| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
24 Dec 2006 06:58:03 AM |
| Object: |
Re: More Delusional Thinking |
Marc wrote:
Seanpit wrote:
Hey, at least Glenn understands these very basic and intuitively
obvious concepts; concepts that Marc seems to have real trouble
grasping . . .
At least I try, Sean. Your position is so much more restricted by
your belief structure that adjusting to any new ideas just eludes you.
What sort of issue do you feel proves your point about what sort
of consept I understand and what sort I don't? Any examples, dude?
(Glenn only seems to take a position so he argue with somebody.)
Are we ready to visit your "Immunity" web page again or is it still
stuck in the 1980's (about where it was half a year ago)?
(signed) marc
.
"Sean. Your position is so much more restricted by your belief
structure that adjusting to any new ideas just eludes you."
Do you think it's possible that mind/ intelligence was responsible for
the origination of the first biological lifeform?
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
1994 Larry: "it seems logical that"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1153494152.829932.23350%40i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
On the Origin of Life
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net
Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1%40individual.net
.
|
|
| User: "Marc" |
|
| Title: Re: More Delusional Thinking |
24 Dec 2006 03:34:28 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
Marc wrote:
Seanpit wrote:
Hey, at least Glenn understands these very basic and intuitively
obvious concepts; concepts that Marc seems to have real trouble
grasping . . .
At least I try, Sean. Your position is so much more restricted by
your belief structure that adjusting to any new ideas just eludes you.
What sort of issue do you feel proves your point about what sort
of consept I understand and what sort I don't? Any examples, dude?
(Glenn only seems to take a position so he argue with somebody.)
Are we ready to visit your "Immunity" web page again or is it still
stuck in the 1980's (about where it was half a year ago)?
(signed) marc
.
"Sean. Your position is so much more restricted by your belief
structure that adjusting to any new ideas just eludes you."
Do you think it's possible that mind/ intelligence was responsible for
the origination of the first biological lifeform?
No, I don't. Life is a result of mindless chemistry and physics.
(signed) marc
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: More Delusional Thinking |
24 Dec 2006 09:18:01 PM |
|
|
Marc wrote:
david ford wrote:
"Sean. Your position is so much more restricted by your belief
structure that adjusting to any new ideas just eludes you."
Do you think it's possible that mind/ intelligence was responsible for
the origination of the first biological lifeform?
No, I don't. Life is a result of mindless chemistry and physics.
Do you think it's possible that mind/ intelligence was responsible for
the origination of the sequence of alphabet characters you're now
reading?
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
1985 A.G. Cairns-Smith; How did recorded-in-DNA/ genetic information
originate?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-32gv43F3jsrelU1%40individual.net
How does a seeingwatchmakingist account for the origin of
the recorded-in-DNA/ genetic information within:
a human? a bacterium? the first biological lifeform?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-348nj6F47evohU1%40individual.net
1985 Cairns-Smith: "Present-day organisms are manifestly pieces of
'high technology', and what is more seem to be necessarily so."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1123558517.582123.223890%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn" |
|
| Title: Re: More Delusional Thinking |
24 Dec 2006 04:32:30 PM |
|
|
Marc wrote:
david ford wrote:
Marc wrote:
Seanpit wrote:
Hey, at least Glenn understands these very basic and intuitively
obvious concepts; concepts that Marc seems to have real trouble
grasping . . .
At least I try, Sean. Your position is so much more restricted by
your belief structure that adjusting to any new ideas just eludes you.
What sort of issue do you feel proves your point about what sort
of consept I understand and what sort I don't? Any examples, dude?
(Glenn only seems to take a position so he argue with somebody.)
Are we ready to visit your "Immunity" web page again or is it still
stuck in the 1980's (about where it was half a year ago)?
(signed) marc
.
"Sean. Your position is so much more restricted by your belief
structure that adjusting to any new ideas just eludes you."
Do you think it's possible that mind/ intelligence was responsible for
the origination of the first biological lifeform?
No, I don't. Life is a result of mindless chemistry and physics.
That hasn't even come close to being demonstrated. However,
intelligence in all lifeforms has support. From Wiki, "complex
discrimination and manipulative skills" and "complex adaptive
behaviour" are descriptions used. An a priori claim that intelligence
is an emergent property of life is not sufficient to explain
intelligence as an apparent requisite of survival. Sounds like you are
making "an appeal to" mindless chemistry and physics. Oh, my bad.
"Methodical" naturalism, right? "Life" just *slowly* took on
intelligent attributes, over millions of years, right?
One more question; where is this line between *life* and nonlife, where
"the study of evolution" is said to begin? After you get through with
the spiel about reproducing, answer the question. UCA would be a good
copout, you could try that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marc" |
|
| Title: Re: More Delusional Thinking |
24 Dec 2006 06:41:48 PM |
|
|
Glenn wrote:
Marc wrote:
david ford wrote:
Marc wrote:
Seanpit wrote:
.... snp...
After you get through with
the spiel about reproducing, answer the question. UCA would be a good
copout, you could try that.
Glenn,
The only one of your recent posts I am taking at all seriously
is the one where you suggested that I not reply to you.
From time to time I will ignore that advice, but for the moment you
can take your comments here and shove them somewhere else.
(signed) marc
..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn" |
|
| Title: Re: More Delusional Thinking |
24 Dec 2006 06:56:31 PM |
|
|
Marc wrote:
Glenn wrote:
Marc wrote:
david ford wrote:
Marc wrote:
Seanpit wrote:
... snp...
After you get through with
the spiel about reproducing, answer the question. UCA would be a good
copout, you could try that.
Glenn,
The only one of your recent posts I am taking at all seriously
is the one where you suggested that I not reply to you.
When did I suggest you not reply to me?
From time to time I will ignore that advice, but for the moment you
can take your comments here and shove them somewhere else.
Yes, I could. Very good, Marc. You should take that seriously.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marc" |
|
| Title: Re: More Delusional Thinking |
25 Dec 2006 12:00:21 AM |
|
|
Glenn wrote:
Marc wrote:
Glenn wrote:
Marc wrote:
david ford wrote:
Marc wrote:
Seanpit wrote:
The only one of your recent posts I am taking at all seriously
is the one where you suggested that I not reply to you.
When did I suggest you not reply to me?
Tues, Nov 21 2006 11:09 am (local time here in Sydney)
(signed) marc
..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn" |
|
| Title: Re: More Delusional Thinking |
25 Dec 2006 01:58:46 PM |
|
|
Marc wrote:
Glenn wrote:
Marc wrote:
Glenn wrote:
Marc wrote:
david ford wrote:
Marc wrote:
Seanpit wrote:
The only one of your recent posts I am taking at all seriously
is the one where you suggested that I not reply to you.
When did I suggest you not reply to me?
Tues, Nov 21 2006 11:09 am (local time here in Sydney)
At all seriously?
It appears you are referring to my comment to another poster "Best he
ignores me". Of course, you didn't, haven't and aren't. And you did,
have and are replying to me, both directly and indirectly. I believe
you also said "your further replies to (or about) me in this newsgroup
are moot."
Now you can choose to think that you aren't responding to or about me
in a serious manner. You can choose to think that I suggested that you
not reply to me, but characterizing your responses to me as being other
than serious is a reflection of your own shortcomings.
Is "moot" kind of like "law" in the sense of your "laws of evolution",
seriously?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
