For DSP Evolutionist!! (Free Book)!! Read It During Christmas Holidays.

"John Herman" <John_W_Herman@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:igjrf.7838$hI1.1882@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> In article <VMerf.23444$Qa1.9699@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, 
> "John E. Hadstate" <jh113355@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Douglas Adams' story about the Earth being populated by a
>>load of hairdressers and middle-managers from a crashed
>>spacecraft who subsequently killed-off their hominid
>>competitors and then "went native" because they had never
>>really mastered their own advanced technologies is more
>>logically consistent than any of the stupid theories being
>>bandied about in the mainstream.  More to the point, only
>>the descendents of a boat load of hairdressers and
>>middle-managers could invent such stupid theories as
>>"evolution" and "creation" to explain their existence.
>
>
> That doesn't work since human beings have approximately 
> 65% of their DNA in
> common with flatworms, for example.

That doesn't prove anything to someone who hasn't bought 
into the fairy tale that Planet Earth has the only life in 
the universe.  Someday it may be shown that every life form 
in the universe has 65% of its DNA in common with the 
flatworm.  If that were the case, would that be an argument 
for or against the existence of God, and, if so, which?

"Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message 
news:ifKdnfPFa83fGzDenZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@rcn.net...
> John E. Hadstate wrote:
>>
>> Douglas Adams' story about the Earth being populated by a 
>> load of hairdressers and middle-managers from a crashed 
>> spacecraft who subsequently killed-off their hominid 
>> competitors and then "went native" because they had never 
>> really mastered their own advanced technologies is more 
>> logically consistent than any of the stupid theories 
>> being bandied about in the mainstream.  More to the 
>> point, only the descendents of a boat load of 
>> hairdressers and middle-managers could invent such stupid 
>> theories as "evolution" and "creation" to explain their 
>> existence.
>
> Here's how it came about: Long ago, a disabled spaceship 
> landed on Earth. Repairs required more effort than the 
> crew alone could exert, and there were no native species 
> that could be recruited. Being expert geneticists, the 
> crew combined porcine and anthropoid genes to create -- 
> pretty much in their own form -- work gangs with 
> sufficient intelligence and communication skills for 
> mining, smelting, and other chores.
>

That's very close, but the real story was told to me by my 
Dad, who heard it from his Dad, whose cousin who was hung as 
a horse thief. (Notice that I did not say that he was hung 
like a horse thief.  I made that mistake in the sixth grade 
and my mother had to come to school to pick me up.)  Anyway, 
I'm sure this is true since there wasn't an Internet in 
those days and all such stories were much more credible as a 
result.

It seems that several million years ago, intergalactic 
explorers observed that the Earth was capable of supporting 
their life forms.  Earth was subsequently designated an 
intergalactic penal colony.  Criminals from nearby galaxies 
were dropped-off here with nothing but their bare hands and 
no hope of parole, just sink or swim.  Various parts of the 
planet were reserved by different civilizations, which 
explains why racial differentiation tended to correlate with 
geography.  After a million years or so, but still hundreds 
of millennia ago, the practice was discontinued and 
someplace else became the dumping ground.

The main support for this theory is based on the observation 
that humans, unlike virtually any other species on this 
planet, tend to pity the handicapped, the weak, and the 
criminal, and prefer to exile them rather than kill and/or 
eat them.  For example, there's the story about how places 
like Australia and southeastern USA got populated by 
Europe's undesirables. Nursing homes and hospices, mental 
hospitals and prisons are all testament to the human 
inclination to exile those we no longer want to be bothered 
by.

Regardless of whether it's true, I think this story makes a 
lot more sense than anything I've heard out of the God 
Squad, and probably is at least as supportable as the theory 
that all of us evolved from pond scum.

It's almost a certainty that we will never know the DNA structure of even the 
members of our galaxy, much less the universe.  But you are correct that a lot 
of the life in the universe could be related in the sense it has a common 
ancestor.  The universe is 13 billion years and used to be smaller than it is 
now.

In article <lHjrf.23474$Qa1.14674@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, "John E. Hadstate" 
<jh113355@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"John Herman" <John_W_Herman@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
>news:igjrf.7838$hI1.1882@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>> In article <VMerf.23444$Qa1.9699@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, 
>> "John E. Hadstate" <jh113355@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Douglas Adams' story about the Earth being populated by a
>>>load of hairdressers and middle-managers from a crashed
>>>spacecraft who subsequently killed-off their hominid
>>>competitors and then "went native" because they had never
>>>really mastered their own advanced technologies is more
>>>logically consistent than any of the stupid theories being
>>>bandied about in the mainstream.  More to the point, only
>>>the descendents of a boat load of hairdressers and
>>>middle-managers could invent such stupid theories as
>>>"evolution" and "creation" to explain their existence.
>>
>>
>> That doesn't work since human beings have approximately 
>> 65% of their DNA in
>> common with flatworms, for example.
>
>That doesn't prove anything to someone who hasn't bought 
>into the fairy tale that Planet Earth has the only life in 
>the universe.  Someday it may be shown that every life form 
>in the universe has 65% of its DNA in common with the 
>flatworm.  If that were the case, would that be an argument 
>for or against the existence of God, and, if so, which?
>
>
>

On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 17:08:19 -0500, "John E. Hadstate"
<jh113355@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> That doesn't work since human beings have approximately 
>> 65% of their DNA in
>> common with flatworms, for example.
>
>That doesn't prove anything to someone who hasn't bought 
>into the fairy tale that Planet Earth has the only life in 
>the universe.  Someday it may be shown that every life form 
>in the universe has 65% of its DNA in common with the 
>flatworm.  If that were the case, would that be an argument 
>for or against the existence of God, and, if so, which?

Assuming, of course, that the extra-terrestrial life forms even have
DNA.   Maybe they get their biological organization some other way.

Eric Jacobsen
Minister of Algorithms, Intel Corp.
My opinions may not be Intel's opinions.
http://www.ericjacobsen.org

On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 12:37:18 -0500, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:

>Humans came from apes, but not only from apes. Have you considered why 
>fetal pigs are objects of dissection in courses on human anatomy? Where 
>do you think Caucasians' pink skin came from, anyway? Dark skin is from 
>our simian precursors, and light from our porcine. There are taboos 
>against eating pork and primate meat in many societies, just as most 
>have taboos against cannibalism. Now you know why.
>
>Here's how it came about: Long ago, a disabled spaceship landed on 
>Earth. Repairs required more effort than the crew alone could exert, and 
>there were no native species that could be recruited. Being expert 
>geneticists, the crew combined porcine and anthropoid genes to create -- 
>pretty much in their own form -- work gangs with sufficient intelligence 
>and communication skills for mining, smelting, and other chores.
>
>When the aliens left, they may have taken some of their creations with 
>them, but they left most behind. They returned at least twice; one 
>occasion is described in the Book of Ezekiel, the other, when they told 
>me about it.
>
>The Ezekiel account is interesting. They used personal helicopters in 
>the atmosphere powered by small jet engines at the tips of the rotors. 
>To ensure against airborne pathogens, they wore canister-style 
>respirators like http://www.kimdara.com/photochron/gas_mask.jpg or 
>http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/equipment/gas-mask.jpg. It's no 
>wonder that Zeke wrote of circles of fire and dog-faced beings.
>
>So there you have it folks, right down to who the Creators were.
>
>Jerry

Ooh, I like that.  It explains a lot of things and even has scriptural
support!   How could it be wrong!

Eric Jacobsen
Minister of Algorithms, Intel Corp.
My opinions may not be Intel's opinions.
http://www.ericjacobsen.org

Vladimir Vassilevsky <antispam_bogus@hotmail.com> writes:

> gold wrote:
>
>
>> An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could
>> only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the
>> moment to be almost a miracle.1
>
> So what?
> Who created the creator?

Who said anything has to exist?
-- 
%  Randy Yates                  % "She's sweet on Wagner-I think she'd die for Beethoven.
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC            %  She love the way Puccini lays down a tune, and
%%% 919-577-9882                %  Verdi's always creepin' from her room." 
%%%% <yates@ieee.org>           % "Rockaria", *A New World Record*, ELO   
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

Randy Yates wrote:

>>
>>>An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could
>>>only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the
>>>moment to be almost a miracle.1
>>
>>So what?
>>Who created the creator?
>  
> Who said anything has to exist?

I am already sick of the obscurantists and their boring arguments, and I 
am teasing them with the paradoxes to show that their rock solid mind 
set does not stand against the formal logic. Isn't it obvious that the 
World is much more complicated then any simplified model of it. No 
matter if a model includes gods or if it does not, still it is a talk of 
blind men about the elephant. It is questionable if the understanding of 
the real structure of the World can fit into the limited human logic, 
like a cockroach will never understand the computer.

By any means it is not a reason for not celebrating Christmas. So I 
would like to send my agnostic greetings to all open minded people.


Vladimir Vassilevsky

DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant

http://www.abvolt.com

"The nature is not a temple but a workshop, and the man is the one who 
works there" (Turgenev)

Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:

>     ... So I 
> would like to send my agnostic greetings to all open minded people.

Received, and returned with thanks.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

Vladimir Vassilevsky <antispam_bogus@hotmail.com> writes:

> Randy Yates wrote:
>
>>>
>>>>An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could
>>>>only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the
>>>>moment to be almost a miracle.1
>>>
>>>So what?
>>>Who created the creator?
>>  Who said anything has to exist?
>
> I am already sick of the obscurantists and their boring arguments, and
> I am teasing them with the paradoxes to show that their rock solid
> mind set does not stand against the formal logic. Isn't it obvious
> that the World is much more complicated then any simplified model of
> it. No matter if a model includes gods or if it does not, still it is
> a talk of blind men about the elephant. 

Well-said, Vladimir. I agree.

> By any means it is not a reason for not celebrating Christmas. So I
> would like to send my agnostic greetings to all open minded people.

Merry Christmas to you, Vladimir.
- 
%  Randy Yates                  % "With time with what you've learned, 
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC            %  they'll kiss the ground you walk 
%%% 919-577-9882                %  upon."
%%%% <yates@ieee.org>           % '21st Century Man', *Time*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

Hi Vladimir,

Vladimir Vassilevsky napisa�(a):
> 
> 
> gold wrote:
> 
>> Hi DSP Gurus,
>> Proponent of evolution who are dying to prove its validity should read
>> this book based on solid scientific evidence to disprove darwinism. It
>> has also colorful pictures and easy to read.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is quite obvious that Darwinism and evolution have many problems.
> The question is if the authors can suggest anything better than that.

what problem ?
With proving that man wasn't crated by God ?

It is overuse of Darwin theory. Evolution is so easy obserwated, also as 
a development/ design method, but it cannot explain universe creation.

So, the dogma that the God is the crator is also still valid hypothesis.

BTW, what agnostics think or say about exorcisms ?

Best regards

Roman Rumian