[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- <!--x-content-type: text/plain --> "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
- <!--x-date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 19:17:26 +0000 -->
- <!--x-from-r13: zzvyyneq1 ng pbzpnfg.arg (zzvyyneq1 ng pbzpnfg.arg) -->
- <!--x-message-id: 08192005[email protected]comcast.net -->
- <!--x-subject: [ale] Gone (totally) OT: Cobb Laptop Deal -->
- <li><em>date</em>: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 19:17:26 +0000</li>
- <li><em>from</em>: mmillard1 at comcast.net (mmillard1 at comcast.net)</li>
- <li><em>subject</em>: [ale] Gone (totally) OT: Cobb Laptop Deal</li>
The only discussion about Dead Ends that I've heard of recently is that Neandertal's may be a line of Human relatives who simply died out. It seems you are correct that the belief that we evolved from apes is so deep seated there is no alternative options.
We are now told or it is suggested that humans as our racial types developed similtaniously in multiple parts of the world. If this was the case it seems remarkable there is not lots of evidence for failed human evolutionary lines.
We could however argue as many did in the America's that man did not exsist before X date because we've found no remains. The lack of evidence does not prove anything other than that there is a lack of evidence. We now know with certainty there were humans in the America's 10,000ish years ago. 20 years ago there was some fringe evidence but in general it was believed because we saw no evidence there were no people.
Placing the weight of your entire arguement on the lack of evidence is dangerous in my mind. There are some things you just can not prove. The simple fact of the matter is that regardless of the extreem confidence some scientist have in Evolution. It is still only a Theory and not Scientific Fact.
For instance for extreem evolutionary changes to happen the new species would have to remain cross furtile or you would have to have 2 of these remarkable shifts all at once. I don't know of any examples of this ever happening. Many cross species creatures are sterile, Horse Donkey mix for example. There are some that are not, like the Whalphins. But is the mixing of similar species into a new one Evolution as it is defined? That isn't really evolving it is merging. How do you know the difference?
It is a very interesting discussion, full of more faith than evidence no matter which view you look at it from.
--------- Original message --------------
I can't resist.
Aaron et al. We all believe or do not believe in God for our own reasons. My issue in this discussion is that all the criticisms of the ID-Evo debate seem to always end up as an stand for or against our God.
When I was a kid I was taught in my flexible church that evolution didn't have to mean God didn't exist. Then I read that Darwin didn't believe that species evolved because by the end of his life he still had no evidence to support it. There should be billions of failed evolution changes documented in the fossil record for every little evolutionary fork successful or not. This would mean infinitely more transitional fossil forms than normal ones. Darwin new that and thought he would find them easily. Faced with this unbelievable lack of evidence of transitional fossils I think evolution requires just a much faith as anything else.
Also, evolution is a mandatory explanation for life. No other theory of life can be tolerated by humanistic science. (Sort of like the blank looks you get when you mention to some people that you have a computer but don't use windows. The conversation is immediately over because their mind won't go there.) Scientists frequently throw away experimental data that conflicts with evolution because there is no other explanation of life that they can consider. Remember the back in the 40's and 50's when scientist used to uncover skulls and claim they were man-apes? All were hoaxes. The amazing thing is that the Plitdown man, the lucy bones and others are still on display in museums even though they have been completely discredited. Answer, they are religious articles not evidence of evolution.
Again my apologies to those this may irritate.
On Aug 19, 2005, at 8:49 AM, aaron wrote:
On Wednesday 17 August 2005 19:21, Geoffrey wrote:
Stating it another way, if there were a Great Omnipotent Deity behind the
existence of the universe, then the best argument for this ultimate
intelligence would be a universe comprised entirely of the cyclic, self
sustaining and evolutionary mechanisms that human science uncovers
and explores. The perfect intelligent universe will allow that its all
powerful creator need never lift a finger beyond the Big Bang; just light
the fuse, pop a cold one, sit back and enjoy the fireworks! There's
nothing more elegantly intelligent than the idea of spark once, run
Aaron, that's where your thought process is flawed. God is a
Apologies, but I'd have to consider a micro managing deity to be a
meddling middle man, perhaps some bureaucrat from the celestial
DMV, and probably more akin to a fallen angel or Bill Gates than
an omnipotent creator. :-)
(Thank God! :) )
Which one? The micro-manager? :-)
Haven't you ever put your heart and
soul into the creation of anything? Certainly you have. Do you then
just sit it on the shelf and stare at it? I think not.
Sure, I follow up on my creations... but I only need to because I'm not
omnipotent (: at least not while I'm awake :). An omnipotent creator
wouldn't have to tinker with their designs post facto. The works of an
ultimate intelligence would, by definition, be complete, integral and
without flaw in the first place, which is the primary premise behind
the "Intelligent Deity" theory I am putting forth here.
In example, take all those popular mythologies about commanding
parents to murder their children and instigating deadly plagues and
slaughtering first born infants in cold blood and raining down brimstone
and surreptitiously conspiring in one murderous genocide after another.
I'm honestly sorry if it offends anyone, and none of this is being said to
incite, but to _me_ those just don't seem to be very bright, efficient or
effective methodologies for cultivating a favorite living creation or for
running a planet, let alone for managing an entire universe. The deity
defined by those myths comes across (to _me_) as a small, hateful,
murderous, vindictive and vengeance minded terrorist. My view is that
such a deity would be incapable of creation, as their actions are entirely
inconsistent with an entity that could claim either the intelligence or
omnipotence needed to do so.
How can you actually think that you could possibly understand the
thought process of God?
Actually... it's because everything of my being and intelligence assures
me that I, like every sentient being, am fully capable of envisioning and
understanding the nature of my own existence. There is also the knowledge
that it would be impossible to do any harm to this arena of philosophy after
observing the endless linage of charlatans and frauds who claim sacred
dispensation to define the nature of existence for all humanity based
solely on their ability to recite from a tired repertoire of anachronistic
fairy tails. Justification is also found in seeing those from that group who
then inflate their arrogance into mystical claims of being "special" or
"chosen" people who have been secretly (and exclusively) ordained to
speak for the deities they invent (how convenient). And that's before
considering the more deadly extremists among them who then extend
their delusions of grandeur into a divine entitlement to subjugate or
murder any people who disagree with their (invariably narrow) visions
of their omnipotent imaginary friends..
...and you would seem to be claiming that you have a special understanding
of the management style of an ultimate deity, as well. :-)
As an intelligent entity of the universe, I am as fully qualified and entitled
to consider the nature of existence or to imagine the forms and purposes
of potential deities as any other human being that has ever existed.
After all, if human existence really is the end product of an intelligent
creation process, and if we are, therefore, a direct reflection of some
omnipotent creator's intelligence, then we must _all_ possess the potential
to know the creator intimately. Extending the idea of "putting your heart and
soul into your creations", the invention is ultimately inseparable from the
inventor, which is the other key premise of my "Intelligent Deity" theory.
It may be stubborn, but I'm reserving my imagination for deities that can
at least exhibit the kind of intelligence, empathy, compassion and capacity
to love that can be readily observed in the human race every day.
Please, don't let this start a flame war. The list doesn't need it and
I want to have the last word.
So what? Now you feel divinely entitled to dictate the conditions of this
speculative dialog? :-) Will the next commentary be a rant about the
"blasphemy" of logic and deduction? :-) And who do you think you are,
anyway, the Great Omnipotent Deity?! :-) :-)
( However, in courtesy to you and the list, I agree not to post to this
thread again if you still feel a need to follow up with a last word.)
Ale mailing list
Ale at ale.org
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale">http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale</a>
NASA Maintenance Specialist
Mark_Wright at NASAsupport.com
"Whatever It Takes"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: Mark Wright <mpwright at speedfactory.net>
To: ale at ale.org
Subject: Re: [ale] Gone (totally) OT: Cobb Laptop Deal
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 18:19:00 +0000
<li><strong><a name="00486" href="msg00486.html">[ale] procmail using 100's of MB RAM</a></strong>
<ul><li><em>From:</em> jknapka at kneuro.net (Joe Knapka)</li></ul></li>
<li>Prev by Date:
<strong><a href="msg00292.html">[ale] Gone (totally) OT: Cobb Laptop Deal</a></strong>
<li>Next by Date:
<strong><a href="msg00294.html">[ale] new box crashes when nmapped</a></strong>
<li>Previous by thread:
<strong><a href="msg00284.html">[ale] DELIVERY REPORTS ABOUT YOUR E-MAIL</a></strong>
<li>Next by thread:
<strong><a href="msg00486.html">[ale] procmail using 100's of MB RAM</a></strong>