New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: John Woodgate on 21 Aug 2006 06:40 In message <lv0je2hdevuluni2kc0tsq69hescrrthl8(a)4ax.com>, dated Mon, 21 Aug 2006, xray <notreally(a)hotmail.invalid> writes >On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 17:14:02 +0100, John Woodgate <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> >wrote: > >>In message <C10DCD14.3FB89%dbowey(a)comcast.net>, dated Sun, 20 Aug 2006, >>Don Bowey <dbowey(a)comcast.net> writes >> >>>What was the length of a week at the time of the big bang, compared to >>>the length of a week as we define it now? No problem. >> >>It was 3.773 US pints longer. > >Good of you to use US units for the measurements at the time of the big >bang. Seems to me British pints might work better, being warmer on >average. > >But, why would it be longer? I thought everything was shorter then. > You didn't allow for inflation. Even with very strict financial controls, it tends to mount up over 15 billion years. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk 2006 is YMMVI- Your mileage may vary immensely. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK
From: bill.sloman on 21 Aug 2006 09:26 John Woodgate wrote: > In message <1156123089.816396.92340(a)75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, dated > Sun, 20 Aug 2006, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org writes > > >You can't have two omnipotent supreme beings - and there is your first > >logical fallacy. > > I don't want one at all. If a being is omnipotent, it can copy itself. > Ergo, more than one can exist. Any paradox so created it ITS problem, > not mine. But of course, being omnipotent, it can solve any such > paradox. It's turtles all the way down!(;-) Which is another way of showing that an omipotent god can't exist by reductio ad absurdum I know that you know exactly what this means, but for any lurkers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum There is no such logical problem with any number of gods who are less than omniscient and omnipotent. They would merely be superior beings who would relate to us are we relate to ants - but they'd be subject to the same laws of physics that we are, and correspondingly useless to the sorts of confidence tricksters who set up religious cults. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Don Bowey on 21 Aug 2006 10:38 On 8/21/06 3:14 AM, in article lv0je2hdevuluni2kc0tsq69hescrrthl8(a)4ax.com, "xray" <notreally(a)hotmail.invalid> wrote: > On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 17:14:02 +0100, John Woodgate <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >> In message <C10DCD14.3FB89%dbowey(a)comcast.net>, dated Sun, 20 Aug 2006, >> Don Bowey <dbowey(a)comcast.net> writes >> >>> What was the length of a week at the time of the big bang, compared to >>> the length of a week as we define it now? No problem. >> >> It was 3.773 US pints longer. > > Good of you to use US units for the measurements at the time of the big > bang. Seems to me British pints might work better, being warmer on > average. I prefer my pints cold. No Lucas refrigerators here. > > But, why would it be longer? I thought everything was shorter then. > Things were probably neither long nor short. They just "were."
From: Don Bowey on 21 Aug 2006 10:46 On 8/21/06 6:26 AM, in article 1156166772.487083.135740(a)i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com, "bill.sloman(a)ieee.org" <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > John Woodgate wrote: >> In message <1156123089.816396.92340(a)75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, dated >> Sun, 20 Aug 2006, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org writes >> >>> You can't have two omnipotent supreme beings - and there is your first >>> logical fallacy. >> >> I don't want one at all. If a being is omnipotent, it can copy itself. >> Ergo, more than one can exist. Any paradox so created it ITS problem, >> not mine. But of course, being omnipotent, it can solve any such >> paradox. It's turtles all the way down!(;-) > > Which is another way of showing that an omipotent god can't exist by > reductio ad absurdum > > I know that you know exactly what this means, but for any lurkers > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum > > There is no such logical problem with any number of gods who are less > than omniscient and omnipotent. > > They would merely be superior beings who would relate to us are we > relate to ants - but they'd be subject to the same laws of physics that > we are, and correspondingly useless to the sorts of confidence > tricksters who set up religious cults. You make the same error that all religious leaders make; you presume that you can actually know God. I doubt that you are any more or less inspired than all the others. The most we can do is hope that God is how we would wish. The rest is fluff. Don
From: David DiGiacomo on 21 Aug 2006 12:33
In article <emrge25e73kjbecv1al8jj28h2rfvo0amk(a)4ax.com>, John Larkin <jjSNIPlarkin(a)highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote: >Seems sorta improbable to me. As in *very* improbably. The Neo >Darwinians sort of wave their hands and declare that this is the >result of random spot mutations. Hell, you can't design simple >electronic circuits through random mutation, much less butterflies. Umm... you can't? http://www.google.com/search?q=electronic+circuits+genetic+algorithms&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official "Results 1 - 20 of about 808,000 for electronic circuits genetic algorithms" Or just see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolvable_hardware |