Article 24791 of talk.origins: Subject: Who is he *really*? (was: two questions for Jim Lo

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

Article 24791 of talk.origins: From: brinkman@edseq4.llnl.gov Subject: Who is he *really*? (was: two questions for Jim Loucks (+digression)) Message-ID: <1992Apr15.124808.1@edseq4.llnl.gov> Date: 15 Apr 92 19:48:08 GMT Lines: 109 In article <84038@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) asks Jim Loucks... Just to digress (I realize that I, sir, am no Jim Loucks)... > One more question. I'm a grad student in evolutionary biology. >Do you think that I am A.) part of some big commie/satan conspiracy >B.) being conned by evolutionary biologists (the ones in the hypothesized >commie/satan conspiracy) and am just too damn stupid to figure it out >C.) attempting to do science to the best of my ability and just >reaching the wrong conclusion (along with the rest of my field) or >D.) [insert your own interpretation] (Or, how about E.) mastermind of >the whole commie/satan conspiracy or F.) satan himself 8-) A homework question?!? I hate homework questions, but okay... If option A were correct, you would probably live in fear that your evil masters (possibly the ILLUMINATI--gasp) would find out you were spilling the beans. This fear would probably outweigh your curiousity, and you would never ever even dream of asking this question. Therefore, option A is definitely ruled out. For option B to be correct, the evil masters would surely realize that people would catch on sooner or later. To ensure that the conspiracy is not uncovered, they (the evil masters) would have to make sure this possibility NEVER occurred to their pawns (no offense intended, Chris). Since this idea HAS occurred to you, it is clear that option B is incorrect. Option C would be entirely possible (after all the evil masters must have some ability at thought control). Unfortunately, this is the most prosaic of all the options. Since one of the rules of conspiracy uncovering is that the most prosaic explanation is never correct, we areforced to eliminate this as a viable choice also. This leaves us with options D, E, and F, as possible choices. I would argue that it is highly unlikely that Satan would trouble himself to post to talk.origins. Also weighing against option F is your posting of erudite corrections to your own posts, since Satan is much too proud to ever admit having made a mistake. For these reasons I would rate option F as having a very low probability to be correct. This leaves only options D and E as viable choices. Since option D allows a multitude of possibilities, I will assume for the moment it is not correct. I will attempt to prove that option E is correct, and only failing that will I return to the rather unpalatable option D. Now, if you really are the head of the whole conspiracy, you are spilling the beans by publically entertaining the possibility that the conspiracy exists. This toying with us makes it is likely that you would leave other clues to who you REALLY are. Let us investigate this further... All we really know about you is that you claim to post from Boston and you claim that your name is Chris Colby. Now, others may argue that this is not enough information to crack the case, but not so. Boston is the home of the Celtics, which was an ancient tribe whose main religion worshipped trees. Now, why did they worship trees? Well, Boston is also the home of the Bruins, another name for a bear. Thus, the Celtics worshipped trees because a special bear lived there. This bear was a demonic familiar as can be plainly seen from the fact that Boston is also the home of the Red Sox, and everyone wears red in Hell! Thus, you must be some inhabitant of Hades--more specifically a shape shifting demon. Now, the initials C.C. immediately bring to mind the classic song, "C.C. Rider". C. C. Rider was a biker. One of the main biker groups is the Hell's Angels. This means that you rank quite up there in the heirarchy, probably an Demonic Overlord or such. Thus, the obvious interpretation is that you are a shape-shifting Demonic Overlord, who frequently took a bear shape when appearing to ancient tribes. "Oh no," I hear you wailing (and gnashing your teeth), "but at least he doesn't know my secret mission!" Not true, old horned and goateed one. C.C. can be written as c^2, an obvious reference to one of the most famous equations in all of science, E = mc^2. This means your mission must have something to do with science. Now, C.C. is also an abbreviation for cubic-centimeter, a metric unit of measurement. In the metric system a meter was supposed to correspond to one ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the North Pole. We know this now to be incorrect, which means that the metric system is based on lies! Thus, it is readily apparent that your mission is to disrupt science by causing scientific ideas to be based on lies. Is there any better description of the so-called "theory" of evolution? Therefore, you ARE the leader of the commie/satan conspiracy more commonly known as the theory of evolution! Therefore, by elimination and sheer deductive brilliance, it is obvious that the correct answer is option E. I must admit, I await my grade with some trepidation. After all, if option E, which I have clearly demonstrated is the only logical solution, is actually correct, I am probably opening a real can of worms. On the other hand, truth must prevail! We must throw aside the powers of the Dread Demon Lord Chris Colby (or as he was known to the ancient Celtics--Ybloc Sirhc), and realize the folly of our ways. >Chris Colby -- Matt Brinkman brinkman@edseq1.llnl.gov Digression: Chris, have you ever tried Old Washer Woman? Quite a nice beer found around Pittsburgh (if my memory serves). Disclaimer: No, I really belive what I wrote above. This hypothesis explains so many things so economically that it just HAS to be true. Andy Rooney Imitation: Have you ever noticed how some people put in smileys, even when the joke should be obvious to anyone with an I.Q. above a carrot? Don't you hate that? Article 24849 of talk.origins: From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) Subject: Re: biologic diversity since the Cambrian Keywords: scientific creationism Message-ID: <84176@bu.edu> Date: 16 Apr 92 20:38:57 GMT References: <83702@bu.edu> <83986@bu.edu> Reply-To: colby@bu-bio.UUCP (Chris Colby) Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome Lines: 21 In article jsanders@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Justin M. Sanders) writes: >In article <83986@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.UUCP (Chris Colby) writes: >For E. Coli's amazing trick which a human can't do, I propose reproduction >by fission. :-) I would mention being able to live in a digestive tract, but that is partially falsified just by reading t.o. There are clearly posters on this board who are clearly living with their head inserted in their rectum 8-) Gee, I hope I haven't invited any lawsuits with that statement 8-( (I'll refrain from making any comments on how the "felt effect" of sphincter contraction may be influencing anyones ability to think or post clearly.) >Justin M. Sanders "I can trace my ancestry back to a primordial, >Dept. of Physics protoplasmal, atomic globule." >Kansas State Univ. --Poo-Bah, in _The_Mikado_, Act I Chris Colby email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu "And will our voices be heard/Or will they break like the wind" -Spinal Tap Article 27564 of talk.origins: From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) Subject: Re: Healing a tonsil isn't enough.... Message-ID: Date: 16 Jun 92 23:42:15 GMT References: <1992Jun10.222417.2098@desire.wright.edu> <1992Jun16.065442.21259@well.sf.ca.us> Organization: sgi Lines: 25 In article <1992Jun16.065442.21259@well.sf.ca.us>, keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle) writes: |> |> Which raises an interesting point. Would Lionel be willing to admit that |> someone who experienced a miraculous healing event who isn't a Christian |> has validated whatever belief he has about the source of the miracle? If |> not, why not? And if not, why should anyone else consider that the tonsil |> healing validates Lionel's belief system? A few years ago, there were a bunch of wonderful postings from a devotee of the god Ubizmo. Ubizmo isn't particularly interested in being believed in: in fact he's dead against it, since the whole belief and worship thing is just a form of play therapy for young and immature Gods. Ubizmo does miracle cures, but only on people who have never heard of him, or if they have, have decided to ignore him and get on with living their lives, which is what Ubiznmo wants. These miracle cures are, of course, the so-called "remissions" that the evil anti-Ubizmo forces have recently been trying to pass off as random events. Or am I being the anti-Ubizmo by telling you this? jon. Article 28047 of talk.origins: From: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle) Subject: Theory of gravity (was Re: Stephen Jay Gould on "Darwin on Trial") Message-ID: <1992Jun26.170424.21369@news.nd.edu> Date: 26 Jun 92 17:04:24 GMT References: <1992Jun24.002704.18311@newsgate.sps.mot.com> <1992Jun25.005255.16516@trl.oz.au> <9527@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> Reply-To: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle) Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame Lines: 36 In article <9527@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>, pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke) writes: ... |> This is sort of like the difference between the FACT of gravity (bowling balls |> do fall if you let go of them), and the THEORIES of gravity, (Newton's and |> Einstein's are the top two right now.) ... That bowling balls fall is an example of micro-gravity. Macro-gravity is only a theory. Anyway, bowling balls only fall IF YOU LET GO OF THEM. They don't fall on their own. Remember that nobody has seen gravity, and so it's just a belief. Gravity is not falsifiable, so it can't be scientific. People use gravity to support evil things. Anti-gravitationists deserve equal time. Gravity violates the third law of thermodynamics (that nothing can fall all the way). Some of the world's greatest scientists are anti-gravitationists. I will post the theory of anti-gravitationism as soon as I get it worked out. Yes, there is a smiley here :-) I just thought that a little levity would be OK. -- Tom Scharle |cm65n6@irishmvs(Bitnet) Room G003 Computing Center |scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu(Internet) University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, IN 46556-0539 USA Article 28233 of talk.origins: From: todd@reed.edu (Todd Ellner) Subject: A new creationist mythology Summary: Yep, it's creationism, but Christians won't like it Keywords: Insert many, many :-)s Message-ID: <1992Jun27.073725.20615@reed.edu> Date: 27 Jun 92 07:37:25 GMT Organization: Reed College, Portland, Oregon Lines: 29 Why do all the creationists assume that the deity who created the Earth was a kindly, friendly, anthropomorphic one who takes a particular liking to human beings? I've got a better creationism, one with more evidence. There are several Gods, but we're concerned with the one who started life on Earth. She was/is a large, powerful, not necessarily intelligent beetle. Seeing the Earth as a suitable substrate for Her eggs she carefully prepared it for billions of years, adding water vapor, creating oceans, and all the rest of that wonderful stuff. When everything was in readiness She laid Her eggs. Then She went away, maybe to die, maybe to lay other eggs on other warm rocks. In times the eggs hatched. Most of them developed properly, and their descendants became the arthropods, most favored of all the animals. Others became food for arthropods of one sort or another. We see proof of the benificence of Her design and the proof of Her favor in the fact that 'most everything on the surface of the Earth is food for some insect or another. Furthermore, She obviously favored the insects above all others because of their miraculuous variety and great fitness. I'm not sure where to fit the ocean into my theology, but I'll post a complete scientific account of the theory of neo-creepy-crawlyism to the net any day now. Honest. ( :-) for the alter-clue-abled) Anyone care to refute me, or should I try to get this into the public schools right away. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Todd Ellner todd@reed.edu "What has the study of biology taught you about the Creator Dr. Haldane?" JBS Haldane:"I'm not sure, but He seems to be inordinately fond of beetles." Article 30266 of talk.origins: Xref: cse.uta.edu sci.skeptic:29372 talk.origins:30266 Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins Path: cse.uta.edu!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!yale!gumby!destroyer!news.iastate.edu!illuminati.gov!conspirator From: conspirator@illuminati.gov Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT! Message-ID: <1992Aug20.165602@illuminati.gov> Sender: no-news@illuminati.gov Reply-To: conspirator@illuminati.gov Organization: The Illuminati References: <84Tl03xo571300@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> <1992Aug11.092754@IASTATE.EDU> Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 21:56:02 GMT Lines: 16 In article , reus@klein.euromath.dk (Jens Peter Reus Christensen) writes: > Parts of This newsgroup and almost all of Talk.origin exist in order > to educate the public in the IC (Intellectually Correct) way of > thinking on issues of origin of biological and geological origin. > It serves this purpose reasonable well and has no other purpose. Well, I might as well face it: you caught me. Of course, how long could I have possibly held out against the great Jens Peter Reus Christensen? I knew I was in for it as soon as you showed up. Well, I better go tell the guys in the fossil faking department to stop work. Head of the Department of Misinformation Illuminati Headquarters Article 31056 of talk.origins: From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) Subject: Proof: Satan wrote this post Message-ID: <1992Sep1.164656@IASTATE.EDU> Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks References: <1992Aug31.134328.202589@uctvax.uct.ac.za> Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 21:46:56 GMT Lines: 50 In article <1992Aug31.134328.202589@uctvax.uct.ac.za>, fllant01@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes: > ====================================================================== > Extract from 'Seal of God' by F.C.Payne (1974): This post was obviously written by satan. Anybody with any sense can see it just by axamining the numbers hidden throughout. > BIBLE NUMERICS - FIRST ASPECT The first part has 13 (yes 13!) characters. But that isn't the worst of it: The entire line has twenty-four letters. 24=4*6. Furthermore 2+4=6! And 24=(2^3)*3, so it's prime factors are 2 and 3, 2*3=6! So there are 3 sixes in the first line, clearly a reference to 666. Think this is a coincidence, then look what happens next: > The New Testament begins with the genealogy of Christ back to > Abraham. It is interesting to note that this genealogy itself is > divided into three sets of 14: Abraham to David (14), David to > Babylon (14), Babylon to Christ (14). See Matt. 1:17. It has two > natural sectiond, verses 1-11 and 12-17. I am but giving some > examples from the section 1 to 11, the latter section contains > similar phenomena which need not be enumerated. The following now is > from the Greek, in whick the N.T. is written. The actual numerics are > by Dr. Panin. There are 6 sentances in this paragraph, and the word "to" appears 6 times. Yet that is not all: the lines have lengths 61,64,62,64,61,62,68,69, and 13. Note that the only line whose length does not have a 6 in it is 13! Furthermore, 2 lines have length 64, that is 2^6. And, the lines are line 2 and line 4, again 2+4=6. Morover this gives a total of 524 characters in the above paragraph. 5+2+4=11= the number of non-space characters in the last line. 524=(2^2)*131=2*2*131, but 2+2+1+3+1=9 which is the number of lines in the paragraph! The odds of this happening by coincidence are millions to one against. The second paragraph goes on likewise, but the above should be more than sufficient proof. | __L__ ******************************* -|- ___ * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub * | | o | * kv07@iastate.edu * |/ `---' * Iowa State University * /| ___ * Math Department * | |___| * 400 Carver Hall * | |___| * Ames, IA 50011 * J _____ ******************************* PS for those who didn't catch it :-) :-) :-) Article 30378 of sci.skeptic: Newsgroups: sci.skeptic Path: cse.uta.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!decwrl!csus.edu!netcom.com!anson From: anson@netcom.com (Anson Kennedy) Subject: Re: Proof: God wrote the Bible Message-ID: <3qkn8aq.anson@netcom.com> Date: Wed, 02 Sep 92 14:32:39 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) References: <1992Sep1.224623.29215@ucthpx.uct.ac.za> Lines: 17 jkiley@andy.bgsu.edu (James H. Kiley) writes: >Ohhhh, posts like this drive me nuts. >The bible wasn't written in English originally, you fool. Vowel/consonant >ratios will *not* be the same in, say, Hebrew. Yeah, but I thought it was funny enough to save. When my newsreader asked for a folder name, I entered "God." Then nn asked, "Create 'God'?" So I pressed "Y" and *poof* God *now* exists. He's in my directory at netcom. -- Anson Kennedy anson@netcom.com Secretary of the Georgia Skeptics (but don't even THINK I speak for them!) "If you don't watch the violence, \ "If I had been the Virgin Mary, you'll never get desensitized to it." \ I would have said 'No.'" -Bart Simpson \ -Margaret "Stevie" Smith (1902-1971)

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank