Duane Bozarth wrote:

Mike Marlow wrote:

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Mike Marlow wrote:

...
There are cave drawings all over the place that depict dinosaurs. ...

Again, where? I've seen lots of sytlized game of various types, but
nothing that even remotely resembles a dinosaur...

Do a quick google search Duane. ...

You're the one making the claim, not I...

That is, what about a reference to a published peer-reviewed journal
article?

Editorial cartoon on ID at http://www.uclick.com/client/wpc/po/
Certainly as valid as DI publications

Steve

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Duane Bozarth wrote:

Mike Marlow wrote:

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Mike Marlow wrote:

...
There are cave drawings all over the place that depict dinosaurs.
...

Again, where? I've seen lots of sytlized game of various types, but
nothing that even remotely resembles a dinosaur...

Do a quick google search Duane. ...

You're the one making the claim, not I...

That is, what about a reference to a published peer-reviewed journal
article?

Mike Marlow wrote:

Tons of stuff in Peru and the southwest USA. Why do you say it's bunk?
Admittedly, I didn't do any exhaustive research on this stuff, but I didn't
see any claims against the stuff.

Once again, Mike, that's not much of a reference. How about at least
one peer-reviewed article with pictures and naming a specific site?

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...
Mike Marlow wrote:

Tons of stuff in Peru and the southwest USA. Why do you say it's bunk?
Admittedly, I didn't do any exhaustive research on this stuff, but I
didn't
see any claims against the stuff.

Once again, Mike, that's not much of a reference. How about at least
one peer-reviewed article with pictures and naming a specific site?

Sorry Larry - don't have such a thing. Remember - I'm really in this for
the discourse, not because I'm well versed on the matter, or hold an intent
to persuade anyone. Sometimes I get a little something out of these things
and sometimes it's just discourse.

--

-Mike-

Australopithecus scobis wrote:
On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 13:26:41 -0700, fredfighter wrote:

You might consider checking it out yourself.

Have done, long ago.

Evidently you did not understand the explanation, or have
misremembered it.

The point of the sentence was to contrast the
silliness of fundies with knowledge that is easily accessible. Is the
response "do it yourself" a refusal to entertain new knowledge?

The Immaculate Conception is a Catholic dogma. It holds the
distinction of being the only Catholic dogma that bears the
imprimatuer of Papal Infalibility.


And "irrelevant?" Duh. Ok, in easy words. Mary was a very young woman.
Joseph knocked up his wife. Somebody chose a wonky translation for
"parthenos."

No, the Immaculate Conception occurred before Mary was born.


And who the hell is "Ann?" The name doesn't appear in the bible: KJV, RSV,
N26, Wey, Byz, TR, WH, BHM/BHS, Mur, or ASV. Got a divine revelation your
ownself?

I must have mispelt 'Anne'.

--

FF

Australopithecus scobis writes:

And who the hell is "Ann?" The name doesn't appear in the bible: KJV, RSV,
N26, Wey, Byz, TR, WH, BHM/BHS, Mur, or ASV. Got a divine revelation your
ownself?

Perhaps it one of those Gnostic chapters that got deleted?

http://www.themass.org/novena/life.htm


--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

"Australopithecus scobis" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 17:37:37 -0400, Tom Watson wrote:

number of the stylizations though, bear a striking resemblance to what
we
now consider to be what some of the dinosaurs looked like.

Sigh. Ever hear the phrase "morphogenetic space?" I didn't think so.
Triceratops and rhinoceros, and some wierd Miocene critters, plus others I
don't recall at the moment. Big grazers with horns on their schnozzes.
Evolution led to all of them, by natural selection. It takes a special
mind to see apatosaurus in a cave painting, which cave has game bones in
it. Wake up and smell the fricken' coffee.


Ya know - this is precisely what I was commenting on earlier. Like I said,
I have no horse in this race, but it is evident that simple discourse,
questions, and potentially an element of my belief that may differ from your
belief, seriously threatens you and others with a response style such as
yours. I've admitted that I don't have the ammunition to do battle on this
field, but that does not stop me from holding a certain curiosity. It is
rather amazing to watch the over-reactions like this that suggest a certain
sense of being threatened much more than they suggest a greater
enlightenment.

BTW - thanks for the wake up call - I love the smell of coffee...

--

-Mike-

Mike Marlow wrote:
"Tom Watson" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 17:19:32 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:


"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Mike Marlow wrote:

...
There are cave drawings all over the place that depict dinosaurs.
...

Again, where? I've seen lots of sytlized game of various types, but
nothing that even remotely resembles a dinosaur...

Do a quick google search Duane. There's a ton of stuff - pictures of the
ancient drawings, etchings on pottery, etc. I guess it could remain
arguable whether one agrees that they are pictures of dinosaurs or
"stylized
game", and really - at that point which one of us would really know? A
good
number of the stylizations though, bear a striking resemblance to what we
now consider to be what some of the dinosaurs looked like.


I used to have some magazines containing drawings of women by a guy
named Vargas.

I never took this to be proof that such women actually existed.


Well, for the sake of argument, it might well be proof enough that Vargas
had indeed seen a woman, wouldn't it?

You have obviously never seen a 'Vargas woman' drawing. Even the most
perfect of today's, or yesterday's, beauties fall way short of the
idealization he drew. No woman has ever looked like that, nor is one
likely to, so it might be sensibly argued that all his visions of women
were in his head, well protected from reality, about like some of the
concepts expressed on here.

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...
George wrote:

It's important to consider and teach that most all societies consider the
human as the highest form of life, the one the gods love, ...

And that, indeed, is the basis for most, if not all, religions. We just
can't stand the thought that we're just another pile of rotting meat when
we die, just like all the other animals :-).

We're the ones with a sense of self and species, though. Imagine a dog
turning down the last cookie because there are pups starving in Ethiopia?

"If it's good for the survival of the species, it's 'right.' If it's
bad for the survival of the species, it's 'wrong.' " Let's be consistent.

Mike Marlow wrote:
"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...

Once again, Mike, that's not much of a reference. How about at least
one peer-reviewed article with pictures and naming a specific site?


Sorry Larry - don't have such a thing. Remember - I'm really in this for
the discourse, not because I'm well versed on the matter, or hold an intent
to persuade anyone. Sometimes I get a little something out of these things
and sometimes it's just discourse.


Well, until you can come up with something that overrules the fossil
evidence, I'll remain skeptical (and that's putting it mildly).

Dinosaur fossils are found in strata dated at,IIRC, 65 million years old
and older.

Human (depending on your definition) fossils are found in strata dated
no more than 4 million years ago. And homo sap not over 100,000 years
or so, although that does seem to get pushed back a few thousand years
from time to time.

Not much room there for coexistence :-).

Mike Marlow wrote:
"Australopithecus scobis" wrote in message
news

Sigh. Ever hear the phrase "morphogenetic space?" I didn't think so.
Triceratops and rhinoceros, and some wierd Miocene critters, plus others I
don't recall at the moment. Big grazers with horns on their schnozzes.
Evolution led to all of them, by natural selection. It takes a special
mind to see apatosaurus in a cave painting, which cave has game bones in
it. Wake up and smell the fricken' coffee.


Ya know - this is precisely what I was commenting on earlier. Like I said,
I have no horse in this race, but it is evident that simple discourse,
questions, and potentially an element of my belief that may differ from your
belief, seriously threatens you and others with a response style such as
yours.

Mike, that reply may have been a little gruff, but the facts it stated
are true. Usenet as a whole is a little short on politeness, but that's
just something we all have to get used to. If some particular
individual is grossly impolite, folks just tend not to read his/her posts.

If you really want to see some impolite replies, ask what color latex
paint you should use on cherry furniture :-).

Australopithecus scobis wrote:
On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 19:46:59 -0700, fredfighter wrote:

I must have mispelt 'Anne'.
Couldn't find Anne either in the same search of e-text. Somebody fibbed.
Long ago.

BTW, fredfighter, apologies: I got lost in the headers and vented my ire
on the wrong poster.

Here's a painting of her:

http://www.wf-f.org/Immaculateconception.html

and an explanation of the Immaculate Conception.

For an explanation of the Immaculate Reception you should consult
a Pittsburgh Steelers fan.

--

FF

Mike Marlow wrote:
"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...
Mike Marlow wrote:


Now, I've been to museums that portray that very thing, have read about
fossilized footprints of man and dinosaur (one inside the other).



References, please.

Sorry - should have put this in my previous reply...

There are cave drawings all over the place that depict dinosaurs. To my
"creationist" (as I've been dubbed...) mind, there is enough circumstantial
evidence for me to assume that man and dinosaur did coinhabit, since I don't
give credit to coyotes and apes to be able to create those drawings.

Do you _really_ think it any more credible that coyotes and apes
coinhabited with dinosaurs than did humans?

--

FF

wrote:
Australopithecus scobis wrote:
On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 19:46:59 -0700, fredfighter wrote:

I must have mispelt 'Anne'.
Couldn't find Anne either in the same search of e-text. Somebody fibbed.
Long ago.

BTW, fredfighter, apologies: I got lost in the headers and vented my ire
on the wrong poster.

Here's a painting of her:

http://www.wf-f.org/Immaculateconception.html

and an explanation of the Immaculate Conception.

For an explanation of the Immaculate Reception you should consult
a Pittsburgh Steelers fan.


Parthenogenesis?

In article ,
says...
There are cave drawings all over the place that depict dinosaurs.

Cite just *one* that (a) is clearly and unambiguously recognizable as a
dinosaur and nothing else, AND (b) has not been proven to be a modern
fake.


To my
"creationist" (as I've been dubbed...) mind, there is enough circumstantial
evidence for me to assume that man and dinosaur did coinhabit, since I don't
give credit to coyotes and apes to be able to create those drawings.

Faked drawings don't qualify as evidence of any sort, circumstantial or
otherwise.

"Australopithecus scobis" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 09:08:11 -0700, Larry Blanchard wrote:

If you really want to see some impolite replies, ask what color latex
paint you should use on cherry furniture :-).

Cherry Jell-O, of course

Nope. Kool-Aid. I just read it today.

--

-Mike-

Charlie Self wrote:
wrote:
Australopithecus scobis wrote:
On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 19:46:59 -0700, fredfighter wrote:

I must have mispelt 'Anne'.
Couldn't find Anne either in the same search of e-text. Somebody fibbed.
Long ago.

BTW, fredfighter, apologies: I got lost in the headers and vented my ire
on the wrong poster.

Here's a painting of her:

http://www.wf-f.org/Immaculateconception.html

and an explanation of the Immaculate Conception.

For an explanation of the Immaculate Reception you should consult
a Pittsburgh Steelers fan.


Parthenogenesis?

Parthnogenesis is reproduction _without_ conception, Immaculate
or otherwise.

Parthnogenesis has nothing to do with either the Immaculate
Conception or Reception.

--

FF

"Australopithecus scobis" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 10:14:31 -0700, fredfighter wrote:

There are cave drawings all over the place that depict dinosaurs. To
my
"creationist" (as I've been dubbed...) mind, there is enough
circumstantial
evidence for me to assume that man and dinosaur did coinhabit, since I
don't
give credit to coyotes and apes to be able to create those drawings.

Do you _really_ think it any more credible that coyotes and apes
coinhabited with dinosaurs than did humans?

Especially since coyotes and the rest of the apes hadn't evolved yet,
either. NEWS FLASH: Homo sapiens is a great ape.

What are the creationists smoking when they dream up their crap? There is
this great, wonderful, awe-inspiring universe just on the other side of
their eyeballs, and they persist in self-delusion. Here's another news
flash: there is no Santa Claus, God, or Easter Bunny. They are all fairy
tales for the amusement and control of children and the feeble-minded.

The cave paintings of Lascaux and La grotte Chauvet-Pont-d'Arc, to mention
only two, are a testament to the wonderful creativity of the human mind.
People, just like us, produced images of their mental worlds. The artists
left us a magnificent gift across the millenia. To diminish the work of
those great artists by deliberately misconstruing the content to support
one's delusion is despicable.

Understanding the world is hard work. No one can any longer know the full
content of human knowledge. That is no excuse not to try. Some give up,
and accept a small, dark, dank, and smelly room instead of facing the
gaping universe. I pity them. They can at any time escape their
self-imposed exile from reality by cracking open a book (non-fiction,
duh. I suggest the 500s shelf at the library.). Ignorance is curable.
Willful ignorance is tougher to beat.

Only beaten by arrogance and ill founded pride.

--

-Mike-

On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 15:29:32 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:


"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
. ..
Mike Marlow wrote:


Now, I've been to museums that portray that very thing, have read about
fossilized footprints of man and dinosaur (one inside the other).



References, please.

Sorry - should have put this in my previous reply...

There are cave drawings all over the place that depict dinosaurs.

really? I've never heard of any. where are they?

On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 19:59:05 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:


"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
. ..
Mike Marlow wrote:

Tons of stuff in Peru and the southwest USA. Why do you say it's bunk?
Admittedly, I didn't do any exhaustive research on this stuff, but I
didn't
see any claims against the stuff.

Once again, Mike, that's not much of a reference. How about at least
one peer-reviewed article with pictures and naming a specific site?

Sorry Larry - don't have such a thing. Remember - I'm really in this for
the discourse, not because I'm well versed on the matter, or hold an intent
to persuade anyone. Sometimes I get a little something out of these things
and sometimes it's just discourse.


actually, it sounds like you just mouthing off, making wild fundie
claims and not being able to back them up.

oh well.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 19:59:05 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:


"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
. ..
Mike Marlow wrote:

Tons of stuff in Peru and the southwest USA. Why do you say it's
bunk?
Admittedly, I didn't do any exhaustive research on this stuff, but I
didn't
see any claims against the stuff.

Once again, Mike, that's not much of a reference. How about at least
one peer-reviewed article with pictures and naming a specific site?

Sorry Larry - don't have such a thing. Remember - I'm really in this for
the discourse, not because I'm well versed on the matter, or hold an
intent
to persuade anyone. Sometimes I get a little something out of these
things
and sometimes it's just discourse.


actually, it sounds like you just mouthing off, making wild fundie
claims and not being able to back them up.


Not at all. The basic truth of the matter is that the whole topic is
something that has never been a compelling interest to me, but has at the
same time held a mild curiosity within me. As a result of it not having
been a compelling interest, I largely ignored it with the exception of being
only casually aware of some claims from both sides. I didn't know for
example that the dinosaur/man tracks in Texas had been brought into question
by even those who had originally supported the finds until this thread. I
remembered hearing about it a long time ago and it just kind of stuck in my
mind. So, I threw it out there to see what the answers would be regarding
it. To the extent that I have a casual interest in the stuff, this served a
purpose for me. Likewise with the cave paintings.

Not trying to stir anything up or make wild fundie claims. Just inquiring a
bit from a standpoint of being a not very studied individual on the matter.
That's why I explained that in the very beginning. I will say that from my
uneducated perspective, the wild claims are not limited to fundies.

Sorry if I intruded on a thread that is limited to those with higher degrees
in these studies. I asked genuine questions, attempted to be civil in my
approach, and only varied from that when I got fed up with some of the
condescending attitudes that popped up from time to time.

Fundi - hmmmmm. Again, I'd have to ask what you mean by that. It's the
second time a derogatory term has been tossed out inferring that having a
faith is somehow the mark of a lesser man. I haven't given any indication
of what my faith includes and you'd probably be surprised if you knew it.
It certainly does not include a closed mind. But then again one with a
closed mind does not enter into these discussion with questions, and even
admissions of his own error, now does he?

--

-Mike-

wrote:
Charlie Self wrote:
wrote:
Australopithecus scobis wrote:
On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 19:46:59 -0700, fredfighter wrote:

I must have mispelt 'Anne'.
Couldn't find Anne either in the same search of e-text. Somebody fibbed.
Long ago.

BTW, fredfighter, apologies: I got lost in the headers and vented my ire
on the wrong poster.

Here's a painting of her:

http://www.wf-f.org/Immaculateconception.html

and an explanation of the Immaculate Conception.

For an explanation of the Immaculate Reception you should consult
a Pittsburgh Steelers fan.


Parthenogenesis?

Parthnogenesis is reproduction _without_ conception, Immaculate
or otherwise.

Parthnogenesis has nothing to do with either the Immaculate
Conception or Reception.


I'll accept that for Franco Harris's conotribution, but I do not KNOW
that for immaculate conception. Somebody's fingertips (speaking
metaphorically) were almost certainly on the ball, IMO.

On 10/10/2005 3:48 PM mumbled something about
the following:
Charlie Self wrote:

wrote:

Australopithecus scobis wrote:

On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 19:46:59 -0700, fredfighter wrote:


I must have mispelt 'Anne'.

Couldn't find Anne either in the same search of e-text. Somebody fibbed.
Long ago.

BTW, fredfighter, apologies: I got lost in the headers and vented my ire
on the wrong poster.

Here's a painting of her:

http://www.wf-f.org/Immaculateconception.html

and an explanation of the Immaculate Conception.

For an explanation of the Immaculate Reception you should consult
a Pittsburgh Steelers fan.


Parthenogenesis?


Parthnogenesis is reproduction _without_ conception, Immaculate
or otherwise.

Parthnogenesis has nothing to do with either the Immaculate
Conception or Reception.

Ummm, nope, parthenogenesis is conception without fertilization.

--
Odinn
RCOS #7
SENS(less)

"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshiped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton

Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

rot13 to reply

in 1239456 20051010 200800 Australopithecus scobis wrote:
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 10:14:31 -0700, fredfighter wrote:

There are cave drawings all over the place that depict dinosaurs. To my
"creationist" (as I've been dubbed...) mind, there is enough circumstantial
evidence for me to assume that man and dinosaur did coinhabit, since I don't
give credit to coyotes and apes to be able to create those drawings.

Do you _really_ think it any more credible that coyotes and apes
coinhabited with dinosaurs than did humans?

Especially since coyotes and the rest of the apes hadn't evolved yet,
either. NEWS FLASH: Homo sapiens is a great ape.

What are the creationists smoking when they dream up their crap? There is
this great, wonderful, awe-inspiring universe just on the other side of
their eyeballs, and they persist in self-delusion. Here's another news
flash: there is no Santa Claus, God, or Easter Bunny. They are all fairy
tales for the amusement and control of children and the feeble-minded.

The cave paintings of Lascaux and La grotte Chauvet-Pont-d'Arc, to mention
only two, are a testament to the wonderful creativity of the human mind.
People, just like us, produced images of their mental worlds. The artists
left us a magnificent gift across the millenia. To diminish the work of
those great artists by deliberately misconstruing the content to support
one's delusion is despicable.

Understanding the world is hard work. No one can any longer know the full
content of human knowledge. That is no excuse not to try. Some give up,
and accept a small, dark, dank, and smelly room instead of facing the
gaping universe. I pity them. They can at any time escape their
self-imposed exile from reality by cracking open a book (non-fiction,
duh. I suggest the 500s shelf at the library.). Ignorance is curable.
Willful ignorance is tougher to beat.

Great post. Thanks.

Tom Watson wrote:

SNIP


Intelligent Design presupposes a Designer and attempts to justify ad
reversa.

This is an old chestnut in philosophical theory and has been proven to
lack merit from the time of the Pre-Socratics.

It is disappointing to me that we even entertain the argument.


It is further disappointing that otherwise very bright people understand
so little about the philosophy of science. To whit:

Science too makes unprovable presuppositions, most notably that
reductionism-materialsm is a sufficient basis to know all that can be
known via the empirical-rational process. And, yes, science too
effectively operates ad reversa in building its knowlege base in
affirmation of that presupposition. In fact, *all* epistemic systems do
this.

This presupposition is no more- or less demonstrable than the
presumption of a Designer. Neither presumption can be tested,
demonstrated, or refuted. They are *presumptive* for purposes of
explicating a knowledge system.

At face value, your comments constitute a vigorous defense of a belief
system. This is ordinarily called "faith". You are entitled to your
faith, but not entitled to denigrate people whose faith is at variance
with yours until/unless you can demonstrate their views to be false.

N.B. Your position is to exclude Designer theories from your
epistemology. The Designer theories, however, *include* science as
currently constituted. That is, they suggest an *augmentation* of
science (however well or poorly - not the point here). They want to
broaden science, you want to preserve it (methodologically) as-is.

Personally, from my limited reading, the IDers have done a lousy job
making their case by conflating philosophy with their claimed use of
existing science to prop up their position. But this is lousy technique,
and does not speak in any material way to the validity of their
position. For the moment, I share the view that ID does not belong in
the teaching of science proper. But it most certainly *does* belong in a
philosophy of science discussion that compares and contrasts the merits
of various presuppositions in establishing science as a discipline in
the first place. And *that* discussion does belong in front of the
students, notwithstanding any condescending "disappointment".


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"World Traveler" wrote in message
. net...
snip
In addition, there is no agreed-to actual hypothesis for ID, so there is
no point in trying to argue individual points. The statements on ID that
I've seen include:

The universe was created 6,000 years ago.

A bit confused are you? The age of the earth has nothing to do with ID.....
your confusing your groups

Man and dinosaurs coexisted.

confused again

Noah's flood was worldwide.

What could Noah's flood have to do with our origin? Although to hear the
global warming zealots such a flood might happenG.

Noah included the dinosaurs in the complement of animals on the ark.

confused again

The "Big Bang" is false because it doesn't explain what was before the
Bang,
. . . etc.

ID would have no inherent trouble supporting the BIG BANG......... What you
have done is consistently confused creationists or young earthers (a very
small group of Christian believers) with ID'rs
snip

Intelligent design as it has been presented is incompatible with more than
Darwin, it is incompatible with astronomical observations, calculations of
interstellar distances, Einstein's theories of relativity, the tested
relationships between time, space and energy, geology, particle theory,
Brian Greene's "Arrow of Time" and almost any science that seeks to
understand the world around us.

Now if someone were to come out with an ID theory which hypothesized that
an intelligent designer created the precursor to the Big Bang and
everything after that has been a testable consequence, there might be some
converts.

That is primarily what ID'rs believe

But it's impossible to calibrate any current ID theory with the real world
of observation of our universe. For one example, read Brian Greene's "The
Fabric of the Cosmos," and try to figure out how intelligent design as now
described could calibrate with the variety of experiments which have gone
into space, time, energy, Higgs Fields, etc.
Regards --

Maybe if you first found out what ID was and was not you might have a
different understanding......young earth it is not.....Rod

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Tom Watson wrote:

SNIP

It is disappointing to me that we even entertain the argument.




One other thought here. The reason I react strongly to comments like the
one above is because of its implicit arrogance. Buried not too subtly
in this text (and many others I have seen over the past several weeks
on in the ID-related threads) is this message: Science is Smart,
Religious belief is Stupid. Oh, no one ever comes right out and says it ...
oh wait, they do:


Only in the Age Of Bush could such idiocy be given common currency.
^^^^^^^


I had the marvelous opportunity to be educated by Scientists,
Mathematicians, and Theologians in some degree of detail (my graduate
work was predominantly in the mathematical end of Computer Science), so
I've had a pretty good opportunity to see these disciplines at work. So,
for those of you who think Science is Smart and Religion stupid, let me
help you rent a small clue on the matter:

A great Scientist has mastery of one particular area - usually a very
specialized area within a broader discipline. They are also typically
fluent in mathematics and familiar with the broader scope of Science.

A great Mathematician has mastery of, again, typically one narrow area
but is also usually able to integrate it more broadly into the whole of
mathematics. Theoretical mathematicians - in my view, where the most
interesting work is done - typically have no interest in the application
of their work to Reality.

Now, let's take an abbreviated look at what a great Theologian has
to master to do their work:

a) They must be research fluent (translation, exegesis) in many languages,
a good many of them "dead". This would include some subset of
Sumerian, Akkadian/Cuneiform, Egyptian Hieroglyph, Ancient Hebrew,
Ugaritic, Aramaic, Koine Greek, Latin, German, French, and English.

One seminary I personally considered (as a scholar, not minister),
required research proficiency in *5* languages for entre' into
the *Masters* program. This is not atypical.

b) They must have a strong working understanding of Archeology - a
primarily *scientific* activity. One wonders how many Scientists
have even a basic working understanding of the methods of Theology.

c) They must have an exquisite grasp of human history and geography
since much of their work is to find extra-Biblical confirmation/refutation
for their exegetical work with contested text fragments.

d) They must be exceptional scholars of texts with the ability to examine
and potentially harmonize texts in disagreement for which only
small fragments exist (especially true in New Testament studies).

e) They must have a strong working knowledge of ancient customs, economics,
culture, art, and industry beyond just the Big Picture of history,
because so much of their work is inferential from these disciplines.

f) They must have complete mastery of the history of the particular
religious tradition they personally affirm (if any) and be able to
compare and contrast it with other religious traditions.

g) Some of them take it upon themselves to attempt to convey what
they know in layman's terms by writing or even preaching
sermons regularly. Imagine trying to convey the subtlety of something
as complex as, say, string theory to a class of Sunday School
kids, and you'll have some general idea of how tough this is.

h) They have to have the manners and good will to stand up to the
Rev. Billybob Swampwater who wants them to theologically justify his
stupidity, tunnel-vision, politics, or just plain cussedness.

i) They have to have the manners and good will to stand up to the
attacks on their intelligence, ability, scholarship, and thoughtfulness
from self-important gasbags in the "hard sciences" who have the bad
manners to assume everyone else is stupid.

I am a practicing computer scientist and I love my profession. But I am
deeply indebted to the the very thoughtful and scholarly and theologians who
informed me, taught me to reason, and most importantly, taught me the
self-restraint necessary to keep from screaming vulgar epithets when I
see comments like the ones above ...



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 19:59:05 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:


"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
. ..
Mike Marlow wrote:

Tons of stuff in Peru and the southwest USA. Why do you say it's
bunk?
Admittedly, I didn't do any exhaustive research on this stuff, but I
didn't
see any claims against the stuff.

Once again, Mike, that's not much of a reference. How about at least
one peer-reviewed article with pictures and naming a specific site?

Sorry Larry - don't have such a thing. Remember - I'm really in this
for
the discourse, not because I'm well versed on the matter, or hold an
intent
to persuade anyone. Sometimes I get a little something out of these
things
and sometimes it's just discourse.


actually, it sounds like you just mouthing off, making wild fundie
claims and not being able to back them up.


Not at all. The basic truth of the matter is that the whole topic is
something that has never been a compelling interest to me, but has at the
same time held a mild curiosity within me. As a result of it not having
been a compelling interest, I largely ignored it with the exception of
being
only casually aware of some claims from both sides. I didn't know for
example that the dinosaur/man tracks in Texas had been brought into
question
by even those who had originally supported the finds until this thread. I
remembered hearing about it a long time ago and it just kind of stuck in
my
mind. So, I threw it out there to see what the answers would be regarding
it. To the extent that I have a casual interest in the stuff, this served
a
purpose for me. Likewise with the cave paintings.

Not trying to stir anything up or make wild fundie claims. Just inquiring
a
bit from a standpoint of being a not very studied individual on the
matter.
That's why I explained that in the very beginning. I will say that from
my
uneducated perspective, the wild claims are not limited to fundies.

Sorry if I intruded on a thread that is limited to those with higher
degrees
in these studies. I asked genuine questions, attempted to be civil in my
approach, and only varied from that when I got fed up with some of the
condescending attitudes that popped up from time to time.

Fundi - hmmmmm. Again, I'd have to ask what you mean by that. It's the
second time a derogatory term has been tossed out inferring that having a
faith is somehow the mark of a lesser man. I haven't given any indication
of what my faith includes and you'd probably be surprised if you knew it.
It certainly does not include a closed mind. But then again one with a
closed mind does not enter into these discussion with questions, and even
admissions of his own error, now does he?

--

-Mike-




Hi Mike,

Maybe I can provide some insights for you.

I agree that the term Fundi is being used in a derogatory manner. However,
I don't think the comment is an attack on faith in general. There are many
people of faith (including Christians) that accept the scientific method and
do not have a problem reconciling science with their religion. I think that
the Fundi term is being used to refer to the small minority of people that
demand a literal interpretation of the bible. This literal interpretation
is often at odds with the scientific community and there are a wide range of
arguments that the "Fundis" make that defy rational thought in order to
"rationalize" their views. On a side note, one of my favorites is the one
that states that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. This
is one of my favorites because the argument is easily shown to be false and
doesn't require interpretation of past events based on rather minimal
evidence. So, the "Fundi" term does not imply that people of faith are
somehow lessor people, but it does imply that people with blind faith, in
the presence of conflicting scientific observations, are irrational.

It looks like you were called a "Fundi" because you were making assertions
without being able to back them up (a common tactic used by "Fundis"). I
respect that you later acknowledged that you further researched the topics
and no longer stood by them. However, I hope that you understand why you
should not be stating these arguments as "facts". I know that you
ackowledged that you were not an expert, but it would have been better if
you ASKED about these topics (e.g. haven't there been cases where tracks
from man and dinosaurs were found together) instead of stating them as
facts.


Now for a couple of comments related to the original topic: intelligent
design:

I think that there is a backlash against ID for multiple reasons, but to me
the the most basic reason is that it is essentially ANTI-science posing as
science. The scientific approach is one that constantly questions itself
and tries to further test itself to the point of breaking, because it is
often at these breaking points where a deeper level of understanding is
developed. Note, while the breaking point can result in a complete change
in view of how nature works, often the result is better described as a
further refinement of our understanding as opposed to a rejection of the
preceding model (e.g. classical mechanics still explains many thing quite
well even though quantum mechanics can explain nature better at the extreme
where classical mechanics fails). Science is constantly trying to better
understand nature and explain the un-explained. Although it may not be
explicitly stated, I think there is an underlying assumption that the
natural world follows natural laws and that science will keep trying to
understand in greater and greater detail how the natural world works.
Implicit in this assumption is that the super-natural is outside the realm
of science; the super-natural cannot be tested nor explained by science.
That is, relying on a super-natural explanation is a "cop-out" and not
allowed in science. The whole premise of intelligent design is essentially
this same cop-out: something is too complex and therefore requires a
designer (i.e. super-natural involvment). Hopefully you can see why I say
that this approach is ANTI-science.

Granted, MAYBE there is a designer, but the field of intelligent design is
NOT science. I would make the argument that science is inherently limited
by the fact that it cannot evaluate the super-natural. I will point out
that throughout history science has done very well at explaining things that
were once thought to be super-natural, in terms of the natural world. I
will acknowledge that science will probably never explain everything, and if
there are super-natural forces it will not be able to explain them.
However, this limitation does not justify replacing science with
ANTI-science.

I think that most scientists would agree with my assessment, but might be
reluctant to admit these limnitations of science. Unfortunately I think
people get too polarized and don't want to admit to any limitations because
any "chinks in the armor" are attacked unmercifully by others with their own
agendas. For example, if you look at the various Creationist arguments,
they nit-pick at various details of the evolutionary theory. They seem to
be based on the strategy that if ANY small part of the evolutionary theory
can be called into question, then Evolution is out and Creationism will be
accepted by default. Even this approach shows a complete lack of
understanding of how science works. In particular, if we anyone can show
errors in the evolutionary theory then the theory itself will evolve
(science has a way of correcting and refining itself over time).
Additionally, there is typically no scientific development of Creationism as
a scientific model and somehow we are just suspossed to accept it as the
only alternative instead of pursuing a scientific explanation.

Although Intelligent Design is not strictly Creationism, it is essentially a
dressed up form of Creationism that is still ANTI-science, even though it
pretends to be science.

Lastly, I will point out that like you, I am not an expert in the field but
have ofetn found the topic interesting. And that I'm a fan of science, as
well as woodworking (there, now that I've mentioned woodworking it's not
completely OT).

Best Regards,
BadgerDog

Tim Daneliuk writes:

Now, let's take an abbreviated look at what a great Theologian has
to master to do their work:

If they wish to make their belief considered seriously, then they
must also publish their findings in a peer-reviewed journal.

This is what is missing. A peer-reviewed journal requires the authors
to make accurate statements of facts, as the peers will point out the
errors before publication, and will also point out flaws in the
reasoning.

Yes, it's hard. It's also hard to read what others have done in the
area, but ALL researchers have to do this.

If I self-publish a book, I can make up anything I want to, and delude
(perhaps unknowingly) people with half-truths. These seems to be the
problems with the "science" of ID according to the reviews I read of
Brehe.

According to

http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/Behe.html

there are 11 MILLION published papers in the pubmed database, and only
three mention "inteligent design."

I just did a search, and there now seems to be 6 papers that mention
"Intelligent Design."

--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

"Rod & Betty Jo" wrote in message
...

[snip]

Maybe if you first found out what ID was and was not you might have a
different understanding......young earth it is not.....Rod
No, you can't get away with that -- that's the usual ID'ers evasion -- when
someone starts to point out the illogicalities in the ID thinking, to simply
aver that ID isn't that. In fact, the predominant proponents of ID adhere
to the Adam and Eve creation, Garden of Eden, Noah and the flood and all the
animals, etc. description of ID. If you've got a different version of ID,
spell it out and explain why the fundamentalist Christian view is wrong.

Charlie Self wrote:
wrote:
Charlie Self wrote:
wrote:
Australopithecus scobis wrote:
On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 19:46:59 -0700, fredfighter wrote:

I must have mispelt 'Anne'.
Couldn't find Anne either in the same search of e-text. Somebody fibbed.
Long ago.

BTW, fredfighter, apologies: I got lost in the headers and vented my ire
on the wrong poster.

Here's a painting of her:

http://www.wf-f.org/Immaculateconception.html

and an explanation of the Immaculate Conception.

For an explanation of the Immaculate Reception you should consult
a Pittsburgh Steelers fan.


Parthenogenesis?

Parthnogenesis is reproduction _without_ conception, Immaculate
or otherwise.

Parthnogenesis has nothing to do with either the Immaculate
Conception or Reception.


I'll accept that for Franco Harris's conotribution, but I do not KNOW
that for immaculate conception. Somebody's fingertips (speaking
metaphorically) were almost certainly on the ball, IMO.

Nope.

The dogma of the Immaculate Conception presumes that Joachim and
Anne (or whoever they were) 'did it' just like anyone else.

You continue to confuse the virgin birth of Christ with the
Immaculate Conception. It is explained at the link above,
why not check it out?

BTW, have you figured out why the Indians you know speak English
so well?

;-)

--

FF

Bruce Barnett wrote:
Australopithecus scobis writes:

And who the hell is "Ann?" The name doesn't appear in the bible: KJV, RSV,
N26, Wey, Byz, TR, WH, BHM/BHS, Mur, or ASV. Got a divine revelation your
ownself?

Perhaps it one of those Gnostic chapters that got deleted?

http://www.themass.org/novena/life.htm


Anne, mother of Mary is found in some of the apocryphal gospels,
more popular in the Orthodox Church than the Catholic Church.

--

FF

Odinn wrote:
On 10/10/2005 3:48 PM mumbled something about
the following:
Charlie Self wrote:

wrote:

Australopithecus scobis wrote:

On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 19:46:59 -0700, fredfighter wrote:


I must have mispelt 'Anne'.

Couldn't find Anne either in the same search of e-text. Somebody fibbed.
Long ago.

BTW, fredfighter, apologies: I got lost in the headers and vented my ire
on the wrong poster.

Here's a painting of her:

http://www.wf-f.org/Immaculateconception.html

and an explanation of the Immaculate Conception.

For an explanation of the Immaculate Reception you should consult
a Pittsburgh Steelers fan.


Parthenogenesis?


Parthnogenesis is reproduction _without_ conception, Immaculate
or otherwise.

Parthnogenesis has nothing to do with either the Immaculate
Conception or Reception.

Ummm, nope, parthenogenesis is conception without fertilization.


Thanks.

BTW, the offspring of parthenogenesis are always female.

--

FF

wrote:

Parthnogenesis has nothing to do with either the Immaculate
Conception or Reception.


I'll accept that for Franco Harris's conotribution, but I do not KNOW
that for immaculate conception. Somebody's fingertips (speaking
metaphorically) were almost certainly on the ball, IMO.

Nope.

The dogma of the Immaculate Conception presumes that Joachim and
Anne (or whoever they were) 'did it' just like anyone else.

You continue to confuse the virgin birth of Christ with the
Immaculate Conception. It is explained at the link above,
why not check it out?

BTW, have you figured out why the Indians you know speak English
so well?

Parthenogenesis is the closest thing I've seen to a rational
explanation, so, without that, we've got religious nonsense, something
I get sufficient of on a daily basis in this locale.

I have no idea why the few Indians I know locally speak English
reasonably well. Part of it is that they've now been in this area for 6
or 7 years, I guess, and, like most of us, pick up the local patois.
Generally, my objection isn't with the speech, the use of words, but
with the sing-song inflection that means my half-deaf ears can't
translate as quickly as they speak. That is lessened, but, IMS, it was
also less when they first arrived.

It's not a subject I spend a lot of time thinking about.

"World Traveler" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Rod & Betty Jo" wrote in message
...

[snip]

Maybe if you first found out what ID was and was not you might have a
different understanding......young earth it is not.....Rod

No, you can't get away with that -- that's the usual ID'ers evasion --
when someone starts to point out the illogicalities in the ID thinking, to
simply aver that ID isn't that. In fact, the predominant proponents of ID
adhere to the Adam and Eve creation, Garden of Eden, Noah and the flood
and all the animals, etc. description of ID. If you've got a different
version of ID, spell it out and explain why the fundamentalist Christian
view is wrong.

No, you did not point out any illogicalities...in fact you pointed out
nothing of substance ....as you misidentified the very group you were
attempting to illuminate. For sake of clarity young-earthers believe in a
literal biblical origin, with a 7day creation, Adam, Noah's flood etc. all
only a few thousand years ago. Where-as Intelligent design (try reading Hugh
Ross) http://www.reasons.org/ proposes much of "mainstream science"
albeit with a creator whom started it all......The two groups do not agree
with each other (sometimes loudly) nor should they be confused with each
other. Rod

BadgerDog wrote:

Lastly, I will point out that like you, I am not an expert in the field but
have ofetn found the topic interesting. And that I'm a fan of science, as
well as woodworking (there, now that I've mentioned woodworking it's not
completely OT).


If you wnat a really interesting topic, somewhat related to ID, consider
how most people pick their religion. Most people don't. They just
assume the faith of their parents or of the culture they grew up in,
with little or no knowledge of other faiths. The opposite of the
scientific method :-).

How many Christians can explain where their religion differs from
Shinto? And vice versa?

IOW, if there are 20 major religions in the world, the average adherent
of any one of them has only at best a 5% chance of having picked the
"right" one. I say "at best" because there's a distinct possibility
that they're all wrong :-).

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...
IOW, if there are 20 major religions in the world, the average adherent of
any one of them has only at best a 5% chance of having picked the "right"
one. I say "at best" because there's a distinct possibility that they're
all wrong :-).

Cute, but scientifically ridiculous.

Think about it. It's not the number of religions, but the relative number
of adherents, if we are to follow your assumption of belief, that would
establish the percentages.

Bruce Barnett wrote:

Tim Daneliuk writes:


Now, let's take an abbreviated look at what a great Theologian has
to master to do their work:


If they wish to make their belief considered seriously, then they
must also publish their findings in a peer-reviewed journal.

They do. There are plenty of scholarly theological journals
wherein work is submitted for peer review.


This is what is missing. A peer-reviewed journal requires the authors

No it isn't "missing" it happens all the time.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Charlie Self wrote:
wrote:

Parthnogenesis has nothing to do with either the Immaculate
Conception or Reception.


I'll accept that for Franco Harris's conotribution, but I do not KNOW
that for immaculate conception. Somebody's fingertips (speaking
metaphorically) were almost certainly on the ball, IMO.

Nope.

The dogma of the Immaculate Conception presumes that Joachim and
Anne (or whoever they were) 'did it' just like anyone else.

You continue to confuse the virgin birth of Christ with the
Immaculate Conception. It is explained at the link above,
why not check it out?

BTW, have you figured out why the Indians you know speak English
so well?

Parthenogenesis is the closest thing I've seen to a rational
explanation, so, without that, we've got religious nonsense, something
I get sufficient of on a daily basis in this locale.

The Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of _Mary_
not the conception of Christ.

You continue to confuse the virgin birth of Christ with the
Immaculate Conception. It is explained at the link above,
why not check it out?

Of course it is religions nonsense, that is why science is
silent on the issue of the Immaculate Conception, and of
original sin in general, though it is not on the issue of
the virgin birth of Christ. The virgin birth of Christ is
contrary to scientific models for human reproduction. The
dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary lies entirely
outside of any scientific theory because the dogmatic
elements are entirely metaphysical.

That virgin birth is contrary to scientific models for human
reproduction might at first seem to be a conflict between
religion and science. But religion has a simple concept
to avoid that--the miracle, or if you prefer, Intelligent
Design of the Saviour.


I have no idea why the few Indians I know locally speak English
reasonably well. Part of it is that they've now been in this area for 6
or 7 years, I guess, and, like most of us, pick up the local patois.
...

What language do you suppose they spoke in India?

--

FF

George wrote:
"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...
IOW, if there are 20 major religions in the world, the average adherent of
any one of them has only at best a 5% chance of having picked the "right"
one. I say "at best" because there's a distinct possibility that they're
all wrong :-).

Cute, but scientifically ridiculous.

Think about it. It's not the number of religions, but the relative number
of adherents, if we are to follow your assumption of belief, that would
establish the percentages.

You think about it. He's taking his chances amongst religions, not the
number of adherents in any one or gorup of religions. Thus, 20, pick
one, 5% shot at being right (actually, no, because there are those who
claim none of the religions is right, but that's another tale).