Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 15:33:12 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Dave Hayes <dave@jetcafe.org>, <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020903151011.S66978-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> In-Reply-To: <3D7367BB.2AC28CF2@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > Dave Hayes wrote: > > > Posit a mutation which enables the breathing of Chlorine gas, > > > but not an Oxygen/Nitrogen mix. The environment votes, most > > > explosively. > > > > It's not the environment that votes, it's the creature that dies. > > The environment is fairly static in this case. > > The environment chooses the creatures which survive. Why do you insist on reifying nature? Are you a pantheist? > My personal preference it to analyze the problem, determine > the class of problems it represents (if non-unique), and then > solve for the set of problems in the space represented by the > class, do it once, and never have to look back. I hate having > to solve the same problem more than once: it's an incredible > waste of my time. Have you solved the problem of induction yet? 8-) > Amusing. I was admiring this song the other night, when I > and another person were on our way to see a movie. I rather > expect the parts I was admiring were not the same parts you > admire enough to quote it to me. > > I'm put in a mind of the scene from the movie "A Fish Called > Wanda", in which Wanda and Otto are discussing his reading of > Nietsche... Now there's an atheist! Closest thing to an honest atheist, if there ever was such a thing... I like what he said about using grammar, that he feared we still believed in God, because we still believe in grammar. Trouble with philosophizing with a hammer is when that hammer can be turned against you. > > > What questions which cannot be dealt with rationally? > > > > "Is there a God?" "Why are we here?" "What is the one difference > > between a sacred being and an evil being?" > > > > Those are some examples. Have fun. ;) > > How to deal with them rationally: "I don't know". Consider this hypothesis: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened." (Romans 1:18-21) > > > "Human being" is a definition that encompasse both genetics and > > > programming. If someone lacks the proper programming, then by > > > definition, they are merely homo sapiens, not human beings. > > > > Nice dodge. ;) > > Not a dodge. My Uncle-by-marriage's sister is the person who > dispenses Charles Manson's medication. Some people yanked out > out their interface cables before the programming was complete. Can't go there, remember? There is no Programmer, hence no programming. 8-) Regards, Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020903151011.S66978-100000>