Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Does The Soul Exist? Evidence Says ‘Yes’
3 views
Skip to first unread message
W.T.S.
May 11, 2013, 2:37:44 AM5/11/13
to
In article <0dee3a16-c31d-4ff4-a113-a2e33c2b5d22
@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, cra...@comcast.net says...
>
> Does The Soul Exist? Evidence Says ‘Yes’.
Bull shit. No evidence exists.
>
We are indeed Carcinoma Sapiens, destroying, by insane fecundity, that
which we need to survive.
>
As always, organized religion opposes progress -
>
See what RELIGION does to peoples' minds?
>
Adults no longer believe in the Tooth Fairy - but they still torture and
kill each other over ancient myths and superstitions.
>
"We all remember how many religious wars were fought for a religion of
love
and gentleness; how many bodies were burned
alive with the genuinely kind intention of saving souls from the eternal
fire of hell." --- Karl Popper
>
"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When
many
people suffer from a delusion, it is called Religion."
--- Robert M. Pirsig
>
Either God wants to abolish evil and cannot, or he can but does not want
to.
If he wants to but cannot he is impotent. If he can
but does not want to, he is wicked. If he neither can nor wants to, then
he
is both powerless and wicked.
--- Epicurus, Greek philosopher, circa 300 B.C.
>
"Act of God" disasters like the Japanese earthquake expose the myth.
Either
God can do nothing to stop catastrophes like
this, or he doesn't care to, or he doesn't exist. He is thus either
impotent, evil, or imaginary.
--- CNN Belief Blog, 3-20-11
>
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things
and
evil people doing evil things. But for good people
to do evil things, that takes religion."
--- Steven Weinberg, quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999
>
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from
religious conviction." --- Blaise Pascal.
>
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
false,
and by rulers as useful."
--- Seneca the Younger (4? BC - 65 AD)
>
"Religion once ruled the world. It was called the Dark Ages." --- Ruth
Green.
>
"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings." ---
Victor Stenger.
>
"I don't believe in God because I don't believe in Mother Goose." ---
Clarence Darrow
>
"As my ancestors are free from slavery, I am free from the slavery of
religion." --- Butterfly McQueen
>
"Religion was invented when the first con-man met the first fool." -
Mark
Twain
>
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." --- Mark Twain
>
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character
in
all fiction." --- Richard Dawkins
>
"Cult today, religion tomorrow."
>
The Freedom From Religion Foundation: http://ffrf.org/
The Secular Coalition for America: www.secular.org
Secular Student Alliance: www.secularstudents.org
www.infidels.org
www.humaniststudies.org
www.atheistalliance.org
www.americanhumanist.org
@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, cra...@comcast.net says...
>
> Does The Soul Exist? Evidence Says ‘Yes’.
Bull shit. No evidence exists.
>
We are indeed Carcinoma Sapiens, destroying, by insane fecundity, that
which we need to survive.
>
As always, organized religion opposes progress -
>
See what RELIGION does to peoples' minds?
>
Adults no longer believe in the Tooth Fairy - but they still torture and
kill each other over ancient myths and superstitions.
>
"We all remember how many religious wars were fought for a religion of
love
and gentleness; how many bodies were burned
alive with the genuinely kind intention of saving souls from the eternal
fire of hell." --- Karl Popper
>
"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When
many
people suffer from a delusion, it is called Religion."
--- Robert M. Pirsig
>
Either God wants to abolish evil and cannot, or he can but does not want
to.
If he wants to but cannot he is impotent. If he can
but does not want to, he is wicked. If he neither can nor wants to, then
he
is both powerless and wicked.
--- Epicurus, Greek philosopher, circa 300 B.C.
>
"Act of God" disasters like the Japanese earthquake expose the myth.
Either
God can do nothing to stop catastrophes like
this, or he doesn't care to, or he doesn't exist. He is thus either
impotent, evil, or imaginary.
--- CNN Belief Blog, 3-20-11
>
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things
and
evil people doing evil things. But for good people
to do evil things, that takes religion."
--- Steven Weinberg, quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999
>
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from
religious conviction." --- Blaise Pascal.
>
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
false,
and by rulers as useful."
--- Seneca the Younger (4? BC - 65 AD)
>
"Religion once ruled the world. It was called the Dark Ages." --- Ruth
Green.
>
"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings." ---
Victor Stenger.
>
"I don't believe in God because I don't believe in Mother Goose." ---
Clarence Darrow
>
"As my ancestors are free from slavery, I am free from the slavery of
religion." --- Butterfly McQueen
>
"Religion was invented when the first con-man met the first fool." -
Mark
Twain
>
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." --- Mark Twain
>
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character
in
all fiction." --- Richard Dawkins
>
"Cult today, religion tomorrow."
>
The Freedom From Religion Foundation: http://ffrf.org/
The Secular Coalition for America: www.secular.org
Secular Student Alliance: www.secularstudents.org
www.infidels.org
www.humaniststudies.org
www.atheistalliance.org
www.americanhumanist.org
Stanislaus Stewart
May 11, 2013, 10:53:08 PM5/11/13
to
On 5/11/2013 2:37 AM, W.T.S. wrote:
> In article <0dee3a16-c31d-4ff4-a113-a2e33c2b5d22
> @z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, cra...@comcast.net says...
>>
>> Does The Soul Exist? Evidence Says ‘Yes’.
> Bull shit. No evidence exists.
“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt
> In article <0dee3a16-c31d-4ff4-a113-a2e33c2b5d22
> @z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, cra...@comcast.net says...
>>
>> Does The Soul Exist? Evidence Says ‘Yes’.
> Bull shit. No evidence exists.
of in your philosophy.” Shakespeare
To me death is just a transition from,one phase of existence to
another, of which we know NOTHING, therefore, no evidence. Nothing
religious about it.
Like the caterpillar changing into a butterfly. I have a feeling that he
won't know anything about his previous caterpillar existence.
Religion, like politics, was 'invented' by one small group of people to
take advantage of another. In religion, they use fear of god, in
politics, they use fear of the 'enemy'. You can see a good example of
the latter with what the republican leadership is doing with their
followers regarding Obama.
I once had a discussion with my father-in-law about the existence of
god. When I hit him with point after point showing there could never be
a god, reasoning was beginning to dawn in him. Unfortunately the fear of
living without a god got hold of him and he cried out, " Oh god, leave
me alone with my beliefs."
I looked at his face and what I saw there prompted me to leave him
alone. Very sad that people have this BELIEF that they can't live
without god.
default
May 12, 2013, 9:23:16 AM5/12/13
to
On Sat, 11 May 2013 22:53:08 -0400, Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net>
wrote:
>
> �There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt
>Like the caterpillar changing into a butterfly. I have a feeling that he
>won't know anything about his previous caterpillar existence.
>Religion, like politics, was 'invented' by one small group of people to
>take advantage of another. In religion, they use fear of god, in
>politics, they use fear of the 'enemy'. You can see a good example of
>the latter with what the republican leadership is doing with their
>followers regarding Obama.
> I once had a discussion with my father-in-law about the existence of
>god. When I hit him with point after point showing there could never be
>a god, reasoning was beginning to dawn in him. Unfortunately the fear of
>living without a god got hold of him and he cried out, " Oh god, leave
>me alone with my beliefs."
>I looked at his face and what I saw there prompted me to leave him
>alone. Very sad that people have this BELIEF that they can't live
>without god.
I know. The carefully constructed fantasy is hard to drop. Nature
offers uncertainty challenge and opportunity, Men want certainty,
dominion, and security.
By challenging a religious nut with logic and forcing him to see past
the constructed fantasy, you also call into question his rationality,
sanity, intelligence, and ego; so to have gotten so far with your
father-in-law, is an achievement. Particularly in an older adult who
is more aware of his own mortality.
Manipulating people is part and parcel of all ideological
organizations, Politics, Religion, Fraternal organizations, Street
gangs, Arian brotherhood, KKK, and the so-called "religions" that have
a foot in the political and religious ideological camps (Zionist
Jew/"Radical" Muslims/Christian Fundies)
It is a wonder that there are people who can chart their own course
through life given all the emotional propaganda and hype we are hit
with daily.
wrote:
>
> �There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt
>of in your philosophy.� Shakespeare
> To me death is just a transition from,one phase of existence to
>another, of which we know NOTHING, therefore, no evidence. Nothing
>religious about it.
Nothing on many levels it seems.
> To me death is just a transition from,one phase of existence to
>another, of which we know NOTHING, therefore, no evidence. Nothing
>religious about it.
>Like the caterpillar changing into a butterfly. I have a feeling that he
>won't know anything about his previous caterpillar existence.
>Religion, like politics, was 'invented' by one small group of people to
>take advantage of another. In religion, they use fear of god, in
>politics, they use fear of the 'enemy'. You can see a good example of
>the latter with what the republican leadership is doing with their
>followers regarding Obama.
> I once had a discussion with my father-in-law about the existence of
>god. When I hit him with point after point showing there could never be
>a god, reasoning was beginning to dawn in him. Unfortunately the fear of
>living without a god got hold of him and he cried out, " Oh god, leave
>me alone with my beliefs."
>I looked at his face and what I saw there prompted me to leave him
>alone. Very sad that people have this BELIEF that they can't live
>without god.
offers uncertainty challenge and opportunity, Men want certainty,
dominion, and security.
By challenging a religious nut with logic and forcing him to see past
the constructed fantasy, you also call into question his rationality,
sanity, intelligence, and ego; so to have gotten so far with your
father-in-law, is an achievement. Particularly in an older adult who
is more aware of his own mortality.
Manipulating people is part and parcel of all ideological
organizations, Politics, Religion, Fraternal organizations, Street
gangs, Arian brotherhood, KKK, and the so-called "religions" that have
a foot in the political and religious ideological camps (Zionist
Jew/"Radical" Muslims/Christian Fundies)
It is a wonder that there are people who can chart their own course
through life given all the emotional propaganda and hype we are hit
with daily.
Uncle Vic
May 12, 2013, 10:49:31 AM5/12/13
to
Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote in news:kmmhtl$3li$1@dont-
email.me:
> To me death is just a transition from,one phase of existence to
> another, of which we know NOTHING, therefore, no evidence.
Therefore it's just a big dumb guess.
--
Uncle Vic
aa# 2011
BAAWA
AA Quotemeister
Visit my You Tube Channel!
http://www.youtube.com/user/Vicman6311?feature=mhee
email.me:
> To me death is just a transition from,one phase of existence to
> another, of which we know NOTHING, therefore, no evidence.
--
Uncle Vic
aa# 2011
BAAWA
AA Quotemeister
Visit my You Tube Channel!
http://www.youtube.com/user/Vicman6311?feature=mhee
alen
May 12, 2013, 11:10:43 AM5/12/13
to
but a fantasy! Such smug, effortless, handwaving lack
of doubt!
A computer has a designer, as does an aircraft, automobile,
house, watch, toaster, electric light, etc.etc. Do you
really think that the supposition that the cosmos, just
because it is huge and ancient, has been able to
self-design living things within itself? A vast bunch of
dead mineral globes were able to develop, in beings, a
life and consciousness which they totally lack themselves.
And yet you think, without a shadow of doubt, that this is
a 'rational' position to the extent that anyone who doubts
it, and realises that there must be a designer behind it
all, is to be regarded, without the SLIGHTEST shadow of
a doubt, as indulging in no more than irrational, superstitious
fantasy. Such one-sided, groundless overconfidence is
truly mind boggling!
Alen
Free Lunch
May 12, 2013, 12:28:29 PM5/12/13
to
On Sun, 12 May 2013 08:10:43 -0700 (PDT), alen <al...@westserv.net.au>
wrote in alt.atheism:
Why do you assume design when there is no need to add such an
assumption?
> A vast bunch of
>dead mineral globes were able to develop, in beings, a
>life and consciousness which they totally lack themselves.
No, you are not correct in your characterization.
>And yet you think, without a shadow of doubt, that this is
>a 'rational' position to the extent that anyone who doubts
>it, and realises that there must be a designer behind it
>all, is to be regarded, without the SLIGHTEST shadow of
>a doubt, as indulging in no more than irrational, superstitious
>fantasy. Such one-sided, groundless overconfidence is
>truly mind boggling!
Where is your evidence that there is a designer?
>Alen
wrote in alt.atheism:
assumption?
> A vast bunch of
>dead mineral globes were able to develop, in beings, a
>life and consciousness which they totally lack themselves.
>And yet you think, without a shadow of doubt, that this is
>a 'rational' position to the extent that anyone who doubts
>it, and realises that there must be a designer behind it
>all, is to be regarded, without the SLIGHTEST shadow of
>a doubt, as indulging in no more than irrational, superstitious
>fantasy. Such one-sided, groundless overconfidence is
>truly mind boggling!
>Alen
casey
May 12, 2013, 1:14:06 PM5/12/13
to
the parts. The secret is in how they are connected.
> And yet you think, without a shadow of doubt, that this is
> a 'rational' position to the extent that anyone who doubts
> it, and realises that there must be a designer behind it
> all, is to be regarded, without the SLIGHTEST shadow of
> a doubt, as indulging in no more than irrational, superstitious
> fantasy. Such one-sided, groundless overconfidence is
> truly mind boggling!
boggling but that doesn't make in impossible.
>
> Alen
Stanislaus Stewart
May 12, 2013, 10:11:54 PM5/12/13
to
On 5/12/2013 10:49 AM, Uncle Vic wrote:
> Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote in news:kmmhtl$3li$1@dont-
> email.me:
>
>> To me death is just a transition from,one phase of existence to
>> another, of which we know NOTHING, therefore, no evidence.
>
> Therefore it's just a big dumb guess.
>
Belief in god is a dumb belief.
> Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote in news:kmmhtl$3li$1@dont-
> email.me:
>
>> To me death is just a transition from,one phase of existence to
>> another, of which we know NOTHING, therefore, no evidence.
>
> Therefore it's just a big dumb guess.
>
Stanislaus Stewart
May 12, 2013, 10:37:33 PM5/12/13
to
existence. Something is, but we know absolutely nothing about
him/her/it. What I am saying is, it ain't any of the 'gods in the
religious books. Those were created by men. Og came out of his cave
one day and decided that Mog and the others could not have made the sun,
moon, stars, trees, etc.,etc., and decided that God made them. That's
why any attempt to describe god ends up in human terms-he wants revenge,
to be worshipped, wants to be loved, wants gifts, wants to make war,
ec., etc. How in the world could a true god sanction slavery?
Uncle Vic
May 12, 2013, 8:12:55 PM5/12/13
to
alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote in news:2cf7df33-4f5b-49ec-a11a-
5af499...@hc4g2000pbb.googlegroups.com:
> Such titanic overconfidence about faith being nothing
> but a fantasy! Such smug, effortless, handwaving lack
> of doubt!
Compared to this:
>
> A computer has a designer, as does an aircraft, automobile,
> house, watch, toaster, electric light, etc.etc. Do you
> really think that the supposition that the cosmos, just
> because it is huge and ancient, has been able to
> self-design living things within itself?
C'mon, idjit. Computers, aircraft, etc. are not living things.
Sheesh, you can't even get a strawman right.
5af499...@hc4g2000pbb.googlegroups.com:
> Such titanic overconfidence about faith being nothing
> but a fantasy! Such smug, effortless, handwaving lack
> of doubt!
>
> A computer has a designer, as does an aircraft, automobile,
> house, watch, toaster, electric light, etc.etc. Do you
> really think that the supposition that the cosmos, just
> because it is huge and ancient, has been able to
> self-design living things within itself?
Sheesh, you can't even get a strawman right.
duke
May 13, 2013, 7:36:31 AM5/13/13
to
On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:49:31 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
>Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote in news:kmmhtl$3li$1@dont-
>email.me:
>
>> To me death is just a transition from,one phase of existence to
>> another, of which we know NOTHING, therefore, no evidence.
>
>Therefore it's just a big dumb guess.
Actually, God sent Jesus specifically to give us a heads up on the existence of
>Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote in news:kmmhtl$3li$1@dont-
>email.me:
>
>> To me death is just a transition from,one phase of existence to
>> another, of which we know NOTHING, therefore, no evidence.
>
>Therefore it's just a big dumb guess.
the heavenly kingdom. Go ahead, fool. Follow satan all you want.
The dukester, American - American
********************************************
Repeal Obama
You simply can't fix stupid.
********************************************
duke
May 13, 2013, 7:40:09 AM5/13/13
to
On Sun, 12 May 2013 22:37:33 -0400, Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote:
> I won't go so far as to say that no one, nothing, is responsible for
>existence. Something is, but we know absolutely nothing about
>him/her/it. What I am saying is, it ain't any of the 'gods in the
>religious books.
Really. Please reveal to me one (1) fact that supports that comment.
> I won't go so far as to say that no one, nothing, is responsible for
>existence. Something is, but we know absolutely nothing about
>him/her/it. What I am saying is, it ain't any of the 'gods in the
>religious books.
> Those were created by men. Og came out of his cave
>one day and decided that Mog and the others could not have made the sun,
>moon, stars, trees, etc.,etc., and decided that God made them. That's
>why any attempt to describe god ends up in human terms-he wants revenge,
>to be worshipped, wants to be loved, wants gifts, wants to make war,
>ec., etc. How in the world could a true god sanction slavery?
luck next time.
default
May 13, 2013, 8:12:09 AM5/13/13
to
On Sun, 12 May 2013 08:10:43 -0700 (PDT), alen <al...@westserv.net.au>
wrote:
and did believe in a god, or the years of reason and introspection
that followed to finally be rid of the indoctrination.
People do have a tendency to believe what makes them feel secure.
Religion offers that along with the other rubbish. Total honesty and
self awareness requires effort on one's part to see things for what
they are, not to just submit to a warm fuzzy feeling someone sells
you.
>
>A computer has a designer, as does an aircraft, automobile,
>house, watch, toaster, electric light, etc.etc.
AND, as someone just recently pointed out - if people were assembled
>A computer has a designer, as does an aircraft, automobile,
>house, watch, toaster, electric light, etc.etc.
with nuts bolts and forged metal replaceable parts, that would be good
evidence for a creator. Instead we are squishy things that rely on
lots of specialized cells and bacteria and proteins to synthesize
parts and create energy.
>Do you
>really think that the supposition that the cosmos, just
>because it is huge and ancient, has been able to
>self-design living things within itself?
in a matter of moments (as all the creation myths in the world's seem
to think).
Instead: Think of seas full of an incredible mix of hot sulphur
compounds, stirred by tremendous storms, a random chemical/electrical
reaction on a grand scale that lasts for many millions or billions of
years - and then evolution to bring what works to more and more
complex life as the world's initial energy slowly runs down.
>A vast bunch of
>dead mineral globes were able to develop, in beings, a
>life and consciousness which they totally lack themselves.
>And yet you think, without a shadow of doubt, that this is
>a 'rational' position to the extent that anyone who doubts
>it, and realises that there must be a designer behind it
>all, is to be regarded, without the SLIGHTEST shadow of
>a doubt, as indulging in no more than irrational, superstitious
>fantasy. Such one-sided, groundless overconfidence is
>truly mind boggling!
>
>Alen
is all done with some forethought and purpose, and then you would
probably go on to tell me exactly what this creator wants? What his
purpose is? and how I can live forever? If I just subscribe to your
completely unfounded groundless (and truth be told arrogant) religion.
NOTHING makes men more arrogant than the absolute certainty that they
do god's work - particularly when the are "fighting" non believers.
alen
May 13, 2013, 11:28:16 AM5/13/13
to
before you start printing a reply?
> > A vast bunch of
> >dead mineral globes were able to develop, in beings, a
> >life and consciousness which they totally lack themselves.
>
> No, you are not correct in your characterization.
>
> >And yet you think, without a shadow of doubt, that this is
> >a 'rational' position to the extent that anyone who doubts
> >it, and realises that there must be a designer behind it
> >all, is to be regarded, without the SLIGHTEST shadow of
> >a doubt, as indulging in no more than irrational, superstitious
> >fantasy. Such one-sided, groundless overconfidence is
> >truly mind boggling!
>
> Where is your evidence that there is a designer?
explain the existence of the huge number of different,
complex, living beings. They can produce nothing more
than some eventual, simple chemical equilibrium. This
leaves no other option than to conclude that there
MUST be the influence of a designer on nature, in order
to explain what the laws of physics can never be
sufficient to explain.
Alen
alen
May 13, 2013, 11:32:45 AM5/13/13
to
On May 13, 8:37 am, Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote:
> On 5/12/2013 11:10 AM, alen wrote:
>
[...]
> On 5/12/2013 11:10 AM, alen wrote:
>
to whether or not there must be a designer. There is no
point in raving on about Og, Zeus, Odin, etc.etc. before
you have first reached a conclusion about whether or not
there must be SOME designer.
Alen
alen
May 13, 2013, 11:40:18 AM5/13/13
to
asymmetrical and improbable selection of connections
necessary to construct a working organism cannot
be explained by the laws of physics, which lead only
to an amorphous chemical equilibrium.
> > And yet you think, without a shadow of doubt, that this is
> > a 'rational' position to the extent that anyone who doubts
> > it, and realises that there must be a designer behind it
> > all, is to be regarded, without the SLIGHTEST shadow of
> > a doubt, as indulging in no more than irrational, superstitious
> > fantasy. Such one-sided, groundless overconfidence is
> > truly mind boggling!
>
> That complex systems can evolve is indeed mind
> boggling but that doesn't make in impossible.
>
Alen
Robert H
May 13, 2013, 1:22:51 PM5/13/13
to
On May 12, 6:11 pm, Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote:
> On 5/12/2013 10:49 AM, Uncle Vic wrote:
>
> > Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote innews:kmmhtl$3li$1@dont-
> On 5/12/2013 10:49 AM, Uncle Vic wrote:
>
> > email.me:
>
> >> To me death is just a transition from,one phase of existence to
> >> another, of which we know NOTHING, therefore, no evidence.
>
> > Therefore it's just a big dumb guess.
>
> Belief in god is a dumb belief.
You believing that is dumb.
>
> >> To me death is just a transition from,one phase of existence to
> >> another, of which we know NOTHING, therefore, no evidence.
>
> > Therefore it's just a big dumb guess.
>
> Belief in god is a dumb belief.
Tom McDonald
May 13, 2013, 1:38:01 PM5/13/13
to
an outrage that we as a nation spend so much money on science when all
we'd have to do is ask you! And I bet you'd do it a whole lot cheaper
than all that research and teaching and shit.
How did we never think of this before!
Uncle Vic
May 13, 2013, 1:51:13 PM5/13/13
to
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
news:suj1p8puvarm8o4ts...@4ax.com:
> On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:49:31 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
>
>>Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote in news:kmmhtl$3li$1@dont-
>>email.me:
>>
>>> To me death is just a transition from,one phase of existence to
>>> another, of which we know NOTHING, therefore, no evidence.
>>
>>Therefore it's just a big dumb guess.
>
> Actually, God sent Jesus specifically to give us a heads up on the
> existence of the heavenly kingdom. Go ahead, fool. Follow satan all
> you want.
>
> The dukester, American - American
>
All made-up characters in a grossly out-dated myth. Smart people can tell
the difference between your dumb fantasy and reality. What's holding you
back?
news:suj1p8puvarm8o4ts...@4ax.com:
> On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:49:31 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
>
>>Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote in news:kmmhtl$3li$1@dont-
>>email.me:
>>
>>> To me death is just a transition from,one phase of existence to
>>> another, of which we know NOTHING, therefore, no evidence.
>>
>>Therefore it's just a big dumb guess.
>
> Actually, God sent Jesus specifically to give us a heads up on the
> existence of the heavenly kingdom. Go ahead, fool. Follow satan all
> you want.
>
> The dukester, American - American
>
the difference between your dumb fantasy and reality. What's holding you
back?
Dreamer In Colore
May 13, 2013, 2:08:41 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 08:28:16 -0700 (PDT), alen <al...@westserv.net.au>
wrote:
The simple known forces of physics don't explain the existence of the
huge number of different complex living beings.
That's the job of chemistry and biochemistry.
You would like a simple explanation, and a designer would be a simple
explanation if it were true... however, raising the issue of the
designer raises the issue of who designed the designer.
The laws of physics underpin chemistry and biology. The sciences
inter-relate to form a coherent, though definitely not simple,
explanation for a huge array of phenomena, and your insistence that a
supernatural being is responsible for the design of such phenomena
betrays a lack of understanding of how science works.
Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306
wrote:
huge number of different complex living beings.
That's the job of chemistry and biochemistry.
You would like a simple explanation, and a designer would be a simple
explanation if it were true... however, raising the issue of the
designer raises the issue of who designed the designer.
The laws of physics underpin chemistry and biology. The sciences
inter-relate to form a coherent, though definitely not simple,
explanation for a huge array of phenomena, and your insistence that a
supernatural being is responsible for the design of such phenomena
betrays a lack of understanding of how science works.
Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306
duke
May 13, 2013, 2:14:37 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 12:51:13 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>news:suj1p8puvarm8o4ts...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:49:31 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote in news:kmmhtl$3li$1@dont-
>>>email.me:
>>>
>>>> To me death is just a transition from,one phase of existence to
>>>> another, of which we know NOTHING, therefore, no evidence.
>>>
>>>Therefore it's just a big dumb guess.
>>
>> Actually, God sent Jesus specifically to give us a heads up on the
>> existence of the heavenly kingdom. Go ahead, fool. Follow satan all
>> you want.
>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>news:suj1p8puvarm8o4ts...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:49:31 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote in news:kmmhtl$3li$1@dont-
>>>email.me:
>>>
>>>> To me death is just a transition from,one phase of existence to
>>>> another, of which we know NOTHING, therefore, no evidence.
>>>
>>>Therefore it's just a big dumb guess.
>>
>> Actually, God sent Jesus specifically to give us a heads up on the
>> existence of the heavenly kingdom. Go ahead, fool. Follow satan all
>> you want.
>All made-up characters in a grossly out-dated myth. Smart people can tell
>the difference between your dumb fantasy and reality. What's holding you
>back?
I'm extremely smarter than you.
>the difference between your dumb fantasy and reality. What's holding you
>back?
The dukester, American - American
Dreamer In Colore
May 13, 2013, 2:15:48 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 08:40:18 -0700 (PDT), alen <al...@westserv.net.au>
You think that they are improbable only because you're looking at them
at the end of the chain.
There were untold numbers of connections and interactions that
actually did happen before any current complex system occurred. No
complex systems existed prior to the existence of simpler ones. That's
how evolution works.
>> > And yet you think, without a shadow of doubt, that this is
>> > a 'rational' position to the extent that anyone who doubts
>> > it, and realises that there must be a designer behind it
>> > all, is to be regarded, without the SLIGHTEST shadow of
>> > a doubt, �as indulging in no more than irrational, superstitious
>> > fantasy. Such one-sided, groundless overconfidence is
>> > truly mind boggling!
>>
>> That complex systems can evolve is indeed mind
>> boggling but that doesn't make in impossible.
>>
>
>It does if EVERY concept of a designer is excluded.
>
No, Alen. Complicated systems not only have evolved in the past, but
continue to evolve even now. A simple example would be the colour
changes in moths in industrial England. Changing colour pigmentation
systems is non-trivial, and this has happened in response to the
increase in pollution levels from coal-burning plants.
That complicated system didn't require a designer... it required
evolutionary theory, which explains the phenomenon very well, without
resorting to a supernatural entity.
You're continuing to hold an opinion concerning an entity for which
you have no supporting evidence: intelligent design is neither
intelligent, nor particularly good evidence for either efficient or
beautiful design.
Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306
at the end of the chain.
There were untold numbers of connections and interactions that
actually did happen before any current complex system occurred. No
complex systems existed prior to the existence of simpler ones. That's
how evolution works.
>> > And yet you think, without a shadow of doubt, that this is
>> > a 'rational' position to the extent that anyone who doubts
>> > it, and realises that there must be a designer behind it
>> > all, is to be regarded, without the SLIGHTEST shadow of
>> > a doubt, �as indulging in no more than irrational, superstitious
>> > fantasy. Such one-sided, groundless overconfidence is
>> > truly mind boggling!
>>
>> That complex systems can evolve is indeed mind
>> boggling but that doesn't make in impossible.
>>
>
>It does if EVERY concept of a designer is excluded.
>
continue to evolve even now. A simple example would be the colour
changes in moths in industrial England. Changing colour pigmentation
systems is non-trivial, and this has happened in response to the
increase in pollution levels from coal-burning plants.
That complicated system didn't require a designer... it required
evolutionary theory, which explains the phenomenon very well, without
resorting to a supernatural entity.
You're continuing to hold an opinion concerning an entity for which
you have no supporting evidence: intelligent design is neither
intelligent, nor particularly good evidence for either efficient or
beautiful design.
Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306
Stanislaus Stewart
May 13, 2013, 5:54:43 PM5/13/13
to
considered gods. Og is just a caveman.
Stan
Syd M.
May 13, 2013, 5:56:28 PM5/13/13
to
On May 13, 2:14 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 12:51:13 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
> >duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 12:51:13 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
> >news:suj1p8puvarm8o4ts...@4ax.com:
>
> >> On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:49:31 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
>
> >>>Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote innews:kmmhtl$3li$1@dont-
>
> >> On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:49:31 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
>
> >>>email.me:
>
> >>>> To me death is just a transition from,one phase of existence to
> >>>> another, of which we know NOTHING, therefore, no evidence.
>
> >>>Therefore it's just a big dumb guess.
>
> >> Actually, God sent Jesus specifically to give us a heads up on the
> >> existence of the heavenly kingdom. Go ahead, fool. Follow satan all
> >> you want.
> >All made-up characters in a grossly out-dated myth. Smart people can tell
> >the difference between your dumb fantasy and reality. What's holding you
> >back?
>
> I'm extremely smarter than you.
>
>
BWHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!
>
> >>>> To me death is just a transition from,one phase of existence to
> >>>> another, of which we know NOTHING, therefore, no evidence.
>
> >>>Therefore it's just a big dumb guess.
>
> >> Actually, God sent Jesus specifically to give us a heads up on the
> >> existence of the heavenly kingdom. Go ahead, fool. Follow satan all
> >> you want.
> >All made-up characters in a grossly out-dated myth. Smart people can tell
> >the difference between your dumb fantasy and reality. What's holding you
> >back?
>
> I'm extremely smarter than you.
>
>
PDW
Free Lunch
May 13, 2013, 6:23:15 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 08:28:16 -0700 (PDT), alen <al...@westserv.net.au>
with life.
>> > A vast bunch of
>> >dead mineral globes were able to develop, in beings, a
>> >life and consciousness which they totally lack themselves.
>>
>> No, you are not correct in your characterization.
>>
>> >And yet you think, without a shadow of doubt, that this is
>> >a 'rational' position to the extent that anyone who doubts
>> >it, and realises that there must be a designer behind it
>> >all, is to be regarded, without the SLIGHTEST shadow of
>> >a doubt, �as indulging in no more than irrational, superstitious
>> >fantasy. Such one-sided, groundless overconfidence is
>> >truly mind boggling!
>>
>> Where is your evidence that there is a designer?
>
>Because the simple, known forces of physics cannot
>explain the existence of the huge number of different,
>complex, living beings.
Why not? Must we take your unevidenced assertion for that?
>They can produce nothing more
>than some eventual, simple chemical equilibrium. This
>leaves no other option than to conclude that there
>MUST be the influence of a designer on nature, in order
>to explain what the laws of physics can never be
>sufficient to explain.
Not at all. We cannot even consider that step until you actually show
that " the simple, known forces of physics cannot explain the existence
wrote in alt.atheism:
>On May 13, 2:28�am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 May 2013 08:10:43 -0700 (PDT), alen <al...@westserv.net.au>
>> wrote in alt.atheism:
...
>On May 13, 2:28�am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 May 2013 08:10:43 -0700 (PDT), alen <al...@westserv.net.au>
>> wrote in alt.atheism:
>> >Such titanic overconfidence about faith being nothing
>> >but a fantasy! Such smug, effortless, handwaving lack
>> >of doubt!
>>
>> >A computer has a designer, as does an aircraft, automobile,
>> >house, watch, toaster, electric light, etc.etc. Do you
>> >really think that the supposition that the cosmos, just
>> >because it is huge and ancient, has been able to
>> >self-design living things within itself?
>>
>> Why do you assume design when there is no need to add such an
>> assumption?
>
>Why don't you read my post properly,
>before you start printing a reply?
How did I misread it. You have assumed that there is design associated
>> >but a fantasy! Such smug, effortless, handwaving lack
>> >of doubt!
>>
>> >A computer has a designer, as does an aircraft, automobile,
>> >house, watch, toaster, electric light, etc.etc. Do you
>> >really think that the supposition that the cosmos, just
>> >because it is huge and ancient, has been able to
>> >self-design living things within itself?
>>
>> Why do you assume design when there is no need to add such an
>> assumption?
>
>Why don't you read my post properly,
>before you start printing a reply?
with life.
>> > A vast bunch of
>> >dead mineral globes were able to develop, in beings, a
>> >life and consciousness which they totally lack themselves.
>>
>> No, you are not correct in your characterization.
>>
>> >And yet you think, without a shadow of doubt, that this is
>> >a 'rational' position to the extent that anyone who doubts
>> >it, and realises that there must be a designer behind it
>> >all, is to be regarded, without the SLIGHTEST shadow of
>> >a doubt, �as indulging in no more than irrational, superstitious
>> >fantasy. Such one-sided, groundless overconfidence is
>> >truly mind boggling!
>>
>> Where is your evidence that there is a designer?
>
>Because the simple, known forces of physics cannot
>explain the existence of the huge number of different,
>complex, living beings.
>They can produce nothing more
>than some eventual, simple chemical equilibrium. This
>leaves no other option than to conclude that there
>MUST be the influence of a designer on nature, in order
>to explain what the laws of physics can never be
>sufficient to explain.
that " the simple, known forces of physics cannot explain the existence
Free Lunch
May 13, 2013, 6:24:40 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 08:40:18 -0700 (PDT), alen <al...@westserv.net.au>
wrote in alt.atheism:
It seems to me that a god is far more improbable than nature.
>> > And yet you think, without a shadow of doubt, that this is
>> > a 'rational' position to the extent that anyone who doubts
>> > it, and realises that there must be a designer behind it
>> > all, is to be regarded, without the SLIGHTEST shadow of
>> > a doubt, �as indulging in no more than irrational, superstitious
>> > fantasy. Such one-sided, groundless overconfidence is
>> > truly mind boggling!
>>
>> That complex systems can evolve is indeed mind
>> boggling but that doesn't make in impossible.
>
>It does if EVERY concept of a designer is excluded.
No need to even bring up the concept.
wrote in alt.atheism:
>> > And yet you think, without a shadow of doubt, that this is
>> > a 'rational' position to the extent that anyone who doubts
>> > it, and realises that there must be a designer behind it
>> > all, is to be regarded, without the SLIGHTEST shadow of
>> > a doubt, �as indulging in no more than irrational, superstitious
>> > fantasy. Such one-sided, groundless overconfidence is
>> > truly mind boggling!
>>
>> That complex systems can evolve is indeed mind
>> boggling but that doesn't make in impossible.
>
>It does if EVERY concept of a designer is excluded.
Silen...@hotmail.com
May 13, 2013, 7:15:31 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 06:40:09 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 12 May 2013 22:37:33 -0400, Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote:
>
>> I won't go so far as to say that no one, nothing, is responsible for
>>existence. Something is, but we know absolutely nothing about
>>him/her/it. What I am saying is, it ain't any of the 'gods in the
>>religious books.
>
>Really.
Yes, really, Dook.
>On Sun, 12 May 2013 22:37:33 -0400, Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote:
>
>> I won't go so far as to say that no one, nothing, is responsible for
>>existence. Something is, but we know absolutely nothing about
>>him/her/it. What I am saying is, it ain't any of the 'gods in the
>>religious books.
>
>Really.
>Please reveal to me one (1) fact that supports that comment.
>> Those were created by men. Og came out of his cave
>>one day and decided that Mog and the others could not have made the sun,
>>moon, stars, trees, etc.,etc., and decided that God made them. That's
>>why any attempt to describe god ends up in human terms-he wants revenge,
>>to be worshipped, wants to be loved, wants gifts, wants to make war,
>>ec., etc. How in the world could a true god sanction slavery?
>
>He doesn't.
Because, it's not the one the Catholics use.
Heh heh...
Lying racist rightard socialists...
Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.
linuxgal
May 13, 2013, 10:50:59 PM5/13/13
to
duke wrote:
> I'm extremely smarter than you.
'Nuff said.
> I'm extremely smarter than you.
--
Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0
Yap
May 13, 2013, 10:23:08 PM5/13/13
to
On May 12, 6:53 am, Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote:
> On 5/11/2013 2:37 AM, W.T.S. wrote:
>
> > In article <0dee3a16-c31d-4ff4-a113-a2e33c2b5d22
> > @z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, craz...@comcast.net says...
>
> >> Does The Soul Exist? Evidence Says ‘Yes’.
> > Bull shit. No evidence exists.
>
> “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt
like that?
> To me death is just a transition from,one phase of existence to
> another, of which we know NOTHING, therefore, no evidence. Nothing
> religious about it.
> > which we need to survive.
>
> > As always, organized religion opposes progress -
>
> > See what RELIGION does to peoples' minds?
>
> > Adults no longer believe in the Tooth Fairy - but they still torture and
> > kill each other over ancient myths and superstitions.
>
> > "We all remember how many religious wars were fought for a religion of
> > love
> > and gentleness; how many bodies were burned
> > alive with the genuinely kind intention of saving souls from the eternal
> > fire of hell." --- Karl Popper
>
> > "When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When
> > many
> > people suffer from a delusion, it is called Religion."
> > --- Robert M. Pirsig
>
> > Either God wants to abolish evil and cannot, or he can but does not want
> > to.
> > If he wants to but cannot he is impotent. If he can
> > but does not want to, he is wicked. If he neither can nor wants to, then
> > he
> > is both powerless and wicked.
> > --- Epicurus, Greek philosopher, circa 300 B.C.
>
> > "Act of God" disasters like the Japanese earthquake expose the myth.
> > Either
> > God can do nothing to stop catastrophes like
> > this, or he doesn't care to, or he doesn't exist. He is thus either
> > impotent, evil, or imaginary.
> > --- CNN Belief Blog, 3-20-11
>
> > "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things
> > and
> > evil people doing evil things. But for good people
> > to do evil things, that takes religion."
> > --- Steven Weinberg, quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999
>
> > "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from
> > religious conviction." --- Blaise Pascal.
>
> > "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
> > false,
> > and by rulers as useful."
> > --- Seneca the Younger (4? BC - 65 AD)
>
> > "Religion once ruled the world. It was called the Dark Ages." --- Ruth
> > Green.
>
> > "Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings." ---
> > Victor Stenger.
>
> > "I don't believe in God because I don't believe in Mother Goose." ---
> > Clarence Darrow
>
> > "As my ancestors are free from slavery, I am free from the slavery of
> > religion." --- Butterfly McQueen
>
> > "Religion was invented when the first con-man met the first fool." -
> > Mark
> > Twain
>
> > "Faith is believing what you know ain't so." --- Mark Twain
>
> > "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character
> > in
> > all fiction." --- Richard Dawkins
>
> > "Cult today, religion tomorrow."
>
> > The Freedom From Religion Foundation: http://ffrf.org/
> > The Secular Coalition for America: www.secular.org
> > Secular Student Alliance: www.secularstudents.org
> >www.infidels.org
> >www.humaniststudies.org
> >www.atheistalliance.org
> >www.americanhumanist.org
> On 5/11/2013 2:37 AM, W.T.S. wrote:
>
> > In article <0dee3a16-c31d-4ff4-a113-a2e33c2b5d22
> > @z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, craz...@comcast.net says...
>
> >> Does The Soul Exist? Evidence Says ‘Yes’.
> > Bull shit. No evidence exists.
>
> “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt
> of in your philosophy.” Shakespeare
Massive bullshit......did Shakespeare been to heaven when he talked
like that?
> To me death is just a transition from,one phase of existence to
> another, of which we know NOTHING, therefore, no evidence. Nothing
> religious about it.
> Like the caterpillar changing into a butterfly. I have a feeling that he
> won't know anything about his previous caterpillar existence.
> Religion, like politics, was 'invented' by one small group of people to
> take advantage of another. In religion, they use fear of god, in
> politics, they use fear of the 'enemy'. You can see a good example of
> the latter with what the republican leadership is doing with their
> followers regarding Obama.
> I once had a discussion with my father-in-law about the existence of
> god. When I hit him with point after point showing there could never be
> a god, reasoning was beginning to dawn in him. Unfortunately the fear of
> living without a god got hold of him and he cried out, " Oh god, leave
> me alone with my beliefs."
> I looked at his face and what I saw there prompted me to leave him
> alone. Very sad that people have this BELIEF that they can't live
> without god.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > We are indeed Carcinoma Sapiens, destroying, by insane fecundity, that
> won't know anything about his previous caterpillar existence.
> Religion, like politics, was 'invented' by one small group of people to
> take advantage of another. In religion, they use fear of god, in
> politics, they use fear of the 'enemy'. You can see a good example of
> the latter with what the republican leadership is doing with their
> followers regarding Obama.
> I once had a discussion with my father-in-law about the existence of
> god. When I hit him with point after point showing there could never be
> a god, reasoning was beginning to dawn in him. Unfortunately the fear of
> living without a god got hold of him and he cried out, " Oh god, leave
> me alone with my beliefs."
> I looked at his face and what I saw there prompted me to leave him
> alone. Very sad that people have this BELIEF that they can't live
> without god.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > which we need to survive.
>
> > As always, organized religion opposes progress -
>
> > See what RELIGION does to peoples' minds?
>
> > Adults no longer believe in the Tooth Fairy - but they still torture and
> > kill each other over ancient myths and superstitions.
>
> > "We all remember how many religious wars were fought for a religion of
> > love
> > and gentleness; how many bodies were burned
> > alive with the genuinely kind intention of saving souls from the eternal
> > fire of hell." --- Karl Popper
>
> > "When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When
> > many
> > people suffer from a delusion, it is called Religion."
> > --- Robert M. Pirsig
>
> > Either God wants to abolish evil and cannot, or he can but does not want
> > to.
> > If he wants to but cannot he is impotent. If he can
> > but does not want to, he is wicked. If he neither can nor wants to, then
> > he
> > is both powerless and wicked.
> > --- Epicurus, Greek philosopher, circa 300 B.C.
>
> > "Act of God" disasters like the Japanese earthquake expose the myth.
> > Either
> > God can do nothing to stop catastrophes like
> > this, or he doesn't care to, or he doesn't exist. He is thus either
> > impotent, evil, or imaginary.
> > --- CNN Belief Blog, 3-20-11
>
> > "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things
> > and
> > evil people doing evil things. But for good people
> > to do evil things, that takes religion."
> > --- Steven Weinberg, quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999
>
> > "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from
> > religious conviction." --- Blaise Pascal.
>
> > "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
> > false,
> > and by rulers as useful."
> > --- Seneca the Younger (4? BC - 65 AD)
>
> > "Religion once ruled the world. It was called the Dark Ages." --- Ruth
> > Green.
>
> > "Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings." ---
> > Victor Stenger.
>
> > "I don't believe in God because I don't believe in Mother Goose." ---
> > Clarence Darrow
>
> > "As my ancestors are free from slavery, I am free from the slavery of
> > religion." --- Butterfly McQueen
>
> > "Religion was invented when the first con-man met the first fool." -
> > Mark
> > Twain
>
> > "Faith is believing what you know ain't so." --- Mark Twain
>
> > "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character
> > in
> > all fiction." --- Richard Dawkins
>
> > "Cult today, religion tomorrow."
>
> > The Freedom From Religion Foundation: http://ffrf.org/
> > The Secular Coalition for America: www.secular.org
> > Secular Student Alliance: www.secularstudents.org
> >www.infidels.org
> >www.humaniststudies.org
> >www.atheistalliance.org
> >www.americanhumanist.org
Yap
May 13, 2013, 10:31:58 PM5/13/13
to
bother with such imagination.
We all have physical development to do for this earth of ours.
Why would any supernatural thing be sleeping when we have come a long
way for the last 2000 or more years?
Yap
May 13, 2013, 10:33:33 PM5/13/13
to
On May 13, 7:36 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:49:31 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
> >Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote innews:kmmhtl$3li$1@dont-
> On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:49:31 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
> >email.me:
>
> >> To me death is just a transition from,one phase of existence to
> >> another, of which we know NOTHING, therefore, no evidence.
>
> >Therefore it's just a big dumb guess.
>
> Actually, God sent Jesus specifically to give us a heads up on the existence of
> the heavenly kingdom. Go ahead, fool. Follow satan all you want.
You are devoid of a brain, really.
>
> >> To me death is just a transition from,one phase of existence to
> >> another, of which we know NOTHING, therefore, no evidence.
>
> >Therefore it's just a big dumb guess.
>
> Actually, God sent Jesus specifically to give us a heads up on the existence of
> the heavenly kingdom. Go ahead, fool. Follow satan all you want.
Yap
May 13, 2013, 10:36:27 PM5/13/13
to
But even this alen fool would know he is a disappointment.
casey
May 13, 2013, 11:42:22 PM5/13/13
to
On 13 May, 08:28, alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
> On May 13, 2:28 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> [...]
> On May 13, 2:28 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > Where is your evidence that there is a designer?
>
> Because the simple, known forces of physics cannot
> explain the existence of the huge number of different,
> complex, living beings.
And your evidence that they cannot explain the existence
>
> Because the simple, known forces of physics cannot
> explain the existence of the huge number of different,
> complex, living beings.
of the huge number of different complex, living beings is?
> They can produce nothing more
> than some eventual, simple chemical equilibrium.
of energy and resources are halted we move toward
a simple chemical equilibrium called death.
> This
> leaves no other option than to conclude that there
> MUST be the influence of a designer on nature, in order
> to explain what the laws of physics can never be
> sufficient to explain.
determine how molecules interact will not be able to
fully explain how complex living things evolved.
>
> Alen
casey
May 13, 2013, 11:51:09 PM5/13/13
to
On 13 May, 08:40, alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
> On May 13, 3:14 am, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> [...]
> On May 13, 3:14 am, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > Complex systems can have properties not found in
> > the parts. The secret is in how they are connected.
>
> More - how they GET to be connected. The massively
> asymmetrical and improbable selection of connections
> necessary to construct a working organism cannot
> be explained by the laws of physics, which lead only
> to an amorphous chemical equilibrium.
And yet there is nothing we know about the molecules
> > the parts. The secret is in how they are connected.
>
> More - how they GET to be connected. The massively
> asymmetrical and improbable selection of connections
> necessary to construct a working organism cannot
> be explained by the laws of physics, which lead only
> to an amorphous chemical equilibrium.
of living things that aren't subject to the laws of physics
which kind of flags that the laws are sufficient to lead
to complex dynamic living systems. You can actually
watch it happen just by observing living systems even
if you don't understand the details of how it happens.
> > > And yet you think, without a shadow of doubt, that this is
> > > a 'rational' position to the extent that anyone who doubts
> > > it, and realises that there must be a designer behind it
> > > all, is to be regarded, without the SLIGHTEST shadow of
> > > a doubt, as indulging in no more than irrational, superstitious
> > > fantasy. Such one-sided, groundless overconfidence is
> > > truly mind boggling!
just as a flat earth was a natural view to take. However
as we learnt the real causes behind the natural world
the idea of a designer was pushed all the way back to
the designing the Universe after which it could run all
by itself.
> > That complex systems can evolve is indeed mind
> > boggling but that doesn't make in impossible.
>
> It does if EVERY concept of a designer is excluded.
An act of design is an act of selection.
>
> Alen
SkyEyes
May 14, 2013, 1:06:55 AM5/14/13
to
your own dick long enough to look something up, look up "fractals" and
"Benoit Mandelbrot." What Mandelbrot proved, with math, was that
simple processes, repeated over and over and over and over and over
and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
over and over and over and over again, but with different variables,
can produce highly complex results.
-
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
-
SkyEyes
May 14, 2013, 1:07:55 AM5/14/13
to
casey
May 14, 2013, 1:39:59 AM5/14/13
to
On 13 May, 22:06, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
> On May 13, 8:28 am, alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
> [snip for brevity]
> On May 13, 8:28 am, alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
> > > >And yet you think, without a shadow of doubt, that this is
> > > >a 'rational' position to the extent that anyone who doubts
> > > >it, and realises that there must be a designer behind it
> > > >all, is to be regarded, without the SLIGHTEST shadow of
> > > >a doubt, as indulging in no more than irrational, superstitious
> > > >fantasy. Such one-sided, groundless overconfidence is
> > > >truly mind boggling!
>
> > > Where is your evidence that there is a designer?
>
> > Because the simple, known forces of physics cannot
> > explain the existence of the huge number of different,
> > complex, living beings. They can produce nothing more
> > than some eventual, simple chemical equilibrium. This
> > leaves no other option than to conclude that there
> > MUST be the influence of a designer on nature, in order
> > to explain what the laws of physics can never be
> > sufficient to explain.
>
> BZZZZZT! Wrong. But thank you for playing. If you can let go of
> your own dick long enough to look something up, look up "fractals" and
> "Benoit Mandelbrot." What Mandelbrot proved, with math, was that
> simple processes, repeated over and over and over and over and over
> and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
> [snip for brevity]
> > > >a 'rational' position to the extent that anyone who doubts
> > > >it, and realises that there must be a designer behind it
> > > >all, is to be regarded, without the SLIGHTEST shadow of
> > > >a doubt, as indulging in no more than irrational, superstitious
> > > >fantasy. Such one-sided, groundless overconfidence is
> > > >truly mind boggling!
>
> > > Where is your evidence that there is a designer?
>
> > Because the simple, known forces of physics cannot
> > explain the existence of the huge number of different,
> > complex, living beings. They can produce nothing more
> > than some eventual, simple chemical equilibrium. This
> > leaves no other option than to conclude that there
> > MUST be the influence of a designer on nature, in order
> > to explain what the laws of physics can never be
> > sufficient to explain.
>
> BZZZZZT! Wrong. But thank you for playing. If you can let go of
> your own dick long enough to look something up, look up "fractals" and
> "Benoit Mandelbrot." What Mandelbrot proved, with math, was that
> simple processes, repeated over and over and over and over and over
> and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
> over and over and over and over again, but with different variables,
> can produce highly complex results.
A nice little book on the contribution math can provide
> can produce highly complex results.
to understanding life written for the layman is:
"Life's Other Secret" - The new mathematics of the Living World.
Ian Stewart
Message has been deleted
duke
May 14, 2013, 6:50:34 AM5/14/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 17:24:40 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>It seems to me that a god is far more improbable than nature.
What is "nature_al" if not from God?
>It seems to me that a god is far more improbable than nature.
duke
May 14, 2013, 6:51:48 AM5/14/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 19:15:31 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>On Mon, 13 May 2013 06:40:09 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 12 May 2013 22:37:33 -0400, Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I won't go so far as to say that no one, nothing, is responsible for
>>>existence. Something is, but we know absolutely nothing about
>>>him/her/it. What I am saying is, it ain't any of the 'gods in the
>>>religious books.
>>
>>Really.
>Yes, really, Dook.
>>Please reveal to me one (1) fact that supports that comment.
>-All- facts support that comment, Dook.
Then your revealing one (1) should be simple.
>On Mon, 13 May 2013 06:40:09 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 12 May 2013 22:37:33 -0400, Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I won't go so far as to say that no one, nothing, is responsible for
>>>existence. Something is, but we know absolutely nothing about
>>>him/her/it. What I am saying is, it ain't any of the 'gods in the
>>>religious books.
>>
>>Really.
>Yes, really, Dook.
>>Please reveal to me one (1) fact that supports that comment.
>-All- facts support that comment, Dook.
duke
May 14, 2013, 6:53:19 AM5/14/13
to
>There *is* no designer other than evolution.
duke
May 14, 2013, 6:53:56 AM5/14/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 18:50:59 -0800, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>duke wrote:
>> I'm extremely smarter than you.
>
>'Nuff said.
I've been saying that for a long time.
>duke wrote:
>> I'm extremely smarter than you.
>
>'Nuff said.
alen
May 14, 2013, 11:14:40 AM5/14/13
to
On May 14, 7:36 pm, Attila <<procho...@here.now> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 08:28:16 -0700 (PDT), alen <al...@westserv.net.au>
> in alt.abortion with message-id
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 08:28:16 -0700 (PDT), alen <al...@westserv.net.au>
> <ee661886-72db-4659-9aa8-f0823e5fd...@d8g2000pbe.googlegroups.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Because the simple, known forces of physics cannot
> >explain the existence of the huge number of different,
> >complex, living beings. They can produce nothing more
> >than some eventual, simple chemical equilibrium. This
> >leaves no other option than to conclude that there
> >MUST be the influence of a designer on nature, in order
> >to explain what the laws of physics can never be
> >sufficient to explain.
>
> Nonsense. I have seen nothing that supports the existence of any
>
> >Because the simple, known forces of physics cannot
> >explain the existence of the huge number of different,
> >complex, living beings. They can produce nothing more
> >than some eventual, simple chemical equilibrium. This
> >leaves no other option than to conclude that there
> >MUST be the influence of a designer on nature, in order
> >to explain what the laws of physics can never be
> >sufficient to explain.
>
> 'designer' and that tired old argument that there must be one because
> the universe is complex is ridiculous.
There is nothing 'tired' or ridiculous about it.
The invention of a purely theoretical concept of
random mutation and natural selection is assumed
to work just because it is obscure and unclear,
and this allows people to just BELIEVE it works.
But a random principle does not and cannot
produce anything positive and is far too powerfully
destructive to be controlled by any selection
principle. Evolutionary evidence is factual, but
the theory invented to interpret it is pure fantasy.
Alen
alen
May 14, 2013, 11:31:29 AM5/14/13
to
On May 14, 4:15 am, Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincol...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
If untold numbers of connections and interactions
were occurring randomly, the result would be nothing
but chaos. No selection principle would be able
to control such chaos in order to build a working
organism out of them
> >> > And yet you think, without a shadow of doubt, that this is
> >> > a 'rational' position to the extent that anyone who doubts
> >> > it, and realises that there must be a designer behind it
> >> > all, is to be regarded, without the SLIGHTEST shadow of
> >> > a doubt, as indulging in no more than irrational, superstitious
> >> > fantasy. Such one-sided, groundless overconfidence is
> >> > truly mind boggling!
>
> >> That complex systems can evolve is indeed mind
> >> boggling but that doesn't make in impossible.
>
> >It does if EVERY concept of a designer is excluded.
>
> No, Alen. Complicated systems not only have evolved in the past, but
> continue to evolve even now. A simple example would be the colour
> changes in moths in industrial England. Changing colour pigmentation
> systems is non-trivial, and this has happened in response to the
> increase in pollution levels from coal-burning plants.
If colour pigmentation changes were totally random, a
single, successful pigmentation result would not be
able to persist, since continuing random alterations
would not allow the selection principle to work, because
no pigmentation would ever display any stability from
one moth to the next. The moths must therefore also
have a property that resists or prevents or severely
restricts changes, in order for a successful change to
remain stable.
> That complicated system didn't require a designer... it required
> evolutionary theory, which explains the phenomenon very well, without
> resorting to a supernatural entity.
>
> You're continuing to hold an opinion concerning an entity for which
> you have no supporting evidence: intelligent design is neither
> intelligent, nor particularly good evidence for either efficient or
> beautiful design.
>
> Cheers,
> Dreamer
> AA 2306
Random mutation and natural selection is a fantasy
which people can believe only because its working is
obscure and unclear. The only intelligent theory to
explain evolution would be designed mutation and
natural selection.
Alen
wrote:
were occurring randomly, the result would be nothing
but chaos. No selection principle would be able
to control such chaos in order to build a working
organism out of them
> >> > And yet you think, without a shadow of doubt, that this is
> >> > a 'rational' position to the extent that anyone who doubts
> >> > it, and realises that there must be a designer behind it
> >> > all, is to be regarded, without the SLIGHTEST shadow of
> >> > a doubt, as indulging in no more than irrational, superstitious
> >> > fantasy. Such one-sided, groundless overconfidence is
> >> > truly mind boggling!
>
> >> That complex systems can evolve is indeed mind
> >> boggling but that doesn't make in impossible.
>
> >It does if EVERY concept of a designer is excluded.
>
> No, Alen. Complicated systems not only have evolved in the past, but
> continue to evolve even now. A simple example would be the colour
> changes in moths in industrial England. Changing colour pigmentation
> systems is non-trivial, and this has happened in response to the
> increase in pollution levels from coal-burning plants.
single, successful pigmentation result would not be
able to persist, since continuing random alterations
would not allow the selection principle to work, because
no pigmentation would ever display any stability from
one moth to the next. The moths must therefore also
have a property that resists or prevents or severely
restricts changes, in order for a successful change to
remain stable.
> That complicated system didn't require a designer... it required
> evolutionary theory, which explains the phenomenon very well, without
> resorting to a supernatural entity.
>
> You're continuing to hold an opinion concerning an entity for which
> you have no supporting evidence: intelligent design is neither
> intelligent, nor particularly good evidence for either efficient or
> beautiful design.
>
> Cheers,
> Dreamer
> AA 2306
which people can believe only because its working is
obscure and unclear. The only intelligent theory to
explain evolution would be designed mutation and
natural selection.
Alen
alen
May 14, 2013, 11:39:55 AM5/14/13
to
On May 14, 1:51 pm, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> On 13 May, 08:40, alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
>
> > On May 13, 3:14 am, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Complex systems can have properties not found in
> > > the parts. The secret is in how they are connected.
>
> > More - how they GET to be connected. The massively
> > asymmetrical and improbable selection of connections
> > necessary to construct a working organism cannot
> > be explained by the laws of physics, which lead only
> > to an amorphous chemical equilibrium.
>
> And yet there is nothing we know about the molecules
> of living things that aren't subject to the laws of physics
> which kind of flags that the laws are sufficient to lead
> to complex dynamic living systems. You can actually
> watch it happen just by observing living systems even
> if you don't understand the details of how it happens.
That is to suppose that because the laws of physics
> On 13 May, 08:40, alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
>
> > On May 13, 3:14 am, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Complex systems can have properties not found in
> > > the parts. The secret is in how they are connected.
>
> > More - how they GET to be connected. The massively
> > asymmetrical and improbable selection of connections
> > necessary to construct a working organism cannot
> > be explained by the laws of physics, which lead only
> > to an amorphous chemical equilibrium.
>
> And yet there is nothing we know about the molecules
> of living things that aren't subject to the laws of physics
> which kind of flags that the laws are sufficient to lead
> to complex dynamic living systems. You can actually
> watch it happen just by observing living systems even
> if you don't understand the details of how it happens.
are involved, they therefore must be the sole and
sufficient cause.
> > > > And yet you think, without a shadow of doubt, that this is
> > > > a 'rational' position to the extent that anyone who doubts
> > > > it, and realises that there must be a designer behind it
> > > > all, is to be regarded, without the SLIGHTEST shadow of
> > > > a doubt, as indulging in no more than irrational, superstitious
> > > > fantasy. Such one-sided, groundless overconfidence is
> > > > truly mind boggling!
>
> Once the view you express was a natural view to take
> just as a flat earth was a natural view to take. However
> as we learnt the real causes behind the natural world
> the idea of a designer was pushed all the way back to
> the designing the Universe after which it could run all
> by itself.
is just a theory, not a fact. People always mix up evidence
and theory in science. Evidence, in science, is fact, but
theory is not itself fact just because it tries to interpret facts.
People never seem to be able to grasp that truth, and talk
as if a theory is a fact just because it attempts to
interpret something factual.
Alen
Christopher A. Lee
May 14, 2013, 12:03:31 PM5/14/13
to
On Tue, 14 May 2013 08:14:40 -0700 (PDT), alen <al...@westserv.net.au>
wrote:
>On May 14, 7:36 pm, Attila <<procho...@here.now> wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 08:28:16 -0700 (PDT), alen <al...@westserv.net.au>
>> in alt.abortion with message-id
>> <ee661886-72db-4659-9aa8-f0823e5fd...@d8g2000pbe.googlegroups.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Because the simple, known forces of physics cannot
>> >explain the existence of the huge number of different,
>> >complex, living beings. They can produce nothing more
>> >than some eventual, simple chemical equilibrium. This
>> >leaves no other option than to conclude that there
>> >MUST be the influence of a designer on nature, in order
>> >to explain what the laws of physics can never be
>> >sufficient to explain.
Liar.
>> Nonsense. I have seen nothing that supports the existence of any
>> 'designer' and that tired old argument that there must be one because
>> the universe is complex is ridiculous.
>
>There is nothing 'tired' or ridiculous about it.
Liar.
>The invention of a purely theoretical concept of
>random mutation and natural selection is assumed
>to work just because it is obscure and unclear,
>and this allows people to just BELIEVE it works.
Liar.
The mechanisms that cause evolution are well understood.
The genetic mutations are random, but they are filtered by natural
selection.
>But a random principle does not and cannot
>produce anything positive and is far too powerfully
>destructive to be controlled by any selection
>principle. Evolutionary evidence is factual, but
>the theory invented to interpret it is pure fantasy.
Liar.
The rigorously researched and well understood mechanisms that cause
evolution have led to whole new sciences and technologies that
wouldn't even exist let alone work if they were the fantasy you lie
about.
Eg genetics and its spinoff technologies like forensic DNA
identification, biotech without which modern medicine and agriculture
would be different, etc.
>Alen
Get an education.
wrote:
>On May 14, 7:36 pm, Attila <<procho...@here.now> wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 08:28:16 -0700 (PDT), alen <al...@westserv.net.au>
>> in alt.abortion with message-id
>> <ee661886-72db-4659-9aa8-f0823e5fd...@d8g2000pbe.googlegroups.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Because the simple, known forces of physics cannot
>> >explain the existence of the huge number of different,
>> >complex, living beings. They can produce nothing more
>> >than some eventual, simple chemical equilibrium. This
>> >leaves no other option than to conclude that there
>> >MUST be the influence of a designer on nature, in order
>> >to explain what the laws of physics can never be
>> >sufficient to explain.
>> Nonsense. I have seen nothing that supports the existence of any
>> 'designer' and that tired old argument that there must be one because
>> the universe is complex is ridiculous.
>
>There is nothing 'tired' or ridiculous about it.
>The invention of a purely theoretical concept of
>random mutation and natural selection is assumed
>to work just because it is obscure and unclear,
>and this allows people to just BELIEVE it works.
The mechanisms that cause evolution are well understood.
The genetic mutations are random, but they are filtered by natural
selection.
>But a random principle does not and cannot
>produce anything positive and is far too powerfully
>destructive to be controlled by any selection
>principle. Evolutionary evidence is factual, but
>the theory invented to interpret it is pure fantasy.
The rigorously researched and well understood mechanisms that cause
evolution have led to whole new sciences and technologies that
wouldn't even exist let alone work if they were the fantasy you lie
about.
Eg genetics and its spinoff technologies like forensic DNA
identification, biotech without which modern medicine and agriculture
would be different, etc.
>Alen
Get an education.
Dreamer In Colore
May 14, 2013, 3:39:34 PM5/14/13
to
On Tue, 14 May 2013 08:31:29 -0700 (PDT), alen <al...@westserv.net.au>
Connections and interactions that yield evolutionary advantage are the
ones that are maintained in subsequent generations. That's the
"selection principle" to which you refer.
>> >> > And yet you think, without a shadow of doubt, that this is
>> >> > a 'rational' position to the extent that anyone who doubts
>> >> > it, and realises that there must be a designer behind it
>> >> > all, is to be regarded, without the SLIGHTEST shadow of
>> >> > a doubt, as indulging in no more than irrational, superstitious
>> >> > fantasy. Such one-sided, groundless overconfidence is
>> >> > truly mind boggling!
>>
>> >> That complex systems can evolve is indeed mind
>> >> boggling but that doesn't make in impossible.
>>
>> >It does if EVERY concept of a designer is excluded.
>>
>> No, Alen. Complicated systems not only have evolved in the past, but
>> continue to evolve even now. A simple example would be the colour
>> changes in moths in industrial England. Changing colour pigmentation
>> systems is non-trivial, and this has happened in response to the
>> increase in pollution levels from coal-burning plants.
>
>If colour pigmentation changes were totally random, a
>single, successful pigmentation result would not be
>able to persist, since continuing random alterations
>would not allow the selection principle to work, because
>no pigmentation would ever display any stability from
>one moth to the next. The moths must therefore also
>have a property that resists or prevents or severely
>restricts changes, in order for a successful change to
>remain stable.
>
The _surviving_ moths' colour pigmentation changes are due to
evolutionary advantage. The moths whose colour pigmentation didn't
occur in a favourable way died out.
The changes aren't instant. They occur with successive generations,
and the generations that don't have favourable colouration die out.
There's no property that resists or prevents or restricts changes
other than death.
>> That complicated system didn't require a designer... it required
>> evolutionary theory, which explains the phenomenon very well, without
>> resorting to a supernatural entity.
>>
>> You're continuing to hold an opinion concerning an entity for which
>> you have no supporting evidence: intelligent design is neither
>> intelligent, nor particularly good evidence for either efficient or
>> beautiful design.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Dreamer
>> AA 2306
>
>Random mutation and natural selection is a fantasy
>which people can believe only because its working is
>obscure and unclear. The only intelligent theory to
>explain evolution would be designed mutation and
>natural selection.
>
Natural selection is simple, Alen. Successive generations of a given
species incorporate all of the evolutionary advantages of prior
generations, together with new ones that occur in the current
generation due to genetics.
This is second-year university level biology, with no supernatural
entity required. I suggest you open up a decent textbook and read a
little, because it seems to me that when you say "the only intelligent
theory to explain evolution would be designed mutation" is wilful
ignorance of what actually exists in the real world.
Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306
ones that are maintained in subsequent generations. That's the
"selection principle" to which you refer.
>> >> > And yet you think, without a shadow of doubt, that this is
>> >> > a 'rational' position to the extent that anyone who doubts
>> >> > it, and realises that there must be a designer behind it
>> >> > all, is to be regarded, without the SLIGHTEST shadow of
>> >> > a doubt, as indulging in no more than irrational, superstitious
>> >> > fantasy. Such one-sided, groundless overconfidence is
>> >> > truly mind boggling!
>>
>> >> That complex systems can evolve is indeed mind
>> >> boggling but that doesn't make in impossible.
>>
>> >It does if EVERY concept of a designer is excluded.
>>
>> No, Alen. Complicated systems not only have evolved in the past, but
>> continue to evolve even now. A simple example would be the colour
>> changes in moths in industrial England. Changing colour pigmentation
>> systems is non-trivial, and this has happened in response to the
>> increase in pollution levels from coal-burning plants.
>
>If colour pigmentation changes were totally random, a
>single, successful pigmentation result would not be
>able to persist, since continuing random alterations
>would not allow the selection principle to work, because
>no pigmentation would ever display any stability from
>one moth to the next. The moths must therefore also
>have a property that resists or prevents or severely
>restricts changes, in order for a successful change to
>remain stable.
>
evolutionary advantage. The moths whose colour pigmentation didn't
occur in a favourable way died out.
The changes aren't instant. They occur with successive generations,
and the generations that don't have favourable colouration die out.
There's no property that resists or prevents or restricts changes
other than death.
>> That complicated system didn't require a designer... it required
>> evolutionary theory, which explains the phenomenon very well, without
>> resorting to a supernatural entity.
>>
>> You're continuing to hold an opinion concerning an entity for which
>> you have no supporting evidence: intelligent design is neither
>> intelligent, nor particularly good evidence for either efficient or
>> beautiful design.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Dreamer
>> AA 2306
>
>Random mutation and natural selection is a fantasy
>which people can believe only because its working is
>obscure and unclear. The only intelligent theory to
>explain evolution would be designed mutation and
>natural selection.
>
species incorporate all of the evolutionary advantages of prior
generations, together with new ones that occur in the current
generation due to genetics.
This is second-year university level biology, with no supernatural
entity required. I suggest you open up a decent textbook and read a
little, because it seems to me that when you say "the only intelligent
theory to explain evolution would be designed mutation" is wilful
ignorance of what actually exists in the real world.
Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306
casey
May 14, 2013, 3:53:49 PM5/14/13
to
On 14 May, 08:31, alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
> On May 14, 4:15 am, Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincol...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> [...]
> On May 14, 4:15 am, Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincol...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> If untold numbers of connections and interactions
> were occurring randomly, the result would be nothing
> but chaos. No selection principle would be able
> to control such chaos in order to build a working
> organism out of them
An analogy with evolution because it involves
> were occurring randomly, the result would be nothing
> but chaos. No selection principle would be able
> to control such chaos in order to build a working
> organism out of them
random variation and selection is learning.
An important point to make is that over time
non-random trials may be selected for.
TD-Gammon used a network of artificial neurons
to value a backgammon game and the connections
were random to start with. Selective feedback
from a win/loss would strengthen or weaken these
connections. After thousands of games the chaos
of these connections became a working network that
was able to play backgammon against the best
players. So your suggestion that selection cannot
not bring order to chaos is not true.
> Random mutation and natural selection is a fantasy
> which people can believe only because its working is
> obscure and unclear.
very clear and have been used in examples like the
learning program I outlined above.
> The only intelligent theory to explain evolution would
> be designed mutation and natural selection.
of the above network was done by random variations
and selection. Design is an act of selection.
>
> Alen
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Free Lunch
May 14, 2013, 6:19:26 PM5/14/13
to
On Tue, 14 May 2013 05:50:34 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
alt.atheism:
>On Mon, 13 May 2013 17:24:40 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
>>It seems to me that a god is far more improbable than nature.
>
>What is "nature_al" if not from God?
If your god is nothing but another name for nature.
alt.atheism:
>On Mon, 13 May 2013 17:24:40 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
>>It seems to me that a god is far more improbable than nature.
>
>What is "nature_al" if not from God?
Jeanne Douglas
May 14, 2013, 8:05:47 PM5/14/13
to
In article <1r54p8pv8m5nubl5o...@4ax.com>,
accident.
--
JD
"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >There *is* no designer other than evolution.
>
> Where does evolution live? Also, are you saying you are a complete accident?
Why would you ask such a silly question. NOBODY thinks evolution is an
> >There *is* no designer other than evolution.
>
> Where does evolution live? Also, are you saying you are a complete accident?
accident.
--
JD
"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden
Silen...@hotmail.com
May 14, 2013, 8:06:24 PM5/14/13
to
On Tue, 14 May 2013 05:51:48 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 13 May 2013 19:15:31 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 13 May 2013 06:40:09 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 12 May 2013 22:37:33 -0400, Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I won't go so far as to say that no one, nothing, is responsible for
>>>>existence. Something is, but we know absolutely nothing about
>>>>him/her/it. What I am saying is, it ain't any of the 'gods in the
>>>>religious books.
>>>
>>>Really.
>
>>Yes, really, Dook.
>>>Please reveal to me one (1) fact that supports that comment.
>>-All- facts support that comment, Dook.
>
>Then your revealing one (1) should be simple.
The Earth is roughly 4.7 billion years old, instead of the 9,000 the
>On Mon, 13 May 2013 19:15:31 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 13 May 2013 06:40:09 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 12 May 2013 22:37:33 -0400, Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I won't go so far as to say that no one, nothing, is responsible for
>>>>existence. Something is, but we know absolutely nothing about
>>>>him/her/it. What I am saying is, it ain't any of the 'gods in the
>>>>religious books.
>>>
>>>Really.
>
>>Yes, really, Dook.
>>>Please reveal to me one (1) fact that supports that comment.
>>-All- facts support that comment, Dook.
>
>Then your revealing one (1) should be simple.
Bible implies.
Done.
Heh heh...
Lying racist rightard socialists...
Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.
Silen...@hotmail.com
May 14, 2013, 8:08:22 PM5/14/13
to
On Tue, 14 May 2013 05:53:56 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 13 May 2013 18:50:59 -0800, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>
>>duke wrote:
>>> I'm extremely smarter than you.
>>
>>'Nuff said.
>
>I've been saying that for a long time.
You've been lying for a long time too, Dook.
>On Mon, 13 May 2013 18:50:59 -0800, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>
>>duke wrote:
>>> I'm extremely smarter than you.
>>
>>'Nuff said.
>
>I've been saying that for a long time.
Heh heh...
Lying racist rightard socialists...
Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.
>
nature bats last
May 15, 2013, 12:35:38 AM5/15/13
to
On May 13, 4:36 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:49:31 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
> >Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote innews:kmmhtl$3li$1@dont-
> >email.me:
>
> On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:49:31 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
> >Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote innews:kmmhtl$3li$1@dont-
> >email.me:
>
> >> To me death is just a transition from,one phase of existence to
> >> another, of which we know NOTHING, therefore, no evidence.
>
;
> >> another, of which we know NOTHING, therefore, no evidence.
>
> >Therefore it's just a big dumb guess.
;
> Actually, God sent Jesus specifically to give us a heads up on the existence of
> the heavenly kingdom.
And then provided virtually no details about this
;
> Actually, God sent Jesus specifically to give us a heads up on the existence of
> the heavenly kingdom.
"heavenly kingdom". Let alone why anyone would want to
end up there.
(note: saying "Well, at least it's better than hell" is
like saying "At least the slums of Mumbai are better
than the slums of Calcutta". Not a lot of incentives
in that)
> Go ahead, fool. Follow satan all you want.
>
nature bats last
May 15, 2013, 12:36:54 AM5/15/13
to
On May 13, 4:36 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:49:31 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
> >Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote innews:kmmhtl$3li$1@dont-
> >email.me:
>
> >> To me death is just a transition from,one phase of existence to
> >> another, of which we know NOTHING, therefore, no evidence.
;
> >Therefore it's just a big dumb guess.
;
> Actually, God sent Jesus specifically to give us a heads up on the existence of
> the heavenly kingdom.
You talking about this place?
> On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:49:31 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
> >Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote innews:kmmhtl$3li$1@dont-
> >email.me:
>
> >> To me death is just a transition from,one phase of existence to
> >> another, of which we know NOTHING, therefore, no evidence.
;
> >Therefore it's just a big dumb guess.
;
> Actually, God sent Jesus specifically to give us a heads up on the existence of
> the heavenly kingdom.
"And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and
thunderings and voices: and there were seven lamps
of fire burning before the throne, which are the
seven Spirits of God.
And before the throne there was a sea of glass like
unto crystal: and in the midst of the throne, and
round about the throne, were four beasts full of
eyes before and behind.
And the first beast was like a lion, and the second
beast like a calf, and the third beast had a face
as a man, and the fourth beast was like a flying
eagle.
And the four beasts had each of them six wings
about him; and they were full of eyes within: and
they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy,
holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is
to come. "
Yeah, that sounds like a real fun place to spend
eternity.
(I'm betting Dook never knew that God
has seven spirits)
NBL
nature bats last
May 15, 2013, 12:42:15 AM5/15/13
to
On May 13, 11:14 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 12:51:13 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
> >duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in
> >news:suj1p8puvarm8o4ts...@4ax.com:
> >> you want.
;
> >All made-up characters in a grossly out-dated myth. Smart people can tell
> >the difference between your dumb fantasy and reality. What's holding you
> >back?
;
such as "I'm extremely smarter".
Seriously.
NBL
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 12:51:13 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
> >duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in
> >news:suj1p8puvarm8o4ts...@4ax.com:
>
> >> On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:49:31 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
>
> >>>Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote innews:kmmhtl$3li$1@dont-
> >>>email.me:
>
> >>>> To me death is just a transition from,one phase of existence to
> >>>> another, of which we know NOTHING, therefore, no evidence.
>
> >>>Therefore it's just a big dumb guess.
>
> >> Actually, God sent Jesus specifically to give us a heads up on the
> >> existence of the heavenly kingdom. Go ahead, fool. Follow satan all
> >> On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:49:31 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
>
> >>>Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote innews:kmmhtl$3li$1@dont-
> >>>email.me:
>
> >>>> To me death is just a transition from,one phase of existence to
> >>>> another, of which we know NOTHING, therefore, no evidence.
>
> >>>Therefore it's just a big dumb guess.
>
> >> Actually, God sent Jesus specifically to give us a heads up on the
> >> you want.
;
> >All made-up characters in a grossly out-dated myth. Smart people can tell
> >the difference between your dumb fantasy and reality. What's holding you
> >back?
;
> I'm extremely smarter than you.
Actual smart people do not commit linguistic atrocities
such as "I'm extremely smarter".
Seriously.
NBL
duke
May 15, 2013, 7:06:21 AM5/15/13
to
On Tue, 14 May 2013 17:05:47 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
wrote:
>In article <1r54p8pv8m5nubl5o...@4ax.com>,
> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> >There *is* no designer other than evolution.
>>
>> Where does evolution live? Also, are you saying you are a complete accident?
>
>Why would you ask such a silly question. NOBODY thinks evolution is an
>accident.
YOU do. Just think, you had a better than even odds of being a tree.
wrote:
>In article <1r54p8pv8m5nubl5o...@4ax.com>,
> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> >There *is* no designer other than evolution.
>>
>> Where does evolution live? Also, are you saying you are a complete accident?
>
>Why would you ask such a silly question. NOBODY thinks evolution is an
>accident.
duke
May 15, 2013, 7:14:52 AM5/15/13
to
Heeheehee.
duke
May 15, 2013, 7:23:06 AM5/15/13
to
On Tue, 14 May 2013 20:06:24 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>On Tue, 14 May 2013 05:51:48 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>On Mon, 13 May 2013 19:15:31 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>On Mon, 13 May 2013 06:40:09 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>On Sun, 12 May 2013 22:37:33 -0400, Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>Please reveal to me one (1) fact that supports that comment.
>>>-All- facts support that comment, Dook.
>>Then your revealing one (1) should be simple.
>The Earth is roughly 4.7 billion years old, instead of the 9,000 the
>Bible implies.
There is exactly nothing in the bible that implies or suggests 9000 years
>On Tue, 14 May 2013 05:51:48 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>On Mon, 13 May 2013 19:15:31 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>On Mon, 13 May 2013 06:40:09 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>On Sun, 12 May 2013 22:37:33 -0400, Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>Please reveal to me one (1) fact that supports that comment.
>>>-All- facts support that comment, Dook.
>>Then your revealing one (1) should be simple.
>The Earth is roughly 4.7 billion years old, instead of the 9,000 the
>Bible implies.
(actually 6000 years) as the age of the earth.
Heeheehee.
Are you asking for stani steward now?
duke
May 15, 2013, 7:26:02 AM5/15/13
to
On Tue, 14 May 2013 21:35:38 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last <seqk...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On May 13, 4:36 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:49:31 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
>> >Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote innews:kmmhtl$3li$1@dont-
>> >email.me:
>> >> To me death is just a transition from,one phase of existence to
>> >> another, of which we know NOTHING, therefore, no evidence.
>> >Therefore it's just a big dumb guess.
>> Actually, God sent Jesus specifically to give us a heads up on the existence of
>> the heavenly kingdom.
>And then provided virtually no details about this
>"heavenly kingdom". Let alone why anyone would want to
>end up there.
He spoke of the heavenly kingdom on a regular basis as seen in the scriptures.
And he made the choice very simple.
wrote:
>On May 13, 4:36 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:49:31 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
>> >Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote innews:kmmhtl$3li$1@dont-
>> >email.me:
>> >> To me death is just a transition from,one phase of existence to
>> >> another, of which we know NOTHING, therefore, no evidence.
>> >Therefore it's just a big dumb guess.
>> Actually, God sent Jesus specifically to give us a heads up on the existence of
>> the heavenly kingdom.
>And then provided virtually no details about this
>"heavenly kingdom". Let alone why anyone would want to
>end up there.
And he made the choice very simple.
duke
May 15, 2013, 7:28:17 AM5/15/13
to
On Tue, 14 May 2013 21:36:54 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last <seqk...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>> Actually, God sent Jesus specifically to give us a heads up on the existence of
>> the heavenly kingdom.
>You talking about this place?
Yes, in apocalyptic language as traditional in Revelations..
> "And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and
> thunderings and voices: and there were seven lamps
> of fire burning before the throne, which are the
> seven Spirits of God.
>
> And before the throne there was a sea of glass like
> unto crystal: and in the midst of the throne, and
> round about the throne, were four beasts full of
> eyes before and behind.
>
> And the first beast was like a lion, and the second
> beast like a calf, and the third beast had a face
> as a man, and the fourth beast was like a flying
> eagle.
>
> And the four beasts had each of them six wings
> about him; and they were full of eyes within: and
> they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy,
> holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is
> to come. "
>
>Yeah, that sounds like a real fun place to spend
>eternity.
>
>(I'm betting Dook never knew that God
>has seven spirits)
Heehehee.
>NBL
wrote:
>> Actually, God sent Jesus specifically to give us a heads up on the existence of
>> the heavenly kingdom.
>You talking about this place?
> "And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and
> thunderings and voices: and there were seven lamps
> of fire burning before the throne, which are the
> seven Spirits of God.
>
> And before the throne there was a sea of glass like
> unto crystal: and in the midst of the throne, and
> round about the throne, were four beasts full of
> eyes before and behind.
>
> And the first beast was like a lion, and the second
> beast like a calf, and the third beast had a face
> as a man, and the fourth beast was like a flying
> eagle.
>
> And the four beasts had each of them six wings
> about him; and they were full of eyes within: and
> they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy,
> holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is
> to come. "
>
>Yeah, that sounds like a real fun place to spend
>eternity.
>
>(I'm betting Dook never knew that God
>has seven spirits)
>NBL
duke
May 15, 2013, 7:29:16 AM5/15/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 20:51:09 -0700 (PDT), casey <jgkj...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>And yet there is nothing we know about the molecules
>of living things that aren't subject to the laws of physics
>which kind of flags that the laws are sufficient to lead
>to complex dynamic living systems. You can actually
>watch it happen just by observing living systems even
>if you don't understand the details of how it happens.
Thanks be to God.
>And yet there is nothing we know about the molecules
>of living things that aren't subject to the laws of physics
>which kind of flags that the laws are sufficient to lead
>to complex dynamic living systems. You can actually
>watch it happen just by observing living systems even
>if you don't understand the details of how it happens.
duke
May 15, 2013, 7:31:02 AM5/15/13
to
On Tue, 14 May 2013 21:42:15 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last <seqk...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On May 13, 11:14 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 12:51:13 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
>> >duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in
>> >news:suj1p8puvarm8o4ts...@4ax.com:
>>
>> >> On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:49:31 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote innews:kmmhtl$3li$1@dont-
>> >>>email.me:
>>
>> >>>> To me death is just a transition from,one phase of existence to
>> >>>> another, of which we know NOTHING, therefore, no evidence.
>>
>> >>>Therefore it's just a big dumb guess.
>>
>> >> Actually, God sent Jesus specifically to give us a heads up on the
>> >> existence of the heavenly kingdom. Go ahead, fool. Follow satan all
>> >> you want.
>;
>> >All made-up characters in a grossly out-dated myth. Smart people can tell
>> >the difference between your dumb fantasy and reality. What's holding you
>> >back?
>
>;
>> I'm extremely smarter than you.
>
>Actual smart people do not commit linguistic atrocities
>such as "I'm extremely smarter".
>
>Seriously.
I can't hide from the truth. I could have said "you smart, I'm extremely
smarter than you". Heeheehee.
wrote:
>On May 13, 11:14 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 12:51:13 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
>> >duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in
>> >news:suj1p8puvarm8o4ts...@4ax.com:
>>
>> >> On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:49:31 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote innews:kmmhtl$3li$1@dont-
>> >>>email.me:
>>
>> >>>> To me death is just a transition from,one phase of existence to
>> >>>> another, of which we know NOTHING, therefore, no evidence.
>>
>> >>>Therefore it's just a big dumb guess.
>>
>> >> Actually, God sent Jesus specifically to give us a heads up on the
>> >> existence of the heavenly kingdom. Go ahead, fool. Follow satan all
>> >> you want.
>;
>> >All made-up characters in a grossly out-dated myth. Smart people can tell
>> >the difference between your dumb fantasy and reality. What's holding you
>> >back?
>
>;
>> I'm extremely smarter than you.
>
>Actual smart people do not commit linguistic atrocities
>such as "I'm extremely smarter".
>
>Seriously.
smarter than you". Heeheehee.
alen
May 15, 2013, 11:16:55 AM5/15/13
to
On May 15, 5:39 am, Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincol...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
that cannot work looks as if it works.
Any pigmentation established by selection would
be once again randomly mutated out of existence.
The computer binary description of colours uses
the hex number ffffff, which provides more than
16 million colours. If the moth pigmentation was
randomly mutating, there would be only a tiny fraction
of moths with a 'favourable' pigmentation. Since the
surviving moths would have a reduced population, and
they, in turn would continue to mutate randomly, only
a tiny fraction of their population would, in turn, survive
so that, in the end, no moths would be left. If the
mutations themselves are not designed to resist
random mutations of the successful pigmentation, then
it cannot survive.
Ir is too simple to be credible. Even intelligent
scientists are completely fooled by it ("thinking
themselves to be wise, they became fools")
You can't 'incorporate' the 'evolutionary advantages'
of something in which the advantages continue to
be randomly mutated and destroyed. You can't
'successfully select', as permanent, a property
which is totally unstable because of continuing
random alterations. The whole theory is pure,
unworkable illusion.
Alen
wrote:
[...]
> >If colour pigmentation changes were totally random, a
> >single, successful pigmentation result would not be
> >able to persist, since continuing random alterations
> >would not allow the selection principle to work, because
> >no pigmentation would ever display any stability from
> >one moth to the next. The moths must therefore also
> >have a property that resists or prevents or severely
> >restricts changes, in order for a successful change to
> >remain stable.
>
> The _surviving_ moths' colour pigmentation changes are due to
> evolutionary advantage. The moths whose colour pigmentation didn't
> occur in a favourable way died out.
>
> The changes aren't instant. They occur with successive generations,
> and the generations that don't have favourable colouration die out.
> There's no property that resists or prevents or restricts changes
> other than death.
This is nothing but a mirage in which something
> >single, successful pigmentation result would not be
> >able to persist, since continuing random alterations
> >would not allow the selection principle to work, because
> >no pigmentation would ever display any stability from
> >one moth to the next. The moths must therefore also
> >have a property that resists or prevents or severely
> >restricts changes, in order for a successful change to
> >remain stable.
>
> The _surviving_ moths' colour pigmentation changes are due to
> evolutionary advantage. The moths whose colour pigmentation didn't
> occur in a favourable way died out.
>
> The changes aren't instant. They occur with successive generations,
> and the generations that don't have favourable colouration die out.
> There's no property that resists or prevents or restricts changes
> other than death.
that cannot work looks as if it works.
Any pigmentation established by selection would
be once again randomly mutated out of existence.
The computer binary description of colours uses
the hex number ffffff, which provides more than
16 million colours. If the moth pigmentation was
randomly mutating, there would be only a tiny fraction
of moths with a 'favourable' pigmentation. Since the
surviving moths would have a reduced population, and
they, in turn would continue to mutate randomly, only
a tiny fraction of their population would, in turn, survive
so that, in the end, no moths would be left. If the
mutations themselves are not designed to resist
random mutations of the successful pigmentation, then
it cannot survive.
scientists are completely fooled by it ("thinking
themselves to be wise, they became fools")
You can't 'incorporate' the 'evolutionary advantages'
of something in which the advantages continue to
be randomly mutated and destroyed. You can't
'successfully select', as permanent, a property
which is totally unstable because of continuing
random alterations. The whole theory is pure,
unworkable illusion.
Alen
alen
May 15, 2013, 11:26:31 AM5/15/13
to
On May 15, 5:53 am, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> On 14 May, 08:31, alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
>
> > On May 14, 4:15 am, Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincol...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > [...]
> > If untold numbers of connections and interactions
> > were occurring randomly, the result would be nothing
> > but chaos. No selection principle would be able
> > to control such chaos in order to build a working
> > organism out of them
>
> An analogy with evolution because it involves
> random variation and selection is learning.
>
> An important point to make is that over time
> non-random trials may be selected for.
>
> TD-Gammon used a network of artificial neurons
> to value a backgammon game and the connections
> were random to start with. Selective feedback
> from a win/loss would strengthen or weaken these
> connections. After thousands of games the chaos
> of these connections became a working network that
> was able to play backgammon against the best
> players. So your suggestion that selection cannot
> not bring order to chaos is not true.
Selection can bring order only if it excludes any
> On 14 May, 08:31, alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
>
> > On May 14, 4:15 am, Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincol...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > [...]
> > If untold numbers of connections and interactions
> > were occurring randomly, the result would be nothing
> > but chaos. No selection principle would be able
> > to control such chaos in order to build a working
> > organism out of them
>
> An analogy with evolution because it involves
> random variation and selection is learning.
>
> An important point to make is that over time
> non-random trials may be selected for.
>
> TD-Gammon used a network of artificial neurons
> to value a backgammon game and the connections
> were random to start with. Selective feedback
> from a win/loss would strengthen or weaken these
> connections. After thousands of games the chaos
> of these connections became a working network that
> was able to play backgammon against the best
> players. So your suggestion that selection cannot
> not bring order to chaos is not true.
further random changes. That means that selection
must eliminate the random mutations themselves.
The game connections you mention are really
'designed' to be 'strengthened'. That is not a simple
external selection process, since this 'strengthening'
is a designed interference with the nature of the
connections themselves (mutations themselves are
progressively restricted by a designed bias towards
'success', as understood by the designer of this
'evolution'.
> > Random mutation and natural selection is a fantasy
> > which people can believe only because its working is
> > obscure and unclear.
>
> On the contrary the principles as to how it works are
> very clear and have been used in examples like the
> learning program I outlined above.
>
> > The only intelligent theory to explain evolution would
> > be designed mutation and natural selection.
>
> "Designed mutation" doesn't make sense. The "design"
> of the above network was done by random variations
> and selection. Design is an act of selection.
makes the process appear as if it is less designed
than it really is
Alen
Silen...@hotmail.com
May 15, 2013, 6:51:08 PM5/15/13
to
On Wed, 15 May 2013 06:23:06 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 14 May 2013 20:06:24 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 14 May 2013 05:51:48 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>On Mon, 13 May 2013 19:15:31 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>On Mon, 13 May 2013 06:40:09 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>On Sun, 12 May 2013 22:37:33 -0400, Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote:
>
>>>>>Please reveal to me one (1) fact that supports that comment.
>>>>-All- facts support that comment, Dook.
>
>>>Then your revealing one (1) should be simple.
>>The Earth is roughly 4.7 billion years old, instead of the 9,000 the
>>Bible implies.
>
>There is exactly nothing in the bible that implies or suggests 9000 years
>(actually 6000 years) as the age of the earth.
Many, many of your fellow theists disagree with your claim, Dook.
>On Tue, 14 May 2013 20:06:24 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 14 May 2013 05:51:48 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>On Mon, 13 May 2013 19:15:31 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>On Mon, 13 May 2013 06:40:09 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>On Sun, 12 May 2013 22:37:33 -0400, Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote:
>
>>>>>Please reveal to me one (1) fact that supports that comment.
>>>>-All- facts support that comment, Dook.
>
>>>Then your revealing one (1) should be simple.
>>The Earth is roughly 4.7 billion years old, instead of the 9,000 the
>>Bible implies.
>
>There is exactly nothing in the bible that implies or suggests 9000 years
>(actually 6000 years) as the age of the earth.
The Bible states how long it took to create the earth and provides a
unbroken chain of people who've lived, and their ages, up to times
that have known dates, allowing for the calculation.
Heh heh...
Lying racist rightard socialists...
Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.
>
Dreamer In Colore
May 15, 2013, 7:08:17 PM5/15/13
to
On Wed, 15 May 2013 08:16:55 -0700 (PDT), alen <al...@westserv.net.au>
You're predicating your argument on faulty math.
The moth pigmentation doesn't "randomly" mutate among 16 million
colours. Here's how it works: you first start with a set of moths that
is brown, with shades of brown along the entire continuum of hues and
shades. There will be lots of variation there, even though it's not
immediately obvious because you can't tell the difference between
FFFFFF and FFFFFE.
Now, over time, pollution enters the air, and the moths that tend to
have lighter pigmentations are going to survive better than the darker
ones because they'll fit in better with the polluted air.
Over time, those dark moths die out. The lighter coloured ones thrive.
Not particularly complicated to describe, and is in fact exactly how
it happens.
You can even do this in the lab with fruit flies because the genetics
are simple and the reproductive rates are wicked fast.
There's no "resisting random mutations of the successful
pigmentations" at all.
You don't want to believe it because you feel that a supernatural
creator has more gravitas, or is somehow more credible for you.
The fact remains that creatures retain advantages as long as they are
necessary, and you can see this in the evolution of things like bat
wings. Why else would bats retain claws in the middle joints of their
"fingers" if they have already gained the ability to fly?
The whole theory is admirably supported with plenty of physical
evidence. Your theory is supported by nothing but wishful thinking.
Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306
The moth pigmentation doesn't "randomly" mutate among 16 million
colours. Here's how it works: you first start with a set of moths that
is brown, with shades of brown along the entire continuum of hues and
shades. There will be lots of variation there, even though it's not
immediately obvious because you can't tell the difference between
FFFFFF and FFFFFE.
Now, over time, pollution enters the air, and the moths that tend to
have lighter pigmentations are going to survive better than the darker
ones because they'll fit in better with the polluted air.
Over time, those dark moths die out. The lighter coloured ones thrive.
Not particularly complicated to describe, and is in fact exactly how
it happens.
You can even do this in the lab with fruit flies because the genetics
are simple and the reproductive rates are wicked fast.
There's no "resisting random mutations of the successful
pigmentations" at all.
creator has more gravitas, or is somehow more credible for you.
The fact remains that creatures retain advantages as long as they are
necessary, and you can see this in the evolution of things like bat
wings. Why else would bats retain claws in the middle joints of their
"fingers" if they have already gained the ability to fly?
The whole theory is admirably supported with plenty of physical
evidence. Your theory is supported by nothing but wishful thinking.
Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306
Budikka666
May 15, 2013, 7:44:09 PM5/15/13
to
Creationists have consistently RAN from supporting their claim that we
have a soul:
http://tinyurl.com/4mrd32d
http://tinyurl.com/4bbwf4v
Thereby admitting that they have no evidence whatsoever for one.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/11/14/despite-debilitating-memory-loss-an-amnesic-cellist-learns-and-remembers-music/&usg=AFQjCNE486JhNmPaIB6Dx0jiDJBXYAsYGg
So this guy has his medial temporal lobes - brain structures important
in remembering facts and events - destroyed because of an infection
(an infection the creationists must claim was deliberately and
purposefully created by their god), so he cannot recall his loved
ones, he cannot remember the joys of his life, he cannot remember his
sins to ask forgiveness for them, he cannot even remember which god he
prayed too, but he can remember and learn music.
So where's his soul?
Nowhere.
Theism loses. Again.
Budikka
have a soul:
http://tinyurl.com/4mrd32d
http://tinyurl.com/4bbwf4v
Thereby admitting that they have no evidence whatsoever for one.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/11/14/despite-debilitating-memory-loss-an-amnesic-cellist-learns-and-remembers-music/&usg=AFQjCNE486JhNmPaIB6Dx0jiDJBXYAsYGg
So this guy has his medial temporal lobes - brain structures important
in remembering facts and events - destroyed because of an infection
(an infection the creationists must claim was deliberately and
purposefully created by their god), so he cannot recall his loved
ones, he cannot remember the joys of his life, he cannot remember his
sins to ask forgiveness for them, he cannot even remember which god he
prayed too, but he can remember and learn music.
So where's his soul?
Nowhere.
Theism loses. Again.
Budikka
Jeanne Douglas
May 15, 2013, 8:03:46 PM5/15/13
to
In article <svq6p8hscl99h1c1t...@4ax.com>,
> Just think, you had a better than even odds of being a tree.
How would my mother have given birth to a tree?
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 17:05:47 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <1r54p8pv8m5nubl5o...@4ax.com>,
> > duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> >There *is* no designer other than evolution.
> >>
> >> Where does evolution live? Also, are you saying you are a complete
> >> accident?
> >
> >Why would you ask such a silly question. NOBODY thinks evolution is an
> >accident.
>
> YOU do.
Of course I don't. Because I know better.
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 17:05:47 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <1r54p8pv8m5nubl5o...@4ax.com>,
> > duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> >There *is* no designer other than evolution.
> >>
> >> Where does evolution live? Also, are you saying you are a complete
> >> accident?
> >
> >Why would you ask such a silly question. NOBODY thinks evolution is an
> >accident.
>
> YOU do.
> Just think, you had a better than even odds of being a tree.
casey
May 15, 2013, 8:11:05 PM5/15/13
to
> The game connections you mention are really
> 'designed' to be 'strengthened'. That is not a simple
> external selection process, since this 'strengthening'
> is a designed interference with the nature of the
> connections themselves (mutations themselves are
> progressively restricted by a designed bias towards
> 'success', as understood by the designer of this
> 'evolution'.
success.
> > > Random mutation and natural selection is a fantasy
> > > which people can believe only because its working is
> > > obscure and unclear.
> >
> > On the contrary the principles as to how it works are
> > very clear and have been used in examples like the
> > learning program I outlined above.
>
> > > The only intelligent theory to explain evolution would
> > > be designed mutation and natural selection.
>
> > "Designed mutation" doesn't make sense. The "design"
> > of the above network was done by random variations
> > and selection. Design is an act of selection.
>
> That is merely an inaccurate description that
> makes the process appear as if it is less designed
> than it really is
>
> Alen
nature bats last
May 15, 2013, 9:53:19 PM5/15/13
to
application and is not limited just to the evolution of
organisms -- one example is the cellular arm of the
immune system, which employs exactly the same algorithm
in evolving successful antigen recognition sites -- the
algorithm itself is quite simple:
1) generate a random bunch of thingies.
2) use some selection process to ignore those not
fitting some criterion, and strongly amplify those
the which do satisfy the criterion.
3) Rinse, repeat.
Alen ignores the last half of step two, where a
successful variation (not limited just to simple
mutations, incidentally) can be amplified to produce
millions or billions of carriers.
He also, while paying lip service to the "digital"
picture of heredity, actually evokes instead the 19th century,
"drop of ink in a swimming pool" pre-Medellian model of
heredity, that which caused Darwin such distress.
In that model of heredity a successful variation can
indeed be "diluted out of existence". Not nearly so
easy in the digital model, when the carriers may
number in the millions or billions -- and as long as a
single carrier remains in the pool, the trait can re-
emerge when conditions change and it becomes
beneficial.
Which is precisely why, although antibiotic resistance
can take decades to evolve, once it appers, trying to
counter by taking the drug out use, and continuing that
restraint for countless generations of bacteria will not work --
as long as an infinitesimal fraction of the gene pool
remembers the gene for antibiotic resistance, it will
reappear like a shot if the drug is re-introduced.
Alen further paints a picture of genomes bombarded by a
relentless storm of mutations, where in fact mutations
are relatively rare, more often than not neutral, and
are constantly being repaired by the cell's DNA repair
enzymes.
I'll also note that Alen's arguments are all of the
form:
You can't 'successfully select', as permanent, a
property which is totally unstable because of
continuing random alterations.
evidence attached. Contrast this with field of
population genetics, which has been dealing with such
issues on a mathematical, quantitave basis for the
better part of a century now.
Are their models paragons of perfection? No
Are they preferable to the qualitative
speculations of a layman?
Me, I'll go with the latter.
NBL
nature bats last
May 15, 2013, 10:12:44 PM5/15/13
to
On May 15, 4:26 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 21:35:38 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last <seqkl...@gmail.com>
this "Heaven" is like?
Cool! -- put `em right here:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
NBL
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 21:35:38 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last <seqkl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On May 13, 4:36 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:49:31 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
> >> >Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote innews:kmmhtl$3li$1@dont-
> >> >email.me:
> >> >> To me death is just a transition from,one phase of existence to
> >> >> another, of which we know NOTHING, therefore, no evidence.
> >> >Therefore it's just a big dumb guess.
;
> >> Actually, God sent Jesus specifically to give us a heads up on the existence of
> >> the heavenly kingdom.
;
> >And then provided virtually no details about this
> >"heavenly kingdom". Let alone why anyone would want to
> >end up there.
;
> He spoke of the heavenly kingdom on a regular basis as seen in the scriptures.
And then provided virtually no details about this
"heavenly kingdom".
No? Got a bunch of details Jesus let spill about what
>
> >On May 13, 4:36 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:49:31 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
> >> >Stanislaus Stewart <me...@att.net> wrote innews:kmmhtl$3li$1@dont-
> >> >email.me:
> >> >> To me death is just a transition from,one phase of existence to
> >> >> another, of which we know NOTHING, therefore, no evidence.
> >> >Therefore it's just a big dumb guess.
;
> >> Actually, God sent Jesus specifically to give us a heads up on the existence of
> >> the heavenly kingdom.
;
> >And then provided virtually no details about this
> >"heavenly kingdom". Let alone why anyone would want to
> >end up there.
;
> He spoke of the heavenly kingdom on a regular basis as seen in the scriptures.
And then provided virtually no details about this
"heavenly kingdom".
this "Heaven" is like?
Cool! -- put `em right here:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
NBL
Jeanne Douglas
May 15, 2013, 10:16:02 PM5/15/13
to
In article <cer6p89uun2adofo0...@4ax.com>,
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 17:19:26 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 14 May 2013 05:50:34 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
> >alt.atheism:
> >
> >>On Mon, 13 May 2013 17:24:40 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >>
> >>>It seems to me that a god is far more improbable than nature.
> >>
> >>What is "nature_al" if not from God?
> >
> >If your god is nothing but another name for nature.
>
> I talk WITH God every day. Do you talk WITH a tree ever day, tree hugger?
> Heeheehee.
Of course he doesn't. He's not delusional.
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 17:19:26 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 14 May 2013 05:50:34 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
> >alt.atheism:
> >
> >>On Mon, 13 May 2013 17:24:40 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >>
> >>>It seems to me that a god is far more improbable than nature.
> >>
> >>What is "nature_al" if not from God?
> >
> >If your god is nothing but another name for nature.
>
> I talk WITH God every day. Do you talk WITH a tree ever day, tree hugger?
> Heeheehee.
duke
May 16, 2013, 7:04:17 AM5/16/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 17:24:40 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>It seems to me that a god is far more improbable than nature.
So where does "nature" come from if not from God?
>It seems to me that a god is far more improbable than nature.
duke
May 16, 2013, 7:07:18 AM5/16/13
to
On Wed, 15 May 2013 18:51:08 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>Then your revealing one (1) should be simple.
>>>The Earth is roughly 4.7 billion years old, instead of the 9,000 the
>>>Bible implies.
>>
>>There is exactly nothing in the bible that implies or suggests 9000 years
>>(actually 6000 years) as the age of the earth.
>
>Many, many of your fellow theists disagree with your claim, Dook.
Yet there is zero reference in the bible for a 6000 year old earth.
>>>>Then your revealing one (1) should be simple.
>>>The Earth is roughly 4.7 billion years old, instead of the 9,000 the
>>>Bible implies.
>>
>>There is exactly nothing in the bible that implies or suggests 9000 years
>>(actually 6000 years) as the age of the earth.
>
>Many, many of your fellow theists disagree with your claim, Dook.
>The Bible states how long it took to create the earth and provides a
>unbroken chain of people who've lived, and their ages, up to times
>that have known dates, allowing for the calculation.
duke
May 16, 2013, 7:08:40 AM5/16/13
to
On Wed, 15 May 2013 19:12:44 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last <seqk...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>> He spoke of the heavenly kingdom on a regular basis as seen in the scriptures.
>And then provided virtually no details about this
>"heavenly kingdom".
He told us what it would be like. And he was very dramatic as to what the
alternative would be like.
wrote:
>> He spoke of the heavenly kingdom on a regular basis as seen in the scriptures.
>And then provided virtually no details about this
>"heavenly kingdom".
alternative would be like.
duke
May 16, 2013, 8:25:58 AM5/16/13
to
On Wed, 15 May 2013 17:03:46 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
wrote:
>In article <svq6p8hscl99h1c1t...@4ax.com>,
> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 14 May 2013 17:05:47 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <1r54p8pv8m5nubl5o...@4ax.com>,
>> > duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >There *is* no designer other than evolution.
>> >>
>> >> Where does evolution live? Also, are you saying you are a complete
>> >> accident?
>> >
>> >Why would you ask such a silly question. NOBODY thinks evolution is an
>> >accident.
>>
>> YOU do.
>
>Of course I don't. Because I know better.
Then you can offer an explanation for the universe "evolving" from nothing.
>In article <svq6p8hscl99h1c1t...@4ax.com>,
> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 14 May 2013 17:05:47 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <1r54p8pv8m5nubl5o...@4ax.com>,
>> > duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >There *is* no designer other than evolution.
>> >>
>> >> Where does evolution live? Also, are you saying you are a complete
>> >> accident?
>> >
>> >Why would you ask such a silly question. NOBODY thinks evolution is an
>> >accident.
>>
>> YOU do.
>
>Of course I don't. Because I know better.
Uncle Vic
May 16, 2013, 10:03:23 AM5/16/13
to
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
news:hff9p89k19f57sqdt...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 15 May 2013 19:12:44 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last
> <seqk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> He spoke of the heavenly kingdom on a regular basis as seen in the
>>> scriptures.
>
>>And then provided virtually no details about this
>>"heavenly kingdom".
>
> He told us what it would be like. And he was very dramatic as to what
> the alternative would be like.
>
What if there was no hell? Would you still be a believer?
--
Uncle Vic
aa# 2011
BAAWA
AA Quotemeister
Visit my You Tube Channel!
http://www.youtube.com/user/Vicman6311?feature=mhee
news:hff9p89k19f57sqdt...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 15 May 2013 19:12:44 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last
> <seqk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> He spoke of the heavenly kingdom on a regular basis as seen in the
>>> scriptures.
>
>>And then provided virtually no details about this
>>"heavenly kingdom".
>
> He told us what it would be like. And he was very dramatic as to what
> the alternative would be like.
>
--
Uncle Vic
aa# 2011
BAAWA
AA Quotemeister
Visit my You Tube Channel!
http://www.youtube.com/user/Vicman6311?feature=mhee
Uncle Vic
May 16, 2013, 10:09:27 AM5/16/13
to
nature bats last <seqk...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:07d2d2bf-f54c-4740...@d8g2000pbe.googlegroups.com:
Sounds like Revelation, more of a play-by-play for a holy acid trip than
a testimonial.
news:07d2d2bf-f54c-4740...@d8g2000pbe.googlegroups.com:
a testimonial.
alen
May 16, 2013, 11:40:04 AM5/16/13
to
On May 16, 9:08 am, Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincol...@hotmail.com>
Why not? The above scenario can work only because
the mutations are not really random. The fact that the
above process works says nothing about the underlying
mutations not being designed.
Wrong guess!
> The fact remains that creatures retain advantages as long as they are
> necessary, and you can see this in the evolution of things like bat
> wings. Why else would bats retain claws in the middle joints of their
> "fingers" if they have already gained the ability to fly?
>
> The whole theory is admirably supported with plenty of physical
> evidence. Your theory is supported by nothing but wishful thinking.
>
> Cheers,
> Dreamer
> AA 2306
Sure they retain advantages, but they can do so only
because they are not subject to any destructive
randomising effect. It must be the case that organisms
are designed to resist most mutations, especially
destructive ones and favour constructive ones.
That is, mutation possibilities are formed with an
intrinsic bias - i.e. they are non-random mutations. You
can't prove mutations are random - it is merely a theoretical
supposition which would, in fact, destroy the theory.
Alen
the mutations are not really random. The fact that the
above process works says nothing about the underlying
mutations not being designed.
> The fact remains that creatures retain advantages as long as they are
> necessary, and you can see this in the evolution of things like bat
> wings. Why else would bats retain claws in the middle joints of their
> "fingers" if they have already gained the ability to fly?
>
> The whole theory is admirably supported with plenty of physical
> evidence. Your theory is supported by nothing but wishful thinking.
>
> Cheers,
> Dreamer
> AA 2306
because they are not subject to any destructive
randomising effect. It must be the case that organisms
are designed to resist most mutations, especially
destructive ones and favour constructive ones.
That is, mutation possibilities are formed with an
intrinsic bias - i.e. they are non-random mutations. You
can't prove mutations are random - it is merely a theoretical
supposition which would, in fact, destroy the theory.
Alen
alen
May 16, 2013, 11:50:04 AM5/16/13
to
mutation principle at all! Mutations are curtailed,
and negative ones are 'repaired'. Those are features
of design which make the mutations non-random.
That is my point. I don't argue at all that the selection
processes don't work. You can detail any number of
them you like. Such descriptions, however, never
amount to a proof that the mutations themselves
are random - rather they indicate the contrary.
> I'll also note that Alen's arguments are all of the
> form:
>
> You can't 'successfully select', as permanent, a
> property which is totally unstable because of
> continuing random alterations.
>
> In other words: flat assertations with no further
> evidence attached. Contrast this with field of
> population genetics, which has been dealing with such
> issues on a mathematical, quantitave basis for the
> better part of a century now.
and an unworkable one at that.
Alen
PATRICK
May 16, 2013, 11:57:14 AM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 09:03:23 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>news:hff9p89k19f57sqdt...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 15 May 2013 19:12:44 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last
>> <seqk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> He spoke of the heavenly kingdom on a regular basis as seen in the
>>>> scriptures.
>>
>>>And then provided virtually no details about this
>>>"heavenly kingdom".
>>
>> He told us what it would be like. And he was very dramatic as to what
>> the alternative would be like.
>>
>
>What if there was no hell? Would you still be a believer?
Only if you promised to be nice.
>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>news:hff9p89k19f57sqdt...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 15 May 2013 19:12:44 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last
>> <seqk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> He spoke of the heavenly kingdom on a regular basis as seen in the
>>>> scriptures.
>>
>>>And then provided virtually no details about this
>>>"heavenly kingdom".
>>
>> He told us what it would be like. And he was very dramatic as to what
>> the alternative would be like.
>>
>
>What if there was no hell? Would you still be a believer?
Jeanne Douglas
May 16, 2013, 4:07:19 PM5/16/13
to
In article <f1k9p8dh766kq7v2s...@4ax.com>,
NOBODY claims the universe "evolved" from nothing.
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 May 2013 17:03:46 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <svq6p8hscl99h1c1t...@4ax.com>,
> > duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 14 May 2013 17:05:47 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
> >> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <1r54p8pv8m5nubl5o...@4ax.com>,
> >> > duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >There *is* no designer other than evolution.
> >> >>
> >> >> Where does evolution live? Also, are you saying you are a complete
> >> >> accident?
> >> >
> >> >Why would you ask such a silly question. NOBODY thinks evolution is an
> >> >accident.
> >>
> >> YOU do.
> >
> >Of course I don't. Because I know better.
>
> Then you can offer an explanation for the universe "evolving" from nothing.
Why would I explain your strawman?
> On Wed, 15 May 2013 17:03:46 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <svq6p8hscl99h1c1t...@4ax.com>,
> > duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 14 May 2013 17:05:47 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
> >> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <1r54p8pv8m5nubl5o...@4ax.com>,
> >> > duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >There *is* no designer other than evolution.
> >> >>
> >> >> Where does evolution live? Also, are you saying you are a complete
> >> >> accident?
> >> >
> >> >Why would you ask such a silly question. NOBODY thinks evolution is an
> >> >accident.
> >>
> >> YOU do.
> >
> >Of course I don't. Because I know better.
>
> Then you can offer an explanation for the universe "evolving" from nothing.
NOBODY claims the universe "evolved" from nothing.
Free Lunch
May 16, 2013, 6:21:31 PM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 06:07:18 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
alt.atheism:
>On Wed, 15 May 2013 18:51:08 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>>>>Then your revealing one (1) should be simple.
>>>>The Earth is roughly 4.7 billion years old, instead of the 9,000 the
>>>>Bible implies.
>>>
>>>There is exactly nothing in the bible that implies or suggests 9000 years
>>>(actually 6000 years) as the age of the earth.
>>
>>Many, many of your fellow theists disagree with your claim, Dook.
>
>Yet there is zero reference in the bible for a 6000 year old earth.
Take it up with Bishop Ussher.
alt.atheism:
>On Wed, 15 May 2013 18:51:08 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>>>>Then your revealing one (1) should be simple.
>>>>The Earth is roughly 4.7 billion years old, instead of the 9,000 the
>>>>Bible implies.
>>>
>>>There is exactly nothing in the bible that implies or suggests 9000 years
>>>(actually 6000 years) as the age of the earth.
>>
>>Many, many of your fellow theists disagree with your claim, Dook.
>
>Yet there is zero reference in the bible for a 6000 year old earth.
casey
May 16, 2013, 6:26:45 PM5/16/13
to
On May 17, 1:40 am, alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
> [...]
resist destructive variations. Learning systems do
the same thing. They start off with 100% random
trials and then slow down the trials as evidence
accumulates as to what are good moves. However
trial moves are still retained so should there be
a change and the previous moves begin to fail
the system can quickly make random moves to
search for better solutions.
There was no designer required external to the
system for it to learn to make good moves just
as there was no designer there to give the ANN
used in TD-Gammon good connections.
> That is, mutation possibilities are formed with an
> intrinsic bias - i.e. they are non-random mutations.
A system may evolve a biased random move
generator but this bias itself is a learned bias
not an intrinsic bias.
> You can't prove mutations are random - it is
> merely a theoretical supposition which would,
> in fact, destroy the theory.
Before learning has taken place random moves
are the only moves that can be taken. If you were
given a machine with buttons but no instructions
on how to use the machine you would start by
pressing buttons at random to see what would
happen. That feedback would change you so
that in future you could make less random moves.
So in some way you are probably correct except
the non-random nature of the system evolved
it wasn't there to start with.
> [...]
> It must be the case that organisms
> are designed to resist most mutations, especially
> destructive ones and favour constructive ones.
Yes biological systems probably have evolved to
> are designed to resist most mutations, especially
> destructive ones and favour constructive ones.
resist destructive variations. Learning systems do
the same thing. They start off with 100% random
trials and then slow down the trials as evidence
accumulates as to what are good moves. However
trial moves are still retained so should there be
a change and the previous moves begin to fail
the system can quickly make random moves to
search for better solutions.
There was no designer required external to the
system for it to learn to make good moves just
as there was no designer there to give the ANN
used in TD-Gammon good connections.
> That is, mutation possibilities are formed with an
> intrinsic bias - i.e. they are non-random mutations.
generator but this bias itself is a learned bias
not an intrinsic bias.
> You can't prove mutations are random - it is
> merely a theoretical supposition which would,
> in fact, destroy the theory.
are the only moves that can be taken. If you were
given a machine with buttons but no instructions
on how to use the machine you would start by
pressing buttons at random to see what would
happen. That feedback would change you so
that in future you could make less random moves.
So in some way you are probably correct except
the non-random nature of the system evolved
it wasn't there to start with.
Andrew W
May 16, 2013, 6:45:26 PM5/16/13
to
>"duke" wrote in message news:q9f9p8d64lj49khfd...@4ax.com...
Apparently your child like mind cannot process anything else.
>
>>The Bible states how long it took to create the earth and provides a
>>unbroken chain of people who've lived, and their ages, up to times
>>that have known dates, allowing for the calculation.
>
>Unbroken - haahaahaa.
>
Yeh, kind of like the alleged unbroken chain of Popes *allegedly*
established by Christ since Paul that your haughty church loves to trumpet
about.
Now that's a haahaahaa moment.
You really got to learn when to laugh, dupe.
--
Forcing someone to either worship or burn is called tyranny.
My motto: Never follow any leader who gives lifelong (or eternal) torture in
a fire as one of your 'free' choices, because that is a despot.
Religions breed hypocrisy, ignorance and self-righteousness.
>
>On Wed, 15 May 2013 18:51:08 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>>>>Then your revealing one (1) should be simple.
>>>>The Earth is roughly 4.7 billion years old, instead of the 9,000 the
>>>>Bible implies.
>>>
>>>There is exactly nothing in the bible that implies or suggests 9000 years
>>>(actually 6000 years) as the age of the earth.
>>
>>Many, many of your fellow theists disagree with your claim, Dook.
>
>Yet there is zero reference in the bible for a 6000 year old earth.
>
No *direct* reference that is.
>On Wed, 15 May 2013 18:51:08 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>>>>Then your revealing one (1) should be simple.
>>>>The Earth is roughly 4.7 billion years old, instead of the 9,000 the
>>>>Bible implies.
>>>
>>>There is exactly nothing in the bible that implies or suggests 9000 years
>>>(actually 6000 years) as the age of the earth.
>>
>>Many, many of your fellow theists disagree with your claim, Dook.
>
>Yet there is zero reference in the bible for a 6000 year old earth.
>
Apparently your child like mind cannot process anything else.
>
>>The Bible states how long it took to create the earth and provides a
>>unbroken chain of people who've lived, and their ages, up to times
>>that have known dates, allowing for the calculation.
>
>Unbroken - haahaahaa.
>
established by Christ since Paul that your haughty church loves to trumpet
about.
Now that's a haahaahaa moment.
You really got to learn when to laugh, dupe.
--
Forcing someone to either worship or burn is called tyranny.
My motto: Never follow any leader who gives lifelong (or eternal) torture in
a fire as one of your 'free' choices, because that is a despot.
Religions breed hypocrisy, ignorance and self-righteousness.
Silen...@hotmail.com
May 16, 2013, 6:50:00 PM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 06:07:18 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 15 May 2013 18:51:08 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>>>>Then your revealing one (1) should be simple.
>>>>The Earth is roughly 4.7 billion years old, instead of the 9,000 the
>>>>Bible implies.
>>>
>>>There is exactly nothing in the bible that implies or suggests 9000 years
>>>(actually 6000 years) as the age of the earth.
>>
>>Many, many of your fellow theists disagree with your claim, Dook.
>
>Yet there is zero reference in the bible for a 6000 year old earth.
So, you're saying that the only thing we can know about the Bible is
>On Wed, 15 May 2013 18:51:08 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>>>>Then your revealing one (1) should be simple.
>>>>The Earth is roughly 4.7 billion years old, instead of the 9,000 the
>>>>Bible implies.
>>>
>>>There is exactly nothing in the bible that implies or suggests 9000 years
>>>(actually 6000 years) as the age of the earth.
>>
>>Many, many of your fellow theists disagree with your claim, Dook.
>
>Yet there is zero reference in the bible for a 6000 year old earth.
what's explicitly stated?
You're sounding more like an atheist all the time, Dook.
As for my point, it's not like that's the only fact that science has
discovered that isn't dependent on a supreme being.
>>The Bible states how long it took to create the earth and provides a
>>unbroken chain of people who've lived, and their ages, up to times
>>that have known dates, allowing for the calculation.
>
>Unbroken - haahaahaa.
They seem to believe they can make the calculation.
Heh heh...
Lying racist rightard socialists...
Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.
>
>
Jeanne Douglas
May 16, 2013, 7:57:12 PM5/16/13
to
In article <l8oap8hfd4jtog318...@6ax.com>,
Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Thu, 16 May 2013 06:07:18 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 15 May 2013 18:51:08 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> >>>>>Then your revealing one (1) should be simple.
> >>>>The Earth is roughly 4.7 billion years old, instead of the 9,000 the
> >>>>Bible implies.
> >>>
> >>>There is exactly nothing in the bible that implies or suggests 9000 years
> >>>(actually 6000 years) as the age of the earth.
> >>
> >>Many, many of your fellow theists disagree with your claim, Dook.
> >
> >Yet there is zero reference in the bible for a 6000 year old earth.
>
> So, you're saying that the only thing we can know about the Bible is
> what's explicitly stated?
>
> You're sounding more like an atheist all the time, Dook.
Yes, I'm glad you agree with me on this issue. It's quite obvious.
> On Thu, 16 May 2013 06:07:18 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 15 May 2013 18:51:08 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> >>>>>Then your revealing one (1) should be simple.
> >>>>The Earth is roughly 4.7 billion years old, instead of the 9,000 the
> >>>>Bible implies.
> >>>
> >>>There is exactly nothing in the bible that implies or suggests 9000 years
> >>>(actually 6000 years) as the age of the earth.
> >>
> >>Many, many of your fellow theists disagree with your claim, Dook.
> >
> >Yet there is zero reference in the bible for a 6000 year old earth.
>
> So, you're saying that the only thing we can know about the Bible is
> what's explicitly stated?
>
> You're sounding more like an atheist all the time, Dook.
Dreamer In Colore
May 16, 2013, 11:19:45 PM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 08:40:04 -0700 (PDT), alen <al...@westserv.net.au>
That's silly. You don't need a designer to have mutations occur. In
fact, mutations themselves point to the absence of a designer, because
... why would a designer make something that required mutation? It's
very inefficient.
If you've got evidence that conclusively demonstrates the hand of a
designer, I welcome you to post it here:
.
.
.
.
.
>
It's not the organisms themselves that resist mutations, Alen. The
organisms mutate, and natural selection takes care of the rest of the
concept.
Destructive mutations will either cause the organism to die
immediately, in which case the mutation will die out before
reproduction takes place, or it will cause the organism to become
easier prey...
The fact remains that mutations do occur at random intervals. You
cannot prove that they occur according to any schedule, divine or
otherwise. Once again, you're making a claim for the divine origin of
design, and thus the burden of proof is upon you twice. The first is
to give sufficient evidence of a divine being's existence, and the
second is that said being is in fact capable of designing anything at
all.
Until you do these things, the reasonable alternative would be to get
a firm grounding in biological and physical sciences, rather than
place unnecessary burden on hitherto unverifiable supernatural beings.
Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306
fact, mutations themselves point to the absence of a designer, because
... why would a designer make something that required mutation? It's
very inefficient.
If you've got evidence that conclusively demonstrates the hand of a
designer, I welcome you to post it here:
.
.
.
.
.
>
organisms mutate, and natural selection takes care of the rest of the
concept.
Destructive mutations will either cause the organism to die
immediately, in which case the mutation will die out before
reproduction takes place, or it will cause the organism to become
easier prey...
The fact remains that mutations do occur at random intervals. You
cannot prove that they occur according to any schedule, divine or
otherwise. Once again, you're making a claim for the divine origin of
design, and thus the burden of proof is upon you twice. The first is
to give sufficient evidence of a divine being's existence, and the
second is that said being is in fact capable of designing anything at
all.
Until you do these things, the reasonable alternative would be to get
a firm grounding in biological and physical sciences, rather than
place unnecessary burden on hitherto unverifiable supernatural beings.
Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306
casey
May 16, 2013, 11:57:05 PM5/16/13
to
On May 17, 1:19 pm, Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincol...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> You don't need a designer to
> have mutations occur. In fact, mutations
> themselves point to the absence of a designer,
> because ... why would a designer make
> something that required mutation? It's
> very inefficient.
What if the designer wanted a system that
could evolve by itself?
That is exactly how TD-Gammon connections
are changed until the network is able to
make good value judgments on backgammon
board game states.
The evidence is that we are products in
an evolving system but not all systems
are able to evolve. Small variations will
only result in more complex systems if
the potential is there in the first place.
Cheers,
Casey
> Cheers,
> Dreamer
> AA 2306
wrote:
> You don't need a designer to
> have mutations occur. In fact, mutations
> themselves point to the absence of a designer,
> because ... why would a designer make
> something that required mutation? It's
> very inefficient.
could evolve by itself?
That is exactly how TD-Gammon connections
are changed until the network is able to
make good value judgments on backgammon
board game states.
The evidence is that we are products in
an evolving system but not all systems
are able to evolve. Small variations will
only result in more complex systems if
the potential is there in the first place.
Cheers,
Casey
> Cheers,
> Dreamer
> AA 2306
Yap
May 17, 2013, 12:06:28 AM5/17/13
to
On May 17, 11:57 am, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> On May 17, 1:19 pm, Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincol...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > You don't need a designer to
> > have mutations occur. In fact, mutations
> > themselves point to the absence of a designer,
> > because ... why would a designer make
> > something that required mutation? It's
> > very inefficient.
>
> What if the designer wanted a system that
> could evolve by itself?
But mutation can be bad and good, so the designer will be left a lot
> On May 17, 1:19 pm, Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincol...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > You don't need a designer to
> > have mutations occur. In fact, mutations
> > themselves point to the absence of a designer,
> > because ... why would a designer make
> > something that required mutation? It's
> > very inefficient.
>
> What if the designer wanted a system that
> could evolve by itself?
of doubts when mutation has no direction.
And that is where no human could buy its existence, unless he is a
deluded idiot.
>
> That is exactly how TD-Gammon connections
> are changed until the network is able to
> make good value judgments on backgammon
> board game states.
>
> The evidence is that we are products in
> an evolving system but not all systems
> are able to evolve. Small variations will
> only result in more complex systems if
> the potential is there in the first place.
tend to change with input.
There is no definitive path for the change.
The deluded will take unknowns as the mysteries for creator, because
they have no brains capable for research.
Yap
May 17, 2013, 12:09:06 AM5/17/13
to
On May 16, 11:57 pm, PATRICK <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 May 2013 09:03:23 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
> >duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in
> On Thu, 16 May 2013 09:03:23 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
> >news:hff9p89k19f57sqdt...@4ax.com:
>
> >> On Wed, 15 May 2013 19:12:44 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last
> >> <seqkl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> He spoke of the heavenly kingdom on a regular basis as seen in the
> >>>> scriptures.
>
> >>>And then provided virtually no details about this
> >>>"heavenly kingdom".
>
> >> He told us what it would be like. And he was very dramatic as to what
> >> the alternative would be like.
>
> >What if there was no hell? Would you still be a believer?
>
> Only if you promised to be nice.
Your return to sanity does not carry any benefit for any of us, why
>
> >> On Wed, 15 May 2013 19:12:44 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last
> >> <seqkl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> He spoke of the heavenly kingdom on a regular basis as seen in the
> >>>> scriptures.
>
> >>>And then provided virtually no details about this
> >>>"heavenly kingdom".
>
> >> He told us what it would be like. And he was very dramatic as to what
> >> the alternative would be like.
>
> >What if there was no hell? Would you still be a believer?
>
> Only if you promised to be nice.
should we be nice to a lesser human?
Yap
May 17, 2013, 12:12:00 AM5/17/13
to
On May 15, 7:28 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
Ya, an old fool has been blinded by those con works until this day.
>
> >NBL
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 21:36:54 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last <seqkl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> Actually, God sent Jesus specifically to give us a heads up on the existence of
> >> the heavenly kingdom.
> >You talking about this place?
>
> Yes, in apocalyptic language as traditional in Revelations..
> wrote:
>
> >> Actually, God sent Jesus specifically to give us a heads up on the existence of
> >> the heavenly kingdom.
> >You talking about this place?
>
Ya, an old fool has been blinded by those con works until this day.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and
> > thunderings and voices: and there were seven lamps
> > of fire burning before the throne, which are the
> > seven Spirits of God.
>
> > And before the throne there was a sea of glass like
> > unto crystal: and in the midst of the throne, and
> > round about the throne, were four beasts full of
> > eyes before and behind.
>
> > And the first beast was like a lion, and the second
> > beast like a calf, and the third beast had a face
> > as a man, and the fourth beast was like a flying
> > eagle.
>
> > And the four beasts had each of them six wings
> > about him; and they were full of eyes within: and
> > they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy,
> > holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is
> > to come. "
>
> >Yeah, that sounds like a real fun place to spend
> >eternity.
>
> >(I'm betting Dook never knew that God
> >has seven spirits)
>
> Heehehee.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and
> > thunderings and voices: and there were seven lamps
> > of fire burning before the throne, which are the
> > seven Spirits of God.
>
> > And before the throne there was a sea of glass like
> > unto crystal: and in the midst of the throne, and
> > round about the throne, were four beasts full of
> > eyes before and behind.
>
> > And the first beast was like a lion, and the second
> > beast like a calf, and the third beast had a face
> > as a man, and the fourth beast was like a flying
> > eagle.
>
> > And the four beasts had each of them six wings
> > about him; and they were full of eyes within: and
> > they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy,
> > holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is
> > to come. "
>
> >Yeah, that sounds like a real fun place to spend
> >eternity.
>
> >(I'm betting Dook never knew that God
> >has seven spirits)
>
>
> >NBL
Yap
May 17, 2013, 12:14:22 AM5/17/13
to
On May 16, 7:04 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 17:24:40 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >It seems to me that a god is far more improbable than nature.
>
> So where does "nature" come from if not from God?
Well, no one can say for sure.
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 17:24:40 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >It seems to me that a god is far more improbable than nature.
>
> So where does "nature" come from if not from God?
But since you are sure about this "pixie" thing, tell us where did it
come from?
Dakota
May 17, 2013, 12:38:27 AM5/17/13
to
works and the way the TD-Gammom program works. The program knows all
possible outcomes and which of those are more desirable. Choices are
made to improve the likelihood of leading to the desired outcome.
It is forward looking whereas the natural selection process has no
knowledge of what the environment will look like in the future or even
what today's environment looks like. It acts only on an organism's
ability to reproduce in its existing environment.
Only those things that reproduce have the potential to evolve in the
natural world.
Suggesting that there's a designer that has knowledge of the future
merely adds an unnecessary complication without providing any benefit
at all.
duke
May 17, 2013, 6:03:06 AM5/17/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 13:07:19 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
wrote:
>In article <f1k9p8dh766kq7v2s...@4ax.com>,
> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 15 May 2013 17:03:46 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <svq6p8hscl99h1c1t...@4ax.com>,
>> > duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 14 May 2013 17:05:47 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
>> >> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <1r54p8pv8m5nubl5o...@4ax.com>,
>> >> > duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> >There *is* no designer other than evolution.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Where does evolution live? Also, are you saying you are a complete
>> >> >> accident?
>> >> >
>> >> >Why would you ask such a silly question. NOBODY thinks evolution is an
>> >> >accident.
>> >>
>> >> YOU do.
>> >
>> >Of course I don't. Because I know better.
>>
>> Then you can offer an explanation for the universe "evolving" from nothing.
>
>Why would I explain your strawman?
>NOBODY claims the universe "evolved" from nothing.
You just demanded it.
>In article <f1k9p8dh766kq7v2s...@4ax.com>,
> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 15 May 2013 17:03:46 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <svq6p8hscl99h1c1t...@4ax.com>,
>> > duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 14 May 2013 17:05:47 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
>> >> <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <1r54p8pv8m5nubl5o...@4ax.com>,
>> >> > duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> >There *is* no designer other than evolution.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Where does evolution live? Also, are you saying you are a complete
>> >> >> accident?
>> >> >
>> >> >Why would you ask such a silly question. NOBODY thinks evolution is an
>> >> >accident.
>> >>
>> >> YOU do.
>> >
>> >Of course I don't. Because I know better.
>>
>> Then you can offer an explanation for the universe "evolving" from nothing.
>
>Why would I explain your strawman?
>NOBODY claims the universe "evolved" from nothing.
duke
May 17, 2013, 6:08:07 AM5/17/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 21:14:22 -0700 (PDT), Yap <hhya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 16, 7:04 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 17:24:40 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> >It seems to me that a god is far more improbable than nature.
>>
>> So where does "nature" come from if not from God?
>
>Well, no one can say for sure.
>But since you are sure about this "pixie" thing, tell us where did it
>come from?
My answer remains as it always has - I have no idea.
>On May 16, 7:04 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 17:24:40 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> >It seems to me that a god is far more improbable than nature.
>>
>> So where does "nature" come from if not from God?
>
>Well, no one can say for sure.
>But since you are sure about this "pixie" thing, tell us where did it
>come from?
duke
May 17, 2013, 6:09:06 AM5/17/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 17:21:31 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>On Thu, 16 May 2013 06:07:18 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>alt.atheism:
>
>>On Wed, 15 May 2013 18:51:08 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>>Then your revealing one (1) should be simple.
>>>>>The Earth is roughly 4.7 billion years old, instead of the 9,000 the
>>>>>Bible implies.
>>>>
>>>>There is exactly nothing in the bible that implies or suggests 9000 years
>>>>(actually 6000 years) as the age of the earth.
>>>
>>>Many, many of your fellow theists disagree with your claim, Dook.
>>
>>Yet there is zero reference in the bible for a 6000 year old earth.
>
>Take it up with Bishop Ussher.
I did the same study. The stupid assumptions for that are gargantuan.
>On Thu, 16 May 2013 06:07:18 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>alt.atheism:
>
>>On Wed, 15 May 2013 18:51:08 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>>Then your revealing one (1) should be simple.
>>>>>The Earth is roughly 4.7 billion years old, instead of the 9,000 the
>>>>>Bible implies.
>>>>
>>>>There is exactly nothing in the bible that implies or suggests 9000 years
>>>>(actually 6000 years) as the age of the earth.
>>>
>>>Many, many of your fellow theists disagree with your claim, Dook.
>>
>>Yet there is zero reference in the bible for a 6000 year old earth.
>
>Take it up with Bishop Ussher.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages