| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
06 Jan 2005 04:20:54 PM |
| Object: |
Thread of Questions |
I will post to this thread many questions, most of which I've asked
elsewhere.
===========================================
As far as you know, did Charles Darwin ever engage in any fraud?
Besides the individuals that participated in the Piltdown forgery, who
are some other evolutionists that have engaged in fraud?
thread:
Did Darwin engage in any fraud?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-32oduoF3q94qaU1%40individual.net
.
|
|
| User: "Ian H Spedding" |
|
| Title: Re: Thread of Questions |
06 Jan 2005 06:33:04 PM |
|
|
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-34581kF47fm6fU1@individual.net...
I will post to this thread many questions, most of which I've asked
elsewhere.
===========================================
As far as you know, did Charles Darwin ever engage in any fraud?
Unless he lied about his age when he signed on board the Beagle, no.
Besides the individuals that participated in the Piltdown forgery,
who
are some other evolutionists that have engaged in fraud?
There is some suspicion that the individuals responsible for the
Piltdown forgery were, in fact, creationist agents provocateur bent on
discrediting palaeontology.
Apart from that, none.
Next!
Ian
--
Ian H Spedding
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: Thread of Questions |
06 Jan 2005 06:21:06 PM |
|
|
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-34581kF47fm6fU1@individual.net...
I will post to this thread many questions, most of which I've asked
elsewhere.
===========================================
As far as you know, did Charles Darwin ever engage in any fraud?
A far better question is if any creationists engaged in any fraud.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Didymus" |
|
| Title: Re: Thread of Questions |
26 Jan 2005 07:43:52 AM |
|
|
"kathryn" <bob@bobbybobbobthebobster.com> wrote in message
news:crk0fc$fvq$1@titan.btinternet.com...
A far better question is if any creationists engaged in any fraud.
That's not a good question either because it accepts Ford's loopy and
fallacious implied premise that if fraud is used to support a hypothesis
then that hypothesis must be fraudulent.
A better question is "Is Creationism a hoax?"
The answer, of course, is yes. Only ignoramuses like Ford think otherwise.
If he's so interested in frauds, perhaps Mr. Ford ought to investigate the
use of "pseudegraphia" (forged documents) by the Fathers of Christianity.
The fakey-doo "Pilate's Letter to Tiberius" would be a good place to start.
As would Jesus' reply to the letter from the King of Edessa.
Didymus
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Thread of Questions |
25 Jan 2005 06:38:50 PM |
|
|
Do you think "magic" can, or can't, occur?
Suppose matter transformed into a living bacterium, all
totally apart from the input of any mind/intelligence
whatsoever. Would that be "magic"?
Suppose a bacterium lived, died, and came back to life after
three days. Would that be "magic"?
Suppose Jesus existed, died, and came back to life after 3
days. Would that be "magic"?
In which if any of the following hypothetical situations is
"natural law" "broken"/ "violated"?
"magic" occurring?:
I imagine and construct a transportation vehicle
I imagine and construct a biological lifeform out of
non-living matter.
I sculpt a mountainside to produce a small-scale version of
Mt. Rushmore
I pick up an apple that fell from a tree
I make an arrowhead out of rock and a clay pot out of clay.
A bacterium dies, and three days later, comes back to life.
Someone that claims to be God dies, and three days later, comes back to
life.
Non-living matter gives rise to life without the input at any level of
mind/intelligence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tony Raymonds" |
|
| Title: Re: Thread of Questions |
25 Jan 2005 08:48:59 PM |
|
|
In article <dford3-35ni1dF4lrnllU1@individual.net>, david ford
<dford3@gl.umbc.edu> writes
Do you think "magic" can, or can't, occur?
Suppose matter transformed into a living bacterium, all
totally apart from the input of any mind/intelligence
whatsoever. Would that be "magic"?
Yes it would be if it occurred, just as making a man out of dust would
be "magic". No scientific theory says that matter turned into
bacterium, they were millions of years down the road in time.
Suppose a bacterium lived, died, and came back to life after
three days. Would that be "magic"?
Yes
Suppose Jesus existed, died, and came back to life after 3
days. Would that be "magic"?
Yes
In which if any of the following hypothetical situations is
"natural law" "broken"/ "violated"?
"magic" occurring?:
I imagine and construct a transportation vehicle
No.
I imagine and construct a biological lifeform out of
non-living matter.
Yes, nobody has been able to do that. Yet. Doesn't mean to say that
nature can't over millions of years.
I sculpt a mountainside to produce a small-scale version of
Mt. Rushmore
No
I pick up an apple that fell from a tree
No
I make an arrowhead out of rock and a clay pot out of clay.
No
A bacterium dies, and three days later, comes back to life.
Yes
Someone that claims to be God dies, and three days later, comes back to
life.
Yes
Non-living matter gives rise to life without the input at any level of
mind/intelligence.
No
--
tony2@wacky.zzn.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Thread of Questions |
25 Jan 2005 09:38:20 PM |
|
|
In article <YGVYQQP7Cr9BFwlJ@wacky.zzn.com> Tony Raymonds <tony2@wacky.zzn.com> writes:
In article <dford3-35ni1dF4lrnllU1@individual.net>, david ford
<dford3@gl.umbc.edu> writes
Suppose a bacterium lived, died, and came back to life after
three days. Would that be "magic"?
Yes
Some viruses can be pretty much shredded (say, by ultraviolet light)
and then "magically" reassemble the pieces and get up and walk.
The magic in this case is rather well explained, and God does
not appear to be directly involved.
Of course if He is, then we need to be asking Him why
He keeps resurrecting dangerous pathogens...
(of course if you think He created the whole shooting match, virii
included, then there are some rather obvious questions to ask
Him anyhow)
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Noone Inparticular" |
|
| Title: Re: Thread of Questions |
25 Jan 2005 11:11:36 PM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <YGVYQQP7Cr9BFwlJ@wacky.zzn.com> Tony Raymonds <tony2@wacky.zzn.com> writes:
In article <dford3-35ni1dF4lrnllU1@individual.net>, david ford
<dford3@gl.umbc.edu> writes
Suppose a bacterium lived, died, and came back to life after
three days. Would that be "magic"?
Yes
Some viruses can be pretty much shredded (say, by ultraviolet light)
and then "magically" reassemble the pieces and get up and walk.
The magic in this case is rather well explained, and God does
not appear to be directly involved.
Of course if He is, then we need to be asking Him why
He keeps resurrecting dangerous pathogens...
(of course if you think He created the whole shooting match, virii
Viruses. It's "viruses". Haven't you been reading the "what's the plural
of genus" thread?
<obvious smiley omitted>
included, then there are some rather obvious questions to ask
Him anyhow)
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Thread of Questions |
25 Jan 2005 11:45:24 PM |
|
|
In article <UmAJd.30$of1.6551@news.uswest.net> Noone Inparticular <unreve89@hotmail.com> writes:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <YGVYQQP7Cr9BFwlJ@wacky.zzn.com> Tony Raymonds <tony2@wacky.zzn.com> writes:
In article <dford3-35ni1dF4lrnllU1@individual.net>, david ford
<dford3@gl.umbc.edu> writes
Suppose a bacterium lived, died, and came back to life after
three days. Would that be "magic"?
Yes
Some viruses can be pretty much shredded (say, by ultraviolet light)
and then "magically" reassemble the pieces and get up and walk.
The magic in this case is rather well explained, and God does
not appear to be directly involved.
Of course if He is, then we need to be asking Him why
He keeps resurrecting dangerous pathogens...
(of course if you think He created the whole shooting match, virii
Viruses. It's "viruses". Haven't you been reading the "what's the plural
of genus" thread?
<obvious smiley omitted>
Oops. Really? Well, just add it to that list of the many
other bogii things I've said.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Thread of Questions |
26 Jan 2005 01:23:36 AM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote:
In article <UmAJd.30$of1.6551@news.uswest.net> Noone Inparticular
<unreve89@hotmail.com> writes:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <YGVYQQP7Cr9BFwlJ@wacky.zzn.com> Tony Raymonds
<tony2@wacky.zzn.com> writes:
In article <dford3-35ni1dF4lrnllU1@individual.net>, david ford
<dford3@gl.umbc.edu> writes
Suppose a bacterium lived, died, and came back to life after
three days. Would that be "magic"?
Yes
Some viruses can be pretty much shredded (say, by ultraviolet light)
and then "magically" reassemble the pieces and get up and walk.
The magic in this case is rather well explained, and God does
not appear to be directly involved.
Of course if He is, then we need to be asking Him why
He keeps resurrecting dangerous pathogens...
(of course if you think He created the whole shooting match, virii
Viruses. It's "viruses". Haven't you been reading the "what's the plural
of genus" thread?
<obvious smiley omitted>
Oops. Really? Well, just add it to that list of the many
other bogii things I've said.
Cary, you have given us many bonii
--
John S. Wilkins AA#2207
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God cheats
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Thread of Questions |
26 Jan 2005 01:58:01 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 23:45:24 +0000 (UTC),
(Cary Kittrell) said in alt.atheism:
In article <UmAJd.30$of1.6551@news.uswest.net> Noone Inparticular <unreve89@hotmail.com> writes:
Viruses. It's "viruses". Haven't you been reading the "what's the plural
of genus" thread?
<obvious smiley omitted>
Oops. Really? Well, just add it to that list of the many
other bogii things I've said.
ROFLMAO!
--
"The study of geology is ok-But not when it contradicts what is laid
out in the Bible that the earth is more than 10,000 years old."
- Doug Lee, Creationist
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tony Raymonds" |
|
| Title: Re: Thread of Questions |
25 Jan 2005 11:30:49 PM |
|
|
In article <ct6e8c$jgi$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>, Cary Kittrell
<cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> writes
Some viruses can be pretty much shredded (say, by ultraviolet light)
and then "magically" reassemble the pieces and get up and walk.
Didn't know that. I suppose it all depends on what "death" means for
something as simple as viruses. Got a link for it? I did a search but
it gets too many false hits for the keywords I can think of (virus,
death, ultraviolet, reassemble, light, reconstruction etc).
Best I got was this:
http://www.hickory.k12.nc.us/HHS/barnhardtge/Scientific_Amer.pdf
Which mentions it but doesn't explain how it works (for any creationists
reading, the understanding bit is part of science)
The last bit of this was also interesting:
http://www.chiroweb.com/archives/17/10/04.html
The original question was about bacterium, I assume they can't do the
same trick being somewhat more complex?
--
tony2@wacky.zzn.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Thread of Questions |
26 Jan 2005 02:04:57 AM |
|
|
In article <jjhGZdBpat9BFwBW@wacky.zzn.com> Tony Raymonds <tony2@wacky.zzn.com> writes:
In article <ct6e8c$jgi$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>, Cary Kittrell
<cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> writes
Some viruses can be pretty much shredded (say, by ultraviolet light)
and then "magically" reassemble the pieces and get up and walk.
Didn't know that. I suppose it all depends on what "death" means for
something as simple as viruses. Got a link for it? I did a search but
it gets too many false hits for the keywords I can think of (virus,
death, ultraviolet, reassemble, light, reconstruction etc).
Actually, I got that from an article in the December issue of
Scientific American. Looking at their site I find, sadly,
that the article is not available online (unless you're
a subscriber). However, the headline to the article
says it all (well, it says some of it, anyhow):
Rising from the dead, swapping parts with their hosts
... Viruses challenge conceptions of what "living" means
yet are vital parts of the web of life
But you're quite right, of course: are viruseses alive?
(but if you want to extend that reasoning to the horizon,
in one direction, anyhow: are we alive either?)
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Thread of Questions |
26 Jan 2005 02:59:47 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 02:04:57 +0000 (UTC),
(Cary Kittrell) said in alt.atheism:
But you're quite right, of course: are viruseses alive?
Are crystals?
--
"religion did for *****, what Stonehenge did for rocks"
- The World Famous Tink
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Thread of Questions |
26 Jan 2005 03:21:19 AM |
|
|
In article <js1ev0d1450rcp5kcjfu4e2cu0q4e4tqbm@4ax.com> Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 02:04:57 +0000 (UTC),
(Cary Kittrell) said in alt.atheism:
But you're quite right, of course: are viruseses alive?
Are crystals?
Oh, dude, that one's easy. YES!!! Just ask Shirley Maclaine
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Thread of Questions |
26 Jan 2005 04:41:16 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 03:21:19 +0000 (UTC),
(Cary Kittrell) said in alt.atheism:
In article <js1ev0d1450rcp5kcjfu4e2cu0q4e4tqbm@4ax.com> Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 02:04:57 +0000 (UTC),
(Cary Kittrell) said in alt.atheism:
But you're quite right, of course: are viruseses alive?
Are crystals?
Oh, dude, that one's easy. YES!!! Just ask Shirley Maclaine
Ah, but is Shirley Maclaine alive?
--
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Thread of Questions |
26 Jan 2005 04:57:43 AM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 03:21:19 +0000 (UTC),
(Cary Kittrell) said in alt.atheism:
In article <js1ev0d1450rcp5kcjfu4e2cu0q4e4tqbm@4ax.com> Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> writes:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 02:04:57 +0000 (UTC),
(Cary Kittrell) said in alt.atheism:
But you're quite right, of course: are viruseses alive?
Are crystals?
Oh, dude, that one's easy. YES!!! Just ask Shirley Maclaine
Ah, but is Shirley Maclaine alive?
I don't know, but she speaks to me from beyond the grave. That's where I
put my TV.
--
John S. Wilkins AA#2207
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God cheats
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Thread of Questions |
25 Jan 2005 11:39:03 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:38:50 -0500, david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu>
said in alt.atheism:
Do you think "magic" can, or can't, occur?
Define "magic".
Suppose matter transformed into a living bacterium, all
totally apart from the input of any mind/intelligence
whatsoever. Would that be "magic"?
"Transformed"? Yes.
Suppose a bacterium lived, died, and came back to life after
three days. Would that be "magic"?
No, it would be impossible.
Suppose Jesus existed, died, and came back to life after 3
days. Would that be "magic"?
See above.
In which if any of the following hypothetical situations is
"natural law" "broken"/ "violated"?
"magic" occurring?:
[snip]
None of them. Some of them (the ones about coming back to life after
3 days) can't happen, magic or not, but none of them are magic.
--
"Given that you exist and that you are aware of your situation and
surroundings, you will find yourself in a place which has conditions
exactly suitable to your being there. If the environment was
hostile or incompatible in some important way then you would not be
there in the first place. Therefore the suitability and seeming
perfection of your universe cannot be taken as evidence of anything
more than your existence in it."
- Edward Warren, "The naturalistic fallacy"
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Thread of Questions |
26 Jan 2005 04:25:13 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:38:50 -0500, david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu>
wrote:
Do you think "magic" can, or can't, occur?
Suppose matter transformed into a living bacterium, all
totally apart from the input of any mind/intelligence
whatsoever. Would that be "magic"?
how would we know?
creationists never tell us. if supernaturalism was a cause of natural
events you'd think we'd have seen it by now.
just life UFO's...if they were as common as the tin foil hat crowd
thinks, we'd be bumper to bumper in them...
and that's just like creationism.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Harshman" |
|
| Title: Re: Thread of Questions |
25 Jan 2005 07:38:03 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
I presume you are rejecting my offer to trade answers one for one.
Do you think "magic" can, or can't, occur?
Suppose matter transformed into a living bacterium, all
totally apart from the input of any mind/intelligence
whatsoever. Would that be "magic"?
Suppose a bacterium lived, died, and came back to life after
three days. Would that be "magic"?
Suppose Jesus existed, died, and came back to life after 3
days. Would that be "magic"?
In which if any of the following hypothetical situations is
"natural law" "broken"/ "violated"?
"magic" occurring?:
I imagine and construct a transportation vehicle
I imagine and construct a biological lifeform out of
non-living matter.
I sculpt a mountainside to produce a small-scale version of
Mt. Rushmore
I pick up an apple that fell from a tree
I make an arrowhead out of rock and a clay pot out of clay.
A bacterium dies, and three days later, comes back to life.
Someone that claims to be God dies, and three days later, comes back to
life.
Non-living matter gives rise to life without the input at any level of
mind/intelligence.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Thread of Questions |
10 Feb 2005 09:06:54 PM |
|
|
Do you think the murder of a human by another human is "immoral"?
If "yes," how do you know-- what are the grounds/basis for thinking this
is the case?
(Statements in some "holy book" supposedly inspired by some deity,
perhaps the Koran or Old Testament? Does your conscience tell you this?)
There is a link between the non-existence or existence of the
Koran-depicted Allah (i.e. the God of Islam) and the non-existence or
existence of the Koran-depicted Paradise and Hell options for the afterlife:
============================================
From
http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=DIV0&byte=512697
[22.19] These are two adversaries who dispute about their Lord; then (as
to) those who disbelieve, for them are cut out garments of fire, boiling
water shall be poured over their heads.
[22.20] With it shall be melted what is in their bellies and (their)
skins as well.
[22.21] And for them are whips of iron.
[22.22] Whenever they will desire to go forth from it, from grief, they
shall be turned back into it, and taste the chastisement of burning.
[22.23] Surely Allah will make those who believe and do good deeds enter
gardens beneath which rivers flow; they shall be adorned therein with
bracelets of gold and (with) pearls, and their garments therein shall be
of silk.
From
http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=DIV0&byte=676450
[35.34] And (as for) those who disbelieve, for them is the fire of hell;
it shall not be finished with them entirely so that they should die, nor
shall the chastisement thereof be lightened to them: even thus do We
retribute every ungrateful one.
[35.37] And they shall cry therein for succour: O our Lord! take us
out, we will do good deeds other than those which we used to do. Did We
not preserve you alive long enough, so that he who would be mindful in
it should mind? And there came to you the warner; therefore taste;
because for the unjust, there is no helper.
============================================
Given the possibility that Islam might be true, would it be wise to
commit suicide without investigating and considering the evidence for
and against the correctness of Islam (or for that matter, Judaism,
Christianity, and other religions that present an afterlife)?
If a person commits suicide or otherwise dies without investigating the
reality or falsity
of the idea of hell, would that person be making an uninformed jump from
the "frying pan" of this world's troubles literally into hell's fire?
"Christianity" is not monolithic when it comes to the nature of hell.
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-33b5roF3v2ikjU1%40individual.net
I'm currently reading
Geisler, Norman L. and Frank Turek. 2004. _I Don't Have Enough Faith
to Be an Atheist_ (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books), 447pp.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Thread of Questions |
11 Feb 2005 01:04:34 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 16:06:54 -0500, david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Do you think the murder of a human by another human is "immoral"?
Yes.
If "yes," how do you know-- what are the grounds/basis for thinking this
is the case?
Self interest.
snip irrelevance.
Ooops! Nothing left.
--
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: "sanguinevikings" |
|
| Title: Re: Thread of Questions |
11 Feb 2005 12:15:02 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
Do you think the murder of a human by another human is "immoral"?
Axiomatically, and forget the inverted commas
If "yes," how do you know-- what are the grounds/basis for thinking this
is the case?
I have never been in doubt that it is wrong. I do not have the capacity
to do it. My conscience prevents me from doing it and I never needed
telling that it was wrong.
(Statements in some "holy book" supposedly inspired by some deity,
perhaps the Koran or Old Testament? Does your conscience tell you this?)
Who supposes this?
I have never drawn my beliefs from *any* book. Neither did my parents
ever sit me down and tell me what to think about anything. They never
needed to. They set an example that was easy to follow.
Given the possibility that Islam might be true
It isn't, neither is Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism or any other
religion. Religion synthesises i.e. falsifies morality and adds a whole
raft of issues to do with social conformity to the mix. Ask yourself why
it does this.
If a person commits suicide or otherwise dies without investigating the
reality or falsity
of the idea of hell, would that person be making an uninformed jump from
the "frying pan" of this world's troubles literally into hell's fire?
No.
"Christianity" is not monolithic when it comes to the nature of hell.
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-33b5roF3v2ikjU1%40individual.net
Christianity isn't monolithic. Full stop. It is adaptive and
opportunistic. It spreads by stealing from other cultures.
I'm currently reading
Geisler, Norman L. and Frank Turek. 2004. _I Don't Have Enough Faith
to Be an Atheist_ (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books), 447pp.
Why?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Klaus Hellnick" |
|
| Title: Re: Thread of Questions |
19 Feb 2005 05:05:41 PM |
|
|
sanguinevikings wrote:
david ford wrote:
Do you think the murder of a human by another human is "immoral"?
Axiomatically, and forget the inverted commas
If "yes," how do you know-- what are the grounds/basis for thinking this
is the case?
I have never been in doubt that it is wrong. I do not have the capacity
to do it. My conscience prevents me from doing it and I never needed
telling that it was wrong.
(Statements in some "holy book" supposedly inspired by some deity,
perhaps the Koran or Old Testament? Does your conscience tell you this?)
Who supposes this?
I have never drawn my beliefs from *any* book. Neither did my parents
ever sit me down and tell me what to think about anything. They never
needed to. They set an example that was easy to follow.
Given the possibility that Islam might be true
It isn't, neither is Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism or any other
religion. Religion synthesises i.e. falsifies morality and adds a whole
raft of issues to do with social conformity to the mix. Ask yourself why
it does this.
If a person commits suicide or otherwise dies without investigating the
reality or falsity
of the idea of hell, would that person be making an uninformed jump from
the "frying pan" of this world's troubles literally into hell's fire?
No.
"Christianity" is not monolithic when it comes to the nature of hell.
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-33b5roF3v2ikjU1%40individual.net
Christianity isn't monolithic. Full stop. It is adaptive and
opportunistic. It spreads by stealing from other cultures.
Yup, look at Easter and Christmas for glaring examples of this.
Klaus
I'm currently reading
Geisler, Norman L. and Frank Turek. 2004. _I Don't Have Enough Faith
to Be an Atheist_ (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books), 447pp.
Why?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Thread of Questions |
08 Jan 2005 12:13:22 AM |
|
|
Eros wrote:
david ford wrote:
Did Darwin engage in any fraud?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-32oduoF3q94qaU1%40individual.net
Let me ask you a similar question;
Have you stopped beating your wife yet, David?
I never started beating anyone.
[E]"Let me ask you a similar question;"
This is [E]"a similar question" to what you asked me:
"When did Darwin stop engaging in fraud?"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Shaw" |
|
| Title: Re: Thread of Questions |
08 Jan 2005 06:35:54 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
Eros wrote:
david ford wrote:
Did Darwin engage in any fraud?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-32oduoF3q94qaU1%40individual.net
Let me ask you a similar question;
Have you stopped beating your wife yet, David?
I never started beating anyone.
[E]"Let me ask you a similar question;"
This is [E]"a similar question" to what you asked me:
"When did Darwin stop engaging in fraud?"
You're still avoiding answering the question. When did you stop beating
your wife.
Ken
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Thread of Questions |
08 Jan 2005 12:04:18 AM |
|
|
How does a seeingwatchmakingist account for the origin of
the recorded-in-DNA/ genetic information within:
a human?
a bacterium?
the first biological lifeform?
Let's look at other situations for clues as to possible responses.
Yockey, Hubert P. 1974. "An Application of Information
Theory to the Central Dogma and the Sequence Hypothesis"
_Journal of Theoretical Biology_ 46:369-406. On 371:
The vast majority of the sequences in the ensemble of all
sequences of length _N_, of letters of a written language
have no assigned meaning or specificity. The same is true
of sequences of digits zero through nine and of musical
notes. However, embedded in the ensemble of all such
sequences are, say, a play by Sophocles, the lost works of
Aristotle, the numbers {pie} and e. The ensemble of all
musical notes contains Beethoven's Fifth Symphony. It
also contains... forms of random noise. By the same token
the protein sequences of length _N_, which carry
specificity, are embedded in the ensemble of all amino
acids sequences of length _N_. Those sequences which
carry specificity are a tiny fraction of the ensemble.
Given a basically infinite number of sequences of nucleotides that could
conceivably exist, only a [Yockey]"tiny fraction" of those conceivable
sequences could code for something that could live. Only a fraction of
the sequences that would code for anything that could live would code
for a "simple" bacterium.
Question: how would a superintellect/ superior mind go about
identifying-- out of a basically infinite number of conceivable
nucleotide sequences-- go about identifying those sequences that would
code for something that would live?
Let's let that question simmer while we explore some similar questions:
Question: how would an intellect/mind go about identifying-- out of a
basically infinite number of conceivable alphabet letter sequences--
identify those letter sequences that would spell out a message that
could convey meaning if read by another intellect/mind?
How would a mind/intellect identify-- out of a basically infinite number
of possible sequences of sounds-- identify those sound sequences that
constitute "music" and not "noise"?
How would a mind/intellect identify-- out of a basically infinite number
of possible sequences of chess moves-- identify lines of game
development that culminate in brilliant sacrifices and stunningly
beautiful combinations? All, of course, within the constraints of the
standard rules of chess?
How would a mind/intellect identify-- out of a basically infinite number
of possible arrangements of matter-- identify arrangements of matter
that would constitute a functional:
car engine?
computer?
rocketship?
microwave oven?
lamp?
electronic watch?
television set?
lightbulb?
airplane?
How would mind/intellect identify-- out of a basically infinite number
of possible sequences of computer-program-type coding-- identify those
configurations of computer-program-type coding that code for functional
computer software programs?
We recall now the question, How would a superintellect go about
identifying-- out of a basically infinite number of conceivable
nucleotide sequences-- go about identifying those sequences that would
code for something that would live?
Also, how would totally-blind-at-every-level processes happen upon those
nucleotide sequences-- out of a basically infinite number of conceivable
sequences of nucleotides-- happen upon those nucleotide sequences that
would code for something that would live?
How would totally-blind-at-every-level processes happen upon an _E.
coli_ bacterium nucleotide sequence?
How would totally-blind-at-every-level processes happen upon a _Homo
sapiens_ nucleotide sequence?
How would totally-blind-at-every-level processes happen upon the first
biological lifeform's information content?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Danny Kodicek" |
|
| Title: Re: Thread of Questions |
08 Jan 2005 12:37:49 AM |
|
|
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-348nj6F47evohU1@individual.net...
Question: how would a superintellect/ superior mind go about
identifying-- out of a basically infinite number of conceivable
nucleotide sequences-- go about identifying those sequences that would
code for something that would live?
Grow it and see. Although it takes a lot more than a sequence of nucleotides
to grow an organism.
Let's let that question simmer while we explore some similar questions:
Question: how would an intellect/mind go about identifying-- out of a
basically infinite number of conceivable alphabet letter sequences--
identify those letter sequences that would spell out a message that
could convey meaning if read by another intellect/mind?
Any series of letters could spell out a message to someone.
How would a mind/intellect identify-- out of a basically infinite number
of possible sequences of sounds-- identify those sound sequences that
constitute "music" and not "noise"?
Depends on your definition of 'music', but I'd have thought pattern analysis
would be sufficient
How would a mind/intellect identify-- out of a basically infinite number
of possible sequences of chess moves-- identify lines of game
development that culminate in brilliant sacrifices and stunningly
beautiful combinations? All, of course, within the constraints of the
standard rules of chess?
Depends on your definition of 'brilliant' and 'beautiful'. Once you've dealt
with that, an alpha-beta search will do the trick, given sufficient time.
How would a mind/intellect identify-- out of a basically infinite number
of possible arrangements of matter-- identify arrangements of matter
that would constitute a functional:
car engine?
computer?
rocketship?
microwave oven?
lamp?
electronic watch?
television set?
lightbulb?
airplane?
Try them and see
How would mind/intellect identify-- out of a basically infinite number
of possible sequences of computer-program-type coding-- identify those
configurations of computer-program-type coding that code for functional
computer software programs?
You can't in general: it's theoretically impossible. Read Turing.
We recall now the question, How would a superintellect go about
identifying-- out of a basically infinite number of conceivable
nucleotide sequences-- go about identifying those sequences that would
code for something that would live?
See above
Also, how would totally-blind-at-every-level processes happen upon those
nucleotide sequences-- out of a basically infinite number of conceivable
sequences of nucleotides-- happen upon those nucleotide sequences that
would code for something that would live?
It's called natural selection. You might want to read about it.
How would totally-blind-at-every-level processes happen upon an _E.
coli_ bacterium nucleotide sequence?
How would totally-blind-at-every-level processes happen upon a _Homo
sapiens_ nucleotide sequence?
How would totally-blind-at-every-level processes happen upon the first
biological lifeform's information content?
A bit at a time.
Danny
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tony Raymonds" |
|
| Title: Re: Thread of Questions |
08 Jan 2005 10:53:45 AM |
|
|
In article <dford3-348nj6F47evohU1@individual.net>, david ford
<dford3@gl.umbc.edu> writes
Given a basically infinite number of sequences of nucleotides that could
conceivably exist, only a [Yockey]"tiny fraction" of those conceivable
sequences could code for something that could live. Only a fraction of
the sequences that would code for anything that could live would code
for a "simple" bacterium.
Your argument basically consists of: Gosh it's complicated and I can't
think of a natural way for it to happen therefore something supernatural
must be involved.
Currently you are arguing from incredulity and lack of understanding,
not to mention going into the straw man production business. For a start
you seem to think that science says that bacteria were the first life
form. It wasn't, life would have started out *much* simpler than that.
The simpler the organism then the fewer chemicals it needs to come
together to start. From then on evolution will ensure that only
successful combinations are continued.
If you have an ocean full of amino acids and other chemicals combining
in random ways all that is needed is that somewhere on the planet for
some to come together in such a way that the result can replicate
itself. It could be anywhere on the planet and only needs to happen
once. From then on evolution will ensure that it becomes fitter and
better at surviving through the generations. After many *millions* of
years bacteria appear.
What are the odds of writing a book by picking random letters? Very
low. What are the odds of hitting a sequence that could be used as the
first word of a random book? Much higher.
--
tony2@wacky.zzn.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "none" |
|
| Title: Re: Thread of Questions |
06 Jan 2005 04:49:00 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 16:20:54 +0000, david ford wrote:
As far as you know, did Charles Darwin ever engage in any fraud?
what's that got to do with atheism?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bobby D. Bryant" |
|
| Title: Re: Thread of Questions |
06 Jan 2005 04:49:32 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005, david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
I will post to this thread many questions, most of which I've asked
elsewhere.
Here are some you missed:
Can God create a rock so big that he can't lift it?
No? Well, what about a helium baloon?
How many invisible pink unicorns did Moses take on the Ark?
Did Darwin ever break wind in an elevator?
Did you think this thread actually had a point?
What's the difference between a duck?
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
