 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Grassblade wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>> I have never met an theist who could give a single example of anything
>>> that would convince him *his* religion is wrong.
>> And here's an example of that, too:
>>
>> Say you go to hawaii, and you find this group of people who, by praying
>> to Pele (the volcano goddess), can *actually* regenerate amputated
>> limbs. No scientific explanation is forthcoming, but anyone who has lost
>> a limb can go there, get three people to pray in a circle, and his limb
>> will grow back all by itself within a month.
>>
>> Show this to a faithful Christian. What is he going to say? "Gee, maybe
>> Pele really exists, and answers prayers better than JHVH does?" Or is it
>> going to be interpreted as a conspiracy by Satan to lure faithful
>> Christians away from their One True Religion?
> The latter obviously. As I'm sure you know.
Right. That's my point. Even if there's someone worshiping some *other*
God who is doing miracles for them, you wouldn't believe it. Right in
front of your eyes, a different God is performing miracles!
Hence, I'm actually *more* willing to change my faith by merely asking
for miracles than you are.
So don't give me crap about how egotistical I am for asking for miracles
in order to judge God, when you won't even accept miracles as proof.
So far, no Christian I've ever spoken to has admitted that if some
*other* god personally revealed herself as the one and true God, that
they'd accept that. I'm willing to do that. Now who is more close-minded?
You're no better than Pharoh, who at least had the excuse that JHVH
didn't want him changing his mind.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Then you'll have an idea of what it's like to be on the receiving end of
>> "spiritual" guidance that is unwelcome and unwanted. Fair enough?
>
> geez! If you wanted to get a "fuck you!" instead of "bless you" you could've
> asked for it from the beginning. what a fucked up world!
Would you be offended if you posted you were in a car accident and I
promised to sacrifice a chicken to Satan for you?
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <475c48ed$1@news.povray.org>, nos### [at] nospamcom says...
> On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 14:08:46 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
> > In article <4758485d$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
> >> Jim Henderson wrote:
> >> > Why does it have to be Christians, though? How's about Buddhism?
> >>
> >> That's fine. I don't think Buddhists are theists, tho. Or, at worst,
> >> they worship someone who said "don't worship me." However, I'll
> >> happily admit I know very little about buddhism.
> >>
> > I don't know a *lot* about it either, but strictly speaking there are
> > two reasons you don't see them as powerful as Christianity (though
> > technically Islam is at least twice as large as Christianity and more
> > cohesive, so...), or as prone to kill/conquer and/or convert people to
> > make them Buddhists.
>
> Um, Islam and Buddhism are two entirely different things, Patrick...
>
??? What are you on about? I mentioned Islam as a side point, saying
that its was at lest twice as large as Christianity. The intent was to
draw a parallel between Christianity and Islam, in that both are very
large and powerful, and they ***got that way*** by being prone to
kill/conquer and/or convert people, something Buddhists, by comparison
are not. In fact, it doesn't make any sense imho, for you to interpret
it otherwise, since if I was attempting to claim that Buddhism and Islam
where the same, I would have to be arguing:
Islam > Christianity > Buddhism
*AND*
Islam = Buddhism
Which is just mathematically and logically impossible, given the former
statement.
But yeah, strictly speaking, I wasn't as clear as I could have been.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <475c486d$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
> Jim Henderson wrote:
> > Not saying I agree with that idea, but that's the counter argument that
> > I've run into in the past myself.
>
> Sure, except that's factually incorrect. It's easy to do experiments to
> show it's pretty trivial to evolve something that does a rather
> sophisticated function without actually designing how it does it, and
> indeed with the result being difficult or impossible to analyze for how
> it works. In other words, no, the watch doesn't imply the watchmaker.
>
Someone actually did this, though I don't remember the link, and sadly,
it wasn't animated, just based on mathematical calculations. He had
clocks that where accurate to within a few hundredths of a second,
roughly similar to a real mechanical clock, within 14-20 generations,
every single time. lol
> This is the same "I can't imagine how it could be anything else, so I
> must be right." The old "since my imagination is inadequate, I must be
> right" argument. They said the same thing about thunder too.
>
Yep.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <475c650d$1@news.povray.org>, nos### [at] nospamcom says...
> On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 12:52:40 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>
> > Jim Henderson wrote:
> >> I think we could probably agree that a watch is unlikely to happen as
> >> the evolution of something geologic,
> >
> > Any particular item is unlikely to happen at all. I don't think it's
> > that far-fetched to believe in something that keeps time based on
> > sunrise, sunset, or tides.
>
> But something that keeps time accurately that you can wear on your
> wrist? Surely there aren't forests where those sorts of things grow on
> trees. :-)
>
Hmm. Does it have to be human readable? lol Seriously, there is a fairly
solid theory now that *most* of the behavior of insects is timing based.
That, in essense, they have a lot of internal timers, which do
everything, including providing a basic "clock" for movements, like
flight direction, and that deciding to go left, instead of right, is,
depending on circumstances, either a matter of interrupting the clock,
or random glitches/permutations in the system. It might be a biological
clock, and far more flexible in dealing with the unexpected, but for
insects, there may not be a lot of "mind" there to start with, just a
lot of purely statistical mechanics.
So, the questions really are: 1. Does it have to be human readable? and
2. How accurate do you want it? After that, its just a matter to finding
something, like a leech maybe, that will attach like a parasite, to feed
itself, and whose "clocks" operate to generate some form of visible,
easily read, timing. And, unless you get a mutant, it would probably be
*way* more accurate, even in the dark, than any mechanical clock. ;)
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <web.475c5ee4922777eb22e9f4040@news.povray.org>,
nomail@nomail says...
> > And even if you prove times and places, which it invariably fails at,
> > your argument that God was involved in it is based ***solely*** on the
> > presupposition that because a lot of people believe in your God, this
> > validates the idea that *he* was involved somehow. Its argument via
> > popularity, not evidence.
> Ever heard of peer review? It works on popularity among peers. Man, if yo
u're
> trying to take science out of the picture you're doing a good job. <_<
>
Darren addresses most of your rather bent thinking quite well, and even
this one, to some extent. But what he didn't say is that peer review is
***intended*** to catch major mistakes, massive flaws, errors, etc., and
point them out, so that the originator has the opportunity to a) rethink
their results and/or b) correct their errors. Popularity has nothing to
do with it. Well, maybe if you are publishing for Discovery Institute or
you manage to bribe people to hand your paper over to someone who *will*
judge it by how popular it will be to your audience (like happened with
one idiotic rant published in some 16th rate magazine, and which was
then trumpeted as evidence that ID *could* get real articles into a
major publication...) Mind you, the publication in question would, for
most scientists, be used as emergency toilet paper and the "reviewer"
proven to be someone specifically chosen to do the review *because* he
favored the whining rant in it. Which is precisely the point. Real
publications will rip you to shreds if all you manage to send them is a
list of complaints you have, or your logic, data and methods are
garbage. Popularity is the "last" thing anyone considers when doing such
reviews.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Hmm. Does it have to be human readable? lol Seriously, there is a fairly
> solid theory now that *most* of the behavior of insects is timing based.
I have noticed that many "insects", particularly spiders, seem to have
two walking speeds: On and Off. I always attributed it to a sparsity of
neurons. :-)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Then you'll have an idea of what it's like to be on the receiving end of
>> "spiritual" guidance that is unwelcome and unwanted. Fair enough?
>
> geez! If you wanted to get a "fuck you!" instead of "bless you" you could've
> asked for it from the beginning. what a fucked up world!
Version two: "Gee, how Christian of you." ;-)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Then you'll have an idea of what it's like to be on the receiving end of
>> "spiritual" guidance that is unwelcome and unwanted. Fair enough?
>
> geez! If you wanted to get a "fuck you!" instead of "bless you" you could've
> asked for it from the beginning. what a fucked up world!
Version three: "How come you're offended, just because I offered to
intervene on your behalf with the Ruler of the Universe that you're too
ignorant to understand? Don't you *appreciate* that I'm smarter than you
about how everything works, and I'm only trying to help?"
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <web.475c63a1922777eb28937fa00@news.povray.org>,
nam### [at] gmailcom says...
> Bravo! You're a true CSI! You've just made "Da Vinci's Code" look like
a bunch
> of puerile assumptions.
>
Its called looking at the actual history and just who was fracking
involved with making your religion the one everyone followed. It
certainly makes more sense than the goofy assertion you make, that any
and all politics, people, events, factors and details of the time are
completely irrelevant, save for which religion came out on top. I also
find it damn funny that you seem to think CSI would be an insult. I hope
you never have to rely on such people to solve a crime for you, if you
show so little respect for their skills, abilities or conclusions.
Mind you, I do know of some morons that have chosen to insist that
ghosts, evil spirits or witches where *really* responsible for some
death, theft, etc., despite such skill, abilities and conclusions, and
solely based on the *need* for it to be a voodoo conspiracy or some
similar BS. But you know, *most* of the world has progressed beyond
blaming the local homeless lady for casting a spell on them when they
cow dies. Apparently, given your attempt to call me names, you would
find this a viable alternative? lol
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
