Where do all the creationists go?

Joz: I was referring to Cobra's and my long-running discussion most recently contained in the "Cobra Model Part 2" thread. I think it was in Evolution, but don't really remember. As Cobra noted, it's been awhile...Cobra: Sorry to hear about your injury. I ripped up basically every major ligament component of my right knee a long time ago (not track, jumping out of perfectly good airplanes - long story). Took me almost six months and surgery to get it back together. Still hurts in cold-damp weather.KP: Congrats on your letter! I lettered in soccer, and remember it was a pretty big deal. Good job!

"CS which thread was it stonehenge or design inferrence?"Design inference. Still haven't gotten around to it. Tomorrow... maybe..."(sorry about the injury bud I once sat out a whole season due to a strained groin, broken bones are far better than soft tissue, they usually heal faster)"Yeah, the injury wasn't so bad, what sucked is that I was out for the season watching KP get better than me.

"Joz: I was referring to Cobra's and my long-running discussion most recently contained in the "Cobra Model Part 2" thread. I think it was in Evolution, but don't really remember. As Cobra noted, it's been awhile..."Sorry man, I want to reply, but the topic is no longer active! If it comes back online I will get a response up. Sorry about this."Cobra: Sorry to hear about your injury. I ripped up basically every major ligament component of my right knee a long time ago (not track, jumping out of perfectly good airplanes - long story). Took me almost six months and surgery to get it back together. Still hurts in cold-damp weather."Don't feel too bad for me, you're injury sounds alot worse!

You pick the post and I will recomment/review it to see if you are satisifed. It has been a long journey but thanks to Gottlieb's book which I believe I have titled somewhere on your database it is no longer the case that my ideas are only of use in committment proceedings. I have consistently thought on a deeper physical level than ALL of the people both on and off net that i have communicated with about these ideas of bioloigcal change. You are correct to observe it is often difficult to say if one speaks the same in writing and by mouth. I would hope this is not the case with me but even my mother does not understand what happened. Life with a person however in my case would mean reality to anyone walking in these shoes. So no, I am not impossible to get along with I had two children but again there is some illegitmacy there as well.Gottlieb in the 70s made (while I was still remebering the TV image of walking on moon, men.) the label of probablistic vs deterministc epigentics and this indeed was the point of contention between JD Murry and myself when I was deciding what to do after I ostenibly graduated, which I did not if you do not already know this, (and as for why I started in this thread is anyones guess, I do not know)because UNLIKE the terms of neophenogenesis that Gottlieb cobbles together I side a little more with Hacekel, believe it or not, but reject his social Darwinism compeltely JD Murray DID NOT even if on a second run at the question would not have himself labeld a preformationist sought to PREFORM my graduate thesis in developement by asserting that it was OK to use RXN/Diffusion equations of mammal tissue on snakes. The whole EVOLUTIONARY implication of behvaioral (migration that Provine consistently mistakes as not being fair to Fisher)neophenogeneis turned this neurobiology that I got mixed up between LOWER vertebrates in Adlers and Hopkins labs (between OUTSIDE the frog brain and INSIDE the fish one) (and psychiatry obviously DOes have a stack in any new phenotypes of humans, that is what the DSM is all about)with what for Maxwell was magnetism rotary and electricty translating...There that sends you into the incomprehensible part. The problem was that Ernst Mayr instigated and Provine continued to fund the wrong idea about the very words that Wright used and... we do not have all of the possibilites of neopheonogeneis worked out but behvior IS NOT THE only possibility. I had suggested to Provine molecular free paths and it is fairly obvious to me that it may be Bohr's nickel here but I do not always speak for the Enstein I am not. They just did such a sloppy job of teaching evolution at cornell that i still see the same bird today that was here in the 80s and that obviously can not be true.Look, the point is that Gottlieb uses terms "experience" and "co-action" for what Richard Boyd had approved for me in writing to work on as "downward causation" from soma on in and that is what I was contracted to do at Cornell. Gottlieb's evolution I may disagree with but his call for a better synthesis both he and I are in the same line with we would have different exploratory researhc directions to the same thesis only. SO IT CAN NOT BE SAID THAT MY THOUGHTS HAD NO USE. Who else is trying to figure out how any individual developement can be abstracted into population genetics?? I will talk with them and it will not be hard to understand me. I am on the dawn of the idea that the very reason that this had not brought biometry to a better biodiveristy informatics IS because we have no computer support for ordinal collection but only database meta data stratgies for I certainly disagree with Wolfram unless some new morality arises but the C/E web pages do not indicate this happening any time soon.If you mean to I talk shop in private?? The answer is no. I take this posting business rather seriously and consider the net a way to get this idea of neophenogensis recognized without the traditional publishing venues since the big boys in academic chairs would rather hear Zimmer polished Yale than my Rough Gorge. And by the way if neophenogeneis supports Maxwell's fardian electrotonic state the 50mil that Cornell is plannning to use in life sciences will be a wasted effort. But they do not even bother to look out back into COllege twon. Also this idea of Gottliebs and not my difficult physicality of the same also does not need to necessarily imply the existence of ANY defintion of the phenotype. That depends on how parallel comptuers are used to process population genetics measurements. The salamanderdoes not care if I use a french curve or a striaht edge and computer scientist does not worry about the domain as long as all the orthogoalities match in and up.Good Day. More later.

I am sorry Mark, yes it is. I was stung with a search bot on Taxacom where I tried to maintain some class posting but SEEING THAT fail in real time and not being able to get even California to see what I write after my poor performance on True Seekers I have not given any slack.I learned a little Zarwa before I left for Congo and my high school German is dark to non existent. One of the reasons that I have a rather opaque posting pattern is that I have contined to sound out most of my thought prior to coming on line so usually I am able to to improvise most of my comments. I also have some videos both my own and taken off the TV that I watch to see if anything changes (in terms of what I think when I watch them) althoug I do very little of this any more. I was rather upset when I was able to be fairly even handed to creation and evolution IN TERMS OF CONCEPTS on TV but could not maintain as high a standard when it came to communicating the same on the net.But it is true that since I have been working pretty much on my own version of "neophenogeneis" since the late 80s I have not attempted to become any more cultured in terms of language. I got off that possibility when it was clear to me that Deconstruction could be the exemplar of individual development divisions for any statistical purpose in biometry but Derrida denied to my question (in person) any interest or possibility in science connected to his name. I stoped looking at Derrida's Origin of Geometry of Husserl, cut off my interest in language and stoped worrying if Husserl had stolen any philosophy from Cantor in Hall and went straight ahead with what writing in English did get over at Cornell, namely that there is a larger plenum or categories of different diverity in biology than any in any computer science. Only Wolfram seems to be running counter to this claim. He may be correct but then again the Pope's 96 magesterium(sp?) would need the answer it already had in writing by me and continued in terms by Gottlieb somewhat since before the 90s and the social anthropology would have to not exist that does post-911. May-be, some time later this will happen. I certianly hope so.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark:

Very interesting, but...... is English your first language? It was a civil enough question. Judging by the tone of your answer, I guess so. I never intended to insult. I GENUINELY CAN'T TELL.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brad McFall:
I am sorry Mark, yes it is. I was stung with a search bot on Taxacom where I tried to maintain some class posting but SEEING THAT fail in real time and not being able to get even California to see what I write after my poor performance on True Seekers I have not given any slack.

​

I learned a little Zarwa before I left for Congo and my high school German is dark to non existent. One of the reasons that I have a rather opaque posting pattern is that I have contined to sound out most of my thought prior to coming on line so usually I am able to to improvise most of my comments. I also have some videos both my own and taken off the TV that I watch to see if anything changes (in terms of what I think when I watch them) althoug I do very little of this any more. I was rather upset when I was able to be fairly even handed to creation and evolution IN TERMS OF CONCEPTS on TV but could not maintain as high a standard when it came to communicating the same on the net.

​

But it is true that since I have been working pretty much on my own version of "neophenogeneis" since the late 80s I have not attempted to become any more cultured in terms of language. I got off that possibility when it was clear to me that Deconstruction could be the exemplar of individual development divisions for any statistical purpose in biometry but Derrida denied to my question (in person) any interest or possibility in science connected to his name. I stoped looking at Derrida's Origin of Geometry of Husserl, cut off my interest in language and stoped worrying if Husserl had stolen any philosophy from Cantor in Hall and went straight ahead with what writing in English did get over at Cornell, namely that there is a larger plenum or categories of different diverity in biology than any in any computer science. Only Wolfram seems to be running counter to this claim. He may be correct but then again the Pope's 96 magesterium(sp?) would need the answer it already had in writing by me and continued in terms by Gottlieb somewhat since before the 90s and the social anthropology would have to not exist that does post-911. May-be, some time later this will happen. I certianly hope so.

---

You make my point for me....Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Thanks, Mark but this is not a point but a surface. I am not sholdering all of the burden for this one but it will take me some time to re-describe where it is simply a good will continue issue.I would have to know if you "caught" my comment on the "table" to be sure it is safe to shave with your RAZOR. The capter that Croizat wrote on Catholicism and Panbiogeography devovled without evolving into the dendogram vs themnogram issue that Mayr's failure to Haeckel out his sypmatry per gradient by the New Zelanders but I give you credit that the contour you are on would not be permitted to be terminated here. We will see.

I still have no clue as to what you're on about. It's serious headwork getting through one of your posts, Brad. I really don't mean to be rude (honestly!), I've said it before & I'll say it again, I really am the last person who should complain of others diction, punctuation etc. But you are simply unreadable.And It's not just me, mate.Do you proof read your posts before posting? I recommend typing in word or something, then pasting into the dialogue box.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brad McFall:
Thanks, Mark but this is not a point but a surface. I am not sholdering all of the burden for this one but it will take me some time to re-describe where it is simply a good will continue issue.

​

I would have to know if you "caught" my comment on the "table" to be sure it is safe to shave with your RAZOR. The capter that Croizat wrote on Catholicism and Panbiogeography devovled without evolving into the dendogram vs themnogram issue that Mayr's failure to Haeckel out his sypmatry per gradient by the New Zelanders but I give you credit that the contour you are on would not be permitted to be terminated here. We will see.

---

I need a translator.It is serious headwork getting through one of your posts, Brad, & it's not just me. Do you proofread your posts before submission? I recommend typing up longer posts in word, or something.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

I write content. I am not really that sorry that I have NEVER taken the time to see if the context can be brought back to pre-post modern days. Look I have two BROTHERS with advanced physics degrees who know some parts of IT inside out as we all started with basic and games programming. I did not lear not write and I did not learn to write programms I learned how to think biology. When we talk about the future of computation and biology we also do not reach understanding BUT I KNOW because these are my brothers and not some random person from the web (and I do not put you in this category and thank you for putting your head into the task and not into the coke crack) that I am correct in my own "domain" biology and computers etc.We talked of wolfram but what happened was that focus was turned back on my ideas. I can not win even when I try to be objective as to getting a point across. Get the surface smoothed without pits, now that would be something beautiful and it is for this means that I do not let up posting. I think biology in terms of nouns or Latin Names if you prefer and I do know that when I proof a post and begin to correct the spellings that I find that the possible multi interpretations of the arrangement of these nouns offen could lead me into bifurcating the message to an excessive extent that I have not time enough or interest at the momement to complete so I decided way back just to sit down and type and if that gets something across that is all I will expect for the web communications. I had higher expectations for TV and I was "goosed" on this so I came into web posting already dumbed down and did not improve that but only staying power in the forging of links with others who do indeed if only for a time get something out these notions of bioloigc change by behavior that remains clipped to the person not as familiar to my posts as others. I try to leave some space between my words behind but sometimes I am forced to space the letters out.Ok, Read Gottlieb's INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPEMENT AND EVOLUTION and I promise me if you really wish to find out what I am on about I will limit my interaction with you to that content unless you permit me to range outside that and change back to my own style on the same hypothesis that I have not failed to verify that I have consistently thought the resemeblence itself when not merely the form on a much more physical basis. Dont confuse the man with the idea. This is what often happens and the mental and physical get inverted I am left with only creation science for the printer and people mis hear me speak of myself rather than Kant's difference of formal and empirical psychology.If it was shown that my claim that a cell from the skin had been pictorially rotated to present any brain cell was showing true then much of the above would be unnecessary as observation would hold the turth that is true anyway.

I don't know about anyone else but I for one don't hang around here too long because it doesn't answer enough questions. You can waffle about rocks and things till the cows come home but once you've understood that we were created by God you can go on to better things like how to find true enlightenment and live for ever.
Most people nowdays have been bought up on evolution but when you understand that it's all a pack of lies from satan, and God always tells the truth, then you can move on and educate people for real. I feel sorry for people today because they are not exposed to the truth very often. It's not there fault that they think evolution is a given fact. Even some of our church leaders think the same way but that's because they havn't really really studied the bible properly and they are under satan's influence and don't bother to find out the truth even when I tell them. I hope some of you evolutionists manage to chuck out your beliefs and come to accept Jesus as your saviour before Armagedon otherwise I wouln't want to be in your shoes when God devours you all for telling lies about his creation.------------------
back when I've got time

Let me present a translation from the Cretinese:

quote:

---

Even some of our church leaders think the same way but that's because they havn't really really studied the bible properly

---

Translation:- they haven't been brainwashed by the same preachers as me.

quote:

---

and they are under satan's influence

---

Translation:- they don't agree with me

quote:

---

and don't bother to find out the truth even when I tell them.

---

Translation:- and they still don't agree with me

quote:

---

I hope some of you evolutionists manage to chuck out your beliefs and come to accept Jesus as your saviour before Armagedon

---

Translation:- I think that my tiny fringe cult is the only true Christianity. Worse, I think that evolution and atheism are the same thing.

quote:

---

otherwise I wouln't want to be in your shoes when God devours you all for telling lies about his creation.

---

Translation:- so I'll try scaring you.

Your right, they haven’t had their brains washed, they need to
cleanse ther heads and hearts through the blood of Christ before it’s too late like it says in the bible. REV 1.5 AND REV 5 AND REV 16.5-6.Your right that they don't agree with me and they don't agree with God and they'll suffer for it. 1 COR 10.21 AND 1 TIM 1.20 AND MAT 13,19 AND 1 JOHN 5.19And there parishioners will suffer because of them. SEE THE REFERENCES I PUT BEFOREIt’s not what I think that matters its what God thinks that matters. He doesn’t accept any of the pseudoreligionist’s that you get nowdays.
He won’t put up with there lies much longer. Evolutionists and aetheists are all liers, their all the same in that respect, they both twist the Bible and lie about God and his creation. MAT 7.15-23.It’s not me you should be scared of its God. It’s ignorant not to be in awe of his power and his plans, and its dangerous to tell all those lies to other people who don’t deserve to be lied to. SEE THE WHOLE BOOK OF REVELATION. All of the references are from the Revised Standard Version of the bible.

Is it the unseasonal warm weather that's bringing them out today?I object to being called a liar, Apeman. Even if I'm wrong, I believe that evolutionary theory is essentially true. A liar is someone who says what he knows is false.I think you need to go and read the ninth commandment, because you're well foul of it here, mateyboy.

Hey Karl,Given the fact that it took ol' Apeman two months to come up with that crushing reply, we should be hearing from him again sometime in June. I'll give you a hint to tide you over: since all evilutionists and anyone who doesn't agree with his narrow, ignorant, bigoted, irrational, literalist view of the bible are spawn of satan, by Apeman's lights you ARE a liar. Satan being the Father of Lies and all. See how easy it is when you suspend your higher brain functions?