Re: An Early Christmas Present for the Neocons [OT]

Good evening, "Will Sill" & all;

"Will Sill" <will@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:sblok3pcecjc1jog9hb0fmpio4iqgv5uln@xxxxxxxxxx
I see where "Just plain \"Dusty\"" takes issue with my POV that
"nothing in the entire universe can be shown to have designed by an
explosion." And agrees!

D:
Explosions don't "design".

You can bet the farm on THAT.
I don't have to. I can do the math to back that up. Also, you somewhat
conveniently neglected to finish what I'd said. I said they (explosions)
don't design, they initiate [change]. An important but easily overlooked
distinction. But if you want to take the result of that explosion as a
design, I can't be there and referee that for you...that's your own doing.

While it's true that no one had a ring-side seat from which to observe

And that is also very true.
See? We agree on more than you might have thought...(:-o)!

one only needs to be able to grasp and execute simple
high-school math in order to plot the speed and vectors of the explosions'
constituent parts in order to be able to calculate its mass back to its
source. That's been done...and verified by many.

You have been bamboozled. It cannot be done by mere humans, if only
Huh? How could *I* have been bamboozled? Anybody can view the vectors, and
compute the changes. You. Me. The guy next door. Anybody! Whaddiya
think "red shift" is all about? This ain't rocket science...well, okay.
Maybe it is. But it's easily done math. I don't know how easily you're
"bamboozled", but nobody's likely to bamboozle me with numbers and
calculations! Not you, not anybody! Math and the physics of things is
after all, the basis of everything that is.

because we cannot measure or visualize the size, shape or other
characteristics of what we cannot fully sense. At best, one can
I don't know how to apply this assertion of yours. No one said that we have
determined the "characteristics" of one thing or another. I can't determine
the "characteristics" of a C4 charge either, but I can darn sure compute the
displacement vectors that result from its having gone off. To say otherwise
would be a slap at the face of reality.

theorize the dimensions of a theoretical source for the _visible_
universe. What else is there, and what does _it_ look like?
Don't know of a, "What else is there"? It's the only one I know. It is
what it is. And it is what we see and can sense. To deny those, would fly
in the face of reality. To assert that what happened is somehow the
province of a mythical deity is equally theoretical. At least I can plot
and demonstrate the vectors of elements from such a blast--even if I don't
know how it happened or how it was initiated. You have...nothing! And, in
the unlikely eventuality that I'm wrong, please elucidate what I'm wrong
about...

If you would, could you please demonstrate the "ring-side seat" from which
one might demonstrate your view of events? (Please be sure to include
some
of the underlying math, so that I can work it out with you and help you
check and verify your results...so that if it works out, I can adopt them
as
my own.)

You are mistaken if you think I would try to "prove" superior
knowledge of our origins. I cannot, and don't claim to be able to.
Interesting, that. Sounds like a: "I don't have a clue, how; but I'll
fight to the death that you don't know anything either." I only have math &
physics to "prove" or support my contentions. And you have...?

What I _can_ do is assert that my extensive research has failed to
unearth ANY credible evidence supporting _accidental_ events as the
creative force behind our existence. Which is why I wrote that:
I don't recollect that I asserted that something happened by accident. I
said that we don't know (yet) how such an event came about. Given that
there's little else to suggest a cause, "accident" is certainly a viable
candidate.

Just because you assert that it couldn't happen like that doesn't mean that
it didn't. There's no end to research that supports the notion of "life"
springing from abiogenesis (a Greek word for "non biological origins" as the
formation of life from non-living matter). It's a term used to refer to the
hypotheses about the chemical origin of life, as in the out of a 'primordial
soup' or such events. No one YET knows if there were some number of
intermediate steps, such as non-living but self-replicating molecules
(biopoiesis) among other modalities. While the exact cause is not yet
known, that doesn't mean that it was due to the intervention of a
superluminal deity.

The Big Bang nonsense depends totally on a blind belief
that the complex self-replicating organisms can
trace their origins to mere dumb luck followed by an impossible series
of unguided, unplanned accidents.

You write that:
And I stand in awe and wonder when I can actually see and chart
uncounted billions of galaxies--some moving away from us at a significant
fraction of the speed-of-light--knowing that each one contains uncountable
billions of suns similar to ours...and wonder how many other creations
[caused by] "...dumb luck followed by an impossible series of unguided,
unplanned accidents..." are looking in my direction...

I can easily demonstrate the math and the physics that bonds those bodies
and their movements. Now, show me what you've got.

What you imagine you can "demonstrate" and what you can actually show
with credible evidence differs.
From what? Your specious assertion that some supra-normal deity is at the
heart of these events? Or my inability to exactly name the source of such
an event? In any event, you know as much (or as little) about this as I do.
But only one of us is asserting the influence of a super-normal
intervention.

You do not need to look at the cosmos
to be in awe, but that's as good on object as any.

:Psalm 19:1-3The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament
:sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto
:night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where
:their voice is not heard.
So, how is this different from what I said? The notion that only those
words preceded by paragraph and section number comments are worthy of
attention? Should that be the case, then you have indeed hitched your wagon
to a falling star. What you seek at a distance and from afar, I have
already found within. I can but offer you pity and condolences...

Look at your own body, or study life beneath the sea.
I have. I've studied life from cells from myself to things found in
hot-springs, ice-beds, and from the bottom of the sea. I've found life and
"the force" to "do" in them all. And you've found....what? Oh yes. A
passionate ability to cling to "belief" or 'faith'... A surely useful
trait, that.

(Have ya seen The Blue Planet series?) I contend that no rational person
can
I have. And I enjoyed them immensely. You can contend what you wish. That
no more makes it valid or true than if I'd detested what I'd seen.

honestly conclude that there can be a creation without a Creator.
To the simple mind, all things technological seem to be like magic. And
magic, is after all, the basis for all of the deceptions of the sense of
mankind. I take it that you are that easily distracted (read: deceived).
Sad, that.

Might as well try to convince me that a Lincoln Town Car was created
by an explosion in a mattress factory.
Is that what I was attempting to do? Only you, it would seem, are so
disposed. And only you, it seems, are so inexplicitly linked to the need to
cling to an all-powerful deity to salve the pain of your understanding.
Very sad, that.

But if you are willing to be just a little open-minded, I recommend
By "open-minded," I presume that you mean that I should be willing to
suspend disbelief? That I can only "understand" your PoV if I suspend my
belief in reality? Unlike others, I am not so blessed. My anchor to
reality transcends even your refusal to understand the same. I believe what
my senses can convey to me. I will accept what others tell me that their
senses tell them...until such time as I can verify it on my own, or discard
it as the trash it can be. You, it seems, will accept anything that someone
tells you that falls in line with your own preconceived notions of how
things are.

just one of countless scholarly works that touch on origins - this one
entitled "The Biblical Flood and the Ice Epoch" by Dr. Donald Patten.
I read that, what...some 30 or 40 years ago? It was a collection of
opinions stitched together with specious events and assertions then, and I
suspect that it's not changed much since that time. Anybody can publish
anything under the moniker of being a PhD. Sadly, that doesn't make it any
more relevant than those things I can discern with my own senses.

I'm a fair to medium archeologist, a pretty good geologist, a better
then average chemist, and--in retrospect--a so-so physicist. It's probably
just me, but I've found lots of evidence of things that have been and were.
I've never yet found any indications of a flood of the magnitude of "that"
flood, and until I do, that story will have to remain just that...a story.

While I cannot and will not vouch for the accuracy of his speculations
Really? And yet you put it forth as if it were a place to hang your hat.
I'd say that's pretty Pecksniffian of you.

about what happened when none of us were there, he offers extensive
credible evidence supporting his thoughts on cosmology and (of course)
his ideas about how God caused the great Flood.
Oh well! That settles it! He wasn't there. Yet his opinions of that event
are taken as "gospel" as to the causes and outcome of those events because
he mentions "God" as the source of it. Nice job, if you can get it...

Since Patten feels the Bible is truthful and you do not, I expect you
will reject his views without even reading them - but it would be a
Uh, help me out here, Will. Where was it that I said that the "bible" is
_NOT_ truthful? I said that it's only tertiarily correct, not that it's
not truthful. And, lest it's escaped your apparently feeble understanding,
just because something is "written" and presumed (by a select few) to be
"truthful", doesn't make it so. You did know that, didn't you? The bible
is many things; a ledger of genealogy, a tale of history, rules to live your
life by, lots of parables on how to do things. But, "The Word of God?"
Please! Forgive me if all I have to verify that, is your word....
Disingenuous, that.

pity if you only read sources that agree with your opinions. Agree or
Well, if that's your assertion, then that would be a bold faced lie. If
that's your assessment, then it would be wrong. I read many things. Not
all "agree" with those opinions that I have formed (remember? I come from
the "old school". When I want an 'opinion', I'll form one!). Those I set
aside in a special place in my mind as needing more confirmation. Sadly, I
note that you have no such allocation. You take all things that seem to
support your
opinions, as settled and confirmed 'gospel'. Many of us just can't live
with those limitations on the face of reality.

disagree, you'd be a fool to ignore the credible evidence (and the
math) he presents.
I would never "ignore" 'credible evidence.' So, show me some. Or is the
opinion of your 'credible evidence' more than enough to sway your
allegiance? So easily led, are you...

Personally, having considered the evidence, I find no sane reason to
deny the Biblical story that an omnipotent God created all things,
Then it should be easy for you to elucidate this "evidence" for the rest of
us to enjoy.

especially including life in all it's forms. I do not know HOW He
created all things out of nothing, nor do I know when; or how long it
took. But the fact that I can't see Him does not for a millisecond
convince me that a tree (or an amoeba or a cosmos) designed itself -
by accident.
Sad, that. Such a major intellect, slain by such a major character flaw...

Oh well...later all,
Dusty
....


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: JSH: Final exam
    ... Talking about false math... ... > polynomials as then you can physically SEE how it works, ... Lets check your assertion above with sqrtas function: ... Not with the sqrt ...
    (sci.math)
  • No education is likely
    ... You said ..."you have no proof for this assertion." ... Doesn't your math use the cop out of 'inundation' ... Your math and Als ... Mason, this is my latin for you...."Pone ubi sol non lucent." ...
    (rec.gambling.craps)
  • Re: No education is likely
    ... > for the existence of God but I know He exists. ... > You said ..."you have no proof for this assertion." ... Your math and Als ...
    (rec.gambling.craps)
  • Son du tonnerre
    ... plus grande que celle du son, du fait de l'existence d'une onde ... d'explosion. ... On ne retrouve nulle part cette assertion. ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading