On 4/22/2011 11:58, Jim Henderson wrote:
> That's the problem with having a holy book that's used as a 'set of
> directions' where it's been translated, re-translated, interpreted, re-
> interpreted, and heavily edited over a couple millenia.

Yeah, except the Qu'an isn't really quite like that.  It's all one giant 
unambiguous book written by one guy in one lifetime.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 13:32:31 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 4/22/2011 11:58, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> That's the problem with having a holy book that's used as a 'set of
>> directions' where it's been translated, re-translated, interpreted, re-
>> interpreted, and heavily edited over a couple millenia.
> 
> Yeah, except the Qu'an isn't really quite like that.  It's all one giant
> unambiguous book written by one guy in one lifetime.

But I think you'll find that it's been interpreted/translated a few times.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 22:32:31 +0200, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

> On 4/22/2011 11:58, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> That's the problem with having a holy book that's used as a 'set of
>> directions' where it's been translated, re-translated, interpreted, re-
>> interpreted, and heavily edited over a couple millenia.
>
> Yeah, except the Qu'an isn't really quite like that.  It's all one giant  
> unambiguous book written by one guy in one lifetime.
>
unambiguous?
http://www.google.co.za/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=ambiguous+quran&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

-- 
-Nekar Xenos-

Post a reply to this message

On 4/21/2011 3:35 PM, andrel wrote:
>> ID's central premise, sadly, is that it just "poofed" into being. Hell,
>> even the ones arguing "front loading", fail to grasp that any such
>> "master genetic code", to avoid breaking the organism fatally, while
>> inserting new features, has to take clear steps, in which it replaces
>> parts of the system, only as possible, before reaching and end result.
>
> I know it would be hard to find a sensible way to construct something in
> such a way that it could not have been evolved. Precisely because your
> bridge example is a known pitfall (and the paragraphs above therefore
> effectively a strawman argument). But simply the fact that you believe
> it is not possible does not mean you have in any way proven it to be so.
> Man and nature are often more inventive than either of them would have
> though.

Which then brings up Russel's Teapot. Its that a strawman argument, but 
an accurate description of the problem. There is no logically 
conceivable way that you can construct something in genetics where it 
just appears, any more than with a bridge, so trying to find one that 
did is like chasing invisible teapots. Its a useless pursuit of 
something that you can't be 100% sure doesn't exist, but for which there 
are lots, and lots, of evidence to suggest that its simply an 
unnecessary complication to go hunting for it.

The first step, if you want to hunt for such a thing, is to come up with 
a plausible description of what, and where, it will be found. Given a 
few thousands years, some idiot is bound to find a teapot (if for no 
other reason that that by then some other idiot will have accidentally 
left one in an airlock, before someone else went EVA). By the same 
token, if some clown keeps hunting long enough, they are bound to find 
something "designed", but not because DNA was designed, but because 
someone actually inserts some designed DNA in someone/something, then 
dies, or something, without telling anyone.

Its the only conceivable condition where you can spend your time looking 
for the genetic equivalent of Bigfoot, and actually find something that 
isn't a man in a gorilla suit.

Post a reply to this message

On 4/22/2011 14:00, Nekar Xenos wrote:
> unambiguous?
>
http://www.google.co.za/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=ambiguous+quran&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Perhaps "ambiguous" was a poor choice of word compared to "contradictory".

I was really referring to Jim's quote "the one that says 'kill the infidels' 
or the one that says 'Islam is peaceful'."

The answer is "whichever comes later."

One may reasonably be confused about what something unclear means, but one 
cannot be reasonably confused about which instructions are applicable and 
which aren't. Unlike, say, the Bible, where some people think what Paul (and 
later popes) wrote supersedes what Jesus said, and others don't.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 4/22/2011 8:52 AM, Darren New wrote:
>> No, just to the point where it is in principle provable, but in practice
>> not.
>
> But nobody has even come up with an idea of how you would show a protein
> could not have evolved. "Irreducible complexity" doesn't show a protein
> could not have evolved. So how would you recognize such a protein?
>
They have tried math that claims its unlikely, if you 1) get the math 
wrong, 2) make a lot of assumptions from the start, and 3) presumes you 
have less time to do it that was actually available. Its the lotto 
ticket hypothesis. I.e., one person's odds of winning at 1:6 billion is 
stupidly low, so it should be somehow equally improbable for 100 million 
people, attempting it twice a week, for an entirely unspecified length 
of time, to do it either. In reality, people manage to win it almost 
every time tickets are sold. In short, their *entire* argument hedges on 
the odds of a solution happening with *one* attempt, in *one* step, 
within *one* organism, instead of in like 900 trillion gazillion 
attempts, with similar numbers of individuals, over multiple steps.

Its about as honest an attempt to describe why "Irreducible Complexity" 
is even a valid concept as it would be if they included the joke math, 
where you are made to prove that X = Y, by dividing by zero at some 
point in the process. There only other hole card is the whole 
"ontological depth" thing, which is just more hand waving. The principle 
behind it being, "If we have a coherent description of what this was, 
and how to measure it, it would amount to, 'Wow, this is X times more 
complex that that other thing, thus Y times less likely to happen, in 
the same, one step, single organism, single attempt case IC claims had 
to happen for evolution to work.'"

Its one of the ironies of the whole idiot mess that evolution says, "You 
don't just get things popping up out of no place, it happens slowly, in 
all cases.", yet the central themes of ID/Creationism are that things 
*do* just pop into existence, without any precursors, in DNA, but that 
somehow this disallows rabbits hatching out of chicken eggs, while, at 
the same time *claiming* that this is exactly what evolution proposes. 
The stupid thing being, one would think that under the, "god did it!", 
hypothesis, this is precisely how entire species would have had to 
happen. lol

Even their claims about what evolution says (but doesn't), and therefor 
ID, are incoherent with respect to their own argument about how you get, 
say parrots, if the only birds on their stupid boat had been doves.

Post a reply to this message

On 4/22/2011 15:03, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Its the only conceivable condition where you can spend your time looking for
> the genetic equivalent of Bigfoot, and actually find something that isn't a
> man in a gorilla suit.

Except, in that case, it *is* precisely a man in a gorilla suit.  Humans 
tinkering with DNA are no more unnatural than beavers building dams. The 
only way you'd actually be justified in teaching that anything discovered by 
evolution is in doubt is if there was a *supernatural* source. Aliens 
visiting and modifying the DNA doesn't mean the DNA didn't evolve. Not even 
large black rectangular aliens.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 4/20/2011 10:09 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:08:25 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> No it can't. Not in science.
>
> I didn't say "in science".  In common usage, and that's part of the
> problem with the Creationist argument (which I stated before):  They
> misuse the word "Theory".
>
> Now, if you couple the idea that ID is not science but evolution is, you
> can use "theory" in describing both - because one has the context of not
> being science, and one has the context of being science.
>
> It is a legitimate *linguistic* usage of the word.  My point was to
> illustrate that this is the device used by creationists to argue that
> it's science, and it's born out of ignorance of the *scientific* usage of
> the word as compared to the 'common usage' use of the word - or it's born
> out of malicious use of the same word intended to cause confusion in
> those who don't understand that words can actually mean more than one
> thing, and that the *context* is important.
>
> Jim

Ok, lets put it another way.. Fag may be a legitimate word to be used to 
describe a cigarette in some places, but using it a lot in the context 
of a gay right rally, because you flat out fail to grasp what the 
difference is, is probably a bloody stupid idea.

So, sure, using the layman's "theory" might be legitimate, its ***not*** 
legitimate if the thing being discussed is scientific evidence, since 
doing so is not going to help you find out which is which, any more than 
running around San Francisco during a pride parade yelling, "Anyone have 
a fag?", is going to get you a tobacco product.

As someone that cares about the distinction, and this goes for most of 
the people "in science", I don't give a flying frak what the "layman's" 
definition is. Its allowing that definition to go unopposed that creates 
everything from sympathy for Anti-vaxers, to climate change denialism, 
to, "Its not creationism, honest!" 'teaching the controversy' nonsense. 
If any fool can claim *anything* they pull out of their ass is a 
"theory", how do you expect anyone to know the difference between the two?

Definitions matter. And, if the definition that is undermining good 
sense is a problem, the solution isn't to shrug your shoulders and go, 
"Ah, well, they use the word differently." No, the solution is to make 
it clear that the murky gibberish version used by the public is *not* 
the correct definition of the word, and more to the point, get 
politicians, news agencies, and other people, where ever possible, to 
stop bloody using it interchangeably with, "I pulled this out of my ass 
this morning."

Post a reply to this message

On 4/21/2011 3:30 PM, Warp wrote:
>    In principle, if they succed, it could not only sabotage the teaching
> of evolution, abiogenesis and even cosmology, but could possibly cause
> a chain reaction with all kinds of other fields of science. After all,
> if one pseudoscientific hypothesis is taught at schools in order to "teach
> the controversy", what stops other pseudoscientific hypotheses from doing
> the same? Perhaps homeopaths, faith healers, anti-vaccination people and
> germ theory denialists will start demanding to "teach the controversy" to
> medical students, holocaust denialists and conspiracy theorists will start
> demanding to "teach the controversy" in history class, flat earthers will
> start demanding to "teach the controversy" in geography class, and so on.
>
Too late, some colleges have "alternative medicine" programs in place, 
as additions to the existing medical education (or, in a few cases, as a 
different curriculum, where they decided to just make money printing 
diplomas, instead of the almost as lame, "People seem to like it, so 
lets sell it!", BS which has led to it sneaking in at other places. 
Mind, you could also look at some so called colleges, like Liberty U, 
which don't even make a pretense at teaching *anything* useful too.

Not too sure about geology, unless you include "the flood produced the 
Grand Canyon", which I am sure Liberty U teaches, but.. revisionist 
history in the US is only "revisionist", when you contradict the 
existing mangled history that they made up to explain what happened in 
each state (hint, you get a different version of even things like the 
Civil War, depending on if you are in a few southern states, versus... 
every other state...)

In short, this BS is already happening. And, as I stated upthread, part 
of the problem is a general refusal to reject certain redefinitions of 
terms, or properly explain why they are invalid definitions, such that 
we have no word other than theory in science to describe theories, but 
90% of the people in the country think the word means, "I pulled this 
out of my ass to explain something."

Post a reply to this message

On 4/22/2011 12:05 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 18:30:19 -0400, Warp wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson<nos### [at] nospamcom>  wrote:
>>> I was thinking of something else (but of course I can't remember what
>>> now).  You are correct that ID does try to pretend to be - I guess I'm
>>> having a problem with "scientific" being combined with "religious
>>> belief" and that's what led me to say "anti-scientific" - as I see
>>> 'religious belief' as being antithetical to 'knowledge'.
>>
>>    The whole idea with the "intelligent design" movement is to mask the
>> fact that it's simply repackaged creationism, by removing all mentions
>> of "God" and other theistic claims.
>
> Yes, but a rebranding of creationism as "intelligent design" doesn't mean
> it's not religiously motivated.  I guess for those who don't see through
> that deception and who have a very limited understanding of what
> scientific discovery actually is might think it was 'an appearance of
> science'.
>
>>    In the worst case scenario the whole schooling system could get
>>    sabotaged
>> to a catastrophical point. Science, technology and progress would suffer
>> enormously.
>
> Yes, and I think ultimately this demonstrates the real danger of this
> type of theistic thinking - not to mention that when it enters the public
> schools, it violates the establishment clause of the US Constitution.  If
> a public school is teaching religious theology about the creation of the
> universe (whether they use religious metaphors or not), I'm sorry, that's
> state-sponsored religion, and that's unconstitutional.
>
> Jim
Strictly speaking, its only a violation if it only covers "one" creation 
theory, from a single religion. The problem is: a) there is no way in 
hell they would allow other creation theories. b) they would play the 
same idiot game as they do in government, if allowed, which is to say, 
"Since we don't have any X people here, we are only going to address the 
creation beliefs of the people that actually are in the class." In 
government this argument goes, "Since we couldn't find any priests from 
other religions, we decided to just go with the Jesus ones." c) a lot of 
them would ignore the requirement anyway, and only teach the Bible's 
version, figuring that, since everyone there is Christian, they can get 
by with it, without anyone suing them (also a common city government 
tactic for this sort of BS, and even already in some schools, where they 
teach creationism as right anyway, and only teach evolution as much as 
needed to "look" like they tried, on a government test).

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 00:20:21 +0200, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

> On 4/22/2011 14:00, Nekar Xenos wrote:
>> unambiguous?
>>
http://www.google.co.za/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=ambiguous+quran&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
>
> Perhaps "ambiguous" was a poor choice of word compared to  
> "contradictory".
>
> I was really referring to Jim's quote "the one that says 'kill the  
> infidels' or the one that says 'Islam is peaceful'."
>
> The answer is "whichever comes later."

Oh, sorry about that.

>
> One may reasonably be confused about what something unclear means, but  
> one cannot be reasonably confused about which instructions are  
> applicable and which aren't. Unlike, say, the Bible, where some people  
> think what Paul (and later popes) wrote supersedes what Jesus said, and  
> others don't.
>

It's all Point Of View...

-- 
-Nekar Xenos-

Post a reply to this message

On 4/22/2011 3:22 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/22/2011 15:03, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Its the only conceivable condition where you can spend your time
>> looking for
>> the genetic equivalent of Bigfoot, and actually find something that
>> isn't a
>> man in a gorilla suit.
>
> Except, in that case, it *is* precisely a man in a gorilla suit. Humans
> tinkering with DNA are no more unnatural than beavers building dams. The
> only way you'd actually be justified in teaching that anything
> discovered by evolution is in doubt is if there was a *supernatural*
> source. Aliens visiting and modifying the DNA doesn't mean the DNA
> didn't evolve. Not even large black rectangular aliens.
>
True enough. Which is why the hard core ID people have pretty much 
dropped the, "It could have been aliens.", thing. Well, except when 
badly backed into a corner, where most will either admit they mean god, 
but hedge that it, "might have been something else", without saying 
what, or just can't come up with anything else any more, even to hedge 
and hand wave the question away.

The game is pretty much up, except among people that haven't been paying 
real attention, much like how there where still morons siding with SCO, 
right up until the dead end, because they couldn't grasp how lost the 
cause was, and how fact free, and unsupportable, their claims where.

Odds are, in ten years, a majority of people with accept that ID was 
creationism all along, and nearly everyone, if they even remember, will 
understand that SCO didn't have a case to start with, but there will 
*still* be idiots defending the idea that *both* might have turned out 
differently. lol

Post a reply to this message

On 4/22/2011 3:49 PM, Nekar Xenos wrote:
>> One may reasonably be confused about what something unclear means, but
>> one cannot be reasonably confused about which instructions are
>> applicable and which aren't. Unlike, say, the Bible, where some people
>> think what Paul (and later popes) wrote supersedes what Jesus said,
>> and others don't.
>>
>
> It's all Point Of View...
>
Hmm. Maybe its just my liberal bias showing, but one commentator put it 
like this, "You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own 
facts." Unfortunately, among the religious, they often make up facts, 
based on their desired opinion. Something that can be seen every time 
you deal with arguments about everything from evidence for a real Jesus, 
to even things like, "god helps those that help themselves". Which, I 
understand may have been first stated "officially" by Joan of Arc, 
according to translation of the notes taken by her personal secretary, 
but which was probably a common fiction even before she stated it.

Point Of View = "Putting a bag over your head, with a picture drawn on 
it, because you don't like the existing view out your real window." ;)

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 15:32:11 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> So, sure, using the layman's "theory" might be legitimate, its ***not***
> legitimate if the thing being discussed is scientific evidence, since
> doing so is not going to help you find out which is which

Except that we're talking about laypeople talking about science - people 
who *think* they're using the term correctly.  People who are *convinced* 
they know what they're talking about.

People who *believe* that there is only one meaning for the word.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 15:47:38 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Strictly speaking, its only a violation if it only covers "one" creation
> theory, from a single religion. 

If they're doing a comparative religions course, sure.  Not if they're 
calling it 'science'.  Another case of laypeople using a term in a way 
that is not appropriate.

> The problem is: a) there is no way in
> hell they would allow other creation theories. b) they would play the
> same idiot game as they do in government, if allowed, which is to say,
> "Since we don't have any X people here, we are only going to address the
> creation beliefs of the people that actually are in the class."

Which would be total BS, because it's not a religious studies course, 
it's a science course, in which case, the topic under discussion is 
scientific fact, not "nobody believes the FSM created the world or that 
the world exists on the back of a giant turtle, so we won't discuss that."

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 22/04/2011 06:08 PM, John VanSickle wrote:

> That's not hard. Read the Bible and see what it says about how to become
> a Christian, and what it commands Christians to do. Then compare it to
> the doings of the religious bodies in question. Time and again, at so
> many points of teaching, we find things taught and practiced that cannot
> be found in the Bible, from even the very basics of becoming a
> Christian, to the organization of the church, liturgy, and so forth.

"Heh, well, it *does* say in the Bible 'God helps those who help 
themselves'."

"Actually... nuh, it doesn't. That's Beed's Chronicles. The Bible says 
quite the opposite, in fact..."

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 21/04/2011 11:30 PM, Warp wrote:

>    The whole idea with the "intelligent design" movement is to mask the
> fact that it's simply repackaged creationism, by removing all mentions
> of "God" and other theistic claims. In other words, ID attempts to be
> a "legit" scientific objection to the currently established hypotheses
> and theories on the formation of the universe, life and its diversity.
> The idea is to try to circumvent the annoying limitation in the US
> that theism and creationism cannot be taught as part of science, by
> simply maskerading it. Of course they aren't fooling anybody.

If only that final statement were true...

>    In the worst case scenario the whole schooling system could get sabotaged
> to a catastrophical point. Science, technology and progress would suffer
> enormously.

Hopefully the damage would be limited only to America. Hopefully... :-.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 4/23/2011 3:39, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Hopefully the damage would be limited only to America. Hopefully... :-.

Maybe if we screw up everyone's science here enough, we won't have enough 
smart people to build the weapons we tend to use to invade foreign countries.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 23/04/2011 05:44 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Maybe if we screw up everyone's science here enough, we won't have
> enough smart people to build the weapons we tend to use to invade
> foreign countries.

Perhaps. But I doubt it. :-S

OG claims that he used to be in the UK's armed forces, in their signals 
division, working with classified cryptography and such. He told us how 
the UK has one way running the entire telecomms truck, while the USA 
army has basically one guy for every individual piece of equipment, and 
each guy only knows how to operate that one item of kit, and basically 
has no clue WTF it does or why it's important. They just know how to set 
it up and fix it if it breaks. Apparently they were blown away that in 
the UK one person can understand more than one thing.

Then again, this is the same OG who tells us that all Americans are 
dicks. And the same OG who claims to have designed classified military 
hardware that he can't tell us about becuase them he'd have to kill us, 
but at the same time seems to be ignorant of basic cryptographic 
principles, so.......

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 4/22/2011 10:03 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 15:32:11 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> So, sure, using the layman's "theory" might be legitimate, its ***not***
>> legitimate if the thing being discussed is scientific evidence, since
>> doing so is not going to help you find out which is which
>
> Except that we're talking about laypeople talking about science - people
> who *think* they're using the term correctly.  People who are *convinced*
> they know what they're talking about.
>
> People who *believe* that there is only one meaning for the word.
>
> Jim
And, it would be just so "strident", or something, to point out that the 
world is no in fact flat to such people... lol

Post a reply to this message

On 4/22/2011 10:05 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 15:47:38 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Strictly speaking, its only a violation if it only covers "one" creation
>> theory, from a single religion.
>
> If they're doing a comparative religions course, sure.  Not if they're
> calling it 'science'.  Another case of laypeople using a term in a way
> that is not appropriate.
>
Yes, well.. The only people on their side really "calling" it science 
also tend to think praying over your kid, who is bleeding to death 
internally, constitutes "science" too, since you know, in the Babble, 
doing that heals people. Most of the people pushing for ID to be used as 
an alternative are not making that argument. The argument they are 
making is, "I don't know a damn thing about the science, so I am going 
to assume there isn't anything too it, and if their isn't, I don't see 
why my mythology shouldn't trump secular mythology." They very clearly 
think this is an argument between whether or not Yahweh or Darwin 
created the world in 6 days. In short, its ignorance trying to replace 
knowledge, because the people involved think a 2,000 year old copy of 
Grimm's Fairy Tales is, being old, a better description of what is going 
on than 200 years of people taking the thing apart and figuring out how 
it actually does.

Post a reply to this message

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2223#comic

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 23-4-2011 0:03, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 4/21/2011 3:35 PM, andrel wrote:
>>> ID's central premise, sadly, is that it just "poofed" into being. Hell,
>>> even the ones arguing "front loading", fail to grasp that any such
>>> "master genetic code", to avoid breaking the organism fatally, while
>>> inserting new features, has to take clear steps, in which it replaces
>>> parts of the system, only as possible, before reaching and end result.
>>
>> I know it would be hard to find a sensible way to construct something in
>> such a way that it could not have been evolved. Precisely because your
>> bridge example is a known pitfall (and the paragraphs above therefore
>> effectively a strawman argument). But simply the fact that you believe
>> it is not possible does not mean you have in any way proven it to be so.
>> Man and nature are often more inventive than either of them would have
>> though.
>
> Which then brings up Russel's Teapot. Its that a strawman argument, but
> an accurate description of the problem. There is no logically
> conceivable way that you can construct something in genetics where it
> just appears, any more than with a bridge, so trying to find one that
> did is like chasing invisible teapots. Its a useless pursuit of
> something that you can't be 100% sure doesn't exist, but for which there
> are lots, and lots, of evidence to suggest that its simply an
> unnecessary complication to go hunting for it.
>
> The first step, if you want to hunt for such a thing, is to come up with
> a plausible description of what, and where, it will be found. Given a
> few thousands years, some idiot is bound to find a teapot (if for no
> other reason that that by then some other idiot will have accidentally
> left one in an airlock, before someone else went EVA). By the same
> token, if some clown keeps hunting long enough, they are bound to find
> something "designed", but not because DNA was designed, but because
> someone actually inserts some designed DNA in someone/something, then
> dies, or something, without telling anyone.
>
> Its the only conceivable condition where you can spend your time looking
> for the genetic equivalent of Bigfoot, and actually find something that
> isn't a man in a gorilla suit.

The problem here is that every argument you use assumes that everything 
evolved in a natural way. If you assume that (or even if you know that 
it is a fact,) then everything is entirely clear. But it all falls apart 
if you start from the other assumption.
Somewhere in my library is a book I inherited from my father. It gives a 
number of arguments that proof that God does exist. Very convincing,... 
if you believe God does exist. I found most of them amusing and/or 
interesting but none was convincing.

So unless you have a proof of evolution that convinces even the die hard 
creationists then we better leave it at that. You don't have to convince me.


-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 01:09:37 +0200, Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom>  
wrote:

> On 4/22/2011 3:49 PM, Nekar Xenos wrote:
>>> One may reasonably be confused about what something unclear means, but
>>> one cannot be reasonably confused about which instructions are
>>> applicable and which aren't. Unlike, say, the Bible, where some people
>>> think what Paul (and later popes) wrote supersedes what Jesus said,
>>> and others don't.
>>>
>>
>> It's all Point Of View...

Just a little tongue in the cheeck off-off-topic playing with words...

>>
> Hmm. Maybe its just my liberal bias showing, but one commentator put it  
> like this, "You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own  
> facts." Unfortunately, among the religious, they often make up facts,  
> based on their desired opinion. Something that can be seen every time  
> you deal with arguments about everything from evidence for a real Jesus,  
> to even things like, "god helps those that help themselves". Which, I  
> understand may have been first stated "officially" by Joan of Arc,  
> according to translation of the notes taken by her personal secretary,  
> but which was probably a common fiction even before she stated it.
>
> Point Of View = "Putting a bag over your head, with a picture drawn on  
> it, because you don't like the existing view out your real window." ;)

I couldn't agree with you more. Some say that there is no such thing as  
truth - each person has his own reality. I wonder how that would stand in  
court...

-- 
-Nekar Xenos-
"The spoon is not real"

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 11:05:09 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> And, it would be just so "strident", or something, to point out that the
> world is no in fact flat to such people... lol

I have to admit that I agree with Dawkins about how strange it is that we 
afford religion some kind of 'special protection' from questioning when 
we don't afford the same protection to other topics.

If I tell you that the world is flat, you can scientifically dispute that 
(and prove that I'm wrong) and everything's fine.  If I tell you that my 
religious holy book says that the world is flat, though, then somehow 
it's offensive to argue with me about that.

It's quite ridiculous.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 21:22:46 +0200, andrel wrote:

> So unless you have a proof of evolution that convinces even the die hard
> creationists then we better leave it at that.

No matter what proof is there, the die-hard creationists will reject it 
because it means abandoning their belief.

That's the problem.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

PS: now listening to a life radio broadcast of the St Matthew Passion. 
That I don't believe in a God does not prevent me from appreciating the 
music of those who did.

-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

On 23-4-2011 21:47, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 21:22:46 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
>> So unless you have a proof of evolution that convinces even the die hard
>> creationists then we better leave it at that.
>
> No matter what proof is there, the die-hard creationists will reject it
> because it means abandoning their belief.

That is the evolutionists interpretation. They will actually reject it 
because they know some of the assumptions are wrong.

> That's the problem.

Not really. Or at least not a bigger problem than trying to convince me 
God does exist.

It only becomes a problem when they try to prevent teaching real science 
and research.


-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 22:07:01 +0200, andrel wrote:

> On 23-4-2011 21:47, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 21:22:46 +0200, andrel wrote:
>>
>>> So unless you have a proof of evolution that convinces even the die
>>> hard creationists then we better leave it at that.
>>
>> No matter what proof is there, the die-hard creationists will reject it
>> because it means abandoning their belief.
> 
> That is the evolutionists interpretation. They will actually reject it
> because they know some of the assumptions are wrong.

Because they *believe* some of the assumptions are "wrong".  Like the 
"assumption" that there is no creator.  Since that flies in the face of 
their belief that there is a God, they reject it because "it can't 
possibly be right that there is no God."

>> That's the problem.
> 
> Not really. Or at least not a bigger problem than trying to convince me
> God does exist.

I think there's a fundamental difference, if you're like most of the 
atheists I know - you're willing to be convinced given sufficient 
evidence.  But such evidence doesn't exist.

Compare the creationists view - they're not willing to be convinced there 
is no creator.  The only thing that works for them is if the question of 
whether or not their is a creator is taken off the table.

> It only becomes a problem when they try to prevent teaching real science
> and research.

I disagree, it becomes a problem because they teach kids (who are still 
developing the ability to think rationally) that there is no value in 
thinking rationally about a problem - that you can just 'believe your 
way' through a situation.

That undermines not only teaching real science, but the ability for 
students to think about problems in a rational way.

There's a reason why US students view themselves as more confident than 
students in other parts of the world - they're taught to believe in 
themselves, regardless of how well they do with 'facts'.  Hence, low 
scores on exams, but high confidence.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 21:50:18 +0200, andrel wrote:

> PS: now listening to a life radio broadcast of the St Matthew Passion.
> That I don't believe in a God does not prevent me from appreciating the
> music of those who did.

Absolutely not, and that's not the point of the discussion.  I appreciate 
a lot of music written by believers (remember, I trained as a classical 
violinist).  That doesn't mean I have to believe in the fairy tale. ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 4/23/2011 12:46, Jim Henderson wrote:
> It's quite ridiculous.

Probably due to a long history of killing people who argued with the 
authority in charge.

Just like in the USA, I can say Obama is a wrinkle-bottomed poopy-pants, and 
in China I'd probably at least get beaten up if not imprisoned.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 23-4-2011 22:20, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 22:07:01 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
>> On 23-4-2011 21:47, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 21:22:46 +0200, andrel wrote:
>>>
>>>> So unless you have a proof of evolution that convinces even the die
>>>> hard creationists then we better leave it at that.
>>>
>>> No matter what proof is there, the die-hard creationists will reject it
>>> because it means abandoning their belief.
>>
>> That is the evolutionists interpretation. They will actually reject it
>> because they know some of the assumptions are wrong.
>
> Because they *believe* some of the assumptions are "wrong".  Like the
> "assumption" that there is no creator.  Since that flies in the face of
> their belief that there is a God, they reject it because "it can't
> possibly be right that there is no God."
>
>>> That's the problem.
>>
>> Not really. Or at least not a bigger problem than trying to convince me
>> God does exist.
>
> I think there's a fundamental difference, if you're like most of the
> atheists I know - you're willing to be convinced given sufficient
> evidence.

No, I am not, that is the point. There being a God is to such an extend 
contradictory to being me, that I will never accept any evidence(, hence 
my reference to that book of my father). I think you will find that true 
for other atheists as well.

> But such evidence doesn't exist.
>
> Compare the creationists view - they're not willing to be convinced there
> is no creator.  The only thing that works for them is if the question of
> whether or not their is a creator is taken off the table.

I don't think that there is too much difference in attitude between them 
and me. Other than that I understand the world and they don't. So I am 
defending the truth and they a fallacy.

>> It only becomes a problem when they try to prevent teaching real science
>> and research.
>
> I disagree, it becomes a problem because they teach kids (who are still
> developing the ability to think rationally) that there is no value in
> thinking rationally about a problem - that you can just 'believe your
> way' through a situation.

That is sort of what I meant too.

> That undermines not only teaching real science, but the ability for
> students to think about problems in a rational way.

Are Americans worse programmers than Japanese?

> There's a reason why US students view themselves as more confident than
> students in other parts of the world - they're taught to believe in
> themselves, regardless of how well they do with 'facts'.  Hence, low
> scores on exams, but high confidence.



-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

On 23-4-2011 22:21, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 21:50:18 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
>> PS: now listening to a life radio broadcast of the St Matthew Passion.
>> That I don't believe in a God does not prevent me from appreciating the
>> music of those who did.
>
> Absolutely not, and that's not the point of the discussion.  I appreciate
> a lot of music written by believers (remember, I trained as a classical
> violinist).

No I don't remember. (and have forgotten you mentioned it probably by 
tomorrow.)

> That doesn't mean I have to believe in the fairy queen. ;)



-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

On 4/23/2011 14:45, andrel wrote:
> I think you will find that true for other atheists as well.

For some of them, I imagine. I'm willing to believe in a creator if shown 
sufficient evidence.

Interestingly, every faithful person I've asked has said that if God Himself 
came to them and told them they were wrong, they wouldn't believe it.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/04/23 15:24, Nekar Xenos a écrit :
  Some say that there is no such thing as
> truth - each person has his own reality. I wonder how that would stand
> in court...
>

Are you talking of "truth" or "Truth" ot "truths"?

Search your own Truth and admire those who search for it, but be 
extremely wary of anybody who say he have the Truth.


Alain

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 14:04:57 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 4/23/2011 12:46, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> It's quite ridiculous.
> 
> Probably due to a long history of killing people who argued with the
> authority in charge.

Well, I don't know about that - in the US we have frequent disagreements 
and arguments about various things, ranging from politics to American 
Idol <barf>.  Sometimes quite intense at that.

But when it comes to religion, there is a very strong veneer of "oooh, 
don't even go there!  You're questioning someone's *beliefs*" that's just 
weird.

> Just like in the USA, I can say Obama is a wrinkle-bottomed poopy-pants,
> and in China I'd probably at least get beaten up if not imprisoned.

Sure, but that's different than when it comes to religion.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 23:45:04 +0200, andrel wrote:

>> I think there's a fundamental difference, if you're like most of the
>> atheists I know - you're willing to be convinced given sufficient
>> evidence.
> 
> No, I am not, that is the point. There being a God is to such an extend
> contradictory to being me, that I will never accept any evidence(, hence
> my reference to that book of my father). I think you will find that true
> for other atheists as well.

That is different - so you're saying that if someone presented rational 
evidence for a God, you wouldn't accept it?  I find that *highly* unusual.

>> But such evidence doesn't exist.
>>
>> Compare the creationists view - they're not willing to be convinced
>> there is no creator.  The only thing that works for them is if the
>> question of whether or not their is a creator is taken off the table.
> 
> I don't think that there is too much difference in attitude between them
> and me. Other than that I understand the world and they don't. So I am
> defending the truth and they a fallacy.

Then you're arguably just as religious as they are.  Otherwise, you'd 
have to be open to a rational explanation or evidence for God.  For me, I 
don't see it today, but if credible evidence were presented, I wouldn't 
just look away from it and say "no, that cannot be".  That doesn't mean 
I'd accept it unchallenged, either, though.

>>> It only becomes a problem when they try to prevent teaching real
>>> science and research.
>>
>> I disagree, it becomes a problem because they teach kids (who are still
>> developing the ability to think rationally) that there is no value in
>> thinking rationally about a problem - that you can just 'believe your
>> way' through a situation.
> 
> That is sort of what I meant too.

Then on that we agree. :)

>> That undermines not only teaching real science, but the ability for
>> students to think about problems in a rational way.
> 
> Are Americans worse programmers than Japanese?

I have no data to support one being better than the other.  Do you?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 18:28:54 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 4/23/2011 14:45, andrel wrote:
>> I think you will find that true for other atheists as well.
> 
> For some of them, I imagine. I'm willing to believe in a creator if
> shown sufficient evidence.
> 
> Interestingly, every faithful person I've asked has said that if God
> Himself came to them and told them they were wrong, they wouldn't
> believe it.

Nice paradox. ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 04:47:48 +0200, Alain <aze### [at] qwertyorg> wrote:

> Le 2011/04/23 15:24, Nekar Xenos a écrit :
>   Some say that there is no such thing as
>> truth - each person has his own reality. I wonder how that would stan
d
>> in court...
>>
>
> Are you talking of "truth" or "Truth" ot "truths"?
>
> Search your own Truth and admire those who search for it, but be  

> extremely wary of anybody who say he have the Truth.
>

This somehow reminds me of American Idols wannabe's who just can't take 
no  

for an answer. Everybody else can see they can't sing, but they believe 
 

they are the best singers in the world. And some of them even have an IQ
  

of over 160!

-- 

-Nekar Xenos-

"The spoon is not real"

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 04:47:48 +0200, Alain <aze### [at] qwertyorg> wrote:

> Le 2011/04/23 15:24, Nekar Xenos a écrit :
>   Some say that there is no such thing as
>> truth - each person has his own reality. I wonder how that would stan
d
>> in court...
>>
>
> Are you talking of "truth" or "Truth" ot "truths"?
>
> Search your own Truth and admire those who search for it, but be  

> extremely wary of anybody who say he have the Truth.
>

I personally think that anyone who has a Bible has the Truth and they ca
n  

search for the Truth in the Bible. But I certainly  do not think that I 
 

know all the answers to everything - the Bible says we know in part.

I believe that God created the rules of science so ultimately science  

won't contradict God.

-- 

-Nekar Xenos-

"The spoon is not real"

Post a reply to this message

On 24-4-2011 7:09, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 23:45:04 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
>>> I think there's a fundamental difference, if you're like most of the
>>> atheists I know - you're willing to be convinced given sufficient
>>> evidence.
>>
>> No, I am not, that is the point. There being a God is to such an extend
>> contradictory to being me, that I will never accept any evidence(, hence
>> my reference to that book of my father). I think you will find that true
>> for other atheists as well.
>
> That is different - so you're saying that if someone presented rational
> evidence for a God, you wouldn't accept it?

yes

> I find that *highly* unusual.

I don't think it is, I just say it. No matter what evidence they come up 
with (other than the person/thing itself, see below) I would always 
assume that they made a mistake or used a false assumption, even if I 
didn't see immediately what was wrong.

>>> But such evidence doesn't exist.
>>>
>>> Compare the creationists view - they're not willing to be convinced
>>> there is no creator.  The only thing that works for them is if the
>>> question of whether or not their is a creator is taken off the table.
>>
>> I don't think that there is too much difference in attitude between them
>> and me. Other than that I understand the world and they don't. So I am
>> defending the truth and they a fallacy.
>
> Then you're arguably just as religious as they are.

I know some people in this group have trouble accepting that I am a 
religious atheist, but that is what I think too.

> Otherwise, you'd
> have to be open to a rational explanation or evidence for God.  For me, I
> don't see it today, but if credible evidence were presented, I wouldn't
> just look away from it and say "no, that cannot be".  That doesn't mean
> I'd accept it unchallenged, either, though.

I was going to say that if a Godperson/thing came up to me and said it 
existed, I would still not believe it. But Darren beat me to it.

>>> That undermines not only teaching real science, but the ability for
>>> students to think about problems in a rational way.
>>
>> Are Americans worse programmers than Japanese?
>
> I have no data to support one being better than the other.  Do you?

When Japan became industrialized a couple of decades ago, they started 
with copying things and then imported foreigners that were in thinking 
not bound to the traditional ways, i.e. creative and daring. Only then 
were they able to design new things. Or at least that was the chauvinist 
western view a couple of years ago.

The thing to test here is if Japanese programmers are improving and 
native US ones getting worse. Perhaps comparing them to countries whose 
inhabitants do not accept any authority (like the Netherlands ;) )


-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

On 4/24/2011 1:00, andrel wrote:
> I was going to say that if a Godperson/thing came up to me and said it
> existed, I would still not believe it. But Darren beat me to it.

Me neither. There would have to be evidence beyond it just saying it's god. 
Of course, if it actually were omnipotent, it could make me believe, so it's 
difficult to say what kind of evidence would really be necessary.

Anyway, I was saying the *religious* people wouldn't even believe it, not 
the atheists.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 4/23/2011 22:05, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Sure, but that's different than when it comes to religion.

I was citing it more as a cause, you see. For so long people have been 
persecuted for heresy that maybe it has just become a normal part of culture 
to avoid discussing it.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

Le 24/04/2011 18:04, Darren New nous fit lire :
> On 4/24/2011 1:00, andrel wrote:
>> I was going to say that if a Godperson/thing came up to me and said it
>> existed, I would still not believe it. But Darren beat me to it.
> 
> Me neither. There would have to be evidence beyond it just saying it's
> god. Of course, if it actually were omnipotent, it could make me
> believe, so it's difficult to say what kind of evidence would really be
> necessary.

Back to the St Augustine books... and free-will vs God...
Would God still be omnipotent if God was not able to grant free-will to
humans ?

Also, at the end, when God is revealed, two of the seven virtues are to
disappear from the world: hope & belief, because they won't be possible
any more.

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/04/24 01:43, Nekar Xenos a écrit :
> On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 04:47:48 +0200, Alain <aze### [at] qwertyorg> wrote:
>
>> Le 2011/04/23 15:24, Nekar Xenos a écrit :
>> Some say that there is no such thing as
>>> truth - each person has his own reality. I wonder how that would stand
>>> in court...
>>>
>>
>> Are you talking of "truth" or "Truth" ot "truths"?
>>
>> Search your own Truth and admire those who search for it, but be
>> extremely wary of anybody who say he have the Truth.
>>
>
> I personally think that anyone who has a Bible has the Truth and they
> can search for the Truth in the Bible. But I certainly do not think that
> I know all the answers to everything - the Bible says we know in part.
>
> I believe that God created the rules of science so ultimately science
> won't contradict God.
>

I just can't beleive in God as he's described in the bible. His 
depiction is not even self consistent. In some place, he's a good of 
goodness, other times, he's a war god, then a god of ire, then...
Probably from several different fire side stories counted by various, 
unrelated, tribes that eventualy came to live together and merge.

I just can't beleive that the bible can contain The Truth. The truth of 
some, maybe, but The Truth of everybody, never.

Considering how the bible came into existence, after many generations of 
oral tradition, you can only take it as a fable, or fire side entertainment.

Even the new testiment was transmited by oral tradition for some 400 
years before it was put down in writing... IF it realy originate from 
teatching from years 30 to 35 (the "public" live of Jesus).
But, then, there is NO traces of Jesus in the Roman archives. There is 
NO traces of the Massacre of the Inocents, ether in any archives nor any 
unusual number of youngs boys in the cimetaries.



Alain

Post a reply to this message

On 24-4-2011 18:04, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/24/2011 1:00, andrel wrote:
>> I was going to say that if a Godperson/thing came up to me and said it
>> existed, I would still not believe it. But Darren beat me to it.
>
> Me neither. There would have to be evidence beyond it just saying it's
> god. Of course, if it actually were omnipotent, it could make me
> believe, so it's difficult to say what kind of evidence would really be
> necessary.
>
> Anyway, I was saying the *religious* people wouldn't even believe it,
> not the atheists.

I know, just wanting to maintain symmetry. ;)

-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

On 4/23/2011 12:22 PM, andrel wrote:
> On 23-4-2011 0:03, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> On 4/21/2011 3:35 PM, andrel wrote:
>>>> ID's central premise, sadly, is that it just "poofed" into being. Hell,
>>>> even the ones arguing "front loading", fail to grasp that any such
>>>> "master genetic code", to avoid breaking the organism fatally, while
>>>> inserting new features, has to take clear steps, in which it replaces
>>>> parts of the system, only as possible, before reaching and end result.
>>>
>>> I know it would be hard to find a sensible way to construct something in
>>> such a way that it could not have been evolved. Precisely because your
>>> bridge example is a known pitfall (and the paragraphs above therefore
>>> effectively a strawman argument). But simply the fact that you believe
>>> it is not possible does not mean you have in any way proven it to be so.
>>> Man and nature are often more inventive than either of them would have
>>> though.
>>
>> Which then brings up Russel's Teapot. Its that a strawman argument, but
>> an accurate description of the problem. There is no logically
>> conceivable way that you can construct something in genetics where it
>> just appears, any more than with a bridge, so trying to find one that
>> did is like chasing invisible teapots. Its a useless pursuit of
>> something that you can't be 100% sure doesn't exist, but for which there
>> are lots, and lots, of evidence to suggest that its simply an
>> unnecessary complication to go hunting for it.
>>
>> The first step, if you want to hunt for such a thing, is to come up with
>> a plausible description of what, and where, it will be found. Given a
>> few thousands years, some idiot is bound to find a teapot (if for no
>> other reason that that by then some other idiot will have accidentally
>> left one in an airlock, before someone else went EVA). By the same
>> token, if some clown keeps hunting long enough, they are bound to find
>> something "designed", but not because DNA was designed, but because
>> someone actually inserts some designed DNA in someone/something, then
>> dies, or something, without telling anyone.
>>
>> Its the only conceivable condition where you can spend your time looking
>> for the genetic equivalent of Bigfoot, and actually find something that
>> isn't a man in a gorilla suit.
>
> The problem here is that every argument you use assumes that everything
> evolved in a natural way. If you assume that (or even if you know that
> it is a fact,) then everything is entirely clear. But it all falls apart
> if you start from the other assumption.
> Somewhere in my library is a book I inherited from my father. It gives a
> number of arguments that proof that God does exist. Very convincing,...
> if you believe God does exist. I found most of them amusing and/or
> interesting but none was convincing.
>
> So unless you have a proof of evolution that convinces even the die hard
> creationists then we better leave it at that. You don't have to convince
> me.
>
>
The real problem with things like that book though is that 50 people 
have written 50 different books, all making the same arguments. Its the 
whole, "deep theological position", issue, where you go to a modern 
theologian tell them, "The arguments I have heard are all silly, can you 
come up with some that are not.", and they reply, "Well, you just 
haven't heard the deep ones, so yes." A few days later you are handed a 
list of their *best* arguments, and... it looks like its been cribbed 
out of the list you previously rejected.

By contrast, we started out with, "Something like evolution might 
explain this", went to, "See, more examples of why this is likely true", 
to, "heh, we just found DNA!", to, "Heh, look at this microbe evolve the 
ability to eat something it never could before, and the process is just 
like what we thought!", etc. The "depth" of the argument grows, because 
their is something tangible to examine, and from lack of evidence to 
suggest another mechanism. Theological arguments don't, because all they 
do is rehash the original premise, without having a damn thing to 
examine, or test against. They also don't seem to have a single clue 
what arguments other prior theologians already made on the subject. lol

Post a reply to this message

On 4/23/2011 2:45 PM, andrel wrote:
>> That undermines not only teaching real science, but the ability for
>> students to think about problems in a rational way.
>
> Are Americans worse programmers than Japanese?
>
Two problems with that question. 1) Japanese are hardly atheists, they 
*tend* to be some strange mix of pantheist/animist/pagan, 2) they are 
driven heavily to achieve, not slack off, 3) while a lot of twits that 
go for ID also seem to be programmers (due to the, "I design something 
like DNA, so something else could have), they **must** otherwise have 
fairly robust problem solving. So.. I would say, on a whole, more of 
them probably *could* program, whether they are better or not. And, by 
contrast, you will find US programmers babbling idiot nonsense on 
biology websites like, despite the US military using such things 
effectively for decades now, "genetic algorithms are not as good at 
target tracking, from my experience using them to try to build one, as 
hand coded designed stuff!" So.. I would say that, also, in some cases 
the answer would be, "hell yes".

Post a reply to this message

On 4/24/2011 11:08, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Back to the St Augustine books... and free-will vs God...

Free will is almost as poorly defined as "god".

> Would God still be omnipotent if God was not able to grant free-will to
> humans ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NGOuAIusLA

> Also, at the end, when God is revealed, two of the seven virtues are to
> disappear from the world: hope&  belief, because they won't be possible
> any more.

So I stop believing in god if he actually shows up? I think you have that 
backwards.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 4/23/2011 10:09 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 23:45:04 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
>>> I think there's a fundamental difference, if you're like most of the
>>> atheists I know - you're willing to be convinced given sufficient
>>> evidence.
>>
>> No, I am not, that is the point. There being a God is to such an extend
>> contradictory to being me, that I will never accept any evidence(, hence
>> my reference to that book of my father). I think you will find that true
>> for other atheists as well.
>
> That is different - so you're saying that if someone presented rational
> evidence for a God, you wouldn't accept it?  I find that *highly* unusual.
>
Problem is the "rational evidence" part. How do you tell someone playing 
at god, with super advanced tech, or even abilities maybe, and that they 
"are" god in any real sense. Hell, to most of the people over thousands 
of years a Jedi would constitute a god, but we would, if any such person 
showed up, be looking at blood samples to work out how the hell they did 
it, not bowing to them in worship, a fact true even for most religious 
people. First, you need a coherent definition of god, then you can talk 
about what constitutes evidence.

Since most of the stuff in religious texts fall into these categories:

1. Things any two bit magician can replicate.
2. Things we could replicate now, with preparation.
3. Things we could at least imagine replicating, if we had certain 
technologies.
4. Things we couldn't replicate, like making a new universe, and then 
showing someone around in it, and which are probably not possible.

There isn't a lot of room for someone coming up with evidence. Even Q 
from Star Trek, to a modern thinker, tends to look less like a god, than 
merely a powerful, but otherwise normal, different species.

The bar is pretty damn high be miracles, unless you already think damn 
near everything imaginable is a miracle, as some seem to. And, gods 
themselves... not one of them ever defined in past works *qualifies*, 
not in the least due to their failure to live up to the ethics/morals of 
their own followers.

Post a reply to this message