Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 19:46:08 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> Cc: Dave Hayes <dave@jetcafe.org>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <3D7573F0.EDC1196B@mindspring.com> References: <20020903151011.S66978-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > > Dave Hayes wrote: > > > 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? No. Recognizing that the environment acts upon an individual doesn't take a pantheist (I guess it also puts the nail in the coffin of your idea that I am a Monoist... ;^)). > > 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 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-) If I had, then you are probably having this conversation with a computer program. 8-). > 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) It's always easy to argue in third person perfect, because you never have to take the blame for the ideas, and there's never an appeal to a contradictory witness to worry about. 8-). > > 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-) That's "Programmer", not "programmer". 8-). -- Terry 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?3D7573F0.EDC1196B>