New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: John Fields on 22 Aug 2006 06:48 On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 01:03:15 GMT, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian <null(a)example.net> wrote: >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? --- The tone --- >Do you consider it nasty, bitchy, or sarcastic to notice that Your >Infallible Leader is a lunatic? --- Not at all, but what makes you think you're my Infallible Leader? -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: John Fields on 22 Aug 2006 06:59 On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 02:10:14 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > >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 ! --- "Or whatever"? What're you? About 11 years old? -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: John Larkin on 22 Aug 2006 10:51 On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 07:45:07 +0100, John Woodgate <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote: >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. You can't possibly know that, and there's no real evidence for it. The fossil record is astonishingly sparse of missing links. Maybe that's why they're called "missing." Your statement is Neo-Darwinian dogma without a scientific basis. Some "scientific" truisms (male/female intellectual differences, the concept of race, heritability of experience) are not allowed to be considered. Some day we'll know. John
From: Ken Smith on 22 Aug 2006 10:57 In article <Xns9823D903AB44Cjyanikkuanet(a)129.250.170.86>, Jim Yanik <jyanik(a)abuse.gov> wrote: [....] >Odd,most of the media is overwhelmingly LIBERAL;so,if we were believing >what we were told,then we would all be anti-Bush. > >Liberal TV networks; >ABC,CBS,NBC,CNN Naaaaa...... You only believe that because that is what you've been told to believe. >"conservative" networks; FOX. You misspelled "republican". FOX supports republican policies whether they are conservative or no. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Don Bowey on 22 Aug 2006 11:44
On 8/21/06 4:47 PM, in article 1156204048.216414.89540(a)m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com, "bill.sloman(a)ieee.org" <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > Don Bowey wrote: >> 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. > > On the contrary, I'm arguing that the omnipotent and omniscient God > regularly paraded by the theists is a self-contradicting logical > paradox, and consequently not availalbe to be known. > >> 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. > > No. Hoping that God is "how we would wsh" is pure fluff. I'm inspired > enough to know that going around indulging in wishful thinking is no > way to get into contact with any super-human being. > > I've not been inspired with any better plan, and I'm inclined to the > view that whole exercise is a waste of time. SETI - which only aspires > to get into cntact with non-human intelligences - is the closest thing > I've seen to a rational plan in that general area, but it isn't > specifically directed to contacting super-human intelligences. > > You should note that we've only just got to the point where we could > look for extra-terrestrial intelligences, so we are presumably only > just smart enough for that job. If we did find anybody, there'd be a > fair chance that they'd have got a bit further, and could well qualify > as super-human. You are attempting to shift the topic.... No thanks. Extra-terrestrial life is a whole other topic except in science fiction and fantasy at this time. Don |