From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 8 16:56:57 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5391837B400; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 16:56:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6C7443E3B; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 16:56:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g88NuqGd006178; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 16:56:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g88NuqNQ006175; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 16:56:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2002 16:56:52 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Terry Lambert Cc: Juli Mallett , Joshua Lee , , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <3D7A380D.C682AE67@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20020908164812.X80977-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > > I wasn't referring so much to programming style, but rather to > > language syntax. And not so much to a particular language, as > > computer languages can change much like human languages. Really > > what I was getting at was the principles involved. > > So was I; "Religion is to God as style(9) is to working C code". Bad analogy. C code is meaningless without some transcendental preconditions that make it meaningful. If there were no compilers, linkers, syntactical rules, etc. coding in C would be pretty unintelligible. > I fail to believe that any single religion has sussed out the > totality of the nature of God, or His desires. They are just > attempts at approximation. Yet amazingly enough, each religion > claims an exclusive distribution arrangement for The Truth. That is because you are beginning with presuppositions that prevent you from understanding that God is able to reveal Himself to man. By the way, only Christianity can account for what you note above, that no religion give us a comprehensive understanding of God. The Christian doctrine of God's incomprehensibility takes this into account. > > Every time a natural disaster occurs, and the insurance companies > claim it's not covered, as an Act Of God, it's very tempting to > pick a church and sue them for damages, on the basis of their > being God's representatives on Earth, and settle the matter once > and for all. What this fails to take into account is that all those natural disasters are the result of God's judgement on the world for sin. Suing God for damages is the stupidest thing I ever heard of. God *is* the highest court of appeal, and your suit would most likely be overturned. 8-) Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 8 17: 5: 7 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 559DC37B400 for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 17:05:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nic.upatras.gr (nic.upatras.gr [150.140.129.30]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3B74B43E3B for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 17:05:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: (qmail 14245 invoked from network); 8 Sep 2002 23:58:20 -0000 Received: from upnet-dialinpool-58.upatras.gr (HELO hades.hell.gr) (150.140.128.196) by nic.upatras.gr with SMTP; 8 Sep 2002 23:58:20 -0000 Received: from hades.hell.gr (hades [127.0.0.1]) by hades.hell.gr (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id g8904wSH008605; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 03:04:58 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: (from charon@localhost) by hades.hell.gr (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id g8904uft008604; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 03:04:56 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 03:04:55 +0300 From: Giorgos Keramidas To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Terry Lambert , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020909000454.GA8280@hades.hell.gr> References: <3D7A380D.C682AE67@mindspring.com> <20020908164812.X80977-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020908164812.X80977-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On 2002-09-08 16:56, "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > By the way, only Christianity can account for what you note above, > that no religion give us a comprehensive understanding of God. The > Christian doctrine of God's incomprehensibility takes this into > account. It doesn't make more sense because of that though. "You have to believe that what I'm telling you is the ultimate truth, although you're not expected to understand it. But it is the truth, because I am saying so. Nevermind that your mind, your entire being says `not quite'. You can't grasp it all in its entirety. But I'm telling you, mine is the only Truth out there." It does sound a lot more twisted, if you add the incomprehensibility excuse for claiming that everyone else is false. - Giorgos To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 8 17: 7:43 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 931) id 54EC537B400; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 17:07:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2002 17:07:41 -0700 From: Juli Mallett To: Terry Lambert Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , Joshua Lee , dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020908170741.A98152@FreeBSD.org> References: <20020907083213.Y44831-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> <3D7A380D.C682AE67@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <3D7A380D.C682AE67@mindspring.com>; from tlambert2@mindspring.com on Sat, Sep 07, 2002 at 10:31:57AM -0700 Organisation: The FreeBSD Project X-Alternate-Addresses: , , , , X-Towel: Yes X-LiveJournal: flata, jmallett X-Negacore: Yes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org * De: Terry Lambert [ Data: 2002-09-07 ] [ Subjecte: Re: Why did evolution fail? ] > > I fail to believe that any single religion has sussed out the > totality of the nature of God, or His desires. They are just > attempts at approximation. Yet amazingly enough, each religion > claims an exclusive distribution arrangement for The Truth. > At least Hindus are nice enough to be accepting of other religions and are encouraged to go to worship services of those from other religions. Back when I used to read alt.religion.wicca I frequently saw Hindu folks asking about attending rituals, etc., and I had a Hindu friend in highschool who at least once in the time that I knew her said she visited a Christian church. She and I frequently discussed the ideas of all theological beliefs being part of The Great Understanding. I loathe being in the West sometimes. At least I can get a nosering in the style of Desi women, and try to fit in! juli. -- Juli Mallett | FreeBSD: The Power To Serve Will break world for fulltime employment. | finger jmallett@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 8 17:31: 1 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E69E37B401; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 17:30:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (mta02-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.42]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 463A243E6A; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 17:30:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from george.reid@oriel.ox.ac.uk) Received: from sobek.lan ([80.6.30.227]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020909003056.ZGKX290.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@sobek.lan>; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 01:30:56 +0100 Received: (from greid@localhost) by sobek.lan (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g890V7m02060; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 01:31:07 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from george.reid@oriel.ox.ac.uk) X-Authentication-Warning: sobek.lan: greid set sender to george.reid@oriel.ox.ac.uk using -f Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 01:31:07 +0100 From: George Reid To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Terry Lambert , Juli Mallett , Joshua Lee , dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020909013107.A1942@FreeBSD.org> References: <3D7A380D.C682AE67@mindspring.com> <20020908164812.X80977-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20020908164812.X80977-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan>; from nwestfal@directvinternet.com on Sun, Sep 08, 2002 at 04:56:52PM -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sun, Sep 08, 2002 at 04:56:52PM -0700, Neal E. Westfall wrote: > By the way, only Christianity can account for what you note above, > that no religion give us a comprehensive understanding of God. The > Christian doctrine of God's incomprehensibility takes this into > account. Oh, come on. Islam, for one, also asserts the incomprehensibility of Allah. f.e, Ta-Ha 20:110: "He knows their past and their future, while none encompasses His knowledge." Islamic fiqh states that "his true nature cannot be described by anyone nor can thinkers imagine that nature" and "to know Him one considers His signs, but one does not think about His essence." See also Dr. Samuel Zwemer's "The Moslem Doctrine of God". -- George C A Reid WWW: http://people.FreeBSD.org/~greid/ Mob: (07740) 197460 FreeBSD Committer/Developer greid@FreeBSD.org Oriel College, Oxford University george.reid@oriel.ox.ac.uk To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 8 17:37:25 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9BDA37B40C for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 17:37:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1B3B43E65 for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 17:37:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g890a3Gd006302; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 17:36:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g890a2Dn006299; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 17:36:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2002 17:36:02 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Giorgos Keramidas Cc: Terry Lambert , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <20020909000454.GA8280@hades.hell.gr> Message-ID: <20020908173022.V80977-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > On 2002-09-08 16:56, "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > By the way, only Christianity can account for what you note above, > > that no religion give us a comprehensive understanding of God. The > > Christian doctrine of God's incomprehensibility takes this into > > account. > > It doesn't make more sense because of that though. What do you mean, it doesn't "make more sense"? Do you even have an epistemological theory by which you could "make sense" of anything? Only Christianity provides the foundations by which *anything* makes sense at all, since you need objective standards. > "You have to believe that what I'm telling you is the ultimate truth, > although you're not expected to understand it. But it is the truth, > because I am saying so. Nevermind that your mind, your entire being > says `not quite'. You can't grasp it all in its entirety. But I'm > telling you, mine is the only Truth out there." Of course, you are putting words into my mouth. I never said you couldn't understand it, in fact I said you understand it very well, but your sinful condition causes you to suppress the truth in unrighteousness. (Rom. 1) > It does sound a lot more twisted, if you add the incomprehensibility > excuse for claiming that everyone else is false. Eh, you think I'm making this stuff up? You are being somewhat dense. If God could be fully comprehended, he would not be God. Why does the creature think he can comprehend that which transcends him? Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 8 17:41:29 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 730CB37B400; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 17:41:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D99ED43E42; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 17:41:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g890fPGd006322; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 17:41:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g890fO05006319; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 17:41:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2002 17:41:24 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Juli Mallett Cc: Terry Lambert , Joshua Lee , , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <20020908170741.A98152@FreeBSD.org> Message-ID: <20020908173640.T80977-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Juli Mallett wrote: > > I fail to believe that any single religion has sussed out the > > totality of the nature of God, or His desires. They are just > > attempts at approximation. Yet amazingly enough, each religion > > claims an exclusive distribution arrangement for The Truth. > > > > At least Hindus are nice enough to be accepting of other religions and > are encouraged to go to worship services of those from other religions. Even though their worldview isn't even cogent? Why is "accepting of other religions" such a righteous goal? Yeesh, the postmodern West really is anemic to truth. By the way, why is it that we are being called to never criticize anyone else's beliefs? Inherent in the premise is a contradiction, leading to criticism of certain beliefs (e.g. Christianity). > Back when I used to read alt.religion.wicca I frequently saw Hindu folks > asking about attending rituals, etc., and I had a Hindu friend in > highschool who at least once in the time that I knew her said she visited > a Christian church. She and I frequently discussed the ideas of all > theological beliefs being part of The Great Understanding. > > I loathe being in the West sometimes. At least I can get a nosering in > the style of Desi women, and try to fit in! I think you would loathe being in the East even more. Neal > > juli. > -- > Juli Mallett | FreeBSD: The Power To Serve > Will break world for fulltime employment. | finger jmallett@FreeBSD.org > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 8 17:46: 5 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1279537B401; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 17:46:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3727943E77; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 17:46:01 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g890k0Gd006349; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 17:46:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g890k0hq006346; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 17:46:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2002 17:46:00 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: George Reid Cc: Terry Lambert , Juli Mallett , Joshua Lee , , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <20020909013107.A1942@FreeBSD.org> Message-ID: <20020908174226.B80977-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, George Reid wrote: > On Sun, Sep 08, 2002 at 04:56:52PM -0700, Neal E. Westfall wrote: > > > By the way, only Christianity can account for what you note above, > > that no religion give us a comprehensive understanding of God. The > > Christian doctrine of God's incomprehensibility takes this into > > account. > > Oh, come on. Islam, for one, also asserts the incomprehensibility of > Allah. f.e, Ta-Ha 20:110: "He knows their past and their future, while none > encompasses His knowledge." Islamic fiqh states that "his true nature > cannot be described by anyone nor can thinkers imagine that nature" and > "to know Him one considers His signs, but one does not think about His > essence." See also Dr. Samuel Zwemer's "The Moslem Doctrine of God". Actually the Islamic doctrine of mukhalafa says that it Allah is *so* different from his creatures that it is impossible to postulate anything about him at all. But then what is the Koran if not an attempt to do this? In addition, Islam falsifies itself, since the Koran recognizes the Torah and the Christian scriptures as true revelations from God, yet claims that Christ did not raise from the dead. The Koran contradicts itself. Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 8 17:52:10 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1E6937B405; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 17:52:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70CA943E3B; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 17:52:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lomifeh@earthlink.net) Received: from bgp586692bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net (bgp586692bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net [68.39.202.147]) by mtaout02.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.8 (built May 13 2002)) with ESMTP id <0H250025IBQP19@mtaout02.icomcast.net>; Sun, 08 Sep 2002 20:52:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 20:52:02 -0400 From: Lawrence Sica Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-reply-to: <20020908173640.T80977-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Juli Mallett , Terry Lambert , Joshua Lee , dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Message-id: <5AB38EC2-C38E-11D6-8C5E-000393A335A2@earthlink.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.543) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sunday, September 8, 2002, at 08:41 PM, Neal E. Westfall wrote: > > > On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Juli Mallett wrote: > >>> I fail to believe that any single religion has sussed out the >>> totality of the nature of God, or His desires. They are just >>> attempts at approximation. Yet amazingly enough, each religion >>> claims an exclusive distribution arrangement for The Truth. >>> >> >> At least Hindus are nice enough to be accepting of other religions and >> are encouraged to go to worship services of those from other >> religions. > Not all hindus are so accepting. In India there is a group of Hindus who do not like other religions period. Buddhism is more accepting of other religions imho. But you cannot blanket statement it always. > Even though their worldview isn't even cogent? Why is "accepting of > other religions" such a righteous goal? Yeesh, the postmodern West > really is anemic to truth. By the way, why is it that we are being > called to never criticize anyone else's beliefs? Inherent in the > premise is a contradiction, leading to criticism of certain beliefs > (e.g. Christianity). > Accepting of other views is a laudable goal. Not because you agree with them, but because you are enlightened enough to know that there are many faces of God. I know that is not a popular view by many of the Christian sects but it is true. The Jewish and the Christian god have the same roots, yet for many years Christians have persecuted Jews. Go figure eh? If everyone would accept the idea that if you beleive in a God then the God you see may be different than the God I see and that does not make my God wrong, religion and belief are personal and even within the same religion many see God differently. One cannot but put God through their own lens, any religion has this. It is not being called to not criticize another belifes, it's being called to not demonize them or put them on a lower level. The USA is all about critiquing others ideas and coming up with a common ground. That is why it's important accept other religions. One of the foundations of the USA was freedom to worship and freedom from worship at the same time. The ability to worship who you want and not worry about a government or others persecuting you is important. --Larry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 8 17:52:17 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D02637B406 for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 17:52:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailsrv.otenet.gr (mailsrv.otenet.gr [195.170.0.5]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BAA943E3B for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 17:52:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: from hades.hell.gr (patr530-a094.otenet.gr [212.205.215.94]) by mailsrv.otenet.gr (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id g890pt7f009871; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 03:51:58 +0300 (EEST) Received: from hades.hell.gr (hades [127.0.0.1]) by hades.hell.gr (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id g890psA5009548; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 03:51:54 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: (from charon@localhost) by hades.hell.gr (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id g890pss4009547; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 03:51:54 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 03:51:53 +0300 From: Giorgos Keramidas To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020909005153.GA9363@hades.hell.gr> References: <20020909000454.GA8280@hades.hell.gr> <20020908173022.V80977-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020908173022.V80977-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> X-PGP-Fingerprint: C1EB 0653 DB8B A557 3829 00F9 D60F 941A 3186 03B6 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On 2002-09-08 17:36, "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > > It does sound a lot more twisted, if you add the incomprehensibility > > excuse for claiming that everyone else is false. > > Eh, you think I'm making this stuff up? You are being somewhat dense. > If God could be fully comprehended, he would not be God. Why does the > creature think he can comprehend that which transcends him? The creature is not convinced that there is a need for a supernatural, incomprehensible, impossible to understand, reach, or in any way grasp being in order to behave rationally. You can repeat a thousand times "you need my god", but the basic question which is "why would i need such a thing?" remains unanswered so far. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 8 17:54:59 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39A2537B401; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 17:54:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE93D43E4A; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 17:54:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lomifeh@earthlink.net) Received: from bgp586692bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net (bgp586692bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net [68.39.202.147]) by mtaout04.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.8 (built May 13 2002)) with ESMTP id <0H25006M6BVIIP@mtaout04.icomcast.net>; Sun, 08 Sep 2002 20:54:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 20:54:54 -0400 From: Lawrence Sica Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-reply-to: <20020908174226.B80977-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG, dave@jetcafe.org, Joshua Lee , Juli Mallett , Terry Lambert , George Reid Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.543) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sunday, September 8, 2002, at 08:46 PM, Neal E. Westfall wrote: > > > On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, George Reid wrote: > >> On Sun, Sep 08, 2002 at 04:56:52PM -0700, Neal E. Westfall wrote: >> >>> By the way, only Christianity can account for what you note above, >>> that no religion give us a comprehensive understanding of God. The >>> Christian doctrine of God's incomprehensibility takes this into >>> account. >> >> Oh, come on. Islam, for one, also asserts the incomprehensibility of >> Allah. f.e, Ta-Ha 20:110: "He knows their past and their future, >> while none >> encompasses His knowledge." Islamic fiqh states that "his true nature >> cannot be described by anyone nor can thinkers imagine that nature" >> and >> "to know Him one considers His signs, but one does not think about His >> essence." See also Dr. Samuel Zwemer's "The Moslem Doctrine of God". > > Actually the Islamic doctrine of mukhalafa says that it Allah is *so* > different from his creatures that it is impossible to postulate > anything > about him at all. But then what is the Koran if not an attempt to do > this? In addition, Islam falsifies itself, since the Koran recognizes > the Torah and the Christian scriptures as true revelations from God, > yet > claims that Christ did not raise from the dead. The Koran contradicts > itself. > And what about the Christian writings that state tolerance for the sinners above all? And then in the same breathe condemns gays, justified slavery via the bible, justifies wars now and the killing of abortionists? Every religion has it's contradictions, Islam isnt special here. And What is the exact wording the koran uses? Are you sure you are interpreting it correctly? That's the great thing about any religious writing, its "divine inspiration" but then man is left to decipher it's meaning.... --Larry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 8 17:57:33 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B89537B400 for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 17:57:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7A4643E65 for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 17:57:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lomifeh@earthlink.net) Received: from bgp586692bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net (bgp586692bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net [68.39.202.147]) by mtaout04.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.8 (built May 13 2002)) with ESMTP id <0H250075DBZTW4@mtaout04.icomcast.net> for chat@FreeBSD.ORG; Sun, 08 Sep 2002 20:57:30 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 20:57:29 -0400 From: Lawrence Sica Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-reply-to: <20020907131116.W44831-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Giorgos Keramidas , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Message-id: <1D9E168A-C38F-11D6-8C5E-000393A335A2@earthlink.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.543) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Saturday, September 7, 2002, at 04:12 PM, Neal E. Westfall wrote: > > > On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > >>> An understanding of the characteristics of mutation in virrii, and >>> the development of new vaccines are not at all dependent on the >>> theory of evolution. Mutations != evolution. >> >> On the very contrary. Evolution can only go forth through mutation. >> Please do read Darwin's ``Origin of the Species'' again. > > Ahem. Evolution *requires* mutations to function, i.e. is *driven* > by mutations. But the fact that mutations occur does not prove > evolution. Mutations and evolution are two different things. > Mutation is a mechanism of evolution. Evolution is the process. One could make the leap of faith that since we mutate over time and these mutations change the species we evolve... --Larry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 8 17:59: 3 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79BEF37B400 for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 17:58:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E69C43E7B for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 17:58:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lomifeh@earthlink.net) Received: from bgp586692bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net (bgp586692bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net [68.39.202.147]) by mtaout01.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.8 (built May 13 2002)) with ESMTP id <0H25005TTC27KL@mtaout01.icomcast.net> for chat@FreeBSD.ORG; Sun, 08 Sep 2002 20:58:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 20:58:47 -0400 From: Lawrence Sica Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-reply-to: <20020907110109.T44831-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Terry Lambert , Joshua Lee , dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Message-id: <4C19F70A-C38F-11D6-8C5E-000393A335A2@earthlink.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.543) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Saturday, September 7, 2002, at 04:10 PM, Neal E. Westfall wrote: > > > On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > >> "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: >>>> The scientific method never verifies, it only falsifies, so asking >>>> that something be empirically verified, whether it be the old theory >>>> of evolution, the current theory of puctuated equilibria, or that >>>> gravity is related to the curvature of space, is asking for the >>>> impossible. Science can only demonstrate the invalidity of ideas, >>>> not their validity. >>> >>> Okay, then lets stop pretending that creation is "unscientific" while >>> evolution is "scientific". Neither one of them can be falsified, so >>> either *both* of them are scientific, or neither of them are. You >>> can't have your cake and eat it too. If you claim an explanation >>> must also be "naturalistic", I charge you with providing a >>> justification for such arbitrariness. >> >> I guess we can keep on calling the currently accepted scientific >> theory "evolution", even though that's not the correct name for it. >> >> With that in mind, the methods you use judge one theory vs. another >> are: >> >> 1) Are the theories predictive? > > Evolution is not, as it relies on chance. Chance, by definition, > is unpredictable. > If you take a step back far enough those random chances become very predicateable. Read up on chaos theory and how randomness works. > > --Larry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 8 17:59:28 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC01D37B400 for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 17:59:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7610C43E3B for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 17:59:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lomifeh@earthlink.net) Received: from bgp586692bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net (bgp586692bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net [68.39.202.147]) by mtaout02.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.8 (built May 13 2002)) with ESMTP id <0H25003BCC2Y90@mtaout02.icomcast.net> for chat@FreeBSD.ORG; Sun, 08 Sep 2002 20:59:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 20:59:23 -0400 From: Lawrence Sica Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-reply-to: <3D7A3908.41093D70@mindspring.com> To: Terry Lambert Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , Giorgos Keramidas , Joshua Lee , dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Message-id: <619CB845-C38F-11D6-8C5E-000393A335A2@earthlink.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.543) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Saturday, September 7, 2002, at 01:36 PM, Terry Lambert wrote: > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: >> On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: >>>> An understanding of the characteristics of mutation in virrii, and >>>> the development of new vaccines are not at all dependent on the >>>> theory of evolution. Mutations != evolution. >>> >>> It is predictive of the mutuations. Among other things, this >>> allows us to use statistics and predictive models to decide >>> which flu to manufacture vaciones for, and which flu to ignore. >> >> *How* is evolution predictive of the mutations? One doesn't need >> to be an evolutionist in order to make such predictions. > > Evolution in this case is merely a useful theory, in that its > applicaiton gives predictive results in the problem domain of > *what* mutations will survive the ambient selection pressures. > > I think we need to create a new list to discuss this properly, so > as to provide a satisfactory answer to your question; I suggest: > > phd-in-epidemiology@freebsd.org > how about clavinsits@freebsd.org? > -- Terry > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 8 18: 7:21 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35C3737B400 for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 18:07:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (jive.SoftHome.net [66.54.152.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 849CD43E6E for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 18:07:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ) Received: (qmail 29753 invoked by uid 417); 9 Sep 2002 01:07:16 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO jive.SoftHome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 9 Sep 2002 01:07:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 29749 invoked for bounce); 9 Sep 2002 01:07:16 -0000 Date: 9 Sep 2002 01:07:16 -0000 From: MAILER-DAEMON@softhome.net To: chat@FreeBSD.org Subject: failure notice Message-Id: <20020909010716.849CD43E6E@mx1.FreeBSD.org> Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Hi. This is the qmail-send program at softhome.net. I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. : Recipient's mailbox is full, message returned to sender. (#5.2.2) --- Below this line is a copy of the message. Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29742 invoked by uid 417); 9 Sep 2002 01:07:15 -0000 Received: from mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (62.253.162.45) by 192.168.0.5 with SMTP; 9 Sep 2002 01:07:15 -0000 Received: from sobek.lan ([80.6.30.227]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020909010510.KXLT1968.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@sobek.lan>; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 02:05:10 +0100 Received: (from greid@localhost) by sobek.lan (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g89158E02227; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 02:05:08 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from chat@FreeBSD.org) X-Authentication-Warning: sobek.lan: greid set sender to chat@FreeBSD.org using -f Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 02:05:08 +0100 From: George Reid To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Terry Lambert , Juli Mallett , Joshua Lee , dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020909020508.A2152@FreeBSD.org> References: <20020909013107.A1942@FreeBSD.org> <20020908174226.B80977-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20020908174226.B80977-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan>; from nwestfal@directvinternet.com on Sun, Sep 08, 2002 at 05:46:00PM -0700 On Sun, Sep 08, 2002 at 05:46:00PM -0700, Neal E. Westfall wrote: [Bogus From:, see below] > In addition, Islam falsifies itself, since the Koran recognizes > the Torah and the Christian scriptures as true revelations from God, yet > claims that Christ did not raise from the dead. The Koran contradicts > itself. The Bible contradicts itself: Malachi 3:6 "For I am the Lord; I change not." Exodus 32:14 "And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people." Exodus 34:6-7 "...The Lord God, merciful and gracious,...that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children..." Ezekiel 18:20 "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father." James 1:13 "...God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." Genesis 22:1 "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham." John 8:14 "Though I bear witness of myself, yet my witness is true." John 5:31 "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true." John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time." Genesis 32:30 "For I have seen God face to face." II Kings 8:26 "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign." II Chronicles 22:2 "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign." II Samuel 6:23 "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death." II Samuel 21:8 "...the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul." This thread has degenerated to the point of being uninteresting and mildly offensive to me. Academic theological debates interest me: arguments about the One True Religion do not. Hence I have removed myself from the thread. Please don't re-add me. Plunk. -- George C A Reid WWW: http://people.FreeBSD.org/~greid/ Mob: (07740) 197460 FreeBSD Committer/Developer greid@FreeBSD.org Oriel College, Oxford University george.reid@oriel.ox.ac.uk To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 8 18: 7:26 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D49937B401; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 18:07:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (mta05-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.45]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43A9943E6A; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 18:07:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from chat@FreeBSD.org) Received: from sobek.lan ([80.6.30.227]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020909010510.KXLT1968.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@sobek.lan>; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 02:05:10 +0100 Received: (from greid@localhost) by sobek.lan (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g89158E02227; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 02:05:08 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from chat@FreeBSD.org) X-Authentication-Warning: sobek.lan: greid set sender to chat@FreeBSD.org using -f Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 02:05:08 +0100 From: George Reid To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Terry Lambert , Juli Mallett , Joshua Lee , dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020909020508.A2152@FreeBSD.org> References: <20020909013107.A1942@FreeBSD.org> <20020908174226.B80977-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20020908174226.B80977-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan>; from nwestfal@directvinternet.com on Sun, Sep 08, 2002 at 05:46:00PM -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sun, Sep 08, 2002 at 05:46:00PM -0700, Neal E. Westfall wrote: [Bogus From:, see below] > In addition, Islam falsifies itself, since the Koran recognizes > the Torah and the Christian scriptures as true revelations from God, yet > claims that Christ did not raise from the dead. The Koran contradicts > itself. The Bible contradicts itself: Malachi 3:6 "For I am the Lord; I change not." Exodus 32:14 "And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people." Exodus 34:6-7 "...The Lord God, merciful and gracious,...that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children..." Ezekiel 18:20 "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father." James 1:13 "...God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." Genesis 22:1 "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham." John 8:14 "Though I bear witness of myself, yet my witness is true." John 5:31 "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true." John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time." Genesis 32:30 "For I have seen God face to face." II Kings 8:26 "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign." II Chronicles 22:2 "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign." II Samuel 6:23 "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death." II Samuel 21:8 "...the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul." This thread has degenerated to the point of being uninteresting and mildly offensive to me. Academic theological debates interest me: arguments about the One True Religion do not. Hence I have removed myself from the thread. Please don't re-add me. Plunk. -- George C A Reid WWW: http://people.FreeBSD.org/~greid/ Mob: (07740) 197460 FreeBSD Committer/Developer greid@FreeBSD.org Oriel College, Oxford University george.reid@oriel.ox.ac.uk To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 8 18:17:40 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0216137B400 for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 18:17:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (mta05-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.45]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D13743E3B for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 18:17:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from greid@FreeBSD.org) Received: from sobek.lan ([80.6.30.227]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020909011107.LAMD1968.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@sobek.lan> for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 02:11:07 +0100 Received: (from greid@localhost) by sobek.lan (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g891BC702314 for chat@freebsd.org; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 02:11:12 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from greid@FreeBSD.org) X-Authentication-Warning: sobek.lan: greid set sender to greid@FreeBSD.org using -f Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 02:11:12 +0100 From: George Reid To: chat@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: failure notice Message-ID: <20020909021112.A2295@FreeBSD.org> References: <20020909010716.849CD43E6E@mx1.FreeBSD.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20020909010716.849CD43E6E@mx1.FreeBSD.org>; from MAILER-DAEMON@softhome.net on Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 01:07:16AM -0000 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 01:07:16AM -0000, MAILER-DAEMON@softhome.net wrote: > Hi. This is the qmail-send program at softhome.net. > I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. > This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. Sorry, my fault! Forgot to trim the CC: list. -- George C A Reid WWW: http://people.FreeBSD.org/~greid/ Mob: (07740) 197460 FreeBSD Committer/Developer greid@FreeBSD.org Oriel College, Oxford University george.reid@oriel.ox.ac.uk To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 8 18:29:44 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96A9637B400 for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 18:29:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15C6343E4A for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 18:29:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g891TS124946; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 18:29:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209090129.g891TS124946@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 18:29:23 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> >> > I hereby exclude all posts which defy classification. 8-). >> >> >> >> That is how a moderator stifles communication into stagnicity. >> > >> > Hardly. It only excludes edge cases. Put the edge a little >> > further out, and you only exclude cases which are definitely >> > not edge cases, according to the original definition. >> >> This relies on having a reliable litmus test for topicality. You >> claim you can do this perfectly, I claim you can't. > > No, you claim that I can, but that if I do, it "stifles communication > into stagnicity" I also claim that you can't, but I'm unwilling to provide examples. Your also assert that you can predict the behavior of any arbitrary group of humanity, and I think this is similarly naive. > (never been to Stagni City; I hear they have great seafood, up near > Seattle... ;^)). Yeah, but they serve the same thing each time you go there... ;) > In the limit, your argument boils down to a claim that lack of > atopicality :== stagnation. In the region of interest, however...it does not. >> >> > Either the system functions as designed, or it's not a correct >> >> > system. >> >> >> >> What was nature designed for? >> > >> > It wasn't designed, as far as we know. >> >> But it is a system or a set of systems. How do you account for this? > > That it exists without apparent design? You claim "the system functions as designed, or it's not a correct system". Given that nature is a system and given that you can't yet know who designed it, how can you assume it is correct? >> >> > But we aren't talking about just you. We have to include your >> >> > friend Tim, and people like them >> >> >> >> Yes and you are suggesting catering to them and not people like me. >> > >> > No, you're the one who suggested catering to trolls. >> >> Nope, I am suggesting that one can render them irrelevant with a flick >> of one's finger onto the "next message" key. > > So why didn't this work with you and Tim, if you're convinced of > its value as a success strategy? It worked for me. >> > I distinctly recall you suggesting that everyone but the trolls >> > change their behaviour, in order to deal with trolls. I can cite >> > the archives, if your memory has failed you. >> >> Go for it. > > Do you honestly want a cite, or are you claiming irrelevance? I claim that this isn't what I suggested, this is what you are inferring from my suggestions. ;) >> >> > Barring evidence to the contrary, the simplest explanation is >> >> > the correct one. >> >> >> >> That's arbitrary. You might as well flip a coin. >> > >> > It's not arbitrary. Arbitrary would be if there was no overall >> > standard for selection. This most definitely is a standard. >> >> This standard is neither correct nor incorrect, therefore it is >> arbitrary. > > It is fixed; therefore it is *not* arbitrary. What do you mean by "fixed"? >> >> But there were those that you could accept and so just accepted? >> > >> > Non-key ones are derivational; they don't need verification if they >> > are nonaxiomatic, and capable of being derived from axioms. >> >> What if the derivation is unsound, but you do not detect this at first >> glance? > > Then someone will point out *why* its unsound, This is an assumption. You have no guarantee of this, or that someone will see it. >> >> I can't belittle the effort, I haven't seen any. I have seen the >> >> dismissal. >> > >> > Well, by all means, let's belittle everything we've seen! 8-). >> >> You seem to be good at it, why don't you start? ;) > > Personally, I have no interest in resolving the contradictions > which enable me to dismiss your philosophy as "not self-consistant", "Belittle" not "resolve". ;) > since I don't see how doing so would benefit me or the group. As > external observers, we can't fix your world view without your > cooperation. You assume it is broken. >> >> > Yes, there is. There's the specification. The program conforms >> >> > to the specification, or it does not. It's a nice binary line. >> >> >> >> When you constrain and restrict the problem and the specification >> >> enough, you can get these nice binary lines. This doesn't always >> >> happen in practice. >> > >> > It does in *professional* practice. 8-). >> >> So money dictates your reality? > > Why is money required, in your opinion, for someone to be able > to act in a professional manner? Definition of "professional". "Engaging in a given activity as a source of livelihood or as a career". >> > Majority, unless the majority consensus is to permit the definition >> > by consensus of cognoscenti. 8-). >> >> Then "bad" means "good", "bunk" means "bad", you can't use very >> many obscure polysyllabic words, and we still have a lot of work >> to do to ensure that what we are agreeing on is what everyone is >> really thinking. > > That's a problem for the people with the minority view, isn't it? There's also a problem for people who take refuge in mobs...er the majority viewpoint. As an obvious counterexample, this means you have to consider Britney Spears a good musician. > Makes it really hard to proselytize... You can't approach the Truth from the platform of the Mob. >> > That's not hand-waving, it's a demand for evidence at near gunpoint. >> > 8-). >> >> Contrary to general intuation, waving a gun isn't going to get me to >> comply with your demands. ;) > > It will, if my demands are a logical XOR of two possible outcomes, > one of which is achievable by force. 8-). You have not yet learned the Jedi mind tricks I see. :) >> Don't even do as I say. Do what yer gonna do. Don't expect me not to >> comment. Don't take my commments seriously. All truths are false. >> All falsehoods are true. All sales final. Not responsible for drama. ;) > > You forgot your demand to be permitted access to the forum in > order to be able to comment... That's not a demand, it's a request. =P >> >> That doesn't really follow, does it? A paradox is not a license to >> >> do anything. >> > >> > By that same token, neither is a refusal to grow up. >> >> If people want to refuse this, there's nothing you nor I can do to >> force them. Toleration is based on the knowledge that you can handle >> whatever comes to you, and let others deal with what comes to them. >> If they ask for help, show them the next message key. > > Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "LA LA LA!" at the > top of yout lungs doesn't make a problem go away. Just where did I suggest that? This is nothing like what I am suggesting, which is a quick press of a particular key on your keyboard. ;) >> > "Proving" something to me is eminently possible. >> >> Nope. I'd have to be someone you respect. > > No. Merely use techniques which I respect. Still, your respect is involved and not your awareness. >> > Something is "proven" to me if it is the simplest explanation which >> > fits all the facts. >> >> These are local maxima. > > Yes, they are. And your point is what? That the correct, but less > simple, explanation might get lost in the noise? The complexity of the solution is irrelevant to it's measured effectiveness. >> >> > So we are agreed. We'll subtract them. >> >> >> >> No we are not agreed, subtracting them wastes time. >> > >> > It's not your time being wasted; why do you care if someone else >> > wastes their time? It's theirs to waste. >> >> I don't life or death care if they do, but I would prefer to see them >> not do it. > > You've communicated your preference. What now? What, indeed? I find it interesting that our banter has produced a -real- religious debate as a child. I think this is indicative of the unagreeability of our respective positions. ;) ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< "If a man does keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer." - Henry David Thoreau To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 8 18:31: 1 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 950E237B400 for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 18:30:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D86143E42 for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 18:30:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g891Ut124985; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 18:30:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209090130.g891Ut124985@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 18:30:50 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> Terry Lambert writes: >> > Dave Hayes wrote: >> >> > The cause is not germane to the observation that they are broken >> >> > down. >> >> >> >> Stop trying to dodge responsibility. >> > >> > I'm not responsible for your statements, you are. >> >> I'm not responsible for your challenges, you are. You asked me >> why I care whether people "waste time", by the same token I ask >> you why you care whether people make challengable statements? > > Thats an unrealted contextual thread. However, I will answer it > in this context for you, even though you can't demonstrate relevence > in this context. > > The answer is that it is unethical to not care. So if this is true, why aren't you helping starving children in South America? ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< If you ever reach total enlightenment while you're drinking a beer, I bet it makes beer shoot out your nose. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 8 18:36:25 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88D3937B400 for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 18:36:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00C5C43E6A for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 18:36:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g891aJ125050; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 18:36:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209090136.g891aJ125050@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Lawrence Sica Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , Terry Lambert , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 18:36:14 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Lawrence Sica writes: > The proof or disproof of God is impossible because the question is > inherently one not of science but of faith. If there is a God no human > mind could fully comprehend him/her/it. If no human can comprehend God > then how can God be proven? Some look at a tree and say that is the > proof of God, some loo kat the tree and say that is just a part of the > ecosystem. God and the proof of such a being is a very personal > subject, and no one can prove it either way, one can simply decide on > their own. Well put. Deeper still, even the decision is irrelevant. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< An eye for eye only ends up making the whole world blind. -- Gandhi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 8 18:38: 4 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F50137B400 for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 18:38:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 438BB43E65 for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 18:38:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g891YK125021; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 18:34:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209090134.g891YK125021@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: George Reid , "Neal E. Westfall" , Joshua Lee , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 18:34:15 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > George Reid wrote: >> On the contrary, it is your well that I'm poisoning. If you are going to >> cite passages from the Bible in support of your arguments, you'll have to >> explain to us why it is that you don't adhere to all of the laws written >> in Leviticus et al. > > You are aware that the Greeks had no word for "witch", and the > actual word they used in Leviticus was Greek for "poisoner", > right? "Thou shalt not suffer a /poisoner/ to live". Eh? I was under the impression that this translation meant "someone who thinks a lot".... > Kind of ties us all back into Dave's original motivation, and > the defensibility of trolls poisoning mailing lists. ...so by the definition I am currently using, ALL of us should be killed. ;) Of course, maybe you are trying to poison me with rationality... ;) ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< Fool (n.) - 1. A person trying to be honest with the dishonest. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 8 18:41:43 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6D1237B400; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 18:41:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D5C843E42; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 18:41:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g891fd125117; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 18:41:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209090141.g891fd125117@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Juli Mallett , Joshua Lee , tlambert2@mindspring.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 18:41:34 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Neal E Westfall writes: > There is a place for a sense of humor, of course. But I like to keep > a distinction between having a sense of humor and trivializing life. Unfortunately, our life -is- trivial. To think otherwise extends the ego beyond the bounds of where we can usefully interact with God. ;) ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< The King decided to force his subjects to tell the truth. Nasrudin was first in line. The King asked him, "Where are you going? Tell the truth or be hanged" "I am going," said Nasrudin, "to be hanged on that gallows." "I don't believe you.", replied the King "Very well, if I have told a lie, then hang me!" "But that would make it the truth!" "Exactly," said Nasrudin, "your truth." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 8 18:43:19 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11BB437B400 for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 18:43:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ns1.inter7.com (ns1.inter7.com [209.218.8.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 09BA743E6E for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 18:43:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nitedog@silly.pikachu.org) Received: (qmail 9997 invoked by uid 507); 9 Sep 2002 01:42:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nitebox) (12.241.147.134) by evanston.inter7.com with SMTP; 9 Sep 2002 01:42:51 -0000 Message-ID: <000701c257a2$3ba20eb0$0301a8c0@nitebox> From: "Randall Hamilton" To: References: <20020909010716.849CD43E6E@mx1.FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: failure notice Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2002 21:43:01 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-eFilter: eFilter/EPS (http://www.inter7.com/efilter) Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org why am i NOT suprised that this neverending thread has filled at least one mailbox. geez guys..you need to take this to irc already :P ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2002 9:07 PM Subject: failure notice > > Hi. This is the qmail-send program at softhome.net. > I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. > This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. > > : > Recipient's mailbox is full, message returned to sender. (#5.2.2) > > --- Below this line is a copy of the message. > > Return-Path: > Received: (qmail 29742 invoked by uid 417); 9 Sep 2002 01:07:15 -0000 > Received: from mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (62.253.162.45) > by 192.168.0.5 with SMTP; 9 Sep 2002 01:07:15 -0000 > Received: from sobek.lan ([80.6.30.227]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com > (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP > id <20020909010510.KXLT1968.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@sobek.lan>; > Mon, 9 Sep 2002 02:05:10 +0100 > Received: (from greid@localhost) > by sobek.lan (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g89158E02227; > Mon, 9 Sep 2002 02:05:08 +0100 (BST) > (envelope-from chat@FreeBSD.org) > X-Authentication-Warning: sobek.lan: greid set sender to chat@FreeBSD.org using -f > Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 02:05:08 +0100 > From: George Reid > To: "Neal E. Westfall" > Cc: Terry Lambert , > Juli Mallett , Joshua Lee , > dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.org > Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? > Message-ID: <20020909020508.A2152@FreeBSD.org> > References: <20020909013107.A1942@FreeBSD.org> <20020908174226.B80977-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Disposition: inline > User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i > In-Reply-To: <20020908174226.B80977-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan>; from nwestfal@directvinternet.com on Sun, Sep 08, 2002 at 05:46:00PM -0700 > > On Sun, Sep 08, 2002 at 05:46:00PM -0700, Neal E. Westfall wrote: > > [Bogus From:, see below] > > > In addition, Islam falsifies itself, since the Koran recognizes > > the Torah and the Christian scriptures as true revelations from God, yet > > claims that Christ did not raise from the dead. The Koran contradicts > > itself. > > The Bible contradicts itself: > > Malachi 3:6 "For I am the Lord; I change not." > Exodus 32:14 "And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do > unto his people." > > Exodus 34:6-7 "...The Lord God, merciful and gracious,...that will by no > means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the > children..." > Ezekiel 18:20 "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father." > > James 1:13 "...God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." > Genesis 22:1 "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt > Abraham." > > John 8:14 "Though I bear witness of myself, yet my witness is true." > John 5:31 "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true." > > John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time." > Genesis 32:30 "For I have seen God face to face." > > II Kings 8:26 "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign." > II Chronicles 22:2 "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign." > > II Samuel 6:23 "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto > the day of her death." > II Samuel 21:8 "...the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul." > > This thread has degenerated to the point of being uninteresting and mildly > offensive to me. Academic theological debates interest me: arguments > about the One True Religion do not. Hence I have removed myself from the > thread. Please don't re-add me. Plunk. > > -- > George C A Reid > WWW: http://people.FreeBSD.org/~greid/ Mob: (07740) 197460 > FreeBSD Committer/Developer greid@FreeBSD.org > Oriel College, Oxford University george.reid@oriel.ox.ac.uk > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 8 18:43:23 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9E3937B405 for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 18:43:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E70B43E4A for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 18:43:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g891hC125157; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 18:43:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209090143.g891hC125157@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , Joshua Lee , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 18:43:07 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Science can only demonstrate the invalidity of ideas, not their > validity. And you still don't call this a religion? Do you not see that, at the limit, there will be no valid ideas? ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." -Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist 1764. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 8 18:46: 8 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 850B237B400 for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 18:46:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2958343E3B for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 18:46:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g891jE125216; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 18:45:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209090145.g891jE125216@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , Giorgos Keramidas , Joshua Lee , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 18:45:09 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: >> On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: >> > On 2002-09-06 12:43 +0000, Neal E. Westfall wrote: >> > > Please name one thing that the theory of evolution has contributed to >> > > the prolonging of human life. >> > >> > An understanding of the characteristics of mutation in virii, and the >> > ability to create new vaccines for the new breeds that develop exactly >> > as evolutionary theories predict. >> >> An understanding of the characteristics of mutation in virrii, and >> the development of new vaccines are not at all dependent on the >> theory of evolution. Mutations != evolution. > > It is predictive of the mutuations. Among other things, this > allows us to use statistics and predictive models to decide > which flu to manufacture vaciones for, and which flu to ignore. These haven't worked at all, if the last 5 years have been any indication of this process. ;) ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< "It is error alone which needs the support of government, truth can stand by itself." -Thomas Jefferson To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 8 18:48: 4 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA6DE37B400 for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 18:48:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7699743E3B for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 18:48:01 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g891lx125265; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 18:47:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209090147.g891lx125265@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Terry Lambert , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 18:47:54 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Neal E Westfall writes: >> "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: >> > Who is second-guessing the scientific method? I happen to think it works >> > quite well, when allowed to truly work. Problem with evolution is that, >> > almost 150 years later, it is no more closer to being empirically verified >> > than it was in 1859. So lets drop it and get on with something else >> > already. >> >> The scientific method never verifies, it only falsifies, so asking >> that something be empirically verified, whether it be the old theory >> of evolution, the current theory of puctuated equilibria, or that >> gravity is related to the curvature of space, is asking for the >> impossible. Science can only demonstrate the invalidity of ideas, >> not their validity. > > Okay, then lets stop pretending that creation is "unscientific" while > evolution is "scientific". Neither one of them can be falsified, so > either *both* of them are scientific, or neither of them are. The point is missed that perhaps *both* are right. It is not far afield to consider that God created the notion of evolution and this process is how He made the world. > I don't know if you realize it or not, but here in California if > you try to teach a theory of origins other than evolution, you > *will* be fired. So what happended to all the "open-minded" > attitudes and academic freedom? You aren't going to get him on this. He's just going to claim that administrators and lawmakers are not Real Scientists". ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< It is difficult to believe that someone can differ from us and be right. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 8 18:53: 5 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 759A937B400 for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 18:52:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net (harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.12]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CF2643E6A for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 18:52:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0454.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.43.199] helo=mindspring.com) by harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17oDjT-0000xA-00; Sun, 08 Sep 2002 18:52:56 -0700 Message-ID: <3D7BFEBC.1EF52CD6@mindspring.com> Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 18:51:56 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200209090129.g891TS124946@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > > No, you claim that I can, but that if I do, it "stifles communication > > into stagnicity" > > I also claim that you can't, but I'm unwilling to provide examples. > Your also assert that you can predict the behavior of any arbitrary > group of humanity, and I think this is similarly naive. Actually, the claim was for any non-arbitrary group of humanity, since the specific games in question require a shared Schelling point to be predictive. > >> >> > Either the system functions as designed, or it's not a correct > >> >> > system. > >> >> > >> >> What was nature designed for? > >> > > >> > It wasn't designed, as far as we know. > >> > >> But it is a system or a set of systems. How do you account for this? > > > > That it exists without apparent design? > > You claim "the system functions as designed, or it's not a correct > system". Given that nature is a system and given that you can't > yet know who designed it, how can you assume it is correct? I don't. You are trying to generalized my statement, effectively changing "the system" into "all systems". If you want to generalize, you can do so, but the burden of proof is on you, not me, if you choose to do that. > >> >> > Barring evidence to the contrary, the simplest explanation is > >> >> > the correct one. > >> >> > >> >> That's arbitrary. You might as well flip a coin. > >> > > >> > It's not arbitrary. Arbitrary would be if there was no overall > >> > standard for selection. This most definitely is a standard. > >> > >> This standard is neither correct nor incorrect, therefore it is > >> arbitrary. > > > > It is fixed; therefore it is *not* arbitrary. > > What do you mean by "fixed"? not subject to change or fluctuation. Antonym: Arbitrary: based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something > > since I don't see how doing so would benefit me or the group. As > > external observers, we can't fix your world view without your > > cooperation. > > You assume it is broken. No assumption necessary. > > Why is money required, in your opinion, for someone to be able > > to act in a professional manner? > > Definition of "professional". "Engaging in a given activity as a > source of livelihood or as a career". Why is money required, in your opinion, for someone to be able to act in a professional manner? > >> Then "bad" means "good", "bunk" means "bad", you can't use very > >> many obscure polysyllabic words, and we still have a lot of work > >> to do to ensure that what we are agreeing on is what everyone is > >> really thinking. > > > > That's a problem for the people with the minority view, isn't it? > > There's also a problem for people who take refuge in mobs...er the > majority viewpoint. As an obvious counterexample, this means you > have to consider Britney Spears a good musician. If the alternative is being burned at the stake for heresy, I can pretend... > > Makes it really hard to proselytize... > > You can't approach the Truth from the platform of the Mob. Or that of the individual nut-job... > >> Don't even do as I say. Do what yer gonna do. Don't expect me not to > >> comment. Don't take my commments seriously. All truths are false. > >> All falsehoods are true. All sales final. Not responsible for drama. ;) > > > > You forgot your demand to be permitted access to the forum in > > order to be able to comment... > > That's not a demand, it's a request. =P Request denied. 8-). > > Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "LA LA LA!" at the > > top of yout lungs doesn't make a problem go away. > > Just where did I suggest that? This is nothing like what I am > suggesting, which is a quick press of a particular key on your > keyboard. ;) "LA LA LA!" "I CAN'T READ YOU!" > >> > "Proving" something to me is eminently possible. > >> > >> Nope. I'd have to be someone you respect. > > > > No. Merely use techniques which I respect. > > Still, your respect is involved and not your awareness. I am aware my respect is involved. > >> > Something is "proven" to me if it is the simplest explanation which > >> > fits all the facts. > >> > >> These are local maxima. > > > > Yes, they are. And your point is what? That the correct, but less > > simple, explanation might get lost in the noise? > > The complexity of the solution is irrelevant to it's measured > effectiveness. The effectiveness was granted with the conditional "which fits all the facts". > > You've communicated your preference. What now? > > What, indeed? I find it interesting that our banter has produced a > -real- religious debate as a child. I think this is indicative of > the unagreeability of our respective positions. ;) Or it's a subtle commentary on your argumentative style... -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 8 18:54:59 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE49B37B400 for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 18:54:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net (harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.12]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D6BC43E3B for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 18:54:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0454.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.43.199] helo=mindspring.com) by harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17oDlQ-0003Uc-00; Sun, 08 Sep 2002 18:54:56 -0700 Message-ID: <3D7BFF34.77F1E170@mindspring.com> Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 18:53:56 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200209090130.g891Ut124985@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > >> I'm not responsible for your challenges, you are. You asked me > >> why I care whether people "waste time", by the same token I ask > >> you why you care whether people make challengable statements? > > > > Thats an unrealted contextual thread. However, I will answer it > > in this context for you, even though you can't demonstrate relevence > > in this context. > > > > The answer is that it is unethical to not care. > > So if this is true, why aren't you helping starving children in South > America? This question is unrelated to the thread which preceeds it. But in answer: I am. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 8 19: 0:30 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BAD437B400 for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 19:00:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net (harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.12]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9918D43E3B for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 19:00:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0454.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.43.199] helo=mindspring.com) by harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17oDmc-00054W-00; Sun, 08 Sep 2002 18:56:11 -0700 Message-ID: <3D7BFF7F.8389F7C0@mindspring.com> Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 18:55:11 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: George Reid , "Neal E. Westfall" , Joshua Lee , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200209090134.g891YK125021@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > > Kind of ties us all back into Dave's original motivation, and > > the defensibility of trolls poisoning mailing lists. > > ...so by the definition I am currently using, ALL of us should > be killed. ;) Non-sequitur: this discussion is topical for -chat. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 8 19: 2:18 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7394737B400 for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 19:02:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F218F43E4A for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 19:02:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g89226125430; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 19:02:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209090202.g89226125430@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 19:02:01 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> > No, you claim that I can, but that if I do, it "stifles communication >> > into stagnicity" >> >> I also claim that you can't, but I'm unwilling to provide examples. >> Your also assert that you can predict the behavior of any arbitrary >> group of humanity, and I think this is similarly naive. > > Actually, the claim was for any non-arbitrary group of humanity, > since the specific games in question require a shared Schelling > point to be predictive. What makes a group non-arbitrary and gets them to share a Schelling point? >> >> >> > Either the system functions as designed, or it's not a correct >> >> >> > system. >> >> >> >> >> >> What was nature designed for? >> >> > >> >> > It wasn't designed, as far as we know. >> >> >> >> But it is a system or a set of systems. How do you account for this? >> > >> > That it exists without apparent design? >> >> You claim "the system functions as designed, or it's not a correct >> system". Given that nature is a system and given that you can't >> yet know who designed it, how can you assume it is correct? > > I don't. You are trying to generalized my statement, effectively > changing "the system" into "all systems". If you want to generalize, > you can do so, but the burden of proof is on you, not me, if you > choose to do that. Man, I wish I could tap dance like that. ;) I provided a counter-example, like you wanted, and you tap dance away. Is it any wonder I don't waste the time to prove anything or provide testable evidence? >> >> >> > Barring evidence to the contrary, the simplest explanation is >> >> >> > the correct one. >> >> >> >> >> >> That's arbitrary. You might as well flip a coin. >> >> > >> >> > It's not arbitrary. Arbitrary would be if there was no overall >> >> > standard for selection. This most definitely is a standard. >> >> >> >> This standard is neither correct nor incorrect, therefore it is >> >> arbitrary. >> > >> > It is fixed; therefore it is *not* arbitrary. >> >> What do you mean by "fixed"? > > not subject to change or fluctuation. > > Antonym: Arbitrary: based on or determined by individual preference > or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of > something Well, then I was correct even by this definition. Simple vs complex is arbitrary. >> > since I don't see how doing so would benefit me or the group. As >> > external observers, we can't fix your world view without your >> > cooperation. >> >> You assume it is broken. > > No assumption necessary. Yes there is. You have to first assume that you in fact have my worlview (rather than what limited glimpes you get from my communications). >> > Why is money required, in your opinion, for someone to be able >> > to act in a professional manner? >> >> Definition of "professional". "Engaging in a given activity as a >> source of livelihood or as a career". > > Why is money required, in your opinion, for someone to be able > to act in a professional manner? Definition of "professional". "Engaging in a given activity as a source of livelihood or as a career". (Hmm, a sloop.) >> >> Then "bad" means "good", "bunk" means "bad", you can't use very >> >> many obscure polysyllabic words, and we still have a lot of work >> >> to do to ensure that what we are agreeing on is what everyone is >> >> really thinking. >> > >> > That's a problem for the people with the minority view, isn't it? >> >> There's also a problem for people who take refuge in mobs...er the >> majority viewpoint. As an obvious counterexample, this means you >> have to consider Britney Spears a good musician. > > If the alternative is being burned at the stake for heresy, I > can pretend... See? You aren't willing to give your life for the truth. ;) >> > Makes it really hard to proselytize... >> >> You can't approach the Truth from the platform of the Mob. > > Or that of the individual nut-job... The only place you can approach the Truth is from the individual point away from the mob. >> >> Don't even do as I say. Do what yer gonna do. Don't expect me not to >> >> comment. Don't take my commments seriously. All truths are false. >> >> All falsehoods are true. All sales final. Not responsible for drama. ;) >> > >> > You forgot your demand to be permitted access to the forum in >> > order to be able to comment... >> >> That's not a demand, it's a request. =P > > Request denied. 8-). Yer not the authority. =P >> > Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "LA LA LA!" at the >> > top of yout lungs doesn't make a problem go away. >> >> Just where did I suggest that? This is nothing like what I am >> suggesting, which is a quick press of a particular key on your >> keyboard. ;) > > "LA LA LA!" "I CAN'T READ YOU!" Ah! That "" adds an action to your original presentation. In fact, you don't need to sing or shout, you can just and get more effective results. |) >> >> > "Proving" something to me is eminently possible. >> >> >> >> Nope. I'd have to be someone you respect. >> > >> > No. Merely use techniques which I respect. >> >> Still, your respect is involved and not your awareness. > > I am aware my respect is involved. But apparently not aware that your respect is required. >> >> > Something is "proven" to me if it is the simplest explanation which >> >> > fits all the facts. >> >> >> >> These are local maxima. >> > >> > Yes, they are. And your point is what? That the correct, but less >> > simple, explanation might get lost in the noise? >> >> The complexity of the solution is irrelevant to it's measured >> effectiveness. > > The effectiveness was granted with the conditional "which fits > all the facts". That conditional is irrelavent to "simple". >> > You've communicated your preference. What now? >> >> What, indeed? I find it interesting that our banter has produced a >> -real- religious debate as a child. I think this is indicative of >> the unagreeability of our respective positions. ;) > > Or it's a subtle commentary on your argumentative style... Or it's a subtle commentary on YOUR argumentative style... =) ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today. There might be a law against it by that time. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 8 19:34: 9 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6942337B400 for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 19:34:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net (snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.62]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CD8A43E3B for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 19:34:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0454.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.43.199] helo=mindspring.com) by snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 17oENC-0000np-00; Sun, 08 Sep 2002 19:33:58 -0700 Message-ID: <3D7C0859.D56B2F7C@mindspring.com> Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 19:32:57 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200209090202.g89226125430@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > > Actually, the claim was for any non-arbitrary group of humanity, > > since the specific games in question require a shared Schelling > > point to be predictive. > > What makes a group non-arbitrary and gets them to share a Schelling > point? What makes them non-arbitrary is the fact that they share a Schelling point. > I provided a counter-example, like you wanted, and you tap dance > away. Is it any wonder I don't waste the time to prove anything or > provide testable evidence? Nature is not a valid counter example in the domain of designed systems. Foo, you are nothing but a charleton! > Well, then I was correct even by this definition. Simple vs complex is > arbitrary. Yeah, they are just "arbitrarily" antonyms... > >> > Why is money required, in your opinion, for someone to be able > >> > to act in a professional manner? > >> > >> Definition of "professional". "Engaging in a given activity as a > >> source of livelihood or as a career". > > > > Why is money required, in your opinion, for someone to be able > > to act in a professional manner? > > Definition of "professional". "Engaging in a given activity as a > source of livelihood or as a career". > > (Hmm, a sloop.) There's you're problem. You are using definition 2 instead of the primary definition. Professional: characterized by or conforming to the technical or ethical standards of a profession. > > If the alternative is being burned at the stake for heresy, I > > can pretend... > > See? You aren't willing to give your life for the truth. ;) I'm willing to give my opponents life for the truth... ;^). > >> > Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "LA LA LA!" at the > >> > top of yout lungs doesn't make a problem go away. > >> > >> Just where did I suggest that? This is nothing like what I am > >> suggesting, which is a quick press of a particular key on your > >> keyboard. ;) > > > > "LA LA LA!" "I CAN'T READ YOU!" > > Ah! That "" adds an action to your original presentation. > In fact, you don't need to sing or shout, you can just > and get more effective results. |) Since when isn't sticking your fingers in your ear an action? > >> >> > Something is "proven" to me if it is the simplest explanation which > >> >> > fits all the facts. > >> >> > >> >> These are local maxima. > >> > > >> > Yes, they are. And your point is what? That the correct, but less > >> > simple, explanation might get lost in the noise? > >> > >> The complexity of the solution is irrelevant to it's measured > >> effectiveness. > > > > The effectiveness was granted with the conditional "which fits > > all the facts". > > That conditional is irrelavent to "simple". Sure it is. It's a modifier on the set of possible explanations. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 8 20:55:21 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9583837B400 for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 20:55:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEF9C43E4A for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 20:55:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g893oV125883; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 20:50:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209090350.g893oV125883@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 20:50:26 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> > Actually, the claim was for any non-arbitrary group of humanity, >> > since the specific games in question require a shared Schelling >> > point to be predictive. >> >> What makes a group non-arbitrary and gets them to share a Schelling >> point? > > What makes them non-arbitrary is the fact that they share a Schelling > point. It's arbitrary that you've found them to share one. >> I provided a counter-example, like you wanted, and you tap dance >> away. Is it any wonder I don't waste the time to prove anything or >> provide testable evidence? > > Nature is not a valid counter example in the domain of designed > systems. More of that hand-waving again. Are you sure you aren't on a parade float? ( See, if you get to define "valid", then we are discussing your worldview, not any agreed-upon reality. ;) ) > Foo, you are nothing but a charleton! Quite a compliment coming from the stodgiest "must define everything" type person. "Good heavens Miss Yakomoto, you're beautiful!" >> Well, then I was correct even by this definition. Simple vs complex is >> arbitrary. > > Yeah, they are just "arbitrarily" antonyms... Everything is arbitrary. ;) >> >> > Why is money required, in your opinion, for someone to be able >> >> > to act in a professional manner? >> >> >> >> Definition of "professional". "Engaging in a given activity as a >> >> source of livelihood or as a career". >> > >> > Why is money required, in your opinion, for someone to be able >> > to act in a professional manner? >> >> Definition of "professional". "Engaging in a given activity as a >> source of livelihood or as a career". >> >> (Hmm, a sloop.) > > There's you're problem. You are using definition 2 instead of the > primary definition. > > Professional: characterized by or conforming to the technical or > ethical standards of a profession. Look at the definition of "profession", then get back to me. >> > If the alternative is being burned at the stake for heresy, I >> > can pretend... >> >> See? You aren't willing to give your life for the truth. ;) > > I'm willing to give my opponents life for the truth... ;^). That's not yours to give, but I'll bet you'll find some argument to justify that. ;) >> >> > Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "LA LA LA!" at the >> >> > top of yout lungs doesn't make a problem go away. >> >> >> >> Just where did I suggest that? This is nothing like what I am >> >> suggesting, which is a quick press of a particular key on your >> >> keyboard. ;) >> > >> > "LA LA LA!" "I CAN'T READ YOU!" >> >> Ah! That "" adds an action to your original presentation. >> In fact, you don't need to sing or shout, you can just >> and get more effective results. |) > > Since when isn't sticking your fingers in your ear an action? It is, however you added . >> >> >> > Something is "proven" to me if it is the simplest explanation which >> >> >> > fits all the facts. >> >> >> >> >> >> These are local maxima. >> >> > >> >> > Yes, they are. And your point is what? That the correct, but less >> >> > simple, explanation might get lost in the noise? >> >> >> >> The complexity of the solution is irrelevant to it's measured >> >> effectiveness. >> > >> > The effectiveness was granted with the conditional "which fits >> > all the facts". >> >> That conditional is irrelavent to "simple". > > Sure it is. It's a modifier on the set of possible explanations. It's an irrelevant and arbitrary modifier. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< "If there is intellegent life in outer space, then they are undoubtedly using Earth as their insane asylum." -Mark Twain To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 0:14:43 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BB6637B400 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 00:14:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (jive.SoftHome.net [66.54.152.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A919F43E4A for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 00:14:33 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yid@softhome.net) Received: (qmail 7881 invoked by uid 417); 9 Sep 2002 07:14:33 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 9 Sep 2002 07:14:33 -0000 Received: from planb ([216.194.7.73]) (AUTH: LOGIN yid@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Mon, 09 Sep 2002 01:14:29 -0600 Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 03:12:18 -0400 From: Joshua Lee To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: dave@jetcafe.org, tlambert2@mindspring.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-Id: <20020909031218.3912bc87.yid@softhome.net> In-Reply-To: <20020905174725.R91660-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> References: <20020905200221.6d920659.yid@softhome.net> <20020905174725.R91660-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Organization: Plan B Software Labs X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.2claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.7) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, 6 Sep 2002 12:20:59 -0700 (PDT) "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > Hi, if you could, when you get to around column 75 or so in your email > software, if you could hit enter and start a new line, it would be > most appreciated! Thanks.. Sorry. It's hard to be able to tell if a paragraph is wrapped or not, and Sylpheed doesn't do it automatically except on the display. (Where it is sometimes deceptive.) (If someone could tell me how to get sendmail to use port 25000, I'd be much obliged - until then I'm stuck with mailers that have internal mini-MTAs.) > The reason I make the distinction is because, as Christ said, > Abraham rejoiced to see His day, and my view of the Old Testament > sufficiently differs from yours as to make the distinction > relevant. The apostle Paul regarded Christians to be the true > heirs of Abraham, a point you obviously reject. It isn't so much as "rejecting" the xtian view as it is ignoring it. I rarely think of your demigod, any more than you regularly think of the divinity of Osiris. > > > What you have failed to realize is that Christ is the true temple > > > of which the physical temple was only a shadow. This is the same > > > > Make up your mind, is he a temple, a god, or a messiah? Perhaps a > > Mithra? > > He is the temple. The true temple to which the physical temple was > only a shadow. Do you not understand the concept of symbolism and > typology? I understand the concept of symbolism, Orthodox Jews aren't pseudo-literalists. "Typology" I vaguely recall being a term used in another, more friendly, conversation with a xtian about his beliefs; but don't quite remember what it means. > He is not *a* god, he is God, the same God who spoke to > Moses in the burning bush. He made this clear in John's gospel. I don't think "I will be" in past/present/and future tenses all at once quite translates itself into a human form. > > You didn't read what I said. I said a "vehicle" for "inner > > repentance". Without that inner repentance, which can be effectuated > > in all circumstances, the Temple was indeed useless. This is another > > How is a physical temple able to bring inner repentance? Also, what The same way praying or contemplating in any other setting can bring one to repentance, except the Temple was a more intense setting as it involved a vicarous sacrifice of one's own "animal" nature. > If you reject blood atonement, even though your own > scriptures taught it, Didn't I refute the passages you used to "prove" this as meaning just the opposite? Or maybe you conveniently forgot that. > how is one right with God? Does God just wink > at your sin because you are so "righteous"? No, but higher repentance of love can turn sins into mitzvas. (Repentance of fear turns intentional errors into unintentional ones.) You seem to believe that G-d is binary, either you are completely righteous, or completely sinful. Obviously, unless one was to attribute to G-d less sense than a human being, the reality is more complicated than that. The rewards of the afterlife you so focus on are in shades of grey as well. Purgatory (gehinnom) is at different levels and intensities depending upon one's need for clensing, up to the incorrigables who get what Zacharia called being turned into "ashes under the feet of the righteous". Even in heaven, the righteous are "burned by his neighbor's canopy", all can see how much they attained and how it is lesser than their neighbor. A reason to try one's hardest, yes? > > > Since you mention Isaiah chapter 1, who is being referred to in > > > verse 4? Who is the "Holy One" of Israel that the people of > > > Israel have despised? > > > > G-d. > > I agree. It is also referring to the Messiah, and the true Temple. It doesn't seem to refer to those concepts there. > > "...they have forsaken Hashem; they have angered the Holy One of > > Israel, and have turned their back [to Him]" (Stone Edition Tanakh) > > > > That's a semicolon, not a period, and it's talking about apostacy in > > Isaiah's time (note the past tense), not a crucifiction. > > I agree that it is written in Isaiah's time, so why did you earlier > cite this passage as evidence of a future rebuilding of the temple? I didn't say that, I don't recall posting evidence of the rebuilding of the temple at any time or context. However, I believe in it and the prophets did indeed forcast its rebuilding elsewhere. > Neither did I say this passage referred to a crucifixion. The persecution by Jews claimed in the NT which culminating in the Jews killing god I assume you consider this verse refering to. > > > Why does God say in verse 11, "I have had enough of burnt > > > offerings of rams And the fat of fed cattle; And I take no > > > pleasure in the blood of bulls, lambs or goats"? > > > > Because blood doesn't produce repentence, inner change does. In > > verse 11, it is repudiating the very theological issue of repentance > > through the blood of the sacrifices that you are aspousing. > > You need to read the passage a little more carefully. It does not > repudiate blood atonement. It repudiates the false notion that the > blood of *animals* atones for sin. Keep on reading the chapter and you'll see Isaiah urging people to do good deeds rather than sacrifices, as I pointed out and even quoted in my original message: > better and more "complete" sacrifice of a human being, but "Learn to > do good, seek justice, vindicate the victim, render justice to the > orphan, take up the grievence of the widow." (Verse 17.) If you're going to ignore everything I say and repeat robot-like your doctrines regardless, there's no use in holding a conversation. > I know that, but please answer the question. What is the purpose of > all those bloody sacrifices in Leviticus? Inspiration, not some magical property of blood that even god must obey. > > > So why are you attacking what my religion teaches? > > > > I do not attack xtianity, it has done a lot of good in the world. If > > one is selling something to someone, however, one shouldn't be > > surprised if others offer reviews of the product. > > I must humbly point out that you in fact *did* attack the doctrine of > hell. That's not the point I was making though. If somebody wants to [...] > Your very criticism amounted to trying to get me to accept *your* > belief that hell does not even exist. If in fact the doctrine of hell Actually, no, I believe that a purgatory exists, as well as purgatory without parole for a tiny group of wicked ones. I wasn't criticising the belief in hell, I was criticising the criteria xtianity uses to determine who goes there. In xtian docterine, god will torture non-xtians for eternity. If you expect me to believe in a religion that claims this moment that my grandfather, and half my ancestors, are being tormented in hell because they are Jewish then you've got another thing coming. (Mormonism was smart in allowing baptism of one's ancestors after death. ;-) That's why they're into keeping gigantic geneological databases.) > > > Aren't you just trying to silence what you don't agree with? > > > > As usual, all evangelists view people disagreeing with them an > > offense against the first amendment. > > No, I was calling you on the carpet for engaging in an ad-hominem > attack on my character. Attributing bad motivations to someone for > believing a particular doctrine is not a sound argument. I don't attribute "bad" motivations. I find it interesting to examine the motivations of missionaries however, possibly because my religion doesn't have them. (Except outreach to other Jews, and even that is of recent vintage - because if we don't get them someone else will.) > > > engaging in a"crusade" to silence what you disagree with. > > > > No, I just view it a little amusing that someone would go on a bible > > thumping crusade because of a word in a subject line. I don't > > believe that evolution is all that great either, but I'm not going > > on an evangelical crusade because of someone using it to refer to > > phenomena concerning moderating trolls on mailing lists. > > There you go again engaging in ad-hominem attacks. Why don't you try > giving some rational arguments instead of engaging in > character-assasination? Just a personal observation, not meant to score logical debating points. It's completely honest and not meant to trick anyone, though as you point out, it doesn't *prove* anything with regard to the content of what has been presented in this little marketplace of ideas. Personally I'm not trying to prove anything, I could care less (as long as he or she's not Jewish) if you convert someone on this mailing list or not. > > > > > A particular religion's cogence must be analyzed from an > > > > > internal perspective for coherence. > > > > > > > > Tertullian was at least honest when he said "credo quia absurdum > > > > est". > > > > > > In your humble opinion. > > > > Considering that he was a church father, in orthodox xtianity's > > humble opinion about itself. Of course that opinion changed, with > > lots of hand waving in order to make the change the same. > > While I have deep respect for the church fathers, they weren't right > on everything they said. Quoting church fathers to support an > argument is certainly valid *in principle*, but they were not > infallible, and at times they said things that were in direct > contradiction to the teachings of scripture. Such is the nature of > sinful man, even the great Tertullian. Tertullian wasn't all that "great", except in his honesty concerning the logical defensibility of his religion's doctrines. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 0:14:58 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1341737B400 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 00:14:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net (albatross.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.120]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5F8E43E4A for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 00:14:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0118.cvx22-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.198.118] helo=mindspring.com) by albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17oIl1-0007HX-00; Mon, 09 Sep 2002 00:14:52 -0700 Message-ID: <3D7C4A2F.28BD7DE8@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 00:13:51 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200209090350.g893oV125883@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > >> What makes a group non-arbitrary and gets them to share a Schelling > >> point? > > > > What makes them non-arbitrary is the fact that they share a Schelling > > point. > > It's arbitrary that you've found them to share one. Are you maybe unaware of what people mean when they say "Schelling point"? It's a measure of shared cultural understanding, or, in more technical terms, the set of lowest entropy equalibria. As such, it is never arbitrary. > >> Well, then I was correct even by this definition. Simple vs complex is > >> arbitrary. > > > > Yeah, they are just "arbitrarily" antonyms... > > Everything is arbitrary. ;) Almost nothing is arbitrary; it actually takes a great amount of skill to be arbitrary, and even the skilled often fail at the attempt. > > Professional: characterized by or conforming to the technical or > > ethical standards of a profession. > > Look at the definition of "profession", then get back to me. Luckily for me, I didn't use that word. > That's not yours to give, but I'll bet you'll find some argument to > justify that. ;) "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to die in a fire of suspicious origin..." > >> >> > Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "LA LA LA!" at the > >> >> > top of yout lungs doesn't make a problem go away. > >> >> > >> >> Just where did I suggest that? This is nothing like what I am > >> >> suggesting, which is a quick press of a particular key on your > >> >> keyboard. ;) > >> > > >> > "LA LA LA!" "I CAN'T READ YOU!" > >> > >> Ah! That "" adds an action to your original presentation. > >> In fact, you don't need to sing or shout, you can just > >> and get more effective results. |) > > > > Since when isn't sticking your fingers in your ear an action? > > It is, however you added . It's an apt analogy: "just ignore input you do not wish to observe". > >> That conditional is irrelavent to "simple". > > > > Sure it is. It's a modifier on the set of possible explanations. > > It's an irrelevant and arbitrary modifier. It's not arbitrary. Do a google search on "Schelling point", and read the top 15 results. You can ignore the ones I wrote, if you're afraid of bias. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 0:24:52 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 895C737B401 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 00:24:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (jive.SoftHome.net [66.54.152.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C401D43E6E for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 00:24:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yid@softhome.net) Received: (qmail 400 invoked by uid 417); 9 Sep 2002 07:24:42 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 9 Sep 2002 07:24:42 -0000 Received: from planb ([216.194.7.73]) (AUTH: LOGIN yid@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Mon, 09 Sep 2002 01:24:40 -0600 Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 03:22:29 -0400 From: Joshua Lee To: George Reid Cc: nwestfal@directvinternet.com, dave@jetcafe.org, tlambert2@mindspring.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-Id: <20020909032229.103bed1a.yid@softhome.net> In-Reply-To: <20020906013554.A42842@FreeBSD.org> References: <20020904232446.0b55b1d5.yid@softhome.net> <20020904205814.U38687-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> <20020906013554.A42842@FreeBSD.org> Organization: Plan B Software Labs X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.2claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.7) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, 6 Sep 2002 01:35:55 +0100 George Reid wrote: > To plagiarise a great work: Pretty funny stuff. I have answers for most of it, but am not particularly interested in contributing to a debate that I sincerely wish would go away. :-) > scholars. The myth of 'hell' is perpetuated through the ignorance of > modern Christians (very few of whom read Greek and/or Hebrew) who are > > If you'd like to argue this point further please feel free to do so, > citing passages in the 'original' (insofar as is possible) Greek or > Hebrew, as appropriate. Bear in mind that I read both languages so I am nearly fluent in Hebrew (I became observant as an adult so I didn't learn the language thoroughly when young), and agree with neither of you. I guess I could referee such a discussion. (I don't know Koine Greek though, though I am familiar with Aramaic which is what was actually spoken by Jews in that era.) > response: I don't have a great deal of free time at the moment but I > will attempt to reply as soon as is possible for me. I also am a little busy, and having to leave the list for two days due to last Shabbos + Rosh Hashanna didn't help matters. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 2:27:28 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6738B37B400 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 02:27:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14FEA43E3B for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 02:27:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g899RF129594; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 02:27:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209090927.g899RF129594@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 02:27:10 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> >> What makes a group non-arbitrary and gets them to share a Schelling >> >> point? >> > >> > What makes them non-arbitrary is the fact that they share a Schelling >> > point. >> >> It's arbitrary that you've found them to share one. > > Are you maybe unaware of what people mean when they say "Schelling > point"? I know I am unaware of what -you- mean when -you- say this. ;) > It's a measure of shared cultural understanding, or, in > more technical terms, the set of lowest entropy equalibria. So, the people in the stock market share a Schelling point? Why couldn't you just say "community"? > As such, it is never arbitrary. Cultures are arbitrary, entropy is arbitrary, it's all arbitrary. ;) >> >> Well, then I was correct even by this definition. Simple vs complex is >> >> arbitrary. >> > >> > Yeah, they are just "arbitrarily" antonyms... >> >> Everything is arbitrary. ;) > > Almost nothing is arbitrary; it actually takes a great amount of > skill to be arbitrary, and even the skilled often fail at the > attempt. Gee we do real good at opposing each other. Isn't that arbitrary? ;) >> > Professional: characterized by or conforming to the technical or >> > ethical standards of a profession. >> >> Look at the definition of "profession", then get back to me. > > Luckily for me, I didn't use that word. Yes you did, it's in your quote above. >> That's not yours to give, but I'll bet you'll find some argument to >> justify that. ;) > > "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to > the death your right to die in a fire of suspicious origin..." With most people, I would do the following. Take your argument that "it is unethical not to care". This reduces to whether you feel that allowing someone to do something unethical is the same as actually doing something unethical. Normally I would point this out, and point out that I think these two things are different. Attempting to impose ethicality on someone may be just as unethical as being unethical. There are numerous examples to illustrate this and most people would just agree to disagree after they had been presented. This won't work for your case. That's because it's not enough to argue on the surface. I have to develop a linear space, assert my propositions as axioms on this space, then prove this space can exist. Even once I do that, you are so attached to the answer being a certain way, you'll find ways to argue with each and every proposition I make. Now it's hard to resist classifying you as one of those arrogant scientific worshippers who refuse to listen to you unless you speak linear algebra. However, you are dead set in your ways, and I've seen the lengths that the human mind will go to rationalize their behavior. You can rationalize anything if you try hard enough. A mind in a state such as yours accepts no external input. It merely tears everything apart as much as it can, attempting to discredit what it cannot understand. Thus, the correct way to behave to you is to be irrational, in a rational way. =) >> >> >> > Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "LA LA LA!" at the >> >> >> > top of yout lungs doesn't make a problem go away. >> >> >> >> >> >> Just where did I suggest that? This is nothing like what I am >> >> >> suggesting, which is a quick press of a particular key on your >> >> >> keyboard. ;) >> >> > >> >> > "LA LA LA!" "I CAN'T READ YOU!" >> >> >> >> Ah! That "" adds an action to your original presentation. >> >> In fact, you don't need to sing or shout, you can just >> >> and get more effective results. |) >> > >> > Since when isn't sticking your fingers in your ear an action? >> >> It is, however you added . > > It's an apt analogy: "just ignore input you do not wish to observe". Heh. That's what I've been saying for years. We aren't dealing with experimental data here, just trolls. If you can do that with me, how come you can't do this with trolls? >> >> That conditional is irrelavent to "simple". >> > >> > Sure it is. It's a modifier on the set of possible explanations. >> >> It's an irrelevant and arbitrary modifier. > > It's not arbitrary. Everything is arbitrary. Ommm. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< It's easier to agree to do better tomorrow than to do your best today. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 4:36:25 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 177DB37B400 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 04:36:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net (scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.49]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3D5C43E65 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 04:36:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0019.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.19] helo=mindspring.com) by scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17oMpz-0002gY-00; Mon, 09 Sep 2002 04:36:15 -0700 Message-ID: <3D7C8773.6035B63D@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 04:35:15 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200209090927.g899RF129594@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > > It's a measure of shared cultural understanding, or, in > > more technical terms, the set of lowest entropy equalibria. > > So, the people in the stock market share a Schelling point? Why > couldn't you just say "community"? Because it's not the same thing as a Schelling point. If I had meant "community", I would have used the word "community". What I meant was "Schelling point", so I said "Schelling point". Here is an example of a Schelling point: Out of 1500 people asked to name one of the four tires on a car, 62% named the right front tire. -- Mason, 1990 Here is another example of a Schelling point: When asked the question "If you were travelling aborad in Paris with a friend, and you had not planned ahead for the possibility, and were seperated, where would you go to meet your friend?", 74% of respondants chose "The Eiffel Tower". Here are some other questions that result in the identification of Schelling points; I've deliberately chosen all but the last question such that will it be likely to identify Schelling points in this particular readership; the last one is more universal: o If you wanted to go to a company's web site, what would you type into a browser location dialog? o If you had just downloaded some source code off the Internet, and were unsure of whether or not you could legally use the software as part of a commercial product, what file would you examine? o If you had just downloaded some unidentified source code off the Internet, and wanted to know what it was, what file would you examine? o Where would you expect these files to be located? o What search engine would you recommend to a friend? o You and a friend are flying into New York City, via different airports, for a conference of some kind, and agree to meet at 12:00 noon on the day before the conference, synchronize your schedules, and head out for some fun. But you realize as your plane is landing that neither one of you remember to pick a place to meet. Where do you go to stand the best chance of finding your friend at the appointed time? As you can see, a Schelling point is a place that "everybody knows", but which was not arrived at by explicit agreement, but rather on a cutural basis of lowest mutal entropy. > > As such, it is never arbitrary. > > Cultures are arbitrary, entropy is arbitrary, it's all arbitrary. ;) I'm surprised that you can ever get any useful work done; perhaps its because of an arbitrary perception of "useful"? ;^). > >> > Professional: characterized by or conforming to the technical or > >> > ethical standards of a profession. > >> > >> Look at the definition of "profession", then get back to me. > > > > Luckily for me, I didn't use that word. > > Yes you did, it's in your quote above. That's Webster's dictionary using the word, not me. I used the word "professionally". > With most people, I would do the following. Take your argument that > "it is unethical not to care". This reduces to whether you feel that > allowing someone to do something unethical is the same as actually > doing something unethical. Normally I would point this out, and point > out that I think these two things are different. Attempting to impose > ethicality on someone may be just as unethical as being > unethical. There are numerous examples to illustrate this and > most people would just agree to disagree after they had been > presented. > > This won't work for your case. Thanks! I'm glad my behaviour isn't ARBITRARY... 8-). > That's because it's not enough to argue on the surface. I have to > develop a linear space, assert my propositions as axioms on this > space, then prove this space can exist. Even once I do that, you are > so attached to the answer being a certain way, you'll find ways to > argue with each and every proposition I make. Now it's hard to resist > classifying you as one of those arrogant scientific worshippers who > refuse to listen to you unless you speak linear algebra. However, you > are dead set in your ways, and I've seen the lengths that the human > mind will go to rationalize their behavior. You can rationalize > anything if you try hard enough. That's an incorrect caracterization of me. You fail to grasp that rationalization is antithetical to my world view. > A mind in a state such as yours accepts no external input. It merely > tears everything apart as much as it can, attempting to discredit what > it cannot understand. Only that which can not be proven, independently of understanding. I don't have to agree with the Copehagen Hypothesis as the explanation of QED, for example, to agree that the math works, even if I don't quite buy the story that was made up to humanize the *why* of the math. > Thus, the correct way to behave to you is to be irrational, in a > rational way. =) That's the way you are trying to behave, I'd agree, but it's not the correct way to behave, if you are to make a convincing argument, nor is it possible to be truly irrational in a rational way, without the flaws in your model being externally visible to those who do not share it. > > It's an apt analogy: "just ignore input you do not wish to observe". > > Heh. That's what I've been saying for years. We aren't dealing with > experimental data here, just trolls. If you can do that with me, how > come you can't do this with trolls? Exactly. You solution is the same as a childs, and works about as well, overall, which is to say "not at all, as a long term approach". -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 8:57: 5 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64A8837B400 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 08:57:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pilchuck.reedmedia.net (pilchuck.reedmedia.net [209.166.74.74]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F0BE43E65 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 08:57:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from reed@reedmedia.net) Received: from reed by pilchuck.reedmedia.net with local-esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17oQuB-0006bX-00; Mon, 09 Sep 2002 08:56:51 -0700 Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 08:56:50 -0700 (PDT) From: "Jeremy C. Reed" To: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <20020909020508.A2152@FreeBSD.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, George Reid wrote: > The Bible contradicts itself: ... Your examples remind me of the game "telephone". I am sure there are thousands of other stories that have been changed, important details left out, and/or translated wrong. Jeremy C. Reed http://www.reedmedia.net/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 9:16:15 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBF0C37B400 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 09:16:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4264F43E75 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 09:16:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g89GG1Gd009340; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 09:16:01 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g89GG1Id009337; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 09:16:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 09:16:00 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Terry Lambert Cc: Giorgos Keramidas , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <3D7A35A5.1A849D24@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20020909090839.J9219-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > > IMO, they had practical purpose. You can always trace taboos > > > back to community experiential knowledge. I rather think the > > > pork taboo was rooted in disease avoidance, since there are a > > > lot of diseases that cross species boundaries with pork, if it > > > is not prepared properly. Lacking sufficient foundation to > > > discover what "properly" was, the taboo was established (there > > > are alternate theories; that oneis merely the simplest). > > > > Here's mine: The people of Israel were set aside by God as His > > chosen people. As such they were to be distinguished from the > > gentiles through ceremonial practices, one of which included not > > eating pork. When the Messiah came, God expanded His promises > > to the whole world, there was no longer to be any distinction > > between jew and gentile, for all are one in Christ, thus to > > retain the ceremonial laws would be to not admit that Christ > > now joined the two peoples together in reconciliation with God. > > > > What do you think? 8-) > > I think it fails the simplicity test, and it fails the predictive > test. > > Your theory requires additional axioms that are not required by > the previous theory, Yes, but *your* theory requires that one set aside the law of non-contradiction. Self-creation is a logical impossibility. > and your theory failed to predict accurately > the newly created taboo against the eating of non-fully-cooked beef > in Britain and elsewhere as a result of the discovery of the prion > source of BSE (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, otherwise known > as "mad cow disease"), or the ability of the disease to cross > species boundaries into humans, and exhibit as nvCJD (new variant > Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease). It was never intended to predict such things, only the reason for the prohibition of certain taboos within the context of OT Israel at a particular point in redemptive history. Your attempt to give another reason is a subtle begging of the question and rationalization to support your rejection of God. Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 9:26: 0 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9BB337B400 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 09:25:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62DAC43E6E for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 09:25:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g89GObGd009362; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 09:24:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g89GOa2H009359; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 09:24:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 09:24:36 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Terry Lambert Cc: Giorgos Keramidas , Joshua Lee , , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <3D7A3908.41093D70@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20020909091647.J9219-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > > > > An understanding of the characteristics of mutation in virrii, and > > > > the development of new vaccines are not at all dependent on the > > > > theory of evolution. Mutations != evolution. > > > > > > It is predictive of the mutuations. Among other things, this > > > allows us to use statistics and predictive models to decide > > > which flu to manufacture vaciones for, and which flu to ignore. > > > > *How* is evolution predictive of the mutations? One doesn't need > > to be an evolutionist in order to make such predictions. > > Evolution in this case is merely a useful theory, in that its > applicaiton gives predictive results in the problem domain of > *what* mutations will survive the ambient selection pressures. So explain to me again what "selection" is in the context of a non-theistic worldview. *Who* does the "selection"? If nobody does the selection, why keep calling it selection? Why is the reification of nature justified in order to save evolutionary theory? "Selection" implies intentionality, something which according to evolutionists is not necessary to explain the highly complex forms of life that have "arisen". If we use Occam's razor to shave off all the philosophical and religious baggage from evolution, what is left except an assertion that life spontaneously arose "by chance"? Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 9:59: 7 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D116C37B400 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 09:58:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9831543E6E for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 09:58:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g89GwvGd009475; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 09:58:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g89Gwukw009472; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 09:58:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 09:58:56 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Terry Lambert Cc: Joshua Lee , , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <3D7AAE3F.2A01F48B@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20020909092446.O9219-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > > 1) Are the theories predictive? > > > > Evolution is not, as it relies on chance. Chance, by definition, > > is unpredictable. > > Mutation is by chance. Selection is not. You haven't justified the usage of the term "selection". There can be no selection at all unless you appeal to a theistic worldview. Selection implies intentionality, which is strictly "not allowed" by naturalistic presuppositions. > > > > > 2) Of the theories, which is simpler? > > > > Define "simpler." Self-creation sounds like a pretty hairy thesis > > to me. Please explain. > > It has one less premise. Yes, but the "simpler" explanation is a logical contradiction. So basically what you are saying is that an absurdity is preferrable to supernatural creation. > > Oh, and I didn't catch your answer as to how we have boys and girls. > > http://google.yahoo.com/bin/query?p=%22sexual+reproduction%22+evolution&hc=0&hs=0 This doesn't prove anything except that there are evolutionists who believe that sex is a result of evolution, and that you know how to type three words into a search engine. So what? Can you direct me to a specific link that addresses the problems I outlined earlier? Barring that, you can explain in your own words how sexual organs could have evolved, surmounting such tremendous odds. > > > That somewhat begs the question of why it was not then incorporated > > > as a Christian state... according to historical information (I expect > > > you can do your own web search) most of them were in fact Deists. > > > Realize that Deism does not explicitly contradict Christian doctrine. > > > > Why do you think that Christians would necessarily want to incorporate > > it as a specifically *Christian* state? > > The same reason they would want to post to technical mailing lists > about creationism? -chat is a "technical" mailing list? > > > > By the way, since you deleted it, I'll mention it again. The model > > the Constitution was based on was existing state constitutions, which > > were in turn based on the model of presbyterian church government. > > I didn't think that it was relevent, and didn't want to argue > the Magna Carta, or the fact that the state constitutions of the > first thirteen colonies were negotiated as part of the process of > balancing Federal vs. States rights. Of course you didn't think it relevent. How convenient. > > > > I don't know if you realize it or not, but here in California if > > > > you try to teach a theory of origins other than evolution, you > > > > *will* be fired. So what happended to all the "open-minded" > > > > attitudes and academic freedom? > > > > > > If you try to teach the creationist story in a secular school, I > > > expect you will likely be fired, because from a scientific > > > perspective, the creationist theory fails the both the simplicity > > > and predictive tests, when compared to the evolutionist theory. > > > > Oh really? Please explain. Just because you say so doesn't make > > it so. > > It requires an additional premise, therefore it is less simple > than the "evolution" theory, and it is less predictive than the > "evolution" theory. The additional premise is required in order to avoid absurdity. > > Anytime you introduce randomness into a system, it doesn't > > *increase* predictability, it decreases it. > > This is incorrect; it goes against what we know of large number > theory. It's like the multiplication of two random values which > occurs in /dev/random, which sucks, because large number theory > tells us that the result will be less random, not more random. Please explain how randomness gives rise to order. This is a contradiction. As you've noted, /dev/random is not a good analogy, since it isn't truly random. This is why no computer could ever be used to "prove" the existence of chance. > > And since the primary mechanism of evolution is chance, evolution > > cannot be said to be predictable at all. How does evolution overcome > > this problem? Please explain. > > By not being defined the way you appear to think it is. 8-). > The primary mechanism of evolution is selection, not chance. So what you are saying is that chance has nothing to do with evolution. Selection suggests intentionality that is strictly off-limits on a naturalistic explanation. > Do you know how a "Monete Carlo Algorithm" works? It works > by generating random inputs, and then constraining the relation > between input and outputs to allowable processes, discarding > outputs which do not meet the selection criteria. See also > "clamping" in back-propagation neural networks. The problem with this is the so-called "random" inputs. Unless you can show that they are truly random, such an algorithm proves nothing at all. So it turns out that your "random" input is not input at all, but output. Oh, and by the way, what are those selection criteria? If your selection criteria is intelligently designed into the experiment, it would seem to undermine the whole thing by begging the question. THERE IS NO SELECTION CRITERIA IN NATURE, unless you want to say that it was designed into the system, which forces you into a theistic worldview. > > > This doesn't contradict academic freedom, though it does contradict > > > non-academic freedom in the context of a secular institution. The > > > place to address this is a non-secular institution (e.g enroll your > > > children in non-state sponsored schools). > > > > What exactly do you mean by "secular"? You mean "non-religious"? > > 1 a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal > b : not overtly or specifically religious c : not > ecclesiastical or clerical > > -- not the same thing as non-religious. Of course, this definition begs the question, doesn't it, since the whole question is as to the ultimate source of the worldly or temporal concerns. Evolution is an attempt to give an account of that, and as such has crossed over into the realm of religion and philosophy. Why is it so hard to admit that? > > Why do the schools force naturalism down people's throats then? > > Because it is able to successfully manipulate the material world > in useful ways. And this is your justification for indoctrinating children with naturalism? Why not play on a level playing field? Are you afraid they might actually think for themselves? > If you want a creation theory taught in secular schools, come up > with a version of the theory that is either simpler or more > predictive than "evolution" theory. Many have, but the evolutionary dogmatists won't even look at it. They are so entrenched in trying for force their evolutionary dogmatism down people's throats that they refuse to even look into the telescope, to use an apt analogy. 8-) > So many religions are based on what are in fact scientific ideas > which have been falsified. You'd think that at least one religion > would be willing to concede that it doesn't know God's mind well > enough to say that He might be the selector in the process of > natural selection, or that He is capable of working His will > through His choice of natural laws. At last! We have an admission that evolution is unworkable without moving into a theistic worldview. But then, what is necessary when people start talking about God? Is it permissable for everybody to just start wildly speculating about God? Or must we rely on God to tell us what he is like and how he has created the universe? Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 10: 7:23 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C329937B401 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 10:07:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3916A43E81 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 10:07:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g89H7DGd009523; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 10:07:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g89H7DOd009520; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 10:07:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 10:07:13 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Giorgos Keramidas Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <20020909005153.GA9363@hades.hell.gr> Message-ID: <20020909095924.K9219-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > > Eh, you think I'm making this stuff up? You are being somewhat dense. > > If God could be fully comprehended, he would not be God. Why does the > > creature think he can comprehend that which transcends him? > > The creature is not convinced that there is a need for a supernatural, > incomprehensible, impossible to understand, reach, or in any way > grasp being in order to behave rationally. You can repeat a thousand > times "you need my god", but the basic question which is "why would > i need such a thing?" remains unanswered so far. You haven't been paying attention. You could not even string 10 words together into a sentence or even speak without assuming the uniformity of nature which is only possible on a theistic worldview. By the way, who ever said God was "impossible to understand"? It is impossible for finite creatures to fully comprehend Him, but that doesn't mean that what He *has* revealed about Himself is not understandable. More to the point, to answer your question, yet again, why such a God is necessary, is that science, language, reason, universal standards, logic, human freedom, human dignity, love, hate, good, bad, indifference, honesty, integrity, all of these are completely unintelligible without a reference point that is fixed by which all of these things could have any meaning whatsoever. When you build your house on sand, don't be surprised when it crashes to the ground when the rains come. Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 10:14:36 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D81F737B401 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 10:14:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net (hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.22]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 737E043E65 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 10:14:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0088.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.88] helo=mindspring.com) by hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17oS6s-0000S2-00; Mon, 09 Sep 2002 10:14:03 -0700 Message-ID: <3D7CD69E.E585EBBE@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 10:13:02 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Giorgos Keramidas , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020909090839.J9219-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > I think it fails the simplicity test, and it fails the predictive > > test. > > > > Your theory requires additional axioms that are not required by > > the previous theory, > > Yes, but *your* theory requires that one set aside the law of > non-contradiction. Self-creation is a logical impossibility. It doesn't require this, though I fail to see the paradox that's created by ignoring the "law of non-contradiction". I guess the question you raise when you say "Self-creation is a logical impossibility" is "Who created God?". 8-). > > and your theory failed to predict accurately > > the newly created taboo against the eating of non-fully-cooked beef > > in Britain and elsewhere as a result of the discovery of the prion > > source of BSE (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, otherwise known > > as "mad cow disease"), or the ability of the disease to cross > > species boundaries into humans, and exhibit as nvCJD (new variant > > Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease). > > It was never intended to predict such things, only the reason for > the prohibition of certain taboos within the context of OT Israel > at a particular point in redemptive history. Your attempt to give > another reason is a subtle begging of the question and rationalization > to support your rejection of God. I think that if I were to wash my car, you would take it as a "rejection of God"... -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 10:29: 5 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9E1D37B400; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 10:29:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29A3C43E42; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 10:29:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g89HSsGd009607; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 10:28:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g89HSsvL009604; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 10:28:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 10:28:53 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Lawrence Sica Cc: Juli Mallett , Terry Lambert , Joshua Lee , , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <5AB38EC2-C38E-11D6-8C5E-000393A335A2@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <20020909100754.L9219-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Lawrence Sica wrote: > > Even though their worldview isn't even cogent? Why is "accepting of > > other religions" such a righteous goal? Yeesh, the postmodern West > > really is anemic to truth. By the way, why is it that we are being > > called to never criticize anyone else's beliefs? Inherent in the > > premise is a contradiction, leading to criticism of certain beliefs > > (e.g. Christianity). > > > > Accepting of other views is a laudable goal. Not because you agree > with them, but because you are enlightened enough to know that there > are many faces of God. And...did God tell you this? By the way, in these discussions, I always detect an equivocation on the meaning of the words "acceptance," "tolerance" etc. Disagreement with someones views means by definition that you think they are false. If Christ says, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no-one comes to the Father but through me," this automatically excludes the notion that there are "many ways to God". Truth has the unmistakeable quality of clarity, not confusion. Truth also has the quality of being the opposite of falsehood, something that people cannot seem to grasp when it comes to ultimate questions. > I know that is not a popular view by many of > the Christian sects but it is true. The Jewish and the Christian god > have the same roots, yet for many years Christians have persecuted > Jews. You are absolutely correct, the Jewish and Christian God have the same roots. Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism. The fact that many Christians have persecuted Jews is a most lamentable fact, yet it does not change the nature of truth. Such Christians to the extent that they persecute others, are in direct contradiction with what their religion teaches. > Go figure eh? If everyone would accept the idea that if you > beleive in a God then the God you see may be different than the God I > see and that does not make my God wrong, religion and belief are > personal and even within the same religion many see God differently. > One cannot but put God through their own lens, any religion has this. You are endorsing subjectivism, which is completely irrational. Why should anyone accept such an irrational premise? I can accept that people can disagree, but that doesn't mean that I think we are both right. > It is not being called to not criticize another belifes, it's being > called to not demonize them or put them on a lower level. What do you mean by "demonize" them? To the extent that a person's beliefs are false, ill consequences should be expected to ensue. For example, the belief that Mohammed was God's prophet, coupled with the fact that Mohammed spread his beliefs at the edge of the sword, it should not be so surprising when the spread of Islam leads to religious persecution, or the flying of 757's into skyscrapers. Bad trees produce bad fruit. > The USA is > all about critiquing others ideas and coming up with a common ground. > That is why it's important accept other religions. One of the > foundations of the USA was freedom to worship and freedom from worship > at the same time. The ability to worship who you want and not worry > about a government or others persecuting you is important. But of course all of this is irrelevent as to what the truth is. Another of the great foundations we have in the country is the freedom of speech, including the right to criticize others. Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 10:31:32 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D10C37B405 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 10:31:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net (flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.232]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D47743E75 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 10:31:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0088.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.88] helo=mindspring.com) by flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17oSNG-0004Rt-00; Mon, 09 Sep 2002 10:30:58 -0700 Message-ID: <3D7CDA95.2D2EE45C@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 10:29:57 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Giorgos Keramidas , Joshua Lee , dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020909091647.J9219-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > Evolution in this case is merely a useful theory, in that its > > application gives predictive results in the problem domain of > > *what* mutations will survive the ambient selection pressures. > = > So explain to me again what "selection" is in the context of a > non-theistic worldview. I guess I have to ask "why ``again'', wasn't ``once'' enough?". Natural selection: The process by which individuals=92 inherited needs and abilities are more or less closely matched to resources available in their environment, giving those with greater "fitness" a better chance of survival and reproduction. Note that that failing to find God under every rock is not the same thing as "rejecting God". Early man saw God (or _a_ god) everywhere there was some phenomenon that they could not explain rationally. That we now know the cause of "thunder" is not a rejection of God, any more than knowing the cause of speciation. > *Who* does the "selection"? If nobody does the selection, why keep > calling it selection? Because it's the technically correct word to use to describe the operation of a fitness function. > Why is the reification of nature justified in order to save > evolutionary theory? Nature *is* concrete, *not* abstract. There is no reifying of nature happening here. You can only reify an *abstract* thing. > "Selection" implies intentionality, To people without a complex vocabulary. Perhaps it was a bad choice to use the compound word "natural selection", since it permits those people to make this mistake. > something which according to evolutionists is not necessary to > explain the highly complex forms of life that have "arisen". It's not. > If we use Occam's razor to shave off all the philosophical and > religious baggage from evolution, what is left except an assertion > that life spontaneously arose "by chance"? With theologians still able to claim that God controls chance, of course. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 10:39:11 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEC0537B400; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 10:39:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F10BF43E3B; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 10:39:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g89Hd3Gd016472; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 10:39:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g89Hd2Nw016430; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 10:39:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 10:39:01 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Lawrence Sica Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG, , Joshua Lee , Juli Mallett , Terry Lambert , George Reid Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020909103002.H9219-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Lawrence Sica wrote: > > Actually the Islamic doctrine of mukhalafa says that it Allah is *so* > > different from his creatures that it is impossible to postulate > > anything > > about him at all. But then what is the Koran if not an attempt to do > > this? In addition, Islam falsifies itself, since the Koran recognizes > > the Torah and the Christian scriptures as true revelations from God, > > yet > > claims that Christ did not raise from the dead. The Koran contradicts > > itself. > > > > And what about the Christian writings that state tolerance for the > sinners above all? And then in the same breathe condemns gays, > justified slavery via the bible, justifies wars now and the killing of > abortionists? Where does Christianity justify any of this? A condemnation of a behavior does not amount to a justification for persecution. And the fact that slavery existed in the Bible also does not amount to a justification of it. > Every religion has it's contradictions, Islam isnt > special here. And What is the exact wording the koran uses? Are you > sure you are interpreting it correctly? That's the great thing about > any religious writing, its "divine inspiration" but then man is left > to decipher it's meaning.... If Islam is going to accept the authority of the Christian gospels, it does not then have the right to contradict its most fundamental claims. Claiming that every religion has its contradictions does not make it so. Islam defeats itself on *it's own* terms. I can just see it now, everybody is going to jump in with their list of 101 bible contradictions. I've been there and done that, folks. You know, maybe we ought to treat the Bible just like any other piece of literature, and if two passages *can* be interpreted in such a way as to make them not blatantly contradictory, maybe we ought to accept that interpretation, eh? Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 10:41:29 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B1AB37B400 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 10:41:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D376943E42 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 10:41:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g89HfFGd019396; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 10:41:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g89HfFgo019390; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 10:41:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 10:41:15 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Lawrence Sica Cc: Giorgos Keramidas , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <1D9E168A-C38F-11D6-8C5E-000393A335A2@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <20020909103923.B9219-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Lawrence Sica wrote: > >>> An understanding of the characteristics of mutation in virrii, and > >>> the development of new vaccines are not at all dependent on the > >>> theory of evolution. Mutations != evolution. > >> > >> On the very contrary. Evolution can only go forth through mutation. > >> Please do read Darwin's ``Origin of the Species'' again. > > > > Ahem. Evolution *requires* mutations to function, i.e. is *driven* > > by mutations. But the fact that mutations occur does not prove > > evolution. Mutations and evolution are two different things. > > > > Mutation is a mechanism of evolution. Evolution is the process. One > could make the leap of faith that since we mutate over time and these > mutations change the species we evolve... This is just what I am trying to get people to admit, that evolution requires tremendous leaps of faith. Now if you could see that it is also irrational, my job would be done. Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 10:47:37 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDD1437B400 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 10:47:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3345E43E3B for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 10:47:33 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g89HlRGd021643; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 10:47:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g89HlR4u021640; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 10:47:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 10:47:27 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Lawrence Sica Cc: Terry Lambert , Joshua Lee , , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <4C19F70A-C38F-11D6-8C5E-000393A335A2@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <20020909104131.K9219-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Lawrence Sica wrote: > On Saturday, September 7, 2002, at 04:10 PM, Neal E. Westfall wrote: > > >>> Okay, then lets stop pretending that creation is "unscientific" while > >>> evolution is "scientific". Neither one of them can be falsified, so > >>> either *both* of them are scientific, or neither of them are. You > >>> can't have your cake and eat it too. If you claim an explanation > >>> must also be "naturalistic", I charge you with providing a > >>> justification for such arbitrariness. > >> > >> I guess we can keep on calling the currently accepted scientific > >> theory "evolution", even though that's not the correct name for it. > >> > >> With that in mind, the methods you use judge one theory vs. another > >> are: > >> > >> 1) Are the theories predictive? > > > > Evolution is not, as it relies on chance. Chance, by definition, > > is unpredictable. > > > > If you take a step back far enough those random chances become very > predicateable. Read up on chaos theory and how randomness works. Chaos theory itself is misnamed, and the implication that predictability can arise from randomness is a contradiction. If something is predictable, it is not random, nor chaotic. All chaos theory shows is that what people previously assumed to be chaotic (due to our inability to account for all the minute factors) is actually not chaotic at all. Chaos theory is only intelligible if you introduce a controlling factor that gets real close to sounding something like the Christian doctrine of God's Providence. Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 10:59:59 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9E3037B401 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 10:59:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from proxy.centtech.com (moat.centtech.com [206.196.95.10]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F77F43E6E for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 10:59:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from anderson@centtech.com) Received: from sprint.centtech.com (sprint.centtech.com [10.177.173.31]) by proxy.centtech.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g89HxhY16081; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 12:59:43 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by sprint.centtech.com (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) id g89HxhL25746; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 12:59:43 -0500 (CDT) Received: from centtech.com (electron [204.177.173.173]) by sprint.centtech.com (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g89Hxdo25739; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 12:59:39 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <3D7CE138.7090406@centtech.com> Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 12:58:16 -0500 From: Eric Anderson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i386; en-US; rv:1.0rc2) Gecko/20020513 Netscape/7.0b1 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Lawrence Sica , Terry Lambert , Joshua Lee , dave@jetcafe.org, chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020909104131.K9219-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Neal E. Westfall wrote: >>If you take a step back far enough those random chances become very >>predicateable. Read up on chaos theory and how randomness works. > > > Chaos theory itself is misnamed, and the implication that predictability > can arise from randomness is a contradiction. If something is > predictable, it is not random, nor chaotic. All chaos theory shows is > that what people previously assumed to be chaotic (due to our inability > to account for all the minute factors) is actually not chaotic at all. > Chaos theory is only intelligible if you introduce a controlling factor > that gets real close to sounding something like the Christian doctrine > of God's Providence. What?? I've tried to ignore most of this thread, but this is hilarious.. Nothing is random.. Why is it that some who have strong religious beliefs often say that anything that is not explainable or understandable in THEIR eyes, must be a God's work? Instead of possibly learning what others have learned, they assume they "know all" and leave it in their religions hands to answer. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 11:20:55 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC95137B400; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:20:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74F2243E6E; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:20:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g89IKmGd049330; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:20:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g89IKmNb049324; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:20:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:20:47 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: George Reid Cc: Terry Lambert , Juli Mallett , Joshua Lee , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <20020909020508.A2152@FreeBSD.org> Message-ID: <20020909104805.F9219-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org George, I wonder if you are truly interested in this subject. Are you willing to listen if I can offer you resolutions to these supposed contradictions? Don't you think that we ought to give the Bible the benefit of the doubt, and interpret it in such a way as to not make it blatantly contradict itself if possible? Isn't that they way we would treat just about any other historical or literary document? More to the point, does context have any relevence when interpreting Biblical passages, not to mention the fact that God speaks to us in anthropomorphic language? Moreover, are you at all familiar with the science of textual criticism? The doctrine of infallibility does not preclude the possibility of copyist errors, and the science of textual criticism allows us to piece together what was probably originally meant in the cases of such texts as II Kings 8:26 vis a vis II Chronicles 22:2. For example, the NASB translates both texts as 22 years. The discrepency is probably most likely due to a copyist error rather than an intentional contradiction. The similarity of the numerical letters (bm) forty-two, and (bk) twenty-two lend credence to this, as well as the fact that some copies of the Septuagint and Syriac and Arabic versions read twenty-two in both passages. Don't you think this is a reasonable explanation, instead of insisting on a contradiction? On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, George Reid wrote: > On Sun, Sep 08, 2002 at 05:46:00PM -0700, Neal E. Westfall wrote: > > [Bogus From:, see below] > > > In addition, Islam falsifies itself, since the Koran recognizes > > the Torah and the Christian scriptures as true revelations from God, yet > > claims that Christ did not raise from the dead. The Koran contradicts > > itself. > > The Bible contradicts itself: > > Malachi 3:6 "For I am the Lord; I change not." > Exodus 32:14 "And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do > unto his people." > > Exodus 34:6-7 "...The Lord God, merciful and gracious,...that will by no > means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the > children..." > Ezekiel 18:20 "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father." > > James 1:13 "...God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." > Genesis 22:1 "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt > Abraham." > > John 8:14 "Though I bear witness of myself, yet my witness is true." > John 5:31 "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true." > > John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time." > Genesis 32:30 "For I have seen God face to face." > > II Kings 8:26 "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign." > II Chronicles 22:2 "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign." > > II Samuel 6:23 "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto > the day of her death." > II Samuel 21:8 "...the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul." > > This thread has degenerated to the point of being uninteresting and mildly > offensive to me. Academic theological debates interest me: arguments > about the One True Religion do not. Hence I have removed myself from the > thread. Please don't re-add me. Plunk. Why be so offended? Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 11:24:54 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC4DB37B47C; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:24:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4479043E4A; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:24:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g89IOlGd051511; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:24:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g89IOkvB051507; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:24:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:24:46 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Dave Hayes Cc: Juli Mallett , Joshua Lee , , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <200209090141.g891fd125117@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Message-ID: <20020909112147.D9219-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Dave Hayes wrote: > Neal E Westfall writes: > > There is a place for a sense of humor, of course. But I like to keep > > a distinction between having a sense of humor and trivializing life. > > Unfortunately, our life -is- trivial. To think otherwise extends the > ego beyond the bounds of where we can usefully interact with God. ;) If you actually believed that you would stop trying to convince people that life is trivial. If life is trivial why should you care that I don't think life is trivial? Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 11:31: 5 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52BFF37B400 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:31:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA58243E42 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:31:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g89IV2Gd063903; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:31:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g89IV1hT063882; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:31:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:31:01 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Dave Hayes Cc: Terry Lambert , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <200209090147.g891lx125265@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Message-ID: <20020909112611.C9219-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Dave Hayes wrote: > > Okay, then lets stop pretending that creation is "unscientific" while > > evolution is "scientific". Neither one of them can be falsified, so > > either *both* of them are scientific, or neither of them are. > > The point is missed that perhaps *both* are right. It is not far > afield to consider that God created the notion of evolution and this > process is how He made the world. Perhaps. Oh the other hand, if at any point it contradicts what God has revealed about Himself, it would have to be rejected. There are in fact many Christians who believe in theistic evolution, including the late Princeton theologian B.B. Warfield. He was quite conservative, but he thought evolution provided a great teleological argument for for the existence of God. Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 11:33:19 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D755437B400 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:33:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net (hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.22]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C23143E6A for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:33:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0088.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.88] helo=mindspring.com) by hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17oTLQ-0005lC-00; Mon, 09 Sep 2002 11:33:08 -0700 Message-ID: <3D7CE928.87E3DF3E@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 11:32:08 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Lawrence Sica , Giorgos Keramidas , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020909103923.B9219-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Lawrence Sica wrote: > > Mutation is a mechanism of evolution. Evolution is the process. One > > could make the leap of faith that since we mutate over time and these > > mutations change the species we evolve... > > This is just what I am trying to get people to admit, that evolution > requires tremendous leaps of faith. Now if you could see that it is also > irrational, my job would be done. The problem with this idea is that we all freely admit that evolution is a *theory*. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 11:40:42 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B34737B401 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:40:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D45C343E6A for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:40:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g89IeUGd077587; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:40:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g89IeUIi077575; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:40:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:40:30 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Terry Lambert Cc: Giorgos Keramidas , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <3D7CD69E.E585EBBE@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20020909113703.N9219-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > > I think it fails the simplicity test, and it fails the predictive > > > test. > > > > > > Your theory requires additional axioms that are not required by > > > the previous theory, > > > > Yes, but *your* theory requires that one set aside the law of > > non-contradiction. Self-creation is a logical impossibility. > > It doesn't require this, though I fail to see the paradox that's > created by ignoring the "law of non-contradiction". I guess the > question you raise when you say "Self-creation is a logical > impossibility" is "Who created God?". 8-). Inherent in the question is a false assumption. God, by definition is uncreated. 8-) > > It was never intended to predict such things, only the reason for > > the prohibition of certain taboos within the context of OT Israel > > at a particular point in redemptive history. Your attempt to give > > another reason is a subtle begging of the question and rationalization > > to support your rejection of God. > > I think that if I were to wash my car, you would take it as > a "rejection of God"... Actually, it would be confirmation that deep down in your heart of hearts, you really do know Him, since to wash your car presupposes the uniformity of nature, and the uniformity of nature is only intelligible on a Christian worldview. 8-) Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 11:53:56 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3BB937B400 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:53:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net (hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.22]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC46443E4A for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:53:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0088.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.88] helo=mindspring.com) by hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17oTEg-00026h-00; Mon, 09 Sep 2002 11:26:10 -0700 Message-ID: <3D7CE784.BAD01B19@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 11:25:08 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Joshua Lee , dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020909092446.O9219-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > You haven't justified the usage of the term "selection". There can be > no selection at all unless you appeal to a theistic worldview. Selection > implies intentionality, which is strictly "not allowed" by naturalistic > presuppositions. See other posting. > > > > 2) Of the theories, which is simpler? > > > > > > Define "simpler." Self-creation sounds like a pretty hairy thesis > > > to me. Please explain. > > > > It has one less premise. > > Yes, but the "simpler" explanation is a logical contradiction. I fail to see how you reach this conclusion. > So basically what you are saying is that an absurdity is preferrable > to supernatural creation. I fail to see the absurdity. Further, I fail to see how any creation precludes supernatural involvement. Further, you are effectively claiming that the existance of creation is physical evidence of God, and we know the Bible specifically claims that God does not offer physical evidence, since if He did, faith would not be necessary. Further, physical evidence of God is a cotradiction of the doctorine of Free Will. > This doesn't prove anything except that there are evolutionists who > believe that sex is a result of evolution, and that you know how to > type three words into a search engine. So what? Can you direct me > to a specific link that addresses the problems I outlined earlier? > Barring that, you can explain in your own words how sexual organs > could have evolved, surmounting such tremendous odds. Randomly, and kept as a result of being advantageous to the survival of the genes. > > The same reason they would want to post to technical mailing lists > > about creationism? > > -chat is a "technical" mailing list? Well, "-chat", wherever that's hosted, probably isn't, but "FreeBSD-chat" is arguably FreeBSD related, at least in extremis. 8-). > > > By the way, since you deleted it, I'll mention it again. The model > > > the Constitution was based on was existing state constitutions, which > > > were in turn based on the model of presbyterian church government. > > > > I didn't think that it was relevent, and didn't want to argue > > the Magna Carta, or the fact that the state constitutions of the > > first thirteen colonies were negotiated as part of the process of > > balancing Federal vs. States rights. > > Of course you didn't think it relevent. How convenient. It's not a matter of convenience, it's a matter of keeping to a single stream of argument in a single message thread. If you want to start a seperate thread, feel free to make a seperate posting. Be aware that I will probably just cite the Federalist Papers, read one response, and then, if that response is not cogent, ignore the rest of the thread. > > > > If you try to teach the creationist story in a secular school, I > > > > expect you will likely be fired, because from a scientific > > > > perspective, the creationist theory fails the both the simplicity > > > > and predictive tests, when compared to the evolutionist theory. > > > > > > Oh really? Please explain. Just because you say so doesn't make > > > it so. > > > > It requires an additional premise, therefore it is less simple > > than the "evolution" theory, and it is less predictive than the > > "evolution" theory. > > The additional premise is required in order to avoid absurdity. According to you. Look, I can personally make your theological arguments better than you can, and I can do it in a context of the validity of the right of secular science to come up with theories which contradict religious doctorine, particularly when the results are to be taught in secular schools sponsored by a secular state. I don't understand what you are arguing, apart from trying to weasel people down to the teaching of religious doctorinal theory as some sort of equivalence to a theory derived from the same principles, and meeting the same strict tests, as the theiry it claims equivalence to. How about we start by you stating that you think creationism is a theory, and that you are willing to replace that theory, should a more rigorous one come along? > > > Anytime you introduce randomness into a system, it doesn't > > > *increase* predictability, it decreases it. > > > > This is incorrect; it goes against what we know of large number > > theory. It's like the multiplication of two random values which > > occurs in /dev/random, which sucks, because large number theory > > tells us that the result will be less random, not more random. > > Please explain how randomness gives rise to order. This is a > contradiction. No, it's not, but I hardly have time to educate you to the level of a PhD in mathematics, with a field emphasis on chaos and large number thory, particularly if you are going to approach it as an adversarial process. > As you've noted, /dev/random is not a good analogy, since it > isn't truly random. This is why no computer could ever be used > to "prove" the existence of chance. It's pseudo random. Just like "chance". I just have a particular problem with the application of large number theory in /dev/random. 8-). > > > And since the primary mechanism of evolution is chance, evolution > > > cannot be said to be predictable at all. How does evolution overcome > > > this problem? Please explain. > > > > By not being defined the way you appear to think it is. 8-). > > The primary mechanism of evolution is selection, not chance. > > So what you are saying is that chance has nothing to do with > evolution. Selection suggests intentionality that is strictly > off-limits on a naturalistic explanation. Let me disabuse you of that interpretation. Selection does not imply someone to select. It doesn't preclude it, but from our understanding, it is the physical laws which govern selection. "God is the sum total of all physical laws" -- Albert Einstein > The problem with this is the so-called "random" inputs. Unless > you can show that they are truly random, such an algorithm proves > nothing at all. So it turns out that your "random" input is not > input at all, but output. Oh, and by the way, what are those > selection criteria? If your selection criteria is intelligently > designed into the experiment, it would seem to undermine the > whole thing by begging the question. THERE IS NO SELECTION > CRITERIA IN NATURE, unless you want to say that it was designed > into the system, which forces you into a theistic worldview. Let's go back to a random mutation that results in an organsim capable of breating Chlorine, but incapable of breathing Oxygen. The selection criteria in nature -- which you claim doesn't exist -- is the ability to breathe Oxygen in a 21%/78%/1% mix with Nitrogen and other trace gasses. Such a mutation is selected against by the organism dying. By insisting that selection has a "first mover", you Deify nature. I don't have a problem with you being a Deist, but you probably ought to examine your own nature before you try to examine that of others, and find them wanting in your eyes. > > > What exactly do you mean by "secular"? You mean "non-religious"? > > > > 1 a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal > > b : not overtly or specifically religious c : not > > ecclesiastical or clerical > > > > -- not the same thing as non-religious. > > Of course, this definition begs the question, doesn't it, since the > whole question is as to the ultimate source of the worldly or temporal > concerns. Evolution is an attempt to give an account of that, and as > such has crossed over into the realm of religion and philosophy. Why > is it so hard to admit that? Because evolution ignores the need for God. Which is what really annoys you about it. It doesn't take a position on whether or not there is a God or there isn't a God. It's not an athiestic world view, nor is it a theistic world view. It's orthogonal to the consideration of the issue of whether or not there is God. Evolution does not comment on God, at all. I'll fully admit that it is in the realm of philosophy -- all science is in the realm of philosophy. "PhD" means "Doctor of Philosophy" (when translated to English). That doesn't make it a part of the realm of religion, unless you happen to cleave to a *particular* philosophy that has as one of its tenets that it is required to do so. The "and" in "religion and philosophy" was implied by your own prejudices. > > > Why do the schools force naturalism down people's throats then? > > > > Because it is able to successfully manipulate the material world > > in useful ways. > > And this is your justification for indoctrinating children with > naturalism? Why not play on a level playing field? Are you > afraid they might actually think for themselves? No, we are afraid that they will be about as useful to species survival as the people who teach "new math" or "outcome based education", where it's more important to respect the individual's opinions than it is to maintain a working society. 8-). There's nothing that actually forces this so-called "indoctrination" which you find offensive. Because the state recognizes you freedom of religion -- your freedom to turn the "and" in "religion and philosphy" into an equivalence relationship -- the state permits you to teach your children whatever you want to teach them, in private schools. > > If you want a creation theory taught in secular schools, come up > > with a version of the theory that is either simpler or more > > predictive than "evolution" theory. > > Many have, but the evolutionary dogmatists won't even look at it. > They are so entrenched in trying for force their evolutionary > dogmatism down people's throats that they refuse to even look into > the telescope, to use an apt analogy. 8-) That's simply not true. The failure to displace evolutionary theory is based solely on the inability of creationist dogmatists to produce a theory that better fits the fitness function than evolutionary theory. In fact, evolutionary theory has changed a number of times. It will change again in the future. Your putative blind defenders of the status quo would act against those changes, in the same way that they would act against a sufficiently explanatory creationist theory. Yet the changes have occurred anyway. This places the blame not on defenders of the status quo, but on your theorists, who failed to be as convincing as those who succeeded in the same putative environment of intellectual inetia. > > So many religions are based on what are in fact scientific ideas > > which have been falsified. You'd think that at least one religion > > would be willing to concede that it doesn't know God's mind well > > enough to say that He might be the selector in the process of > > natural selection, or that He is capable of working His will > > through His choice of natural laws. > > At last! We have an admission that evolution is unworkable without > moving into a theistic worldview. No. Merely that it is representable in a theistic intellectual space, by someone who insists that everything exist within a theistic intellectual space at all times. > But then, what is necessary when people start talking about God? To let them talk? > Is it permissable for everybody to just start wildly speculating > about God? Apparently so... 8-). > Or must we rely on God to tell us what he is like and how he has > created the universe? Not unless we want to contradict the doctorine of Free Will, which many religions hold to be sacrosanct. It's safer to not get involved in theistic arguments, except as necessary to point out that, by making a scientific argument, one is not necessarily making a theistic argument. I'm sorry that evolutionary theory challenges your religious doctrine. At one time, your religion accepted the Earth-centric Ptolemeyic model of the universe as true, and incorporated the idea into the religious doctorine of a human-centric special creation. Now it no longer clings to that idea. In my opinion, it is best if religion stays out of the adoption of scientific theory as doctorine. Scientific theories are, inevitably, replaced with new theories, and they are unsuitable subjects for doctorine. If a religion demands that the universe was created by God, let it do so without attempting to tell God how He did it, and allow people the intellectual freedom to speculate on the topic. It may be the reason the people are there in the first place. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 11:55:49 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDFAE37B400 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:55:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37B4943E4A for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:55:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g89IsOGd094610; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:54:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g89IsNOb094584; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:54:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:54:22 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Terry Lambert Cc: Giorgos Keramidas , Joshua Lee , , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <3D7CDA95.2D2EE45C@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20020909114207.U9219-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > > Evolution in this case is merely a useful theory, in that its > > > application gives predictive results in the problem domain of > > > *what* mutations will survive the ambient selection pressures. > > > > So explain to me again what "selection" is in the context of a > > non-theistic worldview. > > I guess I have to ask "why ``again'', wasn't ``once'' enough?". > > Natural selection:=09The process by which individuals=92 inherited > =09=09=09needs and abilities are more or less closely > =09=09=09matched to resources available in their > =09=09=09environment, giving those with greater > =09=09=09"fitness" a better chance of survival and > =09=09=09reproduction. So what is the criteria for determining "fitness"? Those who survive? But then this just leads us into a logical tautology, whereby the mechanism for evolution amounts to "the survival of the survivors." > > *Who* does the "selection"? If nobody does the selection, why keep > > calling it selection? > > Because it's the technically correct word to use to describe the > operation of a fitness function. How is "fitness" determined? > > Why is the reification of nature justified in order to save > > evolutionary theory? > > Nature *is* concrete, *not* abstract. There is no reifying of > nature happening here. You can only reify an *abstract* thing. Sorry. Wrong word. What I meant was "personify." > > "Selection" implies intentionality, > > To people without a complex vocabulary. Perhaps it was a bad choice > to use the compound word "natural selection", since it permits those > people to make this mistake. Actually it is an oxymoron invented by natural biologists to obscure the fact (from themselves, as well as others) that evolutionary theory implies an absurdity. > > something which according to evolutionists is not necessary to > > explain the highly complex forms of life that have "arisen". > > It's not. > > > If we use Occam's razor to shave off all the philosophical and > > religious baggage from evolution, what is left except an assertion > > that life spontaneously arose "by chance"? > > With theologians still able to claim that God controls chance, of > course. Actaully theologians would never admit to such an absurd concept. If controlled by God, it is not random at all. Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 11:58:49 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0577C37B400 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:58:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C75243E4A for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:58:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g89IwZGd098779; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:58:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g89IwYOG098776; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:58:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:58:33 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Eric Anderson Cc: Lawrence Sica , Terry Lambert , Joshua Lee , , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <3D7CE138.7090406@centtech.com> Message-ID: <20020909115456.M9219-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Eric Anderson wrote: > Neal E. Westfall wrote: > >>If you take a step back far enough those random chances become very > >>predicateable. Read up on chaos theory and how randomness works. > > > > > > Chaos theory itself is misnamed, and the implication that predictability > > can arise from randomness is a contradiction. If something is > > predictable, it is not random, nor chaotic. All chaos theory shows is > > that what people previously assumed to be chaotic (due to our inability > > to account for all the minute factors) is actually not chaotic at all. > > Chaos theory is only intelligible if you introduce a controlling factor > > that gets real close to sounding something like the Christian doctrine > > of God's Providence. > > > What?? I've tried to ignore most of this thread, but this is hilarious.. > > Nothing is random.. > > Why is it that some who have strong religious beliefs often say that > anything that is not explainable or understandable in THEIR eyes, must > be a God's work? Instead of possibly learning what others have learned, > they assume they "know all" and leave it in their religions hands to answer. Your argument is a double-edged sword. Evolutionists do the very thing you accuse religious people of, except instead of God, they call it "chance". I would like for just one person to explain exactly what "chance" is. But it's even worse than this, because unlike God, chance cannot account for rationality, science, logic, and all the rest. Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 12: 1:47 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46E8A37B400 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 12:01:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFC8443E42 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 12:01:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g89J0LGd099777; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 12:00:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g89J0K5c099758; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 12:00:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 12:00:20 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Terry Lambert Cc: Lawrence Sica , Giorgos Keramidas , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <3D7CE928.87E3DF3E@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20020909115857.F9219-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Lawrence Sica wrote: > > > Mutation is a mechanism of evolution. Evolution is the process. One > > > could make the leap of faith that since we mutate over time and these > > > mutations change the species we evolve... > > > > This is just what I am trying to get people to admit, that evolution > > requires tremendous leaps of faith. Now if you could see that it is also > > irrational, my job would be done. > > The problem with this idea is that we all freely admit that > evolution is a *theory*. That is completely irrational. Yet, to reject it would imply something that evolutionists just cannot bear to accept. Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 12: 5:52 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 856D637B400 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 12:05:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from proxy.centtech.com (moat.centtech.com [206.196.95.10]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5D0A43E3B for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 12:05:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from anderson@centtech.com) Received: from sprint.centtech.com (sprint.centtech.com [10.177.173.31]) by proxy.centtech.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g89J5fY17971; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 14:05:41 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by sprint.centtech.com (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) id g89J5fM01476; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 14:05:41 -0500 (CDT) Received: from centtech.com (electron [204.177.173.173]) by sprint.centtech.com (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g89J5bo01469; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 14:05:37 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <3D7CF0AB.3000709@centtech.com> Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 14:04:11 -0500 From: Eric Anderson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i386; en-US; rv:1.0rc2) Gecko/20020513 Netscape/7.0b1 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Lawrence Sica , Terry Lambert , Joshua Lee , dave@jetcafe.org, chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020909115456.M9219-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Neal E. Westfall wrote: >> >>What?? I've tried to ignore most of this thread, but this is hilarious.. >> >>Nothing is random.. >> >>Why is it that some who have strong religious beliefs often say that >>anything that is not explainable or understandable in THEIR eyes, must >>be a God's work? Instead of possibly learning what others have learned, >>they assume they "know all" and leave it in their religions hands to answer. > > > Your argument is a double-edged sword. Evolutionists do the very thing > you accuse religious people of, except instead of God, they call it > "chance". I would like for just one person to explain exactly what > "chance" is. But it's even worse than this, because unlike God, chance > cannot account for rationality, science, logic, and all the rest. I didn't say anything about chance.. It isn't chance, it is science. A slow mouse usually gets eaten by the cat before the fast mouse, the fast mouse continues to live and procreate, and makes more mice like it (it is fast, so its offspring could also be fast). Etc, and so on. It's just like anything else - companies, software, employees, etc. Some of these are bad examples, but you see what I am saying. I'm willing to accept that I may not know every reason for every action, and therefore I won't simply toss it off on religion to explain it to me. Be careful who you take as "Evolutionists" and act like they know what is going on. Some do, some don't. "Origin of Species" will definitely clear things up, but so will a little simple minded logic. Anyway, it's an interesting thing to think about, and of course, no one will convince anyone the Earth is round if they all believe it is flat, right? Eric To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 12: 8:22 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B3DB37B400 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 12:08:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from queasy.outpost.co.nz (outpost-1.inspire.net.nz [203.79.88.113]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4C25D43E42 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 12:08:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from crh@outpost.co.nz) Received: (qmail 28123 invoked from network); 9 Sep 2002 19:08:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO outpost.co.nz) (192.168.1.199) by outpost-4.inspire.net.nz with SMTP; 9 Sep 2002 19:08:15 -0000 Message-ID: <3D7CF19F.4BACB9EA@outpost.co.nz> Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 07:08:15 +1200 From: Craig Harding Organization: Outpost Digital Media Ltd X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200209090350.g893oV125883@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> <3D7C4A2F.28BD7DE8@mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert wrote: > Are you maybe unaware of what people mean when they say "Schelling > point"? I've been enjoying this thread, but this could be the funniest comment yet! Terry, you say "what people mean" as if anyone on this list might have heard anyone other than you use the term. :) Which I strongly suspect is not the case. -- C. -- Craig H. crh@outpost.co.nz http://www.outpost.co.nz Outpost Digital Media Ltd ICQ# 26701833 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 12:12: 3 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACBB037B400 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 12:12:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lariat.org (lariat.org [63.229.157.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A1C943E6A for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 12:12:01 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from brett@lariat.org) Received: from mustang.lariat.org (IDENT:ppp1000.lariat.org@lariat.org [63.229.157.2]) by lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA10354 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:11:51 -0600 (MDT) X-message-flag: Warning! Use of Microsoft Outlook is dangerous and makes your system susceptible to Internet worms. Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020909130605.03443ba0@localhost> X-Sender: brett@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 13:11:45 -0600 To: chat@FreeBSD.ORG From: Brett Glass Subject: Why did my hard disk fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org My computer just displayed a strange dialogue box. It says: +----------------------------------------------------------+ | Oy'm full.... Oy can't eat another byte.... | | | | [QUIT] [ACCEPT A WAFER-THIN MESSAGE FROM FREEBSD-CHAT] | +----------------------------------------------------------+ Which button should I push? --Brett To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 12:24:16 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E184737B400 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 12:24:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net (flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.232]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FC1A43E3B for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 12:24:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0088.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.88] helo=mindspring.com) by flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17oU8g-00011q-00; Mon, 09 Sep 2002 12:24:02 -0700 Message-ID: <3D7CF512.ED0C4E8B@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 12:22:58 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Giorgos Keramidas , Joshua Lee , dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020909114207.U9219-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > Natural selection: The process by which individuals=92 inherited > > needs and abilities are more or less closely > > matched to resources available in their > > environment, giving those with greater > > "fitness" a better chance of survival and > > reproduction. > = > So what is the criteria for determining "fitness"? Those who > survive? But then this just leads us into a logical tautology, > whereby the mechanism for evolution amounts to "the survival of > the survivors." "The survival of those best suited to survive", actually. > > > *Who* does the "selection"? If nobody does the selection, why keep= > > > calling it selection? > > > > Because it's the technically correct word to use to describe the > > operation of a fitness function. > = > How is "fitness" determined? As an attribute of an organism, it is determined by suitability to its environment. > > > Why is the reification of nature justified in order to save > > > evolutionary theory? > > > > Nature *is* concrete, *not* abstract. There is no reifying of > > nature happening here. You can only reify an *abstract* thing. > = > Sorry. Wrong word. What I meant was "personify." You probably meant anthropormorphise, as in "endow it with attributes normally associated with humans". The answer is that nature is not anthropomorphised (or personified) by having the power to select, so long as it does not exhibit will in the process. > > > "Selection" implies intentionality, > > > > To people without a complex vocabulary. Perhaps it was a bad choice > > to use the compound word "natural selection", since it permits those > > people to make this mistake. > = > Actually it is an oxymoron invented by natural biologists to obscure > the fact (from themselves, as well as others) that evolutionary theory > implies an absurdity. Your internal logic is almost endearing. 8-). > > With theologians still able to claim that God controls chance, of > > course. > = > Actaully theologians would never admit to such an absurd concept. If > controlled by God, it is not random at all. Alternately, they would claim that everything was controlled by God, and that randomness is an absurdity. As you have done. 8-). -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 12:29:17 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0346037B400 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 12:29:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net (flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.232]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D453743E86 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 12:28:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0088.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.88] helo=mindspring.com) by flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17oUDL-0001OE-00; Mon, 09 Sep 2002 12:28:51 -0700 Message-ID: <3D7CF633.187527E@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 12:27:47 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Lawrence Sica , Giorgos Keramidas , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020909115857.F9219-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > > This is just what I am trying to get people to admit, that evolution > > > requires tremendous leaps of faith. Now if you could see that it is also > > > irrational, my job would be done. > > > > The problem with this idea is that we all freely admit that > > evolution is a *theory*. > > That is completely irrational. Yet, to reject it would imply something > that evolutionists just cannot bear to accept. Why is it "completely irrational"? All it amounts to is that we are willing to acknowledge that we don't know everything. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 12:29:50 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09B2737B400; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 12:29:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9760443E65; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 12:29:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g89JTi133549; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 12:29:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209091929.g89JTi133549@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Juli Mallett , Joshua Lee , tlambert2@mindspring.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 12:29:39 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Neal E Westfall writes: > On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Dave Hayes wrote: >> Neal E Westfall writes: >> > There is a place for a sense of humor, of course. But I like to keep >> > a distinction between having a sense of humor and trivializing life. >> >> Unfortunately, our life -is- trivial. To think otherwise extends the >> ego beyond the bounds of where we can usefully interact with God. ;) > > If you actually believed that you would stop trying to convince people > that life is trivial. What is this assumption that, if I say something in a debate, I am trying to convince people of it? Can't we just be arguing to express our worldview? > If life is trivial why should you care that I don't think life is > trivial? I don't care, really. ;) ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< Nasrudin, starving with hunger, went to a cafe and began filling his mouth with food using both hands. "Why eat with two hands, Mulla?" "Because I haven't got three." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 12:38:35 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E52437B400 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 12:38:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDF4143E6A for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 12:38:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g89JcP133606; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 12:38:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209091938.g89JcP133606@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 12:38:20 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> > It's a measure of shared cultural understanding, or, in >> > more technical terms, the set of lowest entropy equalibria. >> >> So, the people in the stock market share a Schelling point? Why >> couldn't you just say "community"? > > Because it's not the same thing as a Schelling point. If I had > meant "community", I would have used the word "community". What > I meant was "Schelling point", so I said "Schelling point". > [...examples...] > As you can see, a Schelling point is a place that "everybody knows", > but which was not arrived at by explicit agreement, but rather on a > cutural basis of lowest mutal entropy. Hmm, I prefer to call these "localized consensual realities". Thing is, they are still arbitrary. ;) >> > As such, it is never arbitrary. >> >> Cultures are arbitrary, entropy is arbitrary, it's all arbitrary. ;) > > I'm surprised that you can ever get any useful work done; perhaps > its because of an arbitrary perception of "useful"? ;^). Then there's the arbitrary perception of "work". I prefer to call it "play" myself. ;) >> >> > Professional: characterized by or conforming to the technical or >> >> > ethical standards of a profession. >> >> >> >> Look at the definition of "profession", then get back to me. >> > >> > Luckily for me, I didn't use that word. >> >> Yes you did, it's in your quote above. > > That's Webster's dictionary using the word, not me. I used the > word "professionally". By indirection you used the word, since you a) typed it and b) referred to it to define "professional". >> With most people, I would do the following. Take your argument that >> "it is unethical not to care". This reduces to whether you feel that >> allowing someone to do something unethical is the same as actually >> doing something unethical. Normally I would point this out, and point >> out that I think these two things are different. Attempting to impose >> ethicality on someone may be just as unethical as being >> unethical. There are numerous examples to illustrate this and >> most people would just agree to disagree after they had been >> presented. >> >> This won't work for your case. > > Thanks! I'm glad my behaviour isn't ARBITRARY... 8-). It is. BTW, since everything is arbitrary, "arbitrary" is meaningless. ;) >> That's because it's not enough to argue on the surface. I have to >> develop a linear space, assert my propositions as axioms on this >> space, then prove this space can exist. Even once I do that, you are >> so attached to the answer being a certain way, you'll find ways to >> argue with each and every proposition I make. Now it's hard to resist >> classifying you as one of those arrogant scientific worshippers who >> refuse to listen to you unless you speak linear algebra. However, you >> are dead set in your ways, and I've seen the lengths that the human >> mind will go to rationalize their behavior. You can rationalize >> anything if you try hard enough. > > That's an incorrect caracterization of me. Of course it is, to you. > You fail to grasp that rationalization is antithetical to my world > view. ROFL! From beginning to end this entire diatribe is one big rationalization. >> A mind in a state such as yours accepts no external input. It merely >> tears everything apart as much as it can, attempting to discredit what >> it cannot understand. > > Only that which can not be proven, independently of understanding. And you hold the keys to decide what "can" and "cannot be" proven. Beautiful. ;) >> Thus, the correct way to behave to you is to be irrational, in a >> rational way. =) > That's the way you are trying to behave, I'd agree, but it's not > the correct way to behave, if you are to make a convincing argument, You presume I want to convince you. > nor is it possible to be truly irrational in a rational way, without > the flaws in your model being externally visible to those who do not > share it. The flaws help to convince you that the model is irrational. ;) >> > It's an apt analogy: "just ignore input you do not wish to observe". >> >> Heh. That's what I've been saying for years. We aren't dealing with >> experimental data here, just trolls. If you can do that with me, how >> come you can't do this with trolls? > > Exactly. You solution is the same as a childs, and works about as > well, overall, which is to say "not at all, as a long term approach". I thought the simplest solution to a problem was the best? ;) ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< If, from time to time, you give up expectation...then you will be able to perceive what it is that you are getting. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 12:39:37 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A02D37B400 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 12:39:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from queasy.outpost.co.nz (outpost-1.inspire.net.nz [203.79.88.113]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C7FC943E3B for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 12:39:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from crh@outpost.co.nz) Received: (qmail 28250 invoked from network); 9 Sep 2002 19:39:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO outpost.co.nz) (192.168.1.199) by outpost-4.inspire.net.nz with SMTP; 9 Sep 2002 19:39:31 -0000 Message-ID: <3D7CF8F3.58F1F0C0@outpost.co.nz> Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 07:39:31 +1200 From: Craig Harding Organization: Outpost Digital Media Ltd X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why did my hard disk fail? References: <4.3.2.7.2.20020909130605.03443ba0@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Brett Glass wrote: > My computer just displayed a strange dialogue box. > It says: > > +----------------------------------------------------------+ > | Oy'm full.... Oy can't eat another byte.... | > | | > | [QUIT] [ACCEPT A WAFER-THIN MESSAGE FROM FREEBSD-CHAT] | > +----------------------------------------------------------+ > > Which button should I push? CLICK ON WAFER-THIN-MESSAGE!!!!! And turn on the video camera! -- C. -- Craig H. crh@outpost.co.nz Play OFP? http://ofp.bollocks.net.nz Outpost Digital Media Ltd ICQ# 26701833 http://www.outpost.co.nz To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 12:44:33 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4558237B40A for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 12:44:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5A3743E42 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 12:44:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g89Jgn133657; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 12:42:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209091942.g89Jgn133657@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Craig Harding Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 12:42:44 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Craig Harding writes: > Terry, you say "what people mean" as if anyone on this list might have > heard anyone other than you use the term. :) Which I strongly suspect is > not the case. It was obvious this was not the case when he started in on me... ;) Man I haven't had this much fun since the late 80s on USENET. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< The foolish reject what they see, not what they think; The wise reject what they think, not what they see... To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 12:55:23 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD19A37B400 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 12:55:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from m-net.arbornet.org (m-net.arbornet.org [209.142.209.161]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37EC543E3B for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 12:55:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from polytarp@m-net.arbornet.org) Received: from m-net.arbornet.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by m-net.arbornet.org (8.12.3/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g89JuajZ048913; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:56:36 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from polytarp@m-net.arbornet.org) Received: from localhost (polytarp@localhost) by m-net.arbornet.org (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) with ESMTP id g89JuasM048910; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:56:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:56:36 -0400 (EDT) From: pgreen To: Dave Hayes Cc: Terry Lambert , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <200209091938.g89JcP133606@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Message-ID: <20020909154656.H48089-100000@m-net.arbornet.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Dave Hayes wrote: > Terry Lambert writes: > > Dave Hayes wrote: > >> > It's a measure of shared cultural understanding, or, in Now, that's where you're wrong. You CAN"T measure entropy in relative terms. > >> > more technical terms, the set of lowest entropy equalibria. > >> > >> So, the people in the stock market share a Schelling point? Why > >> couldn't you just say "community"? Saying "community" brings a whole lot of words INAPPROPRIATE for the Stock Market. > > > > Because it's not the same thing as a Schelling point. If I had > > meant "community", I would have used the word "community". What > > I meant was "Schelling point", so I said "Schelling point". > > [...examples...] I would like some examples. > > As you can see, a Schelling point is a place that "everybody knows", Why don't you take the tip of this point, and sit on it. > > but which was not arrived at by explicit agreement, but rather on a It's an explicit PHENOMONAN only in that it can be observed; however it's NOT an "agreement". Your comparison is similar to saying, "I am, therefor I drink." It's PROBABLY true, but it doesn't HAVE to be true. > > cutural basis of lowest mutal entropy. > > Hmm, I prefer to call these "localized consensual realities". Thing > is, they are still arbitrary. ;) > "Consentual" reality? I think not, and that is not verisimilar. > >> > As such, it is never arbitrary. > >> > >> Cultures are arbitrary, entropy is arbitrary, it's all arbitrary. ;) > > > > I'm surprised that you can ever get any useful work done; perhaps > > its because of an arbitrary perception of "useful"? ;^). > > Then there's the arbitrary perception of "work". I prefer to call it > "play" myself. ;) > Now we're treading in the waters of Phantasmagoria. Which came first: the chicken or the agg? > >> >> > Professional: characterized by or conforming to the technical or > >> >> > ethical standards of a profession. > >> >> > >> >> Look at the definition of "profession", then get back to me. > >> > > >> > Luckily for me, I didn't use that word. > >> > >> Yes you did, it's in your quote above. > > > > That's Webster's dictionary using the word, not me. I used the > > word "professionally". > > By indirection you used the word, since you a) typed it and b) > referred to it to define "professional". > He may have copy and pasted it, gotten someone else to do it. > >> With most people, I would do the following. Take your argument that > >> "it is unethical not to care". This reduces to whether you feel that > >> allowing someone to do something unethical is the same as actually > >> doing something unethical. Normally I would point this out, and point > >> out that I think these two things are different. Attem No. > >> pting to impose > >> ethicality on someone may be just as unethical as being > >> unethical. There are numerous examples to illustrate this and > >> most people would just agree to disagree after they had been > >> presented. > >> > >> This won't work for your case. > > > > Thanks! I'm glad my behaviour isn't ARBITRARY... 8-). > > It is. > > BTW, since everything is arbitrary, "arbitrary" is meaningless. ;) > > >> That's because it's not enough to argue on the surface. I have to > >> develop a linear space, assert my propositions as axioms on this > >> space, then prove this space can exist. Even once I do that, you are > >> so attached to the answer being a certain way, you'll find ways to > >> argue with each and every proposition I make. Now it's hard to resist > >> classifying you as one of those arrogant scientific worshippers who > >> refuse to listen to you unless you speak linear algebra. However, you > >> are dead set in your ways, and I've seen the lengths that the human > >> mind will go to rationalize their behavior. You can rationalize > >> anything if you try hard enough. > > > > That's an incorrect caracterization of me. > > Of course it is, to you. > > > You fail to grasp that rationalization is antithetical to my world > > view. > First you argue that I am qarbitrary, and now you INSIST that I am part of a class system. > ROFL! From beginning to end this entire diatribe is one big > rationalization. > > >> A mind in a state such as yours accepts no external input. It merely > >> tears everything apart as much as it can, attempting to discredit what > >> it cannot understand. > > > > Only that which can not be proven, independently of understanding. > > And you hold the keys to decide what "can" and "cannot be" > proven. Beautiful. ;) > Listen, take your Star Wars philosophy BACK WHERE IT BELONGS. > >> Thus, the correct way to behave to you is to be irrational, in a > >> rational way. =) > > That's the way you are trying to behave, I'd agree, but it's not > > the correct way to behave, if you are to make a convincing argument, > > You presume I want to convince you. > What, do you think you're Yoda? > > nor is it possible to be truly irrational in a rational way, without > > the flaws in your model being extern LOL. Too much C? > > ally visible to those who do not > > share it. > > The flaws help to convince you that the model is irrational. ;) > > >> > It's an apt analogy: "just ignore input you do not wish to observe". > >> > >> Heh. That's what I've been saying for years. We aren't dealing with > >> experimental data here, just trolls. If you can do that with me, how > >> come you can't do this with trolls? > > > > Exactly. You solution is the same as a childs, and works about as > > well, overall, which is to say "not at all, as a long term approach". > > I thought the simplest solution to a problem was the best? ;) > ------ > Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org > >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< > > If, from time to time, you give up expectation...then you > will be able to perceive what it is that you are getting. > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message > pls...... i am romania....... To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 12:58:30 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4298137B400 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 12:58:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net (pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.122]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9939143E4A for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 12:57:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0088.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.88] helo=mindspring.com) by pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17oUf1-0002P9-00; Mon, 09 Sep 2002 12:57:27 -0700 Message-ID: <3D7CFCE7.DE93FDDB@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 12:56:23 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Craig Harding Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200209090350.g893oV125883@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> <3D7C4A2F.28BD7DE8@mindspring.com> <3D7CF19F.4BACB9EA@outpost.co.nz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Craig Harding wrote: > Terry Lambert wrote: > > Are you maybe unaware of what people mean when they say "Schelling > > point"? > > I've been enjoying this thread, but this could be the funniest comment > yet! > > Terry, you say "what people mean" as if anyone on this list might have > heard anyone other than you use the term. :) Which I strongly suspect is > not the case. There are a lot of smart people on this list; at least some of them have exposure to games theory and genetic algorithms. I'd also be very surprised if the people representing "Google" and "Yahoo" and other portal-plays were *not* aware of the idea, since their ability to attract and keep users, whose eyeballs they then sell, are totally dependent upon the consensus decision that *they* are Schelling points. Google and Yahoo, in particular, being search engines, have to be able to arrive at results that tend to match the consensus of what the results should be, at least 51% of the time compared to their competitors. Did you ever wonder why you prefer one search engine over another? It's because it's idea of consensus matches yours better than the alternative search engines do. Why did Google get so big, while Yahoo and Altavista lost ground? Altavista had a lexicographer's idea of consensus, where Yahoo had a common man's consensus (explaining why Altavista was big early in the life of the Internet, and was eclipsed by Yahoo as more and more "yahoos" got on the Internet, and the average of the consensus moved away from Altavista's). When both of them started accepting advertising in the form of modified results, rather than merely banner ads relevent to the query, the move distorted their results away from the consensus, and towards what advertisers wanted the consensus to be, instead. Only consensus doesn't actually work that way: you can't dictate a Schnelling point. The only way to lead a parade is to be the one who starts the parade, or to find a parade, and get out in front of it. Unfortunately for most would-be parade leaders, the mechanics of parade-starting are not generally well understood by most people, least of all, the would-be parade leaders. It's very hard to *buy* a parade. In any case, it's also meta-funny, because word meanings are also Schelling points, and it's meta-meta-funny, because one of Dave's premises is that of Thalience, which requires "otherness", which requires that he holds that his Schnelling points are not our Schnelling points. If he accepts a communal definition, most of his arguments fall apart, and if he doesn't, he can't communicate, so the best he can do is pretend to not accept *certain* communal definitions, and purport to deny a common axiomatic basis. 8-). -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 13: 0:17 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02C2737B400; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:00:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net (pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.122]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B123B43E42; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:00:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0088.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.88] helo=mindspring.com) by pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17oUhe-0006rl-00; Mon, 09 Sep 2002 13:00:10 -0700 Message-ID: <3D7CFD89.51D949AE@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 12:59:05 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , Juli Mallett , Joshua Lee , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200209091929.g89JTi133549@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > What is this assumption that, if I say something in a debate, I am > trying to convince people of it? Can't we just be arguing to express > our worldview? Not really, no. 8-). -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 13: 7: 3 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A188437B401 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:06:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net (pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.122]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F2BA43E65 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:06:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0088.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.88] helo=mindspring.com) by pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17oUoB-0002F8-00; Mon, 09 Sep 2002 13:06:56 -0700 Message-ID: <3D7CFF1F.7DE767FC@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 13:05:51 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200209091938.g89JcP133606@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > > Because it's not the same thing as a Schelling point. If I had > > meant "community", I would have used the word "community". What > > I meant was "Schelling point", so I said "Schelling point". > > [...examples...] > > As you can see, a Schelling point is a place that "everybody knows", > > but which was not arrived at by explicit agreement, but rather on a > > cutural basis of lowest mutal entropy. > > Hmm, I prefer to call these "localized consensual realities". Of course you do... it avoids you having to accept a consensual definition. 8-). > Thing is, they are still arbitrary. ;) Perhaps individually. On average, though, they are not, and that's really the only useful place to measure them, since measuring them elsewhere would be... arbitrary. > >> This won't work for your case. > > > > Thanks! I'm glad my behaviour isn't ARBITRARY... 8-). > > It is. How is that possible, if you were able to predict it? > >> A mind in a state such as yours accepts no external input. It merely > >> tears everything apart as much as it can, attempting to discredit what > >> it cannot understand. > > > > Only that which can not be proven, independently of understanding. > > And you hold the keys to decide what "can" and "cannot be" > proven. Beautiful. ;) I thought you'd like that. > >> Thus, the correct way to behave to you is to be irrational, in a > >> rational way. =) > > That's the way you are trying to behave, I'd agree, but it's not > > the correct way to behave, if you are to make a convincing argument, > > You presume I want to convince you. You're still talking, aren't you? > > Exactly. You solution is the same as a childs, and works about as > > well, overall, which is to say "not at all, as a long term approach". > > I thought the simplest solution to a problem was the best? ;) Childish and Simple is not an identity relationship. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 13:15:11 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 104F037B405; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:15:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A82743E42; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:15:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g89KF0133976; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:15:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209092015.g89KF0133976@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , Juli Mallett , Joshua Lee , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 13:14:55 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> What is this assumption that, if I say something in a debate, I am >> trying to convince people of it? Can't we just be arguing to express >> our worldview? > Not really, no. 8-). Thus spake Terry Lambert: "For yea, there must be One True and Right worldview, and any statement of one's worldview is trying to convince others that one's worldview belongs in the One True and Right worldview, amen." Did you claim to ever study Zen? =) ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< "Man is the only creature that refuses to be what he is." --Albert Camus To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 13:16: 7 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E066837B401 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:15:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nic.upatras.gr (nic.upatras.gr [150.140.129.30]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3CE7743E7B for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:15:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: (qmail 16120 invoked from network); 9 Sep 2002 20:09:11 -0000 Received: from upnet-dialinpool-73.upatras.gr (HELO hades.hell.gr) (150.140.128.181) by nic.upatras.gr with SMTP; 9 Sep 2002 20:09:11 -0000 Received: from hades.hell.gr (hades [127.0.0.1]) by hades.hell.gr (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id g89KFeGD044569; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 23:15:53 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: (from charon@localhost) by hades.hell.gr (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id g89IvHwm040173; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 21:57:17 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 21:57:17 +0300 From: Giorgos Keramidas To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Terry Lambert , chat@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020909185717.GG28799@hades.hell.gr> References: <3D7A3908.41093D70@mindspring.com> <20020909091647.J9219-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020909091647.J9219-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> X-PGP-Fingerprint: C1EB 0653 DB8B A557 3829 00F9 D60F 941A 3186 03B6 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On 2002-09-09 09:24, "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > So explain to me again what "selection" is in the context of a > non-theistic worldview. *Who* does the "selection"? If nobody > does the selection, why keep calling it selection? Substitute "survival" for "selection" and you have an answer. The total sum of the components of a jungle is more than a "jungle". It is a "system". The entire system, which is the result of summing its parts, is the one that observes the results of the possibility experiments that sheer luck has attempted. The survivors are those who "have been selected". This is because nobody "makes" the choise. It happens. Then, as the results become apparent, we can talk about a "choise". The word "selection" doesn't mean that some mythical, all-seeing entity, picks pawns on a huge chessboard and throws out those it doesn't like for some reason. > Why is the reification of nature justified in order to save > evolutionary theory? "Selection" implies intentionality, something > which according to evolutionists is not necessary to explain the > highly complex forms of life that have "arisen". If we use Occam's > razor to shave off all the philosophical and religious baggage from > evolution, what is left except an assertion that life spontaneously > arose "by chance"? There you go... - Giorgos To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 13:18:12 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3884537B400 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:18:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6238543E3B for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:18:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g89KI5134038; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:18:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209092018.g89KI5134038@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 13:18:00 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> > Because it's not the same thing as a Schelling point. If I had >> > meant "community", I would have used the word "community". What >> > I meant was "Schelling point", so I said "Schelling point". >> > [...examples...] >> > As you can see, a Schelling point is a place that "everybody knows", >> > but which was not arrived at by explicit agreement, but rather on a >> > cutural basis of lowest mutal entropy. >> >> Hmm, I prefer to call these "localized consensual realities". > > Of course you do... it avoids you having to accept a consensual > definition. 8-). Exactly. ;) Besides, there is no such thing. >> Thing is, they are still arbitrary. ;) > > Perhaps individually. On average, though, they are not, and > that's really the only useful place to measure them, since > measuring them elsewhere would be... arbitrary. The average of an arbitrary measure is still arbitrary. ;) >> >> This won't work for your case. >> > >> > Thanks! I'm glad my behaviour isn't ARBITRARY... 8-). >> >> It is. > > How is that possible, if you were able to predict it? Because everything is arbitrary. QED. >> >> Thus, the correct way to behave to you is to be irrational, in a >> >> rational way. =) >> > That's the way you are trying to behave, I'd agree, but it's not >> > the correct way to behave, if you are to make a convincing argument, >> >> You presume I want to convince you. > > You're still talking, aren't you? Actually I'm typing and I'm still not trying to convince you. >> > Exactly. You solution is the same as a childs, and works about as >> > well, overall, which is to say "not at all, as a long term approach". >> >> I thought the simplest solution to a problem was the best? ;) > > Childish and Simple is not an identity relationship. You are actually going to argue that "ignoring trolls" isn't the simplest answer? ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled. -Richard P. Feynman To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 13:26:52 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E5E537B400 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:26:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net (albatross.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.120]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3735443E42 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:26:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0088.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.88] helo=mindspring.com) by albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17oV7P-0005fr-00; Mon, 09 Sep 2002 13:26:47 -0700 Message-ID: <3D7D03C6.FA44EA18@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 13:25:42 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200209092018.g89KI5134038@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > >> Thing is, they are still arbitrary. ;) > > > > Perhaps individually. On average, though, they are not, and > > that's really the only useful place to measure them, since > > measuring them elsewhere would be... arbitrary. > > The average of an arbitrary measure is still arbitrary. ;) What about the average of a non-arbitrary measure of arvitrary values? > >> > Exactly. You solution is the same as a childs, and works about as > >> > well, overall, which is to say "not at all, as a long term approach". > >> > >> I thought the simplest solution to a problem was the best? ;) > > > > Childish and Simple is not an identity relationship. > > You are actually going to argue that "ignoring trolls" isn't the > simplest answer? Yes. It fails to fit all the facts. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 13:33: 4 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ED2037B400 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:32:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9F1F43E3B for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:32:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g89KWiGd041405; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:32:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g89KWe4u041379; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:32:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:32:39 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Terry Lambert Cc: Joshua Lee , , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <3D7CE784.BAD01B19@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20020909121150.X1838-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > > > > > 2) Of the theories, which is simpler? > > > > > > > > Define "simpler." Self-creation sounds like a pretty hairy thesis > > > > to me. Please explain. > > > > > > It has one less premise. > > > > Yes, but the "simpler" explanation is a logical contradiction. > > I fail to see how you reach this conclusion. Self-creation is a logical contradiction. It is still a logical contradiction whether you see it or not. > > So basically what you are saying is that an absurdity is preferrable > > to supernatural creation. > > I fail to see the absurdity. Further, I fail to see how any > creation precludes supernatural involvement. Who is arguing that? > Further, you are effectively claiming that the existance of > creation is physical evidence of God, and we know the Bible > specifically claims that God does not offer physical evidence, > since if He did, faith would not be necessary. Further, physical > evidence of God is a cotradiction of the doctorine of Free Will. Eh, chapter and verse, please. Actually the Bible seems to indicate the exact opposite. See Psalm 19, Romans 1 for example. It is the physical evidence that leaves man without any excuse. Physical evidence of God is a contradiction of the doctrine of free will? How so? > > This doesn't prove anything except that there are evolutionists who > > believe that sex is a result of evolution, and that you know how to > > type three words into a search engine. So what? Can you direct me > > to a specific link that addresses the problems I outlined earlier? > > Barring that, you can explain in your own words how sexual organs > > could have evolved, surmounting such tremendous odds. > > Randomly, and kept as a result of being advantageous to the > survival of the genes. Yeah, and a million monkeys given enough time can produce the works of Shakespeare. If you believe that, I have a bridge for sale... > > > The same reason they would want to post to technical mailing lists > > > about creationism? > > > > -chat is a "technical" mailing list? > > Well, "-chat", wherever that's hosted, probably isn't, but > "FreeBSD-chat" is arguably FreeBSD related, at least in extremis. > 8-). Okay, take your ball and go home, if you must. 8-( > > > > By the way, since you deleted it, I'll mention it again. The model > > > > the Constitution was based on was existing state constitutions, which > > > > were in turn based on the model of presbyterian church government. > > > > > > I didn't think that it was relevent, and didn't want to argue > > > the Magna Carta, or the fact that the state constitutions of the > > > first thirteen colonies were negotiated as part of the process of > > > balancing Federal vs. States rights. > > > > Of course you didn't think it relevent. How convenient. > > It's not a matter of convenience, it's a matter of keeping to a > single stream of argument in a single message thread. If you > want to start a seperate thread, feel free to make a seperate > posting. Be aware that I will probably just cite the Federalist > Papers, read one response, and then, if that response is not > cogent, ignore the rest of the thread. Well, I suppose that's best left as an argument for another time. BTW, yes I do know about the relevence of the Federalist Papers. > > > It requires an additional premise, therefore it is less simple > > > than the "evolution" theory, and it is less predictive than the > > > "evolution" theory. > > > > The additional premise is required in order to avoid absurdity. > > According to you. > > Look, I can personally make your theological arguments better > than you can, and I can do it in a context of the validity of > the right of secular science to come up with theories which > contradict religious doctorine, particularly when the results > are to be taught in secular schools sponsored by a secular state. If you think my theological arguments are substandard, then by all means you are free to improve on them. And who is claiming secular science does not have the right to come up with theories which contradict religious doctrine? And the whole purpose of the "secular" state in the first place was to preserve religious freedom, not to dogmatically ram naturalist philosophy down people's throats. Once again, naturalists prove that they are unwilling to be tolerant of opposing views. > I don't understand what you are arguing, apart from trying to > weasel people down to the teaching of religious doctorinal > theory as some sort of equivalence to a theory derived from > the same principles, and meeting the same strict tests, as the > theiry it claims equivalence to. I'm just trying to get people to re-examine their basic philosophical presuppositions, and to see the anti-religious bigotry of promoting evolution as "truth" in public schools when you yourself admit it is just a theory. If it is just a theory, why teach it as fact? Why not a little honesty and humility? Too much to ask for? > How about we start by you stating that you think creationism > is a theory, and that you are willing to replace that theory, > should a more rigorous one come along? It's not so much that, as that *any* theory about origins is going to be loaded down with philosophical or religious baggage. In fact, there are only two possible theories for this, and they will in the nature of the case be diametrically opposed to each other. I'm not asking for creation to be dogmatically taught in secular schools. I would just like the courtesy of a level playing field, or else the return of my tax dollars that are being used to indoctrinate people with views that I am philosophically opposed to. > > > > Anytime you introduce randomness into a system, it doesn't > > > > *increase* predictability, it decreases it. > > > > > > This is incorrect; it goes against what we know of large number > > > theory. It's like the multiplication of two random values which > > > occurs in /dev/random, which sucks, because large number theory > > > tells us that the result will be less random, not more random. > > > > Please explain how randomness gives rise to order. This is a > > contradiction. > > No, it's not, but I hardly have time to educate you to the level > of a PhD in mathematics, with a field emphasis on chaos and large > number thory, particularly if you are going to approach it as an > adversarial process. It doesn't matter how many PhD's a person has in mathematics, the belief that chaos gives rise to order is prima facie irrational, as it is a blatant contradiction in terms. You don't need a PhD to see that, all you need is to see that the emperor is wearing no clothes. > > As you've noted, /dev/random is not a good analogy, since it > > isn't truly random. This is why no computer could ever be used > > to "prove" the existence of chance. > > It's pseudo random. Just like "chance". I just have a particular > problem with the application of large number theory in /dev/random. > 8-). It appears we are talking past each other. You agree that what people call "chance" is not random at all? > > So what you are saying is that chance has nothing to do with > > evolution. Selection suggests intentionality that is strictly > > off-limits on a naturalistic explanation. > > Let me disabuse you of that interpretation. Selection does not > imply someone to select. It doesn't preclude it, but from our > understanding, it is the physical laws which govern selection. If you believe this, you *must* be a determinist not only with regard to life, but with regard to man's reason as well. Reason cannot be accounted for solely on naturalistic terms. We've gone over this before, and I didn't see a satisfactory answer. In fact, you appealed to "randomness" which you now appear to be rejecting. If its the physical laws that account for life, it is the physical laws that account for belief, even those that are diametrically opposed to yours. What is your proposed solution to this dilemma? > "God is the sum total of all physical laws" -- Albert Einstein An inaccurate statement, to say the least, which can at best lead to pantheism, at worst atheism (which are really the same thing, after all, per Spinoza). > > The problem with this is the so-called "random" inputs. Unless > > you can show that they are truly random, such an algorithm proves > > nothing at all. So it turns out that your "random" input is not > > input at all, but output. Oh, and by the way, what are those > > selection criteria? If your selection criteria is intelligently > > designed into the experiment, it would seem to undermine the > > whole thing by begging the question. THERE IS NO SELECTION > > CRITERIA IN NATURE, unless you want to say that it was designed > > into the system, which forces you into a theistic worldview. > > Let's go back to a random mutation that results in an organsim > capable of breating Chlorine, but incapable of breathing Oxygen. > > The selection criteria in nature -- which you claim doesn't exist -- > is the ability to breathe Oxygen in a 21%/78%/1% mix with Nitrogen > and other trace gasses. > > Such a mutation is selected against by the organism dying. > > By insisting that selection has a "first mover", you Deify nature. > I don't have a problem with you being a Deist, but you probably > ought to examine your own nature before you try to examine that > of others, and find them wanting in your eyes. Actually it would be incorrect to classify me as a Deist, since I believe in the doctrine of God's providence. In fact, I don't believe that the uniformity of nature can be accounted for *without* the doctrine of God's providence, since we end up right back to the skepticism of David Hume. Aristotle's first mover cannot account for the uniformity of nature either. > > > > What exactly do you mean by "secular"? You mean "non-religious"? > > > > > > 1 a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal > > > b : not overtly or specifically religious c : not > > > ecclesiastical or clerical > > > > > > -- not the same thing as non-religious. > > > > Of course, this definition begs the question, doesn't it, since the > > whole question is as to the ultimate source of the worldly or temporal > > concerns. Evolution is an attempt to give an account of that, and as > > such has crossed over into the realm of religion and philosophy. Why > > is it so hard to admit that? > > Because evolution ignores the need for God. Which is what really > annoys you about it. Whether or not it annoys me is irrelevent. Evolution does indeed attempt to give an explanation without reference to God, but replaces Him with an absurdity: random mutations giving rise to increasing degrees of complexity. > It doesn't take a position on whether or not there is a God or there > isn't a God. It's not an athiestic world view, nor is it a theistic > world view. It's orthogonal to the consideration of the issue of > whether or not there is God. Actually it is completely unworkable without positing the existence of God, since it relies on the general uniformities of nature and the laws of physics, which cannot be accounted for on anything but a theistic worldview. > Evolution does not comment on God, at all. Actually, by asserting that God is not necessary, it is making quite an explosive comment. > I'll fully admit that it is in the realm of philosophy -- all > science is in the realm of philosophy. "PhD" means "Doctor of > Philosophy" (when translated to English). > > That doesn't make it a part of the realm of religion, unless you > happen to cleave to a *particular* philosophy that has as one of > its tenets that it is required to do so. > > The "and" in "religion and philosophy" was implied by your own > prejudices. Religion and philosophy deal with identical questions, so the conjunction is warranted. The choosing of a naturalistic philosophy over a supernaturalistic one determines how one interprets the facts. > > > > Why do the schools force naturalism down people's throats then? > > > > > > Because it is able to successfully manipulate the material world > > > in useful ways. > > > > And this is your justification for indoctrinating children with > > naturalism? Why not play on a level playing field? Are you > > afraid they might actually think for themselves? > > No, we are afraid that they will be about as useful to species > survival as the people who teach "new math" or "outcome based > education", where it's more important to respect the individual's > opinions than it is to maintain a working society. 8-). And you think I'm dogmatic! Yeesh! > There's nothing that actually forces this so-called "indoctrination" > which you find offensive. Because the state recognizes you freedom > of religion -- your freedom to turn the "and" in "religion and > philosphy" into an equivalence relationship -- the state permits you > to teach your children whatever you want to teach them, in private > schools. If the state didn't not extract money from my paycheck for the support of public schools, I would agree with you. > > > If you want a creation theory taught in secular schools, come up > > > with a version of the theory that is either simpler or more > > > predictive than "evolution" theory. > > > > Many have, but the evolutionary dogmatists won't even look at it. > > They are so entrenched in trying for force their evolutionary > > dogmatism down people's throats that they refuse to even look into > > the telescope, to use an apt analogy. 8-) > > That's simply not true. The failure to displace evolutionary > theory is based solely on the inability of creationist dogmatists > to produce a theory that better fits the fitness function than > evolutionary theory. Have you read Michael Behe? William Dembski? Michael Denton? > In fact, evolutionary theory has changed a number of times. It > will change again in the future. Your putative blind defenders > of the status quo would act against those changes, in the same > way that they would act against a sufficiently explanatory > creationist theory. Yet the changes have occurred anyway. This > places the blame not on defenders of the status quo, but on your > theorists, who failed to be as convincing as those who succeeded > in the same putative environment of intellectual inetia. Well, I must admit that the ID movement is young, and time will tell. > > > So many religions are based on what are in fact scientific ideas > > > which have been falsified. You'd think that at least one religion > > > would be willing to concede that it doesn't know God's mind well > > > enough to say that He might be the selector in the process of > > > natural selection, or that He is capable of working His will > > > through His choice of natural laws. > > > > At last! We have an admission that evolution is unworkable without > > moving into a theistic worldview. > > No. Merely that it is representable in a theistic intellectual > space, by someone who insists that everything exist within a > theistic intellectual space at all times. Too bad. 8-( > > But then, what is necessary when people start talking about God? > > To let them talk? It was a rhetorical question. 8-) > > Is it permissable for everybody to just start wildly speculating > > about God? > > Apparently so... 8-). Apparently so, yet that doesn't mean that everyone is right. 8-) > > Or must we rely on God to tell us what he is like and how he has > > created the universe? > > Not unless we want to contradict the doctorine of Free Will, which > many religions hold to be sacrosanct. It's safer to not get involved > in theistic arguments, except as necessary to point out that, by > making a scientific argument, one is not necessarily making a > theistic argument. It depends on what you mean by the doctrine of free will. If you mean that man is free to decide for himself the nature of reality, the notion of free will is absurd. On the other hand, Christianity teaches that man is enslaved to sin, so free will pretty much became irrelevent at the fall. Man still freely chooses what he wants to do, but the problem of course is what he wants to do. > I'm sorry that evolutionary theory challenges your religious doctrine. > At one time, your religion accepted the Earth-centric Ptolemeyic model > of the universe as true, and incorporated the idea into the religious > doctorine of a human-centric special creation. Now it no longer clings > to that idea. That's what got the church into trouble in the first place! Galileo never opposed the teaching of scripture, it was the Aristotelian philosophy that had invaded the church that he found himself up against. > In my opinion, it is best if religion stays out of the adoption of > scientific theory as doctorine. Scientific theories are, inevitably, > replaced with new theories, and they are unsuitable subjects for > doctorine. If a religion demands that the universe was created by > God, let it do so without attempting to tell God how He did it, and > allow people the intellectual freedom to speculate on the topic. It > may be the reason the people are there in the first place. With this I think I can agree. 8-) Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 13:35:23 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B609237B400 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:35:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09FC743E4A for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:35:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g89KZGGd041995; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:35:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g89KZFJV041992; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:35:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:35:14 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Eric Anderson Cc: Lawrence Sica , Terry Lambert , Joshua Lee , , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <3D7CF0AB.3000709@centtech.com> Message-ID: <20020909133428.R1838-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Eric Anderson wrote: > Some do, some don't. "Origin of Species" will definitely clear things > up, but so will a little simple minded logic. Anyway, it's an > interesting thing to think about, and of course, no one will convince > anyone the Earth is round if they all believe it is flat, right? A most incisive observation, sir! 8-) Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 13:37:15 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CC4737B401 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:36:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from m-net.arbornet.org (m-net.arbornet.org [209.142.209.161]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 945C243E6E for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:36:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from polytarp@m-net.arbornet.org) Received: from m-net.arbornet.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by m-net.arbornet.org (8.12.3/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g89Kc0jZ099094; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 16:38:00 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from polytarp@m-net.arbornet.org) Received: from localhost (polytarp@localhost) by m-net.arbornet.org (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) with ESMTP id g89Kc0db099091; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 16:38:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 16:38:00 -0400 (EDT) From: pgreen To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Terry Lambert , Joshua Lee , , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <20020909121150.X1838-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Message-ID: <20020909163524.W98938-100000@m-net.arbornet.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Neal E. Westfall wrote: > > > On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > > > > > > > 2) Of the theories, which is simpler? > > > > > > > > > > Define "simpler." Self-creation sounds like a pretty hairy thesis > > > > > to me. Please explain. > > > > > > > > It has one less premise. > > > > > > Yes, but the "simpler" explanation is a logical contradiction. > > > > I fail to see how you reach this conclusion. > > Self-creation is a logical contradiction. It is still a logical > contradiction whether you see it or not. > That's assuming you are god. > > > > So basically what you are saying is that an absurdity is preferrable > > > to supernatural creation. > > > > I fail to see the absurdity. Further, I fail to see how any > > creation precludes supernatural involvement. > > Who is arguing that? > > > > Further, you are effectively claiming that the existance of > > creation is physical evidence of God, and we know the Bible > > specifically claims that God does not offer physical evidence, > > since if He did, faith would not be necessary. Further, physical > > evidence of God is a cotradiction of the doctorine of Free Will. > PLeas.e > Eh, chapter and verse, please. Actually the Bible seems to indicate > the exact opposite. See Psalm 19, Romans 1 for example. It is > the physical evidence that leaves man without any excuse. Physical > evidence of God is a contradiction of the doctrine of free will? > How so? > > > > > This doesn't prove anything except that there are evolutionists who > > > believe that sex is a result of evolution, and that you know how to > > > type three words into a search engine. So what? Can you direct me > > > to a specific link that addresses the problems I outlined earlier? > > > Barring that, you can explain in your own words how sexual organs > > > could have evolved, surmounting such tremendous odds. > > > > Randomly, and kept as a result of being advantageous to the > > survival of the genes. > > Yeah, and a million monkeys given enough time can produce the works of > Shakespeare. If you believe that, I have a bridge for sale... > > > > > > The same reason they would want to post to technical mailing lists > > > > about creationism? > > > > > > -chat is a "technical" mailing list? > > > > Well, "-chat", wherever that's hosted, probably isn't, but Nope. > > "FreeBSD-chat" is arguably FreeBSD related, at least in extremis. > > 8-). > > Okay, take your ball and go home, if you must. 8-( > > > > > > > By the way, since you deleted it, I'll mention it again. The model > > > > > the Constitution was based on was existing state constitutions, which > > > > > were in turn based on the model of presbyterian church government. > > > > > > > > I didn't think that it was relevent, and didn't want to argue > > > > the Magna Carta, or the fact that the state constitutions of the > > > > first thirteen colonies were negotiated as part of the process of > > > > balancing Federal vs. States rights. > > > > > > Of course you didn't think it relevent. How convenient. > > > > It's not a matter of convenience, it's a matter of keeping to a > > single stream of argument in a single message thread. If you > > want to start a seperate thread, feel free to make a seperate > > posting. Be aware that I will probably just cite the Federalist > > Papers, read one response, and then, if that response is not Wrong. > > cogent, ignore the rest of the thread. > > Well, I suppose that's best left as an argument for another time. > BTW, yes I do know about the relevence of the Federalist Papers. > > > > > > It requires an additional premise, therefore it is less simple > > > > than the "evolution" theory, and it is less predictive than the > > > > "evolution" theory. > > > > > > The additional premise is required in order to avoid absurdity. > > > > According to you. > > > > Look, I can personally make your theological arguments better > > than you can, and I can do it in a context of the validity of > > the right of secular science to come up with theories which > > contradict religious doctorine, particularly when the results > > ar 8) e to be taught in secular schools sponsored by a secular state. > > If you think my theological arguments are substandard, then by > all means you are free to improve on them. And who is claiming > secular science does not have the right to come up with theories > which contradict religious doctrine? And the whole purpose of > the "secular" state in the first place was to preserve religious > freedom, not to dogmatically ram naturalist philosophy down > people's throats. Once again, naturalists prove that they are > unwilling to be tolerant of opposing views. > > > > I don't understand what you are arguing, apart from trying to > > weasel people down to the teaching of religious doctorinal > > theory as some sort of equivalence to a theory derived from > > the same principles, and meeting the same strict tests, as the > > theiry it claims equivalence to. > BIBLE SAYS Qpoint system for sins!> I'm just trying to get people to re-examine their basic > philosophical presuppositions, and to see the anti-religious > bigotry of promoting evolution as "truth" in public schools > when you yourself admit it is just a theory. If it is just > a theory, why teach it as fact? Why not a little honesty > and humility? Too much to ask for? > > > > How about we start by you stating that you think creationism > > is a theory, and that you are willing to replace that theory, > > should a more rigorous one come along? > > It's not so much that, as that *any* theory about origins is going > to be loaded down with philosophical or religious baggage. In fact, > there are only two possible theories for this, and they will in the > nature of the case be diametrically opposed to each other. I'm not > asking for creation to be dogmatically taught in secular schools. > I would just like the courtesy of a level playing field, or else > the return of my tax dollars that are being used to indoctrinate > people with views that I am philosophically opposed to. > > > > > > > Anytime you introduce randomness into a system, it doesn't > > > > > *increase* predictability, it decreases it. > > > > > > > > This is incorrect; it goes against what we know of large number > > > > theory. It's like the multiplication of two random values which > > > > occurs in /dev/random, which sucks, because large number theory > > > > tells us that the result will be less random, not more random. > > > > > > Please explain how randomness gives rise to order. This is a > > > contradiction. > > > > No, it's not, but I hardly have time to educate you to the level > > of a PhD in mathematics, with a field emphasis on chaos and large > > number thory, particularly if you are going to approach it as an > > adversarial process. > > It doesn't matter how many PhD's a person has in mathematics, the > belief that chaos gives rise to order is prima facie irrational, > as it is a blatant contradiction in terms. You don't need a PhD > to see that, all you need is to see that the emperor is wearing > no clothes. > > > > > As you've noted, /dev/random is not a good analogy, since it > > > isn't truly random. This is why no computer could ever be used > > > to "prove" the existence of chance. > > > > It's pseudo random. Just like "chance". I just have a particular > > problem with the application of large number theory in /dev/random. > > 8-). > That's about as logical as something from that 2600 moron. > It appears we are talking past each other. You agree that what > people call "chance" is not random at all? > > > > > So what you are saying is that chance has nothing to do with > > > evolution. Selection suggests intentionality that is strictly > > > off-limits on a naturalistic explanation. > > > > Let me disabuse you of that interpretation. Selection does not > > imply someone to select. It doesn't preclude it, but from our > > understanding, it is the physical laws which govern selection. > > If you believe this, you *must* be a determinist not only with > regard to life, but with regard to man's reason as well. Reason > cannot be accounted for solely on naturalistic terms. We've > gone over this before, and I didn't see a satisfactory answer. > In fact, you appealed to "randomness" which you now appear to be > rejecting. If its the physical laws that account for life, it > is the physical laws that account for belief, even those that are > diametrically opposed to yours. What is your proposed solution > to this dilemma? > > > > "God is the sum total of all physical laws" -- Albert Einstein > > An inaccurate statement, to say the least, which can at best > lead to pantheism, at worst atheism (which are really the same > thing, after all, per Spinoza). > > > > > The problem with this is the so-called "random" inputs. Unless > > > you can show that they are truly random, such an algorithm proves > > > nothing at all. So it turns out that your "random" input is not > > > input at all, but output. Oh, and by the way, what are those > > > selection criteria? If your selection criteria is intelligently > > > designed into the experiment, it would seem to undermine the > > > whole thing by begging the question. THERE IS NO SELECTION > > > CRITERIA IN NATURE, unless you want to say that it was designed > > > into the system, which forces you into a theistic wo NOPE. rldview. > > > > Let's go back to a random mutation that results in an organsim > > capable of breating Chlorine, but incapable of breathing Oxygen. > > > > The selection criteria in nature -- which you claim doesn't exist -- > > is the ability to breathe Oxygen in a 21%/78%/1% mix with Nitrogen > > and other trace gasses. > > > > Such a mutation is selected against by the organism dying. > > > > By insisting that selection has a "first mover", you Deify nature. > > I don't have a problem with you being a Deist, but you probably > > ought to examine your own nature before you try to examine that > > of others, and find them wanting in your eyes. > > Actually it would be incorrect to classify me as a Deist, since I > believe in the doctrine of God's providence. In fact, I don't > believe that the uniformity of nature can be accounted for *without* > the doctrine of God's providence, since we end up right back to > the skepticism of David Hume. Aristotle's first mover cannot account > for the uniformity of nature either. > > > > > > > What exactly do you mean by "secular"? You mean "non-religious"? > > > > > > > > 1 a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal > > > > b : not overtly or specifically religious c : not > > > > ecclesiastical or clerical > > > > > > > > -- not the same thing as non-religious. > > > > > > Of course, this definition begs the question, doesn't it, since the > > > whole question is as to the ultimate source of the worldly or temporal :8 > > > concerns. Evolution is an attempt to give an account of that, and as > > > such has crossed over into the realm of religion and philosophy. Why > > > is it so hard to admit that? > > > > Because evolution ignores the need for God. Which is what really > > annoys you about it. > > Whether or not it annoys me is irrelevent. Evolution does indeed attempt > to give an explanation without reference to God, but replaces Him with > an absurdity: random mutations giving rise to increasing degrees of > complexity. > Random>? I think not/ > > > It doesn't take a position on whether or not there is a God or there > > isn't a God. It's not an athiestic world view, nor is it a theistic > > world view. It's orthogonal to the consideration of the issue of > > whether or not there is God. > > Actually it is completely unworkable without positing the existence of > God, since it relies on the general uniformities of nature and the laws > of physics, which cannot be accounted for on anything but a theistic > worldview. > > > > Evolution does not comment on God, at all. > > Actually, by asserting that God is not necessary, it is making quite > an explosive comment. > > > > I'll fully admit that it is in the realm of philosophy -- all > > science is in the realm of philosophy. "PhD" means "Doctor of > > Philosophy" (when translated to English). > > > > That doesn't make it a part of the realm of religion, unless you > > happen to cleave to a *particular* philosophy that has as one of > > its tenets that it is required to do so. > > > > The "and" in "religion and philosophy" was implied by your own > > prejudices. > > Religion and philosophy deal with identical questions, so the > conjunction is warranted. The choosing of a naturalistic philosophy > over a supernaturalistic one determines how one interprets the facts. > > > > > > > Why do the schools force naturalism down people's throats then? > > > > > > > > Because it is able to successfully manipulate the material world > > > > in useful ways. > > > > > > And this is your justification for indoctrinating children with > > > naturalism? Why not play on a level playing field? Are you > > > afraid they might actually think for themselves? > > > > No, we are afraid that they will be about as useful to species > > survival as the people who teach "new math" or "outcome based > > education", where it's more important to respect the individual's > > opinions than it is to maintain a working society. 8-). > > And you think I'm dogmatic! Yeesh! > > > > There's nothing that actually forces this so-called "indoctrination" > > which you find offensive. Because the state recognizes you freedom > > of religion -- your freedom to turn the "and" in "religion and > > philosphy" into an equivalence relationship -- the state permits you > > to teach your children whatever you want to teach them, in private > > schools. > > If the state didn't not extract money from my paycheck for the support > of public schools, I would agree with you. > > > > > > If you want a creation theory taught in secular schools, come up > > > > with a version of the theory that is either simpler or more > > > > predictive than "evolution" theory. > > > > > > Many have, but the evolutionary dogmatists won't even look at it. > > > They are so entrenched in trying for force their evolutionary > > > dogmatism down people's throats that they refuse to even look into > > > the telescope, to use an apt analogy. 8-) > > > > That's simply not true. The failure to displace evolutionary > > theory is based solely on the inability of creationist dogmatists > > to produce a theory that better fits the fitness function than > > evolutionary theor Nope. y. > > Have you read Michael Behe? William Dembski? Michael Denton? > > > > In fact, evolutionary theory has changed a number of times. It > > will change again in the future. Your putative blind defenders > > of the status quo would act against those changes, in the same > > way that they would act against a sufficiently explanatory > > creationist theory. Yet the changes have occurred anyway. This > > places the blame not on defenders of the status quo, but on your > > theorists, who failed to be as convincing as those who succeeded > > in the same putative environment of intellectual inetia. > > Well, I must admit that the ID movement is young, and time will > tell. > > > > > > So many religions are based on what are in fact scientific ideas > > > > which have been falsified. You'd think that at least one religion > > > > would be willing to concede that it doesn't know God's mind well > > > > enough to say that He might be the selector in the process of > > > > natural selection, or that He is capable of working His will > > > > through His choice of natural laws. > > > > > > At last! We have an admission that evolution is unworkable without > > > moving into a theistic worldview. Next. > > > > No. Merely that it is representable in a theistic intellectual > > space, by someone who insists that everything exist within a > > theistic intellectual space at all times. > > Too bad. 8-( > > > > > But then, what is necessary when people start talking about God? > > > > To let them talk? > > It was a rhetorical question. 8-) > > > > > Is it permissable for everybody to just start wildly speculating > > > about God? > > > > Apparently so... 8-). > > Apparently so, yet that doesn't mean that everyone is right. 8-) > > > > > Or must we rely on God to tell us what he is like and how he has > > > created the universe? > > > > Not unless we want to contradict the doctorine of Free Will, which > > many religions hold to be sacrosanct. It's safer to not get involved > > in theistic arguments, except as necessary to point out that, by > > making a scientific argument, one is not necessarily making a > > theistic argument. > > It depends on what you mean by the doctrine of free will. If you mean > that man is free to decide for himself the nature of reality, the notion > of free will is absurd. On the other hand, Christianity teaches that > man is enslaved to sin, so free will pretty much became irrelevent at > the fall. Man still freely chooses what he wants to do, but the problem > of course is what he wants to do. > > > > I'm sorry that evolutionary theory challenges your religious doctrine. > > At one time, your religion accepted the Earth-centric Ptolemeyic model > > of the universe as true, and incorporated the idea into the religious > > doctorine of a human-centric special creation. Now it no longer clings > > to that idea. > > That's what got the church into trouble in the first place! Galileo > never opposed the teaching of scripture, it was the Aristotelian > philosophy that had invaded the church that he found himself up IGNORE EVERYTHING I"VE SAID> > against. > > > > In my opinion, it is best if religion stays out of the adoption of > > scientific theory as doctorine. Scientific theories are, inevitably, > > replaced with new theories, and they are unsuitable subjects for > > doctorine. If a religion demands that the universe was created by > > God, let it do so without attempting to tell God how He did it, and > > allow people the intellectual freedom to speculate on the topic. It > > may be the reason the people are there in the first place. > > With this I think I can agree. 8-) > > > Neal > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message > i love romania. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 13:47:43 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE17D37B400 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:47:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E07443E4A for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:47:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g89Klb134306; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:47:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209092047.g89Klb134306@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 13:47:32 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> >> Thing is, they are still arbitrary. ;) >> > >> > Perhaps individually. On average, though, they are not, and >> > that's really the only useful place to measure them, since >> > measuring them elsewhere would be... arbitrary. >> >> The average of an arbitrary measure is still arbitrary. ;) > > What about the average of a non-arbitrary measure of arvitrary > values? You can't non-arbitrarily measure arbitrary values. >> >> > Exactly. You solution is the same as a childs, and works about as >> >> > well, overall, which is to say "not at all, as a long term approach". >> >> >> >> I thought the simplest solution to a problem was the best? ;) >> > >> > Childish and Simple is not an identity relationship. >> >> You are actually going to argue that "ignoring trolls" isn't the >> simplest answer? > > Yes. It fails to fit all the facts. What facts does it need to fit? It's simple, you ignore the trolls, they don't bother you. What more needs to be said or analyzed? ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< A certain conqueror said to Nasrudin: "Mulla, all the great rulers of the past had honorific titles with the name of God in them: there was, for instance, God-Gifted, God-Accepted, God-Sent, and so on. How about such a name for me?" "God Forbid." said Nasrudin. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 13:51:15 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA9A837B400 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:51:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0F2D43E65 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:51:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g89Kp0Gd052303; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:51:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g89Kox9J052300; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:50:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:50:59 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Terry Lambert Cc: Giorgos Keramidas , Joshua Lee , , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <3D7CF512.ED0C4E8B@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20020909133707.S1838-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > > So what is the criteria for determining "fitness"? Those who > > survive? But then this just leads us into a logical tautology, > > whereby the mechanism for evolution amounts to "the survival of > > the survivors." > > "The survival of those best suited to survive", actually. It is still a triviality. Of course those "best suited to survive" will survive. > > How is "fitness" determined? > > As an attribute of an organism, it is determined by suitability > to its environment. I don't really have a problem with adaptation, per se when limited to within species. What really strikes me as absurd though, is the idea that chance mutations can give rise to new functionality, for that functionality is not functional until everything is plugged in and working. What possible purpose could a partially evolved sex organ have, for instance? > > > > Why is the reification of nature justified in order to save > > > > evolutionary theory? > > > > > > Nature *is* concrete, *not* abstract. There is no reifying of > > > nature happening here. You can only reify an *abstract* thing. > > > > Sorry. Wrong word. What I meant was "personify." > > You probably meant anthropormorphise, as in "endow it with attributes > normally associated with humans". > > The answer is that nature is not anthropomorphised (or personified) > by having the power to select, so long as it does not exhibit will > in the process. But does this not present a difficulty? With no will to do the selecting, "the power to select" is completely unintelligible. > > > > "Selection" implies intentionality, > > > > > > To people without a complex vocabulary. Perhaps it was a bad choice > > > to use the compound word "natural selection", since it permits those > > > people to make this mistake. > > > > Actually it is an oxymoron invented by natural biologists to obscure > > the fact (from themselves, as well as others) that evolutionary theory > > implies an absurdity. > > Your internal logic is almost endearing. 8-). Why, thank you! 8-) > > > With theologians still able to claim that God controls chance, of > > > course. > > > > Actaully theologians would never admit to such an absurd concept. If > > controlled by God, it is not random at all. > > Alternately, they would claim that everything was controlled by God, > and that randomness is an absurdity. As you have done. 8-). Yeah, exactly! 8-) Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 13:56:44 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98E2637B400 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:56:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16FB743E42 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:56:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g89KtGGd052865; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:55:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g89KtGTL052862; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:55:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:55:16 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Terry Lambert Cc: Lawrence Sica , Giorgos Keramidas , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <3D7CF633.187527E@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20020909135135.V1838-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > > > This is just what I am trying to get people to admit, that evolution > > > > requires tremendous leaps of faith. Now if you could see that it is also > > > > irrational, my job would be done. > > > > > > The problem with this idea is that we all freely admit that > > > evolution is a *theory*. > > > > That is completely irrational. Yet, to reject it would imply something > > that evolutionists just cannot bear to accept. > > Why is it "completely irrational"? All it amounts to is that we > are willing to acknowledge that we don't know everything. Because no matter how well you dress it up, it amounts to the following: 1) Something came from nothing. 2) Order came from disorder. 3) Life came from non-life. 4) Intelligence came from non-intelligence. 5) Morality came from the non-moral. To believe in evolution (at least the non-theistic variety) you have to believe that things turn into their opposites. This is quite a departure from the notion of "rational explanation." Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 13:56:48 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18D1A37B401; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:56:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8967D43E3B; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:56:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g89KuiGd053324; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:56:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g89Kuili053313; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:56:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:56:44 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Dave Hayes Cc: Juli Mallett , Joshua Lee , , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <200209091929.g89JTi133549@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Message-ID: <20020909135607.M1838-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Dave Hayes wrote: > Neal E Westfall writes: > > On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Dave Hayes wrote: > >> Neal E Westfall writes: > >> > There is a place for a sense of humor, of course. But I like to keep > >> > a distinction between having a sense of humor and trivializing life. > >> > >> Unfortunately, our life -is- trivial. To think otherwise extends the > >> ego beyond the bounds of where we can usefully interact with God. ;) > > > > If you actually believed that you would stop trying to convince people > > that life is trivial. > > What is this assumption that, if I say something in a debate, I am > trying to convince people of it? Can't we just be arguing to express > our worldview? Why? > > If life is trivial why should you care that I don't think life is > > trivial? > > I don't care, really. ;) Apparently you do! 8-) Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 14: 5:12 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9337F37B400; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 14:05:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1193043E4A; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 14:05:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g89L57Gd055863; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 14:05:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g89L566i055860; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 14:05:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 14:05:06 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Dave Hayes Cc: Terry Lambert , Juli Mallett , Joshua Lee , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <200209092015.g89KF0133976@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Message-ID: <20020909140246.L1838-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Dave Hayes wrote: > Terry Lambert writes: > > Dave Hayes wrote: > >> What is this assumption that, if I say something in a debate, I am > >> trying to convince people of it? Can't we just be arguing to express > >> our worldview? > > Not really, no. 8-). > > Thus spake Terry Lambert: > > "For yea, there must be One True and Right worldview, and any statement > of one's worldview is trying to convince others that one's worldview > belongs in the One True and Right worldview, amen." > > Did you claim to ever study Zen? =) Ah, but what is the claim that there is no One True Right worldview, but a claim that the only One True Right worldview is the one which denies that there is One True Right worldview? 8-) Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 14: 9:42 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E6FD37B400; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 14:09:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from m-net.arbornet.org (m-net.arbornet.org [209.142.209.161]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C96CA43E4A; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 14:09:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from polytarp@m-net.arbornet.org) Received: from m-net.arbornet.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by m-net.arbornet.org (8.12.3/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g89LB3jZ003409; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 17:11:03 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from polytarp@m-net.arbornet.org) Received: from localhost (polytarp@localhost) by m-net.arbornet.org (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) with ESMTP id g89LB3Va003406; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 17:11:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 17:11:03 -0400 (EDT) From: pgreen To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Dave Hayes , Juli Mallett , Joshua Lee , , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <20020909135607.M1838-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Message-ID: <20020909170813.P2991-100000@m-net.arbornet.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Romania! On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Neal E. Westfall wrote: > > > On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Dave Hayes wrote: > > > Neal E Westfall writes: > > > On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Dave Hayes wrote: > > >> Neal E Westfall writes: > > >> > There is a place for a sense of humor, of course. But I like to keep > > >> > a distinction between having a sense of humor and trivializing life. > > >> > > >> Unfortunately, our life -is- trivial. To think otherwise extends the > > >> ego beyond the bounds of where we can usefully interact with God. ;) > > > > > > If you actually believed that you would stop trying to convince people > > > that life is trivial. > > > > What is this assumption that, if I say something in a debate, I am > > trying to convince people of it? Can't we just be arguing to express > > our worldview? > r o m a n i a > Why? > > > > > If life is trivial why should you care that I don't think life is > > > trivial? > > > > I don't care, really. ;) > > Apparently you do! 8-) > > > Neal > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message > R O M A N I A R O M A N I A R O M A N I A R O M A N I A R O M A N I A R O M A N I A R O M A N I A R O M A N I A R O M A N I A R O M A N I Ans! Vote ROMANIA for president! To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 14:11:29 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65EB437B400; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 14:11:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0564443E42; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 14:11:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g89LBO134602; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 14:11:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209092111.g89LBO134602@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Juli Mallett , Joshua Lee , tlambert2@mindspring.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 14:11:19 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Neal E Westfall writes: > On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Dave Hayes wrote: >> Neal E Westfall writes: >> > On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Dave Hayes wrote: >> >> Neal E Westfall writes: >> >> > There is a place for a sense of humor, of course. But I like to keep >> >> > a distinction between having a sense of humor and trivializing life. >> >> >> >> Unfortunately, our life -is- trivial. To think otherwise extends the >> >> ego beyond the bounds of where we can usefully interact with God. ;) >> > >> > If you actually believed that you would stop trying to convince people >> > that life is trivial. >> >> What is this assumption that, if I say something in a debate, I am >> trying to convince people of it? Can't we just be arguing to express >> our worldview? > > Why? Why not? >> > If life is trivial why should you care that I don't think life is >> > trivial? >> >> I don't care, really. ;) > > Apparently you do! 8-) So you presume. ;) ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< Only one who is seeking certainty can be uncertain. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 14:17:37 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F08B37B400; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 14:17:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 136A643E65; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 14:17:33 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g89LHT134642; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 14:17:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209092117.g89LHT134642@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Terry Lambert , Juli Mallett , Joshua Lee , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 14:17:24 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Neal E Westfall writes: > On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Dave Hayes wrote: >> Terry Lambert writes: >> > Dave Hayes wrote: >> >> What is this assumption that, if I say something in a debate, I am >> >> trying to convince people of it? Can't we just be arguing to express >> >> our worldview? >> > Not really, no. 8-). >> >> Thus spake Terry Lambert: >> >> "For yea, there must be One True and Right worldview, and any statement >> of one's worldview is trying to convince others that one's worldview >> belongs in the One True and Right worldview, amen." >> >> Did you claim to ever study Zen? =) > > Ah, but what is the claim that there is no One True Right worldview, > but a claim that the only One True Right worldview is the one which > denies that there is One True Right worldview? 8-) You have painted the dilemna of the human mind well. The real One True Right worldview is that there is no One True Right worldview, not even this one. Still, when you can think of a fish, the lion appears. ;) ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< A "No" uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater than a "Yes" merely uttered to please, or what is worse, to avoid trouble. -- Mahatma Ghandi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 14:26:44 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28BD337B400 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 14:26:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B29843E65 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 14:26:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g89LQZGd059154; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 14:26:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g89LQYwl059151; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 14:26:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 14:26:34 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Giorgos Keramidas Cc: Terry Lambert , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <20020909185717.GG28799@hades.hell.gr> Message-ID: <20020909140623.W1838-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > On 2002-09-09 09:24, "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > So explain to me again what "selection" is in the context of a > > non-theistic worldview. *Who* does the "selection"? If nobody > > does the selection, why keep calling it selection? > > Substitute "survival" for "selection" and you have an answer. So then the mechanism for evolution is the survival of the fittest by means of survival? 8-) > The total sum of the components of a jungle is more than a "jungle". > It is a "system". The entire system, which is the result of summing > its parts, is the one that observes the results of the possibility > experiments that sheer luck has attempted. ^^^^^^^^^^ So evolution is based on sheer luck. Have you ever been to Vegas? Occasionally people leave with more money than they came with. On the balance, however, the odds are stacked in such a way as that more money will be lost than gained. This seems an apt analogy for evolution. The Second Law of Thermodynamics suggests that, on the whole, the universe is tending to disorder, which blatantly contradicts the theory of evolution. The Second Law seems to imply that there was a time in which the universe was in a perfect state. Hmmm.... > The survivors are those > who "have been selected". This is because nobody "makes" the choise. > It happens. Then, as the results become apparent, we can talk about a > "choise". The word "selection" doesn't mean that some mythical, > all-seeing entity, picks pawns on a huge chessboard and throws out > those it doesn't like for some reason. Why not just say "it happened", instead of referring to a "choice". The notion of "choice" suggests a chooser, for making a choice requires a will. I suspect the reason we don't want to be that honest is that the phrase 'origin of species by means of "it happens"' would not sound very scientific. > > Why is the reification of nature justified in order to save > > evolutionary theory? "Selection" implies intentionality, something > > which according to evolutionists is not necessary to explain the > > highly complex forms of life that have "arisen". If we use Occam's > > razor to shave off all the philosophical and religious baggage from > > evolution, what is left except an assertion that life spontaneously > > arose "by chance"? > > There you go... And an assertion remains nothing but an assertion... Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 14:34: 1 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DADA837B400; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 14:33:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53C2843E3B; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 14:33:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g89LXvGd059216; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 14:33:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g89LXv1x059213; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 14:33:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 14:33:57 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Dave Hayes Cc: Juli Mallett , Joshua Lee , , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <200209092111.g89LBO134602@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Message-ID: <20020909143253.G1838-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Dave Hayes wrote: > Neal E Westfall writes: > > On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Dave Hayes wrote: > >> Neal E Westfall writes: > >> > On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Dave Hayes wrote: > >> >> Neal E Westfall writes: > >> >> > There is a place for a sense of humor, of course. But I like to keep > >> >> > a distinction between having a sense of humor and trivializing life. > >> >> > >> >> Unfortunately, our life -is- trivial. To think otherwise extends the > >> >> ego beyond the bounds of where we can usefully interact with God. ;) > >> > > >> > If you actually believed that you would stop trying to convince people > >> > that life is trivial. > >> > >> What is this assumption that, if I say something in a debate, I am > >> trying to convince people of it? Can't we just be arguing to express > >> our worldview? > > > > Why? > > Why not? > > >> > If life is trivial why should you care that I don't think life is > >> > trivial? > >> > >> I don't care, really. ;) > > > > Apparently you do! 8-) > > So you presume. ;) You certainly care enough to argue the point! You seem to be quite serious in your devotion to irrationality. 8-) Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 14:36: 3 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B30AE37B400; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 14:36:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 398BE43E3B; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 14:36:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g89LZxGd059225; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 14:35:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g89LZxcd059222; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 14:35:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 14:35:59 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Dave Hayes Cc: Terry Lambert , Juli Mallett , Joshua Lee , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <200209092117.g89LHT134642@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Message-ID: <20020909143458.R1838-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Dave Hayes wrote: > > Ah, but what is the claim that there is no One True Right worldview, > > but a claim that the only One True Right worldview is the one which > > denies that there is One True Right worldview? 8-) > > You have painted the dilemna of the human mind well. The real One > True Right worldview is that there is no One True Right worldview, > not even this one. Hence the need for a Savior, to save us from this intellectual darkness. 8-) Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 15: 2:20 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9070537B401 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:02:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net (pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.122]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8C6C43E65 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:02:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0088.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.88] helo=mindspring.com) by pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17oWbl-0001Om-00; Mon, 09 Sep 2002 15:02:14 -0700 Message-ID: <3D7D1A0B.D96FF014@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 15:00:43 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pgreen Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , Joshua Lee , dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020909163524.W98938-100000@m-net.arbornet.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org pgreen wrote: [ ... ] If you want to participate in the discussion, fine, but please pick one set of context to respond to at a time, or we'll have to ignore you as impossible to respond to. Also, although it's not required, if you could cut out everything but context related to your response, you will help keep things more or less on track. Thanks, -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 15: 3:58 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D58C537B407 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:03:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net (pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.122]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9447043E65 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:03:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0088.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.88] helo=mindspring.com) by pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17oWdP-0003sy-00; Mon, 09 Sep 2002 15:03:55 -0700 Message-ID: <3D7D1A71.16653C8D@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 15:02:25 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200209092047.g89Klb134306@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > > What about the average of a non-arbitrary measure of arvitrary > > values? > > You can't non-arbitrarily measure arbitrary values. Sure you can. Pick a number between 1 and 100. > >> You are actually going to argue that "ignoring trolls" isn't the > >> simplest answer? > > > > Yes. It fails to fit all the facts. > > What facts does it need to fit? It's simple, you ignore the trolls, > they don't bother you. What more needs to be said or analyzed? They bother people who you want to keep more than you want to keep the trolls. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 15: 5:32 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F63537B400; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:05:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 206D343E42; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:05:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g89M5R135018; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:05:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209092205.g89M5R135018@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Juli Mallett , Joshua Lee , tlambert2@mindspring.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 15:05:22 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Neal E Westfall writes: > You certainly care enough to argue the point! Again a presumption. How do you know God didn't tell me to say what I am saying now? ;) > You seem to be quite serious in your devotion to irrationality. 8-) As serious as I am in my devotion to rationality. ;) ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< It is a poor workman who blames his tools. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 15: 6:50 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BA1C37B400; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:06:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BD2543E3B; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:06:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g89M6i135045; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:06:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209092206.g89M6i135045@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Terry Lambert , Juli Mallett , Joshua Lee , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 15:06:39 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Neal E Westfall writes: > On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Dave Hayes wrote: >> > Ah, but what is the claim that there is no One True Right worldview, >> > but a claim that the only One True Right worldview is the one which >> > denies that there is One True Right worldview? 8-) >> >> You have painted the dilemna of the human mind well. The real One >> True Right worldview is that there is no One True Right worldview, >> not even this one. > > Hence the need for a Savior, to save us from this intellectual > darkness. 8-) That doesn't directly follow but it arbitrarily follows. ;) Just how do you know this darkness doesn't suit God's purposes? ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 15:10:53 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8C9337B400 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:10:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4030843E4A for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:10:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g89MAm135107; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:10:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209092210.g89MAm135107@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 15:10:43 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> > What about the average of a non-arbitrary measure of arvitrary >> > values? >> >> You can't non-arbitrarily measure arbitrary values. > > Sure you can. Pick a number between 1 and 100. Done. Now just you try to measure it. ;) >> >> You are actually going to argue that "ignoring trolls" isn't the >> >> simplest answer? >> > >> > Yes. It fails to fit all the facts. >> >> What facts does it need to fit? It's simple, you ignore the trolls, >> they don't bother you. What more needs to be said or analyzed? > > They bother people who you want to keep more than you want to > keep the trolls. That's their problem, not yours. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< The only tyrant I accept in this world is the still voice within. - Gandhi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 15:16:19 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBBD337B400 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:16:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net (snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.62]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6757543E42 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:16:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0088.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.88] helo=mindspring.com) by snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 17oWpE-0006Kb-00; Mon, 09 Sep 2002 15:16:08 -0700 Message-ID: <3D7D1D4A.D8B25193@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 15:14:34 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Giorgos Keramidas , Joshua Lee , dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020909133707.S1838-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > > So what is the criteria for determining "fitness"? Those who > > > survive? But then this just leads us into a logical tautology, > > > whereby the mechanism for evolution amounts to "the survival of > > > the survivors." > > > > "The survival of those best suited to survive", actually. > > It is still a triviality. Of course those "best suited to survive" will > survive. I never claimed it was profound, only that it worked... > I don't really have a problem with adaptation, per se when limited > to within species. What really strikes me as absurd though, is > the idea that chance mutations can give rise to new functionality, > for that functionality is not functional until everything is plugged > in and working. As long as it's not harmful, it's not selected against, and it hangs around. Alternately, there could be some other environmental pressure, which is not pervasive, but is instead periodic. The fact that viruses emerge in waves, rather than being a steady background noise, is indicative of this mechanism. > What possible purpose could a partially evolved > sex organ have, for instance? I think that you are begging the question; the survival value of gametogenesis is fairly indisputable. The real question is not gameteogenesis, per se, which could easily have occurred as a result of a mutation, but internalization of gametogenesis into the organism to such an extent that specialization of organs occurred. The second and third search results in the search reference I gave you go into this idea in more detail than I'm willing to go into myself, in this forum (the significance of the search was not my ability to do a search, it was in my selection of specific terms, and their ordering and grouping, to answer an earlier question of yours). > > The answer is that nature is not anthropomorphised (or personified) > > by having the power to select, so long as it does not exhibit will > > in the process. > > But does this not present a difficulty? With no will to do the > selecting, "the power to select" is completely unintelligible. You keep saying that it's unintelligible, but literally many thousands of scientists don't find it to be unintelligible. Why do you say that it's unintelligible? Why don't they say the same thing? The answer has to lie in the fact that you and they don't share some fundamental assumptions. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 15:31: 7 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A847137B400; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:31:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A026743E4A; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:31:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g89MV3Gd059426; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:31:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g89MV2VS059423; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:31:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:31:02 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Dave Hayes Cc: Juli Mallett , Joshua Lee , , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <200209092205.g89M5R135018@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Message-ID: <20020909153009.A59394-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Dave Hayes wrote: > Neal E Westfall writes: > > You certainly care enough to argue the point! > > Again a presumption. How do you know God didn't tell me to say what I > am saying now? ;) Trust me. I know! 8-) > > You seem to be quite serious in your devotion to irrationality. 8-) > > As serious as I am in my devotion to rationality. ;) See what I mean! 8-) Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 15:32:32 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98D9237B400; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:32:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1895D43E4A; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:32:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g89MWSGd059432; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:32:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g89MWS8Y059429; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:32:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:32:28 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Dave Hayes Cc: Terry Lambert , Juli Mallett , Joshua Lee , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <200209092206.g89M6i135045@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Message-ID: <20020909153112.T59394-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Dave Hayes wrote: > Neal E Westfall writes: > > On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Dave Hayes wrote: > >> > Ah, but what is the claim that there is no One True Right worldview, > >> > but a claim that the only One True Right worldview is the one which > >> > denies that there is One True Right worldview? 8-) > >> > >> You have painted the dilemna of the human mind well. The real One > >> True Right worldview is that there is no One True Right worldview, > >> not even this one. > > > > Hence the need for a Savior, to save us from this intellectual > > darkness. 8-) > > That doesn't directly follow but it arbitrarily follows. ;) > > Just how do you know this darkness doesn't suit God's purposes? Of course it suits God's purposes! Duh... 8-) Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 15:35:21 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8626637B400 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:35:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net (harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.12]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EF7943E4A for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:35:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0088.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.88] helo=mindspring.com) by harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17oX6z-00019u-00; Mon, 09 Sep 2002 15:34:29 -0700 Message-ID: <3D7D2193.88E5546D@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 15:32:51 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Lawrence Sica , Giorgos Keramidas , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020909135135.V1838-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > > > > This is just what I am trying to get people to admit, that evolution > > > > > requires tremendous leaps of faith. Now if you could see that it is also > > > > > irrational, my job would be done. [...] > > Why is it "completely irrational"? All it amounts to is that we > > are willing to acknowledge that we don't know everything. > > Because no matter how well you dress it up, it amounts to the following: > > 1) Something came from nothing. We haven't gotten into the cosmological issues, so far, but if you insist, we can. > 2) Order came from disorder. Mathematically, we can prove this from the same axiomatic basis that lets other mathematical operations work. Order *does* come from disorder. At a fundamental level, the universe is quantized, and this causes certain emergenet behaviours in matter. We call the properties that cause this "universal constants", like the value of PI, the value of "e", the Planck length, etc.. We don't have to define an origin for these numbers for them to make themselves evident to us. > 3) Life came from non-life. This is actually a reasonable assumption, given empirical observations. We have a number of stories to describe the math of how this could be so. It also begs the definition of "life"; if you mean self-assembly of complex chemical compounds, we can do this in a laboratory, under controlled conditions, creating amino acids from conditions which simulate our best guesses at those present early in the life of the Earth. > 4) Intelligence came from non-intelligence. Our best theory is that intelligence is an emergent property of complex self-regulating systems over a certain threshold density. Again, it begs the definition of "intelligence"; there are many things you could mean here, and it's really hard to draw a boundary line, and say, for example, "Chimps are intelligent, but mice are not". > 5) Morality came from the non-moral. Morality is a consensus definition based on collectivist ethics; it's always externally imposed, which is how it differs from ethics. We've had this discussion already. > To believe in evolution (at least the non-theistic variety) you have to > believe that things turn into their opposites. This is quite a departure > from the notion of "rational explanation." I follow your arguments (even if I attempt to refute them); however, even if we grant your 5 points as being totally and complete irrefutably correct, they don't lead me to the conclusion that "evolution is incorrect", they merely lead me, as a collection of supporting arguuments, to a belief in a creator. Believing in a creator is not the same thing as falsifying evolutionary theory. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 15:42:24 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95D9737B400 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:42:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net (harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.12]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 430F543E6E for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:42:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0088.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.88] helo=mindspring.com) by harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17oXEa-0005oq-00; Mon, 09 Sep 2002 15:42:20 -0700 Message-ID: <3D7D2369.301652D4@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 15:40:41 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200209092210.g89MAm135107@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > > Sure you can. Pick a number between 1 and 100. > > Done. Now just you try to measure it. ;) Sure. Tell me the number, and I will measuere it on a scale from 1 to 100. 8-). > > They bother people who you want to keep more than you want to > > keep the trolls. > > That's their problem, not yours. I'm willing to *make* it my problem. Nietsche would be proud... 8-). -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 15:55:42 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B169037B400 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:55:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 094A343E42 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:55:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g89MtNGd059519; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:55:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g89MtM3q059516; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:55:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:55:22 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Terry Lambert Cc: Giorgos Keramidas , Joshua Lee , , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <3D7D1D4A.D8B25193@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20020909153440.V59394-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > > > So what is the criteria for determining "fitness"? Those who > > > > survive? But then this just leads us into a logical tautology, > > > > whereby the mechanism for evolution amounts to "the survival of > > > > the survivors." > > > > > > "The survival of those best suited to survive", actually. > > > > It is still a triviality. Of course those "best suited to survive" will > > survive. > > I never claimed it was profound, only that it worked... Similarly, you could say "gravity causes objects to fall because gravity has the property of making objects fall." While true, it is completely uninteresting. It "works" *because* of the fact that it is true by definition. > > I don't really have a problem with adaptation, per se when limited > > to within species. What really strikes me as absurd though, is > > the idea that chance mutations can give rise to new functionality, > > for that functionality is not functional until everything is plugged > > in and working. > > As long as it's not harmful, it's not selected against, and it > hangs around. Alternately, there could be some other environmental > pressure, which is not pervasive, but is instead periodic. The > fact that viruses emerge in waves, rather than being a steady > background noise, is indicative of this mechanism. Why should it hang around? It's like the million monkeys argument. In order for the million monkeys argument to work, somebody would have to do the selecting, meaning there is more involved than just a million monkeys typing on keyboards. > > What possible purpose could a partially evolved > > sex organ have, for instance? > > I think that you are begging the question; the survival value > of gametogenesis is fairly indisputable. Who's disputing it? I'm asking how in the world it climbed Mt. Improbability. > The real question is > not gameteogenesis, per se, which could easily have occurred > as a result of a mutation, but internalization of gametogenesis > into the organism to such an extent that specialization of organs > occurred. Yeah, an understatement to say the least! 8-) > The second and third search results in the search reference I > gave you go into this idea in more detail than I'm willing to > go into myself, in this forum (the significance of the search > was not my ability to do a search, it was in my selection of > specific terms, and their ordering and grouping, to answer an > earlier question of yours). Ah, what irony! 8-) > > > > > The answer is that nature is not anthropomorphised (or personified) > > > by having the power to select, so long as it does not exhibit will > > > in the process. > > > > But does this not present a difficulty? With no will to do the > > selecting, "the power to select" is completely unintelligible. > > You keep saying that it's unintelligible, but literally many > thousands of scientists don't find it to be unintelligible. Maybe, just maybe, because they don't *want* to believe it to be unintelligible. > Why do you say that it's unintelligible? Because is isn't. It's like saying water has the power to choose its own path. Such a notion is completely unintelligible. > Why don't they say > the same thing? The answer has to lie in the fact that you > and they don't share some fundamental assumptions. Now you're getting the point... Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 16:24:16 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5277337B400 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 16:24:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net (snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.62]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4FD943E42 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 16:24:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0088.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.88] helo=mindspring.com) by snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 17oXsx-00001v-00; Mon, 09 Sep 2002 16:24:04 -0700 Message-ID: <3D7D2D27.4B84C60B@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 16:22:15 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Giorgos Keramidas , Joshua Lee , dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020909153440.V59394-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > Similarly, you could say "gravity causes objects to fall because gravity > has the property of making objects fall." While true, it is completely > uninteresting. It "works" *because* of the fact that it is true by > definition. This argument is very like the argument that animals exist because God created them that way, and we should not question their nature. 8-). The only difference I see here is that in the case of evolution, you have a doctorine to appeal to, and so it should not be questioned, whereas in the case of gravity, there is no doctorine, so questioning it is acceptable behaviour. What this really xomes down to is that you don't want people to question doctorine, because you take it to be Revealed Knowledge, and therefore beyond the right of man to question. I'd point out that the Ptolomeyic universe had this same favored position of being protected by doctorine, and that what irked the Catholic Church about Galileo was his publication in Italian, rather than Latin, removing the information from slow and controlled integration into existing doctorine over time. Basically, he broke the story before they could change their public policy. "We have always been at war with the East". 8-). > > As long as it's not harmful, it's not selected against, and it > > hangs around. Alternately, there could be some other environmental > > pressure, which is not pervasive, but is instead periodic. The > > fact that viruses emerge in waves, rather than being a steady > > background noise, is indicative of this mechanism. > > Why should it hang around? The genes are there; why should they magically disappear, if there's no pressure to remove them from the gene pool? We know for a fact that it is almost impossible to eliminate recessive genes without eugenics or explicit engineering: it's mathematical improbability is so amazingly large that it simply can't happen. What's the evolutionary disadvantage of green eyes? Do people with green eyes die of hemoragic fever when exposed to vegetables? 8-). So we have people with genes that code for the production of proteins that result in green eyes, rather than blue or brown... > It's like the million monkeys argument. In order for the million > monkeys argument to work, somebody would have to do the selecting, > meaning there is more involved than just a million monkeys typing > on keyboards. "One, two, three, for, five, many..." "A million" is just a convenient handle for "an inconceivably large number"; the premise in the argument is sound: given a source of randomness, eventually, a set number of bits in a specific sequence will happen. If it never happens, then your input wasn't really random. It's basically a premise based on large number theory, combined with the theory of limits. Basically, there is a finite probability of something happening, and an infinity of attempts at a matching value: eventually, it *will* happen. > > > What possible purpose could a partially evolved > > > sex organ have, for instance? > > > > I think that you are begging the question; the survival value > > of gametogenesis is fairly indisputable. > > Who's disputing it? I'm asking how in the world it climbed > Mt. Improbability. The general consensus is that it started with the exchange of linear RNA segments Eucaryotes. > > The real question is > > not gameteogenesis, per se, which could easily have occurred > > as a result of a mutation, but internalization of gametogenesis > > into the organism to such an extent that specialization of organs > > occurred. > > Yeah, an understatement to say the least! 8-) Not really. If something is possible, no matter how improbable, given an infinite amount of time... > > The second and third search results in the search reference I > > gave you go into this idea in more detail than I'm willing to > > go into myself, in this forum (the significance of the search > > was not my ability to do a search, it was in my selection of > > specific terms, and their ordering and grouping, to answer an > > earlier question of yours). > > Ah, what irony! 8-) What, that I can think like the lexicographer who designed the classification criteria for the search engines, such that I am a "good search term picker"? 8-). I assure you, that a lot of people have the ability to pick "good" search terms. > > > But does this not present a difficulty? With no will to do the > > > selecting, "the power to select" is completely unintelligible. > > > > You keep saying that it's unintelligible, but literally many > > thousands of scientists don't find it to be unintelligible. > > Maybe, just maybe, because they don't *want* to believe it to be > unintelligible. Or that you want to believe that it is? > > Why do you say that it's unintelligible? > > Because is isn't. It's like saying water has the power to choose its > own path. Such a notion is completely unintelligible. Entropy chooses water's path. 8-). > > Why don't they say > > the same thing? The answer has to lie in the fact that you > > and they don't share some fundamental assumptions. > > Now you're getting the point... I got that point from your first posting. Now you should get mine: it's unreasonable for you to expect everyone to adopt your assumptions, particularly if their asumptions are a subset of yours. 8-). -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 16:35:29 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AF2E37B400; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 16:35:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA13F43E65; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 16:35:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g89NZN136514; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 16:35:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209092335.g89NZN136514@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Juli Mallett , Joshua Lee , tlambert2@mindspring.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 16:35:18 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Neal E Westfall writes: > On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Dave Hayes wrote: >> Neal E Westfall writes: >> > You certainly care enough to argue the point! >> >> Again a presumption. How do you know God didn't tell me to say what I >> am saying now? ;) > > Trust me. I know! 8-) I don't trust you, that's why I think you are presuming. ;) >> > You seem to be quite serious in your devotion to irrationality. 8-) >> >> As serious as I am in my devotion to rationality. ;) > > See what I mean! 8-) I'm not sure I do. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< For mad scientists who keep brains in jars, here's a tip: why not add a slice of lemon to each jar, for freshness? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 16:36:37 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A110137B400; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 16:36:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D71943E4A; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 16:36:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g89NaV136541; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 16:36:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209092336.g89NaV136541@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Terry Lambert , Juli Mallett , Joshua Lee , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 16:36:26 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Neal E Westfall writes: > On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Dave Hayes wrote: >> Neal E Westfall writes: >> > On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Dave Hayes wrote: >> >> > Ah, but what is the claim that there is no One True Right worldview, >> >> > but a claim that the only One True Right worldview is the one which >> >> > denies that there is One True Right worldview? 8-) >> >> >> >> You have painted the dilemna of the human mind well. The real One >> >> True Right worldview is that there is no One True Right worldview, >> >> not even this one. >> > >> > Hence the need for a Savior, to save us from this intellectual >> > darkness. 8-) >> >> That doesn't directly follow but it arbitrarily follows. ;) >> >> Just how do you know this darkness doesn't suit God's purposes? > > Of course it suits God's purposes! Duh... Then I'll trust you to not try to contradict God's purposes by asserting the need for a Savior? ;) ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< Experience is the one thing you can't get for nothing. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 16:38: 6 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82BC437B400 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 16:38:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F11E43E4A for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 16:38:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g89Nc2136565; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 16:38:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209092338.g89Nc2136565@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 16:37:57 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> > Sure you can. Pick a number between 1 and 100. >> >> Done. Now just you try to measure it. ;) > > Sure. Tell me the number, and I will measuere it on a scale > from 1 to 100. 8-). Nope, I won't tell you. Thus you can't measure it, and your argument falls apart. ;) >> > They bother people who you want to keep more than you want to >> > keep the trolls. >> >> That's their problem, not yours. > > I'm willing to *make* it my problem. Nietsche would be proud... I think that's dishonorable, myself. But then again, you miss the entire thing about "allowing" vs "causing" unethical actions. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< What is it that makes a complete stranger dive into an icy river to save a solid gold baby? Maybe we'll never know. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 16:52:53 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3708837B400 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 16:52:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net (snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.62]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBCFF43E75 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 16:52:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0088.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.88] helo=mindspring.com) by snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 17oYKD-0000Nm-00; Mon, 09 Sep 2002 16:52:13 -0700 Message-ID: <3D7D33B6.60D79694@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 16:50:14 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200209092338.g89Nc2136565@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > >> > Sure you can. Pick a number between 1 and 100. > >> > >> Done. Now just you try to measure it. ;) > > > > Sure. Tell me the number, and I will measuere it on a scale > > from 1 to 100. 8-). > > Nope, I won't tell you. Thus you can't measure it, and your argument > falls apart. ;) I shall now measure it in a scale of 1 to 10,000. Look at that! It falls into the bottom 1% of the scale! 8-) 8-). -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 17:21:53 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 456E837B400 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 17:21:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C718343E4A for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 17:21:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8A0Lm136781; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 17:21:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209100021.g8A0Lm136781@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 17:21:43 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> >> > Sure you can. Pick a number between 1 and 100. >> >> >> >> Done. Now just you try to measure it. ;) >> > >> > Sure. Tell me the number, and I will measuere it on a scale >> > from 1 to 100. 8-). >> >> Nope, I won't tell you. Thus you can't measure it, and your argument >> falls apart. ;) > > I shall now measure it in a scale of 1 to 10,000. Look at that! > It falls into the bottom 1% of the scale! 8-) 8-). Nope, I used base 50 to pick my number with. ;) ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< Ours is a world where people don't know what they want but are willing to go through hell to get it. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 17:24:23 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 351AD37B400 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 17:24:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA6EB43E42 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 17:24:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8A0NF136828; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 17:23:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209100023.g8A0NF136828@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , Giorgos Keramidas , Joshua Lee , dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 17:23:10 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > You keep saying that it's unintelligible, but literally many > thousands of scientists don't find it to be unintelligible. > Why do you say that it's unintelligible? Why don't they say > the same thing? The answer has to lie in the fact that you > and they don't share some fundamental assumptions. One of which might be that "scientists must be right, they're scientists." ;) ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< "A terrorist is someone who has a bomb and doesn't have an air force." --some letter-writer in the Manchester Guardian To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 18:36: 0 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F46E37B401 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 18:35:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (jive.SoftHome.net [66.54.152.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C4E2943E65 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 18:35:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yid@softhome.net) Received: (qmail 6518 invoked by uid 417); 10 Sep 2002 01:35:50 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 10 Sep 2002 01:35:50 -0000 Received: from planb ([216.194.25.11]) (AUTH: LOGIN yid@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Mon, 09 Sep 2002 19:35:44 -0600 Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 21:35:32 -0400 From: Joshua Lee To: Terry Lambert Cc: nwestfal@directvinternet.com, dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-Id: <20020909213532.3a804946.yid@softhome.net> In-Reply-To: <3D7CE784.BAD01B19@mindspring.com> References: <20020909092446.O9219-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> <3D7CE784.BAD01B19@mindspring.com> Organization: Plan B Software Labs X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.2claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.7) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 09 Sep 2002 11:25:08 -0700 Terry Lambert wrote: > "God is the sum total of all physical laws" -- Albert Einstein Like I said, I admire Einstein's writings - even when I disagree with them. :-) I think Einstein was going a bit beyond his turf as a physicist by venturing into theological territory; though if you examine his writings what he means by this phrase is probably Spinozan (Einstein's philosophical musings as a whole were influenced by Spinoza), which is a bit more religious (in a deep way) than this short quote seems to suggest at first glance. > The selection criteria in nature -- which you claim doesn't exist -- > is the ability to breathe Oxygen in a 21%/78%/1% mix with Nitrogen > and other trace gasses. > > Such a mutation is selected against by the organism dying. Actually, Oxygen, as an oxident, was quite poisonous to early forms of life. It was mostly in the atmosphere as a byproduct of non-oxygen breathing life, which was threatening to perish in it's own waste gas. (Even today plants exhale oxygen, and inhale carbon dioxide; though of course most forms we observe aren't anaerobic anymore.) > > whole question is as to the ultimate source of the worldly or > > temporal concerns. Evolution is an attempt to give an account of > > that, and as such has crossed over into the realm of religion and Evolution doesn't have anything to do with "worldly or temporal concerns" and their source. Telihard De Chardin and, to a lesser extent, Chief Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook managed to be both evolutionists and "Judeo-christian" theists without much of a contradiction. Of course, Neal Westfall claims that De Chardin, Catholic Church approvals of his writings to the contrary, is "not a xtian" because he doesn't match Mr. Westfall's version of orthodoxy. > Because evolution ignores the need for God. Which is what really > annoys you about it. Science doesn't need to pay attention to the need for G-d with every theory; I don't view this as much of a threat - any more than addition having a lack of pointing to the need for G-d. I don't personaly view *Darwinian* evolution to be yet another penultimite scientific model for other reasons: irreducable complexity. > It doesn't take a position on whether or not there is a God or there > isn't a God. It's not an athiestic world view, nor is it a theistic > world view. It's orthogonal to the consideration of the issue of > whether or not there is God. Neal Westfall claims of course that evolution is a religion. Then he goes and claims that without xtianity one cannot properly reason. ;-) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 18:52:19 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56F3437B401 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 18:52:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (jive.SoftHome.net [66.54.152.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7B53843E65 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 18:52:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yid@softhome.net) Received: (qmail 28061 invoked by uid 417); 10 Sep 2002 01:52:17 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 10 Sep 2002 01:52:17 -0000 Received: from planb ([216.194.25.11]) (AUTH: LOGIN yid@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Mon, 09 Sep 2002 19:52:15 -0600 Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 21:52:02 -0400 From: Joshua Lee To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: dave@jetcafe.org, tlambert2@mindspring.com, jmallett@FreeBSD.ORG, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-Id: <20020909215202.78267872.yid@softhome.net> In-Reply-To: <20020909153112.T59394-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> References: <200209092206.g89M6i135045@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> <20020909153112.T59394-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Organization: Plan B Software Labs X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.2claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.7) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:32:28 -0700 (PDT) "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > > Hence the need for a Savior, to save us from this intellectual > > > darkness. 8-) > > > > That doesn't directly follow but it arbitrarily follows. ;) > > > > Just how do you know this darkness doesn't suit God's purposes? > > Of course it suits God's purposes! Duh... > 8-) So you are saying, that the eternal torture of non-xtians serves a purpose? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 19: 1:37 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45AC937B400 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 19:01:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (jive.SoftHome.net [66.54.152.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2DEEF43E65 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 19:01:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yid@softhome.net) Received: (qmail 21912 invoked by uid 417); 10 Sep 2002 02:01:32 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 10 Sep 2002 02:01:32 -0000 Received: from planb ([216.194.25.11]) (AUTH: LOGIN yid@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Mon, 09 Sep 2002 20:01:30 -0600 Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 22:01:17 -0400 From: Joshua Lee To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-Id: <20020909220117.5343f09b.yid@softhome.net> In-Reply-To: <20020906124405.V94577-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> References: <20020905202034.77ef17b3.yid@softhome.net> <20020906124405.V94577-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Organization: Plan B Software Labs X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.2claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.7) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, 6 Sep 2002 14:05:40 -0700 (PDT) "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > > I think you are operating on a Thomistic notion of "faith". Faith > > > does not take over where reason leaves off. Faith is the > > > foundation of reason. Reasoning would not even be possible > > > without faith. I argue that only *Christian* faith can account > > > for reason, but here I suppose we disagree. > > > > Until you prove that through your faith you can reason better than > > the rest of us, a thesis very much in doubt, this statement is > > unsupportable. > > Well, please go back and read some of my posts to Terry and Dave. ROFL! > For example, the naturalist cannot account for human reason, since > according to a naturalist, everything that happens in the human brain > is just electro-chemical responses in the brain which have nothing to > do with "truth", "error", "right reason", etc. If a person is a A computer programmer cannot account for computer programms, because they are composed of moving electrons that have nothing to do with: printf ("Hello world.\n"); > naturalist, he has no reason to be a naturalist. He must also say > that other people's beliefs in God are also only the result of > electro-chemical responses in the brain. He could never know whether > or not he was right, since every attempt to reason his way to the > truth is just more electro-chemical responses in the brain, and hence, > the results of *these* reactions are also suspect. If this is an example of your "superior xtian reason", I'll have none of it. ;-) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 19: 4:33 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8780937B400 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 19:04:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from m-net.arbornet.org (m-net.arbornet.org [209.142.209.161]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0464143E42 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 19:04:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from polytarp@m-net.arbornet.org) Received: from m-net.arbornet.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by m-net.arbornet.org (8.12.3/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g8A25qjZ035010; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 22:05:52 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from polytarp@m-net.arbornet.org) Received: from localhost (polytarp@localhost) by m-net.arbornet.org (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) with ESMTP id g8A25qSn035007; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 22:05:52 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 22:05:52 -0400 (EDT) From: pgreen To: Joshua Lee Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <20020909220117.5343f09b.yid@softhome.net> Message-ID: <20020909220509.R34967-100000@m-net.arbornet.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org I /\ /\ ROMANIA! \ V / \ / V On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Joshua Lee wrote: > On Fri, 6 Sep 2002 14:05:40 -0700 (PDT) > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > > > > I think you are operating on a Thomistic notion of "faith". Faith > > > > does not take over where reason leaves off. Faith is the > > > > foundation of reason. Reasoning would not even be possible > > > > without faith. I argue that only *Christian* faith can account > > > > for reason, but here I suppose we disagree. > > > > > > Until you prove that through your faith you can reason better than > > > the rest of us, a thesis very much in doubt, this statement is > > > unsupportable. > > > > Well, please go back and read some of my posts to Terry and Dave. > > ROFL! > > > For example, the naturalist cannot account for human reason, since > > according to a naturalist, everything that happens in the human brain > > is just electro-chemical responses in the brain which have nothing to > > do with "truth", "error", "right reason", etc. If a person is a > > A computer programmer cannot account for computer programms, because > they are composed of moving electrons that have nothing to do with: > printf ("Hello world.\n"); > > > naturalist, he has no reason to be a naturalist. He must also say > > that other people's beliefs in God are also only the result of > > electro-chemical responses in the brain. He could never know whether > > or not he was right, since every attempt to reason his way to the > > truth is just more electro-chemical responses in the brain, and hence, > > the results of *these* reactions are also suspect. > > If this is an example of your "superior xtian reason", I'll have none of > it. ;-) > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 19:57:48 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04E3837B400 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 19:57:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from primus.vsservices.com (primus.vsservices.com [63.66.136.75]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 744F443E3B for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 19:57:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gclarkii@vsservices.com) Received: from prime.vsservices.com (conr-adsl-dhcp-26-247.txucom.net [209.34.26.247]) by primus.vsservices.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with SMTP id g89LUemt033273 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 16:30:40 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from gclarkii@vsservices.com) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 16:30:42 -0500 From: GB Clark To: chat@freebsd.org Subject: test of mail system... silent errors??? Message-Id: <20020909163042.3be78db8.gclarkii@vsservices.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.2 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.6) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Arrgghhhh I hate silent errors! GB -- GB Clark II | Roaming FreeBSD Admin gclarkii@VSServices.COM | General Geek CTHULU for President - Why choose the lesser of two evils? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 20:16:30 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97C6E37B400 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 20:16:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (jive.SoftHome.net [66.54.152.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0723E43E4A for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 20:16:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yid@softhome.net) Received: (qmail 5480 invoked by uid 417); 10 Sep 2002 03:16:27 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 10 Sep 2002 03:16:27 -0000 Received: from planb ([216.194.25.11]) (AUTH: LOGIN yid@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Mon, 09 Sep 2002 21:16:24 -0600 Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 23:16:09 -0400 From: Joshua Lee To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: keramida@ceid.upatras.gr, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-Id: <20020909231609.68ac5883.yid@softhome.net> In-Reply-To: <20020906181354.C44831-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> References: <20020907002242.GC15779@hades.hell.gr> <20020906181354.C44831-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Organization: Plan B Software Labs X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.2claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.7) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, 6 Sep 2002 18:30:52 -0700 (PDT) "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > Correction. Logic and ethics are meaningless without objective > standards, and objective standards are impossible without appealing > to something, well, *objective*. "Objective" means that it comes to > you from the outside, externally, i.e. "not subjective". So No, "objective" can operate according to natural law without having to appeal to an external source. e.g. Kantian ethics. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 20:24:26 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5599137B400 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 20:24:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (jive.SoftHome.net [66.54.152.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 93F6043E42 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 20:24:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yid@softhome.net) Received: (qmail 29305 invoked by uid 417); 10 Sep 2002 03:24:24 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 10 Sep 2002 03:24:24 -0000 Received: from planb ([216.194.25.11]) (AUTH: LOGIN yid@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Mon, 09 Sep 2002 21:24:21 -0600 Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 23:24:08 -0400 From: Joshua Lee To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: tlambert2@mindspring.com, keramida@ceid.upatras.gr, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-Id: <20020909232408.3c7c58a4.yid@softhome.net> In-Reply-To: <20020907082509.M44831-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> References: <3D79A5B8.C6176B8E@mindspring.com> <20020907082509.M44831-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Organization: Plan B Software Labs X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.2claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.7) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sat, 7 Sep 2002 08:31:10 -0700 (PDT) "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > Here's mine: The people of Israel were set aside by God as His > chosen people. As such they were to be distinguished from the > gentiles through ceremonial practices, one of which included not > eating pork. When the Messiah came, God expanded His promises > to the whole world, there was no longer to be any distinction > between jew and gentile, for all are one in Christ, thus to The "ceremonial" and "rational" laws promolgated by the Oral and Written Torah are in my opinion primarily to make it's practitioners in contact with the idea of the divine at all times. If G-d is not in my refrigerator where is he? Of course, without a peoplehood such a complex of laws cannot survive, or evolve, so naturally non-Jews are obligated in the 7 mitzvos of Bnai Noach rather than the 613 that apply to Jews. (Unless they of course of their own volition choose to join the Jewish people, but gaining converts is not a goal of Judaism.) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 20:29:55 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6D6B37B401 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 20:29:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (jive.SoftHome.net [66.54.152.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4409243E3B for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 20:29:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yid@softhome.net) Received: (qmail 12856 invoked by uid 417); 10 Sep 2002 03:29:50 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 10 Sep 2002 03:29:50 -0000 Received: from planb ([216.194.25.11]) (AUTH: LOGIN yid@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Mon, 09 Sep 2002 21:29:46 -0600 Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 23:29:34 -0400 From: Joshua Lee To: Terry Lambert Cc: george.reid1@ntlworld.com, nwestfal@directvinternet.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-Id: <20020909232934.77266237.yid@softhome.net> In-Reply-To: <3D78F5CB.6541A3FA@mindspring.com> References: <20020906013554.A42842@FreeBSD.org> <20020905211353.W92353-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> <20020906155919.A6312@FreeBSD.org> <3D78E56B.36741301@mindspring.com> <20020906184838.B17895@FreeBSD.org> <3D78F5CB.6541A3FA@mindspring.com> Organization: Plan B Software Labs X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.2claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.7) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, 06 Sep 2002 11:36:59 -0700 Terry Lambert wrote: > I don't read Hebrew; the closest I get is some Yiddish; but I Yiddish is a neat language, I am much more fluent in Hebrew; however I know a lot of Chasidim who speak Yiddish as their first language. Seeing a Chasid dressed in 18th century dress while talking on a cell-phone or using a PDA sometimes makes me do a double-take. :-) > do read some Greek. 8-). Was the "young girl"/"virgin" mixup > also from the Hebrew? No, that's in the xtian Greek translation of Isaiah (the original Septuagint, by Jewish scholars hired by Ptolomy, was only on the Torah.) The Hebrew text says "almah", which means young woman of child-bearing age. If it had meant "virgin" it would say "besulah." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 20:34:22 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D4AD37B400 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 20:34:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (jive.SoftHome.net [66.54.152.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9973043E4A for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 20:34:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yid@softhome.net) Received: (qmail 25748 invoked by uid 417); 10 Sep 2002 03:34:17 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 10 Sep 2002 03:34:17 -0000 Received: from planb ([216.194.25.11]) (AUTH: LOGIN yid@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Mon, 09 Sep 2002 21:34:13 -0600 Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 23:34:00 -0400 From: Joshua Lee To: George Reid Cc: tlambert2@mindspring.com, nwestfal@directvinternet.com, chat@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-Id: <20020909233400.46ba564a.yid@softhome.net> In-Reply-To: <20020906201057.A18193@FreeBSD.org> References: <20020906013554.A42842@FreeBSD.org> <20020905211353.W92353-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> <20020906155919.A6312@FreeBSD.org> <3D78E56B.36741301@mindspring.com> <20020906184838.B17895@FreeBSD.org> <3D78F5CB.6541A3FA@mindspring.com> <20020906201057.A18193@FreeBSD.org> Organization: Plan B Software Labs X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.2claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.7) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, 6 Sep 2002 20:10:57 +0100 George Reid wrote: > I assume you mean Isaiah 7:14 ("The virgin will be with child and will > give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel"). The Hebrew verse > reads "Hinneh ha-almah harah ve-yeldeth ben ve-karath shem-o > Immanuel"."ha-almah" does indeed mean "the young woman". However, it > needs to be read in its social context -- "almah" typically refers to > a young woman who is not yet married and therefore assumably a virgin. I remember when studying this issue several verses of the Tanakh (OT) used this word for definite non-virgins. Unfortunately I don't own a concordance, so I can't post chapter and verse at the moment. > There *is* a > specific Hebrew word ("betulah") for "virgin" but it wasn't used here. Correct. > "parthenos" in later traditions. Additionally, the definite Hebrew > article "ha" (the) appears to have been replaced with the indefinite > "e" (the) in the Greek. I *believe* (although I am not certain as I When it says "the", it implies someone that both he and King Ahaz knew. This is refering to the birth of King Hezekiel if memory serves me correctly. Really; in what way would a prediction of an eventual messiah ally King Ahaz's concerns about approaching troops? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 20:39: 7 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB77F37B400 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 20:39:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (jive.SoftHome.net [66.54.152.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B776443E75 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 20:39:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yid@softhome.net) Received: (qmail 6807 invoked by uid 417); 10 Sep 2002 03:39:04 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 10 Sep 2002 03:39:04 -0000 Received: from planb ([216.194.25.11]) (AUTH: LOGIN yid@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Mon, 09 Sep 2002 21:39:00 -0600 Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 23:38:46 -0400 From: Joshua Lee To: Juli Mallett Cc: nwestfal@directvinternet.com, dave@jetcafe.org, tlambert2@mindspring.com, crap@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-Id: <20020909233846.273a5854.yid@softhome.net> In-Reply-To: <20020905190756.A54861@FreeBSD.org> References: <20020904232446.0b55b1d5.yid@softhome.net> <20020904205814.U38687-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> <20020905190756.A54861@FreeBSD.org> Organization: Plan B Software Labs X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.2claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.7) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 5 Sep 2002 19:07:56 -0700 Juli Mallett wrote: > > So why are you attacking what my religion teaches? Aren't you just > > being a little bit hypocritical? Do you think that Christians just > > made up the doctrine of hell? Where do you think it came from? Did > > In ancient Hebrew tribal religion, there were two sects, one who > worshipped the god of death, one who worshipped the god of life. Evidence? > with Christianity these days. It would be more correct to say that > Hebrew tribal elders made up hell; you are forgetting that the roots > of Christianity are in Judaism. Not in this, xtianities views about hell are primarily influenced by Zoastrianism and Greek mystery religions. Judaism believes primarily in a purgatory, not hell, and an afterlife reward not based upon choice of religion other than not doing idolatry... > from Celtic and old European religions throughout the ages, and that > Jesus was a man, and a great man, and a man who said great things. Most of the things he is claimed to have said had been said by Jewish Rabbis of his era such as Rabbi Hillel. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 21: 1:17 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01E5237B400 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 21:01:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (jive.SoftHome.net [66.54.152.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E661143E6E for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 21:01:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yid@softhome.net) Received: (qmail 5729 invoked by uid 417); 10 Sep 2002 04:01:09 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 10 Sep 2002 04:01:09 -0000 Received: from planb ([216.194.25.11]) (AUTH: LOGIN yid@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Mon, 09 Sep 2002 22:01:06 -0600 Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 00:00:53 -0400 From: Joshua Lee To: Dave Hayes Cc: nwestfal@directvinternet.com, tlambert2@mindspring.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-Id: <20020910000053.3bebb8b2.yid@softhome.net> In-Reply-To: <200209050658.g856wD189878@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> References: <200209050658.g856wD189878@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Organization: Plan B Software Labs X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.2claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.7) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 04 Sep 2002 23:58:08 -0700 Dave Hayes wrote: > First off, we are dealing with words 2000 years old. Imagine if I > went back in time and said "Man, that's a killer outfit. Dude, yer > stylin, let's hook up and score some babes". Scholars would have a > field day attempting to determine just what I meant. We are faced > with the same dilemna trying to interpret words which had idiomatic > meanings and content way back then that are lost now. That's why Judaism finds the study of commentaries, and commentaries on the commentaries, very important. The brevity of the Written Torah points to the Oral Torah. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 22:14: 9 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FB8C37B400 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 22:14:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CF5F43E42 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 22:14:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8A5E2137907; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 22:14:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209100514.g8A5E2137907@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Joshua Lee Cc: nwestfal@directvinternet.com, tlambert2@mindspring.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 22:13:57 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Joshua Lee writes: > That's why Judaism finds the study of commentaries, and commentaries > on the commentaries, very important. The brevity of the Written > Torah points to the Oral Torah. I have great respect for oral traditions, because normally in these the responsibility of duplicating the precise meaning rests on the one teaching. It's much less prone to error than, say, some mathematical paper is at communicating a fragment of the truth. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< Politically Correct? Then BITE me! --Unwilling to be quoted To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 10 4:13:52 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3690A37B400 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 04:13:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (jive.SoftHome.net [66.54.152.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 96D5B43E65 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 04:13:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yid@softhome.net) Received: (qmail 11253 invoked by uid 417); 10 Sep 2002 11:13:48 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 10 Sep 2002 11:13:48 -0000 Received: from planb ([216.194.2.204]) (AUTH: LOGIN yid@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 05:13:46 -0600 Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 07:13:34 -0400 From: Joshua Lee To: ulf@Alameda.net Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: anyone have a suggestion about XFree86, nv and not having to use ShadowFB ? Message-Id: <20020910071334.23107a13.yid@softhome.net> In-Reply-To: <20020907115355.A65100@seven.alameda.net> References: <20020907115355.A65100@seven.alameda.net> Organization: Plan B Software Labs X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.2claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.7) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sat, 7 Sep 2002 11:53:55 -0700 Ulf Zimmermann wrote: > I have a GeForce 4 Ti 4600 in one system. Using the nv driver, I have > to turn on ShadowFB, otherwise I get pixels left over when redrawing > happens, like when an xterms scrolls. Just tried 4.2.1, same problem. Works fine here with a nVidia TNT M64 card, but I know that doesn't help. You might want to ask this on freebsd-questions. (You don't even have to be a subscriber to post a question.) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 10 4:51:37 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF63837B400 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 04:51:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vatican.va (pentagon.CS.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.42.38]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A8B1B43E3B for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 04:50:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from root@vatican.va) X-Mailbox-Line: From root@vatican.va Tue Sep 10 04:40:16 2002 Received: from cs.indiana.edu [129.79.254.191] by pentagon.cs.berkeley.edu (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g89GBDmY002941 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 04:40:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from heaven.mil [255.255.255.255] by cs.indiana.edu (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g49GBHlY003943 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 04:40:17 -0500 (MDT) From: God@Heaven.MIL To: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020910104940.GA720@Heaven.MIL> References: <20020909153440.V59394-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> <3D7D2D27.4B84C60B@mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3D7D2D27.4B84C60B@mindspring.com> Organization: Billy Graham Presents X-Mailer: Gabriel VII.IX Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 04:50:55 -0700 (PDT) Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > Dave Hayes wrote: > > Terry Lambert writes: > > > Dave Hayes wrote: > > > > Terry Lambert writes: > > > > > Neal E Westfall wrote: > > > > > > Dave Hayes wrote: > > > > > > > Terry Lambert writes: > > > > > > > > Dave Hayes wrote: > > > > > > > > > Terry Lambert writes: > > > > > > > > > > Neal E Westfall writes: > > > > > > > > > > > Dave Hayes wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Craig Harding wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Terry Lambert writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dave Hayes wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Terry Lambert writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dave Hayes wrote: Ahem. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 10 8:46:30 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33FF937B400 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 08:45:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E682543E84 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 08:45:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g8AFhVGd062828; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 08:43:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g8AFhQ5N062825; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 08:43:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 08:43:26 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Terry Lambert Cc: Lawrence Sica , Giorgos Keramidas , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <3D7D2193.88E5546D@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20020909170759.M59679-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > [...] > > > Why is it "completely irrational"? All it amounts to is that we > > > are willing to acknowledge that we don't know everything. > > > > Because no matter how well you dress it up, it amounts to the following: > > > > 1) Something came from nothing. > > We haven't gotten into the cosmological issues, so far, but if > you insist, we can. It does seem to be relevent, doesn't it? > > 2) Order came from disorder. > > Mathematically, we can prove this from the same axiomatic basis > that lets other mathematical operations work. Order *does* come > from disorder. And square circles *do too* exist. > At a fundamental level, the universe is quantized, > and this causes certain emergenet behaviours in matter. Really? What do you mean, when you say, "the universe is quantized"? And what do you mean by "certain emergent behaviours in matter"? You seem to think that quantum physics can do all things, like reconcile the irrational. To say that order comes from disorder, no matter how much you try to dress it up is still irrational. If, on the other hand, you mean there never was disorder in the first place, I can buy that. > We call > the properties that cause this "universal constants", like the > value of PI, the value of "e", the Planck length, etc.. We don't > have to define an origin for these numbers for them to make > themselves evident to us. Maybe you don't think so, but if you believe that then you can't count on them continuing to be constants in the future. We're right back to David Hume and the problem of induction. > > 3) Life came from non-life. > > This is actually a reasonable assumption, given empirical > observations. We have a number of stories to describe the math > of how this could be so. "Stories" seems to be an apt description. > It also begs the definition of "life"; > if you mean self-assembly of complex chemical compounds, we can > do this in a laboratory, under controlled conditions, creating > amino acids from conditions which simulate our best guesses at > those present early in the life of the Earth. The key phrase here is "under controlled conditions". Self-assembly is a contradiction. Moreover, no, I do not consider amino acids to be "life". > > 4) Intelligence came from non-intelligence. > > Our best theory is that intelligence is an emergent property of > complex self-regulating systems over a certain threshold density. This just sounds like so much baloney. Basically what you just said is that our best theory is merely the assertion that "intelligence emerged from non-intelligence." Yeah, I already know you believe that, but believing it and showing it to be the case are two different things. > Again, it begs the definition of "intelligence"; there are many > things you could mean here, and it's really hard to draw a boundary > line, and say, for example, "Chimps are intelligent, but mice are > not". Lets start with your own reasoning ability. To review, if you are a naturalist, all of your brain functions are due merely to physical laws acting on antecedent brain states. On your view, reason is an illusion, and you have no way of knowing whether or not your reasoning is sound, since all of it is due merely to the electro-chemical reactions taking place in your grey matter. You could never know that your views were right and that somebody else's views are wrong, unless you give yourself the priviledged position of being the only person for whom evolution granted perfect reasoning. Moreover, you cannot save reason by introducing randomness, as all this does is try to save rationality by introducing irrationality. Morever, whether or not you think reason is determined by physical laws or by chance, it is still determined, and has nothing to do with "sound reasoning" or "truth". > > 5) Morality came from the non-moral. > > Morality is a consensus definition based on collectivist ethics; > it's always externally imposed, which is how it differs from > ethics. We've had this discussion already. Yeah, I know, you don't believe in moral absolutes. I'll just point out one more problem with your view, and then drop it. You could never come to a meaningful consensus without reasoning, and since your reasoning is suspect due to the above, you could never actually come to any meaningful consensus. > > To believe in evolution (at least the non-theistic variety) you have to > > believe that things turn into their opposites. This is quite a departure > > from the notion of "rational explanation." > > I follow your arguments (even if I attempt to refute them); > however, even if we grant your 5 points as being totally and > complete irrefutably correct, they don't lead me to the > conclusion that "evolution is incorrect", they merely lead me, > as a collection of supporting arguuments, to a belief in a > creator. > > Believing in a creator is not the same thing as falsifying > evolutionary theory. No, it is not, but at this point I think you would do well to read Phillip Johnsons book, "Darwin on Trial". The philosophical and scientific problems with evolution are quite numerous. Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 10 9:17:28 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F085437B400 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 09:17:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 358AC43E3B for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 09:17:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g8AGH5Gd062972; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 09:17:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g8AGH0Tw062969; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 09:17:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 09:17:00 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Terry Lambert Cc: Giorgos Keramidas , Joshua Lee , , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <3D7D2D27.4B84C60B@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20020910084415.Q62741-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > Similarly, you could say "gravity causes objects to fall because gravity > > has the property of making objects fall." While true, it is completely > > uninteresting. It "works" *because* of the fact that it is true by > > definition. > > This argument is very like the argument that animals exist > because God created them that way, and we should not question > their nature. 8-). Actually I have not made that argument. I happen to think that the biological sciences are quite helpful to us. > The only difference I see here is that in > the case of evolution, you have a doctorine to appeal to, and > so it should not be questioned, whereas in the case of gravity, > there is no doctorine, so questioning it is acceptable behaviour. Huh? Who is questioning gravity? I'm questioning evolution. > What this really xomes down to is that you don't want people to > question doctorine, because you take it to be Revealed Knowledge, > and therefore beyond the right of man to question. You have your axioms, I have mine. The difference is that I think I can defend mine, whereas I don't think yours are defensible. > I'd point out > that the Ptolomeyic universe had this same favored position of > being protected by doctorine, and that what irked the Catholic > Church about Galileo was his publication in Italian, rather than > Latin, removing the information from slow and controlled integration > into existing doctorine over time. Basically, he broke the story > before they could change their public policy. "We have always been > at war with the East". 8-). As you have noted, it was not Biblical doctrine, it was Aritotelian philosophy that the Catholic Church had incorporated into its doctrine. It's not at all surprising, given human nature, but it is regrettable. > > > As long as it's not harmful, it's not selected against, and it > > > hangs around. Alternately, there could be some other environmental > > > pressure, which is not pervasive, but is instead periodic. The > > > fact that viruses emerge in waves, rather than being a steady > > > background noise, is indicative of this mechanism. > > > > Why should it hang around? > > The genes are there; why should they magically disappear, if there's > no pressure to remove them from the gene pool? We know for a fact > that it is almost impossible to eliminate recessive genes without > eugenics or explicit engineering: it's mathematical improbability is > so amazingly large that it simply can't happen. Kind of like the mathematical improbability of evolution is so amazingly large that it can't happen either? 8-) Why *should* chance favor order rather than disorder? > > It's like the million monkeys argument. In order for the million > > monkeys argument to work, somebody would have to do the selecting, > > meaning there is more involved than just a million monkeys typing > > on keyboards. > > "One, two, three, for, five, many..." > > "A million" is just a convenient handle for "an inconceivably large > number"; the premise in the argument is sound: given a source of > randomness, eventually, a set number of bits in a specific sequence > will happen. If it never happens, then your input wasn't really > random. It's basically a premise based on large number theory, > combined with the theory of limits. Basically, there is a finite > probability of something happening, and an infinity of attempts at > a matching value: eventually, it *will* happen. Yes, but the odds against it for all intents and purposes make it a statistical impossibility. Moreover, if you think *that* is how life arose, why do you use your eyes as though they were designed for seeing and that they can give you accurate information? It would be like if you were driving in the mountains, and a rock slide occurred blocking your road, and some of the rocks just happen to randomly arrange themselves into the words "Hello, Earthling". Now, statistically its certainly possible, but you would be in error to suppose that some kind of meaningful message was being communicated. So why suppose that your senses, that arose by chance, convey anything meaningful to you? In fact, why suppose that there even *is* a you? > > > I think that you are begging the question; the survival value > > > of gametogenesis is fairly indisputable. > > > > Who's disputing it? I'm asking how in the world it climbed > > Mt. Improbability. > > The general consensus is that it started with the exchange of > linear RNA segments Eucaryotes. Oh yeah, as if this didn't beg the question! > > > The real question is > > > not gameteogenesis, per se, which could easily have occurred > > > as a result of a mutation, but internalization of gametogenesis > > > into the organism to such an extent that specialization of organs > > > occurred. > > > > Yeah, an understatement to say the least! 8-) > > Not really. If something is possible, no matter how improbable, > given an infinite amount of time... You stretch credulity to its limits! > > > The second and third search results in the search reference I > > > gave you go into this idea in more detail than I'm willing to > > > go into myself, in this forum (the significance of the search > > > was not my ability to do a search, it was in my selection of > > > specific terms, and their ordering and grouping, to answer an > > > earlier question of yours). > > > > Ah, what irony! 8-) > > What, that I can think like the lexicographer who designed the > classification criteria for the search engines, such that I am > a "good search term picker"? 8-). I assure you, that a lot > of people have the ability to pick "good" search terms. You apparently missed it. I wasn't questioning your intelligence. I was specifically referring to the phrase "my selection of specific terms..." 8-) > > > > But does this not present a difficulty? With no will to do the > > > > selecting, "the power to select" is completely unintelligible. > > > > > > You keep saying that it's unintelligible, but literally many > > > thousands of scientists don't find it to be unintelligible. > > > > Maybe, just maybe, because they don't *want* to believe it to be > > unintelligible. > > Or that you want to believe that it is? No, I do not want to believe in square circles. > > > Why do you say that it's unintelligible? > > > > Because is isn't. It's like saying water has the power to choose its > > own path. Such a notion is completely unintelligible. > > Entropy chooses water's path. 8-). As it does the human mind. 8-) > > > Why don't they say > > > the same thing? The answer has to lie in the fact that you > > > and they don't share some fundamental assumptions. > > > > Now you're getting the point... > > I got that point from your first posting. > > Now you should get mine: it's unreasonable for you to expect > everyone to adopt your assumptions, particularly if their > asumptions are a subset of yours. 8-). I'll reiterate mine again: It's unreasonable to adopt a subset of assumptions that are the preconditions of intelligibility. 8-) Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 10 9:20:24 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 778FC37B400; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 09:20:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E38AF43E75; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 09:20:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g8AGKKGd062981; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 09:20:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g8AGKK4D062978; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 09:20:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 09:20:20 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Dave Hayes Cc: Terry Lambert , Juli Mallett , Joshua Lee , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <200209092336.g89NaV136541@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Message-ID: <20020910091730.Y62741-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Dave Hayes wrote: > Neal E Westfall writes: > > On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Dave Hayes wrote: > >> Neal E Westfall writes: > >> > On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Dave Hayes wrote: > >> >> > Ah, but what is the claim that there is no One True Right worldview, > >> >> > but a claim that the only One True Right worldview is the one which > >> >> > denies that there is One True Right worldview? 8-) > >> >> > >> >> You have painted the dilemna of the human mind well. The real One > >> >> True Right worldview is that there is no One True Right worldview, > >> >> not even this one. > >> > > >> > Hence the need for a Savior, to save us from this intellectual > >> > darkness. 8-) > >> > >> That doesn't directly follow but it arbitrarily follows. ;) > >> > >> Just how do you know this darkness doesn't suit God's purposes? > > > > Of course it suits God's purposes! Duh... > > Then I'll trust you to not try to contradict God's purposes by > asserting the need for a Savior? ;) No contradiction follows by both being true. Besides, even if one did, why would that be a problem for you? 8-) Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 10 9:43: 9 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 611CA37B400 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 09:43:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7076C43E6E for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 09:43:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g8AGh4Gd063054; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 09:43:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g8AGh4uX063051; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 09:43:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 09:43:04 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Joshua Lee Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <20020909213532.3a804946.yid@softhome.net> Message-ID: <20020910092057.G62741-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Joshua Lee wrote: > Evolution doesn't have anything to do with "worldly or temporal > concerns" and their source. Telihard De Chardin and, to a lesser extent, > Chief Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook managed to be both evolutionists and > "Judeo-christian" theists without much of a contradiction. Of course, > Neal Westfall claims that De Chardin, Catholic Church approvals of his > writings to the contrary, is "not a xtian" because he doesn't match Mr. > Westfall's version of orthodoxy. Since you like Teilhard De Chardin so much, do you agree with the statement of his that defenders of evolution "must never let themselves be deflected into secondary discussions of the scientific 'hows' and the metaphysical 'whys.'" Sounds like dogmatism to me. > Neal Westfall claims of course that evolution is a religion. The above quote would seem to confirm that claim. I have others. W.T. Jones, who is certainly no Christian, noticed that scientists had "elevated Darwinism to the level of a religious dogma." (from his "A History of Western Philosophy") Theodosius Dobzhansky claims to be able to explain evolution "if the assumption is made that life arose from matter only once." ("Species after Darwin," A Century of Darwin (London: 1958), p. 22.) W.R. Thompson says in his Introduction to a current edition of Origin of Species "Personal convictions... are presented as if they were proofs." Paul Westmeyer declares: "Evolution is useful but it is a myth." ("Twentieth Century Mythology," Chemistry, January, 1965, p. 17) Need I say more? > Then he goes and claims that without xtianity one cannot properly > reason. ;-) Uh, no. Never said non-christians cannot reason. I said that if they were consistent with their professed beliefs, they would not *in principle* be able to reason at all. The fact that they *do* reason is what makes them accountable to God. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 10 9:44:43 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 425BF37B400; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 09:44:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE8E943E3B; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 09:44:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g8AGieGd063077; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 09:44:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g8AGidx0063074; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 09:44:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 09:44:39 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Joshua Lee Cc: dave@jetcafe.org, , , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <20020909215202.78267872.yid@softhome.net> Message-ID: <20020910094316.H62741-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Joshua Lee wrote: > On Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:32:28 -0700 (PDT) > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > > > > Hence the need for a Savior, to save us from this intellectual > > > > darkness. 8-) > > > > > > That doesn't directly follow but it arbitrarily follows. ;) > > > > > > Just how do you know this darkness doesn't suit God's purposes? > > > > Of course it suits God's purposes! Duh... > > 8-) > > So you are saying, that the eternal torture of non-xtians serves a purpose? It's called "justice." The eternal punishment of sinners certainly does serve God's purposes. Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 10 9:52:50 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8233D37B400 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 09:52:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6293543E65 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 09:52:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g8AGqjGd063090; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 09:52:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g8AGqjSo063087; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 09:52:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 09:52:45 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Joshua Lee Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <20020909220117.5343f09b.yid@softhome.net> Message-ID: <20020910094526.A62741-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Joshua Lee wrote: > On Fri, 6 Sep 2002 14:05:40 -0700 (PDT) > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > > > > I think you are operating on a Thomistic notion of "faith". Faith > > > > does not take over where reason leaves off. Faith is the > > > > foundation of reason. Reasoning would not even be possible > > > > without faith. I argue that only *Christian* faith can account > > > > for reason, but here I suppose we disagree. > > > > > > Until you prove that through your faith you can reason better than > > > the rest of us, a thesis very much in doubt, this statement is > > > unsupportable. > > > > Well, please go back and read some of my posts to Terry and Dave. > > ROFL! > > > For example, the naturalist cannot account for human reason, since > > according to a naturalist, everything that happens in the human brain > > is just electro-chemical responses in the brain which have nothing to > > do with "truth", "error", "right reason", etc. If a person is a > > A computer programmer cannot account for computer programms, because > they are composed of moving electrons that have nothing to do with: > printf ("Hello world.\n"); Computer programs are not electrons. They are non-material, a set of instructions. Anyway, your point was? > > naturalist, he has no reason to be a naturalist. He must also say > > that other people's beliefs in God are also only the result of > > electro-chemical responses in the brain. He could never know whether > > or not he was right, since every attempt to reason his way to the > > truth is just more electro-chemical responses in the brain, and hence, > > the results of *these* reactions are also suspect. > > If this is an example of your "superior xtian reason", I'll have none of > it. ;-) You know, you could, if you have a point to make, put your money where your mouth is and point out how the argument is fallacious if you really think it is. Your comment hardly counts as a refutation. Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 10 9:55:56 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8982F37B400 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 09:55:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEAFF43E3B for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 09:55:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g8AGtkGd063112; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 09:55:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g8AGtkLg063109; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 09:55:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 09:55:46 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Joshua Lee Cc: keramida@ceid.upatras.gr, Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <20020909231609.68ac5883.yid@softhome.net> Message-ID: <20020910095307.X62741-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Joshua Lee wrote: > On Fri, 6 Sep 2002 18:30:52 -0700 (PDT) > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > > Correction. Logic and ethics are meaningless without objective > > standards, and objective standards are impossible without appealing > > to something, well, *objective*. "Objective" means that it comes to > > you from the outside, externally, i.e. "not subjective". So > > No, "objective" can operate according to natural law without having to > appeal to an external source. e.g. Kantian ethics. ROFL. You think Kantian ethics are objective? BTW, please explain how you get ethics from "natural law". That's a joke, right? Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 10 10:10:53 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 453FA37B41C; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 10:10:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2DF543E6A; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 10:10:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lomifeh@earthlink.net) Received: from bgp586692bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net (bgp586692bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net [68.39.202.147]) by mtaout01.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 1.4 (built Aug 5 2002)) with ESMTP id <0H2800LU3FPFYE@mtaout01.icomcast.net>; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 13:10:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 13:10:29 -0400 From: Lawrence Sica Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-reply-to: <20020909103002.H9219-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG, dave@jetcafe.org, Joshua Lee , Juli Mallett , Terry Lambert , George Reid Message-id: <34F88260-C4E0-11D6-8708-000393A335A2@earthlink.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.543) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Monday, September 9, 2002, at 01:39 PM, Neal E. Westfall wrote: > > > On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Lawrence Sica wrote: > >>> Actually the Islamic doctrine of mukhalafa says that it Allah is *so* >>> different from his creatures that it is impossible to postulate >>> anything >>> about him at all. But then what is the Koran if not an attempt to do >>> this? In addition, Islam falsifies itself, since the Koran >>> recognizes >>> the Torah and the Christian scriptures as true revelations from God, >>> yet >>> claims that Christ did not raise from the dead. The Koran >>> contradicts >>> itself. >>> >> >> And what about the Christian writings that state tolerance for the >> sinners above all? And then in the same breathe condemns gays, >> justified slavery via the bible, justifies wars now and the killing of >> abortionists? > > Where does Christianity justify any of this? A condemnation of a > behavior does not amount to a justification for persecution. And the > fact that slavery existed in the Bible also does not amount to a > justification of it. > Jesus by his actions lived by not persecuting "Let he who is without sin cas the first stone". Remember that line? Also the Bible was used as justification by twisting interpretations and making up meanings. The story of Noah and the flood was used to justify slavery at one point. > >> Every religion has it's contradictions, Islam isnt >> special here. And What is the exact wording the koran uses? Are you >> sure you are interpreting it correctly? That's the great thing about >> any religious writing, its "divine inspiration" but then man is left >> to decipher it's meaning.... > > If Islam is going to accept the authority of the Christian gospels, it > does not then have the right to contradict its most fundamental claims. > Claiming that every religion has its contradictions does not make it > so. > Islam defeats itself on *it's own* terms. > This does not answer the question, what exactly does the Koran say? > I can just see it now, everybody is going to jump in with their list > of 101 bible contradictions. I've been there and done that, folks. > You know, maybe we ought to treat the Bible just like any other piece > of literature, and if two passages *can* be interpreted in such a way > as to make them not blatantly contradictory, maybe we ought to accept > that interpretation, eh? > You brought this up, if you bring it up expect others to point out things. > > Neal > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 10 10:11: 6 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2FE737B47A; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 10:10:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 610B143E6A; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 10:10:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lomifeh@earthlink.net) Received: from bgp586692bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net (bgp586692bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net [68.39.202.147]) by mtaout03.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.8 (built May 13 2002)) with ESMTP id <0H28002XQFPIX1@mtaout03.icomcast.net>; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 13:10:34 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 13:10:31 -0400 From: Lawrence Sica Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-reply-to: <20020909100754.L9219-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Juli Mallett , Terry Lambert , Joshua Lee , dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Message-id: <3668DB28-C4E0-11D6-8708-000393A335A2@earthlink.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.543) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Monday, September 9, 2002, at 01:28 PM, Neal E. Westfall wrote: > > > On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Lawrence Sica wrote: > >>> Even though their worldview isn't even cogent? Why is "accepting of >>> other religions" such a righteous goal? Yeesh, the postmodern West >>> really is anemic to truth. By the way, why is it that we are being >>> called to never criticize anyone else's beliefs? Inherent in the >>> premise is a contradiction, leading to criticism of certain beliefs >>> (e.g. Christianity). >>> >> >> Accepting of other views is a laudable goal. Not because you agree >> with them, but because you are enlightened enough to know that there >> are many faces of God. > > And...did God tell you this? By the way, in these discussions, I > always > detect an equivocation on the meaning of the words "acceptance," > "tolerance" etc. Disagreement with someones views means by definition > that you think they are false. If Christ says, "I am the way, the > truth, and the life, no-one comes to the Father but through me," this > automatically excludes the notion that there are "many ways to God". > Truth has the unmistakeable quality of clarity, not confusion. Truth > also has the quality of being the opposite of falsehood, something that > people cannot seem to grasp when it comes to ultimate questions. > That is if you believe that is what Christ said. And that is if you believe in Jesus Christ. And also if that is how he said it, then how do priests have any special in with God? This was part of the core of the Protestant revolt, the fact you do not need a priest to talk to God. One can disagree with someone's belief but still accept that they believe it and not hold it against them in some way. > >> I know that is not a popular view by many of >> the Christian sects but it is true. The Jewish and the Christian god >> have the same roots, yet for many years Christians have persecuted >> Jews. > > You are absolutely correct, the Jewish and Christian God have the same > roots. Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism. The fact that > many Christians have persecuted Jews is a most lamentable fact, yet it > does not change the nature of truth. Such Christians to the extent > that they persecute others, are in direct contradiction with what > their religion teaches. > Are they? It depends on who you hear. Popes in the past advocated this and said it was the "Will of God" when if you read what was said in the Bible was not that at all. In this case who is correct, the Pope or the religious leader? The person who interprets the Bible? That is the slipper slope one can encounter here, persecution of any who do not fit with those in power. The Inquisition was a prime example. The witch-hunts too. It's a comon thread through history, persecution of those different or who have what a leader wants. Religion is a great tool for that at times. > >> Go figure eh? If everyone would accept the idea that if you >> beleive in a God then the God you see may be different than the God I >> see and that does not make my God wrong, religion and belief are >> personal and even within the same religion many see God differently. >> One cannot but put God through their own lens, any religion has this. > > You are endorsing subjectivism, which is completely irrational. Why > should anyone accept such an irrational premise? I can accept that > people can disagree, but that doesn't mean that I think we are both > right. > I am not saying that, what I am saying is that God is a personal thing, just because someone believes differently than you doesn't mean you have to tell them they are wrong constantly, or persecute them or anything of that nature. It is your right to believe they are wrong, it is *not* your right to attack them because of it. You made statements lamenting about tolerance and acceptance. I answered to that only. > >> It is not being called to not criticize another belifes, it's being >> called to not demonize them or put them on a lower level. > > What do you mean by "demonize" them? To the extent that a person's > beliefs are false, ill consequences should be expected to ensue. > For example, the belief that Mohammed was God's prophet, coupled > with the fact that Mohammed spread his beliefs at the edge of the > sword, it should not be so surprising when the spread of Islam > leads to religious persecution, or the flying of 757's into > skyscrapers. Bad trees produce bad fruit. > It was not Mohammed that spread that but another of Islam... Islam was in fact one of the most enlightened religions for many many years. In the times of the crusades it was christianity as a whole that was killing any who were different in beliefs. And if we want to get into spreading beliefs by the sword christianity as a whole is just as guilty. Chrsitianity at its core is about non-violence, yet massive violence has been used to spread it, do you not see the inherent irony there? > >> The USA is >> all about critiquing others ideas and coming up with a common ground. >> That is why it's important accept other religions. One of the >> foundations of the USA was freedom to worship and freedom from worship >> at the same time. The ability to worship who you want and not worry >> about a government or others persecuting you is important. > > But of course all of this is irrelevent as to what the truth is. > Another of the great foundations we have in the country is the freedom > of speech, including the right to criticize others. > > Right, but what the "Founding Fathers" believed that is was important all religions should have a chance to equally flourish. Not any one above the other. This is what being accepting of the fact that others have different beliefs is about. This is not a bad thing. --Larry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 10 11:11: 0 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEC1437B400 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 11:10:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C23543E42 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 11:10:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g8AIAoGd094172; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 11:10:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g8AIAoru094169; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 11:10:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 11:10:49 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Lawrence Sica Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <3668DB28-C4E0-11D6-8708-000393A335A2@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <20020910103713.E63148-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Lawrence Sica wrote: > > And...did God tell you this? By the way, in these discussions, I > > always > > detect an equivocation on the meaning of the words "acceptance," > > "tolerance" etc. Disagreement with someones views means by definition > > that you think they are false. If Christ says, "I am the way, the > > truth, and the life, no-one comes to the Father but through me," this > > automatically excludes the notion that there are "many ways to God". > > Truth has the unmistakeable quality of clarity, not confusion. Truth > > also has the quality of being the opposite of falsehood, something that > > people cannot seem to grasp when it comes to ultimate questions. > > > > That is if you believe that is what Christ said. And that is if you > believe in Jesus Christ. And also if that is how he said it, then how > do priests have any special in with God? They don't. > This was part of the core of > the Protestant revolt, the fact you do not need a priest to talk to > God. One can disagree with someone's belief but still accept that they > believe it and not hold it against them in some way. That certainly was an issue in the Reformation. But at the core, the reformation was doctrinal. Luther said that all the other abuses of the medieval church he could have been content to disagree with, but the thing that really irked him was the corrupt doctrine. In the end, he and all the other protesters were forced to leave the church, as the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent declared itself to be unreformable. > > You are absolutely correct, the Jewish and Christian God have the same > > roots. Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism. The fact that > > many Christians have persecuted Jews is a most lamentable fact, yet it > > does not change the nature of truth. Such Christians to the extent > > that they persecute others, are in direct contradiction with what > > their religion teaches. > > > > Are they? It depends on who you hear. Popes in the past advocated > this and said it was the "Will of God" when if you read what was said > in the Bible was not that at all. In this case who is correct, the > Pope or the religious leader? This is why the reformers insisted so much on Sola Scriptura. As the apostle Paul put it, "Let God be true but every man a liar." I think inherent in your question is the assumption is that it isn't possible to know the truth, since everyone has different opinions. I think we all know better than that, and that if we truly are seeking truth, we will find it. > The person who interprets the Bible? > That is the slipper slope one can encounter here, persecution of any > who do not fit with those in power. The Inquisition was a prime > example. The witch-hunts too. It's a comon thread through history, > persecution of those different or who have what a leader wants. > Religion is a great tool for that at times. I agree, it can be used for the propagation of evil. I don't defend the inquisition (It persecuted mostly Protestants, after all!) but what has this to do with the nature of truth? > > You are endorsing subjectivism, which is completely irrational. Why > > should anyone accept such an irrational premise? I can accept that > > people can disagree, but that doesn't mean that I think we are both > > right. > > > > I am not saying that, what I am saying is that God is a personal thing, > just because someone believes differently than you doesn't mean you > have to tell them they are wrong constantly I don't. However, when these discussions arise, I would be remiss in my responsibilities to God if I didn't point out error. Truth is not subjective, and not everybody's belief's are equally valid. That doesn't mean I want to persecute them, or silence them, or anything like that. > It was not Mohammed that spread that but another of Islam... > Islam was in fact one of the most enlightened religions for many many > years. In the times of the crusades it was christianity as a whole > that was killing any who were different in beliefs. Yes, and those who were persecuting others for their beliefs were in direct violation of the teachings of Christianity. I think what is often missed in this is the fact that people were woefully ignorant of the Bible during the time of the medieval church, due to the laypeople not being allowed to read it for themselves. (Not to mention the lack of things like printing presses) > And if we want to > get into spreading beliefs by the sword christianity as a whole is just > as guilty. I reject this claim. People who have called themselves Christians have certainly persecuted others, but to say that Christianity "as a whole" is just as guilty is to commit the fallacy of the sweeping generalisation. Nor is it fair to those of us who abhor such actions. > Chrsitianity at its core is about non-violence, yet massive > violence has been used to spread it, do you not see the inherent irony > there? Yes, and it is indeed lamentable in those situations where it occurs. Of course, since you admit above it is about non-violence, wouldn't we have to say that those who committed such acts of violence were not in line with what their religion taught? > > But of course all of this is irrelevent as to what the truth is. > > Another of the great foundations we have in the country is the freedom > > of speech, including the right to criticize others. > > > > > > Right, but what the "Founding Fathers" believed that is was important > all religions should have a chance to equally flourish. Not any one > above the other. This is what being accepting of the fact that others > have different beliefs is about. This is not a bad thing. It would be difficult to show that the founding fathers were interested in all religions flourishing. In fact, Madison stated that he opposed the establishment of a particular religion so that Christianity could flourish. Christianity flourishes best when it is not the priviledged position. Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 10 12:21:47 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54D6C37B400 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 12:21:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (jive.SoftHome.net [66.54.152.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CB32643E75 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 12:21:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yid@softhome.net) Received: (qmail 6962 invoked by uid 417); 10 Sep 2002 19:21:43 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 10 Sep 2002 19:21:43 -0000 Received: from planb ([216.194.2.204]) (AUTH: LOGIN yid@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 13:21:41 -0600 Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 15:21:32 -0400 From: Joshua Lee To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-Id: <20020910152132.1134e18d.yid@softhome.net> In-Reply-To: <20020910092057.G62741-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> References: <20020909213532.3a804946.yid@softhome.net> <20020910092057.G62741-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Organization: Plan B Software Labs X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.2claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.7) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 10 Sep 2002 09:43:04 -0700 (PDT) "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > Evolution doesn't have anything to do with "worldly or temporal > > concerns" and their source. Telihard De Chardin and, to a lesser > > extent, Chief Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook managed to be both > > evolutionists and"Judeo-christian" theists without much of a > > contradiction. Of course, Neal Westfall claims that De Chardin, > > Catholic Church approvals of his writings to the contrary, is "not a > > xtian" because he doesn't match Mr. Westfall's version of orthodoxy. > > Since you like Teilhard De Chardin so much, do you agree with the > statement of his that defenders of evolution "must never let > themselves be deflected into secondary discussions of the scientific > 'hows' and the metaphysical 'whys.'" Sounds like dogmatism to me. Yes, but De Chardin was as well as being a paleologist a theologian; who did let the two mix. Don't ask me to defend all of his theology, I don't agree with all of what little I know of it and I'm more familiar with Rav Kook, whom I'm also not a follower of (mostly due to his stances on Zionism) but I've studied his works; than De Chardin. However, your claim that he's "not a xtian" seems specious because the Pope, a bit of an authority on the subject, seemed to think he was. :-) > > Neal Westfall claims of course that evolution is a religion. > > W.T. Jones, who is certainly no Christian, noticed that scientists had > "elevated Darwinism to the level of a religious dogma." (from his "A > History of Western Philosophy") Theodosius Dobzhansky claims to be > able to explain evolution "if the assumption is made that life arose > from matter only once." ("Species after Darwin," A Century of Darwin > (London: 1958), p. 22.) W.R. Thompson says in his Introduction to a > current edition of Origin of Species "Personal convictions... are > presented as if they were proofs." Paul Westmeyer declares: > "Evolution is useful but it is a myth." ("Twentieth Century > Mythology," Chemistry, January, 1965, p. 17) Need I say more? Neal, be honest for a change, have you actually read these sources? > > Then he goes and claims that without xtianity one cannot properly > > reason. ;-) > > Uh, no. Never said non-christians cannot reason. I said that if they > were consistent with their professed beliefs, they would not *in > principle* be able to reason at all. The fact that they *do* reason > is what makes them accountable to God. OK then, why would G-d give an ability to someone if it automatically damns most human beings to eternal torture with the measure, rather than how good the person is, to be where he happens to sit in the most segregated hour of the week? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 10 12:23:30 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C6F337B400 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 12:23:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (jive.SoftHome.net [66.54.152.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C5F1943E42 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 12:23:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yid@softhome.net) Received: (qmail 12716 invoked by uid 417); 10 Sep 2002 19:23:21 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 10 Sep 2002 19:23:21 -0000 Received: from planb ([216.194.2.204]) (AUTH: LOGIN yid@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 13:23:18 -0600 Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 15:23:10 -0400 From: Joshua Lee To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: dave@jetcafe.org, tlambert2@mindspring.com, jmallett@FreeBSD.ORG, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-Id: <20020910152310.5e6e2964.yid@softhome.net> In-Reply-To: <20020910094316.H62741-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> References: <20020909215202.78267872.yid@softhome.net> <20020910094316.H62741-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Organization: Plan B Software Labs X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.2claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.7) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 10 Sep 2002 09:44:39 -0700 (PDT) "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > > > Just how do you know this darkness doesn't suit God's purposes? > > > > > > Of course it suits God's purposes! Duh... > > > 8-) > > > > So you are saying, that the eternal torture of non-xtians serves a > > purpose? > > It's called "justice." The eternal punishment of sinners certainly > does serve God's purposes. I don't think I've done anything lately deserving of eternal punishment, if I did one would think the cops would have found out by now. ;-) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 10 12:35:11 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E17837B400 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 12:35:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (jive.SoftHome.net [66.54.152.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DE0B743E42 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 12:35:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yid@softhome.net) Received: (qmail 29350 invoked by uid 417); 10 Sep 2002 19:28:27 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 10 Sep 2002 19:28:27 -0000 Received: from planb ([216.194.2.204]) (AUTH: LOGIN yid@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 13:28:26 -0600 Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 15:28:17 -0400 From: Joshua Lee To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: keramida@ceid.upatras.gr, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-Id: <20020910152817.7ceb1917.yid@softhome.net> In-Reply-To: <20020910095307.X62741-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> References: <20020909231609.68ac5883.yid@softhome.net> <20020910095307.X62741-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Organization: Plan B Software Labs X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.2claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.7) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 10 Sep 2002 09:55:46 -0700 (PDT) "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Joshua Lee wrote: > > On Fri, 6 Sep 2002 18:30:52 -0700 (PDT) > > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > > Correction. Logic and ethics are meaningless without objective > > > standards, and objective standards are impossible without > > > appealing to something, well, *objective*. "Objective" means that > > > > No, "objective" can operate according to natural law without having > > to appeal to an external source. e.g. Kantian ethics. > > ROFL. You think Kantian ethics are objective? BTW, please explain > how you get ethics from "natural law". That's a joke, right? Kantian ethics are objective, I don't happen to like a few of the conclusions it reaches, but they are objective, without placing a diety on a pedestal of objectivity. Funny, you being a Protestant, I thought you would like Kant. What do you not like about his philosophy, which is closer to your beliefs than mine anyway? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 10 13:39: 1 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D283437B400 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 13:38:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78D9F43E6A for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 13:38:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g8AKcnGd097081; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 13:38:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g8AKcmrr097071; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 13:38:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 13:38:48 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Joshua Lee Cc: dave@jetcafe.org, , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <20020909031218.3912bc87.yid@softhome.net> Message-ID: <20020910122240.X35938-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Joshua Lee wrote: > > The reason I make the distinction is because, as Christ said, > > Abraham rejoiced to see His day, and my view of the Old Testament > > sufficiently differs from yours as to make the distinction > > relevant. The apostle Paul regarded Christians to be the true > > heirs of Abraham, a point you obviously reject. > > It isn't so much as "rejecting" the xtian view as it is ignoring it. I > rarely think of your demigod, any more than you regularly think of the > divinity of Osiris. Why do you insist on misrepresenting Christian doctrine? You know very well we don't think he is a demigod, so why represent it as such? Is it because you don't want to deal with a fair representation? > > He is the temple. The true temple to which the physical temple was > > only a shadow. Do you not understand the concept of symbolism and > > typology? > > I understand the concept of symbolism, Orthodox Jews aren't > pseudo-literalists. "Typology" I vaguely recall being a term used in > another, more friendly, conversation with a xtian about his beliefs; but > don't quite remember what it means. If this conversation does not seem friendly to you, maybe you ought to consider your own attitudes. The above misrepresentation is a perfect example of your hostility. If you are going to disagree, I don't mind. When you misrepresent, however, I have to conclude that you are trying to set up strawmen, and that your motives are less than pure. > > > You didn't read what I said. I said a "vehicle" for "inner > > > repentance". Without that inner repentance, which can be effectuated > > > in all circumstances, the Temple was indeed useless. This is another > > > > How is a physical temple able to bring inner repentance? Also, what > > The same way praying or contemplating in any other setting can bring one > to repentance, except the Temple was a more intense setting as it > involved a vicarous sacrifice of one's own "animal" nature. I would like to see some scriptural support. Animals do not sin, as such it is not accurate to describe human sinfulness as an "animal nature". > > If you reject blood atonement, even though your own > > scriptures taught it, > > Didn't I refute the passages you used to "prove" this as meaning just > the opposite? Or maybe you conveniently forgot that. No you didn't. Your "refutation" did not square with the fact that God commanded sacrifices in Leviticus. If Isaiah 1:11 is a repudiation of blood atonement, you need to answer why it is that God commanded it in Leviticus. > > how is one right with God? Does God just wink > > at your sin because you are so "righteous"? > > No, but higher repentance of love can turn sins into mitzvas. > (Repentance of fear turns intentional errors into unintentional ones.) Scriptural support? How does repentence turn sins into mitzvas? Sin needs atonement, not to be turned into something that it is not. > You seem to believe that G-d is binary, either you are completely > righteous, or completely sinful. This statement makes no sense. God is completely righteous, but we are tainted with sin in every respect. > Obviously, unless one was to attribute > to G-d less sense than a human being, the reality is more complicated > than that. The rewards of the afterlife you so focus on are in shades of > grey as well. Purgatory (gehinnom) is at different levels and > intensities depending upon one's need for clensing, up to the > incorrigables who get what Zacharia called being turned into "ashes > under the feet of the righteous". Even in heaven, the righteous are > "burned by his neighbor's canopy", all can see how much they attained > and how it is lesser than their neighbor. A reason to try one's > hardest, yes? Being turned into "ashes under the feet of the righteous" is being cleansed? That sounds like quite a stretch. Sounds more like destruction to me. > > > > Since you mention Isaiah chapter 1, who is being referred to in > > > > verse 4? Who is the "Holy One" of Israel that the people of > > > > Israel have despised? > > > > > > G-d. > > > > I agree. It is also referring to the Messiah, and the true Temple. > > It doesn't seem to refer to those concepts there. In Psalm 110:1, who is being referred to as "my Lord"? "The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at My right hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet." (Psalm 110:1) Who is Nebuchadnezzar talking about in Daniel 3:25 who he refers to as "like a son of {the} gods!"? Or Daniel 7:13: "I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him. And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and {men of every} language Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed." (Dan 7:13-14) > > > "...they have forsaken Hashem; they have angered the Holy One of > > > Israel, and have turned their back [to Him]" (Stone Edition Tanakh) > > > > > > That's a semicolon, not a period, and it's talking about apostacy in > > > Isaiah's time (note the past tense), not a crucifiction. > > > > I agree that it is written in Isaiah's time, so why did you earlier > > cite this passage as evidence of a future rebuilding of the temple? > > I didn't say that, I don't recall posting evidence of the rebuilding of > the temple at any time or context. However, I believe in it and the > prophets did indeed forcast its rebuilding elsewhere. Where did they forecast this? > > > Because blood doesn't produce repentence, inner change does. In > > > verse 11, it is repudiating the very theological issue of repentance > > > through the blood of the sacrifices that you are aspousing. > > > > You need to read the passage a little more carefully. It does not > > repudiate blood atonement. It repudiates the false notion that the > > blood of *animals* atones for sin. > > Keep on reading the chapter and you'll see Isaiah urging people to do > good deeds rather than sacrifices, as I pointed out and even quoted in > my original message: You still have not reconciled your view of verse 11 with the fact that God commanded sacrifices in Leviticus. What was the point of all those sacrifices in Leviticus? > > better and more "complete" sacrifice of a human being, but "Learn to > > do good, seek justice, vindicate the victim, render justice to the > > orphan, take up the grievence of the widow." (Verse 17.) > > If you're going to ignore everything I say and repeat robot-like your > doctrines regardless, there's no use in holding a conversation. Then stop posting, if that is your wish. > > I know that, but please answer the question. What is the purpose of > > all those bloody sacrifices in Leviticus? > > Inspiration, not some magical property of blood that even god must obey. There you go misrepresenting again. How does blood sacrifice "inspire"? You are the one not seeing that it is typological of a more perfect sacrifice. I don't claim that the blood sacrifices in Leviticus had some kind of mystical power. > Actually, no, I believe that a purgatory exists, as well as purgatory > without parole for a tiny group of wicked ones. Really? So where does God draw the line between "not so bad" and really wicked? Why would God only punish "the really wicked ones" for eternity? > I wasn't criticising the > belief in hell, I was criticising the criteria xtianity uses to > determine who goes there. In xtian docterine, god will torture > non-xtians for eternity. The reason God punishes *anyone* is because of their sins. God has offered forgiveness of those sins through Christ. It isn't arbitrary. Those who reject Christ have no atonement for their sin. Either Christ pays the penalty for your sins or you do. > If you expect me to believe in a religion that > claims this moment that my grandfather, and half my ancestors, are being > tormented in hell because they are Jewish then you've got another thing > coming. I know nothing of your ancestors, and have no intention of indulging in such speculation. Really, you are just offering up an emotional response. > > There you go again engaging in ad-hominem attacks. Why don't you try > > giving some rational arguments instead of engaging in > > character-assasination? > > Just a personal observation, not meant to score logical debating points. > It's completely honest and not meant to trick anyone, though as you > point out, it doesn't *prove* anything with regard to the content of > what has been presented in this little marketplace of ideas. Personally > I'm not trying to prove anything, I could care less (as long as he or > she's not Jewish) if you convert someone on this mailing list or not. Why would that concern *you*? Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 10 13:53:24 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B5DF37B400 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 13:53:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0C9943E6E for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 13:53:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g8AKrJGd006203; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 13:53:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g8AKrJpT006200; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 13:53:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 13:53:19 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Joshua Lee Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <20020910152132.1134e18d.yid@softhome.net> Message-ID: <20020910134238.T35938-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Joshua Lee wrote: > > Since you like Teilhard De Chardin so much, do you agree with the > > statement of his that defenders of evolution "must never let > > themselves be deflected into secondary discussions of the scientific > > 'hows' and the metaphysical 'whys.'" Sounds like dogmatism to me. > > Yes, but De Chardin was as well as being a paleologist a theologian; who > did let the two mix. Don't ask me to defend all of his theology, I don't > agree with all of what little I know of it and I'm more familiar with > Rav Kook, whom I'm also not a follower of (mostly due to his stances on > Zionism) but I've studied his works; than De Chardin. However, your > claim that he's "not a xtian" seems specious because the Pope, a bit of > an authority on the subject, seemed to think he was. :-) What would make you think that the pope is an authority to anyone who is not Roman Catholic? > > W.T. Jones, who is certainly no Christian, noticed that scientists had > > "elevated Darwinism to the level of a religious dogma." (from his "A > > History of Western Philosophy") Theodosius Dobzhansky claims to be > > able to explain evolution "if the assumption is made that life arose > > from matter only once." ("Species after Darwin," A Century of Darwin > > (London: 1958), p. 22.) W.R. Thompson says in his Introduction to a > > current edition of Origin of Species "Personal convictions... are > > presented as if they were proofs." Paul Westmeyer declares: > > "Evolution is useful but it is a myth." ("Twentieth Century > > Mythology," Chemistry, January, 1965, p. 17) Need I say more? > > Neal, be honest for a change, have you actually read these sources? I never claimed to have read all those sources. How is that relevent? I was just demonstrating that I'm not the only one who thinks that evolution takes on a religious persona by those who espouse it. Oh, and by the way, there you go again. 8-) > > Uh, no. Never said non-christians cannot reason. I said that if they > > were consistent with their professed beliefs, they would not *in > > principle* be able to reason at all. The fact that they *do* reason > > is what makes them accountable to God. > > OK then, why would G-d give an ability to someone if it automatically > damns most human beings to eternal torture with the measure, rather than > how good the person is, to be where he happens to sit in the most > segregated hour of the week? Reason does not damn them, their sinful use of it without acknowledging it as a gift from God is what damns them. They claim not to know God, but their reasoning ability is evidence to them that he does exist. Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 10 13:55:35 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7289C37B400; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 13:55:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD4DA43E6E; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 13:55:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g8AKtWGd006480; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 13:55:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g8AKtSBB006473; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 13:55:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 13:55:28 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Joshua Lee Cc: dave@jetcafe.org, , , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <20020910152310.5e6e2964.yid@softhome.net> Message-ID: <20020910135333.F35938-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Joshua Lee wrote: > > It's called "justice." The eternal punishment of sinners certainly > > does serve God's purposes. > > I don't think I've done anything lately deserving of eternal punishment, > if I did one would think the cops would have found out by now. ;-) Most people don't, but then most people's opinions are not what counts, only God can tell us what is deserving of eternal punishment. Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 10 14: 2: 5 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9511337B400 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:02:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B07F43E6E for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:02:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g8AL0eGd008220; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:00:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g8AL0eDq008217; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:00:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:00:40 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Joshua Lee Cc: keramida@ceid.upatras.gr, Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <20020910152817.7ceb1917.yid@softhome.net> Message-ID: <20020910135549.W35938-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Joshua Lee wrote: > > ROFL. You think Kantian ethics are objective? BTW, please explain > > how you get ethics from "natural law". That's a joke, right? > > Kantian ethics are objective, I don't happen to like a few of the > conclusions it reaches, but they are objective, without placing a diety > on a pedestal of objectivity. Kant's whole philosophy was infected with subjectivism. > Funny, you being a Protestant, I thought > you would like Kant. What, you think Kant was a Christian? > What do you not like about his philosophy, which is closer to your > beliefs than mine anyway? What makes you think that? I like the fact that he started asking the right kinds of questions, given his work on transcendental arguments, but the problem with Kant is that he still started with man as his starting point, which is the source of the subjectivism in his philosophy. Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 10 14:11: 9 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B262537B400 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:11:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net (harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.12]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 488DF43E3B for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:11:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0098.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.98] helo=mindspring.com) by harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17osB5-0002Lh-00; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:04:08 -0700 Message-ID: <3D7E5E08.2DB903C6@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:03:04 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Lawrence Sica , Giorgos Keramidas , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020909170759.M59679-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > > 1) Something came from nothing. > > > > We haven't gotten into the cosmological issues, so far, but if > > you insist, we can. > > It does seem to be relevent, doesn't it? Depends; not really, if you are talking about evolution. > > > 2) Order came from disorder. > > > > Mathematically, we can prove this from the same axiomatic basis > > that lets other mathematical operations work. Order *does* come > > from disorder. > > And square circles *do too* exist. As in "squaring a circle via construction", then they don't; if you are talking about the theory of limits, then they do. > > At a fundamental level, the universe is quantized, > > and this causes certain emergenet behaviours in matter. > > Really? What do you mean, when you say, "the universe is quantized"? E.g. it takes exactly 13.6 electron volts to take an electron from an s orbital to infinity. Not 13.4, not 13.8. > And what do you mean by "certain emergent behaviours in matter"? > You seem to think that quantum physics can do all things, like > reconcile the irrational. To say that order comes from disorder, > no matter how much you try to dress it up is still irrational. If, > on the other hand, you mean there never was disorder in the first > place, I can buy that. Your _opinion_ on what's rational or not has been noted, but is not really germane. > > We call > > the properties that cause this "universal constants", like the > > value of PI, the value of "e", the Planck length, etc.. We don't > > have to define an origin for these numbers for them to make > > themselves evident to us. > > Maybe you don't think so, but if you believe that then you can't > count on them continuing to be constants in the future. We're right > back to David Hume and the problem of induction. No, you are actually right that we can't count on them in the future. There's evidence that the speed of light was much higher, much earlier in the life of the universe, for example. > > > 3) Life came from non-life. > > > > This is actually a reasonable assumption, given empirical > > observations. We have a number of stories to describe the math > > of how this could be so. > > "Stories" seems to be an apt description. It is. It's why I used it. Don't confuse stories with reality; it's impossible for you to directly observe reality. > > It also begs the definition of "life"; > > if you mean self-assembly of complex chemical compounds, we can > > do this in a laboratory, under controlled conditions, creating > > amino acids from conditions which simulate our best guesses at > > those present early in the life of the Earth. > > The key phrase here is "under controlled conditions". Self-assembly > is a contradiction. Moreover, no, I do not consider amino acids to > be "life". We have to control the conditions, because it's not possible to simulate the appropriate conditions. High partial pressures of CO2 and SO2 don't occur naturally on Earth any more. Whether you consider amino acids "life" or not is also pretty irrelevant, since you are going to keep moving the finish line, the deeper we get, so as to continue to be "right". 8-). > > > 4) Intelligence came from non-intelligence. > > > > Our best theory is that intelligence is an emergent property of > > complex self-regulating systems over a certain threshold density. > > This just sounds like so much baloney. Basically what you just > said is that our best theory is merely the assertion that "intelligence > emerged from non-intelligence." Yeah, I already know you believe that, > but believing it and showing it to be the case are two different things. We can demonstrate that complex behaviour emerges from simple rule sets. Conway's game of Life and other cellular automata demonstrate that (e.g. "Sugarscape"). > > > Again, it begs the definition of "intelligence"; there are many > > things you could mean here, and it's really hard to draw a boundary > > line, and say, for example, "Chimps are intelligent, but mice are > > not". > > Lets start with your own reasoning ability. To review, if you are a > naturalist, all of your brain functions are due merely to physical > laws acting on antecedent brain states. On your view, reason is an > illusion, and you have no way of knowing whether or not your reasoning > is sound, since all of it is due merely to the electro-chemical > reactions taking place in your grey matter. How does it follow that "reason is an illusion"? You've made a leap there which you haven't really justified making... > You could never know that > your views were right and that somebody else's views are wrong, unless > you give yourself the priviledged position of being the only person for > whom evolution granted perfect reasoning. Yeah, "right" and "wrong" are subjective; that one of the problems consensus solves for us: it gives us an external ruler. > Moreover, you cannot save > reason by introducing randomness, as all this does is try to save > rationality by introducing irrationality. Morever, whether or not you > think reason is determined by physical laws or by chance, it is still > determined, and has nothing to do with "sound reasoning" or "truth". If "randomness" was equal to "irrationality", son't you think that we wouldn't have invented a second word, or that at least one would be defined in terms of the other in your dictionary? > > > 5) Morality came from the non-moral. > > > > Morality is a consensus definition based on collectivist ethics; > > it's always externally imposed, which is how it differs from > > ethics. We've had this discussion already. > > Yeah, I know, you don't believe in moral absolutes. I'll just point > out one more problem with your view, and then drop it. You could > never come to a meaningful consensus without reasoning, and since > your reasoning is suspect due to the above, you could never actually > come to any meaningful consensus. Sure I can. I have schelling points, which I can use to establish communication. Even if you seperate people so that they can not otherwise communicate, and you make them play "interative prisoner's dilemma", you provide them feedback, and they can therefore use their gameplay to establish a communications channel. Read "The Evolution of Cooperation". > > Believing in a creator is not the same thing as falsifying > > evolutionary theory. > > No, it is not, but at this point I think you would do well to > read Phillip Johnsons book, "Darwin on Trial". The philosophical > and scientific problems with evolution are quite numerous. I've read the book; I disagree with some of the premises on which his arguments are built. They are, not coincidently, some of your premises, as well. The counterargument basically comes down to "your inability to conceive of something doesn't make it any less true". This is, in the limit, the same argument that is normally put forth in defense of a creator, but it's stated as "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". 8-). -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 10 14:17:25 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E17437B400 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:17:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from williams.mc.vanderbilt.edu (williams.mc.Vanderbilt.Edu [160.129.208.222]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7D0C143E77 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:17:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from drew-list-freebsd-chat@rain3s.net) Received: (qmail 21032 invoked from network); 10 Sep 2002 21:17:58 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO williams.mc.vanderbilt.edu) (127.0.0.1) by williams.mc.vanderbilt.edu with SMTP; 10 Sep 2002 21:17:58 -0000 Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 16:17:56 -0500 To: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020910211756.GF4470@drew.rain3s.net> References: <20020909103002.H9219-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> <34F88260-C4E0-11D6-8708-000393A335A2@earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <34F88260-C4E0-11D6-8708-000393A335A2@earthlink.net> From: Drew Raines Mail-Followup-To: chat@FreeBSD.ORG X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/0.62+ Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Lawrence Sica wrote: > > Jesus by his actions lived by not persecuting "Let he who is > without sin cas the first stone". Remember that line? Have you actually read the Bible or do you quote it fourth-hand for fun? Jesus persecuted unbelievers constantly, especially the religious leaders of his time. He walked around saying he was the only way to God, which, in that time, were the most horrible words someone could utter. As far as your ``quote,'' Jesus said that after the Pharisees brought an adulterous woman to the temple to try and trick him into saying she should be put to death, the Jewish penalty for such an act. Instead, he told them, ``He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her'' (John 8:7, NASB). His point was, just like Romans 3:23, that ``all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.'' They deserved a stone in the head just as much or more than the woman for their unbelief. However, Jesus is not subject to his implication. He is God. He is perfect. He is without sin. He has full rights to persecute at his leisure. > Also the Bible was used as justification by twisting > interpretations and making up meanings. The story of Noah > and the flood was used to justify slavery at one point. God can make up all the meaning he wants. That's why I trust him with my salvation. How the flood, however, justifies slavery is a mystery. Care to elaborate? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 10 14:22:38 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFE8A37B401 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:22:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net (albatross.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.120]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D202743E88 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:22:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0098.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.98] helo=mindspring.com) by albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17osSG-0006UV-00; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:21:53 -0700 Message-ID: <3D7E622F.840E002B@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:20:47 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Giorgos Keramidas , Joshua Lee , dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020910084415.Q62741-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > You have your axioms, I have mine. The difference is that I think > I can defend mine, whereas I don't think yours are defensible. Well, if you want, we can start at the very, very beginning, and work out the entire basis for a rationalist world view. We can start with "light bulbs work". > As you have noted, it was not Biblical doctrine, it was Aritotelian > philosophy that the Catholic Church had incorporated into its > doctrine. It's not at all surprising, given human nature, but it > is regrettable. There are a number of scriptures which are and aren't considered part of "The Bible"; the inclusion and exclusion are rather arbitrary and political, as well. > > > Why should it hang around? > > > > The genes are there; why should they magically disappear, if there's > > no pressure to remove them from the gene pool? We know for a fact > > that it is almost impossible to eliminate recessive genes without > > eugenics or explicit engineering: it's mathematical improbability is > > so amazingly large that it simply can't happen. > > Kind of like the mathematical improbability of evolution is so > amazingly large that it can't happen either? 8-) Why *should* chance > favor order rather than disorder? I think you are mistaken in your assumptions here. "Life", as such, is *not* anti-entropic, in the larger sense. It increases order locally ("extropy"), at the expense of higher overall entropy. > > "A million" is just a convenient handle for "an inconceivably large > > number"; the premise in the argument is sound: given a source of > > randomness, eventually, a set number of bits in a specific sequence > > will happen. If it never happens, then your input wasn't really > > random. It's basically a premise based on large number theory, > > combined with the theory of limits. Basically, there is a finite > > probability of something happening, and an infinity of attempts at > > a matching value: eventually, it *will* happen. > > Yes, but the odds against it for all intents and purposes make it a > statistical impossibility. That's wrong. You misapprehend the nature of infinity, and we have given them an infinite amount of time to complete their task. > Moreover, if you think *that* is how life > arose, why do you use your eyes as though they were designed for seeing > and that they can give you accurate information? It would be like if > you were driving in the mountains, and a rock slide occurred blocking > your road, and some of the rocks just happen to randomly arrange > themselves into the words "Hello, Earthling". Now, statistically its > certainly possible, but you would be in error to suppose that some > kind of meaningful message was being communicated. So why suppose > that your senses, that arose by chance, convey anything meaningful > to you? In fact, why suppose that there even *is* a you? Because it's expedient. > > The general consensus is that it started with the exchange of > > linear RNA segments Eucaryotes. > > Oh yeah, as if this didn't beg the question! It doesn't. Perhaps it raises others, but it answers the one you asked. > > Not really. If something is possible, no matter how improbable, > > given an infinite amount of time... > > You stretch credulity to its limits! What is one divided by infinity? What is seventy seven divided by infinity? How many integers are there? How many real numbers are there? What is the value of the number of integers divided by the number of real numbers? All of these questions stretch exactly the same credulity, and yet they have answers. > > > Maybe, just maybe, because they don't *want* to believe it to be > > > unintelligible. > > > > Or that you want to believe that it is? > > No, I do not want to believe in square circles. Squaring the circle is possible; it's just not possible using only geometric constructions. So if you are going to limit the ways in which you are willing to think, yeah, some things are going to appear impossible to you, which are perfectly rational to someone else who doesn't adopt the same arbtrary boundaries you choose to adopt. > > > > Why do you say that it's unintelligible? > > > > > > Because is isn't. It's like saying water has the power to choose its > > > own path. Such a notion is completely unintelligible. > > > > Entropy chooses water's path. 8-). > > As it does the human mind. 8-) Correct. > > > Now you're getting the point... > > > > I got that point from your first posting. > > > > Now you should get mine: it's unreasonable for you to expect > > everyone to adopt your assumptions, particularly if their > > asumptions are a subset of yours. 8-). > > I'll reiterate mine again: It's unreasonable to adopt a subset > of assumptions that are the preconditions of intelligibility. > 8-) I guess if you insist on defining your assumptions that way, then you can not be convinced rationally of the rationality of anyone who does not already hold the same world view you hold, so there's really no reason to persist, unless you genuinely believe you can change other people's world views to coincide with your own. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 10 14:55:15 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C5EF37B400 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:55:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from williams.mc.vanderbilt.edu (williams.mc.Vanderbilt.Edu [160.129.208.222]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DCDF543E4A for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:55:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from drew-list-freebsd-chat@rain3s.net) Received: (qmail 21475 invoked from network); 10 Sep 2002 21:55:48 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO williams.mc.vanderbilt.edu) (127.0.0.1) by williams.mc.vanderbilt.edu with SMTP; 10 Sep 2002 21:55:48 -0000 Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 16:55:45 -0500 To: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020910215545.GI4470@drew.rain3s.net> References: <20020909215202.78267872.yid@softhome.net> <20020910094316.H62741-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> <20020910152310.5e6e2964.yid@softhome.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020910152310.5e6e2964.yid@softhome.net> From: Drew Raines Mail-Followup-To: chat@FreeBSD.ORG X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/0.62+ Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Joshua Lee wrote: > > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > > > It's called "justice." The eternal punishment of sinners > > certainly does serve God's purposes. > > I don't think I've done anything lately deserving of eternal > punishment, if I did one would think the cops would have > found out by now. ;-) The writer to the Hebrews wrote, ``without faith it is impossible to please Him'' (11:6). Not ``pleasing'' God is most definitely sin, so whatever you do out of faith is sin. Romans 3:23 all over again. We all live our lives deserving eternal punishment. This is the reason we worship Christ, our savior. Drew -- "Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil." --C. S. Lewis To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 10 15:17:30 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9011937B400 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 15:17:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from williams.mc.vanderbilt.edu (williams.mc.Vanderbilt.Edu [160.129.208.222]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D0F7243E3B for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 15:17:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from drew-list-freebsd-chat@rain3s.net) Received: (qmail 21683 invoked from network); 10 Sep 2002 22:18:05 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO williams.mc.vanderbilt.edu) (127.0.0.1) by williams.mc.vanderbilt.edu with SMTP; 10 Sep 2002 22:18:05 -0000 Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 17:18:02 -0500 To: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020910221802.GB21638@drew.rain3s.net> References: <20020909215202.78267872.yid@softhome.net> <20020910094316.H62741-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> <20020910152310.5e6e2964.yid@softhome.net> <20020910215545.GI4470@drew.rain3s.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020910215545.GI4470@drew.rain3s.net> From: Drew Raines Mail-Followup-To: chat@FreeBSD.ORG X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/0.62+ Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Drew Raines wrote: > > The writer to the Hebrews wrote, ``without faith it is > impossible to please Him'' (11:6). Not ``pleasing'' God is > most definitely sin, so whatever you do out of faith is sin. I should clarify: whatever you do *apart from* faith is sin. -Drew To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 10 15:25:16 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8168D37B401 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 15:25:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6B7243E6A for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 15:25:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lomifeh@earthlink.net) Received: from bgp586692bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net (bgp586692bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net [68.39.202.147]) by mtaout01.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 1.4 (built Aug 5 2002)) with ESMTP id <0H28001DIU97M8@mtaout01.icomcast.net> for chat@FreeBSD.ORG; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 18:24:43 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 18:24:47 -0400 From: Lawrence Sica Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-reply-to: <20020910211756.GF4470@drew.rain3s.net> To: Drew Raines Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Message-id: <1D890CC2-C50C-11D6-8708-000393A335A2@earthlink.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.543) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tuesday, September 10, 2002, at 05:17 PM, Drew Raines wrote: > Lawrence Sica wrote: >> >> Jesus by his actions lived by not persecuting "Let he who is >> without sin cas the first stone". Remember that line? > > Have you actually read the Bible or do you quote it fourth-hand > for fun? > Yes I have read it. Many many times. > Jesus persecuted unbelievers constantly, especially the > religious leaders of his time. He walked around saying he was > the only way to God, which, in that time, were the most > horrible words someone could utter. > > As far as your ``quote,'' Jesus said that after the Pharisees > brought an adulterous woman to the temple to try and trick him > into saying she should be put to death, the Jewish penalty for > such an act. Instead, he told them, ``He who is without sin > among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her'' (John > 8:7, NASB). His point was, just like Romans 3:23, that ``all > have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.'' They > deserved a stone in the head just as much or more than the > woman for their unbelief. > Romans isn't Jesus' words. And I read what he said as you have no right to stone her because you are not pure either. He told ppl he brought a new law...and that the old laws were no longer applicable. > However, Jesus is not subject to his implication. He is God. > He is perfect. He is without sin. He has full rights to > persecute at his leisure. > >> Also the Bible was used as justification by twisting >> interpretations and making up meanings. The story of Noah >> and the flood was used to justify slavery at one point. > > God can make up all the meaning he wants. That's why I trust > him with my salvation. How the flood, however, justifies > slavery is a mystery. Care to elaborate? > The son who looked at noah naked? Remember him? Well it was said his children would serve the rest...I forget his name off the top of my head. But it was then used that blacks were descended from the one son, so they could be slaves. --Larry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 10 15:26:56 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B713537B400 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 15:26:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F03443E3B for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 15:26:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lomifeh@earthlink.net) Received: from bgp586692bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net (bgp586692bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net [68.39.202.147]) by mtaout03.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.8 (built May 13 2002)) with ESMTP id <0H28005NOUCS71@mtaout03.icomcast.net> for freebsd-chat@freebsd.org; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 18:26:53 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 18:26:56 -0400 From: Lawrence Sica Subject: Re: anyone have a suggestion about XFree86, nv and not having to use ShadowFB ? In-reply-to: <20020910071334.23107a13.yid@softhome.net> To: Joshua Lee Cc: ulf@Alameda.net, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Message-id: <6A59CB81-C50C-11D6-8708-000393A335A2@earthlink.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.543) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tuesday, September 10, 2002, at 07:13 AM, Joshua Lee wrote: > On Sat, 7 Sep 2002 11:53:55 -0700 > Ulf Zimmermann wrote: > >> I have a GeForce 4 Ti 4600 in one system. Using the nv driver, I have >> to turn on ShadowFB, otherwise I get pixels left over when redrawing >> happens, like when an xterms scrolls. Just tried 4.2.1, same problem. > > Works fine here with a nVidia TNT M64 card, but I know that doesn't > help. You might want to ask this on freebsd-questions. (You don't even > have to be a subscriber to post a question.) > I've used that card as well, the M64 with X. Can't state about the geforce 4 though. > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 10 15:43:36 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E5A537B400 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 15:43:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (jive.SoftHome.net [66.54.152.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9CA9743E4A for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 15:43:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yid@softhome.net) Received: (qmail 30598 invoked by uid 417); 10 Sep 2002 22:43:32 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 10 Sep 2002 22:43:32 -0000 Received: from planb ([216.194.2.204]) (AUTH: LOGIN yid@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 16:43:30 -0600 Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 18:43:23 -0400 From: Joshua Lee To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: keramida@ceid.upatras.gr, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-Id: <20020910184323.14d0a796.yid@softhome.net> In-Reply-To: <20020910135549.W35938-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> References: <20020910152817.7ceb1917.yid@softhome.net> <20020910135549.W35938-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Organization: Plan B Software Labs X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.2claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.7) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:00:40 -0700 (PDT) "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > > ROFL. You think Kantian ethics are objective? BTW, please > > > > Kantian ethics are objective, I don't happen to like a few of the > > conclusions it reaches, but they are objective, without placing a > > Kant's whole philosophy was infected with subjectivism. In what way? > > Funny, you being a Protestant, I thought you would like Kant. > > What, you think Kant was a Christian? No, but his point of view is very much old-school Protestant. Keep in mind that his parents were 18th century German Pietists. > What makes you think that? I like the fact that he started asking > the right kinds of questions, given his work on transcendental > arguments, but the problem with Kant is that he still started with > man as his starting point, which is the source of the subjectivism > in his philosophy. No, with Kant, man was his *ending* point, not his starting point. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 10 16:17:44 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB77137B400 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 16:17:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from williams.mc.vanderbilt.edu (williams.mc.Vanderbilt.Edu [160.129.208.222]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E6C8643E6E for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 16:17:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from drew-list-freebsd-chat@rain3s.net) Received: (qmail 21995 invoked from network); 10 Sep 2002 23:18:17 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO williams.mc.vanderbilt.edu) (127.0.0.1) by williams.mc.vanderbilt.edu with SMTP; 10 Sep 2002 23:18:17 -0000 Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 18:18:14 -0500 To: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020910231814.GA21879@drew.rain3s.net> References: <20020910211756.GF4470@drew.rain3s.net> <1D890CC2-C50C-11D6-8708-000393A335A2@earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1D890CC2-C50C-11D6-8708-000393A335A2@earthlink.net> From: Drew Raines Mail-Followup-To: chat@FreeBSD.ORG X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/0.62+ Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Lawrence Sica wrote: > > On Tuesday, September 10, 2002, at 05:17 PM, Drew Raines wrote: > > > >Have you actually read the Bible or do you quote it fourth-hand > >for fun? > > Yes I have read it. Many many times. > >8:7, NASB). His point was, just like Romans 3:23, that ``all > >have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.'' They > >deserved a stone in the head just as much or more than the > >woman for their unbelief. > > Romans isn't Jesus' words. ``In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . and the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us. . .'' (John 1:1,14) ``No prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God'' (2 Pet. 1:21). ``Paul. . . wrote to you all his letters. . . which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the /rest of the Scriptures/, to their own destruction.'' Romans is God's Word. Jesus is God. Romans is Jesus' words. BTW, I didn't (intend to) claim Jesus wrote Romans. I was merely infering that the point of Romans 3:23 was the same as Jesus' point in John 8:7. > And I read what he said as you have no right to stone her > because you are not pure either. He told ppl he brought a > new law...and that the old laws were no longer applicable. I thought you were saying that Jesus didn't persecute anyone, a comment justified by John 8:7. Also, if you were agreeing with Neal, why did you sarcastically refer to a piece of scripture which supported his point? You really should use punctuation more liberally. We don't mind the extra bandwidth usage. > > him with my salvation. How the flood, however, justifies > > slavery is a mystery. Care to elaborate? > > The son who looked at noah naked? Remember him? Well it was > said his children would serve the rest...I forget his name > off the top of my head. But it was then used that blacks > were descended from the one son, so they could be slaves. OK, so you're referring to what Noah said after Ham entered the tent when Noah was naked. He cursed Canaan, Ham's son, telling Ham he shall be a ``servant of servants to his brothers'' (Genesis 9:25). That doesn't justify slavery as an institution that pleased God, however, which is what you were implying in previous messages. Where does the Bible claim that? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 10 16:22: 2 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84EFF37B400 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 16:21:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from williams.mc.vanderbilt.edu (williams.mc.Vanderbilt.Edu [160.129.208.222]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C636443E42 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 16:21:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from drew-list-freebsd-chat@rain3s.net) Received: (qmail 22023 invoked from network); 10 Sep 2002 23:22:35 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO williams.mc.vanderbilt.edu) (127.0.0.1) by williams.mc.vanderbilt.edu with SMTP; 10 Sep 2002 23:22:35 -0000 Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 18:22:33 -0500 To: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020910232233.GB21879@drew.rain3s.net> References: <20020910211756.GF4470@drew.rain3s.net> <1D890CC2-C50C-11D6-8708-000393A335A2@earthlink.net> <20020910231814.GA21879@drew.rain3s.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020910231814.GA21879@drew.rain3s.net> From: Drew Raines Mail-Followup-To: chat@FreeBSD.ORG X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/0.62+ Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Whoops; there's a fine line between ``P'' and ``y'' with Mutt. Drew Raines wrote: > > Lawrence Sica wrote: > > > > Romans isn't Jesus' words. > > ``In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with > God, and the Word was God. . . and the Word became flesh, > and dwelt among us. . .'' (John 1:1,14) > > ``No prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but > men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God'' (2 Pet. 1:21). > > ``Paul. . . wrote to you all his letters. . . which the > untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the /rest > of the Scriptures/, to their own destruction.'' The reference for the last citation is 2 Peter 3:14-16. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 10 19: 4: 0 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8694237B400 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 19:03:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2433F43E3B for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 19:03:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lomifeh@earthlink.net) Received: from bgp586692bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net (bgp586692bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net [68.39.202.147]) by mtaout02.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 1.4 (built Aug 5 2002)) with ESMTP id <0H2900LRA4EGS3@mtaout02.icomcast.net> for chat@FreeBSD.ORG; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 22:03:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 22:03:57 -0400 From: Lawrence Sica Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-reply-to: <20020910231814.GA21879@drew.rain3s.net> To: Drew Raines Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.543) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tuesday, September 10, 2002, at 07:18 PM, Drew Raines wrote: > Lawrence Sica wrote: >> >> On Tuesday, September 10, 2002, at 05:17 PM, Drew Raines wrote: >>> >>> Have you actually read the Bible or do you quote it fourth-hand >>> for fun? >> >> Yes I have read it. Many many times. > > >>> 8:7, NASB). His point was, just like Romans 3:23, that ``all >>> have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.'' They >>> deserved a stone in the head just as much or more than the >>> woman for their unbelief. >> >> Romans isn't Jesus' words. > > ``In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, > and the Word was God. . . and the Word became flesh, and > dwelt among us. . .'' (John 1:1,14) > > ``No prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men > moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God'' (2 Pet. 1:21). > > ``Paul. . . wrote to you all his letters. . . which the > untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the /rest of > the Scriptures/, to their own destruction.'' > > Romans is God's Word. Jesus is God. Romans is Jesus' words. > > BTW, I didn't (intend to) claim Jesus wrote Romans. I was > merely infering that the point of Romans 3:23 was the same as > Jesus' point in John 8:7. > ok. But those words aren't the word's that jesus said while he was alive on earth. Which is what I am going by. >> And I read what he said as you have no right to stone her >> because you are not pure either. He told ppl he brought a >> new law...and that the old laws were no longer applicable. > > I thought you were saying that Jesus didn't persecute anyone, a > comment justified by John 8:7. Also, if you were agreeing with > Neal, why did you sarcastically refer to a piece of scripture > which supported his point? > The point i was trying to make is that tolerance is a core of christianity. He stated that all the tolerance we see today is not a good thing. > You really should use punctuation more liberally. We don't > mind the extra bandwidth usage. > i'll ignore the dig and just stick to the facts. >>> him with my salvation. How the flood, however, justifies >>> slavery is a mystery. Care to elaborate? >> >> The son who looked at noah naked? Remember him? Well it was >> said his children would serve the rest...I forget his name >> off the top of my head. But it was then used that blacks >> were descended from the one son, so they could be slaves. > > OK, so you're referring to what Noah said after Ham entered the > tent when Noah was naked. He cursed Canaan, Ham's son, telling > Ham he shall be a ``servant of servants to his brothers'' > (Genesis 9:25). > > That doesn't justify slavery as an institution that pleased > God, however, which is what you were implying in previous > messages. Where does the Bible claim that? > I said it was used to do that, not that the Bible said that. My point being the bible has been interpreted in various ways to suit the needs of those thumping it to justify what they do. Like slavery or the crusades. --Larry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 10 19: 4:40 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 009E137B400 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 19:04:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADE7443E3B for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 19:04:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lomifeh@earthlink.net) Received: from bgp586692bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net (bgp586692bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net [68.39.202.147]) by mtaout05.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.8 (built May 13 2002)) with ESMTP id <0H29009W14FOYM@mtaout05.icomcast.net> for freebsd-chat@freebsd.org; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 22:04:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 22:04:41 -0400 From: Lawrence Sica Subject: FreeBSD usage stats To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.543) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Anyone know where I can find a good place for market share of FreeBSD now or in the past? TIA, Larry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 10 19:18:49 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8785337B400 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 19:18:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from williams.mc.vanderbilt.edu (williams.mc.Vanderbilt.Edu [160.129.208.222]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AE47E43E4A for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 19:18:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from drew-list-freebsd-chat@rain3s.net) Received: (qmail 22598 invoked from network); 11 Sep 2002 02:19:14 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO williams.mc.vanderbilt.edu) (127.0.0.1) by williams.mc.vanderbilt.edu with SMTP; 11 Sep 2002 02:19:14 -0000 Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 21:19:11 -0500 To: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020911021911.GC21879@drew.rain3s.net> References: <20020910231814.GA21879@drew.rain3s.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: From: Drew Raines Mail-Followup-To: chat@FreeBSD.ORG X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/0.62+ Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Lawrence Sica wrote: > > On Tuesday, September 10, 2002, at 07:18 PM, Drew Raines wrote: > > > > I thought you were saying that Jesus didn't persecute > > anyone, a comment justified by John 8:7. Also, if you were ^---[not] > > agreeing with Neal, why did you sarcastically refer to a > > piece of scripture which supported his point? > > The point i was trying to make is that tolerance is a core of > christianity. He stated that all the tolerance we see today > is not a good thing. I agree with him. Christianity does not tolerate sin under any circumstance. However, God commands us to tolerate the /sinner/; to love one another. That's why it's wrong for a church to kick out homosexuals. They're just as guilty as the businessman sleeping with his secretary and the pastor who gorges himself at the potluck dinner and the housewife gossiping to her girlfriends. > > That doesn't justify slavery as an institution that pleased > > God, however, which is what you were implying in previous > > messages. Where does the Bible claim that? > > I said it was used to do that, not that the Bible said that. > My point being the bible has been interpreted in various ways > to suit the needs of those thumping it to justify what they > do. I certainly agree with that. Drew -- "In need psychology the natural way to praise God is for what He has done for me. However, in God's self-revelation, even though God deserves humble thankfulness because of what He has done for me, God deserves praise /simply because He is God./" --Ed Welch To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 10 23: 3:33 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C7E937B400 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 23:03:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2538943E6A for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 23:03:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lomifeh@earthlink.net) Received: from bgp586692bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net (bgp586692bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net [68.39.202.147]) by mtaout04.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.8 (built May 13 2002)) with ESMTP id <0H29006F7FHSZ0@mtaout04.icomcast.net> for chat@FreeBSD.ORG; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 02:03:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 02:03:31 -0400 From: Lawrence Sica Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-reply-to: <20020911021911.GC21879@drew.rain3s.net> To: Drew Raines Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Message-id: <32F3C933-C54C-11D6-A642-000393A335A2@earthlink.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.543) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tuesday, September 10, 2002, at 10:19 PM, Drew Raines wrote: > Lawrence Sica wrote: >> >> On Tuesday, September 10, 2002, at 07:18 PM, Drew Raines wrote: >>> >>> I thought you were saying that Jesus didn't persecute >>> anyone, a comment justified by John 8:7. Also, if you were > ^---[not] >>> agreeing with Neal, why did you sarcastically refer to a >>> piece of scripture which supported his point? >> >> The point i was trying to make is that tolerance is a core of >> christianity. He stated that all the tolerance we see today >> is not a good thing. > > I agree with him. Christianity does not tolerate sin under any > circumstance. However, God commands us to tolerate the > /sinner/; to love one another. That's why it's wrong for a > church to kick out homosexuals. They're just as guilty as the > businessman sleeping with his secretary and the pastor who > gorges himself at the potluck dinner and the housewife > gossiping to her girlfriends. > That is the form of tolerance I mean, you do not have to agree with the other belief or condone it, but it does not make it right to do those things you said. >>> That doesn't justify slavery as an institution that pleased >>> God, however, which is what you were implying in previous >>> messages. Where does the Bible claim that? >> >> I said it was used to do that, not that the Bible said that. >> My point being the bible has been interpreted in various ways >> to suit the needs of those thumping it to justify what they >> do. > > I certainly agree with that. > weee :). That is the point I was trying to make when I said man sees God through his own lens. --Larry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 11 0: 4:14 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CB1737B400 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 00:04:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx0.gmx.net (mx0.gmx.net [213.165.64.100]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5157043E42 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 00:04:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from cmdebets@gmx.net) Received: (qmail 11441 invoked by uid 0); 11 Sep 2002 07:04:12 -0000 Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 09:04:12 +0200 (MEST) From: Michael Debets To: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Authenticated-Sender: #0013896173@gmx.net X-Authenticated-IP: [199.228.142.3] Message-ID: <28480.1031727852@www40.gmx.net> X-Mailer: WWW-Mail 1.5 (Global Message Exchange) X-Flags: 0001 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org auth 9d45ab45 subscribe freebsd-chat cmdebets@gmx.net To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 11 0: 5:43 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FFD737B400 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 00:05:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ns1.inter7.com (ns1.inter7.com [209.218.8.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 333F843E75 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 00:05:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nitedog@silly.pikachu.org) Received: (qmail 23494 invoked by uid 507); 11 Sep 2002 07:05:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nitebox) (12.241.147.134) by evanston.inter7.com with SMTP; 11 Sep 2002 07:05:18 -0000 Message-ID: <001001c25961$9ab220a0$0301a8c0@nitebox> From: "Randall Hamilton" To: "Michael Debets" , References: <28480.1031727852@www40.gmx.net> Subject: Re: Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 03:05:25 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-eFilter: eFilter/EPS (http://www.inter7.com/efilter) Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org wait until this damn neverending thread ends before joining. unless you want your mailbox to just be flooded ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Debets" To: Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 3:04 AM > > auth 9d45ab45 subscribe freebsd-chat cmdebets@gmx.net > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 11 0:33:32 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3ADA37B400 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 00:33:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hardtime.linuxman.net (hardtime.linuxman.net [66.147.26.65]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFD0A43E6A for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 00:33:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gh@over-yonder.net) Received: from mortis.over-yonder.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hardtime.linuxman.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8B85xd09494; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 03:06:00 -0500 Received: by mortis.over-yonder.net (Postfix, from userid 1012) id BDD0A1F02; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 02:33:20 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 02:33:20 -0500 From: dmk To: Terry Lambert Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020911073320.GH25491@over-yonder.net> References: <20020910084415.Q62741-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> <3D7E622F.840E002B@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3D7E622F.840E002B@mindspring.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i-fullermd.1 X-Editor: vi X-OS: FreeBSD Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 02:20:47PM -0700 I heard the voice of Terry Lambert, and lo! it spake thus: > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > You have your axioms, I have mine. The difference is that I think > > I can defend mine, whereas I don't think yours are defensible. > Well, if you want, we can start at the very, very beginning, For God's sake, please don't. [...] dan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 11 4:20:34 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EA9237B400 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 04:20:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (jive.SoftHome.net [66.54.152.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9225943E3B for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 04:20:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yid@softhome.net) Received: (qmail 25779 invoked by uid 417); 11 Sep 2002 11:18:52 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 11 Sep 2002 11:18:52 -0000 Received: from planb ([216.194.2.204]) (AUTH: LOGIN yid@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 05:18:50 -0600 Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 07:18:45 -0400 From: Joshua Lee To: Drew Raines Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-Id: <20020911071845.43665d57.yid@softhome.net> In-Reply-To: <20020910215545.GI4470@drew.rain3s.net> References: <20020909215202.78267872.yid@softhome.net> <20020910094316.H62741-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> <20020910152310.5e6e2964.yid@softhome.net> <20020910215545.GI4470@drew.rain3s.net> Organization: Plan B Software Labs X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.2claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.7) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 10 Sep 2002 16:55:45 -0500 Drew Raines wrote: > Joshua Lee wrote: > > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > > It's called "justice." The eternal punishment of sinners > > > certainly does serve God's purposes. > > > > I don't think I've done anything lately deserving of eternal > > punishment, if I did one would think the cops would have > > found out by now. ;-) > > The writer to the Hebrews wrote, ``without faith it is > impossible to please Him'' (11:6). Not ``pleasing'' God is > most definitely sin, so whatever you do out of faith is sin. > > Romans 3:23 all over again. We all live our lives deserving > eternal punishment. This is the reason we worship Christ, our > savior. I'm Jewish, so quotations from the NT aren't particularly convincing to me. You'll have to convince me with reason, which I doubt can be mustered to defend this idea of eternal-torture-by-god. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 11 4:24:43 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E176E37B400 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 04:24:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (jive.SoftHome.net [66.54.152.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 51A2443E3B for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 04:24:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yid@softhome.net) Received: (qmail 10008 invoked by uid 417); 11 Sep 2002 11:24:16 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 11 Sep 2002 11:24:16 -0000 Received: from planb ([216.194.2.204]) (AUTH: LOGIN yid@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 05:24:14 -0600 Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 07:24:10 -0400 From: Joshua Lee To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-Id: <20020911072410.4ad09b85.yid@softhome.net> In-Reply-To: <20020910134238.T35938-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> References: <20020910152132.1134e18d.yid@softhome.net> <20020910134238.T35938-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Organization: Plan B Software Labs X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.2claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.7) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 10 Sep 2002 13:53:19 -0700 (PDT) "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > OK then, why would G-d give an ability to someone if it > > automatically damns most human beings to eternal torture with the > > measure, rather than how good the person is, to be where he happens > > to sit in the most segregated hour of the week? > > Reason does not damn them, their sinful use of it without > acknowledging it as a gift from God is what damns them. They claim > not to know God, but their reasoning ability is evidence to them that > he does exist. I acknowledge that reason is a gift from G-d, we pray thanking G-d for the gift of knowledge and understanding three times a day (among other prayers in the shemoneh esrai), and am not an atheist. Yet, you still believe I'll be eternally tortured for not worshiping the (your) messiah? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 11 5:22:43 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 463B037B401 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 05:22:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (jive.SoftHome.net [66.54.152.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 37CF543E42 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 05:22:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yid@softhome.net) Received: (qmail 23931 invoked by uid 417); 11 Sep 2002 12:22:33 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 11 Sep 2002 12:22:33 -0000 Received: from planb ([216.194.2.204]) (AUTH: LOGIN yid@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 06:22:31 -0600 Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 08:22:27 -0400 From: Joshua Lee To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: dave@jetcafe.org, tlambert2@mindspring.com, jmallett@FreeBSD.ORG, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-Id: <20020911082227.7cbdc155.yid@softhome.net> In-Reply-To: <20020910135333.F35938-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> References: <20020910152310.5e6e2964.yid@softhome.net> <20020910135333.F35938-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Organization: Plan B Software Labs X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.2claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.7) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 10 Sep 2002 13:55:28 -0700 (PDT) "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Joshua Lee wrote: > > I don't think I've done anything lately deserving of eternal > > punishment, if I did one would think the cops would have found out > > by now. ;-) > > Most people don't, but then most people's opinions are not what > counts, only God can tell us what is deserving of eternal punishment. It is this sort of thinking that justified the inquisition. If someone is going to be eternally tortured by god if nothing is done anyway, what's wrong with a little bit of torture on earth in order to admit their soul into heaven? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 11 5:27: 4 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5538A37B400 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 05:27:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (jive.SoftHome.net [66.54.152.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A721543E65 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 05:27:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yid@softhome.net) Received: (qmail 5172 invoked by uid 417); 11 Sep 2002 12:27:00 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 11 Sep 2002 12:27:00 -0000 Received: from planb ([216.194.2.204]) (AUTH: LOGIN yid@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 06:26:58 -0600 Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 08:26:53 -0400 From: Joshua Lee To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-Id: <20020911082653.408b7c76.yid@softhome.net> In-Reply-To: <20020910094526.A62741-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> References: <20020909220117.5343f09b.yid@softhome.net> <20020910094526.A62741-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Organization: Plan B Software Labs X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.2claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.7) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 10 Sep 2002 09:52:45 -0700 (PDT) "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Joshua Lee wrote: > > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > > For example, the naturalist cannot account for human reason, since > > > according to a naturalist, everything that happens in the human > > > brain is just electro-chemical responses in the brain which have > > > nothing to do with "truth", "error", "right reason", etc. If a > > > person is a > > > > A computer programmer cannot account for computer programms, because > > they are composed of moving electrons that have nothing to do with: > > printf ("Hello world.\n"); > > Computer programs are not electrons. They are non-material, a set > of instructions. Anyway, your point was? My point is that just as in computer science there are layers of abstraction, so too in psychology, etc. There's no reason to reject psychology because of the existence of neurons, according to the scientific accounting. It especially does not demand only a certain faith as you claim. > > > naturalist, he has no reason to be a naturalist. He must also say > > > that other people's beliefs in God are also only the result of > > > electro-chemical responses in the brain. He could never know > > > whether or not he was right, since every attempt to reason his way > > > to the truth is just more electro-chemical responses in the brain, > > > and hence, the results of *these* reactions are also suspect. > > > > If this is an example of your "superior xtian reason", I'll have > > none of it. ;-) > > You know, you could, if you have a point to make, put your money where > your mouth is and point out how the argument is fallacious if you > really think it is. Your comment hardly counts as a refutation. See above. Your reduction is absurd. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 11 5:42:41 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A06AF37B400 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 05:42:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (jive.SoftHome.net [66.54.152.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2029243E3B for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 05:42:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yid@softhome.net) Received: (qmail 22854 invoked by uid 417); 11 Sep 2002 12:42:37 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 11 Sep 2002 12:42:37 -0000 Received: from planb ([216.194.2.204]) (AUTH: LOGIN yid@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 06:42:35 -0600 Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 08:42:30 -0400 From: Joshua Lee To: Dave Hayes Cc: nwestfal@directvinternet.com, tlambert2@mindspring.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-Id: <20020911084230.6ed7685f.yid@softhome.net> In-Reply-To: <200209100514.g8A5E2137907@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> References: <200209100514.g8A5E2137907@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Organization: Plan B Software Labs X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.2claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.7) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 09 Sep 2002 22:13:57 -0700 Dave Hayes wrote: > Joshua Lee writes: > > That's why Judaism finds the study of commentaries, and commentaries > > on the commentaries, very important. The brevity of the Written > > Torah points to the Oral Torah. > > I have great respect for oral traditions, because normally in these > the responsibility of duplicating the precise meaning rests on the > one teaching. It's much less prone to error than, say, some > mathematical paper is at communicating a fragment of the truth. I tend to think of some practices, like not only hearing what the teacher has taught but engaging in a two-way discussion of the material with several hours of in-depth study with a partner, that is done at the yeshiva, as a sort-of error-correction process for the Oral Torah. During the Hadrianic persecutions under the Romans that threatened the continued existence of the Jewish religion, Rabbi Hiyya said: "I made sure that Torah would not be forgotten by Jews. First I planted flax. I then used the flax to make nets with which I trapped deer. The meat of these animals I gave away to feed orphans and from their skins I made parchments. I then proceeded to a community where there was no one available to teach children Torah. On five parchments I wrote the five Chumashim of the Torah which I taught from and presented to five of the children. I also taught each of six children one of the six orders of the mishna. Then I instructed each one of them to teach the others what I had taught him until I would return to check on their progress. In this way I made sure that Torah would never be forgotten." Each of the students also teaches each other, this is an indispensable part of the learning process. I am convinced that one of the major problems in western education is that helping another fellow student learn is called "cheating". If the student learns, does it matter if it's only from a book and the teacher or if another student is also involved, who himself through teaching the material grasps it better than if he kept it to himself? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 11 6:12:33 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A173937B400 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 06:12:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net (harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.12]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49A5143E42 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 06:12:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0034.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.42.34] helo=mindspring.com) by harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17p7IC-0001Cw-00; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 06:12:28 -0700 Message-ID: <3D7F40FF.85048B28@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 06:11:27 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dmk Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020910084415.Q62741-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> <3D7E622F.840E002B@mindspring.com> <20020911073320.GH25491@over-yonder.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org dmk wrote: > > > You have your axioms, I have mine. The difference is that I think > > > I can defend mine, whereas I don't think yours are defensible. > > > Well, if you want, we can start at the very, very beginning, > > For God's sake, please don't. I wasn't really planning on it. The point was that it was possible to do so. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 11 6:34:45 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99E4637B401 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 06:34:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from williams.mc.vanderbilt.edu (williams.mc.Vanderbilt.Edu [160.129.208.222]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9EF5D43E3B for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 06:34:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from drew-list-freebsd-chat@rain3s.net) Received: (qmail 25217 invoked from network); 11 Sep 2002 13:35:15 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO williams.mc.vanderbilt.edu) (127.0.0.1) by williams.mc.vanderbilt.edu with SMTP; 11 Sep 2002 13:35:15 -0000 Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 08:35:12 -0500 To: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020911133512.GE21879@drew.rain3s.net> References: <20020909215202.78267872.yid@softhome.net> <20020910094316.H62741-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> <20020910152310.5e6e2964.yid@softhome.net> <20020910215545.GI4470@drew.rain3s.net> <20020911071845.43665d57.yid@softhome.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020911071845.43665d57.yid@softhome.net> From: Drew Raines Mail-Followup-To: chat@FreeBSD.ORG X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/0.62+ Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Joshua Lee wrote: > > Drew Raines wrote: > > > > The writer to the Hebrews wrote, ``without faith it is > > impossible to please Him'' (11:6). Not ``pleasing'' God is > > most definitely sin, so whatever you do out of faith is > > sin. > > > > Romans 3:23 all over again. We all live our lives > > deserving eternal punishment. This is the reason we > > worship Christ, our savior. > > I'm Jewish, so quotations from the NT aren't particularly > convincing to me. You'll have to convince me with reason, > which I doubt can be mustered to defend this idea of > eternal-torture-by-god. It would seem to me that ``eternal-torture-by-God,'' God's justice and righteousness, is the exact theme of the OT; hence the need for the NT. Fortunately, it's not my job to convince you. Jesus said to his disciples, ``the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; not as the world gives'' (Jn 14:26). Sorry it's from the NT, but without that, I have nothing. My life is meaningless apart from what Christ did. As Paul (a former Jew[1]) put it, ``I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord'' (Phil 3:8). He told the Corinthians, ``if Christ had not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. . . If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied'' (1 Cor 15:14,19). -Drew [1] ``I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom He foreknew'' (Rom 11:1,2). To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 11 12:12:31 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B085837B400 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 12:12:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.uffdaonline.net (mail.johnsonairspray.com [207.109.235.5]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EE02D43E4A for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 12:12:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from zach@uffdaonline.net) Received: from host112.uffdaonline.net ([]) by mail.uffdaonline.net (MERAK 3.00.120) with ESMTP id CPC36840; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 14:16:05 -0500 Received: from host112.uffdaonline.net (zach@localhost [IPv6:::1]) by host112.uffdaonline.net (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id g8BJCQxa011151; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 14:12:26 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from zach@host112.uffdaonline.net) Received: (from zach@localhost) by host112.uffdaonline.net (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id g8BJCPdJ011150; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 14:12:25 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 14:12:24 -0500 From: Zach Heilig To: Joshua Lee Cc: Drew Raines , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020911191224.GA10929@uffdaonline.net> References: <20020909215202.78267872.yid@softhome.net> <20020910094316.H62741-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> <20020910152310.5e6e2964.yid@softhome.net> <20020910215545.GI4470@drew.rain3s.net> <20020911071845.43665d57.yid@softhome.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020911071845.43665d57.yid@softhome.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 07:18:45AM -0400, Joshua Lee wrote: > On Tue, 10 Sep 2002 16:55:45 -0500 > Drew Raines wrote: > > Romans 3:23 all over again. We all live our lives deserving > > eternal punishment. This is the reason we worship Christ, our > > savior. > I'm Jewish, so quotations from the NT aren't particularly convincing > to me. You'll have to convince me with reason, which I doubt can be > mustered to defend this idea of eternal-torture-by-god. Now I'm confused... I always considered death to mean something closer to comatose rather than eternal torture. Rom. 8:23 "For the wages of sin is *death*..." Rev. 20:6 "Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second *death* has no power..." Rev. 21:8 "But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second *death*." and there are passages to suggest that it all does come to an end, eventually: Rev. 21:4 "And God shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying; there shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away" -- Zach Heilig To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 11 13:29:37 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8D3E37B400 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 13:29:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3088643E4A for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 13:29:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g8BKTVGd047648; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 13:29:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g8BKTUmA047641; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 13:29:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 13:29:30 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Joshua Lee Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <20020911072410.4ad09b85.yid@softhome.net> Message-ID: <20020911132736.Y45696-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Joshua Lee wrote: > > Reason does not damn them, their sinful use of it without > > acknowledging it as a gift from God is what damns them. They claim > > not to know God, but their reasoning ability is evidence to them that > > he does exist. > > I acknowledge that reason is a gift from G-d, we pray thanking G-d for > the gift of knowledge and understanding three times a day (among other > prayers in the shemoneh esrai), and am not an atheist. Yet, you still > believe I'll be eternally tortured for not worshiping the (your) > messiah? Yes, if you reject the Messiah, you will have no covering for your sin. It is *for your sins* that you will be punished, only one of which is rejecting the Messiah. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 11 13:33:14 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2E1037B400; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 13:33:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 247C743E6A; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 13:33:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g8BKXBGd048456; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 13:33:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g8BKXBH1048453; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 13:33:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 13:33:11 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Joshua Lee Cc: dave@jetcafe.org, , , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <20020911082227.7cbdc155.yid@softhome.net> Message-ID: <20020911133003.K45696-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Joshua Lee wrote: > > Most people don't, but then most people's opinions are not what > > counts, only God can tell us what is deserving of eternal punishment. > > It is this sort of thinking that justified the inquisition. If someone > is going to be eternally tortured by god if nothing is done anyway, > what's wrong with a little bit of torture on earth in order to admit > their soul into heaven? Sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about. The inquisition tortured more Protestants than anyone else. I challenge you to provide some proof that the doctrine of hell justified the inquisition. Sounds to me like you are just having emotional fits at the prospect that sinning against an eternal God deserves eternal punishment. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 11 13:42:15 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEB3037B400 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 13:42:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0735943E4A for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 13:42:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g8BKgBGd057868; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 13:42:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g8BKgBQQ057865; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 13:42:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 13:42:11 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Joshua Lee Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <20020911082653.408b7c76.yid@softhome.net> Message-ID: <20020911133432.P45696-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Joshua Lee wrote: > > > A computer programmer cannot account for computer programms, because > > > they are composed of moving electrons that have nothing to do with: > > > printf ("Hello world.\n"); > > > > Computer programs are not electrons. They are non-material, a set > > of instructions. Anyway, your point was? > > My point is that just as in computer science there are layers of > abstraction, so too in psychology, etc. There's no reason to reject > psychology because of the existence of neurons, according to the > scientific accounting. It especially does not demand only a certain faith as you claim. I don't think you have even understood the argument. The argument was directed specifically at naturalism. Naturalism cannot account for human reason since only physical causes can be invoked in explaining human behavior. On a naturalist worldview, human beings are just machines, and as such reasoning is just an illusion. All reasoning is just the outworking of the electrical-chemical reactions in the brain. The human brain could never transcend nature with anything that resembled "reason". > > > > naturalist, he has no reason to be a naturalist. He must also say > > > > that other people's beliefs in God are also only the result of > > > > electro-chemical responses in the brain. He could never know > > > > whether or not he was right, since every attempt to reason his way > > > > to the truth is just more electro-chemical responses in the brain, > > > > and hence, the results of *these* reactions are also suspect. > > > > > > If this is an example of your "superior xtian reason", I'll have > > > none of it. ;-) > > > > You know, you could, if you have a point to make, put your money where > > your mouth is and point out how the argument is fallacious if you > > really think it is. Your comment hardly counts as a refutation. > > See above. Your reduction is absurd. Reductions are supposed to be absurd! That's why they are called "reductio ad ABSURDUM" arguments. They are employed to reduce an opponent's argument to ABSURDITY. Get it? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 11 14: 1:39 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B91EB37B4B0 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 14:01:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 139C443E4A for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 14:01:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g8BL17Gd061721; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 14:01:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g8BL141A061718; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 14:01:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 14:01:04 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Joshua Lee Cc: keramida@ceid.upatras.gr, Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <20020910184323.14d0a796.yid@softhome.net> Message-ID: <20020911134317.P45696-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Joshua Lee wrote: > On Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:00:40 -0700 (PDT) > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > > > > ROFL. You think Kantian ethics are objective? BTW, please > > > > > > Kantian ethics are objective, I don't happen to like a few of the > > > conclusions it reaches, but they are objective, without placing a > > > > Kant's whole philosophy was infected with subjectivism. > > In what way? Because when you say that the mind is what imposes the order that we see in the universe around us, you can never know if the ordering of your own mind correlates with what is actually the case. You could also never know if anyone else's mind orders things the same way. Ergo, subjectivism. > > > Funny, you being a Protestant, I thought you would like Kant. > > > > What, you think Kant was a Christian? > > No, but his point of view is very much old-school Protestant. Keep in > mind that his parents were 18th century German Pietists. You must be smoking something. Kant's views had more in common with Protestant Liberalism and Neo-orthodoxy, which both trace their lineage back to Kant. > > What makes you think that? I like the fact that he started asking > > the right kinds of questions, given his work on transcendental > > arguments, but the problem with Kant is that he still started with > > man as his starting point, which is the source of the subjectivism > > in his philosophy. > > No, with Kant, man was his *ending* point, not his starting point. Okay, if you say so... To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 11 14:59:28 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67CF437B400 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 14:59:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net (hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.22]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D1D243E3B for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 14:59:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0065.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.42.65] helo=mindspring.com) by hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17pFVu-0004MO-00; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 14:59:11 -0700 Message-ID: <3D7FBC6B.C8E2340F@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 14:58:03 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Joshua Lee , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020911133432.P45696-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > On a naturalist worldview, human beings are just machines, and > as such reasoning is just an illusion. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ You keep pulling this one out of your rear. I don't see why you keep claiming this, when it doesn't logically follow. If human beings are just machines, there no reason at all that their reasoning would have to be illusionary, rather than real. You have simply made an unsupported statement, as if it were fact, and expected us to be stupid enough to just accept it with no evidence. > All reasoning is just the > outworking of the electrical-chemical reactions in the brain. The human > brain could never transcend nature with anything that resembled "reason". "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts". > > See above. Your reduction is absurd. > > Reductions are supposed to be absurd! That's why they are called > "reductio ad ABSURDUM" arguments. They are employed to reduce an > opponent's argument to ABSURDITY. Get it? No, that's not how the symbolic logic works. A "reductio ad absurdum" is a "reduction to absurdity" argument. It works by taking a general argument, and arguing its application to a specific case where it is false, thus demonstrating that the generalization itself is false. It's possible to perform a reduction that does not result in an absurdity. This is how it works if the generalization is true. E.g. the argument "all fish are trout" is not proven absurd, if your specific case that you argue to is a rainbow trout instead of a brown trout, but it works if your specific case is a carp. The reason the reduction he called absurd *is* absurd is that you drew a conclusion unrelated to the specific case which you were reducing. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 11 15: 0:53 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2465537B400 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 15:00:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B8DF43E6E for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 15:00:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g8BM0dGd066087; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 15:00:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g8BM0cvO066084; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 15:00:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 15:00:38 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Terry Lambert Cc: Giorgos Keramidas , Joshua Lee , , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <3D7E622F.840E002B@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20020911140623.A45696-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > You have your axioms, I have mine. The difference is that I think > > I can defend mine, whereas I don't think yours are defensible. > > Well, if you want, we can start at the very, very beginning, > and work out the entire basis for a rationalist world view. > We can start with "light bulbs work". Actually you can't start there. The premise that "light bulbs work" is dependent on the uniformity of nature, for which you have yet to provide a justification. > > As you have noted, it was not Biblical doctrine, it was Aritotelian > > philosophy that the Catholic Church had incorporated into its > > doctrine. It's not at all surprising, given human nature, but it > > is regrettable. > > There are a number of scriptures which are and aren't considered > part of "The Bible"; the inclusion and exclusion are rather > arbitrary and political, as well. Proof, please. What you seem to be missing is that on a theistic worldview, God is able to ensure that the totality of what He wishes to reveal, nothing more, nothing less, gets into the canon. If God is providentially in control of all things, he is able to ensure that the word He wishes to communicate gets so communicated. Political considerations are irrelevant. > > Kind of like the mathematical improbability of evolution is so > > amazingly large that it can't happen either? 8-) Why *should* chance > > favor order rather than disorder? > > I think you are mistaken in your assumptions here. "Life", as > such, is *not* anti-entropic, in the larger sense. It increases > order locally ("extropy"), at the expense of higher overall entropy. This sounds to me like an embarrassing rescuing device intended to hide the fact that the theory of evolution is in direct contradiction to one of the best attested laws of science. You can't even demonstrate that "extropy" is even occuring, as the empirical and fossil evidence indicates that species tend toward extinction rather than the other way around. At every point evolution is based on speculation about what "might" be occurring. Even Gould realized that the fossil record didn't support Darwinian evolution, which is why he proposed "punctuated equilibria" in the first place, so that the lack of fossil evidence serves as "evidence" for the truth of his theory. Pretty clever, don't you think, building into the theory immunity from lack of evidence? > > > "A million" is just a convenient handle for "an inconceivably large > > > number"; the premise in the argument is sound: given a source of > > > randomness, eventually, a set number of bits in a specific sequence > > > will happen. If it never happens, then your input wasn't really > > > random. It's basically a premise based on large number theory, > > > combined with the theory of limits. Basically, there is a finite > > > probability of something happening, and an infinity of attempts at > > > a matching value: eventually, it *will* happen. > > > > Yes, but the odds against it for all intents and purposes make it a > > statistical impossibility. > > That's wrong. You misapprehend the nature of infinity, and we > have given them an infinite amount of time to complete their > task. I see. So your view is based on yet more faith commitments and speculation. Trouble is the Second Law militates against the notion that the universe is infinitely old. But I forgot, you've got a faith commitment to get around that too. > > Moreover, if you think *that* is how life > > arose, why do you use your eyes as though they were designed for seeing > > and that they can give you accurate information? It would be like if > > you were driving in the mountains, and a rock slide occurred blocking > > your road, and some of the rocks just happen to randomly arrange > > themselves into the words "Hello, Earthling". Now, statistically its > > certainly possible, but you would be in error to suppose that some > > kind of meaningful message was being communicated. So why suppose > > that your senses, that arose by chance, convey anything meaningful > > to you? In fact, why suppose that there even *is* a you? > > Because it's expedient. It's also expedient to believe in absurdities, like that given enough time, anything can happen. And people call this science! Tell me, how do you know that in this so-called random chance universe, some random event won't end this little fluke that we call existence? > > > The general consensus is that it started with the exchange of > > > linear RNA segments Eucaryotes. > > > > Oh yeah, as if this didn't beg the question! > > It doesn't. Perhaps it raises others, but it answers the one you asked. If you are going to continue to insist that life arose this way, you will have to eventually get around to answering the question as to how you think your reasoning ability isn't just an illusion, since if you are right, you can't help but reason the way you do. You also cannot account for your freedom, since all of your choices are the result of the laws of physics. Your view undercuts the ability of reason to transcend nature in order to understand it. > > > Not really. If something is possible, no matter how improbable, > > > given an infinite amount of time... > > > > You stretch credulity to its limits! > > What is one divided by infinity? What is seventy seven divided > by infinity? How many integers are there? How many real numbers > are there? What is the value of the number of integers divided by > the number of real numbers? Mathematics cannot be used to prove that the universe is infinitely old. Your reasoning here is just as fallacious as that of Zeno's paradoxes that purportedly "proved" that you could never get from point A to point B. > All of these questions stretch exactly the same credulity, and > yet they have answers. Really? What *is* one divided by infinity? > > > > Maybe, just maybe, because they don't *want* to believe it to be > > > > unintelligible. > > > > > > Or that you want to believe that it is? > > > > No, I do not want to believe in square circles. > > Squaring the circle is possible; it's just not possible using > only geometric constructions. Clever, but all you've done is shown that you can equivocate on the meaning of words. Mighty impressive indeed. > So if you are going to limit > the ways in which you are willing to think, yeah, some things > are going to appear impossible to you, which are perfectly > rational to someone else who doesn't adopt the same arbtrary > boundaries you choose to adopt. Yeah, and the concept of one hand clapping is perfectly rational to an irrationalist. So what? > > > > > Why do you say that it's unintelligible? > > > > > > > > Because is isn't. It's like saying water has the power to choose its > > > > own path. Such a notion is completely unintelligible. > > > > > > Entropy chooses water's path. 8-). > > > > As it does the human mind. 8-) > > Correct. On such notions you can't even know that your reason is functioning properly. You've reduced yourself to absurdity. > > > Now you should get mine: it's unreasonable for you to expect > > > everyone to adopt your assumptions, particularly if their > > > asumptions are a subset of yours. 8-). > > > > I'll reiterate mine again: It's unreasonable to adopt a subset > > of assumptions that are the preconditions of intelligibility. > > 8-) > > I guess if you insist on defining your assumptions that way, > then you can not be convinced rationally of the rationality of > anyone who does not already hold the same world view you hold, > so there's really no reason to persist, unless you genuinely > believe you can change other people's world views to coincide > with your own. No, I'm not so arrogant as to think that. Not even you have the power to do that apart from an act of God. Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 11 15:28:53 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A83EA37B401 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 15:28:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net (flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.232]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E634643E6A for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 15:28:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0065.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.42.65] helo=mindspring.com) by flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17pFxx-0004X1-00; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 15:28:10 -0700 Message-ID: <3D7FC334.396A9F12@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 15:27:00 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Giorgos Keramidas , Joshua Lee , dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020911140623.A45696-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > Well, if you want, we can start at the very, very beginning, > > and work out the entire basis for a rationalist world view. > > We can start with "light bulbs work". > > Actually you can't start there. The premise that "light bulbs work" > is dependent on the uniformity of nature, for which you have yet to > provide a justification. I justify it by the fact that light bulbs are *observed* to work. > > There are a number of scriptures which are and aren't considered > > part of "The Bible"; the inclusion and exclusion are rather > > arbitrary and political, as well. > > Proof, please. What you seem to be missing is that on a theistic > worldview, God is able to ensure that the totality of what He wishes > to reveal, nothing more, nothing less, gets into the canon. If God > is providentially in control of all things, he is able to ensure > that the word He wishes to communicate gets so communicated. Political > considerations are irrelevant. So which is the *true* canon, and *why*? The dead sea scrolls, of which th Bible is a translation, are not all of the dead sea scrolls there were, they were only some of them. Is the true canon the dead sea scrolls? Or is it the King James translation into English of the Bible? > > I think you are mistaken in your assumptions here. "Life", as > > such, is *not* anti-entropic, in the larger sense. It increases > > order locally ("extropy"), at the expense of higher overall entropy. > > This sounds to me like an embarrassing rescuing device intended to hide > the fact that the theory of evolution is in direct contradiction to one > of the best attested laws of science. ? Definition: extropy: anti-entropy > You can't even demonstrate that "extropy" is even occuring, By "extropy", we are talking about a local increase in order. AKA "life". So you are basically saying that I can't demonstrate that life is even occurring. > I see. So your view is based on yet more faith commitments and > speculation. Actually, it doesn't, if you accept the steady-state theory. Even if you insist on a "big bang" theory, where we now exist in the one universe, with a finite duration, which has ever existed (calculate the probability of *that*!), there;s still no faith commitment required. > Trouble is the Second Law militates against the notion that the > universe is infinitely old. Only if you accept the "big bang" theory, which is not the only theory. Are you advocating the "big bang"? > > Because it's expedient. > > It's also expedient to believe in absurdities, like that given enough > time, anything can happen. That's not an absurdity, that's a consequence of math you apparently can not understand. It has to do with the fact that there are orders of infinity, and that when you divide infinity into any value that is of a lower order, you end up with zero. > If you are going to continue to insist that life arose this way, you > will have to eventually get around to answering the question as to > how you think your reasoning ability isn't just an illusion, since if > you are right, you can't help but reason the way you do. See other posting. This does not follow from your argument. > > What is one divided by infinity? What is seventy seven divided > > by infinity? How many integers are there? How many real numbers > > are there? What is the value of the number of integers divided by > > the number of real numbers? > > Mathematics cannot be used to prove that the universe is infinitely > old. That something *must* happen in an infinite amount of time is not the same as saying that you *must wait an infinite amount of time for it to happen. That something that *must* happen, given an infinite amount of time, *has* happened, does *not* mean that an infinite amount of time has therefore elapsed. The probability of flipping a coin once, and having it come up "heads" instead of "tails" is 1:2. If you flip it 10 times, and it comes up "tails" all 10 times, what is the probability that, if you flip it again, it will come up "heads"? > Your reasoning here is just as fallacious as that of Zeno's > paradoxes that purportedly "proved" that you could never get from > point A to point B. Zeno's paradox is not a paradox. It is a proof of the theory of limits, because a paradox, by definition, can not exist. If it seems to be a paradox to you, all that means is that you need to learn some more mathematics. > > All of these questions stretch exactly the same credulity, and > > yet they have answers. > > Really? What *is* one divided by infinity? Zero. > > > No, I do not want to believe in square circles. > > > > Squaring the circle is possible; it's just not possible using > > only geometric constructions. > > Clever, but all you've done is shown that you can equivocate on > the meaning of words. Mighty impressive indeed. No, I've demostrated that a 4th century B.C. knowledge of mathematics is not sufficient, nor is it "the state of the art", and anyone who relies on such a poor understanding of mathematics for their arguments is likely to be wrong in ways that they are incapable of understanding, until they learn more mathematics. > > So if you are going to limit > > the ways in which you are willing to think, yeah, some things > > are going to appear impossible to you, which are perfectly > > rational to someone else who doesn't adopt the same arbtrary > > boundaries you choose to adopt. > > Yeah, and the concept of one hand clapping is perfectly rational > to an irrationalist. So what? It's perfectly rational to the rationalist, as well. It is a proof of the incompleteness theorem. > > > > Entropy chooses water's path. 8-). > > > > > > As it does the human mind. 8-) > > > > Correct. > > On such notions you can't even know that your reason is functioning > properly. You've reduced yourself to absurdity. Your conclusion does not follow from your argument, and your argument is incorrect. I only need to know that my reason is self-consistent to know that it is functioning properly. > > I guess if you insist on defining your assumptions that way, > > then you can not be convinced rationally of the rationality of > > anyone who does not already hold the same world view you hold, > > so there's really no reason to persist, unless you genuinely > > believe you can change other people's world views to coincide > > with your own. > > No, I'm not so arrogant as to think that. Not even you have the > power to do that apart from an act of God. I can change a rational person's views, as a rational person can change mine. All they need to do is argue from the basis of logic. I've had my opinions chnaged many, many times in the past, by people arguing rationally. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 11 15:52:23 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 238AB37B400 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 15:52:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B59743E4A for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 15:52:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g8BMqJGd066229; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 15:52:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g8BMqIvT066226; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 15:52:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 15:52:18 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: dmk Cc: Terry Lambert , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <20020911073320.GH25491@over-yonder.net> Message-ID: <20020911155146.R45696-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, dmk wrote: > > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > > You have your axioms, I have mine. The difference is that I think > > > I can defend mine, whereas I don't think yours are defensible. > > > Well, if you want, we can start at the very, very beginning, > > For God's sake, please don't. ROFL! Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 11 15:52:37 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B345B37B400 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 15:52:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44DDD43E72 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 15:52:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g8BMp4Gd066223; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 15:51:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g8BMp4i2066220; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 15:51:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 15:51:04 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Terry Lambert Cc: Lawrence Sica , Giorgos Keramidas , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <3D7E5E08.2DB903C6@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20020911150151.C45696-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > > > At a fundamental level, the universe is quantized, > > > and this causes certain emergenet behaviours in matter. > > > > Really? What do you mean, when you say, "the universe is quantized"? > > E.g. it takes exactly 13.6 electron volts to take an electron > from an s orbital to infinity. Not 13.4, not 13.8. So how does this prove that "order comes from disorder"? > > And what do you mean by "certain emergent behaviours in matter"? > > You seem to think that quantum physics can do all things, like > > reconcile the irrational. To say that order comes from disorder, > > no matter how much you try to dress it up is still irrational. If, > > on the other hand, you mean there never was disorder in the first > > place, I can buy that. > > Your _opinion_ on what's rational or not has been noted, but is > not really germane. Okay, I can play this game. *Your* _opinion_ on what's rational has been noted as well, but is not really germane. > > > We call > > > the properties that cause this "universal constants", like the > > > value of PI, the value of "e", the Planck length, etc.. We don't > > > have to define an origin for these numbers for them to make > > > themselves evident to us. > > > > Maybe you don't think so, but if you believe that then you can't > > count on them continuing to be constants in the future. We're right > > back to David Hume and the problem of induction. > > No, you are actually right that we can't count on them in the > future. There's evidence that the speed of light was much > higher, much earlier in the life of the universe, for example. You miss the point. Without assuming the uniformity of nature, there *could be no* evidence about the speed of light at all. > > > > 3) Life came from non-life. > > > > > > This is actually a reasonable assumption, given empirical > > > observations. We have a number of stories to describe the math > > > of how this could be so. > > > > "Stories" seems to be an apt description. > > It is. It's why I used it. Don't confuse stories with reality; > it's impossible for you to directly observe reality. Really? How then is the scientific method even possible? > > > It also begs the definition of "life"; > > > if you mean self-assembly of complex chemical compounds, we can > > > do this in a laboratory, under controlled conditions, creating > > > amino acids from conditions which simulate our best guesses at > > > those present early in the life of the Earth. > > > > The key phrase here is "under controlled conditions". Self-assembly > > is a contradiction. Moreover, no, I do not consider amino acids to > > be "life". > > We have to control the conditions, because it's not possible > to simulate the appropriate conditions. High partial pressures > of CO2 and SO2 don't occur naturally on Earth any more. It's not even possible to KNOW the appropriate conditions! The whole exercise is one big begging of the question. > Whether you consider amino acids "life" or not is also pretty > irrelevant, since you are going to keep moving the finish line, > the deeper we get, so as to continue to be "right". 8-). What makes you think this? > > > > 4) Intelligence came from non-intelligence. > > > > > > Our best theory is that intelligence is an emergent property of > > > complex self-regulating systems over a certain threshold density. > > > > This just sounds like so much baloney. Basically what you just > > said is that our best theory is merely the assertion that "intelligence > > emerged from non-intelligence." Yeah, I already know you believe that, > > but believing it and showing it to be the case are two different things. > > We can demonstrate that complex behaviour emerges from simple > rule sets. Conway's game of Life and other cellular automata > demonstrate that (e.g. "Sugarscape"). Conway's game of Life doesn't demonstrate anything close to intelligence. Once more, if you believe this, you have no reason for believing that your belief about the origin of intelligence is true, unless you give yourself a priviledged position of being right by definition. > > Lets start with your own reasoning ability. To review, if you are a > > naturalist, all of your brain functions are due merely to physical > > laws acting on antecedent brain states. On your view, reason is an > > illusion, and you have no way of knowing whether or not your reasoning > > is sound, since all of it is due merely to the electro-chemical > > reactions taking place in your grey matter. > > How does it follow that "reason is an illusion"? You've made a > leap there which you haven't really justified making... For the same reason that water doesn't "know" how to flow downstream. If everything in your brain is the result of the laws of physics, you couldn't *help* but believe what you do. All of your reasoning is suspect. Why should *your* beliefs be considered "true" while a theists beliefs are considered "false"? Both are the result of physics, and have nothing to do with what corresponds to any such notion as "right reason" or "truth". Everybody just believes what they believe. > > You could never know that > > your views were right and that somebody else's views are wrong, unless > > you give yourself the priviledged position of being the only person for > > whom evolution granted perfect reasoning. > > Yeah, "right" and "wrong" are subjective; that one of the problems > consensus solves for us: it gives us an external ruler. What do you mean by "problem"? If there is no right and wrong, no "problem" can even be defined, let alone solved. If there is no objective right or wrong, any attempt to define the problem will be totally arbitrary. You have to have an objective standard of right and wrong before you can even know if there *is* a problem to be solved. > > Moreover, you cannot save > > reason by introducing randomness, as all this does is try to save > > rationality by introducing irrationality. Morever, whether or not you > > think reason is determined by physical laws or by chance, it is still > > determined, and has nothing to do with "sound reasoning" or "truth". > > If "randomness" was equal to "irrationality", son't you think > that we wouldn't have invented a second word, or that at least > one would be defined in terms of the other in your dictionary? Uh, no. I was counting on you to draw the necessary inference. But if you must have it spelled out for you, when you apply "randomness" to our thinking processes, what results is irrationality. Sound reasoning involves applying objective standards to our thought processes, and has nothing to do with "randomness". > > Yeah, I know, you don't believe in moral absolutes. I'll just point > > out one more problem with your view, and then drop it. You could > > never come to a meaningful consensus without reasoning, and since > > your reasoning is suspect due to the above, you could never actually > > come to any meaningful consensus. > > Sure I can. I have schelling points, which I can use to establish > communication. By the way, Terry, what *is* a schelling point anyway? 8-) > Even if you seperate people so that they can not otherwise > communicate, and you make them play "interative prisoner's > dilemma", you provide them feedback, and they can therefore > use their gameplay to establish a communications channel. > > Read "The Evolution of Cooperation". Communication is not the problem. The ability to reason is necessary before any communication is possible. You still have not provided any basis for reason. Randomness does not get you there. > > > Believing in a creator is not the same thing as falsifying > > > evolutionary theory. > > > > No, it is not, but at this point I think you would do well to > > read Phillip Johnsons book, "Darwin on Trial". The philosophical > > and scientific problems with evolution are quite numerous. > > I've read the book; I disagree with some of the premises on which > his arguments are built. They are, not coincidently, some of your > premises, as well. The counterargument basically comes down to > "your inability to conceive of something doesn't make it any less > true". This sounds suspiciously like an attempt to justify the arbitrariness of your assumptions. > This is, in the limit, the same argument that is normally > put forth in defense of a creator, but it's stated as "Absence of > evidence is not evidence of absence". 8-). Of course, I disagree with that premise as well. 8-) Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 11 16:27:32 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D60F37B400 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 16:27:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from peitho.fxp.org (peitho.fxp.org [209.26.95.40]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02CE243E4A for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 16:27:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bulldog@fxp.org) Received: by peitho.fxp.org (Postfix, from userid 1206) id 520BB136FE; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 19:27:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 19:27:28 -0400 From: Bob Bomar To: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Windows as opposed to Other OS's Message-ID: <20020911232728.GA24843@peitho.fxp.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="fdj2RfSjLxBAspz7" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org --fdj2RfSjLxBAspz7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I am writeing a paper on the diffrences of various=20 Operating Systems. Mainly I am looking at Windows=20 and Unix and Unix-Like operating systems, and Windows and Mac OS X. =20 I am looking to gather information on how and why people choose an OS. I am also looking to gather information on why other OS's were not choosen. Any opinions are appreciated. =20 In my opinion, as a server, FreeBSD is a great choice. It is fast, reliable, and very well built. But as a=20 desktop choice, it leaves a little to be desired. =20 Windows, IMHO will remain a main desktop choice for a long while, but I do belive that alternative OS's such as FreeBSD, Solaris, Linux, and other will become more and more popular. As I have been going through a UNIX course at a local college, I have come to=20 appreciate Solaris.=20 I appreciate any comments that any one has to offer. Thank You. -- Bob --=20 /----------------------------------------------------------------\ | Bob Bomar bulldog@fxp.org http://www.bomar.us/~bob | |=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D| | FreeBSD: The Power to Serve. http://www.freeBSD.org | \----------------------------------------------------------------/ ----- End forwarded message ----- --=20 /----------------------------------------------------------------\ | Bob Bomar bulldog@fxp.org http://www.bomar.us/~bob | |=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D| | FreeBSD: The Power to Serve. http://www.freeBSD.org | \----------------------------------------------------------------/ --fdj2RfSjLxBAspz7 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE9f9Fg9Jm/aTrtdKoRAsP5AJ99//3ObvEAg+nqX87i2pkZr8hgwQCdEZrN /PvNoPhRBBLnNWbI72EmbUo= =KbUc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --fdj2RfSjLxBAspz7-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 11 16:31:47 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC8A837B400 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 16:31:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from m-net.arbornet.org (m-net.arbornet.org [209.142.209.161]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FB7543E4A for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 16:31:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from polytarp@m-net.arbornet.org) Received: from m-net.arbornet.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by m-net.arbornet.org (8.12.3/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g8BNWjXt005617; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 19:32:45 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from polytarp@m-net.arbornet.org) Received: from localhost (polytarp@localhost) by m-net.arbornet.org (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) with ESMTP id g8BNWjkt005614; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 19:32:45 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 19:32:45 -0400 (EDT) From: pgreen To: Bob Bomar Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Windows as opposed to Other OS's In-Reply-To: <20020911232728.GA24843@peitho.fxp.org> Message-ID: <20020911193139.M5526-100000@m-net.arbornet.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org The only opinion, which is correct, is: any operating systemme, besides FreeBSD, is countrerevolutionary. Free Free Romania! On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Bob Bomar wrote: > I am writeing a paper on the diffrences of various > Operating Systems. Mainly I am looking at Windows > and Unix and Unix-Like operating systems, and Windows > and Mac OS X. > > I am looking to gather information on how and why people > choose an OS. I am also looking to gather information on > why other OS's were not choosen. > > Any opinions are appreciated. > > In my opinion, as a server, FreeBSD is a great choice. > It is fast, reliable, and very well built. But as a > desktop choice, it leaves a little to be desired. > Windows, IMHO will remain a main desktop choice for > a long while, but I do belive that alternative OS's > such as FreeBSD, Solaris, Linux, and other will become > more and more popular. As I have been going through > a UNIX course at a local college, I have come to > appreciate Solaris. > > I appreciate any comments that any one has to offer. > > Thank You. > -- Bob > > -- > /----------------------------------------------------------------\ > | Bob Bomar bulldog@fxp.org http://www.bomar.us/~bob | > |================================================================| > | FreeBSD: The Power to Serve. http://www.freeBSD.org | > \----------------------------------------------------------------/ > > > > ----- End forwarded message ----- > > -- > /----------------------------------------------------------------\ > | Bob Bomar bulldog@fxp.org http://www.bomar.us/~bob | > |================================================================| > | FreeBSD: The Power to Serve. http://www.freeBSD.org | > \----------------------------------------------------------------/ > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 11 17:19:51 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98C0237B401 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 17:19:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net (flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.232]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 452E143E42 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 17:19:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lomifeh@earthlink.net) Received: from 1cust209.tnt2.toms-river.nj.da.uu.net ([67.194.9.209] helo=joga.local.) by flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17pHhj-0000Wb-00; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 17:19:32 -0700 Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 20:19:30 -0400 Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v543) Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , Giorgos Keramidas , Joshua Lee , dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG To: Terry Lambert From: Lawrence Sica In-Reply-To: <3D7FC334.396A9F12@mindspring.com> Message-Id: <4E5806F4-C5E5-11D6-9A0C-000393A335A2@earthlink.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.543) Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wednesday, September 11, 2002, at 06:27 PM, Terry Lambert wrote: > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: >>> Well, if you want, we can start at the very, very beginning, >>> and work out the entire basis for a rationalist world view. >>> We can start with "light bulbs work". >> >> Actually you can't start there. The premise that "light bulbs work" >> is dependent on the uniformity of nature, for which you have yet to >> provide a justification. > > I justify it by the fact that light bulbs are *observed* to work. > > >>> There are a number of scriptures which are and aren't considered >>> part of "The Bible"; the inclusion and exclusion are rather >>> arbitrary and political, as well. >> >> Proof, please. What you seem to be missing is that on a theistic >> worldview, God is able to ensure that the totality of what He wishes >> to reveal, nothing more, nothing less, gets into the canon. If God >> is providentially in control of all things, he is able to ensure >> that the word He wishes to communicate gets so communicated. >> Political >> considerations are irrelevant. > > So which is the *true* canon, and *why*? The dead sea scrolls, > of which th Bible is a translation, are not all of the dead sea > scrolls there were, they were only some of them. > > Is the true canon the dead sea scrolls? Or is it the King James > translation into English of the Bible? > The Roman Catholic church at one point decided to put together an "official" bible, this was begun during the First Nicene Council, the process was called the canonization of the bible. At the time there were hundreds of gospels and assorted "books of the bible". The most common form of the New Testament was put together in like 367 AD, by I forget who. Politics was a role in this. Do you know aboutthe controversial "Gospel of St. Thomas"? Do you know of any of his writings? --Larry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 11 17:23:59 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 528BA37B400 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 17:23:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net (harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.12]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F2BC43E3B for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 17:23:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lomifeh@earthlink.net) Received: from 1cust209.tnt2.toms-river.nj.da.uu.net ([67.194.9.209] helo=joga.local.) by harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17pHlv-00072f-00; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 17:23:52 -0700 Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 20:23:54 -0400 Subject: Re: Windows as opposed to Other OS's Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v543) Cc: chat@freebsd.org To: Bob Bomar From: Lawrence Sica In-Reply-To: <20020911232728.GA24843@peitho.fxp.org> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.543) Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wednesday, September 11, 2002, at 07:27 PM, Bob Bomar wrote: > I am writeing a paper on the diffrences of various > Operating Systems. Mainly I am looking at Windows > and Unix and Unix-Like operating systems, and Windows > and Mac OS X. > > I am looking to gather information on how and why people > choose an OS. I am also looking to gather information on > why other OS's were not choosen. > > Any opinions are appreciated. > > In my opinion, as a server, FreeBSD is a great choice. > It is fast, reliable, and very well built. But as a > desktop choice, it leaves a little to be desired. > Windows, IMHO will remain a main desktop choice for > a long while, but I do belive that alternative OS's > such as FreeBSD, Solaris, Linux, and other will become > more and more popular. As I have been going through > a UNIX course at a local college, I have come to > appreciate Solaris. > > I appreciate any comments that any one has to offer. Well on the desktop I mainly use OSX nowadays. Reason why i switched was I needed a laptop at the time. And OSX allows me to do things via a term window, doing unixy things and I can get commercial apps. So it satisifes both my needs, from a professional and a personal standpoint. I can program, do troubleshooting, and play games and use MS Office for example. Apple has been gaining some market share lately. Will the overtake all in 5 years? I doubt it, but they will gain share I think, especially in more traditional unix workstation roles imho. This seems a likely trend from listening to some vendors and reading some articles with interviews with various people. Solaris has the best chance, but I think they will remain focused on the server and high-end workstation market. And use Linux to draw people in. Just my 2 cents... --Larry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 11 18: 4:29 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 270D637B400 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 18:04:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 740DA43E4A for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 18:04:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g8C14MGd066661; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 18:04:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g8C14Lvq066658; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 18:04:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 18:04:21 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Terry Lambert Cc: Joshua Lee , Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <3D7FBC6B.C8E2340F@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20020911155742.D45696-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > On a naturalist worldview, human beings are just machines, and > > as such reasoning is just an illusion. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > You keep pulling this one out of your rear. I don't see why > you keep claiming this, when it doesn't logically follow. If > human beings are just machines, there no reason at all that > their reasoning would have to be illusionary, rather than real. > You have simply made an unsupported statement, as if it were > fact, and expected us to be stupid enough to just accept it > with no evidence. When you say, "logically follow", are you saying that you are attempting to conform your reasoning processes to some objective standard? *What* objective standard? Moreover, *where* does the intentionality come from that allows you to conform your reasoning to those objective standards? Automatons do not reason, they do not make choices, they do not commit intentional acts, they only do what they do, without regard to any external standards of logic or ethics. > > All reasoning is just the > > outworking of the electrical-chemical reactions in the brain. The human > > brain could never transcend nature with anything that resembled "reason". > > "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts". Yes it is. But it is *your* premises that preclude the possibility that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. I'm not arguing that the whole is less than the sum of its parts. I'm arguing that *your* premises lead to that conclusion. > > > > > See above. Your reduction is absurd. > > > > Reductions are supposed to be absurd! That's why they are called > > "reductio ad ABSURDUM" arguments. They are employed to reduce an > > opponent's argument to ABSURDITY. Get it? > > No, that's not how the symbolic logic works. Since I wasn't showing how the symbolic logic works, your comment seems to be irrelevent. > A "reductio ad absurdum" is a "reduction to absurdity" argument. > It works by taking a general argument, and arguing its application > to a specific case where it is false, thus demonstrating that the > generalization itself is false. I know what they are, thanks anyways. > It's possible to perform a reduction that does not result in an > absurdity. This is how it works if the generalization is true. > > E.g. the argument "all fish are trout" is not proven absurd, if > your specific case that you argue to is a rainbow trout instead > of a brown trout, but it works if your specific case is a carp. Interesting, but irrelevent. > The reason the reduction he called absurd *is* absurd is that > you drew a conclusion unrelated to the specific case which you > were reducing. You've just contradicted your own explanation of a reductio ad absurdum. Do they reduce a general argument or a specific case? Make up your mind. If what you meant was "unrelated to the general argument you were reducing" then it seems to me that you need to show that this is the case, not just dismiss it out of hand. If you think that human reason can be accounted for by the action of the laws of physics on matter, you need to show how human reason does not reduce to determinism. Given your premises, there is no way you can know whether *your* reason is correct and that other people's reasoning is fallacious. It may be fallacious according to the internal laws of logic that are pre-programmed in *your* head, but that wouldn't prove anything, since you don't know that what is in your head is what is in anybody else's. Moreover, since you think this is a random chance universe, there is no way you can ever know if by some random fluke that there is not a defect in the programming, causing you to commit logical fallacies without your knowledge. Moreover, if you arbitrarily insist that everybody reasons the same way, you need to give an account of why people make logical mistakes. If you were consistent with your stated presuppositions, you could affirm nothing but skepticism. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 11 18: 7:48 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 294B037B400 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 18:07:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net (scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.49]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C39C43E65 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 18:07:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0114.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.42.114] helo=mindspring.com) by scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17pIRl-00040D-00; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 18:07:06 -0700 Message-ID: <3D7FE867.C796F4B3@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 18:05:43 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Lawrence Sica , Giorgos Keramidas , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020911150151.C45696-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > > > > At a fundamental level, the universe is quantized, > > > > and this causes certain emergenet behaviours in matter. > > > > > > Really? What do you mean, when you say, "the universe is quantized"? > > > > E.g. it takes exactly 13.6 electron volts to take an electron > > from an s orbital to infinity. Not 13.4, not 13.8. > > So how does this prove that "order comes from disorder"? That wasn't the argument we were having. The argument was that simple systems may have complex emergent properties. http://www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/sugarscape/ "Complex effects need not have complex causes[...]" Growing Artificial Societies: Social Science from the Bottom Up Joshua M. Epstein and Robert L. Axtell Brookings Institute Press ISBN: 0-2625-5025-3 > > > And what do you mean by "certain emergent behaviours in matter"? > > > You seem to think that quantum physics can do all things, like > > > reconcile the irrational. To say that order comes from disorder, > > > no matter how much you try to dress it up is still irrational. If, > > > on the other hand, you mean there never was disorder in the first > > > place, I can buy that. > > > > Your _opinion_ on what's rational or not has been noted, but is > > not really germane. > > Okay, I can play this game. *Your* _opinion_ on what's rational has > been noted as well, but is not really germane. The reason your opinion is not germane is because you keep making irrational conclusions without providing evidence. What's your reason for your claim about my opinion? > > No, you are actually right that we can't count on them in the > > future. There's evidence that the speed of light was much > > higher, much earlier in the life of the universe, for example. > > You miss the point. Without assuming the uniformity of nature, there > *could be no* evidence about the speed of light at all. We have observed no evidence which contradicts the theory that nature is uniform. Therefore, the simplest explanation is that it *is* uniform. Barring contradictory observations, then, we shall take this as our working hypothesis. > > > "Stories" seems to be an apt description. > > > > It is. It's why I used it. Don't confuse stories with reality; > > it's impossible for you to directly observe reality. > > Really? How then is the scientific method even possible? Why are you implying that direct obervation of reality, rather than a scientist's individual perceptual model of reality, is a requirement for the scientific method to work? By your argument, it's impossible for a color-blind person to know that a difference between red and green exists at all, because they are unable to directly observe a difference by direct observation. > > We have to control the conditions, because it's not possible > > to simulate the appropriate conditions. High partial pressures > > of CO2 and SO2 don't occur naturally on Earth any more. > > It's not even possible to KNOW the appropriate conditions! The whole > exercise is one big begging of the question. It's funny that you claim that, but that the conditions were decided before the experiment was run, rather than the experiment being run iteratively over all possible conditions to find which ones worked. 8-). Someone had a predictive theory, and their predictions from it were not falsified by experiment. > > Whether you consider amino acids "life" or not is also pretty > > irrelevant, since you are going to keep moving the finish line, > > the deeper we get, so as to continue to be "right". 8-). > > What makes you think this? My observation of your behaviour has made it my working hypothesis. Feel free to falsify it by providing me with contradictory observations, in which you don't insist on drawing conclusions which are not merited by the preceeding statements. > > > > > 4) Intelligence came from non-intelligence. > > > > > > > > Our best theory is that intelligence is an emergent property of > > > > complex self-regulating systems over a certain threshold density. [ ... ] > > We can demonstrate that complex behaviour emerges from simple > > rule sets. Conway's game of Life and other cellular automata > > demonstrate that (e.g. "Sugarscape"). > > Conway's game of Life doesn't demonstrate anything close to intelligence. It is insufficinetly complex. The example was only intended to demonstrate that complex behaviour is an emergent property of simple rule sets governing self-regulating systems, which it does. > Once more, if you believe this, you have no reason for believing that > your belief about the origin of intelligence is true, unless you give > yourself a priviledged position of being right by definition. The priviledge of the idea, if it has any at all, arises from its simplicity, relative to other, competing, ideas. > > > Lets start with your own reasoning ability. To review, if you are a > > > naturalist, all of your brain functions are due merely to physical > > > laws acting on antecedent brain states. On your view, reason is an > > > illusion, and you have no way of knowing whether or not your reasoning > > > is sound, since all of it is due merely to the electro-chemical > > > reactions taking place in your grey matter. > > > > How does it follow that "reason is an illusion"? You've made a > > leap there which you haven't really justified making... > > For the same reason that water doesn't "know" how to flow downstream. > If everything in your brain is the result of the laws of physics, you > couldn't *help* but believe what you do. This is an insupportable statement. How would my beliefs be dictated in this case? > All of your reasoning is suspect. Why should *your* beliefs be > considered "true" while a theists beliefs are considered "false"? I will point out once again, that the scientific method doesn't require belief to function. It's not sorcery. It functions whether you want it to or not. It's not a *belief*, it is a *process*. And you can be a theist or an atheist, and it doesn't matter, it will still function. The scientific method is orthogonal to theism: it is totally unrelated. It's a different axis on the graph. > Both are the result of physics, Theism isn't a result of physics, unless you are prepared to admit that God does not exist apart from the universe. > and have nothing to do with what corresponds to any such > notion as "right reason" or "truth". Everybody just believes what > they believe. Believing that light bulbs don't work won't make them not work. 8-). > > Yeah, "right" and "wrong" are subjective; that one of the problems > > consensus solves for us: it gives us an external ruler. > > What do you mean by "problem"? If there is no right and wrong, no > "problem" can even be defined, let alone solved. Here you go with another conclusion out of thin air. Say that there is no "right" or "wrong". How the heck does it necessarily follow that you can not define problems? > > If "randomness" was equal to "irrationality", don't you think > > that we wouldn't have invented a second word, or that at least > > one would be defined in terms of the other in your dictionary? > > Uh, no. I was counting on you to draw the necessary inference. But if > you must have it spelled out for you, when you apply "randomness" to our > thinking processes, what results is irrationality. Why? Why do you claim this? What evidence do you have to support this claim? Please present evidence to support this claim. Obviously, the reson I didn't draw this inference is that it is an improper inference to draw. > Sound reasoning involves applying objective standards to our > thought processes, and has nothing to do with "randomness". You can't apply objective standards to your own thought processes; every paranoid person believe that they are sane, and that people really are out to get them. > > Sure I can. I have schelling points, which I can use to establish > > communication. > > By the way, Terry, what *is* a schelling point anyway? 8-) I've already defined it in a previous posting in this thread; if you are going to argue, at least *read* the responses. > Communication is not the problem. The ability to reason is > necessary before any communication is possible. You still > have not provided any basis for reason. Randomness does > not get you there. AGAIN: Our best theory is that intelligence is an emergent property of complex self-regulating systems over a certain threshold density. Would you quit pulling the word "random" out of your butt? Thanks. > This sounds suspiciously like an attempt to justify the arbitrariness > of your assumptions. Let me disabuse you of this paranoid theory. It is not that, it is me impugning your understanding. You may be erudite, at some level, but do not mistake that for educated in logical discourse. > > This is, in the limit, the same argument that is normally > > put forth in defense of a creator, but it's stated as "Absence of > > evidence is not evidence of absence". 8-). > > Of course, I disagree with that premise as well. 8-) Of course you do, but you can't recreate your "evidence" under laboratory conditions, instead we are expected to believe in it bcause you tell us to believe in it. St. Thomas Aquinas used this same (logically invalid) technique; it's called "begging the question", where you must assume your result in order to prove it. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 11 18:11:22 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D82437B401 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 18:11:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net (scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.49]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1969A43E6E for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 18:11:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0114.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.42.114] helo=mindspring.com) by scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17pIVn-0001zG-00; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 18:11:16 -0700 Message-ID: <3D7FE961.BFD910D5@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 18:09:53 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lawrence Sica Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , Giorgos Keramidas , Joshua Lee , dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <4E5806F4-C5E5-11D6-9A0C-000393A335A2@earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Lawrence Sica wrote: > The Roman Catholic church at one point decided to put together an > "official" bible, this was begun during the First Nicene Council, the > process was called the canonization of the bible. At the time there > were hundreds of gospels and assorted "books of the bible". The most > common form of the New Testament was put together in like 367 AD, by I > forget who. Politics was a role in this. Do you know aboutthe > controversial "Gospel of St. Thomas"? Do you know of any of his > writings? That question's to you, Neal, in case you missed it. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 11 18:17:38 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98EEB37B400 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 18:17:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (jive.SoftHome.net [66.54.152.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 04E1A43E6E for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 18:17:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yid@softhome.net) Received: (qmail 3885 invoked by uid 417); 12 Sep 2002 01:17:30 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 12 Sep 2002 01:17:30 -0000 Received: from planb ([216.194.2.204]) (AUTH: LOGIN yid@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 19:17:28 -0600 Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 21:17:26 -0400 From: Joshua Lee To: Lawrence Sica Cc: tlambert2@mindspring.com, nwestfal@directvinternet.com, keramida@ceid.upatras.gr, dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-Id: <20020911211726.3958b7d8.yid@softhome.net> In-Reply-To: <4E5806F4-C5E5-11D6-9A0C-000393A335A2@earthlink.net> References: <3D7FC334.396A9F12@mindspring.com> <4E5806F4-C5E5-11D6-9A0C-000393A335A2@earthlink.net> Organization: Plan B Software Labs X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.2claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.7) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 20:19:30 -0400 Lawrence Sica wrote: > The Roman Catholic church at one point decided to put together an > "official" bible, this was begun during the First Nicene Council, the > process was called the canonization of the bible. At the time there > were hundreds of gospels and assorted "books of the bible". The most > common form of the New Testament was put together in like 367 AD, by I The Kesubim in the Tanakh ("Old Testement"), however, was completely sealed (The Torah and the Prophets (Nevi'im) were sealed much earlier) by the Sanhedrin in 90 CE in Yavneh. (If xtians think the Sanhedrin, rather than wise sages, were a den of deicidal vipers then why do Protestants accept *their* canonization? :-) ) The major criterias were consistency of the book with the rest of the canon and availability of a Hebrew text. (The latter consideration eliminated the Apocrypha because those texts were only in Greek. This consideration distinguished on age; sealing the canon to a time shortly after the return from Babelonian exile, a reasonable criteria assuming that prophecy ended with the destruction of the first Beis Hamikdash.) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 11 18:40:25 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25DFD37B400 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 18:40:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (jive.SoftHome.net [66.54.152.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6B82843E65 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 18:40:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yid@softhome.net) Received: (qmail 32583 invoked by uid 417); 12 Sep 2002 01:40:19 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 12 Sep 2002 01:40:19 -0000 Received: from planb ([216.194.2.204]) (AUTH: LOGIN yid@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 19:40:16 -0600 Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 21:40:15 -0400 From: Joshua Lee To: Terry Lambert Cc: nwestfal@directvinternet.com, dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-Id: <20020911214015.51f915a0.yid@softhome.net> In-Reply-To: <3D7FC334.396A9F12@mindspring.com> References: <20020911140623.A45696-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> <3D7FC334.396A9F12@mindspring.com> Organization: Plan B Software Labs X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.2claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.7) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 15:27:00 -0700 Terry Lambert wrote: > So which is the *true* canon, and *why*? The dead sea scrolls, > of which th Bible is a translation, are not all of the dead sea > scrolls there were, they were only some of them. The Dead Sea scrolls outside the canon reflect, among other things (many of the scrolls are things like monastic rules and such rather than scriptures) the (rather excentric) beliefs of an unknown group. Since this group is neither Rabbinic Judaism nor Xtian, it is improper to claim that it should be by rights the "true canon" of these faiths. (Something that no mainstream scholar of them claims.) Of course, the fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls offer the earliest texts of the canon that was set in 90CE in Yavneh, and their texts largely agree with the texts accepted, shows that these texts were accurate. (To be honest, it shows that they were accurate at least as-of Roman antiquity.) > Is the true canon the dead sea scrolls? Or is it the King James > translation into English of the Bible? I use the Masoretic Hebrew text, albeit sometimes with Aramaic translations and various important commentaries, and with English bilingual or interlinear translations from Jewish sources if I'm interested in covering ground or clarifying a difficult word. (I am fairly certain that I'm not being fooled by a Jewish translation pulling the wool over my eyes at any given point, however, since the meanings of words in Hebrew are easy to verify given the triconsonental root structure - the spelling of a word determines its meaning.) > > You can't even demonstrate that "extropy" is even occuring, > > By "extropy", we are talking about a local increase in order. > AKA "life". > > So you are basically saying that I can't demonstrate that life > is even occurring. More examples of his vaunted superior-xtian-reasoning. ;-) > of infinity, and that when you divide infinity into any value that is > of a lower order, you end up with zero. Even if you divide infinity by zero? :-) > > > All of these questions stretch exactly the same credulity, and > > > yet they have answers. > > > > Really? What *is* one divided by infinity? > > Zero. And the converse, infinity divided by zero? ;-) > No, I've demostrated that a 4th century B.C. knowledge of > mathematics is not sufficient, nor is it "the state of the art", > and anyone who relies on such a poor understanding of mathematics > for their arguments is likely to be wrong in ways that they are > incapable of understanding, until they learn more mathematics. And you say you're not a mathematician.... :-) > > Yeah, and the concept of one hand clapping is perfectly rational > > to an irrationalist. So what? > > It's perfectly rational to the rationalist, as well. It is a > proof of the incompleteness theorem. Interesting... could you elaborate? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 11 18:43:36 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5991437B401 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 18:43:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net (hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.22]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A8D643E6A for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 18:43:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0509.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.43.254] helo=mindspring.com) by hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17pJ0m-0005ZL-00; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 18:43:17 -0700 Message-ID: <3D7FF0C3.910E1F70@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 18:41:23 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Joshua Lee , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020911155742.D45696-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > > On a naturalist worldview, human beings are just machines, and > > > as such reasoning is just an illusion. > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > You keep pulling this one out of your rear. I don't see why > > you keep claiming this, when it doesn't logically follow. If > > human beings are just machines, there no reason at all that > > their reasoning would have to be illusionary, rather than real. > > You have simply made an unsupported statement, as if it were > > fact, and expected us to be stupid enough to just accept it > > with no evidence. > > When you say, "logically follow", are you saying that you are > attempting to conform your reasoning processes to some objective > standard? *What* objective standard? The mathematical formalism of symbolic logic. > Moreover, *where* does the intentionality come from that allows > you to conform your reasoning to those objective standards? I borrowed it. 8-). It's irrelevant where it comes from, so long as it *is*. > Automatons do not reason, they do not make choices, they do not > commit intentional acts, they only do what they do, without > regard to any external standards of logic or ethics. Automatons which man has built so far. Your argument is that because rainbow trout are trout, carp must also be trout. The failure to this point is no guarantee of future failure. > > "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts". > > Yes it is. But it is *your* premises that preclude the possibility > that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. No it doesn't. Look up the word "emergent", and tell me that again, without being disingenuous. > I'm not arguing that the whole is less than the sum of its parts. > I'm arguing that *your* premises lead to that conclusion. Well, you are wrong. My premises lead to emergent properties and self-organization and the Anthropic Principle and Mach's Hypothesis. > > > Reductions are supposed to be absurd! That's why they are called > > > "reductio ad ABSURDUM" arguments. They are employed to reduce an > > > opponent's argument to ABSURDITY. Get it? > > > > No, that's not how the symbolic logic works. > > Since I wasn't showing how the symbolic logic works, your comment > seems to be irrelevent. The entire argument can be reduced to symbolic form, and the result computed. That's why it's so easy for all of us to pick out your weakest arguments and points, and choose them to refute. Your attempts to deflect the argument into the phenomenological realm are transparent to all of us. > > A "reductio ad absurdum" is a "reduction to absurdity" argument. > > It works by taking a general argument, and arguing its application > > to a specific case where it is false, thus demonstrating that the > > generalization itself is false. > > I know what they are, thanks anyways. Then do us the favor of not insulting our intelligence by using rhetorical techniques which you know to be deceitful. > > It's possible to perform a reduction that does not result in an > > absurdity. This is how it works if the generalization is true. > > > > E.g. the argument "all fish are trout" is not proven absurd, if > > your specific case that you argue to is a rainbow trout instead > > of a brown trout, but it works if your specific case is a carp. > > Interesting, but irrelevent. Not irrelevant. Allegory. A symbolic analog of your previous argument. > > The reason the reduction he called absurd *is* absurd is that > > you drew a conclusion unrelated to the specific case which you > > were reducing. > > You've just contradicted your own explanation of a reductio ad > absurdum. No, I haven't. Not all reductions are reductio ad absurdum; only reductions which are done properly, according to the rules of logic. Since yours failed to comply with the rules of logic, yours is, itself, absurd. > Do they reduce a general argument or a specific case? > Make up your mind. If what you meant was "unrelated to the general > argument you were reducing" then it seems to me that you need to > show that this is the case, not just dismiss it out of hand. No, actually *you* must show the relationship exists as part of your argument, for your argument to be valid. It is not up to us, unless the ground rules you are attempting to establish require that we catch you in intentional deceptions, as well as catching you in errors, or chastising you for failure to show your work. > If you think that human reason can be accounted for by the action of > the laws of physics on matter, you need to show how human reason > does not reduce to determinism. No, I do not. I merely need to show that human reason can be accounted for by the action of the laws of physics on matter. I don't have to show a thing about determinism. Determinism is irrelvant. It's only you who holds free will to be sacrosanct, and thus part and parcel with human reason: not me. If you want to drag determinism into this, then you need to prove that it's even relevant to the discussion. The reason it's relevent to *you* is because you subscribe to the doctrine of "free will", but you haven't proven that it should be relevent to *me*. You *assume* that the laws of physics are a clockwork, and that therefore if human reason *can* be accounted for by the action of the laws of physics on matter, that this contradicts *your* doctrine. All this means is that you only have a cursory understanding of the laws of physics, limited to Newtonian mechanics. Newtonian mechanics are only a useful approximation, whose results are predictive in the context of intertial reference frames, only at non-relatavistic speeds, and only at the higher scales of matter. > Given your premises, there is no way you can know whether *your* > reason is correct and that other people's reasoning is fallacious. I can. I can test whether or not one or the other is more predictive. > It may be fallacious according to the internal laws of logic that > are pre-programmed in *your* head, but that wouldn't prove anything, > since you don't know that what is in your head is what is in anybody > else's. Yes, actually, I do know. I rather expect that the mathematics necessary to prove this is beyond you, however. > Moreover, since you think this is a random chance universe, there > is no way you can ever know if by some random fluke that there is > not a defect in the programming, causing you to commit logical > fallacies without your knowledge. You don't know whether I believe this is "a random chance universe" or not. You only know that I have argued for evolution, and certain aspects of the universe which you have taken, inaappropriately, to mean that I believe the universe is a clockwork, which is not a conclusion you can legitimately draw from my statements. > Moreover, if you arbitrarily insist that everybody reasons the > same way, you need to give an account of why people make logical > mistakes. Mostly, I've been writing it off to willful ignorance, lately... -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 11 18:53: 1 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 329CD37B400 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 18:52:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net (hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.22]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE5C143E6E for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 18:52:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0509.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.43.254] helo=mindspring.com) by hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17pJA4-00046a-00; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 18:52:52 -0700 Message-ID: <3D7FF31D.642948C9@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 18:51:25 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joshua Lee Cc: nwestfal@directvinternet.com, dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020911140623.A45696-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> <3D7FC334.396A9F12@mindspring.com> <20020911214015.51f915a0.yid@softhome.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Joshua Lee wrote: > > > Really? What *is* one divided by infinity? > > > > Zero. > > And the converse, infinity divided by zero? ;-) NaN. 8-) 8-). Actually, depending on who you ask, an undefined order of infinity; the actual order depends on the inifinty you started with, and the zero. ;^). > > No, I've demostrated that a 4th century B.C. knowledge of > > mathematics is not sufficient, nor is it "the state of the art", > > and anyone who relies on such a poor understanding of mathematics > > for their arguments is likely to be wrong in ways that they are > > incapable of understanding, until they learn more mathematics. > > And you say you're not a mathematician.... :-) I'm not. A real mathematician can easily smoke me on theory. I merely know enough not to make stupid mistakes. I make smart mistakes, instead. 8-) 8-). > > > Yeah, and the concept of one hand clapping is perfectly rational > > > to an irrationalist. So what? > > > > It's perfectly rational to the rationalist, as well. It is a > > proof of the incompleteness theorem. > > Interesting... could you elaborate? Not without starting another thread... 8=O. "Chocolate is the best flavor of ice cream. So is vanilla" -- An ice cream koan -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 11 21: 7: 8 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65F3D37B400 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 21:07:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1F1043E4A for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 21:07:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8C45u153131; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 21:05:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209120405.g8C45u153131@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Terry Lambert , Giorgos Keramidas , Joshua Lee , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 21:05:51 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Neal E Westfall writes: > I'll reiterate mine again: It's unreasonable to adopt a subset of > assumptions that are the preconditions of intelligibility. 8-) Very well put, and this is one of Mr. Lambert's biggest foibles as evident by most of the discussions. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< Usenet isn't a right. It's a right, a left, and a swift uppercut to the jaw... To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 11 21:12:57 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AF4137B400 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 21:12:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9EE643E42 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 21:12:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8C4CM153202; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 21:12:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209120412.g8C4CM153202@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , Giorgos Keramidas , Joshua Lee , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 21:12:17 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "TL" == Terry Lambert writes: > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: >> > Well, if you want, we can start at the very, very beginning, >> > and work out the entire basis for a rationalist world view. >> > We can start with "light bulbs work". >> >> Actually you can't start there. The premise that "light bulbs work" >> is dependent on the uniformity of nature, for which you have yet to >> provide a justification. > > I justify it by the fact that light bulbs are *observed* to work. I thought "observation" was an inaccurate methodology in the Terry Lambert mindview? > By "extropy", we are talking about a local increase in order. > AKA "life". I bet you can't prove that life is an increase in order. Any poor urban area is disproof by observation. ;) > I can change a rational person's views, as a rational person > can change mine. All they need to do is argue from the basis > of logic. I've had my opinions chnaged many, many times in > the past, by people arguing rationally. ...using your particular arbitrary set of presumptions as axioms. ;) ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< Nasrudin went into a bank with a check to cash. "Can you identify yourself?" asked the clerk. Nasrudin took out a mirror and peered into it. "Yes, that's me alright." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 11 23:29:32 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1650237B400 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 23:29:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from carl.svc.tds.net (carl.svc.tds.net [204.246.1.56]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C54643E65 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 23:29:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kenwills@tds.net) Received: from zap.zaptillion.net ([66.188.113.165]) by carl.svc.tds.net with ESMTP id <20020912063045.FXI3710.carl@zap.zaptillion.net> for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 01:30:45 -0500 Received: by zap.zaptillion.net (Postfix, from userid 1002) id E41C9226991; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 01:33:33 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 01:33:33 -0500 From: Ken Wills To: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020912063333.GA35751@zaptillion.net> References: <20020910084415.Q62741-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> <3D7E622F.840E002B@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3D7E622F.840E002B@mindspring.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org +++ Terry Lambert [10/09/02 14:20 -0700]: > > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > > "A million" is just a convenient handle for "an inconceivably large > > > number"; the premise in the argument is sound: given a source of > > > randomness, eventually, a set number of bits in a specific sequence > > > will happen. If it never happens, then your input wasn't really > > > random. It's basically a premise based on large number theory, > > > combined with the theory of limits. Basically, there is a finite > > > probability of something happening, and an infinity of attempts at > > > a matching value: eventually, it *will* happen. > > > > Yes, but the odds against it for all intents and purposes make it a > > statistical impossibility. > > That's wrong. You misapprehend the nature of infinity, and we > have given them an infinite amount of time to complete their > task. > Right, and for a little more perspective - the monkeys will produce the sought sequence an "infinite" number of times, no matter how small the probability is (as long as it's > 0). Ken To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 12 1:35:55 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3E9C37B400 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 01:35:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (jive.SoftHome.net [66.54.152.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3D67943E65 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 01:35:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yid@softhome.net) Received: (qmail 6540 invoked by uid 417); 12 Sep 2002 08:35:47 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 12 Sep 2002 08:35:47 -0000 Received: from planb ([216.194.2.204]) (AUTH: LOGIN yid@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 02:35:46 -0600 Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 04:35:46 -0400 From: Joshua Lee To: Bob Bomar Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Windows as opposed to Other OS's Message-Id: <20020912043546.75f33c80.yid@softhome.net> In-Reply-To: <20020911232728.GA24843@peitho.fxp.org> References: <20020911232728.GA24843@peitho.fxp.org> Organization: Plan B Software Labs X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.2claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.7) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 19:27:28 -0400 Bob Bomar wrote: > In my opinion, as a server, FreeBSD is a great choice. > It is fast, reliable, and very well built. But as a > desktop choice, it leaves a little to be desired. I use FreeBSD as a desktop (am I the only one who does? :-) ), and find it quite useful, and more easy and elegant to administer than Linux. (Linux = easier to install, FreeBSD = easier to maintain.) In everything except running the latest commercial games FreeBSD is a win; it even offers more choices in certain Internet client apps (not to mention server applications) than Windows. GNOME and KDE are too slow and try to immitate Windows without offering real improvements however for a GUI. I prefer to use Windowmaker, a NeXT clone, which is fast, easy to configure, and beautiful. I guess it depends upon what your needs are. If your main tasks are using the internet, learning software development, and you love Unix then FreeBSD is a great choice. If you need to run the latest games and have an insecure and uninspired mess as your OS then Windows has a place. :-) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 12 1:41:59 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9DF337B400 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 01:41:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (jive.SoftHome.net [66.54.152.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3B60443E3B for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 01:41:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yid@softhome.net) Received: (qmail 23427 invoked by uid 417); 12 Sep 2002 08:41:55 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 12 Sep 2002 08:41:55 -0000 Received: from planb ([216.194.2.204]) (AUTH: LOGIN yid@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 02:41:53 -0600 Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 04:41:53 -0400 From: Joshua Lee To: Zach Heilig Cc: drew-dated-1032126947.90fe3e@rain3s.net, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-Id: <20020912044153.4396d498.yid@softhome.net> In-Reply-To: <20020911191224.GA10929@uffdaonline.net> References: <20020909215202.78267872.yid@softhome.net> <20020910094316.H62741-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> <20020910152310.5e6e2964.yid@softhome.net> <20020910215545.GI4470@drew.rain3s.net> <20020911071845.43665d57.yid@softhome.net> <20020911191224.GA10929@uffdaonline.net> Organization: Plan B Software Labs X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.2claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.7) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 14:12:24 -0500 Zach Heilig wrote: > On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 07:18:45AM -0400, Joshua Lee wrote: > > Drew Raines wrote: > > > Romans 3:23 all over again. We all live our lives deserving > > > eternal punishment. This is the reason we worship Christ, our > > > I'm Jewish, so quotations from the NT aren't particularly convincing > > to me. You'll have to convince me with reason, which I doubt can be > > mustered to defend this idea of eternal-torture-by-god. > > Now I'm confused... I always considered death to mean something > closer to comatose rather than eternal torture. And I have yet another view. > Rom. 8:23 "For the wages of sin is *death*..." > Rev. 20:6 "Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first > Rev. 21:8 "But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, This thread is starting to degenerate into Bible thumping. Although passages from the Tanakh and from our sages z"l are convincing to me when well understood, quoting from the NT will do nothing for me but generate a yawn. :-) > and there are passages to suggest that it all does come to an end, > eventually: > > Rev. 21:4 "And God shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; there Origen was of the opinion that even the devil would be redeemed, and that eternal torture in hell was merely a doctrine to keep the unenlightened masses behaving themselves. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 12 1:52:18 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0DB937B400 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 01:52:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (jive.SoftHome.net [66.54.152.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3FCBC43E4A for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 01:52:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yid@softhome.net) Received: (qmail 20112 invoked by uid 417); 12 Sep 2002 08:52:14 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 12 Sep 2002 08:52:14 -0000 Received: from planb ([216.194.2.204]) (AUTH: LOGIN yid@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 02:52:12 -0600 Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 04:52:13 -0400 From: Joshua Lee To: Terry Lambert Cc: nwestfal@directvinternet.com, dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-Id: <20020912045213.0915f496.yid@softhome.net> In-Reply-To: <3D7FF31D.642948C9@mindspring.com> References: <20020911140623.A45696-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> <3D7FC334.396A9F12@mindspring.com> <20020911214015.51f915a0.yid@softhome.net> <3D7FF31D.642948C9@mindspring.com> Organization: Plan B Software Labs X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.2claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.7) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 18:51:25 -0700 Terry Lambert wrote: > Joshua Lee wrote: > > > > Really? What *is* one divided by infinity? > > > Zero. > > And the converse, infinity divided by zero? ;-) > Actually, depending on who you ask, an undefined order of infinity; > the actual order depends on the inifinty you started with, and the > zero. ;^). I figured that it was a form of infinity. > > > for their arguments is likely to be wrong in ways that they are > > > incapable of understanding, until they learn more mathematics. > > > > And you say you're not a mathematician.... :-) > > I'm not. A real mathematician can easily smoke me on theory. > I merely know enough not to make stupid mistakes. I make smart > mistakes, instead. 8-) 8-). Smart mistakes are sometimes the worst ones. ;-) > > > > Yeah, and the concept of one hand clapping is perfectly rational > > > > to an irrationalist. So what? > > > > > > It's perfectly rational to the rationalist, as well. It is a > > > proof of the incompleteness theorem. > > > > Interesting... could you elaborate? > > Not without starting another thread... 8=O. I'd actually welcome a new thread, this thread is getting quite boring. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 12 1:58:31 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B145D37B400 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 01:58:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (jive.SoftHome.net [66.54.152.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2713843E65 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 01:58:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yid@softhome.net) Received: (qmail 3764 invoked by uid 417); 12 Sep 2002 08:58:27 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 12 Sep 2002 08:58:27 -0000 Received: from planb ([216.194.2.204]) (AUTH: LOGIN yid@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 02:58:26 -0600 Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 04:58:25 -0400 From: Joshua Lee To: Drew Raines Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-Id: <20020912045825.26c86aa5.yid@softhome.net> In-Reply-To: <20020911133512.GE21879@drew.rain3s.net> References: <20020909215202.78267872.yid@softhome.net> <20020910094316.H62741-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> <20020910152310.5e6e2964.yid@softhome.net> <20020910215545.GI4470@drew.rain3s.net> <20020911071845.43665d57.yid@softhome.net> <20020911133512.GE21879@drew.rain3s.net> Organization: Plan B Software Labs X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.2claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.7) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 08:35:12 -0500 Drew Raines wrote: > > > Romans 3:23 all over again. We all live our lives > > > deserving eternal punishment. This is the reason we > > > worship Christ, our savior. > > > > I'm Jewish, so quotations from the NT aren't particularly > > convincing to me. You'll have to convince me with reason, > > which I doubt can be mustered to defend this idea of > > eternal-torture-by-god. > > It would seem to me that ``eternal-torture-by-God,'' God's > justice and righteousness, is the exact theme of the OT; hence > the need for the NT. You obviously percieve the "Old Testement" different than I. > Fortunately, it's not my job to convince you. Jesus said to Then don't. > his disciples, ``the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father > will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring > to your remembrance all that I said to you. Peace I leave with > you; My peace I give to you; not as the world gives'' (Jn > 14:26). John has a sort of odd seductive beauty, being a quasi-gnostic work. Too bad it is the most antisemetic of the gospels. However, you have not convinced me that anyone has "taught you all things" and that eternal torture is "my peace". > Sorry it's from the NT, but without that, I have nothing. My > life is meaningless apart from what Christ did. As Paul (a I feel sorry for you. > former Jew[1]) put it, ``I count all things to be loss in view > of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord'' (Phil This is what Paul wrote, yes? He didn't know Yoshke, he didn't even meet him while alive and had a contradictorally-recorded pair of brief revelations as his only contact. So, as usual, he's bending the truth. > [1] ``I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the > tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom He > foreknew'' (Rom 11:1,2). That's not what the church has taught. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 12 3:12:40 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5691337B400 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 03:12:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web21507.mail.yahoo.com (web21507.mail.yahoo.com [66.163.169.18]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B071343E6A for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 03:12:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from pol_johnstra@yahoo.co.uk) Message-ID: <20020912101234.57913.qmail@web21507.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [12.108.83.194] by web21507.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 11:12:34 BST Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 11:12:34 +0100 (BST) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Pol=20Johnstra?= Subject: What can we expect from FreeBSD 5.0-REL To: chat@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org The release of FreeBSD 5.0 is coming soon. However, it's still very far from being a usable product. Let's analyze its main weaknesses. 1) KSE . KSE is still in diapers, I wouldn't trust my VA Software stock to it. 2) SMPng . Still needs a lot of work, it's currently nothing but a joke. 3) RCng. Still lagging behind NetBSD's implementation. Gordon will have to work harder. 4) CARDBUS: Two words: It Blows. 5) gcc 3.2 This compiler is a piece of shit. I hope TenDra gets better some day. Also, can someone please permban Terry from posting that 'evolution' shit to chat@? Thanks. Today we celebrate the anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in history. Nuke their countries to hell, nuke them again, destroy Islam! Yours, Pol __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 12 4:42:52 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E57D37B400 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 04:42:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from maile.telia.com (maile.telia.com [194.22.190.16]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83D2643E4A for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 04:42:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from listsub@401.cx) Received: from 401.cx (jenny.twenty4help.se [62.20.102.59]) by maile.telia.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g8CBgX3M017419; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 13:42:35 +0200 (CEST) X-Original-Recipient: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Message-ID: <3D807D9D.1070104@401.cx> Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 13:42:21 +0200 From: "Roger 'Rocky' Vetterberg" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bob Bomar Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Windows as opposed to Other OS's References: <20020911232728.GA24843@peitho.fxp.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Bob Bomar wrote: > I am writeing a paper on the diffrences of various > Operating Systems. Mainly I am looking at Windows > and Unix and Unix-Like operating systems, and Windows > and Mac OS X. > > I am looking to gather information on how and why people > choose an OS. I am also looking to gather information on > why other OS's were not choosen. > > Any opinions are appreciated. > > In my opinion, as a server, FreeBSD is a great choice. > It is fast, reliable, and very well built. But as a > desktop choice, it leaves a little to be desired. > Windows, IMHO will remain a main desktop choice for > a long while, but I do belive that alternative OS's > such as FreeBSD, Solaris, Linux, and other will become > more and more popular. As I have been going through > a UNIX course at a local college, I have come to > appreciate Solaris. > > I appreciate any comments that any one has to offer. > > Thank You. > -- Bob > If its my choice, I let FreeBSD power my servers. For web- and mailservers, its outstanding. It does a very good job as a firewall, and using ipfw/natd or ipf/ipnat it sure keeps up with most of the firewall/nat combos out there, including the "hardware" firewall boxes that usually costs a small fortune. Arm it with samba and it can replace most of your NT/w2k boxes, and do the same tasks on cheaper hardware. I think the biggest reason FreeBSD makes such a great server is its ability to take a hell of a beating and still keep going. I've seen fbsd servers keep doing their job and respond in timely fashion, even while running under a load that would kill most os'es on the same hardware. For workstations however, I have to admit that I still run windows. W2k does everything I want my workstation to do, and its relatively stable. Usually, the first thing I do when I boot w2k is to open a few ssh connections to some fbsd machines, and I instantly have the easy of use of windows and the power of Unix at my fingertips. -- R To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 12 4:55:54 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A31337B400 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 04:55:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net (hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.22]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6C7643E65 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 04:55:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0003.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.42.3] helo=mindspring.com) by hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17pSZ1-0000iJ-00; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 04:55:15 -0700 Message-ID: <3D808065.4350244D@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 04:54:13 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , Giorgos Keramidas , Joshua Lee , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200209120405.g8C45u153131@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > Neal E Westfall writes: > > I'll reiterate mine again: It's unreasonable to adopt a subset of > > assumptions that are the preconditions of intelligibility. 8-) > > Very well put, and this is one of Mr. Lambert's biggest foibles > as evident by most of the discussions. Dave, the person who can predictively describe the universe as a derivation of the least number of assumptions wins. This is because it's *simpler* to have fewer assumptions. Each assumption is a "deux ex machina", which you will not be able to logically communicate to another person. You can only logically communicate information based on your set of shared assumptions, or shared principles derived from those assumptions, which fortuitously coincide. The larger your set of assumptions, the lower the probability that all your assumptions will be shared by someone else, and therefore the lower the probability that you will be able to effectively communicate with them, and the smaller your consensus set -- the things to which you are both willing to stipulate. This is the point you miss over and over again: it's possible for an individual and the larger homogeneous society to have irreconcilable differences, which may include continued tolerance of each others existance. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 12 5: 3:11 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7ECFD37B400 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 05:03:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net (avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DE0143E6A for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 05:03:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0003.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.42.3] helo=mindspring.com) by avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17pSgU-0006Dz-00; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 05:02:58 -0700 Message-ID: <3D808234.43E0DC6B@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 05:01:56 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , Giorgos Keramidas , Joshua Lee , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200209120412.g8C4CM153202@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > > I justify it by the fact that light bulbs are *observed* to work. > > I thought "observation" was an inaccurate methodology in the Terry > Lambert mindview? This shows the inaccuracy of your model of me, doesn't it? It's you who is the phenomenologist. > > By "extropy", we are talking about a local increase in order. > > AKA "life". > > I bet you can't prove that life is an increase in order. Any > poor urban area is disproof by observation. ;) Life is a local increase in order, by definition. > > I can change a rational person's views, as a rational person > > can change mine. All they need to do is argue from the basis > > of logic. I've had my opinions chnaged many, many times in > > the past, by people arguing rationally. > > ...using your particular arbitrary set of presumptions as > axioms. ;) Don't worry; my presumtions are a subset of nearly everyone's. It makes me incredibly tolerant, and much easier to convince by way of logical argument. If my axioms are a subset of yours, then there's nothing about them that any person can successfully call arbitrary, without calling their own arbitrary. The good thing about the word "arbitrary" is that it has to be defined in context. Even if, like you, you pretend to irrationality to try and expand the set of allowable behaviours as a governance of our own internal rules. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 12 5:11:49 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F8AF37B400 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 05:11:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (jive.SoftHome.net [66.54.152.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7F49C43E75 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 05:11:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yid@softhome.net) Received: (qmail 20518 invoked by uid 417); 12 Sep 2002 12:11:41 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 12 Sep 2002 12:11:41 -0000 Received: from planb ([216.194.2.204]) (AUTH: LOGIN yid@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 06:11:38 -0600 Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 08:11:38 -0400 From: Joshua Lee To: Terry Lambert Cc: dave@jetcafe.org, nwestfal@directvinternet.com, keramida@ceid.upatras.gr, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-Id: <20020912081138.32b7505f.yid@softhome.net> In-Reply-To: <3D808065.4350244D@mindspring.com> References: <200209120405.g8C45u153131@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> <3D808065.4350244D@mindspring.com> Organization: Plan B Software Labs X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.2claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.7) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 12 Sep 2002 04:54:13 -0700 Terry Lambert wrote: > Dave, the person who can predictively describe the universe as > a derivation of the least number of assumptions wins. This is > because it's *simpler* to have fewer assumptions. > > Each assumption is a "deux ex machina", which you will not be > able to logically communicate to another person. You can only [...] > The larger your set of assumptions, the lower the probability > that all your assumptions will be shared by someone else, and > therefore the lower the probability that you will be able to > effectively communicate with them, and the smaller your This explains neatly why whenever I am stupid enough to get involved in a thread about religion or politics, I hit a brick wall. My assumptions, especially in the realm of religion unless one is an Orthodox Jewish mystic (and even then there will be differences of opinion, though probably not enough to halt rational intercourse), are different than the majority of people. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 12 5:14:32 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25D8237B400 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 05:14:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net (avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B993F43E6A for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 05:14:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0003.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.42.3] helo=mindspring.com) by avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17pSrN-0007aj-00; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 05:14:14 -0700 Message-ID: <3D8084D8.29DEE733@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 05:13:12 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joshua Lee Cc: nwestfal@directvinternet.com, dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020911140623.A45696-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> <3D7FC334.396A9F12@mindspring.com> <20020911214015.51f915a0.yid@softhome.net> <3D7FF31D.642948C9@mindspring.com> <20020912045213.0915f496.yid@softhome.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Joshua Lee wrote: > > > > > Yeah, and the concept of one hand clapping is perfectly rational > > > > > to an irrationalist. So what? > > > > > > > > It's perfectly rational to the rationalist, as well. It is a > > > > proof of the incompleteness theorem. > > > > > > Interesting... could you elaborate? > > > > Not without starting another thread... 8=O. > > I'd actually welcome a new thread, this thread is getting quite boring. Yes, it is; but the philosophical ramifications of the incompleteness theorem are what started the current thread. Well, that and Dave Hayes pype, poking it with a stick any time it looked to be settling down, just for the sheer joy Dave gets from being a luddite and making people waste effort that could be better spent on things he opposes. Luckily, this thread has not taken a lot of attention or time to type, from my perspective; since it's started, I've also written about 13,000 lines of code. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 12 5:39: 9 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C53A437B405 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 05:39:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (jive.SoftHome.net [66.54.152.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3F73943E65 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 05:39:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yid@softhome.net) Received: (qmail 10199 invoked by uid 417); 12 Sep 2002 12:39:03 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 12 Sep 2002 12:39:03 -0000 Received: from planb ([216.194.2.204]) (AUTH: LOGIN yid@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 06:39:01 -0600 Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 08:39:02 -0400 From: Joshua Lee To: Terry Lambert Cc: nwestfal@directvinternet.com, dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-Id: <20020912083902.585184e1.yid@softhome.net> In-Reply-To: <3D8084D8.29DEE733@mindspring.com> References: <20020911140623.A45696-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> <3D7FC334.396A9F12@mindspring.com> <20020911214015.51f915a0.yid@softhome.net> <3D7FF31D.642948C9@mindspring.com> <20020912045213.0915f496.yid@softhome.net> <3D8084D8.29DEE733@mindspring.com> Organization: Plan B Software Labs X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.2claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.7) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 12 Sep 2002 05:13:12 -0700 Terry Lambert wrote: > Joshua Lee wrote: > > > > > > Yeah, and the concept of one hand clapping is perfectly > > > > > > rational to an irrationalist. So what? > > > > > It's perfectly rational to the rationalist, as well. It is a > > > > > proof of the incompleteness theorem. > > > > Interesting... could you elaborate? > > > Not without starting another thread... 8=O. > > I'd actually welcome a new thread, this thread is getting quite > > boring. > > Yes, it is; but the philosophical ramifications of the incompleteness > theorem are what started the current thread. For some reason I don't remember that, maybe it was when the thread was in -hackers or something? > Well, that and Dave Hayes pype, poking it with a stick any time > it looked to be settling down, just for the sheer joy Dave > gets from being a luddite and making people waste effort I'm not sure if his opinion on the moderation of mailing lists is a luddite one. I think he's not against the technology of it as much as he is against the censoring of trolls in general, whether manual or automatic. > that could be better spent on things he opposes. Luckily, > this thread has not taken a lot of attention or time to > type, from my perspective; since it's started, I've also > written about 13,000 lines of code. What project, may I ask? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 12 5:59: 8 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBE4137B405 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 05:59:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net (harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.12]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6542B43E4A for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 05:59:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0003.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.42.3] helo=mindspring.com) by harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17pTYY-0007Rh-00; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 05:58:50 -0700 Message-ID: <3D808F4C.AF4A5796@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 05:57:48 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joshua Lee Cc: nwestfal@directvinternet.com, dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020911140623.A45696-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> <3D7FC334.396A9F12@mindspring.com> <20020911214015.51f915a0.yid@softhome.net> <3D7FF31D.642948C9@mindspring.com> <20020912045213.0915f496.yid@softhome.net> <3D8084D8.29DEE733@mindspring.com> <20020912083902.585184e1.yid@softhome.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Joshua Lee wrote: > > Yes, it is; but the philosophical ramifications of the incompleteness > > theorem are what started the current thread. > > For some reason I don't remember that, maybe it was when the thread was > in -hackers or something? Neil's fiorst posting was a followup to one in which Dave and I were (effectively) dicussing the incompleteness theorem: > > Well, that and Dave Hayes pype, poking it with a stick any time > > it looked to be settling down, just for the sheer joy Dave > > gets from being a luddite and making people waste effort > > I'm not sure if his opinion on the moderation of mailing lists is a > luddite one. I think he's not against the technology of it as much as he > is against the censoring of trolls in general, whether manual or > automatic. It's antisocial. Being antisocial against a society whose goal is to progress the state of the art is a form of Luddism. > > that could be better spent on things he opposes. Luckily, > > this thread has not taken a lot of attention or time to > > type, from my perspective; since it's started, I've also > > written about 13,000 lines of code. > > What project, may I ask? An embedded system which uses FreeBSD as its OS, and is network related. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 12 9:53:56 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C38F37B400 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 09:53:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (rwcrmhc52.attbi.com [216.148.227.88]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E39C643E65 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 09:53:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from crist.clark@attbi.com) Received: from blossom.cjclark.org ([12.234.91.48]) by rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020912165352.RGAN25351.rwcrmhc52.attbi.com@blossom.cjclark.org> for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 16:53:52 +0000 Received: from blossom.cjclark.org (localhost. [127.0.0.1]) by blossom.cjclark.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g8CGrpJK092001 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 09:53:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from crist.clark@attbi.com) Received: (from cjc@localhost) by blossom.cjclark.org (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id g8CGroRM092000 for chat@freebsd.org; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 09:53:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: blossom.cjclark.org: cjc set sender to crist.clark@attbi.com using -f Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 09:53:50 -0700 From: "Crist J. Clark" To: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Solaris and Dynamic Routing Message-ID: <20020912165350.GA91965@blossom.cjclark.org> Reply-To: cjclark@alum.mit.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-URL: http://people.freebsd.org/~cjc/ Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Anyone out there know of some good software for doing dynamic routing on Solaris (2.6 to be exact)? It doesn't need to be terribly complicated software, I just need to get some routes off of a neighboring router and onto the Solaris system. I know about gated, but the open source version looks like it hasn't been maintained for a long time now. I'm trying Zebra, but it is technically a "beta" which makes me a little nervous about deploying on an operational network. Both have more up-to-date commercial versions, but we need this yesterday (of course) and I don't want to get tied with a vendor and a bummer product because we grabbed the first thing. Anyone have recommendations? -- Crist J. Clark | cjclark@alum.mit.edu | cjclark@jhu.edu http://people.freebsd.org/~cjc/ | cjc@freebsd.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 12 10:16:30 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B94D37B400 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 10:16:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41A6D43E3B for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 10:16:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lomifeh@earthlink.net) Received: from joga.local. (bgp586692bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net [68.39.202.147]) by mtaout03.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.8 (built May 13 2002)) with ESMTP id <0H2C00MR05BFAZ@mtaout03.icomcast.net> for chat@freebsd.org; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 13:16:27 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 13:16:32 -0400 From: Lawrence Sica Subject: Re: Solaris and Dynamic Routing In-reply-to: <20020912165350.GA91965@blossom.cjclark.org> To: cjclark@alum.mit.edu Cc: chat@freebsd.org Message-id: <61F2CF8F-C673-11D6-A85D-000393A335A2@earthlink.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.543) Content-type: text/plain; delsp=yes; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thursday, September 12, 2002, at 12:53 PM, Crist J. Clark wrote: > Anyone out there know of some good software for doing dynamic routing > on Solaris (2.6 to be exact)? It doesn't need to be terribly > complicated software, I just need to get some routes off of a > neighboring router and onto the Solaris system. > > I know about gated, but the open source version looks like it hasn't > been maintained for a long time now. I'm trying Zebra, but it is > technically a "beta" which makes me a little nervous about deploying > on an operational network. Both have more up-to-date commercial > versions, but we need this yesterday (of course) and I don't want to > get tied with a vendor and a bummer product because we grabbed the > first thing. > > Anyone have recommendations? Solaris does dynamic routing...there is an ndd switch that turns it on and off. I normally turn it off heh. Look for /etc/norouter. If that is there then dynamic routing is turned off. man in.routed or in.rdisc. That works for 7, dont know about 2.6 (it has been ages since I have dealt with 2.6) Try reading the below url.. http://www.ebsinc.com/solaris/ routing.html#3.4:%20How%20to%20Use%20in.routed HTH, Larry > -- > Crist J. Clark | cjclark@alum.mit.edu > | cjclark@jhu.edu > http://people.freebsd.org/~cjc/ | cjc@freebsd.org > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 12 10:28: 4 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78B2C37B400 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 10:28:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (rwcrmhc51.attbi.com [204.127.198.38]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87DA943E6A for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 10:27:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from crist.clark@attbi.com) Received: from blossom.cjclark.org ([12.234.91.48]) by rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020912172759.UJJC10266.rwcrmhc51.attbi.com@blossom.cjclark.org>; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 17:27:59 +0000 Received: from blossom.cjclark.org (localhost. [127.0.0.1]) by blossom.cjclark.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g8CHRwJK092169; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 10:27:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from crist.clark@attbi.com) Received: (from cjc@localhost) by blossom.cjclark.org (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id g8CHRwv5092168; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 10:27:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: blossom.cjclark.org: cjc set sender to crist.clark@attbi.com using -f Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 10:27:58 -0700 From: "Crist J. Clark" To: Lawrence Sica Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Solaris and Dynamic Routing Message-ID: <20020912172758.GB91965@blossom.cjclark.org> Reply-To: cjclark@alum.mit.edu References: <20020912165350.GA91965@blossom.cjclark.org> <61F2CF8F-C673-11D6-A85D-000393A335A2@earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <61F2CF8F-C673-11D6-A85D-000393A335A2@earthlink.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-URL: http://people.freebsd.org/~cjc/ Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 01:16:32PM -0400, Lawrence Sica wrote: > > On Thursday, September 12, 2002, at 12:53 PM, Crist J. Clark wrote: > > >Anyone out there know of some good software for doing dynamic routing > >on Solaris (2.6 to be exact)? It doesn't need to be terribly > >complicated software, I just need to get some routes off of a > >neighboring router and onto the Solaris system. > > > >I know about gated, but the open source version looks like it hasn't > >been maintained for a long time now. I'm trying Zebra, but it is > >technically a "beta" which makes me a little nervous about deploying > >on an operational network. Both have more up-to-date commercial > >versions, but we need this yesterday (of course) and I don't want to > >get tied with a vendor and a bummer product because we grabbed the > >first thing. > > > >Anyone have recommendations? > > Solaris does dynamic routing...there is an ndd switch that turns it on > and off. I normally turn it off heh. Look for /etc/norouter. If > that is there then dynamic routing is turned off. man in.routed or > in.rdisc. That works for 7, dont know about 2.6 (it has been ages > since I have dealt with 2.6) Oops, looks like I forgot to mention this. in.routed and in.rdisc are totally insufficient for our needs. in.routed only talks RIPv1, and we need at least RIPv2 since we aren't living in the 80's and have VLSM. in.rdisc is just router discovery. -- Crist J. Clark | cjclark@alum.mit.edu | cjclark@jhu.edu http://people.freebsd.org/~cjc/ | cjc@freebsd.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 12 10:46:32 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BC9D37B400 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 10:46:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA97F43E3B for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 10:46:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lomifeh@earthlink.net) Received: from joga.local. (bgp586692bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net [68.39.202.147]) by mtaout01.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 1.4 (built Aug 5 2002)) with ESMTP id <0H2C00JS66NUHT@mtaout01.icomcast.net> for chat@freebsd.org; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 13:45:30 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 13:45:35 -0400 From: Lawrence Sica Subject: Re: Solaris and Dynamic Routing In-reply-to: <20020912172758.GB91965@blossom.cjclark.org> To: cjclark@alum.mit.edu Cc: chat@freebsd.org Message-id: <711C773E-C677-11D6-A85D-000393A335A2@earthlink.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.543) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thursday, September 12, 2002, at 01:27 PM, Crist J. Clark wrote: > On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 01:16:32PM -0400, Lawrence Sica wrote: >> >> On Thursday, September 12, 2002, at 12:53 PM, Crist J. Clark wrote: >> >>> Anyone out there know of some good software for doing dynamic routing >>> on Solaris (2.6 to be exact)? It doesn't need to be terribly >>> complicated software, I just need to get some routes off of a >>> neighboring router and onto the Solaris system. >>> >>> I know about gated, but the open source version looks like it hasn't >>> been maintained for a long time now. I'm trying Zebra, but it is >>> technically a "beta" which makes me a little nervous about deploying >>> on an operational network. Both have more up-to-date commercial >>> versions, but we need this yesterday (of course) and I don't want to >>> get tied with a vendor and a bummer product because we grabbed the >>> first thing. >>> >>> Anyone have recommendations? >> >> Solaris does dynamic routing...there is an ndd switch that turns it on >> and off. I normally turn it off heh. Look for /etc/norouter. If >> that is there then dynamic routing is turned off. man in.routed or >> in.rdisc. That works for 7, dont know about 2.6 (it has been ages >> since I have dealt with 2.6) > > Oops, looks like I forgot to mention this. in.routed and in.rdisc are > totally insufficient for our needs. in.routed only talks RIPv1, and we > need at least RIPv2 since we aren't living in the 80's and have VLSM. > in.rdisc is just router discovery. Hey I liked the 80's....I've heard good things about Zebra though. Never used it though. I'll check with my local sun guru see if she has any ideas... --Larry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 12 12:28: 8 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3648C37B400 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 12:27:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48EAC43E75 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 12:27:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g8CJRlGd070085; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 12:27:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g8CJRiBP070052; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 12:27:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 12:27:44 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Terry Lambert Cc: Giorgos Keramidas , Joshua Lee , , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <3D7FC334.396A9F12@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20020912090001.L69462-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > > Actually you can't start there. The premise that "light bulbs work" > > is dependent on the uniformity of nature, for which you have yet to > > provide a justification. > > I justify it by the fact that light bulbs are *observed* to work. I see. So your justification of induction is based on induction. Right. > > > There are a number of scriptures which are and aren't considered > > > part of "The Bible"; the inclusion and exclusion are rather > > > arbitrary and political, as well. > > > > Proof, please. What you seem to be missing is that on a theistic > > worldview, God is able to ensure that the totality of what He wishes > > to reveal, nothing more, nothing less, gets into the canon. If God > > is providentially in control of all things, he is able to ensure > > that the word He wishes to communicate gets so communicated. Political > > considerations are irrelevant. > > So which is the *true* canon, and *why*? The dead sea scrolls, > of which th Bible is a translation, are not all of the dead sea > scrolls there were, they were only some of them. The Christian canon is not based on the dead sea scrolls. The canon is based on what the church has always recognized as the scriptures. The concept of canonicity was inherited from the Jewish church from whom it received the Old Testament scriptures. The New Testament scriptures were received gradually by the church from the apostles and their close associates, and as such were approved by the apostles, who were in turn commissioned by Christ Himself. > Is the true canon the dead sea scrolls? Or is it the King James > translation into English of the Bible? What has *any* English translation have to do with it? The canon was received from the apostles, who were commissioned by Christ. The principle by which the church eventually agreed on what was to be included in the canon was the historical tradition of apostolicity. > > > I think you are mistaken in your assumptions here. "Life", as > > > such, is *not* anti-entropic, in the larger sense. It increases > > > order locally ("extropy"), at the expense of higher overall entropy. > > > > This sounds to me like an embarrassing rescuing device intended to hide > > the fact that the theory of evolution is in direct contradiction to one > > of the best attested laws of science. > > ? Definition: extropy: anti-entropy > > > You can't even demonstrate that "extropy" is even occuring, > > By "extropy", we are talking about a local increase in order. > AKA "life". > > So you are basically saying that I can't demonstrate that life > is even occurring. No I'm saying that you have no justification for assuming that it just spontaneously occurs in antithesis to one of the best attested laws of physics. I'm saying that you can't *account* for the existence of life on your worldview. Calling it "extropy" is just another way of saying that you believe in spontaneous generation, which is absurd. > > I see. So your view is based on yet more faith commitments and > > speculation. > > Actually, it doesn't, if you accept the steady-state theory. Even > if you insist on a "big bang" theory, where we now exist in the one > universe, with a finite duration, which has ever existed (calculate > the probability of *that*!), there;s still no faith commitment > required. The steady-state theory itself is based on faith-based commitments. It is pure speculation which also could never be proven. Theories which can never be proven with any empirical evidence are just creation myths for atheists. > > It's also expedient to believe in absurdities, like that given enough > > time, anything can happen. > > That's not an absurdity, that's a consequence of math you apparently > can not understand. It has to do with the fact that there are orders > of infinity, and that when you divide infinity into any value that is > of a lower order, you end up with zero. You are talking nonsense. How can you divide infinity into anything? If it isn't finite, it can't be divided. > > > What is one divided by infinity? What is seventy seven divided > > > by infinity? How many integers are there? How many real numbers > > > are there? What is the value of the number of integers divided by > > > the number of real numbers? > > > > Mathematics cannot be used to prove that the universe is infinitely > > old. > > That something *must* happen in an infinite amount of time is > not the same as saying that you *must wait an infinite amount > of time for it to happen. And your point is...? > That something that *must* happen, given an infinite amount of > time, *has* happened, does *not* mean that an infinite amount > of time has therefore elapsed. My point precisely! You suggested an infinite amount of time, which is another of your faith commitments. > The probability of flipping a coin once, and having it come up > "heads" instead of "tails" is 1:2. If you flip it 10 times, and > it comes up "tails" all 10 times, what is the probability that, > if you flip it again, it will come up "heads"? 1:2. What you are suggesting, however, is that it came up heads billions of times in the past, when there is absolutely *no* justification for believing that. This goes right back to the problem of induction. What justification do you give for believing that it will continue to come up heads in the future? It takes a lot of faith to believe that, and if you do, I'm sure the casinos in Vegas would love to have you. > > Your reasoning here is just as fallacious as that of Zeno's > > paradoxes that purportedly "proved" that you could never get from > > point A to point B. > > Zeno's paradox is not a paradox. It is a proof of the theory of > limits, because a paradox, by definition, can not exist. If it > seems to be a paradox to you, all that means is that you need to > learn some more mathematics. You keep raising these red herrings. Zeno's paradox may be a proof of the theory of limits, but that does not mean it is not a paradox. He used it to prove that motion was impossible, which is obviously a fallacious conclusion, although mathematically it was true. Hence, appealing solely to mathematics can lead one to draw fallacious conclusions. > > > All of these questions stretch exactly the same credulity, and > > > yet they have answers. > > > > Really? What *is* one divided by infinity? > > Zero. No it isn't, it is an infinitesimally small number that approaches zero. > > > > No, I do not want to believe in square circles. > > > > > > Squaring the circle is possible; it's just not possible using > > > only geometric constructions. > > > > Clever, but all you've done is shown that you can equivocate on > > the meaning of words. Mighty impressive indeed. > > No, I've demostrated that a 4th century B.C. knowledge of > mathematics is not sufficient, nor is it "the state of the art", > and anyone who relies on such a poor understanding of mathematics > for their arguments is likely to be wrong in ways that they are > incapable of understanding, until they learn more mathematics. Oh, what a cop-out. Let me spell it out for you: The concept of a square circle is an absurdity, it predicates the property of "squareness" to an object that by definition can not have that property. I never said anything about "squaring" a circle, which implies an intentional act, and equivocates on the meaning of the word "square". > > > So if you are going to limit > > > the ways in which you are willing to think, yeah, some things > > > are going to appear impossible to you, which are perfectly > > > rational to someone else who doesn't adopt the same arbtrary > > > boundaries you choose to adopt. > > > > Yeah, and the concept of one hand clapping is perfectly rational > > to an irrationalist. So what? > > It's perfectly rational to the rationalist, as well. It is a > proof of the incompleteness theorem. You are using Godel's theorem to imply that there is no such thing as an irrational concept. This is a completely fallacious inference. The incompleteness theorem merely shows that no formal system of logic can decide on the truth or falsity of every proposition, namely, ones that are irrational within that system. > > > > > Entropy chooses water's path. 8-). > > > > > > > > As it does the human mind. 8-) > > > > > > Correct. > > > > On such notions you can't even know that your reason is functioning > > properly. You've reduced yourself to absurdity. > > Your conclusion does not follow from your argument, and your > argument is incorrect. I only need to know that my reason is > self-consistent to know that it is functioning properly. As if this doesn't beg the very same question! You could never know whether or not your reason is self-consistent, unless you want to say that it is self-consistent by definition. But then, everyone else's reason is also self-consistent by definition too, and you are reduced to subjectivism. > > > I guess if you insist on defining your assumptions that way, > > > then you can not be convinced rationally of the rationality of > > > anyone who does not already hold the same world view you hold, > > > so there's really no reason to persist, unless you genuinely > > > believe you can change other people's world views to coincide > > > with your own. > > > > No, I'm not so arrogant as to think that. Not even you have the > > power to do that apart from an act of God. > > I can change a rational person's views, as a rational person > can change mine. All they need to do is argue from the basis > of logic. I've had my opinions chnaged many, many times in > the past, by people arguing rationally. You don't even have a basis for assuming the laws of logic! All you have is your internally consistent by definition brain functions. Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 12 12:44:46 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0E0137B400 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 12:44:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66B5143E4A for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 12:44:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lomifeh@earthlink.net) Received: from joga.local. (bgp586692bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net [68.39.202.147]) by mtaout05.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.8 (built May 13 2002)) with ESMTP id <0H2C00MJEC6AR2@mtaout05.icomcast.net> for chat@FreeBSD.ORG; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 15:44:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 15:44:40 -0400 From: Lawrence Sica Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-reply-to: <20020912090001.L69462-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Terry Lambert , Giorgos Keramidas , Joshua Lee , dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Message-id: <13D4513B-C688-11D6-A85D-000393A335A2@earthlink.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.543) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thursday, September 12, 2002, at 03:27 PM, Neal E. Westfall wrote: > > > On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > >>> Actually you can't start there. The premise that "light bulbs work" >>> is dependent on the uniformity of nature, for which you have yet to >>> provide a justification. >> >> I justify it by the fact that light bulbs are *observed* to work. > > I see. So your justification of induction is based on induction. > Right. > > >>>> There are a number of scriptures which are and aren't considered >>>> part of "The Bible"; the inclusion and exclusion are rather >>>> arbitrary and political, as well. >>> >>> Proof, please. What you seem to be missing is that on a theistic >>> worldview, God is able to ensure that the totality of what He wishes >>> to reveal, nothing more, nothing less, gets into the canon. If God >>> is providentially in control of all things, he is able to ensure >>> that the word He wishes to communicate gets so communicated. >>> Political >>> considerations are irrelevant. >> >> So which is the *true* canon, and *why*? The dead sea scrolls, >> of which th Bible is a translation, are not all of the dead sea >> scrolls there were, they were only some of them. > > The Christian canon is not based on the dead sea scrolls. The canon is > based on what the church has always recognized as the scriptures. The > concept of canonicity was inherited from the Jewish church from whom it > received the Old Testament scriptures. The New Testament scriptures > were received gradually by the church from the apostles and their close > associates, and as such were approved by the apostles, who were in turn > commissioned by Christ Himself. Not exactly, the Bible in its current state was decided over 300 years after Jesus walked on earth. And like I have said before there were hundreds of books and gospels. Constantine began the process of canonization of the Bible. The reason for it was to make sure everyone was on the same page so to speak. The word itself is greek btw. They wanted to stop heretics, and thus the orthodoxy was established in the canon of the Bible. And while one takes it on faith that the books included were inspired by God's Will. One has to ask, if all the books were inspired by God why were they not all included? Why were some deemed right and wrong, and what was the criteria? Books that would have preached that the church was not always needed would have been removed for example. Thus politics, in this case, the survival of the Church, came into play. Plus remember the man who started this was a political figure, and wanted to further his chosen religion above all others in his empire, hence that would also have a bearing on the outcome. As an aside, the original meaning of the Scriptures in the Bible meant jewish scriptures of the time. > >> Is the true canon the dead sea scrolls? Or is it the King James >> translation into English of the Bible? > > What has *any* English translation have to do with it? The canon > was received from the apostles, who were commissioned by Christ. > The principle by which the church eventually agreed on what was to > be included in the canon was the historical tradition of apostolicity. > English translation has a lot to do with it. Look at the the name Jehova. If you take two versions of the Bible translated by different people, you will have two slightly different books. That is why a translation has a lot to do with it. History itself is full of mistranslations of words not only in the Bible. --Larry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 12 12:51:48 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3995B37B400 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 12:51:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (jive.SoftHome.net [66.54.152.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6A3DC43E6A for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 12:51:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yid@softhome.net) Received: (qmail 9142 invoked by uid 417); 12 Sep 2002 19:51:40 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 12 Sep 2002 19:51:40 -0000 Received: from planb ([216.194.2.204]) (AUTH: LOGIN yid@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 13:51:38 -0600 Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 15:51:41 -0400 From: Joshua Lee To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: tlambert2@mindspring.com, keramida@ceid.upatras.gr, dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-Id: <20020912155141.0b55ecb1.yid@softhome.net> In-Reply-To: <20020912090001.L69462-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> References: <3D7FC334.396A9F12@mindspring.com> <20020912090001.L69462-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Organization: Plan B Software Labs X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.2claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.7) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 12 Sep 2002 12:27:44 -0700 (PDT) "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > > I can change a rational person's views, as a rational person > > can change mine. All they need to do is argue from the basis > > of logic. I've had my opinions chnaged many, many times in > > the past, by people arguing rationally. > > You don't even have a basis for assuming the laws of logic! > All you have is your internally consistent by definition > brain functions. You don't even have a basis for assuming the laws of printf()! All you have is your internally consistent by definition ones and zeros. ;-) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 12 13:11:14 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E806037B400 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 13:11:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DA0043E42 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 13:11:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8CK9A159682; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 13:09:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209122009.g8CK9A159682@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , Giorgos Keramidas , Joshua Lee , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 13:09:05 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> Neal E Westfall writes: >> > I'll reiterate mine again: It's unreasonable to adopt a subset of >> > assumptions that are the preconditions of intelligibility. 8-) >> >> Very well put, and this is one of Mr. Lambert's biggest foibles >> as evident by most of the discussions. > > Dave, the person who can predictively describe the universe as > a derivation of the least number of assumptions wins. Wins what? > Each assumption is a "deux ex machina", which you will not be > able to logically communicate to another person. This is also an assumption. > You can only logically communicate information based on your set of > shared assumptions, or shared principles derived from those > assumptions, which fortuitously coincide. I don't agree that this is true, by my own observation. I continually manage to communicate information devoid of logic, berift of derivation, which has no real shared principle other than a set of agreed upon frequencies to use as raw materials. I play music. > This is the point you miss over and over again: it's possible > for an individual and the larger homogeneous society to have > irreconcilable differences, which may include continued > tolerance of each others existance. Big words and lofty notions of knowledge aside, this is really a simple matter. All I've ever asked is for people to show a little maturity when dealing with obvious trolls. Why does this incite a two-week+ thread which delves into PhD level mathematics? You go on and on about "prove this" or "demonstrate that" or even "the best answers are simple". But you never ever answer this original, simple, thought. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< Penitent (adj.) - 1. Someone who has been made incapable of enjoyment. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 12 13:15:50 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCF1937B400 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 13:15:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6875343E6E for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 13:15:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8CKFE159747; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 13:15:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209122015.g8CKFE159747@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , Giorgos Keramidas , Joshua Lee , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 13:15:09 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> > I justify it by the fact that light bulbs are *observed* to work. >> >> I thought "observation" was an inaccurate methodology in the Terry >> Lambert mindview? > > This shows the inaccuracy of your model of me, doesn't it? That, or it shows that you will shift your words when it is convienent for you. ;) > It's you who is the phenomenologist. Great. More labels. >> > By "extropy", we are talking about a local increase in order. >> > AKA "life". >> >> I bet you can't prove that life is an increase in order. Any >> poor urban area is disproof by observation. ;) > > Life is a local increase in order, by definition. I don't know about that, I've seen the floor of a stock exchange or a busy park with lots of kids. That doesn't look like order to me. >> > I can change a rational person's views, as a rational person >> > can change mine. All they need to do is argue from the basis >> > of logic. I've had my opinions chnaged many, many times in >> > the past, by people arguing rationally. >> >> ...using your particular arbitrary set of presumptions as >> axioms. ;) > > Don't worry; my presumtions are a subset of nearly everyone's. Never mind that verifying this is close to impossible, would you like to tell me just how you learned everyone's presumptions without first making a bunch of your own? ;) > It makes me incredibly tolerant, This is wrong by observation. You aren't tolerant of trolls. A truly incredible tolerant person would be. QED. |) > and much easier to convince by way of logical argument. Oh I doubt that highly. > If my axioms are a subset of yours, then there's nothing about > them that any person can successfully call arbitrary, without > calling their own arbitrary. Everything is arbitrary. =) > Even if, like you, you pretend to irrationality to try and expand > the set of allowable behaviours as a governance of our own internal > rules. I don't pretend to it. I know it, and it's inverse. I use whichever one is appropriate at the time. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< Supporter (n.) - 1. Someone who will say anything. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 12 13:18:23 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C61537B400 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 13:18:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAB5443E3B for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 13:18:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8CKIC159777; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 13:18:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209122018.g8CKIC159777@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: Joshua Lee , nwestfal@directvinternet.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 13:18:07 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Well, that and Dave Hayes pype, poking it with a stick any time > it looked to be settling down, just for the sheer joy Dave > gets from being a luddite I'm a luddite if I suggest people grow up and learn to tune out the bad apples? Astounding. > and making people waste effort I'm glad I have that much power over you. > Luckily, this thread has not taken a lot of attention or time to > type, from my perspective; since it's started, I've also written > about 13,000 lines of code. No one said you should be waiting by your mailbox for the next round. I daresay most of us have gotten work done in parallel with this entire debacle. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< You may follow one stream. Realize that it leads to the Ocean. Do not mistake the stream for the Ocean. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 12 14: 8:52 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A0A937B400 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 14:08:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from carl.svc.tds.net (carl.svc.tds.net [204.246.1.56]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D12B943E4A for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 14:08:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kenwills@tds.net) Received: from zap.zaptillion.net ([66.188.113.165]) by carl.svc.tds.net with ESMTP id <20020912211005.GAP3710.carl@zap.zaptillion.net>; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 16:10:05 -0500 Received: by zap.zaptillion.net (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 36AAF226991; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 16:13:05 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 16:13:05 -0500 From: Ken Wills To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Lawrence Sica , Giorgos Keramidas , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020912211305.GA38442@zaptillion.net> References: <1D9E168A-C38F-11D6-8C5E-000393A335A2@earthlink.net> <20020909103923.B9219-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020909103923.B9219-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org +++ Neal E. Westfall [09/09/02 10:41 -0700]: > > > On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Lawrence Sica wrote: > > > >>> An understanding of the characteristics of mutation in virrii, and > > >>> the development of new vaccines are not at all dependent on the > > >>> theory of evolution. Mutations != evolution. > > >> > > >> On the very contrary. Evolution can only go forth through mutation. > > >> Please do read Darwin's ``Origin of the Species'' again. > > > > > > Ahem. Evolution *requires* mutations to function, i.e. is *driven* > > > by mutations. But the fact that mutations occur does not prove > > > evolution. Mutations and evolution are two different things. > > > > > > > Mutation is a mechanism of evolution. Evolution is the process. One > > could make the leap of faith that since we mutate over time and these > > mutations change the species we evolve... > > This is just what I am trying to get people to admit, that evolution > requires tremendous leaps of faith. Now if you could see that it is also > irrational, my job would be done. > 'Tremendous leaps of faith are irrational?' ;-) How's that shiny new paintjob in the corner coming along? ;-) ;-) Ken To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 12 14:29:43 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D244A37B400 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 14:29:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A356443E4A for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 14:29:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g8CLS0Gd019262; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 14:28:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g8CLS07i019259; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 14:28:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 14:28:00 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Terry Lambert Cc: Lawrence Sica , Giorgos Keramidas , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <3D7FE867.C796F4B3@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20020912123152.B69462-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > > > > > At a fundamental level, the universe is quantized, > > > > > and this causes certain emergenet behaviours in matter. > > > > > > > > Really? What do you mean, when you say, "the universe is quantized"? > > > > > > E.g. it takes exactly 13.6 electron volts to take an electron > > > from an s orbital to infinity. Not 13.4, not 13.8. > > > > So how does this prove that "order comes from disorder"? > > That wasn't the argument we were having. The argument was that > simple systems may have complex emergent properties. > > http://www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/sugarscape/ Instead of this "refutation by citing someone who agrees with me", why don't you just give me a thumbnail sketch of how order comes from disorder. And yes, that is exactly the argument we were having. > > > Your _opinion_ on what's rational or not has been noted, but is > > > not really germane. > > > > Okay, I can play this game. *Your* _opinion_ on what's rational has > > been noted as well, but is not really germane. > > The reason your opinion is not germane is because you keep > making irrational conclusions without providing evidence. I've yet to see you demonstrate that any of my conclusions are irrational. You just keep asserting it. > What's your reason for your claim about my opinion? I was employing the same standards you were, which is that you disagree. That is not argument. Moreover, have yet to even attempt to give a justification let alone a description of what is rational. > > > No, you are actually right that we can't count on them in the > > > future. There's evidence that the speed of light was much > > > higher, much earlier in the life of the universe, for example. > > > > You miss the point. Without assuming the uniformity of nature, there > > *could be no* evidence about the speed of light at all. > > We have observed no evidence which contradicts the theory that > nature is uniform. Therefore, the simplest explanation is that > it *is* uniform. Barring contradictory observations, then, we > shall take this as our working hypothesis. You keep begging the question. Observational evidence or lack of it both presuppose inductive reasoning which presupposes the uniformity of nature. Using the same criteria, the hypothesis that nature is *not* uniform is every bit as valid. And in fact, in a random chance universe, is *more* valid. > > > > "Stories" seems to be an apt description. > > > > > > It is. It's why I used it. Don't confuse stories with reality; > > > it's impossible for you to directly observe reality. > > > > Really? How then is the scientific method even possible? > > Why are you implying that direct obervation of reality, rather > than a scientist's individual perceptual model of reality, is > a requirement for the scientific method to work? You have left the realm of science and entered the realm of metaphysics. The scientific method relies on certain metaphysical assumptions, but that doesn't mean we can't directly observe reality. All it means is that that we can't observe the whole of reality with our senses. > By your argument, it's impossible for a color-blind person to > know that a difference between red and green exists at all, > because they are unable to directly observe a difference by > direct observation. If everybody was color-blind in that way, it would certainly be true. But everybody is not color-blind, and the only reason that *anybody* knows the difference is because somebody observed it. > > > We have to control the conditions, because it's not possible > > > to simulate the appropriate conditions. High partial pressures > > > of CO2 and SO2 don't occur naturally on Earth any more. > > > > It's not even possible to KNOW the appropriate conditions! The whole > > exercise is one big begging of the question. > > It's funny that you claim that, but that the conditions were > decided before the experiment was run, rather than the experiment > being run iteratively over all possible conditions to find which > ones worked. 8-). Someone had a predictive theory, and their > predictions from it were not falsified by experiment. I still don't see what you think has been proven other than the production of some amino acids under controlled conditions. Acids are not life. Moreover, it is an absurdity to think that if we are ever able to truly create life in a test-tube, that this means it can just spontaneously generate. We can create lots of things far less complex than life, but we don't see them just spontaneously appearing in nature. > > > Whether you consider amino acids "life" or not is also pretty > > > irrelevant, since you are going to keep moving the finish line, > > > the deeper we get, so as to continue to be "right". 8-). > > > > What makes you think this? > > My observation of your behaviour has made it my working hypothesis. > Feel free to falsify it by providing me with contradictory > observations, in which you don't insist on drawing conclusions > which are not merited by the preceeding statements. Which observations are those? Please provide some specifics. By the way, your inductive argument can't even get off the ground until you justify your belief in the uniformity of nature. 8-) > > > We can demonstrate that complex behaviour emerges from simple > > > rule sets. Conway's game of Life and other cellular automata > > > demonstrate that (e.g. "Sugarscape"). > > > > Conway's game of Life doesn't demonstrate anything close to intelligence. > > It is insufficinetly complex. The example was only intended to > demonstrate that complex behaviour is an emergent property of > simple rule sets governing self-regulating systems, which it does. Who's game of Life? It certainly didn't "self-regulate" itself into existence. > > Once more, if you believe this, you have no reason for believing that > > your belief about the origin of intelligence is true, unless you give > > yourself a priviledged position of being right by definition. > > The priviledge of the idea, if it has any at all, arises from its > simplicity, relative to other, competing, ideas. That's rather arbitrary, not to mention begging the question again. You have not at all shown that your idea is "simple." > > > > Lets start with your own reasoning ability. To review, if you are a > > > > naturalist, all of your brain functions are due merely to physical > > > > laws acting on antecedent brain states. On your view, reason is an > > > > illusion, and you have no way of knowing whether or not your reasoning > > > > is sound, since all of it is due merely to the electro-chemical > > > > reactions taking place in your grey matter. > > > > > > How does it follow that "reason is an illusion"? You've made a > > > leap there which you haven't really justified making... > > > > For the same reason that water doesn't "know" how to flow downstream. > > If everything in your brain is the result of the laws of physics, you > > couldn't *help* but believe what you do. > > This is an insupportable statement. How would my beliefs be > dictated in this case? By the laws of physics. > > All of your reasoning is suspect. Why should *your* beliefs be > > considered "true" while a theists beliefs are considered "false"? > > I will point out once again, that the scientific method doesn't > require belief to function. It's not sorcery. It functions > whether you want it to or not. It depends on what you mean by "function". The scientific method is useless until you believe it. But anyways, exactly how is this relevent with regard to how you know *your* beliefs are true as opposed to false? > It's not a *belief*, it is a *process*. And you can be a theist > or an atheist, and it doesn't matter, it will still function. The theist has a justification for his belief that it will still function, while the atheist does not. > The scientific method is orthogonal to theism: it is totally > unrelated. It's a different axis on the graph. Says you. You haven't shown why you believe that the scientific method will continue to function in the future. You just assume it does with absolutely no justification whatsoever. The Christian has an answer here, while the atheist does not. > > Both are the result of physics, > > Theism isn't a result of physics, unless you are prepared to admit > that God does not exist apart from the universe. The comment was made on the assumption of naturalism. On the assumption of naturalism, both the atheist's view and the theist's view are completely unrelated to anything resembling "sound reason" or "truth", an intolerable conclusion for most people. > > and have nothing to do with what corresponds to any such > > notion as "right reason" or "truth". Everybody just believes what > > they believe. > > Believing that light bulbs don't work won't make them not work. 8-). No, but believing they do is not what makes them work either. > > > Yeah, "right" and "wrong" are subjective; that one of the problems > > > consensus solves for us: it gives us an external ruler. > > > > What do you mean by "problem"? If there is no right and wrong, no > > "problem" can even be defined, let alone solved. > > Here you go with another conclusion out of thin air. Say that there > is no "right" or "wrong". How the heck does it necessarily follow > that you can not define problems? The concept of a "problem" suggests that there is some undesireable situation which exists, meaning you need some objective standards by which you can determine whether or not that undesireable state needs to be corrected. More to the point: The Nazis defined the jews to be a "problem" for which the "solution" was death camps and gas chambers. Objective standards of ethics are required in order to determine whether the jews were in fact a "problem" or if in fact the "problem" lie elsewhere, such as in the desires of those who found the situtation undesireable. > > > If "randomness" was equal to "irrationality", don't you think > > > that we wouldn't have invented a second word, or that at least > > > one would be defined in terms of the other in your dictionary? > > > > Uh, no. I was counting on you to draw the necessary inference. But if > > you must have it spelled out for you, when you apply "randomness" to our > > thinking processes, what results is irrationality. > > Why? Why do you claim this? What evidence do you have to > support this claim? Please present evidence to support this > claim. You really don't see this? Why don't you explain then how introducing randomness into our thinking processes does not result in irrationality? The concept of "rational" implies applying objective standards to our thinking, and has nothing to do with "randomness". > Obviously, the reson I didn't draw this inference is that it > is an improper inference to draw. I'm beginning to think that you don't know *how* to draw an inference. *Why* is it an improper inference to draw? If you think it is improper, please explain briefly why it is improper. > > Sound reasoning involves applying objective standards to our > > thought processes, and has nothing to do with "randomness". > > You can't apply objective standards to your own thought processes; > every paranoid person believe that they are sane, and that people > really are out to get them. You've just reduced yourself to subjectivism. If we can't apply objective standards to our own thinking, all anyone could ever do is call each other heretic and go home. > > > Sure I can. I have schelling points, which I can use to establish > > > communication. > > > > By the way, Terry, what *is* a schelling point anyway? 8-) > > I've already defined it in a previous posting in this thread; > if you are going to argue, at least *read* the responses. Yeesh, what a grouch. > > Communication is not the problem. The ability to reason is > > necessary before any communication is possible. You still > > have not provided any basis for reason. Randomness does > > not get you there. > > AGAIN: Our best theory is that intelligence is an emergent > property of complex self-regulating systems over a certain > threshold density. ROFL!!! You call that a theory? All it amounts to is the assertion that intelligence comes from non-intelligence. That's not a theory, it's a belief. If you have an actual theory to explain *how* intelligence emerges from non-intelligence, you have yet to present it. Calling it an "emergent property" is not science, its a "just so" story. > Would you quit pulling the word "random" out of your butt? > Thanks. You are the one who tried to justify human reason by introducing randomness. If you are dropping that belief, I won't talk about it anymore. > > This sounds suspiciously like an attempt to justify the arbitrariness > > of your assumptions. > > Let me disabuse you of this paranoid theory. It is not that, > it is me impugning your understanding. You may be erudite, at > some level, but do not mistake that for educated in logical > discourse. Well if this isn't the pot calling the kettle black! You haven't done anything to show that my reasoning is fallacious other than lots of assertions and impugning my understanding. Impugning someone's understanding is not a valid argument. Until you can show that my reasoning is fallacious there is no basis for impugning my understanding at all. > > > This is, in the limit, the same argument that is normally > > > put forth in defense of a creator, but it's stated as "Absence of > > > evidence is not evidence of absence". 8-). > > > > Of course, I disagree with that premise as well. 8-) > > Of course you do, but you can't recreate your "evidence" under > laboratory conditions, instead we are expected to believe in it > bcause you tell us to believe in it. St. Thomas Aquinas used > this same (logically invalid) technique; it's called "begging > the question", where you must assume your result in order to > prove it. You are doing the very thing that you accuse me of! You hide behind pseudo-scientific jargon claiming that it is some kind of justification for your beliefs. Give me a break. Oh, and by the way, *all* epistemelogical views are ultimately circular, even yours. The difference between mine and yours are that yours are self-refuting, while mine are self-authenticating. Your naive empiricism undermines itself. You can't even justify your belief in the scientific method. Every attempt you have made has begged the question. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 12 14:52:59 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7375737B400 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 14:52:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net (avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10D4943E65 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 14:52:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0015.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.42.15] helo=mindspring.com) by avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17pbsh-0006Vd-00; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 14:52:12 -0700 Message-ID: <3D810C4A.D13F@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 14:51:06 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , Giorgos Keramidas , Joshua Lee , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200209122009.g8CK9A159682@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > > Dave, the person who can predictively describe the universe as > > a derivation of the least number of assumptions wins. > > Wins what? Wins closer the truth. > > Each assumption is a "deux ex machina", which you will not be > > able to logically communicate to another person. > > This is also an assumption. Gee, I guess I've failed to communicate it to you... I guess I must be right... 8-). > > You can only logically communicate information based on your set of > > shared assumptions, or shared principles derived from those > > assumptions, which fortuitously coincide. > > I don't agree that this is true, by my own observation. I continually > manage to communicate information devoid of logic, berift of > derivation, which has no real shared principle other than a set of > agreed upon frequencies to use as raw materials. > > I play music. Music is, at it's heart, mathematics. > > This is the point you miss over and over again: it's possible > > for an individual and the larger homogeneous society to have > > irreconcilable differences, which may include continued > > tolerance of each others existance. > > Big words and lofty notions of knowledge aside, this is really a > simple matter. All I've ever asked is for people to show a little > maturity when dealing with obvious trolls. Why does this incite a > two-week+ thread which delves into PhD level mathematics? Because it's an unreasonable request, and it takes that level of effort to get to a point where you can't successfully dismiss the arguments regarding the unreasonableness of the request. > You go on and on about "prove this" or "demonstrate that" or even "the > best answers are simple". > > But you never ever answer this original, simple, thought. I have answered it many times. But you don't value the contributions of people like John Dyson or Loqui Chen or ..., people who fall into the category of useful, but who you value less than the trolls. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 12 15: 0:22 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7895637B400 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 15:00:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net (avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02ABF43E6E for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 15:00:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0015.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.42.15] helo=mindspring.com) by avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17pc0N-0002ku-00; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 15:00:08 -0700 Message-ID: <3D810E25.237746C@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 14:59:01 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , Giorgos Keramidas , Joshua Lee , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200209122015.g8CKFE159747@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > > Life is a local increase in order, by definition. > > I don't know about that, I've seen the floor of a stock exchange or > a busy park with lots of kids. That doesn't look like order to me. The stock market is not alive, the people are. > >> ...using your particular arbitrary set of presumptions as > >> axioms. ;) > > > > Don't worry; my presumtions are a subset of nearly everyone's. > > Never mind that verifying this is close to impossible, would you > like to tell me just how you learned everyone's presumptions without > first making a bunch of your own? ;) I didn't make a generalization, so your statement is incorrect. Note the use of "nearly". > > It makes me incredibly tolerant, > > This is wrong by observation. You aren't tolerant of trolls. A > truly incredible tolerant person would be. QED. |) I haven't hunted them down and dealt with them. I think that it demonstrates incredible tolerance, to not act when one can. > > and much easier to convince by way of logical argument. > > Oh I doubt that highly. How would you know, since you haven't really tried any? > > Even if, like you, you pretend to irrationality to try and expand > > the set of allowable behaviours as a governance of our own internal > > rules. > > I don't pretend to it. I know it, and it's inverse. I use whichever > one is appropriate at the time. You act like Gregory Benford's "Changeling" character in the book "Find The Changeling". His portrayal of that character was juvenile, in that the character was supposed to be asocial, but ended up being nothing more than merely contrarian. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 12 15: 5:26 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C080937B400 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 15:05:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net (avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 684C643E4A for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 15:05:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0015.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.42.15] helo=mindspring.com) by avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17pc5M-00032O-00; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 15:05:17 -0700 Message-ID: <3D810F58.6A0AD88A@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 15:04:08 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: Joshua Lee , nwestfal@directvinternet.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200209122018.g8CKIC159777@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > Terry Lambert writes: > > Well, that and Dave Hayes pype, poking it with a stick any time > > it looked to be settling down, just for the sheer joy Dave > > gets from being a luddite > > I'm a luddite if I suggest people grow up and learn to tune out > the bad apples? Astounding. No, you are a Luddite if you suggest elevation of individual rights over those of the group, to a point which would result in the desctruction of the group AND the group whose destruction is under discussion is one which promotes technological change. > > and making people waste effort > > I'm glad I have that much power over you. Of course you are. It is your nature to seek such power (and to ignore such distinctions as the use of third person perfect). > > Luckily, this thread has not taken a lot of attention or time to > > type, from my perspective; since it's started, I've also written > > about 13,000 lines of code. > > No one said you should be waiting by your mailbox for the next > round. I daresay most of us have gotten work done in parallel > with this entire debacle. I daresay that the debacle is some people's idea of "work product". -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 12 15: 9:40 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE8AF37B400 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 15:09:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B00443E4A for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 15:09:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8CM7h160471; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 15:07:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209122207.g8CM7h160471@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , Giorgos Keramidas , Joshua Lee , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 15:07:38 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> > Dave, the person who can predictively describe the universe as >> > a derivation of the least number of assumptions wins. >> >> Wins what? > > Wins closer the truth. The truth is not won by contest or argument. The truth is not a prize. >> > Each assumption is a "deux ex machina", which you will not be >> > able to logically communicate to another person. >> >> This is also an assumption. > > Gee, I guess I've failed to communicate it to you... I guess I > must be right... 8-). In your own space, you are. In mine, you aren't. >> > You can only logically communicate information based on your set of >> > shared assumptions, or shared principles derived from those >> > assumptions, which fortuitously coincide. >> >> I don't agree that this is true, by my own observation. I continually >> manage to communicate information devoid of logic, berift of >> derivation, which has no real shared principle other than a set of >> agreed upon frequencies to use as raw materials. >> >> I play music. > > Music is, at it's heart, mathematics. Maybe Bach is, but I guarantee you neither Marvin Gaye nor Pat Metheny is. More generally, for Jazz and it's subsets, the resemblence to math is lost and emotion instead reigns supreme. >> > This is the point you miss over and over again: it's possible >> > for an individual and the larger homogeneous society to have >> > irreconcilable differences, which may include continued >> > tolerance of each others existance. >> >> Big words and lofty notions of knowledge aside, this is really a >> simple matter. All I've ever asked is for people to show a little >> maturity when dealing with obvious trolls. Why does this incite a >> two-week+ thread which delves into PhD level mathematics? > > Because it's an unreasonable request, Unreasonable by your arbitrary standards of reasonability. Thing is, the people that would support me in this notion have already exercised their power by ignoring our banter. Those that would support you can't ignore it, and therefore will participate. This works to deny you the truth. > and it takes that level of effort to get to a point where you can't > successfully dismiss the arguments regarding the unreasonableness of > the request. I've -already- dismissed them as poppycock. I doubt you can convince me otherwise. >> You go on and on about "prove this" or "demonstrate that" or even "the >> best answers are simple". >> >> But you never ever answer this original, simple, thought. > > I have answered it many times. With a lot of rubbish, yes. > But you don't value the contributions of people like John Dyson or > Loqui Chen or Who? > ..., people who fall into the category of useful, but who you value > less than the trolls. I can't devalue thsoe I do not know. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< Nasrudin called at a large house to collect for charity. The servant said "My master is out." Nasrudin replied, "Tell your master that next time he goes out, he should not leave his face at the window. Someone might steal it." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 12 15:14:29 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3610237B400 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 15:14:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5B0743ED8 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 15:14:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8CMCb160562; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 15:12:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209122212.g8CMCb160562@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , Giorgos Keramidas , Joshua Lee , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 15:12:32 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> > Life is a local increase in order, by definition. >> >> I don't know about that, I've seen the floor of a stock exchange or >> a busy park with lots of kids. That doesn't look like order to me. > > The stock market is not alive, the people are. Read carefully, oh admonisher of careful reading. I said "the floor of a stock exchage". >> >> ...using your particular arbitrary set of presumptions as >> >> axioms. ;) >> > >> > Don't worry; my presumtions are a subset of nearly everyone's. >> >> Never mind that verifying this is close to impossible, would you >> like to tell me just how you learned everyone's presumptions without >> first making a bunch of your own? ;) > > I didn't make a generalization, so your statement is incorrect. My statement was a question, so your attempted refutation is non-sequitor. Note the use of a question mark. ;) >> > It makes me incredibly tolerant, >> >> This is wrong by observation. You aren't tolerant of trolls. A >> truly incredible tolerant person would be. QED. |) > > I haven't hunted them down and dealt with them. I think that > it demonstrates incredible tolerance, to not act when one can. I think it demonstrates incredible arrogance, to say you can act but you don't. It certainly isn't tolerance. >> > and much easier to convince by way of logical argument. >> >> Oh I doubt that highly. > > How would you know, since you haven't really tried any? Well, first I would have to understand your definition of "logical". The definition I used above is obviously inadequate for you. ;) >> > Even if, like you, you pretend to irrationality to try and expand >> > the set of allowable behaviours as a governance of our own internal >> > rules. >> >> I don't pretend to it. I know it, and it's inverse. I use whichever >> one is appropriate at the time. > > You act like Gregory Benford's "Changeling" character More labels. To Terry Lambert, all the world's a label. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< A banker is a fellow who lends you his umbrella when the sun is shining and wants it back the minute it begins to rain. -- Mark Twain To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 12 15:18:11 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4088737B400 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 15:18:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D257643E42 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 15:18:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8CMI4160644; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 15:18:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209122218.g8CMI4160644@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: Joshua Lee , nwestfal@directvinternet.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 15:17:59 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> Terry Lambert writes: >> > Well, that and Dave Hayes pype, poking it with a stick any time >> > it looked to be settling down, just for the sheer joy Dave >> > gets from being a luddite >> >> I'm a luddite if I suggest people grow up and learn to tune out >> the bad apples? Astounding. > > No, you are a Luddite if you suggest elevation of individual > rights over those of the group, to a point which would result > in the desctruction of the group AND the group whose destruction > is under discussion is one which promotes technological change. Arbitrary critera to be sure. BTW, I'm not suggesting nor have I ever suggested anything about individual vs group rights. Those aren't really the issue here on a mailing list. The real issue, which you dodge daily, is the maturity level it takes to ignore something you don't like. You won't address this because it is in the realm of emotion, psychology, and spirituality...fields with which you are most empirically unfamiliar with despite your assertions that these can be reduced to simple mathematical problems. >> > and making people waste effort >> >> I'm glad I have that much power over you. > > Of course you are. I can see you missed the sarcasm. ;) > It is your nature to seek such power Hardly. My nature is to point out the foolish, like writing some large bevy of software just to do what your mind could do in milliseconds. >> > Luckily, this thread has not taken a lot of attention or time to >> > type, from my perspective; since it's started, I've also written >> > about 13,000 lines of code. >> >> No one said you should be waiting by your mailbox for the next >> round. I daresay most of us have gotten work done in parallel >> with this entire debacle. > > I daresay that the debacle is some people's idea of "work product". Why is this relevant? ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< "That's the trouble," said William. "People doing the world's work. Now I believe in letting the world do its own work. Noninterference. No management. No exhortations. No demands that other folk be the same as we are. No arrogance. No pushing. Why is a man born? To find himself, not to find others." - Taylor Caldwell, The Sound of Thunder To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 12 15:36: 5 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D103937B400 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 15:35:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 853EA43E6A for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 15:35:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g8CMZsGd019480; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 15:35:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g8CMZrSf019477; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 15:35:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 15:35:53 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Terry Lambert Cc: Joshua Lee , Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <3D7FF0C3.910E1F70@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20020912143905.L69462-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > > > You keep pulling this one out of your rear. I don't see why > > > you keep claiming this, when it doesn't logically follow. If > > > human beings are just machines, there no reason at all that > > > their reasoning would have to be illusionary, rather than real. > > > You have simply made an unsupported statement, as if it were > > > fact, and expected us to be stupid enough to just accept it > > > with no evidence. > > > > When you say, "logically follow", are you saying that you are > > attempting to conform your reasoning processes to some objective > > standard? *What* objective standard? > > The mathematical formalism of symbolic logic. Now you are contradicting what you said earlier. You said that a person *can't* evaluate their reason against an objective standard. Which is it? > > Moreover, *where* does the intentionality come from that allows > > you to conform your reasoning to those objective standards? > > I borrowed it. 8-). It's irrelevant where it comes from, so > long as it *is*. Yup. You borrowed the Christian conception of the mind from the Christian worldview. > > Automatons do not reason, they do not make choices, they do not > > commit intentional acts, they only do what they do, without > > regard to any external standards of logic or ethics. > > Automatons which man has built so far. Oh, so its another faith commitment. > > > "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts". > > > > Yes it is. But it is *your* premises that preclude the possibility > > that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. > > No it doesn't. Look up the word "emergent", and tell me that > again, without being disingenuous. Just admit that your clinging to the concept of "emergence" is a faith commitment. Just once! Or show how it is possible given your naturalism. > > I'm not arguing that the whole is less than the sum of its parts. > > I'm arguing that *your* premises lead to that conclusion. > > Well, you are wrong. My premises lead to emergent properties > and self-organization and the Anthropic Principle and Mach's > Hypothesis. No, your premises *are* those things. > The entire argument can be reduced to symbolic form, and the > result computed. That's why it's so easy for all of us to > pick out your weakest arguments and points, and choose them > to refute. Your attempts to deflect the argument into the > phenomenological realm are transparent to all of us. Once again you are just blowing smoke. That is all the *claims* about the soundness of my arguments are until you actually demonstrate it instead of just asserting it. > > > A "reductio ad absurdum" is a "reduction to absurdity" argument. > > > It works by taking a general argument, and arguing its application > > > to a specific case where it is false, thus demonstrating that the > > > generalization itself is false. > > > > I know what they are, thanks anyways. > > Then do us the favor of not insulting our intelligence by using > rhetorical techniques which you know to be deceitful. Why don't *you* do us all a favor and present a proper refutation instead of just asserting that my arguments are unsound? > > > It's possible to perform a reduction that does not result in an > > > absurdity. This is how it works if the generalization is true. > > > > > > E.g. the argument "all fish are trout" is not proven absurd, if > > > your specific case that you argue to is a rainbow trout instead > > > of a brown trout, but it works if your specific case is a carp. > > > > Interesting, but irrelevent. > > Not irrelevant. Allegory. A symbolic analog of your previous > argument. No, its a strawman, which you are exceptionally skilled at knocking down. > > > The reason the reduction he called absurd *is* absurd is that > > > you drew a conclusion unrelated to the specific case which you > > > were reducing. > > > > You've just contradicted your own explanation of a reductio ad > > absurdum. > > No, I haven't. Not all reductions are reductio ad absurdum; only > reductions which are done properly, according to the rules of > logic. Since yours failed to comply with the rules of logic, > yours is, itself, absurd. Since you have done little to demonstrate that the reductio fails other than asserting it to be the case, it stands. > > Do they reduce a general argument or a specific case? > > Make up your mind. If what you meant was "unrelated to the general > > argument you were reducing" then it seems to me that you need to > > show that this is the case, not just dismiss it out of hand. > > No, actually *you* must show the relationship exists as part of > your argument, for your argument to be valid. I did. You are refusing to admit it, but won't show why the argument fails. > > If you think that human reason can be accounted for by the action of > > the laws of physics on matter, you need to show how human reason > > does not reduce to determinism. > > No, I do not. I merely need to show that human reason can be > accounted for by the action of the laws of physics on matter. Which you *have not done*. > I don't have to show a thing about determinism. Determinism is > irrelvant. It's only you who holds free will to be sacrosanct, > and thus part and parcel with human reason: not me. Are you, or are you not a determinist? > If you want to drag determinism into this, then you need to prove > that it's even relevant to the discussion. I did. The reductio showed that your presuppositions lead to determinism. All the ranting and raving about my reductio being unsound is only that, ranting and raving. > The reason it's relevent to *you* is because you subscribe to the > doctrine of "free will", but you haven't proven that it should be > relevent to *me*. Then you are a determinist? Why all the objections then? > You *assume* that the laws of physics are a clockwork, and that > therefore if human reason *can* be accounted for by the action of > the laws of physics on matter, that this contradicts *your* > doctrine. I think I see why you object so vehemently to the reductio. It's because you agree with the reductio's conclusion. You don't think determinism is absurd at all? If that's the case, why didn't you just say that? > > Given your premises, there is no way you can know whether *your* > > reason is correct and that other people's reasoning is fallacious. > > I can. I can test whether or not one or the other is more predictive. What good would that do? On your view there would be no way to correct one's own reasoning, since it is hardwired into the system. > > It may be fallacious according to the internal laws of logic that > > are pre-programmed in *your* head, but that wouldn't prove anything, > > since you don't know that what is in your head is what is in anybody > > else's. > > Yes, actually, I do know. I rather expect that the mathematics > necessary to prove this is beyond you, however. Oh, that's convenient. > > Moreover, since you think this is a random chance universe, there > > is no way you can ever know if by some random fluke that there is > > not a defect in the programming, causing you to commit logical > > fallacies without your knowledge. > > You don't know whether I believe this is "a random chance universe" > or not. You only know that I have argued for evolution, and certain > aspects of the universe which you have taken, inaappropriately, to > mean that I believe the universe is a clockwork, which is not a > conclusion you can legitimately draw from my statements. *You* are the one who brought up randomness as an out for saving reason. I assumed it based on your own appeal to it. If you would clearly outline exactly what it is that you *do* believe, it would certainly clarify things a bit. > > Moreover, if you arbitrarily insist that everybody reasons the > > same way, you need to give an account of why people make logical > > mistakes. > > Mostly, I've been writing it off to willful ignorance, lately... "Willful ignorance" implies that somebody is being immoral. If that is the case, we are going to need some objective standards of right and wrong, by which you could judge me to be "willfully ignorant." Of course, then you are borrowing (again) from *my* worldview. Ironically, this is exactly the state that the apostle Paul says in Romans 1 that unbelievers are in. They willfully *suppress* the truth about God and themselves in unrighteousness. 8-) Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 12 15:45: 8 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 515BA37B400 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 15:45:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from m-net.arbornet.org (m-net.arbornet.org [209.142.209.161]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B55C043E3B for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 15:45:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from polytarp@m-net.arbornet.org) Received: from m-net.arbornet.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by m-net.arbornet.org (8.12.3/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g8CMkFXt006267 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 18:46:15 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from polytarp@m-net.arbornet.org) Received: from localhost (polytarp@localhost) by m-net.arbornet.org (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) with ESMTP id g8CMkFTo006263 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 18:46:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 18:46:15 -0400 (EDT) From: pgreen To: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Why did revolution fail? Message-ID: <20020912184405.T5975-100000@m-net.arbornet.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Because of people like you! And those who don't like RO. .M. .A. .N. .IA IA All right Bob; you win. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 12 15:49:26 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E01D337B400 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 15:49:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54A5643E42 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 15:49:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g8CMlwGd019521; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 15:47:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g8CMluq0019518; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 15:47:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 15:47:56 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Ken Wills Cc: Lawrence Sica , Giorgos Keramidas , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <20020912211305.GA38442@zaptillion.net> Message-ID: <20020912153831.R69462-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Ken Wills wrote: > > > Mutation is a mechanism of evolution. Evolution is the process. One > > > could make the leap of faith that since we mutate over time and these > > > mutations change the species we evolve... > > > > This is just what I am trying to get people to admit, that evolution > > requires tremendous leaps of faith. Now if you could see that it is also > > irrational, my job would be done. > > > > 'Tremendous leaps of faith are irrational?' ;-) How's that shiny new paintjob in > the corner coming along? Ah, but notice I did not say that! That evolution requires tremendous leaps of faith, is a separate issue from whether or not it is irrational. As rationality is impossible without the foundation of faith in God, it would be ludicrous to say that faith is irrational, in fact, it would be downright irrational! 8-) Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 12 17:14:29 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07BEC37B400 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 17:14:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net (gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.84]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D5CD43E4A for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 17:14:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0015.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.42.15] helo=mindspring.com) by gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17pe6C-0002jN-00; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 17:14:17 -0700 Message-ID: <3D812D58.D30609F1@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 17:12:08 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Lawrence Sica , Giorgos Keramidas , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020912123152.B69462-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: [ ... ] > > Would you quit pulling the word "random" out of your butt? > > Thanks. > > You are the one who tried to justify human reason by introducing > randomness. If you are dropping that belief, I won't talk about > it anymore. On the contrary; you are using your own assumptions to justify your own conclusions. The first use of the word "random" in this thread was in your posting of 29 August 2002, as an adjective to describe your *opinion* of a universe which did not attribute a continuing requirement for uniformity (a requirement which you also pulled out of thin air) to a creator. Here is the reference: [ ... ] > Well if this isn't the pot calling the kettle black! You haven't > done anything to show that my reasoning is fallacious other than > lots of assertions and impugning my understanding. Impugning > someone's understanding is not a valid argument. Until you can > show that my reasoning is fallacious there is no basis for > impugning my understanding at all. You have appealed to authority. You have appealed to a common belief. You have appealed to common practice. You have appealed to indirect consequences. You've argued from the specific to the general. You've generalized. You've demonstrated circular reasoning. You've proposed false dilemmas. You've attempted to create a burden of disproof. You've engaged in post hoc reasoning. All in all, you've committed most of the possible logical fallacies in your arguments. Mostly, your appeals have been to a common belief which is not, in fact, shared by everyone else, which you then justify by appealing to Biblical authority, which you justify by appealing to Divine authority, which you justify by appealing to Biblical authority. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 12 17:27:22 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E80DA37B400 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 17:27:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net (gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.84]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89CBB43E77 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 17:27:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0015.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.42.15] helo=mindspring.com) by gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17peId-0004s1-00; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 17:27:08 -0700 Message-ID: <3D813054.4869CC7C@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 17:24:52 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , Giorgos Keramidas , Joshua Lee , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200209122212.g8CMCb160562@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > Terry Lambert writes: > > Dave Hayes wrote: > >> > Life is a local increase in order, by definition. > >> > >> I don't know about that, I've seen the floor of a stock exchange or > >> a busy park with lots of kids. That doesn't look like order to me. > > > > The stock market is not alive, the people are. > > Read carefully, oh admonisher of careful reading. I said "the floor > of a stock exchage". "the floor of the stock exchange" isn't alive, either, the people are. Before you escalate, let me generalize my statement for you. so that you will not feel compelled to do it for me: your examples are not agregate entities which themselves are representative of an instance of a life form. > >> Never mind that verifying this is close to impossible, would you > >> like to tell me just how you learned everyone's presumptions without > >> first making a bunch of your own? ;) > > > > I didn't make a generalization, so your statement is incorrect. > > My statement was a question, so your attempted refutation is > non-sequitor. My refutation was of the statement prior to the conjunctive comma. > Note the use of a question mark. ;) Note your use of a conjunctive comma, attempting to force me to accept your premise by responding either positively or negatively to your question. > I think it demonstrates incredible arrogance, to say you can > act but you don't. It certainly isn't tolerance. I posted the calculus of non-repudiation which could be implemented; if you have a problem with its logic, by all means, critique it. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 12 17:39:51 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C63E737B400 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 17:39:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net (hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.22]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69F9943E72 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 17:39:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0015.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.42.15] helo=mindspring.com) by hawk.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17peUp-00065z-00; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 17:39:43 -0700 Message-ID: <3D813341.468D5228@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 17:37:21 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: Joshua Lee , nwestfal@directvinternet.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200209122218.g8CMI4160644@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > > No, you are a Luddite if you suggest elevation of individual > > rights over those of the group, to a point which would result > > in the desctruction of the group AND the group whose destruction > > is under discussion is one which promotes technological change. [ ... ] > BTW, I'm not suggesting nor have I ever suggested anything about > individual vs group rights. Those aren't really the issue here on a > mailing list. They are, in fact, the ONLY issues. The mailing list exists to serve the group. That is its purpose. If it can not serve the group, then it should be discontinued. You vest ownership of the list in its participants. This is an invalid thing to do. The ownership of the list rests with the group. > The real issue, which you dodge daily, is the maturity > level it takes to ignore something you don't like. You won't address > this because it is in the realm of emotion, psychology, and > spirituality...fields with which you are most empirically unfamiliar > with despite your assertions that these can be reduced to simple > mathematical problems. I have responseded to a single troll message. I did so to belittle the troll. I did this as a means of demonstrating to the group that I in fact did not support the statements of the troll. Further, I did it in a way that acknowledged only the existance of the posting itself, rather than acknowledging the content which the troll wished me to acknowledge. I have, further, repeatedly responded to your argument about the "maturity level it takes to ignore something you don't like". I have done so by pointing out that I prefer the participation of immature, by your definition of "mature", contributors to the participation of trolls. You have repeatedly pointed out that you do not value participation of people who do not meet your criterion for "maturity". I have pointed out that it does not *matter* to the community what you, personally, value, what matters to the community is what the *community* values. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 12 17:48: 6 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1B3737B400 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 17:48:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8E1E43E84 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 17:47:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8D0lK162048; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 17:47:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209130047.g8D0lK162048@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , Giorgos Keramidas , Joshua Lee , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 17:47:15 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: ... >> >> > Life is a local increase in order, by definition. >> >> >> >> I don't know about that, I've seen the floor of a stock exchange or >> >> a busy park with lots of kids. That doesn't look like order to me. >> > >> > The stock market is not alive, the people are. >> >> Read carefully, oh admonisher of careful reading. I said "the floor >> of a stock exchage". > > "the floor of the stock exchange" isn't alive, either, the people are. > > Before you escalate, let me generalize my statement for you. > so that you will not feel compelled to do it for me: your > examples are not agregate entities which themselves are > representative of an instance of a life form. You didn't specify the plurality or singularity of your reference to "life" in your original statement. Attempting to move to the singular form now, once the misunderstanding is done, can only be your attempt to demonstrate superiorty even in the absence of such a contest. >> >> Never mind that verifying this is close to impossible, would you >> >> like to tell me just how you learned everyone's presumptions without >> >> first making a bunch of your own? ;) >> > >> > I didn't make a generalization, so your statement is incorrect. >> >> My statement was a question, so your attempted refutation is >> non-sequitor. > > My refutation was of the statement prior to the conjunctive comma. Thus ignoring anything after it. >> Note the use of a question mark. ;) > > Note your use of a conjunctive comma, attempting to force me to > accept your premise by responding either positively or negatively > to your question. Read carefully. The first two words of the statement were "Never mind". This generally means you ignore the statement. >> I think it demonstrates incredible arrogance, to say you can >> act but you don't. It certainly isn't tolerance. > > I posted the calculus of non-repudiation which could be implemented; And this is relevant to anything but your arrogance because...? > if you have a problem with its logic, by all means, critique it. That's walking into your arena with your assumptions and trying to find fault. While my own arrogance appreciates the temptation, the focus of the original topic is lost. Oh, the original topic? Yes... ;) You refuse to deal with the assertion that it is common sense to ignore something you don't like, citing a bunch of mathematical hogwash instead of using simple words to explain your position as to why this is not true. We aren't talking about Schelling points, it's irrelevant to consider game theory, try demonstrating your own principles by explaining in simple terms why you won't deal with this one issue. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< Man no sooner discovers a new intelligence than he tries to involve it in his own stupidity. --- Jacques-Yves Cousteau To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 12 18: 3:59 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65CA537B400 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 18:03:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB95343E42 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 18:03:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8D13n162137; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 18:03:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209130103.g8D13n162137@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: Joshua Lee , nwestfal@directvinternet.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 18:03:44 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> > No, you are a Luddite if you suggest elevation of individual >> > rights over those of the group, to a point which would result >> > in the desctruction of the group AND the group whose destruction >> > is under discussion is one which promotes technological change. > [ ... ] >> BTW, I'm not suggesting nor have I ever suggested anything about >> individual vs group rights. Those aren't really the issue here on a >> mailing list. > > They are, in fact, the ONLY issues. Hardly. We will have to agree to disagree with that one. > The mailing list exists to serve the group. That is its purpose. I disagree. The mailing list exists to enable communication between parties interested in the topic that the list serves. "Serving the group" implies it does or can do more than this. >> The real issue, which you dodge daily, is the maturity >> level it takes to ignore something you don't like. You won't address >> this because it is in the realm of emotion, psychology, and >> spirituality...fields with which you are most empirically unfamiliar >> with despite your assertions that these can be reduced to simple >> mathematical problems. > > I have responseded to a single troll message. This goes directly counter to what I suggested. Ok. > I did so to belittle the troll. I did this as a means of > demonstrating to the group that I in fact did not support the > statements of the troll. But by responding, you gave the troll a small percentage of your time, and you implicitly acknolwedge the troll's existance, granting that troll beingness for the duration of your response. This is not "ignoring the troll". ;) > Further, I did it in a way that acknowledged only the existance of > the posting itself, rather than acknowledging the content which the > troll wished me to acknowledge. Regardless, you still gave some acknowledgement of existence. This only incentivizes the troll further. > I have, further, repeatedly responded to your argument about the > "maturity level it takes to ignore something you don't like". I > have done so by pointing out that I prefer the participation of > immature, by your definition of "mature", contributors to the > participation of trolls. At last. We see that it is your "preference" and not some "moral imperative" or "deduced axiom of behaivor". > You have repeatedly pointed out that you do not value participation > of people who do not meet your criterion for "maturity". Yes, this is my preference. > I have pointed out that it does not *matter* to the community > what you, personally, value, what matters to the community is > what the *community* values. This all brings back the very first posting I made: > To see trolls as a bad thing is to ignore what brings communities > together in the first place. I wasn't worried about what anyone values, nor is this a central component to my assertion that "ignoring them if you don't like them" is a "self-aware" way to be. This entire conversation is analogous to the following short skit: Dave: Look at that shooting star Terry: The technical term for shooting star is either "meteor" or "comet" depending on what the actual composition is. Besides, those objects cause damage and as such, we must shun them. Dave: Eh? The word I used was just fine for conveying what I saw. Oh look, you missed the event. You don't find those events meaningful? Terry: Meaning is only relevant to the mathematical concept of Schelling points. You should use words in accordance with their proper dictionary definition (Oxford is the one I use). What event? You have to first prove an event occured before I will consider that one actually existed. Meteors are horrible things and anyone taking pleasure in them is a luddite. =) ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man. -- Mark Twain To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 12 18:46:33 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17CF637B400 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 18:46:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net (harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.12]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8708D43E77 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 18:46:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0362.cvx22-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.199.107] helo=mindspring.com) by harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17pfXG-0006hN-00; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 18:46:19 -0700 Message-ID: <3D814298.6E3D3675@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 18:42:48 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Joshua Lee , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020912143905.L69462-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > The mathematical formalism of symbolic logic. > > Now you are contradicting what you said earlier. You said that > a person *can't* evaluate their reason against an objective > standard. Which is it? A person can't evaluate *their* reason against an objective standard; they can, however, evaluate *another person's* reason against a subjective, yet *consensus*, standard. > > > > "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts". > > > > > > Yes it is. But it is *your* premises that preclude the possibility > > > that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. > > > > No it doesn't. Look up the word "emergent", and tell me that > > again, without being disingenuous. > > Just admit that your clinging to the concept of "emergence" is a faith > commitment. Just once! Or show how it is possible given your > naturalism. Because it's not directly based on faith. In the limit, it reduces to an argument based on three of the things which I hold to be axioms. You could call each of these "items of faith". But you must go through many steps to work back to those. Here. Let me help you. One of them is "the external universe exits independently of my perception of it". > > > I'm not arguing that the whole is less than the sum of its parts. > > > I'm arguing that *your* premises lead to that conclusion. > > > > Well, you are wrong. My premises lead to emergent properties > > and self-organization and the Anthropic Principle and Mach's > > Hypothesis. > > No, your premises *are* those things. No, they aren't. They *lead* to those things. Just because *you* don't know why you hold certain things to be true, doesn't mean that I don't know why *I* hold certain things to be true. > > Then do us the favor of not insulting our intelligence by using > > rhetorical techniques which you know to be deceitful. > > Why don't *you* do us all a favor and present a proper refutation > instead of just asserting that my arguments are unsound? OK. I refute your right to appeal to divine authority to refute evolutionary theory. Please demonstrate: 1) That God exists 2) That the Bible is, in fact, the revealed Word of God 3) That the contradictions in the Bible are the result of transcription errors 4) That the meaning of the statements which you use in support of your arguments are *not* the result of transcription errors, the existance of which you will have proven in step #3. > > > If you think that human reason can be accounted for by the action of > > > the laws of physics on matter, you need to show how human reason > > > does not reduce to determinism. > > > > No, I do not. I merely need to show that human reason can be > > accounted for by the action of the laws of physics on matter. > > Which you *have not done*. I have referenced work which I am also capable of deriving. I have avoided referencing work which I'm not capable of recreating, since I want to avoid an appeal to authroity argument. Are you going to insist that I rewrite the text of the books I have referenced, on the basis of calculation carried out on the mailing list, in order to be able to use the references? > > I don't have to show a thing about determinism. Determinism is > > irrelvant. It's only you who holds free will to be sacrosanct, > > and thus part and parcel with human reason: not me. > > Are you, or are you not a determinist? I am not a determinist. Nor am I, or have I ever been, a member of the Communist Party, Senator McCarthy. > > If you want to drag determinism into this, then you need to prove > > that it's even relevant to the discussion. > > I did. The reductio showed that your presuppositions lead to > determinism. No, It did not. It failed to account for Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which permits a mechanistic universe to have indeterminate outcomes to macro events by means of quantum coupling. > All the ranting and raving about my reductio being > unsound is only that, ranting and raving. No, it's physics, which we can accurately utilize to predict attributes of matter, such as the color of a compound before we create it. > > You *assume* that the laws of physics are a clockwork, and that > > therefore if human reason *can* be accounted for by the action of > > the laws of physics on matter, that this contradicts *your* > > doctrine. > > I think I see why you object so vehemently to the reductio. It's > because you agree with the reductio's conclusion. You don't think > determinism is absurd at all? If that's the case, why didn't you > just say that? I disagree that the laws of physics result in a clockwork universe. I disagree with your conclusion, because the assumptions you put into it -- that if the universe is *only* governed by the laws of physics, it *must* be a clockwork -- does not follow. The universe can *both* be governed *only* by the laws of physics, yet *still* not be a clockwork. > > > Given your premises, there is no way you can know whether *your* > > > reason is correct and that other people's reasoning is fallacious. > > > > I can. I can test whether or not one or the other is more predictive. > > What good would that do? On your view there would be no way to correct > one's own reasoning, since it is hardwired into the system. That really depends on whether or not you are willing to discard axioms, when someone proves to you, on the basis of your own internal rules, that the resulting internal model of the universe does not match observation, or that your model has an internally invisible, yet externally visible, inconsistency. > > > It may be fallacious according to the internal laws of logic that > > > are pre-programmed in *your* head, but that wouldn't prove anything, > > > since you don't know that what is in your head is what is in anybody > > > else's. > > > > Yes, actually, I do know. I rather expect that the mathematics > > necessary to prove this is beyond you, however. > > Oh, that's convenient. No, it's a pain in the ass, because without that, you are going to blindly cling to your model because it's all you understand. > > You don't know whether I believe this is "a random chance universe" > > or not. You only know that I have argued for evolution, and certain > > aspects of the universe which you have taken, inaappropriately, to > > mean that I believe the universe is a clockwork, which is not a > > conclusion you can legitimately draw from my statements. > > *You* are the one who brought up randomness as an out for saving > reason. No. I merely stated that it was emergent. Not that there was randomness from which it emerges. It was your posting of 29 Aug 2002 that brought in "random". > I assumed it based on your own appeal to it. If you would > clearly outline exactly what it is that you *do* believe, it would > certainly clarify things a bit. If I were to delineate all my axioms, and you shared all of them, you would not automatically share all my conclusions. I would have to demonstrate the derivation of all intermediate ideas, until I got to, as an example, evolution, so that I could demonstrate that it followed from my -- and your -- axiomatic basis. I would need to "show my work". For this to be successful, you would have to already understand your own axiomatic basis, and you would need to address every single intermediate contradiction, through application of self examination. Maybe there's a shortcut. If there is, I don't know it. > Of course, then you are borrowing (again) from *my* worldview. I do not need to borrow from your worldview. I have come to many conclusions which happen to coincide with social consensus, including certain aspects of Biblical and Judeo-Christian doctrine. I will say that society is *very lucky* my derivations of principle match its own to such a high degree. Personally, I would argue "evolutionary pressure resulting in concordance", rather than "luck". 8-). I will tell you that I do not act as I act out of fear, and that I think there are very few people who can honestly say that. > Ironically, this is exactly the state that the apostle Paul says > in Romans 1 that unbelievers are in. They willfully *suppress* the > truth about God and themselves in unrighteousness. 8-) Faith requires that you not have proof, but believe anyway. Say you could successfully derive all of the observable universe from a set of axioms which did not include a belief in God. And say further, that God was not part of the observable universe, by which I mean that you could not prove God's existance from an axiomatic basis that did not include the existance of God as an axiom. Now say you believed in God anyway. THAT would be faith. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 12 19: 1:43 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F2BA37B400 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 19:01:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net (swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.123]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2C0A43E72 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 19:01:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0362.cvx22-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.199.107] helo=mindspring.com) by swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17pfly-0001KN-00; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 19:01:31 -0700 Message-ID: <3D814650.C22F6ED8@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 18:58:40 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: "Neal E. Westfall" , Giorgos Keramidas , Joshua Lee , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200209130047.g8D0lK162048@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > You didn't specify the plurality or singularity of your reference > to "life" in your original statement. Attempting to move to the > singular form now, once the misunderstanding is done, can only > be your attempt to demonstrate superiorty even in the absence of > such a contest. "the floor of the stock exchange" isn't alive, the people standing on it are. > > My refutation was of the statement prior to the conjunctive comma. > > Thus ignoring anything after it. Yes; that's how conjunctive statements work: statement_1 && statement_2 There's no need to evaluate statement_2, if statement_1 is false, even if statement_2 does a "read". > >> I think it demonstrates incredible arrogance, to say you can > >> act but you don't. It certainly isn't tolerance. > > > > I posted the calculus of non-repudiation which could be implemented; > > And this is relevant to anything but your arrogance because...? It proves that it is not arrogance to believe that I can act. Would you have preferred that I stated that you thinking it doesn't make it true? > You refuse to deal with the assertion that it is common sense to > ignore something you don't like, citing a bunch of mathematical > hogwash instead of using simple words to explain your position as to > why this is not true. On the contrary. I agreed with you very early on. I will do so again, so you can quit beating this dead horse: I agree that it is common sense to ignore something you don't like. Now you can agree with a statement of mine: there exist people who can make valuable contributions, but who do not always exhibit common sense. > We aren't talking about Schelling points, it's irrelevant to consider > game theory, try demonstrating your own principles by explaining in > simple terms why you won't deal with this one issue. I have dealt with the issue before, and I have just dealt with the issue yet again. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 12 19:24:13 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C01B37B400 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 19:24:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net (avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 920DE43E3B for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 19:24:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0362.cvx22-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.199.107] helo=mindspring.com) by avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17pg7n-0006IL-00; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 19:24:03 -0700 Message-ID: <3D814B8F.FC2DB77C@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 19:21:03 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: Joshua Lee , nwestfal@directvinternet.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200209130103.g8D13n162137@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > > The mailing list exists to serve the group. That is its purpose. > > I disagree. The mailing list exists to enable communication between > parties interested in the topic that the list serves. "Serving the > group" implies it does or can do more than this. Mailing lists on equipment *I* own exist to serve *me*. If *I* am a group, then mailing lists on equipment the group owns exist to serve *the group*. > > I have responseded to a single troll message. > > This goes directly counter to what I suggested. Ok. Failure to follow your advice is hardly damning. 8-). > > I did so to belittle the troll. I did this as a means of > > demonstrating to the group that I in fact did not support the > > statements of the troll. > > But by responding, you gave the troll a small percentage of your time, > and you implicitly acknolwedge the troll's existance, granting that > troll beingness for the duration of your response. This is not > "ignoring the troll". ;) Nevertheless, it served me to do it. > > Further, I did it in a way that acknowledged only the existance of > > the posting itself, rather than acknowledging the content which the > > troll wished me to acknowledge. > > Regardless, you still gave some acknowledgement of existence. This > only incentivizes the troll further. Nevertheless, it served me to do it. > > I have, further, repeatedly responded to your argument about the > > "maturity level it takes to ignore something you don't like". I > > have done so by pointing out that I prefer the participation of > > immature, by your definition of "mature", contributors to the > > participation of trolls. > > At last. We see that it is your "preference" and not some "moral > imperative" or "deduced axiom of behaivor". My preference in this case derives from a definition of the group which the mailing list serves, said group being exclusive of trolls, by definition. It is not merely a product of my own desires. > > You have repeatedly pointed out that you do not value participation > > of people who do not meet your criterion for "maturity". > > Yes, this is my preference. However, this is at odds to the groups goals, which is participation in the project. The mailing list is an instrumentality of the project. It does not exist outside the context of the project, in that it is hosted on a mail server belonging to the project. > > I have pointed out that it does not *matter* to the community > > what you, personally, value, what matters to the community is > > what the *community* values. > > This all brings back the very first posting I made: > > > To see trolls as a bad thing is to ignore what brings communities > > together in the first place. Since you want do deperately to be asked... What brings communities together in the first place? How does seeing trolls as a bad thing ignore this? > This entire conversation is analogous to the following short skit: > > Dave: Look at that shooting star Terry: We need an asteroid defense system Dave: But getting smacked by an asteroid is a good thing! Terry: Are you out of your freaking gourd? Dave: You get to learn about celestial events close up! Terry: I'd rather keep on living, thanks! Dave: But you not only learn about celestial events close up, if you are one of the luck one percent of survivors in the aftermath, you can study chunks of asteroid close up, and learn about their composition, without having to launch a sample-and-return-probe! Terry: In the period of time between the impact, and the time that all food crops die because of the dust cloud it kicked up! Dave: Exactly! Won't that knowledge be worth a little asteroid?!? Terry: Uh, I value the other 99% of the population of the planet! Dave: You are a fool to value them. If they were worth valueuing, they wouldn't have been standing where the rocks landed! Why destroy all possible impactors, just because you want to save a few people? Terry: Uh, maybe I can explain it this way... 100 minus 99 is less than 100. Neal: God created asteroids! They didn't evolve! None dare critise them! Terry: Uh, Neal, we don't need asteroids landing on our heads... Neal: Nonsense! If one lands on your head, that's God's will in action! Are you trying to say that it wasn't God who made all those people?!? Terry: Can't I have just a *little* asteroid defense system? Dave: No! [Holds up "Terry unfair to asteroids" sign] Neal: No! [Holds up "Terry defies God's will!" sign] ... -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 12 20:18:48 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D050A37B400 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 20:18:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F7BE43E72 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 20:18:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8D3Ic163118; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 20:18:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209130318.g8D3Ic163118@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: Joshua Lee , nwestfal@directvinternet.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 20:18:33 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> > The mailing list exists to serve the group. That is its purpose. >> >> I disagree. The mailing list exists to enable communication between >> parties interested in the topic that the list serves. "Serving the >> group" implies it does or can do more than this. > > Mailing lists on equipment *I* own exist to serve *me*. > > If *I* am a group, then mailing lists on equipment the group > owns exist to serve *the group*. So a mailing list will bring you tea and crumpets if you but ring a bell? >> > I have responseded to a single troll message. >> >> This goes directly counter to what I suggested. Ok. > > Failure to follow your advice is hardly damning. 8-). I never said it was damning. Those are your words. ;) >> > I did so to belittle the troll. I did this as a means of >> > demonstrating to the group that I in fact did not support the >> > statements of the troll. >> >> But by responding, you gave the troll a small percentage of your time, >> and you implicitly acknolwedge the troll's existance, granting that >> troll beingness for the duration of your response. This is not >> "ignoring the troll". ;) > > Nevertheless, it served me to do it. And still you give the troll power. >> > Further, I did it in a way that acknowledged only the existance of >> > the posting itself, rather than acknowledging the content which the >> > troll wished me to acknowledge. >> >> Regardless, you still gave some acknowledgement of existence. This >> only incentivizes the troll further. > Nevertheless, it served me to do it. And still you give the troll power. >> > I have, further, repeatedly responded to your argument about the >> > "maturity level it takes to ignore something you don't like". I >> > have done so by pointing out that I prefer the participation of >> > immature, by your definition of "mature", contributors to the >> > participation of trolls. >> >> At last. We see that it is your "preference" and not some "moral >> imperative" or "deduced axiom of behaivor". > > My preference in this case derives from a definition of the group > which the mailing list serves, said group being exclusive of trolls, > by definition. > > It is not merely a product of my own desires. What else could a "preference" be? >> > You have repeatedly pointed out that you do not value participation >> > of people who do not meet your criterion for "maturity". >> >> Yes, this is my preference. > > However, this is at odds to the groups goals, which is participation > in the project. I'm not so sure. If someone who contributes to the project can't ignore a simple troll, are they mature enough to take the inevitable criticism of their work, however constructive? >> > I have pointed out that it does not *matter* to the community >> > what you, personally, value, what matters to the community is >> > what the *community* values. >> >> This all brings back the very first posting I made: >> >> > To see trolls as a bad thing is to ignore what brings communities >> > together in the first place. > > Since you want do deperately to be asked... Actually I don't. > What brings communities together in the first place? > How does seeing trolls as a bad thing ignore this? I don't think you are ready for this discussion. >> This entire conversation is analogous to the following short skit: >> >> Dave: Look at that shooting star > > Terry: We need an asteroid defense system Dave: For such small asteroids? They aren't worth thinking about, except as a thing of beauty. Terry: Chances are, one day a big one will come. All asteroids share the same Schelling point, therefore we have to defend against all sizes with the same mechansim. Remember, the simplest devices are the best ones. Dave: You'd take shooting stars away from the people who want to see them just because a big one MIGHT hit the planet? Are you aware of the odds of this happening? Terry: Thinking of odds is not the correct way to think. I'm sure you've heard of discrete pleonastic pan-rational mathematical asteroid prediction? Dave: Say what? Terry: It is possible to predict that, at some future deterministic point, given that all elliptic curves have modular form, and deriving from a known set of assumptions that only the inner scientist acolytes know, that a life-threatening asteroid WILL hit the planet. Dave: Ok so when would that be? Terry: Well we don't know exactly, that is why we have to build our defense system. Dave: But that will remove the ability for everyone to see shooting stars! Terry: If you want shooting stars, go to a local planetarium where they are allowed to congregate. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< A Law of Computer Programming: Make it possible for programmers to write in English and you will find the programmers cannot write in English. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 12 21:30:14 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BFC737B401 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 21:30:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from server2.highperformance.net (ip30.gte4.rb1.bel.nwlink.com [209.20.215.30]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ED1743EAA for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 21:30:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jcwells1@highperformance.net) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by server2.highperformance.net (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g8D4U0Id090877 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 21:30:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jcwells1@highperformance.net) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 21:30:00 -0700 (PDT) From: "Jason C. Wells" X-X-Sender: jcw@server2.highperformance.net To: FreeBSD-chat Subject: LDAP, Schema, and OIDs Message-ID: <20020912211919.B90870-100000@server2.highperformance.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org I am just learning about LDAP. I read about warnings not to create fictitious OIDs and not to modify default schema files. Why are OIDs globalized? Who cares what anyone else uses for OIDs in their databases? I have no care if FreeBSD uses a certain OID for an attribute. I have no care if FreeBSD uses the same OID as I do for an attribute. Just like I don't care if jcwells1@freebsd.org also exists. In fact, I think I might prefer to not use schema that are given by default. (names like "o" are just stupid, i don't want to save a byte, i want to be able to read the data) I would prefer to not have to contact IANA to give me a number. These things are probably this way for a reason. What is the reason? Thanks, Jason C. Wells To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 13 5:15: 7 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 690CF37B400 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 05:15:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vienna9.his.com (vienna9.his.com [216.200.68.14]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A52043E4A for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 05:15:01 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Received: from [146.106.12.76] (root@[127.0.0.1]) by vienna9.his.com (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id g8DCEi313216; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 08:14:46 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20020911232728.GA24843@peitho.fxp.org> References: <20020911232728.GA24843@peitho.fxp.org> X-Grok: +++ath X-WebTV-Stationery: Standard; BGColor=black; TextColor=black Reply-By: Wed, 1 Jan 1984 12:34:56 +0100 Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 13:43:44 +0200 To: Bob Bomar From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: Windows as opposed to Other OS's Cc: chat@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At 7:27 PM -0400 2002/09/11, Bob Bomar wrote: > I am looking to gather information on how and why people > choose an OS. I am also looking to gather information on > why other OS's were not choosen. I've been using Apple computers since around 1982. They are what we had at my high school. I've been a Mac fan since late December 1983, when I got to see an early prototype for the original 128k Mac -- five minutes playing with MacPaint and MacWrite was all it took to convince me that this is the kind of human interface that would be used for all computers in the future. In the summer of 1984, my parents bought an Apple ][+ for me to have at home. I knew what was going to be the future of human-computer interaction, but it was not yet available to me. In the fall of 1984, I got my first Unix account -- nothing like the Mac, but provided the kind of power you couldn't get with Apple ][, ][+, or //e computers, much less PCs running MS-DOS, etc.... Sometime around 1998 (I think), I bought a Mac SE with dual FDHD floppy drives. I had been using Macs at the Library computer center for a couple of years, but this is the first one that I owned myself. Sometime around 1990, I recall seeing and playing with a NeXT cube for the first time. Again, five minutes of playing with it convinced me that this was the wave of the future -- for Unix, this time. I've been waiting ever since then for a computer that combined the full power of Unix with the ease-of-use of the Macintosh -- NeXT had a good UI, but it wasn't Macintosh. I remember the abomination called A/UX. I remember MachTen -- I want my MacOS running under Unix, not the other way around. I remember when Apple bought NeXT, and I was in heaven. I eagerly awaited Rhapsody. I waited for Blue Box. I saw MacOS X Server come. I watched MacOS X arrive, and still I waited -- 10.0.4 was the first semi-useful version (according to all reports), and that's when I tried it myself. I quickly made MacOS X my primary (and now almost exclusive) OS, and I am working on backing up my system so that I can make a clean install of MacOS X 10.2, a.k.a. "Jaguar". For me, MacOS X offers the full power of Unix, with a proper Macintosh UI, access to my extensive archive of Macintosh programs (Canvas 1.04m still runs, albeit under Classic), and access to the other desktop programs I care about -- I prefer WordPerfect to Word, but I did buy the Microsoft Office package for MacOS X, so I can still do PowerPoint, etc.... If necessary, I can even install the VirtualPC software that I bought (but which has not yet been taken out of the shrink-wrap), and run real honest-to-goodness PC programs (if that were a life-or-death requirement). In other words, it really is the best of both worlds. For the most part, I don't have to deal with Microsoft BS. I have a suitable UI, and the full power of Unix. All on my PowerBook G3 "Pismo" laptop, with 1GB of RAM, a 48GB hard drive, and built-in 802.11b wireless networking. > In my opinion, as a server, FreeBSD is a great choice. Yup. Even today, I would not use MacOS X as a server. > It is fast, reliable, and very well built. But as a > desktop choice, it leaves a little to be desired. As do all *nix OSes, save possibly MacOS X. > Windows, IMHO will remain a main desktop choice for > a long while, For other people, perhaps. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 13 5:31:43 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01C8A37B400 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 05:31:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smartie.xs4all.nl (smartie.xs4all.nl [213.84.1.157]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1997343E6A for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 05:31:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from martijn@smartie.xs4all.nl) Received: from sillywalks.org (dhcp156.in-10.sillywalks.org [192.168.10.156]) by smartie.xs4all.nl (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id g8DCVWQQ005188; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 14:31:32 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from martijn@sillywalks.org) Message-ID: <3D81DAA4.4020806@sillywalks.org> Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 14:31:32 +0200 From: Martijn Pronk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Jason C. Wells" Cc: FreeBSD-chat Subject: Re: LDAP, Schema, and OIDs References: <20020912211919.B90870-100000@server2.highperformance.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.6 required=5.0 tests=QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,SPAM_PHRASE_01_02,USER_AGENT, USER_AGENT_MOZILLA_UA,X_ACCEPT_LANG version=2.41 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Hi Jason, Jason C. Wells wrote: > I am just learning about LDAP. I read about warnings not to create > fictitious OIDs and not to modify default schema files. > > Why are OIDs globalized? > > Who cares what anyone else uses for OIDs in their databases? > > I have no care if FreeBSD uses a certain OID for an attribute. I have no > care if FreeBSD uses the same OID as I do for an attribute. Just like I > don't care if jcwells1@freebsd.org also exists. I think you have not a complete understanding of what an OID is. An OID describes what a certain value is, it tells the LDAP server and client how to use a value. An oid looks in fact like an MIB in the SNMP protocol. If you look at the schema files delivered with OpenLDAP you'll see that a certail ObjectClass (like InetOrgPerson) describes which fields are allowed and the fields are also defined in these shema files, like a field called cn which is defined as a string of text (name). If you need to define a field that is not present in any of the other (ready) available ObjectClasses then you can request an OID. (OIDs are centrally registered, just like MIBs with SNMP). > In fact, I think I might prefer to not use schema that are given by > default. (names like "o" are just stupid, i don't want to save a byte, i > want to be able to read the data) I would prefer to not have to > contact IANA to give me a number. You can define a new ObjectClass which renames this field, AFAIK. I guess some people on this list can tell you lots more on LDAP. (Terry Lambert?) HTH, Martijn To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 13 6:39: 2 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D564237B400 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 06:38:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net (avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71F6043E75 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 06:38:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0166.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.166] helo=mindspring.com) by avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17pqeQ-0000B2-00; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 06:38:27 -0700 Message-ID: <3D81EA13.B421E11D@mindspring.com> Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 06:37:23 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: Joshua Lee , nwestfal@directvinternet.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <200209130318.g8D3Ic163118@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > > Mailing lists on equipment *I* own exist to serve *me*. > > > > If *I* am a group, then mailing lists on equipment the group > > owns exist to serve *the group*. > > So a mailing list will bring you tea and crumpets if you but ring a > bell? Refute the statement or don't refute the statement. > >> But by responding, you gave the troll a small percentage of your time, > >> and you implicitly acknolwedge the troll's existance, granting that > >> troll beingness for the duration of your response. This is not > >> "ignoring the troll". ;) > > > > Nevertheless, it served me to do it. > > And still you give the troll power. Clearly, you're not a chess player. > >> > Further, I did it in a way that acknowledged only the existance of > >> > the posting itself, rather than acknowledging the content which the > >> > troll wished me to acknowledge. > >> > >> Regardless, you still gave some acknowledgement of existence. This > >> only incentivizes the troll further. > > > Nevertheless, it served me to do it. > > And still you give the troll power. Clearly, you're not a chess player. > >> > I have, further, repeatedly responded to your argument about the > >> > "maturity level it takes to ignore something you don't like". I > >> > have done so by pointing out that I prefer the participation of > >> > immature, by your definition of "mature", contributors to the > >> > participation of trolls. > >> > >> At last. We see that it is your "preference" and not some "moral > >> imperative" or "deduced axiom of behaivor". > > > > My preference in this case derives from a definition of the group > > which the mailing list serves, said group being exclusive of trolls, > > by definition. > > > > It is not merely a product of my own desires. > > What else could a "preference" be? An immune response. > >> > You have repeatedly pointed out that you do not value participation > >> > of people who do not meet your criterion for "maturity". > >> > >> Yes, this is my preference. > > > > However, this is at odds to the groups goals, which is participation > > in the project. > > I'm not so sure. If someone who contributes to the project can't > ignore a simple troll, are they mature enough to take the inevitable > criticism of their work, however constructive? Why don't we see, by getting rid of the trolls, and loowing them to try, instead of assuming things about them from fact not in evidence? The worst case failure scenario is that they contribute no more than the trolls contribute, which is a net zero value proposition. > > What brings communities together in the first place? > > How does seeing trolls as a bad thing ignore this? > > I don't think you are ready for this discussion. Whether I am "ready" for it or not, here it is. > >> This entire conversation is analogous to the following short skit: > >> > >> Dave: Look at that shooting star > > > > Terry: We need an asteroid defense system > > Dave: For such small asteroids? They aren't worth thinking about, > except as a thing of beauty. Terry: No. The decision of the system will be based on whether the astroids will impact the surface, not whether or not they will merely impact the atmosphere. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 13 7:39:30 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35DAD37B400 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 07:39:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from proxy.centtech.com (moat.centtech.com [207.200.51.10]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C5E043E42 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 07:39:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from anderson@centtech.com) Received: from sprint.centtech.com (sprint.centtech.com [10.177.173.31]) by proxy.centtech.com (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8DEdQk25877 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 09:39:26 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by sprint.centtech.com (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) id g8DEdQV08806 for freebsd-chat@freebsd.org; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 09:39:26 -0500 (CDT) Received: from centtech.com (electron [204.177.173.173]) by sprint.centtech.com (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8DEdNo08799 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 09:39:23 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <3D81F87C.4030908@centtech.com> Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 09:38:52 -0500 From: Eric Anderson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i386; en-US; rv:1.0rc2) Gecko/20020513 Netscape/7.0b1 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Cloning drives and FreeBSD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Ok, so I got a new hard drive (bigger of course) for my notebook harddrive. I thought it would be swift to clone (using Ghost) my smaller hd to my larger drive. This is where I am stuck.. My bigger drive won't boot anymore - evidently the drive mappings changed, and the boot manager doesn't know how to read it anymore. How am I supposed to fix this? Anyone know any tricks? I realy don't want to have to rebuild my whole setup. Eric -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Eric Anderson Systems Administrator Centaur Technology The moon may be smaller than Earth, but it's further away. ------------------------------------------------------------------ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 13 7:55:13 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F1AC37B413 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 07:55:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net (swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.123]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B480243E88 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 07:55:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0166.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.166] helo=mindspring.com) by swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17prqK-0006is-00; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 07:54:48 -0700 Message-ID: <3D81FBED.8FBD1FFC@mindspring.com> Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 07:53:33 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Jason C. Wells" Cc: FreeBSD-chat Subject: Re: LDAP, Schema, and OIDs References: <20020912211919.B90870-100000@server2.highperformance.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "Jason C. Wells" wrote: > I am just learning about LDAP. I read about warnings not to create > fictitious OIDs and not to modify default schema files. > > Why are OIDs globalized? > > Who cares what anyone else uses for OIDs in their databases? > > I have no care if FreeBSD uses a certain OID for an attribute. I have no > care if FreeBSD uses the same OID as I do for an attribute. Just like I > don't care if jcwells1@freebsd.org also exists. > > In fact, I think I might prefer to not use schema that are given by > default. (names like "o" are just stupid, i don't want to save a byte, i > want to be able to read the data) I would prefer to not have to > contact IANA to give me a number. > > These things are probably this way for a reason. What is the reason? OIDs for LDAP are the same as OIDs for SNMP. They are globally allocated out of an organizational OID space; you can apply for a number assignment within this space at: http://www.iana.org/cgi-bin/enterprise.pl The main reason that they are globalized is the same reason that the DNS is globalized. The are a set of identifiers for a hierarchical database. There is also the possibility of two organizations executing a merger, which results in them becoming one organization. Can you imagine the chaos of trying to integrate two personnel databases, if objects in those databases had the same OIDs? In practice, you can probably grab an obsolete OID out of: http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers From: Prefix: iso.org.dod.internet.experimental (1.3.6.1.3.) And then add 4 random roots from 1-256, to get a top level oid for your private use that only as a one in 2^32 chance of stomping someone elses, e.g.: 1.3.6.1.3.77.[1-255].[1-255].[1-255].[1-255] Which is "stomp the rtpmib experimental OID, and add a tree four down from the top, in the hope of avoiding collisions". Unfortunately, there isn't a "private use area" enterprise that has been defined under: 1.3.6.1 internet If you want, you could write an RFC; it would be pretty trivial to standardize an "Assigned IP address based MIB" that would let you have, say (X would be the assigned space): 1.3.6.1.X. IP address specific OIDs 1.3.6.1.X.0. Reserved 1.3.6.1.X.1. IPv4 1.3.6.1.X.1.0. Reserved 1.3.6.1.X.1.1. IPv4 address tupple follows 1.3.6.1.X.2. IPv6 1.3.6.1.X.2.0. Reserved 1.3.6.1.X.2.1. IPv6 address tupple follows With, e.g.: 1.3.6.1.X.1.1.192.168.0.1. OID prefix for this IPv4 host If you wanted to do this, I would support you through the IETF process, if you needed it, or even help you coauthor the RFC, in order to get an "X" assigned, and to get the two subelement numbers following it into the control of IANA. Note that this would only technically work with static IP address assignments... maybe we could define a 1.3.6.1.X.3. that used the 6 element MAC address tuple, instead... ;^). I'd want a mention in the text, in any case... -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 13 10:12:19 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B5D137B400 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 10:12:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D11443E3B for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 10:12:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g8DHAOGd023045; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 10:10:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g8DHALuj023042; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 10:10:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 10:10:21 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Terry Lambert Cc: Lawrence Sica , Giorgos Keramidas , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <3D812D58.D30609F1@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20020913093425.K22737-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > [ ... ] > > > Would you quit pulling the word "random" out of your butt? > > > Thanks. > > > > You are the one who tried to justify human reason by introducing > > randomness. If you are dropping that belief, I won't talk about > > it anymore. > > On the contrary; you are using your own assumptions to justify your > own conclusions. > > The first use of the word "random" in this thread was in your > posting of 29 August 2002, as an adjective to describe your > *opinion* of a universe which did not attribute a continuing > requirement for uniformity (a requirement which you also pulled > out of thin air) to a creator. > > Here is the reference: > > Who used the word first is irrelevent. I made an assumption that you believe in a random chance universe. You confirmed that assumption when you said, and I quote: > So randomness is supernatural? You conclusion is invalid, if > naturalistic principles permit randomness. The reference where *you* made this appeal is: And now you are denying that you believe in a random chance universe. So which is it? And if you don't, why did you make an appeal to it in order to save rationality? > [ ... ] > > Well if this isn't the pot calling the kettle black! You haven't > > done anything to show that my reasoning is fallacious other than > > lots of assertions and impugning my understanding. Impugning > > someone's understanding is not a valid argument. Until you can > > show that my reasoning is fallacious there is no basis for > > impugning my understanding at all. > > You have appealed to authority. Et tu! *Everybody* reasons that way. You have, time and again appealed to authorities which agree with you. So what? At least I'm being honest when I make my appeals to authority. *My* appeals to authority are to an authority that is the transcendental preconditions of rationality. *Your* appeals to authority are totally arbitrary, to people who just happen to agree with you. Unless you can show that *your* appeals to authority are not arbitrary and actually prove something, they are not relevent. > You have appealed to a common > belief. Actually I've challenged you to give an account for the beliefs you just take for granted, like your assumption that nature will remain uniform. Every attempt you have made to justify that assumption has begged the question. > You have appealed to common practice. What do you mean by this? You mean that I have questioned people's justification for taking certain things for granted even though their worldview provides no such justification? I'm not appealing to it, I'm questioning whether they have a right to take it for granted given their stated presuppositions. > You have appealed > to indirect consequences. It's called "reducing to absurdity". Anytime you can show that your opponent's position leads to internal contradictions or to intolerable consequences, that position has been refuted. > You've argued from the specific to the > general. No I haven't. > You've generalized. No I haven't. > You've demonstrated circular > reasoning. *All* epistemelogical views are ultimately circular. So what? You've been doing the very same thing in every case where you have attempted to justify your belief that nature is uniform. You've done so when you've appealed to the "emergent" properties of matter. You've arbitrarily assumed that "expedience" is a valid justification for assuming all of these things. *All* reasoning is ultimately circular. > You've proposed false dilemmas. If I have, you have not demonstrated this to be the case. I have no idea to what you are even referring. Please at least give an example, and don't forget to show what options I have excluded. > You've attempted to > create a burden of disproof. No I haven't. > You've engaged in post hoc reasoning. Example? > All in all, you've committed most of the possible logical fallacies > in your arguments. Give me a break, Terry. Unless you can show this to be the case, your assertions are completely without merit. > Mostly, your appeals have been to a common belief which is not, in > fact, shared by everyone else, which you then justify by appealing > to Biblical authority, which you justify by appealing to Divine > authority, which you justify by appealing to Biblical authority. Which belief is that? Free will? It *is* a common belief that people have. Is there some third option that differs from free will and determinism that would show that it is a false dilemma? False dilemmas are only false dilemmas if there is some third option. If there is, what is it? As for Biblical authority, of course my epistemelogical views are circular, as are yours. You can't have a higher authority than your highest authority. The difference between yours and mine is that I have a justification for holding to mine, while you do not. Yours are completely arbitrary. In the nature of the case, a person's presuppositions *must* be self-authenticating, or they are not presuppositions. Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 13 12:10:28 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EBCE37B401 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 12:10:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEBA343E86 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 12:10:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lomifeh@earthlink.net) Received: from bgp586692bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net (bgp586692bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net [68.39.202.147]) by mtaout06.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.8 (built May 13 2002)) with ESMTP id <0H2E00IZP599OG@mtaout06.icomcast.net> for freebsd-chat@freebsd.org; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 15:10:21 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 15:10:21 -0400 From: Lawrence Sica Subject: Re: Cloning drives and FreeBSD In-reply-to: <3D81F87C.4030908@centtech.com> To: Eric Anderson Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Message-id: <72B77635-C74C-11D6-AC2E-000393A335A2@earthlink.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.543) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Friday, September 13, 2002, at 10:38 AM, Eric Anderson wrote: > Ok, so I got a new hard drive (bigger of course) for my notebook > harddrive. I thought it would be swift to clone (using Ghost) my > smaller hd to my larger drive. > > This is where I am stuck.. > > My bigger drive won't boot anymore - evidently the drive mappings > changed, and the boot manager doesn't know how to read it anymore. > How am I supposed to fix this? Anyone know any tricks? I realy don't > want to have to rebuild my whole setup. > What OS? You mentioned ghost so I am assuming its not freebsd.... --Larry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 13 12:22:30 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D200337B400 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 12:22:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98D4643E6E for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 12:22:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g8DJMAGd021354; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 12:22:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g8DJM93n021325; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 12:22:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 12:22:09 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Terry Lambert Cc: Joshua Lee , Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <3D814298.6E3D3675@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20020913101042.K22737-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > > The mathematical formalism of symbolic logic. > > > > Now you are contradicting what you said earlier. You said that > > a person *can't* evaluate their reason against an objective > > standard. Which is it? > > A person can't evaluate *their* reason against an objective > standard; they can, however, evaluate *another person's* reason > against a subjective, yet *consensus*, standard. That is absurd and reduces to subjectivism. If you can't evaluate your own reason against an objective standard, why do you think you can evaluate somebody else's? On your view, there CAN BE NO "consensus" standard. It's all subjective. Moreover, even if you could, why should *anybody* agree to go along with the consensus, if it is all just subjective anyway? How can there *be* a consensus if all everybody has is a subjective standard? > > > > > "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts". > > > > > > > > Yes it is. But it is *your* premises that preclude the possibility > > > > that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. > > > > > > No it doesn't. Look up the word "emergent", and tell me that > > > again, without being disingenuous. > > > > Just admit that your clinging to the concept of "emergence" is a faith > > commitment. Just once! Or show how it is possible given your > > naturalism. > > Because it's not directly based on faith. What is your justification for believing in the uniformity of nature? Every attempt you have made has assumed the uniformity of nature. That's called FAITH. It is also the case with "emergence". You have never even attempted to justify your belief in it, you just restated it over and over. That's called FAITH. > In the limit, it reduces to an argument based on three of the > things which I hold to be axioms. You could call each of these > "items of faith". But you must go through many steps to work > back to those. Here. Let me help you. One of them is "the > external universe exits independently of my perception of it". You can't even justify *this* given your worldview. What justification do you have for believing that the universe exists independently of your perception of it? Remember David Hume? He argued that he was "a bundle of perceptions", but even this begs the question. You have to take it for granted. That's called FAITH. > > > > I'm not arguing that the whole is less than the sum of its parts. > > > > I'm arguing that *your* premises lead to that conclusion. > > > > > > Well, you are wrong. My premises lead to emergent properties > > > and self-organization and the Anthropic Principle and Mach's > > > Hypothesis. > > > > No, your premises *are* those things. > > No, they aren't. They *lead* to those things. Okay, so what are they? What premises lead you to the conclusion that matter has self-emergent properties? Of course you know very well as soon as you state them, I'm going to ask you to give a justification for them. > Just because *you* don't know why you hold certain things to be > true, doesn't mean that I don't know why *I* hold certain things > to be true. I know exactly why I hold certain things to be true, but I don't think you do. I can give you a justification for everything which we all take for granted everyday. I don't think you can, but you are welcome to try. > > > Then do us the favor of not insulting our intelligence by using > > > rhetorical techniques which you know to be deceitful. > > > > Why don't *you* do us all a favor and present a proper refutation > > instead of just asserting that my arguments are unsound? > > OK. > > I refute your right to appeal to divine authority to refute > evolutionary theory. Please demonstrate: I have never appealed to divine authority to refute evolutionary theory. I *have* said that evolutionary theory is impossible given naturalistic assumptions. > 1) That God exists I *have* done this, by showing the impossibility of the contrary. It's called an indirect proof, or a transcendental argument. If the denial of a claim undermines the preconditions of rationality, it is unreasonable to deny that claim. You have yet to refute it with anything other than wild assertions about my reasoning ability. > 2) That the Bible is, in fact, the revealed Word of God In the nature of the case, God's word is self-authenticating. It *must* be this way. How else can God confirm His word, but through His word? Why do you find that to be such a problem. > 3) That the contradictions in the Bible are the result > of transcription errors What I'm saying is that a worldview must be evaluated for internal consistency. The doctrine of infallibility allows for the possibility of transcription errors. Why must every apparent contradiction be proven to *your* satisfaction, particularly when you don't apply that same standard to every other historical document? Why the double standard? Why is it reasonable for you to assume that there can never be transcription mistakes in the Bible? Haven't you ever heard of the science of textual criticism? You are imposing unreasonable standards on the text. > 4) That the meaning of the statements which you use in > support of your arguments are *not* the result of > transcription errors, the existance of which you > will have proven in step #3. Why do you assume that transcription errors would lead to doctrinal errors? It does not follow. Remember that list of purported contradictions that was posted? Do you see anything in there that would lead to a doctrinal error? > > > No, I do not. I merely need to show that human reason can be > > > accounted for by the action of the laws of physics on matter. > > > > Which you *have not done*. > > I have referenced work which I am also capable of deriving. I have > avoided referencing work which I'm not capable of recreating, since > I want to avoid an appeal to authroity argument. If you really want to avoid an appeal to authority argument, you should not reference it at all. Refutation by footnote is not at all a convincing argument, regardless of whether or not you think you can derive the work. > Are you going to insist that I rewrite the text of the books I > have referenced, on the basis of calculation carried out on the > mailing list, in order to be able to use the references? No, but you could at least provide a rough sketch. Also, your explanation should also explain how the action of physics on matter avoids the conclusion of determinism. > > > I don't have to show a thing about determinism. Determinism is > > > irrelvant. It's only you who holds free will to be sacrosanct, > > > and thus part and parcel with human reason: not me. > > > > Are you, or are you not a determinist? > > I am not a determinist. Nor am I, or have I ever been, a member > of the Communist Party, Senator McCarthy. Okay, so you don't believe in free will, and you don't believe in determinism, and you claim that the choice between the two is a false dilemma, what is that third option that you are being so coy about? > > > If you want to drag determinism into this, then you need to prove > > > that it's even relevant to the discussion. > > > > I did. The reductio showed that your presuppositions lead to > > determinism. > > No, It did not. It failed to account for Heisenberg's Uncertainty > Principle, which permits a mechanistic universe to have indeterminate > outcomes to macro events by means of quantum coupling. So how does the fact that we cannot measure precisely the momentum and position of a particle give us a way to save reason? The indeterminacy has to do with our ability to measure since by attempting to make a measurement we disturb the system. How does this prove that the universe is not deterministic? All it proves is *our* lack of ability to know the position and momentum of a particle. Moreover, it sounds to me like you are attempting to resurrect the notion of chance, which you claim not to hold to. Also, isn't what you are saying above contradicting what you said earlier? To wit: From: > And the idea that "observer effect" has any validity > above a quantum level is a popular misconception. > > All the ranting and raving about my reductio being > > unsound is only that, ranting and raving. > > No, it's physics, which we can accurately utilize to predict > attributes of matter, such as the color of a compound before > we create it. And how, again, does this account for reason? > > I think I see why you object so vehemently to the reductio. It's > > because you agree with the reductio's conclusion. You don't think > > determinism is absurd at all? If that's the case, why didn't you > > just say that? > > I disagree that the laws of physics result in a clockwork universe. What is your justification for believing that? I don't think the universe is clockwork either, but at least I have a justification for that belief. > I disagree with your conclusion, because the assumptions you put > into it -- that if the universe is *only* governed by the laws of > physics, it *must* be a clockwork -- does not follow. How does it not follow? Your appeal to HUP certainly does not help you out in the least. How do you begin with matter and physical laws and end up with anything but determinism? Are you saying that the physical laws are not universal? Are you saying they are in constant flux? What is your justification for believing that *any* of the laws we have observed will continue to hold tomorrow? > The universe can *both* be governed *only* by the laws of physics, > yet *still* not be a clockwork. How? What you are asserting is absurd. If *only* physical law governs the universe, physical law is the *only* thing we can appeal to in order to explain reason. Garbage in, garbage out. There can be no freedom, no reason, no logic, no ethics, no anything except matter in motion. > > > > Given your premises, there is no way you can know whether *your* > > > > reason is correct and that other people's reasoning is fallacious. > > > > > > I can. I can test whether or not one or the other is more predictive. > > > > What good would that do? On your view there would be no way to correct > > one's own reasoning, since it is hardwired into the system. > > That really depends on whether or not you are willing to discard > axioms, when someone proves to you, on the basis of your own > internal rules, that the resulting internal model of the universe > does not match observation, or that your model has an internally > invisible, yet externally visible, inconsistency. On your view, where do you get the notion of "willing to discard axioms"? You *can't* discard them, they are hard-wired into the system. How could anyone "disprove" your axioms when they cannot be changed? Moreover, your appealing to "will" seems to place you back in *my* worldview. You've already repudiated the doctrine of free will. You've also repudiated determinism. What is there left in between? > > > > It may be fallacious according to the internal laws of logic that > > > > are pre-programmed in *your* head, but that wouldn't prove anything, > > > > since you don't know that what is in your head is what is in anybody > > > > else's. > > > > > > Yes, actually, I do know. I rather expect that the mathematics > > > necessary to prove this is beyond you, however. > > > > Oh, that's convenient. > > No, it's a pain in the ass, because without that, you are going > to blindly cling to your model because it's all you understand. Yeesh, have a little humility for once. I could just as easily claim any absurdity and dismiss any contrary argument from you on the basis that "you won't understand the math." Why don't you just drop the ad-hominem fallacies, okay? > > > You don't know whether I believe this is "a random chance universe" > > > or not. You only know that I have argued for evolution, and certain > > > aspects of the universe which you have taken, inaappropriately, to > > > mean that I believe the universe is a clockwork, which is not a > > > conclusion you can legitimately draw from my statements. > > > > *You* are the one who brought up randomness as an out for saving > > reason. > > No. I merely stated that it was emergent. Not that there was > randomness from which it emerges. It was your posting of 29 Aug 2002 > that brought in "random". See previous note in which I quote your message where you appeal to randomness in order to avoid determinism. > > I assumed it based on your own appeal to it. If you would > > clearly outline exactly what it is that you *do* believe, it would > > certainly clarify things a bit. > > If I were to delineate all my axioms, and you shared all of them, > you would not automatically share all my conclusions. So what? Lets examine those axioms to see if they are cogent. > I would have to demonstrate the derivation of all intermediate > ideas, until I got to, as an example, evolution, so that I could > demonstrate that it followed from my -- and your -- axiomatic > basis. I would need to "show my work". I'm not asking for anything that comprehensive. Just a justification of your axioms. > For this to be successful, you would have to already understand > your own axiomatic basis, and you would need to address every > single intermediate contradiction, through application of self > examination. Here is my basic axiom: In order to make sense out of logic, science, rationality, human freedom, human dignity, universals, human language, objective standards, and all the rest, there must be some Being who is Himself objective, self-existent, and perfect in every respect who can reveal those things to me through revelation. > > Of course, then you are borrowing (again) from *my* worldview. > > I do not need to borrow from your worldview. I have come to > many conclusions which happen to coincide with social consensus, > including certain aspects of Biblical and Judeo-Christian doctrine. Social consensus is worthless in the face of tyranny, which by the way cannot even be defined let alone opposed on your worldview. > I will say that society is *very lucky* my derivations of > principle match its own to such a high degree. Personally, I > would argue "evolutionary pressure resulting in concordance", > rather than "luck". 8-). So was Russian society *unlucky* that Stalin's derivations of principle *did not* match theirs? 8-) > I will tell you that I do not act as I act out of fear, and that > I think there are very few people who can honestly say that. Yeah, but normally we call those people sociopaths. > > Ironically, this is exactly the state that the apostle Paul says > > in Romans 1 that unbelievers are in. They willfully *suppress* the > > truth about God and themselves in unrighteousness. 8-) > > Faith requires that you not have proof, but believe anyway. This *is not* the Christian conception of "faith". The apostle Peter admonishes Christians to "always be ready to give a defense of the hope that you have" in I Peter 3:15. Moreover, this idea of "faith" does not square with Romans 1, where Paul says *all* men know God, His existence being "clearly seen" (1:20) by the things that are made. The Thomistic notion of faith is unbiblical. Faith is not in opposition to reason, nor does faith take over where reason leaves off. Faith is the *foundation* of reason, and when men reject God, they "became futile in their speculations, and their foolish hearts were darkened." (1:21) > Say > you could successfully derive all of the observable universe from > a set of axioms which did not include a belief in God. And say > further, that God was not part of the observable universe, by > which I mean that you could not prove God's existance from an > axiomatic basis that did not include the existance of God as an > axiom. Now say you believed in God anyway. THAT would be faith. No, that would be irrational. Don't think of faith that way. At least try to think of it in the way the Bible presents it, as the necessary foundation for everything else. Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 13 12:29:16 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB03837B400 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 12:29:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from proxy.centtech.com (moat.centtech.com [207.200.51.10]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B12443E72 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 12:29:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from anderson@centtech.com) Received: from sprint.centtech.com (sprint.centtech.com [10.177.173.31]) by proxy.centtech.com (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8DJTAk02913; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 14:29:10 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by sprint.centtech.com (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) id g8DJTAB00915; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 14:29:10 -0500 (CDT) Received: from centtech.com (electron [204.177.173.173]) by sprint.centtech.com (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8DJT7o00908; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 14:29:07 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <3D823C54.2040600@centtech.com> Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 14:28:20 -0500 From: Eric Anderson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i386; en-US; rv:1.0rc2) Gecko/20020513 Netscape/7.0b1 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lawrence Sica Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Cloning drives and FreeBSD References: <72B77635-C74C-11D6-AC2E-000393A335A2@earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Lawrence Sica wrote: > > On Friday, September 13, 2002, at 10:38 AM, Eric Anderson wrote: > >> Ok, so I got a new hard drive (bigger of course) for my notebook >> harddrive. I thought it would be swift to clone (using Ghost) my >> smaller hd to my larger drive. >> >> This is where I am stuck.. >> >> My bigger drive won't boot anymore - evidently the drive mappings >> changed, and the boot manager doesn't know how to read it anymore. >> How am I supposed to fix this? Anyone know any tricks? I realy don't >> want to have to rebuild my whole setup. >> > > What OS? You mentioned ghost so I am assuming its not freebsd.... Well, I have FreeBSD and Winblows eXtraPathetic on there, but I'm running Ghost from a floppy.. I don't care what tool I use to do this really, I just thought Ghost was the easiest.. basically, I just need to get from point A (smaller hd) to point B (bigger one). Ideas? Eric -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Eric Anderson Systems Administrator Centaur Technology The moon may be smaller than Earth, but it's further away. ------------------------------------------------------------------ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 13 12:35:58 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E769837B400 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 12:35:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jive.SoftHome.net (jive.SoftHome.net [66.54.152.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0590A43E42 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 12:35:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yid@softhome.net) Received: (qmail 17078 invoked by uid 417); 13 Sep 2002 19:35:38 -0000 Received: from shunt-smtp-out-0 (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.3.12) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 13 Sep 2002 19:35:38 -0000 Received: from planb ([216.194.2.204]) (AUTH: LOGIN yid@softhome.net) by softhome.net with esmtp; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 13:35:36 -0600 Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 15:35:45 -0400 From: Joshua Lee To: Brad Knowles Cc: bulldog@fxp.org, chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Windows as opposed to Other OS's Message-Id: <20020913153545.3e06ca31.yid@softhome.net> In-Reply-To: References: <20020911232728.GA24843@peitho.fxp.org> Organization: Plan B Software Labs X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.2claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.7) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, 13 Sep 2002 13:43:44 +0200 Brad Knowles wrote: > > In my opinion, as a server, FreeBSD is a great choice. > > Yup. Even today, I would not use MacOS X as a server. > > > It is fast, reliable, and very well built. But as a > > desktop choice, it leaves a little to be desired. > > As do all *nix OSes, save possibly MacOS X. I use Windowmaker, a NeXTstep clone, under X Windows; so I get the NeXT interface we like without having to buy expensive Mac hardware. (Though if I earned more $$$ I think I'd get a Mac Powerbook laptop. :-) ) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 13 12:44: 3 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8092937B400 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 12:43:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8EA643E65 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 12:43:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g8DJhkGd034448; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 12:43:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g8DJhjpJ034441; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 12:43:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 12:43:45 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Lawrence Sica Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <34F88260-C4E0-11D6-8708-000393A335A2@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <20020910111130.M63148-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Lawrence Sica wrote: > > Where does Christianity justify any of this? A condemnation of a > > behavior does not amount to a justification for persecution. And the > > fact that slavery existed in the Bible also does not amount to a > > justification of it. > > > Jesus by his actions lived by not persecuting "Let he who is without > sin cas the first stone". Remember that line? Yes, I do. I also remember the context in which he said it. It was not some loosey-goosey "tolerance" of sin. It was meant to point out their hypocrisy and their own sin. > Also the Bible was used > as justification by twisting interpretations and making up meanings. What does this prove, except that man by nature is sinful? > The story of Noah and the flood was used to justify slavery at one > point. That would be a pretty interesting feat! If true, who in the world would buy it? > >> Every religion has it's contradictions, Islam isnt > >> special here. And What is the exact wording the koran uses? Are you > >> sure you are interpreting it correctly? That's the great thing about > >> any religious writing, its "divine inspiration" but then man is left > >> to decipher it's meaning.... > > > > If Islam is going to accept the authority of the Christian gospels, it > > does not then have the right to contradict its most fundamental claims. > > Claiming that every religion has its contradictions does not make it > > so. > > Islam defeats itself on *it's own* terms. > > > > This does not answer the question, what exactly does the Koran say? Muslims do not think that God would allow his prophet to be killed. As such, they think that God took Jesus directly to heaven. Surah 4:157-158 states: "That they said (in boast), 'We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah' -- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not -- nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself." > > I can just see it now, everybody is going to jump in with their list > > of 101 bible contradictions. I've been there and done that, folks. > > You know, maybe we ought to treat the Bible just like any other piece > > of literature, and if two passages *can* be interpreted in such a way > > as to make them not blatantly contradictory, maybe we ought to accept > > that interpretation, eh? > > > You brought this up, if you bring it up expect others to point out > things. And my point stands. If you are going to claim that two passages are contradictory, you need to show that there is no possible way that they can be reconciled with regard to contextual issues. You only have a true contradiction if what is asserted in both cases is at the same time and in the same relationship. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 13 14: 7:18 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3ACB37B400 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 14:07:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 981A043E42 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 14:07:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lomifeh@earthlink.net) Received: from bgp586692bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net (bgp586692bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net [68.39.202.147]) by mtaout01.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 1.4 (built Aug 5 2002)) with ESMTP id <0H2E005C9AO2ZY@mtaout01.icomcast.net> for freebsd-chat@freebsd.org; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 17:07:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 17:07:13 -0400 From: Lawrence Sica Subject: Re: Cloning drives and FreeBSD In-reply-to: <3D823C54.2040600@centtech.com> To: Eric Anderson Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.543) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Friday, September 13, 2002, at 03:28 PM, Eric Anderson wrote: > Lawrence Sica wrote: >> On Friday, September 13, 2002, at 10:38 AM, Eric Anderson wrote: >>> Ok, so I got a new hard drive (bigger of course) for my notebook >>> harddrive. I thought it would be swift to clone (using Ghost) my >>> smaller hd to my larger drive. >>> >>> This is where I am stuck.. >>> >>> My bigger drive won't boot anymore - evidently the drive mappings >>> changed, and the boot manager doesn't know how to read it anymore. >>> How am I supposed to fix this? Anyone know any tricks? I realy >>> don't want to have to rebuild my whole setup. >>> >> What OS? You mentioned ghost so I am assuming its not freebsd.... > > Well, I have FreeBSD and Winblows eXtraPathetic on there, but I'm > running Ghost from a floppy.. I don't care what tool I use to do this > really, I just thought Ghost was the easiest.. basically, I just need > to get from point A (smaller hd) to point B (bigger one). > Does it boot anything now? XP for example? If using the freebsd bootmanager you could just reinstall it from cd if you have the install or fixit cd... --Larry > Ideas? > > Eric > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Eric Anderson Systems Administrator Centaur Technology > The moon may be smaller than Earth, but it's further away. > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 13 14:11:23 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2B1C37B400 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 14:11:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FE5443E6E for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 14:11:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lomifeh@earthlink.net) Received: from bgp586692bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net (bgp586692bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net [68.39.202.147]) by mtaout01.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 1.4 (built Aug 5 2002)) with ESMTP id <0H2E005SRAUTBW@mtaout01.icomcast.net> for chat@FreeBSD.ORG; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 17:11:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 17:11:15 -0400 From: Lawrence Sica Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-reply-to: <20020910111130.M63148-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Message-id: <56E23FA6-C75D-11D6-AC2E-000393A335A2@earthlink.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.543) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Friday, September 13, 2002, at 03:43 PM, Neal E. Westfall wrote: > > > On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Lawrence Sica wrote: > >>> Where does Christianity justify any of this? A condemnation of a >>> behavior does not amount to a justification for persecution. And the >>> fact that slavery existed in the Bible also does not amount to a >>> justification of it. >>> >> Jesus by his actions lived by not persecuting "Let he who is without >> sin cas the first stone". Remember that line? > > Yes, I do. I also remember the context in which he said it. It was > not some loosey-goosey "tolerance" of sin. It was meant to point out > their hypocrisy and their own sin. > > I was saying it was tolerance for the sinners, not the sin. It is tolerance of people, not blind persecution. >> Also the Bible was used >> as justification by twisting interpretations and making up meanings. > > What does this prove, except that man by nature is sinful? > It means that man interprets god how he wishes. > >> The story of Noah and the flood was used to justify slavery at one >> point. > > That would be a pretty interesting feat! If true, who in the world > would buy it? > Many did at the time. > >>>> Every religion has it's contradictions, Islam isnt >>>> special here. And What is the exact wording the koran uses? Are >>>> you >>>> sure you are interpreting it correctly? That's the great thing >>>> about >>>> any religious writing, its "divine inspiration" but then man is >>>> left >>>> to decipher it's meaning.... >>> >>> If Islam is going to accept the authority of the Christian gospels, >>> it >>> does not then have the right to contradict its most fundamental >>> claims. >>> Claiming that every religion has its contradictions does not make it >>> so. >>> Islam defeats itself on *it's own* terms. >>> >> >> This does not answer the question, what exactly does the Koran say? > > Muslims do not think that God would allow his prophet to be killed. As > such, they think that God took Jesus directly to heaven. Surah > 4:157-158 > states: "That they said (in boast), 'We killed Christ Jesus the son of > Mary, the Messenger of Allah' -- but they killed him not, nor crucified > him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein > are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to > follow, for of a surety they killed him not -- nay, Allah raised him up > unto Himself." > What you stated here doesn't answer where it says they think the Bible is canon. > >>> I can just see it now, everybody is going to jump in with their list >>> of 101 bible contradictions. I've been there and done that, folks. >>> You know, maybe we ought to treat the Bible just like any other piece >>> of literature, and if two passages *can* be interpreted in such a way >>> as to make them not blatantly contradictory, maybe we ought to accept >>> that interpretation, eh? >>> >> You brought this up, if you bring it up expect others to point out >> things. > > And my point stands. If you are going to claim that two passages are > contradictory, you need to show that there is no possible way that they > can be reconciled with regard to contextual issues. You only have a > true contradiction if what is asserted in both cases is at the same > time and in the same relationship. > > My point was if you complain about other religions being contradictory be prepared to have your own religions contradictions pointed out, and complaining about others doing so is not productive. --Larry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 13 14:12:46 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70E1237B400 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 14:12:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from proxy.centtech.com (moat.centtech.com [207.200.51.10]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9ADF43E42 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 14:12:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from anderson@centtech.com) Received: from sprint.centtech.com (sprint.centtech.com [10.177.173.31]) by proxy.centtech.com (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8DLCVk05499; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 16:12:31 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by sprint.centtech.com (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) id g8DLCVf08932; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 16:12:31 -0500 (CDT) Received: from centtech.com (electron [204.177.173.173]) by sprint.centtech.com (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8DLCSo08920; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 16:12:28 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <3D825488.3000600@centtech.com> Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 16:11:36 -0500 From: Eric Anderson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i386; en-US; rv:1.0rc2) Gecko/20020513 Netscape/7.0b1 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lawrence Sica Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Cloning drives and FreeBSD References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Lawrence Sica wrote: >> Well, I have FreeBSD and Winblows eXtraPathetic on there, but I'm >> running Ghost from a floppy.. I don't care what tool I use to do this >> really, I just thought Ghost was the easiest.. basically, I just need >> to get from point A (smaller hd) to point B (bigger one). >> > > Does it boot anything now? XP for example? If using the freebsd > bootmanager you could just reinstall it from cd if you have the install > or fixit cd... It comes up with the boot mgr prompt (F1 ????) but won't allow me to boot anything on the disk anymore.. I can boot the cd, and go into fixit mode - but don't know how to "fixit". Eric -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Eric Anderson Systems Administrator Centaur Technology The moon may be smaller than Earth, but it's further away. ------------------------------------------------------------------ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 13 14:47: 8 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5756537B400 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 14:47:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F167043E42 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 14:47:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lomifeh@earthlink.net) Received: from bgp586692bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net (bgp586692bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net [68.39.202.147]) by mtaout03.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.8 (built May 13 2002)) with ESMTP id <0H2E00AUOCIHG3@mtaout03.icomcast.net> for chat@freebsd.org; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 17:47:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 17:47:04 -0400 From: Lawrence Sica Subject: Re: Windows as opposed to Other OS's In-reply-to: <20020913153545.3e06ca31.yid@softhome.net> To: Joshua Lee Cc: Brad Knowles , bulldog@fxp.org, chat@freebsd.org Message-id: <578B81DC-C762-11D6-AC2E-000393A335A2@earthlink.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.543) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Friday, September 13, 2002, at 03:35 PM, Joshua Lee wrote: > On Fri, 13 Sep 2002 13:43:44 +0200 > Brad Knowles wrote: > >>> In my opinion, as a server, FreeBSD is a great choice. >> >> Yup. Even today, I would not use MacOS X as a server. >> >>> It is fast, reliable, and very well built. But as a >>> desktop choice, it leaves a little to be desired. >> >> As do all *nix OSes, save possibly MacOS X. > > I use Windowmaker, a NeXTstep clone, under X Windows; so I get the NeXT > interface we like without having to buy expensive Mac hardware. (Though > if I earned more $$$ I think I'd get a Mac Powerbook laptop. :-) ) > But that expensive mac hardware looks cooler ;). --Larry > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 13 15: 8:31 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5724737B400 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 15:08:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pilchuck.reedmedia.net (pilchuck.reedmedia.net [209.166.74.74]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 722B243E65 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 15:08:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from reed@reedmedia.net) Received: from reed by pilchuck.reedmedia.net with local-esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17pybr-000117-00; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 15:08:19 -0700 Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 15:08:19 -0700 (PDT) From: "Jeremy C. Reed" To: chat@freebsd.org Cc: bulldog@fxp.org Subject: Re: Windows as opposed to Other OS's In-Reply-To: <578B81DC-C762-11D6-AC2E-000393A335A2@earthlink.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, 13 Sep 2002, Lawrence Sica wrote: > But that expensive mac hardware looks cooler ;). I agree. Last week I saw some Mac OS X powered system at CompUSA (in Mountlake Terrace, Washington). The monitor was a long LCD screen. The salesman said it was a 22-inch screen. It looked great. I noticed that when hovering over the icons at bottom made them slightly grow to show they are highlighted. I see that newer versions of KDE have that feature too. Now back to Bob's original posting about why people choose an OS or why they don't choose an OS. I choose an OS for several reasons: I can do what I need to do -- most of the time. It is fun to use -- part of the fun is learning new and different things. Maybe it may have problems or difficulties, but it is fun to resolve. I choose an OS where it is easy to track down errors; for example, if there is some strange, undocumented error (for example with a NetBSD boot loader message), I can grep the source and actually see what the problem is. I also choose an OS where I can easily customize it for performance and stability, or customize it for aesthetics and usage. (I have never used alternative window managers under a Microsoft Windows system yet -- other than with some free, closed-source X server or VNC with X.) For example, I thought the menus are often too wide in Blackbox window manager -- so I simply rewrote that part of the code to limit the menu width. I choose an OS that is easy to use from remote locations and various systems. For example, doing remote Windows administration can be quite tedious over a slow connection. (But VNC at 128Kb is fine.) In comparison, administration of Unix system over a 5Kb connection is quite fine. I also like choosing an OS that I can rebuild and easily redesign for my own needs; for example, I make bootable, live CDs that I use when teaching classes or giving presentations. Having open source available makes it easy to do. I see my answers are mostly based on "open source" versus "no source" instead of just operating systems' features. I rarely use Windows or Mac OS for several years, so I can't remember if any of their features that I really liked or now miss. I do know that I miss using a quality, graphical, desktop publishing software, like Quark Xpress under Mac OS. Jeremy C. Reed http://bsd.reedmedia.net/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 13 16: 6:46 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C05A37B401 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 16:06:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from server2.highperformance.net (ip30.gte4.rb1.bel.nwlink.com [209.20.215.30]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61C6F43E6A for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 16:06:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jcwells1@highperformance.net) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by server2.highperformance.net (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g8DN6cId092033; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 16:06:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jcwells1@highperformance.net) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 16:06:38 -0700 (PDT) From: "Jason C. Wells" X-X-Sender: jcw@server2.highperformance.net To: Terry Lambert Cc: FreeBSD-chat Subject: Re: LDAP, Schema, and OIDs In-Reply-To: <3D81FBED.8FBD1FFC@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20020913155538.B92020-100000@server2.highperformance.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, 13 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > There is also the possibility of two organizations executing a > merger, which results in them becoming one organization. Can > you imagine the chaos of trying to integrate two personnel > databases, if objects in those databases had the same OIDs? This makes a degree of sense. If we want to share LDAP data, then unique OIDs are a good thing. > If you wanted to do this, I would support you through the IETF Nah. I just wondered what all the big deal with OIDs being globally unique was. > I'd want a mention in the text, in any case... I'll let you write the whole text and submit it to me for approval. I would be able to analyze it as well as any PHB. :) Thanks all, Jason To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 13 16:54:18 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC86437B400 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 16:54:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail19b.rapidsite.net (mail19b.rapidsite.net [161.58.134.134]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 07F6443E65 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 16:51:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rob@pythonemproject.com) Received: from www.pythonemproject.com (198.104.176.109) by mail19b.rapidsite.net (RS ver 1.0.63s) with SMTP id 040822 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 19:51:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3D8279CD.56F0EE58@pythonemproject.com> Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 16:50:37 -0700 From: Rob X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.2 i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "chat@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: Windows as opposed to Other OS's References: <20020911232728.GA24843@peitho.fxp.org> <20020913153545.3e06ca31.yid@softhome.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Loop-Detect: 1 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Joshua Lee wrote: > > On Fri, 13 Sep 2002 13:43:44 +0200 > Brad Knowles wrote: > > > > In my opinion, as a server, FreeBSD is a great choice. > > > > Yup. Even today, I would not use MacOS X as a server. > > > > > It is fast, reliable, and very well built. But as a > > > desktop choice, it leaves a little to be desired. > > > > As do all *nix OSes, save possibly MacOS X. > > I use Windowmaker, a NeXTstep clone, under X Windows; so I get the NeXT > interface we like without having to buy expensive Mac hardware. (Though > if I earned more $$$ I think I'd get a Mac Powerbook laptop. :-) ) > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message I concurr. Windowmaker is wonderful. And Gnome looks beautiful when you install some of the special themes, or make your own. I have to use Windoze NT all day at work, so my desktop of choice at home is always some window manager on top of FreeBSD. Its such a refreshing change to come home and know that I can tweak it to do whatever I want! Rob ps. Does anyone know how to make Linux-Netscape retain the scaled TTF font that you specify. On my Dell 8200 with 1600x1200 I always have to set the font scale to 18 before I use it. It will not retain my settings. Thanx. -- ----------------------------- The Numeric Python EM Project www.pythonemproject.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sat Sep 14 7:46:24 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3144937B400 for ; Sat, 14 Sep 2002 07:46:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mile.nevermind.kiev.ua (office.netstyle.com.ua [213.186.199.26]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9516743E72 for ; Sat, 14 Sep 2002 07:46:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from never@mile.nevermind.kiev.ua) Received: from mile.nevermind.kiev.ua (never@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mile.nevermind.kiev.ua (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g8EEkHXH066540 for ; Sat, 14 Sep 2002 17:46:17 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from never@mile.nevermind.kiev.ua) Received: (from never@localhost) by mile.nevermind.kiev.ua (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id g8EEkHNA066539 for freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.org; Sat, 14 Sep 2002 17:46:17 +0300 (EEST) Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 17:46:17 +0300 (EEST) Message-Id: <200209141446.g8EEkHNA066539@mile.nevermind.kiev.ua> From: Alexandr Kovalenko To: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.org Subject: Ukrainian Open Source Software conference Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Hello, I would like to invite all interested to take part in Ukrainian OSS conference, which will take place 28th of September in Kiev, Ukraine. Those, who can read russian or ukrainian, can register and read details here: http://osdn.org.ua/meetings/2002/0928/ Unfortunately we don't have english version yet :( Thank you. -- NEVE-RIPE Ukrainian FreeBSD User Group http://uafug.org.ua/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-chat Sat Sep 14 13: 9: 9 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D10A937B400 for ; Sat, 14 Sep 2002 13:09:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from n6.grp.scd.yahoo.com (n6.grp.scd.yahoo.com [66.218.66.90]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5A3CF43E42 for ; Sat, 14 Sep 2002 13:09:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from probe-1032031269-1032034145-freebsd-chat=freebsd.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com) X-eGroups-Return: probe-1032031269-1032034145-freebsd-chat=freebsd.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.66.176] by n6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 14 Sep 2002 20:09:05 -0000 Message-ID: Date: 14 Sep 2002 20:09:05 -0000 From: Yahoo!Groups Reply-To: confirm-unbounce-1032031269-77923465-48173@yahoogroups.co.uk To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Please reactivate your Yahoo! Groups account MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Hello, You belong to one or more email groups provided by Yahoo! Groups (uk.groups.yahoo.com). Email from these groups can be recognized by looking for a group name in the message Subject line, like [pet-owners] or [music-fans]. Recently, messages sent to you from Yahoo! Groups have been returned to us as undeliverable. To prevent any problems with your email service, we have temporarily turned your Yahoo! Groups account OFF. If you are reading this message now, the delivery problem appears to be fixed. However, we won't know that the problem is fixed until you tell us. To turn your Yahoo! Groups account ON: - Please REPLY to this message. Send that reply back to us without changing anything. OR - While connected to the Internet, click on the following Web link (or copy and paste it into your Web browser and hit the RETURN key): http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/unbounce?adj=77923465,48173&p=1032031269 Once we get a response from you, we will turn your Yahoo! Groups account back ON, and you will begin to receive messages from your groups again. After you respond, you can read any messages you might have missed while your account was off by visiting: http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/mygroups Thank you for using Yahoo! Groups! Yahoo! Groups Customer Care Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms.html To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message