On Tue, 10 May 2005 07:39:33 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
Your anti-God bias is showing. You would rather believe that the
complexity of our ecosystem occurred due to just the right random,
combinations of factors and events to produce all the diversified
species, which all have a key part to play in the total picture,
rather than consider the likelihood that an intelligent force was
somehow responsible for guiding it.


There's nothing "random" about it -- when you consider that the bell
curve consists of a population as great as the number of events that
occur in the Universe within any period of time, it becomes utterly
-ridiculous- to think that life requires divine intervention. And if
there -is- evidence of guidance by some intelligent force, it's far
more likely that this "force" is not God but some sort of ETI. May the
force be with you, Dave!


snip
But keeping with that, who said it was random? Natural evolution and
selection explains away any coincidental occurrences that you may
mistake for "random".

But what motivates natural evolution?


Natural variation, and adaptability to a dynamic environment.


Who decides whether a mutation
is "beneficial" or not? Natural selection, otherwise known as
survival of the fittest, assumes that gene mutations which result in a
"better" species, would survive while the "lesser' versions of the
species would die out. Yet, it is said that homo-sapiens evolved from
apes. Why then are apes still around if we are the "new and improved"
version of the ape?


Because you assume that the "'lesser' versions of the species would
die out", which is not necessarily the case. There can be many
circumstances where a variation doesn't compete for the same resources
as it's progenitor. This explains why there are so many speices of
birds that have but slight variations -- many birds are migratory. And
so are many species of primates.


Evolution only explains a small part of the puzzle.


No, you have only -learned- a small part of the puzzle.


snip
......Why
do humans have self-awareness? Why do we posses an intelligence that
allows us to contemplate the unknown, and live beyond the programming
of instinctive behavior? What about the concept of a soul?


Evolution is science. The questions you ask are philosophical. But
before you start putting the human race on a pedestal, maybe you
better think twice about what you assume are the differences between
humans and other animals.


snip
Instead of being wishy-washy about the issue, why not consider the
possibility that evolution is, very simply, one of God's creations?

It very well might be. It's all part of the bigger plan. Like I said,
I totally accept the concepts of evolution. I just believe that the
process has been "managed" by a higher order intelligence, the
definition of which, has yet to be revealed. I am not advocating any
specific religious interpretation of "God", only that one exists.


The problem is that you don't fully understand the vast multitude of
variations that can occur in the processes of evolution. Neither do
the scientists that study it. But the scientists don't insert God into
the equation whenever something doesn't add up -- they look for other
factors and they usually find them.









----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

It might surprise you, Steven Hawkings (possibly the greatest mind alive--if
not--close) often refers to "God" when chatting and writing about his
thoughts... I don't know Steven's present stand on the existance of "God",
however, I do NOT think he has claimed his/her/its' existance is
impossible...

Steven is quite aware of the fact that probability and statistics make it
very hard for evolution to be the sole reason for our state of existance...

Here is a link to some of his musings and quotes, a search of the net will
provide mo
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physic...en-Hawking.htm

Warmest regards,
John
--
When Viagra fails to work--you are DOOMED!!!

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
| On Tue, 10 May 2005 07:39:33 -0400, Dave Hall
| wrote in :
|
| snip
| Your anti-God bias is showing. You would rather believe that the
| complexity of our ecosystem occurred due to just the right random,
| combinations of factors and events to produce all the diversified
| species, which all have a key part to play in the total picture,
| rather than consider the likelihood that an intelligent force was
| somehow responsible for guiding it.
|
|
| There's nothing "random" about it -- when you consider that the bell
| curve consists of a population as great as the number of events that
| occur in the Universe within any period of time, it becomes utterly
| -ridiculous- to think that life requires divine intervention. And if
| there -is- evidence of guidance by some intelligent force, it's far
| more likely that this "force" is not God but some sort of ETI. May the
| force be with you, Dave!
|
|
| snip
| But keeping with that, who said it was random? Natural evolution and
| selection explains away any coincidental occurrences that you may
| mistake for "random".
|
| But what motivates natural evolution?
|
|
| Natural variation, and adaptability to a dynamic environment.
|
|
| Who decides whether a mutation
| is "beneficial" or not? Natural selection, otherwise known as
| survival of the fittest, assumes that gene mutations which result in a
| "better" species, would survive while the "lesser' versions of the
| species would die out. Yet, it is said that homo-sapiens evolved from
| apes. Why then are apes still around if we are the "new and improved"
| version of the ape?
|
|
| Because you assume that the "'lesser' versions of the species would
| die out", which is not necessarily the case. There can be many
| circumstances where a variation doesn't compete for the same resources
| as it's progenitor. This explains why there are so many speices of
| birds that have but slight variations -- many birds are migratory. And
| so are many species of primates.
|
|
| Evolution only explains a small part of the puzzle.
|
|
| No, you have only -learned- a small part of the puzzle.
|
|
| snip
| ......Why
| do humans have self-awareness? Why do we posses an intelligence that
| allows us to contemplate the unknown, and live beyond the programming
| of instinctive behavior? What about the concept of a soul?
|
|
| Evolution is science. The questions you ask are philosophical. But
| before you start putting the human race on a pedestal, maybe you
| better think twice about what you assume are the differences between
| humans and other animals.
|
|
| snip
| Instead of being wishy-washy about the issue, why not consider the
| possibility that evolution is, very simply, one of God's creations?
|
| It very well might be. It's all part of the bigger plan. Like I said,
| I totally accept the concepts of evolution. I just believe that the
| process has been "managed" by a higher order intelligence, the
| definition of which, has yet to be revealed. I am not advocating any
| specific religious interpretation of "God", only that one exists.
|
|
| The problem is that you don't fully understand the vast multitude of
| variations that can occur in the processes of evolution. Neither do
| the scientists that study it. But the scientists don't insert God into
| the equation whenever something doesn't add up -- they look for other
| factors and they usually find them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
| http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
| ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----

On Tue, 10 May 2005 17:24:10 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote in
:

It might surprise you, Steven Hawkings (possibly the greatest mind alive--if
not--close) often refers to "God" when chatting and writing about his
thoughts... I don't know Steven's present stand on the existance of "God",
however, I do NOT think he has claimed his/her/its' existance is
impossible...

Steven is quite aware of the fact that probability and statistics make it
very hard for evolution to be the sole reason for our state of existance...

Here is a link to some of his musings and quotes, a search of the net will
provide mo
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physic...en-Hawking.htm


Stephen Hawking could be considered to be the contemporary equivalent
of John Tyndall, a scientist about 100 years ago that was popular
because of his ability to communicate scientific principles to the
masses, but was consistently (and safely) a decade or two behind the
current state of mainstream research. For example, the theory that
matter is composed of spherical waves is nothing new. It was even
proposed (and subsequently ridiculed) in Tyndall's day. There has
always been criticizm of the big-bang theory which, after several
decades, is finally receiving due attention. And the Michelson-Morley
experiment is -only now- getting a second look by the mainstream
scientific community because of attention drawn to the logical fallacy
used by the experimenters to reach their conclusion. Until now their
conclusion was accepted as fact because it was the foundation of
Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, and nobody dared criticize
-that- man despite his own admissions that he might have been wrong.
Which brings us to the -real- problem.....

The politics of science is often more important than the science
itself. It's a proven fact that the Earth is undergoing a period of
global warming, and that it's caused by the influence of man on the
environment. But politics plays the game that such facts are nothing
more than speculations made by a few fringe researchers looking to get
their names in the journals. And while I may not agree with some of
the currently accepted scientific theories or conclusions, nothing in
science is written in stone -- it is theory that is subject to change
upon new discoveries that are being made all the time, and will
continue to be made as long as there are people who are less than
fully satisfied with the current level of understanding. With that in
mind, it's easy to see how so many profound discoveries were made by
malcontents living under religious authoritarian governments. In my
opinion, there should be a seperation of science and state just like
there is (supposed to be) a seperation of church and state. I think
Galileo might agree with me on that one.

As to whether life exists by accident or design, feel free to believe
what you want. It's clear that science is far more complex than any
one person can possibly comprehend, so to believe that the Universe
works on purely scientific principles is, like any religion, simply a
matter of faith. I place my faith not just in science, but also in the
logical priciples upon which the scientific process works. The current
state of science may not be perfect but at least it continues to grow
and evolve, seeking deeper understandings of why things are the way
they are, instead of stagnating like so many religious beliefs that
were stalled by the blind acceptance of myths, legends, traditions and
ancient literature.

How did life come to be? Who cares? The only fact we know is that it
-does- exist. So let's just make the most of it while it lasts.







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Wed, 11 May 2005 02:36:52 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

The politics of science is often more important than the science
itself. It's a proven fact that the Earth is undergoing a period of
global warming, and that it's caused by the influence of man on the
environment. But politics plays the game that such facts are nothing
more than speculations made by a few fringe researchers looking to get
their names in the journals.

There has been no conclusive proof that global warming is primarily
the result of man's influence over the environment. In fact there has
been clear evidence that this planet has experienced major cyclical
climatic changes over the eons. The current warming trend may just be
a part of that process, and man's contribution to it may be much less
significant than what the environmental alarmists would lead us to
believe.


How did life come to be? Who cares? The only fact we know is that it
-does- exist. So let's just make the most of it while it lasts.


Existentialism. IMHO a rather selfish and closed mindset.

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

On Wed, 11 May 2005 08:40:31 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Wed, 11 May 2005 02:36:52 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

The politics of science is often more important than the science
itself. It's a proven fact that the Earth is undergoing a period of
global warming, and that it's caused by the influence of man on the
environment. But politics plays the game that such facts are nothing
more than speculations made by a few fringe researchers looking to get
their names in the journals.

There has been no conclusive proof that global warming is primarily
the result of man's influence over the environment.


Yes, there is indeed conclusive proof.


In fact there has
been clear evidence that this planet has experienced major cyclical
climatic changes over the eons. The current warming trend may just be
a part of that process, and man's contribution to it may be much less
significant than what the environmental alarmists would lead us to
believe.


That's what I was talking about when I said "the politics of science".


How did life come to be? Who cares? The only fact we know is that it
-does- exist. So let's just make the most of it while it lasts.


Existentialism. IMHO a rather selfish and closed mindset.


Gee, and I thought you said that you were a realist.







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Thu, 12 May 2005 04:29:35 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Wed, 11 May 2005 08:40:31 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Wed, 11 May 2005 02:36:52 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

The politics of science is often more important than the science
itself. It's a proven fact that the Earth is undergoing a period of
global warming, and that it's caused by the influence of man on the
environment. But politics plays the game that such facts are nothing
more than speculations made by a few fringe researchers looking to get
their names in the journals.

There has been no conclusive proof that global warming is primarily
the result of man's influence over the environment.


Yes, there is indeed conclusive proof.

No there isn't, for the simple reason that we do not have enough
climatic history to determine just how and when the climate shifts
normally as a reference before we can accurately gauge the additional
effects of humans.


How did life come to be? Who cares? The only fact we know is that it
-does- exist. So let's just make the most of it while it lasts.


Existentialism. IMHO a rather selfish and closed mindset.


Gee, and I thought you said that you were a realist.

I am. But I'm not so close minded that I'm just going to "accept" that
I exist and not ponder why.

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

On Fri, 13 May 2005 06:39:37 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Thu, 12 May 2005 04:29:35 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Wed, 11 May 2005 08:40:31 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Wed, 11 May 2005 02:36:52 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

The politics of science is often more important than the science
itself. It's a proven fact that the Earth is undergoing a period of
global warming, and that it's caused by the influence of man on the
environment. But politics plays the game that such facts are nothing
more than speculations made by a few fringe researchers looking to get
their names in the journals.

There has been no conclusive proof that global warming is primarily
the result of man's influence over the environment.


Yes, there is indeed conclusive proof.

No there isn't......


Yes, there is. Ice cores are an excellent record of climatic history,
and are good for over 500,000 years.


How did life come to be? Who cares? The only fact we know is that it
-does- exist. So let's just make the most of it while it lasts.


Existentialism. IMHO a rather selfish and closed mindset.


Gee, and I thought you said that you were a realist.

I am. But I'm not so close minded that I'm just going to "accept" that
I exist and not ponder why.


What part of existentialism dictates that one must must not "ponder"
their own existence?






----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Thu, 12 May 2005 04:29:35 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2005 08:40:31 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :
On Wed, 11 May 2005 02:36:52 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:
(The politics of science is often more important than the science
itself. It's a proven fact that the Earth is undergoing a period of
global warming, and that it's caused by the influence of man on the
environment. But politics plays the game that such facts are nothing
more than speculations made by a few fringe researchers looking to get
their names in the journals)

There has been no conclusive proof that

global warming is primarily the result of man's

influence over the environment.

(Yes, there is indeed conclusive proof.)

No there isn't, for the simple reason that we do
not have enough climatic history to determine

just how and when the climate shifts normally

as a reference before we can accurately

gauge the additional effects of humans.



The history of the earth's climate is well documented back to the
begining of the earth's creation...grammar school basic earth and
science taught this. Carbon dating confirms much ad plays a large part
of the techniques used to arrive at such widely accepted and mainstream
taught scientific facts.
Chloroflourocarbons released by the burning of fossil fuels is directly
linked to global warming. Global warming was proved by the continual
shrinkage of the polar ice cap confirmed by 24-7 high tech monitoring of
such. Villages that reside in the frozen tundra watch their mountains of
ice shrink each year.



Existentialism. IMHO a rather selfish and

closed mindset.

I am. But I'm not so close minded that I'm just

going to "accept" that I exist and not ponder

why.



Some feel the same about poorly crafted laws, but you take issue with
those free-thinkers and it moves you toward the goblin that you are
unable to cast out and exercise of yourself.

Dave

"Sandbagger"

n3cvj

Well, that is certainly "YOUR OPINION"--I see little else there...

Interesting you should cram Steven into such a small bottle--where are you
lecturing this year--if it will be in a city close--I may come and see what
you have to say...

Warmest regards,
John
--
Sit down the six pack--step away!!! ... and go do something...

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
| On Tue, 10 May 2005 17:24:10 -0700, "John Smith"
| wrote in
| :
|
| It might surprise you, Steven Hawkings (possibly the greatest mind
alive--if
| not--close) often refers to "God" when chatting and writing about his
| thoughts... I don't know Steven's present stand on the existance of
"God",
| however, I do NOT think he has claimed his/her/its' existance is
| impossible...
|
| Steven is quite aware of the fact that probability and statistics make it
| very hard for evolution to be the sole reason for our state of
existance...
|
| Here is a link to some of his musings and quotes, a search of the net
will
| provide mo
| http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physic...en-Hawking.htm
|
|
| Stephen Hawking could be considered to be the contemporary equivalent
| of John Tyndall, a scientist about 100 years ago that was popular
| because of his ability to communicate scientific principles to the
| masses, but was consistently (and safely) a decade or two behind the
| current state of mainstream research. For example, the theory that
| matter is composed of spherical waves is nothing new. It was even
| proposed (and subsequently ridiculed) in Tyndall's day. There has
| always been criticizm of the big-bang theory which, after several
| decades, is finally receiving due attention. And the Michelson-Morley
| experiment is -only now- getting a second look by the mainstream
| scientific community because of attention drawn to the logical fallacy
| used by the experimenters to reach their conclusion. Until now their
| conclusion was accepted as fact because it was the foundation of
| Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, and nobody dared criticize
| -that- man despite his own admissions that he might have been wrong.
| Which brings us to the -real- problem.....
|
| The politics of science is often more important than the science
| itself. It's a proven fact that the Earth is undergoing a period of
| global warming, and that it's caused by the influence of man on the
| environment. But politics plays the game that such facts are nothing
| more than speculations made by a few fringe researchers looking to get
| their names in the journals. And while I may not agree with some of
| the currently accepted scientific theories or conclusions, nothing in
| science is written in stone -- it is theory that is subject to change
| upon new discoveries that are being made all the time, and will
| continue to be made as long as there are people who are less than
| fully satisfied with the current level of understanding. With that in
| mind, it's easy to see how so many profound discoveries were made by
| malcontents living under religious authoritarian governments. In my
| opinion, there should be a seperation of science and state just like
| there is (supposed to be) a seperation of church and state. I think
| Galileo might agree with me on that one.
|
| As to whether life exists by accident or design, feel free to believe
| what you want. It's clear that science is far more complex than any
| one person can possibly comprehend, so to believe that the Universe
| works on purely scientific principles is, like any religion, simply a
| matter of faith. I place my faith not just in science, but also in the
| logical priciples upon which the scientific process works. The current
| state of science may not be perfect but at least it continues to grow
| and evolve, seeking deeper understandings of why things are the way
| they are, instead of stagnating like so many religious beliefs that
| were stalled by the blind acceptance of myths, legends, traditions and
| ancient literature.
|
| How did life come to be? Who cares? The only fact we know is that it
| -does- exist. So let's just make the most of it while it lasts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
| http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
| ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----

From: (John=A0Smith)
Well, that is certainly "YOUR OPINION"--I see little else there...
Interesting you should cram Steven into such a small bottle--where are
you lecturing this year--if it will be in a city close--I may come and
see what you have to say...
Warmest regards,
John
--
Sit down the six pack--step away!!! ... and go do something...
_
He was a novelty in the eighties, but is nowhere near those who are
considered tops in the field these days. He is no longer the "go to" guy
regarding space philosophy and astro physics.
The guy is more a cultural icon than definitive authority on any matter.