Don't know how relevent to the topic it is, but I just got a bumper sticker
that reads:

Religions are just cults with more members.

Been getting some nasty looks from that one.

Along with: Buck Fush.
(Mark Steven Brooks/Elaterium Music)

In article ,
(Mark Steven Brooks) wrote:

Don't know how relevent to the topic it is, but I just got a bumper sticker
that reads:

Religions are just cults with more members.

Been getting some nasty looks from that one.

Along with: Buck Fush.
(Mark Steven Brooks/Elaterium Music)

I like mine
"How dare you assume I am Christian"
g

Bob Cain
You certainly are no poster boy for the beneficial effects
of religion. You make a lot of other people's points here
and do so on a regular basis.

And exactly where did I claim to be a poster boy for religion? The fact of
the matter is I have said merely having spiritual experiences doesn't make you
a "holy person", no matter what any religion claims on the matter. It's common
for ordinary people who are as conflicted as anyone else. And didn't I tell
you that spiritual experiences tend to make people arrogant? Hey, meet exhibit
A. That's why I'm trying to focus on other things now.

And I am not worried about whether Steve will "come to Jesus" so to speak
either, when I say he has been insulting and smug on the subject nor am I
worried about the reputation of organized religion. In fact I think it's kind
of condescending to be deferential to a person who is being a jerk because
you're worried about that, and it's probably something about how religous
people operate that many people consider to be "fake". When you deal with some
people, when you deal with drug addicts you have to be a lot more "real" than
that (not that Steve is a drug addict, I'm saying I hate putting on a
saccharine face.)

So when I tell Steve he's full of crap actually I'm showing him my highest
respect. Right Bob? g


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

steve
Shame on you, Will. You're putting words in my mouth so you can
disparage me, that's pretty underhanded. You seem to do that a lot when
you can't support your position.

Perhaps I have done that Steve, but I am not here. Look, when you say
"There is a rational explanation for everything" are you including the idea
that we have a spiritual body that departs our physical one when we die as
rational, or are you suggesting that is "irrational" thinking? You are calling
a beleif that love exists beyond time and space and so can touch us after the
death of a loved one a "mythical explanation", are you not? I can see how to
you such religious ideas might be so distant as to be assigned to "mythical"
status, however in the context of personal experiences, the experiences of
others, and in a cultural context such ideas could be much less distant, and a
pretty good explanation for certain phenomena.

I'm not qualified to make a diagnosis, offhand I'd say seeing and hearing
things that just aren't there is a symptom of mental illness.

That possibility can be sorted out rather quickly when you find out how
common spiritual experiences are, and examine how normal the people who have
them are. In fact there is evidence the reverse of your instinctual assumption
is true, that such experiences are evidence of better mental health than the
norm. American Health magazine did a study that examined the issue of people
who had had a wide variety of spiritual experiences, and they attempted to see
what those people had most in common. They found no correlating factors in
race, religion, age, geographical location or origin, educational level, sex,
or nationality. The only correlating factor they did find was people who had
such experiences were on the better adjusted side of the scale in terms of
mental health.

And the whole of the Hawaiian people is not mentally ill either, and it is
common for them to see visions or dream dreams of departed ancestors. The
sociological study I cited earlier "Nana Ike Kumu" indicates this, and
Psychologists and Psychiatrists in Hawaii don't consider it unusual or a sign
of mental illness.

no, you're attempting to rationalize science and your concept of the
world to fit together.

I am suggesting science does not conflict with my worldview, quite the
opposite.

There you go again, making a personal attack

So you suggest my personal experiences of spirituality are evidence of
mental illness, imply what I beleive is "irrational" and "resorting to myth",
and then you complain that I am attacking you personally when I say you hold an
arrogant position?

Yes, let it be said that the honest answer to these kinds of things is
"there is no compelling evidence that there is existence beyond space and
time." What you and others want to believe about a "spiritual existence" is
completely contained within yourselves."

Research has proven the human mind can invent senerios which seem very real
to the subject, but in fact are pure fantasy, to the point the subject can't
tell the difference between real experiences and invented ones. If you were to
add some form of mental illness (which most of us will experience at some point
in our lives) then its safe to say a large number of us have "real" experiences
that aren't real.

But not to insult anyone's intelligence, sanity, or the veracity of their
personal experiences, eh Bob?

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

eh Bob?

eerr, I mean Steve...



Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

WillStG wrote:

Look, when you say
"There is a rational explanation for everything" are you including the idea
that we have a spiritual body that departs our physical one when we die as
rational, or are you suggesting that is "irrational" thinking?

I prefer to call it "wishful" thinking, since no one has proof.

You are calling
a beleif that love exists beyond time and space and so can touch us after the
death of a loved one a "mythical explanation", are you not? I can see how to
you such religious ideas might be so distant as to be assigned to "mythical"
status, however in the context of personal experiences, the experiences of
others, and in a cultural context such ideas could be much less distant, and a
pretty good explanation for certain phenomena.

Right, there's a lot of supernatural explanations out there, its what
happens to them when they're tested puts them into the "myth" category.

I'm not qualified to make a diagnosis, offhand I'd say seeing and hearing
things that just aren't there is a symptom of mental illness.

That possibility can be sorted out rather quickly when you find out how
common spiritual experiences are, and examine how normal the people who have
them are. In fact there is evidence the reverse of your instinctual assumption
is true, that such experiences are evidence of better mental health than the
norm. American Health magazine did a study that examined the issue of people
who had had a wide variety of spiritual experiences, and they attempted to see
what those people had most in common. They found no correlating factors in
race, religion, age, geographical location or origin, educational level, sex,
or nationality. The only correlating factor they did find was people who had
such experiences were on the better adjusted side of the scale in terms of
mental health.

Right again, just like giving a child a security blanket helps them
sleep better at night. These "spiritual experiences" are common, on some
level we're hard wired for them. Why is it that every culture has
organized rituals/myths/etc to manage this aspect of human nature? OTOH,
a majority of mentally unstable/ill people tend to be obsessed with
religion.

So you suggest my personal experiences of spirituality are evidence of
mental illness, imply what I beleive is "irrational" and "resorting to myth",
and then you complain that I am attacking you personally when I say you hold an
arrogant position?

I'm a believer of "spiritual" experiences as you call them, but there's
no evidence of external dimension to them. They only exist within the
person having them. If you are using these experiences for the basis of
creating an imaginary world beyond space and time, it is my opinion that
belief is irrational.

I'm not trying to antagonize or belittle you, or anyone else who shares
your beliefs. But if you are holding them so tightly that other points
of view upset you, it is time to be more objective about your beliefs.

"steve" wrote in message
...


WillStG wrote:

Look, when you say
"There is a rational explanation for everything" are you including the
idea
that we have a spiritual body that departs our physical one when we die
as
rational, or are you suggesting that is "irrational" thinking?

I prefer to call it "wishful" thinking, since no one has proof.

You are calling
a beleif that love exists beyond time and space and so can touch us
after the
death of a loved one a "mythical explanation", are you not? I can see
how to
you such religious ideas might be so distant as to be assigned to
"mythical"
status, however in the context of personal experiences, the experiences
of
others, and in a cultural context such ideas could be much less distant,
and a
pretty good explanation for certain phenomena.

Right, there's a lot of supernatural explanations out there, its what
happens to them when they're tested puts them into the "myth" category.

My son enjoyed a spiritual experiance he walked up to the big glass door at
the grocer and when he put his hand in the special place the door magically
opened
there are plenty of things we do not fully understand yet
but this is no reason to connect the dots to a spiritual or supernatural
cause
I also argue we do not need to know everything and the world is a more
comfortable place when we do not micromanage our wonder at the world around
us

Imagine the excitment of looking up and seeing a comet , having never heard
of them before
haveing no idea what it was , where it came from , or where it was going
George


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.637 / Virus Database: 408 - Release Date: 3/20/2004

"Bob Cain" wrote in message
...

Well, that's three of us. Wanna start a religion? I'll be
high priest? :-)

Can Harvey be our pope?

ryanm

"Chris Hornbeck" wrote in message
...

Where do you stand on the relative importance of an Occam's
Razor standard of weighting? Or does that apply for your
perspective?

It is important, if only as a reminder that we tend to make things more
complicated than necessary. I don't think of it so much as a hard and fast
rule as a good thing to keep in mind when formulating or weighing a theory.

ryanm

"George" wrote in message
...

yes a religion without a leader, dogma, sacraments, tenants,scripture ,
or need to enlist others
sounds just like a religion

Actually, I'll have to disagree with you here. Science *does* have it's
leaders, dogma, sacraments, tenants, scripture, and a need to enlist others.
It *is* a religion, even though it may try not to be.

ryanm

steve
Right again, just like giving a child a security blanket helps them sleep
better at night. These "spiritual experiences" are common, on some level we're
hard wired for them. Why is it that every culture has organized
rituals/myths/etc to manage this aspect of human nature? OTOH, a majority of
mentally unstable/ill people tend to be obsessed with religion.

You have said there is no proof of spiritual existence, but in court
eyewitness testimony is certainly considered "proof". And there is certainly
plenty enough of that, fact is actually what you and others are demanding is
*physical evidence* . You want physical evidence, evidence limited to 3
dimensions to prove there is a 4 or 5th dimension! Now THAT is an irrational
demand. But nevertheless, because of that I have refered to "Superstring
theory", because mathematics *is* science, and mathematical theory suggest a
multidimensional universe.

I'm a believer of "spiritual" experiences as you call them, but there's no
evidence of external dimension to them. They only exist within the person
having them. If you are using these experiences for the basis of creating an
imaginary world beyond space and time, it is my opinion that belief is
irrational.

How about third party correlation? "Near death experiences", where
clinically dead people experienced having a body and consciousness separate
from their physical body have included third party correlation in many, many
instances. Many people while clinically dead out of body reported observing
what was going on and overheard conversations far outside the room their body
was in, and after being revived could recount the events and conversations
verbatim. Maybe you could argue if that had happened in the room the body was
in it was a vestige of consciouness lingering, but when it happens away from
the dead body, what's your "rational" explanation? And people have been
visited by a clinically dead person out of body and both recounted the same
conversation later. Why would the simplest explanation that we have in fact a
spiritual body be an "irrational beleif" or worse, suggest mental illness as
you would intimate? That we have spiritual bodies is the simplest explanation
for many experiences that cannot be accounted for otherwise, explains phenomena
otherwise unexplainable, and it is what much of the accumulated wisdom of human
history teaches us.

I'm not trying to antagonize or belittle you, or anyone else who shares your
beliefs. But if you are holding them so tightly that other points of view upset
you, it is time to be more objective about your beliefs.

The thing is you don't even have to try to belittle people who share such
beleifs, It's effortless for you, your bias is so ingrained that you aren't
even aware that you are doing it. You probably learned the language in school.
Then you unconsciously insult people and are then dumbfounded that they might
take offense. It could be worse, sometimes people then laugh and say that the
mere fact you feel insulted proves they are right. Although actually isn't
that kind of what you have suggested here as well?



Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

ryanm wrote:

"Bob Cain" wrote in message
...

Well, that's three of us. Wanna start a religion? I'll be
high priest? :-)


Can Harvey be our pope?

Now there's a novel thought. :-)

I guess he does outrank me. By a really long way I recently
found out.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

"George Gleason"
My son enjoyed a spiritual experiance he walked up to the big glass door at
the grocer and when he put his hand in the special place the door magically
opened
there are plenty of things we do not fully understand yet
but this is no reason to connect the dots to a spiritual or supernatural
cause
I also argue we do not need to know everything and the world is a more
comfortable place when we do not micromanage our wonder at the world around
us

Sounds pretty much like Catholic thinking to me George - "It's a
mystery" and all that. g We have taken our son Kai to church only maybe a
handful of times, truth be told we have severely neglected teaching him about
anything to do with God, yet he surprises us. On his own he started to ask us
to pray at bedtime with him - we have been pretty bad really, as he didn't
learn that from us and he wasn't in a Christian preschool or anything yet
either. Today we were driving around me and him, and he saw a church he went
to once and said "I like that church Daddy, I went there with Mommy. Then
he's quiet for about 5 minutes and then says to me, "Daddy, I have decided to
accept Jesus into my heart"... "Ok Kai" I said.

Oh boy... He's only 4.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

In article ,
"ryanm" wrote:

"George" wrote in message
...

yes a religion without a leader, dogma, sacraments, tenants,scripture ,
or need to enlist others
sounds just like a religion

Actually, I'll have to disagree with you here. Science *does* have it's
leaders, dogma, sacraments, tenants, scripture, and a need to enlist others.
It *is* a religion, even though it may try not to be.

ryanm



I am no more holden to science than religion
George

In article ,
ospam (WillStG) wrote:

"George Gleason"
My son enjoyed a spiritual experiance he walked up to the big glass door
at
the grocer and when he put his hand in the special place the door magically
opened
there are plenty of things we do not fully understand yet
but this is no reason to connect the dots to a spiritual or supernatural
cause
I also argue we do not need to know everything and the world is a more
comfortable place when we do not micromanage our wonder at the world around
us

Sounds pretty much like Catholic thinking to me George - "It's a
mystery" and all that. g We have taken our son Kai to church only maybe
a
handful of times, truth be told we have severely neglected teaching him about
anything to do with God, yet he surprises us. On his own he started to ask
us
to pray at bedtime with him - we have been pretty bad really, as he didn't
learn that from us and he wasn't in a Christian preschool or anything yet
either. Today we were driving around me and him, and he saw a church he went
to once and said "I like that church Daddy, I went there with Mommy. Then
he's quiet for about 5 minutes and then says to me, "Daddy, I have decided to
accept Jesus into my heart"... "Ok Kai" I said.

Oh boy... He's only 4.

will you open his mind to the question, "what if there is no God"?
george

George
will you open his mind to the question, "what if there is no God"?

My wife is a Montessori teacher. They beleive in "following the child",
that a "normalized" child develops on all levels pretty well if adults don't
crush them and screw up their progress. Kai's natural inclination is extremely
open minded, and he feels an affinity towards God, exhibits maturity in his
ability to grasp many advanced concepts, he is spiritually sensitive, and I
have no intention of ridiculing him for that or for following his heart, now or
later. But I do intend to keep him away from people while he is young who
would ridicule his feelings and experiences "for his own good" in the name of
"science". He will get enough of that kind of crap later I think.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

In article ,
ospam (WillStG) wrote:

George
will you open his mind to the question, "what if there is no God"?

My wife is a Montessori teacher. They beleive in "following the child",
that a "normalized" child develops on all levels pretty well if adults don't
crush them and screw up their progress. Kai's natural inclination is
extremely
open minded, and he feels an affinity towards God, exhibits maturity in his
ability to grasp many advanced concepts, he is spiritually sensitive, and I
have no intention of ridiculing him for that or for following his heart, now
or
later. But I do intend to keep him away from people while he is young who
would ridicule his feelings and experiences "for his own good" in the name of
"science". He will get enough of that kind of crap later I think.

he's your kid, you have the right to screw up his mind any way you want
But what you wrote is a bull**** cop-out
George

Quote rec.audio.pro FAQ

Q1.1 - What is this newsgroup for? What topics are appropriate here, =
and what topics are best saved for another newsgroup?

This newsgroup exists for the discussion of issues and topics related
to professional audio engineering. We generally do not discuss issues
relating to home audio reproduction, though they do occasionally come
up. The rec.audio.* hierarchy of newsgroups is as follows:

rec.audio.pro Issues pertaining to professional audio
rec.audio.marketplace Buying and trading of consumer equipment
rec.audio.tech Technical discussions about consumer audio
rec.audio.opinion Everyone's $0.02 on consumer audio
rec.audio.high-end High-end consumer audio discussions
rec.audio.misc Everything else [Here's your forum, cya.]

Please be sure to select the right newsgroup before posting.

End Quote rec.audio.pro FAQIn Article

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 11:32 PM, WillStG wrote:
"Daddy, I have decided to
accept Jesus into my heart"... "Ok Kai" I said.

Oh boy... He's only 4.

Just like Pat Robertson Junior.

Maybe on the weekends you can take your child to shoot at some islamic
kids.

"Daddy, I don't believe in Mommy's right to Choice"

Maybe on the weekends you can take your child to shoot at some islamic
kids.

Not a bad idea.

(Mark Steven Brooks/Elaterium Music)

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 3:07 PM, Mark Steven Brooks
wrote:
Maybe on the weekends you can take your child to shoot at
some islamic
kids.

Not a bad idea.

(Mark Steven Brooks/Elaterium Music)




You must be an IDF soldier, they do that on a regular basis. Got another
one two days ago... 6 year old.. Guess he could of grown up to be a
threat... might have had a cure for cancer.. We'll never know.


---------------------------------------------------------
"Teach a Child to Read and Him or Her Will be Able to Pass a Litracey
Test"- George W Bush
---------------------------------------------------------

(Mark Steven Brooks)

Maybe on the weekends you can take your child to shoot at some islamic
kids.

Not a bad idea.

Don't play that game. Al Qeada and friends would like nothing more than
to define this issue as being a racial or religious one. These fascists are
the same guys who killed Anwar Sadat, enough good people being killed as it is.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

WillStG wrote:

You have said there is no proof of spiritual existence, but in court
eyewitness testimony is certainly considered "proof".

And eyewitness testimony is actually the least reliable evidence. Human
memory being what it is.

And there is certainly
plenty enough of that, fact is actually what you and others are demanding is
*physical evidence* . You want physical evidence, evidence limited to 3
dimensions to prove there is a 4 or 5th dimension! Now THAT is an irrational
demand.

Well, just exactly what kind of proof do you have? The fact you feel it
is there is not sufficient.

I'm a believer of "spiritual" experiences as you call them, but there's no
evidence of external dimension to them. They only exist within the person
having them. If you are using these experiences for the basis of creating an
imaginary world beyond space and time, it is my opinion that belief is
irrational.

Why would the simplest explanation that we have in fact a
spiritual body be an "irrational beleif" or worse, suggest mental illness as
you would intimate? That we have spiritual bodies is the simplest explanation
for many experiences that cannot be accounted for otherwise, explains phenomena
otherwise unexplainable, and it is what much of the accumulated wisdom of human
history teaches us.

Will, this is a poorly thought out response. While it is the simplest
answer doesn't mean it is the right one. Many years ago people thought
everything revolved around the earth. Because others kept looking we
know differently. Why should these experiences be any different? For
example, faith healers were thought as performing supernatural miracles,
we now know our minds are capable of healing ourselves. These healers
were able to cause the subject to access the part of their minds to heal
themselves. How isn't completely understood, we are still largely
ignorant about this aspect of human beings, one day we will know the
real answer.

The wisdom of history is that people take what they don't understand and
create fables and myths to try and explain them. It is the people who
scrape away the myths that have made real progress in true knowledge


I'm not trying to antagonize or belittle you, or anyone else who shares your
beliefs. But if you are holding them so tightly that other points of view upset
you, it is time to be more objective about your beliefs.

The thing is you don't even have to try to belittle people who share such
beleifs, It's effortless for you, your bias is so ingrained that you aren't
even aware that you are doing it. You probably learned the language in school.
Then you unconsciously insult people and are then dumbfounded that they might
take offense. It could be worse, sometimes people then laugh and say that the
mere fact you feel insulted proves they are right. Although actually isn't
that kind of what you have suggested here as well?


I live in the bible belt, I understand why people feel any questioning
of their beliefs is a personal attack on them. I'm sorry that they don't
know the difference, but you do, however you're turning this (as you do
with just about everything) into an excuse to prevoke. Are you so used
to going in attact mode you don't stop to consider the exchange of
idea's is the goal, and its not a competition?

In article ,
ospam (WillStG) wrote:

(Mark Steven Brooks)

Maybe on the weekends you can take your child to shoot at some islamic
kids.

Not a bad idea.

Don't play that game. Al Qeada and friends would like nothing more
than
to define this issue as being a racial or religious one. These fascists are
the same guys who killed Anwar Sadat, enough good people being killed as it
is.

Then perhaps take that time to teach about the noble war started over
WMD's, how we have no other agenda than bringing democracy to others
George

George
he's your kid, you have the right to screw up his mind any way you want
But what you wrote is a bull**** cop-out

Why would a parent teach their child what they know to be a lie?

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

In article ,
ospam (WillStG) wrote:

George
he's your kid, you have the right to screw up his mind any way you want
But what you wrote is a bull**** cop-out

Why would a parent teach their child what they know to be a lie?

Why does a parent allow Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny and God into
thier childrens previously open minds?
George

George

ospam (WillStG) wrote:

George
he's your kid, you have the right to screw up his mind any way you want
But what you wrote is a bull**** cop-out

Why would a parent teach their child what they know to be a lie?

Why does a parent allow Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny and God into
thier childrens previously open minds?

Well according to you, to screw their open minds up.
Sad really.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

Why would a parent teach their child what they know to be a lie?

So they won't grow up to find out that their parents are full of ****.

(Mark Steven Brooks/Elaterium Music)

Guess he could of grown up to be a threat

It's: could've, or could have.

(Mark Steven Brooks/Elaterium Music)

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 1:28 AM, Mark Steven Brooks
wrote:
Guess he could of grown up to be a threat

It's: could've, or could have.

(Mark Steven Brooks/Elaterium Music)


Not "Cudda"?



---------------------------------------------------------
"Teach a Child to Read and Him or Her Will be Able to Pass a Litracey
Test"- George W Bush
---------------------------------------------------------

Carey Carlan wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote in
:

WRONG. It's turtles all the way down.

Stephen Hawking in A Brief History Of Time


No, much older than that.


--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

Bob Cain wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Bob Cain wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:


Hmmm...when we see the sun, the light is already something liek 8 seconds old.
Does that mean that the sun can never be studied scientifically from earth?



Not a very good analogy. Photons have very few properties
and all of them are preserved or changed in simple ways in
transit.


What arrives from a billion years or more in the Earth's
past is another matter altogether and the early origins and
evolution of life are pure guesswork.


Well, not *pure* guesswork: there are some data to work from
after all -- rocks and fossils and genes, for example.
in fact, science doesn't always have to 'be there'
when the event occurs, to make good study of it,
which is the main point.

There is absolutely no fossil record of early life and
extremely little before organisms evolved "hard parts."

This depends on whether you consider reasonable inferences
from genetic and geological evidence 'pure guesswork' or
not. I find that peopel who use terms like 'pure
guesswork' when discussing evolution
are generally trying to insert 'intelligent
design' as a 'reasonable' alternative, so if that's not
your agenda, my appy polly logies.



It is no longer believed that
random mutation and survival of the fittest begin to tell
the story. There simply hasn't been enough time for that to
have been the mechanism based on observed random mutation
rate. Yes, faith is involved as it is always when the
non-specialist accepts the word of the specialist.


Please, where are you getting this half-digested stuff from?
You're presented views that were considered simple decades
ago, as if they have only recently been 'overturned'.
If I were to say that the Bohr model of the atom is no longer
accepted, and that the structure of the atom is therefore
'msotly guesswork', Id' have said something similar.

Steven, they are only beginning to understand the role of
trans-species gene incorporation

do you mean lateral transfer?

and there are stong hints,
if not yet solid conclusions,

how close to 'pure guesswork', then, in your estimation?

that the genetic machinery may
contain mechanisms which drive its own adaption.

Such as?

There is
still a whole lot to be determined about how evolution
happens, most of it actually.

Anti-scientists alway like to point out that science
'doesn't know everything', as if this were somehow
a *deficit* of the mode of inquiry.

You seem to be ignoring tha vast amount that *is* known.



--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

ryanm wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...

Well, not *pure* guesswork: there are some data to work from
after all -- rocks and fossils and genes, for example.
in fact, science doesn't always have to 'be there'
when the event occurs, to make good study of it,
which is the main point.

No matter how you emphasize it, what it comes down to is faith. Faith in
your assumptions, faith in the people asserting these theories, etc. Because
it is not observable, however, it is not science.

No, Ryan, that's a misunderstanding of science, sorry. Have you read *any* of the links
I've directed peopel to here?

No, they aren't 'mostly guesswork', sorry.

Yeah, actually, they are. The whole field is based on the assumption
that evolution was the driving force. By all indications, we prsently
believe that assumption to be, if not false, at least drastically overstated
in it's importance.

"We" meaning.....?

Please, where are you getting this half-digested stuff from?

sigh You are a walking, talking, example of the negative effects of
too much faith in science.

You are the converse then: the effect of too little knowledge of it.


--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

Jay Kadis wrote:
In article , Steven Sullivan
wrote:

Steve Carroll wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

ryanm wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...

At least you admit it has nothign at all do to with science or
verifiability --
i.e., it's faith, all the way down.

Oh sure, but then neither does the theory of evolution as the
origin of
our species. No science there, just pure faith.

WHich statement only demonstrates your poor grasp of the concepts
'science' and 'faith'. Or are you going to whip some
mad epistemology-fu on me?

Like someone (possibly even
you) said in this same discussion, you can believe in whatever fairy
tale
you like, be it a giant sky pixie, a 90-foot tall Trigger the horse, or
the
idea that life sprang from a natural filtering of alkaloids on a
primeval
beach, none of it is observable, measurable, or provable, so none of it
is
science.

Hmmm...when we see the sun, the light is already something liek 8 seconds
old.
Does that mean that the sun can never be studied scientifically from
earth?

8 seconds? Where did you say you got your degree in science?

I'm a biologist. I haven't really concerned myself with the question for
some decades. How far off was I?

492. (93,000,000 mi/186,000 mi/sec = 500 sec) I'm a biologist, too, but I'm
learning to use math.

But you see, all the math in teh world wouldn't have helped me if I couldn't
generate the distance to the sun from memory. 500 sec = 500/60 = ~ 8 *minutes*
do perphas you see where the misremembering arose.


--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

james wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:


Steve Carroll wrote:
In article ,

8 seconds? Where did you say you got your degree in science?

I'm a biologist. I haven't really concerned myself with the question for
some decades. How far off was I?

It's about 8 light minutes to the sun. My degree is in music theory,
not physics, but I know how to do the math, including the n-th order
corrections for gravitational and refractive effects on the light
travel, but let's just say "8 minutes".

By all means, let's. It's not like 8 sec vs 8 minutes changes the point of
what I said..






--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

Chris Hornbeck wrote:
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 01:02:29 -0800, Bob Cain
wrote:

Ethics and morality are survival strategies. Everything important
is a survival strategy. We, and all current life, are the products
of billions of iterations of competitive comparisons with all
other life.

I can accept that as one of the possibilities. What's
unusual, I think, is that I can accept it within a framework
of a God based universe or without. I don't think that
arguments from redundancy are good enough to exclude the God
thing.

Perhaps we all fall somewhere (slightly different) on a spectrum
of God based intervention from the "Let there be light" initial
singularity god to the daily personal "He walks with thee and He
talks with thee" god.

What is the most elegant god? Purely a personal esthetic? Or is
the answer encoded into the universe, and life's goal to find it?

Most misinterpretations of natural selection come from over-
valuing randomness inputs and under-valuing iteration.

I didn't understand that and think I want to.

Clear as mud; sorry.

Self-replication arises emergently in all kinds of systems with
an energy gradient. Competition arises emergently from self-
replication. Selection begins when the limits to resources
are bumped up against. Success is inbred, and strategies for
success are emergent properties of an iterated competition.

The iteration itself forces emergent properties to arise, from
subtle stategies at the gene level to intelligence/ awareness.
Randomness is only a noisy jittering, and trivial to the process.
God may or may not dwell in the details, but must (?) dwell
in emergence. Or is god an emergent property of awareness?

Clearly, 'god' is an energy gradient. ;



--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

Bob Cain wrote:
ryanm wrote:

"Bob Cain" wrote in message
...

But where, as with all ethics and morality, does this vector
of no-harm and doing-good come from? I'm not suggesting it
is religion as we know it, but what, where?


Actually, it's the basis of religion as we know it, IMO. It is an
ancient saying, that much is certain. It's the basic social contract, so it
probably dates from the beginning of social behavior and spoken language. It
probably stems from the desire for freedom and the inherent empathy that all
people have. I want to do whatever I want, but I don't want other people
doing whatever they want to hurt me, so I will do what I want as long as it
doesn't hurt anyone else (at least not *too* much).

Science is having a really hard time finding evidence of
altruism in other species, although some rather ambiguous
indications do exist.

? Altruism has been studied for decades in other organisms.


That it would emerge in man across so many instances of
diverse socialization implies either that we all went
through a very narrow choke point (or whatever it's called)
through which an altruistic ethic passed and had enormous
power or that we are endowed with it in some other way.

Or that, as is argued for other organisms, 'altruism' was
originally selected for by evolution as an adaptive trait that fosters
reproductive success.


--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

Bob Cain wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:


Complexity does not prove 'design'.

I'd like to address a prior comment I believe it was you who
made. If it was, you dismissed "Darwin's Black Box" as flawed.

I think that book has special appeal and can only be fully
understood by an engineer. The fundamental point (his?) is
the concept of irreducible complexity, the notion that there
is no conceivable incremental reversal of a pariticular
subsystem's evolution which can leave it functional in its
role and no concievable other role that it could have been
co-opted from.

Intersting. Can evoltuoin, then only be fully understood by
a biologist?

This is really jsut 'irreducible complexity'
all over again, whihc was first cited for the eye, then the immune
system, and now flagella.

Again, I refer you to the general refutations of Behe (mostly from
biologists) at talkorigins.org, or here (see also the article
it is a FAQ for):

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flage...ackground.html

A key fact is that evoltuion is a borrower, not an innovator.
It re-uses protein motifs promiscuously, often for
rather different ends. IN my own work,
evidence of the homologies between tranport protein (that is, proteins
involve dwith moving substances into and out of
cells) and flagellar proteins (proteins that are par tof the
machinery that *moves* bacterial cells), comes up frequently.



--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

ryanm wrote:
"Chris Hornbeck" wrote in message
...

Eyes have evolved independently at least 44 times on earth,
but wheels never have. These same arguments, that intermediate
steps are difficult to understand, don't explain either case.
Special pleadings of divine intervention should be held to
the same standards of rigor, or they're trivialized.

Not sure I'm following your logic. It doesn't change the fact that there
is an obvious backward path for the development of eyes, from simple light
measurement sensors to the complex eyes of certain insects.

Interesting thing to say, in that the eye was held up as the classic
case of 'irreducible complexity' for years. Apparently
creationists have moved on.

Still, some
things have obvious developmental pathways, and thers are less obvious,
sometimes to the point of being unimaginable. This is the basic problem. No
amount of variation can explain some leaps.

A supernatural being with the powers of a god is rather a leap, too.
Rqather larger than 'unimaginable' (to non biologists) leaps
involved in evoltion.

Is our current and likely temporary inability to describe
the details of a specific case to trump our well established
knowledge in most cases?

In most cases throughout history, the well established knowledge turned
out to be wildly inaccurate because the basic assumptions were incorrect.
Which brings us back to the burden of proof being on the assertor. Until
there is some kind of evidence, it's just a nice theory that depends on
faith in the assumptions being correct.

What assumptions do you feel give *evidence* of being incorrect?
(It is not enough to wish taht they were, btw.)




--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

ryanm wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...

Where does GOD come from?

Well... the x-tians will say that he didn't.

I can't 'disprove' a creator. I can't 'disprove' that an infinity of
universes has always existed without one, either.

Complexity does not prove 'design'. And stop acting like you have a clue
about higher theoretical mathematics.

No, complexity proves nothing but complexity. But it does *suggest*
design.
The old example is, you're walking down a beach, no man-made objects
in sight, and you come upon a fully functional computer with no measurable
evidence of it's origin.
Is the immediate assumption that "wow, this must've
evolved on it's own through billions of iterations of sand being rubbed
together by the waves!", or do you *consider* the possibility that someone
designed it and left it on the beach for you to find? The simplest answer is
generally more likely to be true, and in this case, *some* kind of design is
a hell of a lot simpler than billions and billions of iterations happening
to produce the modern world. That's not to say that the latter isn't
*possible*, just that it's unnecessarily improbable when there are much
simpler and more elegant answers to be found.

So, you think God designed snowflakes?




--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director