What system did the designer use?
Frank J
especially since Behe admitted at Dover that he/she/it might be
deceased.
Also, as many of you know, for years I have been asking what the
designer did when. So far ~70% simply dodge the question, and most of
the rest answer the wrong question (give me the age of the earth when
I ask for the age of life). Those that do reply give several radically
different answers, with one of the most common one agreeing with
mainstream science's conclusion of a ~4-billion year "tree of life."
As you know, that's no comfort to Comfort.
What I'd like to know now is what computer system did the designer
use? Surely some of you computer Salems see some "signatures" in the
cell that point to your favorite CAD systems. Or maybe it's one that
you *don't* like, given those so-called "bad designs" (optic nerve, my
back, etc.) Or maybe the designer drew it manually, like the old days.
I have always been curious about how that "blueprint font" is so
similar for different (human) designers. Did those designers "channel"
the big one or something?
So give it your best guess, This question should not give you as much
heartburn as the "what happened when" questions.
All-seeing-I
It is obvious.We do not fully understand.
But man has found some of the methods so far. Such as math and
physics; And Universal laws and principals that appear to be constant
from our current perspective of the universe.
Steven L.
But you keep insisting that math, physics, and universal laws and
principles were not sufficient to account for life on Earth. Why not?
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Augray
<ap...@email.com> wrote in
<3d8a99ed-9f1b-45aa...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com> :
Why would a supernatural designer be limited by natural laws in their
design methodology?
All-seeing-I
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:37:40 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
> <ap...@email.com> wrote in
>
> - Show quoted text -
It is not.
Angels are known to step from this dimention to the next.
I am sure the natural laws exist for our natural senses only.
Augray
<ap...@email.com> wrote in
<892689c8-7440-4d6b...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> :
>It is not.
Then why would a supernatural designer bother with them?
>Angels are known to step from this dimention to the next.
Irrelevant, even if true.
>I am sure the natural laws exist for our natural senses only.
Apparently, natural laws don't actually, you know, *regulate*
anything. They're just there for us to look at. Did it occur to you
that our natural senses are *defined* by natural laws?
spintronic
.
.
> As many of you know, I'm not interested in the designer's identity,
Why?
If there is a designer, I want to know him.
> especially since Behe admitted at Dover that he/she/it might be
> deceased.
Well their not very bright are they?
Why would an immortal designer, have the capability to preserve this
whole universe bar himself?
> Also, as many of you know,
Lets pretend I'm not a fan & don't.
> for years I have been asking what the designer did when.
Me too, I asked how come this crappy 2009 VW beetle has roots in the
original but their not the same....
> So far ~70%
Is that approximation even an exact figure?
> simply dodge the question,
You can question me, anytime, night or day, apart from some
wednesdays, teusdays, and the odd saturday.
> and most of the rest answer the wrong question (give me the age of the earth when
> I ask for the age of life).
You give me the age of the Earth, when you know it.
Answer this.
In another thread, we are arguing is cosmic radiation necessary?
So I posed the question, is C14 necessary?
The answer is "No". It's produced in small quantities, over vast
periods.
Now ask, "what would happen if there was H2O above the N14 layer?
You would have fewer free radicals, & fewer C14.
Now ask, "How much of both would you have if the H20 is removed"?
And you get this.
Free radical builds up. Life span declines.
C14 Builds up, predicted history is incorrect.
Now was moses a genius 'r' what?
Age before the flood & (0 free radicals). = 900+-years
Flood happens
Free radicals build up = Lifespan declines.
Age after flood & (build up of free radicals) = Gradual decline in
life span.
> Those that do reply give several radically
> different answers,
No wonder. This isn't a game of bingo, this is a game of chess.
You have to force your opponent into doing the "contradictory".
Offering up millions of religions is a contradiction.
You choose.
All-seeing-I
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 12:35:09 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
> <ap...@email.com> wrote in
Very revelant. It shows this eistance is not the only one. Just
because we cannot percieve the others does not mean they do not exist.
Angels being able to appear to man in this dimention eludes to the
fact there is at least one more.
The major religions refer to these dimentions as "heavens".
>
> >I am sure the natural laws exist for our natural senses only.
>
> Apparently, natural laws don't actually, you know, *regulate*
> anything. They're just there for us to look at. Did it occur to you
> that our natural senses are *defined* by natural laws
Occur? I insist on it.
Augray
guscubed
> On Nov 26, 6:14 am, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > As many of you know, I'm not interested in the designer's identity,
> > especially since Behe admitted at Dover that he/she/it might be
> > deceased.
>
> > Also, as many of you know, for years I have been asking what the
> > designer did when. So far ~70% simply dodge the question, and most of
> > the rest answer the wrong question (give me the age of the earth when
> > I ask for the age of life). Those that do reply give several radically
> > different answers, with one of the most common one agreeing with
> > mainstream science's conclusion of a ~4-billion year "tree of life."
> > As you know, that's no comfort to Comfort.
>
> > What I'd like to know now is what computer system did the designer
> > use? Surely some of you computer Salems see some "signatures" in the
> > cell that point to your favorite CAD systems. Or maybe it's one that
> > you *don't* like, given those so-called "bad designs" (optic nerve, my
> > back, etc.) Or maybe the designer drew it manually, like the old days.
> > I have always been curious about how that "blueprint font" is so
> > similar for different (human) designers. Did those designers "channel"
> > the big one or something?
>
> > So give it your best guess, This question should not give you as much
> > heartburn as the "what happened when" questions.
>
> It is obvious.We do not fully understand.
>
Aren't you the one who bleats, day in and day out, about how all
science is wrong because we don't know every detail?
By that measure, how can you be confident that a designer even exists/
existed if we do not fully understand the 'design process' that he or
she may have used?
guscubed
First you have to prove that the free-radical theory of ageing is
correct. It may surprise you to know that it is not a proven
hypothesis, moreover, free-radical chemistry is essential for life. No
free-radicals, no life.
All-seeing-I
Excellent points made spinny.
If these buffons would vote, I would nominate this as POTM. But they
are way too dishonest to vote for you or me,
aww. what the hell. I am going to nominate this anyway.
There is much to suggest that the earth's atmospehre and conditions
were conducive to a longer life span before the flood... the flood
they deny
There are dragon flies in the fossil record that have a 3 foot wing
span.
Japanese physicist Dr. Kei Mori exposed plant life to two of the
conditions of the original world ecology -- before the Great Flood.
He grew tomato plants under a plastic dome which filtered the
ultraviolet rays; and he increased the carbon dioxide. After two
years, a cherry tomato plant was 16 feet tall, with 903 tomatoes on
it. After six years, the same tomato plant was over 30 feet tall and
had produced more than 5,000 tomatoes.
That tomato plant just didn't want to die. Ask yourself now, How long
do tomato plants usually live? Perhaps five or six months? They die
of old age, destroyed by ultra-violet radiation.
Could this have some bearing on how old people would have lived under
the same environment?
Greater Air Pressure Then
The atmospheric pressure, as well as the oxygen content, had to be
greater in the past, in order to support the huge life forms which
then existed.
My friend Dr. Carl Baugh, of Glen Rose Texas, has set out to build the
world's first hyperbaric biosphere, 62 feet long. Its purpose is to
simulate the context of our original world. An engineer from NASA has
called it the greatest experiment in history, ever performed in the
name of science.
Research indicates that essentially everything was larger in the
past. For instance, the club mosses which today reach 16 to 18 inches
often approach 200 feet in the fossil record.
The difference may well be in the atmospheric pressure. In today's
atmosphere we have 14.7 pounds atmospheric pressure per inch at sea
level. But to oxygenate the deep cell tissue of those great dinosaurs
we need much greater atmospheric pressure.
Research has shown that when you approach two times today's
atmospheric pressure, the entire blood plasma is saturated with
oxygen.
Imagine having the energy to run 200 miles non-stop. Such atmospheric
pressure would also promote rapid healing!
A Canopy Would Promote Such Atmospheric Pressure
It is believed that before the Flood, a water canopy enveloped the
earth, above the atmosphere. With such a canopy, the atmosphere would
be pressurised to a greater degree than we have now.
There is surprising evidence.
In the 1980s, a pre-flood hammer, found inside a rock stratum, was
analysed by the Batelle Laboratories in Columbus, Ohio -- the same
laboratory that analysed moonstones. The elemental analysis showed it
to be 96.6 percent iron, 0.74 percent sulphur, and 2.6 percent
chlorine.
Physicists tell us that under today's atmospheric conditions you
cannot compound chlorine with metallic iron. Yet here it is. Today,
chlorine can be joined with iron as solid metal only in two
atmospheres of oxygen pressure, and only in the absence of ultraviolet
radiation.
Of course, ultraviolet radiation would have been filtered out by the
protective canopy.
Research indications are that the pre-Flood atmosphere is the only
plausible explanation for the forging of this metallic artefact.
John Wilkins
<a2cb9185-b504-486a...@e22g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
Frank J <fc...@verizon.net> wrote:
Answered in the video here:
<http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/10/taking_bad_acting_to_new_tro
ug.php>
Augray
<ap...@email.com> wrote in
<fdb01da8-a37b-40c1...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> :
No answer?
>> >Angels are known to step from this dimention to the next.
>>
>> Irrelevant, even if true.
>
>Very revelant. It shows this eistance is not the only one.
This, from someone who just a few days ago wrote that "I do not claim
the ancient texts are necessarily true."
>Just
>because we cannot percieve the others does not mean they do not exist.
>Angels being able to appear to man in this dimention eludes to the
>fact there is at least one more.
And even if there *are* other dimensions, your little discourse
doesn't address what *system* the designer used. It doesn't mention
the designer's methodology or techniques. Care to take a stab at them?
>The major religions refer to these dimentions as "heavens".
Assuming there are other dimensions, what makes you think the rules
there are different?
>> >I am sure the natural laws exist for our natural senses only.
>>
>> Apparently, natural laws don't actually, you know, *regulate*
>> anything. They're just there for us to look at. Did it occur to you
>> that our natural senses are *defined* by natural laws
>
>Occur? I insist on it.
But apparently, natural laws don't exist to keep the Sun going, or
maintain the Earth in its orbit. Those things are just amazing
coincidences, right?
All-Seeing-I
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:46:01 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
> <ap...@email.com> wrote in
You have a better way to manefest a physical universe?
>
> >> >Angels are known to step from this dimention to the next.
>
> >> Irrelevant, even if true.
>
> >Very revelant. It shows this eistance is not the only one.
>
> This, from someone who just a few days ago wrote that "I do not claim
> the ancient texts are necessarily true."
Out of context. Must you evilutionist always distort the truth?
> >Just because we cannot percieve the others does not mean they do not exist.
> >Angels being able to appear to man in this dimention eludes to the
> >fact there is at least one more.
>
> And even if there *are* other dimensions, your little discourse
> doesn't address what *system* the designer used. It doesn't mention
> the designer's methodology or techniques. Care to take a stab at them?
The "system" are the physical laws of the universe. Pay attention.
> >The major religions refer to these dimentions as "heavens".
>
> Assuming there are other dimensions, what makes you think the rules
> there are different?
We would be able to interact with the other dimention
> >> >I am sure the natural laws exist for our natural senses only.
>
> >> Apparently, natural laws don't actually, you know, *regulate*
> >> anything. They're just there for us to look at. Did it occur to you
> >> that our natural senses are *defined* by natural laws
>
> >Occur? I insist on it.
>
> But apparently, natural laws don't exist to keep the Sun going, or
> maintain the Earth in its orbit. Those things are just amazing
> coincidences, right?
Nope. The only "amazing coincidence" taking place are such things as
man evolving from fish.
Eric Root
Only angels, or can leprechauns do it also?
HighQ
:
> As many of you know, I'm not interested in the designer's identity,
> especially since Behe admitted at Dover that he/she/it might be
> deceased.
>
> Also, as many of you know, for years I have been asking what the
> designer did when. So far ~70% simply dodge the question, and most of
> the rest answer the wrong question
So give us the right question to get wrong.
(By your *DYING* standards)
> (give me the age of the earth when I ask for the age of life).
Its easy.
Age of earth = > age of life on it.
> Those that do reply give several radically
> different answers,
And you think evolutionists have the answer? Sweet dreams.
> with one of the most common one agreeing with
> mainstream science's conclusion of a ~4-billion year "tree of life."
> As you know, that's no comfort to Comfort.
Either
Creation is true, and you are screwed (because you're stubborn),or
Evolution is true and you're screwed (Period).
> What I'd like to know now is what computer system did the designer
> use?
Ask Steve Jobbs how he designed the IPhone, and then ask your local
indian takeaway how the IPhone was designed.
Do you think you are being smart, by asking the indian?
HighQ
> On Nov 26, 3:35 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
.
> > Angels are known to step from this dimention to the next.
>
> Only angels, or can leprechauns do it also?
You defined the dimension, you tell us.
John Wilkins
<892689c8-7440-4d6b...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> Angels are known to step from this dimention to the next.
Dementia does not cause a new demention.
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
One is fiction,(like the ToE), the other is not.
HighQ
> In article
.
.
> Dementia does not cause a new demention.
Proof with an I?
Stuart
*known* ?
LMAO.
STuart
Stuart
Give my regards to the Easter bunny.
Stuart
spintronic
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sad
Augray
<allse...@usa.com> wrote in
<7c89aa18-9a3b-4626...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> :
Why, or better yet how, would a supernatural designer use natural laws
that didn't exist yet to design those natural laws? And how were those
natural laws used in the design process?
>> >> >Angels are known to step from this dimention to the next.
>>
>> >> Irrelevant, even if true.
>>
>> >Very revelant. It shows this eistance is not the only one.
>>
>> This, from someone who just a few days ago wrote that "I do not claim
>> the ancient texts are necessarily true."
>
>Out of context.
How is it out of context?
>Must you evilutionist always distort the truth?
It's not enough to say that the truth was distorted, you have to
*show* that it was distorted. But if course, it *isn't* out of
context, as can be seen here:
news:85f32ade-1a33-4c31...@x16g2000vbk.googlegroups.com
>> >Just because we cannot percieve the others does not mean they do not exist.
>> >Angels being able to appear to man in this dimention eludes to the
>> >fact there is at least one more.
>>
>> And even if there *are* other dimensions, your little discourse
>> doesn't address what *system* the designer used. It doesn't mention
>> the designer's methodology or techniques. Care to take a stab at them?
>
>The "system" are the physical laws of the universe. Pay attention.
>
>> >The major religions refer to these dimentions as "heavens".
>>
>> Assuming there are other dimensions, what makes you think the rules
>> there are different?
>
>We would be able to interact with the other dimention
Why? And isn't it interesting that even though this purported other
dimension has different laws, its inhabitants seem to have no
difficulty interacting with our dimension?
>> >> >I am sure the natural laws exist for our natural senses only.
>>
>> >> Apparently, natural laws don't actually, you know, *regulate*
>> >> anything. They're just there for us to look at. Did it occur to you
>> >> that our natural senses are *defined* by natural laws
>>
>> >Occur? I insist on it.
>>
>> But apparently, natural laws don't exist to keep the Sun going, or
>> maintain the Earth in its orbit. Those things are just amazing
>> coincidences, right?
>
>Nope. The only "amazing coincidence" taking place are such things as
>man evolving from fish.
In what way would that be a co-incidence?
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>Angels are known to step from this dimention to the next.
angels don't exist.
>
>I am sure the natural laws exist for our natural senses only.
as does the universe itself.
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>But man has found some of the methods so far. Such as math and
>physics; And Universal laws and principals that appear to be constant
>from our current perspective of the universe.
including the laws of evolution
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>Very revelant. It shows this eistance is not the only one. Just
>because we cannot percieve the others does not mean they do not exist.
>Angels being able to appear to man in this dimention eludes to the
>fact there is at least one more.
angels don't exist. you haven't proven they do. you haven't proven
they can do anything. and the ancients didn't know about dimensions.
bpuharic
<spint...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 26 Nov, 12:14, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:.
>.
>.
>> As many of you know, I'm not interested in the designer's identity,
>
>Why?
>
>If there is a designer, I want to know him.
fine. you go do that and let science to the adults, m'kay?
>
>
>> especially since Behe admitted at Dover that he/she/it might be
>> deceased.
>
>Well their not very bright are they?
>
>Why would an immortal designer, have the capability to preserve this
>whole universe bar himself
because he's dead. he had no choice in the matter
>
>Age after flood & (build up of free radicals) = Gradual decline in
>life span.
>
except, of course, life expectancy under creationists was 40 year.
today, with science, it's 80
guess the creationist forgot that
>
>> Those that do reply give several radically
>> different answers,
>
>
>No wonder. This isn't a game of bingo, this is a game of chess.
>
>You have to force your opponent into doing the "contradictory".
>
>
>Offering up millions of religions is a contradiction.
>
>You choose.
>
there are 38,000 christian denominations. you tell us which one is
true
bpuharic
<einst...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>On 26 Nov, 12:14, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>:
>:
>
>And you think evolutionists have the answer? Sweet dreams.
we dont have answers. we have facts
>
>> with one of the most common one agreeing with
>> mainstream science's conclusion of a ~4-billion year "tree of life."
>> As you know, that's no comfort to Comfort.
>
>
>Either
>Creation is true, and you are screwed (because you're stubborn),or
>Evolution is true and you're screwed (Period).
creation is false. that much we know
chris thompson
> As many of you know, I'm not interested in the designer's identity,
> deceased.
>
> designer did when. So far ~70% simply dodge the question, and most of
> the rest answer the wrong question (give me the age of the earth when
> different answers, with one of the most common one agreeing with
> mainstream science's conclusion of a ~4-billion year "tree of life."
> As you know, that's no comfort to Comfort.
>
> use?
Two years ago (almost) I ruptured two discs (L1-L2 and L2-L3). I had
no clue this had happened aside from some pain that was exactly like
sciatica (which I had had before). When my left leg collapsed under me
for no discernible reason and my toes started getting numb I went to
the emergency room. They had me there for about 6 hours asking me
questions, and I kept telling them the same things. They finally did
an MRI and all of a sudden it looked like an episode of "ER". A nurse
appeared and said to me, "We don't have time to contact your primary
care physician so we are bringing an internal medicine guy down here."
I said, "Huh?" The internist asked me a bunch of questions for about
10 minutes, and about halfway through this other doctor appears and
stands right behind the internist. He was literally tapping his foot,
and said (twice if I recall correctly) "Move this along. We have to
get this done."
And when the internist was done the surgeon foot-tapper said to me,
"You need spinal column surgery. Right. Now." I said, "Huh? Do I have
any other options?" And he said, "Yes, your other option is to be
paralyzed from the waist down for the rest of your life."
Given that, I have to say that at best, the designer used a
Commodore-64.
> Surely some of you computer Salems see some "signatures" in the
> cell that point to your favorite CAD systems. Or maybe it's one that
> you *don't* like, given those so-called "bad designs" (optic nerve, my
> back, etc.) Or maybe the designer drew it manually, like the old days.
> I have always been curious about how that "blueprint font" is so
> similar for different (human) designers. Did those designers "channel"
> the big one or something?
>
> So give it your best guess, This question should not give you as much
> heartburn as the "what happened when" questions.
Drawn by hand? Maybe. If so, the designer's compass had unequal arms.
Chris
PS: I suggest a read of Neil Shubin's "Your Inner Fish". In it, he
writes about a couple of cranial nerves. Why should the facial and
trigeminal nerves be so intertwined? Why not just have a pair of
nerves, each of which covers a particular section of the head?
The answer lies in the "gill slits", really the gill arches. Each
nerve attaches to the structures that arise from the corresponding
gill arch. Some of those structures, over evolutionary time, have
migrated far afield. A designer would have simplified the system and
made sensible nerve connections. Evolution makes do with what it has
to start with.
Dana Tweedy
snip
>>> Angels are known to step from this dimention to the next.
>>
>> Only angels, or can leprechauns do it also?
>>
>
> One is fiction,(like the ToE), the other is not.
How do you determine which is "fiction" and which is supposedly real? It
seems to be simply a matter of which you want to believe.
The theory of evolution is a scientific theory, well supported by the
evidence. Belief in angels or leprechauns is not supported by any physical
evidence, just folkloric accounts.
DJT
John Wilkins
<70379c32-4cd6-42b4...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
chris thompson <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey, I *liked* the C-64. An Amstrad GX4000.
...
J. J. Lodder
> As many of you know, I'm not interested in the designer's identity,
> especially since Behe admitted at Dover that he/she/it might be
> deceased.
>
> Also, as many of you know, for years I have been asking what the
> designer did when. So far ~70% simply dodge the question, and most of
> the rest answer the wrong question (give me the age of the earth when
> I ask for the age of life). Those that do reply give several radically
> different answers, with one of the most common one agreeing with
> mainstream science's conclusion of a ~4-billion year "tree of life."
> As you know, that's no comfort to Comfort.
It is well known (from a reliable source)
<http://www.harpers.org/media/image/blogs/misc/blake-golden-compass.jpg>
that he used a pair of composses,
Jan
Ye Old One
Science.
>
>>
>> >> >Angels are known to step from this dimention to the next.
>>
>> >> Irrelevant, even if true.
>>
>> >Very revelant. It shows this eistance is not the only one.
>>
>> This, from someone who just a few days ago wrote that "I do not claim
>> the ancient texts are necessarily true."
>
>Out of context. Must you evilutionist always distort the truth?
Do we ever? No, of course not.
>
>> >Just because we cannot percieve the others does not mean they do not exist.
>> >Angels being able to appear to man in this dimention eludes to the
>> >fact there is at least one more.
>>
>> And even if there *are* other dimensions, your little discourse
>> doesn't address what *system* the designer used. It doesn't mention
>> the designer's methodology or techniques. Care to take a stab at them?
>
>The "system" are the physical laws of the universe. Pay attention.
>
>> >The major religions refer to these dimentions as "heavens".
>>
>> Assuming there are other dimensions, what makes you think the rules
>> there are different?
>
>We would be able to interact with the other dimention
>
>
>> >> >I am sure the natural laws exist for our natural senses only.
>>
>> >> Apparently, natural laws don't actually, you know, *regulate*
>> >> anything. They're just there for us to look at. Did it occur to you
>> >> that our natural senses are *defined* by natural laws
>>
>> >Occur? I insist on it.
>>
>> But apparently, natural laws don't exist to keep the Sun going, or
>> maintain the Earth in its orbit. Those things are just amazing
>> coincidences, right?
>
>Nope. The only "amazing coincidence" taking place are such things as
>man evolving from fish.
And yet that is EXACTLY what the fossil record proves happened.
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
All-Seeing-I
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:56:24 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
> <7c89aa18-9a3b-4626-8fa5-411b583f2...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> :
The laws were made first and then the creation was made with the laws.
I cannot support that. It is simply a conclusion.
>
> >> >> >Angels are known to step from this dimention to the next.
>
> >> >> Irrelevant, even if true.
>
> >> >Very revelant. It shows this eistance is not the only one.
>
> >> This, from someone who just a few days ago wrote that "I do not claim
> >> the ancient texts are necessarily true."
>
> >Out of context.
>
> How is it out of context?
The reply is out of context. Angels show there is more then one
existance. Which answered your question.
> >Must you evilutionist always distort the truth?
>
> It's not enough to say that the truth was distorted, you have to
> *show* that it was distorted. But if course, it *isn't* out of
> context, as can be seen here:news:85f32ade-1a33-4c31...@x16g2000vbk.googlegroups.com
I plainly said " I do not claim the ancient texts are necessarily
true. I claim they
are another possible reason for man's origins"
In that context I was showing your dumb ass that evolution could be
wrong because, based on the information in the texts, there could be
other explainations for man's origins.
>
> >> >Just because we cannot percieve the others does not mean they do not exist.
> >> >Angels being able to appear to man in this dimention eludes to the
> >> >fact there is at least one more.
>
> >> And even if there *are* other dimensions, your little discourse
> >> doesn't address what *system* the designer used. It doesn't mention
> >> the designer's methodology or techniques. Care to take a stab at them?
>
> >The "system" are the physical laws of the universe. Pay attention.
>
> >> >The major religions refer to these dimentions as "heavens".
>
> >> Assuming there are other dimensions, what makes you think the rules
> >> there are different?
>
> >We would be able to interact with the other dimention
>
> Why? And isn't it interesting that even though this purported other
> dimension has different laws, its inhabitants seem to have no
> difficulty interacting with our dimension?
You are just being argumentative for the hell of it
> >> >> >I am sure the natural laws exist for our natural senses only.
>
> >> >> Apparently, natural laws don't actually, you know, *regulate*
> >> >> anything. They're just there for us to look at. Did it occur to you
> >> >> that our natural senses are *defined* by natural laws
>
> >> >Occur? I insist on it.
>
> >> But apparently, natural laws don't exist to keep the Sun going, or
> >> maintain the Earth in its orbit. Those things are just amazing
> >> coincidences, right?
>
> >Nope. The only "amazing coincidence" taking place are such things as
> >man evolving from fish.
>
> In what way would that be a co-incidence
Think about the context you asked your question in
All-Seeing-I
You can stick your fingers in your ears and say that three times while
clicking your heels Dorothy, but guess what? -- that will never make
the ToE a real "scientific theory".
Leprechauns are fictional characters meant to entertain. Angels are
not.
It is all about the author's intent and context as they write Dana. A
child can understand that.
You and Kermit should go and get a refund from any tuition you have
paid in the past. You obviously got ripped off from your past
educators if you cannot distinguish between fictional events and
historical accounts while reading.
The current state of the American school system today is a disgrace.
All-Seeing-I
>
> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> > Angels are known to step from this dimention to the next.
>
> Dementia does not cause a new demention.
But it does cause a lack of indepth understanding on any given
subject.
You show clear signs of dementia.
All-Seeing-I
wrote:
First, let me say that I am genuinely sorry about your back problem.
No one can ever understand a back problem until they have a back
problem themselves.
If books such as the bible are true, then the bodies we have right now
are corrupted. The reason why is unimportant for the purpose of this
discussion.
The picture painted by the prophets is a return to normalcy and to
what we once were before the fall of mankind.
It is a return to the capable physical bodies that God originally
created for mankind. This is described in many places throughout the
bible.
The Bible does specifically promise that flesh and bone bodies will be
totally whole and very energetic. The new body will be quite similar
to the old body, but with some measure of supernatural ability.
People will be immortal, healthy, and strong again; just as they were
when they were originally created. The earth and the animals will also
see a restoration.
OR.
We could all just be a mass of biological mess that is born, lives and
then dies with nothing more then pain and suffereing inbetween.
Take your pick.
TomS
<a2cb9185-b504-486a...@e22g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>, Frank J
stated..."
>
>As many of you know, I'm not interested in the designer's identity,
>especially since Behe admitted at Dover that he/she/it might be
>deceased.
>
>Also, as many of you know, for years I have been asking what the
>designer did when. So far ~70% simply dodge the question, and most of
>the rest answer the wrong question (give me the age of the earth when
>I ask for the age of life). Those that do reply give several radically
>different answers, with one of the most common one agreeing with
>mainstream science's conclusion of a ~4-billion year "tree of life."
>As you know, that's no comfort to Comfort.
>
>What I'd like to know now is what computer system did the designer
>cell that point to your favorite CAD systems. Or maybe it's one that
>you *don't* like, given those so-called "bad designs" (optic nerve, my
>back, etc.) Or maybe the designer drew it manually, like the old days.
>I have always been curious about how that "blueprint font" is so
>similar for different (human) designers. Did those designers "channel"
>the big one or something?
>
>So give it your best guess, This question should not give you as much
>heartburn as the "what happened when" questions.
>
"For with what eyes of the mind was your Plato able to see that
workhouse of such stupendous toil, in which he makes the world to be
modelled and built by God? What materials, what bars, what machines,
what servants, were employed in so vast a work? How could the air,
fire, water, and earth, pay obedience and submit to the will of the
architect? From whence arose those five forms, of which the rest were
composed, so aptly contributing to frame the mind and produce the
senses? It is tedious to go through all, as they are of such a sort
that they look more like things to be desired than to be discovered."
Cicero, "On the Nature of the Gods" Book I 8.19
translated by C.D. Yonge, London: H.G. Bohn, 1853; Amherst, NY: Prometheus
Books, 1997
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
Kleuskes & Moos
> On Nov 26, 12:54 pm, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:37:40 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
> > <ap...@email.com> wrote in
> > <3d8a99ed-9f1b-45aa-9305-abb35d650...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com> :
>
> > >> As many of you know, I'm not interested in the designer's identity,
> > >> especially since Behe admitted at Dover that he/she/it might be
> > >> deceased.
>
> > >> Also, as many of you know, for years I have been asking what the
> > >> designer did when. So far ~70% simply dodge the question, and most of
> > >> the rest answer the wrong question (give me the age of the earth when
> > >> I ask for the age of life). Those that do reply give several radically
> > >> different answers, with one of the most common one agreeing with
> > >> mainstream science's conclusion of a ~4-billion year "tree of life."
> > >> As you know, that's no comfort to Comfort.
>
> > >> What I'd like to know now is what computer system did the designer
> > >> use? Surely some of you computer Salems see some "signatures" in the
> > >> cell that point to your favorite CAD systems. Or maybe it's one that
> > >> you *don't* like, given those so-called "bad designs" (optic nerve, my
> > >> back, etc.) Or maybe the designer drew it manually, like the old days.
> > >> I have always been curious about how that "blueprint font" is so
> > >> similar for different (human) designers. Did those designers "channel"
> > >> the big one or something?
>
> > >> So give it your best guess, This question should not give you as much
> > >> heartburn as the "what happened when" questions.
>
>
> > >But man has found some of the methods so far. Such as math and
> > >physics; And Universal laws and principals that appear to be constant
> > >from our current perspective of the universe.
>
> > Why would a supernatural designer be limited by natural laws in their
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> It is not.
>
Interesting... Do you have any confirmed observations of angels
stepping from one dimension to the next? If not, how do you know?
I'm pretty sure there's notting on the dimensional travel habits of
angelic frequent flyers im the Bible...
> I am sure the natural laws exist for our natural senses only.
Why are youso sure? Got any inside information us normal mortals
aren't privied to?
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>There is much to suggest that the earth's atmospehre and conditions
>were conducive to a longer life span before the flood... the flood
>they deny
We deny it because there is not one shred of evidence for it, and some
very conclusive evidence against it.
>
>There are dragon flies in the fossil record that have a 3 foot wing
>span.
So?
>
>Japanese physicist Dr. Kei Mori exposed plant life to two of the
>conditions of the original world ecology -- before the Great Flood.
There was no flood.
>
>He grew tomato plants under a plastic dome which filtered the
>ultraviolet rays; and he increased the carbon dioxide. After two
>years, a cherry tomato plant was 16 feet tall, with 903 tomatoes on
>it. After six years, the same tomato plant was over 30 feet tall and
>had produced more than 5,000 tomatoes.
>
>That tomato plant just didn't want to die. Ask yourself now, How long
>do tomato plants usually live? Perhaps five or six months? They die
>of old age, destroyed by ultra-violet radiation.
Total rubbish. The tomato plant is an herbaceous perennial although it
is normally grown commercially as an annual because that maximizes the
crop.
>
>Could this have some bearing on how old people would have lived under
>the same environment?
Nope. The Earth's atmosphere has been fairly constant throughout
mans's development.
>
>Greater Air Pressure Then
No evidence for that.
>
>The atmospheric pressure, as well as the oxygen content, had to be
>greater in the past, in order to support the huge life forms which
>then existed.
O2 was higher at one time, the pressure was not.
>
>My friend Dr. Carl Baugh, of Glen Rose Texas, has set out to build the
>world's first hyperbaric biosphere, 62 feet long. Its purpose is to
>simulate the context of our original world. An engineer from NASA has
>called it the greatest experiment in history, ever performed in the
>name of science.
What total rubbish. But there again, it seems everyone claims support
from a NASA engineer - I wonder if it is the same fool all the time?
>
>Research indicates that essentially everything was larger in the
>past. For instance, the club mosses which today reach 16 to 18 inches
>often approach 200 feet in the fossil record.
The largest trees live today. The largest ever animal lives today.
>
>The difference may well be in the atmospheric pressure. In today's
>atmosphere we have 14.7 pounds atmospheric pressure per inch at sea
>level. But to oxygenate the deep cell tissue of those great dinosaurs
>we need much greater atmospheric pressure.
Rubbish! Where do you get you daft ideas from?
>
>Research has shown that when you approach two times today's
>atmospheric pressure, the entire blood plasma is saturated with
>oxygen.
Hohohohoho!
>
>Imagine having the energy to run 200 miles non-stop. Such atmospheric
>pressure would also promote rapid healing!
And VERY rapid decomposition.
>
>A Canopy Would Promote Such Atmospheric Pressure
Oh dear, you are that stupid.
>
>It is believed that before the Flood, a water canopy enveloped the
>earth, above the atmosphere.
No it is not believed, at least not by anyone with a measurable IQ.
> With such a canopy, the atmosphere would
>be pressurised to a greater degree than we have now.
>
>There is surprising evidence.
No, it is abject stupidity.
>
>In the 1980s, a pre-flood hammer,
There never was a world wide flood.
> found inside a rock stratum, was
>analysed by the Batelle Laboratories in Columbus, Ohio -- the same
>laboratory that analysed moonstones. The elemental analysis showed it
>to be 96.6 percent iron, 0.74 percent sulphur, and 2.6 percent
>chlorine.
>
>Physicists tell us that under today's atmospheric conditions you
>cannot compound chlorine with metallic iron.
Not that really is an out and out LIE!
[quote]
Reaction of Chlorine with Metals
Chlorine combines directly with all metals forming metal chloride
salts.
[end quote]
http://www.ucc.ie/academic/chem/dolchem/html/elem/elem017.html
> Yet here it is. Today,
>chlorine can be joined with iron as solid metal only in two
>atmospheres of oxygen pressure, and only in the absence of ultraviolet
>radiation.
Where do you get these lies from?
>
>Of course, ultraviolet radiation would have been filtered out by the
>protective canopy.
>
>Research indications are that the pre-Flood atmosphere is the only
>plausible explanation for the forging of this metallic artefact.
>
>http://www.discourseanddisclosure.com/frontPage/tomato.htm
You do fall for other people's stupidity as well as your own
home-grown type.
TomS
<271120091302120528%jo...@wilkins.id.au>, John Wilkins stated..."
This dimension? The next dimension?
This sort of language exhibits the odd notion of dimension that is
commonplace among the crackpots.
Burkhard
> On Nov 26, 9:56 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> All-Seeing-I wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>>>>> Angels are known to step from this dimention to the next.
>>>> Only angels, or can leprechauns do it also?
>>> One is fiction,(like the ToE), the other is not.
>> How do you determine which is "fiction" and which is supposedly real? It
>> seems to be simply a matter of which you want to believe.
>>
>> The theory of evolution is a scientific theory, well supported by the
>> evidence. Belief in angels or leprechauns is not supported by any physical
>> evidence, just folkloric accounts.
>>
>> DJT
>
> You can stick your fingers in your ears and say that three times while
> clicking your heels Dorothy, but guess what? -- that will never make
> the ToE a real "scientific theory".
>
> Leprechauns are fictional characters meant to entertain. Angels are
> not.
>
> It is all about the author's intent and context as they write Dana. A
> child can understand that.
Indeed. Leprauchauns are a distorted version of the old, true gods, the
Tuatha Dé Danann. Essentially Christian invaders and their imagined
one-in-three trying to destroy the knowledge of the ancients by
falsifying it into a fairytale.
Ye Old One
Glad to see even a little tiny glimmer of honesty from you at last.
>
>>
>> >> >> >Angels are known to step from this dimention to the next.
>>
>> >> >> Irrelevant, even if true.
>>
>> >> >Very revelant. It shows this eistance is not the only one.
>>
>> >> This, from someone who just a few days ago wrote that "I do not claim
>> >> the ancient texts are necessarily true."
>>
>> >Out of context.
>>
>> How is it out of context?
>
>The reply is out of context. Angels show there is more then one
>existance. Which answered your question.
There is no evidence for the existence of angels.
>
>
>> >Must you evilutionist always distort the truth?
>>
>> It's not enough to say that the truth was distorted, you have to
>> *show* that it was distorted. But if course, it *isn't* out of
>> context, as can be seen here:news:85f32ade-1a33-4c31...@x16g2000vbk.googlegroups.com
>
>I plainly said " I do not claim the ancient texts are necessarily
>true. I claim they
>are another possible reason for man's origins"
But they are nothing of the sort.
>
>In that context I was showing your dumb ass that evolution could be
>wrong because, based on the information in the texts, there could be
>other explainations for man's origins.
But you haven't been able to come up with an alternative. Why is that?
>
>>
>> >> >Just because we cannot percieve the others does not mean they do not exist.
>> >> >Angels being able to appear to man in this dimention eludes to the
>> >> >fact there is at least one more.
>>
>> >> And even if there *are* other dimensions, your little discourse
>> >> doesn't address what *system* the designer used. It doesn't mention
>> >> the designer's methodology or techniques. Care to take a stab at them?
>>
>> >The "system" are the physical laws of the universe. Pay attention.
>>
>> >> >The major religions refer to these dimentions as "heavens".
>>
>> >> Assuming there are other dimensions, what makes you think the rules
>> >> there are different?
>>
>> >We would be able to interact with the other dimention
>>
>> Why? And isn't it interesting that even though this purported other
>> dimension has different laws, its inhabitants seem to have no
>> difficulty interacting with our dimension?
>
>You are just being argumentative for the hell of it
Answer the question.
>
>> >> >> >I am sure the natural laws exist for our natural senses only.
>>
>> >> >> Apparently, natural laws don't actually, you know, *regulate*
>> >> >> anything. They're just there for us to look at. Did it occur to you
>> >> >> that our natural senses are *defined* by natural laws
>>
>> >> >Occur? I insist on it.
>>
>> >> But apparently, natural laws don't exist to keep the Sun going, or
>> >> maintain the Earth in its orbit. Those things are just amazing
>> >> coincidences, right?
>>
>> >Nope. The only "amazing coincidence" taking place are such things as
>> >man evolving from fish.
>>
>> In what way would that be a co-incidence
>
>Think about the context you asked your question in
--
Bob.
You are depriving a village somewhere of an idiot.
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 26, 9:56 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> All-Seeing-I wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>> >>> Angels are known to step from this dimention to the next.
>>
>> >> Only angels, or can leprechauns do it also?
>>
>> > One is fiction,(like the ToE), the other is not.
>>
>> How do you determine which is "fiction" and which is supposedly real? It
>> seems to be simply a matter of which you want to believe.
>>
>> The theory of evolution is a scientific theory, well supported by the
>> evidence. Belief in angels or leprechauns is not supported by any physical
>> evidence, just folkloric accounts.
>>
>> DJT
>
>You can stick your fingers in your ears and say that three times while
>clicking your heels Dorothy, but guess what? -- that will never make
>the ToE a real "scientific theory".
It is considered one of the strongest scientific theories there is.
>
>Leprechauns are fictional characters meant to entertain. Angels are
>not.
Wrong, both are fictional.
>
>It is all about the author's intent and context as they write Dana. A
>child can understand that.
Maybe you should consult a child. Those I know are far brighter than
you.
>
>You and Kermit should go and get a refund from any tuition you have
>paid in the past. You obviously got ripped off from your past
>educators if you cannot distinguish between fictional events and
>historical accounts while reading.
Now that would be a good idea - for you.
>
>The current state of the American school system today is a disgrace.
Yes. That is true. And until it can teach science properly it is not
going to improve. We have to work to remove the last traces of
religion from schools - above all we have to stop idiots like you
spreading your lies.
--
Bob.
When D-G made Madman out of clay he forgot to magic the brain. I think
that explains everything.
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
You do not have even a rudimentary understanding of any subject.
>
>I show clear signs of dementia.
Text corrected.
--
Bob.
If brains were dynamite, you wouldn't have enough to blow your nose.
TomS
<aciug5t7kjiircker...@4ax.com>, bpuharic stated..."
Creation, in the sense of the creationists, is not well defined. That's
the point of the question "What system did the designer use?"
Until the creationists get around to telling us something about what an
act of creation/design might be, there is nothing that can be said about
it.
Creationism "isn't even false."
Mike Lyle
[...]
>
> That tomato plant just didn't want to die. Ask yourself now, How long
> do tomato plants usually live? Perhaps five or six months? They die
> of old age, destroyed by ultra-violet radiation.
That just isn't true. Why on earth do you keep doing this self-destruct
thing? People who read this group _know stuff_. The tomato is, I
believe, a perennial, though grown as an annual for cropping. If
allowed, some varieties can grow very tall, and even in commercial
practice twelve feet is typical for indoor cultivation. It thrives in
sunshine, with all its ultra-violet radiation. Even outdoors in central
England with irregular care I expect my tomato plants to last eight
months from sowing, and what kills them is me, before the frost gets
them.
>
[...]
--
Mike.
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>On Nov 26, 9:29 pm, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>> Why, or better yet how, would a supernatural designer use natural laws
>> that didn't exist yet to design those natural laws? And how were those
>> natural laws used in the design process?
>
>The laws were made first and then the creation was made with the laws.
>I cannot support that. It is simply a conclusion.
including the laws of evolution
>
>I plainly said " I do not claim the ancient texts are necessarily
>true. I claim they
>are another possible reason for man's origins"
>
>In that context I was showing your dumb ass that evolution could be
>wrong because, based on the information in the texts, there could be
>other explainations for man's origins.
which has nothing to do with the natural world. man's beliefs do not
determine how the universe functions. our theologies do not tell the
universe how to run
creationism and ancient texts are irrelevant without evidence. and
there is no evidence that creationism is true
there is evidence evolution is a fact. and that makes all the
difference
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>On Nov 26, 9:56 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> All-Seeing-I wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>> >>> Angels are known to step from this dimention to the next.
>>
>> >> Only angels, or can leprechauns do it also?
>>
>> > One is fiction,(like the ToE), the other is not.
>>
>> How do you determine which is "fiction" and which is supposedly real? It
>> seems to be simply a matter of which you want to believe.
>>
>> The theory of evolution is a scientific theory, well supported by the
>> evidence. Belief in angels or leprechauns is not supported by any physical
>> evidence, just folkloric accounts.
>>
>> DJT
>
>You can stick your fingers in your ears and say that three times while
>clicking your heels Dorothy, but guess what? -- that will never make
>the ToE a real "scientific theory".
>
>Leprechauns are fictional characters meant to entertain. Angels are
>not.
uh...why not? there's as much evidence for angels as there is for
leprechauns. hell, people used to believe in werewolves.
>
>It is all about the author's intent and context as they write Dana. A
>child can understand that.
and you think ancient texts were written as history. they were not
>
>You and Kermit should go and get a refund from any tuition you have
>paid in the past. You obviously got ripped off from your past
>educators if you cannot distinguish between fictional events and
>historical accounts while reading.
>
>The current state of the American school system today is a disgrace.
let's see...which nation has won more nobel prizes than any other?
and your perfect nation...saudi arabia...where religion is law
how many nobels there?
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>If books such as the bible are true, then the bodies we have right now
>are corrupted. The reason why is unimportant for the purpose of this
>discussion.
the fact is, the bible is not LITERALLY true. we know, for example,
exodus didn't happen. so no one knows what you mean when you say the
bible is 'true'.
>
>OR.
>
>We could all just be a mass of biological mess that is born, lives and
>then dies with nothing more then pain and suffereing inbetween.
>
>Take your pick.
i go with the evidence. any child can write a creation myth like those
in the bible.
and only a child would believe them.
i prefer to be an adult
Frank J
> On 26 Nov, 12:14, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:.
> .
> .
>
> > As many of you know, I'm not interested in the designer's identity,
>
Because I already take on faith that it's God. If He delegated to
other designers/creators I would be interested in knowing their
identities, but that's not a priority, because I suspect that it may
not be knowable. What *is* knowable - and testable - is *what* the
designer(s)/creator(s) did, and when they did it. As is some degree of
"how" (currently progressing from the "biology" level of understanding
to the "chemistry" level).
> .
> If there is a designer, I want to know him.
>
> > especially since Behe admitted at Dover that he/she/it might be
> > deceased.
>
> Well their not very bright are they?
Actually I think Behe was brutally honest - there at least. Like I do
he admits that God is the "ultimate designer," but he realizes that
that's a "faith based" conclusion, and that his "evidence of design"
could point only to some designer way down on the "chain of command".
It's no surprise that those who favor "aliens did it" are fans of ID.
>
> Why would an immortal designer, have the capability to preserve this
> whole universe bar himself?
>
> > Also, as many of you know,
>
> Lets pretend I'm not a fan & don't.
>
> > for years I have been asking what the designer did when.
>
> Me too, I asked how come this crappy 2009 VW beetle has roots in the
> original but their not the same....
>
> > So far ~70%
>
> Is that approximation even an exact figure?
Approx. That's what the "~" means. At one point I think it was 14/20,
but I stopped counting and don't notice any major changes.
>
> > simply dodge the question,
>
> You can question me, anytime, night or day, apart from some
> wednesdays, teusdays, and the odd saturday.
I did.
>
> > and most of the rest answer the wrong question (give me the age of the earth when
> > I ask for the age of life).
>
> You give me the age of the Earth, when you know it.
I only ask for a best guess. On the age of *life* not Earth. Note that
if I counted multiple evasions from the same person, that ~70% gets
much higher.
>
> Answer this.
>
> In another thread, we are arguing is cosmic radiation necessary?
>
> So I posed the question, is C14 necessary?
>
> The answer is "No". It's produced in small quantities, over vast
> periods.
>
> Now ask, "what would happen if there was H2O above the N14 layer?
>
> You would have fewer free radicals, & fewer C14.
>
> Now ask, "How much of both would you have if the H20 is removed"?
>
> And you get this.
>
> Free radical builds up. Life span declines.
>
> C14 Builds up, predicted history is incorrect.
>
> Now was moses a genius 'r' what?
>
> Age before the flood & (0 free radicals). = 900+-years
>
> Flood happens
>
> Free radicals build up = Lifespan declines.
>
> Age after flood & (build up of free radicals) = Gradual decline in
> life span.
>
> > Those that do reply give several radically
> > different answers,
>
> No wonder. This isn't a game of bingo, this is a game of chess.
>
> You have to force your opponent into doing the "contradictory".
>
> Offering up millions of religions is a contradiction.
>
> You choose.
Have you challeneged other evolution-denier who appear not to agree
with that?
Frank J
> On 26 Nov, 12:14, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
> :
>
> > As many of you know, I'm not interested in the designer's identity,
> > deceased.
>
> > the rest answer the wrong question
>
>
> (By your *DYING* standards)
>
> > (give me the age of the earth when I ask for the age of life).
>
>
> Age of earth = > age of life on it.
So give us your best guess on both.
>
> > Those that do reply give several radically
> > different answers,
>
> And you think evolutionists have the answer? Sweet dreams.
As a matter of fact they do. Earth is 4.55 to 4.56 billion years old.
4.4 billion and 4.7 billion are just as wrong as 6000. As for life,
the uncertainty is greater, but 3.5 to 4.0 billion I think covers a 99+
% certainty.
>
> > with one of the most common one agreeing with
> > mainstream science's conclusion of a ~4-billion year "tree of life."
> > As you know, that's no comfort to Comfort.
>
> Either
> Creation is true, and you are screwed (because you're stubborn),or
> Evolution is true and you're screwed (Period).
What do you mean by "creation is true"? Even the subset that insists
that all life originated within a week can't agree on when that week
was or which lineages originated independently. More importanly their
conclusions keep *diverging* instead of converging.
>
> > What I'd like to know now is what computer system did the designer
> > use?
>
> Ask Steve Jobbs how he designed the IPhone, and then ask your local
> indian takeaway how the IPhone was designed.
>
> Do you think you are being smart, by asking the indian?
Others can decide that.
Kilmir
> As many of you know, I'm not interested in the designer's identity,
> especially since Behe admitted at Dover that he/she/it might be
> deceased.
>
> Also, as many of you know, for years I have been asking what the
> designer did when. So far ~70% simply dodge the question, and most of
> I ask for the age of life). Those that do reply give several radically
> different answers, with one of the most common one agreeing with
> mainstream science's conclusion of a ~4-billion year "tree of life."
> As you know, that's no comfort to Comfort.
>
> cell that point to your favorite CAD systems. Or maybe it's one that
> you *don't* like, given those so-called "bad designs" (optic nerve, my
> back, etc.) Or maybe the designer drew it manually, like the old days.
> I have always been curious about how that "blueprint font" is so
> similar for different (human) designers. Did those designers "channel"
> the big one or something?
>
> So give it your best guess, This question should not give you as much
> heartburn as the "what happened when" questions.
xkcd's answer: http://xkcd.com/224/
Steven L.
>>
>> But man has found some of the methods so far. Such as math and
>> physics; And Universal laws and principals that appear to be constant
>>from our current perspective of the universe.
>
> Why would a supernatural designer be limited by natural laws in their
> design methodology?
Conservation of momentum, for one.
A supernatural designer can't just make a pebble move spontaneously,
because in this universe, momentum must be conserved.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Steven L.
> On Nov 27, 3:37 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 26, 6:14 am, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> As many of you know, I'm not interested in the designer's identity,
>>> especially since Behe admitted at Dover that he/she/it might be
>>> deceased.
>>> Also, as many of you know, for years I have been asking what the
>>> designer did when. So far ~70% simply dodge the question, and most of
>>> the rest answer the wrong question (give me the age of the earth when
>>> I ask for the age of life). Those that do reply give several radically
>>> different answers, with one of the most common one agreeing with
>>> mainstream science's conclusion of a ~4-billion year "tree of life."
>>> As you know, that's no comfort to Comfort.
>>> What I'd like to know now is what computer system did the designer
>>> use? Surely some of you computer Salems see some "signatures" in the
>>> cell that point to your favorite CAD systems. Or maybe it's one that
>>> you *don't* like, given those so-called "bad designs" (optic nerve, my
>>> back, etc.) Or maybe the designer drew it manually, like the old days.
>>> I have always been curious about how that "blueprint font" is so
>>> similar for different (human) designers. Did those designers "channel"
>>> the big one or something?
>>> So give it your best guess, This question should not give you as much
>>> heartburn as the "what happened when" questions.
>> It is obvious.We do not fully understand.
>>
>
> science is wrong because we don't know every detail?
>
> By that measure, how can you be confident that a designer even exists/
> existed if we do not fully understand the 'design process' that he or
> she may have used?
That's a bad argument.
You don't have to be an engineer to understand that suspension bridges,
automobiles, and computers were designed. You may not understand the
design process, but you're confident that some engineers do.
And by analogy, if you're convinced that God (the Cosmic Engineer)
exists and is responsible for the creation of life on Earth, you don't
have to worry about how He does things. People of faith take the
existence of God as an *axiom* in their philosophy.
TomS
<Q62dnWlOc9JdcJLW...@earthlink.com>, Steven L. stated..."
But if someone claims that suspension bridges, automobiles, or
computers do not operate according to the principles of physics
and chemistry, then it seems reasonable to ask then what the
operating principles are.
As long as the creationists raise the issue, it is fair to ask
them how they answer it.
Frank J
wrote:
> On Nov 26, 7:14 am, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > As many of you know, I'm not interested in the designer's identity,
> > especially since Behe admitted at Dover that he/she/it might be
> > deceased.
>
> > Also, as many of you know, for years I have been asking what the
> > designer did when. So far ~70% simply dodge the question, and most of
> > the rest answer the wrong question (give me the age of the earth when
> > I ask for the age of life). Those that do reply give several radically
> > different answers, with one of the most common one agreeing with
> > mainstream science's conclusion of a ~4-billion year "tree of life."
> > As you know, that's no comfort to Comfort.
>
> > What I'd like to know now is what computer system did the designer
> > use?
>
> no clue this had happened aside from some pain that was exactly like
> sciatica (which I had had before). When my left leg collapsed under me
> for no discernible reason and my toes started getting numb I went to
> the emergency room. They had me there for about 6 hours asking me
> questions, and I kept telling them the same things. They finally did
> an MRI and all of a sudden it looked like an episode of "ER". A nurse
> appeared and said to me, "We don't have time to contact your primary
> care physician so we are bringing an internal medicine guy down here."
> I said, "Huh?" The internist asked me a bunch of questions for about
> 10 minutes, and about halfway through this other doctor appears and
> stands right behind the internist. He was literally tapping his foot,
> and said (twice if I recall correctly) "Move this along. We have to
> get this done."
>
> And when the internist was done the surgeon foot-tapper said to me,
> "You need spinal column surgery. Right. Now." I said, "Huh? Do I have
> any other options?" And he said, "Yes, your other option is to be
> paralyzed from the waist down for the rest of your life."
>
> Given that, I have to say that at best, the designer used a
> Commodore-64.
>
> > cell that point to your favorite CAD systems. Or maybe it's one that
> > you *don't* like, given those so-called "bad designs" (optic nerve, my
> > back, etc.) Or maybe the designer drew it manually, like the old days.
> > I have always been curious about how that "blueprint font" is so
> > similar for different (human) designers. Did those designers "channel"
> > the big one or something?
>
> > So give it your best guess, This question should not give you as much
> > heartburn as the "what happened when" questions.
>
>
> Chris
>
> PS: I suggest a read of Neil Shubin's "Your Inner Fish". In it, he
> writes about a couple of cranial nerves. Why should the facial and
> trigeminal nerves be so intertwined? Why not just have a pair of
> nerves, each of which covers a particular section of the head?
>
> The answer lies in the "gill slits", really the gill arches. Each
> nerve attaches to the structures that arise from the corresponding
> gill arch. Some of those structures, over evolutionary time, have
> migrated far afield. A designer would have simplified the system and
> made sensible nerve connections. Evolution makes do with what it has
> to start with.
Of course a designer, even a loving one who might give us an eternity
of joy after a few years of pain, could do it any way he/she/it wants.
But whether we like the designs or not, it's just what we expect if
common-descent-with-modification is the process used.
BTW, I hope you are well enough now to appreaciate my sick humor, but
compared to your back, mine's downright banana-perfect.
Desertphile
<spint...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 26 Nov, 12:14, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:.
>> As many of you know, I'm not interested in the designer's identity,
> If there is a designer, I want to know him.
"Him?" And why would you wantto know them?
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
spintronic
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:58:59 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
> <ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
.
Have you ever heard yourself speak?
Here have a listen how confused you sound.
> Nope. The Earth's atmosphere has been fairly constant
> O2 was higher at one time, the pressure was not.
Dana Tweedy
> On Nov 26, 9:56 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> All-Seeing-I wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>>>>> Angels are known to step from this dimention to the next.
>>
>>>> Only angels, or can leprechauns do it also?
>>
>>> One is fiction,(like the ToE), the other is not.
>>
>> How do you determine which is "fiction" and which is supposedly
>> real? It seems to be simply a matter of which you want to believe.
>>
>> The theory of evolution is a scientific theory, well supported by the
>> evidence. Belief in angels or leprechauns is not supported by any
>> physical evidence, just folkloric accounts.
>>
>> DJT
>
> You can stick your fingers in your ears and say that three times while
> clicking your heels Dorothy, but guess what? -- that will never make
> the ToE a real "scientific theory".
What makes the theory of evolution a real scientific theory is that it is
well supported by the evidence, it's falsifiable, and it's been tested.
Whatever I do or believe is not part of the equasion.
>
> Leprechauns are fictional characters meant to entertain. Angels are
> not.
How do you determine that? Again, it appears it's just what you wish to
believe. The folklore about Leprechauns was not meant to "entertain" any
more than the stories about angels was. Leprechauns were meant to explain
inexplicable happenings.
>
> It is all about the author's intent and context as they write Dana. A
> child can understand that.
Yet you don't have any way of knowing the authors intent, or context. You
simply assume what you want to be true.
>
> You and Kermit should go and get a refund from any tuition you have
> paid in the past. You obviously got ripped off from your past
> educators if you cannot distinguish between fictional events and
> historical accounts while reading.
That's the point. I can distinguish between fiction and history. I'm
asking how YOU distinguish. I know that both stories about angels, and
stories about leprechauns are folklore, not history.
>
> The current state of the American school system today is a disgrace.
Which is why you have no way of telling that stories about angels were
folklore, not history.
DJT
Augray
<allse...@usa.com> wrote in
<0ded2ba5-a97a-47b5...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> :
>On Nov 26, 9:29�pm, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:56:24 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>> <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in
>> <7c89aa18-9a3b-4626-8fa5-411b583f2...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> :
>>
>> >On Nov 26, 6:07�pm, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:46:01 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>> >> <ap...@email.com> wrote in
>> >> <fdb01da8-a37b-40c1-9198-6184d226c...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> :
>>
>> >> >On Nov 26, 2:49�pm, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 12:35:09 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>> >> >> <ap...@email.com> wrote in
>> >> >> <892689c8-7440-4d6b-9342-845cc8776...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> :
>>
>> >> >> >On Nov 26, 12:54�pm, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:37:40 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>> >> >> >> <ap...@email.com> wrote in
>> >> >> >> <3d8a99ed-9f1b-45aa-9305-abb35d650...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com> :
>>
>> >> >> >> >On Nov 26, 6:14�am, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> As many of you know, I'm not interested in the designer's identity,
>> >> >> >> >> especially since Behe admitted at Dover that he/she/it might be
>> >> >> >> >> deceased.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Also, as many of you know, for years I have been asking what the
>> >> >> >> >> designer did when. So far ~70% simply dodge the question, and most of
>> >> >> >> >> the rest answer the wrong question (give me the age of the earth when
>> >> >> >> >> I ask for the age of life). Those that do reply give several radically
>> >> >> >> >> different answers, with one of the most common one agreeing with
>> >> >> >> >> mainstream science's conclusion of a ~4-billion year "tree of life."
>> >> >> >> >> As you know, that's no comfort to Comfort.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> What I'd like to know now is what computer system did the designer
>> >> >> >> >> use? Surely some of you computer Salems see some "signatures" in the
>> >> >> >> >> cell that point to your favorite CAD systems. Or maybe it's one that
>> >> >> >> >> you *don't* like, given those so-called "bad designs" (optic nerve, my
>> >> >> >> >> back, etc.) Or maybe the designer drew it manually, like the old days.
>> >> >> >> >> I have always been curious about how that "blueprint font" is so
>> >> >> >> >> similar for different (human) designers. Did those designers "channel"
>> >> >> >> >> the big one or something?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> So give it your best guess, This question should not give you as much
>> >> >> >> >> heartburn as the "what happened when" questions.
>>
>> >> >> >> >It is obvious.We do not fully understand.
>>
>> >> >> >> >But man has found some of the methods so far. Such as math and
>> >> >> >> >physics; And Universal laws and principals that appear to be constant
>> >> >> >> >from our current perspective of the universe.
>>
>> >> >> >> Why would a supernatural designer be limited by natural laws in their
>> >> >> >> design methodology?
>>
>> >> >> >It is not.
>>
>> >> >> Then why would a supernatural designer bother with them?
>>
>> >> No answer?
>>
>> >You have a better way to manefest a physical universe?
>>
>> Why, or better yet how, would a supernatural designer use natural laws
>> that didn't exist yet to design those natural laws? And how were those
>> natural laws used in the design process?
>
>The laws were made first and then the creation was made with the laws.
>I cannot support that. It is simply a conclusion.
Then you can hardly call it a conclusion, since it doesn't seem to be
based on anything other than wishful thinking. At this point in time
it's just a claim, apparently not even supported by your ancient
texts. Why the laws of nature would be created *outside* the universe,
and then used to create the universe of which they would be a part of,
rather than at the time the universe was created, makes absolutely no
sense.
>> >> >> >Angels are known to step from this dimention to the next.
>>
>> >> >> Irrelevant, even if true.
>>
>> >> >Very revelant. It shows this eistance is not the only one.
>>
>> >> This, from someone who just a few days ago wrote that "I do not claim
>> >> the ancient texts are necessarily true."
>>
>> >Out of context.
>>
>> How is it out of context?
>
>The reply is out of context.
For crying out loud: how is it out of context?
>Angels show there is more then one
>existance.
What if angels are time-travelers from the future?
>Which answered your question.
Nope. Other dimensions are irrelevant to the design of this one.
>> >Must you evilutionist always distort the truth?
>>
>> It's not enough to say that the truth was distorted, you have to
>> *show* that it was distorted. But if course, it *isn't* out of
>> context, as can be seen here:news:85f32ade-1a33-4c31...@x16g2000vbk.googlegroups.com
>
>I plainly said " I do not claim the ancient texts are necessarily
>true. I claim they
>are another possible reason for man's origins"
And I don't dispute that you said that. The problem is that you said
that "I do not claim the ancient texts are necessarily true", yet now
you're claiming they *are* true in this instance. You're being
inconsistent, claiming an authority for these texts that you're quite
willing to sacrifice if they become inconvenient for you.
>In that context I was showing your dumb ass that evolution could be
>wrong because, based on the information in the texts, there could be
>other explainations for man's origins.
And there could be other explanations of angels as well. Correct?
Hence, the ancient texts might be incorrect in that regard. Right?
>> >> >Just because we cannot percieve the others does not mean they do not exist.
>> >> >Angels being able to appear to man in this dimention eludes to the
>> >> >fact there is at least one more.
>>
>> >> And even if there *are* other dimensions, your little discourse
>> >> doesn't address what *system* the designer used. It doesn't mention
>> >> the designer's methodology or techniques. Care to take a stab at them?
>>
>> >The "system" are the physical laws of the universe. Pay attention.
>>
>> >> >The major religions refer to these dimentions as "heavens".
>>
>> >> Assuming there are other dimensions, what makes you think the rules
>> >> there are different?
>>
>> >We would be able to interact with the other dimention
>>
>> Why? And isn't it interesting that even though this purported other
>> dimension has different laws, its inhabitants seem to have no
>> difficulty interacting with our dimension?
>
>You are just being argumentative for the hell of it
No, it's more of a devil's advocate role, at least in this instance.
And I'm far less argumentative than you are. Your entire incentive for
posting here seems to be to argue. As for my posts, I'm merely
pointing out the flaws and hidden assumptions in your claims. I'm
sorry you don't like that... well, not really.
>> >> >> >I am sure the natural laws exist for our natural senses only.
>>
>> >> >> Apparently, natural laws don't actually, you know, *regulate*
>> >> >> anything. They're just there for us to look at. Did it occur to you
>> >> >> that our natural senses are *defined* by natural laws
>>
>> >> >Occur? I insist on it.
>>
>> >> But apparently, natural laws don't exist to keep the Sun going, or
>> >> maintain the Earth in its orbit. Those things are just amazing
>> >> coincidences, right?
>>
>> >Nope. The only "amazing coincidence" taking place are such things as
>> >man evolving from fish.
>>
>> In what way would that be a co-incidence
>
>Think about the context you asked your question in
Already done. I just wanted you to illustrate that you don't really
understand the claims of biological evolution, since you seem to
assume that the human form is the only useful one.
Walter Bushell
Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> Total rubbish. The tomato plant is an herbaceous perennial although it
> is normally grown commercially as an annual because that maximizes the
> crop.
And it is in many cases an annual because it's a long way from home. If
memory serves they die in a hard freeze.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Walter Bushell
Sapient Fridge
<pr...@panix.com> writes
>Mac or Linux?
Perhaps the fact that penguins are the best birds gives us a hint.
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>In article <p8cvg5d87dk6cb932...@4ax.com>,
> Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>
>> Total rubbish. The tomato plant is an herbaceous perennial although it
>> is normally grown commercially as an annual because that maximizes the
>> crop.
>
>And it is in many cases an annual because it's a long way from home. If
>memory serves they die in a hard freeze.
Yes, but even in its native habitat it dies down to ground level each
winter. As long as its roots do not freeze it will still come up again
the following year. But if it doesn't, then its seeds are almost
indestructible :)
--
Bob.
Eric Root
> On Nov 26, 6:57 pm, Eric Root <er...@swva.net> wrote:
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > It is not.
>
> > > Angels are known to step from this dimention to the next.
>
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> One is fiction,(like the ToE), the other is not.
Both are folklore, and could, in some sense, be real. But very
probably not in the physical universe.
Eric Root
All-Seeing-I
evidence?
> and could, in some sense, be real. But very
> probably not in the physical universe.
Show your work.
> Eric Root- Hide quoted text -
Desertphile
<pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> Mac or Linux?
Z80, running MBASIC.
Eric Root
> On Nov 26, 8:02 pm, John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <892689c8-7440-4d6b-9342-845cc8776...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
> But it does cause a lack of indepth understanding on any given
> subject.
>
And those signs are?
Eric Root
I was explaining, not trying to persuade. The functional reply from
you would be, "oh." BTW, it is just of no use giving you evidence of
things. Things that are total irrelevancies, you consider evidence,
and you scoff at things that are ironclad. If you want to learn more
about folklore, read up on it. There is a lot of cool folklore in
ancient texts. Folklore is what people mostly had before they knew
how to do history in the modern sense.
>
> > and could, in some sense, be real. But very
> > probably not in the physical universe.
>
> Show your work.
My work is none of your business.
Eric Root
Eric Root
> "On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:18:26 -0500, in article
And until they can name mechanisms, they have no business making
demands of public schools.
Eric Root
Ye Old One
<deser...@invalid-address.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:51:24 -0500, Walter Bushell
><pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> Mac or Linux?
>
>Z80, running MBASIC.
Now there is a good microprocessor.
--
Bob.
The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably the
day they start making vacuum cleaners.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Not agreeing with Mudbrain :)
--
Bob.
When D-G made Madman out of clay he forgot to magic the brain. I think
that explains everything.
Paul J Gans
>Mac or Linux?
Judging by what we see, it was Windows Vista.
>--
> A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 08:54:30 -0700, Desertphile
><deser...@invalid-address.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:51:24 -0500, Walter Bushell
>><pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Mac or Linux?
>>
>>Z80, running MBASIC.
>Now there is a good microprocessor.
Strong, steady, and low power draw. My 4 Mhz one could run
close to 1 MIPS (million instructions per second, an ancient
measure of computer power.)
Walter Bushell
Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 21:05:54 -0500, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >In article <p8cvg5d87dk6cb932...@4ax.com>,
> > Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Total rubbish. The tomato plant is an herbaceous perennial although it
> >> is normally grown commercially as an annual because that maximizes the
> >> crop.
> >
> >And it is in many cases an annual because it's a long way from home. If
> >memory serves they die in a hard freeze.
>
> Yes, but even in its native habitat it dies down to ground level each
> winter. As long as its roots do not freeze it will still come up again
> the following year. But if it doesn't, then its seeds are almost
> indestructible :)
And humans will plant them. And it's better to start with seedlings
anyway and plant them in a different part of the garden, it cuts down on
diseases.
Walter Bushell
<e496a87f-550c-4843...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
HighQ <einst...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Ask Steve Jobbs how he designed the IPhone, and then ask your local
> indian takeaway how the IPhone was designed.
According to the commercials the Indian takeaway guy designed Win 7. And
it's an admission against interest.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>In article <hqv1h5tlqmp30pd12...@4ax.com>,
> Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 21:05:54 -0500, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
>> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>> >In article <p8cvg5d87dk6cb932...@4ax.com>,
>> > Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Total rubbish. The tomato plant is an herbaceous perennial although it
>> >> is normally grown commercially as an annual because that maximizes the
>> >> crop.
>> >
>> >And it is in many cases an annual because it's a long way from home. If
>> >memory serves they die in a hard freeze.
>>
>> Yes, but even in its native habitat it dies down to ground level each
>> winter. As long as its roots do not freeze it will still come up again
>> the following year. But if it doesn't, then its seeds are almost
>> indestructible :)
>
>And humans will plant them. And it's better to start with seedlings
>anyway and plant them in a different part of the garden, it cuts down on
>diseases.
Tomatoes are a major problem at sewerage works.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
I used to have a version on an ASIC that ran at 12Mhz.
Oh those were the days :)
--
Bob.
HighQ
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 13:57:09 -0500, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
.
> Tomatoes are a major problem at sewerage works.
Head got stuck down the toilet again?
911 dynorod (again)?
Walter Bushell
Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 13:57:09 -0500, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >In article <hqv1h5tlqmp30pd12...@4ax.com>,
> > Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 21:05:54 -0500, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
> >> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <p8cvg5d87dk6cb932...@4ax.com>,
> >> > Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Total rubbish. The tomato plant is an herbaceous perennial although it
> >> >> is normally grown commercially as an annual because that maximizes the
> >> >> crop.
> >> >
> >> >And it is in many cases an annual because it's a long way from home. If
> >> >memory serves they die in a hard freeze.
> >>
> >> Yes, but even in its native habitat it dies down to ground level each
> >> winter. As long as its roots do not freeze it will still come up again
> >> the following year. But if it doesn't, then its seeds are almost
> >> indestructible :)
> >
> >And humans will plant them. And it's better to start with seedlings
> >anyway and plant them in a different part of the garden, it cuts down on
> >diseases.
>
> Tomatoes are a major problem at sewerage works.
Why so. The grow there?
Ye Old One
Yes. The seeds pass through the human gut unharmed, easily pass
through the coarse filter traps end up in the filter beds with a
constant source of water and good nitrogen fertilizer....
--
Bob.
Desertphile
wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 08:54:30 -0700, Desertphile
> <deser...@invalid-address.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:51:24 -0500, Walter Bushell
> ><pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> Mac or Linux?
> >Z80, running MBASIC.
> Now there is a good microprocessor.
It is the CPU That Cannot Die. Now and then I miss the old S100
buss, CP/M, and my ten-inch floppy.
Ye Old One
<deser...@invalid-address.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:11:20 GMT, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net>
>wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 08:54:30 -0700, Desertphile
>> <deser...@invalid-address.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>> >On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:51:24 -0500, Walter Bushell
>> ><pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Mac or Linux?
>
>> >Z80, running MBASIC.
>
>> Now there is a good microprocessor.
>
>It is the CPU That Cannot Die. Now and then I miss the old S100
>buss, CP/M, and my ten-inch floppy.
Ok, Ok, I will no go for the 10 inch floppy joke....
--
Bob.
Eric Root
He keeps avoiding discussion while accusing pro-science people of
mental illness. If he's going to do that, then he needs to actually
describe regular symptoms, otherwise, it's just schoolyard taunts.
Eric Root
Eric Root
> On Nov 26, 10:02 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 26, 7:14 am, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > As many of you know, I'm not interested in the designer's identity,
> > > especially since Behe admitted at Dover that he/she/it might be
> > > deceased.
>
> > > Also, as many of you know, for years I have been asking what the
> > > designer did when. So far ~70% simply dodge the question, and most of
> > > the rest answer the wrong question (give me the age of the earth when
> > > I ask for the age of life). Those that do reply give several radically
> > > different answers, with one of the most common one agreeing with
> > > mainstream science's conclusion of a ~4-billion year "tree of life."
> > > As you know, that's no comfort to Comfort.
>
> > > What I'd like to know now is what computer system did the designer
> > > use?
>
> > no clue this had happened aside from some pain that was exactly like
> > sciatica (which I had had before). When my left leg collapsed under me
> > for no discernible reason and my toes started getting numb I went to
> > the emergency room. They had me there for about 6 hours asking me
> > questions, and I kept telling them the same things. They finally did
> > an MRI and all of a sudden it looked like an episode of "ER". A nurse
> > appeared and said to me, "We don't have time to contact your primary
> > care physician so we are bringing an internal medicine guy down here."
> > I said, "Huh?" The internist asked me a bunch of questions for about
> > 10 minutes, and about halfway through this other doctor appears and
> > stands right behind the internist. He was literally tapping his foot,
> > and said (twice if I recall correctly) "Move this along. We have to
> > get this done."
>
> > And when the internist was done the surgeon foot-tapper said to me,
> > "You need spinal column surgery. Right. Now." I said, "Huh? Do I have
> > any other options?" And he said, "Yes, your other option is to be
> > paralyzed from the waist down for the rest of your life."
>
> > Given that, I have to say that at best, the designer used a
> > Commodore-64.
>
> > > Surely some of you computer Salems see some "signatures" in the
> > > cell that point to your favorite CAD systems. Or maybe it's one that
> > > you *don't* like, given those so-called "bad designs" (optic nerve, my
> > > back, etc.) Or maybe the designer drew it manually, like the old days.
> > > I have always been curious about how that "blueprint font" is so
> > > similar for different (human) designers. Did those designers "channel"
> > > the big one or something?
>
> > > So give it your best guess, This question should not give you as much
> > > heartburn as the "what happened when" questions.
>
>
> > Chris
>
> > PS: I suggest a read of Neil Shubin's "Your Inner Fish". In it, he
> > writes about a couple of cranial nerves. Why should the facial and
> > trigeminal nerves be so intertwined? Why not just have a pair of
> > nerves, each of which covers a particular section of the head?
>
> > The answer lies in the "gill slits", really the gill arches. Each
> > nerve attaches to the structures that arise from the corresponding
> > gill arch. Some of those structures, over evolutionary time, have
> > migrated far afield. A designer would have simplified the system and
> > made sensible nerve connections. Evolution makes do with what it has
> > to start with.
>
> First, let me say that I am genuinely sorry about your back problem.
> No one can ever understand a back problem until they have a back
> problem themselves.
>
> If books such as the bible are true, then the bodies we have right now
> are corrupted. The reason why is unimportant for the purpose of this
> discussion.
>
> The picture painted by the prophets is a return to normalcy and to
> what we once were before the fall of mankind.
>
> It is a return to the capable physical bodies that God originally
> created for mankind. This is described in many places throughout the
> bible.
>
> The Bible does specifically promise that flesh and bone bodies will be
> totally whole and very energetic. The new body will be quite similar
> to the old body, but with some measure of supernatural ability.
>
> People will be immortal, healthy, and strong again; just as they were
> when they were originally created. The earth and the animals will also
> see a restoration.
>
> OR.
>
> We could all just be a mass of biological mess that is born, lives and
> then dies with nothing more then pain and suffereing inbetween.
>
We _can't_ pick. It has to do with the nature of reality, and we can
only study it to learn what it's like. We don't get to pick what it's
like.
Eric Root
Frank J
> guscubed wrote:
> > On Nov 27, 3:37 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> >>> As many of you know, I'm not interested in the designer's identity,
> >>> especially since Behe admitted at Dover that he/she/it might be
> >>> deceased.
> >>> Also, as many of you know, for years I have been asking what the
> >>> designer did when. So far ~70% simply dodge the question, and most of
> >>> the rest answer the wrong question (give me the age of the earth when
> >>> I ask for the age of life). Those that do reply give several radically
> >>> different answers, with one of the most common one agreeing with
> >>> mainstream science's conclusion of a ~4-billion year "tree of life."
> >>> As you know, that's no comfort to Comfort.
> >>> What I'd like to know now is what computer system did the designer
> >>> cell that point to your favorite CAD systems. Or maybe it's one that
> >>> you *don't* like, given those so-called "bad designs" (optic nerve, my
> >>> back, etc.) Or maybe the designer drew it manually, like the old days.
> >>> I have always been curious about how that "blueprint font" is so
> >>> similar for different (human) designers. Did those designers "channel"
> >>> the big one or something?
> >>> So give it your best guess, This question should not give you as much
> >>> heartburn as the "what happened when" questions.
>
> > Aren't you the one who bleats, day in and day out, about how all
> > science is wrong because we don't know every detail?
>
> > By that measure, how can you be confident that a designer even exists/
> > existed if we do not fully understand the 'design process' that he or
> > she may have used?
>
> That's a bad argument.
>
> You don't have to be an engineer to understand that suspension bridges,
> automobiles, and computers were designed. You may not understand the
> design process, but you're confident that some engineers do.
>
> And by analogy, if you're convinced that God (the Cosmic Engineer)
> exists and is responsible for the creation of life on Earth, you don't
> have to worry about how He does things. People of faith take the
> existence of God as an *axiom* in their philosophy.
They may not "have to worry about how" (IOW no one forces them to do
that) but those people who take God as an axiom *do* keep determining
what He did, when, and to increasing detail of "how." It's exactly
those who *don't* take God as an axiom, but insist on preteding (or
fooling themselves) that they caught Him hiding in "gaps," who
*increasingy* think that they are not obligated do determine the
whats, whens and hows.
But they never stop playing word games. Note their knee-jerk objection
to the claim that ID/creationism is a "science stopper." Technically
they are correct; there's no reason that ID/creationism must be a
"science stopper," and indeed, some "classic" creationists still do
make testable claims of "what" and "when" if not "how." But by not
following up on the claims, and increasingly refusing to challenge
anti-evolution claims that contradict their own, ID/creationism
promoters *choose* to make it a science stopper.
>
> --
> Steven L.
> Email: sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.- Hide quoted text -
Frank J
One of their many word games is claiming that it's not a "mechanism."
Whether aware of what they are doing or just parroting, they are
confusing the scientific definition of "mechanism" - the sequence of
"steps" - with the colloquial connotation of a "hands off" process.
So rather than take their bait and tangenting on the designer's
existence, identity, or giving them more opportunity to misrepresent
evolution, one must keep pressing them to elaborate on "what happened
when". With specific questions, not open-ended ones that allow them to
change the subject.
>
> Eric Root- Hide quoted text -
Xavier Onnasis
C16AD5.005...@news.panix.com:
> Mac or Linux?
>
actually, 'twas the metric system
(but written in Forth, then translated into C++,
compiled on OS-2, and now attempting to run on
DOS in a DesqView window...)
--
XO
Mike Painter
followed by Pistol and them MUMPS.
Thus the expression it's Turtles all the way down.
MUMPS coding could also be resposible for the FSM.
Walter Bushell
<6fd3ccdc-20ba-4105...@k9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
Stuart <bigd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Give my regards to the Easter bunny.
>
> Stuart
The Easter Bunny wanted to be a stand up comic. But, every time he got a
gig; he laid an egg.
Walter Bushell
"Mike Painter" <md.pa...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Running on DOS on a repentium processor in imaginary mode. To big to fit
into real mode.
Stuart
> In article
> <6fd3ccdc-20ba-4105-bd48-080594a9c...@k9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Stuart <bigdak...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Give my regards to the Easter bunny.
>
> > Stuart
>
> The Easter Bunny wanted to be a stand up comic. But, every time he got a
> gig; he laid an egg.
>
>
<rim shot>
Stuart