Driver to drive?

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 20:56:52 +0000, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

"Kevin Aylward" wrote:

You can argue any way you like, but believing in imaginary supreme beings,
and taking action on such pathetic beliefs, is a recipe for disaster.

No, it's a key component of an orderly society and a successful
empire.

Ah, so you ADMIT you want an American Empire !

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Graham

If it means spreading democracy and health and security around the
world, yes, absolutely. There is no "American Empire" in the sense
that the US makes the rules for anyone else, as there were Roman,
Muslim, British, French, Nazi, Japanese, Communist empires.

Europe, Canada, eastern Europe, Japan, Korea are part of the "empire
of democracy" but none of those countries genuflect to the USA. That's
as it should be.

The USA invented modern democracy, defended it in world wars, and is
the oldest surviving democracy on earth. Spreading democracy will
*diminish* the clout of the USA in the world, but spreading democracy
is what we should do. The europeans should do more; heaven knows their
old empires did a lot of damage.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 01:56:57 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Consider that brains that evolved as hunters and gatherers are also
capable of differential calculus, reading at 400 wpm, designing
electronics, building and flying jet planes...

The thing that fascinates me is that of all the animals on the planet only humans can
communicate as effectively as we do.

And only humans start fires on purpose.

John

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 15:21:13 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 20:58:51 +0000, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

You have
been told, over and over that there are three parts to the US
government, and that the US President does not have the power to force
any religion or religious issue on the country by themselves.

Teaching creationism sounds pretty much like forcing a single religion on children,
not to mention diminishing the value of science.

Creationism can be a valid scientific theory

Where's the science ? The study, the development of a hypothesis and then a theory ?

Graham

The idea that life on Earth happened from inorganic sources is
absolute dogma, without a shread of proof, or even any decent
theories.

Exogenesis is, in my opinion, much more likely, but it's rarely
mentioned because of fear of getting too close to "Creationism."

---
Yup. Even if exogenesis did explain the origin of life on Earth it
wouldn't explain the origin of life where the carrier came from or, if
it was exogenetically started there, where it started at the beginning
of the chain.

JF

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

You have
been told, over and over that there are three parts to the US
government, and that the US President does not have the power to force
any religion or religious issue on the country by themselves.

Teaching creationism sounds pretty much like forcing a single religion on children,
not to mention diminishing the value of science.

Creationism can be a valid scientific theory

Where's the science ? The study, the development of a hypothesis and then a theory ?

The idea that life on Earth happened from inorganic sources is
absolute dogma, without a shread of proof, or even any decent
theories.

It's certainly been shown in the lab that amino acids, the basic building blocks of life, can be
formed under conditions that were likely to exist on Earth zillions of years ago.

This is indisputable.

Give it those zillion years and here we are.

Show me the same for Creationism. And of course Christian zealots therefore insist the earth must
be only 5000-7000 years old or so. How could you be so STUPID as to fall for this utter bunkum ?
I thought you had a brain and a good one at that !

Graham

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 17:50:10 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 15:21:13 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 20:58:51 +0000, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

You have
been told, over and over that there are three parts to the US
government, and that the US President does not have the power to force
any religion or religious issue on the country by themselves.

Teaching creationism sounds pretty much like forcing a single religion on children,
not to mention diminishing the value of science.

Creationism can be a valid scientific theory

Where's the science ? The study, the development of a hypothesis and then a theory ?

Graham

The idea that life on Earth happened from inorganic sources is
absolute dogma, without a shread of proof, or even any decent
theories.

Exogenesis is, in my opinion, much more likely, but it's rarely
mentioned because of fear of getting too close to "Creationism."

---
Yup. Even if exogenesis did explain the origin of life on Earth it
wouldn't explain the origin of life where the carrier came from or, if
it was exogenetically started there, where it started at the beginning
of the chain.

JF

DNA based life is "irreducibly complex" so probably could not have
evolved here from inorganics. But DNA could have been designed by some
life form that itself is not irreducibly complex, that could have
evolved in much different circumstances than the conditions on Earth.
Some very simple cellular automata can evolve very complex behavior,
incrementally, from very basic beginnings.

The universe is about 13 billion years old. In the early stages,
energy density was high but heavy elements were rare. If life happened
in the first couple of billion years, it would be nothing like us, but
would still have had a very long time to get to be very, very smart.

Why would the universe wait 10 or so billion years to get around to
making life?

John

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

You have been told, over and over that there are three parts to the US
government, and that the US President does not have the power to force
any religion or religious issue on the country by themselves.

Teaching creationism sounds pretty much like forcing a single religion on children,
not to mention diminishing the value of science.

Creationism can be a valid scientific theory

Where's the science ? The study, the development of a hypothesis and then a theory ?

Graham

The idea that life on Earth happened from inorganic sources is
absolute dogma, without a shread of proof, or even any decent
theories.

Exogenesis is, in my opinion, much more likely, but it's rarely
mentioned because of fear of getting too close to "Creationism." There
are directions in which most scientists don't allow themselves to
look. I know circuit designers like that.

The real tiebreaker, aside from some SETI type of discovery, must lie
in our DNA itself. "Junk DNA" was dismissed as useless artifacts of
evolution, but are likely to be a lot more important than anyone cared
to consider.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,435184,00.html

FOX NEWS <sigh>

http://features.csmonitor.com/innovation/2008/10/20/how-many-civilizations-are-in-our-galaxy/

csmonitor <sigh>

Junk DNA would merely prove randomness in the evolution of life. Any scientist would EXPECT that.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 20:56:52 +0000, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



John Larkin wrote:

"Kevin Aylward" wrote:

You can argue any way you like, but believing in imaginary supreme beings,
and taking action on such pathetic beliefs, is a recipe for disaster.

No, it's a key component of an orderly society and a successful
empire.

Ah, so you ADMIT you want an American Empire !

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

If it means spreading democracy and health and security around the
world, yes, absolutely.

Except you're doing EXACTLY the OPPOSITE. You have destroyed democracy, damaged
health and brought war and destruction around the world.

At least the British Empire did achieve those things which is why over 50
independent nations are happy of their own free will to be part of our
Commonwealth of Nations. Even FRANCE wanted to join at one time ! There is also a
small member nation (Mozambique) that was never ever under British Rule but wanted
to join the club and we agreed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Nations

It is the largest 'club of nations' outside the United Nations and I for one am
proud both of it and the story it tells.

Graham

p.s. the USA is an eligible candidate.

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

The USA invented modern democracy

What fucking crap.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isle_of_Man#Tynwald

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isle_of_Man#Structure

The Island's parliament is Tynwald, which dates from at least AD 979 and is said
to be the oldest continuously existing parliament in the world. Tynwald is a
bicameral legislature, comprising the House of Keys (directly elected by universal
suffrage) and the Legislative Council (consisting of indirectly elected and
ex-officio members). These two bodies meet together in joint session as Tynwald.

The executive branch of government is the Council of Ministers, which is composed
of members of Tynwald. It is headed by the Chief Minister, currently Tony Brown
MHK.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

So, where did the universe come from?

Does it really matter in the overall scheme of daily things and what reason is
there to believe that an old bloke in a cloak with a long beard did it ?

Graham

Given that you have no theories about the origin of the universe, and
apparently no interest, why do you care to mock people who do?

If you believe in nothing, why does *anything* matter?

Maybe only your ego matters.

Maybe you actually resent people who have something to believe in. I
do that, sometimes; I certainly envy them.

Where did I say I resent them ? You will find no such statement. I may think
they're foolish to be so taken in, but resent ? NO !

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

Consider that brains that evolved as hunters and gatherers are also
capable of differential calculus, reading at 400 wpm, designing
electronics, building and flying jet planes...

The thing that fascinates me is that of all the animals on the planet only humans can
communicate as effectively as we do.

And only humans start fires on purpose.

I'm not sure that's entirely true.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

Creationism can be a valid scientific theory

Where's the science ? The study, the development of a hypothesis and then a theory ?

Graham

The idea that life on Earth happened from inorganic sources is
absolute dogma, without a shread of proof, or even any decent
theories.

Exogenesis is, in my opinion, much more likely, but it's rarely
mentioned because of fear of getting too close to "Creationism."

---
Yup. Even if exogenesis did explain the origin of life on Earth it
wouldn't explain the origin of life where the carrier came from or, if
it was exogenetically started there, where it started at the beginning
of the chain.

Exactly. It's little different to "who's God's God ?". At best it's obfuscation.

Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 16:11:40 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 17:50:10 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 15:21:13 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 20:58:51 +0000, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

You have
been told, over and over that there are three parts to the US
government, and that the US President does not have the power to force
any religion or religious issue on the country by themselves.

Teaching creationism sounds pretty much like forcing a single religion on children,
not to mention diminishing the value of science.

Creationism can be a valid scientific theory

Where's the science ? The study, the development of a hypothesis and then a theory ?

Graham

The idea that life on Earth happened from inorganic sources is
absolute dogma, without a shread of proof, or even any decent
theories.

Exogenesis is, in my opinion, much more likely, but it's rarely
mentioned because of fear of getting too close to "Creationism."

---
Yup. Even if exogenesis did explain the origin of life on Earth it
wouldn't explain the origin of life where the carrier came from or, if
it was exogenetically started there, where it started at the beginning
of the chain.

JF

DNA based life is "irreducibly complex" so probably could not have
evolved here from inorganics. But DNA could have been designed by some
life form that itself is not irreducibly complex, that could have
evolved in much different circumstances than the conditions on Earth.
Some very simple cellular automata can evolve very complex behavior,
incrementally, from very basic beginnings.

The universe is about 13 billion years old. In the early stages,
energy density was high but heavy elements were rare. If life happened
in the first couple of billion years, it would be nothing like us, but
would still have had a very long time to get to be very, very smart.

Why would the universe wait 10 or so billion years to get around to
making life?

---
It probably didn't; It's just taken that long for things to get stable
enough around here to support life as we know it.

Someplace else that got stable 10 billion years ago or so? Who knows,
they might have seeded this planet.

JF

 

[krw]

In article <nvv9g41e57rfn00dgu6a21jdit14igbuc3@4ax.com>,
jfields@austininstruments.com says...

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 16:11:40 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 17:50:10 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 15:21:13 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 20:58:51 +0000, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

You have
been told, over and over that there are three parts to the US
government, and that the US President does not have the power to force
any religion or religious issue on the country by themselves.

Teaching creationism sounds pretty much like forcing a single religion on children,
not to mention diminishing the value of science.

Creationism can be a valid scientific theory

Where's the science ? The study, the development of a hypothesis and then a theory ?

Graham

The idea that life on Earth happened from inorganic sources is
absolute dogma, without a shread of proof, or even any decent
theories.

Exogenesis is, in my opinion, much more likely, but it's rarely
mentioned because of fear of getting too close to "Creationism."

---
Yup. Even if exogenesis did explain the origin of life on Earth it
wouldn't explain the origin of life where the carrier came from or, if
it was exogenetically started there, where it started at the beginning
of the chain.

JF

DNA based life is "irreducibly complex" so probably could not have
evolved here from inorganics. But DNA could have been designed by some
life form that itself is not irreducibly complex, that could have
evolved in much different circumstances than the conditions on Earth.
Some very simple cellular automata can evolve very complex behavior,
incrementally, from very basic beginnings.

The universe is about 13 billion years old. In the early stages,
energy density was high but heavy elements were rare. If life happened
in the first couple of billion years, it would be nothing like us, but
would still have had a very long time to get to be very, very smart.

Why would the universe wait 10 or so billion years to get around to
making life?

---
It probably didn't; It's just taken that long for things to get stable
enough around here to support life as we know it.

"Around here" being the operative words. This solar system is 5B(?)
years old. There are plenty of older stars and plenty that are no
more.

Someplace else that got stable 10 billion years ago or so? Who knows,
they might have seeded this planet.

OTOH, the stars that are no more, were needed for the building
blocks. IIRC, anything heavier than Iron came from a supernova.

--
Keith

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 23:40:43 +0000, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

Creationism can be a valid scientific theory

Where's the science ? The study, the development of a hypothesis and then a theory ?

Graham

The idea that life on Earth happened from inorganic sources is
absolute dogma, without a shread of proof, or even any decent
theories.

Exogenesis is, in my opinion, much more likely, but it's rarely
mentioned because of fear of getting too close to "Creationism."

---
Yup. Even if exogenesis did explain the origin of life on Earth it
wouldn't explain the origin of life where the carrier came from or, if
it was exogenetically started there, where it started at the beginning
of the chain.

Exactly. It's little different to "who's God's God ?". At best it's obfuscation.

How so?

My point was that even if exogenesis did explain the origin of life
here, we still have no answer for "How was life created?" downstream.

My guess would be that an entity on the other side of my bubble universe
wall caused a perturbation to occur which brought our universe into
being and then, some time later, seeded it with life.

JF

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 23:14:08 +0000, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

You have been told, over and over that there are three parts to the US
government, and that the US President does not have the power to force
any religion or religious issue on the country by themselves.

Teaching creationism sounds pretty much like forcing a single religion on children,
not to mention diminishing the value of science.

Creationism can be a valid scientific theory

Where's the science ? The study, the development of a hypothesis and then a theory ?

Graham

The idea that life on Earth happened from inorganic sources is
absolute dogma, without a shread of proof, or even any decent
theories.

Exogenesis is, in my opinion, much more likely, but it's rarely
mentioned because of fear of getting too close to "Creationism." There
are directions in which most scientists don't allow themselves to
look. I know circuit designers like that.

The real tiebreaker, aside from some SETI type of discovery, must lie
in our DNA itself. "Junk DNA" was dismissed as useless artifacts of
evolution, but are likely to be a lot more important than anyone cared
to consider.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,435184,00.html

FOX NEWS <sigh


http://features.csmonitor.com/innovation/2008/10/20/how-many-civilizations-are-in-our-galaxy/

csmonitor <sigh

Your sighs are sighs of prejuduce. You dismiss ideas based on their
source, not their content. These are what google turned up. It's
interesting that the Christian Science Monitor would publish articles
about life elsewhere in our galaxy.

Junk DNA would merely prove randomness in the evolution of life. Any scientist would EXPECT that.

Of course they all expected it; that's why they named it "junk."
Except that it's not junk. It's far more resistant to mutation than
the "non-junk" DNA that everybody has concentrated on, so it must be
far more important.

How dreary and depressing to live in a world where wonder does not
exist. Designing the same old push-pull class AB amplifiers for
decades at a time.

John

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Why would the universe wait 10 or so billion years to get around to
making life?

It didn't. Never heard of the dinosaurs ? Maybe there was another 'tier' of life even before
they became extinct ?

It probably didn't;

See.

It's just taken that long for things to get stable
enough around here to support life as we know it.

As we know it.

Someplace else that got stable 10 billion years ago or so? Who knows,
they might have seeded this planet.

It's an interesting concept but seems not to tally with the Big Bang Theory AIUI.

I wouldn't rule out seeding from another intelligent race even within the last 10-20 thousand
years though. Why did Neanderthal man die off for example ? There's recent evidence of
Neardethal man co-existing and even trading with Homo Sapiens in the near past. Indeed,
conceivably evidence that we may have Neanderthal DNA in us.

Graham

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 23:26:28 +0000, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

The USA invented modern democracy

What fucking crap.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isle_of_Man#Tynwald

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isle_of_Man#Structure

The Island's parliament is Tynwald, which dates from at least AD 979 and is said
to be the oldest continuously existing parliament in the world. Tynwald is a
bicameral legislature, comprising the House of Keys (directly elected by universal
suffrage) and the Legislative Council (consisting of indirectly elected and
ex-officio members). These two bodies meet together in joint session as Tynwald.

The executive branch of government is the Council of Ministers, which is composed
of members of Tynwald. It is headed by the Chief Minister, currently Tony Brown
MHK.

Graham

Ireland was a vassal state of England until 1921. The Irish formed
their own parliament, the Dáil Éireann, in, I think, 1918. We had a
rebellion, remember?

You snipped my "oldest surviving" democracy bit.

"The plan for revolt was realised in the Easter Rising of 1916, in
which the Volunteers, now explicitly declaring a republic, launched an
insurrection whose aim was to end British rule and to found an Irish
Republic. The rising was almost exclusively confined to Dublin and was
put down within a week, but the British response — executing the
leaders of the insurrection and arresting thousands of nationalist
activists — galvanised support for the separatist Sinn Féin — the
party which the republicans first adopted and then took over."

Such nice guys, the Brits.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 23:30:00 +0000, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

Consider that brains that evolved as hunters and gatherers are also
capable of differential calculus, reading at 400 wpm, designing
electronics, building and flying jet planes...

The thing that fascinates me is that of all the animals on the planet only humans can
communicate as effectively as we do.

And only humans start fires on purpose.

I'm not sure that's entirely true.

Graham

I agree, you probably aren't sure.

John

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

Creationism can be a valid scientific theory

Where's the science ? The study, the development of a hypothesis and then a theory ?

Graham

The idea that life on Earth happened from inorganic sources is
absolute dogma, without a shread of proof, or even any decent
theories.

Exogenesis is, in my opinion, much more likely, but it's rarely
mentioned because of fear of getting too close to "Creationism."

---
Yup. Even if exogenesis did explain the origin of life on Earth it
wouldn't explain the origin of life where the carrier came from or, if
it was exogenetically started there, where it started at the beginning
of the chain.

Exactly. It's little different to "who's God's God ?". At best it's obfuscation.

How so?

My point was that even if exogenesis did explain the origin of life
here, we still have no answer for "How was life created?" downstream.

I agree. It should be self-obvious. Hence my comment above.

My guess would be that an entity on the other side of my bubble universe
wall caused a perturbation to occur which brought our universe into
being and then, some time later, seeded it with life.

You mean the goldfish bowls on the coffee table somehow intereacted ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

The USA invented modern democracy

What fucking crap.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isle_of_Man#Tynwald

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isle_of_Man#Structure

The Island's parliament is Tynwald, which dates from at least AD 979 and is said
to be the oldest continuously existing parliament in the world. Tynwald is a
bicameral legislature, comprising the House of Keys (directly elected by universal
suffrage) and the Legislative Council (consisting of indirectly elected and
ex-officio members). These two bodies meet together in joint session as Tynwald.

The executive branch of government is the Council of Ministers, which is composed
of members of Tynwald. It is headed by the Chief Minister, currently Tony Brown
MHK.

Ireland was a vassal state of England until 1921. The Irish formed
their own parliament, the Dáil Éireann, in, I think, 1918. We had a
rebellion, remember?

WE ?

Home Rule (i.e a form of Independence) for Ireland had been planned for ages. WW1 came
as an inconvenient distraction and delay.

As for 'vassal state' no such term exists in modern time

Ireland was simply another member of the Union.

" In 1800, the British and subsequently the Irish Parliament passed the Act of Union
which, in 1801, merged the Kingdom of Ireland and the Kingdom of Great Britain to
create the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland

Cut the crap !

Graham