New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: John Woodgate on 22 Aug 2006 11:37 In message <c36me2904lsoj3m69790mn8j5kvn559sp6(a)4ax.com>, dated Tue, 22 Aug 2006, John Larkin <jjSNIPlarkin(a)highTHISlandtechnology.com> writes >You can't possibly know that, and there's no real evidence for it. The point is that there is not only no evidence for macroevolution, there is no way that it can occur, as you said! Are you now claiming that it does occur? > The fossil record is astonishingly sparse of missing links. Maybe >that's why they're called "missing." That's just trite. There are millions of links; whenever an intermediate form is discovered, the media call it a 'missing link'. It's to a scientific term. > >Your statement is Neo-Darwinian dogma without a scientific basis. Can you prove that ? >Some "scientific" truisms (male/female intellectual differences, the >concept of race, What are you doing now? Setting up more straw men? I don't deny either of those things and nor do the majority of scientists. Value judgements based on them are bad, but they are nothing to do with science. >heritability of experience) are not allowed to be considered. Some day >we'll know. Heritability of experience is ill-defined. Exposure to physical or chemical agents may be heritable through epigenetic channels. But there is no way that intellectual experience can be heritable. -- 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: Don Bowey on 22 Aug 2006 11:51 On 8/21/06 5:56 PM, in article pan.2006.08.23.00.54.59.123371(a)example.com, "Rich the Philosophizer" <rtp(a)example.com> wrote: > On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 10:33:36 -0700, bill.sloman wrote: > >> Worship as many supreme being as you like - I know that they can only >> be one, by definition, but deists haven't yet got together to work >> which of their conceptions of this logicall fallacy is the right one - >> but don't go around parroting what his/her/its' self-appointed local >> representative claims to be "the truth" because none of the "truths" >> are even self-consistent, let alone consistent with the real world. > > He explains himself right here: > http://www.godchannel.com > > And, of course, there are those who will proclaim "BULLSHIT" as if > they could actually know what the limits of The Creator Of Time and > Space itself might be. > > Cheers! > Rich > No. It's bullshit because the person who wrote it assumes he knows the unknowable. He may wish it were true, but it's really only fluff. Don
From: Michael A. Terrell on 22 Aug 2006 12:50 John Fields wrote: > > 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 Eeyore sounds like a "Valley Girl". -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida
From: bill.sloman on 22 Aug 2006 13:56 Don Bowey wrote: > 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. Nice to see how you have gratefully taken advantage of what you perceive as a shift in topic to excuse yourself from responding. The "no thanks" is disingenuous. SETI is neither science fiction nor fantasy - you may not like it, but it is respectable science. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Don Bowey on 22 Aug 2006 16:43
On 8/22/06 10:56 AM, in article 1156269402.840288.265310(a)i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "bill.sloman(a)ieee.org" <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > Don Bowey wrote: >> 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. > > Nice to see how you have gratefully taken advantage of what you > perceive as a shift in topic to excuse yourself from responding. The > "no thanks" is disingenuous. My perception also tells me you are a troll. If I do not care to take part in a shifted topic that is my option and I don't care about your thought on it except to say that you presume too much. > > SETI is neither science fiction nor fantasy - you may not like it, but > it is respectable science. So what!? It has nothing to do with the topic. Go talk with yourself about it, or start a new thread. |