 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> That is what bothered me.
Fair enough. Thanks for answering the question.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> No, what I said was that some scientists (not all) have an arrogant
> attitude and seem to know the truth, and they act all like the theory
> of evolution was an axiom.
It explains pretty much everything, and it's used on a daily basis
world-wide to make drugs and other predictions. People have used the
theory of evolution to figure out where to dig for new species, given
the genes of (IIRC) deer and whales, finding the Missing Link between
the two when mammals went back into the water.
Sure, it might be wrong, but then maybe the world really *is* flat, too,
and maybe there's no gravity it's just the earth sucks.
It really doesn't make sense to say "Gee, everything we've done for the
last 50 years has worked flawlessly, and everything we've predicted has
come true. But maybe we're doing things ALL WRONG and there's some
COMPLETELY DIFFERENT theory that would explain every experiment and
observation every biologist, geneticist, doctor, and nurse has made over
the last 50 years, *and* includes spontaneous generation of life?"
It seems utterly irrational to me that you'd reject the whole thing
without any reason. Postulate that perhaps there's something else, in
addition, that might be going on that we're not always seeing? Sure.
That doesn't mean evolution is *wrong*, but that there's other stuff as
well going on.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
> Here, have a carrot.
Me, I'm hoping this turns into a regular phrase here. :)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Are you saying that making fun of other people is a viable and acceptable
> solution?
> Well, that's exactly what I don't understand.
Some of us have already explained to you why we consider mocking
acceptable. You reject the explanation, then ask for an explanation.
I'm not sure how to make it more clear than I already explained it.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> It seems utterly irrational to me that you'd reject the whole thing
> without any reason.
To phrase better:
It seems utterly irrational to me that one would reject the whole thing
without any reason.
I didn't mean to imply Warp did or did not reject it.
(Note that "God said so" is a reason. An irrational one, but a reason.)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> It explains pretty much everything, and it's used on a daily basis
> world-wide to make drugs and other predictions. People have used the
> theory of evolution to figure out where to dig for new species, given
> the genes of (IIRC) deer and whales, finding the Missing Link between
> the two when mammals went back into the water.
The theory of evolution doesn't even try to explain pretty much
everything, nor does it claim to do so. It appears to be a fairly good
descriptor of what is occurring, but it is not static; as such you can't
really say that at any given point it explains an arbitrary phenomenon,
as tomorrow a new piece of evidence might require the theory to be
altered, making the previous version no longer what's being used to do
the explaining.
> Sure, it might be wrong, but then maybe the world really *is* flat, too,
> and maybe there's no gravity it's just the earth sucks.
Mathematically, it is entirely possible to represent the world as being
flat. It's even sometimes handy. (Maps come to mind.) Does it make
other calculations that are far more elegant with the earth being an
oblate spheroid impossible, or merely more difficult and complex?
Besides, the earth does suck. XD
> It really doesn't make sense to say "Gee, everything we've done for the
> last 50 years has worked flawlessly, and everything we've predicted has
> come true. But maybe we're doing things ALL WRONG and there's some
> COMPLETELY DIFFERENT theory that would explain every experiment and
> observation every biologist, geneticist, doctor, and nurse has made over
> the last 50 years, *and* includes spontaneous generation of life?"
But it is incorrect to say that everything we've done for the past 50
years has worked flawlessly. Mistakes are constantly being made, and
accepted, and tested to see why they happened. Further, it is
absolutely necessary to include spontaneous generation of life unless
you want to argue that life has always existed up to and including
immediately after the supposed big bang wherein particles that we call
real came into existence...a bit spontaneously, come to think of it.
All the data we have indicates that things haven't been the way they are
right now forever, therefore it had to start at some point. Science
attempts to answer how; religion and philosophy attempt to answer why.
They are not mutually exclusive notions.
--
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> Science
> attempts to answer how; religion and philosophy attempt to answer why.
> They are not mutually exclusive notions.
>
Just one minor point of clarification: Philosophy --in what I would
consider to be the proper sense-- can be considered a super-set of just
about every cognitive discipline. It may be one of the world's biggest
umbrellas. After all, science was born out of philosophy.
That said, philosophy is not limited to what kinds of questions it can*
attempt to answer - e.g. not just 'why' but also 'what'.
Charles
*depending on the intent of the author
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> So evolution has nothing to say about religion, no. They're orthogonal.
Perhaps Andrew could build a JPEG algorithm out of them then. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> So evolution has nothing to say about religion, no. They're orthogonal.
> Perhaps Andrew could build a JPEG algorithm out of them then. :)
(twitch)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tag povrayorg> wrote in message
news:47422be6@news.povray.org...
> Ross <rli### [at] speakeasynet> wrote:
> > Warp hates the mocking and has yet to offer a viable option to it other
than
> > "Continue to try to convince by presenting the facts." Yet this has
failed,
> > and failed, and failed. Rather than continue the insanity loop, what
should
> > one do?
>
> Are you saying that making fun of other people is a viable and
acceptable
> solution?
> Well, that's exactly what I don't understand. In my opinion making fun
> of people is not civilized nor acceptable. I'm not exactly sure how should
> I think of people who disagree with this. It just doesn't make sense.
>
> --
> - Warp
No, not at all. You are reading too much into it. I was seriously asking, to
break the deadlock of "explain with facts, reject facts, explain with facts,
reject facts, etc..." what is a viable alternative?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
