New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: Rich the Philosophizer on 21 Aug 2006 20:59 On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 06:26:12 -0700, bill.sloman wrote: > Which is another way of showing that an omipotent god can't exist by > reductio ad absurdum That's OK, Bill. She doesn't believe in you either. Cheers! Rich -- For more information, please feel free to visit http://www.godchannel.com
From: Richard The Dreaded Libertarian on 21 Aug 2006 21:03 On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 14:10:53 -0500, John Fields wrote: > On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 17:32:51 +0100, Eeyore >>Don Bowey wrote: >> >>> You make the same error that all religious leaders make; you presume that >>> you can actually know God. >> >>Doesn't God talk to Bush ? > > From Graham, earlier: > > "You'd prefer I said something nasty, bitchy and sarcastic ? > Sorry, I'm not like that." > > Ahhhh... The delicious irony of seeing you hoisted on your own > petard! > > Makes my day. > > Thanks, chump! What's nasty, bitchy or sarcastic about asking if all of those news reports are true? Do you consider it nasty, bitchy, or sarcastic to notice that Your Infallible Leader is a lunatic? Thanks, Rich
From: Richard The Dreaded Libertarian on 21 Aug 2006 21:04 On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 18:07:46 +0100, John Woodgate wrote: > In message <44E9E033.356B5F02(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com>, dated Mon, 21 Aug > 2006, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> writes >> >>Doesn't God talk to Bush > > No, FROM a bush. Exodus 3, 4. But, that one was burning. =:-O Thanks, Rich
From: Eeyore on 21 Aug 2006 21:10 John Woodgate wrote: > In message <44E9E033.356B5F02(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com>, dated Mon, 21 Aug > 2006, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> writes > > > >Doesn't God talk to Bush > > No, FROM a bush. Exodus 3, 4. LMAO ! You really should have a late night show or whatever ! Graham
From: John Woodgate on 22 Aug 2006 02:45
In message <tmake25cvhnfeo4ul49ucns3ent3flipm6(a)4ax.com>, dated Mon, 21 Aug 2006, John Larkin <jjSNIPlarkin(a)highTHISlandtechnology.com> writes >The poor quality and huge computational requirements sort of make my >case. All that they show is that we are not very good at it --- YET. >And random mutation and selection are really only useful for making >incremental changes - microevolution - not for designing radically new >architectures - macroevolution. 'Macroevolution' is a straw man. Evolution progresses by SMALL steps over a LONG time. The rate does vary widely, but the speed (obviously, if you think about it) has to be measured in GENERATIONS of the organism involved, not in physical time. So tiny, fast-breeding organisms can evolve 'quickly' in our view, if 1 day is six generations. -- 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 |