Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 21:40:15 -0400 From: Joshua Lee <yid@softhome.net> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 15:27:00 -0700 Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020911214015.51f915a0.yid>