AM |
|
|
In article <382vheF5jfkl3U1@individual.net> "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> writes:
"snex" wrote in message news:1109146294.219416.61400@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
if a "vertical change" is an increase in information then it has
already been supplied to you. the ability to digest man-made substances
is new information.
This is horizontal change, adaption...
"Bacteria can adapt to a range of conditions and food supplies. They can
change the type of enzymes that they produce if the food source changes."
http://www.naturclean.com/AboutBac.html
Beg pardon? What, exactly, is your argument here? Are you
saying that the statement "Bacteria can adapt to a range of
conditions and food supplies. They can change the type of enzymes
that they produce if the food source changes" implies that
bacteria have some kind of inherent adaptability which
will allow them to eat anything they find in their
environment, and thus becoming able to metabolize a novel
polymer, new to this world, ws simply a matter of
adjusting a couple of existing molecular switches?
If so, may we assume that there are switches for anything
they may ever encounter -- glass, teflon, vanadium,
granite, linoleum, mercury, chlorine -- or are there
some limits to this one-size-fits-all magic?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
23 Feb 2005 03:45:05 PM |
|
|
"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message news:cvi472$ot5$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
"Andrew" writes:
"snex" wrote:
if a "vertical change" is an increase in information then it has
already been supplied to you. the ability to digest man-made substances
is new information.
This is horizontal change, adaption...
"Bacteria can adapt to a range of conditions and food supplies. They can
change the type of enzymes that they produce if the food source changes."
http://www.naturclean.com/AboutBac.html
Beg pardon? What, exactly, is your argument here? Are you
saying that the statement "Bacteria can adapt to a range of
conditions and food supplies. They can change the type of enzymes
that they produce if the food source changes" implies that
bacteria have some kind of inherent adaptability which
will allow them to eat anything they find in their
environment, and thus becoming able to metabolize a novel
polymer, new to this world, ws simply a matter of
adjusting a couple of existing molecular switches?
"Bacteria have the capability of producing many different types of enzymes. They are living
organisms that respond to their environment. In general, bacteria are capable of producing
enzymes that degrade a wide variety of organic materials such as fats, oils, cellulose, xylan,
proteins, and starches. It is important to note that all of these materials are polymers that
must be reacted with more than one type of enzyme in order to be efficiently degraded to
their basic building blocks. Nature provides a specific "team" of enzymes to attack each
type of polymer. For example, there are three different classes of enzymes (endocellulases,
exocellulases, cellobiohydrolases) that are required to degrade a cellulose polymer into
basic glucose units. All three types of enzymes are referred to as cellulases, but each class
attacks a specific structure or substructure of the polymer. Acting individually, none of the
cellulases is capable of efficiently degrading the polymer. Bacteria can produce the complete
"team" of enzymes that are necessary to degrade and consume the organic materials present
in their environment at any given time. Moreover, bacteria can produce multiple "teams" at
the same time.
Bacteria can adapt to a range of conditions and food supplies. They can change the type of
enzymes that they produce if the food source changes. They can protect themselves from
changes in environmental conditions by forming colonies, biofilms, or spores. Importantly,
bacteria live in "communities" made up of different species. Each species fills a biological
niche, and the population of each species grows or declines in response to the environment.
For example, a community may contain certain species that efficiently degrade grease, and
other species that thrive on cellulose."
http://www.naturclean.com/AboutBac.html
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
23 Feb 2005 03:51:44 PM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message
news:cvi472$ot5$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
"Andrew" writes:
"snex" wrote:
if a "vertical change" is an increase in information then it
has
already been supplied to you. the ability to digest man-made
substances
is new information.
This is horizontal change, adaption...
"Bacteria can adapt to a range of conditions and food supplies.
They can
change the type of enzymes that they produce if the food source
changes."
http://www.naturclean.com/AboutBac.html
Beg pardon? What, exactly, is your argument here? Are you
saying that the statement "Bacteria can adapt to a range of
conditions and food supplies. They can change the type of enzymes
that they produce if the food source changes" implies that
bacteria have some kind of inherent adaptability which
will allow them to eat anything they find in their
environment, and thus becoming able to metabolize a novel
polymer, new to this world, ws simply a matter of
adjusting a couple of existing molecular switches?
"Bacteria have the capability of producing many different types of
enzymes. They are living
organisms that respond to their environment. In general, bacteria are
capable of producing
enzymes that degrade a wide variety of organic materials such as
fats, oils, cellulose, xylan,
proteins, and starches. It is important to note that all of these
materials are polymers that
must be reacted with more than one type of enzyme in order to be
efficiently degraded to
their basic building blocks. Nature provides a specific "team" of
enzymes to attack each
type of polymer. For example, there are three different classes of
enzymes (endocellulases,
exocellulases, cellobiohydrolases) that are required to degrade a
cellulose polymer into
basic glucose units. All three types of enzymes are referred to as
cellulases, but each class
attacks a specific structure or substructure of the polymer. Acting
individually, none of the
cellulases is capable of efficiently degrading the polymer. Bacteria
can produce the complete
"team" of enzymes that are necessary to degrade and consume the
organic materials present
in their environment at any given time. Moreover, bacteria can
produce multiple "teams" at
the same time.
Bacteria can adapt to a range of conditions and food supplies. They
can change the type of
enzymes that they produce if the food source changes. They can
protect themselves from
changes in environmental conditions by forming colonies, biofilms, or
spores. Importantly,
bacteria live in "communities" made up of different species. Each
species fills a biological
niche, and the population of each species grows or declines in
response to the environment.
For example, a community may contain certain species that efficiently
degrade grease, and
other species that thrive on cellulose."
http://www.naturclean.com/AboutBac.html
Andrew
you keep saying that bacteria can "adapt" but you never mention by what
method they adapt.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
23 Feb 2005 04:20:19 PM |
|
|
In article <384br1F5amg1jU1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message news:cvi472$ot5$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
"Andrew" writes:
"snex" wrote:
if a "vertical change" is an increase in information then it has
already been supplied to you. the ability to digest man-made substances
is new information.
This is horizontal change, adaption...
"Bacteria can adapt to a range of conditions and food supplies. They can
change the type of enzymes that they produce if the food source
changes."
http://www.naturclean.com/AboutBac.html
Beg pardon? What, exactly, is your argument here? Are you
saying that the statement "Bacteria can adapt to a range of
conditions and food supplies. They can change the type of enzymes
that they produce if the food source changes" implies that
bacteria have some kind of inherent adaptability which
will allow them to eat anything they find in their
environment, and thus becoming able to metabolize a novel
polymer, new to this world, ws simply a matter of
adjusting a couple of existing molecular switches?
"Bacteria have the capability of producing many different types of enzymes.
They are living
organisms that respond to their environment. In general, bacteria are capable
of producing
enzymes that degrade a wide variety of organic materials such as fats, oils,
cellulose, xylan,
proteins, and starches. It is important to note that all of these materials
are polymers that
must be reacted with more than one type of enzyme in order to be efficiently
degraded to
their basic building blocks. Nature provides a specific "team" of enzymes to
attack each
type of polymer. For example, there are three different classes of enzymes
(endocellulases,
exocellulases, cellobiohydrolases) that are required to degrade a cellulose
polymer into
basic glucose units. All three types of enzymes are referred to as
cellulases, but each class
attacks a specific structure or substructure of the polymer. Acting
individually, none of the
cellulases is capable of efficiently degrading the polymer. Bacteria can
produce the complete
"team" of enzymes that are necessary to degrade and consume the organic
materials present
in their environment at any given time. Moreover, bacteria can produce
multiple "teams" at
the same time.
Bacteria can adapt to a range of conditions and food supplies. They can
change the type of
enzymes that they produce if the food source changes. They can protect
themselves from
changes in environmental conditions by forming colonies, biofilms, or spores.
Importantly,
bacteria live in "communities" made up of different species. Each species
fills a biological
niche, and the population of each species grows or declines in response to
the environment.
For example, a community may contain certain species that efficiently degrade
grease, and
other species that thrive on cellulose."
http://www.naturclean.com/AboutBac.html
None of which prohibits changes at the species level or above.
Andrew
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
23 Feb 2005 08:04:45 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 13:45:05 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"Bacteria can adapt to a range of conditions and food supplies. They can
change the type of enzymes that they produce if the food source changes."
http://www.naturclean.com/AboutBac.html
It's an advertisement for a product, genius, not a scientific
discussion of evolution.
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious
conviction."
- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|