I just glanced at your letter. Though I don't have time to give a detailed reply right now, you've rightly pointed out a rather serious error in what I said. I apologize for this. It was not Richard Dawkins, but Antony Flew that rejected athiesm, and I had heard that he had died, but this is also not true. I'm sorry for this error and it certainly was not deliberate. Also check out Lee Strobel and his conclusions on the matter of athiesm vs. theism.
I'll get back with you tomorrow as I am extremely tired after a rather exhausting day. They have been building a highway right behind my house which had me up at 5AM, and they're showing no sign of letting up, moreover my back is killing me too and has been a distraction all week, sometimes more and sometimes less painful.
Again, I didn't mean to give deliberately false info, and will get back with you tomorrow.
Like you, as you wrote about the failures of Slashdot's ability to handle the niceties of common speech, and how I had included formatting that the program was not able to handle, I also didn't feel like reediting everything I had written in order to please Slashdot.
From reading your note, I think you are an honest seeker of truth, and, of course, you aren't an anarchist. However, I'm not sure that you quite understand anarchy.. The word is composed of two Greek words meaning without law, or rule.
I'm also a fan of Frank Herbert's-Dune-. Pardon the hyphens. I'm not sure how to properly express myself in English when all the niceties of the language are not available to me, but I'm sure that you will understand. I will be using hypotheses throughout to replace quotation marks and brackets. Anyway, I read Herbert's wonderful book clear back shortly after I completed my 1st Doctorate in 1966.I'm not so sure that the term Gadfly appears in Dune, but I do have another reference for it that is a better description-. During his defense when on trial for his life, Socrates, according to Plato's writings, pointed out that dissent, like the tiny (relative to the size of a horse) gadfly, was easy to swat, but the cost to society of silencing individuals who were irritating could be very high. -If you kill a man like me, you will injure yourselves more than you will injure me,- because his role was that of a gadfly, -to sting people and whip them into a fury, all in the service of truth.-This is from from the Wikipedia article on the gadfly..
However, I do not see you or I in the role of the gadfly. I would hope that both of us would be involved in the search for truth at the expense of the mythologies that people promote as truths, and the extension of that search to honest seekers everywhere. Though I am not being cynical, as I would hope that you aren't, I think our role in life is more nearly akin to that of Diogenes, Socrates or Plato. Unfortunately, though these men are perhaps ancestors of mine, they were ammoral and immoral, even though they were great thinkers. I'm not so sure that your cause of -rebellion against a machine-is apt. It's just like right now, you are using a computer. In, and of itself, even though the computer is a great piece of technology, its true value lies in the mind of the user. It can be a boon or a boondoggle, depending on how you use it. One of my goals is to teach, and to encourage people to use the computer wisely, and not for purposes of destruction of self, or of others, or to just use it as an expensive doorstop. If one were to use the computer as doorstop, this would, indeed, be stagnation. You and I know that the computer is a striking piece of technology able to seriously aid in the promotion of truth. I don't see either one of us with the purpose-to sting people and whip them into a fury, all in the service of truth-.but of aiding them to think clearly and grow thereby.
I noticed that you mention that you live in the United States, and said that the US was-born out of an act of anarchy-. This is not true. First, the pilgrims did not come here in anarchy or without the rule of law, but to establish a place where they could have just laws, and freedom to worship according to the dictates of conscience. Secondly, if you're talking about the Colonists who promoted The American Revolution, those men and women were not living in anarchy, but were complaining about unjust laws that would not give them representation before governing bodies yet were taxingt them to death. Too,without due process of law, the Crown was forcing them to quarter soldiers in their homes without compensation. Due process was not being observed, and many other rights of the people were not being honored. Though England was a nation of laws, they did not fully extend those laws to the American colonists. One of the first acts precipitating the American Revolution was the Boston tea party. The handbills posted afterwards, said-No taxation w
I have a little bit of a problem with your nom de plume, âoeSanity in Anarchyâ. This is a bit of an oxymoron as Sanity has to be restored by putting down anarchy. As you are obviously sane, you bear little if any resemblance to the anarchists I've encountered in my past.
When I wrote earlier, for some reason I was having difficulty formatting my text. A little judicious consideration might've been in order. I'm fluent in five languages and conversant in four others. Anyway, so much for the problems with my paragraphs and grammar in my earlier letter.
Let's get on to your questions:
I had stated that you'd have to know that âoepunctuated equilibriumâ cannot possibly work.. You came back with a statement that said, âoeâWhy not?â and then answered your own question by quoting me when I said, that âoeobservation has never produced one evidence of it.â
Then you asked if I was familiar with the argument âoeAbsence of evidence is not evidence of absenceâ. Certainly I am familiar with this. Interestingly, one of my ancestors, Brigham Young, had made the statement that the Moon was populated by people who dressed like Quakers and were over 6 feet tall! Well, in the absence of evidence of the late 1800s this pronouncement might have been considered reasonable. In the early years of the 21st century though, with the investigations that we have done of the Moon, the evidence is so significant as to make his pronouncement a statistical improbability, nearly impossible, in fact it is statistically impossible and an anomaly of the first order. Anyone can make claims, but it does take evidence to make pronouncements of fact. You might remember your own argument when I come to the end of this letter. I do not speak without evidentiary support.
You asked for a citation regarding the change from one phyla, genus, specie, or whatever to another have always proven detrimental to the life affected. The burden of proof falls on you. Find one evidence that this has not happened. By the way, I mentioned âoephyla, genus, specieâ These are multiple kinds, as the usage here is the plural form of the verb âoeto haveâ which is âoehaveâ, rather than the singular form âoehas.â
I said, âoeBluntly there is no real evidence that such things can happen.â You responded with the statement, âoeYet you provide not one shred of evidence that they can't.â Obviously, you neither heard, or understood my following statement.
âoe...even if working changes were successful, the need for sufficient numbers inheriting such changes to produce a viable population is not only unlikely, but a statistical impossibility. I'm not talking about mutation such as breeding dogs has produced more than a hundred different variations of dogs, but changes on the order of, for example, going from canine to feline defy logic and are not possible. Bluntly, there is no real evidence that such things can happen. Too, all evolutionary theories demand, not one, twenty, fifty, or hundreds of substantive changes, but these changes mount into the tens of quadrillions. Again, a statistical impossibility. If you really look at the facts, you'd find that what I have been talking about here is not an anomaly, but a norm in examining the evidentiary considerations surrounding any form of evolution.â
You may, in a zoo, breed a lion to a tiger and produce a âoeliger,â or a âoetionâ. To produce a self-sustaining population of these though, you need not one individual, but many.of them. Notice I used the phrase âoe a viable population.â Also notice that this is an artficial mutation as these are both feline, and do not cross, phyla, genus, or specie.
Invariably, when there is a large DNA shift, the result is an animal which is nonviable, deformed, usually shunned by its kind, and if (by some incredible stroke) proved viable, does not pass along t
Though I am a young Earth Creationist, and am so because of facts, not because of The Bible, there are many of my colleagues who believe in an old Earth Creation for the same reasons. Many of my peers are Creationists, but not necessarily believers in God, just honest researchers.
Just a couple of thoughts, if you hold to any theory of evolution, you now have to know that "punctuated equalibrium" cannot possibly work. Observation has never produced one evidence of it, and major DNA shifts producing change from one phyla, genus, specie, or whatever to another have always proven detrimental to the life affected, and even if working changes were successful, the need for sufficient numbers inheriting such changes to produce a viable population is not only unlikely, but a statistical impossibility. I'm not talking about mutation such as breeding dogs has produced more than a hundred different variations of dogs, but changes on the order of, for example, going from canine to feline defy logic and are not possible. Bluntly, there is no real evidence that such things can happen.
Too, all evolutionary theories demand, not one, twenty, fifty, or hundreds of substantive changes, but these changes mount into the tens of quadrillions. Again, a statistical impossibility.
If you really look at the facts, you'd find that what I have been talking about here is not an anomaly, but a norm in examining the evidentiary considerations surrounding any form of evolutionary theorum.
Bluntly, evolutionary theorum has been classified as a religion in many courts, and it takes a great deal more faith to believe in it than it does to belive in Scientific Creationism.
As Sgt. Friday used to say on the TV series, "Dragnet", "All I want are the facts. Just the facts."
I am aware that there are problems surrounding Scientific Creationism, but the problems surrounding any form of evolutionary theorum are insurmountable.
Slashdot Mirror
I just glanced at your letter. Though I don't have time to give a detailed reply right now, you've rightly pointed out a rather serious error in what I said. I apologize for this. It was not Richard Dawkins, but Antony Flew that rejected athiesm, and I had heard that he had died, but this is also not true. I'm sorry for this error and it certainly was not deliberate. Also check out Lee Strobel and his conclusions on the matter of athiesm vs. theism.
I'll get back with you tomorrow as I am extremely tired after a rather exhausting day. They have been building a highway right behind my house which had me up at 5AM, and they're showing no sign of letting up, moreover my back is killing me too and has been a distraction all week, sometimes more and sometimes less painful.
Again, I didn't mean to give deliberately false info, and will get back with you tomorrow.
I am glad that you wrote.
Like you, as you wrote about the failures of Slashdot's ability to handle the niceties of common speech, and how I had included formatting that the program was not able to handle, I also didn't feel like reediting everything I had written in order to please Slashdot.
From reading your note, I think you are an honest seeker of truth, and, of course, you aren't an anarchist. However, I'm not sure that you quite understand anarchy.. The word is composed of two Greek words meaning without law, or rule.
I'm also a fan of Frank Herbert's-Dune-. Pardon the hyphens. I'm not sure how to properly express myself in English when all the niceties of the language are not available to me, but I'm sure that you will understand. I will be using hypotheses throughout to replace quotation marks and brackets. Anyway, I read Herbert's wonderful book clear back shortly after I completed my 1st Doctorate in 1966.I'm not so sure that the term Gadfly appears in Dune, but I do have another reference for it that is a better description-. During his defense when on trial for his life, Socrates, according to Plato's writings, pointed out that dissent, like the tiny (relative to the size of a horse) gadfly, was easy to swat, but the cost to society of silencing individuals who were irritating could be very high. -If you kill a man like me, you will injure yourselves more than you will injure me,- because his role was that of a gadfly, -to sting people and whip them into a fury, all in the service of truth.-This is from from the Wikipedia article on the gadfly..
However, I do not see you or I in the role of the gadfly. I would hope that both of us would be involved in the search for truth at the expense of the mythologies that people promote as truths, and the extension of that search to honest seekers everywhere. Though I am not being cynical, as I would hope that you aren't, I think our role in life is more nearly akin to that of Diogenes, Socrates or Plato. Unfortunately, though these men are perhaps ancestors of mine, they were ammoral and immoral, even though they were great thinkers. I'm not so sure that your cause of -rebellion against a machine-is apt. It's just like right now, you are using a computer. In, and of itself, even though the computer is a great piece of technology, its true value lies in the mind of the user. It can be a boon or a boondoggle, depending on how you use it. One of my goals is to teach, and to encourage people to use the computer wisely, and not for purposes of destruction of self, or of others, or to just use it as an expensive doorstop. If one were to use the computer as doorstop, this would, indeed, be stagnation. You and I know that the computer is a striking piece of technology able to seriously aid in the promotion of truth. I don't see either one of us with the purpose-to sting people and whip them into a fury, all in the service of truth-.but of aiding them to think clearly and grow thereby.
I noticed that you mention that you live in the United States, and said that the US was-born out of an act of anarchy-. This is not true. First, the pilgrims did not come here in anarchy or without the rule of law, but to establish a place where they could have just laws, and freedom to worship according to the dictates of conscience. Secondly, if you're talking about the Colonists who promoted The American Revolution, those men and women were not living in anarchy, but were complaining about unjust laws that would not give them representation before governing bodies yet were taxingt them to death. Too,without due process of law, the Crown was forcing them to quarter soldiers in their homes without compensation. Due process was not being observed, and many other rights of the people were not being honored. Though England was a nation of laws, they did not fully extend those laws to the American colonists. One of the first acts precipitating the American Revolution was the Boston tea party. The handbills posted afterwards, said-No taxation w
This is The Kingsman,
I have a little bit of a problem with your nom de plume, âoeSanity in Anarchyâ. This is a bit of an oxymoron as Sanity has to be restored by putting down anarchy. As you are obviously sane, you bear little if any resemblance to the anarchists I've encountered in my past.
When I wrote earlier, for some reason I was having difficulty formatting my text. A little judicious consideration might've been in order. I'm fluent in five languages and conversant in four others. Anyway, so much for the problems with my paragraphs and grammar in my earlier letter.
Let's get on to your questions:
I had stated that you'd have to know that âoepunctuated equilibriumâ cannot possibly work.. You came back with a statement that said, âoeâWhy not?â and then answered your own question by quoting me when I said, that âoeobservation has never produced one evidence of it.â
Then you asked if I was familiar with the argument âoeAbsence of evidence is not evidence of absenceâ. Certainly I am familiar with this. Interestingly, one of my ancestors, Brigham Young, had made the statement that the Moon was populated by people who dressed like Quakers and were over 6 feet tall! Well, in the absence of evidence of the late 1800s this pronouncement might have been considered reasonable. In the early years of the 21st century though, with the investigations that we have done of the Moon, the evidence is so significant as to make his pronouncement a statistical improbability, nearly impossible, in fact it is statistically impossible and an anomaly of the first order. Anyone can make claims, but it does take evidence to make pronouncements of fact. You might remember your own argument when I come to the end of this letter. I do not speak without evidentiary support.
You asked for a citation regarding the change from one phyla, genus, specie, or whatever to another have always proven detrimental to the life affected. The burden of proof falls on you. Find one evidence that this has not happened. By the way, I mentioned âoephyla, genus, specieâ These are multiple kinds, as the usage here is the plural form of the verb âoeto haveâ which is âoehaveâ, rather than the singular form âoehas.â
I said, âoeBluntly there is no real evidence that such things can happen.â You responded with the statement, âoeYet you provide not one shred of evidence that they can't.â Obviously, you neither heard, or understood my following statement.
âoe...even if working changes were successful, the need for sufficient numbers inheriting such changes to produce a viable population is not only unlikely, but a statistical impossibility. I'm not talking about mutation such as breeding dogs has produced more than a hundred different variations of dogs, but changes on the order of, for example, going from canine to feline defy logic and are not possible. Bluntly, there is no real evidence that such things can happen. Too, all evolutionary theories demand, not one, twenty, fifty, or hundreds of substantive changes, but these changes mount into the tens of quadrillions. Again, a statistical impossibility. If you really look at the facts, you'd find that what I have been talking about here is not an anomaly, but a norm in examining the evidentiary considerations surrounding any form of evolution.â
You may, in a zoo, breed a lion to a tiger and produce a âoeliger,â or a âoetionâ. To produce a self-sustaining population of these though, you need not one individual, but many.of them. Notice I used the phrase âoe a viable population.â Also notice that this is an artficial mutation as these are both feline, and do not cross, phyla, genus, or specie.
Invariably, when there is a large DNA shift, the result is an animal which is nonviable, deformed, usually shunned by its kind, and if (by some incredible stroke) proved viable, does not pass along t
Though I am a young Earth Creationist, and am so because of facts, not because of The Bible, there are many of my colleagues who believe in an old Earth Creation for the same reasons. Many of my peers are Creationists, but not necessarily believers in God, just honest researchers. Just a couple of thoughts, if you hold to any theory of evolution, you now have to know that "punctuated equalibrium" cannot possibly work. Observation has never produced one evidence of it, and major DNA shifts producing change from one phyla, genus, specie, or whatever to another have always proven detrimental to the life affected, and even if working changes were successful, the need for sufficient numbers inheriting such changes to produce a viable population is not only unlikely, but a statistical impossibility. I'm not talking about mutation such as breeding dogs has produced more than a hundred different variations of dogs, but changes on the order of, for example, going from canine to feline defy logic and are not possible. Bluntly, there is no real evidence that such things can happen. Too, all evolutionary theories demand, not one, twenty, fifty, or hundreds of substantive changes, but these changes mount into the tens of quadrillions. Again, a statistical impossibility. If you really look at the facts, you'd find that what I have been talking about here is not an anomaly, but a norm in examining the evidentiary considerations surrounding any form of evolutionary theorum. Bluntly, evolutionary theorum has been classified as a religion in many courts, and it takes a great deal more faith to believe in it than it does to belive in Scientific Creationism. As Sgt. Friday used to say on the TV series, "Dragnet", "All I want are the facts. Just the facts." I am aware that there are problems surrounding Scientific Creationism, but the problems surrounding any form of evolutionary theorum are insurmountable.