Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

FW: ID Decision

Expand Messages
  • Robert Keyes
    Sent this to my Uncle, I was asking him what he thought of the Intelligent Design decision. Bob..(I hope he has a sense of Humor).. _____ From: Robert Keyes
    Message 1 of 12 , Dec 30, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Sent this to my Uncle, I was asking him what he thought of the Intelligent
      Design decision.

      Bob..(I hope he has a sense of Humor)..



      _____

      From: Robert Keyes [mailto:rlk@...]
      Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 1:59 AM
      To: 'dkeyes'
      Subject: RE: ID Decision



      OK, I am finally in the mood to answer this. I have no idea what exactly you
      said nor do I have a clue on what I might say. But I will comment as I go.
      And to be fairI will attempt to understand you fuller meaning. (i.e. Comment
      as if I read the whole thing first)

      Here goes.





      _____

      From: dkeyes [mailto:dkeyes202537mi@...]
      Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 8:46 AM
      To: Robert Keyes
      Subject: Re: ID Decision



      I agree with the decision.



      [Robert Keyes] Coward !!!



      One of the points made by the evoltuion guy was that all creationist can do
      is point out falacies and improbabilities in the evolutionary theory.



      [Robert Keyes] First He assumes they are fallacies. Who is to judge what is
      a fallacy. In Science I think scientists. Nobody agrees with anything
      anybody says. The best you can do is agree on common points. And below I
      will give you the common points nobody really likes to talk about.



      A Martian analysis.

      Part A.

      1. People that believe in God (any mysticism) that God (Mystical concept)
      always existed. i.e. Infinity..

      2. Scientists think Matter can be created nor Destroyed, i.e. Infinity of
      Matter is plausible.

      Conclusion of Part A. Both Sides (Mysticism vs Naturism/Science) agree on
      Infinity.

      Now Lets take the end.

      Part B.

      1. God will Destroy the Earth
      2. Scientist think the end will happen also.We will become zero entropy
      or a mass or quarks.

      Both Sides realize we will end in disaster.

      So what are we arguing about really.

      (Always humor and truth (as I see it of course))\







      But the point made by the creationist guy was that this could go on forever
      because evolutionist can just put off anything they can't answer into the
      future.



      [Robert Keyes] It is a given in Science thinking that you can never know
      anything withr absolute certainty. I happen to think this. I am not saying
      it is not possible in 1 million to 1 billion years of evolution , but , the
      question is what does the evidence indicated (with ape-brain analysis of
      course) at this point in time.











      In short it is not disprovable so it can't be science.



      [Robert Keyes] It is disprovable. I can think of endless examples. Like
      Finding Humor Fossils at Dinosaur time.(obvious simple example of how it can
      be disproved)











      Science could, in fact, be advocating a perpetual motion machine without
      the possibility of ever having to give up.





      [Robert Keyes] True, however they would give up if it showed no progress
      like perpetual Motion. I happen to not rule out perpetual Motion especially
      since I think the Universe Must be that way. (Speculating)





      Nevertheless, I don't thing you can tamper with the definition of
      science.



      [Robert Keyes] Even if they did tamper with it, it would not affect the
      reality that real science sheds on the Matter of our Ape-ness.(some humor)









      The negatives of evolution could be discussed within the confines of
      science even though no solution may ever be found.



      [Robert Keyes] If it can be solved, Humans will do it if we last long
      enough. We have the Human Genome in a Comptuer. Given 1000 years of analysis
      and will know much. Nothing is more complicated that Life (dam replicating
      things) so it might only be scratching the surface, but by then we will know
      at least how we got here. (To bad neither of us will be here in 1000 years).














      For example the improbability of biogenesis could be taught in a science
      class.



      [Robert Keyes] Nobody Understands the Problem enough to assign probability.









      To say to the students that it happened anyway is acutally religion.



      [Robert Keyes] They don't say it happened anyway. They say there it is a
      Huge Inference and it must have happened somehow(hard to think of a
      anything better to answer big-bang/ natural selection gap) since there are
      sound scientific theories on either side of this Piece of the puzzle. {Big
      Bang, ?, Evolution(from first replicator)} . Abiogensis has to be assumed
      unless the other to pieces are removed (Scientifcially)..









      No doubt the lines are blured. But one of the things that is unique about
      this debate is the fact that creation is understood by everyone as an
      alternative even though it is not presented. This was another point made by
      the creation guy.





      [Robert Keyes] That may be True Today, but given MTV it will not take long
      before that point will not be understood.

      My point is that if culture is the only thing you have to hang your hat on
      you are in trouble, because culture changes !





      I see no problem with keeping creation in the churches and evolution in
      the schools.



      [Robert Keyes] If that happens, religious thinking will be marginalized and
      secular humanism will win. You threw in the towel. You should be ashamed..









      Creationist are not harmed becasue everyone knows instinctively that
      creation is a possibility anyway.

      [Robert Keyes] At the moment. That will most certainly not be the truth in
      future.

      Bob.. ( Hopefully you Leaders will be more brave and fight, if it cant stand
      it cant, but go down fighting- give it your best shot- you seem to not agree
      with this - how SAD).

      Bob..





      ----- Original Message -----

      From: Robert Keyes <mailto:rlk@...>

      To: Dkeyes <mailto:dkeyes202537MI@...>

      Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 7:06 PM

      Subject: ID Decision



      The Judge Ripped Apart Everything on the ID Side. I read the full

      Text below. There are many arguments, most of them

      On that video of the debate I sent you ( did you listen to the rest of it).
      Anyway here is

      The link if you are interested.

      http://www.sciohost.org/ncse/kvd/kitzmiller_decision_20051220.pdf

      p.s. I am a little disappointed because I don't think they will appeal
      because it was

      so unconvincing to the Judge at every junction. I wanted it to go to the
      supreme court,

      for entertainment reasons.

      The Discovery Institute will have to go back to the drawing board.

      Comments..

      Bob..



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Herman B. Triplegood
      If not for the light, There would be no darkness. Rage not, Against the dying of the light, For it is not the light that dies, But the house of light that is
      Message 2 of 12 , Dec 31, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        If not for the light,

        There would be no darkness.



        Rage not,

        Against the dying of the light,

        For it is not the light that dies,

        But the house of light that is remade.



        Full plenum in possibility,

        Is this precipitation of the light,

        To the fourth part of a material basis.



        In this,

        Love's reason has gone wrought,

        And reason's love has gone wrain,

        And only confusion ensues,

        In pretension to answer,

        As oblivion's guest.



        I do not know,

        For this is a mystery,

        In mystery itself,

        And only the question,

        That matters more,

        Than the matter of the question,

        That is in,

        The question's answer.



        Let us call this,

        Then,

        42,

        An be done with the answer,

        And get about our business,

        Not of answering,

        But of questioning.



        Hb3g





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Bobconkawi@aol.com
        In his book The Visionary Window, Amit Goswami agrues that some kind of universal conscousness preceeds matter, as Eastern mystics have argued for a couple
        Message 3 of 12 , Dec 31, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          In his book The Visionary Window, Amit Goswami agrues that some kind of universal conscousness preceeds matter, as Eastern mystics have argued for a couple thousand years; that is, the laws of nature that govern matter must preceed matter. He uses quantum physics to make his case, science in other words. Does he, then, imply intelligent design? Maybe so, but he does not suggest traditional religion has any truth to it. --Bob

          -----Original Message-----
          From: Robert Keyes <rlk@...>
          To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 02:02:35 -0500
          Subject: [existlist] FW: ID Decision


          Sent this to my Uncle, I was asking him what he thought of the Intelligent
          Design decision.

          Bob..(I hope he has a sense of Humor)..



          _____

          From: Robert Keyes [mailto:rlk@...]
          Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 1:59 AM
          To: 'dkeyes'
          Subject: RE: ID Decision



          OK, I am finally in the mood to answer this. I have no idea what exactly you
          said nor do I have a clue on what I might say. But I will comment as I go.
          And to be fairI will attempt to understand you fuller meaning. (i.e. Comment
          as if I read the whole thing first)

          Here goes.





          _____

          From: dkeyes [mailto:dkeyes202537mi@...]
          Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 8:46 AM
          To: Robert Keyes
          Subject: Re: ID Decision



          I agree with the decision.



          [Robert Keyes] Coward !!!



          One of the points made by the evoltuion guy was that all creationist can do
          is point out falacies and improbabilities in the evolutionary theory.



          [Robert Keyes] First He assumes they are fallacies. Who is to judge what is
          a fallacy. In Science I think scientists. Nobody agrees with anything
          anybody says. The best you can do is agree on common points. And below I
          will give you the common points nobody really likes to talk about.



          A Martian analysis.

          Part A.

          1. People that believe in God (any mysticism) that God (Mystical concept)
          always existed. i.e. Infinity..

          2. Scientists think Matter can be created nor Destroyed, i.e. Infinity of
          Matter is plausible.

          Conclusion of Part A. Both Sides (Mysticism vs Naturism/Science) agree on
          Infinity.

          Now Lets take the end.

          Part B.

          1. God will Destroy the Earth
          2. Scientist think the end will happen also.We will become zero entropy
          or a mass or quarks.

          Both Sides realize we will end in disaster.

          So what are we arguing about really.

          (Always humor and truth (as I see it of course))\







          But the point made by the creationist guy was that this could go on forever
          because evolutionist can just put off anything they can't answer into the
          future.



          [Robert Keyes] It is a given in Science thinking that you can never know
          anything withr absolute certainty. I happen to think this. I am not saying
          it is not possible in 1 million to 1 billion years of evolution , but , the
          question is what does the evidence indicated (with ape-brain analysis of
          course) at this point in time.











          In short it is not disprovable so it can't be science.



          [Robert Keyes] It is disprovable. I can think of endless examples. Like
          Finding Humor Fossils at Dinosaur time.(obvious simple example of how it can
          be disproved)











          Science could, in fact, be advocating a perpetual motion machine without
          the possibility of ever having to give up.





          [Robert Keyes] True, however they would give up if it showed no progress
          like perpetual Motion. I happen to not rule out perpetual Motion especially
          since I think the Universe Must be that way. (Speculating)





          Nevertheless, I don't thing you can tamper with the definition of
          science.



          [Robert Keyes] Even if they did tamper with it, it would not affect the
          reality that real science sheds on the Matter of our Ape-ness.(some humor)









          The negatives of evolution could be discussed within the confines of
          science even though no solution may ever be found.



          [Robert Keyes] If it can be solved, Humans will do it if we last long
          enough. We have the Human Genome in a Comptuer. Given 1000 years of analysis
          and will know much. Nothing is more complicated that Life (dam replicating
          things) so it might only be scratching the surface, but by then we will know
          at least how we got here. (To bad neither of us will be here in 1000 years).














          For example the improbability of biogenesis could be taught in a science
          class.



          [Robert Keyes] Nobody Understands the Problem enough to assign probability.









          To say to the students that it happened anyway is acutally religion.



          [Robert Keyes] They don't say it happened anyway. They say there it is a
          Huge Inference and it must have happened somehow(hard to think of a
          anything better to answer big-bang/ natural selection gap) since there are
          sound scientific theories on either side of this Piece of the puzzle. {Big
          Bang, ?, Evolution(from first replicator)} . Abiogensis has to be assumed
          unless the other to pieces are removed (Scientifcially)..









          No doubt the lines are blured. But one of the things that is unique about
          this debate is the fact that creation is understood by everyone as an
          alternative even though it is not presented. This was another point made by
          the creation guy.





          [Robert Keyes] That may be True Today, but given MTV it will not take long
          before that point will not be understood.

          My point is that if culture is the only thing you have to hang your hat on
          you are in trouble, because culture changes !





          I see no problem with keeping creation in the churches and evolution in
          the schools.



          [Robert Keyes] If that happens, religious thinking will be marginalized and
          secular humanism will win. You threw in the towel. You should be ashamed..









          Creationist are not harmed becasue everyone knows instinctively that
          creation is a possibility anyway.

          [Robert Keyes] At the moment. That will most certainly not be the truth in
          future.

          Bob.. ( Hopefully you Leaders will be more brave and fight, if it cant stand
          it cant, but go down fighting- give it your best shot- you seem to not agree
          with this - how SAD).

          Bob..





          ----- Original Message -----

          From: Robert Keyes <mailto:rlk@...>

          To: Dkeyes <mailto:dkeyes202537MI@...>

          Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 7:06 PM

          Subject: ID Decision



          The Judge Ripped Apart Everything on the ID Side. I read the full

          Text below. There are many arguments, most of them

          On that video of the debate I sent you ( did you listen to the rest of it).
          Anyway here is

          The link if you are interested.

          http://www.sciohost.org/ncse/kvd/kitzmiller_decision_20051220.pdf

          p.s. I am a little disappointed because I don't think they will appeal
          because it was

          so unconvincing to the Judge at every junction. I wanted it to go to the
          supreme court,

          for entertainment reasons.

          The Discovery Institute will have to go back to the drawing board.

          Comments..

          Bob..



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




          Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

          Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
          Yahoo! Groups Links






          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Robert Keyes
          I happen to think what you wrote is ridiculous. How can Humans think of a universal consciousness, and to say quantum physics may support it is even funnier.
          Message 4 of 12 , Dec 31, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            I happen to think what you wrote is ridiculous. How can Humans think of a
            universal consciousness, and to say quantum physics may support it is even
            funnier.
            Just my thoughts after reading it.
            Bob..

            -----Original Message-----
            From: existlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
            Of Bobconkawi@...
            Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 2:31 PM
            To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [existlist] FW: ID Decision

            In his book The Visionary Window, Amit Goswami agrues that some kind of
            universal conscousness preceeds matter, as Eastern mystics have argued for a
            couple thousand years; that is, the laws of nature that govern matter must
            preceed matter. He uses quantum physics to make his case, science in other
            words. Does he, then, imply intelligent design? Maybe so, but he does not
            suggest traditional religion has any truth to it. --Bob

            -----Original Message-----
            From: Robert Keyes <rlk@...>
            To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 02:02:35 -0500
            Subject: [existlist] FW: ID Decision


            Sent this to my Uncle, I was asking him what he thought of the Intelligent
            Design decision.

            Bob..(I hope he has a sense of Humor)..



            _____

            From: Robert Keyes [mailto:rlk@...]
            Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 1:59 AM
            To: 'dkeyes'
            Subject: RE: ID Decision



            OK, I am finally in the mood to answer this. I have no idea what exactly you
            said nor do I have a clue on what I might say. But I will comment as I go.
            And to be fairI will attempt to understand you fuller meaning. (i.e. Comment
            as if I read the whole thing first)

            Here goes.





            _____

            From: dkeyes [mailto:dkeyes202537mi@...]
            Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 8:46 AM
            To: Robert Keyes
            Subject: Re: ID Decision



            I agree with the decision.



            [Robert Keyes] Coward !!!



            One of the points made by the evoltuion guy was that all creationist can do
            is point out falacies and improbabilities in the evolutionary theory.



            [Robert Keyes] First He assumes they are fallacies. Who is to judge what is
            a fallacy. In Science I think scientists. Nobody agrees with anything
            anybody says. The best you can do is agree on common points. And below I
            will give you the common points nobody really likes to talk about.



            A Martian analysis.

            Part A.

            1. People that believe in God (any mysticism) that God (Mystical concept)
            always existed. i.e. Infinity..

            2. Scientists think Matter can be created nor Destroyed, i.e. Infinity of
            Matter is plausible.

            Conclusion of Part A. Both Sides (Mysticism vs Naturism/Science) agree on
            Infinity.

            Now Lets take the end.

            Part B.

            1. God will Destroy the Earth
            2. Scientist think the end will happen also.We will become zero entropy
            or a mass or quarks.

            Both Sides realize we will end in disaster.

            So what are we arguing about really.

            (Always humor and truth (as I see it of course))\







            But the point made by the creationist guy was that this could go on forever
            because evolutionist can just put off anything they can't answer into the
            future.



            [Robert Keyes] It is a given in Science thinking that you can never know
            anything withr absolute certainty. I happen to think this. I am not saying
            it is not possible in 1 million to 1 billion years of evolution , but , the
            question is what does the evidence indicated (with ape-brain analysis of
            course) at this point in time.











            In short it is not disprovable so it can't be science.



            [Robert Keyes] It is disprovable. I can think of endless examples. Like
            Finding Humor Fossils at Dinosaur time.(obvious simple example of how it can
            be disproved)











            Science could, in fact, be advocating a perpetual motion machine without
            the possibility of ever having to give up.





            [Robert Keyes] True, however they would give up if it showed no progress
            like perpetual Motion. I happen to not rule out perpetual Motion especially
            since I think the Universe Must be that way. (Speculating)





            Nevertheless, I don't thing you can tamper with the definition of
            science.



            [Robert Keyes] Even if they did tamper with it, it would not affect the
            reality that real science sheds on the Matter of our Ape-ness.(some humor)









            The negatives of evolution could be discussed within the confines of
            science even though no solution may ever be found.



            [Robert Keyes] If it can be solved, Humans will do it if we last long
            enough. We have the Human Genome in a Comptuer. Given 1000 years of analysis
            and will know much. Nothing is more complicated that Life (dam replicating
            things) so it might only be scratching the surface, but by then we will know
            at least how we got here. (To bad neither of us will be here in 1000 years).














            For example the improbability of biogenesis could be taught in a science
            class.



            [Robert Keyes] Nobody Understands the Problem enough to assign probability.









            To say to the students that it happened anyway is acutally religion.



            [Robert Keyes] They don't say it happened anyway. They say there it is a
            Huge Inference and it must have happened somehow(hard to think of a
            anything better to answer big-bang/ natural selection gap) since there are
            sound scientific theories on either side of this Piece of the puzzle. {Big
            Bang, ?, Evolution(from first replicator)} . Abiogensis has to be assumed
            unless the other to pieces are removed (Scientifcially)..









            No doubt the lines are blured. But one of the things that is unique about
            this debate is the fact that creation is understood by everyone as an
            alternative even though it is not presented. This was another point made by
            the creation guy.





            [Robert Keyes] That may be True Today, but given MTV it will not take long
            before that point will not be understood.

            My point is that if culture is the only thing you have to hang your hat on
            you are in trouble, because culture changes !





            I see no problem with keeping creation in the churches and evolution in
            the schools.



            [Robert Keyes] If that happens, religious thinking will be marginalized and
            secular humanism will win. You threw in the towel. You should be ashamed..









            Creationist are not harmed becasue everyone knows instinctively that
            creation is a possibility anyway.

            [Robert Keyes] At the moment. That will most certainly not be the truth in
            future.

            Bob.. ( Hopefully you Leaders will be more brave and fight, if it cant stand
            it cant, but go down fighting- give it your best shot- you seem to not agree
            with this - how SAD).

            Bob..





            ----- Original Message -----

            From: Robert Keyes <mailto:rlk@...>

            To: Dkeyes <mailto:dkeyes202537MI@...>

            Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 7:06 PM

            Subject: ID Decision



            The Judge Ripped Apart Everything on the ID Side. I read the full

            Text below. There are many arguments, most of them

            On that video of the debate I sent you ( did you listen to the rest of it).
            Anyway here is

            The link if you are interested.

            http://www.sciohost.org/ncse/kvd/kitzmiller_decision_20051220.pdf

            p.s. I am a little disappointed because I don't think they will appeal
            because it was

            so unconvincing to the Judge at every junction. I wanted it to go to the
            supreme court,

            for entertainment reasons.

            The Discovery Institute will have to go back to the drawing board.

            Comments..

            Bob..



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




            Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

            Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
            Yahoo! Groups Links






            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




            Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

            Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
            Yahoo! Groups Links
          • Exist List Moderator
            ... The International Herald Tribune / New York Times had an article on quantum mechanics, Einstein, and what it all means in the universe. The essays cited
            Message 5 of 12 , Jan 2, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              On Dec 31, 2005, at 23:50, Robert Keyes wrote:

              > I happen to think what you wrote is ridiculous. How can Humans think
              > of a
              > universal consciousness, and to say quantum physics may support it is
              > even
              > funnier.
              > Just my thoughts after reading it.

              The International Herald Tribune / New York Times had an article on
              quantum mechanics, Einstein, and what it all means in the universe. The
              essays cited were interesting because several of the physicists
              suggested the lack of "apparent rules" might simply mean the rules are
              too complex for humans to understand.

              Myself, I side with Einstein in a way. I dare suggest there are rules
              and they are simply beyond our understanding. That does not make
              quantum mechanics void, not does it imply a Creator necessarily. What
              it means is that our current theories and equations might work, with
              Newton, Einstein, and Bohr applying at various levels. However, there
              probably are greater theories we will develop in the coming centuries
              that finally unite quantum mechanics with traditional physics.

              The notion that some rules "just are" is not acceptable to me. I have
              no idea why, but I cannot take the position of Bell or Bohr that some
              things just are, and that's good enough. That sounds too much like
              blind faith in chaos... from the very people rejecting Einstein's
              famous rejection of Bohr that God does not play dice with the universe.

              The number of famous, noted, award-wining physicists quoted in the
              article was fascinating. It was nearly an even split, with many
              suggesting the notion that since quantum mechanics is beyond us, the
              rules must come from "something else."

              I do not discount the intellectual skills of these scientists. I
              certainly respect their works. I just don't think they should be
              merging science and theology so casually. It will only give the
              religious "Intelligent Design" crowd ammunition to push ahead with a
              nonsensical, ignorant understanding of how science should operate.

              Trust me, none of the quantum physicists are going to stop researching
              and testing their ideas. They are stumped for the moment, but even the
              most religious aren't about to suggest we should abandon all research
              and just give up since a Creator will take care of things.

              Religion and science shouldn't mix, any more than philosophy and
              science. (Yes, I really don't like the notion that philosophy can or
              should be "scientific" since that's as absurd as claiming "logic" will
              reveal the one and only universal truth someday.)


              - C. S. Wyatt
              I am what I am at this moment, not what I was and certainly not all
              that I shall be.
              http://www.tameri.com - Tameri Guide for Writers
              http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist - The Existential Primer
            • Robert Keyes
              ... From: existlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Exist List Moderator Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 10:26 PM To:
              Message 6 of 12 , Jan 2, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                -----Original Message-----
                From: existlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                Of Exist List Moderator
                Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 10:26 PM
                To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [existlist] FW: ID Decision

                On Dec 31, 2005, at 23:50, Robert Keyes wrote:

                > I happen to think what you wrote is ridiculous. How can Humans think
                > of a
                > universal consciousness, and to say quantum physics may support it is
                > even
                > funnier.
                > Just my thoughts after reading it.

                The International Herald Tribune / New York Times had an article on
                quantum mechanics, Einstein, and what it all means in the universe. The
                essays cited were interesting because several of the physicists
                suggested the lack of "apparent rules" might simply mean the rules are
                too complex for humans to understand.

                Myself, I side with Einstein in a way. I dare suggest there are rules
                and they are simply beyond our understanding. That does not make
                quantum mechanics void, not does it imply a Creator necessarily. What
                it means is that our current theories and equations might work, with
                Newton, Einstein, and Bohr applying at various levels. However, there
                probably are greater theories we will develop in the coming centuries
                that finally unite quantum mechanics with traditional physics.

                The notion that some rules "just are" is not acceptable to me. I have
                no idea why, but I cannot take the position of Bell or Bohr that some
                things just are, and that's good enough. That sounds too much like
                blind faith in chaos... from the very people rejecting Einstein's
                famous rejection of Bohr that God does not play dice with the universe.

                The number of famous, noted, award-wining physicists quoted in the
                article was fascinating. It was nearly an even split, with many
                suggesting the notion that since quantum mechanics is beyond us, the
                rules must come from "something else."

                I do not discount the intellectual skills of these scientists. I
                certainly respect their works. I just don't think they should be
                merging science and theology so casually. It will only give the
                religious "Intelligent Design" crowd ammunition to push ahead with a
                nonsensical, ignorant understanding of how science should operate.

                Trust me, none of the quantum physicists are going to stop researching
                and testing their ideas. They are stumped for the moment, but even the
                most religious aren't about to suggest we should abandon all research
                and just give up since a Creator will take care of things.

                Religion and science shouldn't mix, any more than philosophy and
                science. (Yes, I really don't like the notion that philosophy can or
                should be "scientific" since that's as absurd as claiming "logic" will
                reveal the one and only universal truth someday.)


                [Robert Keyes] Great Post !!! But, I don't think it is absurd to think that
                Logic can reveal some Universal Truth, if it exists. If Logic cannot figure
                It out it is beyond our grasp. (We could always guess- and may- I guess
                (severely speculate) for fun but I now it is most likely wrong.
                Bob..




                - C. S. Wyatt
                I am what I am at this moment, not what I was and certainly not all
                that I shall be.
                http://www.tameri.com - Tameri Guide for Writers
                http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist - The Existential Primer



                Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

                Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
                Yahoo! Groups Links
              • Bobconkawi@aol.com
                Why not read the book before judging it? Or is that contrary to your manner of thought? I do not really understand quantum physics, so I do not know it his
                Message 7 of 12 , Jan 3, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Why not read the book before judging it? Or is that contrary to your manner of thought? I do not really understand quantum physics, so I do not know it his argument really works. Logic tells me, though, that before matter can exist and behave according to natural laws that those natural laws must exist. My expereince, and that of Einstein, tells us that we can acceess through our own minds some insights into the laws of nature. The collective unconscious, describe by Jung, suggests the same idea, that we can get at basic principles through our own minds. That is the philosophical value value of of meditation. ---Bob

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: Robert Keyes <rlk@...>
                  To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 00:47:11 -0500
                  Subject: RE: [existlist] FW: ID Decision




                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: existlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                  Of Exist List Moderator
                  Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 10:26 PM
                  To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: Re: [existlist] FW: ID Decision

                  On Dec 31, 2005, at 23:50, Robert Keyes wrote:

                  > I happen to think what you wrote is ridiculous. How can Humans think
                  > of a
                  > universal consciousness, and to say quantum physics may support it is
                  > even
                  > funnier.
                  > Just my thoughts after reading it.

                  The International Herald Tribune / New York Times had an article on
                  quantum mechanics, Einstein, and what it all means in the universe. The
                  essays cited were interesting because several of the physicists
                  suggested the lack of "apparent rules" might simply mean the rules are
                  too complex for humans to understand.

                  Myself, I side with Einstein in a way. I dare suggest there are rules
                  and they are simply beyond our understanding. That does not make
                  quantum mechanics void, not does it imply a Creator necessarily. What
                  it means is that our current theories and equations might work, with
                  Newton, Einstein, and Bohr applying at various levels. However, there
                  probably are greater theories we will develop in the coming centuries
                  that finally unite quantum mechanics with traditional physics.

                  The notion that some rules "just are" is not acceptable to me. I have
                  no idea why, but I cannot take the position of Bell or Bohr that some
                  things just are, and that's good enough. That sounds too much like
                  blind faith in chaos... from the very people rejecting Einstein's
                  famous rejection of Bohr that God does not play dice with the universe.

                  The number of famous, noted, award-wining physicists quoted in the
                  article was fascinating. It was nearly an even split, with many
                  suggesting the notion that since quantum mechanics is beyond us, the
                  rules must come from "something else."

                  I do not discount the intellectual skills of these scientists. I
                  certainly respect their works. I just don't think they should be
                  merging science and theology so casually. It will only give the
                  religious "Intelligent Design" crowd ammunition to push ahead with a
                  nonsensical, ignorant understanding of how science should operate.

                  Trust me, none of the quantum physicists are going to stop researching
                  and testing their ideas. They are stumped for the moment, but even the
                  most religious aren't about to suggest we should abandon all research
                  and just give up since a Creator will take care of things.

                  Religion and science shouldn't mix, any more than philosophy and
                  science. (Yes, I really don't like the notion that philosophy can or
                  should be "scientific" since that's as absurd as claiming "logic" will
                  reveal the one and only universal truth someday.)


                  [Robert Keyes] Great Post !!! But, I don't think it is absurd to think that
                  Logic can reveal some Universal Truth, if it exists. If Logic cannot figure
                  It out it is beyond our grasp. (We could always guess- and may- I guess
                  (severely speculate) for fun but I now it is most likely wrong.
                  Bob..




                  - C. S. Wyatt
                  I am what I am at this moment, not what I was and certainly not all
                  that I shall be.
                  http://www.tameri.com - Tameri Guide for Writers
                  http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist - The Existential Primer



                  Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

                  Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
                  Yahoo! Groups Links









                  Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

                  Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
                  Yahoo! Groups Links






                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Aija Veldre Beldavs
                  ... i m still pondering on the hard, defining, and essential property of existentialism defined in this forum as being radical individualism and the inevitable
                  Message 8 of 12 , Jan 3, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > Logic tells me, though, that before matter can exist and behave
                    > according to natural laws that those natural laws must exist. My
                    > expereince, and that of Einstein, tells us that we can acceess through
                    > our own minds some insights into the laws of nature. The collective
                    > unconscious, describe by Jung, suggests the same idea, that we can get
                    > at basic principles through our own minds. That is the philosophical
                    > value value of of meditation. ---Bob

                    i'm still pondering on the hard, defining, and essential property of
                    existentialism defined in this forum as being radical individualism and
                    the inevitable unmitigated angst, isolation, etc. this perspective
                    may foster in most people.

                    in my work i found the concepts of Umwelt of J. von Uexkull (1909) to be
                    meaningful for traditional societies, those who see themselves as part of
                    the ecosystem and reacting to it. not only does one have an individual
                    cognitive space map, but one shares different parts of this social Umwelt
                    with other individuals in his social group or groups. this social Umwelt,
                    as pointed out by Uexkull, is in addition to the fact that one generally
                    interacts and shares information with other individuals with whom one
                    shares an ecological Umwelt. the ecological Umwelt or laws of nature may
                    be seen as a long-term more stable ground to which the group adapts by
                    sharing test results, reinforcing repeated findings.

                    aija
                  • Robert Keyes
                    My Uncle responded. But he has not responded in 2 days. So I post my Comments here. Bob.. _____ From: Robert Keyes [mailto:rlk@wideopenwest.com] Sent:
                    Message 9 of 12 , Jan 5, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      My Uncle responded.

                      But he has not responded in 2 days. So I post my

                      Comments here.

                      Bob..

                      _____

                      From: Robert Keyes [mailto:rlk@...]
                      Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 1:17 AM
                      To: 'dkeyes'
                      Subject: RE: ID Decision



                      I thought you gave threw in the towel, curious as to your response.

                      Comments Below. (Not sure what color but BOLD-some humor)



                      _____

                      From: dkeyes [mailto:dkeyes202537mi@...]
                      Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 6:25 PM
                      To: Robert Keyes
                      Subject: Re: ID Decision





                      ----- Original Message -----

                      From: Robert Keyes <mailto:rlk@...>

                      To: 'dkeyes' <mailto:dkeyes202537mi@...>

                      Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 1:58 AM

                      Subject: RE: ID Decision



                      OK, I am finally in the mood to answer this. I have no idea what exactly you
                      said nor do I have a clue on what I might say. But I will comment as I go.
                      And to be fairI will attempt to understand you fuller meaning. (i.e. Comment
                      as if I read the whole thing first)

                      Here goes.






                      _____


                      From: dkeyes [mailto:dkeyes202537mi@...]
                      Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 8:46 AM
                      To: Robert Keyes
                      Subject: Re: ID Decision



                      I agree with the decision.



                      [Robert Keyes] Coward !!!



                      See Red below.



                      One of the points made by the evoltuion guy was that all creationist can do
                      is point out falacies and improbabilities in the evolutionary theory.



                      [Robert Keyes] First He assumes they are fallacies. Who is to judge what is
                      a fallacy. In Science I think scientists. Nobody agrees with anything
                      anybody says. The best you can do is agree on common points. And below I
                      will give you the common points nobody really likes to talk about.



                      A Martian analysis.

                      Part A.

                      1. People that believe in God (any mysticism) that God (Mystical concept)
                      always existed. i.e. Infinity..

                      2. Scientists think Matter can be created nor Destroyed, i.e. Infinity of
                      Matter is plausible.

                      Conclusion of Part A. Both Sides (Mysticism vs Naturism/Science) agree on
                      Infinity.

                      Now Lets take the end.

                      Part B.

                      1. God will Destroy the Earth
                      2. Scientist think the end will happen also.We will become zero entropy
                      or a mass or quarks.

                      Both Sides realize we will end in disaster.

                      So what are we arguing about really.

                      (Always humor and truth (as I see it of course))\



                      [Robert Keyes] I don't blame you for glossing over this Point. But at least
                      admit it is a concidence that at some base level we agree. I..e God always
                      exist (or Matter) and we will End in Destruction ( Gravitational collapse).



                      But the point made by the creationist guy was that this could go on forever
                      because evolutionist can just put off anything they can't answer into the
                      future.



                      [Robert Keyes] It is a given in Science thinking that you can never know
                      anything withr absolute certainty. I happen to think this. I am not saying
                      it is not possible in 1 million to 1 billion years of evolution , but , the
                      question is what does the evidence indicated (with ape-brain analysis of
                      course) at this point in time.



                      Your statment that you can't know anything with abosolute certainty is
                      nothing but theoretical mumbo jumbo scientific talk. You could also say I
                      can't disprove anything with absolute certainty.



                      [Robert Keyes] Science has not proved that certainty exists. Math depends on
                      axioms, and Bertrand Russell failed to Prove Logic can deduce Math thought.
                      (Not that that is impossible I might add). If certainty is not known, you
                      cannot dispove something from it.









                      This is not real debate. The fact is that so far creationist have pointed
                      out the impossibility of life starting in the way evolutionist hypothesise -
                      biogensis. To calim this can't be absolute is a cop out.



                      [Robert Keyes] True, but they have to have a reason. Somehow unless
                      something very odd Happened, Molecules Transformed into replicating ones
                      somehow. Keep in mind scientifically you just don't throw out the
                      Cosmologist/Physicists work (Big Bang) and also Biologists, Geneticist,
                      Geologists and whoever else has a theory that coincides with these theories
                      , which has nothing to do with abiogenisis. So the they think that somehow
                      from a replicator on we evolved for sure. We just don't know how that
                      happened. it is not a cop out.







                      Science is doing nothing but taking what has so far been proven to be
                      impossible and putting it off into the future based on faith alone.

                      [Robert Keyes] True as a Hypthosis, but is is not BLIND FAITH.. it is
                      inductive logic that drives it, and inductive can never be proven true (only
                      deductive arguments). The put off the conclusion and for good reason, we do
                      not have enough evidence. (It really is that simple-I think)











                      In short it is not disprovable so it can't be science.



                      [Robert Keyes] It is disprovable. I can think of endless examples. Like
                      Finding Humor Fossils at Dinosaur time.(obvious simple example of how it can
                      be disproved).



                      This is untrue. Creationist have proven it to be impossible.



                      [Robert Keyes] They cant even prove it to a high school biology teacher let
                      alone shown flaws in evolution. When they get into the game I will take
                      there evidence at it's due weight. Right now they are in the .001 percent in
                      my book of showing anything as a scientific fact.







                      Abiogenesis for example. You are relying on the technicality that nothing
                      can be disproven absolutely so evolution is allowed to put if off forever
                      without any basis other than faith that things will work out. In fact,
                      there is nothing that a creationist could point out that an evolutionist
                      would not say time could solve.





                      [Robert Keyes] I was trying very hard to provoke you but in this paragraph
                      you hit a home run. Agree 100 percent.

                      (CAP locks stuck excuse this- i WILL REBOOT AFTER THIS MESSAGE IT IS DRIVING
                      ME CRAZY)

                      Wow. That is why (software bug in outlook) there is no way to know. Ever.
                      For anybody. We are in the same boat here- don't try to deny it.(humor as
                      always)











                      Science could, in fact, be advocating a perpetual motion machine without
                      the possibility of ever having to give up.





                      [Robert Keyes] True, however they would give up if it showed no progress
                      like perpetual Motion. I happen to not rule out perpetual Motion especially
                      since I think the Universe Must be that way. (Speculating)



                      You can't be serious. You think evolutionist would give up? NEVER!!!



                      Bob.. I think they would it they find it pointless. What you don't realize
                      is what molecular biology is doing to the thinking. It is proving it 100
                      percent, and it is the key to figuring out everything. Our past is in our
                      DNA, and It can be studied. It is hardly time to throw in the Scientific
                      towel. Get Real..









                      Nevertheless, I don't thing you can tamper with the definition of
                      science.



                      [Robert Keyes] Even if they did tamper with it, it would not affect the
                      reality that real science sheds on the Matter of our Ape-ness.(some humor)



                      I define science as based on assumptions that are measurable. For
                      example, science can't assume that a God exists mor that things may have
                      been different in the past. By definition science must limit itself to
                      assumptions based only on what they can see now.



                      Bob. True. But the Conclusions of Understanding big bang to now, is that a
                      God is unneeded. Until somebody can say why infinity of Matter is not
                      Possible, the argument will exist..





                      The negatives of evolution could be discussed within the confines of
                      science even though no solution may ever be found.



                      [Robert Keyes] If it can be solved, Humans will do it if we last long
                      enough. We have the Human Genome in a Comptuer. Given 1000 years of analysis
                      and will know much. Nothing is more complicated that Life (dam replicating
                      things) so it might only be scratching the surface, but by then we will know
                      at least how we got here. (To bad neither of us will be here in 1000 years).



                      Evolution didn't happen. But that will not stop science from going on
                      looking for ways to prove evolution forever. Again, anything that they
                      can't answer they will always put off into the future no matter how
                      unreasonable - like biogenesis.



                      The amount of evolution literature has been growing. They can make the stuff
                      up. It has to agree with Other Scientific Theories that make sense. On a
                      Scale, evolution is more certain now by 100 percent than it was 30 years
                      ago. There are factually 1000's of ways evolution is being confirmed in
                      research labs. It would only take one to crush it. They cant do it. (And if
                      Science is right) they will never do it because it is TRUE.











                      For example the improbability of biogenesis could be taught in a science
                      class.



                      [Robert Keyes] Nobody Understands the Problem enough to assign probability.



                      The propability is almsot infinite. Infinity is science's only answer.



                      Bob. Abiogensis Is probably going to be one of the Toughtest Nuts to Crack.
                      I give Creationist credit for realizing we might not know this for God
                      knows how long. But, Infinity Exists in Math. I agree with Using the concept
                      of using Infinity if it is needed, however in this case, the odds could be
                      1, 10000000000000000000000000000000000 to 1. And it could have happened and
                      that is not infinity.





                      To say to the students that it happened anyway is acutally religion.



                      [Robert Keyes] They don't say it happened anyway. They say there it is a
                      Huge Inference and it must have happened somehow(hard to think of a
                      anything better to answer big-bang/ natural selection gap) since there are
                      sound scientific theories on either side of this Piece of the puzzle. {Big
                      Bang, ?, Evolution(from first replicator)} . Abiogensis has to be assumed
                      unless the other to pieces are removed (Scientifcially)..



                      Again this is the bias of sceince. I am not allowed to infer that God did
                      it. But I understand that.



                      Bob. You can infer God but only if you admit you are guessing. (i.e. it is
                      not scientific)







                      No doubt the lines are blured. But one of the things that is unique about
                      this debate is the fact that creation is understood by everyone as an
                      alternative even though it is not presented. This was another point made by
                      the creation guy.





                      [Robert Keyes] That may be True Today, but given MTV it will not take long
                      before that point will not be understood.

                      My point is that if culture is the only thing you have to hang your hat on
                      you are in trouble, because culture changes !



                      I think this case is different. Your never going to stamp out religion.






                      Bob. How can you say that. Look at the UK.. They are Devil worshipers.





                      I see no problem with keeping creation in the churches and evolution in
                      the schools.



                      [Robert Keyes] If that happens, religious thinking will be marginalized and
                      secular humanism will win. You threw in the towel. You should be ashamed..



                      I don't think sceince could have done anything more than they have done
                      now and yet people still beleive in creation. I think religion will always
                      exist.





                      Bob. It will always exist because it is a concept. I think it will exist
                      also since there may be no way to prove either way.









                      Creationist are not harmed becasue everyone knows instinctively that
                      creation is a possibility anyway.

                      [Robert Keyes] At the moment. That will most certainly not be the truth in
                      future.

                      Bob.. ( Hopefully you Leaders will be more brave and fight, if it cant stand
                      it cant, but go down fighting- give it your best shot- you seem to not agree
                      with this - how SAD).

                      Bob..



                      I think people know instinctively that evolution may not be true and the
                      idea of creation will never die out. Religion will always exist and creation
                      will always be taught in the churches.



                      Bob. You are very Optimistic, I don't see it.







                      ----- Original Message -----

                      From: Robert Keyes <mailto:rlk@...>

                      To: Dkeyes <mailto:dkeyes202537MI@...>

                      Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 7:06 PM

                      Subject: ID Decision



                      The Judge Ripped Apart Everything on the ID Side. I read the full

                      Text below. There are many arguments, most of them

                      On that video of the debate I sent you ( did you listen to the rest of it).
                      Anyway here is

                      The link if you are interested.

                      http://www.sciohost.org/ncse/kvd/kitzmiller_decision_20051220.pdf

                      p.s. I am a little disappointed because I don't think they will appeal
                      because it was

                      so unconvincing to the Judge at every junction. I wanted it to go to the
                      supreme court,

                      for entertainment reasons.

                      The Discovery Institute will have to go back to the drawing board.

                      Comments..

                      Bob..



                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Bobconkawi@aol.com
                      I have not been part of the evolution/creationist discussion, but I have to chime in with a quote form Nietzsche : Convictions are greater enemies of truth
                      Message 10 of 12 , Jan 6, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I have not been part of the evolution/creationist discussion, but I have to chime in with a quote form Nietzsche : "Convictions are greater enemies of truth than lies." Scientists seek demonstrable proof, and are always ready to add new data, even if it changes their whole argument. Creationist just have faith, hence their approach are enemies to truth. They cannot find what they do not seek for.---Bob

                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: Robert Keyes <rlk@...>
                        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 00:40:51 -0500
                        Subject: [existlist] FW: ID Decision




                        My Uncle responded.

                        But he has not responded in 2 days. So I post my

                        Comments here.

                        Bob..

                        _____

                        From: Robert Keyes [mailto:rlk@...]
                        Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 1:17 AM
                        To: 'dkeyes'
                        Subject: RE: ID Decision



                        I thought you gave threw in the towel, curious as to your response.

                        Comments Below. (Not sure what color but BOLD-some humor)



                        _____

                        From: dkeyes [mailto:dkeyes202537mi@...]
                        Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 6:25 PM
                        To: Robert Keyes
                        Subject: Re: ID Decision





                        ----- Original Message -----

                        From: Robert Keyes <mailto:rlk@...>

                        To: 'dkeyes' <mailto:dkeyes202537mi@...>

                        Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 1:58 AM

                        Subject: RE: ID Decision



                        OK, I am finally in the mood to answer this. I have no idea what exactly you
                        said nor do I have a clue on what I might say. But I will comment as I go.
                        And to be fairI will attempt to understand you fuller meaning. (i.e. Comment
                        as if I read the whole thing first)

                        Here goes.






                        _____


                        From: dkeyes [mailto:dkeyes202537mi@...]
                        Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 8:46 AM
                        To: Robert Keyes
                        Subject: Re: ID Decision



                        I agree with the decision.



                        [Robert Keyes] Coward !!!



                        See Red below.



                        One of the points made by the evoltuion guy was that all creationist can do
                        is point out falacies and improbabilities in the evolutionary theory.



                        [Robert Keyes] First He assumes they are fallacies. Who is to judge what is
                        a fallacy. In Science I think scientists. Nobody agrees with anything
                        anybody says. The best you can do is agree on common points. And below I
                        will give you the common points nobody really likes to talk about.



                        A Martian analysis.

                        Part A.

                        1. People that believe in God (any mysticism) that God (Mystical concept)
                        always existed. i.e. Infinity..

                        2. Scientists think Matter can be created nor Destroyed, i.e. Infinity of
                        Matter is plausible.

                        Conclusion of Part A. Both Sides (Mysticism vs Naturism/Science) agree on
                        Infinity.

                        Now Lets take the end.

                        Part B.

                        1. God will Destroy the Earth
                        2. Scientist think the end will happen also.We will become zero entropy
                        or a mass or quarks.

                        Both Sides realize we will end in disaster.

                        So what are we arguing about really.

                        (Always humor and truth (as I see it of course))\



                        [Robert Keyes] I don't blame you for glossing over this Point. But at least
                        admit it is a concidence that at some base level we agree. I..e God always
                        exist (or Matter) and we will End in Destruction ( Gravitational collapse).



                        But the point made by the creationist guy was that this could go on forever
                        because evolutionist can just put off anything they can't answer into the
                        future.



                        [Robert Keyes] It is a given in Science thinking that you can never know
                        anything withr absolute certainty. I happen to think this. I am not saying
                        it is not possible in 1 million to 1 billion years of evolution , but , the
                        question is what does the evidence indicated (with ape-brain analysis of
                        course) at this point in time.



                        Your statment that you can't know anything with abosolute certainty is
                        nothing but theoretical mumbo jumbo scientific talk. You could also say I
                        can't disprove anything with absolute certainty.



                        [Robert Keyes] Science has not proved that certainty exists. Math depends on
                        axioms, and Bertrand Russell failed to Prove Logic can deduce Math thought.
                        (Not that that is impossible I might add). If certainty is not known, you
                        cannot dispove something from it.









                        This is not real debate. The fact is that so far creationist have pointed
                        out the impossibility of life starting in the way evolutionist hypothesise -
                        biogensis. To calim this can't be absolute is a cop out.



                        [Robert Keyes] True, but they have to have a reason. Somehow unless
                        something very odd Happened, Molecules Transformed into replicating ones
                        somehow. Keep in mind scientifically you just don't throw out the
                        Cosmologist/Physicists work (Big Bang) and also Biologists, Geneticist,
                        Geologists and whoever else has a theory that coincides with these theories
                        , which has nothing to do with abiogenisis. So the they think that somehow
                        from a replicator on we evolved for sure. We just don't know how that
                        happened. it is not a cop out.







                        Science is doing nothing but taking what has so far been proven to be
                        impossible and putting it off into the future based on faith alone.

                        [Robert Keyes] True as a Hypthosis, but is is not BLIND FAITH.. it is
                        inductive logic that drives it, and inductive can never be proven true (only
                        deductive arguments). The put off the conclusion and for good reason, we do
                        not have enough evidence. (It really is that simple-I think)











                        In short it is not disprovable so it can't be science.



                        [Robert Keyes] It is disprovable. I can think of endless examples. Like
                        Finding Humor Fossils at Dinosaur time.(obvious simple example of how it can
                        be disproved).



                        This is untrue. Creationist have proven it to be impossible.



                        [Robert Keyes] They cant even prove it to a high school biology teacher let
                        alone shown flaws in evolution. When they get into the game I will take
                        there evidence at it's due weight. Right now they are in the .001 percent in
                        my book of showing anything as a scientific fact.







                        Abiogenesis for example. You are relying on the technicality that nothing
                        can be disproven absolutely so evolution is allowed to put if off forever
                        without any basis other than faith that things will work out. In fact,
                        there is nothing that a creationist could point out that an evolutionist
                        would not say time could solve.





                        [Robert Keyes] I was trying very hard to provoke you but in this paragraph
                        you hit a home run. Agree 100 percent.

                        (CAP locks stuck excuse this- i WILL REBOOT AFTER THIS MESSAGE IT IS DRIVING
                        ME CRAZY)

                        Wow. That is why (software bug in outlook) there is no way to know. Ever.
                        For anybody. We are in the same boat here- don't try to deny it.(humor as
                        always)











                        Science could, in fact, be advocating a perpetual motion machine without
                        the possibility of ever having to give up.





                        [Robert Keyes] True, however they would give up if it showed no progress
                        like perpetual Motion. I happen to not rule out perpetual Motion especially
                        since I think the Universe Must be that way. (Speculating)



                        You can't be serious. You think evolutionist would give up? NEVER!!!



                        Bob.. I think they would it they find it pointless. What you don't realize
                        is what molecular biology is doing to the thinking. It is proving it 100
                        percent, and it is the key to figuring out everything. Our past is in our
                        DNA, and It can be studied. It is hardly time to throw in the Scientific
                        towel. Get Real..









                        Nevertheless, I don't thing you can tamper with the definition of
                        science.



                        [Robert Keyes] Even if they did tamper with it, it would not affect the
                        reality that real science sheds on the Matter of our Ape-ness.(some humor)



                        I define science as based on assumptions that are measurable. For
                        example, science can't assume that a God exists mor that things may have
                        been different in the past. By definition science must limit itself to
                        assumptions based only on what they can see now.



                        Bob. True. But the Conclusions of Understanding big bang to now, is that a
                        God is unneeded. Until somebody can say why infinity of Matter is not
                        Possible, the argument will exist..





                        The negatives of evolution could be discussed within the confines of
                        science even though no solution may ever be found.



                        [Robert Keyes] If it can be solved, Humans will do it if we last long
                        enough. We have the Human Genome in a Comptuer. Given 1000 years of analysis
                        and will know much. Nothing is more complicated that Life (dam replicating
                        things) so it might only be scratching the surface, but by then we will know
                        at least how we got here. (To bad neither of us will be here in 1000 years).



                        Evolution didn't happen. But that will not stop science from going on
                        looking for ways to prove evolution forever. Again, anything that they
                        can't answer they will always put off into the future no matter how
                        unreasonable - like biogenesis.



                        The amount of evolution literature has been growing. They can make the stuff
                        up. It has to agree with Other Scientific Theories that make sense. On a
                        Scale, evolution is more certain now by 100 percent than it was 30 years
                        ago. There are factually 1000's of ways evolution is being confirmed in
                        research labs. It would only take one to crush it. They cant do it. (And if
                        Science is right) they will never do it because it is TRUE.











                        For example the improbability of biogenesis could be taught in a science
                        class.



                        [Robert Keyes] Nobody Understands the Problem enough to assign probability.



                        The propability is almsot infinite. Infinity is science's only answer.



                        Bob. Abiogensis Is probably going to be one of the Toughtest Nuts to Crack.
                        I give Creationist credit for realizing we might not know this for God
                        knows how long. But, Infinity Exists in Math. I agree with Using the concept
                        of using Infinity if it is needed, however in this case, the odds could be
                        1, 10000000000000000000000000000000000 to 1. And it could have happened and
                        that is not infinity.





                        To say to the students that it happened anyway is acutally religion.



                        [Robert Keyes] They don't say it happened anyway. They say there it is a
                        Huge Inference and it must have happened somehow(hard to think of a
                        anything better to answer big-bang/ natural selection gap) since there are
                        sound scientific theories on either side of this Piece of the puzzle. {Big
                        Bang, ?, Evolution(from first replicator)} . Abiogensis has to be assumed
                        unless the other to pieces are removed (Scientifcially)..



                        Again this is the bias of sceince. I am not allowed to infer that God did
                        it. But I understand that.



                        Bob. You can infer God but only if you admit you are guessing. (i.e. it is
                        not scientific)







                        No doubt the lines are blured. But one of the things that is unique about
                        this debate is the fact that creation is understood by everyone as an
                        alternative even though it is not presented. This was another point made by
                        the creation guy.





                        [Robert Keyes] That may be True Today, but given MTV it will not take long
                        before that point will not be understood.

                        My point is that if culture is the only thing you have to hang your hat on
                        you are in trouble, because culture changes !



                        I think this case is different. Your never going to stamp out religion.






                        Bob. How can you say that. Look at the UK.. They are Devil worshipers.





                        I see no problem with keeping creation in the churches and evolution in
                        the schools.



                        [Robert Keyes] If that happens, religious thinking will be marginalized and
                        secular humanism will win. You threw in the towel. You should be ashamed..



                        I don't think sceince could have done anything more than they have done
                        now and yet people still beleive in creation. I think religion will always
                        exist.





                        Bob. It will always exist because it is a concept. I think it will exist
                        also since there may be no way to prove either way.









                        Creationist are not harmed becasue everyone knows instinctively that
                        creation is a possibility anyway.

                        [Robert Keyes] At the moment. That will most certainly not be the truth in
                        future.

                        Bob.. ( Hopefully you Leaders will be more brave and fight, if it cant stand
                        it cant, but go down fighting- give it your best shot- you seem to not agree
                        with this - how SAD).

                        Bob..



                        I think people know instinctively that evolution may not be true and the
                        idea of creation will never die out. Religion will always exist and creation
                        will always be taught in the churches.



                        Bob. You are very Optimistic, I don't see it.







                        ----- Original Message -----

                        From: Robert Keyes <mailto:rlk@...>

                        To: Dkeyes <mailto:dkeyes202537MI@...>

                        Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 7:06 PM

                        Subject: ID Decision



                        The Judge Ripped Apart Everything on the ID Side. I read the full

                        Text below. There are many arguments, most of them

                        On that video of the debate I sent you ( did you listen to the rest of it).
                        Anyway here is

                        The link if you are interested.

                        http://www.sciohost.org/ncse/kvd/kitzmiller_decision_20051220.pdf

                        p.s. I am a little disappointed because I don't think they will appeal
                        because it was

                        so unconvincing to the Judge at every junction. I wanted it to go to the
                        supreme court,

                        for entertainment reasons.

                        The Discovery Institute will have to go back to the drawing board.

                        Comments..

                        Bob..



                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                        Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

                        Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
                        Yahoo! Groups Links






                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Knott
                        ... You cannot prove anything from it either. Why are the rules only good for the other player in the game? Self Evaluation
                        Message 11 of 12 , Jan 7, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          > If certainty is not known, you
                          > cannot dispove something from it.

                          You cannot prove anything from it either.

                          Why are the rules only good for the other player in the game?

                          Self Evaluation
                        • mer_e_jo
                          ... I hate to argue with one with as much seniority and reputation as yourself; and am certainly at a loss to prove it, but I don t recall any rules that
                          Message 12 of 12 , Jan 7, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Knott" <knott12@l...> wrote:

                            > Why are the rules only good for the other player in the game?
                            >
                            > Self Evaluation

                            I hate to argue with one with as much seniority and reputation as
                            yourself; and am certainly at a loss to prove it, but I don't recall
                            any rules that forbid existlist members from expressing their opinions,
                            whether un/informed, straightened out or knotty. Fairness is as
                            fairness does. I'm open to learning more about this little indulgent
                            un/necessity we call communication. Too verbose? Forgive me.

                            un/sincerely,
                            Mary
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.