Dark Buzz
10 news.
New Copernicus book 
Dava Sobel reviews Uncentering the Earth: Copernicus and The Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres by William T. Vollmann. It is funny how these Copernicus-lovers will lavish great praise on how his book revolutionized science, and roundly denounce anyone who did not accept it as a true description of the solar system. But when it comes down to discussing the actual model of the solar system that Copernicus published, they proudly admit that they do not understand any of it. Sobel says: ** Yet, as Vollmann makes clear, non-mathematicians have good reason to avoid reading the actual text of the great man's admirable legacy. ** Sobel is not a mathematician, and her latest book on The Planets borders on astrology. Another Vollman reviewer says: ** It's interesting that so many of the defining moments in history involved Uncentering something from something else. For instance, Thomas Willis realized that the seat of reason and intelligence was neither the heart nor the soul, but a lump of jelly in the skull. Darwin first figured out that the homo sapiens is just one twig in the tree of life. ... in 16th century Europe people with unpopular ideas were burned along with their books. ... In the end Copernicus was successful in uncentering the Earth. This was a real breakthrough, and not just because he was right about heliocentrism. The Uncentered viewpoint is just the idea that things in the universe can be studied objectively and empirically, without recourse to mysticism. Today we just call it science. ** This is absurd. Copernicus was no more scientific than Ptolemy or other astronomers. This is just evolutionist propaganda. Dark Buzz, 2006-12-04 04:46:55
Dava Sobel reviews Uncentering the Earth: Copernicus and The Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres by William T. Vollmann. It is funny how these Copernicus-lovers will lavish great praise on how his book revolutionized science, and roundly denounce anyone who did not accept it as a true description of the solar system. But when it comes down to discussing the actual model of the solar system that Copernicus published, they proudly admit that they do not understand any of it. Sobel says: ** Yet, as Vollmann makes clear, non-mathematicians have good reason to avoid reading the actual text of the great man's admirable legacy. ** Sobel is not a mathematician, and her latest book on The Planets borders on astrology. Another Vollman reviewer says: ** It's interesting that so many of the defining moments in history involved Uncentering something from something else. For instance, Thomas Willis realized that the seat of reason and intelligence was neither the heart nor the soul, but a lump of jelly in the skull. Darwin first figured out that the homo sapiens is just one twig in the tree of life. ... in 16th century Europe people with unpopular ideas were burned along with their books. ... In the end Copernicus was successful in uncentering the Earth. This was a real breakthrough, and not just because he was right about heliocentrism. The Uncentered viewpoint is just the idea that things in the universe can be studied objectively and empirically, without recourse to mysticism. Today we just call it science. ** This is absurd. Copernicus was no more scientific than Ptolemy or other astronomers. This is just evolutionist propaganda. Dark Buzz, 2006-12-04 04:46:55
The opinion speaks for itself
Here is a Philadelphia interview of Judge Jones, the Dover PA evolutionist judge: ** Inquirer:Reading through the opinion, it was hard to evade the impression that you were surprised at the weakness of one side of the case. You used very strong language to characterize the case as a whole and the presentation. Jones: I'll answer that question indirectly... . The opinion speaks for itself. There was something I said in the opinion that was grossly misunderstood... . I said that on the issue of whether intelligent design was science, that there wasn't a judge in the United States in a better position to decide that than I was. [Commentator Phyllis] Schlafly interpreted that as my saying that I am so brilliant and erudite that I could decide that better than anyone else could. What I meant was that no one else had sat through an intensive six weeks of largely scientific testimony, and in addition to the task at hand, which was to decide the case, I wanted the opinion to stand as a primer for people across the country... To my mind... it would be a dreadful waste of judicial resources, legal resources, taxpayer money... to replicate this trial someplace else. ** Yes, the opinion speaks for itself. He thinks that because he listened to 6 weeks of idealogical blowhards philosophize on the differences between science and religion, he can decide the issues for everyone else. Dark Buzz, 2006-12-04 04:46:55
Here is a Philadelphia interview of Judge Jones, the Dover PA evolutionist judge: ** Inquirer:Reading through the opinion, it was hard to evade the impression that you were surprised at the weakness of one side of the case. You used very strong language to characterize the case as a whole and the presentation. Jones: I'll answer that question indirectly... . The opinion speaks for itself. There was something I said in the opinion that was grossly misunderstood... . I said that on the issue of whether intelligent design was science, that there wasn't a judge in the United States in a better position to decide that than I was. [Commentator Phyllis] Schlafly interpreted that as my saying that I am so brilliant and erudite that I could decide that better than anyone else could. What I meant was that no one else had sat through an intensive six weeks of largely scientific testimony, and in addition to the task at hand, which was to decide the case, I wanted the opinion to stand as a primer for people across the country... To my mind... it would be a dreadful waste of judicial resources, legal resources, taxpayer money... to replicate this trial someplace else. ** Yes, the opinion speaks for itself. He thinks that because he listened to 6 weeks of idealogical blowhards philosophize on the differences between science and religion, he can decide the issues for everyone else. Dark Buzz, 2006-12-04 04:46:55
Evolving blonds
Most evolutionists are in denial about whether humans are evolving. When they do comment on human evolution, they say wacky things. For example, The London Times reports: ** The study argues that blond hair originated in the region because of food shortages 10,000 to 11,000 years ago. Until then, humans had the dark brown hair and dark eyes that still dominate in the rest of the world. Almost the only sustenance in Northern Europe came from roaming herds of mammoths, reindeer, bison and horses. Finding them required long, arduous hunting trips in which numerous males died, leading to a high ratio of surviving women to men. Lighter hair colors, which started as rare mutations, became popular for breeding, and numbers increased dramatically, according to the research, published under the aegis of the University of St. Andrews. ... However, the future of the blond is uncertain. A study by the World Health Organization found that natural blonds are likely to be extinct within 200 years because there are too few people carrying the blond gene. According to the W.H.O. study, the last natural blond is likely to be born in Finland during 2202. ** It seems to me that blonds are still popular for breeding. Dark Buzz, 2006-12-04 04:46:55
Most evolutionists are in denial about whether humans are evolving. When they do comment on human evolution, they say wacky things. For example, The London Times reports: ** The study argues that blond hair originated in the region because of food shortages 10,000 to 11,000 years ago. Until then, humans had the dark brown hair and dark eyes that still dominate in the rest of the world. Almost the only sustenance in Northern Europe came from roaming herds of mammoths, reindeer, bison and horses. Finding them required long, arduous hunting trips in which numerous males died, leading to a high ratio of surviving women to men. Lighter hair colors, which started as rare mutations, became popular for breeding, and numbers increased dramatically, according to the research, published under the aegis of the University of St. Andrews. ... However, the future of the blond is uncertain. A study by the World Health Organization found that natural blonds are likely to be extinct within 200 years because there are too few people carrying the blond gene. According to the W.H.O. study, the last natural blond is likely to be born in Finland during 2202. ** It seems to me that blonds are still popular for breeding. Dark Buzz, 2006-12-04 04:46:55
Parental notification laws
This pro-abortion NY Times article says: ** For all the passions they generate, laws that require minors to notify their parents or get permission to have an abortion do not appear to have produced the sharp drop in teenage abortion rates that some advocates hoped for, an analysis by The New York Times shows. The analysis, which looked at six states that introduced parental involvement laws in the last decade and is believed to be the first study to include data from years after 1999, found instead a scattering of divergent trends. ... Since the United States Supreme Court recognized states' rights to restrict abortion in 1992, parental involvement legislation has been a cornerstone in the effort to reduce abortions. Such laws have been a focus of divisive election campaigns, long court battles and grass-roots activism, and are now in place in 34 states. Most Americans say they favor them. ** The Court did not recognize any states' rights to restrict abortion. It requires a constitutional right to abortion throughout the entire 9 months, just as it ruled in 1973. The purpose of those laws is not to reduce abortion, but to allow parents to exercise their traditional role in directing the upbringing of their children. The opposition has come from radical pro-abortionists who tell wacky stories of how these laws are going to have all sorts of dire consequences. The NYT analysis shows that there have been no such dire consequences. Dark Buzz, 2006-12-04 04:46:55
This pro-abortion NY Times article says: ** For all the passions they generate, laws that require minors to notify their parents or get permission to have an abortion do not appear to have produced the sharp drop in teenage abortion rates that some advocates hoped for, an analysis by The New York Times shows. The analysis, which looked at six states that introduced parental involvement laws in the last decade and is believed to be the first study to include data from years after 1999, found instead a scattering of divergent trends. ... Since the United States Supreme Court recognized states' rights to restrict abortion in 1992, parental involvement legislation has been a cornerstone in the effort to reduce abortions. Such laws have been a focus of divisive election campaigns, long court battles and grass-roots activism, and are now in place in 34 states. Most Americans say they favor them. ** The Court did not recognize any states' rights to restrict abortion. It requires a constitutional right to abortion throughout the entire 9 months, just as it ruled in 1973. The purpose of those laws is not to reduce abortion, but to allow parents to exercise their traditional role in directing the upbringing of their children. The opposition has come from radical pro-abortionists who tell wacky stories of how these laws are going to have all sorts of dire consequences. The NYT analysis shows that there have been no such dire consequences. Dark Buzz, 2006-12-04 04:46:55
More humans evolving
NY Times reports: ** Providing the strongest evidence yet that humans are still evolving, researchers have detected some 700 regions of the human genome where genes appear to have been reshaped by natural selection, a principal force of evolution, within the last 5,000 to 15,000 years. The genes that show this evolutionary change include some responsible for the senses of taste and smell, digestion, bone structure, skin color and brain function. Many of these instances of selection may reflect the pressures that came to bear as people abandoned their hunting and gathering way of life for settlement and agriculture, a transition well under way in Europe and East Asia some 5,000 years ago. ... The finding adds substantially to the evidence that human evolution did not grind to a halt in the distant past, as is tacitly assumed by many social scientists. Even evolutionary psychologists, who interpret human behavior in terms of what the brain evolved to do, hold that the work of natural selection in shaping the human mind was completed in the pre-agricultural past, more than 10,000 years ago. "There is ample evidence that selection has been a major driving point in our evolution during the last 10,000 years, and there is no reason to suppose that it has stopped," said Jonathan Pritchard, a population geneticist at the University of Chicago who headed the study. ** Politically correct evolutionists have been refusing to acknowledge that humans have been evolving, especially when people mention skin color and brain function. Meanwhile, London scientists have discovered an unevolved Turkish family called The Family That Walks On All Fours. Dark Buzz, 2006-12-04 04:46:55
NY Times reports: ** Providing the strongest evidence yet that humans are still evolving, researchers have detected some 700 regions of the human genome where genes appear to have been reshaped by natural selection, a principal force of evolution, within the last 5,000 to 15,000 years. The genes that show this evolutionary change include some responsible for the senses of taste and smell, digestion, bone structure, skin color and brain function. Many of these instances of selection may reflect the pressures that came to bear as people abandoned their hunting and gathering way of life for settlement and agriculture, a transition well under way in Europe and East Asia some 5,000 years ago. ... The finding adds substantially to the evidence that human evolution did not grind to a halt in the distant past, as is tacitly assumed by many social scientists. Even evolutionary psychologists, who interpret human behavior in terms of what the brain evolved to do, hold that the work of natural selection in shaping the human mind was completed in the pre-agricultural past, more than 10,000 years ago. "There is ample evidence that selection has been a major driving point in our evolution during the last 10,000 years, and there is no reason to suppose that it has stopped," said Jonathan Pritchard, a population geneticist at the University of Chicago who headed the study. ** Politically correct evolutionists have been refusing to acknowledge that humans have been evolving, especially when people mention skin color and brain function. Meanwhile, London scientists have discovered an unevolved Turkish family called The Family That Walks On All Fours. Dark Buzz, 2006-12-04 04:46:55
Ashley Cole
If you Google Ashley Cole, the British soccer player, you get a special section for links where he denies that he is gay. I don't know what Google is trying to do here, but it looks like it is just trying to promote false rumors. As usual, Google argues that the alternative search terms were generated automatically. Google is not being completely honest. It employs 100s of people who monitor user searches and manually enter data that guides searches like this one. Somebody decided that pages with gay rumors justify a separate section. Dark Buzz, 2006-12-04 04:46:55
If you Google Ashley Cole, the British soccer player, you get a special section for links where he denies that he is gay. I don't know what Google is trying to do here, but it looks like it is just trying to promote false rumors. As usual, Google argues that the alternative search terms were generated automatically. Google is not being completely honest. It employs 100s of people who monitor user searches and manually enter data that guides searches like this one. Somebody decided that pages with gay rumors justify a separate section. Dark Buzz, 2006-12-04 04:46:55
California Supreme Court rules on oral sex
California news: ** Sacramento (AP) - California's justices overturned state law requiring adults 21 years or older who are convicted of having oral sex with 16- and 17-year-olds to automatically register as a sex offender for life. The California Supreme Court, ruling 6-1, said the law, first adopted in 1947, was unconstitutional. The majority said that the law was too harsh or unfair because adults 21 or older who are convicted of having sex with minors ages 16 and 17 are not automatically required to register as sex offenders. ** The case is People v Hofsheier 3/6/06 SC, and was from Santa Cruz. The court was unable to see a rational basis for distinguishing between voluntary oral copulation with a minor and voluntary sexual intercourse with a minor. The case is strange. Of course there are rational distinctions. The California legislature deliberately made a distinction. The court should have followed the statute. George writes: ** Are you endorsing lifetime registration for such a petty offense? Maybe the judges were looking to avoid such a drastic penalty in this case. ** No. This particular defendant will probably still get lifetime registration, as the trial judge can still order it. He is a sexual predator of underage girls, so he may deserve it as much as others who have to register. My complaint is with the court overriding the legislature based on its own opinion about oral sex. Dark Buzz, 2006-12-04 04:46:55
California news: ** Sacramento (AP) - California's justices overturned state law requiring adults 21 years or older who are convicted of having oral sex with 16- and 17-year-olds to automatically register as a sex offender for life. The California Supreme Court, ruling 6-1, said the law, first adopted in 1947, was unconstitutional. The majority said that the law was too harsh or unfair because adults 21 or older who are convicted of having sex with minors ages 16 and 17 are not automatically required to register as sex offenders. ** The case is People v Hofsheier 3/6/06 SC, and was from Santa Cruz. The court was unable to see a rational basis for distinguishing between voluntary oral copulation with a minor and voluntary sexual intercourse with a minor. The case is strange. Of course there are rational distinctions. The California legislature deliberately made a distinction. The court should have followed the statute. George writes: ** Are you endorsing lifetime registration for such a petty offense? Maybe the judges were looking to avoid such a drastic penalty in this case. ** No. This particular defendant will probably still get lifetime registration, as the trial judge can still order it. He is a sexual predator of underage girls, so he may deserve it as much as others who have to register. My complaint is with the court overriding the legislature based on its own opinion about oral sex. Dark Buzz, 2006-12-04 04:46:55
Paris Hilton restrained
Celebrity news: ** LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- A court commissioner has signed off on an unusual restraining order against celebutante Paris Hilton, ordering her to stay at least 100 yards away from an event producer who claimed she threatened him -- unless they're at a party together. Brian Quintana was granted the three-year restraining order against Hilton last month after he testified that the celebutante harassed and threatened him after their friendship soured. ** Usually men are the targets of these silly orders. Judges hand these out without paying much attention to the rights of the parties. The girlrobot blog thinks that I am infatuated with Paris Hilton. No, that's backwards. I am just preparing to get a restraining order in case Paris insists on visiting me too often. Dark Buzz, 2006-12-04 04:46:55
Celebrity news: ** LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- A court commissioner has signed off on an unusual restraining order against celebutante Paris Hilton, ordering her to stay at least 100 yards away from an event producer who claimed she threatened him -- unless they're at a party together. Brian Quintana was granted the three-year restraining order against Hilton last month after he testified that the celebutante harassed and threatened him after their friendship soured. ** Usually men are the targets of these silly orders. Judges hand these out without paying much attention to the rights of the parties. The girlrobot blog thinks that I am infatuated with Paris Hilton. No, that's backwards. I am just preparing to get a restraining order in case Paris insists on visiting me too often. Dark Buzz, 2006-12-04 04:46:55
Lawyers promote homosexual agenda
Christopher Arriola writes, as the local Bar Assn president: ** The Santa Clara County Bar Association is dismayed at the Los Altos City Council's exclusionary actions against gay students at Los Altos High School. ... The city recently denied the Los Altos High School Gay/Straight Alliance's request for a declaration of a Gay Pride Day in the city. ... The Los Altos City Council is not only misguided but also may have violated federal law. In Romer vs. Evans, The U.S. Supreme Court held that a Colorado law that denied gay people any protections was an unconstitutional violation of their 14th Amendment rights to equal protection. ... Much like Colorado, the Los Altos City Council has no legitimate purpose to its actions, other than it does not want to hear the concerns of a certain group of people. In this case, it is all the more egregious because the wound was not simply in violation of their own stated mission or even directed at a "class of persons" but at their own children. ** No, the Los Altos mission is not to promote homosexuality. It is absurd for the Bar Assn to claim that the US Constitution requires "Gay Pride" days. Dark Buzz, 2006-12-04 04:46:55
Christopher Arriola writes, as the local Bar Assn president: ** The Santa Clara County Bar Association is dismayed at the Los Altos City Council's exclusionary actions against gay students at Los Altos High School. ... The city recently denied the Los Altos High School Gay/Straight Alliance's request for a declaration of a Gay Pride Day in the city. ... The Los Altos City Council is not only misguided but also may have violated federal law. In Romer vs. Evans, The U.S. Supreme Court held that a Colorado law that denied gay people any protections was an unconstitutional violation of their 14th Amendment rights to equal protection. ... Much like Colorado, the Los Altos City Council has no legitimate purpose to its actions, other than it does not want to hear the concerns of a certain group of people. In this case, it is all the more egregious because the wound was not simply in violation of their own stated mission or even directed at a "class of persons" but at their own children. ** No, the Los Altos mission is not to promote homosexuality. It is absurd for the Bar Assn to claim that the US Constitution requires "Gay Pride" days. Dark Buzz, 2006-12-04 04:46:55
Changing web host
I am switching this blog to a different web host. Depending on how you got here, you may not notice. Dark Buzz, 2006-12-04 04:46:55
I am switching this blog to a different web host. Depending on how you got here, you may not notice. Dark Buzz, 2006-12-04 04:46:55