dave weil a écrit :

Boy, it's amazing how far the moralist has fallen...

Yeah I can fall has far that I can jump high...
No vertigo. You just need to like *amplitude*....

Eh ? No forget it. :-)

dave weil a écrit :

Yep, got Lionel all freaked out. Right on schedule.

Krueger got you nearly everyday like that during at least 5 years... And
you are still alive. :-)

Boy, it's amazing how far the moralist has fallen...

Yeah, I can fall as far as I can jump high...
No vertigo. You just need to like *amplitude*....

Eh ? No forget it, you cannot understand. ;-)

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Schizoid Man" wrote in message

Every six months or so another evolution controversy emerges from
Georgia.
Last year, the education chief has proposed replacing the word
'evolution' with the laughable phrase 'changes over time' in school
textbooks.

So, you're saying that the phrase "changes over time" misrepresents
the word
evolution?

In biology is certainly does. Milk changes over time into cheese.It
doesn't evolve into cheese. Evolution has a very specific meaning in
biology.



This year, it's the Cobb County 'Evolution is a theory' stickers.

So, you're saying that evolution is not a theory while newtonian
physics is
a theory?

That life evolved is not a theory. It is a scientific fact.
Scott Wheeler

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"Schizoid Man" wrote in message

Every six months or so another evolution controversy emerges from
Georgia.
Last year, the education chief has proposed replacing the word
'evolution' with the laughable phrase 'changes over time' in
school
textbooks.

So, you're saying that the phrase "changes over time" misrepresents
the
word evolution?

**Evolution describes the process nicely. Anything else is just a
fairy tale
and does not belong as part of any education system.


This year, it's the Cobb County 'Evolution is a theory' stickers.

So, you're saying that evolution is not a theory while newtonian
physics
is a theory?

**Evolution is a fact, not a theory. Darwin proposed the Theory of
Natural
Selection, to explain the FACT of evolution. Newtonian Physics was
proven
incorrect by Einsteinian Physics.


Nice post. I think general reletivity disposed of Newton"s laws of
motion except as a very useful practical tool. I don't think it
displaced Newton"s laws of thermodynamics. I think those still stand.
Scott Wheeler

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"Schizoid Man" wrote in message

Every six months or so another evolution controversy emerges from
Georgia.
Last year, the education chief has proposed replacing the word
'evolution' with the laughable phrase 'changes over time' in
school
textbooks.

So, you're saying that the phrase "changes over time"
misrepresents
the word evolution?

**Evolution describes the process nicely. Anything else is just a
fairy tale and does not belong as part of any education system.

No answer to the question that was asked.

This year, it's the Cobb County 'Evolution is a theory'
stickers.

So, you're saying that evolution is not a theory while newtonian
physics is a theory?

**Evolution is a fact, not a theory.

Trevor, facts and theories are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
They tend
to be in some sense orthogonal. IOW, the theory gives some idea of
how or
why something happens, while facts relate to specific things that
happened
in the past.

Gravity is a theory relating to forces between objects. It is a
relevant
fact that the last object I released some distance above the floor,
shortly
fell to the floor.

Gravity and evolution are both facts. They happened and they still
happen. The empirical evidence is clear. *How* they happen is a matter
of theories.



Changes over time would be an example of fact(s), while Evolution is
a
theory that explains changes over time.

No evolution *is* an example of something that has happened as is still
happening. Theories as to how it happens are not called evolution.
Those theories are given specific titles such as natural selection and
puntcuated equilibrium.

Strictly speaking, Evolution will
never be itself a fact. It will always be a theory. Now it can be
factual,
but that is still not the same as being a fact.

No, it is a scientific fact. I suggest you read some of Stephen J
Gould's writings on the very subject of evolution fact or theory.



Darwin proposed the Theory of
Natural Selection, to explain the FACT of evolution.

No, Evolution will always be a theory. Observable changes over time
can be
facts.

Evolution is a subset of observable changes over time. It is a
scientific fact.



Newtonian Physics was proven incorrect by Einsteinian Physics.

No, it was modified by Einsteinian physics.

No, Newtonian laws of motion have been disproven by general reletivity.
It has stuck around because it does a good job of estimating things for
engineers.

When the appropriate velocities
are zero, einsteinian theories and Newtonian theories give the
identical
same results.

That is why those laws are used in practical aplications. They give
good practical answers even if they do not represent what is actually
going on.



Since Evolution, Einsteinian physics, and Newtonian Physics are all
scientific theories, they are and always will be provisional. That
means
that at any time, they may be modified by some other finding of
Science.

Theories are provisional. General reletivity may be superseded just as
it superseded Newtonian laws of motion. It will continue to be useful
just as Newtonian laws of motion continue to be useful even if it is
superseded. The fossil record that shows life evolved is not
provisional. It is empirical. The fossil record that exists will never
be superseded. There in lies the big difference between evolution and
various *laws* of motion.

Scott Wheeler

Ruud Broens wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
: "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
:
: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message
: news : "Schizoid Man" wrote in message
:
: Every six months or so another evolution controversy emerges
from
: Georgia.
: Last year, the education chief has proposed replacing the word
: 'evolution' with the laughable phrase 'changes over time' in
school
: textbooks.
:
: So, you're saying that the phrase "changes over time"
misrepresents
: the word evolution?
:
: **Evolution describes the process nicely. Anything else is just a
: fairy tale and does not belong as part of any education system.
:
: No answer to the question that was asked.
:
: This year, it's the Cobb County 'Evolution is a theory'
stickers.
:
: So, you're saying that evolution is not a theory while
newtonian
: physics is a theory?
:
: **Evolution is a fact, not a theory.
:
: Trevor, facts and theories are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
They tend
: to be in some sense orthogonal. IOW, the theory gives some idea of
how or
: why something happens, while facts relate to specific things that
happened
: in the past.
:
: Gravity is a theory relating to forces between objects. It is a
relevant
: fact that the last object I released some distance above the floor,
shortly
: fell to the floor.
:
: Changes over time would be an example of fact(s), while Evolution
is a
: theory that explains changes over time. Strictly speaking,
Evolution will
: never be itself a fact. It will always be a theory. Now it can be
factual,
: but that is still not the same as being a fact.
:
: Darwin proposed the Theory of
: Natural Selection, to explain the FACT of evolution.
:
: No, Evolution will always be a theory. Observable changes over time
can be
: facts.
:
: Newtonian Physics was proven incorrect by Einsteinian Physics.
:
: No, it was modified by Einsteinian physics. When the appropriate
velocities
: are zero, einsteinian theories and Newtonian theories give the
identical
: same results.
:
: Since Evolution, Einsteinian physics, and Newtonian Physics are
all
: scientific theories, they are and always will be provisional. That
means
: that at any time, they may be modified by some other finding of
Science.
:

Science is the description in some formal language that, to the best
of
present knowledge,gives the 'best fit' for describing and predicting
observable
phenomena.

Coherency dictates that elements within the body of scientific
theories
should not lead to contradictory results. This is where several
aspects
of the Darwinistic theory , in it's present form, simply do not
hold.
For one, a "survival of the fittest" paradigma cannot begin to
account
for, say, the development of biological structures as complex as the
eye:
from no eye to fully functioning eye at no point along
that long,
long
trajectory is there any 'survival bonus value' !!
So, while "survival of the fittest" may be a necessary element, it
*cannot*
be the only evolution-driving 'force'.
Then there are all kinds of problems, from Shannon's information
theory
point of view...

(nb this does , of course, not imply that some creationist theory
should
therefore be adopted

Sorry but this is just a bunch of Neo-creationsist nonsense relabeled
inteligent design. It's the same anti-scientific nonsense wrapped up in
new package.

Scott Wheeler

Michael McKelvy wrote:
"Ruud Broens" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
: "Trevor Wilson" wrote in
message
:
: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message
: news : "Schizoid Man" wrote in message
:
: Every six months or so another evolution controversy emerges
from
: Georgia.
: Last year, the education chief has proposed replacing the
word
: 'evolution' with the laughable phrase 'changes over time' in
school
: textbooks.
:
: So, you're saying that the phrase "changes over time"
misrepresents
: the word evolution?
:
: **Evolution describes the process nicely. Anything else is just
a
: fairy tale and does not belong as part of any education system.
:
: No answer to the question that was asked.
:
: This year, it's the Cobb County 'Evolution is a theory'
stickers.
:
: So, you're saying that evolution is not a theory while
newtonian
: physics is a theory?
:
: **Evolution is a fact, not a theory.
:
: Trevor, facts and theories are not necessarily mutually
exclusive. They
tend
: to be in some sense orthogonal. IOW, the theory gives some idea
of how
or
: why something happens, while facts relate to specific things that

happened
: in the past.
:
: Gravity is a theory relating to forces between objects. It is a
relevant
: fact that the last object I released some distance above the
floor,
shortly
: fell to the floor.
:
: Changes over time would be an example of fact(s), while Evolution
is a
: theory that explains changes over time. Strictly speaking,
Evolution
will
: never be itself a fact. It will always be a theory. Now it can be

factual,
: but that is still not the same as being a fact.
:
: Darwin proposed the Theory of
: Natural Selection, to explain the FACT of evolution.
:
: No, Evolution will always be a theory. Observable changes over
time can
be
: facts.
:
: Newtonian Physics was proven incorrect by Einsteinian Physics.
:
: No, it was modified by Einsteinian physics. When the appropriate
velocities
: are zero, einsteinian theories and Newtonian theories give the
identical
: same results.
:
: Since Evolution, Einsteinian physics, and Newtonian Physics are
all
: scientific theories, they are and always will be provisional.
That means
: that at any time, they may be modified by some other finding of
Science.
:

Science is the description in some formal language that, to the
best of
present knowledge,gives the 'best fit' for describing and
predicting
observable
phenomena.

Coherency dictates that elements within the body of scientific
theories
should not lead to contradictory results.
This is where several aspects
of the Darwinistic theory , in it's present form, simply do not
hold.
For one, a "survival of the fittest" paradigma cannot begin to
account
for, say, the development of biological structures as complex as
the eye:
from no eye to fully functioning eye at no point along
that
long,
long
trajectory is there any 'survival bonus value' !!
So, while "survival of the fittest" may be a necessary element, it

*cannot*
be the only evolution-driving 'force'.
Then there are all kinds of problems, from Shannon's information
theory
point of view...


It's not survival of the fittest, it is survival of the FIT.

(nb this does , of course, not imply that some creationist theory
should
therefore be adopted
Rudy

Since creationist theory works backwards, it starts with a conclusion
and
then seeks evidence to make it so. Real science works the other way
round,
it starts with a collection of facts and then fashions a conclusion.

It warms my heart to see you say this Mike. You did real well on this
claim.

Scott Wheeler

wrote in message
oups.com...
:
: Sorry but this is just a bunch of Neo-creationsist nonsense relabeled
: inteligent design. It's the same anti-scientific nonsense wrapped up in
: new package.
:
: Scott Wheeler

Having a 'bad hair daY', Scotty ?

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

it would bw more accurate to note my refusal
to acknowledge that the person in question has a mind.
It would be more accurate just to admit you enjoy being a smart ass.

It has its moments

Ruud Broens wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
:
: Sorry but this is just a bunch of Neo-creationsist nonsense
relabeled
: inteligent design. It's the same anti-scientific nonsense wrapped
up in
: new package.
:
: Scott Wheeler

Having a 'bad hair daY', Scotty ?

Any day with hair is a good hair day. I do need a cut though. Sorry if
I blew the cover off your post. Were you playing or do you really buy
that ID nonsense?

Scott Wheeler

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...


People that were in favor of the idea that there were audible
differences between amplifiers did most of the early work on ABX.
That included me.

That's a lie I was waiting for you to tell.

Art.I posted the truth, knowing full well you religious beliefs about ABX
would keep you from believing what I wrote.

Refusal to acknowledge a person can change his mind, noted.

Yes, Art seems to have no appreciation or understanding of the effects of
convincing reliable evidence on the human mind.

I came into the ABX thing well-primed by years and years being brainwashed
by Stereophile and The Absolute Sound to believe that all amplifiers sounded
different.

wrote in message
ups.com

That isn't what Art is saying. This isn't about whether or not he
changed his mind but when. If my memory serves me, at the time this
was initially done and the ABX comparitor was first built Arny was
firmly planted in the no difference camp.

Your memory is very flawed, Scott.

I built the first ABX Comparator and did the first ABX test on consumer
audio gear firmly convinced that I would be vindicated in my belief that
there were generally audible differences between amplifiers.

He is saying that he was in the difference camp at that time in this
thread.

No way!

This is perfect example of how Scott misperceives clear statements that
don't agree with his preconceptions. He's Probably gone through life this
way getting so many things wrong because of this. It's one reason that he
lost his libel suit against me in California Superior Court. He studied up
on libel suits and misperceived what he studied. Either that, or he studied
the wrong stuff.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
.net
wrote in message
ups.com...

Michael McKelvy wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

People that were in favor of the idea that there were audible
differences between amplifiers did most of the early work on ABX.
That included me.

That's a lie I was waiting for you to tell.

Refusal to acknowledge a person can change his mind, noted.

That isn't what Art is saying. This isn't about whether or not he
changed his mind but when. If my memory serves me, at the time this
was initially done and the ABX comparator was first built Arny was
firmly planted in the no difference camp.

That's not my recollection.

He is saying that he was in the
difference camp at that time in this thread.

You got it exactly right, Mike. We see here that two people who demean and
libel you as a "Bug eater" in fact can't correctly perceive clear statements
of fact. Who knows, maybe you are what they say, but this example proves
that they are far worse.

My recollection is that he was one of the people who believed in
differences and that they were prevalent in audio equipment.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
.net

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

it would bw more accurate to note my refusal
to acknowledge that the person in question has a mind.

It would be more accurate just to admit you enjoy being a smart ass.

Inappropriate use of the word "smart" noted.

Using smart in the same sentence as a favorable or neutral reference to Art
is an instant oxymoron.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
.net

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

it would bw more accurate to note my refusal
to acknowledge that the person in question has a mind.

It would be more accurate just to admit you enjoy being a smart ass.

Inappropriate use of the word "smart" noted.

Using smart in the same sentence as a favorable or neutral reference to
Art is an instant oxymoron.


The IQ challenge is still open Arny. You never did accept it.
If you happen to beat me, it will be quite an accomplishment
for you and you will be congratulated for it.

wrote in message
ups.com...
:
: Ruud Broens wrote:
: wrote in message
: oups.com...
: :
: : Sorry but this is just a bunch of Neo-creationsist nonsense
: relabeled
: : inteligent design. It's the same anti-scientific nonsense wrapped
: up in
: : new package.
: :
: : Scott Wheeler
:
: Having a 'bad hair daY', Scotty ?
:
: Any day with hair is a good hair day. I do need a cut though. Sorry if
: I blew the cover off your post. Were you playing or do you really buy
: that ID nonsense?
:
: Scott Wheeler

I'm always playing, Scott - even when i'm serious.
Have you actually read anything by Shannon ? Any IT background ?
Any ideas as to how scientific theory come 'to be' ?
If you have a triple no there, then qualifying scientific scepticism
as ID nonsense is unemphatically nonsense :-)
cheers,
Rudy

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
.net
wrote in message
ups.com...

Michael McKelvy wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

People that were in favor of the idea that there were audible
differences between amplifiers did most of the early work on
ABX.
That included me.

That's a lie I was waiting for you to tell.

Refusal to acknowledge a person can change his mind, noted.

That isn't what Art is saying. This isn't about whether or not he
changed his mind but when. If my memory serves me, at the time
this
was initially done and the ABX comparator was first built Arny was
firmly planted in the no difference camp.

That's not my recollection.

He is saying that he was in the
difference camp at that time in this thread.

You got it exactly right, Mike. We see here that two people who
demean and
libel you as a "Bug eater" in fact can't correctly perceive clear
statements
of fact. Who knows, maybe you are what they say, but this example
proves
that they are far worse.

We see what? We see that you are delusional. "If irony killed." Please
quote me calling Mike a bug eater.



My recollection is that he was one of the people who believed in
differences and that they were prevalent in audio equipment.

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com

That isn't what Art is saying. This isn't about whether or not he
changed his mind but when. If my memory serves me, at the time this
was initially done and the ABX comparitor was first built Arny was
firmly planted in the no difference camp.

Your memory is very flawed, Scott.

Everybody's memory is flawed Arny. That includes you.



I built the first ABX Comparator and did the first ABX test on
consumer
audio gear firmly convinced that I would be vindicated in my belief
that
there were generally audible differences between amplifiers.

He is saying that he was in the difference camp at that time in
this
thread.

No way!

You are amazingly stupid. Please tell the difference between what you
just said and what I said you said. "He (Arny) is saying that he was in
the difference camp at that time."(The time that the first ABX
comparitor was built) "I built the first ABX Comparator and did the
first ABX test on consumer audio gear firmly convinced that I would be
vindicated in my belief that there were generally audible differences
between amplifiers."




This is perfect example of how Scott misperceives clear statements
that
don't agree with his preconceptions.

No Arny this is a pefect example of just how stupid you really are.


He's Probably gone through life this
way getting so many things wrong because of this.

"If irony killed."

It's one reason that he
lost his libel suit against me in California Superior Court.

Wrong, as usual.

He studied up
on libel suits and misperceived what he studied.

Wrong again, as usual.

Either that, or he studied
the wrong stuff.

Wrong again. At least you are reliably stupid.
It seems you've lost what little ability you ever had to think.
Scott Wheeler

Ruud Broens wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
:
: Ruud Broens wrote:
: wrote in message
: oups.com...
: :
: : Sorry but this is just a bunch of Neo-creationsist nonsense
: relabeled
: : inteligent design. It's the same anti-scientific nonsense
wrapped
: up in
: : new package.
: :
: : Scott Wheeler
:
: Having a 'bad hair daY', Scotty ?
:
: Any day with hair is a good hair day. I do need a cut though. Sorry
if
: I blew the cover off your post. Were you playing or do you really
buy
: that ID nonsense?
:
: Scott Wheeler

I'm always playing, Scott - even when i'm serious.
Have you actually read anything by Shannon ?

No I have read stuff from Dr. Robert Herrmann. And I've seen him debate
a biologist on the subject.

Any IT background ?

ID? Yes.


Any ideas as to how scientific theory come 'to be' ?

Ideas? I am familiar with the history of science and the scientific
method.


If you have a triple no there, then qualifying scientific scepticism
as ID nonsense is unemphatically nonsense :-)
Looks like my skepticism isn't nonsense.

Scott Wheeler

wrote in message
oups.com...
:
: I'm always playing, Scott - even when i'm serious.
: Have you actually read anything by Shannon ?
:
: No I have read stuff from Dr. Robert Herrmann. And I've seen him debate
: a biologist on the subject.
:
: Any IT background ?
:
: ID? Yes.
:
:
: Any ideas as to how scientific theory come 'to be' ?
:
: Ideas? I am familiar with the history of science and the scientific
: method.
:
:
: If you have a triple no there, then qualifying scientific scepticism
: as ID nonsense is unemphatically nonsense :-)
: Looks like my skepticism isn't nonsense.
:
: Scott Wheeler

So, any specific reason why you qualify critique re the natural selection
based on survival of the fittest (best adapted to environmental conditions)
theory as being an inadequate and incomplete description of the mechanism
driving evolution as a form of neo-creationism ????
cheerio,
Rudy

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
.net


Using smart in the same sentence as a favorable or neutral reference
to Art
is an instant oxymoron.

Arny's abuse of the English language is noted. Funny he would show off
his illiteracy while attacking someone's intelect. "If irony killed."
Scott Wheeler

wrote in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com

That isn't what Art is saying. This isn't about whether or not he
changed his mind but when. If my memory serves me, at the time this
was initially done and the ABX comparitor was first built Arny was
firmly planted in the no difference camp.

Your memory is very flawed, Scott.

Everybody's memory is flawed Arny. That includes you.

No Scott, you want us to believe that everybody who makes a mistake is
stupid, unless the person making the mistake you.

I built the first ABX Comparator and did the first ABX test on
consumer audio gear firmly convinced that I would be vindicated in
my belief that there were generally audible differences between
amplifiers.

He is saying that he was in the difference camp at that time in
this
thread.

No way!

You are amazingly stupid.

No Scott, I just made a mistake like the one you just excused for yourself.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
.net

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

it would bw more accurate to note my refusal
to acknowledge that the person in question has a mind.

It would be more accurate just to admit you enjoy being a smart ass.

Inappropriate use of the word "smart" noted.

Using smart in the same sentence as a favorable or neutral reference
to Art is an instant oxymoron.

The IQ challenge is still open Arny. You never did accept it.

Asked and answered.

Arny Krueger wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com


That isn't what Art is saying. This isn't about whether or not he
changed his mind but when. If my memory serves me, at the time this
was initially done and the ABX comparitor was first built Arny was
firmly planted in the no difference camp.


Your memory is very flawed, Scott.

Gheez. He's going off on ABX?

I guess VCR/DVD really is next for him.

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com

That isn't what Art is saying. This isn't about whether or not he
changed his mind but when. If my memory serves me, at the time
this
was initially done and the ABX comparitor was first built Arny
was
firmly planted in the no difference camp.

Your memory is very flawed, Scott.

Everybody's memory is flawed Arny. That includes you.

No Scott, you want us to believe that everybody who makes a mistake
is
stupid, unless the person making the mistake you.

You are lying again. Guess you have nothing of substance to say.



I built the first ABX Comparator and did the first ABX test on
consumer audio gear firmly convinced that I would be vindicated in
my belief that there were generally audible differences between
amplifiers.

He is saying that he was in the difference camp at that time in
this
thread.

No way!

You are amazingly stupid.

No Scott, I just made a mistake like the one you just excused for
yourself.

Mine was at worst an error in memory. That happens to everyone. Yours
was a mistake in basic comprehension. All the needed information was
right infront of you. Yes, we all make mistakes. Yours looked really
stupid considering your rant that followed.
"This is perfect example of how Scott misperceives clear statements
that
don't agree with his preconceptions. He's Probably gone through life
this
way getting so many things wrong because of this. It's one reason that
he
lost his libel suit against me in California Superior Court. He studied
up
on libel suits and misperceived what he studied. Either that, or he
studied
the wrong stuff."
I can see why you chose not to include this part of your post. It
illustrates just what an ass you really are.

Scott Wheeler

In article ,
George M. Middius wrote:

Joseph Oberlander said:

Gheez.

Yak butter?

Yurt!

Stephen

Ruud Broens wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
:
: I'm always playing, Scott - even when i'm serious.
: Have you actually read anything by Shannon ?
:
: No I have read stuff from Dr. Robert Herrmann. And I've seen him
debate
: a biologist on the subject.
:
: Any IT background ?
:
: ID? Yes.
:
:
: Any ideas as to how scientific theory come 'to be' ?
:
: Ideas? I am familiar with the history of science and the scientific
: method.
:
:
: If you have a triple no there, then qualifying scientific
scepticism
: as ID nonsense is unemphatically nonsense :-)
: Looks like my skepticism isn't nonsense.
:
: Scott Wheeler

So, any specific reason why you qualify critique re the natural
selection
based on survival of the fittest (best adapted to environmental
conditions)
theory as being an inadequate and incomplete description of the
mechanism
driving evolution as a form of neo-creationism ????


Where did I make any critique of natural selection? Are you actually
reading my posts?


Scott Wheeler

George M. Middius wrote:


Joseph Oberlander said:


Gheez.


Yak butter?


No, Sasquatch toe-jam.

wrote in message
oups.com...
:
: Ruud Broens wrote:
: wrote in message
: oups.com...
: :
: : I'm always playing, Scott - even when i'm serious.
: : Have you actually read anything by Shannon ?
: :
: : No I have read stuff from Dr. Robert Herrmann. And I've seen him
: debate
: : a biologist on the subject.
: :
: : Any IT background ?
: :
: : ID? Yes.
: :
: :
: : Any ideas as to how scientific theory come 'to be' ?
: :
: : Ideas? I am familiar with the history of science and the scientific
: : method.
: :
: :
: : If you have a triple no there, then qualifying scientific
: scepticism
: : as ID nonsense is unemphatically nonsense :-)
: : Looks like my skepticism isn't nonsense.
: :
: : Scott Wheeler
:
: So, any specific reason why you qualify critique re the natural
: selection
: based on survival of the fittest (best adapted to environmental
: conditions)
: theory as being an inadequate and incomplete description of the
: mechanism
: driving evolution as a form of neo-creationism ????
:
:
: Where did I make any critique of natural selection? Are you actually
: reading my posts?
:
:
: Scott Wheeler
"Sorry but this is just a bunch of Neo-creationsist nonsense relabeled
inteligent design. It's the same anti-scientific nonsense wrapped up in
new package."

Scott Wheeler

What exactly, then, do you mean by *this* , just there, then, Scott ?
Rudy

Ruud Broens wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
:
: Ruud Broens wrote:
: wrote in message
: oups.com...
: :
: : I'm always playing, Scott - even when i'm serious.
: : Have you actually read anything by Shannon ?
: :
: : No I have read stuff from Dr. Robert Herrmann. And I've seen
him
: debate
: : a biologist on the subject.
: :
: : Any IT background ?
: :
: : ID? Yes.
: :
: :
: : Any ideas as to how scientific theory come 'to be' ?
: :
: : Ideas? I am familiar with the history of science and the
scientific
: : method.
: :
: :
: : If you have a triple no there, then qualifying scientific
: scepticism
: : as ID nonsense is unemphatically nonsense :-)
: : Looks like my skepticism isn't nonsense.
: :
: : Scott Wheeler
:
: So, any specific reason why you qualify critique re the natural
: selection
: based on survival of the fittest (best adapted to environmental
: conditions)
: theory as being an inadequate and incomplete description of the
: mechanism
: driving evolution as a form of neo-creationism ????
:
:
: Where did I make any critique of natural selection? Are you
actually
: reading my posts?
:
:
: Scott Wheeler
"Sorry but this is just a bunch of Neo-creationsist nonsense
relabeled
inteligent design. It's the same anti-scientific nonsense wrapped up
in
new package."

Scott Wheeler

What exactly, then, do you mean by *this* , just there, then, Scott
?


Just what I said. Nothing more nothing less. Do you see any mention of
"natural selection" there? I don't.

wrote in message
oups.com...
:
: Ruud Broens wrote:
: wrote in message
: oups.com...
: :
: : Ruud Broens wrote:
: : wrote in message
: : oups.com...
: : :
: : : I'm always playing, Scott - even when i'm serious.
: : : Have you actually read anything by Shannon ?
: : :
: : : No I have read stuff from Dr. Robert Herrmann. And I've seen
: him
: : debate
: : : a biologist on the subject.
: : :
: : : Any IT background ?
: : :
: : : ID? Yes.
: : :
: : :
: : : Any ideas as to how scientific theory come 'to be' ?
: : :
: : : Ideas? I am familiar with the history of science and the
: scientific
: : : method.
: : :
: : :
: : : If you have a triple no there, then qualifying scientific
: : scepticism
: : : as ID nonsense is unemphatically nonsense :-)
: : : Looks like my skepticism isn't nonsense.
: : :
: : : Scott Wheeler
: :
: : So, any specific reason why you qualify critique re the natural
: : selection
: : based on survival of the fittest (best adapted to environmental
: : conditions)
: : theory as being an inadequate and incomplete description of the
: : mechanism
: : driving evolution as a form of neo-creationism ????
: :
: :
: : Where did I make any critique of natural selection? Are you
: actually
: : reading my posts?
: :
: :
: : Scott Wheeler
: "Sorry but this is just a bunch of Neo-creationsist nonsense
: relabeled
: inteligent design. It's the same anti-scientific nonsense wrapped up
: in
: new package."
:
: Scott Wheeler
:
: What exactly, then, do you mean by *this* , just there, then, Scott
: ?
:
:
: Just what I said. Nothing more nothing less. Do you see any mention of
: "natural selection" there? I don't.

uhm, no, but that *was* what i had presented, just above your post.
....and Paul Dormer calls _my_ posts confusin'
Rudy

Ruud Broens wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
:
: Ruud Broens wrote:
: wrote in message
: oups.com...
: :
: : Ruud Broens wrote:
: : wrote in message
: : oups.com...
: : :
: : : I'm always playing, Scott - even when i'm serious.
: : : Have you actually read anything by Shannon ?
: : :
: : : No I have read stuff from Dr. Robert Herrmann. And I've
seen
: him
: : debate
: : : a biologist on the subject.
: : :
: : : Any IT background ?
: : :
: : : ID? Yes.
: : :
: : :
: : : Any ideas as to how scientific theory come 'to be' ?
: : :
: : : Ideas? I am familiar with the history of science and the
: scientific
: : : method.
: : :
: : :
: : : If you have a triple no there, then qualifying
scientific
: : scepticism
: : : as ID nonsense is unemphatically nonsense :-)
: : : Looks like my skepticism isn't nonsense.
: : :
: : : Scott Wheeler
: :
: : So, any specific reason why you qualify critique re the
natural
: : selection
: : based on survival of the fittest (best adapted to
environmental
: : conditions)
: : theory as being an inadequate and incomplete description of
the
: : mechanism
: : driving evolution as a form of neo-creationism ????
: :
: :
: : Where did I make any critique of natural selection? Are you
: actually
: : reading my posts?
: :
: :
: : Scott Wheeler
: "Sorry but this is just a bunch of Neo-creationsist nonsense
: relabeled
: inteligent design. It's the same anti-scientific nonsense wrapped
up
: in
: new package."
:
: Scott Wheeler
:
: What exactly, then, do you mean by *this* , just there, then,
Scott
: ?
:
:
: Just what I said. Nothing more nothing less. Do you see any mention
of
: "natural selection" there? I don't.

uhm, no, but that *was* what i had presented, just above your post.

No, you presented a small sample of the ID balony that
neo-creationists have adopted. It has nothing to do with Darwin's
theory of natural selection.


...and Paul Dormer calls _my_ posts confusin'
Maybe it's because you are confused.

Scott Wheeler

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
.net

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

it would bw more accurate to note my refusal
to acknowledge that the person in question has a mind.

It would be more accurate just to admit you enjoy being a smart ass.

Inappropriate use of the word "smart" noted.

Using smart in the same sentence as a favorable or neutral reference
to Art is an instant oxymoron.

The IQ challenge is still open Arny. You never did accept it.

Asked and answered.

Asked and ignored.

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
.net

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

it would bw more accurate to note my refusal
to acknowledge that the person in question has a mind.

It would be more accurate just to admit you enjoy being a smart ass.

Inappropriate use of the word "smart" noted.

Using smart in the same sentence as a favorable or neutral reference
to Art is an instant oxymoron.

The IQ challenge is still open Arny. You never did accept it.

Is it a kind of "dick contest" for old man with erection problems ?

Asked and answered.

"Lionel" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
.net

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

it would bw more accurate to note my refusal
to acknowledge that the person in question has a mind.

It would be more accurate just to admit you enjoy being a smart
ass.

Inappropriate use of the word "smart" noted.

Using smart in the same sentence as a favorable or neutral
reference to Art is an instant oxymoron.

The IQ challenge is still open Arny. You never did accept it.

Is it a kind of "dick contest" for old man with erection problems ?

Let's not go there, particularly with Art.

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
.net

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

it would bw more accurate to note my refusal
to acknowledge that the person in question has a mind.

It would be more accurate just to admit you enjoy being a smart ass.

Inappropriate use of the word "smart" noted.

Using smart in the same sentence as a favorable or neutral reference
to Art is an instant oxymoron.

The IQ challenge is still open Arny. You never did accept it.

Is it a kind of "dick contest" for old man with erection problems ?

Asked and answered.

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:

Is it a kind of "dick contest" for old man with erection problems ?


As the sewer monger asked the turd wallower.

wrote in message
oups.com...
:
: Ruud Broens wrote:
: wrote in message
: oups.com...
: :
: : Ruud Broens wrote:
: : wrote in message
: : oups.com...
: : :
: : : Ruud Broens wrote:
: : : wrote in message
: : : oups.com...
: : : :
: : : : I'm always playing, Scott - even when i'm serious.
: : : : Have you actually read anything by Shannon ?
: : : :
: : : : No I have read stuff from Dr. Robert Herrmann. And I've
: seen
: : him
: : : debate
: : : : a biologist on the subject.
: : : :
: : : : Any IT background ?
: : : :
: : : : ID? Yes.
: : : :
: : : :
: : : : Any ideas as to how scientific theory come 'to be' ?
: : : :
: : : : Ideas? I am familiar with the history of science and the
: : scientific
: : : : method.
: : : :
: : : :
: : : : If you have a triple no there, then qualifying
: scientific
: : : scepticism
: : : : as ID nonsense is unemphatically nonsense :-)
: : : : Looks like my skepticism isn't nonsense.
: : : :
: : : : Scott Wheeler
: : :
: : : So, any specific reason why you qualify critique re the
: natural
: : : selection
: : : based on survival of the fittest (best adapted to
: environmental
: : : conditions)
: : : theory as being an inadequate and incomplete description of
: the
: : : mechanism
: : : driving evolution as a form of neo-creationism ????
: : :
: : :
: : : Where did I make any critique of natural selection? Are you
: : actually
: : : reading my posts?
: : :
: : :
: : : Scott Wheeler
: : "Sorry but this is just a bunch of Neo-creationsist nonsense
: : relabeled
: : inteligent design. It's the same anti-scientific nonsense wrapped
: up
: : in
: : new package."
: :
: : Scott Wheeler
: :
: : What exactly, then, do you mean by *this* , just there, then,
: Scott
: : ?
: :
: :
: : Just what I said. Nothing more nothing less. Do you see any mention
: of
: : "natural selection" there? I don't.
:
: uhm, no, but that *was* what i had presented, just above your post.
:
: No, you presented a small sample of the ID balony that
: neo-creationists have adopted. It has nothing to do with Darwin's
: theory of natural selection.
:
:
: ...and Paul Dormer calls _my_ posts confusin'
: Maybe it's because you are confused.
:
: Scott Wheeler

Feel free, mr. Wheeler, to post your rendering of what
Darwin's theory of natural selection states.

Rudy

Ruud Broens wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
:
: Ruud Broens wrote:
: wrote in message
: oups.com...
: :
: : Ruud Broens wrote:
: : wrote in message
: : oups.com...
: : :
: : : Ruud Broens wrote:
: : : wrote in message
: : :
oups.com...
: : : :
: : : : I'm always playing, Scott - even when i'm
serious.
: : : : Have you actually read anything by Shannon ?
: : : :
: : : : No I have read stuff from Dr. Robert Herrmann. And I've
: seen
: : him
: : : debate
: : : : a biologist on the subject.
: : : :
: : : : Any IT background ?
: : : :
: : : : ID? Yes.
: : : :
: : : :
: : : : Any ideas as to how scientific theory come 'to be' ?
: : : :
: : : : Ideas? I am familiar with the history of science and
the
: : scientific
: : : : method.
: : : :
: : : :
: : : : If you have a triple no there, then qualifying
: scientific
: : : scepticism
: : : : as ID nonsense is unemphatically nonsense :-)
: : : : Looks like my skepticism isn't nonsense.
: : : :
: : : : Scott Wheeler
: : :
: : : So, any specific reason why you qualify critique re the
: natural
: : : selection
: : : based on survival of the fittest (best adapted to
: environmental
: : : conditions)
: : : theory as being an inadequate and incomplete description
of
: the
: : : mechanism
: : : driving evolution as a form of neo-creationism
????
: : :
: : :
: : : Where did I make any critique of natural selection? Are you
: : actually
: : : reading my posts?
: : :
: : :
: : : Scott Wheeler
: : "Sorry but this is just a bunch of Neo-creationsist nonsense
: : relabeled
: : inteligent design. It's the same anti-scientific nonsense
wrapped
: up
: : in
: : new package."
: :
: : Scott Wheeler
: :
: : What exactly, then, do you mean by *this* , just there,
then,
: Scott
: : ?
: :
: :
: : Just what I said. Nothing more nothing less. Do you see any
mention
: of
: : "natural selection" there? I don't.
:
: uhm, no, but that *was* what i had presented, just above your
post.
:
: No, you presented a small sample of the ID balony that
: neo-creationists have adopted. It has nothing to do with Darwin's
: theory of natural selection.
:
:
: ...and Paul Dormer calls _my_ posts confusin'
: Maybe it's because you are confused.
:
: Scott Wheeler

Feel free, mr. Wheeler, to post your rendering of what
Darwin's theory of natural selection states.

Why? can't you find the book?

Scott Wheeler

Art wrote:


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
.net

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

it would bw more accurate to note my refusal
to acknowledge that the person in question has a mind.

It would be more accurate just to admit you enjoy being a smart ass.

Inappropriate use of the word "smart" noted.

Using smart in the same sentence as a favorable or neutral reference
to Art is an instant oxymoron.

The IQ challenge is still open Arny. You never did accept it.

Asked and answered.

Asked and ignored.



Correct. Krueger's failure to accept the challenge despite being given several
options for doing so, is documented in the Google record. Scott Wheeler had
suggested that they both take the MENSA test. I had suggested that both Scott
and Krueger take the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) under the
administration of a qualified psychologist in their locations. The WAIS is
generally considered to be one of the most highly standardized and objective
intelligence tests in the world. It is used extensively in both clinical and
legal situations. It also contains norms for people of different ages, so that
both Wheeler and Krueger's scores would be compared directly against people in
their own age group to determine thei three scores yielded by the test (Verbal
IQ, Performance IQ, Full Scale IQ). Krueger ignored all of this information
and refused to accept Scott's challenge.



Bruce J. Richman