I hate environmentalists

Alan Browne wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:

OK, so YOU explain how evolution accounts for the ability of a species
that 'evolved' on the African plains can easily survive at high
altitudes, and in extreme cold. Go ahead, I'm waiting.

It's not that extreme as a difference but could not occur at all were it
not for man's intelligence and abilities at hunting as well.
Further, humans have never dwelled at those altitudes, only visited
briefly (days/weeks at most). I don't know what the highest altitude
that people dwell at, but I don't believe it to be over about 10,000 ft
or thereabouts. That is about economics (food mainly).

Said intelligence is in large part due to migrations due to cyclic ice
ages which force migrations over long distances, through wild
temperature changes and through mountain passes at altitude as well.
Whatever intolerance to altitude would have been weeded out in those
migrations. Indeed today, the Indians of the Andes have much more
capacity for high altitude than most people - though it's not clear to
me if this is a genetic or developed state.

In terms of air pressure 17,000 feet is about 1/2 of the atmosphere -
really not a huge excursion in terms of getting oxygen into the blood
stream - and humans certainly do not dwell there for very long. Pilots
of light aircraft have to don oxygen masks at 11,500 ft (IIRC) as the
lower oxygen impairs brain function - but the body does not suffer as much.

So yes, your 'crack in the evolution theory' is not only small and quite
repairable, it is nothing compared to much more challenging problems
with evolution theory. Nonetheless, evolution proves to be right,
amended, corrected and improved every time new evidence is found and
theories are improved and corrected too. For that is the scientific
method. Regretfully, faith based on oral myths do not seem to get such
rigorous editing.

Now, if you're really determined that it was all created by God, then I
guess God created the heavens and the earth to 'look' like evolution
might have happened. It is a job creation program that not only employs
a wide range of scientists but also keeps the God-squad occupied as well
defending the faith.

But you might remember that over time the Catholic Church was forced to
accept that the Earth is not the center of the solar system. Ooops,
then forced to accept that the solar system is not the center of the
universe. This starts to make any creation "theory" look pretty weak.
Further when one wonders why it is only Christian fundamentalists and
Muslims that are so hung up against evolution. How come Buddhists don't
get all upset?

Point is that "creationism" seems to have an origin time that is
slightly less than the time that humans have been writing things down.
That is the root of creationism: real written history.

I'll take the simpler path which is evolution. Inexorably each
so-called "hole" in the theory is filled while ever wilder counter
claims by creationists are debunked.

A most amusing trend of late being creationists 'back interpreting'
passages in the bible to make them fit various scientific proof (ref:
Scientific American, May 2009 issue, Shermer). This is really, per
Shermer, "hindsight bias".


I ask only that people who espouse evolution apply the same scientific
method to its flaws as they apply to 'intelligent design'.
Unfortunately, as many people seem to take evolution 'on faith' as do
religious fanatics who take a story written by scientifically primitive
people trying to explain what they found in the world take their
religious beliefs, and writings.

Alan Browne wrote:
Rich wrote:
These people are the kind who want nature reserved only for their kind,

What you know about man's impact on the environment can be written with
a Sharpie on a postage stamp.


Probably better than what rabid environmentalists seem to believe, which
is that humans should just disappear from the face of the earth, and
leave it to the animals.

Ron Hunter wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

Point is that "creationism" seems to have an origin time that is
slightly less than the time that humans have been writing things down.
That is the root of creationism: real written history.

I'll take the simpler path which is evolution. Inexorably each
so-called "hole" in the theory is filled while ever wilder counter
claims by creationists are debunked.

A most amusing trend of late being creationists 'back interpreting'
passages in the bible to make them fit various scientific proof (ref:
Scientific American, May 2009 issue, Shermer). This is really, per
Shermer, "hindsight bias".


I ask only that people who espouse evolution apply the same scientific
method to its flaws as they apply to 'intelligent design'.
Unfortunately, as many people seem to take evolution 'on faith' as do
religious fanatics who take a story written by scientifically primitive
people trying to explain what they found in the world take their
religious beliefs, and writings.

That's failed logic. A rational view of things requires evidence and
this is what science seeks: evidence (through observation, measurement
and experiment) to develop or support theory. Evolution theory and fact
has been building inexorably, step by step. Where faiths say they are
complete, science always knows that there is more and that things
unexplained have to be declared as "not yet known".

(A simple example is string theory - lot's of math and physics but no
evidence and likely no definitive evidence will ever be found - so it's
a declared unknown - unless some experiments at CERN prove it not to
exist. So its non-existence can be proven, but not its existence.)

As to flaws, will every little part of evolution be filled? Probably
not. Geologic time has destroyed or irretrievably buried a lot of the
evidence. Interpolating between that evidence is reasonable. Further
where evolution scientists have made errors, they have been corrected
when new evidence emerges. Again the triumph of science is that
bad/wrong theories are discarded. OTOH, I cannot see the leaders of
Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. getting together
to weed out what is 'wrong' with their individual faiths to distill it
to a "true one faith" that everyone henceforth adheres to. Much more
likely to start a holy war (example: the two major branches of Islam
have distrusted and warred against one another over what we would see as
a rather minor spat back in the early days of Islam. So getting Islam
on one page is hard enough, never mind all religions).

Faith is rarely based on factual, concrete evidence so scientific method
cannot go far with it. It's all old documents which report oral
history. This includes such "bedrock" as the 10 commandments, which
nobody has ever seen after Moses smashed them. (Ironically, the 'good'
of the 10 commandments has percolated through into our laws while we
shucked off the chafe of the religious nonsense).

Face it. The only reason the large monotheistic religions survive is
indoctrination of the young setting their core beliefs early in life.
This is the survival mechanism of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

A sign I saw in West Virginia outside a Baptist Church a couple years
ago sums it up: "Reason is the enemy of faith."

How bizarre that God bestowed intelligence on us and then religious
parasites want us to ignore that gift.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

Ron Hunter wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
Rich wrote:
These people are the kind who want nature reserved only for their kind,

What you know about man's impact on the environment can be written
with a Sharpie on a postage stamp.


Probably better than what rabid environmentalists seem to believe, which
is that humans should just disappear from the face of the earth, and
leave it to the animals.

What a pathetic and angry distortion. Environmentalism is about harmony
and balance with the environment.

The environment is our sustenance. Better take care of it. We're
collectively failing to do so.



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

On 2009-04-10 19:46:10 -0700, (Ray Fischer) said:

Rich wrote:
C J Campbell wrote in
news:2009040908225316807-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom:

On 2009-04-08 16:31:14 -0700, Rich said:

These people are the kind who want nature reserved only for their kind,
the hemp-sandal wearing KOOKS who like to protest G20 meetings.

Those guys are running things now. At the more extreme end, people like
Bill McKibben, author of "The End of Nature," are demanding a
moratorium on ALL wildlife photography.

Rachel Carson wrote "Silent Spring" about DDT's effects on bird eggs. So
they banned DDT. Result? 40 million Africans dead of malaria.

Rightard propaganda.

An exaggeration, but not entirely untrue. There are trade-offs. And
banning DDT does make it more difficult to control malaria-carrying
mosquito populations.


Environmentalists, the hardcore, are human-hating, anarchist vermin.

Quite the neo-nazi, aren't you?

Godwin's law already? Guess you lose the argument with Rich. Quite a
feat, actually -- losing an argument with *that.* However, there really
are people at the core of the environmental movement who even advocate
human extinction. You do realize, of course, that extremist views like
that bring a great deal of disrepute to the environmental movement?

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

John A. added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

Faith is rarely based on factual, concrete evidence so
scientific method cannot go far with it. It's all old documents
which report oral history. This includes such "bedrock" as the
10 commandments, which nobody has ever seen after Moses smashed
them. (Ironically, the 'good' of the 10 commandments has
percolated through into our laws while we shucked off the chafe
of the religious nonsense).

Although it could be argued that the ten commandments came from
commonsense laws and/or social conventions of the time, with the
religious parts added on.

Regardless of anyone's particular religious beliefs, it can safely
be said that ALL scriptures including the Bible, the Koran, and all
the rest, were handed down through the generations millenia ago
through the telling of stories. It has always interested me to hear
the terms "scribes" and "pharisees", meaning those who could read
and write and those who could adminster or manage things, the
latter basically being a modern day bureaucrat.

So, whether one believes that God etched the Ten Commandments in
fire when given them to Moses or any other way, it seems pretty
clear that they represent what some might call common law thinking
wrt one's everyday life, honor, evil, etc.

How bizarre that God bestowed intelligence on us and then
religious parasites want us to ignore that gift.

I think the thing that scares them is that ultimately, if not
artificially suppressed, scientific inquiry leads to the
conclusion that all gods are anthropomorphisms of the universe
and parts thereof. Religions that don't suppress that don't
survive. Societies that suppress science wholesale are at a
disadvantage. So we have the continual competition of ideas as
religious society tries, consciously or unconsciously, to
integrate science to its benefit without allowing it to
dismantle religion altogether.

About the only part of the so-called Intelligent Design movement
that I agree with is that is MUST be true that all that we know of
in the universe could NOT have possibly happened by accident, it
MUST have been the work of some intelligent entity or being. Where
the ID people quickly turn into Loons, though, is the nonsense that
Adam and Eve lived just 6,000 years ago.

A quick couple of examples I like to think about to support some
sort of divine intervention in the universe is the facts that ALL
life is carbon based, for mannels, the basic anatomy of males and
females and their reproductive processes are the same, and as best
we can tell, the basic laws of physics exist across as many
lightyears of the universe as can be studied.

And so we have another example of evolution - this time social
evolution. As long as there is a social benefit in both religion
and science we will have both, and the total suppression of
either will be disadvantageous and ultimately short-lived. I
think though that while science is on the stable bedrock of
material reality (and, by its nature, continually strives for a
stronger hold on it,) religion is much more malleable and could
very well evolve into, or be gradually displaced by, something
very different while retaining its social advantages. It does
have its own mechanisms, though, to reduce or suppress changes
in itself, of course, but as can be seen by the multitude of
denominations and variations in just the Abrahamic religions,
religion is as subject to schisms as populations are to
speciation, if not more so. So who knows where things will go,
but we do know that science is here now and the knowledge and
material benefits it conveys cannot help but be a factor.

Some excellent thoughts, John, thanks for sharing them.

If there is ONE huge danger in the United States today, it is the
euphemism of "secular progressives" who want to rob us of our
religious heritage and right to worship. Although we as a nation
highly value religious and cultural diversity far beyond
Christianity, it is still instructive to remember that this great
country was founded along Judeo-Christian principles and a large
amount of our ideas expressed in the Declaration of Independence
and later the Constitution and Bill of Rights come from the strong
faith and religious feelings of the founders as well as many basic
teachings from the Bible.

Of course, our law is also founded on British common law, although
we corrected many of the deficiencies yet until perhaps the modern
secular progressive movement took hold a few decades ago, no one
really questioned one's right to "freedom of religion", yet today,
Christmas and Easter are under fire and these Loons demand to
rename such benign holidays as St. Patrick's Day as Potato Day.
Puleeze!

--
HP, aka Jerry

"Laid off yet? Keep buying foreign and you soon will be!" - popular
bumper sticker

John A. wrote:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 09:34:21 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

Faith is rarely based on factual, concrete evidence so scientific method
cannot go far with it. It's all old documents which report oral
history. This includes such "bedrock" as the 10 commandments, which
nobody has ever seen after Moses smashed them. (Ironically, the 'good'
of the 10 commandments has percolated through into our laws while we
shucked off the chafe of the religious nonsense).

Although it could be argued that the ten commandments came from
commonsense laws and/or social conventions of the time, with the
religious parts added on.

Certainly no argument from me.

AAA: Face it. The only reason the large monotheistic religions
survive is
indoctrination of the young setting their core beliefs early in life.
This is the survival mechanism of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

A sign I saw in West Virginia outside a Baptist Church a couple years
ago sums it up: "Reason is the enemy of faith."

How bizarre that God bestowed intelligence on us and then religious
parasites want us to ignore that gift.

I think the thing that scares them is that ultimately, if not
artificially suppressed, scientific inquiry leads to the conclusion
that all gods are anthropomorphisms of the universe and parts thereof.
Religions that don't suppress that don't survive. Societies that
suppress science wholesale are at a disadvantage. So we have the
continual competition of ideas as religious society tries, consciously
or unconsciously, to integrate science to its benefit without allowing
it to dismantle religion altogether.

True, though not that much of a threat as long as practice "AAA" above
is well honed.

And so we have another example of evolution - this time social
evolution. As long as there is a social benefit in both religion and
science we will have both, and the total suppression of either will be
disadvantageous and ultimately short-lived. I think though that while
science is on the stable bedrock of material reality (and, by its
nature, continually strives for a stronger hold on it,) religion is
much more malleable and could very well evolve into, or be gradually
displaced by, something very different while retaining its social
advantages. It does have its own mechanisms, though, to reduce or

Again, principally AAA above.

suppress changes in itself, of course, but as can be seen by the
multitude of denominations and variations in just the Abrahamic
religions, religion is as subject to schisms as populations are to
speciation, if not more so. So who knows where things will go, but we
do know that science is here now and the knowledge and material
benefits it conveys cannot help but be a factor.

Yeah, OT enough. And I doubt we won any conversions to the one true faith.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

On 2009-04-11 08:34:16 -0700, John A. said:

On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 09:34:21 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

Faith is rarely based on factual, concrete evidence so scientific method
cannot go far with it. It's all old documents which report oral
history. This includes such "bedrock" as the 10 commandments, which
nobody has ever seen after Moses smashed them. (Ironically, the 'good'
of the 10 commandments has percolated through into our laws while we
shucked off the chafe of the religious nonsense).

Although it could be argued that the ten commandments came from
commonsense laws and/or social conventions of the time, with the
religious parts added on.

Well that might be an argument, however the Judeo-Christian 10
commandments as espoused by the religious right does not fully meet
your "commonsense" rationale.

The actual "Laws of Moses" or the Talmudic Laws are made up of at least
15 statements which were compacted into the "10 commandments" of
biblical mythology.

Of those, the first 3 or 4, depending on the version followed, are
statements of deistic authority, which have nothing so ever to do with
commonsense, but are part of the reinforcement of a religion or even
the establishment of a new cult. (almost everything related to
etablishing a religion or belief in any god has nothing to do with
commonsense.)

4(or 5) through 10 are common rules of social morality & social
conventions within a community. Again the issue of commonsense is not
in play here. These are rules vital to maintain a cohesive community
(or religious cult.)

Then there are the dietary laws and and the statements justifying
invasion of a sovereign nation ("for I will cast out nations before
you, and enlarge your borders...") and building the wealth of the
officers of the new religion ("The best of the fruits of your ground
you shall bring to the house of the Lord your God." Exodus 34:11-27)

This is a politial manifesto, and always has been.
Commonsense indeed.



Face it. The only reason the large monotheistic religions survive is
indoctrination of the young setting their core beliefs early in life.
This is the survival mechanism of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

A sign I saw in West Virginia outside a Baptist Church a couple years
ago sums it up: "Reason is the enemy of faith."

How bizarre that God bestowed intelligence on us and then religious
parasites want us to ignore that gift.

I think the thing that scares them is that ultimately, if not
artificially suppressed, scientific inquiry leads to the conclusion
that all gods are anthropomorphisms of the universe and parts thereof.
Religions that don't suppress that don't survive. Societies that
suppress science wholesale are at a disadvantage. So we have the
continual competition of ideas as religious society tries, consciously
or unconsciously, to integrate science to its benefit without allowing
it to dismantle religion altogether.

And so we have another example of evolution - this time social
evolution. As long as there is a social benefit in both religion and
science we will have both, and the total suppression of either will be
disadvantageous and ultimately short-lived. I think though that while
science is on the stable bedrock of material reality (and, by its
nature, continually strives for a stronger hold on it,) religion is
much more malleable and could very well evolve into, or be gradually
displaced by, something very different while retaining its social
advantages. It does have its own mechanisms, though, to reduce or
suppress changes in itself, of course, but as can be seen by the
multitude of denominations and variations in just the Abrahamic
religions, religion is as subject to schisms as populations are to
speciation, if not more so. So who knows where things will go, but we
do know that science is here now and the knowledge and material
benefits it conveys cannot help but be a factor.

Okay - enough rambling.


--
Regards,
Savageduck

Alan Browne wrote:
Jer wrote:

Besides, the exhaust from mountain bikes is quite different from that
of horses, and a horse fart disturbs the neighborhood a lot less.

Not sure about that ... hiking in the Grand Canyon and a bunch of lazy
asses on mules go by (pun intended). Their mules decide to ****. It's
about 35C out under the hard sun and there is no wind.

I did not vomit by sheer force of will alone.



I often feel the same way about personal fragrances.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Twibil wrote:
On Apr 10, 2:58 pm, Alan Browne
I don't know what the highest altitude
that people dwell at, but I don't believe it to be over about 10,000 ft
or thereabouts.

Potosi, Bolivia: world's highest city at 13,451'.

Interestingly, the inhabitants -whose forbears have presumably lived
in the area for eons- not only have more red blood cells than do those
of us who hail from closer to sea-level, but each individual corpuscle
can transport about half-again more oxygen as well.

That nasty "evilution" stuff at work again.

~Pete


Is it really evolution? I wonder what physiological changes may occur
if one of those folks came down off the mountain. Would their
corpuscles be any different after acclimation? I'd be interested in
knowing, but I'm not finding much with google.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'