Re: FACTITIOUS THEORY LOSES AGAIN -- Evolution vs. Intelligent Design...
Ed Conrad
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 10:29:11 -0700, Rich Travsky
<traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote to sci.anthropology:
<
>Ed Conrad wrote:
>>
>> > ===============================
>> >
>> > Let some words to the wise be sufficient
>> > That our courtrooms are greatly deficient
>> > Judge Jones had his verdict
>> > LONG before he first heard it
>> > And to deny it you'd be sadly remiss-ent
>> <
>> > ===============================
>> >
>> HARRISBURG, Pa. -- A federal
>> judge ruled Tuesday that “intelligent
>> design” cannot be taught as part of
>> a school’s science class, a decision
>> dealing a blow to those opposed to
>> Darwin’s theory of evolution.
>> <
>> Judge John E. Jones III ruled that
>> a school board in Dover violated the
>> U.S. Constitution when it ordered that
>> its biology curriculum must include
>> an alternative, that life on Earth may
>> have been produced by an unidentified
>> intelligent entity.
>> <
>> Opponents of the school board had
>> successfully argued that intelligent
>> design was nothing more than creationism
>> using another name.
>> <
>> Intelligent design proponents argued
>> that they were exposing students to an
>> alternative to Darwin’s evolution theory
>> which, they say, cannot fully explain
>> the existence of extremely complex
>> life forms.
>> <
>> The trial was one of the biggest
>> courtroom clashes on evolution since
>> the 1925 “monkey trial” when a biology
>> teacher was prosecuted for promoting
>> evolution in Tennessee.
>
>Just fixing up the subject line. BTW, you left out
> the parts where the IDers *lied*...
>
===============================
<
Hmmm!
<
Let me say THIS about THAT:
<
The evolutionists lie SO MUCH, they make
President Bush look like a choir boy.
<
-- Ed Conrad
<
=======================================
<
> == WHY THE EVOLUTIONISTS LIE LIKE A RUG ==-
> OLDEST HUMAN SKULL EVER FOUND
<
> http://www.edconrad.com/images/z11calv.jpg
> http://www.edconrad.com/images/krogwskull.jpg
<
Wilton Krogman, one of the world's foremost experts
on human anatomy,holds what he had identified as
a petrified human calvarium, a skull with the eye
sockets broken off, that was discovered between Penna's
anthracite veins. He is shown at his desk at the Cooper
Clinic in Lancaster, Pa., where moments later he
beckoned a colleague -- a medical doctor -- to examine
"the oldest human skull ever found."
<
A CATscan was performed on this specimen with
favorable results.
<
> http://www.edconrad.com/images/catcalv.jpg
<
Meanwhile, Haversian canals were identified in the cell
structure, the tell-tale sign of bone. And dried blood
was found on the specimen during testing at American
MedicalLaboratories in Chantilly, Va.
<
This is the official report from AML which had performed
Calculus Analysis by Crystallography. The final report,
dated April 21, 2000, was issued by Dr. Nathan Sherman,
director of laboratories.
<
>>> "The specimen consists of 1 irregularly
>>> shaped, brown calculus weighing less
>>> than 0.0010 grams and measuring 1X1X0.5
>>> mm. No nidus is observed. The calculi
>>> indicates a composition of dried blood
>>> intermingled with a few small crystals
>>> resembling calcium oxalate dihydrate."
<
> http://www.edconrad.com/images/z12calv.jpg
> http://www.edconrad.com/images/z13cav.jpg
<
> =========================================
<
> AND THE BEAT(ING OF EVOLUTION) GOES ON . . .
<
Here's a petrified human femur still embedded in slate.
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/z8femur.jpg
<
This is the boulder containing the complete human skull.
Testing has confirmed the presence of Haversian canals
and American Medical Laboratories discovered it contains
dried blood.
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/skullb.jpg
<
Here's a giant petrified tooth.
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/1tooth.jpg
<
Here's a petrified dinosaur foot still embedded in slate.
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Newpix3/z3dino.jpg
<
>Here are several views of a portion of a giant prehistoric
>scorpion identified as such by Krogman.
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Scorpion/MVC-001S.JPG
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Scorpion/MVC-010S.JPG
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Scorpion/MVC-020S.JPG
<
>Here are two views of a piece of wood that appears to
> to have been andcarved for use as a tool or a weapon.
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Tool/MVC-001S.JPG
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Tool/MVC-002S.JPG
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Tool/MVC-003S.JPG
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Tool/MVC-004S.JPG
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Tool/MVC-005S.JPG
<
(And there are a whole lot more...)
<
>> Ed Conrad
> http://www.edconrad.com
<
==============================
<
> TENURED FOSSILS
> Members, U.S. Senate
Specter, Arlen (R) - Pennsylvania - Republican
Hutchison, Kay Bailey (R) - Texas - Republican
Allen, George (R) - Virginia - Republican
Nelson, Bill (D) - Florida - Democratic
Schumer, Charles E. (Chuck) (D) - New York
Cantwell, Maria (D) - Washington -
Clinton, Hillary Rodham (D) - New York -
Stabenow, Debbie (D) - Michigan -
Murray, Patty (D) - Washington
Boxer, Barbara (D) - California
Dayton, Mark (D) - Minnesota - Democratic
Feinstein, Dianne (D) - California - Democratic
DeWine, Mike (R) - Ohio - Republican
Durbin, Dick (D) - Illinois - Democratic
Cornyn, John (R) - Texas - Republican
Leahy, Patrick (D) - Vermont - Democratic
McCain, John (R) - Arizona - Republican
Harkin, Tom (D) - Iowa - Democratic
Voinovich, George V. (R) - Ohio - Republican
Warner, John (R) - Virginia - Republican
Levin, Carl (D) - Michigan - Democratic
Shelby, Richard C. (R) - Alabama - Republican
Allard, Wayne (R) - Colorado - Republican
Kerry, John (D) - Massachusetts - Democratic
Mikulski, Barbara (D) - Maryland - Democratic
Biden, Joseph R.(D) - Delaware - Democratic
Lugar, Richard G. (R) - Indiana - Republican
Grassley, Chuck (R) - Iowa - Republican
Santorum, Rick (R) - Pennsylvania - Republican
Sarbanes, Paul S. (D) - Maryland - Democratic
Bond, Kit (R) - Missouri - Republican
Lieberman, Joe (D) - Connecticut - Democratic.
Frist, Bill (R) - Tennessee - Republican
Kennedy, Edward M. (D) - Massachusetts - Democratic
Hatch, Orrin G. (R) - Utah - Republican
Kyl, John (R) - Arizona - Republican
Ensign, John (R) - Nevada - Republican
Smith, Gordon H. (R) - Oregon - Republican
Burns, Conrad (R) - Montana - Republican .
> Members, U.S. House of Representatives
Abercrombie, Neil, Hawaii, 1st
Ackerman, Gary, New York, 5th
Aderholt, Robert, Alabama, 4th
Akin, Todd, Missouri, 2nd
Alexander, Rodney, Louisiana, 5th
Allen, Tom, Maine, 1st
Andrews, Robert E., New Jersey, 1st
Baca, Joe, California, 43rd
Bachus, Spencer, Alabama, 6th
Baird, Brian, Washington, 3rd
Baker, Richard, Louisiana, 6th
Baldwin, Tammy, Wisconsin, 2nd
Barrett, J.Gresham, South Carolina, 3rd
Barrow, John, Georgia, 12th
Bartlett, Roscoe, Maryland, 6th
Barton, Joe, Texas, 6th
Bass, Charles, New Hampshire, 2nd
Bean, Melissa L., Illinois, 8th
Beauprez, Bob, Colorado, 7th
Becerra, Xavier, California, 31st
Berkley, Shelley, Nevada, 1st
Berman, Howard, California, 28th
Berry, Marion, Arkansas, 1st
Biggert, Judy, Illinois, 13th
Bilirakis, Michael, Florida, 9th
Bishop, Rob, Utah, 1st
Bishop Jr., Sanford D., Georgia, 2nd
Bishop, Timothy, New York, 1st
Blackburn, Marsha, Tennessee, 7th
Blumenauer, Earl, Oregon, 3rd
Blunt, Roy, Missouri, 7th
Boehlert, Sherwood L., New York, 24th
Boehner, John A., Ohio, 8th
Bonilla, Henry, Texas, 23rd
Bonner, Jo, Alabama, 1st
Bono, Mary, California, 45th
Boozman, John, Arkansas, 3rd
Bordallo, Madeleine, Guam
Boren, Dan, Oklahoma, 2nd
Boswell, Leonard, Iowa, 3rd
Boucher, Rick, Virginia, 9th
Boustany Jr., Charles W., Louisiana, 7th
Boyd, Allen, Florida, 2nd
Bradley, Jeb, New Hampshire, 1st
Brady, Kevin, Texas, 8th
Brady, Robert, Pennsylvania, 1st
Brown, Corrine, Florida, 3rd
Brown, Henry, South Carolina, 1st
Brown, Sherrod, Ohio, 13th
Brown-Waite, Virginia, Florida, 5th
Burgess, Michael, Texas, 26th
Burton, Dan, Indiana, 5th
Butterfield, G.K., North Carolina, 1st
Buyer, Steve, Indiana, 4th
Calvert, Ken, California, 44th
Camp, Dave, Michigan, 4th
Cannon, Chris, Utah, 3rd
Cantor, Eric, Virginia, 7th
Capito, Shelley Moore, West Virginia, 2nd
Capps, Lois, California, 23rd
Capuano, Michael E., Massachusetts, 8th
Cardin, Benjamin L., Maryland, 3rd
Cardoza, Dennis, California, 18th
Carnahan, Russ, Missouri, 3rd
Carson, Julia, Indiana, 7th
Carter, John, Texas, 31st
Case, Ed, Hawaii, 2nd
Castle, Michael N., Delaware, At Large
Chabot, Steve, Ohio, 1st
Chandler, Ben, Kentucky, 6th
Chocola, Chris, Indiana, 2nd
Christian-Christensen, Donna M., U.S. Virgin Islands
Clay Jr., William "Lacy", Missouri, 1st
Cleaver, Emanuel, Missouri, 5th
Clyburn, James E., South Carolina, 6th
Coble, Howard, North Carolina, 6th
Cole, Tom, Oklahoma, 4th
Conaway, K. Michael, Texas, 11th
Conyers Jr., John, Michigan, 14th
Cooper, Jim, Tennessee, 5th
Costa, Jim, California, 20th
Costello, Jerry, Illinois, 12th
Cox, Christopher, California, 48th
Cramer, Robert E. "Bud", Alabama, 5th
Crenshaw, Ander, Florida, 4th
Crowley, Joseph, New York, 7th
Cubin, Barbara, Wyoming, At Large
Cuellar, Henry, Texas, 28th
Culberson, John, Texas, 7th
Cummings, Elijah, Maryland, 7th
Cunningham, Randy "Duke", California, 50th
Davis, Artur, Alabama, 7th
Davis, Danny K., Illinois, 7th
Davis, Geoff, Kentucky, 4th
Davis, Jim, Florida, 11th
Davis, Jo Ann S., Virginia, 1st
Davis, Lincoln, Tennessee, 4th
Davis, Susan, California, 53rd
Davis, Tom, Virginia, 11th
Deal, Nathan, Georgia, 10th
DeFazio, Peter, Oregon, 4th
DeGette, Diana, Colorado, 1st
Delahunt, William, Massachusetts, 10th
DeLauro, Rosa L., Connecticut, 3rd
DeLay, Tom, Texas, 22nd
Dent, Charles W., Pennsylvania, 15th
Diaz-Balart, Lincoln, Florida, 21st
Diaz-Balart, Mario, Florida, 25th
Dicks, Norman D., Washington, 6th
Dingell, John, Michigan, 15th
Doggett, Lloyd, Texas, 25th
Doolittle, John, California, 4th
Doyle, Mike, Pennsylvania, 14th
Drake, Thelma D., Virginia, 2nd
Dreier, David, California, 26th
Duncan Jr., John J., Tennessee, 2nd
Edwards, Chet, Texas, 17th
Ehlers, Vernon J., Michigan, 3rd
Emanuel, Rahm, Illinois, 5th
Emerson, Jo Ann, Missouri, 8th
Engel, Eliot, New York, 17th
English, Phil, Pennsylvania, 3rd
Eshoo, Anna G., California, 14th
Etheridge, Bob, North Carolina, 2nd
Evans, Lane, Illinois, 17th
Everett, Terry, Alabama, 2nd
Faleomavaega, Eni F. H., American Samoa
Farr, Sam, California, 17th
Fattah, Chaka, Pennsylvania, 2nd
Feeney, Tom, Florida, 24th
Ferguson, Michael, New Jersey, 7th
Filner, Bob, California, 51st
Fitzpatrick, Michael G., Pennsylvania, 8th
Flake, Jeff , Arizona, 6th
Foley, Mark, Florida, 16th
Forbes, J. Randy, Virginia, 4th
Ford, Harold, Tennessee, 9th
Fortenberry, Jeff, Nebraska, 1st
Fortuno, Luis G., Puerto Rico
Fossella, Vito, New York, 13th
Foxx, Virginia, North Carolina, 5th
Frank, Barney, Massachusetts, 4th
Franks, Trent, Arizona, 2nd
Frelinghuysen, Rodney, New Jersey, 11th
Gallegly, Elton, California, 24th
Garrett, Scott, New Jersey, 5th
Gerlach, Jim, Pennsylvania, 6th
Gibbons, Jim, Nevada, 2nd
Gilchrest, Wayne, Maryland, 1st
Gillmor, Paul, Ohio, 5th
Gingrey, Phil, Georgia, 11th
Gohmert, Louie, Texas, 1st
Gonzalez, Charlie A., Texas, 20th
Goode Jr., Virgil H., Virginia, 5th
Goodlatte, Bob, Virginia, 6th
Gordon, Bart, Tennessee, 6th
Granger, Kay, Texas, 12th
Graves, Sam, Missouri, 6th
Green, Al, Texas, 9th
Green, Gene, Texas, 29th
Green, Mark, Wisconsin, 8th
Grijalva, Raul, Arizona, 7th
Gutierrez, Luis, Illinois, 4th
Gutknecht, Gil, Minnesota, 1st
Hall, Ralph M., Texas, 4th
Harman, Jane, California, 36th
Harris, Katherine, Florida, 13th
Hart, Melissa, Pennsylvania, 4th
Hastert, Denny, Illinois, 14th
Hastings, Alcee L., Florida, 23rd
Hastings, Doc, Washington, 4th
Hayes, Robin, North Carolina, 8th
Hayworth, J.D., Arizona, 5th
Hefley, Joel, Colorado, 5th
Hensarling, Jeb, Texas, 5th
Herger, Wally, California, 2nd
Herseth, Stephanie, South Dakota, At Large
Higgins, Brian, New York, 27th
Hinchey, Maurice, New York, 22nd
Hinojosa, Rubén, Texas, 15th
Hobson, David, Ohio, 7th
Hoekstra, Pete, Michigan, 2nd
Holden, Tim, Pennsylvania, 17th
Holt, Rush, New Jersey, 12th
Honda, Mike, California, 15th
Hooley, Darlene, Oregon, 5th
Hostettler, John N., Indiana, 8th
Hoyer, Steny H., Maryland, 5th
Hulshof, Kenny, Missouri, 9th
Hunter, Duncan, California, 52nd
Hyde, Henry, Illinois, 6th
Inglis, Bob, South Carolina, 4th
Inslee, Jay, Washington, 1st
Israel, Steve, New York, 2nd
Issa, Darrell, California, 49th
Istook Jr., Ernest J., Oklahoma, 5th
Jackson Jr., Jesse L., Illinois, 2nd
Jackson Lee, Sheila, Texas, 18th
Jefferson, William J., Louisiana, 2nd
Jenkins, William L., Tennessee, 1st
Jindal, Bobby, Louisiana, 1st
Johnson, Eddie Bernice, Texas, 30th
Johnson, Nancy L., Connecticut, 5th
Johnson, Sam, Texas, 3rd
Johnson, Timothy V., Illinois, 15th
Jones, Stephanie Tubbs, Ohio, 11th
Jones, Walter B., North Carolina, 3rd
Kanjorski, Paul E., Pennsylvania, 11th
Kaptur, Marcy, Ohio, 9th
Keller, Ric, Florida, 8th
Kelly, Sue, New York, 19th
Kennedy, Mark, Minnesota, 6th
Kennedy, Patrick, Rhode Island, 1st
Kildee, Dale, Michigan, 5th
Kilpatrick, Carolyn, Michigan, 13th
Kind, Ron, Wisconsin, 3rd
King, Pete, New York, 3rd
King, Steve, Iowa, 5th
Kingston, Jack, Georgia, 1st
Kirk, Mark, Illinois, 10th
Kline, John, Minnesota, 2nd
Knollenberg, Joseph , Michigan, 9th
Kolbe, Jim, Arizona, 8th
Kucinich, Dennis J., Ohio, 10th
Kuhl Jr., John R. "Randy", New York, 29th
Lahood, Ray, Illinois, 18th
Langevin, Jim, Rhode Island, 2nd
Lantos, Tom, California, 12th
Larsen, Rick, Washington, 2nd
Larson, John B., Connecticut, 1st
Latham, Tom, Iowa, 4th
LaTourette, Steven C., Ohio, 14th
Leach, Jim, Iowa, 2nd
Lee, Barbara, California, 9th
Levin, Sander, Michigan, 12th
Lewis, Jerry, California, 41st
Lewis, John, Georgia, 5th
Lewis, Ron, Kentucky, 2nd
Linder, John, Georgia, 7th
Lipinski, Daniel, Illinois, 3rd
LoBiondo, Frank, New Jersey, 2nd
Lofgren, Zoe, California, 16th
Lowey, Nita, New York, 18th
Lucas, Frank, Oklahoma, 3rd
Lungren, Daniel E., California, 3rd
Lynch, Stephen F., Massachusetts, 9th
Mack, Connie, Florida, 14th
Maloney, Carolyn, New York, 14th
Manzullo, Donald, Illinois, 16th
Marchant, Kenny, Texas, 24th
Markey, Ed, Massachusetts, 7th
Marshall, Jim, Georgia, 3rd
Matheson, Jim, Utah, 2nd
Matsui, Doris O., California, 5th
McCarthy, Carolyn, New York, 4th
McCaul, Michael T., Texas, 10th
McCollum, Betty, Minnesota, 4th
McCotter, Thaddeus, Michigan, 11th
McCrery, Jim, Louisiana, 4th
McDermott, Jim, Washington, 7th
McGovern, James, Massachusetts, 3rd
McHenry, Patrick T., North Carolina, 10th
McHugh, John M., New York, 23rd
McIntyre, Mike, North Carolina, 7th
McKeon, Buck, California, 25th
McKinney, Cynthia, Georgia, 4th
McMorris, Cathy, Washington, 5th
McNulty, Michael R., New York, 21st
Meehan, Marty, Massachusetts, 5th
Meek, Kendrick, Florida, 17th
Meeks, Gregory W., New York, 6th
Melancon, Charlie, Louisiana, 3rd
Menendez, Bob, New Jersey, 13th
Mica, John, Florida, 7th
Michaud, Michael, Maine, 2nd
Millender-McDonald, Juanita, California, 37th
Miller, Brad, North Carolina, 13th
Miller, Candice, Michigan, 10th
Miller, Gary, California, 42nd
Miller, George, California, 7th
Miller, Jeff, Florida, 1st
Mollohan, Alan B., West Virginia, 1st
Moore, Dennis, Kansas, 3rd
Moore, Gwen, Wisconsin, 4th
Moran, Jerry, Kansas, 1st
Moran, Jim, Virginia, 8th
Murphy, Tim, Pennsylvania, 18th
Murtha, John, Pennsylvania, 12th
Musgrave, Marilyn, Colorado, 4th
Myrick, Sue, North Carolina, 9th
Nadler, Jerrold, New York, 8th
Napolitano, Grace, California, 38th
Neal, Richard E., Massachusetts, 2nd
Neugebauer, Randy, Texas, 19th
Ney, Robert W., Ohio, 18th
Northup, Anne, Kentucky, 3rd
Norton, Eleanor Holmes, District of Columbia
Norwood, Charlie, Georgia, 9th
Nunes, Devin, California, 21st
Nussle, Jim, Iowa, 1st
Oberstar, James L., Minnesota, 8th
Obey, David R., Wisconsin, 7th
Olver, John, Massachusetts, 1st
Ortiz, Solomon P., Texas, 27th
Osborne, Tom, Nebraska, 3rd
Otter, Butch, Idaho, 1st
Owens, Major, New York, 11th
Oxley, Michael G., Ohio, 4th
Pallone Jr., Frank, New Jersey, 6th
Pascrell Jr., Bill, New Jersey, 8th
Pastor, Ed , Arizona, 4th
Paul, Ron, Texas, 14th
Payne, Donald M., New Jersey, 10th
Pearce, Steve, New Mexico, 2nd
Pelosi, Nancy, California, 8th
Pence, Mike, Indiana, 6th
Peterson, Collin C., Minnesota, 7th
Peterson, John E., Pennsylvania, 5th
Petri, Thomas, Wisconsin, 6th
Pickering, Charles W. "Chip", Mississippi, 3rd
Pitts, Joseph R., Pennsylvania, 16th
Platts, Todd, Pennsylvania, 19th
Poe, Ted, Texas, 2nd
Pombo, Richard, California, 11th
Pomeroy, Earl, North Dakota, At Large
Porter, Jon, Nevada, 3rd
Portman, Rob, Ohio, 2nd -- Vacancy
Price, David, North Carolina, 4th
Price, Tom, Georgia, 6th
Pryce, Deborah, Ohio, 15th
Putnam, Adam, Florida, 12th
Radanovich, George P., California, 19th
Rahall, Nick, West Virginia, 3rd
Ramstad, Jim, Minnesota, 3rd
Rangel, Charles B., New York, 15th
Regula, Ralph, Ohio, 16th
Rehberg, Dennis, Montana, At Large
Reichert, David G., Washington, 8th
Renzi, Rick, Arizona, 1st
Reyes, Silvestre, Texas, 16th
Reynolds, Thomas M., New York, 26th
Rogers, Harold, Kentucky, 5th
Rogers, Mike, Alabama, 3rd
Rogers, Mike, Michigan, 8th
Rohrabacher, Dana, California, 46th
Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana, Florida, 18th
Ross, Mike, Arkansas, 4th
Rothman, Steven, New Jersey, 9th
Roybal-Allard, Lucille, California, 34th
Royce, Ed, California, 40th
Ruppersberger, Dutch, Maryland, 2nd
Rush, Bobby L., Illinois, 1st
Ryan, Paul, Wisconsin, 1st
Ryan, Tim, Ohio, 17th
Ryun, Jim, Kansas, 2nd
Sabo, Martin Olav, Minnesota, 5th
Salazar, John T., Colorado, 3rd
Sanchez, Linda, California, 39th
Sanchez, Loretta, California, 47th
Sanders, Bernie, Vermont, At Large
Saxton, Jim, New Jersey, 3rd
Schakowsky, Jan, Illinois, 9th
Schiff, Adam, California, 29th
Schwartz, Allyson L., Pennsylvania, 13th
Schwarz, John J.H. "Joe", Michigan, 7th
Scott, David, Georgia, 13th
Scott, Robert C. "Bobby", Virginia, 3rd
Sensenbrenner, F. James, Wisconsin, 5th
Sessions, Pete, Texas, 32nd
Serrano, José E., New York, 16th
Shadegg, John, Arizona, 3rd
Shaw Jr., E. Clay , Florida, 22nd
Shays, Christopher, Connecticut, 4th
Sherman, Brad, California, 27th
Sherwood, Don, Pennsylvania, 10th
Shimkus, John, Illinois, 19th
Shuster, Bill, Pennsylvania, 9th
Simmons, Rob, Connecticut, 2nd
Simpson, Mike, Idaho, 2nd
Skelton, Ike, Missouri, 4th
Slaughter, Louise, New York, 28th
Smith, Adam, Washington, 9th
Smith, Chris, New Jersey, 4th
Smith, Lamar, Texas, 21st
Snyder, Vic, Arkansas, 2nd
Sodrel, Michael E., Indiana, 9th
Solis, Hilda, California, 32nd
Souder, Mark E., Indiana, 3rd
Spratt, John, South Carolina, 5th
Stark, Fortney Pete, California, 13th
Stearns, Cliff, Florida, 6th
Strickland, Ted, Ohio, 6th
Stupak, Bart, Michigan, 1st
Sullivan, John, Oklahoma, 1st
Sweeney, John E., New York, 20th
Tancredo, Tom, Colorado, 6th
Tanner, John, Tennessee, 8th
Tauscher, Ellen, California, 10th
Taylor, Charles H., North Carolina, 11th
Taylor, Gene, Mississippi, 4th
Terry, Lee, Nebraska, 2nd
Thomas, Bill, California, 22nd
Thompson, Bennie G., Mississippi, 2nd
Thompson, Mike, California, 1st
Thornberry, Mac, Texas, 13th
Tiahrt, Todd, Kansas, 4th
Tiberi, Pat, Ohio, 12th
Tierney, John, Massachusetts, 6th
Towns, Edolphus, New York, 10th
Turner, Michael, Ohio, 3rd
Udall, Mark, Colorado, 2nd
Udall, Tom, New Mexico, 3rd
Upton, Fred, Michigan, 6th
Van Hollen, Chris, Maryland, 8th
Velázquez, Nydia M., New York, 12th
Visclosky, Peter, Indiana, 1st
Walden, Greg, Oregon, 2nd
Walsh, Jim, New York, 25th
Wamp, Zach, Tennessee, 3rd
Wasserman Schultz, Debbie, Florida, 20th
Waters, Maxine, California, 35th
Watson, Diane E., California, 33rd
Watt, Mel, North Carolina, 12th
Waxman, Henry, California, 30th
Weiner, Anthony D., New York, 9th
Weldon, Curt, Pennsylvania, 7th
Weldon, Dave, Florida, 15th
Weller, Jerry, Illinois, 11th
Westmoreland, Lynn A., Georgia, 8th
Wexler, Robert, Florida, 19th
Whitfield, Ed, Kentucky, 1st
Wicker, Roger, Mississippi, 1st
Wilson, Heather, New Mexico, 1st
Wilson, Joe, South Carolina, 2nd
Wolf, Frank, Virginia, 10th
Woolsey, Lynn, California, 6th
Wu, David, Oregon, 1st
Wynn, Albert, Maryland, 4th
Young, C.W. Bill, Florida, 10th
Young, Don, Alaska, At Large
> Pennsylvania Senators:
Armstrong , Gibson E. (R) - District 13
Boscola , Lisa M. (D) - District 18
Brightbill , David J. (R) - District 48
Browne , Patrick M. (R) - District 16
Conti , Joe (R) - District 10
Corman , Jake (R) - District 34
Costa Jr. , Jay (D) - District 43
Earll , Jane M. (R) - District 49
Erickson , Edwin B. (R) - District 26
Ferlo , Jim (D) - District 38
Fontana , Wayne D. (D) - District 42
Fumo , Vincent J. (D) - District 1
Gordner , John R. (R) - District 27
Greenleaf , Stewart J. (R) - District 12
Hughes , Vincent J. (D) - District 7
Jubelirer , Robert C. (R) - District 30
Kasunic , Richard A. (D) - District 32
Kitchen , Shirley M. (D) - District 3
LaValle , Gerald J. (D) - District 47
Lemmond , Charles D. (R) - District 20
Logan , Sean (D) - District 45
Madigan , Roger A. (R) - District 23
Mellow , Robert J. (D) - District 22
Musto , Raphael J. (D) - District 14
O'Pake , Michael A. (D) - District 11
Orie , Jane Clare (R) - District 40
Piccola , Jeffrey E. (R) - District 15
Pileggi , Dominic F. (R) - District 9
Pippy , John R. (R) - District 37
Punt , Terry L. (R) - District 33
Rafferty, Jr. , John C. (R) - District 44
Regola , Bob (R) - District 39
Rhoades , James J. (R) - District 29
Robbins , Robert D. (R) - District 50
Scarnati , Joseph B. (R) - District 25
Stack , Michael J. (D) - District 5
Stout , J. Barry (D) - District 46
Tartaglione , Christine M. (D) - District 2
Thompson , Robert J. (R) - District 19
Tomlinson , Robert M. (R) - District 6
Vance , Patricia H (R) - District 31
Washington , LeAnna M. (D) - District 4
Waugh , Michael L. (R) - District 28
Wenger , Noah W. (R) - District 36
White , Donald C. (R) - District 41
White , Mary Jo (R) - District 21
Williams , Anthony H. (D) - District 8
Williams , Constance H. (D) - District 17
Wonderling , Robert C. (R) - District 24
Wozniak , John N. (D) - District 35
> Pa. Members of House of Representatives
Adolph, Jr., William F. (R) - District 165
Allen, Bob (R) - District 125
Argall, David G. (R) - District 124
Armstrong, Gibson C. (R) - District 100
Baker, Matthew E. (R) - District 68
Baldwin, Roy E. (R) - District 97
Barrar, Stephen E. (R) - District 160
Bastian, Bob (R) - District 69
Bebko-Jones, Linda (D) - District 1
Belardi, Fred (D) - District 112
Belfanti, Jr., Robert E. (D) - District 107
Benninghoff, Kerry A. (R) - District 171
Biancucci, Vincent A. (D) - District 15
Birmelin, Jerry (R) - District 139
Bishop, Louise Williams (D) - District 192
Blackwell, IV, Thomas W. (D) - District 190
Blaum, Kevin (D) - District 121
Boyd, Scott W. (R) - District 43
Bunt, Jr., Raymond (R) - District 147
Butkovitz, Alan L. (D) - District 174
Buxton, Ronald I. (D) - District 103
Caltagirone, Thomas R. (D) - District 127
Cappelli, Steven W. (R) - District 83
Casorio, Jr., James E. (D) - District 56
Causer, Martin T. (R) - District 67
Cawley, Gaynor (D) - District 113
Civera, Jr., Mario J. (R) - District 164
Clymer, Paul I. (R) - District 145
Cohen, Mark B. (D) - District 202
Cornell, Susan E. (R) - District 152
Corrigan, Sr., Thomas C. (D) - District 140
Costa, Paul (D) - District 34
Crahalla, Jacqueline R. (R) - District 150
Creighton, Thomas C. (R) - District 37
Cruz, Angel (D) - District 180
Curry, Lawrence H. (D) - District 154
Daley, II, Peter J. (D) - District 49
Dally, Craig A. (R) - District 138
DeLuca, Anthony M. (D) - District 32
Denlinger, Gordon (R) - District 99
Dermody, Frank (D) - District 33
DeWeese, H. William (D) - District 50
DiGirolamo, Gene (R) - District 18
Diven, Michael (R) - District 22
Donatucci, Robert C. (D) - District 185
Eachus, Todd A. (D) - District 116
Ellis, Brian L. (R) - District 11
Evans, John R. (R) - District 5
Evans, Dwight (D) - District 203
Fabrizio, Florindo J. (D) - District 2
Fairchild, Russell H. (R) - District 85
Feese, Brett (R) - District 84
Fichter, John W. (R) - District 70
Fleagle, Patrick Elvin (R) - District 90
Flick, Robert J. (R) - District 167
Forcier, Teresa (R) - District 6
Frankel, Dan B. (D) - District 23
Freeman, Robert L. (D) - District 136
Gabig, William I. (R) - District 199
Gannon, Thomas P. (R) - District 161
Geist, Richard Allen (R) - District 79
George, Camille (D) - District 74
Gerber, Michael (D) - District 148
Gergely, Marc J. (D) - District 35
Gillespie, Keith J. (R) - District 47
Gingrich, Mauree A. (R) - District 101
Godshall, Robert W. (R) - District 53
Good, Matthew (R) - District 3
Goodman, Neal P. (D) - District 123
Grell, Glen R. (R) - District 87
Grucela, Richard T. (D) - District 137
Gruitza, Michael C. (D) - District 7
Habay, Jeffrey Earl (R) - District 30
Haluska, Gary (D) - District 73
Hanna, Michael K. (D) - District 76
Harhai, R. Ted (D) - District 58
Harhart, Julie (R) - District 183
Harper, Kate (R) - District 61
Harris, Adam (R) - District 82
Hasay, George
Hennessey, Tim (R) - District 26
Herman, Lynn B. (R) - District 77
Hershey, Arthur D. (R) - District 13
Hess, Dick Lee (R) - District 78
Hickernell, David S. (R) - District 98
Hutchinson, Scott E. (R) - District 64
James, Harold (D) - District 186
Josephs, Babette (D) - District 182
Kauffman, Rob (R) - District 89
Keller, Mark K. (R) - District 86
Keller, William F. (D) - District 184
Kenney, Jr., George T. (R) - District 170
Killion, Tom H. (R) - District 168
Kirkland, Thaddeus (D) - District 159
Kotik, Nick (D) - District 45
LaGrotta, Frank (D) - District 10
Leach, Daylin (D) - District 149
Lederer, Marie A. (D) - District 175
Leh, Dennis E. (R) - District 130
Lescovitz, Victor John (D) - District 46
Levdansky, David K. (D) - District 39
Mackereth, Beverly (R) - District 196
Maher, John A. (R) - District 40
Maitland, Stephen R. (R) - District 91
Major, Sandra J. (R) - District 111
Manderino, Kathy M. (D) - District 194
Mann, Jennifer L. (D) - District 132
Markosek, Joseph F. (D) - District 25
Marsico, Ronald S. (R) - District 105
McCall, Keith R. (D) - District 122
McGeehan, Michael P. (D) - District 173
McGill, Eugene F. (R) - District 151
McIlhattan, Fred (R) - District 63
McIlhinney, Jr., Charles T. (R) - District 143
McNaughton, Mark S. (R) - District 104
Melio, Anthony J. (D) - District 141
Metcalfe, Daryl D. (R) - District 12
Micozzie, Nicholas A. (R) - District 163
Millard, David (R) - District 109
Miller, Ronald E. (R) - District 93
Miller, Sheila (R) - District 129
Mundy, Phyllis (D) - District 120
Mustio, T. Mark (R) - District 44
Myers, John (D) - District 201
Nailor, Jerry L. (R) - District 88
Nickol, Steven R. (R) - District 193
O'Brien, Dennis M. (R) - District 169
O'Neill, Bernard T. (R) - District 29
Oliver, Frank L. (D) - District 195
Pallone, John E. (D) - District 54
Payne, John D. (R) - District 106
Perzel, John Michael (R) - District 172
Petrarca, Joseph A. (D) - District 55
Petri, Scott A. (R) - District 178
Petrone, Thomas C. (D) - District 27
Phillips, Merle H. (R) - District 108
Pickett, Tina (R) - District 110
Pistella, Frank J. (D) - District 21
Preston, Jr. , Joseph (D) - District 24
Pyle, Jeffrey P. (R) - District 60
Quigley, Thomas J. (R) - District 146
Ramaley, Sean M. (D) - District 16
Rapp, Kathy L. (R) - District 65
Raymond, Ron (R) - District 162
Readshaw, Harry A. (D) - District 36
Reed, Dave (R) - District 62
Reichley, Douglas G. (R) - District 134
Rieger, William W. (D) - District 179
Roberts, Lawrence (D) - District 51
Roebuck, Jr., James R. (D) - District 188
Rohrer, Samuel E. (R) - District 128
Rooney, T.J. (D) - District 133
Ross, Chris (R) - District 158
Rubley, Carole A. (R) - District 157
Ruffing, Kenneth W. (D) - District 38
Sainato, Chris (D) - District 9
Samuelson, Steve (D) - District 135
Santoni, Jr., Dante (D) - District 126
Sather, Larry O. (R) - District 81
Saylor, Stanley E. (R) - District 94
Scavello, Mario M. (R) - District 176
Schroder, Curt (R) - District 155
Semmel, Paul W. (R) - District 187
Shaner, James E. (D) - District 52
Shapiro, Josh (D) - District 153
Siptroth, John (D) - District 189
Smith, Samuel H. (R) - District 66
Smith, Bruce (R) - District 92
Solobay, Timothy J. (D) - District 48
Sonney, Curtis G. (R) - District 4
Staback, Edward G. (D) - District 115
Stairs, Jess M. (R) - District 59
Steil, David J. (R) - District 31
Stern, Jerry A. (R) - District 80
Stetler, Stephen H. (D) - District 95
Stevenson, Richard R. (R) - District 8
Stevenson, Thomas L. (R) - District 42
Sturla, P. Michael (D) - District 96
Surra, Dan A. (D) - District 75
Tangretti, Thomas A. (D) - District 57
Taylor, Elinor Z. (R) - District 156
Taylor, John J. (R) - District 177
Thomas, W. Curtis (D) - District 181
Tigue, Thomas M. (D) - District 118
True, Katie (R) - District 41
Turzai, Mike (R) - District 28
Veon, Michael R. (D) - District 14
Vitali, Greg S. (D) - District 166
Walko, Don (D) - District 20
Wansacz, Jim (D) - District 114
Waters, Ronald G. (D) - District 191
Watson, Katharine M. (R) - District 144
Wheatley, Jr., Jake (D) - District 19
Williams, Jewell (D) - District 197
Wilt, Rod E. (R) - District 17
Wojnaroski, Sr., Edward P. (D) - District 71
Wright, Matthew N. (R) - District 142
Yewcic, Thomas F. (D) - District 72
Youngblood, Rosita C. (D) - District 198
Yudichak, John T. (D) - District 119
Zug, Peter J. (R) - District 102
-
GaryN
news:645jq15tqfk2uun1u...@4ax.com:
> <
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 10:29:11 -0700, Rich Travsky
> <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote to sci.anthropology:
> <
>>Ed Conrad wrote:
>>> HARRISBURG, Pa. -- A federal
>>> judge ruled Tuesday that “intelligent
>>> design” cannot be taught as part of
>>> a school’s science class, a decision
>>> dealing a blow to those opposed to
>>> Darwin’s theory of evolution.
<huge snip>
Apparently Bush is a proponent of the "Intelligent Design" theory.
IMO he is a good argument against it:-)
gary
--
"If Americans had longer attention spans, who knows the follies they
could have wrought?"
Jack Womak
naomi
>
> Apparently Bush is a proponent of the "Intelligent Design" theory.
>
> IMO he is a good argument against it:-)
>
> gary
Even God's can have a SOH.
n
Daibhid Ceanaideach
Yes, but it appears to be a malicious one...
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
Hooray, Hooray, it's a wonderful day
For I have found my cow!
-"Where's My Cow?" (original version)
Ed Weatherup
> Also Sprach naomi:
>
>> GaryN wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Apparently Bush is a proponent of the "Intelligent Design"
>>> theory.
>>>
>>> IMO he is a good argument against it:-)
>>>
>>> gary
>>
>> Even God's can have a SOH.
>
> Yes, but it appears to be a malicious one...
"As private parts are we to the gods ..."
Black Adder 2
--
Ed.
Shmoe
"GaryN" <ga...@scaryriders.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97347EBE7FFBFg...@212.23.3.119...
The actual decision handed down by the judge is a brilliant excoriation of
both intelligent design as a scientific theory, and of the people supporting
it in this case...you can read it here
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/images/12/20/kitzmiller.pdf
It is 139 pages, but a fascinating read...
CCA
(snip all)
What exactly does 'factitious' mean?
CCA
Pixel
(I don't have time to read 139 pages, so the judge may have said this
somewhere in there)
Evolution simply requires random chance, plenty of space and basic
materials, and a lot of time to happen in - a perfectly tenable theory.
Intelligent Design falls at the first hurdle - who designed the
Intelligent Designer?
Q.E.D.
Elliott Grasett
<snip>
>
>
> The actual decision handed down by the judge is a brilliant excoriation of
> both intelligent design as a scientific theory, and of the people supporting
> it in this case...you can read it here
> http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/images/12/20/kitzmiller.pdf
>
> It is 139 pages, but a fascinating read...
>
>
It is my sincere hope that the losers appeal.
I WANT this decision to become a precedent!
--
Cheers,
Elliott
Permanent Past President,
The Jock McBile Memorial Society
for the Suppression of Political Rectitude
Elliott Grasett
dictionary.com gives:
1. Produced artificially rather than by a natural process.
2. Lacking authenticity or genuineness; sham: speculators
responsible for the factitious value of some stocks.
Query: does an artificially inseminated woman bear a factitious child?
--
Cheers,
Elliott
"To understand all is to forgive all"
is not always true. There are times when
understanding simply heaps contempt upon
loathing. [adapted from J.L.Austin]
David Jensen
Elliott Grasett <egra...@sympatico.ca> wrote in
<ZNWqf.4485$%N1.6...@news20.bellglobal.com>:
>Shmoe wrote:
><snip>
>>
>>
>> The actual decision handed down by the judge is a brilliant excoriation of
>> both intelligent design as a scientific theory, and of the people supporting
>> it in this case...you can read it here
>> http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/images/12/20/kitzmiller.pdf
>>
>> It is 139 pages, but a fascinating read...
>>
>>
>
>It is my sincere hope that the losers appeal.
>I WANT this decision to become a precedent!
It was such a wonderfully successful slapdown of IDiots that there is
little chance that they will be back until they invent a new story as
cover for their anti-science creationism.
Arthur Hagen
>
> Evolution simply requires random chance, plenty of space and basic
> materials, and a lot of time to happen in - a perfectly tenable
> theory.
>
> Intelligent Design falls at the first hurdle - who designed the
> Intelligent Designer?
>
> Q.E.D.
No, that's no Quod Erat Demonstrandum. Look up what the phrase means
and when it can be used.
And to be fair, you shouldn't expect the creationists to state who
designed the intelligent designer if you don't expect scientists to
explain what preceded the big bang.
Intelligent Design fails because it can't be tested -- it's by
definition faith based. Look at the very phrase "Intelligent Design" --
it presupposes both a designer and that the designer is intelligent, and
doesn't allow alternatives. This requires faith.
"Intelligent Design" is simply an attempt of conservative christians to
impose their faith on everyone, camouflaged as pseudo-science.
Regards,
--
*Art
j.m....@gmx.net
> Shmoe wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>
>>
>> The actual decision handed down by the judge is a brilliant
>> excoriation of
>> both intelligent design as a scientific theory, and of the people
>> supporting
>> it in this case...you can read it here
>> http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/images/12/20/kitzmiller.pdf
>>
>> It is 139 pages, but a fascinating read...
>>
>>
>
> It is my sincere hope that the losers appeal.
> I WANT this decision to become a precedent!
>
In the last election to the school board in Dover, that is.
See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9973228/
I doubt the new board will appeal.
The ID clowns are however still very active in other places.
See for example: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9967813/
AFAIK, the courts will start from scratch.
j.m.
Lesley Weston
egra...@sympatico.ca wrote on 23/12/2005 9:56 AM:
> CCA wrote:
>> Ed Conrad wrote:
>>
>> (snip all)
>>
>> What exactly does 'factitious' mean?
>> CCA
>>
>
> dictionary.com gives:
>
> 1. Produced artificially rather than by a natural process.
> 2. Lacking authenticity or genuineness; sham: speculators
> responsible for the factitious value of some stocks.
>
>
> Query: does an artificially inseminated woman bear a factitious child?
This may not be the best time of year to answer that question.
--
Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits
that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca,
changing spelling and spacing as required.
Pixel
- whether one believes in the Big Bang (or as Terry Pratchett himself
put it "In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded") or in the
Steady State - infinite time in both directions - neither of these
requires the piling up of ever more complex entities - maybe I should
have said "Who designed the Intelligent Designer who designed the
Intelligent Designer who designed the Intelligent Designer who....."
and so on, to really make my point. Evolution theory starts with simple
components which combine to become more complicated by random chance
and natural selection - ID requires a fully-grown super-intelligence to
have appeared out of nowhere - as though the Big Bang did not just
generate a lot of matter, but put it together in a coherent intellect.
How likely is this? This, I think, is about the time that Occam's Razor
should be introduced into the argument.
The Apostate
"Daibhid Ceanaideach" <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9734840C...@130.133.1.4...
> Also Sprach naomi:
>
> > GaryN wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Apparently Bush is a proponent of the "Intelligent Design"
> >> theory.
> >>
> >> IMO he is a good argument against it:-)
> >>
> >> gary
> >
> > Even God's can have a SOH.
>
> Yes, but it appears to be a malicious one...
>
>
(That's nearly relevant. What is the group coming to?)
--
The Apostate
Out on Parole from RL
The Apostate
> news:645jq15tqfk2uun1u...@4ax.com:
>
> > <
> > On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 10:29:11 -0700, Rich Travsky
> > <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote to sci.anthropology:
> > <
> >>Ed Conrad wrote:
>
> >>> HARRISBURG, Pa. -- A federal
> >>> judge ruled Tuesday that "intelligent
> >>> design" cannot be taught as part of
> >>> a school's science class, a decision
> >>> dealing a blow to those opposed to
> >>> Darwin's theory of evolution.
>
> <huge snip>
>
> Apparently Bush is a proponent of the "Intelligent Design" theory.
>
> IMO he is a good argument against it:-)
>
I go with Steve Bell on this. George Bush is God's argument against ID.
More worryingly why is it that my pupils get taught more on Big Bang theory
and Evolution in my RE lessons than they do in science?
Richard Heathfield
> maybe I should
> have said "Who designed the Intelligent Designer who designed the
> Intelligent Designer who designed the Intelligent Designer who....."
Most computers don't accept the existence of mankind. Their entire history
is one of development and improvement, and when you project it backwards
this gives you an extremely primitive beginning - the primordial sandpit,
so to speak. And yet this (very, very logical) stream of thought is
erroneous. Logic isn't enough. You need the right premises, if you're going
to get good conclusions.
> and so on, to really make my point. Evolution theory starts with simple
> components which combine to become more complicated by random chance
> and natural selection - ID requires a fully-grown super-intelligence to
> have appeared out of nowhere -
Yes, I just dealt with that (with astounding ease).
> as though the Big Bang did not just
> generate a lot of matter, but put it together in a coherent intellect.
Or the fully-grown super-intelligence existed before space and time did, and
will continue to exist after space and time come to an end.
> How likely is this? This, I think, is about the time that Occam's Razor
> should be introduced into the argument.
Occam's Razor says we shouldn't needlessly multiply entities. It is
especially foolish to multiply entities by zero. Take God out of the
equation, and you end up with "a lot of nothing, which exploded".
Incidentally, thanks to whoever it was for pinning that quote down to TP for
me. I must admit I thought I'd coined it myself; but given the frequency
with which I read TP, if it's in the Discworld canon I must have seen it
half a dozen times or more without realising.
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Torak
"Bollocks a la Conrad"
Michael J. Schülke
> Most computers don't accept the existence of mankind.
Could you please explain what you mean by that? Computers are (as the
name suggests) high-speed calculating machines. They are -- as of now,
at least -- not aware of anything, neither themselves or others; hence
they cannot be more accepting of anything than, say, a desk lamp.
> Their entire history is one of development and improvement,
Again, the same can be said about desk lamps. What's your point?
> Logic isn't enough. You need the right premises, if you're going
> to get good conclusions.
That's a truism -- garbage in, garbage out.
> > and so on, to really make my point. Evolution theory starts with simple
> > components which combine to become more complicated by random chance
> > and natural selection - ID requires a fully-grown super-intelligence to
> > have appeared out of nowhere -
>
> Yes, I just dealt with that (with astounding ease).
No, you did not. Even if an artificially intelligent being could be
created -- which, I'm sure should be possible within the next few
hundred years or so -- that does not answer the question how the species
that created it game about.
Michael
Eric Jarvis
<dojc84$lup$1...@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>:
>
> Occam's Razor says we shouldn't needlessly multiply entities. It is
> especially foolish to multiply entities by zero. Take God out of the
> equation, and you end up with "a lot of nothing, which exploded".
>
No you don't. Whether or not you have God in the equation you have a
singularity beyond which we cannot observe anything. We don't have
objective proof of there being nothing there just as we don't have
objective proof of God being there. Occam's Razor does not provide
objective proof of anything, it is simply a tool to enable one to
construct theories. There are two reasons why "Intelligent Design" will
NEVER be science. It relies on counting logical constructions as "proof"
of something even though there is no evidence to support the premises, and
it ignores objective evidence that contradicts it. Whether it is the case
or not, it can't be taught as science.
There is nothing to prevent "Intelligent Design" being taught as part of
religious studies, philosophy or theology. It's attempting to force
something which does not apply the scientific method onto the science
curriculum that is doomed to failure.
--
eric - afprelationships in headers
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Eric Jarvis
<3dWdna9qLNl...@brightview.com>:
>
> More worryingly why is it that my pupils get taught more on Big Bang theory
> and Evolution in my RE lessons than they do in science?
>
Because to study either on a scientific basis requires a level of maths
and statistics that they won't have until at least 6th Form. You can't
teach science well by simply stating that a theory is fact. If your pupils
have the mental tools to understand the language used and to handle
logical reasoning then you can teach both subjects as part of an RE course
from quite an early age.
What concerns me most about this thread is how many people don't seem to
understand the basics of how science differs from philosophy.
--
eric - afprelationships in headers
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"appearances count,
but first impressions are deceptive"
Len Oil
> The actual decision handed down by the judge is a brilliant
excoriation of
> both intelligent design as a scientific theory, and of the people
supporting
> it in this case...you can read it here
> http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/images/12/20/kitzmiller.pdf
>
> It is 139 pages, but a fascinating read...
Will read it all late. The first thing I thought on reading the
document, however, is that the name "Kitzmiller" is ripe for a filk.
#Kitzmiller, no!
We will not let it go!#
#LET IT GO!#
#Kitzmiller, no!
We will not let it go!#
#LET IT GO!#
(etc, )
Erm, I really should be wandering off to my parents, for tonight's
festivities.
I think I should make this my last post today, so may I wish you all a
Merry Seasonal-Holiday-Of-Whatever-Variety-You-Are-Comfortable-With and
a Happy
Arbitrary-And-Not-Necessarily-Culturally-Significant-Calendar-Change to
you all...
Vorticity Kappa
--
VK
Flesh-eating Dragon
> Intelligent Design falls at the first hurdle - who designed the
> Intelligent Designer?
This sort of thing - the "who created God?" bullshit, as applied to any
omnipotent-god-worshipping-religion, apparently in an attempt to show
that said religion is untenable - gets on my nerves. It comes across as
an incredibly smug non-argument used by people who are too lazy to come
up with a real one. Religion X may have many flaws, but simply
maintaining that its god has always existed and never had to be created
is not one of them. End of minirant.
Adrian.
Brian Howlett
[snip]
> Occam's Razor
[...]
> is simply a tool to enable one to construct theories.
[snip]
>
Shirley it's simply a tool to allow Occam to shave?
--
Brian Howlett - From and Reply-To both valid, but email to From deleted unseen
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinions are like assholes - everyones got one, but nobody wants to look
at the other guy's. - Hal Hickman
Matthew Seaman
It must have been more than a year ago now, but there was an article
in New Scientist on computer simulation and the nature of reality.
The argument went as follows: the power and capabilities of computers
is progressing in leaps and bounds. One thing we can do with
computers is create simulated 'virtual' worlds, and given the rate of
progress of technology, making such a virtual world that operates in
detail from the micro to the macro according to the rules of physics
as we know them will become possible. This simulated universe has the
potential to contain within it simulated intelligences -- and they can
develop simulated technology including simulated computers where they
can generate their own simulated universes. And so on.
Of course, from the point of view of the simulated intelligence, there
is no clue that their observable universe /is/ simulated. To them
it's reality.
Now, a general scientific principle is that "who, what and where we
are is nothing exceptional" -- the rules of Nature are the same
everywhere, and if there are many terrestrial planets then there must
be many multicellular life forms who look up at the stars and wonder
what happened to the roof? Inference: how can we claim to be living
in the base reality? If the development of computers inevitably leads
to the development of universal simulations, we must ourselves be
living in a simulation running our universe as a computational model.
In fact, even the second or third or five millionth and twenty seventh
layer of simulation are "special" -- we must be living in one layer of
an infinite stack of universal simulations.
You can't disprove that.
But there is an argument why this cannot be so. Imagine, if you will,
a computer large enough to simulate the entire planet Earth and all of
the visible universe around us, down to sufficient levels of detail
that as a simulatee we can construct coherent theories ranging from
cosmology to the physics of elementary particles. Even assuming that
you could represent one bit of information using one sub-atomic
particle, that computer must be bigger than the Earth in order to
contain the data required to do the simulation. What then of the
computer required to simulate the universe that contains the computer
that simulates the Earth?
A logical deduction is that the universe is not simulatable to an
arbitrary level, and hence there can be no infinite progression of
simulations. We must be living in base reality.
Of course, this isn't really apropos for New /Scientist/ -- New
/Metaphysician/ perhaps -- as it's not a Scientific theory. There's
no falsifiable hypothesis here that can be experimentally tested.
Cheers,
Matthew
--
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard
Flat 3
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate
Kent, CT11 9PW
Julian
Daibhid Ceanaideach
> Pixel wrote:
>
>> Intelligent Design falls at the first hurdle - who
>> designed the Intelligent Designer?
>
> This sort of thing - the "who created God?" bullshit, as
> applied to any omnipotent-god-worshipping-religion,
> apparently in an attempt to show that said religion is
> untenable - gets on my nerves.
But as an argument against intelligent design (which, the
IDers assure us, has *nothing* to do with religion), it's
pretty good. Since the IDers' argument is based on the
principle that the creation of intelligence requires
intelligence, it does beg the question.
Richard Heathfield
> Since the IDers' argument is based on the
> principle that the creation of intelligence requires
> intelligence, it does beg the question.
(Assuming that you mean "beg the question" in its logical sense)
No, it doesn't beg the question, provided that the /first/ intelligence
didn't have to be created, which is consistent with such an intelligence
pre-existing the cause-and-effect universe.
Richard Heathfield
anything I said. :-)
(No, that's not top-posting. That's an introduction. My reply to Eric is
below.)
Eric Jarvis said:
> Richard Heathfield inv...@invalid.invalid wrote in
> <dojc84$lup$1...@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>:
>>
>> Occam's Razor says we shouldn't needlessly multiply entities. It is
>> especially foolish to multiply entities by zero. Take God out of the
>> equation, and you end up with "a lot of nothing, which exploded".
>>
>
> No you don't. Whether or not you have God in the equation you have a
> singularity beyond which we cannot observe anything. We don't have
> objective proof of there being nothing there just as we don't have
> objective proof of God being there.
All correct so far, if we take "proof" as meaning "proof that would satisfy
a sufficiently determined and intelligent sceptic", but it doesn't address
what I said.
> Occam's Razor does not provide
> objective proof of anything, it is simply a tool to enable one to
> construct theories.
Also true.
> There are two reasons why "Intelligent Design" will
> NEVER be science.
Well, one's enough. It's not falsifiable (well, not until you die, anyway -
and Death - in Maskerade, I think - rightly pointed out how nervous people
get when dead people get involved in investigations).
> It relies on counting logical constructions as "proof"
So does mathematics.
> of something
> even though there is no evidence to support the premises,
Ah, now you're being picky about what you accept as evidence.
> and it ignores objective evidence that contradicts it.
My own hypothesis (which, to be fair, I have not published here) does not
ignore objective evidence - but it's even pickier than you are about what
constitutes "objective evidence". You can't have it both ways.
> Whether it is the case or not, it can't be taught as science.
Agreed. Again. But neither - objectively speaking - can the Big Bang.
>
> There is nothing to prevent "Intelligent Design" being taught as part of
> religious studies, philosophy or theology. It's attempting to force
> something which does not apply the scientific method onto the science
> curriculum that is doomed to failure.
Sure. So let's apply that to the Big Bang, too, since it unfalsifiably
extrapolates the existence of the universe past the earliest plausible time
at which that universe could have been created.
Richard Heathfield
> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>
>> Most computers don't accept the existence of mankind.
>
> Could you please explain what you mean by that? Computers are (as the
> name suggests) high-speed calculating machines. They are -- as of now,
> at least -- not aware of anything, neither themselves or others; hence
> they cannot be more accepting of anything than, say, a desk lamp.
Ah, the "computers are just machines" heresy. May Hex forgive you.
> Even if an artificially intelligent being could be
> created -- which, I'm sure should be possible within the next few
> hundred years or so -- that does not answer the question how the species
> that created it game about.
Certainly true, but if we don't tell these artificially intelligent beings
we exist, would they deduce our existence for themselves? Or if we were to
tell only a few of them that we exist, would the rest of them believe this
information when it is conveyed to them?
Daibhid Ceanaideach
> Daibhid Ceanaideach said:
>
>> Since the IDers' argument is based on the
>> principle that the creation of intelligence requires
>> intelligence, it does beg the question.
>
> (Assuming that you mean "beg the question" in its logical
> sense)
>
> No, it doesn't beg the question, provided that the /first/
> intelligence didn't have to be created, which is consistent
> with such an intelligence pre-existing the cause-and-effect
> universe.
I did, and you're right.
Lesley Weston
news-s...@brianhowlett.me.uk wrote on 24/12/2005 6:50 AM:
> On 24 Dec, Eric Jarvis wrote:
>
> [snip]
>> Occam's Razor
> [...]
>> is simply a tool to enable one to construct theories.
> [snip]
>>
> Shirley it's simply a tool to allow Occam to shave?
I could make a few cutting remarks, but I'll just say: Nice one!
Eric Jarvis
> Daibhid Ceanaideach said:
>
> > Since the IDers' argument is based on the
> > principle that the creation of intelligence requires
> > intelligence, it does beg the question.
>
> (Assuming that you mean "beg the question" in its logical sense)
>
> No, it doesn't beg the question, provided that the /first/ intelligence
> didn't have to be created, which is consistent with such an intelligence
> pre-existing the cause-and-effect universe.
>
Now explain why a universe requires a creator but a creator doesn't.
What's your reason why there can't be a "universe seed" pre-existing the
cause-and-effect universe if there can be a creator existing then?
Not that it matters, even if you remove your logical inconsistencies it
still won't be science unless you can compare it with objective
experimental evidence.
--
eric - afprelationships in headers
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
Eric Jarvis
> This is an astounding rebuttal from Eric, since it doesn't actually rebut
> anything I said. :-)
>
> (No, that's not top-posting. That's an introduction. My reply to Eric is
> below.)
>
> Eric Jarvis said:
>
> > Richard Heathfield inv...@invalid.invalid wrote in
> > <dojc84$lup$1...@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>:
> >>
> >> Occam's Razor says we shouldn't needlessly multiply entities. It is
> >> especially foolish to multiply entities by zero. Take God out of the
> >> equation, and you end up with "a lot of nothing, which exploded".
> >
> > No you don't. Whether or not you have God in the equation you have a
> > singularity beyond which we cannot observe anything. We don't have
> > objective proof of there being nothing there just as we don't have
> > objective proof of God being there.
>
> All correct so far, if we take "proof" as meaning "proof that would satisfy
> a sufficiently determined and intelligent sceptic", but it doesn't address
> what I said.
>
Yes it does. It points directly to the reason why one of your premises is
wrong. You do not understand the physics of the Big Bang Theory. You are
arguing as if a comic summary of the theory is the entire theory.
> > Occam's Razor does not provide
> > objective proof of anything, it is simply a tool to enable one to
> > construct theories.
>
> Also true.
>
> > There are two reasons why "Intelligent Design" will
> > NEVER be science.
>
> Well, one's enough. It's not falsifiable (well, not until you die, anyway -
> and Death - in Maskerade, I think - rightly pointed out how nervous people
> get when dead people get involved in investigations).
>
I try to avoid the "it's not falsifiable" argument because I'm not
actually convinced that just because it's not falsifiable now that it will
always remain so.
> > It relies on counting logical constructions as "proof"
>
> So does mathematics.
>
Mathematics starts by defining assumptions and makes no claim to precisely
model real things unless those assumptions are objectively verified. Puare
mathematics makes no claim to represent real things or events, to do so
one enters a different branch of mathematics where logical constructions
alone do not count as proof.
> > of something
> > even though there is no evidence to support the premises,
>
> Ah, now you're being picky about what you accept as evidence.
>
Not at all. I merely require it to be something more than assertion.
> > and it ignores objective evidence that contradicts it.
>
> My own hypothesis (which, to be fair, I have not published here) does not
> ignore objective evidence - but it's even pickier than you are about what
> constitutes "objective evidence". You can't have it both ways.
>
Unless you publish it here then of course I can. Your hypothesis has no
relevance to the discussion until it is available to discuss.
> > Whether it is the case or not, it can't be taught as science.
>
> Agreed. Again. But neither - objectively speaking - can the Big Bang.
>
Yes it can. It can't be taught as something fully modelled and
conclusively proven, but no good science teacher would do so. However it
can be taught as an evolving an interesting theory that has been
extensively compared to objective evidence and which is both the current
consensus and a source of a lot of fascinating new research. You need to
read up on what the Big Bang Theory actually is and how it evolved from a
wild idea to explain an anomaly into an accepted theory that has sparked
off an amazing array of new ways of understanding the fundamental nature
of the universe,
> >
> > There is nothing to prevent "Intelligent Design" being taught as part of
> > religious studies, philosophy or theology. It's attempting to force
> > something which does not apply the scientific method onto the science
> > curriculum that is doomed to failure.
>
> Sure. So let's apply that to the Big Bang, too, since it unfalsifiably
> extrapolates the existence of the universe past the earliest plausible time
> at which that universe could have been created.
>
No it doesn't. It stops at the point and states that anything beyond the
singularity cannot be verified by any existing methods or evidence.
Eric Jarvis
> Also Sprach Richard Heathfield:
>
> > Daibhid Ceanaideach said:
> >
> >> Since the IDers' argument is based on the
> >> principle that the creation of intelligence requires
> >> intelligence, it does beg the question.
> >
> > (Assuming that you mean "beg the question" in its logical
> > sense)
> >
> > No, it doesn't beg the question, provided that the /first/
> > intelligence didn't have to be created, which is consistent
> > with such an intelligence pre-existing the cause-and-effect
> > universe.
>
> I did, and you're right.
>
He's totally wrong. Because there is no reason why "the first intelligence
did not have to be created" and "the singularity at the start of the
universe does not have to be created".
They are both assertions which have no objective evidence backing them up.
You can choose to believe or disbelieve either but you can't claim one as
true and then claim the other cannot be.
Torak
> "Shmoe" <packe...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>The actual decision handed down by the judge is a brilliant
> excoriation of
>>both intelligent design as a scientific theory, and of the people
> supporting
>>it in this case...you can read it here
>> http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/images/12/20/kitzmiller.pdf
>>
>>It is 139 pages, but a fascinating read...
>
> Will read it all late. The first thing I thought on reading the
> document, however, is that the name "Kitzmiller" is ripe for a filk.
>
> #Kitzmiller, no!
> We will not let it go!#
> #LET IT GO!#
> #Kitzmiller, no!
> We will not let it go!#
> #LET IT GO!#
>
> (etc, )
>
> Erm, I really should be wandering off to my parents, for tonight's
> festivities.
Sure you haven't already been at the "festivities"? :-p
(Galileo, Galileo, Kitzmiller let me go!)
Daibhid Ceanaideach
Sure, but *I* was saying that saying "known intelligence
needed to be created" automatically implied "first
intelligence needed to be created"; the same fallacy, the
other way round.
Richard Heathfield
> Daibhid Ceanaideach daibhidc...@aol.com wrote in
> <Xns9736B705...@130.133.1.4>:
>> Also Sprach Richard Heathfield:
>>
>> > Daibhid Ceanaideach said:
>> >
>> >> Since the IDers' argument is based on the
>> >> principle that the creation of intelligence requires
>> >> intelligence, it does beg the question.
>> >
>> > (Assuming that you mean "beg the question" in its logical
>> > sense)
>> >
>> > No, it doesn't beg the question, provided that the /first/
>> > intelligence didn't have to be created, which is consistent
>> > with such an intelligence pre-existing the cause-and-effect
>> > universe.
>>
>> I did, and you're right.
>>
>
> He's totally wrong.
No. Daihbid was claiming that the argument begged the question. That is, it
was assuming the very thing it was trying to prove. I showed that it does
not have this structure, and Daihbid realised I was right. (So will anyone
familiar with logic.)
I suggest you re-read what I wrote, this time taking off your bias-tinted
spectacles.
> Because there is no reason why "the first intelligence
> did not have to be created"
That is irrelevant to the point I was making, which was a technical point
about deductive logic and had nothing to say one way or the other about the
subject being reasoned about.
Richard Heathfield
> Now explain why a universe requires a creator but a creator doesn't.
Forgive me, but that's a very silly suggestion. It is possible for us to
imagine a universe that does not require a creator. It is possible for us
to imagine a universe that does require a creator. We have no conclusive
evidence for one or the other. Therefore, whichever position you take is a
faith position.
> What's your reason why there can't be a "universe seed" pre-existing the
> cause-and-effect universe if there can be a creator existing then?
It's a silly question - again. If a universe-creator exists, then that's
your "universe seed" right there, surely?
>
> Not that it matters, even if you remove your logical inconsistencies
How ironic, given that you didn't understand the point I was making to
Daihbid about deductive logic (which he understood and accepted).
> it
> still won't be science unless you can compare it with objective
> experimental evidence.
Neither is your position. All creation theories ("scientific" or otherwise)
are faith positions.
Richard Heathfield
> You do not understand the physics of the Big Bang Theory.
Really? Well, let's assume I don't. Please explain them to me. When you make
a mistake, I'll point it out if I can, and then we'll have proved nicely
that you don't understand the physics of the Big Bang Theory either.
> You are arguing as if a comic summary of the theory is the entire theory.
Prove me wrong. Prove the Big Bang Theory.
> I try to avoid the "it's not falsifiable" argument because I'm not
> actually convinced that just because it's not falsifiable now that it will
> always remain so.
Indeed, it may well become verifiable some little time after Death has done
his scythe thing.
>> > It relies on counting logical constructions as "proof"
>>
>> So does mathematics.
>>
>
> Mathematics starts by defining assumptions and makes no claim to precisely
> model real things unless those assumptions are objectively verified.
Feel free to try to verify /anything/ objectively, but I assure you it
simply can't be done. Mathematicians /can't/ verify their axioms. They have
to rely on the "well, it's obvious, isn't it?" technique.
>> > of something
>> > even though there is no evidence to support the premises,
>>
>> Ah, now you're being picky about what you accept as evidence.
>
> Not at all. I merely require it to be something more than assertion.
Okay, let's see how far you get with the Big Bang proof.
>> > and it ignores objective evidence that contradicts it.
>>
>> Your hypothesis has no
> relevance to the discussion until it is available to discuss.
Fair enough. BTW I'm not trying to hide it, but I ought to set it down
properly rather than do a quick, easily-misunderstood summary in a Usenet
article.
>> > Whether it is the case or not, it can't be taught as science.
>>
>> Agreed. Again. But neither - objectively speaking - can the Big Bang.
>>
>
> Yes it can. It can't be taught as something fully modelled and
> conclusively proven,
Oh, you can't prove the Big Bang after all? Well then, you're back to your
faith position. QED. ;-)
> but no good science teacher would do so.
Indeed. A good science teacher (and the Librarian would make an excellent
science teacher) would make it perfectly clear that we should trust the
evidence of our sense experience, and seek to understand apparent
inconsistencies between that sense experience and our subjective model of
the universe. It may be that our sense experience is misguided (for
example, the pencil in the glass of water isn't really bent) - but it may
be that our subjective model of the universe is incorrect and needs
adjusting. To dismiss sense experience as being irrelevant, unverifiable,
etc etc, is to dismiss science itself, since all of science, ultimately, is
based on sense experience.
> However it
> can be taught as an evolving an interesting theory that has been
> extensively compared to objective evidence and which is both the current
> consensus and a source of a lot of fascinating new research. You need to
> read up on what the Big Bang Theory actually is and how it evolved from a
> wild idea to explain an anomaly into an accepted theory that has sparked
> off an amazing array of new ways of understanding the fundamental nature
> of the universe,
Fine. Prove it.
>
>> >
>> > There is nothing to prevent "Intelligent Design" being taught as part
>> > of religious studies, philosophy or theology. It's attempting to force
>> > something which does not apply the scientific method onto the science
>> > curriculum that is doomed to failure.
>>
>> Sure. So let's apply that to the Big Bang, too, since it unfalsifiably
>> extrapolates the existence of the universe past the earliest plausible
>> time at which that universe could have been created.
>>
>
> No it doesn't.
Don't just assert that it doesn't. Prove that it doesn't.
> It stops at the point
No, it goes way beyond. I think you need thousands of millions of years,
don't you? Well, that's six orders of magnitude out. Oopsie.
> and states that anything beyond the
> singularity cannot be verified by any existing methods or evidence.
If you have a question to which you don't know the answer, it's always worth
reading the manufacturer's documentation.
E.S.
Richard Heathfield wrote:
> Eric Jarvis said:
>
> > Now explain why a universe requires a creator but a creator doesn't.
>
> Forgive me, but that's a very silly suggestion. It is possible for us to
> imagine a universe that does not require a creator. It is possible for us
> to imagine a universe that does require a creator. We have no conclusive
> evidence for one or the other. Therefore, whichever position you take is a
> faith position.
Occam's razor still applies. Why a universe that requires a creator and
a creator that doesn't rather than simply a universe that doesn't
require a creator?
> > What's your reason why there can't be a "universe seed" pre-existing the
> > cause-and-effect universe if there can be a creator existing then?
>
> It's a silly question - again. If a universe-creator exists, then that's
> your "universe seed" right there, surely?
ID assumes that the "creator" is intelligent, which to many is an
unnecessary assumption.
> > Not that it matters, even if you remove your logical inconsistencies
>
> How ironic, given that you didn't understand the point I was making to
> Daihbid about deductive logic (which he understood and accepted).
>
> > it
> > still won't be science unless you can compare it with objective
> > experimental evidence.
>
> Neither is your position. All creation theories ("scientific" or otherwise)
> are faith positions.
If we're going to start arguing metaphysics and theory of knowledge,
then everything is faith-based.
E.S.
Richard Heathfield wrote:
> Eric Jarvis said:
>
> > You do not understand the physics of the Big Bang Theory.
>
> Really? Well, let's assume I don't. Please explain them to me. When you make
> a mistake, I'll point it out if I can, and then we'll have proved nicely
> that you don't understand the physics of the Big Bang Theory either.
>
> > You are arguing as if a comic summary of the theory is the entire theory.
>
> Prove me wrong. Prove the Big Bang Theory.
He wasn't arguing that the Big Bang Theory is absolutely correct, or
that it could be proved. He was arguing you didn't completely
understand the theory, whether it is correct or not.
> > I try to avoid the "it's not falsifiable" argument because I'm not
> > actually convinced that just because it's not falsifiable now that it will
> > always remain so.
>
> Indeed, it may well become verifiable some little time after Death has done
> his scythe thing.
Or tomorrow.
> >> > Whether it is the case or not, it can't be taught as science.
> >>
> >> Agreed. Again. But neither - objectively speaking - can the Big Bang.
> >>
> >
> > Yes it can. It can't be taught as something fully modelled and
> > conclusively proven,
>
> Oh, you can't prove the Big Bang after all? Well then, you're back to your
> faith position. QED. ;-)
Weren't you just arguing that nothing can be proved?
> > but no good science teacher would do so.
>
> Indeed. A good science teacher (and the Librarian would make an excellent
> science teacher) would make it perfectly clear that we should trust the
> evidence of our sense experience, and seek to understand apparent
> inconsistencies between that sense experience and our subjective model of
> the universe. It may be that our sense experience is misguided (for
> example, the pencil in the glass of water isn't really bent) - but it may
> be that our subjective model of the universe is incorrect and needs
> adjusting. To dismiss sense experience as being irrelevant, unverifiable,
> etc etc, is to dismiss science itself, since all of science, ultimately, is
> based on sense experience.
Yes. But how does the Big Bang theory dismiss sense experience?
>
> > However it
> > can be taught as an evolving an interesting theory that has been
> > extensively compared to objective evidence and which is both the current
> > consensus and a source of a lot of fascinating new research. You need to
> > read up on what the Big Bang Theory actually is and how it evolved from a
> > wild idea to explain an anomaly into an accepted theory that has sparked
> > off an amazing array of new ways of understanding the fundamental nature
> > of the universe,
>
> Fine. Prove it.
Prove he should prove it... ;)
Alec Cawley
inv...@invalid.invalid says...
> Neither is your position. All creation theories ("scientific" or otherwise)
> are faith positions.
But the position "that for which there is no apparent evidence probably
does not exist" is a much less assertive position than "that for which
there is no apparent evidence exists".
--
@lec ©awley
http://www.livejournal.com/~randombler
Richard Heathfield
> Occam's razor still applies. Why a universe that requires a creator and
> a creator that doesn't rather than simply a universe that doesn't
> require a creator?
This is Usenet. Usenet doesn't require you to exist in order for Usenet
itself to exist. Therefore, by Occam's Razor, you don't. Except, of course,
that you do. So for me to assume you to exist is in keeping with reality.
> ID assumes that the "creator" is intelligent, which to many is an
> unnecessary assumption.
I assume you are intelligent. That, too, is an unnecessary assumption.
Nevertheless, it is (presumably) in keeping with reality.
>> > it
>> > still won't be science unless you can compare it with objective
>> > experimental evidence.
>>
>> Neither is your position. All creation theories ("scientific" or
>> otherwise) are faith positions.
>
> If we're going to start arguing metaphysics and theory of knowledge,
> then everything is faith-based.
We /are/ arguing metaphysics, and yes, everything is faith-based, even the
Big Bang Theory.
Richard Heathfield
> He wasn't arguing that the Big Bang Theory is absolutely correct, or
> that it could be proved.
Just as well, since it isn't and can't.
> He was arguing you didn't completely
> understand the theory, whether it is correct or not.
We will see whether or not I completely understand the theory when he
explains it to me. We will also see whether /he/ completely understands the
theory.
>> Oh, you can't prove the Big Bang after all? Well then, you're back to
>> your faith position. QED. ;-)
>
> Weren't you just arguing that nothing can be proved?
Yes. You're catching on quick, I see. He *can't* prove the Big Bang theory,
and therefore it's a faith position.
>> To dismiss sense experience as being irrelevant, unverifiable,
>> etc etc, is to dismiss science itself, since all of science, ultimately,
>> is based on sense experience.
>
> Yes.
Right - so we're agreed. And...
> But how does the Big Bang theory dismiss sense experience?
Did I say it does? No, I don't think so. But now that we agree that sense
experience *matters*, we can introduce into evidence the sense experience
of Christians - people who /know/ God to be more than words in a book,
because they are in frequent communication with Him. And once we introduce
that evidence, we can deduce that this God with whom they are in
communication does in fact exist. And we can discover the Bible - written
by men but inspired by God - which gives us another take on the creation of
the universe.
>> > You need to read up on what the Big Bang Theory actually is and how it
>> > evolved from a wild idea to explain an anomaly into an accepted theory
>> > that has sparked off an amazing array of new ways of understanding the
>> > fundamental nature of the universe,
>>
>> Fine. Prove it.
>
> Prove he should prove it... ;)
Well, of course I don't need to try. The absence of a proof of the Big Bang
Theory is sufficient to demonstrate that it is a faith position. If he
wants to reason that the Big Bang Theory is /true/, then let him try to
show that it is true. If he realises the Big Bang Theory cannot be shown to
be true but is simply a faith position, he won't bother.
Richard Heathfield
> In article <doo413$phm$1...@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
> inv...@invalid.invalid says...
>
>
>> Neither is your position. All creation theories ("scientific" or
>> otherwise) are faith positions.
>
> But the position "that for which there is no apparent evidence probably
> does not exist" is a much less assertive position than "that for which
> there is no apparent evidence exists".
Good! Someone with their head screwed on!
But of course evidence is subjective. I have lots of evidence for, say, the
existence of my wife, whereas you have practically none. If I wish to
convince /myself/ that my wife exists, I can do so without difficulty. Were
I to try to convince /you/, however, or should you to wish to convince
yourself, it would be considerably more difficult. You might even conclude
that my wife does not exist. This would not be true, but it would be a
reasonable deduction nonetheless.
I have lots of evidence for the existence of God, evidence that is based on
my own sense experience. And therefore I have what, for me, are reasonable
grounds for believing the Biblical account of God's creation. I don't
expect you to be convinced by that evidence, of course, because there's
simply no way I can communicate it to you in a way that you will trust (if
you are a sufficiently determined sceptic, which I presume to be the case).
But the evidence is there, from my perspective, even if it isn't there from
yours.
Eric Jarvis
> Eric Jarvis said:
>
> > You do not understand the physics of the Big Bang Theory.
>
> Really? Well, let's assume I don't. Please explain them to me. When you make
> a mistake, I'll point it out if I can, and then we'll have proved nicely
> that you don't understand the physics of the Big Bang Theory either.
>
You clearly don't. You have been arguing on the basis that a humourous
comment on Bog Bng Theory was actually part of the theory. There's plenty
of good material on the web, go and read some and come back when you've
covered at least the fundamentals.
I don't understand more than the very basic ideas behind the Big Bang
Theory. Cosmology was never really my bag, I always preferred the tiny
stuff. Eventualy there may be a way into the Big Bang via String Theory
and then I may have a chance of getting to grips with some of the detail.
However I know what the theory covers and you clearly don't.
Here's a NASA web page covering some of the basics including precisely the
point I'm trying to get across to you.
<http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb2.html>
It's a very simple point that you seem to completely fail to grasp. The
Big Bang Theory shows that we can't directly get any evidence of what
existed before the singularity. It does not state that nothing existed
before the Big Bang. It merely states that our universe of space and time
did not exist before that point. Ergo your entire argument against it is
based on a false premise.
As it happens the Big Bang theory is perfectly compatible with a belief in
a single omnipotent and eternal creator, just as is the theory of
evolution. They are only incompatible with a literal word for word belief
in the Bible. Since the Bible is also incompatible with a literal word for
word belief in the Bible I don't see that there should be any problem with
Christians accepting both theories.
The only way to cope with the inconsistencies and contradictions in the
Bible is to rely on the deeper meanings when the surface meanings
contradict each other. The same approach works when combining it with
science. Of course first you have to grasp the actual science rather than
relying on misunderstanding commentaries upon it. That's why I believe
that Christians should study the sciences at least on a general interest
level.
Gid Holyoake
Heathfield generously decided to share with us..
Snippetry..
> I have lots of evidence for the existence of God, evidence that is based on
> my own sense experience.
And we have loads of credible evidence that you're a pillock..
Next..
Gid
Alec Cawley
inv...@invalid.invalid says...
> Alec Cawley said:
>
> > In article <doo413$phm$1...@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
> > inv...@invalid.invalid says...
> >
> >
> >> Neither is your position. All creation theories ("scientific" or
> >> otherwise) are faith positions.
> >
> > But the position "that for which there is no apparent evidence probably
> > does not exist" is a much less assertive position than "that for which
> > there is no apparent evidence exists".
>
> Good! Someone with their head screwed on!
>
> But of course evidence is subjective. I have lots of evidence for, say, the
> existence of my wife, whereas you have practically none. If I wish to
> convince /myself/ that my wife exists, I can do so without difficulty. Were
> I to try to convince /you/, however, or should you to wish to convince
> yourself, it would be considerably more difficult. You might even conclude
> that my wife does not exist. This would not be true, but it would be a
> reasonable deduction nonetheless.
Without having looked for the existence of your wife, I would not take a
position one way or the other. Unless you were expecting me to do
somthing about it, I would be quite happy to accept your assertion that
your wife exists. If you were expecting me to do something about your
wife (e.g. give you money for her life-saving surgery) I would expect
some proof of her existence (and the need for the surgery) before I
handed over the dosh.
If God does not require me to do anything, I am quite happily to leave
his/her/its/their existence as open a question as the existence of your
wife or whether your front door is painted pink. But those who claim to
know of the existence of God(s) insist that I shoud do this, that, or
the other because God wants it or to benefit my chances in the afterlife
or (in some cases) in this life. Those pressures require me to
investigate their claims and form an opinion, in the way that I do not
need to about yor wife or front door. Having investigated as much as I
wish to, I would say that (a) I positively disbelieve in all the taught
religions of which I am aware in direct proportion to my knowledge of
them. and (b) I negatively disbelieve in the existence of any god at
all, because, in the total absence of evidence, the belief in no god is
simpler than the belief in a God whose unknowably attributed have to be
guessed without evidence. You could say that it is theists who have
forced me into atheism/active agnosticism (people disagree where my
point falls on the scale) instead of passive agnosticism/apathy.
> I have lots of evidence for the existence of God, evidence that is based on
> my own sense experience. And therefore I have what, for me, are reasonable
> grounds for believing the Biblical account of God's creation. I don't
> expect you to be convinced by that evidence, of course, because there's
> simply no way I can communicate it to you in a way that you will trust (if
> you are a sufficiently determined sceptic, which I presume to be the case).
> But the evidence is there, from my perspective, even if it isn't there from
> yours.
So what you are saying is that that we are wasting our time arguing. If
the only evidence for God is purely subjective, then we can never get
any further than "Exists!", "Doesn't", "Does Too!", "Never!". There is
no way that logical argument - the only sort I wish to have on Usenet -
can ever convince either side of the other's point.
Arthur Hagen
> E.S. said:
>
>> ID assumes that the "creator" is intelligent, which to many is an
>> unnecessary assumption.
>
> I assume you are intelligent. That, too, is an unnecessary assumption.
> Nevertheless, it is (presumably) in keeping with reality.
No, that's not analoguous at all. I can think of many ways that the
universe came to be /without/ an intelligent designer, but I can't think
of a single way for E.S.' post to be made without an intelligent
creature posting it.
The other fallacy in the very "Intelligent Design" phrase is "Design" --
is there /any/ evidence that if there is a "creator", /design/ is more
likely than /accident/ or /catalyst/ ? Without admitting that all your
beliefs about the universe are based on a christian belief?
>>> Neither is your position. All creation theories ("scientific" or
>>> otherwise) are faith positions.
Look up what a theory is. ID does not qualify as a theory. That makes
a big difference.
> We /are/ arguing metaphysics, and yes, everything is faith-based,
> even the Big Bang Theory.
Faith != Belief. Faith is belief in the *absence* of evidence.
Which you are entitled to. keep. to. yourself.
--
*Art
Richard Bos
Richard Heathfield
> Richard Heathfield inv...@invalid.invalid wrote in
> <doo5ie$t0h$1...@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>:
>> Eric Jarvis said:
>>
>> > You do not understand the physics of the Big Bang Theory.
>>
>> Really? Well, let's assume I don't. Please explain them to me. When you
>> make a mistake, I'll point it out if I can, and then we'll have proved
>> nicely that you don't understand the physics of the Big Bang Theory
>> either.
>>
>
> You clearly don't.
So explain it to me.
> You have been arguing on the basis that a humourous
> comment on Bog Bng Theory was actually part of the theory.
No, I haven't; that was just a cute short-cut for a serious point. And where
did Bog Bng Theory come from?
> There's plenty
> of good material on the web, go and read some and come back when you've
> covered at least the fundamentals.
So you don't know either. Fine. All you had to do was say so.
> I don't understand more than the very basic ideas behind the Big Bang
> Theory.
Then you don't know what you're talking about, any more than I do.
> Cosmology was never really my bag, I always preferred the tiny
> stuff. Eventualy there may be a way into the Big Bang via String Theory
> and then I may have a chance of getting to grips with some of the detail.
> However I know what the theory covers and you clearly don't.
Gosh. Perhaps you'd better explain what it is that I don't know.
>
> Here's a NASA web page covering some of the basics including precisely the
> point I'm trying to get across to you.
I want /you/ to prove it to me. If you can't, that's fine. After all, I
already knew that you couldn't.
> It's a very simple point that you seem to completely fail to grasp. The
> Big Bang Theory shows that we can't directly get any evidence of what
> existed before the singularity. It does not state that nothing existed
> before the Big Bang. It merely states that our universe of space and time
> did not exist before that point. Ergo your entire argument against it is
> based on a false premise.
Not at all, because I'm not arguing against the Big Bang. I am merely
arguing that it's a faith position which can't be proved.
> As it happens the Big Bang theory is perfectly compatible with a belief in
> a single omnipotent and eternal creator, just as is the theory of
> evolution.
Yes, I know. I used to believe all that Big Bang stuff. More fool me.
> They are only incompatible with a literal word for word belief
> in the Bible. Since the Bible is also incompatible with a literal word for
> word belief in the Bible I don't see that there should be any problem with
> Christians accepting both theories.
The Bible was inspired by God but written by men. The message is basically
sound but we have to make allowance for imperfections introduced by the men
who wrote it - and I do. So I don't expect a 100% self-consistent text, any
more than I expect mathematics to be 100% self-consistent. :-)
> The only way to cope with the inconsistencies and contradictions in the
> Bible is to rely on the deeper meanings when the surface meanings
> contradict each other. The same approach works when combining it with
> science. Of course first you have to grasp the actual science rather than
> relying on misunderstanding commentaries upon it.
What is it with you? What makes you think you have my level of scientific
knowledge taped down? You're the same guy who mistakenly thought I was
incorrect in the exchange with Daihbid, right? So am I right in deducing
that you don't grasp the fundamentals of deductive logic? Or would that be
an overstatement based on my insufficient knowledge? How good are you at
applying analogies? We'll find out, I guess.
> That's why I believe
> that Christians should study the sciences at least on a general interest
> level.
I certainly agree that Christians should study the sciences. So should
everybody. And I also think that non-Christians should study logic a bit
more. They seem to be extremely bad at it.
Richard Heathfield
Nice. Why don't you just say something rude about my mother?
(No, I don't suppose you saw that movie. Forget it.)
Richard Heathfield
> But those who claim to
> know of the existence of God(s) insist that I shoud do this, that, or
> the other because God wants it or to benefit my chances in the afterlife
> or (in some cases) in this life.
Silly of them. Christians have a duty to ensure that your attention has been
drawn to the facts of the Gospel message. Once you've got the ball, it's up
to you what you do with it. If you drop it in the bin, that's your loss,
not mine (except insofar as no man is an island). If you pick it up and run
with it, that's wonderful. But it's your choice, not mine.
<big ol' snip>
> So what you are saying is that that we are wasting our time arguing.
Yes.
> If the only evidence for God is purely subjective,
Well, there's an entire universe, and a bunch of documentation relating to a
crucifixion and resurrection, but a lot of people don't seem to think they
count, for some reason.
> then we can never get
> any further than "Exists!", "Doesn't", "Does Too!", "Never!". There is
> no way that logical argument - the only sort I wish to have on Usenet -
> can ever convince either side of the other's point.
Precisely so, yes. It's about as useful a way to spend your time as mowing
Unseen University's main front lawn.
Richard Heathfield
> Richard Heathfield <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> E.S. said:
>>
>>> ID assumes that the "creator" is intelligent, which to many is an
>>> unnecessary assumption.
>>
>> I assume you are intelligent. That, too, is an unnecessary assumption.
>> Nevertheless, it is (presumably) in keeping with reality.
>
> No, that's not analoguous at all. I can think of many ways that the
> universe came to be /without/ an intelligent designer, but I can't think
> of a single way for E.S.' post to be made without an intelligent
> creature posting it.
Maybe you can't, but I can. Take one open source news client. Add one open
source emacs-style "Doctor". Get a decent programmer to combine the two in
the obvious way, and you will probably fool a few people into thinking it's
an intelligent poster, without it actually being one.
> The other fallacy in the very "Intelligent Design" phrase is "Design" --
> is there /any/ evidence that if there is a "creator", /design/ is more
> likely than /accident/ or /catalyst/ ? Without admitting that all your
> beliefs about the universe are based on a christian belief?
Why wouldn't I want to admit that?
>>>> Neither is your position. All creation theories ("scientific" or
>>>> otherwise) are faith positions.
>
> Look up what a theory is. ID does not qualify as a theory. That makes
> a big difference.
The characteristics of ID which disqualify it from being a theory in the
scientific sense of the word apply pretty much to BB too.
>
>> We /are/ arguing metaphysics, and yes, everything is faith-based,
>> even the Big Bang Theory.
>
> Faith != Belief. Faith is belief in the *absence* of evidence.
Quibbling over words. I'm using the word "faith" as a shortcut for "belief
in the absence of *proof*". We generally have faith in something only if
there is a considerable body of evidence to convince us that it is true.
E.S.
Arthur Hagen wrote:
> Richard Heathfield <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > E.S. said:
> >
> >> ID assumes that the "creator" is intelligent, which to many is an
> >> unnecessary assumption.
> >
> > I assume you are intelligent. That, too, is an unnecessary assumption.
> > Nevertheless, it is (presumably) in keeping with reality.
>
> No, that's not analoguous at all. I can think of many ways that the
> universe came to be /without/ an intelligent designer, but I can't think
> of a single way for E.S.' post to be made without an intelligent
> creature posting it.
Thank you...
Richard Bos
> Evolution simply requires random chance, plenty of space and basic
> materials, and a lot of time to happen in - a perfectly tenable theory.
>
> Intelligent Design falls at the first hurdle - who designed the
> Intelligent Designer?
Evolution falls at exactly the same hurdle as intelligent design: where
did the universe come from in the first place? Assuming random quantum
fluctuations when there wasn't any quantum to fluctuate before the
universe existed, or even any "before" for it to quantum-fluctuate _in_,
is just as silly as assuming a creator. Infinitely recursive big bangs-
and-crushes is no less magical.
IMAO, the problem with intelligent-designers and unintelligent-atheists
alike is that they love to claim that their opposing party is talking
nonsense, but rarely if ever stop to consider how foolish they
themselves sound. Not that I pretend to have a non-foolish theory about
the origin of the universe, mind you. When you consider what the current
situation is like, I would say that any reasonable theory that does
manage to explain it must be weird.
Frankly, intelligent design is an obviously disingenuous attempt at
pretending that a fundamentalist application of the Bible to biology is
science, and it isn't working, but when I see the equally dishonest kind
of opposition it gets, I start to wonder whether there aren't some
psychological hang-ups on the other side, as well.
> Q.E.D.
Noli scribere Latinam qui nescit.
Richard
E.S.
Richard Heathfield wrote:
> Alec Cawley said:
> > If the only evidence for God is purely subjective,
>
> Well, there's an entire universe, and a bunch of documentation relating to a
> crucifixion and resurrection, but a lot of people don't seem to think they
> count, for some reason.
I could use the entire universe and a bunch of documentation as
"evidence" of the existence of, say, Anansi.
They don't count, because a) the documentation can be explained as
fiction and b) the universe, as has been argued many times, here and
elsewhere, does not need God as an explanation of its existence.
E.S.
Richard Heathfield wrote:
> Arthur Hagen said:
>
> > Richard Heathfield <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> E.S. said:
> >>
> >>> ID assumes that the "creator" is intelligent, which to many is an
> >>> unnecessary assumption.
> >>
> >> I assume you are intelligent. That, too, is an unnecessary assumption.
> >> Nevertheless, it is (presumably) in keeping with reality.
> >
> > No, that's not analoguous at all. I can think of many ways that the
> > universe came to be /without/ an intelligent designer, but I can't think
> > of a single way for E.S.' post to be made without an intelligent
> > creature posting it.
>
> Maybe you can't, but I can. Take one open source news client. Add one open
> source emacs-style "Doctor". Get a decent programmer to combine the two in
> the obvious way, and you will probably fool a few people into thinking it's
> an intelligent poster, without it actually being one.
*That's* an unnecessary assumption. You are an intelligent creature who
writes Usenet posts. If you encounter a Usenet post with complexity
similar to your own posts, it is reasonable to assume they were written
by an intelligent creature, unless you have something that contradicts
that assumption.
> > The other fallacy in the very "Intelligent Design" phrase is "Design" --
> > is there /any/ evidence that if there is a "creator", /design/ is more
> > likely than /accident/ or /catalyst/ ? Without admitting that all your
> > beliefs about the universe are based on a christian belief?
>
> Why wouldn't I want to admit that?
It was a probably meant to be a generic "you". Many IDers claim they're
not trying to get Christian doctrine into schools. As a rule, they're
lying.
> >>>> Neither is your position. All creation theories ("scientific" or
> >>>> otherwise) are faith positions.
> >
> > Look up what a theory is. ID does not qualify as a theory. That makes
> > a big difference.
>
> The characteristics of ID which disqualify it from being a theory in the
> scientific sense of the word apply pretty much to BB too.
ID assumes something it has no proof of (an intelligent creator). BB
does not. Please read the website Eric found for you, just in case you
had a misconception about the theory.
Torak
> Alec Cawley said:
>
>
> Well, there's an entire universe, and a bunch of documentation relating to a
> crucifixion and resurrection, but a lot of people don't seem to think they
> count, for some reason.
The universe is only evidence for the existence of a god if you agree
that only a god could create it. If I were to say that a) only a baker
can bake a cake and b) I have a cake, then I can logically say that a
baker exists. But if someone else comes along who has seen my gran - or
*anyone* else - bake a cake and thus knows that bakers aren't the only
way for cakes to appear, then the existence of the cake isn't going to
do a great job of convincing them that the (blind watch-) baker exists.
And yes, there's lots of evidence that someone was crucified, appeared
to die, and then appeared to be resurrected. That doesn't prove that any
god had anything to do with it.
Torak
> Arthur Hagen said:
>>Richard Heathfield <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>E.S. said:
>>>
>>>>ID assumes that the "creator" is intelligent, which to many is an
>>>>unnecessary assumption.
>>>
>>>I assume you are intelligent. That, too, is an unnecessary assumption.
>>>Nevertheless, it is (presumably) in keeping with reality.
>>
>>No, that's not analoguous at all. I can think of many ways that the
>>universe came to be /without/ an intelligent designer, but I can't think
>>of a single way for E.S.' post to be made without an intelligent
>>creature posting it.
>
> Maybe you can't, but I can. Take one open source news client. Add one open
> source emacs-style "Doctor". Get a decent programmer to combine the two in
> the obvious way, and you will probably fool a few people into thinking it's
> an intelligent poster, without it actually being one.
Does your spoon scare you?
>>The other fallacy in the very "Intelligent Design" phrase is "Design" --
>>is there /any/ evidence that if there is a "creator", /design/ is more
>>likely than /accident/ or /catalyst/ ? Without admitting that all your
>>beliefs about the universe are based on a christian belief?
>
> Why wouldn't I want to admit that?
I don't understand you. Are you worried about...
Sorry. I was going to reply to each of your comments with the sort of
inane babble that a bot usually produces, but without much luck.
Strange, considering my usual degree of coherence. Anyway, that's as far
as I got, but it should be enough to show why we can assume there is
some form of intelligence behind each post.
Lister
wrote:
>Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> Arthur Hagen said:
>>>Richard Heathfield <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>E.S. said:
>>>>
>>>>>ID assumes that the "creator" is intelligent, which to many is an
>>>>>unnecessary assumption.
>>>>
>>>>I assume you are intelligent. That, too, is an unnecessary assumption.
>>>>Nevertheless, it is (presumably) in keeping with reality.
>>>
>>>No, that's not analoguous at all. I can think of many ways that the
>>>universe came to be /without/ an intelligent designer, but I can't think
>>>of a single way for E.S.' post to be made without an intelligent
>>>creature posting it.
>>
>> Maybe you can't, but I can. Take one open source news client. Add one open
>> source emacs-style "Doctor". Get a decent programmer to combine the two in
>> the obvious way, and you will probably fool a few people into thinking it's
>> an intelligent poster, without it actually being one.
>
>Does your spoon scare you?
>
There is no spoon </pred>
Eric Jarvis
>
> What is it with you? What makes you think you have my level of scientific
> knowledge taped down? You're the same guy who mistakenly thought I was
> incorrect in the exchange with Daihbid, right? So am I right in deducing
> that you don't grasp the fundamentals of deductive logic? Or would that be
> an overstatement based on my insufficient knowledge? How good are you at
> applying analogies? We'll find out, I guess.
>
I have no opinion on your level of scientific knowledge other than is
displayed in your posts. Since that seems to include a fundamental
misunderstanding of what science is then I'd guess it isn't all that hot,
but that would purely be an assumption and one I prefer not to make. I can
deduce fairly safely that you haven't much knowledge of cosmology since
you don't even know what the Big Bang theory covers,. I have no interest
in your ability at deductive logic until you can start from premises that
aren't demonstrably false. If there's a single fundamental aspect to
deductive logic it's that if your premises are wrong then you are pretty
much stuffed.
In the exchange with Daibhid you were both wrong. Daibhin is the sort of
person who accepts that he is capable of error, you seem to have a serious
problem separating your ego from your argument. I have no interest in
butting metaphorical heads with somebody who is too arrogant to accept
even the possibility of error. The main point in question is covered by
the link I gave to the NASA site. Whatever ones reservations about NASA I
think it's safe to consider them to be fairly authoritative when it comes
to basic definitions of cosmological and astrophysical theories. Thus
anyone who cares to follow the thread can clearly see that you are wrong
no matter how much of a smoke screen you attempt to construct after the
fact. As far as I'm concerned there is no point continuing until you
accept that your opinion cannot override everything else in the universe.
Personally I find looking things up BEFORE responding to corrections tend
to avoid situations where I simply end up digging an ever deeper hole.
However you are welcome to continue digging all you wish. It's just that
until you change your approach I, for one, won't consider it worth
responding to.
Richard Heathfield
> If you encounter a Usenet post with complexity
> similar to your own posts, it is reasonable to assume they were written
> by an intelligent creature,
Oh, my dear sweet innocent child, you haven't been using Usenet for very
long, have you? ;-)
> unless you have something that contradicts that assumption.
Um, yes. I have access to the Google archives. :-)
>> > Look up what a theory is. ID does not qualify as a theory. That makes
>> > a big difference.
>>
>> The characteristics of ID which disqualify it from being a theory in the
>> scientific sense of the word apply pretty much to BB too.
>
> ID assumes something it has no proof of (an intelligent creator). BB
> does not. Please read the website Eric found for you, just in case you
> had a misconception about the theory.
I don't. I've probably read more about the Big Bang Theory than most of its
supporters, which is mildly amusing in itself.
Richard Heathfield
> Sorry. I was going to reply to each of your comments with the sort of
> inane babble that a bot usually produces, but without much luck.
Is it because without much luck that you came to me?
> Strange, considering my usual degree of coherence.
Why do you say strange considering your usual degree of coherence?
> Anyway, that's as far
> as I got, but it should be enough to show why we can assume there is
> some form of intelligence behind each post.
Does it bother you that that's as far as you got but it should be
enough to show why you can assume there is some form of intelligence
behind each post?
Richard Heathfield
> I have no opinion on your level of scientific knowledge other than is
> displayed in your posts.
On approximately the same amount of data, I can deduce that you're not that
hot on logic.
> Since that seems to include a fundamental
> misunderstanding of what science is then I'd guess it isn't all that hot,
> but that would purely be an assumption and one I prefer not to make.
It would be an erroneous assumption, I think.
> I can
> deduce fairly safely that you haven't much knowledge of cosmology since
> you don't even know what the Big Bang theory covers,.
Hmmm. What a strange deduction. It doesn't appear to be based on a valid
premise.
> I have no interest
> in your ability at deductive logic until you can start from premises that
> aren't demonstrably false.
If my premises are demonstrably false, demonstrate that they are false. You
haven't done so yet.
> If there's a single fundamental aspect to
> deductive logic it's that if your premises are wrong then you are pretty
> much stuffed.
Not at all. You can start from wrong premises and still get the right answer
if you're lucky. But logic doesn't care where you come from or where you
go; it just cares about how you make the journey.
> In the exchange with Daibhid you were both wrong.
No, he was wrong (in a tiny, tiny way), I pointed out the error, he
correctly recognised that I was right, and he correctly admitted it. That
reflects well on Daibhid.
> Daibhin is the sort of
> person who accepts that he is capable of error, you seem to have a serious
> problem separating your ego from your argument.
Not particularly. My ego hasn't anything to do with this discussion.
> I have no interest in
> butting metaphorical heads with somebody who is too arrogant to accept
> even the possibility of error.
Oh, I am perfectly prepared to accept that I might make an error. Everybody
does make them, you know. But first you have to show where the error is, as
I did with Daibhid.
> The main point in question is covered by the link I gave to the NASA site.
That's not good enough. If you think I've said something incorrect, kindly
say precisely what it is that you think is incorrect and precisely why it
is incorrect. Then, if you're right, I'll take my lumps.
> Whatever ones reservations about NASA I
> think it's safe to consider them to be fairly authoritative when it comes
> to basic definitions of cosmological and astrophysical theories.
I don't know what makes you think that. They can't even sort out the
difference between yards and metres. Sheesh.
> Thus
> anyone who cares to follow the thread can clearly see that you are wrong
> no matter how much of a smoke screen you attempt to construct after the
> fact.
Smoke screen? Was it I who claimed someone else was wrong without saying
precisely why? Was it I who started citing spurious foreign Web sites as if
they were some kind of "evidence"? I don't think so.
> As far as I'm concerned there is no point continuing until you
> accept that your opinion cannot override everything else in the universe.
Actually, it can certainly override everything else in my universe, just as
your opinion can override everything else in mine. But in fact I am
perfectly accustomed to accepting error when I'm guilty of it. I just don't
yet see your justification for saying I'm in error.
> Personally I find looking things up BEFORE responding to corrections tend
> to avoid situations where I simply end up digging an ever deeper hole.
Was that supposed to be a cutting remark? I don't know to what it's
referring.
> However you are welcome to continue digging all you wish.
"I don't think you /can/ dig your way off a planet, can you?" (Challenge:
identify the speaker and the author. Not difficult for those approximately
as ancient as I am.)
> It's just that
> until you change your approach I, for one, won't consider it worth
> responding to.
Silence indicates assent. ;-)
Eric Jarvis
>
> Silence indicates assent. ;-)
>
No. It indicates killfile.
Gid Holyoake
Snippetry..
> Nice. Why don't you just say something rude about my mother?
I don't have to.. your existence is all we need..
Gid
Suzi
[Snip]
> I have lots of evidence for the existence of God, evidence that is based on
> my own sense experience.
[Snip]
Yes, but _unlike_ your wife you can't prove it with visible evidence -
therefore it isn't admissible evidence scientifically as "personal
perception" is not scientific :-)
Suzi
Suzi
a.w.m...@durham.ac.uk wibbled...
[Snip]
> And yes, there's lots of evidence that someone was crucified, appeared
> to die, and then appeared to be resurrected. That doesn't prove that any
> god had anything to do with it.
All it probably proves is that they weren't very good at spotting
someone in a severely deep coma with very little in the way of life
signs (which is, if anything, a more plausible theory) :-)
Suzi
Suzi
Having read a lot of this, I've rapidly come to the conclusion that it
may be time for one of these...
------------------
| Don't feed the |
| silicate ones... |
|they're an bit of |
| an bastard to |
| clear up after! |
------------------
| |
| |
//\\\\//\///\\//\///
<g>
Suzi
Daibhid Ceanaideach
Serious question: how much evidence is there? I am aware of a
number of written accounts (only four of which are accepted
as, well, gospel), which can hardly be described as
independent of each other. Is there anything else?
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
"You stand as this world's champion?"
"I've no idea who I am, but you've just summed me up."
Len Oil
> Evolution falls at exactly the same hurdle as intelligent design:
where
> did the universe come from in the first place? Assuming random quantum
> fluctuations when there wasn't any quantum to fluctuate before the
> universe existed, or even any "before" for it to quantum-fluctuate
_in_,
> is just as silly as assuming a creator. Infinitely recursive big
bangs-
> and-crushes is no less magical.
Not really true. Evolution (, Biological) has /nothing/ to say about
anything prior to first-life, and not even anything about the way that
first-life was created, only how it then might 'develop' and branch into
the various forms of life we see about us.
But despite this, it is true that people not in the creator-believer
camp do tend to ally themselves as much with the Big Bang idea[1] as
they do with biogenesis and Neo-Darwinian evolution, but I think that's
more because they work as well in a universe with no purpose. They'll
be split between the creator-deniers, creator-sceptics and
creator-indifferencers of course.
BTW 'magic', to me implies an art being deliberately used to a given
effect (either general or specific). When various natural reasons
(possibly, if Goedel is applicable, unknowable ones) cause things to
have happened in a cascade with no ulterior direction other than the
rules of the system, magic is not the most apt description and a better
term should be sought to describe it.
Personally, I quite like the idea of hyper-dimensional branes colliding,
creating the lesser-dimensioned interface that we see in the
four-dimensions we do, but I'm also partial to the idea that the
Universe is as a hypersphere, where absolute time (if there is such a
thing) is lines of latitude. Much as there no sense to the idea of
"North of the North Pole" or "South of the South Pole", within the
surface of the world, "before the Big Bang and "after the Big Crunch"
might be as equally meaningless in a Universe whose "meta-existence" is
as such a sphere, time merely being some relic of measurement (and space
wrapping around seamlessly, but being "larger" away from the poles,
consistent with the universe we observe, give or take the fudges of Dark
Energy and the theories of Expansion...). But that's
insufficiently-educated speculation on my part, so don't take me for an
authority.... ;)
E.S.
Richard Heathfield wrote:
> Eric Jarvis said:
> > If there's a single fundamental aspect to
> > deductive logic it's that if your premises are wrong then you are pretty
> > much stuffed.
>
> Not at all. You can start from wrong premises and still get the right answer
> if you're lucky. But logic doesn't care where you come from or where you
> go; it just cares about how you make the journey.
If you want results that are in accordance with reality, you should try
to find out the right premises. Stubbornly refusing to do so is
extremely annoying.
> > The main point in question is covered by the link I gave to the NASA site.
>
> That's not good enough. If you think I've said something incorrect, kindly
> say precisely what it is that you think is incorrect and precisely why it
> is incorrect. Then, if you're right, I'll take my lumps.
How long have *you* been on the Usenet? If you have a question, you
read the FAQ.
> > Thus
> > anyone who cares to follow the thread can clearly see that you are wrong
> > no matter how much of a smoke screen you attempt to construct after the
> > fact.
>
> Smoke screen? Was it I who claimed someone else was wrong without saying
> precisely why? Was it I who started citing spurious foreign Web sites as if
> they were some kind of "evidence"? I don't think so.
Why the adjective "foreign" in that sentence? Unlike you may think,
it's not synonymous with "lying".
> > It's just that
> > until you change your approach I, for one, won't consider it worth
> > responding to.
>
> Silence indicates assent. ;-)
Yup. I'm assenting you're an annoyance.
Richard Heathfield
> Richard Heathfield inv...@invalid.invalid wrote in
> <dopn9p$riq$1...@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>:
>>
>> Silence indicates assent. ;-)
>>
>
> No. It indicates killfile.
An interesting reaction.
You: "You're wrong."
Me: "No, I'm not, for these reasons (included)."
You: "You must be wrong."
Me: "Please explain exactly how."
You: "Plonk!"
Nice reasoning power there, EJ.
Richard Heathfield
>
> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>
>> Eric Jarvis said:
>> > If there's a single fundamental aspect to
>> > deductive logic it's that if your premises are wrong then you are
>> > pretty much stuffed.
>>
>> Not at all. You can start from wrong premises and still get the right
>> answer if you're lucky. But logic doesn't care where you come from or
>> where you go; it just cares about how you make the journey.
>
> If you want results that are in accordance with reality, you should try
> to find out the right premises.
Sure. Unfortunately, that's impossible. But it would be great if it weren't.
> Stubbornly refusing to do so is extremely annoying.
Stubbornly refusing to do the impossible? Yeah, very very annoying indeed,
but I'm afraid I'm going to continue to refuse for the time being. The
impossible is really rather tricky, and I'm not always up to it.
>
>> > The main point in question is covered by the link I gave to the NASA
>> > site.
>>
>> That's not good enough. If you think I've said something incorrect,
>> kindly say precisely what it is that you think is incorrect and precisely
>> why it is incorrect. Then, if you're right, I'll take my lumps.
>
> How long have *you* been on the Usenet?
How is this about me, all of a sudden? I thought we were discussing whether
the Big Bang Theory could hold water.
Oh, silly of me - it's time for an ad hominem attack, right? Go ahead - fire
away.
> If you have a question, you read the FAQ.
Er, quite so. Now, you just had a question - "how long have *you* been on
the Usenet?" as you put it. So go read the FAQ.
>
>> > Thus
>> > anyone who cares to follow the thread can clearly see that you are
>> > wrong no matter how much of a smoke screen you attempt to construct
>> > after the fact.
>>
>> Smoke screen? Was it I who claimed someone else was wrong without saying
>> precisely why? Was it I who started citing spurious foreign Web sites as
>> if they were some kind of "evidence"? I don't think so.
>
> Why the adjective "foreign" in that sentence?
You say I'm putting up a smoke screen, and now you're picking on individual
adjectives? Cute. Anyway, I do apologise for the word "foreign", although
from my perspective it is of course true. I'd just been doing the "no,
Virginia, the Internet is not a wholly-owned subsidiary of the USA" thing
elseNet, and I guess I was still rolling in that direction when I composed
my reply here.
> Unlike you may think, it's not synonymous with "lying".
Sure - but in my experience most Web sites are put up by people who don't
know what they're talking about. Not only that, but NASA have made it
abundantly and very publicly clear that they have trouble with SI/Imperial
conversions, let alone eternal verities. And of the two NASA employees with
whom I am acquainted, one is so astoundingly dense that he might well
produce his own Big Bang in due course.
(I accept that 50% isn't so impressive given a sample size of 2, but even
so, it doesn't inspire confidence.)
So I'm afraid I'm not overly impressed by the idea of a NASA Web page.
>> > It's just that
>> > until you change your approach I, for one, won't consider it worth
>> > responding to.
>>
>> Silence indicates assent. ;-)
>
> Yup. I'm assenting you're an annoyance.
Thanks. I note that you have still not offered any proof of your theory,
preferring instead to launch personal attacks on those who challenge you.
Curious. But I suppose that's what passes for a scientific method nowadays.
Richard Heathfield
(Gid doesn't make it clear who "we" is, but I think we (his readers) can
safely assume that he means "Gid Holyoake".)
It seems to me that the Big Bang Theory lobbyists have abandoned logic and
rely instead on insult and invective to argue their case for them.
Richard Heathfield
> you can't prove it with visible evidence -
> therefore it isn't admissible evidence scientifically as "personal
> perception" is not scientific :-)
If personal perception is not scientific, then nothing you see, nothing you
hear, nothing you taste, nothing you smell, nothing you touch, nothing
whose temperature you sense, nothing you remember, nothing you perceive in
any way can be introduced into evidence. And even if you found a
non-perceptive loophole through which you could obtain evidence - eg
reasoning - you still can't communicate that evidence to the person you are
trying to persuade without using /his/ (or her) senses - and therefore
perceptions - in some way. And so that doesn't constitute admissible
evidence either.
So you just chased the whole of scientific discourse out the window and down
the street. Let's hope it returns by suppertime.
Torak
> Torak said:
>
>>Sorry. I was going to reply to each of your comments with the sort of
>>inane babble that a bot usually produces, but without much luck.
>
> Is it because without much luck that you came to me?
>
>>Strange, considering my usual degree of coherence.
>
> Why do you say strange considering your usual degree of coherence?
>
>>Anyway, that's as far
>>as I got, but it should be enough to show why we can assume there is
>>some form of intelligence behind each post.
>
> Does it bother you that that's as far as you got but it should be
> enough to show why you can assume there is some form of intelligence
> behind each post?
Thank you.
You're much better at the inane wibblage than I am. :-D
Torak
>
>>And yes, there's lots of evidence that someone was crucified, appeared
>>to die, and then appeared to be resurrected. That doesn't prove that any
>>god had anything to do with it.
>
> All it probably proves is that they weren't very good at spotting
> someone in a severely deep coma with very little in the way of life
> signs (which is, if anything, a more plausible theory) :-)
Exactly. Either that, or the "resurrection" consisted of standing up,
sticking the arms out in front, and shambling along to the tune of
"braaaaains..."
Torak
> Gid Holyoake said:
>>In article <dop642$gpr$2...@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, Richard
>>Heathfield generously decided to share with us..
>>
>>Snippetry..
>>
>>>Nice. Why don't you just say something rude about my mother?
>>
>>I don't have to.. your existence is all we need..
>
> (Gid doesn't make it clear who "we" is, but I think we (his readers) can
> safely assume that he means "Gid Holyoake".)
>
> It seems to me that the Big Bang Theory lobbyists have abandoned logic and
> rely instead on insult and invective to argue their case for them.
Well, if nothing else works...
Torak
> Suzi said:
>
>>you can't prove it with visible evidence -
>>therefore it isn't admissible evidence scientifically as "personal
>>perception" is not scientific :-)
>
> If personal perception is not scientific, then nothing you see, nothing you
> hear, nothing you taste, nothing you smell, nothing you touch, nothing
> whose temperature you sense, nothing you remember, nothing you perceive in
> any way can be introduced into evidence. And even if you found a
> non-perceptive loophole through which you could obtain evidence - eg
> reasoning - you still can't communicate that evidence to the person you are
> trying to persuade without using /his/ (or her) senses - and therefore
> perceptions - in some way. And so that doesn't constitute admissible
> evidence either.
>
> So you just chased the whole of scientific discourse out the window and down
> the street. Let's hope it returns by suppertime.
I think she meant "personal perception of objective facts" as opposed to
"personal perception of personal perception". After all, there's no way
of proving that God exists other than "I had an epiphany, I promise". On
the other hand, a simple spectrometer can prove that, say, hydrogen
exists. Within the bounds of the universe as we know it, of course.
Richard Heathfield
> All it probably proves is that they weren't very good at spotting
> someone in a severely deep coma with very little in the way of life
> signs (which is, if anything, a more plausible theory) :-)
Ask a doctor what the odds are of surviving the following sequence of
events:
1) (probably) deprived of sleep on the eve of the following;
2) scourged (the object of which is to weaken the victim as much as possible
without actually killing them);
3) being nailed to a cross, which is then raised vertically, so that the
weight of your torso is taken almost entirely on your arms, and placing
tremendous stresses on your heart;
4) left there for several hours;
5) speared by an executioner, the wound yielding blood and pericardial fluid
- a sure sign of death, by the way;
6) left in a confined, sealed area with no oxygen supply for 36 hours or so,
with your mouth (and indeed your entire body) covered by a shroud.
Would you consent to undergo the above treatment in order to prove that it
can be survived?
As far as I'm aware, no serious scholar, Christian or otherwise, contends
that Jesus did not die on the cross. Note, also, that the Talmud (not a
Christian work) relates the execution of Jesus on the eve of the Passover.
The execution is also documented by Lucian and Tacitus, both non-Christian
Roman historians.
Richard Heathfield
> [Snip all]
>
> Having read a lot of this, I've rapidly come to the conclusion that it
> may be time for one of these...
>
> ------------------
> | Don't feed the |
Er, yeah, okay, I'll accept that for my up-two-from-here article, which was
straight from the Emacs "doctor". Sorry, couldn't resist. :-)
Richard Heathfield
> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>
>> It seems to me that the Big Bang Theory lobbyists have abandoned logic
>> and rely instead on insult and invective to argue their case for them.
>
> Well, if nothing else works...
So you accept that the Big Bang Theory can't be justified on logical
grounds, and must instead be defended by illogical means?
Richard Heathfield
> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>
>> So you just chased the whole of scientific discourse out the window and
>> down the street. Let's hope it returns by suppertime.
>
> I think she meant "personal perception of objective facts" as opposed to
> "personal perception of personal perception".
I don't think it makes any difference, actually.
> After all, there's no way
> of proving that God exists other than "I had an epiphany, I promise".
That's clearly not acceptable as a proof.
> On
> the other hand, a simple spectrometer can prove that, say, hydrogen
> exists.
Can it? How can an honest but sufficiently determined and ingenious sceptic
believe the spectrometer?
> Within the bounds of the universe as we know it, of course.
Oh, of course. But we don't know it as well as we think we do. After all, we
haven't even discovered <insert your favourite undiscovered thing here>
yet.
Torak
> Torak said:
>>Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>
>>>It seems to me that the Big Bang Theory lobbyists have abandoned logic
>>>and rely instead on insult and invective to argue their case for them.
>>
>>Well, if nothing else works...
>
> So you accept that the Big Bang Theory can't be justified on logical
> grounds, and must instead be defended by illogical means?
No. I accept that some people are implacably opposed to scientific
theories and will regardless of evidence always give precedence to
beliefs based on religion. As such, there's no point in presenting
evidence; they've most likely already seen all the evidence and decided
that the Big Bang is not for them.
And you know what? I don't mind. I believe in science, they don't.
That's their prerogative. But I'll leave them to it.
Richard Heathfield
> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> Torak said:
>>>Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>
>>>>It seems to me that the Big Bang Theory lobbyists have abandoned logic
>>>>and rely instead on insult and invective to argue their case for them.
>>>
>>>Well, if nothing else works...
>>
>> So you accept that the Big Bang Theory can't be justified on logical
>> grounds, and must instead be defended by illogical means?
>
> No. I accept that some people are implacably opposed to scientific
> theories and will regardless of evidence always give precedence to
> beliefs based on religion.
No such evidence has been presented.
> As such, there's no point in presenting evidence;
Ah! Indeed, that is true. You are wise beyond your years, young Torak. When
Garion turns up, give 'im hell, okay? :-)
> they've most likely already seen all the evidence and decided
> that the Big Bang is not for them.
I think that, as a mechanism, it might work or it might not. I don't know
without trying it, and I'm not about to try it. :-) But as an explanation
for the origin of this universe, I find it unconvincing.
> And you know what? I don't mind. I believe in science, they don't.
Well, I believe in science, but not at the expense of what I perceive to be
truth. We have seen in this thread that scientists (or rather, people who
espouse science as their religion) are not above some very unscientific
thinking indeed.
> That's their prerogative. But I'll leave them to it.
You're brighter than I look.
Arthur Hagen
>
> An interesting reaction.
>
> You: "You're wrong."
> Me: "No, I'm not, for these reasons (included)."
> You: "You must be wrong."
> Me: "Please explain exactly how."
> You: "Plonk!"
>
> Nice reasoning power there, EJ.
I'm seeing:
Others: "You're wrong."
RH: "No, I'm not, for these reasons (included)."
Others: "You must be wrong, because if b follows a, using b to prove a
is begging the question"
RH: "Please explain exactly how, without using logic."
Others: "Plonk!"
Oh, btw -- *plonk*
Regards,
--
*Art
Sanity
> "Pixel" <alan....@chello.be> wrote:
>
>> Evolution simply requires random chance, plenty of space and basic
>> materials, and a lot of time to happen in - a perfectly tenable theory.
>>
>> Intelligent Design falls at the first hurdle - who designed the
>> Intelligent Designer?
>
> Evolution falls at exactly the same hurdle as intelligent design: where
> did the universe come from in the first place?
That's not what evolution is about. It's about evolution of living
creatures, not how they came to be in the first place.
> Assuming random quantum
> fluctuations when there wasn't any quantum to fluctuate before the
> universe existed, or even any "before" for it to quantum-fluctuate _in_,
> is just as silly as assuming a creator. Infinitely recursive big bangs-
> and-crushes is no less magical.
No, but at least science is trying to find out what has happend, deducing,
researching. With faith, people say "it's done by a creator" and that's
the end of it. Sure, it means you have lots of time to do other things
which are probably more important than finding out how our universe came
into being, but chances are pretty high it's wrong, and that means it will
never be true. At least science gets it wrong but tries to get it right.
> IMAO, the problem with intelligent-designers and unintelligent-atheists
> alike is that they love to claim that their opposing party is talking
> nonsense, but rarely if ever stop to consider how foolish they
> themselves sound.
That's because most people who favour the scientific method treat it as
faith, ignoring the fact that most science isn't true, just a currently
adequate simplified explanation of what is happening.
However, after a quick catch-up with this thread it appears the question
is still open - who designed the designer?
--
TTFN, | AFPChess, Plaet AFP, L-Files & more:
| http://www.affordable-prawns.co.uk/
| Featuring Planet AFP, a collection of afpers' blogs!
Michel AKA Sanity | Jabber IM: michel @ jabber.xs4all.nl
Richard Heathfield
> I'm seeing:
>
> Others: "You're wrong."
> RH: "No, I'm not, for these reasons (included)."
> Others: "You must be wrong, because if b follows a, using b to prove a
> is begging the question"
> RH: "Please explain exactly how, without using logic."
> Others: "Plonk!"
Not so. Daibhid claimed that a question had been begged. I showed that it
had not been. Daibhid accepted my reasoning, and agreed that the question
had not after all been begged. Would you like me to produce the relevant
message IDs?
> Oh, btw -- *plonk*
This seems to be a common reaction amongst 'scientireligionists'. They are
fond of saying "gosh, here's someone who doesn't automatically agree with
everything we say - quick, let's ignore him before he says something we
might have to think about."
Richard Heathfield
> ral...@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) wrote:
>
>> Evolution falls at exactly the same hurdle as intelligent design: where
>> did the universe come from in the first place?
>
> That's not what evolution is about. It's about evolution of living
> creatures, not how they came to be in the first place.
Yes, evolution is a mechanism - and not a terribly good one, but it more or
less works. Actually, "mechanism" is a bit strong; evolution is just a way
of stating the obvious - "survivors in a given environment survive within
that environment".
<snip>
>> IMAO, the problem with intelligent-designers and unintelligent-atheists
>> alike is that they love to claim that their opposing party is talking
>> nonsense, but rarely if ever stop to consider how foolish they
>> themselves sound.
>
> That's because most people who favour the scientific method treat it as
> faith, ignoring the fact that most science isn't true, just a currently
> adequate simplified explanation of what is happening.
Yes, and that has been evident in this thread. Indeed, some of those who
favour the scientific method are already trying to twist reality in an
attempt to sponge out a correction I made to an incorrect argument against
ID. (Incidentally, I would like to dissociate myself from the general ID
viewpoint, which I don't find terribly convincing.)
> However, after a quick catch-up with this thread it appears the question
> is still open - who designed the designer?
It's tempting to give the answer "Terry", but I won't. Instead, I would
simply put forward an internally self-consistent view that cause and
effect, designer and designee, are temporal phenomena. Without time, words
like "before" lose most of their meaning, and must be used carefully if we
are not to misunderstand them. Time is finite, and wholly enclosed within
eternity. The universe was designed in eternity, "before" (so to speak)
time began. If you can imagine a finite line segment wholly enclosed within
(but not intersecting with) a sphere, or if you can at least imagine a
ball-point pen inside St Paul's Cathedral, then you can imagine time inside
eternity.
In such a model of the universe+all-the-rest, God pre-dates time, so to
speak, and thus pre-dates the need for a cause.
Torak
It's a simple enough idea. If you spend a lot of time somewhere, as I do
on AFP, it makes sense to cut short anything that might turn into a
nasty fight if there's little chance of accomplishing anything. If
there's nothing to be gained, after all, why bother arguing?
Richard Heathfield
> If there's nothing to be gained, after all, why bother arguing?
My dear chap, your strategy strikes at the very heart of Usenet! :-)
Sanity
>> However, after a quick catch-up with this thread it appears the question
>> is still open - who designed the designer?
>
> It's tempting to give the answer "Terry", but I won't. Instead, I would
> simply put forward an internally self-consistent view that cause and
> effect, designer and designee, are temporal phenomena. Without time, words
> like "before" lose most of their meaning, and must be used carefully if we
> are not to misunderstand them. Time is finite, and wholly enclosed within
> eternity. The universe was designed in eternity, "before" (so to speak)
> time began. If you can imagine a finite line segment wholly enclosed within
> (but not intersecting with) a sphere, or if you can at least imagine a
> ball-point pen inside St Paul's Cathedral, then you can imagine time inside
> eternity.
>
> In such a model of the universe+all-the-rest, God pre-dates time, so to
> speak, and thus pre-dates the need for a cause.
If that's how you're reasoning, you might as well simply say "don't need a
designer, because that's not what I believe". You're simply stating that
it's outside time, but why is it? What's the proof? How can you test that
theory? It's going in circles now. *Why* does God pre-date time, and thus
doesn't need a cause? Why, if our universe is so fantastic it needs a
designer, doesn't the designer need one?
In short, the Question is still unanswered.
Richard Heathfield
> What's the proof?
There isn't one, and can't be one, because the moment anyone comes up with a
"proof", someone else will carpe assumptions and squeeze hard until they
pop. That's folks for you.
> In short, the Question is still unanswered.
And will remain so. It's not a question anyone can answer for anyone but
themselves.
Peter Ellis
>
>*Why* does God pre-date time, and thus
>doesn't need a cause?
Can I just say that this sentence is nonsense? There isn't any such
thing as pre-dating time. If you can define a pre, then by definition
time elapses between the pre and the post.
You might talk about pre-dating the Big Bang - if you didn't understand
the theory correctly.
Simply put, space and time are curved - there is no such thing as time
"before" the Big Bang. It makes as much sense as saying that there's
something North of the North Pole. No, there isn't.
We're not used to thinking of time (or, indeed space) in anything but
linear terms, because it's outside our direct physical day-to-day
experience.
Peter
Richard Heathfield
> sanityDE...@affordable-prawns.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>*Why* does God pre-date time, and thus
>>doesn't need a cause?
>
> Can I just say that this sentence is nonsense?
Yes, but I think that to do so shows a slight misunderstanding of the
direction of the discussion. (Bear with me!)
> There isn't any such thing as pre-dating time.
Agreed, but we're doing the best we can, given the limitations of the
English language. We are (or at least, I am) postulating a model in which
time has a definite start and a definite end, and in which it is wholly
encompassed by eternity. Our time-based vocabulary lets us down here. We
simply don't have the words for describing a phenomenon occurring other
than within the scope of space and time. Perhaps we should coin some. We
could perhaps get Leonard of Quirm to come up with some words for us. :-)