FPGA Central

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 16:28:37 GMT, Bryan Hackney <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Just Cocky wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 13:56:24 GMT, Bryan Hackney <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>I would not say never, but the ball is going to tend to rest in the
>>>valleys rather than the peaks. And there's this nasty little question
>>>if the second law of thermodynamics to contend with.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Living organism aren't closed systems. It's perfectly consistent with
>> the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics for entropy to decrease open systems.
>> Besides Biology, your ignorance of Physics is also showing. Not
>> surprise here, though.
>
>I'll let you draw your control surface anywhere you want.
>
>You have resorted to ad homimen attacks - goodbye.
>

Hey, if you don't want to be called ignorant, you need to stop acting
like one. I didn't see you asking questions. I saw you making
unfounded statements, which is a trait of arrogant and ignorant
people. Sorry, man, but this is how I perceive you from here.

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 11:19:09 -0500, Stan Pawlukiewicz
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>1) The most ardent atheists I personally know, either went to Catholic
>schools and/or had strongly religious parents.
>

I'm living proof of this. There's nothing like being inside the "cult"
to know how silly the "cult" is.

Stanley emitted the following keycodes:

> IMHO you really can't completely separate science from philosophy.

I agree 100 percent!

--RY

Just Cocky wrote:

> >
>
> Ok, here the thing. You are a retard. If you were the product of
> Intelligent Design, then you god is dumb as a brick.

You know, you are repeatedly demonstrating. the point he is making. He has
said not one thing in support of Intellegent Design but you know he is a
proponent. One can only guess that your knowlwdge of evolution is of of the
same caliber



Evolution as a theory is tainted. It has been for over 150 years. The
proponents of evolution assume that if they question or doubt evolution and
its tenets then all that is left will be creationism (or ID or whatever
else might be passing for creationism). The simple belief that allowing a
vaccum to exist on this matter is intolerable has led to all sorts of
mischief. It's the same sort of mischief the religous zealots have engaged
in also. It doesn't take much inteligence on the part of a dipasionate
observer to see that both sides are laboring under the same emotional
baggage.



-jim


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-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 =----

Randy Yates wrote:

> Stanley emitted the following keycodes:
>
>
>>IMHO you really can't completely separate science from philosophy.
>
>
> I agree 100 percent!
>
> --RY
>
Can someone please explain to me why this "creation" is so important.

Lets say that one day the "missing link" is discovered.
Lets also say that "yes, we all evolved from apes".

So what.

So does the whole idea of GOD (tm) go out the window ???

Or are the Creationists afraid of what this would mean about their
beloved beliefs ?

Would the Christian belief system (@) lose a major stone in their rock
solid foundation ??

Please help an atheist understand.

donald

Bryan Hackney wrote:

...

> I don't have a dog in this fight - my job is to point out the fantasy
> of macro-evolution, not to promote ID as part of science (or anything else).

What is "macro-evolution", as distinct from "evolution"? All I can think
it might be is a direct transition from amoeba to aardvark. Does anyone
believe that?

...

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On 21 Dec 2005 09:00:34 -0800, "Randy Yates" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Stanley emitted the following keycodes:
>
>> IMHO you really can't completely separate science from philosophy.
>
>I agree 100 percent!
>
>--RY

Actually, I agree 100 percent as well. I don't, however, think that
public grade schools, middle schools, or high schools are the
appropriate place to mingle them, or both messages may be lost
completely.

So IMHO supportable or actively researched science should be taught in
science classes (e.g., biology). ID doesn't make the grade, but it
is, IMHO, an appropriate topic outside of a scientific discussion at
that level of education.
Eric Jacobsen
Minister of Algorithms, Intel Corp.
My opinions may not be Intel's opinions.
http://www.ericjacobsen.org

Donald wrote:
> Randy Yates wrote:
>
>> Stanley emitted the following keycodes:
>>
>>
>>> IMHO you really can't completely separate science from philosophy.
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree 100 percent!
>>
>> --RY
>>
> Can someone please explain to me why this "creation" is so important.

Don't want to be disingenuous, but it kind of depends on your
philosophy, what you hold to be important, what drives and motivates
you, your aesthetics.


>
> Lets say that one day the "missing link" is discovered.
> Lets also say that "yes, we all evolved from apes".
>
> So what.
>
> So does the whole idea of GOD (tm) go out the window ???

Is altruism a successful evolutionary strategy? If not, why should we be
bothered by morality?


>
> Or are the Creationists afraid of what this would mean about their
> beloved beliefs ?

Why would you care?
>
> Would the Christian belief system (@) lose a major stone in their rock
> solid foundation ??

It's not really just Christian.
>
> Please help an atheist understand.
Would it matter?
>
> donald

There was an article a few years back in Scientific American that did a
survey of the religious beliefs of members of the American Academy of
Sciences. It turns out that biologists have the highest percentage of
atheists and that mathematicians had the highest percentage of believers
of the notion of God(s). The total group was more atheist than the
population in US as a whole. Given that political correctness tends to
worst in universities, it is entirely possible that biologists are self
selecting for this trait called atheism, or that it appears to be so for
many believers in a God(s). I think that one, of many, motivations of
ID is to let believers of God(s) to fully participate in the field of
biology.

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 12:32:28 -0500, Jerry Avins <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Bryan Hackney wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> I don't have a dog in this fight - my job is to point out the fantasy
>> of macro-evolution, not to promote ID as part of science (or anything else).
>
>What is "macro-evolution", as distinct from "evolution"? All I can think
>it might be is a direct transition from amoeba to aardvark. Does anyone
>believe that?
>

The Creationist/ID crowd believe that the "others" believe that.

Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote:

> Donald wrote:
>
>> Randy Yates wrote:
>>
>>> Stanley emitted the following keycodes:
>>>
>>>
>>>> IMHO you really can't completely separate science from philosophy.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree 100 percent!
>>>
>>> --RY
>>>
>> Can someone please explain to me why this "creation" is so important.
>
>
> Don't want to be disingenuous, but it kind of depends on your
> philosophy, what you hold to be important, what drives and motivates
> you, your aesthetics.
>

OK
>
>>
>> Lets say that one day the "missing link" is discovered.
>> Lets also say that "yes, we all evolved from apes".
>>
>> So what.
>>
>> So does the whole idea of GOD (tm) go out the window ???
>
>
> Is altruism a successful evolutionary strategy? If not, why should we be
> bothered by morality?
>

WHAT !!??

>
>>
>> Or are the Creationists afraid of what this would mean about their
>> beloved beliefs ?
>
>
> Why would you care?

Yes, I would.

>
>>
>> Would the Christian belief system (@) lose a major stone in their rock
>> solid foundation ??
>
>
> It's not really just Christian.
>

True, but the ID group is.


>>
>> Please help an atheist understand.
>
> Would it matter?

Yes, like trying to understand minorties, or people for another part
of the world. I too live here (usa) and want to understand these people
whom I work with and live amongst.

>
>>
>> donald
>
>
> There was an article a few years back in Scientific American that did a
> survey of the religious beliefs of members of the American Academy of
> Sciences. It turns out that biologists have the highest percentage of
> atheists and that mathematicians had the highest percentage of believers
> of the notion of God(s). The total group was more atheist than the
> population in US as a whole. Given that political correctness tends to
> worst in universities, it is entirely possible that biologists are self
> selecting for this trait called atheism, or that it appears to be so for
> many believers in a God(s). I think that one, of many, motivations of
> ID is to let believers of God(s) to fully participate in the field of
> biology.
>
>

Hmmm, Still have not answered my original question.

But, thanks for trying.

donald

Jerry Avins wrote:
> Bryan Hackney wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> I don't have a dog in this fight - my job is to point out the fantasy
>> of macro-evolution, not to promote ID as part of science (or anything
>> else).
>
>
> What is "macro-evolution", as distinct from "evolution"? All I can think
> it might be is a direct transition from amoeba to aardvark. Does anyone
> believe that?
>

Macro-evolution is what I would call big steps required to get from
amoeba to aardvark.

If you think there are no big steps, and everything is just one big
continuum from single cell to human, then I suggest that almost all
the fossil record is missing.




> ...
>
> Jerry
> --
> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Eric Jacobsen wrote:
> On 21 Dec 2005 09:00:34 -0800, "Randy Yates" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Stanley emitted the following keycodes:
>>
>>
>>>IMHO you really can't completely separate science from philosophy.
>>
>>I agree 100 percent!
>>
>>--RY
>
>
> Actually, I agree 100 percent as well. I don't, however, think that
> public grade schools, middle schools, or high schools are the
> appropriate place to mingle them, or both messages may be lost
> completely.

I really don't know what is right. I strongly feel that government and
laws should be secular. I think in the vast majority of work places,
these should also be secular. I think that public schools should be
secular as well. I don't think that the itself culture is obligated to
be secular under the Constitution. IMHO, most believers view atheism as
another form of religion, so I think that a lot of people view the
"flavor of evolution as taught in schools" as the establishment of a
different kind of religion under a fig leaf of science. Ideally
secularism should be completely neutral. Not sure if thats possible.
>
> So IMHO supportable or actively researched science should be taught in
> science classes (e.g., biology). ID doesn't make the grade, but it
> is, IMHO, an appropriate topic outside of a scientific discussion at
> that level of education.
> Eric Jacobsen
> Minister of Algorithms, Intel Corp.
> My opinions may not be Intel's opinions.
> http://www.ericjacobsen.org

Randy Yates wrote:


>
>>IMHO you really can't completely separate science from philosophy.
>
>
> I agree 100 percent!
>

Here is Neopositivism:

Science deals with the statements which can be completely disproved by
some evidence. If there is no possibility to be a disproof then this is
not a science. It could be an art, a belief or anything, just don't call
it science.

Vladimir Vassilevsky

DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant

http://www.abvolt.com

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 18:13:28 GMT, Bryan Hackney <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Jerry Avins wrote:
>> Bryan Hackney wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> I don't have a dog in this fight - my job is to point out the fantasy
>>> of macro-evolution, not to promote ID as part of science (or anything
>>> else).
>>
>>
>> What is "macro-evolution", as distinct from "evolution"? All I can think
>> it might be is a direct transition from amoeba to aardvark. Does anyone
>> believe that?
>>
>
>Macro-evolution is what I would call big steps required to get from
>amoeba to aardvark.
>

There are no big steps.

>
>If you think there are no big steps, and everything is just one big
>continuum from single cell to human, then I suggest that almost all
>the fossil record is missing.
>

Ok, this is comp.dsp. Ever heard of a thing called "sampling"?

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 12:06:09 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0sp"@[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> Evolution as a theory is tainted. It has been for over 150 years.
>

Unsubstantiated crap. Sooo typical!

Donald wrote:
> Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote:
>
>> Donald wrote:
>>
>>> Randy Yates wrote:
>>>
>>>> Stanley emitted the following keycodes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> IMHO you really can't completely separate science from philosophy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree 100 percent!
>>>>
>>>> --RY
>>>>
>>> Can someone please explain to me why this "creation" is so important.
>>
>>
>>
>> Don't want to be disingenuous, but it kind of depends on your
>> philosophy, what you hold to be important, what drives and motivates
>> you, your aesthetics.
>>
>
> OK
>
>>
>>>
>>> Lets say that one day the "missing link" is discovered.
>>> Lets also say that "yes, we all evolved from apes".
>>>
>>> So what.
>>>
>>> So does the whole idea of GOD (tm) go out the window ???
>>
>>
>>
>> Is altruism a successful evolutionary strategy? If not, why should we
>> be bothered by morality?
>>
>
> WHAT !!??
>
>>
>>>
>>> Or are the Creationists afraid of what this would mean about their
>>> beloved beliefs ?
>>
>>
>>
>> Why would you care?
>
>
> Yes, I would.
>
>>
>>>
>>> Would the Christian belief system (@) lose a major stone in their rock
>>> solid foundation ??
>>
>>
>>
>> It's not really just Christian.
>>
>
> True, but the ID group is.
>

Does that mean that the Biology establishment isn't?

Donald wrote:

>
> Lets say that one day the "missing link" is discovered.
> Lets also say that "yes, we all evolved from apes".
>
> So what.
>
> So does the whole idea of GOD (tm) go out the window ???
>
> Or are the Creationists afraid of what this would mean about their
> beloved beliefs ?
>
> Would the Christian belief system (@) lose a major stone in their rock
> solid foundation ??
>
> Please help an atheist understand.
>


Donald,

It is not about about atheism or religion. It is about dicks. Just some
people are trying to prove that their dicks are longer, whereas the
others think that their dicks are thicker.

VLV

Randy Yates wrote:

> Stanley emitted the following keycodes:
>
>
>>IMHO you really can't completely separate science from philosophy.
>
>
> I agree 100 percent!
>
> --RY
>

Not so long ago what we call science was called "natural philosophy", partly
because there was a sense that one was not merely accumulating facts and
phenomena about the physical world, but deriving wisdom and insights from them
too. Even the most atheist scientist will often decide one theory or
mathematical model is "better" than another because is is more "beautiful". Each
time that statement is made, I believe it is a expression of science as natural
philosophy.

Richard Dobson

Donald wrote:

> Randy Yates wrote:
> > Stanley emitted the following keycodes:
>
> >>IMHO you really can't completely separate science from philosophy.
>
> > I agree 100 percent!
>
> > --RY
>
> Can someone please explain to me why this "creation" is so important.

[That's a question, not a statement.]

Are you responding to me, or was my post just a convenient place for
you to ask a question?

If you are responding to me, then I claim your question is a
non-sequitur to my comment. Either creationist or
evolutionist could make this claim.

--Randy

Jerry Avins wrote:

> jim wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > Evolution as a theory is tainted. It has been for over 150 years. ...
>
> That's an interesting assertion. What taints it?

Well you could try reading the part that you snipped instead of asking me to
repeat it.
It's tainted by the emotions of its proponents.

Take you and Mr. Cocky for instance your so blinded by your emotions you
assert repeatedly that Mr. Hackney is a proponent of ID when he never said
one thing in support of ID and has stated clearly he is not.

One has to wonder why its so important to defend evolution. The argument
is really about Hegemony. The proponents of evolution believe this so way to
important for the standard rules to apply. If you lose this one everything
changes. So there really is no room for someone who looks at the evidence and
says 'well it looks to sparse to draw any meaningful conclusions'.
The same thing, of course, applies to the proponents on the other side,
but you already knew that.

-jim


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-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 =----

Bryan Hackney wrote:

...

> If you think there are no big steps, and everything is just one big
> continuum from single cell to human, then I suggest that almost all
> the fossil record is missing.

Most if it is. Did you think otherwise? Do you know of any knowledgeable
biologist who does?

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

jim wrote:

...

> Evolution as a theory is tainted. It has been for over 150 years. ...


That's an interesting assertion. What taints it?

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Randy Yates wrote:
> Donald wrote:
>
>
>>Randy Yates wrote:
>>
>>>Stanley emitted the following keycodes:
>>
>>>>IMHO you really can't completely separate science from philosophy.
>>
>>>I agree 100 percent!
>>
>>>--RY
>>
>>Can someone please explain to me why this "creation" is so important.
>
>
> [That's a question, not a statement.]
>
> Are you responding to me, or was my post just a convenient place for
> you to ask a question?
>
> If you are responding to me, then I claim your question is a
> non-sequitur to my comment. Either creationist or
> evolutionist could make this claim.

<nit_pick_mode> I doubt that science can exist without philosophy, but
do you claim that all philosophies are in some sense scientific?
I think, therefor I do science? </nit_pick_mode>

Jerry
--
Why am I in a handbasket? Where are we going?
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Randy Yates wrote:

> Donald wrote:
>
>
>>Randy Yates wrote:
>>
>>>Stanley emitted the following keycodes:
>>
>>>>IMHO you really can't completely separate science from philosophy.
>>
>>>I agree 100 percent!
>>
>>>--RY
>>
>>Can someone please explain to me why this "creation" is so important.
>
>
> [That's a question, not a statement.]
>
> Are you responding to me, or was my post just a convenient place for
> you to ask a question?
>

Yes, this was a convenient place to start. ( sorry I missed the ? mark )

> If you are responding to me, then I claim your question is a
> non-sequitur to my comment. Either creationist or
> evolutionist could make this claim.

If the question is "non sequitur", then why is so much energy sent on
makeing it right ?

To be sure I understand the meaning of:
http://dictionary.reference.com/sear...non%20sequitur

>
> --Randy
>

Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:

>
>
> Donald wrote:
>
>> Please help an atheist understand.
>>
>
>
> Donald,
>
> It is not about about atheism or religion. It is about dicks. Just some
> people are trying to prove that their dicks are longer, whereas the
> others think that their dicks are thicker.
>
> VLV

I hope this is not the only answer.