Guest James Norris Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 On Jun 30, 4:26 am, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote: > On Jun 30, 3:25?am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > On Jun 30, 1:55 am, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote: > > > Design for a Conscious Mechanoid > > > [Just to deter the predictable 'define what you mean by conscious' > > posting: 'Conscious' means 'aware of reality' - a human being is > > conscious, but a piece of paper is not conscious. If there is still a > > problem with understanding the word 'conscious', try using a > > dictionary.] > > > Start off with millions of identical ordinary (non-conscious) robots. > > Each robot is pre-programmed to collect things from the environment at > > random (twigs, elastic bands, teacups, wheels, orange peel etc), and > > incorporate them into itself, gradually replacing all its original > > component parts as it does so. Now let the robots free to interact > > with the environment, and watch what happens. > > > Most of the robots would cease to function quite rapidly, of course. > > They might replace one of their vital components (the computer > > program, for example), with a piece of orange peel and immediately > > stop working permanently. Some might continue to function for quite a > > while, making meaningless minor alterations to their original > > structure, without affecting their basic operation as a programmed > > mechanical device, which we knew to be non-conscious. We can ignore > > robots which have replaced themselves with biological material which > > was already conscious, because that is obviously not what we are > > interested in. > > > The robots we are interested in are those which manage to replace all > > their constituent components, including their original computer > > hardware and software, but are still functioning. They, like > > ourselves, have been created out of material from the environment, so > > they might be conscious, as we are. > > > A certain amount of complexity is required for consciousness, and this > > could be provided, for example, by using the twigs to twang the > > elastic bands - the vibrational properties of the elastic bands could > > easily carry any complexity necessary for the occurrence of thought. > > For that to happen by chance is extremely unlikely of course, as is > > the likelihood of millions of monkeys randomly operating typewriters > > producing the occasional Shakespeare sonnet by chance, but if you left > > them long enough, they would eventually do it! > > > Consciousness is a subjective experience, so there is no way of > > determining whether or not anything or anybody is conscious. In the > > design above, the construction allows the possibility that > > consciousness might occur in a device which was originally non- > > conscious. The random self-modifying behaviour may have led to a > > wheeled mechanism made out of orange peel, teacups and elastic bands > > held together with bits of wood, with its understanding of reality > > contained in the vibrational processes occurring in the twig-twanged > > elastic bands, which wanders around in the natural environment > > apparently decorating itself with the bits of garbage it picks up. > > Perhaps the device has improved on its original design and is now > > conscious? At any rate, it certainly wouldn't be less conscious than > > it was to begin with. > > > James Norris > > > > > > I read your thread. Was it a satirical portrayal of atheist > > > > > "reasoning"? > > > > > No, it was a design for a conscious entity, neither biological nor > > > > computer-based. > > > > > > I especially liked the bit: > > > > > > "A certain amount of complexity is required for consciousness, and > > > > > this could be provided, for example, by using the twigs to twang the > > > > > elastic bands - the vibrational properties of the elastic bands could > > > > > easily carry any complexity necessary for the occurrence of thought." > > > > > > You could imagine atheists setting themselves up as authorities on > > > > > which tunes played on a guitar gave rise to consciousness, and whether > > > > > one string, or all the strings, or the whole guitar had the > > > > > experiences. They could debate on to what extent they could > > > > > anthropomorphise the conscious experience a certain song gave. > > > > > The notion of vibrations carrying information was an example of how > > > > the necessary complexity for 'thoughts' might arise in the mechanism. > > > > I understand from your earlier postings that you believe that human > > > > beings have a non-physical 'soul', so I'm not sure why you think my > > > > suggestion is so laughable. > > > > > > Though the part where you said, "consciousness is a subjective > > > > > experience, so there is no way of determining whether or not anything > > > > > or anybody is conscious", did illustrate that from an atheist > > > > > perspective there would be no experimental difference expected whether > > > > > something was or wasn't consciously experiencing, which is something a > > > > > few of them here are having problems coming to terms with. > > > > > I don't know why you pick on atheists in particular as having a > > > > problem with the unverifiability of subjective experiences, but > > > > anyway, perhaps many of us do - I personally don't. > > > > > > Still, very amusing, assuming of course you weren't being serious, and > > > > > an absolute nutter. > > > > > An absolute nutter in your opinion might be someone who believed that > > > > they had four souls, rather than just the one, I suppose. > > > > > The Design for a Conscious Mechanoid is quite serious - a hypothetical > > > > example of how a constructed 'mechanical' (ie non-biological) being > > > > might be conscious. I'm not suggesting that it would ever work in > > > > reality, any more than that a million monkeys typing on a million > > > > typewriters for a million years to produce the works of Shakespeare > > > > would ever work in reality. The example draws attention to the > > > > salient aspects of an interesting question. I'm glad you found it > > > > amusing though. I always try to make my postings interesting and > > > > memorable, and humour is a well-known didactic tool. > > > > The problem with no experimental difference expected whether something > > > was or wasn't consciously experiencing, is that it means whether it > > > was or wasn't, couldn't be thought to influence behaviour. If that was > > > the case, it would have to be a coincidence that our behaviour > > > expressed the conscious experiences we actually have (it couldn't have > > > been influenced by their existance). > > > You are trying to discuss consciousness using behavioural concepts. > > The behavioural understanding of the psyche has little to say about > > consciousness - the brain reacts to external stimuli and produces > > behaviour in the organism, which is studied to give an understanding > > of the workings of the brain. Cognitive models of consciousness, > > which you should look into as they might help you express your > > argument, are inside-out compared to the behavioural viewpoint. The > > 'mind' (which is believed to exist because of processes occurring in > > the brain) is considered as an Ego, with Superego, Id and various > > other paraphernalia, and these all contribute to goal-directed > > behaviour caused by subjective 'needs' which the conscious being tries > > to satisfy. > > > > Anyway, interesting post. So have you any thoughts on which tunes > > > played on a guitar might be give rise to, the string(s) or the guitar > > > thinking? Any thoughts on what those thoughts might be? I ask you, as > > > I guess you would be the closest thing to a world authority on the > > > concept, or have you got competition? > > No, you haven't really grasped the point about the vibrations in the > example. I was just pointing out that a certain amount of complexity > is required for consciousness, so complexity is needed somewhere in > the mechanoid. Vibrating systems can contain information of arbitrary > complexity - they don't have to be made out of physical elastic > bands. Vibrations occur in strings in general, these could be the > theoretical strings of string-theory, or hair-like cilia made from > millions of tiny pinheads all oscillating in a plasma field, if you > think elastic bands are too primitive a device to be worth > considering. Some people think that Mobius strips are weirdly clever > - perhaps if millions of elastic bands were Mobius strips interacting > in a complex 3-d lattice, with carefully placed twigs and twiglets to > provide the necessary resonance and feedback effects, it would be > rather more likely to have the necessary complexity for conscious > awareness of reality, than using just the one guitar string that you > suggest? Discuss. Jim On Jun 30, 3:11?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 21:00:37 -0700, in alt.atheism > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-2906072100370...@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > > > > >In article <1183168775.672682.49...@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Martin > ><phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> On Jun 30, 4:23 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > In article <f63of0$e3...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > >> > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> > > Jason wrote: > >> > > > I understand your point: This is how I would ask the questions: > > >> > > > Do you believe humans evolved from other life-forms without any > >> > > > involvement of god? yes or no > > >> > > > Do you believe that both evolution and intelligent design should > >be taught > >> > > > in the public schools or just evolution? > > >> > > Do you believe something should be taught in schools that has no > >> > > scientific backing? > > >> > If you are referring to Intelligent Design, it does have fossil evidence > >> > as scientific backing. > > >> Again, show us a fossil of your god or stop lying. > > >> Martin > > >Martin, > >I've already told you about two books that discuss the evidence. Upon > >request, I'll try to find an article on the net that provides a summary of > >the evidence. > > Jason, clearly you haven't read them, nor do you understand enough of > science to know how bad those books are. Since you have decided to > remain ignorant of everything scientific and refuse to accept any facts > that are put before you, why don't you stop posting. You already know > that your opinion is worthless and makes Christians look bad. > -- > > "Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel > to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy > Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should > take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in > which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh > it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - On Jun 30, 4:26 am, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote: > On Jun 30, 3:25?am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > On Jun 30, 1:55 am, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote: > > > Design for a Conscious Mechanoid > > > [Just to deter the predictable 'define what you mean by conscious' > > posting: 'Conscious' means 'aware of reality' - a human being is > > conscious, but a piece of paper is not conscious. If there is still a > > problem with understanding the word 'conscious', try using a > > dictionary.] > > > Start off with millions of identical ordinary (non-conscious) robots. > > Each robot is pre-programmed to collect things from the environment at > > random (twigs, elastic bands, teacups, wheels, orange peel etc), and > > incorporate them into itself, gradually replacing all its original > > component parts as it does so. Now let the robots free to interact > > with the environment, and watch what happens. > > > Most of the robots would cease to function quite rapidly, of course. > > They might replace one of their vital components (the computer > > program, for example), with a piece of orange peel and immediately > > stop working permanently. Some might continue to function for quite a > > while, making meaningless minor alterations to their original > > structure, without affecting their basic operation as a programmed > > mechanical device, which we knew to be non-conscious. We can ignore > > robots which have replaced themselves with biological material which > > was already conscious, because that is obviously not what we are > > interested in. > > > The robots we are interested in are those which manage to replace all > > their constituent components, including their original computer > > hardware and software, but are still functioning. They, like > > ourselves, have been created out of material from the environment, so > > they might be conscious, as we are. > > > A certain amount of complexity is required for consciousness, and this > > could be provided, for example, by using the twigs to twang the > > elastic bands - the vibrational properties of the elastic bands could > > easily carry any complexity necessary for the occurrence of thought. > > For that to happen by chance is extremely unlikely of course, as is > > the likelihood of millions of monkeys randomly operating typewriters > > producing the occasional Shakespeare sonnet by chance, but if you left > > them long enough, they would eventually do it! > > > Consciousness is a subjective experience, so there is no way of > > determining whether or not anything or anybody is conscious. In the > > design above, the construction allows the possibility that > > consciousness might occur in a device which was originally non- > > conscious. The random self-modifying behaviour may have led to a > > wheeled mechanism made out of orange peel, teacups and elastic bands > > held together with bits of wood, with its understanding of reality > > contained in the vibrational processes occurring in the twig-twanged > > elastic bands, which wanders around in the natural environment > > apparently decorating itself with the bits of garbage it picks up. > > Perhaps the device has improved on its original design and is now > > conscious? At any rate, it certainly wouldn't be less conscious than > > it was to begin with. > > > James Norris > > > > > > I read your thread. Was it a satirical portrayal of atheist > > > > > "reasoning"? > > > > > No, it was a design for a conscious entity, neither biological nor > > > > computer-based. > > > > > > I especially liked the bit: > > > > > > "A certain amount of complexity is required for consciousness, and > > > > > this could be provided, for example, by using the twigs to twang the > > > > > elastic bands - the vibrational properties of the elastic bands could > > > > > easily carry any complexity necessary for the occurrence of thought." > > > > > > You could imagine atheists setting themselves up as authorities on > > > > > which tunes played on a guitar gave rise to consciousness, and whether > > > > > one string, or all the strings, or the whole guitar had the > > > > > experiences. They could debate on to what extent they could > > > > > anthropomorphise the conscious experience a certain song gave. > > > > > The notion of vibrations carrying information was an example of how > > > > the necessary complexity for 'thoughts' might arise in the mechanism. > > > > I understand from your earlier postings that you believe that human > > > > beings have a non-physical 'soul', so I'm not sure why you think my > > > > suggestion is so laughable. > > > > > > Though the part where you said, "consciousness is a subjective > > > > > experience, so there is no way of determining whether or not anything > > > > > or anybody is conscious", did illustrate that from an atheist > > > > > perspective there would be no experimental difference expected whether > > > > > something was or wasn't consciously experiencing, which is something a > > > > > few of them here are having problems coming to terms with. > > > > > I don't know why you pick on atheists in particular as having a > > > > problem with the unverifiability of subjective experiences, but > > > > anyway, perhaps many of us do - I personally don't. > > > > > > Still, very amusing, assuming of course you weren't being serious, and > > > > > an absolute nutter. > > > > > An absolute nutter in your opinion might be someone who believed that > > > > they had four souls, rather than just the one, I suppose. > > > > > The Design for a Conscious Mechanoid is quite serious - a hypothetical > > > > example of how a constructed 'mechanical' (ie non-biological) being > > > > might be conscious. I'm not suggesting that it would ever work in > > > > reality, any more than that a million monkeys typing on a million > > > > typewriters for a million years to produce the works of Shakespeare > > > > would ever work in reality. The example draws attention to the > > > > salient aspects of an interesting question. I'm glad you found it > > > > amusing though. I always try to make my postings interesting and > > > > memorable, and humour is a well-known didactic tool. > > > > The problem with no experimental difference expected whether something > > > was or wasn't consciously experiencing, is that it means whether it > > > was or wasn't, couldn't be thought to influence behaviour. If that was > > > the case, it would have to be a coincidence that our behaviour > > > expressed the conscious experiences we actually have (it couldn't have > > > been influenced by their existance). > > > You are trying to discuss consciousness using behavioural concepts. > > The behavioural understanding of the psyche has little to say about > > consciousness - the brain reacts to external stimuli and produces > > behaviour in the organism, which is studied to give an understanding > > of the workings of the brain. Cognitive models of consciousness, > > which you should look into as they might help you express your > > argument, are inside-out compared to the behavioural viewpoint. The > > 'mind' (which is believed to exist because of processes occurring in > > the brain) is considered as an Ego, with Superego, Id and various > > other paraphernalia, and these all contribute to goal-directed > > behaviour caused by subjective 'needs' which the conscious being tries > > to satisfy. > > > > Anyway, interesting post. So have you any thoughts on which tunes > > > played on a guitar might be give rise to, the string(s) or the guitar > > > thinking? Any thoughts on what those thoughts might be? I ask you, as > > > I guess you would be the closest thing to a world authority on the > > > concept, or have you got competition? > > No, you haven't really grasped the point about the vibrations in the > example. I was just pointing out that a certain amount of complexity > is required for consciousness, so complexity is needed somewhere in > the mechanoid. Vibrating systems can contain information of arbitrary > complexity - they don't have to be made out of physical elastic > bands. Vibrations occur in strings in general, these could be the > theoretical strings of string-theory, or hair-like cilia made from > millions of tiny pinheads all oscillating in a plasma field, if you > think elastic bands are too primitive a device to be worth > considering. Some people think that Mobius strips are weirdly clever > - perhaps if millions of elastic bands were Mobius strips interacting > in a complex 3-d lattice, with carefully placed twigs and twiglets to > provide the necessary resonance and feedback effects, it would be > rather more likely to have the necessary complexity for conscious > awareness of reality, than using just the one guitar string that you > suggest? Discuss. Jim Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 22:10:12 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2906072210120001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1183178579.174328.269690@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 30, 12:05 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <1183169797.701414.298...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > > On Jun 30, 4:42 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > > > In article <f63pn1$fk...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >> > > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >> > > > > Jason wrote: >> > > > > > In article >> > > > > > <DipthotDipthot-677E57.20063928062...@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, >> > > > > > 655321 <DipthotDipt...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: >> > >> > > > > >> How many of the numerous creation [myths] do you want to bring into >> > > > > >> the ID curriculum? One? A dozen? Two hundred? (Don't worry, >> > there are >> > > > > >> that many -- scores more, in fact.) >> > >> > > > > > Only one--Visit the Discovery Institute website for details. >They have >> > > > > > already published a textbook entitled, "Of Pandas and People". >> > >> > > > > Why that one instead of one of the other hundred or so? >> > >> > > > Because it's the best one. >> > >> > > Shouldn't that be for teachers and students to decide? They could >> > > have an entire course about the various creation myths from around the >> > > world. It would be very enlightening. I would recommend it be part >> > > of the elementary school program. >> >> > Would you be in favor of such a course? I posted an article about a public >> > school where Muslim children have a special recess so the Muslim students >> > can have a group prayer session. That same public school has a special >> > class that only has Muslim girls. No boys are allowed to enter that class >> > room. What is your opinion about that public school? >> >> I tolerate religious practices up to the point where people tell me >> that I have to believe what they believe. I am very consistent in >> this regard. It is you who are inconsistent because you would insist >> that secular schools have prayer sessions which all students are >> required to participate in regardless of their religious background. >> Obviously Christians can and do pray in private in school and you have >> no problem with that but you apparently have a problem with Moslems >> wanting to do the same thing. >> >> As for wanting young children to learn about mythology in elementary >> school, I did learn about Greek and Norse mythology in elementary >> school. Look how I turned out. Of course I want other children to >> get the same exposure so that they can more easily separate fact and >> fiction when they become adults. >> >> Martin > >The question was about PUBLIC Schools. Should Public schools grant Muslim >students preferential treatment (eg girls only classes and group prayer >sessions? Why do you consider it preferential treatment? Schools in the United States don't hold classes on Sundays. Is that preferential treatment for Christians? They don't hold classes on Christmas or Easter. Is that preferential treatment. Accommodating religious peculiarities is not preferential treatment. Your act as if you have no respect for other religions even though your religion has no more evidence to back it up than any other religion. You are being arrogant and are condescending to those who don't share your religion, despite the fact that you cannot prove that your religion isn't false. >If you was the principal of a high school, would you permit a Christian >student at that high school to enter a biology class and pass out a free >32 page booklet to each student entitled, "The Bible, Science and >Creation"? There's a difference between allowing religious lies to be taught in a class and an accommodation of religious activities. You apparently don't want to acknowledge that. You aren't at all honest in your discussions here. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 21:40:55 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2906072140550001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <1183169960.120696.327380@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin ><phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 30, 4:58 am, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> > >> > news:Jason-2906071337310001@66-52-22-103.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > > In article <BRdhi.18042$19.4...@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> > >>news:Jason-2906071317290001@66-52-22-103.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > >> > In article <DHchi.6375$09.4...@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> > >> > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> >> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message >> > >> >>news:Jason-2906071053290001@66-52-22-46.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > >> >> > In article <5eklksF39dc2...@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >> > >> >> > <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> >> >> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> >> > >> > >> >> >> snip >> > >> > >> >> >> > If people choose not to believe the information in the Bible, >> > >> >> >> > that >> > >> >> >> > is >> > >> >> >> > their choice. According to the Time Almanac (2005), 1.9 billion >> > >> >> >> > people >> > >> >> >> > are >> > >> >> >> > Christians so they do believe the information in the Bible. >> > >> > >> >> >> So? That doesn't make it true. >> > >> > >> >> > Many of the advocates of evolution believe that life evolved from >> > >> >> > non-life. That doesn't make it true. >> > >> > >> >> Nice subject shift there Jason. >> > >> > >> > Thanks for the compliment. >> > >> > >> No problem. I checked your posting history Jason, and I see that you go >> > >> back >> > >> to 2005 with the bullshit you have been posting here. Same MO, same >> > >> results. >> > >> You need to get closer to Jesus. >> > >> > > You have to much free time on your hands. I was hoping that scientists had >> > > found some new evidence since 2005 but I was wrong. One poster referred me >> > > to a site which indicated that a scientist had been able to design an >> > > experment that caused genetic material to be developed from non-genetic >> > > material. That was an interesting experiment. However, as you know, there >> > > is a vast amount of difference between genetic material and Life. >> > >> > No, you weren't hoping that. In the first place you have placed your entire >> > faith on the hope that life won't be developed. In the second place you have >> > posted continuously during that time so you haven't been away from the >> > happenings in abiogenesis, In other words Jason, you're just another liar >> > for god. >> >> He's also had time to make up for his lack of education and actually >> learn something about evolution and abiogenesis. He hasn't. He says >> it's "boring". >> >> Martin > >Martin, >Yes, it is boring to read a twenty page article that was written for >scientists. On the other hand, it's easy to read articles about such >subjects in magazines such as National Geographic and Discover Magazine >because the audience of those authors are not scientists but college >graduates that have degrees in many different fields. >Jason > So you are too lazy to learn why your doctrines are false, but unwilling to admit that your doctrines are false. I see that you still haven't bothered to read the Parable of the Talents. Quote
Guest James Norris Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 On Jun 30, 4:26 am, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote: > On Jun 30, 3:25?am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > On Jun 30, 1:55 am, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote: > > > Design for a Conscious Mechanoid > > > [Just to deter the predictable 'define what you mean by conscious' > > posting: 'Conscious' means 'aware of reality' - a human being is > > conscious, but a piece of paper is not conscious. If there is still a > > problem with understanding the word 'conscious', try using a > > dictionary.] > > > Start off with millions of identical ordinary (non-conscious) robots. > > Each robot is pre-programmed to collect things from the environment at > > random (twigs, elastic bands, teacups, wheels, orange peel etc), and > > incorporate them into itself, gradually replacing all its original > > component parts as it does so. Now let the robots free to interact > > with the environment, and watch what happens. > > > Most of the robots would cease to function quite rapidly, of course. > > They might replace one of their vital components (the computer > > program, for example), with a piece of orange peel and immediately > > stop working permanently. Some might continue to function for quite a > > while, making meaningless minor alterations to their original > > structure, without affecting their basic operation as a programmed > > mechanical device, which we knew to be non-conscious. We can ignore > > robots which have replaced themselves with biological material which > > was already conscious, because that is obviously not what we are > > interested in. > > > The robots we are interested in are those which manage to replace all > > their constituent components, including their original computer > > hardware and software, but are still functioning. They, like > > ourselves, have been created out of material from the environment, so > > they might be conscious, as we are. > > > A certain amount of complexity is required for consciousness, and this > > could be provided, for example, by using the twigs to twang the > > elastic bands - the vibrational properties of the elastic bands could > > easily carry any complexity necessary for the occurrence of thought. > > For that to happen by chance is extremely unlikely of course, as is > > the likelihood of millions of monkeys randomly operating typewriters > > producing the occasional Shakespeare sonnet by chance, but if you left > > them long enough, they would eventually do it! > > > Consciousness is a subjective experience, so there is no way of > > determining whether or not anything or anybody is conscious. In the > > design above, the construction allows the possibility that > > consciousness might occur in a device which was originally non- > > conscious. The random self-modifying behaviour may have led to a > > wheeled mechanism made out of orange peel, teacups and elastic bands > > held together with bits of wood, with its understanding of reality > > contained in the vibrational processes occurring in the twig-twanged > > elastic bands, which wanders around in the natural environment > > apparently decorating itself with the bits of garbage it picks up. > > Perhaps the device has improved on its original design and is now > > conscious? At any rate, it certainly wouldn't be less conscious than > > it was to begin with. > > > James Norris > > > > > > I read your thread. Was it a satirical portrayal of atheist > > > > > "reasoning"? > > > > > No, it was a design for a conscious entity, neither biological nor > > > > computer-based. > > > > > > I especially liked the bit: > > > > > > "A certain amount of complexity is required for consciousness, and > > > > > this could be provided, for example, by using the twigs to twang the > > > > > elastic bands - the vibrational properties of the elastic bands could > > > > > easily carry any complexity necessary for the occurrence of thought." > > > > > > You could imagine atheists setting themselves up as authorities on > > > > > which tunes played on a guitar gave rise to consciousness, and whether > > > > > one string, or all the strings, or the whole guitar had the > > > > > experiences. They could debate on to what extent they could > > > > > anthropomorphise the conscious experience a certain song gave. > > > > > The notion of vibrations carrying information was an example of how > > > > the necessary complexity for 'thoughts' might arise in the mechanism. > > > > I understand from your earlier postings that you believe that human > > > > beings have a non-physical 'soul', so I'm not sure why you think my > > > > suggestion is so laughable. > > > > > > Though the part where you said, "consciousness is a subjective > > > > > experience, so there is no way of determining whether or not anything > > > > > or anybody is conscious", did illustrate that from an atheist > > > > > perspective there would be no experimental difference expected whether > > > > > something was or wasn't consciously experiencing, which is something a > > > > > few of them here are having problems coming to terms with. > > > > > I don't know why you pick on atheists in particular as having a > > > > problem with the unverifiability of subjective experiences, but > > > > anyway, perhaps many of us do - I personally don't. > > > > > > Still, very amusing, assuming of course you weren't being serious, and > > > > > an absolute nutter. > > > > > An absolute nutter in your opinion might be someone who believed that > > > > they had four souls, rather than just the one, I suppose. > > > > > The Design for a Conscious Mechanoid is quite serious - a hypothetical > > > > example of how a constructed 'mechanical' (ie non-biological) being > > > > might be conscious. I'm not suggesting that it would ever work in > > > > reality, any more than that a million monkeys typing on a million > > > > typewriters for a million years to produce the works of Shakespeare > > > > would ever work in reality. The example draws attention to the > > > > salient aspects of an interesting question. I'm glad you found it > > > > amusing though. I always try to make my postings interesting and > > > > memorable, and humour is a well-known didactic tool. > > > > The problem with no experimental difference expected whether something > > > was or wasn't consciously experiencing, is that it means whether it > > > was or wasn't, couldn't be thought to influence behaviour. If that was > > > the case, it would have to be a coincidence that our behaviour > > > expressed the conscious experiences we actually have (it couldn't have > > > been influenced by their existance). > > > You are trying to discuss consciousness using behavioural concepts. > > The behavioural understanding of the psyche has little to say about > > consciousness - the brain reacts to external stimuli and produces > > behaviour in the organism, which is studied to give an understanding > > of the workings of the brain. Cognitive models of consciousness, > > which you should look into as they might help you express your > > argument, are inside-out compared to the behavioural viewpoint. The > > 'mind' (which is believed to exist because of processes occurring in > > the brain) is considered as an Ego, with Superego, Id and various > > other paraphernalia, and these all contribute to goal-directed > > behaviour caused by subjective 'needs' which the conscious being tries > > to satisfy. > > > > Anyway, interesting post. So have you any thoughts on which tunes > > > played on a guitar might be give rise to, the string(s) or the guitar > > > thinking? Any thoughts on what those thoughts might be? I ask you, as > > > I guess you would be the closest thing to a world authority on the > > > concept, or have you got competition? > > No, you haven't really grasped the point about the vibrations in the > example. I was just pointing out that a certain amount of complexity > is required for consciousness, so complexity is needed somewhere in > the mechanoid. Vibrating systems can contain information of arbitrary > complexity - they don't have to be made out of physical elastic > bands. Vibrations occur in strings in general, these could be the > theoretical strings of string-theory, or hair-like cilia made from > millions of tiny pinheads all oscillating in a plasma field, if you > think elastic bands are too primitive a device to be worth > considering. Some people think that Mobius strips are weirdly clever > - perhaps if millions of elastic bands were Mobius strips interacting > in a complex 3-d lattice, with carefully placed twigs and twiglets to > provide the necessary resonance and feedback effects, it would be > rather more likely to have the necessary complexity for conscious > awareness of reality, than using just the one guitar string that you > suggest? Discuss. Jim On Jun 30, 3:17?pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 21:40:55 -0700, in alt.atheism > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-2906072140550...@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > > >In article <1183169960.120696.327...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > ><phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> On Jun 30, 4:58 am, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > >> >news:Jason-2906071337310001@66-52-22-103.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >> > > In article <BRdhi.18042$19.4...@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > >> > > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> > >> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> > >>news:Jason-2906071317290001@66-52-22-103.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >> > >> > In article <DHchi.6375$09.4...@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > >> > >> > <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> > >> >> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> > >> >>news:Jason-2906071053290001@66-52-22-46.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >> > >> >> > In article <5eklksF39dc2...@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > >> > >> >> > <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: > > >> > >> >> >> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> > > >> > >> >> >> snip > > >> > >> >> >> > If people choose not to believe the information in the Bible, > >> > >> >> >> > that > >> > >> >> >> > is > >> > >> >> >> > their choice. According to the Time Almanac (2005), 1.9 billion > >> > >> >> >> > people > >> > >> >> >> > are > >> > >> >> >> > Christians so they do believe the information in the Bible. > > >> > >> >> >> So? That doesn't make it true. > > >> > >> >> > Many of the advocates of evolution believe that life evolved from > >> > >> >> > non-life. That doesn't make it true. > > >> > >> >> Nice subject shift there Jason. > > >> > >> > Thanks for the compliment. > > >> > >> No problem. I checked your posting history Jason, and I see that you go > >> > >> back > >> > >> to 2005 with the bullshit you have been posting here. Same MO, same > >> > >> results. > >> > >> You need to get closer to Jesus. > > >> > > You have to much free time on your hands. I was hoping that scientists had > >> > > found some new evidence since 2005 but I was wrong. One poster referred me > >> > > to a site which indicated that a scientist had been able to design an > >> > > experment that caused genetic material to be developed from non-genetic > >> > > material. That was an interesting experiment. However, as you know, there > >> > > is a vast amount of difference between genetic material and Life. > > >> > No, you weren't hoping that. In the first place you have placed your entire > >> > faith on the hope that life won't be developed. In the second place you have > >> > posted continuously during that time so you haven't been away from the > >> > happenings in abiogenesis, In other words Jason, you're just another liar > >> > for god. > > >> He's also had time to make up for his lack of education and actually > >> learn something about evolution and abiogenesis. He hasn't. He says > >> it's "boring". > > >> Martin > > >Martin, > >Yes, it is boring to read a twenty page article that was written for > >scientists. On the other hand, it's easy to read articles about such > >subjects in magazines such as National Geographic and Discover Magazine > >because the audience of those authors are not scientists but college > >graduates that have degrees in many different fields. > >Jason > > So you are too lazy to learn why your doctrines are false, but unwilling > to admit that your doctrines are false. > > I see that you still haven't bothered to read the Parable of the > Talents.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - On Jun 30, 4:26 am, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote: > On Jun 30, 3:25?am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > On Jun 30, 1:55 am, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote: > > > Design for a Conscious Mechanoid > > > [Just to deter the predictable 'define what you mean by conscious' > > posting: 'Conscious' means 'aware of reality' - a human being is > > conscious, but a piece of paper is not conscious. If there is still a > > problem with understanding the word 'conscious', try using a > > dictionary.] > > > Start off with millions of identical ordinary (non-conscious) robots. > > Each robot is pre-programmed to collect things from the environment at > > random (twigs, elastic bands, teacups, wheels, orange peel etc), and > > incorporate them into itself, gradually replacing all its original > > component parts as it does so. Now let the robots free to interact > > with the environment, and watch what happens. > > > Most of the robots would cease to function quite rapidly, of course. > > They might replace one of their vital components (the computer > > program, for example), with a piece of orange peel and immediately > > stop working permanently. Some might continue to function for quite a > > while, making meaningless minor alterations to their original > > structure, without affecting their basic operation as a programmed > > mechanical device, which we knew to be non-conscious. We can ignore > > robots which have replaced themselves with biological material which > > was already conscious, because that is obviously not what we are > > interested in. > > > The robots we are interested in are those which manage to replace all > > their constituent components, including their original computer > > hardware and software, but are still functioning. They, like > > ourselves, have been created out of material from the environment, so > > they might be conscious, as we are. > > > A certain amount of complexity is required for consciousness, and this > > could be provided, for example, by using the twigs to twang the > > elastic bands - the vibrational properties of the elastic bands could > > easily carry any complexity necessary for the occurrence of thought. > > For that to happen by chance is extremely unlikely of course, as is > > the likelihood of millions of monkeys randomly operating typewriters > > producing the occasional Shakespeare sonnet by chance, but if you left > > them long enough, they would eventually do it! > > > Consciousness is a subjective experience, so there is no way of > > determining whether or not anything or anybody is conscious. In the > > design above, the construction allows the possibility that > > consciousness might occur in a device which was originally non- > > conscious. The random self-modifying behaviour may have led to a > > wheeled mechanism made out of orange peel, teacups and elastic bands > > held together with bits of wood, with its understanding of reality > > contained in the vibrational processes occurring in the twig-twanged > > elastic bands, which wanders around in the natural environment > > apparently decorating itself with the bits of garbage it picks up. > > Perhaps the device has improved on its original design and is now > > conscious? At any rate, it certainly wouldn't be less conscious than > > it was to begin with. > > > James Norris > > > > > > I read your thread. Was it a satirical portrayal of atheist > > > > > "reasoning"? > > > > > No, it was a design for a conscious entity, neither biological nor > > > > computer-based. > > > > > > I especially liked the bit: > > > > > > "A certain amount of complexity is required for consciousness, and > > > > > this could be provided, for example, by using the twigs to twang the > > > > > elastic bands - the vibrational properties of the elastic bands could > > > > > easily carry any complexity necessary for the occurrence of thought." > > > > > > You could imagine atheists setting themselves up as authorities on > > > > > which tunes played on a guitar gave rise to consciousness, and whether > > > > > one string, or all the strings, or the whole guitar had the > > > > > experiences. They could debate on to what extent they could > > > > > anthropomorphise the conscious experience a certain song gave. > > > > > The notion of vibrations carrying information was an example of how > > > > the necessary complexity for 'thoughts' might arise in the mechanism. > > > > I understand from your earlier postings that you believe that human > > > > beings have a non-physical 'soul', so I'm not sure why you think my > > > > suggestion is so laughable. > > > > > > Though the part where you said, "consciousness is a subjective > > > > > experience, so there is no way of determining whether or not anything > > > > > or anybody is conscious", did illustrate that from an atheist > > > > > perspective there would be no experimental difference expected whether > > > > > something was or wasn't consciously experiencing, which is something a > > > > > few of them here are having problems coming to terms with. > > > > > I don't know why you pick on atheists in particular as having a > > > > problem with the unverifiability of subjective experiences, but > > > > anyway, perhaps many of us do - I personally don't. > > > > > > Still, very amusing, assuming of course you weren't being serious, and > > > > > an absolute nutter. > > > > > An absolute nutter in your opinion might be someone who believed that > > > > they had four souls, rather than just the one, I suppose. > > > > > The Design for a Conscious Mechanoid is quite serious - a hypothetical > > > > example of how a constructed 'mechanical' (ie non-biological) being > > > > might be conscious. I'm not suggesting that it would ever work in > > > > reality, any more than that a million monkeys typing on a million > > > > typewriters for a million years to produce the works of Shakespeare > > > > would ever work in reality. The example draws attention to the > > > > salient aspects of an interesting question. I'm glad you found it > > > > amusing though. I always try to make my postings interesting and > > > > memorable, and humour is a well-known didactic tool. > > > > The problem with no experimental difference expected whether something > > > was or wasn't consciously experiencing, is that it means whether it > > > was or wasn't, couldn't be thought to influence behaviour. If that was > > > the case, it would have to be a coincidence that our behaviour > > > expressed the conscious experiences we actually have (it couldn't have > > > been influenced by their existance). > > > You are trying to discuss consciousness using behavioural concepts. > > The behavioural understanding of the psyche has little to say about > > consciousness - the brain reacts to external stimuli and produces > > behaviour in the organism, which is studied to give an understanding > > of the workings of the brain. Cognitive models of consciousness, > > which you should look into as they might help you express your > > argument, are inside-out compared to the behavioural viewpoint. The > > 'mind' (which is believed to exist because of processes occurring in > > the brain) is considered as an Ego, with Superego, Id and various > > other paraphernalia, and these all contribute to goal-directed > > behaviour caused by subjective 'needs' which the conscious being tries > > to satisfy. > > > > Anyway, interesting post. So have you any thoughts on which tunes > > > played on a guitar might be give rise to, the string(s) or the guitar > > > thinking? Any thoughts on what those thoughts might be? I ask you, as > > > I guess you would be the closest thing to a world authority on the > > > concept, or have you got competition? > > No, you haven't really grasped the point about the vibrations in the > example. I was just pointing out that a certain amount of complexity > is required for consciousness, so complexity is needed somewhere in > the mechanoid. Vibrating systems can contain information of arbitrary > complexity - they don't have to be made out of physical elastic > bands. Vibrations occur in strings in general, these could be the > theoretical strings of string-theory, or hair-like cilia made from > millions of tiny pinheads all oscillating in a plasma field, if you > think elastic bands are too primitive a device to be worth > considering. Some people think that Mobius strips are weirdly clever > - perhaps if millions of elastic bands were Mobius strips interacting > in a complex 3-d lattice, with carefully placed twigs and twiglets to > provide the necessary resonance and feedback effects, it would be > rather more likely to have the necessary complexity for conscious > awareness of reality, than using just the one guitar string that you > suggest? Discuss. Jim Quote
Guest David V. Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 James Norris wrote: > > Discuss. Why do you believe such things? -- Dave "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain. Quote
Guest David V. Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 Therion Ware wrote: > On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 05:45:23 -0700, James Norris > <JimNorris014@aol.com> wrote: > > [snip] > >>Discuss. > > 200 odd lines in numerous posts with a one word response? He's a few french fries short of a happy meal. -- Dave "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 09:54:18 -0000, in alt.talk.creationism Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in <1183197258.119270.49160@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>: >On Jun 30, 2:29 pm, johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> In article <5ekj7bF398uh...@mid.individual.net>, >> "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: >> > "johac" <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >> >news:jhachmann-5CD649.15412328062007@news.giganews.com... >> > > In article <5ehujiF385pl...@mid.individual.net>, >> > > "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> > >> LOL! Diety Death Match? Who knows how to do claymation? >> >> > > LOL! I wish I knew how! I'd love to put something like that on YouTube. >> > > :-) >> >> > That would be hilarious >> >> Heh! Heh! Tag team. Yaweh and Baal vs. Zeus and The FSM. :-) > >"Baal" is a hebrew word meaning "lord" that was used to refer to any >god other than Yahweh so as far as we know the Baal that teh >Canaanites were worshipping _was_ Zeus. Wasn't Ba'al generally the consort of Astarte? Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 On Jun 30, 10:26 pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 09:54:18 -0000, in alt.talk.creationism > Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote in > <1183197258.119270.49...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>: > >On Jun 30, 2:29 pm, johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> In article <5ekj7bF398uh...@mid.individual.net>, > >> "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> > "johac" <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > >> >news:jhachmann-5CD649.15412328062007@news.giganews.com... > >> > > In article <5ehujiF385pl...@mid.individual.net>, > >> > > "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: > > >> > >> LOL! Diety Death Match? Who knows how to do claymation? > > >> > > LOL! I wish I knew how! I'd love to put something like that on YouTube. > >> > > :-) > > >> > That would be hilarious > > >> Heh! Heh! Tag team. Yaweh and Baal vs. Zeus and The FSM. :-) > > >"Baal" is a hebrew word meaning "lord" that was used to refer to any > >god other than Yahweh so as far as we know the Baal that teh > >Canaanites were worshipping _was_ Zeus. > > Wasn't Ba'al generally the consort of Astarte? That's a new one to me. There was more than one god named Baal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astarte Martin Quote
Guest The Chief Instigator Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 "David V." <spam@hotmail.com> writes: >Therion Ware wrote: >> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 05:45:23 -0700, James Norris >> <JimNorris014@aol.com> wrote: >> [snip] >>>Discuss. >> 200 odd lines in numerous posts with a one word response? >He's a few french fries short of a happy meal. He's eleven cents short of a dime. -- Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273 LAST GAME: San Antonio 4, Houston 2 (April 15) NEXT GAME: October 2007, date/place/opponent TBA Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 15:42:21 -0000, in alt.atheism Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in <1183218141.147247.245850@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>: >On Jun 30, 10:26 pm, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 09:54:18 -0000, in alt.talk.creationism >> Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote in >> <1183197258.119270.49...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>: >> >On Jun 30, 2:29 pm, johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >> In article <5ekj7bF398uh...@mid.individual.net>, >> >> "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: >> >> > "johac" <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >> >> >news:jhachmann-5CD649.15412328062007@news.giganews.com... >> >> > > In article <5ehujiF385pl...@mid.individual.net>, >> >> > > "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: >> >> >> > >> LOL! Diety Death Match? Who knows how to do claymation? >> >> >> > > LOL! I wish I knew how! I'd love to put something like that on YouTube. >> >> > > :-) >> >> >> > That would be hilarious >> >> >> Heh! Heh! Tag team. Yaweh and Baal vs. Zeus and The FSM. :-) >> >> >"Baal" is a hebrew word meaning "lord" that was used to refer to any >> >god other than Yahweh so as far as we know the Baal that teh >> >Canaanites were worshipping _was_ Zeus. >> >> Wasn't Ba'al generally the consort of Astarte? > >That's a new one to me. There was more than one god named Baal. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baal >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astarte > >Martin Thanks. I have no clue where I heard this, but I recall the context. The writer was claiming that the 'bad' god was really Astarte and that the use of Ba'al was also a way to demean Astarte. People love making stories up about these gods, even today. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 In article <f65k0k$9o8$4@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f63of0$e38$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> I understand your point: This is how I would ask the questions: > >>> > >>> Do you believe humans evolved from other life-forms without any > >>> involvement of god? yes or no > >>> > >>> Do you believe that both evolution and intelligent design should be taught > >>> in the public schools or just evolution? > >> Do you believe something should be taught in schools that has no > >> scientific backing? > > > > If you are referring to Intelligent Design, it does have fossil evidence > > as scientific backing. > > No, it doesn't. Now answer the question: Do you believe something should > be taught in schools that has no scientific backing? > > It's a simple "yes/no" question. No essays required. > > There have been two books written related to fossil > > evidence that supports creation science and intelligent design. > > And there have been thousands of books related to fossil evidence that > supports evolution. > > Dr. Steven > > Austin has a degree in geology from Penn State. He has led 15 research > > expeditions to the Grand Canyon. His specialty is the sedimentary > > processes that form rock strata and fossils. > > And this supports creationism how? Mike, Should something be taught in a science class that has no scientific backing? The answer is no. That is the reason that I don't believe that abiogenesis should be taught in biology classes. Intelligent Design should be taught since it has fossil evidence and rock strata evidence. When I was taking a college biology class in 1971, the biology professor taught our class about the primordial soup theory. In response to a question by a student, the professor told our class that there was NO evidence to indicate that life evolved from non-life in the primordial soup. Dr. Austin is of the opinion that rock strata data and fossil evidence supports creation science and Intelligent Design. The result is ongoing and as far as I know--Dr. Austin has not written a book related to his research findings. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 In article <31pc83l23s4sjqq2q1v1v0pt9426qktgd6@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 21:00:37 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-2906072100370001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <1183168775.672682.49010@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Martin > ><phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Jun 30, 4:23 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > In article <f63of0$e3...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > >> > > >> > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> > > Jason wrote: > >> > > > I understand your point: This is how I would ask the questions: > >> > > >> > > > Do you believe humans evolved from other life-forms without any > >> > > > involvement of god? yes or no > >> > > >> > > > Do you believe that both evolution and intelligent design should > >be taught > >> > > > in the public schools or just evolution? > >> > > >> > > Do you believe something should be taught in schools that has no > >> > > scientific backing? > >> > > >> > If you are referring to Intelligent Design, it does have fossil evidence > >> > as scientific backing. > >> > >> Again, show us a fossil of your god or stop lying. > >> > >> Martin > > > >Martin, > >I've already told you about two books that discuss the evidence. Upon > >request, I'll try to find an article on the net that provides a summary of > >the evidence. > > Jason, clearly you haven't read them, That is not true. I read "Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No" by Dr. D.T. Gish. I read the book several years ago and no longer have a copy of that book. nor do you understand enough of > science to know how bad those books are. Since you have decided to > remain ignorant of everything scientific and refuse to accept any facts > that are put before you, why don't you stop posting. You already know > that your opinion is worthless and makes Christians look bad. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 In article <f65k7k$9o8$7@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > The same time that you realize that there is no evidence to indicate that > > life ever natually evolved from non-life. It's based on speculation and > > not evidence. > > Who ever claimed that life DID evolve from non-life? Jason, why do you > keep repeating this same tired lie? One poster indicated that the main evidence that proves that life evolved from non-life is that we now have life on this planet. He indicated that PROVED that life evolved from non-life since that was the ONLY way that it could have happened. When I mentioned that God created mankind; some plants and some animals and that Natural Selection kicked in after the creation process was finished--The poster claimed that he did not believe in God. I mentioned Erik von Danikan's (spelling??) theory related to ancient astronauts visiting the earth millions of years ago and leaving behind dozens of people, many seeds and some animals. He did not believe that happened. Several other posters implied or actully stated that the reason life forms are on this planet is because life evolved from non-life millions of years ago. When I have mentioned Intelligent Design--various posters have became angry with me. They are convinced that life came to be on this planet because of abiogenesis. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 In article <f65jlb$9o8$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f63pn1$fka$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> In article > >>> <DipthotDipthot-677E57.20063928062007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, > >>> 655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> In article > >>>> <Jason-2806071932410001@66-52-22-115.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, > >>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Do you believe humans evolved from other life-forms without any > >>>>> involvement of god? yes or no > >>>> That's easy: Why should I? There has been no good reason to do so. > >>>> That's the main point for being an atheist. No one has set forth a good > >>>> reason to believe in any gods. > >>>> > >>>> When posed with question whose answer is unknown, the skeptic is pretty > >>>> darned comfortable with the answer, "As yet, the answer to that question > >>>> is unknown." > >>>> > >>>> We don't feel the need to fill in the void with invented gods who, > >>>> amazingly, fit the void so precisely that they, suddenly, simply must be > >>>> true -- looking back post-invention, that is. > >>>> > >>>>> Do you believe that both evolution and intelligent design should be taught > >>>>> in the public schools or just evolution? > >>>> ID isn't something someone can teach, because there is no teachable > >>>> element of it. It's all preaching when it comes to ID. You have to > >>>> invent a god(s) concept to teach; you have to invent the process by > >>>> which the god(s) did the creating, and then, perhaps the purpose. > >>>> > >>>> All this invention has nothing to do with observation. And that's what > >>>> makes it unscientific. No "textbook" of any number of pages can conceal > >>>> that fact. > >>>> > >>>> And teaching post-invention is PREACHING, pure and simple. > >>>> > >>>> So "teaching" ID has no place in public schools. Sunday School, > >>>> perhaps. (Bad ones.) > >>>> > >>>> But you have run away from one of my questions. I'll repeat it here, > >>>> and you'll probably run again, or pretend you didn't read it: > >>>> > >>>> How many of the numerous creation theories do you want to bring into > >>>> the ID curriculum? One? A dozen? Two hundred? (Don't worry, there are > >>>> that many -- scores more, in fact.) > >>> Only one--Visit the Discovery Institute website for details. They have > >>> already published a textbook entitled, "Of Pandas and People". > >> Why that one instead of one of the other hundred or so? > > > > Because it's the best one. > > Why? What science backs it up? We're still waiting for an answer. Yes, two books have been written related to fossil evidence and rock strata evidence that supports Intelligent Design. There is an ongoing project at the Grand Canyon and Mount St. Helens related to conducting research related to the sedimentary processes that form rock strata and fossils. Dr. Steve Austin is in charge of that project. > >>> > >>>> In other words, how far down the twisted, branched theological path do > >>>> you want to take your 'science' students before you admit to them that > >>>> you're NOT teaching them science at all? > >>> It's a basic course related to the basics of Intelligent Design. When I > >>> took a high school biology class, we only spent about two weeks on > >>> evolution. The teacher could cover Intelligent Design in about two weeks. > >> No, they could cover it in 2 seconds: "Goddidit." > > > > That's illegal to say in a public school classroom. The teachers would > > have to say that an Intelligent Designer done it. > > And this intelligent designer is who? God. "A pile of male bovine > excrement by any other name would still be bullshit." > > When the teachers > > covered evolution, the teachers would have to say, "Life evolved from > > non-life". > > No, they wouldn't, because it's not true. Life FORMED from non-life; it > didn't evolve from it (and even you agreed that life formed from non-life.) Quote
Guest David V. Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 Jason wrote: > > That is not true. I read "Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No" > by Dr. D.T. Gish. Gish is a known liar. His arguments anti-evolution tirades are based on out of date science, ignorance, and outright fraud. He has published in many biochemistry journals, but all have been on that subject. He has not published on paper in any journal that would cause anyone to question the fact of evolution. He has published books, but anyone can publish a book and say whatever they want. Being published doesn't make it true. -- Dave "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 In article <46pc839kemlnao5pa57bjblm06c1um6luf@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 22:10:12 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-2906072210120001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <1183178579.174328.269690@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> On Jun 30, 12:05 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > In article <1183169797.701414.298...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > >> > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > > On Jun 30, 4:42 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > > > In article <f63pn1$fk...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > >> > > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> > > > > Jason wrote: > >> > > > > > In article > >> > > > > > <DipthotDipthot-677E57.20063928062...@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, > >> > > > > > 655321 <DipthotDipt...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > >> > > >> > > > > >> How many of the numerous creation [myths] do you want to bring into > >> > > > > >> the ID curriculum? One? A dozen? Two hundred? (Don't worry, > >> > there are > >> > > > > >> that many -- scores more, in fact.) > >> > > >> > > > > > Only one--Visit the Discovery Institute website for details. > >They have > >> > > > > > already published a textbook entitled, "Of Pandas and People". > >> > > >> > > > > Why that one instead of one of the other hundred or so? > >> > > >> > > > Because it's the best one. > >> > > >> > > Shouldn't that be for teachers and students to decide? They could > >> > > have an entire course about the various creation myths from around the > >> > > world. It would be very enlightening. I would recommend it be part > >> > > of the elementary school program. > >> > >> > Would you be in favor of such a course? I posted an article about a public > >> > school where Muslim children have a special recess so the Muslim students > >> > can have a group prayer session. That same public school has a special > >> > class that only has Muslim girls. No boys are allowed to enter that class > >> > room. What is your opinion about that public school? > >> > >> I tolerate religious practices up to the point where people tell me > >> that I have to believe what they believe. I am very consistent in > >> this regard. It is you who are inconsistent because you would insist > >> that secular schools have prayer sessions which all students are > >> required to participate in regardless of their religious background. > >> Obviously Christians can and do pray in private in school and you have > >> no problem with that but you apparently have a problem with Moslems > >> wanting to do the same thing. > >> > >> As for wanting young children to learn about mythology in elementary > >> school, I did learn about Greek and Norse mythology in elementary > >> school. Look how I turned out. Of course I want other children to > >> get the same exposure so that they can more easily separate fact and > >> fiction when they become adults. > >> > >> Martin > > > >The question was about PUBLIC Schools. Should Public schools grant Muslim > >students preferential treatment (eg girls only classes and group prayer > >sessions? > > Why do you consider it preferential treatment? Schools in the United > States don't hold classes on Sundays. Is that preferential treatment for > Christians? They don't hold classes on Christmas or Easter. Is that > preferential treatment. Accommodating religious peculiarities is not > preferential treatment. Your act as if you have no respect for other > religions even though your religion has no more evidence to back it up > than any other religion. You are being arrogant and are condescending to > those who don't share your religion, despite the fact that you cannot > prove that your religion isn't false. > > >If you was the principal of a high school, would you permit a Christian > >student at that high school to enter a biology class and pass out a free > >32 page booklet to each student entitled, "The Bible, Science and > >Creation"? > > There's a difference between allowing religious lies to be taught in a > class and an accommodation of religious activities. You apparently don't > want to acknowledge that. > > You aren't at all honest in your discussions here. Good points: In relation to Accomodating religious peculiarities--Would you be in favor of allowing Christian students to have a special class where they are taught Intelligent Design? Quote
Guest David V. Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 Jason wrote: > ... When I mentioned that God created mankind You have no proof of that. You can't even prove your gods exist. No one is going to buy your phony leg story, so don't try that one again. -- Dave "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain. Quote
Guest 655321 Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 In article <Jason-2906071342570001@66-52-22-103.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > That's illegal to say in a public school classroom. The teachers would > have to say that an Intelligent Designer done it. Those two statements are indistinguishable. "Intelligent Designer" is code for "God." No matter how many of your ICR liars deny it. > When the teachers > covered evolution, the teachers would have to say, "Life evolved from > non-life". Another lie. Where did you get that from, your ICR liars club? Wake up and learn how your brain has been twisted by your ICR indoctrination. -- 655321 "We are heroes in error" -- Ahmad Chalabi Quote
Guest 655321 Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 In article <f65ipr$958$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > He wasn't one of the disciples that (supposedly) wrote the gospels, nor > was he one of the "fab 12." The word we're looking for here is "apostle." -- 655321 "We are heroes in error" -- Ahmad Chalabi Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 11:52:40 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-3006071152400001@66-52-22-84.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <31pc83l23s4sjqq2q1v1v0pt9426qktgd6@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 21:00:37 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-2906072100370001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <1183168775.672682.49010@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> ><phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On Jun 30, 4:23 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > In article <f63of0$e3...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >> >> > >> >> > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >> >> > > Jason wrote: >> >> > > > I understand your point: This is how I would ask the questions: >> >> > >> >> > > > Do you believe humans evolved from other life-forms without any >> >> > > > involvement of god? yes or no >> >> > >> >> > > > Do you believe that both evolution and intelligent design should >> >be taught >> >> > > > in the public schools or just evolution? >> >> > >> >> > > Do you believe something should be taught in schools that has no >> >> > > scientific backing? >> >> > >> >> > If you are referring to Intelligent Design, it does have fossil evidence >> >> > as scientific backing. >> >> >> >> Again, show us a fossil of your god or stop lying. >> >> >> >> Martin >> > >> >Martin, >> >I've already told you about two books that discuss the evidence. Upon >> >request, I'll try to find an article on the net that provides a summary of >> >the evidence. >> >> Jason, clearly you haven't read them, > >That is not true. I read "Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No" by Dr. D.T. >Gish. I read the book several years ago and no longer have a copy of that >book. So what? Gish lied to you in that book. If you knew any science at all, you would know that he was lying. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 12:21:33 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-3006071221330001@66-52-22-84.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <46pc839kemlnao5pa57bjblm06c1um6luf@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 22:10:12 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-2906072210120001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <1183178579.174328.269690@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On Jun 30, 12:05 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > In article <1183169797.701414.298...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, >Martin >> >> > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > On Jun 30, 4:42 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > > > In article <f63pn1$fk...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >> >> > > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >> >> > > > > Jason wrote: >> >> > > > > > In article >> >> > > > > > ><DipthotDipthot-677E57.20063928062...@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, >> >> > > > > > 655321 <DipthotDipt...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > > > > >> How many of the numerous creation [myths] do you want to >bring into >> >> > > > > >> the ID curriculum? One? A dozen? Two hundred? (Don't worry, >> >> > there are >> >> > > > > >> that many -- scores more, in fact.) >> >> > >> >> > > > > > Only one--Visit the Discovery Institute website for details. >> >They have >> >> > > > > > already published a textbook entitled, "Of Pandas and People". >> >> > >> >> > > > > Why that one instead of one of the other hundred or so? >> >> > >> >> > > > Because it's the best one. >> >> > >> >> > > Shouldn't that be for teachers and students to decide? They could >> >> > > have an entire course about the various creation myths from around the >> >> > > world. It would be very enlightening. I would recommend it be part >> >> > > of the elementary school program. >> >> >> >> > Would you be in favor of such a course? I posted an article about a >public >> >> > school where Muslim children have a special recess so the Muslim students >> >> > can have a group prayer session. That same public school has a special >> >> > class that only has Muslim girls. No boys are allowed to enter that class >> >> > room. What is your opinion about that public school? >> >> >> >> I tolerate religious practices up to the point where people tell me >> >> that I have to believe what they believe. I am very consistent in >> >> this regard. It is you who are inconsistent because you would insist >> >> that secular schools have prayer sessions which all students are >> >> required to participate in regardless of their religious background. >> >> Obviously Christians can and do pray in private in school and you have >> >> no problem with that but you apparently have a problem with Moslems >> >> wanting to do the same thing. >> >> >> >> As for wanting young children to learn about mythology in elementary >> >> school, I did learn about Greek and Norse mythology in elementary >> >> school. Look how I turned out. Of course I want other children to >> >> get the same exposure so that they can more easily separate fact and >> >> fiction when they become adults. >> >> >> >> Martin >> > >> >The question was about PUBLIC Schools. Should Public schools grant Muslim >> >students preferential treatment (eg girls only classes and group prayer >> >sessions? >> >> Why do you consider it preferential treatment? Schools in the United >> States don't hold classes on Sundays. Is that preferential treatment for >> Christians? They don't hold classes on Christmas or Easter. Is that >> preferential treatment. Accommodating religious peculiarities is not >> preferential treatment. Your act as if you have no respect for other >> religions even though your religion has no more evidence to back it up >> than any other religion. You are being arrogant and are condescending to >> those who don't share your religion, despite the fact that you cannot >> prove that your religion isn't false. >> >> >If you was the principal of a high school, would you permit a Christian >> >student at that high school to enter a biology class and pass out a free >> >32 page booklet to each student entitled, "The Bible, Science and >> >Creation"? >> >> There's a difference between allowing religious lies to be taught in a >> class and an accommodation of religious activities. You apparently don't >> want to acknowledge that. >> >> You aren't at all honest in your discussions here. > >Good points: >In relation to Accomodating religious peculiarities--Would you be in favor >of allowing Christian students to have a special class where they are >taught Intelligent Design? You are still being dishonest. Accommodating schedules is not the same thing as teaching religious doctrines in class. No one is teaching any Moslem doctrines in public schools. No one is going to teach so-called Christian doctrine either, particularly since it relies so heavily on lies being taught by religious sects. As we have been over many times, ID has nothing to do with science and everything to do with religion. If anyone ever develops scientific evidence to support ID then it might be considered. Until then, it is just a religious doctrine and forbidden in public schools. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 11:47:48 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-3006071147490001@66-52-22-84.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <f65k0k$9o8$4@news04.infoave.net>, Mike ><prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > In article <f63of0$e38$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >> > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >> > >> >> Jason wrote: >> >>> I understand your point: This is how I would ask the questions: >> >>> >> >>> Do you believe humans evolved from other life-forms without any >> >>> involvement of god? yes or no >> >>> >> >>> Do you believe that both evolution and intelligent design should be taught >> >>> in the public schools or just evolution? >> >> Do you believe something should be taught in schools that has no >> >> scientific backing? >> > >> > If you are referring to Intelligent Design, it does have fossil evidence >> > as scientific backing. >> >> No, it doesn't. Now answer the question: Do you believe something should >> be taught in schools that has no scientific backing? >> >> It's a simple "yes/no" question. No essays required. >> >> There have been two books written related to fossil >> > evidence that supports creation science and intelligent design. >> >> And there have been thousands of books related to fossil evidence that >> supports evolution. >> >> Dr. Steven >> > Austin has a degree in geology from Penn State. He has led 15 research >> > expeditions to the Grand Canyon. His specialty is the sedimentary >> > processes that form rock strata and fossils. >> >> And this supports creationism how? > >Mike, >Should something be taught in a science class that has no scientific >backing? The answer is no. That is the reason that I don't believe that >abiogenesis should be taught in biology classes. What exactly is taught and what evidence do you have to show that it is wrong? >Intelligent Design should >be taught since it has fossil evidence and rock strata evidence. No, it does not. That is a lie that you aren't informed enough to recognize. You once were just one more victim of ID/Creationism lies, but now you are one of the liars because you repeat their lies even after having been corrected. >When I >was taking a college biology class in 1971, the biology professor taught >our class about the primordial soup theory. In response to a question by a >student, the professor told our class that there was NO evidence to >indicate that life evolved from non-life in the primordial soup. > >Dr. Austin is of the opinion that rock strata data and fossil evidence >supports creation science and Intelligent Design. The result is ongoing >and as far as I know--Dr. Austin has not written a book related to his >research findings. God made you stupid. Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 In article <kYudnS9H6t6ZMBvbnZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@sti.net>, "David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > > > That is not true. I read "Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No" > > by Dr. D.T. Gish. > > Gish is a known liar. His arguments anti-evolution tirades are > based on out of date science, ignorance, and outright fraud. He > has published in many biochemistry journals, but all have been on > that subject. He has not published on paper in any journal that > would cause anyone to question the fact of evolution. He has > published books, but anyone can publish a book and say whatever > they want. Being published doesn't make it true. I respect Dr. Gish. I was present when he debated a science professor at the local state university. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f65jlb$9o8$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <f63pn1$fka$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>>> Why that one instead of one of the other hundred or so? >>> Because it's the best one. >> Why? What science backs it up? We're still waiting for an answer. > > Yes, two books have been written related to fossil evidence and rock > strata evidence that supports Intelligent Design. There is an ongoing > project at the Grand Canyon and Mount St. Helens related to conducting > research related to the sedimentary processes that form rock strata and > fossils. Dr. Steve Austin is in charge of that project. Non-answer. >>>> No, they could cover it in 2 seconds: "Goddidit." >>> That's illegal to say in a public school classroom. The teachers would >>> have to say that an Intelligent Designer done it. >> And this intelligent designer is who? God. "A pile of male bovine >> excrement by any other name would still be bullshit." >> >> When the teachers >>> covered evolution, the teachers would have to say, "Life evolved from >>> non-life". >> No, they wouldn't, because it's not true. Life FORMED from non-life; it >> didn't evolve from it (and even you agreed that life formed from non-life.) No response? Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted June 30, 2007 Posted June 30, 2007 On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 12:16:40 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-3006071216400001@66-52-22-84.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <f65jlb$9o8$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike ><prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > In article <f63pn1$fka$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >> > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >> > >> >> Jason wrote: >> >>> In article >> >>> <DipthotDipthot-677E57.20063928062007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, >> >>> 655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> In article >> >>>> <Jason-2806071932410001@66-52-22-115.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, >> >>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> Do you believe humans evolved from other life-forms without any >> >>>>> involvement of god? yes or no >> >>>> That's easy: Why should I? There has been no good reason to do so. >> >>>> That's the main point for being an atheist. No one has set forth a good >> >>>> reason to believe in any gods. >> >>>> >> >>>> When posed with question whose answer is unknown, the skeptic is pretty >> >>>> darned comfortable with the answer, "As yet, the answer to that question >> >>>> is unknown." >> >>>> >> >>>> We don't feel the need to fill in the void with invented gods who, >> >>>> amazingly, fit the void so precisely that they, suddenly, simply must be >> >>>> true -- looking back post-invention, that is. >> >>>> >> >>>>> Do you believe that both evolution and intelligent design should >be taught >> >>>>> in the public schools or just evolution? >> >>>> ID isn't something someone can teach, because there is no teachable >> >>>> element of it. It's all preaching when it comes to ID. You have to >> >>>> invent a god(s) concept to teach; you have to invent the process by >> >>>> which the god(s) did the creating, and then, perhaps the purpose. >> >>>> >> >>>> All this invention has nothing to do with observation. And that's what >> >>>> makes it unscientific. No "textbook" of any number of pages can conceal >> >>>> that fact. >> >>>> >> >>>> And teaching post-invention is PREACHING, pure and simple. >> >>>> >> >>>> So "teaching" ID has no place in public schools. Sunday School, >> >>>> perhaps. (Bad ones.) >> >>>> >> >>>> But you have run away from one of my questions. I'll repeat it here, >> >>>> and you'll probably run again, or pretend you didn't read it: >> >>>> >> >>>> How many of the numerous creation theories do you want to bring into >> >>>> the ID curriculum? One? A dozen? Two hundred? (Don't worry, there are >> >>>> that many -- scores more, in fact.) >> >>> Only one--Visit the Discovery Institute website for details. They have >> >>> already published a textbook entitled, "Of Pandas and People". >> >> Why that one instead of one of the other hundred or so? >> > >> > Because it's the best one. >> >> Why? What science backs it up? We're still waiting for an answer. > >Yes, two books have been written related to fossil evidence and rock >strata evidence that supports Intelligent Design. There is an ongoing >project at the Grand Canyon and Mount St. Helens related to conducting >research related to the sedimentary processes that form rock strata and >fossils. Dr. Steve Austin is in charge of that project. > They're not really scientific projects. They're more like religious wishful thinking. >> >>> >> >>>> In other words, how far down the twisted, branched theological path do >> >>>> you want to take your 'science' students before you admit to them that >> >>>> you're NOT teaching them science at all? >> >>> It's a basic course related to the basics of Intelligent Design. When I >> >>> took a high school biology class, we only spent about two weeks on >> >>> evolution. The teacher could cover Intelligent Design in about two weeks. >> >> No, they could cover it in 2 seconds: "Goddidit." >> > >> > That's illegal to say in a public school classroom. The teachers would >> > have to say that an Intelligent Designer done it. >> >> And this intelligent designer is who? God. "A pile of male bovine >> excrement by any other name would still be bullshit." >> >> When the teachers >> > covered evolution, the teachers would have to say, "Life evolved from >> > non-life". >> >> No, they wouldn't, because it's not true. Life FORMED from non-life; it >> didn't evolve from it (and even you agreed that life formed from non-life.) > Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.