--- In ishmael_discussion@yahoogroups.com, Lord Isildur <il2a@v...>
wrote:
>For the majority of us, we're stuck in it, and when it crashes,
> most of us are going to go right then and there.

No argument from me. I see that we just disagree about the semantics
of indentifying "the Game" and who the players are. Close enough to
agreement for me. ;-)


> I'd be interested in reading those papers; there is always new
information
> adding more detail to the picture. i'll definitely like some
citations to
> track down.
>
> Isildur

Try these for right now. Brunet has a later monograph about the
dentation and its implications for the age of early hominids. I
haven't found it yet, but I'm still on the case.

http://www.nature.com/nature/ancestor/
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/07/0710_020710_chadskull.
html
http://www.episcopalhs.org/~jmm/Olduvai/Man/WP7112002.htm
http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2002/august/toumai.htm
http://www.mhhe.com/socscience/anthropology/news/fall98/2.htm
http://www.nature.com/nsu/040322/040322-9.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?
cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=105292

best,
Tom Warren
Pleasant Hill, OR

hello,
in all reality, does it matter how old man is....whether you believe
entirely in evolution...or genetic (tampering) enhancement by the
annunaki....what matters is now......all living members of this
planet...Tellurea....are players....of *the*game regardless of how deep into
the waters we tread...we are at war....if you want to see...you will
see...pull the wool from your eyes...this culture is a warring
culture...there is no peaceful
solution...re-education...re-evolution...re-vamping old programs with a new
light....same old program with different rulers in power...
are my thoughts that far out of line????and if so why???explain please...
rails...
eric...
twitch...
zyaeduelon....................................................................


>From: Lord Isildur <il2a@...>
>Reply-To: ishmael_discussion@yahoogroups.com
>To: ishmael_discussion@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [ishmael_discussion] how old is man
>Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 20:28:22 -0500 (EST)
>
>
>He's stretching it a bit there.
>Homo is about 2 million or so, maybe a bit less. Homo sapiens
>is about 300 thousand years. Go down to any decent library and
>read a dozen books on anthropology, natural history, human origins, etc.
>Make sure you get a wide range of publication dates, so you dont just get
>one particular theory that happened to be instyle at the time a given book
>was written; The general outline is quite consistent since archaeology
>began to be taken seriously and undertaken in a thorough, scientific
>manner, though some of the theoires of movements of peoples and some spans
>of time have changed. Many carbon-dates from the 60s and 70s have been
>overturned with new evidence as carbon samples began to be matched with
>dendrochronological samples and people realized that c14 absorption rates
>change over time, etc... though that is usually more important once you
>start getting into more recent history, the past 20 thousand years or so,
>where being off by a thousand years or two is a major error..
>
>Isildur
>
>On Tue, 30 Mar 2004, solfari_galisir wrote:
>
> > Ishmael says that man is 3 million years old, where can i find
> > evidence to back this claim up?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Remember: YOU are B.
> >
> > Owner & Moderator: Michael Dylan Davis - http://www.townofautumn.com
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

_________________________________________________________________
Persistent heartburn? Check out Digestive Health & Wellness for information
and advice. http://gerd.msn.com/default.asp

can i get no reply or aremy opiniuonstoo near the truth forall of you to
want to acknowledge?


>From: Lord Isildur <il2a@...>
>Reply-To: ishmael_discussion@yahoogroups.com
>To: ishmael_discussion@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [ishmael_discussion] The Game and Old men
>Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 13:52:09 -0500 (EST)
>
>
>hello,
>
> > Hmmm. seems to be my week for insubordination, Lord. I was thinking of a
> > fact I heard earlier in the week:
> >
> > 80% of humans have never heard a dial tone.
> >
> > Those 80% may be affected by the game marginally, but not to the extent
>that
> > locality affects them. They are not "within the reach of the game." They
>are
> > not playing. With +or- 80% outside the grasp of the game, the game
>really
> > doesn't want them to play, and keeps them out.
>
>Not ever having used a phone (by the way, that 80% number is almost
>certainly very out of date now) has nothing to do with whether or not
>someone is trapped in this game. Two hundred years ago, nobody had heard
>a dial tone, yet something like 85-90% of the world's population were
>already playing this game. The game is escalation, not a particular
>technology. Anyone who is competing for resources against those playing
>the game are drawn into it, willing or no. Recall Quinn's example of the
>Tak, in B, he did a nice job of illustrating this idea there. The fact
>that someone within reach is competing against you necessarily puts you
>in the same game. If you put up your hands and refuse to compete, sure,
>you're free to (and many non-Taker peoples did just that when confronted
>by the Taker steamroller), but, the consequences are that you lose, right
>then and there. A farmer barely scratching enough to survive out of the
>dirt in India is stuck playing this game as much as an executive in Los
>Angeles is: Even if that farmer himself is unaware of what's going on,
>even if he has never used most of the fancy toys or tools that the
>industrial civilization has, pressure from that world is bearing down on
>him, squeezing him into that patch of dust he now farms, raising walls if
>he tries to go elsewhere, building factories or apartment buildings on
>that patch of dust, and if he doesn't play along? he might just find
>his land reappropriated by people who _are_ more willing to play with more
>escalated techniques, and then he joins the throng of starving, displaced
>people. He loses. In a rather short span of time, he disappears below the
>surface. He had no choice in the matter. Those who escalatae in earnest
>have the intiative for a brief while, during that round of the game, until
>their advantage has spread through the arena or has been one-upped by
>something even more escalated from somewhere else. The executive, though,
>if he tries to resist, let's say he refuses to build that factory or
>refuses to buy out that competitor, will quickly find himself no longer an
>executive, and probably sued by the company so that he ends up as peniless
>and hungry as the dispossessed farmer.
> >
> > As you have expressed in other posts quite brilliantly, your Lordship,
>it is
> > the Game that is going away, not those folks.  They don't have to go
> > anywhere to get away, they have already escaped. Yep, lots are gonna
>die,
> > I'm not arguing that point. That's a function of them being right side
>rats,
> > not players.
>
>I would say that these people have not escaped... There are very few
>people who have escaped. I don't deny their existence, I merely highlight
>a few items: one, that their escape is by no means assured: the Machine is
>always growing and expanding, right up until the moment it breaks and
>collapses, and until that moment, those niches into which some lucky folks
>have escaped might very well be the next-lowest hanging fruit for that
>very desperate escalation to pick and consume.
>two, that such niches are few and far between now. The reach of the
>Machine is very long now. If there are resources to be extracted, profit
>to be made, almost anywhere on the globe is far game now. Even if there
>are barriers placed to obsctruct the juggernaut's advance, these have a
>habit of being worn down or circumvented. Regimes that might try to
>obstruct 'progress' can be overthrown; people who own property but refuse
>to develop it can have it taken from them when they can no longer pay high
>taxes on it; A community with no desire for consumer goods can slowly be
>hooked on the drug the same way a perfectly normal child can be tricked,
>goaded, or persuaded into trying a narcotic in the schoolyard. The effect
>is the same. Those obstructions are ultimately trying to impede physical
>forces, no different than trying to hold back a flood or keep a sandcastle
>from eroding. With great effort, one can manage for a while, but
>ultimately, thermodynamics wins. Think of the cracks and corners into
>which some people might make their way to survive outside of the Machine
>right now. How many people can live under a bridge? Are they really
>independent of that Machine, or are they just hangers-on at its fringes?
>How about people still living their ancestral ways of life in a few niches
>around the world. They might have popular support, but when Megacorp
>International, Inc, wants to build a dam that floods their habitat, how
>can they oppose 'progress'? Megacorp might even offer them monetary
>compensation (and silence the voices of opposition cheaply), even if they
>don't want it, other people from inside the game would probably think them
>insane for not wanting money and a place in the great civilization of
>progress...
>Three, rather stemming from the other two, and also rather obvious on its
>own, the fact that this option is only available to a very small number of
>people means that is is _not_ a reasonable or viable alternative to the
>billions of the rest of us. It is a false promise or hope for those people
>to think 'thats fine, let them ruin it, i can escape to this little
>corner'. For the majority of us, we're stuck in it, and when it crashes,
>most of us are going to go right then and there.
>The hope that there is, though, is also attached with the hope that
>something real can be done about it: we can accelerate the collapse,
>individually and together. If a sufficient number of sufficiently
>motivated people (and this can mean rulers of countries all the way down
>to hobos on the street) decided to quickly end this thing, it can be
>brought down with a minimum of additional damage. Moreover, those who
>have a hand in bringing it down will be best positioned to duck out of its
>way as it comes crashing down, so to speak. If it's coming anyway, and at
>this point not even in a future generation, but during our own lifetimes,
>there is with every passing day more incentive for people to stop putting
>their hopes and fortunes with the escalation, to stop putting their faith
>in the 'progress' juggernaut, and instead stick a wrench in the works and
>try to escape the falling debris.
>
>
> >
> > Lord Isildur also spoke:
> > >He's stretching it a bit there.
> > >Homo is about 2 million or so, maybe a bit less. Homo sapiens
> > >is about 300 thousand years.
> >
> > We have some new Olduvai findings (2001) pushing back the Afarensis
>dates to
> > 8 million +, which in turn pushes the Homo dates back to about 4.  I'll
> > search today and see if I can find some citations for this, but the book
> > hasn't been published, just some papers in Science. Stay tuned.
>
>I'd be interested in reading those papers; there is always new information
>adding more detail to the picture. i'll definitely like some citations to
>track down.
>
>Isildur
>

_________________________________________________________________
Free up your inbox with MSN Hotmail Extra Storage! Multiple plans available.
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=hotmail/es2&ST=1/go/onm00200362ave/dire\
ct/01/

eric woodson wrote:
> hello,
> in all reality, does it matter how old man is....whether you believe
> entirely in evolution...or genetic (tampering) enhancement by the
> annunaki....what matters is now......all living members of this
> planet...Tellurea....are players....of *the*game regardless of how deep into
> the waters we tread...we are at war....if you want to see...you will
> see...pull the wool from your eyes...this culture is a warring
> culture...there is no peaceful
> solution...re-education...re-evolution...re-vamping old programs with a new
> light....same old program with different rulers in power...
> are my thoughts that far out of line????and if so why???explain please...

Like with a previous post of yours, I'm finding it difficult to connect
to these pronouncements.  Where would you like to go with it?  Are you
feeling fearful about our situation and wanting some support in doing
something about it?

-Stephen

On Sat, Apr 03, 2004 at 07:02:59PM -0500, eric woodson wrote:
> can i get no reply or aremy opiniuonstoo near the truth forall of you to
> want to acknowledge?

Eric (I presume that is your name),
I'm going to guess that most people around here can't really tell what
you are talking about. I know that I see only vague statements that
could be taken a multitude of ways. Maybe you could write a slightly
longer message than you are used to and tell us what you think in
fullness?

--William

I didn't reply because I try not to get in the "philosophical" discussions
on the Ish list.  Been there, done that.  I'm more worried about getting my
facts right and collecting information to use when people ask me things
like, "Why should we worry about diversity?  What is wrong with our culture?
etc"

~~~  Lance
http://www.geocities.com/becnalrio

"Good soldiers do not question their leaders.  Good citizens must."

.
----- Original Message -----
From: eric woodson <neoracle@...>


> can i get no reply or aremy opiniuonstoo near the truth forall of you to
> want to acknowledge?

so, i was out of town all day yesterday, but in any case, i'll chime in
that your previous post (the one to which i assume your post below is a
comment) seems a bit long on cliche terms and a bit short on content.
Yes, this culture is unsalvageble. Yes, this culture has already stepped
into and been playing an escalation for many long centuries now, and is
already in the terminal stages of that escalation. Yes, that game has
forced those in this culture to set themselves, consciously or not,
willing or not, at odds with the community of life. Yes, this game has
necessarily driven its expansion and conquest through the entire globe.
Yes, ultimately the 'machine' (which is sometimes used to describe the
emergent properties of this civilization as an organism) is, simply put,
the enemy of all life. I don't disagree there at all. I don't think many
people here or anywhere else, if they realized the truth, would disagree.
This culture cannot be fixed to make it start working. This culture will
not be saved miraculously despite playing a self-eliminating strategy.
This culture's use of such strategy forces it to keep playing it, forces
it to ride that strategy right into oblivion, and makes it impossible for
us to get off or change course. The few who might escape into little
corners or niches that might escape the steamroller are at best
statistical error. We have only one option, in the end, and that is to
try to make this thing break and shatter as rapidly and as soon as
possible. It will be done for us if we don't do anything else, but every
day that goes by before it happens only increases the damage done to all
life.

Isildur

On Sat, 3 Apr 2004, eric woodson wrote:

> can i get no reply or aremy opiniuonstoo near the truth forall of you to
> want to acknowledge?
>
>
> >From: Lord Isildur <il2a@...>
> >Reply-To: ishmael_discussion@yahoogroups.com
> >To: ishmael_discussion@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: Re: [ishmael_discussion] The Game and Old men
> >Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 13:52:09 -0500 (EST)
> >
> >
> >hello,
> >
> > > Hmmm. seems to be my week for insubordination, Lord. I was thinking of a
> > > fact I heard earlier in the week:
> > >
> > > 80% of humans have never heard a dial tone.
> > >
> > > Those 80% may be affected by the game marginally, but not to the extent
> >that
> > > locality affects them. They are not "within the reach of the game." They
> >are
> > > not playing. With +or- 80% outside the grasp of the game, the game
> >really
> > > doesn't want them to play, and keeps them out.
> >
> >Not ever having used a phone (by the way, that 80% number is almost
> >certainly very out of date now) has nothing to do with whether or not
> >someone is trapped in this game. Two hundred years ago, nobody had heard
> >a dial tone, yet something like 85-90% of the world's population were
> >already playing this game. The game is escalation, not a particular
> >technology. Anyone who is competing for resources against those playing
> >the game are drawn into it, willing or no. Recall Quinn's example of the
> >Tak, in B, he did a nice job of illustrating this idea there. The fact
> >that someone within reach is competing against you necessarily puts you
> >in the same game. If you put up your hands and refuse to compete, sure,
> >you're free to (and many non-Taker peoples did just that when confronted
> >by the Taker steamroller), but, the consequences are that you lose, right
> >then and there. A farmer barely scratching enough to survive out of the
> >dirt in India is stuck playing this game as much as an executive in Los
> >Angeles is: Even if that farmer himself is unaware of what's going on,
> >even if he has never used most of the fancy toys or tools that the
> >industrial civilization has, pressure from that world is bearing down on
> >him, squeezing him into that patch of dust he now farms, raising walls if
> >he tries to go elsewhere, building factories or apartment buildings on
> >that patch of dust, and if he doesn't play along? he might just find
> >his land reappropriated by people who _are_ more willing to play with more
> >escalated techniques, and then he joins the throng of starving, displaced
> >people. He loses. In a rather short span of time, he disappears below the
> >surface. He had no choice in the matter. Those who escalatae in earnest
> >have the intiative for a brief while, during that round of the game, until
> >their advantage has spread through the arena or has been one-upped by
> >something even more escalated from somewhere else. The executive, though,
> >if he tries to resist, let's say he refuses to build that factory or
> >refuses to buy out that competitor, will quickly find himself no longer an
> >executive, and probably sued by the company so that he ends up as peniless
> >and hungry as the dispossessed farmer.
> > >
> > > As you have expressed in other posts quite brilliantly, your Lordship,
> >it is
> > > the Game that is going away, not those folks.  They don't have to go
> > > anywhere to get away, they have already escaped. Yep, lots are gonna
> >die,
> > > I'm not arguing that point. That's a function of them being right side
> >rats,
> > > not players.
> >
> >I would say that these people have not escaped... There are very few
> >people who have escaped. I don't deny their existence, I merely highlight
> >a few items: one, that their escape is by no means assured: the Machine is
> >always growing and expanding, right up until the moment it breaks and
> >collapses, and until that moment, those niches into which some lucky folks
> >have escaped might very well be the next-lowest hanging fruit for that
> >very desperate escalation to pick and consume.
> >two, that such niches are few and far between now. The reach of the
> >Machine is very long now. If there are resources to be extracted, profit
> >to be made, almost anywhere on the globe is far game now. Even if there
> >are barriers placed to obsctruct the juggernaut's advance, these have a
> >habit of being worn down or circumvented. Regimes that might try to
> >obstruct 'progress' can be overthrown; people who own property but refuse
> >to develop it can have it taken from them when they can no longer pay high
> >taxes on it; A community with no desire for consumer goods can slowly be
> >hooked on the drug the same way a perfectly normal child can be tricked,
> >goaded, or persuaded into trying a narcotic in the schoolyard. The effect
> >is the same. Those obstructions are ultimately trying to impede physical
> >forces, no different than trying to hold back a flood or keep a sandcastle
> >from eroding. With great effort, one can manage for a while, but
> >ultimately, thermodynamics wins. Think of the cracks and corners into
> >which some people might make their way to survive outside of the Machine
> >right now. How many people can live under a bridge? Are they really
> >independent of that Machine, or are they just hangers-on at its fringes?
> >How about people still living their ancestral ways of life in a few niches
> >around the world. They might have popular support, but when Megacorp
> >International, Inc, wants to build a dam that floods their habitat, how
> >can they oppose 'progress'? Megacorp might even offer them monetary
> >compensation (and silence the voices of opposition cheaply), even if they
> >don't want it, other people from inside the game would probably think them
> >insane for not wanting money and a place in the great civilization of
> >progress...
> >Three, rather stemming from the other two, and also rather obvious on its
> >own, the fact that this option is only available to a very small number of
> >people means that is is _not_ a reasonable or viable alternative to the
> >billions of the rest of us. It is a false promise or hope for those people
> >to think 'thats fine, let them ruin it, i can escape to this little
> >corner'. For the majority of us, we're stuck in it, and when it crashes,
> >most of us are going to go right then and there.
> >The hope that there is, though, is also attached with the hope that
> >something real can be done about it: we can accelerate the collapse,
> >individually and together. If a sufficient number of sufficiently
> >motivated people (and this can mean rulers of countries all the way down
> >to hobos on the street) decided to quickly end this thing, it can be
> >brought down with a minimum of additional damage. Moreover, those who
> >have a hand in bringing it down will be best positioned to duck out of its
> >way as it comes crashing down, so to speak. If it's coming anyway, and at
> >this point not even in a future generation, but during our own lifetimes,
> >there is with every passing day more incentive for people to stop putting
> >their hopes and fortunes with the escalation, to stop putting their faith
> >in the 'progress' juggernaut, and instead stick a wrench in the works and
> >try to escape the falling debris.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Lord Isildur also spoke:
> > > >He's stretching it a bit there.
> > > >Homo is about 2 million or so, maybe a bit less. Homo sapiens
> > > >is about 300 thousand years.
> > >
> > > We have some new Olduvai findings (2001) pushing back the Afarensis
> >dates to
> > > 8 million +, which in turn pushes the Homo dates back to about 4.  I'll
> > > search today and see if I can find some citations for this, but the book
> > > hasn't been published, just some papers in Science. Stay tuned.
> >
> >I'd be interested in reading those papers; there is always new information
> >adding more detail to the picture. i'll definitely like some citations to
> >track down.
> >
> >Isildur
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Free up your inbox with MSN Hotmail Extra Storage! Multiple plans available.
>
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=hotmail/es2&ST=1/go/onm00200362ave/dire\
ct/01/
>
>
>
>
> Remember: YOU are B.
>
> Owner & Moderator: Michael Dylan Davis - http://www.townofautumn.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: eric woodson

To: ishmael_discussion@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2004 12:17 PM

Subject: Re: [ishmael_discussion] how old is man

hello,
in all reality, does it matter how old man is....whether you believe
entirely in evolution...or genetic (tampering) enhancement by the
annunaki....what matters is now......all living members of this
planet...Tellurea....are players....of *the*game regardless of how deep into
the waters we tread...we are at war....if you want to see...you will
see...pull the wool from your eyes...this culture is a warring
culture...there is no peaceful
solution...re-education...re-evolution...re-vamping old programs with a new
light....same old program with different rulers in power...
are my thoughts that far out of line????and if so why???explain please...
rails...
eric...
twitch...
zyaeduelon....................................................................


>From: Lord Isildur <il2a@...>
>Reply-To: ishmael_discussion@yahoogroups.com
>To: ishmael_discussion@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [ishmael_discussion] how old is man
>Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 20:28:22 -0500 (EST)
>
>
>He's stretching it a bit there.
>Homo is about 2 million or so, maybe a bit less. Homo sapiens
>is about 300 thousand years. Go down to any decent library and
>read a dozen books on anthropology, natural history, human origins, etc.
>Make sure you get a wide range of publication dates, so you dont just get
>one particular theory that happened to be instyle at the time a given book
>was written; The general outline is quite consistent since archaeology
>began to be taken seriously and undertaken in a thorough, scientific
>manner, though some of the theoires of movements of peoples and some spans
>of time have changed. Many carbon-dates from the 60s and 70s have been
>overturned with new evidence as carbon samples began to be matched with
>dendrochronological samples and people realized that c14 absorption rates
>change over time, etc... though that is usually more important once you
>start getting into more recent history, the past 20 thousand years or so,
>where being off by a thousand years or two is a major error..
>
>Isildur
>
>On Tue, 30 Mar 2004, solfari_galisir wrote:
>
> > Ishmael says that man is 3 million years old, where can i find
> > evidence to back this claim up?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Remember: YOU are B.
> >
> > Owner & Moderator: Michael Dylan Davis - http://www.townofautumn.com
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

_________________________________________________________________
Persistent heartburn? Check out Digestive Health & Wellness for information
and advice. http://gerd.msn.com/default.asp



Remember: YOU are B.

Owner & Moderator: Michael Dylan Davis - http://www.townofautumn.com

>...Yes, ultimately the 'machine' (which is sometimes used to describe the
>emergent properties of this civilization as an organism) is, simply put,
>the enemy of all life...

But culture is software. And, as such, re-writable---however unlikely
an outcome that may be. The escalation game theory may be true
("true," employed with the usual caveats) but it isn't useful. Unless
you are prepared to go out and personally dismantle as much of the
machine as possible, it amounts to a rationale for sitting on your
ass and making gloomy prognostications. I prefer a Story which
elaborates (among other things) incremental change, connecting with
others, the survival of songbirds, garage sales, gaining wisdom,
homegrown vegetables, and hope for a positive outcome---even if the
story is "false."


Lisa


--
Lisa Wilcox
Mail: 19093 South Beavercreek Road #103
Oregon City, OR  97045
Cell: 503-951-1139
wilcoxe@...

"We may be crazy, and it may be our final run, yeah
We are the Warriors of the Sun."     --Joan Baez

Eric -


> hello,
> in all reality, does it matter how old man is....whether you
believe
> entirely in evolution...or genetic (tampering) enhancement by the
> annunaki....what matters is now......all living members of this
> planet...Tellurea....are players....of *the*game regardless of how
deep into
> the waters we tread...we are at war....if you want to see...you
will
> see...pull the wool from your eyes...this culture is a warring
> culture...there is no peaceful
> solution...re-education...re-evolution...re-vamping old programs
with a new
> light....same old program with different rulers in power...
> are my thoughts that far out of line????and if so why???explain
please...


**I would agree, whether man has been around a long time or not
isn't that important. What we can or can't do, now, seems more
relevant.

Are your thoughts out of line? Personally, I don't find anyone's
thoughts out of line when searching for intellligent responses to
our current 'human challenges'.

You suggest we are a "warring culture". While that's clearly 'one'
of the things we humans do, it seems to be at odds with what most
humans desire (it seems to me). Now, if we skip all the theories,
beliefs, and opinions about "human nature", and look at the only
place where we can truly see and understand what humans can do or
can't do, which is 'understanding our own capabilities', I suggest
we would find that humans don't have to destroy the environment that
sustains them, we don't have to kill one another over beliefs, etc.,
etc. In short, we don't have to behave ignorantly no matter how long
we may have been doing so.

Granted, that's one 'tall' order, but what hinders that change
isn't "human nature", but rather 'the current state of human
thought'. When I look to see what hinders change, it repeately
reveals that it's the opinions and beliefs that hinder change, or
more specifically the 'attachment' to these beliefs and opinions
that sustains irrational, destructive behavior.

Personally, I wouldn't suggest "revamping old programs", what I'd
suggest is 'paying attention' to what we are doing. And paying
attention to whether our 'cultural conditioning' is leading us to
act in ways detrimental to our survival?

I suggest that paying attention to 'what's working or not' should
take precidence over defending beliefs and opinions. But again, that
may be a tall order. But perhaps survival is a good enough reason to
consider it?

So, that's my "explanation", or my - 'two-cents worth'.

If you feel I too have the wool pulled over my eyes, please explain.

Regards - Howard

If you are willing to question mainstream science on this,
try "Forbidden Archeology" by ____ Credo or work by
Richard Milton. Should provide some answers, and also a
lot of questions if you are willing to invest the energy
to think about them. Humans (and others) have been on our
planet for a long, long time if the physical evidence
(first book) is accurate, as I suspect it is.

r


On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 16:30:27 +0200, "Lance Bermudez" wrote:

>
> Really good question Solfari.  I am glad you asked, and I
> am gladder still
> for Figs and LI's responses.
>
> ~~~  Lance
> http://www.geocities.com/becnalrio
>
> "Good soldiers do not question their leaders.  Good
> citizens must."
>
> .
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: solfari_galisir <solfari_galisir@...>
>
>
> > Ishmael says that man is 3 million years old, where can
> i find
> > evidence to back this claim up?
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> Remember: YOU are B.
>
> Owner & Moderator: Michael Dylan Davis -
> http://www.townofautumn.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

"True form is formless"
Lao-Tzu, Tao Te Ching
_________________________________________________
FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
http://www.FindLaw.com
Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
http://mail.Justice.com

on 4/4/04 3:31 PM, education@... at education@... wrote:

> If you are willing to question mainstream science on this,
> try "Forbidden Archeology" by ____ Credo or work by
> Richard Milton. Should provide some answers, and also a
> lot of questions if you are willing to invest the energy
> to think about them. Humans (and others) have been on our
> planet for a long, long time if the physical evidence
> (first book) is accurate, as I suspect it is.

     That would be Michael Cremo.

     There is repeatable, verifiable evidence and then there is speculation
about "anomalous artifacts." The reason they are anomalous is because they
don't fit in with the majority of evidence to which they are speculated to
be associated. Claims of human bones discovered by miners in the 1800s from
Pliocene gravel deposits are rightfully regarded with some caution, both for
the anomalous nature of the evidence, but also for the lack of documentation
of their discovery.

     Rather than claiming, with no corroborating evidence, unusual antiquity
for human remains and artifacts, it is more useful, and more honest, to
search for simpler explanations that fit within our established
understanding of taphonomic processes. If the evidence continues to
withstand scrutiny and is supported by additional evidence, then we can
begin to question established theory.

     The necessity for high standards of evidence rise proportionately with
the degree which the claim lies outside established theories.

     Michael
--
"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem
it necessary to repel an invasion . . . and you allow him to make war at
pleasure. . . . If to-day, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to
invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop
him? You may say to him, 'I see no probability of the British invading us'
but he will say to you 'be silent; I see it, if you don't.'"
         Abraham Lincoln, Feb. 15, 1848

I think the evidence goes beyond this one example
(bones)...

As for the second comment, I think it can be said that
most scientists at most periods in time have been wrong to
some extent - and usually to quite a considerable extent -
yet they and others around them tend to jump on the
bandwagon and get quite attatched to and proud of the
theory of the day. Cases of faked data and/or selective
data used for studies have also been fairly common.

I would say all evidence and theories deserve openminded
yet critical examination, regardless of how nicely they
fit into the theories of the day. The (high) standards
should be the same for all theories and evidence, not more
for those outside the accepted paradigm and less for those
inside it. This is what I believe has happened
historically and is still happening today in many fields.

Again, Richard Milton is a good example, as is Dr. Peter
Duesberg, even if you happen to dissagree with his
ultimate conclusions (see
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895263998/qid=1081149467/sr=1-1/r\
ef=sr_1_1/104-3625766-1975947?v=glance&s=books )

Coast to Coast AM has a significant number of excellent
guests (highly educated and clear communicators), you can
see their sites and clips at www.coasttocoastam.com under
past guests. Many of them have written interesting books
as well. Many have been shunned by their colleagues for
daring to think freely and challenge established theories,
and by extention, those who have invested their lives
learning about and promoting them.

I don't mean to preach here, but with the remarkable
inventions and health benefits possible here, it deserves
to be said - and perhaps more than once.

Flouride in its current form as an additive to water is a
poison that actually seems to weaken teeth and immune
systems (again, selective and poorly done studies are used
to justify adding this waste product to our water).
Mercury is highly toxic and leaches into the body from
fillings. Chloride is also detrimental to health, and
safer alternatives exist (UV light, Ozone treatment,
freezing, etc.) Refined foods are not only "not good" for
people, they are actually "bad", as they take nutrients
from the body to digest them and energy to detox the
unnatural additives added to them. Pasteurization destroys
vitamins and enzymes, cats fed pasteurized milk don't
survive more than 3 generations, and get sicker with each
passing generation, with many symptoms modern humans are
now experiencing (allergies, teeth and bone problems,
mental problems, etc. All allopathic drugs are toxic and
usually only cover up symptoms instead of getting to the
root of the problem. TCM (Chinese Medicine) and Tai Chi
have been shown to be beneficial in actually increasing
health and well being, yet most people are uaware of this
and injest toxic allopathic drugs out of ignorance to the
ultimate detriment to their health. How many people would
benefit from understanding these things, and how many
people actually do, despite billions spent on "medical"
research"? Trusting mainstream science can be a danger to
your health.


"Conventional Medicine is appropriate in around 10 - 15%
of cases in which it is used"
  - Dr. Andrew Weil
"About half of what doctors learn in school is wrong. The
problem is, they don't know which half"
  - Dr. Robert Mendelsohn
"Paradigms often change only when those holding them die
off"
  - Joel Author Baker, "Paradigms" (paraphrased)
Those who talk don't know, those who know don't talk.
  - Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching


Hope some people here find this of use.

peace;
rm

>Claims of human bones discovered by miners in the 1800s
from Pliocene gravel deposits are rightfully regarded with
some caution, both for the anomalous nature of the
evidence, but also for the lack of documentation of their
discovery.

>     Rather than claiming, with no corroborating evidence,
> unusual antiquity
> for human remains and artifacts, it is more useful, and
> more honest, to
> search for simpler explanations that fit within our
> established
> understanding of taphonomic processes. If the evidence
> continues to
> withstand scrutiny and is supported by additional
> evidence, then we can
> begin to question established theory.
>
>     The necessity for high standards of evidence rise
> proportionately with
> the degree which the claim lies outside established
> theories.
>
>     Michael
> --
> "Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation,
> whenever he shall deem
> it necessary to repel an invasion . . . and you allow him
> to make war at
> pleasure. . . . If to-day, he should choose to say he
> thinks it necessary to
> invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us,
> how could you stop
> him? You may say to him, 'I see no probability of the
> British invading us'
> but he will say to you 'be silent; I see it, if you
> don't.'"
>         Abraham Lincoln, Feb. 15, 1848

"True form is formless"
Lao-Tzu, Tao Te Ching
_________________________________________________
FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
http://www.FindLaw.com
Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
http://mail.Justice.com

I'll check that out.  Thanks!

~~~  Lance
http://www.geocities.com/becnalrio

"Good soldiers do not question their leaders.  Good citizens must."

.
----- Original Message -----
From: <education@...>
To: <ishmael_discussion@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 12:31 AM
Subject: Re: [ishmael_discussion] how old is man


> If you are willing to question mainstream science on this,
> try "Forbidden Archeology" by ____ Credo or work by
> Richard Milton. Should provide some answers, and also a
> lot of questions if you are willing to invest the energy
> to think about them. Humans (and others) have been on our
> planet for a long, long time if the physical evidence
> (first book) is accurate, as I suspect it is.
>
> r

on 4/5/04 12:58 AM, education@... at education@... wrote:

> most scientists at most periods in time have been wrong to
> some extent - and usually to quite a considerable extent -
> yet they and others around them tend to jump on the
> bandwagon and get quite attatched to and proud of the
> theory of the day. Cases of faked data and/or selective
> data used for studies have also been fairly common.

     Scientific studies are never "wrong" or "right." Science is the process
of observation verified by testing. If an interpretation of observation
turns out to be unverifiable, it is not "wrong," it is simply unverified.
"Faked" data (not at all common. Please document your accusation above) is
quickly exposed, as it cannot be repeated.

> I would say all evidence and theories deserve openminded
> yet critical examination, regardless of how nicely they
> fit into the theories of the day.

     It's not a matter of "nicely." Either an explanation of observation is
part of present theories, or it is not. If it is not, then a new body of
theory must be developed to encompass the new observation, requiring more
observation, testing and verification. If such verification is not
forthcoming, the established theory stands as adequate explanation.

> Again, Richard Milton is a good example

     An example of what? These are speculative, popular works, not based in
science.

> Coast to Coast AM has a significant number of excellent
> guests (highly educated and clear communicators), you can
> see their sites and clips at www.coasttocoastam.com under
> past guests.

     Let's see, Dr. Incognito (astral plane sexual encounters),
Gordon-Michael Scallion, crop circles, UFOs, apparitions in the woods...
this is not science. This is for-profit entertainment.

> Many have been shunned by their colleagues for
> daring to think freely and challenge established theories,

     No one is being shunned. The people you've cited are not involved in
science, they are in entertainment. They foster a hand to the forehead,
melodramatic posture to further sales of their popular books and to sell ads
on their radio programs. If they were engaged in science, they would publish
their work where it could be reviewed and discussed by scientists (not their
colleagues).

> Trusting mainstream science can be a danger to
> your health.

     Science is not a matter of trust. Science is about testing and
verification. The menu of "alternative" medicine posted is a mixture of
pseudo-science, scams and a smattering of useful information. The trick is
to separate the opportunistic from the truly beneficial and develop a
coherent understanding of the whole and all of its interrelated parts. This
is science.

> "Conventional Medicine is appropriate in around 10 - 15%
> of cases in which it is used"
> - Dr. Andrew Weil

     Runs a for-profit "health" supplement web site.


     I'd like to say this as gently as possible. It is very important to
distinguish between science and pseudo-science. Being aware of the bars is
not the same as inventing new bars to replace the old. All is culture. All
influences how we think and act. There are some things invented by humans
that are not real, that are phantom bars that hold us in as effectively as
the real bars. Discovering the difference is half the game.

     Michael

--- In ishmael_discussion@yahoogroups.com, Hayduke <hayduke@r...>
wrote:
> on 4/4/04 3:31 PM, education@j... at education@j... wrote:

>     The necessity for high standards of evidence rise
proportionately with
> the degree which the claim lies outside established theories.
>
>     Michael
> --

I really agree with most everything in your last post, Michael,
however:

I once swallowed your maxim above hook line and sinker until I
personally saw how it was abused by academe and used as a form of
Scientism; as well as the best method of CYA for "scientists" seeking
to maintain departmental power.

The devil is in the details of "high standards", where a scientist
can play dog-in-the-manger, protecting his aging pet theory and
defending it against all challenges by continually raising
the "standard of evidence" toward the stratosphere. Gone is the
requirement of the scientific method to change one's mind when
presented with new or radical facts. Instead, all too many disciples
of Scientism purport to be the only arbiters of just exactly what
is "the degree which the claim lies outside established theories."

I think we should readjust our thinking on this issue and recognize
that there is no legitimacy in requiring a higher standard of proof
for a new "claim" than one is willing to subject the established
theory to. Established theories ALWAYS have the same burden of proof
as new claims. Always, in perpetuity; they never get a break due to
age. (think 'replication' if you have a problem here). That doesn't
mean I am all for lowering high standards; what I am all for is
recognizing that *distance* from established theories does not
disqualify a claim. This is a fallacious form of attack, similar to
post hoc ergo propter hoc. All theories, old or new must be required
to meet the same level of rigor.

Example? The land bridge theory has been tottering on weaker and
weaker evidence for half a century, yet it has its staunch defenders
who stand to lose credibility (and grant money and tenure) if it was
subjected to the same level of scrutiny newer claims and newer
scientific data reveal. Instead old academes keep raising the bar on
any new challenge to the theory well past any justification, using
the argument you cite above. Porportionality is this case is
obfuscatory bullshit.

Failing that adjustment in thinking, we should at the very least bow
to the wisdom of Occam's Razor when considering the legitimacy of
claims and established theories. And the razor doesn't care how far
away from an established theory a new explanation hails from ...

best,
Tom Warren
Pleasant Hill, OR

on 4/5/04 7:11 PM, tomandmolly2001 at tomzbox@... wrote:

> --- In ishmael_discussion@yahoogroups.com, Hayduke <hayduke@r...> wrote:

>> The necessity for high standards of evidence rise proportionately with
>> the degree which the claim lies outside established theories.

> The devil is in the details of "high standards", where a scientist
> can play dog-in-the-manger, protecting his aging pet theory and
> defending it against all challenges by continually raising
> the "standard of evidence" toward the stratosphere. Gone is the
> requirement of the scientific method to change one's mind when
> presented with new or radical facts. Instead, all too many disciples
> of Scientism purport to be the only arbiters of just exactly what
> is "the degree which the claim lies outside established theories."

     Please take this out of the personal. This is not about individual
scientists "guarding the sacred knowledge." This is about theory formation,
evidence and verification. It is beyond individual scientists and "pet
theories." High standards of evidence does not mean "better" evidence. It
means a claim that challenges established theory must have more evidence to
upset the body of evidence upholding the existing theory. We cannot throw
out an existing theory based on one observation. there must be a body of
evidence equal to the body of evidence supporting the existing theory.

> I think we should readjust our thinking on this issue and recognize
> that there is no legitimacy in requiring a higher standard of proof
> for a new "claim" than one is willing to subject the established
> theory to.

     There is no "standard of proof." Proof does not mean evidence.

> Established theories ALWAYS have the same burden of proof
> as new claims.

     There is no standard of proof. Theories are never proven, they are
confirmed or contradicted. What is required is a standard of disproof. There
must be a body of contradictory evidence sufficient to justify modifying
existing theory.

> Always, in perpetuity; they never get a break due to
> age. (think 'replication' if you have a problem here).

     Why would a theory "break" because of age? Theories are based on
observation and confirmation. Age is not a factor.

> Example? The land bridge theory has been tottering on weaker and
> weaker evidence for half a century, yet it has its staunch defenders
> who stand to lose credibility (and grant money and tenure) if it was
> subjected to the same level of scrutiny newer claims and newer
> scientific data reveal. Instead old academes keep raising the bar on
> any new challenge to the theory well past any justification, using
> the argument you cite above. Porportionality is this case is
> obfuscatory bullshit.

     This is not at all true. (You should know that this is one of my areas
of research.

     The Bering Land Bridge was a pathway for human migration into the New
World. There is no question about this, it is established by a massive body
of evidence. What is at question is whether or not the Bering Land Bridge
was the ONLY pathway into the New World. It appears that there may have been
other pathways.

     This does nothing to diminish the adequacy of the Bering Land Bridge
explanation. We know to a certainty that humans crossed the Bering Land
Bridge around 15,000 years ago.

     This has nothing whatsoever to do with grant money and tenure. This is a
fantasy world made up by those who do not live in the halls of academe.
There is no raising of the bar of evidence. The fact is that the evidence
suggesting an earlier New World Occupation from the south is scattered,
contradictory and subject to differences in interpretation. The jury is
still out, evidence is accumulating.

> Failing that adjustment in thinking, we should at the very least bow
> to the wisdom of Occam's Razor when considering the legitimacy of
> claims and established theories. And the razor doesn't care how far
> away from an established theory a new explanation hails from ...

     Exactly. No need to invent new explanations when the existing ones are
perfectly adequate and consistent with the evidence.

     Michael

Sorry Michael, I just disagree with you too much here to take up the time it
would require to do justice to your rebuttal. I'll pick out a few points,
and leave it at that, 'kay?

tom


>    From: Hayduke <hayduke@...>
>Subject: Re: Re: how old is man
>     Please take this out of the personal. This is not about individual
>scientists "guarding the sacred knowledge."

Actually it is. I was observing that the reason why I disagreed with your
maxim was the way it is used in practice, not in the abstract, I hope you
can understand the difference.

>High standards of evidence does not mean "better" evidence. It
>means a claim that challenges established theory must have MORE EVIDENCE to
>upset the body of evidence upholding the existing theory. We cannot throw
>out an existing theory based on one observation. there must be a body of
>EVIDENCE EQUAL to the body of evidence supporting the existing theory.
>[caps mine. tom]

There is the problem in a nutshell. Do you mean MORE or THE SAME AMOUNT?
and examined by  the same standards? Please pick one. It may seem like a
quibble; but the dodge, in practice, has tremendous detrimental effects on
real reasearch. I repeat what I observed earlier: If you require more
rigorous examination of a new theory (and we are NOT talking about a "single
observation" here, I'd agree with you on that) than you are willing to
subject the old theory to, you have drifted into obfuscation and scientism.


>     There is no "standard of proof." Proof does not mean evidence.

Ahh, in practice this is almost never true. Currently in the Land Bridge
theory with which you are expert and should know, the standard of proof for
artifacts has been the adjusted radio carbon dating system. NOW, all
challenges from any othertheory must meet a higher "standard" of argon
and/or flourescence dating. Ask a Land Bridge Only supporter to resubmit his
artifacts to the more costly new procedures and he'd have used your dodge to
avoid it.

> > Established theories ALWAYS have the same burden of proof
> > as new claims.
>
>     There is no standard of proof. Theories are never proven, they are
>confirmed or contradicted. What is required is a standard of disproof.
>There
>must be a body of contradictory evidence sufficient to justify modifying
>existing theory.

Yeah,  I agree with that. But -- please -- go and examine the barriers
erected against the "contrary evidence" in the case of the Land Bridge Only
(and I don't mean to pick on this as the sole example, but since we both
understand it, it makes it easier to discuss) challengers.  You will find
that nearly all cases of 13,000+ year findings are repeatedly subjected to
ridicule based soley upon bias.


>     Why would a theory "break" because of age? Theories are based on
>observation and confirmation. Age is not a factor.

Semantics is the difference here. Theories of course do not break BECAUSE of
age, but you have sought to give older theories a higher status than new
theories, just because they've been around long enough to acquire a larger
following. The doctrine of an earth-centered solar system is a good example.
The theory broke not BECAUSE of age, but its status was unduly protected at
Galileo's trial, was it not?

>     The Bering Land Bridge was a pathway for human migration into the New
>World. There is no question about this, it is established by a massive body
>of evidence. What is at question is whether or not the Bering Land Bridge
>was the ONLY pathway into the New World. It appears that there may have
>been
>other pathways.

Yes, I agree, but the argument at least until the last few years was not
that the Bering was 'a' pathway, but THE pathway. I was describing that
period of time as an example of why attributing higher status to an
established theory leads to obfuscation.

>     This does nothing to diminish the adequacy of the Bering Land Bridge
>explanation. We know to a certainty that humans crossed the Bering Land
>Bridge around 15,000 years ago.

No. We don't. 1) We know to a high degree of certainty that indeed the
Bering bridge not available 15000 years ago. (the ice barrier/geological
side of the argument)  2) findings in central and south america older than
15000 years have been more than adequately researched, leading to the
conclusion that the Bering Land Bridge theory is indeed DIMINISHED in
accuracy ....


>     This has nothing whatsoever to do with grant money and tenure. This is
>a
>fantasy world made up by those who do not live in the halls of academe.
>There is no raising of the bar of evidence. The fact is that the evidence
>suggesting an earlier New World Occupation from the south is scattered,
>contradictory and subject to differences in interpretation. The jury is
>still out, evidence is accumulating.

It is the attribution of "scattered, contradictory" I am objecting to. This
is a form of the obfuscation. The Bering Theory also has scattered and
contradictory evidence; and it is EXACTLY the dodge of the "difference in
interpretation" that is where I object.

Aside: I assure you it is not a 'fantasy world" I have been there and seen
it up close. I take care of the files of a deceased family member who had
the misfortune to be on a team that "discovered" a 23,000+ site in central
america (which is why this whole argument gripes me so much. <g>) Until he
died in a senseless accident in the early 80's, the discovery was nigh on to
ruining his career just because they kept raising the bar. & You can imagine
the kind of difficulty the Calico Early Man site faces by suggesting 65,000
years! To test your theory of no grant tenure and no fantasy world,  I
invite you to examine the criticisms of the Calico site. Not that I support
Calico, but you can certainly see the raising of the bar in the howl of
objections ....


>     Exactly. No need to invent new explanations when the existing ones are
>perfectly adequate and consistent with the evidence.
>
>     Michael

Perhaps. Galileo, however, would complain that sometimes with an established
theory the consistency is propped up by the tendancy of the priests to
disallow new evidence .... and they do it often via the principle you are
defending. Certainly in the case of the Land Bridge the adequacy and the
consistency of it was inflated for too many years. Still is apparently.

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/

I was actually responding to someone who seemed to be saying, that straight
razors still did harm.
  I understand that the point is not to be harmless, just as harmless as other
species.

Let me see if I have this right.  The "slack" is the amount of potential damage
that the
environment can repair?  This sounds different than: "that period of time in
which nature allows
movement and actions and members of species to exist and survive and to not do
irremediable damage
to the biosphere."

When you said, "By the time my body has returned to the soil, my hole in the
ground will have
collapsed back into dirt and my razor will have rusted away. It's OKAY."  It
almost seems that you
are saying that as long as the effects of my life are gone when I am, then I
have lived in the
"slack".

How does one go about seeing the limits of the slack in every action?

Jim

PS - I think my dad still uses a Gilette safety razor!

> We must live in the "slack", as do all species on the planet.
>
> What is the "slack"?  It is that period of time in which nature
> allows movement and actions and members of species to exist and
> survive and to not do irremediable damage to the biosphere.  Here's
> an example ... A rabbit digs a hole to live in, or a primate weaves a
> limb and leaf bed to sleep in.  The hole causes a certain amount of
> erosion, and the leaves and limbs broken off a tree damage the plant
> and the environment.  BUT Nature either adapts -- in the case of
> erosion -- or repairs -- in the case of broken limbs.  All of these
> actions take place in what we would understand as "the Hands of the
> Gods". They are not "harm".  The natural system is set up by
> evolution, geology, etc. to incorportate these things, holes in the
> ground become a good thing for the soil processing system .... broken
> limbs become a good thing for plant ecology. These things occur in
> the "slack." Nature accepts and uses the dynamic aspect of the
> actions even if at first glance they seem destructive.
>
> If instead of a rabbit, I dig a hole to live in, Nature accepts it.
> Nature will repair the damage in the course of an acceptable period
> of time. (think 'sustainable' here) Nature doesn't see it as "harm"
> or damage. If instead of another primate, I break off some limbs and
> make a bed, that's okay too. The trees I used will generate more
> branches or the grove I used will generate more trees, all within an
> acceptable period of time. All within the "slack."  In effect no
> damage is done, in effect nature survives by millions and millions of
> these kind of actions. From biomass breakdown and bacteria to
> mountains eroding into river deltas of rich soil. Nature needs a
> dynamic biosphere, not a static snapshot of life at any one instant
> in time. We aren't supposed to keep everything just as it appears in
> the snapshot.
>
> Understand me so far?
>
> Okay, the same thing applies to metal razors. Can you see this?  It
> is simply a more complicated operation, but as long as it is done
> within the slack, it is perfectly acceptable. As long as Nature can
> repair the 'insult' of smelting a blade, and its subsequent use, it's
> OKAY! By the time my body has returned to the soil, my hole in the
> ground will have collapsed back into dirt and my razor will have
> rusted away. It's OKAY. Technology is not the problem.
>
> The trick is to understand all your actions. The trick is to live in
> the "slack". Leavers have long long traditions about how many limbs
> may acceptably be broken, and how many pieces of flint may be
> harvested from the mountainside, and how long a dwelling may be
> allowed to stand in the environment.
>
> Just as rabbits don't dig a cubic mile condominium to house their
> tribes, just as other primates don't denude an entire forest forming
> a furniture corporation to mass-produce leaf and limb beds, neither
> should we form mass razor companies digging vast holes for huge
> amounts of iron to make billions of razors and cutting down whole
> forests to supply handles for them. Nature can't repair the 'harm'
> within a sustainable amount of time and natural materials.
>
> It would be okay to produce even plastic razors, as long as nature
> could repair the dislocations caused within an acceptable --
> sustainable -- cycle.  Of course, part of the plastic razor cycle
> involves a million years to produce more oil for more plastic .... <g>
>
> The question is not "can we live entirely without smelted metal?" The
> question is: can we smelt metal sustainably?
>
> It is impossible to "live without being harmful at all"; no species
> on the planet does this. It's not the way the system was 'designed'.
> We do good, we do 'harm'. Nature depends upon each species doing a
> bit of both.
>
> The trick is to live in the slack. The trick is to SEE the limits of
> the slack in every action.
>
>
> best,
> Tom Warren
> Pleasant Hill, OR
>
> ... using an old Gillette Safety Razor. ;-) 'member those?
>
>
>
>

For anyone else that got stuck on the word "taphonomic", this site describes it
quite well, from
what i can tell:

http://www.mc2.vicnet.net.au/home/epistem/shared_files/dummies.PDF

Jim
--- Hayduke <hayduke@...> wrote:
> on 4/4/04 3:31 PM, education@... at education@... wrote:
>
> > If you are willing to question mainstream science on this,
> > try "Forbidden Archeology" by ____ Credo or work by
> > Richard Milton. Should provide some answers, and also a
> > lot of questions if you are willing to invest the energy
> > to think about them. Humans (and others) have been on our
> > planet for a long, long time if the physical evidence
> > (first book) is accurate, as I suspect it is.
>
>     That would be Michael Cremo.
>
>     There is repeatable, verifiable evidence and then there is speculation
> about "anomalous artifacts." The reason they are anomalous is because they
> don't fit in with the majority of evidence to which they are speculated to
> be associated. Claims of human bones discovered by miners in the 1800s from
> Pliocene gravel deposits are rightfully regarded with some caution, both for
> the anomalous nature of the evidence, but also for the lack of documentation
> of their discovery.
>
>     Rather than claiming, with no corroborating evidence, unusual antiquity
> for human remains and artifacts, it is more useful, and more honest, to
> search for simpler explanations that fit within our established
> understanding of taphonomic processes. If the evidence continues to
> withstand scrutiny and is supported by additional evidence, then we can
> begin to question established theory.
>
>     The necessity for high standards of evidence rise proportionately with
> the degree which the claim lies outside established theories.
>
>     Michael
> --
> "Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem
> it necessary to repel an invasion . . . and you allow him to make war at
> pleasure. . . . If to-day, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to
> invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop
> him? You may say to him, 'I see no probability of the British invading us'
> but he will say to you 'be silent; I see it, if you don't.'"
>         Abraham Lincoln, Feb. 15, 1848
>
>

I would tend to agree Lisa.  I figure we have 3 options: Do nothing, Work to
speed the collapse,
or do what we feel is useful, might enable us to better survive the collapse,
and just may have an
impact if it catches on.

I choose the last option.  The first two just seem to lack any sense of hope.  I
also figure
option three is more constructive than option one, while not as openly rebelous
as option two.

I can understand Isildur's claim that the sooner the collapse happens, the less
damage it will
cause, but I guess I am just not ready to accept the inevitability, or the
extent of the collapse
if it does happen.

Jim
--- Lisa Wilcox <wilcoxe@...> wrote:
> >...Yes, ultimately the 'machine' (which is sometimes used to describe the
> >emergent properties of this civilization as an organism) is, simply put,
> >the enemy of all life...
>
> But culture is software. And, as such, re-writable---however unlikely
> an outcome that may be. The escalation game theory may be true
> ("true," employed with the usual caveats) but it isn't useful. Unless
> you are prepared to go out and personally dismantle as much of the
> machine as possible, it amounts to a rationale for sitting on your
> ass and making gloomy prognostications. I prefer a Story which
> elaborates (among other things) incremental change, connecting with
> others, the survival of songbirds, garage sales, gaining wisdom,
> homegrown vegetables, and hope for a positive outcome---even if the
> story is "false."
>
>
> Lisa
>
>
> --
> Lisa Wilcox
> Mail: 19093 South Beavercreek Road #103
> Oregon City, OR  97045
> Cell: 503-951-1139
> wilcoxe@...
>
> "We may be crazy, and it may be our final run, yeah
> We are the Warriors of the Sun."     --Joan Baez
>
>

on 4/6/04 1:26 PM, Jim Linder at jimbo435@... wrote:

> For anyone else that got stuck on the word "taphonomic", this site describes
> it quite well, from
> what i can tell:

     This pdf file has nothing to do with taphonomy. It is merely a rather
clumsy attempt to make some derogatory point about archaeology, which
entirely escapes me.

     Taphonomy is merely the study of the processes involved in the
production of fossils or archaeological artifacts. Think of it as all the
things that happen to an object between the time it is used in a culture and
it's discovery in an archaeological site; or all the things that happens to
the body of a animal after it dies, resulting in the preservation of fossils
in the present. Taphonomy studies mainly the geological processes involved
in the preservation of geological or cultural objects.

     I hope this helps dispel the mystery of taphonomy.

     Michael

--
"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate.
---William of Occam, in Quodlibeta Septem.

Even if some can argue that these things mentioned below will not save the
culture from
collapsing, they must admit that we need to learn these ways if anyone is going
to survive after
the crash.  If they just keep living the old ways, there will be yet another
crash.  These are the
things we should be teaching in school, if we even have schools.

Jim
--- Anderson <vanderson@...> wrote:
> Eric,
> I don't think you're out of line at all. We can spend lots of emails deciding
how many angels
> can dance on the head of a pin and nothing will change. And, obviously, if our
species-
> and a lot of others- are going to survive, there must be many changes. Action
speaks louder than
> words, as we are reminded often by one of our regular number. (Are you
listening, Bill?)
>
> The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. We have to make many
steps, but for all of
> us there has to be a first one--the first time you tell someone about
"Ishmael"; the first time
> you buy a compost bin and kitchen composting pail; the first time you make a
batch of "green"
> cleaner (one half teaspoon washing soda, 1 tsp Borax, one tsp white vinegar,
one "squirt"
> organic liquid dishwashing detergent, and 2 cups hot water) so you get rid of
the toxic stuff
> under your kitchen sink; the first time you use rewashable cloths to clean up
a spill instead of
> a paper towel, and so on and so on. Yeah, small stuff, I know, but it's small
stuff we all can
> do, and stuff we can share with our friends (part of the re-education
process). Maybe not
> overwhelming in the face of the real war we are up against, but then again,
small acts of
> environmentally friendly snipers still hurt the "enemy" . Ever heard of the
death of a thousand
> cuts? If we all stopped using paper towels, don't you think they would stop
manufacturing them
> (save trees, avoid chlorine bleaching process, etc.)
>
> Somebody has to be out there with "tanks" and "bombs" to address some 
survival issues, but the
> rest of us can still keep "sniping" away.
> Vennie Anderson
>
> ---- Original Message -----
>   From: eric woodson
>   To: ishmael_discussion@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2004 12:17 PM
>   Subject: Re: [ishmael_discussion] how old is man
>
>
>   hello,
>   in all reality, does it matter how old man is....whether you believe
>   entirely in evolution...or genetic (tampering) enhancement by the
>   annunaki....what matters is now......all living members of this
>   planet...Tellurea....are players....of *the*game regardless of how deep into
>   the waters we tread...we are at war....if you want to see...you will
>   see...pull the wool from your eyes...this culture is a warring
>   culture...there is no peaceful
>   solution...re-education...re-evolution...re-vamping old programs with a new
>   light....same old program with different rulers in power...
>   are my thoughts that far out of line????and if so why???explain please...
>   rails...
>   eric...
>   twitch...
>  
zyaeduelon....................................................................
>
>
>   >From: Lord Isildur <il2a@...>
>   >Reply-To: ishmael_discussion@yahoogroups.com
>   >To: ishmael_discussion@yahoogroups.com
>   >Subject: Re: [ishmael_discussion] how old is man
>   >Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 20:28:22 -0500 (EST)
>   >
>   >
>   >He's stretching it a bit there.
>   >Homo is about 2 million or so, maybe a bit less. Homo sapiens
>   >is about 300 thousand years. Go down to any decent library and
>   >read a dozen books on anthropology, natural history, human origins, etc.
>   >Make sure you get a wide range of publication dates, so you dont just get
>   >one particular theory that happened to be instyle at the time a given book
>   >was written; The general outline is quite consistent since archaeology
>   >began to be taken seriously and undertaken in a thorough, scientific
>   >manner, though some of the theoires of movements of peoples and some spans
>   >of time have changed. Many carbon-dates from the 60s and 70s have been
>   >overturned with new evidence as carbon samples began to be matched with
>   >dendrochronological samples and people realized that c14 absorption rates
>   >change over time, etc... though that is usually more important once you
>   >start getting into more recent history, the past 20 thousand years or so,
>   >where being off by a thousand years or two is a major error..
>   >
>   >Isildur
>   >
>   >On Tue, 30 Mar 2004, solfari_galisir wrote:
>   >
>   > > Ishmael says that man is 3 million years old, where can i find
>   > > evidence to back this claim up?
>   > >
>   > >
>   > >
>   > >
>   > > Remember: YOU are B.
>   > >
>   > > Owner & Moderator: Michael Dylan Davis - http://www.townofautumn.com
>   > > Yahoo! Groups Links
>   > >
>   > >
>   > >
>   > >
>   > >
>   > >
>   >
>
>   _________________________________________________________________
>   Persistent heartburn? Check out Digestive Health & Wellness for information
>   and advice. http://gerd.msn.com/default.asp
>
>
>
>   Remember: YOU are B.
>
>   Owner & Moderator: Michael Dylan Davis - http://www.townofautumn.com
>
>
>         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>               ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>     a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
>     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ishmael_discussion/
>
>     b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>     ishmael_discussion-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>     c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>

This reminds me of something I read in the Secret Life of Plants.  I guess
someone had created a
device that could kill all the bugs in a field simply by putting a small amount
of insecticide on
the device along with an aerial photograph of the field.  It generated some sort
of energy field
to kill the insects.  It worked for years until the FDA shut it down because
they could not prove
how it worked.

Jim
--- education@... wrote:
> I think the evidence goes beyond this one example
> (bones)...
>
> As for the second comment, I think it can be said that
> most scientists at most periods in time have been wrong to
> some extent - and usually to quite a considerable extent -
> yet they and others around them tend to jump on the
> bandwagon and get quite attatched to and proud of the
> theory of the day. Cases of faked data and/or selective
> data used for studies have also been fairly common.
>
> I would say all evidence and theories deserve openminded
> yet critical examination, regardless of how nicely they
> fit into the theories of the day. The (high) standards
> should be the same for all theories and evidence, not more
> for those outside the accepted paradigm and less for those
> inside it. This is what I believe has happened
> historically and is still happening today in many fields.
>
> Again, Richard Milton is a good example, as is Dr. Peter
> Duesberg, even if you happen to dissagree with his
> ultimate conclusions (see
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895263998/qid=1081149467/sr=1-1/r\
ef=sr_1_1/104-3625766-1975947?v=glance&s=books
> )
>
> Coast to Coast AM has a significant number of excellent
> guests (highly educated and clear communicators), you can
> see their sites and clips at www.coasttocoastam.com under
> past guests. Many of them have written interesting books
> as well. Many have been shunned by their colleagues for
> daring to think freely and challenge established theories,
> and by extention, those who have invested their lives
> learning about and promoting them.
>
> I don't mean to preach here, but with the remarkable
> inventions and health benefits possible here, it deserves
> to be said - and perhaps more than once.
>
> Flouride in its current form as an additive to water is a
> poison that actually seems to weaken teeth and immune
> systems (again, selective and poorly done studies are used
> to justify adding this waste product to our water).
> Mercury is highly toxic and leaches into the body from
> fillings. Chloride is also detrimental to health, and
> safer alternatives exist (UV light, Ozone treatment,
> freezing, etc.) Refined foods are not only "not good" for
> people, they are actually "bad", as they take nutrients
> from the body to digest them and energy to detox the
> unnatural additives added to them. Pasteurization destroys
> vitamins and enzymes, cats fed pasteurized milk don't
> survive more than 3 generations, and get sicker with each
> passing generation, with many symptoms modern humans are
> now experiencing (allergies, teeth and bone problems,
> mental problems, etc. All allopathic drugs are toxic and
> usually only cover up symptoms instead of getting to the
> root of the problem. TCM (Chinese Medicine) and Tai Chi
> have been shown to be beneficial in actually increasing
> health and well being, yet most people are uaware of this
> and injest toxic allopathic drugs out of ignorance to the
> ultimate detriment to their health. How many people would
> benefit from understanding these things, and how many
> people actually do, despite billions spent on "medical"
> research"? Trusting mainstream science can be a danger to
> your health.
>
>
> "Conventional Medicine is appropriate in around 10 - 15%
> of cases in which it is used"
>  - Dr. Andrew Weil
> "About half of what doctors learn in school is wrong. The
> problem is, they don't know which half"
>  - Dr. Robert Mendelsohn
> "Paradigms often change only when those holding them die
> off"
>  - Joel Author Baker, "Paradigms" (paraphrased)
> Those who talk don't know, those who know don't talk.
>  - Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching
>
>
> Hope some people here find this of use.
>
> peace;
> rm
>
> >Claims of human bones discovered by miners in the 1800s
> from Pliocene gravel deposits are rightfully regarded with
> some caution, both for the anomalous nature of the
> evidence, but also for the lack of documentation of their
> discovery.
>
> >     Rather than claiming, with no corroborating evidence,
> > unusual antiquity
> > for human remains and artifacts, it is more useful, and
> > more honest, to
> > search for simpler explanations that fit within our
> > established
> > understanding of taphonomic processes. If the evidence
> > continues to
> > withstand scrutiny and is supported by additional
> > evidence, then we can
> > begin to question established theory.
> >
> >     The necessity for high standards of evidence rise
> > proportionately with
> > the degree which the claim lies outside established
> > theories.
> >
> >     Michael
> > --
> > "Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation,
> > whenever he shall deem
> > it necessary to repel an invasion . . . and you allow him
> > to make war at
> > pleasure. . . . If to-day, he should choose to say he
> > thinks it necessary to
> > invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us,
> > how could you stop
> > him? You may say to him, 'I see no probability of the
> > British invading us'
> > but he will say to you 'be silent; I see it, if you
> > don't.'"
> >         Abraham Lincoln, Feb. 15, 1848
>
> "True form is formless"
> Lao-Tzu, Tao Te Ching
> _________________________________________________
> FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
> http://www.FindLaw.com
> Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
> http://mail.Justice.com
>

Just because something is printed in a book does not mean it's real. Much
of "the Secret Life of Plants" was conjecture and rumor, unable to be
verified. Some of it was just plain made up!

	 Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Linder [mailto:jimbo435@...]
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 2:00 PM
To: ishmael_discussion@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [ishmael_discussion] how old is man

This reminds me of something I read in the Secret Life of Plants.  I guess
someone had created a
device that could kill all the bugs in a field simply by putting a small
amount of insecticide on
the device along with an aerial photograph of the field.  It generated some
sort of energy field
to kill the insects.  It worked for years until the FDA shut it down because
they could not prove
how it worked.

Jim
--- education@... wrote:
> I think the evidence goes beyond this one example
> (bones)...
>
> As for the second comment, I think it can be said that
> most scientists at most periods in time have been wrong to
> some extent - and usually to quite a considerable extent -
> yet they and others around them tend to jump on the
> bandwagon and get quite attatched to and proud of the
> theory of the day. Cases of faked data and/or selective
> data used for studies have also been fairly common.
>
> I would say all evidence and theories deserve openminded
> yet critical examination, regardless of how nicely they
> fit into the theories of the day. The (high) standards
> should be the same for all theories and evidence, not more
> for those outside the accepted paradigm and less for those
> inside it. This is what I believe has happened
> historically and is still happening today in many fields.
>
> Again, Richard Milton is a good example, as is Dr. Peter
> Duesberg, even if you happen to dissagree with his
> ultimate conclusions (see
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895263998/qid=1081149467/sr=1
-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-3625766-1975947?v=glance&s=books
> )
>
> Coast to Coast AM has a significant number of excellent
> guests (highly educated and clear communicators), you can
> see their sites and clips at www.coasttocoastam.com under
> past guests. Many of them have written interesting books
> as well. Many have been shunned by their colleagues for
> daring to think freely and challenge established theories,
> and by extention, those who have invested their lives
> learning about and promoting them.
>
> I don't mean to preach here, but with the remarkable
> inventions and health benefits possible here, it deserves
> to be said - and perhaps more than once.
>
> Flouride in its current form as an additive to water is a
> poison that actually seems to weaken teeth and immune
> systems (again, selective and poorly done studies are used
> to justify adding this waste product to our water).
> Mercury is highly toxic and leaches into the body from
> fillings. Chloride is also detrimental to health, and
> safer alternatives exist (UV light, Ozone treatment,
> freezing, etc.) Refined foods are not only "not good" for
> people, they are actually "bad", as they take nutrients
> from the body to digest them and energy to detox the
> unnatural additives added to them. Pasteurization destroys
> vitamins and enzymes, cats fed pasteurized milk don't
> survive more than 3 generations, and get sicker with each
> passing generation, with many symptoms modern humans are
> now experiencing (allergies, teeth and bone problems,
> mental problems, etc. All allopathic drugs are toxic and
> usually only cover up symptoms instead of getting to the
> root of the problem. TCM (Chinese Medicine) and Tai Chi
> have been shown to be beneficial in actually increasing
> health and well being, yet most people are uaware of this
> and injest toxic allopathic drugs out of ignorance to the
> ultimate detriment to their health. How many people would
> benefit from understanding these things, and how many
> people actually do, despite billions spent on "medical"
> research"? Trusting mainstream science can be a danger to
> your health.
>
>
> "Conventional Medicine is appropriate in around 10 - 15%
> of cases in which it is used"
>  - Dr. Andrew Weil
> "About half of what doctors learn in school is wrong. The
> problem is, they don't know which half"
>  - Dr. Robert Mendelsohn
> "Paradigms often change only when those holding them die
> off"
>  - Joel Author Baker, "Paradigms" (paraphrased)
> Those who talk don't know, those who know don't talk.
>  - Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching
>
>
> Hope some people here find this of use.
>
> peace;
> rm
>
> >Claims of human bones discovered by miners in the 1800s
> from Pliocene gravel deposits are rightfully regarded with
> some caution, both for the anomalous nature of the
> evidence, but also for the lack of documentation of their
> discovery.
>
> >     Rather than claiming, with no corroborating evidence,
> > unusual antiquity
> > for human remains and artifacts, it is more useful, and
> > more honest, to
> > search for simpler explanations that fit within our
> > established
> > understanding of taphonomic processes. If the evidence
> > continues to
> > withstand scrutiny and is supported by additional
> > evidence, then we can
> > begin to question established theory.
> >
> >     The necessity for high standards of evidence rise
> > proportionately with
> > the degree which the claim lies outside established
> > theories.
> >
> >     Michael
> > --
> > "Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation,
> > whenever he shall deem
> > it necessary to repel an invasion . . . and you allow him
> > to make war at
> > pleasure. . . . If to-day, he should choose to say he
> > thinks it necessary to
> > invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us,
> > how could you stop
> > him? You may say to him, 'I see no probability of the
> > British invading us'
> > but he will say to you 'be silent; I see it, if you
> > don't.'"
> >         Abraham Lincoln, Feb. 15, 1848
>
> "True form is formless"
> Lao-Tzu, Tao Te Ching
> _________________________________________________
> FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
> http://www.FindLaw.com
> Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
> http://mail.Justice.com
>



Remember: YOU are B.

Owner & Moderator: Michael Dylan Davis - http://www.townofautumn.com
Yahoo! Groups Links

It was written by a couple different people:

<This is not at all true. (You should know that this is one of my areas
of research.

     The Bering Land Bridge was a pathway for human migration into the New
World. There is no question about this, it is established by a massive body
of evidence. What is at question is whether or not the Bering Land Bridge
was the ONLY pathway into the New World. It appears that there may have been
other pathways.

     This does nothing to diminish the adequacy of the Bering Land Bridge
explanation. We know to a certainty that humans crossed the Bering Land
Bridge around 15,000 years ago.

     This has nothing whatsoever to do with grant money and tenure. This is a
fantasy world made up by those who do not live in the halls of academe.
There is no raising of the bar of evidence. The fact is that the evidence
suggesting an earlier New World Occupation from the south is scattered,
contradictory and subject to differences in interpretation. The jury is
still out, evidence is accumulating.>


For a really interesting insight into the problems associated with modern
science (which, by the way, does not center around the wonders of
pseudo-science) take a look at "Blackfoot Physics" by F. David Peat. He is a
theoretical physicist who has done extensive research and work attempting to
reconcile the differences between western science and Native American
science. For those who are skeptical about Western science, it's an
opportunity to examine how another culture examines the world. But don't go
into it looking for an attack on western science, because you won't find it.
What it does mention, though, is the problem, from an academic's standpoint,
of the constraints on Western scientists regarding research subjects placed
by supervisory boards (be it at a university or corporate setting). What I
really like about the book is that it attempts to bring two equally valid
traditions together - without trying to market those ideas. In addition, it
gives an excellent (and very fair) analysis of the different theories of
migration to the Americas. For the two people who seem to be debating the
validity of this subject, I suggest you both check it out from the library
if you can find it.

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee®
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

--- In ishmael_discussion@yahoogroups.com, Jim Linder <jimbo435@y...>
wrote:
> Let me see if I have this right.  The "slack" is the amount of
potential damage that the
> environment can repair?  This sounds different than: "that period
of time in which nature allows
> movement and actions and members of species to exist and survive
and to not do irremediable damage
> to the biosphere."

I think I was either drunk or arrogant when I wrote that. You said it
much more elegantly.


> When you said, "By the time my body has returned to the soil, my
hole in the ground will have
> collapsed back into dirt and my razor will have rusted away. It's
OKAY."  It almost seems that you
> are saying that as long as the effects of my life are gone when I
am, then I have lived in the
> "slack".

Yeah. I believe that. But I was talking about ME living MY perfect B
life takin' nothin' but pitchers and leavin' nothin' but footprints.
The problem with my theory is that there can't be 7+ billion of us
living in the slack.

>
> How does one go about seeing the limits of the slack in every
action?
>
> Jim

One listens to what the gorilla taught about Momma Culture, one
attempts to do one's best.  I don't think there is a perfect
solution, as Milord Isildur is fond of reminding us. However if there
IS such an answer, Lisa has it.

> PS - I think my dad still uses a Gilette safety razor!

... and he's still alive??? ;-)

Tom
Pleasant Hill

"Tom Warren" <tomzbox@...> Subject: [ishmael_discussion] Digest
Number 559
>
> There is the problem in a nutshell. Do you mean MORE or THE SAME AMOUNT?
> and examined by  the same standards? Please pick one. It may seem like a
> quibble; but the dodge, in practice, has tremendous detrimental effects on
> real reasearch. I repeat what I observed earlier: If you require more
> rigorous examination of a new theory (and we are NOT talking about a "single
> observation" here, I'd agree with you on that) than you are willing to
> subject the old theory to, you have drifted into obfuscation and scientism.
BE
I don't see your evidence for this.  When there is evidence theories change.
How about the evidence that the earth moved around the sun.  People were
burned at the stake and torchered for announcing that but science prevaled.

How about the curvature of space time.  It was the overthrow of Newton.  But
experiments showed it was true. So science changed.

How about evolution.  It was not at first accepted by many.  Now it is.

How about chaos, complexity and Gaian theories.  The suggest that the earth
evolves as a unity and all of its parts are interdependent.

Can you give ONE example of irrefutable evidence that has not changed the
scientific view?

Bill Ellis

--- In ishmael_discussion@yahoogroups.com, Bill Ellis <tranet@r...>
wrote:
> Can you give ONE example of irrefutable evidence that has not
changed the
> scientific view?
>
> Bill Ellis

Hah! Boy, when you first look at it the question seems fair and plays
the trump card, doesn't it? <g>  Actually it's so loaded and in
denial of the actual issue I'm surprised you'd use it to defend a
vision of science.

You couch the question wrong, Bill, and miss the point.

However, your example of darwinian evolution is a great one for
illustrating what I am actually talking about. How LONG did
obfuscation and denial hold back and slow down scientific advancement
in evolution?

How many scientists had careers delayed or ruined by teaching it and
researching it? How many STILL DO? (I seem to remember a long
catalogue of this by S.J. Gould, but I can't cite it at the moment.)

And doesn't the demand for absolutely irrefutable evidence magnitudes
beyond anything "Argument by Design" offers STILL hold back evolution
science, in part due to the religionists' crap claim that "evolution
is only a theory"? How much ignorance and wrongheadedness do the
Creationists still promote in education?

Now before you go and claim that you are simply talking about
pure 'Science' alone, stop and think how many "scientists"
sympathetic to Creationism sit on faculty tenure boards and on
committees awarding grant money. The answer is a long way from zero!
(Let's not even talk about the abominable practice of allowing
Creation scientists an equal place at the table in University science
departments so they have such wonderful credentials to testify at
school board hearings all across the country.)

The point is none of us will ever know the answer to your question,
Bill, simply because of this wrongheaded notion that the bar must be
raised illogically higher for some new hypothesis (& supporting
evidence) because somebody's sacred ox is always getting gored. Don't
even look to the cutting edge hard sciences for examples, in string
theory, dark energy and the like.

Instead, I'll give you a couple of pretty tame ones where if you are
honest it is easy to detect that the evidence has never been allowed
to be a candidate for "irrefutablity" simply because of raising the
bar and science politics: 1) the Acquatic Theory of Evolution, 2)the
current exclusion of overwhelming evidence in medical research that
mercury in vaccinations has led to an epidemic of autism. I'm not
claiming I support either one, but it is irrefutable <g> that neither
has had a fair hearing ...


best,
Tom Warren
Pleasant Hill, OR

"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry. There is no place
for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask
any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to
correct any errors."   --J. Robert Oppenheimer


"All evolution in thought and conduct must first appear as heresy and
misconduct."
   --G. B. Shaw

"In questions of science the authority of a thousand is not worth the
humble reasoning of a single individual." -- Galileo Galilei