| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"• R.L. Measures" |
| Date: |
01 Apr 2004 04:35:00 AM |
| Object: |
Re: IQ and major religious affiliations |
In article <C$47PO6STYcU@cygnus.dragon.com>, (SPAWN
OF A JEWISH CARPENTER: CINDY SMITH) wrote:
In article <+r-3103040457340001@192.168.1.100>, +r@somis.org
(• R.L. Measures) writes:
In article <a51dce1e.0403302116.50f4dced@posting.google.com>,
el_guerrero_del_camino@yahoo.com (Road Warrior) wrote:
"Robert Calvert" <Hercules1@pcstarnet.com> wrote:
I have my doubts about this explanation. I would be willing to bet
that the
minimum IQ needed to read and discuss the Torah is only about 70.
First, Copernicus taught us that the universe didn't necessarily
have to be
created for us after all. Then came Newton who taught us that it didn't
necessarily take a god to keep the universe in working order. Then came
Darwin who taught us that even life itself didn't need a
supernatural being.
keee-rap ... Darwin taught no such thing.
• Indeed
--
€ R.L. Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org. + in adr = spam trap
Darwin's Theory of Evolution tell us how life _evolves_ but tells us
nothing about how life _began_. In biology, I learned that life only
comes from other life. On the theory that at one time the Earth did
not exist and then later formed and then later developed life where
previously there had been no life -- remembering that life comes only
from other life -- Darwinism says nothing about hylogenesis or
biogenesis, so what is the origin of life on Earth? Is a living God
necessary for the begetting of life?
• My guess is yes, Cindy. As I see it, the genius of life is that the
organisms are able to evolve in order to adapt to conditions.
- cheers
--
€ R.L. Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org. + in adr = spam trap
.
|
|
| User: "SPAWN OF A JEWISH CARPENTER: CINDY SMITH" |
|
| Title: Re: IQ and major religious affiliations |
01 Apr 2004 01:46:42 PM |
|
|
In article <+r-0104040235000001@192.168.1.100>, +r@somis.org
(• R.L. Measures) writes:
In article <C$47PO6STYcU@cygnus.dragon.com>, (SPAWN
OF A JEWISH CARPENTER: CINDY SMITH) wrote:
Darwin's Theory of Evolution tell us how life _evolves_ but tells us
nothing about how life _began_. In biology, I learned that life only
comes from other life. On the theory that at one time the Earth did
not exist and then later formed and then later developed life where
previously there had been no life -- remembering that life comes only
from other life -- Darwinism says nothing about hylogenesis or
biogenesis, so what is the origin of life on Earth? Is a living God
necessary for the begetting of life?
• My guess is yes, Cindy. As I see it, the genius of life is that the
organisms are able to evolve in order to adapt to conditions.
- cheers
My guess is yes, too, R.L. Have you read the book by Jimmy H. Davis
and Harry L. Poe entitled _Designer Universe: Intelligent Design and
the Existence of God_ ? I found it quite fascinating. In the
introduction on page xvi, the authors ask several questions: "How
compelling is the evidence, however, for someone who does not know the
Desinger? Can someone come to know the Designer by observing the
design? Does the evidence copmel only one conclusion about the origin
of design?" What do you think?
€ R.L. Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org. + in adr = spam trap
--
Cindy Smith Unless the LORD build the house,
cms@dragon.com they labor in vain who build.
cms@5sc.net Unless the LORD guard the city,
cms@romancatholic.org in vain does the guard keep watch.
Me transmitte sursum, -- Psalm 127:1
Caledoni! All your base are belong to us.
A Real Live Catholic You are on the way to destruction.
in Georgia! What you say.
->> <<-< Go against the flow! You have no chance to survive make your time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "• R.L. Measures" |
|
| Title: Re: IQ and major religious affiliations |
01 Apr 2004 05:30:16 PM |
|
|
In article <nyR49uueh2EK@cygnus.dragon.com>, (SPAWN
OF A JEWISH CARPENTER: CINDY SMITH) wrote:
In article <+r-0104040235000001@192.168.1.100>, +r@somis.org
(• R.L. Measures) writes:
In article <C$47PO6STYcU@cygnus.dragon.com>, (SPAWN
OF A JEWISH CARPENTER: CINDY SMITH) wrote:
Darwin's Theory of Evolution tell us how life _evolves_ but tells us
nothing about how life _began_. In biology, I learned that life only
comes from other life. On the theory that at one time the Earth did
not exist and then later formed and then later developed life where
previously there had been no life -- remembering that life comes only
from other life -- Darwinism says nothing about hylogenesis or
biogenesis, so what is the origin of life on Earth? Is a living God
necessary for the begetting of life?
• My guess is yes, Cindy. As I see it, the genius of life is that the
organisms are able to evolve in order to adapt to conditions.
- cheers
My guess is yes, too, R.L. Have you read the book by Jimmy H. Davis
and Harry L. Poe entitled _Designer Universe: Intelligent Design and
the Existence of God_ ?
• no
I found it quite fascinating. In the
introduction on page xvi, the authors ask several questions: "How
compelling is the evidence, however, for someone who does not know the
Desinger? Can someone come to know the Designer by observing the
design? Does the evidence copmel only one conclusion about the origin
of design?" What do you think?
• The similarity of DNA between the 4-million species suggests one designer.
Cheerz, Cindy
--
€ R.L. Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org. + in adr = spam trap
.
|
|
|
| User: "rlb" |
|
| Title: Re: IQ and major religious affiliations |
01 Apr 2004 08:05:33 PM |
|
|
". R.L. Measures" <+r@somis.org> wrote in message
news:+r-0104041530160001@192.168.1.100...
In article <nyR49uueh2EK@cygnus.dragon.com>, (SPAWN
OF A JEWISH CARPENTER: CINDY SMITH) wrote:
In article <+r-0104040235000001@192.168.1.100>, +r@somis.org
(. R.L. Measures) writes:
In article <C$47PO6STYcU@cygnus.dragon.com>,
(SPAWN
OF A JEWISH CARPENTER: CINDY SMITH) wrote:
Darwin's Theory of Evolution tell us how life _evolves_ but tells us
nothing about how life _began_. In biology, I learned that life only
comes from other life. On the theory that at one time the Earth did
not exist and then later formed and then later developed life where
previously there had been no life -- remembering that life comes only
from other life -- Darwinism says nothing about hylogenesis or
biogenesis, so what is the origin of life on Earth? Is a living God
necessary for the begetting of life?
. My guess is yes, Cindy. As I see it, the genius of life is that
the
organisms are able to evolve in order to adapt to conditions.
- cheers
My guess is yes, too, R.L. Have you read the book by Jimmy H. Davis
and Harry L. Poe entitled _Designer Universe: Intelligent Design and
the Existence of God_ ?
. no
I found it quite fascinating. In the
introduction on page xvi, the authors ask several questions: "How
compelling is the evidence, however, for someone who does not know the
Desinger? Can someone come to know the Designer by observing the
design? Does the evidence copmel only one conclusion about the origin
of design?" What do you think?
. The similarity of DNA between the 4-million species suggests one
designer.
Cheerz, Cindy
Uh, Cindy, there are some fairly horrible designs out there !!!! What was
God thinking? R
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: IQ and major religious affiliations |
01 Apr 2004 11:43:54 PM |
|
|
. The similarity of DNA between the 4-million species suggests one
designer.
You mean just like the similarity of design between the 4 million or so types
of houses suggests one architect?
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking, which
leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy." - Robert Anton
Wilson
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Agki Strodon" |
|
| Title: Re: IQ and major religious affiliations |
02 Apr 2004 10:37:22 AM |
|
|
. The similarity of DNA between the 4-million species suggests one
designer.
Cheerz, Cindy
Nope. It suggests more strongly a single event from which all others
proceeded by virtue of the Principle of Parsimony.
Agkistrodon
.
|
|
|
| User: "Road Warrior" |
|
| Title: Re: IQ and major religious affiliations |
02 Apr 2004 11:14:26 PM |
|
|
"Agki Strodon" <agkistrodon@mindspring.com> wrote:
. The similarity of DNA between the 4-million species suggests one
designer.
Cheerz, Cindy
Nope. It suggests more strongly a single event from which all others
proceeded by virtue of the Principle of Parsimony.
Oddly enough, it suggests either fairly well. The "one designer" and
the "single event" are both parsimonius.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Agki Strodon" |
|
| Title: Re: IQ and major religious affiliations |
03 Apr 2004 05:44:18 AM |
|
|
"Road Warrior" <el_guerrero_del_camino@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a51dce1e.0404022114.54d025b@posting.google.com...
"Agki Strodon" <agkistrodon@mindspring.com> wrote:
. The similarity of DNA between the 4-million species suggests one
designer.
Cheerz, Cindy
Nope. It suggests more strongly a single event from which all others
proceeded by virtue of the Principle of Parsimony.
Oddly enough, it suggests either fairly well. The "one designer" and
the "single event" are both parsimonius.
No, they are not. The designer hypothesis includes an extra entity and many
characteristics and attriibutes of that entity. Further, the entity would
have to be complex and that requires explanation. The chemical
characteristics, being sufficient in themselves, do not require such an
extraneous participant. The designer conclusion is not parsimonious.
Agkistrodon
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike W" |
|
| Title: Re: IQ and major religious affiliations |
03 Apr 2004 06:51:25 AM |
|
|
"Agki Strodon" <agkistrodon@mindspring.com> wrote:
"Road Warrior" <el_guerrero_del_camino@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Agki Strodon" <agkistrodon@mindspring.com> wrote:
. The similarity of DNA between the 4-million species
suggests one designer.
Cheerz, Cindy
Nope. It suggests more strongly a single event from which all
others proceeded by virtue of the Principle of Parsimony.
Oddly enough, it suggests either fairly well. The "one designer"
and the "single event" are both parsimonius.
No, they are not. The designer hypothesis includes an extra entity
and many characteristics and attriibutes of that entity. Further,
the entity would have to be complex and that requires explanation.
The chemical characteristics, being sufficient in themselves, do not
require such an extraneous participant. The designer conclusion is
not parsimonious.
Without going in to detail, "I am". I must confirm my surroundings against
memories of what they said of course. When they were that is. You are.
Simple. No confirmations of chemicals, elements, quarks, super strings
etc., etc., etc. required.
So... the most parsimonious? He is. The designer is.
There's certainly a flaw here. Why is the existence of self or equals who
can communicate (ie you, him, them etc.) less real than these sufficient
chemicals you mention?
Why is the idea of a noticeably uncommunicative Him less real than that
noticeably invisible step beyond the superstring?
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: IQ and major religious affiliations |
03 Apr 2004 07:18:59 AM |
|
|
"Mike W" <Circle_314_And_Square_nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:106tcsrbq16bobe@news.supernews.com:
"Agki Strodon" <agkistrodon@mindspring.com> wrote:
"Road Warrior" <el_guerrero_del_camino@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Agki Strodon" <agkistrodon@mindspring.com> wrote:
. The similarity of DNA between the 4-million species
suggests one designer.
Cheerz, Cindy
Nope. It suggests more strongly a single event from which all
others proceeded by virtue of the Principle of Parsimony.
Oddly enough, it suggests either fairly well. The "one designer"
and the "single event" are both parsimonius.
No, they are not. The designer hypothesis includes an extra entity
and many characteristics and attriibutes of that entity. Further,
the entity would have to be complex and that requires explanation.
The chemical characteristics, being sufficient in themselves, do not
require such an extraneous participant. The designer conclusion is
not parsimonious.
Without going in to detail, "I am". I must confirm my surroundings
against memories of what they said of course. When they were that is.
You are. Simple. No confirmations of chemicals, elements, quarks,
super strings etc., etc., etc. required.
So, if you just ignore them you don't have to account for the fact that
they exist?
So... the most parsimonious? He is. The designer is.
There's certainly a flaw here. Why is the existence of self or equals
who can communicate (ie you, him, them etc.) less real than these
sufficient chemicals you mention?
Why is the idea of a noticeably uncommunicative Him less real than
that noticeably invisible step beyond the superstring?
What step?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike W" |
|
| Title: Re: IQ and major religious affiliations |
03 Apr 2004 12:53:29 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
"Mike W" <Circle_314_And_Square_nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Agki Strodon" <agkistrodon@mindspring.com> wrote:
"Road Warrior" <el_guerrero_del_camino@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Agki Strodon" <agkistrodon@mindspring.com> wrote:
. The similarity of DNA between the 4-million species
suggests one designer.
Cheerz, Cindy
Nope. It suggests more strongly a single event from which all
others proceeded by virtue of the Principle of Parsimony.
Oddly enough, it suggests either fairly well. The "one designer"
and the "single event" are both parsimonius.
No, they are not. The designer hypothesis includes an extra entity
and many characteristics and attriibutes of that entity. Further,
the entity would have to be complex and that requires explanation.
The chemical characteristics, being sufficient in themselves, do
not require such an extraneous participant. The designer
conclusion is not parsimonious.
Without going in to detail, "I am". I must confirm my surroundings
against memories of what they said of course. When they were that
is. You are. Simple. No confirmations of chemicals, elements,
quarks, super strings etc., etc., etc. required.
So, if you just ignore them you don't have to account for the fact
that they exist?
Much accounting to do. I thought the decision was between a "single event"
(no accounting for that's existence) and "one designer" (no accounting for
that's existence either).
So... the most parsimonious? He is. The designer is.
There's certainly a flaw here. Why is the existence of self or
equals who can communicate (ie you, him, them etc.) less real than
these sufficient chemicals you mention?
Why is the idea of a noticeably uncommunicative Him less real than
that noticeably invisible step beyond the superstring?
What step?
Shrug. That's how invisible it is.
Mike
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: IQ and major religious affiliations |
03 Apr 2004 01:42:42 PM |
|
|
"Mike W" <Circle_314_And_Square_nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:106u23mmsgejoa9@news.supernews.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
"Mike W" <Circle_314_And_Square_nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Agki Strodon" <agkistrodon@mindspring.com> wrote:
"Road Warrior" <el_guerrero_del_camino@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Agki Strodon" <agkistrodon@mindspring.com> wrote:
. The similarity of DNA between the 4-million species
suggests one designer.
Cheerz, Cindy
Nope. It suggests more strongly a single event from which all
others proceeded by virtue of the Principle of Parsimony.
Oddly enough, it suggests either fairly well. The "one designer"
and the "single event" are both parsimonius.
No, they are not. The designer hypothesis includes an extra entity
and many characteristics and attriibutes of that entity. Further,
the entity would have to be complex and that requires explanation.
The chemical characteristics, being sufficient in themselves, do
not require such an extraneous participant. The designer
conclusion is not parsimonious.
Without going in to detail, "I am". I must confirm my surroundings
against memories of what they said of course. When they were that
is. You are. Simple. No confirmations of chemicals, elements,
quarks, super strings etc., etc., etc. required.
So, if you just ignore them you don't have to account for the fact
that they exist?
Much accounting to do. I thought the decision was between a "single
event" (no accounting for that's existence) and "one designer" (no
accounting for that's existence either).
No, the decision is between the complete theory of what we *know* exists
and a complete theory which includes some "designer" that we not only
don't know but is untestable and unfalsifiable.
So... the most parsimonious? He is. The designer is.
There's certainly a flaw here. Why is the existence of self or
equals who can communicate (ie you, him, them etc.) less real than
these sufficient chemicals you mention?
Why is the idea of a noticeably uncommunicative Him less real than
that noticeably invisible step beyond the superstring?
What step?
Shrug. That's how invisible it is.
True, nonexistent things are not visible.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike W" |
|
| Title: Re: IQ and major religious affiliations |
03 Apr 2004 03:51:46 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
"Mike W" <Circle_314_And_Square_nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
"Mike W" <Circle_314_And_Square_nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Agki Strodon" <agkistrodon@mindspring.com> wrote:
"Road Warrior" <el_guerrero_del_camino@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Agki Strodon" <agkistrodon@mindspring.com> wrote:
. The similarity of DNA between the 4-million species
suggests one designer.
Cheerz, Cindy
Nope. It suggests more strongly a single event from which all
others proceeded by virtue of the Principle of Parsimony.
Oddly enough, it suggests either fairly well. The "one
designer" and the "single event" are both parsimonius.
No, they are not. The designer hypothesis includes an extra
entity and many characteristics and attriibutes of that entity.
Further, the entity would have to be complex and that requires
explanation. The chemical characteristics, being sufficient in
themselves, do not require such an extraneous participant. The
designer conclusion is not parsimonious.
Without going in to detail, "I am". I must confirm my
surroundings against memories of what they said of course.
When they were that is. You are. Simple. No confirmations of
chemicals, elements, quarks, super strings etc., etc., etc.
required.
So, if you just ignore them you don't have to account for the fact
that they exist?
Much accounting to do. I thought the decision was between a "single
event" (no accounting for that's existence) and "one designer" (no
accounting for that's existence either).
No, the decision is between the complete theory of what we *know*
exists and a complete theory which includes some "designer" that we
not only don't know but is untestable and unfalsifiable.
Well... if that's how you understood Agki Strodon... what can I say? I took
him wrong?
Anyrate, I see you present an interesting philosophical dilemma. Am I to
assume that because we don't know what's smaller than a quark, it doesn't
exist? In fact it won't exist until someone proves superstrings exist or
those things of "Loop Quantum Gravity" (whatever they might be) exist.
Strange!
The step toward madness would of course be, imagining something smaller than
a superstring actually exists. Foolish children! ;-)
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: IQ and major religious affiliations |
03 Apr 2004 04:17:06 PM |
|
|
"Mike W" <Circle_314_And_Square_nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:106ucimh54jf8e8@news.supernews.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
"Mike W" <Circle_314_And_Square_nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
"Mike W" <Circle_314_And_Square_nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Agki Strodon" <agkistrodon@mindspring.com> wrote:
"Road Warrior" <el_guerrero_del_camino@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Agki Strodon" <agkistrodon@mindspring.com> wrote:
. The similarity of DNA between the 4-million species
suggests one designer.
Cheerz, Cindy
Nope. It suggests more strongly a single event from which all
others proceeded by virtue of the Principle of Parsimony.
Oddly enough, it suggests either fairly well. The "one
designer" and the "single event" are both parsimonius.
No, they are not. The designer hypothesis includes an extra
entity and many characteristics and attriibutes of that entity.
Further, the entity would have to be complex and that requires
explanation. The chemical characteristics, being sufficient in
themselves, do not require such an extraneous participant. The
designer conclusion is not parsimonious.
Without going in to detail, "I am". I must confirm my
surroundings against memories of what they said of course.
When they were that is. You are. Simple. No confirmations of
chemicals, elements, quarks, super strings etc., etc., etc.
required.
So, if you just ignore them you don't have to account for the fact
that they exist?
Much accounting to do. I thought the decision was between a "single
event" (no accounting for that's existence) and "one designer" (no
accounting for that's existence either).
No, the decision is between the complete theory of what we *know*
exists and a complete theory which includes some "designer" that we
not only don't know but is untestable and unfalsifiable.
Well... if that's how you understood Agki Strodon... what can I say?
I took him wrong?
Now that you point it out, he seems to be talking about the origin of
life rather than the Big Bang. The point remains that Parsimony works
only on complete, testable, falsifiable theories.
Anyrate, I see you present an interesting philosophical dilemma. Am I
to assume that because we don't know what's smaller than a quark, it
doesn't exist?
Unless it can be shown to exist, there's not much point in claiming that
it does. There might be some point in hypothesizing to that effect, for
the purpose of figuring out how to test them.
In fact it won't exist until someone proves
superstrings exist or those things of "Loop Quantum Gravity" (whatever
they might be) exist. Strange!
The step toward madness would of course be, imagining something
smaller than a superstring actually exists. Foolish children! ;-)
I thought we were talking about physics, not metaphysics.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike W" |
|
| Title: Re: IQ and major religious affiliations |
04 Apr 2004 03:15:30 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Now that you point it out, he seems to be talking about the origin of
life rather than the Big Bang. The point remains that Parsimony works
only on complete, testable, falsifiable theories.
Well... I guess you're right. Isn't it parsimony of thought that's being
addressed, though? So, it comes down to the existence of a thing or the
self/other ie the "single event" or the "one designer". Which requires the
least amount of thinking?
Many would jump to point out it's those religious "one designer" folks who
think the least. I hadn't thought of it that way 'til just now.
<snip>
I thought we were talking about physics, not metaphysics.
Heh... nasty religion! I can't believe it forces the IQ to contemplate
metaphysics. The nerve!
;-)
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: IQ and major religious affiliations |
04 Apr 2004 03:53:01 PM |
|
|
"Mike W" <Circle_314_And_Square_nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1070r8f3dh9q9d6@news.supernews.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Now that you point it out, he seems to be talking about the origin of
life rather than the Big Bang. The point remains that Parsimony works
only on complete, testable, falsifiable theories.
Well... I guess you're right. Isn't it parsimony of thought that's
being addressed, though? So, it comes down to the existence of a
thing or the self/other ie the "single event" or the "one designer".
Which requires the least amount of thinking?
Even the notion that it was "one event" is open to debate. Life could
have originated many times, using different mechanisms which were weeded
out later down to the (several) which now operate. Not every organism
uses exactly the same DNA code.
(VERY GOOD article in Scientific American for April 2004).
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=
0002F40E-3D61-1056-BD6183414B7F0104
(watch out for line wraps)
Many would jump to point out it's those religious "one designer" folks
who think the least. I hadn't thought of it that way 'til just now.
:-)
<snip>
I thought we were talking about physics, not metaphysics.
Heh... nasty religion! I can't believe it forces the IQ to
contemplate metaphysics. The nerve!
;-)
Heck, philosophers can't even figure out how to prove that they exist!
Makes me want to smack them. ;-)
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike W" |
|
| Title: Re: IQ and major religious affiliations |
05 Apr 2004 07:25:14 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
"Mike W" <Circle_314_And_Square_nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Now that you point it out, he seems to be talking about the origin
of life rather than the Big Bang. The point remains that Parsimony
works only on complete, testable, falsifiable theories.
Well... I guess you're right. Isn't it parsimony of thought that's
being addressed, though? So, it comes down to the existence of a
thing or the self/other ie the "single event" or the "one designer".
Which requires the least amount of thinking?
Even the notion that it was "one event" is open to debate. Life could
have originated many times, using different mechanisms which were
weeded out later down to the (several) which now operate. Not every
organism uses exactly the same DNA code.
DNA? Then there's www.openmind.org. Do we dare teach computers stuff we
know?
(VERY GOOD article in Scientific American for April 2004).
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=0002F40E-3D61-1056-BD6183414B7F0104
(watch out for line wraps)
Page 43 mentions "Golden 'C' Lithium Structured Water"
www.luminanti.com/goldenc.html
Sweet! LOL.
Many would jump to point out it's those religious "one designer"
folks who think the least. I hadn't thought of it that way 'til
just now.
:-)
<snip>
I thought we were talking about physics, not metaphysics.
Heh... nasty religion! I can't believe it forces the IQ to
contemplate metaphysics. The nerve!
;-)
Heck, philosophers can't even figure out how to prove that they
exist! Makes me want to smack them. ;-)
Ouchies? Perhaps one might view them as the seemingly interminable prompts
one must click through to close that file we call life. Like the soul who
can't prove existence can hope to prove life?
Mike
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Agkistrodon" |
|
| Title: Re: IQ and major religious affiliations |
06 Apr 2004 10:06:02 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<Xns94C1ABBFF7D85fstone69@207.69.154.206>
Even the notion that it was "one event" is open to debate. Life could
have originated many times, using different mechanisms which were weeded
out later down to the (several) which now operate. Not every organism
uses exactly the same DNA code.
But they ALL use a DNA code. Variability in the code is a reasonable
expectation of a self-perpetuating system. It is quite possible that
it was not DNA but RNA that was the first replicator and that the
transformation was a consequence of natural selection. It doesn't
matter how many different systems developed in chemical evolution.
There's only one around today and that one is probably the
consequences of a single event or a single class of events leading to
the same thing although they may have occurred in different places.
Heh... nasty religion! I can't believe it forces the IQ to
contemplate metaphysics. The nerve!
;-)
Heck, philosophers can't even figure out how to prove that they exist!
Makes me want to smack them. ;-)
For some philosophical questions, there are no answers. We cannot
prove that the world came into existence X seconds ago and it formed
with all our records and memories intact but false with regard to what
really happened (i.e., nothing)nor can we prove that it did not.
Agkistrodon
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rob Duncan" |
|
| Title: Re: IQ and major religious affiliations |
07 Apr 2004 12:06:50 AM |
|
|
"Agkistrodon" <agkistrodon@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:a367a71.0404060706.537c4103@posting.google.com...
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns94C1ABBFF7D85fstone69@207.69.154.206>
Even the notion that it was "one event" is open to debate. Life could
have originated many times, using different mechanisms which were weeded
out later down to the (several) which now operate. Not every organism
uses exactly the same DNA code.
But they ALL use a DNA code. Variability in the code is a reasonable
expectation of a self-perpetuating system. It is quite possible that
it was not DNA but RNA that was the first replicator and that the
transformation was a consequence of natural selection. It doesn't
matter how many different systems developed in chemical evolution.
There's only one around today...
"and that one is probably the
consequences of a single event or a single class of events leading to
the same thing although they may have occurred in different places."
Im not real clear on what youre trying to say. If theres a single 'event'
then Im sure it must occur repeatedly until it catches on. I seriously
doubt that life is unusual in that respect. Primordial life probably
started gazillions of times. Our egocentrism begs for life to be
rare/special.
Rob
Heh... nasty religion! I can't believe it forces the IQ to
contemplate metaphysics. The nerve!
;-)
Heck, philosophers can't even figure out how to prove that they exist!
Makes me want to smack them. ;-)
For some philosophical questions, there are no answers. We cannot
prove that the world came into existence X seconds ago and it formed
with all our records and memories intact but false with regard to what
really happened (i.e., nothing)nor can we prove that it did not.
Agkistrodon
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D4" |
|
| Title: Re: IQ and major religious affiliations |
07 Apr 2004 12:58:38 AM |
|
|
"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> said:
"Agkistrodon" <agkistrodon@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:a367a71.0404060706.537c4103@posting.google.com...
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns94C1ABBFF7D85fstone69@207.69.154.206>
Even the notion that it was "one event" is open to debate. Life could
have originated many times, using different mechanisms which were weeded
out later down to the (several) which now operate. Not every organism
uses exactly the same DNA code.
But they ALL use a DNA code. Variability in the code is a reasonable
expectation of a self-perpetuating system. It is quite possible that
it was not DNA but RNA that was the first replicator and that the
transformation was a consequence of natural selection. It doesn't
matter how many different systems developed in chemical evolution.
There's only one around today...
"and that one is probably the
consequences of a single event or a single class of events leading to
the same thing although they may have occurred in different places."
Im not real clear on what youre trying to say. If theres a single 'event'
then Im sure it must occur repeatedly until it catches on. I seriously
doubt that life is unusual in that respect. Primordial life probably
started gazillions of times. Our egocentrism begs for life to be
rare/special.
....
Maybe even this roll of the dice that we call life, will not endure.
And what would be special about it enduring, if all ends in
unendurable cold or heat, no matter what? The universe is, we are
among it current expressions.
Jim07D4
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hans-Georg Michna" |
|
| Title: Re: IQ and major religious affiliations |
07 Apr 2004 06:03:05 AM |
|
|
Jim07D4 <Jim07D4@nospam.net> wrote:
Maybe even this roll of the dice that we call life, will not endure.
Jim,
chances are now good. We are on the brink of spreading out and
colonizing, and on the brink of creating higher intelligence at
the same time. We've made it so far, we will soon be a rapidly
expanding civilization. In another 100 years not even the total
destruction of our home planet will eradicate this civilization,
because it will by then have taken hold of other planets, space
stations, and probably be under way to the nearest stars.
And what would be special about it enduring, if all ends in
unendurable cold or heat, no matter what?
Nothing. It is just that life's primary characteristic is
expansion, so our civilization, or that of our our descendants,
will expand.
Hans-Georg
--
No mail, please.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D4" |
|
| Title: Re: IQ and major religious affiliations |
07 Apr 2004 06:33:16 AM |
|
|
Hans-Georg Michna <hans-georgNoEmailPlease@michna.com> said:
Jim07D4 <Jim07D4@nospam.net> wrote:
Maybe even this roll of the dice that we call life, will not endure.
Jim,
chances are now good. We are on the brink of spreading out and
colonizing, and on the brink of creating higher intelligence at
the same time. We've made it so far, we will soon be a rapidly
expanding civilization. In another 100 years not even the total
destruction of our home planet will eradicate this civilization,
because it will by then have taken hold of other planets, space
stations, and probably be under way to the nearest stars.
That's sort of like leaping over to an adjacent petri dish.
And what would be special about it enduring, if all ends in
unendurable cold or heat, no matter what?
Nothing. It is just that life's primary characteristic is
expansion, so our civilization, or that of our our descendants,
will expand.
I was thinking more in terms of 1000's of billions of years (if time
as such is an applicable concept upon the big crunch, heat death or
cold death of the universe).
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae181.cfm
Jim07D4
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hans-Georg Michna" |
|
| Title: Re: IQ and major religious affiliations |
07 Apr 2004 05:23:18 PM |
|
|
Jim07D4 <Jim07D4@nospam.net> wrote:
I was thinking more in terms of 1000's of billions of years
Jim,
I find it difficult to predict the next 10 years, almost
impossible for the next 20.
Hans-Georg
--
No mail, please.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D4" |
|
| Title: Re: IQ and major religious affiliations |
07 Apr 2004 05:26:50 PM |
|
|
Hans-Georg Michna <hans-georgNoEmailPlease@michna.com> said:
Jim07D4 <Jim07D4@nospam.net> wrote:
I was thinking more in terms of 1000's of billions of years
Jim,
I find it difficult to predict the next 10 years, almost
impossible for the next 20.
M too. But our inability to predict the future might change. ;-)
Jim07D4
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JimC" |
|
| Title: Re: IQ and major religious affiliations |
07 Apr 2004 11:03:44 AM |
|
|
Hans-Georg Michna writes:
Jim07D4 <Jim07D4@nospam.net> wrote:
Maybe even this roll of the dice that we call life, will not endure.
Jim,
chances are now good. We are on the brink of spreading out and
colonizing, and on the brink of creating higher intelligence at
the same time. We've made it so far, we will soon be a rapidly
expanding civilization. In another 100 years not even the total
destruction of our home planet will eradicate this civilization,
because it will by then have taken hold of other planets, space
stations, and probably be under way to the nearest stars.
Although I don't doubt humans will eventually go into
interplanetary and even interstellar space, colonizing
other planets within a mere century might be a bit
optimistic. Even a manned mission to Mars is decades
off and an order of magnitude more difficult than the
Apollo moon program was at its outset in 1961 when
terrestrial telescopes could already observe lunar detail
to ~ 10 m resolution.
It is interesting to look back a bit at the film version of
"2001: A Space Odyssey" which had predicted
travel to Jupiter and AI advanced enough for colloquial
dialog with computers at the end of the 20th century.
(And the computers had become too autonomous
for their own good!)
We might have gotten started on a Mars mission,
picking up where we had left off 30 years ago
if the resource-zapping Iraq venture of the Bush
morons hadn't taken hold. We cannot possibly
pursue Mars and fight 20% of the planet unless
money begins growing on trees and manna falls from
the sky.
And what would be special about it enduring, if all ends in
unendurable cold or heat, no matter what?
Nothing. It is just that life's primary characteristic is
expansion, so our civilization, or that of our our descendants,
will expand.
I agree.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hans-Georg Michna" |
|
| Title: Re: IQ and major religious affiliations |
07 Apr 2004 05:23:19 PM |
|
|
"JimC" <jimc@yabba-dabba-doo.com> wrote:
Although I don't doubt humans will eventually go into
interplanetary and even interstellar space, colonizing
other planets within a mere century might be a bit
optimistic. Even a manned mission to Mars is decades
off and an order of magnitude more difficult than the
Apollo moon program was at its outset in 1961 when
terrestrial telescopes could already observe lunar detail
to ~ 10 m resolution.
Jim,
I agree entirely with the decades, but we observe exponential
growth.
It is interesting to look back a bit at the film version of
"2001: A Space Odyssey" which had predicted
travel to Jupiter and AI advanced enough for colloquial
dialog with computers at the end of the 20th century.
(And the computers had become too autonomous
for their own good!)
Let's say that prediction was slightly off. But not by a hundred
years.
Hans-Georg
--
No mail, please.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Agki Strodon" |
|
| Title: Re: IQ and major religious affiliations |
07 Apr 2004 05:28:12 AM |
|
|
"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in message
news:W-2dnYqGGMzwEe7dRVn-ig@gbronline.com...
Deletia for brevity
But they ALL use a DNA code. Variability in the code is a reasonable
expectation of a self-perpetuating system. It is quite possible that
it was not DNA but RNA that was the first replicator and that the
transformation was a consequence of natural selection. It doesn't
matter how many different systems developed in chemical evolution.
There's only one around today...
"and that one is probably the
consequences of a single event or a single class of events leading to
the same thing although they may have occurred in different places."
Im not real clear on what youre trying to say. If theres a single 'event'
then Im sure it must occur repeatedly until it catches on. I seriously
doubt that life is unusual in that respect. Primordial life probably
started gazillions of times. Our egocentrism begs for life to be
rare/special.
Rob
The possibility of repeated abiogenesis with a RNA-DNA basis was referred to
in the term "single class of events." It means that the molecular forms
that replicated might well have been formed repeatedly and in a number of
places on the earth where "life" began but the fact that they all have the
same basis (RNA-DNA) places all those events in a single kind of chemical
reaction series that leads to self-replicating molecules subject to natural
selection. It has been suggested that the chirality of the nucleotides
(almost all L forms in almost all living entities) is an indicator of an
absolutely single chain of reactions resulting in *one* self-replicating
molecule that is the ultimate common ancestor. This was what I meant by
"single event".
Whether this is true is not really determinable because other factors could
account for the uniqueness of the DNA all life now carries. For example, we
can postulate that although about half the nucleotides formed would be R
forms, there was a naturally selective force that favored L forms and the
competition that ensued drove out the R forms. The rotation of the earth,
for example, or some slight capacity of L forms for faster reproduction and
mutation in the nucleotide sequences. So, even if there were many many
replicating molecules formed, they were all formed by the same class of
reactions in the same sense that H2 +O2 ->2 H20 is a class of reactions.
Individual molecules of hydrogen and oxygen don't matter, if they are H and
0, they combine to form water.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: IQ and major religious affiliations |
06 Apr 2004 10:19:19 AM |
|
|
(Agkistrodon) wrote in
news:a367a71.0404060706.537c4103@posting.google.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns94C1ABBFF7D85fstone69@207.69.154.206>
Even the notion that it was "one event" is open to debate. Life could
have originated many times, using different mechanisms which were
weeded out later down to the (several) which now operate. Not every
organism uses exactly the same DNA code.
But they ALL use a DNA code.
Which doesn't prove that they all derive from a "single event".
Variability in the code is a reasonable
expectation of a self-perpetuating system. It is quite possible that
it was not DNA but RNA that was the first replicator and that the
transformation was a consequence of natural selection. It doesn't
matter how many different systems developed in chemical evolution.
There's only one around today and that one is probably the
consequences of a single event or a single class of events leading to
the same thing although they may have occurred in different places.
I see that the "single event" is now, possibly, a "class of events".
Heh... nasty religion! I can't believe it forces the IQ to
contemplate metaphysics. The nerve!
;-)
Heck, philosophers can't even figure out how to prove that they
exist! Makes me want to smack them. ;-)
For some philosophical questions, there are no answers.
Which makes them useless, meaningless questions, not worth the time or the
bandwidth that's wasted on them.
We cannot
prove that the world came into existence X seconds ago and it formed
with all our records and memories intact but false with regard to what
really happened (i.e., nothing)nor can we prove that it did not.
It's a useless claim, good only for silly conundrums and for deterring
anybody with a grain of sense from pursuing philosophy except as an
extended semantic game of "who can be more worthless?"
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: IQ and major religious affiliations |
03 Apr 2004 07:22:16 AM |
|
|
"Mike W" <Circle_314_And_Square_nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:106tcsrbq16bobe@news.supernews.com:
"Agki Strodon" <agkistrodon@mindspring.com> wrote:
"Road Warrior" <el_guerrero_del_camino@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Agki Strodon" <agkistrodon@mindspring.com> wrote:
. The similarity of DNA between the 4-million species
suggests one designer.
Cheerz, Cindy
Nope. It suggests more strongly a single event from which all
others proceeded by virtue of the Principle of Parsimony.
Oddly enough, it suggests either fairly well. The "one designer"
and the "single event" are both parsimonius.
No, they are not. The designer hypothesis includes an extra entity
and many characteristics and attriibutes of that entity. Further,
the entity would have to be complex and that requires explanation.
The chemical characteristics, being sufficient in themselves, do not
require such an extraneous participant. The designer conclusion is
not parsimonious.
Without going in to detail, "I am". I must confirm my surroundings
against memories of what they said of course. When they were that is.
You are. Simple. No confirmations of chemicals, elements, quarks,
super strings etc., etc., etc. required.
So... the most parsimonious? He is. The designer is.
Oh, and another thing, "the most parsimonious" only applies to
*eqivalent* hypotheses which are testable and fully explain all the
evidence.
There's certainly a flaw here. Why is the existence of self or equals
who can communicate (ie you, him, them etc.) less real than these
sufficient chemicals you mention?
Why is the idea of a noticeably uncommunicative Him less real than
that noticeably invisible step beyond the superstring?
Because string theory is, in principle, testable.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike W" |
|
| Title: Re: IQ and major religious affiliations |
03 Apr 2004 01:00:48 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
"Mike W" <Circle_314_And_Square_nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Agki Strodon" <agkistrodon@mindspring.com> wrote:
"Road Warrior" <el_guerrero_del_camino@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Agki Strodon" <agkistrodon@mindspring.com> wrote:
. The similarity of DNA between the 4-million species
suggests one designer.
Cheerz, Cindy
Nope. It suggests more strongly a single event from which all
others proceeded by virtue of the Principle of Parsimony.
Oddly enough, it suggests either fairly well. The "one designer"
and the "single event" are both parsimonius.
No, they are not. The designer hypothesis includes an extra entity
and many characteristics and attriibutes of that entity. Further,
the entity would have to be complex and that requires explanation.
The chemical characteristics, being sufficient in themselves, do
not require such an extraneous participant. The designer
conclusion is not parsimonious.
Without going in to detail, "I am". I must confirm my surroundings
against memories of what they said of course. When they were that
is. You are. Simple. No confirmations of chemicals, elements,
quarks, super strings etc., etc., etc. required.
So... the most parsimonious? He is. The designer is.
Oh, and another thing, "the most parsimonious" only applies to
*eqivalent* hypotheses which are testable and fully explain all the
evidence.
Heh... that's a new wrinkle. I've been distracted by Descartes' cogito.
There's certainly a flaw here. Why is the existence of self or
equals who can communicate (ie you, him, them etc.) less real than
these sufficient chemicals you mention?
Why is the idea of a noticeably uncommunicative Him less real than
that noticeably invisible step beyond the superstring?
Because string theory is, in principle, testable.
You bet. But we need that one step beyond right? Assuming we're on a hunt
for that "single event" or "one designer".
Mike
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: IQ and major religious affiliations |
03 Apr 2004 01:49:27 PM |
|
|
"Mike W" <Circle_314_And_Square_nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:106u2hhh7ak3n7e@news.supernews.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
"Mike W" <Circle_314_And_Square_nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Agki Strodon" <agkistrodon@mindspring.com> wrote:
"Road Warrior" <el_guerrero_del_camino@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Agki Strodon" <agkistrodon@mindspring.com> wrote:
. The similarity of DNA between the 4-million species
suggests one designer.
Cheerz, Cindy
Nope. It suggests more strongly a single event from which all
others proceeded by virtue of the Principle of Parsimony.
Oddly enough, it suggests either fairly well. The "one designer"
and the "single event" are both parsimonius.
No, they are not. The designer hypothesis includes an extra entity
and many characteristics and attriibutes of that entity. Further,
the entity would have to be complex and that requires explanation.
The chemical characteristics, being sufficient in themselves, do
not require such an extraneous participant. The designer
conclusion is not parsimonious.
Without going in to detail, "I am". I must confirm my surroundings
against memories of what they said of course. When they were that
is. You are. Simple. No confirmations of chemicals, elements,
quarks, super strings etc., etc., etc. required.
So... the most parsimonious? He is. The designer is.
Oh, and another thing, "the most parsimonious" only applies to
*eqivalent* hypotheses which are testable and fully explain all the
evidence.
Heh... that's a new wrinkle. I've been distracted by Descartes'
cogito.
No wonder. Descartes makes an awful lot of untestable assumptions beyond
his basic "Cogito ergo sum".
There's certainly a flaw here. Why is the existence of self or
equals who can communicate (ie you, him, them etc.) less real than
these sufficient chemicals you mention?
Why is the idea of a noticeably uncommunicative Him less real than
that noticeably invisible step beyond the superstring?
Because string theory is, in principle, testable.
You bet. But we need that one step beyond right? Assuming we're on a
hunt for that "single event" or "one designer".
That "single event" is included in string theory. A more descriptive
paradigm is emerging called "Loop Quantum Gravity", which actually makes
testable predictions that are more detailed than they've been able to
derive from Strings.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
