Driver to drive?

[Eeyore]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

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/

Graham

If it means spreading democracy

Complete nonsense. The US has systematically overthrown, legitimate
democracies all around the world.

Have you never heard of Noam Chomsky?

and health

Like, the 45 million kids in the US with no health cover.

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.


Completely delusional.

You need learn a bit about your own country mate.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/CIAtimeline.html

e.g.some snippets...

1953

Iran - CIA overthrows the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh in a
military coup,

1954

Guatemala - CIA overthrows the democratically elected Jacob Arbenz in a
military coup.

1957-1973

Laos - The CIA carries out approximately one coup per year trying to nullify
Laos' democratic elections.

1959

Haiti - The U.S. military helps "Papa Doc" Duvalier become dictator of
Haiti.

etc..etc...

I don't know where Larkin got his history from, but compared to his admirable
technical skills he is a dunce of the first order in world history (and the
USA's involvement in it - not to mention the British involvement too). If anyone
spread democracy widely across the globe it was Great Britain. Of course Great
Britain does contain the world's oldest continuous Parliament without break,
Tynwald, in the Isle of Man, over 1000 years old now.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

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's the 'Russian Doll' problem.

Graham

 

[krw]

In article <b0gbg4l00p8rb81inbgiefrh3ig4kk7u2s@4ax.com>,
jfields@austininstruments.com says...

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 07:44:02 +0000, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

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

I believe the currently accepted theory is that the something that
started it all off was the so-called "Big Bang".

What's religious about that?

The Book of Genesis - Chapter 1

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the
face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the
waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

And you believe this literally ?

What do you care?

It sounds like another reference to "The big bang" to me.

A kinda folk-story version of it.

---
What else would you expect a story that originated some 2600 years ago
to sound like?

Probably like a braying donkey (in his image).

--
Keith

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 14:44:34 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
<zapwireDASHgroups@yahoo.com> wrote:

"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,

Absolutely: if you refuse to consider a possibility, you'll never test
for it.

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.

I'm not aware of any experimenting on biologically auto-catalytic
systems or other self-organizing chemistries that approximate the
transition from inorganic materials to life. If anyone is, references
appreciated.

Some people *are* working on making life from simple precursors, but
of course that would be Creationist, since they become the intelligent
Creators. Another irony!

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.

*Whatever* happened to create the universe, and *whatever* happened to
start life on Earth, were way-out-there events. It's just silly to
pretend that these things were routine. Some people are afraid of
contemplating extraordinary things, even though so many extraordinary
things have already been discovered. [1]

I'm looking forward to some shocking stuff.

John

[1] And these same people keep designing with the same old circuits,
over and over.

 

[Eeyore]

Joel Koltner wrote:

"John Larkin" wrote

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 is normally very rational, but I am totally perplexed by his current posts.

Graham

 

[Joel Koltner]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
newsflcg41as02ib5ib32kqpqrjbsgq204l7l@4ax.com...

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 14:44:34 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
It's not necessarily outrageous, it's just about 100% untestable,
Absolutely: if you refuse to consider a possibility, you'll never test
for it.

I'm sure you're aware that's not what my statement meant, but your suggestion
that we need to consider lots of highly unusual/radical hypotheses regarding
the origins of mankind is certainly valid. (Although -- if it weren't
intended to be satircial -- the hypothesis that mankind was designed by the
Flying Spaghetti Monster would probably be almost as useful of a suggestion...
)

*Whatever* happened to create the universe, and *whatever* happened to
start life on Earth, were way-out-there events.

One significant difference, however, is that whatever happened to create the
universe probably took place under laws of physics that are largely unknown or
at least highly unpredictable to us, whereas whatever happened to start life
on earth happened by the time that the same rules of chemistry, physicals, and
electromagnetism that we know today were completely applicable. At least IMO,
that is.

There's plenty of extraordinary things that can happen just within the known
laws of physics... and it's really only been a few thousand years before man
had the time and technology to really start contemplating how the universe
works on huge time scales and microscopic levels. Perhaps in another 10,000
years it'll be dead obvious that the creationists were right... but it sure
isn't looking that way at present.

---Joel

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 18:32:18 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
<kaExtractThis@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:

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/

Graham

If it means spreading democracy

Complete nonsense. The US has systematically overthrown, legitimate
democracies all around the world.

Have you never heard of Noam Chomsky?

You mean the multi-millionaire MIT professor, the one who lives in the
exclusive all-white neighborhood, who made his first million
consulting for the US military? The one who got the linguistics all
wrong? Yup.

and health

Like, the 45 million kids in the US with no health cover.

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.


Completely delusional.

You need learn a bit about your own country mate.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/CIAtimeline.html

e.g.some snippets...

1953

Iran - CIA overthrows the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh in a
military coup,

1954

Guatemala - CIA overthrows the democratically elected Jacob Arbenz in a
military coup.

1957-1973

Laos - The CIA carries out approximately one coup per year trying to nullify
Laos' democratic elections.

1959

Haiti - The U.S. military helps "Papa Doc" Duvalier become dictator of
Haiti.

etc..etc...

Sure, lots of bad things happened, especially in the Cold War.
Nobody's perfect. But the US has done an enormous lot of good, and
kept a third of the world from speaking German and another third from
speaking Japanese, and the rest from speaking Russian.

The US's biggest critics are the Europeans, which is sort of ironic,
since we saved thaie asses a couple of times, and have been stuck
cleaning up their messes all over the world.

Europe should be busting its butt to help Africa. It's not.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 23:57:06 +0000, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:

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/

Graham

If it means spreading democracy

Complete nonsense. The US has systematically overthrown, legitimate
democracies all around the world.

Have you never heard of Noam Chomsky?

and health

Like, the 45 million kids in the US with no health cover.

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.


Completely delusional.

You need learn a bit about your own country mate.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/CIAtimeline.html

e.g.some snippets...

1953

Iran - CIA overthrows the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh in a
military coup,

1954

Guatemala - CIA overthrows the democratically elected Jacob Arbenz in a
military coup.

1957-1973

Laos - The CIA carries out approximately one coup per year trying to nullify
Laos' democratic elections.

1959

Haiti - The U.S. military helps "Papa Doc" Duvalier become dictator of
Haiti.

etc..etc...

I don't know where Larkin got his history from, but compared to his admirable
technical skills he is a dunce of the first order in world history (and the
USA's involvement in it - not to mention the British involvement too). If anyone
spread democracy widely across the globe it was Great Britain. Of course Great
Britain does contain the world's oldest continuous Parliament without break,
Tynwald, in the Isle of Man, over 1000 years old now.

Graham

I have, and have read, hundreds of history books, predominantly
European history. Not to mention tons of literature from Chaucer to
current stuff [1]. And a ton of military and maritime history.

I've also traveled and worked a good deal in the UK, Ireland, France,
Russia, and Japan.

That's where I get my history from. Where do you get yours?

John

[1] the attitudes of the Brits towards the Irish have been interesting
over the last few centuries.

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 00:12:15 +0000, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Joel Koltner wrote:

"John Larkin" wrote

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 is normally very rational, but I am totally perplexed by his current posts.

Graham

I'm always very rational, except when I'm being silly. Classical
Darwinism is silly, and most of its fans don't understand the
biochemistry or the informational aspects of the genetics; they just
want to show how sophisticated they are, and how dumb the
"creationists" are, to the extent that they forget how to think.

Intolerance is a bad thing to base science on. Or life, even. Show me
a wedge-head, and I'll show you a bad circuit designer.

John

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
Eeyore 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

Complete nonsense. The US has systematically overthrown, legitimate
democracies all around the world.

Have you never heard of Noam Chomsky?

and health

Like, the 45 million kids in the US with no health cover.

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.


Completely delusional.

You need learn a bit about your own country mate.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/CIAtimeline.html

e.g.some snippets...

1953

Iran - CIA overthrows the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh in a
military coup,

1954

Guatemala - CIA overthrows the democratically elected Jacob Arbenz in a
military coup.

1957-1973

Laos - The CIA carries out approximately one coup per year trying to nullify
Laos' democratic elections.

1959

Haiti - The U.S. military helps "Papa Doc" Duvalier become dictator of
Haiti.

etc..etc...

I don't know where Larkin got his history from, but compared to his admirable
technical skills he is a dunce of the first order in world history (and the
USA's involvement in it - not to mention the British involvement too). If anyone
spread democracy widely across the globe it was Great Britain. Of course Great
Britain does contain the world's oldest continuous Parliament without break,
Tynwald, in the Isle of Man, over 1000 years old now.

Graham

I have, and have read, hundreds of history books, predominantly
European history. Not to mention tons of literature from Chaucer to
current stuff [1]. And a ton of military and maritime history.

But you didn't know that the Isle of Man has the oldest parliament. Bicameral too.

I've also traveled and worked a good deal in the UK, Ireland, France,
Russia, and Japan.

That's where I get my history from. Where do you get yours?

I found school to be pretty effective plus whatever reading I choose to do. Since
when was Chaucer history btw ?

John

[1] the attitudes of the Brits towards the Irish have been interesting
over the last few centuries.

Care to elaborate ? There was an Act of Union between Ireland and Great Britain you
know around or during 1800, just as between England and Scotland a little earlier.

Graham

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 23:24:35 +0000, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

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.

"When the war had begun in 1914, the government had told troops that
they would be 'home by Christmas' (in other words that the war would
be over by the end of 1914). By 1916 the war was still at a stalemate,
and Nationalists began to realise that the war could go on for years.
So the Irish Republican Brotherhood and the splinter IVF planned a
huge rebellion to drive the British out of Ireland, taking advantage
of the fact that the British had few troops to spare. It was led by a
Dubliner, Patrick Pearse, along with Thomas MacDonagh and Joseph
Plunkett. The rising was planned for Easter 1916, and was to be
supplied with German weapons by Roger Casement. Despite the fact that
the weapons were captured by the British, the rebellion went ahead on
Easter Monday (24 April) 1916.

1,500 rebels took over the Dublin Post Office and other key buildings
in the city. They then raised the Irish Flag and read a proclamation
of independence and formation of the Republic of Ireland. A fierce
battle ensued between the rebels and the British. On 29 April, after 5
days of mortars, shells and gunfire, the rebels surrendered after 450
volunteers had been killed. Huge areas of Dublin city centre were in
ruins and many locals sided with the British and shouted abuse as the
rebels were lead away. Their opinions changed, however, when it was
announced that the leaders should be executed for treason and
collaboration with the enemy (Germany). Almost 100 men were shot after
nominal trials. The British wrongly blamed Sinn Féin for the rising
(it had actually been the Irish Republican Brotherhood) and this
contributed greatly to the Home Rule Party's defeats and Sinn Féin's
success in the next election."

http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/history/19141919.html

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.

Racist? What?

John

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

the attitudes of the Brits towards the Irish have been interesting
over the last few centuries.

BTW, how would you like to live in a religious state with Catholic influenced laws ?

It's called the Irish Republic or Eire if you hadn't guessed. In recent times it
notably tried to prevent a young girl who had been raped travelling to the UK (or
elsewhere in the EU despite EU - of which Eire is a member- laws guaranteeing freedom
of movement) for an abortion (it's illegal in Eire). I forget the final outcome. They
wanted to force her to give birth for Papist reasoning.

I suppose you'll say "she shouldn't have got raped" ?

Graham

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 02:50:25 +0000, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
Eeyore 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

Complete nonsense. The US has systematically overthrown, legitimate
democracies all around the world.

Have you never heard of Noam Chomsky?

and health

Like, the 45 million kids in the US with no health cover.

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.


Completely delusional.

You need learn a bit about your own country mate.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/CIAtimeline.html

e.g.some snippets...

1953

Iran - CIA overthrows the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh in a
military coup,

1954

Guatemala - CIA overthrows the democratically elected Jacob Arbenz in a
military coup.

1957-1973

Laos - The CIA carries out approximately one coup per year trying to nullify
Laos' democratic elections.

1959

Haiti - The U.S. military helps "Papa Doc" Duvalier become dictator of
Haiti.

etc..etc...

I don't know where Larkin got his history from, but compared to his admirable
technical skills he is a dunce of the first order in world history (and the
USA's involvement in it - not to mention the British involvement too). If anyone
spread democracy widely across the globe it was Great Britain. Of course Great
Britain does contain the world's oldest continuous Parliament without break,
Tynwald, in the Isle of Man, over 1000 years old now.

Graham

I have, and have read, hundreds of history books, predominantly
European history. Not to mention tons of literature from Chaucer to
current stuff [1]. And a ton of military and maritime history.

But you didn't know that the Isle of Man has the oldest parliament. Bicameral too.


I've also traveled and worked a good deal in the UK, Ireland, France,
Russia, and Japan.

That's where I get my history from. Where do you get yours?

I found school to be pretty effective plus whatever reading I choose to do. Since
when was Chaucer history btw ?


John

[1] the attitudes of the Brits towards the Irish have been interesting
over the last few centuries.

Care to elaborate ? There was an Act of Union between Ireland and Great Britain you
know around or during 1800, just as between England and Scotland a little earlier.

Sure. The British landlords owned most of Ireland, and they were the
guys who voted. The Irish were mostly serfs.


A million Irish starved in the Great Famine, and another million
emigrated, including my ancestors.

“ ...no issue has provoked so much anger or so embittered
relations between the two countries (England and Ireland) as the
indisputable fact that huge quantities of food were exported from
Ireland to England throughout the period when the people of Ireland
were dying of starvation.

Ireland remained a net exporter of food throughout most of the
five-year famine. ”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Potato_Famine#Food_exports_to_England

John

 

[JosephKK]

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

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

Not the approach i usually hear. Moreover, it has consequences. With
most quantum mechanics experiments we get statistical results; but the
experiments are designed that way due to measurement problems. Perhaps
if we looked at different experimental designs we would get different
results.

 

[JosephKK]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:05:11 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

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.

There is an interesting oxymoron here. How could someone be the crown
of "Creation" yet not believe in creation?

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

 

[MooseFET]

On Oct 27, 7:15 am, Vladimir Vassilevsky <antispam_bo...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
Religious people accomplish more real-world work
than unbelievers. That's why we had Muslim and British empires, and
why the USA is now the only superpower, and Russia isn't. Religion has
always been a powerful organizing force.

Returning to the matter of the grand sister Sarrra: The religious
obsession was also among the reasons of failure of Hindu, Chinese,
Turkish, Spanish, Aztec civilizations.

Lets not forget Easter Island where they cut down all the trees to
move the big rocks.

 

[MooseFET]

On Oct 26, 12:47 pm, John Larkin
[....]

So, where did the universe come from?

The universe is just the sort of thing that happens now and then.
With quantum physics, no cause or source is needed just very long
odds.

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

Since there is no "creation", it just *is*.

 

[MooseFET]

On Oct 25, 10:17 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com>
wrote:

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 09:19:32 -0700 (PDT), MooseFET <kensm...@rahul.net
[...]
universe, which wasn't there before, all at once.

I assume this is some force other than gravity.  The field of gravity
from masses in two directions cancels producing no effect at the mid
point between them.

---
That's true, and assuming the bubble hypothesis is true I'd expect it
not to be spherical and thus to have a line meandering through it where
the gravitational forces would cancel in 3D.

I can find no arrangements of mass in 3D where the cancellation would
form a line. I admit it is late at night so perhaps my brain isn't
working so well but it appears to me that no such arrangement is
possible without infinite masses at infinite distances.

---

This would not "cause the outgassing".

---
I was thinking more along the lines of a bubble cavitating out of a
fluid and trapping vapor in the cavity.

I don't see any way that gravity could cause this sort of action. A
uniformly distributed mass would have no effect. Something else would
have to be the cause.

Or the invisible magic unicorns.

---
Indeed!

JF

 

[JosephKK]

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 19:32:14 +0000, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

Most of the people who founded and built this country had strong
religious views

Which proves the sum total of ZERO.

Only to small minds like yours. People of strong conviction left
Europe for America, to build the life they wanted, away from the forced
religions of Europe even though they knew there was a good chance they
wouldn't survive the trip, and that there weren't homes and jobs waiting
for them.

The Pilgrims weren't being forced to worship a religion they didn't agree
with. They were merely a sect.

Graham

Horribly misinformed is the best that i call that. Read up on the
Reformation please. Religious persecution in Europe has over 1000
years history.

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 19:13:03 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

The US's biggest critics are the Europeans, which is sort of ironic,
since we saved thaie asses a couple of times, and have been stuck
cleaning up their messes all over the world.

---
Yup.

Re. saving their asses:

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

and re. cleaning up their messes, had it not been for the British,
French, and Italians carving up the Ottoman empire for their own
purposes (In secret, by the way) we might not have had to go to Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_of_Palestine#Partitioning_of_the_Ottoman_Empire


JF