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

Re: [existlist] FW: ID Decision

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.