| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
24 Feb 2005 08:59:33 AM |
| Object: |
Re: The Misrepresentations of Richard Forrest |
Larry Moran:
On 23 Feb 2005 Noone Inparticular <unreve89@hotmail.com> wrote:
Paul J Gans wrote:
[snip[
Well, I've learned something (or had my suspicions verified)
from all this.
The first is that in the end, ID rests on personal incredulity.
In the end, the blind watchmaker hypothesis rests on personal incredulity.
Darwin: "If the death of neither man nor gnat are designed, I see no
reason to believe that their _first_ birth or production should be
necessarily designed."
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0404161917.475b5fc0%40posting.google.com
Darwin to Gray on the fan-tail
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0404170630.5cb94298%40posting.google.com
Biology has the appearance of having been designed by intelligence.
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-36pqk2F55ibnrU1%40individual.net
omphalic YEC and blindwatchmakingist parallels
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0411270821.29ee3dd9%40posting.google.com
Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1%40individual.net
I live in New York where several million people *still* cannot
believe that the Yankees, with a lead in the ninth inning of the
fourth game of the World Series, leading three games to nothing,
managed to *lose* the World Series, four games to three.
erm...I believe that was the ALCS. Boston went on to beat St Louis in
the WS, 4 games to zero.
We're talking about New Yorkers! They've completely suppressed the
fact that they didn't even get into the World Series! By next summer
the typical New Yorker will believe that the umps stole the series from
them.
.
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: The Misrepresentations of Richard Forrest |
24 Feb 2005 03:05:37 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 09:59:33 -0500, david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu>
said in alt.atheism:
In the end, the blind watchmaker hypothesis rests on personal incredulity.
So does the blind puddlemaker theory - if you're the puddle.
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so
long as I'm the dictator."
- G W Bush (Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: The Misrepresentations of Richard Forrest |
24 Feb 2005 09:14:31 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
<snipped>
I thought I'd reply to David with something irrelevant, out-of-context,
and pasted for somewhere else.
At least this is more fun than his postings:
Der Jammerwoch
Robert Scott
Es brillig war. Die schlichte Toven
Wirrten und wimmelten in Waben;
Und aller-mümsige Burggoven
Die mohmen Räth' ausgraben.
»Bewahre doch vor Jammerwoch!
Die Zähne knirschen, Krallen kratzen!
Bewahr' vor Jubjub-Vogel, vor
Frumiösen Banderschntzchen!«
Er griff sein vorpals Schwertchen zu,
Er suchte lang das manchsan' Ding;
Dann, stehend unterm Tumtum Baum,
Er an-zu-denken-fing.
Als stand er tief in Andacht auf,
Des Jammerwochen's Augen-feuer
Durch tulgen Wald mit Wiffek kam
Ein burbelnd Ungeheuer!
Eins, Zwei! Eins, Zwei! Und durch und durch
Sein vorpals Schwert zerschnifer-schnück,
Da blieb es todt! Er, Kopf in Hand,
Geläumfig zog zurück.
»Und schlugst Du ja den Jammerwoch?
Umarme mich, mien Böhm'sches Kind!
O Freuden-Tag! O Halloo-Schlag!«
Er schortelt froh-gesinnt.
Es brillig war. Die schlichte Toven
Wirrten und wimmelten in Waben;
Und aller-mümsige Burggoven
Die mohmen Räth' ausgraben.
RF
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lizz Holmans" |
|
| Title: Re: The Misrepresentations of Richard Forrest |
24 Feb 2005 03:49:30 PM |
|
|
On 24 Feb 2005 07:14:31 -0800, "Richard Forrest"
<richard@plesiosaur.com> wrote:
david ford wrote:
<snipped>
I thought I'd reply to David with something irrelevant, out-of-context,
and pasted for somewhere else.
At least this is more fun than his postings:
Der Jammerwoch
Oh, I have a Welsh version of that same poem, but it's at my other
place so you'll be spared.
Lizz 'Was the rabbit with the watch a Welsh rabbit?' Holmans
--
I have seen things you will never see.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: The Misrepresentations of Richard Forrest |
24 Feb 2005 05:55:57 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 21:49:30 +0000, Lizz Holmans <dillo@jackalope.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
On 24 Feb 2005 07:14:31 -0800, "Richard Forrest"
<richard@plesiosaur.com> wrote:
david ford wrote:
<snipped>
I thought I'd reply to David with something irrelevant, out-of-context,
and pasted for somewhere else.
At least this is more fun than his postings:
Der Jammerwoch
Oh, I have a Welsh version of that same poem, but it's at my other
place so you'll be spared.
Lizz 'Was the rabbit with the watch a Welsh rabbit?' Holmans
Latin, Anybody?
http://www.ruthannzaroff.com/wonderland/jabberwocky.htm
--
I have seen things you will never see.
But on reflection; I wonder...
--
Puck Greenman
The spelling Like any opinion stated here
purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Plonked by Rob Duncan
January 27th
Na bister 500,000
.
|
|
|
| User: "Danny Kodicek" |
|
| Title: Re: The Misrepresentations of Richard Forrest |
02 Mar 2005 06:01:35 PM |
|
|
"Dubh Ghall" <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in message
news:eeqs11lft5rhl3mj2h5ms3ousii4uhgfit@4ax.com...
Latin, Anybody?
http://www.ruthannzaroff.com/wonderland/jabberwocky.htm
Raising the question: is it actually a translation of Jaberwocky if it
doesn't rhyme or scan?
Danny
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Misrepresentations of Richard Forrest |
03 Mar 2005 12:00:20 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 00:01:35 GMT, "Danny Kodicek"
<usenet@well-spring.co.uk> wrote:
"Dubh Ghall" <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in message
news:eeqs11lft5rhl3mj2h5ms3ousii4uhgfit@4ax.com...
Latin, Anybody?
http://www.ruthannzaroff.com/wonderland/jabberwocky.htm
Raising the question: is it actually a translation of Jaberwocky if it
doesn't rhyme or scan?
Pope's Homer is rhymed. Is it still a translation? Latin verse did not
use rhyme until the Second Century CE. Translating Jabberwocky into
any language is one of the most interesting excercises, and sent
Hofstadter into a nice rumination on the subject:
http://www76.pair.com/keithlim/jabberwocky/poem/hofstadter.html
and for over fifty translations here are the Jabberwocky variations:
http://www76.pair.com/keithlim/jabberwocky/
I would love to read Jabberwocky translated by Nabokov. The notes
would take up full volume.
German
.
|
|
|
| User: "Danny Kodicek" |
|
| Title: Re: The Misrepresentations of Richard Forrest |
04 Mar 2005 02:10:04 PM |
|
|
<tracym@askme.net> wrote in message
news:vh8d21tt5e8bm8tt1qmj36ip1jfepr501f@4ax.com...
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 00:01:35 GMT, "Danny Kodicek"
<usenet@well-spring.co.uk> wrote:
"Dubh Ghall" <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in message
news:eeqs11lft5rhl3mj2h5ms3ousii4uhgfit@4ax.com...
Latin, Anybody?
http://www.ruthannzaroff.com/wonderland/jabberwocky.htm
Raising the question: is it actually a translation of Jaberwocky if it
doesn't rhyme or scan?
Pope's Homer is rhymed. Is it still a translation? Latin verse did not
use rhyme until the Second Century CE.
That's an interesting point (okay, I know we're off topic, but let's face
it, this is a David Ford thread, so the topic was fairly dull to start with
:) ). Of course, this isn't an 'ancient Latin' translation (by definition!),
but we can imagine that the author chose to translate it into the Latin
which an ancient Roman might recognise and appreciate in the same way as
Carroll's contemporaries. But then has he found some 'equivalent' of the
rhyme scheme? After all, the rhyme and meter are an integral part of the
original poem. And while Latin poetry may not have rhymed (I have no idea,
but I'll take your word for it), it certainly had a very strict meter, so we
should see this in the poem, and I can't say I do. (Obviously, I'm
nit-picking! After all, it's a translation into *Latin* for *****'s sake!
Kudos is naturally due.)
It makes me wonder how we might 'translate' Jaberwocky into, say,
Shakespearean English. Should it become a sonnet? Actually, now I think
about it, given Shakespeare's talent for neologism, such a translation
wouldn't be at all unreasonable - was Shakespeare the Elizabethan Lewis
Carroll? In which case, was Marlowe Charles Dodgson? ;)
Translating Jabberwocky into
any language is one of the most interesting excercises, and sent
Hofstadter into a nice rumination on the subject:
http://www76.pair.com/keithlim/jabberwocky/poem/hofstadter.html
I've mentioned a few times here and elsewhere my general devotion to all
things Hofstadter :)
and for over fifty translations here are the Jabberwocky variations:
http://www76.pair.com/keithlim/jabberwocky/
I would love to read Jabberwocky translated by Nabokov. The notes
would take up full volume.
Well, Humpty Dumpty made a stab at the first verse.
Danny
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Misrepresentations of Richard Forrest |
05 Mar 2005 12:11:44 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 20:10:04 GMT, "Danny Kodicek"
<usenet@well-spring.co.uk> wrote:
<tracym@askme.net> wrote in message
news:vh8d21tt5e8bm8tt1qmj36ip1jfepr501f@4ax.com...
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 00:01:35 GMT, "Danny Kodicek"
<usenet@well-spring.co.uk> wrote:
"Dubh Ghall" <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in message
news:eeqs11lft5rhl3mj2h5ms3ousii4uhgfit@4ax.com...
Latin, Anybody?
http://www.ruthannzaroff.com/wonderland/jabberwocky.htm
Raising the question: is it actually a translation of Jaberwocky if it
doesn't rhyme or scan?
Pope's Homer is rhymed. Is it still a translation? Latin verse did not
use rhyme until the Second Century CE.
That's an interesting point (okay, I know we're off topic, but let's face
it, this is a David Ford thread, so the topic was fairly dull to start with
:) ). Of course, this isn't an 'ancient Latin' translation (by definition!),
but we can imagine that the author chose to translate it into the Latin
which an ancient Roman might recognise and appreciate in the same way as
Carroll's contemporaries. But then has he found some 'equivalent' of the
rhyme scheme? After all, the rhyme and meter are an integral part of the
original poem. And while Latin poetry may not have rhymed (I have no idea,
but I'll take your word for it), it certainly had a very strict meter, so we
should see this in the poem, and I can't say I do. (Obviously, I'm
nit-picking! After all, it's a translation into *Latin* for *****'s sake!
Kudos is naturally due.)
Whoever did it is a better man than I, even if it was a woman. I think
that 'understanding Jabberwocky' in English takes a special ear, and
to try to find an equivalent in a language that is no longer spoken is
a Heraklean task.
It makes me wonder how we might 'translate' Jaberwocky into, say,
Shakespearean English. Should it become a sonnet? Actually, now I think
about it, given Shakespeare's talent for neologism, such a translation
wouldn't be at all unreasonable - was Shakespeare the Elizabethan Lewis
Carroll? In which case, was Marlowe Charles Dodgson? ;)
Hofstadter makes a similar point: why translate, say, Dostoevsky? Is
Dickens the English Dostoyevsky? I like the idea of translating a work
into the same language in a different period; sort of like the "what
if Mozart wrote 'Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas'" record I
have somewhere. I like translating foreign translations back into
their original language. With hobbies like that I no longer need
drugs. I like reading the Spanish translations of J. just to see how
different translators solved different problems. My work is usually
translating legal texts, which aren't very interesting. I must keep my
sanity somehow.
Translating Jabberwocky into
any language is one of the most interesting excercises, and sent
Hofstadter into a nice rumination on the subject:
http://www76.pair.com/keithlim/jabberwocky/poem/hofstadter.html
I've mentioned a few times here and elsewhere my general devotion to all
things Hofstadter :)
and for over fifty translations here are the Jabberwocky variations:
http://www76.pair.com/keithlim/jabberwocky/
I would love to read Jabberwocky translated by Nabokov. The notes
would take up full volume.
Well, Humpty Dumpty made a stab at the first verse.
Danny
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "josephus" |
|
| Title: Re: The Misrepresentations of Richard Forrest |
03 Mar 2005 08:46:24 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 00:01:35 GMT, "Danny Kodicek"
<usenet@well-spring.co.uk> wrote:
"Dubh Ghall" <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in message
news:eeqs11lft5rhl3mj2h5ms3ousii4uhgfit@4ax.com...
Latin, Anybody?
http://www.ruthannzaroff.com/wonderland/jabberwocky.htm
Raising the question: is it actually a translation of Jaberwocky if it
doesn't rhyme or scan?
Pope's Homer is rhymed. Is it still a translation? Latin verse did not
use rhyme until the Second Century CE. Translating Jabberwocky into
any language is one of the most interesting excercises, and sent
Hofstadter into a nice rumination on the subject:
http://www76.pair.com/keithlim/jabberwocky/poem/hofstadter.html
and for over fifty translations here are the Jabberwocky variations:
http://www76.pair.com/keithlim/jabberwocky/
I would love to read Jabberwocky translated by Nabokov. The notes
would take up full volume.
German
I think the point was it implys unmeaning to David FORD.
he lies and obfuscates and evades. Besides which he, as a
creationist, suffers from acute Religiosity. and respect is nor applicable.
josephus
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Misrepresentations of Richard Forrest |
03 Mar 2005 09:51:47 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 14:46:24 GMT, josephus <dogbird@earthlink.net>
wrote:
tracym@askme.net wrote:
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 00:01:35 GMT, "Danny Kodicek"
<usenet@well-spring.co.uk> wrote:
"Dubh Ghall" <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in message
news:eeqs11lft5rhl3mj2h5ms3ousii4uhgfit@4ax.com...
Latin, Anybody?
http://www.ruthannzaroff.com/wonderland/jabberwocky.htm
Raising the question: is it actually a translation of Jaberwocky if it
doesn't rhyme or scan?
Pope's Homer is rhymed. Is it still a translation? Latin verse did not
use rhyme until the Second Century CE. Translating Jabberwocky into
any language is one of the most interesting excercises, and sent
Hofstadter into a nice rumination on the subject:
http://www76.pair.com/keithlim/jabberwocky/poem/hofstadter.html
and for over fifty translations here are the Jabberwocky variations:
http://www76.pair.com/keithlim/jabberwocky/
I would love to read Jabberwocky translated by Nabokov. The notes
would take up full volume.
German
I think the point was it implys unmeaning to David FORD.
he lies and obfuscates and evades. Besides which he, as a
creationist, suffers from acute Religiosity. and respect is nor applicable.
Gee, you think? I did follow the thread, and was only answering DK's
rehetorical question. With more rhethoric.
German
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nantko Schanssema" |
|
| Title: Re: The Misrepresentations of Richard Forrest |
24 Feb 2005 07:44:47 PM |
|
|
Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey>:
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 21:49:30 +0000, Lizz Holmans <dillo@jackalope.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
On 24 Feb 2005 07:14:31 -0800, "Richard Forrest"
<richard@plesiosaur.com> wrote:
At least this is more fun than his postings:
Der Jammerwoch
Oh, I have a Welsh version of that same poem, but it's at my other
place so you'll be spared.
Lizz 'Was the rabbit with the watch a Welsh rabbit?' Holmans
Latin, Anybody?
http://www.ruthannzaroff.com/wonderland/jabberwocky.htm
Ouch. People do the weirdest things...
regards,
Nantko
--
The invisible and the nonexistent look very much alike. (Delos McKown)
http://www.xs4all.nl/~nantko/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Misrepresentations of Richard Forrest |
24 Feb 2005 10:01:07 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
Larry Moran:
On 23 Feb 2005 Noone Inparticular <unreve89@hotmail.com> wrote:
Paul J Gans wrote:
[snip[
Well, I've learned something (or had my suspicions verified)
from all this.
The first is that in the end, ID rests on personal incredulity.
In the end, the blind watchmaker hypothesis rests on personal
incredulity.
Not at all. Assuming by "blind watchmaker" you are referring to the
idea that undirected forces can interact in ways that produce complex
(and even optimized) results, there is evidence to support the
conclusion that this is not merely an idle speculation. Would you
expect a perfect Designer to create a design for
biochemistry/genetics/etc. that was so hopelessly inadequate it would
quite literally take a miracle to turn it into a functioning biosphere?
We've scarcely begun to scratch the surface of the wonders of the
design of evolutionary biology.
m
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cardinal Chunder" |
|
| Title: Re: The Misrepresentations of Richard Forrest |
24 Feb 2005 12:23:30 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
Larry Moran:
On 23 Feb 2005 Noone Inparticular <unreve89@hotmail.com> wrote:
Paul J Gans wrote:
[snip[
Well, I've learned something (or had my suspicions verified)
from all this.
The first is that in the end, ID rests on personal incredulity.
In the end, the blind watchmaker hypothesis rests on personal incredulity.
No it doesn't.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
