[ale] Gone (totally) OT: Cobb Laptop Deal

[Mark Wright]

I can't resist.

Aaron et al.  We all believe or do not believe in God for our own  
reasons.  My issue in this discussion is that all the criticisms of  
the ID-Evo debate seem to always end up as an stand for or against  
our God.

When I was a kid I was taught in my flexible church that evolution  
didn't have to mean God didn't exist.  Then I read that Darwin didn't  
believe that species evolved because by the end of his life he still  
had no evidence to support it.  There should be billions of failed  
evolution changes documented in the fossil record for every little  
evolutionary fork successful or not.  This would mean infinitely more  
transitional fossil forms than normal ones.  Darwin new that and  
thought he would find them easily.  Faced with this unbelievable lack  
of evidence of transitional fossils I think evolution requires just a  
much faith as anything else.

Also, evolution is a mandatory explanation for life.  No other theory  
of life can be tolerated by humanistic science.  (Sort of like the  
blank looks you get when you mention to some people that you have a  
computer but don't use windows.  The conversation is immediately over  
because their mind won't go there.)  Scientists frequently throw away  
experimental data that conflicts with evolution because there is no  
other explanation of life that they can consider.  Remember the back  
in the 40's and 50's when scientist used to uncover skulls and claim  
they were man-apes?  All were hoaxes.  The amazing thing is that the  
Plitdown man, the lucy bones and others are still on display in  
museums even though they have been completely discredited.  Answer,  
they are religious articles not evidence of evolution.

Again my apologies to those this may irritate.


On Aug 19, 2005, at 8:49 AM, aaron wrote:

> On Wednesday 17 August 2005 19:21, Geoffrey wrote:
>
>> aaron wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Stating it another way, if there were a Great Omnipotent Deity  
>>> behind the
>>> existence of the universe, then the best argument for this ultimate
>>> intelligence would be a universe comprised entirely of the  
>>> cyclic, self
>>> sustaining and evolutionary mechanisms that human science uncovers
>>> and explores. The perfect intelligent universe will allow that  
>>> its all
>>> powerful creator need never lift a finger beyond the Big Bang;  
>>> just light
>>> the fuse, pop a cold one, sit back and enjoy the fireworks!    
>>> There's
>>> nothing more elegantly intelligent than the idea of spark once, run
>>> forever!
>>>
>>
>> Aaron, that's where your thought process is flawed.  God is a
>> micro-manager. :)
>>
>
> Apologies, but I'd have to consider a micro managing deity to be a
> meddling middle man, perhaps some bureaucrat from the celestial
> DMV, and probably more akin to a fallen angel or Bill Gates than
> an omnipotent creator.  :-)
>
>
>>  (Thank God! :) )
>>
>
> Which one?  The micro-manager? :-)
>
>
>>  Haven't you ever put your heart and
>> soul into the creation of anything?  Certainly you have.   Do you  
>> then
>> just sit it on the shelf and stare at it?  I think not.
>>
>
> Sure, I follow up on my creations... but I only need to because I'm  
> not
> omnipotent (: at least not while I'm awake :). An omnipotent creator
> wouldn't have to tinker with their designs post facto. The works of an
> ultimate intelligence would, by definition, be complete, integral and
> without flaw in the first place, which is the primary premise behind
> the "Intelligent Deity" theory I am putting forth here.
>
> In example, take all those popular mythologies about commanding
> parents to murder their children and instigating deadly plagues and
> slaughtering first born infants in cold blood and raining down  
> brimstone
> and surreptitiously conspiring in one murderous genocide after  
> another.
> I'm honestly sorry if it offends anyone, and none of this is being  
> said to
> incite, but to _me_ those just don't seem to be very bright,  
> efficient or
> effective methodologies for cultivating a favorite living creation  
> or for
> running a planet, let alone for managing an entire universe. The deity
> defined by those myths comes across (to _me_) as a small, hateful,
> murderous, vindictive and vengeance minded terrorist. My view is that
> such a deity would be incapable of creation, as their actions are  
> entirely
> inconsistent with an entity that could claim either the  
> intelligence or
> omnipotence needed to do so.
>
>
>> How can you actually think that you could possibly understand the
>> thought process of God?
>>
>
> Actually... it's because everything of my being and intelligence  
> assures
> me that I, like every sentient being, am fully capable of  
> envisioning and
> understanding the nature of my own existence. There is also the  
> knowledge
> that it would be impossible to do any harm to this arena of  
> philosophy after
> observing the endless linage of charlatans and frauds who claim sacred
> dispensation to define the nature of existence for all humanity based
> solely on their ability to recite from a tired repertoire of  
> anachronistic
> fairy tails. Justification is also found in seeing those from that  
> group who
> then inflate their arrogance into mystical claims of being  
> "special" or
> "chosen" people who have been secretly (and exclusively) ordained to
> speak for the deities they invent (how convenient). And that's before
> considering the more deadly extremists among them who then extend
> their delusions of grandeur into a divine entitlement to subjugate or
> murder any people who disagree with their (invariably narrow) visions
> of their omnipotent imaginary friends..
>
> ...and you would seem to be claiming that you have a special  
> understanding
> of the management style of an ultimate deity, as well.  :-)
>
> As an intelligent entity of the universe, I am as fully qualified  
> and entitled
> to consider the nature of existence or to imagine the forms and  
> purposes
> of potential deities as any other human being that has ever existed.
>
> After all, if human existence really is the end product of an  
> intelligent
> creation process, and if we are, therefore, a direct reflection of  
> some
> omnipotent creator's intelligence, then we must _all_ possess the  
> potential
> to know the creator intimately. Extending the idea of "putting your  
> heart and
> soul into your creations",  the invention is ultimately inseparable  
> from the
> inventor,  which is the other key premise of my "Intelligent Deity"  
> theory.
> :-)
>
> It may be stubborn, but I'm reserving my imagination for deities  
> that can
> at least exhibit the kind of intelligence, empathy, compassion and  
> capacity
> to love that can be readily observed in the human race every day.
> :-)
>
>
>> Please, don't let this start a flame war.  The list doesn't need  
>> it and
>> I want to have the last word.
>>
>
> So what? Now you feel divinely entitled to dictate the conditions  
> of this
> speculative dialog?  :-)  Will the next commentary be a rant about the
> "blasphemy" of logic and deduction?  :-)  And who do you think you  
> are,
> anyway, the Great Omnipotent Deity?!   :-) :-)
>
> ( However, in courtesy to you and the list, I agree not to post to  
> this
> thread again if you still feel a need to follow up with a last word.)
>
> peace
> aaron
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>

Mark Wright
NASA Maintenance Specialist
Mark_Wright at NASAsupport.com
www.nasasupport.com

1.800.724.9692

"Whatever It Takes"

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...