| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
04 Dec 2005 04:43:19 PM |
| Object: |
No Ice, No Us |
No Ice, No Us
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/books/review/04royte.html?pagewanted=all
Review by ELIZABETH ROYTE
Cold and nasty as ice is, we would not be here without it.
ICE
The Nature, the History, and the Uses of an Astonishing Substance.
By Mariana Gosnell.
Illustrated. 560 pp. Alfred A. Knopf. $30.
.
|
|
| User: "Yournameheres personal Cthulhu" |
|
| Title: Re: No Ice, No Us |
05 Dec 2005 04:59:20 AM |
|
|
The sky hung heavy over talk.origins with the anticipation of a new
day dawning.
It was 4 Dec 2005 14:43:19 -0800.
Suddenly, maff appeared and said "Look, about No Ice, No Us, you see,
it's like this:"
No Ice, No Us
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/books/review/04royte.html?pagewanted=all
-Most of us don't spend a lot of time contemplating where, when, how
-and why ice forms. We clink our cubes round our cocktails without a
-thought about frozen water's role in shaping the earth, in changing
-the climate, or even in forming us.
I do, it's fascinating as science, and it's damning evidence against
'intelligent design'.
Here is something which is one of the simplest chemicals in the
universe and should have a dead simple structure and behaviour, but it
doesn't. Why not? Because of the dichotomy between how the internal
structure of this molecule obeys the laws of physics, and how those
exact same laws of physics demand the molecules interact with each
other. Right there, at the heart of reality, are things being caught
red handed being the way they are purely by accident.
IDers, read this and weep:
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/
------------------------------------------------
Look at the logo and tell me Christianity isn't a death cult.
D Silverman BAAWA and bar.
AA #2208
.
|
|
|
| User: "NashtOn" |
|
| Title: Re: No Ice, No Us |
05 Dec 2005 05:39:12 AM |
|
|
<Yournamehere>'s personal Cthulhu wrote:
The sky hung heavy over talk.origins with the anticipation of a new
day dawning.
It was 4 Dec 2005 14:43:19 -0800.
Suddenly, maff appeared and said "Look, about No Ice, No Us, you see,
it's like this:"
No Ice, No Us
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/books/review/04royte.html?pagewanted=all
-Most of us don't spend a lot of time contemplating where, when, how
-and why ice forms. We clink our cubes round our cocktails without a
-thought about frozen water's role in shaping the earth, in changing
-the climate, or even in forming us.
I do, it's fascinating as science, and it's damning evidence against
'intelligent design'.
Here is something which is one of the simplest chemicals in the
universe and should have a dead simple structure and behaviour, but it
doesn't. Why not? Because of the dichotomy between how the internal
structure of this molecule obeys the laws of physics, and how those
exact same laws of physics demand the molecules interact with each
other. Right there, at the heart of reality, are things being caught
red handed being the way they are purely by accident.
IDers, read this and weep:
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/
------------------------------------------------
Look at the logo and tell me Christianity isn't a death cult.
D Silverman BAAWA and bar.
AA #2208
You people shall have to make up your minds.
Firstly, it's been stated ad nauseam in this ng that "evolution doesn't
concern itself with abiogenesis."
Secondly, nothing in this article qualifies as proof.
Nicola
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Drayton" |
|
| Title: Re: No Ice, No Us |
05 Dec 2005 05:57:00 AM |
|
|
NashtOn wrote:
<Yournamehere>'s personal Cthulhu wrote:
The sky hung heavy over talk.origins with the anticipation of a new
day dawning.
It was 4 Dec 2005 14:43:19 -0800.
Suddenly, maff appeared and said "Look, about No Ice, No Us, you see,
it's like this:"
No Ice, No Us
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/books/review/04royte.html?pagewanted=all
-Most of us don't spend a lot of time contemplating where, when, how
-and why ice forms. We clink our cubes round our cocktails without a
-thought about frozen water's role in shaping the earth, in changing
-the climate, or even in forming us.
I do, it's fascinating as science, and it's damning evidence against
'intelligent design'.
Here is something which is one of the simplest chemicals in the
universe and should have a dead simple structure and behaviour, but it
doesn't. Why not? Because of the dichotomy between how the internal
structure of this molecule obeys the laws of physics, and how those
exact same laws of physics demand the molecules interact with each
other. Right there, at the heart of reality, are things being caught
red handed being the way they are purely by accident.
IDers, read this and weep:
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/
------------------------------------------------
Look at the logo and tell me Christianity isn't a death cult.
D Silverman BAAWA and bar.
AA #2208
You people shall have to make up your minds.
Firstly, it's been stated ad nauseam in this ng that "evolution doesn't
concern itself with abiogenesis."
I didn't see anything in these posts that suggested otherwise.
What was it in the posts or in the links that made you think
that someone was asserting that evolution *does* concern
itself with abiogenesis? Evolution and abiogenisis aren't even
mentioned as far as I can see.
I guess you are trying to say something here, but it's not clear
what it is.
Secondly, nothing in this article qualifies as proof.
Nicola
--
John Drayton
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Yournameheres personal Cthulhu" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: No Ice, No Us |
05 Dec 2005 06:22:16 AM |
|
|
The sky hung heavy over talk.origins with the anticipation of a new
day dawning.
It was Mon, 05 Dec 2005 11:39:12 GMT.
Suddenly, NashtOn appeared and said "Look, about Re: No Ice, No Us,
you see, it's like this:"
You people shall have to make up your minds.
I have made mine up: that you would find a recipe for a boiled egg too
abstruse to understand.
------------------------------------------------
Look at the logo and tell me Christianity isn't a death cult.
D Silverman BAAWA and bar.
AA #2208
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: No Ice, No Us |
05 Dec 2005 02:02:13 PM |
|
|
<Yournamehere>'s personal Cthulhu wrote:
The sky hung heavy over talk.origins with the anticipation of a new
day dawning.
It was 4 Dec 2005 14:43:19 -0800.
Suddenly, maff appeared and said "Look, about No Ice, No Us, you see,
it's like this:"
No Ice, No Us
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/books/review/04royte.html?pagewanted=all
-Most of us don't spend a lot of time contemplating where, when, how
-and why ice forms. We clink our cubes round our cocktails without a
-thought about frozen water's role in shaping the earth, in changing
-the climate, or even in forming us.
I do, it's fascinating as science, and it's damning evidence against
'intelligent design'.
That's like saying the internal combustion engine is damning evidence
against human intelligent design. You seem to be under the impression
that if it can be explained, it can't be designed. But, as we know,
internal combustion engines has been and continue to be designed and
redesigned. They are the product of human intelligence.
Water isn't the product of human intelligence, but as per your cite
(below), it behaves as an anomoly. Yes, you can explain or rationalize
the physics, but that doesn't mean that water wasn't designed to behave
as it does or even that the laws of physics aren't designed to behave
as they do. In a purely naturalistic universe, anomolies should only
exist as human error. Since, water represents a clearly present
anomoly, not the product of human error, this cannot be a purely
naturalistic universe.
The ID movement lacks focus and direction to make this kind of argument
(at present). They are too distracted by misconceptions of Evolution to
deal with philosophical problems in the underlying foundation of
Naturalism. Many have gone as far to suggest that "deity" represents
the source of intelligent design, but that generally assumes a very
poor perception of deity. An intelligence capable of designing water
would be as remote from human intelligence as human intelligence is
remote from ant intelligence.
Here is something which is one of the simplest chemicals in the
universe and should have a dead simple structure and behaviour, but it
doesn't. Why not? Because of the dichotomy between how the internal
structure of this molecule obeys the laws of physics, and how those
exact same laws of physics demand the molecules interact with each
other. Right there, at the heart of reality, are things being caught
red handed being the way they are purely by accident.
Whatever gets you through the night!
IDers, read this and weep:
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/
------------------------------------------------
Look at the logo and tell me Christianity isn't a death cult.
I always perceived it as more of a labor movement. I guess that's why
some people hate unions.
JTG 12/5/05
D Silverman BAAWA and bar.
AA #2208
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: No Ice, No Us |
05 Dec 2005 04:42:40 PM |
|
|
<jgrisham@scu.k12.ca.us> wrote in message
news:1133812933.250190.78600@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<Yournamehere>'s personal Cthulhu wrote:
The sky hung heavy over talk.origins with the anticipation of a new
day dawning.
It was 4 Dec 2005 14:43:19 -0800.
Suddenly, maff appeared and said "Look, about No Ice, No Us, you see,
it's like this:"
No Ice, No Us
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/books/review/04royte.html?pagewanted=all
-Most of us don't spend a lot of time contemplating where, when, how
-and why ice forms. We clink our cubes round our cocktails without a
-thought about frozen water's role in shaping the earth, in changing
-the climate, or even in forming us.
I do, it's fascinating as science, and it's damning evidence against
'intelligent design'.
That's like saying the internal combustion engine is damning evidence
against human intelligent design. You seem to be under the impression
that if it can be explained, it can't be designed. But, as we know,
internal combustion engines has been and continue to be designed and
redesigned. They are the product of human intelligence.
Water isn't the product of human intelligence, but as per your cite
(below), it behaves as an anomoly. Yes, you can explain or rationalize
the physics, but that doesn't mean that water wasn't designed to behave
as it does or even that the laws of physics aren't designed to behave
as they do.
Anything is possible. If you want to believe that God created the physical
laws that make water behave the way that it does, that's fine. Science
doesn't rule God out or in, in that respect.
In a purely naturalistic universe, anomolies should only
exist as human error.
You'll have to back up this assertion.
Since, water represents a clearly present
anomoly, not the product of human error, this cannot be a purely
naturalistic universe.
Your premise will need to be justified to back up this statement up.
The ID movement lacks focus and direction to make this kind of argument
(at present).
They seem to have the same problem that you have, apparently, in working
with a faulty premise that anomalies are only the product of human error.
They are too distracted by misconceptions of Evolution to
deal with philosophical problems in the underlying foundation of
Naturalism. Many have gone as far to suggest that "deity" represents
the source of intelligent design, but that generally assumes a very
poor perception of deity. An intelligence capable of designing water
would be as remote from human intelligence as human intelligence is
remote from ant intelligence.
Here is something which is one of the simplest chemicals in the
universe and should have a dead simple structure and behaviour, but it
doesn't. Why not? Because of the dichotomy between how the internal
structure of this molecule obeys the laws of physics, and how those
exact same laws of physics demand the molecules interact with each
other. Right there, at the heart of reality, are things being caught
red handed being the way they are purely by accident.
That would be interesting if we didn't have natural explanations for the
dichotomies that you speak of. I'm not sure what your point is. If you are
arguing for ID, shouldn't you be arguing about things that science cannot
explain?
JR
Whatever gets you through the night!
IDers, read this and weep:
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/
------------------------------------------------
Look at the logo and tell me Christianity isn't a death cult.
I always perceived it as more of a labor movement. I guess that's why
some people hate unions.
JTG 12/5/05
D Silverman BAAWA and bar.
AA #2208
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: No Ice, No Us |
05 Dec 2005 02:28:49 PM |
|
|
<jgrisham@scu.k12.ca.us> wrote in message
news:1133812933.250190.78600@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<Yournamehere>'s personal Cthulhu wrote:
The sky hung heavy over talk.origins with the anticipation of a new
day dawning.
It was 4 Dec 2005 14:43:19 -0800.
Suddenly, maff appeared and said "Look, about No Ice, No Us, you see,
it's like this:"
No Ice, No Us
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/books/review/04royte.html?pagewanted=all
-Most of us don't spend a lot of time contemplating where, when, how
-and why ice forms. We clink our cubes round our cocktails without a
-thought about frozen water's role in shaping the earth, in changing
-the climate, or even in forming us.
I do, it's fascinating as science, and it's damning evidence against
'intelligent design'.
Unfortunately Yournamehere's post doesn't show up for me
so I don't know how s/he reached that conclussion.
That's like saying the internal combustion engine is damning evidence
against human intelligent design. You seem to be under the impression
that if it can be explained, it can't be designed. But, as we know,
internal combustion engines has been and continue to be designed and
redesigned. They are the product of human intelligence.
Water isn't the product of human intelligence, but as per your cite
(below), it behaves as an anomoly. Yes, you can explain or rationalize
the physics, but that doesn't mean that water wasn't designed to behave
as it does or even that the laws of physics aren't designed to behave
as they do. In a purely naturalistic universe, anomolies should only
exist as human error. Since, water represents a clearly present
anomoly, not the product of human error, this cannot be a purely
naturalistic universe.
How is it an anomoly?
What makes you think the universe was designed?
What is the purpose of the design?
The ID movement lacks focus and direction to make this kind of argument
(at present). They are too distracted by misconceptions of Evolution to
deal with philosophical problems in the underlying foundation of
Naturalism. Many have gone as far to suggest that "deity" represents
the source of intelligent design, but that generally assumes a very
poor perception of deity. An intelligence capable of designing water
would be as remote from human intelligence as human intelligence is
remote from ant intelligence.
Does the designer think of us as we think of ants then?
<snip>
--
rb
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Bohn" |
|
| Title: Re: No Ice, No Us |
05 Dec 2005 06:34:23 PM |
|
|
wrote in
news:1133812933.250190.78600@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
<snip>
In a purely naturalistic universe, anomolies should
only exist as human error.
Really? How so?
Does this mean that in a semi-naturalistic universe, anomolies exist as
God's errors?
Since, water represents a clearly present
anomoly, not the product of human error, this cannot be a purely
naturalistic universe.
Bad premise, bad conclusion.
<snip>
--
aa #1779 or maybe later, who knows.
Gary Bohn
Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
emotionally modifies evidence to fit a specific interpretation of the
bible.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul J Gans" |
|
| Title: Re: No Ice, No Us |
05 Dec 2005 08:53:57 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins Gary Bohn <garybohn@removethisaccesscomm.ca> wrote:
jgrisham@scu.k12.ca.us wrote in
news:1133812933.250190.78600@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
<snip>
In a purely naturalistic universe, anomolies should
only exist as human error.
Really? How so?
Does this mean that in a semi-naturalistic universe, anomolies exist as
God's errors?
Since, water represents a clearly present
anomoly, not the product of human error, this cannot be a purely
naturalistic universe.
Bad premise, bad conclusion.
<snip>
I think that many people have difficulty understanding that
the universe is a strange place. Water has anomolies when
looked at from a classical point of view.
Of course the classical point of view is wrong.
From a quantum mechanical point of view water has no anomoulous
behavior at all.
All that strangeness is included in the solution to Schroedinger's
Equation.
The fact that this is not often appreciated does not change
anything.
Thus the OP (not Gary Bohn) has some learning to do.
----- Paul J. Gans
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Bohn" |
|
| Title: Re: No Ice, No Us |
06 Dec 2005 09:48:34 AM |
|
|
Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com> wrote in
news:dn2ug5$qa7$4@reader2.panix.com:
In talk.origins Gary Bohn <garybohn@removethisaccesscomm.ca> wrote:
jgrisham@scu.k12.ca.us wrote in
news:1133812933.250190.78600@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
<snip>
In a purely naturalistic universe, anomolies should
only exist as human error.
Really? How so?
Does this mean that in a semi-naturalistic universe, anomolies exist
as God's errors?
Since, water represents a clearly present
anomoly, not the product of human error, this cannot be a purely
naturalistic universe.
Bad premise, bad conclusion.
<snip>
I think that many people have difficulty understanding that
the universe is a strange place. Water has anomolies when
looked at from a classical point of view.
Of course the classical point of view is wrong.
From a quantum mechanical point of view water has no anomoulous
behavior at all.
All that strangeness is included in the solution to Schroedinger's
Equation.
The fact that this is not often appreciated does not change
anything.
Thus the OP (not Gary Bohn) has some learning to do.
----- Paul J. Gans
Is the OP aware of this? (the learning, not quantum mechanics)
Somehow I don't think so. I'm sure that the OP feels anomolies are
something only man can produce simply because the universe is as perfect
as everything produced by 'God'. Whether or not it (whatever 'it' is)
is a true anomoly is irrelevant.
--
aa #1779 or maybe higher, who knows.
Gary Bohn
Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
emotionally modifies evidence to fit a specific interpretation of the
bible.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ferrous Patella" |
|
| Title: Re: No Ice, No Us |
05 Dec 2005 05:08:24 PM |
|
|
news:1133736199.056163.41610@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com by maff:
No Ice, No Us
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/books/review/04royte.html?pagewanted=
all
Review by ELIZABETH ROYTE
Cold and nasty as ice is, we would not be here without it.
ICE
The Nature, the History, and the Uses of an Astonishing Substance.
By Mariana Gosnell.
Illustrated. 560 pp. Alfred A. Knopf. $30.
It's the frozen ape theory!
--
Ferrous Patella (Homo gerardii)
T.A., Philosophy Lab
University of Ediacara
Å vite hva man ikke vet,
er også en slags allvitenhet.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
