OT: Why are Engineers snookered by Creationism ?

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Bob Stephens <stephensyomamadigita
l@earthlink.net> wrote (in <j3k4q86wu74o.j708dv4xhyb4.dlg@40tude.net&gt
about 'OT: Why are Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on Thu, 25 Mar
2004:

Whoops! I sense a generation gap issue.

Give me the good old days when lyrics made sense like:

"Zing! Boom! Tarrarell..."

Well, the rest of the words of that make excellent sense!

or

"The Flat Foot Floozie with the Floy Floy"

I didn't say that there were no other lyrics that don't make sense. You
could well have cited 'Mairzy Doates' and 'Chicery(sp?)-chick'.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Roger Gt <not@here.net> wrote (in
<%UD8c.28631$%j1.23676@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com&gt about 'OT: Why are
Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on Thu, 25 Mar 2004:

The Seventh son of a seventh son was to be able to see the future.

Do we have any around now with that power?

Have
the power to heal, and other powers. Are you saying you have never read
anything from what you would call the Occult? If not you have a really
Big hole in your learning.

I have: I just don't believe any of it.

Have you at least read the Apocrypha?

Only some parts of it.

May Bast forgive you, and Hectare bless your house.

There are 1580 Deities common in our Pantheon. You know of only one?

I haven't counted recently.

Come on, you pulling my leg!

On Usenet, everyone is always completely serious.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Richard Henry]

"John Woodgate" <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote in message
news:TiBxufJwCyYAFwaQ@jmwa.demon.co.uk...

I read in sci.electronics.design that Bob Stephens <stephensyomamadigita
l@earthlink.net> wrote (in <j3k4q86wu74o.j708dv4xhyb4.dlg@40tude.net&gt
about 'OT: Why are Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on Thu, 25 Mar
2004:
Whoops! I sense a generation gap issue.

Give me the good old days when lyrics made sense like:

"Zing! Boom! Tarrarell..."

Well, the rest of the words of that make excellent sense!

or

"The Flat Foot Floozie with the Floy Floy"

I didn't say that there were no other lyrics that don't make sense. You
could well have cited 'Mairzy Doates' and 'Chicery(sp?)-chick'.

Did you mean

"Mares eat oats and does eat oats
And little lambs eat ivy"

?

What doesn't make sense about that?

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Roger Gt <not@here.net> wrote (in
<z%E8c.28707$yO1.4165@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com&gt about 'OT: Why are
Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on Thu, 25 Mar 2004:

Read it!

Numerological BS, as I expected.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Richard Henry <rphenry@home.com>
wrote (in <MLF8c.3372$Q45.935@fed1read02&gt about 'OT: Why are Engineers
snookered by Creationism ?', on Thu, 25 Mar 2004:

"Mares eat oats and does eat oats
And little lambs eat ivy"

?

What doesn't make sense about that?

What can you do with the next two lines, though?

Besides, lambs that ate ivy would rapidly expire.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandSNIP
techTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote (in <4u1660hkap1hct6b60r3hejbteg3u03s44@
4ax.com&gt about 'OT: Why are Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on
Thu, 25 Mar 2004:

Earth is an uncannily lucky place. We have an atmosphere dense enough
for flight and clear enough to see the stars. We have free oxygen above,
free fuel below, and lots of beautifully differentiated metals and
minerals to make things out of. We have liquid water, clouds, ice, and
snow to ski on. I like it.

But you evolved on it. Consider that Inuit could survive on a planet
whose equatorial temperatures are like those of our Arctic, and our
tropical people could survive on a planet with similar polar
temperatures. Antarctic and hot spring bacteria, black smoker and deep
subterranean life-forms can survive in conditions far harsher than
humans can.

So the range of environment in which carbon-based life could evolve is
quite large.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Walter Harley
<walterh@cafewalterNOSPAM.com> wrote (in <c3v4iv$ol4$0@216.39.172.65&gt
about 'OT: Why are Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on Thu, 25 Mar
2004:

"Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com> wrote in message
news:CkC8c.2664$Q45.779@fed1read02...
Which atom is at the vertex of the angle? In what proportion of the water
molecules?

Which corner is at the vertex of a triangle?


The one opposite the base, of course.

--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Walter Harley
<walterh@cafewalterNOSPAM.com> wrote (in <c3v591$qho$0@216.39.172.65&gt
about 'OT: Why are Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on Thu, 25 Mar
2004:

Because if they weren't, we wouldn't be here to do the observing.

WE might not be, but something else could be. While we know that certain
values of fundamental constants are 'pathological' in that they result
in universes in which we cannot imagine how life could appear, there are
sets of values that MAY result in universes different from ours but not
so hugely different.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Bob Stephens]

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 19:08:15 +0000, John Woodgate wrote:

"Mares eat oats and does eat oats
And little lambs eat ivy"

?

What doesn't make sense about that?

What can you do with the next two lines, though?

" A kid'll eat ivy too,
wouldn't you?"

works for me.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Scott Stephens wrote:

Walter Harley wrote:

"Scott Stephens" <scottxs@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:VMv8c.3526$K91.22682@attbi_s02...

Why are things so complicated?

Why does the universe have 3 space dimensions and a compactified
charge dimension? Wouldn't Occam's razor suggest a simpler, more
compact, lower
-energy universe be a simple singularity?

Why are E0, Mu0, Planck's constant, Gravitational Constant, et. all
such that the chaotic complexity we observe exists?


Because if they weren't, we wouldn't be here to do the observing.
Statistically, we should expect that the only universes that can be
observed are those with characteristics that can give rise to an
observer. We have a biased sample.

I am familiar with the Anthropic principle, but it can imply that
existence would not exist of nobody was around to experience it.

Not at all. There is no logical connection for this.

Therefore, the universe and existence is illogical.

Occam's Razor does not say "the simplest situation always occurs."
It says that given two explanations of a set of data, one should
prefer the simpler explanation.

Physical systems try to minimize their energy and volume. *Something*
is demanding the geometry of space-time obey rules as it struggle to
relax into a singularity.

That "Something" are just the laws of physics. Its just the way it is.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

"quotes with no meaning, are meaningless" - Kevin Aylward.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Scott Stephens wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Scott Stephens wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:


What a cop out. It got f'all to do with what I have been taught. I
have never been taught to be a non-believer. Quite the contrary,
throughout school in the UK, they drum it into you that there is a
supreme entity.

Indeed! Do they call it the State or the Collective? Perhaps "We the
People"? Don't they take your guns, put video cameras everywhere,
issue you all numbers as if you were prisoners or livestock
(http://chestnut-tree-cafe.blogspot.com/), and now I read they're
going to bill prisoners unjustly incarcerated by the states evil
bureaucrats for the time they've free-loaded on Her Majesty's
exquisite jail cuisine.

England is is getting as bad as China.

No its getting much better. When I was at school certain religious
behaviour was forced on one. Its changed now, what with more human
rights laws.

Socialists demand tithes from the taxpayers for their
monopoly on the wisdom to tell us our lives our meaningless,

In the big scheme of things, they are. Live with it.

I choose my meaning and purpose. You choose nihilism.

This makes no sense at all. I certainly reject that there is an absolute
meaning to life. However, I live my life by maximising the integral of
happiness dt.

and they
are deserving of our private property and servitude for the moral
authority to tell us we're accidents.

We are. End of story.

The Universe, Nature, God, or whatever you choose to call it, designed
me for a purpose, and was even decent enough to give me the freedom to
seek and find it.

Oh...

But you are an accident.

Many seem to miss the fundamentals of evolution. It is initial
*non* random selection of "randomly" generated traits. However,
this "randomness" of generated traits, after sufficient evolution
it is no longer random. If a Replicater, by chance, develops a
trait to select other traits that aid in its Replication, then
such a trait will now act in a non random way. That is, it does
not select traits randomly. If the trait is a trait that controls
a "random" trait generator, such traits will be non random. It
only selects good traits. However, it doesn't require any
conscious superior entity to take such directed action.

And it just happens to know ahead of time what independent structure
will independently evolve to symbioticaly cooperate to produce a
beneficial adaptation.

That's quite a trick. It is as if independent software developers
wrote modules for a system that inter depended on all of them
cooperatively functions. It implies that only a few paths are
possible, few choices are possible, and only a few outcomes possible.

No it doesn't.

Look, there are billions and billions and billions of Replicating
molecules, and have been so replicating for billions of years. You only
need *one* to develop some sort of adaptive behaviour, and it will
replicate better then these that don't. So we observe them.

"What is observed mostly, is what replicates the most."

My hypothesis is that the outcome will influence the path evolution
takes,

Of course. Maximisation of Replicators is a local maximum.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

"quotes with no meaning, are meaningless" - Kevin Aylward.

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Bob Stephens <stephensyomamadigita
l@earthlink.net> wrote (in <x4aytpvn7ffn$.nvrv1d115265$.dlg@40tude.net&gt
about 'OT: Why are Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on Thu, 25 Mar
2004:

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 19:08:15 +0000, John Woodgate wrote:

"Mares eat oats and does eat oats
And little lambs eat ivy"

?

What doesn't make sense about that?

What can you do with the next two lines, though?

" A kid'll eat ivy too,
wouldn't you?"

I couldn't believe that! How irresponsible. The answers are 'only once'

and 'no'.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Roger Gt]

X-No-Archive: yes
"Roger Gt" wrote
: "Walter Harley" wrote
: : "Roger Gt" wrote
: : > "Walter Harley" wrote
: : > : "Paul Hovnanian" wrote
: : > : [...] Questioning the scripture
: : > : > that says the world was created in 6 days isn't heresy.
: [...]
: : > Actually it was 7. And 7 is a mystical prime number.
: :
: : Genesis says the world was created in 6 days; on the seventh,
: : the Creator rested.
: : But whether you think it's 6 or 7, explaining it as "a
mystical
: : prime number" is circular reasoning. Why is it mystical?
: :
: : The thing that needs to be explained is this: since time
: : immemorial, this particular creation myth has been
: : associated with the numbers 6 and 7.
:
: The myth predate it's inclusion in this religion.
:
: : So far as I know, this is true at least back to Sumerian
times;
: : but I don't know how much before that it goes, my knowledge
: : of ancient history and mythology being fairly weak.
: : Why, originally, in that distant past, did they come up with
: : (one of) those numbers?
: : Was it because seven is prime; in
: : which case we need to explain why seven, rather than say five
or
: eleven, was chosen, and we need to know that they had a concept
of
: primality?

Acceptance is first. Explanation is only needed to modify the
belief.
: : Was it
: : because six was the largest number they could express, or the
: : largest number that the average person could comprehend?

Hardly, they has ten fingers!

: : Was six, or seven, a mistranslation of some other word?

Unlikely.

: : Or was it simply that they felt the need
: : to parse the creation into multiple steps, and arbitrarily
: : assigned each step the duration of one conceptual "day"?
: : The list of possibilities goes on.

The product of poor reasoning. Get all the facts first, evaluate
later!

: : Any answer to that is likely to be purely speculative, given
the
: : lack of real information. So it is interesting to me sure of
their
: : answers people seem to be.

We usually use English here, what is this?

: : To me, the sureness has the ring of received truth
: : rather than logical reasoning.

This is not a bell.... It is a recitation of the known information
from history.


: http://www.biblewheel.com/Topics/Seven.asp
:
: Gee, don't you ever do any Googleing?

http://philologos.org/bpr/files/n009.htm

http://www.blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/NumberSeven.htm

http://www.angelfire.com/az/rainbowbridge/seven.html

http://www.luckymojo.com/number7.html

http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/m/mystical_number_seven.html

http://japanese.about.com/b/a/008524.htm

http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/sbs777/prophecy/no777.html

http://www.marsearthconnection.com/seven.html

http://www.jcsm.org/biblelessons/7.htm

Yes there is a name for everything.... You ask!

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Roger Gt <not@here.net> wrote (in
<ViH8c.14480$Ko7.2368@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com&gt about 'OT: Why are
Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on Thu, 25 Mar 2004:

Hardly, they has ten fingers!

Nevertheless, there were some Amazon people who counted 'one, two, many'
when first contacted by Europeans.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Winfield Hill]

John Woodgate wrote...

Nevertheless, there were some Amazon people who counted
'one, two, many' when first contacted by Europeans.

LOL. They also started the rumor about those "boat people."

Thanks,
- Win

whill_at_picovolt-dot-com

 

[Roger Gt]

"John Woodgate" <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote in message
news:Ql0B$+MkZ0YAFwbu@jmwa.demon.co.uk...
: I read in sci.electronics.design that Roger Gt <not@here.net>
wrote (in
: <ViH8c.14480$Ko7.2368@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com&gt about 'OT:
Why are
: Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on Thu, 25 Mar 2004:
: >Hardly, they has ten fingers!
:
: Nevertheless, there were some Amazon people who counted 'one,
two, many'
: when first contacted by Europeans.


There are still some like that around, and not too hard to find.

 

[Paul Hovnanian P.E.]

John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Roger Gt <not@here.net> wrote (in
ViH8c.14480$Ko7.2368@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com&gt about 'OT: Why are
Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on Thu, 25 Mar 2004:
Hardly, they has ten fingers!

Nevertheless, there were some Amazon people who counted 'one, two, many'
when first contacted by Europeans.

And now we have been reduced to 0 or 1.

--
Paul Hovnanian mailtoaul@Hovnanian.com
note to spammers: a Washington State resident
------------------------------------------------------------------
Just say 'No' to Windows.
-- Department of Defenestration.

 

[Roger Gt]

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote
: Roger Gt wrote:
: > "Walter Harley" wrote
: > : "Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote
: >
: > : > I think one has to examine the teachings of the various
religions with
: > : > the intended audience of their time in mind. Questioning
the scripture
: > : > that says the world was created in 6 days isn't heresy. It
was a story
: > : > (whether made up or handed down from a higher power) that
was crafted to
: > : > be understood by people that wouldn't know how to handle
the age of the
: > : > universe being 14,000,000,006 years old.
: > :
: > : Genesis, and whatever earlier myths it was based on, far
predates any such
: > : knowledge of how old the universe, or earth, was. It is
interesting to
: > : speculate as to why the period of six days was chosen;
: >
: > Actually it was 7. And 7 is a mystical prime number.
: >
: > : but it is surely not
: > : just to cover up for 14 billion being too big. Indeed, at
the time Genesis
: > : was written, I don't believe the number 14 billion could
even have been
: > : expressed.
: > :
: > : Why suppose that the story was constructed by people with
superior
: > : knowledge? I would think an explanation that didn't rely on
that premise
: > : would be substantially more convincing. Perhaps at the time
the story was
: > : constructed, "six" was the biggest number they had, and they
knew it had
: > : taken longer than five. Perhaps "six" is a mistranslation
of a different
: > : word (in Sumerian or whatever creation myth was at the root
of Genesis).
: >
: > No doubt the "educated" would seek to communicate with the
less
: > endowed, or privileged by metaphor. But the Metaphor out
lives
: > it's purpose and becomes the accepted answer for all who
"Believe"
: > in the Old teaching. There are those who think the ancients
: > believed the earth was flat, yet the diameter of the planet
was
: > deduced long before even the Egyptians devised Trigonometry.
:
: This is what I was thinking. Whether you believe in a supreme
being or
: just a group of wise men, I'd expect the mythology to keep up
with the
: education level of the target audience. Back in the 'old days',
they
: probably had to stick to simple (and small) quantities. Although
I think
: the ancient people could probably handle numbers bigger than 7,
I can
: see where their priests/wise men, guessing that the world might
be
: hundreds or thousands of years old would simplify their story
for the
: consumption of the masses.
:
: For those that confuse the metaphor with the truth, they must
believe
: that their god never intended his(her?) followers to develop
their
: intellectual capacity and knowledge. Not the sort of people I'd
want
: running my country or business.
:
Keeping the target audience at a low level of comprehension gives
a greater control and pool of potential followers. Those who do
not progress in personal knowledge provide a dedicated core.

Some who resisted advancing human knowledge were "Luddites" who
believed all human developed technology was the work of the devil.

http://www.regent.edu/acad/schcom/rojc/mdic/luddites.html

 

[Ian Buckner]

"Walter Harley" <walterh@cafewalterNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:c3v42p$n83$0@216.39.172.65...

Genesis says the world was created in 6 days; on the seventh, the
Creator
rested.

But whether you think it's 6 or 7, explaining it as "a mystical
prime
number" is circular reasoning. Why is it mystical?

snip

Obviously because 6x7 is the answer to life, the universe and
everything.

Regards
Ian

 

[Roger Gt]

X-No-Archive: yes
"Ian Buckner" wrote
: "Walter Harley" wrote
: > Genesis says the world was created in 6 days; on the seventh,
the
: Creator rested.
: >
: > But whether you think it's 6 or 7, explaining it as "a
mystical
: > prime number" is circular reasoning. Why is it mystical?
: <snip>
: Obviously because 6x7 is the answer to life, the universe and
: everything.
: Regards Ian

At least Dr. Who thought so!