help for Zoë
Joe Cummings
Zoë set us a hypothetical situation,in which a person brought
back to life a dead man.
Let's go along with her hypothetical, but deepening it.
We move the corpse, and the personnel to the UK.
We place among the personnel a practising Muslim, a Hindu and
a Christian. Zoë, of course, is behind a two way mirror, watching the
poceedings.
The gentleman enters, and brings the corpse back to life.
The Christian says "This is the the work of the risen
Christ."
The Muslim says "This is the work of Allah."
The Hindu says "This is the work of Krishna."
How does Zoë choose between the claims?
The discriminating reader will note that I have gone along
with Zoë, but I reserve my right to return to an earlier stage of the
proceedings.
Have miraculous fun,
Joe Cummings
Nic
> Zoë set us a hypothetical situation,in which a person brought
> back to life a dead man.
>
> Let's go along with her hypothetical, but deepening it.
>
> We move the corpse, and the personnel to the UK.
Why not? We'll also happily take any spent nuclear fuel you might
need reprocessing.
> We place among the personnel a practising Muslim, a Hindu and
> a Christian. Zoë, of course, is behind a two way mirror, watching the
> poceedings.
>
> The gentleman enters, and brings the corpse back to life.
>
> The Christian says "This is the the work of the risen
> Christ."
>
> The Muslim says "This is the work of Allah."
>
> The Hindu says "This is the work of Krishna."
>
> How does Zoë choose between the claims?
Maybe she's entitled to a casting vote. Or maybe she doesn't mind. I
think from something she replied in the other thread, that she wants
more than simply to believe it happened. She wants to believe the
party responsible is worth following, whatever that's got to do with
the price of fish. In this hypothetical scenario, there is no way
that worthiness of being followed can be established. Indeed, there's
no way of establishing that following something/someone is even a
desirable thing.
chris.li...@gmail.com
This actually poses less of a problem than the initial raising of the
dead. Of course, you just don't know which God is supplying the high-
test miracle grow. It might even be (as my first answer implied)
Nyarlathotep looking for zombie minions to wreak his vengeance on
whoever let his name loose on Usenet (uh oh).
But the fact is that you can just ask the dude who's doing the
raising. Of course, when he does say he's a priest of Nyarlathotep,
what's Zoe to do?
Chris
snex
asking the dude who is doing the raising is exactly the problem with
religions. they see some guy doing what they dont know how to do, and
then assume he is knowledgeable about unrelated fields. all we know is
that this guy can raise the dead (or at least show up when they are
about to be raised). his theological musings are still no more valid
than those of lenny flank's pizza boy.
>
> Chris
dkomo
>
> Zoë set us a hypothetical situation,in which a person brought
> back to life a dead man.
>
> Let's go along with her hypothetical, but deepening it.
>
> We move the corpse, and the personnel to the UK.
>
> We place among the personnel a practising Muslim, a Hindu and
> a Christian. Zoë, of course, is behind a two way mirror, watching the
> poceedings.
>
> The gentleman enters, and brings the corpse back to life.
>
> The Christian says "This is the the work of the risen
> Christ."
>
> The Muslim says "This is the work of Allah."
>
> The Hindu says "This is the work of Krishna."
>
> How does Zoë choose between the claims?
>
Ho boy, am I going to have some fun with this. A trick question
deserves a trick answer. The answer depends upon whether the Hindu is
uneducated or erudite. The uneducated Hindu says "This is the work of
Krishna."
The erudite Hindu says "This is the work of Krishna." He would also
say, "This is the work of Shiva." He would also say, "This is the work
of Brahman." He would also say, "This is the work of Vishnu." He would
also say, "This is the work of Allah." He would also say, "This is the
the work of the risen Christ."
For the erudite Hindu knows that all these terms are equivalent,
imperfect descriptions of what cannot be described in human language.
So the correct answer is that there is no essential difference between
the claims, and no need to choose. Of course, what Zoe would choose is
an entirely different matter. I suspect that someone who clings to the
Bible and has "faith" must make a choice and that choice is...guess what.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman
"Conceptualization"
"This Supreme Cosmic Spirit or Absolute Reality called Brahman is said
to be eternal, genderless, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, and
ultimately indescribable in the human language. It can be at best
described as infinite Being, infinite Consciousness and infinite Bliss.
Brahman is regarded as the source and essence of the material universe.
It is pure being. Brahman manifests as Hiranyagarbha, the "world soul",
which also can take many forms or manifestations of the thousands of
gods. It was deemed a singular substrate from which all that is arises,
and debuts with this verse:
Great indeed are the devas who have sprung out of Brahman. —
Atharva Veda"
It is not for nothing that Hinduism is said to have millions of
different gods.
Vend
I think that Zoe's point was to show that the theory of evolution was
a religious belif and thus on equal foot with creationism.
She attempted to show that 'evolutionists' had a faith in their 'core
belifs' that would prevent them to accept certain forms of evidence.
Chris Thompson
news:1180044348.6...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
> On May 24, 4:54 pm, "chris.linthomp...@gmail.com"
> <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 24, 4:37 pm, Joe Cummings <joecummi...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Zoė set us a hypothetical situation,in which a person
>> > brought
>> > back to life a dead man.
>>
>> > Let's go along with her hypothetical, but deepening it.
>>
>> > We move the corpse, and the personnel to the UK.
>>
>> > We place among the personnel a practising Muslim, a Hindu
>> > and
>> > a Christian. Zoė, of course, is behind a two way mirror, watching
>> > the poceedings.
>>
>> > The gentleman enters, and brings the corpse back to life.
>>
>> > The Christian says "This is the the work of the risen
>> > Christ."
>>
>> > The Muslim says "This is the work of Allah."
>>
>> > The Hindu says "This is the work of Krishna."
>>
>> > How does Zoė choose between the claims?
>>
>> > The discriminating reader will note that I have gone along
>> > with Zoė, but I reserve my right to return to an earlier stage of
>> > the proceedings.
>>
>> > Have miraculous fun,
>>
>> > Joe Cummings
>>
>> This actually poses less of a problem than the initial raising of the
>> dead. Of course, you just don't know which God is supplying the
>> high- test miracle grow. It might even be (as my first answer
>> implied) Nyarlathotep looking for zombie minions to wreak his
>> vengeance on whoever let his name loose on Usenet (uh oh).
>>
>> But the fact is that you can just ask the dude who's doing the
>> raising. Of course, when he does say he's a priest of Nyarlathotep,
>> what's Zoe to do?
>
> asking the dude who is doing the raising is exactly the problem with
> religions. they see some guy doing what they dont know how to do, and
> then assume he is knowledgeable about unrelated fields. all we know is
> that this guy can raise the dead (or at least show up when they are
> about to be raised). his theological musings are still no more valid
> than those of lenny flank's pizza boy.
>
>>
>> Chris
>
>
>
>
Joe Cummings specifically said that this guy had proven to our
satisfaction that he really was raising the dead. If that's the case, I
want to know him. There's a few corpses I want to warn him about :)
I guess if he's a priest of Nyarlathotep, he'd probably lie about it
anyhow.
Chris
Rich Townsend
>> back to life a dead man.
>>
>> Let's go along with her hypothetical, but deepening it.
>>
>> We move the corpse, and the personnel to the UK.
>>
>> We place among the personnel a practising Muslim, a Hindu and
>> poceedings.
>>
>> The gentleman enters, and brings the corpse back to life.
>>
>> The Christian says "This is the the work of the risen
>> Christ."
>>
>> The Muslim says "This is the work of Allah."
>>
>> The Hindu says "This is the work of Krishna."
>>
>>
>> The discriminating reader will note that I have gone along
>> proceedings.
>>
>> Have miraculous fun,
>>
>> Joe Cummings
>
> I think that Zoe's point was to show that the theory of evolution was
> a religious belif and thus on equal foot with creationism.
> She attempted to show that 'evolutionists' had a faith in their 'core
> belifs' that would prevent them to accept certain forms of evidence.
>
>
But Zoe's stance was always built on the unsaid premise that the awakening of
the cadaver was a supernatural event perpetrated by a deity. She did not allow
for the possibility that there might be other, valid explanations for the
'miracle'; and when others offered these explanations, she concluded that they
were dogmatically incapable of accepting miracles.
Basically, her hypothetical is based on the fallacy of the excluded middle. 'If
you don't accept this particular scenario could only be due to a miracle, then
your belief system renders you incapable of appreciating miracles or the
supernatural.'
cheers,
Rich
Zoe
<joecu...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
>
> Zoė set us a hypothetical situation,in which a person brought
>back to life a dead man.
>
> Let's go along with her hypothetical, but deepening it.
>
> We move the corpse, and the personnel to the UK.
>
> We place among the personnel a practising Muslim, a Hindu and
>a Christian. Zoė, of course, is behind a two way mirror, watching the
>poceedings.
>
> The gentleman enters, and brings the corpse back to life.
>
> The Christian says "This is the the work of the risen
>Christ."
>
> The Muslim says "This is the work of Allah."
>
> The Hindu says "This is the work of Krishna."
>
> How does Zoė choose between the claims?
what's your goal here, Joe? If you are following up on my
hypothetical, then how does choosing between the above claims
challenge my core belief in regard to intelligent design versus
macroevolution?
>
> The discriminating reader will note that I have gone along
>with Zoė, but I reserve my right to return to an earlier stage of the
>proceedings.
>
> Have miraculous fun,
ahh, fun belongs in my sandbox. But if you meant to keep to the
core-belief topic, here's a better hypothetical that would test my own
core belief.
Hypothetical: I enter a lab in which bacteria are being observed. The
life spans of these bacteria are so short that many, many generations
can be observed. Over a period of several years, during which time
millions of generations of bacteria have lived and died, you observe
that some of the bacteria no longer look like bacteria but begin to
change morphologically. At the end of several years, you find that
while some bacteria are still bacteria, others have morphed into
lung-bearers, bone-carriers, wing-sprouters. Some have nervous
systems, others are more plant-like.
If I were to observe this kind of evolution in microcosm, I would have
to change my core beliefs.
r norman
>On Thu, 24 May 2007 22:37:11 +0200, Joe Cummings
><joecu...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Zoë set us a hypothetical situation,in which a person brought
>>back to life a dead man.
>>
>> Let's go along with her hypothetical, but deepening it.
>>
>> We move the corpse, and the personnel to the UK.
>>
>> We place among the personnel a practising Muslim, a Hindu and
>>a Christian. Zoë, of course, is behind a two way mirror, watching the
>>poceedings.
>>
>> The gentleman enters, and brings the corpse back to life.
>>
>> The Christian says "This is the the work of the risen
>>Christ."
>>
>> The Muslim says "This is the work of Allah."
>>
>> The Hindu says "This is the work of Krishna."
>>
>> How does Zoë choose between the claims?
>
>what's your goal here, Joe? If you are following up on my
>hypothetical, then how does choosing between the above claims
>challenge my core belief in regard to intelligent design versus
>macroevolution?
>>
>> The discriminating reader will note that I have gone along
>>with Zoë, but I reserve my right to return to an earlier stage of the
>>proceedings.
>>
>> Have miraculous fun,
>
>ahh, fun belongs in my sandbox. But if you meant to keep to the
>core-belief topic, here's a better hypothetical that would test my own
>core belief.
>
>Hypothetical: I enter a lab in which bacteria are being observed. The
>life spans of these bacteria are so short that many, many generations
>can be observed. Over a period of several years, during which time
>millions of generations of bacteria have lived and died, you observe
>that some of the bacteria no longer look like bacteria but begin to
>change morphologically. At the end of several years, you find that
>while some bacteria are still bacteria, others have morphed into
>lung-bearers, bone-carriers, wing-sprouters. Some have nervous
>systems, others are more plant-like.
>
>If I were to observe this kind of evolution in microcosm, I would have
>to change my core beliefs.
You are just a little too impatient. Wait a little longer and you
will see just such things happen!
OK, wait a LOT longer!
Nic
> On Thu, 24 May 2007 22:37:11 +0200, Joe Cummings
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Zoë set us a hypothetical situation,in which a person brought
> >back to life a dead man.
>
> > Let's go along with her hypothetical, but deepening it.
>
> > We move the corpse, and the personnel to the UK.
>
> > We place among the personnel a practising Muslim, a Hindu and
> >poceedings.
>
> > The gentleman enters, and brings the corpse back to life.
>
> > The Christian says "This is the the work of the risen
> >Christ."
>
> > The Muslim says "This is the work of Allah."
>
> > The Hindu says "This is the work of Krishna."
>
>
> what's your goal here, Joe? If you are following up on my
> hypothetical, then how does choosing between the above claims
> challenge my core belief in regard to intelligent design versus
> macroevolution?
>
>
>
> > The discriminating reader will note that I have gone along
> >proceedings.
>
> > Have miraculous fun,
>
> ahh, fun belongs in my sandbox. But if you meant to keep to the
> core-belief topic, here's a better hypothetical that would test my own
> core belief.
>
> Hypothetical: I enter a lab in which bacteria are being observed. The
> life spans of these bacteria are so short that many, many generations
> can be observed. Over a period of several years, during which time
> millions of generations of bacteria have lived and died, you observe
> that some of the bacteria no longer look like bacteria but begin to
> change morphologically. At the end of several years, you find that
> while some bacteria are still bacteria, others have morphed into
> lung-bearers, bone-carriers, wing-sprouters. Some have nervous
> systems, others are more plant-like.
>
> If I were to observe this kind of evolution in microcosm, I would have
> to change my core beliefs.
In that case, the question isn't whether the above scenario might
happen, but rather, how on earth could anyone have core beliefs that
are sensitive to such a thing? Are your core beliefs sensitive to
whether linux is going to predominate over windows?
Joe Cummings
>On Thu, 24 May 2007 22:37:11 +0200, Joe Cummings
><joecu...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Zoë set us a hypothetical situation,in which a person brought
>>back to life a dead man.
>>
>> Let's go along with her hypothetical, but deepening it.
>>
>> We move the corpse, and the personnel to the UK.
>>
>> We place among the personnel a practising Muslim, a Hindu and
>>a Christian. Zoë, of course, is behind a two way mirror, watching the
>>poceedings.
>>
>> The gentleman enters, and brings the corpse back to life.
>>
>> The Christian says "This is the the work of the risen
>>Christ."
>>
>> The Muslim says "This is the work of Allah."
>>
>> The Hindu says "This is the work of Krishna."
>>
>> How does Zoë choose between the claims?
>
>what's your goal here, Joe? If you are following up on my
>hypothetical, then how does choosing between the above claims
>challenge my core belief in regard to intelligent design versus
>macroevolution?
>>
>> The discriminating reader will note that I have gone along
>>with Zoë, but I reserve my right to return to an earlier stage of the
>>proceedings.
>>
>> Have miraculous fun,
>
>ahh, fun belongs in my sandbox. But if you meant to keep to the
>core-belief topic, here's a better hypothetical that would test my own
>core belief.
>
>Hypothetical: I enter a lab in which bacteria are being observed. The
>life spans of these bacteria are so short that many, many generations
>can be observed. Over a period of several years, during which time
>millions of generations of bacteria have lived and died, you observe
>that some of the bacteria no longer look like bacteria but begin to
>change morphologically. At the end of several years, you find that
>while some bacteria are still bacteria, others have morphed into
>lung-bearers, bone-carriers, wing-sprouters. Some have nervous
>systems, others are more plant-like.
>
>If I were to observe this kind of evolution in microcosm, I would have
>to change my core beliefs.
Three things need to be said:
First, I like Zoë's attempts to work things out in a public
way. The only snag is that she is cramped by her beliefs from
becoming a useful contributer to the debate.
Her aim is to try to find something in science that will
invalidate the theory of evolution.
Second, in her first hypothetical, she is evidently assuming
that the event would be regarded as supernatural. But neither she nor
anyone else would react to the event by assuming a miracle. She would
try to find a natural explanation for what had happened, just like
everyone else. Claims of supernatural activity always arise after the
event - the events are always interpreted in accordance with one's
own religious beliefs.
Third, I wonder if Zoë would take us through the steps of
reasoning that lead from the raising of a dead person to the claim of
intelligent design?
Have fun,
Joe Cummings
Carsten Troelsgaard
"Zoe" <muz...@aol.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:42dc53dj8ngcn7mr9...@4ax.com...>> Zoë set us a hypothetical situation,in which a person brought
>>back to life a dead man.
>>
>> Let's go along with her hypothetical, but deepening it.
>>
>> We move the corpse, and the personnel to the UK.
>>
>> We place among the personnel a practising Muslim, a Hindu and
>>poceedings.
>>
>> The gentleman enters, and brings the corpse back to life.
>>
>> The Christian says "This is the the work of the risen
>>Christ."
>>
>> The Muslim says "This is the work of Allah."
>>
>> The Hindu says "This is the work of Krishna."
>>
>
> what's your goal here, Joe? If you are following up on my
> hypothetical, then
> how does choosing between the above claims
> challenge my core belief in regard to intelligent design versus
> macroevolution?
You didn't go all the way on your conclusion from your survey, but it's
somehow hanging in the air, that stupefaction is a human quality that
renders you an Id'ist or atleast religiously inclined. Kids/babyes
experience a lot of firsttime_events and for a good reason associates it
with these almighty creatures (parents) that seems to be good nurishment on
general. It shouldn't come as a surprice to you, that we suspect the godly
presence you feel through your religiousness (of whatever flavour it is) is
a sort of sensation of your childhood's omnipotential parents. Have I failed
to understand that this is what the scripture refer to as 'God'? .... let me
stress that I refer to an inner feeling ... Does this 'feeling' have an
objective external existence that is embodied in anything else than other
human creatures?
From a hip-shot (I'm not a linguist/literate) I take that the root of
sacrosanctity and secrecy is one and the same.... meaning that I can ask the
question and expect no answer
Carsten
>> The discriminating reader will note that I have gone along
>>with Zoë, but I reserve my right to return to an earlier stage of the
wf3h
Zoe wrote:
> >
> Hypothetical: I enter a lab in which bacteria are being observed. The
> life spans of these bacteria are so short that many, many generations
> can be observed. Over a period of several years, during which time
> millions of generations of bacteria have lived and died, you observe
> that some of the bacteria no longer look like bacteria but begin to
> change morphologically. At the end of several years, you find that
> while some bacteria are still bacteria, others have morphed into
> lung-bearers, bone-carriers, wing-sprouters. Some have nervous
> systems, others are more plant-like.
>
> If I were to observe this kind of evolution in microcosm, I would have
> to change my core beliefs.
since this isn't how evolution works, what zoe just said is that her
core beliefs can't be challenged by evidence, but only by fantasy...
Ye Old One
>
>
> Zoė set us a hypothetical situation,in which a person brought
>back to life a dead man.
>
> Let's go along with her hypothetical, but deepening it.
>
> We move the corpse, and the personnel to the UK.
>
> We place among the personnel a practising Muslim, a Hindu and
>a Christian. Zoė, of course, is behind a two way mirror, watching the
>poceedings.
>
> The gentleman enters, and brings the corpse back to life.
>
> The Christian says "This is the the work of the risen
>Christ."
>
> The Muslim says "This is the work of Allah."
>
> The Hindu says "This is the work of Krishna."
>
> How does Zoė choose between the claims?
>
> The discriminating reader will note that I have gone along
>with Zoė, but I reserve my right to return to an earlier stage of the
>proceedings.
>
> Have miraculous fun,
>
> Joe Cummings
All three would be wrong because they invoke the supernatural.
--
Bob.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <e4tb53t4409l3d612...@4ax.com>):
>
>
> Zoë set us a hypothetical situation,in which a person brought
> back to life a dead man.
>
> Let's go along with her hypothetical, but deepening it.
>
> We move the corpse, and the personnel to the UK.
Let's just move the corpse to Anita Blake's version of St. Louis. Anita just
raised herself another zombie. Big deal. She once raised an entire graveyard.
And she can raise vampires as zombies.
>
> We place among the personnel a practising Muslim, a Hindu and
> a Christian. Zoë, of course, is behind a two way mirror, watching the
> poceedings.
>
> The gentleman enters, and brings the corpse back to life.
>
> The Christian says "This is the the work of the risen
> Christ."
>
> The Muslim says "This is the work of Allah."
>
> The Hindu says "This is the work of Krishna."
>
> How does Zoë choose between the claims?
>
> The discriminating reader will note that I have gone along
> with Zoë, but I reserve my right to return to an earlier stage of the
> proceedings.
>
> Have miraculous fun,
>
> Joe Cummings
>
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
samthec...@yahoo.co.uk
> Zoë set us a hypothetical situation,in which a person brought
> back to life a dead man.
Not possible.
>
> Let's go along with her hypothetical, but deepening it.
No, let's not be seduced by this.
Let's be properly scientific instead. *First* let's see someone
bringing a dead person back to life, *then* we can argue about how to
interpret this observation.
The question posed is as absurd as asking "what if your pet goldfish
suddenly metamorphosed into a cow? how would you deal with the problem
of having a rather dazed cow standing in wet broken glass in your
lounge?". Can't happen, won't happen, end of.
Philosophical word play will never affect the underlying facts: life
ends at death and there are no gods with supernatural powers to create
or restore life.
Sam the Centipede
chris.li...@gmail.com
> On Thu, 24 May 2007 22:37:11 +0200, Joe Cummings
>
>
>
>
> > Zoë set us a hypothetical situation,in which a person brought
> >back to life a dead man.
>
> > Let's go along with her hypothetical, but deepening it.
>
> > We move the corpse, and the personnel to the UK.
>
> > We place among the personnel a practising Muslim, a Hindu and
> >poceedings.
>
> > The gentleman enters, and brings the corpse back to life.
>
> > The Christian says "This is the the work of the risen
> >Christ."
>
> > The Muslim says "This is the work of Allah."
>
> > The Hindu says "This is the work of Krishna."
>
>
> what's your goal here, Joe? If you are following up on my
> hypothetical, then how does choosing between the above claims
> challenge my core belief in regard to intelligent design versus
> macroevolution?
>
>
>
> > The discriminating reader will note that I have gone along
> >proceedings.
>
> > Have miraculous fun,
>
> ahh, fun belongs in my sandbox. But if you meant to keep to the
> core-belief topic, here's a better hypothetical that would test my own
> core belief.
>
> Hypothetical: I enter a lab in which bacteria are being observed. The
> life spans of these bacteria are so short that many, many generations
> can be observed. Over a period of several years, during which time
> millions of generations of bacteria have lived and died, you observe
> that some of the bacteria no longer look like bacteria but begin to
> change morphologically. At the end of several years, you find that
> while some bacteria are still bacteria, others have morphed into
> lung-bearers, bone-carriers, wing-sprouters. Some have nervous
> systems, others are more plant-like.
>
> If I were to observe this kind of evolution in microcosm, I would have
> to change my core beliefs.
OK Zoe, think about this. Do you have to witness all that happening?
If so, you must be an extraordinary skeptic. If that's the case,
McDonald's hasn't served billions of burgers, because you didn't see
them. There's no war in Iraq, because you haven't seen it. Heck, there
aren't even any other people on the planet, except for the ones you
can see at any given time. Am I right?
No, I didn't think so. At least, I hope that you're willing to accept
evidence of things that happened in the past, even though you haven't
actually seen the event. (Did Hank Aaron really hit all those home
runs?)
So suppose you went into the lab and you were shown four organisms-
living organisms, not fossils. They look almost exactly alike, but
they cannot interbreed. Then the scientist presents you with recorded
observations as to when and where these organisms first appeared. Two
of the three were unknown until about 150 years ago. But these
organisms weren't discovered in some out of the way place- they arose,
seemingly spontaneously, in western Europe and the first recorded
observations are detailed accounts.
Now the scientist presents you with genetic data. It's obvious from
the data (if you have the training to evaluate it) that one species
arose as a result of cross-breeding between two of the other species,
and the fourth species arose by a chromosomal mutation of that third
species. The genetics are pretty well understood at this point, Zoe.
It all happened pretty much within a single human lifetime.
Hypothetically, of course.
Now, finally, the scientist presents you with another specimen of the
fourth species. She explains to you that this individual was produced
in the laboratory, experimentally, under controlled conditions, and it
is exactly the same species as individual number four, mentioned
above. Speciation, replicated in the lab.
What would your reaction be?
Chris
Bloopen...@juno.com
>
>
>
>
> > Zoë set us a hypothetical situation,in which a person brought
> >back to life a dead man.
>
> > Let's go along with her hypothetical, but deepening it.
>
> > We move the corpse, and the personnel to the UK.
>
> > We place among the personnel a practising Muslim, a Hindu and
> >poceedings.
>
> > The gentleman enters, and brings the corpse back to life.
>
> > The Christian says "This is the the work of the risen
> >Christ."
>
> > The Muslim says "This is the work of Allah."
>
> > The Hindu says "This is the work of Krishna."
>
>
> what's your goal here, Joe? If you are following up on my
> hypothetical, then how does choosing between the above claims
> challenge my core belief in regard to intelligent design versus
> macroevolution?
They're trying to say that there's no way of discriminating between
different supernatural explanations for phenomena. A given miracle is
usually *associated* with a given religion, but just how exactly can
this association be valid? A way to test these claims is not
forthcoming, to say the least. To make it even more interesting, there
are some phenomena, such as gamma ray bursts, that are bizarre and
unexplained but haven't been associated with any creed.
This ties into a question I asked you over at "Core belief test."
Perhaps you missed it cause the thread has gotten buried. You said
that you didn't agree that saying "God did it" ended scientific
inquiry. So what, exactly, do you think can be further discovered once
we've said "God did it?"
Vend
>
> > Zoë set us a hypothetical situation,in which a person brought
> >back to life a dead man.
>
> > Let's go along with her hypothetical, but deepening it.
>
> > We move the corpse, and the personnel to the UK.
>
> > We place among the personnel a practising Muslim, a Hindu and
> >poceedings.
>
> > The gentleman enters, and brings the corpse back to life.
>
> > The Christian says "This is the the work of the risen
> >Christ."
>
> > The Muslim says "This is the work of Allah."
>
> > The Hindu says "This is the work of Krishna."
>
>
> what's your goal here, Joe? If you are following up on my
> hypothetical, then how does choosing between the above claims
> challenge my core belief in regard to intelligent design versus
> macroevolution?
>
>
>
> > The discriminating reader will note that I have gone along
> >proceedings.
>
> > Have miraculous fun,
>
> ahh, fun belongs in my sandbox. But if you meant to keep to the
> core-belief topic, here's a better hypothetical that would test my own
> core belief.
>
> Hypothetical: I enter a lab in which bacteria are being observed. The
> life spans of these bacteria are so short that many, many generations
> can be observed. Over a period of several years, during which time
> millions of generations of bacteria have lived and died, you observe
> that some of the bacteria no longer look like bacteria but begin to
> change morphologically. At the end of several years, you find that
> while some bacteria are still bacteria, others have morphed into
> lung-bearers, bone-carriers, wing-sprouters. Some have nervous
> systems, others are more plant-like.
>
> If I were to observe this kind of evolution in microcosm, I would have
> to change my core beliefs.
If you observed David Copperfield flying would you change your 'core
belif' that humans can't fly or would you assume you've been fooled?
Kelsey Bjarnason
What he answers changes nothing. Assuming he can actually pull it off, I
see four cases:
a) He's actually doing it himself, by means unknown to him - i.e. he says
the right thing, and *poof*, but _why_ it works is a mystery to him
b) He's doing it himself, knows exactly how it works, but to avoid being
dissected, etc, palms it off on a god
c) It actually is the work of the god specified (since we're kinda
assuming gods here in the first place, no assertion of their existence
beyond the scope of the problem implied)
d) It's actually the work of some other god entirely - Thor, say, though
credit is being given to Ra - who is simply having a bit of fun, or who is
reacting to some umpteen-thousand-year-old compact, or for some other
reason performing the act.
It's actually d I find most interesting. If you're assuming gods, then
how do you eliminate other gods who may be having fun, or willfully
deceiving (the "evil" gods), or who are doing the job for other reasons,
despite not getting the credit?
The fact you've introduced three or four or forty practitioners of
different faiths only goes to form of request - not form of answering
agent.
--
I'm so ugly, even the tide won't go out with me.
chris.li...@gmail.com
Saying this is essentially no different from Intelligent Design- we
cannot know for sure, so we don't investigate.
The obvious first step is to question the person who's doing the
action. Any of the cases you list below might indeed be true. But
that's not sufficient reason to not question him or her.
Chris
Glenn
chris.li...@gmail.com
I bet you could cut that in half. Artificial selection is much faster
than natural selection.
Chris
Glenn
<chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 26, 1:53 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 24, 6:35 pm, r norman <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Thu, 24 May 2007 21:02:04 -0400, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > >On Thu, 24 May 2007 22:37:11 +0200, Joe Cummings
> > > ><joecummi...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> > > >>back to life a dead man.
>
> > > >> Let's go along with her hypothetical, but deepening it.
>
> > > >> We move the corpse, and the personnel to the UK.
>
> > > >> We place among the personnel a practising Muslim, a Hindu and
> > > >>poceedings.
>
> > > >> The gentleman enters, and brings the corpse back to life.
>
> > > >> The Christian says "This is the the work of the risen
> > > >>Christ."
>
> > > >> The Muslim says "This is the work of Allah."
>
> > > >> The Hindu says "This is the work of Krishna."
>
>
> > > >what's your goal here, Joe? If you are following up on my
> > > >hypothetical, then how does choosing between the above claims
> > > >challenge my core belief in regard to intelligent design versus
> > > >macroevolution?
>
> > > >> The discriminating reader will note that I have gone along
> > > >>proceedings.
>
> > > >> Have miraculous fun,
>
> > > >ahh, fun belongs in my sandbox. But if you meant to keep to the
> > > >core-belief topic, here's a better hypothetical that would test my own
> > > >core belief.
>
> > > >Hypothetical: I enter a lab in which bacteria are being observed. The
> > > >life spans of these bacteria are so short that many, many generations
> > > >can be observed. Over a period of several years, during which time
> > > >millions of generations of bacteria have lived and died, you observe
> > > >that some of the bacteria no longer look like bacteria but begin to
> > > >change morphologically. At the end of several years, you find that
> > > >while some bacteria are still bacteria, others have morphed into
> > > >lung-bearers, bone-carriers, wing-sprouters. Some have nervous
> > > >systems, others are more plant-like.
>
> > > >If I were to observe this kind of evolution in microcosm, I would have
> > > >to change my core beliefs.
>
> > > You are just a little too impatient. Wait a little longer and you
> > > will see just such things happen!
>
> > > OK, wait a LOT longer!
>
> > Like 4 billion years. "You'll see".
>
> I bet you could cut that in half.
I bet you couldn't. You didn't really understand what I meant, did
you.
>Artificial selection is much faster
> than natural selection.
>
Says who?
chris.li...@gmail.com
Well your two sentence response was a paragon of cryptic
noncommunication. If it doesn't mean what it appears to mean, I guess
you could be sending out anything from the Secrets Of The Universe to
a recipe for chocolate chip cookies.
>
> >Artificial selection is much faster
> > than natural selection.
>
> Says who?
Says the experience humans have accumulated in over 10,000 years of
agriculture and only slightly less than that for animal husbandry.
Look it up. Better yet go catch some wolves and start domesticating
them. Report back in 5000 generations.
Chris
Glenn
<chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 26, 5:37 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 26, 12:44 pm, "chris.linthomp...@gmail.com"
>
> > <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On May 26, 1:53 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 24, 6:35 pm, r norman <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Thu, 24 May 2007 21:02:04 -0400, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > >On Thu, 24 May 2007 22:37:11 +0200, Joe Cummings
> > > > > ><joecummi...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> > > > > >>back to life a dead man.
>
> > > > > >> Let's go along with her hypothetical, but deepening it.
>
> > > > > >> We move the corpse, and the personnel to the UK.
>
> > > > > >> We place among the personnel a practising Muslim, a Hindu and
> > > > > >>poceedings.
>
> > > > > >> The gentleman enters, and brings the corpse back to life.
>
> > > > > >> The Christian says "This is the the work of the risen
> > > > > >>Christ."
>
> > > > > >> The Muslim says "This is the work of Allah."
>
> > > > > >> The Hindu says "This is the work of Krishna."
>
>
> > > > > >what's your goal here, Joe? If you are following up on my
> > > > > >hypothetical, then how does choosing between the above claims
> > > > > >challenge my core belief in regard to intelligent design versus
> > > > > >macroevolution?
>
> > > > > >> The discriminating reader will note that I have gone along
any help, I suppose.
>
>
> > >Artificial selection is much faster
> > > than natural selection.
>
> > Says who?
>
> Says the experience humans have accumulated in over 10,000 years of
> agriculture and only slightly less than that for animal husbandry.
> Look it up. Better yet go catch some wolves and start domesticating
> them. Report back in 5000 generations.
>
science teacher.
chris.li...@gmail.com
> On May 26, 2:49 pm, "chris.linthomp...@gmail.com"
>
> <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 26, 5:37 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 26, 12:44 pm, "chris.linthomp...@gmail.com"
>
> > > <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On May 26, 1:53 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 24, 6:35 pm, r norman <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Thu, 24 May 2007 21:02:04 -0400, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >On Thu, 24 May 2007 22:37:11 +0200, Joe Cummings
> > > > > > ><joecummi...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> > > > > > >>back to life a dead man.
>
> > > > > > >> Let's go along with her hypothetical, but deepening it.
>
> > > > > > >> We move the corpse, and the personnel to the UK.
>
> > > > > > >> We place among the personnel a practising Muslim, a Hindu and
> > > > > > >>poceedings.
>
> > > > > > >> The gentleman enters, and brings the corpse back to life.
>
> > > > > > >> The Christian says "This is the the work of the risen
> > > > > > >>Christ."
>
> > > > > > >> The Muslim says "This is the work of Allah."
>
> > > > > > >> The Hindu says "This is the work of Krishna."
>
>
> > > > > > >what's your goal here, Joe? If you are following up on my
> > > > > > >hypothetical, then how does choosing between the above claims
> > > > > > >challenge my core belief in regard to intelligent design versus
> > > > > > >macroevolution?
>
> > > > > > >> The discriminating reader will note that I have gone along
If you're capable of doing so, why not just explain what you did mean,
crypto-man?
>
> > > >Artificial selection is much faster
> > > > than natural selection.
>
> > > Says who?
>
> > Says the experience humans have accumulated in over 10,000 years of
> > agriculture and only slightly less than that for animal husbandry.
> > Look it up. Better yet go catch some wolves and start domesticating
> > them. Report back in 5000 generations.
>
> I see. You speak for the experienced humans. I forgot, you're a
> science teacher.
Ah, this appears to be a variant on the "You didn't see it so you
can't say it happened!" argument.
But since it's you, Glenn, I guess is could also mean "Don't eat
pancakes on Tuesday!"
But to address what it seems you're saying here, I am the beneficiary
of those 10000 years of experience.
So are you.
If you don't know anything about the history of agriculture, why not
fix that and go read a book?
Chris
Glenn
<chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 26, 6:01 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 26, 2:49 pm, "chris.linthomp...@gmail.com"
>
> > <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On May 26, 5:37 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 26, 12:44 pm, "chris.linthomp...@gmail.com"
>
> > > > <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On May 26, 1:53 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On May 24, 6:35 pm, r norman <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Thu, 24 May 2007 21:02:04 -0400, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >On Thu, 24 May 2007 22:37:11 +0200, Joe Cummings
> > > > > > > ><joecummi...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > >>back to life a dead man.
>
> > > > > > > >> Let's go along with her hypothetical, but deepening it.
>
> > > > > > > >> We move the corpse, and the personnel to the UK.
>
> > > > > > > >> We place among the personnel a practising Muslim, a Hindu and
> > > > > > > >>poceedings.
>
> > > > > > > >> The gentleman enters, and brings the corpse back to life.
>
> > > > > > > >> The Christian says "This is the the work of the risen
> > > > > > > >>Christ."
>
> > > > > > > >> The Muslim says "This is the work of Allah."
>
> > > > > > > >> The Hindu says "This is the work of Krishna."
>
>
> > > > > > > >what's your goal here, Joe? If you are following up on my
> > > > > > > >hypothetical, then how does choosing between the above claims
> > > > > > > >challenge my core belief in regard to intelligent design versus
> > > > > > > >macroevolution?
>
> > > > > > > >> The discriminating reader will note that I have gone along
apparently thought you understood enough to answer?
>
> > > > >Artificial selection is much faster
> > > > > than natural selection.
>
> > > > Says who?
>
> > > Says the experience humans have accumulated in over 10,000 years of
> > > agriculture and only slightly less than that for animal husbandry.
> > > Look it up. Better yet go catch some wolves and start domesticating
> > > them. Report back in 5000 generations.
>
> > I see. You speak for the experienced humans. I forgot, you're a
> > science teacher.
>
> Ah, this appears to be a variant on the "You didn't see it so you
> can't say it happened!" argument.
Nope.
>
> But since it's you, Glenn, I guess is could also mean "Don't eat
> pancakes on Tuesday!"
Nope.
>
> But to address what it seems you're saying here, I am the beneficiary
> of those 10000 years of experience.
So you've established the who. Now for the important part; why do
these "who's" count for an answer?
>
> So are you.
Do you have any examples of artificial selection resulting in any real
novelty? How bout the weener dog species and the grate dane species?
>
> If you don't know anything about the history of agriculture, why not
> fix that and go read a book?
>
Sue you're talking about selection and not hybridization? Are glowing
fish fair examples of artificial selection when comparing to natural
selection?
chris.li...@gmail.com
> On May 26, 3:09 pm, "chris.linthomp...@gmail.com"
>
> <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 26, 6:01 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 26, 2:49 pm, "chris.linthomp...@gmail.com"
>
> > > <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On May 26, 5:37 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 26, 12:44 pm, "chris.linthomp...@gmail.com"
>
> > > > > <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On May 26, 1:53 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On May 24, 6:35 pm, r norman <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Thu, 24 May 2007 21:02:04 -0400, Zoe <muz...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >On Thu, 24 May 2007 22:37:11 +0200, Joe Cummings
> > > > > > > > ><joecummi...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > >>back to life a dead man.
>
> > > > > > > > >> Let's go along with her hypothetical, but deepening it.
>
> > > > > > > > >> We move the corpse, and the personnel to the UK.
>
> > > > > > > > >> We place among the personnel a practising Muslim, a Hindu and
> > > > > > > > >>poceedings.
>
> > > > > > > > >> The gentleman enters, and brings the corpse back to life.
>
> > > > > > > > >> The Christian says "This is the the work of the risen
> > > > > > > > >>Christ."
>
> > > > > > > > >> The Muslim says "This is the work of Allah."
>
> > > > > > > > >> The Hindu says "This is the work of Krishna."
>
>
> > > > > > > > >what's your goal here, Joe? If you are following up on my
> > > > > > > > >hypothetical, then how does choosing between the above claims
> > > > > > > > >challenge my core belief in regard to intelligent design versus
> > > > > > > > >macroevolution?
>
> > > > > > > > >> The discriminating reader will note that I have gone along
Well Glenn, I made a good-faith attempt to address your point. If I
misunderstood, it seems- if you want the conversation to go any
further, anyway- to make corrections. If you don't want it to go
further, that's fine. Insisting I need to explain why I thought I
"understood enough to answer"...well, that's a very very stupid thing
to say, and you know it.
> > > > > >Artificial selection is much faster
> > > > > > than natural selection.
>
> > > > > Says who?
>
> > > > Says the experience humans have accumulated in over 10,000 years of
> > > > agriculture and only slightly less than that for animal husbandry.
> > > > Look it up. Better yet go catch some wolves and start domesticating
> > > > them. Report back in 5000 generations.
>
> > > I see. You speak for the experienced humans. I forgot, you're a
> > > science teacher.
>
> > Ah, this appears to be a variant on the "You didn't see it so you
> > can't say it happened!" argument.
>
> Nope.
Ah, crypto-boy strikes again!
> > But since it's you, Glenn, I guess is could also mean "Don't eat
> > pancakes on Tuesday!"
>
> Nope.
And again! That's three strikes, crypto-boy, so you're out.
> > But to address what it seems you're saying here, I am the beneficiary
> > of those 10000 years of experience.
>
> So you've established the who. Now for the important part; why do
> these "who's" count for an answer?
Why do you think they do? And what makes you think you understood me
properly when I mentioned some people? Which people did YOU think I
meant?
> > So are you.
>
> Do you have any examples of artificial selection resulting in any real
> novelty? How bout the weener dog species and the grate dane species?
Sorry. I never heard of those.
>
> > If you don't know anything about the history of agriculture, why not
> > fix that and go read a book?
>
> Sue you're talking about selection and not hybridization? Are glowing
> fish fair examples of artificial selection when comparing to natural
> selection?
Glowing fish? Are you talking about the anglerfish that have those
bioluminescent lures? What do you mean by natural selection and
artificial selection, anyway?
Chris
chris.li...@gmail.com
Hey Glenn, I meant to ask you something. We were talking about
agriculture here, and artificial selection with regards to
agriculture. I am curious about something: why do you think novelty is
important in this context?
Chris
snip