In article
s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> lsenders@hotmail.com writes:>>
>> Funny, I've spent my entire life an scientific laboratories,
>> and no one's ever even offered to swap me a mere girlfriend.
>>
>> The most outrageous and debauched thing I've ever encountered
>> was all of us sitting out on the roof the day before Christmas
>> break, making frozen daiquiries with a blender, lab alcohol,
>> and a flavorful ester I will not mention here, lest someone
>> try it at home.
>>
> It ended when someone, drunk, ran over one of the employees in
> their car. But I know of one of the scientist, a div. head
> no less, who's secretary lived with him and his wife. No, it
> wasn't just a convenience stay. Another div head use to have
> his secretary purchase sex items on her credit card for his
> girl friend (an employee who got her share of "bennies") so
> that his wife wouldn't notice the purchases on his card.
>
> As for alcohol, it use to flow freely, in fountains! Literally
> fountains to refresh your glass with. Another accident, this
> time an employee running over a survey crews equipment before
> ending up in one of the ponds, ended the fountains.
>>
>> Clearly we were "freed of moral restraint". =A0Surprising
>> that we didn't go rape an entire sorority, isn't it?
>>
>> And what lab were *you* in, with the wife-swapping and all?
>>
> Not going to disclose as I received this infor from someone
> who had been there from day one. The wife-swapping stuff
> was within the closed community of the upper echelons. There
> were many others who confessed to the same antics in the
> early daze.
And of course we can extrapolate from this single apocryphal example
to the conclusion that all evolutionary biologists everhwere
don't actually subscribe to the theory of evolution, but
rather are out to crush "moral restraing" wherever it may
be found?
>
> I will say this however, before I left, many of the scientist
> were less atheistic, really agnostic if not actually attending
> churches. I'm not saying that many were Bible believing
> Christians, but there was a notable change after 30 yrs.
>>
>>> No, never seen it quoted in books but have seen it
>>> plainly stated on radio and tv.
>>
>> I haven't. =A0Fancy that.
>>
>> And you can't document these alleged outrageous statements,
>> or even attempt them from memory.
>>
>> Fancy -- again -- that.
>>
> Well the BBC statement has often been noted so it shouldn't
> be hard to verify.
Excellent! And since it's your claim -- one I find
extremely dubious -- then you should have no trouble
documenting it.
Right here, in fact:
> Personally I've heard it at least a
> dozen times and even heard a replay of the interview on
> the radio once.
Then it should be trivial for you to come up with a source.
>
> As you say, but 2 scientist. Oh, but what two they were.
> There were other noted philosophic evolutionist who also
> stated this. I do have it documented somewhere but it's
> not that important for me to spend the time to find it. I
> also have a DVD recording (somewhere in a series of about
> 60 DVD's) where an evolutionist in a creationist debate,
> like wise confesses it.
"I have this documented somewhere"...interestingly enough,
every single one of your claims seems to be something
you heard somewhere, but cannot for the life of you find
again.
Isn't it interesting that you are alone in thinking you
have heard these things?
>>
>>>> Instead they tend towards things like "Thus we see the transition
>>>> from the reptilian jaw bones to the impedence-matching
>>>> structure of the mammalian middle ear. =3DA0Isn't that just
>>>> the neatest thing?"
>>
>>> And what isn't reported for common consumption that
>>> the brow and jaw bone never cease growing, so the older
>>> you get, the more pronounced they become. =A0There is a
>>> museum in eastern Turkey that exhibits a 6 1.2 inch
>>> wide human jaw bone. =A0In Egypt, they have a 47 in
>>> femur. =A0If you want a really interesting read, read
>>> "Darwin's =A0Black Box" by Michael Behe.
>>
>> I have utterly no idea what that has to do with the evolution
>> of the mammalian inner ear.
>>
> You mentioned a jaw bone.
I did indeed. And you then responded with something utterly
orthogonal to my point.
> A 6 1/2 in jaw bone in a normal
> growth human plays out to an individual of nearly 300 yrs
> in age.
Or someone stricken with acromegaly
> The 47 inch femur would calculate out to a 16 foot
> tall human being.
Again, what does this have to do with the theory of evolution?
>
> Again, read the book.
Why bother? His two primary examples, the bacterial flagellum
and the blood-clotting cascade have long since been shot down.
All proteins involved in each, or proteins homologous thereto, have
been found to be present, and involved in other processes. Thus
there is nothing de novo involved.
>>
>>>> Hard to declare a moral holiday based on such geeky wowies.
>>
>>>> However, if you are right, then evolutionary biologists
>>>> should as a group be notorious as rapists, murderers, arsonists,
>>>> and thieves.
>>
>>> Which begs my original question: =A0"Where does moral
>>> restraint come from? =A0
>>
>> The same place it comes from in other social animals: our
>> wiring. =A0Wolves don't kill other wolves within the pack;
>
> Why? Where does this come from if we all descended from
> an impersonal rock?
>>
>> it's in their self-interest not to.
>
> And canadian geese and bald eagles mate for life.
Yes, as do many other species. Obviously what you view
as moral behavior is not confined to humans.
>
>>=A0(but they do
>> subordinate their own reproductive interests and
>> altruistically assist in raising the cubs of others,
>> something few humans are sufficently "moral" to do)
>>
> But where does this restraint come from?
I repeat: if it is beneficial to an organism to be highly
social -- and without being a social animal, humans would
be about as well-placed as orangutans -- then that organism
will have evolved restraints which keep it from destroying
its own members. Chimps do not kill within their own
bands, but will instantly kill a member of another band.
>>
>>> History tells when restraint was
>>> removed and terrible terrible things were done. =A0But
>>> why is it that men are not as bad as they could be,
>>> for the most part. =A0Also, why does morality decay in
>>> an affluent society?
>>
>> Why do you think it does? =A0Current society is both more affluent
>> and considerably more moral,
>
> You're not very old, are you?
Just going by actuarial distributions, the odds are that I
an older than you.
> It is considerably more
> IM-moral. In fact, I have seen a government chart which
which you of course cannot reproduce here, much like
the rest of your "evidence"
> beginning in the 1930's and extends to the mid 1990's. It
> was a record of the increase of, out of wedlock child births,
> divorces, single parent households, suicides, and the
> national index of murders. The time line nearly parallels
> the government funded and mandated teaching of evolution.
Really? Your "timeline" graphs the percent of schools
which taught evolution at any given time?
Why am I skeptical?
Incidentally, I do not regard your first four items --
out of wedlock births, divorces, single parent households,
and suicides -- as immoral. Unfortunate in many
cases, absolutely, but not moral issues.
> Did you ever read what those two boys wore at Colombine and
> what day they chose to murder who?
Yes, they were playing out a fantasy based on "The Matrix".
What in the world does that have to do with the widespread
acceptance among biologists of the theory of evolution?
>
> You send kids to school and inform them that they are
> all descended from apes and that there are no absolutes
> and that all there is is a mechanical universe and then
> wonder why such things happen. Amazing.
And so you think that atheists -- and biologists -- in this
country therefore must have much higher rates of murder, rape,
assault, and theft than do believers?
Isn't it odd that no one has actually ever noticed any
such thign?
>
>>on the whole, than the Southern culture
>> I was raised in six decades ago.
>>
> Then you must have been mighty poor and never
> traveled more than 10 miles from your home.
Either that, or moderately well off, and lived
in the North, South, and Southwest.
> Me,
> I'm a "Northern" boy, more than six decades. My
> parents use to drive the family down to Boloxi and
> Atlanta for vacations, visiting relatives. Yes
> there were those "whites only" water fountains and
> the such, but people were polite and more often than
> not, attended church on Sunday.
And a black man could be lynched merely for saying
something possibly suggestive to a white woman.
And those white women, of course, were not expected
to express interest in becoming pilots rather than
stewardesses, engineers rather than secretaries,
lawyers rather than legal assistants. I was
there, and I remember.
> A son would call his
> father "sir" and if you got in trouble at school, you
> got spanked there and when you got home, you got it
> twice as bad. There was a common decency. You didn't
> see to women making out in the fast food car line.
That's a matter of politeness, not of fundamental morals.
> You didn't see near naked women, twice life size
> with their legs spread apart in the front window of
> the local tanning salon.
Again: taste, not morality.
You seem to equate sex and immorality. I do not.
> Theft in stores, while not
> unheard of, was minimal. On a whole, we were more
> community minded that present. Suppose air conditioning
> and television has a role to play in that somewhere.
>>
>>>>=3DA0The name of every evolutionary biologist
>>>> should be on all no-fly lists. =3DA0The arrival of an
>>>> evolutionary biologist in your neighborhood should
>>>> trigger the organization of a neighborhood watch.
>>>> There probably should be an online listing of evolutionary
>>>> biologists, similar to that for sexual predators.
>>
>>>> To the best of my knowledge, none of this is true,
>>>> in spite of the notorious moral license brought on
>>>> by a lifetime spent contemplating of the theory of evolution.
>>
>>> how many debates have you attended?
>>
>> Which debates have you attended, from which you came
>> away realizing that evolutionary biologists are
>> amoral sociopathic monsters?
>>
> two that I remember. In one, the scientist became so
> frustrated in having his "evidence" explained away
> __scientifically__ that he became exceedingly belligerent
> and what a potty mouth.
But of course you cannot provide any pointers so that
the rest of us may decide for ourselves.
>
> the first time I remember a really ignorant outburst
> was at NW U in Chicago. This was in the very early
> '70's. There when the evolutionary scientist finished
> their opening arguments, the students were stomping their
> feet on the wooden bleachers, congratulating their
> advocates in stomping their opponents before they ever
> even got to speak. But the creationist, as was nearly
> always the case, point by point decimated the opening
> "scientific proofs."
By your interpretation. Perhaps you will give us
an actual example or two, so that we may decide
for ourselves?
> By the end of the debate, most
> of the students were truly sullen and most never even
> talked to one another on their way out. But there were
> some students who had had their comfortable chairs
> pulled out from underneath them and they couldn't handle
> it. Four letter shouting attacks were spurred on by
> one of the four evolutionary scientist (a philosophy
> prof)
Well, what was he, a member of the philosophy department
or someone in the biological sciences. And what was
his name?
verbal abuse of all things pertaining to
> Christianity. It really was sad. Prof's walk around
> on these little pedestals as if they are gods, either
> self declared or so thought by their students. To
> be in a gym where two of them acted more like children
> than children really left some of the students deflated.
>
> all for tonight.
== cary
