Waddaya mean "Died for your sins?"
Hatter
with a paradox recently. All these christians going on about the guilt
trip of "Died for your sins." Now according to the mythology God/Jesus
knows that he isn't going to stay dead...what kind of sacrifice is
that? "God made sure his only begotten Son had a shitty weekend for
your sins," just doesn't get the guilt going enough for collection
plate I suppose.
Hatter
Just because you really are being hunted by killer robots from the
future does not mean you are not crazy.
Sorry, there was a firewall up on google at work, but if the person
who asked what my sig meant still cares, it comes from thinking about
the movie Terminator 2, where the character Sarah Conner is put in an
insane asylum because she is thought to be delusional. She is not,
killer robots from the future are hunting her. She, however, is still
not sane.
@ $ o
news:3b1c7a4.02050...@posting.google.com...
there's no such thing as christian mythology.
| a
David J. Vorous
> ...
> there's no such thing as christian mythology.
Sure there is; they call it "The Bible". Most of their myths
are associated with, or based on, that book. Lousy reading as
mythologies go.
--
David J. Vorous
Yosemite Llama Ranch
da...@TheLlamaRanch.com
http://www.TheLlamaRanch.com
UDP for WebTV
@ $ o
news:3CE1F8BD...@thellamaranch.com...
It's interesting how easily a single person can belittle the belief of
more than 200 million people.
| a
Ron Hammon
>
snip
> It's interesting how easily a single person can belittle the belief of
> more than 200 million people.
>
> | a
Did you hear? Some screwballs said that the Earth is round. Of all the
nerve!
--
Ron Hammon
Remove the "y" from ".nyet", when present, to reach me.
David J. Vorous
> ....
> It's interesting how easily a single person can belittle the belief of
> more than 200 million people.
What's even more interesting is how those, alleged, 200
million, belittle those that don't follow the christian mythology.
David J. Vorous
> @ $ o wrote:
>
> snip
>
>
>>It's interesting how easily a single person can belittle the belief of
>>more than 200 million people.
>
> Did you hear? Some screwballs said that the Earth is round. Of all the
> nerve!
NO! Put him in prison.
Ooh oh, is this going to get me a nasty gram from the
automated moderator? Maybe if I write all this it might not
notice.
Hatter
>
> there's no such thing as christian mythology.
>
involving supernatural powers complete with Gods and monsters that is
the belief structure of a primitive and superstious people?
Actually it,s pretty intense as mythologies go, but the internal
inconsistencies sometime make for a hard read.
Jones
<da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote:
>Ron Hammon wrote:
>> Did you hear? Some screwballs said that the Earth is round. Of all the
>> nerve!
>
>NO! Put him in prison.
The next thing you know some crazy is going to say that god
didn't make all the animals just like they are and that the all
missing lines just didn't have enough sense to get aboard with Noah.
"Evolution" (part 1 of 4) was on PBS las night, BTW. 9:00PM
Tuesdays, right after Scientific American Frontiers, for the next
three weeks. Times may, of course, vary.
And, hey, support your Public Television station. [Yes, of
course, I do. I'm a member of "The Friends of WOSU", and I volunteer
as "pitch talent" during the pledge drives. If you watch PBS pledge
drives in Columbus, Ohio, you may have seen me asking you support the
station. And, yes, being a PBS-supporting, ALCU member, Prius-driving
(gas/electric hybrid Super-Ultra low emission), atheist is a lonely
position in Central Ohio. But when you're right, you're right.]
-Jones Atheist Rev #333
Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat!
Military Phonetic version of my address to spoof spam: jones at
November Echo Tango Sierra Echo Tango dot Charlie Oscar Mike
1010011010
>
> "Evolution" (part 1 of 4) was on PBS las night, BTW. 9:00PM
> Tuesdays, right after Scientific American Frontiers, for the next
> three weeks. Times may, of course, vary.
How was the first part?
Are they proselytizing for the new secular ideology? or is it actually
informative and not too enthusiastic?
Aufwiederlesen
1010011010 ━)
David J. Vorous
> ...
> So what do you call a group of shared setting fictional stories
> involving supernatural powers complete with Gods and monsters that is
> the belief structure of a primitive and superstious people?
The U.S. Congress.
Craig Haggart, SSRL Accelerator Ops Group
> It's interesting how easily a single person can belittle the
> belief of more than 200 million people.
Well, that shouldn't be at all difficult for you to understand,
since you "belittle" the beliefs of even MORE people who don't
share your own cherished myth. (Clue: There are over 6 billion
people on earth; most of them are theists who don't believe in
YOUR myth.)
Might as well throw in clue #2 (as if it has a snowball's chance
of doing any good): The fact that a lot people might believe
something silly doesn't make such belief any less silly.
--
--
-Craig Haggart
hag...@slac.stanford.edu
Sunnyvale, California
@ $ o
snip
>
> What's even more interesting is how those, alleged, 200
> million, belittle those that don't follow the christian mythology.
again, amazing how one can generalize the beliefs of, alleged,
200 million people into following a single set of beliefs.
| a
David J. Vorous
Why not? You do. Just because 200 million people believe in a
mythology, doesn't make it real. We don't get to vote on reality.
@ $ o
> make it real. We don't get to vote on reality.
This is true. But just because 200 million people believe in evolution
doesn't necessarily make that "real" either.
Ron Hammon
Right. The process of evolution does not require anyone to believe in
it for it to be true. The earth did not need anyone to believe that it
was spherical for that to be true.
You're the one who was interested "that a single person could belittle
the belief of 200 million people". You gave weight to the popularity of
an idea demonstrating its validity. Now, you're crawfishing by yielding
your original stance and trying (unsuccessfully) to make the opposite
claim against science. Just get over it. Mythology will always
eventually lose to science.
@ $ o
> Right. The process of evolution does not require anyone to believe in
> it for it to be true. The earth did not need anyone to believe that it
> was spherical for that to be true.
>
> You're the one who was interested "that a single person could belittle
> the belief of 200 million people". You gave weight to the popularity of
> an idea demonstrating its validity. Now, you're crawfishing by yielding
> your original stance and trying (unsuccessfully) to make the opposite
> claim against science. Just get over it. Mythology will always
> eventually lose to science.
>
No, actually I wasn't attesting to the validity of the idea, but rather the
trite belittlement of the belief of the people who follow this idea.
When you say "the process of evolution... the earth...," you're positing an
unsubstiated theory versus a known fact. I believe it's still called a
"theory" of evolution. In the same regards, I believe it's still called a
"theory" of the Big Bang.
| a
Ron Hammon
>
snip
> When you say "the process of evolution... the earth...," you're positing an
> unsubstiated theory versus a known fact.
Exactly how would you propose to "prove" an idea as a "known fact", with
certainty, that plays out over many thousands of generations? No matter
how sure and consistent the idea is, the "proof" is elusive in our
lifetime. This is nothing new. Most technological innovations were
harnessed without a complete explanation of the underlying mechanisms.
I believe it's still called a
> "theory" of evolution.
Not really. I think that the "Process of Evolution" is more
appropriate. I advise Bible thumpers to give up this silly rejection of
evolution as it will only threaten their religion when evolution is
finally embraced by all, rather than most. Science always wins.
In the same regards, I believe it's still called a
> "theory" of the Big Bang.
>
Why do you guys always lump evolution with Big Bang? These two examples
are SO dissimilar. For what its worth, I happen to be unconvinced about
expansion of the universe and its natural conclusion, the Big Bang.
However, being reared on a farm and actually traced selective breeding,
I was absolutely convinced of the truth of evolution the very moment
that it was suggested to me. How others can play "hear no evil, see no
evil" is beyond me.
@ $ o
Am I necessarily a theist? There's no evidence to the contrary?
> > It's interesting how easily a single person can belittle the
> > belief of more than 200 million people.
>
> Well, that shouldn't be at all difficult for you to understand,
> since you "belittle" the beliefs of even MORE people who don't
> share your own cherished myth. (Clue: There are over 6 billion
> people on earth; most of them are theists who don't believe in
> YOUR myth.)
>
Where exactly do I belittle the beliefs of people? If I might have
convinced you of the contrary, I have a high respect for the beliefs of
others.
> Might as well throw in clue #2 ...
>: The fact that a lot people might believe
> something silly doesn't make such belief any less silly.
>
Who is the authority in determining the potential "silliness" of any
beliefs? Please, stop with the bickering.
| a
Ron Hammon
>
snip
>
> beliefs?
Everyone. Haven't you noticed? Don't you feel that worship of Jupiter
is silly?
> Please, stop with the bickering.
I saw no "bickering" lately until you showed up. What, exactly, do you
hope to acomplish here?
@ $ o
> > Who is the authority in determining the potential "silliness" of any
> > beliefs?
>
> Everyone. Haven't you noticed? Don't you feel that worship of Jupiter
> is silly?
>
Worship of Jupiter... well, here's the logic. If there is no god, there's no
authority. There being no authority, there is no absolute. Whereby
everything which follows is relative, where "worship of Jupiter" cannot be
judged.
> > Please, stop with the bickering.
>
> I saw no "bickering" lately until you showed up. What, exactly, do you
> hope to acomplish here?
>
I was a mere observer before I decided to even up some unwarranted
one-sidedness.
| a
Craig Haggart, SSRL Accelerator Ops Group
> Who is the authority in determining the potential
> "silliness" of any beliefs?
Well, I think we've sufficiently established the fact that
it isn't YOU!
David J. Vorous
> ...
> When you say "the process of evolution... the earth...," you're positing an
> unsubstiated theory versus a known fact. I believe it's still called a
> "theory" of evolution. In the same regards, I believe it's still called a
> "theory" of the Big Bang.
Your usage of the term 'theory' demonstrates gross ignorance
on the topic at hand. Evolution is a known fact, not an
"unsubstantiated theory." A good example of an
"unsubstantiated theory" would be a belief in gods.
Your computer works via computer theory, arrived at via number
theory and electrical theory. Some of the power running your
computer may be generated via nuclear theory. The theory of
gravity is holding your computer down on the desk. We are
communicating via language theory. Understand yet? 'Theory'
does not mean 'untrue' or 'guess'.
Craig Haggart, SSRL Accelerator Ops Group
"Lee Doe" (gtg...@prism.gatech.edu) said:
> I was a mere observer before I decided to even up some
> unwarranted one-sidedness.
Good thing, too! Theism gets *such* short shrift in atheist
newsgroups.
But hey, great job "evening it up." You were very convincing!
Mp. Mph. MphphBWAHAHAHA!
Jim Rogers
> "Ron Hammon" wrote:
> > > Who is the authority in determining the potential "silliness"
> > > of any beliefs?
> > Everyone. Haven't you noticed? Don't you feel that worship of
> > Jupiter is silly?
> Worship of Jupiter... well, here's the logic. If there is no god,
> there's no authority.
No _moral_ authority, that is, nor absolute authority on "what is
true."
> There being no authority, there is no absolute.
There still may exist objective, or absolute truth, just not moral
absolutes nor an authority figure that knows all truth and might
reveal some of it to you.
> Whereby everything which follows is relative, where "worship of
> Jupiter" cannot be judged. ...
It can be judged relatively, and insanity is not necessarily immoral.
Jim
1010011010
Exactly so. It's the fact that evolution is an observable occurance
that makes it real, not any person's belief in it.
Aufwiederlesen
1010011010 ━)
Jones
I don't know how the remainder will go, but the first part was
mainly a dramatization of Darwin's life starting some time after his
famous sea voyage, interspersed with 'breaks' from the story for
explanations. For example, one 'time out' explained that, while
Darwin was sure about selection and "survival of the fittest", he had
no explanation for how such characteristics might be passed from
generation to generation with random changes being introduced now and
then, since DNA and genetics was completely unknown.
Like most PBS (IMO), very informative and little to no
proselytizing.
(Imagine a world where Darwin and Gergor Mendle got to meet and
exchange notes...)
-Jones
1010011010
>
> Worship of Jupiter... well, here's the logic. If there is no god, there's no
> authority.
Can you please detail the steps taken from "no god" to "no authority,"
because as it stands it appears to be non sequitur.
> There being no authority, there is no absolute.
Perhaps once you detail the god/authority link this second set will make
more sense, but just in case, please expand on your logic for this
couplet as well.
> Whereby everything which follows is relative, where "worship of Jupiter"
> cannot be judged.
And after all that you come to such a lame finish. Sure "Worship of
Jupiter" can be judged in the absences of gods, authorities, and
absolutes. Using relative criteria yeilds a relative judgement. The
judgement is considered valid so long as the criteria are also
considered valid.
Who judges what criteria of valid and how?
That's the beauty of the system, it's an grand system of self-reference
and feedback loops. Validity is largely a matter of self-consistency
and coherent interaction with other critical systems (I.E. other people).
Aufwiederlesen
1010011010 ━)
Gary Rockley
> I was a mere observer before I decided to even up some unwarranted
> one-sidedness.
Let me just make sure I understand this.
You visit an atheist forum and whine about the injustice of atheists
not embracing your god.
Try this. Go to a book store, open a dictionary, look up the word
atheism. Once you've done that - and assuming your limited intellect
can interpret the work being done by your neurons - pull your head out
of your arse and f. off.
You are an imbecile of the first order.
gary
--
Remove "-REMThis-" from email address to reply.
Gary Rockley
> So what do you call a group of shared setting fictional stories
> involving supernatural powers complete with Gods and monsters that is
> the belief structure of a primitive and superstious people?
Ah, those were primitive superstitious people worshiping primitive
gods. These days we have sophisticated people (they have digital
watches) worshipping a sophisticated god (apparently he plants
dinosaur bones to make us think the Earth is older than 6,000 years).
@ $ o
>
>
> > I was a mere observer before I decided to even up some
> > unwarranted one-sidedness.
>
> Good thing, too! Theism gets *such* short shrift in atheist
> newsgroups.
>
> But hey, great job "evening it up." You were very convincing!
>
> Mp. Mph. MphphBWAHAHAHA!
>
| a
@ $ o
> > > > Who is the authority in determining the potential "silliness"
> > > > of any beliefs?
>
> > > Everyone. Haven't you noticed? Don't you feel that worship of
> > > Jupiter is silly?
>
> > Worship of Jupiter... well, here's the logic. If there is no god,
> > there's no authority.
>
> No _moral_ authority, that is, nor absolute authority on "what is
> true."
The lines between moral authority and judicial authority can be blurred.
> > There being no authority, there is no absolute.
>
> There still may exist objective, or absolute truth, just not moral
> absolutes nor an authority figure that knows all truth and might
> reveal some of it to you.
Objective, to what extent? Pursuit of knowledge, money, power, etc.? It's a
meaningless existence.
> > Whereby everything which follows is relative, where "worship of
> > Jupiter" cannot be judged. ...
>
> It can be judged relatively, and insanity is not necessarily immoral.
It's a rhetorical argument. As we've seen, the standards for various things
(such as judiciary matters, moral matters) have changed, for better or for
worse. Judgement without authority lacks absolutism, whereby rules become
changed.
@ $ o
> Can you please detail the steps taken from "no god" to "no authority,"
> because as it stands it appears to be non sequitur.
>
When there's no absolute authority (this being a supreme being), standards
are governed by the general populace (hence the voting system). Given the
age we live in, we as a general populace determine lesser authorities such
as President, mayor, etc., to live our lives without having to deal with too
much baggage.
> > There being no authority, there is no absolute.
>
> Perhaps once you detail the god/authority link this second set will make
> more sense, but just in case, please expand on your logic for this
> couplet as well.
>
In the aforementioned point, no absolute authority means no absolutism. I
think Ron or David made the distinction of having absolute "facts" and/or
"moral" authority. There seems to be no difference where moral authority
and judiciary authority is concerned. How else can a robber who broke into
a house with the intent of robbing be paid for breaking his leg? (refer
below in regards to absolute "facts" being absolute)
> > Whereby everything which follows is relative, where "worship of
Jupiter"
> > cannot be judged.
>
> And after all that you come to such a lame finish. Sure "Worship of
> Jupiter" can be judged in the absences of gods, authorities, and
> absolutes. Using relative criteria yeilds a relative judgement. The
> judgement is considered valid so long as the criteria are also
> considered valid.
>
ha. I like the "lame finish" bit.
> Who judges what criteria of valid and how?
> That's the beauty of the system, it's an grand system of self-reference
> and feedback loops. Validity is largely a matter of self-consistency
> and coherent interaction with other critical systems (I.E. other people).
I've got another posting on this somewhere, but what I essentially said was
that the matter of self-consistency makes everything relative to the ideas o
f someone else. I can say white is black, black is white, etc., and with
enough people to agree, you'll be wrong. People take for granted the fact
of "black" being "black" when it could really be "white."
| a
@ $ o
> Let me just make sure I understand this.
>
> You visit an atheist forum and whine about the injustice of atheists
> not embracing your god.
>
> Try this. Go to a book store, open a dictionary, look up the word
> atheism. Once you've done that - and assuming your limited intellect
> can interpret the work being done by your neurons - pull your head out
> of your <snip>
Who said I was a theist?
I realize that atheism is yes, belief in no "god" figure.
| a
@ $ o
>
> Ah, those were primitive superstitious people worshiping primitive
> gods. These days we have sophisticated people (they have digital
> watches) worshipping a sophisticated god (apparently he plants
> dinosaur bones to make us think the Earth is older than 6,000 years).
>
> gary
haha.
Craig Haggart, SSRL Accelerator Ops Group
> who said I was a theist?
If you're an atheist, I'm from Mars. No atheist I've
ever known has been as clueless as you about the basic
concepts.
But hey, feel free to set the record straight, here and
now. Are you denying that you're a theist? (Hint: It's
a yes-or-no question.)
David J. Vorous
> who said I was a theist?
Your support of theism.
@ $ o
>
> But hey, feel free to set the record straight, here and
> now. Are you denying that you're a theist? (Hint: It's
> a yes-or-no question.)
>
I neither support nor deny evolution or theism.
| a
@ $ o
| a
@ $ o
>
> Your usage of the term 'theory' demonstrates gross ignorance
> on the topic at hand. Evolution is a known fact, not an
> "unsubstantiated theory."
Evolution from the amoeba in the sludge pond to the human race is far from a
known fact. The evolution that took place then hasn't been verified yet.
> Your computer works via computer theory, arrived at via number
> theory and electrical theory. Some of the power running your
> computer may be generated via nuclear theory. The theory of
> gravity is holding your computer down on the desk. We are
> communicating via language theory. Understand yet? 'Theory'
> does not mean 'untrue' or 'guess'.
> --
I believe a computer works by computer logic, which is far different from
theory. 1's and 0's basically, and if you're more familiar with the logic
circuits such as and, nand, or, xor, xand, etc., then that's a plus.
There's no such thing as electrical theory. Not that I've heard of, in any
case.
The last time gravity was referred to as a theory was when the concept was
originally envisioned. Theory - An assumption based on limited information
or knowledge; a conjecture.
| a
Jones
<gtg...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
> Theory - An assumption based on limited information
>or knowledge; a conjecture.
Nope.
That is a hypothesis. [From Webster's hypothesis: an
unproved theory tentatively accepted to explain certain facts.]
In science, as opposed to the every day use of the term, an
established theory is as good as it gets.
@ $ o
> Exactly how would you propose to "prove" an idea as a "known fact", with
> certainty, that plays out over many thousands of generations? No matter
> how sure and consistent the idea is, the "proof" is elusive in our
> lifetime. This is nothing new.
I agree. This can be held against evolution, whereby it remains theoretical
and not accepted as fact.
My fault, the reference to the Big Bang came spontaneously, as you
suggested. But the evidence is there, as basis for why so many
astrophysicists subscribe to it. As to why a fact-based subscriber such as
yourself would be "unconvinced" about the expansion of the universe is
beyond me.
What I'd like to point out is that evolution needs to be wholly and
undeniably true for all cases. How you came to accept evolution is
understandable. You can breed cows because they have genes/chromosomes/DNA,
which are immediately apparent when they are born through the phenotype.
This is a fact. They will be prevented from evolving through artificial
selection and the various rules which apply to the Hardy-Weinberg rules.
But bacteria to humans? It's a stretch.
> How others can play "hear no evil, see no evil" is beyond me.
I'm not sure what you're referencing.
| a
@ $ o
> > Theory - An assumption based on limited information
> >or knowledge; a conjecture.
>
>
> Nope.
>
> That is a hypothesis. [From Webster's hypothesis: an
> unproved theory tentatively accepted to explain certain facts.]
>
> In science, as opposed to the every day use of the term, an
> established theory is as good as it gets.
>
This seems a bit overdone, but: http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=theory
the·o·ry Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries
1.. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts
or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely
accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2.. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory
statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to
practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3.. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of
mathematics.
4.. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather
than theory.
5.. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or
judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return
to the scene of the crime.
6.. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
and
35 entries found for theory. The first 10 are listed below.
To select an entry, click on it. For more results, click here.
Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
Date: 1592
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science,
or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis
of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to
learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or
circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have
always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body
of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b
: an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a
concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
synonym see HYPOTHESIS
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
| a
David J. Vorous
> "David J. Vorous" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote:
>
>>Your usage of the term 'theory' demonstrates gross ignorance
>>on the topic at hand. Evolution is a known fact, not an
>>"unsubstantiated theory."
>>
>
> Evolution from the amoeba in the sludge pond to the human race is far from a
> known fact. The evolution that took place then hasn't been verified yet.
Where have you been for the last 50 years? And what has to be
verified? Evolution happened, get over it.
>>Your computer works via computer theory, arrived at via number
>>theory and electrical theory. Some of the power running your
>>computer may be generated via nuclear theory. The theory of
>>gravity is holding your computer down on the desk. We are
>>communicating via language theory. Understand yet? 'Theory'
>>does not mean 'untrue' or 'guess'.
>
> I believe a computer works by computer logic, which is far different from
> theory....
No, still a theory.
> The last time gravity was referred to as a theory was....
Daily by scientists. It's still a theory. You are using the
term 'theory' in the wrong way. It's a common error among theists.
David J. Vorous
> "Ron Hammon" <ham...@hiwaay.nyet> wrote:
>
>>Exactly how would you propose to "prove" an idea as a "known fact", with
>>certainty, that plays out over many thousands of generations? No matter
>>how sure and consistent the idea is, the "proof" is elusive in our
>>lifetime. This is nothing new.
>>
>
> I agree. This can be held against evolution, whereby it remains theoretical
> and not accepted as fact.
Wrong again. Evolution is an accepted fact. Any theories about
HOW it happened are open for debate.
David J. Vorous
> "Jones" <m...@see.the.sig> wrote:
>
>>>Theory - An assumption based on limited information
>>>or knowledge; a conjecture.
>>>
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> That is a hypothesis. [From Webster's hypothesis: an
>>unproved theory tentatively accepted to explain certain facts.]
>>
>> In science, as opposed to the every day use of the term, an
>>established theory is as good as it gets.
>>
>>
>
> This seems a bit overdone, but: http://www.dictionary....
Oh, I just love the dictionary game. I have about 8
dictionaries and can find a different definition in each one.
I just drag out the one that proves my point and I win.
Just go to http://www.talkorigins.org/ and you'll find many
answers to your problems there. Try this one first;
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
@ $ o
> > I agree. This can be held against evolution, whereby it remains
theoretical
> > and not accepted as fact.
>
>
> Wrong again. Evolution is an accepted fact. Any theories about
> HOW it happened are open for debate.
> --
Once again, evolution in its entirety is NOT an accepted fact. They've yet
to prove everything, as you (or Ron?) previously admitted.
| a
@ $ o
> Oh, I just love the dictionary game. I have about 8
> dictionaries and can find a different definition in each one.
> I just drag out the one that proves my point and I win.
>
> Just go to http://www.talkorigins.org/ and you'll find many
> answers to your problems there. Try this one first;
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
>
I knew it'd come to this. The key to this definition was its largely
non-partisan definition, though.
| a
@ $ o
> Where have you been for the last 50 years? And what has to be
> verified? Evolution happened, get over it.
The components that made DNA from RNA couldn't be reproduced in a lab even
though the odds were increased by a hundred-fold. This bit is common in
atheist circles, which backs my previous point...
> > I believe a computer works by computer logic, which is far different
from
> > theory....
>
>
> No, still a theory.
>
>
I'm looking at a computer engineering book right now. I think I have
grounds to say I would know. In any case, it's circumstancial, which can be
said for the next bit...
> > The last time gravity was referred to as a theory was....
>
>
> Daily by scientists. It's still a theory. You are using the
> term 'theory' in the wrong way. It's a common error among theists.
>
> --
I think there's a technical error here. Yes, there is a theory of gravity.
This is referred to in quantum physics and Einstein's energy equations. I
was thinking you meant the Law of gravity, which is relevant to the force
that prevents us from flying into outer space.
This precludes your "error among theists" bit because they are both valid
but relevant under different circumstances.
| a
Donny Brook
<gtg...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
>
>The components that made DNA from RNA couldn't be reproduced in a lab even
>though the odds were increased by a hundred-fold.
>
Referring to the two purine and two pyrimidine bases?
The ribose/deoxyribose backbone? The phosphodiesters/-triesters?
Of course they were all "reproduced in a lab", decades ago,
despite whatever hogwash about the odds you're posing as
hurdles. (Odds? What are you talking about? What are the odds
that you can build a house? An airplane? A microcomputer?
You need to know how, and you need the feedstock and some tools.)
What of it? How does that bear on the likelihood of the *natural*
process working as it has? Do you suppose that laboratory chemistry
technique is up to synthesizing all known organic products? It
isn't, and synthesis research is a huge part of applied science.
If you meant something sensible, perhaps you can redraft your
argument here so it's comprehensible to a fairly hard-working
undergraduate. If, as seems likely, you don't understand the
argument you're posting, intellectual honesty would require that you
stay silent on such points.
>This bit is common in
>atheist circles, which backs my previous point...
What on *earth* are you talking about?
(And do we know you by another name?)
Donny
David J. Vorous
> ...
> Once again, evolution in its entirety is NOT an accepted fact.
Why do you choose not to accept evolution? My guess would be
that if you were to accept evolution, your god would
disappear. Follow the links I gave you, and just keep
repeating: evolution is true and I must get over it.
David J. Vorous
> ...
> I knew it'd come to this....
Then why bother? Most of your arguments are sophomoric, or
below, so why don't you listen to those that are trying to
teach you something.
Here's a good place to start learning:
http://www.talkorigins.org/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
After you've studied that website, come back and we can chat
about it.
David J. Vorous
> ...
> The components that made DNA from RNA couldn't be reproduced in a lab...
I think that's called the Miller experiment. I've done it
myself. So it seems that your info is older than you think.
> I'm looking at a computer engineering book right now....
That's nice. Try a book on science or philosophy.
> I think there's a technical error here. Yes, there is a theory of gravity.
The error was not on my part. That theory will always remain a
theory even when proven beyond a doubt. Again, you are using
the word improperly.
Craig Haggart, SSRL Accelerator Ops Group
> I neither support nor deny evolution or theism.
Why do you keep pulling your pants down in public? Clue
#5: Evolution is not an inherent part of atheism. There
are many theists who believe in evolution, and atheism
does not in any way rest on the fact of evolution.
Clue #6: You have shown beyond the shadow of a doubt that
you believe in the Christian myth. That makes you a theist.
Case closed.
Aren't you going to be in trouble with Big Daddy In The Sky
for denying Christ?
Jim Rogers
> "Jones" <m...@see.the.sig> wrote:
> > > Theory - An assumption based on limited information
> > >or knowledge; a conjecture.
> > Nope.
> >
> > That is a hypothesis. [From Webster's hypothesis: an
> > unproved theory tentatively accepted to explain certain facts.]
> >
> > In science, as opposed to the every day use of the term, an
> > established theory is as good as it gets.
> This seems a bit overdone, but: http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=theory
>
> the·o·ry Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
> n. pl. the·o·ries
> 1.. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts
> or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely
> accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
That's the one that matters to science. In short, consider the word
theory to be the same as "explanation." That doesn't imply "not a
fact," does it?
Jim
------------
blah, blah, blah, add some text
add some text
add some text
here's some more
Jim Rogers
...
> > > god, there's no authority.
> > No _moral_ authority, that is, nor absolute authority on "what
> > is true."
> The lines between moral authority and judicial authority can be
> blurred.
objective reality, is all. An absolute authority on objective reality
would be some oracle you could go to find out "truth" on any subject.
I would agree that if there's no god, then there'd be no such
authority, because such authority implies omniscience.
Human judges can be wrong, even if they aren't theologians.
> > > There being no authority, there is no absolute.
> > There still may exist objective, or absolute truth, just not
> > moral absolutes nor an authority figure that knows all truth and
> > might reveal some of it to you.
> Objective, to what extent? Pursuit of knowledge, money, power,
> etc.? It's a meaningless existence.
"Objective" implies independent of opinion -- that which exists
regardless of whether you (the "subject" in "subjective truth")
believe in it or fully understand it. Like gravity, for instance: deny
it, and you'll still fall to the ground if you step off the precipice,
are heavier than air, and have no physical support.
> > > Whereby everything which follows is relative, where "worship
> > > of Jupiter" cannot be judged. ...
> > It can be judged relatively, and insanity is not necessarily
> > immoral.
> It's a rhetorical argument. As we've seen, the standards for
> various things (such as judiciary matters, moral matters) have
> changed, for better or for worse. Judgement without authority
> lacks absolutism, whereby rules become changed.
Lack of a divine, absolute lawgiver has no bearing on whether we puny
humans can render judgements per our own changeable standards.
Regarding Jupiter or the xian god, rational people can say "that makes
no sense, so I don't believe it," and that's a judgement. I don't
require a god's permission or powers to deny the existence of any.
Jim