Bull Trout
 

Willi wrote:




You and Wolfgang are waxing poetically about the wonder of ROFF,
throwing around lists of great writers to justify calling strangers
names while here at ROFF we get:

"is nothing but dry humping the ****ing keyboard by clueless newbies and
old-timey pricks"

That's one hell of a stretch.

....c'mon willi, even your sphincter can't be that tight... not sure i
was justifying anything, but maybe. without regard to the degree of
sphincter constriction, you gotta admit that is a pretty clever and
funny sentence...

jeff

Bull Trout
 

troutbum_mt wrote:

says...

Unfortunately for Galileo, those weren't the folks who showed him the
torture instruments. No one expects the Spanish Inquisition! :-)


Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is
surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are
fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are
fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical
devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons....
Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come
in again.

Please don't threaten us with the comfy chair treatment.

Tim Lysyk

Bull Trout
 

On 2004-02-11 00:16:05 -0700, qz (Chip Bartholomay) said:

Darwin's family had to be petitioned to allow him to be interred at
Westminster
Abbey. They were going to bury him elsewhere, but his supporters felt
that he
deserved the honor of being buried at Westminster. Thus neither he nor
his
family "bought" their way into the Abbey.

I never said they did. My point was that burial in Westminster Abbey can
hardly be called proof of faith.

Here are a couple of quotations from Darwin's Autobiography (1876). I think
they settle this argument conclusively, in my favor:

....During these two years (March 1837 - January 1839) I was led to think
much about religion. Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and I
remember being heartily laughed at by several officers (though themselves
orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point
of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused them.
But I had gradually come by this time (i.e. 1836 to 1839) to see the Old
Testament, from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower
of Babel, the rain-bow as a sign, &c., &c., and from its attributing to God
the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the
sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian....
....Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last
complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never
since doubted for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I can
indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if
so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not
believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best
friends, will be everlastingly punished.
And this is a damnable doctrine....

At present the most usual argument for the existence of an intelligent
God is drawn from deep inward conviction and feelings which are experienced
by most persons. But it cannot be doubted that Hindoos, Mahomedans and
others might argue in the same manner and with equal force in favour of the
existence of one God, or of many Gods, or as with the Buddhists of no
God...
....This argument would be a valid one, if all men of all races had the
same inward conviction of the existence of one God; but we know this is
very far from being the case. Therefore I cannot see that such inward
convictions and feelings are of any weight as evidence of what really
exists....

-----------------------------------------------------
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Bull Trout
 

RW wrote:

Darwin's family had to be petitioned to allow him to be interred at
Westminster
Abbey. They were going to bury him elsewhere, but his supporters felt
that he
deserved the honor of being buried at Westminster. Thus neither he nor
his
family "bought" their way into the Abbey.

I never said they did. My point was that burial in Westminster Abbey can
hardly be called proof of faith.

Somehow I do not think that the push to have him interred at Westminster Abbey
would have been quite so strong or widespread had he been a self-avowed
atheist.

Here are a couple of quotations from Darwin's Autobiography (1876). I think
they settle this argument conclusively, in my favor:

....During these two years (March 1837 - January 1839) I was led to think
much about religion. Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and I
remember being heartily laughed at by several officers (though themselves
orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point
of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused them.
But I had gradually come by this time (i.e. 1836 to 1839) to see the Old
Testament, from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower
of Babel, the rain-bow as a sign, &c., &c., and from its attributing to God
the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the
sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian....
....Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last
complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never
since doubted for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I can
indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if
so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not
believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best
friends, will be everlastingly punished.
And this is a damnable doctrine....

At present the most usual argument for the existence of an intelligent
God is drawn from deep inward conviction and feelings which are experienced
by most persons. But it cannot be doubted that Hindoos, Mahomedans and
others might argue in the same manner and with equal force in favour of the
existence of one God, or of many Gods, or as with the Buddhists of no
God...
....This argument would be a valid one, if all men of all races had the
same inward conviction of the existence of one God; but we know this is
very far from being the case. Therefore I cannot see that such inward
convictions and feelings are of any weight as evidence of what really
exists....

Odd that nowhere in these exerpted passages does he actually state that he did
not believe in any god or gods. He was at most an agnostic, leaning more
towards deisim than atheism.

Bull Trout
 

Willi wrote:

... here at ROFF we get:

"is nothing but dry humping the ****ing keyboard by clueless newbies and
old-timey pricks"

Damn, that's good. That whole sentence is a classic and deserves to
be quoted in full.

All the folderol about this newsgroup being populated with scores
of intelligent, articulate, knowledgeable fly fisherman who would
write prolifically and sweetly on all things fly fishing if only
the malcontents would play nice is nothing but dry humping the
****ing keyboard by clueless newbies and old-timey pricks.

Put in the FAQ, it's that damn good. I was well into my cups
preparing, as good fans do, for the Illini - Michigan State game
when I penned that sentence. Sometimes I write better than I know
how, I couldn't do that sober for love nor money. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

Bull Trout
 

"Chip Bartholomay" wrote in message
The fact that life has changed over time

This is the second time I've come across this phrase in as many days. This
was the language that the kook down in Georgia was proposing as some sort of
compromise, some strange "split down the middle" between those who believe
in imaginary beings and literal interpretations of myth texts and the more
realistic humans. So, now I recognize this phrase as code for "I don't
'believe' in evolution." Sorry if this is already public knowledge and I'm
just slow to pick things up. Holy ****, it's 2004!

Bull Trout
 

rickeyrickett wrote;

The fact that life has changed over time

This is the second time I've come across this phrase in as many days. This
was the language that the kook down in Georgia was proposing as some sort of
compromise, some strange "split down the middle" between those who believe
in imaginary beings and literal interpretations of myth texts and the more
realistic humans. So, now I recognize this phrase as code for "I don't
'believe' in evolution." Sorry if this is already public knowledge and I'm
just slow to pick things up. Holy ****, it's 2004!


Actually, the phrase represents the simplest way to describe evolution. It was
the observation that life changed over time that caused people such as Darwin
to develop theories about the mechanisms and rates associated with those
observed changes.

It most certainly is not a "code for 'I don't believe in evolution'", despite
what you may infer from the Georgia situation.

Bull Trout
 

Chip Bartholomay wrote:

Odd that nowhere in these exerpted passages does he actually state that he did
not believe in any god or gods. He was at most an agnostic, leaning more
towards deisim than atheism.

Unbelievable.

Maybe the quotation was a little too long for you to follow. Here's an
excerpt:

"Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last
complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never
since doubted for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I can
indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for
if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do
not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all
my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable
doctrine...."

He couldn't have been more clear.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Bull Trout
 

RW wrote:

Odd that nowhere in these exerpted passages does he actually state that he
did
not believe in any god or gods. He was at most an agnostic, leaning more
towards deisim than atheism.

Unbelievable.

Maybe the quotation was a little too long for you to follow. Here's an
excerpt:

"Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last
complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never
since doubted for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I can
indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for
if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do
not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all
my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable
doctrine...."

He couldn't have been more clear.

Yep. He was writing about Christianity. That is quite clear. Of course,
Christianity is not the only religion, nor does an apparent rejection of
Christianity automatically mean that he was an athiest. As I said, he was
probably at best an agnostic leaning towards deism.

But what does it matter? How do his personal beliefs alter in any way his
theories, theories that have been modified over the intervening years by
incorporation of new data, but that still stand as the best and most plausible
explanations for the mechanisms of evolution?

Bull Trout
 

On 2/11/04 2:00 PM, in article ,
"rw" wrote:

Chip Bartholomay wrote:

Odd that nowhere in these exerpted passages does he actually state that he
did
not believe in any god or gods. He was at most an agnostic, leaning more
towards deisim than atheism.

Unbelievable.

Maybe the quotation was a little too long for you to follow. Here's an
excerpt:

"Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last
complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never
since doubted for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I can
indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for
if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do
not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all
my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable
doctrine...."

He couldn't have been more clear.

RW, perhaps you should read up on agnosticism and atheism. Disillusion with
or disklike of Christian myths does not make one an atheist.

As regards Darwin, Adrian Desmond (author of books on Darwin and Huxley)
says the following in his article on Darwin in the Britannica, illustrating
the limits of Darwin's autobiography, his religion (or lack) at the end of
his life, and the reason for his burial at Westminster:

"Darwin wrote his autobiography between 1876 and 1881. It was composed for
his grandchildren, rather than for publication, and it was particularly
candid on his dislike of Christian myths of eternal torment. To people who
inquired about his religious beliefs, however, he would only say that he was
an agnostic (a word coined by Huxley in 1869). "

....

"Suffering from angina, he looked forward to joining the worms,
contemplating ³Down graveyard as the sweetest place on earth.² He had a
seizure in March 1882 and died of a heart attack on April 19. Influential
groups wanted a grander commemoration than a funeral in Downe, something
better for the gentleman naturalist who had delivered the ³new Nature² into
the new professionals' hands. Galton had the Royal Society request the
family's permission for a state burial. Huxley, who by taking over the
public debate had preserved Darwin's reputation of ³sweet and gentle nature
blossomed into perfection,² as a newspaper put it, convinced the canon of
Westminster Abbey to bury the diffident agnostic there. And so Darwin was
laid to rest with full ecclesiastical pomp on April 26, 1882, attended by
the new nobility of science and the state."*

And, of course, none of this has much to do with species differentiation or
Bull trout, but it did make for a few minutes of interesting research. :-)

Bill

* "Charles Darwin."*Encyclopædia Britannica. 2004.* Encyclopædia Britannica
Online. 11 Feb. 2004 *http://search.eb.com/eb/article?eu=117775