what makes something worthy of belief?
----- Original Message ---- From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Mon, January 11, 2010 4:28:53 PM Subject: Re: [MD] Intellectual and Social On 11 Jan 2010 at 8:11, X Acto wrote: > credibility is for academics Platt.. > are you an academic since you demand some sort of > "credibility"? Me? An academic? No. I'm a conservative. People of my persuasion are not allowed within the hallowed halls of academia. "Credibility" is a value meaning worthy of belief. It can apply to any statement, like "Credibility is for academics." Platt > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Mon, January 11, 2010 10:52:59 AM > Subject: Re: [MD] Intellectual and Social > > Pirsig responds to Krimel's "Sunlight Creation" thesis:" > > "If we leave a chemistry professor out on a rock in the sun long enough > the forces of nature will convert him into simple compounds of carbon, > oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen, calcium, phosphorus, and small > amounts of other minerals. It's a one-way reaction. No matter what kind > of chemistry professor we use and no matter what process we use we > can't turn these compounds back into a chemistry professor. Chemistry > professors are unstable mixtures of predominantly unstable compounds > which, in the exclusive presence of the sun's heat, decay irreversibly > into simpler organic and inorganic compounds. That's a scientific fact. > The question is: Then why does nature reverse this process? What on > earth causes the inorganic compounds to go the other way? It isn't the > sun's energy. We just saw what the sun's energy did. It has to be > something else. What is it?" (Lila, 11) > > Science's best answer: "It's emergence." In other words, "Oops." > > Hardly an answer that inspires credibility. > > Platt > > > On 11 Jan 2010 at 8:36, Krimel wrote: > > > [Ham] > > Since you raise the credibility issue, I did a Google search on Duane Gish. > > Turns out he held key positions at Berkeley, Cornell University Medical > > College, and The Upjohn Company before joining the Institute for Creation > > Research in 1971 where he currently serves as Associate Director and Vice > > President. Your personal bias against "Creationism" in no way impugns the > > scientific credibility of a Ph.D. biochemist with a distinguished working > > career. Moreover, inasmuch as genetic mutation is mostly spontaneous, no > > scientifically informed person would call the propensity for creating an > > ordered. intelligently designed universe a "stupid" or "ridiculous idea." > > > > [Krimel] > > I can read wiki too and only wishful thinking produces a distinguished > > scientific career for this guy. He has distinguished himself chiefly by > > making a fool of himself in creationism debates. > > > > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-rutgers.html > > > > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-whoppers.html > > > > [Ham] > > Bill patiently explained to this lowly biology undergraduate that, left to > > themselves, chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials > > > > rather than becoming more complex. Apparently "work" (a function of energy) > > > > is required to move a random or chaotic system toward an ordered design. > > While this can increase order for a time, such reversal cannot last forever. > > > > Processes return to their natural direction - greater disorder, their energy > > > > transformed into lower levels of availability for further work. Thus, the > > natural tendency of complex, ordered arrangements and systems is to become > > simpler and more disorderly. > > > > [Krimel] > > If only you could understand what is actually being said to you. Bill told > > you, "Apparently "work" (a function of energy) is required to move a random > > or chaotic system toward an ordered design." > > > > Ham, what the fuck do you think sunlight is? > > > > Then he told you, "While this can increase order for a time, such reversal > > cannot last forever." "For a time" in this instance has been about 4 billion > > years. It is expected to stay this way for about another 4 billion years. A > > lot happened in the first 4 billion years. It was enough time for chemicals > > to become chemistry professors. I suppose it is possible for a lot to happen > > in the next 4 billion years, for example you might have time to get a clue. > > > > [Ham] > > Yet billions of things are assumed to have developed "upward", becoming more > > > > orderly and complex over eons of time. Until scientists discover the source > > > > of this "working force" underlying natural evolution, it remains > > inexplicable by this basic law of science. > > > > [Krimel] > > News flash, Ham, scientists had discovered sunlight by the late Pleistocene > > era. As I said previously this "working force" only remains inexplicable to > > the ignorant and the stupid. > > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
