Re: TOBS: WDDK

From: John Ings (nodamned_at_spam.org)
Date: 10/05/04 

Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 06:59:49 -0700

On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 04:58:26 -0400, "Spartacus" <J@rogers.com> wrote:

>> No, but the lens on a camera my age still work through a full range
>> of focus, while the lenses in my eyes do not and require correction
>> with auxiliary lenses.
>
>I too need correctional lenses... Your eyes distinguish depth preception
>via a three dimentional image.

No, your brain does that, by comparing a pair of two-dimensional
images.

>Cameras produce a flat two dimentional rendition.

So do your eyes.

>Technology comes from our copying or duplicating (where
>possible) things that occure naturally but not always as efficiantly.

In many cases. Not all.

>i.e. birds don't need air ports or runways...

And none are supersonic or carry tons of cargo.

>Those with eye afflictions don't represeent the average.

I sure see a lot of optometrist's stores around.

> Film has a specific ISO rating. Your eyes adapt
>over a wide range of ISO to accomodate fpr either light or darkness.

But not over as wide a range as some optical systems.

>> > I'm on to your snake pit tactics
>> >anyway... Whatever I say will be wrong so you may be right,
>>
>> No, you can be right too.
>> You haven't bothered to be so far, but you have the choice.
>
>That's cuz you don't facts when they're presented to you!

"I don't facts"?

> Why would I lie?

You don't have to lie to be wrong, just mistaken.

>Plus you make hastey decisions about what kind of person you think I am.

For example?

>> > at the expence
>> >of others, naturally! You're not hear to enlighten anyone but to argue
>> >your own, private, case
>>
>> Private case? I argue for truth. I post majority opinions here.
>> It is you who argue for the nut fringe!
>
>The "nut fringe" line seems to vary from time to time.

Agreed. Nut fringers dispute each other as often as they dispute
mainstream science. There! See? You've managed a truth!

>I came here to have my belief in God and His son reconfirmed
>and established, in good faith!

And, to some degree, I came to have my disbelief in your concept of
God and his son confirmed, but not as a matter of faith. I don't use
faith.

>It's not enough that Winesses and Ex-Witnesses might argue
>amoungst themselves, but you have to further compound the
>issue by slopping all over The Bible!

One of the reasons for my disbelief is that very arguing among the
"Witnesses" and the cause of most of it is the Bible.

>I haven't been alotted the time to banter indefinately... Or maybe
> I just don't value being so right all the time as consistently as you do.

You don't value truth?

>At least I don't go to a Mechanic and tell him I have
>Drywall experience!

What are you seeking to imply with that analogy?

>I look for reasons to bring people together.

Even if you use untruths to do so? The end justifies the means?

>You look for reasons to divide and seperate them.

Now who's making hasty decisions about what kind of person someone
else is? I can think of no other factor in human society more divisive
than religion.

>I'd encourage but you belittle.

You encourage untruth and I belittle it. Yes.

>Start tayloring your posts
>in the appropriate NGs and then talk to me about nut fringes...

I am in the appropriate newsgroup for the subject. I have no idea
which one you are in so how can I trim if that could result in
trimming my response so you never see it?

>> > as some Internet vigil anti seeking to dominate and destroy!
>>
>> Well it is an internet vigil in a way. I'm a vigilante against
>> Creationist lies and fundamentalist theology.
>
>Knowing the fundamentals can get you places.

Fundamentalism isn't a matter of knowing the fundamentals of anything.

>That's a step up from blind acceptance!

On the contrary, fundamentalism IS blind acceptance.

>It's not what's taught in The Bible that's at question here.

It is in my newsgroups (alt.bible, alt.religion, alt.talk.creationism)

>It's how the GB uses it against it's own people... Some of the best minds
>today stand by creationism in unlocking secrets they were incapable of
>understanding unless they "do" look at it that way...

"Best minds" don't lie and dissimulate Spartacus. My knowledge of
science is not extensive, but it is quite adequate to recognize
blatant untruths in Creationist propaganda. If the scientific degrees
held by some of those propagandists are genuine (many are spurious)
then they KNOW they are lying too. It's not a matter of honest
differences of opinion.

>I'm all for innovation and progress, but the unknown produces fear and
>apprehension that do tend to impede these things necessary for our greater understanding.

So you would placate those fears with fable and fantasy?

>The road to your future is costly as well and paved with better intentions than
>arguing over who owns the grappling hook...

Another analogy that I don't quite fathom...

>> >But one more : "Latch Key Kid" seeking power from outside your
>building...
>>
>> Your metaphor escapes me.
>
>Does it really? There are bounderies everywhere! If you wiah to voice
>anything contrary, the majority must understand you fully conceive
>the full picture and appaerently you do not.

Yet you've amply demonstrated your lack of comprehension of the
scientific part of the picture...

>Probably because you've never been a Witness and are coming from way off in
>left field!

I have never been a Witness and never will be. Why? Because I have
three Watchtower tracts in my library, each stuffed from cover to
cover with lies.

>This isn't an anti-creationism NG...

This one is!

> That's not what we're here to discuss...

Then stay out of alt.talk.creationism!

>> Invective makes for inadequate rebattal.
>> Try addressing the points I made instead of blustering.
>
> I don't have to do anything you tell me to do... I'm over 18 and make my
>own decisions.

And you're sticking with invective?

>You speak of Man made conclusions you draw from Man made theories passed
>down to other men who also seek to further intrench them,

Yes. So are you. That's all the Bible is-- man made conclusions drawn
from man made theories passed down to other men who also seek to
further intrench them. And a good deal of it is simply Judean
politics.

> in an NG that should be devoted to
>spiritual refinements... Hello? You're in the wrong NG!

No, YOU are.

>> When things are proven to you, as in the previous posts, you resort to
>> libel and invective. That's hardly encouragement for honest debate.
>
>I'm not "resorting"... I'm purposefully going there!

That's what resorting means.

>Honestly, I don't want to debate death
>by natural selection as an alternative to death by disfellowshipping. It
>would negate my reasons for coming here in the first place.

You are obviously confused about where 'here' is!
And what are you doing in alt.biology, sci.bio.paleontology, and
sci.anthropology.paleo? It should be obvious to you that Jehova's
Witless ideas about science aren't going to last long in those forums!

>We're talking about issues between
>people and your talking
>about issues between hip bones and think this gives president for debate?

I think "precedence" is the word you wanted. And sci.bio.paleontology
would seem to me to be just the place for a discussion of hip bones.

> Fact is, apes will be apes and humans will
>be humans though huh? "Hey Witnesses! Look over here at us Apostates tellin
>you the Bible's full of #@$&!" Great approach John... I can see you really thought this
>out...

I have indeed. I've read your tracts. I've read the Bible. Both are
indeed full of #@$&!" and if you don't want to hear that, stay out of
newsgroups devoted to the subject.

>> ## Controversy is only dreaded by the advocates of error.
>
>This assumes if something were correct, it would spur no controversy which
>can over turn something whether it's correct or not,

No it does not. Those who seek truth do not dread controversy.

>Being correct isn't always the point then.

Being correct is ALWAYS the point.

> We see the same words via different perspectives suitable to our
>particular pursuits in life. That doesn't make it right or wrong,
>only suitable for the user. It's what we believe that becomes reality.

No. Reality is reality. There is only one reality, you can't have
different realities for every 'True Believer'.

>What we call "the present" is strictly a transitory state mutable
>to a positive future by those willing to share a combined and
>co-ordinated effort toward its inception.

A 'positive' future? As opposed to a negative one?

>Most findings are widely publisized on The Internet right now.

Findings?

> If they're there, why do you need to proove them?

The internet has a plethora of bull*** as well as truth.
 You have to winnow.

>Why aren't you looking for what's right about what people believe for a practicle
>application instead of always trying to reinvent the wheel?

Because there's nothing right about what people believe with respect
to religious fundamentalism, and certainly nothing right about
Creationism!

> Where's the spiritual application of what you advocate?

I don't believe anything has a spiritual application.

## Scrutamini scriptura. These two words have undone the world.