Group: sci.med.psychobiology
Dialog and news in psychiatry and psychobiology.
Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
a challenge to evolution punks
Re: a challenge to evolution punks
"louann_m@yahoo,com " <louann_m@yahoo,com > wrote in
news:1177510370.834606.162580@n15g2000prd.googlegroups,com :
> On Apr 23, 9:54 pm, Lee Oswald Ving <leeov...@yahoo,com > wrote:
>> Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote
>
>> What did I just tell you about making shit up instead of admitting
>> you have no idea, bitch?
>
> I beg your pardon? _I_ am a bitch. Kelly is nowhere near that rank.
Begging _your_ pardon, but I believe yours is a proper title, hence should
be "Bitch," or even more Properly "Madame Bitch."
It's unfortunate that the spelling is otherwise similar to the epithet
deserved by that deluded loudmouth, but I am merely the user of the
language, not it's creator.
"louann_m@yahoo,com " <louann_m@yahoo,com > wrote in
news:1177510370.834606.162580@n15g2000prd.googlegroups,com :
> On Apr 23, 9:54 pm, Lee Oswald Ving <leeov...@yahoo,com > wrote:
>> Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote
>
>> What did I just tell you about making shit up instead of admitting
>> you have no idea, bitch?
>
> I beg your pardon? _I_ am a bitch. Kelly is nowhere near that rank.
Begging _your_ pardon, but I believe yours is a proper title, hence should
be "Bitch," or even more Properly "Madame Bitch."
It's unfortunate that the spelling is otherwise similar to the epithet
deserved by that deluded loudmouth, but I am merely the user of the
language, not it's creator.
Re: a challenge to evolution punks
Dale Kelly wrote:
>
> provide proof of the subconscious or shut up, evolution punks
>
>
I fail to see what the Sex Pistils have to do with it, unless you are
referring to their stamena.
--
"Fundamentalists can kiss my left behind."
Some bumper sticker or t-shirt.
Dale Kelly wrote:
>
> provide proof of the subconscious or shut up, evolution punks
>
>
I fail to see what the Sex Pistils have to do with it, unless you are
referring to their stamena.
--
"Fundamentalists can kiss my left behind."
Some bumper sticker or t-shirt.
Re: a challenge to evolution punks
þus cwæð Lexington Victoria-Rice:
> Dale Kelly wrote:
>
>>
>> provide proof of the subconscious or shut up, evolution punks
>>
>>
> I fail to see what the Sex Pistils have to do with it, unless you are
> referring to their stamena.
Punk? Eek!
þus cwæð Lexington Victoria-Rice:
> Dale Kelly wrote:
>
>>
>> provide proof of the subconscious or shut up, evolution punks
>>
>>
> I fail to see what the Sex Pistils have to do with it, unless you are
> referring to their stamena.
Punk? Eek!
Re: a challenge to evolution punks
On 24 Apr, 03:26, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
> the modern definition of life is emergent behavior
>
> even plants with no minds or free will are considered to be alive, just
> because they have emergent behavior
Wasn't me who cursed the fig tree.
> emergent behavior in consciousness depends on the mysterious intermediary
> called the subconscious
>
> we do not communicate directly with the central nervous system, we
> supposedly use an intermediary, the mysterious subconscious
>
> I suggest there is more proof of God as an intermediary than there is of
> a mysterious subconscious
>
> more so, I suggest that when we will our bodies to act, they act with an
> intermediary of God, not the subconscious
>
> provide proof of the subconscious or shut up, evolution punks
>
> --
> Dale http :// www .vedantasite.org
On 24 Apr, 03:26, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
> the modern definition of life is emergent behavior
>
> even plants with no minds or free will are considered to be alive, just
> because they have emergent behavior
Wasn't me who cursed the fig tree.
> emergent behavior in consciousness depends on the mysterious intermediary
> called the subconscious
>
> we do not communicate directly with the central nervous system, we
> supposedly use an intermediary, the mysterious subconscious
>
> I suggest there is more proof of God as an intermediary than there is of
> a mysterious subconscious
>
> more so, I suggest that when we will our bodies to act, they act with an
> intermediary of God, not the subconscious
>
> provide proof of the subconscious or shut up, evolution punks
>
> --
> Dale http :// www .vedantasite.org
Re: a challenge to evolution punks
"Nic" <harrisondalen@hotmail,com > wrote in message
news:1177386515.865152.226680@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups,com ...
> On 24 Apr, 03:26, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
> > the modern definition of life is emergent behavior
> >
> > even plants with no minds or free will are considered to be alive, just
> > because they have emergent behavior
>
> Wasn't me who cursed the fig tree.
And the Lord said unto the tree, "Wilt thou?", and it wilted. 8-}
"Nic" <harrisondalen@hotmail,com > wrote in message
news:1177386515.865152.226680@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups,com ...
> On 24 Apr, 03:26, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
> > the modern definition of life is emergent behavior
> >
> > even plants with no minds or free will are considered to be alive, just
> > because they have emergent behavior
>
> Wasn't me who cursed the fig tree.
And the Lord said unto the tree, "Wilt thou?", and it wilted. 8-}
Re: a challenge to evolution punks
Dale Kelly wrote:
> the modern definition of life is emergent behavior
No it isn't.
>
> even plants with no minds or free will are considered to be alive, just
> because they have emergent behavior
No, because they have metabolisms and reproduce.
>
> emergent behavior in consciousness depends on the mysterious intermediary
> called the subconscious
>
> we do not communicate directly with the central nervous system, we
> supposedly use an intermediary, the mysterious subconscious
>
> I suggest there is more proof of God as an intermediary than there is of
> a mysterious subconscious
Really? What proof?
We know complex neural networks exist in the brain, and that neurons use
electrical and chemical signals to communicate with each other. We know
specific locations of the brain and involved in specific mental
abilities. We know nerves transmit impulses from the brain to trigger
voluntary muscle actions.
>
> more so, I suggest that when we will our bodies to act, they act with an
> intermediary of God, not the subconscious
What part of the brain is God in?
>
> provide proof of the subconscious or shut up, evolution punks
>
I wish willfull stupidity hurt.
Klaus
>
Dale Kelly wrote:
> the modern definition of life is emergent behavior
No it isn't.
>
> even plants with no minds or free will are considered to be alive, just
> because they have emergent behavior
No, because they have metabolisms and reproduce.
>
> emergent behavior in consciousness depends on the mysterious intermediary
> called the subconscious
>
> we do not communicate directly with the central nervous system, we
> supposedly use an intermediary, the mysterious subconscious
>
> I suggest there is more proof of God as an intermediary than there is of
> a mysterious subconscious
Really? What proof?
We know complex neural networks exist in the brain, and that neurons use
electrical and chemical signals to communicate with each other. We know
specific locations of the brain and involved in specific mental
abilities. We know nerves transmit impulses from the brain to trigger
voluntary muscle actions.
>
> more so, I suggest that when we will our bodies to act, they act with an
> intermediary of God, not the subconscious
What part of the brain is God in?
>
> provide proof of the subconscious or shut up, evolution punks
>
I wish willfull stupidity hurt.
Klaus
>
Re: a challenge to evolution punks
On Apr 23, 7:26 pm, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
> the modern definition of life is emergent behavior
>
> even plants with no minds or free will are considered to be alive, just
> because they have emergent behavior
>
> emergent behavior in consciousness depends on the mysterious intermediary
> called the subconscious
>
> we do not communicate directly with the central nervous system, we
> supposedly use an intermediary, the mysterious subconscious
>
> I suggest there is more proof of God as an intermediary than there is of
> a mysterious subconscious
>
> more so, I suggest that when we will our bodies to act, they act with an
> intermediary of God, not the subconscious
>
> provide proof of the subconscious or shut up, evolution punks
>
Every single statement a falsehood! This belongs in a museum.
On Apr 23, 7:26 pm, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
> the modern definition of life is emergent behavior
>
> even plants with no minds or free will are considered to be alive, just
> because they have emergent behavior
>
> emergent behavior in consciousness depends on the mysterious intermediary
> called the subconscious
>
> we do not communicate directly with the central nervous system, we
> supposedly use an intermediary, the mysterious subconscious
>
> I suggest there is more proof of God as an intermediary than there is of
> a mysterious subconscious
>
> more so, I suggest that when we will our bodies to act, they act with an
> intermediary of God, not the subconscious
>
> provide proof of the subconscious or shut up, evolution punks
>
Every single statement a falsehood! This belongs in a museum.
Re: a challenge to evolution punks
On Apr 24, 12:29 am, Anlatt the Builder <tirh...@aol,com > wrote:
> On Apr 23, 7:26 pm, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > the modern definition of life is emergent behavior
>
> > even plants with no minds or free will are considered to be alive, just
> > because they have emergent behavior
>
> > emergent behavior in consciousness depends on the mysterious intermediary
> > called the subconscious
>
> > we do not communicate directly with the central nervous system, we
> > supposedly use an intermediary, the mysterious subconscious
>
> > I suggest there is more proof of God as an intermediary than there is of
> > a mysterious subconscious
>
> > more so, I suggest that when we will our bodies to act, they act with an
> > intermediary of God, not the subconscious
>
> > provide proof of the subconscious or shut up, evolution punks
>
> Every single statement a falsehood! This belongs in a museum.
Specificially the Museum of Craptastic Internet Theories.
On Apr 24, 12:29 am, Anlatt the Builder <tirh...@aol,com > wrote:
> On Apr 23, 7:26 pm, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > the modern definition of life is emergent behavior
>
> > even plants with no minds or free will are considered to be alive, just
> > because they have emergent behavior
>
> > emergent behavior in consciousness depends on the mysterious intermediary
> > called the subconscious
>
> > we do not communicate directly with the central nervous system, we
> > supposedly use an intermediary, the mysterious subconscious
>
> > I suggest there is more proof of God as an intermediary than there is of
> > a mysterious subconscious
>
> > more so, I suggest that when we will our bodies to act, they act with an
> > intermediary of God, not the subconscious
>
> > provide proof of the subconscious or shut up, evolution punks
>
> Every single statement a falsehood! This belongs in a museum.
Specificially the Museum of Craptastic Internet Theories.
Re: a challenge to evolution punks
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 21:26:47 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Dale Kelly
<dale.kelly@comcast,net >:
>the modern definition of life is emergent behavior
>
>even plants with no minds or free will are considered to be alive, just
>because they have emergent behavior
>
>emergent behavior in consciousness depends on the mysterious intermediary
>called the subconscious
>
>we do not communicate directly with the central nervous system, we
>supposedly use an intermediary, the mysterious subconscious
None of the above is correct.
>I suggest there is more proof of God as an intermediary than there is of
>a mysterious subconscious
Fine. Post the proof.
>more so, I suggest that when we will our bodies to act, they act with an
>intermediary of God, not the subconscious
Fine. Post the evidence.
>provide proof of the subconscious or shut up, evolution punks
I could say "Post proof of God or shut up, fundie punk", but
that would make me seem as ignorant as you are. So I won't.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 21:26:47 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Dale Kelly
<dale.kelly@comcast,net >:
>the modern definition of life is emergent behavior
>
>even plants with no minds or free will are considered to be alive, just
>because they have emergent behavior
>
>emergent behavior in consciousness depends on the mysterious intermediary
>called the subconscious
>
>we do not communicate directly with the central nervous system, we
>supposedly use an intermediary, the mysterious subconscious
None of the above is correct.
>I suggest there is more proof of God as an intermediary than there is of
>a mysterious subconscious
Fine. Post the proof.
>more so, I suggest that when we will our bodies to act, they act with an
>intermediary of God, not the subconscious
Fine. Post the evidence.
>provide proof of the subconscious or shut up, evolution punks
I could say "Post proof of God or shut up, fundie punk", but
that would make me seem as ignorant as you are. So I won't.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Re: a challenge to evolution punks
"Dale Kelly" <dale.kelly@comcast,net > wrote in message
news:pan.2007.04.24.02.28.15@comcast,net ...
> the modern definition of life is emergent behavior
>
> even plants with no minds or free will are considered to be alive, just
> because they have emergent behavior
>
> emergent behavior in consciousness depends on the mysterious intermediary
> called the subconscious
>
> we do not communicate directly with the central nervous system, we
> supposedly use an intermediary, the mysterious subconscious
>
> I suggest there is more proof of God as an intermediary than there is of
> a mysterious subconscious
>
> more so, I suggest that when we will our bodies to act, they act with an
> intermediary of God, not the subconscious
>
> provide proof of the subconscious or shut up, evolution punks
Invisible robot fish.
"Dale Kelly" <dale.kelly@comcast,net > wrote in message
news:pan.2007.04.24.02.28.15@comcast,net ...
> the modern definition of life is emergent behavior
>
> even plants with no minds or free will are considered to be alive, just
> because they have emergent behavior
>
> emergent behavior in consciousness depends on the mysterious intermediary
> called the subconscious
>
> we do not communicate directly with the central nervous system, we
> supposedly use an intermediary, the mysterious subconscious
>
> I suggest there is more proof of God as an intermediary than there is of
> a mysterious subconscious
>
> more so, I suggest that when we will our bodies to act, they act with an
> intermediary of God, not the subconscious
>
> provide proof of the subconscious or shut up, evolution punks
Invisible robot fish.
Re: a challenge to evolution punks
On Apr 24, 1:03 am, "Ross Langerak" <rlange...@earthlink,net > wrote:
> "Dale Kelly" <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote in message
>
> news:pan.2007.04.24.02.28.15@comcast,net ...
>
>
>
> > the modern definition of life is emergent behavior
>
> > even plants with no minds or free will are considered to be alive, just
> > because they have emergent behavior
>
> > emergent behavior in consciousness depends on the mysterious intermediary
> > called the subconscious
>
> > we do not communicate directly with the central nervous system, we
> > supposedly use an intermediary, the mysterious subconscious
>
> > I suggest there is more proof of God as an intermediary than there is of
> > a mysterious subconscious
>
> > more so, I suggest that when we will our bodies to act, they act with an
> > intermediary of God, not the subconscious
>
> > provide proof of the subconscious or shut up, evolution punks
>
> Invisible robot fish.
Visible robot fish!
http :// news.nationalgeographic,com /news/2005/10/1007 051007 robot fish.html
Kermit
On Apr 24, 1:03 am, "Ross Langerak" <rlange...@earthlink,net > wrote:
> "Dale Kelly" <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote in message
>
> news:pan.2007.04.24.02.28.15@comcast,net ...
>
>
>
> > the modern definition of life is emergent behavior
>
> > even plants with no minds or free will are considered to be alive, just
> > because they have emergent behavior
>
> > emergent behavior in consciousness depends on the mysterious intermediary
> > called the subconscious
>
> > we do not communicate directly with the central nervous system, we
> > supposedly use an intermediary, the mysterious subconscious
>
> > I suggest there is more proof of God as an intermediary than there is of
> > a mysterious subconscious
>
> > more so, I suggest that when we will our bodies to act, they act with an
> > intermediary of God, not the subconscious
>
> > provide proof of the subconscious or shut up, evolution punks
>
> Invisible robot fish.
Visible robot fish!
http :// news.nationalgeographic,com /news/2005/10/1007 051007 robot fish.html
Kermit
Re: a challenge to evolution punks
Op Tue, 24 Apr 2007 07:56:44 -0700, schreef Kermit:
> Visible robot fish!
>
> http :// news.nationalgeographic,com /news/2005/10/1007_051007_robot_fish.html
Lovely :)
Op Tue, 24 Apr 2007 07:56:44 -0700, schreef Kermit:
> Visible robot fish!
>
> http :// news.nationalgeographic,com /news/2005/10/1007_051007_robot_fish.html
Lovely :)
Re: a challenge to evolution punks
"Kermit" <unrestrained_hand@hotmail,com > wrote in message
news:1177426604.781421.291830@b40g2000prd.googlegroups,com ...
> On Apr 24, 1:03 am, "Ross Langerak" <rlange...@earthlink,net > wrote:
>> "Dale Kelly" <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote in message
>>
>> news:pan.2007.04.24.02.28.15@comcast,net ...
>>
>>
>>
>> > the modern definition of life is emergent behavior
>>
>> > even plants with no minds or free will are considered to be alive, just
>> > because they have emergent behavior
>>
>> > emergent behavior in consciousness depends on the mysterious
>> > intermediary
>> > called the subconscious
>>
>> > we do not communicate directly with the central nervous system, we
>> > supposedly use an intermediary, the mysterious subconscious
>>
>> > I suggest there is more proof of God as an intermediary than there is
>> > of
>> > a mysterious subconscious
>>
>> > more so, I suggest that when we will our bodies to act, they act with
>> > an
>> > intermediary of God, not the subconscious
>>
>> > provide proof of the subconscious or shut up, evolution punks
>>
>> Invisible robot fish.
>
> Visible robot fish!
>
> http :// news.nationalgeographic,com /news/2005/10/1007_051007_robot_fish.html
Cool!
"Kermit" <unrestrained_hand@hotmail,com > wrote in message
news:1177426604.781421.291830@b40g2000prd.googlegroups,com ...
> On Apr 24, 1:03 am, "Ross Langerak" <rlange...@earthlink,net > wrote:
>> "Dale Kelly" <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote in message
>>
>> news:pan.2007.04.24.02.28.15@comcast,net ...
>>
>>
>>
>> > the modern definition of life is emergent behavior
>>
>> > even plants with no minds or free will are considered to be alive, just
>> > because they have emergent behavior
>>
>> > emergent behavior in consciousness depends on the mysterious
>> > intermediary
>> > called the subconscious
>>
>> > we do not communicate directly with the central nervous system, we
>> > supposedly use an intermediary, the mysterious subconscious
>>
>> > I suggest there is more proof of God as an intermediary than there is
>> > of
>> > a mysterious subconscious
>>
>> > more so, I suggest that when we will our bodies to act, they act with
>> > an
>> > intermediary of God, not the subconscious
>>
>> > provide proof of the subconscious or shut up, evolution punks
>>
>> Invisible robot fish.
>
> Visible robot fish!
>
> http :// news.nationalgeographic,com /news/2005/10/1007_051007_robot_fish.html
Cool!
Re: a challenge to evolution punks
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 21:26:47 -0500, Dale Kelly
<dale.kelly@comcast,net > wrote:
>the modern definition of life is emergent behavior
Is it?
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 21:26:47 -0500, Dale Kelly
<dale.kelly@comcast,net > wrote:
>the modern definition of life is emergent behavior
Is it?
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
Re: a challenge to evolution punks
Dale Kelly <dale.kelly@comcast,net > wrote in
news:pan.2007.04.24.02.28.15@comcast,net :
<snip mistaken premises)
>
> more so, I suggest that when we will our bodies to act, they act with
> an intermediary of God, not the subconscious
>
Are you sure you want to go here? Since many sins, even unpardonable ones,
involve the will causing the body to act, this means that God is complicit
in any and all activity that damns you to hell - since if you are right,
clearly God could mess up the transmission of truly damning messages-to-
act, giving you a chance to reflect and possibly not do evil. It seems to
me that the theological implications of involving God directly with any and
all acts of volition are really not worth whatever mechanistic points you
might get from the exercise.
> provide proof of the subconscious or shut up, evolution punks
>
>
Y'know, Dale, you seem to have become really, really angry lately. Perhaps
you should take some time off from the newsgroups, go walking in a nice
spring garden, smell the scents, listen to the birds (robins and cardinals
and sparrows around here right now), feel the sunlight on your face, and
just get in touch with God again. Get some persepctive. Perhaps we were a
bit harsh in lambasting your engineering expertise, and I apologize for
that, but there really is a difference between engineering and science - if
you can accept that, then what we say about science becomes less a personal
attack, and therefore less threatening. Seriously, step back a bit, let
your blood pressure recede a bit, breathe a couple of times, and as for
those who insist on throwing cheap shots, remember the words of Tevye: "An
eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and pretty soon the whole world is
blind and toothless." - the truly strong do not respond in kind, but repay
evil with good.
Dale Kelly <dale.kelly@comcast,net > wrote in
news:pan.2007.04.24.02.28.15@comcast,net :
<snip mistaken premises)
>
> more so, I suggest that when we will our bodies to act, they act with
> an intermediary of God, not the subconscious
>
Are you sure you want to go here? Since many sins, even unpardonable ones,
involve the will causing the body to act, this means that God is complicit
in any and all activity that damns you to hell - since if you are right,
clearly God could mess up the transmission of truly damning messages-to-
act, giving you a chance to reflect and possibly not do evil. It seems to
me that the theological implications of involving God directly with any and
all acts of volition are really not worth whatever mechanistic points you
might get from the exercise.
> provide proof of the subconscious or shut up, evolution punks
>
>
Y'know, Dale, you seem to have become really, really angry lately. Perhaps
you should take some time off from the newsgroups, go walking in a nice
spring garden, smell the scents, listen to the birds (robins and cardinals
and sparrows around here right now), feel the sunlight on your face, and
just get in touch with God again. Get some persepctive. Perhaps we were a
bit harsh in lambasting your engineering expertise, and I apologize for
that, but there really is a difference between engineering and science - if
you can accept that, then what we say about science becomes less a personal
attack, and therefore less threatening. Seriously, step back a bit, let
your blood pressure recede a bit, breathe a couple of times, and as for
those who insist on throwing cheap shots, remember the words of Tevye: "An
eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and pretty soon the whole world is
blind and toothless." - the truly strong do not respond in kind, but repay
evil with good.
