Evolution?
MikeH
"Dr. Monkey Spank" <monke...@primate.beavisandbutthead.com> wrote:
>sailsman wrote:
>>
>> EVOLUTION=(MUTANTS)+(NATURAL SELECTION)+(TIME)
>Not a bad way of summing it up, I suppose.
>
>> It is unreal to think of how much of each of these three things
>> is needed to produce a human being.
>It's quite real, but of course, bible thumpers would rather believe in
>the supernatural.
>> For example; an atheist was asked;"why do men have nipples?"
>> The answer;"left-over from when we used to split in two".
>What a stupid piece of urban-legend hear-say xtian propaganda! Who was
>this "athiest"? What what his/her name? If the person was indeed an
>athiest, what does the words of ONE athiest have to say (statistically
>speaking) about atheists in general? This quote of yours is so
>incredibly stupid that it's hard to believe that anybody with an IQ at
>least in the normal range, with any scientific education, could say it
>with a straight face. Sounds like something a christian would say.
>> This makes me think of how one day, one of these early "monosex", or
>> should I say "no sex" human beings mutated with a vagina and all of
>> the other parts of the female anatomy needed to reproduce, including
>> the sensitive skin and desire to reproduce.
>You're as bad as Jahnu! Do you have ANY understanding of evolution? At
>all? You're making yourself to look like a raving idiot with your
>painfully misunderstood and twisted version of evolution. Crack open a
>book, will ya?
>> Of course a male had to
>> mutate very close to the same time, the two of them got together
>> started having sex and then of course we quit splitting in two.
>What a fucking moron.
>> Now that brings up more questions, like why did the splitters die
>> out?
>Bloody splitters! (had to get an MP reference in)
>> They say that when we get cold enough, our body will let our limbs
>> freeze in order to save the torso. Can you emagine how far you have
>Again, woefully misunderstood science. You body doesn't "let" your
>limbs freeze. It's plain heat transfer and thermodynamics. Surface
>area to volume ratios. Heat generation to heat loss ratios. Very
>understandable stuff.
>> to reach to say that this trait was brought about by evolution.
>> First someone had to mutate this way, then freeze, then this limbless
>> person had to reproduce enough to make it a common trait amoung all
>> human beings...
>Do you have any idea how much you're embarassing yourself?
>The rest snipped because it's more the same pitiful stupid crap, and
>hell, I don't want to take all the fun. Someone else can take over :-)
>--
>---------------------- Dr. Monkey Spank -----------------------
>Simian Disciplinary Systems Institute (SDSI) | Remove "primate"
>monke...@beavisandbutthead.com | for email reply
Robert Naeye, a writer for Astronomy magazine and anevolutionist,
wrote that life on earth is the result of " a long sequence of
improbable events (that) transpired in just the right way to bring
forth our existence, as if we had won a million-dollar lottery a
million times in a row."
That line of reasoning can probably be applied to every single
creature that exists today. The odds are stacked against it.
Yet, we are expected to believe that by chance evolution also produced
a male and a female at the same time in order for the new species to
be perpetuated. To compound the odds, we also have to believe that
the male and the female not only evolved at the same time but also in
the same place! No meeting, no procreation.
Certainly, it stretches the credulity to the limit to believe that
life exists in its millions of perfected forms as a result of
millions of gamble that paid off.
Mitony
Patricia Shanahan
MikeH wrote:
...
> That line of reasoning can probably be applied to every single
> creature that exists today. The odds are stacked against it.
> Yet, we are expected to believe that by chance evolution also produced
> a male and a female at the same time in order for the new species to
> be perpetuated. To compound the odds, we also have to believe that
> the male and the female not only evolved at the same time but also in
> the same place! No meeting, no procreation.
Wouldn't it be more likely that male and female developed by gradual
specialization within a previously hermaphrodite population? That way
they would automatically be in the same place at the same time.
Patricia Shanahan
pa...@cris.com
Dale Watson
MikeH wrote:
> Robert Naeye, a writer for Astronomy magazine and anevolutionist,
> wrote that life on earth is the result of " a long sequence of
> improbable events (that) transpired in just the right way to bring
> forth our existence, as if we had won a million-dollar lottery a
> million times in a row."
>
> That line of reasoning can probably be applied to every single
> creature that exists today. The odds are stacked against it.
> Yet, we are expected to believe that by chance evolution also produced
> a male and a female at the same time in order for the new species to
> be perpetuated. To compound the odds, we also have to believe that
> the male and the female not only evolved at the same time but also in
> the same place! No meeting, no procreation.
>
> Certainly, it stretches the credulity to the limit to believe that
> life exists in its millions of perfected forms as a result of
> millions of gamble that paid off.
>
> Mitony
DaleW wrote:
Bravo, Mike! How long will it take these "non-believers in fairy tales" to
quit believing their own "fairy tales"? Just let me win the lottery ONCE! I
love it! Keep it up.
Spyder4
MikeH wrote:
> Robert Naeye, a writer for Astronomy magazine and anevolutionist,
> wrote that life on earth is the result of " a long sequence of
> improbable events (that) transpired in just the right way to bring
> forth our existence, as if we had won a million-dollar lottery a
> million times in a row."
>
> That line of reasoning can probably be applied to every single
> creature that exists today. The odds are stacked against it.
Exactly, that's why a vast, vast, vast majority of species have became
extinct, this relatively minuscule number that is left are the lucky
ones.
> Yet, we are expected to believe that by chance evolution also produced
> a male and a female at the same time in order for the new species to
> be perpetuated.
No, it took about three billion years for this to occur. Do you know
how long that is? Right now, start counting once every second and you
will realize how long it took to make males and females when you finish
in time for the year 3000. It's not like some magic fairy (or God, if
you believe that) came out and said poof you have sex now.
>To compound the odds, we also have to believe that
> the male and the female not only evolved at the same time but also in
> the same place! No meeting, no procreation.
Nope, your off on that too. Rudimentary sexual reproduction does not
use males and females, cells just split DNA with eacch other.
>
> Certainly, it stretches the credulity to the limit to believe that
> life exists in its millions of perfected forms as a result of
> millions of gamble that paid off.
I'm not perfect, if you think you are, you should probably talk to a
shrink.
You aren't realizing how many organizisms had failed!
>
> Mitony
--
"To you I'm an atheist; To God, I'm the loyal opposition"
Woody Allen
"My theology, briefly, is that the universe was dictated but not
signed."
Christopher Morley
"An atheist is a man who has no invisible means of support."
John Buchan
"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."
Voltaire
"If god really existed, it would be neccesary to abolish Him"
Michael Bakunin
wf...@enter.netxx
On Sun, 13 Apr 1997 12:46:43 GMT, mi...@enterprise.net (MikeH) wrote:
>
>Certainly, it stretches the credulity to the limit to believe that
>life exists in its millions of perfected forms as a result of
>millions of gamble that paid off.
>
of course the logic behind this is equivalent to saying that you cant
play a card game because the probability of getting any particular 5
cards is 1/52*1/51*1/50....
such is the logic of creationism
delete the xx from my email address to reply
Jeff Acheson
> >Certainly, it stretches the credulity to the limit to believe that
> >life exists in its millions of perfected forms as a result of
> >millions of gamble that paid off.
> >
> of course the logic behind this is equivalent to saying that you cant
> play a card game because the probability of getting any particular 5
> cards is 1/52*1/51*1/50....
>
> such is the logic of creationism
The logic saying that we couldn't get to where we are because it is
improbable is undoubtably unfounded. After all, we're here somehow.
The problem is when you get down to the little steps. What is the
probability of a cell or even a bacteria forming completely by chance,
since these are the smallest self-contained forms of life? Let's make
it simpler, what is the probability of DNA forming by chance, since all
life on earth uses it to reproduce. I don't have exact figures, but I'm
willing to bet it makes winning the lottery look like a sure thing in
comparison.
You see while evolution on the macroscale of natural selection may be
plausible and possible, on the chemical scale there is no similar
mechanism to explain the origins of life. i.e. life needed to be
created before evolution could let it evolve. That is the big stepping
stone evolution will always face, it needs lifeforms to work so it can't
explain the origins of life.
Spyder4
Jeff Acheson wrote:
>
> The logic saying that we couldn't get to where we are because it is
> improbable is undoubtably unfounded. After all, we're here somehow.
> The problem is when you get down to the little steps. What is the
> probability of a cell or even a bacteria forming completely by chance,
> since these are the smallest self-contained forms of life? Let's make
> it simpler, what is the probability of DNA forming by chance, since all
> life on earth uses it to reproduce. I don't have exact figures, but I'm
> willing to bet it makes winning the lottery look like a sure thing in
> comparison.
I bet if you played the lottery constantly for four billion years you'd
win an awful lot. You see, the thing most creationists don't realize is
that the earth has existed for over 4 billion years, life has only
existed for a little over 1 billion years. That's alot of time and alot
of random stuff can happen.
Spyder4
David M. Rogers wrote:
>
> Spyder4 wrote:
> > I bet if you played the lottery constantly for four billion years you'd
> > win an awful lot. You see, the thing most creationists don't realize is
> > that the earth has existed for over 4 billion years, life has only
> > existed for a little over 1 billion years. That's alot of time and alot
> > of random stuff can happen.
>
> it's a pretty valid complaint, since no one really knows the
> probablitlies.
I don't think you know how much a billion is. Right now, put down
everything and start counting once every second. When you get to a
billion 3 and a half years from now, maybe you'll understand how long
that is.
For you probabilities question, think, as long as the probability of
life being created spontaneously at any given second is greater than 1 /
(9.5 * 10^16) the odds are that evolution occured. To even make it more
probable, consider the fact that the earth 3 billion years ago was even
more receptive to spontaneous creation due to the radiation and hellish
conditions.
David M. Rogers
Spyder4 wrote:
>
> Jeff Acheson wrote:
>
> >
> > The logic saying that we couldn't get to where we are because it is
> > improbable is undoubtably unfounded. After all, we're here somehow.
> > The problem is when you get down to the little steps. What is the
> > probability of a cell or even a bacteria forming completely by chance,
> > since these are the smallest self-contained forms of life? Let's make
> > it simpler, what is the probability of DNA forming by chance, since all
> > life on earth uses it to reproduce. I don't have exact figures, but I'm
> > willing to bet it makes winning the lottery look like a sure thing in
> > comparison.
> win an awful lot. You see, the thing most creationists don't realize is
> that the earth has existed for over 4 billion years, life has only
> existed for a little over 1 billion years. That's alot of time and alot
> of random stuff can happen.
The creationist response is, "It's a lot of time, but not enough." And
it's a pretty valid complaint, since no one really knows the
probablitlies.
--
The Young American
===============================================
Come on you raver,
You seer of visions,
Come on you painter,
You piper, you prisoner, and shine!
Pink Floyd
"Shine on You Crazy Diamond"
Wish You Were Here
===============================================
MikeH
>sailsman wrote:
>>
>> EVOLUTION=(MUTANTS)+(NATURAL SELECTION)+(TIME)
>What a fucking moron.
Robert Naeye, a writer for Astronomy magazine and anevolutionist,
wrote that life on earth is the result of " a long sequence of
improbable events (that) transpired in just the right way to bring
forth our existence, as if we had won a million-dollar lottery a
million times in a row."
That line of reasoning can probably be applied to every single
creature that exists today. The odds are stacked against it.
Yet, we are expected to believe that by chance evolution also produced
a male and a female at the same time in order for the new species to
be perpetuated. To compound the odds, we also have to believe that
the male and the female not only evolved at the same time but also in
the same place! No meeting, no procreation.
Certainly, it stretches the credulity to the limit to believe that
life exists in its millions of perfected forms as a result of
millions of gamble that paid off.
Mitony
Lloyd Zusman
On Wed, 16 Apr 1997 06:09:50 GMT, MikeH <mi...@enterprise.net> wrote:
>
> Robert Naeye, a writer for Astronomy magazine and anevolutionist,
> wrote that life on earth is the result of " a long sequence of
> improbable events (that) transpired in just the right way to bring
> forth our existence, as if we had won a million-dollar lottery a
> million times in a row."
Robert Naeye seems to not understand a basic principle of probability
which I will illustrate with this example:
Take an ordinary deck of cards, shuffle it as many times as you like,
and then start dealing out the cards, one by one, face up in front of
you. Record, in order, the sequence of cards that result.
Since there are 52 unique cards in a deck (assuming no jokers in this
example), the chances that this exact sequence of cards shows up is
one out of (52 x 51 x 50 x ... x 2 x 1). This is an exceedingly small
probability. And yet, it will have happened, since you will have the
cards right there in front of you.
Now, reshuffle the cards and do this again. There is an extremely low
probability that your original sequence will show up a second time in
a row, but that doesn't change the fact that the original sequence did
indeed show up.
The same applies in the theory that life evolved to its current
state randomly. The chances if it happening twice in a row are
exceedingly small, but nevertheless, it happened just the way
it did in the same way that your first sequence of cards occurred
just as it did.
> That line of reasoning can probably be applied to every single
> creature that exists today. The odds are stacked against it.
This line of reasoning can be applied to every single 52-card sequence
that can be randomly dealt from a fair deck of cards. The odds are
stacked against any particular sequence.
> Yet, we are expected to believe that by chance evolution also produced
> a male and a female at the same time in order for the new species to
> be perpetuated.
Yet, we are expected to believe that by chance, the particular 52-card
sequence you have dealt in the example above actually did occur.
> [ ... ] To compound the odds, we also have to believe that
> the male and the female not only evolved at the same time but also in
> the same place! No meeting, no procreation.
>
> Certainly, it stretches the credulity to the limit to believe that
> life exists in its millions of perfected forms as a result of
> millions of gamble that paid off.
Certainly, it stretches the credulity [sic] to the limit to believe
that the sequence of cards you dealt actually came about randomly.
--
Lloyd Zusman
l...@asfast.com
IG (Slim) Simpson
"David M. Rogers" <mca...@Auburn.campus.mci.net> wrote:
>Spyder4 wrote:
>>
>> Jeff Acheson wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > The logic saying that we couldn't get to where we are because it is
>> > improbable is undoubtably unfounded. After all, we're here somehow.
>> > The problem is when you get down to the little steps. What is the
>> > probability of a cell or even a bacteria forming completely by chance,
>> > since these are the smallest self-contained forms of life? Let's make
>> > it simpler, what is the probability of DNA forming by chance, since all
>> > life on earth uses it to reproduce. I don't have exact figures, but I'm
>> > willing to bet it makes winning the lottery look like a sure thing in
>> > comparison.
>> I bet if you played the lottery constantly for four billion years you'd
>> win an awful lot. You see, the thing most creationists don't realize is
>> that the earth has existed for over 4 billion years, life has only
>> existed for a little over 1 billion years. That's alot of time and alot
>> of random stuff can happen.
>The creationist response is, "It's a lot of time, but not enough." And
>it's a pretty valid complaint, since no one really knows the
>probablitlies.
Here in Ontario we have a weekly lottery, often for millions of
dollars, called 6/49. The winner must simply pick six numbers from 1
to 49, in no particular order. The chances of winning this lottery is
a little less than 1 in 14,000,000. Given 4 billion (4,000,000,000)
years, buying one ticket a week, I would win 14,857 times.
Not so improbable , then, that I should win at least once; and once is
all it takes.
#38 Slim
False return address. Real one is ssim...@cnwl.igs.net
How ceaselessly Grendel harassed......Beowulf
John P. Boatwright
Slime wrote:
> Here in Ontario we have a weekly lottery, often for millions of
> dollars, called 6/49. The winner must simply pick six numbers from 1
> to 49, in no particular order. The chances of winning this lottery is
> a little less than 1 in 14,000,000. Given 4 billion (4,000,000,000)
> years, buying one ticket a week, I would win 14,857 times.
> Not so improbable , then, that I should win at least once; and once is
> all it takes.
But you'd be dead way before the first time winning. Same with all
these HOPED FOR CHANCES to occur:
* Two identcally mutated flies
* but of opposite sex
* find each other
* and fertilize
* and have offspring
* with identical mutations
* that don't revert back to the original form
* And those offspring live on
* and find new mates
* with identical mutations
* and fertilize
* and have offspring....
What are the chances of this happening maybe
1e20 times or so (assuming were talking
about all the massively complex changes that
would have had to occur for ALL species and
the changes needed to get from chemical mush
to male/female/child systems).
Laughable at best.
Good thing God made it all and Jesus died for our sins.
Spyder4
John P. Boatwright wrote:
>
> Slime wrote:
>
> > Here in Ontario we have a weekly lottery, often for millions of
> > dollars, called 6/49. The winner must simply pick six numbers from 1
> > to 49, in no particular order. The chances of winning this lottery is
> > a little less than 1 in 14,000,000. Given 4 billion (4,000,000,000)
> > years, buying one ticket a week, I would win 14,857 times.
> > Not so improbable , then, that I should win at least once; and once is
> > all it takes.
>
> But you'd be dead way before the first time winning. Same with all
> these HOPED FOR CHANCES to occur:
>
> * Two identcally mutated flies
> * but of opposite sex
> * find each other
> * and fertilize
> * and have offspring
> * with identical mutations
> * that don't revert back to the original form
> * And those offspring live on
> * and find new mates
> * with identical mutations
> * and fertilize
> * and have offspring....
Look, you obviously have no understanding of genetics and evolution and
I don't think that it's worth wasting bandwidth to explain it all to you
when you could just go to a local library and look it up yourself.
Start off by reading something easy like _The Panda's Thumb_ by Jay
Gould.
Creationist arguments are:
> Laughable at best.
>
> Good thing God made it all and Jesus died for our sins.
I thought Jesus died because he had nailed through his wrists and was
put on a stake for a couple of days. And it wouldn't have been our
sins, it would have been the sins of the Jews that put him up there.
John Ings
>* Two identcally mutated flies
>* but of opposite sex
>* find each other
>* and fertilize
>* and have offspring
>* with identical mutations
>* that don't revert back to the original form
>
>* And those offspring live on
>* and find new mates
>* with identical mutations
>* and fertilize
>* and have offspring....
>
>What are the chances of this happening
Excellent.
Have you studied genetics at all?
A mutation occurs in one gene.
This gene has no effect on the fly that bears it becuase it is a
recessive gene.
It has no effect on the fly's progeny either because is overpowered by
the dominant genes of the fly's mate.
But THEIR progeny will all bear that recessive gene, Thousands of
them, and the chances that a pair bearing that recessive gene will
mate are dead certain.
>maybe 1e20 times or so (assuming were talking
>about all the massively complex changes that
>would have had to occur for ALL species and
>the changes needed to get from chemical mush
>to male/female/child systems).
>
>Laughable at best.
What's laughable is your poor comprehension of genetics and
the mathematical masturbation you indulged in to get that 1e20
David M. Rogers
IG (Slim) Simpson wrote:
>
> "David M. Rogers" <mca...@Auburn.campus.mci.net> wrote:
>
> >Spyder4 wrote:
> >>
> >> Jeff Acheson wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > The logic saying that we couldn't get to where we are because it is
> >> > improbable is undoubtably unfounded. After all, we're here somehow.
> >> > The problem is when you get down to the little steps. What is the
> >> > probability of a cell or even a bacteria forming completely by chance,
> >> > since these are the smallest self-contained forms of life? Let's make
> >> > it simpler, what is the probability of DNA forming by chance, since all
> >> > life on earth uses it to reproduce. I don't have exact figures, but I'm
> >> > willing to bet it makes winning the lottery look like a sure thing in
> >> > comparison.
> >> I bet if you played the lottery constantly for four billion years you'd
> >> win an awful lot. You see, the thing most creationists don't realize is
> >> that the earth has existed for over 4 billion years, life has only
> >> existed for a little over 1 billion years. That's alot of time and alot
> >> of random stuff can happen.
>
> >The creationist response is, "It's a lot of time, but not enough." And
> >it's a pretty valid complaint, since no one really knows the
> >probablitlies.
>
> dollars, called 6/49. The winner must simply pick six numbers from 1
> to 49, in no particular order. The chances of winning this lottery is
> a little less than 1 in 14,000,000. Given 4 billion (4,000,000,000)
> years, buying one ticket a week, I would win 14,857 times.
> Not so improbable , then, that I should win at least once; and once is
> all it takes.
And someone will win everytime...
David M. Rogers
> wrote that life on earth is the result of " a long sequence of
> improbable events (that) transpired in just the right way to bring
> forth our existence, as if we had won a million-dollar lottery a
> million times in a row."
>
> creature that exists today. The odds are stacked against it.
> a male and a female at the same time in order for the new species to
> the male and the female not only evolved at the same time but also in
> the same place! No meeting, no procreation.
>
> Certainly, it stretches the credulity to the limit to believe that
> life exists in its millions of perfected forms as a result of
> millions of gamble that paid off.
>
If this were the only possible outcome, yes. But evolution says life
could have evolved in any one of enumerable ways. We're lucky to be
here, but if we weren't, someone else would be. The world might have
been populated by sentient fungi (or something).
Reproduction is not too big a jump. Most likely it began with a kind of
androgenous DNA exchange (as performed by bacteria) that eventually
specialized into male and female as creatured became more complex.
Males and females would not have developed seperately, but together. If
you look at basic life forms, such as worms, you will see that there is
not much differentiation between male and female. Earthworms, for
example are both. Given the enormous evolutionary benefits of multiple
partner reproduction, it is not surprising that it developed.
It does not stretch my credibiblity to believe that someone, somewhere
will win the lottery, even if I know my personal chances are very low.
Unknown
-snip-
>There's something wrong with this argument though, it kind of
>implies it's possible that there wouldn't be life at all. I find
>that unlikely since life is meaningful, which means it's intended to
>be. So in the end it's still a creation, by God.
Please define "meaningful." That to me sounds like a pretty relative
term. For example: A way for me to eliminate everything I dislike, to
me is pretty meaningful. That doesn't mean it's intended to be.
So in the end "meaningful" is still a relative term that means nothing
in the grand view of things, whatever that might be.
Iife is a result of the exact conditions happening with the exact
ingredients. If a certain condition does not exist or is not in the
exact proportion that is needed, life does not happen. Meaningful?
That is relative.
>
>Nando
==================================
+Thumpert the Fascist Cotton-Tail+
henry knight : atheist #281
email: hkn...@banyan.com
"Bowling ball size rabbit pellets
means bunny won't cuddle."
- Robert Williams
==================================
Spyder4
Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>
> l...@asfast.com (Lloyd Zusman) wrote:
>
> >The same applies in the theory that life evolved to its current
> >state randomly. The chances if it happening twice in a row are
> >exceedingly small, but nevertheless, it happened just the way
> >it did in the same way that your first sequence of cards occurred
> >just as it did.
>
> implies it's possible that there wouldn't be life at all.
> I find
> that unlikely since life is meaningful, which means it's intended to
> be. So in the end it's still a creation, by God.
Nando Ronteltap
l...@asfast.com (Lloyd Zusman) wrote:
>The same applies in the theory that life evolved to its current
>state randomly. The chances if it happening twice in a row are
>exceedingly small, but nevertheless, it happened just the way
>it did in the same way that your first sequence of cards occurred
>just as it did.
There's something wrong with this argument though, it kind of
implies it's possible that there wouldn't be life at all. I find
that unlikely since life is meaningful, which means it's intended to
be. So in the end it's still a creation, by God.
Nando
G. Marcaigh
> Nevermind, I was wrong, I guess she didn't listen.
>
>
> --
> "To you I'm an atheist; To God, I'm the loyal opposition"
>
> Woody Allen
>
> "An atheist is a man who has no invisible means of support."
>
> John Buchan
>
> "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."
>
> Voltaire
>
> "If god really existed, it would be neccesary to abolish Him"
>
Michael Bakunin
A discussion of mathematical odds
The odds of life evolving in exactly the same manner again is very small.
However, in any discussion of odds it must be remembered that odds and
probabilty do not mean evolution is impossible.
A good example is the rolling of a die. There is a one in six chance of
rolling a six. The chance of rolling two successive sixes is 1 in (6 X 6)
36. The chance of three successive sixes is 1 in (6X6X6) 216. But I have
seen these events happen in Vegas.
A low probabity when used in the context of aeons of time becomes a bit
of a smoke screen to fight the evolution argument. Low probability does
not mean impossible. It does not mean unlikely either, just a low chance
of it happening. It is like trying to win a lottery. The chance of anyone
winning a lottery of six random numbers is incredibly high, but people are
winning.
The fact is that the mathematical argument is good for developing a model
of the chances of evolution developing into humanity. Regardless of the
probability, we are here. That much is certain. In the larger context
of the universe we are here, and it is likely that life has also developed
elsewhere using a different model. This does not mean that humans have
not developed out there, but the probabilty is low.
Using numbers to say that evolution is impossible is intellectually
dishonest.
Nando Ronteltap
Spyder4 <Spy...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>> l...@asfast.com (Lloyd Zusman) wrote:
>>
>> >state randomly. The chances if it happening twice in a row are
>> >exceedingly small, but nevertheless, it happened just the way
>> >it did in the same way that your first sequence of cards occurred
>> >just as it did.
>>
>> There's something wrong with this argument though, it kind of
>> implies it's possible that there wouldn't be life at all.
>EXACTLY! A XTIAN THAT LISTENS!
>> I find
>> that unlikely since life is meaningful, which means it's intended to
>> be. So in the end it's still a creation, by God.
>Nevermind, I was wrong, I guess she didn't listen.
That's a he, Nanda is the female version of my name. Too bad those
pesky living creatures are there to invalidate your theories that
don't support will of any kind.
Nando
Spyder4
this theory on the back of the cereal box? I doesn't sound much like
the theory I know.
> Nanda
--
"Belief in God is an expression of infantile helplessness."
Freud
Monwhea Jeng
Spyder4 <Spy...@concentric.net> writes:
>David M. Rogers wrote:
>> Spyder4 wrote:
>> > I bet if you played the lottery constantly for four billion years you'd
>> > win an awful lot. You see, the thing most creationists don't realize is
>> > that the earth has existed for over 4 billion years, life has only
>> > existed for a little over 1 billion years. That's alot of time and alot
>> > of random stuff can happen.
>>
>> The creationist response is, "It's a lot of time, but not enough." And
>> it's a pretty valid complaint, since no one really knows the
>> probablitlies.
>For you probabilities question, think, as long as the probability of
>life being created spontaneously at any given second is greater than 1 /
>(9.5 * 10^16) the odds are that evolution occured. To even make it more
>probable, consider the fact that the earth 3 billion years ago was even
>more receptive to spontaneous creation due to the radiation and hellish
>conditions.
Also add in the fact that the life doesn't need to form on "Earth."
The life can form on any of trillions (exact number unknown, but pretty
large) of planets. After all, whichever planet we form on is going to be
the one that we end up calling "Earth."
Momo
David J. Vorous
G. Marcaigh wrote:
snip
>
> Using numbers to say that evolution is impossible is intellectually
> dishonest.
One thing to remember is that the odds are much better that many would
have you believe. As one studies organic chemistry, one finds that
certain atoms and molecules have an affinity for certain others. With
all of the hydrogen and oxygen atoms around, it is bound to happen that
one hydrogen pair will grab onto an oxygen atom and VIOLA you have a
water molecule (H2O). The way things work made it much easier for all of
this to have happened.
--
David Vorous
da...@snakebite.com
http://users.aimnet.com/~dvorous/home.html
Nando Ronteltap
(Thumpert The Fascist Cotton-Tail) wrote:
>Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>-snip-
>>There's something wrong with this argument though, it kind of
>>that unlikely since life is meaningful, which means it's intended to
>>be. So in the end it's still a creation, by God.
>
>term. For example: A way for me to eliminate everything I dislike, to
>me is pretty meaningful.
No it isn't, I don't believe you.
>That doesn't mean it's intended to be.
>So in the end "meaningful" is still a relative term that means nothing
>in the grand view of things, whatever that might be.
This is just babble beyond compare to actually root out meaning from
reality, then everything you say just becomes meaningless. Life has
meaning, the universe has meaning, deal with it.
Nando
Nando Ronteltap
Spyder4 <Spy...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>> That's a he, Nanda is the female version of my name. Too bad those
>> pesky living creatures are there to invalidate your theories that
>> don't support will of any kind.
>I wasn't aware they denied will of any kind.
I didn't say they did, you don't read well.
>Did you happen to read
>this theory on the back of the cereal box? I doesn't sound much like
>the theory I know.
Doesn't it? What theory do you know then?
>> Nanda
Uh, never mind answering, I guess you're an idiot.
Nando
Spyder4
Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>
> Spyder4 <Spy...@concentric.net> wrote:
> >Nando Ronteltap wrote:
> >> That's a he, Nanda is the female version of my name. Too bad those
> >> pesky living creatures are there to invalidate your theories that
> >> don't support will of any kind.
> >I wasn't aware they denied will of any kind.
>
> I didn't say they did, you don't read well.
It doesn't have anything at all to do with free will, so why even
mention it?
That's the point I was making.
Spyder4
your head tell you this?
Dave Haas
Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>
> (Thumpert The Fascist Cotton-Tail) wrote:
> >Nando Ronteltap wrote:
> >-snip-
>>
> >in the grand view of things, whatever that might be.
>
> This is just babble beyond compare to actually root out meaning from
> reality, then everything you say just becomes meaningless. Life has
> meaning, the universe has meaning, deal with it.
>
> Nando
I know the meaning of life. However, I'm not too sure about the
meaning of the universe. Could you enlighten me?
D. Haas
Jeff Candy
Nando Ronteltap:
|> > This is just babble beyond compare to actually root out meaning from
|> > reality, then everything you say just becomes meaningless. Life has
|> > meaning, the universe has meaning, deal with it.
Spyder4:
|> It does? How do you know this? Do you have any proof? Did voices in
|> your head tell you this?
Of course life has meaning! When I die, I get to go live in
the sky with sky daddy and drink beer, eat tamales and watch
football all day without getting fat or upsetting my very
pretty (sky) girlfriend. How do I know this? The idea just
feels right.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Candy (179) http://mildred.ph.utexas.edu/~candy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
bes...@algonet.se
Spyder4 <Spy...@concentric.net> skrivningar: > Nando Ronteltap wrote:
> >
> > Spyder4 <Spy...@concentric.net> wrote:
> > >Nando Ronteltap wrote:
> > >> That's a he, Nanda is the female version of my name. Too bad those
> > >> pesky living creatures are there to invalidate your theories that
> > >> don't support will of any kind.
> > >I wasn't aware they denied will of any kind.
> >
> > I didn't say they did, you don't read well.
>
> It doesn't have anything at all to do with free will, so why even
> mention it?
> That's the point I was making.
>
bes...@algonet.se
>
> Freud
bes...@algonet.se
>
>
> Freud
bes...@algonet.se
> > >Nando Ronteltap wrote:
> > >-snip-
> > >>implies it's possible that there wouldn't be life at all. I find
> > >>that unlikely since life is meaningful, which means it's intended to
> > >>be. So in the end it's still a creation, by God.
> > >
> > >Please define "meaningful." That to me sounds like a pretty relative
> > >term. For example: A way for me to eliminate everything I dislike, to
> > >me is pretty meaningful.
> >
> > No it isn't, I don't believe you.
> >
> > >That doesn't mean it's intended to be.
> >
> > >in the grand view of things, whatever that might be.
> >
> > reality, then everything you say just becomes meaningless. Life has
> > meaning, the universe has meaning, deal with it.
> >
> It does? How do you know this? Do you have any proof? Did voices in
> your head tell you this?
> "Belief in God is an expression of infantile helplessness."
>
>
>
Nando Ronteltap
Dave Haas <dh...@uncfsu.campus.mci.net> wrote:
>Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>>
>> (Thumpert The Fascist Cotton-Tail) wrote:
>> >Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>> >-snip-
>>>
>> >in the grand view of things, whatever that might be.
>>
>> This is just babble beyond compare to actually root out meaning from
>> reality, then everything you say just becomes meaningless. Life has
>> meaning, the universe has meaning, deal with it.
>>
I'm sure you meant to say, I know life has meaning, no?
> However, I'm not too sure about the
>meaning of the universe. Could you enlighten me?
At the least it carries life, that's pretty meaningful.
Nando
Nando Ronteltap
Spyder4 <Spy...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>>
>> Spyder4 <Spy...@concentric.net> wrote:
>> >Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>> >> That's a he, Nanda is the female version of my name. Too bad those
>> >> pesky living creatures are there to invalidate your theories that
>> >> don't support will of any kind.
>> >I wasn't aware they denied will of any kind.
>>
>> I didn't say they did, you don't read well.
>
>It doesn't have anything at all to do with free will, so why even
>mention it?
>That's the point I was making.
So because it doesn't account for will in creating new organisms,
it's just a shallow theory that's dwarved by creation. Is there
anything at all ever really created by your standard, or is this
just yet another (*sigh*) word that is supposed to be scrapped from
the dictionairy altogether?
Nando
Nando Ronteltap
>> >Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>> >-snip-
>> >>implies it's possible that there wouldn't be life at all. I find
>> >>that unlikely since life is meaningful, which means it's intended to
>> >>be. So in the end it's still a creation, by God.
>> >
>> >Please define "meaningful." That to me sounds like a pretty relative
>> >term. For example: A way for me to eliminate everything I dislike, to
>> >me is pretty meaningful.
>>
>> No it isn't, I don't believe you.
>>
>> >That doesn't mean it's intended to be.
>>
>> >in the grand view of things, whatever that might be.
>>
>> This is just babble beyond compare to actually root out meaning from
>> reality, then everything you say just becomes meaningless. Life has
>> meaning, the universe has meaning, deal with it.
>>
>It does? How do you know this? Do you have any proof? Did voices in
>your head tell you this?
You've lost me, you insist on meaninglessness, the universe doesn't
have any meaning, your life doesn't have meaning, that uh.. doesn't
sound very meaningful to me, it sounds like nothing. Have you ever
considered that denying any meaning *at all* would make you a
lunatic in the eyes of some people, say psychiatrists?
Nando
Spyder4
Nando Ronteltap wrote:
> So because it doesn't account for will in creating new organisms,
> it's just a shallow theory that's dwarved by creation.
creation in its mere accuracy.
>Is there
> anything at all ever really created by your standard, or is this
> just yet another (*sigh*) word that is supposed to be scrapped from
> the dictionairy altogether?
that any word should be scrapped from the dictionary.
I don't think you understand what a theory is. One theory isn't better
than another merely because it makes the universe sound more hunky-dory
or because we like what it predicts more; it's better because it is more
accurate with the facts on hand. Learn this and you'll be one step
closer in understanding science.
Spyder4
> >your head tell you this?
>
> You've lost me, you insist on meaninglessness, the universe doesn't
> have any meaning, your life doesn't have meaning, that uh.. doesn't
> sound very meaningful to me, it sounds like nothing. Have you ever
> considered that denying any meaning *at all* would make you a
> lunatic in the eyes of some people, say psychiatrists?
basis of facts. If you don't like what I have deduced, too bad. I'm
leading a very happy life and in no way what to change it right now.
When I die, I would much rather just be over with it than have to spend
eternity caged up in heaven. Have you ever thought about that:
eternity, wouldn't it be pretty damn boring.
Dave Haas
Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>
> Dave Haas <dh...@uncfsu.campus.mci.net> wrote:
> >Nando Ronteltap wrote:
> >>
> >> (Thumpert The Fascist Cotton-Tail) wrote:
> >> >Nando Ronteltap wrote:
> >> >-snip-
> >>>
> >> >in the grand view of things, whatever that might be.
> >>
> >> This is just babble beyond compare to actually root out meaning from
> >> reality, then everything you say just becomes meaningless. Life has
> >> meaning, the universe has meaning, deal with it.
> >>
>
> I'm sure you meant to say, I know life has meaning, no?
>
> > However, I'm not too sure about the
> >meaning of the universe. Could you enlighten me?
>
> At the least it carries life, that's pretty meaningful.
>
> Nando
Only to those who have the intelligence to contemplate it is it
meaningful.
D. Haas
David M. Rogers
Dave Haas wrote:
>
> Nando Ronteltap wrote:
> >
> > (Thumpert The Fascist Cotton-Tail) wrote:
> > >Nando Ronteltap wrote:
> > >-snip-
> >>
> > >So in the end "meaningful" is still a relative term that means nothing
> > >in the grand view of things, whatever that might be.
> >
> > This is just babble beyond compare to actually root out meaning from
> > reality, then everything you say just becomes meaningless. Life has
> > meaning, the universe has meaning, deal with it.
> >
>
> I know the meaning of life. However, I'm not too sure about the
> meaning of the universe. Could you enlighten me?
>
42.
Brett Gerhardi
Dave Haas <dh...@uncfsu.campus.mci.net> wrote in article
<335913...@uncfsu.campus.mci.net>...
> Nando Ronteltap wrote:
> >
> > (Thumpert The Fascist Cotton-Tail) wrote:
> > >Nando Ronteltap wrote:
> > >-snip-
> >>
> > >So in the end "meaningful" is still a relative term that means nothing
> > >in the grand view of things, whatever that might be.
> >
> > This is just babble beyond compare to actually root out meaning from
> > reality, then everything you say just becomes meaningless. Life has
> > meaning, the universe has meaning, deal with it.
>
>
> > Nando
>
> I know the meaning of life. However, I'm not too sure about the
> meaning of the universe. Could you enlighten me
As far as we're concerned (as the word meaningful must come from a single
perspective) the meaning of life is 'survival'.
As far as I'm concerned nothing has a 'meaning'. The Universe is infinite
(i.e. it was never born and will never die) everything contained within
this 'nothing' (space) must therefore be finite and will one day die....
try to work out why we're meaningful then... and tell me.
-=- Brett Gerhardi
Nando Ronteltap
Spyder4 <Spy...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>> So because it doesn't account for will in creating new organisms,
>> it's just a shallow theory that's dwarved by creation.
>I don't know its personality, but I would say that evolution dwarves
>creation in its mere accuracy.
That's not the point. Since it is obvious that will does play a role
in what organisms come to be, the fact that evolution doesn't deal
with that makes it an incomplete theory. Obviously creation is
basically more true because it can incorporate evolution as well as
account for will. Evolution is not based on fully known facts, it's
just a useful way of looking at it in some circumstances. What's
random supposed to mean other then we don't know why it did that
yet?
>>Is there
>> anything at all ever really created by your standard, or is this
>> just yet another (*sigh*) word that is supposed to be scrapped from
>> the dictionairy altogether?
>Theories don't create anything, they merely explain. When did I say
>that any word should be scrapped from the dictionary.
I don't see where you can use creation in a non-fantasy way, if you
believe evolution is the complete theory.
>I don't think you understand what a theory is. One theory isn't better
>than another merely because it makes the universe sound more hunky-dory
>or because we like what it predicts more; it's better because it is more
>accurate with the facts on hand. Learn this and you'll be one step
>closer in understanding science.
You would do well to remember that science is not all explaining.
Nando
Nando Ronteltap
Spyder4 <Spy...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>>
>> Spyder4 <Spy...@concentric.net> wrote:
>> >It does? How do you know this? Do you have any proof? Did voices in
>> >your head tell you this?
>>
>> You've lost me, you insist on meaninglessness, the universe doesn't
>> have any meaning, your life doesn't have meaning, that uh.. doesn't
>> sound very meaningful to me, it sounds like nothing. Have you ever
>> considered that denying any meaning *at all* would make you a
>> lunatic in the eyes of some people, say psychiatrists?
>No, not a lunatic, but a existentialist. I only make judgements on the
>basis of facts. If you don't like what I have deduced, too bad.
Your deduction comes from a very particular belief system, most all
people would agree that their life has meaning, atheist or theist. I
wasn't talking about meaning after death, I was simply talking about
meaning anywhere you find it.
>I'm
>leading a very happy life and in no way what to change it right now.
Well I looked up existentialist in the dictionairy and you're
supposed to be encompassed with dread and anguish actually.
>When I die, I would much rather just be over with it than have to spend
>eternity caged up in heaven. Have you ever thought about that:
>eternity, wouldn't it be pretty damn boring.
Part of the definition of heaven is that it's a nice place to be.
It's a heavenly place, it cannot be other then enjoyable. Have you
ever thought about that?
Nando
Nando Ronteltap
Dave Haas <dh...@uncfsu.campus.mci.net> wrote:
>Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>>
>> Dave Haas <dh...@uncfsu.campus.mci.net> wrote:
>> > However, I'm not too sure about the
>> >meaning of the universe. Could you enlighten me?
>>
>> At the least it carries life, that's pretty meaningful.
>>
>
>Only to those who have the intelligence to contemplate it is it
>meaningful.
>
The universe is not meaningful to animals eventhough it sustains
them. I don't buy that.
Nando
Dave Haas
That's not what I meant. What I am saying is that if humans weren't
here and intelligent who would say its meaningful? In other words its
meaningful because we say its meaningful not because its meaningful.
D. Haas
ice...@earthlink.net
> "Belief in God is an expression of infantile helplessness."
>
> Freud
Freud was an idiot and so are you for quoting him
--
David M. Rogers
Existentialism is not "necessarily negative" it is just necessarily
difficult because all the pressure to perform or be is on the
individual. Have you ever heard of So/ren Kierkagard (I know, I know,
sp?)?
And it's hardly a rare philosophy.
David M. Rogers
> >> it's just a shallow theory that's dwarved by creation.
>
> >I don't know its personality, but I would say that evolution dwarves
> >creation in its mere accuracy.
>
> That's not the point. Since it is obvious that will does play a role
> in what organisms come to be, the fact that evolution doesn't deal
> with that makes it an incomplete theory. Obviously creation is
> basically more true because it can incorporate evolution as well as
> account for will. Evolution is not based on fully known facts, it's
> just a useful way of looking at it in some circumstances. What's
> random supposed to mean other then we don't know why it did that
> yet?
You must mean theistic evolution, not strict creationism. Try to feed
the coexistance line to the ICR. By the way, a scientific theory does
not speculate in realms of will, so a scientific theory will never
include God in the sense that you mean him. He will ever remain in the
realm of theology.
> >>Is there
> >> anything at all ever really created by your standard, or is this
> >> just yet another (*sigh*) word that is supposed to be scrapped from
> >> the dictionairy altogether?
>
> >Theories don't create anything, they merely explain. When did I say
> >that any word should be scrapped from the dictionary.
>
> I don't see where you can use creation in a non-fantasy way, if you
> believe evolution is the complete theory.
You think of Genesis in a literal way, at least.
> >I don't think you understand what a theory is. One theory isn't better
> >than another merely because it makes the universe sound more hunky-dory
> >or because we like what it predicts more; it's better because it is more
> >accurate with the facts on hand. Learn this and you'll be one step
> >closer in understanding science.
>
> You would do well to remember that science is not all explaining.
It is speculation as well. And the less speculation a theory has, the
better, which is what makes evolution a better theory than creationism.
Jeff Candy
Nando Ronteltap:
|> Evolution is not based on fully known facts,
Evolution is a fact, just as gravity is a fact. The theories of
said phenomena are based on an analysis and synthesis of vast
amounts of data.
Creation, quite oppositely, is an assertion not a theory.
|> it's just a useful way of looking at it in some circumstances.
|> What's random supposed to mean other then we don't know why it
|> did that yet?
Your incredulity is not an acceptable criticism. Your inability
to grasp the content and implications of theory is your *own*
problem.
|> You would do well to remember that science is not all explaining.
... whereas creation is all-asserting.
Spyder4
Nando Ronteltap wrote:
> That's not the point. Since it is obvious that will does play a role
> in what organisms come to be, the fact that evolution doesn't deal
> with that makes it an incomplete theory. Obviously creation is
> basically more true because it can incorporate evolution as well as
> account for will. Evolution is not based on fully known facts, it's
> just a useful way of looking at it in some circumstances. What's
> random supposed to mean other then we don't know why it did that
> yet?
Well, if you're talking about will in that general a way, evolution does
say that an organism wants to mate as many times as possible, which is
true. That's all the will it really needs to explain.
> You would do well to remember that science is not all explaining.
It's explained alot more than any religion has explained correctly.
--
"Belief in God is an expression of infantile helplessness."
Freud
To email me, remove the "FREEDOM" from my address
Spyder4
Nando Ronteltap wrote:
> Your deduction comes from a very particular belief system, most all
> people would agree that their life has meaning, atheist or theist. I
> wasn't talking about meaning after death, I was simply talking about
> meaning anywhere you find it.
Most people in Galileo's time agreed that the sun went around the Earth,
so I guess most people are always right then.
> Well I looked up existentialist in the dictionairy and you're
> supposed to be encompassed with dread and anguish actually.
Then I guess I'm just starting a new branch of it then.
> >When I die, I would much rather just be over with it than have to spend
> >eternity caged up in heaven. Have you ever thought about that:
> >eternity, wouldn't it be pretty damn boring.
>
> Part of the definition of heaven is that it's a nice place to be.
> It's a heavenly place, it cannot be other then enjoyable. Have you
> ever thought about that?
I like watching TV, I find it enjoyable, that doesn't mean I want to be
doing it for eternity. Do you know how long infinity is? Do you really
want to be conscious forever? I could stand maybe a billion years
(probably not even that long) but then I'd just get bored of it all.
It's not much of a reward, ya know.
Spyder4
ice...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> > "Belief in God is an expression of infantile helplessness."
> >
> > Freud
>
>
you type that?
IG (Slim) Simpson
"John P. Boatwright" <sa...@teleport.com> wrote:
>Slime wrote:
>> Here in Ontario we have a weekly lottery, often for millions of
>> dollars, called 6/49. The winner must simply pick six numbers from 1
>> to 49, in no particular order. The chances of winning this lottery is
>> a little less than 1 in 14,000,000. Given 4 billion (4,000,000,000)
>> years, buying one ticket a week, I would win 14,857 times.
>> Not so improbable , then, that I should win at least once; and once is
>> all it takes.
>But you'd be dead way before the first time winning. Same with all
>these HOPED FOR CHANCES to occur:
You once again show your ignorance. The point was about abiogenesis.
Not something already in an advanced form.
>* Two identcally mutated flies
>* but of opposite sex
>* find each other
>* and fertilize
>* and have offspring
>* with identical mutations
>* that don't revert back to the original form
>* And those offspring live on
>* and find new mates
>* with identical mutations
>* and fertilize
>* and have offspring....
A truly astounding grasp of the theory of evolution. <sigh>
>What are the chances of this happening maybe
>1e20 times or so (assuming were talking
Yes, about that chance for abipgenesis. 1e20, Boathead, is equal to 1;
certainty !
>about all the massively complex changes that
>would have had to occur for ALL species and
>the changes needed to get from chemical mush
>to male/female/child systems).
>Laughable at best.
It's easy to laugh at something you are completely ignorant of. Every
one of your replies is laughable.
>Good thing God made it all and Jesus died for our sins.
Fundie, stay with your stupid, unproved, myth based, falsehoods and
let the rest of us get on with living a rational life. The greatest
argument against god is that he created idiots like you.
#38 Slim
To reply remove ZEUS from address
How ceaselessly Grendel harassed......Beowulf
Nando Ronteltap
Dave Haas <dh...@uncfsu.campus.mci.net> wrote:
>Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>>
>> Dave Haas <dh...@uncfsu.campus.mci.net> wrote:
>> >Only to those who have the intelligence to contemplate it is it
>> >meaningful.
>> >
>> The universe is not meaningful to animals eventhough it sustains
>> them. I don't buy that.
>That's not what I meant. What I am saying is that if humans weren't
>here and intelligent who would say its meaningful? In other words its
>meaningful because we say its meaningful not because its meaningful.
Whoa! Trying to be smarter then yourself? When you say something is
meaningful then to your best knowledge it is meaningful, that's
reality. Don't give me 'if I weren't there' fantasy plots. If humans
weren't here to see the stars, then there wouldn't be any stars.
Same principle.
Nando
Spyder4
Um, the stars were here before the humans and most probably be here
after the humans are gone.
Nando Ronteltap
ca...@mildred.ph.utexas.edu (Jeff Candy) wrote:
>Nando Ronteltap:
>
>|> Evolution is not based on fully known facts,
>
So what, creation is a fact also.
>The theories of
>said phenomena are based on an analysis and synthesis of vast
>amounts of data.
It ignores the role will plays, preferring randomness.
>Creation, quite oppositely, is an assertion not a theory.
That's simply not true, it's a theory also.
>|> it's just a useful way of looking at it in some circumstances.
>|> What's random supposed to mean other then we don't know why it
>|> did that yet?
>
>Your incredulity is not an acceptable criticism.
Where's the incredulity?
>Your inability
>to grasp the content and implications of theory is your *own*
>problem.
Uhu, so where didn't I grasp content or implication smartypants?
>|> You would do well to remember that science is not all explaining.
>... whereas creation is all-asserting.
You don't get it, science is in the little league, religion in the
major.
Nando
Nando Ronteltap
"David M. Rogers" <mca...@Auburn.campus.mci.net> wrote:
>Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>> >That's not what I meant. What I am saying is that if humans weren't
>> >here and intelligent who would say its meaningful? In other words its
>> >meaningful because we say its meaningful not because its meaningful.
>>
>> Whoa! Trying to be smarter then yourself? When you say something is
>> meaningful then to your best knowledge it is meaningful, that's
>> reality. Don't give me 'if I weren't there' fantasy plots. If humans
>> weren't here to see the stars, then there wouldn't be any stars.
>> Same principle.
>>
>
>If a tree falls in a forest, and no one's around, does it make a sound?
Oooh, you're one of them. :-) rephrased: "Does a tree make a fall
when no one's around to see the tree that *is* making a fall?" The
fall and the sound are equivalent, so the answer must be yes.
Nando
Nando Ronteltap
>> in what organisms come to be, the fact that evolution doesn't deal
>> with that makes it an incomplete theory. Obviously creation is
>> basically more true because it can incorporate evolution as well as
>> just a useful way of looking at it in some circumstances. What's
>> random supposed to mean other then we don't know why it did that
>> yet?
>
>say that an organism wants to mate as many times as possible,
No it doesn't, you're making that up.
> which is
>true.
It's not.
>That's all the will it really needs to explain.
It needs momma nature to decide what she wants there to be.
>> You would do well to remember that science is not all explaining.
>
>It's explained alot more than any religion has explained correctly.
>
There isn't any more then all, so religion, or in this case
christianity, wins.
Nando
Spyder4
Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>
> Spyder4 <Spyder4...@concentric.net> wrote:
> >Nando Ronteltap wrote:
> >
> >> That's not the point. Since it is obvious that will does play a role
> >> in what organisms come to be, the fact that evolution doesn't deal
> >> with that makes it an incomplete theory. Obviously creation is
> >> basically more true because it can incorporate evolution as well as
> >> account for will. Evolution is not based on fully known facts, it's
> >> just a useful way of looking at it in some circumstances. What's
> >> random supposed to mean other then we don't know why it did that
> >> yet?
> >
> >Well, if you're talking about will in that general a way, evolution does
> >say that an organism wants to mate as many times as possible,
>
> No it doesn't, you're making that up.
I didn't come up with it first so argue with Darwin and Wallace.
> > which is
> >true.
>
> It's not.
Proof?
> >That's all the will it really needs to explain.
>
> It needs momma nature to decide what she wants there to be.
Didn't we all ready cover this?
> >> You would do well to remember that science is not all explaining.
> >
> >It's explained alot more than any religion has explained correctly.
> >
> There isn't any more then all, so religion, or in this case
> christianity, wins.
Which religion? Every religion? Proof?!?!?!
> Nando
David M. Rogers
Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>
> Dave Haas <dh...@uncfsu.campus.mci.net> wrote:
> >Nando Ronteltap wrote:
> >>
> >> Dave Haas <dh...@uncfsu.campus.mci.net> wrote:
>
> >> >Only to those who have the intelligence to contemplate it is it
> >> >meaningful.
> >> >
> >> The universe is not meaningful to animals eventhough it sustains
> >> them. I don't buy that.
>
> >here and intelligent who would say its meaningful? In other words its
> >meaningful because we say its meaningful not because its meaningful.
>
> Whoa! Trying to be smarter then yourself? When you say something is
> meaningful then to your best knowledge it is meaningful, that's
> reality. Don't give me 'if I weren't there' fantasy plots. If humans
> weren't here to see the stars, then there wouldn't be any stars.
> Same principle.
>
If a tree falls in a forest, and no one's around, does it make a sound?
Spyder4
> >
>
> So what, creation is a fact also.
>
> >The theories of
> >said phenomena are based on an analysis and synthesis of vast
> >amounts of data.
>
> It ignores the role will plays, preferring randomness.
>
> >Creation, quite oppositely, is an assertion not a theory.
>
> That's simply not true, it's a theory also.
>
> >|> What's random supposed to mean other then we don't know why it
> >|> did that yet?
> >
>
> Where's the incredulity?
>
> >Your inability
> >to grasp the content and implications of theory is your *own*
> >problem.
>
> Uhu, so where didn't I grasp content or implication smartypants?
>
>
>
> You don't get it, science is in the little league, religion in the
> major.
>
> Nando
these stupid analogies that make no sense. You have no argument, you
only say assumptions that have no facts behind them. Shut the hell up
unless you have something to say that makes some sense.
Oh yeah, what is your afixation with will?
Spyder4
Sorry, Nando, but the power went out as I was reading your other post so
I lost it, but I think I remember it pretty well (their never very
complex in their logic)
About Galileo thought there was meaning:
He also didn't know calculus, so nobody's perfect.
About I'm a happy go-lucky existentialist:
Good for me!
About heaven and how boring it is:
Isn't the fact that heaven has to be enjoyable a denial of free will?
If you don't want that enjoyment, isn't "God" denying your free will?
So, if I didn't want the infiniteness of eternity and yet God forced me
to experience it, wouldn't that be a denial of my free will? I'm sorry
to say, but the theory of Christianity doesn't hold up to the free will
standards that you set forth.
I got another question for ya:
Have you read anything other than that rather out-of-date text from 2000
years ago? Ya know, there's been alot of books written since then, some
of them with some real facts and information not just supersticious
poppycock.
Nando Ronteltap
>> people would agree that their life has meaning, atheist or theist. I
>> wasn't talking about meaning after death, I was simply talking about
>> meaning anywhere you find it.
>
>Most people in Galileo's time agreed that the sun went around the Earth,
>so I guess most people are always right then.
Yes, you're just like Galileo was, except Galileo believed his life
had meaning too. It's more like you're someone who's saying the sun
goes to bed every night in a cave, and then goes through a secret
tunnel to appear on the other side.
>> Well I looked up existentialist in the dictionairy and you're
>> supposed to be encompassed with dread and anguish actually.
>
>Then I guess I'm just starting a new branch of it then.
The new happy go lucky existentialism.
>> Part of the definition of heaven is that it's a nice place to be.
>> It's a heavenly place, it cannot be other then enjoyable. Have you
>> ever thought about that?
>
>I like watching TV, I find it enjoyable, that doesn't mean I want to be
>doing it for eternity. Do you know how long infinity is? Do you really
>want to be conscious forever? I could stand maybe a billion years
>(probably not even that long) but then I'd just get bored of it all.
>It's not much of a reward, ya know.
You would enjoy it, it's *not possible* for you not to enjoy it.
That's just because of the kind of place it is, heaven.
Nando
Jeff Candy
Jeff Candy:
|> >Evolution is a fact, just as gravity is a fact.
Nando Ronteltap:
|> So what, creation is a fact also.
Bullshit.
|> >The theories of
|> >said phenomena are based on an analysis and synthesis of vast
|> >amounts of data.
|> It ignores the role will plays, preferring randomness.
translation please ...
|> >Your incredulity is not an acceptable criticism.
|> Where's the incredulity?
You characterize evolution flatly as some sort of vague
argument "by random processes" -- which you claim just
shouldn't happen -- not because it is impossible, but
because you *feel* things don't really happen that way.
In fact, the ONLY consistent explanation of what we
OBSERVE is the evolutionary explanation. So, in the
face of the only consistent explanation of observed
data, you ASSERT that "I don't believe it". That is an
argument by increduilty. In the scientific community,
this is unacceptable.
|> >Your inability
|> >to grasp the content and implications of theory is your *own*
|> >problem.
|> Uhu, so where didn't I grasp content or implication smartypants?
Tout ensemble.
|> You don't get it, science is in the little league, religion in
|> the major.
Which religion? Hinduism?
Aldous Brown
Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>
> "David M. Rogers" <mca...@Auburn.campus.mci.net> wrote:
> >Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>
> >> >here and intelligent who would say its meaningful? In other words its
> >> >meaningful because we say its meaningful not because its meaningful.
> >>
> >> Whoa! Trying to be smarter then yourself? When you say something is
> >> meaningful then to your best knowledge it is meaningful, that's
> >> reality. Don't give me 'if I weren't there' fantasy plots. If humans
> >> weren't here to see the stars, then there wouldn't be any stars.
> >> Same principle.
> >>
> >
>
> when no one's around to see the tree that *is* making a fall?" The
>
> Nando
The tree falls but does it mean anything?
Not unless there is someone there to *Think* it does.
Meaning is in the mind not in objects no matter how big or small.
-Aldous Brown
God has no place on the net.
Just like facts have no place in orgnised religion
Spelling errors added to annoy the petty.
Nando Ronteltap
Spyder4 <Spyder4...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Nando, you're such an idiot. You never listen and you come up with
>these stupid analogies that make no sense. You have no argument, you
>only say assumptions that have no facts behind them. Shut the hell up
>unless you have something to say that makes some sense.
I just don't like your 'facts', that it's really really random,
because you know they are, because it says so in your textbook.
>Oh yeah, what is your afixation with will?
It's of decisive importance.
Nando
Nando Ronteltap
ca...@mildred.ph.utexas.edu (Jeff Candy) wrote:
>Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>|>Jeff Candy:
>|> >Your incredulity is not an acceptable criticism.
>
>|> Where's the incredulity?
>
>You characterize evolution flatly as some sort of vague
>argument "by random processes" -- which you claim just
>shouldn't happen -- not because it is impossible, but
>because you *feel* things don't really happen that way.
How can you know for certain that the changes are random, you can't.
>In fact, the ONLY consistent explanation of what we
>OBSERVE is the evolutionary explanation.
Untrue, the changes can occur by some measure of will.
> So, in the
>face of the only consistent explanation of observed
>data, you ASSERT that "I don't believe it". That is an
>argument by increduilty. In the scientific community,
>this is unacceptable.
It's an argument where science left a hole. I'm sure I have free
will, I'm not going to stop believing that just because science
can't support it.
Nando
Jeff Candy
Jeff Candy:
|> >You characterize evolution flatly as some sort of vague
|> >argument "by random processes" -- which you claim just
|> >shouldn't happen -- not because it is impossible, but
|> >because you *feel* things don't really happen that way.
Nando Ronteltap:
|> How can you know for certain that the changes are random,
|> you can't.
The changes are not purely random. That you continue to
make this vague, imprecise assertion emphasizes that you
argue based on incredulity.
|> >In fact, the ONLY consistent explanation of what we
|> >OBSERVE is the evolutionary explanation.
|>
|> Untrue, the changes can occur by some measure of will.
Obviously the will (read: behaviour) of an animals is an
evolutionary influence. Who claimed it wasn't?
|> It's an argument where science left a hole. I'm sure I have free
|> will, I'm not going to stop believing that just because science
|> can't support it.
My only impression is that you have no idea what science is
suggesting -- what science does and does not support -- and
thus no grasp of what you are arguing against.
Make a coherent case; identify what you consider to be a
specific weak point of evolutionary theory, and support
this identification with evidence.
IG (Slim) Simpson
nr...@xs4all.nl (Nando Ronteltap) wrote:
[snip]
>>I like watching TV, I find it enjoyable, that doesn't mean I want to be
>>doing it for eternity. Do you know how long infinity is? Do you really
>>want to be conscious forever? I could stand maybe a billion years
>>(probably not even that long) but then I'd just get bored of it all.
>>It's not much of a reward, ya know.
>You would enjoy it, it's *not possible* for you not to enjoy it.
>That's just because of the kind of place it is, heaven.
"We haf _ways_ to make you laugh !"
Ziegfried in "Get Smart"
John P. Boatwright
John Ings wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Apr 1997 04:49:09 +0000, "John P. Boatwright"
> <sa...@teleport.com> wrote:
> >* Two identcally mutated flies
> >* but of opposite sex
> >* find each other
> >* and fertilize
> >* and have offspring
> >* with identical mutations
> >* that don't revert back to the original form
> >* And those offspring live on
> >* and find new mates
> >* with identical mutations
> >* and fertilize
> >* and have offspring....
> >What are the chances of this happening
> Excellent.
Of course.
> Have you studied genetics at all?
As much as needed.
> A mutation occurs in one gene.
> This gene has no effect on the fly that bears it becuase it is a
> recessive gene.
> It has no effect on the fly's progeny either because is overpowered by
> the dominant genes of the fly's mate.
> But THEIR progeny will all bear that recessive gene, Thousands of
> them, and the chances that a pair bearing that recessive gene will
> mate are dead certain.
> >maybe 1e20 times or so (assuming were talking
> >about all the massively complex changes that
> >would have had to occur for ALL species and
> >the changes needed to get from chemical mush
> >to male/female/child systems).
> >Laughable at best.
> What's laughable is your poor comprehension of genetics and
> the mathematical masturbation you indulged in to get that 1e20
Well then, I expect just millions of flies to exhibit bigger
brains, longer life spans, growing to the size of birds,
living on much better food supplies, ect...
Like I said, laughable at best.
John Ings
>> Have you studied genetics at all?
>
>As much as needed.
You need to study a lot more on the subject if you want to stop making
a fool of yourself.
>> What's laughable is your poor comprehension of genetics and
>> the mathematical masturbation you indulged in to get that 1e20
>
>Well then, I expect just millions of flies to exhibit bigger
>brains, longer life spans, growing to the size of birds,
>living on much better food supplies, ect...
Having some vague, fuzzy layman's idea of evolution, you proceed to
tell us what YOU expect . . .
>Like I said, laughable at best.
You continue to make a fool of yourself by displaying your ignorance
of the subject Mr B. Your confidence in creationism is based on piety,
which is all very well, but you do your God a disservice when you
parade your bull-headed ignorance in front of the potential converts
to Christianity who must surely exist in these forums.
When anyone who knows anything about science sees your posts they
certainly aren't going to think much of the Christianity you
exemplify.
John J B Webb
Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>
> Spyder4 <Spyder4...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
> >Nando, you're such an idiot. You never listen and you come up with
> >these stupid analogies that make no sense. You have no argument, you
> >only say assumptions that have no facts behind them. Shut the hell up
> >unless you have something to say that makes some sense.
>
> I just don't like your 'facts', that it's really really random,
> because you know they are, because it says so in your textbook.
That's right, its really really random, once you accept that you'll be
alot closer to the truth.
> >Oh yeah, what is your afixation with will?
>
> It's of decisive importance.
Because?
> Nando
Spyder4
Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>
> ca...@mildred.ph.utexas.edu (Jeff Candy) wrote:
> >Nando Ronteltap wrote:
> >|>Jeff Candy:
>
> >|> >Your incredulity is not an acceptable criticism.
> >
> >|> Where's the incredulity?
> >
> >You characterize evolution flatly as some sort of vague
> >argument "by random processes" -- which you claim just
> >shouldn't happen -- not because it is impossible, but
> >because you *feel* things don't really happen that way.
>
> How can you know for certain that the changes are random, you can't.
How can you know for certain that they aren't? Randomness makes sense,
if it didn't, then scientists wouldn't use it.
> >In fact, the ONLY consistent explanation of what we
> >OBSERVE is the evolutionary explanation.
>
> Untrue, the changes can occur by some measure of will.
The changes could have also occurred because some pink unicorn told them
too, but they didn't and neither did any measure of will of anything to
do about it.
> > So, in the
> >face of the only consistent explanation of observed
> >data, you ASSERT that "I don't believe it". That is an
> >argument by increduilty. In the scientific community,
> >this is unacceptable.
>
> It's an argument where science left a hole. I'm sure I have free
> will, I'm not going to stop believing that just because science
> can't support it.
They didn't leave a hole, will just doesn't have anything to do with it
(except for the mating part I already told you).
Spyder4
John P. Boatwright wrote:
>
> John Ings wrote:
>
> > <sa...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> > >* Two identcally mutated flies
> > >* but of opposite sex
> > >* find each other
> > >* and fertilize
> > >* and have offspring
> > >* with identical mutations
> > >* that don't revert back to the original form
>
> > >* And those offspring live on
> > >* and find new mates
> > >* with identical mutations
> > >* and fertilize
> > >* and have offspring....
>
> > >What are the chances of this happening
>
> > Excellent.
>
> Of course.
>
>
> As much as needed.
>
>
> > This gene has no effect on the fly that bears it becuase it is a
> > recessive gene.
>
> > It has no effect on the fly's progeny either because is overpowered by
> > the dominant genes of the fly's mate.
>
> > But THEIR progeny will all bear that recessive gene, Thousands of
> > them, and the chances that a pair bearing that recessive gene will
> > mate are dead certain.
>
> > >maybe 1e20 times or so (assuming were talking
> > >about all the massively complex changes that
> > >would have had to occur for ALL species and
> > >the changes needed to get from chemical mush
> > >to male/female/child systems).
>
> > >Laughable at best.
>
> > the mathematical masturbation you indulged in to get that 1e20
>
> Well then, I expect just millions of flies to exhibit bigger
> brains, longer life spans, growing to the size of birds,
> living on much better food supplies, ect...
Why?, that makes no sense. You still show you don't have any
understanding of genetics. Until you do, your just a joke in this
discussion.
Your argument is still
> laughable at best.
David M. Rogers
Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>
> "David M. Rogers" <mca...@Auburn.campus.mci.net> wrote:
> >Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>
> >> >That's not what I meant. What I am saying is that if humans weren't
> >> >here and intelligent who would say its meaningful? In other words its
> >> >meaningful because we say its meaningful not because its meaningful.
> >>
> >> Whoa! Trying to be smarter then yourself? When you say something is
> >> meaningful then to your best knowledge it is meaningful, that's
> >> reality. Don't give me 'if I weren't there' fantasy plots. If humans
> >> weren't here to see the stars, then there wouldn't be any stars.
> >> Same principle.
> >>
> >
> >If a tree falls in a forest, and no one's around, does it make a sound?
>
> Oooh, you're one of them. :-) rephrased: "Does a tree make a fall
> when no one's around to see the tree that *is* making a fall?" The
> fall and the sound are equivalent, so the answer must be yes.
>
> Nando
Okay, then, smartypants.
If a tree falls in a forest, and it hits a mime, does anyone care?
Dave Haas
Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>
>
> I just don't like your 'facts', that it's really really random,
> because you know they are, because it says so in your textbook.
>
>
>
> It's of decisive importance.
>
> Nando
Nando you need not believe in evolution. Nobody must.
Evolution is simply a theory which explains how the great diversity
of life appeared on the earth. In science new ideas do not receive
acceptance easily. There is always a battle between the old and new
scientists.
Scientists may not accept evolution if they are wrapped up in their own
theory. This is human nature not to believe something that is
emotionally tied to your ego.
Even if you studied "all" the evidence you still could find things that
the theory did not explain. Science does not provide all the answers or
truth. It simply provides evidence and models that explain how things
work.
It just so happens that all the modern fields of science seem to support
evolutionary theory. One area that is not stressed in this NG is the
evolution of plants. The fossil and genetic record gives a very clear
evolutionary path in many plant groups.
Get some books on paleobotany, Phycology, and Plant morphology.
Did you know that higher seed plants are more advanced in a particular
character than all mammals? Ginkgoes and Cycads use pollen tubes to
grow to the egg but discharge a sperm cells with flagella. Other
gymnosperms and flowering plants use a pollen tube but the sperm cells
have no flagellum! Humans still retain this primitive feature in their
sperm. Can you come up with an explanation why all land dwelling
animals still have motile sperm?
D.Haas
Nando Ronteltap
"David M. Rogers" <mca...@Auburn.campus.mci.net> wrote:
>Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>> "David M. Rogers" <mca...@Auburn.campus.mci.net> wrote:
>> >If a tree falls in a forest, and no one's around, does it make a sound?
>>
>> Oooh, you're one of them. :-) rephrased: "Does a tree make a fall
>> when no one's around to see the tree that *is* making a fall?" The
>> fall and the sound are equivalent, so the answer must be yes.
>>
>Okay, then, smartypants.
>
>If a tree falls in a forest, and it hits a mime, does anyone care?
If a tree falls in a forest and hits a mime, does that make a
tragedy?
Nando
Nando Ronteltap
ca...@mildred.ph.utexas.edu (Jeff Candy) wrote:
>Nando Ronteltap:
>
>|> How can you know for certain that the changes are random,
>|> you can't.
>
>make this vague, imprecise assertion emphasizes that you
>argue based on incredulity.
Almost correct. The changes entirely aren't random at all, they are
willed. Pure randomness, is an illogical concept. Normal referred to
randomness is just a convenient relativization of will. You prove
it's really random, like everybody says evolution is based on random
changes, in stead of willed changes.
>|> >In fact, the ONLY consistent explanation of what we
>|> >OBSERVE is the evolutionary explanation.
>|>
>|> Untrue, the changes can occur by some measure of will.
>
>Obviously the will (read: behaviour) of an animals is an
>evolutionary influence. Who claimed it wasn't?
I'm talking about some measure of will right down to how the
supposed amino acids got together.
>|> It's an argument where science left a hole. I'm sure I have free
>|> will, I'm not going to stop believing that just because science
>|> can't support it.
>
>My only impression is
Stuff your impression, make an argument allready.
Nando
David M. Rogers
No. It makes a "Far Side" cartoon.
Spyder4
Jeremy Huston wrote:
> But who says gravity IS a fact? Scientists don't understand the
> mechanism of how it works, but it helps to explain their observations of
> the universe, so they accept is as true. That doesn't mean it is.
> Remember things that we _think_ are quite obvious really aren't--energy
> and matter are one and the same, electricity and magnetism are the same,
> time does not move at a constant rate. What appears to be common sense
> and logic in nature is not so. Just because evolution may look like it
> is the answer, doesn't mean it is.
Gravity, or rather the attraction between objects with mass is true.
Scientists don't have to know how it works to know that it does work.
Energy and mass are not the same, they are just inter-related as are
magnetism and electricity. Just because evolution looks like the answer
means that it is the best explanation right now. This is how theories
work. Just because creation can't be the answer means that it is not
true.
For a sophmore in physics, you should really understand this universe
stuff alot more, but then again, you are only going to a public school.
Jeremy Huston
Jeff Candy wrote:
>
> Nando Ronteltap:
>
> |> Evolution is not based on fully known facts,
>
> Evolution is a fact, just as gravity is a fact. The theories of
> said phenomena are based on an analysis and synthesis of vast
> amounts of data.
>
But who says gravity IS a fact? Scientists don't understand the
mechanism of how it works, but it helps to explain their observations of
the universe, so they accept is as true. That doesn't mean it is.
Remember things that we _think_ are quite obvious really aren't--energy
and matter are one and the same, electricity and magnetism are the same,
time does not move at a constant rate. What appears to be common sense
and logic in nature is not so. Just because evolution may look like it
is the answer, doesn't mean it is.
Jeremy
--
University of Illinois, Urbana/Champaign
Sophomore specialized curriculum in physics
http://www.cen.uiuc.edu/~j-huston
mailto:j-hu...@ews.uiuc.edu
First you master your instrument, then you master the music, then forget
about all that...and just play." -Charlie Parker
David M. Rogers
Jeremy Huston wrote:
>
> Jeff Candy wrote:
> >
> > Nando Ronteltap:
> >
> > |> Evolution is not based on fully known facts,
> >
> > Evolution is a fact, just as gravity is a fact. The theories of
> > said phenomena are based on an analysis and synthesis of vast
> > amounts of data.
> >
>
> But who says gravity IS a fact? Scientists don't understand the
> mechanism of how it works, but it helps to explain their observations of
> the universe, so they accept is as true. That doesn't mean it is.
> Remember things that we _think_ are quite obvious really aren't--energy
> and matter are one and the same, electricity and magnetism are the same,
> time does not move at a constant rate. What appears to be common sense
> and logic in nature is not so. Just because evolution may look like it
> is the answer, doesn't mean it is.
>
> Jeremy
No one ever said it was a fact. It fits more into the catagory of a
law, something which has been around for a long time with no shred of
eveidence to contradict it. If you have any, please come forward.
Jeremy Huston
Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>
> "David M. Rogers" <mca...@Auburn.campus.mci.net> wrote:
> >Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>
> >> >here and intelligent who would say its meaningful? In other words its
> >> >meaningful because we say its meaningful not because its meaningful.
> >>
> >> Whoa! Trying to be smarter then yourself? When you say something is
> >> meaningful then to your best knowledge it is meaningful, that's
> >> reality. Don't give me 'if I weren't there' fantasy plots. If humans
> >> weren't here to see the stars, then there wouldn't be any stars.
> >> Same principle.
> >>
> >
>
> Oooh, you're one of them. :-) rephrased: "Does a tree make a fall
> when no one's around to see the tree that *is* making a fall?" The
> fall and the sound are equivalent, so the answer must be yes.
>
Since you evolutionists all love exact definitions so much, I have to
reply to this. Sound is defined as what humans can hear. Dog whistles
don't make sound. True, dogs can hear them, but humans can't.
Therefore, since the tree falls with no humans to hear, no compression
waves will be heard by a human, so the tree cannot make a sound. To go
on to the stars idea. The stars were here before we were, they were
emitting light before we were here, but they weren't visible to humans.
Just because you can't see me doesn't mean I don't exist, does it?
Spyder4
> willed. Pure randomness, is an illogical concept. Normal referred to
> randomness is just a convenient relativization of will. You prove
> it's really random, like everybody says evolution is based on random
> changes, in stead of willed changes.
I don't get you, Nando; you criticize people's debating techniques while
you make completely erroneous statements with no factual or logical
basis. You call randomness illogical just because you don't understand
it. Either you're stupid or just closed minded. Make an argument,
you'd make sense if you had some facts supporting you.
> I'm talking about some measure of will right down to how the
> supposed amino acids got together.
Again, an assumption with no proof.
> Stuff your impression, make an argument allready.
Exactly, use some facts, make some sense
> Nando
Prince Dracula
On Wed, 23 Apr 1997, Jeremy Huston wrote:
> Jeff Candy wrote:
> >
> > Nando Ronteltap:
> >
> > |> Evolution is not based on fully known facts,
> >
> > Evolution is a fact, just as gravity is a fact. The theories of
> > said phenomena are based on an analysis and synthesis of vast
> > amounts of data.
> >
>
> But who says gravity IS a fact? Scientists don't understand the
> mechanism of how it works, but it helps to explain their observations of
> the universe, so they accept is as true. That doesn't mean it is.
> Remember things that we _think_ are quite obvious really aren't--energy
> and matter are one and the same, electricity and magnetism are the same,
> time does not move at a constant rate. What appears to be common sense
> and logic in nature is not so. Just because evolution may look like it
> is the answer, doesn't mean it is.
>
What if we were in fact experiments of another race... They might
have placed us on Earth to see how we develop, and perhaps to understand
more about their bodies, or perhaps life in general by observing what we do!
Or in another idea, what if we're all that remained of an ancient
civilisation that vanished millions of years ago, or perhaps gone into
hiding into some craters inside the earth... Or perhaps both.
Or what if originally our kind lived on Mars, but since all the
resources had been used up, they had to move somewhere else, like earth
for example?! Perhaps their ancestors had build their ships an all
their technologies, which means that all they had to do was use them...
which means that when they left Mars they had to leave all their
technologies behind and without any other knowledge they had to set up
camp on Earth...
Too many what ifs, I know... but you never know, if Nostramus is
right then we might never find out... Or if some other prophets saying
about a higher consciousness level after 2000, are right, then we might
find out sooner... So lets just wait for the _Photon Belt_...!!!
Joseph M. Piazza
[note followup line]
In article <335E49...@ews.uiuc.eduZZZ>, Jeremy Huston
<j-hu...@ews.uiuc.eduZZZ> wrote:
>Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>>
>> "David M. Rogers" <mca...@Auburn.campus.mci.net> wrote:
>> >Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>>
[...]
>> >
>> >If a tree falls in a forest, and no one's around, does it make a sound?
>>
>> Oooh, you're one of them. :-) rephrased: "Does a tree make a fall
>> when no one's around to see the tree that *is* making a fall?" The
>> fall and the sound are equivalent, so the answer must be yes.
>>
>> Nando
>
>
>Since you evolutionists all love exact definitions so much, I have to
>reply to this. Sound is defined as what humans can hear. Dog whistles
>don't make sound. True, dogs can hear them, but humans can't.
This has to be the most lame and perverse definition I've ever heard of
(oops, make that "read.") Just because a sound can't be heard by humans
it's not a sound? Give me a fucking break!
Flip side,
joe piazza
--
"God is an overwhelming responsibility" -- I. Anderson
jmpi...@earthlink.net [List #238]
Jeff Candy
Jeff Candy:
|> > Evolution is a fact, just as gravity is a fact. The theories of
|> > said phenomena are based on an analysis and synthesis of vast
|> > amounts of data.
Jeremy Huston:
|> But who says gravity IS a fact?
See your monitor sitting on a table/desk. You need that to
support the monitor against "gravity".
|> Scientists don't understand the mechanism of how it works,
We have a pretty good idea. Do *you* understand how it works?
|> but it helps to explain their observations of the universe,
|> so they accept is as true.
They accept what as true? Gravity or the "Theory of Gravity"?
The former is the observation, the latter is the conceptualized
theory. The theory need not exist for the phenomenon to exist.
|> That doesn't mean it is.
Are you a solipsist? Otherwise, gravity certainly exists.
|> Remember things that we _think_ are quite obvious really aren't--energy
|> and matter are one and the same,
No they're not. Are photons and electrons the same thing?
|> electricity and magnetism are the same,
No they're not. They fit together nicely in a field tensor,
though.
|> time does not move at a constant rate. What appears to be common sense
|> and logic in nature is not so. Just because evolution may look like it
|> is the answer, doesn't mean it is.
You mean the fossil evidence was hoaxed?
Jeff Candy
Nando Ronteltap:
|> Almost correct. The changes entirely aren't random at all, they are
|> willed. Pure randomness, is an illogical concept. Normal referred to
|> randomness is just a convenient relativization of will. You prove
|> it's really random, like everybody says evolution is based on random
|> changes, in stead of willed changes.
Everybody does not say "evolution is based on random changes".
You do, and that is the reason I have claimed you don't grasp
the theory of evolution.
Previously, I said:
|> >Obviously the will (read: behaviour) of an animals is an
|> >evolutionary influence. Who claimed it wasn't?
|>
|> I'm talking about some measure of will right down to how the
|> supposed amino acids got together.
Reference, please, showing that this hypothesis is demonstrably
true.
|> >My only impression is
|>
|> Stuff your impression, make an argument allready.
You are the positive claimant. Either support the claims that
(a) "evolution is based on random changes"
(b) "randomness is just a convenient relativization of will"
or shut your gob. Defining "will" would be an obvious start.
David M. Rogers
Joseph M. Piazza wrote:
>
> [note followup line]
>
> In article <335E49...@ews.uiuc.eduZZZ>, Jeremy Huston
> <j-hu...@ews.uiuc.eduZZZ> wrote:
>
> >Nando Ronteltap wrote:
> >>
> >> "David M. Rogers" <mca...@Auburn.campus.mci.net> wrote:
> >> >Nando Ronteltap wrote:
> >>
> [...]
> >> >
> >> >If a tree falls in a forest, and no one's around, does it make a sound?
> >>
> >> Oooh, you're one of them. :-) rephrased: "Does a tree make a fall
> >> when no one's around to see the tree that *is* making a fall?" The
> >> fall and the sound are equivalent, so the answer must be yes.
> >>
> >> Nando
> >
> >
> >Since you evolutionists all love exact definitions so much, I have to
> >reply to this. Sound is defined as what humans can hear. Dog whistles
> >don't make sound. True, dogs can hear them, but humans can't.
>
> This has to be the most lame and perverse definition I've ever heard of
> (oops, make that "read.") Just because a sound can't be heard by humans
> it's not a sound? Give me a fucking break!
>
True. The vibration of air molecules without a person to detect them is
no more sound than a light wave is sight. Both are impressions drawn
from physical stimuli, not the stimuli themselves.
IG (Slim) Simpson
Jeremy Huston <j-hu...@ews.uiuc.eduZZZ> wrote:
[snip]
>Since you evolutionists all love exact definitions so much, I have to
>reply to this. Sound is defined as what humans can hear.
sound
1 what is or can be heard
2 the vibrations causing that sensation. Sound travels in waves.
3 to 7 non-applicable to this discussion
> Dog whistles
>don't make sound. True, dogs can hear them, but humans can't.
Incorrect by both 1 and 2 above.
>Therefore, since the tree falls with no humans to hear, no compression
>waves will be heard by a human, so the tree cannot make a sound. To go
>on to the stars idea. The stars were here before we were, they were
>emitting light before we were here, but they weren't visible to humans.
>Just because you can't see me doesn't mean I don't exist, does it?
In which Jeremy demolishes his own argument. <sigh>
> University of Illinois, Urbana/Champaign
> Sophomore specialized curriculum in physics
> http://www.cen.uiuc.edu/~j-huston
> mailto:j-hu...@ews.uiuc.edu
>First you master your instrument, then you master the music, then forget
>about all that...and just play." -Charlie Parker
Nando Ronteltap
ca...@mildred.ph.utexas.edu (Jeff Candy) wrote:
>Nando Ronteltap:
>
>|> Almost correct. The changes entirely aren't random at all, they are
>|> willed. Pure randomness, is an illogical concept. Normal referred to
>|> randomness is just a convenient relativization of will. You prove
>|> it's really random, like everybody says evolution is based on random
>|> changes, in stead of willed changes.
>
>Everybody does not say "evolution is based on random changes".
>You do, and that is the reason I have claimed you don't grasp
>the theory of evolution.
Everybody does say that, all over the web they do. Are you saying
you believe it's partially willed partially random? And then there's
some clear border between randomness and will? You're just not
saying anything. I'm not going to talk to someone who isn't willing
to commit himself to a position.
>Previously, I said:
>
>|> >Obviously the will (read: behaviour) of an animals is an
>|> >evolutionary influence. Who claimed it wasn't?
>|>
>|> I'm talking about some measure of will right down to how the
>|> supposed amino acids got together.
>
>Reference, please, showing that this hypothesis is demonstrably
>true.
I have allready proved the primacy of will in the universe by my
glorious assertion of it. Randomness is just statistics <barf>.
>|> >My only impression is
>|>
>|> Stuff your impression, make an argument allready.
>
>You are the positive claimant. Either support the claims that
>
>(a) "evolution is based on random changes"
Stupid claim of me. Evolution is not based on random changes, the
changes in evolution are willed by God. That would be the mother of
nature to the followers of science.
>(b) "randomness is just a convenient relativization of will"
>
>or shut your gob. Defining "will" would be an obvious start.
Go ahead.
Nando
John P. Boatwright
Slime wrote:
> "John P. Boatwright" <sa...@teleport.com> wrote:
> >Slime wrote:
> >> Here in Ontario we have a weekly lottery, often for millions of
> >> dollars, called 6/49. The winner must simply pick six numbers from 1
> >> to 49, in no particular order. The chances of winning this lottery is
> >> a little less than 1 in 14,000,000. Given 4 billion (4,000,000,000)
> >> years, buying one ticket a week, I would win 14,857 times.
> >> Not so improbable , then, that I should win at least once; and once is
> >> all it takes.
> >But you'd be dead way before the first time winning. Same with all
> >these HOPED FOR CHANCES to occur:
> You once again show your ignorance. The point was about abiogenesis.
> Not something already in an advanced form.
Well the point is about the same, waiting for a male and female
to develope eyes in the back of their heads and then mating, just
never happens, they'd be dead before they ever found each other.
Your lottery example just added more proof.
AND you can't say eyes in the back of your head wouldn't be an
advantage (ask any mother with kids, or any guy being stalked
by a tiger). Those "needed" advantages NEVER happen on their
own. Only when God sets it up first, then it happens.
> >* Two identcally mutated flies
> >* but of opposite sex
> >* find each other
> >* and fertilize
> >* and have offspring
> >* with identical mutations
> >* that don't revert back to the original form
> >* And those offspring live on
> >* and find new mates
> >* with identical mutations
> >* and fertilize
> >* and have offspring....
> A truly astounding grasp of the theory of evolution. <sigh>
This type of thing is needed for the big changes needed
to get from ape to human, etc...
> >What are the chances of this happening maybe
> >1e20 times or so (assuming were talking
> Yes, about that chance for abipgenesis. 1e20, Boathead, is equal to 1;
> certainty !
Apes to humans, chemical mush to fish, sure.
> >about all the massively complex changes that
> >would have had to occur for ALL species and
> >the changes needed to get from chemical mush
> >to male/female/child systems).
> >Laughable at best.
> It's easy to laugh at something you are completely ignorant of. Every
> one of your replies is laughable.
Maybe to a math teacher who can't figure out a bowl that
has a brim wider by 4.7% than the main body.
> >Good thing God made it all and Jesus died for our sins.
> Fundie, stay with your stupid, unproved, myth based, falsehoods and
> let the rest of us get on with living a rational life. The greatest
> argument against god is that he created idiots like you.
Who else would tell you? When you finally see God, it'll be
too late.
Best wishes.
exDr. Jamie L. Webb
B. Hicks wrote:
>
> Spyder, do you really think that Heaven will be at monotonous as watching TV?
> I kinda doubt it.....if it was it couldn't be Heaven now could it? Besides,
> time spent with God is time well spent.
Yeah, but to fill up eternity, there'd be alot of time to fill,
actually, an infinite amount of time to fill. "God" (if he/she/it
exists which I doubt) might be great and all, but his/her/its jokes are
going to get old sometime. Do you really want to have to live through
eternity? I mean, even with the things I really enjoy, they get old in a
little while. I'd rather just die, and be over with it, no regrets.
B. Hicks
Jeff Candy
Jeff Candy:
|> >Everybody does not say "evolution is based on random changes".
|> >You do, and that is the reason I have claimed you don't grasp
|> >the theory of evolution.
Nando Ronteltap:
|> Everybody does say that, all over the web they do. Are you saying
|> you believe it's partially willed partially random? And then there's
|> some clear border between randomness and will? You're just not
|> saying anything. I'm not going to talk to someone who isn't willing
|> to commit himself to a position.
The validity of your argument depends on my position? That's
interesting. Now, back to the defence of your assertions:
|> >Previously, I said:
|> >
|> >|> >Obviously the will (read: behaviour) of an animals is an
|> >|> >evolutionary influence. Who claimed it wasn't?
|> >|>
|> >|> I'm talking about some measure of will right down to how the
|> >|> supposed amino acids got together.
|> >
|> >Reference, please, showing that this hypothesis is demonstrably
|> >true.
|>
|> I have allready proved the primacy of will in the universe by my
|> glorious assertion of it.
On the contrary, no proof/evidence has been given (viz, "assertion").
|> Randomness is just statistics <barf>.
How profound.
|> >|> >My only impression is
|> >|>
|> >|> Stuff your impression, make an argument allready.
|> >
|> >You are the positive claimant. Either support the claims that
|> >
|> >(a) "evolution is based on random changes"
|>
|> Stupid claim of me. Evolution is not based on random changes, the
|> changes in evolution are willed by God. That would be the mother of
|> nature to the followers of science.
Which god? Please support your assertions.
|> >(b) "randomness is just a convenient relativization of will"
|> >
|> >or shut your gob. Defining "will" would be an obvious start.
|>
|> Go ahead.
My interpretation of your argument is:
"God did it"
and the empirical evidence/support you offer is:
<null>
Am I missing something?
Nick Blaha
> > Fundie, stay with your stupid, unproved, myth based, falsehoods and
> > let the rest of us get on with living a rational life. The greatest
> > argument against god is that he created idiots like you.
Does anybody else see a contradiction here?
nb
Nick Blaha
> > >> Oooh, you're one of them. :-) rephrased: "Does a tree make a fall
> > >> when no one's around to see the tree that *is* making a fall?" The
> > >> fall and the sound are equivalent, so the answer must be yes.
> > >>
> > >
> > >If a tree falls in a forest, and it hits a mime, does anyone care?
> >
> > If a tree falls in a forest and hits a mime, does that make a
> > tragedy?
> >
> > Nando
>
> No. It makes a "Far Side" cartoon.
Hear Hear!
nb
Nick Blaha
> Sorry, Nando, but the power went out as I was reading your other post so
> I lost it, but I think I remember it pretty well (their never very
> complex in their logic)
<snip>
> Isn't the fact that heaven has to be enjoyable a denial of free will?
> If you don't want that enjoyment, isn't "God" denying your free will?
> So, if I didn't want the infiniteness of eternity and yet God forced me
> to experience it, wouldn't that be a denial of my free will? I'm sorry
> to say, but the theory of Christianity doesn't hold up to the free will
> standards that you set forth.
<snip>
Well, your logic isn't so hot, either. If a man has lived a very holy life
and enters heaven, he has already made his choice by living a holy life.
If he did not want to have eternal paradise, he would not have tried to go
to heaven. The reason he would live a _holy_ life is that he knew his
rewards and suffered here on earth to gain those rewards. Why else would
he be holy? If he was living a good life (note the distinction there)
purely because it was the right thing to do, or his purely secular ethics
instilled in him by his parents told him to, he wouldn't go to Heaven
anyway because he did not believe in God or the mercy and love of Christ.
To go to Heaven means to go to a place where everything is enjoyable --
that's what the word Heaven means! To desire not to have joy in the
afterlife would be the desire to go somewhere other than Heaven (limbo,
maybe?). Your example seems to disprove the "theory" of Christianity, but
the case would never arise. After several decades of resisting temptation
and living a virtuous life, why would you want to continue to suffer? It
is not easy: read the biography of any saint.
nb