Is Georgia the most backward state?

[Schizoid Man]

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

Is the state regressive or is science education appallingly bad. Considering
that we live in a wired world that is flat and connected, where science has
accommodated us every possible comfort , I find it bewildering to still
question Darwin.

No, Mr DeLay (incidentally, a Republican - McKelvy, please take note),
evolution is not "teaching children that humans are nothing more than
glorified apes". Eloquent, isn't he?

[Arny Krueger]

"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?

> 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?

[Lionel]

Schizoid Man wrote:

> 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. This
> year, it's the Cobb County 'Evolution is a theory' stickers.
>
> Is the state regressive or is science education appallingly bad.
> Considering that we live in a wired world that is flat and connected,
> where science has accommodated us every possible comfort , I find it
> bewildering to still question Darwin.


I am sure that a category of audiophiles could be tempted to make an easy
analogy and trash a little bit more some "obsolete" technologies. ;-)


> No, Mr DeLay (incidentally, a Republican - McKelvy, please take note),
> evolution is not "teaching children that humans are nothing more than
> glorified apes". Eloquent, isn't he?

Modern societies have to deal now with interesting existantial questions
about the "progress", "economical growth"...
The bigots get out of their holes and try to get advantage of the confusion
to recycle their outdated theories.

[Schizoid Man]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> "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?

So if they do mean the same thing, then why go through his rigmarole of
changing textbooks at the taxpayers expense. No wait, that's okay since it
is a Republican who suggested this. GMAFB. The phrase 'changes over time' is
misleading, meaningless and completely inappropriate to describe evolution.

>> 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?

Uh, where did I mention Newtonian physics in the above post.

I find it amazing how rapidly you are ready to embrace science when it comes
to audio, yet willing to abandon it discussing politics.

[Trevor Wilson]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "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.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Arny Krueger]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "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.

[Michael McKelvy]

"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. This
> year, it's the Cobb County 'Evolution is a theory' stickers.
>
> Is the state regressive or is science education appallingly bad.
> Considering that we live in a wired world that is flat and connected,
> where science has accommodated us every possible comfort , I find it
> bewildering to still question Darwin.
>
> No, Mr DeLay (incidentally, a Republican - McKelvy, please take note),
> evolution is not "teaching children that humans are nothing more than
> glorified apes". Eloquent, isn't he?
>
>
Why would you mention my name in connection with an anti-evolution effort? I
am on record many times as being opposed to such efforts, and have argued
strenuously with any who try to imply that evolution should not be taught or
that intelligent creation is any kind of science.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> "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?
>
> So if they do mean the same thing, then why go through his rigmarole of
> changing textbooks at the taxpayers expense. No wait, that's okay since it
> is a Republican who suggested this. GMAFB. The phrase 'changes over time'
> is misleading, meaningless and completely inappropriate to describe
> evolution.
>
>>> 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?
>
> Uh, where did I mention Newtonian physics in the above post.
>
> I find it amazing how rapidly you are ready to embrace science when it
> comes to audio, yet willing to abandon it discussing politics.
>
>
Exactly where did he abandon science? He simply pointed out that both are
theories, which is in fact true.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "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?
>
>> 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?
>

Is that like the all competently designed solid state amps sound the
same theory?

[Clyde Slick]

"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> "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?
>
> So if they do mean the same thing, then why go through his rigmarole of
> changing textbooks at the taxpayers expense. No wait, that's okay since it
> is a Republican who suggested this. GMAFB. The phrase 'changes over time'
> is misleading, meaningless and completely inappropriate to describe
> evolution.
>
>>> 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?
>
> Uh, where did I mention Newtonian physics in the above post.
>
> I find it amazing how rapidly you are ready to embrace science when it
> comes to audio, yet willing to abandon it discussing politics.
>
In his mind, it was about religion, not politics.

[Ruud Broens]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
: "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
:
: > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
: > ...
: >> "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:)
Rudy

[Lionel]

Ruud Broens a écrit :
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> : "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> :
> : > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> : > ...
> : >> "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'.

Perhaps should we consider the hazard (and its perturbations in the
process of the "survival of the fittest") as the greatest
evolution-driving "force" ?
My point is that if the evolution have been regular (without major
accidents) the "survival of the fittest" process wouldn't have produce
such complex biological organizations.
The hazard would have play the role of "catalyst" of the evolution.

> 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:)
> Rudy
>
>

[Ruud Broens]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
: Ruud Broens a écrit :
: > 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'.
:
: Perhaps should we consider the hazard (and its perturbations in the
: process of the "survival of the fittest") as the greatest
: evolution-driving "force" ?
: My point is that if the evolution have been regular (without major
: accidents) the "survival of the fittest" process wouldn't have produce
: such complex biological organizations.
: The hazard would have play the role of "catalyst" of the evolution.
:
: > 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:)
: > Rudy
: >
Yes, it's interesting to note, that many theories are based on a notion
of gradual, linear development, while at the same time, the rather
cataclysmic and violent events in the past have been reported through
many different routes-of-research: this is another incoherency!
But, whilst cataclysm can be seen as catalyst, it could only be a driving
force if we allow for some kind of relatively fast feedback mechanism
from environment to biological entity.
Rudy

[Lionel]

Ruud Broens a écrit :
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
> : Ruud Broens a écrit :
> : > 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'.
> :
> : Perhaps should we consider the hazard (and its perturbations in the
> : process of the "survival of the fittest") as the greatest
> : evolution-driving "force" ?
> : My point is that if the evolution have been regular (without major
> : accidents) the "survival of the fittest" process wouldn't have produce
> : such complex biological organizations.
> : The hazard would have play the role of "catalyst" of the evolution.
> :
> : > 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:)
> : > Rudy
> : >
> Yes, it's interesting to note, that many theories are based on a notion
> of gradual, linear development, while at the same time, the rather
> cataclysmic and violent events in the past have been reported through
> many different routes-of-research: this is another incoherency!
> But, whilst cataclysm can be seen as catalyst, it could only be a driving
> force if we allow for some kind of relatively fast feedback mechanism
> from environment to biological entity.

This is the way I was seeing the "propulsing" reaction. ;-)
The most the change is suddain the most the feedback on the survival
biologic entity is fast.

The evolution of the sea fish have been less important than terrestrial
animals because of less drastic and suddain changes.
I am not a specialist and the above is pure speculation.

> Rudy
>
>

[Ruud Broens]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
: Ruud Broens a écrit :
: > "Lionel" > wrote in message
: > ...
: > : Ruud Broens a écrit :
: > : > 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'.
: > :
: > : Perhaps should we consider the hazard (and its perturbations in the
: > : process of the "survival of the fittest") as the greatest
: > : evolution-driving "force" ?
: > : My point is that if the evolution have been regular (without major
: > : accidents) the "survival of the fittest" process wouldn't have produce
: > : such complex biological organizations.
: > : The hazard would have play the role of "catalyst" of the evolution.
: > :
: > : > 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:)
: > : > Rudy
: > : >
: > Yes, it's interesting to note, that many theories are based on a notion
: > of gradual, linear development, while at the same time, the rather
: > cataclysmic and violent events in the past have been reported through
: > many different routes-of-research: this is another incoherency!
: > But, whilst cataclysm can be seen as catalyst, it could only be a driving
: > force if we allow for some kind of relatively fast feedback mechanism
: > from environment to biological entity.
:
: This is the way I was seeing the "propulsing" reaction. ;-)
: The most the change is suddain the most the feedback on the survival
: biologic entity is fast.
:
: The evolution of the sea fish have been less important than terrestrial
: animals because of less drastic and suddain changes.
: I am not a specialist and the above is pure speculation.
:
:
Well, the problem is, a change in the biological entity is coded in the
DNA, so a mechanism of environment - to - change in genetic code
with -better than random- good environmental fit characteristics...

A 'souped up' version of Lamarck's theory ?:)
Rudy

[Lionel]

Ruud Broens a écrit :
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
> : Ruud Broens a écrit :
> : > "Lionel" > wrote in message
> : > ...
> : > : Ruud Broens a écrit :
> : > : > 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'.
> : > :
> : > : Perhaps should we consider the hazard (and its perturbations in the
> : > : process of the "survival of the fittest") as the greatest
> : > : evolution-driving "force" ?
> : > : My point is that if the evolution have been regular (without major
> : > : accidents) the "survival of the fittest" process wouldn't have produce
> : > : such complex biological organizations.
> : > : The hazard would have play the role of "catalyst" of the evolution.
> : > :
> : > : > 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:)
> : > : > Rudy
> : > : >
> : > Yes, it's interesting to note, that many theories are based on a notion
> : > of gradual, linear development, while at the same time, the rather
> : > cataclysmic and violent events in the past have been reported through
> : > many different routes-of-research: this is another incoherency!
> : > But, whilst cataclysm can be seen as catalyst, it could only be a driving
> : > force if we allow for some kind of relatively fast feedback mechanism
> : > from environment to biological entity.
> :
> : This is the way I was seeing the "propulsing" reaction. ;-)
> : The most the change is suddain the most the feedback on the survival
> : biologic entity is fast.
> :
> : The evolution of the sea fish have been less important than terrestrial
> : animals because of less drastic and suddain changes.
> : I am not a specialist and the above is pure speculation.
> :
> :
> Well, the problem is, a change in the biological entity is coded in the
> DNA, so a mechanism of environment - to - change in genetic code
> with -better than random- good environmental fit characteristics...

I guess you mean : is coded by the DNA in the chromosomes.

What do we know about all the "useless" coded informations ?
Could we imagine that it can be quickly (re)activated in case of brutal
changes ?

> A 'souped up' version of Lamarck's theory ?:)
> Rudy
>
>

[Schizoid Man]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message

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

The first electron microscopes appeared in the late 70s and early 80s that
enabled us to see atoms for the first time. I guess that means that before
we actually 'observed' them, the existence of atoms was a theory too?

You need to take a science class again, Arny.

[Schizoid Man]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message

> A theory is a collection of facts, so evolution is a theory.
> the·o·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
> n. pl. the·o·ries
> 1.. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts
> or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely
> accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Therefore, putting stickers that say "Evolution is a theory, not a fact" is
meaningless since according to you a theory is a collection of facts. Please
explain this conundrum.

[Trevor Wilson]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "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.

**No need. The word: 'Evolution' more completely describes the changes to
life.

>
>>>> 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.

**Correct. Evolution has occured. Evolution is a fact. Darwin proposed
'Natural Selection' to explain the fact of evolution. Several other theories
have also been presented to supplement Darwin's orginal theories. Some make
sense, but it is important to recall that the essence of what Darwin
published is now known to be correct.

>
> 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.

**Nope. Gravity is a fact. How gravity warps space/time is part of the
theory relating to how gravity operates.

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

**No. Evolution is a fact. All of the casuitive factors surrounding
evolution have yet to be determined.

Strictly speaking, Evolution will
> never be itself a fact.

**No. Evolution has occured. Evolution is a fact. All of the causitive
factors of evolution have yet to be determined.

It will always be a theory. Now it can be factual,
> but that is still not the same as being a fact.

**When this planet was formed, 4.5 Billion years ago, there was no life. 3
Billion years ago, the earliest forms of life appeared. Sometime, between
then and now, humans appeared. We MUST have evolved from somewhere.
Therefore, evolution occured.

>
>> 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.

**Those facts are described as 'Evolution'.

>
>> 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.

**Given that nothing in this universe is at rest, Newton got it wrong.

>
> 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.

**I agree that Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection, is still a theory. Much
has been shown to be correct, but some still remains to be proved.
Evolution, however, continues. Evolution is a fact.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>
>> No, Evolution will always be a theory. Observable changes over time can
>> be facts.
>
> The first electron microscopes appeared in the late 70s and early 80s that
> enabled us to see atoms for the first time. I guess that means that before
> we actually 'observed' them, the existence of atoms was a theory too?
>
> You need to take a science class again, Arny.

**I hate to burst your bubble with a random act of pedantry, but electron
microscopes cannot 'see' atoms. About the best they can manage is to 'see'
are some of the larger molecules. Atoms can only be 'seen' by a
scanning-tunnelling microscope (so far). Invented by IBM, as I recall, who
rearranged a few dozen atoms to form the company logo.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Ruud Broens]

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
...
:
: "Lionel" > wrote in message
: ...
: : > Well, the problem is, a change in the biological entity is coded in the
: : > DNA, so a mechanism of environment - to - change in genetic code
: : > with -better than random- good environmental fit characteristics...
: :
: : I guess you mean : is coded by the DNA in the chromosomes.
: :
: : What do we know about all the "useless" coded informations ?
: : Could we imagine that it can be quickly (re)activated in case of brutal
: : changes ?
:
: The process of celldivision in the so-called eukaryot celltype has a
: remarkable
: simularity between all sorts of species. This has led to the conclusion,
that
: this mechanism has remained virtually unchanged for at least a billion
years!
: Mutation of the genetic code takes place all the time, under various
: influences
: from both within and external to the biological entity. For certain 'core'
: mechanisms, such as division, there are very effective corrective
mechanisms.
: Just as you will find ice in a glass of hot water being present
: in a perfectly healthy body, cancercells are present - luckily, the
: 'countermeasure department' is quite efficient :-)
:
: Rudy

The description of the internal workings of such a eukaryot cell easily
matches the size of the printed phone-directory for New York,
so let's not pursue *that* further :-))
But basically, you have socalled introns, then the sequential code that
is transcripted, then exons. The transcripted codesegment is transported
to the factory (by RNA), as blueprint for some protein. One of the mutation
factors are retrovirii, through reverse-transcription of their RNA, causing
the insertion of new code in the DNA. A lot of the unused parts in the
code can be ascribed to retroviral mutation. Dystrofine, for example,
has over 2 million base-pairs, but only rougly 10000 are represented in
the mRNA to code for it.

Rudy

[Michael McKelvy]

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> : "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> :
> : > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> : > ...
> : >> "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.

[Lionel]

Ruud Broens a écrit :
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
> : Ruud Broens a écrit :
> : > "Lionel" > wrote in message
> : > ...
> : > : Ruud Broens a écrit :
> : > : > "Lionel" > wrote in message
> : > : > ...
> : > : > : Ruud Broens a écrit :
> : > : > : > 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'.
> : > : > :
> : > : > : Perhaps should we consider the hazard (and its perturbations in the
> : > : > : process of the "survival of the fittest") as the greatest
> : > : > : evolution-driving "force" ?
> : > : > : My point is that if the evolution have been regular (without major
> : > : > : accidents) the "survival of the fittest" process wouldn't have
> produce
> : > : > : such complex biological organizations.
> : > : > : The hazard would have play the role of "catalyst" of the evolution.
> : > : > :
> : > : > : > 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:)
> : > : > : > Rudy
> : > : > : >
> : > : > Yes, it's interesting to note, that many theories are based on a
> notion
> : > : > of gradual, linear development, while at the same time, the rather
> : > : > cataclysmic and violent events in the past have been reported through
> : > : > many different routes-of-research: this is another incoherency!
> : > : > But, whilst cataclysm can be seen as catalyst, it could only be a
> driving
> : > : > force if we allow for some kind of relatively fast feedback mechanism
> : > : > from environment to biological entity.
> : > :
> : > : This is the way I was seeing the "propulsing" reaction. ;-)
> : > : The most the change is suddain the most the feedback on the survival
> : > : biologic entity is fast.
> : > :
> : > : The evolution of the sea fish have been less important than terrestrial
> : > : animals because of less drastic and suddain changes.
> : > : I am not a specialist and the above is pure speculation.
> : > :
> : > :
> : > Well, the problem is, a change in the biological entity is coded in the
> : > DNA, so a mechanism of environment - to - change in genetic code
> : > with -better than random- good environmental fit characteristics...
> :
> : I guess you mean : is coded by the DNA in the chromosomes.
> :
> : What do we know about all the "useless" coded informations ?
> : Could we imagine that it can be quickly (re)activated in case of brutal
> : changes ?
>
> The process of celldivision in the so-called eukaryot celltype has a
> remarkable
> simularity between all sorts of species. This has led to the conclusion, that
> this mechanism has remained virtually unchanged for at least a billion years!
> Mutation of the genetic code takes place all the time, under various
> influences
> from both within and external to the biological entity. For certain 'core'
> mechanisms, such as division, there are very effective corrective mechanisms.
> Just as you will find ice in a glass of hot water being present
> in a perfectly healthy body, cancercells are present - luckily, the
> 'countermeasure department' is quite efficient :-)

Hey, that's not fair... Wait for me ! ;-)

[Lionel]

Ruud Broens a écrit :
> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
> ...
> :
> : "Lionel" > wrote in message
> : ...
> : : > Well, the problem is, a change in the biological entity is coded in the
> : : > DNA, so a mechanism of environment - to - change in genetic code
> : : > with -better than random- good environmental fit characteristics...
> : :
> : : I guess you mean : is coded by the DNA in the chromosomes.
> : :
> : : What do we know about all the "useless" coded informations ?
> : : Could we imagine that it can be quickly (re)activated in case of brutal
> : : changes ?
> :
> : The process of celldivision in the so-called eukaryot celltype has a
> : remarkable
> : simularity between all sorts of species. This has led to the conclusion,
> that
> : this mechanism has remained virtually unchanged for at least a billion
> years!
> : Mutation of the genetic code takes place all the time, under various
> : influences
> : from both within and external to the biological entity. For certain 'core'
> : mechanisms, such as division, there are very effective corrective
> mechanisms.
> : Just as you will find ice in a glass of hot water being present
> : in a perfectly healthy body, cancercells are present - luckily, the
> : 'countermeasure department' is quite efficient :-)
> :
> : Rudy
>
> The description of the internal workings of such a eukaryot cell easily
> matches the size of the printed phone-directory for New York,
> so let's not pursue *that* further :-))
> But basically, you have socalled introns, then the sequential code that
> is transcripted, then exons. The transcripted codesegment is transported
> to the factory (by RNA), as blueprint for some protein. One of the mutation
> factors are retrovirii, through reverse-transcription of their RNA, causing
> the insertion of new code in the DNA. A lot of the unused parts in the
> code can be ascribed to retroviral mutation. Dystrofine, for example,
> has over 2 million base-pairs, but only rougly 10000 are represented in
> the mRNA to code for it.


Go ahead don't wait...
I will join you on the top as soon as they will have installed a ladder
for me. :-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message


> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message

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

The irrelevant and wrong response:

> The first electron microscopes appeared in the late 70s and early 80s
> that enabled us to see atoms for the first time.

Bad science. Bad, bad science. The first Electon Microscope was built in the
1930s.

This is the first article that came up when I searched google on "first
electron microscope".

http://collections.ic.gc.ca/heirloom_series/volume4/258-261.htm

"While there is little doubt that a German physicist developed the basic
principles of the electron microscope, both Canada and the United States
claim to be first in making it practical. The evidence, however, clearly
favours Canada as two postgraduate students working in the Physics
Department of the University of Toronto with their physics professor,
between 1937 and 1939, developed the first ever transmission electron
microscope."

> You need to take a science class again, Arny.

If irony killed you'd have been dead years ago, Schizoid Boy.

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message

> Schizoid Man said:
>
>> The first electron microscopes appeared in the late 70s and early
>> 80s that enabled us to see atoms for the first time. I guess that
>> means that before we actually 'observed' them, the existence of
>> atoms was a theory too?
>>
>> You need to take a science class again, Arny.
>
> What good would that do? His textbooks lied to him.

Actually, Schizoid Boy told you a whopper of a false claim, and in your
ignorance and arrogance, you didn't catch it!

LOL!

[Arny Krueger]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message

> "Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>
>>> No, Evolution will always be a theory. Observable changes over time
>>> can be facts.
>>
>> The first electron microscopes appeared in the late 70s and early
>> 80s that enabled us to see atoms for the first time. I guess that
>> means that before we actually 'observed' them, the existence of
>> atoms was a theory too? You need to take a science class again, Arny.
>
> **I hate to burst your bubble with a random act of pedantry,

Nicely said, Trevor!

> but electron microscopes cannot 'see' atoms. About the best they can
> manage is to 'see' are some of the larger molecules.

Agreed.

Furthermore as I showed in another post, the Electron Microscope was
invented in the late 1930s, about a half a century earlier than Schizoid Boy
thinks it was.

> Atoms can only be 'seen' by a scanning-tunnelling microscope (so far).
> Invented by
> IBM, as I recall, who rearranged a few dozen atoms to form the company
> logo.

Again agreed that the scanning-tunnelling microscope can view and manipulate
atoms.

http://physics.nist.gov/GenInt/STM/text.html

"The same principle was later used in the scanning tunneling microscope. The
remaining barrier to the development of that instrument was the need for
more adequate vibration isolation, in order to permit stable positioning of
the tip above the surface. This difficult problem in mechanical design was
surmounted through the work of Gerd Binnig and Heinrich Rohrer, IBM Research
Laboratory, Zurich, Switzerland, who in 1986 shared in the Nobel Prize in
Physics for their discovery of atomic resolution in scanning tunneling
microscopy. In their announcement of the award, the Royal Swedish Academy of
Sciences recognized the pioneering studies of Russell Young."

[Clyde Slick]

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

> 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.

Hmm, that backward methodology sounds like pcabx methodology!

[dave weil]

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 05:06:41 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message

>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>
>>> No, Evolution will always be a theory. Observable changes over time
>>> can be facts.
>
>The irrelevant and wrong response:
>
>> The first electron microscopes appeared in the late 70s and early 80s
>> that enabled us to see atoms for the first time.
>
>Bad science. Bad, bad science. The first Electon Microscope was built in the
>1930s.

Bad, bad science there Arnold. The first Electron Microscope couldn't
"see atoms". So he is correct and you are wrong. I hope that Lionel
won't mind this little bit of pedantry to correct your *incorrect*
pedantry.

>This is the first article that came up when I searched google on "first
>electron microscope".
>
>http://collections.ic.gc.ca/heirloom_series/volume4/258-261.htm
>
>"While there is little doubt that a German physicist developed the basic
>principles of the electron microscope, both Canada and the United States
>claim to be first in making it practical. The evidence, however, clearly
>favours Canada as two postgraduate students working in the Physics
>Department of the University of Toronto with their physics professor,
>between 1937 and 1939, developed the first ever transmission electron
>microscope."
>
>> You need to take a science class again, Arny.
>
>If irony killed you'd have been dead years ago, Schizoid Boy.

The irony is on you - since you're supposed to know all about science.
Unfortunately, your English language comprehension skills let you down
yet again. If would be frustrating for you if you had the slightest
shred of self-awareness. Fortunately, you've built up a tidy defense.

Will we see an acknowlegement that you were wrong and an apology to
SM? I doubt it but time will tell.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 05:11:34 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message

>> "Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> No, Evolution will always be a theory. Observable changes over time
>>>> can be facts.
>>>
>>> The first electron microscopes appeared in the late 70s and early
>>> 80s that enabled us to see atoms for the first time. I guess that
>>> means that before we actually 'observed' them, the existence of
>>> atoms was a theory too? You need to take a science class again, Arny.
>>
>> **I hate to burst your bubble with a random act of pedantry,
>
>Nicely said, Trevor!
>
>> but electron microscopes cannot 'see' atoms. About the best they can
>> manage is to 'see' are some of the larger molecules.
>
>Agreed.

http://www.labonline.com.au/science/feature_article/item_112002a.asp

http://www.physics.purdue.edu/nanophys/images/mos2.jpg

Those are single atoms on there, pals. But more on that in a minute.

>Furthermore as I showed in another post, the Electron Microscope was
>invented in the late 1930s, about a half a century earlier than Schizoid Boy
>thinks it was.

He never claimed that it was invented in the late 70s and early 80s.
He said this:

The first electron microscopes appeared in the late 70s and early 80s
*that enabled us to see atoms for the first time*.

This is speaking of a specific type of electron microscope. I guess
you stopped reading before the word "that".

>> Atoms can only be 'seen' by a scanning-tunnelling microscope (so far).
>> Invented by
>> IBM, as I recall, who rearranged a few dozen atoms to form the company
>> logo.
>
>Again agreed that the scanning-tunnelling microscope can view and manipulate
>atoms.

Then how can you agree with the statement:

"but electron microscopes cannot 'see' atoms. About the best they can
manage is to 'see' are some of the larger molecules".

>http://physics.nist.gov/GenInt/STM/text.html
>
>"The same principle was later used in the scanning tunneling microscope. The
>remaining barrier to the development of that instrument was the need for
>more adequate vibration isolation, in order to permit stable positioning of
>the tip above the surface. This difficult problem in mechanical design was
>surmounted through the work of Gerd Binnig and Heinrich Rohrer, IBM Research
>Laboratory, Zurich, Switzerland, who in 1986 shared in the Nobel Prize in
>Physics for their discovery of atomic resolution in scanning tunneling
>microscopy. In their announcement of the award, the Royal Swedish Academy of
>Sciences recognized the pioneering studies of Russell Young."

You see, according to Nobelprize.org:

"The Scanning Tunneling Microscope
The scanning tunneling microscope (STM) is a type of electron
microscope that shows three-dimensional images of a sample. In the
STM, the structure of a surface is studied using a stylus that scans
the surface at a fixed distance from it".

Ooops, pedantry shot down in flames. Sorry guys, you lose. Trumped by
the good folks who bring you the Nobel prize.

[Fella]

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?

Of course it does. "Changes over time" could possibly, in a simplistic
way, represent the constantly increasing entropy in the universe, but it
would be way off in terms of the theory of evolution.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>
>> 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.
>
> Hmm, that backward methodology sounds like pcabx methodology!
No, ABX was designed to detect differences.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Schizoid Man" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>
>> A theory is a collection of facts, so evolution is a theory.
>> the·o·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
>> n. pl. the·o·ries
>> 1.. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of
>> facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is
>> widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural
>> phenomena.
>
> Therefore, putting stickers that say "Evolution is a theory, not a fact"
> is meaningless since according to you a theory is a collection of facts.
> Please explain this conundrum.
>
Take it up wioth the dictionary folks, but don't confuse me with the
creationist folks. IMO they are worse than the eco-scammers.
>

[Sander deWaal]

"Schizoid Man" > said:

>The first electron microscopes appeared in the late 70s and early 80s that
>enabled us to see atoms for the first time.

Better make that the early '50s.
The theory behind electron scan microscopes was known since the '20s.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Lionel]

Sander deWaal a écrit :
> "Schizoid Man" > said:
>
>
>>The first electron microscopes appeared in the late 70s and early 80s that
>>enabled us to see atoms for the first time.
>
>
> Better make that the early '50s.
> The theory behind electron scan microscopes was known since the '20s.

That's true.

[Lionel]

Lionel a écrit :
> Sander deWaal a écrit :
>
>> "Schizoid Man" > said:
>>
>>
>>> The first electron microscopes appeared in the late 70s and early 80s
>>> that enabled us to see atoms for the first time.
>>
>>
>>
>> Better make that the early '50s.
>> The theory behind electron scan microscopes was known since the '20s.
>
>
> That's true.

Ooops sorry, excess of enthousiasm... I cannot remember why I have
written that !

[Arny Krueger]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

> "Schizoid Man" > said:
>
>> The first electron microscopes appeared in the late 70s and early
>> 80s that enabled us to see atoms for the first time.
>
> Better make that the early '50s.

Wrong, late 30s.

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blmicroscope.htm

The introduction of the electron microscope in the 1930's filled the bill.
Co-invented by Germans, Max Knott and Ernst Ruska in 1931, Ernst Ruska was
awarded half of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1986 for his invention.


http://collections.ic.gc.ca/heirloom_series/volume4/258-261.htm

"While there is little doubt that a German physicist developed the basic
principles of the electron microscope, both Canada and the United States
claim to be first in making it practical. The evidence, however, clearly
favours Canada as two postgraduate students working in the Physics
Department of the University of Toronto with their physics professor,
between 1937 and 1939, developed the first ever transmission electron
microscope."


> The theory behind electron scan microscopes was known since the '20s.

Agreed.

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/IlyaSherman.shtml

"In 1926, Hans Busch discovered that magnetic fields could act as lenses by
causing electron beams to converge to a focus. A few years later, Max Knoll
and Ernst Ruska made the first modern prototype of an electron microscope."

[dave weil]

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:55:19 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

>> "Schizoid Man" > said:
>>
>>> The first electron microscopes appeared in the late 70s and early
>>> 80s that enabled us to see atoms for the first time.
>>
>> Better make that the early '50s.
>
>Wrong, late 30s.

Wrong. Couldn't view atoms in the late 30s.

[Lionel]

dave weil a écrit :
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:55:19 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

>>
>>>"Schizoid Man" > said:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The first electron microscopes appeared in the late 70s and early
>>>>80s that enabled us to see atoms for the first time.
>>>
>>>Better make that the early '50s.
>>
>>Wrong, late 30s.
>
>
> Wrong. Couldn't view atoms in the late 30s.

Since you cannot see your dick while you are ****ing, you shouldn't
speak about nanometers things !!!

[dave weil]

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 22:58:07 +0100, Lionel >
wrote:

>dave weil a écrit :
>> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:55:19 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

>>>
>>>>"Schizoid Man" > said:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The first electron microscopes appeared in the late 70s and early
>>>>>80s that enabled us to see atoms for the first time.
>>>>
>>>>Better make that the early '50s.
>>>
>>>Wrong, late 30s.
>>
>>
>> Wrong. Couldn't view atoms in the late 30s.
>
>Since you cannot see your dick while you are ****ing, you shouldn't
>speak about nanometers things !!!

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

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

[Lionel]

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. :-)

[Lionel]

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. ;-)

[[email protected]]

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

[[email protected]]

Trevor Wilson wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "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

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> "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

[[email protected]]

Ruud Broens wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> : "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> :
> : > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> : > ...
> : >> "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

[[email protected]]

Michael McKelvy wrote:
> "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > : "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in
message
> > :
> > : > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > : > ...
> > : >> "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

[Ruud Broens]

> 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 ?

[Clyde Slick]

"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

[[email protected]]

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

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[Arny Krueger]

> 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.

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[Clyde Slick]

"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.

[Ruud Broens]

> 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

[[email protected]]

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.

[[email protected]]

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

[[email protected]]

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

[Ruud Broens]

> 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

[[email protected]]

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

[Arny Krueger]

> 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.

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[Joseph Oberlander]

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.

[[email protected]]

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

[MINe 109]

In article >,
George M. Middius > wrote:

> Joseph Oberlander said:
>
> > Gheez.
>
> Yak butter?

Yurt!

Stephen

[[email protected]]

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

[Joseph Oberlander]

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> Joseph Oberlander said:
>
>
>>Gheez.
>
>
> Yak butter?
>

No, Sasquatch toe-jam.

[Ruud Broens]

> 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

[[email protected]]

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.

[Ruud Broens]

> 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

[[email protected]]

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

[Clyde Slick]

"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.

[Lionel]

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.

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[Clyde Slick]

"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.
>

[Clyde Slick]

"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.

[Ruud Broens]

> 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

[[email protected]]

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

[Bruce J. Richman]

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

[Ruud Broens]

> wrote in message
ups.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...
: > : > : > :
: > : > : > : 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
:
Unless you wrote one, no :) *your* rendering it does say
Rudy

[[email protected]]

Ruud Broens wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.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...
> : > : > : > :
> : > : > : > : 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
> :
> Unless you wrote one, no :) *your* rendering it does say

You seem to be confused again. It's Darwin's theory not mine. Why would
you want my take on his theory when you can read the original for
yourself? This much I will tell you about Darwin's theory of natural
selection. It has nothing to do with ID or your post promoting ID. If
you do read Darwin's theory of natural selection and grasp it's meaning
it should quite obvious that it has nothing to do with ID. Any
criticism of ID is not in effect a crticism of Darwin's theory of
natural selection. Do you understand now?

Scott Wheeler

[Ruud Broens]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
:
: Ruud Broens wrote:
: > : > : > : > "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
: > :
: > Unless you wrote one, no :) *your* rendering it does say
:
: You seem to be confused again. It's Darwin's theory not mine. Why would
: you want my take on his theory when you can read the original for
: yourself?

How can i know what you understand of that theory by reading the
original, Scott ? Nothing to do with confusion, just finding a common
ground based on your words describin' the theory.
o, well, maybe another time, another subject..
Rudy

: This much I will tell you about Darwin's theory of natural
: selection. It has nothing to do with ID or your post promoting ID. If
: you do read Darwin's theory of natural selection and grasp it's meaning
: it should quite obvious that it has nothing to do with ID. Any
: criticism of ID is not in effect a crticism of Darwin's theory of
: natural selection. Do you understand now?
:
: Scott Wheeler
:

[[email protected]]

Ruud Broens wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> :
> : Ruud Broens wrote:
> : > : > : > : > "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
> : > :
> : > Unless you wrote one, no :) *your* rendering it does say
> :
> : You seem to be confused again. It's Darwin's theory not mine. Why
would
> : you want my take on his theory when you can read the original for
> : yourself?
>
> How can i know what you understand of that theory by reading the
> original, Scott ?

If you knew the theory my comments about it and ID should have tipped
you off. The thing is, I'm kind of doubting you know much about it.

Nothing to do with confusion, just finding a common
> ground based on your words describin' the theory.

If you can't find common ground on what I have already said about it
and how it relates to ID then you won't likely find any common ground
at all.



> o, well, maybe another time, another subject..


I"ll keep an eye out.


> : This much I will tell you about Darwin's theory of natural
> : selection. It has nothing to do with ID or your post promoting ID.
If
> : you do read Darwin's theory of natural selection and grasp it's
meaning
> : it should quite obvious that it has nothing to do with ID. Any
> : criticism of ID is not in effect a crticism of Darwin's theory of
> : natural selection. Do you understand now?
> :
> : Scott Wheeler
> :

Scott Wheeler