Ring the churchbells, shout on the roofs of Mosques, creationism has
nando_r...@yahoo.com
freedom was real, and since creation is a free act, creation was left
out. But since about 10 years ago freedom was discovered on a
scientific basis (anticipation theory, Dubois). Another scientist then
applied the theory to the biological realm, and found that "evolution
is an informed and reasoned process". Natural selection was relegated
as a restraining factor in the formation of species, of dubious
significance. (Taborsky)
Try it yourself, look upon the universe from the point of view that
freedom is real, that decisions are made in the universe which
determine what comes to be, and what not, then you will find yourself
thinking in the direction of intelligent design.
And that is how the new scientists should learn to think. Not in terms
of cause and effect, but in terms of decision-making instead.
Ceationism has not just become a small part of science, by the
discovery of freedom it has become the most important, fundamental,
part of any science education.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Christopher Denney
Please decide that gravity doesn't apply to you, and act accordingly.
According to you all that is required to not fall is to decide not to.
Please demonstrate, use a nice high place, so everyone can see.
Will in New Haven
So your imaginary friend made a decision, did he. How sweet. Now go
somewhere quiet and lie down. The grownups have to try to fix the
world you delusional children have made.
Actual entities, real entities, have freedom. Moral actors make
decisions. Inanimate objects don't make decisions and imaginary
constructs don't make decisions.
--
Will in New Haven
Ye Old One
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Oh dear, the moron is back.
>Let me recap how creationism won.
It hasn't, and never will.
>First science didn't acknowledge
>freedom was real, and since creation is a free act, creation was left
>out. But since about 10 years ago freedom was discovered on a
>scientific basis (anticipation theory, Dubois).
Idiotic ideas do not make science.
> Another scientist then
>applied the theory to the biological realm, and found that "evolution
>is an informed and reasoned process".
Do not talk rubbish.
> Natural selection was relegated
>as a restraining factor in the formation of species, of dubious
>significance. (Taborsky)
>
>Try it yourself, look upon the universe from the point of view that
>freedom is real, that decisions are made in the universe which
>determine what comes to be, and what not, then you will find yourself
>thinking in the direction of intelligent design.
Minds have freedom, and minds have intelligence (well, most do, I'll
leave you out). Remember Nando, the Moon does NOT have freedom.
>
>And that is how the new scientists should learn to think. Not in terms
>of cause and effect, but in terms of decision-making instead.
Only if you are talking about minds.
>Ceationism has not just become a small part of science, by the
>discovery of freedom it has become the most important, fundamental,
>part of any science education.
Hohohohoho!
>
>regards,
>Mohammad Nur Syamsu
--
Bob.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
speak ill of the dead. Is it not a formadible intellectual skill to
deny freedom is real, eventhough it is readily apparent, and
impossible to live without the knowledge of it in daily life, in
making choices? Must they not have gone through contortion after
contortion of thought in daring leaps and bounds, in order to escape
the obvious? And aren't they fast, and efficient to think of a cause
and effect for anything, and often very usefully too? Have they not
shown rigorous selfdiscipline, in keeping their thoughts inside this
cause and effect box?
Soon we will be nostalgic for all that, as progress goes too fast
unfortunately.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Rupert Morrish
What observation would falsify creationism?
Until you answer that, creationism is not science.
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
>
Shane
> Let me recap how creationism won.
Note to nando, generally it is not considered much of an
acheivment to *win* a wooden spoon.
Rodjk #613
Boikat
> freedom was real, and since creation is a free act, creation was left
> out. But since about 10 years ago freedom was discovered on a
> scientific basis (anticipation theory, Dubois). Another scientist then
> applied the theory to the biological realm, and found that "evolution
> is an informed and reasoned process". Natural selection was relegated
> as a restraining factor in the formation of species, of dubious
> significance. (Taborsky)
Ran out of anti delusion meds, I see.
>
> Try it yourself, look upon the universe from the point of view that
> freedom is real, that decisions are made in the universe which
> determine what comes to be, and what not, then you will find yourself
> thinking in the direction of intelligent design.
Only if you are deluded enough to convince yourself that rocks think.
>
> And that is how the new scientists should learn to think. Not in terms
> of cause and effect, but in terms of decision-making instead.
> Ceationism has not just become a small part of science, by the
> discovery of freedom it has become the most important, fundamental,
> part of any science education.
No. If real scientist thought like that, science would grind to a
halt. You'd like that, though, wouldn't you.
Now, perhaps you'd care to answer the question you keep running away
from: Do you believe in an all knowing God? Does God know what you
are going to have for dinner three years from now, for example? Just
answer the question of crawl back under your rock.
Boikat
Boikat
Maybe on Nando-world, where flea infested, cave dwelling "prophets"
can get the riff-raff to eat shit to cure a headache, but here on
Earth, your "reasoning" will remain a target of jokes and japes.
BTW, you do know that if you believe in an "all knowing" God, then you
cannot also believe that you have free will, right?
Boikat
Frank J
Won *what*?
It lost every court battle except the one (Scopes) before it pretended
to be science. And it lost the science battle by simply not showing
up. But if you mean as a scam to fool the majority, then yes, so far
it's winning. But if "Expelled" is a hint of it's future direction,
it'll lose that one too in a decade or 2.
> First science didn't acknowledge
> freedom was real, and since creation is a free act, creation was left
> out.
That's not science's job. Funny, for an advocate of a pseudoscience
that can't even do its own job, you have a lot of chutzpah to demand
from science to do it's job and more.
(snip)
I will hand you one thing. Fundamentalist Christians and Orthodox Jews
will be interested in hearing that Muslims are so infatuated with
creationism.
Jeffrey Turner
>
> BTW, you do know that if you believe in an "all knowing" God, then you
> cannot also believe that you have free will, right?
I *knew* you'd type that.
--Jeff
--
The struggle with evil by means of violence
is the same as an attempt to stop a cloud,
in order that there may be no rain. -Leo Tolstoy
squealpiggy
If you were half as intelligent as you seem to think you are then
you... well actually you would probably be on our side.
tension_on_the_wire
> What observation would falsify creationism?
>
> Until you answer that, creationism is not science.
Is it fair to assume that you also think that M-theory is not science?
--tension
Rupert Morrish
I don't know if it's fair, but it's correct.
>
> --tension
>
The Enigmatic One
<cce315aa-8d0d-4791...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
nando_r...@yahoo.com says...
>And that is how the new scientists should learn to think. Not in terms
>of cause and effect, but in terms of decision-making instead.
>Ceationism has not just become a small part of science, by the
>discovery of freedom it has become the most important, fundamental,
>part of any science education.
You're really fucking dumb.
-Tim
tension_on_the_wire
You put yourself in a category, then, that does not, by any means,
contain the majority of theoretical physicists. The question of
whether a theory is testable is not the defining factor of what makes
science. Science starts much earlier than the stage of forming a
theory, or even the stage of making observations. Neither of these
can be done with M-theory, of course, yet the mathematics to support M-
theory exists unquestionably. You may call it philosophy if you like,
but you cannot dismiss it as garbage just because it is not testable.
--tension
louis14
"Jeffrey Turner" <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:CPmdnVCv9Y0y4_TV...@posted.localnet...
> Boikat wrote:
>
>>
>> BTW, you do know that if you believe in an "all knowing" God, then you
>> cannot also believe that you have free will, right?
>
> I *knew* you'd type that.
Well, he didn't have any choice, did he?
Will in New Haven
wrote:
There is a great deal of philosophy that is not science. That doesn't
make it garbage. It probably _is_ garbage but philosphers make the big
bucks so we have to pretend we think they are important.
--
Will in New Haven
I believe in a higher power; squared is a higher power.
Greg G.
> "Jeffrey Turner" <jtur...@localnet.com> wrote in message
According to nando, everything has freedom, therefore, if he chose to
type something, his fingers may choose to type something else. Happens
to me all the time.
Geoff
It is but for now it is really a hypothesis IMHO.
Geoff
> Okay, it is correct to assume that you think M-theory is not science.
> You put yourself in a category, then, that does not, by any means,
> contain the majority of theoretical physicists. The question of
> whether a theory is testable is not the defining factor of what makes
> science. Science starts much earlier than the stage of forming a
> theory, or even the stage of making observations. Neither of these
> can be done with M-theory, of course, yet the mathematics to support
> M- theory exists unquestionably. You may call it philosophy if you
> like, but you cannot dismiss it as garbage just because it is not
> testable.
M-theory is certainly falsifiable, though we are not at the stage yet where
we can likely do that. Creationism is not falsifiable because there is
nothing that is not possible. The theory that predicts everything is not a
theory.
Desertphile
> Let me recap how creationism won.
What, you're still here?
Please produce evidence that inanimate objects make decisions.
Thank you.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Mark Evans
wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:46:04 -0700 (PDT),
>
> > Let me recap how creationism won.
>
> What, you're still here?
>
> Please produce evidence that inanimate objects make decisions.
> Thank you.
>
> Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
> "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Well, personal experience indicates that car keys are adept at hiding
and shoe laces are pretty good at breaking when I am in a hurry but I
think this is just due to their natural hostility towards me rather
than actual thought. Much more of a reflex than a decision. The
dropped toast, though, does decide to fall butter side down in revenge
for being put in the toaster so early in the morning.
Mark Evans
johnetho...@yahoo.com
It may not be your fingers. Remember that the keys, internal
components, and even the electrons all choose what to do. When you
consider all this the chances of getting the results you're trying for
are almost nil. The fact that this ever happens at all is amazing, and
obviously proof of something.
Vernon Balbert
produced this interesting bit of text:
And socks escape when you try to wash them for fear that when they're
clean they'll be put back on your stinky feet.
--
Chuck Norris is bullet proof, they designed the material Kevlar from his
chest.
Greg Guarino
<deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
>Please produce evidence that inanimate objects make decisions.
>Thank you.
Or, more to the point, why they make such boring decisions. Mighty
Jupiter is so predictable that a spacecraft launched years in advance
can rendezvous with it perfectly.
Or for a terrestrial example, consider the average Dremel Tool kit; So
filled with multifunctional promise, yet left inert on a shelf in the
garage since Christmas 1997, blisterpak intact.
Greg Guarino
Richard Clayton
<insanity snipped>
Wow, Nando and Tony returning within a few days of each other... is
there a global shortage of antipsychotic medications or something?
Frank J
Socks have them all beat. They split up quicker than a Hollywood
marriage.
Rupert Morrish
> On Jun 30, 7:42 pm, Rupert Morrish <rup...@morrish.org> wrote:
>> tension_on_the_wire wrote:
>>> On Jun 30, 2:42 pm, Rupert Morrish <rup...@morrish.org> wrote:
>>>> What observation would falsify creationism?
>>>> Until you answer that, creationism is not science.
>>> Is it fair to assume that you also think that M-theory is not science?
>> I don't know if it's fair, but it's correct.
>>
> Okay, it is correct to assume that you think M-theory is not science.
> You put yourself in a category, then, that does not, by any means,
> contain the majority of theoretical physicists.
The idea that there exists a category which contains a majority of
theoretical physicists and does not contain me does not distress me as
much as you seem to think it should.
> The question of
> whether a theory is testable is not the defining factor of what makes
> science. Science starts much earlier than the stage of forming a
> theory, or even the stage of making observations. Neither of these
> can be done with M-theory, of course, yet the mathematics to support M-
> theory exists unquestionably. You may call it philosophy if you like,
> but you cannot dismiss it as garbage just because it is not testable.
I didn't call it garbage, either. I'd call it, at this point, mathematics.
>
> --tension
>
Shane
johnetho...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Jul 1, 7:29 am, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 1, 4:38 am, "louis14" <sunk...@versailles.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> "Jeffrey Turner" <jtur...@localnet.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>news:CPmdnVCv9Y0y4_TV...@posted.localnet...
>>
>>> > Boikat wrote:
>>
>>> >> BTW, you do know that if you believe in an "all knowing" God, then you
>>> >> cannot also believe that you have free will, right?
>>
>>> > I *knew* you'd type that.
>>
>>> Well, he didn't have any choice, did he?
>>
>> According to nando, everything has freedom, therefore, if he chose to
>> type something, his fingers may choose to type something else. Happens
>> to me all the time.
>
> It may not be your fingers. Remember that the keys, internal
> components, and even the electrons all choose what to do.
And that is at one end, then there are the actual intertubes
and the hardware at the other end. plus the photons between
screen and eye etc.
> When you
> consider all this the chances of getting the results you're trying for
> are almost nil. The fact that this ever happens at all is amazing, and
> obviously proof of something.
Indeed, I would suggest proof that nando doesn't actually
believe the nonsense he claims to. Colour me profoundly
unsurprised.
Shane
wrote:
It is perfectly possible for M-Theory to not be science, yet
the work being done ot establish if it could be is science
of the highest level.
Ditto those serious researchers who do experiments to
establish if there is any credence to psychic phenomena. The
fact that they do so does not make psychic phenomena a
science, but I would imagine that very few people would
characterise the debunking efforts an non-science.
David Hare-Scott
"Richard Clayton" <rich.e....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8cc058cf-a774-4043...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
You left out Backspace and Elijohovah. Perhaps the End of Days is nigh, or
night, or for some it's nightly.
David
gregwrld
They were probably switched
to generics. It takes a few days
for the body to adjust, so they
should be gone soon...
gregwrld
Kermit
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Let me recap how creationism won. First science didn't acknowledge
> freedom was real, and since creation is a free act, creation was left
> out. But since about 10 years ago freedom was discovered on a
> scientific basis (anticipation theory, Dubois). Another scientist then
> applied the theory to the biological realm, and found that "evolution
> is an informed and reasoned process". Natural selection was relegated
> as a restraining factor in the formation of species, of dubious
> significance. (Taborsky)
>
> Try it yourself, look upon the universe from the point of view that
> freedom is real, that decisions are made in the universe which
> determine what comes to be, and what not, then you will find yourself
> thinking in the direction of intelligent design.
>
> of cause and effect, but in terms of decision-making instead.
> Ceationism has not just become a small part of science, by the
> discovery of freedom it has become the most important, fundamental,
> part of any science education.
>
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Where do you get off enslaving all those poor electrons in your brain?
Surely they should have a choice. If they do freely choose, then who
are you, who has no brain to call your own, and why doesn't your head
explode? If you don't allow them a choice, then you are an evil slave
trader.
Also, I would be interested in a link to all those other Creationists
who see the importance of freedom as you have.
I have some news to shock you - brace yourself. The freedomless
evolutionists have refused to give up the universities; they still
possess them. Of course, they have no choice. Any ideas on what to do?
Kermit
nando_r...@yahoo.com
free act, and so is the final judgement, and ofcourse the heart and
soul are also about free acts. There's a lot of chance-calculation
among creationists, and they interpret this chance as free, instead of
interpreting it in terms of uncertainty as regular scientists do. So
there's a lot of talk and understanding about freedom, but not so much
an understanding that this is the underlying dynamic of the debate.
Creationism, the movement, started when hardworking farmers in the
south of the United States sent their kids to college, and their kids
came back as atheistic layabouts that they couldn't talk to. So
basically creationists think that the debate is about belief in God,
because generally we don't think anybody can be so double-minded to
deny freedom is real intellectually, while in practical everyday life
affirming it is real. Who can blame us for that?
But it's a mistake to enforce belief in God. Reinforcing the commonly
held practical belief that freedom is real, and bringing it to an
intellectual level, clears the roads towards the churches and mosques.
And when the roads are clear, then people of their own free will are
going to find their way towards them, and stay there. So that takes
care of the atheist part of the farmers problem, but there's still no
solution to the layabout part of it, as we can well see on the
newsgroup.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Desertphile
<gr...@risky-biz.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 09:05:54 -0600, Desertphile
> <deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
> >Please produce evidence that inanimate objects make decisions.
> >Thank you.
> Or, more to the point, why they make such boring decisions. Mighty
> Jupiter is so predictable that a spacecraft launched years in advance
> can rendezvous with it perfectly.
Indeed, yet if I recall his amazing discovery correctly, comets
choose to vary their vectors. I suppose Jupiter is too lazy.
> Or for a terrestrial example, consider the average Dremel Tool kit; So
> filled with multifunctional promise, yet left inert on a shelf in the
> garage since Christmas 1997, blisterpak intact.
The book "Skinny Legs and All" explains why. One of the main
characters, Stick, attacked a human being, to the horror of Dirty
Sock, Can of Soup, and Conch Shell.
> Greg Guarino
nando_r...@yahoo.com
> On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 17:52:11 GMT, Greg Guarino
>
> > Mighty
> > Jupiter is so predictable that a spacecraft launched years in advance
> > can rendezvous with it perfectly.
>
> Indeed, yet if I recall his amazing discovery correctly, comets
> choose to vary their vectors. I suppose Jupiter is too lazy.
Obviously the Galileo spacecraft had a rocket or something to adjust
it's course along the way.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
tension_on_the_wire
> The
> dropped toast, though, does decide to fall butter side down in revenge
> for being put in the toaster so early in the morning.
>
> Mark Evans
I'm afraid not. Physics has managed to explain that one, too. This
is from the American Physical Society which publishes most of the
relevant work done in physics.
Enjoy! ;p
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200010/zero-gravity.cfm
--tension
tension_on_the_wire
> tension_on_the_wire wrote:
>
> M-theory is certainly falsifiable, though we are not at the stage yet where
> we can likely do that.
Do you realize what you just wrote? What you said is that it is, but
not yet. I'm sorry, but either it is falsifiable or it is not.
Currently it is not. There is currently absolutely no measurable way
to prove that any process or reaction in the known universe does not
meet the requirements of string theory. There is not even a
hypothetical circumstance that can be proposed which would falsifiy
the theory. That is precisely the argument for why some consider it
philosophy and not science.
I am arguing that falsifiability is only a required condition for a
theory to meet the definition of theory, but it is not a required
condition for a hypothesis to be considered serious science.
Mathematical support is not considered observation or evidence, and
hence cannot turn a hypothesis into a theory. Mathematical support
for a hypothesis is still treated as supposition until reliable and
verifiable observations have been made that suddenly turn it into a
theory, as happened with the Theory of Special Relativity. It was not
until actual observations of phenomena which could be explained by the
theory were found that it was hailed as the greatest thing since
sliced bread. It was a matter of some decades between the two events,
I might add.
There is a great deal of arrogance in some of the responses on this
thread about the fact that the Hypothesis of Intelligent Design, which
attempts to explain things not currently explainable by the Theory of
Stepwise Random Mutation and Natural Selection, is not falsifiable, as
if that in itself can dismiss the hypothesis as not worthy of
consideration. I am attempting to demonstrate that falsifiability is
not necessary for something to be considered as worthy of serious
scientific thought. Is there no one on this thread who is willing to
consider the subject seriously? Or is it just full of the usual mind-
made-up before seriously reading the actual material concerned?
I'm curious to know who on this thread has actually read "Origin of
Species" and not just "The God Delusion". I am afraid if you have
only read the latter, then you are nothing but a lightweight, and you
are reading propaganda by someone determined to turn Darwin's work
into an argument against God, which he never intended. And if you
have not bothered to read the books that support Charles Darwin's own
statements in the appendices of his own book that there are
significant problems with his theory regarding the development of
multiple complex systems and irreducible complexity, then you are
nothing more than someone who has decided to leap upon this science as
proof of his already well-indoctrinated atheism. Just for the record,
Charles Darwin himself was by no means an atheist but a devoted
Anglican. He never attempted to use his theory to demonstrate a cause
for the creation of life on this planet, nor did he ever attempt to
use it as an explanation of how genetic material is passed from one
generation to the next. DNA had not even been identified at the time,
never mind an explanation for how it came about...and I would love to
hear how "Evolution" could create the DNA which is the single non-
negotiable tool required for evolution of speciesto take place?
It is interesting, however, the number of people who think that the
inexplicable occurence of life on this planet is currently explained
by the Theory of Evolution.
It is equally interesting the number of people who think that the Van
Allen Belt occuring around this planet is some kind of accident or
coincidence though one cannot be found around any other planet so
far. What? A falsifiable theory? If the Van Allen Belt can be
proven to have occured around this planet only because of some
measurable physical phenomena which takes place around no other
planetary body in our solar system alone, it would be the first
potential false finding that could attack the Theory of Intelligent
Design. So what, EXACTLY, do you mean that "creationism" (what a
pejorative word, by the way) is not falsifiable?
--tension
Ye Old One
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>There is a shared understanding among creationists, that creation is a
>free act, and so is the final judgement, and ofcourse the heart and
>soul are also about free acts.
The heart pumps blood. There is no such thing as a soul.
> There's a lot of chance-calculation
>among creationists, and they interpret this chance as free, instead of
>interpreting it in terms of uncertainty as regular scientists do. So
>there's a lot of talk and understanding about freedom, but not so much
>an understanding that this is the underlying dynamic of the debate.
>
>Creationism, the movement, started when hardworking farmers in the
>south of the United States sent their kids to college, and their kids
>came back as atheistic layabouts that they couldn't talk to.
Hohohohoho!
>So
>basically creationists think that the debate is about belief in God,
>because generally we don't think anybody can be so double-minded to
>deny freedom is real intellectually, while in practical everyday life
>affirming it is real. Who can blame us for that?
You?
>
>But it's a mistake to enforce belief in God. Reinforcing the commonly
>held practical belief that freedom is real, and bringing it to an
>intellectual level, clears the roads towards the churches and mosques.
>And when the roads are clear, then people of their own free will are
>going to find their way towards them, and stay there. So that takes
>care of the atheist part of the farmers problem, but there's still no
>solution to the layabout part of it, as we can well see on the
>newsgroup.
You really are nuts.
>
>regards,
>Mohammad Nur Syamsu
--
Bob.
tension_on_the_wire
wrote:
> It is equally interesting the number of people who think that the Van
> Allen Belt occuring around this planet is some kind of accident or
> coincidence though one cannot be found around any other planet so
> far. What? A falsifiable theory? If the Van Allen Belt can be
> proven to have occured around this planet only because of some
> measurable physical phenomena which takes place around no other
> planetary body in our solar system alone, it would be the first
> potential false finding that could attack the Theory of Intelligent
> Design. So what, EXACTLY, do you mean that "creationism" (what a
> pejorative word, by the way) is not falsifiable?
>
> --tension
I did not say, for those who do not already know, that I mention the
Van Allen Belt because it is the only thing protecting life on this
planet from obliteration from solar radiation, and Earth's ability to
maintain a gaseous atmosphere. Life on Earth would be impossible
without it.
--tension
Cory Albrecht
> On Jul 2, 12:19 pm, tension_on_the_wire <tension_at_h...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> It is equally interesting the number of people who think that the Van
>> Allen Belt occuring around this planet is some kind of accident or
>> coincidence though one cannot be found around any other planet so
>> far. What? A falsifiable theory? If the Van Allen Belt can be
Saying that no other planets have Van Allen belts is true only insofar
as the term technically only refers to the radiation belts about Earth.
At least all 4 of the Jovian planets in our solar system have radiation
belts. Jupiter's were of concern to the early Pioneer missions because
it wasn't known how strong they would be.
>> proven to have occured around this planet only because of some
>> measurable physical phenomena which takes place around no other
>> planetary body in our solar system alone, it would be the first
>> potential false finding that could attack the Theory of Intelligent
>> Design. So what, EXACTLY, do you mean that "creationism" (what a
>> pejorative word, by the way) is not falsifiable?
> I did not say, for those who do not already know, that I mention the
> Van Allen Belt because it is the only thing protecting life on this
> planet from obliteration from solar radiation, and Earth's ability to
> maintain a gaseous atmosphere. Life on Earth would be impossible
> without it.
It is the geomagnetic fields that help limit the solar radiation w get
here on the surface. the Van Allen belts are an artifact of the
geomagnetic fields.
Also, I think you are giving the geomagnetic fields a little too much
credit.
Rupert Morrish
I don't have a problem with the idea that objects that were designed
have empirically different properties than those that were not. I also
don't have a problem with extending this idea to living organisms.
It's not *just* that none of the proponents of intelligent design have
yet to state a testable hypothesis (although that is sufficient to deny
it, as yet, the label of science), but none of those proponents are
investing any effort in developing such a hypothesis. *That's* what
makes them intellectually dishonest, and what differentiates them from
the entirely respectable mathematicians working on string theory in
physics departments.
>
> I'm curious to know who on this thread has actually read "Origin of
> Species" and not just "The God Delusion".
Me, for one. I've also read The Voyage of the Beagle and am working
through the Descent of Man, which is irritating me with it's constant
references to progressive evolution.
> I am afraid if you have
> only read the latter, then you are nothing but a lightweight,
Nonsense. I dare say that most practicing biologists have never read
OoS, nor should they need to. I read it because I like reading old
books. It did not explain anything about evolution that I did not
already know, and much of it was incorrect.
> and you
> are reading propaganda by someone determined to turn Darwin's work
> into an argument against God, which he never intended.
Maybe I need to re-read The God Delusion, but I don't recall any of the
arguments against god relying on the fact of evolution. Could you cite
one specific argument where Dawkins does this?
Many of Ray Martinez' comments can be used as an argument against god.
Just because he doesn't intend them that way is no reason not to point
this out.
> And if you
> have not bothered to read the books that support Charles Darwin's own
> statements in the appendices of his own book that there are
> significant problems with his theory regarding the development of
> multiple complex systems and irreducible complexity, then you are
> nothing more than someone who has decided to leap upon this science as
> proof of his already well-indoctrinated atheism. Just for the record,
> Charles Darwin himself was by no means an atheist but a devoted
> Anglican. He never attempted to use his theory to demonstrate a cause
> for the creation of life on this planet, nor did he ever attempt to
> use it as an explanation of how genetic material is passed from one
> generation to the next. DNA had not even been identified at the time,
> never mind an explanation for how it came about...and I would love to
> hear how "Evolution" could create the DNA which is the single non-
> negotiable tool required for evolution of speciesto take place?
Charles Darwin's religion is irrelevant to both science and religion.
Charles Darwin's scientific contributions are now largely irrelevant
(count his recent citations).
>
> It is interesting, however, the number of people who think that the
> inexplicable occurence of life on this planet is currently explained
> by the Theory of Evolution.
I'd say it was sad, rather than interesting. Science education is in a
woeful state. A single data point indicating that is hardly interesting.
> It is equally interesting the number of people who think that the Van
> Allen Belt occuring around this planet is some kind of accident or
> coincidence though one cannot be found around any other planet so
> far. What? A falsifiable theory? If the Van Allen Belt can be
> proven to have occured around this planet only because of some
> measurable physical phenomena which takes place around no other
> planetary body in our solar system alone, it would be the first
> potential false finding that could attack the Theory of Intelligent
> Design.
[Addressed by other respondents.]
> So what, EXACTLY, do you mean that "creationism" (what a
> pejorative word, by the way) is not falsifiable?
Why do you feel "creationism" is perjorative? Most creationists seem
happy to describe themselves as such.
Some creationist theories are falsifiable. YEC, for example, claims that
the Universe is 6,000 years old. This is falsified by astronomy and
history, before we even get to geology, biology and archaeology, but
it's not unfalsifiable.
Creationists have got used to the idea that falsifiable claims will be
falsified, which is why they have stopped making them. The theory of
Intelligent Design Creationism states that at some time, somewhere,
someone did something. If you can think of a way to falsify that, please
let me know.
>
>
> --tension
>
Rupert Morrish
Why is that obvious? Why couldn't the craft decide to change its
trajectory on its own?
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
>
Caranx latus
So the Galileo spacecraft had to be coerced into going where it was
supposed to go? Why? Couldn't it have chosen to go there on its own? And
what if the rockets had decided that they didn't want to participate in
the enslavement of the spacecraft? What kept them in line?
Rupert Morrish
> There is a shared understanding among creationists, that creation is a
> free act, and so is the final judgement, and ofcourse the heart and
> soul are also about free acts.
Almost all of he Creationists in the USA believe you are going to Hell.
Many of them support internment camps for American Muslims. Is that freedom?
Ray, though he's not typical, believes that atheism is a punishment from
God, and that we do *not* have a choice.
> There's a lot of chance-calculation
> among creationists, and they interpret this chance as free, instead of
> interpreting it in terms of uncertainty as regular scientists do. So
> there's a lot of talk and understanding about freedom, but not so much
> an understanding that this is the underlying dynamic of the debate.
>
> Creationism, the movement, started when hardworking farmers in the
> south of the United States sent their kids to college, and their kids
> came back as atheistic layabouts that they couldn't talk to.
Odd, because at the time of the Creationist resurgence, most of the
actual people working on those farms weren't able to send their children
to college, or even to the same high schools as the children who were
going to college. Or does freedom not apply if your greet-grandparents
were slaves?
> So
> basically creationists think that the debate is about belief in God,
> because generally we don't think anybody can be so double-minded to
> deny freedom is real intellectually, while in practical everyday life
> affirming it is real. Who can blame us for that?
Me, for one.
>
> But it's a mistake to enforce belief in God. Reinforcing the commonly
> held practical belief that freedom is real, and bringing it to an
> intellectual level, clears the roads towards the churches and mosques.
Where freedom will be taken away again. Particularly if you're a woman.
> And when the roads are clear, then people of their own free will are
> going to find their way towards them, and stay there.
Odd, then, that only one denomination in the USA is actually showing
growth at the moment, and it's one of the ones that accepts evolution.
> So that takes
> care of the atheist part of the farmers problem, but there's still no
> solution to the layabout part of it, as we can well see on the
> newsgroup.
Don't we have freedom to lay about?
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
>
Don Cates
This is the real reason.
<http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rajm/toast.htm>
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" - PN)
Greg Guarino
>Obviously the Galileo spacecraft had a rocket or something to adjust
>it's course along the way.
Do you deny that NASA was able to predict the location of Jupiter
years in advance?
And what about the Dremel Tool Kit? You'd think that at least the
diamond wheel would want to get out once in a while. :)
Greg Guarino
Boikat
I dearly hope you do not drive. I'd hate to think that you only
believe your car has a steering wheel because your destination is
moving around on it's own accord!
HFSM, you're stupid!
BTW, How do you reconcile belief in an all knowing god, yet think that
you could possibly still have free will? Unless you are willing to
admit that either your god is not all knowing, or that your free will
is an illusion.
Boikat
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> There is a shared understanding among creationists,...
Yes. "Thou shalt not commit science. Science removes authority from
the Prophets because it shows they are full of shit."
<snip remaining drool>
Boikat
tension_on_the_wire
> tension_on_the_wire wrote:
> > There is a great deal of arrogance in some of the responses on this
> > thread about the fact that the Hypothesis of Intelligent Design, which
> > attempts to explain things not currently explainable by the Theory of
> > Stepwise Random Mutation and Natural Selection, is not falsifiable, as
> > if that in itself can dismiss the hypothesis as not worthy of
> > consideration. I am attempting to demonstrate that falsifiability is
> > not necessary for something to be considered as worthy of serious
> > scientific thought. Is there no one on this thread who is willing to
> > consider the subject seriously? Or is it just full of the usual mind-
> > made-up before seriously reading the actual material concerned?
>
> I don't have a problem with the idea that objects that were designed
> have empirically different properties than those that were not. I also
> don't have a problem with extending this idea to living organisms.
>
> It's not *just* that none of the proponents of intelligent design have
> yet to state a testable hypothesis (although that is sufficient to deny
> it, as yet, the label of science), but none of those proponents are
> investing any effort in developing such a hypothesis. *That's* what
> makes them intellectually dishonest, and what differentiates them from
> the entirely respectable mathematicians working on string theory in
> physics departments.
Well, then you are ignoring an entire body of literature devoted to
the subject of precisely that. It is rather inappropriate, for
example, to label Michael Behe as intellectually dishonest, or even
unscientific, in his willingness to consider and confront up front the
massive problems involved in using stepwise random mutation and
natural selection to explain the development of complex systems such
as the coagulation cascade, or the human eye, or the inflammatory
response system.
Serious, dedicated scientists are trying to formulate hypotheses and
cannot currently come up with even one which is testable or
falsifiable. This does not make it non-science. This information is,
in itself, an observation. Yes, it may well be that the observation
is simply a reflection that we have not the current knowledge,
intelligence or technique to design such a testable hypothesis....but
it may equally well be that the observation is in fact a valid one
because there IS, in fact, a wall that we will not be able to
penetrate with all our growing scientific prowess. Just because we
have managed to penetrate apparent walls in the past is not proof of
any kind that there is no wall that will be hit in the future. String
theory itself appears to possibly represent one of those walls.
Getting below (in size, not scope) quantum mechanics and particle
physics is a wall much more impenetrable, at least so it appears at
the moment, than the attempt to unify the last of the four fundamental
forces of physics; it is many orders of magnitude beyond our ability
to imagine designing a way to test. But this does not give us the
right to call those who speculate upon the issue using mathematics
intellectually dishonest, any more than the "creationists".
>
>
> > I'm curious to know who on this thread has actually read "Origin of
> > Species" and not just "The God Delusion".
>
> Me, for one. I've also read The Voyage of the Beagle and am working
> through the Descent of Man, which is irritating me with it's constant
> references to progressive evolution.
>
> > I am afraid if you have
> > only read the latter, then you are nothing but a lightweight,
>
> Nonsense. I dare say that most practicing biologists have never read
> OoS, nor should they need to. I read it because I like reading old
> books. It did not explain anything about evolution that I did not
> already know, and much of it was incorrect.
snip
First of all, it is not constructive to refer to my points as
nonsense. I am not referring to practicing biologists, many of which
HAVE indeed read Darwin's work. I am referring to people of all
backgrounds here on this thread and many other threads as well as a
plethora of people who argue this issue in the press who present
themselves as knowledgeable on the topic but actually have never read
and understood the specific work, and I am sorry but whether or not
the work is outdated, one must do a certain amount of background
reading in order to be thoroughly grounded on such a sensitive and
controversial subject. I am glad to hear that you have, but I notice
that you are not one of a crowd leaping to protest that they have. It
is not that the book can teach you about the principle and process of
the theory. Any decent first year undergraduate textbook without bias
(big if) can tell you that. It is the limitations of the book's
claims which are noteworthy. It is significant to note that this
current controversy regarding his work came about historically as a
result of people who had an ideological point to prove (atheism) and
took Darwin's work and twisted it to suit their purposes (which is why
it IS relevant that Darwin was not an atheist). It was not done in
the spirit of honest science, any more than the "creationists" being
referred to elsewhere who would argue for the Earth being 6000 years
old. The original work is extremely limited in scope and it serves as
a good reminder of how we have allowed the issue to get blown out of
proportion as if this theory can prove or disprove ANYTHING about the
existence or not of an "Intelligent Designer".
Equally, I am insisting that someone who presents themselves as
knowledgeable have read the works done by legitimate scientists in
support of the idea that Intelligent Design may be the only
explanation for a number of currently inexplicable phenomena. And you
can go on about God of the Gaps all you want, though I recognize you
have not yet done so, but there is nothing logically wrong with the
conclusion that something may be going on which is beyond our current
state to explain. This is simply not a reason to tell them all to
shut up because it doesn't meet your rather narrow definition of
science, or to deny them their obligation to state this bald fact in
the current textbooks of curricula throughout. When a theory does not
actually explain all that it is used to explain in a sweeping manner,
it is the obligation of scientifically honest people to admit that
when educating about this issue.
> > It is interesting, however, the number of people who think that the
> > inexplicable occurence of life on this planet is currently explained
> > by the Theory of Evolution.
>
> I'd say it was sad, rather than interesting. Science education is in a
> woeful state. A single data point indicating that is hardly interesting.
It is interesting because, if we are wandering into the field of "non-
scientists" arguments both for and against "creationism", this theory
has been jumped on as the be-all and end-all of the search for the
explanation of life itself. If I had a nickel for the number of times
I have heard about "life evolving on earth" I'd be a lot wealthier
than I am today. If I had a dime for the number of times I have heard
about how "evolution could not be true because God created life" I'd
be twice as wealthy. Neither argument is worth serious consideration,
and I bring it up because it is frustrating how many times a good
honest conversation about the subject will be ruined by rather
ubiquitous misunderstanding about the terminology involved and the
biochemical processes being referred to. Serious scientists do not
EVER doubt that the principles of random mutation and natural
selection are one of the driving forces behind the process of
speciation. What they are arguing is that not all the systems in life
as we know it are explainable by that method. And the entire debate
about science education in the schools is based on this one glaring
point. The textbooks and curricula are currently brainwashed by the
status quo into forbidding even mentioning that this theory has
serious gaps that demand at least a recognition, if not an inquiry
into their cause. There is nothing unscientific about acknowledging
gaps in the existing theory.
>
>
> > So what, EXACTLY, do you mean that "creationism" (what a
> > pejorative word, by the way) is not falsifiable?
>
> Why do you feel "creationism" is perjorative? Most creationists seem
> happy to describe themselves as such.
>
> Some creationist theories are falsifiable. YEC, for example, claims that
> the Universe is 6,000 years old. This is falsified by astronomy and
> history, before we even get to geology, biology and archaeology, but
> it's not unfalsifiable.
>
This is why I mentioned some of the issues above. No serious
conversation about this topic demanding a scientific approach should
include the arguments of the ignorant or poorly read. And this is
precisely why I object to the word "creationism". It is not a
religion. It is not "creationism" vs. "scientism". The most serious
camps on both sides of this argument involve scientists of high
caliber and it is not appropriate or accurate to lump them in with
people who have decided in advance that since their religion dictates,
therefore they must believe. This is NOT a question of faith. That
has been the biggest red herring in discussing this topic and serves
no purpose. A serious scientist, even if he is Christian, must not
allow for a contradiction between science and religion, and it is easy
to see the historical causes of literal inaccuracy of the Bible. That
is not what this discussion is about, and people who come from this
camp may choose to call themselves "creationists" if they like, but
those of us who are serious about the science are NOT Bible-thumpers
trying to prove that our religion is right. I am not a Christian. I
do, however, believe that my observations of the world around us,
including what we know about particle physics, astrophysics, string
theory, thermodynamics, evolutionary biology and biochemistry have
numerous and multiple phenomena that lead one to propose Intelligent
Design as a possible, and even likely, explanation. Please do not put
me in the camp of Christians that have an axe to grind.
--tension
tension_on_the_wire
> nando_rontel...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > There is a shared understanding among creationists, that creation is a
> > free act, and so is the final judgement, and ofcourse the heart and
> > soul are also about free acts.
>
> Almost all of he Creationists in the USA believe you are going to Hell.
> Many of them support internment camps for American Muslims. Is that freedom?
Can you back up that statement about the support for internment
camps? For totally other reasons, I have been predicting that that
day would come, since we are not really so ethically developed beyond
the status of 1942, but I have no evidence to support that anyone has
been speaking or writing in support of that idea. Have you any
references? It is an extremely strong accusation.
So is that one about "almost all" of the "Creationists" believing that
he is going to Hell. Do you really believe that the "almost all" of
the entire body of "Creationists" are made up of fundamentalist
Christians? I hope you can back up that statement as well. I didn't
think that the US Census covered that particular topic.
--tension
nando_r...@yahoo.com
Since the trajectory is so long, we can be sure the spacecraft had
both a computer and a rocket on board, and that it calculated it's
adjustment on the fly, using the newly created information in the
universe coming from the decisions of both itself, and the planets
etc.
Some time ago a colleague of mine commented on how in earlier days
some people he knew, used to pat their car on the top and say "well
done", when the car got them to where they wanted to go. He lamented
about how people didn't do that anymore, and wondered why the practice
had ceased. Then we got to his car, and he said he sure loved his car
still, altough he didn't talk to it, but it didn't sound very
convincing that he loved his car much.
His car is a general motors opel, and it looks kind of soulless,
nothing much unique about it and nothing much free about it, just
slick, comfortable, and wellmade. I think he doesn't understand the
issue, that in order to love his car like that, he must first consider
that his car can go one way or another of it's own accord. It can
break down at a time of it's own accord, only then is it reasonable to
say "well done" when it doesn't break down. He should look to the car
and discover all the behaviours of it that vary, indicating freedom,
and for those decisions there made he should relate to. Often the
fanbelt varies some, of course the motor etc. etc. But instead he more
let himself be carried away by the slickness of the car, and "slick"
more means like that the car very precisely does what you want it to
do, the car not having any freedom of it's own.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Ye Old One
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On 3 jul, 01:55, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> nando_rontel...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > On 2 jul, 19:38, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 17:52:11 GMT, Greg Guarino
>>
>> >> <g...@risky-biz.com> wrote:
>> >>> Mighty
>> >>> Jupiter is so predictable that a spacecraft launched years in advance
>> >>> can rendezvous with it perfectly.
>> >> Indeed, yet if I recall his amazing discovery correctly, comets
>> >> choose to vary their vectors. I suppose Jupiter is too lazy.
>>
>> > Obviously the Galileo spacecraft had a rocket or something to adjust
>> > it's course along the way.
>>
>> So the Galileo spacecraft had to be coerced into going where it was
>> supposed to go? Why? Couldn't it have chosen to go there on its own? And
>> what if the rockets had decided that they didn't want to participate in
>> the enslavement of the spacecraft? What kept them in line?
>
>Since the trajectory is so long, we can be sure the spacecraft had
>both a computer and a rocket on board, and that it calculated it's
>adjustment on the fly, using the newly created information in the
>universe coming from the decisions of both itself, and the planets
>etc.
Planets do not make decisions.
>
>Some time ago a colleague of mine commented on how in earlier days
>some people he knew, used to pat their car on the top and say "well
>done", when the car got them to where they wanted to go. He lamented
>about how people didn't do that anymore, and wondered why the practice
>had ceased. Then we got to his car, and he said he sure loved his car
>still, altough he didn't talk to it, but it didn't sound very
>convincing that he loved his car much.
>His car is a general motors opel, and it looks kind of soulless,
>nothing much unique about it and nothing much free about it, just
>slick, comfortable, and wellmade. I think he doesn't understand the
>issue, that in order to love his car like that, he must first consider
>that his car can go one way or another of it's own accord. It can
>break down at a time of it's own accord, only then is it reasonable to
>say "well done" when it doesn't break down. He should look to the car
>and discover all the behaviours of it that vary, indicating freedom,
>and for those decisions there made he should relate to. Often the
>fanbelt varies some, of course the motor etc. etc. But instead he more
>let himself be carried away by the slickness of the car, and "slick"
>more means like that the car very precisely does what you want it to
>do, the car not having any freedom of it's own.
A car is a collection of nuts and bolts.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by
"nando_r...@yahoo.com" <nando_r...@yahoo.com>:
<snip rambling nuttery about inanimate objects making
"decisions", ending with...>
>...the car very precisely does what you want it to
>do, the car not having any freedom of it's own.
You really could use some psychiatric help; this fixation of
yours on the idea that rocks and machines "think" and
"decide" has become somewhat of an obsession.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Caranx latus
> On 3 jul, 01:55, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> nando_rontel...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On 2 jul, 19:38, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 17:52:11 GMT, Greg Guarino
>>>> <g...@risky-biz.com> wrote:
>>>>> Mighty
>>>>> Jupiter is so predictable that a spacecraft launched years in advance
>>>>> can rendezvous with it perfectly.
>>>> Indeed, yet if I recall his amazing discovery correctly, comets
>>>> choose to vary their vectors. I suppose Jupiter is too lazy.
>>> Obviously the Galileo spacecraft had a rocket or something to adjust
>>> it's course along the way.
>> So the Galileo spacecraft had to be coerced into going where it was
>> supposed to go? Why? Couldn't it have chosen to go there on its own? And
>> what if the rockets had decided that they didn't want to participate in
>> the enslavement of the spacecraft? What kept them in line?
>
> Since the trajectory is so long, we can be sure the spacecraft had
> both a computer and a rocket on board, and that it calculated it's
> adjustment on the fly, using the newly created information in the
> universe coming from the decisions of both itself, and the planets
> etc.
You're saying that the spacecraft has no choice in where it wants to go;
that it is forced to go where it is supposed to by its computer and its
rocket, and that the computer and rocket also have no choice but to
guide the spacecraft to the destination that some people on Earth have
already decided for it. Why are you denying the spacecraft, its
computer, and its rocket the freedom to choose what they want to do and
where they want to go?
Kermit
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> There is a shared understanding among creationists, that creation is a
> free act, and so is the final judgement, and ofcourse the heart and
> soul are also about free acts. There's a lot of chance-calculation
> among creationists, and they interpret this chance as free, instead of
> interpreting it in terms of uncertainty as regular scientists do. So
> there's a lot of talk and understanding about freedom, but not so much
> an understanding that this is the underlying dynamic of the debate.
I don't actually remember any of these other Creationists saying
anything about freedom. Do you have a link?
>
> Creationism, the movement, started when hardworking farmers in the
> south of the United States sent their kids to college, and their kids
> came back as atheistic layabouts that they couldn't talk to. So
> basically creationists think that the debate is about belief in God,
> because generally we don't think anybody can be so double-minded to
> deny freedom is real intellectually, while in practical everyday life
> affirming it is real. Who can blame us for that?
The Southern side of my American family includes a Confederate Civil
War general. He had slaves to do the farming for him. I don't think he
talked a lot about freedom for them. My grandfather was certainly a
creationist; he was a Southern Baptist preacher, a Christian
denomination formed to maintain the institution of slavery in the US.
I don't remember Grandpa being real enthusiastic about freedom for
anybody, altho he always seemed to be in charge when decisions were
being made.
He would have happily interned you in a camp; you apparently follow
the wrong prophet. Mostly, though, he was upset at the godless
commies, and then later at the hippies. Rock on, Grandpa, wherever you
are.
>
> But it's a mistake to enforce belief in God. Reinforcing the commonly
> held practical belief that freedom is real, and bringing it to an
> intellectual level, clears the roads towards the churches and mosques.
> And when the roads are clear, then people of their own free will are
> going to find their way towards them, and stay there. So that takes
> care of the atheist part of the farmers problem, but there's still no
> solution to the layabout part of it, as we can well see on the
> newsgroup.
I think the farmers here in the US didn't really run into that kind of
problem much until the World Wars. Their boys were exposed to cities
and terror and sex and pain and and other ideas and other religions,
and people without religion at all! They didn't come back the same, if
they came back at all. Many of us old blood Americans (we've been here
for *decades) are the grandchildren of farmers. Or preachers.
>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Kermit
Rupert Morrish
Well, when it comes to ignoring literature, I must admit I am a
lightweight compared with Behe. I assume you are familiar with his
testimony at Dover?
>
> Serious, dedicated scientists are trying to formulate hypotheses and
> cannot currently come up with even one which is testable or
> falsifiable.
Name one.
What percentage of the Discovery Institute's budget is spent on
research? I can tell you that until 2006 it was 0%.
> This does not make it non-science. This information is,
> in itself, an observation. Yes, it may well be that the observation
> is simply a reflection that we have not the current knowledge,
> intelligence or technique to design such a testable hypothesis....but
> it may equally well be that the observation is in fact a valid one
> because there IS, in fact, a wall that we will not be able to
> penetrate with all our growing scientific prowess. Just because we
> have managed to penetrate apparent walls in the past is not proof of
> any kind that there is no wall that will be hit in the future.
No-one is claiming it is. It's not, however, particularly sensible to
stop dead in our tracks because we fear reaching that wall, or to listen
to people who were wrong about the impenetrability of all the previous
walls.
> String
> theory itself appears to possibly represent one of those walls.
> Getting below (in size, not scope) quantum mechanics and particle
> physics is a wall much more impenetrable, at least so it appears at
> the moment, than the attempt to unify the last of the four fundamental
> forces of physics; it is many orders of magnitude beyond our ability
> to imagine designing a way to test. But this does not give us the
> right to call those who speculate upon the issue using mathematics
> intellectually dishonest, any more than the "creationists".
No-one has done this. I label as dishonest those who *refuse* to
*attempt* to develop a testable claim, yet still claim that they have
valid science to be taught in high schools.
>>
>>> I'm curious to know who on this thread has actually read "Origin of
>>> Species" and not just "The God Delusion".
>> Me, for one. I've also read The Voyage of the Beagle and am working
>> through the Descent of Man, which is irritating me with it's constant
>> references to progressive evolution.
>>
>>> I am afraid if you have
>>> only read the latter, then you are nothing but a lightweight,
>> Nonsense. I dare say that most practicing biologists have never read
>> OoS, nor should they need to. I read it because I like reading old
>> books. It did not explain anything about evolution that I did not
>> already know, and much of it was incorrect.
>
> snip
>
> First of all, it is not constructive to refer to my points as
> nonsense.
Perhaps you should start making sense?
> I am not referring to practicing biologists, many of which
> HAVE indeed read Darwin's work. I am referring to people of all
> backgrounds here on this thread and many other threads as well as a
> plethora of people who argue this issue in the press who present
> themselves as knowledgeable on the topic but actually have never read
> and understood the specific work, and I am sorry but whether or not
> the work is outdated, one must do a certain amount of background
> reading in order to be thoroughly grounded on such a sensitive and
> controversial subject.
Very few threads in this newsgroup actually refer at all to OoS, and
those that do are rarely relevant to the current state of biology.
> I am glad to hear that you have, but I notice
> that you are not one of a crowd leaping to protest that they have.
You should take this as an indication of the number of people interested
in engaging you in conversation, rather than those who have completed
your reading list.
> It
> is not that the book can teach you about the principle and process of
> the theory. Any decent first year undergraduate textbook without bias
> (big if) can tell you that. It is the limitations of the book's
> claims which are noteworthy. It is significant to note that this
> current controversy regarding his work came about historically as a
> result of people who had an ideological point to prove (atheism) and
> took Darwin's work and twisted it to suit their purposes (which is why
> it IS relevant that Darwin was not an atheist). It was not done in
> the spirit of honest science, any more than the "creationists" being
> referred to elsewhere who would argue for the Earth being 6000 years
> old. The original work is extremely limited in scope and it serves as
> a good reminder of how we have allowed the issue to get blown out of
> proportion as if this theory can prove or disprove ANYTHING about the
> existence or not of an "Intelligent Designer".
None of this supports your statement that those who have not read OoS
are lightweights.
>
> Equally, I am insisting that someone who presents themselves as
> knowledgeable have read the works done by legitimate scientists in
> support of the idea that Intelligent Design may be the only
> explanation for a number of currently inexplicable phenomena. And you
> can go on about God of the Gaps all you want, though I recognize you
> have not yet done so, but there is nothing logically wrong with the
> conclusion that something may be going on which is beyond our current
> state to explain.
"I don't know" is always a valid answer. "It is impossible to know"
should always be challenged.
> This is simply not a reason to tell them all to
> shut up because it doesn't meet your rather narrow definition of
> science, or to deny them their obligation to state this bald fact in
> the current textbooks of curricula throughout. When a theory does not
> actually explain all that it is used to explain in a sweeping manner,
> it is the obligation of scientifically honest people to admit that
> when educating about this issue.
Do you have a specific example of a textbook claiming that evolution
explains something that, in fact, it does not?
>
>
>>> It is interesting, however, the number of people who think that the
>>> inexplicable occurence of life on this planet is currently explained
>>> by the Theory of Evolution.
>> I'd say it was sad, rather than interesting. Science education is in a
>> woeful state. A single data point indicating that is hardly interesting.
>
> It is interesting because, if we are wandering into the field of "non-
> scientists" arguments both for and against "creationism", this theory
> has been jumped on as the be-all and end-all of the search for the
> explanation of life itself. If I had a nickel for the number of times
> I have heard about "life evolving on earth" I'd be a lot wealthier
> than I am today.
Life on earth is evolving, and has been doing so for billions of years.
Why do you feel "life evolving on earth" is an incorrect sentence fragment?
> If I had a dime for the number of times I have heard
> about how "evolution could not be true because God created life" I'd
> be twice as wealthy. Neither argument is worth serious consideration,
The former is not an argument at all.
> and I bring it up because it is frustrating how many times a good
> honest conversation about the subject will be ruined by rather
> ubiquitous misunderstanding about the terminology involved and the
> biochemical processes being referred to. Serious scientists do not
> EVER doubt that the principles of random mutation and natural
> selection are one of the driving forces behind the process of
> speciation. What they are arguing is that not all the systems in life
> as we know it are explainable by that method.
And if they have evidence to support their claims they are encouraged to
present it. However, you have committed the error you decried in a
previous paragraph, and gone from "we cannot currently explain" to
"cannot be explained".
> And the entire debate
> about science education in the schools is based on this one glaring
> point. The textbooks and curricula are currently brainwashed by the
> status quo into forbidding even mentioning that this theory has
> serious gaps that demand at least a recognition, if not an inquiry
> into their cause. There is nothing unscientific about acknowledging
> gaps in the existing theory.
Which gaps, specifically, do you think exist, and what evidence do you
have to support this position?
>>
>>> So what, EXACTLY, do you mean that "creationism" (what a
>>> pejorative word, by the way) is not falsifiable?
>> Why do you feel "creationism" is perjorative? Most creationists seem
>> happy to describe themselves as such.
>>
>> Some creationist theories are falsifiable. YEC, for example, claims that
>> the Universe is 6,000 years old. This is falsified by astronomy and
>> history, before we even get to geology, biology and archaeology, but
>> it's not unfalsifiable.
>>
>
> This is why I mentioned some of the issues above. No serious
> conversation about this topic demanding a scientific approach should
> include the arguments of the ignorant or poorly read. And this is
> precisely why I object to the word "creationism". It is not a
> religion. It is not "creationism" vs. "scientism".
If Behe were not supported by an army of YECs, no-one would bother with him.
> The most serious
> camps on both sides of this argument involve scientists of high
> caliber and it is not appropriate or accurate to lump them in with
> people who have decided in advance that since their religion dictates,
> therefore they must believe.
There are no scientists supporting ID who do not do so because of their
religious beliefs.
> This is NOT a question of faith.
Indeed. The faithful are quite capable of believing in god in the
absence of evidence.
> That
> has been the biggest red herring in discussing this topic and serves
> no purpose. A serious scientist, even if he is Christian, must not
> allow for a contradiction between science and religion,
Did you mean that? If a religion makes testable claims and those claims
are found to be false, the religion is wrong. Only untestable religions
are immune from contradiction by science.
> and it is easy
> to see the historical causes of literal inaccuracy of the Bible. That
> is not what this discussion is about, and people who come from this
> camp may choose to call themselves "creationists" if they like, but
> those of us who are serious about the science are NOT Bible-thumpers
> trying to prove that our religion is right. I am not a Christian. I
> do, however, believe that my observations of the world around us,
> including what we know about particle physics, astrophysics, string
> theory, thermodynamics, evolutionary biology and biochemistry have
> numerous and multiple phenomena that lead one to propose Intelligent
> Design as a possible, and even likely, explanation.
How do you propose this design is manifest? At what point in, say, the
evolution of the human eye did the design event happen? What changed,
and how was that change propagated to the rest of the population?
> Please do not put
> me in the camp of Christians that have an axe to grind.
For now.
>
> --tension
>
Rupert Morrish
> On 3 jul, 01:55, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> nando_rontel...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On 2 jul, 19:38, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 17:52:11 GMT, Greg Guarino
>>>> <g...@risky-biz.com> wrote:
>>>>> Mighty
>>>>> Jupiter is so predictable that a spacecraft launched years in advance
>>>>> can rendezvous with it perfectly.
>>>> Indeed, yet if I recall his amazing discovery correctly, comets
>>>> choose to vary their vectors. I suppose Jupiter is too lazy.
>>> Obviously the Galileo spacecraft had a rocket or something to adjust
>>> it's course along the way.
>> So the Galileo spacecraft had to be coerced into going where it was
>> supposed to go? Why? Couldn't it have chosen to go there on its own? And
>> what if the rockets had decided that they didn't want to participate in
>> the enslavement of the spacecraft? What kept them in line?
>
> Since the trajectory is so long, we can be sure the spacecraft had
> both a computer and a rocket on board, and that it calculated it's
> adjustment on the fly, using the newly created information in the
> universe coming from the decisions of both itself, and the planets
> etc.
Or, you could actually read what the designers of the spacecraft said,
and find out that the trajectory was changed once after passing the
asteroid belt, and once more to place the craft into orbit around Jupiter.
Why would a computer be necessary? Why couldn't the rockets decide to
fire on their own?
>
> Some time ago a colleague of mine commented on how in earlier days
> some people he knew, used to pat their car on the top and say "well
> done", when the car got them to where they wanted to go. He lamented
> about how people didn't do that anymore, and wondered why the practice
> had ceased. Then we got to his car, and he said he sure loved his car
> still, altough he didn't talk to it, but it didn't sound very
> convincing that he loved his car much.
> His car is a general motors opel, and it looks kind of soulless,
> nothing much unique about it and nothing much free about it, just
> slick, comfortable, and wellmade. I think he doesn't understand the
> issue, that in order to love his car like that, he must first consider
> that his car can go one way or another of it's own accord.
Please surrender your drivers license at once.
> It can
> break down at a time of it's own accord,
Do you think auto mechanics deny knowledge of freedom?
Rupert Morrish
> On Jul 2, 5:02 pm, Rupert Morrish <rup...@morrish.org> wrote:
>> nando_rontel...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>> There is a shared understanding among creationists, that creation is a
>>> free act, and so is the final judgement, and ofcourse the heart and
>>> soul are also about free acts.
>> Almost all of he Creationists in the USA believe you are going to Hell.
>> Many of them support internment camps for American Muslims. Is that freedom?
>
> Can you back up that statement about the support for internment
> camps? For totally other reasons, I have been predicting that that
> day would come, since we are not really so ethically developed beyond
> the status of 1942, but I have no evidence to support that anyone has
> been speaking or writing in support of that idea. Have you any
> references? It is an extremely strong accusation.
Bring brain bleach.
>
> So is that one about "almost all" of the "Creationists" believing that
> he is going to Hell. Do you really believe that the "almost all" of
> the entire body of "Creationists" are made up of fundamentalist
> Christians?
Almost all creationists in the USA are evangelicals or related
protestant denominations. I am aware of exceptions, but they don't seem
to have much support within their respective faiths or non-faiths.
> I hope you can back up that statement as well. I didn't
> think that the US Census covered that particular topic.
It would be polling data, not census data.
>
> --tension
>
nando_r...@yahoo.com
> You're saying that the spacecraft has no choice in where it wants to go;
> that it is forced to go where it is supposed to by its computer and its
> rocket, and that the computer and rocket also have no choice but to
> guide the spacecraft to the destination that some people on Earth have
> already decided for it. Why are you denying the spacecraft, its
> computer, and its rocket the freedom to choose what they want to do and
> where they want to go?- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
The spacecraft is designed in a way so to limit it's freedom for as
far as that freedom could effect the task it is set to do. This is
what mechanics do on a continuous basis, trying to take the variation
in results out of what they are designing. Evenso, there still is
variation in results, since for example rocketexhaust is still free
some. etc.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Mark VandeWettering
Nonsense. It is entirely appropriate to label Behe as intellectually
dishonest. Unlike the rank and file of your more ordinary creationists,
Behe actually has had a reasonable education, and understands what science
is and why it operates the way it does. He also knows full well why his
arguments are unscientific.
> Serious, dedicated scientists are trying to formulate hypotheses and
> cannot currently come up with even one which is testable or
> falsifiable. This does not make it non-science.
Uh, actually it pretty much does.
> This information is,
> in itself, an observation. Yes, it may well be that the observation
> is simply a reflection that we have not the current knowledge,
> intelligence or technique to design such a testable hypothesis....but
> it may equally well be that the observation is in fact a valid one
> because there IS, in fact, a wall that we will not be able to
> penetrate with all our growing scientific prowess.
In what sense are are these two alternatives supported "equally well"?
Do you judge them to be equally likely to be true? On what basis do you
make that evaluation?
> Just because we
> have managed to penetrate apparent walls in the past is not proof of
> any kind that there is no wall that will be hit in the future. String
> theory itself appears to possibly represent one of those walls.
> Getting below (in size, not scope) quantum mechanics and particle
> physics is a wall much more impenetrable, at least so it appears at
> the moment, than the attempt to unify the last of the four fundamental
> forces of physics; it is many orders of magnitude beyond our ability
> to imagine designing a way to test.
I wonder on what basis you can make that claim.
> But this does not give us the right to call those who speculate upon
> the issue using mathematics intellectually dishonest, any more than
> the "creationists".
No, their dishonesty gives us that right. If Behe wants to avoid being
tagged as intellectually dishonest, the cure is really quite simple.
>>
>> > I'm curious to know who on this thread has actually read "Origin of
>> > Species" and not just "The God Delusion".
>>
>> Me, for one. I've also read The Voyage of the Beagle and am working
>> through the Descent of Man, which is irritating me with it's constant
>> references to progressive evolution.
>>
>> > I am afraid if you have
>> > only read the latter, then you are nothing but a lightweight,
>>
>> Nonsense. I dare say that most practicing biologists have never read
>> OoS, nor should they need to. I read it because I like reading old
>> books. It did not explain anything about evolution that I did not
>> already know, and much of it was incorrect.
>
> snip
>
> First of all, it is not constructive to refer to my points as
> nonsense.
The primary purpose of identifying your nonsense as nonsense isn't to educate
you.
> I am not referring to practicing biologists, many of which
> HAVE indeed read Darwin's work. I am referring to people of all
> backgrounds here on this thread and many other threads as well as a
> plethora of people who argue this issue in the press who present
> themselves as knowledgeable on the topic but actually have never read
> and understood the specific work, and I am sorry but whether or not
> the work is outdated, one must do a certain amount of background
> reading in order to be thoroughly grounded on such a sensitive and
> controversial subject. I am glad to hear that you have, but I notice
> that you are not one of a crowd leaping to protest that they have.
I'm not sure why anyone has to jump to satisfy your concerns. I of
course have read it. I have a rather nice hardback version of it I'm
quite fond of that was published in the late 1800s that I keep around.
> It
> is not that the book can teach you about the principle and process of
> the theory. Any decent first year undergraduate textbook without bias
> (big if) can tell you that.
You didn't actually present an "if".
What bias are you referring to? What flaws do you think undergraduate texts
have in their presentation of evolution? Be specific.
> It is the limitations of the book's
> claims which are noteworthy.
Well, it was a hundred and fifty years ago, and the idea was revolutionary.
Darwin knew very little about the mechanism of inheritance, for instance.
> It is significant to note that this
> current controversy regarding his work came about historically as a
> result of people who had an ideological point to prove (atheism) and
> took Darwin's work and twisted it to suit their purposes (which is why
> it IS relevant that Darwin was not an atheist).
This is far too great of a simplification of history to be viewed as
accurate, or frankly even honest.
> It was not done in
> the spirit of honest science,
To the degree it happened, it wasn't science _at all_, and had very little to
do with Darwin or the Theory of Evolution.
> any more than the "creationists" being
> referred to elsewhere who would argue for the Earth being 6000 years
> old. The original work is extremely limited in scope and it serves as
> a good reminder of how we have allowed the issue to get blown out of
> proportion as if this theory can prove or disprove ANYTHING about the
> existence or not of an "Intelligent Designer".
It's up to ID theorists to show evidence for an Intelligent Designer. Behe
can't tell you who the designer is, what he did, when he did it or why. He's
just sure that something must have happened somewhere. And that it was the
Christian God.
> Equally, I am insisting that someone who presents themselves as
> knowledgeable have read the works done by legitimate scientists in
> support of the idea that Intelligent Design may be the only
> explanation for a number of currently inexplicable phenomena.
If you'd like to present a work by a legitimate scientist in support of
Intelligent Design, by all means do so. Behe didn't know of one.
> And you
> can go on about God of the Gaps all you want, though I recognize you
> have not yet done so, but there is nothing logically wrong with the
> conclusion that something may be going on which is beyond our current
> state to explain.
In the past, the idea that our lack of understanding made magic more likely
has proven to be fairly useless.
> This is simply not a reason to tell them all to
> shut up because it doesn't meet your rather narrow definition of
> science,
It isn't "a narrow definition of science": it's not science at all.
> or to deny them their obligation to state this bald fact in
> the current textbooks of curricula throughout. When a theory does not
> actually explain all that it is used to explain in a sweeping manner,
> it is the obligation of scientifically honest people to admit that
> when educating about this issue.
I'd like you to give a specific example of this. You speak in generalities.
Make it specific. What book does this? Where?
>> > It is interesting, however, the number of people who think that the
>> > inexplicable occurence of life on this planet is currently explained
>> > by the Theory of Evolution.
>>
>> I'd say it was sad, rather than interesting. Science education is in a
>> woeful state. A single data point indicating that is hardly interesting.
>
> It is interesting because, if we are wandering into the field of "non-
> scientists" arguments both for and against "creationism", this theory
> has been jumped on as the be-all and end-all of the search for the
> explanation of life itself. If I had a nickel for the number of times
> I have heard about "life evolving on earth" I'd be a lot wealthier
> than I am today.
Well, life did evolve on planet Earth. Should we pretend otherwise?
> If I had a dime for the number of times I have heard
> about how "evolution could not be true because God created life" I'd
> be twice as wealthy.
Sad, I know.
> Neither argument is worth serious consideration,
Really? One is obviously true, the other is obviously false. I'm not
sure why you wouldn't consider things which are true to be worth serious
consideration.
> and I bring it up because it is frustrating how many times a good
> honest conversation about the subject will be ruined by rather
> ubiquitous misunderstanding about the terminology involved and the
> biochemical processes being referred to. Serious scientists do not
> EVER doubt that the principles of random mutation and natural
> selection are one of the driving forces behind the process of
> speciation. What they are arguing is that not all the systems in life
> as we know it are explainable by that method.
This is true, but not for the reasons that (for example) Behe proposes.
> And the entire debate
> about science education in the schools is based on this one glaring
> point.
No, that debate (such as it is) is entirely about the appropriateness of
government funding of religious indoctrination in public schools.
> The textbooks and curricula are currently brainwashed by the
> status quo into forbidding even mentioning that this theory has
> serious gaps that demand at least a recognition, if not an inquiry
> into their cause. There is nothing unscientific about acknowledging
> gaps in the existing theory.
On the contrary: textbooks are whitewashed into avoiding this topic almost
entirely, because school boards controlled by religious fundamentalists might
be offended by such mention.
>> > So what, EXACTLY, do you mean that "creationism" (what a
>> > pejorative word, by the way) is not falsifiable?
>>
>> Why do you feel "creationism" is perjorative? Most creationists seem
>> happy to describe themselves as such.
>>
>> Some creationist theories are falsifiable. YEC, for example, claims that
>> the Universe is 6,000 years old. This is falsified by astronomy and
>> history, before we even get to geology, biology and archaeology, but
>> it's not unfalsifiable.
>
> This is why I mentioned some of the issues above. No serious
> conversation about this topic demanding a scientific approach should
> include the arguments of the ignorant or poorly read. And this is
> precisely why I object to the word "creationism". It is not a
> religion.
It's not a religion. It's a religious doctrine.
> It is not "creationism" vs. "scientism". The most serious
> camps on both sides of this argument involve scientists of high
> caliber and it is not appropriate or accurate to lump them in with
> people who have decided in advance that since their religion dictates,
> therefore they must believe. This is NOT a question of faith. That
> has been the biggest red herring in discussing this topic and serves
> no purpose. A serious scientist, even if he is Christian, must not
> allow for a contradiction between science and religion,
Actually, a great many scientists do precisely that. They are at least
honest enough to realize that they aren't the same thing.
> and it is easy
> to see the historical causes of literal inaccuracy of the Bible. That
> is not what this discussion is about, and people who come from this
> camp may choose to call themselves "creationists" if they like, but
> those of us who are serious about the science are NOT Bible-thumpers
> trying to prove that our religion is right. I am not a Christian. I
> do, however, believe that my observations of the world around us,
> including what we know about particle physics, astrophysics, string
> theory, thermodynamics, evolutionary biology and biochemistry have
> numerous and multiple phenomena that lead one to propose Intelligent
> Design as a possible, and even likely, explanation.
Well, you can believe what you like about your observations. I don't
think they are likely to be more fruitful than those of the ancient greeks,
proposing that Zeus must be responsible for lightning.
> Please do not put me in the camp of Christians that have an axe to
> grind.
If it quacks like a duck....
Mark
>
> --tension
tension_on_the_wire
> tension_on_the_wire wrote:
> >> Nonsense. >
> > First of all, it is not constructive to refer to my points as
> > nonsense.
> > Perhaps you should start making sense?
snip
> You should take this as an indication of the number of people interested
> in engaging you in conversation, rather than those who have completed
> your reading list.
>
Since you do not have the courtesy to keep the scorn and contempt out
of your posts, this will be my last response to you. I am not
babbling at the level of that fool talking about praising his car for
choosing to get him home without breaking down, and you could have the
decency to respond as such. If not, then this does not qualify as any
kind of debate and it is no further use responding to your posts.
> > The most serious
> > camps on both sides of this argument involve scientists of high
> > caliber and it is not appropriate or accurate to lump them in with
> > people who have decided in advance that since their religion dictates,
> > therefore they must believe.
>
> There are no scientists supporting ID who do not do so because of their
> religious beliefs.
That is an extremely arrogant and inaccurate statement since here I
sit. Along with several of my colleagues, friends and family, not one
of whom is a Christian. There is also an entire coalition of highly
qualified scientists, most of whom are honoured members of the
National Academy of Sciences, who have signed their names to a public
support forum for Intelligent Design, and it is extremely presumptuous
of you to assume that they all did so because of faith. Who are you
to dismiss what amounts to decades of study and experience in a
scientific field that leads any of them to conclude that God must
exist? You are sadly mistaken if you think that all scientists
supporting this idea do so because they are pre-disposed by religion
to believe so and therefore are obligated to search for scientific
support of their faith-based idea? That is the single most below-the-
belt accusation you can make to a scientist, to suggest that they have
decided to fit the data to the theory, rather than conclude a theory
based on the data. And whether you like it or not, the data is out
there, in all the fields I mentioned. I have mentioned it several
times but you are noticeably silent on questioning me about THAT.
It's no wonder you are so quick to sling accusatioins of intellectual
dishonesty about so easily. It seems that you are the one who is
predisposed in your opinions of what must constitute a "creationist".
I would like to know what data you used that shows the percentage of
people who support ID coming from a faith-based background as opposed
to those who came from an agnostic or atheistic background. Well, no,
actually I wouldn't like to know because I'm finished responding to
someone who is so quick to point out how "indoctrinated" we all must
be, and can't see the mote for the beam. You are just another
indoctrinated individual yourself if you think that every scientist
who supports this idea must be religious.
It is equally dishonest of you to represent the Discovery Institute as
the only representative of science supporting Intelligent Design. The
scientists who are doing the work do not have to be a member of any
group that you can personally look up in order for their work to
qualify as searching for explanations towards these questions. It is
supposed to be the aim of EVERY impartial scientist to search for
explanations, and if they find evidence to suggest the "miraculous"
going on in this universe, they do not need to sign up on your
personal look-up sheet for that work to qualify. They are imbedded
throughout every university and research lab in this and every other
country, and just because they are not loud and vociferous, does not
mean that the work is not being done, or that it is not being
published in every respectable peer-reviewed journal throughout the
various fields. It is also not necessary that they must write, in
their conclusions, that this work supports the concept of Intelligent
Design, for colleagues reading the work to come to that conclusion.
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot, how the hell would we get
anything published in this world if we said that?
>
> > That
> > has been the biggest red herring in discussing this topic and serves
> > no purpose. A serious scientist, even if he is Christian, must not
> > allow for a contradiction between science and religion,
>
> Did you mean that? If a religion makes testable claims and those claims
> are found to be false, the religion is wrong. Only untestable religions
> are immune from contradiction by science.
You obviously are not well-read in religion. All religion has not
conducted itself as Christianity has toward science. And not all
religions have made claims that were contradictory to science. And
there are religions that have made claims that were, in fact,
consistent with science and at a time when that science was not yet
discovered. If you had been a bit less close-minded and a bit more
courteous, I would have been quite happy to provide you with a long
list of those claims. As it is, you'll have to look them up
yourself. And by the way, there is a huge difference, anyway,
between the original theology taught by Christianity, and what has
been gleaned out of the current accepted testament (which I might add,
was written by various humans, not God, and edited by extremely
politically ambitious humans at the council of Nicea). If you want to
discuss religion, you had better be prepared to understand the
difference between what organized religion (read: powermongering
humans) wants the masses to believe and what original theology was
taught by original messengers, which is infinitely more difficult to
establish, and almost never contains any of the claims that are
usually attributed to the religion later and are, of course, by
definition, untestable. What would be the point of a power-hungry
priest coming up with a claim that could get shot down the next day?
Only the clergy of Christianity was foolish enough to take science on
head to head in the way that they did, and we have seen the results of
that. You need to read much more before you write about this topic.
>
> > Please do not put
> > me in the camp of Christians that have an axe to grind.
>
> For now.
See what I mean? It's a waste of time discussing this with someone
like you. It usually is, in my experience. When, for once, you get
someone who isn't ranting and raving like a Bible-thumping lunatic,
when for once you get an opportunity to get down to the actual issues
with someone who does speak the language of science, people like you
always blow it by spouting your assumptions as if they are fact, and
you have the nerve to point the finger at me for not making sense.
>
> > --tension
Shane
wrote:
> On Jul 3, 4:51 pm, Rupert Morrish <rup...@morrish.org> wrote:
>> tension_on_the_wire wrote:
>
>>>> Nonsense. >
>>> First of all, it is not constructive to refer to my points as
>>> nonsense.
>>> Perhaps you should start making sense?
> snip
>> You should take this as an indication of the number of people interested
>> in engaging you in conversation, rather than those who have completed
>> your reading list.
>>
>
> Since you do not have the courtesy to keep the scorn and contempt out
> of your posts, this will be my last response to you. I am not
> babbling at the level of that fool talking about praising his car for
> choosing to get him home without breaking down, and you could have the
> decency to respond as such. If not, then this does not qualify as any
> kind of debate and it is no further use responding to your posts.
Would you care to provide a rationale for your position as
stated:
"First of all, it is not constructive to refer to my points
as nonsense."
And
"Since you do not have the courtesy to keep the scorn and
contempt out of your posts,..."
With this:
"I am not babbling at the level of that fool talking about
praising his car for choosing to get him home without
breaking down,..."
And as regards nando--whom I assume you are referring
to--have you read all the historic literature that he would
recommend to gain an understanding of his controversial
position? or are you just dismissing it out of hand?
[...]
Rupert Morrish
> On Jul 3, 4:51 pm, Rupert Morrish <rup...@morrish.org> wrote:
>> tension_on_the_wire wrote:
>
>>>> Nonsense. >
>>> First of all, it is not constructive to refer to my points as
>>> nonsense.
>>> Perhaps you should start making sense?
> snip
>> You should take this as an indication of the number of people interested
>> in engaging you in conversation, rather than those who have completed
>> your reading list.
>>
>
> Since you do not have the courtesy to keep the scorn and contempt out
> of your posts, this will be my last response to you.
As you wish. What I meant to convey with that statement was that you
should not expect everyone in the group who has read OoS to reply to
your post.
> I am not
> babbling at the level of that fool talking about praising his car for
> choosing to get him home without breaking down, and you could have the
> decency to respond as such.
I am actually engaging your points. There would be no point in doing
that with Nando.
> If not, then this does not qualify as any
> kind of debate and it is no further use responding to your posts.
Again, that's up to you. I will try to keep the sarcasm turned down, as
a courtesy.
>
>
>>> The most serious
>>> camps on both sides of this argument involve scientists of high
>>> caliber and it is not appropriate or accurate to lump them in with
>>> people who have decided in advance that since their religion dictates,
>>> therefore they must believe.
>> There are no scientists supporting ID who do not do so because of their
>> religious beliefs.
>
> That is an extremely arrogant and inaccurate statement since here I
> sit.
Are you a scientist? Which field?
> Along with several of my colleagues, friends and family, not one
> of whom is a Christian. There is also an entire coalition of highly
> qualified scientists, most of whom are honoured members of the
> National Academy of Sciences, who have signed their names to a public
> support forum for Intelligent Design,
You meant the Dissent from Darwinism? I don't actually disagree with
that statement. You'll notice that it doesn't actually say anywhere that
the signatories support intelligent design.
> and it is extremely presumptuous
> of you to assume that they all did so because of faith. Who are you
> to dismiss what amounts to decades of study and experience in a
> scientific field that leads any of them to conclude that God must
> exist?
If they have scientific evidence of the existence of god, they have not
presented it. If they have religious opinions, they are no more valid
than yours or mine, or (famously) the kid who delivers Lenny's pizzas.
> You are sadly mistaken if you think that all scientists
> supporting this idea do so because they are pre-disposed by religion
> to believe so and therefore are obligated to search for scientific
> support of their faith-based idea?
I do not think this. In fact, I know it to be untrue, since I am aware
of scientists of all religious faiths who see that intelligent design is
creationism in a cheap lab coat.
> That is the single most below-the-
> belt accusation you can make to a scientist, to suggest that they have
> decided to fit the data to the theory, rather than conclude a theory
> based on the data.
I agree. Which is why I despise those that make accusations of a
Darwinist conspiracy to keep ID research from being published.
> And whether you like it or not, the data is out
> there, in all the fields I mentioned. I have mentioned it several
> times but you are noticeably silent on questioning me about THAT.
What data? I saw some references to Irreducible Complexity? Are you
aware that IC systems are not only not impossible to evolve, but have
been predicted to occur by evolutionary theorists since the 1930s.
> It's no wonder you are so quick to sling accusatioins of intellectual
> dishonesty about so easily. It seems that you are the one who is
> predisposed in your opinions of what must constitute a "creationist".
> I would like to know what data you used that shows the percentage of
> people who support ID coming from a faith-based background as opposed
> to those who came from an agnostic or atheistic background. Well, no,
> actually I wouldn't like to know because I'm finished responding to
> someone who is so quick to point out how "indoctrinated" we all must
> be, and can't see the mote for the beam. You are just another
> indoctrinated individual yourself if you think that every scientist
> who supports this idea must be religious.
I'm waiting for you to present a counter-example.
>
> It is equally dishonest of you to represent the Discovery Institute as
> the only representative of science supporting Intelligent Design. The
> scientists who are doing the work do not have to be a member of any
> group that you can personally look up in order for their work to
> qualify as searching for explanations towards these questions. It is
> supposed to be the aim of EVERY impartial scientist to search for
> explanations, and if they find evidence to suggest the "miraculous"
> going on in this universe, they do not need to sign up on your
> personal look-up sheet for that work to qualify. They are imbedded
> throughout every university and research lab in this and every other
> country, and just because they are not loud and vociferous, does not
> mean that the work is not being done, or that it is not being
> published in every respectable peer-reviewed journal throughout the
> various fields.
You have citations?
> It is also not necessary that they must write, in
> their conclusions, that this work supports the concept of Intelligent
> Design, for colleagues reading the work to come to that conclusion.
> Talk about shooting yourself in the foot, how the hell would we get
> anything published in this world if we said that?
Ah. The Darwinist Conspiracy. Presumably this "below-the-belt
accusation" is acceptable when applied to journal editors and
peer-reviewers?
Perhaps you should read what I actually wrote. I didn't say all testable
religious claims had been contradicted.
>
>>> Please do not put
>>> me in the camp of Christians that have an axe to grind.
>> For now.
>
>
> See what I mean? It's a waste of time discussing this with someone
> like you. It usually is, in my experience. When, for once, you get
> someone who isn't ranting and raving like a Bible-thumping lunatic,
> when for once you get an opportunity to get down to the actual issues
> with someone who does speak the language of science, people like you
> always blow it by spouting your assumptions as if they are fact, and
> you have the nerve to point the finger at me for not making sense.
You'd be amazed how many times a new poster has come into this
newsgroup, claiming to be non-religious and a practicing scientist, only
to reveal themselves (usually within a week) as a scientifically
illiterate fundamentalist christian. I am giving you the benefit of the
doubt.
So, what assumptions have I spouted, and which have you merely inferred
from my antipathy to the ID movement?
>>> --tension
>
>
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 3 jul, 01:55, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > nando_rontel...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On 2 jul, 19:38, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
> > >> On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 17:52:11 GMT, Greg Guarino
>
> > >> <g...@risky-biz.com> wrote:
> > >>> Mighty
> > >>> Jupiter is so predictable that a spacecraft launched years in advance
> > >>> can rendezvous with it perfectly.
> > >> Indeed, yet if I recall his amazing discovery correctly, comets
> > >> choose to vary their vectors. I suppose Jupiter is too lazy.
>
> > > Obviously the Galileo spacecraft had a rocket or something to adjust
> > > it's course along the way.
>
> > So the Galileo spacecraft had to be coerced into going where it was
> > supposed to go? Why? Couldn't it have chosen to go there on its own? And
> > what if the rockets had decided that they didn't want to participate in
> > the enslavement of the spacecraft? What kept them in line?
>
> Since the trajectory is so long, we can be sure the spacecraft had
> both a computer and a rocket on board, and that it calculated it's
> adjustment on the fly, using the newly created information in the
> universe coming from the decisions of both itself, and the planets
> etc.
>
Hello, stupid. FYI, the probe made no course changes without first
being programed to do so at the direction of flight control
controlers, here on Earth. The position, direction of travel, and
velocity were derived from various telemetric methods and it's
projected to see how close to it's targed points it would be. If
there would have been any deviation, instructions to the on-board
computer were transmitted, and the spacecraft's on-board computer
would execute them at the appropriate time.
> Some time ago a colleague of mine commented on how in earlier days
> some people he knew, used to pat their car on the top and say "well
> done", when the car got them to where they wanted to go. He lamented
> about how people didn't do that anymore, and wondered why the practice
> had ceased. Then we got to his car, and he said he sure loved his car
> still, altough he didn't talk to it, but it didn't sound very
> convincing that he loved his car much.
> His car is a general motors opel, and it looks kind of soulless,
> nothing much unique about it and nothing much free about it, just
> slick, comfortable, and wellmade. I think he doesn't understand the
> issue, that in order to love his car like that, he must first consider
> that his car can go one way or another of it's own accord. It can
> break down at a time of it's own accord, only then is it reasonable to
> say "well done" when it doesn't break down. He should look to the car
> and discover all the behaviours of it that vary, indicating freedom,
> and for those decisions there made he should relate to. Often the
> fanbelt varies some, of course the motor etc. etc. But instead he more
> let himself be carried away by the slickness of the car, and "slick"
> more means like that the car very precisely does what you want it to
> do, the car not having any freedom of it's own.
You are a fucking stupid assed idiot. I would ask if it hurt to be so
stupid, but that would require some sort of mental process to make
that determination on your part. If you think cars are intelligent
beings, you need your head examined. BTW, fuctard, if cars were
intelligent and could make their own decisions, there would be *no*
wrecks, since self preservation would dictate that any car would avoid
running into another car, or would avoid any other car that was about
to run into it. You stupid, stupid, pathetic smuck!
BTW, how do you reconcile belief in an all knowing god, yet claim to
have free will? Better yet, why do you refuse to answer that
question? Or are you so insane or stupid that you cannot see that the
two are not mutualy exclusive?
Boikat
Boikat
Thank you for that totally vacious spattering of jibberish!
Give him a round of applause, folks. He's here for at least the next
day or two, or at least until the mother ship returns to pick him back
up. Have a nice evening and don't forget to tip your waitress!
Boikat
Ye Old One
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On 4 jul, 00:25, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> You're saying that the spacecraft has no choice in where it wants to go;
>> that it is forced to go where it is supposed to by its computer and its
>> rocket, and that the computer and rocket also have no choice but to
>> guide the spacecraft to the destination that some people on Earth have
>> already decided for it. Why are you denying the spacecraft, its
>> computer, and its rocket the freedom to choose what they want to do and
>> where they want to go?- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
>The spacecraft is designed in a way so to limit it's freedom
A spacecraft has no freedom.
> for as
>far as that freedom could effect the task it is set to do. This is
>what mechanics do on a continuous basis, trying to take the variation
>in results out of what they are designing. Evenso, there still is
>variation in results, since for example rocketexhaust is still free
>some. etc.
>
>regards,
>Mohammad Nur Syamsu
When are you going to get an education?
--
Bob.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
became a creationist on account of a speech about randomness. Some
time ago Behe complained about Darwinists not believing in free will,
read it on his site. So to say Behe is very much into knowledge about
freedom.
fact: Darwinists don't believe in free will, nor freedom anywhere,
because they follow mainstream science, and mainstream science doesn't
acknowledge freedom of any kind.
fact: almost all concepts in creationism suppose freedom to be real
fact: the only hard-science (not just a bunch of words, but
mathematically and experimentally worked out to give a more accurate
description of Mercury's perihelion for instance) theory which holds
freedom to be real, is strong anticipation theory by Dubois (who most
probably counts himself as an evolutionist since he is a mainstream
and fairly well known awardwinning scientist, but that's besides the
point)
fact: the application of strong anticipation theory by Taborsky (also
an evolutionist as far as I know) directs towards intelligent design
theory (evolution is a reasoned and informed process), as could be
reasonably expected of any science theory which holds freedom to be
real, that it would inevitably point towards intelligent design ( as
evidenced by thought experiment, if you hold freedom to be real, and
think of decisions being made in the universe, your mind will turn
toward intelligent design theory in thinking about those decisions,
Quod Est Demonstrantum)
My guess is that you don't believe these Darwinists don't believe in
freedom. But it's a fact, for instance Dennet defined freedom without
alternatives, so a freedom that is the same as being forced. Leading
evolutionary psychologists Cosmides and Tooby defined emotions as
being without freedom (they said emotions is kind of like software,
expressly emphasizing that emotions lack free will). etc. etc. You can
talk to any of these Darwinists on this newsgroup about freedom, and
they will all go into a philosophical tailspin, and not a single one
will hold it to be factually true that freedom is real. Then ask Behe
if he thinks freedom is real, and you can see the fundamental
difference.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Free Lunch
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.origins:
[nonsense]
>regards,
>Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Thanks for coming back to spew your foolish nonsense.
Please leave.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
When I say ..I choose between coffee and tea.., he is not
understanding that on an intellectual level, he is not believing it,
it is a total mystery to him. These people really, seriously, dont
believe freedom is real.
So I think your hopes of having a rational discussion about creation
with them are set way too high, considering they do not even
understand the most rudimentary things about creation.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Free Lunch
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>So tension, take this Darwinist here, responding before, for instance.
I see you are back to your old, rude habit of deleting all of the
context so no one has any idea what you are responding to. Of course,
your responses are foolish, so it generally doesn't matter -- all you do
is prove to us that you are rude and foolish, another religious nut to
use as a warning for our children.
Ye Old One
>So tension, take this Darwinist here, responding before, for instance.
>
>When I say ..I choose between coffee and tea..,
You can choose between tea and coffee because you have a mind (all be
it a demented one) that can do that.
The Moon does not have a mind, it cannot make a choice in its path. As
a result we can know where the moon was 2 million years ago on a
certain day and time. We can also know where it will be 2 million
years from now.
> he is not
>understanding that on an intellectual level, he is not believing it,
>it is a total mystery to him. These people really, seriously, dont
>believe freedom is real.
>
>So I think your hopes of having a rational discussion about creation
>with them are set way too high, considering they do not even
>understand the most rudimentary things about creation.
Creationism is religion - not science.
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> So tension, take this Darwinist here, responding before, for instance.
>
> When I say ..I choose between coffee and tea.., he is not
> understanding that on an intellectual level, he is not believing it,
> it is a total mystery to him. These people really, seriously, dont
> believe freedom is real.
If you believe in an all knowing god, then you cannot also believe in
freedom of choice. Let me explain it to you, dumbass:
God know everything because he is all knowing, therefore, he know if
you are going to have tea or coffee tomorrow morning.
Since God can never be wrong, that means your choice has been pre-
determined, since god can never be wrong, if he's all knowing.
Therefore, you cannot choose coffee if god knows you are going to have
tea in the morning, because if you did have coffee, that would mean
god was wrong, and therefore cannot be all knowing. Belief in an all
knowing god and free will is contradictory.
That should set you lone brain cell spinning right up. Oh, wait.
That lone brain cell of yours has already spun itself off into la-la
land, long time ago. Silly me.
>
> So I think your hopes of having a rational discussion about creation
> with them are set way too high, considering they do not even
> understand the most rudimentary things about creation.
Sound advice from a true idiot, who thinks a prophet advising you to
eat camel shit to cure a headache is better advice than a physician
reccomending an asprin.
Boikat
nando_r...@yahoo.com
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
nando_r...@yahoo.com
anticipation. You talk about knowing, and knowing in advance, that is
2 different things. You also can't know yourself in advance if you
will choose coffee or tea. As time progresses per decision, or so to
say history is a sequence of decisions, the time it takes for God to
know what you decide is zero.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Ye Old One
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Not quoted text. No attribution. No context. It really takes a fool to
be so inconsiderate to others.
>This is like a confusion of weak anticipation, with strong
>anticipation. You
Who?
> talk about knowing, and knowing in advance, that is
>2 different things. You
Who?
> also can't know yourself in advance if you
Who?
>will choose coffee or tea.
I do, I always go for the tea.
>As time progresses per decision, or so to
>say history is a sequence of decisions, the time it takes for God to
There is no such thing as god. Gods are simply the invention of
primitive man.
>know what you
Who?
>decide is zero.
>
>regards,
>Mohammad Nur Syamsu
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
No attribution, no quoted text, no context. You realy are an ignornat
and incosiderate arsehole.
>Eh, you don't want to let any children read talk.origins.
>
>regards,
>Mohammad Nur Syamsu
--
Bob.
Earle Jones
<782f8816-d52c-42fd...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
"nando_r...@yahoo.com" <nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
*
I think that's a good idea -- as long as ignorant assholes like you are
around.
earle
*
"The opinions given here are my own, and not necessarily the
opinions of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Study or the
Alfred Nobel Committee on Biology."
--Earle Jones
Boikat
Correction: *You* nando, do not want any children to read T.O because
they would then know that cretinism was a sham, and the prophets are
full of crap. *you* wouldn't want that, now would you?
Boikat
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> This is like a confusion of weak anticipation, with strong
> anticipation. You talk about knowing, and knowing in advance, that is
> 2 different things. You also can't know yourself in advance if you
> will choose coffee or tea.
I did ask if *you* knew what you were going to drink for breakfast,
moron, I asked if you believed in an all knowing god and if you
believed you had free will. An all knowing god would know what you
are going to have tomorrow, or ten years from now.
> As time progresses per decision, or so to
> say history is a sequence of decisions, the time it takes for God to
> know what you decide is zero.
So, you're saying god does not know if you are going to have tea or
coffee *tomorrow*, therefore, your god is not all knowing.
Boikat
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by
"nando_r...@yahoo.com" <nando_r...@yahoo.com>:
>Eh, you don't want to let any children read talk.origins.
Sure we do; we only have to put you in their killfiles. That
way they're not exposed to illogical and agenda-driven
idiocy, and can learn the procedures of rational discourse.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
>This is like a confusion of weak anticipation, with strong
Is this in response to something? What?
nando_r...@yahoo.com
here is that freedom is real, and embedded in the laws of the
universe. Our universe has a future, and it's object stand in
anticipation of that future. Freedom does not fit tightly in our
skulls, freedom is too big, it fits the entire universe.
You all have zero chance to proceed the way you are going, you can't
continue looking only to the past, looking only at initial conditions.
As sure as you all know that you can indeed choose between coffee and
tea, you should all be sure that you all will lose the debate.
Now I will have coffee, to drink to the victory of creationism.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
nando_r...@yahoo.com
time, as distinct from relative time. While relative time proceeds per
movement, perfect time proceeds per decision and the object may not
move at all.
Newton was a creationist and a freethinking man, he not let himself be
subdued by the scientific method, but also guarded his intuitions and
his faith. Now he is on the cutting-edge of 21st century science.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In the theory of strong antcipation we find Newton's idea of perfect
> time, as distinct from relative time. While relative time proceeds per
> movement, perfect time proceeds per decision and the object may not
> move at all.
>
Evasion noted. You are totally running away from the logical
consequence of an "all knowing god" with regards to "free will". You
are simply grasping at straws, and those straws do nothing to
reconcile the logic trap of an "all knowing god" and "free will". You
have to choose one or the other. Unless you're insane.
> Newton was a creationist and a freethinking man, he not let himself be
> subdued by the scientific method, but also guarded his intuitions and
> his faith. Now he is on the cutting-edge of 21st century science.
Newton may have believed in God, but he was not a "creationist" in the
modern usage of the term. But then again, you wouldn't understand
that, and your off on Newton's era by a couple of centuries, and
contrary to your idiotic claims, Newton *did* work within the bounds
of the scientific method, even if they were not deliniated at the
time. He made observations, formed a hypothesis, and tested them with
additional observation. Even if he "prayed to the all Mighty" for an
answer, he still did the actual work. If you disagree, please show
were divine intervention figures into Newtonian physics. I'm not
going to hold my breath though, since you won't find any, and rather
than admit you're wrong, you'll just come up with more dishonest
evasions and blathering. God knows you are going to emplay evasions
and blather ranter than answer the question, and so do I. Of course,
the other possibility is that you will simply ignore the question.
There will be no great surprise there, either.
Boikat
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The truth will march on people, there is no stopping it. And the truth
> here is that freedom is real, and embedded in the laws of the
> universe. Our universe has a future, and it's object stand in
> anticipation of that future. Freedom does not fit tightly in our
> skulls, freedom is too big, it fits the entire universe.
Then there is no "all knowing god". You worship a fantasy being that
does not exist.
>
> You all have zero chance to proceed the way you are going, you can't
> continue looking only to the past, looking only at initial conditions.
> As sure as you all know that you can indeed choose between coffee and
> tea, you should all be sure that you all will lose the debate.
In your dreams, wanker.
>
> Now I will have coffee, to drink to the victory of creationism.
But if you god is all knowing, you did not choose to have coffee. You
are simply following a pre-written script like a good little meat
puppet. As far as "the victory of creationism" goes, only in your
imaginary world, fool.
Vernon Balbert
the keyboard and produced this interesting bit of text:
You seem to like to invoke Newton a lot in your explanations. So, if
everything has free will, what do you make of his first law of motion?
An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to
stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless
acted upon by an unbalanced force.
Seems to me there's no free will for that object.
--
Providence protects children and idiots. I know because I have tested
it.- Mark Twain
TomS
<2f5edcc8-ae26-4130...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Boikat
stated..."
[...snip...]
>Newton may have believed in God, but he was not a "creationist" in the
>modern usage of the term. But then again, you wouldn't understand
>that, and your off on Newton's era by a couple of centuries, and
>contrary to your idiotic claims, Newton *did* work within the bounds
>of the scientific method, even if they were not deliniated at the
>time. He made observations, formed a hypothesis, and tested them with
>additional observation. Even if he "prayed to the all Mighty" for an
>answer, he still did the actual work. If you disagree, please show
>were divine intervention figures into Newtonian physics. I'm not
>going to hold my breath though, since you won't find any, and rather
>than admit you're wrong, you'll just come up with more dishonest
>evasions and blathering. God knows you are going to emplay evasions
>and blather ranter than answer the question, and so do I. Of course,
>the other possibility is that you will simply ignore the question.
>There will be no great surprise there, either.
Check the Wikipedia article on Laplace, in particular the topic
"Stability of the solar system".
"Newton himself had doubted the possibility of a mathematical
solution to the whole, even concluding that periodic divine
intervention was necessary to guarantee the stability of the
solar system."
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
Ye Old One
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Not quoted text. No attribution. No context. It really takes a fool to
be so inconsiderate to others.
>In the theory of strong antcipation we find Newton's idea of perfect
>time, as distinct from relative time.
What were Newton's ideas on "perfect time"?
> While relative time proceeds per
>movement, perfect time proceeds per decision and the object may not
>move at all.
Objects to not make decisions.
>
>Newton was a creationist
Do you have evidence to that?
> and a freethinking man, he not let himself be
>subdued by the scientific method,
Newton was a real scientist.
> but also guarded his intuitions and
>his faith. Now he is on the cutting-edge of 21st century science.
Silly little dipshit!
Ye Old One
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
No quoted text. No attribution. No context. It really takes a fool
like you Nando to be so inconsiderate to others.
>The truth will march on people, there is no stopping it. And the truth
>here is that freedom is real, and embedded in the laws of the
>universe. Our universe has a future, and it's object stand in
>anticipation of that future. Freedom does not fit tightly in our
>skulls, freedom is too big, it fits the entire universe.
Minds have freedom. Minds can anticipate.
Objects have neither.
>
>You all have zero chance to proceed the way you are going, you can't
>continue looking only to the past, looking only at initial conditions.
>As sure as you all know that you can indeed choose between coffee and
>tea, you should all be sure that you all will lose the debate.
Yes, we can choose between coffee and tea, and we can also debate. We
can do both because we have a mind that is able to make a choice or
deliberate on a debate.
Objects can do neither.
>
>Now I will have coffee, to drink to the victory of creationism.
Creationism is religion, and religion would take us back to the dark
ages before science. As such it cannot win.
Bob Casanova
>The truth will march on people, there is no stopping it. And the truth
Translation from NandoSpeak: "Having failed utterly in both
logic and observation of reality, I will now declare victory
and run away".
Boikat
> "On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 09:36:51 -0700 (PDT), in article
> stated..."
> [...snip...]
>
> >Newton may have believed in God, but he was not a "creationist" in the
> >modern usage of the term. But then again, you wouldn't understand
> >that, and your off on Newton's era by a couple of centuries, and
> >contrary to your idiotic claims, Newton *did* work within the bounds
> >of the scientific method, even if they were not deliniated at the
> >time. He made observations, formed a hypothesis, and tested them with
> >additional observation. Even if he "prayed to the all Mighty" for an
> >answer, he still did the actual work. If you disagree, please show
> >were divine intervention figures into Newtonian physics. I'm not
> >going to hold my breath though, since you won't find any, and rather
> >than admit you're wrong, you'll just come up with more dishonest
> >evasions and blathering. God knows you are going to emplay evasions
> >and blather ranter than answer the question, and so do I. Of course,
> >the other possibility is that you will simply ignore the question.
> >There will be no great surprise there, either.
>
> Check the Wikipedia article on Laplace, in particular the topic
> "Stability of the solar system".
>
> "Newton himself had doubted the possibility of a mathematical
> solution to the whole, even concluding that periodic divine
> intervention was necessary to guarantee the stability of the
> solar system."
But is that officially, or even generally, part of what is considered
"Newtonian Physics"?
Boikat
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
[...]
> Check the Wikipedia article on Laplace, in particular the topic
> "Stability of the solar system".
> "Newton himself had doubted the possibility of a mathematical
> solution to the whole, even concluding that periodic divine
> intervention was necessary to guarantee the stability of the
> solar system."
As a side note -- I have often heard this said of Newton, but a
couple of years ago I spent a bit of time looking around and
couldn't find an original source. I did find a letter in which
Newton suggested that the fact that the Solar System was
so nearly planar seemed to require divine intervention. Now,
I'm not an expert on this by any means, but if anyone has an
actual reference to Newton's writings, I'd be interested.
Steve Carlip