talk.origins Google Group

Re: Science be damned!

2008-11-20T20:20:55Z

gee. where is the intelligence in the mechanism? are you saying
proteins are intelligent?
seems you're willing to call ANYTHING intelligent. even yourself
and that's a tragedy

Re: SETI and the Detection of ID

2008-11-20T20:16:08Z

< snip >
Science doesn't require "a lot" of knowledge (whatever that subjective
term means) before one can start to use it with better than random
odds of success. SETI scientists haven't ruled out all possible non-
intelligent natural processes as potential explanations for the types
of radio signals they are looking for. All that they have done is say

Re: A Few Questions For Ray Martinez

2008-11-20T20:14:49Z

I'm prepared to argue, from a number of viewpoints, that dogs and wolves
are valid and separate species, of course none of these data have
anything whatsoever to do with RayRay's mindless rantings. RayRay must
dispute my views because I'm an atheist/evolutionist. If he agrees
with me he is in league with a minion of Satan, if he disagrees he's

Re: SETI and the Detection of ID

2008-11-20T20:17:35Z

think we can interest the discovery institute into opening up a
fairy's section?

Re: C-14 spike from nuclear testing.

2008-11-20T20:15:20Z

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 06:00:42 -0800 (PST), "Dr.GH"
The chart is interesting. What it gives is component percentage
which is relevant for radioactive brains - it is the percentage
of carbon in your glowing think gelatin that matters. However
what the chart doesn't tell us is the decay in the absolute

Re: Message by Mark Gosling to CreationEvolutionDesign about: "Micro

2008-11-20T20:03:06Z

In message
<c39d0cd8-38c5-4f49-aa89-6899d f419...@w34g2000yqm.googlegrou ps.com>,
Woland <jerryd...@gmail.com> writes
I recall reading here that the earliest use of the term microevolution
was not in the modern sense, but meant what we would now call
development.

Re: creationist funds bigotry

2008-11-20T20:09:10Z

Why would they want to force one particular definition of marriage to be
the "traditional" one, if not motivated by hatred towards gays?

Re: SETI and the Detection of ID

2008-11-20T20:06:47Z

[snip]
Nope. If we found something on the earth that was being made in the
absence of human technology, that fact alone would exclude its utility
in a search for ETI (ETI with at least human-level technology) even if
we had no idea at all about what mechanism was producing it. For it
to be useful in the search for SETI, you would have to demonstrate

Re: Science be damned!

2008-11-20T20:01:20Z

Too bad that the press release DOES NOT SUPPORT INTELLIGENT DESIGN
'theory' !
Nor does it deal with origin of life.
A part from the PRESS RELEASE you missed :
"Chakrabarti and Rabitz analyzed these observations of the proteins'
behavior from a mathematical standpoint, concluding that it would be
statistically impossible for this self-correcting behavior to be

Re: the 'roo in you

2008-11-20T19:56:39Z

That actually doesn't imply genetic control of morphology. The entire
genome could be junk DNA and it would still follow the tree, as would
morphology. It would be a nice example of why correlation doesn't equal
causation, the match between genome and morphology being due merely to a
third factor, having evolved on the same branching tree.

Re: creationist funds bigotry

2008-11-20T19:57:03Z

Message-ID: <slrngibg96.126.henize@ITPREMP 17X.cb.lucent.com>
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.1 (Linux)
Path:
NNTP-Posting-Host: itpremp17x.cb.lucent.com
X-Trace: news.alcatel.com 1227211022 itpremp17x.cb.lucent.com (20 Nov 2008 13:57:02 -0600)
Lines: 15
I wanna know too. I keep hearing this crap, but no one quotes anything but

Re: SETI and the Detection of ID

2008-11-20T19:54:06Z

On Nov 19, 4:40 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselectio n.
[snip]
SETI is based on the assumption that certain products or processes or
modifications of natural produces or processes can be produced by
intelligent agency but cannot be produced in the known absence of such
agency. That is, some things, processes, or identifiable features can

Re: A Few Questions For Ray Martinez

2008-11-20T19:52:24Z

To be honest, I don't think even Gene Scott would agree with Ray these
days. Remember, Gene was a Ph.D. and he was by no means stupid. I
doubt that he believed many of the things he preached, but he knew how
to relate to his audience, and how to make a buck off them.
The way Ray has deteriorated, I doubt very much that Gene, if he were

Re: SETI and the Detection of ID

2008-11-20T19:52:21Z

but it's YOUR contention that the origin of DNA is as the result of
ID. and it's YOUR contention that changes to DNA are the result of ID.
in order to say that you need to exclude natural processes. and we do
not know enough about DNA to do that
the reason we know about egyptians and how they can change granite is

Chez watt Re: Creation agreeable to carbon 14

2008-11-20T19:46:47Z

I cannot believe I got to this one first.
In the category, You Must Miss a Lot of Lunch Dates: