Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #581420 > unrolled thread
| Started by | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-05-29 06:27 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-06-03 11:02 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 135 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 06:27 -0700
BJ Believes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 06:43 -0700
BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 06:54 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-29 12:58 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 09:15 -0500
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 07:18 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-31 10:45 -0400
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 07:51 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-31 12:13 -0400
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-31 10:54 -0400
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 08:14 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-31 12:18 -0400
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 08:19 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-31 12:20 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 11:38 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-31 14:38 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 13:49 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-01 00:24 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 09:36 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-01 13:01 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 10:43 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-31 12:27 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 11:48 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-31 15:10 -0400
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 12:37 -0700
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 14:50 -0500
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 17:32 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-01 01:12 -0400
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 03:45 -0700
Re: BJ Believes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 05:43 -0700
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 11:06 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-01 00:45 -0400
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-01 00:27 -0400
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 03:34 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-01 12:54 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 14:48 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-01 00:43 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 09:36 -0500
Re: BJ Believes ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-05-29 14:25 -0500
Re: BJ Believes "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-05-29 13:50 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-29 12:48 -0400
Re: BJ Believes "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 11:34 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-01 20:41 -0400
Re: BJ Believes "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 18:03 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-01 22:12 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 10:28 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-02 12:03 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 11:34 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-02 18:48 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 18:01 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-02 20:09 -0400
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 20:17 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 00:45 -0400
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 05:02 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 09:47 -0400
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 07:08 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 10:45 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 06:56 -0500
Re: BJ Believes "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 15:15 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-02 19:41 -0400
Re: BJ Believes "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 21:38 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 03:13 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 07:21 -0500
Re: BJ Believes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 05:50 -0700
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 08:00 -0500
Re: BJ Believes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 06:51 -0700
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 08:53 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 10:20 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 09:24 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 10:54 -0400
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 08:41 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 14:21 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 10:48 -0500
Re: BJ Believes Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 09:01 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 14:32 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 13:58 -0500
Re: BJ Believes Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 15:02 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 23:53 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 06:08 -0700
Re: BJ Believes ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-03 13:50 -0500
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 14:26 -0500
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 07:44 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 14:18 -0400
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 09:57 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 09:07 -0500
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 07:23 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 10:45 -0400
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 10:35 -0400
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 07:55 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 14:19 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 10:41 -0500
Re: BJ Believes ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-03 13:42 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 09:51 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 09:00 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 10:27 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 10:26 -0500
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 13:59 -0500
Re: BJ Believes "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 13:40 -0700
Re: BJ Believes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-08 21:11 +0000
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-08 17:38 -0400
Re: BJ Believes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-08 22:50 +0000
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-08 20:34 -0400
Re: BJ Believes "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-06-08 19:21 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-09 02:43 -0400
Re: BJ Believes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-09 02:34 +0000
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-09 02:48 -0400
Re: BJ Believes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-09 16:34 +0000
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-08 17:27 -0400
Re: BJ Believes "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 21:16 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-09 03:38 -0400
Re: BJ Believes "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 01:56 -0700
Re: BJ Believes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 06:38 -0700
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 07:23 -0700
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 10:49 -0500
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 09:13 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-08 17:07 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 16:16 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-08 17:41 -0400
Re: BJ Believes "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 14:53 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-08 20:28 -0400
Re: BJ Believes "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-06-08 19:21 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-09 02:41 -0400
Re: BJ Believes "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 13:30 -0700
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 20:10 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-01 22:14 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 10:28 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-02 12:05 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 11:36 -0500
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 04:13 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-02 12:00 -0400
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 09:38 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-02 18:49 -0400
Re: BenJacoby would have everyone believe in Santa Claus. benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-02 12:11 -0400
Re: Jesus Christ and Santa Claus were invented for people like you. benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-02 19:07 -0400
Re: Correlation doesn’t imply causation. ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-03 11:02 -0500
Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-02 21:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <03d460aa-1aaf-481a-bb1f-84bce24aaf0c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #582453 |
On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 4:41:36 PM UTC-7, benj wrote: > On 06/02/2016 06:15 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote: > > On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 7:12:06 PM UTC-7, benj wrote: > >> On 06/01/2016 09:03 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 5:41:48 PM UTC-7, benj wrote: > >>>> On 06/01/2016 02:34 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote: > >>>>> On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 9:48:49 AM UTC-7, benj wrote: > >>>>>> On 05/29/2016 09:27 AM, HVAC wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> ...In these so called near death experiences. Yes, as > >>>>>>> crazy as it sounds, BJ actually believes those liars and > >>>>>>> frauds who report these stories. But is anyone surprised > >>>>>>> to hear this? No. Since he believes in ghosts, demons and > >>>>>>> esp, it's not much of a leap to believing crazy stories > >>>>>>> of people who come back from being unconscious. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Right right? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Actually the people who I believe to be liars and frauds > >>>>>> are the ones claiming superpowers and ESP (Like HVAC) so > >>>>>> say they know what everyone is thinking even if they are > >>>>>> saying nothing. > >>>>> > >>>>> Like when you say that evolutionists are by definition > >>>>> amoral? > >>>> > >>>> Wait a minute! It's by DEFINITION they are amoral. > >>> > >>> Yes, exactly like that. > >>> > >>>> I don't say I know what they actually believe (like you know > >>>> who does). > >>> > >>> Then you're expressing your belief about what somebody else > >>> believes, like you know who does. > >> > >> Not so. I'm expressing the logical conclusion that IF a person > >> believes in the principles of the idea, then it follows that the > >> conclusions that flow from that idea > > > > You mean, the conclusions *you* draw. > > Obviously. You are permitted to draw any conclusions you like. Even > erroneous ones. How very generous of you. > >> ...are also present. They actually may or may not believe these > >> tenets, but that also means they may or may not actually be > >> followers of the idea they say they follow. > > > > Or, maybe they just don't draw the same conclusions you do because > > they don't base their logic on the same false premises? > > Amd that "false" premise is? "Premises" is plural. The three below. > >>>> I can only say that if they follow the logic of Evolution and > >>>> atheism by definition > >>> > >>> Perhaps it would help if you laid out what you think that logic > >>> (as if there were one form of logic common to both) consists of. > >> > >> Take the evolution paradigm. Things develop by chance with out any > >> goal. > > > > You're batting .500 so far; no "guiding hand" is required to explain > > what we see, but the goal of all life is surviving long enough to > > reproduce. > > No, You only have your opinion not agreeing with mine. Really? Where did you acquire it? If you didn't get it from someone else you made it up. In either case, it's wrong. > You DO agree that evolution has no "guiding hand" or "intelligent design" > right? Yes. > Hence there is no "goal" set into the system. False. Insisting that "goals" and "intelligent design" are indissolubly linked is typical of Abrahamists who want to give a little ground in admitting evolution might be true, but is only their god's way of making us in its image. As far as they're concerned evolution is over, its goal has been achieved. The only goal of evolution is to keep it going. When a species fails to reproduce it's extinct and no longer gets to participate. I asked you to define your idea of a valid basis for morality but so far you've chickened out. Here, let me show you how it's done. First I'll define "morality" as the standard against which "right" and "wrong" behaviors are compared. If you use a different one, please provide it. Right: contribute to species survival by reproducing. Wrong: fail to contribute to species survival. > >> It is said to be a progressive development, hence animals are > >> simply earlier stages of ourselves according to this idea. > > > > No. That's the old "humans are descended from monkeys/apes" > > deliberate misinterpretation of evolution that originated from > > religious adherents. We did not evolve from monkeys or apes, we share > > common ancestors with them. Their evolution was *separate* from ours. > > What they are, we cannot become, and vice versa. That last part is > > important so I'll expand on it- no matter how you crossbreed monkeys > > or apes, you will never get a human. > > So you are saying that evolution is NOT "tree"? No. > That if several species branch from a common ancestor that is not a > "progression"? "Progress" implies a goal. > That is obviously not true. Your misinterpretation. > The whole "tree" idea is a progression from simple to more complex. Nope. Again, you're assuming an "intelligent design" kind of goal without realizing it. "Progress" implies approaching an end goal, which there isn't any. Each branch of your "tree" is a sequence of "fit to survive in the current environment" because environments tend to change (no matter how much Wormley wants to pretend they don't). Complexity is only useful if more complex organisms are more fit to survive in a given environment than simpler ones, which is not necessarily the case. Compare dinosaurs and bacteria. Notice that extremophiles that inhabit mineral springs never evolved into more complex organisms because they never needed to, and nothing evolved to outcompete them because they're already the most fit to survive there. For that matter, there are many really simple organisms that are much more fit to survive in the ocean than we are, but they are not at all fit to survive on land. > Are you saying I cannot modify ape DNA and get human characteristics? Are > you saying that I cannot introduce ape characteristics into humans by genetic > manipulation? You KNOW that is true. No, I'm not, and those are irrelevant to how evolution worked before we discovered DNA anyway. > Using the word "crossbreeding" is incorrect as well because evolution > supposedly works not by "breeding" but by random mutations. So? My point was we did not evolve from "simpler" apes and monkeys. If we had, it would be possible to get humans from them. They simply are not "farther down" our branch of the evolutionary tree. > > Evolution is *not* "progressive" in any sense. It is indeed random > > (or was, until we started looking at genes and thinking we might be > > able to tweak them better than the random way Nature does). > > > > Seeing "progression" in evolution is pareidolia. > > So you think that evolution "trees" are just Mary on a piece of toast? No. > That is quite an argument! Having man jump full blown into existence > with no ancestors or "tree" sounds a lot like "creation science" to me. > You do know that is a 'forbidden topic' right? Again, you're trying to put words in my mouth. There is sequence but no progression. > >> Hence the basic systems of all kinds in the animal kingdom > >> represent the basis for our own systems. That is the logic of it. > > > > That conclusion follows from the three false premises I pointed out. > > Did not successfully prove your points. I know you believe that humans couldn't have come into existence without the intervention of Ancient Aliens, but even given that, where'd *they* get their leg up from "mere animal", another species that uplifted them? Turtles all the way up? There's no "intelligently designed" end goal. Get over it. > >>>> you are led to a place were morality does not exist, but only > >>>> animal instinct. > > > > I notice you snipped out the part where I asked you to "lay out what > > you think "morality" is, and what is a valid basis of morality"- I'll > > get back to that below. You still haven't laid out your own basis for morality. What are you afraid of? > >>> Also, it might help if you laid out what you think "animal > >>> instinct" is, and why it should be taken to be the limiting > >>> factor in human behavior. > >> > >> Animal behavior is no mystery. Animals do not commit murder. They > >> kill, but in spite of humans overlaying their own concepts on > >> animals, they just don't fit. If a dog kills a baby, people kill > >> the dog as if it's been convicted of murder. The dog is threatening human survival. If it kills one human it may kill many, and its offspring may inherit that tendency. That's the major difference between "domesticated" dogs and their wild cousins. > >> This isn't what the dog is doing. The animal kills, it steals, it competes > >> for mates, it uses all manner of "lies" to survive from imitating > >> predators to imitating environment and behavior so prey drop their guard > >> and can be killed. You, know mark, just like humans always do! > > > > That's no definition of "animal instinct". > > The evolution theory is that "instict" is behavioral patterns that help > the species to survive and continue. Yet you keep using the bogus example of "animal behavior" that any animal may kill and eat any other animal, *including those of its own species*. That latter exactly does not help species survival. > > Nor do you explain why the behaviors you listed should be taken as > > the limits of human behavior. > > I say morality, ethics, honesty etc. are behaviors humans have adopted > that are beyond instinct and given as limits on human behavior. Humans, as far as we know, are the only animals that have the ability to think about such things and codify behaviors by discussion. That doesn't mean that other animals can not exhibit behaviors consistent with ethics and honesty. Also, if we "adopted" those behaviors, where'd we adopt them *from*, your alleged Space Brothers? Where did they get them? Turtles all the way up again? > Evolution would appear to contain no such limits. Only to those who, like you, pretend they aren't there. You keep carefully ignoring that among social species, there are rules for any individual's behavior that determine whether the others of its species will tolerate its presence among them long enough to mate. Also, there are in-species behavior limits after reproduction, and violators usually don't get to reproduce either. > You haven't answered my question if your dog and "sin". Because it's a question full of hidden assumptions. > >> I'm not defending or criticizing evolution as an idea, just > >> pointing out the logic behind it. Interestingly, Evolutionists are > >> so imbued with Christian and other religious doctrine such as > >> non-animal ideas of "sin" and "morality" and so forth that they > >> feel compelled to somehow adopt it as part of their theory even > >> though it clearly has come from some other place. Can your dog > >> "sin"? Does it have "morals"? I don't think so. So why should this > >> apply to you if you agree that all life just self-generates by > >> chance without any goal? > > > > You're the only participant in this thread as far as I can see that > > has related religion to morality, apparently because you think > > religious principles are the sole valid basis of morality. > > Well, you know when I was a kid my mom used to say to me: "Well I > suppose you are the only one in the whole world who is right and every > body else is wrong!" Well that worked for a while, but one day I > realized that it actually WAS possible for me to be "right" and everyone > else in the whole world to be "wrong"! Oh, so that's why you believe you're always right. You need to learn not to over-extrapolate. > You seem to forget that your evolution religion That's almost funny. Why do you confuse evolution with religion? > is very very new. So what? You believe it's possible for you to be right when everyone else is wrong, but won't grant that to anyone else like say Darwin. How very humble of you... > virtually ALL of life throughout millennia of history has been ruled by > religions of all kinds. Their influence is totally pervasive even today. Clearly it pervades your thinking. > Sure morality is today often justified on bases other than religious > beliefs, but it's pretty clear that ideas of say certain acts are > "wrong" even though animals don't view things that way, are of religious > origin. Ten Commandments being a prime example of pervasive ideas. So what? The Abrahamic religions say that the concept of sin does not apply to those without souls, like animals. > > If I have that last bit wrong, this is the perfect place for you to > > correct me. > > > > Please explain what you think "morality" is, and what is a valid > > basis of morality. > > Morality is the absence of sin! :-) Did you really think I was going to let you get away with a circular definition? Try again. > So again I ask: Can your dog sin? Since you're apparently still afraid to lay out your basis of morality, I'll go with the one I derived above. A dog can sin within the framework of evolution by committing acts that negatively impact its ability to reproduce- but then all of my dogs are already incapable of reproduction through no act of their own, so the only "sins" they can commit are violations of *my* rules. Mark L. Fergerson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 03:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57512e06$0$53469$c3e8da3$b1356c67@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #582504 |
On 06/03/2016 12:38 AM, nuny@bid.nes wrote: > On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 4:41:36 PM UTC-7, benj wrote: >> On 06/02/2016 06:15 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote: >>> On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 7:12:06 PM UTC-7, benj wrote: >>>> On 06/01/2016 09:03 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 5:41:48 PM UTC-7, benj wrote: >>>>>> On 06/01/2016 02:34 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 9:48:49 AM UTC-7, benj wrote: >>>>>>>> On 05/29/2016 09:27 AM, HVAC wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ...In these so called near death experiences. Yes, >>>>>>>>> as crazy as it sounds, BJ actually believes those >>>>>>>>> liars and frauds who report these stories. But is >>>>>>>>> anyone surprised to hear this? No. Since he believes >>>>>>>>> in ghosts, demons and esp, it's not much of a leap to >>>>>>>>> believing crazy stories of people who come back from >>>>>>>>> being unconscious. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Right right? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Actually the people who I believe to be liars and >>>>>>>> frauds are the ones claiming superpowers and ESP (Like >>>>>>>> HVAC) so say they know what everyone is thinking even >>>>>>>> if they are saying nothing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Like when you say that evolutionists are by definition >>>>>>> amoral? >>>>>> >>>>>> Wait a minute! It's by DEFINITION they are amoral. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, exactly like that. >>>>> >>>>>> I don't say I know what they actually believe (like you >>>>>> know who does). >>>>> >>>>> Then you're expressing your belief about what somebody else >>>>> believes, like you know who does. >>>> >>>> Not so. I'm expressing the logical conclusion that IF a person >>>> believes in the principles of the idea, then it follows that >>>> the conclusions that flow from that idea >>> >>> You mean, the conclusions *you* draw. >> >> Obviously. You are permitted to draw any conclusions you like. >> Even erroneous ones. > > How very generous of you. > >>>> ...are also present. They actually may or may not believe >>>> these tenets, but that also means they may or may not actually >>>> be followers of the idea they say they follow. >>> >>> Or, maybe they just don't draw the same conclusions you do >>> because they don't base their logic on the same false premises? >> >> Amd that "false" premise is? > > "Premises" is plural. The three below. > >>>>>> I can only say that if they follow the logic of Evolution >>>>>> and atheism by definition >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps it would help if you laid out what you think that >>>>> logic (as if there were one form of logic common to both) >>>>> consists of. >>>> >>>> Take the evolution paradigm. Things develop by chance with out >>>> any goal. >>> >>> You're batting .500 so far; no "guiding hand" is required to >>> explain what we see, but the goal of all life is surviving long >>> enough to reproduce. >> >> No, You only have your opinion not agreeing with mine. > > Really? Where did you acquire it? If you didn't get it from someone > else you made it up. In either case, it's wrong. And it's "wrong" because it does not agree with yours? I say yours is wrong. >> You DO agree that evolution has no "guiding hand" or "intelligent >> design" right? > > Yes. We agree on no goal. >> Hence there is no "goal" set into the system. > > False. Insisting that "goals" and "intelligent design" are > indissolubly linked is typical of Abrahamists who want to give a > little ground in admitting evolution might be true, but is only their > god's way of making us in its image. As far as they're concerned > evolution is over, its goal has been achieved. I never said evolution was over, in fact the theory says the opposite. Obviously goals or "purpose" and intelligent design are linked. Hence Evolution is not intelligent design..duh! > The only goal of evolution is to keep it going. When a species fails > to reproduce it's extinct and no longer gets to participate. Is NOT a goal! This is your mistake. Keep going is what occurs for the things that survive. Those that do not survive do not keep going. There is no "goal" here. Just win or lose. Goal implies a preprogrammed purpose. You already agree evolution admits none. > I asked you to define your idea of a valid basis for morality but so > far you've chickened out. Here, let me show you how it's done. First > I'll define "morality" as the standard against which "right" and > "wrong" behaviors are compared. If you use a different one, please > provide it. > > Right: contribute to species survival by reproducing. > > Wrong: fail to contribute to species survival. Only you are chasing your tail. So by your definition all actions that contribute to survival are defined as "moral" and those which fail are immoral? Well, by your definition this is valid because morality is defined by adherence to "right and wrong". But your definition is certainly not the ONLY one. Religious views are completely different. In your case murder, theft, dishonesty, etc. are all "moral" because they can contribute to survival so you make EXACTLY the point I made and then you argue that I am "wrong". This is silly. >>>> It is said to be a progressive development, hence animals are >>>> simply earlier stages of ourselves according to this idea. >>> >>> No. That's the old "humans are descended from monkeys/apes" >>> deliberate misinterpretation of evolution that originated from >>> religious adherents. We did not evolve from monkeys or apes, we >>> share common ancestors with them. Their evolution was *separate* >>> from ours. What they are, we cannot become, and vice versa. That >>> last part is important so I'll expand on it- no matter how you >>> crossbreed monkeys or apes, you will never get a human. >> >> So you are saying that evolution is NOT "tree"? > > No. > >> That if several species branch from a common ancestor that is not >> a "progression"? > > "Progress" implies a goal. > >> That is obviously not true. > > Your misinterpretation. So you say a system cannot "progress" along an infinite path? Clearly that is not true. If you look in a dictionary (why is everyone here except jimp so ready to make up their own definitions and throw the dictionary out?) the verb "progress" is defined as 1. to move forward 2. to develop a higher, better, or more advanced stage." Clearly there is no "goal" implied in the word. And my pointing out development of species "trees" is clearly what this word means. >> The whole "tree" idea is a progression from simple to more >> complex. > > Nope. Again, you're assuming an "intelligent design" kind of goal > without realizing it. "Progress" implies approaching an end goal, > which there isn't any. You are simply making this up. There is no "goal" implied in progress. So this argument is a fail. The word "evolution" itself implies "progress"! > Each branch of your "tree" is a sequence of "fit to survive in the > current environment" because environments tend to change (no matter > how much Wormley wants to pretend they don't). Complexity is only > useful if more complex organisms are more fit to survive in a given > environment than simpler ones, which is not necessarily the case. > Compare dinosaurs and bacteria. Notice that extremophiles that > inhabit mineral springs never evolved into more complex organisms > because they never needed to, and nothing evolved to outcompete them > because they're already the most fit to survive there. > > For that matter, there are many really simple organisms that are much > more fit to survive in the ocean than we are, but they are not at all > fit to survive on land. > >> Are you saying I cannot modify ape DNA and get human >> characteristics? Are you saying that I cannot introduce ape >> characteristics into humans by genetic manipulation? You KNOW that >> is true. > > No, I'm not, and those are irrelevant to how evolution worked before > we discovered DNA anyway. Are you saying evolution worked differently before DNA was discovered? That is nonsense! >> Using the word "crossbreeding" is incorrect as well because >> evolution supposedly works not by "breeding" but by random >> mutations. > > So? My point was we did not evolve from "simpler" apes and monkeys. > If we had, it would be possible to get humans from them. They simply > are not "farther down" our branch of the evolutionary tree. We most certainly did.The whole theory of evolution states this! You start with single celled animals and "progress" from there. You are obviously a more advanced lifeform than the chrinoids or trilobites you are said to have developed from! You are a much more "advanced" animal than any ape. Can apes play the piano? Sure they can talk, but if you talk to them the fact that they are primitive is immediately obvious. Of course animals "spoof" and apes DO LIE! But does that make them immoral or moral. I think your are really confused about right and wrong. >>> Evolution is *not* "progressive" in any sense. It is indeed >>> random (or was, until we started looking at genes and thinking we >>> might be able to tweak them better than the random way Nature >>> does). >>> >>> Seeing "progression" in evolution is pareidolia. >> >> So you think that evolution "trees" are just Mary on a piece of >> toast? > > No. Good. >> That is quite an argument! Having man jump full blown into >> existence with no ancestors or "tree" sounds a lot like "creation >> science" to me. You do know that is a 'forbidden topic' right? > > Again, you're trying to put words in my mouth. There is sequence but > no progression. You are putting meanings on "progress" that aren't really there. >>>> Hence the basic systems of all kinds in the animal kingdom >>>> represent the basis for our own systems. That is the logic of >>>> it. >>> >>> That conclusion follows from the three false premises I pointed >>> out. >> >> Did not successfully prove your points. > > I know you believe that humans couldn't have come into existence > without the intervention of Ancient Aliens, but even given that, > where'd *they* get their leg up from "mere animal", another species > that uplifted them? Turtles all the way up? And the way you know what I believe is? Oh, you learned it all from HVAC? Well now there is an authoritative source is ever there was one. Do you get all your "science" from Harlow? I heard that if he repeats a lie often enough it becomes true. Wormley says that too. Maybe you can find if wikipedia knows "what I believe"? Alien DNA labs is certainly a different theory from evolution for the generation of man, but we are not discussing such a theory here. We are discussing the moral implications of the theory of evolution. > There's no "intelligently designed" end goal. Get over it. > >>>>>> you are led to a place were morality does not exist, but >>>>>> only animal instinct. >>> >>> I notice you snipped out the part where I asked you to "lay out >>> what you think "morality" is, and what is a valid basis of >>> morality"- I'll get back to that below. > > You still haven't laid out your own basis for morality. What are you > afraid of? The problem is that since morality is adherence to "right or wrong" one is then forced back a step and now must DEFINE "right and wrong". You have defined morality as making murder, theft, dishonesty and any other actions "right" if they enhance survival. Religions have their own sets of rules that normally define murder, theft, fraud etc. as not being ethical or moral. It's all about defining what is "right and wrong" You continue to make the point that animal behavior is "moral" and with the same breath say that I'm wrong when I say evolution demands that. Get it together, man! >>>>> Also, it might help if you laid out what you think "animal >>>>> instinct" is, and why it should be taken to be the limiting >>>>> factor in human behavior. >>>> >>>> Animal behavior is no mystery. Animals do not commit murder. >>>> They kill, but in spite of humans overlaying their own concepts >>>> on animals, they just don't fit. If a dog kills a baby, people >>>> kill the dog as if it's been convicted of murder. > > The dog is threatening human survival. If it kills one human it may > kill many, and its offspring may inherit that tendency. That's the > major difference between "domesticated" dogs and their wild cousins. So, is the dog killed for practical reasons or because it is considered having done a moral violation. My point is not the dog is immoral, but the opposite. My point is that PEOPLE are ascribing morality to a dog that simply isn't there. >>>> This isn't what the dog is doing. The animal kills, it steals, >>>> it competes for mates, it uses all manner of "lies" to survive >>>> from imitating predators to imitating environment and behavior >>>> so prey drop their guard and can be killed. You, know mark, >>>> just like humans always do! >>> >>> That's no definition of "animal instinct". >> >> The evolution theory is that "instict" is behavioral patterns that >> help the species to survive and continue. > > Yet you keep using the > > > Mark L. Fergerson > bogus example of "animal behavior" that any > animal may kill and eat any other animal, *including those of its own > species*. That latter exactly does not help species survival. So killing anything for food is "moral"? OK. Then killing an animal over territory or mates, is that "moral"? that would be their own species and clearly having a fight between animals produces a winner that is the stronger, faster, etc. one and that DOES contribute to species development. That is the whole theory of evolution, is it not? ARE you denying that? >>> Nor do you explain why the behaviors you listed should be taken >>> as the limits of human behavior. >> >> I say morality, ethics> > > Mark L. Fergerson > , honesty etc. are behaviors humans have >> adopted that are beyond instinct and given as limits on human >> behavior. > > Humans, as far as we know, are the only animals that have the ability > to think about such things and codify behaviors by discussion. That > doesn't mean that other animals can not exhibit behaviors consistent > with ethics and honesty. No it doesn't mean it's "impossible". If I said that, I could just use the short form: I'm an idiot. But there is virtually ZERO evidence of animal behavior consistent with morality even with that which apes have told us in their conversations. Except as noted when animals are domesticated and influenced by human owners. > Also, if we "adopted" those behaviors, where'd we adopt them *from*, > your alleged Space Brothers? Where did they get them? Turtles all the > way up again? I am not addressing origins of moral ideas. Generally speaking it is observed that these precepts came from religions and religions for the most part are generated by certain exceptional people who attract followers and dispense rules and stories which followers are expected to believe with no proof. It's called "faith". So you want to ask then where did these people get these ideas? Well that is a different question and a number of different theories are obvious. I can't believe they way you've been sucked in by idiot HVAC and his propaganda. I thought you had an interest in science? You really need to stop taking what he says on "faith". >> Evolution would appear to contain no such limits. > > Only to those who, like you, pretend they aren't there. You keep > carefully ignoring that among social species, there are rules for any > individual's behavior that determine whether the others of its > species will tolerate its presence among them long enough to mate. > Also, there are in-species behavior limits after reproduction, and > violators usually don't get to reproduce either. No doubt there are "rules" that species live by. But they are different from morality which is considered a "right and wrong" rather than my right and wrong being different from your right and wrong. Which is to say that if a bank robber kills cops for his own survival then it's OK because to him it's a moral act? >> You haven't answered my question if your dog can "sin". > > Because it's a question full of hidden assumptions. Yes it is! And that is the point! It's why I'm asking the question! >>>> I'm not defending or criticizing evolution as an idea, just >>>> pointing out the logic behind it. Interestingly, Evolutionists >>>> are so imbued with Christian and other religious doctrine such >>>> as non-animal ideas of "sin" and "morality" and so forth that >>>> they feel compelled to somehow adopt it as part of their theory >>>> even though it clearly has come from some other place. Can your >>>> dog "sin"? Does it have "morals"? I don't think so. So why >>>> should this apply to you if you agree that all life just >>>> self-generates by chance without any goal? >>> >>> You're the only participant in this thread as far as I can see >>> that has related religion to morality, apparently because you >>> think religious principles are the sole valid basis of morality. >> >> Well, you know when I was a kid my mom used to say to me: "Well I >> suppose you are the only one in the whole world who is right and >> every body else is wrong!" Well that worked for a while, but one >> day I realized that it actually WAS possible for me to be "right" >> and everyone else in the whole world to be "wrong"! > > Oh, so that's why you believe you're always right. You need to learn > not to over-extrapolate. HVAC is "always" right, but I'm not. Clearly YOU are the one extrapolating what I said here. I said it was possible, but you extrapolated to me saying I'm "always right" and then after pulling that one you then accuse ME of "extrapolating"! Have you been fishing with HVAC and taking lessons? >> You seem to forget that your evolution religion > > That's almost funny. Why do you confuse evolution with religion? Well, actually atheism is the religion but it's foundations are VERY MUCH evolution. You are just trying to deny that. >> is very very new. > > So what? You believe it's possible for you to be right when everyone > else is wrong, but won't grant that to anyone else like say Darwin. And the way you know I won't grant that to Darwin is? Using your ESP or Superpowers HVAC taught you to use? You are assuming I'm arguing something I'm not saying at all. If you just tell me what I'm saying and believing, it will be best if I just let you post both sides of this conversation. And I won't have to type a thing. > How very humble of you... So you make up what I said and then ridicule me for your own fantasies? How very rational of you. Where have I seen that behavior before? >> virtually ALL of life throughout millennia of history has been >> ruled by religions of all kinds. Their influence is totally >> pervasive even today. > > Clearly it pervades your thinking. Clearly you are not listening, just applying your own prejudices (many of which you heard from HVAC) to what you THINK I'm saying and then arguing against that. I call that chasing your own tail. Funny to watch, but accomplishes little. >> Sure morality is today often justified on bases other than >> religious beliefs, but it's pretty clear that ideas of say certain >> acts are "wrong" even though animals don't view things that way, >> are of religious origin. Ten Commandments being a prime example of >> pervasive ideas. > > So what? The Abrahamic religions say that the concept of sin does not > apply to those without souls, like animals. So then animals cannot sin? Does that mean animals are not moral? >>> If I have that last bit wrong, this is the perfect place for you >>> to correct me. >>> >>> Please explain what you think "morality" is, and what is a valid >>> basis of morality. >> >> Morality is the absence of sin! :-) > > Did you really think I was going to let you get away with a circular > definition? Try again. > >> So again I ask: Can your dog sin? > > Since you're apparently still afraid to lay out your basis of > morality, I'll go with the one I derived above. A dog can sin within > the framework of evolution by committing acts that negatively impact > its ability to reproduce- but then all of my dogs are already > incapable of reproduction through no act of their own, so the only > "sins" they can commit are violations of *my* rules. AH so your definition of "sin" is the opposite of your definition of "morality". Namely it's all tied to survival of the species. Excellent. So are we not right where I started. Namely that murder, theft, dishonest, fraud and the rest are NOT considered "immoral" under the theory of evolution unless they negatively impact survival. Yet even though we agree you and Odd are screaming that this is some huge load of "garbage".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 07:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nirsnn$3g8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #582521 |
On 6/3/2016 2:13 AM, benj wrote: > We most certainly did.The whole theory of evolution states this! You > start with single celled animals and "progress" from there. You are > obviously a more advanced lifeform than the chrinoids or trilobites you > are said to have developed from! You are a much more "advanced" animal > than any ape. Can apes play the piano? Sure they can talk, but if you > talk to them the fact that they are primitive is immediately obvious. Of > course animals "spoof" and apes DO LIE! But does that make them immoral > or moral. I think your are really confused about right and wrong. Advanced is in the eye of the beholder. Cockroaches survive where humans cannot and will be around, essentially unchanged since the last several hundred million years, long after humans have expired. So wouldn't you call the cockroach a more successful and refined design? Sure, they can't do what HUMANS think are important things to do, but what makes those things the qualities to measure against, compared to stability and survivability? Are we more advanced than porpoises? Eyes were first developed in the sea, and ever since animals left the sea, their eyesight has never been as acute as they are in aquatic animals, even fish. And vision is our most acute sense! How do we do in the ocean, compared to porpoises? We are confined to a small fraction of the earth's surface area, compared to the oceanic range of porpoises? Ben, you have such a parochial and self-absorbed view of "progress", as though the more human-like an animal it is, the more progressed it is. Ever consider that we may be a short-lived species that rose quickly and will burn out quickly, a model for biological disaster? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 05:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bb956df3-ab78-41b4-b890-a66513727a61@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #582535 |
Odd in a nutshell: "Ever consider that we may be a short-lived species that rose quickly and will burn out quickly, a model for biological disaster? " Odd, with you on the team, the opposition can rest three players
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 08:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nirv1n$7km$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #582538 |
On 6/3/2016 7:50 AM, john wrote: > Odd in a nutshell: > "Ever consider that we may be a short-lived species that rose quickly and > will burn out quickly, a model for biological disaster? " > > Odd, with you on the team, the > opposition can rest three players > You act like this is under our control, John. The mass extinctions that have several times in past history -- were any of those avertable by any of the species living on the planet at the time? Now, compound that with the fact that we humans may be now kicking off a mass extinction ourselves.... Such arrogance, that you think humans have control over their biological destiny. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 06:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f866e48e-6ac7-4357-827e-9f230ea70131@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #582540 |
Odd "Such arrogance, that you think humans have control over their biological destiny. " Naysayers, away with you
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 08:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nis249$cpg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #582563 |
On 6/3/2016 8:51 AM, john wrote: > Odd > "Such arrogance, that you think humans have control over their biological > destiny. " > > Naysayers, away with you > Arrogant fools and utopians, away with thee! -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 10:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57519216$0$55899$c3e8da3$33881b6a@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #582565 |
On 06/03/2016 09:53 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 6/3/2016 8:51 AM, john wrote: >> Odd >> "Such arrogance, that you think humans have control over their biological >> destiny. " >> >> Naysayers, away with you >> > > Arrogant fools and utopians, away with thee! Glad to see how all the "science" fans here are such big proponents of censorship. Heresy really needs to be stamped out and controlled. Otherwise ordinary people might be "radicalized" into discussing "ancient aliens".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 09:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nis3un$g1t$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #582576 |
On 6/3/2016 9:20 AM, benj wrote: > On 06/03/2016 09:53 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 6/3/2016 8:51 AM, john wrote: >>> Odd >>> "Such arrogance, that you think humans have control over their >>> biological >>> destiny. " >>> >>> Naysayers, away with you >>> >> >> Arrogant fools and utopians, away with thee! > > Glad to see how all the "science" fans here are such big proponents of > censorship. Heresy really needs to be stamped out and controlled. Oh, come on, Ben. I'm not telling him he's not allowed to say such things, and he's not telling me I'm not allowed, either. What is being said is, "I don't agree with you, and I think you're foolish to hold to your beliefs." That is NOT censorship, Ben, no matter how thin a skin you have and how easily you flinch. Man up, grow a pair, pull up your big-girl panties and deal with it. > Otherwise ordinary people might be "radicalized" into discussing > "ancient aliens". > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 10:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57519a42$0$13175$c3e8da3$cc4fe22d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #582579 |
On 06/03/2016 10:24 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 6/3/2016 9:20 AM, benj wrote: >> On 06/03/2016 09:53 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 6/3/2016 8:51 AM, john wrote: >>>> Odd >>>> "Such arrogance, that you think humans have control over their >>>> biological >>>> destiny. " >>>> >>>> Naysayers, away with you >>>> >>> >>> Arrogant fools and utopians, away with thee! >> >> Glad to see how all the "science" fans here are such big proponents of >> censorship. Heresy really needs to be stamped out and controlled. > > Oh, come on, Ben. I'm not telling him he's not allowed to say such > things, and he's not telling me I'm not allowed, either. What is being > said is, "I don't agree with you, and I think you're foolish to hold to > your beliefs." That is NOT censorship, Ben, no matter how thin a skin > you have and how easily you flinch. Man up, grow a pair, pull up your > big-girl panties and deal with it. So you think science is all about ad hominem, ridicule, personal attacks, strawmen and other debating tactics? Perhaps you need to understand the difference between ideas and personality. Pro wrestling isn't real you know. You don't seem to understand the difference between "I don't agree with your idea" and "you are an idiot if you don't agree with me". One is a science discussion the other is a religious debate. I don't think you (or many people here, especially HVAC know the difference) As long as I've been here and as long as I've been subjected to virulent attacks and lies by you, HVAC and Wormley without "getting mad" as HVAC calls it, to suggest I have a thin skin is absolutely laughable. Fantasy much? Do drugs? Play with wooden toys?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 08:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d231851d-6778-4a8a-af23-f65e36540396@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #582592 |
BJ quacked As long as I've been here and as long as I've been subjected to virulent attacks and lies by you, HVAC and Wormley without "getting mad" as HVAC calls it, to suggest I have a thin skin is absolutely laughable. ------------ Hahahaha!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 14:21 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5751caa8$0$43806$c3e8da3$5e5e430d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #582604 |
On 06/03/2016 11:41 AM, HVAC wrote: > BJ quacked > As long as I've been here and as long as I've been subjected to virulent > attacks and lies by you, HVAC and Wormley without "getting mad" as HVAC > calls it, to suggest I have a thin skin is absolutely laughable. > ------------ > > Hahahaha! > Why do you find it necessary to lie about what I believe?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 10:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nis8sn$o9n$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #582592 |
On 6/3/2016 9:54 AM, benj wrote: > On 06/03/2016 10:24 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 6/3/2016 9:20 AM, benj wrote: >>> On 06/03/2016 09:53 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 6/3/2016 8:51 AM, john wrote: >>>>> Odd >>>>> "Such arrogance, that you think humans have control over their >>>>> biological >>>>> destiny. " >>>>> >>>>> Naysayers, away with you >>>>> >>>> >>>> Arrogant fools and utopians, away with thee! >>> >>> Glad to see how all the "science" fans here are such big proponents of >>> censorship. Heresy really needs to be stamped out and controlled. >> >> Oh, come on, Ben. I'm not telling him he's not allowed to say such >> things, and he's not telling me I'm not allowed, either. What is being >> said is, "I don't agree with you, and I think you're foolish to hold to >> your beliefs." That is NOT censorship, Ben, no matter how thin a skin >> you have and how easily you flinch. Man up, grow a pair, pull up your >> big-girl panties and deal with it. > > So you think science is all about ad hominem, ridicule, personal > attacks, strawmen and other debating tactics? This is NOT A PLACE where science is done. > Perhaps you need to > understand the difference between ideas and personality. Pro wrestling > isn't real you know. You don't seem to understand the difference between > "I don't agree with your idea" and "you are an idiot if you don't agree > with me". NEITHER of those is censorship. > One is a science discussion the other is a religious debate. Bullshit. You have this fucked up idea that "science discussion" entails the polite entertaining of all ideas. That may be your fondest desire, but it's not reality. > I > don't think you (or many people here, especially HVAC know the difference) > > As long as I've been here and as long as I've been subjected to virulent > attacks and lies by you, HVAC and Wormley without "getting mad" as HVAC > calls it, to suggest I have a thin skin is absolutely laughable. Fantasy > much? Do drugs? Play with wooden toys? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 09:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <83328959-e6d6-4cc4-9c7b-ad316d01e23e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #582606 |
On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 11:48:44 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 6/3/2016 9:54 AM, benj wrote: > > On 06/03/2016 10:24 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 6/3/2016 9:20 AM, benj wrote: > >>> On 06/03/2016 09:53 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 6/3/2016 8:51 AM, john wrote: > >>>>> Odd > >>>>> "Such arrogance, that you think humans have control over their > >>>>> biological > >>>>> destiny. " > >>>>> > >>>>> Naysayers, away with you > >>>> > >>>> Arrogant fools and utopians, away with thee! Did Odd and HVAC both discover the word Destiny on their fishing trip? > >>> Glad to see how all the "science" fans here are such big proponents of > >>> censorship. Heresy really needs to be stamped out and controlled. > >> > >> Oh, come on, Ben. I'm not telling him he's not allowed to say such > >> things, and he's not telling me I'm not allowed, either. What is being > >> said is, "I don't agree with you, and I think you're foolish to hold to > >> your beliefs." That is NOT censorship, Ben, no matter how thin a skin > >> you have and how easily you flinch. Man up, grow a pair, pull up your > >> big-girl panties and deal with it. > > > > So you think science is all about ad hominem, ridicule, personal > > attacks, strawmen and other debating tactics? > > This is NOT A PLACE where science is done. Where is the place Place PLACE Odd One? Is there a dress code? Discuss... > > Perhaps you need to > > understand the difference between ideas and personality. Pro wrestling > > isn't real you know. You don't seem to understand the difference between > > "I don't agree with your idea" and "you are an idiot if you don't agree > > with me". > > NEITHER of those is censorship. So there does exist censoship! Thanks for playing, Odd One. > > One is a science discussion the other is a religious debate. > > Bullshit. You have this fucked up idea that "science discussion" entails > the polite entertaining of all ideas. That may be your fondest desire, > but it's not reality. If science did not entertain all ideas, it would not be science. > > I > > don't think you (or many people here, especially HVAC know the difference) > > > > As long as I've been here and as long as I've been subjected to virulent > > attacks and lies by you, HVAC and Wormley without "getting mad" as HVAC > > calls it, to suggest I have a thin skin is absolutely laughable. Fantasy > > much? Do drugs? Play with wooden toys? > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables -- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: d(me) != 0 ... me alwa(y)s changes...”
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 14:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5751cd36$0$43806$c3e8da3$5e5e430d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #582609 |
On 06/03/2016 12:01 PM, Mahipal wrote: > On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 11:48:44 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 6/3/2016 9:54 AM, benj wrote: >>> On 06/03/2016 10:24 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 6/3/2016 9:20 AM, benj wrote: >>>>> On 06/03/2016 09:53 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 6/3/2016 8:51 AM, john wrote: >>>>>>> Odd >>>>>>> "Such arrogance, that you think humans have control over their >>>>>>> biological >>>>>>> destiny. " >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Naysayers, away with you >>>>>> >>>>>> Arrogant fools and utopians, away with thee! > > Did Odd and HVAC both discover the word Destiny on their fishing trip? > >>>>> Glad to see how all the "science" fans here are such big proponents of >>>>> censorship. Heresy really needs to be stamped out and controlled. >>>> >>>> Oh, come on, Ben. I'm not telling him he's not allowed to say such >>>> things, and he's not telling me I'm not allowed, either. What is being >>>> said is, "I don't agree with you, and I think you're foolish to hold to >>>> your beliefs." That is NOT censorship, Ben, no matter how thin a skin >>>> you have and how easily you flinch. Man up, grow a pair, pull up your >>>> big-girl panties and deal with it. >>> >>> So you think science is all about ad hominem, ridicule, personal >>> attacks, strawmen and other debating tactics? >> >> This is NOT A PLACE where science is done. > > Where is the place Place PLACE Odd One? Is there a dress code? Discuss... > >>> Perhaps you need to >>> understand the difference between ideas and personality. Pro wrestling >>> isn't real you know. You don't seem to understand the difference between >>> "I don't agree with your idea" and "you are an idiot if you don't agree >>> with me". >> >> NEITHER of those is censorship. > > So there does exist censoship! Thanks for playing, Odd One. > >>> One is a science discussion the other is a religious debate. >> >> Bullshit. You have this fucked up idea that "science discussion" entails >> the polite entertaining of all ideas. That may be your fondest desire, >> but it's not reality. > > If science did not entertain all ideas, it would not be science. Odd, like Wormley wants science turned into politics. ...with HIS party in control.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 13:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nisk12$1an1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #582675 |
On 6/3/2016 1:32 PM, benj wrote: > On 06/03/2016 12:01 PM, Mahipal wrote: >> On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 11:48:44 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> >>> Bullshit. You have this fucked up idea that "science discussion" entails >>> the polite entertaining of all ideas. That may be your fondest desire, >>> but it's not reality. >> >> If science did not entertain all ideas, it would not be science. Says who? You? Or scientists? Pontificate away about what you want science to be like, but as for me, I'll go with what scientists say about that. > > Odd, like Wormley wants science turned into politics. ...with HIS party > in control. > What party? I do think scientists should be in control of science. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 15:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <05480e1d-69de-497c-acda-8870fbf937b8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #582683 |
On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 2:58:48 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 6/3/2016 1:32 PM, benj wrote: > > On 06/03/2016 12:01 PM, Mahipal wrote: > >> On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 11:48:44 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>> > >>> Bullshit. You have this fucked up idea that "science discussion" entails > >>> the polite entertaining of all ideas. That may be your fondest desire, > >>> but it's not reality. > >> > >> If science did not entertain all ideas, it would not be science. > > Says who? You? Or scientists? The sentence speaks for itself, I read it in a book. Need reference? > Pontificate away about what you want science to be like, but as for me, > I'll go with what scientists say about that. I am a scientist. You Odd are just one major ass-kisser, however vocal. Most modern/working scientists are either pawns or slaves to income these days. > > Odd, like Wormley wants science turned into politics. ...with HIS party > > in control. > > What party? > I do think scientists should be in control of science. Nobody is in control of science. Too concise for you to grasp? > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables -- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: d(me) != 0 ... me alwa(y)s changes...”
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 23:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <575250ae$0$7397$c3e8da3$66d3cc2f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #582712 |
On 06/03/2016 06:02 PM, Mahipal wrote: > On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 2:58:48 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 6/3/2016 1:32 PM, benj wrote: >>> On 06/03/2016 12:01 PM, Mahipal wrote: >>>> On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 11:48:44 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Bullshit. You have this fucked up idea that "science discussion" entails >>>>> the polite entertaining of all ideas. That may be your fondest desire, >>>>> but it's not reality. >>>> >>>> If science did not entertain all ideas, it would not be science. >> >> Says who? You? Or scientists? > > The sentence speaks for itself, I read it in a book. Need reference? > >> Pontificate away about what you want science to be like, but as for me, >> I'll go with what scientists say about that. > > I am a scientist. You Odd are just one major ass-kisser, however vocal. > Most modern/working scientists are either pawns or slaves to income these days. Hey Loops! I bet you have business cards they gave you that say "scientist" on them like I do! I bet Odd has business cards that say "vocal ass-kisser" or maybe "lawyer" which of course is the same thing. >>> Odd, like Wormley wants science turned into politics. ...with HIS party >>> in control. >> >> What party? >> I do think scientists should be in control of science. > > Nobody is in control of science. Too concise for you to grasp? Were only it true Loops! Hegemony over science has been very high political priority since WWII and now with Global warming taxes it stepped up even more.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-04 06:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2bdaca10-7682-4d58-9613-96b9f54a56aa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #582758 |
On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 11:53:22 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: > On 06/03/2016 06:02 PM, Mahipal wrote: > > On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 2:58:48 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 6/3/2016 1:32 PM, benj wrote: > >>> On 06/03/2016 12:01 PM, Mahipal wrote: > >>>> On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 11:48:44 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Bullshit. You have this fucked up idea that "science discussion" entails > >>>>> the polite entertaining of all ideas. That may be your fondest desire, > >>>>> but it's not reality. > >>>> > >>>> If science did not entertain all ideas, it would not be science. > >> > >> Says who? You? Or scientists? > > > > The sentence speaks for itself, I read it in a book. Need reference? > > > >> Pontificate away about what you want science to be like, but as for me, > >> I'll go with what scientists say about that. > > > > I am a scientist. You Odd are just one major ass-kisser, however vocal. > > Most modern/working scientists are either pawns or slaves to income these days. > > Hey Loops! I bet you have business cards they gave you that say > "scientist" on them like I do! I bet Odd has business cards that say > "vocal ass-kisser" or maybe "lawyer" which of course is the same thing. Odd's writing style plus his contents are driving me nuts. Time2Fight... Odd's constant messaging of oppression and suppression have no place. > >>> Odd, like Wormley wants science turned into politics. ...with HIS party > >>> in control. > >> > >> What party? > >> I do think scientists should be in control of science. > > > > Nobody is in control of science. Too concise for you to grasp? > > Were only it true Loops! Hegemony over science has been very high > political priority since WWII and now with Global warming taxes it > stepped up even more. It is true, at and to the core. As you BenjJi well know. However, hegemony does exist. I see it all around me. I/We live/suffer it. Abuse of and by Science is their new social dominance dance. Let Science Speak... gratuitous nudity and sex in background... Would language exist for me to make false statements? No way! Grasshopper Mode: Master, is it the flute or I that makes music sound bad? Master Grasshopper: Young Poet Pla(y)ing Tennis... stick to playing tennis. Me: Hey, is there another Shaolin Priest School in neighbourhood? I'll walk... -- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: d(me) != 0 ... me alwa(y)s changes...” https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=grasshopper+kung+fu+priest https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbNCBVzPYak just a minute and a half...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 13:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <h9ngwcas400x$.10dcnv0l79upq.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #582606 |
On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 10:48:40 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Bullshit. You have this fucked up idea that "science discussion" entails
> the polite entertaining of all ideas. That may be your fondest desire,
> but it's not reality.
This is a scholar's "fucked up" misconception about
who scientists are :)
--
"harke nAmokht az gozashteh ruzgAr
niz nAmuzad ze hich AmuzgAr"
- Rudaki
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web