Re: Vista beta vs. OSX

On 12/19/05 9:55 AM, in article
timberwoof-C83B9C.09554819122005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Timberwoof"
<timberwoof@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> In article <BFC6E8B8.C29D%orthocross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Donald McDaniel <orthocross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On 12/14/05 2:29 PM, in article
>> timberwoof-75D817.14290514122005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Timberwoof"
>> <timberwoof@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <BFC5B5E2.C01B%orthocross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>>> Donald McDaniel <orthocross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/14/05 8:19 AM, in article
>>>> 1134577141.853365.301700@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "ed"
>>>> <news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ZnU wrote:
>>>>>> In article <Z5CdnSewgrjNfwPeUSdV9g@xxxxxxx>,
>>>>>> Flint <agent1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>> Frankly, it's *my* opinion that a greater intelligence has to have
>>>>>>>>> been the designer of the universe.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why, particularly?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1> A generally heirarchial ordering of the universe as we observe it,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why is this indicative of intelligence?
>>>>>
>>>>> ironically for the same reason that string theorists and cosmotologists
>>>>> think there may be an almost limitless number of universes- "According to
>>>>> this view, so many pocket universes formed during the early inflationary
>>>>> epoch - each of which with its own vacuum structure - that the entire
>>>>> landscape of possibilities is represented. The reasons for this view are
>>>>> not just idle speculation but are rooted in the many accidental
>>>>> fine-tunings that are necessary for a universe that supports life."
>>>>> -susskind
>>>>>
>>>>> scientists feel that there are so many fine tunings required for our
>>>>> universe to be able to support life, it may be that the old sci-fi view
>>>>> of many parallel universes simultaneously existing, representing
>>>>> essentially all possibilities, that allows our universe to be the way it
>>>>> is. the ID guys say all those fine tunings are the result of a designer.
>>>>
>>>> The question is, ed, WHY should, or would the Universe "fine-tune itself
>>>> for Life"?
>>>
>>> If the universe were not set up for life, we wouldn't be here to ask the
>>> question.
>>>
>>>> Why "carbon-based life"?
>>>
>>> Because carbon and other light atoms are so easily capable of creating
>>> complex molecules.
>>>
>>>> Why not a crystalline-based "life" instead?
>>>
>>> I don't understand the question, and I think it's just rhetorical. Carbon
>>> is crystalline in two forms (graphite and diamond), and many other things
>>> are also crystalline, such as frozen water.
>
> Actually, I am mistaken. There are plenty of bars in San Francisco where life
> is
> based on Crystal.
>
>
>>>> I see no reason why "accidental fine-tunings" would happen to choose
>>>> "carbon-based life" rather than another element as the basis for life.
>>>
>>> That's really a tautological question. I'm not sure that carbon is "the"
>>> element on which life is based; we also require hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen,
>>> and the whole raft of other light elements.
>>>
>>>> I simply refuse to believe that the continued existence of humanity in a
>>>> Universe which appears to be "against the continued existence of humanity"
>>>> is an "accident".
>>>
>>> The universe has no conscious vendetta against us.
>>>
>>>> Let's face it, ok? The ONLY way humanity could EVER leave this little
>>>> dusty rock would be to develop some way to overcome the gravity well of
>>>> the planet and leave the surface and travel within a partial vacuum, and
>>>> maintain an internal atmosphere which is capable of supporting us
>>>> continually until we arrived at the EXACTLY RIGHT other planet on which we
>>>> would be able to breathe unaided. In addition, we would also need the
>>>> mathematical and astronomical grounding to navigate us to this planet,
>>>> perhaps over 100 light-years away, somewhere in Space. This does NOT
>>>> happen "by blind chance". PERIOD.
>>>
>>> What's all this blind chance stuff? You seem to be taking the false
>>> argument that evolution happened by blind chance into human technology. The
>>> blind chance argument is wrong to begin with, and it is even more
>>> wronghere.
>>>
>>>> We do NOT gain the knowledge, the wisdom, or ANY OTHER PART of the
>>>> necessary skills by "accidental self-tuning" to the Universe accomplished
>>>> by an unintelligent, unjudging, unfeeling, unseeing, unknowing, uncaring,
>>>> impersonal force called "blind chance". "Things" do not give men
>>>> knowledge and wisdom. "Persons" do. We might gain wisdom and knowledge
>>>> by things IF there is another "PERSON" to point it out to us. But it
>>>> certainly won't just "jump out" at us, with the intention of preparing us
>>>> to leave the earth and expand into the rest of the Universe (or
>>>> "Multiverse", if you will).
>>>
>>> Well, that's not supported by any evidence. All the evidence points to us
>>> humans having developed knowledge and wisdom quite on our own. All you have
>>> is speculation.
>>>
>>>> This is just not something "blind chance" is wont to "do" (supposing that
>>>> chance "does" anything at all, anyway), considering the odds of such an
>>>> interception of perfect events which would lead to a Race, created by
>>>> "blind chance", coming up with the necessary tools "by blind chance"
>>>> ("adjusted" or not) to expand into the Universe which MAY or MAY not have
>>>> another earth-type planet, on which men can survive unaided, leave the
>>>> earth, and navigate there, maybe 10,000 light years away minimum (since
>>>> "blind, random chance" gives no guarantees that there will be a
>>>> "randomly-appearing" solar system able to support human life close by).
>>>> For all "blind chance" "cares or knows" (if that's what you want to call
>>>> it), it could just as well be in another galaxy altogether, rather than in
>>>> our Milky Way galaxy, considering that there are billions of other
>>>> galaxies than our own in the Universe.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you see now how ridiculous the idea of "blind, random, chance" is as a
>>>> source of our existence in the Universe?
>>>
>>> Well, yes, which is why it's not in scientific theory. So why do you go on
>>> about it so?
>>
>> So you do not classify "The Theory of Evolution" as "a scientific theory"?
>> Well, neither do I. Join the 2,000 or more year-old club, my friend.
>
> Obviously you do not understand what it takes for something to qualify as a
> scientific theory.
>
> A scientific theory is a set of observations and explanations that explain how
> some defined part of the universe works. A crucial part of any theory is its
> ability to make predictions. Evolutionary theory is highly successful; it is
> the
> basis of all biological sciences. No sense can be made of biology without
> understanding how evolution works.
>
>>>> There are simply TOO MANY "BLIND, RANDOM" chances which COULD have
>>>> happened instead.
>>>>
>>>> Now, "Laws" do not "make themselves".
>>>
>>> How do you know?
>>>
>>>> Our Universe, even including "chance", is controlled by "Laws" of Physics.
>>>> These "laws" were NOT "created" by their discoverers, they were
>>>> "DISCOVERED" by them. In other words, the Laws themselves were ALREADY
>>>> THERE, and men like Galileo and Sir Isaac Newton UNCOVERED them (this is
>>>> what "discovery" means). If the Universe is controlled by "LAWS", which
>>>> do not "create" themselves, obviously "Someone" created the Laws and put
>>>> them into motion.
>>>
>>> I was with you until the Someone.
>>
>> Good God, man: Don't you see the obvious? Don't you know that if there are
>> verifiable "LAWS" which control the operation of the Universe, there MUST
>> have been a "Law-Giver" at some point in Eternity?
>
> That's not obvious unless you mistake the so-called laws of science with
> legislation. There are some fundamental differences between the two, and to
> make
> any sense in this discussion, you must understand them.
>
> Human laws are made by people (and sometimes attributed to God). They can be
> broken, but there are consequences.
>
> Natural laws describe how the world works. They cannot be broken. I don't mean
> that in the sense of "they must not be broken or you will face serious
> consequences", I mean that in the sense that "they cannot be broken". Newton's
> Laws of Motion, for instance, describe very accurately how gravity interacts
> with mass. Except for some minor refinements required to make General
> Relativity
> work, Newton's laws work every time, without exception.
>
>>> Let me ask you a question. By what principles does this Someone operate so
>>> that
>>
>> He operates according to His Own, internal, Laws and Principles, some of
>> which He has revealed to Mankind throughout the centuries.
>
> This is not scientific in the sense that it doesn't really explain anything
> and
> that it cannot be used to make any predictions.
>
>>> He can create the scientific laws we discovered?
>>
>> Obviously He can, since He created them.
>
> That's a circular argument. You do know what a circular argument is, don't
> you?
>
>>> Is there some higher set of natural laws?
>>
>> There may be, or there may not be. At this point in Eternity, God has not
>> revealed this to Mankind in any meaningful way. There are hints of this in
>> the various scientific theories about the methods used in the Creation of
>> this Universe, but none which are fully developed.
>
> There are no hints of this in *scientific* theories. Besides, you are creating
> a
> God of the Gaps, in which God is responsible for only the parts of the
> universe
> that we don't understand.

That, sir, is YOUR spin on what I just said. In NO public (or private)
statement of mine, made ANYWHERE at ANYTIME, have I EVER suggested that God
is "responsible only for those parts of the Universe which we don't
understand". In fact, I have CLEARLY stated JUST THE OPPOSITE. If you
missed it, you have very poor English comprehension skills.

> And the existence of such a God is not useful either
> scientifically,

You, a dust-bag for your bones, actually think that YOU have the RIGHT to
tell your CREATOR what effects HE may or may not have on His creation, or
that "such a God is not useful scientifically". In addition, you, an
Antichrist, actually think that you have the RIGHT to find fault with the
Theology of the Church. I just would not want to be you when you stand
before Him. You will just look into His Eyes once, and IMMEDIATELY fall on
your face before His Majesty. From this position, you will not be able to
rise without His Permission. He will allow you to rise, however, to
acknowledge PUBLICALLY, before the ENTIRE Heavenly Court, and ALL those
gathered before Them, including all the Apostles, all the Saints, all the
Christians, and all your "friends" (who will ALSO be on their faces before
His Majesty), that He is Lord (which you failed to do while on the Earth.)
If you fail to do it now, I guarantee you, you will do it then, and will
have absolutely NO CHOICE in the matter. However, even your admission of
His Lordship at that time will not be enough to save you from the Fires of
His Judgment.

> for it can have no discernible or predictable effect on any
> experiment, or theologically, for that god bears less and less resemblance to
> the one you want to have ruling your world.
>
>>> Who created that Person?
>>
>> He is completely "UNCREATED" and "SELF-EXISTENT", and has existed from
>> Eternity, and will continue to exist from Eternity, in the same exact Form
>> (That is, Three Divine Persons, the Father, His Son, and Their Spirit, each
>> of Whom are fully "God", with the Three Together being completely
>> indivisible, yet Each possessing Their Own Personality and Will, with the
>> Three All being joined together with a common Purpose.)
>>
>>>> This "Someone" Christians and Jews refer to as "God", "The Creator of
>>>> All", "The Godhead", "The Source", "The Uncreated Creator", and other
>>>> equally-obvious titles. We do not claim to know or understand this
>>>> "Someone" perfectly, since we are finite, and He is Infinite. We know
>>>> only that about Him which He Himself has revealed to us (in the various
>>>> ways He has revealed this knowledge and understanding to Men).
>>>
>>> So in other words, you don't know who created God, and it doesn't matter to
>>> you,
>>
>> Of course we know: That is, NO ONE created God, since He is Uncreated.
>>
>>> but since you must know who created the Universe, you say God did it.
>>
>> God Himself tells us that He created the Universe, through His Word and
>> Spirit.
>>
>>> That's
>>> not very logical, and it's not scientific.
>>
>> Christians do not claim that the Godhead is "logical or scientific". The
>> Book of the Covenants of God is NOT a "scientific treatise". It is the
>> record of this God's (Who claims that there is NO OTHER GOD, other than H)
>> revelation of Himself to Mankind, and His dealings with His children, the
>> Nation of Israel, and the Church.
>>
>> As God Himself tells us, no one created Him: That is, He is completely
>> Self-existent, and has always existed, and always will exist, in the SAME
>> exact form He has always existed in.
>
> The same could pretty much be said, at the quantum level as described by the
> laws of physics, of the universe itself.

Well, since the Laws of Physics do not describe the Uncreated Lord of the
Universe, and that Same Uncreated Lord of the Universe CREATED "out of
things which do not appear, those things which do", I am not concerned with
the Laws of Physics, which will be in operation only as long as God makes
them valid, and not a nanosecond longer.

That the Laws of God will remain in force FOREVER, however, since they DO
describe the Nature of God, is plainly stated by Christ Himself, as well as
His Apostles and those who succeeded them, including His Church.

>
>>>> Scientists may (or may not) uncover the gifts of God which He has placed
>>>> in the Universe, like Easter Eggs in His Yard, for the children to find.
>>>> Sometimes they do, sometimes they are totally in error, and later are
>>>> shown to be wrong or incompletly-understanding.)
>>>>>
>>>>> i'm not sure that i see one view as any crazier than the other.
>>>>
>>>> I certainly see "accidental self-tuning" to be "totally insane and crazy."
>>>> One must be totally or partially insane to believe such an unbelievable
>>>> doctrine.
>>>
>>> Either that or one must be scientifically ignorant to present the
>>> "doctrine" in that manner and pretend that it is the basis for scientific
>>> thought.
>>
>> I don't care HOW "imaginatively" the Evolutionists may present their
>> "theories"...Their "doctrine", (however you want to present it), is
>> foolishness of the highest order. Whether this "doctrine" is "the" (or only
>> "a") basis for scientific thought or not, it is the "doctrine" which is
>> usually presented to children in Public Schools FIRST, before any other. So
>> for all intents and purposes, it IS the "basis (or 'foundation') for
>> scientific thought" in THEIR young minds, whether it was in your young mind
>> or not.
>
> No, it isn't. I was not taught evolution in the public schools I went to. I
> read
> about it on my own, and that made biology make sense.

You are not a common man nowadays, apparently. Evolution is almost ALWAYS
taught in the Public Schools EXCLUSIVELY today (never heard of a parochial
school teaching "Evolution" as a valid thought process.) In addition,
little 6-8 year olds are being taught that its "Ok" and "NORMAL" to have
"two daddies" or "two mommies", thus laying the groundwork needed to
"normalize" such perverted lifestyles later in their precious lives.

> But the argument about
> how
> evolution is taught in schools has no bearing on its truth as a scientific
> theory.

Not so, especially when the "Theory" of Evolution is being presented as
"SCIENTIFIC FACT", rather than a "just a theory". What is that they say
about lies? "Repeat them often enough, by enough people, and they become
'true'".

>
>> The very thought that humanity had its beginning as lifeless molecules in a
>> pool of other lifeless material which itself was composed of lifeless
>> molecules, all of which somehow magically caused themselves to form into the
>> DNA necessary to make the basis for humanity, all by "blind chance" is so
>> ridiculous as to be laughable.
>
> While the process you describe is ridiculous, the essence of what you mean it
> isn't. I can understand that it makes you uncomfortable. There are things that
> are not known yet, but that doesn't mean its not true.

If the "process" itself is ridiculous, how can the "essence of the process"
NOT also be "ridiculous"?

The lies of atheist Evolutionists do not make me "uncomfortable", since I
rely on the Creator for my knowledge of the Universe, not Evolutionists.

In addition, I am fully convinced that ALL "theories" of the Universe will
FALL AWAY forever when we are presented FULL knowledge of the Universe by
God Himself when we appear before Him.

--

Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the
original newsgroup and thread.
================================


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Letter to the Editor: God set the universal clock
    ... > Without such a force and laws to control it, there would be a state of chaos. ... > But the universe is not in chaos, for all heavenly bodies follow an orderly ... God designed all this and set up laws for the operation of all things ... The non-chaotic aspects of nature are due to the laws of nature. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: OT - For those that like political discussion on rmr - you caneven discuss religion with
    ... You could teach it much like you teach evolution except that the underlying reason for the emergence of various species and why some may change is different. ... You could still teach the same basic life processes but just as little time is spent now in trying to explain the unexplained of how we came from nothing, whether that be the primordial soup struck by lightning or the big bang itself you can also spend a bit of time suggesting either aliensor even a God did it. ... I tend to subscribe to the bubble in a pot of boiling water theory,, that there are new universes springing out all the time out of a vaster greater sub universe of which we are all a part. ... Surely if life is too complex to have happened by chance, a being capable of manipulating everything in the universe at a whim is too complex to happen by chance. ...
    (rec.models.rockets)
  • Re: The basic problem I have with Intelligent Design
    ... that it MUST have come about by design. ... >> What I mean is that whatever path the development of the universe took, ... I do believe God created the universe and everything in it. ... >> much as evolution states it. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Archbishop more or less admits theres no God
    ... That means he is no more a 'god' than ... If he created the laws of the universe, ... That would seem to fit with the current evidence. ...
    (rec.arts.drwho)
  • Re: The so-called christian fundamentals
    ... For example, if God is truly ... Man had direct revelation from God about His universe until man severed ... I take you have never attended a creationism vs ... couple of questions if evolution is the true reality. ...
    (soc.religion.christian)