--- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, "Randy C" <carumba17@...> wrote:
>
> >> Randy C:
> >> But faith healing doesn't seem to work better than a
> >> placebo.  The problem with faith healing is that some
> >> people use it even when actual medical procedures are
> >> needed.  We've all seen stories in the news of people
> >> who died of some disease only because they tried faith
> >> healing or some other sort of pseudo-science when
> >> mainstream medical practices would have most likely
> >> saved the person's life.  So there is a very real
> >> danger of dignifying faith healing by making it seem
> >> useful when it is not.
>
> > Jack:
> > Would walking on hot coals fit your analogy?
>
> You know that is a fraud, don't you?
>
> Sure the coals are hot, but they burn down so that they
> have very little thermal conductivity.  That means that they
> won't burn you if you put your foot on them for a short
> period of time.
>
> Here's an analogous situation that we've all experienced.
>
> **IF** you take a metal pot out of a 450 degree oven with
> your bare hand you will burn your hand immediately.
>
> However if you merely stick you hand into the 450 degree oven
> for a few seconds without touching anything, it will get
> hot but you won't burn it in a short time.
>
> The difference is that the metal pot has higher thermal
> conductivity and can transfer lots of heat to your hand
> very efficiently causing it to burn.
>
> But air is not nearly as efficient in conducting thermal
> energy.
>
> For "hot coal walking" the coals are burned in such a way
> that it is like sticking your hand into the oven as opposed
> to touching the metal pot.
>
> The web site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire-walking
> has a more detailed explanation.
>
> Science explains it.  There is no sort of "faith healing"
> aspect involved.
>
> Randy C.
>
This was also investigated recently by the "Mythbusters".  It takes some
practice and you do have to walk "briskly" to avoid any pain or injury but it is
mostly fraud.

Terry

>> Randy C:
>> But faith healing doesn't seem to work better than a
>> placebo.  The problem with faith healing is that some
>> people use it even when actual medical procedures are
>> needed.  We've all seen stories in the news of people
>> who died of some disease only because they tried faith
>> healing or some other sort of pseudo-science when
>> mainstream medical practices would have most likely
>> saved the person's life.  So there is a very real
>> danger of dignifying faith healing by making it seem
>> useful when it is not.

> Jack:
> Would walking on hot coals fit your analogy?

You know that is a fraud, don't you?

Sure the coals are hot, but they burn down so that they
have very little thermal conductivity.  That means that they
won't burn you if you put your foot on them for a short
period of time.

Here's an analogous situation that we've all experienced.

**IF** you take a metal pot out of a 450 degree oven with
your bare hand you will burn your hand immediately.

However if you merely stick you hand into the 450 degree oven
for a few seconds without touching anything, it will get
hot but you won't burn it in a short time.

The difference is that the metal pot has higher thermal
conductivity and can transfer lots of heat to your hand
very efficiently causing it to burn.

But air is not nearly as efficient in conducting thermal
energy.

For "hot coal walking" the coals are burned in such a way
that it is like sticking your hand into the oven as opposed
to touching the metal pot.

The web site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire-walking
has a more detailed explanation.

Science explains it.  There is no sort of "faith healing"
aspect involved.

Randy C.

--- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, "Randy C" <carumba17@...> wrote:
>
> >> Randy C:
> >> The rule is simple: the government should only fund medical
> >> procedures that have scientific evidence showing that they
> >> are beneficial.
>
> >> It has nothing to do with faith or religion or anything else.
>
> >> **IF** someone shows that faith healing is better than a
> >> placebo, then I have no problem with the government funding
> >> it.
>
> >> On the other hand, **IF** there is NO scientific evidence
> >> showing that faith healing is better than a placebo, then
> >> the government shouldn't fund it.
>
> >> As it happens, there IS no scientific evidence showing that
> >> faith healing works better than a placebo. Therefore the
> >> government shouldn't fund it.
>
> >> If you as a private individual want to go out and waste your
> >> own money on such things, feel free. It's a free world.
>
> >> I believe that this is one of the evil effects of creationism
> >> on our society. Creationism tells people to ignore science
> >> and believe whatever you want to.
>
> >> I happen to believe that societies based on rationality are
> >> better than societies based on irrationality.
>
> > Michael Elphick:
> > Whilst I broadly agree with this, you do put your finger
> > on a key issue - the placebo effect. This can be pretty
> > potent and doubtless forms the essence of faith-healing
> > and other 'natural' remedies and cures. It's known that
> > the placebo effect can be potentiated by local
> > circumstances and particularly by the social standing
> > and charisma of the 'physician' and the means used to
> > administer whatever-it-is.
>
> > The problem is that *knowingly* administering a placebo
> > is in effect lying to the patient, but for some faith
> > healers this would not be a problem as they actually
> > believe in what they're doing. It seems the combination
> > of an irrational patient and irrational treatment can
> > actually work - as a glorified placebo!
>
> I agree that you could say that a doctor who prescribes
> a placebo is lying to their patient in a way.  But the
> most important goal of the physician is to make the
> patient better.  Honesty is important but making the
> patient better is the ultimate goal.
>
> One interesting aspect of the placebo effect is that it
> works with some people even when they are told that they
> are receiving a placebo.  So honesty and the placebo
> effect can actually work together.
>
> But faith healing doesn't seem to work better than a
> placebo.  The problem with faith healing is that some
> people use it even when actual medical procedures are
> needed.  We've all seen stories in the news of people
> who died of some disease only because they tried faith
> healing or some other sort of pseudo-science when
> mainstream medical practices would have most likely
> saved the person's life.  So there is a very real
> danger of dignifying faith healing by making it seem
> useful when it is not.
>
> Randy C.

>Would walking on hot coals fit your analogy?

Jack...

--- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, "Randy C" <carumba17@...> wrote:
>
> >> Todd Greene [quoting]:
> >> Christian Scientists and other religious groups that believe
> >> in faith healing over conventional medicine want the health
> >> care reform bill to make sure they've got coverage for their
> >> "treatment" choices.
>
> > jactogery:
> > Well, hello toddy. Been a long time since i addressed any
> > of your comments. By demand, i always disagree with you on
> > philosophical points. However, this time i have to agree,
> > somewhat, with you. Without challenging what i believe to be
> > real, (The power in faith!) i know without a doubt that the
> > government should keep it's nose out of faith issues. Simply
> > because, if there is a such thing as healing through prayer
> > and faith, i doubt very much that all who practice it will
> > be successful. There will arise some serious legal
> > ramifications.
>
> I don't think that's even the issue.
>
> The rule is simple: the government should only fund medical
> procedures that have scientific evidence showing that they
> are beneficial.
>
> It has nothing to do with faith or religion or anything else.
>
> **IF** someone shows that faith healing is better than a
> placebo, then I have no problem with the government funding
> it.

> Jack.

> Placebo? You can't be serious. Are you? So you think that artifical stimulants
used to excite the, so-called, placebo are a bonifide "scientific" medical
procedure? I am curious for your answer on this following question. What is the
difference if by faith (A) comes to believe that they are healed of a certain
sickness, such as depression? Having the same out come as person (B) using an
anti depressant? With the exception of (A)not losing any normal functions,
mental or physical, as would person(B)?
>


> As it happens, there IS no scientific evidence showing that
> faith healing works better than a placebo.  Therefore the
> government shouldn't fund it.
>
> If you as a private individual want to go out and waste your
> own money on such things, feel free.  It's a free world.

> Personally. I take all monies the government has as part of my tax dollars.

Jack.

> I believe that this is one of the evil effects of creationism
> on our society.  Creationism tells people to ignore science
> and believe whatever you want to.

> God is science! He has structured the order of things. Ignorance tells people
to ignore truth. Science in the hands of man is nothing more than broken
knowledge!

> I happen to believe that societies based on rationality are
> better than societies based on irrationality.

> That is only because you chose to lean that way without equal investigation.
But with the right stimulant, you can come to believe and eventually move in a
different reality. Who knows? You may even abandon the ombudsmanship!

JackT..



>

Dear creationism moderator & group,
   If this message is approved, that is great. If not, no hard feelings at all!
But, with Christmas coming, I wanted to try to get the message out about the
David Rohl DVDs, especially since there is one re: Eden.
   His special TV program 'Pharaohs & Kings: A Biblical Quest' was
released again last September, but with only a few copies.
You can order both 'Pharaohs & Kings' and the David Rohl 'Myth or Reality'
seminar (shot in Florida) here:
http://stretchproductions.com/RohlProducts.html
David Rohl video SAMPLES in the center of the page:
http://www.youtube.com/StretchProductions
(Also, speaking of 'Creationism', if you order one of these DVDs, there is a
special 3rd DVD available on 'Eden' - just write to me and ask me about it, at
stretch @ swbell.net)
   There is still time to get this to you before Christmas!
-Cami McCraw

>> Randy C:
>> The rule is simple: the government should only fund medical
>> procedures that have scientific evidence showing that they
>> are beneficial.

>> It has nothing to do with faith or religion or anything else.

>> **IF** someone shows that faith healing is better than a
>> placebo, then I have no problem with the government funding
>> it.

>> On the other hand, **IF** there is NO scientific evidence
>> showing that faith healing is better than a placebo, then
>> the government shouldn't fund it.

>> As it happens, there IS no scientific evidence showing that
>> faith healing works better than a placebo. Therefore the
>> government shouldn't fund it.

>> If you as a private individual want to go out and waste your
>> own money on such things, feel free. It's a free world.

>> I believe that this is one of the evil effects of creationism
>> on our society. Creationism tells people to ignore science
>> and believe whatever you want to.

>> I happen to believe that societies based on rationality are
>> better than societies based on irrationality.

> Michael Elphick:
> Whilst I broadly agree with this, you do put your finger
> on a key issue - the placebo effect. This can be pretty
> potent and doubtless forms the essence of faith-healing
> and other 'natural' remedies and cures. It's known that
> the placebo effect can be potentiated by local
> circumstances and particularly by the social standing
> and charisma of the 'physician' and the means used to
> administer whatever-it-is.

> The problem is that *knowingly* administering a placebo
> is in effect lying to the patient, but for some faith
> healers this would not be a problem as they actually
> believe in what they're doing. It seems the combination
> of an irrational patient and irrational treatment can
> actually work - as a glorified placebo!

I agree that you could say that a doctor who prescribes
a placebo is lying to their patient in a way.  But the
most important goal of the physician is to make the
patient better.  Honesty is important but making the
patient better is the ultimate goal.

One interesting aspect of the placebo effect is that it
works with some people even when they are told that they
are receiving a placebo.  So honesty and the placebo
effect can actually work together.

But faith healing doesn't seem to work better than a
placebo.  The problem with faith healing is that some
people use it even when actual medical procedures are
needed.  We've all seen stories in the news of people
who died of some disease only because they tried faith
healing or some other sort of pseudo-science when
mainstream medical practices would have most likely
saved the person's life.  So there is a very real
danger of dignifying faith healing by making it seem
useful when it is not.

Randy C.

On Monday, November 16 Randy C wrote:-

> The rule is simple: the government should only fund medical
> procedures that have scientific evidence showing that they
> are beneficial.
>
> It has nothing to do with faith or religion or anything else.
>
> **IF** someone shows that faith healing is better than a
> placebo, then I have no problem with the government funding
> it.
>
> On the other hand, **IF** there is NO scientific evidence
> showing that faith healing is better than a placebo, then
> the government shouldn't fund it.
>
> As it happens, there IS no scientific evidence showing that
> faith healing works better than a placebo. Therefore the
> government shouldn't fund it.
>
> If you as a private individual want to go out and waste your
> own money on such things, feel free. It's a free world.
>
> I believe that this is one of the evil effects of creationism
> on our society. Creationism tells people to ignore science
> and believe whatever you want to.
>
> I happen to believe that societies based on rationality are
> better than societies based on irrationality.

Whilst I broadly agree with this, you do put your finger on a
key issue - the placebo effect. This can be pretty potent
and doubtless forms the essence of faith-healing and other
'natural' remedies and cures. It's known that the placebo
effect can be potentiated by local circumstances and
particularly by the social standing and charisma of the
'physician' and the means used to administer whatever-it-is.
The problem is that *knowingly* administering a placebo is
in effect lying to the patient, but for some faith healers this
would not be a problem as they actually believe in what they're
doing. It seems the combination of an irrational patient and
irrational treatment can actually work - as a glorified
placebo!

>> Todd Greene [quoting]:
>> Christian Scientists and other religious groups that believe
>> in faith healing over conventional medicine want the health
>> care reform bill to make sure they've got coverage for their
>> "treatment" choices.

> jactogery:
> Well, hello toddy. Been a long time since i addressed any
> of your comments. By demand, i always disagree with you on
> philosophical points. However, this time i have to agree,
> somewhat, with you. Without challenging what i believe to be
> real, (The power in faith!) i know without a doubt that the
> government should keep it's nose out of faith issues. Simply
> because, if there is a such thing as healing through prayer
> and faith, i doubt very much that all who practice it will
> be successful. There will arise some serious legal
> ramifications.

I don't think that's even the issue.

The rule is simple: the government should only fund medical
procedures that have scientific evidence showing that they
are beneficial.

It has nothing to do with faith or religion or anything else.

**IF** someone shows that faith healing is better than a
placebo, then I have no problem with the government funding
it.

On the other hand, **IF** there is NO scientific evidence
showing that faith healing is better than a placebo, then
the government shouldn't fund it.

As it happens, there IS no scientific evidence showing that
faith healing works better than a placebo.  Therefore the
government shouldn't fund it.

If you as a private individual want to go out and waste your
own money on such things, feel free.  It's a free world.

I believe that this is one of the evil effects of creationism
on our society.  Creationism tells people to ignore science
and believe whatever you want to.

I happen to believe that societies based on rationality are
better than societies based on irrationality.

Randy C.

--- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, "Todd Greene" <greeneto@...> wrote:
>
> From:
>
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/10/christian_scientists_and_healt_1.php
> [link may be line-wrapped]
>
> ================================================================
>
> Christian Scientists and Health Care Reform
> by Ed Brayton
> (Blog: Dispatches From the Culture Wars, 10/15/2009)
>
> Christian Scientists and other religious groups that believe in faith healing
over conventional medicine want the health care reform bill to make sure they've
got coverage for their "treatment" choices.
>
>
http://www.tampabay.com/news/health/religions-that-rely-on-prayer-to-heal-add-tw\
ist-to-health-care-reform/1043304
> [link may be line-wrapped]
>
> | Some of the bills advancing in the House and Senate would
> | exempt religious objectors from mandates to obtain health
> | coverage. More controversial is Christian Science's wish
> | to see its prayer-based healing approach covered like
> | conventional medical treatment. And they want spiritual
> | options to be available to all Americans, not just those
> | who follow their religion.
> |
> | "It's so important that anyone in this country, not just
> | Christian Scientists, not be discriminated against
> | because they use spiritual care or rely on it instead of
> | conventional medical treatment," said Phil Davis, who
> | manages media and legislative affairs for Christian
> | Scientists globally.
>
> I think that's a great idea. Insurance companies should not only pay faith
healers, they should pay for the salt that other superstitious people want to
throw over their shoulder, and for chicken's blood for voodoo practitioners to
sprinkle around someone's house. Maybe even some wing of bat or eye of newt that
might be necessary to put together an effective spell, and "healing crystals"
and runes too.
>
> Because it would be "discrimination" not to, right? Well, no. It would not be.
You have every right to believe in whatever ridiculous bullshit you want to
believe in; you don't have any right to have other people pay for it.
>
> Some of this stuff is really quite funny:
>
> | That would entail coverage under private and public
> | health insurance for the work of 1,100 Christian Science
> | "practitioners," professionals in the church who help
> | others with prayer for healing, as well as its nurses and
> | nursing facilities.
> |
> | Christian Science practitioners do not operate directly
> | out of the church, leaders say, but are screened through
> | an application and discipline process set forth by the
> | Christian Science Journal.
>
> That's funny. They have certified praying people.
>
> | But Christian Scientists say they are a legitimate
> | alternative.
> |
> | "What we face in any mandated health care reform is: Will
> | the public have access to something beyond conventional
> | medical treatment?" Davis said. "Will the menu of options
> | simply include a conventional approach or will there be
> | other options, including spiritual care as taught in
> | Christian Science?"
>
> If the answer isn't no, some people have clearly lost their minds.

>Well, hello toddy. Been a long time since i addressed any of your comments. By
demand, i always disagree with you on philosophical points. However, this time i
have to agree,somewhat, with you. Without challenging what i believe to be
real,(The power in faith!)i know without a doubt that the government should keep
it's nose out of faith issues. Simply because, if there is a such thing as
healing through prayer and faith, i doubt very much that all who practice it
will be successful. There will arise some serious legal ramifications.

JackTogery..

You have presented no "science". It is YOUR job to PRESENT SOME ACTUAL
SCIENTIFIC research. You pseudoscience promoters are always so fun. You present
a bunch of irrational gobbledygook rhetoric that has nothing to do with genuine
scientific research results, you fluff and posture and bluster, and then try to
pretend that anyone who refuses to bow down and worship your rhetorical games
(i.e., take you seriously) somehow has taken on the responsibility to "explain
where the science is flawed". Well, if you actually presented some real science,
then we'd actually have something to dig into. Until then, you have nothing at
all.

This is the point.

- Todd Greene


--- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, "theoferrumii" <theoferrumii@...> wrote:
>
>
> And, perhaps, since this is just "Pseudo Science" you could explain to
> everyone where in individual's Science is flawed in the article below -
> note that he states he has experimented and proven the postulation using
> Brown's Gas on radioactive particles from common smoke detectors.
>
> Ainvision
>
>
>
> Joined: 11 Oct 2009
> Posts: 3
>
>   [Post]
> <http://forums.ec.europa.eu/debateeurope/viewtopic.php?p=194575&sid=4d0d\
> bdd96d8d0fbd15a486da506cffe1#194575> Posted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 4:30 pm
> Post subject: Further Explanation...  [Reply with quote]
> <http://forums.ec.europa.eu/debateeurope/posting.php?mode=quote&p=194575\
> &sid=4d0dbdd96d8d0fbd15a486da506cffe1>
> After review of my previous reply I have discovered that one point of
> interest was not adequately explained so now I will attempt to do so.
>
>
> The discovery that 'Yull Brown's Gas', as explored by George Wiseman and
> others contains the inherent ability to dilute and eventually eliminate
> radio-activity will now be explained in simple terms. The actualisation
> of the mono-atomic hydrogen (H1), which is not prevalent under normal
> atmospheric conditions on Earth (but exists quite abundantly outside of
> Earth's gravitational influence) creates an imbalanced atomic matrix
> which is eager to fuse with another mono-atomic hydrogen atom or any
> other atom and gives rise to a radically accessible electron and proton
> (vortexial system) able to be easily absorbed by any nearby material so
> inclined to do so.
>
>
> Since radio-activity has never really been thoroughly explained enough
> to answer ALL the questions asked of it, then Nikola Tesla's postulation
> that radio-activity is merely the resonant reaction of highly dense
> atomic structures to ultra high frequency solar emanations has equal
> relevance. It makes sense that highly dense atomic elements would
> subsequently possess infinitesimally small atomic crystalline junctions.
> These junctions/connections would resonate with the extremely high
> frequencies of cosmic rays and absorb them. Still with me? You may use
> basic radio equations to mathematically substantiate this reasoning,
> particularly antennae calculation theory.
>
>
> It means that radio-active materials are NOT inherently radio-active but
> are resonant to higher frequency solar radiation not available to lower
> atomic mass elements due to their larger inter-atomic
> junction/connection distances.
>
>
> The action of mono-atomic hydrogen absorption by these denser elements
> simply expands the mass, and therefore the inter-spacial junctions and
> disrupts the resonant attraction properties of the element itself. It
> enlarges, loses its resonant abilities (pertaining to cosmic ray
> absorption) and becomes less radio-active!!!
>
>
> It has worked very well in past experiments, for the elimination of
> radio-activity, with wristwatch radium coated dials and the americium
> compound found in most smoke detectors. Mono-atomic infusion by H1 gas
> or HVDC positive impulse have both completely eliminated radio-activity
> in the above mentioned, and freely available, sources.
>
>
> My experiments are conducted on a shoe-string budget but I'm sure many
> of you can replicate these results under stringent laboratory
> conditions. You have the answers, so it now up to you to do something
> beneficial with them. Again, GOOD LUCK in your endeavours.
>
>
> http://forums.ec.europa.eu/debateeurope/viewtopic.php?t=6309
> <http://forums.ec.europa.eu/debateeurope/viewtopic.php?t=6309>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Hi David,

I see that you enjoy making things up based on folk stories and urban myths.
Religious belief may be fun, for some people, but it certainly has nothing to do
with science, and a lot of people who enjoy their religious beliefs -
fundamentalists especially - need to learn that religious beliefs not only
provide zero support in regard to rational thinking and scientific evidence but
very often motivate people to think irrationally and are even based on the idea
that believing things with no good evidence - or even that are contrary to the
relevant evidence - is a virtue and is to be praised.

--- In creationism, David Hill wrote:
> Well, Mr. Greene, I assume that you consider the Anomalous
> Artifact Fossil Record to be Pseudo Science also, huh.

"Anomalous Artifact Fossil Record"

You mean, like, the London Hammer?

The London Hammer: An Alleged Out of Place Artifact
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/hammer.htm

Or the "Coso Artifact"?

The Coso Artifact: Mystery from the Depths of Time
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/coso.html


As I said, you are a lover and promoter of pseudoscience. Thank you for again
demonstrating that my description was absolutely accurate!

> What do you believe about the Virgin Birth, may I ask?

Funny you should ask. The "Virgin Birth" story was made up as part of early
Christian mythology using a Greek MIStranslation (in the Septuigant) of the
Hebrew word "almah".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_7:14

If you read Isaiah chapter 7, the context of the verse itself shows that the
writer is referring to a young woman who was a contemporary of Isaiah and King
Ahaz.

> And, further, there is a good possibility that Oklo is the
> proof that Brown's Gas decays radioactivity.

This is completely fabricated bull crap on your part.

> However, I presented this as an initial proposition and,
> if I find the "Empirical Evidence" you require I will be
> sure to forward it to ya.

Go for it! The rhetorical machinations of pseudoscience promoters can be a
source of entertainment.

- Todd Greene

--- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, "theoferrumii" <theoferrumii@...> wrote:
>
>
> And, perhaps, since this is just "Pseudo Science" you could explain to
> everyone where in individual's Science is flawed in the article below -
> note that he states he has experimented and proven the postulation using
> Brown's Gas on radioactive particles from common smoke detectors.

He says so, yes, although he didn't actually say what he did. Is there somewhere
where his experiments are documented in more detail? I'm assuming so, as he's
encouraging people with better facilities to repeat his work; a tricky thing to
do if the details of what you did aren't available to repeat, I'm sure you'd
agree.

By the way, the author says:

> Since radio-activity has never really been thoroughly explained enough
> to answer ALL the questions asked of it, then Nikola Tesla's postulation
> that radio-activity is merely the resonant reaction of highly dense
> atomic structures to ultra high frequency solar emanations has equal
> relevance.

I can't help thinking that there's a logical fallacy there. If not everything is
known about Subject X then is it automatically true that all speculations
regarding that subject are equally viable? or should they still be assesed in
the light of what we *do* know about Subject X? So, in this case, given what we
do know about radioactivity, is Tesla's postulate viable?

--- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, David Hill <theoferrumii@...> wrote:
>
> Well, Mr. Greene, I assume that you consider the Anomalous Artifact Fossil
Record to be Pseudo Science also, huh.
>  

Perhaps you could tell us what you mean by both of those terms, and then we
could decide?

Hi,

I'm going to jump in here.  It is very difficult to even begin to explain where
the 'science' presented is flawed since there is very little of any substance
presented.  There is no data, no experimental procedure, no methods and darned
few explicit materials even mentioned.  An absolute requirement for such claims
even to approach a truly scientific level is for the claimant to describe their
experiment or observation in sufficient detail for someone else to repeat it. 
As it is, we have no idea what was done, with how much radium or americium and
how much of this "Brown's Gas" -or what the quality of any of these components
was.  How was the radioactivity measured?  How was the purity of the Gas or the
radioactive compounds ascertained?  How long were they held in contact?  Etc.
Until these questions are answered and the above information supplied its
difficult to even really know what the claim is, much less explain why it is
unlikely to be true.

Another issue:  I looked up this "Brown's Gas" stuff- it appears to be best
known as some sort of fraudulent component of a mythical method of supposedly
running your ordinary internal combustion car engine on WATER!  Since that has
been thoroughly debunked it seems folks are moving on to other completely
unrelated claims for this magical "Brown's Gas."

Eric




  "theoferrumii" <theoferrumii@...> wrote:
>
>
> And, perhaps, since this is just "Pseudo Science" you could explain to
> everyone where in individual's Science is flawed in the article below -
> note that he states he has experimented and proven the postulation using
> Brown's Gas on radioactive particles from common smoke detectors.
>
> Ainvision
>
>
>
> Joined: 11 Oct 2009
> Posts: 3
>
>   [Post]
> <http://forums.ec.europa.eu/debateeurope/viewtopic.php?p=194575&sid=4d0d\
> bdd96d8d0fbd15a486da506cffe1#194575> Posted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 4:30 pm
> Post subject: Further Explanation...  [Reply with quote]
> <http://forums.ec.europa.eu/debateeurope/posting.php?mode=quote&p=194575\
> &sid=4d0dbdd96d8d0fbd15a486da506cffe1>
> After review of my previous reply I have discovered that one point of
> interest was not adequately explained so now I will attempt to do so.
>
>
> The discovery that 'Yull Brown's Gas', as explored by George Wiseman and
> others contains the inherent ability to dilute and eventually eliminate
> radio-activity will now be explained in simple terms. The actualisation
> of the mono-atomic hydrogen (H1), which is not prevalent under normal
> atmospheric conditions on Earth (but exists quite abundantly outside of
> Earth's gravitational influence) creates an imbalanced atomic matrix
> which is eager to fuse with another mono-atomic hydrogen atom or any
> other atom and gives rise to a radically accessible electron and proton
> (vortexial system) able to be easily absorbed by any nearby material so
> inclined to do so.
>
>
> Since radio-activity has never really been thoroughly explained enough
> to answer ALL the questions asked of it, then Nikola Tesla's postulation
> that radio-activity is merely the resonant reaction of highly dense
> atomic structures to ultra high frequency solar emanations has equal
> relevance. It makes sense that highly dense atomic elements would
> subsequently possess infinitesimally small atomic crystalline junctions.
> These junctions/connections would resonate with the extremely high
> frequencies of cosmic rays and absorb them. Still with me? You may use
> basic radio equations to mathematically substantiate this reasoning,
> particularly antennae calculation theory.
>
>
> It means that radio-active materials are NOT inherently radio-active but
> are resonant to higher frequency solar radiation not available to lower
> atomic mass elements due to their larger inter-atomic
> junction/connection distances.
>
>
> The action of mono-atomic hydrogen absorption by these denser elements
> simply expands the mass, and therefore the inter-spacial junctions and
> disrupts the resonant attraction properties of the element itself. It
> enlarges, loses its resonant abilities (pertaining to cosmic ray
> absorption) and becomes less radio-active!!!
>
>
> It has worked very well in past experiments, for the elimination of
> radio-activity, with wristwatch radium coated dials and the americium
> compound found in most smoke detectors. Mono-atomic infusion by H1 gas
> or HVDC positive impulse have both completely eliminated radio-activity
> in the above mentioned, and freely available, sources.
>
>
> My experiments are conducted on a shoe-string budget but I'm sure many
> of you can replicate these results under stringent laboratory
> conditions. You have the answers, so it now up to you to do something
> beneficial with them. Again, GOOD LUCK in your endeavours.
>
>
> http://forums.ec.europa.eu/debateeurope/viewtopic.php?t=6309
> <http://forums.ec.europa.eu/debateeurope/viewtopic.php?t=6309>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

And, perhaps, since this is just "Pseudo Science" you could explain to
everyone where in individual's Science is flawed in the article below -
note that he states he has experimented and proven the postulation using
Brown's Gas on radioactive particles from common smoke detectors.

Ainvision



Joined: 11 Oct 2009
Posts: 3

   [Post]
<http://forums.ec.europa.eu/debateeurope/viewtopic.php?p=194575&sid=4d0d\
bdd96d8d0fbd15a486da506cffe1#194575> Posted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 4:30 pm
Post subject: Further Explanation...  [Reply with quote]
<http://forums.ec.europa.eu/debateeurope/posting.php?mode=quote&p=194575\
&sid=4d0dbdd96d8d0fbd15a486da506cffe1>
After review of my previous reply I have discovered that one point of
interest was not adequately explained so now I will attempt to do so.


The discovery that 'Yull Brown's Gas', as explored by George Wiseman and
others contains the inherent ability to dilute and eventually eliminate
radio-activity will now be explained in simple terms. The actualisation
of the mono-atomic hydrogen (H1), which is not prevalent under normal
atmospheric conditions on Earth (but exists quite abundantly outside of
Earth's gravitational influence) creates an imbalanced atomic matrix
which is eager to fuse with another mono-atomic hydrogen atom or any
other atom and gives rise to a radically accessible electron and proton
(vortexial system) able to be easily absorbed by any nearby material so
inclined to do so.


Since radio-activity has never really been thoroughly explained enough
to answer ALL the questions asked of it, then Nikola Tesla's postulation
that radio-activity is merely the resonant reaction of highly dense
atomic structures to ultra high frequency solar emanations has equal
relevance. It makes sense that highly dense atomic elements would
subsequently possess infinitesimally small atomic crystalline junctions.
These junctions/connections would resonate with the extremely high
frequencies of cosmic rays and absorb them. Still with me? You may use
basic radio equations to mathematically substantiate this reasoning,
particularly antennae calculation theory.


It means that radio-active materials are NOT inherently radio-active but
are resonant to higher frequency solar radiation not available to lower
atomic mass elements due to their larger inter-atomic
junction/connection distances.


The action of mono-atomic hydrogen absorption by these denser elements
simply expands the mass, and therefore the inter-spacial junctions and
disrupts the resonant attraction properties of the element itself. It
enlarges, loses its resonant abilities (pertaining to cosmic ray
absorption) and becomes less radio-active!!!


It has worked very well in past experiments, for the elimination of
radio-activity, with wristwatch radium coated dials and the americium
compound found in most smoke detectors. Mono-atomic infusion by H1 gas
or HVDC positive impulse have both completely eliminated radio-activity
in the above mentioned, and freely available, sources.


My experiments are conducted on a shoe-string budget but I'm sure many
of you can replicate these results under stringent laboratory
conditions. You have the answers, so it now up to you to do something
beneficial with them. Again, GOOD LUCK in your endeavours.


http://forums.ec.europa.eu/debateeurope/viewtopic.php?t=6309
<http://forums.ec.europa.eu/debateeurope/viewtopic.php?t=6309>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Well, Mr. Greene, I assume that you consider the Anomalous Artifact Fossil
Record to be Pseudo Science also, huh.
 
What do you believe about the Virgin Birth, may I ask?
 
And, further, there is a good possibility that Oklo is the proof that Brown's
Gas decays radioactivity.
 
However, I presented this as an initial proposition and, if I find the
"Empirical Evidence" you require I will be sure to forward it to ya.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Pseudoscience comes in many shapes and forms and sizes.

There is no actual scientific research evidence that Brown's gas "neutralizes"
radioactive waste.

In order to have an argument you have to have evidence, and the evidence must be
real, rather than just bogus nonsense some people have made up and promoted for
whatever reason.

(Note to everyone else: Please do note, by the way, that this is an example of
an actual "apparent" age argument (i.e., in the genuine sense of the word
"apparent"), as opposed to the purely irrational form of the argument as used by
many young earth creationists who use for the very purpose of running away from
any possible consideration of empirical evidence even in principle.)

- Todd Greene


--- In creationism, "theoferrumii" <theoferrumii@...> wrote:
>
> Last night I found the Key to understanding the "Apparent Age" of the Geologic
Strata that Creationists have been looking for.
> It appears that Brown's Gas has the ability to decrease radioactivity to safe
levels (which was known before the 'discovery' of Oklo, by the way, implying
that event was a trial run using Brown's Gas) and this would make the waste
material appear to be billions of years old and the conditions on the earth at
the time of Creation (or Origin, if you prefer) and again at the flood perfectly
mimmic this situation resulting in the strata of the earth appearing to be
billions of years old when, in fact, it was not.
>
> Here is the description of the formation of the earth and the reader can
easily see for themselves that it perfectly fits the description for the
production of Brown's Gas which follows.
>
> Building Planet Earth, Peter Cattermole, Cambridge University Press, 2000
>
> "It is usually considered that the Solar System began due to the contraction
of the Solar Nebula." pg 13
>
> "The Modern view is that the Earth, like the other Solar System Bodies,
accumulated rather quickly from a cloud of Dust and Gas surrounding the
Proto-Sun, i.e. the Solar Nebula." pg 17
>
> "In the case of the earth, it is thought that growth began with dust-sized
grains which, with the assistance of weak Electrostatic Forces, were converted
into centermetre-sized particles." pg 18
>
> "The Earth's Primordial Atmosphere was almost certainly rich in Water Vapour,
Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide (CO), Nitrogen, Hydrogen Chloride and Hydrogen.
Most of the Hydrogen quickly escaped into space, while some of the Water Vapour
in the upper atmosphere was broken down by Sunlight into Hydrogen and Oxegen,
the latter escaping and combining with Gases like Methane (CH4) and Carbon
Monoxide to form Water (H2O) and Carbon Dioxide." pg 20
>
> George Wiseman discusses Brown's Gas technology
>
> "According to George, the Brown's Gas has a number of constituents. Mostly, it
is composed of diatomic hydrogen (H2) and diatomic oxygen (O2), as one would
expect. However, one to three percent of the gas is comprised of monatomic
hydrogen (H) and monatomic oxygen (O), which theoretically is not supposed to
exist in a stable form. Somehow these are stabilized. George said he's had
Brown's Gas stored for more than a year and it still functions as Brown's Gas."
>
> http://pesn.com/2009/06/24/9501549_G...an_Browns_Gas/
>
> Thermonuclear transmutation of nuclear waste
>
> "Brown's Gas can efficiently neutralize radioactive waste though transmutation
right at the reactor thus removing the need for transportation or storage of
nuclear waste. Such application can revolutionize the nuclear industry. Former
state assemblyman Dan Haley from New York investigated the lack of response
after the US Department of Energy observed such demonstration of transmutation.
The DOE argued 1) "the radioactivity was encapsulated in the sample", but the
sample was crushed and the Geiger counter reading was the same. They argued 2)
"the radioactivity must be disparaged into the atmosphere" while the department
of health preformed in depth investigation of the environment. This much to the
frustration of the nuclear physicist preforming the research for it suggested
their incompetence. The laboratory was not closed clearly indicating no
radioactivity was found in or around the building. "
>
> http://forums.ec.europa.eu/debateeur...pic.php?t=6309
>
> Browns Gas: The Workings
>
> "This tape also includes a bonus section showing the Reduction of
Radioactivity of Americium 241 with the browns gas flame. Americium 241 has a
100,000 counts per minute of radiation form source, but a low energy gamma and
alpha. The end product is 90% weight reduction of radioactive material."
>
> http://www.nottaughtinschools.com/Yu...-Workings.html
>
> Further Reading :
>
> http://knol.google.com/k/gaby-de-wilde/yull-brown
>
> Korean Browns gas machine manufacturer
>
> http://www.browngas.com/eng_bestkorea/column.htm
>
> Video
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ItyiJ1uBUY
>
> Vitrification of Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator Fly Ash Using Brown's Gas
>
> http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef049953z

Evolution v. Creationism: the Politics, the Science, the Debate

A panel discussion exploring the politics and science surrounding the evolution
v. creationism debate, presented by the American Humanist Association.

The panel features renowned experts leading the discussion:

Eugenie Scott, Ph.D., executive director of the National Center for Science
Education and author of Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction and co-editor
of Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design is Wrong for Our Schools,

Barbara Forrest, Ph.D., professor of philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana
University, expert witness for the plaintiff in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School
District, and co-author of Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent
Design,

Kenneth Miller, Ph.D., professor of biology at Brown University, lead expert
witness for the plaintiff in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, and
author of Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between
God and Evolution and Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's
Soul.

(Fred Edwords, communications director of the United Coalition of Reason and
former editor of the Creation/Evolution journal, moderates.)

Evolution v. Creationism: the Politics, the Science, the Debate
(Part 1 of 3) [duration: 23m 11s]
[Eugenie Scott]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSksn_JKs4U

(Part 2 of 3) [duration: 18m 54s]
[Barbara Forrest]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0P79x03zcEU

(Part 3 of 3) [duration: 35m 28s]
[Kenneth Miller]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnP2cMsvkoM

From:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091108214924.htm

================================================================

Unsettled Youth: Spitzer Observes A Chaotic Planetary System
(Science Daily, 11/9/2009)

Before our planets found their way to the stable orbits they circle in today,
they wiggled and jostled about like unsettled children. Now, NASA's Spitzer
Space Telescope has found a young star with evidence for the same kind of
orbital hyperactivity. Young planets circling the star are thought to be
disturbing smaller comet-like bodies, causing them to collide and kick up a huge
halo of dust.

The star, called HR 8799, was in the news last November 2008, for being one of
the first of two stars with imaged planets. Ground-based telescopes at the W.M.
Keck Observatory and the Gemini Observatory, both in Hawaii, took images of
three planets orbiting in the far reaches of the system, all three being roughly
10 times the mass of Jupiter. Another imaged planet was also announced at the
same time around the star Fomalhaut, as seen by NASA's Hubble Space Telescope.
Both HR 8799 and Fomalhaut are younger and more massive than our sun.

Astronomers had previously used both Spitzer and Hubble to image a rotating disk
of planetary debris around Fomalhaut, which is 25 light-years from Earth. HR
8799 is about five times farther away, so scientists weren't sure if Spitzer
would be able to capture a picture of its disk. To their amazement and delight,
Spitzer succeeded.

The Spitzer team, led by Kate Su of the University of Arizona, Tucson, says the
giant cloud of fine dust around the disk is very unusual. They say this dust
must be coming from collisions among small bodies similar to the comets or icy
bodies that make up today's Kuiper Belt objects in our solar system. The gravity
of the three large planets is throwing the smaller bodies off course, causing
them to migrate around and collide with each other. Astronomers think the three
planets might have yet to reach their final stable orbits, so more violence
could be in store.

"The system is very chaotic and collisions are spraying up a huge cloud of fine
dust," said Su. "What's exciting is that we have a direct link between a
planetary disk and imaged planets. We've been studying disks for a long time,
but this star and Fomalhaut are the only two examples of systems where we can
study the relationships between the locations of planets and the disks."

When our solar system was young, it went through similar planet migrations.
Jupiter and Saturn moved around quite a bit, throwing comets around, sometimes
into Earth. Some say the most extreme part of this phase, called the late heavy
bombardment, explains how our planet got water. Wet, snowball-like comets are
thought to have crashed into Earth, delivering life's favorite liquid.

The Spitzer results were published in the Nov. 1 issue of Astrophysical Journal.
The observations were made before Spitzer began its "warm" mission and used up
its liquid coolant.

------------------------------------------------

Adapted from materials provided by NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratory
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/

Last night I found the Key to understanding the "Apparent Age" of the Geologic
Strata that Creationists have been looking for.
It appears that Brown's Gas has the ability to decrease radioactivity to safe
levels (which was known before the 'discovery' of Oklo, by the way, implying
that event was a trial run using Brown's Gas) and this would make the waste
material appear to be billions of years old and the conditions on the earth at
the time of Creation (or Origin, if you prefer) and again at the flood perfectly
mimmic this situation resulting in the strata of the earth appearing to be
billions of years old when, in fact, it was not.

Here is the description of the formation of the earth and the reader can easily
see for themselves that it perfectly fits the description for the production of
Brown's Gas which follows.

Building Planet Earth, Peter Cattermole, Cambridge University Press, 2000

"It is usually considered that the Solar System began due to the contraction of
the Solar Nebula." pg 13

"The Modern view is that the Earth, like the other Solar System Bodies,
accumulated rather quickly from a cloud of Dust and Gas surrounding the
Proto-Sun, i.e. the Solar Nebula." pg 17

"In the case of the earth, it is thought that growth began with dust-sized
grains which, with the assistance of weak Electrostatic Forces, were converted
into centermetre-sized particles." pg 18

"The Earth's Primordial Atmosphere was almost certainly rich in Water Vapour,
Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide (CO), Nitrogen, Hydrogen Chloride and Hydrogen.
Most of the Hydrogen quickly escaped into space, while some of the Water Vapour
in the upper atmosphere was broken down by Sunlight into Hydrogen and Oxegen,
the latter escaping and combining with Gases like Methane (CH4) and Carbon
Monoxide to form Water (H2O) and Carbon Dioxide." pg 20

George Wiseman discusses Brown's Gas technology

"According to George, the Brown's Gas has a number of constituents. Mostly, it
is composed of diatomic hydrogen (H2) and diatomic oxygen (O2), as one would
expect. However, one to three percent of the gas is comprised of monatomic
hydrogen (H) and monatomic oxygen (O), which theoretically is not supposed to
exist in a stable form. Somehow these are stabilized. George said he's had
Brown's Gas stored for more than a year and it still functions as Brown's Gas."

http://pesn.com/2009/06/24/9501549_G...an_Browns_Gas/

Thermonuclear transmutation of nuclear waste

"Brown's Gas can efficiently neutralize radioactive waste though transmutation
right at the reactor thus removing the need for transportation or storage of
nuclear waste. Such application can revolutionize the nuclear industry. Former
state assemblyman Dan Haley from New York investigated the lack of response
after the US Department of Energy observed such demonstration of transmutation.
The DOE argued 1) "the radioactivity was encapsulated in the sample", but the
sample was crushed and the Geiger counter reading was the same. They argued 2)
"the radioactivity must be disparaged into the atmosphere" while the department
of health preformed in depth investigation of the environment. This much to the
frustration of the nuclear physicist preforming the research for it suggested
their incompetence. The laboratory was not closed clearly indicating no
radioactivity was found in or around the building. "

http://forums.ec.europa.eu/debateeur...pic.php?t=6309

Browns Gas: The Workings

"This tape also includes a bonus section showing the Reduction of Radioactivity
of Americium 241 with the browns gas flame. Americium 241 has a 100,000 counts
per minute of radiation form source, but a low energy gamma and alpha. The end
product is 90% weight reduction of radioactive material."

http://www.nottaughtinschools.com/Yu...-Workings.html

Further Reading :

http://knol.google.com/k/gaby-de-wilde/yull-brown

Korean Browns gas machine manufacturer

http://www.browngas.com/eng_bestkorea/column.htm

Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ItyiJ1uBUY

Vitrification of Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator Fly Ash Using Brown's Gas

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef049953z

Inefficient Selection: New Evolutionary Mechanism Accounts For Some Of Human
Biological Complexity
(ScienceDaily, 11/4/2009)

A painstaking analysis of thousands of genes and the proteins they encode shows
that human beings are biologically complex, at least in part, because of the way
humans evolved to cope with redundancies arising from duplicate genes.

"We have found a specific evolutionary mechanism to account for a portion of the
intricate biological complexity of our species," said Ariel Fernandez, professor
of bioengineering at Rice University. "It is a coping mechanism, a process that
enables us to deal with the fitness consequences of inefficient selection. It
enables some of our proteins to become more specialized over time, and in turn
makes us more complex."

Fernandez is the lead author of a paper slated to appear in the December issue
of the journal Genome Research. The research is available online now.

Fernandez said the study drew from previous findings by his own research group
and from seminal work of Michael Lynch, Distinguished Professor of Biology at
Indiana University and a recently elected a fellow of the National Academy of
Science. Lynch's work has shown that natural selection is less efficient in
humans as compared with simpler creatures like bacteria. This "selection
inefficiency" arises from the smaller population size of humans as compared with
unicellular organisms.

"In all organisms, genes get duplicated every so often, for reasons we don't
fully understand," Fernandez said. "When working efficiently, natural selection
eliminates many of these duplicates, which are called 'paralogs.' In our earlier
work, we saw that an unusual number of gene duplicates had survived in the human
genome, which makes sense given selection inefficiency in humans."

In prior research on protein structure, Fernandez's team found that some
proteins are packaged more poorly than others. Moreover, they found that the
least-efficiently packed proteins are structurally stable only when they bind
with partner proteins to form complexes.

"These poorly packed proteins are potential troublemakers when gene duplication
occurs," Fernandez said. "The paralog encodes more copies of the protein than
the body needs. This is called a 'dosage imbalance,' and it can make us sick.
For instance, dosage imbalance has been implicated in Alzheimer's and other
diseases."

Given selection inefficiency, Fernandez knew that paralogs encoding poorly
packed proteins could remain in the human genome for quite a while. So he and
graduate student Jianpeng Chen decided to examine whether gene duplicates had
remained in the genome long enough for random genetic mutations to affect the
paralogs dissimilarly. Fernandez and Chen, now a senior researcher in Beijing,
China, cross-analyzed databases on genomics, protein structure, microRNA
regulation and protein expression in such troublesome paralogs.

"The longer these duplicate genes stick around due to inefficient selection, the
more likely they are to suffer a random mutation," Fernandez said. "Portions of
every gene act to regulate protein expression -- by binding with microRNA, for
example. We found numerous instances where random mutations had caused paralogs
to be expressed dissimilarly, in ways that removed detrimental dosage
imbalances."

Lynch said one aspect of Fernandez's research that is potentially groundbreaking
is the observed tendency of proteins to evolve a more open structure in complex
organisms.

"This observation fits with the general theory that large organisms with
relatively small population sizes -- compared to microbes -- are subject to the
vagaries of random genetic drift and hence the accumulation of very mildly
deleterious mutations," Lynch said.

In principle, he said, the accumulation of such mutations may encourage a slight
breakdown in protein stability. This, in turn, opens the door to interactions
with other proteins that can return a measure of that lost stability.

"These are the potential roots for the emergence of novel protein-protein
interactions, which are the hallmark of evolution in complex, multicellular
species," Lynch said. "In other words, the origins of some key aspects of the
evolution of complexity may have their origins in completely nonadaptive
processes."

Fernandez said the research reveals how increasingly specialized proteins can
evolve. He drew an analogy to a business that hires two delivery drivers that
initially cover the same parts of town but eventually specialize to deliver only
to specific neighborhoods.

"Eventually, even if times become tough, you cannot lay off either of them
because they each became so specialized that your company needs them both," he
said.

The more simple a creature is, the fewer specialized proteins it possesses.
Humans and other higher-order mammals need many specialized proteins to build
the specialized tissues in their skin, skeleton and organs. Even more
specialized proteins are needed to maintain and regulate them. This complexity
requires that the duplicates of the original jack-of-all-trades gene be
retained, but this does not happen unless selection is inefficient. This is
frequently a point of contention between proponents of evolution and intelligent
design.

Fernandez and Chen looked at duplicate genes across the human genome and found
that the more poorly packed a protein was, the more likely it was to be
distinguished through paralog specialization.

"This supports the case for evolution because it shows that you can drive
complexity with random mutations in duplicate genes," Fernandez said. "But this
also implies that random drift must prevail over Darwinian selection. In other
words, if Darwinian selection were ruthlessly efficient in humans -- as it is in
bacteria and unicellular eukaryotes -- then our level of complexity would not be
possible."

The research is supported by the National Institutes of Health.

------------------------------------------------

Journal reference:

1. Ariel Fernández, Jianping Chen. Human capacitance to dosage imbalance: Coping
with inefficient selection. Genome Research, 2009; DOI: 10.1101/gr.094441.109
http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/gr.094441.109

Adapted from materials provided by Rice University:
http://www.rice.edu/

In answer to the question, yes, and the following was taken from Dr. Dino's blog
just a few moments ago:

--------------------------------------------

(excerpts)

Dr. Kent E. Hovind is currently at the Edgefield Federal Correctional
Institution in South Carolina.

Please send postcards and letters to:

Kent E. Hovind #06452-017
FPC Edgefield D-2
P.O. BOX 725
Edgefield, SC 29824

Feel free to send Dr. Hovind a letter or postcard.

Do not put "Dr." on his name, or it may be discarded by the guards.

In the event that Dr. Hovind is moved to another facility, one can always check
for his current address by using the Inmate Locator on the Bureau of Prisons
website:

http://www.bop.gov/

--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------

So is this address where I can send him a Christmas card?

	 06452-017
	 PO Box 725
	 Edgefield, SC  29824

--- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:
>
> http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/09-5043.htm
>
> No. 09-5043
>
> Kent E. Hovind, Petitioner
> v.
> United States

>

From:
http://www.physorg.com/news176389334.html

================================================================

Precise picture of early Universe supports 'dark matter' theory
(Physorg.com, 11/2/2009)

A detailed picture of the seeds of structures in the universe has been unveiled
by an international team co-led by a Cardiff University scientist. The team has
obtained extremely precise data about the early universe, using a telescope near
the South Pole in the Antarctic.

Their measurements of the cosmic microwave background - a faintly glowing relic
of the hot, dense, young universe - provide further support for the standard
cosmological model of the universe. The findings confirm the model's prediction
that dark matter and dark energy make up 95% of everything in existence, while
ordinary matter makes up just 5%.

In a paper published in the November 1 issue of The Astrophysical Journal,
researchers on the QUaD telescope project have released detailed maps of the
cosmic microwave background (CMB). The researchers focused their measurements on
variations in the CMB's temperature and polarization to learn about the
distribution of matter in the early universe. Polarization is the direction in
which vibrations travel from all light rays, which is at right angles to the
ray's direction of travel.

The light from the early universe was initially unpolarized but became polarized
when it struck moving matter in the very early universe. By creating maps of
this polarization, the QUaD team was able to investigate not just where the
matter existed, but also how it was moving. The results very closely match the
temperature and polarization predicted by the existence of dark matter and dark
energy in the standard cosmological model.

The team was jointly led by Professor Walter Gear, Head of the School of Physics
and astronomy at Cardiff University and Professor Sarah Church of the Kavli
Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology (KIPAC), jointly located at
the Department of Energy's SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory and Stanford
University.

Professor Gear said: "Studying the CMB radiation has given us extremely precise
pictures of the Universe at just 400,000 years old. When we first started
working on this project the polarization of the CMB hadn't even been detected
and we thought we might be able to find something wrong with the theory. The
fact that these superb data fit the theory so beautifully is in many ways even
more amazing. This reinforces the view that researchers are on the right track
and need to learn more about the strange nature of dark energy and dark matter
if we are to fully understand the workings of the universe."

Michael Brown, of the Kavli Institute for Cosmology at the University of
Cambridge, lead author of the new study added: "With these new QUaD
measurements, we have tested further our standard model of the Universe.
Reassuringly, the model has passed this test remarkably well."

Professor Sarah Church, Deputy Director of KIPAC, said: "When I first started in
this field, some people were adamant that they understood the contents of the
universe quite well. But that understanding was shattered when evidence for dark
energy was discovered. Now that we again feel we have a very good understanding
of what makes up the universe, it's extremely important for us to amass strong
evidence using many different measurement techniques that this model is correct,
so that this doesn't happen again."

------------------------------------------------

See also:
The Astrophysical Journal
http://www.iop.org/EJ/home/AP

http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/09-5043.htm

(excerpts)

No. 09-5043

Kent E. Hovind, Petitioner
v.
United States

Docketed: July 1, 2009

~~ Date ~~  ~~~ Order ~~~

Nov 2 2009    Petition DENIED.

-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------

On 31 Oct 2009 at 20:24, jacktogery wrote:

>
>
> --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > On 28 Sep 2009 at 10:57, nuttypiglet wrote:
> >
> > > --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, "Alan" <kaptainkobold@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, "nuttypiglet"
> <nuttypiglet@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > well you obviously never read national geographic. It was
> around
> > > oct nov 2002 and was very amusing.
> > > >
> > > > And did you read it then, or have you lifted this information
> from
> > > a website?
> > > >
> > > oh my god, another one that wakes up just to bite.
> >
> > Actally, son, I'll send your "god" packing in a flash!  You see,
> > among my other talents, I'm an ordained exorcist and do not easily
> > tolerate false gods.
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Dave Oldridge
> > ICQ 454777283
> > VA7CZ
> > While browsing, i find the dave musing himself again! Exorsist?
> Ha! You said the same thing to me, dave. But, i am still here.

Do you consider yourself a demon or a false god?


--

Dave Oldridge
ICQ 454777283
VA7CZ



   ----------


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.698 / Virus Database: 270.14.44/2475 - Release Date: 11/01/09
11:39:00


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@...> wrote:
>
> On 28 Sep 2009 at 10:57, nuttypiglet wrote:
>
> > --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, "Alan" <kaptainkobold@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, "nuttypiglet" <nuttypiglet@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > well you obviously never read national geographic. It was around
> > oct nov 2002 and was very amusing.
> > >
> > > And did you read it then, or have you lifted this information from
> > a website?
> > >
> > oh my god, another one that wakes up just to bite.
>
> Actally, son, I'll send your "god" packing in a flash!  You see,
> among my other talents, I'm an ordained exorcist and do not easily
> tolerate false gods.
>
>
> --
>
> Dave Oldridge
> ICQ 454777283
> VA7CZ
> While browsing, i find the dave musing himself again! Exorsist? Ha! You said
the same thing to me, dave. But, i am still here.
Jack Togery..

From:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091009090436.htm

================================================================

Archaeopteryx Was Not Very Bird-like: Inside The First Bird, Surprising Signs Of
A Dinosaur
(Science Daily, 10/9/2009)

The raptor-like Archaeopteryx has long been viewed as the archetypal first bird,
but new research reveals that it was actually a lot less "bird-like" than
scientists had believed.

In fact, the landmark study led by paleobiologist Gregory M. Erickson of The
Florida State University has upended the iconic first-known-bird image of
Archaeopteryx (from the Greek for "ancient wing"), which lived 150 million years
ago during the Late Jurassic period in what is now Germany. Instead, the animal
has been recast as more of a feathered dinosaur -- bird on the outside, dinosaur
on the inside.

That's because new, microscopic images of the ancient cells and blood vessels
inside the bones of the winged, feathered, claw-handed creature show
unexpectedly slow growth and maturation that took years, similar to that found
in dinosaurs, from which birds evolved. In contrast, living birds grow rapidly
and mature in a matter of weeks.

Also groundbreaking is the finding that the rapid bone growth common to all
living birds but surprisingly absent from the Archaeopteryx was not necessary
for avian dinosaur flight.

The study is published in the Oct. 9, 2009, issue of the journal PLoS ONE. In
addition to Erickson, an associate professor in Florida State's Department of
Biological Science and a research associate at the American Museum of Natural
History, co-authors include Florida State University biologist Brian D. Inouye
and other U.S. scientists, as well as researchers from Germany and China.

"Living birds mature very quickly," Erickson said. "That's why we rarely see
baby birds among flocks of invariably identical-size pigeons. Slow-growing
animals such as Archaeopteryx would look foreign to contemporary bird-watchers."

Erickson said evidence already confirms that birds are, in fact, dinosaurs. "But
just how dinosaur-like -- or even bird-like -- was the first bird?" he asked.
"Almost nothing had been known of Archaeopteryx biology. There has been debate
as to how well it flew, if at all. Some have suggested that early bird
physiology may have been very different from living birds, but no one had tested
fossils that were close to the base of bird ancestry."

Fossilized remains of Archaeopteryx were found in Germany in 1860, one year
after Charles Darwin's "Origin of Species" was published. With its combination
of bird-like features, including feathers and a wishbone, and reptilian ones --
teeth, three-fingered hands, a long bony tail -- the skeleton made evolutionary
theory more credible. The 1860s evolutionist Thomas Henry Huxley saw the
Archaeopteryx as a perfect transition between birds and reptiles. Erickson calls
it "the poster child for evolution."

"For our study, which required tremendous collaboration, we set out to determine
how Archaeopteryx grew and compare its growth to living birds, closely related
non-avian dinosaurs, and other early birds that came after it," Erickson said.
"I went to Munich with my colleague Mark Norell from the American Museum of
Natural History, and we met with Oliver Rauhut, curator of the Bavarian State
Collection for Palaeontology and Geology, which houses a small juvenile
Archaeopteryx that is one of 10 specimens discovered to date. From that
specimen, we extracted tiny bone chips and then examined them microscopically."

Surprisingly, the bones of the juvenile Archaeopteryx were not the highly
vascularized, fast-growing type, as in other avian dinosaurs. Instead, Erickson
found lizard-like, dense, nearly avascular bone.

"It led us to ask, 'Did Archaeopteryx grow in a unique way?'" he said.

To explain the strange bone type, the researchers also examined different-size
species of dinosaurs that were close relatives of Archaeopteryx, including
Deinonychosaurs, the raptors of "Jurassic Park" fame. They then looked to
colleagues in China for specimens of two of the earliest birds: Jeholornis
prima, a long-tailed creature, and the short-tailed Sapeornis chaochengensi,
which had three fingers and teeth.

"In the smallest dinosaur specimens, and in an early bird, we found the same
bone type as in the juvenile Archaopteryx specimen," Erickson said.

Next, the research team plugged bone formation rates into the sizes of the
Archaeopteryx femora (thigh bones) to predict its rate of growth.

"We learned that the adult would have been raven-sized and taken about 970 days
to mature," Erickson said. "Some same-size birds today can do likewise in eight
or nine weeks. In contrast, maximal growth rates for Archaeopteryx resemble
dinosaur rates, which are three times slower than living birds and four times
faster than living reptiles.

"From these findings, we see that the physiological and metabolic transition
into true birds occurred millions of years after Archaeopteryx," he said. "But,
perhaps equally important, we've shown that avians were able to fly even with
dinosaur physiology."

Inouye added, "Our data on dinosaur growth rates and survivorship are bringing
modern physiology and population biology to a field that has historically
focused more on finding and naming fossil species."

Funding for the study came from the National Science Foundation (NSF); Germany's
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG); and The Major Basic Research Projects of
the Ministry of Science and Technology of China.

------------------------------------------------

Journal reference:

1. Erickson et al. Was Dinosaurian Physiology Inherited by Birds? Reconciling
Slow Growth in Archaeopteryx. PLoS ONE, 2009; 4 (10): e7390 DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0007390
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0007390

Adapted from materials provided by Florida State University, via EurekAlert!, a
service of AAAS

http://www.fsu.edu/
http://www.eurekalert.org/

Comic - Grandest of all human traditions too much work
http://www.redmeat.com/redmeat/2009-10-20/

Nice analysis there by Myers, Todd.  The problem is that scientific
understanding of many things has become so detailed and complex that it blows
right over the heads of 99.9% of the general audience, no matter how patiently
one tries to exlain reality to them.  And it's only going to get worse in coming
years.  Belief in "God did it" will therefore always be with us.

Thanks for sharing this.

Eric

--- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, "Todd Greene" <greeneto@...> wrote:
>
> From:
> http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/10/jonathan-wells-4.html
>
> Again, creationists misrepresent everything in sight. After all, that's their
job, and they know it. And if these creationists are saying things that really
are genuinely scientific - as they pretend they are - then why are they
deliberately refraining from writing up their "research" to professional science
standards and submitting it to professional science journals? They're not doing
it precisely because they themselves know fully well that their rhetoric isn't
scientific, does not meet the standards of science, and is only intended for
religious audiences to help them feel like their religious beliefs are
"sciency".
>
> - Todd Greene
>
> ================================================================
>
> Jonathan Wells gets everything wrong, again
> by P. Z. Myers
> (Blog: Panda's Thumb, 10/16/2009)
>
> I was just catching up on a few blogs, and noticed all this stuff I missed
about Jonathan Wells' visit to Oklahoma. And then I read Wells' version of the
event, and just about choked on my sweet mint tea.
>
> | The next person - apparently a professor of developmental
> | biology - objected that the film ignored facts showing
> | the unity of life, especially the universality of the
> | genetic code, the remarkable similarity of about 500
> | housekeeping genes in all living things, the role of HOX
> | genes in building animal body plans, and the similarity
> | of HOX genes in all animal phyla, including sponges.
> | Steve began by pointing out that {1}the genetic code is
> | not universal, but the questioner loudly complained that
> | {2}he was not answering her questions. I stepped up and
> | pointed out that housekeeping genes are similar in all
> | living things because without them life is not possible.
> | I acknowledged that HOX gene mutations can be quite
> | dramatic (causing a fly to sprout legs from its head in
> | place of antennae, for example), but {3}HOX genes become
> | active midway through development, {4}long after the body
> | plan is already established. {5}They are also remarkably
> | non-specific; for example, if a fly lacks a particular
> | HOX gene and a comparable mouse HOX gene is inserted in
> | its place, the fly develops normal fly parts, not mouse
> | parts. Furthermore, {6}the similarity of HOX genes in so
> | many animal phyla is actually a problem for
> | neo-Darwinism: {7}If evolutionary changes in body plans
> | are due to changes in genes, and flies have HOX genes
> | similar to those in a horse, why is a fly not a horse?
> | Finally, {8}the presence of HOX genes in sponges (which,
> | everyone agrees, appeared in the pre-Cambrian) still
> | leaves unanswered the question of how such complex
> | specified genes evolved in the first place.
> |
> | The questioner became agitated and shouted out something
> | to the effect that HOX gene duplication explained the
> | increase in information needed for the diversification of
> | animal body plans. I replied that {9}duplicating a gene
> | doesn't increase information content any more than
> | photocopying a paper increases its information content.
> | She obviously wanted to continue the argument, but the
> | moderator took the microphone to someone else.
>
> It blows my mind, man, *it blows my freakin' mind.* How can this guy really be
this stupid? He has a Ph.D. from UC Berkeley in developmental biology, and he
either really doesn't understand basic ideas in the field, or he's maliciously
misrepresenting them...he's lying to the audience. He's describing how he so
adroitly fielded questions from the audience, including this one from a
professor of developmental biology, who was no doubt agitated by the fact that
Wells was feeding the audience steaming balls of rancid horsepuckey. I can't
blame her. That was an awesomely dishonest/ignorant performance, and *Wells is
proud of himself*. People should be angry at that fraud.
>
> I've just pulled out this small, two-paragraph fragment from his longer post,
because it's about all I can bear. I've flagged a few things that I'll explain -
the Meyer/Wells tag team really is a pair of smug incompetents.
>
> 1. The genetic code is universal, and is one of the pieces of evidence for
common descent. There are a few variants in the natural world, but they are the
exceptions that prove the rule: they are slightly modified versions of the
original code that are derived by evolutionary processes. For instance, we can
find examples of stop codons in mitochondria that have acquired an amino acid
translation. You can read more about natural variation in the genetic code here:
>
>
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.ge.21.120187.000435
> [link may be line-wrapped]
>
> 2. That's right, he wasn't answering her questions. Meyer was apparently
bidding for time until the big fat liar next to him could get up a good head of
steam.
>
> 3. This implication that Hox gene expression is irrelevant because it is
"late" was a staple of Wells' book, *Icons of Evolution* and the *Politically
Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design*. It's a sham. The
phylotypic stage, when the Hox genes are exhibiting their standard patterns of
expression, of humans is at 4-5 weeks (out of 40 weeks), and in zebrafish it's
at 18-24 hours. These are relatively early events. The major landmarks before
this period are gastrulation, when major tissue layers are established, and
neurulation, when the neural tube forms. Embryos are like elongate slugs with
the beginnings of a few tissues before this time.
>
> 4. What? Patterned Hox gene expression is associated with the establishment of
the body plan. Prior to this time, all the embryonic chordate has of a body plan
is a couple of specified axes, a notochord, and a dorsal nerve tube. The
pharyngula stage/phylotypic stage is the time when Hox gene expression is
ordered and active, when organogenesis is ongoing, and when the hallmarks of
chordate embryology, like segmental myotomes, a tailbud, and branchial arches
are forming.
>
> 5. Hox genes are not non-specific. They have very specific patterning roles;
you can't substitute abdominal-B for labial, for instance. They can be
artificially swapped between individuals of different phyla and still function,
which ought, to a rational person, be regarded as evidence of common origin, but
they definitely do instigate the assembly of different structures in different
species, which is not at all surprising. When you put a mouse gene in a fly, you
are transplanting one gene out of the many hundreds of developmental genes
needed to build an eye; the eye that is assembled is built of 99% fly genes and
1% (and a very early, general 1%) mouse genes. If it did build a mouse eye in a
fly, we'd have to throw out a lot of our understanding of molecular genetics and
become Intelligent Design creationists.
>
> Hox genes are initiators or selectors; they are not the embryonic structure
itself. Think of it this way: the Hox genes just mark a region of the embryo and
tell other genes to get to work. It's as if you are contracting out the building
of a house, and you stand before your subcontractors and tell them to build a
wall at some particular place. If you've got a team of carpenters, they'll build
one kind of wall; masons will build a different kind.
>
> 6. No, the similarity of Hox genes is not a problem. It's an indicator of
common descent. It's evidence for evolution.
>
> 7. [Incredible!]
>
> Why is a fly not a horse? Because Hox genes are not the blueprint, they are
not the totality of developmental events that lead to the development of an
organism. You might as well complain that the people building a tarpaper shack
down by the railroad tracks are using hammers and nails, while the people
building a MacMansion on the lakefront are also using hammers and nails, so
shouldn't their buildings come out the same? Somebody who said that would be
universally regarded as a clueless moron. Ditto for a supposed developmental
biologist who thinks horses and flies should come out the same because they both
have Hox genes.
>
> 8. You can find homeobox-containing genes in plants. All that sequence is is a
common motif that has the property of binding DNA at particular nucleotide
sequences. What makes for a Hox gene, specifically, is its organization into a
regulated cluster. How such genes and gene clusters could arise is simply
trivial in principle, although working out the specific historical details of
how it happened is more complex and interesting.
>
> The case of sponges is enlightening, because they show us an early step in the
formation of the Hox cluster. Current thinking is that sponges don't actually
have a Hox cluster (the first true Hox genes evolved in cnidarians), they have a
Hox-like cluster of what are called NK genes. Apparently, grouping a set of
transcription factors into a complex isn't that uncommon in evolution.
>
> 9. If you photocopy a paper, the paper doesn't acquire more information. But
if you've got two identical twins, A who is holding one copy of the paper, and B
who is holding two copies of the same paper, B has somewhat more information.
Wells' analogy is a patent red herring.
>
> The ancestral cnidarian proto-Hox cluster is thought to have contained four
Hox genes. Humans have 39 Hox genes organized into four clusters. Which taxon
contains more information in its Hox clusters? This is a trick question for
Wells; people with normal intelligence, like most of you readers, would have no
problem recognizing that 39 is a *bigger number* than 4. Jonathan Wells seems to
have missed that day in his first grade arithmetic class.
>
> It's appalling, but this is the Discovery Institute's style: to trot out a
couple of crackpots with nice degrees, who then proceed to make crap up while
pretending to be all sincere and informed and authoritative. It's an annoying
trick, and I can understand entirely why a few intelligent people with actual
knowledge in the audience might find the performance infuriating. I do, too.
>