 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Cousin Ricky wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcable com> wrote:
>> ...and that Richard Dawkin's conspired with
>> Darwin, Hitler and Genghis Khan, using ... who the heck knows what, to
>> undermine faith by inventing DNA.
>
> *Almost* a conspiracy theory, except the Hitler part; Hitler was a Christian in
> good standing until (just before?) he blew his brains out. Except that the
> apologists are in vehement denial about that, so the conspiracy theory (which
> is imaginary to begin with) will probably fly anyway.
>
Well, yes and no. Hitler was a member of a small organization of wackos
that included an actual "satanist", in the tradition idiot terms used to
define those people, and several of what might be thought of as a mix of
mystics, alchemists and new ager types, who all **literally** thought
that some crazy novel (Originally titled "The Coming Race") that they
read was real, and that magic worked, and even spent a fair amount of
time in post WWI snatching up Orphans to human sacrifice and engaging in
sex magics. See, the "novel" was early sci-fi, and well.. when you are
the first person writing sci-fi, some idiot isn't going to get that its
made up. In the story some guy find a tunnel into the center of the
earth, discovers a race of people down their with a power called Vril,
then discovers, by the end of the book, that "children" are the most
potent possessors of it of all, and could literally destroy the entire
planet, if taught how to use it, and they chose to do so. So, logically,
killing children, to collect their "Vril force" would, presumably, make
Hitler and the rest of the nuts more powerful. Its also how they got the
whole "master race" BS, since they imagined themselves "descended" from
the Vril masters. (Just type vril into Google and have fun reading the
idiocy...)
That he was also a Christian at the time, or more specifically Catholic,
only goes to prove that being buried in nonsense from sheep herders
doesn't "prevent" you from falling for even bigger nonsense. lol
>> Believe me, even though the stuff above was pulled out of my ass in like
>> 20 seconds, there is "probably" some nutcase making the exact same
>> argument on a creationist site as I write this.
>
> Not a creationist site, but some New Age left wingers considered DNA a myth.
> Seems (1) they didn't like genetic determinism; (2) therefore DNA doesn't
> exist. (Just Establishment propaganda intended to squelch people's aspirations
> by telling them "You are this, you are that...") Unfortunately, I can't find
> the magazine article. Creationists, New Agers, hard to tell 'em apart except
> that the former have more political power, and tend to be more fatalistic on
> behalf of us poor slobs who'll be Left Behind.
>
What, you think there are no New Age Creationists? ;) lol
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Cousin Ricky wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Cousin Ricky wrote:
>>> 1) Natural effects tend to leave evidence that is more tangible than lens
>>> flares, overexposed camera straps, and imprints on the reporter's central
>>> nervous system.
>> Some do, some don't. :-) Look at the long history of things we didn't
>> know about until we got the right measuring instruments. Do you think
>> the placebo effect is supernatural too? :-)
>
> Effects that are supernatural remain so until proven otherwise. Or I think
> that's how it goes.
>
Nah, for a real believer, they remain supernatural even "after" proven
otherwise, and its just all a conspiracy to fake the evidence proving
they are not. Sigh, you really need to get with the program here. You
will never make a real "believer" if you think like this. lol
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Maybe should watch them seriously some time then. For the most part,
> these kinds of shows tend to take things way too seriously, due to the
> people on them being complete twits. If I am wrong about this one, then,
> guess that proves, once again, that Sci-Fi is marginally more rational a
> station than "Discovery", which had both the moron that claimed to talk
> to the dead, the pet psychic women, and and endless series of
> docu-delusions about people haunted, possessed, etc. by ghosts, demons,
> or what ever.
Hmm, maybe. Of course, being that they are on Sci-Fi, it is after all
just entertainment. Who was that guy, always seemed to wear
uncomfortable shirts.. Richards, something or other... can't remember.
His show had a talk-show format .. I think I watched it once, and
immediately dismissed him as a huckster. He does the very typical
"psychic" dance, asks lots of questions, and makes something up on the
spot that might be plausible. The one I watched he actually was waaaay
off. And yet, he was wildly popular. And pet psychic? give me a break!
As for Discover, TLC and their ilk, while I do watch a lot of what they
have on, (Some of it is entertaining ... sometimes interesting) but over
the years, they've sort of devolved into TLC being the Interior Design
channel, Discovery being the psuedo-science channel, Animal Planet being
Heroic Vets and animals with big teeth, and the Science channel being
the Xenobilogy and far-off physics speculation channel, with a dose of
blowing things up, and the occasional manufacturing process.
IOW, they're not so much about the sciences anymore, but rather about
entertaining the masses.
>
> Though, I admit, watching cryptozoologists run around looking for "scary
> creatures" and only finding undefined foot prints and the same lame
> "heat images" is damn funny, again, until you realize there are people
> out there "expecting" them to actually find bigfoot at some point. lol
>
Mm, lots of that stuff on Sci-Fi.. Discovery networks carry it, too,
sometimes.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> Its hardly a wonder people can't tell the difference between science and
> gibberish, which channels that are "supposed to" dedicate themselves to
> science run total bunk all the time.
The Discovery Channel and the Science Channel are "supposed to" entertain the
masses in exchange for advertizing revenue. That the entertained believe that
they are learning science is an unfortunate cost (worth $0 in the short term)
of business.
I don't know whether one should feel better or worse about this, but it's not
just in the USA. Britain's _Brainiac_ isn't satisfied with delusions; they lie
outright:
http://www.theodoregray.com/PeriodicTable/AlkaliBangs/index.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Cousin Ricky wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Cousin Ricky wrote:
>>> 1) Natural effects tend to leave evidence that is more tangible than lens
>>> flares, overexposed camera straps, and imprints on the reporter's central
>>> nervous system.
>> Some do, some don't. :-) Look at the long history of things we didn't
>> know about until we got the right measuring instruments. Do you think
>> the placebo effect is supernatural too? :-)
>
> Effects that are supernatural remain so until proven otherwise. Or I think
> that's how it goes.
I can't imagine they're actually supernatural if they're *actually*
effects. :-) I mean, if there's actual effects, it would have to be
natural, wouldn't it? Indeed, does the word "supernatural" even make sense?
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Either you can measure it, and their for its "material" or you
> can't, so it isn't. You can't have it both ways. ;)
Sure you can. It's called religion. :-)
> Seriously though, would you prefer "alleged supernatural", since you
> seem to want to make a court case out of it? jk ;)
Not a court case. More just being silly. I like investigating the meta
of such things.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I can't imagine they're actually supernatural if they're *actually*
> effects. :-) I mean, if there's actual effects, it would have to be
> natural, wouldn't it? Indeed, does the word "supernatural" even make sense?
I think "supernatural" is a way that the superstitious use to circle the wagons
around their beliefs. Not quite sure what the concept actally means, other
than "I don't know (or don't want to know) how it happened; therefore, it's
supernatural."
....Damn, that's recursive! Gotta work on that some more...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Hmm, maybe. Of course, being that they are on Sci-Fi, it is after all
> just entertainment. Who was that guy, always seemed to wear
> uncomfortable shirts.. Richards, something or other... can't remember.
> His show had a talk-show format .. I think I watched it once, and
> immediately dismissed him as a huckster. He does the very typical
> "psychic" dance, asks lots of questions, and makes something up on the
> spot that might be plausible. The one I watched he actually was waaaay
> off. And yet, he was wildly popular. And pet psychic? give me a break!
>
Know there was one for a while with the same (almost) unfortunate name
as a politician running for office at the time (one of them has an 's'
at the end, the other doesn't, but I can never remember which if which),
but.. Ironically, I can't remember the name. They would tape 8 hours at
a time (no wonder some people started to "think" he was getting things
right, they where all half asleep...), then cut the whole thing down to
a 1 hour show, by "editing" the footage. See, he would do the whole "I
sense a P.", BS, then when he missed, jump to someone else, then someone
else, etc., and after the original victim had more or less forgot what
they told him, he would jump back to them and announce, "Oh, and Uncle
Puke said he liked salad forks a lot.", or what ever they had told him
already, and he would be off on another series of hits, almost hits,
etc., until he missed, then jumped to someone else again.
The sad thing was, **despite** having 8 hours, a good memory, and the
ability to edit it, so it "looked like" he was doing well on TV, he
***still*** sucked at it, getting fewer hits, and generally performing
far worse, than any one of the professional cold readers out there.. lol
Oh, wait. John Edwards, I think it was...
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Cousin Ricky wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> I can't imagine they're actually supernatural if they're *actually*
>> effects. :-) I mean, if there's actual effects, it would have to be
>> natural, wouldn't it? Indeed, does the word "supernatural" even make sense?
>
> I think "supernatural" is a way that the superstitious use to circle the wagons
> around their beliefs. Not quite sure what the concept actally means, other
> than "I don't know (or don't want to know) how it happened; therefore, it's
> supernatural."
>
> ....Damn, that's recursive! Gotta work on that some more...
>
Nope, that is exactly it. Another common "version" of it is, "I don't
know how it works, but it couldn't work they way you say it does, so
therefor Goddidit!"
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
> Oh, wait. John Edwards, I think it was...
>
That was the one ... Wow. 8 hours of taping..
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
