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

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...ies_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

 

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...ies_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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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...ies_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

 

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...ies_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

 

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...ies_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_

 

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...ies_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_

 

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...ies_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

 

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...ies_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

 

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...ies_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_

 

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...ies_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_

 

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...ies_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

 

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...ies_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

 

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

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.

 

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

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.

 

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

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

> On Dec 30, 3:12pm, 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_

 

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

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

> On Dec 30, 3:12pm, 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_

 

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

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

 

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

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