Follow up Alright, All You Dashing, Swaggering Bush Pilots

(pac plyer) wrote:

Let's just say God transforms species then, O.K? Oh Ye of little
faith! Do you own a cat or a dog? Those weren't around till man
started selectively breeding coyotes and wildcats. Send me one of
their puppies and I will cross-breed it with my little Dahshound (sp?)
You will witness a micro example of natural selection in action.
Pigeon breeders in England invent new forms of life all the time.
Birds with feathers on their feet etc. Evolution, my good Christian
is all around you, but you are bound and determined to convince us
that it is a simple tree you are embracing and not the first leg of a
much much more complex giant elephant. ;-)

Two things...

One - you're saying that intelligent control and manipulation of
species can beget new species. I think you agree with the bible then.
The only thing you have wrong about evolution is you think it's
random.

Two - the examples you give are clearly NOT evolution. They're
adaptation and selective breeding.

What's unclear (and Darwin hisownself even admitted he didn't have a
clue why) is why there aren't fossils or other records of all the
transitional life forms between the species we DO know about. And do
you ever wonder why there is SO much proof of species coming and going
at a frantic pace even as recently as the last ice ages, but that
nowhere in the history of mankind has there ever been any observed
evidence of evolution?

Kind of a conundrum - if it happens really fast, we'd see it. If it
happens really slow, we'd see the fossil evidence.

Think about a bat. Evolutionists claim it all started when a rat got
into homebuilding (rah content). Thing is, you'd end up with
thousands of generations that couldn't walk very well and couldn't fly
very well in between (kind of like some of the rah regulars).

Heh.

Mark Hickey

pac plyer wrote:
If you where really knowledgeable about history, you would know that the
colloquial term "Moron" came from Al Capone's 1920's. And if you bother
to read text from the period, you would find the term used to be "Moran"
with an "a-n" after the infamous mobster John Moran, who, just couldn't
put the dots together on a regular basis.

What a crock. The English word is derived from the Greek word moron, neuter
of moros, meaning stupid or foolish. I don't have an OED at hand to see how
far back it does in English usage, but it appeared in a Mirriam-Webster
dictionary in 1910.

"Jerry Springer" wrote in message
nk.net...


Eric Miller wrote:
"Mark Hickey" wrote in message
...

Folk that think evolution and religion are diametrical opposites, should
take note that the Catholic church accepts the theory of evolution.

Eric


Now that is funny, I should believe just because the Catholic church
says so? I could go on about the Catholic church but well leave it at
that.

Read what I said again...

I did *not* say:
---------------
The theory of evolution is correct because the Catholic church said so (and
the Catholic church is infallible...whether or not your Catholic... or even
Christian).

I *did* say:
------------
There's nothing incompatible or mutually exclusive about the theory of
evolution and religion.

Russell Kent wrote in message ...
Corrie wrote:

If you don't bother to check enroute winds and weather, TFRs, and
runway conditions at your destination, you run the risk of some nasty
surprises, right? But if you don't know and don't care where you're
going to spend *eternity*, why would you bother to check SIGMETS?
That's my point. The danger of an attitude of "I don't know and I
don't care."

Ah but you presume that because I care not to ponder the imponderable ever after, that I'm therefore willing to give up
the here & now without a struggle. To skewer you with your own barb, I hope that you put more logic in your flight
planning than you do into your postings.

Russell Kent

Russell, reread my original message. I presume nothing of the sort.
I said that I HOPE you don't apply the same attitude to flight
planning. If you're going to take issue with my arguments, do me the
courtesy of quoting me accurately.

Corrie

No, you're mistaken Corrie. I was not referring to the actual
Crusades of the Middle Ages.

I always thought that the rule was if it's capitalized, it refers to
the medieval editions. But you are correct - historically, religion
is probably the most popular excuse for war. Personally, I think
religion was invented by Satan to keep us fueding over
inconsequentials rathe than persuing a relationship with the Creator.

My tongue-in-cheek hypo, about what really happened to Grog was
supposed to make you laugh.

Remember the smileys next time! :-D

But my hypothesis that Homo Sapiens won out over the stronger
Neanderthal through the evolutionary technique of religious fervor is
entertaining, wouldn't you say? I think Corky is right that religion
is a mechanism of natural selection. (and yes, I agree with those who
say some inbreeding occurred in the same Phylum between "Grog" and
Sapiens.)

It bears some consideration. Have you read "The Origin of
Conciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" or "Ishmael?"
Natural selection (and artificial selection) certainly work within
fairly homogenous populations. But if the quest for a relationship
with the supernatural had survival value 20,000 years ago or even
2,000 years ago, why would it not have that same survival value now?
Mazlow's ladder applies to Neandertal as well as to us today. People
haven't really changed very much, at least as far as we can tell.
(I'm reminded of the Egyptian inscription in the collection of the
British museum. An official's second wife scratched out the
references to his first wife...)

Now about "Moran." It's unfortunate you have deteriorated into a
spelling troll so quickly.

Sorry, I'm a teacher and a parent. It's automatic. :-)

If you where really knowledgeable about history,
you would know that the colloquial term "Moron" came from Al Capone's
1920's. And if you bother to read text from the period, you would find
the term used to be "Moran" with an "a-n" after the infamous mobster
John Moran, who, just couldn't put the dots together on a regular
basis.

I was never that interested in gangster history, sorry. Aviation
history (of course), ancient civilizations, medieval Europe, a bit of
Asian history, but not much on early-20th-century America. Blame my
junior-high history teacher, I guess. We read "The Jungle," watched
"The Grapes of Wrath," and read about labor disputes. It all sort of
ran together. :-/

Thanks for the history lesson - I've long been fascinated by
etymologies.

[taken out of sequence]
you illustrate exactly my point about
the fallacy of taking written text like the King James version of the
Bible so literally.

ahh-ah-ah-ah! Gotcha. I *don't* advocate taking the KJV literally.
Never have. I advocate *good scholarship* - looking at the oldest and
most complete texts, comparing them to find and consider alternate
renderings, looking at the literary and historical context, the
grammar and word usage, etc. It's a lot more work than simply quoting
KJV. Fortunately, a good deal of that effort has been collected in
*modern* translations such as the NIV and RSV.

I'd be more than happy to discuss the accuracy and authenticity of the
Biblical texts. Bottom line is that if you throw out the Bible as
"unreliable" - using the scholarly critera applied to any ancient
document, such as a Roman paymaster's records - then you also have to
throw out everything written by Socrates, Plato, Euclydies,
Aristophanes, Aristotle, Julius Ceasar, Pliny, the Venerable Bede,
etc.

PLEEEESE don' throw me in dat briar patch, Brer Fox! :-D


Only way out is to have an even more ruthless religion that spends all their time developing bigger mind-controlling weapons.

What, pray tell, are the ruthless and mind-controlling aspects of the
Sermon on the Mount? On the other hand, you are *quite* right with
respect to secular humanism, with its weapon of the mind-controlling
prayer-free public school and the ruthlessly anti-religious liberal
university.

Most of us were brain-washed in Sunday School as adolescents Corrie.

Actually, that was when I began to abandon the religion I was raised
in.

Keeping religious displays out of schools is in keeping with the
governments' job of separating Church and State. Kids can still pray,
they just aren't allowed to disrupt others with religious displays
designed to pressure those of other faiths.

Depends on your definition of "pressure." Learning how to put a
rubber on a cucumber or give a BJ in the back seat is "comprehensive
health education" according to some. But saying grace before meals is
"pressure." Where are we going, and why are we in this handbasket?

It's about free choice.

You support educational choice for parents, then? (no, I'm not really
trying to drag this that far OT, but I can't pass up a striaght line.)

I don't want a teacher to countermand the religious beliefs of our immigrants.

So now they countermand the religious beliefs of our citizens, and
that's ok?

Thank God though as Adults we have an un-coerced choice.

Agreed. I just read that the Red Chinese have arrested a few more
Christians for the crime of praying in their homes.


Likewise enjoying intelligent discussion of things that matter,

Corrie

Ok enough of this bs here in RAH, take it back to your bible NG Corrie,
You don't know when to stop do you?

Corrie wrote:
No, you're mistaken Corrie. I was not referring to the actual
Crusades of the Middle Ages.


I always thought that the rule was if it's capitalized, it refers to
the medieval editions. But you are correct - historically, religion
is probably the most popular excuse for war. Personally, I think
religion was invented by Satan to keep us fueding over
inconsequentials rathe than persuing a relationship with the Creator.


My tongue-in-cheek hypo, about what really happened to Grog was

supposed to make you laugh.

Remember the smileys next time! :-D


But my hypothesis that Homo Sapiens won out over the stronger
Neanderthal through the evolutionary technique of religious fervor is
entertaining, wouldn't you say? I think Corky is right that religion
is a mechanism of natural selection. (and yes, I agree with those who
say some inbreeding occurred in the same Phylum between "Grog" and
Sapiens.)


It bears some consideration. Have you read "The Origin of
Conciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" or "Ishmael?"
Natural selection (and artificial selection) certainly work within
fairly homogenous populations. But if the quest for a relationship
with the supernatural had survival value 20,000 years ago or even
2,000 years ago, why would it not have that same survival value now?
Mazlow's ladder applies to Neandertal as well as to us today. People
haven't really changed very much, at least as far as we can tell.
(I'm reminded of the Egyptian inscription in the collection of the
British museum. An official's second wife scratched out the
references to his first wife...)


Now about "Moran." It's unfortunate you have deteriorated into a
spelling troll so quickly.


Sorry, I'm a teacher and a parent. It's automatic. :-)


If you where really knowledgeable about history,
you would know that the colloquial term "Moron" came from Al Capone's
1920's. And if you bother to read text from the period, you would find
the term used to be "Moran" with an "a-n" after the infamous mobster
John Moran, who, just couldn't put the dots together on a regular
basis.


I was never that interested in gangster history, sorry. Aviation
history (of course), ancient civilizations, medieval Europe, a bit of
Asian history, but not much on early-20th-century America. Blame my
junior-high history teacher, I guess. We read "The Jungle," watched
"The Grapes of Wrath," and read about labor disputes. It all sort of
ran together. :-/

Thanks for the history lesson - I've long been fascinated by
etymologies.

[taken out of sequence]

you illustrate exactly my point about
the fallacy of taking written text like the King James version of the
Bible so literally.


ahh-ah-ah-ah! Gotcha. I *don't* advocate taking the KJV literally.
Never have. I advocate *good scholarship* - looking at the oldest and
most complete texts, comparing them to find and consider alternate
renderings, looking at the literary and historical context, the
grammar and word usage, etc. It's a lot more work than simply quoting
KJV. Fortunately, a good deal of that effort has been collected in
*modern* translations such as the NIV and RSV.

I'd be more than happy to discuss the accuracy and authenticity of the
Biblical texts. Bottom line is that if you throw out the Bible as
"unreliable" - using the scholarly critera applied to any ancient
document, such as a Roman paymaster's records - then you also have to
throw out everything written by Socrates, Plato, Euclydies,
Aristophanes, Aristotle, Julius Ceasar, Pliny, the Venerable Bede,
etc.

PLEEEESE don' throw me in dat briar patch, Brer Fox! :-D



Only way out is to have an even more ruthless religion that spends all their time developing bigger mind-controlling weapons.

What, pray tell, are the ruthless and mind-controlling aspects of the
Sermon on the Mount? On the other hand, you are *quite* right with
respect to secular humanism, with its weapon of the mind-controlling
prayer-free public school and the ruthlessly anti-religious liberal
university.

Most of us were brain-washed in Sunday School as adolescents Corrie.


Actually, that was when I began to abandon the religion I was raised
in.


Keeping religious displays out of schools is in keeping with the
governments' job of separating Church and State. Kids can still pray,
they just aren't allowed to disrupt others with religious displays
designed to pressure those of other faiths.


Depends on your definition of "pressure." Learning how to put a
rubber on a cucumber or give a BJ in the back seat is "comprehensive
health education" according to some. But saying grace before meals is
"pressure." Where are we going, and why are we in this handbasket?


It's about free choice.


You support educational choice for parents, then? (no, I'm not really
trying to drag this that far OT, but I can't pass up a striaght line.)


I don't want a teacher to countermand the religious beliefs of our immigrants.


So now they countermand the religious beliefs of our citizens, and
that's ok?


Thank God though as Adults we have an un-coerced choice.


Agreed. I just read that the Red Chinese have arrested a few more
Christians for the crime of praying in their homes.


Likewise enjoying intelligent discussion of things that matter,

Corrie

Jerry Springer wrote:

Ok enough of this bs here in RAH, take it back to your bible NG Corrie,
You don't know when to stop do you?

Good point Mr. Springer but why didn't you trim his post...???????

Corrie wrote:

Not surprisingly, Cap'n Rich S. came up with a jpeg of a '50's era
magazine describing the technique in detail.

Where? I'd love to see the article.

This is as pressing an issue for me as was, years back, the question of
what the mannequin's name was in "The Monkees" television show. ;-)

- Scott


In brief, fly turns
around a point while the passenger winches down a bag on a looong
clothesline. Keep flying in circles until the ground crew
empties/fills it, then crank it back up.

Then go fly straight and level for a while with the windows
open.....urk.


Big John wrote in message . ..
Have heard about the rope trick also.

Seached the Internet and didn't find anything. Have passed the problem
to some friends. Will see what they can come up with.

If I had to guess, I'd say it happened many many years ago with some
of those olden birds.

Big John

Question, though. I had always thought it was missionary pilots, but
perhaps not -- who perfected the art of flying around in circles trailing a
rope in order to drop off and pick up things from the ground? I can't find
any references to the technique. What the heck would I enter in a google
search?

"Corrie" wrote
Proponents of intelligent design theory don't engage in
pseudo-science. Like our materialist coutnerparts, we observe the
evidence and predict outcomes. (Testing evolutionary hypotheses is
done by observation, since you can't very well set up experiments over
timescales of millions of years, no matter what your persuasion.)

We simply come to a different conclusion. But the materialist
orthodoxy is so entrenched - is mind-controlling too strong a term? -
than any deviation from Darwinian Holy Writ is labeled heretical.
Futher, the heretics are made the target of viscious, mean-spirited ad
hominem attacks. That's bigotry, plain and simple.


Evolution - macro-evolution between phyla or orders - IS only theory.
It is NOT proven. The evidence can be interpreted in more than one
way. But it is taught to children as established fact, and those who
dare deviate are persecuted. Yeah, I have a problem with that. It's
Scopes in reverse. Someone said something about people should be able
to make informed choices?

From a purist standpoint, *anyone* entrenched in a belief system, no matter
what their title or beliefs, is not engaging in science. Period. Science is
open to criticism. Faith (and that includes faith *in* science) is not. By
definition, there are no unassailable beliefs in science.

My comments about pseudo-science not observing and predicting was a general
comment directed especially at the pyramid-crystal-magnet-homeopathic crowd
that couldn't conduct a double-blind study if they performed their tests at
midnight in a coal mine after plunging red-hot spikes into their eyes...
(Now, ask me how I *really* feel )

Testability is a cornerstone of science. And while macro-evolution doesn't
lend itself well to testing, in theory it could be tested, demonstrated and
proven.You can *not* test and prove intelligent design, that's an article of
faith. Untestable hypotheses are useless and are the hallmark junk science.
The classic cases are mediums, spiritualists and mentalists whose powers
mysterious vanish when subjected to controlled conditions citing "hostile"
environments. "Some things have to be belived to be seen" is not an
acceptable tenet of scientific inquiry.

Personally speaking, I see no tautological difference between saying first
there was a creator who then created the universe and saying first there was
the universe which exists without a creator. For God's sake (pun fully
intended ), use Occam's razor and cut out the middle man!

We should find the anthropomorphic principle to be mutually acceptable.
Acceptable to me because I can interpret it to state that if conditions
*weren't* just right, we wouldn't be here right now (discussing evolution on
RAH).
Acceptable to you because you can interpret it to state that some higher
power made the conditions just right (so we can discuss evolution on RAH).

Remember the word "theory" has different meaning in the vernacular than it
does in the scientific community, and this causes a lot of confusion.
In common parlance, "theory" means unproven, could be true, who knows?
Scientifically, "theory" means a generally accepted principle without any
major contradictions.
You don't hear much controversy over the Pythagorean Theorem

I wouldn't exactly call creationists (honest question: is that the old term
for intelligent design theorists?) persecuted.
However, the fact is they *don't* practice science and for that reason have
excluded *themselves* from the scientific community. If you don't play by
the rules, you don't get to join the club; it's that simple. If I use
steroids, I can't try out for the women's Olympic track and field because a)
steriods aren't allowed b) I'm not a woman and c) I'd get my butt whooped
regardless of a) and b)... However, that doesn't equate my exclusion from
women's track and field with bigotry.

Again, personally speaking, I'd rather children were taught that the world
is subject to change and here is a mechanism which can explain it, than they
were taught the world was created 6007 years ago, hasn't changed since and
BTW God is a big trickster (for creating fossil records, background
radition, etc)... YMMV

Eric

Most of us were brain-washed in Sunday School as adolescents Corrie.
Keeping religious displays out of schools is in keeping with the
governments' job of separating Church and State. Kids can still pray,
they just aren't allowed to disrupt others with religious displays
designed to pressure those of other faiths. If it's still too
upsetting to a Zealot parent, then you can put your kid in a private
monk school or something. It's about free choice. I don't want a
teacher to countermand the religious beliefs of our immigrants. It
used to be o.k. when a region was: all Puritan for example. It's
different now. Things had to change.

Thank God though as Adults we have an un-coerced choice. This
country was founded on the principles of Free Masons who believed in
religious tolerance above any traditional religion, which is IMHO one
of the biggest reasons why we have been so successful as a truly free
people.

For "Pollsters" who may be lurking, I do not desire to discuss this
with earthbound morANs over at alt.religion. So Corrie, Corky,
Oldcop, Bernie, others, feel free to comment here, or change my mind
about anything.


Hey Pac, you a Traveling Man? Any of you for that matter?