FlonkNews: Darwin's 200th and _On the Origin of Species_' 150th Birthdays This Coming Year

M

mimus

Guest
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/29/darwin-anniversary-atheism

What gets me is how everybody forgets about poor Alfred Wallace, who had

much more of the theory of evolution worked out than Darwin on much less

evidence (Darwin had a huge collection of specimens and findings from the

voyage of _The Beagle_, wot incidentally his memoir of is a great book),

and they gave the first public papers on evolution jointly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Tendency_of_Species_to_form_Varieties;_and_on_the_Perpetuation_of_Varieties_and_Species_by_Natural_Means_of_Selection

<sigh>

At least the above columnist remembers that the geologist Charles Lyell

predated Darwin in unhinging the strict Old Testament account of the

Creation by his meticulous measuring of the rates of geological processes

(eg, waterfall cuts on cliff-edges and river-delta extensions) and

dividing those rates into the produced changes and getting figures that

were generally staggeringly greater than six thousand years (although,

ironically, he had difficulty swallowing the theory of evolution because

_it_ conflicted with Creationism) . . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lyell

And, of course, hardly anyone remembers that it was the astronomers who

first unhinged the Earth as the center of the Universe in favor of the

Sun, and then unhinged the Sun as the center of the Universe in favor of

the Galaxy, and then unhinged any particular galaxy as the center of the

Universe, all of which conflicts with Old Testament cosmology.

Even though the Old Testament crowd managed to subvert cosmology in the

Fifties with the "Big Bang" theory, accounting for its astonishingly rapid

spread and devoted adoption even in the face of theoretical difficulty

after difficulty, which have been either finessed (eg, the "inflationary

epoch") or ignored (eg, the non-decreasing heavy elements in

ever-more-distant and therefore ever-more-ancient views of the universe,

and the non-decreasing-density of galaxies and so on likewise, including

the more recent "deep field" images revealing a hitherto unrevealed

positive plethora of galaxies at very far distances and thus very distant

pasts).

At least the geologists and biologists are holding firm.

So far.

--

tinmimus99@hotmail.com

smeeter 11 or maybe 12

mp 10

mhm 29x13

This is part of the eternal wonder of the universe

as man forages out to discover in the womb of time

the nascence of his individuality in the motherhood of possibility.

< Malzberg

 
T

Tim Weaver

Guest
mimus wrote:

<chop>

You seem to spend a lot of time reading The Guardian.

--

Tim Weaver

I know you believe you understand what you think I said,

but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not

what I meant.

 
D

david hillstrom

Guest
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 15:12:41 -0500, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>

wrote:


>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/29/darwin-anniversary-atheism


>


>What gets me is how everybody forgets about poor Alfred Wallace, who had


>much more of the theory of evolution worked out than Darwin on much less


>evidence (Darwin had a huge collection of specimens and findings from the


>voyage of _The Beagle_, wot incidentally his memoir of is a great book),


>and they gave the first public papers on evolution jointly:


>


>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Tendency_of_Species_to_form_Varieties;_and_on_the_Perpetuation_of_Varieties_and_Species_by_Natural_Means_of_Selection


>


><sigh>


>


>At least the above columnist remembers that the geologist Charles Lyell


>predated Darwin in unhinging the strict Old Testament account of the


>Creation by his meticulous measuring of the rates of geological processes


>(eg, waterfall cuts on cliff-edges and river-delta extensions) and


>dividing those rates into the produced changes and getting figures that


>were generally staggeringly greater than six thousand years (although,


>ironically, he had difficulty swallowing the theory of evolution because


>_it_ conflicted with Creationism) . . . .


>


>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lyell


>


>And, of course, hardly anyone remembers that it was the astronomers who


>first unhinged the Earth as the center of the Universe in favor of the


>Sun, and then unhinged the Sun as the center of the Universe in favor of


>the Galaxy, and then unhinged any particular galaxy as the center of the


>Universe, all of which conflicts with Old Testament cosmology.


>


>Even though the Old Testament crowd managed to subvert cosmology in the


>Fifties with the "Big Bang" theory, accounting for its astonishingly rapid


>spread and devoted adoption even in the face of theoretical difficulty


>after difficulty, which have been either finessed (eg, the "inflationary


>epoch") or ignored (eg, the non-decreasing heavy elements in


>ever-more-distant and therefore ever-more-ancient views of the universe,


>and the non-decreasing-density of galaxies and so on likewise, including


>the more recent "deep field" images revealing a hitherto unrevealed


>positive plethora of galaxies at very far distances and thus very distant


>pasts).


>


>At least the geologists and biologists are holding firm.


>


>So far.

no big bang, eh? nice. just a steady drool of suns and plenetoids

from the center of the universe, like magic.

--

dave hillstrom xrbj

 
M

mimus

Guest
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 16:25:29 -0500, david hillstrom wrote:


> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 15:12:41 -0500, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>


> wrote:


>


>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/29/darwin-anniversary-atheism


>>


>> What gets me is how everybody forgets about poor Alfred Wallace, who had


>> much more of the theory of evolution worked out than Darwin on much less


>> evidence (Darwin had a huge collection of specimens and findings from the


>> voyage of _The Beagle_, wot incidentally his memoir of is a great book),


>> and they gave the first public papers on evolution jointly:


>>


>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Tendency_of_Species_to_form_Varieties;_and_on_the_Perpetuation_of_Varieties_and_Species_by_Natural_Means_of_Selection


>>


>> <sigh>


>>


>> At least the above columnist remembers that the geologist Charles Lyell


>> predated Darwin in unhinging the strict Old Testament account of the


>> Creation by his meticulous measuring of the rates of geological processes


>> (eg, waterfall cuts on cliff-edges and river-delta extensions) and


>> dividing those rates into the produced changes and getting figures that


>> were generally staggeringly greater than six thousand years (although,


>> ironically, he had difficulty swallowing the theory of evolution because


>> _it_ conflicted with Creationism) . . . .


>>


>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lyell


>>


>> And, of course, hardly anyone remembers that it was the astronomers who


>> first unhinged the Earth as the center of the Universe in favor of the


>> Sun, and then unhinged the Sun as the center of the Universe in favor of


>> the Galaxy, and then unhinged any particular galaxy as the center of the


>> Universe, all of which conflicts with Old Testament cosmology.


>>


>> Even though the Old Testament crowd managed to subvert cosmology in the


>> Fifties with the "Big Bang" theory, accounting for its astonishingly rapid


>> spread and devoted adoption even in the face of theoretical difficulty


>> after difficulty, which have been either finessed (eg, the "inflationary


>> epoch") or ignored (eg, the non-decreasing heavy elements in


>> ever-more-distant and therefore ever-more-ancient views of the universe,


>> and the non-decreasing-density of galaxies and so on likewise, including


>> the more recent "deep field" images revealing a hitherto unrevealed


>> positive plethora of galaxies at very far distances and thus very distant


>> pasts).


>>


>> At least the geologists and biologists are holding firm.


>>


>> So far.


>


> no big bang, eh? nice. just a steady drool of suns and plenetoids


> from the center of the universe, like magic.

From the what?

And more likely a steady drool of free neutrons, if anything,

counter-balancing expansion and keeping the cosmic density constant.

(Wot neutrons have a half-life of about fifteen minutes, after which

you've got a proton and an electron and a coupla gamma photons.)

--

tinmimus99@hotmail.com

smeeter 11 or maybe 12

mp 10

mhm 29x13

"You are either insane or a fool."

"I am a sanitary inspector."

< _Maske: Thaery_

 
D

david hillstrom

Guest
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 17:02:44 -0500, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>

wrote:


>On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 16:25:29 -0500, david hillstrom wrote:


>


>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 15:12:41 -0500, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>


>> wrote:


>>


>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/29/darwin-anniversary-atheism


>>>


>>> What gets me is how everybody forgets about poor Alfred Wallace, who had


>>> much more of the theory of evolution worked out than Darwin on much less


>>> evidence (Darwin had a huge collection of specimens and findings from the


>>> voyage of _The Beagle_, wot incidentally his memoir of is a great book),


>>> and they gave the first public papers on evolution jointly:


>>>


>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Tendency_of_Species_to_form_Varieties;_and_on_the_Perpetuation_of_Varieties_and_Species_by_Natural_Means_of_Selection


>>>


>>> <sigh>


>>>


>>> At least the above columnist remembers that the geologist Charles Lyell


>>> predated Darwin in unhinging the strict Old Testament account of the


>>> Creation by his meticulous measuring of the rates of geological processes


>>> (eg, waterfall cuts on cliff-edges and river-delta extensions) and


>>> dividing those rates into the produced changes and getting figures that


>>> were generally staggeringly greater than six thousand years (although,


>>> ironically, he had difficulty swallowing the theory of evolution because


>>> _it_ conflicted with Creationism) . . . .


>>>


>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lyell


>>>


>>> And, of course, hardly anyone remembers that it was the astronomers who


>>> first unhinged the Earth as the center of the Universe in favor of the


>>> Sun, and then unhinged the Sun as the center of the Universe in favor of


>>> the Galaxy, and then unhinged any particular galaxy as the center of the


>>> Universe, all of which conflicts with Old Testament cosmology.


>>>


>>> Even though the Old Testament crowd managed to subvert cosmology in the


>>> Fifties with the "Big Bang" theory, accounting for its astonishingly rapid


>>> spread and devoted adoption even in the face of theoretical difficulty


>>> after difficulty, which have been either finessed (eg, the "inflationary


>>> epoch") or ignored (eg, the non-decreasing heavy elements in


>>> ever-more-distant and therefore ever-more-ancient views of the universe,


>>> and the non-decreasing-density of galaxies and so on likewise, including


>>> the more recent "deep field" images revealing a hitherto unrevealed


>>> positive plethora of galaxies at very far distances and thus very distant


>>> pasts).


>>>


>>> At least the geologists and biologists are holding firm.


>>>


>>> So far.


>>


>> no big bang, eh? nice. just a steady drool of suns and plenetoids


>> from the center of the universe, like magic.


>


>From the what?

~centers~ of the universe? like the nebulas and such?


>And more likely a steady drool of free neutrons, if anything,


>counter-balancing expansion and keeping the cosmic density constant.


>


>(Wot neutrons have a half-life of about fifteen minutes, after which


>you've got a proton and an electron and a coupla gamma photons.)

i want a pet neutron star.

--

dave hillstrom xrbj

 
M

mimus

Guest
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 18:59:02 -0500, david hillstrom wrote:


> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 17:02:44 -0500, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>


> wrote:


>


>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 16:25:29 -0500, david hillstrom wrote:


>>


>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 15:12:41 -0500, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>


>>> wrote:


>>>


>>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/29/darwin-anniversary-atheism


>>>>


>>>> What gets me is how everybody forgets about poor Alfred Wallace, who had


>>>> much more of the theory of evolution worked out than Darwin on much less


>>>> evidence (Darwin had a huge collection of specimens and findings from the


>>>> voyage of _The Beagle_, wot incidentally his memoir of is a great book),


>>>> and they gave the first public papers on evolution jointly:


>>>>


>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Tendency_of_Species_to_form_Varieties;_and_on_the_Perpetuation_of_Varieties_and_Species_by_Natural_Means_of_Selection


>>>>


>>>> <sigh>


>>>>


>>>> At least the above columnist remembers that the geologist Charles Lyell


>>>> predated Darwin in unhinging the strict Old Testament account of the


>>>> Creation by his meticulous measuring of the rates of geological processes


>>>> (eg, waterfall cuts on cliff-edges and river-delta extensions) and


>>>> dividing those rates into the produced changes and getting figures that


>>>> were generally staggeringly greater than six thousand years (although,


>>>> ironically, he had difficulty swallowing the theory of evolution because


>>>> _it_ conflicted with Creationism) . . . .


>>>>


>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lyell


>>>>


>>>> And, of course, hardly anyone remembers that it was the astronomers who


>>>> first unhinged the Earth as the center of the Universe in favor of the


>>>> Sun, and then unhinged the Sun as the center of the Universe in favor of


>>>> the Galaxy, and then unhinged any particular galaxy as the center of the


>>>> Universe, all of which conflicts with Old Testament cosmology.


>>>>


>>>> Even though the Old Testament crowd managed to subvert cosmology in the


>>>> Fifties with the "Big Bang" theory, accounting for its astonishingly rapid


>>>> spread and devoted adoption even in the face of theoretical difficulty


>>>> after difficulty, which have been either finessed (eg, the "inflationary


>>>> epoch") or ignored (eg, the non-decreasing heavy elements in


>>>> ever-more-distant and therefore ever-more-ancient views of the universe,


>>>> and the non-decreasing-density of galaxies and so on likewise, including


>>>> the more recent "deep field" images revealing a hitherto unrevealed


>>>> positive plethora of galaxies at very far distances and thus very distant


>>>> pasts).


>>>>


>>>> At least the geologists and biologists are holding firm.


>>>>


>>>> So far.


>>>


>>> no big bang, eh? nice. just a steady drool of suns and plenetoids


>>> from the center of the universe, like magic.


>>


>> From the what?


>


> ~centers~ of the universe? like the nebulas and such?

Globular clusters, if anything.

Note, If You Will, their suspicious lacks of heavy elements.


>> And more likely a steady drool of free neutrons, if anything,


>> counter-balancing expansion and keeping the cosmic density constant.


>>


>> (Wot neutrons have a half-life of about fifteen minutes, after which


>> you've got a proton and an electron and a coupla gamma photons.)


>


> i want a pet neutron star.

You've already got a flock of neutrons, more or less peacefully bound so

they don't blow on ya, or in ya.

--

tinmimus99@hotmail.com

smeeter 11 or maybe 12

mp 10

mhm 29x13

I wonder what I have been up to.

< _Beyond Apollo_

 
D

david hillstrom

Guest
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 19:15:25 -0500, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>

wrote:


>On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 18:59:02 -0500, david hillstrom wrote:


>


>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 17:02:44 -0500, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>


>> wrote:


>>


>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 16:25:29 -0500, david hillstrom wrote:


>>>


>>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 15:12:41 -0500, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>


>>>> wrote:


>>>>


>>>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/29/darwin-anniversary-atheism


>>>>>


>>>>> What gets me is how everybody forgets about poor Alfred Wallace, who had


>>>>> much more of the theory of evolution worked out than Darwin on much less


>>>>> evidence (Darwin had a huge collection of specimens and findings from the


>>>>> voyage of _The Beagle_, wot incidentally his memoir of is a great book),


>>>>> and they gave the first public papers on evolution jointly:


>>>>>


>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Tendency_of_Species_to_form_Varieties;_and_on_the_Perpetuation_of_Varieties_and_Species_by_Natural_Means_of_Selection


>>>>>


>>>>> <sigh>


>>>>>


>>>>> At least the above columnist remembers that the geologist Charles Lyell


>>>>> predated Darwin in unhinging the strict Old Testament account of the


>>>>> Creation by his meticulous measuring of the rates of geological processes


>>>>> (eg, waterfall cuts on cliff-edges and river-delta extensions) and


>>>>> dividing those rates into the produced changes and getting figures that


>>>>> were generally staggeringly greater than six thousand years (although,


>>>>> ironically, he had difficulty swallowing the theory of evolution because


>>>>> _it_ conflicted with Creationism) . . . .


>>>>>


>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lyell


>>>>>


>>>>> And, of course, hardly anyone remembers that it was the astronomers who


>>>>> first unhinged the Earth as the center of the Universe in favor of the


>>>>> Sun, and then unhinged the Sun as the center of the Universe in favor of


>>>>> the Galaxy, and then unhinged any particular galaxy as the center of the


>>>>> Universe, all of which conflicts with Old Testament cosmology.


>>>>>


>>>>> Even though the Old Testament crowd managed to subvert cosmology in the


>>>>> Fifties with the "Big Bang" theory, accounting for its astonishingly rapid


>>>>> spread and devoted adoption even in the face of theoretical difficulty


>>>>> after difficulty, which have been either finessed (eg, the "inflationary


>>>>> epoch") or ignored (eg, the non-decreasing heavy elements in


>>>>> ever-more-distant and therefore ever-more-ancient views of the universe,


>>>>> and the non-decreasing-density of galaxies and so on likewise, including


>>>>> the more recent "deep field" images revealing a hitherto unrevealed


>>>>> positive plethora of galaxies at very far distances and thus very distant


>>>>> pasts).


>>>>>


>>>>> At least the geologists and biologists are holding firm.


>>>>>


>>>>> So far.


>>>>


>>>> no big bang, eh? nice. just a steady drool of suns and plenetoids


>>>> from the center of the universe, like magic.


>>>


>>> From the what?


>>


>> ~centers~ of the universe? like the nebulas and such?


>


>Globular clusters, if anything.


>


>Note, If You Will, their suspicious lacks of heavy elements.


>


>>> And more likely a steady drool of free neutrons, if anything,


>>> counter-balancing expansion and keeping the cosmic density constant.


>>>


>>> (Wot neutrons have a half-life of about fifteen minutes, after which


>>> you've got a proton and an electron and a coupla gamma photons.)


>>


>> i want a pet neutron star.


>


>You've already got a flock of neutrons, more or less peacefully bound so


>they don't blow on ya, or in ya.

we may need to explode our sun to do this....

--

dave hillstrom xrbj

 
A

Axel Hussein Yerbouti

Guest
On Dec 30, 3:12?pm, mimus <tinmimu...@hotmail.com> wrote:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/29/darwin-anniversar...


>


> What gets me is how everybody forgets about poor Alfred Wallace, who had


> much more of the theory of evolution worked out than Darwin on much less


> evidence (Darwin had a huge collection of specimens and findings from the


> voyage of _The Beagle_, wot incidentally his memoir of is a great book),


> and they gave the first public papers on evolution jointly:

The idea of Common Descent was not new to the nineteenth or eighteenth

centuries. It does in fact date back to classical philosophy.


> And, of course, hardly anyone remembers that it was the astronomers who


> first unhinged the Earth as the center of the Universe in favor of the


> Sun, and then unhinged the Sun as the center of the Universe in favor of


> the Galaxy, and then unhinged any particular galaxy as the center of the


> Universe, all of which conflicts with Old Testament cosmology.

Current cosmology does place the Earth at the center of the

Universe, since all points in space are the center of the Universe.

Or something like that. Homogeneous cosmic background and all that.

The Big Bang is everywhere, dued.


>


> Even though the Old Testament crowd managed to subvert cosmology in the


> Fifties with the "Big Bang" theory, accounting for its astonishingly rapid


> spread and devoted adoption even in the face of theoretical difficulty


> after difficulty, which have been either finessed (eg, the "inflationary


> epoch") or ignored (eg, the non-decreasing heavy elements in


> ever-more-distant and therefore ever-more-ancient views of the universe,


> and the non-decreasing-density of galaxies and so on likewise, including


> the more recent "deep field" images revealing a hitherto unrevealed


> positive plethora of galaxies at very far distances and thus very distant


> pasts).

Robert Sawyer in his novel _Hominids_ presents an interesting

alternative: the expanding vacuum is contantly generating new baryons,

leptons, and photons, allowing for a steady-state and self-

perpetuating eternal cosmos.

Turtles. All the frickin' way down.

 
M

mimus

Guest
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 06:14:30 -0800, Axel Hussein Yerbouti wrote:


> On Dec 30, 3:12 pm, mimus <tinmimu...@hotmail.com> wrote:


>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/29/darwin-anniversar...


>>


>> What gets me is how everybody forgets about poor Alfred Wallace, who had


>> much more of the theory of evolution worked out than Darwin on much less


>> evidence (Darwin had a huge collection of specimens and findings from the


>> voyage of _The Beagle_, wot incidentally his memoir of is a great book),


>> and they gave the first public papers on evolution jointly:


>


> The idea of Common Descent was not new to the nineteenth or eighteenth


> centuries. It does in fact date back to classical philosophy.

But Darwin and Wallace actually provided evidence and some derivative

inductive theory for it . . . .

Philosophers can say any damned thing, apparently, even though,

technically, philosophy requires proof for its assertions (that's what is

_supposed_ to distinguish it from primitive or undifferentiated ideology

and religion/mysticism).


>> And, of course, hardly anyone remembers that it was the astronomers who


>> first unhinged the Earth as the center of the Universe in favor of the


>> Sun, and then unhinged the Sun as the center of the Universe in favor of


>> the Galaxy, and then unhinged any particular galaxy as the center of the


>> Universe, all of which conflicts with Old Testament cosmology.


>


> Current cosmology does place the Earth at the center of the


> Universe, since all points in space are the center of the Universe.


> Or something like that.

An abuse of the term "center", and, like all such, casts the integrity of

the abusing ideology in doubt.

Feh.

--

tinmimus99@hotmail.com

smeeter 11 or maybe 12

mp 10

mhm 29x13

"You are either insane or a fool."

"I am a sanitary inspector."

< _Maske: Thaery_

 
A

Axel Hussein Yerbouti mhm23x3

Guest
On Dec 31, 2:16?pm, mimus <tinmimu...@hotmail.com> wrote:


>


> Philosophers can say any damned thing, apparently, even though,


> technically, philosophy requires proof for its assertions (that's what is


> _supposed_ to distinguish it from primitive or undifferentiated ideology


> and religion/mysticism).

Philosophy only requires internal consistency, not external

verification. It is the search for TRUTH. If you're interested in

FACT, Dr. Jones' archeology class is down the hall.


> > Current cosmology does place the Earth at the center of the


> > Universe, since all points in space are the center of the Universe.


> > Or something like that.


>


> An abuse of the term "center", and, like all such, casts the integrity of


> the abusing ideology in doubt.

All ideologies are subject to the staggering limitations of the human

intellect.

--

Axel | D.A.R. | mhm23x3 | GS11

Meower since 1996-03-30 (wave 2.3) | mhm since 1998-06-18

Denizen of alt.food.dennys | Father of alt.food.mentos

Grand Ultimageneralissimo of the Shock and Awe wing of the Usenet

Flame Force / Defensive Alliance

 
M

mimus

Guest
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 11:35:30 -0800, Axel Hussein Yerbouti mhm23x3 wrote:


> On Dec 31, 2:16 pm, mimus <tinmimu...@hotmail.com> wrote:


>


>> Philosophers can say any damned thing, apparently, even though,


>> technically, philosophy requires proof for its assertions (that's what is


>> _supposed_ to distinguish it from primitive or undifferentiated ideology


>> and religion/mysticism).


>


> Philosophy only requires internal consistency, not external


> verification. It is the search for TRUTH.

Which refers to the external. You can be perfectly consistently false.

And assertions like that one prove only the failure of modern philosophy.

No ivory towers, please!


> If you're interested in FACT, Dr. Jones' archeology class is down the


> hall.

<deferential gesture:>

I prefer individual study.


>>> Current cosmology does place the Earth at the center of the


>>> Universe, since all points in space are the center of the Universe.


>>> Or something like that.


>>


>> An abuse of the term "center", and, like all such, casts the integrity


>> of the abusing ideology in doubt.


>


> All ideologies are subject to the staggering limitations of the human


> intellect.

We can work at things collectively, student after student, century after

century, using symbolic procedure and normalization to roll right along . . . .

For example, one does not have to study and understand Russell and

Whitehead's _Principia Mathematica_ or any of its successors in order to

add and subtract . . . .

--

tinmimus99@hotmail.com

smeeter 11 or maybe 12

mp 10

mhm 29x13

Given a manifold M with a submanifold N, N can be knotted in M

if there exists an embedding of N in M which is not isotopic to N.

Traditional knots form the case where N = S1 and M = S3.

< Deep wisdom from on high (Wikipedia)

 
A

Axel Hussein Yerbouti mhm23x3

Guest
On Dec 31, 2:45?pm, mimus <tinmimu...@hotmail.com> wrote:


>


> We can work at things collectively, student after student, century after


> century, using symbolic procedure and normalization to roll right along . . . .

Onward and upward, better and brighter, towards enlightenment. Just

ask anyone in 1913, 1938, or 9/10/2001.

There is no normalization, for there is no meaning independent of

context, or semantics independent of syntax. Daniel Dennett ate you

internal qualia.

--

Axel | D.A.R. | mhm23x3 | GS11

Meower since 1996-03-30 (wave 2.3) | mhm since 1998-06-18

Denizen of alt.food.dennys | Father of alt.food.mentos

Grand Ultimageneralissimo of the Shock and Awe wing of the Usenet

Flame Force / Defensive Alliance

 
M

mimus

Guest
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 11:56:01 -0800, Axel Hussein Yerbouti mhm23x3 wrote:


> On Dec 31, 2:45 pm, mimus <tinmimu...@hotmail.com> wrote:


>


>> We can work at things collectively, student after student, century after


>> century, using symbolic procedure and normalization to roll right along . . . .


>


> Onward and upward, better and brighter, towards enlightenment. Just


> ask anyone in 1913, 1938, or 9/10/2001.

Puerile cynicism unresponsive to the point:

Politics is rarely the work of philosophers, especially real philosophers,

the kind that require proofs of assertions.


> There is no normalization, for there is no meaning independent of


> context, or semantics independent of syntax. Daniel Dennett ate you


> internal qualia.

What, without proof, which you attacked in what you've snipped? that

should be convincing <snort>.

And context not referring to the external, which you likewise attacked in

what you've snipped? or syntax likewise?

Such preening attacks as you've shown here I take it are what can be

expected from "modern philosophy", as exhibited in the schools, perhaps

most brilliantly (<snort>) in constructivism/deconstructionism.

Like children grinning amid the ruins of their fathers' tools.

--

tinmimus99@hotmail.com

smeeter 11 or maybe 12

mp 10

mhm 29x13

See _Laws of Form_, Chapters 1 through 10 and Appendix 2,

first backward and then forward.

 
M

mimus

Guest
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 15:27:26 -0500, mimus wrote:


> constructivism

Structuralism.

Winging it again, eh, Mr. mimus?

--

tinmimus99@hotmail.com

smeeter 11 or maybe 12

mp 10

mhm 29x13

"You are either insane or a fool."

"I am a sanitary inspector."

< _Maske: Thaery_

 
A

Axel Hussein Yerbouti mhm23x3

Guest
On Dec 31, 3:35?pm, mimus <tinmimu...@hotmail.com> wrote:


> On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 15:27:26 -0500, mimus wrote:


> > constructivism


>


> Structuralism.


>


> Winging it again, eh, Mr. mimus?

Winging it, my ***. Everything I've said in this thread comes from

skimming Wikipedia articles.

That, my dear friend mimus, is "Winging it."

We don't speak words. Words speak us .

Also *****.

 
F

fasgnadh@yahoo.com

Guest
On Jan 1, 6:16?am, mimus <tinmimu...@hotmail.com> wrote:


> On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 06:14:30 -0800, Axel Hussein Yerbouti wrote:


> > Current cosmology does place the Earth at the center of the


> > Universe,

Don't be an idiot, the Earth revolves around the Sun, along

with the other ORBITING planets ..it cannot

possibly be the 'centre' of the universe, or even of

our solar system, you silly medieval fundamentalist! B^D


>> since all points in space are the center of the Universe.


>> Or something like that.


>


> An abuse of the term "center", and, like all such, casts the integrity of


> the abusing ideology in doubt.

Axel's stupidity is a "misapplication of terms'(sic)

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAAAA!


> Feh.


>


> --


> tinmimu...@hotmail.com


>


> smeeter 11 or maybe 12


>


> mp 10


>


> mhm 29x13


>


> "You are either insane or a fool."


> "I am a sanitary inspector."


>


> < _Maske: Thaery_

 
F

fasgnadh@yahoo.com

Guest
On Jan 1, 6:35?am, Axel Hussein Yerbouti mhm23x3 <mhm2...@gmail.com>

wrote:


> On Dec 31, 2:16?pm, mimus <tinmimu...@hotmail.com> wrote:


>> Axel Insein Yerbouti mhm23x3 <mhm2...@gmail.com> wrote:


>>


>>> Current cosmology does place the Earth at the center of the


>>> Universe,

Google 'Solar System', you medieval fundamentalist, and tell

us which body the planets ORBIT! B^D


>>>since all points in space are the center of the Universe.


>>> Or something like that.


>


> > An abuse of the term "center", and, like all such, casts the integrity of


> > the abusing ideology in doubt.


>


> All ideologies are subject to the staggering limitations of the human


> intellect.

In your case, especially so! B^D


> Grand Ultimageneralissimo of the Shock and Awe wing of the Usenet


> Flame Force / Defensive Alliance

pompous self-pumping martinet! B^D

 
S

Seon Ferguson

Guest
<fasgnadh@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:c90681cc-2027-430a-a7b5-e6bc893e229f@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...


> On Jan 1, 6:35 am, Axel Hussein Yerbouti mhm23x3 <mhm2...@gmail.com>


> wrote:


>> On Dec 31, 2:16 pm, mimus <tinmimu...@hotmail.com> wrote:


>>> Axel Insein Yerbouti mhm23x3 <mhm2...@gmail.com> wrote:


>>>


>>>> Current cosmology does place the Earth at the center of the


>>>> Universe,

Who was the retarded idiot who said that? What next the Earth is flat?

 
S

Seon Ferguson

Guest
"Seon Ferguson" <seongf@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:495d9bc6$0$22083$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...


>


>


> <fasgnadh@yahoo.com> wrote in message


> news:c90681cc-2027-430a-a7b5-e6bc893e229f@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...


>> On Jan 1, 6:35 am, Axel Hussein Yerbouti mhm23x3 <mhm2...@gmail.com>


>> wrote:


>>> On Dec 31, 2:16 pm, mimus <tinmimu...@hotmail.com> wrote:


>>>> Axel Insein Yerbouti mhm23x3 <mhm2...@gmail.com> wrote:


>>>>


>>>>> Current cosmology does place the Earth at the center of the


>>>>> Universe,


>


> Who was the retarded idiot who said that? What next the Earth is flat?


>


>

Wait I take it back calling them an idiot and a ****** is a insult to idiots

and retards everywhere.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom