Driver to drive?

[Kevin Aylward]

John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 19:28:57 +0000, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> 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,

I have been trying to my temper my responses. However,

What you state here is complete and utter nonsense. It shows a total lack of
any understanding *whatsoever* of what a "scientific theory" is.

but it flies in the face
of the religion of Darwinism.

Yes, Creationism is in contradiction with Darwinism. Creationism also has
F&*^% all to with scientific theories.

Creationism is already proven false. Period.

I'd guess that there's a good chance that DNA was deliberately
designed and seeded across this universe, for a specific purpose.

You are completely clueless on this John. I am stunned.

If DNA was generated by designer, where did this designer come from? If it
acceptable to believe that there was a designer that was not designed, then
it is surely more easily to accept, that DNA did not need designing in the
first place. Its a simplar explanation. Ochams Razor.


Kevin Aylward
www.kevinaylward.co.uk

 

[Kevin Aylward]

John Larkin wrote:

Most of the people who founded and built this country had strong
religious views. I suppose you think it's better to believe in
nothing than to believe in something.

There is a difference between a religion and a blind faith.

VLV

Religion is necessarily faith; few have actually seen their God,
especially when not on drugs. The idea that life evolved on earth, for
inorganic precursors, is also blind faith.

Nonsense. Faith is a belief without evidence, the *evidence* that life
evolved on earth is beyond reasonable scientific doubt. where or not there
was any prior evolution, as in stuff arriving from space, is not relevant.

You appear to confuse "faith", "belief without evidence" and "belief
without proof.". Proof is never possible, for anything, in principle,
although disproof may be.

So, where did the universe come from?

No where. Why do you propose the universe had to come from somewhere?

Does consciousness exist,

Of course it exists. If you have any doubt, let me come over tio your place
and let me kick you in the balls. However, its existance, does not imply
that consciousness can do anything.

It irrelevant whether or not consciousness can be "proven". Consciousness is
a new axiom of physics, just like the speed of light axiom.. It can not be
reduced.to anything further.

and if it does, has it any special place in
creation?

No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation#The_nature_of_collapse

Oh dear....I just don't have time for correcting all this nonsense. *NO*
reputable physicists take the view that consciousness plays any part in QM.
Period. You are reading the wrong books mate.

http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/qm/index.html

" It makes no difference whatsoever, whether the physicist observes a double
slit experiment or not. If he is outside smoking a cigarette, rather than
watching his equipment dials, it makes not the slightest difference to the
result, and never has such observer created reality ever occurred. The
"observer" is the physical setup of the equipment, not the conscious
observer."

Kevin Aylward

www.kevinaylward.co.uk

 

[Kevin Aylward]

John Larkin wrote:

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.

So what..

Kevin Aylward
www.kevinaylward.co.uk

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Eeyore 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 ?

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

He needs to read some stuff by Dawkins, maybe have a look at you tube. There
is *nothing* the creationists say that isn't, essentially, twaddle.

Kevin Aylward
www.kevinaylward.co.uk

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 11:12:08 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 11:05:09 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 00:59:12 +0000, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



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.

---
http://www.historyoftheuniverse.com/tl1.html

In which way?
---

I wouldn't rule out seeding from another intelligent race even within the last 10-20 thousand
years though.

---
I think Larkin already posed that conjecture.
---


Not 10-20 thousand years!

---
Not the "original" seeding, of course, but there's nothing stopping
visitors from keeping track of how we're coming along and trying to keep
us from blowing ourselves up, eh?


JF

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 18:33:38 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
<kaExtractThis@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 19:28:57 +0000, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> 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,

I have been trying to my temper my responses. However,

What you state here is complete and utter nonsense. It shows a total lack of
any understanding *whatsoever* of what a "scientific theory" is.

but it flies in the face
of the religion of Darwinism.

Yes, Creationism is in contradiction with Darwinism. Creationism also has
F&*^% all to with scientific theories.

Creationism is already proven false. Period.


I'd guess that there's a good chance that DNA was deliberately
designed and seeded across this universe, for a specific purpose.

You are completely clueless on this John. I am stunned.

If DNA was generated by designer, where did this designer come from?

It evolved, of course. Billions of years before the Sun lit up for the
first time. It evolved in a very different manner than the DNA
evolution we are made from; it evolution was not irreducibly complex,
so there were no great logical or philosophical hurdles to cross.

Do you think that the universe waited 10 billions years for one
obscure planet in one obscure galaxy to cool off, before creating
life? That would make us very special indeed. If life could
spontaneously generate here, about as soon as planetary conditions
allowed it to survive, then why not lots of other places, much earlier
in the age of the universe?

If it

acceptable to believe that there was a designer that was not designed, then
it is surely more easily to accept, that DNA did not need designing in the
first place. Its a simplar explanation. Ochams Razor.

No; there are both time and complexity factors that could favor a
non-DNA life form evolving much earlier in the history of this
universe.

Well, somebody has to come up with a biochemical explanation of how
random amino acids could self-assemble into DNA-based life, in a
"primal soup" concentration that was essentially distilled water.
Beyond fuzzy hand-waving.

John

 

[Joel Koltner]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:am5cg4lkcoeb75jka5hvqrb2em39idt59m@4ax.com...

It evolved, of course. Billions of years before the Sun lit up for the
first time. It evolved in a very different manner than the DNA
evolution we are made from; it evolution was not irreducibly complex,
so there were no great logical or philosophical hurdles to cross.

You're claiming that a God-like being can be evolved but a dung beetle can't?
Wow.

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 13:05:56 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
<zapwireDASHgroups@yahoo.com> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:am5cg4lkcoeb75jka5hvqrb2em39idt59m@4ax.com...
It evolved, of course. Billions of years before the Sun lit up for the
first time. It evolved in a very different manner than the DNA
evolution we are made from; it evolution was not irreducibly complex,
so there were no great logical or philosophical hurdles to cross.

You're claiming that a God-like being can be evolved but a dung beetle can't?
Wow.

The problem isn't so much evolution, it's getting the system started
in the first place, creating living DNA-based cells, that can find
energy sources and reproduce and evolve, from inorganic precursors.
That process is all hand-waving so far.

Seems unlikely to me. Very unlikely.

But I never mentioned a God-like being, just some different (non-DNA)
life form that evolved before we came along. What's so outrageous
about that? Don't you believe in evolution?

Why is any different thinking, alternates to cartoon Darwinism,
immediately dismissed as religious? Afraid to think?

John

 

[Rich the Philosophizer]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:40:18 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

Well, somebody has to come up with a biochemical explanation of how random
amino acids could self-assemble into DNA-based life, in a "primal soup"
concentration that was essentially distilled water. Beyond fuzzy
hand-waving.

This is a bit pre-biochemical:
http://godchannel.com/bodyclass.html

Hope This Helps!
Rich

 

[CBFalconer]

Eric Smith wrote:

.... snip ...

I'm not a big fan of C, but it's certainly suitable for low-level
programming. My criticisms of C are at the other end of the
spectrum. I write a lot of C code because that's what my clients
want, and in the case of Free Software, that's what people are
likely to be able to run.

I prefer strongly-typed languages. I actually do like Pascal,
and over the years I've written a lot of code for clients in UCSD
Pascal, Turbo Pascal, etc., but I wouldn't recommend it to
clientis now, especially for low-level work. I like Ada better;
functionally it is almost a superset of Pascal, but it is
significantly better in many regards including support for
low-level programming. However, my clients generally don't want
Ada, partly because it is supported on fewer target platforms,
and partly because they'd have a harder time finding other
engineers to maintain it.

Now that Ada is available as part of the gcc package, it is
available almost anywhere that C is available.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 18:53:16 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
<kaExtractThis@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Religion is necessarily faith; few have actually seen their God,
especially when not on drugs. The idea that life evolved on earth, for
inorganic precursors, is also blind faith.

Nonsense. Faith is a belief without evidence, the *evidence* that life
evolved on earth is beyond reasonable scientific doubt.

---
"Beyond reasonable scientific doubt?"

LOL, the fact that it _evolved_ here into what it is now is as plain as
the nose on your face, for goodness' sake!

What isn't as glaringly obvious is whether it (life, not your nose)
sprang into being on its own, here, whether extraterrestrial organic
molecules capable of assembling themselves into living structures
arrived here solely by chance, or whether the Earth was intentionally
seeded by sentient carriers of the seeds.
---

where or not there
was any prior evolution, as in stuff arriving from space, is not relevant.

---
The point is, life had to originate somehow and if it didn't spring up
spontaneously, then it had to be designed.

You say it must have come into being on its own because you can't bear
to think that since you think you're the crown of creation and can't
create life it must have happened accidentally.

Interestingly, we've been trying to create life 'in vitro' for a while
now, and while it hasn't happened yet we haven't been trying for
millions of years.

No doubt we will create it one day, and then you'll have to admit that
life can be designed.
---

You appear to confuse "faith", "belief without evidence" and "belief
without proof.". Proof is never possible, for anything, in principle,
although disproof may be.

---
Not true.

For example, if I ask you to prove that the square root of 2 is rational
you won't be able to which proves, by contradiction, that the square
root of 2 is irrational.

JF

 

[Joel Koltner]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:iv7cg4dpnmp9nksjb31ehtnahu2hps571q@4ax.com...

But I never mentioned a God-like being, just some different (non-DNA)
life form that evolved before we came along. What's so outrageous
about that? Don't you believe in evolution?

It's not necessarily outrageous, it's just about 100% untestable, whereas at
least with "regular old DNA" there's plenty of testing one can do (since we
know what we want the outcome to be already ) to try to argue one way or
the other whether or not evolution is plausible.

Why is any different thinking, alternates to cartoon Darwinism,
immediately dismissed as religious? Afraid to think?

Nah, it's just that people are so busy fighting off the creationists that they
just don't have the energy left to start debating way-out-there hypotheses.

(It's too bad that the 1st definition of theory -- something commonly
believed/widely accepted/well-founded/etc. -- now has 2nd definitions that
make it pretty much synonymous with "hypothesis" -- some potential explanation
that doesn't necessarily have anything more behind it than some guy wearing a
tin hat.)

Next time I find myself near Cincinnati with some spare time on my hands,
visiting the Creation Museum (http://www.creationmuseum.org/ ... review:
http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/ars-takes-a-field-trip-the-creation-museum.ars)
will be on my list. Not that I expect I'd agree with much of anything they
suggest, but hey, anything that private individuals spent $27,000,000 on seems
as though it must have something interesting to observe and contemplate.

---Joel

 

[Nemo]

I tend to prefer hard SF,

I'm not at all familiar with Stephenson. What would you call his work,
how would you classify it...? It'd be nice to relax with soem decent fiction
now and then.

Made his name with excellent hard SF. Then having established himself
with fans his emphasis shifted in later novels. They're still hard SF
but the characters are deeper, more developed, which appeals to mature
readers. As you're reading this newsgroup you might particularly like
"Cryptonomicon" which is about some computer nerds who get involved in
some international finance shenanigans in the present day (big money
always attracts parasites), the deadpan descriptions of the geeks'
personaes is so close to the reality of some engineers you will know you
will find it hilarious. But his masterpiece is generally agreed to be
the System of the World trilogy (starts with a thick book called
Quicksilver). Although it's set around 1700 I gave it a go as I liked
his other work so much. It mainly revolves round 3 characters from very
different backgrounds as they try to just get along in the rapidly
changing world of the time. I must admit I skipped a bit of the first
couple of chapters, not being too interested in the constructional
details of boats, only to kick myself when the 3rd and final book came
out 2 years later as the author had planted some vital clues in that
first section I'd skipped. VERY tightly plotted trilogy, NO loose ends,
loads of interesting Stuff about how modern economics began, what
Barbary pirates did to their captives, what ****ards the various rulers
of the time were. An amazing blend of fictional characters woven between
real events / characters.
--
Nemo

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

The Germans liberated Ireland and later liberated India.

Someone's lost their marbles completely.

Graham

One of us, apparently, the British or the Irish.

The Irish Free State was not a consequence of WW1 other than had WW1 not
occurred and delayed matters, Home Rule (as it was then called i.e. a
form of independence but maintaining links to Britain) might already
have been given to ALL of Ireland before that time by the British.

Did you not know even before EU rulings on these matters, the citizens
of the Irish Republic maintained their right to vote in British
Elections btw ? They never lost it.

As for India, that's quite another matter overall. If *anyone* can make
that claim it would have been the Japanese and I doubt the Indians would
have liked them very much compared to us. Much as the Malyans didn't.
The post-war Malayan uprising was basically a Communist led revolt than
a widely popular uprising btw.

Your racist based history needs a LOT of serious amendment.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Richard The Dreaded Libertarian wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

My brother-in-law just gave me a briefing on Sarah Palin. Is she
really that dreadful ? It made my blood run cold.

Sarah is cool. We're not afraid of smart, funny, competent women here.

Who want to teach Creationism in school and believe in the ultimate
battle of Good vs Evil ?

I'd say she's a raving crackpot.

She also apparently wants to deny women's right to ownership of their
own bodies - evidently in her universe, women aren't human, but are
beasts of burden to be used to make new little minions for the pope, or
something.

Or Allah.

Religious fundamentalism makes curious bedfellows.

Vote None of the Above:
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/

There's no UK Party that represents my views either.

I think the 'Party System' has failed us all totally. 'Neer nerr' or would
the be 'neener neener' in the USA politics are just destructive.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Rich Grise wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
Eeyore wrote

My brother-in-law just gave me a briefing on Sarah Palin. Is she really
that dreadful ? It made my blood run cold.

Sarah is cool. We're not afraid of smart, funny, competent women here.

Yah, you betcha! >;-

Except your and my idea of them is probably VERY different to Sarah palin !

BTW saw on BBC4 last night an excellent 1 hour gig with Jeff Beck at Ronnie
Scott's in London. Guest appearances from Joss Stone and Eric Clapton.

But the really amazing thing for me for me was the 22 yo. Australian female
bass guitarist. Rated most promising bass guitarist of 2008, WOW - she's
playing with GIANTS at such an early age. Keep your eye on her.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tal_Wilkenfeld

If you go to her MySpace there's a couple of nice pics too.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Richard The Dreaded Libertarian wrote:

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 02:51:34 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

Then why does anything matter?

But why does she want a war 'between good and evil' when her perception of
evil is coloured by a rigidly fundamentalist religious outlook. No better
than Usama bin Laden in my book.


Apparently, John's in good company:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/22/al-qaeda-supporters-endor_n_136779.html
(scroll down)

The beginning is bad enouh !

"WASHINGTON — Al-Qaida supporters suggested in a Web site message this week they
would welcome a pre-election terror attack on the U.S. as a way to usher in a McCain
presidency.

The message, posted Monday on the password-protected al-Hesbah Web site, said if
al-Qaida wants to exhaust the United States militarily and economically, "impetuous"
Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain is the better choice because he
is more likely to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"This requires presence of an impetuous American leader such as McCain, who pledged
to continue the war till the last American soldier," the message said. "Then,
al-Qaida will have to support McCain in the coming elections so that he continues
the failing march of his predecessor, Bush."

SITE Intelligence Group, based in Bethesda, Md., monitors the Web site and
translated the message.

"If al-Qaida carries out a big operation against American interests," the message
said, "this act will be support of McCain because it will push the Americans
deliberately to vote for McCain so that he takes revenge for them against al-Qaida.
Al-Qaida then will succeed in exhausting America till its last year in it."
"

God help us <irony>


Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
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 ?

Are you suggesting that there was life on Earth before the dinos? I am
shocked, shocked.

I see nothing impossible about it. There could easily have been another far further previous mass
extinction. Look at some sea animals for example.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

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.

And the ET seeders planted all those million-year-old human fossils
just to fool us?

20,000 years??!! And you make fun of Christian fundamentalists!

When does recorded history begin ? Why does it go back no further ?

BTW 'Lucy' is FAR from human, although seemingly closest to us of all the fossils of that type.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis#Lucy

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

I wouldn't rule out seeding from another intelligent race even within the last 10-20 thousand
years though.

---
I think Larkin already posed that conjecture.
---

Not 10-20 thousand years!

So why is there no recorded history or sign of civilisation before then ?

Graham