Re: Bad Astronomy, Indeed

From: Anonymous (nobody_at_paranoici.org)
Date: 07/14/04 

Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 00:45:25 +0200 (CEST)

Message-ID: <3E0275BC.6090403@wwt.net>
From: Thomas McDonald <tsmac@wwt.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0.1)
Gecko/20020826
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups:
alt.abortion,alt.bible,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.christian.bapti
st,alt.religion.christian.presbyterian,alt.religion.christian.roman-
catholic,alt.religion.christianity,alt.talk.creationism
Subject: Re: How do shells get on top of a mountain?
References: <atd4k2$7fat$1@news3.infoave.net> <tfdL9.73649
$r4.6408301@news1.west.cox.net> <3DFD637E.7030209@wwt.net> <DLkL9.77172
$r4.6601902@news1.west.cox.net> <3DFE29B6.70204@wwt.net> <jCxL9.78614
$r4.7013329@news1.west.cox.net> <3DFEA97B.7060702@wwt.net> <wxFL9.81483
$r4.7317273@news1.west.cox.net> <3DFF73C2.1040507@wwt.net> <kZPL9.82457
$r4.7468965@news1.west.cox.net> <3DFFFFF2.9040303@wwt.net> <7tbM9.4511
$6k.234221@news1.west.cox.net> <3E021DF6.4040707@wwt.net>
<c41c8a86.0212191523.7416ffa1@posting.google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 157
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 19:43:24 -0600
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.33.137.238
X-Complaints-To: news@airstreamcomm.net
X-Trace: reggie.win.bright.net 1040348680 64.33.137.238 (Thu, 19 Dec 2002
19:44:40 CST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 19:44:40 CST
Organization: Airstream

Busterboo wrote:
> Thomas McDonald <tsmac@wwt.net> wrote in message
news:<3E021DF6.4040707@wwt.net>...
>
>>VernonOJ wrote:
>>
>>>"Thomas McDonald" <tsmac@wwt.net> wrote in message
>>>news:3DFFFFF2.9040303@wwt.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>VernonOJ wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Thomas McDonald" <tsmac@wwt.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:3DFF73C2.1040507@wwt.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>VernonOJ wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>or do you mean that that type of intelligence
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>is no longer taught today? I am not clear on which you
>>>>>>mean.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>End of discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>>Intelligence is not taught.
>>>>>
>>>>>We have no common ground from which to talk.
>>>>>
>>>>>You haven't the slightest idea what I said. That isn't your fault.
It
>>>>
>>>is
>>>
>>>
>>>>>the fault of society not teaching the very basics of what
intelligence
>>>>
>>>is,
>>>
>>>
>>>>>what theory is, what theorem is, what science is.
>>>>>
>>>>>I pointed out that in only a few hundred years intelligence (not the
>>>>
>>>same as
>>>
>>>
>>>>>intellect) of man has gone through the floor. In 4000 years we're
are
>>>>>almost swine in intelligence compared to then.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>VernonOJ,
>>>>
>>>>You seem to have an idea about a kind of intelligence that
>>>>was once more common than now
>>>
>>>
>>>"KIND" of intelligence????????????????????????????????
>>>There is one KIND
>>>
>>>
>>
>>VernonOJ,
>>
>> As you have education in psychology, I thought you would
>>understand me when I suggested that psychology (or at least
>>psychologists) have postulated a variety of "types" of
>>intelligence. Perhaps I should have been more specific, or
>>phrased it differently. Sorry.
>>
>> In my post, I also asked if you would help me understand
>>what you mean by "theory", "theorem" and "science", since
>>your previous post said that understanding them as you do
>>(or at least as the ancients did) was important to
>>understanding what you mean by "intelligence", and, I
>>presume, the products of intelligence.
>>
>> Do you mean, by your answer, to tell me that it is
>>impossible for you to explain these concepts to me, or to
>>anyone? Or do you go further, and assert that even you
>>don't grasp these ideas in the way they need to be grasped
>>in order to make "intelligence" manifest in the world today?
>> If it's the latter, I guess that there is no point in
>>further discussion, as even you would not know what was
>>meant by those concepts.
>>
>> However, I think that you do; and further, I think that, if
>>you can know them, you can (albeit possibly with difficulty)
>>explicate them to another person.
>>
>>Tom McDonald
>
>
> Tom McDonald... I hope one day I can get my software re-configured, so
> I can properly keep up with these newsgroup discussions. My Outlook
> Express isn't displaying any posts with more than 5 NGs cross-posting,
> I'm having to go outside to post... which is annoying meanwhile,
> please don't pay any attention to this Vernon OJ... he's way beneath
> you.
> I've read your writings, and his... and it's like night and day
> compared.
> You're too good man. Don't waste your time. -Sharon (Busterboo)
>
> Vernon OJ is a fraud. As for higher intelligence in more ancient
> man... let him tell it to the Neanderthals. THEY might believe him.

Sharon,

        Do you have anyone to take a look at your 'puter and
software? I've often found that high school kids are among
the best 'experts' that you can get; and they generally
don't charge anything. Good luck with your efforts; you'll
find that proper configuration, especially proper threading
of messages, will not only keep you organized, but will
improve your reception on the newgroups.

        As for VernonOJ; it may be that you are correct (and thanks
for the kind words :-) ). However, I'm not ready to give up
yet. It is possible that he is on to something, and I do so
like to learn things.

        I have often heard claims that the ancients knew some
things that we have forgotten. That leaves open the
possibility that we could, in principle at least, be able to
comprehend those forgotten things if we can just figure out
how to recover them.

        I have less frequently heard the idea that VernonOJ
propounds; that we have lost something vitally necessary to
understanding things that the ancients understood. That
idea closes off the possibility that we could, even in
principle, comprehend things as they were understood in
antiquity. VernonOJ takes that idea to the greatest extreme
that I've ever seen. (Generally, I've heard the idea stated
as a decline in _everything_ since the Fall.) According to
him, it's not just the ancients that had something we can't
recover, but we've lost something vital in less than 200
years (since Beethoven). That's new to me.

        If VernonOJ is correct, there must be some explaination for
that precipitous decline in intelligence. That's something
I'd like to hear about. I have a sneaking hunch about what
that explaination might be; but I'm not going to guess. I
want to get the info from VernonOJ (if he has an opinion on
that, at least).

        Anyway, I will stick it out until I either understand what
VernonOJ is getting at, or until I'm convinced that that
isn't going to happen.

Tom McDonald 

---
Search for youself 
http://www.google.com/groups?q=author:tsmac%40wwt.net&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-
8&start=980&sa=N